The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

After visiting Chicago I don't particularly like elevated metros since they obstruct views and although nice when new, they do become outdated and spoil the look of a city at street level.

Chicago's L:


I think Ottawa's approach to building a metro is the most sensible. Underground when it is needed, Only covered if possible and then when there is nothing in the way just leave it on the surface.

I visited Chicago in 2007.

I didn't mind the "El" parts, which is most of the system.

The "Loop" infrastructure that I saw could have used some paint or rust proof work to make it look more well-kept.

I'm not aware how far Ottawa is on its subway/metro/LRT plans.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by Acajack

With few exceptions, it doesn't generally lead to attractive urban environments below the tracks or adjacent to them.

Chicago has an El stop right beside the Chicago Public Library.

That's kind of cool in my books.

[Mister F]

Any elevated line in Toronto wouldn't look like the El. It would be on wide suburban roads like the part of the Eglinton line that's being built at grade. Any impact on the streetscape and residents would be vastly reduced compared to a more urban context. The more central part of the Eglinton line is underground.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Toronto transit seems so chopped up and disconnected to me. Like, what the hell is up with the Scarborough RT? And then Eglington LRT.... and then the RER? Everything should be placed under the same umbrella. Oh and there's hurontario... My head hurts, a wonder people can get around in that city.

There's nothing wrong with different transit modes to meet different needs around an urban region. RER is just an upgrade of several existing commuter rail lines. But you're not wrong. The transit system is completely fragmented, with several municipal systems and a regional system layered on top, each run by different agencies. That results in inconsistent fare structures, lines duplicating each other, complicated service agreements, and confusion for riders. IMO it should all be one integrated system run by a single GTA-wide authority. Have it run roads as well.

[TorontoDrew]

I love the E in the core of Chicago, yes it blocks your view but it has a very Gotham feel to it I like in a city. That being said it's as loud as hell. If Toronto were to do something it would most likely be like the Canada line. But this won't happen not for a long time. The next transit line in the books is the DRL with planning and consultations underway.

-- I bet the E sucks in the winter, Chicago has pretty terrible winters and all of those exposed raised platforms must be hell Dec through March.

[niwell]

I don't think I've made it through the Loop portion of the El once without a delay. And I've ridden it dozens of times. The underground red and blue lines are much more pleasant going through downtown. Except during rush hour when the trains and platforms are full and you see the next one won't be coming for almost 10 minutes... That seemed to happen far too much.

[TorontoDrew]

I agree, as a tourist not in a rush it's fun but I would hate to use it daily.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I agree, as a tourist not in a rush it's fun but I would hate to use it daily.

Even worse to live near it.

[TorontoDrew]

I stayed near Dutch Kills Green in NYC last year facing the elevated subway lines as the merged to cross the Queensboro Bridge. Ya it was loud even with the windows closed. Though I'm sure if I lived next to something like that I would get used to it within weeks. Possibly to a point where you don't even notice it anymore.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Bobert

I think the elevated guideway for the skytrain looks fine. Even the old Expo line guideway doesnt look bad. The Millenium line as well as the Evergreen extension look elegant:

It's an easy and cheap way to bring grade separated transit to the outer reaches. I'm a fan.

It's fine in that context. It wouldn't be as fine with street lined retail in low to midrise buildings.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by niwell

I don't think I've made it through the Loop portion of the El once without a delay. And I've ridden it dozens of times. The underground red and blue lines are much more pleasant going through downtown. Except during rush hour when the trains and platforms are full and you see the next one won't be coming for almost 10 minutes... That seemed to happen far too much.

The EL is pretty much a joke. The passenger levels of every line except maybe the Brown Line doesn't justify a grade separated transit line and the Loop means every one of these lines is already running at over capacity.

[Metro-One]

I really feel like this is a battle of two different worlds.

On one side are those from eastern canada who's direct experience with elevated train guideways comes from older eastern American systems and older European systems.

On the other side are those from western Canada who's direct experience are with the modern system of Vancouver and the modern systems of Eastern Asia.

The modern systems are far less oppressive and are much quieter than their older counterparts.

Even in tight urban contexts they can integrate well with the urban realm. Some of the most interesting / funky areas I have been to in Japan are inundated with modern elevated rail (and even highway) systems.

I would never trade away Vancouver's Skytrain system for an at-grade rail system.

[WhipperSnapper]

I've also seen the Skytrain as it travels along streets through the TOD Centres. It's cleaner looking than the Chicago EL. I don't find it particularly attractive. It would be an absolute eyesore along a stretch like this.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6945411,-...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

There are places a Skytrain could work . However, you can't compare Toronto to Vancouver

[WhipperSnapper]

Skytrain was oringinally Ontario technology. Toronto has the original Skytrain concept line to compare and contrast

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7734255,-...BvI5C-H7Ltt3T22odcqug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7698885,-...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[niwell]

An elevated guideway would work fine on this stretch of Eglinton: https://goo.gl/maps/koXZ96SKAqH2


But it's wide enough to accommodate surface transit and the ridership probably wouldn't justify it. If it were a choice I'd prefer the tradeoff of having the Eglinton LRT underground in the dense central areas with at-grade in suburban ones over an elevated guideway the entire length.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The EL is pretty much a joke. The passenger levels of every line except maybe the Brown Line doesn't justify a grade separated transit line and the Loop means every one of these lines is already running at over capacity.

The Loop really hampers the ability to increase service on any lines other than Red and Blue. They have their own issues as well though. Doesn't help that Red and Brown have to share track for a stretch too. In the case of the Blue line I've heard there are issues with age that make it impossible without a costly retrofit / rebuild. No idea if this is accurate though.

[hipster duck]

Skytrain doesn't run elevated in many of the urban parts of Vancouver, either.

In the places it does, like beside Commercial Drive for a few blocks, or in downtown New Westminster, it is conspicuously hidden by running in the alleyway behind the street itself. The Chicago el does that in a lot of places, too, such as behind Milwaukee through Wicker Park, etc.

In general, I think that Toronto's transit would have been further ahead if they would have embraced ICTS technology in the 80s in the right places. Nobody would have cared if there were a Skytrain line running down Sheppard Ave. East. Had they done that, instead of boring twin subway tunnels, it is very likely that they would have completed the line to Scarborough Town Centre, rather than having a stub subway ending at Fairview Mall.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Vancouver's rapid transit planners pioneered [in Canada] the double-decker cut and cover tunnel, which allows you to build an underground line a little easier in a dense, urban environment. Basically, instead of placing the two tracks side-by-side, or boring two separate tunnels with TBMs, you construct one tall but narrow tunnel where one tunnel box is stacked on top of the other tunnel box. Stations consist of platforms on two floors.

I think that's a strategy that Toronto could actually apply when it builds underground transit in the future.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Skytrain doesn't run elevated in many of the urban parts of Vancouver, either.

In the places it does, like beside Commercial Drive for a few blocks, or in downtown New Westminster, it is conspicuously hidden by running in the alleyway behind the street itself. The Chicago el does that in a lot of places, too, such as behind Milwaukee through Wicker Park, etc.

Even still it's extremely loud. At bars on Milwaukee you pretty much have to halt your conversation when a train goes by. That's more of a product of age / technology though. A modern system using the same ROW would be less intrusive for sure.

Unfortunately Toronto doesn't have contiguous laneways on most arterials - they tend to run for a block or two and stop intermittently. The one north of Bloor and parts of Danforth is actually a product of building the subway line cut and cover just north of the street though. It required a fair amount of expropriation, which at the time was easy enough. I'm sure trying to do it today would be a nightmare.
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think that's a strategy that Toronto could actually apply when it builds underground transit in the future.

IIRC this was the original concept for the Eglinton LRT in the tunneled sections. I'm not entirely sure why they dropped it though.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by niwell

The Loop really hampers the ability to increase service on any lines other than Red and Blue. They have their own issues as well though. Doesn't help that Red and Brown have to share track for a stretch too. In the case of the Blue line I've heard there are issues with age that make it impossible without a costly retrofit / rebuild. No idea if this is accurate though.

That's the problem with the hub-and-spoke system and shared tracks. It's cheaper to build (you basically build a branch off the main line to create a new line) but hampers frequency on said line (and penalizes it's riders) because of limitations on the main one. It's fine for new systems with growing ridership but becomes a problem over the years (a long time) when capacity and frequency become maxed out.

Chicago has that problem and the BART will too at one point (if it doesn't already). It becomes a vicious circle as high frequency is usually what attracts people and gives more capacity... Maxed out capacity discourages riders as well.

[McC]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Another thing worth mentioning is that Vancouver's rapid transit planners pioneered [in Canada] the double-decker cut and cover tunnel, which allows you to build an underground line a little easier in a dense, urban environment. Basically, instead of placing the two tracks side-by-side, or boring two separate tunnels with TBMs, you construct one tall but narrow tunnel where one tunnel box is stacked on top of the other tunnel box. Stations consist of platforms on two floors.
.

Montreal did this on the Green Line at De L'Eglise and Charlevoix stations 30+ years earlier. They used stacked platforms there because of the soil conditions; there was a terrible cave-in during construction.

[jigglysquishy]

Chicago and SF really don't have good RT systems. Obviously New York is it's own beast, but I would say the big three in Canada would take spots 2,3, and 4 in North America.