The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MalcolmTucker]

Better Data, a few more systems, and counting 1 way stations as 0.5 stations (makes Calgary fit better, also I did the math for Calgary using time tables, instead of using their reports which may have not included recent expansions):



Leads to distinct groupings:



And there was peace in our time!

[nname]

Since all other systems are split into lines, perhaps split TransLink up too?

Canada Line (I guess it considered to be "modern metro"?)
- Richmond Branch 14.4km, 25min, 13 stations = 34.6km/h, 1200m spacing
- Airport Branch 15.1km, 26min, 13 stations = 34.8km/h, 1250m spacing
Average would be 34.7km/h, 1225m spacing

Expo Line
- King George Branch 28.9km, 40min, 20 stations = 43.4km/h, 1520m spacing
- Production Branch 29.7km, 41min, 20 stations = 43.5km/h, 1560m spacing
Average would be 43.4km/h, 1540m spacing

Millennium Line
Single branch, 25.3km, 36min, 17 stations = 42.2km/h, 1580m spacing

[MalcolmTucker]

^Skytrain looks pretty consistent, and doesn't run as fast as their propaganda says.

Clearly Canada Line is a different mode when you break it down, and wasn't included in Translink's rollup.

Would you do the math for the 99 B Line?

Would anyone else want to tackle the Viva BRT, KW Ion, or Hurontario LRT?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by corynv

Low floor is only a requirement when there's street level boarding. As long as a train system has level boarding at a station it doesn't matter if it's a high floor (subway/metro) or a low floor (LRT/Streetcar etc) train.

Exactly.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Better Data, a few more systems, and counting 1 way stations as 0.5 stations (makes Calgary fit better, also I did the math for Calgary using time tables, instead of using their reports which may have not included recent expansions):
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/6tEz3yP.png[IMG]


Leads to distinct groupings:
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/g4ueU2r.png[IMG]


And there was peace in our time!

Interesting how the Blue line is faster than the Red Line, I would have assumed the Red would be faster as it runs fast along Crowchild and Macleod. But then again, it does have the excruciatingly slow turns between Banff Trail and Lions park and either end of 7th Ave, as well as the wait at signals south of Sunnyside.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^Skytrain looks pretty consistent, and doesn't run as fast as their propaganda says.

Clearly Canada Line is a different mode when you break it down, and wasn't included in Translink's rollup.

Would you do the math for the 99 B Line?

Would anyone else want to tackle the Viva BRT, KW Ion, or Hurontario LRT?

Thanks for the diagrams! Would be cool to post a version on Wikipedia.

[ClaytonA]

https://web.archive.org/save/https:/...-metro-service

Metro

... The changes represent a 2.2-per-cent increase in service over 2018 — good news for riders of the Green and Orange Lines ...

... delivery of two bonus AZUR trains. ... 17 new AZUR trains to be put into service on the Green Line starting in 2020. The two bonus trains are part of the previous 54 train order.

STM will conduct studies and begin acquiring the land necessary for the 5.8-kilometre extension of the métro’s Blue Line to Anjou. ... There is still no date set to begin construction. ...

Bus

83,000 additional hours of bus service — a 1.6-per-cent increase. ...

a garage by 2022 that will store and repair 250 hybrid and electric buses. ...

125 new hybrid buses with air conditioning are being purchased to replace older buses ... 300 buses represent a 15-per-cent increase in the STM’s fleet, as they will not be used to replace old buses. ...

add 600 drivers and 200 maintenance workers ...

Very under-rated expansion in bus service as Translink is doing too although this is a funding re-announcement/recapitulation as part of STM's overall budget. How far does this get the service back to levels prior to cuts in 2013/2014? How does 2.2% + 1.6% (metro + bus) get towards the previous 3% overall cut? Then there's alternatives like Bixi, Uber and car-sharing. REM is incorporating Bixi and car-sharing in their new stations. The Anjou Blue Line Extension progresses.

[begratto]

Montreal's STM ridership has increased by 4% so far this year, and is expected to end the year at 447.7M riders, a new record.



Also, the STM will introduce "5 minutes or better" service (finally!) on the Green and Orange lines, on weekdays, from opening to closing time, starting in March. Métro wait times will be reduced further during morning and evening peak periods, with a train every two-and-a-half minutes.

Current service intervals are every 3 minutes at rush hour (will increase to every 2 minutes once new trains are received); every 6 minutes mid-day ; and every 5 minutes after rush hour, in the evening, until 10pm. Service then drops gradually to every 9 minutes. Trains are packed at 11pm! The every-5-minutes service will be welcomed!

[begratto]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Very under-rated expansion in bus service as Translink is doing too although this is a funding re-announcement/recapitulation as part of STM's overall budget. How far does this get the service back to levels prior to cuts in 2013/2014? How does 2.2% + 1.6% (metro + bus) get towards the previous 3% overall cut? Then there's alternatives like Bixi, Uber and car-sharing. REM is incorporating Bixi and car-sharing in their new stations. The Anjou Blue Line Extension progresses.

Service levels are already higher than they were prior to the 2013/2014 cuts (which only affected the bus network). Furthermore, the bus fleet will increase by by 16% in 2020, with 300 additional buses. So the next few years should be interesting in terms of transit in Montreal.


Source: STM 2019 budget

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by begratto

Also, the STM will introduce "5 minutes or better" service (finally!) on the Green and Orange lines, on weekdays, from opening to closing time, starting in March. Métro wait times will be reduced further during morning and evening peak periods, with a train every two-and-a-half minutes.

Current service intervals are every 3 minutes at rush hour (will increase to every 2 minutes once new trains are received); every 6 minutes mid-day ; and every 5 minutes after rush hour, in the evening, until 10pm. Service then drops gradually to every 9 minutes. Trains are packed at 11pm! The every-5-minutes service will be welcomed!

Definitely welcomed. One of the things I always find somewhat bewildering/frustrating when visiting Montreal is the waits for the metro can seem quite long compared to the Toronto subway.

[The Chemist]

Here's a sort of off-topic question that is transit related: Why did monorail never take off as a transit solution? I was just in Chongqing this past week and I got a chance to ride on Chongqing's 2 monorail lines (the world's largest and busiest monorail system), and it seems to me that monorail is no different in terms of capacity from other forms of rail transit (Chongqing's two monorail lines are capable of 32 000pphd, which is identical to heavy rail metro), plus monorail has a few advantages that I can see over regular heavy rail metro:

1. It's definitely quieter from the outside than elevated heavy rail
2. Smoother ride on the inside
3. Elevated structures not as large as regular elevated heavy rail
4. Much better climbing performance than steel rail (this is the primary reason that it was chosen in Chongqing, which is very hilly).

So why did so few places build monorail? Why is monorail generally viewed as the red-headed step child of rail?

[Nouvellecosse]

I'd say the main reasons are:

- tradition / procedural inertia
- lack of a leading, non-proprietary standard

The first reason would stem from conventional metro systems simply having an early, well established lead with a few metro system dating back as early as the mid-late 19th century as offshoots of conventional railways. Several systems were established in major cities using railway technology that was already widespread and with strong availability before the first examples of monorails even entered public service. Once the dual track railway convention became well established, it would have required monorails to offer a very compelling advantage to justify the adoption of a second parallel protocol, and an even stronger advantage for them to usurp regular bi-rail metros altogether. Monorails have a slight to moderate advantage in elevated settings, but no advantage or even a disadvantage or ground level or underground settings. As a result, a system would need to be mainly elevated to see significant benefits from monorails, and there aren't enough systems with a high elevated proportion to make a convincing case.

The second reason is that while there are only a few track gauges and other technology types across standard bi-rail metro systems allowing various manufacturers or consortiums to make rolling-stock or other components at a reasonable cost, there tends to be a different proprietary monorail track protocol promoted by each company that makes them. There's no widespread, standardized "plug'n'play" option yet. This is also often cited as a contributing factor to the relatively small number of rubber-tyred metros in service, which is relevant since several of the advantages you cited for monorails are also promoted as advantages for rubber-tyred metros (mainly quieter and better traction for climbing).

[MalcolmTucker]

Also earlier crossovers and the ends of lines were harder to do well on monorail.

[milomilo]

It's an interesting question as to what technology you would choose if you had a blank slate. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but steel on steel does seem fairly archaic, maglev seems like a more future proofed solution these days. Has similar switching problems to monorail though.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Important to remember that the plan is SkyTrain with BRT along the potential, now rejected, LRT corridors, with service just as good, and in just as exclusive of lanes.

The Surrey LRT was also going to be on the slow side, 21.4 kph average speed. It only saved a travel time of 1 minute on average compared to the existing service. At least the SkyTrain + BRT has the potential to actually improve service.

A BRT in fully dedicated lanes like Viva (which was what was being advertised by Skytrain for Surrey) definitely will not fit in the same budget as the L Line when you are also wanting skytrain to Willowbrook.

In other news awesome Missasauga Transitway video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ_duu...sm30FO66PpYBIg

[Doady]

Viva in York Region has just been a white elephant. Their ridership just fell further and further behind Mississauga and Brampton no matter how much they spent on BRT. Mississauga and Brampton systems performed better just by increasing the amount of service.

Just another reminder that BRT/LRT/subway should not be built for potential riders, but to increase the capacity of the system to accomodate the existing riders.

[CityTech]

Viva is like all those American LRT systems. Lots of capital dollars wasted because they don't put enough service on the shiny thing they built.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Viva is like all those American LRT systems. Lots of capital dollars wasted because they don't put enough service on the shiny thing they built.

Viva has plenty of service, but it just was not service in the right place. The ridership never justified an honour fare, all-door boarding system with the special ticket machines at every stop, let alone the busways they are building now.

I think YRT will never have good ridership unless there is fare integration with the TTC. That boundary along Steeles is just too much.

Steeles Ave is the busiest transit corridor in York Region, maybe even busier than Yonge, but it's not part of the YRT system. Fixing that problem and building a Steeles BRT probably should have been the first priority of the Viva plan.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Doady

Viva has plenty of service, but it just was not service in the right place. The ridership never justified an honour fare, all-door boarding system with the special ticket machines at every stop, let alone the busways they are building now.

I think YRT will never have good ridership unless there is fare integration with the TTC. That boundary along Steeles is just too much.

Steeles Ave is the busiest transit corridor in York Region, maybe even busier than Yonge, but it's not part of the YRT system. Fixing that problem and building a Steeles BRT probably should have been the first priority of the Viva plan.

Viva does not have "plenty" of service. Go to a giant new rapidway station off peak and you often have to wait 30 minutes.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Viva does not have "plenty" of service. Go to a giant new rapidway station off peak and you often have to wait 30 minutes.

Viva Purple and Blue have 8-10 minute off peak frequencies. So 4-5 minute average wait times. Viva Orange has 20 minute off-peak frequencies, so 10 minute average wait time. As I said, plenty of service.

It's all the non-Viva YRT routes that lack service. Viva is more frequent than the BRT/BRT-lite service in Mississauga and Brampton.

Midday Frequency
Viva Blue: 9 minutes
Viva Purple: 9 minutes
Viva Orange: 20 minutes
Viva Yellow: 15 minutes
100 Airport Express: 15.5 minutes
101 Dundas Express: 12 minutes
103 Hurontario Express: 10 minutes
107 Malton Express: 12 minutes
109 Meadowvale Express: 12 minutes
110 University Express: 17 minutes
501 Zum Queen: 10 minutes
502 Zum Main: 10 minutes
505 Zum Bovaird: 20 minutes
511 Zum Steeles: 10 minutes

I think if anything the problem with Viva is it has TOO MUCH service. Did Davis Drive in Newmarket really need a 15 minute BRT service? Is Viva Yellow really busier than the 110 University Express? There's been a huge amount of money poured into questionable Viva routes that should have instead been spent on increasing service for the regular YRT routes. Providing so much service for Viva really hurt the rest of their system.