Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[JHikka]

If Bank were to become a streetcar line I envision it to be something similar to Spadina in Toronto, although that street is much wider and heavier in areas. The cross-street traffic occurs at some obvious places (College, Dundas, Queen, King, Adelaide) but the rest is pretty smooth right-of-way for the most part. I guess St. Clair would be a similar comparable in parts, or Gerrard East.

I agree that if we were looking at a Lansdowne-CBD only route than a streetcar would probably suffice, but once you get further south and begin to consider Billings and connections beyond I think i'd probably lean towards heavier, and buried, rail. Streetcars might have a difficult time with event days at Lansdowne if that's the only option presented.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If Bank were to become a streetcar line I envision it to be something similar to Spadina in Toronto, although that street is much wider and heavier in areas. The cross-street traffic occurs at some obvious places (College, Dundas, Queen, King, Adelaide) but the rest is pretty smooth right-of-way for the most part. I guess St. Clair would be a similar comparable in parts, or Gerrard East.

Bank St. is too narrow for a Spadina or St. Clair-type arrangement. Those streets are way wider:

Bank: https://goo.gl/maps/W7wPzY8je2H8nCDo6
Spadina: https://goo.gl/maps/9KZkakGj4LcEPDka6


The street width is more in line with King/Queen/Dundas/College/etc, so would similarly need to run in either mixed traffic or in a dedicated transit corridor.

[Truenorth00]

Just to be clear, the current (pre-Covid) local demand on Bank wouldn't be enough to justify an exclusive ROW streetcar service (a la Toronto St. Clair). So even this talk of a tramway on Bank is substantially upselling the corridor.

And that is my usual point of contention. There's no way to really make a case for substantial investment for Bank without advocating for either underinvestment or outright closure of the Trillium Line. That, to me, is a massive waste and underutilization of already committed investment.

Some will make the argument that substantial development along Bank will bring ridership. But what certainty is there on such development concentrating along Bank St when there are now two rail corridors (Confederation and Trillium) offering plenty of TOD sites for developers and a third (Gatineau LRT) on the way? And most of those sites don't have to deal with the peccadillos of wealthy stable neighbourhoods substantially resistant to densification. And if the development did come? How would a subway with 1-2 km stop spacing even help them after all that? Tighter stop spacing would massively increase cost and really slow down the suburban commutes. Longer stop spacing would require Bank to keep surface services running (like the TTC does on Yonge, Danforth and Bloor).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Bank St. is too narrow for a Spadina or St. Clair-type arrangement. Those streets are way wider:

Bank: https://goo.gl/maps/W7wPzY8je2H8nCDo6
Spadina: https://goo.gl/maps/9KZkakGj4LcEPDka6


The street width is more in line with King/Queen/Dundas/College/etc, so would similarly need to run in either mixed traffic or in a dedicated transit corridor.

Like I said earlier, what Bank needs is to get rid of cars completely from Parliament Hill till Lansdowne, at minimum. The Toronto corridors aren't good models, because they still have car traffic on them.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Just to be clear, the current (pre-Covid) local demand on Bank wouldn't be enough to justify an exclusive ROW streetcar service (a la Toronto St. Clair). So even this talk of a tramway on Bank is substantially upselling the corridor.

This is probably a fair assessment. Bank as it is in not an exceptionally well-used transit corridor. Granted, this is likely due in large part to the fact that at it is an excruciatingly slow ride. In pre-covid times, when I was covering the 3 km between downtown and Lansdowne, my little game was to race the bus on foot. The fact that I often beat it may offer some idea as to why the bus isn't more used.

That said, we both can't and shouldn't wait for ridership to magically jump in these conditions to justify improvements to the service. A few flower boxes, road signs, and traffic cameras would be enough to quickly remove through-traffic congestion from Bank. King Street has really shown us that some pretty modest pilot-style interventions can make a ground-shifting difference in transit performance, ridership, and satisfaction. In the medium term, the street can be narrowed to just the two lanes, allowing for space for pedestrians, patios, trees, cycling infrastructure, etc. And when the demand outstrips what can be comfortably be offered by buses, then we can make the jump to rail transportation. But the important point is that we can get 80% of the way to that quality of service in a matter of weeks, not decades.

This isn't just a lesson for Bank Street. This applies to any number of congested old-city arterials in Canadian cities. We don't have to wait until next century to have successful, effective transit service. We just need a little bit of will to reallocate our public space more efficiently.

[J.OT13]

For sure, we would need to improve service in order to have proof of concept, for streetcar or light-metro. If that means parking restrictions during peak hours and Lansdowne events to implement bus queue jumps, or removing some parking completely (allowing deliveries and taxis (with time limit) only), then so be it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

That said, we both can't and shouldn't wait for ridership to magically jump in these conditions to justify improvements to the service. A few flower boxes, road signs, and traffic cameras would be enough to quickly remove through-traffic congestion from Bank. King Street has really shown us that some pretty modest pilot-style interventions can make a ground-shifting difference in transit performance, ridership, and satisfaction. In the medium term, the street can be narrowed to just the two lanes, allowing for space for pedestrians, patios, trees, cycling infrastructure, etc. And when the demand outstrips what can be comfortably be offered by buses, then we can make the jump to rail transportation. But the important point is that we can get 80% of the way to that quality of service in a matter of weeks, not decades.

That would at least show intent to actually facilitate transit use on Bank. Right now the entire argument for a Bank St subway is even worse than the Scarborough Subway. Basically the Bank subway argument boils down to, "We need to spend $1-2B to remove the transfer at Bayview, while also persevering space for drivers on Bank. We shouldn't have to sacrifice anything. And we want the feds and Queen's Park to pay for it all."

[Beedok]

And by the time it’s built Little Italy and Hintonburg will probably have grown to proper destinations for out of town visitors due to Line 2’s proximity.

[Hybrid247]

If we're talking about improving local transit along Bank, let's first look at better bus service and prioritization, as well as better streetscaping elements that de-incentivize through-traffic and improve the pedestrian experience. A tram really only becomes useful or necessary once capacity becomes an issue.

The rationale behind the Bank subway idea has always been about establishing the missing rapid transit link between downtown and the fast-growing southern communities in about 25-30 years from now, and alleviating the anticipated strain that transfers will put on Bayview and Hurdman around that time.

Of course, to alleviate that problem we could look at extending the Trillium line eastward into downtown from Bayview, but options for another east-west rail corridor north of Queen Street, whether on the surface or tunneled, are looking increasingly less plausible at this point.

So why not look at establishing a new RT link along the central north-south axis of the city (i.e., Bank) where there's already a relatively dense population, opportunities for further densification, and major destinations (Lansdowne, Museum of Nature), some of which host major events that attract thousands of people?

The secondary benefits are numerous, including a potential direct RT link from the Airport and the EY Centre to downtown. And once again, this would be for 25-30 years from now when Ottawa will be considerably bigger, and the south will be one of the fastest growing areas of the city.

Although a subway under Bank wouldn't be as good as a surface tram for local transit, it will provide greater benefits for the wider metro area as a whole while also providing much greater service than there is today along Bank.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Although a subway under Bank wouldn't be as good as a surface tram for local transit, it will provide greater benefits for the wider metro area as a whole while also providing much greater service than there is today along Bank.

Is that worth the $2B that would have be spent over and above all that has already been spent on the Trillium Line?

For a billion, the Trillium Line could probably be twin tracked and electrified. For another billion, Ottawa could completely electrify the bus fleet, over and above today's announcement. $2B would pay for the Kanata Confederation Line extension. So why is Bank St priority over all of those? That's the question. Because realistically building Bank St anytime before 2050 would require postponing some of those projects.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is that worth the $2B that would have be spent over and above all that has already been spent on the Trillium Line?

For a billion, the Trillium Line could probably be twin tracked and electrified. For another billion, Ottawa could completely electrify the bus fleet, over and above today's announcement. $2B would pay for the Kanata Confederation Line extension. So why is Bank St priority over all of those? That's the question. Because realistically building Bank St anytime before 2050 would require postponing some of those projects.

Well for one, I think doubling down on the Trillium line without addressing the inevitable issue of Line 1 capacity at Bayview is shortsighted and shouldn't be shrugged off simply because the problem is 2-3 decades away.

I don't really buy that the money we've spent on Trillium would go to waste with a Bank subway. The university, new civic hospital and ongoing TOD along the north segments (north of Carleton) will likely ensure strong usage. Much of the money spent on the current Stage 2 extension is for the new ROW and stations south of Greenboro, which would ideally become part of the Bank subway line. With a bank subway, we could shorten Trillium line back to its original length (Bayview-Greenboro/South Keys) and make minor investments to improve frequency (e.g. more passing tracks, etc.).

As for full bus fleet electrification, I'm all for it, and I think that will happen over the next 10-20 years regardless. Kanata LRT, OTOH, shouldn't go further than Terry Fox, and a Bank subway should take precedence over the full extension to Stittsville IMO.

I don't hold a crystal ball and I don't know how things will shape up 20-30 years from now for transit planning and funding, but the capacity issue at Bayview and Hurdman is one that is inevitable and we need to start thinking about what the solution will be for the distant future. Once we have direction on the issue and options on the table, then we can start worrying about funding and figuring out our priorities.

[biguc]

Closing stretches of Bank to cars to speed bus traffic is a good idea. Trams would be an easy addition to the street later when capacity became and issue, as I'm sure it would when transit efficiency increased. A tram is an attractive option too because it could connect to the tram loop, if that ever happens. I'd also like to see the Carling tram make its way to the loop.

Whatever the solution, Bank is anything but too close to Trillium. Nobody walks 2km to transit. Right now I live between two parallel heavy subway lines about 1.7km apart. A mile is about the sweet spot for line spacing, putting everyone a ten minute walk from a line. At 2km apart Ottawa could still sneak the Carling tram up Bronson ave. and not worry about too much service. If anything it would induce demand.

The current rail projects in Ottawa will do a good job of picking off suburban drivers coming into the city centre. The next step should be to saturate the city with good transit to affect a sweeping mode shift across the city, from Westboro to Vanier. Reducing trip-share by car in this area to less than 50% is achievable.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by biguc

The current rail projects in Ottawa will do a good job of picking off suburban drivers coming into the city centre. The next step should be to saturate the city with good transit to affect a sweeping mode shift across the city, from Westboro to Vanier. Reducing trip-share by car in this area to less than 50% is achievable.

It already largely is. Everything in the non-dark blue areas of the map have a car mode share of <50%.



In most of the urban Bank neighbourhoods, bicycle use (15-25%) outpaces car and transit use (10-20%) and walking is the dominant mode (30-60%). This is in part because car through-traffic makes transit much less useful than it could be. I suspect it's also because people in these areas tend to have short commutes downtown, so transit has to be very competitive to justify the cost. Transit here isn't competing with car trips and $300/mo parking passes - it's competing with walking and biking which don't cost a dime. And for these short distances, transit can quickly become uncompetitive, or at least not competitive enough for the cost of a ticket. If I take my hypothetical 2km trip from earlier, the surface gets you there in 10 minutes, the underground takes almost 15. Walking takes about 23 minutes, and I can bike it in 10. The competitivity of transit in these areas is pretty marginal considering it also costs $3.65 or $100+/mo, so even a few minutes make a big difference in the modal equation. Not for everyone (mobility challenges, carrying items, etc.), but as the 60% mode shares of walking show, most people have the luxury of weighing their mode choices.

[Truenorth00]

That's a great European perspective. But Ottawa isn't in Europe. And here in Canada, higher levels of government aren't in the habit of funding grade separated transit lines 2 km apart. Should be noted that is at its furthest. That distance drops the further south you go. 1.2 km at Carleton. 270m at Walkley.

This would be me defensible if the Bank St corridor had substantial local ridership. It doesn't. If one wants to argue that Bank is a good candidate, virtually every major avenue in Toronto is an equal or better candidate. The city recognizes this. It's why there city has never put any kind of Bank Subway in its long term forecasting.

The resistance to giving up car space is only going to make the case worse. It will drive development to all those other TOD sites. Here's my bet. In two decades, Preston is going to be a lot more impressive than Bank and newcomers to the city are going to be scratching their heads about what all these old farts keep talking about Bank Street.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

In most of the urban Bank neighbourhoods, bicycle use (15-25%) outpaces car and transit use (10-20%) and walking is the dominant mode (30-40%). This is in part because car through-traffic makes transit much less useful than it could be. I suspect it's also because people in these areas tend to have short commutes downtown, so transit has to be very competitive to justify the cost. Transit here isn't competing with car trips and $300/mo parking passes - it's competing with walking and biking which don't cost a dime. And for these short distances, transit can quickly become uncompetitive, or at least not competitive enough for the cost of a ticket. If I take my hypothetical 2km trip from earlier, the surface gets you there in 10 minutes, the underground takes almost 15. Walking takes about 23 minutes, and I can bike it in 10. The competitivity of transit in these areas is pretty marginal considering it also costs $3.65, so even a few minutes make a big difference in the modal equation.

Well put. It's exactly why the best solution is to turn Bank into a tramway. But we all know that's not going to happen. So really this is about spending billions to facilitate cars on Bank. Which is exactly why the feds and Queen's Park won't fund this.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

$2B would pay for the Kanata Confederation Line extension. So why is Bank St priority over all of those? That's the question. Because realistically building Bank St anytime before 2050 would require postponing some of those projects.

Bank wouldn't take priority over Kanata, Barrhaven or any of the currently planned Transitways. Stage 3 and those handful of BRTs are currently in the City of Ottawa's TMP and all but ready to be funded/built, all of which is reasonably feasible within 10 years with upper levels of Government investing heavily in transit at the moment.

We could take a 5-10 year break from building rapid transit afterwards while we plan out a proper urban transit plan to relieve the choke points along Confederation and Trillium and serve the denser areas of old Ottawa and Vanier.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

If I take my hypothetical 2km trip from earlier, the surface gets you there in 10 minutes, the underground takes almost 15. Walking takes about 23 minutes, and I can bike it in 10.

Is there a reason you picked 20 km/h for average speed of the tram in your example? Average tram speeds vary wildly from system to system and even between different segments of the same line, so I don't think just using the general average speed of trams will give you an accurate picture.

Ion in Waterloo for example has an average speed of 25 km/h overall, but the central on-street section between Erb and Ottawa Street is only about 14 km/h, which I think is a better indicator of the type of speeds you'd get with a Bank tram. A subway on the other hand, if it's anything like the Canada Line, would have an average speed of around 32 km/h, but could easily be more.

If that's the case, the overall time difference you're looking at is 10+ minutes for tram vs subway between Billings and Queen (4.5km @ 14 km/h = 19 mins vs 4.5km @ 32 km/h = 8.5 mins). This makes sense if you consider the tram will have numerous intersections to go through and would probably have twice the amount of stations as a subway.

As for a car-free Bank, that may be possible north of the Queensway, at least in part, but there's absolutely no way that's happening between Billings and the Queensway. There are no major parallel streets that are close enough to divert traffic to and it would require delivery trucks and other essential vehicles to use side residential streets in the Glebe, which we know will never fly in that area.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's exactly why the best solution is to turn Bank into a tramway. But we all know that's not going to happen. So really this is about spending billions to facilitate cars on Bank.

That strawman is getting a bit tired, don't you think? No one is advocating for a Bank subway to "facilitate cars". Absolutely no one.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Is there a reason you picked 20 km/h for average speed of the tram in your example? Average tram speeds vary wildly from system to system and even between different segments of the same line, so I don't think just using the general average speed of trams will give you an accurate picture.

Ion in Waterloo for example has an average speed of 25 km/h overall, but the central on-street section between Erb and Ottawa Street is only about 14 km/h, which I think is a better indicator of the type of speeds you'd get with a Bank tram. A subway on the other hand, if it's anything like the Canada Line, would have an average speed of around 32 km/h, but could easily be more.

I partially agree. I definitely agree that looking at ION's overall speeds (25km/h) is overly optimistic because it has a lot of off-street portions. The urban section is more representative. However, there are some important distinctions, notably the number of sharp turns (which have to be taken very slowly), significant number of well-trafficked cross-streets, and complex turning movements which make signal priority less effective than it would otherwise be. Bank street, on the other hand, has a grand total of 4 non-local cross-streets, is straight as an arrow, and would not benefit from much simpler signals by not sharing the street with cross-traffic.

In any case, maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but GRT says it's an even 15 minutes for the 4.8 km between Borden and Willis Way stations = 19.2 km/h.

Considering that's still including all the above constraints, 20 km/h seems a reasonably conservative number.

If that's the case, the overall time difference you're looking at is 10+ minutes for tram vs subway between Billings and Queen (4.5km @ 14 km/h = 19 mins vs 4.5km @ 32 km/h = 8.5 mins). This makes sense if you consider the tram will have numerous intersections to go through and would probably have twice the amount of stations as a subway.

Yes, but both of these numbers assume that people materialize on the train and that their destination is the platform. My whole point is that the useful metric is the average door-to-door trip, including the average walk to and from the station (one quarter of the average stop spacing on both ends), platform access time, and waiting time.

Entertaining your 14 km/h, it's 19.5 minutes for the underground, and 23 minutes on the surface. At what I consider a much more reasonable 20 km/h, it's 17.5 minutes. But even at a 3.5 minute difference, it's a pretty slim difference for the added cost. And even then... even with a transfer at Hurdman, you can already get there in a comparable time (24 minutes).

And keep in mind that this is the most favourable distance for an underground option. For all trips shorter than the entire length of this hypothetical line, its access time means it falls further and further behind the surface alternative. So at absolute best, we'd be paying 3-4x more for a line which results in comparable trip times to today between the termini, but significantly longer trips for all others.



_______

That strawman is getting a bit tired, don't you think? No one is advocating for a Bank subway to "facilitate cars". Absolutely no one.

I think it's difficult, because you're right that there aren't a lot of people who knowingly go out of their way to promote the idea of "facilitating cars". But there are a lot of more passive ways in which we unknowingly end up arguing the same thing. Your quote below isn't arguing "we must spend billions so that we can maintain car access on Bank", simply that "we must maintain car access on Bank, so we must spend billions." But in the end, it's a difference in packaging, not substance.

There are no major parallel streets that are close enough to divert traffic to and it would require delivery trucks and other essential vehicles to use side residential streets in the Glebe, which we know will never fly in that area.

It's not that the concerns aren't valid or wouldn't require some sort of resolution. It's rather that when you really think about them, they're not really that inextricable. But if you don't go out of your way to really look at it, it's easier to conceive of spending billions boring a tunnel rather than, say, having "authorized vehicles only" signs or parking the occasional delivery vehicle 20m away on a side street. We've now grown 3-4 generations in the automobile age, so like with so many other things, it's natural that we have certain assumptions which we don't question, or solutions which don't immediately come to mind. To see the ether we've spent our entire lives surrounded in requires a lot of effort and will, and unless you're particularly interested in that particular field, I don't fault anyone for not putting in the work to do so.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That strawman is getting a bit tired, don't you think?

Not to me. Because it's not a strawman.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

No one is advocating for a Bank subway to "facilitate cars". Absolutely no one.

Directly? No. But the entire subtext of this pitch is that a surface solution is unacceptable because of the mixed traffic. And that mixed traffic can't be changed because we can't remove the cars. So we have to add a billion dollars and go underground because we aren't willing to take cars off bank.

I'd be very surprised if any higher level of government falls for this argument.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

It's not that the concerns aren't valid or wouldn't require some sort of resolution. It's rather that when you really think about them, they're not really that inextricable. But if you don't go out of your way to really look at it, it's easier to conceive of spending billions boring a tunnel rather than, say, having "authorized vehicles only" signs or parking the occasional delivery vehicle 20m away on a side street. We've now grown 3-4 generations in the automobile age, so like with so many other things, it's natural that we have certain assumptions which we don't question, or solutions which don't immediately come to mind. To see the ether we've spent our entire lives surrounded in requires a lot of effort and will, and unless you're particularly interested in that particular field, I don't fault anyone for not putting in the work to do so.

Exactly this. I mean people are arguing that we need to build billion dollar subways because stores need direct curbside access to delivery. And because residents on side streets might be opposed to the additional traffic. If they are opposed to additional traffic, they most certainly won't tolerate the densification needed to justify a subway.

More broadly, transit investment has to be coupled with pedestrianization to truly maximize local benefit. Otherwise, what is being built is commuter service. And cities don't generally build subway systems to shuttle commuters.

Ottawa has enough to keep it busy for 2-3 decades. That's enough time to let development play out and let the perceptions of what corridors are valuable and to whom get flushed out. All the condos coming up along the Trillium Line are going to give Preston some real life. I wouldn't bet on Bank having the same importance in 20-30 years.