The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

of course, what we have here in Canada is a mentality where people move from high density areas when they are in their 20's, to much lower density areas when they reach their 30's and 40's. Even if you give them free transit, they want autonomy, tranquility and a backyard. They want SFH's, that is exactly what we see with the new WFH movement. Montréal will sprawl even more from now on. People are willing to drive 100-150 km (one way) if they only have to go to the office once or twice a week.

Imagine Mont-Tremblant becoming the commuting shed for Montreal and NCC...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Imagine Mont-Tremblant becoming the commuting shed for Montreal and NCC...

It's already happened or is happening in the area around St-Sauveur, anyway.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ue

Or Montreal, where the much heralded REM is basically just an airport connector and a bunch of suburban lines, while the Pink Line, or something that goes down St-Laurent or Parc through the western Plateau and to the Garment District (there's even a ROW already for the northern part of this) is de-prioritized. .

In fairness the REM is kinda a bit of both, though I'd agree it tilts more suburban.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ue

It's short-sighted and dumb to give better transit to people that aren't even going to use transit to the same extent as urban dwellers. If you look at some of the best rail transit systems in the world, like London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, etc they aren't a bunch of lines funneling into a core from the far reaches of suburbia (which I think Chicago best exemplifies), they're winding lines that go all over the central areas, efficiently connecting areas with high transit usage. Anyways, that's my rant lol.

The great transit cities of the world actually have both: dense urban systems that criss-cross the urban core plus commuter and suburban lines that radiate in all directions.

But in almost all cases it's true they addressed the urban core's needs first.

I think in the case of a city like Ottawa especially, given the path that's been chosen and how many decades are going to be committed to it, it's a valid question as to whether the urban core's needs will ever be addressed at all.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The great transit cities of the world actually have both: dense urban systems that criss-cross the urban core plus commuter and suburban lines that radiate in all directions.

But in almost all cases it's true they addressed the urban core's needs first.

I think in the case of a city like Ottawa especially, given the path that's been chosen and how many decades are going to be committed to it, it's a valid question as to whether the urban core's needs will ever be addressed at all.

Ottawa's urban core is still serviced fairly regularly by bus too. Maybe putting dedicated bus lanes on Bank and Rideau-Montreal might improve things at a fraction of the cost of dedicated light-rail.

That's the rub with suburban North American cities. The later they bloomed, the more the bulk of the population resides out of the core. For a late-bloomer city, Ottawa does well enough. I don't think the bang-per-buck for increasing service in the urban part of the city itself will accomplish much to increase overall transit usage.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's already happened or is happening in the area around St-Sauveur, anyway.

I've always been astonished by the number of cars from Ontario around the Mont Tremblant area on a Friday afternoon. Where are they from ?
Probably people from the Ottawa region. less than 2hrs drive

[ue]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

of course, what we have here in Canada is a mentality where people move from high density areas when they are in their 20's, to much lower density areas when they reach their 30's and 40's. Even if you give them free transit, they want autonomy, tranquility and a backyard. They want SFH's, that is exactly what we see with the new WFH movement. Montréal will sprawl even more from now on. People are willing to drive 100-150 km (one way) if they only have to go to the office once or twice a week.

Yeah, although Montreal has a less extreme single detached home fetish. There is a markedly larger inner city family population compared with other cities and the region has had a larger portion of its residential stock in multi-unit developments for longer (the triplexes). It's also more of a city of renters, like German cities.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The great transit cities of the world actually have both: dense urban systems that criss-cross the urban core plus commuter and suburban lines that radiate in all directions.

But in almost all cases it's true they addressed the urban core's needs first.

I think in the case of a city like Ottawa especially, given the path that's been chosen and how many decades are going to be committed to it, it's a valid question as to whether the urban core's needs will ever be addressed at all.

For sure, I should have phrased it better. Obviously Paris, Tokyo, et al have very good suburban rail networks, but they complement a base of dense urban metro lines that mostly predate this.

And yeah, Ottawa is planning so far in advance it does make you wonder if the central core areas will ever be addressed. But also, I doubt Ottawa will be sticking to 2010s plans 100% in the 2040s. The plans will change and adapt.

Originally Posted by wave46

Ottawa's urban core is still serviced fairly regularly by bus too. Maybe putting dedicated bus lanes on Bank and Rideau-Montreal might improve things at a fraction of the cost of dedicated light-rail.

That's the rub with suburban North American cities. The later they bloomed, the more the bulk of the population resides out of the core. For a late-bloomer city, Ottawa does well enough. I don't think the bang-per-buck for increasing service in the urban part of the city itself will accomplish much to increase overall transit usage.

While often ignored compared to Montreal, Toronto, Quebec City, and Hamilton, Ottawa does have a fairly substantial pre-war fabric. It isn't quite new in the same way that Calgary or Regina are.

[biguc]

As far as Ottawa goes, I actually like that the two lines meet outside of downtown. It's already bolstering a lot of development in the western side of the city, allowing Ottawa to develop a real big-city core, beyond downtown. With time, it should be comparable in expanse and general development pattern--if not intensity--to the core cities of Montreal and Toronto. Vancouver's Broadway subway should have a similar effect in pushing out the boundaries of the city core.

But, ue, I agree with you--more transit service should serve the cores of the city. This is why I'm somewhat passionate (as far as these things go) about that tram loop between Ottawa and Hull--it serves the centre of the city agglomeration, and it offers an amazing base from which to build tram lines out through central neighbourhoods, giving better transit service to people who live in existing urban areas.

Unfortunately, Canadian cities spent generations painting themselves into the corner by mistaking the slums at the gates for actual city building. Now, they need to get people from a broad area into a very concentrated city. Limiting personal vehicle traffic in the city is important to maintaining quality of life in the city. That means building over-extended suburban rail lines to try to pick off suburban traffic. Once you give the suburbs viable ingress to the city, you could presumably free up road space in the city for better transit. But quick transit to the suburbs is usually accomplished by bypassing city neighbourhoods, and it often comes with a reduction in existing service in those neighbourhoods.

This is particularly pronounced in Western Canada. The Alberta LRT systems thus far do little for central neighbourhoods. Winnipeg's BRT system is designed to consolidate existing bus routes into concentrated busways to the suburbs--a strategy that has already left her best neighbourhood starved of on-street bus service. Translink is a mother bird feeding a nest of squawking suburbs regurgitated Skytrain, with no plan to connect the city's hulking West End to the metro system.



The best transit is convenient and predictable. The best transit is more transit. In trying to catch up on their transit deficit a lot of well-intentioned planners, enthusiasts, and politicians (who don't know a damn thing about transit) end up fetishizing speed and grade separation in one-size-fits-all solutions, while not committing space available on streets for the most efficient vehicles around.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in existing urban areas to build better transit. Vancouver would be a far more appealing city if it had trams--they can only squeeze so much more water from the stone of crowded B-Lines. Winnipeg was built around trams and has rotted to the core since they removed them. I don't want to construe my entire point as, "Canadian cities should build trams in central areas", but they probably should.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ue

While often ignored compared to Montreal, Toronto, Quebec City, and Hamilton, Ottawa does have a fairly substantial pre-war fabric. It isn't quite new in the same way that Calgary or Regina are.

Yes, this is very true. The areas we are talking about (Centretown and the Glebe, going south along Bank) and Sandy Hill and Vanier (going east along Rideau and Montreal Road) are quite similar to the areas of Toronto that are served by the subway outside of the innermost CBD.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

This is particularly pronounced in Western Canada. The Alberta LRT systems thus far do little for central neighbourhoods.

That's interesting because I now realize that what most comes to mind when I think of Ottawa's approach to LRT building, it's the Calgary and Edmonton systems that I think of.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

I've always been astonished by the number of cars from Ontario around the Mont Tremblant area on a Friday afternoon. Where are they from ?
Probably people from the Ottawa region. less than 2hrs drive

There are lots from Ottawa there but the drive from Ottawa is trickier than from Montreal, which is a four-lane divided highway.

I don't think Tremblant is a realistic outer commutershed for Ottawa (more like a weekend refuge), but it definitely is for Montreal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

Ottawa's urban core is still serviced fairly regularly by bus too. Maybe putting dedicated bus lanes on Bank and Rideau-Montreal might improve things at a fraction of the cost of dedicated light-rail.

.

The plan that was shown on this thread does show "transit-priority measures" on Rideau-Montreal and Bank.

On Rideau-Montreal the dedicated bus lanes (during peak periods) are actually there already and have been for decades. Montreal is undergoing a major reconstruction right now that will IIRC narrow the street and add bike lanes and wider sidewalks. Not sure what the future of the bus lanes there will be, or if they will be efficient if they actually remain.

Not sure what really can be done on Bank as it's already pretty narrow street by Ottawa standards with one lane in each direction plus parking on each side. There is also very limited parking on side streets in the area (by Ottawa standards again, even less so than in the CBD or the market) so businesses on Bank would likely fight the removal of the parking on Bank tooth and nail. (Maybe a city-owned parking garage could allay those concerns? I dunno...)

But the evil Acajack thinks that the"transit priority" for Bank referenced in the official plan is probably just lip service to placate some people.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

As far as Ottawa goes, I actually like that the two lines meet outside of downtown. It's already bolstering a lot of development in the western side of the city, allowing Ottawa to develop a real big-city core, beyond downtown. With time, it should be comparable in expanse and general development pattern--if not intensity--to the core cities of Montreal and Toronto. Vancouver's Broadway subway should have a similar effect in pushing out the boundaries of the city core.

But, ue, I agree with you--more transit service should serve the cores of the city. This is why I'm somewhat passionate (as far as these things go) about that tram loop between Ottawa and Hull--it serves the centre of the city agglomeration, and it offers an amazing base from which to build tram lines out through central neighbourhoods, giving better transit service to people who live in existing urban areas.

Unfortunately, Canadian cities spent generations painting themselves into the corner by mistaking the slums at the gates for actual city building. Now, they need to get people from a broad area into a very concentrated city. Limiting personal vehicle traffic in the city is important to maintaining quality of life in the city. That means building over-extended suburban rail lines to try to pick off suburban traffic. Once you give the suburbs viable ingress to the city, you could presumably free up road space in the city for better transit. But quick transit to the suburbs is usually accomplished by bypassing city neighbourhoods, and it often comes with a reduction in existing service in those neighbourhoods.

This is particularly pronounced in Western Canada. The Alberta LRT systems thus far do little for central neighbourhoods. Winnipeg's BRT system is designed to consolidate existing bus routes into concentrated busways to the suburbs--a strategy that has already left her best neighbourhood starved of on-street bus service. Translink is a mother bird feeding a nest of squawking suburbs regurgitated Skytrain, with no plan to connect the city's hulking West End to the metro system.



The best transit is convenient and predictable. The best transit is more transit. In trying to catch up on their transit deficit a lot of well-intentioned planners, enthusiasts, and politicians (who don't know a damn thing about transit) end up fetishizing speed and grade separation in one-size-fits-all solutions, while not committing space available on streets for the most efficient vehicles around.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in existing urban areas to build better transit. Vancouver would be a far more appealing city if it had trams--they can only squeeze so much more water from the stone of crowded B-Lines. Winnipeg was built around trams and has rotted to the core since they removed them. I don't want to construe my entire point as, "Canadian cities should build trams in central areas", but they probably should.

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's interesting because I now realize that what most comes to mind when I think of Ottawa's approach to LRT building, it's the Calgary and Edmonton systems that I think of.

It is interesting, the best system, albeit the most congested, is ... Toronto. The fact that the streetcars are so busy, some should have subways under them speaks to this. Toronto is doing things right, just not fast enough.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is interesting, the best system, albeit the most congested, is ... Toronto. The fact that the streetcars are so busy, some should have subways under them speaks to this. Toronto is doing things right, just not fast enough.

Yeah Toronto is good. They kept their legacy tram system, and their subways serve a large, dense core area. The transit is there, and it works. It's therefore popular. They could use three relief lines. They could get more mileage out of giving their trams more street priority. Parts of Amsterdam remind me of Toronto with more trams and less cars.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3551694,...ZwnN2SGWbwE8K65BFSeIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


But Toronto the same problem as most Canadian cities: a large area to cover, lots of cranky people who need to get around that large area, and they're growing.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by biguc

Yeah Toronto is good. They kept their legacy tram system, and their subways serve a large, dense core area. The transit is there, and it works. It's therefore popular. They could use three relief lines. They could get more mileage out of giving their trams more street priority. Parts of Amsterdam remind me of Toronto with more trams and less cars.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3551694,...ZwnN2SGWbwE8K65BFSeIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


But Toronto the same problem as most Canadian cities: a large area to cover, lots of cranky people who need to get around that large area, and they're growing.

Toronto could build the Transit City, Network 2011 and Move Ontario 2020, as well as Smartrack and every other plan they have ever had and it still would be well used and congested.

The 2 problems are:
1) politicians need to create their own ideas for their platform. They could instead continue the plan in place.
2) there is not enough money around to pay for it all.

I do have an idea, but you're not gonna like it. Raise property taxes. Did you know, per $100k, Toronto pays low taxes. For an example, I live in Sudbury and our base rate is a little over 1%. Toronto's is 0.45%. Bump that to 1%. All of a sudden, there is plenty of money to go around.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Toronto could build the Transit City, Network 2011 and Move Ontario 2020, as well as Smartrack and every other plan they have ever had and it still would be well used and congested.

The 2 problems are:
1) politicians need to create their own ideas for their platform. They could instead continue the plan in place.
2) there is not enough money around to pay for it all.

I do have an idea, but you're not gonna like it. Raise property taxes. Did you know, per $100k, Toronto pays low taxes. For an example, I live in Sudbury and our base rate is a little over 1%. Toronto's is 0.45%. Bump that to 1%. All of a sudden, there is plenty of money to go around.

"As mayor of Toronto, I plan to double your property taxes in a city where the cost of a house has exploded out of sight!" were his last words before the angry mob removed him from power.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by wave46

"As mayor of Toronto, I plan to double your property taxes in a city where the cost of a house has exploded out of sight!" were his last words before the angry mob removed him from power.

Using a roundabout tax increase over the next 30 years that slowly ramps up is how Montreal is paying for REM.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are lots from Ottawa there but the drive from Ottawa is trickier than from Montreal, which is a four-lane divided highway.

I don't think Tremblant is a realistic outer commutershed for Ottawa (more like a weekend refuge), but it definitely is for Montreal.

Mont-Tremblant, Saint-Faustin-Lac-Carré, Saint-Anne-des-Monts, Val-David, Saint-Sauveur, this is ''Chalets'' territory for a lot of Montréalers. People from Ottawa are mostly tourists. Mont-Tremblant is for tourists, and downtown Saint-Jovite is for the locals.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by wave46

"As mayor of Toronto, I plan to double your property taxes in a city where the cost of a house has exploded out of sight!" were his last words before the angry mob removed him from power.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Using a roundabout tax increase over the next 30 years that slowly ramps up is how Montreal is paying for REM.

This all goes back to the reality that transit is not about what is best for the city but what is best for the politician.

The irony is that the housing bubble would pop with the increase. So, no, I am not suggesting a blanket doubling. But, if there was a plan in 5-10 years to raise it to the level of other cities and towns, such that the rate is the highest in the province, then it would actually be a good thing. But then we would hear every old person whining about how their million dollar house they bought for $250k 20+ years ago is forcing them out of the "family home".

[ue]

Good post, I agree with all or most of this.

Originally Posted by biguc

As far as Ottawa goes, I actually like that the two lines meet outside of downtown. It's already bolstering a lot of development in the western side of the city, allowing Ottawa to develop a real big-city core, beyond downtown. With time, it should be comparable in expanse and general development pattern--if not intensity--to the core cities of Montreal and Toronto. Vancouver's Broadway subway should have a similar effect in pushing out the boundaries of the city core.

I agree. I'm not entirely against the existing O-Train routing. It serves downtown, two major malls, the two biggest universities, Tunney's Pasture, the ByWard Market, and the VIA Rail station. It's also likely spurring the development at Dow's Lake. The Confederation Line extension is overall alright. It gives Westboro access... though it would be better if it went down Richmond Rd (same for giving Hintonburg direct access). I'm guessing most who are taking transit and live south of the main street are just taking a bus downtown. Anyways, it also goes to Bayshore and Place d'Orleans.

But, ue, I agree with you--more transit service should serve the cores of the city. This is why I'm somewhat passionate (as far as these things go) about that tram loop between Ottawa and Hull--it serves the centre of the city agglomeration, and it offers an amazing base from which to build tram lines out through central neighbourhoods, giving better transit service to people who live in existing urban areas.

Totally agree too. It could be the basis of a sort of streetcar or LRT that has lines that goes down Bank, Elgin, Carling/Glebe, Somerset/Richmond, etc. Although some of these routes could probably benefit from full O-Train service.

Unfortunately, Canadian cities spent generations painting themselves into the corner by mistaking the slums at the gates for actual city building. Now, they need to get people from a broad area into a very concentrated city. Limiting personal vehicle traffic in the city is important to maintaining quality of life in the city. That means building over-extended suburban rail lines to try to pick off suburban traffic. Once you give the suburbs viable ingress to the city, you could presumably free up road space in the city for better transit. But quick transit to the suburbs is usually accomplished by bypassing city neighbourhoods, and it often comes with a reduction in existing service in those neighbourhoods.

Yep. Like, if the Confederation Line eastbound to Orleans went via Montreal Road. It'd actually be more direct to Downtown and hit some walkable neighbourhoods, some inner suburbia, and a lot of multi-unit housing, which is all more conducive built environments than the Queensway for building transit ridership. Granted this would bypass uOttawa, the VIA station, St Laurent Centre, and some big box centres (which provide transit service to services that are usually just for automobile drivers as well as creating more demand to redevelop them going forward). Really, both routes should be built as they have merit here.

But really, Canadian cities focusing on trying to get transit to betwixt the core and suburbs to cut down on rush-hour traffic (and you see this as a primary focus in politician speeches regarding new LRT funding, which is one dimensional), just commit to it and build commuter rail. That's in effect what they're doing anyways, but in a half-assed way, where they try and also hit some other spots on the way, but also not too many, as it would make for too much stopping. Reminds me of stroads.

This is particularly pronounced in Western Canada. The Alberta LRT systems thus far do little for central neighbourhoods. Winnipeg's BRT system is designed to consolidate existing bus routes into concentrated busways to the suburbs--a strategy that has already left her best neighbourhood starved of on-street bus service. Translink is a mother bird feeding a nest of squawking suburbs regurgitated Skytrain, with no plan to connect the city's hulking West End to the metro system.

Yeah. Edmonton and Calgary's trains don't really go to the core dense neighbourhoods. Edmonton's Boyle-McCauley has the LRT going right through it and not stopping (which reminds me of SF's BART that does this on a far more exaggerated level). Though the new Valley Line will have a stop in Boyle. But Edmonton's Oliver, Westmount, Strathcona, Garneau, Alberta Ave, etc and Calgary's Inglewood, Beltline, Mission, Marda Loop, etc don't have LRT access. Calgary's Bridgeland sort of does, just skirting the southern limits by the river and Memorial Dr. The only one that has true and good direct LRT access in Alberta is Calgary's Kensington.

At least both systems are ok at hitting other major destinations for transit users -- post-secondary institutions and regional malls. This is something American cities often fail at...so it could be worse!

The best transit is convenient and predictable. The best transit is more transit. In trying to catch up on their transit deficit a lot of well-intentioned planners, enthusiasts, and politicians (who don't know a damn thing about transit) end up fetishizing speed and grade separation in one-size-fits-all solutions, while not committing space available on streets for the most efficient vehicles around.

Yes, though the opposite problem also persists. In a fetish to create some chic urban walkability, Edmonton's Valley Line uses low floor tech, more stopping, and will be slower (so that there will be zero time savings vs the bus to Mill Woods). This is good and well for the inner, mature neighbourhoods, but this line goes through industrial areas and the sprawling abomination of Mill Woods. This kind of enthusiasm could have been saved for a line down Whyte or 118 Ave.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in existing urban areas to build better transit. Vancouver would be a far more appealing city if it had trams--they can only squeeze so much more water from the stone of crowded B-Lines. Winnipeg was built around trams and has rotted to the core since they removed them. I don't want to construe my entire point as, "Canadian cities should build trams in central areas", but they probably should.

Absolutely. It's frustrating how the 99 B-Line has persisted for decades as a very crowded bus (carrying the most passengers of any bus line in North America) but lines out to Coquitlam got prioritized. It is, as you say, a low-hanging fruit. Same with a Queen St subway in Toronto. Vancouver should also have some sort of rail (streetcar or light rail, probably not full Skytrain) down Main St, Commercial Dr, 41st Ave, Dunbar/Alma, West 4th, Denman, Davie (seriously how does the West End not have anything beyond buses?), Robson, etc. A Skytrain (at least Canada Line level) should also go down Hastings St until Willingdon in Burnaby, where it can go down and meet up with Metrotown. Connects BCIT, could push Metrotown densification northbound, creates a cross-Burnaby route between the Millennium and Expo lines, and hits walkable neighbourhoods along Hastings.

As for Winnipeg... you echo my thoughts fully. It is amazing how a city that has such a large chunk of its urban fabric clearly designed for streetcars having none of that. Winnipeg Transit is the only transit service in Canada I actively hate. I feel like I could be in Des Moines. Grand main streets like Portage, Main, etc are turned into quasi-highways because the city has neither real freeways nor effective rapid transit. But the old buildings, wide sidewalks, etc show what was. At least with Edmonton or Calgary, a lot of the built form was always more sprawled and suburban, but not Winnipeg. It often makes more sense to bike or just walk if you're in central Winnipeg than rely on nonsensical transit. At least the city has the legacy built form to be more pleasant to walk through for larger stretches than Alberta cities. But yeah, streets like Corydon, Osborne, Sherbrooke/Maryland, Ellice/Sargent, Broadway, Provencher, etc are so obviously designed for streetcars...so just do it.

Don't get me started on the Southwest Transitway.