The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the double height space at platform level is great. The stations almost look funny for Toronto standards as they are shorter. I know sheppard is shorter like that as well, it just looks odd.

I like it. The smaller stations should have a cozier feel to them.

I am really looking forward to Eglinton Crosstown completely changing the discussion on LRT in the GTA, if not Canada. It's sort of the best of what can be done with LRT. Ottawa kinda missed the mark by trying to shoehorn an entire metro into an LRT. Eglinton feels closer to what this kind of system should look like, with mixed surface and underground operations.

Are they still planning to run parallel bus service and is it just along the tunneled portion? Anybody know?

[Innsertnamehere]

hopefully they don't screw up the signal timing on Eglinton East too much.

My experience with the priority signals on the King Streetcar has been that it's pretty effective, if not 100%. Hopefully that's the result on Eglinton too, though the need for advanced left turns has me concerned.

My understanding is that the TTC plans to run parallel bus service but that it will be pretty bare bones, sort of like the Yonge St bus. Probably 20 minute frequencies, etc.

[Hali87]

Here's an image showing the other ferry routes they're looking at:


Source

and a more stylized one showing the planned BRT network as well (unfortunately I can't find a way to make it smaller):

Source

(there are a couple existing BRT routes serving Sackville and the airport that aren't shown there)

It seems like a solid plan, I'm a bit surprised they're focusing on Larry Uteck and not Birch Cove, which would probably be an easier location for a terminal and is further from Mill Cove (in the first map it's the little nook south of Larry Uteck with an E-W connector shown). It'll be interesting to see if any of the future (south) routes ever connect through Woodside, or if some of the northbound ones could connect through Alderney.

In terms of BRT I'm a bit surprised that Transit doesn't use the Circ or Dunbrack for buses at all. Maybe in a later phase?

[q12]

Originally Posted by Hali87

and a more stylized one showing the planned BRT network as well (unfortunately I can't find a way to make it smaller):

[Nouvellecosse]

If they actually manage to do electric ferries that will really be incredible. I think that would be equally exciting as commuter rail!

[milomilo]

I'm 100% sure this has been asked before, but what are the chances of an additional crossing being put in or an expansion of the old bridge? For transit, of course. If you just put in a bus that has to cross the same bridge as the cars, the bus is not going to have any chance at being quick. But taking a way a lane on the existing bridge I think would be too much even for most people who support transit.

It's probably going to need to be done eventually and will take a decade or more, might as well start planning now.

The Halifax plan looks good though. I love the idea of trains, but the bus/ferries shown in that map are something that can actually be built and will provide better service soon, to much more of the region. When/if those routes reach capacity, it will be a great justification to build something more advanced.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm 100% sure this has been asked before, but what are the chances of an additional crossing being put in or an expansion of the old bridge? For transit, of course. If you just put in a bus that has to cross the same bridge as the cars, the bus is not going to have any chance at being quick. But taking a way a lane on the existing bridge I think would be too much even for most people who support transit.

It's probably going to need to be done eventually and will take a decade or more, might as well start planning now.

There's been a lot of talk about a third harbour crossing and there's even a long term thread on the issue in the Atlantic sub-forum. Last I've heard there isn't any firm plan right now, but the recent proposals for either a bridge or tunnel have included a transit lane. I do agree that given enough growth we'll eventually need another crossing, but my view is that we have a lot of work to do toward shifting mode share toward transit and making travel patterns more efficient before we should add road lanes. Bottle necks that require expensive remediation can act as an important catalyst for change such as major transit projects just as easily as they can be used to reinforce the status quo. This is because they both require the community to stop and make an active decision rather than allowing for slow, creeping expansion of the status quo.

In terms of a dedicated transit lane on the current bridge, I'd support making the centre lane an LRT lane which would both improve travel times and add significant capacity compared to having three general traffic lanes (one in each direction with one alternating). The centre lane could be used for both directions allowing a headway of a train every 5 minutes per direction. This is because the bridge and its approaches are 1.45km long and has a speed limit of 50km/h so it would take just under 2 minutes for the train to cross (since there wouldn't be any traffic congestion due to it being a dedicated lane). With 60m long LRT trains (the max length given certain downtown block sizes such as Spring Garden between Birmingham and Dresden Row) there would be over 5000 people per hour per direction, much more than a general mixed traffic lane. I'm sure there would be a political struggle, but that would be involved with anything other than adding standard road lanes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm 100% sure this has been asked before, but what are the chances of an additional crossing being put in or an expansion of the old bridge?

The MacKay is nearing end of life and the current favoured plan seems to be to have a new bigger bridge in service for 2040. Eventually some kind of work has to be done, and the estimated rehab cost for the old bridge is almost as high as building a new bridge.

https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2021/01/the-new-mackay-bridge.html

A new third southern crossing is possible but seems a lot less likely/desirable.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I like it. The smaller stations should have a cozier feel to them.

I am really looking forward to Eglinton Crosstown completely changing the discussion on LRT in the GTA, if not Canada. It's sort of the best of what can be done with LRT. Ottawa kinda missed the mark by trying to shoehorn an entire metro into an LRT. Eglinton feels closer to what this kind of system should look like, with mixed surface and underground operations.

Honestly, it might prove to be the opposite. The line tried to be two things at once (tram and subway) and will fail at both. The surface section will have very little signal priority in true Toronto fashion and the shelter stops are an absolute joke. At least Ottawa's is fully grade-separated.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by someone123

The MacKay is nearing end of life and the current favoured plan seems to be to have a new bigger bridge in service for 2040. Eventually some kind of work has to be done, and the estimated rehab cost for the old bridge is almost as high as building a new bridge.

https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2021/01/the-new-mackay-bridge.html

A new third southern crossing is possible but seems a lot less likely/desirable.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There's been a lot of talk about a third harbour crossing and there's even a long term thread on the issue in the Atlantic sub-forum. Last I've heard there isn't any firm plan right now, but the recent proposals for either a bridge or tunnel have included a transit lane. I do agree that given enough growth we'll eventually need another crossing, but my view is that we have a lot of work to do toward shifting mode share toward transit and making travel patterns more efficient before we should add road lanes. Bottle necks that require expensive remediation can act as an important catalyst for change such as major transit projects just as easily as they can be used to reinforce the status quo. This is because they both require the community to stop and make an active decision rather than allowing for slow, creeping expansion of the status quo.

In terms of a dedicated transit lane on the current bridge, I'd support making the centre lane an LRT lane which would both improve travel times and add significant capacity compared to having three general traffic lanes (one in each direction with one alternating). The centre lane could be used for both directions allowing a headway of a train every 5 minutes per direction. This is because the bridge and its approaches are 1.45km long and has a speed limit of 50km/h so it would take just under 2 minutes for the train to cross (since there wouldn't be any traffic congestion due to it being a dedicated lane). With 60m long LRT trains (the max length given certain downtown block sizes such as Spring Garden between Birmingham and Dresden Row) there would be over 5000 people per hour per direction, much more than a general mixed traffic lane. I'm sure there would be a political struggle, but that would be involved with anything other than adding standard road lanes.

Thanks both.

In regards to repurposing a lane on the existing bridge - it would totally make sense from a very logical thought process, if everything else was done to make it worthwhile. But in practise, unless you immediately built out a dense rapid transit network that would be useful to most people, it would be pretty annoying to have a 50% loss in capacity for vehicles when most people won't be living near a bus stop and will suffer an immediate drop in quality of life through an increased commute time.

If you introduced new mass transit with new capacity over the water, it's an easier sell. The existing commuters aren't disadvantaged but the new bus riders get a much better experience. Of course, it would be a lot of money but it's a piece of infrastructure that could last 100 years or more (probably more - we stretch out the rickety crap we built a century ago well beyond expected life, who knows how long modern construction could last). Something like this is the sort of thing you'd expect the federal government to fund - they have infinite money and Halifax to me seems like a city with obvious potential for growth. A billion dollars is a thousand houses in Toronto, peanuts - if you could spend that to get more people living cheaply in and underdeveloped area of Canada, it would be money well spent, in my opinion.

[Nouvellecosse]

The region's largest and busiest bus terminal is located a block from the bridge and aptly named the bridge terminal. It condenses the ridership going across the bridge into a few core routes, mainly #1, #3 and #10 with 1 & 10 taking a similar path through the central part of Hfx. In fact, the bridge terminal is the only stop for #1 on the Dartmouth side and just crosses the bridge to to pick up riders transferring from other routes. The downtown bound LRT would basically be a replacement of it, while I'd advocate for another arm that continues crosstown basically following route #3. There would also be an LRT routes that went from downtown to the bridge then following the inland crosstown route, basically replacing the #2.

I think it's safe to say that most people live within reach of a bus stop, and many cities with LRT or metro don't reply on having riders all live near one of its stops and instead have feeder bus services. It's safe to say most people live within reach of a bus stop so I don't see any reason why people couldn't switch to transit. The main difference with this compared to the BRT map posted further up on the page is that the BRT section from Dartmouth crossing to Portland hills would become a single route that doesn't cross the bridge and instead people could go into town by crossing at the Bridge terminal or Alderney ferry. This would allow the LRT to operate between Bridge and Dalhousie, Bridge and Halifax Shopping Centre, and Dalhousie and HSC. Everything else could remain as BRT.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

In regards to repurposing a lane on the existing bridge - it would totally make sense from a very logical thought process, if everything else was done to make it worthwhile. But in practise, unless you immediately built out a dense rapid transit network that would be useful to most people, it would be pretty annoying to have a 50% loss in capacity for vehicles when most people won't be living near a bus stop and will suffer an immediate drop in quality of life through an increased commute time.

There are currently 2 harbour bridges, one with 3 reversible lanes and one with 4 fixed lanes. The entity that manages the bridges has, as far as I know, talked about 2 transit lanes in the context of a 6 lane bridge, either the third crossing or MacKay (4 lane bridge) replacement.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's safe to say that most people live within reach of a bus stop, and many cities with LRT or metro don't reply on having riders all live near one of its stops and instead have feeder bus services.

One aspect of the bridges that may not be obvious to people from other cities is that the Macdonald in particular feels like an "inner city" bridge (the development on the Dartmouth side being a total mess, but it is not going to stay that way much longer). It is more for urban traffic including transit and less used by long-distance commuters from the suburbs. The MacKay is more connected to highways and more useful for suburban commuters.

Since the bridges already carry some transit traffic, switching a lane over to transit only is not a 1-for-1 loss of lanes for other kinds of traffic. Active transportation is similar. I think sometimes improved AT and transit infrastructure makes life easier for other kinds of vehicles.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The region's largest and busiest bus terminal is located a block from the bridge and aptly named the bridge terminal. It condenses the ridership going across the bridge into a few core routes, mainly #1, #3 and #10 with 1 & 10 taking a similar path through the central part of Hfx. In fact, the bridge terminal is the only stop for #1 on the Dartmouth side and just crosses the bridge to to pick up riders transferring from other routes. The downtown bound LRT would basically be a replacement of it, while I'd advocate for another arm that continues crosstown basically following route #3. There would also be an LRT routes that went from downtown to the bridge then following the inland crosstown route, basically replacing the #2.

I think it's safe to say that most people live within reach of a bus stop, and many cities with LRT or metro don't reply on having riders all live near one of its stops and instead have feeder bus services. It's safe to say most people live within reach of a bus stop so I don't see any reason why people couldn't switch to transit. The main difference with this compared to the BRT map posted further up on the page is that the BRT section from Dartmouth crossing to Portland hills would become a single route that doesn't cross the bridge and instead people could go into town by crossing at the Bridge terminal or Alderney ferry. This would allow the LRT to operate between Bridge and Dalhousie, Bridge and Halifax Shopping Centre, and Dalhousie and HSC. Everything else could remain as BRT.

I have thought it would be interesting to see the middle lane on the MacDonald Bridge turned into a gauntlet lane. Have 2 lanes on each side of the bridge for bus only, in both directions that feed the gantlet lane. A traffic light signal at each end to signal the line of buses to go.

[Coldrsx]

This was a design study for a HSR station that connected with our Government Centre LRT station.

[Aylmer]

That would be a decently convenient location for a station. Not really in the centre of things, but conveniently connected to the LRT network. In Germany, intercity tickets can often be used as an all-day local transit fare on both ends. It would be interesting to see a similar arrangement in Canada for intercity transportation. It would certainly make it easier for stations like Ottawa's current one or this proposed Edmonton locations - ones which are well-connected to the LRT networks, but not necessarily the most central.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

This was a design study for a HSR station that connected with our Government Centre LRT station.

When was that study done and who did it? It certainly makes sense to provide a seamless connection to the LRT. By the time there is any construction on a station, the high level bridge will either be torn down or repurposed for city transit. In order to get interest the federal government is going to have to get serious about re-introducing rail service to Calgary.

[Coldrsx]

Probably a decade or more ago now and to be honest, I cannot recall.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

When was that study done and who did it? It certainly makes sense to provide a seamless connection to the LRT. By the time there is any construction on a station, the high level bridge will either be torn down or repurposed for city transit. In order to get interest the federal government is going to have to get serious about re-introducing rail service to Calgary.

The image is from a Masters thesis by Greg Freer which won an award. The general location of a station has been know for decades - the government bought the land for it in ~2005 or before (they also bought land in Calgary for a backup station in case CPR rejected use of the old station). The Alberta Government bought the corridor rights for the bridge and approach in the 90s, as part of a scheme to stop the bridge from being demolished (CPR didn't want to pay for the bridge anymore, and the City of Edmonton initially refused to pay for a minor amount of lifecycle maintenance).

Images here: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-n...h-level-bridge-a-station-plan-guest-post

Thesis here: https://www.scribd.com/document/72936467/GP-Final-Report-Greg-Freer

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

That would be a decently convenient location for a station. Not really in the centre of things, but conveniently connected to the LRT network. In Germany, intercity tickets can often be used as an all-day local transit fare on both ends. It would be interesting to see a similar arrangement in Canada for intercity transportation. It would certainly make it easier for stations like Ottawa's current one or this proposed Edmonton locations - ones which are well-connected to the LRT networks, but not necessarily the most central.

Do you really want to compare Canada to real developed countries? Come on now....

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The image is from a Masters thesis by Greg Freer which won an award. The general location of a station has been know for decades - the government bought the land for it in ~2005 or before (they also bought land in Calgary for a backup station in case CPR rejected use of the old station). The Alberta Government bought the corridor rights for the bridge and approach in the 90s, as part of a scheme to stop the bridge from being demolished (CPR didn't want to pay for the bridge anymore, and the City of Edmonton initially refused to pay for a minor amount of lifecycle maintenance).

Images here: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-n...h-level-bridge-a-station-plan-guest-post

Thesis here: https://www.scribd.com/document/72936467/GP-Final-Report-Greg-Freer

I was looking all over for that link, thank you!