The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In the sense nearly all built up area is concentrated within the relatively small City of Calgary (same with Edmonton) boundaries. From any point at the edge of the suburban area, it's about the same distance to downtown. Both cities are basically circles of civilization.



Montreal and Toronto are the only two cities that I can say for sure commuter rail should be central to transit planning.

Compared to the Alberta cities compact form, MTL and TO have gaps of rural between suburbs, built up areas along highways with nothing else beyond (for example, highway 15 in north of Montreal), narrow suburbs along waterways that go on forever. Those two cities have true sprawl. If we're looking for a cost effective way to serve these suburbs, commuter rail is the only option. But it seems governments are more focused on building high-grade lrt/subway/metros instead. Because votes.

Vancouver is also pretty sprawling, but I don't know enough about its current rail network to know how feasible commuter rail might be (beyond the existing Westcoast Express).

Not true at all. There is this misconception that commuter rail is cheap, but it has the highest operating costs per passenger, and infrastructure costs have become insanely high. Hence why Montréal will be focusing on REM metro lines instead. Automation saves operating costs, smaller stations infrastructure costs, and aerial can be inserted in available ROWs more easily.

Plus commuter rail is infrequent and non electric pollutes nearly as much as a car, and more if the train is not full. Plus not have to deal with time slots with CN/CP...

[Doady]

Commuter rail is for long distances only, especially to downtown. So it doesn't make sense to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else, especially in places like Toronto and Montreal that have so much travel within suburbs and between suburbs.

Reseau de transport de Longueuil by itself has higher ridership than the entire AMT/RTM/EXO/whatever-it's-called system. MiWay has better than Hamilton Street Railway (which will get LRT for King Street). Brampton Transit has six times the ridership of the Kitchener Line. These are some of the largest transit systems in Canada. Why focus only on upgrading GO or AMT/RTM/EXO and completely ignore these systems? You want to be cost-effective, look at where the real demand is.

When GO can provide service from Streetsville to Erindale without having to charge a $4.93 fare, then maybe we can argue it is more cost-effective transit solution than MiWay. But for now I would say MiWay route 9 for $3.00 is the more cost-effective choice.

[Doady]

Annual Ridership (2016)

1. TTC 538.1 million
2. STM 416.2
3. Translink 233.4
4. Calgary Transit 102.5
5. OC Transpo 96.5
6. ETS 87.2
7. GO Transit 66.8
8. Winnipeg Transit 48.7
9. RTC 46.7
10. MiWay 38.6
11. RTL 33.4
12. VRTS 25.5 (FY2016/17)
13. Brampton Transit 23.1
14. YRT 22.8
15. LTC 22.6
16. STL 22.0
17. HSR 21.5
18. Exo 21.1
19. STO 20.3
20. GRT 19.7

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Not true at all. There is this misconception that commuter rail is cheap, but it has the highest operating costs per passenger, and infrastructure costs have become insanely high. Hence why Montréal will be focusing on REM metro lines instead. Automation saves operating costs, smaller stations infrastructure costs, and aerial can be inserted in available ROWs more easily.

Plus commuter rail is infrequent and non electric pollutes nearly as much as a car, and more if the train is not full. Plus not have to deal with time slots with CN/CP...

I'm pretty sure that when people have been talking about commuter rail they're including pretty much any service on existing rail lines, including frequent electrified regional rail. Upgrading existing lines is typically cheaper than building new ones. Toronto's RER, for example, is a $13.5 billion project that includes ~260 km of electrification of Metrolinx owned track and service ranging from hourly to every few minutes. That's about $50 million/km. Even if you only count the parts of the system that will approach subway frequencies, that's still more bang for your buck than the new new metro and LRT extensions across the country. New lines make sense where there's no existing rail infrastructure that can be upgraded but where those lines exist, upgrading them is the best approach.

Originally Posted by Doady

Commuter rail is for long distances only

No it isn't, at least if it's part of a properly designed regional system. When Toronto's RER is done, it will be ideal for short trips like Gerrard to Exhibition or Mount Dennis to Liberty Village.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that mainline rail upgrades may be a better value than extensions of metro and LRT into outer (lower demand) areas, but I don't think that intensified, high frequency mainline service is necessarily a great option for denser inner areas overall. The main reason commuter rail services in Canada make sense is that they're cheap to create. Suburb to downtown traffic is so rush-hour centric that it's great if you can move large numbers of peak commuters into town in the morning and out in the evening without forking out much capital for infrastructure costs. It's cheap since all you need is a few trains with diesel locomotives pulling unpowered coaches and a few simple, low platform stations using existing track and all converging on an existing central station then rely on commuter buses off peak when there's less demand and lower road congestion. You can't choose the best corridor following major streets and connecting important destinations, but that's ok since it's so cheap. But once you start spending tons of money on things like extra tracks, high platforms, upgraded stops, more capacity at the central station, etc. you might as well just fork out the extra and get a corridor that's really ideal rather than to keep pouring money into one whose main advantage was being cheap.

Making upgrades to improve outer service is a different thing since you can get away with lower headways (15-20 min is considered for good for places like Markham and Brampton) so a central corridor with several suburban routes converging wouldn't need nearly as much upgrading as one with similar frequency of inner routes. And the ridership per KM isn't high enough to justify too much investment anyway. A corridor carrying 4 routes each with 20 min headways would only carry 12 tph. But to have 5 min headways in central areas is also 12 tph so you'd need a corridor with twice the capacity. Unless you just had all the outer services stopping at numerous inner stations, but then you're making the outer service slow and undesirable and causing uneven loading (very full trains for short distances and mostly empty ones for the majority of the trip).

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'd generally consider a conventional underground metro line far preferable for inner areas than cheap upgrades to an existing rail corridor. And even for outer area, if the demand becomes really high it might be better to create a downtown tunnel like Paris RER, Sydney trains, or Metro trains Melbourne rather than constantly expend the central tracks and station.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Mister F

No it isn't, at least if it's part of a properly designed regional system. When Toronto's RER is done, it will be ideal for short trips like Gerrard to Exhibition or Mount Dennis to Liberty Village.

But it won't be ideal for someone going from Richmond Hill to North York Centre. Or Port Credit to Cooksville. And how are we going to get people to these stations in the first place? To upgrade GO only and ignore local transit makes no sense at all. RER will be much more successful with an expanded LRT and subway system and vice versa.

How much do you think TTC/MiWay/YRT/etc. ridership will decline because of GO RER? I don't think that will happen. It's not just one or the other. GO RER will increase the need for subway/LRT/BRT expansion. If the Hurontario buses are overcrowded now, wait and see what happens when the Cooksville and Port Credit and Brampton stations get frequent all day train service.

Okay, no all-day service for Cooksville, because it's on the Milton Line, using the CP main line, so local transit will be the only option no matter what.

[swimmer_spe]

Just imagine if Metro Toronto decided that they would only build lines within each borough. Instead of "one lone line". Line 1 would actually be 6 lines, and Line 2 would be 3.

How wonderful that would that would have been.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Doady

But it won't be ideal for someone going from Richmond Hill to North York Centre. Or Port Credit to Cooksville. And how are we going to get people to these stations in the first place? To upgrade GO only and ignore local transit makes no sense at all. RER will be much more successful with an expanded LRT and subway system and vice versa.

How much do you think TTC/MiWay/YRT/etc. ridership will decline because of GO RER? I don't think that will happen. It's not just one or the other. GO RER will increase the need for subway/LRT/BRT expansion. If the Hurontario buses are overcrowded now, wait and see what happens when the Cooksville and Port Credit and Brampton stations get frequent all day train service.

Okay, no all-day service for Cooksville, because it's on the Milton Line, using the CP main line, so local transit will be the only option no matter what.

The improvement in local transit access (or other mode service) to stations that will be necessary to support the additional trips RER is expected to deliver is the elephant nobody has fed any peanuts yet.

[Mister F]

^Very true. I don't think there's been much talk about that since building a large regional rail system takes years while running more local buses can be done almost overnight. Surface transit routes are going to have to be completely rethought along the fare system.

Originally Posted by Doady

But it won't be ideal for someone going from Richmond Hill to North York Centre. Or Port Credit to Cooksville. And how are we going to get people to these stations in the first place? To upgrade GO only and ignore local transit makes no sense at all. RER will be much more successful with an expanded LRT and subway system and vice versa.

How much do you think TTC/MiWay/YRT/etc. ridership will decline because of GO RER? I don't think that will happen. It's not just one or the other. GO RER will increase the need for subway/LRT/BRT expansion. If the Hurontario buses are overcrowded now, wait and see what happens when the Cooksville and Port Credit and Brampton stations get frequent all day train service.

Okay, no all-day service for Cooksville, because it's on the Milton Line, using the CP main line, so local transit will be the only option no matter what.

To be clear, I never claimed that RER would serve the trips you describe and I never said that we should upgrade GO only and ignore local transit. These are straw man arguments. What I said was new lines make sense where there's no existing rail infrastructure that can be upgraded but where those lines exist, upgrading them is the best approach. That sentence answers your questions.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But once you start spending tons of money on things like extra tracks, high platforms, upgraded stops, more capacity at the central station, etc. you might as well just fork out the extra and get a corridor that's really ideal rather than to keep pouring money into one whose main advantage was being cheap.

I can't speak to other cities, but in Toronto the RER corridors are the ones that are really ideal. They follow natural travel routes in the city, fanning out in several directions from Union Station. And they fill in some of the gaping holes in the rapid transit network. It makes perfect sense to have subway style frequencies, high platforms and extra tracks on the lines that are getting them. Of course, there are still holes in the transit network that RER won't fix and high density centres that aren't on rail lines. That's where subway, LRT and BRT lines are needed. The DRL for example, or the Hurontario LRT.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Question for anyone willing to answer. Do your transit systems have public washrooms? In Ottawa, I don't believe any of our Transitway Stations ever had washrooms, but the Confederation Line will have 4 initially and 8 (9 including one at the end of Trillium Line) after Stage 2. Washrooms are to be built at transfer and terminus stations along Confederation.

Calgary Transit definitely doesn't.

[Innsertnamehere]

Toronto has a few scattered around on the subway system.

Crazy that Brampton transit has overtaken YRT in ridership. YRT services literally double the population.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I can't speak to other cities, but in Toronto the RER corridors are the ones that are really ideal. They follow natural travel routes in the city, fanning out in several directions from Union Station. And they fill in some of the gaping holes in the rapid transit network. It makes perfect sense to have subway style frequencies, high platforms and extra tracks on the lines that are getting them. Of course, there are still holes in the transit network that RER won't fix and high density centres that aren't on rail lines. That's where subway, LRT and BRT lines are needed. The DRL for example, or the Hurontario LRT.

I was actually focusing largely on Toronto when I raised the issue since so much of the rail network travels through industrial areas and away from major population and employment centres or convenient transfer points. For every convenient centreal location such as Weston or downtown Brampton, it seems like there's two inconvenient industrial/marginal ones such as Bramlea, Oriole, or Meadowvale. This is in contrast to places like Boston and London where rail lines were at the centre of basically every satellite town which later became a city district. Now I'm not saying that GO RER isn't a good thing, just that I don't think it should be seen as a substitute for, or higher priority than, an expanded metro system which is the impression the previous post gave. It almost sounded like you wanted the DRL to just use the rail corridor which i think is a horrible idea lol.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Question for anyone willing to answer. Do your transit systems have public washrooms? In Ottawa, I don't believe any of our Transitway Stations ever had washrooms, but the Confederation Line will have 4 initially and 8 (9 including one at the end of Trillium Line) after Stage 2. Washrooms are to be built at transfer and terminus stations along Confederation.

In greater Halifax there are washrooms at the three ferry terminal and at 4 major bus terminals but several minor terminals have none.

[Hali87]

Most of the newest/largest non-mall terminals in the Halifax area have washrooms. Bridge and Lacewood do for sure, and I'm pretty sure Sackville and Portland Hills do as well, as do all of the ferry terminals.

Edit: didn't see the above post, but yeah exactly lol

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I'm pretty sure that when people have been talking about commuter rail they're including pretty much any service on existing rail lines, including frequent electrified regional rail. Upgrading existing lines is typically cheaper than building new ones. Toronto's RER, for example, is a $13.5 billion project that includes ~260 km of electrification of Metrolinx owned track and service ranging from hourly to every few minutes. That's about $50 million/km. Even if you only count the parts of the system that will approach subway frequencies, that's still more bang for your buck than the new new metro and LRT extensions across the country. New lines make sense where there's no existing rail infrastructure that can be upgraded but where those lines exist, upgrading them is the best approach.


No it isn't, at least if it's part of a properly designed regional system. When Toronto's RER is done, it will be ideal for short trips like Gerrard to Exhibition or Mount Dennis to Liberty Village.

What I'm saying is that for Montréal, scrapping the entire Deux-Montagne line, which was even already electrified, to be replaced by a metro system was more cost effective because of high operating costs of a commuter rail system. (financing for the CDPQi is another issue)

Same business case for Sydney for their new metro that's basically the same as the REM.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I was actually focusing largely on Toronto when I raised the issue since so much of the rail network travels through industrial areas and away from major population and employment centres or convenient transfer points. For every convenient centreal location such as Weston or downtown Brampton, it seems like there's two inconvenient industrial/marginal ones such as Bramlea, Oriole, or Meadowvale. This is in contrast to places like Boston and London where rail lines were at the centre of basically every satellite town which later became a city district. Now I'm not saying that GO RER isn't a good thing, just that I don't think it should be seen as a substitute for, or higher priority than, an expanded metro system which is the impression the previous post gave. It almost sounded like you wanted the DRL to just use the rail corridor which i think is a horrible idea lol.

Yeah, definitely not making that case about the DRL lol. The DRL does what I've been talking about - it accomplishes things and serves areas that existing rail corridors can't. Like relieving Bloor-Yonge and bringing east-west rapid transit through the middle of downtown. We need both.

The RER lines don't hit every node but they do get to a lot of them. Take the Stouffville line for example. It may not serve Scarborough Town Centre but it does serve Riverdale, the Danforth, Pacific Mall, downtown Markham, Markham Village, and downtown Stouffville. Plus it connects with a long list of bus and rail lines along its route, including major transfers with existing and proposed subways.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

What I'm saying is that for Montréal, scrapping the entire Deux-Montagne line, which was even already electrified, to be replaced by a metro system was more cost effective because of high operating costs of a commuter rail system. (financing for the CDPQi is another issue)

Same business case for Sydney for their new metro that's basically the same as the REM.

The conversation started with what kind of mass transit is best to connect distant suburbs with the city, something commuter/regional trains excel at. Even with their metro projects, Montreal and Sydney are still going to keep running those kinds of trains to their suburbs.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Mister F

To be clear, I never claimed that RER would serve the trips you describe and I never said that we should upgrade GO only and ignore local transit. These are straw man arguments. What I said was new lines make sense where there's no existing rail infrastructure that can be upgraded but where those lines exist, upgrading them is the best approach. That sentence answers your questions.

And I never said that you said those things. That's a straw man argument.

These past two pages I've arguing against J.OT13's idea that only commuter rail should be upgraded in suburban Toronto and Montreal rather than LRT/subway, which he's been arguing for in this thread over and over, and I even quoted him in the 3 paragraph post that you selectively quoted 7 words out of context from.

I repeat: even frequent all-day commuter rail will not in any way replace local transit. Most commuter rail stations in Toronto and Montreal are in extremely inconvenient locations. These suburban stations are not located at actual origins and destinations, most people would have to drive and take transit to get to these stations, so the potential to replace short trips is extremely limited, certainly not enough to ignore local transit as J.OT13 suggests. Such train service will only increase the pressure on local transit, not reduce. Rare example like Mount Dennis to Liberty Village doesn't change that fact.

And of course Mount Dennis and Liberty Village aren't in the suburbs anyways, so it doesn't counter my point I was making, that improved GO train service is not an alternative to improved local transit in the 905. The Kitchener Line has the potential to be a very useful route for traveling within Toronto, but it will always be useless for travelling within Brampton and Mississauga. The fact that so much of the corridor lies within the designated operating area of the airport probably doesn't help either. It is probably not a good idea to invest rapid transit so much in places where high density and mixed-use development will always be restricted and limited.

[J.OT13]

I never said we should ignore local transit in the suburbs. What I said is we shouldn't stretch ultra-expensive subways offering capacities well beyond what is needed to suburbs. Build medium capacity local transit in the suburbs (BRT, classic LRT). Built the Hurontario LRT. I don't care. Mississauga might very well need it, but don't stretch the subway to Mississauga (or Pickering, or Markham) before building the desperately needed DRL.

My point is about priority first and foremost. Commuter rail can hold up the fort for suburbs to downtown rush hours while we fix the mess that is downtown Toronto. Once the downtowns are well served by high capacity subways and metros, then we can stretch them to the burbs.

And to clarify, my biggest issue is with the GTA. I have nothing against Montreal's initial RER, but there might be other priorities after that is built in the city.

[J.OT13]

Fly over video of Ottawa's above ground stations.

• Video Link

More pictures, including a few of the four underground stations here.

http://keithegli.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FEDCO-3July18_FINAL_Email-English.pdf

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Doady

And I never said that you said those things. That's a straw man argument.

You said this in response to my post:

To upgrade GO only and ignore local transit makes no sense at all.

When you quote someone and offer a counterpoint, that implies that the person you're quoting is making the opposite argument. I don't recall anyone saying that we should ignore local transit and upgrade GO only. You're arguing against positions that nobody is taking.

I've already responded to the rest of the points in your last post so I won't repeat myself.