The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Ontario1

LRT on dedicated lanes doesn't have to stop at traffic lights. The lights can be tripped before the trains get to intersections and continue without stopping to the next station.

But that interferes with cars and while I do believe transit should be prioritized, subways bypass the problem altogether. And it still takes up road space that could be used for cars, or bike lanes or whatever

[Ontario1]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But that interferes with cars and while I do believe transit should be prioritized, subways bypass the problem altogether. And it still takes up road space that could be used for cars, or bike lanes or whatever

Surface LRT systems have their place in smaller cities where subways are way more expensive and do not make any sense from a financial standpoint. Traffic may have to wait one light cycle...big deal. The system will be almost as fast as a subway and people will be able to see where they are going.

If people are concerned about losing road space...use a parallel street. That is why they are widening Weber Street in Kitchener. It will accommodate traffic that otherwise would have used the King Street section that is going to be used by the LRT. Not everybody needs to drive down King Street to get where they want to go. Waterloo region has planned for this. There are also sections of the LRT that use existing rail and hydro corridors and don't interfere with any traffic.

[Chadillaccc]

Well I know that Calgary's LRT has a faster average speed than both subways in this country, at least according to the official data I've seen. The problem with surface LRTs is their reliability, or lack thereof. Having LRT subways through downtown, such as Edmonton's current subway and Ottawa and Calgary's future subways, is probably the best and most cost effective way to initiate widespread mass transit in medium-sized cities such as those three. Kitchener's fully surface LRT will be fine for that city currently and for decades to come, at which point it will likely be buried through the busier areas of the city.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Well I know that Calgary's LRT has a faster average speed than both subways in this country, at least according to the official data I've seen. The problem with surface LRTs is their reliability, or lack thereof. Having LRT subways through downtown, such as Edmonton's current subway and Ottawa and Calgary's future subways, is probably the best and most cost effective way to initiate widespread mass transit in medium-sized cities such as those three. Kitchener's fully surface LRT will be fine for that city currently and for decades to come, at which point it will likely be buried through the busier areas of the city.

I don't feel like calculating it, but just looking at maps it appears that Calgary's LRT is faster because of much greater station spacing compared to Toronto and Montreal.

[Aylmer]

Ottawa's system is unlike Calgary's or Edmonton's because it has total and complete grade separation - there isn't one intersection or potential conflict - everything will be overpasses, underpasses, tunnels and fenced-off routes. It could very well be automated in the future (I don't see why else they'd go through so much trouble).

LRT, under these conditions, can safely operate at 90s frequencies (any more, though possible, is more difficult) and the stations are built to accommodate as many as three 50m trains, a total crush load capacity of over 1000 people.
Toronto's new trains will have a crush load of 1100, but can only operate at 150s intervals.

So the maximum capacity of Ottawa's LRT would be 36 000pphpd, more than enough to handle our transit needs until they start to rival the Yonge line (which could take some time, IMO).

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Well I know that Calgary's LRT has a faster average speed than both subways in this country, at least according to the official data I've seen. The problem with surface LRTs is their reliability, or lack thereof. Having LRT subways through downtown, such as Edmonton's current subway and Ottawa and Calgary's future subways, is probably the best and most cost effective way to initiate widespread mass transit in medium-sized cities such as those three. Kitchener's fully surface LRT will be fine for that city currently and for decades to come, at which point it will likely be buried through the busier areas of the city.

It's dandy for KW, but I'm less certain about Hamilton. I don't think it needs buried right now, but I am worried it will need it soon enough that not burying today will seem a mistake in 10-15 years.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Ottawa's system is unlike Calgary's or Edmonton's because it has total and complete grade separation - there isn't one intersection or potential conflict - everything will be overpasses, underpasses, tunnels and fenced-off routes. It could very well be automated in the future (I don't see why else they'd go through so much trouble).

LRT, under these conditions, can safely operate at 90s frequencies (any more, though possible, is more difficult) and the stations are built to accommodate as many as three 50m trains, a total crush load capacity of over 1000 people.
Toronto's new trains will have a crush load of 1100, but can only operate at 150s intervals.

So the maximum capacity of Ottawa's LRT would be 36 000pphpd, more than enough to handle our transit needs until they start to rival the Yonge line (which could take some time, IMO).

If it's totally grade separated and will run at that frequency, then it isn't lrt, it's metro (or rather light metro, with 50m train length) that just happens to use LRV stock.

[Innsertnamehere]

Wait, Ottawa will be using 150m trains? That's crazy! It's the same length as torontos subway trains.. Eglinton will use 90 meter trains which is what I sort of expected for Ottawa. Does anyone know the projected PPHD for the line?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If it's totally grade separated and will run at that frequency, then it isn't lrt, it's metro (or rather light metro, with 50m train length) that just happens to use LRV stock.

My thoughts exactly. When you're riding transit, it doesn't matter how the vehicle may be classified - what matters is the ride itself (speed, capacity, grade separation, quality of infrastructure, frequency, etc.). So I see the Confederation Line as a grade-A separated, high-frequency, high-capacity urban rail system.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Wait, Ottawa will be using 150m trains? That's crazy! It's the same length as torontos subway trains.. Eglinton will use 90 meter trains which is what I sort of expected for Ottawa. Does anyone know the projected PPHD for the line?

The stations will be built to accommodate 150m trains (3 coupled LRVs), but it'll run with 2 to begin with for an operating pphpd of 18 000 (at 120 second intervals) and a maximum of 24 000 pphpd (at 90s intervals). With three trains, the system will be able to move 40 000 pphpd at crush load.

[Innsertnamehere]

I'm not wondering what the system is capable of, I'm wondering what use is actually projected to be. Sort of like how Eglinton will be capable of 20,000 PPHD, but will initially experience 5,900.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

My thoughts exactly. When you're riding transit, it doesn't matter how the vehicle may be classified - what matters is the ride itself (speed, capacity, grade separation, quality of infrastructure, frequency, etc.). So I see the Confederation Line as a grade-A separated, high-frequency, high-capacity urban rail system.

There are actually other examples of full rapid transit systems using LRV vehicles including Line 1 of Manila MRT system and LA's Green line. In these cases there are specific reasons for using LRV stock. In Manila's case, the stock was donated by the Czech Rep and in LA's case, I assume it was for the sake of interoperability as it has other conventional LRT services such as the Blue line.

But I have to wonder why Ottawa chose to use LRV stock when typically this is only chosen when there's a need to operate in mixed traffic. Perhaps it's to save money on platform construction since LRVs are available with low floors but conventional metro cars are usually high-floor.

[J.OT13]

actually, the Ottawa system will have 120 meter platforms (underground), allowing for 130 meter trains (nose and ass will go 5 meters over platform) for a "comfort" capacity of 24,000. The original plans called for 180 meter platforms and reduced twice to 150 and 120 for cost savings.

What is truly sad about the cancelation of the 1977 plan is that we never got a proper urban rapid transit system. If it would have been built as shown, it would have been much easier to add other lines in the future (such as the Bank Street line).

The current plan is the best in decades, but I'm disappointed in capacity considering it was reduced by 1/3 for the original plan 5 years ago. Also, I don't like the fact that this plan is very suburban-centric, stretching every dollar to get it as far as possible (see Stage-2 below). That said, I'm still happy they will add (Gladstone, New Orchard, Cleary) and upgrade (Dominion, a barely used, kind of hidden station in one of the most vibrant old Ottawa neighborhoods) a few urban stations.



If only we could also build a line under Bank-Rideau-Montreal we'd be set.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But I have to wonder why Ottawa chose to use LRV stock when typically this is only chosen when there's a need to operate in mixed traffic. Perhaps it's to save money on platform construction since LRVs are available with low floors but conventional metro cars are usually high-floor.

Low-floor was surely one of the reasons, but also lrt vehicles can go up and down steeper grades (would have been needed for the initial tunnel plan that saw it nearly 40 meters underground) and tighter curves (tight turn from Rideau to Waller/Nicholas).

They also wanted to keep the possibility of possibly running it on the surface for the western extension. The original plans called for using a parkway along the Ottawa river (again with lots of curves) or possibly on the surface on Richmond Road.

They've finally opted for full grade separation with a straight trench along the Parkway (could end up underground due to NCC opposition) to Cleary Station followed by a tunnel to Lincoln Fields Station.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't feel like calculating it, but just looking at maps it appears that Calgary's LRT is faster because of much greater station spacing compared to Toronto and Montreal.

This has been discussed many times on here. Calgary's average station distance is only 1.4 km, while Toronto's is 1 km. Not sure about MTL, but it's really not that big of a difference, considering how different the technologies are.

[GreaterMontréal]

Montréal metro distance between stations
Orange 968m
Green 819m
Blue 808m
Yellow 1 417 m

being a metro with rubber tires, it can decelerate and accelerate faster, so the time is reduced.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

actually, the Ottawa system will have 120 meter platforms (underground), allowing for 130 meter trains (nose and ass will go 5 meters over platform) for a "comfort" capacity of 24,000. The original plans called for 180 meter platforms and reduced twice to 150 and 120 for cost savings.

What is truly sad about the cancelation of the 1977 plan is that we never got a proper urban rapid transit system. If it would have been built as shown, it would have been much easier to add other lines in the future (such as the Bank Street line).

I have to wonder why they would have proposed such long platforms to being with. 180m is longer than the platforms of most heavy metro systems and 150m is still as long or longer than many. Except for very large, dense cities, platforms of 100-120m is more than sufficient as long as there's full metro-level frequency. Perhaps it was just a negotiating tactic to garner funding (aim higher than desired and allow yourself to be haggled down to what you actually want).

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The current plan is the best in decades, but I'm disappointed in capacity considering it was reduced by 1/3 for the original plan 5 years ago. Also, I don't like the fact that this plan is very suburban-centric, stretching every dollar to get it as far as possible (see Stage-2 below). That said, I'm still happy they will add (Gladstone, New Orchard, Cleary) and upgrade (Dominion, a barely used, kind of hidden station in one of the most vibrant old Ottawa neighborhoods) a few urban stations.

If only we could also build a line under Bank-Rideau-Montreal we'd be set.

Sometimes focusing on suburbs is a good tactic when trying to tackle congestion since taking cars of the road is the #1 thing you can do to reduce traffic, and suburbanites tend to use cars at higher rates than urbanites who are already using buses and active transportation at respectable levels. It may not seem fair to spend a greater percapita level of transit dollars to serve a smaller segment of riders, but getting cars off the road is a benefit to urbanites as much as it is to the suburbs.

[GlassCity]

Yeah no question, if it's built to the degree of grade separation as you guys are saying for the Confederation Line it essentially is a fullblown metro at that point. The only difference is rolling stock, which isn't nearly as important.

On the other hand when I see plans like Hamilton's to just run trains straight down the middle of a street I get kind of worried that this is considered an adequate form of rapid transit.

[Chadillaccc]

It's funny you guys or at least someone up there was talking about "automation" of the Ottawa lrt line in the future. You do realize that every single extension proposed for the line will have at-grade intersections right? It's still an LRT, let's not get carried away. That's like me saying "well the suburban 2/3 of Calgary's NW and W lines are grade separated, I guess they should be automated!"

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It's funny you guys or at least someone up there was talking about "automation" of the Ottawa lrt line in the future. You do realize that every single extension proposed for the line will have at-grade intersections right? It's still an LRT, let's not get carried away. That's like me saying "well the suburban 2/3 of Calgary's NW and W lines are grade separated, I guess they should be automated!"

Really? I haven't heard of any at-grade intersections planned (not that that means there aren't).

Do you mean the O-train? I have no idea how the extension to Orleans works, but I thought that at least the planned extension to Algonquin/Bayshore went underneath roads when they're in the way. and it would seem rather silly to me to have almost all of it grade separated and then randomly cross some road in Orleans (again, this doesn't mean they won't do that). But like I say, I haven't really heard in much detail what they plan to do beyond phase 1.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

actually, the Ottawa system will have 120 meter platforms (underground), allowing for 130 meter trains (nose and ass will go 5 meters over platform) for a "comfort" capacity of 24,000. The original plans called for 180 meter platforms and reduced twice to 150 and 120 for cost savings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the underground stations going to be built 150m from day one and the surface stations have 120m platforms, but be designed to be easily upgradable to 150m when the ridership demands it?

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

It's funny you guys or at least someone up there was talking about "automation" of the Ottawa lrt line in the future. You do realize that every single extension proposed for the line will have at-grade intersections right?

This is news to me. Which ones?