The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[someone123]

Actual Halifax transit development. There are 2 malls across a street from each other in the West End with the Mumford bus terminal in the middle. Plan is to put the terminal underground, beneath Mumford Road, and build a dozen or so towers of around 30 storeys:

https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/34008/widgets/140197/documents/93983

Maybe this will finally break the 1500 people per square km barrier.

(IMO it is telling that this project is happening in a quasi-suburban area while the new downtown transit terminal planned for the Cogswell redevelopment area is to be fully above ground. One likely led by a private developer, the other led by the municipality.)

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The rail cut is too far from Dal to be useful.

It's right accross a single street....?

[someone123]

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

Peak matters more than daily ridership, right? The Canada Line seems undersized to me, along with a lot of the SkyTrain system, and I was on it when it was quite full (crush loads, forget about getting a seat; getting bikes or luggage on was awkward too) only a few years after it opened.

Is there a reason why Halifax would have a greater proportion of it's ridership during peak periods compared to Vancouver or Toronto? Most cities in Canada have similar rush hours from what i can tell.

Also, an important factor with Vancouver is that it's lines are much longer with downtown at the end. That makes crowding more of an issue because people are on the vehicles longer. For instance, Richmond-Brighouse to Waterfront is about twice the distance as the total route from Mumford up through downtown and back down to Dal. And from the Bridge terminal to either Mumford or downtown is even shorter.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by someone123

Actual Halifax transit development. There are 2 malls across a street from each other in the West End with the Mumford bus terminal in the middle. Plan is to put the terminal underground, beneath Mumford Road, and build a dozen or so towers of around 30 storeys:

https://www.shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/34008/widgets/140197/documents/93983

Maybe this will finally break the 1500 people per square km barrier.

(IMO it is telling that this project is happening in a quasi-suburban area while the new downtown transit terminal planned for the Cogswell redevelopment area is to be fully above ground. One likely led by a private developer, the other led by the municipality.)

I have always thought they should do better with that area. Good to hear they are.

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

It's right accross a single street....?

I did not say where in Dal. And BTW, the campus is almost 1km wide, so it would be a 1 km walk to the station from the far end of the campus.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Is there a reason why Halifax would have a greater proportion of it's ridership during peak periods compared to Vancouver or Toronto? Most cities in Canada have similar rush hours from what i can tell.

Also, an important factor with Vancouver is that it's lines are much longer with downtown at the end. That makes crowding more of an issue because people are on the vehicles longer. For instance, Richmond-Brighouse to Waterfront is about twice the distance as the total route from Mumford up through downtown and back down to Dal. And from the Bridge terminal to either Mumford or downtown is even shorter.

Parking is a premium downtown Also, like I have stated, the RCN employs 10,000 people.They do not have enough parking for them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Is there a reason why Halifax would have a greater proportion of it's ridership during peak periods compared to Vancouver or Toronto? Most cities in Canada have similar rush hours from what i can tell.

My point is more that they are often constrained by their capacity to handle peak loads (or just variable loads) and many systems in Canada are underbuilt. I don't know about Edmonton but Toronto and Vancouver have way too little transit infrastructure.

I would also say that while Halifax is never going to come close to the overall trip demand of a city like Toronto, it could happen locally (a few stations in Halifax looking like medium-range Toronto subway stations for activity levels), and the demand on a single nice transit line (potentially the only non-congested path) after years of infill/growth could be much higher than what exists today with crappy bus service that provides minimal advantages over driving and other modes.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that we have under-built systems, but mostly in terms of the number of lines rather than the lines themselves. That's why getting started early on building lines is important.

In several cities, the individual lines are closer to being overbuilt more than anything. For instance, Toronto would be better served by having four major subway lines that each have 2/3 the capacity of the two main existing lines. It would have 1/3 more capacity and the system would serve much more of the city.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I agree that we have under-built systems, but mostly in terms of the number of lines rather than the lines themselves. That's why getting started early on building lines is important.

In several cities, the individual lines are closer to being overbuilt more than anything. For instance, Toronto would be better served by having four major subway lines that each have 2/3 the capacity of the two main existing lines. It would have 1/3 more capacity and the system would serve much more of the city.

Toronto is almost where it should be at.
The have lines 1 an 2 which work well.
They are building the Ontario line, which is needed.
The only other thing needed is to finish the stubway.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Toronto is almost where it should be at.
The have lines 1 an 2 which work well.
They are building the Ontario line, which is needed.
The only other thing needed is to finish the stubway.

Do you mean finish line 4? lol

Speaking of line 4, can some please tell me what the deal with that line is? Was it originally intended to be a longer line? What was the reasoning to put it where it is?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Do you mean finish line 4? lol

Speaking of line 4, can some please tell me what the deal with that line is? Was it originally intended to be a longer line? What was the reasoning to put it where it is?

Yes, line 4. Extend it east to the STC and west to the Airport.

I have no idea why it is there.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I agree that we have under-built systems, but mostly in terms of the number of lines rather than the lines themselves. That's why getting started early on building lines is important.

In several cities, the individual lines are closer to being overbuilt more than anything. For instance, Toronto would be better served by having four major subway lines that each have 2/3 the capacity of the two main existing lines. It would have 1/3 more capacity and the system would serve much more of the city.

One thing We need to start doing is when one project is done, another starts. Most places where higher order RT is, i can use another line.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Do you mean finish line 4? lol

Speaking of line 4, can some please tell me what the deal with that line is? Was it originally intended to be a longer line? What was the reasoning to put it where it is?

Network 2011 (a master plan published in 1985) had a line along Sheppard from Wilson Station to Scarborough Town Centre; the 1996 extension of the Spadina leg was intended to facilitate that.

By the time the Bob Rae government finally got around to funding the project, inflation meant that there was only the budget to go from Yonge to Don Mills; Mike Harris nearly filled in the U/C Sheppard Line but Mel Lastman saved it from cancellation. Then Ernie Eves and Dalton McGuinty happened, so it's never been extended.

I hear that there is funding to study (there's that s-word again) an extension to Scarborough again.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Network 2011 (a master plan published in 1985) had a line along Sheppard from Wilson Station to Scarborough Town Centre; the 1996 extension of the Spadina leg was intended to facilitate that.

By the time the Bob Rae government finally got around to funding the project, inflation meant that there was only the budget to go from Yonge to Don Mills; Mike Harris nearly filled in the U/C Sheppard Line but Mel Lastman saved it from cancellation. Then Ernie Eves and Dalton McGuinty happened, so it's never been extended.

I hear that there is funding to study (there's that s-word again) an extension to Scarborough again.

If they extend it to STC, maybe they just merge it with Line 2.

[ssiguy]

There is no way, in hell, that any form of tunnel could possibly be justified in a city as small as Halifax. Transit is suppose to be for moving people not a dick comparison competition.

If a city has X amount of dollars for rapid transit, is it better to spend it all on some little 6 km line with 3 km of subway or to create a true rapid transit system using LRT and/or BRT at street level which would serve hundreds of more destinations and tens of thousands of more riders? The politicians may like the first proposal but it is the citizens of the city and actual transit users themselves that would far prefer the latter.

You don't have to take my word for it, just go ask Edmonton & Calgary. Both cities created their LRTs at roughly the same size and dollar amounts but Edmonton spent most of it's money on the downtown tunnel while Calgary stayed with the cheaper option of a downtown transit-only mall but allowed the savings to bring rapid transit to far more areas of the city and thousands more destination. Calgary clearly made the right decision as Edmonton's LRT has NEVER gotten even 50% of the riders as the CTrain.

[GreaterMontréal]

The larger the population, the more money the provincial government has to fund the transit projects, it has nothing to do with GDP per capita. All Quebec citizens pay for the REM, for the Blue Line extension, the major repair for the the L-H La fontaine tunnel ($1,5B).

The thing is, the Federal government will inject good sums of money to help if the provincial government is serious and invest lots of $$.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There is no way, in hell, that any form of tunnel could possibly be justified in a city as small as Halifax. Transit is suppose to be for moving people not a dick comparison competition.

Justification should be based on net present benefits outweighing net present costs.

Let's say a rapid transit project in HRM costs $3 billion over 30 years: $1.5B to construct and $1.5B to operate/maintain.

If the project generates more than $3B in additional economic value, not factoring in interest rates, then it should be justified.

Even in a small city like Halifax, that may actually pencil out: if 25,000 people who value time at $30/hour save an average of half an hour of travel time a day over 300 days a year for 30 years, you've created $3.3 billion in net benefits. That doesn't seem out of line.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Stuff that stupid doesn't even justify a response. But hey, it's your time and energy lol.

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The larger the population, the more money the provincial government has to fund the transit projects, it has nothing to do with GDP per capita. All Quebec citizens pay for the REM, for the Blue Line extension, the major repair for the the L-H La fontaine tunnel ($1,5B).

The thing is, the Federal government will inject good sums of money to help if the provincial government is serious and invest lots of $$.

I'm not following the reasoning. Yes there will be more money in larger provinces but there will also be more projects and costlier projects to spend it on. That's why looking at things in terms of "percapita" is important. Just the blue line extension alone would likely be more expensive than the entire systems we've imagined in Hfx. And the blue extension would just be one small part of one system in one city in a province with several rail systems in more than one city (now that QC tram is moving forward).

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

stupid doesn't even justify a response. But hey, it's your time and energy lol.



I'm not following the reasoning. Yes there will be more money in larger provinces but there will also be more projects and costlier projects to spend it on. That's why looking at things in terms of "percapita" is important. Just the blue line extension alone would likely be more expensive than the entire systems we've imagined in Hfx. And the blue extension would just be one small part of one system in one city in a province with several rail systems in more than one city (now that QC tram is moving forward).

I seriously doubt that. Specially considering you proposed 8 stops on a 3.5 km line. Considering the topography of the Halifax some of the stations would have to be deep. They would not all be like the street car station in toronto you mentioned. Cut and cover tunnels would not be possible everywhere on the peninsula.

You are down playing things here. There is no where in Halifax as densely populated as some of the neighborhoods the blue line runs through. As it is the blue line is over 9 km long and has 12 stations, and runs every 5 minutes. MTL has one of the highest ridership rates per capita in North America.

Again I leave you guys with this quote. Do you think it would be cheaper in Halifax?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Transit constructions costs are through the roof now. Ottawa's 2.5 kilometer downtown tunnel with three stations cost around $800 million in 2012. I'm sure it would be close to $2+ Billion today.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by someone123

Peak matters more than daily ridership, right? The Canada Line seems undersized to me, along with a lot of the SkyTrain system, and I was on it when it was quite full (crush loads, forget about getting a seat; getting bikes or luggage on was awkward too) only a few years after it opened.

Re: trenches along Barrington one tunnel advantage is it doesn't necessarily have to follow the streets. The streets are narrow and even the old Birney cars had trouble with some of those intersections due to the turning radius and grade issues.

The peak of peaks on Canada Line is because they didn't buy enough train cars, not because the stations are relatively short. Plenty of capacity for growth.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The peak of peaks on Canada Line is because they didn't buy enough train cars, not because the stations are relatively short. Plenty of capacity for growth.

FYI: The SkyTrain Canada Line was commissioned in late 2009 with 20 2-car trains for its initial operating level of service. The line was designed to accommodate a significantly larger number of trains, including the operations and maintenance facility being designed for easy expansion with new storage tracks as new tranches of trains are ordered.

The first of these new tranches of trains (12 2-car trains) were ordered at about the 8-9 year mark of operation and these were all in operation by 2020. To accommodate these, a moderate expansion of the operations and maintenance facility storage tracks was included in the service expansion project to support these new trains.