The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

It seems Lethbridge did indeed have a streetcar system, consisting of three lines and fully abandoned by 1947.

A lot of smaller cities had small streetcar lines that were generally built and ripped up again within 20 or 30 years, built in boom years with shaky business plans, and then once the car started to take over in the 1930's they started to come down after a decade or two of struggling. WWII put the rip down on hold, but it continued in force after the war. Its not a surprise its gone and few remember it, many of these streetcars barely had much ridership even before the car.

[Dwils01]

Sault Ste. Marie had a streetcar line that circled around downtown. I believe it was ripped up in the 50's.

[matt602]

I believe that Hamilton was the last big city in Ontario aside from Toronto to have streetcars. They were also removed and replaced with trolley service in 1951. That trolley service was later removed in 1992 or 1993, along with Toronto's.

Hopefully with these recent announcements, the Hamilton Street Railway will actually be a literal name again.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

The Viaduct is something like a mile long, and single tracked, and it's no more direct than the existing highway. It's not going to work for transit.

If anything, it's substantially less direct than existing road connections. Whoop Up Trail is about as direct as you could hope for. The freight rail line is no where near the University.

[ssiguy]

London doesn't seem to have much interest in LRT but has definite plans for a BRT which is probably a better idea considering the layout of London and it's very thin roadways. Londoners want better buses and it's ridership levels are quite high for a city it's size. The highest in Ontario outside Toronto and Ottawa on a per-capita basis.

I still think it could backfire if London wants money for BRT and doesn't get it. Kitchener isn't near as important a city as London and, unlike London, not a major regional centre and is getting LRT, HSR, and GO so it would be hard to deny London.

As far as what I said earlier about Ontarians increasingly viewing Hamilton and Kitchener as suburbs, I am talking about impressions. For most Ontarians there are 4 parts......Northern, Eastern, South-West, and Toronto/Golden Horseshoe. Although the later is technically "Central Ontario", no one ever calls it that.

Kingston and London have far more in common than London and Kitchener or London and Hamilton as they are both seen as the regional centres of their area. Any funding to Ham or Kit is basically seen as more money for Greater Toronto.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by matt602

I believe that Hamilton was the last big city in Ontario aside from Toronto to have streetcars. They were also removed and replaced with trolley service in 1951. That trolley service was later removed in 1992 or 1993, along with Toronto's.

Hopefully with these recent announcements, the Hamilton Street Railway will actually be a literal name again.

Ottawa's streetcars survived until 1959.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

London doesn't seem to have much interest in LRT but has definite plans for a BRT which is probably a better idea considering the layout of London and it's very thin roadways. Londoners want better buses and it's ridership levels are quite high for a city it's size. The highest in Ontario outside Toronto and Ottawa on a per-capita basis.

I still think it could backfire if London wants money for BRT and doesn't get it. Kitchener isn't near as important a city as London and, unlike London, not a major regional centre and is getting LRT, HSR, and GO so it would be hard to deny London.

As far as what I said earlier about Ontarians increasingly viewing Hamilton and Kitchener as suburbs, I am talking about impressions. For most Ontarians there are 4 parts......Northern, Eastern, South-West, and Toronto/Golden Horseshoe. Although the later is technically "Central Ontario", no one ever calls it that.

Kingston and London have far more in common than London and Kitchener or London and Hamilton as they are both seen as the regional centres of their area. Any funding to Ham or Kit is basically seen as more money for Greater Toronto.

Kingston and London have lots of common.
1) Regional centres for their areas
2) Have incredible urban bones despite small populations
3) Both have large historic universities attended mostly by GTA students
4) Both have mostly public-sector driven economies

[mpd618]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I still think it could backfire if London wants money for BRT and doesn't get it.

Seems like London is where Waterloo Region was in 2002, when it first pitched a specific proposal for provincial and federal funding - but even then Waterloo Region had a price tag for the plan. I'm not sure whether it got any real funding promises then (maybe someone else here remembers?), but what it did get was some funding in 2004 for growth management studies and an EA for rapid transit. Only after completing a substantial portion of the EA, and approving the technology, routing, and phasing in 2009 was Waterloo Region able to get funding commitments from the upper levels of government.

Is London's council serious about implementing a BRT system, likely with a local tax contribution, or is it seeing how much money is available from the upper levels of government before endorsing a plan?

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I still think it could backfire if London wants money for BRT and doesn't get it. Kitchener isn't near as important a city as London and, unlike London, not a major regional centre and is getting LRT, HSR, and GO so it would be hard to deny London.

When it comes to CMAs Kitchener is just as important as London and a few years ago passed London in population.

[Chadillaccc]

Population doesn't always equal importance. That's like saying because St. Catharines is larger in population, that it's more important than Regina, the capital city of an entire province. London is an independent regional centre for a region of the province containing some 2 million people, while the RM of Waterloo is increasingly becoming a satellite of the GTA, feeding their interests. Not saying the RM of Waterloo is dependent on any other city, just that London is much more on its own as a major service hub for a large area, and has the financial, cultural, and industrial capacity to prove it.

[kwoldtimer]

Not sure how this came up. You are correct re London, but Waterloo (specifically the high tech sector) has the government's ear these days. They are quite assertive in letting Wynne et al know what's needed to support the sector.

[caltrane74]

London and Kitchener always seemed like equals to me.

Kitchener has the high-tech sector which it services, and London services the outlying agricultural areas of southwestern, and southern Ontario.

Kitchener has a far higher growth trajectory though...

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Population doesn't always equal importance. That's like saying because St. Catharines is larger in population, that it's more important than Regina, the capital city of an entire province.

St. Catherines does not have more people than Regina. The Niagara Metro Thingy does, but it's really a fairly artificial creation just because commuter patterns in the area are a mess. I would guess that the Niagara Region, with the high profile that comes with Niagara Falls and the significant economic importance of the Welland Canal is quite a bit more important to Canada as a whole than Regina.

[Mla]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

It is not always about just today's need. You need to plan for the future, and you need to understand this is not 1950 anymore.

Today, you have to build higher order transit to offer a real alternative to the auto, because people have a choice. And they are not going to wait for a bus line to magically carry 60,000 riders a day before converting to a metro system.

You also have to take the context of the area into account. And when doing that, the Waterloo LRT is an outstanding building block to better transit in Waterloo Region.

Seriously, there are metro systems in European cities which don't carry much more than the planned Waterloo LRT ridership.

I am glad Canada runs efficient transit networks. But sometimes we take it a little far, and don't understand that every train needs to be packed.

Further to this fact, I guess Edmonton should not have built LRT? Because their initial line did not have much better ridership. And the KM difference was not that big.

To be fair, Edmonton's LRT now has over 100,000 daily riders and it is easier to show how much demand there is for LRT here. So, when proposing new lines it is easier to make an argument to the Province and Feds for funding because the ridership is there. If we had waited to build LRT we wouldn't have as much demand as we do now.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by Beedok

St. Catherines does not have more people than Regina. The Niagara Metro Thingy does, but it's really a fairly artificial creation just because commuter patterns in the area are a mess. I would guess that the Niagara Region, with the high profile that comes with Niagara Falls and the significant economic importance of the Welland Canal is quite a bit more important to Canada as a whole than Regina.

Yes, the Welland Canal, and the whole manufacturing area make St. Kitts a pretty potent force, though not what it use to be, that's for sure!

[MTLskyline]

• Video Link

[Mamiamato24]

LIFE CHANGING NEWS: The STL has a new logo, and a new beta website!

(much amaze)
Source

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

St. Catherines does not have more people than Regina. The Niagara Metro Thingy does...

Exactly, and Kitchener isn't larger than London, but clearly we're talking about Metro areas since that's what the guy said, since the KWC Metro area is slightly larger than London's metro area.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Not sure how this came up. You are correct re London, but Waterloo (specifically the high tech sector) has the government's ear these days. They are quite assertive in letting Wynne et al know what's needed to support the sector.

That's for sure!

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Exactly, and Kitchener isn't larger than London, but clearly we're talking about Metro areas since that's what the guy said, since the KWC Metro area is slightly larger than London's metro area.

True, but Kitchener can be used fairly easily as a term for KWC as the biggest city in that urban area. St. Catherines definitely does not feel like the heart of the Niagara Region, so it's name doesn't work as well for the overall 'metro'. (Really St. Catherines felt no more tied to Niagara Falls than Hamilton does to Toronto, they just happen to be close together.)

[Chadillaccc]

Okay, I was clearly using St. Kitts as an example. I could have very well said Oshawa or any other medium sized city. Size doesn't equal importance is the point, not the minor details.