Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Extending the metro is extremely expensive. We will not see a brand-new metro line ever again.

And nor should we, the densest part of the island are already more or less covered by the underground. The rest of the city can be covered by future LRT and BRT lines.

Montreal had about a ~500K people in 1916 and 3 million in 2000. If the 21st has half the relative growth you could see a Montreal of 12 million in 2100. If that happens I'd expect the need for a few more full metro lines. Heck, even if it only doubles to 8 million you'd probably want a new metro line somewhere.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Montreal had about a ~500K people in 1916 and 3 million in 2000. If the 21st has half the relative growth you could see a Montreal of 12 million in 2100. If that happens I'd expect the need for a few more full metro lines. Heck, even if it only doubles to 8 million you'd probably want a new metro line somewhere.

This. The whole "LRT is better for less-dense areas" argument is ridiculous because it assumes density remains stagnant.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This. The whole "LRT is better for less-dense areas" argument is ridiculous because it assumes density remains stagnant.

Isn't one of the busiest stations on the Yonge subway, the Finch terminal station? Not necessarily because of density but because of the number of suburban bus routes that feed into it. It is not always about density surrounding the station but the catchment population delivered by feeder routes. And also density will increase depending on the quality of the transit line that you build.

[RueBulmer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't one of the busiest stations on the Yonge subway, the Finch terminal station? Not necessarily because of density but because of the number of suburban bus routes that feed into it. It is not always about density surrounding the station but the catchment population delivered by feeder routes. And also density will increase depending on the quality of the transit line that you build.

Also depending on whether local residents want increased density.

[Metro-One]

We usually call those NIMBYs, and they have been a negative force against metro-Vancouver's urban environment, but luckily their power is slowly being eroded, and one by one the areas around skytrain stations are being built up

It is interesting to see that Vancouver seems to be the last area in Canada that wants to continue building metro lines (full grade separation). (I am going to reserve judgement on Ottawa until I know a little more about their expansion plans, and Toronto does seem to be still extending their subway which is good).

And yes, I do know that Surrey wants to built LRT but there are a few clues being released now that one of Surrey's desired LRT routes may be built as an extension of the Expo line Skytrain to Langley instead.

[Aylmer]

I think that in order to serve areas built after the 1940s (which, in the case of most cities building RT, is most of the city), the traditional subway model just doesn't work quite as well as it does in older areas: distances are further apart AND the streets are much better suited to speed.

In older areas of major cities, the subway is basically the only way to get transit moving quickly since the streets are so narrow and crowded with activity. At the same time, the stop spacing isn't too big, allowing people to access the high density of activity which exists not in hubs, but in swaths and along continuous corridors.

In newer areas, however, street-running RoW can run efficiently, cheaply and relatively quickly along the wide roads (though, as many will be quick to point out, not quite AS fast as grade-separated transit, but it is a much smaller difference than in the city). And on the other end, the much longer distances which people want to cover (think Laval-Montreal, Mississauga-Toronto or your local equivalent) means that traditional subways' relatively close stop spacing is too slow. Nowadays, RER-type systems are needed if you want to cross the city.

So here's the new paradigm I propose:

- Subways in the older parts of the city along the most crowded arteries.
- LRT as semi-local transit in the newer parts of the city.
- RER to connect the hubs of the city and the LRT lines.

Since the challenge of this century will be how to serve the automobile-centric rings of the city, I strongly suspect that most transit will be either LRT or RER for the reasons mentioned above. And you know what, that's alright. Technologies change with needs and realities and you can't expect to use the same solutions for King St. as you would for Finch. It's not a downgrade or an upgrade: it's just a better fit.

[SkahHigh]

^ well, it's not that Montreal doesn't want to build Metro lines, but since our system can only go underground, it's very expensive to build, so we have to choose wisely where we extend.

There are nearly no low density areas in Montreal with a Metro station.

[RueBulmer]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

We usually call those NIMBYs, and they have been a negative force against metro-Vancouver's urban environment, but luckily their power is slowly being eroded, and one by one the areas around skytrain stations are being built up

It is interesting to see that Vancouver seems to be the last area in Canada that wants to continue building metro lines (full grade separation). (I am going to reserve judgement on Ottawa until I know a little more about their expansion plans, and Toronto does seem to be still extending their subway which is good).

And yes, I do know that Surrey wants to built LRT but there are a few clues being released now that one of Surrey's desired LRT routes may be built as an extension of the Expo line Skytrain to Langley instead.

NIMBYs have been around for a long time and I suppose their concerns and characteristics change somewhat from one city to another.

Portions of this borough will never go higher density. Demolition and even modification of post war housing was severely restricted back in the 80s . SAVE THE CAPE COD COTTAGES! Now means those tiny homes on large lots can only be expanded from the back end.

Doesn't Ottawa have soil issues?

[RueBulmer]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

^ well, it's not that Montreal doesn't want to build Metro lines, but since our system can only go underground, it's very expensive to build, so we have to choose wisely where we extend.

There are nearly no low density areas in Montreal with a Metro station.

I'd argue NDG needed it more than Ville St-Laurent.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by RueBulmer

I'd argue NDG needed it more than Ville St-Laurent.

NDG still has Vendome, Villa Maria and Vendome commuter rail station. A westward extension of the Blue line could give better coverage to NDG but it doesn't seem in the planning.

[RueBulmer]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

NDG still has Vendome, Villa Maria and Vendome commuter rail station. A westward extension of the Blue line could give better coverage to NDG but it doesn't seem in the planning.

I would include Snowdon among NDG stations. The 51 bus line, most frequent and reliable in the northern part of NDG, leads there.

I have the 103 Monkland bus right outside my door but it goes off the "every ten minutes" schedule in the late afternoon and leads to Villa Maria. If I walk two long residential blocks, I can catch the 51, a great bus line. I can take the metro from Snowdon to downtown or stay on to visit friends in the Plateau when it reaches Laurier.

When I say NDG needs more coverage, I don't mean where I live. The Sherbrooke corridor is where it is needed.

But if one looks at a map, an extension of the blue line would be the closest to the airport.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

^ well, it's not that Montreal doesn't want to build Metro lines, but since our system can only go underground, it's very expensive to build, so we have to choose wisely where we extend.

There are nearly no low density areas in Montreal with a Metro station.

It's exactly for that reason that Montreal needs to evolve from the current paradigm of bus-or-metro to new technologies which can better serve the city (and do so at a much lower cost). When you want to go far (think Verdun to Laval or Tétreauville to UdeM), the metro is not fast enough. And there's not enough money in the world to expand $300M/km tunnels to enough places within the city.

So why not buy and upgrade tracks to create an RER network which could get you to Laval, the West Island, Montréal Nord, etc. in a few stations throughout the day? Or use LRT and BRT to serve extensively serve Anjou or Ville Saint-Laurent? Or longer-distance LRT/RER to get to Brossard and Fairview?

If we stick to JUST the metro, it'll never be extensive enough nor fast enough to properly serve the city as it is. As it is, too much of the outer rings of the city are simply beyond the reach of efficient public transit and too much of the inner city is condemned to slow and overcrowded buses. Again, that's not to say that the Metro shouldn't be extended (some worthy extensions: Blue line to Pie-IX, Yellow to Vieux-Longueuil, Yellow to McGill, for example), but we'd be better served with more infrastructure options.

[lrt's friend]

It will be interesting to see how Ottawa does with surface LRT, given the climate is much more prone to icing than Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and certainly Vancouver. We have seen numerous switch problems with the Trillium Line, however, the Confederation Line will be much less dependent on switches. Montreal should keep an eye open on what Ottawa is doing before investing a ton of money on surface LRT since Montreal is also prone to icing.

[ssiguy]

Toronto is certainly building more subway/Metro systems.

Besides the planned DRL, Danforth & Spadina ext, Sheppard will eventually be extended as well. Smart Tracks and RER may have different names but are effectively subway/Metro lines as they both will be completely grade separated with more stops in the inner city but offering service to outlying areas.

Smart Tracks is a 54 km "surface subway" and is being built in coordination with RER. RER/S-Bahn are very much Metro systems in Europe but simply have fewer stations to offer faster speeds than traditional Metros with more stations. They often use EMU single/multiple level trains but serve the same purpose. In 15 years Toronto will have a subway/RER system well over 200km which does NOT include GO commuter rail.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It will be interesting to see how Ottawa does with surface LRT, given the climate is much more prone to icing than Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and certainly Vancouver. We have seen numerous switch problems with the Trillium Line, however, the Confederation Line will be much less dependent on switches. Montreal should keep an eye open on what Ottawa is doing before investing a ton of money on surface LRT since Montreal is also prone to icing.

Well, both cities had streetcars for over half a century, so though there may be challenges, it's not like trying to grow mango trees or something.

[eemy]

Ottawa does have soil issues in some places; however, the current proposed expansions to the LRT are all completely grade separated and I don't believe there is any consideration for otherwise.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It will be interesting to see how Ottawa does with surface LRT, given the climate is much more prone to icing than Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and certainly Vancouver. We have seen numerous switch problems with the Trillium Line, however, the Confederation Line will be much less dependent on switches. Montreal should keep an eye open on what Ottawa is doing before investing a ton of money on surface LRT since Montreal is also prone to icing.

Put a bulky enough heater on a switch and it is fine with accumulation. A deep freeze into the mid -30s brings problems, but I am sure could be engineered against if it was more often than a few days a year.

[casper]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

^ well, it's not that Montreal doesn't want to build Metro lines, but since our system can only go underground, it's very expensive to build, so we have to choose wisely where we extend.

There are nearly no low density areas in Montreal with a Metro station.

There is no reason new lines can not use different technology.

In Vancouver Expo, Millennium and Evergreen lines are based on a completely different propulsion technology from the Canada line.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Well, both cities had streetcars for over half a century, so though there may be challenges, it's not like trying to grow mango trees or something.

Here is a fun little video on Ottawa history. Take a look. Because Ottawa and Montreal are in valleys, we are prone to this type of weather more so than most other cities. It isn't the outright cold, it is ice accumulation followed by colder weather that causes problems. On this occasion, entire streetcar network was knocked out for days.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSTgr4kqoPA

[ssiguy]

When it comes to transit there is no such thing as "one size fit's all". All cities have unique demographic, employment, economic, geographic, and political concerns that have to weighed.

Transit should not be rated by the simplistic "we have more subways than you" mentality but rather the system that provides the safest, most comfortable, most efficient, fastest, affordable, and accessible service whether that be by trains, LRT, ferry, subway, or bus.