The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I wouldn't call it useless. The success of Montreal's Metro is largely thanks to its density, serving the urban core very well instead of stretching thin in order to serve as far into the suburbs as possible, which seems to be the underlining goal of all other Canadian rapid transit system.

What is the Blue Line's ridership? I was unable to find it.

From Montreal's 2008 Transport Plan (http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/d...A/DOCUMENTS/PLAN_DE_TRANSPORT_2008_0.PDF p. 75) it was 30,000 users but it's probably higher since this represents only 2500 users daily per station (very low for a metro line). The Anjou extension by itself is said to have a ridership of 25,000 during the morning peak period.

The Blue line could be a highly serviceable east-west link and it will get closer to that with the eastern extension into Anjou. I believe it should also be extended west into NDG and Montreal West commuter rail station (connecting with Concordia University's Loyola Campus) which would make it even more useful. The 51 bus line connecting Montreal-West to Snowdon and continuing all the way to Laurier is the fourth busiest in the city.

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli

What does Fairview have to do with the blue line? Its in Point-Claire.

I believe Rico might have been confusing with the Galeries d'Anjou which is partly owned by Cadillac Fairview

[Darkoshvilli]

Is there even any consideration for the blue line to be extended west? I never hear anything about it.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Darkoshvilli

Is there even any consideration for the blue line to be extended west? I never hear anything about it.

There was in the 1970's (it appeared on a few maps) but it was never seriously considered, no.

When you look at the ridership of all the bus lines in NDG it's surprising that it never was though.

Line 51's ridership is mostly concentrated between Montreal West and Snowdon with frequencies every two minutes during peak. The 105 is also very well used as is the 103 on Monkland.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

From Montreal's 2008 Transport Plan (http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/d...A/DOCUMENTS/PLAN_DE_TRANSPORT_2008_0.PDF p. 75) it was 30,000 users but it's probably higher since this represents only 2500 users daily per station (very low for a metro line). The Anjou extension by itself is said to have a ridership of 25,000 during the morning peak period.

The Blue line could be a highly serviceable east-west link and it will get closer to that with the eastern extension into Anjou. I believe it should also be extended west into NDG and Montreal West commuter rail station (connecting with Concordia University's Loyola Campus) which would make it even more useful. The 51 bus line connecting Montreal-West to Snowdon and continuing all the way to Laurier is the fourth busiest in the city.


I believe Rico might have been confusing with the Galeries d'Anjou which is partly owned by Cadillac Fairview

Probably 2500 incremental users? Others will be shifted from their current train-bus transfers to either walkers, or new train-bus transfers.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Probably 2500 incremental users? Others will be shifted from their current train-bus transfers to either walkers, or new train-bus transfers.

I think it's the amount of people who actually enter the station to use it (entrants in French), since it's hard to know if the people that leave the station have transferred from another line or not.

[jigglysquishy]

Is there any support for expanding the yellow line further into Longueuil ? Or completing the orange line as a loop in Laval?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Is there any support for expanding the yellow line further into Longueuil ? Or completing the orange line as a loop in Laval?

Not anymore.

The Longueuil extension will be covered by a tram project on Taschereau Blvd called LÉÉO (currently under study) while the preferred project for the west branch of the Orange line is an extension all the way to Notre-Dame/Curé-Labelle in Laval, but no loop. They should have brought it all the way to Carrefour Laval (Laval's office/commercial hub) but anyway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I think it's the amount of people who actually enter the station to use it (entrants in French), since it's hard to know if the people that leave the station have transferred from another line or not.

I would assume. The 30,000 figure, even 12 years ago seems low, unless it's entries only. No way does the Blue Line in Montreal have a lower ridership than the Sheppard in Toronto.

[foolworm]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-airport-train-route-council-1.5625433

A bit more detail on Calgary's proposed airport line, pretty ambitious.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by foolworm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-airport-train-route-council-1.5625433

A bit more detail on Calgary's proposed airport line, pretty ambitious.

Well now Calgary has two competing visions for an airport line between the commuter rail serving the airport-downtown-Banff and this people mover that connects to two LRT lines that won't be built/extended for at a decade+.

I personally think the commuter line is the better plan, providing fast and direct airport-downtown service. That doesn't preclude an eventual people mover, which could be useful to connect the two LRT lines, but also a few extra stations to connect parking and hotel facilities in between. That project though could be placed on hold for a 10-20 years while more important/useful infrastructure is built.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-airport-train-route-council-1.5625433

A bit more detail on Calgary's proposed airport line, pretty ambitious.

So we get a "people mover" (why call it that, when the Skytrain like system it says it is is never referred to as such) that does not go downtown and only connects to a far out LRT station in the NE or an unlikely potential streetcar station on the Green Line. For $1.8B.

Or there is potential for a proper rail line that goes direct to downtown and to Canmore and Banff. For probably similar amounts of money.

The city plan is pointless, for now. If in 20 years time there is a need to have a cross city line serving low density suburbs, we can look at it then.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Well now Calgary has two competing visions for an airport line between the commuter rail serving the airport-downtown-Banff and this people mover that connects to two LRT lines that won't be built/extended for at a decade+.

I personally think the commuter line is the better plan, providing fast and direct airport-downtown service. That doesn't preclude an eventual people mover, which could be useful to connect the two LRT lines, but also a few extra stations to connect parking and hotel facilities in between. That project though could be placed on hold for a 10-20 years while more important/useful infrastructure is built.

This.

[milomilo]

Funny, in this instance they've claimed (in my opinion, correctly) an automated rail line has significant cost and service benefits over LRT. Yet for the Green Line, it was never even considered and the crappiness of running an LRT at street level with bus shelter stations was considered a "benefit".

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Well now Calgary has two competing visions for an airport line between the commuter rail serving the airport-downtown-Banff and this people mover that connects to two LRT lines that won't be built/extended for at a decade+.

I don't know about competing, since this APM assumes that a regional commuter / high speed rail line would have a station along the alignment corridor rather than a spur into the airport terminal, which would mean a transfer anyway.

Even if the CIB study recommends the latter, so what? It's not like airports must only be serviced by one rail line - for instance, Eglinton West proposes a connection to YYZ when the UP express already exists.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by foolworm

I don't know about competing, since this APM assumes that a regional commuter / high speed rail line would have a station along the alignment corridor rather than a spur into the airport terminal, which would mean a transfer anyway.

Even if the CIB study recommends the latter, so what? It's not like airports must only be serviced by one rail line - for instance, Eglinton West proposes a connection to YYZ when the UP express already exists.

There a pretty big difference in passenger volumes between Pearson and Calgary. Multiple multi-billion dollar transit connections to Calgary International is not warranted, unlike Pearson.

[Airboy]

A Walk along the Valley line downtown Edmonton yesterday.

[IMG]MVIMG_20200624_120114 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]MVIMG_20200624_120259 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]2020-06-25_10-25-28 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]2020-06-25_10-25-13 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]MVIMG_20200624_120711 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]MVIMG_20200624_121059 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]2020-06-25_10-24-47 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]2020-06-25_10-24-57 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/[/url], on Flickr[/IMG]

[jigglysquishy]

What was the logic in Edmonton doing the south east leg before the west leg to West Edmonton Mall?

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

There a pretty big difference in passenger volumes between Pearson and Calgary. Multiple multi-billion dollar transit connections to Calgary International is not warranted, unlike Pearson.

Perhaps not today, but can you say the same in 20 or 30 years? That's the whole point of planning - if the need never materializes that's fine, but if it does then at least there's a plan.

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

What was the logic in Edmonton doing the south east leg before the west leg to West Edmonton Mall?

It was the easier section to build and Mill Woods needed it more.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

There a pretty big difference in passenger volumes between Pearson and Calgary. Multiple multi-billion dollar transit connections to Calgary International is not warranted, unlike Pearson.

One thing Calgary does reasonably well is mapping out corridors, station sites, infrastructure sites and then reserving them. Corridors for the outlying sections of the Green Line were reserved in city planning in the 80s and will only be built out over the next 15, 20 years. Save a lot of money and conflict compared to trying to shoe horn things in later (the green line central section goes through older parts of the city which is why it has been much harder to manage the dollar versus quality tradeoff). The West LRT and last NE expansions were built 25-30 years after the corridors were reserved.


Also, the Pearson Link was first seriously considered when passenger numbers were around 24 million a year in the early 2000s. Calgary in 2019 had 18 million. Calgary's passenger traffic is higher today than YVRs when the Canada Line was built. Now does Calgary have the traffic issues for airport to downtown travel that Vancouver and Toronto have? No. But not a reason to not plan.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Should have just built a light metro



Udem is not the second biggest in the country, UofT UBC and York are all bigger at least by student numbers




THe Finch LRT is not a "potential project", major construction is already underway!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P5bbRi3anc

This is a weird chart. Shows UdeM second but it shows fewer enrolled students.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-largest-universities-in-canada-by-enrollment.html