The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

No, cheapening out is Vancouver's Canada Line with 40 meter stations, single track at the end of the line, no inclines of tracks so it's as loud as hell in parts, station platforms are dangerously thin, stations have only one entry/exit, no ability to store an extra train at Waterfront in case of an emergency, no all day/night connection between the main interchange downtown, and a lack of rolling stock.

Campbell and the city only concern was to make sure that something, anything was up and running for the Olympics and making an actual effective and viable transit system over the long term was completely irrelevant.

The Canada Line is the poster child of how not to plan for the future.

Yes, I was certainly shocked at how tiny the stations were on the Canada Line when I was in Vancouver last summer. The trains were nice, though.

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I wouldn't really listen to SSi, I think someone involved with the Canada Line shot his dog or something...

I'll take a guess, based off of his location, that it has something to do with losing direct bus service to downtown after the Canada Line opened. Same thing happened to me, but I eventually accepted it! Even though the Canada Line is under-built for the future, it really is a fantastic system.

[someone123]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this sort of thing but a large study on commuter rail in Halifax has been released: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCtransp/documents/150924tsc913a.pdf

This service would be similar to GO Trains/UP Express, AMT commuter rail, and the West Coast Express. The report is quite negative and is missing some pretty key points but has some interesting information about what kind of services are possible in Canada, rolling stock, etc.

The big missing points are that the city's geography is such that there's really no viable transit alternative for this part of the city, the track access fees are estimated to be very high and are inflated because the service is running to far-flung suburbs ($29M over 16 years to CN), and transit-oriented development and modifications to the bus network weren't really considered when making ridership projections.

The planned route (9 and 10 are the farther stations):


One interesting idea in the report is a Hollis Street extension that would bring the trains along the street and into the business district. Without the extension, trains would stop at the South End VIA terminal. I wasn't sure if this would be practical but the report seems to suggest that it's fairly viable idea.



One issue evident with the map is that Halifax doesn't really have a single intermodal transit point where different services converge, like Waterfront station in Vancouver or Union Station in Toronto. Instead, there's a ferry terminal in one spot, a bus terminal in another, and then the commuter rail if built would go along a third route and not quite connect up with anything.

[SkahHigh]

Commuter rail is not easily implementable. It needs lots of trackage going to a central spot (a main rail station), which only Montreal (Central Station), Toronto (Union Station) and Vancouver (Waterfront Station) have. Didn't work in Calgary, barely works in Vancouver, and I don't see it working anywhere else in Canada. This is different in the U.S because of their much more extensive rail network. Maybe Halifax would be better off with light rail?

[Nouvellecosse]

If we're only talking about one route, why does the rail network need to be extensive? I would have thought it would only need an extensive rail network if you wanted an extensive commuter rail network.

[J.OT13]

Agreed 180 meters would be overkill pretty much anywhere in Canada. I wish they would have stuck with 150 meters, in line with Montreal. They weren't massively bigger than Ottawa (2015) at the time and built 2 lines running Downtown. I mean, even Edmonton built 125 meters when they were half the size Ottawa is today.

That said, with an eventual capacity of 24,000-32,000 phpd, we should be fine for a long, long time.

And yes, I agree the whole of Vancouver's system is underbuilt. Are the Evergreen Line platforms 80 meters like Expo and Millennium or 40 meters like Canada?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not sure if this is the right forum for this sort of thing but a large study on commuter rail in Halifax has been released: http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/SCtransp/documents/150924tsc913a.pdf

This service would be similar to GO Trains/UP Express, AMT commuter rail, and the West Coast Express. The report is quite negative and is missing some pretty key points but has some interesting information about what kind of services are possible in Canada, rolling stock, etc.

The big missing points are that the city's geography is such that there's really no viable transit alternative for this part of the city, the track access fees are estimated to be very high and are inflated because the service is running to far-flung suburbs ($29M over 16 years to CN), and transit-oriented development and modifications to the bus network weren't really considered when making ridership projections.

The planned route (9 and 10 are the farther stations):


One interesting idea in the report is a Hollis Street extension that would bring the trains along the street and into the business district. Without the extension, trains would stop at the South End VIA terminal. I wasn't sure if this would be practical but the report seems to suggest that it's fairly viable idea.



One issue evident with the map is that Halifax doesn't really have a single intermodal transit point where different services converge, like Waterfront station in Vancouver or Union Station in Toronto. Instead, there's a ferry terminal in one spot, a bus terminal in another, and then the commuter rail if built would go along a third route and not quite connect up with anything.

If the Via Station was used as an intermodal, then, yes it does.

First off, Scotia Square, is the major transit bus hub in Halifax. It could be moved to the Via station and then you ahve the intermodal station Halifax needs.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If the Via Station was used as an intermodal, then, yes it does.

First off, Scotia Square, is the major transit bus hub in Halifax. It could be moved to the Via station and then you ahve the intermodal station Halifax needs.

But that isn't a convenient location where many people want to go or where many bus routes run because it's not on a major traffic corridor or near a major destination.. The current transit hub is within a couple blocks from the bulk of the office buildings, the Metro Centre (sports, concerts and events venue) the ferry terminal, and lots of shopping, and other businesses. The busiest bus corridor in the Maritimes runs down Spring Garden and up Barrington and it would be unworkable for buses to go in the opposite direction from Spring Garden and go south down Barrington away from the main part of downtown.

The best thing for the commuter rail would either be to use rail vehicles that can go from the mainline into city streets like a tram train, or to have a dedicated shuttle bus. I remember there used to be such a downtown only bus called FRED (Free Rides Everywhere Downtown) that just drove around in a downtown loop including near the train station, but it was discontinued some years ago.

Of course, the # 9 already runs by there and its schedule could probably just be coordinated with the commuter rail. If people knew they could get off the commuter rail and take the bus to the main part of downtown without a long or unpredictable wait, then it shouldn't be an issue.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Commuter rail is not easily implementable. It needs lots of trackage going to a central spot (a main rail station), which only Montreal (Central Station), Toronto (Union Station) and Vancouver (Waterfront Station) have. Didn't work in Calgary, barely works in Vancouver, and I don't see it working anywhere else in Canada. This is different in the U.S because of their much more extensive rail network. Maybe Halifax would be better off with light rail?

I'd say the C-Train is like half commuter rail, so it half works in Calgary. The Skytrain also felt like somewhere between a subway and a commuter rail system, so there's that for Vancouver. Halifax though still seems a bit too small.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'd say the C-Train is like half commuter rail, so it half works in Calgary. The Skytrain also felt like somewhere between a subway and a commuter rail system, so there's that for Vancouver. Halifax though still seems a bit too small.

Let's not get into technology types again but O-Train, C-Train and Skytrain are definitely not commuter rail.

Here's the definition:

Most commuter (or suburban) trains are built to main line rail standards, differing from light rail or rapid transit (metro rail) systems by:

- being larger
- providing more seating and less standing room, for the longer distances involved
- having (in most cases) a lower frequency of service
- having scheduled services (i.e. trains run at specific times rather than at specific intervals)
- serving lower-density suburban areas, typically connecting suburbs to the city center
- sharing track or right-of-way with intercity or freight trains
- not fully grade separated (containing at-grade crossings with crossing gates)

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Let's not get into technology types again but O-Train, C-Train and Skytrain are definitely not commuter rail.

Here's the definition:

Most commuter (or suburban) trains are built to main line rail standards, differing from light rail or rapid transit (metro rail) systems by:

- being larger
- providing more seating and less standing room, for the longer distances involved
- having (in most cases) a lower frequency of service
- having scheduled services (i.e. trains run at specific times rather than at specific intervals)
- serving lower-density suburban areas, typically connecting suburbs to the city center
- sharing track or right-of-way with intercity or freight trains
- not fully grade separated (containing at-grade crossings with crossing gates)

I'm not talking tech, I'm talking rider profiles. A commuter transit gets a supermajority of riders taking one trip into the work centre and then one trip out at the end of the day. A more local thing gets people hopping on to go shopping, then going somewhere else to eat, and maybe going to another shop or going home. You can often see the difference on buses (more lines to use for samples), a number of Ottawa routes a packed at rush hour and rather empty other times, while there's other routes that are fairly steady all day.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Agreed 180 meters would be overkill pretty much anywhere in Canada. I wish they would have stuck with 150 meters, in line with Montreal. They weren't massively bigger than Ottawa (2015) at the time and built 2 lines running Downtown. I mean, even Edmonton built 125 meters when they were half the size Ottawa is today.

That said, with an eventual capacity of 24,000-32,000 phpd, we should be fine for a long, long time.

And yes, I agree the whole of Vancouver's system is underbuilt. Are the Evergreen Line platforms 80 meters like Expo and Millennium or 40 meters like Canada?

The Evergreen Line will have 80 metre platforms as it's just an extension of the Millennium Line.

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm not talking tech, I'm talking rider profiles. A commuter transit gets a supermajority of riders taking one trip into the work centre and then one trip out at the end of the day. A more local thing gets people hopping on to go shopping, then going somewhere else to eat, and maybe going to another shop or going home. You can often see the difference on buses (more lines to use for samples), a number of Ottawa routes a packed at rush hour and rather empty other times, while there's other routes that are fairly steady all day.

By that definition (which I agree with) I don't know if I would call SkyTrain half commuter rail. It connects lots of shopping malls and regional centres, so not everybody just catches it from their residential neighbourhood and goes downtown for work and that's the only purpose it serves. From my trip to Calgary though, the CTrain did feel like that. Really quiet outside of rush hour and didn't really feel like an urban transportation option as much as a way to get to the downtown office tower from your subdivision.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm not talking tech, I'm talking rider profiles. A commuter transit gets a supermajority of riders taking one trip into the work centre and then one trip out at the end of the day. A more local thing gets people hopping on to go shopping, then going somewhere else to eat, and maybe going to another shop or going home. You can often see the difference on buses (more lines to use for samples), a number of Ottawa routes a packed at rush hour and rather empty other times, while there's other routes that are fairly steady all day.

commuter train are effective when you reach cities 30+ km from downtown. Toronto-Montréal both have a lot of suburbs very far away from their downtown core.

St-Jérôme is at the same distance from downtown Montréal than Strathmore is from downtown Calgary.

[Nouvellecosse]

In the map someone posted, station # 6 would be about 17.5km from the Via rail station (following the track rather than as crow flies), stop # 8 would be about 23.75km and # 9 would be about 38km. Beyond # 8 I don't think would be serving a very large population, but of course we'd be talking about probably a 2 car DMU rather than a GO train style consist. We'd be more like Capital Metrail in Austin or WES commuer rail in Oregon.

And of course, we don't have a rapid transit or LRT that might be more appealing to riders within the 30km zone.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In the map someone posted, station # 6 would be about 17.5km from the Via rail station (following the track rather than as crow flies), stop # 8 would be about 23.75km and # 9 would be about 38km. Beyond # 8 I don't think would be serving a very large population, but of course we'd be talking about probably a 2 car DMU rather than a GO train style consist. We'd be more like Capital Metrail in Austin or WES commuer rail in Oregon.

The Austin service does seem pretty similar and the report mentions it a few times. The ridership projections for the best proposed routes in Halifax are actually somewhat higher than the current ridership of the Austin line. Construction costs and the length are similar.

The NS rail network has shrunk a lot in the past few decades but it used to be pretty extensive, with at least 3 different lines converging on Halifax (South Shore, Annapolis, and one going north). There was also a rail bridge across the harbour at one point. The settlements patterns in central NS (and the central part of the Maritimes in general) are similar to Ontario/Quebec or much of the US in that there are a lot of small towns and the rural areas are relatively heavily populated. The rail corridor from Halifax to Moncton has around 1 million people living along it, and 600,000 or so people are within a one hour commute of Halifax. The numbers are too small to consider them part of the metro area, but there's a significant number of commuters from towns like Windsor. That is part of the reason why commuter rail has been suggested although I don't think the towns farther out are big enough to justify the cost.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yeah their ridership is kind of dismal considering it's their only rail transit in a metro over
twice as large

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

By that definition (which I agree with) I don't know if I would call SkyTrain half commuter rail. It connects lots of shopping malls and regional centres, so not everybody just catches it from their residential neighbourhood and goes downtown for work and that's the only purpose it serves. From my trip to Calgary though, the CTrain did feel like that. Really quiet outside of rush hour and didn't really feel like an urban transportation option as much as a way to get to the downtown office tower from your subdivision.

I was just trying to guess from how the Skytrain felt. It didn't quite seem the same as a subway, but that might have been me thrown off by it being above ground almost the whole time.

I still think that Toronto needs a skytrain system. It just seemed like it would fit Toronto so perfectly. Too bad the Go Train one didn't get built.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yeah their ridership is kind of dismal considering it's their only rail transit in a metro over
twice as large

I am not very familiar with Austin but a lot of US cities have tons of car-oriented infrastructure so there's very little traffic, free parking everywhere, etc. Transit has to be very good to compete and transit services are often very heavily subsidized.

Canadian cities meanwhile tend to have horrible congestion that pushes people onto transit. Halifax traffic is atrocious given the size of the city. If it were an American city there would be twice as many bridges, 8-lane highways all over the place, and nobody would take transit.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The Evergreen Line will have 80 metre platforms as it's just an extension of the Millennium Line.

By that definition (which I agree with) I don't know if I would call SkyTrain half commuter rail. It connects lots of shopping malls and regional centres, so not everybody just catches it from their residential neighbourhood and goes downtown for work and that's the only purpose it serves. From my trip to Calgary though, the CTrain did feel like that. Really quiet outside of rush hour and didn't really feel like an urban transportation option as much as a way to get to the downtown office tower from your subdivision.

TL;DR version of my thoughts on Calgary's transit system:

Calgary's Good

• Downtown land-use, parking policy and transit promotion has been incredibly successful in increasing ridership, exceeding 50% of commuters using transit to the core
• Calgary maintains one of the most extensive and far reaching LRT networks against comparable cities, making LRT expansion and access incredibly popular politically
• Recent improvements and TOD development have drawn significant attention to improving connections at existing LRT stations (Chinook Centre ped bridge, Brentwood TOD, Westbrook TOD, Bridgeland TOD)

Calgary's Bad

• LRT service has yet to attract significant populations around suburban stations, resulting in more commuter-centric vs. people-centric ridership patterns & service
• Non-downtown institutions are often ignorant of transit connections being a design priority despite many relying on LRT for much of their access, resulting in awkward/inefficient connections to the nearest LRT station.
• Lack of focus on mainline Bus network has reduced overall system effectiveness and stymies efforts to create a "transit culture" apart from city-centre areas.

Long version:

I think one challenge is that Calgary has been both fantastic and inconsistent in how the LRT system is thought of. Biggest issue that was dropped (not unique to Calgary) IMO is the land-use decisions when transit planning and how other institutions and large activity centres think about transit. Some of this was in control of the City, while some is outside their domain.

From the start, the consistent focus on downtown Calgary as being the hub of all aspects of the transportation system have resulted in incredible job density in the core and increased demand for access creating a virtuous cycle of popular transit expansion focused on improving access the increasingly dense core. This is why Calgary has enormous LRT ridership and a very high-quality of LRT service (in frequency, capacity and public support) given comparable city sizes in North America. So successful in attracting commuting riders, many inner city neighbourhoods are converting to more walking / cycling focused because transit congestion is reducing the effectiveness of their stops. Sunnyside and the Beltline neighbourhoods are examples of this phenomenon.

While land-use decisions downtown and the city centre were always thought of through this paradigm, other areas were much less consistent. While some institutions are serviced - U of C, SAIT, Calgary Zoo, various large malls - their integration into the LRT system was varied and not nearly as well done.

This is exacerbated by the stakeholders at many Calgary institutions not prioritizing transit connections in their decisions to build or expand their locations. Provincial decisions that ignored access to LRT as a decision criteria for hospital, university and school construction were a major factor. This is why you have some major institutions that are painfully close to existing transit service, but are not organized or convenient to access it.

Good examples of poor connectivity despite very close access are Sunridge Mall and the PLC Hospital, both adjacent to a LRT station built in the 1980s, but requires a walk across a parking lot or arbitrarily around a building to access the facilities themselves. Transit riders were ignored in their designs, despite being well serviced by LRT. Recent expansions of both facilities once again ignored the LRT as a main source of people coming to the area. Both remain car-oriented designs despite heavy transit usage.

Even huge institutions like University of Calgary never really focused their design on acknowledging LRT as a key transportation choice for students and staff (despite having >50% choosing it). The LRT remains on the edge of campus, pathways connections to the station are unchanged since it opened in the 1980s and all major campus building projects and expansions have been occurring far away from the LRT station despite ample land available adjacent to the station. Rather than embrace and support LRT, U of C planning decisions have seemingly been oblivious to both the LRT relevance to the institution and the U of C's relevance to the city.

More obvious examples of large employment/activity centres and the distances from stations. All share a relatively close distance to rapid transit, while not designing or creating developments conducive to transit usage:

• Foothills Medical Centre (1.2 km from station)- largest hospital in Alberta and offers no easy access for non-auto visitors.
• Northland Mall (1.1 km from station) - 2nd Tier shopping centre, adjacent to LRT line, but station is 1.1km away.
• Market Mall (1.4km from station) - 2nd biggest mall in Calgary, no easy non-auto access to station.
• Telus Spark Science Centre (600m from station) - No sidewalks or path to station, forcing transit visitors to transverse parking lot to access. Particularly egregious because it was built in 2011 when we should know better.

In summary, Calgary has been very effective at the macro-level planning and the LRT system does serve the city well with generally good coverage. Effective stewardship and governance of the downtown core in all facets of planning have been primarily responsible for this.

However, this focus on downtown and the marco-level has resulted in ignorance with the micro-level design in transit and land use planning and options for non-commuter/non-downtown residents are not sufficient.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In the map someone posted, station # 6 would be about 17.5km from the Via rail station (following the track rather than as crow flies), stop # 8 would be about 23.75km and # 9 would be about 38km. Beyond # 8 I don't think would be serving a very large population, but of course we'd be talking about probably a 2 car DMU rather than a GO train style consist. We'd be more like Capital Metrail in Austin or WES commuer rail in Oregon.

And of course, we don't have a rapid transit or LRT that might be more appealing to riders within the 30km zone.

Even the GO system that have 12 Bilevel cars, they really are not full tille the last few stops. That is the idea, it is kinda like riding a school bus. The first few stops, people have lots of seats empty, but as you get closer, the bus fills up. The way they could change that is when the line runs both ways. Then people are using it to get to and from all stations.

Originally Posted by someone123

The NS rail network has shrunk a lot in the past few decades but it used to be pretty extensive, with at least 3 different lines converging on Halifax (South Shore, Annapolis, and one going north). There was also a rail bridge across the harbour at one point. The settlements patterns in central NS (and the central part of the Maritimes in general) are similar to Ontario/Quebec or much of the US in that there are a lot of small towns and the rural areas are relatively heavily populated. The rail corridor from Halifax to Moncton has around 1 million people living along it, and 600,000 or so people are within a one hour commute of Halifax. The numbers are too small to consider them part of the metro area, but there's a significant number of commuters from towns like Windsor. That is part of the reason why commuter rail has been suggested although I don't think the towns farther out are big enough to justify the cost.

The rail trails are there a a sort of placeholder. Lets say in 10 years after commuter rail is started, they think they need a line along the south shore, legally, they could replace the rail trail with tracks.
Thi is why I love rail trails. Yo never really get rid of the ROW

Originally Posted by Beedok

I was just trying to guess from how the Skytrain felt. It didn't quite seem the same as a subway, but that might have been me thrown off by it being above ground almost the whole time.

I still think that Toronto needs a skytrain system. It just seemed like it would fit Toronto so perfectly. Too bad the Go Train one didn't get built.

The Skytrain is the same as the SRT. it has it and it is not enough for the users.

As Vancouver's population grows, the demands on the Skytrain will too. The GVA is about the same population as the former Metro Toronto, now the city of Toronto.