The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

They say eventually capacity of 15,000 pphpd from what I read.

Underbuilding transit is normal in Canada. The now obsolete Scarborough RT, the bus terminal at Square One operating at 200% capacity, the so-called "BRT" along Albert and Slater in Ottawa. Spending less to pay an even bigger price later on. Maybe Canada Line will be another example, in which case it's name will be fitting. Underestimating transit ridership is a Canadian past time.

That's why I just roll my eyes when people complain that a planned transit expansion will be overbuilt and underutilized. Spadina extension, Scarborough subway, Hurontario LRT, whatever. The ridership is too low. The ridership will be too low. It's just the same old story.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as the normal Canadian method as much as the modern Canadian method. I mean, look at the Toronto subway which was built from the start with 150m long platforms and 3.14m wide trains. Compare that to the Paris metro which was originally built with 75m long platforms (some have since been expanded) and 2.4m wide trains. Other cities like Berlin and Madrid (particularly the oldest lines) and to a lesser extent London, also have shorter and narrower trains. But those cities have much more extensive systems.

Personally I prefer the approach of having modest-capacity individual lines and a larger, more complete network. Building a single line that is solely tasked with providing service to a whole quadrant of a city for a whole century doesn't seem as appealing as saving money by building modest lines then building new ones and expanding service to new areas as the city grows and ridership warrants it. When you have super high-capacity technology, you simply don't want to expand the system to any new area unless it meets a very high threshold for ridership requiring either very high density or a very large catchment area (or both), ending up with a small RT network that requires people to travel long distances by feeder surface routes.

Vancouver has a system currently longer than either Montreal or Toronto's, which covers a larger proportion of the metro area due to being a smaller city. If it was building Toronto subway capacity (which Toronto started doing when it was smaller than present day Vancouver) I doubt this would be true.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Ottawa is finally getting a subway?

2.5 km tunnel through downtown, three stations. This is part of the 12.5 km, 13 station first phase.

[J.OT13]

Ottawa City Councillor Fleury's Twitter;



https://twitter.com/MathieuFleury?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Confederation Line website;



http://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/news/construction-update-174/

[mintzilla]

Can someone explain the opposition to the hurontario lrt line in Mississauga?

Not too familiar with the project but seems like a good idea. Lots of angry folks though but I suspect it’s the same idiots that oppose everything.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure I'd classify it as the normal Canadian method as much as the modern Canadian method. I mean, look at the Toronto subway which was built from the start with 150m long platforms and 3.14m wide trains. Compare that to the Paris metro which was originally built with 75m long platforms (some have since been expanded) and 2.4m wide trains. Other cities like Berlin and Madrid (particularly the oldest lines) and to a lesser extent London, also have shorter and narrower trains. But those cities have much more extensive systems.

Personally I prefer the approach of having modest-capacity individual lines and a larger, more complete network. Building a single line that is solely tasked with providing service to a whole quadrant of a city for a whole century doesn't seem as appealing as saving money by building modest lines then building new ones and expanding service to new areas as the city grows and ridership warrants it. When you have super high-capacity technology, you simply don't want to expand the system to any new area unless it meets a very high threshold for ridership requiring either very high density or a very large catchment area (or both), ending up with a small RT network that requires people to travel long distances by feeder surface routes.

Vancouver has a system currently longer than either Montreal or Toronto's, which covers a larger proportion of the metro area due to being a smaller city. If it was building Toronto subway capacity (which Toronto started doing when it was smaller than present day Vancouver) I doubt this would be true.

Vancouver has a larger system than Toronto because Mike Harris cancelled construction of the Eglinton Subway and truncated the Sheppard Subway to one-third of its original size. Again, short-term cost-cutting for greater greater long term costs (Eglinton Crosstown LRT is much more expensive now than the Eglinton Subway was).

If Vancouver really wanted to save money and maximize the kilometres of rail, then it wouldn't have bothered going underground for Canada Line to begin with. If you are willing to spend all that money bury a line and with wider trains, not being willing to build to alllow for trains longer than 50m seems a bit odd.

You probably know how crowded the TTC subway is. Would 75m platforms and 2.4m wide train really have been a better choice than 150m and 3.1m? If you look at the growth of the Paris Metro and the growth of the Toronto subway since 1953, I think the Toronto subway would not compare unfavourably.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by mintzilla

Can someone explain the opposition to the hurontario lrt line in Mississauga?

Not too familiar with the project but seems like a good idea. Lots of angry folks though but I suspect it’s the same idiots that oppose everything.

Some people here say Hurontario Street is unwalkable so not many people will use the LRT. Apparently, the corridor cannot change and current bus ridership is really bad too.

In Brampton, they rejected having the LRT route on Main Street because apparently Main is too minor a corridor for LRT. Apparently, McLaughlin and Kennedy are the major corridors, lol.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

Vancouver has a larger system than Toronto because Mike Harris cancelled construction of the Eglinton Subway and truncated the Sheppard Subway to one-third of its original size. Again, short-term cost-cutting for greater greater long term costs (Eglinton Crosstown LRT is much more expensive now than the Eglinton Subway was).

The shepperd subway was built with 150m long platforms and full width subway trains on a route that was only even considered for a subway based on projected future employment growth in SCC and NYCC since the ridership wasn't there to justify it at the time. That's less an example of not thinking ahead and more an example of future estimates being wrong. The same thing can happen with any transit project. In terms of Eglinton, the ridership for a full subway wasn't there then nor now. Perhaps if the first proposal was for something less expensive, it wouldn't have been canceled. The original plan from the TTC was for a BRT busway and it was only upgraded to a subway due to political pressure.

Originally Posted by Doady

If Vancouver really wanted to save money and maximize the kilometres of rail, then it wouldn't have bothered going underground for Canada Line to begin with. If you are willing to spend all that money bury a line and with wider trains, not being willing to build to alllow for trains longer than 50m seems a bit odd.

My understanding is that there was a lot of political opposition to an elevated line and there was a push to get the line done in an expedient manner due to the approaching Olympics, which having a lot of lengthy protests and court challenges would have disrupted. Burying it and cutting costs on a platforms was a pragmatic way to actually achieve some progress. And they actually got it done rather than being canceled like the first Eglinton line or half done line Shepperd.

Originally Posted by Doady

You probably know how crowded the TTC subway is. Would 75m platforms and 2.4m wide train really have been a better choice than 150m and 3.1m? If you look at the growth of the Paris Metro and the growth of the Toronto subway since 1953, I think the Toronto subway would not compare unfavourably.

The Paris metro only serves the dense urban core of the metropolitan area and already had an extremely dense network due to its frequent stop spacing, but there has been huge growth in the form of the RER which provides service to the outer areas. It has 76.5 of tunnels which is as long as the whole TTC subway system, so Paris definitely doesn't compare unfavourably. That would be comparable to a Toronto that already had very dense subway coverage of the 416, and mostly needed new service to cover growth in the 905.

But yes, I would probably prefer half the platform length and narrower train in exchange for double the lines and route length if given the choice. As long as there was enough route length in the urban centre like Paris.

[J.OT13]

Confederation Line from Fleury's Twitter.





https://twitter.com/MathieuFleury/status/995352929711394816

Also started running coupled trains;

https://twitter.com/AlstomCanada/status/996028719251718144

[Innsertnamehere]

When is opening day again? Looking forward to coming out for a visit to try them out when it's done. Waterloo is going to open right around the same time..

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

When is opening day again? Looking forward to coming out for a visit to try them out when it's done. Waterloo is going to open right around the same time..

Original hand over date was May 31, but that has been pushed back to November 1. Biggest reason for the delay was the Rideau Street sinkhole in the summer of 2016.

Expected opening date is late November.

Note that the builder, RTG proposed an earlier date (earlier than November, that is), but the City refused. So who knows, it could be just before the municipal election in October so that politicians can say it was delivered "ahead of time".

[ainvan]

The TTC is rolling out a new type of streetcar technology

Toronto's transit system is in the midst of a transformation that will make our streetcars more powerful, agile and reliable — but you won't be able to see a difference unless you look up.

As the TTC rolls out more and more of its new Flexity Outlook streetcars, the agency is also upgrading the technology used to power its vehicles from overhead.

Say goodbye to elaborate "crossing frogs" over major intersections, and wave hello to pantographs (but only on Harbourfront and Spadina. For now.)

Streetcars with trolley poles are more prone to "dewiring" (aka breaking down) and more complicated to make turns with than their more-modern counterparts, according to experts. They also lead to gross, oily build-up on the back windows of new streetcars.

Pantographs, on the other hand, can maintain contact with overhead wires even when they're not perfectly centred, as well as during ice storms and under low-clearance bridges. They also pull in a lot more power, allowing for higher speeds.

BlogTO

[milomilo]

Lol at "new technology". Does anyone else still use such ancient equipment as trolley poles?

[niwell]

All places with trolley bus systems use them still, but in terms of rail networks, IIRC Philadelphia, Hong Kong and parts of the San Francisco and Boston systems do. Probably some other systems around the world

Although not as efficient and less reliable than pantographs, there was no real need for the CLRV cars to be converted. It's much more advantageous with the new streetcars which draw more power, particularly when using a/c.

[WhipperSnapper]

The LOL was premature anyways. The article isn't calling pantograph technology new. It's saying it's new or, in other words, different to the TTC.

[WhipperSnapper]

Just thought of something. Do they got back to the trolley pole when they go out of service? Storage and maintenance facilities are on the 501 line.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The LOL was premature anyways. The article isn't calling pantograph technology new. It's saying it's new or, in other words, different to the TTC.

Yes it was:

The TTC is rolling out a new type of streetcar technology

We all know that's false, but that isn't what their blog headline implies.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'll try again with my reasoning. Are my posts that illegible? I interpret it being new technology for the TTC as they have never used pantographs before. "New" refers to "different", "unfamiliar", "untested" . Pantographs have been around for a hundred years and have been the choice of many systems for decades. No one can be that ignorant to call it "new" as in "advanced", "state of the art", "cutting edge".

It's pretty obvious actually.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

2.5 km tunnel through downtown, three stations. This is part of the 12.5 km, 13 station first phase.

2.5 km is a good start. This is the capital. It should have a proper subway.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I'll try again with my reasoning. Are my posts that illegible? I interpret it being new technology for the TTC as they have never used pantographs before. "New" refers to "different", "unfamiliar", "untested" . Pantographs have been around for a hundred years and have been the choice of many systems for decades. No one can be that ignorant to call it "new" as in "advanced", "state of the art", "cutting edge".

It's pretty obvious actually.

Yes, what they have written isn't technically false, however they are making a big point about using 'new' technology. The layman (ie no one on this board) reading that headline could easily read it to mean that TTC is using an actual new technology (as that is literally what it says), rather than just replacing their trolley poles with the same pantographs everyone else has been using for decades.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by isaidso

2.5 km is a good start. This is the capital. It should have a proper subway.

It's basically a metro system with streetcars.