The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[biguc]

Originally Posted by ue

Yep. Like, if the Confederation Line eastbound to Orleans went via Montreal Road. It'd actually be more direct to Downtown and hit some walkable neighbourhoods, some inner suburbia, and a lot of multi-unit housing, which is all more conducive built environments than the Queensway for building transit ridership. Granted this would bypass uOttawa, the VIA station, St Laurent Centre, and some big box centres (which provide transit service to services that are usually just for automobile drivers as well as creating more demand to redevelop them going forward). Really, both routes should be built as they have merit here.

Probably my biggest complaint about the confederation line is how hard they're going on deep-suburban service. They could have built the eastern section they have, and a Montreal Road line, and it would absolutely get more use than a bunch of stops in the middle of the highway.

Like you say below, if they want a commuter train for suburban towns, just make that.

Originally Posted by ue

But really, Canadian cities focusing on trying to get transit to betwixt the core and suburbs to cut down on rush-hour traffic (and you see this as a primary focus in politician speeches regarding new LRT funding, which is one dimensional), just commit to it and build commuter rail. That's in effect what they're doing anyways, but in a half-assed way, where they try and also hit some other spots on the way, but also not too many, as it would make for too much stopping. Reminds me of stroads.

...

Yeah. Edmonton and Calgary's trains don't really go to the core dense neighbourhoods. Edmonton's Boyle-McCauley has the LRT going right through it and not stopping (which reminds me of SF's BART that does this on a far more exaggerated level). Though the new Valley Line will have a stop in Boyle. But Edmonton's Oliver, Westmount, Strathcona, Garneau, Alberta Ave, etc and Calgary's Inglewood, Beltline, Mission, Marda Loop, etc don't have LRT access. Calgary's Bridgeland sort of does, just skirting the southern limits by the river and Memorial Dr. The only one that has true and good direct LRT access in Alberta is Calgary's Kensington.

At least both systems are ok at hitting other major destinations for transit users -- post-secondary institutions and regional malls. This is something American cities often fail at...so it could be worse!

...


Yes, though the opposite problem also persists. In a fetish to create some chic urban walkability, Edmonton's Valley Line uses low floor tech, more stopping, and will be slower (so that there will be zero time savings vs the bus to Mill Woods). This is good and well for the inner, mature neighbourhoods, but this line goes through industrial areas and the sprawling abomination of Mill Woods. This kind of enthusiasm could have been saved for a line down Whyte or 118 Ave.

Good stroad comparison. I hadn't thought about that. Visually, the C Train is one of the strangest pieces of public transit in the world--hulking trains running down a street with subway platforms on the sidewalks and gated crossings outside downtown. That kind of ungainly thing is about the transit equivalent of a stroad. At least it's effective as an oddball commuter service.

Edmonton's original LRT wasn't bad as an S-Bahn type train, but their additions since the 90s have been a descent into the arcane. Their system also struggles to draw TOD, which I'd chalk up to it not going anywhere but downtown and the UofA.

A tram on Whyte ave. would be excellent. That's an incredibly wide street; there's room. It would serve their best neighbourhoods, and be useful to thousands of people in day-to-day life. There's almost no way they wouldn't go Dr. Moreau and stitch on a Sherwood Park appendage, but so it goes.

Edmonton is a frustrating case because of the enthusiasm with which they've torn out their downtown railways. They have this nice ROW from downtown (although they seem to be building over it near Whyte ave.) to their bloated southern suburbs and their airport. Why not just build a commuter line there and stop playing with the hybrid system?

Originally Posted by ue

Absolutely. It's frustrating how the 99 B-Line has persisted for decades as a very crowded bus (carrying the most passengers of any bus line in North America) but lines out to Coquitlam got prioritized. It is, as you say, a low-hanging fruit. Same with a Queen St subway in Toronto. Vancouver should also have some sort of rail (streetcar or light rail, probably not full Skytrain) down Main St, Commercial Dr, 41st Ave, Dunbar/Alma, West 4th, Denman, Davie (seriously how does the West End not have anything beyond buses?), Robson, etc. A Skytrain (at least Canada Line level) should also go down Hastings St until Willingdon in Burnaby, where it can go down and meet up with Metrotown. Connects BCIT, could push Metrotown densification northbound, creates a cross-Burnaby route between the Millennium and Expo lines, and hits walkable neighbourhoods along Hastings.

I can get behind all of that. The Hastings Skytrain line should probably curve through the West End and then run down that Arbutus ROW. That would basically complete the Skytrain network as far as the city is concerned.

I dream of Vancouver running commuter trains out of Pacific Central with a tram network centred on that: Main Street (with a Kingsway branch) and a Terminal ave-East 1st line to Willingdon. I'm sure someone is reading this and having an aneurysm because the Canada/Expo/Millennium lines run parallel to each of those tram lines, to which I say, exactly. These lines would broaden and deepen transit service, providing options, better local service, better coverage, and relief for the Skytrain lines (a Main street tram, in particular, because the Canada Line is a toy). In the case of Main and Kingsway, trams would also fix some pretty stroady streets and give Burnaby a shot at meaningful place making in the ugliest part of Metrotown.

Commuter--or even better, all-day, two-way train service--is beyond necessary in the Lower Mainland. When I check in on the Vancouver transit threads though, they're all figuring out how to spent a trillion dollars on 18 Expo Line spurs to the middle of nowhere, with 45 minute frequency, and two hour trips to downtown Vancouver. Just make a commuter train.

Originally Posted by ue

As for Winnipeg... you echo my thoughts fully. It is amazing how a city that has such a large chunk of its urban fabric clearly designed for streetcars having none of that. Winnipeg Transit is the only transit service in Canada I actively hate. I feel like I could be in Des Moines. Grand main streets like Portage, Main, etc are turned into quasi-highways because the city has neither real freeways nor effective rapid transit. But the old buildings, wide sidewalks, etc show what was. At least with Edmonton or Calgary, a lot of the built form was always more sprawled and suburban, but not Winnipeg. It often makes more sense to bike or just walk if you're in central Winnipeg than rely on nonsensical transit. At least the city has the legacy built form to be more pleasant to walk through for larger stretches than Alberta cities. But yeah, streets like Corydon, Osborne, Sherbrooke/Maryland, Ellice/Sargent, Broadway, Provencher, etc are so obviously designed for streetcars...so just do it.

Don't get me started on the Southwest Transitway.

No, no. Don't get me started.

Winnipeggers gnash their teeth about a bunch of things out of their control that scuttled Winnipeg's chances. Communism in 1919, the Panama Canal, NAFTA. Nobody ever looks at how they ripped out the transit system that provided roughly half of all trips in the city. It was a blatantly catastrophic move--I can't guess the equivalent billions of dollars worth of infrastructure they summarily burnt--and Winnipeg Transit has been overseeing a deliberate decline ever since.

For all the years I lived there, I never even knew who was in charge of WT. Nobody ever talked about it, never mind whether they had any business running it, were blatantly incompetent, or should have been fired. For all I know, Winnipeg Transit is run by a cabal of vampires who live in service pits of bus garages and feed on the unfortunate homeless who fall asleep on the bus.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by ue

Yeah. Edmonton and Calgary's trains don't really go to the core dense neighbourhoods. Edmonton's Boyle-McCauley has the LRT going right through it and not stopping (which reminds me of SF's BART that does this on a far more exaggerated level). Though the new Valley Line will have a stop in Boyle. But Edmonton's Oliver, Westmount, Strathcona, Garneau, Alberta Ave, etc and Calgary's Inglewood, Beltline, Mission, Marda Loop, etc don't have LRT access. Calgary's Bridgeland sort of does, just skirting the southern limits by the river and Memorial Dr. The only one that has true and good direct LRT access in Alberta is Calgary's Kensington.

At least both systems are ok at hitting other major destinations for transit users -- post-secondary institutions and regional malls. This is something American cities often fail at...so it could be worse!.

The Beltline is getting two Green Line stations (Centre Street South and 5 Street SE at the new arena), Inglewood is getting a station, and Mission's 4th Street is within a reasonable distance (900 meters) of Erlton Station, though yes it is underserved and will never have a station (due to already being in close proximity). At 450 meter walk from the main drag, I wouldn't say Bridgeland is too far (not that you said it was, so don't freak out ), but it'll be nice when the retail of the new towers UC along 9 Street will connect the station and main retail area more seamlessly. All of the Beltline is of course already only 3 blocks minimum to 9 blocks maximum away from the entire 7 Avenue Free Fare zone, so it's quite well connected and always has been. Marda Loop for sure will never be connected to the rail network, though it does now have a station on the MAX Yellow BRT line, which is the best we can hope for in the long term.

In Edmonton, a good portion of Oliver is within 1 km (13 min) walk of Grandin and Corona Stations, and it'll be sweet when the Valley Line tram goes all the way through the neighbourhood! It'll be awesome if/when the Festival Line through Strathcona happens.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by biguc

Translink is a mother bird feeding a nest of squawking suburbs regurgitated Skytrain, with no plan to connect the city's hulking West End to the metro system.

IMO, there's a lot of reluctance from Translink to even talk about extending any Skytrain beyond the Expo to Langley and the Millennium line to UBC because they have to figure out how they are going to connect to the North Shore first. And that is anything but low hanging fruit.

People always underestimate the incredible walkability of the west end. As someone who has been living there for the last 6+ years, I can confidently say that as long as you don't have any mobility issues that you can easily walk from the West end to the CBD within a decent amount of time (and with Skytrain stations inbetween). And it's even easier if you bike, and because we have the biking infrastructure in place with mostly year-round biking weather, it opens up more options ontop of the well-served, frequent, and reliable buses in the West End (IMO).

If anything I could see Vancouver's west end receiving some sort of a transit station (whether it be LRT/Streetcar or Skytrain) as a byproduct (not focus) of a larger project like, per say, a North Shore line that crosses through it.

Originally Posted by biguc

I can get behind all of that. The Hastings Skytrain line should probably curve through the West End and then run down that Arbutus ROW. That would basically complete the Skytrain network as far as the city is concerned.

The Skytrain will never run down Arbutus. And here's why:

1. There's not enough demand along that route at the moment to warrant it. The Canada Line's capacity still has a lot of room to optimize its PPHPD. We shall see though after the Millennium line extends to Arbutus though because I think that the Millennium line extension will put more pressure than expected on the Canada line.

2. Arbutus is in the heart of Mordor Nimbyville, including Shaughnessy. These are the kinds of Nimbys that will nail themselves on the East Van cross before they see Skytrain in their backyards. The only compromise with them will be burying the train underground - and even then, they will still complain and moan about it. Which leads me to the next point...

3. Skytrain along Arbutus would be too expensive for the demand it would serve, assuming that it's being constructed as an underground metro.

IMO, as outlined by this study-design along Arbutus, I think that if a N-S relief line were to come along Arbutus, that it would come in the form of LRT as it would be more widely accepted by the NIMBYs, more appropriate for the demand, and a great route to introduce LRT/streetcars to Vancity with. But nothing will be considered along Arbutus until after a year of operation when the Millennium line gets extended to Arbutus. We all have to wait for those chips to fall.

BTW, Skytrain > LRT any. Day. Of the week. But it has to make sense and be based on data.

Originally Posted by biguc

When I check in on the Vancouver transit threads though, they're all figuring out how to spent a trillion dollars on 18 Expo Line spurs to the middle of nowhere, with 45 minute frequency, and two hour trips to downtown Vancouver. Just make a commuter train.

I do take umbrage to this because you are painting a very generalized and emphasized picture of the Vancouver Skytrain strategy, especially when it comes to the Expo line.

Building Skytrain out to the middle of nowhere has been debunked in the past with the same criticism being applied to the Millennium line when it first opened. The TOD along the Millennium line is some of the most dramatic in Canada. Some of which includes Gilmore station (which will be hosting BC's next tallest tower), Brentwood, Lougheed, Burquitlam, Moody Centre, Coquitlam Centre, Lincoln Station, and Lafarge Lake-Douglas. Especially with the Evergreen extension, municipalities are really jumping on the opportunity to redevelop their neighbourhoods around Skytrain availability, and they are developing denser.

Back when the Expo line extension to Fleetwood was announced, Surrey even quickly drummed up some renderings for a reimagined Fleetwood neighbourhood because of the Skytrain extension announcement. Right now I'm anxiously awaiting Langley to announce their renderings as Horgan made the promise to extend it to Langley but I digress... My point is that TOD doesn't happen overnight and that Metro Vancouver certainly has an appetite for it when the conditions are right, and the NIMBYs aren't on the East Van cross (*cough* Commercial-Broadway, Nanaimo, and 29th Avenue *cough*).

The discussion surrounding it was how the trains would operate after the Expo line has been extended to Langley which is completely reasonable to discuss. Plus we got derailed into discussing how a N-S Surrey line would interact with the Expo line. The reason why: Surrey is projected to surpass Vancouver in population and it is the second largest city in BC and Newton currently has a larger population than Fleetwood.

By the way most transit trips South of Fraser have Surrey as their final destination, not Vancouver. I just can't find the link . The fact that the Expo line extension goes all the way to Waterfront is just an added bonus to the people SOF and it continues to enhance the connectivity of Metro Vancouver as an urban region.

Originally Posted by biguc

Commuter--or even better, all-day, two-way train service--is beyond necessary in the Lower Mainland.

Is it necessary? Yes. Is it a priority? Definitely not in the Lower Mainland. That ship won't sail until the region decides to purchase the tracks from CN or CPR as the WCE currently operates on their tracks. It also doesn't really help that we are building the Skytrain out to WCE stations making them sort of obsolete. Like I am sure that people have switched to using the Skytrain due to it being less costly per month and vice versa. The nice thing is that I'm sure that the capacity hasn't dropped because of the Millennium line extension into Coquitlam but I don't have the data to verify this feeling.

Commuter rail in the Lower Mainland won't be a priority because there simply isn't enough demand from the municipalities like Mission, Abbotsford, or beyond to warrant any expansion of service. When it comes to extending the Millennium line to Arbutus and then UBC, extending the Expo line to Langley, building a Gondola from Production-Way University to SFU, connecting rapid transit to the North Shore (whom, may I remind you, refused a B-line service not so long ago because it interfered with their neighbourhood feel ), building a Skytrain line of some sort down Hastings, figuring out what to do with the Arbutus Greenway, and potentially redesigning Waterfront station; the WCE won't be taking priority for a long time.

The lowest hanging fruit in Metro Vancouver, IMO, is the Expo extension to Langley because you are connecting municipalities with populations that want the Skytrain, you don't have to tunnel it (making it cheaper), and the SOF regions are keen to redevelop to accommodate the stations. Don't get me wrong though, I think that the extension to UBC should be taking priority because it doesn't solve the 99 B line problem but it definitely isn't the lowest hanging fruit.

[superelevation]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Whenever a contract is awarded in Ottawa for a transit line (Confederation Line Stage 1 and Stage 2, Trillium Stage 2), it comes with station renderings. It seems that in the west, at least Vancouver's Broadway extension and Edmonton's Valley Line Stages 1 and 2, the winning bid does not come with new renderings (or aren't released). Is it because precise locations and designed are determined before the RFQ?

Vancouver has had artists renditions for some time . . .

Originally Posted by biguc

Looking through wikipedia at proposed transit projects in Ontario, it's just a mess of Ford interference. It seems like almost every project has had a Ford cancel it, then decide it's actually necessary, but then interfere further and end up making a more expensive, less useful piece of infrastructure with a ten year development setback. Eglington West is particularly hilarious: cancel it, then don't, but scrap the existing plan in favour of a more expensive line with less stops and less ridership, but service to car rentals near the airport. It's like they don't understand what transit is for. At least they live up to their name.

The grade separated line is likely to get more ridership than suggested, studies were heavily sandbagged because there is way too much romanticism about at grade rail in Toronto.

Originally Posted by savevp

Nope, was actually referring to the existing Union bus terminal. I used to catch one of the middle of the night buses back up to Richmond Hill where I was living during grad school at UofT. Though I was wondering why the Coach Terminal near Eaton Centre isn't being incorporated into Union.

As beautiful as the Coach Terminal is, it doesn't make sense not to integrate it with the massive transport hub a kilometer or two away. And frankly, the Coach Terminal isn't in the highest state of architectural preservation these days. It'd make a neat spot for the eventual Toronto civic museum.

The new Union Station Bus terminal has space to move the intercity operations into it, it was designed with that intent.

[ue]

Originally Posted by biguc

Probably my biggest complaint about the confederation line is how hard they're going on deep-suburban service. They could have built the eastern section they have, and a Montreal Road line, and it would absolutely get more use than a bunch of stops in the middle of the highway.

Like you say below, if they want a commuter train for suburban towns, just make that.

That's a good point. I'm not against an eventual extension to Place d'Orleans, but the extension as it is now (which does hit a mix of key nodes and potential redevelopment opportunities) and looping back via Montreal Rd/Rideau St would be a better bang-for-buck option. An Orleans extension could come later.

Good stroad comparison. I hadn't thought about that. Visually, the C Train is one of the strangest pieces of public transit in the world--hulking trains running down a street with subway platforms on the sidewalks and gated crossings outside downtown. That kind of ungainly thing is about the transit equivalent of a stroad. At least it's effective as an oddball commuter service.

Thanks! Yeah, the C-Train downtown is...not good! At least the C-Train does hit some areas that I doubt an American equivalent would (I mean look at Calgary 2.0, Denver) -- places like Kensington, the UofC, SAIT, 4 major malls (The Core, Chinook, Southcentre, and Sunridge), and such. It could be worse, but also could be so much better. They really made a mistake cheaping out and not just tunneling downtown. I do appreciate the MAX BRT attempting to fill in the gaps of the C-Train, though.

Edmonton's original LRT wasn't bad as an S-Bahn type train, but their additions since the 90s have been a descent into the arcane. Their system also struggles to draw TOD, which I'd chalk up to it not going anywhere but downtown and the UofA.

True, though the Valley Line downtown will be surface level. I suppose a benefit of the low-floor tech they're doing is it won't have the sidewalks turned into elevated subway-style platforms like in Calgary on 7th. It still seems shortsighted, but whatever.

The lack of TOD development -- I agree but I'd also add that Edmonton didn't have the same demand for high rise residential over the 1990s and 2000s like Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto did. There's Century Park and little else. Though, there is increasing high-rise development at Stony Plain Road and 142 St, which will have an LRT stop when the Valley Line extends west. There's big plans for TOD at future stations in Blatchford, Mill Woods, and Bonnie Doon as well.

This is all good and well in terms of densification and redeveloping underutilized spaces, but these developments tend to cater to specific crowds who view trains as some liberal boutique wet dream rather than hardcore transit users.

A tram on Whyte ave. would be excellent. That's an incredibly wide street; there's room. It would serve their best neighbourhoods, and be useful to thousands of people in day-to-day life. There's almost no way they wouldn't go Dr. Moreau and stitch on a Sherwood Park appendage, but so it goes.

A line down 118 Ave and Whyte Ave would be amazing. I also wish they tunneled down Jasper Ave for an Oliver extension. Makes more sense aside from pure redevelopment potential than 104 Ave.

Edmonton is a frustrating case because of the enthusiasm with which they've torn out their downtown railways. They have this nice ROW from downtown (although they seem to be building over it near Whyte ave.) to their bloated southern suburbs and their airport. Why not just build a commuter line there and stop playing with the hybrid system?

Are you referring to the old ROW that was used to create the original LRT line in 1978, between Churchill and the Coliseum?

The rail corridor used by CP near Whyte has been discussed as a future HSR ROW.

I can get behind all of that. The Hastings Skytrain line should probably curve through the West End and then run down that Arbutus ROW. That would basically complete the Skytrain network as far as the city is concerned.

I dream of Vancouver running commuter trains out of Pacific Central with a tram network centred on that: Main Street (with a Kingsway branch) and a Terminal ave-East 1st line to Willingdon. I'm sure someone is reading this and having an aneurysm because the Canada/Expo/Millennium lines run parallel to each of those tram lines, to which I say, exactly. These lines would broaden and deepen transit service, providing options, better local service, better coverage, and relief for the Skytrain lines (a Main street tram, in particular, because the Canada Line is a toy). In the case of Main and Kingsway, trams would also fix some pretty stroady streets and give Burnaby a shot at meaningful place making in the ugliest part of Metrotown.

I agree with all of this. Vancouver needs to invest hard in rail-based transit now, as costs will only go up and congestion only worse (particularly since the city lacks freeways, as much as they do not relieve congestion and only create it).

Commuter--or even better, all-day, two-way train service--is beyond necessary in the Lower Mainland. When I check in on the Vancouver transit threads though, they're all figuring out how to spent a trillion dollars on 18 Expo Line spurs to the middle of nowhere, with 45 minute frequency, and two hour trips to downtown Vancouver. Just make a commuter train.

Yeah, that sucks. I feel like cities are once again trying to have their Skytrain or LRT or subway or whatever be everything. Serve the city and the suburbs and just doing a shit job at either as a result. Like why on earth would you want to take a Skytrain all the way out from Langley to Downtown Vancouver? That sounds, ok, more pleasant than a bus, but that's a long commute. Have an RER-style system centred on Pacific Central or Waterfront, but also have some other stops because not everyone is heading Downtown. So have an RER line out to Harrison Hot Springs. Stop in Harrison, Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey-Guildford, and then a stop in Burnaby (either Metrotown if going a southern route or either SFU or Brentwood if not). Have a second spur split off heading east from Surrey-Guildford and stop in Cloverdale and South Surrey/White Rock.

No, no. Don't get me started.

Winnipeggers gnash their teeth about a bunch of things out of their control that scuttled Winnipeg's chances. Communism in 1919, the Panama Canal, NAFTA. Nobody ever looks at how they ripped out the transit system that provided roughly half of all trips in the city. It was a blatantly catastrophic move--I can't guess the equivalent billions of dollars worth of infrastructure they summarily burnt--and Winnipeg Transit has been overseeing a deliberate decline ever since.

For all the years I lived there, I never even knew who was in charge of WT. Nobody ever talked about it, never mind whether they had any business running it, were blatantly incompetent, or should have been fired. For all I know, Winnipeg Transit is run by a cabal of vampires who live in service pits of bus garages and feed on the unfortunate homeless who fall asleep on the bus.

Hahaha... yeah it's so infuriating how much Winnipeg just burnt away very good infrastructure and there's been no attempt since to remedy that. It's so wild how LRT isn't even on the table, while smaller cities such as Waterloo have built one, and peers Hamilton and Quebec City are considering it. The new transit plan is just focused on a BRT system that funnels commuters downtown and little else (though it can be expanded to light rail). And based on how terribly they botched the first BRT job, I'm not terribly convinced this plan will be decent. The only innovative thing about it is the bridge from St Vital to the UofM.

To me, Winnipeg should have LRT down Pembina/Osborne, Henderson, St Mary's, Main, Portage, Notre Dame and McPhillips (with a spur to the Airport), Route 90/Bishop Grandin (between the Airport and Southdale), Regent, and Grant. Then streetcars down Maryland/Sherbrook/Stafford, Corydon, South Osborne, Corydon, Ellice/Sargent, Broadway, Selkirk, Balmoral/Isabel/Salter, Provencher, and maybe Ness. Maybe have BRT down Lag, Chief Peguis, Fermor, St Anne's, Keewatin, Inkster, etc. This is a simplification, obviously.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The Beltline is getting two Green Line stations (Centre Street South and 5 Street SE at the new arena), Inglewood is getting a station, and Mission's 4th Street is within a reasonable distance (900 meters) of Erlton Station, though yes it is underserved and will never have a station (due to already being in close proximity). At 450 meter walk from the main drag, I wouldn't say Bridgeland is too far (not that you said it was, so don't freak out ), but it'll be nice when the retail of the new towers UC along 9 Street will connect the station and main retail area more seamlessly. All of the Beltline is of course already only 3 blocks minimum to 9 blocks maximum away from the entire 7 Avenue Free Fare zone, so it's quite well connected and always has been. Marda Loop for sure will never be connected to the rail network, though it does now have a station on the MAX Yellow BRT line, which is the best we can hope for in the long term.

In Edmonton, a good portion of Oliver is within 1 km (13 min) walk of Grandin and Corona Stations, and it'll be sweet when the Valley Line tram goes all the way through the neighbourhood! It'll be awesome if/when the Festival Line through Strathcona happens.

All fair points, Chad!

I forgot about the Green Line routing through the Beltline. Although, according to the maps, there's still nothing that actually goes down to 17th, which is annoying. The station at 1 St SE and 11th is located where some existing density is, but misses a potential transfer point with the existing Vic Park station. The second station is in a no-man's land and is clearly meant to be a gentrifier.

For me, and yes I am sure this'd be more expensive, I'd say a better routing would be to just continue straight down 2nd until 17th. Have a station at 11th to act in place of the 11th and 1st SE station, then another at 17th and 2nd. It is still removed from the main drag of 17th, but at least is a short walking distance and could provide potential transfer to a future streetcar or LRT or BRT going down 17 Ave. From there it could bend east and have a transfer point with Victoria Park, then tunnel eastwards and essentially meet up with the already proposed Inglewood station.

But that is a good catch about Inglewood getting C-Train access, too, thanks.

Re: Bridgeland -- for me I think of the main commercial strips of Bridgeland as being Edmonton Trail and 4 St NE, as well as 1 Ave NE. I tend to think of these (especially 1 Ave NE) as the "heart" of the community as a result. The C-Train station isn't right by these. Luckily, it's only a few blocks from 1st Ave, though Edmonton Tr is much further. It's not the worst situation, just imperfect I guess.

Re: Oliver -- yes, the Valley Line extension will go through it, but going through Jasper Ave would've made far more sense.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by ue

Or Montreal, where the much heralded REM is basically just an airport connector and a bunch of suburban lines, while the Pink Line, or something that goes down St-Laurent or Parc through the western Plateau and to the Garment District (there's even a ROW already for the northern part of this) is de-prioritized.

Maybe not even that, never mind the talk of extending to Dorval.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7472746/uncertainty-surrounds-rem-construction-montreal-airport/

Quebec has not been doing well with its transit construction as of late.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/rem-delayed-3-to-6-months-1.5798525

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bape-quebec-city-tramway-1.5795999

Although the Pink line might get bumped back up on the wish list if the Quebec City Tramway gets turfed, since that was a grand bargain struck between Plante and Legault.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by ue

Or Montreal, where the much heralded REM is basically just an airport connector and a bunch of suburban lines, while the Pink Line, or something that goes down St-Laurent or Parc through the western Plateau and to the Garment District (there's even a ROW already for the northern part of this) is de-prioritized.

From Bois-Franc to Ile-des-Soeurs, it will basically be an urban métro line. It will be super convenient to connect downtown to the Université de Montréal (or anywhere along the Blue line), and many of its stations are in dense neighbourhoods (Bois-Franc, Du Ruisseau, Montpellier, Ville-de-Mont-Royal, Griffintown-Bernard Landry and Ile-des-Soeurs). With a train passing every two minutes, and fare integration, these stations will be just like metro stations, really.

The rest of the branches are more suburban oriented, though.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by ue

Hahaha... yeah it's so infuriating how much Winnipeg just burnt away very good infrastructure and there's been no attempt since to remedy that. It's so wild how LRT isn't even on the table, while smaller cities such as Waterloo have built one, and peers Hamilton and Quebec City are considering it.

Winnipeg isn't in a rich province that can occasionally pour provincial dollars from elsewhere into an urban area with 7 or 8 percent of the provincial population. The provincial government can only fund Winnipeg transit with 70% Winnipeg dollars, which would also be what the city's contribution would be taken from. It's not possible. Winnipeg is not a rich city to begin with, to put it mildly. And the rickety old wooden streetcars from 1910 could not reasonably be classified as "very good infrastructure" ...

This would all be nice, in a fantasy world, but there is zero chance of its happening in real life.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by wave46

Ottawa's urban core is still serviced fairly regularly by bus too. Maybe putting dedicated bus lanes on Bank and Rideau-Montreal might improve things at a fraction of the cost of dedicated light-rail.

Both Bank and Montreal have width constraints that pretty well preclude this. Bank was rebuilt in the past two decades so as to preclude exclusive bus lanes of any kind, let alone bi-directional and all day, even on the parts where it is more than two or three lanes wide. Montreal Road was slated for bus lanes, but they were sacrificed to the bike gods.

Ottawa has given up on urban transit.

I don't think the bang-per-buck for increasing service in the urban part of the city itself will accomplish much to increase overall transit usage.

In the case of the eastern part of the urban area it would stimulate a lot of redevelopment in an area that has high potential for it, the highest in any part of the inner urban zone. You are not going to get that stimulative effect with the City of Ottawa's current plan, which is... nothing. Maybe add the occasional run or two of a regular bus route that can only move at the speed of surrounding traffic, maybe, during morning rush hour, perhaps. All that does is alleviate the current (or at least pre-pandemic) perpetual crush-loading that urban Ottawans have been forced to endure for decades, but it's no way to build or rebuild a city.

[ue]

Originally Posted by foolworm

Maybe not even that, never mind the talk of extending to Dorval.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7472746/uncertainty-surrounds-rem-construction-montreal-airport/

Quebec has not been doing well with its transit construction as of late.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/rem-delayed-3-to-6-months-1.5798525

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bape-quebec-city-tramway-1.5795999

Although the Pink line might get bumped back up on the wish list if the Quebec City Tramway gets turfed, since that was a grand bargain struck between Plante and Legault.

Very true. Although the REM will go to the airport, it does it in the most awkward way, especially considering there's already a rail line with more direct connection to both downtown and the metro network (and also already has commuter rail, which is what much of the REM network is upgraded from).

I also do think Quebec City deserves a tramway, so it's hard to want it to fail just so the Pink Line *may* go forward after all. The QC tramway is also a seemingly rare example of a rail transit system that actually prioritizes the city. It hits key urban neighbourhoods, including Saint Roch, St-Jean-Baptiste, Vieux-Quebec, Limoilou, and Montcalm, as well as hitting Ste-Foy and Universite Laval.

Originally Posted by begratto

From Bois-Franc to Ile-des-Soeurs, it will basically be an urban métro line. It will be super convenient to connect downtown to the Université de Montréal (or anywhere along the Blue line), and many of its stations are in dense neighbourhoods (Bois-Franc, Du Ruisseau, Montpellier, Ville-de-Mont-Royal, Griffintown-Bernard Landry and Ile-des-Soeurs). With a train passing every two minutes, and fare integration, these stations will be just like metro stations, really.

The rest of the branches are more suburban oriented, though.

Yeah, I agree. That stretch between Ile-des-Soeurs to UdeM it's practically metro and urban-focused. I also appreciate that many of the suburban stations actually hit places people want to go (eg Fairview Pointe Claire), so it isn't all bad. I'd just rather there be a bit more metro service on-island, to places like NDG, LaSalle, the western Plateau/Mile End/Mile Ex, down Avenue Mont-Royal or Blvd Saint-Joseph, extend the blue line to Galeries d'Anjou, etc. Also extend the yellow line into Longueuil as I've seen reports that show there's a lot of transit demand in that part of the South Shore (I know there's eventual plans for this).

Originally Posted by Andy6

Winnipeg isn't in a rich province that can occasionally pour provincial dollars from elsewhere into an urban area with 7 or 8 percent of the provincial population. The provincial government can only fund Winnipeg transit with 70% Winnipeg dollars, which would also be what the city's contribution would be taken from. It's not possible. Winnipeg is not a rich city to begin with, to put it mildly. And the rickety old wooden streetcars from 1910 could not reasonably be classified as "very good infrastructure" ...

This would all be nice, in a fantasy world, but there is zero chance of its happening in real life.

That's a good point about the provincial money. However, Winnipeg could lobby the federal government for funding of new transit infrastructure, like so many other cities do (tbh I'm not super aware if the City of Winnipeg has in fact done this recently).

And yes, obviously those same streetcars from 1910 would be rickety and not the greatest for 2020 standards. However, the could've not been ripped up and instead maintained while updating/upgrading the LRVs over time as Toronto has. And perhaps expand the system over generations too!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Both Bank and Montreal have width constraints that pretty well preclude this. Bank was rebuilt in the past two decades so as to preclude exclusive bus lanes of any kind, let alone bi-directional and all day, even on the parts where it is more than two or three lanes wide. Montreal Road was slated for bus lanes, but they were sacrificed to the bike gods.

Ottawa has given up on urban transit.



In the case of the eastern part of the urban area it would stimulate a lot of redevelopment in an area that has high potential for it, the highest in any part of the inner urban zone. You are not going to get that stimulative effect with the City of Ottawa's current plan, which is... nothing. Maybe add the occasional run or two of a regular bus route that can only move at the speed of surrounding traffic, maybe, during morning rush hour, perhaps. All that does is alleviate the current (or at least pre-pandemic) perpetual crush-loading that urban Ottawans have been forced to endure for decades, but it's no way to build or rebuild a city.

Looking at what they are doing, to me, it looks like they are trying to bring as much RT to as much of the city as they can, as cheap as they can. The Central LRT will eventually become just as congested as it was with buses, but this time with trains. I wouldn't doubt that there will be a new E/W route through downtown. It is just a matter of when.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Looking at what they are doing, to me, it looks like they are trying to bring as much RT to as much of the city as they can, as cheap as they can. The Central LRT will eventually become just as congested as it was with buses, but this time with trains. I wouldn't doubt that there will be a new E/W route through downtown. It is just a matter of when.

Yes, Ottawa's approach is almost all about low-hanging fruit. And always has been.

The Transitway, Trillium line and Confederation line all ran or run primarily through old rail corridors, greenspace or highway rights-of-way/medians.

It's never so much been about implanting transit where most people live, as much as putting transit where it fits most easily and cheaply into the urban geography.

Population density be damned.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by begratto

From Bois-Franc to Ile-des-Soeurs, it will basically be an urban métro line. It will be super convenient to connect downtown to the Université de Montréal (or anywhere along the Blue line), and many of its stations are in dense neighbourhoods (Bois-Franc, Du Ruisseau, Montpellier, Ville-de-Mont-Royal, Griffintown-Bernard Landry and Ile-des-Soeurs). With a train passing every two minutes, and fare integration, these stations will be just like metro stations, really.

The rest of the branches are more suburban oriented, though.

With the REM, they are basically building the long planned Ligne Rouge. It covers an important missing link.

Has there been discussions on fare integration between the Metro and REM?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, Ottawa's approach is almost all about low-hanging fruit. And always has been.

The Transitway, Trillium line and Confederation line all ran or run primarily through old rail corridors, greenspace or highway rights-of-way/medians.

It's never so much been about implanting transit where most people live, as much as putting transit where it fits most easily and cheaply into the urban geography.

Population density be damned.

There comes the crux of the argument with public transit.

Cost versus benefit. Do I build a cheaper, broader network that reaches out into the suburbs and makes transit nodes a thing father out? Or do I focus more money on the core?

In 40 years this expansion of Confederation Line may be what the TTC subway was in the 1970s. North York Centre was closer to the edge of the city than anything. Suburban paradise. Now look at it.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Has there been discussions on fare integration between the Metro and REM?

The goal is for there to be fare integration via OPUS.

[J.OT13]

Ottawa's O-Train system in 2025.

• Video Link

[Acajack]

So the decision has been made to have the Airport spur be its own line with a distinct number and colour?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So the decision has been made to have the Airport spur be its own line with a distinct number and colour?

Looks like. Eventually, when Trillium will be upgraded, that number and colour will be dropped.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ottawa's O-Train system in 2025.

• Video Link

Very cool.

I understand the name Kichi Sibi (probably Native) but Corso Italia? Sounds weird.