The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Nice try, as tax payers, and voters we have every right to have a say in how the city is built, and especially in our ward. Why exactly do you think they hold public consultations mimlomilo? Also fighting for the original and long laid out plan is not NIMBY'sm. Fighting to protect an entire neighbourhood from a plan that was never in the books is not NIMBY'sm. Just sitting back and letting governments make all of the choices for us without any say from the population is called communism.

Sweet Wow.


The community wants a plan which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more - at minimum. It is doubtful the community wins this one. The community quite frankly has been sold a bill of goods in earlier iterations, earlier lines on a map, because the TTC designs Maybachs and just maybe can only afford a Mercedes.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Just sitting back and letting governments make all of the choices for us without any say from the population is called communism.

If this were a communist country you wouldn't own private property and the Ontario Line would have already been built sans your opinion on the matter.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by niwell

In reality there are a lot of unanswered questions about the Ontario Line and potentially valid criticisms of the project. The government has not exactly been forthcoming about many of these concerns and most of their material comes across as a corporate pitch as opposed to any real information.

That's true, although, at this point, the opponents of the Ontario Line are really risking looking a gift horse in the mouth. I don't think the option at this point is Ontario Line vs. Relief Line, it's Ontario Line vs. no line. The Relief Line is simply not going to go anywhere without provincial funding, and provincial funding is contingent on control over planning and delivery.

For all Metrolinx's faults, I still think the Ontario Line is the superior plan. It actually considers regional commutes, it has a yard, it solves the problem of crossing University Ave. to the west - which the RL probably wouldn't have touched for another 20 years - and crossing the Don Valley and serving the very dense Thorncliffe Park area (ditto).

Ironically, I think that a Ford government is actually listening to transit experts (the OL plan has Michael Schabas all over it, who probably had some closed door meetings with Phil Verster). Let's not risk scuttling this.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

None of this matters, you or the residents of the area do not own the city and just because something else was planned does not bind the democratically elected governments doing what is right for all who will benefit from the line. Not just the most vocal, politically enabled people who don't like it.

NIMBYs always have the same angry reaction you are having when their NIMBYism is pointed out, and it is always the wealthy areas of cities that have opposition, whereas the poorer areas allow transit through with little issue.

I remember when a lot of folks in the wealthier parts of the city were complaining about the cost of the Scarborough Subway and it being tunneled. I would bet money that many of these areas complaining now would still poll against that project. Funny how that works.

And in Scarborough, people weren't even concerned about trains going by. They just wanted to eliminate a transfer.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That's true, although, at this point, the opponents of the Ontario Line are really risking looking a gift horse in the mouth. I don't think the option at this point is Ontario Line vs. Relief Line, it's Ontario Line vs. no line. The Relief Line is simply not going to go anywhere without provincial funding, and provincial funding is contingent on control over planning and delivery.

I agree with this, and don't think that reverting to the old plan is not really an option. But, there should be a reasonable expectation that what's being promised can be delivered upon, which may mean some interesting design solutions. If the Province/ML is receiving sound advice (I don't know enough to comment as my area is nowhere near this) they really aught to improve on the PR front.

[J.OT13]

On the Ontario Line debate, from the perspective of an outsider looking in. Based on Google Maps, it does seem that the new routing will, in part, remove some park space along the line and I do think that nearby residents are raising legitimate concerns. There needs to be a proper discourse on the impacts now and into the future, and how they can be mitigated, which could include replacing the park space and trees on the site or somewhere nearby (like greening a parking lot).

I do understand their frustration when the Line was planned to be underground for 70 years, and again only a few years ago.

On underground vs above ground, niwell brings up a good point with other projects that could have easily been built above ground (trench/surface/elevated) but were instead built underground, sometimes with oversized stations. There are plenty such examples like the Eglinton (could have been nearly all elevated instead of a weird mix or surface and elevated), Vaughn extension (part could have been elevated or trenched) or Scarborough subway (a mix or the existing corridor and some expropriation could have been used).

That doesn't necessarily justify additional underground sections of the OL, but it does warrant a discussion on consistency from the Government.

Side note: the term NIMBY is thrown around very liberally nowadays. In Ottawa, a little over 500 meters from Bayview Station, the NCC is proposing a series of six Diplomatic Embassies surrounded by parking. Some people (including the local Councillor and myself) believe that the land, which is currently grass and trees, would be better utilized with mix-income housing and a park (also part of the proposal). Somehow, that's being perceived by some as NIMBYs. I've never considered a request for upzoning as NIMBYism. Now others, like the local Community Association want the land to stay as is. That, I would qualify as NIMBYism.

[J.OT13]

There was a somewhat similar situation in Ottawa when it came time to planning the route between Dominion (to be called Kitchi Sibi) and Lincoln Fields stations. This was a long standing gap in the Transitway system where buses would use the long and winding Ottawa River Parkway (now Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway) between the two station, skipping over 3 km of semi-urban areas (mix of sfh, low rise apartments and residential towers).

The nearby residents were afraid of losing their tree-lined linear park, which was once a tramway RoW until they were removed in 1959. The City came up with an underground route that would mostly be under the adjacent Richmond Road, with one station underground north of Richmond and the other an open trench in the park. As plans evolved, the City decided to place the entire tunnel under the park, but maintain one underground stations north of Richmond and the other open trench in the park. Residents would therefore lose the park completely for a few years, but have an enhanced park with more greenspace (by removing a few roads bisecting the park). Then in February 2019, when the winning bids were revealed, the underground station north of Richmond was now an open trench station in the park like the other. No warning to the general public, no consultation, done deal. After years of consultation and hammering down a plan that was acceptable to the community, the City made a major change to save $5-$10 million dollars on a $3B contract. Understandably, that was a major breach of trust and nearby residents were not happy.

The tunnel is now under constructions and neighbours are hoping that further consultations can develop the station designs into something a little better than what is currently in the plans. At the end of it all though, there's not much that can be done at this stage.

[MonkeyRonin]

I think Toronto is far too timid about elevated/at-grade transit in general. That projects like the York Region and Scarborough extensions are being built as bored tunnels - the most expensive construction method possible - seems insane to me. I'm supportive of a lot more above-ground construction where possible if it means a lower $/km cost.

From a layman's perspective at least, it therefore seems logical that they'd make use of the existing rail corridor embankment. I get that there may be some logistical challenges, particularly at the portals, but I'd rather see those overcome than have the whole thing buried at the cost of having a shorter line. Naturally, the Riverside/Leslieville NIMBYs are less concerned about that prospect.

The only part of the Ontario Line that I do have concerns over is the plan to terminate it at Ontario Place (a relatively low/seasonal trip generator). I'd rather it continue along King, and eventually link up with the high-density residential areas of Liberty Village, Parkdale, and Humber Bay.

[Innsertnamehere]

The terminal station is at exhibition go, not Ontario line. It’ll be a huge trip generating location with Exhibition Place and Liberty Village easily accessible.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I think Toronto is far too timid about elevated/at-grade transit in general. That projects like the York Region and Scarborough extensions are being built as bored tunnels - the most expensive construction method possible - seems insane to me. I'm supportive of a lot more above-ground construction where possible if it means a lower $/km cost.

From a layman's perspective at least, it therefore seems logical that they'd make use of the existing rail corridor embankment. I get that there may be some logistical challenges, particularly at the portals, but I'd rather see those overcome than have the whole thing buried at the cost of having a shorter line. Naturally, the Riverside/Leslieville NIMBYs are less concerned about that prospect.

The only part of the Ontario Line that I do have concerns over is the plan to terminate it at Ontario Place (a relatively low/seasonal trip generator). I'd rather it continue along King, and eventually link up with the high-density residential areas of Liberty Village, Parkdale, and Humber Bay.

Yes but after making the Spadina Line 1 extension totally below ground and planning to do the same for the Bloor extension, I honestly don't think this move can be justified. Why didn't any of those project face a trade off between being partially above ground or being shortened? While I agree that in many situations lines should be above ground as much as possible, in an inner city that has high land values I suspect the short term cost savings is often not justified in the long term.It would be different if there was extra space in a rail corridor in the way there sometimes is in hydro corridors, but to have to widen the corridor and and infringe on limited community space?

To me it just seems as if inner urban residents are being treated like 2nd class citizens when I doubt people living in detached houses in suburbia would be treated that way. Ford probably just thinks, "Meh... the city is a noises, crowded, concrete jungle anyway, so anyone crazy enough to live there has no right to complain... but anyone smart enough to move to suburbia should expect better!"

[Nouvellecosse]

In terms of where the Ontario Line terminates, I'd like to see the line to split with half of the trains serving the proposed Exhibition Place stub and the other half continuing on to Humber Bay. As it is, the line is very east heavy since it will serve both the relief line function and as well as the Thorncliffe Park area, whereas the west will only have a couple of stops. The large number of trains coming from the west will be mostly empty.

If there was peak and off-peak capacity of 30 / 20 trains per hour per direction respectively, each of the two branches could have 15 / 10 tph (4 min or 6 min headways).

[jamincan]

I think it's important to note that while Metrolinx is better than the MTO, as a general rule, they are both terrible at public consultation - generally having it occur far too late in the process and treating it as a token exercise that only very rarely influences the outcome of a project.

[Chadillaccc]

The City of Chestermere is paying for Calgary's MAX Purple BRT to be extended to the suburb. The Purple Line already ends at the border of the city, so Chestermere is paying for 2 trips, twice a day (4 total), to and from the core. Not a bad start, Chestermere is only ~22,000 people.

https://www.calgarytransit.com/content/t...mation/regional-transit/chestermere.html

[Chadillaccc]

The Green Line has now been delayed at least a year, due to the incompetence of the provincial government. They are essentially pushing thousands of jobs back a year so that they can scrape a few extra votes out for 2023 by saying "look how many jobs we created for thee recovery!" fucking pathetic. Their second, third, and fourth reviews didn't turn up the problems they were looking for, therefore they couldn't recommend any major changes, so now they've dug themselves a hole where if they admit their ineptitude (by allowing it to go ahead as scheduled), they would lose face in the eyes of their "wise old men" supporters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/green-line-lrt-construction-delayed-1.5971815

[milomilo]

The Green Line needs to be put out of its misery. It is not a good project. Kenney is just the right asshole to do it.

The province can take some of the blame but they didn't design the turd - Calgary did. If there was a viable project on the table that could be built for the original budget, there would be shovels in the ground by now.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The Green Line needs to be put out of its misery. It is not a good project. Kenney is just the right asshole to do it.

The province can take some of the blame but they didn't design the turd - Calgary did. If there was a viable project on the table that could be built for the original budget, there would be shovels in the ground by now.

The general consensus seems to be that south of the Bow, the plan is fine, but north of the Bow would need to be revisited. At this time, only south of the Bow would be built, so any issues to the north could be revisited at a later date.

To me, it's better to build something than nothing, especially after so many years of debate.

[Chadillaccc]

Exactly, and by kiboshing the Bow River crossing, they could extend the southeast terminus from Shepard Station to at least Mahogany Station, thereby accessing the neighbourhoods of the deep southeast and making it more viable.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The general consensus seems to be that south of the Bow, the plan is fine, but north of the Bow would need to be revisited. At this time, only south of the Bow would be built, so any issues to the north could be revisited at a later date.

To me, it's better to build something than nothing, especially after so many years of debate.

By the time they make their mind up I doubt there will be any money left to extend the line south even if they nix the north of the bow portion (which they should, immediately). So you're left with a short line that mostly runs through industrial wasteland. Useless. Municipal finances in Calgary aren't looking too rosy especially since the Green Line will increase transit operating costs (yay for efficiency!), so I'm not optimistic that money will be quickly found to extend it out further down the line. And even then, we're talking probably in the 2030s by the time that happens.

Didn't Ottawa go through similar travails? Cancelling on street LRT plans to follow with a grade separated LRT in the end? If I'm way off the mark on that, I apologize but it sounds like not building there resulted in something better.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by milomilo

By the time they make their mind up I doubt there will be any money left to extend the line south even if they nix the north of the bow portion (which they should, immediately). So you're left with a short line that mostly runs through industrial wasteland. Useless. Municipal finances in Calgary aren't looking too rosy especially since the Green Line will increase transit operating costs (yay for efficiency!), so I'm not optimistic that money will be quickly found to extend it out further down the line. And even then, we're talking probably in the 2030s by the time that happens.

Didn't Ottawa go through similar travails? Cancelling on street LRT plans to follow with a grade separated LRT in the end? If I'm way off the mark on that, I apologize but it sounds like not building there resulted in something better.

The longer you wait, the more expensive it will be, especially now with the exploding cost of materials and the dozens or so major transit projects in Canada. The award for the Green Line south should have been given out over a year ago, maybe more.

In Ottawa, we did cancel a sub-par project, but the process wasn't this long. It was a N/S plan with street running rails downtown, along an already overcapacity busway. The timeline however, was much quicker:

• The original plan was drafted in 2003 or 2004.
• The contract was awarded in Summer 2006.
• In Fall 2006, the Mayor lost the election to a candidate who wanted to cancel the project and build an east-west line with a downtown tunnel.
• By December 2006, the old plan was canceled.
• A new plan was on the table around 2008 or 2009.
• Contract awarded December 2012.
• Construction complete in summer 2018.

Calgary has been debating the same project for close to what, a decade now? No one on the political level is actually proposing anything better as far as I know. In transit enthusiast levels, the debate seems to be around low-floor vs high-floor (low-floor not great in Ottawa's experience, but the Green Line won't be the backbone of the system like Confederation is in Ottawa) and the surface running portion on Centre street. In Ottawa, there was an alternative.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes but after making the Spadina Line 1 extension totally below ground and planning to do the same for the Bloor extension, I honestly don't think this move can be justified. Why didn't any of those project face a trade off between being partially above ground or being shortened?

Those were bad decisions. That they were bad decisions doesn't mean we should continue making bad decisions for the sake of consistency.

To me it just seems as if inner urban residents are being treated like 2nd class citizens when I doubt people living in detached houses in suburbia would be treated that way. Ford probably just thinks, "Meh... the city is a noises, crowded, concrete jungle anyway, so anyone crazy enough to live there has no right to complain... but anyone smart enough to move to suburbia should expect better!"

Somehow I just don't have any tears for the residents of the million dollar+ houses abutting an existing surface rail line...