The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Torontos will be 108km by 2022, with finch, eglinton, and spadina. Longer if you count Hurontario. By the mid 2020's you are looking at probably closer to 150km. Even more if you count even some of the streetcar network

Eglinton crosstown surfaces stations average 700m separation I believe. Just because there are a few stops close together doesn't mean the whole line is. There are several areas with over 1km spacing.

Finch and the other LRT lines don't count as rapid transit. So Toronto will not be at 108km, unless RER is operating.

[1overcosc]

Most of the RER system will be complete by 2022; only the Barrie line won't be (that's coming in 2024).

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Finch and the other LRT lines don't count as rapid transit. So Toronto will not be at 108km, unless RER is operating.

We're talking about mass transit systems (LRT and RT) though, not only metro/subway at this point.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Most of the RER system will be complete by 2022; only the Barrie line won't be (that's coming in 2024).

I really hope the AMT (or the future agency taking over this year) will focus on getting higher frequencies on some commuter rail lines... The Saint-Jérôme line ridership grew a lot since the frequencies went from 20 to 26 daily. The Deux-Montagnes line (the only AMT-owned line), if the tracks were doubled between Bois-Francs and Pierrefonds, could have 15-20 min frequency during rush hours, which is pretty close to RER.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Finch and the other LRT lines don't count as rapid transit. So Toronto will not be at 108km, unless RER is operating.

Then Calgary has 0km of transit..

Enough of this crap though, it comes up every 5 pages and I don't want a 40 post arguement about it again.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Then Calgary has 0km of transit..

Enough of this crap though, it comes up every 5 pages and I don't want a 40 post arguement about it again.

Calgary is Rapid due to speeds and station spacing. It is the fastest Rapid Transit system in Canada.

I don't buy the games that Eglinton will have high speeds as claimed with so many stops and Toronto's fear of giving true transit leads at lights. Finch is high order local service, other routes could use that level of service as well (Dufferin and King) but don't have the wide spacing that Finch has, nor do they cross many priority neighborhoods.

[1overcosc]

Eglinton's stop spacing is 800m, in line with rapid transit norms. It's line speed is comparable to the Bloor-Danforth subway.

There will be signal priority. You don't need heavy rail-style barriers to have signal priority. I've seen traffic light based signal priority for LRT in action in cities like Portland and Jerusalem, it works very well.

There's even precedents in Toronto for this. The St. Clair streetcar has signal priority although thanks to its very close stop spacing (200m-300m like a local bus) it doesn't work perfectly. The VIVA BRT system in York Region has signal priority that kicks in whenever a bus is late.

[Mister F]

I think there will always be disagreement about what exactly qualifies as rapid transit. The underground part of Eglinton for sure, but what about the surface portions? Hardly anyone considers the downtown streetcar lanes rapid transit, but what about the waterfront west LRT or the King Street transit mall? Highway 7 has a BRT with its own lanes but buses have to stop at red lights, does it qualify? Commuter rail isn't considered rapid transit, but what about RER? There's no definitive answer to these questions and we're always going to see different numbers for the length of the system depending on what people include.

BTW, if BRT qualifies then the system is higher than the previously quoted 68.3 km now. About 7 km of the Highway 7 BRT is completed so far.

It's pretty damning on the city that Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal can legitimately challenge Toronto for the length of the rapid transit system. It just goes to show how dire the situation is and how stagnant transit investment was for so long. The ongoing projects, whether it's subway, LRT, BRT, or RER, are all urgently needed.

[SkahHigh]

The costs of constructing light rail vs subway, the urban contexts, everything is different between the big four cities.

And please, no more rapid transit debate.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I think there will always be disagreement about what exactly qualifies as rapid transit. The underground part of Eglinton for sure, but what about the surface portions? Hardly anyone considers the downtown streetcar lanes rapid transit, but what about the waterfront west LRT or the King Street transit mall? Highway 7 has a BRT with its own lanes but buses have to stop at red lights, does it qualify? Commuter rail isn't considered rapid transit, but what about RER? There's no definitive answer to these questions and we're always going to see different numbers for the length of the system depending on what people include.

BTW, if BRT qualifies then the system is higher than the previously quoted 68.3 km now. About 7 km of the Highway 7 BRT is completed so far.

It's pretty damning on the city that Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal can legitimately challenge Toronto for the length of the rapid transit system. It just goes to show how dire the situation is and how stagnant transit investment was for so long. The ongoing projects, whether it's subway, LRT, BRT, or RER, are all urgently needed.

I think we should just go with the suggestion a forumer made a few months ago and get rid of the term, because it tends to be an all or nothing, "is or isn't" type proposition. We should just replace it with something more nuanced.

My suggestion would be a new "CFS scale" for urban and suburban transport systems. CFS meaning, "Capacity, Frequency, Speed" and each category given a letter code. So a system could be AAB, CAB, BAC, etc. I simply put them in that order since it's alphabetical.

For Capacity, if a vehicle's normal capacity (aka not Tokyo-level crush load) is over 1000, then it's A. If it's from 250 - 1000, then it's B. If it's under 250, then it's C. The overall capacity is determined as much by frequency as it is by vehicle capacity, but frequency will have its own class, so there's no need for double dipping. Someone looking at a services' CFS rating will know the overall capacity for a line with a high frequency rating but a low capacity rating will be lower than a line with a moderate to high capacity rating along with a high frequency rating.

For Frequency, if the frequency is 5 minutes or better during peak for at least 4 hours a day at least 5 days a week, and 10 minutes or better for another 14 hours a day 7 days a week (or more), then it's class A. Class B would include service at least 10 minutes during peak and 20 minutes off peak, and C would include anything less than that.

Speed would be measured by overall service including stops rather than top speed of course. Under 30km/h would be C, 30-45km/h would be B, and 46km/h or more would be A.

So, a typical metro system would be classified as AAB rather than "rapid transit" and so would some LRT or suburban rail systems that may not be officially "rapid transit" systems, although most LRT systems and some light metros would likely be BAB since they'd have smaller trains. Some LRT systems wouldn't manage to maintain the frequency standards either, so they'd be BBB, while others would be very fast due to using rail corridors and having long stop spacing so they'd be BBA, if they maintained standards in the other categories.

A BRT system would inevitably be at most a C capacity rating due to smaller vehicles, but might reach an A in speed and/or frequency.

Of couse, there are still going to be difference between systems with an identical CFS rating so it would still be important to look at the details. But this would give more information than a term like rapid transit. A big issue with rapid transit is that people keep seeing the term "rapid" and wanting to place a major emphasis on service speed (how fast a single rider can travel from A to B), when in reality, this isn't a major component. Yes rapid transit systems can be quicker since they're separated from other traffic and don't have to stop for anything other than to let riders on or off, but this is usually more a side effect of grade separation rather than the intent.

The term rapid represents the ability to move a large number of people rapidly (bandwidth) rather than for the individuals themselves to move fast. If you have a huge number of people being transported at a moderate or even slow speed, you're able to transport a greater number of people in the same amount of time than by moving a small number of people at a very fast speed. But the CFS scale separates these concepts for the sake of removing this confusion.

So based on what I've been and head about the Eglinton Crosstown route, it would be CFS rated BAC, while RER would likely be ACA. although this could change as we get more details about RER.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I think there will always be disagreement about what exactly qualifies as rapid transit. The underground part of Eglinton for sure, but what about the surface portions? Hardly anyone considers the downtown streetcar lanes rapid transit, but what about the waterfront west LRT or the King Street transit mall? Highway 7 has a BRT with its own lanes but buses have to stop at red lights, does it qualify? Commuter rail isn't considered rapid transit, but what about RER? There's no definitive answer to these questions and we're always going to see different numbers for the length of the system depending on what people include.

BTW, if BRT qualifies then the system is higher than the previously quoted 68.3 km now. About 7 km of the Highway 7 BRT is completed so far.

It's pretty damning on the city that Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal can legitimately challenge Toronto for the length of the rapid transit system. It just goes to show how dire the situation is and how stagnant transit investment was for so long. The ongoing projects, whether it's subway, LRT, BRT, or RER, are all urgently needed.

I don't get the obsession of "rapid transit" on this forum particularly these long commuter based lines. Of course, I'd probably bite a bullet than live in some suburban wasteland or, even worse, a TOD surrounded by a surburban wasteland. With TOD, You don't have to drive to the station but, it's density without most of the benefits of urban living.

[Innsertnamehere]

Good god what have I started

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't get the obsession of "rapid transit" on this forum particularly these long commuter based lines. Of course, I'd probably bite a bullet than live in some suburban wasteland or, even worse, a TOD surrounded by a surburban wasteland. With TOD, You don't have to drive to the station but, it's density without most of the benefits of urban living.

Me too. TOD is ok if we're talking about making an actual urban area denser, but to just build a small pocket of density in an otherwise autocentric suburb, it just makes more sense to have moderately frequent commuter rail (say every 15 minutes all day) and well timed feeder bus service and bike lanes/paths to distribute people to/from normal neighbourhoods with reasonable density.

It would also be good to have some retail and services around the station so that the same bus routes serving commuters heading into town can also serve people accessing local retail and services. No big ugly park and rides please.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Good god what have I started

It was inevitable, it just has to run its course. Sigh.

[Nouvellecosse]

The RT discussion is NEVER going to end, no matter how much course it runs. That's why we should just eliminate usage of the term on the forum and switch to the CFS classifications instead!

[eemy]

I'd suggest an alternate system that tracks the following:
- capacity in standard vehicle units (SVU). 1 svu would be equivalent to the capacity of a standard single family car, or 4 passengers
- average speed of the line in kph
- mode type, indicating the type of transit (B - bus, R - rail, etc)
- frequency in average minutes between trips

As an example, a RER-style rail line using vehicles that, on average, carries 780 passengers, travelling an average of 65 kph every 15 minutes would be 195/65R15. Clear as mud!

[Nouvellecosse]

That's fine except it makes me wonder why we'd use "standard vehicle units" to divide the passenger capacity by four when we're still ending up with such a large number? What makes it preferable to write 195 compared to 780? It doesn't abbreviate it any, but still adds additional complexity. Perhaps make it standard bus units? The TTC says a bus can carry about 55 people so this would make it 14 SBUs.

And also, why is differentiating between rail and bus important enough to include? Aren't the most important factors the number of people served, and how fast and frequent the service is that they're getting?

[Horus]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'd suggest an alternate system that tracks the following:
- capacity in standard vehicle units (SVU). 1 svu would be equivalent to the capacity of a standard single family car, or 4 passengers
- average speed of the line in kph
- mode type, indicating the type of transit (B - bus, R - rail, etc)
- frequency in average minutes between trips

As an example, a RER-style rail line using vehicles that, on average, carries 780 passengers, travelling an average of 65 kph every 15 minutes would be 195/65R15. Clear as mud!

Just don't Google those terms

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That's fine except it makes me wonder why we'd use "standard vehicle units" to divide the passenger capacity by four when we're still ending up with such a large number? What makes it preferable to write 195 compared to 780? It doesn't abbreviate it any, but still adds additional complexity. Perhaps make it standard bus units? The TTC says a bus can carry about 55 people so this would make it 14 SBUs.

And also, why is differentiating between rail and bus important enough to include? Aren't the most important factors the number of people served, and how fast and frequent the service is that they're getting?

Because he's taking the piss out of this bullshit. I hope.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by osmo

Calgary is Rapid due to speeds and station spacing. It is the fastest Rapid Transit system in Canada.

I thought C Train's average speed was 35 km/h.

[eemy]

Yeah, I was joking around, but I actually think your idea has a certain merit. My fundamental problem with it was that it is not immediately apparent what each value means. Tire ratings get around this problem as the order of magnitude of each value is roughly different. You will never confuse the tire width (195) with the rim diameter (15) or the aspect ratio (65).

While my idea of SVUs was fundamentally just a poor attempt to transform a meaningful value for transit systems (vehicle capacity) to a value you'd expect to find on a tire sidewall, it isn't completely meaningless. In the same way that we compare large buildings with football fields or discuss how many blue whales could fit in a tunnel, it is in some ways easier to grasp that a bus is equivalent to 40 cars, while a train may be equivalent to 250 cars.

What it comes down to though, is what value is there in making these sorts of comparisons? What you are proposing is an abbreviated way of communicating some basic statistics related to transit systems, but why do that when we can look at the actual statistics themselves? The main value, perhaps, is that it provides no logical way to rank the systems, which is an excellent insight into the futility of that practice on forums like this.