The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It seems to me that you're talking about a very specific and limited type of LRT which is LRT that is mostly street-based. If your LRT is basically just long streetcars with dedicated lanes and traffic signal priority then obviously to upgrade to something higher capacity you more or less need to start from scratch. The trains probably can't be lengthened much due to block sizes and frequency can't be increased much due to traffic interactions since if frequency is too high it basically would need a green light all the time preventing cars or pedestrians from crossing. But if you have LRT that's mainly in its own ROW then upgrading its capacity may be as simple as removing some level crossings to allow increased frequency which, with a high level of grade separation, could potentially be as frequent as any metro system.

Sure, you're absolutely right. But it seems to me when we talk about LRT in Toronto, we're typically talking about urban in-street LRT. Hamilton, Hurontario, Finch, Sheppard East, etc. are all examples of this. Surrey's proposals are of this type as well. My view is that in pursuing these projects, you are hampering future capacity (but more importantly service) at a high cost, and with minimal improvement over more malleable bus-based solutions.

I have different qualms with non-street oriented transit too though, as I think transit should serve corridors, not jump node to node. But you're right, LRT Edmonton or Calgary style is easier to upgrade to full grade separation. Though it seems to me that that style of LRT has lost popularity.

[osmo]

One thing I would like to know is it express rail is only a reality with cut-cover methods? With the bore machines, you would essentially have to build out 4 tunnels holes for the tracks versus laying all the tracks in a cut out bed with cut-cover?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think, politically, it's much harder to sell a rapid transit project (and for good reason) when, optically, a rapid transit line already exists along the corridor. You already spent $2 billion on the LRT, now you want to spend another $3 billion on a subway along the same street? This is true whether you rip out the rail or not.

Buses require less significant infrastructure. Sure systems like Viva do a fair bit of spending, but it's not really necessary. You don't need fancy stations or red pavement. Dedicated lanes and signal priority is easy enough to reverse if you ever need to upgrade to a metro. And even with fancy bus stations or red pavement, it's not particularly difficult to return the street to its original condition. The same isn't true for LRT.

I have to agree that building two rapid transit lines next to each other on the same corridor will not sell to politicians or taxpayers.

In order to address congestion will require building a new rapid transit route that will both attract new riders and also sufficiently bleed enough ridership from the congested route.

I cannot see a second Yonge subway receiving funding.

[milomilo]

No one is ever going to build express metro lines anymore*, forget it. It is far too expensive and not worth the cost. Adding track to an existing line would, in fact, be more expensive than building a separate line as you then have a railway in the way for the entire route and all the additional complexity that goes on with that, as well as likely increased density/land value along the corridor. You get much better value building new routes in places unserved by transit, or connecting in different directions.


*I'm sure there is an outlier somewhere before anyone leaps on that. Does NY's Second Avenue Subway have express lines?

[Nouvellecosse]

I think that express metro systems are still feasible in the sense of upgrading busy commuter rail services with dedicated track with downtown tunnels and full grade separation. Such services may retain separate branding or be brought under the metro system brand and management. But they won't likely be bundled with an existing local metro line with shared stations and tunnels. The fact that this happened in NYC is really just a local quirk that few, if any, other systems have even when including those that are very large and/or old. However, there are other cities that have "similar" things such as London whose Jubilee and Metropolitan lines share a corridor for a long stretch with the shorter Jubilee line serving the stations closer in while the Met line runs express to the outskirts of town.

The reason that the upgraded commuter rail model is more likely is that having triple or quadruple tracks built in the same location as the local tracks, which are often under/over the densest areas with the highest real estate costs, would be far more expensive than having the express tracks on the surface in a lower demand corridor such as adjacent to the mainline railway. And the rolling stock is also likely to be something better suited to higher speed and greater comfort.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think that express metro systems are still feasible in the sense of upgrading busy commuter rail services with dedicated track with downtown tunnels and full grade separation. Such services may retain separate branding or be brought under the metro system brand and management. But they won't likely be bundled with an existing local metro line with shared stations and tunnels. The fact that this happened in NYC is really just a local quirk that few, if any, other systems have even when including those that are very large and/or old. However, there are other cities that have "similar" things such as London whose Jubilee and Metropolitan lines share a corridor for a long stretch with the shorter Jubilee line serving the stations closer in while the Met line runs express to the outskirts of town.

The reason that the upgraded commuter rail model is more likely is that having triple or quadruple tracks built in the same location as the local tracks, which are often under/over the densest areas with the highest real estate costs, would be far more expensive than having the express tracks on the surface in a lower demand corridor such as adjacent to the mainline railway. And the rolling stock is also likely to be something better suited to higher speed and greater comfort.

Right. London's Crossrail is a great example of a contemporary way of increasing capacity. London has many heavy rail lines that function inefficiently as they terminate not quite far enough into the city, and don't cross through it. Crossrail fixes that by tunneling to connect oppositely facing lines, massively increasing the efficiency of the whole system, and also effectively acting as an 'express' service in some examples even though it doesn't specifically follow any tube lines.

[240glt]

Meanwhile in Edmonton, people are fearing for their safety and actually avoiding the 3.3km, $665 million spur line from the downtown to NAIT as the signaling system continues to fail, traffic tie ups continue and Edmontonians lose patience completely with the bungled project that is now an embarrassing 3 years late. And to boot they had to reduce the capacity of the line that DID work because they can't get the disparate signaling systems to work together. The city now won't even comment on whether it CAN be fixed.

Other cities should be paying us to show them how NOT to do LRT.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/metro-ine-edmonton-lrt-nait-1.4400727

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

http://www.nycsubwayguide.com/subway/step_by_step_guide.aspx

That seems extremely complicated. Granted this is a result of patch work subway lines and express lines built over the last 100 years.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I disagree. The DRL is going to improve transfers at Bloor/Yonge. It won't do much to solve the increasing number of people squeezing onto subway cars north of Bloor. Adding an extra set of tracks along this high density backbone would be a good call and, I believe, will eventually have to happen. Expanding capacity of an existing line just doesn't look as grand politically as a new line.

Yet, that's exactly what we're doing in Ottawa; converting the existing Transitway and bridging the gaps with tunnels and overpasses. Other than a few in-fill stations (as part of filling those gaps), we aren't getting any brand-new service. Although we did need the increased capacity to serve the suburbs, we should be planning subway lines in the densest areas of the city (Bank Street, Rideau Street and Montreal Road).

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Union and dump too many people into a small area of downtown whereas a subway would normally have at least 2 or 3 downtown stops. And of course the amount of track upgrades needed to handle the increased train movements may also be an issue.

I think it's time for Toronto to catch up with other global cities and consider building a second downtown rail hub.

In terms of heavy-rail vs light-rail capacity, their isn't a huge difference. Ottawa will start with 90 meter platforms (capacity of 18,000 phpd), expandable to 120 meters (24,000 phpd, downtown subway platforms were pre-built full-length). It seems the city even built the 3 downtown station caverns large enough to eventually expand to 150 meters (30,000 phpd). The difference for Ottawa is that our low-floor trains limit standing room due to the wheel wells, so we can't increase the capacity by removing seats.

Of course, this isn't light-rail "classic", but more of a fully grade separated metro.

[Alegan]

Wow, I love reading all of your replies.

I think it's a darn shame that Toronto has not planned its transit with more foresight, and its shocking it continues to do so.

Maybe there should be an apolitical transit body that is able to act on urgent transit issues across the country so that decisions don't change every election cycle and we end up with subways that are half built before being cancelled, or lines built that are clearly insufficient for future growth. I can't claim to know how the funding structures would change from the mix of municipal, provincial and federal contributions today but something has to give. It's all dependant on the shifting whims of people in positions with a high turnover rate. Far too many cooks in the kitchen (and at once not-enough - re:public input).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That seems extremely complicated. Granted this is a result of patch work subway lines and express lines built over the last 100 years.

Yet, that's exactly what we're doing in Ottawa; converting the existing Transitway and bridging the gaps with tunnels and overpasses. Other than a few in-fill stations (as part of filling those gaps), we aren't getting any brand-new service. Although we did need the increased capacity to serve the suburbs, we should be planning subway lines in the densest areas of the city (Bank Street, Rideau Street and Montreal Road).



I think it's time for Toronto to catch up with other global cities and consider building a second downtown rail hub.

In terms of heavy-rail vs light-rail capacity, their isn't a huge difference. Ottawa will start with 90 meter platforms (capacity of 18,000 phpd), expandable to 120 meters (24,000 phpd, downtown subway platforms were pre-built full-length). It seems the city even built the 3 downtown station caverns large enough to eventually expand to 150 meters (30,000 phpd). The difference for Ottawa is that our low-floor trains limit standing room due to the wheel wells, so we can't increase the capacity by removing seats.

Of course, this isn't light-rail "classic", but more of a fully grade separated metro.

Where?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Alegan

Wow, I love reading all of your replies.

I think it's a darn shame that Toronto has not planned its transit with more foresight, and its shocking it continues to do so.

Maybe there should be an apolitical transit body that is able to act on urgent transit issues across the country so that decisions don't change every election cycle and we end up with subways that are half built before being cancelled, or lines built that are clearly insufficient for future growth. I can't claim to know how the funding structures would change from the mix of municipal, provincial and federal contributions today but something has to give. It's all dependant on the shifting whims of people in positions with a high turnover rate. Far too many cooks in the kitchen (and at once not-enough - re:public input).

Toronto has, but every new may meddles with it to the point nothing gets done.

[ssiguy]

Toronto has allowed politics to overtake transit expansion as the long suffering Toronto commuter can attest. This is why RER is a godsend........it is paid for, developed by, and planned by Metrolinx which basically means Queen's Park. The GTA's current massive expansion program has 100% due to QP's detrmination to get the city moving again and 0% due to anything the City or Toronto has done.

[Innsertnamehere]

Except smart track is a huge part of RER and is city led.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Toronto has allowed politics to overtake transit expansion as the long suffering Toronto commuter can attest. This is why RER is a godsend........it is paid for, developed by, and planned by Metrolinx which basically means Queen's Park. The GTA's current massive expansion program has 100% due to QP's detrmination to get the city moving again and 0% due to anything the City or Toronto has done.

Wow. How can you be always so wrong? It's has been and has always been Queens Park. Metrolinx is as politically tied to the current administration as Rae transit's initiative were when Harris took over. I have much more faith in the TTC and the city. What they accomplished during the late nineties and 2000s just to keep the system afloat is admirable. Of course, I don't expect you to get it given your obsession with capital expansion in high speed, hybrid commuter lines.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That seems extremely complicated. Granted this is a result of patch work subway lines and express lines built over the last 100 years.



Yet, that's exactly what we're doing in Ottawa; converting the existing Transitway and bridging the gaps with tunnels and overpasses. Other than a few in-fill stations (as part of filling those gaps), we aren't getting any brand-new service. Although we did need the increased capacity to serve the suburbs, we should be planning subway lines in the densest areas of the city (Bank Street, Rideau Street and Montreal Road).


I think it's time for Toronto to catch up with other global cities and consider building a second downtown rail hub.

In terms of heavy-rail vs light-rail capacity, their isn't a huge difference. Ottawa will start with 90 meter platforms (capacity of 18,000 phpd), expandable to 120 meters (24,000 phpd, downtown subway platforms were pre-built full-length). It seems the city even built the 3 downtown station caverns large enough to eventually expand to 150 meters (30,000 phpd). The difference for Ottawa is that our low-floor trains limit standing room due to the wheel wells, so we can't increase the capacity by removing seats.

Of course, this isn't light-rail "classic", but more of a fully grade separated metro.

Ottawa is making the same mistakes as Toronto. The Confederation Line is the equivalent of Toronto's YUS subway. We are building our Bloor-Yonge transfer mess at Bayview station. I worry about our eventual plans for the Quebec side and the politics that will push it to Bayview as well, although it is far from ideal from the rider's point of view. We will need a second route through downtown to serve Quebec and the southern suburbs but there is no political interest in even planning a route. This sounds so much like the Toronto situation it is unbelievable.

The assumption is that we have sufficient capacity to funnel everybody into the Confederation Line tunnel even if it creates too many transfer for too many people yet even Calgary is now planning a second route through downtown.

We seem to be obsessed with getting rail on the Confederation Line to the far reaches of the city before considering the rest of more central parts of the city. The complaint that we need to start from the city centre and build outward is not being fully followed.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa is making the same mistakes as Toronto. The Confederation Line is the equivalent of Toronto's YUS subway. We are building our Bloor-Yonge transfer mess at Bayview station. I worry about our eventual plans for the Quebec side and the politics that will push it to Bayview as well, although it is far from ideal from the rider's point of view. We will need a second route through downtown to serve Quebec and the southern suburbs but there is no political interest in even planning a route. This sounds so much like the Toronto situation it is unbelievable.

The assumption is that we have sufficient capacity to funnel everybody into the Confederation Line tunnel even if it creates too many transfer for too many people yet even Calgary is now planning a second route through downtown.

We seem to be obsessed with getting rail on the Confederation Line to the far reaches of the city before considering the rest of more central parts of the city. The complaint that we need to start from the city centre and build outward is not being fully followed.

Glad to hear you say that! Also, it doesn't help that they're running a low floor tram along the route. I know they've done some things to make it better, but this is the system's spine we're talking about here. The ridership will get higher than they thing and it will be goodness knows how long before there is the political will to make a relief project.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Glad to hear you say that! Also, it doesn't help that they're running a low floor tram along the route. I know they've done some things to make it better, but this is the system's spine we're talking about here. The ridership will get higher than they thing and it will be goodness knows how long before there is the political will to make a relief project.

The downtown tunnel planning never considered ridership from the Quebec side. It is still early in the process but I just get this feel that when we finally build rail on that side of the river, it will be feeding the Confederation Line. Meanwhile, we spend billions in the suburbs when existing bus lanes will be almost as effective in getting people to the rail head. Yes, we need a Phase 2 but I am not sure how beneficial it will be to go almost to the edge of development when we have no plans or poor plans to serve the rest of the city. I don't see the political will to build a more balanced rail network that gets a second line into downtown. I have also expressed concern for years that this is going to distort city planning to emphasize development in single east-west direction that is already getting overbuilt too far from the city centre.

[ainvan]

TTC Issues 30% Tunnel Design RFP for Relief Line South

Yesterday the TTC formally released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for tunnel design work of the Relief Line South. More specifically, the RFP is to "complete the Concept Design Report and Preliminary Design and Engineering for the Tunnels and associated facilities for the RLS, together with a cost estimate and project delivery schedule, to 30% design completion." This RFP marks a substantial step forward in the detailed design work for the Relief Line, which is tentatively scheduled to begin construction in 2025 and be complete by 2031.

For planning and design purposes the Relief Line has been divided into two segments: The Relief Line South, which runs from Osgoode Station to Pape Station, and the Relief Line North, which will run north from Pape Station, possibly under Don Mills Rd (though the alignment is far less refined). The Relief Line South is being spearheaded by the TTC, while the Relief Line North is primarily a Metrolinx project. The Relief Line South is approximately 6km in length, while the Relief Line North's length depends on what alignment and terminus is ultimately chosen.

Urban Toronto

[osmo]

Originally Posted by ainvan

TTC Issues 30% Tunnel Design RFP for Relief Line South

This RFP marks a substantial step forward in the detailed design work for the Relief Line, which is tentatively scheduled to begin construction in 2025 and be complete by 2031.

What a joke.

[ssiguy]

I don't think the Relief Line is a good idea in how it is proposed.

Relief is certainly needed to ease congestion on the Bloor Line and particularly Y&B station, no question there. It will of course also offer far superior service to Toronto East and the burgeoning Waterfront/Portlands area. For me the issue is not the need but how it will be implemented.

I don't think standard 3rd rail TTC subways are the way to go and is shortsighted. They should use the same route but build it to accomodate RER catenary trains. It can still serve the exact same stations with the same capacity and frequency but it would allow other RER trains to use it so lines could be more easily interlined. It would relieve stress at Union which will quickly go over capacity and offer a vital alternative to Union in case of a problem at Union. Also a northern extension past Eglinton would be much easier and cheaper using RER trains as they could use the existing Richmond Hill GO route as opposed to having to build a totally new line from scratch if using standard TTC 3rd rail.

Bt using a RER tunnel you are effectively killing 2 birds with one stone for the same amount of money. RER could very easily overtake the subway in ridership in 30 years as is often the case with cities that have developed a RER system on top of a relatively small subway system and having 2 routes into the downtown core is a neccessity.