The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2798711&postcount=8

That looks like a lot of rail infrastructure.

It does if you're just looking at lines on a map, but if you're comparing where there are rail lines that aren't already near a Skytrain or WCE route, and are actually close to population centers, then not so much. On that map, the viable potential new route I can see is down to White Rock or perhaps up the Sunshine Coast. Although the Sunshine Coast route would either force people to transfer to buses or ferry, or take the long way around the harbour.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Is commuter rail really the best use of funding?
Commuter rail, in the North American context, does very little to make transit a viable option outside of peak commuting times. Because it usually only operates at those times.

GO and AMT answer that.

They add more trains. All of a sudden you have all day both way service. If you build it, they will come.

Look at the LIRR (Long Island Rail Road) in New York City. It is the GO on steroids. It runs 24/7.

For smaller municipalities, express buses are a good thing. Adding signal priority moves them better and attracts more riders. As ridership increases, build bus lanes and transitways.

What Ottawa did, and Mississauga and Winnipeg is doing is great. Once those Transitways get too full, then build LRT.

Subways/Skytrain are great for the larger cities.

Commuter Railis for those place with suburbs that see large numbers commuting from. Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton are places where commuter rail would be a god place to start from next.

Regional rail, which is what the LIRR has become, and what GO is becoming Is the next step. I would not be surprised if within 20 years, GO becomes a regional rail system. I would not be surprised if the AMT also became one.

Meanwhile, there is the Greater Vancouver Area stuck in gridlock, expanding their Skytrain and those people are now stuck waiting for 2 or more trains to come to alleviate the sheer amount off people on the platform.

The Skytrain is between an LRT and a subway. It just does not have the capacity to meet demands.

By adding commuter rail lines, you give people more of a choice for getting around during peak periods. When you get near capacity, a another time for the train. Add more coaches. All of a sudden, you start growing like GO and AMT have.

How doe you convince someone to go green and leave their car at home? By giving them a comfortable way to get around. Squished in a Skytrain isn't good enough.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It does if you're just looking at lines on a map, but if you're comparing where there are rail lines that aren't already near a Skytrain or WCE route, and are actually close to population centers, then not so much. On that map, the viable potential new route I can see is down to White Rock or perhaps up the Sunshine Coast. Although the Sunshine Coast route would either force people to transfer to buses or ferry, or take the long way around the harbour.

The three lines that could be added with little to no additional rail infrastructure would be up the Sunshine Coast serving Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal, down to White Rock, and out to Abbotsford.

The Sunshine coast could mean those that take a ferry from Bowen Island could simply leave their car on the island. This line could be run all day, serving the ferry terminal during non peak times. You could run it just to Lions Quay, or all the way to Waterfront, or both.

With adding 9km of track, you could now service Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal.

Bridges over the Fraser could be widened, or even where there are none, could be added as the need exists.

[nname]

Skytrain have more than enough capacity. In fact, its only at 55% capacity for expo and 40% for Canada line right now. Its just no one is willing to pay for the cost of buying and running more trains.

Same for the commuter rail, there is not enough money even for meeting existing demand, let alone new service far out in the suburbs

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The three lines that could be added with little to no additional rail infrastructure would be up the Sunshine Coast serving Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal, down to White Rock, and out to Abbotsford.

The Sunshine coast could mean those that take a ferry from Bowen Island could simply leave their car on the island. This line could be run all day, serving the ferry terminal during non peak times. You could run it just to Lions Quay, or all the way to Waterfront, or both.

With adding 9km of track, you could now service Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal.

Bridges over the Fraser could be widened, or even where there are none, could be added as the need exists.

The north shore lines are not meant for regular use. The bridge across the Burrard Inlet is an ancient joke, people's multi-million dollar houses are right up against the tracks in West Van, and regular trains through Lonsdale Quay (not Lions) would block access to the seabus drop off area. You'd have so much public outrage from very wealthy people.

East of Lonsdale Quay is still heavily used by industry.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, sometimes it is hard to get across just how busy these rail lines are with freight. We just don't know what upgrades CN would demand just to increase the frequency of the existing line, let alone adding more spurs.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Pinion

The north shore lines are not meant for regular use. The bridge across the Burrard Inlet is an ancient joke, people's multi-million dollar houses are right up against the tracks in West Van, and regular trains through Lonsdale Quay (not Lions) would block access to the seabus drop off area. You'd have so much public outrage from very wealthy people.

East of Lonsdale Quay is still heavily used by industry.

How would a train block the access to the Seabus? It goes under the structure, separate from the bus area.

Wealthy people may take it. Besides, just as people along the Arbutus corridor are finding out, you buy along a rail line, be prepared to see trains along it.

You do know that the Rocky Mountaineer runs passenger trains on that line?

[lrt's friend]

I would never suggest following Ottawa's example of building busways with the idea of upgrading to LRT. It is far too disruptive and costly to convert. Any city should think pretty long-term in selecting their rapid transit mode on a particular route. If a busway will suffice long-term, then that is a good choice, however, if it will exceed capacity at some point, you should be thinking of rail from day one.

What cost $500 M to build is now going to cost more than 10 times to upgrade to rail. Granted, the downtown tunnel was never built for buses as originally planned back in the 80s.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I would never suggest following Ottawa's example of building busways with the idea of upgrading to LRT. It is far too disruptive and costly to convert. Any city should think pretty long-term in selecting their rapid transit mode on a particular route. If a busway will suffice long-term, then that is a good choice, however, if it will exceed capacity at some point, you should be thinking of rail from day one.

What if the funds are not there? Do you just let the congestion increase till it is beyond critical?

The pain that Ottawa is going through will be worth it.

Maybe they could have designed the busways so that they could close a lane and be able to build rail and still keep it open, even if it is slower than normal.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What if the funds are not there? Do you just let the congestion increase till it is beyond critical?

The pain that Ottawa is going through will be worth it.

Maybe they could have designed the busways so that they could close a lane and be able to build rail and still keep it open, even if it is slower than normal.

I find the whole "we can't afford it" thing as it pertains to transit (or any non-automobile infrastructure) is a common trope in North America, but what it comes down to is that the public transit projects in question are typically far less than governments regularly spend on highways and other car projects. The reason that public transit "seems" unaffordable despite it being a more efficient method of transporting people, is that governments view it as something extra to spend money on in addition to all the money they were planning to spend on car infrastructure. The correct approach is to divert part of the transportation budget from other things and spend it on transit. In other words, you need less highway capacity, fewer road lanes, etc. if you have more transit capacity.

Ironically, it costs far more to build the road space required to transport the number of people that can be transported by a rail line, whether LRT or metro. And if your transit investment corresponds to a simultaneous tightening of the road spending belt, then you'll have more people actually riding it.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How would a train block the access to the Seabus? It goes under the structure, separate from the bus area.

The seabus pick up/drop off (not bus loop) is on Chesterfield. The trains that go through Lonsdale block the road to the drop off and cause major traffic/timing issues for sailings.

Yes I do know about Rocky Mountaineer. Did you see my location? I can hear the trains from my place.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What if the funds are not there? Do you just let the congestion increase till it is beyond critical?

The pain that Ottawa is going through will be worth it.

Maybe they could have designed the busways so that they could close a lane and be able to build rail and still keep it open, even if it is slower than normal.

The things is, they really haven't been able to reuse much infrastructure from the Transitway in Ottawa. The cost of implementing the Transitway was at a similar scale to LRT, but with buses. Converting now to LRT, they have to tear down stations and make expensive modifications to the ROW in some cases. Mostly the only benefit is that a surface ROW was preserved for so long.

Since so much of Ottawa's transit system depends on the Transitway, the conversion is also that much more painful. It is difficult here in KW, but it is relatively far less disruptive to shift the iXpress onto adjacent streets while King Street is closed than it is to shift bus routes off of the Transitway.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What if the funds are not there? Do you just let the congestion increase till it is beyond critical?

The pain that Ottawa is going through will be worth it.

Maybe they could have designed the busways so that they could close a lane and be able to build rail and still keep it open, even if it is slower than normal.

We are pretty well building the same rapid transit line twice.

This whole exercise is not so much about being 'worth it' as resolving one issue, and that was downtown transit congestion.

I have been very skeptical about the long-term benefits and I have my doubts about a surge in ridership after opening. The route itself, especially after Phase 1 will have far less coverage than the Transitways meaning that a relatively small portion of the city will retain a one seat ride into downtown. Even excluding express services that will be eliminated through the entire city, the one seat ride from major points in the city will be reduced by at least 75%. You can't even avoid transfers by using Park n Ride lots as there are none on the Phase 1 route.

This is why it is urgent that Phase 2 begin almost immediately, as the whole transit system will suffer without the Phase 2 extensions. The question of value for money should have been asked but the city got itself into such a mess after the 2006 fiasco, that they backed themselves into a corner needing to prove that something would finally be built.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=2798711&postcount=8

That looks like a lot of rail infrastructure.

The rail infrastructure around Vancouver is very different from the rail infrastructure around Toronto or Montreal. In TO and MTL, the lines generally converge on downtown in a hub-and-spoke pattern, and have been active mainline railways for over a century.

In Vancouver, most of the "rail lines" you see are actually old interurban lines with very tight curves, steep gradients and almost no expansion capability. They were designed for trolleys, not locomotive-hauled mainline service, and upgrading the service to commuter rail is probably not economically feasible. Apart from that, few of these lines actually pass near major trip generators. Almost none of the lines are time-competitive with existing skytrain and seabus service.

[caltrane74]

New GO Train Cabs go into service today

http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/news/newcars.aspx

[SkahHigh]

Very nice.

[caltrane74]

That picture looks like it was taken in Thunder Bay...

[bardak]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The rail infrastructure around Vancouver is very different from the rail infrastructure around Toronto or Montreal. In TO and MTL, the lines generally converge on downtown in a hub-and-spoke pattern, and have been active mainline railways for over a century.

In Vancouver, most of the "rail lines" you see are actually old interurban lines with very tight curves, steep gradients and almost no expansion capability. They were designed for trolleys, not locomotive-hauled mainline service, and upgrading the service to commuter rail is probably not economically feasible. Apart from that, few of these lines actually pass near major trip generators. Almost none of the lines are time-competitive with existing skytrain and seabus service.

On top of that the mainline railways in downtown Toronto and Montreal no longer have freight traffic running through them. In Vancouver the only rail route into downtown is also the major rail for the port. We are lucky that CPR let us run the WCE as it.

The only real commuter rail expansion I can see happening is replacing the mission bridge and extending the WCE to Abbotsford.

Other than that I can only see us using the existing railways for their ROW to build LRT or Skytrain. The existing railways are either too busy or to deteriorated to use for meaningful transit service.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by bardak

On top of that the mainline railways in downtown Toronto and Montreal no longer have freight traffic running through them.

False. The AMT only owns one line (Deux-Montagnes) and has a ROW on other lines owner by the CN and CP. Which is why the Mascouche, Candiac and Mont-Saint-Hilaire lines have less than 10 daily departures per direction...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by bardak

On top of that the mainline railways in downtown Toronto and Montreal no longer have freight traffic running through them. In Vancouver the only rail route into downtown is also the major rail for the port. We are lucky that CPR let us run the WCE as it.

The only real commuter rail expansion I can see happening is replacing the mission bridge and extending the WCE to Abbotsford.

Other than that I can only see us using the existing railways for their ROW to build LRT or Skytrain. The existing railways are either too busy or to deteriorated to use for meaningful transit service.

If there is ROw to fit a LRT or Skytrain, then you could put another heavy rail track.

If they are deteriorated, fixing the line up would then make them viable.