The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Rico Rommheim]

Put me down for zephyr, fo' shizzle.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Exactly, the same way Metro-Vancouver has been able to continue expanding our grade separated, automated system over the past 25 years. Vancouver has gone from being the only major city in Canada without a rapid transit line, to now constructed our 4th line

Did you forget somewhere? You know, a certain Western city with a sports team with military aircraft on their jerseys, or a reference to Bishop Grandin that isn't a school or LRT station, and a bad tendency to resemble Forest Lawn in the inner city?

Oh, and its home to Riel, Monty Hall and Chantal Kreviasuk

[Metro-One]

While I do believe Winnipeg deserves some form of mass transit, to me it is not a major city, even in Canadian terms, it is big, but for me a major city in Canada (2012 pop) is at least 1 million metro, so we have 6, therefore I guess Vancouver is not the last, Ottawa is .

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

While I do believe Winnipeg deserves some form of mass transit, to me it is not a major city, even in Canadian terms, it is big, but for me a major city in Canada (2012 pop) is at least 1 million metro, so we have 6, therefore I guess Vancouver is not the last, Ottawa is .

What! We're the only actual city between Calgary and Toronto! Plus without us, Manitoba wouldn't be in Confederation and immigration west would be vastly different.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by feepa

big cities have multi billion dollar budgets every year. The fact that it costs more to tunnel has nothing to do with how expansive Edmonton system is or isn't compared to Calgary. When you put 0 dollars for LRT expansion in your budget for 15 years, you don't build LRT. Calgary continued to budget money for LRT growth, and built a lot while Edmonton did nothing. Also consider that when Edmonton stopped building LRT in 1992, the whole tunnel was finished, save for the southern portal.
It's my understanding Calgary also borrowed money extensively, where as Edmonton didn't for LRT construction during the lean years (92-2006)

Nope. Calgary stopped building LRT for nearly a decade too. Brentwood opened in 1991, and then no new stations opened until the South LRT extension to Fish Creek-Lacombe was opened in 2001. And the money for that extension wasn't borrowed - it came out of the gas tax money the Province started returning to the cities late in the 1990s.

[miketoronto]

Tunnels are not the reason transit expands or does not expand. Political will and funding is.

In my opinion, Edmonton did right building a tunnel downtown.

We have got to stop with cheeping out in North America. We want to be like Europe. Well in Europe the LRT's almost always run underground in the downtown areas.

Anyway I was at a public meeting last night in my area of Toronto on an LRT vs subway debate. It was probably the second most charged public transit meeting I have ever been to.

People kept screaming they wanted subways and were willing to pay more taxes to construct them. They would booo any of the LRT supporters and would almost not let them talk. Was very interesting.

I also noticed a lot of people had no idea what LRT we were getting in Toronto. People thought we were getting grade separated LRT like in Denver, etc.

[agrant]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

While I do believe Winnipeg deserves some form of mass transit, to me it is not a major city, even in Canadian terms, it is big, but for me a major city in Canada (2012 pop) is at least 1 million metro, so we have 6, therefore I guess Vancouver is not the last, Ottawa is .

Oye! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Canada's_major_cities

[Metro-One]

Well, what one considers major is very subjective, some (like my wife from Japan) feels there are no major cities in Canada. For me, the cut off is 1 million.

[Ayreonaut]

I like a 1 million cut-off, too. Even in the US; Providence, Jacksonville, SLC, Louisville, etc. I would consider them major cities. Albuquerque, and Knoxville, not quite.

[miketoronto]

Winnipeg needs to upgrade transit badly. Even if they started with a Quebec City style METROBUS network, it would be a great improvement.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Winnipeg needs to upgrade transit badly. Even if they started with a Quebec City style METROBUS network, it would be a great improvement.

Or Halifax MetroBus network, since I'm actually familiar with that one

And agreed. Speaking of Winnipeg Transit:

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Tunnels are not the reason transit expands or does not expand. Political will and funding is.

In my opinion, Edmonton did right building a tunnel downtown.

We have got to stop with cheeping out in North America. We want to be like Europe. Well in Europe the LRT's almost always run underground in the downtown areas.

You may not yet realize this Mike but money is limited. Wait till you live on your own you will realize it.

The political will is always there for large capital projects. They are always vote winners. Transit especially, that is the reason why politicians always show up to new station openings. Whichever politician announces a downtown LRT tunnel in Calgary will likely see his/her approval ratings shoot up instantly. The problem is the funding is not there because the money is limited.

The 1990s was a rough time, the economy dipped into recession and a lot of projects suffered. Not just transit. The Alberta government had to cut a lot of things to balance the books: Education, Healthcare and even road infrastructure suffered. Eastside McKnight Blvd in Calgary was a single lane country road for until the 2003. Calgary still doesn't have a South hospital and for the longest time NE Calgary was served by one fire house. Many new communities constructed during the 1990s still don't have access to schools.

Had Edmonton planners been wiser they would have realized that the money they received was limited and focused on expanding the suburban network first and then focused on a downtown subway afterwards. The city could have built an extensive transit system and built the tunnel much later as the need developed. As a result Edmonton would have had much higher transit ridership and at the same time Edmonton's downtown would not have remained strong and vibrant.

That is what Calgary did and Calgary reaped the benefits. Thanks to the LRT Calgary's downtown remained vibrant and remained the employment centre of the city. Calgary has very high transit ridership, despite the fact the LRT runs at street level in downtown. Edmonton's downtown by contrast is not nearly as vibrant and it is losing jobs to suburban areas.

Once the West LRT is built, Calgary's next project will likely be the downtown LRT tunnel. Thus Calgary will eventually get the downtown LRT tunnel just like Edmonton. But because they differed the expensive project until it was absolutely necessary, Calgary was able to reap considerable benefits for having an extensive LRT system which outweighs the small benefit of having a short LRT tunnel.

Also about your comment about Europe. Yes Europe gets a lot infrastructure but it comes at a cost. Reality is hitting Europe hard now, while Canada was wise with its money Europe squandered it. Over the next 10 years, Canada will still be okay and continue to see investments in social programs and infrastructure. Europe by contrast will likely spend a decade where that investment will halt.

[feepa]

Ignorant at best. Edmonton has ridership per mile in the same fashion Calgary does. While Calgary spends tons of money building that tunnel, Edmonton will work on building its suburban network... Things equal out over time.

[sober2ndthought]

Originally Posted by feepa

Ignorant at best. Edmonton has ridership per mile in the same fashion Calgary does. While Calgary spends tons of money building that tunnel, Edmonton will work on building its suburban network... Things equal out over time.

Overtime yes I agree it will equal out. But you look at my core argument it was the first priority should be to build it out extensively then make improvements which make the LRT more efficient. I believe more benefits are gained by building a system in that fashion than there are to be gained by building the most efficient system first but having only quarter of the coverage.

To me coverage matters more than efficiency, so long as the inefficiencies don't completely handicap the system and are dealt with at a later date.

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by agrant

Oye! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Canada's_major_cities

Did I wake up in 2030? Since when is the population of the GTA 9.5 million? That's more like the population of Ontario. If this person thinks that Toronto is twice the size of Montréal, then I don't trust their judgment of what is the cutoff to be considered one of

Canada's major cities.

[sober2ndthought]

Well Harper has his say now. I guess Harper must really hate Calgary streets.

[1331Massi]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Well Harper has his say now. I guess Harper must really hate Calgary streets.

It amuses me that Harper decides to weigh in on the Toronto LRT-subway debate. The best part is the fact that he does not intend to contribute any financial aid, but still chooses the more expensive option. It's like if I told you that this $10 steak is better than this $5 one, but I'm a vegetarian.

Disclaimer: That is an example scenario. I'm not a vegetarian (not that anyone cares...).

[jmt18325]

Harper was born and raised in Toronto.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by sober2ndthought

Overtime yes I agree it will equal out. But you look at my core argument it was the first priority should be to build it out extensively then make improvements which make the LRT more efficient. I believe more benefits are gained by building a system in that fashion than there are to be gained by building the most efficient system first but having only quarter of the coverage.

To me coverage matters more than efficiency, so long as the inefficiencies don't completely handicap the system and are dealt with at a later date.

Again, Calgary spent significantly more money on LRT expansion during the 1980s. Like around than 50% more than Edmonton did. The city managed to do this by taking on additional debt. Had Edmonton been willing to spend as much as Calgary did, then they would have easily been able to construct the south line during that period. The tunnel was not the reason that Calgary built three lines to Edmonton's one; political will to debt finance more construction was why Calgary built more track. It is simply not true that both cities spent similar amounts on their initial LRT systems. To this day Calgary still has significantly more debt than Edmonton.

[Dwils01]

Union Station Revitalization.


Picture by me from Sunday March 04, 2012.