The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This sounds like something that could be sped up with federal and provincial funding. No reasons something like this couldn't be fully built in a decade.

Winnipeg and Transit progress are like Canada-Quebec ratifying the constitution it never happens. Winnipeg has been kicking the can on transit plans since the 50's. We once had a tram system but ripped it out in 1955, we proposed a monorail in the 60's that never happened we had light rail proposals in the 70's and 80's that never happened and we spent over $600 million on a frigging BRT system that runs from Downtown to the University of Manitoba in the south end of the city that took 9 years to build.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

5k pphpd can be served with BRT. You need a lot more to justify a subway. Heavy or light is irrelevant. Justifying tunneling at $250M/km and the maintenance cost of these tunnels requires well north of 5k pphpd.



https://stevemunro.ca/2008/04/16/why-transit-city-is-an-lrt-plan-part-3/

The real question is what is Bank St demand with the Trillium Line operating 2 km away. It's not going to be anywhere close to 5k pphpd. In 2030. Or 2050.

Better tell Vancouver then.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Better tell Vancouver then.

Good for Vancouver?

Last I checked Ottawa isn't in BC. Ottawa has to convince Queen's Park to fund this literal pipe dream over the myriad other transit priorities they have. Could it happen? Sure. In the sense that anything can happen. Likely? Not even close. If the Scarborough Subway is controversial at 9500 pphpd, why exactly do people think a line with half (or less) of that, as peak demand, would be an easy pitch?

Also, since the mayor doesn't want to pay for Stage 3, I'm really curious to see what the argument is to get the Feds and Queen's Park to pay for a subway that would have less demand than the LRTs being built in the GTA.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by giallo

The 25,000 number is pretty misleading. Yes, the city of Langley is around 30,000, but the city limits are tiny; 10.22 km2 to be exact. The lion's share of riders would come from Langley Township which is a rapidly growing area in Metro Vancouver, and has a population of over 120,000 people.

I am glad that someone brought this up.

Yes, the terminus station itself is in the city of Langley, but the line will be the primary transit link for the surrounding communities as well.

I would say the general catchment for the extension will serve around 200 000 people, not 25 000.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by giallo

The 25,000 number is pretty misleading. Yes, the city of Langley is around 30,000, but the city limits are tiny; 10.22 km2 to be exact. The lion's share of riders would come from Langley Township which is a rapidly growing area in Metro Vancouver, and has a population of over 120,000 people.

Yes but that means Langley is 3,000 per square kilometer or so. This whole area is fairly low density, some of it can probably never be anything but low density because of the ALR, and it is not much of a destination, so it mostly adds a source of commuters rather than something new and useful to all other parts of the system.

Presumably this new extension won't offer good commute times to the rest of metro Vancouver. Times to Surrey Centre will be okay. It will be much worse once you start talking about the "catchment" and people who take a bus to Langley then take the train somewhere else.

Compare this to developments in the city where tens of thousands of people move in to new units within walking distance of much better regionally located train stations, and consider that a lot of inner parts of metro Vancouver currently have poor or nonexistent rapid transit service.

We can always quibble over the numbers or who is or isn't served by this line, but it is a good example of the previously identified Canadian phenomenon of prioritizing outer suburban transit over inner city transit even when there are many poorly served urban areas with greater demand.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm afraid I might be missing something here. Other forumers say that Halifax should divert road space away from cars for the use of transit in the form of things like bus lanes or dedicated transit corridors to allow transit to move freely and provide a functional alternative to driving. Then you ask what suburban drivers are supposed to do once they lose this road space, and when someone says they should use transit you claim that this isn't feasible because the bus will be stuck in general traffic? When the whole point was to dedicate space to transit so that buses aren't stuck in general traffic? Can someone please tell me what I'm missing.

I misunderstood, but now that I fully understand, I actually can still say what I meant.

Right now, the buses are in mixed traffic. They are not passing you while you drive in. Most of them also stop at other stops and terminals along the way to downtown. So, they are still not faster than you sitting in traffic.

Let's say you had a reserved lane all the way from point to point. Now you can say that it might be faster. However, where are you putting that long of a reserved lane?
Bedford Highway? Parts of it cannot even be widened to 4 lanes without serious blasting and land expropriation. The rest of the peninsula is not much better.

Halifax could really benefit from using existing rail lines to get around the basin to downtown. They won't, but it would be the best thing.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Good for Vancouver?

Last I checked Ottawa isn't in BC. Ottawa has to convince Queen's Park to fund this literal pipe dream over the myriad other transit priorities they have. Could it happen? Sure. In the sense that anything can happen. Likely? Not even close. If the Scarborough Subway is controversial at 9500 pphpd, why exactly do people think a line with half (or less) of that, as peak demand, would be an easy pitch?

Also, since the mayor doesn't want to pay for Stage 3, I'm really curious to see what the argument is to get the Feds and Queen's Park to pay for a subway that would have less demand than the LRTs being built in the GTA.

Funny, when I think of Ottawa, I think of Victoria and how crappy transit it is. A major commute is from the Dockyard to Colwood/Langford, but there is no bus that is that route.You must go downtown to transfer. The bigger metro area, where all the votes come from gets the better transit.

Comes back to my point with politics again. There are several plans for commuter rail and LRT in the CRD, but yet they all are shelved as they build the Skytrain incrementally towards UBC.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes but that means Langley is 3,000 per square kilometer or so. This whole area is fairly low density, some of it can probably never be anything but low density because of the ALR, and it is not much of a destination, so it mostly adds a source of commuters rather than something new and useful to all other parts of the system.

Presumably this new extension won't offer good commute times to the rest of metro Vancouver. Times to Surrey Centre will be okay. It will be much worse once you start talking about the "catchment" and people who take a bus to Langley then take the train somewhere else.

Compare this to developments in the city where tens of thousands of people move in to new units within walking distance of much better regionally located train stations, and consider that a lot of inner parts of metro Vancouver currently have poor or nonexistent rapid transit service.

We can always quibble over the numbers or who is or isn't served by this line, but it is a good example of the previously identified Canadian phenomenon of prioritizing outer suburban transit over inner city transit even when there are many poorly served urban areas with greater demand.

I fail to see how commute times won’t be any good for areas such as New West, Burnaby and Vancouver.

As has been mentioned before Skytrain acts as both a commuter and metro service in Metro Vancouver. I believe readership forecasts for this extension will be met and major tower projects have already been proposed for the future station vicinities. Langley City is the logical eastern terminus for the Expo Line. Beyond that a true commuter rail system should be looked into.

This line isn’t just about connecting Langley to Vancouver, but actually connecting Langley to Surrey, Burnaby to Langley, etc...

I feel the same arguments of building too big / wasting money were used for the Evergreen Line, The Canada Line, and the Millennium Line, and all have had success that most new transit lines / systems in North America can only dream of.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I feel the same arguments of building too big / wasting money were used for the Evergreen Line, The Canada Line, and the Millennium Line, and all have had success that most new transit lines / systems in North America can only dream of.

I'm not arguing that it's a waste of money. I'm pointing out that metro Vancouver has relatively developed outer suburban rapid transit service and relatively weak inner city service. For example you might be able to get a train in Fleetwood before say UBC or SFU or the West End or Hastings.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not arguing that it's a waste of money. I'm pointing out that metro Vancouver has relatively developed outer suburban rapid transit service and relatively weak inner city service. For example you might be able to get a train in Fleetwood before say UBC or SFU or the West End or Hastings.

Well UBC will be happening generally around the same time frame (full build out still possible for 2028) and SFU could never be connected by rail given the insane grades up Burnaby Mountain but the Gondola looks like it will also likely be opening in the same general time frame.

Hastings is another story and I doubt the west end will ever have metro service.

[nname]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not arguing that it's a waste of money. I'm pointing out that metro Vancouver has relatively developed outer suburban rapid transit service and relatively weak inner city service. For example you might be able to get a train in Fleetwood before say UBC or SFU or the West End or Hastings.

The population density of Fleetwood, and the eastern part of Surrey and Langley are pretty similar to most of the areas you mentioned. At least they got the same color from this map:


Source: 2016 census

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've heard everything from 10-40 years. The fundamental problem is always the same. No ridership case as long as there's a parallel line 2km away.

Not to mention most of the neighbourhoods along the line are zoned as stable neighbourhoods, not open to substantial densification, which makes local ridership generation poor.

Plenty of space for densification north of the Queensway and around Billings. I can see a revised OP pushing for densification along Bank Street frontage south of the Queensway through medium-height and mixed-use buildings if a subway is built. Also, Riverside South, Bowesville and Findlay Creek are set to grow quite a bit in the next couple of decades which will further drive ridership.

Population density isn't the only ridership generator, though. Major destinations like Lansdowne and the Nature Museum will also play a big role in driving ridership, as will many of shops and restaurants along Bank.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How so? After Stage 3, the South will have both the Barrhaven extension and the Trillium Line. In fact, after Stage 3, the feed for any Bank St subway will be even lower with the only exclusive catchment left being the Southeast corner of the city and Bank St itself.

Barrhaven doesn't exactly count as south Ottawa, and the LRT there wouldn't be a practical option for many commuters east of the Rideau River. Also, the Trillium Line barely counts as rapid transit. It's certainly not equivalent to Line 1 service, not even close.

As I said, south Ottawa will very clearly have a lower level of rapid transit service after Stage 3 compared to the rest of the city. Residents will have less frequent service and will need more connections to reach downtown.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is the only real concern that exists. And it's both a long way off and has solutions other than a Bank St. subway.

If by "solutions" you mean adding capacity to Line 1, then sure, but that would be a temporary solution. It would only delay the inevitable.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've not heard of any plans to interline Trillium and the Gatineau LRT. Where is this coming from? But if that happens, again, the need for another metro line servicing the South is less.

Didn't say anything about interlining. I'm talking about extending Trillium line into downtown using it's own ROW as an alternative to a Bank subway, but the presence of the Line 1 tunnel and the future STO LRT might make that challenging.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Eglinton Crosstown doesn't go downtown, isn't fully tunneled or segregated. It's the best case scenario for Bank. Might be able to justify 50m long LRVs and a $1.2B 4.5 km tunnel.

I say Eglinton Crosstown is comparable because they opted to tunnel where there was limited space on the surface, as would be the case for Bank. As J.OT13 said, I think a Canada Line type of system would be ideal.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes but that means Langley is 3,000 per square kilometer or so. This whole area is fairly low density, some of it can probably never be anything but low density because of the ALR, and it is not much of a destination, so it mostly adds a source of commuters rather than something new and useful to all other parts of the system.

Presumably this new extension won't offer good commute times to the rest of metro Vancouver. Times to Surrey Centre will be okay. It will be much worse once you start talking about the "catchment" and people who take a bus to Langley then take the train somewhere else.

Compare this to developments in the city where tens of thousands of people move in to new units within walking distance of much better regionally located train stations, and consider that a lot of inner parts of metro Vancouver currently have poor or nonexistent rapid transit service.

We can always quibble over the numbers or who is or isn't served by this line, but it is a good example of the previously identified Canadian phenomenon of prioritizing outer suburban transit over inner city transit even when there are many poorly served urban areas with greater demand.

This point is huge; this will be a train to Surrey. It will take at least an hour to get from Langley to Waterfront. And with Translink's fare zones it won't be a cheap ride. Taken in isolation, then, does a city of ~700k (that doesn't even have a downtown) build a metro line through farmland to a suburban neighbour? Of course not. Give Surrey time to develop and invest in transit that people will use now. Revisit the idea in 20 years.

Some people here seem defensive of Translink's Pokemon strategy of collecting suburbs. I see some people post about extending the Canada Line to Tsawwassen. I assume that's a joke, but what does it say that I wouldn't be surprised if Translink's next move is to extend the Canada line to Ladner? Meanwhile, the city is missing out, and a dud line will weaken Translink's ability to expand further.

Here's what should be next, after the UBC extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=12XC55FSW-HkUFKi1HadPftf2dSkzUxjz&usp=sharing

It connects to all three lines, it relieves the Canada Line, it relieves Iron Workers, it connects the north shore, it finally connects the metro's densest neighbourhoods, it connects to attractions, it serves hundreds of thousands of people, it gets people to the port, a lot of it can be built above ground, it's shorter than the Langley extension, it presents an opportunity to build a skyline-defining bridge near downtown, and best of all it actually serves hundreds of thousands of people where they live today. That's how you build a city. Translink's strategy builds vertical suburbs.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Here in Ottawa we're spending the better part of a billion on the a Trillium Line which carried 20 000 riders per weekday in 2019. And we've spent several pages now discussing building a $2B subway just 2km away. But folks say I'm unrealistic so.....

I agree, that's too much too soon. Once Ottawa is a big city, having that kind of transit saturation will be very desirable. But it's still far from that point. Once its population is closing in on 2m people, with a lot of that new development coming around lower-hanging transit investments, it'll make all the sense in the world. At that point, it won't take pages of conversation for people to say, yep, it's a good idea.



This interlacing conversation about Vancouver and Ottawa building light metro rail through farmland and not in their cities, while nobody is deploying regional rail, has me thinking about those diesel trains Ottawa is scrapping. Why not just send those out to Barrhaven, instead of building a metro line?

[nname]

Originally Posted by biguc

Here's what should be next, after the UBC extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=12XC55FSW-HkUFKi1HadPftf2dSkzUxjz&usp=sharing

The next line to be studied is the North Shore line. One of the options is to extend Expo line along Hasting, cross the Second Narrows and loop back to Lonsdale. Another option is to branch Expo Line off at Burrard and cross under Stanley Park to North/West Vancouver. So your plan would be partially covered, through the North Shore extension, but unlikely to be an independent line.

[casper]

Originally Posted by biguc

This point is huge; this will be a train to Surrey. It will take at least an hour to get from Langley to Waterfront. And with Translink's fare zones it won't be a cheap ride. Taken in isolation, then, does a city of ~700k (that doesn't even have a downtown) build a metro line through farmland to a suburban neighbour? Of course not. Give Surrey time to develop and invest in transit that people will use now. Revisit the idea in 20 years.

Some people here seem defensive of Translink's Pokemon strategy of collecting suburbs. I see some people post about extending the Canada Line to Tsawwassen. I assume that's a joke, but what does it say that I wouldn't be surprised if Translink's next move is to extend the Canada line to Ladner? Meanwhile, the city is missing out, and a dud line will weaken Translink's ability to expand further.

Here's what should be next, after the UBC extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=12XC55FSW-HkUFKi1HadPftf2dSkzUxjz&usp=sharing

It connects to all three lines, it relieves the Canada Line, it relieves Iron Workers, it connects the north shore, it finally connects the metro's densest neighbourhoods, it connects to attractions, it serves hundreds of thousands of people, it gets people to the port, a lot of it can be built above ground, it's shorter than the Langley extension, it presents an opportunity to build a skyline-defining bridge near downtown, and best of all it actually serves hundreds of thousands of people where they live today. That's how you build a city. Translink's strategy builds vertical suburbs.

The line through Hasting St. is as much a social engineering and transit project. It touching on a issues that no one in government want to get into. The DTES is a disaster and no own knows how to fix it. Between extreme poverty, addiction, drug trade, prostitution, there are a lot of work to do there. Not certain the economic opportunity that is created for developers to go in and build condo towers that would be created by transit is going to help solve these underlying problems.

The "business case" for Tsawwassen is to connect the dots between walk on passengers at BC Ferries with the rest of the transit network. I don't think skytrain is best option for that. Commuter rail using some of the existing railway lines already in place may work, but even that is weak argument.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I say Eglinton Crosstown is comparable because they opted to tunnel where there was limited space on the surface, as would be the case for Bank. As J.OT13 said, I think a Canada Line type of system would be ideal.

Eglinton today is also a very busy bus route. With a projected 2031 ridership of 12 000 pphpd westbound into Eglinton/Yonge.

Bank on the other hand, can't sustain the sub 10 min bus service that most suburban TTC routes see today.

It's really simple. There's not enough ridership to justify building a subway under Bank St without shutting down the Trillium Line. Any case for a Bank St. subway needs those riders.

Every other scenario that tries to create a justification, such as maxing out Bayview is well beyond any reasonable forecast period. If one wants to imagine what's possible beyond 2050, sure, I'll concede that maybe Bank will be busy enough then to justify a multi-billion dollar subway underneath.

I think a huge part of why Ottawa residents fixate on Bank is they have Toronto envy. They really want Bank St. to be like Yonge St. Unlike Yonge though, most of it can't be substantially developed. And there aren't large enough trip generators to actually drive ridership to requiring grade separation levels.

So then the argument is that the Feds and Queen's Park will just build it. Because that is what Ottawa wants. An idea which I find amusing given that Ottawa couldn't even get the deal that Mississauga got for the Hurontario LRT.

The reality is that the provincial and federal government are facing a ton of demand for transit projects across the province and country. The idea that they will prioritize a subway 2km from a heavy rail line, when they have all those other demands, in the next 2-3 decades, is a stretch. But if folks want to believe in unicorns, I'm not going to stand in their way.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by casper

The "business case" for Tsawwassen is to connect the dots between walk on passengers at BC Ferries with the rest of the transit network. I don't think skytrain is best option for that. Commuter rail using some of the existing railway lines already in place may work, but even that is weak argument.

We visited BC in September 2019 and had one long travel day. Driving from Tofino in a rented car, down to Victoria, bused to Swartz Bay to catch the ferry to Tsawwassen, bus up to Bridgeport station and take the Canada Line to our hotel across the street from Yaletown-Roundhouse. Must have been 10 or 11 pm by the time we got there.

Having the Skytrain extending all the way to the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal would have been awesome and easily have saved us 30+ minutes, but probably not worth the investment to serve the one destination.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If one wants to imagine what's possible beyond 2050, sure, I'll concede that maybe Bank will be busy enough then to justify a multi-billion dollar subway underneath.

Yes, that's what we've been saying. Complete Stage 3 and the planned BRT routes, maybe the Carling Tram (though I think bus lanes or BRT lite would suffice) and then, around 2050, we could start talking about a Bank subway to relieve Trillium and Confederation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yes, that's what we've been saying. Complete Stage 3 and the planned BRT routes, maybe the Carling Tram (though I think bus lanes or BRT lite would suffice) and then, around 2050, we could start talking about a Bank subway to relieve Trillium and Confederation.

That is what you've been saying. But every Bank St. subway advocate has a different timeline. Not uncommon to see "10-20 years".

I think the pace at which Stage 1 and Stage 2 got built has really skewed perceptions for how quickly infrastructure can be built. The expectation that this pace will continue requires ignoring all financial realities.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That is what you've been saying. But every Bank St. subway advocate has a different timeline. Not uncommon to see "10-20 years".

I think the pace at which Stage 1 and Stage 2 got built has really skewed perceptions for how quickly infrastructure can be built. The expectation that this pace will continue requires ignoring all financial realities.

That's true. Stage 3 only has a chance due to political will (vote rich suburbs in swing ridings). Any sort of subway or light-metro in the urban area might be a tougher sell, partly because they would serve fewer ridings, and those served are mostly safe (Liberal in this case) strongholds.

I think a lot of us argue these projects based on needs, present or future, more than political will. In a perfect world, transit lines would be built based on solid business cases (Toronto DLR and Skytrain to UBC, for example) and not political games (high capacity subways to suburbs, REM to farm fields).