The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 301

nname · #**6001** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The city of Porto in Portugal.

http://urbanrail.net/eu/pt/porto/porto.htm

http://nycsubway.org/wiki/Porto,_Portugal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto_Metro

Not sure if I'd prefer a premetro that run every 15min peak and 20-30min off-peak, or a more frequent bus service...

ssiguy · #**6002** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 4:00 AM**

Love those QC buses and looks like a great system. I think that is what London will end up doing as well. Seems like a far better choice than a more expensive LRT system which offers few advantages over the BRT but comes with a much bigger price tag.

I really like what Vancouver has done with the M-Line and Evergreen Line stations using a lot of wood in the construction. Stations are usually pretty sterile structures and the wood adds a sense of warmth and seems far more inviting.

Nouvellecosse · #**6003** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

Not sure if I'd prefer a premetro that run every 15min peak and 20-30min off-peak, or a more frequent bus service...

Agreed. I was referring to the more physical aspects of the system and I don't think I'd support higher-order transit that ran less than every 10 minutes most of the day.

nephersir7 · #**6004** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 6:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'd like to know about Quebec City too though. How finalised is this plan? I'm a big proponent of BRT and this looks great. It'd be awesome if this actually started construction relatively soon.

It's not finalised at all. This is only a feasability study. They haven't started environmental assessment nor pre-planning studies. After those are completed in 2017, they'll work on the detailed designs.

This means they'll only start construction of phase 1 in 2019, with the first revenue run scheduled for 2022. Right after that, they'll start building phase 2, which should be operational in 2025.

GlassCity · #**6005** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 6:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nephersir7

It's not finalised at all. This is only a feasability study. They haven't started environmental assessment nor pre-planning studies. After those are completed in 2017, they'll work on the detailed designs.

This means they'll only start construction of phase 1 in 2019, with the first revenue run scheduled for 2022. Right after that, they'll start building phase 2, which should be operational in 2025.

Hmm, and that's if everything goes smoothly too. I hope it does work out, it seems quite well thought out already.

franktko · #**6006** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If they really wanted to do it right the first time, they'd build a metro.

lol! Yeah, great idea, we should always look at the needs we'll require 100-200 years in the future when building infrastructure

I never understood either why they didn't build a 10-lane highway between Quebec City and Saguenay

Coldrsx · #**6007** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 4:56 PM**

Transit expert urges City of Edmonton to consider route re-design

Jarrett Walker recommends Edmonton follow Houston's lead with a move towards grid-based system

Should a city’s bus network be expected to cover every neighbourhood?

That’s the question public transit planning consultant Jarrett Walker is asking Edmonton city council to answer as it works on developing a new transit strategy for the city.

Walker, who has helped re-design public transit networks in both Portland, Ore., and Houston, Texas, says it’s time for the city to wipe the slate clean and rebuild Edmonton’s transit network from scratch.

The goal, he says, is to build a simpler, grid-based network of higher-frequency services — making it easier for Edmontonians to get around 24 hours a day.

“I can’t begin to stress how much that high frequency grid makes a difference — because once the bus is coming better than every 15 minutes, it starts to feel more like a road,” Walker said. “You can go out there and use it any time you want.”

But that improvement might come at a cost to some lower-ridership neighbourhoods like Cameron Heights, where the city is spending a substantial amount of money to service only a small number of households.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/t...on-to-consider-route-re-design-1.2978692

Nouvellecosse · #**6008** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by franktko

lol! Yeah, great idea, we should always look at the needs we'll require 100-200 years in the future when building infrastructure

I never understood either why they didn't build a 10-lane highway between Quebec City and Saguenay

In fairness though, the term "metro" can mean different things. It can mean a high capacity subway line like TTC subway with 140m long 3.2m wide trains, or even trains over 200m on a few metro systems, or it can mean a light metro with platforms as little as 30-40m and trains only 2.4m wide and be even lighter-duty than the Skytrain system. The heaviest-duty metro lines can carry over 50,000 pphpd while a light metro may have a capacity less than 1/5 of that (and a correspondingly modest cost).

A light metro system wouldn't be a stretch for QC if they really wanted to get serious about transit planning for the future. It may not be much (if any) more expensive than an LRT system since they'd both need to be electrified and have rails laid, while the LRT could save by not having 100% grade separation and having some street running in medians, but the light metro can save by using 3rd rail which is cheaper to build and maintain than overheard and allows any tunnels to be smaller, and also can be automated allowing it to be more frequent and therefore need shorter trains and platforms and save on drivers.

Although either type of system that had city-centre tunneling (like Edmonton) would be more expensive than an LRT that was just on the surface.

Kitchissippi · #**6009** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 5:31 PM**

I have my doubts whether the funky covered wheel wells on those buses are appropriate for Quebec City's climate. They'd get gummed up with snow and ice really fast in the winter. Did they use the buses from Metz just to be different? The weather there is tame in comparison.

J.OT13 · #**6010** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidivivid

Quebec City's municipal government is currently unveiling its finalized transit plan. A few years ago, LRT seemed to be favored by the city which hired consulting firms to do a feasibility study. Due to budget concerns, another option was added to the study last year: Bus Rapid Transit. Considering the current budget restraints, BRT has been choosen by the city. However, the City also mentionned that it would eventually be easy to adapt this infastructure to a real LRT in the future.

Anyway, here are the first pictures (of phase 1) we have from this conference:

http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/actuali...t-un-service-rapide-par-bus-de-38-km.php

http://www.journaldequebec.com/2015/03/02/un-systeme-rapide-par-bus-le-tramway-ensuite

• Video Link

If it's anything like Gatineau's system, it will be a disaster.

As for the "However, the City also mentioned that it would eventually be easy to adapt this infrastructure to a real LRT in the future"

Speaking from a city who is currently doing this, no, no it's not. Eventually shutting down an established, functional transit system for 2-3 years is not a bright idea.

Calgary probably did it best; build "LRT classic" (semi-grade separated/grade separation where affordable) right off the bat and invest in total grade separation in the central area to increase capacity when needed. That way, there is little to no disruption to the established system when increased capacity is under construction later on.

Love how they show those buses that look like trains. Talk about trying too hard.

Nouvellecosse · #**6011** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 7:24 PM**

^ Exactly! The whole BRT is LRT conversion option should not be used as a way to promote building a BRT system. If anything, the likelihood that such a conversion will be needed is an argument against BRT.

The conversion is NOT easy and it does not save money in the long term. It simply kicks the can down the road and the disruption of the system in the future is basically an expensive penalty or interest payment for not making it an LRT in the beginning.

TorontoDrew · #**6012** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

^ Exactly! The whole BRT is LRT conversion option should not be used as a way to promote building a BRT system. If anything, the likelihood that such a conversion will be needed is an argument against BRT.

The conversion is NOT easy and it does not save money in the long term. It simply kicks the can down the road and the disruption of the system in the future is basically an expensive penalty or interest payment for not making it an LRT in the beginning.

I could not agree more. If you're going to make the effort to build a right of way you might as well do it right the first time and not just build something you know will eventually need to be replaced in the future. Why can't cities that are interested in LRT's get together and order en-mass large numbers of vehicles from one supplier cutting costs that way? Cities like Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver might not need to do this but QC, London, Hamilton, Winnipeg and others could team up build at the same time and split the orders. Just don't use Bombardier unless they can actually stick to a delivery date. Those funny looking LRT buses most cost a bundle to only be a short term temp transit vehicle.

eemy · #**6013** Posted **Mar 3, 2015, 10:39 PM**

Waterloo combined their order for vehicles with Metrolinx (Eglinton Crosstown line) to lower cost.

manny_santos · #**6014** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 3:16 AM**

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/o-train-service-suspended-until-at-least-thursday-1.2979622

$60 million in upgrades and the O-Train had to be suspended on its first day back in service due to signal problems. Looks like it won't be back until Thursday now.

TorontoDrew · #**6015** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Love those QC buses and looks like a great system. I think that is what London will end up doing as well. Seems like a far better choice than a more expensive LRT system which offers few advantages over the BRT but comes with a much bigger price tag.

Once in place maintenance fees are much lower for LRT vs buses. They also last longer. LRT ends up being cheaper then BRT in the long run. Why do you think they always say can be converted in the future to LRTs? That's what people want but nobody's willing to pay for it. Almost half of Toronto ' streetcars are 38 years old, good luck running a bus that long day in day out in our climate. Also dedicated LRT lines need far less annual maintenance then typical streetcar lines. Even less winter maintenance then a BRT line.

1overcosc · #**6016** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_santos

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/o-train-service-suspended-until-at-least-thursday-1.2979622

$60 million in upgrades and the O-Train had to be suspended on its first day back in service due to signal problems. Looks like it won't be back until Thursday now.

Surprised this hasn't made this thread until now.

Ottawa's original O-Train line, now branded the Trillium Line, just received a major upgrade. It now has a new fleet of trains with higher frequency and more capacity. However, this was enabled not by double tracking the line, but by adding more passing sidings. An advanced bleeding-edge signalling system (one of the most advanced in Canada) was installed to keep this efficient.. however it's so bleeding-edge they've had problems with it.

1overcosc · #**6017** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 4:27 PM**

BRTs can be tempting because of their lower capital costs than LRTs, HOWEVER:
1) BRT may be cheaper to build but it's more expensive to run. In Ottawa, the cost of operating & maintaining the BRT system is estimated to be about $30M/year more than what it would cost if it was LRT.
2) BRT has a lower capacity. It's not suitable for being a central transit trunk for any city larger than 500k.

jigglysquishy · #**6018** Posted **Mar 4, 2015, 4:59 PM**

Saskatoon is building BRT, but they're only at 300,000.

I fully expect a conversion to LRT for 2050.

J.OT13 · #**6019** Posted **Mar 5, 2015, 12:50 AM**

Just watched the video for the Québec BRT. Yet another system with downtown treated as an afterthought.

ssiguy · #**6020** Posted **Mar 5, 2015, 3:15 AM**

There are definite benefits of BRT though.

The primary one is being cost of initial infrastructure. It is better to have 100km of true BRT than 20 km of LRT because the BRT will service hundreds of more destinations and, potentially, hundreds of thousands more people. Often the high costs of one lone LRT line bleeds money away from the rest of the system.

BRT also has the distinct advantage of getting rid of the dreaded "last mile" which is often the difference between whether people will take transit or not. It gets rid of endless transfers and the need for huge commuter parking lots.

All systems have their good and bad points and so much depends on what is needed, the density levels, ROW available, topography, and of course how much money they have for the initial infrastructure and operations. I agree, there certainly is a point to where so many buses are needed to carry the number of passengers that it greatly slows the system.

It is in the US where I think the vast majority of the new LRT networks have been a failure and have offered little bang for the buck, done little to increase overall ridership, and have bleed the system dry of money for the buses.