The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by nname

I still don't get why it is so much more expensive to build the line compared to anywhere else. If we use the same cost estimate as Vancouver's proposed Broadway Line, it would've cost only 4.5B instead of 6.64B, entirely underground. If we use the figure for Spadina Extension and its huge subway stations, it would've only cost 5.8B all underground....

Different projects have different needs. Spadina didn't need a new yard (well, the TTC Wilson yard expansion was budgeted as a different project), Eglinton needs a yard. Spadina ties right into Downsview station, Eglinton needs to entirely rebuild every interchange station. Eglinton station's subway platform will be completely rebuilt 70m to the north. Kennedy is getting a complete facelift and reconstruction. Spadina is constructing subway stations in large, undeveloped plots (other than Finch West, which is in the street), Eglinton is building stations in dense urban environments. The differences are large.

Eglinton when entirely buried in the Ford era would have cost $8 billion for the whole thing. Surfacing the eastern 8km gives you $3 billion in savings. The Broadway line is for Skytrain, which is much cheaper to construct than LRT for underground. TTC had a very negative experience with Skytrain tech too, remember that.


station spacing on the surface portion of the line averages over 650m, not sure where everyone is getting 300m from. The shortest station distance is 300 metres, sure, but there a part that is 1.2km from station to station.

station spacing starting at Laird and going to Kennedy is as follows:
1250m
930m
420m
660m
960m
860m
430m
470m
300m
770m
530m
640m

Hardly 300m station spacing, there is only one stretch under 300m, and most are above 600m.

"never considered elevating it", well part of the line that is actually getting built is elevated. So I don't know what you are going on about.

If you want to compare completely different projects like the Evergreen line, lets do that within vancouver as well. Why the heck is Broadway so expensive? 5km of rapid transit for $2 billion? Vancouver is building 11km for $1.4 billion right now!!!!! Different situtations require different solutions. Period.

This whole subject has been rehashed probably 100 times at this point in this thread, I'm getting sick of it. Every couple of months someone pops in and says "but no grade separations and 300m stop spacing!!1!!1!" Cool story, too bad its exactly that, a story, not a fact, and it is ignorant of the planning context that the line has been planned and is being constructed in.

Different contexts require different

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It makes the fully grade separated automated 11km long Evergreen Line look like such a bargin at only 1.4 billion.

And even the underground portion have less capacity (15,000-22,500* pphpd) than Evergreen line (25,000 pphpd)

* = The capacity stated by TTC is generally lower compared to the values used in other transit system. A TTC capacity of 15,000 would be around 22,500 when compared to other systems

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Eglinton when entirely buried in the Ford era would have cost $8 billion for the whole thing. Surfacing the eastern 8km gives you $3 billion in savings. The Broadway line is for Skytrain, which is much cheaper to construct than LRT for underground. TTC had a very negative experience with Skytrain tech too, remember that.

At 425M/km, it would probably be one of the most expensive line in the world, probably second to NY 2nd Avenue Subway...

Not sure if it would be that expensive if they just went with using the existing subway technology but running with 3-car trains instead of 6.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by nname

And even the underground portion have less capacity (15,000-22,500* pphpd) than Evergreen line (25,000 pphpd)

* = The capacity stated by TTC is generally lower compared to the values used in other transit system. A TTC capacity of 15,000 would be around 22,500 when compared to other systems

who cares about moving that amount of people when the line is projected to be at less than 6,000 people in the peak hour 10 years after opening. We are talking about tripling ridership before we even begin to approach capacity. Metrolinx is planning on running 2 car trains on opening day at 3 minute frequencies. Maximum capacity will be 3 car trains at 90 second headways.

Besides, if capacity on Eglinton ever actually fills up, we would have some serious, serious issues on other lines in the system. Hell, I bet it would be straight up impossible for Eglinton to ever completely fill up as that amount of people would simply not be able to transfer to other lines due to overloading.

The thing about Eglinton is that the interchange stations it meets up with means that it can carry a ton of people across its entire length but will end up never getting really busy, as people get off at transfer stations as soon as the line starts to get busy.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by nname

And even the underground portion have less capacity (15,000-22,500* pphpd)
At 425M/km, it would probably be one of the most expensive line in the world, probably second to NY 2nd Avenue Subway...

Not sure if it would be that expensive if they just went with using the existing subway technology but running with 3-car trains instead of 6.

as I said, yard requirements, reconfiguration of Kennedy an Eglinton, etc.

cost wise, it wouldn't be that expensive, and far, very far, from the most expensive in North America. Los Angeles is building their purple line extension at a cost of $450 million per km. San Fransisco is building a light rail tunnel at a cost of $580 million per km, and Los Angeles is building another Light rail tunnel at a cost of $475 million, etc. Completely reasonable costs for modern tunneling projects of the same form. Metrolinx before has said that the actual cost of the undergound part, including stations, is in line with $350 million per km. The average cost per km goes up with yard costs, train procurement, etc. The trains alone for the line is nearly a $1 billion dollar cost from my understanding.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is my biggest beef with surface LRT, and why such designs IMO are not RRT.

If you want stops every 300 meters or less, use a bus.

Rail transit should average 500m to 700m at minimum.

This is what is generally planned for the Broadway subway (skytrain). RRT with wider distances between stations, but there will still be a surface bus for high stop density service.

Seriously, how is this project so expensive?

It makes the fully grade separated automated 11km long Evergreen Line look like such a bargin at only 1.4 billion.

Again, the western half looks great, but the Crosstown LRT looks like the rail transit version of the movie Sunshine, a fantastic well thought out first half, and a wtf second half.

The surface sections are not rapid transit (metro system standard), but not everything has to be in order to accomplish its goals. Rapid transit is intended as a way to transport very large volumes of people quickly (hence the name). Not necessarily that each individual person is moving very quickly, as there are other types of transit (such as commuter rail, or some express buses) that offer faster trips, but no form of transit can move as large a volume of people in as short an amount of time because of the balance between high frequency (from grade separation), medium speed (aster than buses, slower than commuter rail or commuter buses), and medium vehicle size (bigger than buses or streetcars, smaller than commuter trains).

Some rapid transit systems have very short stop spacings, with much of the Paris Metro having stops fewer than every 500m. But the Paris metro carries nearly as many riders as the NYC subway despite being 1/3 smaller, and having far smaller and shorter trains. The metro acts as high density local service, and the RER high frequency commuter rail acts as the express long distance service.

There are simply some situations in which fairly large numbers of people need to be transported that another form of transit is better suited. In situations where local service is a high priority and there is room for a separate ROW (which allows the route to avoid traffic congestion), if the passenger volumes are great enough to warrant something more robust than buses, then streetcars or LRT are the best option.

Trip speed isn't always the main priority unless the majority of riders will be going a long distance. When many of them are local riders, having long distances between the stops doesn't actually save the average person time because it takes the average person longer to reach a stop.

[davidivivid]

Lévis' new ferry quay, photographed by Stéphane Groleau:






https://www.facebook.com/Stephane.Groleau.Architectural.Photographer/photos_stream

[srperrycgy]

This was posted on Twitter this morning by (@coltonium) (not by me):


S200.jpg-large by Steve Perry, on Flickr

[Nouvellecosse]

Looks good except for the beige on the skirting.

[ssiguy]

That Calgary train is very cool.

[TorontoDrew]

It looks like TTC livery.

[WhipperSnapper]

Yep, they stole our colours. Looks like they dropped the grey too.

[VIce]

Shocking that multiple groups in Canada would pick red and white as colors for their brand.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Different projects have different needs. Spadina didn't need a new yard (well, the TTC Wilson yard expansion was budgeted as a different project), Eglinton needs a yard. Spadina ties right into Downsview station, Eglinton needs to entirely rebuild every interchange station. Eglinton station's subway platform will be completely rebuilt 70m to the north. Kennedy is getting a complete facelift and reconstruction. Spadina is constructing subway stations in large, undeveloped plots (other than Finch West, which is in the street), Eglinton is building stations in dense urban environments. The differences are large.

Eglinton when entirely buried in the Ford era would have cost $8 billion for the whole thing. Surfacing the eastern 8km gives you $3 billion in savings. The Broadway line is for Skytrain, which is much cheaper to construct than LRT for underground. TTC had a very negative experience with Skytrain tech too, remember that.


station spacing on the surface portion of the line averages over 650m, not sure where everyone is getting 300m from. The shortest station distance is 300 metres, sure, but there a part that is 1.2km from station to station.


station spacing starting at Laird and going to Kennedy is as follows:
1250m
930m
420m
660m
960m
860m
430m
470m
300m
770m
530m
640m

Hardly 300m station spacing, there is only one stretch under 300m, and most are above 600m.

"never considered elevating it", well part of the line that is actually getting built is elevated. So I don't know what you are going on about.

If you want to compare completely different projects like the Evergreen line, lets do that within vancouver as well. Why the heck is Broadway so expensive? 5km of rapid transit for $2 billion? Vancouver is building 11km for $1.4 billion right now!!!!! Different situtations require different solutions. Period.

This whole subject has been rehashed probably 100 times at this point in this thread, I'm getting sick of it. Every couple of months someone pops in and says "but no grade separations and 300m stop spacing!!1!!1!" Cool story, too bad its exactly that, a story, not a fact, and it is ignorant of the planning context that the line has been planned and is being constructed in.

Different contexts require different

This puts the average station spacing at nearly 700 meters.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by VIce

Shocking that multiple groups in Canada would pick red and white as colors for their brand.

Hamilton and Halifax continue to rock white, yellow, and blue. Go team HaHa!

[1overcosc]

Kingston uses orange white and blue.

[hipster duck]

As long as Canadian transit operators don't plaster little Canadian flags on the side of their buses, I'm okay.

Nobody's doing that, right?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

As long as Canadian transit operators don't plaster little Canadian flags on the side of their buses, I'm okay.

Nobody's doing that, right?

OC Transpo sort of does it...

[Ontario1]

Waterloo Region ION LRT update

https://youtu.be/LN6C9_ef7Yc

[swimmer_spe]

What would happen if our laws on train crashworthiness were that of Europe's?

For example, the O-train cars are not up to the standard for mainline passenger cars, yet, they are for Europe.

Where am I going with this?
Well, for starters, since they are a lower cost, they could be used for Via to spend more money on expansion and less on fuel to move the heavier cars. They could buy more cars for the same budget.

If we were to look at local and suburban transit, many smaller cities could have railed transit at a more cost effective rate.

I have lived in London ON, Halifax and now, Sudbury. All three of these cities have lots of heavy rail lines. They crisscross the cities, covering most of the areas that have lots of established residential, commercial, and industrial areas.

So, why does Europe allow them, yet we won't? They have crashes, and so do we.

[Nouvellecosse]

The freight trains in Europe tend to be smaller than ours so they wouldn't damage a lighter passenger train as much as the huge hulks that we call freight trains NA has the largest and heaviest freight trains in the world. But yes, the focus of course should be on preventing accidents rather than just surviving them. This is the route we take with air travel, and it has become the safest method of travel despite the vehicles being rather light and flimsy since so much effort is placed on avoiding crashes. We all know if two aircraft collided in mid flight, anyone on board is pretty much guaranteed to be dead.

The good news is that the FRA in the US has announced it is lightening the restrictions on crash worthiness requirements to allow lighter trains from other parts of the world to be used. We're a separate country, and we don't know if our regulations will change to follow suit, but considering how similar ours are to theirs, it seems likely that what they do would have an influence here.