The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by le calmar

What's different about Ottawa's LRT?

100% grade seperated.

The definition is a bit contorted and many argue about it, but generally a metro is considered a 100% grade seperated and electrified rapid, frequent urban rail system. Ottawa fits that bill. Whether you have high platforms or 3rd rail instead of a pantograph doesn't matter a whole lot.

Does it "deserve" to be on that list any more than, say, Edmonton does? probably not. Does it technically get on it? yep.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

While it's true that the Scarborough subway extension would result in an extra 3 km of underground rapid transit, if it goes ahead, it will spell out the decommissioning of 6.5 km of elevated SRT, so the total length of the rapid transit network will fall by 3.5 km.
On that note, I likely don't understand the extent of the technical problems that the SRT is experiencing, but I feel that the situation there is a perfect example of Toronto's (and really all Canadian cities') approach to rapid transit. Instead of building much-needed, previously non-existent lines in dense parts of the city, let's demolish an already-built line in the suburbs and spend all our money putting it underground.

No, neither of those will occur. The city has not yet decided exactly what route to take for the line (I actually just got back from a public consultation on the issue), but the "typical" alignment that council was shown as an example, and likely one of the most rational alignments, is 7.6km long. So the Scarborough Subway will add roughly 1km to the Toronto "metro" network overall.


Also, the Trillium line is a mixed rail operation (on mainline rail traffic with direct access to the rest of the Canadian rail network), not electrified, and has at grade rail to rail crossings. So it doesn't qualify as a metro line, technically. Sort of shows the stupidity and rigidity of the definition, great transit services can be provided without the use of the term.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Don't worry, I know . If in the future it gets any at-grade crossings, it will no longer be a metro.

It doesn't really make a difference. The C-train isn't grade separated, yet it has the 2nd highest average speed of all urban rail transit in the country, 2nd only to the Skytrain. Current plans are to separate the remaining major intersections of the 201 Line (the busier of the two lines, 33 kilometers out of the 59 km Ctrain) and leave the inconsequential grade crossings as they are for the long term. This will likely be done before they build the 8th Avenue Subway for the (the subway downtown for the 201 line). There are only two busy intersections for the 201 outside of downtown, 25 Avenue and Heritage both on the south section of the line. So the likely outcome is that Ctrain will never have total grade separation, as the costs far outweigh the benefits at this point. Ottawa is very lucky that they're making the smart choice from the get-go, unfortunately Calgary and Edmonton didn't have the benefit of being over 1 million people at the start of construction of our networks, both were under 500 000.

My understanding of the SE line is that it will be grade separated though, at least for the first phase, which is kind of nice at least.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

By the same token, the Trillium Line (O-Train) is fully grade separated and will have frequency increased to every 9 minutes later this month. Plans for Phase 2 will also be fully grade separated.

O-train is getting rid of pedestrian crossings at stations?

[Aylmer]

It never had any...

[MalcolmTucker]

Didn't Carleton? Guess I am misremembering, last rode it more than a decade ago.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Didn't Carleton? Guess I am misremembering, last rode it more than a decade ago.

That's a tunnel underpass thing. I think there's one path out in a forested area that crosses it, but I'm not sure. Considering the low traffic of those paths I'm not sure it should count. Now the Via crossing might be of note.

[Chadillaccc]

Speaking about expansion of Ctrain, here's an image not posted before of the new LRVs currently being constructed, the Siemens S200. The first LRVs will be delivered in August, with all 60 being delivered by August 2016, and not a moment too late, considering Ctrain ridership passed 310 000 per day in Q2 2014.

[img]delete[/img]




All stations should be finished the 4-car platform expansion by the time the new trains begin arriving, allowing for an over 33% increase in carrying capacity.



Edit: Here are the pics of the livery that was voted on by the people of Calgary, it's called "Mask"...





http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/786015/s200-design-book.pdf

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It doesn't really make a difference. The C-train isn't grade separated, yet it has the 2nd highest average speed of all urban rail transit in the country, 2nd only to the Skytrain. Current plans are to separate the remaining major intersections of the 201 Line (the busier of the two lines, 33 kilometers out of the 59 km Ctrain) and leave the inconsequential grade crossings as they are for the long term. This will likely be done before they build the 8th Avenue Subway for the (the subway downtown for the 201 line). There are only two busy intersections for the 201 outside of downtown, 25 Avenue and Heritage both on the south section of the line. So the likely outcome is that Ctrain will never have total grade separation, as the costs far outweigh the benefits at this point. Ottawa is very lucky that they're making the smart choice from the get-go, unfortunately Calgary and Edmonton didn't have the benefit of being over 1 million people at the start of construction of our networks, both were under 500 000.

My understanding of the SE line is that it will be grade separated though, at least for the first phase, which is kind of nice at least.

I meant no disrespect to cities like Calgary and Edmonton, I'm just very anal about definitions and categories when it comes to everything. I try to play it down in my day to day life, but online I get to be my true annoying self . I know full well it's possible to have a very effective rapid transit system without full grade separation.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The Scarborough extension is 7.5km long, not 3, so it's a net addition of 1km.

Ah I stand corrected - thanks 1overcosc I guess 3 km wouldn't have made it very far from Kennedy now that I think of it. I still don't know why Toronto is fretting about it when there are so very many areas of the city that have no rail/rapid transit at all.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Speaking about expansion of Ctrain, here's an image not posted before of the new LRVs currently being constructed, the Siemens S200. The first LRVs will be delivered in August, with all 60 being delivered by August 2016, and not a moment too late, considering Ctrain ridership passed 310 000 per day in Q2 2014.

[img]delete[/img]




All stations should be finished the 4-car platform expansion by the time the new trains begin arriving, allowing for an over 33% increase in carrying capacity.



Edit: Here are the pics of the livery that was voted on by the people of Calgary, it's called "Mask"...





http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/786015/s200-design-book.pdf

Those look so TRON - so much sleeker than the old utilitarian style CTrains

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

That's a tunnel underpass thing. I think there's one path out in a forested area that crosses it, but I'm not sure. Considering the low traffic of those paths I'm not sure it should count. Now the Via crossing might be of note.

As of now, the Trillium Line is completely free of at-grade pedestrian crossings. There previously was one at Brookfield Road, however it was recently grade separated.

[1overcosc]

The C-Train and the Confederation Line actually both stand out as perfect examples of why the "Metro vs. LRT" dichotomy can be quite meaningless.

The Confederation Line meets all criteria of a metro system. Issues like using pantograph wires, low-floor platforms, and tram rolling stock only matter to transit geeks. The general public will think of it as a metro system, due to grade separation, large stations, high frequency, and big trains. Yet, it uses LRT rolling stock and LRT technology.

The C-Train also uses LRT technology, but aside from the problematic 7th Ave corridor which is going to be fixed, the at-grade crossings cause minimal disruption to transit service allowing for a service quality comparable to a metro system, at least outside of 7th Ave.

[1overcosc]

Ottawa has built a model of a Confederation Line traincar, life size, out of wood. Basically it looks exactly the same as the train will, both on the outside and inside. It's currently setup in Lansdowne Park (next to the CFL stadium) where the public can tour it. I've checked it out twice and it's quite nice. Absolutely huge... and it's only one car! Those things are going to have serious capacity.

[hipster duck]

Gotta love these "grade separation" debates. They seem to flare up every now and then. As long as a train can keep a consistent schedule, maintain capacity and is time-competitive against the automobile in its particular context, who cares?

Anyway, that Calgary light rail vehicle looks very sharp.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Too right! Whether it be metro, LRT, commuter rail, streetcar or intercity rail, as long as it can fulfill those goals, the name shouldn't matter.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Too right! Whether it be metro, LRT, commuter rail, streetcar or intercity rail, as long as it can fulfill those goals, the name shouldn't matter.

It does not have to be grade separated. But it has to have full priority like in Calgary, where crossing arms give trains full priority at any grade crossings.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The C-Train and the Confederation Line actually both stand out as perfect examples of why the "Metro vs. LRT" dichotomy can be quite meaningless.

The Confederation Line meets all criteria of a metro system. Issues like using pantograph wires, low-floor platforms, and tram rolling stock only matter to transit geeks. The general public will think of it as a metro system, due to grade separation, large stations, high frequency, and big trains. Yet, it uses LRT rolling stock and LRT technology.

The C-Train also uses LRT technology, but aside from the problematic 7th Ave corridor which is going to be fixed, the at-grade crossings cause minimal disruption to transit service allowing for a service quality comparable to a metro system, at least outside of 7th Ave.

Well, 'light rail' and 'metro' aren't even mutually exclusive terms. Neither the Confederation Line nor the SkyTrain fit the definition of heavy rail - either because of platform height or automatic operation. Both are light metros, snugly in the overlap of that venn diagram.

In essence, 'light rail' is a catchall term that says that any city that can't justify a heavy-rail metro is going to need a bespoke system that will be difficult to compare directly to others of its class.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

It does not have to be grade separated. But it has to have full priority like in Calgary, where crossing arms give trains full priority at any grade crossings.

Practically every other day I see a private vehicle rolling down 7th ave ruining everybody's day.

[GreaterMontréal]

from jerry mtlurb