Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Beedok]

Well, I suppose we’ll have to wait to see how well Edmonton and Hamilton’s surface LRT lines serve their urban areas to see if it would be a good fit for Ottawa.

Plus, I think a Montreal Road subway line makes more sense than a Bank Street one anyhow. Lower Town and Sandy Hill have fewer roads connecting to the CBD than Glebe or Centretown (meaning you can’t run new bus alignments as easily), and then Vanier is far larger than Old Ottawa South (and far less dominated by students making the short trip to a nearby university).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Well, I suppose we’ll have to wait to see how well Edmonton and Hamilton’s surface LRT lines serve their urban areas to see if it would be a good fit for Ottawa.

Plus, I think a Montreal Road subway line makes more sense than a Bank Street one anyhow. Lower Town and Sandy Hill have fewer roads connecting to the CBD than Glebe or Centretown (meaning you can’t run new bus alignments as easily), and then Vanier is far larger than Old Ottawa South (and far less dominated by students making the short trip to a nearby university).

For sure, there's been a lot of focus and debate on a potential future/fantasy/maybe somewhat plausible Bank light-metro.

Discussions on Rideau-Montreal, which would serve denser and lower income areas along with a mid-sized hospital, federal campuses and the only major post-secondary institution not currently served by rapid transit in Ottawa, has not materialized in the same way. I assume that may be because there's more more consensus among rail fans and transit advocates that the corridor has a better justification for rapid transit and therefore, does not ignite passions quite the same way.

As others have said, the Bank Subway discussion has evolved to include a transit system reorganization for the south end in order to solve future capacity issues on Trillium and transfer volumes at Bayview and Hurdman, with serving Centretown and the Glebe as a very beneficial, but secondary "bonus". A Rideau-Montreal light-metro would be heavily urban focus and not serve any upcoming system wide problems. There is the potential of extending a future Rideau-Montreal line to Orleans via the Cumberland Transitway, which would make for an easier sell to suburban focused politicians. That as well could help the Hurdman transfer issues (by running emptier Confed trains through Hurdman), delaying the need for Bank.

Side note: I imagine both projects as a fully grade separated light-metro along a single line when fully built out. Starting at Millennium in Orleans, it would run surface, road over rail to Blair Station. It would then run elevated to reach Bathgate, up the road to Montreal and turn east, heading underground past St. Laurent. Rideau Station would be under Daly to avoid conflicts with the existing deep Rideau Station. From there, it would run under Albert with a transfer station at Parliament, pedestrian tunnels connecting the two concourses under O'Connor, SunLife or the World Exchange Plaza. The line would then turn south under Bank to Billings, before emerging from the depths to become elevated, following Bank to South Keys where it would take over for Trillium towards the Airport and Riverside South.

Timelines, assuming the current TMP is fully complete by 2031, construction-completion:

2036-2041 Parliament to Blair
2041-2046 Blair to Millennium
2046-2051 Parliament to Airport/Riverside South

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Side note: I imagine both projects as a fully grade separated light-metro along a single line when fully built out.

Is there a single transit corridor anywhere where you wouldn't jump to grade separated light metro as the solution? Is there nothing in your toolbox between a bus and a metro system?

Serious question. Because this seems like the kneejerk railfan response to any neighbourhood with buildings more than 2 storeys high. "Build a subway!"

I am strongly supportive of the Rideau-Montreal Corridor being prioritized. Ahead of Bank. And even I think a light metro is overkill. It's the perfect corridor for the Eglinton LRT solution. Partially tunneled and median running for the rest.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is there a single transit corridor anywhere where you wouldn't jump to grade separated light metro as the solution? Is there nothing in your toolbox between a bus and a metro system?

Serious question. Because this seems like the kneejerk railfan response to any neighbourhood with buildings more than 2 storeys high. "Build a subway!"

I am strongly supportive of the Rideau-Montreal Corridor being prioritized. Ahead of Bank. And even I think a light metro is overkill. It's the perfect corridor for the Eglinton LRT solution. Partially tunneled and median running for the rest.

I have expressed support for the surface running Carling LRT. As it offers a 6-8 lane RoW and few traffic lights, there's plenty of space and trains could run at a decent speed. I'm also in favour of Gatineau's tramway solution. The Sparks tunnel is not necessary and would even be detrimental by eliminating the loop.

For Bank-Rideau-Montreal, the line would be so long, even if cut in half at Parliament, it would be very difficult to maintain reliability. The high amount of traffic lights would limit speed. The narrow corridors would negatively impact others modes of transportation.

If there's a way to maintain trains on the surface in certain spots while preserving an exclusive RoW for full automation, say along Bathgate or Innes, or for sure most of the Cumberland Transitway corridor, I'm all for that.

[Truenorth00]

Yeah. I see no need to connect Bank to Rideau-Montreal beyond some pathological need to connect lines on a map. The percentage of riders going from Rideau-Montreal down Bank and vice versa is not going to anywhere close to justifying the half billion it would take to make that connection.

If anything, Rideau-Montreal should be interlined with the Confederation Line and maybe run using single LRVs.

[Truenorth00]

A metro for every corridor that shows a hint of above average density. Insistence that car space can't be taken away. No thoughts of interlining and mixed length operations. An insistence that lines become utterly unreliable if they have anything less than full segregation.

I'm starting to wonder if some of you have ever actually experienced decent LRT systems outside North America.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If anything, Rideau-Montreal should be interlined with the Confederation Line and maybe run using single LRVs.

I would support this.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm starting to wonder if some of you have ever actually experienced decent LRT systems outside North America.

I agree with a lot of your points, but there's probably a more constructive way of packaging them than this.

I think the point you're trying to make here is that North American thinking about transit planning has often used expensive infrastructure in order to avoid having any impact on space for driving or parking.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think the point you're trying to make here is that North American thinking about transit planning has often used expensive infrastructure in order to avoid having any impact on space for driving or parking.

It's not just transit planning. What hope is there when even self-professed transit advocates can't imagine a scenario where space for cars is taken away.

We're seeing folks on this forum who think that the best solution to every transit problem is the most expensive one. How the heck do you actually build a decent transit system and even a decent city with that approach? All you'll end up doing is the bare minimum to keep the asphalt hellscape that most of our cities are going.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think the point you're trying to make here is that North American thinking about transit planning has often used expensive infrastructure in order to avoid having any impact on space for driving or parking.

It's not just transit planning. What hope is there when even self-professed transit advocates can't imagine a scenario where space for cars is taken away.

Let's be clear. There is no way to build decent public transport without giving up car space. It's a difficult concept. But it's a discussion that a lot of North American cities need to have.

• Video Link

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. I see no need to connect Bank to Rideau-Montreal beyond some pathological need to connect lines on a map. The percentage of riders going from Rideau-Montreal down Bank and vice versa is not going to anywhere close to justifying the half billion it would take to make that connection.

If anything, Rideau-Montreal should be interlined with the Confederation Line and maybe run using single LRVs.

For any tunneled proposal to connect the two? I think I agree with it being a line-connecting obsession, but I could see an (at-grade) Bank line doing one of a few things once it reaches Wellington including some interlining:

1. Terminate there. Close the street there and use it as a tram terminus. Works fine.

2. Interline it with an at-grade Gatineau LRT and share the Elgin St. Terminus. Because why not? It's already there.

3. Interline it with the Loop. This would have actual practical advantages for getting in and around the downtown area and across the river, and it would be really cool!

4. Have it turn right at Wellington, travel at-grade down Rideau before entering a tunnel to pass under King Edward and have it tunneled under Montreal up until St Laurent where it can then run in the median. Y'know, "a la Eglinton Crosstown" and all. Having it continue to Rideau makes sense in terms of transit patterns, and then anything beyond that down Montreal just becomes a natural continuation. It doesn't hurt that Bank is well-situated for a MSF while Montreal is less so.

I'm not as sure about interlining a Montreal line with the Confederation Line, especially with only single-LRVs. That would have a significant impact on the Confederation Line's capacity and its ability to operate high-frequency services across the line.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not just transit planning. What hope is there when even self-professed transit advocates can't imagine a scenario where space for cars is taken away.

We're seeing folks on this forum who think that the best solution to every transit problem is the most expensive one. How the heck do you actually build a decent transit system and even a decent city with that approach? All you'll end up doing is the bare minimum to keep the asphalt hellscape that most of our cities are going.

You say that after I've expressed my support for Gatineau's tramway, shutting down Wellington and the Alexandra bridge to cars, median running streetcars on Carling and elevated rail along parts of Bank and Montreal roads (which would remove at least one car lane from each).

The most expensive transit is 100% underground as we've seen with the Montreal Metro and certain overbuilt projects in Toronto. It's the giant suburban stations with barely any ridership in those two cities.

Of all the major cities, Vancouver builds the most cost-efficient transit lines. They build based on what is needed. They utilize the most appropriate building method for the context, be it underground/trench/surface/elevated, as has done Ottawa with the O-Train. Stations are right-sized (even sometimes a bit too small in the case of some Canada Line stations). I support the Vancouver model, not the outdated Toronto or Montreal models (Ontario Line and REM are shifting these cities closer to that Vancouver model).

You can disagree with my opinion on future light-metro lines through the urban core, but you can't say that I "can't imagine a scenario where space for cars is taken away" and that I "think that the best solution to every transit problem is the most expensive one".

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

For any tunneled proposal to connect the two? I think I agree with it being a line-connecting obsession, but I could see an (at-grade) Bank line doing one of a few things once it reaches Wellington including some interlining:

1. Terminate there. Close the street there and use it as a tram terminus. Works fine.

2. Interline it with an at-grade Gatineau LRT and share the Elgin St. Terminus. Because why not? It's already there.

3. Interline it with the Loop. This would have actual practical advantages for getting in and around the downtown area and across the river, and it would be really cool!

4. Have it turn right at Wellington, travel at-grade down Rideau before entering a tunnel to pass under King Edward and have it tunneled under Montreal up until St Laurent where it can then run in the median. Y'know, "a la Eglinton Crosstown" and all. Having it continue to Rideau makes sense in terms of transit patterns, and then anything beyond that down Montreal just becomes a natural continuation. It doesn't hurt that Bank is well-situated for a MSF while Montreal is less so.

These are definitely options for an at-grade Bank solution. The Bank subway advocates, however, don't support an at-grade Bank solution. They either want an elevated or underground metro. In the case of J.OT13, I think he wants one long elevated metro line from Bathgate to South Key via downtown. This is what I'm calling out as crazy.

Context for those who don't know Ottawa. This is what Bathgate looks likes:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4417...7i16384!8i8192

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I'm not as sure about interlining a Montreal line with the Confederation Line, especially with only single-LRVs. That would have a significant impact on the Confederation Line's capacity and its ability to operate high-frequency services across the line.

Personally, I think any Rideau-Montreal line should either terminate at Rideau Station. But if there are connections to be made, look at where riders are going. Peak ridership on Rideau-Montreal is probably towards CBD destinations to as far west as Tunney's Pasture. So if anything is to be done, other than terminating at Rideau, it should be interlining.

My broader point here is that random line connections make no sense. Lines should be built to where riders want to go. From this perspective, interlining makes a lot more sense than a continuous line with Bank.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

You can disagree with my opinion on future light-metro lines through the urban core, but you can't say that I "can't imagine a scenario where space for cars is taken away" and that I "think that the best solution to every transit problem is the most expensive one".

I call it as I see it.

Saying that you're reasonable because you only demand elevated metro instead of tunnels is quite the stretch. Elevating is cheaper than tunneling. But it's still massively expensive. And overkill for many of the corridors being discussed.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Context for those who don't know Ottawa. This is what Bathgate looks likes:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4417...7i16384!8i8192

For more context, the line would pass by Bathgate on the way to the Confederation Line's Blair Station (and beyond to Orléans) from Montreal Road and serve high density residential on the corner, the City's French language college campus of 6,000 students, along with major Federal campuses of CSIS, CSEC and the National Research Council.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ot...!4d-75.6971931

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

For more context, the line would pass by Bathgate on the way to the Confederation Line's Blair Station (and beyond to Orléans) from Montreal Road and serve high density residential on the corner, the City's French language college campus of 6,000 students, along with major Federal campuses of CSIS, CSEC and the National Research Council.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ot...!4d-75.6971931

You mean a whole bunch of secure federal office campuses with km long driveways and large parking lots? Sure to be trip generators......

And a community college of 6000. Justifies building elevated metro I guess. We should build one to every community college in Canada.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You mean a whole bunch of secure federal office campuses with km long driveways and large parking lots? Sure to be trip generators......

And a community college of 6000. Justifies building elevated metro I guess. We should build one to every community college in Canada.

So we should just give up on Federal campuses? Let the cars maintain their dominance?

And again, it's on the way from Rideau and Vanier to Blair. Where else would you end the Rideau-Montreal line? Should it not at least connect with another rapid transit line?

And I have said before, surface could work along Bathgate as long as it's within its own RoW to maintain it as an automated light-metro. There's plenty of space. Light-metro on the surface would not be much more expensive than trams on the surface.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So we should just give up on Federal campuses? Let the cars maintain their dominance?

If they aren't willing to change? Yes. And as someone who has actually worked at several of facilities in question, the likelihood that a lot of those folks would be using transit is rather low, for a whole bunch of reasons that have very little to do with car dependency.

Heck, I am wondering if they will even allow a grade separated line overlooking their campuses.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And again, it's on the way from Rideau and Vanier to Blair. Where else would you end the Rideau-Montreal line? Should it not at least connect with another rapid transit line?

Keep it on Rideau-Montreal. Terminate at Rideau and Montreal stations. There just aren't enough riders on Bathgate to justify such a long and complex detour. Especially if it's expensive and grade separated. CSIS and CSE are both accessible from Blair in a pinch. And NRC is perfectly accessible from Montreal Rd.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And I have said that surface could work along Bathgate as long as it's within its own RoW to maintain it as an automated light-metro. There's plenty of space. Light-metro on the surface would not be much more expensive than trams on the surface.

It's got less space here than Montreal Rd. It's flanked by low density residential neighbourhoods for half the length. And then the federal campuses for the rest. There really isn't going to be much support for running it through there. But if it's okay to surface run on Bathgate, why is it not okay to median run on Montreal Rd which is wider?

[Harrison]

How is Vancouver's Broadway subway construction going? Haven't heard anything about it in this thread for a while.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they aren't willing to change? Yes. And as someone who has actually worked at several of facilities in question, the likelihood that a lot of those folks would be using transit is rather low, for a whole bunch of reasons that have very little to do with car dependency.

Heck, I am wondering if they will even allow a grade separated line overlooking their campuses.

So everyone would have to sign an agreement that they would switch to transit before any transit improvements were implemented?

Keep it on Rideau-Montreal. Terminate at Rideau and Montreal stations. There just aren't enough riders on Bathgate to justify such a long and complex detour. Especially if it's expensive and grade separated. CSIS and CSE are both accessible from Blair in a pinch. And NRC is perfectly accessible from Montreal Rd.

That's a reasonable solution. We could easily improve bus service between Blair and a Bathgate/Montreal station to better serve the college and Federal campuses.

It's got less space here than Montreal Rd. It's flanked by low density residential neighbourhoods for half the length. And then the federal campuses for the rest. There really isn't going to be much support for running it through there. But if it's okay to surface run on Bathgate, why is it not okay to median run on Montreal Rd which is wider?

The City could easily use a strip of land between Bathgate and the Federal campuses for an excusive RoW between Stone Private and Blair. The Feds hand over or sell land to the City all the time for transit and road projects. No reason why they wouldn't be open do the same here.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So everyone would have to sign an agreement that they would switch to transit before any transit improvements were implemented?

No. I am saying, you have to look at the likely planning for transit usage from those agencies. For example, when DND began its consolidation in the NCR, they sought out several locations that had good transit, and discussed future plans with the city for the rest (Moodie). And even then, choices were made for campuses that do require more security, to have more parking.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The City could easily use a strip of land between Bathgate and the Federal campuses for an excusive RoW between Stone Private and Blair. The Feds hand over or sell land to the City all the time for transit and road projects. No reason why they wouldn't be open do the same here.

These aren't just random government campuses filled with 9-5 paper pushers approving government grants. Given the nature of the work done in several of those facilities, I have real doubts they'd agree to turning over land for a highly trafficked transit line to be built right outside. Have you ever actually walked down Bathgate near the campuses? Better yet. Try looking up how to get to some of those campuses by transit. You'll notice that a lot of bus routes seem to go out of their way to avoid these places or will only serve distant gates and never go through a campus loop. Why would they do that if all those public servants needed transit?

I am going to suggest these agencies are going to be highly motivated to maintain their perimeters.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's a reasonable solution. We could easily improve bus service between Blair and a Bathgate/Montreal station to better serve the college and Federal campuses.

This is exactly what should be done. Not every pocket of density needs a billion dollar rail line to service them. Rail should be reserved for corridors with substantially more demand than what a bus route could handle. And grade separation should be reserved for places where there's a really high probability of ridership outstrippping the capacity of any semi-exclusive right-of-way. I don't think Rideau-Montreal will need grade separation outside of the stretch from Rideau centre to St-Laurent, in our lifetimes and probably the next.