The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Doady

Rapid transit isn't either/or, but on a continuum. Everything is in grey area, I don't think we need hard and discrete boundaries and definitions, let alone use them to judge the quality of Canadian transit. Looking at the ridership, Winnipeg's transit system is actually better than a lot of UK systems. Winnipeg and its bus system had transit mode share of 13.41% in 2011, higher than the 13.22% mode share for Liverpool and its transit system, including 121km of Merseyrail. Do we really need to "browbeat and shame fellow Canucks" because of this? I don't think so. Again, if we need to spend more money to build more rail transit, it's not because our transit is bad, but rather because our transit already good. Rapid transit is to solve the problem of high ridership, not of low ridership.

Brilliant post. I want to commend you on clearing some misconceptions on transit especially in Winnipeg. The bus system with all its problems does a great job at attracting ridership and keeping traffic manageable in the city. There’s no other city in Canada under a million people that has better transit then Winnipeg.

Although it just makes me so much more frustrated with our current leadership who are not willing to invest in Rapid Transit. Quebec and Hamilton with much lower ridership numbers investing far more into rapid transit then Winnipeg is willing to just doesn’t sit right with me. I mean isn’t the Quebec tramway like a $4 billion project? Winnipeg definitely needs a project on that scale if it wants to progress to become a true major city instead of trying to always act like a small town.

Now that the pandemic shock to transit is over and with the exponential increase in gas prices transit all across the country is quickly reaching the passenger numbers seen prior to Covid and with new infill and densification numbers I expect that ridership numbers in 2023 will be greater then 2019.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I guess it comes down to the question of at what service level does commuter/suburban rail get counted as higher order urban transit?

That's why I prefer to use the word metro. The idea of a metro (fully grade separated service) covers a lot of ground from Ottawa's O-Train to Vancouver's SkyTrain to Montreal's REM to TTC subways. Describing Ottawa's system as LRT really undersells it. Especially when anybody then mentions Hamilton, Hurontario, Waterloo, Eglinton and Finch West in the same category.

Originally Posted by biguc

Anyway, there's been a lot of talk about GO becoming more S-bahn like. This talk isn't wrong, but it has little to do with Berlin's S-bahn.

Most S-bahns are catenary powered. In big cities like Munich and Cologne they provide something like a centralized suburban collector, with high-frequency service connecting outlying areas with the central station. This kind of service is something like RER or a more heavy-duty Skytrain.

I think of GO RER as ending up something like Munich or Vienna.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

To ease the pain of high gas prices, the German government introduced a 9 Euro monthly rail pass that covers all local and regional transit--in the entire country.

I'd suggest something like that, but we don't have passenger rail to most places. If only we had a national rail carrier that could do that. Then it could even be set up such that a transit pass is valid everywhere.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's why I prefer to use the word metro. The idea of a metro (fully grade separated service) covers a lot of ground from Ottawa's O-Train to Vancouver's SkyTrain to Montreal's REM to TTC subways. Describing Ottawa's system as LRT really undersells it. Especially when anybody then mentions Hamilton, Hurontario, Waterloo, Eglinton and Finch West in the same category.

I thought the idea with Ottawa's LRT was that it would basically be the same thing as Eglinton - underground/elevated at the centre, and running in non-grade separated ROWs further out? I know it currently has full grade separation though.

Both lines are a clear step up from fully-ROW LRT lines like Finch or KW's though, and those then are a clear step up from dedicated tramways like Spadina or St. Clair, which are themselves a step up from mixed-traffic streetcars. It's basically a sliding scale of transit - at what point exactly the boundary crosses from light rail into metro seems a bit a blurry.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I thought the idea with Ottawa's LRT was that it would basically be the same thing as Eglinton - underground/elevated at the centre, and running in non-grade separated ROWs further out? I know it currently has full grade separation though.

Both lines are a clear step up from fully-ROW LRT lines like Finch or KW's though, and those then are a clear step up from dedicated tramways like Spadina or St. Clair, which are themselves a step up from mixed-traffic streetcars. It's basically a sliding scale of transit - at what point exactly the boundary crosses from light rail into metro seems a bit a blurry.

It was supposed to be like that, until the VIA-OCTranspo accident.

[WhipperSnapper]

Germany is 85 million people living in an area that fits into Ontario almost three times. We should have national rail options to every major centre. A system with the coverage and frequencies of Europe is not efficient for Canada. Affordable and effective air travel is key to Canada. Affordability is at its best ever. Efficiency is at its worst (hopefully not for long)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I thought the idea with Ottawa's LRT was that it would basically be the same thing as Eglinton - underground/elevated at the centre, and running in non-grade separated ROWs further out? I know it currently has full grade separation though.

Both lines are a clear step up from fully-ROW LRT lines like Finch or KW's though, and those then are a clear step up from dedicated tramways like Spadina or St. Clair, which are themselves a step up from mixed-traffic streetcars. It's basically a sliding scale of transit - at what point exactly the boundary crosses from light rail into metro seems a bit a blurry.

Originally, yes it was planned to be that way. realistically Ottawa will never see street running, which is a shame.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

If you look at a regular bus in a new subdivision, it's probably as fast as Yonge subway line. Empty buses that never have to stop, so very fast. The speed only starts to decrease when the ridership increases. The highest ridership bus routes, they are also the slowest routes. And that's what "rapid transit" is all about. It's not about increasing speed, but rather about maintaining the same speed as the ridership increases. And that means limited stops, all-door boarding, grade separation, and of course high frequencies.

And I think it is where most people look at rapid transit completely backwards. They see rapid transit as a way to solve the problem of low ridership instead of as a way to solve the problem of high ridership. When a city like Winnipeg ever builds light rail, it won't be because the ridership is too low. Low ridership not a problem in Winnipeg, trust me. Likewise, Mississauga didn't pursue light rail along Hurontario because the buses along Hurontario were empty. Instead, the ridership was just getting too much for the buses to handle, and they needed something higher capacity.

That also means what is true "rapid transit" or metro is a matter of capacity also. Commuter rail trains every 20-minutes might be considered as rapid transit or metro if they remain 12-car double decker trains. Eglinton Crosstown will not have to worry about high frequency or length of trains interfering with other traffic on the street, although the trains will be much narrower than those on the other TTC subway lines. But then again, the Montreal Metro trains are also much narrower the TTC subway trains...

Rapid transit isn't either/or, but on a continuum. Everything is in grey area, I don't think we need hard and discrete boundaries and definitions, let alone use them to judge the quality of Canadian transit. Looking at the ridership, Winnipeg's transit system is actually better than a lot of UK systems. Winnipeg and its bus system had transit mode share of 13.41% in 2011, higher than the 13.22% mode share for Liverpool and its transit system, including 121km of Merseyrail. Do we really need to "browbeat and shame fellow Canucks" because of this? I don't think so. Again, if we need to spend more money to build more rail transit, it's not because our transit is bad, but rather because our transit already good. Rapid transit is to solve the problem of high ridership, not of low ridership.

I think that's mostly true in that people often try to define rapid transit in terms of trip times that end users experience when in reality is isn't about the end user experience but rather about the ability to move large numbers of people (bandwidth rather than latency). However, while rapid transit tends to be the most effective way of doing that, it doesn't follow that any and every way of doing that is therefore rapid transit. A 12 car bi-level commuter train like what GO currently uses packed full enough that there are just as many people standing as seated could only carry about 10k people an hour which is at 20 minute frequency which is on the low end for rapid transit despite the enormous 300m+ trains. In fact, you can achieve that just with buses if you have a full articulated bus every ~45 seconds. By comparison, a metro line with just 100m long trains running at 30tph can carry around 2.5x that much and that's less than maximum train frequency or length. In other words, just being able to carry a large number of people doesn't mean a technology is suited to doing it well in the way rapid transit is.

I would also push back on the idea that our transit systems are "good" just because of higher mode share. One issue is that ridership depends on a variety of variables with transit quality being just one. There's also the quality of the alternatives (car, active transport), culture (stigma/respectability/normalization of riding), geometry of city (density, centralization) etc. are equally important. The other main issue is that "good transit" involves a variety of things including how well the infrastructure is matched to its purpose. A transit system with a high level of ridership paired with disproportionately low meager infrastructure is not what I'd call "good".

Your description of rapid transit as a way to solve the "problem" of high ridership is very apt because it is indeed a problem. And problems make things worse rather than better if they're not properly addressed. A city may have good bus service, but cities over a certain size and ridership levels should have stronger infrastructure in response. Especially if the buses don't have extensive priority measures. Not having it means a poorer experience for riders with less comfort and longer trip times, and it also means a poorer experience for transit service providers in that they spend more in labour and energy while losing out on potential efficiencies. So even if a city has good bus service, the overall system might not be that good because of the lack of a strong, higher-order backbone.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Germany is 85 million people living in an area that fits into Ontario almost three times. We should have national rail options to every major centre. A system with the coverage and frequencies of Europe is not efficient for Canada. Affordable and effective air travel is key to Canada. Affordability is at its best ever. Efficiency is at its worst (hopefully not for long)

Frequent, high-speed rail service is viable in the Corridor. Frequent service is (should be) viable in Moncton - Halifax, and much of the West, especially Calgary - Edmonton. Why do people insist on arguing that because our average density is low, therefore, we shouldn't have rail service to densely populated areas?

Air travel, affordable in Canada? I've yet to see that.

We could set up a rural bus service tomorrow. It requires no infrastructure (except in the North), and can be done much cheaper than a train. Air travel requires new infrastructure, is less environmentally-friendly, and is more expensive. No need for it when there are cheaper alternatives.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Frequent, high-speed rail service is viable in the Corridor. Frequent service is (should be) viable in Moncton - Halifax, and much of the West, especially Calgary - Edmonton. Why do people insist on arguing that because our average density is low, therefore, we shouldn't have rail service to densely populated areas?

Air travel, affordable in Canada? I've yet to see that.

We could set up a rural bus service tomorrow. It requires no infrastructure (except in the North), and can be done much cheaper than a train. Air travel requires new infrastructure, is less environmentally-friendly, and is more expensive. No need for it when there are cheaper alternatives.

Probably because it would take away from some pet project people think they should have, or yet another tax cut.

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Just rail for GO transit is 526 km.

You stated the 'fact' first which does mean you need to prove it first.

Now, if I were to continue with all non Via rail services we would be well close to 1000km.

So I guess you've conceded that transit with Berlin is VASTLY superior to that in any Canadian city.

Now you're trying to lean on GO with their shit diesel trains after I already warned you about DB Regio 'electric' trains - which connect connect virtually every dick little town in Brandenburg State with Berlin.. who knows how many kms that adds up to.. Germans don't boast about their awesome transit, they just bitch about it! (2 minutes late. WTF!)

You are a fact-free person, Trump 2024!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

So I guess you've conceded that transit with Berlin is VASTLY superior to that in any Canadian city.

Now you're trying to lean on GO with their shit diesel trains after I already warned you about DB Regio 'electric' trains - which connect connect virtually every dick little town in Brandenburg State with Berlin.. who knows how many kms that adds up to..

You are a fact-free person, Trump 2024!

Quite the opposite.

Not sure what election in Canada Trump will run it, considering that he is about to be arrested for high treason.

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Quite the opposite.

Not sure what election in Canada Trump will run it, considering that he is about to be arrested for high treason.

You're a clown.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

You're a clown.

Why thank you. From you, that is a complement.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

So I guess you've conceded that transit with Berlin is VASTLY superior to that in any Canadian city.

Now you're trying to lean on GO with their shit diesel trains after I already warned you about DB Regio 'electric' trains - which connect connect virtually every dick little town in Brandenburg State with Berlin.. who knows how many kms that adds up to.. Germans don't boast about their awesome transit, they just bitch about it! (2 minutes late. WTF!)

I appreciate your love of Berlin's transit. But honestly, this criticism comes off like a zealous convert, who has just discovered the faith. Have you been to any other cities besides Berlin? Also, have you bothered to study what policy differences, political processes, etc made that excellent transit possible? It's better to learn from others than resort to despair. One is the mark of maturity. The other is typical of sulking teenagers.

Also, while GO has many flaws, those "shit diesel trains" are arguably the best suburban rail network in North America and are literally going to be turned into a system on par with S-Bahns in most of the Germanic world, with no less than Deutsche Bahn as the lead contractor. Why dismiss what is literally one of the largest transit investments in the world?

I'm often critical of our underinvestment in public transport and borderline pathological commitment to car dependency. But I don't get this idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I guess maybe if I was 15 and just discovering Vienna's U-Bahn......

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I appreciate your love of Berlin's transit. But honestly, this criticism comes off like a zealous convert, who has just discovered the faith. Have you been to any other cities besides Berlin? Also, have you bothered to study what policy differences, political processes, etc made that excellent transit possible? It's better to learn from others than resort to despair. One is the mark of maturity. The other is typical of sulking teenagers.

Also, while GO has many flaws, those "shit diesel trains" are arguably the best suburban rail network in North America and are literally going to be turned into a system on par with S-Bahns in most of the Germanic world, with no less than Deutsche Bahn as the lead contractor. Why dismiss what is literally one of the largest transit investments in the world?

I'm often critical of our underinvestment in public transport and borderline pathological commitment to car dependency. But I don't get this idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I guess maybe if I was 15 and just discovering Vienna's U-Bahn......

Yes I've lived in several different countries and several different provinces/states and I can unequivocally state that transit in Canada generally sucks.

Are we so insecure that we can't accept this basic fact?

I support every transit improvement in every Canadian city but let's face facts:

Were never going to achieve Berlin-level transit because our cities weren't designed for it and we'll never agree to pay for it.

Like it or not, those are the facts and if you don't understand that then I don't know what else to say.

And the "best suburban rail network in North America"?

That's like saying "Best downhill skiing in Saskatchewan!"

That's a low bar.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

Are we so insecure that we can't accept this basic fact?

Are you under the impression that just because we don't whine incessantly about the flaws of our transit systems and pine hopelessly for European transit, that we're not aware of the deficiencies?

If so, you're wrong. Especially on this forum. There's plenty of folks here who are well travelled and have lived in multiple places to know what constitutes good and bad transit. Heck, the fact that you think Canadian transit is the worst is comical to me having lived in exurban California. Or hell, ask some sitting on an old Central or District Line train in London, in July, what they think of all the air conditioned subway cars on the TTC.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/central-line-temperature-london-weather-heatwave

Plenty of us just find it tiresome and unhelpful to exclusively focus on the negatives and never discuss paths to improvement or positive developments. You gotta grow out of the brooding teen stage of life at some point.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think it's true that our major cities will never have as extensive a rail network as places like Berlin because much of that depends on legacy surface rail corridors developed in bygone eras. We can widen and upgrade existing mainline rail corridors with sufficient political will like we're doing with the GO RER project, but it's incomprehensible that new ones will even be cut through the urban and suburban fabric. The business case to re-use old existing corridors is completely different than the case for building new, and when there is enough demand for a new route it would be either elevated, tunneled metro, or street running.

But the cost of creating elevated or tunneled generally means there needs to be high ridership and therefore a larger catchment area. You're not going to see lines every km or two. It's kind of like how Toronto can operate the largest streetcar/tram network in the Americas because of legacy inheritance when no city would build a streetcar network that large from scratch anymore. But it's still conceivable for a city to have equally good or better surface transit as Toronto with fewer streetcar routes by focusing on excellent bus service and perhaps a few strategically placed streetcar lines.

Likewise, we don't need as extensive a rail network to have similarly good transit. It's ok for the catchment area for rail lines to be larger if you have an excellent feeder bus network with lots of priority measures such as bus lanes and queue jumps. Our roads tend to be wider than in Europe so we can do things like that if we muster the political will for it.

[Truenorth00]

The sheer amount and quality of transit under construction in Canada is staggering. Yeah, no city in Canada is going to be Berlin. But quite a few will see substantial expansion that allows for some actual reduction in car dependency over this decade. This level of investment is actually comparable to Europe or Asia. The big question to me is whether this pace of investment is sustainable into the 2030s, or whether we end up in a 90s style slump again.

I'm particularly intrigued by GO RER. It's the kind of project that changes the mental geography of a region. Bramalea to Union in 20 mins (from 35 mins today) with trains every 10 mins (from hourly today) is the kind of service that will completely change both the reliance on transit in the GTA and the perceived effort required to travel to most of the 905 by transit. It actually becomes possible for a good proportion of the GTA to actually ditch the car or at least reduce it to occasional use.

I think a decade from now, we may quickly be up against land use inhibition transit expansion. Not Just Bikes covered that in a recent video.

• Video Link

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I thought the idea with Ottawa's LRT was that it would basically be the same thing as Eglinton - underground/elevated at the centre, and running in non-grade separated ROWs further out? I know it currently has full grade separation though.

Both lines are a clear step up from fully-ROW LRT lines like Finch or KW's though, and those then are a clear step up from dedicated tramways like Spadina or St. Clair, which are themselves a step up from mixed-traffic streetcars. It's basically a sliding scale of transit - at what point exactly the boundary crosses from light rail into metro seems a bit a blurry.

No matter how good Ottawa LRT is, 90% still need to use a bus. Ottawa's bus network has been deteriorating, and as long as many face a possible 30 minute outgoing transfer or double transfers, we have failed to address the needs of potential riders. I have had bad experiences over and over again since the Confed Line opened with connecting buses. Ottawa needs to invest in reliability of the buses. They now admit dropped runs because of the lack of drivers and buses.

It is unacceptable to add transfers and cut frequency at the same and still not have enough buses and trained drivers. When they cut service due to covid, why is there not surplus drivers and buses available to begin ramping up service again?