The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

Financing for 5 new transit lines in QC agreed on.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/polit...ebec-accord-entre-trudeau-et-legault.php

Can you sum it up for those of us who cannot read French?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you sum it up for those of us who cannot read French?

You’re from North Bay and yet you have little exposure to French? (I’ve always wondered how much French you and wave46 know.)

Anyway I just read it. It was heck of a clickbait. The term 5 tramway projects was mentioned but not specified. The rest was about economics.

Edit: Oops my bad. They were named but no specifics were given. I scrolled too fast on my screen.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can you sum it up for those of us who cannot read French?

These 5 projects will get funding from the Feds:
Laval REM line (CPDQi)
Chambly REM extension (CPDQi)
Montréal East Island REM/LRT (CPDQi)
Longueuil LRT (RTL)
Gatineau streetcar (STO)

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

You’re from North Bay and yet you have little exposure to French? (I’ve always wondered how much French you and wave46 know.)

Anyway I just read it. It was heck of a clickbait. The term 5 tramway projects was mentioned but not specified. The rest was about economics.

Edit: Oops my bad. They were named but no specifics were given. I scrolled too fast on my screen.

Je parle un petit peux de francais.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

These 5 projects will get funding from the Feds:
Laval REM line (CPDQi)
Chambly REM extension (CPDQi)
Montréal East Island REM/LRT (CPDQi)
Longueuil LRT (RTL)
Gatineau streetcar (STO)

So, 1 line in the QC area, one in Gatineau and 3 in Montreal area?

The Gatineau line, is it to replace the Rapidbus?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, 1 line in the QC area, one in Gatineau and 3 in Montreal area?

The Gatineau line, is it to replace the Rapidbus?

No, 4 lines in the Montréal area. Gatineau one is from Aylmer to Ottawa, it doesn't replace the RapidBus

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

No, 4 lines in the Montréal area. Gatineau one is from Aylmer to Ottawa, it doesn't replace the RapidBus

I was thinking of Levis.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't think Canadians view transit negatively at all. Even people in small towns and rural areas acknowledged it's importance to our bigger cities.

Canadians are not Americans. We view transit as an essential service like education and healthcare whereas Americans view it as a social service like welfare and food stamps with very few exceptions. In the US this is made even worse due to the issue of race where many whites vierw transit as a poor and black service and therefore shun it. Most Americans would rather be caught walking into a porn shop than boarding a bus. Americans are also far more individualistic than Canadians and the automobile plays into that mentality and public transit is the antithesis of it.

This is a textbook example of the condescending anti-Americanism and pathetic self-congratulatory BS indoctrinated into Canadians as a core part of Canadian patriotism.

[Nouvellecosse]

Are you saying it isn't true or just that you don't like it? The tone of your gives an impression of the latter.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Are you saying it isn't true or just that you don't like it? The tone of your gives an impression of the latter.

There is some merit to it, but it's an exaggerated negative view of America and Americans, which is often what Canadian patriotism boils down to (anti-Americanism and self-congratulation with little critical self-reflection). It's a pathetic and insecure aspect of Canadiana that gets irritating.

This excludes Quebecois, who tend to have a positive and self-assured patriotism that celebrates their own culture.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think if there are both positive and negative views, then the negative views - if they have some basis in reality - should be taken at face value and not be viewed as some sign of insecurity or shortcoming on behalf of the observer. In other words, if someone says something true, they shouldn't be judged based on the implications of the truth, such as, "Since that truth is in some way self-serving, you should hold back so that no one questions your motives". Truth is truth. To me, things like insecurity or smugness/superiority only apply when someone's positive or views are disproportionate to the reality.

The problem in the case of the US is that the US doesn't really need anyone else to promote its positive elements because its enormous media and marketing machine often promotes things globally to the extent that the only thing missing is the realistic view of the downsides. Considering the rate at which Canada watches US TV and movies and visits the US etc. that certainly applied to us. I think most Canadians are reasonably familiar with the positive elements and don't feel we need to spend more time re-iterating them just so that we're also allowed to criticize. At the same time, many of Canada's positive elements (beyond the of cliches of politeness, scenery, and healthcare) are poorly enough known, in some cases even among Canadians, that they actually could actually use some acknowledgement.

Not that ssi's comments are even criticism by necessity. I would say they're more criticism by perspective. Many people on this site would view them as criticism, but others - including many in the US general public - would see having a greater sense of individuality and higher rates of car ownership/usage to be positives.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

There is some merit to it, but it's an exaggerated negative view of America and Americans, which is often what Canadian patriotism boils down to (anti-Americanism and self-congratulation with little critical self-reflection). It's a pathetic and insecure aspect of Canadiana that gets irritating.

This excludes Quebecois, who tend to have a positive and self-assured patriotism that celebrates their own culture.

Whether or not English Canadian self-image revolves around anti-Americanism, I lived in the US for two years and can vouch for the fact that public transport is perceived almost exactly as described, in nearly every part of the US.

It is seen as an essential service, not an option for anyone moderately well-off. My colleagues during my time in the States often remarked the bus was for people who lost their licence due to drinking, drugs, etc. That may be anecdotal but anyone who has spent time in the States will realise this is true, with the possible exception of the inner parts of New York City and a handful of other neighbourhoods across the country.

Canada, even in mid-size cities, generally builds public transport as an inherent part of infrastructure, like roads or pipes.

[J.OT13]

That's not to say that we (Canadians) aren't aware of our short comings. We are still well behind many parts of Asia and Europe when it comes to embracing transit as a legitimate way to get around at all times. We seem to build our transit infrastructure purely to get suburban commuters to and from downtown at rush hour.

Canadian politicians talk big on a lot of important things like health care, transit and climate action, but do little to address these issues.

[ssiguy]

In the US, transit is viewed as a social service in a country with a large socio-economic divide. In the US, with very few exception {ie NY, Wash, SF} transit is viewed as a poor man's option and in the US that also equates to be being a service for black people like public housing which is a stigma that transit doesn't have in Canada.

US transit numbers are shockingly low and are warped by NY's high numbers. If you get rid of the Greater NY transit numbers, Canada's 38 million carries half the ridership of the US's remaining 300 million. London Transit carries twice as many passengers as Indianapolis yet London only serves 420,000 while Indy serves 1.8 million. London Transit carries as many passengers as Greater Detroit with nearly 4 million and London is only 200km away.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's not to say that we (Canadians) aren't aware of our short comings. We are still well behind many parts of Asia and Europe when it comes to embracing transit as a legitimate way to get around at all times. We seem to build our transit infrastructure purely to get suburban commuters to and from downtown at rush hour.

Canadian politicians talk big on a lot of important things like health care, transit and climate action, but do little to address these issues.

Actually, we're not far off Europe's transit mode share. Toronto and Montreal have a share about on par with Berlin's, for example. Where we really differ is active mode share - walking and cycling. Whereas your average large European and Canadian city will have about 20-30% of work trips on transit, Canadian cities will have a very low proportion of people on foot or bike (5-15%) while our European counterparts will be roughly on par with transit (20-30%).

Increasingly, I'm of the belief that there are only modest gains that can be made to our transit ridership. As an example, Hamburg has the same transit share as Ottawa, despite having infrastructure and service that far exceeds ours. So if we were to end up with a Hamburg-like transit network, I don't know if we could really expect to have ridership, say, double theirs. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it - there are all sorts of other benefits to having a great transit system - but it just probably isn't the best way to reduce car trips.

On the other hand, I think that increasing walking and cycling has enormous growth potential. If we ended up with a Hamburg-like active transport network (which isn't even near the best in Europe, mind you) and usership, that would cut Ottawa's driving share in half.

The best part of that is that active transport infrastructure costs pennies on the dollar of what car or transit infra does. With the PTIF, we've got billions of dollars getting dropped for transit infrastructure, which is definitely great. But imagine what even one tenth of that would mean for active transport. If Ottawa spent $500M in active transport along with the roughly $5B going towards transit infrastructure, we would be the envy of North America. Moreover, if you had safe, pleasant, dependable cycling infrastructure to and from transit stations, you're also helping to drive transit use.

If we're going to meet our climate targets (as well as reducing congestion and car dependency), I think we could get orders more bang for our buck in active transportation.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Actually, we're not far off Europe's transit mode share. Toronto and Montreal have a share about on par with Berlin's, for example. Where we really differ is active mode share - walking and cycling. Whereas your average large European and Canadian city will have about 20-30% of work trips on transit, Canadian cities will have a very low proportion of people on foot or bike (5-15%) while our European counterparts will be roughly on par with transit (20-30%).

Increasingly, I'm of the belief that there are only modest gains that can be made to our transit ridership. As an example, Hamburg has the same transit share as Ottawa, despite having infrastructure and service that far exceeds ours. So if we were to end up with a Hamburg-like transit network, I don't know if we could really expect to have ridership, say, double theirs. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it - there are all sorts of other benefits to having a great transit system - but it just probably isn't the best way to reduce car trips.

On the other hand, I think that increasing walking and cycling has enormous growth potential. If we ended up with a Hamburg-like active transport network (which isn't even near the best in Europe, mind you) and usership, that would cut Ottawa's driving share in half.

The best part of that is that active transport infrastructure costs pennies on the dollar of what car or transit infra does. With the PTIF, we've got billions of dollars getting dropped for transit infrastructure, which is definitely great. But imagine what even one tenth of that would mean for active transport. If Ottawa spent $500M in active transport along with the roughly $5B going towards transit infrastructure, we would be the envy of North America. Moreover, if you had safe, pleasant, dependable cycling infrastructure to and from transit stations, you're also helping to drive transit use.

If we're going to meet our climate targets (as well as reducing congestion and car dependency), I think we could get orders more bang for our buck in active transportation.

Victoria is the only CMA that gets close to European levels for active transport (walking and cycling) at 17%.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Increasingly, I'm of the belief that there are only modest gains that can be made to our transit ridership. As an example, Hamburg has the same transit share as Ottawa, despite having infrastructure and service that far exceeds ours. So if we were to end up with a Hamburg-like transit network, I don't know if we could really expect to have ridership, say, double theirs. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it - there are all sorts of other benefits to having a great transit system - but it just probably isn't the best way to reduce car trips.

On the other hand, I think that increasing walking and cycling has enormous growth potential. If we ended up with a Hamburg-like active transport network (which isn't even near the best in Europe, mind you) and usership, that would cut Ottawa's driving share in half.

I agree that doubling our transit infrastructure won’t result in a doubling of ridership, but I also think European cities’ lower-than-expected ridership might have to do with the dispersal of jobs around a medium-dense, mixed-use, and rather large in area CBD, rather than hyper-concentrated skyscraper office districts. Certainly this increases our ability to have high ridership numbers than our infrastructure and built environment would allow - particularly in a city like Calgary, but also in Toronto, Montreal and other places. Conversely, this would lower our ability to serve these areas by active travel, since proportionally fewer workers can live within walking/biking distance of their jobs, if tens of thousands of them are concentrated in a single, small spot, rather than dotting a large area.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

There is some merit to it, but it's an exaggerated negative view of America and Americans, which is often what Canadian patriotism boils down to (anti-Americanism and self-congratulation with little critical self-reflection). It's a pathetic and insecure aspect of Canadiana that gets irritating.

This excludes Quebecois, who tend to have a positive and self-assured patriotism that celebrates their own culture.

Agreed 100%.

You don't see how off-putting it is until you step outside for a minute.

It doesn't matter if it's true. All countries have some shit with their neighbour, and there's often a kernel of truth.

But you can't be weird about it like this. Everyone knows the US has violent cities, hyper-individualism, cars, all that. It's their brand.

You can't pre-emptively bring it up when describing things in Canada because it makes you look obsessive and distracted.

I know we're in kind of a Ukraine situation but we have to be a little more self-possessed.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I agree that doubling our transit infrastructure won’t result in a doubling of ridership, but I also think European cities’ lower-than-expected ridership might have to do with the dispersal of jobs around a medium-dense, mixed-use, and rather large in area CBD, rather than hyper-concentrated skyscraper office districts. Certainly this increases our ability to have high ridership numbers than our infrastructure and built environment would allow - particularly in a city like Calgary, but also in Toronto, Montreal and other places. Conversely, this would lower our ability to serve these areas by active travel, since proportionally fewer workers can live within walking/biking distance of their jobs, if tens of thousands of them are concentrated in a single, small spot, rather than dotting a large area.

I think you're quite right about the differences in city layout. But I'll counter with four arguments;

1. It doesn't have to work for everyone for it to work for a lot of people.
There are all sorts of circumstances where a car or transit would work a lot better. But there are a lot of circumstances where active transport would work better. The average commute distance in Canada is 7.8 km, about 30 minutes on a bike at a very leisurly pace. For every plumber commuting 20 km with equipment who needs a van and every Richmond Hill commuter who needs a GO train, there are at least as many people carrying nothing more than a laptop for 4-5 km who might very well take a bike if it were made an attractive and convenient option. The goal is not to put every trip on a bike, but rather to divert trips where it would be the most efficient choice. And with that alone, we could multiply our active share several times over.

2. European cities aren't all that more compact. But they still manage to have high active share.
One of the downsides to having more dispersed employment is that you're just as likely to have to commute further than you are to find a job close by. In fact, in countries like Germany, the average commute length is actually longer than in Canada (10.5 km vs 7.8). Although Canada's employment concentrations definitely make public transport more efficient than equivalent service would be in Europe, it would seem that it also helps to make our trips shorter and potentially more practical with active modes too.

3. It's not all about commutes
We often talk about commutes because we've got a lot of detailed data on that, but that's just one of our multitude of daily trips. Maybe the plumber from before has to drive to work, but is it really efficient for them to have to haul their multi-tonne vehicle 2 km for eggs? Or to drop off their kids at an activity 1 km away? Here again, some of these trips may require a car (not a week goes by when I don't hear about the scenario of driving a car-full of hockey equipment to a 4am practice), but an auful lot of them don't. Next Saturday afternoon, check how many cars are driving by with hockey equipment, Ikea furniture, or a backseat full from a Costco haul. It's not that many). Many of these trips could be diverted from cars if it were safe and convenient to do so. We'd all benefit from at least having it be a viable option to not have to play taxi for our kids, or mortal combat for a parking spot to grab a bag of milk and a dozen eggs.

4. Trains and bikes are greater than the sum of their parts.
Often the most frustrating part of any transit trip is the first/last mile. I can get from Union to Brampton in the blink of an eye, but getting from the GO station to my actual destination within Brampton is an eternity. Having viable active transport infrastructure multiplies transit's catchment area and usefulness, and cuts travel times. If you take, say, Union to Bramalea City Centre, GO+bus is 1h20, but GO+bike is 45 minutes. All of a sudden, transit becomes competitive even with off-peak driving (35 minutes). The best thing we can do to increase transit ridership may be to invest in active transport.