The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Even in cities with enormous subway networks (Shanghai and Beijing, for instance) buses remain a vital part of any public transportation network. And it's entirely possible to make them electric just like the rails. In Beijing and Shanghai at least 1/3 of the bus fleet is already electric. The city of Shenzhen has announced that ALL of its bus fleet will be electric by 2020. What's wasteful about tackling a major source of urban air pollution? Not to mention that in my experience electric buses are also more comfortable to ride than diesel buses anyway, given their smoother acceleration and quieter interior.

Yeah, that should be a no-brainer to anyone with an once of good sense.

[Alegan]

I've got a question - if transit use increases beyond what LRT is capable of, is it easy to upgrade to subway/heavy rail?
Would entirely new tracks need to be laid?
Also, what about having express subways along the same route as the milk-run, like in NYC? Do entire new lines need to be built in parallel for that?

I'm thinking of the Eglington Crosstown but also whatever might end up linking the Sheppard line to Scarborough Centre. I feel like the waterfront from Cherry to Humber should also be a subway instead of light rail. These are supposed to be massively developed areas and should, ideally, have the tunnels laid while the buildings go up, no?

I mean, I love taking the TTC subways because they're fairly fast compared to street cars which can often get stuck behind other cars and whatnot. But I also like looking at the city out of the window.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Alegan

I've got a question - if transit use increases beyond what LRT is capable of, is it easy to upgrade to subway/heavy rail?
Would entirely new tracks need to be laid?
Also, what about having express subways along the same route as the milk-run, like in NYC? Do entire new lines need to be built in parallel for that?

I'm thinking of the Eglington Crosstown but also whatever might end up linking the Sheppard line to Scarborough Centre. I feel like the waterfront from Cherry to Humber should also be a subway instead of light rail. These are supposed to be massively developed areas and should, ideally, have the tunnels laid while the buildings go up, no?

I mean, I love taking the TTC subways because they're fairly fast compared to street cars which can often get stuck behind other cars and whatnot. But I also like looking at the city out of the window.

I don't think it is practical to add express trains to existing subway lines. The disruption would be too great to maintain existing service while expanding the tunnels to lay more sets of track. You would build additional subway lines instead. This is the purpose of the proposed DRL to take pressure off the YUS subway.

I don't think we have worry about the Eglinton Crosstown. There is plenty of room to increase capacity for the foreseeable future. In any case, modern LRT can reach close to subway capacities by lengthening trains and increasing frequency.

[WhipperSnapper]

http://www.nycsubwayguide.com/subway/step_by_step_guide.aspx

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't think it is practical to add express trains to existing subway lines. The disruption would be too great to maintain existing service while expanding the tunnels to lay more sets of track. You would build additional subway lines instead. This is the purpose of the proposed DRL to take pressure off the YUS subway.

I don't think we have worry about the Eglinton Crosstown. There is plenty of room to increase capacity for the foreseeable future. In any case, modern LRT can reach close to subway capacities by lengthening trains and increasing frequency.

I disagree. The DRL is going to improve transfers at Bloor/Yonge. It won't do much to solve the increasing number of people squeezing onto subway cars north of Bloor. Adding an extra set of tracks along this high density backbone would be a good call and, I believe, will eventually have to happen. Expanding capacity of an existing line just doesn't look as grand politically as a new line.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Alegan

I've got a question - if transit use increases beyond what LRT is capable of, is it easy to upgrade to subway/heavy rail?
Would entirely new tracks need to be laid?
Also, what about having express subways along the same route as the milk-run, like in NYC? Do entire new lines need to be built in parallel for that?

I'm thinking of the Eglington Crosstown but also whatever might end up linking the Sheppard line to Scarborough Centre. I feel like the waterfront from Cherry to Humber should also be a subway instead of light rail. These are supposed to be massively developed areas and should, ideally, have the tunnels laid while the buildings go up, no?

I mean, I love taking the TTC subways because they're fairly fast compared to street cars which can often get stuck behind other cars and whatnot. But I also like looking at the city out of the window.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't think it is practical to add express trains to existing subway lines. The disruption would be too great to maintain existing service while expanding the tunnels to lay more sets of track. You would build additional subway lines instead. This is the purpose of the proposed DRL to take pressure off the YUS subway.

I don't think we have worry about the Eglinton Crosstown. There is plenty of room to increase capacity for the foreseeable future. In any case, modern LRT can reach close to subway capacities by lengthening trains and increasing frequency.

NY subway has 4 tracks. 2 for express, 2 for local service.

Look at 504 King. It is at max load.

DRL will do nothing for EC. It will do something for the lower U for Line 1.

If you really want to do something to alleviate EC, Extend Line 4 to Downsview.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I disagree. The DRL is going to improve transfers at Bloor/Yonge. It won't do much to solve the increasing number of people squeezing onto subway cars north of Bloor. Adding an extra set of tracks along this high density backbone would be a good call and, I believe, will eventually have to happen. Expanding capacity of an existing line just doesn't look as grand politically as a new line.

How do add an extra set of tracks? That is the problem. It amounts to building a new line. You cannot retrofit the existing subway tunnel without shutting down the subway for years.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Alegan

I've got a question - if transit use increases beyond what LRT is capable of, is it easy to upgrade to subway/heavy rail?
Would entirely new tracks need to be laid?
Also, what about having express subways along the same route as the milk-run, like in NYC? Do entire new lines need to be built in parallel for that?

I'm thinking of the Eglington Crosstown but also whatever might end up linking the Sheppard line to Scarborough Centre. I feel like the waterfront from Cherry to Humber should also be a subway instead of light rail. These are supposed to be massively developed areas and should, ideally, have the tunnels laid while the buildings go up, no?

I mean, I love taking the TTC subways because they're fairly fast compared to street cars which can often get stuck behind other cars and whatnot. But I also like looking at the city out of the window.

Nope! Always strikes me as odd when people say developing BRT is short-sighted thinking while developing LRT is forward-thinking. BRT is much easier to dismantle than LRT is, not to mention with a much lower sunk cost.

[Nouvellecosse]

The better idea would be to build a DRL that extends far north to Sheppard or Finch so that Yonge wouldn't have as large a catchment area. Instead of people taking buses from all the way past the DVP or Victoria Park, those people would be routed to the new line. The Yonge line would still be extremely busy due to the amount of density and development near it, but what makes it such an acute issue now is that there are so few subway routes stretching out into the inner suburbs currently.

You do need a large catchment area to support subways with the large size and high frequency of the TTC subways but there's a limit. If you reduce the Yonge line catchment area and route people to the alternate alignment then improvements such as the new signalling system which would allow more frequency and use of the full 150m platforms should be enough. This isn't just a capacity issue either since it's not convenient for people to travel half way across town just to get to the subway.

It might look something like this:


(original image courtesy of urbanrail.net)

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How do add an extra set of tracks? That is the problem. It amounts to building a new line. You cannot retrofit the existing subway tunnel without shutting down the subway for years.

You can build track/stations next to existing track/stations. Otherwise, you mine stations below existing stations. The Yonge line isn't hemmed in by the width of Yonge Street for much of its route. It's not even under Yonge Street at all.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The better idea would be to build a DRL that extends far north to Sheppard or Finch so that Yonge wouldn't have as large a catchment area. Instead of people taking buses from all the way past the DVP or Victoria Park, those people would be routed to the new line. The Yonge line would still be extremely busy due to the amount of density and development near it, but what makes it such an acute issue now is that there are so few subway routes stretching out into the inner suburbs currently.

You do need a large catchment area to support subways with the large size and high frequency of the TTC subways but there's a limit. If you reduce the Yonge line catchment area and route people to the alternate alignment then improvements such as the new signalling system which would allow more frequency and use of the full 150m platforms should be enough. This isn't just a capacity issue either since it's not convenient for people to travel half way across town just to get to the subway.

It might look something like this:


(original image courtesy of urbanrail.net)

That doesn't address the exploding population within the Yonge catchment in the 416. The Downsview line has done little in it's 50 years to attract customers from the Yonge catchment to it. The extension into Vaughan won't bring the relief that was sold to public either.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Nope! Always strikes me as odd when people say developing BRT is short-sighted thinking while developing LRT is forward-thinking. BRT is much easier to dismantle than LRT is, not to mention with a much lower sunk cost.

Why do you think BRT is easier to replace with heavy rail? You think you have to rip out the rail? It's about platform heights and tunnel sizes.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That doesn't address the exploding population within the Yonge catchment in the 416. The Downsview line has done little in it's 50 years to attract customers from the Yonge catchment to it. The extension into Vaughan won't bring the relief that was sold to public either.

The issue isn't attracting people from the core Yonge catchment, but rather making the Yonge catchment cover less population/territory. Unless you're suggesting that without the Downsview route, there wouldn't be people traveling to the Yonge route from significantly further west?

Also, if there were more areas served with subway that also allowed significant density increases, perhaps there wouldn't be such an overwhelming demand for the 416's growth to be funneled into the Yonge line corridor. Few areas of the Downsiew route or the BD line would allow density of the magnitude of NYCC or Yonge/Eglinton, whereas I can imagine a lot of density being added to Don Mills, Warden/Finch, and parts of Victoria Park areas which are already largely highrise but not as tall or densely packed.

Also keep in mind that the Yonge line won't need significant "relief" other than from the parts south of Bloor after the ATC upgrade. If service can go from 26 tphpd to 34 tphpd and trains are extended to 150m, that would increase capacity by nearly 1/3.

[Mister F]

How many cities have a subway system with express and local tracks? How many standard subway lines have been retrofitted to have express tracks after decades of operation?

When a metro line is at capacity the solution isn't to spend billions (probably tens of billions) on an express-local setup. The solution is to build more lines. Especially in a city with subway coverage as sparse as Toronto.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That doesn't address the exploding population within the Yonge catchment in the 416. The Downsview line has done little in it's 50 years to attract customers from the Yonge catchment to it. The extension into Vaughan won't bring the relief that was sold to public either.

Do you have any evidence to support your dismissal of DRL ridership modeling? The Spadina leg of Line 1 runs along a highway median while the DRL will run through some of the city's most densely populated neighbourhoods and up Don Mills. Big difference. Still, the Spadina line intercepts a lot of passengers who would otherwise have to go all the way to Yonge. It's busier than a lot of people give it credit for. The DRL will do the same in the east, only more so.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Why do you think BRT is easier to replace with heavy rail? You think you have to rip out the rail? It's about platform heights and tunnel sizes.

I think, politically, it's much harder to sell a rapid transit project (and for good reason) when, optically, a rapid transit line already exists along the corridor. You already spent $2 billion on the LRT, now you want to spend another $3 billion on a subway along the same street? This is true whether you rip out the rail or not.

Buses require less significant infrastructure. Sure systems like Viva do a fair bit of spending, but it's not really necessary. You don't need fancy stations or red pavement. Dedicated lanes and signal priority is easy enough to reverse if you ever need to upgrade to a metro. And even with fancy bus stations or red pavement, it's not particularly difficult to return the street to its original condition. The same isn't true for LRT.

[swimmer_spe]

What really needs to happen is Smartrack needs to happen. Or GO RER needs to happen. Stations spaced every 2-3km on all lines within the city of Toronto, plus one station in the suburbs.

The next thing needed is a premium needs to be paid for RT, such as the subway. This may drive some people to personal vehicles, or it may have some cycle, or walk. But we need to stop kidding ourselves about the cost of transit.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think, politically, it's much harder to sell a rapid transit project (and for good reason) when, optically, a rapid transit line already exists along the corridor. You already spent $2 billion on the LRT, now you want to spend another $3 billion on a subway along the same street? This is true whether you rip out the rail or not.

Buses require less significant infrastructure. Sure systems like Viva do a fair bit of spending, but it's not really necessary. You don't need fancy stations or red pavement. Dedicated lanes and signal priority is easy enough to reverse if you ever need to upgrade to a metro. And even with fancy bus stations or red pavement, it's not particularly difficult to return the street to its original condition. The same isn't true for LRT.

It seems to me that you're talking about a very specific and limited type of LRT which is LRT that is mostly street-based. If your LRT is basically just long streetcars with dedicated lanes and traffic signal priority then obviously to upgrade to something higher capacity you more or less need to start from scratch. The trains probably can't be lengthened much due to block sizes and frequency can't be increased much due to traffic interactions since if frequency is too high it basically would need a green light all the time preventing cars or pedestrians from crossing. But if you have LRT that's mainly in its own ROW then upgrading its capacity may be as simple as removing some level crossings to allow increased frequency which, with a high level of grade separation, could potentially be as frequent as any metro system.

[lrt's friend]

How you upgrade LRT to a subway just makes me shake my head? This is the ultimate in poor planning because you end up shutting down the line for years in order to complete the transition. It simply will not be done. The inconvenience to the public will be intolerable for very limited benefit. This is what we are experiencing here in Ottawa with BRT being upgraded to LRT. The cost is enormous and the inconvenience will go on for years.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ If it's an LRT that just requires some at-grade crossings to be removed, the new under or overpasses can be built adjacent to the route while the existing service remains operational.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What really needs to happen is Smartrack needs to happen. Or GO RER needs to happen. Stations spaced every 2-3km on all lines within the city of Toronto, plus one station in the suburbs.

The next thing needed is a premium needs to be paid for RT, such as the subway. This may drive some people to personal vehicles, or it may have some cycle, or walk. But we need to stop kidding ourselves about the cost of transit.

Smart Track sounds great but my main concern is that if at serves a very large number of people - like several hundred thousand - then this could overwhelm Union and dump too many people into a small area of downtown whereas a subway would normally have at least 2 or 3 downtown stops. And of course the amount of track upgrades needed to handle the increased train movements may also be an issue.

Also, the existing mainline railways aren't always located in as desirable areas in terms of transit hubs, so you basically force people to come to them rather than building a transit line to the specific spot where it's most appropriate such as to major streets.

I'd rather see both the new subway line AND an increase in high frequency commuter rail. Cities with great transit networks often have a variety of solutions.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ If it's an LRT that just requires some at-grade crossings to be removed, the new under or overpasses can be built adjacent to the route while the existing service remains operational.



Smart Track sounds great but my main concern is that if at serves a very large number of people - like several hundred thousand - then this could overwhelm Union and dump too many people into a small area of downtown whereas a subway would normally have at least 2 or 3 downtown stops. And of course the amount of track upgrades needed to handle the increased train movements may also be an issue.

Also, the existing mainline railways aren't always located in as desirable areas in terms of transit hubs, so you basically force people to come to them rather than building a transit line to the specific spot where it's most appropriate such as to major streets.

I'd rather see both the new subway line AND an increase in high frequency commuter rail. Cities with great transit networks often have a variety of solutions.

You raise a few good points, but I would argue that when you have a transit crisis like Toronto has, low hanging fruit may solve many of the problems while you build more expensive things. Even if you had all GO stations within Toronto serviced every 10 minutes, that would entice enough to use it.

The problem really is, nothing, short of an express track on Yonge will solve the issue on Yonge. Even the DRL won't do enough.