The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Northern Ontario is paid lip service.

But Doug Ford has promised roads to the Ring of Fire "right away"...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

But Doug Ford has promised roads to the Ring of Fire "right away"...

.... So, when is he going to start construction?

Seriously, they may promise, but they rarely deliver.

[J.OT13]

Just went through the CAQ's proposals for Montreal. Focuses entirely on the suburbs. No mention of the pink line. No surprise.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Northern Ontario is paid lip service.

No doubt you guys have it worse than any other region in Ontario.Maybe it's time to rethink Ontario. Make the GTA it's own province, give Ottawa a Federal District status and give Northern Ontario power over it's own people and resources.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Just went through the CAQ's proposals for Montreal. Focuses entirely on the suburbs. No mention of the pink line. No surprise.

...

There are two LRT lines planned for the island plus the blue line and BRT. Laval and Longueuil will be a million person total for only 4 metro stations. The pink line is great but can't help density as these areas are already dense from a Canadian POV. I would say that the CAQ plan is the best bang for the buck for density and to get far into the GMA. Pink line can come later.

Legault said enough of decades long studies, get the damn construction on the way. I agree with him on that even if I find him out of touch on many issues.

Yellow line and Pink lines are into the report, just that costing need to be under control and REM is more cost effective than underground metro.

[J.OT13]

There was a time when subway lines were built in areas that were already dense enough to warrant higher level transit, while today we stretch subway lines as far into the suburbs as possible in order to win votes, to the detriment of the older downtown subway lines and the residents of the central city who can't take a train that isn't already full.

The REM at least goes downtown, so transferring to the metro might not be necessary in most cases. What the CAQ is proposing isn't terrible, but it encourages suburban sprawl.

I've always been much more critical of Toronto where countless new lines and extensions force people onto the same overcapacity Yonge-University subway. The Downtown Relief Line should be the only priority at this point, but the votes aren't there, but in the suburbs.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Tl
The REM at least goes downtown, so transferring to the metro might not be necessary in most cases. What the CAQ is proposing isn't terrible, but it encourages suburban sprawl.

It encourages densification. Laval stations are the perfect example of that.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It encourages densification. Laval stations are the perfect example of that.

It does both. Stretching a metro/commuter rail line into far flung suburbs densifies them, but also forces the areas around to grow and (eventually) cause sprawl.

In the REM's case, it's not a major issue because most of the areas around the suburban stations are either protected (Rive-Sud Station) or already pretty sprawled out (Deux-Montagnes Station) but the smarter choice would be to densify the low-density areas closer to downtown cores first.

However, I find using the sprawl argument against public transit is far-fetched because sprawl mostly happens with roadway extensions and is a natural phenomenon from an urban development standpoint that comes with demographic growth.

[Doady]

Get rid of all public transit in the suburbs. All this suburban transit is just causing sprawl.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Doady

Get rid of all public transit in the suburbs. All this suburban transit is just causing sprawl.

I completely disagree. You want to remove as many cars from the road as you can. Not everyone wants to live downtown. Plus, removing 1 car that commutes 50 km is equivalent to removing 10 that commute 5 km so in some sense it is most important to provide transit opportunities to the suburbs.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I completely disagree. You want to remove as many cars from the road as you can. Not everyone wants to live downtown. Plus, removing 1 car that commutes 50 km is equivalent to removing 10 that commute 5 km so in some sense it is most important to provide transit opportunities to the suburbs.

He was being sarcastic.

The point from the first poster is that higher order transit should be built where it is needed. Instead we build lines out where it's not needed because It's cheaper per kilometre and rezone to build up the commuter base over the next 30 to 50 years. It's ass backwards.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Doady

Get rid of all public transit in the suburbs. All this suburban transit is just causing sprawl.

So the people who don`t have the money to live downtown should be punished for their lack of disposable income?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

He was being sarcastic.

The point from the first poster is that higher order transit should be built where it is needed. Instead we build lines out where it's not needed because It's cheaper per kilometre and rezone to build up the commuter base over the next 30 to 50 years. It's ass backwards.

It really is odd. I've seen many arguments made, in many different cities, that lines should be built to greenfield/brownfield sites instead of already built-up areas because it will spur development. Great, but what about the development that we already have? Even if we're thinking about redevelopment potential exclusively (though I continue to remind people that transit is first about moving people), it's much easier to create a lively urban setting where there is a certain level of existing activity, even if it's strip malls, than in empty fields. Starting from scratch is not a positive here.

[lrt's friend]

We really need to do both somehow. We are paying for decades of inaction. Basically, the post-war auto society was thought to solve our transportation needs. Nobody was thinking long-term enough (we still don't) to understand that road capacity is finite.

Of course, Canadian cities are in a lot better shape than American cities which basically tossed transit out almost entirely. We now see that suburban congestion can be as bad as urban congestion and this is why we need to extend transit to the suburbs and do it sooner as well as better serve more central urban areas. At the moment, most expenditures are going towards suburban extensions because the cost is lower per km but also because good transit is totally absent. Improving urban transit is very expensive and therefore is hard to prioritize, no matter the need.

Hopefully, when we catch up on serving the suburbs better, we can change our focus to urban areas more, but I wonder whether those huge price tags will keep the politicians from tackling those expensive projects.

[gunnar777]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We really need to do both somehow. We are paying for decades of inaction. Basically, the post-war auto society was thought to solve our transportation needs. Nobody was thinking long-term enough (we still don't) to understand that road capacity is finite.

Of course, Canadian cities are in a lot better shape than American cities which basically tossed transit out almost entirely. We now see that suburban congestion can be as bad as urban congestion and this is why we need to extend transit to the suburbs and do it sooner as well as better serve more central urban areas. At the moment, most expenditures are going towards suburban extensions because the cost is lower per km but also because good transit is totally absent. Improving urban transit is very expensive and therefore is hard to prioritize, no matter the need.

Hopefully, when we catch up on serving the suburbs better, we can change our focus to urban areas more, but I wonder whether those huge price tags will keep the politicians from tackling those expensive projects.

I think we should stop benchmarking transit, healthcare, etc. to that of the US.
That said, they still have extensive transit in New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia (+ SF Bay Area, I suppose).

[TorontoDrew]

This City TV report says it all. Doug and his late brother pushed for more subways to feed into the already crowded line 1. Doug and his brother said the downtown already had enough transit and did not need the relief line. Doug and his brother didn't seem to get that you can't ad more people to an already over crowded system. Doug and his brother made transit promises just for votes. Doug and his brother never used transit and love(d) their SUV's.

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/01/16/ne...taggering-extent-rush-hour-overcrowding/

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It really is odd. I've seen many arguments made, in many different cities, that lines should be built to greenfield/brownfield sites instead of already built-up areas because it will spur development. Great, but what about the development that we already have? Even if we're thinking about redevelopment potential exclusively (though I continue to remind people that transit is first about moving people), it's much easier to create a lively urban setting where there is a certain level of existing activity, even if it's strip malls, than in empty fields. Starting from scratch is not a positive here.

Americans have their guns and private healthcare. We have real estate development. LOL

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by gunnar777

I think we should stop benchmarking transit, healthcare, etc. to that of the US.
That said, they still have extensive transit in New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia (+ SF Bay Area, I suppose).

Who should we compare ourselves to?

[J.OT13]

My point about suburban transit might not have been as clear as I had hoped. Of course we need to serve the suburbs, but the suburbs often times can be served adequately with simple, cheap, commuter rail (I'm thinking more high quality, high frequency GO Transit in the GTHA more than the limited AMT in Montreal). The fact is, most suburbanites only use transit to get in and out of the city during the week, and not as a way to get around evenings in weekends, so investing in high capacity subways/metros doesn't make sense.

In the case like Ottawa however, many tracks were removed over the years and commuter rail would serve small villages far from the more developed Ottawa-Gatineau area, encouraging sprawl. So metro grade LRT is the only path forward.

That said, the urban cores are often neglected because they just represent a handful of wards/ridings/boroughs as opposed to the suburbs which are often dozens. Easier and cheaper (per kilometer) to get votes.

The fact is, Line 1 in Toronto is way overcapacity, so the DRL should be top priority. In Ottawa, Bank Street, Rideau and Montreal, the densest corridors in the city, are very narrow and congested. Buses are ridiculously unreliable (should be every 15 minutes but we usually wait 40 minutes before a couple buses arrive at once). Those corridors should at the very least be studied along with the suburban lines.

We need a balance. We need unelected bodies to study the transportation needs and come up with a priority list presented to the public. Elected officials cold then choose the ones they want, but at least the public would know what is actually needed and not what the politicians tell them is needed.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

My point about suburban transit might not have been as clear as I had hoped. Of course we need to serve the suburbs, but the suburbs often times can be served adequately with simple, cheap, commuter rail (I'm thinking more high quality, high frequency GO Transit in the GTHA more than the limited AMT in Montreal). The fact is, most suburbanites only use transit to get in and out of the city during the week, and not as a way to get around evenings in weekends, so investing in high capacity subways/metros doesn't make sense.

In the case like Ottawa however, many tracks were removed over the years and commuter rail would serve small villages far from the more developed Ottawa-Gatineau area, encouraging sprawl. So metro grade LRT is the only path forward.

That said, the urban cores are often neglected because they just represent a handful of wards/ridings/boroughs as opposed to the suburbs which are often dozens. Easier and cheaper (per kilometer) to get votes.

The fact is, Line 1 in Toronto is way overcapacity, so the DRL should be top priority. In Ottawa, Bank Street, Rideau and Montreal, the densest corridors in the city, are very narrow and congested. Buses are ridiculously unreliable (should be every 15 minutes but we usually wait 40 minutes before a couple buses arrive at once). Those corridors should at the very least be studied along with the suburban lines.

We need a balance. We need unelected bodies to study the transportation needs and come up with a priority list presented to the public. Elected officials cold then choose the ones they want, but at least the public would know what is actually needed and not what the politicians tell them is needed.

That isn't true at all though, partly, but not entirely, for the reasons you have said. 'Commuter rail' is neither simple nor cheap, and the only Canadian cities (Toronto and Montreal) where it approaches those criteria already have systems in place, and are developing them further - but neither cheaply nor simply.

Railways in Canada are owned by monopolies, not the people. For that reason alone (though there are others), it will never be simple or cheap to build commuter rail here. Those monopolies want as much control of those railways as they can, prioritising their freight over passenger services, and where they do give a little, it will be at a price favourable to them and not to us.

So it is usually easier to build brand new systems than attempt to use existing railways. Along with the previous reason, there is also the fact that the monopolys' infrastructure is poorly maintained crap unsuitable for moderate speed passenger rail and unelectrified, so we either accept crappy service or pay CP/CN to upgrade the line at great expense.

Oh yeah, and because of North America's moronic FRA rules, we can't use proper, nice passenger trains here and are forced to use monstrous, inefficient tanks instead.

Simple and cheap - you must be joking! So many reasons why it is neither.