The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Beedok]

Ottawa's transitways are a lot more RT than Hamilton's planned streetcar-er LRT.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

So speed and service levels are irrelevant, it's only about whether there are steel rails involved... got it

Yeah, I think a lot of people here just have transit technologies that they consider superior because they tend to be found in larger cities. And there's definitely a sense that there's a kind of pecking order based on population, and that as you move up you get cooler stuff and the biggest cities are best. In reality, population is only one factor of many and cities have different needs that make different types of transportation more or less attractive.

One of the noticeable things about Winnipeg to me is that it has real arterial streets. It must also be relatively easy to build road capacity there because the city is flat and has less rock and water. The bridges are probably bottlenecks, but building new ones would not be that expensive. Carving out dedicated right of ways on the existing streets probably isn't that big of a challenge and actually a lower density form of transportation like BRT might work really well. London, Ontario is pretty similar.

Halifax is really tame compared to a city like, say, Istanbul, but it is one of the most difficult Canadian cities transportation-wise, much like Vancouver but older. The harbour is 1 km wide and building a new bridge costs about $1B. There aren't many streets that run for more than a kilometre or two and there are a lot of strange intersections. Some of the arteries are, say, wedged between water, solid rock cliffs, and/or areas full of unexploded ordinance. That being said, the city isn't very geographically large so high speeds aren't that important. A service running at 50 km/h would be great. Adding more buses on the other hand is completely useless because it is getting to the point where all of the major routes are parking lots at rush hour.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Indeed. If we're talking about actual BRT of at least bronze level I might be slightly impressed. But if not, time to roll over and go back to sleep.

I hope there's a rating for rapid transit in general. I got a feeling that most of the newly proposed LRT systems we build here would fall in the 'bronze' or 'basic' category...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by nname

I hope there's a rating for rapid transit in general. I got a feeling that most of the newly proposed LRT systems we build here would fall in the 'bronze' or 'basic' category...

Of course, in order for something to be actual rapid transit, it has to be at least gold or better which means most light rail systems fall well short. In order words, the "RT" part of BRT is very rarely actually "RT". It's just the closest approximation one can achieve with buses.

But that's a whole other debate. The real issue is whether or not a BRT system is actually higher order transit, or mainly a rebranding and minor improvements to regular bus service. A light rail system is higher order even if it isn't a lot faster, simply because it can be much higher in capacity, is usually electrified, is quieter, more comfortable, etc. Although unless it's at least given an in-street ROW, most would classify it a streetcar.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by someone123

One of the noticeable things about Winnipeg to me is that it has real arterial streets. It must also be relatively easy to build road capacity there because the city is flat and has less rock and water. The bridges are probably bottlenecks, but building new ones would not be that expensive. Carving out dedicated right of ways on the existing streets probably isn't that big of a challenge and actually a lower density form of transportation like BRT might work really well. London, Ontario is pretty similar.

Halifax is really tame compared to a city like, say, Istanbul, but it is one of the most difficult Canadian cities transportation-wise, much like Vancouver but older. The harbour is 1 km wide and building a new bridge costs about $1B. There aren't many streets that run for more than a kilometre or two and there are a lot of strange intersections. Some of the arteries are, say, wedged between water, solid rock cliffs, and/or areas full of unexploded ordinance. That being said, the city isn't very geographically large so high speeds aren't that important. A service running at 50 km/h would be great. Adding more buses on the other hand is completely useless because it is getting to the point where all of the major routes are parking lots at rush hour.

There's no question that Halifax presents more of a transportation challenge than Winnipeg for the reasons that you mention. However, the trouble with Winnipeg is that adding new river crossings (at least in places where they would make sense) is difficult because there aren't really any open corridors left in the central part of the city where traffic is concentrated, so ottlenecks abound at river crossings and railway underpasses.

The last brand new river crossing route anywhere close to downtown Winnipeg was built in the late 1950s, when you could still get away with razing a neighbourhood to make way for a new expressway... since then, it has just been a litany of bridge replacements with slight expansions, but that's it. Even the BRT line goes on a regular street in a diamond lane for the final stretch into downtown Winnipeg.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by esquire

So speed and service levels are irrelevant, it's only about whether there are steel rails involved... got it

Both matter. Service speed is important, but so is the fact that you aren't on a friggin bus. I wouldn't call Hamilton or Kitchener's LRT/Streetcar systems RT either. RT needs to be fast, but it also needs to be "higher order" of some sort, which BRT can't provide.

BRT isn't all evil, it can absolutely work, but I don't understand many planners love with the technology. There is a real and quantifiable benefit to utilizing rail transit. There is a reason the TTCs streetcars are so beloved by the city and strictly defended when buses provide faster and arguably more reliable service, and that is because streetcars are a smoother ride that ultimately feels more dignified than a bus.

Halifax's problem with LRT is that its suburbs are so low density. The downtown core is a dense, urban area, but you exit the pre war built area, and it quickly devolves into low density housing with large tracts of undeveloped forest.

[esquire]

^ Is BRT the highest order of RT? No. But it's still rapid transit.

Once Winnipeg's BRT is fully built out with an exclusive ROW from the University of Manitoba to downtown Winnipeg, grade separations and stations, what will distinguish it from a conventional LRT system? Capacity is the most obvious thing (e.g. 80 people on a bus vs. 500 on a train), but beyond that... not much.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Both matter. Service speed is important, but so is the fact that you aren't on a friggin bus. I wouldn't call Hamilton or Kitchener's LRT/Streetcar systems RT either. RT needs to be fast, but it also needs to be "higher order" of some sort, which BRT can't provide.

BRT isn't all evil, it can absolutely work, but I don't understand many planners love with the technology. There is a real and quantifiable benefit to utilizing rail transit. There is a reason the TTCs streetcars are so beloved by the city and strictly defended when buses provide faster and arguably more reliable service, and that is because streetcars are a smoother ride that ultimately feels more dignified than a bus.

Yeah, the TTC streetcars are so dignified when you're packed in like sardines with no breathing room. Especially as the older ones screech at ever stop or corner.

Buses can be just as pleasant as rail when everything else is the same. While the actual frequencies are pretty terrible on many routes STO has some very comfortable buses. I think the issue is that rail transit usually gets all the bells and whistles added on while buses don't so people consider buses worse.

Comparing Greyhound to Via is probably a fairly good option though. I think Greyhound actually gives slightly better leg room, though it is a tiny bit slower. Still the rides are similar enough.

[FFX-ME]

I think that the main difference, other than capacity, if the fact that rails can't be moved around so it gives a permanance to the route that buses can't provide. This allows for a densification around the rails and a raise in property values. Trains also bring a positive image of a metropolitain feal. Also, hardly any BRT systems are truly RT since most, like Ottawa's which is often used as an example to the world, have grade crossings.

Anyways, Ottawa, poster child of BRT, is converting from BRT to LRT. No cities that need RT should adopt BRT since, in the case of Ottawa, BRT actually cost the city more than if they have built LRT like Calgary and Edmonton in the first place due to the higher operation costs. The initial cost of rail transit is daunting but it pays it back, when compared to BRT, in the lower operational costs and higher usage.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I think that the main difference, other than capacity, if the fact that rails can't be moved around so it gives a permanance to the route that buses can't provide. This allows for a densification around the rails and a raise in property values. Trains also bring a positive image of a metropolitain feal. Also, hardly any BRT systems are truly RT since most, like Ottawa's which is often used as an example to the world, have grade crossings.

Edmonton and Calgary's LRTs have grade crossings, do they not count as legitimate RT?

For context, Winnipeg's BRT will, once complete, have roughly a similar proportion of grade separations vs. grade crossings as those LRT systems.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

However, the trouble with Winnipeg is that adding new river crossings (at least in places where they would make sense) is difficult because there aren't really any open corridors left in the central part of the city where traffic is concentrated, so ottlenecks abound at river crossings and railway underpasses.

Is it possible to tunnel under the rivers?

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Halifax's problem with LRT is that its suburbs are so low density. The downtown core is a dense, urban area, but you exit the pre war built area, and it quickly devolves into low density housing with large tracts of undeveloped forest.

This is true to some degree but maps are really misleading here. There are huge low-density areas as large as the built up parts of the city but they have small populations and they are no longer being as actively developed. They are not worth serving at all with something like LRT. The inner suburbs on the other hand are getting a lot more development and some of them have similar population densities to the urban core. Most of the new housing construction is multi-unit now.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I think that the main difference, other than capacity, if the fact that rails can't be moved around so it gives a permanance to the route that buses can't provide. This allows for a densification around the rails and a raise in property values. Trains also bring a positive image of a metropolitain feal. Also, hardly any BRT systems are truly RT since most, like Ottawa's which is often used as an example to the world, have grade crossings.

Anyways, Ottawa, poster child of BRT, is converting from BRT to LRT. No cities that need RT should adopt BRT since, in the case of Ottawa, BRT actually cost the city more than if they have built LRT like Calgary and Edmonton in the first place due to the higher operation costs. The initial cost of rail transit is daunting but it pays it back, when compared to BRT, in the lower operational costs and higher usage.

I would argue the opposite. No cities that need RT should adopt (urban, on-street) LRT, since they are marginally faster than rapid bus, despite being much more expensive. Not to mention that BRT can carry many more people than it's given credit for. If you have bus lanes with limited stops and all door boarding, speed is very similar to LRT. However, in the Surrey LRT study, it was determined that in one corridor, LRT would do it in 29 minutes as opposed to 30 for BRT...at near double the cost. And it's what council supports. I completely disagree that LRT has real, quantifiable benefits compared to rapid bus, especially when looking ahead.

I don't care if people like rails over tires. Performance should be the motivator. Spending much more money with minimal increase in service just so that some stuck up people don't get embarrassed about taking transit is nonsensical. We're not the States. People take transit here already, even the ones that could afford not to. We don't have to go out of our way to encourage people to take transit; there are already many. If there's a need for rapid transit along a corridor, why not go with a cheaper option—with equal service levels—so that more money can be saved for improved service elsewhere, or even later on improve it further with true, grade-separated rapid transit?

And as far as urban development goes, LRT is not integral for that either. With proper zoning, it's still possible to have quality, dense development. I'm not saying it's not an important factor; everyone here knows the success Vancouver has with TOD. But it just seems to me that for a lot of people, citizens, planners and politicians, that rapid transit has stopped being about transit. It seems like people care a lot more about its potential to spur development, so they can then take nice photos of dense streets with rails in the ground.

I worry that in the recent North American LRT craze, actual transit commuters have been completely left out. Sure light rail looks good, gives your city an urban image and makes sure you're keeping up with the Joneses. But I think it does very little to help commuters, especially for the cost. Just looks to me that the ability to quickly and conveniently move people around has fallen way down in terms of importance when it comes to designing transportation systems. Go figure.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by esquire

Edmonton and Calgary's LRTs have grade crossings, do they not count as legitimate RT?

For context, Winnipeg's BRT will, once complete, have roughly a similar proportion of grade separations vs. grade crossings as those LRT systems.

You've been around here longer than I have. If I've been through at least five intensive "rapid transit" discussions, than you must have witnessed even more. Are you telling me that after all this time you still have to ask?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I completely disagree that LRT has real, quantifiable benefits compared to rapid bus, especially when looking ahead.

Increased desirability is a real advantage though. Electrified vehicles are nicer: quieter, better acceleration, no emissions, likely better carbon footprint, and they tend to last longer. Larger capacity vehicles can also be cheaper to operate if you have, say, one driver for every 500 passengers compared to one for every 80. And some trains are automated so they have no driver at all. If I remember correctly, Ottawa's new system is supposed to be cheaper than the BRT alternative presented when operating costs are included.

I'm guessing an LRT track uses less space than BRT as well, although they might be similar.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I would argue the opposite. No cities that need RT should adopt (urban, on-street) LRT, since they are marginally faster than rapid bus, despite being much more expensive. Not to mention that BRT can carry many more people than it's given credit for. If you have bus lanes with limited stops and all door boarding, speed is very similar to LRT. However, in the Surrey LRT study, it was determined that in one corridor, LRT would do it in 29 minutes as opposed to 30 for BRT...at near double the cost. And it's what council supports. I completely disagree that LRT has real, quantifiable benefits compared to rapid bus, especially when looking ahead.

I don't care if people like rails over tires. Performance should be the motivator. Spending much more money with minimal increase in service just so that some stuck up people don't get embarrassed about taking transit is nonsensical. We're not the States. People take transit here already, even the ones that could afford not to. We don't have to go out of our way to encourage people to take transit; there are already many. If there's a need for rapid transit along a corridor, why not go with a cheaper option—with equal service levels—so that more money can be saved for improved service elsewhere, or even later on improve it further with true, grade-separated rapid transit?

And as far as urban development goes, LRT is not integral for that either. With proper zoning, it's still possible to have quality, dense development. I'm not saying it's not an important factor; everyone here knows the success Vancouver has with TOD. But it just seems to me that for a lot of people, citizens, planners and politicians, that rapid transit has stopped being about transit. It seems like people care a lot more about its potential to spur development, so they can then take nice photos of dense streets with rails in the ground.

I worry that in the recent North American LRT craze, actual transit commuters have been completely left out. Sure light rail looks good, gives your city an urban image and makes sure you're keeping up with the Joneses. But I think it does very little to help commuters, especially for the cost. Just looks to me that the ability to quickly and conveniently move people around has fallen way down in terms of importance when it comes to designing transportation systems. Go figure.

An LRT vehicle can be over 100m long due to combining several cars. A 5 car consist like is possible in Edmonton is about 125m long. BRT cannot carry anywhere near that, as the longest buses operated in NA are about 18m. But if you're not just talking about capacity and also discussing cost like you brought up, LRT is actually a cost savings once you reach a certain demand level. Having huge numbers of buses all with their own drivers being paid to operate them, and using diesel engines, requires more operator costs, more energy costs and more maintenance costs. Rail vehicles last 3-4x longer than buses, use less energy due to the lower coefficient of rolling friction with steel wheels on steel rails, and electric motors are more energy efficient than internal combustion. And the bus lanes will need more maintenance than the LRT rails will.

it may cost more to set up the electrification, tracks, and to buy the LRT rolling stock, but forgoing these investments only makes sense if the ridership of the system is too low to recoup the cost in a reasonable time frame. For a very busy service, having it setup as LRT will be much cheaper than doing it with an intensively operated BRT system.

And of course that's not talking about any of the passenger comfort aspects.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

Increased desirability is a real advantage though. Electrified vehicles are nicer: quieter, better acceleration, no emissions, likely better carbon footprint, and they tend to last longer. Larger capacity vehicles can also be cheaper to operate if you have, say, one driver for every 500 passengers compared to one for every 80. And some trains are automated so they have no driver at all. If I remember correctly, Ottawa's new system is supposed to be cheaper than the BRT alternative presented when operating costs are included.

I'm guessing an LRT track uses less space than BRT as well, although they might be similar.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

An LRT vehicle can be over 100m long due to combining several cars. A 5 car consist like is possible in Edmonton is about 125m long. BRT cannot carry anywhere near that, as the longest buses operated in NA are about 18m. But if you're not just talking about capacity and also discussing cost like you brought up, LRT is actually a cost savings once you reach a certain demand level. Having huge numbers of buses all with their own drivers being paid to operate them, and using diesel engines, requires more operator costs, more energy costs and more maintenance costs. Rail vehicles last 3-4x longer than buses, use less energy due to the lower coefficient of rolling friction with steel wheels on steel rails, and electric motors are more energy efficient than internal combustion. And the bus lanes will need more maintenance than the LRT rails will.

it may cost more to set up the electrification, tracks, and to buy the LRT rolling stock, but forgoing these investments only makes sense if the ridership of the system is too low to recoup the cost in a reasonable time frame. For a very busy service, having it setup as LRT will be much cheaper than doing it with an intensively operated BRT system.

And of course that's not talking about any of the passenger comfort aspects.

I don't deny that LRT has benefits; I myself would prefer to ride a train than a bus. But when I consider that next to cost I change my mind. Sure operating costs are lower, but true metros also have that. You bring up an example of driverless trains, and I would have no issue with that, because it implies that it would be grade-separated. Despite me leaving it off of my last post, I would say that's my biggest beef with LRT: that it takes away funds that could be used to build a technology that provides tangible transportation benefits, meaning something grade separated. There are just so many bus lines that carry similar or greater numbers of people than rail lines do, such that I don't feel that there exists a middle ground where LRT is needed. In most cases, and as it has been done in Vancouver, rapid bus transitions very smoothly into a metro, as opposed to LRT where if you want to upgrade it you eventually build the same line twice.

While operating costs are of course an issue for buses, again, when you eventually replace them with something grade separated and driverless, the costs will be made up again in no time. But sure, in many cases it does cost more to operate buses. But that also adds extra frequency, another real benefit to riders. Not to mention that it also depends on the situation: it's not like cost-neutral bus lines don't exist. The conversation shouldn't just be between BRT or LRT. RRT is ultimately what cities should strive for, and the impression I get from the LRT movement is that people just don't want to wait that long for rail, regardless of its form or usefulness.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, the BRT vs. LRT debate with capital cost versus operating costs tradeoffs over the project lifecycle, it is almost like that should be measured in studies

Here is London's:

[eemy]

I propose we ditch the term rapid transit, which no one can seem to come to any agreement on what exactly qualifies anyway. I suggest using "you-know-what" instead, since everyone knows what people are talking about anyway.

Yes, Edmonton and Calgary have a you-know-what. KW and Hamilton are still developing one as well, though it will be quite some time before their you-know-what is quite as big or works quite as well as Toronto's and Montreal's.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't deny that LRT has benefits; I myself would prefer to ride a train than a bus. But when I consider that next to cost I change my mind. Sure operating costs are lower, but true metros also have that. You bring up an example of driverless trains, and I would have no issue with that, because it implies that it would be grade-separated. Despite me leaving it off of my last post, I would say that's my biggest beef with LRT: that it takes away funds that could be used to build a technology that provides tangible transportation benefits, meaning something grade separated. There are just so many bus lines that carry similar or greater numbers of people than rail lines do, such that I don't feel that there exists a middle ground where LRT is needed. In most cases, and as it has been done in Vancouver, rapid bus transitions very smoothly into a metro, as opposed to LRT where if you want to upgrade it you eventually build the same line twice.

But this assumes that there exists a corridor in which metro or light metro can reasonably be built without too much extra cost or disruption compared to LRT. Light metro needs full grade separation, which in some corridors is fine because it can be built alongside a rail corridor or elevated over a wide boulevard. But on a street that is narrower and an elevated line would leave it in darkness and no alternative corridor exists, then the alternative is expensive tunneling. Tunneling not only costs several times more, but if if the line is going to serve a corridor with local service, the stations will need to be close together, and underground stations are even more expensive than the actual tunnel. And considering that if there is a high station density, the average speeds aren't going to be that high anyway, a surface LRT is a better option if space can be allocated for the ROW.

Personally I agree that there doesn't exist a middle ground, but it doesn't exist between a busy bus route and LRT which tends to rule out BRT. There are really only very select, oddball cases in which BRT makes sense imo. Otherwise, LRT or light metro could be equally valid depending on the corridor and ROW options.

That being said, a lot of what's called BRT which is actually just improved bus services with bus lanes and traffic signal priority, I'm all for. As long as promoters don't lie and call it something more grandiose than it is.

[nname]

Originally Posted by someone123

Increased desirability is a real advantage though. Electrified vehicles are nicer: quieter, better acceleration, no emissions, likely better carbon footprint, and they tend to last longer. Larger capacity vehicles can also be cheaper to operate if you have, say, one driver for every 500 passengers compared to one for every 80. And some trains are automated so they have no driver at all. If I remember correctly, Ottawa's new system is supposed to be cheaper than the BRT alternative presented when operating costs are included.

I'm guessing an LRT track uses less space than BRT as well, although they might be similar.

For Metro Vancouver, the Surrey Rapid Transit shows that the benefit of these does not justify the cost of building the LRT:


(Source)


And guess what, the City of Surrey pushed so hard for LRT1, so they ended up going for that option despite the study shows it got the second-worst benefit-to-cost ratio and a much better RRT1A option is just 30M more expensive in capital cost...