The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The route and technology may be great, but the $10.2B cost + $1B in financing costs and the decade+ delay in opening means that it'll cripple Honolulu's finances for decades to come.

In a similar manner, the original pitched 40 km Green Line at <$5B was great, but the current 20 km Green Line at $5B not so much.

The delay is due to the contracting strategy, and the delay compounds the financing problems. Not tendering all it once also crowded out later projects and led to higher bids. I'd bet there is a real problem in bid rigging too, in a small place with few companies all going in on multiple projects that need similar resources.

If they had contracted correctly, when all the bids came back high or required too much risk sharing with the government, the government would have then had the opportunity to pull the plug. Just as Calgary has an opportunity to spike phase 2 and build a (painful for civic leaders and downtown tower owners) elevated alternative if the geology of downtown Calgary does in phase 2 contracting.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisa...ia_-_A4H5L0.pdf?nodeid=2680225&vernum=-2
The last slide mentions HOV lanes on both Rutherford Road and Major MacKenzie Drive. Is York Region hinting at something???

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://docs2.cer-rec.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisa...ia_-_A4H5L0.pdf?nodeid=2680225&vernum=-2
The last slide mentions HOV lanes on both Rutherford Road and Major MacKenzie Drive. Is York Region hinting at something???

What do you mean? There have been HOVs on Major Mack for a while now on the widened part.

York region has a policy of HOVs on any 6 lane widenings for about a decade now anyway. Dufferin has had them for about a decade now.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

What do you mean? There have been HOVs on Major Mack for a while now on the widened part.

York region has a policy of HOVs on any 6 lane widenings for about a decade now anyway. Dufferin has had them for about a decade now.

Okay I didn’t know that there’s been such a policy. No wonder Dufferin Street has it. I’ve been wondering for a long time why there when YRT 105 doesn’t even run that frequently. I’ll lol if Green Lane gets it too.

I just thought this would be hinting at the possibility of YRT going in Brampton (or vice versa).

[Reecemartin]

Our second episode of "Building Toronto's Regional Rail" is here and it looks at Agincourt Station, one of the stations in the GO network I Toronto with the most ridership potential!

https://youtu.be/wT_WMBj3i1s

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Okay I didn’t know that there’s been such a policy. No wonder Dufferin Street has it. I’ve been wondering for a long time why there when YRT 105 doesn’t even run that frequently. I’ll lol if Green Lane gets it too.

I just thought this would be hinting at the possibility of YRT going in Brampton (or vice versa).

Yup. All of their 6 lane widenings include them. Only Dufferin and Highway 7 have been widened since the policy was introduced, but there are a much larger amount of widenings planned this decade that will include them. Rutherford, Major Mack, Keele (407-Steeles), Bathurst, Yonge St (Davis-Green Lane) will all include them.

[begratto]

REM2 is a go : 20 stations, approx. 30km

According to Bernard Drainville, journalist and radio host, the REM's east and northeast expansion project is a go and will be announced tomorrow by PM François Legault, Mayor Valérie Plante and CDPQ.

The REM2 will have about 20 stations and two branches that will connect the city centre to Pointe-aux-Trembles and Montréal-Nord.

The city center segment will be aerial, on boulevard René-Lévesque.

The REM2 will follow René-Lévesque boulevard, Notre-Dame and then split in two branches:

- the Pointe-aux-Trembles (PAT) branch will follow Souligny and then continue on Sherbrooke towards PAT with an aerial structure.
- the North Branch will go up Dickson / Lacordaire, will have a station near Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital and will then dive underground and go to Montréal-Nord / Rivière-des-Prairies, with a terminus near Cégep Marie-Victorin.

The aesthetics of this aerial structure on René-Lévesque, right in the middle of the city centre, would be an essential element of the project and would possibly be the subject of an international invitation to tender for the architectural aspect.

[Martin Mtl]

This is HUGE news.

Originally Posted by begratto

According to Bernard Drainville, journalist and radio host, the REM's east and northeast expansion project is a go and will be announced tomorrow by PM François Legault, Mayor Valérie Plante and CDPQ.

The REM2 will have about 20 stations and two branches that will connect the city centre to Pointe-aux-Trembles and Montréal-Nord.

The city center segment will be aerial, on boulevard René-Lévesque.

The REM2 will follow René-Lévesque boulevard, Notre-Dame and then split in two branches:

- the Pointe-aux-Trembles (PAT) branch will follow Souligny and then continue on Sherbrooke towards PAT with an aerial structure.
- the North Branch will go up Dickson / Lacordaire, will have a station near Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital and will then dive underground and go to Montréal-Nord / Rivière-des-Prairies, with a terminus near Cégep Marie-Victorin.

The aesthetics of this aerial structure on René-Lévesque, right in the middle of the city centre, would be an essential element of the project and would possibly be the subject of an international invitation to tender for the architectural aspect.

[Chadillaccc]

Wowzers, congrats Montreal! That is dope. Looking forward to seeing the design competition for thee elevated portion through downtown!

[MalcolmTucker]

So interesting to see how routes are laid out when you have the added goal of 50 years of intensification and value uplift as a key part of your financing model. And when you have a hard financial constraint which requires ruthless avoidance of unnecessary cost.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So interesting to see how routes are laid out when you have the added goal of 50 years of intensification and value uplift as a key part of your financing model. And when you have a hard financial constraint which requires ruthless avoidance of unnecessary cost.

To be fair, every transit project should be optimised like this. Keep out the politicians.

[hipster duck]

I'm also amazed at the power wielded by a pension fund to plow ahead with a transit line like it was playing SimCity. Apart from things hidden from sight like major sewer and water mains, we haven't seen urban infrastructure planned in such an engineer and accountant-focused way in at least two generations.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by begratto

The aesthetics of this aerial structure on René-Lévesque, right in the middle of the city centre, would be an essential element of the project and would possibly be the subject of an international invitation to tender for the architectural aspect.

I can't wait to see what they come up. Downtown of the future.

[Dengler Avenue]

The aesthetics of this aerial structure on René-Lévesque, right in the middle of the city centre, would be an essential element of the project and would possibly be the subject of an international invitation to tender for the architectural aspect.

Like a skytrain?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm also amazed at the power wielded by a pension fund to plow ahead with a transit line like it was playing SimCity. Apart from things hidden from sight like major sewer and water mains, we haven't seen urban infrastructure planned in such an engineer and accountant-focused way in at least two generations.

I wonder how "soft" the academic background of the typical urban planner in Canada is. Do they all have to have a solid background in math and statistics, the sort of skills that engineers need to have? Do they study economics? Most urban planning materials I see look like they came from an arts and social work type background.

I think the most extreme example of anti-engineering planning orientation I ever encountered was an interview of a Seattle planner who was working on the Alaska Way Viaduct project. They asked him what the transportation impact of demolishing the viaduct had been and he said he thinks about 20 minutes, but he wasn't sure, but a lot of people had creative solutions like getting up at 5 am to go to work. And anyway, he said that really the focus has shifted to creating people places, the former viaduct areas will look nicer, we should find ways to make ourselves happier while commuting, etc. About 80% of the content was about aesthetics and feelings while the transportation aspect seemed minor. It is fine to say that there's a trade-off between driving and other modes or people living closer to where they need to be and therefore travelling less but, well, show us the numbers!

There is that lazy piece of received wisdom about how expanding road capacity induces people to drive more. A bunch of people seem to think that eliminates the need for any analysis about roads.

I've heard a mix of perspectives from interviews of people running transit systems like the NYC subway or London underground. Some are all about traditional transportation service metrics like being on time and travel times, while others bring up ideas relating to our feelings while using transit. I'm not sure if the feeling ones were naturally more inclined to that approach or had simply capitulated long ago and internalized the idea that their system would never run well as judged by conventional standards.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm also amazed at the power wielded by a pension fund to plow ahead with a transit line like it was playing SimCity. Apart from things hidden from sight like major sewer and water mains, we haven't seen urban infrastructure planned in such an engineer and accountant-focused way in at least two generations.

Canada Line and Calgary's first two lines were certainly in that vein. Both are systems people like to point to justify not building transit with that mindset. I'm sure there will be lots of similar critiques due to REM2 going above ground downtown.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Canada Line and Calgary's first two lines were certainly in that vein. Both are systems people like to point to justify not building transit with that mindset. I'm sure there will be lots of similar critiques due to REM2 going above ground downtown.

Most Canada Line criticisms I hear are of the form that it should have been nicer in some way, maybe bigger platforms or better integrated into the rest of the system. But ultimately at a cost vs. benefit level, comparing $ to riders, the Canada Line is very good.

One idea people don't talk about much is how there's a potential trade-off between building perfect lines and just building more lines, and building more lines is often a very good alternative to renovating or overbuilding. For example instead of expanding platforms or building bigger stations to begin with, you can add a parallel line that serves a slightly different route, relieving some load while providing better service for a lot of people. How well this works depends on the potential routes but most Canadian cities have such underbuilt transit that they are full of low-hanging fruit.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how "soft" the academic background of the typical urban planner in Canada is. Do they all have to have a solid background in math and statistics, the sort of skills that engineers need to have? Do they study economics? Most urban planning materials I see look like they came from an arts and social work type background.

I think the most extreme example of anti-engineering planning orientation I ever encountered was an interview of a Seattle planner who was working on the Alaska Way Viaduct project. They asked him what the impact of demolishing the viaduct had been and he said he thinks about 20 minutes, but he wasn't sure, but a lot of people had creative solutions like getting up at 5 am to go to work. And anyway, he said that really the focus has shifted to creating people places, the former viaduct areas will look nicer, we should find ways to make ourselves happier while commuting, etc. About 80% of the content was about aesthetics and feelings while the transportation aspect seemed minor.

I've heard a big mix from people running transit systems like the NYC subway or London underground. Some are all about traditional transportation service metrics like being on time and travel times, while others bring up ideas relating to our feelings while using transit. I'm not sure if the feeling ones were naturally more inclined to that approach or had simply capitulated long ago and internalized the idea that their system would never run well as judged by conventional standards.

I remember that interview - or things around the same time. There was a period before the tunnel opened and after the viaduct closed where things were shut down for weeks. Of course, shutting down the viaduct without replacement was the preferred option for years, much like the DVP, and replacing it with a very wide surface street, much like the DVP. During the shutdown of course, that very wide surface street did not exist, nor was the tunnel or viaduct open.

They didn't care about measuring the impact precisely because the impact was always going to be temporary.

tldr: Seattle was a special case - a construction shutdown.

[JHikka]

Above ground along Rene-Levesque? Hmm.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

tldr: Seattle was a special case - a construction shutdown.

My point was less about whether or not it was justified and more that the planner they interviewed just wasn't focused on engineering style optimization based on objective metrics. He could have said that they looked at the alternatives, characterized the trade-off with numbers, and explained the idea that this is short term pain. But that didn't really seem to be his focus. He sounded like he could have been a landscape architect talking about a nice park project.

I don't think such an interview would have happened in 1980. It would have been a traffic engineer talking about throughput and travel times.

By the way I am also not saying we should go back to 1980 and pretend that roads are just conduits for car traffic. But I wonder if municipal projects are becoming less rigourous over time, and I see a general trend toward sociological factors being cited as reasons for doing things while the evidence bar simultaneously drifts downward a bit. Often you have engineers working off of narrow metrics, then somebody says that there are a bunch of other considerations that need to be taken into account, but they are only airily taken into account and the whole exercise becomes more subjective.

This seems like a really wide social phenomenon too. I wonder how much it has to do with expanding enrollments in universities and credentialism.