The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[nname]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Name me one line in Canada that does not have a single issue with it.

Not only for Canada. If you look hard enough, you can find issues with every urban rail lines in the world.

Even with those Asian systems that people praise so much, they have their own issues that we don't have here... such as frequency of service, crowdedness, (fare) integration, etc..

[Metro-One]

That’s a big pet peeve in Japan is that you have separate rail companies in the same city. So you have to buy completely separate passes if you want to use both. Can get very expansive.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Exactly.

I was actually thinking the other day about how quirky all of Canada's urban rail systems are, and how different they all are from each other.

They are all different, and they are loved and hated by the locals. The irony is that love/hate is almost the same across Canada.

Originally Posted by nname

Not only for Canada. If you look hard enough, you can find issues with every urban rail lines in the world.

Even with those Asian systems that people praise so much, they have their own issues that we don't have here... such as frequency of service, crowdedness, (fare) integration, etc..

I'd say we have done a decent job overall in Canada. No one system is better than the others. No one system is worse than the others. The one thing that seems like a good thing is that no one would be against expanding the network in the locale.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That’s a big pet peeve in Japan is that you have separate rail companies in the same city. So you have to buy completely separate passes if you want to use both. Can get very expansive.

Even on a through-run train... you don't need to leave the train but you have to pay separate fares.

I don't know how people deal with it... There are a lot of train lines, but a lot of the lines you cannot take unless you want to pay separate fares. Unlike here if you have a monthly pass, you can take anything you like and don't need to worry about the fare.

And I don't like the fact that a lot of the system terminates downtown dump all commuters to a single station so everyone need to scramble for the the transfer to a different system in an overly crowded station. I believe they are (very slowly) working on connecting the lines so the trains can run through the city without terminating. At least that's the impression I get when I was in Osaka...

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They are all different, and they are loved and hated by the locals. The irony is that love/hate is almost the same across Canada.

You can always find more people complain about their local system than praise them.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I was actually thinking the other day about how quirky all of Canada's urban rail systems are, and how different they all are from each other.

If nothing else, it reflects on the variety of approaches that Canadian transit planners adopted during the late 70s - early 90s, which marked a golden age.

Toronto had its streetcars and heavy subways.
Montreal had its rubber tyred, all underground metro.
Vancouver built an automated, elevated medium rail system.
Calgary built a tram-train network.
Edmonton constructed a Stadtbahn.
Ottawa pioneered the BRT concept with its Transitway network.
Quebec City introduced BRT shoulder lanes with its Metrobus routes.
Winnipeg ran an extremely robust system of express bus routes.

All the major municipalities had a different and distinct approach to rapid transit which subsequently lent a unique 'flavour' to each network. Now that Canada is entering a second golden age (silver age?) it will be interesting to see what new paradigms come into play.

Originally Posted by nname

And I don't like the fact that a lot of the system terminates downtown dump all commuters to a single station so everyone need to scramble for the the transfer to a different system in an overly crowded station. I believe they are (very slowly) working on connecting the lines so the trains can run through the city without terminating. At least that's the impression I get when I was in Osaka...

That is not the impression I get from Osaka at all.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by foolworm

All the major municipalities had a different and distinct approach to rapid transit which subsequently lent a unique 'flavour' to each network. Now that Canada is entering a second golden age (silver age?) it will be interesting to see what new paradigms come into play.

Now Ottawa invented the low-floor LRT ligh-metro along with the single track, diesel, low-frequency urban rapid transit, while Toronto created the hybrid streetcar/subway, with all the disadvantages of surface LRT but with a premium subway cost.

Three new system types that will hopefully never be repeated.

Don't get me wrong, each will serve an important purpose, none shall be a complete failure but some better choices could have been made.

I think the REM may end up the closest thing in Canada to a perfect system, with all the advantages of the Skytrain while adding platform screen doors and climate control. REM 1, at least, as REM 2 might be criticized for capacity in a similar fashion as Canada Line.

[foolworm]

I didn't say any of the systems are 'good', simply that there was variety. I do feel like there's some convergence this time on a common rapid transit template, take for instance the 'second tier metropolises' (Calgary/Edmonton/Ottawa) who are all moving towards a radial LRT system buttressed by BRT.

Speaking of which, have the issues with the airport branch of the REM been settled? Last I heard the Feds were supposed to step up and fund the spur, but I doubt the extension to Dorval will occur.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Now Ottawa invented the low-floor LRT ligh-metro along with the single track, diesel, low-frequency urban rapid transit, while Toronto created the hybrid streetcar/subway, with all the disadvantages of surface LRT but with a premium subway cost.

Three new system types that will hopefully never be repeated.

Don't get me wrong, each will serve an important purpose, none shall be a complete failure but some better choices could have been made.

I think the REM may end up the closest thing in Canada to a perfect system, with all the advantages of the Skytrain while adding platform screen doors and climate control. REM 1, at least, as REM 2 might be criticized for capacity in a similar fashion as Canada Line.

I would argue that seeing Ottawa with a low floor light metro might show smaller cities that they can have a good system at a lower cost.

The ICTS Was first done in Scarborough to show it off. They never really did it well, but, Vancouver took it and ran with it such that it is one of the best and biggest RT systems in Canada.

[Reecemartin]

We decided to go along Eglinton Ave in Toronto recently to see all the progress on Line 5! Heres what we found:

https://youtu.be/ytgb310vDNA

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would argue that seeing Ottawa with a low floor light metro might show smaller cities that they can have a good system at a lower cost.

I would have to agree here, the cost and timeline overuns involved with some LRT projects can be scary for many including my pro-LRT self. I often look at the simpler systems we see in eastern europe and think "Why can't Halifax at least have something like that".

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I would have to agree here, the cost and timeline overuns involved with some LRT projects can be scary for many including my pro-LRT self. I often look at the simpler systems we see in eastern europe and think "Why can't Halifax at least have something like that".

If we look back, Toronto had the streetcars before the subway. An LRT can act the same way, in that it is a good stepping stone till you really need the space.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would argue that seeing Ottawa with a low floor light metro might show smaller cities that they can have a good system at a lower cost.

Ottawa made a poor decision.

We would have been better off building a light metro with higher frequencies and enclosed stations like the REM in Montreal. Higher platforms would have helped enable this.

At the conception of the Confederation Line, there was a thought that some street running might be facilitated in the suburbs, similar to the Eglinton Crosstown in Toronto. This is what drove the use of LRT tramsets, and the low floor design of the stations. But then they ended up building a system that runs in a fully segregated, fully grade-separated, exclusive ROW.

I hope other cities learn from Ottawa and pick technologies and system design philosophies that actually match their operating intentions.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ottawa made a poor decision.

We would have been better off building a light metro with higher frequencies and enclosed stations like the REM in Montreal. Higher platforms would have helped enable this.

At the conception of the Confederation Line, there was a thought that some street running might be facilitated in the suburbs, similar to the Eglinton Crosstown in Toronto. This is what drove the use of LRT tramsets, and the low floor design of the stations. But then they ended up building a system that runs in a fully segregated, fully grade-separated, exclusive ROW.

I hope other cities learn from Ottawa and pick technologies and system design philosophies that actually match their operating intentions.

What is wrong with a low floor vs a high floor?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

I would have to agree here, the cost and timeline overuns involved with some LRT projects can be scary for many including my pro-LRT self. I often look at the simpler systems we see in eastern europe and think "Why can't Halifax at least have something like that".

Halifax flirted with the suburb/CBD development model but the old parts that could have high transit ridership remind me more of European cities, and they are headed back toward that older style of development more than the 70's direction. Inner city Halifax is closer to being a blob of medium density mixed use development than a central business district connected to suburbs via clear corridors. Areas like peninsular Halifax seem to be a better fit for something like streetcars (many small routes) rather than a single main LRT route that could affordably be built there. It is hard to come up with a single direct route that efficiently serves a bunch of destinations but doesn't require an expensive new bridge.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

Halifax flirted with the suburb/CBD development model but the old parts that could have high transit ridership remind me more of some European cities, and they are headed back toward that style of development. Inner city Halifax is a blob of medium density mixed use development, not a central business district connected to suburbs via clear corridors. Areas like peninsular Halifax seem to be a better fit for something like streetcars (many small routes) rather than a single main LRT route that could affordably be built there. It is hard to come up with a single direct route that efficiently serves a bunch of destinations in metro Halifax and doesn't require an expensive new bridge.

If you want to avoid crossing the harbour, take the routes that the busiest buses travel, and use that to connect the transit hubs, and you'd have a great system.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you want to avoid crossing the harbour, take the routes that the busiest buses travel, and use that to connect the transit hubs, and you'd have a great system.

This is the current rapid transit strategy.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...orses-2-rapid-transit-projects-1.5585834

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is wrong with a low floor vs a high floor?

In Ottawa's case, high floor would've been far more suitable due to the current and future anticipated ridership. Low floor leaves little flexibility for seating and standing arrangements, and it's already proved to be a capacity issue during peak hours. The wheel bogeys make certain sections of the trains quite narrow for standing passengers, which makes it very difficult to navigate when the train is packed, and door placement is also a bit wonky as a result of the bogeys.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is wrong with a low floor vs a high floor?

High floor trains have a flat floor, giving transit agencies near limitless configuration options. In contrast, low floor trains have the bogies sticking out of the floor, greatly limiting interior layouts. Only seats can go on the bogies creating narrow aisles, and therefore less floor space for standing room and impeding circulation. The number and placement of doors is also limited.

Edit: Hybrid beat me to it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is the current rapid transit strategy.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot...orses-2-rapid-transit-projects-1.5585834

I like most of it. In general it is good. My only problem with it would be the fact that none of the fast ferry stops are connected to it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

In Ottawa's case, high floor would've been far more suitable due to the current and future anticipated ridership. Low floor leaves little flexibility for seating and standing arrangements, and it's already proved to be a capacity issue during peak hours. The wheel bogeys make certain sections of the trains quite narrow for standing passengers, which makes it very difficult to navigate when the train is packed, and door placement is also a bit wonky as a result of the bogeys.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

High floor trains have a flat floor, giving transit agencies near limitless configuration options. In contrast, low floor trains have the bogies sticking out of the floor, greatly limiting interior layouts. Only seats can go on the bogies creating narrow aisles, and therefore less floor space for standing room and impeding circulation. The number and placement of doors is also limited.

Edit: Hybrid beat me to it.

... So the problem is that you cannot stuff them to the brim with people? That sounds to me like a feature instead of a flaw. I figured that this was what everyone wants to complain about. We should really be trying to fix the sardine can problem. If that is happening, that means there either isn't enough frequency or that there isn't enough lines. Jammed packed trains should not be seen as a success, but as a failure to build more. Having some standees is not bad, but it should not be expected to be so full that a low floor train won't work.

So, for Ottawa, either build more lines or buy more trains.