The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Those were bad decisions. That they were bad decisions doesn't mean we should continue making bad decisions for the sake of consistency.

I agree that they were bad decisions. I also agree that one shouldn't make bad decisions for the sake of consistency. But that isn't what I was suggesting as I'm sure you realize.

Having lines underground in dense environments with high land values and space constraints is a good decision because of those conditions, while wasting money on having them underground in outer areas where the conditions are better suited for that is not a good decision. And the fact that the government was willing to support the cost of underground projects that would have been much easier to built above ground than this simply shows the weakness of their case.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by milomilo

By the time they make their mind up I doubt there will be any money left to extend the line south even if they nix the north of the bow portion (which they should, immediately). So you're left with a short line that mostly runs through industrial wasteland. Useless. Municipal finances in Calgary aren't looking too rosy especially since the Green Line will increase transit operating costs (yay for efficiency!), so I'm not optimistic that money will be quickly found to extend it out further down the line. And even then, we're talking probably in the 2030s by the time that happens.

Didn't Ottawa go through similar travails? Cancelling on street LRT plans to follow with a grade separated LRT in the end? If I'm way off the mark on that, I apologize but it sounds like not building there resulted in something better.

Ottawa's replacement for the original cancelled project is a piece of crap, that will eventually have to be rebuilt (yet again) after another protracted closure. How many closures are we at now? I have lost track. I don't expect the current re-build will open on time after how many years of closure? Nobody builds rail rapid transit that needs to be closed for extended periods repeatedly. The original plan had some flaws but its direct replacement is far worse. Line not electrified, not double tracked, doesn't go downtown, truncated permanently at the south end, frequency reduced from 5 minutes to 12 minutes, airport connection requires two transfers. Well done City of Ottawa!

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa's replacement for the original cancelled project is a piece of crap, that will eventually have to be rebuilt (yet again) after another protracted closure. How many closures are we at now? I have lost track. I don't expect the current re-build will open on time after how many years of closure? Nobody builds rail rapid transit that needs to be closed for extended periods repeatedly. The original plan had some flaws but its direct replacement is far worse. Line not electrified, not double tracked, doesn't go downtown, truncated permanently at the south end, frequency reduced from 5 minutes to 12 minutes, airport connection requires two transfers. Well done City of Ottawa!

I think he meant the Confederation Line as its replacement, not admittedly terrible Trillium Stage 2.

Quick recap for those who aren't as familiar with the N/S plans overtime:

• 2001 - original O-Train pilot project opens;
• 2004 - plan to replace the original O-Train with a N/S route electric/double tracked LRT that would sere Riverside South and Barrhaven. The plan wasn't terrible overall except for the surface running section downtown and the fact that it did not address the E/W capacity issues (and made the downtown issues worse);
• 2006 - plan canceled;
• 2008 - N/S included in the transportation master plan as a double track electrified line interlined with the proposed downtown tunnel;
• 2013 - O-Train "upgraded" to achieve 8 minute frequency, but never reached above 12 minutes because of flawed planning;
• 2016 - new Trillium Stage 2 concept that includes no new double tracking, the same 12 minute frequency, longer trains (double), an extension to Riverside South and a airport shuttle requiring three trains to downtown, all in an effort to build as much rail as possible, regardless of service;
• 2019 - cheapest bidder chosen despite a terrible technical submission full of gapping holes.
• 2019 - Trillium nearly double ridership, from 12,000 per day to 20,000 per day after the Confederation Line opens;
• 2020 - Trillium closed for the second time in less than a decade for Stage 2, which will do little to improve the service for existing riders.

So yes, the Confederation Line was a far better plan that the original N/S, but the current N/S is absolute garbage.

[J.OT13]

Rail Fans will be introducing a TTC Subway map similar to the one it hosts for the O-Train, with tracks and geometry, station location, platform layouts. Here's a sneak-peak showing both of Ontario's rapid transit networks (note, Ottawa's map shows Stage 2 u/c and proposed Stage 3).


https://twitter.com/RailFansCanada/s...50978979041283

[J.OT13]

Burrard Station, Vancouver.

Originally Posted by officedweller

TransLink planning major redesign and expansion of Burrard Station (RENDERINGS)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...acity-upgrades


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...acity-upgrades


Artistic rendering of the new SkyTrain Burrard Station street entrance from Burrard Street on the north side. (TransLink)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...acity-upgrades


Artistic rendering of the new SkyTrain Burrard Station street entrance from Burrard Street on the north side of the block. (TransLink)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...acity-upgrades


Burrard Street perspective: Before and after changes to SkyTrain Burrard Station. (TransLink)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...acity-upgrades


Dunsmuir Street perspective: Before and after changes to SkyTrain Burrard Station. (TransLink)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...acity-upgrades

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think he meant the Confederation Line as its replacement, not admittedly terrible Trillium Stage 2.

Quick recap for those who aren't as familiar with the N/S plans overtime:

• 2001 - original O-Train pilot project opens;
• 2004 - plan to replace the original O-Train with a N/S route electric/double tracked LRT that would sere Riverside South and Barrhaven. The plan wasn't terrible overall except for the surface running section downtown and the fact that it did not address the E/W capacity issues (and made the downtown issues worse);
• 2006 - plan canceled;
• 2008 - N/S included in the transportation master plan as a double track electrified line interlined with the proposed downtown tunnel;
• 2013 - O-Train "upgraded" to achieve 8 minute frequency, but never reached above 12 minutes because of flawed planning;
• 2016 - new Trillium Stage 2 concept that includes no new double tracking, the same 12 minute frequency, longer trains (double), an extension to Riverside South and a airport shuttle requiring three trains to downtown, all in an effort to build as much rail as possible, regardless of service;
• 2019 - cheapest bidder chosen despite a terrible technical submission full of gapping holes.
• 2019 - Trillium nearly double ridership, from 12,000 per day to 20,000 per day after the Confederation Line opens;
• 2020 - Trillium closed for the second time in less than a decade for Stage 2, which will do little to improve the service for existing riders.

So yes, the Confederation Line was a far better plan that the original N/S, but the current N/S is absolute garbage.

The Confederation Line amounted to a completely new project whereas the original comments related to waiting to produce a 'better' Green Line plan in Calgary. I wanted to point out that a lengthy wait in the case of Ottawa, did not produce a better version of the original N/S project, so waiting does not necessarily produce better results when considering the same project. Other considerations including budgets can result in curtailment of plans and that is not unusual. Ottawa was specifically mentioned and I wanted to point out that the end result was not entirely as rosy as portrayed.

[Coldrsx]

I don't recall much posted on the public transit offering for Lake Louise-Banff-Canmore

Highlights:
-Live bus tracking
https://roamtransit.doublemap.com/map/

-SmartCard enabled
-~70% revenue recovery for the Banff portion of it
-Significant employer participation ie. passes for employees
-Tour operators/visitor experience providers including them in more and more packages


https://roamtransit.com

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

I don't recall much posted on the public transit offering for Lake Louise-Banff-Canmore

Highlights:
-Live bus tracking
https://roamtransit.doublemap.com/map/

-SmartCard enabled
-~70% revenue recovery for the Banff portion of it
-Significant employer participation ie. passes for employees
-Tour operators/visitor experience providers including them in more and more packages


https://roamtransit.com

If only there was some sort of rail between those towns that could offer an express route.

[Coldrsx]

Do you mean the MOU to have service from YYC?

Or do you mean localized rail?

The CP mainline is BUSY and would complicate both.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If only there was some sort of rail between those towns that could offer an express route.

Express? What makes you think it would be faster?

I'm glad to see bus routes being further developed here. It will help build up ridership and determine if there is a business case for spending the approx. billion dollars currently estimated to build a passenger railway out there.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Do you mean the MOU to have service from YYC?

Or do you mean localized rail?

The CP mainline is BUSY and would complicate both.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Express? What makes you think it would be faster?

I'm glad to see bus routes being further developed here. It will help build up ridership and determine if there is a business case for spending the approx. billion dollars currently estimated to build a passenger railway out there.

Well, it could be both. There could be service just between the communities, and then once and a while something from Calgary. So, maybe every half hour a train between the 3 communities and then one every 2 hours from Calgary.

[biguc]

They should at least just extend the red line all the way through. No need to complicate things with a transfer when one bus would do.

If a train is going to run from Calgary to Banff I don't know why it couldn't also stop in Canmore. Is that any part of the plan?

[Truenorth00]

Dunno if reported. But the TTC might be placing an order for 300 Battery Electric Buses. That's huge.

https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-ad...electric-buses

[Chadillaccc]

I've posted a bit about Banff Transit before, especially last year when their transit usage increased by 90%. The introduction of a smart card system is very impressive for two small cities with a combined population of only 25,000.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by biguc

They should at least just extend the red line all the way through. No need to complicate things with a transfer when one bus would do.

If a train is going to run from Calgary to Banff I don't know why it couldn't also stop in Canmore. Is that any part of the plan?

There is currently no plan for a train. There are studies ongoing, but no plan.

But yeah, there's no chance it wouldn't stop in Canmore if passenger service was ever to be reinstated, that is probably where the bulk of demand would come from seeing as it is bigger and closer to Calgary.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Well, it could be both. There could be service just between the communities, and then once and a while something from Calgary. So, maybe every half hour a train between the 3 communities and then one every 2 hours from Calgary.

But without a huge upgrade it is unlikely a passenger train could make the journey faster than the bus, at least with any reliability. It's a not very busy (most of the time) highway, the bus won't travel slowly.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Dunno if reported. But the TTC might be placing an order for 300 Battery Electric Buses. That's huge.

https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-ad...electric-buses

That is huge and especially considering Toronto already has the biggest electric bus fleet in NA.

This also does a lot to lessen the belief many people have that buses are rail's poor cousin. These electric buses have far higher acceleration, are non-polluting, more comfortable, and MUCH quieter both inside & out. With double articulated buses also becoming more common, at least outside NA, their capacity is reaching articulated streetcar levels.

They really help reduce the stark difference currently seen between streetcars/LRT and the good old bus. By both transit users and planners, such developments really change the preconceived notion that buses are the option of last resort.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

These electric buses have far higher acceleration, are non-polluting, more comfortable, and MUCH quieter both inside & out. With double articulated buses also becoming more common, at least outside NA, their capacity is reaching articulated streetcar levels.

These electric buses rated poorer than the diesel-electric hybrid in performance.



Another possible issue, as seen in Seattle, is that the higher cost of electric buses may end up with 300 buses replacing 300+ other buses and degrading service levels.

Into the budget debate comes a remarkable report from Metro, laying out the steep opportunity costs of a transition to all-electric. Under the most likely assumptions, battery electric buses and infrastructure are 53% more expensive than a diesel hybrid fleet. Even with societal benefits including emissions priced in, it’s 42% more expensive. The added cost of a 100% transition from hybrid to battery is enough to buy 237,000 service hours annually through 2040.

With budgetary reductions to the fleet plan amplified by the costs of electrification, Metro service levels will be reduced unless higher revenues are forthcoming. As Executive Constantine warned when transmitting the budget proposal a month ago, “Additional investments in electrification of the fleet [beyond 2028] will require a new revenue source, significant increased revenue forecasts, or a reduction in service levels”

https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/...-all-electric/

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Another possible issue, as seen in Seattle, is that the higher cost of electric buses may end up with 300 buses replacing 300+ other buses and degrading service levels.

Hence why financing buses and associated infrastructure based on lower operating costs is so important.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But without a huge upgrade it is unlikely a passenger train could make the journey faster than the bus, at least with any reliability. It's a not very busy (most of the time) highway, the bus won't travel slowly.

They would need another rail line parallel to the CP main and that would be cost prohibitive, let alone rights from the Stoney Nakota and other environmental concerns.

That said, there are very influential people behind it and a lot of potential that could come from it east of Deadman's in the MD.