The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

What's the difference between a "skytrain" and the REM for rolling stock? The Metropolis cars are, in some cases, the exact same as the Sydney Metro cars you just compared the REM to:


http://static.progressivemediagroup.com/...cts/Alstom%20Metropolis/alstom-metro.jpg

sur le PDF de départ, c'était pas un seul train, mais plutôt plein de pods attachés ensemble. Là on pourrait se retrouver avec un train similair au Métro de Montréal.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think that's a pretty valid point. All of central Ottawa beyond a few blocks in the northermost part of downtown won't really have service. This includes Centretown, the Glebe, Old Ottawa South.

Much of northern Lowertown and eastern Sandy Hill won't really have service either, and there is nothing planned in NE Ottawa cross the Rideau River in New Edinburgh, Vanier, Manor Park, Overbrook, etc.

Also most of the inner west end won't have service either as the line runs across the northern tier of the area, and the population to the south of there is some distance away.

All of these areas are dense urbanized zones - at least by Ottawa and Canadian standards.

You would think that at the very least there would be plans for a north-south line at least roughly parallel to Bank St., and another one going roughly NE along Rideau-Montreal Rd. But nope.

And this does not consider the 'missing link' along Baseline that is supposed to be part of Phase 2 but I just get the feeling that the city is getting consumed in building the Confederation Line to the far reaches of the suburbs and spending almost every cent of the transit budget on it.

[DarkArconio]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think that's a pretty valid point. All of central Ottawa beyond a few blocks in the northermost part of downtown won't really have service. This includes Centretown, the Glebe, Old Ottawa South.

Much of northern Lowertown and eastern Sandy Hill won't really have service either, and there is nothing planned in NE Ottawa cross the Rideau River in New Edinburgh, Vanier, Manor Park, Overbrook, etc.

Also most of the inner west end won't have service either as the line runs across the northern tier of the area, and the population to the south of there is some distance away.

All of these areas are dense urbanized zones - at least by Ottawa and Canadian standards.

You would think that at the very least there would be plans for a north-south line at least roughly parallel to Bank St., and another one going roughly NE along Rideau-Montreal Rd. But nope.

It seems to me a Carling-Queen Elizabeth Driveway-Montreal Rd LRT with selected grade separations and dedicated lanes would make a big difference for the city. But clearly not in the budget and the NCC probably won’t stand for running clean safe trains in place of cars along the canal anyways.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's a great project for Montreal. Shame Toronto's RER can't be built in the same timeframe.

True, but the RER lines are going to potentially serving a multitude of different services, like city transit, intercity-transit, airport rail link and high-speed rail. So will cost more, more complex and unfortunately more time to build

[GreaterMontréal]

It has been confirmed by the CDPQ Infra , the REM rolling stock will be Alstom Metropolis.

[swimmer_spe]

https://interestingengineering.com/germa...lic-transport-to-eliminate-air-pollution

Germany is planning to have public transit free.

Would this work in Canada? Would this cause more people to go car free, or at least reduce their car usage?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://interestingengineering.com/germa...lic-transport-to-eliminate-air-pollution

Germany is planning to have public transit free.

Would this work in Canada? Would this cause more people to go car free, or at least reduce their car usage?

Montreal's mayor asked the same to the transit authority. When I was a student in Sherbrooke, bus was free when showing your student ID. It was cheaper for the university to pay for transit for 10 years than build new parkings.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://interestingengineering.com/germa...lic-transport-to-eliminate-air-pollution

Germany is planning to have public transit free.

Would this work in Canada? Would this cause more people to go car free, or at least reduce their car usage?

Well, taxpayers at some level are going to have to pay for it since the expense of transit won't go away. Cars and parking may have to be significantly limited and/or inner city arterials tolled to recover costs.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Montreal's mayor asked the same to the transit authority. When I was a student in Sherbrooke, bus was free when showing your student ID. It was cheaper for the university to pay for transit for 10 years than build new parkings.

I personally think it should be free but only downtown.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Montreal's mayor asked the same to the transit authority. When I was a student in Sherbrooke, bus was free when showing your student ID. It was cheaper for the university to pay for transit for 10 years than build new parkings.

Don't most universities in Canada do this now? Queen's here in Kingston does, as do the universities in Ottawa, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Peterborough, Hamilton, Windsor, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay. Typically the university pays a small sum of a few hundred bucks (in Kingston it's only $92) per student to the city and passes that cost onto the students as an additional fee on their tuition bills.

Kingston also has the same deal for high school students as well; every child and teenager gets free transit until August 31st of the calendar year containing their 18th birthday. (Meaning, this year everyone born in 2001 or later rides for free all year, and those born in 2000 ride for free until August 31). For those age 14 and under, this free transit is automatic, but for those 15 and over, it's conditional on being a Kingston resident. (The point being they wanted to allow tourists coming in with little kids to take the bus for free, but not extend that to visiting teenagers).

[HomeInMyShoes]

Woman looking to get commemorative bus shelter for mother installed in Regina

Interesting and cool. Reading the article made me pause at the more than $18,000 installation cost. Almost $20,000 for a bus shelter.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Montreal's mayor asked the same to the transit authority. When I was a student in Sherbrooke, bus was free when showing your student ID. It was cheaper for the university to pay for transit for 10 years than build new parkings.

This would be a good idea even in Lethbridge. The U of L has less parking now with an enrolment of ~8000 than it did when I attended and the enrolment was ~1500. Brutal and horrendously expensive. But I don't see I happening.

[Coldrsx]

Central LRT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROvk1R2U2HE

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Don't most universities in Canada do this now? Queen's here in Kingston does, as do the universities in Ottawa, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Peterborough, Hamilton, Windsor, Sudbury, and Thunder Bay. Typically the university pays a small sum of a few hundred bucks (in Kingston it's only $92) per student to the city and passes that cost onto the students as an additional fee on their tuition bills.

That's a UPass where students strike a deal with the local transit authority/university to have a lower pass fee. In the case for Sherbrooke, it was the university paying the transit authority directly the full cost per student.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Central LRT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROvk1R2U2HE

Edmonton are peddling the same lies as Calgary in their propaganda I see. All the 'benefits' they attribute to low floor LRT are actually negatives. An LRT with more street interaction is worse in every important way than one with less street interaction except for one benefit - cost. Which is fine, but I wish they were honest about it.

'Minimal infrastructure fits seamlessly into communities' actually means that instead of a proper heated/underground station, you get to wait in a crappy bus shelter next to the cars. And 'dedicated lanes, using traffic signals to flow with traffic' means your train is slow, stops frequently and often crashes into cars.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Edmonton are peddling the same lies as Calgary in their propaganda I see. All the 'benefits' they attribute to low floor LRT are actually negatives. An LRT with more street interaction is worse in every important way than one with less street interaction except for one benefit - cost. Which is fine, but I wish they were honest about it.

'Minimal infrastructure fits seamlessly into communities' actually means that instead of a proper heated/underground station, you get to wait in a crappy bus shelter next to the cars. And 'dedicated lanes, using traffic signals to flow with traffic' means your train is slow, stops frequently and often crashes into cars.

I'm so happy that Montréal hasn't drank the LRT koolaid and hasn't any LRT projects planned.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Edmonton are peddling the same lies as Calgary in their propaganda I see. All the 'benefits' they attribute to low floor LRT are actually negatives. An LRT with more street interaction is worse in every important way than one with less street interaction except for one benefit - cost. Which is fine, but I wish they were honest about it.

'Minimal infrastructure fits seamlessly into communities' actually means that instead of a proper heated/underground station, you get to wait in a crappy bus shelter next to the cars. And 'dedicated lanes, using traffic signals to flow with traffic' means your train is slow, stops frequently and often crashes into cars.

The wool being pulled over our collective eyes is that it is an either/or scenario. This is played out constantly on SSP usually at the expense of localized transit. There should be a layer for both commuter based transit which mixed traffic LRT isn't great and localized transit which mixed traffic LRT is perfectly acceptable given the cost of going underground.

I want to be on Queen Street East if I'm hopping along several blocks at a time doing my thing. A commuter line serving this catchment but positioned on Lake Shore going 80 kilometres an hour with only 2 to 3 stops doesn't help me at all.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm so happy that Montréal hasn't drank the LRT koolaid and hasn't any LRT projects planned.

To be fair, Montreal's REM has been labeled an LRT.

Mind you, they are doing it right.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

The wool being pulled over our collective eyes is that it is an either/or scenario. This is played out constantly on SSP usually at the expense of localized transit. There should be a layer for both commuter based transit which mixed traffic LRT isn't great and localized transit which mixed traffic LRT is perfectly acceptable given the cost of going underground.

True, although I think milomilo was comparing high floor LRT with low floor LRT, all else being equal.

I would agree with him. I think low floor LRT is an inferior choice in almost all respects except integration of the station with the street environment in a dense, enclosed urban area.

If I'm not mistaken, low floor LRT compromises internal layout, capacity and passenger movement since the trucks (bogies) take up a lot of space that would normally just be under the floor. This leads to a narrow gangway that people can't move around in, so they just stand in various clumps rather than spreading around the car. I would need confirmation on this, but I think the cars might be more expensive and trickier to maintain, since all the electromechanical components have to be on the roof, or more compactly housed under the floor. Low floor LRVs and low floor platforms are certainly less useful for people in wheelchairs, since you don't actually have level boarding and there are the aforementioned circulation problems.

If agencies must use low floor platforms for legacy purposes, like the TTC streetcar, I don't know why they insist on buying 100% low floor LRVs. Partially low floor LRVs are a dime-a-dozen and their internal circulation isn't any worse. It's not like someone with a wheelchair can make it past the narrow gangway between the trucks anyway.

I really don't understand why 100% grade-separated systems with no intention of ever running LRTs on the streets insist on low floor (e.g. Ottawa).

[begratto]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

To be fair, Montreal's REM has been labeled an LRT.

Mind you, they are doing it right.

CDQP-infra calls it a light metro (or métro léger), not LRT.