The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Kibb]

Im more then a little pissed off if this 100% funding is true.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kibb

Im more then a little pissed off if this 100% funding is true.

100% is different for different cities though. The measure you have to look at in big programs like this if your goal is equality of input is cost per capita per year. If you equalized to that, some communities willing to accept systems with less frills (underground and elevated sections, automatic train control, automated switches, running on streets with linear infrastructure that needs to be relocated because it is the 'best' route) will get a higher percentage of funding.

When the first batch of transit city lines were funded they were pitched by the city as being really cheap, so the province got brought in on a high percentage of funding. Unfortunately they didn't stick an envelope on the commitment until later when it became obvious that Toronto was unwilling to stop scope creep on the lines now that they knew someone else was paying for them, and that Toronto had forgotten to price in things like maintenance facilities and vehicles.

In any case, shouldn't KW be happy because their project was still funded at all even though the mobility gains were minimal and the LRT will be slower than the bus it replaces?
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/train-within-nowhere/
http://oped.ca/National-Post/peter-shawn-taylor-waterloos-train-to-nowhere/

[SkahHigh]

Yesterday, Transports minister Robert Poeti talked on the radio and mentionned additionnal details about the Train de l'Ouest project. It will go past Trudeau (with an underground station at the airport) and the planned terminus would be Fairview Mall. M. Poeti also said there was a possibility of ending the line at Ste-Marie Road in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue.

[miketoronto]

Waterloo Region is excited for LRT.

http://youtu.be/Zu_iwM34yCc

I have to say, this is one of this project has great community engagement and marketing. Waterloo really knows how to do things well. And the goals which include benefits for rural residents (protecting farmland) is a great way to get support from all parties.

[Innsertnamehere]

The Waterloo LRT is really a borderline streetcar, and is being built with somewhat similar motives to what the US is using to justify their little downtown streetcar loops that are popping up everywhere. It encourages intensification. It does have a commuter focus of some sorts to it just like the streetcar projects, but its not calgary or edmonton style lrt either.

[caltrane74]

Kitchener people are Germans!

They love trams!

(BTW, I didn't know Waterloo had its own Commuter Rail line before)

[Aylmer]

"Borderline streetcar" is like "borderline pregnant". It's surface LRT (SLRT) - the same tech that some 30+ European towns, cities and metropolises have built since the late 1990's to much success - B-B+ grade-separation as opposed to C-level grade-separation. That might not seem like a world of difference, but the advantage of bypassing traffic is huge in transit and the difference between B and C is much, much more important than between B and A (and look how much time we waste on bickering about that!).


A city the size of KW doesn't need commuter LRT. The way I see it, Ion is supposed to structure future development and give the city an excuse to pursue less auto-centric design (get rid of minimum parking reqs, road narrowing, more density without bigger roads, tougher control of sprawl, etc.).

If they fully take advantage of the opportunity SLRT, KW will find itself with much less spawl and a strong, an active urban spine which attracts residents, out-of-towners and investment, and a brand which can help define KWC going forward.

And in the end, isn't that at least just as important as a commuter train and P&Rs?

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The Waterloo LRT is really a borderline streetcar,

Only in spots. The portion between Uptown and Downtown Kitchener will mostly be in the middle of the street. But the rest of the route is on a fully separated right of way.

I agree the central portion is a concern. However if it is done right, it should serve the region well, as the other portions can offer the really speedy service.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

"Borderline streetcar" is like "borderline pregnant". It's surface LRT (SLRT) - the same tech that some 30+ European towns, cities and metropolises have built since the late 1990's to much success.

We have to stop comparing ourselves to Europe, because the dynamics are different on the other side of the ocean.

European street level LRT lines, in general, do not have to travel as far as LRT lines in North America.

The Waterloo LRT when fully built will extend all the way into Cambridge. European cities just do not need to traverse as long distances like that. And where they do, they provide fully grade separated rapid transit lines.

But as I said above. Given that key areas of the Waterloo LRT are in their own right of way, such as the stretch to Fairview Park Mall. I think the line will have good speeds.

[Aylmer]

But is KW'S 'dynamic' more different from Le Mans than it is from Phoenix? I don't subscribe to this kind of continental determinism - every city has its own particularities even if some of its aspects may be comparable to others'.

16km for a line that runs through two cores really isn't anything extraordinary and is definitely comparable to many European SLRT lines. It's not meant to be a line you ride from end to end as you would Ottawa's Trillium Line or Vancouver's Expo Line. Even when extended to Cambridge, it's SLRT (as it is in Waterloo, Kitchener, Preston and Galt's downtowns) with tram-train sections (Waterloo-Conestoga, Ottawa S.-Fairview-Preston, Preston-Galt). Calgary's C-Train is somewhat similar: you've got SLRT downtown and tram-train sections elsewhere.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

"Borderline streetcar" is like "borderline pregnant". It's surface LRT (SLRT) - the same tech that some 30+ European towns, cities and metropolises have built since the late 1990's to much success - B-B+ grade-separation as opposed to C-level grade-separation. That might not seem like a world of difference, but the advantage of bypassing traffic is huge in transit and the difference between B and C is much, much more important than between B and A (and look how much time we waste on bickering about that!).


A city the size of KW doesn't need commuter LRT. The way I see it, Ion is supposed to structure future development and give the city an excuse to pursue less auto-centric design (get rid of minimum parking reqs, road narrowing, more density without bigger roads, tougher control of sprawl, etc.).

If they fully take advantage of the opportunity SLRT, KW will find itself with much less spawl and a strong, an active urban spine which attracts residents, out-of-towners and investment, and a brand which can help define KWC going forward.

And in the end, isn't that at least just as important as a commuter train and P&Rs?

Then why won't the LRT be faster than the bus it replaces? Shouldn't there at least be mobility improvements if non local money is used?

[Aylmer]

In a word - reliability. The bus I took to get to Ottawa from Aylmer took somewhere between 35 and 70 minutes depending on whether I left at 15h or 17h30 because the bus was always subjected to the same congestion as the car in key locations (there is a 'reserved' segment, but not at the key chokepoints). With B-separation, you can be confident that it will take 30 minutes, even at rush hour when it counts most.

This should be de rigueur for non-local bus routes everywhere, but alas. The advantage of rail in the case of KWC however is much more related to things like branding, structuring development and insuring long-term capacity. Mobility is definitely a big component of transportation planning and projects, but it is one of many and often it's arguably not the most important one.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I Mobility is definitely a big component of transportation planning and projects, but it is one of many and often it's arguably not the most important one.

No, that is the problem with planning the last 15 years or so. They put mobility on the back burner, and instead look at transit projects as nothing but development tools.
This is why you see projects in the USA with such low ridership. Because all planners worry about is creating an urban village with these slow LRT networks. But at the end of the day, people want mobility. And if transit does not offer it, they will just more than happily hop into their car.

[Aylmer]

That's not what I'm saying - it's absurd to not include mobility in transportation projects (the American streetcar craze is a prime example - in places like Portland, it's often faster to walk than to take the streetcar), but focusing only on mobility at the expense of development is what we've managed to do in Montreal with our commuter rail stations situated on the far side of a sea of parking behind a highway without a walkway.

What we have to understand is that mobility isn't a goal in itself - access is. After all, what good is it if you can clear 20km in 10 minutes if you've gone from a parking lot to a cornfield?

access=mobility+proximity

So mobility without development is just as pointless (if not more) as development without mobility. What you want is transit which can go far, but which attracts lots of development (proximity) around each of its stations. How far apart you want those nodes of development to be will shape the form and tech of your network and I think Ion is very well suited to KWC.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, you have to think about your whole trip mobility, not just the time on vehicle. Have to count waiting time and last mile too.

I think we actaully mean the same thing. It might just be me but I would think KW might have been better off with 4 or 5 more upgraded BRT routes for less money than what they are building.

Oh the dangers of the new transit project assessment process. Helps for speeding things up, but doesn't help fix bad decisions (I never really understood why examining alternatives had to be in law - the municipalities in Alberta seem to be able to follow a planning process without the requirements dictated by the province. Heck, most spending on infrastructure doesn't even require provincial approval, it is just a block allocation to the cities).

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

No, that is the problem with planning the last 15 years or so. They put mobility on the back burner, and instead look at transit projects as nothing but development tools.
This is why you see projects in the USA with such low ridership. Because all planners worry about is creating an urban village with these slow LRT networks. But at the end of the day, people want mobility. And if transit does not offer it, they will just more than happily hop into their car.

I agree with this. The big trend right now seems to be to build lots of nice shiny projects to spur development and "shape growth" rather than what rapid transit should actually be for, moving people rapidly. If you're gonna replace a bus route with a streetcar that takes the same time to get somewhere, is that really an improvement? If I'm a person considering making the switch from my car to transit, I don't care if a new transit line is "integrated into the community" or is helping sell condos in the area. I care about how long it takes me to get to work. If it's still faster to drive, why wouldn't I drive? If we really want to get people to switch modes, and make it easier for them to get around (which although forgotten now is actually the point of transit) we need to build it for speed. There are very few cities in North America that do this however.

[Aylmer]

It might not matter to you the squarefootage of space of which usage has been spurred or not by your particular way of getting to work, but have you ever wondered why your office is where it is? Or why your grocery store is here and not there? Or why you're getting/not getting enough exercise?

There are lots of things I don't think about on a daily basis ― the mechanics of global food distribution, the workings of our sewage systems, the variable nature of the electron...― but that doesn't make them unimportant or not there. Your getting to work is inexorably tied to development patterns, even if you don't think about it.


Now on the subject of speed and nobility.

Mobility is pointless without proximity. In Anytown, USA, you'll probably be able to maintain an average speed of 70, but it will still take you longer to get to the grocery store than if you lived in the Mile-End where you'd be lucky to move faster than 15km/h. For transit, you can move faster on the GO line to Barrie than on the Bloor-Danforth, but I'll bet you my shiniest nickel that you'll get to where you need to go much quicker in Danforth. If my transit system hits 60 but moves me from nowhere to no place, it's wasted money. Hence the importance of development as an absolutely essential component of transit.

And I know this is a newfangled concept in post-war North American (though Toronto and to a lesser extent Ottawa did realise this until the 90's), but I don't think we should be looking to post-war North America for guidance on how to do transit. Remember, you can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it.

[miketoronto]

Toronto has been directing development about rapid transit from the start of the Yonge subway.

The difference is that rapid transit was built with the goal of quickly getting people where they needed to go. Development was then focused onto these lines.

This is different than what we are seeing now. Where slow rapid transit projects are being built, with the goal of socially engineering people to not travel far.
The problem is that it does not stop people from traveling. All it does is stop them from traveling by transit, and instead promotes driving.

In KW's case, I think the new LRT will be able to achieve some speed on the grade separated sections, that it will not just be a fancy streetcar. This is important, because whether we like it or not. People are traveling from all points in the region, to all points in the region. People from Cambridge are going to UofW, etc. And the region needs a rapid transit line to get people across the region fast.

[Beedok]

Hamilton's B-Line is apparently meant to shave 5 minutes off the bus time to travel across most of the city (35 minutes to 30 minutes I think). Does that count as speeding things up? Doesn't seem like it to me, but it certainly isn't slowing it down.

[ssiguy]

So many of the US streetcar systems are nothing more than make work projects espoused by politicians who will never use it but sure will be at the ribbon cutting ceremony.

Urban renewal, make-work, guiding growth, id NOT the responsibility of transit systems. Their sole priority should be moving people as efficiently and safely as possible and that's all. TOD etc is the responsibility of the planning dept not the transit systems. They have tried to meld the two ideas together resulting in slow transit which gets no one out of their cars. People travelling don't want an urban experience but rather to get from A to B as fast as possible. The best transit trip is the one you don't remember.