The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Doady]

In Mississauga, other than traffic congestion, one major reason for buses falling behind schedule and causing bunching is because it takes too long for people to board. This is worst with the articulated buses because frequencies are lower so more people waiting at each stop, combined with front-door boarding only. This also means the buses skip stops less often causing more delays.

Think about it: once a bus/streetcar falls behind schedule, then the amount the people waiting at the next stop increases, and it will fall further behind schedule, and the amount people waiting at the next stop increases, and so on. On a route that has 3 minute frequency, even 1 minute behind schedule can mean a dramatic increase in people waiting at the next stop. With all-door boarding the extra people at a stop no longer causes delays.

That's why with articulated buses or streetcars or other longer vehicles/trains, there should be an all-door boarding scheme and stops should be further apart to leverage all-door boarding.

The new streetcars are all all-door boarding, so once they all arrive, I think you will experience more reliable service. I think the TTC could probably remove a few stops too if they are not already planning to.

[lrt's friend]

There is absolutely no reason that articulated buses cannot have all door boarding. It happens all the time in Ottawa.

It is really unfortunate that the Hurontario route is not continuing into Brampton.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

While it isn't cheap, the best way forward for east-west transit in Toronto, south of Bloor street, is to build the DRL to the west and then do a major overhaul of the surface routes so that there's more of an emphasis on small, community-focused north-south routes, rather than long haul east-west streetcars.

flip has a point in that the TTC hasn't rethought its surface transit network in decades. Liberty Village has no direct service except the 504, leading UberHop to swoop in and scoop up latent demand. There's also no service on Bremner-Fort York Blvd. despite the fact that thousands of residents live along that corridor, and it would be a direct link to Union station.

The DRL should have been built long ago but, costs clearly were a reason it wasn't. I was referring more to quick easy fixes to improve transit on the current mixed traffic routes and I don't see buses as an improvement over the current streetcar network.

He does have a point however, these dense neighbourhoods and a dozen other neighbourhoods have popped up virtually overnight. I think any transit working with finite budgets would be overwhelmed.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I looked into this just now. I don't know why they bothered connecting the old Esplanade bus with a bus serving the western side, since I don't see much of a need for people on either side to travel through downtown in this way. Besides, they routed it along Front street, which has been a construction mess for the last few years.

I was thinking that the bus would travel like this:

Liberty St. -> Strachan -> Fleet -> Fort York -> Bremner -> turn around at the ACC cul de sac.

what would that realistically connect you with though? 3 office buildings in Southcore?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

what would that realistically connect you with though? 3 office buildings in Southcore?

Obviously it connects you with all of the Financial district and Union station through the southern entrance.

[Innsertnamehere]

^the transfer to the subway from there though would involve a 5 minute walk through the station.. a giant pain. You may as well just walk 5 minutes up to King street in Liberty Village and take the 504, especially if you plan on walking to King street from Bremner.

[swimmer_spe]

Toronto has many ways to do the same thing.
Some streetcars have their own ROW, while others operate in mixed traffic.

What they did on Spadina and St Clair should be done throughout. This would make the street car lines much more reliable and likely more faster than currently.

The DRL should have been built decades ago. hopefully they do to both sides of Bloor when it is built and it gets started with in the next 5 years.

[Coldrsx]

A nice update on the Valley Line that is U/C here in Edmonton.

All from:

https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/RoadsTraffic/valley_line_lrt_booklet.pdf

-----------------

Network Plan















http://transedlrt.ca

Also, the P3 consortium who were awarded it:

http://transedlrt.ca

[swimmer_spe]

It surprised me that the ETS has taken so long to connect to the largest mall in Canada. You would think that would be one of the first priorities.

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

A nice update on the Valley Line that is U/C here in Edmonton.

All from:

https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/RoadsTraffic/valley_line_lrt_booklet.pdf

-----------------

Network Plan

http://transedlrt.ca

Also, the P3 consortium who were awarded it:

http://transedlrt.ca

[ssiguy]

Great news for Edmonton but I sure hope they have learnt some lessons about at-grade systems after the disaster of the Metro line.

[IRT_BMT_IND]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

While it isn't cheap, the best way forward for east-west transit in Toronto, south of Bloor street, is to build the DRL to the west and then do a major overhaul of the surface routes so that there's more of an emphasis on small, community-focused north-south routes, rather than long haul east-west streetcars.

flip has a point in that the TTC hasn't rethought its surface transit network in decades. Liberty Village has no direct service except the 504, leading UberHop to swoop in and scoop up latent demand. There's also no service on Bremner-Fort York Blvd. despite the fact that thousands of residents live along that corridor, and it would be a direct link to Union station.

I always thought the TTC should consider implementing something like the express buses the CTA runs along Lakeshore Drive to areas in South Chicago not well served by the L.

[GlassCity]

I don't understand the interlining in Edmonton, presumably to avoid transfers. Transfers on frequent rapid transit lines provide mobility without too much inconvenience. Having multiple lines serve the same track in different layouts complicates the service needlessly.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't understand the interlining in Edmonton, presumably to avoid transfers. Transfers on frequent rapid transit lines provide mobility without too much inconvenience. Having multiple lines serve the same track in different layouts complicates the service needlessly.

I was very paranoid about it in Vancouver.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It surprised me that the ETS has taken so long to connect to the largest mall in Canada. You would think that would be one of the first priorities.

That's next up, the West continuation of this line to the far west city limits which will include WEM 3/4 of the way out.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't understand the interlining in Edmonton, presumably to avoid transfers. Transfers on frequent rapid transit lines provide mobility without too much inconvenience. Having multiple lines serve the same track in different layouts complicates the service needlessly.

Nobody likes transfers. We see issues even when frequent service is offered. If the LRVs are crowded, then we may have to wait for multiple trains to pass.

Interlining is used all over Europe to create convenience and reduce transfers. I saw it in action in Poland where tramways do exactly what Edmonton is planning and even to a greater degree because in Poland, the tramways cross connect also away from downtown.

We seem to forget the last mile problem, that for many, the rider cannot use rail for their entire trips. If we cannot contain the number of transfers within the rail network itself, what does the average rider have to put up with when they also have to transfer off the rail network to reach their final destination? I have already commented that rail actually makes the last mile problem worse because it eliminates direct service. This is why some new rail systems do not generate more ridership.

The rider experience has to be paramount and getting them to their destination with a minimum of hassle. Transfers are a hassle.

[MalcolmTucker]

The design philosophy behind the more closely space stops, and 'community scale' infrastructure was that a good portion of the users will have the LRT as their last mile.

You have to start somewhere. Edmonton doesn't foresee the need for a second 10,000+ pphpd capable system. They overbuilt their first system compared to their short and medium term needs and it destroyed the political climate for expansion for nearly a generation.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The design philosophy behind the more closely space stops, and 'community scale' infrastructure was that a good portion of the users will have the LRT as their last mile.

You have to start somewhere. Edmonton doesn't foresee the need for a second 10,000+ pphpd capable system. They overbuilt their first system compared to their short and medium term needs and it destroyed the political climate for expansion for nearly a generation.

Ottawa's original line (that was cancelled) was to accomplish the same thing. It was designed so that many could walk to a station (eliminating the last mile problem) but faced unbelievable criticism. Many in Ottawa feel that LRT should only be built if the need is 10,000+ pphpd. As a consequence, we are building a system that will have the last mile problem for the vast majority of the population. Ottawa City Council boasts that 70% of the population will be within 5 km of LRT and even then, the south line will not go downtown and will have little walk in capability for any of the south suburbs. This is progress I suppose (at least they are building something) but in the long run, it is a poor achievement. Part of the issue is that Ottawa has changed its mind and has gone from a partially segregated plan to a fully segregated plan. Of course, costs have escalated but this reinforces the need to serve only routes requiring 10,000+ pphpd. Once this has started, it becomes self-perpetuating. It is now that all rail has to be fully segregated or you don't bother. So we redesign the whole transit system in 2018 around this one high frequency line with no thoughts of secondary routes ever running into the centre of the city. The thought is that people will travel in masses to downtown because it is rail even though 90% will have to transfer to a bus at some point. I find this thinking rather suspect.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa's original line (that was cancelled) was to accomplish the same thing. It was designed so that many could walk to a station (eliminating the last mile problem) but faced unbelievable criticism. Many in Ottawa feel that LRT should only be built if the need is 10,000+ pphpd. As a consequence, we are building a system that will have the last mile problem for the vast majority of the population. Ottawa City Council boasts that 70% of the population will be within 5 km of LRT and even then, the south line will not go downtown and will have little walk in capability for any of the south suburbs. This is progress I suppose (at least they are building something) but in the long run, it is a poor achievement. Part of the issue is that Ottawa has changed its mind and has gone from a partially segregated plan to a fully segregated plan. Of course, costs have escalated but this reinforces the need to serve only routes requiring 10,000+ pphpd. Once this has started, it becomes self-perpetuating. It is now that all rail has to be fully segregated or you don't bother. So we redesign the whole transit system in 2018 around this one high frequency line with no thoughts of secondary routes ever running into the centre of the city. The thought is that people will travel in masses to downtown because it is rail even though 90% will have to transfer to a bus at some point. I find this thinking rather suspect.

The major problem with the original N/S plan was that the trains were running on the same downtown bus lanes that are already overcapacity. Just a few posts ago, you said that "There is periodic talk about bringing back streetcars to downtown Ottawa but I cringe at thought of it for the most part.". So how could you support the old plan?

I understand (though support full segregation myself), that partial segregation in suburban areas can save on capital, therefore allow us to build longer lines, but we can't cripple the system with trains running on overcrowded bus lanes downtown.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't understand the interlining in Edmonton, presumably to avoid transfers. Transfers on frequent rapid transit lines provide mobility without too much inconvenience. Having multiple lines serve the same track in different layouts complicates the service needlessly.

Another argument for interlining is to make the best use out of ultra-expensive infrastructure downtown. If a tunnel can support 20,000+ pphpd, then use it. It's not like the lines outside downtown need the same capacity as in the central area.

As for the complication, you might have 2-3 different train routes, but it's better than buses in Ottawa where we have 40+ bus routes on one stop and you have to look through the 10 buses arriving a the same time to try and find yours.

[White Pine]

Just to leave this here, The confederation line is so important that I would rather have it over the N/S lrt any day. If I were visiting a city, i would also rather have transfers than an interlined system, but maybe it would be different if I were relying on it for work.

The only problem with Ottawa's system is that it needs some support and extra coverage from other lines which won't happen soon (and the o-train needs to be double tracked), but this money-eating Confederation line was a bullet we had to bite.