The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's actually not true. Buses burn way more during their service left than what is embedded in their construction.

You're probably right considering the mileage they accumulate every year. Not like a car that could take years to make up for the manufacturing emissions.

If the buses are sold to another operator not converting to electric, then you might have the best of both worlds.

Nonetheless, considering OC has near 1,000 buses, their current plan may end up being the best balance between financial considerations, environmental impact and operational needs.

As explained by Pat Scrimgeour ( Director of Transit Customer Systems and Planning at OC) in the video interview with RailFans, current electric buses are well adapted for short runs over a few hours, like suburban feeder routes to the O-Train, but would not have enough juice for long, all day work-horse routes like the Transitways, Bank, Montreal and Carling.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Diesel would be an easy bugaboo to oppose the project in both the Bow Valley/Mountain parks (even if it would be removing auto traffic ) and in Calgary itself, where some people will have the amount of train traffic go up by 500%, and others by 150%. Plus difficulty with electrification.

I completely agree.

Added to this is that it would be a great way for Alberta to show case it's clean hydrogen production as it {hopefully} transforms to a hydrogen super power.

It would also make the most economic sense. Catenary electrification would be horrendously expensive and using diesel means they wouldn't get any federal help with the project. Ottawa is spending billions to de-carbonize our transport system and it would be impossible for them to then turn around and give gobs of money to a new diesel train route.

The added bonus is that it may also be able to squeeze some money out of CN for the hydrogen infrastructure which they could also tap into as they too are forced to transform their fleet over to hydrogen.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It would also make the most economic sense. Catenary electrification would be horrendously expensive and using diesel means they wouldn't get any federal help with the project. Ottawa is spending billions to de-carbonize our transport system and it would be impossible for them to then turn around and give gobs of money to a new diesel train route.

They're likely to hand out gobs of money to a diesel HFR line from Montreal to Quebec city. From an optics view, it doesn't look as good to use diesel but it would still be a net win for the environment, so long as it was a good project where the trains don't run empty.

However if any rail line is to use hydrogen, this is it. If there is excess cost vs diesel, it will be worth it. We can't easily electrify the line but we should be able to supply hydrogen with no issue, it eliminates any chance of "dur-dur it's using dirty diesel" complaints from the usual suspects, it makes Alberta look modern etc.

I guarantee that if this gets built with hydrogen power it will be on plastered over all of our promotional material.

[MalcolmTucker]

Oh yeah, this is such an easy case. Germans have covered the development risk and Alberta currently has the most hydrogen production on the continent after the USA Gulf Coast, making it super easy compared to lets say if UP Express converted today where you'd have to assemble an entire fuel supply chain.

[milomilo]

One thing - we still have stupid FRA rules in regards to building locomotives strong enough to withstand depleted uranium shells. There was some sort of rule change a few years back but I don't know if it's actually translated into being able to run nice European trains on our shared freight railways.

There is this one though, so it shouldn't be too hard to find something.

https://www.gosbcta.com/project/diesel-multiple-unit-to-zero-emission-multiple-unit-pilot/

[Truenorth00]

I wonder if the $9B HSR pushers can talk to the Banff train guys and work out how to extend the train through Calgary.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I wonder if the $9B HSR pushers can talk to the Banff train guys and work out how to extend the train through Calgary.

Transfers at a Calgary station are likely.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I wonder if the $9B HSR pushers can talk to the Banff train guys and work out how to extend the train through Calgary.

The good thing is the projects are complimentary. Building one makes the case for building the other better. The only thing would be coordinating a central station, what works for YYC-Banff probably wouldn't work for HSR. Probably no big deal though, the Banff railway will be built first and will likely use a cheap temporary station. If we want a fancy HSR one, that can be built later.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The good thing is the projects are complimentary. Building one makes the case for building the other better. The only thing would be coordinating a central station, what works for YYC-Banff probably wouldn't work for HSR. Probably no big deal though, the Banff railway will be built first and will likely use a cheap temporary station. If we want a fancy HSR one, that can be built later.

They're talking either a new central station between 4th and 5th st sw, or using the historic platforms behind Calgary Tower (but aspen properties needs to play ball to get the necessary renovations in. Either could service both, though Calgary tower would be way easier.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

The Royal Canadian Pacific still uses what's left of the station facilities behind the Calgary Tower, so it wouldn't be impossible to convince the owners to turn it back to its original purpose. I mean hell the platforms are still on the track level!

[biguc]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

They're talking either a new central station between 4th and 5th st sw, or using the historic platforms behind Calgary Tower (but aspen properties needs to play ball to get the necessary renovations in. Either could service both, though Calgary tower would be way easier.

There's not enough space between 4th and 5th for anything more than rinky dink. When HSR comes down I'd bet they'll build something east of 4th SE. They'll need about 200m x 40, and they should plan with room to expand; your new central station will present a golden opportunity to start running commuter trains/regional DMUs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

They're talking either a new central station between 4th and 5th st sw, or using the historic platforms behind Calgary Tower (but aspen properties needs to play ball to get the necessary renovations in. Either could service both, though Calgary tower would be way easier.

Is this insider info or is it available publicly?

There shouldn't be a need for anything big and expensive I'd think. You might not need to terminate any trains downtown in which case 2 platforms should be fine. I guess they'd probably want a third as well but at first the service pattern will surely be quite basic. Either way, I would think something either cheap enough to abandon or with room to substantially modify easily would be prudent.

I'm thinking it'll be like the old downtown west blue line station, although probably a little nicer.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by biguc

There's not enough space between 4th and 5th for anything more than rinky dink. When HSR comes down I'd bet they'll build something east of 4th SE. They'll need about 200m x 40, and they should plan with room to expand; your new central station will present a golden opportunity to start running commuter trains/regional DMUs.

The existing platforms at Centre Street are plenty long for HSR (existing range from 500m+ to just under 400m. And yeah, going on the west side of downtown does limit future HSR for sure (between 4th and 5th is just short of 150 m), so HSR would end up with its own platforms likely to between 8th and 5th street (almost 500m).

East of 4th St SE is the default study site because it is government owned, so if your study involves a station, you don't need to consult with the owners of potential station sites.

The lack of an operating station is not the bottleneck in running commuter trains or regional DMUs. Track capacity is. The project involves adding track capacity west and north. This will not support track capacity for other directions. The project expects commuters to use the line from the west. Maybe if more track capacity is added further north past the airport, commuter service could be contemplated.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is this insider info or is it available publicly?

There shouldn't be a need for anything big and expensive I'd think. You might not need to terminate any trains downtown in which case 2 platforms should be fine. I guess they'd probably want a third as well but at first the service pattern will surely be quite basic. Either way, I would think something either cheap enough to abandon or with room to substantially modify easily would be prudent.

I'm thinking it'll be like the old downtown west blue line station, although probably a little nicer.

Chatted with people with direct knowledge. As not a public project, the motivations shift a bit. While a public project might choose the cheapest solution as they try to reach a specific capital cost, this project is as at least partly revenue driven, needs to make choices to maximize ridership. Plus if your friend the CPR is playing ball, giving them a potential revenue stream of stations built to be integrated into a real estate play is quite the sweetener (the impression left with me was that the CPR owns the surface lots north of the ROW in downtown west).

Given the operational plan (20x a day inbound/outbound westbound; ~100x inbound/outbound eastbound) a limited amount of journeys might be all the way-perhaps all service to Banff, but not all. 2 tracks, 2 platforms are likely necessary to allow that to work. The station needs to service, hold, entertain (feed and market to) and connect many transferring airport <--> Banff travelers, it won't be a side of the road minimal space. For Calgary, it is important to have connections into the underground city/path equivalent, the Plus 15 to maximize ridership. And being next to the core of the +15 network is a benefit.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The existing platforms at Centre Street are plenty long for HSR (existing range from 500m+ to just under 400m. And yeah, going on the west side of downtown does limit future HSR for sure (between 4th and 5th is just short of 150 m), so HSR would end up with its own platforms likely to between 8th and 5th street (almost 500m).

East of 4th St SE is the default study site because it is government owned, so if your study involves a station, you don't need to consult with the owners of potential station sites.

The lack of an operating station is not the bottleneck in running commuter trains or regional DMUs. Track capacity is. The project involves adding track capacity west and north. This will not support track capacity for other directions. The project expects commuters to use the line from the west. Maybe if more track capacity is added further north past the airport, commuter service could be contemplated.

Chatted with people with direct knowledge. As not a public project, the motivations shift a bit. While a public project might choose the cheapest solution as they try to reach a specific capital cost, this project is as at least partly revenue driven, needs to make choices to maximize ridership. Plus if your friend the CPR is playing ball, giving them a potential revenue stream of stations built to be integrated into a real estate play is quite the sweetener (the impression left with me was that the CPR owns the surface lots north of the ROW in downtown west).

Given the operational plan (20x a day inbound/outbound westbound; ~100x inbound/outbound eastbound) a limited amount of journeys might be all the way-perhaps all service to Banff, but not all. 2 tracks, 2 platforms are likely necessary to allow that to work. The station needs to service, hold, entertain (feed and market to) and connect many transferring airport <--> Banff travelers, it won't be a side of the road minimal space. For Calgary, it is important to have connections into the underground city/path equivalent, the Plus 15 to maximize ridership. And being next to the core of the +15 network is a benefit.

Whatever happens, I'm stoked this has legs. I really think it has a ton going for it. Along with other things I've said, it's a project that isn't so big as to be automatically controversial (like HSR would be) and I think if you asked most people "do you think a train to Banff and the airport would be good?" they would say yes. As long as it doesn't become a boondoggle, I don't see there being much pushback.

My only worry is that we give too much to private operators. Either in the form of subsidizing building a railway for CP who will then shaft us, or building a private railway that can't integrate with future services down the road, or perform other functions outside of its pure business interests.

[ScreamingViking]

Funding announcement in Hamilton today regarding money for a new bus maintenance & storage facility (which represents the largest share of the funding, more than $260M) and other improvements to city transit.

Also covers money for 85 new and 92 replacement buses, active transportation infrastructure and bike share stations, IT upgrades for dispatch and real-time routing info, and road/bridge work for a street that accesses the M&S site.

This is all going to help improve service and connections for the LRT, never mind better bus service across the city. I imagine many bus routes will be re-mapped and rationalized to better support the two main corridors and improve service on the other 3 that have been in the BLAST network concept.


https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ca...for-residents-of-hamilton-889221932.html

The Government of Canada is investing over $201.8 million in these projects through the Public Transit Infrastructure Stream (PTIS) of the Investing in Canada infrastructure program. The Government of Ontario is providing more than $168.2 million, and the City of Hamilton is contributing over $148.8 million to these projects.

Among the projects funded, the construction of a new 60,000 square metre public transit maintenance and storage facility that will include a 30-bus maintenance area, storage for 200 conventional size buses, approximately 4000 square metres of administration space, and a four-level parking structure. Once completed, the new facility will improve the capacity of public transit infrastructure in the City and improve the quality and safety of the existing and future transit system.

In addition, improvements to Hamilton's bus transit network and upgrades to the City's 16 km-long A-Line rapid transit corridor will result in a faster and more reliable public transit experience. The upgrades involve the construction of five new queue jump lines and 17 km of new sidewalks along 12 different segments of rapid transit roadway, the implementation of transit signal priority measures at various intersections, and improvements to approximately 19 transit stops along the corridor.

Once completed, these projects will contribute to the City of Hamilton's network of BLAST corridors designed to connect residents from the lower city, to the mountain, to the waterfront and the airport. This gives Hamilton the tools to deliver exceptional transit to move within the city, and conveniently access regional transportation choices.

[Truenorth00]

All that money and they are are getting 177 CNG buses. Odd decision knowing the carbon tax is going up. I wonder how the math worked out on that. Seems odd that they couldn't get the grants and bridge financing that Ottawa and Halifax got for bus electrification.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All that money and they are are getting 177 CNG buses. Odd decision knowing the carbon tax is going up. I wonder how the math worked out on that. Seems odd that they couldn't get the grants and bridge financing that Ottawa and Halifax got for bus electrification.

I had the same question.

Only reasonable answers I could think of are that the city decided more buses for the money made more sense than electrics (and I understand they applied for these funds more than 2 years ago, so who knows whether internal thinking has changed), and that maybe they have a long term contract for natural gas they need to get off the books first?

The maintenance and storage facility has been a huge need for a while now before any fleet expansion could happen, as the existing one has been way over capacity for a while. It is also south of the urban area and not ideally situated to minimize deadheading on lower city routes, so having the two in a few years should really help with system efficiency (the new one will be fairly central to the lower city)

[MalcolmTucker]

Others have raised that Hamilton found electric buses in trials didn't have peak power performance to their liking.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Others have raised that Hamilton found electric buses in trials didn't have peak power performance to their liking.

The city initially made a big deal out of the trial, but seems like they have been quiet about results even if preliminary.

I don't know how the differences in technology compare on the road, but there's often angst here about the ability of electrified transit to manage the trip up the escarpment. It's been one of the specious arguments against LRT (presuming we eventually build the A-Line as light rail, but opponents use it as a reason not to start building any part of the transit system on rails) and I seem to recall it being a worry about electric buses. Yet the tech is always improving, and it's not like we don't have access roads with a reasonable enough grade to make it to the top efficiently... nor that other cities who are adopting e-buses don't have steep hills.

[Truenorth00]

Going up the hill is just a matter of power. I find it hard to imagine that this is a situation that can't be overcome with a larger battery pack and/or motor.

Oh well. Maybe they start transitioning towards the end of the decade.