The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Yeah, the TTC streetcars are so dignified when you're packed in like sardines with no breathing room. Especially as the older ones screech at ever stop or corner.

Buses can be just as pleasant as rail when everything else is the same. While the actual frequencies are pretty terrible on many routes STO has some very comfortable buses. I think the issue is that rail transit usually gets all the bells and whistles added on while buses don't so people consider buses worse.

Comparing Greyhound to Via is probably a fairly good option though. I think Greyhound actually gives slightly better leg room, though it is a tiny bit slower. Still the rides are similar enough.

You prefer to be packed like a sardine in a bus?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Comparing Greyhound to Via is probably a fairly good option though. I think Greyhound actually gives slightly better leg room, though it is a tiny bit slower. Still the rides are similar enough.

As someone who's pushing 6'5", I can tell you quite definitively that VIA offers OODLES more legroom. I have to cross my legs on Greyhound, but whenever I get the privilege of taking the train, I get positively giddy at the idea of having like a full half-foot of space between my knees and the next seat.

It's like Disneyland for tall people.

[go_leafs_go02]

Took Greyhound once. Never again. always took VIA rail when I had to get back to London from the region.

Really miss the train option here in BC, but based on the geographic context, it doesn't make too much sense.

TransLink should have invested more in commuter rail service however.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

You prefer to be packed like a sardine in a bus?

I'm saying that the streetcar is no better than the bus.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

As someone who's pushing 6'5", I can tell you quite definitively that VIA offers OODLES more legroom. I have to cross my legs on Greyhound, but whenever I get the privilege of taking the train, I get positively giddy at the idea of having like a full half-foot of space between my knees and the next seat.

It's like Disneyland for tall people.

A) When was it that you took the greyhound last? They've been switching over to a new design that's a lot more spacious.
B) What class of VIA do you take? I think I had business or something one time and that had lots of room, but the normal economy one isn't very great.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by someone123

Is it possible to tunnel under the rivers?

I'm not the person to ask about the technical feasibility of such an approach, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned in discussions about new transit or road routes in Winnipeg... I suspect that it would face the same problem as a bridge, which is the lack of space for a new or expanded route at either end of it.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You've been around here longer than I have. If I've been through at least five intensive "rapid transit" discussions, than you must have witnessed even more. Are you telling me that after all this time you still have to ask?

I find that so many of these debates essentially amount to "whatever is in my city or in cities larger than my own is great, whatever is in cities smaller than mine is crap". I mean fair enough if people think BRT is second rate. I'm certainly not going to try to convince someone it's every bit as good as Montreal's Metro. But in the same way that a Rolls Royce and a Kia are both cars, a subway and BRT are both forms of rapid transit.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm saying that the streetcar is no better than the bus.
.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that one. The ride is far smoother, it doesn't smell like diesel, and isn't nearly as cramped. Buses are smaller inside with more awkward seating layouts, and just generally are far more unpleasant.

No, BRT is not the same thing as the subway. Ask the average dude off of the street if the Ottawa transitway (about as good as it gets for BRT) is roughly the same thing as the Toronto subway, and they would more than likely tell you no. Rail provides a quality of ride that a bus cannot give.

BRT systems have their place on low ridership routes that would never make sense to upgrade to rail (not sure why a city would spend that much money to build a low use route like that, but whatever. Looking at you, York Region.), but core networks using BRT just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by esquire

I find that so many of these debates essentially amount to "whatever is in my city or in cities larger than my own is great, whatever is in cities smaller than mine is crap". I mean fair enough if people think BRT is second rate. I'm certainly not going to try to convince someone it's every bit as good as Montreal's Metro. But in the same way that a Rolls Royce and a Kia are both cars, a subway and BRT are both forms of rapid transit.

But of course you do realize that others such as myself completely dismiss the idea of them being slightly different versions of the same thing (which would be like different types of metro systems such as the Montreal Metro compared to the Toronto Subway) and consider them distinct modes, as in cars versus motorcycles, versus passenger vans etc.?

I mean, you're entitled to disagree, just as long as there's no misunderstanding.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that one. The ride is far smoother, it doesn't smell like diesel, and isn't nearly as cramped. Buses are smaller inside with more awkward seating layouts, and just generally are far more unpleasant.

The ride is only really smoother if the roads are in bad condition or the driver is bad. I've never been on a bus that smelled of diesel (outside the bus is another issue, but either way it's irrelevant as natural gas or electric buses are a thing and the norm in many cities), and the previous round of Toronto streetcars were just as cramped or worse than any bus with similarly awkward seating. That last one is a matter of layout more than anything though. Toronto subway cars are only marginally less cramped than many buses I've ridden. Montreal's had cars smaller than any bus I've seen. Compare this, this, and this; not a huge difference.

Most of the advantages rail gets is people being willing to invest more because it's 'big city'. As a transit option it has few innate rider benefits. Now the permanence of a rail line, that's an advantage, but even still major enough investment like Ottawa's transitways causes development (even if most of the big buildings seemed to have been built during the planning stage there are still a few bits of TOD in Ottawa).

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

No, BRT is not the same thing as the subway. Ask the average dude off of the street if the Ottawa transitway (about as good as it gets for BRT) is roughly the same thing as the Toronto subway, and they would more than likely tell you no. Rail provides a quality of ride that a bus cannot give.

Obviously. Ottawa's BRT is fully at grade through the downtown while Toronto's is not. Most of the Toronto subway stations are also inside and sheltered from the elements while most of Ottawa's are not. However there are stretches where Ottawa's BRT is just as useful as Toronto's subway and the decreased number of transfers is another benefit.

[swimmer_spe]

My take on "What is RT?"

If no other traffic tuns in the same lane, it is RT. If it has signal priority, it is RT. If it is grade separated, it is RT.

So, some streetcar lines in Toronto are RT.
Some express buses are RT.
Transitways are RT.
C-Train, Otrain, Confederation line, and ELRT are all RT.
Skytrain, subway, Metro and the Scarbourough RT are also all RT

RT stands for Rapid Transit. Anything that speeds up a line than when it is only in regular traffic means it is rapid.

Ye, it may still be in traffic, but have signal priority, like Halifax's Link, is still a sort of rapid transit.

Do the other large cities in our country deserve a fully grade separated rapid transit? Yes.
Is it feasible? Not always.
Many cities simply do not have the funds to pay for a full rail grade separated service. Arguably, Ottawa did what is smart, build a network to funnel buses and riders to various points in the city. Yes, switching over to LRT is causing a lot of headaches for a few years.

Likely 10-20 years from now, Mississauga and Winnipeg will go through the same growing pains.
Some places, like Halifax, there is not the space for these to be done, so going straight to rail is the most prudent option.
Halifax, if they were to have the single commuter line could simply build grade separated LRT and Transit malls to get lines to the Mumford Terminal from around the peninsula. That is close enough to the rail line. If they were to turn 1 lane of the old bridge to transit only vehicles and have signals at each end to allow 2 way, single lane bus traffic across faster than the rest of the traffic. This would be a good interim solution till they build an LRT line to and across the harbour via it's own bridge.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm saying that the streetcar is no better than the bus.



A) When was it that you took the greyhound last? They've been switching over to a new design that's a lot more spacious.
B) What class of VIA do you take? I think I had business or something one time and that had lots of room, but the normal economy one isn't very great.

Sure when you compare a packed streetcar to an empty bus. Otherwise, streetcars are a superior experience.. Much smoother ride with less choke points from a wider body with no wheel wells.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

RT stands for Rapid Transit. Anything that speeds up a line than when it is only in regular traffic means it is rapid.

Rapid transit is the collective name for "metro systems", which may also be called "light metros" or "subway systems" or undergrounds" or "u-bahn"; not another name for anything faster than other traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Beedok

The ride is only really smoother if the roads are in bad condition or the driver is bad. I've never been on a bus that smelled of diesel (outside the bus is another issue, but either way it's irrelevant as natural gas or electric buses are a thing and the norm in many cities), and the previous round of Toronto streetcars were just as cramped or worse than any bus with similarly awkward seating. That last one is a matter of layout more than anything though. Toronto subway cars are only marginally less cramped than many buses I've ridden. Montreal's had cars smaller than any bus I've seen. Compare this, this, and this; not a huge difference.

Most of the advantages rail gets is people being willing to invest more because it's 'big city'. As a transit option it has few innate rider benefits. Now the permanence of a rail line, that's an advantage, but even still major enough investment like Ottawa's transitways causes development (even if most of the big buildings seemed to have been built during the planning stage there are still a few bits of TOD in Ottawa).

Obviously. Ottawa's BRT is fully at grade through the downtown while Toronto's is not. Most of the Toronto subway stations are also inside and sheltered from the elements while most of Ottawa's are not. However there are stretches where Ottawa's BRT is just as useful as Toronto's subway and the decreased number of transfers is another benefit.

GM New looks which were around when CLRVs were state of the art had a diesel smell.

[ssiguy]

Saying Ottawa would have been better off with LRT to start than the Transitway is an unfair comparison.

Ottawa's Transitway is excellent but people complain about the downtown congestion but that has nothing to do with the Transitway or BRT..............they never built the Transitway downtown so small wonder the buses backup. If the just built the LRT as is but no downtown tunnel like the Transitway then it certainly wouldn't be any better.

In fact many Ottawans will see their commute time INCREASE due to the new LRT. The Transitway has the benefit of not only running the regular end-to-end service but also commuter services which means they can right from downtown to their home with no need for a transfer from LRT to local bus. That's not only faster but much more pleasant.

LRT are certainly smoother than BRT-lite but for full Transitways like Ottawa's, Winnipeg's, and Mississauga's the bus-only roadways are much smoother than regular streets making for a much more pleasant and comfortable ride than a standard bus on a street.

When Mississauga's new Transitway is completely done by 2017 it will be a 18km route of bus only roadway {with a small section using freeway HOV on the 403}, will be completely separated from all other traffic, have over/underpasses, modern and large heated stations, some with Park-n-Ride, and the service will be frequent. It's essentially a bus freeway and I think is the best new piece of transit infrastructure Toronto has gotten in a generation.

Gold standard BRT is fast, comfortable, safe, reliable, and high capacity and is far superior to many LRT systems and it has the benefit of having buses serving both the Transitway and local service which no rail based technology can offer.

[ssiguy]

Another thing that the pro-LRT crowd {ie Miller} like to claim is that people are more likely to use LRT than bus. There MAYBE some truth to that which is why they claim that LRT, despite being more expensive, is a better use of funds due to potentially attracting more new riders.

Of course they fail to consider that the extra money spent on LRT over BRT could have been used for a much larger BRT system serving hundreds of more destinations and tens of thousands of more potential riders. BRT also the ability to open in small phases which is less likely in LRT.

Is it better to have 20km of LRT or 60 km of Mississauga type BRT both costing the same?

There is no right or wrong as it greatly depends on the city's unique geography, topography, demographics, workplace concentration, development potential etc but this idea that LRT is naturally better is farcical and is based more on political advantage than transit needs.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm saying that the streetcar is no better than the bus.

If you're referring to standard city buses I completely disagree. I made a point of comparing a bus route to a streetcar route last time I was in Toronto. The bus was bumpier, but even more important than that because of the bumpiness seemingly every item inside the bus rattled loudly, vs the quietness of a streetcar. A bus experience always seems cheap due to the rattly racket, only a motorcoach type ride might come close to rail.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Sure when you compare a packed streetcar to an empty bus. Otherwise, streetcars are a superior experience.. Much smoother ride with less choke points from a wider body with no wheel wells.

No, I'm comparing a packed bus to a packed streetcar.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Beedok

A) When was it that you took the greyhound last? They've been switching over to a new design that's a lot more spacious.
B) What class of VIA do you take? I think I had business or something one time and that had lots of room, but the normal economy one isn't very great.

a) Two weeks ago? I take it pretty often between Ottawa and Montreal, but perhaps they haven't been running these spacious buses on that route.
b) Always economy.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

a) Two weeks ago? I take it pretty often between Ottawa and Montreal, but perhaps they haven't been running these spacious buses on that route.

That is possible. It seemed mostly focused out west and we transferred to an older one at Sudbury, so maybe they haven't changed it for that chunk.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

b) Always economy.

Strange. Maybe I just have bad luck with seats then.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Beedok

No, I'm comparing a packed bus to a packed streetcar.

Compare the ride on the 504 streetcar to the occasional 504 replacement buses during the height of morning rush hour and get back to us. One is somewhat unpleasant but bearable, and the other is sheer hell. It also seems slower somehow. I rarely take the streetcar (bike) but had to this morning because it was raining. The streetcar I was on caught up to the replacement bus which had arrived 3 minutes before.

Both are completely packed by the time they hit Liberty Village so it's a fair comparison.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by niwell

comparing the ride on the 504 streetcar to the occasional 504 replacement buses during the height of morning rush hour and get back to us. One is somewhat unpleasant but bearable, and the other is sheer hell. It also seems slower somehow. I rarely take the streetcar (bike) but had to this morning because it was raining. The streetcar I was on caught up to the replacement bus which had arrived 3 minutes before.

Both are completely packed by the time they hit Liberty Village so it's a fair comparison.

I've been on horribly crowded buses (the 118 I have to take roughly daily in Ottawa is frequently unable to pick new people up and feels like the oxygen is running short).