The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 96

Innsertnamehere · #**1901** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 9:22 PM**

Considering Toronto's subway is 33km/h, I'd consider that rapid transit..

Metro-One · #**1902** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 9:38 PM**

Skytrain is 45km an hour.

Chadillaccc · #**1903** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 9:42 PM**

haha that is awesome

Innsertnamehere · #**1904** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Skytrain is 45km an hour.

top speed or average speed once you average out the stops?

edit: after a quick google, it's average.

holy crap thats fast!

Nouvellecosse · #**1905** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 11:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Considering Toronto's subway is 33km/h, I'd consider that rapid transit..

And while we're changing the names of things to ensure that the name matches its characteristics, I propose that we start calling these oranges:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File

umpkins.jpg

After all, it isn't exactly fair to limit the term "orange" to the citris fruit when there are other fruits that are just as orange, if not more so, than they are. A tangerine, an orange tomato, bell or banana pepper, or squash should hence forth be known as oranges as well. Reserving that term for one specific type of orange fruit is simply asinine!

Innsertnamehere · #**1906** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 11:28 PM**

well if a "non rapid" transit network travels faster than a rapid transit network, i think that definition might need some reworking.

Nouvellecosse · #**1907** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 11:33 PM**

Like has been pointed out already, it is a name, not a description. It may have originated as a description many decades ago, but that is not how it functions now.

Anyway, this is my forth or fifth time around this merry-go round and it's starting to get tedious, so call anything you want whatever the fuck you want.

vegeta_skyline · #**1908** Posted **Jan 6, 2013, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

well if a "non rapid" transit network travels faster than a rapid transit network, i think that definition might need some reworking.

I think capacity in passengers per hour is more relevant than speed.

Innsertnamehere · #**1909** Posted **Jan 7, 2013, 12:00 AM**

Yet capacity plays no role in the definition.

Nouvellecosse · #**1910** Posted **Jan 7, 2013, 12:29 AM**

It does atually. If you recall way back in August on page 83 when we were discussing the definitions, and I posted the most commonly used criteria:

1. Electric
2. Urban
3. High Capacity
4. High frequency
5. Fully grade Separated

Not only is #3 high capacity, but the others all conspire to allow for higher capacities in one way or another.

Chadillaccc · #**1911** Posted **Jan 7, 2013, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Like has been pointed out already, it is a name, not a description. It may have originated as a description many decades ago, but that is not how it functions now.

Anyway, this is my forth or fifth time around this merry-go round and it's starting to get tedious, so call anything you want whatever the fuck you want.

if you're tired about it than stop bitching, moaning, and belittling people about it. Simple.

ssiguy · #**1912** Posted **Jan 7, 2013, 3:18 AM**

The easiest way to define Metro is this...........................it can, hypothetically atleast, be automated.

Underground, elevated, at grade, capacity, technology are irrelevant as the lines have become so blurred but the ability to run autonated trains is what defines a Metro. This is why grade separated Toronto subway, Montreal Metro, Vancouver SkyTrain, Tokyo monorail, and Manillia LRT are all considered Metros. Edmonton, Calgary, and soon to be Ottawa all have LRT but not Metro like Manilla as they do not have 100% grade separation.

Everything else is either Light Rail {which can be operated from either end of the train, has doors on both sides of the train, and can have several trains coupled together}, streetcar {which is the same technology as LRT without the above enhancements}, commuter rail {diesel or electric, uses existing rail corridors but is not grade separated, and ussually is for peak hour commuting only} and BRT.

Does that satisfy everyone?

Nouvellecosse · #**1913** Posted **Jan 7, 2013, 3:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

if you're tired about it than stop bitching, moaning, and belittling people about it. Simple.

I can assure you, I haven't bitched, moaned, or belittled anyone. I would never do that.

Well I might have bitched a little today after the circular nature of the discussion became particularly apparent, but that was a result of me getting tired of it, not the cause.

And I certainly have never belittled anyone.

eemy · #**1914** Posted **Jan 7, 2013, 12:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The easiest way to define Metro is this...........................it can, hypothetically atleast, be automated.

Underground, elevated, at grade, capacity, technology are irrelevant as the lines have become so blurred but the ability to run autonated trains is what defines a Metro. This is why grade separated Toronto subway, Montreal Metro, Vancouver SkyTrain, Tokyo monorail, and Manillia LRT are all considered Metros. Edmonton, Calgary, and soon to be Ottawa all have LRT but not Metro like Manilla as they do not have 100% grade separation.

Everything else is either Light Rail {which can be operated from either end of the train, has doors on both sides of the train, and can have several trains coupled together}, streetcar {which is the same technology as LRT without the above enhancements}, commuter rail {diesel or electric, uses existing rail corridors but is not grade separated, and ussually is for peak hour commuting only} and BRT.

Does that satisfy everyone?

I have a complaint! Ottawa's new LRT will actually be fully grade separated and could be automated... for now.

Rotax · #**1915** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 9:52 PM**

The Société de Transport de Laval unveiled today its electric bus. I believe it is the first operational 40 foot battery electric bus in North America.

Quote of my post from there : http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=196058

Quote:

La STL a dévoilé aujourd'hui son bus électrique aux médias.

Communiqué : http://www.stl.laval.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CommuniqueAutobusElectrique-fr.pdf

Article du Courrier Laval

Quote:

Le premier bus à piles en service dès le printemps

Le premier autobus 100 % électrique à rouler en Amérique du Nord transportera ses premiers passagers à Laval, dès ce printemps.
Cette mise en service s'inscrira dans la séquence de tests en alternance avec la conduite sur une piste d'essais à Blainville, a déclaré le directeur général de la Société de transport de Laval (STL), Guy Picard, lors du dévoilement de l'autobus fabriqué par la firme américaine Design Line, le 14 janvier.

Tout au long des 12 prochains mois, le personnel de la STL affecté tant à l'entretien, à l'ingénierie qu'à la conduite mettra à l'épreuve ce véhicule entièrement électrifié.

«L'objectif est de tester l'autobus dans toutes les conditions climatiques imaginables: verglas, pluie et froid intense, neige à profusion, glace et chaleur extrême», a pour sa part indiqué le président de l'organisme de transport public, Jean-Jacques Beldié.

Le maire Alexandre Duplessis a quant à lui réitéré la volonté de la STL d'entamer le remplacement de ses autobus à diesel par des véhicules 100 % électriques à partir de 2015. Selon le Plan de mobilité durable, l'électrification complète de la flotte de 250 véhicules de la STL est prévue en 2031.

Navette au centre-ville

Comme il est hors de question d'intégrer le nouveau véhicule à un circuit régulier avant que ne soit complétée sa période de rodage, on songe à le mettre à l'essai au profit d'un nouveau tracé assurant la navette entre la station de métro Montmorency et le terminus d'autobus Le Carrefour.
«Il s'agit d'un tronçon très achalandé dans la partie centrale de Laval», a fait part au Courrier Laval Pierre Lavigueur, directeur principal Développement, commercialisation et innovation à la STL.
Mais avant de prendre ses premiers passagers, en mars, le nouveau véhicule devra avoir passé avec succès les essais à vide, puis ceux chargés de sacs de sable.

Défi de taille

M. Picard a insisté sur le défi que représentait l'intégration d'un nouveau type de véhicule parmi une flotte d'autobus au diesel, notamment en matière de planification du service, étant donné que les batteries ont une autonomie plus restreinte que le carburant.

À cet égard, le nouveau bus construit par la firme américaine Design Line est équipé de batteries à recharge lente dont l'autonomie est estimée à plus de 250 kilomètres.

«Nos autobus qui parcourent les plus grandes distances font [quotidiennement] 450 kilomètres, alors qu'en moyenne la distance est de 250 kilomètres. Un véhicule de ce type pourrait remplacer 20 à 25 % de notre flotte», a expliqué le directeur général de la STL, en prenant soin toutefois d'ajouter que l'acquisition de bus électriques par les sociétés de transport se fera avec parcimonie au cours des 5 prochaines années .
Au terme de chaque journée, il faudra prévoir entre 7 et 8 heures pour recharger en alimentation électrique les batteries de ce bus 100 % à piles.
Pôle mondial
Député péquiste de Laval-des-Rapides, Léo Bureau-Blouin a parlé d'un «grand jour», marquant un «premier pas important dans notre volonté de faire du Québec un chef de file, un pôle mondial en matière de mobilité et de développement durable».

Acquis au coût de quelque 890 000 $, ce prototype d'autobus entièrement électrique est financé à près de 70 % par le ministère des Transports.
Outre la contribution de 600 000 $ du MTQ, la société d'État Hydro-Québec a injecté 100 000 $, alors que la STL complétait le financement.
Ce projet-pilote s'inscrit dans «une volonté de réduire notre empreinte environnementale non seulement ici à Laval, mais partout au Québec», a ajouté M. Bureau-Blouin.

«L'électrification du transport en commun va permettre la création de milliers d'emplois verts partout au Québec», a-t-il terminé, non sans rappeler l'objectif québécois d'électrifier 95 % des déplacements du transport collectif d'ici 2030.

http://www.courrierlaval.com/Actualit%C3...us-a-piles-en-service-des-le-printemps/1

Nouvellecosse · #**1916** Posted **Jan 14, 2013, 11:00 PM**

Battery electric bus? That concept seems a bit impractical for public transit. I mean, don't most electric vehicles currently drive around 100km, then need to be charged for like 8 hours?

Rotax · #**1917** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Battery electric bus? That concept seems a bit impractical for public transit. I mean, don't most electric vehicles currently drive around 100km, then need to be charged for like 8 hours?

DesignLine says its bus can run 200 km on one charge. If true, that bus could run on the AM rush, then return to the garage (or at a terminus) for recharging, then run during the PM rush to finally get recharged during the night.

However, the STL bought that bus mostly to test the technology. If the bus indeed has a range of 200 km, even in winter, then maybe we'll buy more (and probably other transit agencies as well).

FYI, that bus costed 890 000 $, support and technician training included. The Nova bus offer was well over 1 300 000 $ and BYD couldn't get to bid on time or provide enough information on their bus.

West_aust · #**1918** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Battery electric bus? That concept seems a bit impractical for public transit. I mean, don't most electric vehicles currently drive around 100km, then need to be charged for like 8 hours?

According to the STL, their buses cover on average 250kms per day, with the ones crossing the river to Montreal going all the way to 450kms a day.

They believe such buses could replace up to 25% of their fleet if test are successful

logan5 · #**1919** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 3:44 AM**

Quote:

Acquired at a cost of approximately $ 890,000, this fully electric prototype bus is funded approximately 70% by the Ministry of Transport.

A few questions regarding the battery bus...

Does this mean that the full cost of the bus is 3 million? The $890 000 seems inexpensive for a battery powered bus. I think a trolley bus in Vancouver costs around a million dollars.

I didn't see a mention of the life span of the battery - how many cycles would it last I wonder. If it is fully discharged every day, it probly wouldn't last long for the needs of a bus, maybe 3 or 4 years before the battery range is reduced in half.

Trying new technologies is a good idea, so while we're at it, i'd like to see a route in Canada experiment with a capacitor bus. Capacitors last forever and because they are a simpler device, are more reliable than batteries.

Chadillaccc · #**1920** Posted **Jan 15, 2013, 3:55 AM**

Hmmm than what is the difference? Forgive my ignorance :S