The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I want to be on Queen Street East if I'm hopping along several blocks at a time doing my thing. A commuter line serving this catchment but positioned on Lake Shore going 80 kilometres an hour with only 2 to 3 stops doesn't help me at all.

This is an excellent point.

[TorontoDrew]

I find those who usually have the loudest anti-LRT voices are those to cherish driving themselves around and who rarely use public transit in the first place. An LRT does more to help build up an urban artery then a subway will do. Subways are great at building hubs.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

To be fair, Montreal's REM has been labeled an LRT.

Mind you, they are doing it right.

Rapid transit

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

True, although I think milomilo was comparing high floor LRT with low floor LRT, all else being equal.

I would agree with him. I think low floor LRT is an inferior choice in almost all respects except integration of the station with the street environment in a dense, enclosed urban area.

If I'm not mistaken, low floor LRT compromises internal layout, capacity and passenger movement since the trucks (bogies) take up a lot of space that would normally just be under the floor. This leads to a narrow gangway that people can't move around in, so they just stand in various clumps rather than spreading around the car. I would need confirmation on this, but I think the cars might be more expensive and trickier to maintain, since all the electromechanical components have to be on the roof, or more compactly housed under the floor. Low floor LRVs and low floor platforms are certainly less useful for people in wheelchairs, since you don't actually have level boarding and there are the aforementioned circulation problems.

If agencies must use low floor platforms for legacy purposes, like the TTC streetcar, I don't know why they insist on buying 100% low floor LRVs. Partially low floor LRVs are a dime-a-dozen and their internal circulation isn't any worse. It's not like someone with a wheelchair can make it past the narrow gangway between the trucks anyway.

I really don't understand why 100% grade-separated systems with no intention of ever running LRTs on the streets insist on low floor (e.g. Ottawa).

This is why I hate buses in Toronto. The efficiency of low floor boardings and disembarkments is completely negated by the narrow passage between the wheel wells which someone always claims as their own. No one speaks up either. They contently squeeze themselves past the white line when entire bus awaits them passed that one ignoramus. It's no different for the rear doors now that all door boarding has become reality.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm so happy that Montréal hasn't drank the LRT koolaid and hasn't any LRT projects planned.

LRT is the only way for modern cities to catch up and create a transit system at scale. No modern Canadian city can afford or justify building subways as the start of their rapid transit system. For all of its warts, the Calgary example has shown to be successful within the context of North America's typical urban densities.

The real crime is when cities neglect to grow their already established heavy rail metros and are then forced to go the LRT route; Washington D.C. and Toronto come to mind.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I really don't understand why 100% grade-separated systems with no intention of ever running LRTs on the streets insist on low floor (e.g. Ottawa).

Originally they were planning to run it on the street at certain locations, which is why they went with low floor. And since it will mainly be a long-distance commuter system, I guess low-floor isn't the end of the world since more seats are required.

Low-floor is also better in the sense that people with certain anxieties might be more relaxed on a platform where the drop is only 2 feet instead of a massive 4-5 foot pit. I would imagine it will also reduce suicide cases.

It sounds like I'm defending the decision, but I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate (or trying to convince myself it's ok to have low-floor).

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by osmo

The real crime is when cities neglect to grow their already established heavy rail metros and are then forced to go the LRT route; Washington D.C. and Toronto come to mind.

I think there's at least some hope for Toronto, with the planned Scarborough express subway and the D.R.L.

I get that they're plans, but it shows that the city hasn't decided to stop expanding the subways altogether. I'm curious what DC is doing.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by osmo

LRT is the only way for modern cities to catch up and create a transit system at scale. No modern Canadian city can afford or justify building subways as the start of their rapid transit system. For all of its warts, the Calgary example has shown to be successful within the context of North America's typical urban densities.

The real crime is when cities neglect to grow their already established heavy rail metros and are then forced to go the LRT route; Washington D.C. and Toronto come to mind.

Exactly. LRT is perfect for medium-sized cities like Kitchener or Hamilton. Would be a good option for Winnipeg too.

[WhipperSnapper]

Calgary's transit success owes a lot to the job clustering in the downtown. Lots of white collar jobs. And wealthy companies that can afford to pay peak rents. It's a different story altogether if you're travelling within your community than heading downtown to work.

[osmo]

I'm surprised Winnipeg does not at least have one tunnel from the old days when it was one of the larger and prominent cities in North America. Lots of rust belt cities have at least one metro subway from older days when they were boom towns. I wonder if Winnipeg had some plans that fell on the floor to build a metro tunnel in the downtown for the old streetcars.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Calgary's transit success owes a lot to the job clustering in the downtown. Lots of white collar jobs. And wealthy companies that can afford to pay peak rents. It's a different story altogether if you're travelling within your community than heading downtown to work.

Yes, as Calgary does have a tight cluster of its office jobs downtown. Edmonton still has lots of office parks that are scattered around in comparison. Calgary also benefited from aggressive parking restrictions downtown which made it less of a hassle to just drive to the LRT station and take the train to work. It is very much a commuter train masquerading as a city metro, but it serves its purpose well.

[lrt's friend]

This has been debated in the Ottawa board at length and it is gotten to the point that many believe that we have two choices, buses in mixed traffic or a completely segregated rail or bus solution.

The cost of total segregation especially in urban areas is enormous. The outcome is that it often is reserved mostly for suburban commuting as it is true 'rapid' transit. In an urban situation, we are restricted almost entirely to subways, which only the biggest cities can afford or justify.

But there is an inbetween solution, that is better buses in mixed traffic but not fully segregated. The cost is in between and gives intermediate results. Faster than buses in mixed traffic, but not at subway speeds. There needs to be a cost/benefit analysis to assess whether a subway or buses or something in between (possibly LRT} is the best solution.

On the Ottawa board, there is a lot of talk that buses should suffice for local transit and we can improve the right of way with bus lanes and signal priority. The problem is that it doesn't seem to happen. The big ticket projects are getting all the money.

Those big ticket projects are so expensive that chances are you will not be able to walk to them. So how do we improve local transit? Is this not what Edmonton is proposing? An enhanced local transit system as opposed to a very very expensive 'rapid' rail line. If it is a more local solution, why do we need elaborate stations? In fact, that kind of station just does not fit in those situations.

I understand why Montreal is building REM. Montreal is a much bigger city than Edmonton, and a new Champlain bridge is being built offering a unique opportunity to improve transit to the south shore, and to the underserved West Island and northwest. Distances are longer so the need for a completely traffic free route is of upmost importance.

In Ottawa, some are complaining that the one very expensive line now under construction is mainly benefiting those in the suburbs and doesn't come close enough to them, while local bus service is increasingly clogged in traffic or seems to be a low priority to the transit planners. The intermediate solutions seem to be discarded. But the truth is the one very expensive project is just absorbing almost the entire transit capital budget. That is the risk in mid-sized cities.

I am not sure why there is an ongoing debate concerning low floor or high floor LRVs or heavy rail. It all depends on the number of passengers that are being moved and the distances to be travelled and station spacing. Modern technological advancement means that the differences are becoming less distinct. I have heard criticism about Ottawa's choice, but low floor LRVs have mostly replaced high floor. Former flaws concerning train capacities and speeds have been eliminated and a completely low floor vehicle is best for the disabled. So a low floor LRV can now travel at speeds that make them suitable for commuting and can come close to subway capacities.

[someone123]

Here's a new BRT system proposed for Halifax.

Halifax already has a BRT type service called MetroLink that goes out to Portland Hills and Sackville. Most of the improvements on the Halifax side would be new. There are some special signals on the Halifax side now but as far as I know there are no dedicated bus lanes.



Report: https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/bus-rapid-transit

This would complement commuter rail and the ferries. It provides pretty good coverage of the inner parts of the city. Halifax's current bus system is built around a complicated set of long routes that match up different outer suburbs with parts of the inner city without transfers. In the future maybe those outer routes will be rejigged a bit to connect up to the main corridors.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by osmo

I'm surprised Winnipeg does not at least have one tunnel from the old days when it was one of the larger and prominent cities in North America. Lots of rust belt cities have at least one metro subway from older days when they were boom towns. I wonder if Winnipeg had some plans that fell on the floor to build a metro tunnel in the downtown for the old streetcars.



Yes, as Calgary does have a tight cluster of its office jobs downtown. Edmonton still has lots of office parks that are scattered around in comparison. Calgary also benefited from aggressive parking restrictions downtown which made it less of a hassle to just drive to the LRT station and take the train to work. It is very much a commuter train masquerading as a city metro, but it serves its purpose well.

The parking restrictions in downtown Calgary have been overstated for years. There are restrictions unlike many North American cities. They aren't particularly aggressive from a Canadian standpoint. Yeah, I'm nitpicking because they certainly impacted C Train usage. They could gone even farther to get more on the C Train.

[nephersir7]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I understand why Montreal is building REM. Montreal is a much bigger city than Edmonton, and a new Champlain bridge is being built offering a unique opportunity to improve transit to the south shore, and to the underserved West Island

"entitled" would be more apt than "underserved", but I digress.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by osmo

LRT is the only way for modern cities to catch up and create a transit system at scale. No modern Canadian city can afford or justify building subways as the start of their rapid transit system. For all of its warts, the Calgary example has shown to be successful within the context of North America's typical urban densities.

The real crime is when cities neglect to grow their already established heavy rail metros and are then forced to go the LRT route; Washington D.C. and Toronto come to mind.

I disagree completely. Vancouver's SkyTrain has been a success and can be even cheaper than LRT in infrastructure, faster and cheaper to operate. It also integrates better, IMO, in the urban fabric than either Edmonton or Calgary's LRT systems.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It also integrates better, IMO, in the urban fabric than either Edmonton or Calgary's LRT systems.

We will always disagree on that

[lrt's friend]

Any transit line that spaces stations 1 to 2 km apart isn't really well integrated into the urban fabric. It is rapid transit designed for longer distance commuters. We can debate integration into urban fabric but that is my opinion.

[ClaytonA]

Webcam of Calgary's 17 Ave SE girder placement over Deerfoot Trail.

https://app.oxblue.com/open/cityofcalgary/deerfoottrail

Looks like the first one was placed about 1AM.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

... It also integrates better, IMO, in the urban fabric than either Edmonton or Calgary's LRT systems.

The only place you could make this argument is downtown on 7 Ave (yes, but very high density and on/offs) and 36 St NE. 36 St NE is horrible for all other modes and acts like a barrier separating both side of the street.

Otherwise on Memorial, Crowchild, most of Bow Tr/17 Ave it is practically in the median of a freeway. South LRT uses a CPR rail line. It approximates grade separation which is why it works. Anyone working for the city will tell you 7 Ave is a huge headache.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

The only place you could make this argument is downtown on 7 Ave (yes, but very high density and on/offs) and 36 St NE. 36 St NE is horrible for all other modes and acts like a barrier separating both side of the street.

Otherwise on Memorial, Crowchild, most of Bow Tr/17 Ave it is practically in the median of a freeway. South LRT uses a CPR rail line. It approximates grade separation which is why it works. Anyone working for the city will tell you 7 Ave is a huge headache.

How that integrates well in the urban fabric?