The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

There is an interesting solution from Oslo called the Kolsås Line. In that case the line is a hybrid between LRT and Subway but he tunnels cannot accommodate cantary so the tunnels use third rail and the above around sections use cantary. The way they make it work is the train can operate using either third rail or cantary wiring. The trains are high-floor trains and resemble the U2s in Calgary.

I have always said something like that work well on Sheppard it would allow the city to implement one continuous flowing line from Young to STC. The only major change would need to make is make the underground tunnel use standard gauge as opposed to the TTC gauge.

Actually... something like that could work. Assuming you could find a way to avoid at-grade intersections along the Sheppard corridor, it would be brilliant. On top of that the gauge would not necessarily have to be converted because the TTC already uses its weird wide gauge on all lines except the SRT, so just build the surface portion to the 1,495mm spec.

Originally Posted by whiteford

the advantages of a Calgary type lrt system vs expensive heavy or light rail, underground subways systems for the Toronto area would be enormous. dollar for dollar, you would move and reach many times more people. you would think that the choice would be obvious to any transportation planers.

Apparently not...

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by Wharn

This sounds strangely familiar. Why is the AMT trying to impose a BRT system on the East End, while working to extend a subway into nowhere?

I don't know what you call a subway to nowhere, but we've discussed this countless times in the past and I don't want to get back to that...

[manrush]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

There is an interesting solution from Oslo called the Kolsås Line. In that case the line is a hybrid between LRT and Subway but he tunnels cannot accommodate cantary so the tunnels use third rail and the above around sections use cantary. The way they make it work is the train can operate using either third rail or cantary wiring. The trains are high-floor trains and resemble the U2s in Calgary.

I have always said something like that work well on Sheppard it would allow the city to implement one continuous flowing line from Young to STC. The only major change would need to make is make the underground tunnel use standard gauge as opposed to the TTC gauge.

I thought that line was just a full metro line that allowed through-servicing by trams.

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

My idea of a Montreal "Sky train" would be to have a different rolling stock used for the "L" line altogether. Basically it would be the same skytrain technology: the light automated cars with high frequency. The Montreal metro technology was chosen out of cultural values, not so much necessity.

Automated cars is a no-brainier, but the metro cars are already small enough. I still would like to see rubber tires because

Originally Posted by Alexcaban

I don't go deaf when the metro turns corners

But I really like the idea of an LRT/Subway hybrid, especially on four corridors: the Deux-Montagnes commtuer line (transformed into metro and expanded at grade to Mirabel Airport), the Champlain Bridge (line from East End on the Port's many tracks, across the bridge to DIX-30), Tascherault on the South Shore and St-Martin in Laval (maybe even just LRT for those two).

Approximate completion year (except for Laval): Never

Why?: Our corrupt politics. Vive le Québec!

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But still, you can't compare Montreal's need for transit expansion to that of Toronto.

The suburb of Mississauga for example is Canada's 6th largest municipality with a population of over 700,000 and it has no rapid transit connection.

Well, I just did.

Laval has 3 metro stations and 4 commuter train stations for a city of 400,000. What does that mean? Montreal planned before idiots took power and sabotaged everything. Some of those plans were resurrected, 40 years late... In Toronto, the idiots never gave the people a chance (Miller was you're last hope).

[ssiguy]

I have always thought something like this would work very well in suburban areas and mid-sized cities:
www.skytrolley.com

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have always thought something like this would work very well in suburban areas and mid-sized cities:
www.skytrolley.com

There's quite the amount of bullshit in that video:

1) Nice try, but the stations take up a traffic lane, just like LRT.

2) LRT carries more passengers than this Skybus.

3) Cities don't need street-level parking to achieve higher density.

4) Who the hell is going to be looking at a giant advertisement sign 3 stories above street level?

5) A moving station platform, now that doesn't sound expensive!

6) What the hell is this thing supposed to be doing if it allows the same amount of cars on the road? That makes sure that there is no incentive to take public transit.

7) Why is it a bus? Why can't it be a suspended metro, like the other examples?

8) The subway costs 2 times as much to build, but it can also carry 3 times more PPHPD.

9) The thing that is forgotten is that this thing is almost impossible to extend, without putting a city in dept for the next ten years.

10) Wait, what? This thing went from being 1/2 as expensive to 25% less? I like these magical numbers.

I think I've made my point. This is a good system and is currently being considered in my hometown of Laval. I don't have any problem with it, but please don't give us all this retarded information...

[Hali87]

Other than the rubber tires, isn't this exactly the same thing as a monorail? They make it sound so innovative..

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by manrush

I thought that line was just a full metro line that allowed through-servicing by trams.

Its more of a pre-metro than a true Metro.

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Other than the rubber tires, isn't this exactly the same thing as a monorail? They make it sound so innovative..

No, the rail is on top of the car. This type of system is rarely used for public transit, but has one advantage: the cars are never affected by weather. And this thing isn't innovative at all, there's one in Germany over 100 years old. This thing has been proposed several times in Quebec as an alternative to the TGV.

[sober2ndthought]

I wanted to share this, this video really shows what I believe the Transit City LRT lines will resemble.


Note no real barriers or crossing arms but yet very good service quality nonetheless. Although it is also missing the double cantery wiring which Transit City will have so maybe this is a bit slower than Transit City.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 1331Massi

1) Nice try, but the stations take up a traffic lane, just like LRT.

On top of that I'd argue that in many places, particularly smaller cities and suburbs, a lane or two along a surface street is not very valuable. They're probably not worth building comparatively expensive tunnels or elevated track to preserve.

In Halifax there is a perennial debate on rail transit and one of the big dilemmas is supposedly where LRT or streetcars would go. The correct answer, at least for parts of the city, is simply to sacrifice one or two lanes of car traffic. The benefits of removing buses from the other lanes and dramatically improving transit service far outweigh the cost of giving up 1/3 of one of many arteries.

[nname]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

I wanted to share this, this video really shows what I believe the Transit City LRT lines will resemble.


Note no real barriers or crossing arms but yet very good service quality nonetheless. Although it is also missing the double cantery wiring which Transit City will have so maybe this is a bit slower than Transit City.

Yes, the average speed for that line is 20km/h according to wiki. So at-grade portion of Transit City would be slightly faster at 22km/h.

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by someone123

On top of that I'd argue that in many places, particularly smaller cities and suburbs, a lane or two along a surface street is not very valuable. They're probably not worth building comparatively expensive tunnels or elevated track to preserve.

I know, this was one of the points I was trying to make. The video stated that to achieve higher density, cities must allow as many cars as they can to pass. This is false. I am in favor of diminishing street capacities. When the disadvantages of LRT were listed, they said that it takes up a street lane. They trapped themselves in a corner there.

[Hali87]

^It would still take quite a bit of explaining to make someone understand why this is not really a disadvantage. I would consider it a positive tradeoff ("we lost 1 or 2 road lanes but gained an LRT line") but not an advantage ("it's a good thing that we were able to decrease road capacity by building an LRT line"). I realize that public transit is a more efficient use of public rights-of-way than personal vehicles, but it is rarely a real replacement for cars and many people would still have to drive.

[MTLskyline]

I've spotted some OC Transpo buses in Longueuil recently. From what I read on the link below they are being used by the Sorel-Varennes Intermunicipal Transit Commission. I wonder what's up with that?

Here's a photo of one:

http://metrodemontreal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15066&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Rico Rommheim]

^ What a farce. If the Montreal suburbs had a coherent transit organization, there would not be a need for this travesty, and Generale Montcalm wouldn't be turning over in his grave.

[goodthings]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

I've spotted some OC Transpo buses in Longueuil recently. From what I read on the link below they are being used by the Sorel-Varennes Intermunicipal Transit Commission. I wonder what's up with that?

Here's a photo of one:
http://i.imgur.com/ihcWdl.jpg
http://metrodemontreal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15066&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Maybe they're using it as a "Training Bus".

Here in Brampton, we have an Ottawa bus roaming all along Queen, Main, and Steeles because Brampton, for the first time, will be getting articulated buses due to the popularity of Zum.

Brampton joins Mississauga, York Region, Hamilton, and St. Catharines as a transit agency in the Golden Horseshoe that operates articulated buses. Niagara Falls will be the 6th one once it rolls out their "WEGO" buses this summer. Toronto will be the 7th agency to do so and will roll out their big buses within the next year or two for Finch West services.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

I've spotted some OC Transpo buses in Longueuil recently. From what I read on the link below they are being used by the Sorel-Varennes Intermunicipal Transit Commission. I wonder what's up with that?

Here's a photo of one:

http://metrodemontreal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15066&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Woo, NFI in Quebec!

[Rotax]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

I've spotted some OC Transpo buses in Longueuil recently. From what I read on the link below they are being used by the Sorel-Varennes Intermunicipal Transit Commission. I wonder what's up with that?

Here's a photo of one:

http://metrodemontreal.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15066&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Transbus got the contract for providing bus service for CIT Sorel-Varennes beginning january 1st 2012, so they ordered a bunch of new buses (Prevost H3-45 and New Flyer Xcelsior) for the service.

However, because New Flyer couldn't provide enough buses on time, they sent a few ex-OC Transpo D60LF to CITSV until every Xcelsior buses are delivered.