Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by niwell

There's enough stuff already funded / under construction in the GTHA he could probably skate by for a while on lower funding, even if it isn't a prudent long-term move.

The Liberals have been funding $2B per year and are pledging to go to $3B. Given a $450B federal budget, this isn't a massive lift for the federal government. Poilievre could keep at $2B and do just fine. But even if he cut it, the provinces can continue on longer timelines without federal help.

The real danger (as I see it), is him breaking existing promises. Which is a low risk. And putting the kibosh on HFR which is becoming essential to improve mobility (and the productivity that comes mobility) in the Corridor. That's probably a higher risk.

To a large extent though you are right that he can coast. Particularly in the GTA. Whoever is in power between 2028 and 2032/2033 is going to benefit massively from GO RER, Ontario Line and the Scarborough Subway Extension all at the same time. Any politician in power then will look good.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DesignerGuy

Ottawa is building a massive line east, west and south. We even have a train going directly into our airport terminal that connects to downtown. Edmonton and Calgary are also building out their systems. These are all under construction so the funding is already in place!

The question isn't about what is getting built. That's mostly safe. Kinda hard to fill in the Scott St trench at this point. The question is future projects. For example, where does Poilievre stand on Stage 3 in Ottawa? And I am going to guess if they have to cut transit funding, Ottawa is probably less likely to get a piece of what's left that somewhere in the GTA.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by biguc

Cancel a project outright or cut up to 50% of its funding is a distinction without a difference. All that matters is that he fucks over city dwellers. And yes, I do think PP is that empty-headed and out of touch with reality.

None of the major projects are getting that much federal funding. Ontario is funding RER almost entirely on its own.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I mentioned, converting a low frequency diesel commuter rail system to a high frequency electrified suburban rail system is already a massive effort. Indeed, it's the largest transit project in North America and one of the largest in the world right now. A complete change of rolling stock at the same time would have required a whole lot of additional infrastructure to house and maintain a separate fleet and added a lot of operational complications as they mixed various fleets. All of that for very little real gain. EMUs don't give GO substantial increases in capacity or efficiency. At least not to the level that justifies junking a 1000 coaches right away.

Yeah that's basically what I was getting at. Not that EMUs wouldn't be an improvement for parts of the network; just that it isn't an especially important improvement at this point. The main thing that a rolling stock replacement could help accomplish is to get rid of the double-deckers in busier, more urban parts of the network. Like the Kitchener corridor between Union and Weston. That could basically be a 2nd subway line similar to what Montreal did with the REM but having such large railcars with interior stairs and only two doors isn't good for dwell times.

What I'd personally like to see is the busiest inner routes be made into a GO version of REM. Lakeshore W from Union to Oakville, Kitchener line from Union to Mount Pleasant, Stoufville line from Union to Mt Joy, and Milton line from Union to Erin Mills via MCC. Lake shore W is currently only 3 tracks through Mississauga so that should be elevated as a 4 track viaduct. That would both provide extra capacity allowing 2 tracks to be REM and 2 to be mainline rail, but also eliminate the handful of level crossings allowing for greater speed. Outer services going beyond Oakville could reach 200km/h.

The Stouffville line between Unionville and Mt Joy would also be elevated but with two elevated REM tracks above the existing single track. The outer service beyond Mt Joy wouldn't be frequent enough to warrant an upgrade and the alignment seems a bit narrow for a wider guideway. The Milton REM would be partly separated from the current alignment since it would follow Lakeshore W route until Humber Bay and then head off along the Gardiner, partly elevated and partly in the median. It would leave the highway at Sherway and rejoin the rail alignment (with extra dedicated tracks) until about a km from Hurontario before it would dive into a tunnel to Square One / MCC, then along the wide 403 greenway until Erin Mills, basically replacing (or augmenting) that part of the busway.

The only major changes needed for the Kitchen line (since it's already quad tracked) is an elevated spur to Bramalea town centre and an elevated track through downtown Brampton about the current tracks to address the bottle neck where there are only two tracks and they're shared with freight and VIA. The REM part of the line would have three branches: The Bramlea spur, the Airport, and out to Mount Pleasant. The Erin Mills REM and the Oakville REM would share tracks between Union and Humber Bay as well as sharing a single Union platform. Each would see 15tph peak and 8-12tph other times except overnight where they'd each have 2-3 tph. With the Kitchener line REM, the airport, Bramalea, and Mt Pleasant would each see 10tph peak and 6-8tph other times with again about 2tph overnight. The Kitchener REM and the Stouffville line REM would operate as a single line with some services terminating at Unionvile.

The main advantage of this approach would be greater frequency and the ability of smaller, more metro-like trains to more easily use other alignments like climbing onto via ducts and having a few tunneled stations without the huge cost of them being big enough for long mainline rail trains. The rolling stock would be longer than Montreal's REM at about the size of TTC subway trains. There could be several infill stops such as Dupont, St. Clair, and Rogers Rd. on the Kitchener REM. And of course if wouldn't actually be called REM. I'd name it GO FAST (Frequent, Automated Suburban Trains). The existing stock would continue to provide most service beyond the FAST network.

[Truenorth00]

There's a lot that can be done. And probably will be done. The first step is getting the infrastructure in place. Personally, I've changed my opinion. At first I was a tad disappointed to not see EMUs on the list. But then I realized there's so many advantages to waiting.

1) Greater selection. All those EMUs in Europe? Not certified for use in North America. There will definitely be more options a few years from now.

2) Easier to optimize after service starts. Once riders get habituated to higher frequencies and all day two way, near ridership patterns will emerge. They'll be able to better design their rolling stock requirements for that world.

3) More focus. Post electrification, USRC upgrades and launch of RER service, they'll really be able to focus on a multi year changeover to EMUs and on building infrastructure that makes the best use of EMUs. That's likely to be 7-10 year long effort.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Plus it will be good to work out the whole platform height thing before making any big rolling stock commitments. Ideally there will be progress toward level boarding but that can mean high platforms like the UPE shuttle, low platforms that are the height of the current bi-level doors, or something in between. If they did low platforms it's still possible to have level boarding after moving to EMUs since you can get low floor variants of models like the Stadler Flirt and Alstom Concodia, but that means not having fully flat interior floors. Which isn't a disaster, but not quite as good as high floors (other than for platform retrofit cost).

[Innsertnamehere]

Pp will almost certainly direct more funding to roads projects- particularly given his recent tweets.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Pp will almost certainly direct more funding to roads projects- particularly given his recent tweets.

I hate that it always has to be a war between the two in Canada (roads and transit), most developed nations (East Asia, Europe, etc...) do both properly. Besides some exceptions we do neither well.

The comment by the Liberal Environmental Minister about no more funding for major highway projects (whether an official position of not) was a real bone head maneuver and a red flag, especially for places outside of the Windsor to Quebec corridor where massive highway projects are required (looking at you highway 1 through BC).

If the Liberals really wanted to do some meaningful damage control on this, they would at the very least announce that they are going through with the remaining 40km of twinning in Yoho Park ASAP (and will be continuing through the remaining parks after that).

But nope!

I don't think PP is going to be the transit disaster some on here are fearmongering over.

A wise position would be to continue the current 2 billion a year funding for transit from the feds, continue the HFR / HSR between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, and move forward with a serious major twinning plan of the #1 through BC and highway 1 upgrades through Manitoba and other more neglected areas. (the Okanagan definitely needs some highway infrastructure love as well)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I don't think PP is going to be the transit disaster some on here are fearmongering over.

I honestly don't think it's fear mongering to be wary of anyone who uses the term "war on cars" in reaction to a proposed public transit project. That attitude is toxic and the people who use it have more than justified the flak they receive.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I honestly don't think it's fear mongering to be wary of anyone who uses the term "war on cars" in reaction to a proposed public transit project. That attitude is toxic and the people who use it have more than justified the flak they receive.

Well, again, the Liberals essentially declared just that when the Environmental Minister (while in Quebec City) said no more funding for major highway projects.

And since then they haven't made any firm promises or plans to show that isn't the case.

If that was never said I would say PP's comment it worrying, but given the context of what the Environmental Minister said, it honestly seems fare.

Dear Liberals, announce that you are funding and continuing with the Yoho Park twinning project immediately (in its entirety) to prove that what the Environmental Minister said was not party policy.

Until anything of that scale is announced it seems that he really did say the quiet part out loud.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I honestly don't think it's fear mongering to be wary of anyone who uses the term "war on cars" in reaction to a proposed public transit project. That attitude is toxic and the people who use it have more than justified the flak they receive.

Ahem.

Doug Ford: Light rail plans example of 'war on the car'

A vote by provincial transit agency Metrolinx in favour of the construction of four light rail lines across Toronto by 2020 is the latest instance of a "war on the car" in the city, says Coun. Doug Ford.

The Metrolinx board voted unanimously Wednesday to move ahead with a modified version of the Transit City plan that Mayor Rob Ford has campaigned against.

Doug Ford, the mayor's brother and a key council ally, was quick to denounce the move.

To be fair, his comment was more about promoting subways rather than promoting cars, and of course the idea of light rail along Eglinton Ave was dumb from the beginning. And he was speaking as a councillor of the City of Toronto that is sharply divided between the downtown with a plethora of bike lanes and light rail, and the suburbs completely devoid of bike lanes and light rail.

Ford also later used the "war on car" rhetoric to describe the complete removal of cars on a portion of King Street, but maybe that is more understandable, and he was still speaking as a Toronto politician rather than as an Ontario politician.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I don't think PP is going to be the transit disaster some on here are fearmongering over.

A wise position would be to continue the current 2 billion a year funding for transit from the feds, continue the HFR / HSR between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, and move forward with a serious major twinning plan of the #1 through BC and highway 1 upgrades through Manitoba and other more neglected areas. (the Okanagan definitely needs some highway infrastructure love as well)

This is what I mean about projecting reasonable ideas onto a man who doesn't have them. It's not fearmongering to point out what PP actually says, and further point out that what you're (smartly) saying is damn-near the opposite of what PP says.

Manitoba just cleaned house on a disastrous conservative government that was elected on the strength of not being the incumbents. Their first (and only, until the pandemic gave them something else to fuck up) move in government was hardcore austerity that included cutting their funding to Winnipeg Transit (50%) and actively blocking federal investment. And this government wasn't even particularly motivated by culture wars. Sure, they hated the city, but austerity for them was an end unto itself.

Someone who exists to own the libs will use austerity to do exactly that. Watch that $2 billion a year vanish while PP pretends to balance the budget.

[Truenorth00]

Going to be entertaining if that happens. Every provincial premier is going to be running against the federal conservatives. And most of them are more popular than Poilievre could ever hope to be.

I'm curious though about how he squares his "War on cars" rhetoric with his claim that federal funding can be used to compel cities to approve more housing. Transit is the biggest incentive pot. Most cities and suburbs don't need more roads.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well, again, the Liberals essentially declared just that when the Environmental Minister (while in Quebec City) said no more funding for major highway projects.

I don't think that's true. While it was an example of poor communication, it's quite justified to point out that there has been a huge imbalance in automobile related funding and that it's reasonable to pause urban and suburban auto-capacity funding until that is rectified.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Doady

Ahem.

Doug Ford: Light rail plans example of 'war on the car'


To be fair, his comment was more about promoting subways rather than promoting cars, and of course the idea of light rail along Eglinton Ave was dumb from the beginning. And he was speaking as a councillor of the City of Toronto that is sharply divided between the downtown with a plethora of bike lanes and light rail, and the suburbs completely devoid of bike lanes and light rail.

Ford also later used the "war on car" rhetoric to describe the complete removal of cars on a portion of King Street, but maybe that is more understandable, and he was still speaking as a Toronto politician rather than as an Ontario politician.

And we were right to be wary of Ford for that and other comments he made, and the fact that he provided more transit funding than expected was a huge surpris. A surprise precisely because it was so unlikely. It's certainly possible that PP could surprise us as well since you never know for sure what someone is going to do, especially before they're in power. All we can do is judge by their past comments and behaviour. But the point is that something being an unlikely surprise does not mean you should assume or expect it will happen, nor does acknowledging that it's unlikely amount to "fear mongering".

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Like I mentioned, converting a low frequency diesel commuter rail system to a high frequency electrified suburban rail system is already a massive effort. Indeed, it's the largest transit project in North America and one of the largest in the world right now. A complete change of rolling stock at the same time would have required a whole lot of additional infrastructure to house and maintain a separate fleet and added a lot of operational complications as they mixed various fleets. All of that for very little real gain. EMUs don't give GO substantial increases in capacity or efficiency. At least not to the level that justifies junking a 1000 coaches right away.

I didn't say we should get rid of them all at the same time. The current project isn't even to electrify all at the same time. There are other systems that have used mixed EMU's and loco hauled trains. Montreal had this until recently. Ny & Philly have this.

Why would increasing availability make something more expensive? As it stands, there aren't many EMUs actually certified to operate in North America. So GO would have had a smaller and less competitive market to choose from, than they will in the 2030s when EMU transition starts.

Pleny of EMUs are cetified for north america. 30s is 6 years away. Some of the cars in use are already old. It not just the trains that will be more expensive but eerything else that comes along with it.

[DesignerGuy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The question isn't about what is getting built. That's mostly safe. Kinda hard to fill in the Scott St trench at this point. The question is future projects. For example, where does Poilievre stand on Stage 3 in Ottawa? And I am going to guess if they have to cut transit funding, Ottawa is probably less likely to get a piece of what's left that somewhere in the GTA.

Possible cancelling of Stage 3 (remind me, this is the extension into Kanata?) At least EAST/WEST and South lines are mostly complete. Even if we don't build new lines for a generation, we will have a pretty extensive system. I believe the station count will be about 40 when complete?

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by DesignerGuy

Possible cancelling of Stage 3 (remind me, this is the extension into Kanata?) At least EAST/WEST and South lines are mostly complete. Even if we don't build new lines for a generation, we will have a pretty extensive system. I believe the station count will be about 40 when complete?

Stage 3 includes the extensions to both Kanata and Barrhaven. I hope that there are no cancellations with Ottawa Stage 3, but it will definitely be a less palatable project to fund given all the drama regarding the O-Train procurement and construction processes. Even Doug Ford is hesitant to provide any funding at this time.

The system that exists and is currently under construction is already quite extensive though, which is a good thing. More transit is always better though.