Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[gentlepuppies]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Trolley buses can drive around obstructions?

Yeah, and I'm not even talking about detours. Simple things like being able to pass on the right lane when a car in front is stuck trying to make a left turn.

[lrt's friend]

A lot of the problems with streetcars can be addressed by giving them an exclusive lane. In this day and age, it doesn't make much sense to build a new streetcar line and run it in mixed traffic.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes they certainly can. If a trolley bus has to go around an obstruction it can dislodge from the overhead catenary and run on battery and then get back onto the catenary when it has cleared.

As for the CTrain.............except for downtown where it is still in it's own ROW, the Ctrain is very fast and reliable. High speed mass transit does not require total grade separation.

The additional infrastructure and vehicle costs for the same bus capacity doesn't make a whole lot of sense for flat places like Toronto.

We get it. You like hybrid commuter based lines. It's been seriously beaten to death here.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The additional infrastructure and vehicle costs for the same bus capacity doesn't make a whole lot of sense for flat places like Toronto.

We get it. You like hybrid commuter based lines. It's been seriously beaten to death here.

This. I went to Calgary last summer and rode the entire CTrain system end to end. It's not a glorified streetcar, it's enhanced commuter rail.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This. I went to Calgary last summer and rode the entire CTrain system end to end. It's not a glorified streetcar, it's enhanced commuter rail.

How is it commuter rail let alone "enhanced commuter rail"?

[WhipperSnapper]

Well, it's not localized transit by any means. No one uses it to go a few blocks.

It's pin wheel design and station distances are staged to provide fast speeds for suburban commuters to get downtown. The frequencies are much better than commuter rail.

The apples to oranges analogy certainly applies comparing the CTrain to Toronto's streetcar network and the oldest lines on the subway system.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by nephersir7

You're most likely wrong on that. It would make no sense.

Yes I think I'm wrong, but I think the South Shore portion of the LRT will be run like a Metro. 5,000+ pph currently, more than 20,000 car trips per day, + 22,000 - transit

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Well, it's not localized transit by any means. No one uses it to go a few blocks.

Unless you're downtown. It's free afterall.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

How is it commuter rail let alone "enhanced commuter rail"?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Well, it's not localized transit by any means. No one uses it to go a few blocks.

It's pin wheel design and station distances are staged to provide fast speeds for suburban commuters to get downtown. The frequencies are much better than commuter rail.

The apples to oranges analogy certainly applies comparing the CTrain to Toronto's streetcar network and the oldest lines on the subway system.

That's what I mean by "enhanced." It's frequencies are much higher and it's station spacing is smaller, but essentially it's a means of getting suburban residents downtown for work. Yes, destinations like the University and Chinook Centre are also connected, but for the most part the lines don't follow any continuous urban corridors, nor did it seem like it was intended to help move previous between various important centres. The freeway/railway right of ways and large park and rides at most stations serve to show that it is more of a commuter service to get people to a central core rather than one that distributes people to a number of intermediate destinations.

That is not to say that it's "bad"; its success speaks for itself. But it's disingenuous to compare it to more urban transit systems that anchor dense corridors and are intended to prove more "hop on-hop-off" service, when the CTrain seems to be more about funneling people into downtown. Though it does look like the northern leg of the Green Line will be different. Again, it's not a matter of better or worse, it's just that the goals seem to be different and so I don't understand the comparison of any proposed LRT lines to Calgary's when most LRT proposals ARE intended to replicate dense metro service, when Calgary's isn't.

To help illustrate my point:

The typical, slower LRT system that serves as the transit backbone for dense corridors:

http://www.travelportland.com/article/max-light-rail/

The typical right of way for the CTrain, which results in much faster service but sacrifices urban integration and results in my view of a commuter-rail like service:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/carra-pushes-for-new-lrt-stations-along-red-line

[Corndogger]

The hope in Calgary, which really has happened so far, is that the trains will result in density.

As a side note, IMHO the north leg of the Green Line is a disaster in the making unless they make some major changes. The other day they did do so by recommending that the downtown portion and the first part of it be underground. They need to do that in a few other places or make it elevated. If we're going to spend $5B we might as well spend a bit more and do it right. The initial downtown leg is a frickin' disaster and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's the perfect example of what happens when you cheap out on transportation projects. Other cities considering building LRT lines should use it as an example of what not to do. I'm surprised Edmonton after doing so much right appears to be making a huge mistake on their next line. I hope I'm wrong but it doesn't sound like it.

[Rico Rommheim]

Here are some quick GE looks at Montreal's three RT lines that are coming soon:

Blue line extension (in pale blue)

Screen Shot 2016-04-19 at 10.52.05 PM by Rommheim, on Flickr

With the two projected LRT lines (panama bus terminal to central station (purple) / Central station to Fairview mall (red))

Screen Shot 2016-04-19 at 11.02.28 PM by Rommheim, on Flickr

[SkahHigh]

Can't wait for the announcement. Before the end of may according to PM Couillard.

[Rico Rommheim]

The Montreal RT network is going to look like a big spaghetti soon. They're gonna need bigger maps in the metro cars.

[GreaterMontréal]

+ the BRT line on Pie IX, 70,000 ppd from A-440 to Notre-Dame

[SaskOttaLoo]

The typical, slower LRT system that serves as the transit backbone for dense corridors:

http://www.travelportland.com/article/max-light-rail/


Thanks GlassCity. Very helpful illustration of the two. While I completely agree in theory on the differences between the two models, my understanding is that in practice the Portland streetcar has not led to very much additional ridership, mainly because it can actually be faster to walk at times. See this article for a critique of the slow speeds of the streetcar: http://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

EDIT: I realize you were referring to the Portland LRT, rather than the streetcar, so my point is moot!

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The hope in Calgary, which really has happened so far, is that the trains will result in density.

As a side note, IMHO the north leg of the Green Line is a disaster in the making unless they make some major changes. The other day they did do so by recommending that the downtown portion and the first part of it be underground. They need to do that in a few other places or make it elevated. If we're going to spend $5B we might as well spend a bit more and do it right. The initial downtown leg is a frickin' disaster and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's the perfect example of what happens when you cheap out on transportation projects. Other cities considering building LRT lines should use it as an example of what not to do. I'm surprised Edmonton after doing so much right appears to be making a huge mistake on their next line. I hope I'm wrong but it doesn't sound like it.

People often say this, but I don't quite buy it. Yes, the downtown section is slow and so on, but with four car trains coming online, this will allow a 33% increase in capacity without any increase in frequency. Eventually a tunnel will be required, but as far as I'm concerned at this point it simply isn't the top of the list. As it is, the network would be no where near as fully developed as it is today if they'd gone with underground in the first place. Just look at how long it took Edmonton to get out of the ground, and how much smaller their system is than Calgary's. Street level running is a good choice if you want the best bang for the buck in the initial stages of construction.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

The Montreal RT network is going to look like a big spaghetti soon. They're gonna need bigger maps in the metro cars.

Yes, finally going to look like a true metropolitan transit system!

P-S: Transport Minister Jacques Daoust declaring today that the LRT lines will be "Announced soon".

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Here are some quick GE looks at Montreal's three RT lines that are coming soon:

Blue line extension (in pale blue)

With the two projected LRT lines (panama bus terminal to central station (purple) / Central station to Fairview mall (red))

I was under the impression that the West Island LRT and the new bridge LRT were to be one line. Is it for sure going to be split now or are they still thinking about it?

Originally Posted by SaskOttaLoo

The typical, slower LRT system that serves as the transit backbone for dense corridors:


Thanks GlassCity. Very helpful illustration of the two. While I completely agree in theory on the differences between the two models, my understanding is that in practice the Portland streetcar has not led to very much additional ridership, mainly because it can actually be faster to walk at times. See this article for a critique of the slow speeds of the streetcar: http://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html
EDIT: I realize you were referring to the Portland LRT, rather than the streetcar, so my point is moot!

From what I understand, even many legit LRT systems don't add all that much ridership, because they usually just replace express bus lines that travel at more or less the same speed. But yeah, I've read that Walker post and I'm not a big fan of at-grade rail in general, whether it's supposed to be rapid or not. But I was just trying to make a distinction, because since both the Calgary and Portland systems are called "LRT," many people seem to think they're comparable, when I don't believe they are.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

People often say this, but I don't quite buy it. Yes, the downtown section is slow and so on, but with four car trains coming online, this will allow a 33% increase in capacity without any increase in frequency. Eventually a tunnel will be required, but as far as I'm concerned at this point it simply isn't the top of the list. As it is, the network would be no where near as fully developed as it is today if they'd gone with underground in the first place. Just look at how long it took Edmonton to get out of the ground, and how much smaller their system is than Calgary's. Street level running is a good choice if you want the best bang for the buck in the initial stages of construction.

Downtown is a huge bottleneck. If you're going from A to B where A is on one side of downtown and B on the other, you can often spend more time traveling thru downtown than the rest of the trip even though downtown might only account for a small percentage of the distance you're traveling. Most people don't care about capacity as much as getting to their destination as quickly as possible. Frequency would trump longer trains for most people. If the city is going to rent tunnel boring equipment to build the Green Line downtown I say we work out a deal where we also use the equipment to build a tunnel for whatever color the South/North West line is. Get it all done at once and prevent the system from collapsing on itself due to that choke point. To help pay for it they could divert the money they plan on using to build BRT lines.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I was under the impression that the West Island LRT and the new bridge LRT were to be one line. Is it for sure going to be split now or are they still thinking about it?

That is what I heard but nothing was confirmed. I guess we'll have to wait a few weeks to know for sure.