The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I said it was "low hanging fruit".

I think you confuse low hanging fruit in the sense of climate action. Which it isn't. GHG emission mitigation is really complicated because it requires thinking in a very different way than we are used to thinking. Maybe low hanging fruit for you means something we can do today with existing technology-but I don't think that is what it means.

If there are a lot of extra costs to enable reductions, the case that it is low hanging fruit isn't better, it is worse.

Gotta roll in all those costs in the life cycle analysis. Which probably means that instead you get what is happening in real life: when transit garages require major renewal, replacement, or in cases where the system is growing and requires an incremental garage--that a life cycle analysis will still show with all the investments that electrical is better, and the system will be upgraded.

That it is better in the life cycle analysis doesn't mean it is better to depreciate existing assets and build new as replacements before those assets are depleted. Since the costs of those depreciated assets now have to be booked as part of the asset replacement. And when weighing the cost of climate motivated action to be a good idea for extra special climate funds, that reducing emissions at the lowest cost is a smart way to go. Because the goal is to maximize emissions reductions. That you don't fund something with extra special climate money doesn't mean it isn't done eventually, it just means it doesn't get extra special climate funds.

With investments like this, you also have to take into account that over time it is likely the cost of the technology will go down, and the quality of the technology will go up. So for a given dollar amount available today, you might have less emissions reductions than by waiting to do a specific intervention later (more buses converted later can reduce emissions more over time than fewer buses converted today for the same price). So how do you weigh that in a complicated environment which touches the entire economy? You have organizations bid in reduction projects, and you fund the cheapest ones in a reverse auction.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In this route that I created, it would be expensive due to the underground and elevated sections (highlighted by yellow) as well as the street widening for dedicated lanes on Robie and Bayers Rd. Not to mention widening and adding track to the rail corridor. Prince Albert Rd would be made into a sort if King St. pilot situation where measures would be taken to prevent it from being used as an auto thoroughfare and to give transit priority.

I think Halifax is a good candidate for a downtown transit tunnel (similar to what Seattle has, but smaller), and that now is the time to build it because of Cogswell, but that sadly it's so far outside of the transit Overton window there right now that it's unlikely to even be considered.

My reasoning:

- Downtown is very compact. The tunnel would only need to run for 1-2 km.
- Downtown streets don't provide a very good path connecting the important points (e.g. Scotia Square + ferries + south end of downtown + SGR).
- Downtown streets are narrow and putting transit underground would make these streets nicer. Barrington for example could become a street with wide sidewalks.
- There are grade issues downtown and a tunnel alignment could potentially handle them better.
- A tunnel lets people stay inside in winter (connect it up with the pedway system), and the tunnel would not be affected by snow.
- The tunnel could be used for buses or rail.
- The tunnel could one day connect with 2 rail lines that already exist (the north line might actually be better than the south line).

The downside is such a tunnel would mostly not be cut-and-cover. It would run through the slate bedrock under the city. Although that might actually be a pretty good material as far as tunnel construction goes.

[Nouvellecosse]

Honestly, I'm kind of partial to the Buffalo approach where there is a tunnel section outside of downtown to allow for stretches of high speed when there isn't a suitable surface alignment for it. Downtowns normally justify a high density of stops which is very expensive to do in a tunneled section since the stations are one of the main sources of cost but with short spacing between stops there isn't an opportunity for it to pick up much speed. Also, downtowns are usually the most expense section to tunnel due to the high density of utilities and the inevitable surface disruptions.

In our case, I don't know how much time downtown a tunnel would save for transit users, especially such a short section. Plus I'm not sure how moving transit off Barrington would allow wider sidewalks as long as it had regular traffic lanes. Delivery trucks are sometimes just as large as buses.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Maybe low hanging fruit for you means something we can do today with existing technology-but I don't think that is what it means.

Clearly. You are arguing for virtually zero investment until the business case is met for an exceptional high hurdle. So in this case, it's not enough that battery buses even become as cheap as diesel buses. Your logic requires that they become cheap enough to overcome 100% of the initial infrastructure investment on the very first buy. And possibly even that's not enough, because you argue against any early replacement or renewal of infrastructure.

My definition of "low hanging fruit" is pretty simple. Projects that are relatively easier to execute, don't have large regulatory hurdles, aren't going to break the bank and sufficiently fungible, and deliver substantial returns. Putting up charger infrastructure at bus depots would fit this idea.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If there are a lot of extra costs to enable reductions, the case that it is low hanging fruit isn't better, it is worse.

There is literally no technology going forward that will not have an initial adaptation cost. Maybe because I'm in the air force, this is normal to me. We have to respare, retool and retrain every time we induct a new aircraft or capability. I don't see any of that as a reason not to invest in new technology. Especially if the operating costs are cheaper and more stable.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Gotta roll in all those costs in the life cycle analysis.

Wrong. Done properly that initial infrastructure investment should be depreciated over several bus lifecycles. The charging stand should be lasting a lot longer than the buses. But that doesn't take away the cash flow problem that a transit agency may face.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Which probably means that instead you get what is happening in real life: when transit garages require major renewal, replacement, or in cases where the system is growing and requires an incremental garage--that a life cycle analysis will still show with all the investments that electrical is better, and the system will be upgraded.

Are you seriously arguing that transit agencies avoid buying electric buses until they can replace the depot where they are parked? Apply this logic to other transit investments and you'll see how absurd it is.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

And when weighing the cost of climate motivated action to be a good idea for extra special climate funds, that reducing emissions at the lowest cost is a smart way to go.

First, what the hell is "extra special funds"? The federal budget is not a Care Bears club. They can and do allocate funds for adjacent and complementary policies and goals too. This is done all the time in my outfit and elsewhere. In government parlance, often called "opportunity funds". Heck, given that we have two large electric bus makers in Canada (Novabus and New Flyer) and an assembly plant from a foreign OEM (BYD in the GTA), there could well be an argument for supporting BEB infrastructure on industrial development grounds.

Next, you keep talking about alternative ideas in hypotheticals, but don't seem to have concrete examples beyond a handful of methane gas traps at landfills. If there is a better way to spend $2-4 billion, I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

With investments like this, you also have to take into account that over time it is likely the cost of the technology will go down, and the quality of the technology will go up. So for a given dollar amount available today, you might have less emissions reductions than by waiting to do a specific intervention later (more buses converted later can reduce emissions more over time than fewer buses converted today for the same price). So how do you weigh that in a complicated environment which touches the entire economy? You have organizations bid in reduction projects, and you fund the cheapest ones in a reverse auction.

Once again arguing for inaction. You seem to forget that tackling climate change requires a proactive approach because we're on a timeline. We can't simply wait to replace diesel buses when we get around to retrofitting garages and depots in 30 years.

Again though, I would argue that the primary benefit to the operator is a much more stable operating model now that their entire financial model isn't based on a volatile commodity.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In our case, I don't know how much time downtown a tunnel would save for transit users, especially such a short section. Plus I'm not sure how moving transit off Barrington would allow wider sidewalks as long as it had regular traffic lanes. Delivery trucks are sometimes just as large as buses.

I am thinking about the space the buses take up, and the need for higher speed traffic lanes that exists only because of the transit routes. Take out the transit "backbone" aspect of Barrington and Spring Garden Road and the character of the two streets can change to be something more like Argyle (street changed from "traffic sewer" to public space). Argyle still has delivery vehicles.

I think it would save time but a big part of the benefit, perhaps the main advantage, is the improved comfort and convenience, and "uncluttering" of the downtown.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's crazy what Canadian cities gave up in the post-war years, and how little it's a part of the public consciousness. In Winnipeg they usually point to the Panama Canal, or NAFTA, or the 1919 general strike (as if actual communist revolutions weren't going off everywhere that year) as the reason Winnipeg stagnated, but they're silent on how they deliberately ripped out their city's circulatory system and catalyst for growth through the first half of the 20th century. It would take investment in the billions to restore what they casually threw away. It's plausible that if so many Canadian cities hadn't destroyed their transit infrastructure that they would be not only denser and more urban, but larger overall.

Anyway, I think your points about Halifax's decentralized core and challenging terrain outside of it are exactly why it's a good candidate for rail investment. If you can't build a lot of arterial roads, just build higher-capacity rail lines and negate the need for the roads.

Here's what I'm thinking:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1cnoYlhQxbvmLnP5s3gIumPZsUaSnwiB7&usp=sharing

There are notes on all the of the lines if you're interested in reading them.

A few more thoughts:

With this system, almost everywhere in the downtown peninsula would be within 600m of a line.

This isn't a crazy system for a city Halifax's size. In fact, it's pretty comparable to what you'll find in Rostock, Germany. Rostock is pretty similar to Halifax in a lot of ways--it's the east-coast city, it has a similar population (hard to figure out because Rostock has some kind of "regiopolis" setup that obscures its metro population, but it's a little over 400k), and both cities have a generally linear development pattern, strung around an inlet or estuary.

Rostock has an S-bahn line doing the heavy lifting connecting the city with its DDR-era suburban residential districts and the coast. It also has I think 6 tram lines.

It's an appropriate level of service for Halifax now, and will handily support the city's growth for decades to come.

This is all probably politically challenging--if not impossible--but it shouldn't be. That's why it's imperative that smaller cities take on these kind of projects before they sprawl too much, their streets become too rammed with personal vehicles, and car culture dictates everything.

Trams are good. Anglo Canadians are allergic to them--probably because Toronto's system is really bad and because most Canadian drivers would rather remove their own legs than let a more efficient vehicle take away road space--but they work very well all over Europe. Even in mixed traffic. The key is to get them out of mixed traffic whenever possible, keep their stops far enough apart, and not give personal vehicles any signal priority over trams. The TTC commits each of those sins, plus uses a bunch of outdated technology like trolley poles and manual switches.


A final point on the regional/S-bahn line. This is a big project that would best be implemented incrementally, starting immediately. A handful of stops, some track construction, and you could get a single diesel train running on an hourly frequency. Spend the next thirty years improving the system and nobody will even notice what a big, expensive project it was. No need to build a Skytrain network or anything in one shot.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think those lines really illustrates the point someone made earlier when stating "The problem in Halifax is finding one or two good routes for light rail that justify unusually high investment." The rail cut would have been decent for a longer distance commuter line if CN was more cooperative. With some upgrades it would provide a fast and fairly effective route from Bedford and points along the basin to the Halifax shopping centre area, the universities, and downtown. But for a shorter urban line, it's very poor because of the station locations. The parts of the peninsula it passes through aren't very dense with little opportunity for density increases and there would need to be extensive retrofitting to fit the stations including stairs and elevators into the trench (probably significant widening). In other words, t's a very fringe corridor to be sinking a lot of money into. This is even more pronounced with the Dartmouth rail line which is basically useless as a transit route because it's so out of the way from major residential or commercial areas. There are a handful residences in the walkup catchment areas but it's out of the way for any feeder buses and it would be pointless to travel any significant distance to get to it hoping to save a few minutes from its higher speed when a route on main streets like Windmill or Pleasant would get you there just as fast while providing access to more things (like shops and services) along the way.

With the other routes like Chebucto, Barrington and Windsor, it's hard to make an argument for them versus their alternatives such as Quinpool, Robie, and Gottingen. For instance, one might be wider making it easier to allocate a dedicated lane, but another might have more people and destinations along it who might see decreased service after some trips are diverted to the new corridor. A route that's winder might be good as an express route for longer distance trips while a route that's narrower and more densely built up would be better for shorter urban-oriented trips. So which route do you choose?

That's why until this point the diffuse approach of doing cheaper upgrades to more corridors has made sense. This has included the addition of lanes, signal priority and queue jumps at a variety of key areas.

Originally Posted by biguc

Thanks for the response. I'll admit I'm pretty ignorant of the reality on the ground in a lot of these places. That CN line has got to be the most obvious-yet-impossible thing going (it's the same story in Winnipeg) and if it weren't for Canada's awkward privatized rail situation I'm confident Halifax would be all over it. That's why Canada should probably establish a serious national rail company again that can lean on CN in ways municipalities can't. Something like Deutsche Bahn that runs suburban rail lines in German cities of all sizes would be a game changer

More to the logistics of it though, the cut looks like it's pretty wide--certainly wide enough to build a single track with platforms on the outside, and as demand increases to build another track outside that, with whatever digging that needs. It doesn't look too unreasonable to get it up to to St. Vincent in that state and nurse it along like Ottawa's Trillium line, figuring out what you need to change as you extend it.

The tram issues, to me, sound like you're spoiled for choice. I'll admit that I'm partial to transit solutions that displace cars, but whatever your reservations on that, reliable, frequent transit is better than not, and that's easier to accomplish with less lines than more. On the other hand, a nice thing about trams is that it's not crazy to think that if, say, a tram on Chebucto got too busy, that you couldn't also build one on Quinpool. That's a good problem to have, and exactly why I like lines down Robie and Barrington.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Australians love their cars possibly more than any other country on earth - maybe even the US.

I mean Mad Max is Australian after all..


I suspect that space per capita number actually doesn't include basements - which many of those countries in warmer climates typically don't have and are not typically even counted as "habitable space".

Originally Posted by someone123

I am thinking about the space the buses take up, and the need for higher speed traffic lanes that exists only because of the transit routes. Take out the transit "backbone" aspect of Barrington and Spring Garden Road and the character of the two streets can change to be something more like Argyle (street changed from "traffic sewer" to public space). Argyle still has delivery vehicles.

I think it would save time but a big part of the benefit, perhaps the main advantage, is the improved comfort and convenience, and "uncluttering" of the downtown.

The mess with Halifax is we are trying to do it on the cheap, or, trying not to push our weight around.

First of all, the governments throughout Canada need to force the railways to play nice. All major cities from Victoria to Halifax need to have reliable access to the railways for commuter rail.

To fix Halifax, an underground RT is needed. Whether it be buses, LRVs or Subways, Halifax just does not have the road space needed to get transit moving.

If they built a line going from Downtown to Bayers Lake, connecting the major exchanges and spots, it would be well used.

Maybe something will finally get done when stimulus money is thrown around. Probably not though.

[J.OT13]

Jim Watson
@JimWatsonOttawa


I’m pleased that
@OC_Transpo
is fast tracking contactless fare payment technology on its buses and at O-Train stations, giving customers the flexibility to choose from a range of payment options, including credit cards and smart phones.



9:33 AM · Aug 21, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/JimWatsonOttawa/status/1296802628236652547

[GeneralLea]

Good on you Ottawa, that's a smart idea especially in light of this situation going on. I hope to see more transit authorities adopt this technology in the coming years....which I gather will happen to an extent, depending on what have you.

[Dengler Avenue]

Catching up to Metro Van, I see.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Catching up to Metro Van, I see.

Yes! Van is far ahead on many things, including transit. We, along with many other cities, are perpetually catching-up.

Has any other transit agency other than Van and Ottawa implemented, or is about to implement, open payment?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yes! Van is far ahead on many things, including transit. We, along with many other cities, are perpetually catching-up.

Has any other transit agency other than Van and Ottawa implemented, or is about to implement, open payment?

Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton.

[Coldrsx]

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1298269648639553538

Jason Kenney
@jkenney
·
13m
Alberta has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to support a feasibility study of a
@TransPod_Inc
hyperloop between #Calgary and #Edmonton.

If developed, this could mean a fully electrified high-speed corridor between our two cities within a decade.

[Truenorth00]

Hope they can turn it into a park after it fails.

[Coldrsx]

Government of Alberta and TransPod Sign Memorandum of Understanding on Development of a 1000 km/h Hyperloop Transportation System
August 25, 2020
TransPod project poised to create 38,000 jobs and put the province at the forefront of innovation

EDMONTON, ALBERTA – August 25, 2020 – TransPod, the startup that is building the world’s leading hyperloop system (the TransPod system) to disrupt and redefine commercial transportation, today announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Government of Alberta in Canada to support the development of safe, high-speed transportation in Alberta, based on the 1000 km/h TransPod vehicle. The MOU facilitates the process of attracting private investment to the province, in order to build a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project. The project is estimated to create up to 38,000 jobs over 10 years, diversify Alberta’s economy, improve the efficient movement of people and goods, and reduce Alberta’s carbon emissions by up to 300,000 tonnes per year.

The MOU will see Alberta Transportation:

Support TransPod undertaking further study on the feasibility of developing its technology in Alberta
Share available transportation data as appropriate that may assist TransPod in assessing the feasibility of its technology
Work with TransPod officials to identify suitable land that can safely accommodate a test track
Participate in discussions with potential large institutional investors where suitable
No financial commitments or endorsements have been made by Alberta Transportation regarding the TransPod project.

The phases of the Alberta TransPod project are as follows:

Short-term: feasibility study (2020-2022)
Short-term: research and development phase (2020-2024)
Medium-term: test track construction and high-speed tests (2022-2027)
Long-term: construction of a full inter-city line between Edmonton and Calgary (to begin in 2025)

https://transpod.com/2020/08/government-...00-km-h-hyperloop-transportation-system/

[Nouvellecosse]

This is brilliant. What's a better strategy to get Alberta to support intercity rail than proposing it as a pipeline!

[Coldrsx]

If that's the case, pair the Trans Mountain with one that includes a stop in Jasper.

[esquire]

This initiative is a good way to make it look like you're doing something on passenger rail without really doing anything at all.

[ssiguy]

If Transpod wants to work on a proposal what's the problem?

Then again I can see why people are concerned about new technology. There is a proposal by some moron in Europe to put trains UNDERGROUND. How they could come up with such a stupid idea is beyond me.

[Coldrsx]

Less resistance?





*I will be here all week.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Less resistance?





*I will be here all week.

Read up on it. The idea is that a vacuum provides less air resistance, which is one of the hardest force to overcome.