The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I think a lot of people forget how cheap the Trillium Line was when they built it. It was initially a pilot project costing $21 million. The political reality is that it was never a choice between its present alignment and Bank St.

The lesson, though, is that decisions we make now that may seem like cheap low hanging fruit may end up being decisions we have to live with for the rest of our lives. It's something that should be considered when they initially make the decision.

Yes the Trillium line was the lowest-hanging fruit possible. Almost like Sir Isaac Newton sitting under the tree and having the proverbial apple fall from a branch and hit him on the head.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I think a lot of people forget how cheap the Trillium Line was when they built it. It was initially a pilot project costing $21 million. The political reality is that it was never a choice between its present alignment and Bank St.

The lesson, though, is that decisions we make now that may seem like cheap low hanging fruit may end up being decisions we have to live with for the rest of our lives. It's something that should be considered when they initially make the decision.

Which is why old EAs needed option analysis, like Quebec City's project just had published. Unfortuantely, EAs have the tendency to recommend either too expensive or politically unfeasible options. Plus the time needed derails projects by making idea to contract signing not fit in a single electoral cycle. Perfect enemy of the good and all that.


I imagine if there was a full EA for the original Ottawa LRT pilot that the EA would have recommended saving the $21 million to use on a future project.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Which is why old EAs needed option analysis, like Quebec City's project just had published. Unfortuantely, EAs have the tendency to recommend either too expensive or politically unfeasible options. Plus the time needed derails projects by making idea to contract signing not fit in a single electoral cycle. Perfect enemy of the good and all that.


I imagine if there was a full EA for the original Ottawa LRT pilot that the EA would have recommended saving the $21 million to use on a future project.

Would that have actually been good for the city?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Would that have actually been good for the city?

Probably not. But you have to take the good (projects that are affordable and take advantage of opportunities) with the bad (building entirely out of scale infrastructure for political reasons) when you bypass /get rid of option analysis. Have to trust our elected officials to not bad tremendously bad decisions.

[FrAnKs]

The design guidelines for Québec City' structuring transit system...with hundred of pictures.
Courtesy - Ville de Québec

https://reseaustructurant.info/docs/Lignes%20directrices%20design.pdf (French)

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Which is why old EAs needed option analysis, like Quebec City's project just had published. Unfortuantely, EAs have the tendency to recommend either too expensive or politically unfeasible options. Plus the time needed derails projects by making idea to contract signing not fit in a single electoral cycle. Perfect enemy of the good and all that.


I imagine if there was a full EA for the original Ottawa LRT pilot that the EA would have recommended saving the $21 million to use on a future project.

$21 million is a rounding error on a $2 billion project.

Given the knowledge gained inside of OC Transpo for rail operations, $21 million was a bargain probably.

[ue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The city is doing what makes sense. LRT is a huge cost, especially when there is no clear demand. By doing BRT, they are copying Ottawa's success. Expect 10-30 years from now that parts will be shut down and converted.



Look at Toronto and how much is not near the subways. What is the difference?

No, the city is cheaping out. If Edmonton, Calgary, Kitchener-Waterloo, and potentially soon Quebec City and Hamilton can build light rail with less population than Winnipeg, then so can Winnipeg.

Also if the current RT is indicative of what the entire system hopes to be, then no, Winnipeg won’t be copying Ottawa’s success as the current RT sucks. It’s a half-assed, cheap solution perfectly befitting a do-nothing city.

The funding is all about priorities. As I said the city/province could request more federal funding. The federal government funds transit projects across the country all the time. The ridiculous police budget could be significantly curtailed, too. Taxes could be raised. Money going into highway infrastructure could be rerouted. There’s plenty of things that could be done. It isn’t exactly impossible for a city like Winnipeg to have LRT, it’s just the city’s priorities.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Ottawa went for a “cheap system buildout” - creating as many km of line for as little money as possible. This means it’s going to have a ridiculous size metro system for a city it’s size, but it runs in less ideal locations.

Honestly, I’m fine with it. Ottawa could have put these stops in “prime” locations but it would have needed a lot more tunnelling and it would have cost a whole lot more. REM will be similar. You get a whole lot more bang for your buck by running in surface corridors, even if it results in some sub-prime station locations.

Ok, so obviously it isn’t as black-or-white as this. For example, as another poster noted, the build out of the Trillium and Confederation Lines will hit many key Ottawa destinations.

However, if we look at it as purely as you’re saying (or at least how I’m interpreting your words), Ottawa is doing a cheap build out which will enable it to have a very large light rail system even if they don’t hit ideal locations. What is the benefit of this? Surely any cost benefit to the cheaper build out will be lost if you’ve got an inconvenient track route that misses a large sum of people.

Just build the track where people are and where people want to go. You’ll get a better ROI even if it’s more expensive.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

The design guidelines for Québec City' structuring transit system...with hundred of pictures.
Courtesy - Ville de Québec

https://reseaustructurant.info/docs/Lignes%20directrices%20design.pdf (French)

Merci bien! This is basically an hour or two of transport pornography (transporn?) for SSP. Looks like big thinking at least in terms of the public realm and design components.

[Peggerino]

Originally Posted by savevp

Merci bien! This is basically an hour or two of transport pornography (transporn?) for SSP. Looks like big thinking at least in terms of the public realm and design components.

Lol true. I'd love to have something like this for Winnipeg to gawk at too. Some of the shots in here though are gorgeous, reminds me of places in Europe like Germany and Belgium.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by savevp

Merci bien! This is basically an hour or two of transport pornography (transporn?) for SSP. Looks like big thinking at least in terms of the public realm and design components.

LOL. Yeah! They seems pretty serious!

[wave46]

Originally Posted by ue

Ok, so obviously it isn’t as black-or-white as this. For example, as another poster noted, the build out of the Trillium and Confederation Lines will hit many key Ottawa destinations.

However, if we look at it as purely as you’re saying (or at least how I’m interpreting your words), Ottawa is doing a cheap build out which will enable it to have a very large light rail system even if they don’t hit ideal locations. What is the benefit of this? Surely any cost benefit to the cheaper build out will be lost if you’ve got an inconvenient track route that misses a large sum of people.

Just build the track where people are and where people want to go. You’ll get a better ROI even if it’s more expensive.

The benefit is that you hit more people with fewer dollars. For $5 billion Ottawa will have almost built a city-wide system. Is it perfect? No.

The TTC subway extension to Vaughan cost $3.2 billion and accomplished far less.

Value per dollar is an important metric, especially when you're selling this to people. Expensive lines within the city exclusively are a political hard sell when there are large contingent of voters in the suburbs. If the suburban voters outnumber the core city voters and one repeatedly tells them to fly a kite, one's political fortunes might not survive long enough to accomplish any transit at all.

[ue]

Originally Posted by wave46

The benefit is that you hit more people with fewer dollars. For $5 billion Ottawa will have almost built a city-wide system. Is it perfect? No.

The TTC subway extension to Vaughan cost $3.2 billion and accomplished far less.

Value per dollar is an important metric, especially when you're selling this to people. Expensive lines within the city exclusively are a political hard sell when there are large contingent of voters in the suburbs. If the suburban voters outnumber the core city voters and one repeatedly tells them to fly a kite, one's political fortunes might not survive long enough to accomplish any transit at all.

And this isn't still flawed?

I get that transit systems are built via political will, which comes from politicians who are out of touch with what transit users need or want because they don't actually ride it themselves (in most cases). So instead of getting transit where it's most effective and needed, or even just routed or designed in a way that is pleasant (i.e. not in the middle of a highway far from anything of note) and useful, we're building lines out to the sticks because that's where a growing share of voters are. That's flawed.

But also, it doesn't have to be an either/or. For the Confederation Line eastbound from the core, the current extension is more-or-less effective and from there could turn into a loop at Gloucester and head back into the city via Montreal Road and Rideau Street, hitting areas with denser, pre-existing populations, including a lot of multi-unit developments and a walkable main street, as well as that infill opportunity developers love. Win-win. That way you're not building a less useful line to Orleans that may buy politicians some votes out there, but will not be used for anything other than commuting to work or school, and the denizens will continue driving to their friends, the park, the supermarket, the mall, etc.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by ue

And this isn't still flawed?

I get that transit systems are built via political will, which comes from politicians who are out of touch with what transit users need or want because they don't actually ride it themselves (in most cases). So instead of getting transit where it's most effective and needed, or even just routed or designed in a way that is pleasant (i.e. not in the middle of a highway far from anything of note) and useful, we're building lines out to the sticks because that's where a growing share of voters are. That's flawed.

But also, it doesn't have to be an either/or. For the Confederation Line eastbound from the core, the current extension is more-or-less effective and from there could turn into a loop at Gloucester and head back into the city via Montreal Road and Rideau Street, hitting areas with denser, pre-existing populations, including a lot of multi-unit developments and a walkable main street, as well as that infill opportunity developers love. Win-win. That way you're not building a less useful line to Orleans that may buy politicians some votes out there, but will not be used for anything other than commuting to work or school, and the denizens will continue driving to their friends, the park, the supermarket, the mall, etc.

I think somebody said here that perfect was the enemy of good.

It comes down to this: How much does it cost to route it up Montreal Road? Those billions add up, especially when there's not a convenient right-of-way. Tunneling is pricey and it's a largely a low-density neighbourhood.

Does catering to longer distance commuters do a better job of getting cars off the road? Keep people in Orleans living daily life out there, but use the train to shuttle them into the core. GO Transit, writ small.

[ue]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think somebody said here that perfect was the enemy of good.

It comes down to this: How much does it cost to route it up Montreal Road? Those billions add up, especially when there's not a convenient right-of-way. Tunneling is pricey and it's a largely a low-density neighbourhood.

Does catering to longer distance commuters do a better job of getting cars off the road? Keep people in Orleans living daily life out there, but use the train to shuttle them into the core. GO Transit, writ small.

A lot of Montreal Road is this and this, not exactly the middle of a highway or the neighbourhoods like this, which abut it.

Up until Vanier (at St Laurent Blvd) there absolutely would be room for a surface-level LRT easily. For the rest there could be a tunnel, which is of course costly, I know, but possible if prioritized.

I'd argue that, no, catering to long-distance commuters doesn't do a better job at getting cars off the road. It does a good job at getting them off the road for one thing -- commuting. But it isn't going to get people to ditch their car, as they will be continuing to live in an environment purpose-built for cars. This means that you're going to get rid of cars at their most visible (rush hour traffic) which looks good but only superficially addresses the problem at one level.

[jamincan]

Optimization problems are difficult in the best circumstances; mixing politics into the equation, and it's hopelessly difficult. At the end of the day, the transit line that gets built will take more cars off the road than the one that doesn't.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Optimization problems are difficult in the best circumstances; mixing politics into the equation, and it's hopelessly difficult. At the end of the day, the transit line that gets built will take more cars off the road than the one that doesn't.

I’m not sure if we can say that for ION...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ue

No, the city is cheaping out. If Edmonton, Calgary, Kitchener-Waterloo, and potentially soon Quebec City and Hamilton can build light rail with less population than Winnipeg, then so can Winnipeg.

Also if the current RT is indicative of what the entire system hopes to be, then no, Winnipeg won’t be copying Ottawa’s success as the current RT sucks. It’s a half-assed, cheap solution perfectly befitting a do-nothing city.

The funding is all about priorities. As I said the city/province could request more federal funding. The federal government funds transit projects across the country all the time. The ridiculous police budget could be significantly curtailed, too. Taxes could be raised. Money going into highway infrastructure could be rerouted. There’s plenty of things that could be done. It isn’t exactly impossible for a city like Winnipeg to have LRT, it’s just the city’s priorities.

The old Transitways suck. People on here have been stating how bad the LRT is and how it doesn't touch everything they think it will.

I would argue that once the full build out of each are done, they will be decent enough.

And before you start mentioning cities... Mississauga built a transitway like BRT.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

The design guidelines for Québec City' structuring transit system...with hundred of pictures.
Courtesy - Ville de Québec

https://reseaustructurant.info/docs/Lignes%20directrices%20design.pdf (French)

This is much nicer looking and more ambitious than what I originally thought the Quebec City tramway would be like. The underground stations look nice. It makes perfect sense to build a system like this in Quebec City; it would have made sense years ago. It'll complement the core areas nicely plus it transitions to being a more suburban line at the ends so it'll make sense as both a commuter line and a way to get around the core while removing vehicles from surface streets.

I wish Canada would move a bit farther away from everything being so utilitarian and transit being so value engineering focused. Quality of life is important and the spaces people spend their time in matter. This includes transit stations and the areas around them.

Some of this comes down to funding though. It looks like the feds alone have promised $1.2B toward construction of the Quebec City tramway. Could Winnipeg attract $1.2B in federal dollars for a tram project?

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I’m not sure if we can say that for ION...

What makes you say that?