The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

No, it did not provide "real rapid transit" access to huge swaths of suburban territory.

How is a LRT line which operates at almost the same speed as the local bus it replaces, providing "real rapid transit"?

Nothing about TC was rapid, except the underground portions.

Telling someone in suburban Toronto they would have gotten rapid transit is a lie. Unless you think a 1h30min trip from north east Scarborough to downtown, only taking 1h27min with TC is rapid transit?????????????

Uhh... you daft? The TC LRTs were/are significantly faster than the local buses they replace.

Think about it. What used to be a bus in mixed traffic stopping every 200m with red lights, is now a train in an exclusive ROW stopping every 600m with signal priority.

The stop reduction alone could improve travel times by 30%.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Doady

If Toronto really wants most bang for the buck, they should build BRT instead of LRT.

No. BRT is cheaper to build, but more expensive to operate. After a few decades, you end up spending more with BRT.

Typical "fiscal conservative" nonsense.. ignore the costs of tomorrow to save today.

[1overcosc]

VIA looking to construct dedicated tracks in the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle. Would allow trains to cover Toronto-Ottawa (a 5 hour drive) in 2 hours and 50 minutes, down from 4 hours today.

Interesting that it would be presenting options to the federal cabinet AFTER the election. Depending on the outcomes of the election, cabinet may be more receptive to including public funding in with the private investments.

Via Rail hoping to present funding options for dedicated passenger rail line by end of 2015

MONTREAL – The CEO of VIA Rail, Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, said Tuesday the Crown corporation is discussing private funding with potential investors for a $3 billion dedicated passenger track over the summer and will bring proposals to its sole shareholder — the federal government — by the end of the year, or early 2016.

Desjardins-Siciliano said VIA will be meeting with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, which he describes as “the usual suspects who invest in passenger rail across the world,” in order to gauge interest in providing funds to build the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto line.

“In Canada it just so happens that in the past 30 years we have developed world-class expertise in public private partnerships that have made some of our largest pension funds invest in passenger rail services in England, in Europe and across Canada,” said Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, CEO of VIA Rail, after delivering a speech to the Institut pour le partenariat public-privé in Montreal.

Desjardins-Siciliano said the potential investors could also come from outside Canada and that the final decision for partnerships in the project would be left to the government.

“Our task is to bring our shareholder options as to ways to do this. If our shareholder wishes to do it and who ultimately bids and wins the competition is left to the market and the government procurement rules,” he said.

“We’re not taking anything for granted and we’re not setting the table for anything other than what is the best solution at the cheapest cost to the Canadian taxpayer.”

Desjardins-Siciliano expects the return on investment for the project to be in the “mid-teens” and that construction would be completed within five years of establishing a partnership.

He said that VIA sharing the tracks with several companies transporting merchandise is slowing down the potential frequency of the faster passenger trains because of increased traffic.

Between 2010 and 2014, the number of people using VIA Rail’s services dropped from 4.1 million to 3.8 million. The company’s deficit reached $317 million.

“VIA Rail is an increasing burden on Canada’s taxpayers due to deteriorating on-time performance and the lack of frequencies to be relevant,” said Desjardins-Siciliano.

He said that in a second phase, the tracks could be extended east from Montreal towards Quebec City, and west from Toronto to London.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Rail+hoping...enger+rail+line+2015/11178666/story.html

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Uhh... you daft? The TC LRTs were/are significantly faster than the local buses they replace.

Think about it. What used to be a bus in mixed traffic stopping every 200m with red lights, is now a train in an exclusive ROW stopping every 600m with signal priority.

The stop reduction alone could improve travel times by 30%.

No they were not. I think I know about the project, and went to many public meetings.

The stops were not 600m apart. The aim was 500 meters. However on most sections the stops were much closer.
Second, the row means almost nothing when LRT trains are stopping at red lights, waiting for left turning cars, etc. Being bound to local speed limits, also means slow moving LRT trains.

All coupled together, the LRT's would not be much faster if at all than the local buses they were replacing, save for peak peak peak rush hours. And even then, the savings were small. Planners told me, if the typical rider saved 2 minutes on their commute, that would be a lot.

There was nothing rapid about it. To be rapid, you need grade separated transit.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

VIA looking to construct dedicated tracks in the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle. Would allow trains to cover Toronto-Ottawa (a 5 hour drive) in 2 hours and 50 minutes, down from 4 hours today.

Interesting that it would be presenting options to the federal cabinet AFTER the election. Depending on the outcomes of the election, cabinet may be more receptive to including public funding in with the private investments.



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Rail+hoping...enger+rail+line+2015/11178666/story.html

While Canada has been acting poor. Italy has just started service on their newest high speed trains. Speed up to 360 km/h.

https://youtu.be/ETImTPuD0Os

[mistercorporate]

Good to see VIA taking initiative. I'd take the Ottawa/Montreal trip more frequently if rail connectivity was faster.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

All coupled together, the LRT's would not be much faster if at all than the local buses.............
There was nothing rapid about it. To be rapid, you need grade separated transit.

If I may say it, not wishing to sound snobby or pretentious, being grade-seperated is why
our system in Vancouver works so well; and it still isn't even finished.
Already, it carries nearly as many pax per day as Philadelphia.
Seattle is not grade-seperated, and without gloating, just stating stats, Vancouver has several times its pax numbers.
Of course, the original engineers wanted success, but this has exceeded original
expectations by a significant degree. (can't wait 'till it's all finished)

[Aylmer]

To be fair, transit ridership in Canadian cities is worlds away from their American counterparts - they're far from being a meaningful benchmark when only a handful of US metropolises can even match some of Canada's lowest per-capita ridership rankings. (Except for you, NYC)




I think that grade-separation is falsely prescribed as a solution everywhere. In closely-packed urban fabric like Toronto's King Street, it makes sense if you're aim is to ferry people quickly across distances. But along the suburban (but urbanizing) corridors we're often trying to reach and redevelop, the added cost just doesn't justify the benefits in time and reliability. Realistically, you won't notice if the operating speed drops from 35 km/h to 32 km/h, but you will notice if the added cost means that, instead of a full line, you only have an overbuilt stub (hello, Sheppard).

Of course, then again, it all depends; if your transit line is meant to transport people across short distances, grade separation doesn't make much sense even in a dense urban fabric since the added walking time up or down can almost be longer than the trip itself (this is why people will take the bus or tram 400m, but won't take the metro for just one stop). Conversely, grade separation might make sense in the suburbs in places which are slated to be rebuilt as dense urban fabric.

All this just to say that grade, just like transit technology, hammers and screwdrivers, is a tool which is appropriate for certain tasks and not for others.

[Metro-One]

Nearly all the best metro systems in the world are grade separated for their backbone network (or utilize heavy rail commuter systems with distant station spacing)

Dense urban areas is where grade separation is the most useful.

PS, skytrain's average operation speed is 45 km/h, so a reduction down to 32 km/h would definitely be noticeable and detrimental

[Aylmer]

I suspect that average speed in rapid transit systems is a function of stop placement much more than grade separation (For example, Toronto's Bloor-Danforth line barely reaches an operating speed of 30km/h).

I would also contest the premise of your first statement - if you look at all the metro systems in the world, almost all of them are grade-separated by definition. It's like saying that all of the best wines in the world are made from grapes
Many medium-sized cities in Europe and larger ones in North America have at-grade LRT, sometimes even as their downtown backbones. Think of every French city besides Lyon and Paris and cities like Portland or Denver.

But as I said before, that doesn't mean that it's appropriate everywhere; I strongly supported the move to a tunnel in downtown Ottawa because of the needed capacity and the strong potential for interference by the high volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But that doesn't mean that we should move heaven and earth (and tens of millions) to avoid a level crossing on a near-empty residential street. We shouldn't be this dogmatic about grade.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I suspect that average speed in rapid transit systems is a function of stop placement much more than grade separation (For example, Toronto's Bloor-Danforth line barely reaches an operating speed of 30km/h).

I would also contest the premise of your first statement - if you look at all the metro systems in the world, almost all of them are grade-separated by definition. It's like saying that all of the best wines in the world are made from grapes
Many medium-sized cities in Europe and larger ones in North America have at-grade LRT, sometimes even as their downtown backbones. Think of every French city besides Lyon and Paris and cities like Portland or Denver.

But as I said before, that doesn't mean that it's appropriate everywhere; I strongly supported the move to a tunnel in downtown Ottawa because of the needed capacity and the strong potential for interference by the high volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But that doesn't mean that we should move heaven and earth (and tens of millions) to avoid a level crossing on a We shouldn't be this dogmatic about grade.

At grade crossings should be like in Calgary or Edmonton. Full priority with crossing arms, meaning trains (or buses if you are doing BRT) never have to wait for a signal.

We can not look at European systems in the North American context. The surface LRT's in European cities are just as slow as the ones in North America. The only difference is that European cities are much more compact, and so a ride to the outskirts is only 7 or 8 km in these small cities. In North American cities it is 30 km, and surface transit does not work as a backbone to the transit network. At least it does not work, if you want to really get high numbers of people to take transit.

I think the results speak for themselves. All American cities with surface LRT have ridership which pales in comparison to the few US cities which built rapid transit networks with full priority.

Whether people like it or not, the average person does not want to waste time. They want to get from point A to B as fast as possible. If transit cannot deliver, then they will drive, and this is why so many surface LRT's have such low ridership. Only the ones with full priority like Calgary get high ridership.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I suspect that average speed in rapid transit systems is a function of stop placement much more than grade separation (For example, Toronto's Bloor-Danforth line barely reaches an operating speed of 30km/h).

That would be partly true. You can have non-grade separated services operate with decent speed using traffic signal priority and/or level crossings, but only if the service frequency isn't too high. When the service starts getting too frequent it would disrupt automotive traffic too much because there would be so many cars waiting at red lights or at the rail crossing so you'd need to give them a chance to go. So grade separation of rapid transit is really more about capacity than it is about speed. After all, commuter rail tends to be faster than either LRT or metro systems and it often has level crossings. But it's service frequency and resulting capacity tends to be lower. If the service frequency of an LRT service was every 5 minutes, that's a traffic interruption about every 2.5 minutes when counting both directions, and on a busy street that's a lot - especially since the timing might not be that exact. Any more frequent than that wouldn't be practical.

Another issue being train length. The train cannot be long enough to block any of the intersections when stopped so its capacity is also affected by the size of the city blocks.

[1overcosc]

Grade separation is not the end all be all when it comes to speed. Kingston's express buses have a higher average speed than Toronto's subway. This is because Kingston's roads are very uncongested, and the Toronto subway has very close station spacing in many areas that slows it to a crawl (like basically the entirety of the Bloor-Danforth line for example).

Obviously they're completely different levels of transit with widely different functions but nonetheless, it demonstrates an important point.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

At grade crossings should be like in Calgary or Edmonton. Full priority with crossing arms, meaning trains (or buses if you are doing BRT) never have to wait for a signal.

You don't need crossing arms for that. There's lights on the Transitway in Ottawa that give buses greens 99% of the time through simple old fashioned GPS signalling and detector loops.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Second, the row means almost nothing when LRT trains are stopping at red lights, waiting for left turning cars, etc. Being bound to local speed limits, also means slow moving LRT trains.

The TC lines had signal priority. Lights would be synced to the trains to ensure >95% green lights. Yes, that's possible. We do it in Ottawa on the Transitway very successfully. Heck, we even do it in Kingston at some intersections (with more to come).

I think you need a debriefing on the past 30 years.

[SkahHigh]

Montreal commuter rail news concerning the Candiac Line.

Plans for Du Canal station (Lachine borough) are completed and the AMT is currently negociating for the acquistion of an empty lot near the station for park-and-ride. Once this is completed we will know the construction start date.

The AMT will unveil the conclusions of the study concerning the extension to Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in late 2015/early2016. Apparently, plans are now for a station in Saint-Philippe (after Candiac) and one in Saint-Jean, which would be the new terminal of the line.

So in the next two years we might see 4 new commuter rail stations, three on the Candiac Line and one on the Saint-Jérôme Line in Mirabel .

[J.OT13]

In classic Ottawa fashion, we might get an airport link on the O-Train Trillium Line, but it will bring passengers a few kilometers short of Downtown; they'll have to transfer in an outdoor station to the Confederation Line and ride another 2-4 stations down the line.

Originally Posted by ACmodels

Airport to pitch in for light rail link
CEO offers $35 million for airport transit station

Orleans News
By Emma Jackson
2015-06-29

Councillors around the finance committee table were downright delighted – and perhaps a bit surprised – when the Ottawa International Airport Authority’s CEO showed up with an offer to pitch in for a light rail link to the airport.

Mark Laroche told the committee on June 29 he is willing to invest about $35 million to install a transit station at the airport if the city goes ahead with the rail spur as part of its stage two light rail plans.

“We believe we must have a world class transportation system that is inter-modal, reliable, convenient and efficient,” Laroche said. To that end, funding for an airport station “fits the kind of infrastructure spending that is allowable, so we are prepared to proceed in that direction.”

He said Transport Canada regulations limit him from investing in mass transit projects, so he’s not able to put up any money for the tracks themselves.

But incorporating a rail station into his upcoming terminal expansion plans to redo the check-in and security areas would be a perfect way for the airport to get involved.

“If we know what’s coming we can engineer that flow-through and make it much more convenient,” he said.

The airport link is supposed to cost about $155 million if it’s built between 2018 and 2023 in conjunction with the Trillium O-Train extension to Riverside South.

But it’s not part of the city’s approved “affordability network” laid out in the 2013 Transportation Master Plan, so if the link is going to get built, it’s going to have to get funding from another level of government.

Laroche said he’s happy to help the city make that happen, if it means his airport can be connected to a modern light rail network that will help him increase the city’s economic viability – and therefore the number of passengers moving through his terminal.

“You typically have only one shot,” Laroche said. “If you don’t get it done at the same time as the Trillium line extension, it’s unlikely that it will get done. We are loathe to let that happen.”

The announcement came as the finance and economic committee considered functional designs for three light rail expansions as part of the city’s $3 billion, 30-kilometre stage two package: west to Bayshore and Baseline stations, east to Place D’Orléans and south to Bowesville Road.

Those three projects are all approved in principle, and only a lack of provincial and federal funding can derail them now.
But staff also included full functional designs and cost estimates for the rail spur and another $160 million extension to Trim Line in the east end in the hopes that provincial and federal funding will allow them to get built, too.

Councillors expressed some surprise at the airport authority’s offer; Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans implied that level of co-operation was perhaps missing from previous meetings on the issue.

“I was just delighted to hear Mr. Laroche say the airport is ready and willing to be a partner in the advancement of rapid transit to the airport,” Deans said. “I think that’s really significant for the future of our city.”

Watson also wasted no time welcoming Laroche to the table.

“We were very pleasantly surprised by the president of the airport, who came to the table very much in the spirit of co-operation to indicate that he wants to have skin in the game,” Watson said. “We very much look forward to working with the airport to put a link to the airport in the southern route.”

The stage two functional designs will be considered for final approval at council on July 8.

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-story/5701460-airport-to-pitch-in-for-light-rail-link/

[J.OT13]

Rest of Stage 2 has been approved.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Finance committee approves phase 2 LRT plan

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: June 29, 2015 | Last Updated: June 29, 2015 6:40 PM EDT

Ottawa’s international airport authority is prepared to pay for and build a light-rail stop inside its passenger terminal, the organization’s head said Monday, as the finance committee approved the $3-billion plan to extend LRT further east, west and south.

“We are willing to put some skin in the game,” said chief executive Mark Laroche.

The preliminary cost for the station — which would be included in the proposed extension of the Trillium O-Train line from Greenboro station to Riverside South — is about $35 million. But that figure might include costs for laying the track for which the authority is not prepared to pay, Laroche said.

The plan is in its preliminary stage, but Laroche said he pictures the new rail stop being integrated into a future terminal expansion designed to provide airline passengers with a seamless transition from train to terminal. The airport improvement fee, now $23 per departing flight, can be used to fund airport infrastructure projects, he said.

Mayor Jim Watson, who chairs the finance committee, said he was “pleasantly surprised” with Laroche’s offer.

“I think that’s a great piece of news for people that want to see rail service go out to the airport,” he told reporters.

Laroche said the city’s proposed route, as outlined in an environmental assessment, confirms that the rail link to the airport is technically possible. But the challenge is to secure the funding needed to make it happen.

“If we don’t get it done at the same time as the Trillium line extension, it’s unlikely that it will get done,” he said.

In addition to extending the Trillium line further south and adding five new stations, the committee also endorsed the plan to extend the Confederation line, currently under construction, from Blair station to Place d’Orléans. A further extension to Trim Road, at an added cost of $160 million, was not included in the initial plan but will continue to be explored.

In the west, the Confederation line would be extended by 13 kilometres from Tunney’s Pasture station to Baseline and Bayshore stations, with 10 new stations.

More than two dozen delegations appeared before the committee, including several connected to the First Unitarian Congregation.

The church has come out against the city’s preferred option for the western LRT extension, saying the current routing through its Cleary Avenue property is unacceptable. In addition to the church, the 2.4-hectare property contains a seniors’ residence and daycare, both of which are also opposed to the city’s plan.

Specifically, the congregation’s concerns range from the increased noise and vibration associated with construction and underground trains to the loss of mature trees and enjoyment of its outdoor spaces.

“We’re not a bunch of old NIMBYs,” said Tom Dent of the Unitarian House residents association.

But Watson and several councillors questioned the concerns related to construction given the congregation’s own plans for development on the site, which include a new affordable housing building.

“Construction is construction,” the mayor said.

Several speakers associated with First Unitarian seem to prefer an alternate route for the western extension, which would see the line cross beneath Rochester Field and underneath the Byron Linear Park.

Others who spoke to the committee urged it to consider moving the western terminus to Moodie Drive, instead of the current plan for it to stop at a redesigned station at Bayshore Shopping Centre.

The light-rail expansion plans were, however, lauded by several high-profile organizations, including Algonquin College, Ottawa Tourism, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce and Ecology Ottawa.

If council approves the plan at its July 8 meeting, the city will submit a trio of environmental assessments — one each for the three extensions — to the province for approval and begin work on securing federal and provincial contributions.

[email protected]
twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/finance-committee-approves-phase-2-lrt-plan

[Klazu]

Metro Vancouver residents reject tax to fund transportation projects

Metro Vancouver residents have rejected a tax increase to pay for expanded transit service, according to plebiscite results from Elections BC.

Elections BC says 61.68 per cent per cent of voters were against the new tax, compared to 38.32 per cent in favour. Of the 23 municipalities that voted, all but three rejected the tax increase, including Vancouver, Surrey and the region’s largest municipalities.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Metro+Vancouver+voters+reject+transit/11182909/story.html

[Beedok]

Just found out about the GO ALRT plant. Wish that had been a thing. 2 minute headway high speed rail from Hamilton to TO. That would've been awesome.