The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

BRT=not actual rapid transit
Eglinton Crosstown=LRT
Confederation Line=let's call it a mix of both LRT and RT
CTrain and Edmonton LRT=LRT

510 Spadina?

[Chadillaccc]

The City of Calgary has begun soil testing in preparation for construction of the Green Line. Drills are on site at the future location of the 16th Avenue Subway Station as of today.

http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2015/12/green-line-north-field-investigation.html


Also, some amazing news out of City Council today...

Calgary councillors plan on backing long-term funding plan for Green Line LRT
City Council proposes another $1 billion in funding for Green Line LRT

As many as 10 city councillors will endorse a Green Line funding strategy as part of a notice of motion coming to council next week.

Long talked about, the idea was originally brought forward by LRT On The Green (LRTOTG) foundation back in May. They proposed earmarking $52 million annually for 30 years from cash leftover from the education portion of property tax. Previously the plan was to do it for 10 years.

If extended for 30 years, the budgeting of tax dollars would earmark $1.5 billion to help Green Line construction at no extra cost to the taxpayer.
“There are projects that we would like to move forward on, and there are projects that we must move forward on. The Green Line LRT is an absolute must for Calgary. It's estimated that construction of the Green Line LRT will create 23,000 construction jobs." read a statement from Coun. Shane Keating in a release Wednesday.

"With construction of the Green Line beginning as early as 2017, The City of Calgary could provide significant economic stimulus in a time of employment uncertainty for many Calgarians. Today there are 297,000 jobs along the Green Line corridor. This number will grow to 414,000 in the next 30 years. We must prepare for the future.”

...

Source: http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/201...erm-funding-plan-for-green-line-lrt.html


The Green Line will eventually be book-ended by two major hospitals, the newly built South Health Campus and the future North Calgary Hospital. It will include up to 5 subway stations downtown and along Centre Street North and will run on street past 24 Avenue North as a streetcar with separated ROW. Since the route was recently chosen as Centre Street, several residential projects have started construction in the area. The SE section of the line will be virtually grade-separated and have significant elevated portions as well as a few elevated stations.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

510 Spadina?

510 Spadina is incredibly slow, and if you've ever driven on Spadina at off peak times, it is much faster to drive from Bloor to the Gardiner (though far from it at rush hour). The stops are too close together, and it is handicapped by too many traffic lights. At some intersections, including at King, delays are caused by other streetcars turning onto Spadina, and the operator having to get off and manually change a switch in the intersection. To me it's just another surface streetcar route and not an LRT. I avoid it whenever possible.

It would be a lot more effective as an "LRT" route if it had stops only at some major intersections, and could pass under those intersections. For example, only at Bloor, College, Dundas, Queen, King, Queens Quay, then Union.

The switch issues are a whole other problem. I once overheard a TTC operator tell a passenger that the streetcar switches all have motors but they've broken down over the years, and (if I heard correctly) the company that manufactured them lost the plans for the mechanism. So, it's impossible to get them fixed, and most of the switches must be operated manually. Unfortunately, most of the time the operator has to do it him/herself, though I have occasionally seen a switchman stationed at King and Spadina.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

510 Spadina is incredibly slow, and if you've ever driven on Spadina at off peak times, it is much faster to drive from Bloor to the Gardiner (though far from it at rush hour). The stops are too close together, and it is handicapped by too many traffic lights. At some intersections, including at King, delays are caused by other streetcars turning onto Spadina, and the operator having to get off and manually change a switch in the intersection. To me it's just another surface streetcar route and not an LRT. I avoid it whenever possible.

It would be a lot more effective as an "LRT" route if it had stops only at some major intersections, and could pass under those intersections. For example, only at Bloor, College, Dundas, Queen, King, Queens Quay, then Union.

The switch issues are a whole other problem. I once overheard a TTC operator tell a passenger that the streetcar switches all have motors but they've broken down over the years, and (if I heard correctly) the company that manufactured them lost the plans for the mechanism. So, it's impossible to get them fixed, and most of the switches must be operated manually. Unfortunately, most of the time the operator has to do it him/herself, though I have occasionally seen a switchman stationed at King and Spadina.

Is 512 St Clair any better? Is the EC going to be better?

[eemy]

The problem SkahHigh, is that LRT is basically a term used variously to describe rolling stock (Alstom Citadis is light rail as opposed to heavy rail) or a rail transport system (Calgary, Portland, etc.) Ottawa will be using light rail vehicles on the Confederation Line, that does not, however, make it a LRT system in the sense it is commonly used in North America.

I've been pretty clear that I think the wikipedia article for rapid transit is highly problematic. The definition rests on a single specialized source, but common usage doesn't seem to agree with it.

Like sex, I think most of us recognize rapid transit when we see it. Fundamentally I think the distinction rests on how it operates within a larger transportation system. A rapid transit system is understood to provide fast, frequent service to large numbers of people, but it is also the trunk of a larger system - kind of the expressways of the transit system. When I consider how to get somewhere by car in Ontario, I have a mental map of the highways and concern myself only on how to get onto and off that system. Rapid transit functions similarly.

In that sort of framework, Eglinton Crosstown would almost certainly be RT, but the streetcar network clearly isn't. Confederation Line definitely is (along with the Transitway before), Trillium Line probably isn't. C-Train undoubtably is. ION LRT, on the other hand, probably won't be.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

In that sort of framework, Eglinton Crosstown would almost certainly be RT, but the streetcar network clearly isn't. Confederation Line definitely is (along with the Transitway before), Trillium Line probably isn't. C-Train undoubtably is. ION LRT, on the other hand, probably won't be.

Jesus... It's not complicated. For technological purposes, transit types are qualified. In the rest of the world, rapid transit is usually a metro/subway system. Why would it be any different in Canada? Because there are fewer RT systems so we need to include light rail as RT to feel better?

I study in that field so I believe to have some sort of knowledge on the subject... The systems other than Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are simply not rapid transit (subway/metro). Just look at the two lists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems (Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Toronto streetcar - Kitchener is missing but should be included as well)

It's not complicated at all. Just read the definitions of both systems, they have quite notable differences.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Jesus... It's not complicated. For technological purposes, transit types are qualified. In the rest of the world, rapid transit is usually a metro/subway system. Why would it be any different in Canada? Because there are fewer RT systems so we need to include light rail as RT to feel better?

I study in that field so I believe to have some sort of knowledge on the subject... The systems other than Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are simply not rapid transit (subway/metro). Just look at the two lists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems (Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Toronto streetcar - Kitchener is missing but should be included as well)

It's not complicated at all. Just read the definitions of both systems, they have quite notable differences.

K-W's LRT is still two years away.

[ssiguy]

Rapid Transit does not denote technology or grade separation. It is exactly what it says...........transit that is rapid. The Mississauga Transitway will be faster than the Eglinton LRT even though the LRT is costing 6X more money. The Winnipeg BRT has a speed limit of 80km/hr.

Anyway, we could go on for hours but for the average person they don't care if it's grade separated, runs on steel or rubber, is automated or not...........for 99% of the population they couldn't care less if it's horse & buggy as long as it gets them from A to B fast, reliably, and with reasonable comfort.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Jesus... It's not complicated. For technological purposes, transit types are qualified. In the rest of the world, rapid transit is usually a metro/subway system. Why would it be any different in Canada? Because there are fewer RT systems so we need to include light rail as RT to feel better?

I study in that field so I believe to have some sort of knowledge on the subject... The systems other than Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are simply not rapid transit (subway/metro). Just look at the two lists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems (Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Toronto streetcar - Kitchener is missing but should be included as well)

It's not complicated at all. Just read the definitions of both systems, they have quite notable differences.

As I already pointed out, wikipedia's definitions with regard to rapid transit etc. are very poorly sourced. Nevertheless, RTFA you linked to. From your metro systems page:

The name of the system is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Some cities use metro as a brand name for a transit line with no component of rapid transit whatsoever. Similarly, there are systems branded light rail that meet every criterion for being a rapid transit system.

Those criteria, once again from the article are, with the caveats pointed out in the article in brackets:

• separation from other traffic (almost always)
• within a city (usually)
• high frequency
• high capacity

Tell me again how the Confederation Line won't meet those criteria?

You and others make it seem so cut and dry, but it is far more nebulous than you like to believe. That article explicitly makes that point:

The dividing line between metro and other modes of public transport, such as light rail[7][8] and commuter rail,[7][8] is not always clear...

Different agencies use different definitions, which is part of the problem, some agencies use one word in one way, while others use it another way (case in point, light rail).

Wikipedia seems to use a definition of rapid transit used in an APTA report from 1994. I find that definition too focused on implementation instead of functionality. As an analogy, consider a hypothetical definition for runway. It is a level surface, exclusive ROW for aircraft to land on and take-off from. I look at a majority of runways in the world and find that the definition works. Suddenly, though, an overzealous wikipedian points out that the runway in Gibraltar doesn't have an exclusive ROW, and therefore the airport isn't really an airport. Suddenly we have lists of aerodromes and airports and light aerodromes and landing and take-off surface facilities and absolutely none of it provides meaningful information and instead makes understanding far more difficult. Functionally a runway is a surface for aircraft to take-off and land on. That's the only meaningful factor. Grade separation isn't an important factor in terms of the functional qualities of rapid transit, so why is it in the definition? If some misguided planner inserted an at-grade pedestrian crossing on the Skytrain or Bloor-Danforth line, would the service be altered in a meaningful way?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

If some misguided planner inserted an at-grade pedestrian crossing on the Skytrain or Bloor-Danforth line, would the service be altered in a meaningful way?

Well yes... If a pedestrian gets hit by a train at said crossing, it alters the service in a big way. I know because it happens a couple times a year with the AMT system. Same goes with vehicles, if one gets stuck (or even hit) at a grade crossing, the service on that line is altered.

[Aylmer]

But the Metro gets stuck too (all too often) and people jump/fall onto the tracks as well.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

But the Metro gets stuck too (all too often) and people jump/fall onto the tracks as well.

It happens once in every 2-3 years (for the Montreal Metro). You don't see people crossing the tracks daily like with grade crossings.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

See, Toronto really confuses me.
The subways are definitely RT.
The Eglinton Crosstown is being labeled as one of the RT.
Yet, 510 Spadina (and others), are built to the same standards as the EC, but they are not part of the RT

So that would mean the O-Train system is RT. But the CTrain and Edmonton LRT and future Ion are not.
And the Transitways in Ottawa and Mississauga, the parts that do not interact with traffic would be considered RT.

On a side note, I am impressed with the fact that the top 25 cities in Canada have some sort of express service, regardless of what we want to call it.

The street cars even with an exclusive ROW run on line of sight. That is what makes the difference, causes bunching, etc. I really think you should go watch the 510 operate before saying it is built to the same standard.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

It happens once in every 2-3 years (for the Montreal Metro). You don't see people crossing the tracks daily like with grade crossings.

Actually, it's about 30 attempts every year, every one of which results in shutdowns.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/montre...icide-dans-le-metro-le-grand-malaise.php

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Actually, it's about 30 attempts every year, every one of which results in shutdowns.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/montre...icide-dans-le-metro-le-grand-malaise.php

Very well Aylmer, but what's your point? Any rapid transit system has it's share of suicide attempts (apart from those with protection door systems). We were talking about grade-separation. What do people jumping onto the tracks at stations have to do with that?

[FFX-ME]

I find it a bit ridiculous, SkawHigh, that you insist on using wikipedia as a sole reference. If you insist on treating wikipedia as gospel you should read the actual discussion on adding the confederation line to the page (which it used to be on).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_metro_systems/Archive_19#Ottawa_Confederation_Line

That was just the most recent discussion, there were many others.

The editor did reach the agreement that what is being built qualifies as a metro system but later chose to remove it from the list since it is unclear whether the city plans to maintain the future expansions as "metro-grade" or not. Period. Phase 1 and 2 of the confederation line are clearly a metro but it is being branded as an LRT since the city chose low floor vehicles in order to maintain the flexibility of potential at-grade service in Stage 3, for example.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Very well Aylmer, but what's your point? Any rapid transit system has it's share of suicide attempts (apart from those with protection door systems). We were talking about grade-separation. What do people jumping onto the tracks at stations have to do with that?

My point is that just because a system is grade-separated doesn't mean it is as invulnerable as you seemed to indicate a few posts ago. What I understood from your posts is that systems with grade crossings are subject to interference, but that 100% grade-separated systems are not. I'm not convinced this stands to reason. That's not to say that grade-separated systems isn't less vulnerable, but I don't think that level crossings (with priority, of course) make a system that unpredictable and disruptable and I don't think that grade-separation in every possible context will necessarily provide enough gains in reliability to offset the costs.

[Innsertnamehere]

Surely its a metro until that actually occurs though, no? Any subway system could theoretically add at grade crossings in the future a la Chicago.

[SkahHigh]

Whatever guys. Nobody wants to hear what I'm saying. I guess every city has it's rapid transit system then North America is very comparable to Europe, look at all the rapid transit systems we have!

[MalcolmTucker]

APTA's categories:

Automated Guideway Transit
Cable Car
Commuter Rail
Demand Response
Ferry Boat
Heavy Rail
Inclined Plane
Light Rail
Bus
Monorail
Trolleybus
Vanpool

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2015-q2-ridership-APTA.pdf
Vancouver classifies Skytrain as an automated guideway, Toronto classifies the RT as IR, Intermediate Rail. Main difference is having an operator in the loop

Ottawa already submits the DMU line as Light Rail, as does Toronto with the streetcars.