The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Chicago and SF really don't have good RT systems. Obviously New York is it's own beast, but I would say the big three in Canada would take spots 2,3, and 4 in North America.

Even New York's is a mess although extensive.

I rode Boston's network two weeks ago everyday for a few days and it's pretty ancient, plus the off-peak frequencies suck (15 minutes during midday).

[niwell]

The MTA is obviously a very impressive system but it seems to have reached a breaking point in unreliability. The stories coming out of the city this summer about constant delays / breakdowns seem to make the TTC look like the peak of efficiency in comparison (we have lots of delays for those unaware).

Also closing the L line under the East river for several years to repair hurricane Sandy damage is going to be a nightmare for Brooklynites. Every time I've ridden that line it's been incredibly packed and is the primary connection between Manhattan and the ultra hip (now just expensive) parts of Brooklyn.

[FFX-ME]

Why is it that we no longer build tunnels the easy way by first digging a trench and instead always use tunnel boring machines? To me the old way seems faster and cheaper...

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

In general, I think that Toronto's transit would have been further ahead if they would have embraced ICTS technology in the 80s in the right places. Nobody would have cared if there were a Skytrain line running down Sheppard Ave. East. Had they done that, instead of boring twin subway tunnels, it is very likely that they would have completed the line to Scarborough Town Centre, rather than having a stub subway ending at Fairview Mall.

Agreed. On Sheppard or Eglinton, ICTS or even grade separated light rail like in Ottawa would have allowed the network to be expanded faster. They could be a combination of elevated, underground, and at grade as required. The street level sections of the Eglinton line are going to be a weak link.

Unfortunately Toronto seems to be stuck on the choice of on-street LRT or full underground subway, with other choices barely considered. Why the subway extension to Vaughan is entirely underground defies any kind of logic. Luckily the province is taking the lead on RER, which will offer the kind of regional rapid transit that most people in North America have no real concept of.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the El in Chicago. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the El in Chicago. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

Hmm because we've been talking about the pros and cons of elevated rail and that's what Chicago's system is?

If the discussion is irrelevant to you then feel free to step out at any time.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Agreed. On Sheppard or Eglinton, ICTS or even grade separated light rail like in Ottawa would have allowed the network to be expanded faster. They could be a combination of elevated, underground, and at grade as required. The street level sections of the Eglinton line are going to be a weak link.

Unfortunately Toronto seems to be stuck on the choice of on-street LRT or full underground subway, with other choices barely considered. Why the subway extension to Vaughan is entirely underground defies any kind of logic. Luckily the province is taking the lead on RER, which will offer the kind of regional rapid transit that most people in North America have no real concept of.

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the El in Chicago. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

Ottawa is doing it the right way. Most of the line is grade-separated but on the ground, only the downtown segment is underground. There is no way an L would ever have been approved in downtown Ottawa. The expansions will also be grade-separated yet on the ground with a few sections being in shallow tunnels.

[yaletown_fella]

Theres a huge corridor by Finch (I believe they're building a busway there) that wouldve been perfect for a seperate high speed LRT. On street LRT is a horrible idea because it has to deal with idiots turning left, red lights and traffic delays.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Chicago and SF really don't have good RT systems. Obviously New York is it's own beast, but I would say the big three in Canada would take spots 2,3, and 4 in North America.

I would argue that Boston and San Diego are good systems too. I have ridden on them and they work well.

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Even New York's is a mess although extensive.

I rode Boston's network two weeks ago everyday for a few days and it's pretty ancient, plus the off-peak frequencies suck (15 minutes during midday).

It may be ancient, but it still covers a vast area and is easy to navigate.

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Why is it that we no longer build tunnels the easy way by first digging a trench and instead always use tunnel boring machines? To me the old way seems faster and cheaper...

Because the businesses cry fowl when the road in front is dug up

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Ottawa is doing it the right way. Most of the line is grade-separated but on the ground, only the downtown segment is underground. There is no way an L would ever have been approved in downtown Ottawa. The expansions will also be grade-separated yet on the ground with a few sections being in shallow tunnels.

They are with the 2 lines, but it sounds like the future lines are going to be branches of the current LRT. This will cause problems in the future. I am hooping they change that.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They are with the 2 lines, but it sounds like the future lines are going to be branches of the current LRT. This will cause problems in the future. I am hooping they change that.

You're right, each of the two lines will essentially be interlined into 2 lines but it's not terrible. The capacity should still be high enough at least for the moment.



There is talk about making the airport spur line a completely separate line from the Trillium line too.

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa's system does not do interlining, which has pros and cons. The Trillium Line is very problematic because it is not fully double tracked. This limits frequency and results in fairly frequent shutdowns. It also creates a problem for the airport spur that cannot offer through service into downtown. Instead, it will offer a shuttle service requiring two transfer to reach downtown. I expect the airport spur to be very unpopular and likely to be a white elephant.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Hmm because we've been talking about the pros and cons of elevated rail and that's what Chicago's system is?

If the discussion is irrelevant to you then feel free to step out at any time.

Because Chicago has old, oppressive elevated lines right through the middle of downtown. Nobody's proposing that in Toronto and that's not what exists in Vancouver. The elevated lines are mostly in parts of the city that lack a dense urban main street context. Same with what little overhead rail exists in Toronto. This has been explained several times in this thread.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa's system does not do interlining, which has pros and cons. The Trillium Line is very problematic because it is not fully double tracked. This limits frequency and results in fairly frequent shutdowns. It also creates a problem for the airport spur that cannot offer through service into downtown. Instead, it will offer a shuttle service requiring two transfer to reach downtown. I expect the airport spur to be very unpopular and likely to be a white elephant.

That's what I thought but the Confederation line sure looks like it will have interlining after stage 2.

[Innsertnamehere]

thought I would post some photos that the Eglinton Crosstown twitter account has tweeted out recently (@CrosstownTO):

Don Mills underpass / station east portal:


Beginning the Don Mills west portal:



Mining has begun for Laird Station:



The pit at Cedarvale / Eglinton West:



Roof slab for Forest Hill station:



Tunnels being prepped for track:




Track installation at the maintenance site:



Caledonia Station, today and in the future:



Foundation for the Kodak Building is coming along at Mount Dennis Station (the heritage building will be integrated into the new station)



Retaining walls going up at Mount Dennis Station:



Inside one of the new maintenance facility buildings:

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Because Chicago has old, oppressive elevated lines right through the middle of downtown. Nobody's proposing that in Toronto and that's not what exists in Vancouver. The elevated lines are mostly in parts of the city that lack a dense urban main street context. Same with what little overhead rail exists in Toronto. This has been explained several times in this thread.

Oppressive elevated rail is oppressive elevated rail wherever you place it. There's plenty of it in outer areas of Chicago:





And in Evanston:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.0584622,-...b2fI9CmnzDz8SAK2WUrpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.061546,-8...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

I think it's interesting to compare the two. Others here think the same.

[WhipperSnapper]

This is also how transit projects budgets can get out of whack. They must have spent a fortune to move the Kodiak building and will spend even more abatements and renos.

[niwell]

Great pics of the crosstown construction! Had no idea the maintenance facility was so far along.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Because Chicago has old, oppressive elevated lines right through the middle of downtown. Nobody's proposing that in Toronto and that's not what exists in Vancouver. The elevated lines are mostly in parts of the city that lack a dense urban main street context. Same with what little overhead rail exists in Toronto. This has been explained several times in this thread.

The built environment is different in Toronto than Vancouver. The Vaughan Line shouldn't have gone ahead underground or overground. It would be nice to have had the Eglinton Line fully separated but, I don't view it as a failure because it isn't. It should fine. Sections of the Skytrain would have been fine too if it didn't have the service corridors and wasn't fully elevated relying on surface right of ways.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

That's what I thought but the Confederation line sure looks like it will have interlining after stage 2.

Yes, Stage 2 will produce a two station spur in the west end of the city that will be interlined in most hours.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Oppressive elevated rail is oppressive elevated rail wherever you place it. There's plenty of it in outer areas of Chicago:


-snip-

I think it's interesting to compare the two. Others here think the same.

Yea, that's pretty abhorrent. The new generation of concrete guideways are aging a lot better.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Any elevated line in Toronto wouldn't look like the El. It would be on wide suburban roads like the part of the Eglinton line that's being built at grade. Any impact on the streetscape and residents would be vastly reduced compared to a more urban context. The more central part of the Eglinton line is underground.



There's nothing wrong with different transit modes to meet different needs around an urban region. RER is just an upgrade of several existing commuter rail lines. But you're not wrong. The transit system is completely fragmented, with several municipal systems and a regional system layered on top, each run by different agencies. That results in inconsistent fare structures, lines duplicating each other, complicated service agreements, and confusion for riders. IMO it should all be one integrated system run by a single GTA-wide authority. Have it run roads as well.

What I'd have preferred is if they spent less on the underground portion by having a system basically the same as Copenhagen metro with 39m automated trains/platforms running at higher frequency (like 30tph instead of the planned 15 tph) and lower profile tunnels. With Eglinton they seem to justify the choice of underground/at grade LRT by saying they'd save money on the surface portion by not having it grade separated by spending more on the underground portion with longer platforms (to account for the lower max frequency) and larger tunnels (to handle the overhead caternary). They also wanted the surface sections to have close enough stop spacing to allow them not to have duplicate bus service.

But what they'd save by eliminating the drivers for the rail line would likely have covered a lower frequency bus service to provide accessibility to those who can't walk to more spaced-out stations. But by making the rail line more accessible for local services, they made it less useful for longer distance, crosstown services. It would have been cool for it to be extended at some point to provide a crosstown express route that could take you from MCC or the airport all the way to SCC or even the zoo.