The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Truthfully, it's valuable as a network building idea. But when we don't have money for the basics in this country, network completion comes across as frivolous.

This also speaks more broadly to how we build transit. We have smaller cities overbuilding LRT while they underfund all kinds of other transit. And big cities that can't build subways while their avenues are clogged with buses. This is how we get the bizarre situation of Waterloo building an LRT system with trams that run 10-15 mins apart while Toronto keeps adding to the bus parade on Sheppard because a subway there is seen as way too wasteful.

Whose fault is this though? The federal government doesn't seem to be particularly stingy with money, the problem always seems to be primarily at the local level. If Waterloo can agree on a project and get it funded, all power to them, and if NIMBYs and local governments spend years squabbling before deciding on something, I don't blame the federal (and sometimes provincial) government for that.

In Calgary the Green Line has had federal funding for years. But the project was trash from the start and has ended up too expensive and risky, so the city and province are squabbling. The province certainly isn't helping with their complete lack of transparency, but I mostly blame our City leaders for bringing a poor project to the table. Meanwhile the feds simply stay quiet - the money is there, once we fix our own issues.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is an even better reason to build an underground LRT. When you start looking for places to put a transit mall in, you start to try to figure out where those cars will go. The only thing that might work would be a one way LRT on one way streets.

You want a province that is less well off to fund billion dollar tunnels to protect marginal road capacity?

Why?

This is an idea that is neither fiscally responsible for higher level governments, now fiscally sustainable for the City of Halifax itself (who would have to maintain it). One only has to look at what Newfoundland and Labrador is going through to see where this kind of thinking leads.

Transit may have to be subsidized. But that doesn't mean building unsustainably either. Grade separated transit is going to be hugely expensive for them. And unnecessary. They can build a great transit system using buses and building proper transit corridors (as one would find with similar cities in Europe). As a bonus they can play to their strength of a fairly walkable core and promote pedestrianization. A transit tunnel to facilitate more cars, would be monumentally stupid and destroy the character of their city.

Sometimes I think mandatory viewing of Strong Towns should be the prerequisite for urbanist forums.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Whose fault is this though? The federal government doesn't seem to be particularly stingy with money, the problem always seems to be primarily at the local level. If Waterloo can agree on a project and get it funded, all power to them, and if NIMBYs and local governments spend years squabbling before deciding on something, I don't blame the federal (and sometimes provincial) government for that.

I don't disagree. That's why I argue the feds and provincial governments need to be more selective. I think the provincial and federal governments need to fund transit based exclusively on demonstrated ridership growth. None of this getting federal and provincial taxpayers funding the SimCity dreams of councillors in these towns.

Transit riders in Waterloo would have been so much better off with a proper BRT system with high frequency. They wanted LRT as a development tool. To some extent it succeeded in that goal. But, it's kinda ridiculous that a supposed rapid transit system has 10 min peak frequencies and 15-20 min off-peak. In a city like Waterloo, you can drive across town in 20 mins.

I would also argue that electric buses vastly be improve the quality of BRT options too. Much cheaper to run. Similar vehicle performance and environmental benefits. Much lower capital commitments. Save the LRT investments for where ridership requires it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Most people here suggesting things likely haven't been to Halifax. Not only do you have narrow streets, you also have the downtown built on a hill. I don't know of any rail transit in Canada that is as steep. Only thing I can think of as the cable cars in San Fransisco. However, they don't go very fast. A buried LRT line can be built on a much lower slope and not have much challenge traversing the line with normal equipment.

I've only been once, and that was just before my 12th birthday for a singal day (had to return due to family emergency), so you're right, my Halifax expertise is limited to Google Maps, this forum and a few YouTube videos (PLANifax, for example).

A better parallel might be Quebec City? Centuries old, hilly terrain, but half the population.

QC will be building its tramway system soon, mostly surface, but with a tunnel in it's very hilly downtown. That said, I don't know for sure why they went with the downtown tunnel, if that was the reason.

[biguc]

Halifax seems geographically well suited to taking space away from cars for transit. Its entire inner city is nearly separated from the suburbs by water, and there aren't a lot of roads in. It would be easy and affordable to saturate the peninsula with on-street transit lanes--whether tram or bus, the important hing is that they're transit only--and send two or three lines out into the suburbs to pick off drivers. That's probably attainable for the cost of one downtown tunnel, and if well executed could de-car the peninsula to European levels in a matter of years.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

QC will be building its tramway system soon, mostly surface, but with a tunnel in it's very hilly downtown. That said, I don't know for sure why they went with the downtown tunnel, if that was the reason.

Quebec's tramway reminds me of Porto's. Theirs tunnels under the city centre because of both steep terrain and lack of space for even a streetcar.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't disagree. That's why I argue the feds and provincial governments need to be more selective. I think the provincial and federal governments need to fund transit based exclusively on demonstrated ridership growth. None of this getting federal and provincial taxpayers funding the SimCity dreams of councillors in these towns.

Transit riders in Waterloo would have been so much better off with a proper BRT system with high frequency. They wanted LRT as a development tool. To some extent it succeeded in that goal. But, it's kinda ridiculous that a supposed rapid transit system has 10 min peak frequencies and 15-20 min off-peak. In a city like Waterloo, you can drive across town in 20 mins.

I would also argue that electric buses vastly be improve the quality of BRT options too. Much cheaper to run. Similar vehicle performance and environmental benefits. Much lower capital commitments. Save the LRT investments for where ridership requires it.

When you have three layers of government, and funding, it's always going to be difficult to agree on something. I used to be quite pro local governance, but after seeing it in action, I'm not so sure any more. Bringing the bulk of planning (and funding) up to the provincial level seems like it could be a good idea to me, but it will inevitably bring animosity when the province's plan conflicts with the visions of local leaders.

[Doady]

The ridership and service level of Dundas is actually very similar to Yonge and Hurontario: around 20,000 riders per weekday and combined 5 minute frequency for local and express. I think the main appeal of Hurontario over Dundas was directly connecting MCC and Downtown Brampton, but of course that didn't happen. The redevelopment potential of Dundas is similar to Yonge, and Cooksville is a much stronger hub than Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway. A 10km extension to Hurontario isn't much different than 8km to Highway 7 either.

But considering Oakville Uptown Core, maybe instead of subway extension it would be better to build continuous LRT from Trafalgar to Kipling. Toronto will probably want subway diverted off Dundas to serve Sherway Gardens anyways, and Dundas between Dixie and East Mall is still a busy corridor will still need to be served somehow, so a Dundas LRT might actually be better for Mississauga's interests.

Anyways, the fact that they are building an LRT line in Mississauga like Hurontario without any connection to the subway further highlights how cities do nothing to promote density and development. Just another result of inept and overly restrictive municipal planning, like Hamilton LRT, Ontario Line, Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You want a province that is less well off to fund billion dollar tunnels to protect marginal road capacity?

Why?

This is an idea that is neither fiscally responsible for higher level governments, now fiscally sustainable for the City of Halifax itself (who would have to maintain it). One only has to look at what Newfoundland and Labrador is going through to see where this kind of thinking leads.

Transit may have to be subsidized. But that doesn't mean building unsustainably either. Grade separated transit is going to be hugely expensive for them. And unnecessary. They can build a great transit system using buses and building proper transit corridors (as one would find with similar cities in Europe). As a bonus they can play to their strength of a fairly walkable core and promote pedestrianization. A transit tunnel to facilitate more cars, would be monumentally stupid and destroy the character of their city.

Sometimes I think mandatory viewing of Strong Towns should be the prerequisite for urbanist forums.

Ever been to Halifax? What is the elevation change on Duke? That right there is one of the biggest reasons why surface rail won't work.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I've only been once, and that was just before my 12th birthday for a singal day (had to return due to family emergency), so you're right, my Halifax expertise is limited to Google Maps, this forum and a few YouTube videos (PLANifax, for example).

A better parallel might be Quebec City? Centuries old, hilly terrain, but half the population.

QC will be building its tramway system soon, mostly surface, but with a tunnel in it's very hilly downtown. That said, I don't know for sure why they went with the downtown tunnel, if that was the reason.

Yes. QC is much like Halifax's peninsula. I need to look better into it, but I think the tunnel is to avoid the steep hill.

Originally Posted by biguc

Halifax seems geographically well-suited to taking space away from cars for transit. Its entire inner city is nearly separated from the suburbs by water, and there aren't a lot of roads in. It would be easy and affordable to saturate the peninsula with on-street transit lanes--whether tram or bus, the important hing is that they're transit only--and send two or three lines out into the suburbs to pick off drivers. That's probably attainable for the cost of one downtown tunnel, and if well executed could de-car the peninsula to European levels in a matter of years.

The problem is the downtown core. As mentioned above, it is very steep.

[swimmer_spe]

When people talk of transit in various places, I wonder whether they have ever been.
Do they know the typography?
Do they understand the traffic patterns.

I for one have been to all provinces except NL and the Territories. I have ridden most railed transit. In many places, I commuted by public transit. I feel a lot of people here are the proverbial people who live in their mom's basement and just think they know everything, but have never experienced anything.

Cities I have lived in: Halifax, Vaughan, London, Victoria, and other smaller places.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ever been to Halifax? What is the elevation change on Duke? That right there is one of the biggest reasons why surface rail won't work.

Did you miss the part where I said LRT would be pointless in Halifax? I specifically said they should build a network with buses and build transit malls and Woonerfs in the core. I would hope that somebody in an urbanist forum knows what they are.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When people talk of transit in various places, I wonder whether they have ever been.
Do they know the typography?
Do they understand the traffic patterns.

You seem to think you're the only one that's traveled in this forum. I was posted to Shearwater in Dartmouth. And that's the perspective my opinion comes from.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I for one have been to all provinces except NL and the Territories. I have ridden most railed transit. In many places, I commuted by public transit. I feel a lot of people here are the proverbial people who live in their mom's basement and just think they know everything, but have never experienced anything.

For somebody who has apparently used transit so much, you have quite the pro-sprawl anti-pedestrian viewpoint. Notably also a preference for systems that increase transfers. Which is what your Halifax tunnel idea would do: force transfers onto an LRT to get downtown.

For the record, I've seen 9 provinces and lived in 4 of them in my military career. I've also lived in three countries, have family on 4 continents. And it's those travels that have shown me how badly designed our cities and particularly transit systems are. Some of it may be underfunding, but throwing money at these problems definitely won't fix them. Gotta start with an actual pedestrian irrespective.

[Doady]

I don't see what is the problem with 10 minute frequency for incomplete LRT system on day one. 6 minute frequency for BRT with signal priority on day one to provide equivalent capacity would not be sustainable. It is not a viable long term solution.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by biguc

Halifax seems geographically well suited to taking space away from cars for transit. Its entire inner city is nearly separated from the suburbs by water, and there aren't a lot of roads in. It would be easy and affordable to saturate the peninsula with on-street transit lanes--whether tram or bus, the important hing is that they're transit only--and send two or three lines out into the suburbs to pick off drivers. That's probably attainable for the cost of one downtown tunnel, and if well executed could de-car the peninsula to European levels in a matter of years.

Exactly what I am suggesting they should do.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't see what is the problem with 10 minute frequency for incomplete LRT system on day one. 6 minute frequency for BRT with signal priority on day one to provide equivalent capacity would not be sustainable. It is not a viable long term solution.

A 10 min wait in a town where you can get across in 20 mins in a car is a recipe for low transit usage. I guess they only want carless students taking transit in Waterloo.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ever been to Halifax? What is the elevation change on Duke? That right there is one of the biggest reasons why surface rail won't work.



Yes. QC is much like Halifax's peninsula. I need to look better into it, but I think the tunnel is to avoid the steep hill.



The problem is the downtown core. As mentioned above, it is very steep.

Yes indeed! The transition between the upper and lower towns is too steep! That's why they had to do a tunnel but also because traffic is already intense in the downtown area (not the mention some narrow streets too)

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't disagree. That's why I argue the feds and provincial governments need to be more selective. I think the provincial and federal governments need to fund transit based exclusively on demonstrated ridership growth. None of this getting federal and provincial taxpayers funding the SimCity dreams of councillors in these towns.

Transit riders in Waterloo would have been so much better off with a proper BRT system with high frequency. They wanted LRT as a development tool. To some extent it succeeded in that goal. But, it's kinda ridiculous that a supposed rapid transit system has 10 min peak frequencies and 15-20 min off-peak. In a city like Waterloo, you can drive across town in 20 mins.

I would also argue that electric buses vastly be improve the quality of BRT options too. Much cheaper to run. Similar vehicle performance and environmental benefits. Much lower capital commitments. Save the LRT investments for where ridership requires it.

I have a hard time understanding the idea that transportation projects should have a myopic, solely utilitarian focus. Projects like streetcars and LRTs do serve multiple functions. Transportation and development, yes. But sometimes also civic pride, branding, cultural attitudes, and even beautification. I don't see why we should deem only one of them valid to the exclusion of the others when arguments can be made for the desirability of them all.

The ability to direct development can help a city determine its growth trajectory. Attracting density - particularly urban format density - to certain areas and as a result away from others such as greenfields seems like a perfectly valid goal. The visibility of a rail service can strengthen a city's reputation in the minds of both residents and visitors when simple improvements in bus service may be less noticeable. Car companies often spend significant time and money developing expensive supercars that few people will ever buy and that may never be directly profitable. But they act as a brand "halo", attracting attention and media coverage while associating the brand and company with something exciting and impressive which can affect consumer perception of the other cars in the lineup. Meanwhile, there is an aesthetic component to streetcars and LRT lines that is lacking in bus routes. Its presence connotes sophistication, nostalgia, metropolitan gravitas, etc. and a general commitment to civic works that can place a similar halo over the community. In the private sector, they know one ignores consumer tastes, cultural attitudes and aesthetic perceptions at their own peril.

I think there's a tendency to want projects that can be measured easily by objective metrics, but city building is largely subjective. Yes it's about pragmatic functions such as transportation from A to B, but it's also about what people want and are attracted to in a city. It's also about what excites and impresses them and how well they feel their tax dollars are being spent. You can quantitatively measure the direct ridership increase resulting from a project relative to the cost, but that's just a data point until you also determine whether or not people think the result is "good". The data point itself has no inherent objective value or worth outside of the subjective worth that people (riders, general residents, and visitors) assign to it. But if people also assign subjective worth to other potential goals, I see no reason why those goals should be rejected, simply because they can't be easily measured using value-neutral quantities.

But of course, the results of those other goals can also be measured. Obviously we can directly measure changes in development patterns. But we can also survey people in advance on their perception of different options as well as look at survey data from communities where other BRT and LRT projects were previously created. One can survey the over-all level of satisfaction people have from an LRT vs bus improvements including both perceptions of the systems themselves as well as any changes in the city's brand/identity perception. For instance, do visitors see the city as more ambitious and progressive due to the change? Does it make them admire the city or have greater interest in doing business there? Or did they not even notice anything happened? Not only do different projects look differently from one another, some projects (namely rail) are much more visible.

I think there are probably examples where bad decisions were made in both directions. Cities where officials planned projects expecting greater tertiary benefits than were realised, and also cities who lost valuable opportunities for meaningful civic enhancement due to a narrow focus on utility. I'm not making an argument for a particular outcome in any particular case (you could very well be right regarding Waterloo), but I believe in a holistic approach to city building where all aspects are considered in all projects rather than forcing each project to focus on one narrow goal while ignoring others. If a transit project can achieve other things beside transporting people, carefully considering whether it should without presupposing the answer is always a valid.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't see what is the problem with 10 minute frequency for incomplete LRT system on day one. 6 minute frequency for BRT with signal priority on day one to provide equivalent capacity would not be sustainable. It is not a viable long term solution.

That's an interesting conversation. What's the current capacity vs ultimate (max frequency + full length trains)?

Same question for the TTC subway, Montreal Metro, Vancouver Skytrain, Edmonton LRT and C-Train on opening day vs ultimate.

In Ottawa, the Transitway pushed the equivalent of one bus per 20 seconds through the downtown, only they came in platoons, not like clock work. And that was maybe 40+ bus routes.

The Confed carries the same number of people with a train every 3 minutes. Current capacity is around 12k phpd, and that can increase to 24k phpd.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I have a hard time understanding the idea that transportation projects should have a myopic, solely utilitarian focus. Projects like streetcars and LRTs do serve multiple functions. Transportation and development, yes. But sometimes also civic pride, branding, cultural attitudes, and even beautification. I don't see why we should deem only one of them valid to the exclusion of the others when arguments can be made for the desirability of them all.

I wonder what the answer to this will be in Halifax. I think streetcars could maybe work there. It's at an awkward point where there's a lot of pressure to develop the core, mostly focused on residents and not commuters, and the core is a bit too big to walk around comfortably, but transit development is still fairly suburban focused. I am not sure I could see the city or province going for what would be perceived as a "nicer" system for the inner city while suburban areas get buses.

Another awkward thing right now is that there's a transition to battery electric vehicles underway. So would anybody bother installing new overhead wire systems now? And is there ultimately any advantage to a streetcar over an electric bus? Self-driving will have a similar effect in lowering the advantage to going with bigger vehicles or fully dedicated ROWs that could be automated going back to the 80's.

[J.OT13]

That's something I worry about in Gatineau. Based on STO reports, it seems the line will be maxed out, or near maxed out on day 1. If the loop is not built, they will never be able to convert the RapiBus and have it interline downtown. The tunnel would increase the cost by $500-$800 million, yet cap capacity forever, since there's no intention to close the loop should that (for some reason preferred) option is chosen.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder what the answer to this will be in Halifax. I think streetcars could maybe work there. It's at an awkward point where there's a lot of pressure to develop the core, mostly focused on residents and not commuters, and the core is a bit too big to walk around comfortably, but transit development is still fairly suburban focused. I am not sure I could see the city or province going for what would be perceived as a "nicer" system for the inner city while suburban areas get buses.

Another awkward thing right now is that there's a transition to battery electric vehicles underway. So would anybody bother installing new overhead wire systems now? And is there ultimately any advantage to a streetcar over an electric bus? Self-driving will have a similar effect in lowering the advantage to going with bigger vehicles or fully dedicated ROWs that could be automated going back to the 80's.

In Vancouver rail transit has been a significant catalyst for densification and urban development. That has not occurred to the same extent where we have had bus or trolly buses.