The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Hybrid247]

Precisely. Line 1 capacity will be an issue at Hurdman far before it becomes an issue for the SE Transitway.

[nname]

Originally Posted by superelevation

There is no way that 5-car trains actually have that much capacity. I have heard stated max cap is like 25k ppdph and even that seems a little suspect. TTC Line 1 does around 32k ppdph right now without ATC. The trains are almost twice as long as 5 car skytrains and substantially wider.

What stations have 100m platforms? There may be some structures which could support that but afaik no platforms do

Original designed ultimate capacity with MkI car was 25,000pphpd:
6-car MkI trains
80-90 passengers per car
48 trains per hour (75s headway)
Total: 23,400-25,920pphpd

Now with newer and longer trains
5-car MkIII trains
130-135 passengers per car
48 trains per hour (75s headway)
Total: 31,200-32,400pphpd

The existing system was able to dispatch 4-car trains every 77s, and this was used during the Olympics (sustained 84s frequency for the entire line at peak hours, and 77-78s frequency at the busiest section with short-turned trains). A report state that 5-cars at every 75s should be achievable with software optimization.

I think the platform at Lougheed is longer than 100m if they remove the glass panels. So does the new Main Street Science World station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

With or without interlining, it's the same issue. The Line has a capacity of 24,000 phpd. We can't have 5,000+ per hour transferring at Hurdman onto already packed trains. Eventually, a new Line will be needed through downtown to relieve the central segment of the Confederation Line. That could be in 20-30+ years, but it will happen.

We can discuss that when it comes to pass.

It's also possible that we don't actually see that much ridership growth to the core from the South, as development follows the line extensions being built. Not to mention other factors like the feds moving out of there core and whatever the workplace will look like in 20-30 years.

[ssiguy]

In Vancouver, capacity is not an issue along the Expo or Millennium lines as they can be expanded to 100 meter stations.

The problem is the Canada Line with it's Mickey Mouse stations of only 40 meters expandable to only 50. It's frequency levels are also impeded by the stupid decision to make the Richmond Centre and YVR sections only single track. None of the terminus stations {including Waterfront} also don't have an extended length nor separate train parking areas in case a train breaks down.

The Canada Line is the poster child of short-term transit planning.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In Vancouver, capacity is not an issue along the Expo or Millennium lines as they can be expanded to 100 meter stations.

The problem is the Canada Line with it's Mickey Mouse stations of only 40 meters expandable to only 50. It's frequency levels are also impeded by the stupid decision to make the Richmond Centre and YVR sections only single track. None of the terminus stations {including Waterfront} also don't have an extended length nor separate train parking areas in case a train breaks down.

The Canada Line is the poster child of short-term transit planning.

The Canada Line is also nowhere near its design capacity. Any problems for most of our lifetimes (can’t speak for the youngest among us!) will be due to not having enough rolling stock not station lengths.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The Canada Line is also nowhere near its design capacity. Any problems for most of our lifetimes (can’t speak for the youngest among us!) will be due to not having enough rolling stock not station lengths.

The rolling stock is an aspect of Vancouver's transit system that always seemed odd to me. Obviously covid has changed things but when the Evergreen extension opened they ended up dropping the trains down to 2 cars and were pretty busy. They run some longer 6 car trains on Expo but not all are in that configuration, sometimes at what could be described as crush loads.

I can see why this might make sense from a TransLink money saving perspective but I doubt it makes sense to be stingy with the vehicles from a value perspective. I know they have more trains on order, and I have heard about power constraints. On the other hand the SkyTrain is automated so scaling up the number of vehicles should be fairly easy.

I wonder if the poor service to the universities is due to the fact that students are a more captive market, particularly with the U-Pass system.

[Innsertnamehere]

Just a note - Toronto’s line 1 operates at about 27,000 pphd right now. With ATC, due for completion (I believe) this year, it will be capable of up to 32,000.

There is lots of criticism of the Ontario line for having a planner capacity of 24-28,000 pphd.. but given the crazy ridership the Yonge Line has, the marginal difference vs the traditional toronto subway design isn’t worth the huge additional cost to construct it.

[lrt's friend]

Regarding a potential Bank Street subway, even Vancouver built their second downtown line in less than 25 years. We are foolish to wait too long before at least putting a line on the map. Without proper planning, we could waste a lot of money on projects that are incompatible with our long-term objectives. The Confederation Line cannot possibly serve all of Ottawa well. Sorry, but the Trillium Line cannot produce enough TOD because so much of the corridor runs through public lands that are either protected or not likely to be intensified anytime soon.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Regarding a potential Bank Street subway, even Vancouver built their second downtown line in less than 25 years. We are foolish to wait too long before at least putting a line on the map. Without proper planning, we could waste a lot of money on projects that are incompatible with our long-term objectives. The Confederation Line cannot possibly serve all of Ottawa well. Sorry, but the Trillium Line cannot produce enough TOD because so much of the corridor runs through public lands that are either protected or not likely to be intensified anytime soon.

I think the main reason Vancouver needed a "second downtown line" was that the first one was quite unusual in Canada in that it terminates downtown rather than through downtown by going in one part and out another like basically all other cities in Canada have. If they hadn't been re-using an existing tunnel, they probably would have just lengthened the Expo line and run it back out of downtown to the south rather than create a totally separate line which would have been possible since the expo line would look quite different.

In this alternate scenario, from the east rather than continuing under Dunsmuir it probably would have gone north up Abbott and then Northwest up Hastings, then down Burrard or Thurlow before turning southeast down Robson St. until Cambie before turning south to follow the Canada Line route. This is basically when Toronto did when building the Yonge line subway which allows one line to have two arms rather than them being two separate lines like in Vancouver. It should be noted that the Confederation line also runs though the city centre continuing on both ends rather than terminating.

[Truenorth00]

You don't understand. Th is isn't about maximizing ridership, or best value for taxpayers, or serving travel patterns. It's about the number of transit lines a city has. That's apparently the only metric that matters.

Meanwhile in Ottawa, in a lot of the city waiting for half an hour for a bus is still normal.....

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

Original designed ultimate capacity with MkI car was 25,000pphpd:
6-car MkI trains
80-90 passengers per car
48 trains per hour (75s headway)
Total: 23,400-25,920pphpd

Now with newer and longer trains
5-car MkIII trains
130-135 passengers per car
48 trains per hour (75s headway)
Total: 31,200-32,400pphpd

The existing system was able to dispatch 4-car trains every 77s, and this was used during the Olympics (sustained 84s frequency for the entire line at peak hours, and 77-78s frequency at the busiest section with short-turned trains). A report state that 5-cars at every 75s should be achievable with software optimization.

I think the platform at Lougheed is longer than 100m if they remove the glass panels. So does the new Main Street Science World station.

You really cannot expect rush-hour performance to consistently hit those numbers - at those frequencies, even the slightest delay is going to create major ripple effects, staffing was higher and everything was running at full tilt in a way it can't be expected to on a regular day.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In Vancouver, capacity is not an issue along the Expo or Millennium lines as they can be expanded to 100 meter stations.

Ok yes, but again this is inbuilt into the system. I can think of a few places just off the top of my head where you would struggle to extend the platforms (including at some important major stations). If it was a simple thing I think we would hear Translink talking about it when they discuss long term capacity because we are already moving to 5 car trains in the next few years.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Just a note - Toronto’s line 1 operates at about 27,000 pphd right now. With ATC, due for completion (I believe) this year, it will be capable of up to 32,000.

There is lots of criticism of the Ontario line for having a planner capacity of 24-28,000 pphd.. but given the crazy ridership the Yonge Line has, the marginal difference vs the traditional toronto subway design isn’t worth the huge additional cost to construct it.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ws...ubway-enhancement-program-895998699.html

Its def more like 30,000 and this only further calls into question Vancouvers actual capacity. I don't think its an issue - its just clearly much lower than Torontos, the trains are physically much much smaller and Toronto should be able to get close to 90 second peak headways eventually.

[Reecemartin]

Our latest video is on Toronto now *finally* having open payment - though rolling out on UP Express and GO only for now because TTC has older readers not compatible with it . . .

https://youtu.be/_HQ_PtubUdw

[nname]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

You really cannot expect rush-hour performance to consistently hit those numbers - at those frequencies, even the slightest delay is going to create major ripple effects, staffing was higher and everything was running at full tilt in a way it can't be expected to on a regular day.

From a report, the absolute busiest time for SkyTrain is really just a 15-30min period in the morning and afternoon peak. So they were looking into a way to be able to dispatch a burst of trains at minimum headway to serve that period which require maybe a couple of thousand more capacity. So it doesn't really need to sustain the frequency throughout the day or even the peak hour, but just the ability of dispatch additional trains when needed.

Again, I cannot find any of these report online anymore.. probably got destroyed by the randomware.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Its def more like 30,000 and this only further calls into question Vancouvers actual capacity. I don't think its an issue - its just clearly much lower than Torontos, the trains are physically much much smaller and Toronto should be able to get close to 90 second peak headways eventually.

Per rush-hour or per hour? I had seen a few reports from various transit authorities, and sometimes when they say "rush hour demand", it actually means the total passenger within the 2 hour run hour period (ie. 6:30 to 8:30am), not per hour number.

I do believe the number is per hour though, but the article is really unclear.

Anyways, AFAIK now Toronto subway minimum headway is 2m 21s. At 75s frequency, it is almost twice as much train, with the train about 60% of the length... So to me the capacity shouldn't be that far off even for a wider train. Note that there is a lot more capacity added when reducing the headway from 80s to 75s, than from 2m21s to 2m16s.

[FrAnKs]

There have been discussions between Québec city's mayor and the government of Québec and it seems like that the Tramway's path will rather go to the D'Estimeauville area at its east end rather than going to Charlesbourg to the north.
For those who are not familliar with Québec City, Charlesbourg is the area just to the Northeast of ''Les Rivières'' on the map below.

*To be officially confirmed by the mayor & the government*

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/177...-dossier-tramway-coalition-avenir-quebec

[Hybrid247]

So the province preferred tram service to D'Estimauville instead as Charlesbourg? Why is that? Votes?

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

So the province preferred tram service to D'Estimauville instead as Charlesbourg? Why is that? Votes?

I have no idea!...but we have to start somewhere. We practically start from scratch here. I mean, rather than buses, we don't really have a serious & solid transit system network and I see this as the Phase 1 of larger project.

There are pros and cons for going to D'Estimeauville rather than Charlesbourg.

They are actually building in D'Estimeauville a rather dense ''Eco-Neighbourhood'' (French : Écoquartier) and between Pôle St-Roch, there is also l'Enfant-Jésus, Québec City's Mega-Hospital. The eastern part of Limoilou just east of Pôle St-Roch is also a densely populated area made of Pre-war buildings which also has an important College which is Cégep Limoilou.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

I have no idea!...but we have to start somewhere. We practically start from scratch here. I mean, rather than buses, we don't really have a serious & solid transit system network and I see this as the Phase 1 of larger project.

There are pros and cons for going to D'Estimeauville rather than Charlesbourg.

They are actually building in D'Estimeauville a rather dense ''Eco-Neighbourhood'' (French : Écoquartier) and between Pôle St-Roch, there is also l'Enfant-Jésus, Québec City's Mega-Hospital. The eastern part of Limoilou just east of Pôle St-Roch is also a densely populated area made of Pre-war buildings which also has an important College which is Cégep Limoilou.

Well, the Estimauville area is represented by Sol Zanetti of Québec solidaire, and he only beat the CAQ by a hair...

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, the Estimauville area is represented by Sol Zanetti of Québec solidaire, and he only beat the CAQ by a hair...

There is politics everywhere for sure lol...but D'Estimeauville is not a bad choice either (and I am directly impacted if they remove the Charlesbourg part, just saying...)
The most important is to see this project getting done.

Sol Zanetti is actually in danger to loose its seat at the next election.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

There is politics everywhere for sure lol...but D'Estimeauville is not a bad choice either (and I am directly impacted if they remove the Charlesbourg part, just saying...)
The most important is to see this project getting done.

Oh I totally agree. From what I know of the area this is a better choice than Charlesbourg (sorry) in terms of enlightened city development.

But of course if the CAQ thinks it can also help them knock off a QS MNA, then that's a bonus I suppose.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Sol Zanetti is actually in danger to loose its seat at the next election.

OT: Yup. I think QS might lose 3-4 seats to the CAQ and maybe even 1 to the Liberals next election.

Though I think Catherine Dorion is safe in downtown QC.