The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm not sure that working from home will become the new normal. Anecdotally a lot of teams are suffering from productivity loss right now (although this may also have to do with growing anxiety and mental stress because we're all cooped up in the midst of a pandemic).

I've done a mix of full or part time working from home and my ideal was always something like 3 days in the office per week (MWF). I have a reasonable amount of space at home and no children. I tend to prefer going in to the office on Mondays in particular.

I do think that being home so much due to the pandemic makes working from home less appealing. When I work from home, I try to go out more during my free time. Some people work in coffee shops or shared office spaces near where they live, and those options aren't available right now.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by someone123

I do think that being home so much due to the pandemic makes working from home less appealing. When I work from home, I try to go out more during my free time. Some people work in coffee shops or shared office spaces near where they live, and those options aren't available right now.

There's always been a mantra about separating worklife from personal life and it rings true for WFH, too. Home should be an escape from work pressure, or career pressure, or anything else, and when you bring that work into the home it simply makes home less appealing and enjoyable.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

Depends, as an introvert I've never been better. I need to work during nightime with other people for the next two weeks and I don't miss socialising one bit.

I am an introvert too, but I valued the social interaction on the job. I loved to work at home where I could focus but not every day.

[Dengler Avenue]

Ha, WFH, SSP is my escape.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There's always been a mantra about separating worklife from personal life and it rings true for WFH, too. Home should be an escape from work pressure, or career pressure, or anything else, and when you bring that work into the home it simply makes home less appealing and enjoyable.

I saw the blurring of work life and personal life starting to show up, when it was suggested that people start using their personal phones to call customers from home and that bills would be reimbursed. I thought that was a bad development.

Some people will thrive with working from home, some will end up letting work interfere with personal time, while others will take advantage of it and use it mostly as extra time off. There was evidence of all three situations at my work place as the COVID crisis developed.

[Nouvellecosse]

For me, whether or not I enjoy working at home can vary significantly depending on how busy work is at the time. When it gets really busy I hate it because I don't have the same ergonomics in my set up and I don't like having stress psychologically associated with my home spaces. Fortunately work has been very quiet during the shut down.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Surprised nobody mentioned, the area isn't conducive to TOD like other areas on the route which have TOD planned for them. It's an industrial area where building a big parking lot isn't nearly as frustrating.

Any TOD slated for Davies will be commercial / retail only - TOD doesn't necessarily have to include residential although that has commonly been the case. Part of the site is also a buried creekbed that the City eventually hopes to daylight, which precludes further development.

The parking lots in Mill Woods are owned by the mall, which has ambitious plans to develop the area. Edmonton's policy is to eventually move all Park'n'Rides to the outer suburban areas, and the intent is to build a permanent facility as part of a future expansion.

There are many interesting quirks with the various Canadian municipal rail systems. Edmonton operates a Stadtbahn while Calgary runs a tram-train system, Calgary's downtown transit corridor with its staggered stations that elevate city sidewalks to platform level, Waterloo's one-ways and shared freight service, Ottawa's bargain-bin single-track Trillium line...

Canada is also a pioneer (albeit an unsung one) of early BRT systems. Ottawa set the standard for dedicated bus corridors with its Transitways, while Quebec City had a budget alternative with Metrobus running on dedicated lanes on major roads. The Confederation Line is, as far as I'm aware, the first full-scale system upgrade of a network from road to rail - I've only been aware of sectional upgrades like Seattle's downtown tunnel previously. It's also full circle for Ottawa, since the Transitways were in good part repurposed rail corridors in the first place.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There's always been a mantra about separating worklife from personal life and it rings true for WFH, too. Home should be an escape from work pressure, or career pressure, or anything else, and when you bring that work into the home it simply makes home less appealing and enjoyable.

That's a very valid point. Your home has always been your oasis from work and the hectic outside world. That said I think that is less so than it use to be.

Right now people may not have any kids to interrupt them and most certainly their significant other is at work while you are at home. There is also a reprieve from the office politics and gossip that is a refreshing change. Added to this is the joy of not having to spend hours in you car or on the bus.

When working from home that is also usually not an exclusive thing. Most people who work from home do it the majority of time but not all the time. They usually still have to go to the office once or twice a week at least so it's not like they are isolated all the time.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Calgary can probably triple its capacity, perhaps more, whenever it needs to by building the red line tunnel. Spending that money in the future when we need to is much more preferable to spending 40 years ago when we didn't need it.

You could argue that building it earlier in the system's history would've been cheaper and easier (given less development Downtown at the time) then waiting 40+ years later. I suspect the cost to build the tunnel nowadays would be much more expensive, even with inflation, than back in the 80s.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Harrison

You could argue that building it earlier in the system's history would've been cheaper and easier (given less development Downtown at the time) then waiting 40+ years later. I suspect the cost to build the tunnel nowadays would be much more expensive, even with inflation, than back in the 80s.

There is the opportunity cost on the political side though. Limited system with less of an appetite for expansion funded by the city itself held the system back in the dark years before provincial funding started again in ~2000.

[Chadillaccc]

That’s what happened with Edmonton building their tunnel first, when they needed it less than even Calgary did at the time. That’s a big part of why the Edmonton LRT is less than half the length of the CTrain and is only now, 40 years later, starting to catch up.

I’d say Calgary already needs the 8th Avenue Subway, but what with the mismanagement of the Green Line, I doubt we will see an official proposal for the red line tunnel until 2030 at best. Once it is built though, the system will have the leeway to carry around a million passengers per day in the future. It already carries 350 000 with both lines using the 7 Avenue Transit Mall (near capacity at this point), so once the Red Line is underground, the Blue Line will have the entire capacity for 7 Avenue indefinitely. With the Red Line going underground downtown, it can expand to 5-car trains (no longer being limited by the length of city-blocks), and have the capacity for around 400 000+ per day. Then add in the Green Line, Red Line south expansion, Blue line north and west expansions, and future Purple Line (17 Ave SE to Chestermere) and you’ve got a f*cking beastly system.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Canada is also a pioneer (albeit an unsung one) of early BRT systems. Ottawa set the standard for dedicated bus corridors with its Transitways, while Quebec City had a budget alternative with Metrobus running on dedicated lanes on major roads. The Confederation Line is, as far as I'm aware, the first full-scale system upgrade of a network from road to rail - I've only been aware of sectional upgrades like Seattle's downtown tunnel previously. It's also full circle for Ottawa, since the Transitways were in good part repurposed rail corridors in the first place.

As an Ottawan, I would make the argument that the Transitway BRT, as implemented, was a terrible idea. By using wholly separated corridors in most areas, capital costs skyrocketed to not far off what LRT would cost, yet operating costs were higher (as buses cost more to run per pax than trains do). I wouldn't be surprised if over the whole 1983-2019 period (the Transitway age), the total capital + operating costs ended up being higher than what they would have been if they just built a Calgary-style LRT instead.

The much-vaunted "flexibility" of the BRT system, the ability to have bus routes running directly from Transitway corridors onto city streets, ended up being a bad thing rather than a good thing as it made the system massively less efficient.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That’s what happened with Edmonton building their tunnel first, when they needed it less than even Calgary did at the time. That’s a big part of why the Edmonton LRT is less than half the length of the CTrain and is only now, 40 years later, starting to catch up.

I’d say Calgary already needs the 8th Avenue Subway, but what with the mismanagement of the Green Line, I doubt we will see an official proposal for the red line tunnel until 2030 at best. Once it is built though, the system will have the leeway to carry around a million passengers per day in the future. It already carries 350 000 with both lines using the 7 Avenue Transit Mall (near capacity at this point), so once the Red Line is underground, the Blue Line will have the entire capacity for 7 Avenue indefinitely. With the Red Line going underground downtown, it can expand to 5-car trains (no longer being limited by the length of city-blocks), and have the capacity for around 400 000+ per day. Then add in the Green Line, Red Line south expansion, Blue line north and west expansions, and future Purple Line (17 Ave SE to Chestermere) and you’ve got a f*cking beastly system.

If Ottawa comes with pockets open, do you really think that Calgary would let that go by?

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by CityTech

As an Ottawan, I would make the argument that the Transitway BRT, as implemented, was a terrible idea. By using wholly separated corridors in most areas, capital costs skyrocketed to not far off what LRT would cost, yet operating costs were higher (as buses cost more to run per pax than trains do). I wouldn't be surprised if over the whole 1983-2019 period (the Transitway age), the total capital + operating costs ended up being higher than what they would have been if they just built a Calgary-style LRT instead.

The much-vaunted "flexibility" of the BRT system, the ability to have bus routes running directly from Transitway corridors onto city streets, ended up being a bad thing rather than a good thing as it made the system massively less efficient.

While you make valid points, it's a bit unfair to start making comparisons yet. Remember the system is new and in 20 years when all the wires and tracks have to start being replaced then the capitol costs become more reflective of the true costs of LRT.

Also, Ottawa had an excellent BRT-type system but with some major shortcomings that were totally the fault of the City. They could have reduced operating costs by employing double articulated buses which increases per-bus capacity by 25% and switching to electric buses which have far faster acceleration and are much quieter.

Added to this is that they never finished what they started by not building the downtown bus tunnel. If the current LRT didn't have a downtown tunnel, it too would crawl thru the downtown much like the buses and lose a lot of it's speed advantage.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If Ottawa comes with pockets open, do you really think that Calgary would let that go by?

Given our history I would not put it past this city to do exactly this.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While you make valid points, it's a bit unfair to start making comparisons yet. Remember the system is new and in 20 years when all the wires and tracks have to start being replaced then the capitol costs become more reflective of the true costs of LRT.

Also, Ottawa had an excellent BRT-type system but with some major shortcomings that were totally the fault of the City. They could have reduced operating costs by employing double articulated buses which increases per-bus capacity by 25% and not switching to electric buses which have far faster acceleration and are much quieter.

Added to this is that they never finished what they started by not building the downtown bus tunnel. If the current LRT didn't have a downtown tunnel, it too would crawl thru the downtown much like the buses and lose a lot of it's speed advantage.

That's why I said "Calgary-style" LRT. In a world where Ottawa had started building LRT instead of BRT in the 1970s and 1980s, but with the exact same corridors (ie. the grade separated ones outside the core, street running through it), we would have been better off. The higher up front capital costs would be more than made up for in significant operating savigns.

Though I will concede you have a point on the operating cost difference being at least partly the result of Ottawa's decisions on how to operate BRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

That's why I said "Calgary-style" LRT. In a world where Ottawa had started building LRT instead of BRT in the 1970s and 1980s, but with the exact same corridors (ie. the grade separated ones outside the core, street running through it), we would have been better off. The higher up front capital costs would be more than made up for in significant operating savigns.

Though I will concede you have a point on the operating cost difference being at least partly the result of Ottawa's decisions on how to operate BRT.

What operating savings? The launch of the Confederation Line with the corresponding bus service cuts beyond the downtown corridor suggested that operating costs of the rail line were actually higher than the bus service that it replaced. This is part of the mess that Ottawa experienced.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I really think making such a bold claim requires some evidence. For better or for worse Canada is actually pretty strict with who it lets immigrate (education and financial situation are big pieces of that), so simply saying immigrants typically can't afford cars is just and odd thing to say and I am pretty sure its not actually very accurate.

Potentially a more accurate rationale would be that a lot of places where our immigrants come from don't have North American car culture and hence people are much more accepting of public transit, something which I am happy about.

This is only anecdotal on my part, but some of the wealthiest people I’ve known are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, and the least wealthy people I know are what Stephen Harper called “old stock Canadians”.

I don’t believe immigrants as a whole are poor in this country, as Canada lets in a large number of economic immigrants, who have money and can support themselves.

I think that the stereotype of immigrants being poor is rooted to some degree in the immigration situation in the United States.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It is true that our social isolation will come to an end and people will go back to their restaurants, bars etc but those are fringe transit trips. The bread and butter of all transit systems are the 9 to 5 crowd and they are overwhelmingly NOT transit dependent.

As hundreds of thousands of workers switch over to work-at-home arrangements, those are riders that will never come back.

Myself, I foresee that I will go back to an office, but not 5 days a week - more likely 1-3 days a week. I am fine with WFH temporarily during the pandemic, but I have no interest in making it a permanent 5-day-a-week arrangement for several reasons. I am not as productive at home as I am in an office. To some extent that’s because of slower home Internet, and I’m not upgrading it unless the company wants to pay for the upgrade. I have also found collaboration with other employees to be more difficult over the phone or virtually. There’s also the social aspect; when you’re single in your 30s like me, the office is the only place to meet others and have that repeated regular interaction that helps build relationships. I’ve never really liked virtual interaction with others (despite being a frequent forum poster here for nearly 15 years).

This all said, I expect to drive to work going forward. I don’t really want to go back on crowded public transit anytime soon. I’ll still use it for incidental evening/weekend trips, particularly to avoid drinking and driving, but not for commuting.

[Dengler Avenue]

Lol, should I say... may you find love, in Vancouver...? Girls are more good-looking there than here too, says my friend who went to both high school and university with me. This is coming from someone who's starting to treat romance like a fable too.
(Okay, I hope I don't get banned for the stuff I just said.)