The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

It really depends. Probably more. The BRT needs much larger stations, and at least for the model Ottawa uses (lots of branch routes using the tunnel), huge air handling capacity, at least for projects designed pre-2010 or so. Wider tunnels to account for likely non guided operations. Subtract new electrical substations if your sticking with diesel.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Underground diesel human driven BRT will vary significantly in cost due to local building code (ventilation, lane shoulder requirements), depth (station, ventilation, and emergency exit costs), and number of stations.

That said, SR-99 in Seattle (opened 2019) is the most recent North American comparable and cost about $1B (2019 USD $'s) per km. The highway has more lanes in the tunnel than you might need (2 lanes per direction) but does not have any station stops, maintenance facilities, or rolling stock.


For LRT in Canada I think Eglinton is the more expensive with capital costs of about $480M (2015 CAD $'s) per km for the tunnel portion. That includes stations, most of the maintenance facility, and rolling stock.


Underground BRT gets considerably cheaper if it's electric (see Boston Silver line) and an automated guideway (Montreal metro?).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Here are Ottawa's 2008 cost estimates for different types of tunnels, page 92:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...ntown%20Transit%20Final%2014%20April.pdf

A BRT tunnel was estimated at $780 million vs $555 million for LRT. A shared bus-rail tunnel would have been far more expensive at $1.032 billion.

The 2.5 kilometre tunnel ended up costing around $500 million. The lower cost was achieved thanks to a shorter and shallower route, along with shorter platforms. Initially, the tunnel was supposed to be around 3.2 kilometres, with 4 stations and 180 meter platforms bored 40 meters underground vs 3 stations, 120 meter platforms and 15-26 meter deep mined tunnel.

The original proposed tunnel would probably have been $1 billion+. The City and its consultants have a bad track record with cost estimates.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...a-2-5-km-rail-tunnel-under-its-downtown/

[Acajack]

I am not sure it would have been a bargain compared to LRT, but there is a good chance that it could have led to more of Ottawa getting rapid transit, and sooner that it will under the current plans.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Winnipeg's issue is traffic congestion. Combine that with a city full of drivers and a piss-poor "big" BRT release for Phase 1 and you have yourself an extremely hard sell to the tax-payers on the Bus Only lanes in downtown. The extension into downtown will need to be a proper grade-separated extension otherwise the city is going to kill rapid transit if it ends up continues constructing mediocre connections.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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.

Winnipeg is not converting to LRT anytime soon.

Winnipeg's issue is lack of ridership. We will see what happens after cities open up again since the phase 2 BRT will have a working population to gauge ridership.

[esquire]

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.

You can't really judge SW BRT by the short segment that was in operation for the past eight years, prior to the opening of the stretch from Jubilee to Markham last month. Even though the gestation period was absurdly long, the line was effectively born on April 12, 2020.

I'm not holding up SW BRT as a model of great project management or political leadership on transit projects because it clearly isn't. But operationally I'm not seeing any real problems with it. I'm not prepared to write the whole thing off because the last mile into downtown is on a diamond lane instead of on a separate road, and the last half mile into the university campus is on the street.

[foolworm]

Regardless, talking about what-ifs is unproductive because such discussion often devolves into critiques of certain choices without appreciation of the context in which they were made or due consideration of the merits. Ottawa should have gone for LRT, Calgary should have built that downtown tunnel, Edmonton should have built more LRT....

Did Waterloo release any ridership numbers for 2019?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by 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.)

I’ve been banned for less than that on several Reddit subs.

[Doady]

The problem with BRT in Ottawa was the amount of snow. Articulated buses can't operate well in snow. Winnipeg gets only half the amount of snow as Ottawa so BRT should not have as much problems.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by rbt

Underground diesel human driven BRT will vary significantly in cost due to local building code (ventilation, lane shoulder requirements), depth (station, ventilation, and emergency exit costs), and number of stations.

That said, SR-99 in Seattle (opened 2019) is the most recent North American comparable and cost about $1B (2019 USD $'s) per km. The highway has more lanes in the tunnel than you might need (2 lanes per direction) but does not have any station stops, maintenance facilities, or rolling stock.


For LRT in Canada I think Eglinton is the more expensive with capital costs of about $480M (2015 CAD $'s) per km for the tunnel portion. That includes stations, most of the maintenance facility, and rolling stock.


Underground BRT gets considerably cheaper if it's electric (see Boston Silver line) and an automated guideway (Montreal metro?).

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Here are Ottawa's 2008 cost estimates for different types of tunnels, page 92:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycou...ntown%20Transit%20Final%2014%20April.pdf

A BRT tunnel was estimated at $780 million vs $555 million for LRT. A shared bus-rail tunnel would have been far more expensive at $1.032 billion.

The 2.5 kilometre tunnel ended up costing around $500 million. The lower cost was achieved thanks to a shorter and shallower route, along with shorter platforms. Initially, the tunnel was supposed to be around 3.2 kilometres, with 4 stations and 180 meter platforms bored 40 meters underground vs 3 stations, 120 meter platforms and 15-26 meter deep mined tunnel.

The original proposed tunnel would probably have been $1 billion+. The City and its consultants have a bad track record with cost estimates.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...a-2-5-km-rail-tunnel-under-its-downtown/

It does look like the short Central Transitway tunnel would have been cheaper. However, I don't think that it would be a good idea. If they had built the tunnel when this was built in the 80s/90s, then, maybe it would have been worth it. The fact that it can run 15 trains an hour and still match the former service, and that is not the max capacity of the line, that tells me that doing what they have done is good, in the long run.

Originally Posted by scryer

Winnipeg's issue is traffic congestion. Combine that with a city full of drivers and a piss-poor "big" BRT release for Phase 1 and you have yourself an extremely hard sell to the tax-payers on the Bus Only lanes in downtown. The extension into downtown will need to be a proper grade-separated extension otherwise the city is going to kill rapid transit if it ends up continues constructing mediocre connections.

Winnipeg is not converting to LRT anytime soon.

Winnipeg's issue is lack of ridership. We will see what happens after cities open up again since the phase 2 BRT will have a working population to gauge ridership.

Oh, the ironies. Ottawa had about the same population with their Transitway opened as Winnipeg had then theirs opened.

The downtown section has ever been grade separated in Ottawa. Almost 40 years later, it finally is. It has been gradually expanded to what it is now, and is now in a process of being converted to LRT.

Will it take 40 years for Winnipeg to get an LRT? Likely not. However, that does not mean that theirs is a failure. The last mile is what everyone talks about. If Winnipeg can follow the footprints of Ottawa and build bus routes that fix the last mile that then dump onto their RT, it actually might be better. It is a better idea of a parking garage. The car should be at home, as if it is driven to a parking garage, many will just keep going.

[J.OT13]

Here's a little history on Ottawa's Central Transitway solutions from the 80s and early 90s.

That “later stage” came in the late 1980’s in the form of a proposal to grade-separate the Transitway through downtown with a bus tunnel. At the time, the Regional government presented a study in which two main options were considered: one was to elevate the Transitway above Albert and Slater streets; the other was for a twin bus tunnels under both those streets.

The elevated option was rejected for a variety of reasons, none least because of its profoundly disruptive effect on the north-south vistas to the Parliamentary precinct and several other national monuments and landmarks, as the illustration below shows (a view on Elgin Street looking north to the War Memorial):

Elevated option, corner of Elgin and Albert.

The twin-tunnel was carried forward as the recommended way to go. It would have featured four underground bus stations (Bay, Bank, Metcalfe and Rideau), with the alignment then following the existing Transitway south toward Campus station in an open cut that gently rose above ground.

Twin tunnels under Albert and Slater (where the surface central Transitway ran for 40 years).

Two things killed this project, both political. At the time, as is the case today, the debate over the future of rapid transit was emotionally charged and funding was a major issue. Then-Ottawa Mayor Jim Durrell, during a media scrum, made the tactical mistake of letting his guard down, impatiently remarking that “costs were irrelevant”. Durrell, for all his visionary leadership, did not properly read the public concern about the money that this project was going to cost. His main argument that the tunnel was a city-building initiative and that it was being designed for conversion to rail, was instantly lost with that comment. The media had a field day with his statement.

The other undoing of the Transitway tunnel was a statistical tidbit which claimed that the tunnel would save commuters an average of about four minutes in their crossing of downtown. This was grossly taken out of context by media columnists eager to exploit the burning controversy over the project. The time savings may have been an “average” of four minutes, but during peak times buses were already experiencing severe delays going through the core. Regardless, for the media, hundreds of millions of dollars for four minutes became a mantra. For better or for worse, the bus tunnel project was slowly and painfully put to death.

Worth reading the entire article detailing the history of subway proposals in Ottawa, starting with a 1915 proposal for a streetcar tunnel, and ending with a defense for the tunnel that was eventually built and opened last year.

http://spacing.ca/ottawa/2010/01/26/the-history-of-the-ottawa-subway/

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[SkahHigh]

Today montrealers bid farewell to Canada’s only electrified commuter rail line, the Deux-Montagnes line, after 102 years of service. It will be converted to light metro as part of the REM in 2022.


Pic by me

[Rico Rommheim]

Wow that was the only one this country had ever had. What a pity.

[Nouvellecosse]

I suppose for sentimental reasons its a little sad, but it's kinda hard to see a service upgrade as a pity lol. Lets just hope the routes with pending electrification in Toronto move forward quickly.

[Rico Rommheim]

Oh no, by a pity I meant it was pathetic that we only has one such line in the ENTIRE country. Especially à wealthy country with cheap and readily available electricity.

[Nouvellecosse]

Oh for sure! And even that was only electrified because they were basically forced by the tunnel.

[Rico Rommheim]

We've been very cheap and lazy in this country. It's like we don't care.

[Doady]

I'm not sure how much Canada really needs commuter rail, let alone electrified. Even in Montreal, the ridership of the Exo trains is nothing compared to the STM, STL and RTL. If we don't care about electrified commuter rail, we are right not to.

We have great transit ridership all over Canada, in cities big and small. If you want to dismiss the country as very unwilling to spend on transit because of lack of electrified commuter rail lines, maybe the high ridership is just the result of high rates of immigration or something, then more power to you I guess.

[Nouvellecosse]

A lack of electrified commuter rail means the country is unwilling to invest in commuter rail electrification not that it's "very unwilling to spend on transit." But of course its very true that Crawford types who don't see a major connection between improved service and increased ridership would probably assume that there's no point in investing in upgrades to a service unless ridership is high already.

Although I would caution against comparing urban and suburban system ridership by the same metric. Measuring solely by the number of riders or trips is more flattering to urban systems with more people taking shorter trips vs suburban systems where fewer people are taking longer trips. For instance, a 5km line with a stop every km, each where 10 people get off and 10 get on will have 5x greater ridership than one where 10 people got on and rode the full 5km even though it's providing just as much service. Plus suburban systems generally aren't able to get as crowded because people need seats for the longer trips. So even if both systems are running at "full capacity", the suburban/commuter system will look less impressive on paper. Better to compare using riders kms of service provided.

And of course suburban systems generally don't need as much ridership in order to justify themselves because they're usually less expensive. I mean, compare the cost of electrifying a 30km commuter rail line with 10 stops, vs a building a 30km underground metro line with 30 stations.