The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Monolith]

Evergreen Extension Real time inbound travel with commentary from one of the builders.

• Video Link

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

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.

I have not questioned the problem with the original plan downtown, but as you are well aware, the rest of the plan was also scrapped as well with a very poor substitute replacing it.

There is no question that the downtown tunnel was needed, but we are choosing to not leverage that very expensive infrastructure to better serve the city as a whole. As long as we do not connect the Trillium Line to downtown, it will remain mainly a student train and it will be underutilised. You cannot expect to replace express buses, with a bus, train, train situation and in some hours, a bus, train, train, train situation in order to go downtown. This will never be popular.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 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.

You may be right that it is bullet that we have to bite, but ..............., we are now intent on building it to the very edge of the city before even thinking about other lines that will provide better coverage even within the more central parts of the city.

For a visitor to a city, transfers are an even bigger barrier than for people who know and use the system regularly. So we throw a transfer or two in to get to the airport. How many will actually use it? Just because its rail? Hardly.

[GlassCity]

There have been a lot of responses to my interlining comment, so I'll just leave this link to a blog post by Jarrett Walker, a prominent transit planner, about the benefits of transferring:

http://humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by IRT_BMT_IND

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.

The TTC has a few of these services, but they're peak-only-peak-direction (i.e. inbound in the morning rush, outbound in the PM rush). You also have to pay double the usual fare to use these buses.

If I may generalize, the TTC does a lousy job providing service to people who live south of King St. in the west end, and south of Queen street east of the Don. Apart from premium-fare rush hour only buses, the TTC's response to people who live in those places - which is where a large chunk of the city's recent development has taken place - is to ask you to cram onto existing streetcars that run the same service routings that they've run for decades.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

There have been a lot of responses to my interlining comment, so I'll just leave this link to a blog post by Jarrett Walker, a prominent transit planner, about the benefits of transferring:

http://humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

I have seen this information many times before. Under certain circumstances, it is true but it is a bad generalisation. In many cases, to achieve the transfer on a trunk line, you are forced to make a longer trip. Any gains from doing so, are often more than lost by making a less direct trip. Also, it assumes that frequency will be gained from this arrangement. In most cases, that is not true. For example, if you are part of the majority who lives in a suburban situation, it is unlikely that you have direct bus routes to more than one location. But the suggestion here is to truncate the route at the trunk line. By some magic, this does not create faster service. Your suburban bus route doesn't suddenly get boosted from 30 minute frequency to 15 minute frequency. That is not how it works. Frequency is usually demand based. In my own neighbourhood, at one point they did exactly what was suggested in the article and truncated the bus route to a trunk line. They even improved the frequency (because of tighter budgeting, this is unlikely to occur in the future), but over time, the city accountants saw that more buses were being run than demand required and gradually they cut the service back to the original frequency. The end result was worse than what we started out with because we lost a lot of connectivity. I have seen this countless times here in Ottawa with service rationalisations. No doubt, other cities have done the same.

Just read some of the comments that accompany the article that do not always support the theory behind this.

[GlassCity]

It may not be the most quick or convenient every time, though it is sometimes, but it is without question the most efficient. Taking your suburban example, it makes much more sense for a transit agency to connect a subdivision to a main trunk route for passengers to transfer at than taking them further along it and duplicating service. Transfer-based systems are also much easier to understand for people.

But especially for rail service, interlining to me seems like an opportunity to confuse without really creating any serious benefits. Toronto also used to have interlining, and they got rid of it pretty quick.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It may not be the most quick or convenient every time, though it is sometimes, but it is without question the most efficient. Taking your suburban example, it makes much more sense for a transit agency to connect a subdivision to a main trunk route for passengers to transfer at than taking them further along it and duplicating service. Transfer-based systems are also much easier to understand for people.

But especially for rail service, interlining to me seems like an opportunity to confuse without really creating any serious benefits. Toronto also used to have interlining, and they got rid of it pretty quick.

Toronto got rid of interlining partly because trains going in the same direction were alternating between different platforms. This was causing problems. Also, when service is extremely frequent on both lines, then it makes sense. But when frequency is substantially lower on one line than the other, the transfer penalty becomes significant.

[FFX-ME]

In Ottawa, where the lines condense downtown and branch out later on interlining makes a ridiculous amount of sense. The transit time does not increase, no new rails need to be built, and interlining would increase the frequency downtown, where it is needed, and reduce it in the suburbs naturally.

To say that interlining reduces the quality of transit is ludicrous, just look at Tokyo, or London, or New York, or basically any of the world's greatest transit systems.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

In Ottawa, where the lines condense downtown and branch out later on interlining makes a ridiculous amount of sense. The transit time does not increase, no new rails need to be built, and interlining would increase the frequency downtown, where it is needed, and reduce it in the suburbs naturally.

To say that interlining reduces the quality of transit is ludicrous, just look at Tokyo, or London, or New York, or basically any of the world's greatest transit systems.

Right now, there would be enough space between routes that it is possible. But what happens as the line becomes more congested?

What could be done is that all transitways get converted to LRT connecting to the Central section. Once ridership demands more trains on each line, they build a tunnel and stations under Laurier Ave to have the current LRT divert to that while allowing the other to go downtown and have connections with the current line and the line being built.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Right now, there would be enough space between routes that it is possible. But what happens as the line becomes more congested?

What could be done is that all transitways get converted to LRT connecting to the Central section. Once ridership demands more trains on each line, they build a tunnel and stations under Laurier Ave to have the current LRT divert to that while allowing the other to go downtown and have connections with the current line and the line being built.

I have heard the first comment before that you can't do interlining because when the tunnel gets congested, you run into problems.

What do you do?

When you get to this point, you better be building another tunnel just as you have suggested.

Making people transfer, does not resolve the congestion problem. You are still getting to the point where you are trying to move more people than the maximum number of trains allow.

The other comment is that when the demand on one line is lower than the other therefore, you are using valuable train time slots for the less busy line.

That is addressed by running more trains on the busy line and fewer on the less busy line. If that means running a train every 4 minutes on the busy line and a train every 8 minutes on the less busy line, so be it.

I believe that if you run trains on a 10 minute frequency in the suburbs, that is perfectly fine. You still are not waiting very long. If the rail limitation is every 2 minutes, then you can have 5 suburban branches offering 10 minute frequency. In the more central portions of the city, frequency will be better just as we all would want.

The final comment is that we can't do interlining because the tunnel platforms are too small. We need to have every train clean out the station platform. This really suggests that we are undersizing the platforms.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have heard the first comment before that you can't do interlining because when the tunnel gets congested, you run into problems.

What do you do?

When you get to this point, you better be building another tunnel just as you have suggested.

Making people transfer, does not resolve the congestion problem. You are still getting to the point where you are trying to move more people than the maximum number of trains allow.

The other comment is that when the demand on one line is lower than the other therefore, you are using valuable train time slots for the less busy line.

That is addressed by running more trains on the busy line and fewer on the less busy line. If that means running a train every 4 minutes on the busy line and a train every 8 minutes on the less busy line, so be it.

I believe that if you run trains on a 10 minute frequency in the suburbs, that is perfectly fine. You still are not waiting very long. If the rail limitation is every 2 minutes, then you can have 5 suburban branches offering 10 minute frequency. In the more central portions of the city, frequency will be better just as we all would want.

The final comment is that we can't do interlining because the tunnel platforms are too small. We need to have every train clean out the station platform. This really suggests that we are undersizing the platforms.

Timing of the trains is a key thing. Ideally the fuller line should come more often.

Some places do it well (Green Line in Boston) They will tell you "next train to____" Also the trains have destination signs on them.

Toronto was going to do Interlining but when they tried it, it was too confusing and busy. By building a second tunnel as needed through a different part of the Core, you not only get more trains on each line, but you now bring even more people closer to the LRT. Interlinging shoudl not be looked at as a permenant solution, but as a stop-gap measure to bring the traffic up. When they build the second line, and interline it, a second plan should show the new second tunnel, and even have the roughed in sections to avoid shutting down the line long term.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

In Ottawa, where the lines condense downtown and branch out later on interlining makes a ridiculous amount of sense. The transit time does not increase, no new rails need to be built, and interlining would increase the frequency downtown, where it is needed, and reduce it in the suburbs naturally.

To say that interlining reduces the quality of transit is ludicrous, just look at Tokyo, or London, or New York, or basically any of the world's greatest transit systems.

The problem with interlining, IMO, is that it can reduce the capacity of each individual line on the interlined section, and it is very difficult to add more, since headways are limited. Even if you've got a 2 minute headway between trains, if you're interlining then it's actually 4 minutes between trains of the same line. If you're only staying within the interlined section then this is no problem, but if you're travelling outside the interlined section then it is a problem.

In Shanghai there's an interlined section shared between Lines 3 and 4, and it has lead to a pretty significant capacity crunch on Line 4 particularly since they can't just add more trains to Line 4 as the interlined section is already at capacity. Line 4 is a circular line with a daily ridership approaching 1 million, and now they are looking at ways to increase capacity, but it's not going to be easy or cheap.

[SFUVancouver]

Metro Vancouver mayors approves $2B transit improvement plan
Plan calls for a property tax increase and fare hike

Posted: Nov 23, 2016 1:19 PM PT Last Updated: Nov 23, 2016 1:19 PM PT

The Mayors' Council has approved a $2 billion transit and road expansion plan to cover infrastructure projects over the next decade in the Vancouver area

The 10-year expansion plan will create new bus routes, including HandyDART services for people with mobility issues, reduce overcrowding on transit and improve rail service, according to TransLink.

It's the first phase of a two-part plan transit improvement plan across the region.

The federal government will contribute $370 million.The province will add $246 million and TransLink will pay the balance of $1.3 billion.

The improvements will mean a $3 per household increase in property taxes. Fares will also rise by 10 cents, beginning next July.

"This is a major day for the Metro Vancouver area," said Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, adding the transit improvement plan will reduce overcrowding and improve services.

This is the first of a two-part plan to expand transit in the region. Robertson said. The next phase will include projects on Broadway and improvements to the Pattulo bridge.

The second phase of the plan will go out for public consultation in 2017.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transit-improvement-fare-increase-1.3864353

This was expected, and a major step back in the right direction after the failed transit funding plebiscite. It's still far too modest, in my opinion, but it definitely secures a lot of basic improvements.

PHASE 1

Plan approved: 2016
Roll-out: 2017-2026

• 10% increase in bus service across the region
• More frequent service on 50 different routes
• 5 new B-Line routes on Fraser Highway, Lougheed Highway, Marine Drive, 41st Avenue, and Hastings Street
• 171 new buses beginning in 2018

• 20% increase in rail service
• More frequent service on Expo/Millennium/Evergreen during mid-day, early evening, and weekends
• Increased Canada Line service during high-demand times
• 50 new SkyTrain cars
• 5 new passenger cars for West Coast Express, to expand capacity
• Pre-construction work on Broadway subway and Surrey light rail to keep projects on schedule

• One new SeaBus to increase service and improve reliability
• Service every 15 mins throughout the day, every day of the week
• Service every 10 mins during rush hour (once the new SeaBus is delivered)

• Expanded funding for operation, maintenance, and expansion of the Major Road Network (the first significant expansion of the MRN since 1999)
• $50 million in expanded funding over 3 years for MRN upgrades that will improve safety and reduce traffic bottlenecks
• $32.5 million over 3 years in new funding so municipalities can make MRN overpasses, retaining walls, and bridges safer and more earthquake-proof

• $12.5 million in new funding for municipalities to improve pathways around transit, like sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian traffic signals
• $29.8 million in expanded funding to encourage/improve cycling, through projects like building new bike lanes and multi-use paths
• $11.5 million in expanded funding to invest in regionally-owned cycling facilities at and near major transit stations and exchanges

Source & details: http://tenyearvision.translink.ca/phase-one/

Incredible that a 10 cent fare increase and $3 measly bucks per household in additional property tax, on average, yields a massive enhancement for the region, particularly with the SkyTrain fleet expansion (once again, thank you automation!).

[FFX-ME]

But the downtown core is where the most capacity is needed so you want to have more trains there anyway. You have the most trains where capacity is needed when interlining.

[lrt's friend]

The problems with interlining as the line approaches capacity means that major decisions have to be made. Yes, the solution may be very expensive but you can only push capacity so far.

I have heard blanket comments suggesting that transfers are always the best choice. But, is that really true?

In the case of Ottawa's Transitways, it has been suggested that community buses must deposit passengers at the Transitway station even if it means emptying a full bus onto another bus. Likewise, if you empty a full train onto another train, it is a total waste and inconvenience for the passengers. It only makes sense when smaller vehicles are meeting bigger vehicles or when only a portion of the passengers are transferring at the same station. When most of the passengers are transferring at the same location and going in the same direction, then interlining should definitely be considered.

[MalcolmTucker]

Emptying a full bus onto an empty bus doesn't make sense, though express buses make a network way more complex. I get why it was done but even a bus tunnel only buys you so much extra ppdph. Outside of rush a transfer network makes way more sense to maintain reasonable frequency on your collector routes.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Evergreen Extension Real time inbound travel with commentary from one of the builders.

• Video Link

I can't wait to ride it when I'm back.

The first three stations are so close together. I'm assuming they're built like that to anticipate the crunch of people moving in to the area now that Coquitlam Centre is in full redevelopment mode. I remember seeing the 15 year plan, and the amount of highrises planned is pretty crazy.

[Metro-One]

The owners of the mall have just hinted that they are wanting to move forward soon with redeveloping the mall parking lots.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have heard the first comment before that you can't do interlining because when the tunnel gets congested, you run into problems.

What do you do?

When you get to this point, you better be building another tunnel just as you have suggested.

Making people transfer, does not resolve the congestion problem. You are still getting to the point where you are trying to move more people than the maximum number of trains allow.

The other comment is that when the demand on one line is lower than the other therefore, you are using valuable train time slots for the less busy line.

That is addressed by running more trains on the busy line and fewer on the less busy line. If that means running a train every 4 minutes on the busy line and a train every 8 minutes on the less busy line, so be it.

I believe that if you run trains on a 10 minute frequency in the suburbs, that is perfectly fine. You still are not waiting very long. If the rail limitation is every 2 minutes, then you can have 5 suburban branches offering 10 minute frequency. In the more central portions of the city, frequency will be better just as we all would want.

The final comment is that we can't do interlining because the tunnel platforms are too small. We need to have every train clean out the station platform. This really suggests that we are undersizing the platforms.

Originally Posted by The Chemist

The problem with interlining, IMO, is that it can reduce the capacity of each individual line on the interlined section, and it is very difficult to add more, since headways are limited. Even if you've got a 2 minute headway between trains, if you're interlining then it's actually 4 minutes between trains of the same line. If you're only staying within the interlined section then this is no problem, but if you're travelling outside the interlined section then it is a problem.

In Shanghai there's an interlined section shared between Lines 3 and 4, and it has lead to a pretty significant capacity crunch on Line 4 particularly since they can't just add more trains to Line 4 as the interlined section is already at capacity. Line 4 is a circular line with a daily ridership approaching 1 million, and now they are looking at ways to increase capacity, but it's not going to be easy or cheap.

Which is why it is a good stop gap measure till a second downtown tunnel gets built.