The future of Ottawa's Transit

[lrt's friend]

The Carling Avenue LRT route may end up costing more, but are some of the suburban Transitway projects really that beneficial in the short or medium term? Some of that money could fund Carling LRT.

The Carling route also creates a second rapid transit route to the west. Won't that draw new ridership and make Carlingwood, the Civic, the Royal Ottawa, and the offices around Carling and Preston/Booth more accessible? Is it really 100% necessary to take almost all the buses out of downtown in phase 1? It would be nice but is it necessary?

I keep hearing that we need to funnel almost all our transit traffic into the tunnel to make the best use of our investment. That all sounds nice, but shouldn't our first consideration be moving more people faster? If we end up with 2 routes through downtown and across town and some of the traffic is taken off of Albert and Slater, and overall we are moving more passengers, have we not gone a long way in achieving our goals?

The Western Transitway could be converted later. The whole point is to expand our rapid transit network sooner than later, so we will end up with a clear spike in ridership.


We should at least study the Carling option, so we can properly assess its costs and benefits. We will then know once and for all, whether it should be dismissed or not.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Carling Avenue LRT route may end up costing more, but are some of the suburban Transitway projects really that beneficial in the short or medium term? Some of that money could fund Carling LRT.

The Carling route also creates a second rapid transit route to the west. Won't that draw new ridership and make Carlingwood, the Civic, the Royal Ottawa, and the offices around Carling and Preston/Booth more accessible? Is it really 100% necessary to take almost all the buses out of downtown in phase 1? It would be nice but is it necessary?

I keep hearing that we need to funnel almost all our transit traffic into the tunnel to make the best use of our investment. That all sounds nice, but shouldn't our first consideration be moving more people faster? If we end up with 2 routes through downtown and across town and some of the traffic is taken off of Albert and Slater, and overall we are moving more passengers, have we not gone a long way in achieving our goals?

The Western Transitway could be converted later. The whole point is to expand our rapid transit network sooner than later, so we will end up with a clear spike in ridership.


We should at least study the Carling option, so we can properly assess its costs and benefits. We will then know once and for all, whether it should be dismissed or not.

I am just thinking about what you are saying and the following sorta devils advocate argument comes to mind:

Out in the burbs it was decided to either not build rail or at do it last given that there are few benefits of it at this point.

Given that there is currently construction being done on Carling, (while it wouldn't be free), would not make sense to simply pave a additional lane towards the middle and make the curb lane a bus lane? This would speed up the existing routes and achieving basically everything you said, but for much less cost and much less complex infrastructure work. Perhaps beef up a few of the bus shelters to become stations and remove some less used stops.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Just to give you current Calgary cost projection numbers, 2008 dollars:

Surface Track and Way @ $25-million per km
Metro Track and Way @ $155-million per km
Surface stations @ $10-million each
Metro stations @ $92-million each

The surface projection is for green field running, with a 15m corridor.
Not sure what instreet running would be, since it all depends on how fast and heavy your rolling stock is.

Street running like St. Claire or Spadina in Toronto isn't considered here, due to speed and capacity concerns. Unlike street cars, LRT outside of the core trains runs as trains, and take 100% precedence over automobile traffic. In the core, in what is called 'in street limits' the trains obey all the rules of the road and are controlled via traffic lights, not conventional signals.

Building underground stations is incredibly expensive. The tunnel isn't the part that breaks expensive project's backs, it is the stations. That is how the Canada Line is so cheap, because the stations are only 40m long. (Canada line has a ppd/h just above 16,000)

Thanks for the Calgary numbers. I’m surprised at them, since Calgary is noted for building their transit system at a bare-bones level. Although things are a bit different in Ottawa, the numbers are a good guide-line.

I notice that Calgary’s surface stations are estimated at $10M each. That would compare with the Terry Fox Station and Park & Ride. Its initial estimate was for $10M. (The cost was actually $11.8M and includes bus lay-by space and 515 parking spaces.). This is not the usual ‘standard’ red tube and glass Transitway station.
From the OC Transpo Web site:


The Park & Ride is to the left, but is (oddly) not shown.

This was a larger, grander station than I had envisioned for along Carling. Maybe I should be thinking of more expensive stations, though.

The $92M estimate for a metro station does make me worry a bit. MRC/Delcan estimated $40M for each downtown station and they are 25m underground. Maybe they will need a 230% contingency.

I was basing my underground station estimate of $15M on a shallow station which would be only 6-8m wide platforms, running the length of the train (say 150m). One per side. I figured if it cost $30M for one Km of tunnel, then half that could make 300m of station platform, four flights of stairs and a couple of elevators. I guess these platforms would be under the lanes of Carling so maybe ‘Deez’s’ estimate of $20M per station is more accurate.
For example:


I notice in the numbers you supplied, the term “Surface Track and Way”: Is “Way” the purchase of the right of way?

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

A question I have as I read through the pages of discussion. If the Ottawa River Parkway and the Byron Tramway Park alignments are dropped because of NCC and community rejection, and Carling is selected as the western rail leg - then what happens to the existing BRT? How will Tunney's Pasture and Westboro Stations be served?

It’s bad enough that taxpayers are being asked to fork out billions of dollars to create a rail system that will merely duplicate existing Transitway bus service and increase the number of transfers when some creative bus investments costing a fraction of this could address capacity issues. Now there’s a push (led by my councillor no less) to have the main east-west service bypass Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro. This adds insult to injury.

A Carling rail line with a rail spur serving Tunney’s Pasture and Westboro (two stations that are quite busy, including during the off-peak) would have a terrible impact on those that use these two stations:
- As compared to today, for traffic to/from downtown and beyond, it would result in much lower frequencies and, possibly, create a need to transfer.
- For the riders going west (there are actually quite a few of them), trips would become nightmares and I suspect that a lot would just give up on transit.

I don’t see any compelling arguments for a rail line on Carling. The financial costs would be extremely high (probably $500M+) and the risk of cost overruns would be great. As for potential for incremental ridership, I don’t think it would be that high. Moreover, many of the major trip generators on that street already have decent links to the Transitway and downtown (e.g., via the 86, 87 and the 176). As for the future, it may be bleak:
- The Civic Hospital wants to move to another area;
- The headquarters of NRCan (580 Booth) and Agriculture Canada (Sir John Carling Building) are not in the greatest of condition. They may need to move and, if so, it would make sense to put them downtown.
- A significant portion of the south side of Carling is off limits because of the Experimental Farm and Dows Lake.

Certainly, existing service in the form of the 85 should be improved upon. The best and fastest way to do this would be to introduce a service like the B-Lines in Vancouver with limited stops. This would significantly cut down on travel times while still serving major trip generators.

[Cre47]

And also in order to have a successful line, it must be much faster then the current 85. Right now from Lincoln Fields to Carling Station - it takes 25-30 minutes at most time. If the light-rail is not separated and must past through tons of red lights, it would still take 20-25 minutes considering it would likely not pass right at the doors of Carlingwood Mall (if so it may eat a lot of parking spaces which may not please Denis Pelletier & Company - the management of the mall). Add at least another 5-7 minutes from Carling to Lebreton and if one must transfer to the existant O-Train add more time. Basically, a successful Carling line (as a commuter line) would have to be grade-separated, not stop at any traffics and must pass through the the O-Train line and eventually towards the tunnel. An option that looks much expensive. Keep it at-grade, wait at traffic lights and transfer to the O-Train at Carling and you add pretty much 30 minutes to your commute time. Quite franqly the only option is the ORP or perhaps Byron and I just simply don't buy the opposition, especially if the city can put more underpasses

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Deez

...One thing you're neglecting (for sure this time) is changes in population growth and increases in density. The 2031 model assumes increases in density along transit corridors prescribed in the 2003 TMP; as I remember it, if you run the 2005 network with 2031 population assumptions, you still end up getting a mode split of around 26-27%. So basically, you can't attribute the 8% jump to the construction of this line. This should also get people thinking about some of the assumptions that are built into these models and the reliability of their outputs........not that the City's at fault, there really aren't any more reliable ways of coming up with these projections...

????? 27% without doing any costly additions to the system ???????

I am assuming that there would be some changes to enable the increased ridership, but no big $4B project. As long as the system can handle the load, the ridership will be there. WOW.

So using the same model, we can edge that up 5%, to 32%, by spending a huge amount of money. (I realize that spending some money will be required to maintain capacity.)

Something like this:

Originally Posted by Deez

...This goes back to the increases in density that I mentioned above. I agree that replicating existing infrastructure is a problem, but in my opinion it's the most affordable way of providing grade separated transit service (which really is the only thing we should be looking at) inside the greenbelt. I have yet to see ANY other ideas that can provide the same level of service for a more reasonable cost...

Absolutely. If we NEED a completely grade separated transit service within the Greenbelt, then using the land that we already use for transit will be the least expensive. However, just because it is the cheapest doesn’t make it the best option.

By my estimates, we could build out the suburban busways for $910M (MRC/Delcan number) and build a bus tunnel for $951M (MRC/Delcan number, which I think is inflated). That would satisfy the projected ridership past 2031 and cost less than $2B. The projected savings of $50M per year for a rail system would pay back the $1.8B difference in only 36 years!

Originally Posted by Deez

...I'd be interested to see how much you would estimate for your entire future buildout and how it compares to Option 4.

Moving the western route from the Transitway/Ottawa Parkway to a tunnel under Carling would add, probably, $800M more to the Option 4 price once 30% contingency and 15% PM are added. (I have also removed the rail portion between Lincoln Fields and Baseline which is in Option 4.)

Moving the Parkway portion to a tunnel under Byron/Richmond would probably add about $500M.

[Richard Eade]

Just for fun (I know - weird sense of what is fun), I went through a mental exercise to see how I see Option 4 progressing.
The result is 'snap-shots' of the system as time progresses:


Pretty much as it is now.


A bit more bus transitway, but there will be sensitivity to building too much and appearing to be bus-centric.


Busway construction inches out. The Western Transitway is finally connected and the Hospital Link is made. Since the new Strandherd/Armstrong bridge was not built to handle rail, it is doomed to carry buses. The O-Train has finally been extended south.


Finally the tunnel is finished (sorry, it is a bit hard to see, but you can take my word for it), but not yet usable since there is no external rail to connect to. Suburban busways continue to be built. The busway link through the hospital to Blair is completed. This will allow an alternative route for buses during Transitway conversion to rail.


The Baseline BRT has been built to maintain a bus link from east to west. A new Confederation station is created. Through lots of commuter head-aches, the Transitway’s back-bone is converted to rail but only from Blair to Lincoln Fields. Pretty much all of the envisioned suburban busways have been built by now. The N/S route has been converted to electric LRT.


A new rail line is built from Barrhaven to handle the Merivale area and to provide even faster trips to downtown and the General Hospital area. The airport finally has gotten its spur, but developers gave up on waiting for rail through the new Riverside South subdivision so the routes in that area have changed. There are still single seat bus trips between Orleans and Kanata, and Barrhaven and Kanata. However, because Kanata only has a single high-speed transit link to the rest of the city, it is being left as BRT since it would be extremely disruptive to shut it down for conversion to rail. There is talk of finding a different rail route into Kanata.

Well, that is what my crystal ball is telling me this week, but I must admit I haven’t cleaned it lately so some of the details might be a bit off. Anyway, I thought it might feed the discussion of the future of Ottawa’s transit system.

[eemy]

I'm thinking there might end up being capacity issues leading into downtown from the west.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'm thinking there might end up being capacity issues leading into downtown from the west.

I agree, but what can be done about it? If you look on the map, the downtown is east of centre.

Kanata comes from the west; Barrhaven comes from the west; Riverside South comes from the west (thanks to the O-Train route). Only Orleans comes from the east. Gatineau could cross the Portage (west), the Alexandria (east), or Macdonald-Cartier (east) Bridge so I can't make a call on that one.

Since the Heron Rd. Bridge is not a rail bridge, the transit along Baseline/Heron will be BRT (at best). This means that the planners want to keep the SE Transitway link from Confederation. through Billings Bridge, to Hurdman accessible to buses.

There is the possibility (though a low probability) that the O-Train line could be stopped at Confederation so that Riverside South comes up by bus, and would likely stay on the bus to enter the downtown from the east. However, this would mean that the airport would only be serviced by bus. I wouldn't expect this to happen.

In my 2025 map, I removed the BRT south of Confederation because it simply duplicated the rail route to downtown. Since there is a belief that people prefer trains to buses, I think it will be hard to justify continuing the 'lower status' branch.

If the politicians are tired of being in office, they could suggest that a BRT route could be created from Barrhaven along the VIA track, through Confederation and continue to downtown along the SE Transitway. But, I doubt that that is likely, either.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

This parkway stuff is starting to remind me of the turtle issue of the NSLRT.

I really fail to see what the big deal is. Carleton University has a railway running right through the middle of it. It does not cause any significant problems. They have two pedestrian underpasses, one road overpass, one road underpass, and even their tunnel system goes underneath at one point.

To install a few of those cement culvert like underpasses like the Carleton O-Train station has can't be a big deal or cost.

We seriously need to worry about bigger issues.

It's not myself that is worried. I think it the train would be an awesome addition to the parkway as it would be quieter, sleeker, and it would continue to be a nice view for the thousands of riders on their long journeys home from work. The problem is that this area is used by citizens from all of the most storied NIMBY neighbourhoods in Ottawa including: West Ottawa, Westboro, the Glebe, Civic Hospital, and even Centretown. A lot of these people work in Tuney's Pasture, use the paths with their family on the weekend, and/or just like to complain about things changing in the city. I think a nice rendering showing the underpasses/overpasses, a decent-looking barrier, and some sweet trains would do a world of good in calming down the masses.

[Deez]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

????? 27% without doing any costly additions to the system ???????

I am assuming that there would be some changes to enable the increased ridership, but no big $4B project. As long as the system can handle the load, the ridership will be there. WOW.

So using the same model, we can edge that up 5%, to 32%, by spending a huge amount of money. (I realize that spending some money will be required to maintain capacity.)

Something like this:

Well it's logical isn't it? The City's growth strategy is to encourage growth around transit nodes; that means that there are more people that are likely to have lower travel times on transit (or generalized cost to be more precise) and hence be more likely to use that mode. If the model assumes that growth is going to happen around the transitway, then the ridership will be there if travel times remain reasonable. HOWEVER, the capacity issue isn't as trivial as you make it out to be. The city's travel demand model is not very accurate at representing bus congestion and hence the delays experienced by those buses aren't reflected well in travel time and ridership. So in reality, that ~27% would NOT be possible without grade separating the downtown.

Regardless of whether growth will be possible without investment, there's still the massive issue of operating cost. LRT line-haul is cheaper to operate than BRT and the difference between the two will only widen as time goes on. It only makes sense to build rail now while oil/construction costs are still relatively cheap and so that we can reap the benefit of reduced operating costs for more years. And if anyone brings up the MRC/Delcan hourly operating cost numbers again I'm going to scream...

By my estimates, we could build out the suburban busways for $910M (MRC/Delcan number) and build a bus tunnel for $951M (MRC/Delcan number, which I think is inflated). That would satisfy the projected ridership past 2031 and cost less than $2B. The projected savings of $50M per year for a rail system would pay back the $1.8B difference in only 36 years!

This is why operating costs are so important to consider. Also, remember that the BRT tunnel would hit capacity by 2031.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

In my 2025 map, I removed the BRT south of Confederation because it simply duplicated the rail route to downtown. Since there is a belief that people prefer trains to buses, I think it will be hard to justify continuing the 'lower status' branch.

Being familiar with the south-east, I think having a route line that directly connects South Keys to Billings Bridge and allows local buses from the Hunt Club/South Keys/Greenboro/Blossom park areas to reach Billings Bridge and Hurdman is enough of a justification for it.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Being familiar with the south-east, I think having a route line that directly connects South Keys to Billings Bridge and allows local buses from the Hunt Club/South Keys/Greenboro/Blossom park areas to reach Billings Bridge and Hurdman is enough of a justification for it.

Or you just add a rail branch like was proposed by the review panel, from Hurdman to Confederation, and that removes the need of keeping the Transitway, plus balances the system at the same time.

[lrt's friend]

I fully agree with bradnixon and I will further add that the SE Transitway has for years built up ridership for people travelling between the south and the east, for example, accessing St. Laurent SC, the offices around Blair station, NRC and CSIS. Closing the SE Transitway will create awkward multiple transfers or encourage people to unnecessarily travel through downtown to avoid transfers. The result will be a drop in ridership for those whose destinations are not downtown. I don't think we want to create that kind of situation.

I will add that an O-Train extension to Leitrim will delay conversion to electric LRT on that line for many years. I just can't see a further investment in the O-Train will justify it all being scrapped in 5 or 10 years, especially after we have created a situation where the south end growth areas become dependent on it and we have no reasonable alternatives during a 3 year shutdown for conversion.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will add that an O-Train extension to Leitrim will delay conversion to electric LRT on that line for many years. I just can't see a further investment in the O-Train will justify it all being scrapped in 5 or 10 years, especially after we have created a situation where the south end growth areas become dependent on it and we have no reasonable alternatives during a 3 year shutdown for conversion.

Conversion of the Transitway would leave the usage of the O-Train to the Via station instead of Bayview, there's only the need to add a rail chord. This is something I suggested for an interim proposal, same as using the Fallowfield to Via station, with a stop at Confederation for transfers to buses in the meantime.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Being familiar with the south-east, I think having a route line that directly connects South Keys to Billings Bridge and allows local buses from the Hunt Club/South Keys/Greenboro/Blossom park areas to reach Billings Bridge and Hurdman is enough of a justification for it.

Would that also be enough reason to turn the O-Train at Confederation and run it down to Barrhaven instead of Riverside South (RS)? That would leave the SE Transitway (bus) to link RS and Billings Bridge and Hurdman.

Of course, conceptually, it would be nice to have a rail link between the airport and downtown, but the numbers certainly don't warrant keeping the southern portion of the O-Train route just for that. And forcing the south communities to enter the core from the east would help the balance.

Then there is the other argument: Local buses are to be local routes which dump passengers onto the rail line-haul routes. If passengers want to get to Billings Bridge, they will need to transfer twice if they want to take the train. (There will probably be other direct bus routes, such as those travelling along Bank which could be taken instead.) If they want to go to Hurdman, they will transfer to the train and get to Hurdman via downtown.

This is an excellent example of why we need to be designing an entire transit system. One which will provide the mobility people need while reducing the operating costs by removing duplication and concentrating riders on the most efficient routes.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Would that also be enough reason to turn the O-Train at Confederation and run it down to Barrhaven instead of Riverside South (RS)? That would leave the SE Transitway (bus) to link RS and Billings Bridge and Hurdman.

This is an excellent example of why we need to be designing an entire transit system. One which will provide the mobility people need while reducing the operating costs by removing duplication and concentrating riders on the most efficient routes.

I think you're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you argue for reduced duplication, while at the same time your're promoting THREE lines to Barrhaven: BRT up Woodrooffe, LRT along the VIA line to Confederation, and the BRT to RS.

Using the VIA line from Barrhaven, you end up with a "problem of the triangles": you're optimizing speed from Fallowfield to Confederation by bypassing RS. But if you do that, ridership on the NS line from RS will fall dramatically since most in Barrhaven will use the VIA line. There's no efficiency in having both.

I suppose what you could do is extend the VIA LRT from Fallowfield to Strandherd/Greenbank then to RS, and then extend BRT from South Keys to Leitrim, like this:



But what's the point? For all the "duplication" you're avoiding, you're running a line (the VIA line) through a long stretch of Greenbelt, industrial parks, and the backs of houses (there are essentially ZERO destinations along that line between Fallowfield and Confederation). Plus you probably have to duplicate BRT and LRT from Fallowfield to Strandherd, which is just as long a stretch as between Confederation and South Keys.

Also, Heron Station on the SE Transitway and Confederation aren't that close to each other, and the transfer facilities between the 2 are poor (in fact there's not even a sidewalk along Data Centre Rd. from Heron station to Heron Rd.). That would have to be fixed for something like this to work, because people coming from South Keys need a way to transfer to the LRT to reach Carleton.

So I think it's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

[lrt's friend]

I think Ottawa's transit system requirements are far beyond just a simple implementation of a hub and spoke model. We can't just have local buses feeding into trains and expect it to even satisfy existing needs. We also need a comprehensive network of other bus routes designed to minimize transfers and to keep as many people as possible away from downtown.

The problem with Transitway conversion, is that a lot of bus routes not heading for downtown use it for parts of their routes in order to speed up service and reduce transfers. Once we close the Transitways down, we revert back to buses competing with regular traffic for their entire routes. Bank Street is a perfect example. Moving buses off the Transitway onto Bank Street will deliver much worse service because of regular traffic tie ups and numerous traffic signals. This would be like moving express buses currently using the Ottawa River Parkway onto Richmond Road or Carling Avenue. Slow, slow, slow.

It is unacceptable to require people who live in Greenboro to have to transfer twice to reach Billings Bridge. Only those without access to a car will do this. No matter what people say, transfers are ridership killers. Transfers are one of the main reasons why transit is not even close to competitive with car travel, even if you only have to wait 5 minutes for each transfer, and often it is far longer. A perfect example is from Greenboro to my house. It is a 5 minute drive at most. Even if I have to wait only 5 minutes for my local bus, the system is not competitive and then add on top of that, a winding route through local streets. I know, that some extra transfers will be needed with a rail based system, but it is imperative that our supporting bus network be substantially improved to compensate for those extra transfers.

Efficiency and operating costs are important considerations in developing any transit plan, but customer service still has to be priority one. It doesn't matter how efficient we make our transit system. If it takes too long to go from Point A to Point B or if the trip is unpleasant because of crowding or it is unreliable, people are not going to use the system unless they have to, and we have to remember that most new riders are those accustomed to using a car. I think it is sad statement if we decide that the main driving force for people moving to transit will be increasing gas prices.

A $4 billion plan must deliver clear improvements in customer service. If not, it is a waste of money.

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think Ottawa's transit system requirements are far beyond just a simple implementation of a hub and spoke model. We can't just have local buses feeding into trains and expect it to even satisfy existing needs. We also need a comprehensive network of other bus routes designed to minimize transfers and to keep as many people as possible away from downtown.

The problem with Transitway conversion, is that a lot of bus routes not heading for downtown use it for parts of their routes in order to speed up service and reduce transfers. Once we close the Transitways down, we revert back to buses competing with regular traffic for their entire routes. Bank Street is a perfect example. Moving buses off the Transitway onto Bank Street will deliver much worse service because of regular traffic tie ups and numerous traffic signals. This would be like moving express buses currently using the Ottawa River Parkway onto Richmond Road or Carling Avenue. Slow, slow, slow.

It is unacceptable to require people who live in Greenboro to have to transfer twice to reach Billings Bridge. Only those without access to a car will do this. No matter what people say, transfers are ridership killers. Transfers are one of the main reasons why transit is not even close to competitive with car travel, even if you only have to wait 5 minutes for each transfer, and often it is far longer. A perfect example is from Greenboro to my house. It is a 5 minute drive at most. Even if I have to wait only 5 minutes for my local bus, the system is not competitive and then add on top of that, a winding route through local streets. I know, that some extra transfers will be needed with a rail based system, but it is imperative that our supporting bus network be substantially improved to compensate for those extra transfers.

Efficiency and operating costs are important considerations in developing any transit plan, but customer service still has to be priority one. It doesn't matter how efficient we make our transit system. If it takes too long to go from Point A to Point B or if the trip is unpleasant because of crowding or it is unreliable, people are not going to use the system unless they have to, and we have to remember that most new riders are those accustomed to using a car. I think it is sad statement if we decide that the main driving force for people moving to transit will be increasing gas prices.

A $4 billion plan must deliver clear improvements in customer service. If not, it is a waste of money.

Nice post and I agree 100%.

This is what is missing from all this dicussion...we/the city is spending so much time discussing trains and rapid transit we are forgetting about plain old transit.

The trains might move use efficiently and cheap longer distance around the city, but is the bus routes that will get most people to and from their destinations. Not nearly enough time has been spent discussing changes in route structure to improve the bus system.

And best of all, bus routes and be modified easily and quickly since things like EAs are not need. Plus with a bus system if your changes do turnout out bad they are easy to fix, change, modify.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A $4 billion plan must deliver clear improvements in customer service. If not, it is a waste of money.

Transit must shape traffic, not the other way around. If you need 3 transfers or a 40 minutes car drive, you need to rethink if you actually live in the right place.

I applaud Vancouver's stance on refusing to create new highways on its territory. The commute time has actually come down, because people are moving to neighborhoods closer to their workplace.

There's the whole mentality that needs to change, and with the recent fights with builders regarding densification and high rises, expect things much worse in the next few years. The only reason I support LRT for suburbs is to enhance density and to create a self sustaining environment. I don't approve for replacing the express buses, we can have a commuter train for much cheaper.