The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[eemy]

I've come to the opinion that as long as you are building an exclusive, separate ROW, you might as well use rail from the get go. The cost of construction would be cheaper, and you don't have the headache of conversion in the future.

BRT is most effective as a intermediate option that improves existing surface routes with transit priority measures and less frequent stop spacing to bridge the gap between the bus network and higher orders of transit. I actually think that one of the most transformational changes with transit in KW is the development of the iXpress system on secondary routes feeding the LRT. It should make the LRT itself useful to far more people.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I was surprised to learn how good bike lanes are in some smaller cities in the US, which I had always assumed to be too conservative for such investments. Boy was I wrong. We all know Portland has a cyclist reputation, and NYC has recently revolutionized their network, but even Madison WI and Tucson AZ for example put some Canadian cities many times their size to shame.

That said, there are probably more cyclists in Toronto than Madison or Tucson, they just have nowhere safe to ride, and only have a visible presence in a very small part of the GTA. Toronto deserves a world class bike network. Maybe while we're spending $100 B on subways, we can spend $50 M on a real city-wide bike lane network.

Not surprised at all. I support bike lanes however, removing bikes, pedestrians and, any other "obstacles" from traffic is also the will of the most auto minded politician.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by logan5

That was my original point. There is technology being tested right now by Volvo and others that allow buses to be run in platoons, much like a train. Just like LRT, there would be only 1 driver for multiple BRT vehicles. BRT will be able to match LRT's capacity, and operating costs, whereas before it could not.

Right now a city could implement BRT at 1/3 the cost and never have to upgrade to LRT o increase capacity.

I just don't see it making sense in most situations. I mean, we've all heard the talk about electrification plans for GO and other diesel commuter services. Why? Because it is much quieter and more efficient. There may be short term infrastructure outlay to build it, but the long term savings in operation and maintenance will recoup the cost if it's a high ridership service. The same goes for a well used BRT or LRT route which is likely to have even higher ridership per km than a busy commuter rail line. So it makes even more sense to electrify such a route.

You could make the BRT with trolly buses, but once electrification is a part of the capital cost of a BRT system the cost saving will be much less. So you may as well put the damn thing on rails and be done with it since that will make it even more efficient because rail vehicles last 2-4 times longer than road vehicles are even more energy efficient, so the investment would pay for itself even if a rail based system wasn't any more enjoyable to ride.

Volvo may have found a way to allow BRT to carry as many passengers as LRT, but the reality is you'd never actually want such is high ridership route to be stuck with buses. Of course they're always going to be looking for new ways to market their products. But the only real reason that any route has buses rather than streetcar or another rail service is that most are too low ridership to justify the startup cost. But if you have a route high enough in ridership that it needs to use this kind of automation technology, then it would be insane to use buses.

[1overcosc]

Never underestimate the huge difference that really simple changes can make.

Kingston implemented a very basic BRT system (nothing more than express buses in mixed traffic with signal priority at key intersections), upped the frequency on most corridors from 30 minutes to 15 minutes through redundant bus routes, and extended service hours. That alone resulted in a huge increase in ridership and a huge improvement in the overall level of mobility that transit users have. Now obviously larger cities can't have just that, but I see no reason why other smaller cities in this country (aka London, Red Deer, St. John's, etc.) couldn't do the same. And even larger cities like Toronto could benefit from express buses & upped frequency on suburban bus routes (I believe the TTC is going in this direction with that new report the commission recommended a week or two ago).

In Ottawa we're about to be in a position where we have about 50km of rail rapid transit, 35km of which is at full metro/subway level, but most of the city's population has nothing better than 30 minute or hourly buses in the off peak. I've heard that Calgary is in a similar boat, although they seem to be quite dedicated to improving overall bus service from what I hear which is encouraging.

[Nouvellecosse]

The thing is, I don't call express buses running every 15 minutes in mixed traffic "BRT". I call them express buses. A city that lacks decent bus service can benefit from improving it by increasing frequency, adding some bus lanes and signal priority and making some express routes. I wouldn't consider that in any way related to creating a BRT line though.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Never underestimate the huge difference that really simple changes can make.

Kingston implemented a very basic BRT system (nothing more than express buses in mixed traffic with signal priority at key intersections), upped the frequency on most corridors from 30 minutes to 15 minutes through redundant bus routes, and extended service hours. That alone resulted in a huge increase in ridership and a huge improvement in the overall level of mobility that transit users have. Now obviously larger cities can't have just that, but I see no reason why other smaller cities in this country (aka London, Red Deer, St. John's, etc.) couldn't do the same. And even larger cities like Toronto could benefit from express buses & upped frequency on suburban bus routes (I believe the TTC is going in this direction with that new report the commission recommended a week or two ago).

In Ottawa we're about to be in a position where we have about 50km of rail rapid transit, 35km of which is at full metro/subway level, but most of the city's population has nothing better than 30 minute or hourly buses in the off peak. I've heard that Calgary is in a similar boat, although they seem to be quite dedicated to improving overall bus service from what I hear which is encouraging.

50 km? There are only 13 km UC right now, with 8 km of diesel-powered O-Train in operation. Are they planning on converting the O-train to electric in the near future? Calgary has quite a few bus routes with 10 - 15 minute headways off peak I believe, but definitely not enough in my opinion.

[1overcosc]

^ I'm factoring in Phase 2 which adds about 22km of metro-LRT and 8km of O-Train. (Caution: Both numbers off the top of my head.)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The thing is, I don't call express buses running every 15 minutes in mixed traffic "BRT". I call them express buses. A city that lacks decent bus service can benefit from improving it by increasing frequency, adding some bus lanes and signal priority and making some express routes. I wouldn't consider that in any way related to creating a BRT line though.

I generally use the terms 'BRT-lite' or 'basic BRT' for express buses if they have some sort of traffic bypassing system in place (like signal priority or lanes). That level of bypassing infrastructure gives it a leg up from a simple express bus, IMO. Having a separate branding, and being a spine of the transit system are also important distinctions. The former more for psychological reasons obviously but still relevant.

For comparison, I'd refer to Toronto's Rocket buses, Brampton Zum, and Waterloo iExpress as BRT-lite for similar reasons. They're all pretty similar to the Kingston Express system.

I'll generally describe the Kingston Express as either 'BRT-lite' or 'very basic BRT' because that's what it is IMO. I avoid referring to it as 'BRT' unqualified because that's obviously overstating it.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The thing is, I don't call express buses running every 15 minutes in mixed traffic "BRT".

Boston will be very disappointed. They gave theirs a wide line on the map, a colour name, and even a short section of tunnel!

I happen to agree with you and find it amazing how many people on these transit forums are fooled by a map.

[Beedok]

It sounds like the B-Line in Hamilton could be called BRT by some people's standards.

[SteelTown]

B-Line is sort of BRT already with dedicated bus lanes. But there's only portions that have bus lanes. So the B-Line is a mixture of BRT and BRT-lite.

I believe in 2015 Hamilton city staff will review the bus lane and decide to extend the bus lane or keep the status-quo.

[Chadillaccc]

I am excited for Calgary's first true BRT to get underway soon. The 16th Avenue Crosstown is already funded. I think it will cost $52 million to implement. I'm not sure exactly when it is supposed to start construction, but I know it's one of the first major projects in the upcoming batch. The Southeast Transitway will also be a huge improvement, having a grade separated ROW for most of its length in Phase 1 to Douglas Glen in the south of the city.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Most of the blame can be laid right at the doorstep of the citizens themselves. Both Montrealers and Torontonians seem to think that a subway/Metro is only that if it runs underground regardless of the density of the area or if there are affordable rail corridors that could be used. Their old school and close minded mentalities towards alternative systems , designs, applications, and technology have brought their expansions {and the cities themselves} to a screeching halt

Toronto may be building again but they are still decades behind schedule and their system is mickey mouse compared to other world cities of similar size.

You guys really need to take context into play when dealing with transit expansion.

Can Toronto build more elevated style rapid transit like Vancouver? Yes it can. But there are also constraints to that kind of rapid transit expansion in Toronto and Montreal, where many new lines are planned in already built up areas.

On many corridors in the built up areas, underground is the only way to build. You are seeing this in Vancouver where the Broadway Skytrain will be underground.

The Vaughan subway extension in Toronto could have been elevated north of Steeles, as there is open land, and new development could have been built around any sort of elevated structure.

But on Sheppard or Eglinton, an elevated structure just would not go, and a Calgary style median LRT would not go. Mainly because these streets are too narrow for that kind of infrastructure, so they had to go underground instead.

I love Calgary's LRT. But the fact is there are few places where it can be built like that in Toronto or Montreal. And the median style LRT planned in Toronto is nowhere near the quality of rapid transit that you see in Calgary. But thats because on a 4 lane arterial road, you can't have chain link fences, railway crossing arms, and trains going 100km an hour going down the middle of the street.

So look into context.

And by the way, NYC built subways to farm fields. This obsession lately with being against subways is getting a little annoying.

[MalcolmTucker]

If Toronto was a little more permissive in zoning around subways, and made blanket upzoning a requirement before infrastructure was built, I'd be more bullish about subways in Toronto.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

And by the way, NYC built subways to farm fields. This obsession lately with being against subways is getting a little annoying.

Really, it's all about cost. LRT may be claimed to have advantages, but the reality is the reason we build it is because it's cheaper. The primary purpose of most new rail infrastructure is to get as many people to work in the AM peak as fast as possible. Heavy rail is best for this, but it is very expensive these days and modern technology has allowed cheaper light rail to be more of an option. Back when the original subways were built, they were cheaper, didn't have to worry so much about property rights and the only alternative was the tram.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If Toronto was a little more permissive in zoning around subways, and made blanket upzoning a requirement before infrastructure was built, I'd be more bullish about subways in Toronto.

LMAO, of course major upzoning took place before subways were built. There are 30 storey towers sprouting up in Vaughan right now. Daniel's NY Towers at Bayview & Sheppard replaced 30 bungalows with towns and apartments for 2500.

[goodthings]

Sadly, Brampton councillors unanimously decides to drop the ball on LRT... It will definitely be a pipe dream for it to go underground and the route through McLaughlin will generate ridership only at Sheridan College, so it looks like the LRT will likely end up at the 407 or Derry.

http://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-sto...ain-street-council-of-committee-decides/

No LRT on Main Street, Council of Committee decides
Brampton Guardian
By Pam Douglas

BRAMPTON — LRT trains will not be running along Main Street in Brampton’s downtown core, Brampton’s city councillors have decided.

The LRT can go underground north of Nanwood Drive, or it can take one of the 11 possible routes a consultant has studied on behalf of the city.

But Metrolinx’s preferred and approved route along Main Street in the core was taken off the table by a Committee of Council recommendation Wednesday.

[ssiguy]

The electrified GO system will not put Toronto amongst it's peers, not even close.

Even with an electrified system, owning the rail corridors, and even 15 minute all day service, the GO network will never be anything more than commuter rail. It will be more convenient for 905ers who won't have be a s constricted by poor service but the service will mean next to nothing for Torontonians. Presto won't make a hoot of difference either.

Presto sound nice and makes it seem like Metrolinx is actually doing something but all it is a simpler way or paying the same fare. So if you are a low income person instead of going broke looking for change you are going broke with you Presto card. Even fare integration won't be good enough as the system is extremely expensive especially in the city itself.

Electrification will save on fuel costs, the trains are quieter, and they have faster acceleration which are all very good things but that fundamentally does not change the idea that Metrolinx considers GO Rail to be a 905 service. Proof is in the pudding.......fares for Toronto to Union trips are wildly and disproportionately expensive compared to 905 areas.

As far as GO is concerned, Toronto is that piece of land the suburbanites have to travel thru to get to Union and nothing more.

[MalcolmTucker]

The economics for GO right now has to be like that as their is only one destination for rail. If you had the fares too low within Toronto and half the train gets out on the Bloor-Danforth line for evening commute, that is pretty expensive empty capacity you are pulling to the end of the line.

[Innsertnamehere]

so let me get this straight... ssiguy, who for so long solely argued that if only Toronto would use its rail corridors, it would be a good transit city, is now saying that doing exactly that is a failure?

As for your fare claims, Metrolinx is very active in increasing fare compatibility between the TTC and GO, they are simply waiting for PRESTO to finish installation. In the latest 5 year plan Metrolinx very clearly discussed their wish to implement fare integration with the TTC.