The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

... So the problem is that you cannot stuff them to the brim with people?

Which is usually necessary at rush hour.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

In real life, budgets aren't unlimited. So transit agencies will only buy as many trains as they need for projected rush hour loads. So what we have in Ottawa are trains that are actually more uncomfortable for riders. Limited seating and narrow passageway between seats for riders to stand in.

Not to mention cost. LRT rolling stock is usually more expensive for less capacity. Trams have be designed to "interact" with cars on the road. And there's a cost to that. A cost Ottawa paid for a capability they now have no intention of using.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which is usually necessary at rush hour.



In real life, budgets aren't unlimited. So transit agencies will only buy as many trains as they need for projected rush hour loads. So what we have in Ottawa are trains that are actually more uncomfortable for riders. Limited seating and narrow passageway between seats for riders to stand in.

Not to mention cost. LRT rolling stock is usually more expensive for less capacity. Trams have be designed to "interact" with cars on the road. And there's a cost to that. A cost Ottawa paid for a capability they now have no intention of using.

..... Sounds like a politician's response.

I know that there is a budget for it.
I know they think that a full train means no one can move.
I know that adding trains cost money.

I also know that the solution is obvious, but most tend to ignore it.

[casper]

Originally Posted by foolworm

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.

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

Each system had to deal with certain early compromises that today are to costly to undo.

Skytrain in Vancouver has fairly narrow cars on the Expo and Millenium line. The reason for this is there was a very old railway tunnel under the downtown core that connected railway yards at both ends. They wanted to save money by reusing the single track tunnel by double stacking the train. That resulted in a narrow train and the use of a third rail for power. That choice forced a fully segregated system.

The initial skytrain route was on a disused inter-urban line that originally have overhead power. If it were not for wanting to reuse the 1930s Dunsmuir tunnel there is a very good chance Vancouver would have ended up with something similar to Calgary, Edmonton or Ottawa. We lucked out in Vancouver.

Canada line is a weird system SNC Lavalin proposed that used more conventional size cars and propulsion technology. By that point Vancouver was very must into segregated and high floor systems.

As for Ottawa I think it was mistake to do low floor. It can't be undone it will forever live with that mistake. The same as Calgary and Edmonton.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

..... Sounds like a politician's response.

I know that there is a budget for it.
I know they think that a full train means no one can move.
I know that adding trains cost money.

I also know that the solution is obvious, but most tend to ignore it.

Well I'm not a politician.

I'm a realist, taxpayer and transit users who thinks it's boneheaded to buy rolling stock that is more expensive and has less space for passengers simply because you thought that you might possibly use them on the street at some point in the future.

When they realized they had no intention at all of street running, they should have switched rolling stock.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Well I'm not a politician.

I'm a realist, taxpayer and transit users who thinks it's boneheaded to buy rolling stock that is more expensive and has less space for passengers simply because you thought that you might possibly use them on the street at some point in the future.

When they realized they had no intention at all of street running, they should have switched rolling stock.

That switch could have been more expensive than just going with the plan.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

... 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.

The trains are packed like sardines anyway. Those lucky enough to get a seat have a little breathing room, but those standing do not. Because of the packed, narrow aisles, there's a reasonable chance you miss your stop because you can't get to the door in time. Sometimes no one gets in because it takes too long for people to get out.

Furthermore, by having low-floor, you can't have full automation. Because of this, we have 4 cabs wasting space. Both the Expo and Confed have the same ultimate capacity, but Confed will have 120 meter trains vs Expo's 80 meters. Expo has a more efficient use of space.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The trains are packed like sardines anyway. Those lucky enough to get a seat have a little breathing room, but those standing do not. Because of the packed, narrow aisles, there's a reasonable chance you miss your stop because you can't get to the door in time. Sometimes no one gets in because it takes too long for people to get out.

Furthermore, by having low-floor, you can't have full automation. Because of this, we have 4 cabs wasting space. Both the Expo and Confed have the same ultimate capacity, but Confed will have 120 meter trains vs Expo's 80 meters. Expo has a more efficient use of space.

Why can't you have full automation?

[ssiguy]

Unfortunately, Toronto jumped on the US LRT band wagon and the biggest mistake is Eglinton.

The reason LRT came back into style 40 years ago was because it offered faster, higher capacity, and a more comfortable ride than buses but didn't come with the subway price tag. Back then most systems used old right of ways and had far higher levels of priority. Examples of course are like Calgary's CTrain and Edmonton LRT. Now they have morphed into glorified streetcars without neither the bus affordability nor high capacity, speed, and automation options of subway.

A transit system {like highways} are only as good as their weakest links and Eglinton has 10 km of it and because it goes down a street it is regulated by the street speed limit of a maximum 60 km/hr filled with lights and stops...........definately not rapid transit but with a rapid transit price tag.

[Good Baklava]

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 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.

That’s a good point, I’d be happy with any form of rail transit with its own ROW. My assumption is that streetcars would also be cheaper.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Unfortunately, Toronto jumped on the US LRT band wagon and the biggest mistake is Eglinton.

The reason LRT came back into style 40 years ago was because it offered faster, higher capacity, and a more comfortable ride than buses but didn't come with the subway price tag. Back then most systems used old right of ways and had far higher levels of priority. Examples of course are like Calgary's CTrain and Edmonton LRT. Now they have morphed into glorified streetcars without neither the bus affordability nor high capacity, speed, and automation options of subway.

This is exactly why I'm not happy with the Eglinton streetcar....especially since developers are justifying their developments for what's seen by a fair chunk of Torontonians as a subway, when it's really not. Traffic will make this thing run pretty poorly IMO....but we'll see.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That switch could have been more expensive than just going with the plan.

And paying that cost would have been entirely worthwhile to both transit users and to future plans.

Also, they made that decision fairly early. Before anything was even put out for RFP/tender. So no vehicle was picked at that point.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Furthermore, by having low-floor, you can't have full automation. Because of this, we have 4 cabs wasting space. Both the Expo and Confed have the same ultimate capacity, but Confed will have 120 meter trains vs Expo's 80 meters. Expo has a more efficient use of space.

Yep. We built stations probably 50% larger than needed because we made the wrong choice on rolling stock. Worse yet, we didn't get the platform screen doors, climate controls, and frequencies they Montreal is getting with REM.

Heck, they can't even figure out how to uncouple the LRVs without causing a fault. Which could well be contributing to poor off-peak frequencies.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why can't you have full automation?

It's not the low floor itself that causes it, but the only reason to have low floor is so you can run the trains on streets - a non segregated ROW. Which is incompatible with automation, currently and probably for our lifetimes.

So if you do want an automated system (like Ottawa built), the question is why the hell you used objectively inferior low floor trains when they offer no benefit.

Calgary is making a similar mistake. The only portion of the Green Line that would benefit from low floor is the portion of the line we definitely should not build as envisioned (median running on Centre Street), and probably never will build. So why are we building a low floor system when it's all cost and no benefit?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And paying that cost would have been entirely worthwhile to both transit users and to future plans.

Also, they made that decision fairly early. Before anything was even put out for RFP/tender. So no vehicle was picked at that point.

So, a re-engineering of a plan? That also would have seen the construction get delayed at least a year or more to do that. And engineers aren't cheap.

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's not the low floor itself that causes it, but the only reason to have low floor is so you can run the trains on streets - a non segregated ROW. Which is incompatible with automation, currently and probably for our lifetimes.

So if you do want an automated system (like Ottawa built), the question is why the hell you used objectively inferior low floor trains when they offer no benefit.

Calgary is making a similar mistake. The only portion of the Green Line that would benefit from low floor is the portion of the line we definitely should not build as envisioned (median running on Centre Street), and probably never will build. So why are we building a low floor system when it's all cost and no benefit?

Likely because the costs to change might have not been worth it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Likely because the costs to change might have not been worth it.

Calgary or Ottawa? Either way, that's definitely not a given. These nonsensical decisions on technology choices are made very early on without thought, then never questioned by the powers that be. Then later when it turns out these decisions had faulty assumptions, it's just "oh well, we couldn't possibly have known". Except they could, and should, have known because these things are obvious when you don't have a vested interest in saving face.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why can't you have full automation?

I'm no transit expert, so I can't say for sure, but low floor results in a reasonably low height difference between the platform and the rail bed, which is more conducive to people stepping down on the raill bed. Abundant chain link fencing along the lines make it susceptible to tresspasing and breaches from animals.

Some modifications could be made to make the RoW less penatrible. For the platforms, we may need platform screen doors, which is near impossible to implement due to the asymmetrical nature of low floor lrt vehicle doors.

On top of that, I don't believe there are any fully automated low floor vehicles on the market. I doubt any manufacturer would produce one for the only City (I'm pretty sure) that uses low floor for a metro system.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by GeneralLeeTPHLS

This is exactly why I'm not happy with the Eglinton streetcar....especially since developers are justifying their developments for what's seen by a fair chunk of Torontonians as a subway, when it's really not. Traffic will make this thing run pretty poorly IMO....but we'll see.

The reason Toronto went with LRT and not subway like it should have been was due to ex-mayor Miller.

Miller's 'LRT or nothing' mantra had less to do with good urban transit policy than it did with him wanting to preserve his union backed votes. Miller, regardless of the need, wanted absolutely nothing to do with anything that could potentially be automated and hence you have a glorified streetcar with a subway price.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, a re-engineering of a plan? That also would have seen the construction get delayed at least a year or more to do that. And engineers aren't cheap.

Re-engineering? What are you talking about?

The RFP hadn't gone out. No engineering had been done.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Miller's 'LRT or nothing' mantra had less to do with good urban transit policy than it did with him wanting to preserve his union backed votes. Miller, regardless of the need, wanted absolutely nothing to do with anything that could potentially be automated and hence you have a glorified streetcar with a subway price.

Not really. He was fine with and supported signalling projects that would lead to automation of the subway.

His real motivation was gentrification and killing off expensive future subway plans. There's a reason the Sheppard East LRT was pushed first. Even though there were other corridors with no subway on them.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

On top of that, I don't believe there are any fully automated low floor vehicles on the market. I doubt any manufacturer would produce one for the only City (I'm pretty sure) that uses low floor for a metro system.

Ottawa's system is capable to fully automated operation save for intrusion detection. Which is much easier to add in this day and age. Whether the people of Ottawa would have been compatible - I doubt it would have worked. They are really used to putting their hand in a door to delay departure from their experience with buses. Would have been an even larger schmozzle on rollout.

Edmonton's new retrofitted system on their high floor system is similarly capable by spec. Not that it even worked for block control in reality.