The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[ssiguy]

^^^ but you don't build a transit system to last 40 years but rather 140.

I do think that the SkyTrain platforms being expandable to 105 meters will probably meet that challenge but the CL never will.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver's SkyTrain stations, nearly uniformally, suffer from 3 main issues. Few have more than one entry/exit point, many have no down escalators and are concrete and when running down the stairs to catch your bus in Vancouver moist climate, the stairs are often slippery and hence can be rather hazardous.

As opposed to carpeted stairs ? I guess traction could be added but I am not sure if it is a priority since there aren't many reported cases.

The biggest shortcoming of all SkyTrain stations are, of course, their very small sizes. The largest stations can only hold 72 meter trains which is little more than the capacity of 3 standard subway/mMetro trains. Thankfully the Expo/Mill/EG lines were designed to be expandable to roughly 105 meters so expansion is possible. The CL line tations are truly Mickey Mouse being only 40 meters expandable to only 50 which is shockingly and irreponsibly short sighted. This is made even worse by the platforms being rather thin.

Yes x3. Everything surrounding the Canada Line and the Olympics was all underbuilt IMO. And that includes Olympic village..

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

^^^ but you don't build a transit system to last 40 years but rather 140.

I do think that the SkyTrain platforms being expandable to 105 meters will probably meet that challenge but the CL never will.

Canada Line current capacity is what - 6,100 pphpd? Next year it will be at over 8,000 with the additional cars, and it has a theoretic max of 15,000. Any current congestion has to do with choices made about service levels. Not choices during design. There is plenty of room on the way towards 15,000. And no, building for 140 years is a choice to focus resources on a small catchment and to wait. For less money on a life cycle basis when the line does get close to capacity, a second line can be built that then opens up an entirely new service area for development and connects more destinations.

The main sky train lines which have a way larger catchment are even now only approaching demand near that 15,000 level.

There were lots of complaints about the Canada line: serving the wrong corridor for political reasons (a different corridor than the NDP preferred), and using a P3 process, and not preferring sky train tech. Every complaint comes down to those.

If the government had spent a lot more, or built one with less track and stations, and built 25,000 ppdph system the argument opposed would be it was a white elephant - too expensive, serving too few people, built for political reasons for a favoured constituency.

[Nouvellecosse]

Personally In don't see an issue with a city/metro the size of Vancouver building lines with Canada Line capacity given that most of Paris's metro trains don't have much more capacity than that in an urban area 5x larger. The difference is that there, if a line gets too busy they build another one serving an adjacent area siphoning off some of the riders who are traveling farther to reach the first line. This not only increases system capacity but also to expands coverage. I'm sorry but I totally disagree with the idea that you should build a line with such over-the-top inflated capacity that you won't need a new line in the area for 140 years.

The Canadian model of having a small number of really high capacity lines that people have to travel for ages on feeder buses to reach kinda sucks imo. A mesh of lower capacity lines distributing service across the city is much better. Not just in terms of transit planning but in terms of urban planning in general since density can be spread more evenly across the city in the form of human-scaled development rather than having vast areas of low density SFHs and nodes of super high density TODs. Nodal highrises surrounded by SFHs does not make for what I'd consider an attractive city.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Personally In don't see an issue with a city/metro the size of Vancouver building lines with Canada Line capacity given that most of Paris's metro trains don't have much more capacity than that in an urban area 5x larger. The difference is that there, if a line gets too busy they build another one serving an adjacent area siphoning off some of the riders who are traveling farther to reach the first line. This not only increases system capacity but also to expands coverage. I'm sorry but I totally disagree with the idea that you should build a line with such over-the-top inflated capacity that you won't need a new line in the area for 140 years.

The Canadian model of having a small number of really high capacity lines that people have to travel for ages on feeder buses to reach kinda sucks imo. A mesh of lower capacity lines distributing service across the city is much better. Not just in terms of transit planning but in terms of urban planning in general since density can be spread more evenly across the city in the form of human-scaled development rather than having vast areas of low density SFHs and nodes of super high density TODs. Nodal highrises surrounded by SFHs does not make for what I'd consider an attractive city.

I concur. There's still much capacity left even now.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

As for the sky train - it will have made it 40 years or more without those longer stations. Would there have been fewer stations if every station had had to be larger from day 1? How much lower would frequency have been over the years with the temptation to keep trains set up at their maximum length most of the time? Those choices have costs, either capital or from the users.

But this is precisely what's wrong with the Canadian approach to so many things. We don't build it right the first time. We engage in perpetual piece meal projects to patch the hole in the dam. Other times we try to kill 2 birds with 1 stone (Toronto needs a Downtown Relief Line and a Queen Line but will build just 1 line to satisfy both) and don't end up doing either thing particularly well.

Some things cost a lot of money and one simply has to bite the bullet.

[ssiguy]

The CL doesn't have 15,000 pphpd but only 12,000 and realistically only 10. The higher figures assume that everyone is 100 pounds and are willing to hyperventilate. This is a AIRPORT line with people who have huge amounts of luggage and serves 2 colleges where students carry their napsacks. Also the line can never run at the frequencies of every 90 seconds due to Waterfront Station.

Translink has a policy of keeping one train at the end of the station in case of a breakdown which is a prudent measure. The problem is that they didn't build the stations with that in mind. That means that Waterfront has a train that is stationary one one side meaning that trains have to arrive/depart every 45 seconds on the same small platform. Of course Richmond Centre and YVR can't have any stationary trains due to having only one-sided platforms.

[MalcolmTucker]

Procedures will adapt. If renovations are needed renovations will be done. Nothing wrong with that. The costs will still be lower than if the line was built to a final state originally.

And Toronto building another line is what I am talking about. Because Toronto could have looked at New York and decided that Yonge would have eventually needed local and express tracks. They got 50 years of service before things started getting close to their capacity as designed. So they added incremental capacity through trains which held more people, and are building a new signalling system to add even more. They debottlenecked the system where they could with Union Station TTC changes.

It isn’t the fault of Yonge that the TTC hasn’t built another line. The solution wasn’t to have made Yonge even beefier to begin with.

[swimmer_spe]

In Canada, most people view transit as the following:

-For poor people who cannot afford a car.

- For students who cannot afford a car.

- Taxpayer money that could be spent on roads, or be given as a tax break.

- Too expensive.

And my favourite .... if you can find a seat, it isn't busy enough.

This attitude needs to change before we have good meaningful transit.

[Chadillaccc]

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Even here in (formerly) car-oriented Calgary, public transit is viewed very favourably, and a ton of the daily ridership are people making 6 figures.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Even here in (formerly) car-oriented Calgary, public transit is viewed very favourably, and a ton of the daily ridership are people making 6 figures.

So, when will commuter rail be a thing there? (and that proves my point)

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In Canada, most people view transit as the following:

-For poor people who cannot afford a car.

- For students who cannot afford a car.

- Taxpayer money that could be spent on roads, or be given as a tax break.

- Too expensive.

And my favourite .... if you can find a seat, it isn't busy enough.

This attitude needs to change before we have good meaningful transit.

I don't agree with this for the country's major cities. Smaller cities, perhaps some parts of it, but it's mostly about inconvenience in small cities vs these reasons, at least from my perspective and experience living in Vancouver and Toronto and more recently Kamloops and Kelowna.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I don't agree with this for the country's major cities. Smaller cities, perhaps some parts of it, but it's mostly about inconvenience in small cities vs these reasons, at least from my perspective and experience living in Vancouver and Toronto and more recently Kamloops and Kelowna.

To prove I am wrong, get a seat on a Skytrain/Streetcar/Subway or even a bus during rush hour. If at all stops/stations you can do this, we have good transit. Otherwise, you proved my point.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, when will commuter rail be a thing there? (and that proves my point)

When a significant % of the population live outside of the city? Where would these commuters come from?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, when will commuter rail be a thing there? (and that proves my point)

Not really. All the potential lines are either already served by LRT or have massive infrastructure costs because they are are on the freight mainline which is maxed out train wise. Beyond that there are big intercept lots that feed the LRT and our true suburbs both are still not large enough, and The other one doesn’t even have a high enough commuting % to be included in the CMA.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

When a significant % of the population live outside of the city? Where would these commuters come from?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not really. All the potential lines are either already served by LRT or have massive infrastructure costs because they are are on the freight mainline which is maxed out train wise. Beyond that there are big intercept lots that feed the LRT and our true suburbs both are still not large enough, and The other one doesn’t even have a high enough commuting % to be included in the CMA.

Looking at it more, you might be right; there is nothing close. The places on my mind were over 200km away, like Lethbridge and Brooks.

As far as the tracks.... GO, EXO and WCE all run on busy freight lines.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

To prove I am wrong, get a seat on a Skytrain/Streetcar/Subway or even a bus during rush hour. If at all stops/stations you can do this, we have good transit. Otherwise, you proved my point.

Using that metric Japan has a horrendous transit system.

If anything a lack of available seats can be used to prove the opposite of your point.

It can easily be used to show that public transit is actually a popular choice of commuting with the general public and it can’t keep up with the demand. No different than jammed freeways.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Using that metric Japan has a horrendous transit system.

If anything a lack of available seats can be used to prove the opposite of your point.

It can easily be used to show that public transit is actually a popular choice of commuting with the general public and it can’t keep up with the demand. No different than jammed freeways.

The widest highway in North America is in the GTA. Highway 401 by Pearson Airport has 9 thru lanes per side. It is not enough. We keep widening highways, but congestion is getting worse. Meanwhile, people complain that the government is spending money on subways, LRTs and other rail transit. The problem is, we have too many people without enough ways to move them.

So, lets use a better metric, You can always get on the next train/bus that arrives during rush hour. I know for a fact that you cannot do that in Toronto. Other cities are likely that bad too sometimes.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As far as the tracks.... GO, EXO and WCE all run on busy freight lines.

Not entirely comparable. Around Calgary it is single track with sidings to add capacity. The mainline supports 35+ large trains a day right now. Up a bit after a debottlenecking project a few years ago. This isn’t the case of a busy line where things can be rearranged to work with a reasonable amount of money and the cooperation it buys. To rent capacity isn’t to just displace something locally into a local alternative path, but to send things 100s of km away through the Crowsnest Pass, a longer and higher route.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]