The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[foolworm]

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.

I would contend that the additional operating cost of buses would have been absorbed into the overall transit fleet - Ottawa doesn't run anything fancy in terms of buses, and even the articulated and double-decker units are off-the-shelf.

What I will say is that Ottawa had a much earlier and sustained spike in ridership levels once the system was in place. I would say that the Transitway helped to create and promote a culture of transit, and therefore by a service metric (as opposed to expense / profitability) it was money well spent.

It's interesting to note that Calgary also recently overhauled its BRT network for a similar amount to what Ottawa spent on the Transitway in the first place. Even acknowledging that 30+ years of inflation means a lot less bang for the buck, the final product is quite modest.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

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.

I couldnt agree more! People talk too much about the US situation and try to apply it to Canada when it has no real bearing on our landscape.

I should mention there are immigrant groups that are temporarily poor, but thats because they are in the process of waiting for their credentials/degree to transfer and/or finishing up their education in Canada. Probably the most common example of this is Filipino nurses who have to temporarily work as nannies.

Old stock Canadians, especially males, have experienced a huge decline in median income as their work has been largely absorbed by automation and AI, restructured and/or outsourced.

The only old stock Canadians who are wealthy are the extreme top 1% who are wealthy have inherited their wealth, like the Rogers or Westons. And these elite Canadians are generally working as hard as they can to replace jobs with AI and automation as opposed to helping regular people get ahead.

[Acajack]

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 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.

We will never know what Ottawa's optimal BRT system would have looked like and how it would have performed because as others have said, the downtown transit tunnel was never built.

The downtown bus-only lanes were experiencing major service "failures" by the early 1990s yet no progress was ever made on the downtown tunnel missing link.

No one talks about it anymore but if the tunnel had been built back then the city would have moved on to other things long ago and you might have functional Transitway BRT corridors all over the city by now.

Providing a form of rapid transit to way more of the city and its residents that even the ultimate LRT network will.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We will never know what Ottawa's optimal BRT system would have looked like and how it would have performed because as others have said, the downtown transit tunnel was never built.

The downtown bus-only lanes were experiencing major service "failures" by the early 1990s yet no progress was ever made on the downtown tunnel missing link.

No one talks about it anymore but if the tunnel had been built back then the city would have moved on to other things long ago and you might have functional Transitway BRT corridors all over the city by now.

Providing a form of rapid transit to way more of the city and its residents that even the ultimate LRT network will.

Seems like Canada just doesn't have a good track record with effective BRT systems. Winnipeg's system is a failure and it seems like the Ottawa BRT was a failure as well to an extent.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by scryer

Seems like Canada is just not fit to implement properly realized BRT solutions. Winnipeg's system is a failure and it seems like the Ottawa BRT was a failure as well to an extent.

What makes you say that? The second phase literally just opened a couple of weeks ago...

[milomilo]

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.

It would more expensive to build today, but not enough to justify spending less money in 1981 rather than more in 2030+.

I hate the 7 Ave transitway, it's trash, makes the system unreliable and slow and our leaders downplay how awful it is. But still, going by actual numbers it's very hard to say not building the tunnel was a bad decision. If they chose to build it back then, it would have delayed the initial opening and future extensions. So despite not needing the red line tunnel today without it, if we'd built it we'd be even further away from needing it in ridership.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

It doesn't work like that though. Cities have to design a viable project to get funded, which takes years. If Calgary hasn't designed the Red Line tunnel, then they won't get money for it.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by esquire

What makes you say that? The second phase literally just opened a couple of weeks ago...

Uhhh.. it opened 8 years later after the first phase opened. And just because the second phase opened, doesn't mean that it's effective. I'll throw you a bone though: we won't know how effective the second phase will be for a while due to COVID-19.

Having approximately a decade inbetween phases isn't exactly good planning nevermind a system that mixes buses in with traffic at primary destinations.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by scryer

Uhhh.. it opened 8 years later after the first phase opened. And just because the second phase opened, doesn't mean that it's effective. I'll throw you a bone though: we won't know how effective the second phase will be for a while due to COVID-19.

Having approximately a decade inbetween phases isn't exactly good planning nevermind a system that mixes buses in with traffic at primary destinations.

I never said that the planning was great. The corridor was first proposed in 1976 if you can believe that. But to call it a failure we'd have to know that the finished product (such as it is) doesn't deliver and I don't know how anyone can conclude that at this stage. It isn't the mode's fault.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scryer

Seems like Canada just doesn't have a good track record with effective BRT systems. Winnipeg's system is a failure and it seems like the Ottawa BRT was a failure as well to an extent.

One could argue that Line 1 in Toronto is a failure due to how congested it is. I would argue that the congestion shows that the Transitways were a success. They were so successful that they needed to be built to higher order transit. Just like how Line 1 needs the DRL, the Transitways need the LRT.

What I would like to know is what the maximum pphpd is for a BRT and for an LRT. And then lets see when the Ottawa LRT surpasses the BRT limit.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One could argue that Line 1 in Toronto is a failure due to how congested it is. I would argue that the congestion shows that the Transitways were a success. They were so successful that they needed to be built to higher order transit. Just like how Line 1 needs the DRL, the Transitways need the LRT.

What I would like to know is what the maximum pphpd is for a BRT and for an LRT. And then lets see when the Ottawa LRT surpasses the BRT limit.

In terms of what the LRT's capacity is right now and what the Transitway was at the end of its life on that stretch, I believe they're about the same. Both around 10,000.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In terms of what the LRT's capacity is right now and what the Transitway was at the end of its life on that stretch, I believe they're about the same. Both around 10,000.

Did I ask that? No. I asked their max capacity. I then asked about when the LRT carries more than the max capacity of BRT.

That will be a good way to read the success of Ottawa's LRT.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Did I ask that? No. I asked their max capacity. I then asked about when the LRT carries more than the max capacity of BRT.

That will be a good way to read the success of Ottawa's LRT.

Acajack answered two of your three questions. The Transitways max capacity downtown was 10,000 phpd. Confederation was operating at around 10,000 phpd before Covid cuts.

Max capacity of Confederation according to the City is 24,000 phpd.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Acajack answered two of your three questions. The Transitways max capacity downtown was 10,000 phpd. Confederation was operating at around 10,000 phpd before Covid cuts.

Max capacity of Confederation according to the City is 24,000 phpd.

Then it is automatically a success. Any concerns about the growing pains is irrelevant to it's success, but should not be ignored.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Acajack answered two of your three questions. The Transitways max capacity downtown was 10,000 phpd. Confederation was operating at around 10,000 phpd before Covid cuts.

Max capacity of Confederation according to the City is 24,000 phpd.

Yeah, don't understand why I got a snarky reply...

[J.OT13]

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.

I think Calgary did the right move building the line on the surface initially, freeing-up capital for expansions. The Red Line tunnel though, should have been built in the 2000s, instead of lengthening surface platforms. At this point, it will be very hard to garner up the political will, especially with the Green Line as Chad mentioned.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

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.

Had we built LRT in the first place, we would only have needed to build a downtown tunnel in the 2010s for $500 million-$1 billion instead of spending nearly $5 billion (so far with Stage 2) to convert the Transitway.

I don't know how far we would have gone with the rail line compared to Calgary. The Transitway was built in sections all over, with huge gaps like the Ottawa River Parkway, which would have required a tunnel (another planned bus tunnel now being built as a rail tunnel).

It's impossible to know for sure how things would have turned out. Calgary is a good example; it had plans to build a tunnel downtown when capacity warranted, but hasn't even begun planning yet.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

That's because of the miss-management of OC Transpo and the project. Had we built the rail line in the 70s and 80s, it would have been better built with fewer problems and with less money (even after inflation). The bus system would have been adjusted at the time when ridership was low instead of the shit-show we had over the last 2 years.

[J.OT13]

A (poor quality) video showing the step-by-step construction of Ottawa's Airport Trillium Line Station and how it will connect to YOW. Video is only 50 seconds long.

• Video Link

[scryer]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One could argue that Line 1 in Toronto is a failure due to how congested it is. I would argue that the congestion shows that the Transitways were a success. They were so successful that they needed to be built to higher order transit. Just like how Line 1 needs the DRL, the Transitways need the LRT.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you (?) but Winnipeg definitely does not have congested transitways. The important bits of it is actually mixed with regular traffic so it is the actual main roads that the buses share with regular traffic, that's congested. So I don't think that we are talking about the same thing? I'm happy to listen to your clarifications .

Originally Posted by esquire

I never said that the planning was great. The corridor was first proposed in 1976 if you can believe that. But to call it a failure we'd have to know that the finished product (such as it is) doesn't deliver and I don't know how anyone can conclude that at this stage. It isn't the mode's fault.

Dude, construction started in 2008 for phase one (and operational in 2012). Construction for phase 2 has now completed in 2020. And what do you have to show for it? 12 years, 11km, and ~$605.3 million later you got:

- A system the still mixes in traffic to get to the U of M after the Stadium Station
- A system that mixes in Winnipeg's busiest streets to get to the U of W and downtown.
- A system that still doesn't connect the two most popular destinations (U of M and downtown) with a grade separated corridor even though construction on this route has been going on for 12 years for ~11km of infrastructure.
- Dedicated regular road infrastructure with an under pass and a few overpasses.
- Sparse TOD (at best) after 8 years in service.


The one saving grace at this point for Winnipeg's current BRT system would be if the suburban population suddenly uses the park and rides at Seel and Clarence stations as I sincerely think that Winnipeg's current BRT system isn't efficient or convenient enough to draw people out of their cars. And it would have to be a colossal amount of people using the park and rides regularly.

I'm not trying to shit on Winnipeg but the current model of its BRT is anything but a success story no matter which way you look at it or how long you want to wait and see. I'm trying my best to not be a complete jackass with this post but you already have 8 years of transit data to work with, and you need to start drawing some conclusions.

I just posted in the Winnipeg forums but I do strongly believe that the BRT system can be saved if it has a proper grade-separated connection to Union Station and Portage/Main. But as of right now, it is proper shite for all of the headache that's gone into it.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We will never know what Ottawa's optimal BRT system would have looked like and how it would have performed because as others have said, the downtown transit tunnel was never built.

The downtown bus-only lanes were experiencing major service "failures" by the early 1990s yet no progress was ever made on the downtown tunnel missing link.

No one talks about it anymore but if the tunnel had been built back then the city would have moved on to other things long ago and you might have functional Transitway BRT corridors all over the city by now.

Providing a form of rapid transit to way more of the city and its residents that even the ultimate LRT network will.

Ottawa could have done BRT right. It would have meant building the tunnel, and getting rid of all the direct expresses from the suburbs. The operating costs and overall efficiency would have been much better if they had operated the Transitway like a bus metro with local buses connecting to it instead of driving on it. the bus tunnel plan would have absolutely required this due to the extremely high cost of building underground platform space.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by scryer

Maybe I am misunderstanding you (?) but Winnipeg definitely does not have congested transitways. The important bits of it is actually mixed with regular traffic so it is the actual main roads that the buses share with regular traffic, that's congested. So I don't think that we are talking about the same thing? I'm happy to listen to your clarifications .

I was partly talking about Ottawa and their failure of the LRT that people think exists.

Hopefully the city of Winnipeg can put in Bus Only lanes.

Originally Posted by scryer

Dude, construction started in 2008 for phase one (and operational in 2012). Construction for phase 2 has now completed in 2020. And what do you have to show for it? 12 years, 11km, and ~$605.3 million later you got:

- A system the still mixes in traffic to get to the U of M after the Stadium Station
- A system that mixes in Winnipeg's busiest streets to get to the U of W and downtown.
- A system that still doesn't connect the two most popular destinations (U of M and downtown) with a grade separated corridor even though construction on this route has been going on for 12 years for ~11km of infrastructure.
- Dedicated regular road infrastructure with an under pass and a few overpasses.
- Sparse TOD (at best) after 8 years in service.


The one saving grace at this point for Winnipeg's current BRT system would be if the suburban population suddenly uses the park and rides at Seel and Clarence stations as I sincerely think that Winnipeg's current BRT system isn't efficient or convenient enough to draw people out of their cars. And it would have to be a colossal amount of people using the park and rides regularly.

I'm not trying to shit on Winnipeg but the current model of its BRT is anything but a success story no matter which way you look at it or how long you want to wait and see. I'm trying my best to not be a complete jackass with this post but you already have 8 years of transit data to work with, and you need to start drawing some conclusions.

I just posted in the Winnipeg forums but I do strongly believe that the BRT system can be saved if it has a proper grade-separated connection to Union Station and Portage/Main. But as of right now, it is proper shite for all of the headache that's gone into it.

Maybe this is a step towards an LRT. Maybe for some of these cities, but proving that their 'BRT' is overcrowded, they can then get the funding for an LRT network that is really needed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Ottawa could have done BRT right. It would have meant building the tunnel, and getting rid of all the direct expresses from the suburbs. The operating costs and overall efficiency would have been much better if they had operated the Transitway like a bus metro with local buses connecting to it instead of driving on it. the bus tunnel plan would have absolutely required this due to the extremely high cost of building underground platform space.

I wonder, per km, what the cost difference of the BRT tunnel and the LRT system is.