The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[tkoe]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Edmonton residents won't have to feel like they are traveling too fast on any future LRT lines (not extensions of the current system).

Edmonton is promoting that all new LRT lines will never travel any faster than 70 km/h between stations, even on fully grade separated sections.

In addition, new LRT lines will not have full priority at intersections like the current system. This is to ensure LRT trains never go faster than car traffic, and in fact usually will be slower than car traffic.
This is to ensure the LRT is a community fixture.

The result is that future LRT lines in Edmonton will be half as fast as the current network, and not much faster than local bus service.

Great way Edmonton to mess up an outstanding a highly utilized light rail system.

I would not expect these new lines to be as popular as the existing line.

My understanding is that city decided to develop a low floor model with more stops because it didn't want to keep encouraging people to live on the far reaches of the city with the expectation of travelling downtown as fast as possible. The goal now is to have more frequent, community oriented stops that can generate more pedestrian activity and TODs.

You should also remember that we aren't talking Montreal or Toronto here. Edmonton is in need of regenerating many of its core neighbourhoods and pedestrian friendly transit is a large part of that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's just like Toronto's new LRT.

Eglinton will be underground most of the way but when it comes to grade it will be maxed out at 60km/hr like the rest of the traffic with more frequent stops and lights to boot.

The TransitCity LRT like Sheppard and Finch are even worse as they can go no faster than 60km/hr and yet have stops about every 2 to 3 blocks and have to contend with all traffic lights. Having their own ROW certainly will make the service more predictable but still slow.

The problem with this "great city building" crap that results in these new slow lines is that the people who imagine them are urban utopians and green freaks who all live in some trendy area downtown. In other words they wouldn't know a commute if they saw it. They are only slightly cheaper than true LRT are usually a bit quicker to build and can be opened in smaller segments..........in other words, the politicians get to do some ribbon cutting during their tenure and milk it for all it's worth in the next election.

Rapid transit is suppose to be precisely that, rapid. These people that think they everyone just wants to meander all the roads for an hour because they have nothing better to do is fallacy but then again the urban policy wonks who come up with this stuff usually can walk to work and god knows the politicians will never use the lines but will preach how everyone else should.

Cities are already served with local service by these new technology vehicles that are now on the market, they're called buses. If the goal is to simply better serve local areas then a BRT-lite system is fine with ROW. Same speed and capacity as these slow moving "LRT" lines but cost a fraction as much and can be up and running in 3 months with some basic shelters and a can of paint.

Fully agree. In Ottawa, there has been a talk of building these "LRTs" on Carling Ave, Bank St, Rideau St and Montreal Rd.

Carling's width of 6-8 lanes could just as easily host bus lanes offering a more frequent and reliable service.

Bank, only 4 lanes wide and busy at all times, is one of our premier urban retail/business areas experiencing a condo boom. It also connects TD Place to downtown. On game day, it can easily take 30 minutes to travel 3 kilometers.

Rideau-Montreal, connecting downtown to Vanier, hands down the City's densest and busiest spine, is again only 4 lanes wide. Bus lanes (partially implemented) or streetcars would paralyze the corridor.

The only solution for the latter two would be a subway. I understand that the City won't be able to afford what would be a 5-6 billion price tag anytime soon, but spending 2-3 billion on "LRTs" that would cause more disruption and chaos is not the solution either.

[Innsertnamehere]

Nobody says that the finch LRT is going to be 30km/h. This has been rehashed on these boards a thousand times at this point, but I guess we are going into it yet again.

The finch and Sheppard lrts are designed to replace over capacity bus lines with a form of high capacity local route. Its not designed to be a main travel corridor, its specifically for local service. Its inherently a local route. Even if it was a subway it would still largely serve local purposes, not large scale long distance travel. That's what the spadina subway extension is for, it serves that rapid transit need.

The let's are local routes to deal with local demand. You seem to have this perception that rail transit must be a regional connection service, it doesn't. These lrts will run at 22-24km/h, and significantly cut travel times on their routes. Its simply not worth the cash to make a local route grade separated as it simply doesn't need to, there wouldn't be any major connecting routes for ridership to feed into.

[caltrane74]

The poor people in Toronto always get left out, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, you're building an LRT Line in Jane and Finch? Why not just give them a BRT?

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by tkoe

My understanding is that city decided to develop a low floor model with more stops because it didn't want to keep encouraging people to live on the far reaches of the city with the expectation of travelling downtown as fast as possible. The goal now is to have more frequent, community oriented stops that can generate more pedestrian activity and TODs.

The problem is that is not how the real world works. People will just drive if transit does not offer a good alternative. They are not going to all of a sudden locate somewhere because the city believes they should ride a slow train into downtown and not live 20km out.

If they city wants to regenerate areas, thats great. Go build all the streetcars you want. But don't waste time building so called rapid transit, when your goal is not to build rapid transit. And don't expect ridership to be strong either, if the trains are slow.

Get ready for more cars, because people are not going to put up with taking slow transit.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The finch and Sheppard lrts are designed to replace over capacity bus lines with a form of high capacity local route. Its not designed to be a main travel corridor, its specifically for local service.

These lrts will run at 22-24km/h, and significantly cut travel times on their routes. Its simply not worth the cash to make a local route grade separated as it simply doesn't need to, there wouldn't be any major connecting routes for ridership to feed into.

I would like to know where you got that information from? Because all I keep being told in Toronto is that these lines are bringing "rapid transit" to every corner of the city.
I have also been told by the very planners designing these routes that they will be at most 2-3 minutes faster than the bus routes they are replacing.

Sheppard and Finch are not even the busiest bus routes in the system. They are far from capacity.
A cheaper and better solution would be bus lanes and some limited stop bus service.

[1overcosc]

In the case of Finch at least, there's also a strong social/community case to be made for LRT, aside from strictly transportation planning perspectives.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Fully agree. In Ottawa, there has been a talk of building these "LRTs" on Carling Ave, Bank St, Rideau St and Montreal Rd.

Carling's width of 6-8 lanes could just as easily host bus lanes offering a more frequent and reliable service.

Bank, only 4 lanes wide and busy at all times, is one of our premier urban retail/business areas experiencing a condo boom. It also connects TD Place to downtown. On game day, it can easily take 30 minutes to travel 3 kilometers.

Rideau-Montreal, connecting downtown to Vanier, hands down the City's densest and busiest spine, is again only 4 lanes wide. Bus lanes (partially implemented) or streetcars would paralyze the corridor.

The only solution for the latter two would be a subway. I understand that the City won't be able to afford what would be a 5-6 billion price tag anytime soon, but spending 2-3 billion on "LRTs" that would cause more disruption and chaos is not the solution either.

That's one of the things I wonder about Hamilton's 'LRT' plans. Unfortunately the density of most of Hamilton leaves no space for other options.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by tkoe

My understanding is that city decided to develop a low floor model with more stops because it didn't want to keep encouraging people to live on the far reaches of the city with the expectation of travelling downtown as fast as possible. The goal now is to have more frequent, community oriented stops that can generate more pedestrian activity and TODs.

You should also remember that we aren't talking Montreal or Toronto here. Edmonton is in need of regenerating many of its core neighbourhoods and pedestrian friendly transit is a large part of that.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The problem is that is not how the real world works. People will just drive if transit does not offer a good alternative. They are not going to all of a sudden locate somewhere because the city believes they should ride a slow train into downtown and not live 20km out.

If they city wants to regenerate areas, thats great. Go build all the streetcars you want. But don't waste time building so called rapid transit, when your goal is not to build rapid transit. And don't expect ridership to be strong either, if the trains are slow.

Get ready for more cars, because people are not going to put up with taking slow transit.

Which is why no one ever rides the bus, right, and how buses contribute to more cars??

Sorry, miketoronto, but you have it backwards.

Edmonton slowly learned from the design of its existing NE LRT line that the faster the rapid transit, the more development simply pushes to the fringes at the expense of the middle. That's why we have a built-up-but-very-suburban Clairview, and little more than parking lots at Belvedere and Stadium stations. Coliseum doesn't even have that much.

Building a similarly "rapid" line to Mill Woods would have about the same effect - more suburban development near the end of the line, and more parking lots instead of communities in between.

The current SE LRT plan is a compromise between growing transit needs of a growing city, and attempting to build a compact and accessible city that is less dependent on cars.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I don't think the end result is due to the speed of the lines.

You know what is even slower than slow trains? No trains They are all the rage, and cause people to move right next to their offices.

Not that Edmonton's new low floor LRT will be that bad for travel time, as long as it operates as planned. If there are big problems at some intersections they can add crossing arms later. The hardest part will be keeping headways with the additional random factors in the system.

Edmonton's LRT will at least be faster than what it is replacing, unlike lets say Waterloo's billion dollar nice to look at, and cool, but from a public policy perspective, waste of a system.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by RTA

Which is why no one ever rides the bus, right, and how buses contribute to more cars??

Sorry, miketoronto, but you have it backwards.

Edmonton slowly learned from the design of its existing NE LRT line that the faster the rapid transit, the more development simply pushes to the fringes at the expense of the middle. That's why we have a built-up-but-very-suburban Clairview, and little more than parking lots at Belvedere and Stadium stations. Coliseum doesn't even have that much.

Building a similarly "rapid" line to Mill Woods would have about the same effect - more suburban development near the end of the line, and more parking lots instead of communities in between.

The current SE LRT plan is a compromise between growing transit needs of a growing city, and attempting to build a compact and accessible city that is less dependent on cars.

But he is right, if transit is too slow then people will drive - and it's not unreasonable to say many people place greater value on a cheap house in the suburbs than on a quick commute to work. Making transit slower won't improve this.

I'm starting to think providing on street LRT for the inner city areas combined with commuter rail to the outer reaches may be a good solution if we need to keep costs down.

[caltrane74]

I don't think the Waterloo system will be a waste. The "cool/nice to look" at might actually drive increased ridership and possible upgrades to service and connecting bus routes down the line.

Riding an LRT-train is a bit of an upgrade over riding a bus.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But he is right, if transit is too slow then people will drive - and it's not unreasonable to say many people place greater value on a cheap house in the suburbs than on a quick commute to work. Making transit slower won't improve this.

Again, why would anyone ever use the bus system if this was actually the case?

[HomeInMyShoes]

City of Regina is voting on a gigantic increase to transit user fees. I hope they come to their senses. They already shifted service around to accomodate some express buses down major arteries, but I haven't seen them very full because the connector buses don't run often enough and there aren't many park/ride options available.

The proposed increase is
$2.50 to $2.75 for a single ride which is not bad.
$62 to $75 for a monthly adult pass which is bad. They are basically saying as a frequent user we value you less by charging you 21% more while casual users only get hit by a 10% increase.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by RTA

Again, why would anyone ever use the bus system if this was actually the case?

If they're travelling from the far suburbs, I'd guess 90% of the time it's because they don't have access to, or can't afford, a car.

[HomeInMyShoes]

But there are things you can do while you ride the bus. Organize notes, read books. I don't call the difference in commute time wasted at all. Obviously there is a point at which it is too long. But a car here takes me 10 minutes. The bus takes me 20, but the bus stops right in front of my building and with the GPS system and website I rarely have to wait outside longer than five minutes for a bus anymore.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

But there are things you can do while you ride the bus. Organize notes, read books. I don't call the difference in commute time wasted at all. Obviously there is a point at which it is too long. But a car here takes me 10 minutes. The bus takes me 20, but the bus stops right in front of my building and with the GPS system and website I rarely have to wait outside longer than five minutes for a bus anymore.

That's great, but there are many people who don't think like this, and are happier buying a huge house 30km from the core and spending 60 minutes driving (or riding a train or bus) than living in a smaller house more centrally and spending less of their time commuting. Sprawl won't be stopped by limiting transit, it'll likely be made worse.

I'm still not convinced there is a plan to make transit slower to encourage people to live more centrally - compromises are made to save money, and then the negative aspects are spun as positives to sell the (inferior) system.

[Daveography]

^ "Slower" is a pretty subjective term here anyway. If you believe the way miketoronto described it, it sounds worse than a bus route. The reality couldn't be further from the truth: Despite some perceived limitations of the proposed SE LRT, it will still run at a max. 70km/h (for reference, there are virtually no driving routes that parallel this route that are over 60 km/h; most being limited 50km/h), has reasonable station spacing, is segregated from traffic for most of its length, has grade separations in key locations, and will have signal priority for most at-grade crossings.

It's really not as dire as people think. Sheesh.

[Aylmer]

Since so many people are talking about how this or that transit technology will or won't keep people in their cars, I would like to point out that rapid transit can't reduce congestion ― it can only provide an alternative to congestion.

When you implement transit, you might attain a certain modal shift - let's say there are now 25% fewer people driving to work. That means that driving is much more fluid, which, exactly in the same way that a 10% increase in road capacity begets a 10% increase in miles traveled within 4-6 years, will induce demand until you're back to square one. Or, on a smaller scale; if there are 25% fewer people in line for a limited quantity of free pizza, the remaining 75% will each eat 25% more, eliminating any pizza savings you might have hoped to get.

This is basic supply and demand.

The only difference between a congested street and a congested street with transit is that people aren't forced to sit in congestion in the second street. Since access (which includes mobility) creates wealth, that means a network of congestion+transit ― even slow transit ― will be able to support a healthier and more dynamic economy than an equally congested network sans transit, not to mention the innumerable other personal and societal benefits of taking transit.

So even if you build the deepest subway or fastest skytrain between every Oshawa, Mississauga and Toronto, your roads won't be any less congested just as the slowest LRT won't do the opposite.

FYI.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RTA

^ "Slower" is a pretty subjective term here anyway. If you believe the way miketoronto described it, it sounds worse than a bus route. The reality couldn't be further from the truth: Despite some perceived limitations of the proposed SE LRT, it will still run at a max. 70km/h (for reference, there are virtually no driving routes that parallel this route that are over 60 km/h; most being limited 50km/h), has reasonable station spacing, is segregated from traffic for most of its length, has grade separations in key locations, and will have signal priority for most at-grade crossings.

It's really not as dire as people think. Sheesh.

There is that term again. Can mean a lot of different things. I'm sure it will work out, or there will be so many complaints there will be a change.

I am almost certain it will have a higher level of priority than Toronto's recent and future implementations.