HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


View Poll Results: What should be given priority for LRT Stage 3?
Rural Rail 3 2.29%
Barrhaven 14 10.69%
South East 0 0%
Kanata 32 24.43%
Gatineau 19 14.50%
Orleans 0 0%
Bank St Subway 37 28.24%
Montreal Road 23 17.56%
Other 3 2.29%
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 10:54 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Should be noted too that building on Bank St. or Rideau-Montreal is very much contingent on OC Transpo accepting a mixed fleet with shorter LRVs involved in lines that have surface running. We'll see how Carling goes. I am not so sure OC Transpo is down for running different sized LRVs on the Confederation Line and then having that second line run at-grade with exposure to traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:02 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
LOL @ the comparison to Yonge.

Yonge had loads of streetcars on it before the subway was built. And most of that was local demand, not people using it commute through to the core. They also didn't have a parallel rail line available for north-south travel. Richmond Hill GO wasn't a thing back then. If they had a parallel rail corridor they'd have absolutely used that.

And that's exactly what will happen here. Everytime they look at this issue, they'll come to exactly the same conclusion. Cheaper and faster to rebuild Trillium than to build a $3 billion subway that won't see anywhere close to 10 000 pphpd for decades, especially with the Trillium Line still running. The feds and Queen's Park would never find this.
Bank Street had lots of streetcars on it too when Ottawa was a much smaller city.

When you consider that a Bank Street subway is not going to be built tomorrow, why is a Yonge comparison circa 1950 so unbelievable?

Ottawa-Gatineau now has a population of about 1.4M. What was Toronto in 1950?

If we started planning a Bank Street subway today, it wouldn't be open until 2030 to 2035. This is truly a long-term project. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:06 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Billings Bridge is already a density node
What's your definition of density?

I pulled up a satellite map on Google and sized it to roughly a 2km radius around Billings Bridge:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3862.../data=!3m1!1e3

What density are you referring to?

Does 2-3 buildings with more than 5 stories automatically equal "high density node" for Ottawans?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:07 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeed View Post
We have to consider that a bank street subway goes through the glebe, which offers not a whole lot of potential in redevelopment and would be resistive to this project. A bank street subway would require nearly a 4.5km long tunnel before reaching the South East Transitway at a cost- assuming 250 million dollars per km of underground subway which is a fair estimate based on research- 1.125 billion dollars.

The same distance from Rideau down Montreal Road would get us to Montfort Hospital and offer much better transformational opportunity for the area.

Not only that but using the south east transitway would guarantee the Trillium Line never moves past the pilot project legacy to Confederation Line specs, would largly duplicate along the Trillium Line and would leave the section of the South East Transitway from Billings Bridge to Hurdman essentially useless. And disrupt the ability for the Crosstown Transitway to reach meaningful nodes like Hurdman.
Even if it cost $2B to build from Billings to Queen Street, just consider that a $1B Trillium Line upgrade could be avoided.

The end result is that we could eliminate a lot of transfers for those living in the south end including airport passengers. We deliver both more frequent, and more direct service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:08 PM
Buggys Buggys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
So here is a question for everyone. Since money is the deciding factor on how much can be built, what do you think should be built with the next $3 billion of funding for major transit projects in Ottawa? Keep in mind that there are estimates of some of the phase 3 projects (Moodie to Terry Fox would cost #710 million, Moodie to Stittsville would be $1.85 billion), plus what we know stage 1 and 2 costs, so reasonable cost estimates should be made for each project being proposed. You can also use estimates from equivalent projects in other Canadian cities (so a subway in Ottawa could be based on the typical cost of one in Toronto, etc). In addition to LRT, major BRT projects are included as part of this $3 billion dollar price tag.

And for those that want to make the question even harder, assume a situation where the Gatineau SLR is partially approved and under construction as well (so the lines that are on the Gatineau side are going to be built, but not the interprovincial crossings, because interprovincial transit is going to be messy and need some real coordination). So in this scenario, what would you do with $3.5 billion, where $400-$800 million needs to go to interprovincial connections, the rest goes to Ottawa, and for the river crossings, you can pick for either STO or OC Transpo, or both, to provide the service. It should also reflect the higher number of people that commute from Gatineau to Ottawa, then vice versa.
I would focus on routes that are further away from existing rapid transit, and also connected to existing rapid transit.

1) Baseline/Heron/Walkley BRT (or even just a paired down version that includes signal priority traffic lights for buses, and non-sharrow bike lanes)

2) Extension to the Palladium (AKA Canadian Tire Centre)

3) As much double-tracking for the Trillium line as possible.

4) If there's more funding, more signal priority traffic lights for buses -- great bang for the buck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:12 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Bank Street had lots of streetcars on it too when Ottawa was a much smaller city.

When you consider that a Bank Street subway is not going to be built tomorrow, why is a Yonge comparison circa 1950 so unbelievable?

Ottawa-Gatineau now has a population of about 1.4M. What was Toronto in 1950?

If we started planning a Bank Street subway today, it wouldn't be open until 2030 to 2035. This is truly a long-term project. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
1) Toronto didn't have a parallel rail corridor they could use. We do.

2) The point wasn't that Yonge St had streetcars on it. It's that it had near subway levels of ridership on those streetcars which is what compelled them to build the subway. Streetcars were simply lined up running up and down Yonge. Bank St. doesn't have that kind of demand today. To make the case for Bank, you have to entirely rely on everybody from southern half of the city converging on Bank. If the Trillium Line is twin tracked and gets high frequency, local demand on Bank wouldn't exceed more than 2000 pphpd (even in 30 years), and all the regional travel would remain on the Trillium Line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:20 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
What's your definition of density?

I pulled up a satellite map on Google and sized it to roughly a 2km radius around Billings Bridge:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3862.../data=!3m1!1e3

What density are you referring to?

Does 2-3 buildings with more than 5 stories automatically equal "high density node" for Ottawans?
I guess you can't count. There are three buildings alone opposite from the shopping centre and several more up the hill, two along the river, and one integrated within the shopping centre itself.

And we all know there is a Billings Bridge redevelopment plan, which could easily double what exists today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:33 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
1) Toronto didn't have a parallel rail corridor they could use. We do.

2) The point wasn't that Yonge St had streetcars on it. It's that it had near subway levels of ridership on those streetcars which is what compelled them to build the subway. Streetcars were simply lined up running up and down Yonge. Bank St. doesn't have that kind of demand today. To make the case for Bank, you have to entirely rely on everybody from southern half of the city converging on Bank. If the Trillium Line is twin tracked and gets high frequency, local demand on Bank wouldn't exceed more than 2000 pphpd (even in 30 years), and all the regional travel would remain on the Trillium Line.
Funny thing. Toronto built two parallel subways. But if they had only built on University/Spadina and not Yonge, would Yonge be what it is today? Not likely.

Bank Street does not achieve high ridership because transit is too slow on it.

If there was a Bank Street subway, ridership would increase multiple fold. People would not go to Hurdman or Bayview to the same degree.

As I said in my other post, why invest more on indirect routes?

To suggest that a more direct Bank Street would not syphon off ridership automatically from other routes, defies logic. There is a reason why the Trillium Line only has 15,000 ridership today. It doesn't go where people want to travel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:39 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Should be noted too that building on Bank St. or Rideau-Montreal is very much contingent on OC Transpo accepting a mixed fleet with shorter LRVs involved in lines that have surface running. We'll see how Carling goes. I am not so sure OC Transpo is down for running different sized LRVs on the Confederation Line and then having that second line run at-grade with exposure to traffic.
A Bank Street subway would not be interlined with the Confederation Line, therefore there is no need to worry about differences in train length or exposure to traffic delays.

However, sophisticated signalling systems should be able to adjust for trains that might get delayed. Just wait a minute for an available time slot in the tunnel. It works all over the world. In fact, in Europe there are tunnels that are shared between LRVs and bi-mode trolley buses (trolleys that run electricity in the tunnel and by diesel outside). Videos were shared on this board showing this in operation. It was pretty cool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2019, 11:50 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton View Post
So here is a question for everyone. Since money is the deciding factor on how much can be built, what do you think should be built with the next $3 billion of funding for major transit projects in Ottawa?
I don't think the stage 3 will be $3 billion. That's more than Stage 1. Future stages are probably going to smaller $1-2 billion.

I think a little more strategizing is in order and easy and quick wins are important. I think it's important to focus on items which improve overall usability too. The BRTs aren't sexy to anybody here but they improve bus rides so much. And given how many folks work in Gatineau, connections across the river really need to have more capital invested in them.

So I foresee something like this:

Stage 3
  • Gatineau Connection
  • Carling LRT
  • Baseline-Heron-Walkley BRT
  • Hunt Club BRT

Stage 4
  • Moodie to Terry Fox LRT
  • Algonquin to Strandherd LRT

Stage 5
  • Trillium Twin tracking and electrification

Stage 6
  • Rideau-Montreal LRT

Stage 7
  • Moodie to Stittsville LRT

I'd switch 4 & 5, but I'm being realistic. And those suburban LRT extensions should be enough to stave off further demands for suburban expansion for a generation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 12:00 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Even if it cost $2B to build from Billings to Queen Street, just consider that a $1B Trillium Line upgrade could be avoided.

The end result is that we could eliminate a lot of transfers for those living in the south end including airport passengers. We deliver both more frequent, and more direct service.
Spend $2B to save $1B? What?

And if minimizing transfers was a priority (it's not, maximizing ridership is the overarching design principle), the simplest way to do that would be to have BRTs and design bus routes to feed the Confederation Line. A bus route that gets you to Hurdman cuts out a transfer too.

How do you deliver more frequent service over a twinned Trillium?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 12:02 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
A Bank Street subway would not be interlined with the Confederation Line, therefore there is no need to worry about differences in train length or exposure to traffic delays.
That was less about Bank than it was about Rideau-Montreal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
However, sophisticated signalling systems should be able to adjust for trains that might get delayed. Just wait a minute for an available time slot in the tunnel. It works all over the world. In fact, in Europe there are tunnels that are shared between LRVs and bi-mode trolley buses (trolleys that run electricity in the tunnel and by diesel outside). Videos were shared on this board showing this in operation. It was pretty cool.
I've seen them and used them. But I said, I don't know if OC Transpo is open to that. And 100-120m LRVs running on the street is rather impractical (probably impossible). That might make interlining challenging.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 12:44 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Spend $2B to save $1B? What?

And if minimizing transfers was a priority (it's not, maximizing ridership is the overarching design principle), the simplest way to do that would be to have BRTs and design bus routes to feed the Confederation Line. A bus route that gets you to Hurdman cuts out a transfer too.

How do you deliver more frequent service over a twinned Trillium?
Minimizing transfers = maximizing ridership

My point was not that we are saving money, but that it doesn't cost the full amount of tunneling. There are ways to mitigate the full cost. It would be interesting to compare the costs of full double tracking of the Trillium Line and building the Bank Street subway. If they came close, doesn't that tell us something?

If we are at all interested in serving the old urban parts of Ottawa, we need to consider urban corridors whether Bank or Rideau-Montreal. Subways have an amazing affect of rejuvenating and intensifying the corridor. Just look at the Yonge-Sheppard district of Toronto since the Sheppard subway was built.

Ottawa may not be Toronto, but Ottawa of today is about the same size as the 1950s Toronto. Within 20 years, Toronto built the Yonge, Bloor-Danforth and University-Spadina subways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 12:45 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
That was less about Bank than it was about Rideau-Montreal.



I've seen them and used them. But I said, I don't know if OC Transpo is open to that. And 100-120m LRVs running on the street is rather impractical (probably impossible). That might make interlining challenging.
Agreed!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 1:12 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
I guess you can't count. There are three buildings alone opposite from the shopping centre and several more up the hill, two along the river, and one integrated within the shopping centre itself.

And we all know there is a Billings Bridge redevelopment plan, which could easily double what exists today.
So I was right. A cluster of condos equals "high density node" for you. But nobody else would agree with that. Toronto has just fought an absolutely caustic and bitter fight over whether this place deserves a subway station:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7757.../data=!3m1!1e3

How many buildings do you see there? And yet you think Billings Bridge would count as a high density node worthy of a subway? By your definition, we should build a subway on North River Rd or St. Laurent. Lots of condo clusters along those.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Funny thing. Toronto built two parallel subways. But if they had only built on University/Spadina and not Yonge, would Yonge be what it is today? Not likely.
Is simplistic analysis all you have to offer. The Yonge and Spadina lines are only close and parallel for a few km in the core. They are further apart at Finch than the entire length of Ottawa's downtown. They serve very different areas. Only in your mind is somebody traveling to Willowdale and Yorkdale in the same neighbourhood. And the points where Yonge and Spadina are close is one of the densest neighbourhoods in the country. Not some suburb. Have you even lived in Toronto or did you just pull this out of your six?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Bank Street does not achieve high ridership because transit is too slow on it.
Bank St. doesn't have high ridership because it's mostly a suburban avenue with one yuppy stretch in the Glebe. The only reason some folks think it's dense is because they don't get out much and think a few condos equals density.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
If there was a Bank Street subway, ridership would increase multiple fold.
If you put the Trillium line ridership on any street ridership would increase multiple fold. Put the subway under Bronson and the effect would be exactly the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
People would not go to Hurdman or Bayview to the same degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
As I said in my other post, why invest more on indirect routes?
Depends where you're going. Only in your world is everyone from the South bound for Bank and Wellington. In reality a whole bunch of ridership is bound for the east end of downtown which makes Hurdman quite convenient. Anybody using the LRT who works at say Tunney's would find Bayview far more preferable to ending up in the core.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
To suggest that a more direct Bank Street would not syphon off ridership automatically from other routes, defies logic.
I am not saying Bank St wouldn't siphon off ridership. I am saying Bank St. can't stand on its own for ridership. And that's usually a prerequisite for spending billions on a subway. Especially when there's an alternative that can provide the same capacity and service most of the same riders for a fraction of the cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
There is a reason why the Trillium Line only has 15,000 ridership today. It doesn't go where people want to travel.
Or there's not as much demand as you actually think going north-south. Also, it's telling that the number is the total ridership per day, not pphpd. You'd need 10 000 pphpd to justify a subway. And that would easily work out to over 50 000 riders per day.

Let's see bus ridership on Bank street get to 15 000 - 20 000 per day before talking about higher orders transit. Finch West in Toronto has 44 000 riders per day. And they are getting surface LRT. Lawrence East has 36 000 riders per day. They aren't getting a painted bus lane. Have a look at the daily ridership for bus routes in Toronto. Most of those routes aren't being upgraded. And you can bet that provincial ministers are looking at these numbers when deciding whose LRT or subway to fund.

https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Tra...rship_2012.jsp

So good luck arguing that Bank should get a subway when it can't beat most bus routes on the main avenues of suburban Toronto. If that ever ends up on a TMP, it will completely discredit all transit funding request from Ottawa, with higher levels of government.

Last edited by Truenorth00; Mar 10, 2019 at 2:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 1:32 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Minimizing transfers = maximizing ridership
You have actually evidence to back up that assertion? By your logic the Confederation Line should have lower ridership than the Transitway before it since there would now be an extra transfer for most riders. I am willing to bet actual money that won't be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
My point was not that we are saving money, but that it doesn't cost the full amount of tunneling. There are ways to mitigate the full cost. It would be interesting to compare the costs of full double tracking of the Trillium Line and building the Bank Street subway. If they came close, doesn't that tell us something?
Study it if you want. You don't need an engineering degree to know it won't be close. Existing grade separated corridor. Or build a brand new tunnel. I wonder which one would be more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
If we are at all interested in serving the old urban parts of Ottawa, we need to consider urban corridors whether Bank or Rideau-Montreal. Subways have an amazing affect of rejuvenating and intensifying the corridor. Just look at the Yonge-Sheppard district of Toronto since the Sheppard subway was built.
First, most of that development is along Yonge. Not as much has happened along the Sheppard subway. And next, most people in Toronto consider that subway a mistake. It's derided as "the stubway". At one point, David Miller threatened to shut it down. Most people wish the Sheppard subway was cancelled instead of Eglinton by the Harris tories. And now the best they can come up with is surface LRT to finish the route. And that surface LRT would move over nearly 40 000 riders per day. I doubt all the buses on Bank break 10k daily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Ottawa may not be Toronto, but Ottawa of today is about the same size as the 1950s Toronto. Within 20 years, Toronto built the Yonge, Bloor-Danforth and University-Spadina subways.
In 1951, Metro Toronto was just under 1.2 million. Ottawa still hasn't broken 1 million. Ottawa isn't due to hit 1.2 million till the 2030s.

More to the point, total population is entirely irrelevant to where you build higher order transit. Ridership is. And if Bank St. can't beat most suburban Toronto bus routes, you're going to have a tough time convincing a provincial government that is very much dominated by the GTA to hand over several billion bucks for a subway on Bank. Heck, you'll have a tough time convincing most Ottawa city councillors to screw over their wards to fund a subway on Bank. If you live in Riverside South why would you support a Bank St. subway over an upgraded Trillium?

Lastly, they didn't have 30m long LRVs in the 1950s. Would Toronto have built the same network if they had surface LRT as an option? Just look at where Toronto is going now. They are spurning subways for all but the absolute highest ridership corridors. Surface LRT for every other route. For the cost of a Bank St. subway, we could get a twinned and electrified Trillium and surface in-median LRTs on Carling and Hunt Club. I'd rather have that.

Last edited by Truenorth00; Mar 10, 2019 at 1:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 2:09 AM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
I've seen them and used them. But I said, I don't know if OC Transpo is open to that. And 100-120m LRVs running on the street is rather impractical (probably impossible). That might make interlining challenging.
This is a good point, and definitely changes the calculus if the line has to be grade separated in some fashion (not necessarily tunnel but still) between St. Laurent and Blair.

One thing I've thought about, is if Gatineau and Ottawa were better integrated... the Alymer SLR might pair well with a Rideau-Montreal Line. It could cross at Alexandra, use the old Hull Electric Line, but then turn and tunnel parallel to the Confed. Line using the George Street alignment (with a connection to Rideau Station). An eventual extension down George to Montreal Road and further east could then happen at a later date.

This way the required capacity of the Alymer Line would better match the Montreal Line... and they would both have sections of at-grade surface lrt. Only (not insignificant) problem, is both sides of that line would have to transfer to the Confed Line at Rideau to get to downtown ottawa at Lyon or Parliament.

Last edited by Multi-modal; Mar 10, 2019 at 2:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 3:16 AM
Mikeed Mikeed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
It would be interesting to compare the costs of full double tracking of the Trillium Line and building the Bank Street subway. If they came close, doesn't that tell us something.
The only thing that would illustrate is the utter incompetence of the city planning department sheparding a boondoggle considering the billions already spent on the Otrain over the years and decades of lost energy.

Quote:
If we are at all interested in serving the old urban parts of Ottawa, we need to consider urban corridors whether Bank or Rideau-Montreal. Subways have an amazing affect of rejuvenating and intensifying the corridor. Just look at the Yonge-Sheppard district of Toronto since the Sheppard subway was built.
Subways have also been expensive projects that have not seen increased ridership and swallowed billions, turned people off of large scale transit projects and laiden cities with significant debt drag.

There are a lot of ignorant people who already think the Confederation Line has been a disaster and a huge waste of money that was not needed at all. Like wtf- how can these people be sooo blind but these are the types of talking known nothings that vote for the candidate who promises them "the status quo- with lower taxes".

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the Sheppard Line and it's long term effects on Toronto (largly negative). Designing transit by drawing lines on a map and hoping to help real estate development is not a good way forward

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle5402731/

The single greatest transportation project the powers-that-be in Toronto (both provincial and municipal) have ever undertaken is the GO train network. A scrappy upstart of a bunch of random rail equipment and a desire for value oriented solutions using existing railway infrastructure transformed into one of the most successful commuter rail systems in North America.
__________________
Long time reader.
Seldom post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 3:23 AM
Mikeed Mikeed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 376
Lessons from Toronto's Sheppard subway line

Lessons from Toronto’s Sheppard subway line
Theglobeandmail | PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 16, 2012

Since this might be behind a pay wall.

Quote:
On a June day in 1986, Toronto reached a major decision on its transit future. The top priority, councillors voted, was a new subway line through the sparse suburbia of Sheppard Avenue from Yonge Street to Victoria Park.

The rationale for the project was that better transit would spread the construction of offices and apartment buildings around the city. Suburbanites along the line would get new development in their neighbourhoods; downtowners would get a break from the pressures of ever-increasing density.

After numerous delays, the subway finally saw the light of day on Nov. 22, 2002.

Story continues below advertisement

A decade on, the line is far from achieving what politicians envisioned all those years ago. Ridership on a typical weekday is less than on the King streetcar. The line stretches only 5.5 kilometres, too short to be useful for most travellers. And it hasn't stopped downtown from becoming ever more dense, or reduced crowding on inner-city transit.

A billion-dollar piece of infrastructure in a cash-strapped city, the Sheppard subway is a showpiece for what happens when politics trump planning, and when transit is built primarily in an attempt to develop real estate.

The line does have its champions. Mel Lastman, who fought hard for the subway as mayor of North York, says it was the only way to achieve his ambition of creating an urban core amid the subdivisions he once governed.

"We had to make it happen," he says, describing the changes it brought to that stretch of Sheppard Avenue. "It's a whole downtown there, it's a whole life there for people, at any time, during the day or night. It's a busy, busy place and it's becoming a real, thriving downtown."

While Sheppard's critics often put the decision to build the line entirely at the feet of suburbanites such as Mr. Lastman, the push for the subway actually came from a wide array of politicians, including some inner-city councillors and an NDP provincial government.

After the 1986 vote at Metro council, the pre-amalgamation body with authority over the TTC, the project sat on the back burner awaiting funds. The money came in 1993, when Bob Rae's administration at Queen's Park announced a suburb-focused transit expansion plan. It included a Sheppard line that would end at Don Mills, and three other subways.

When Mike Harris's Progressive Conservatives ousted the New Democrats the next year, they cancelled most of the lines, but spared Sheppard.

Story continues below advertisement

By that time, some councillors were arguing the whole thing was a waste of money. David Gunn, the TTC's top civil servant at the time, felt the same way. It made no sense to build an expensive new subway when the existing system was strapped for cash to make basic repairs, he said. And if the city wanted to expand transit, it would be better to do it downtown, easing congestion in the busiest parts of the system.

"If you look at what's really needed for the TTC, if you're going to do a proper job of planning transit, the most important thing is to take some pressure off the Yonge Street line," he says. "That line is at capacity and was close to it even then."

Joe Pantalone, the now-retired west-end councillor, was a steadfast Sheppard supporter. He frames his backing as a matter of civic equity: the suburbs deserve good transit, along with the development it brings. Plus, by 1996, Sheppard was the only line Queen's Park would help finance.

Throughout this time, politicians paid little heed to light-rail transit, an innovation that could have saved fistfuls of money. By the 1980s, relatively inexpensive LRTs were zipping along in Edmonton and Calgary at average speeds faster than Toronto's subway, but the nation's largest city did not seem to notice.

In the years since, the Sheppard experience pushed the city to look at light rail, which forms the backbone of the TTC's current expansion plans.

"The expectation of [Sheppard] clearly has not been met, because the ridership is a fraction of what it was supposed to have been by now," Mr. Pantalone says. "That, in a way, has provided a lesson ... that subway construction in areas where there is not the capacity to support it really doesn't make any sense."

Story continues below advertisement

Despite the criticisms, the subway has begun to transform some pockets along its route. Residential towers cluster around the intersection of Sheppard and Bayview avenues. Urbane new shops line the streets.

"It's great to have that foot traffic going into the subway in the morning," says Michael Smith, 26, standing behind the counter of Bread-Stuff, a recently opened bakery that serves organic, fair trade coffee. "It's been very steady."

At Burger Hut, a holdout from a previous era in the neighbourhood, John Kambouris, 65, says the area has become more diverse in the past decade.

"There's more hustle, more people, more activity," he says, looking across the street to a spot next to Bessarion station, where condos are planned to rise on a former warehouse site. "It's a totally different look."

The line itself is well-designed, with roomy stations and convenient entrances for walk-on traffic. Downtown, meanwhile, commuters stand several rows deep on platforms at Yonge-Bloor station at rush hour, or wait at stops as crammed-full streetcars pass them by.

It's a strange contrast, and it's hard to find another city that has anything quite like Sheppard.

Story continues below advertisement

One comparator is the green line of the Los Angeles Metro, says Jarrett Walker, a transportation consultant and author of the book Human Transit. Nicknamed the "train from nowhere to nowhere," it runs down the middle of a suburban expressway. In LA's case, at least, the line stretches 32 kilometres, connecting with numerous points on the grid. And as a surface LRT, it has more extension potential than Toronto's so-called "stubway."

"Moral of the story: If you're going to build bizarre things for political reasons, do them cheaply enough that later you can either abandon them or expand them to be long enough to be useful," Mr. Walker says. "Sheppard's technology makes it both expensive to abandon and expensive to extend; that's the trap."
__________________
Long time reader.
Seldom post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2019, 4:55 AM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeed View Post
As the new FLIRTs are being used across the US for commuter rail.
I believe the FLIRTs are only permitted on lines that have implemented PTC. I don’t think any main line railways have implemented PTC in Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
I don't think the stage 3 will be $3 billion. That's more than Stage 1. Future stages are probably going to smaller $1-2 billion.
I tend to agree.

Quote:
So I foresee something like this:

Stage 3
  • Gatineau Connection
  • Carling LRT
  • Baseline-Heron-Walkley BRT
  • Hunt Club BRT
[LIST][*]Gatineau Connection? - Probably,[*]Carling LRT? - more likely to actually be BRT
Probably,[*]Baseline-Heron-Walkley BRT? - Baseline-Heron will likely be Stage 2.5. I think the extension to Bayshore will come before a split to Walkley.
Probably,[*]Hunt Club BRT - Are you serious%
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.