The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Ottawaresident]

Yes, bus is seen as a poor class way of transport. Train (see Acela Express) travel is seen as acceptable for the middle class.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

And of course, that isn't what I said. There is lots of good discussion in the VIA thread. But TLDR: just restarting long distance trains at low frequencies will be a fail, it needs a large investment in a line that will be successful from the get-go. Calgary - Edmonton might be feasible with enough investment, but Calgary - Regina etc, no chance. Better to reinstate bus services between all those nodes first and upgrade to rail only if and when ridership justifies it.

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

To have a demand there HAS TO BE THe SUPPLY!!! Nobody will want to use the train when there is no train.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah, that's why you give them buses first. On long distance, low demand routes a bus would be faster, more reliable, cheaper, more frequent and produce less emissions than a train. So why on Earth would you put in a train?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Do you find anything wrong with my reasoning? Why would you want a train if it was going to be slower, unreliable, more expensive, less frequent and worse for the environment than a bus?

Who is your target?

Think of it this way, the Northlander used to be used for people going to Toronto for medical appointments. Those people are now getting a ride with someone as the bus is uncomfortable for them.

I do feel all VIA trains should be 1 a day, each way every day as a minimum.

VIA service should be looked more like transit and less like tourism.

[SFUVancouver]

Vancouver sub-forumer Officedweller posted a link to a fascinating and rarely-public technical document: the alternatives analysis summary and update for the second phase of the rapid transit to UBC project. Phase two has been approved by the Mayors Council but is awaiting funding in the third phase of the Mayor's 10 Year Vision for transit.

Originally Posted by officedweller

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SUMMARY & UPDATE
Rail to UBC Rapid Transit Study
January 2019
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...9_01_24_technical_report_rail_to_ubc.pdf

As a refresher on the Broadway Subway project, Phase 1 is approved, fully funded under Phase 2 of the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision, and is currently in the RFQ tendering stage with preparatory pre-construction work underway.

Phase 1 of the Broadway Subway is a 5.7-kilometre line that will extend the existing SkyTrain Millennium Line system seamlessly from VCC-Clark Station to a new terminus station at Arbutus Street, to serve the most congested section of the Broadway Corridor (the second largest employment center in British Columbia).

Construction of the subway will mostly involve tunneling starting in 2020, with the new extension opening in 2025.

Phase 1 will cost $2.83 billion, funded and delivered by the Government of B.C., with contributions from the Government of Canada and the City of Vancouver. The Broadway Subway (phase 1) project is a key part of the rapid transit program in Metro Vancouver’s Mayors’ Council 10-Year Vision. The Vision is funded by the governments of B.C. and Canada, TransLink, and local municipalities. Source


Source

Translink Broadway Subway project page
Provincial government project page
City of Vancouver Broadway Subway project page

Phase 2 of the Broadway Subway will extend the line from Arbutus St to UBC (the third largest employment center in British Columbia). The Mayor's Council selected the 'Rail Rapid Transit' option (continuation of the SkyTrain Millennium Line from its future Arbutus Street Phase 1 terminus to the UBC campus). The estimated cost for Phase two is $3.2-3.7B, though for an apples to apples comparison with the LRT option, this includes a new $190M operations and maintenance centre (OMC). It is anticipated that this OMC capacity will be actually be delivered through incremental expansion of the existing SkyTrain OMCs with its own separate funding program, meaning that the direct cost of the project is estimated to be $3-3.5B. As noted, this is not yet funded, but it is approved and is the highest funding priority for Phase 3 of the the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision.

[TorontoDrew]

It would be so great if the west coast express was an actual subway line. That bus is anything but express. It's hell getting to Horseshoe Bay with a suitcase on that bus.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It would be so great if the west coast express was an actual subway line. That bus is anything but express. It's hell getting to Horseshoe Bay with a suitcase on that bus.

West Coast Express is a 70km long regional commuter rail line connecting downtown Vancouver to Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maples Ridge, and Mission.


Source


Source

Maybe you are thinking about the Blue Bus service from downtown Vancouver to Horseshoe Bay?


Source

[TorontoDrew]

LOL yes, that service is so bad and inadequate for it's intended purpose. That's why I use Harbour Air when possible.

[ClaytonA]

https://web.archive.org/web/201903212259...y-phase-in-quebec-city-and-montreal-east

…

Planning for:
•reconstruction of the Metropolitan Autoroute and Ville-Marie and Viger tunnels
•expansion of three of the STM’s transport centres for buses
•extension of Pierre-Le Gardeur Hospital in Terrebonne
•tramways in Quebec City

•Preliminary studies for: •extension of the métro’s Yellow Line into Longueuil
•extension of Highway 13 to Highway 50 near Mirabel Airport
•installation of reserved bus lanes on Highways 13, 20, 25, 440, 640 and Route 116
•tramways in Montreal’s east end and Taschereau Blvd. in Longueuil

…

…

The government also placed a tramway project for the Quebec City region into the planning stage of its 10-year infrastructure fund. The $3-billion project would see a 23-kilometre tram line built across the city, roughly from west to east, and complemented by a 17-kilometre “trambus” line and new dedicated bus lanes, all in service of easing traffic congestion, especially to the suburbs and airport.

The Montreal region was not left out, as the government will study a tramway project for the city’s East End ...

The CAQ government has also committed to study projects to add reserved bus lanes on Highways 13, 20, [30], 25, 440, 640 and Route 116. …

For Longueuil residents, an extension of the métro’s Yellow Line, and a public transit project for Taschereau Blvd. have been moved to the “under study” stages.

...

The planning continues under the new Quebec government for more transit expansion continuing the previous governments' projects. Much more funding added to roads. The reserved bus lanes may slip under the radar for some, but could be just as transformative as rail projects. The Quebec City tram should it get built will add rail transit to the 7th largest Canadian CMA, leaving only Winnipeg without rail transit in the top 10 CMA's.

CMA population from Wikipedia.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah, that's why you give them buses first. On long distance, low demand routes a bus would be faster, more reliable, cheaper, more frequent and produce less emissions than a train. So why on Earth would you put in a train?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Do you find anything wrong with my reasoning? Why would you want a train if it was going to be slower, unreliable, more expensive, less frequent and worse for the environment than a bus?

Of course there's a problem with the reasoning. If you think there's problems with a particular service and your goal is to improve it, then you work to eliminate the problems. You don't discontinue the service and force people to switch to something different. If train service is too slow, unreliable, expensive, infrequent and creates too many emissions, the obvious solution is that you make the service faster, more reliable, less expensive, more frequent and reduce its emissions. Of course running decades old freight locomotives pulling short consists of unpowered coaches isn't going to be an efficient on low traffic routes that would be best suited to short DMUs which would actually be more efficient than buses. And there's nothing forcing us to keep the rail infrastructure in poor condition requiring low speeds and to have insufficient sidings to allow freight traffic interaction. We've just chosen to do this thus far.

Bottom line for me is that if the end goal is eliminate trains because you genuinely think bus service is better, then fine. Say that. But to suggest that the best way to improve train services is to replace it with buses really justifies a facepalm imo.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Of course there's a problem with the reasoning. If you think there's problems with a particular service and your goal is to improve it, then you work to eliminate the problems. You don't discontinue the service and force people to switch to something different. If train service is too slow, unreliable, expensive, infrequent and creates too many emissions, the obvious solution is that you make the service faster, more reliable, less expensive, more frequent and reduce its emissions. Of course running decades old freight locomotives pulling short consists of unpowered coaches isn't going to be an efficient on low traffic routes that would be best suited to short DMUs which would actually be more efficient than buses. And there's nothing forcing us to keep the rail infrastructure in poor condition requiring low speeds and to have insufficient sidings to allow freight traffic interaction. We've just chosen to do this thus far.

Bottom line for me is that if the end goal is eliminate trains because you genuinely think bus service is better, then fine. Say that. But to suggest that the best way to improve train services is to replace it with buses really justifies a facepalm imo.

There are no train services in the prairies (other than the Canadian, which doesn't count), so there is no talk of discontinuing rali service, only trying to reinstate some functional regional transit. So:

Why would you want a train if it was going to be slower, unreliable, more expensive, less frequent and worse for the environment than a bus?

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Yes, bus is seen as a poor class way of transport. Train (see Acela Express) travel is seen as acceptable for the middle class.

Yes, bus is seen as a poor class way of transport. Train (see Acela Express) travel is seen as acceptable for the middle class.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Yes, bus is seen as a poor class way of transport. Train (see Acela Express) travel is seen as acceptable for the middle class.

If, in the prairies we only accept Acela Express levels of public transit as good enough, we will never get anything, except maybe between Calgary and Edmonton.

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If, in the prairies we only accept Acela Express levels of public transit as good enough, we will never get anything, except maybe between Calgary and Edmonton.

Acela Express is the best service on the continent, which is sad. HSR between Calgary and Edmonton will never happen, for 2 reasons:

1) Edmonton goes nowhere. If it was a Calgary to Vancouver service, then the Calgary side goes to the US and towards Saskatchewan, and Vancouver goes to Seattle. Not so with Edmonton.

2) There is no political will. Only VIA could predictably build HSR in Canada, and politics says that they don't want to. Until every VIA line makes billions, there will not be enough money without funding from government and that is not happening.

[Reecemartin]

New video focused on Ottawa Phase 2 and Rapid Transit Expansion: https://youtu.be/DsBIokuEoMM

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Acela Express is the best service on the continent, which is sad. HSR between Calgary and Edmonton will never happen, for 2 reasons:

1) Edmonton goes nowhere. If it was a Calgary to Vancouver service, then the Calgary side goes to the US and towards Saskatchewan, and Vancouver goes to Seattle. Not so with Edmonton.

2) There is no political will. Only VIA could predictably build HSR in Canada, and politics says that they don't want to. Until every VIA line makes billions, there will not be enough money without funding from government and that is not happening.

Calgary - Vancouver? The investment required to build even a new conventional speed alignment would be astronomical only to result in a service far slower than a plane. So that is a non starter.

You are correct there is no political will, but that doesn't change the fact that the only viable passenger rail will likely be between Calgary and its surrounding areas and Edmonton. If we're to spend any time pushing for rail, that's where it should go, not wasting time pushing for a rebuild of the 1900's passenger rail network.

One day we might rebuild substantial rail in the prairies, but the path to get there has to be realistic.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary-Edmonton as two large cities near no other large cities generate a phenomenal amount of traffic in between them. The provincial Transport depart says standard North American modeling would generate only a quarter of the observed traffic. Depending on capital cost of course, multiple studies have shown with about a 2-3% modal share for end to end trips between Calgary and Edmonton, there is a sweet spot where you can recover your capital costs as well as cover your operating costs, for conventional high speed rail. The net cost to the public of high speed rail is lower than the cost for conventional because of all the extra customers speed attracts, and the investments to get up to reliable service are crazy expensive

[CityTech]

2-3% is peanuts. VIA already achieves 5% in Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal.

[p_xavier]

With the Québec provincial project presented yesterday was the Quebec Infrastructure Plan, which is the masterplan for all infrastructure spending on a ten year window. Added where these projects :

- Yellow-line alignment rail in Longueuil
- Montréal East Island rail
- Taschereau blv. rail in Longueuil

No technology mentioned as they will be studied.

Dans le cadre du PQI 2019-2029, certaines de ces mesures sont mises à l’étude, soit :
• L’implantation d'un mode de transport collectif structurant dans l'axe du prolongement de la ligne jaune du métro à Longueuil;
• L’implantation d'un mode de transport collectif structurant dans l'est de Montréal;
• L’implantation d'un mode de transport collectif structurant sur le boulevard Taschereau à Longueuil;

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Ottawaresident

Yes, bus is seen as a poor class way of transport. Train (see Acela Express) travel is seen as acceptable for the middle class.

The only bus travel I enjoyed in my life was the first-class bus between Edmonton and Calgary. But then again, no alcohol.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The only bus travel I enjoyed in my life was the first-class bus between Edmonton and Calgary. But then again, no alcohol.

There is something special about dining on a train.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is something special about dining on a train.

Honestly yes. Every time I visit all of my family back in Ontario, I always fly into Pearson, take the UP to Union, and then hop on a train to Woodstock. Even though I don't usually take first class, I always get a sandwich, a coffee (or a beer) and do homework on my laptop on the train. Train is so completely superior to flying in my opinion, even considering the longer travel time. You're still saving a ton of time if you think about it, as there is no security to go through, little chance of significant delays or cancellations, and you get downtown to downtown directly. I'd imagine the time savings from just those factors is probably an average of around 3 hours each trip.