The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GernB]

I have ridden the C-Train every time I go to a Stamps game (3-4 times a year) and have found it to be very fast (certainly faster than I could've driven though sometimes slow through the DT). No idea what rush hour experience is like now but when I lived there in the early 90s it was very heavily used.

As an afterthought, Calgary seems to be a city that has found a good balance between freeways and mass transit. There could improvements to be sure (TC and Bow Trail freeways as were originally planned, fixing the Deerfoot bottleneck and a downtown tunnel for the C-Train immediately come to mind) but from an outsider's viewpoint they seem to have generally got it right.

[Hybrid247]

The only at-grade intersections that I can think of possibly existing in any of the extensions would be at Iris on the western extension and possibly a couple of streets south of South Keys on the southern extension.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by White Pine

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.

No, it was another Ottawa forumer a few months ago. I can't find his source but he was talking about how stoked he was that the first segment of the confederation line would be basically "metro" but was bummed because the extensions would keep it LRT. Regardless though, Ottawa doesn't need a metro anyways.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The only at-grade intersections that I can think of possibly existing in any of the extensions would be at Iris on the western extension and possibly a couple of streets south of South Keys on the southern extension.

No, they're going to build an overpass over the LRT at Iris. The O-Train does have one intersection with a pedestrian path somewhere around Heron Rd. and if it goes to Bowesville as opposed to the Airport, there will probably be some other intersections with country roads.

That said, the O-Train is a bit of a separate system in itself, being almost completely single-tracked and more of a kind of mini-S-Bahn type urban/suburban rail than a metro/LRT system. In fact, I kind of expect it to end up being the backbone for an S-Bahn-like rail system out to the outer-ring suburbs like Barrhaven, Kanata and Riverside South and even further to places like Perth and Arnprior.

[Innsertnamehere]

O-train also has an at grade crossing with another rail line.

[GernB]

O-train seems to be an experiment that's never really worked out. How are they going to integrate with the LRT? Is the line going be twinned and electrified, or is it just going to be left as is?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Regardless though, Ottawa doesn't need a metro anyways.

It's this attitude that I strongly dislike. What cities need metros then? Cities of 5 million without existing rapid transit systems? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all got metro systems at around the same population as Ottawa. Saying that a city doesn't need a metro is difficult because few cities "need" a metro at such a low population, but it's an investment for the future. Regardless, why subject people to lower-quality transit? I hate to be that guy on a forum that keeps saying the same thing, but build it right the first time. Watching Edmonton's Valley Line video made me actually physically cringe.

Like I've said a bunch of times already though, since Ottawa already has the corridors for it, it might as well built LRT since it won't have any of the obstacles that traditional LRT would. It would make no sense to build a subway under an existing transit-only corridor.

[Chadillaccc]

What I meant was that if a city like Calgary with extremely high rapid transit ridership can get by with traditional LRT, Ottawa can certainly get by with its improved "no intersections" LRT just fine.

[Hybrid247]

The O-train is actually quite successful in terms of ridership. I recall that the original TMP had plans to eventually twin and electrify the line sometime during phase 2, but since the TMP has recently been changed, I don't know if they're still planning on doing that.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's this attitude that I strongly dislike. What cities need metros then? Cities of 5 million without existing rapid transit systems? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all got metro systems at around the same population as Ottawa. Saying that a city doesn't need a metro is difficult because few cities "need" a metro at such a low population, but it's an investment for the future.

There is always a trade-off between building a smaller, higher-quality system and a lower-quality system with more coverage (or building nothing and saving the money). This is true even with buses. The question isn't whether or not a metro would be good, it's whether or not the metro is the best option available.

The Confederation Line in Ottawa looks great, although I don't know enough about the outer areas to comment on the placement or size of the stations. The only sad thing is that it should have been built 30-40 years ago.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

What I meant was that if a city like Calgary with extremely high rapid transit ridership can get by with traditional LRT, Ottawa can certainly get by with its improved "no intersections" LRT just fine.

Yeah for sure, I agree. I have no problem with CTrain's freeway LRT or Ottawa's separated corridor. But if for example Calgary decided to built the Centre Street LRT on street then I'd be upset.

Truth be told, I'm obsessed with hating the LRT, and I attack it any chance I can get. I realise the ridiculousness of this, but I just can't help it

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's this attitude that I strongly dislike. What cities need metros then? Cities of 5 million without existing rapid transit systems? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all got metro systems at around the same population as Ottawa. Saying that a city doesn't need a metro is difficult because few cities "need" a metro at such a low population, but it's an investment for the future. Regardless, why subject people to lower-quality transit? I hate to be that guy on a forum that keeps saying the same thing, but build it right the first time. Watching Edmonton's Valley Line video made me actually physically cringe.

Like I've said a bunch of times already though, since Ottawa already has the corridors for it, it might as well built LRT since it won't have any of the obstacles that traditional LRT would. It would make no sense to build a subway under an existing transit-only corridor.

I completely agree with you. Yes, it might cost more to build that way to begin with, but it will most certainly save more money and complication in the long run. If Ottawa had done like Edmonton and built a tunnel under downtown 3 decades ago, we would't be dealing with this bus congestion issue that we've had for years. It's good that we're finally building it, but the backbone of our transit system will be out of service for 3-4 years because of it. It all could have been avoided...

[GernB]

Vid, I'm curious. I've been told by what I would consider a reliable source (a fairly high up transit employee) that the half size buses are considerably cheaper to buy and operate. Can you point me to some numbers? Now that I'm riding consistenly due to very poor night vision this has suddenly become an interest of mine.

[GreaterMontréal]

What I meant was that if a city like Calgary with extremely high rapid transit ridership can get by with traditional LRT

AB
Calgary Transit TOTAL : 576 400 per day. It's not what I call ''extremly high''. Ottawa is at 560 000.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is always a trade-off between building a smaller, higher-quality system and a lower-quality system with more coverage (or building nothing and saving the money). This is true even with buses. The question isn't whether or not a metro would be good, it's whether or not the metro is the best option available.

The Confederation Line in Ottawa looks great, although I don't know enough about the outer areas to comment on the placement or size of the stations. The only sad thing is that it should have been built 30-40 years ago.

I definitely see and understand the trade-off, I guess I just prefer one option more than the other. My thinking behind it is I'd rather see one region with great (metro) transit and one with poor (bus) transit, than both having decent (LRT) transit. It might be hard to get by on bus service, but hell if Broadway and Centre Street can do it, anybody can. Then when you have enough money, you can build a metro where the region with only bus service is. This ensures that you end up with the best eventually, because there is no way a referendum would ever pass for a metro on a corridor where an LRT is already running, even if it is far past capacity. If it was possible to convert LRT to a full metro, I'd be all for it.

[GreaterMontréal]

Public transit in Montreal to see lots of changes in 2014

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/mont...eal+lots+changes+2014/9335423/story.html

''Another first: passengers will be able to use their cellphones in downtown subway stations and tunnels. Here’s what to expect on buses, trains and the subway in the new year.'' ..... see the link

[vid]

Originally Posted by GernB

Vid, I'm curious. I've been told by what I would consider a reliable source (a fairly high up transit employee) that the half size buses are considerably cheaper to buy and operate. Can you point me to some numbers? Now that I'm riding consistenly due to very poor night vision this has suddenly become an interest of mine.

If by "half-size" buses he means the 20 foot cutaways, then yes, those are a lot cheaper to buy, maintain, and operate. It's just an F-350 with a modified body.

The comparison I was thinking of was between the 30 and 40 foot city buses.


A 30 foot bus. Note the lack of rear door.

Between the two, there is little difference in cost or mileage and the driver of either one has to have a class B licence (in Ontario) since both carry more than 24 people. It costs Thunder Bay about $450,000 per bus (brand new) or $12,000 per seat. The 30 foot models will be at least $350,000, or $13,000 per seat.

So basically, our argument wasn't so much about which option was cheaper overall, just which one met our particular needs and limitations better. If Lethbridge has routes that have no busy sections and doesn't interline buses, then having cutaways as community shuttles (which many larger cities do, most notably Vancouver) would be viable. Thunder Bay isn't in that situation, we've designed a transit system that gives us no choice but to run full-size buses. I referred to the 30 foot buses because that is what Thunder Bay considered several years ago; if you're thinking of cutaways, they're definitely cheaper.



Anyway, it's hard to find numbers that explain the costs of purchasing buses, but here are some links I found on line that might give you an idea:

http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/commuterchoices/documents/trandir_transit.pdf

http://www.triptac.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Bus_Lifecycle_Guide.pdf
This one in particular (though US centric) has really good details on mileage, initial cost, capacity and lifespan of different types of buses.

http://publictransport.about.com/od/Tran...at-Buses-To-Purchase-Part-1-Bus-Size.htm

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This ensures that you end up with the best eventually, because there is no way a referendum would ever pass for a metro on a corridor where an LRT is already running, even if it is far past capacity. If it was possible to convert LRT to a full metro, I'd be all for it.

Well, in most cases, surface LRT can accommodate subway-like capacity because of higher frequencies (in Montpellier, you can sometimes see 300-person trains at 45-second headways on trunk lines for a total capacity similar to that of the TTC Subways). In a lot of other cases, you can build another line close to the other one for relief.

Where other traffic starts to interfere with its operation, you can selectively bury or elevate certain sections without shutting down the whole system for too long. After a while, it may very well start to resemble or even become a full metro system.

The way I see it, LRT can be very responsive to changes in capacity needs by spanning a very large part of the transportation spectrum, only requiring upgrades instead of replacement: a streetcar can become surface LRT, which can become more and more separated, one section at a time. LRT can be the backbone of a city of 100 000 (like Aubagne, Nîmes and a few other towns with surface LRT) or 7 000 000 (like Dallas). Of course, technology should always be considered on a case-by-case basis, but my point is that LRT is very versatile, arguably more than a subway.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Well, in most cases, surface LRT can accommodate subway-like capacity because of higher frequencies (in Montpellier, you can sometimes see 300-person trains at 45-second headways on trunk lines for a total capacity similar to that of the TTC Subways). In a lot of other cases, you can build another line close to the other one for relief.

Where other traffic starts to interfere with its operation, you can selectively bury or elevate certain sections without shutting down the whole system for too long. After a while, it may very well start to resemble or even become a full metro system.

The way I see it, LRT can be very responsive to changes in capacity needs by spanning a very large part of the transportation spectrum, only requiring upgrades instead of replacement: a streetcar can become surface LRT, which can become more and more separated, one section at a time. LRT can be the backbone of a city of 100 000 (like Aubagne, Nîmes and a few other towns with surface LRT) or 7 000 000 (like Dallas). Of course, technology should always be considered on a case-by-case basis, but my point is that LRT is very versatile, arguably more than a subway.

Well there's more to rapid transit than capacity. Even just traffic lights severely limit speed, which is what people value the most about rapid transit. And if you eliminate all the grade crossings, you're still taking up street space, which might not be a huge deal in comparison to the cost savings obviously, but is still a flaw.

I'm sorry to always use Vancouver as an example, but it's what I'm familiar with. Translink's official travel time studies for the Broadway and Surrey corridors had these results:

Broadway

• Street LRT–28 minutes
• Partially tunneled LRT–26 minutes
• RRT–17 minutes

Surrey

• LRT–29 minutes
• RRT–22 minutes

If you're gonna drop such a big lump of money anyway, shouldn't you give people the best available?

[Aylmer]

As I said, technology is a means, never an ends, so every individual case should be properly examined.

Now, I understand that TransLink has been accused in the past of what I like to call "policy-based evidence-making" in favour of ART technology, and though I take issue with the exorbitant costs, I actually agree with their recommendations for Broadway: the very high density of intersections make it poorly suited for speed or reliability, so underground's the way to go. However, I can't help but be a little sceptical of their estimations - I would have to see exactly what they mean by LRT because, as I said, it's a wide spectrum.

However, newer and less fine-grain areas with much larger blocks and less interference see little advantage with tunnelling and the saved money can go towards a much more extensive system with little sacrifice: Metcalfe's law, though not perfectly analogous, highlights a certain truth to transportation networks: they are worth much more than the sum of their parts and the addition of every node is an exponential increase in the value of the system as a whole.

As a person from Ottawa (whose Transitway forwent sufficient core capacity in exchange for an extensive network and suffered badly for it), I completely understand the need to "get it right" from day one, but it definitely needs to be balanced with the need to use our cities' limited funds to create an exponentially more useful system.

We have to keep both in mind.