The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The Canadian model of having a small number of really high capacity lines that people have to travel for ages on feeder buses to reach kinda sucks imo. A mesh of lower capacity lines distributing service across the city is much better. Not just in terms of transit planning but in terms of urban planning in general since density can be spread more evenly across the city in the form of human-scaled development rather than having vast areas of low density SFHs and nodes of super high density TODs. Nodal highrises surrounded by SFHs does not make for what I'd consider an attractive city.

I agree with the concept of multiple parallel medium capacity line as opposed to fewer high-capacity trunk lines however, there is a big difference between Canada's 15,000 phpd vs. TTC or STM's 40,000 phpd. I think that Expo and Millennium's 24,000 phpd (and Confederation, though capacity is right, low-floor light-rail was a mistake) is the sweet spot.

If a line opens with a ridership of 10,000 phpd (for example, Confederation), it could come close to the 24,000 phpd max very quickly with TOD alone.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

In Canada, most people view transit as the following:

-For poor people who cannot afford a car.

- For students who cannot afford a car.

- Taxpayer money that could be spent on roads, or be given as a tax break.

- Too expensive.

And my favourite .... if you can find a seat, it isn't busy enough.

This attitude needs to change before we have good meaningful transit.

From my perspective, only urban bus lines are considered "for poor people" even though plenty of middle-class citizens choose to live in the city and bus to avoid traffic and/or reduce their environmental foot print.

Post-secondary students are one of the highest users of transit, and that is recognized by the introduction of the U-Pass (Universities only) about a decade ago.

Ottawa politicians would have the opinion of "taxpayer money should be used for roads not transit" IF and only IF, that money would be used to serve urban riders. Extending rail dozens of kilometers to serve low-density suburbs is a fine use of taxpayer dollars.

For "too expensive", see above.

The City of Ottawa's philosophy seems to be, "if it's not crush-load, we're not getting our money's worth". However, I think a lot of people, for trains at least, will accept standing as long as they have room to breath. For buses, suburbanites seem to expect they'll get a seat.

I think that in Canada, most people view transit as a way to get suburban commuters to and from the central city at rush hour and this must be done at all costs with a minimum of transit investment in the central city (yes, an oxymoron). That's why Toronto continues to build lines that dump suburbanites on the overcapacity Yonge-University, that's why the Canada Line lacks capacity, stations in the central core and does not properly connect to Expo, that's why they are building the REM.

Urbanites are screaming for help as they drown, but politicians only hear suburban voters.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree with the concept of multiple parallel medium capacity line as opposed to fewer high-capacity trunk lines however, there is a big difference between Canada's 15,000 phpd vs. TTC or STM's 40,000 phpd. I think that Expo and Millennium's 24,000 phpd (and Confederation, though capacity is right, low-floor light-rail was a mistake) is the sweet spot.

If a line opens with a ridership of 10,000 phpd (for example, Confederation), it could come close to the 24,000 phpd max very quickly with TOD alone.



From my perspective, only urban bus lines are considered "for poor people" even though plenty of middle-class citizens choose to live in the city and bus to avoid traffic and/or reduce their environmental foot print.

Post-secondary students are one of the highest users of transit, and that is recognized by the introduction of the U-Pass (Universities only) about a decade ago.

Ottawa politicians would have the opinion of "taxpayer money should be used for roads not transit" IF and only IF, that money would be used to serve urban riders. Extending rail dozens of kilometers to serve low-density suburbs is a fine use of taxpayer dollars.

For "too expensive", see above.

The City of Ottawa's philosophy seems to be, "if it's not crush-load, we're not getting our money's worth". However, I think a lot of people, for trains at least, will accept standing as long as they have room to breath. For buses, suburbanites seem to expect they'll get a seat.

I think that in Canada, most people view transit as a way to get suburban commuters to and from the central city at rush hour and this must be done at all costs with a minimum of transit investment in the central city (yes, an oxymoron). That's why Toronto continues to build lines that dump suburbanites on the overcapacity Yonge-University, that's why the Canada Line lacks capacity, stations in the central core and does not properly connect to Expo, that's why they are building the REM.

Urbanites are screaming for help as they drown, but politicians only hear suburban voters.

The suburban voters are now the majority. This is why they dominate in decision making. In many cases, traffic problems are now worse in the suburbs than they are in the central city.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The suburban voters are now the majority. This is why they dominate in decision making. In many cases, traffic problems are now worse in the suburbs than they are in the central city.

That's exactly what we see in Montréal. There's about 1.2M people living north of the island of Montreal. The A-15 has a AADT of more than 100,000 from Montréal to Saint-Jérôme. Saint-Jérôme is about 50km from downtown Montréal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

That's exactly what we see in Montréal. There's about 1.2M people living north of the island of Montreal. The A-15 has a AADT of more than 100,000 from Montréal to Saint-Jérôme. Saint-Jérôme is about 50km from downtown Montréal.

Yes, but in Ottawa the difference that was being referred to is in the city proper itself.

Since Ottawa merged with basically all of its suburbs, you have more people who are City of Ottawa taxpayers who live outside the Greenbelt than inside the Greenbelt which is the old city of Ottawa.

It's as if Montreal was merged not just with the on-island suburbs, but also Blainville, Laval, Mirabel, Terrebonne, Chambly, Lavaltrie, etc.

And that there were more voters and taxpayers from these suburbs than from the central part of the city, and therefore the City of Montreal's decisions were made not always taking into account the interests of Rosemont, NDG, Plateau, HoMa, etc.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree with the concept of multiple parallel medium capacity line as opposed to fewer high-capacity trunk lines however, there is a big difference between Canada's 15,000 phpd vs. TTC or STM's 40,000 phpd. I think that Expo and Millennium's 24,000 phpd (and Confederation, though capacity is right, low-floor light-rail was a mistake) is the sweet spot.

If a line opens with a ridership of 10,000 phpd (for example, Confederation), it could come close to the 24,000 phpd max very quickly with TOD alone.

From my perspective, only urban bus lines are considered "for poor people" even though plenty of middle-class citizens choose to live in the city and bus to avoid traffic and/or reduce their environmental foot print.

Post-secondary students are one of the highest users of transit, and that is recognized by the introduction of the U-Pass (Universities only) about a decade ago.

Ottawa politicians would have the opinion of "taxpayer money should be used for roads not transit" IF and only IF, that money would be used to serve urban riders. Extending rail dozens of kilometers to serve low-density suburbs is a fine use of taxpayer dollars.

For "too expensive", see above.

The City of Ottawa's philosophy seems to be, "if it's not crush-load, we're not getting our money's worth". However, I think a lot of people, for trains at least, will accept standing as long as they have room to breath. For buses, suburbanites seem to expect they'll get a seat.

I think that in Canada, most people view transit as a way to get suburban commuters to and from the central city at rush hour and this must be done at all costs with a minimum of transit investment in the central city (yes, an oxymoron). That's why Toronto continues to build lines that dump suburbanites on the overcapacity Yonge-University, that's why the Canada Line lacks capacity, stations in the central core and does not properly connect to Expo, that's why they are building the REM.

Urbanites are screaming for help as they drown, but politicians only hear suburban voters.

Looking at the future DRL, there was talk of it being LRT like. If they do that, it will be at crush load from opening minute. Even with the current Rocket subway cars, at the current length, during rush hour, it will be at crush load.

Transit city and all of the LRT stuff is a joke. EC when it opens will be at crush load at rush hour.

We have had decades of cutting costs and not expanding networks. Now, we are in a state of needing so much, but don't have the money or workers to build it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Looking at the future DRL, there was talk of it being LRT like. If they do that, it will be at crush load from opening minute. Even with the current Rocket subway cars, at the current length, during rush hour, it will be at crush load.

Transit city and all of the LRT stuff is a joke. EC when it opens will be at crush load at rush hour.

We have had decades of cutting costs and not expanding networks. Now, we are in a state of needing so much, but don't have the money or workers to build it.

When Queens Park says maybe not subway, they mean not interchangeable with the current TTC network. I seriously doubt they will go for the Ottawa solution, but if they do, it will be with a lot of learnings from Ottawa. In any case, it will be determined entirely by a P3 process it sounds like, with a bidder needing to meet a ppdph. Who cares what tech it is? As long as the planning threshold is correct it does not matter what the technology is, only that it works.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Looking at the future DRL, there was talk of it being LRT like. If they do that, it will be at crush load from opening minute. Even with the current Rocket subway cars, at the current length, during rush hour, it will be at crush load.

Transit city and all of the LRT stuff is a joke. EC when it opens will be at crush load at rush hour.

We have had decades of cutting costs and not expanding networks. Now, we are in a state of needing so much, but don't have the money or workers to build it.

Isn’t the problem the amount of development in downtown Toronto? Why allow all these condos and office towers when the inevitable result is a need for multi-billion dollar transportation projects just so that people can have the ability to move around? It seems self-inflicted (as someone who has witnessed this transformation over nearly 35 years as a downtown resident).

[MalcolmTucker]

Cluster agglomeration economies. There is a reason it makes sense to concentrate things in high price areas, and old policies to try to spread things out just made everyone poorer. It has taken time but finally after a decade, decade and a half of investment transportation is getting easier as projects come slowly on stream, and will continue to for another decade.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

When Queens Park says maybe not subway, they mean not interchangeable with the current TTC network. I seriously doubt they will go for the Ottawa solution, but if they do, it will be with a lot of learnings from Ottawa. In any case, it will be determined entirely by a P3 process it sounds like, with a bidder needing to meet a ppdph. Who cares what tech it is? As long as the planning threshold is correct it does not matter what the technology is, only that it works.

It is cheaper to buy 100 cars than 10. Having everythign the same gauge and the same construction means that you do not need to have multiple contracts to get more rolling stock. Ever been to Boston? Each line is a different type.

Originally Posted by Andy6

Isn’t the problem the amount of development in downtown Toronto? Why allow all these condos and office towers when the inevitable result is a need for multi-billion dollar transportation projects just so that people can have the ability to move around? It seems self-inflicted (as someone who has witnessed this transformation over nearly 35 years as a downtown resident).

Look around the world. Downtown cores are being built up. This makes them more vibrant and safer. The problem is, the transit hasn't kept up. Maybe the city should levy a development fee specifically for transit upgrades. By now, those areas might have streetcars, LRT or subway infrastructure.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

When Queens Park says maybe not subway, they mean not interchangeable with the current TTC network. I seriously doubt they will go for the Ottawa solution, but if they do, it will be with a lot of learnings from Ottawa. In any case, it will be determined entirely by a P3 process it sounds like, with a bidder needing to meet a ppdph. Who cares what tech it is? As long as the planning threshold is correct it does not matter what the technology is, only that it works.

In the Ottawa example, the winning bidder met the pphpd requirement (24,000) on paper however, the low-floor LRV proposed by the bid limits the number and placement of doors greatly compromising passenger flow in and out of the train and stations.

Of course the decision of low-floor LRV was made by the City before the tender went out. Supposedly, one of the three bidders proposed a Skytrain-type vehicle, which would have been far superior.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is cheaper to buy 100 cars than 10. Having everythign the same gauge and the same construction means that you do not need to have multiple contracts to get more rolling stock. Ever been to Boston? Each line is a different type.



Look around the world. Downtown cores are being built up. This makes them more vibrant and safer. The problem is, the transit hasn't kept up. Maybe the city should levy a development fee specifically for transit upgrades. By now, those areas might have streetcars, LRT or subway infrastructure.

If it is a p3 contract, you're going to have different maintenance facilities anyways. And after a certain threshold, there is little economy of scale for orders.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If it is a p3 contract, you're going to have different maintenance facilities anyways. And after a certain threshold, there is little economy of scale for orders.

Those contracts are not usually for more than 25 years. After that point, then the city might take it over. What then? That's about when new cars would be ordered.

[ssiguy]

I don't think Canadians view transit negatively at all. Even people in small towns and rural areas acknowledged it's importance to our bigger cities.

Canadians are not Americans. We view transit as an essential service like education and healthcare whereas Americans view it as a social service like welfare and food stamps with very few exceptions. In the US this is made even worse due to the issue of race where many whites vierw transit as a poor and black service and therefore shun it. Most Americans would rather be caught walking into a porn shop than boarding a bus. Americans are also far more individualistic than Canadians and the automobile plays into that mentality and public transit is the antithesis of it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Those contracts are not usually for more than 25 years. After that point, then the city might take it over. What then? That's about when new cars would be ordered.

Why does it matter? Toronto hates the SRT so much that any difference is automatically bad? Difference leads to indifference?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Isn’t the problem the amount of development in downtown Toronto? Why allow all these condos and office towers when the inevitable result is a need for multi-billion dollar transportation projects just so that people can have the ability to move around? It seems self-inflicted (as someone who has witnessed this transformation over nearly 35 years as a downtown resident).

If most of that development that you saw downtown over the last 35 years had happened in greenfield suburbia, chances are that billions would have been spent on multilane highways by now and no one would have raised a fuss over it.

[J.OT13]

I'll just leave this here.


https://twitter.com/heatshear/status/1203461773497634822

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by esquire

If most of that development that you saw downtown over the last 35 years had happened in greenfield suburbia, chances are that billions would have been spent on multilane highways by now and no one would have raised a fuss over it.

Do we not all understand by this point that providing infrastructure for dense development is orders of magnitude cheaper than providing it for sprawl? I understand why clueless lay people don't understand this, but urban enthusiasts who've spent significant time on sites like this should not have to even ask that.

What makes it incredibly ironic is that a lack of the infrastructure necessary to support sprawl - namely large roads and expressways - is why so many people find living downtown attractive. They'd otherwise be wasting huge amounts of time sitting in traffic.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Do we not all understand by this point that providing infrastructure for dense development is orders of magnitude cheaper than providing it for sprawl? I understand why clueless lay people don't understand this, but urban enthusiasts who've spent significant time on sites like this should not have to even ask that.

What makes it incredibly ironic is that a lack of the infrastructure necessary to support sprawl - namely large roads and expressways - is why so many people find living downtown attractive. They'd otherwise be wasting huge amounts of time sitting in traffic.

The first time I read esquire's comments, I came off with the impression that he was saying that most people are so used to living suburban lifestyle that they feel entitled to see mega highways expanded to their area.

By the way, I saw the map that you showed which proposes a subway for 3rd link between Dartmouth and Halifax. Did you come up with that? It looks really good.

[Coldrsx]

Edmonton's WLRT moves forward.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-n...m-councillor-to-rescind-approved-funding

[p_xavier]

Financing for 5 new transit lines in QC agreed on.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/polit...ebec-accord-entre-trudeau-et-legault.php