The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by biguc

They should at least just extend the red line all the way through. No need to complicate things with a transfer when one bus would do.

If a train is going to run from Calgary to Banff I don't know why it couldn't also stop in Canmore. Is that any part of the plan?

It will have stations at YYC, Downtown, Cochrane, Canmore, and Banff, with potential station at Morley (likely as part of getting the Stoney Nakoda on board). It will have up to 8 departures per day, and will also include an express service between YYC and Downtown every 20 minutes.

The CIB and GoA have signed a memorandum of understanding to study and see the 130-kilometer project to fruition.

https://cib-bic.ca/en/canada-infrastruct...ding-for-the-calgary-banff-rail-project/



There is a concurrent privately funded initiative already underway which has garnered over $300 million in support so far, about half the cost of the system…

https://www.rmotoday.com/



Here's a good article combining both of the projects cost-wise and scope...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/calgary-banff-passenger-rail-service



Just made a sad map of the Calgary - Banff Train, since apparently one doesn't exist. Morley Station in yellow.




For reference...

Calgary - 1.35 million (Municipality)
Cochrane - 40,000
Morley - 4,000 (First Nation)
Cochrane - 15,000
Banff - 9,000

Total Catchment Area Residents - 1,650,000 (includes entire Calgary metropolitan area plus towns along line)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

These electric buses rated poorer than the diesel-electric hybrid in performance.

The TTC doesn't buy buses like me and you buy cars. They accept that there's a learning curve and that reliability improves with experience. That was indeed the case with the very Hybrids they are now using as baselines.

Steve Munro has more details of the report on his website. Three items stand out:







Pretty clear from the above that the New Flyer buses are well on their way to reaching performance, reliability and cost levels that make them reasonable replacements for the hybrid buses. Proterra is a bit further behind. But showing progress. BYD is the only model that is really problematic.

[ssiguy]

Electric buses are now becoming more of an affordable option due to Ottawa.

Ottawa announced this year $2.7 billion in NEW funding strictly for the purchase of both electric buses and the infrastructure needed to run them. This is one top of the $1.5 Infrastructure Bank allotting $1.5 although admittedly that assumes the IB will spend any of the money. Diesel electric buses do NOT qualify under the program but rather complete zero emissions buses which means only trolley, battery, or hydrogen.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

They would need another rail line parallel to the CP main and that would be cost prohibitive, let alone rights from the Stoney Nakota and other environmental concerns.

That said, there are very influential people behind it and a lot of potential that could come from it east of Deadman's in the MD.

Yes, the study identified that there would need to be a full parallel line. Most is a estimated, a bit low imo, at just short of $700 million up front.

"Should a complete, all-day rail service be under consideration, a completely dedicated track with multiple short sidings would likely be required. At least five short sidings of approximately 1,000 feet each would be required."

Mass Transit Feasibility Study Summary


Calgary-Bow Valley Mass Transit Feasibility Study (PDF)

[superelevation]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Clearly you don't know the area. It's already dense with old homes and row houses. It already has high rise high density and will be getting more. Even if they tear down homes the land will be solely owned by CN and Metrolinks and they won't build anything on it.

?

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

What are you talking about? We are discussing side streets that can't just be converted to high density. These streets are very narrow, have protected homes and are in a Historical zone. We aren't talking about redeveloping low rise intersections here. It doesn't really sound like you know the area at all. And the area is very pro development when done right. It's one of the hottest condo markets just out of the core. Not to mention the massive parcel of land where they will build an above or below ground station at Gerrard and Carlaw can be redeveloped into a massive new high density development. It's attitudes like yours that destroy cities not make them better. I think you would be better off living in the 50's tear down anything and everything in the name of progress.

And again, nobody in this area is against the subway, they just want it the way it was planned 70 years ago, and the way it was still planned until 2 years ago to save some money so they can build it out into conservative riding's. this was always about getting and keeping votes for Doug Ford.

Maybe change your handle from Malcolm to Miley.



As for Why would Metrolinx not redevelop? Because they will only be taking enough land to build the tracks, not purchase it to develop on.

So if someone promises something it shall be the plan forever, should we cancel the Finch West LRT since we were at one point promised a subway?

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Another comment by somebody who doesn't get the history of the line or where it is running through. FYI the rest of the line will be underground except for the terminus at the EX grounds.

Please explain how we are NIMBY's in this situation, then I will give you the cole notes to show where you seemed to have looked over the facts of this subway proposal.

The rest of the line won't be below ground? It will be elevated in the North . . .

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I remember when a lot of folks in the wealthier parts of the city were complaining about the cost of the Scarborough Subway and it being tunneled. I would bet money that many of these areas complaining now would still poll against that project. Funny how that works.

And in Scarborough, people weren't even concerned about trains going by. They just wanted to eliminate a transfer.

Also trains run above ground through Rosedale one of Canadas richest neighbourhoods, every few minutes.

Originally Posted by niwell

I agree with this, and don't think that reverting to the old plan is not really an option. But, there should be a reasonable expectation that what's being promised can be delivered upon, which may mean some interesting design solutions. If the Province/ML is receiving sound advice (I don't know enough to comment as my area is nowhere near this) they really aught to improve on the PR front.

This isn't really all that special a design, similar stuff has been done in many cities around the world.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I do understand their frustration when the Line was planned to be underground for 70 years, and again only a few years ago.

I do not see why plans originally made 70 years ago should not adapt to changing times and best practices, automated metro trains didn't exist back then. Construction of tunnels was far cheaper because we hadn't discovered TBMs . . .

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes but after making the Spadina Line 1 extension totally below ground and planning to do the same for the Bloor extension, ....

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I agree that they were bad decisions. I also agree that one shouldn't make bad decisions for the sake of consistency. But that isn't what I was suggesting as I'm sure you realize.

Having lines underground in dense environments with high land values and space constraints is a good decision because of those conditions, while wasting money on having them underground in outer areas where the conditions are better suited for that is not a good decision. And the fact that the government was willing to support the cost of underground projects that would have been much easier to built above ground than this simply shows the weakness of their case.

1) Spadina Line was a Liberal project
2) You say you don't think we should make bad decisions for the sake of consistency but then you argue that the government was bad for burying lines in a place where building above ground would be easy . . . like a rail corridor . . .

[superelevation]

I just don't think its fair that people with lots of transit access living directly next to a rail line older than Canada derail a project because they don't want *more* electric trains.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by superelevation

1) Spadina Line was a Liberal project
2) You say you don't think we should make bad decisions for the sake of consistency but then you argue that the government was bad for burying lines in a place where building above ground would be easy . . . like a rail corridor . . .

The problem is that you mistakenly present the argument as a simplistic "bad to build below ground where it's easy to build on the surface". First of all, the rail corridor as it exists isn't wide enough for two more tracks and it would need to be expanded, while expanding it would likely prevent extra tracks being added for mainline trains which is relevant considering that plans to significantly beef up GO RER service. So it isn't easy, just easier than underground. But I don't think the buried projects were bad just because they would have been easier to build above ground from a cost and engineering standpoint, but also because it wouldn't have had the same impact on the environs, because the land has lower value in outer areas, and because the ridership of outer sections doesn't justify as great of an expense.

Fact is, it would also be significantly easier and cheaper from a purely engineering and construction cost standpoint to build all of the underground sections as elevated structures above Queen, Pape, etc. like in Chicago than it would be to build downtown tunnels but I haven't heard any of the rail corridor advocates also advocating for that. If the only consideration when deciding whether a route should be above ground is if it's cheaper and easier then they'd be all for that too. But we all know that it's a more complex question of cost vs final result and we just happen to disagree on the details.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It will have stations at YYC, Downtown, Cochrane, Canmore, and Banff, with potential station at Morley (likely as part of getting the Stoney Nakoda on board). It will have up to 8 departures per day, and will also include an express service between YYC and Downtown every 20 minutes.

The CIB and GoA have signed a memorandum of understanding to study and see the 130-kilometer project to fruition.

https://cib-bic.ca/en/canada-infrastruct...ding-for-the-calgary-banff-rail-project/



There is a concurrent privately funded initiative already underway which has garnered over $300 million in support so far, about half the cost of the system…

https://www.rmotoday.com/



Here's a good article combining both of the projects cost-wise and scope...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/calgary-banff-passenger-rail-service



Just made a sad map of the Calgary - Banff Train, since apparently one doesn't exist. Morley Station in yellow.




For reference...

Calgary - 1.35 million (Municipality)
Cochrane - 40,000
Morley - 4,000 (First Nation)
Cochrane - 15,000
Banff - 9,000

Total Catchment Area Residents - 1,650,000 (includes entire Calgary metropolitan area plus towns along line)

Nice. This is exactly what Canadian cities should be building. Build it! Then extend it to Airdrie and start shooting for Edmonton.

[Chadillaccc]

Indeed. The same model would work well for a Vancouver - Whistler train, other than the logistical and environmental challenge of getting a train over the Burrard Inlet. I feel without this - instead the station being in North or West Vancouver - such a connection wouldn't be as marketable to travellers due to lack of accessibility/connectivity.

The Calgary - Rockies proposal could serve as the backbone of a commuter system as well, especially with 8 departures per day. Relatively easily extended to both Airdrie and Okotoks. In the event of an expansion to Edmonton and Lethbridge, a track sharing agreement could be made between the provincial government and the Calgary metropolitan region to maintain both commuter and intercity express services, since the passenger line(s) would be independent of the freight mainlines. Dare to dream...

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by biguc

Nice. This is exactly what Canadian cities should be building. Build it! Then extend it to Airdrie and start shooting for Edmonton.

Edmonton used to have a 'dayliner' to Calgary return until 1985.
http://forthjunction.ca/passenger-rail.htm

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Indeed. The same model would work well for a Vancouver - Whistler train, other than the logistical and environmental challenge of getting a train over the Burrard Inlet. I feel without this - instead the station being in North or West Vancouver - such a connection wouldn't be as marketable to travellers due to lack of accessibility/connectivity.

Put the station at Lions Quay. With the Sea Bus connection, it would work well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Indeed. The same model would work well for a Vancouver - Whistler train, other than the logistical and environmental challenge of getting a train over the Burrard Inlet. I feel without this - instead the station being in North or West Vancouver - such a connection wouldn't be as marketable to travellers due to lack of accessibility/connectivity.

The Calgary - Rockies proposal could serve as the backbone of a commuter system as well, especially with 8 departures per day. Relatively easily extended to both Airdrie and Okotoks. In the event of an expansion to Edmonton and Lethbridge, a track sharing agreement could be made between the provincial government and the Calgary metropolitan region to maintain both commuter and intercity express services, since the passenger line(s) would be independent of the freight mainlines. Dare to dream...

The most logistically challenging part of the system is downtown Calgary, where CPR uses the existing 4 tracks to help manage capacity on the single track mainline. The existing study acknowledges this, and proposed two staging tracks for full length trains east of downtown to make up for making one downtown track exclusive for passenger services.

With that ... any choice to use more mainline and mainline adjacent capacity makes mitigation more difficult. And running services north and south makes that difficult. Especially if service north to the airport is more frequent than the hypothesized Banff service. And as a reminder, the province's modelling has the 'capital subsidy' cost of building two new dedicated HSR tracks between Calgary and Edmonton as less than the cost of twinning the CPR for modern intermingled freight, passenger service (with very frequent high speed crossovers to enable near 200 kph passenger service).

Anyways, here is the Calgary east downtown rail map. Calgary has rail downtown constraints unlike any other major Canadian city - maybe Halifax being constrained by a single track is in a similar boat? But still doesn't really touch on that: any capacity taken away for passenger rail is a large material loss for CPR.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Calgary has rail downtown constraints unlike any other major Canadian city - maybe Halifax being constrained by a single track is in a similar boat? But still doesn't really touch on that: any capacity taken away for passenger rail is a large material loss for CPR.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/5Pvx25j.png[img]

Vancouver's capacity constraints look worse to me, and in Edmonton there isn't any downtown station at all. At least in Calgary there is physical space to add new tracks - there's room for 4 tracks all the way through from downtown to Airdrie which is effectively infinite capacity.

I'm sure CP won't give anything away for cheap but the infrastructure should be fairly simple compared to what must be built in somewhere like Toronto or Vancouver to upgrade passenger rail.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Vancouver's capacity constraints look worse to me, and in Edmonton there isn't any downtown station at all. At least in Calgary there is physical space to add new tracks - there's room for 4 tracks all the way through from downtown to Airdrie which is effectively infinite capacity.

I'm sure CP won't give anything away for cheap but the infrastructure should be fairly simple compared to what must be built in somewhere like Toronto or Vancouver to upgrade passenger rail.

Explore the tracks https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/ - do you have the same answer still?

Oh yeah - it is simple. Just relatively expensive.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Explore the tracks https://rac.jmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/ - do you have the same answer still?

Of course - in Vancouver there are two stations, which is non optimal. There is a rat's nest of freight rail lines, to get to Waterfront it's an at capacity line between water, ports and cliffs, to get to Pacific (depending on the direction) there's a century old crappy swing bridge, also at capacity. How is that preferable to Calgary's situation?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Oh yeah - it is simple. Just relatively expensive.

And that's been my position all along. I think those who think implementing passenger rail in Calgary for cheap are out to lunch. It will be expensive, but once the downtown infrastructure is put in there will be ample capacity and all the other potential options for rail become more attractive. So I think whatever rail project is first has to be pretty major and be successful from day 1.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Anyways, here is the Calgary east downtown rail map. Calgary has rail downtown constraints unlike any other major Canadian city - maybe Halifax being constrained by a single track is in a similar boat? But still doesn't really touch on that: any capacity taken away for passenger rail is a large material loss for CPR.

The most maddening thing about the Halifax situation is that there was double track up until maybe a decade ago when CN removed one of them through the rail cut. But there's plenty of room to re-add it.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Edmonton used to have a 'dayliner' to Calgary return until 1985.
http://forthjunction.ca/passenger-rail.htm

That's a sad story. So predictable too: cut service, get less riders; improve service, get more riders.

If Edmonton builds that cable car between Whyte ave and downtown, (and starts putting together a Whyte ave tram plan) a train station in Strathcona wouldn't even be bad.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by biguc

That's a sad story. So predictable too: cut service, get less riders; improve service, get more riders.

If Edmonton builds that cable car between Whyte ave and downtown, (and starts putting together a Whyte ave tram plan) a train station in Strathcona wouldn't even be bad.

It doesn't sound like ridership followed service cuts but the opposite - service cuts followed ridership decline, and they kept the service on far longer than it really deserved - it took 4 or 5 hours and wasn't competitive with road transport 30 years ago. Today our roads and cars much better and car ownership much higher, plus relatively cheap air transport too.

The option of reinstating the same service that existed back then does not exist, it is gone forever. Even if you could, it would be even less competitive now than it was, and you can't anyway since the infrastructure is more heavily used, and/or has been removed. The service provided in the past is irrelevant to any service we should build today and thus referencing it in today's discussions is not actually helpful.

[biguc]

Talking about the dayliner service, specifically, to control for everything else that went on with the pre-war service.

"The CP Dayliners reached a peak of three trains a day in each direction in 1969 carrying almost 80,000 passengers that year. The following year, the number of trains was reduced to one in each direction per day resulting in only 31,400 passengers that year and only 23,400 passengers in 1971. At the order of the federal Railway Transport Committee, the frequency was increased to two trains per day in 1972. The CP Edmonton downtown station was closed to passengers in 1971 (and demolished in 1978), with Strathcona (south Edmonton) becoming the northern terminus of CPR corridor passenger rail service (with a shuttle to downtown), further eroding the desire for travellers to use the train. Canadian Pacific corridor service was reviewed in 1976 and 1979 by the Railway Transport Committee after public hearings in response to continued CP requests to cancel passenger operations. Meanwhile, the government-owned VIA Rail took over all CP and CN passenger service in 1978.

The federal Committee ordered improved service in 1981 citing the corridor had the best potential for rail passenger service outside of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Ridership increased to 53,000 in 1982, the highest since 1969. One-way fare was $27."

[milomilo]

The highest since 1969 - it was greater previously when the roads were worse. Perhaps they could have eked out a little more by running another train, but the increase in ridership would not be linear and that would have meant greater subsidy per rider.

I'm not a fan of Canada's railway ownership structure, but it is what it is and trying to run passenger trains on a host railway that is near infinitely more valuable to the economy than 145 passengers a day (!!!! just calculated that wow, lol) is never going to be a viable proposition.