The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Bet. Will bookmark this for 2046.

Please do.

Ottawa will release its Transportation Master Plan in a few months. Supposed to cover through to 2040. I'll be surprised if a Bank St. subway is even in there.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Please do.

Ottawa will release its Transportation Master Plan in a few months. Supposed to cover through to 2040. I'll be surprised if a Bank St. subway is even in there.

There should, someday, be a subway line under Bank and Montreal. As long as Ottawa can still improve the Trillium line and build out an at-grade tram system--and they can and should do both--it won't need that subway line.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Political infeasibility in a city is not going to be enough to convince the federal and provincial government to prioritize your city over so many other competing demands in the same province. In fact, an inability to prioritize transit in those corridors actually undermines the case for further higher capacity transit in those corridors. This is especially true in Ontario where the GTA makes up 50% of the population and every city is competing for transit dollars with the 416 and 905.

Hamilton would lie to have a word with you. That was canceled due to political reasons, not due to whether the line is feasible. So, unless there is political capital to gain, the line won't be built.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Way easier to use buses than it is to use LRVs and Bilevels. Especially in a city of 700k.

And I'm not endorsing the idea. I'm saying this is exactly why Winnipeg has had a long history of pushing bus only solutions. The problem is that they do it so badly. If they really wanted to make New Flyer look good, they'd be the BRT capital of North America, on their way to an all electric bus fleet. Kind of like how Shenzhen is a showcase for BYD in China.

That is partly the point. Winnipeg should have a great BRT by now, showcasing the buses, instead, they are hobling along.

Originally Posted by someone123

In the Halifax transit debates a lot of people bring up the "no space" argument when what they mean is that all available space is taken up for mixed traffic. Of course the traffic will tend to expand to use up the available road space. The point of reserving lanes and developing transit is partly to improve density, and transport more people using less land area. Saying there is no space for transit is like saying a city that is all houses has no space for an apartment building.

In Halifax there are transit priority lanes/corridors and they are being expanded. They actually go pretty far back, maybe to 2003 or so (MetroLink), but the city started expanding the system a lot around 2018 (Gottingen, Bayers, Robie, Bedford Highway coming).

This is a good change but it's compromised in that the busiest areas are 2 lane streets about 10 m wide and are hard to add a bus lane on, and around the core these dedicated lanes have many crossings (often less than 100 m apart) with other vehicle traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists. If the city keeps growing at the rate it's growing right now (around 2% per year, with a lot of that growth going to the urban core), I don't think this strategy is going to be sufficient on a timescale of 10-20 years, and the planning horizon for anything more elaborate is normally 5-10 years or more. It will work okay farther out in the suburbs but the service will be very slow in the urban core and there may even be congestion at times just around the bus terminals and stops. An ideal fix for this would probably involve some investment targeted at the inner city, not LRT lines that are 80% suburban by distance.

Halifax is a mess. The North End of the peninsula actually benefited from a horrific explosion. In that area, the streets are wide enough to take on BRT lanes, or other things that remove traffic lanes. The rest of the peninsula would need to see all roads turned to 1 way in order to fit bus lanes or even bike lanes.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cities like Halifax are perfectly positioned to really make the best of an urban renaissance. It's easy to live car free in downtown Halifax. But this requires real pushback suburbanites and driving. I'm not sure these smaller cities have the fortitude to do that.

How would a suburbanite get downtown to work?

Originally Posted by JHikka

Trillium Line doesn't service anything on Bank, though, and this argument really loses water once that is realized. Getting off the Trillium Line at Carleton does not make Lansdowne more accessible. Bronson isn't a good north-south corridor for transit because of this reason of the Trillium Line supposedly serving it enough (and because it's a four-lane racetrack for commuters). Riverside is an ok north-south route for transit if you're travelling from Hurdman but it's a bit of a loop around if you're going from downtown to South Keys, and St-Laurent isn't much of a north-south corridor for transit users.

This argument is akin to saying that Spadina shouldn't have streetcar service because the University Line is so close, and that's under the assumption that Trillium is a self-sufficient, respectable transit line which it really is not.

Maybe the Trillium line should have been converted to a commuter rail service to Gatineau and a new line up bank would have bee better? I stand by my thought that a new LRT line will not happen unless it already has a BRT service on it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by biguc

There should, someday, be a subway line under Bank and Montreal. As long as Ottawa can still improve the Trillium line and build out an at-grade tram system--and they can and should do both--it won't need that subway line.

It may happen someday. My point is that day doesn't look to be anywhere on the horizon if we start looking at things like ridership projections. At least for Bank.

Rideau-Montreal has a slightly better case. Plenty of existing ridership. And there's enough room to surface the LRT beyond a certain point, saving at least some money.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Hamilton would lie to have a word with you. That was canceled due to political reasons, not due to whether the line is feasible. So, unless there is political capital to gain, the line won't be built.

Sure political capital matters. But it's really hard to get when we're talking about building another line 2km away. That's not going to win anybody substantially more seats.

Also, isn't Hamilton back on as a stimulus project now?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

How would a suburbanite get downtown to work?

Take the bus. And this is what has to happen unless they want to spend an hour in traffic as the city grows.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe the Trillium line should have been converted to a commuter rail service to Gatineau and a new line up bank would have bee better? I stand by my thought that a new LRT line will not happen unless it already has a BRT service on it.

Ummm. It is a commuter rail service. That's the problem.
Trillium should have been twin tracked and electrified and brought up to the same metro standard as the Confederation Line. Unfortunate that it wasn't. They decided to put the money towards extending the line instead. But turning this into a metro is always going to cheaper than building the Bank St. subway. And it's the most likely course of action in the coming decades.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure political capital matters. But it's really hard to get when we're talking about building another line 2km away. That's not going to win anybody substantially more seats.

Also, isn't Hamilton back on as a stimulus project now?

It is back only because it might end up costing more politically not to do it. So, if there is political gains to be had, a line 2km from another will be built. I'd say something along Bank St might happen in a phase 4.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Take the bus. And this is what has to happen unless they want to spend an hour in traffic as the city grows.

The bus takes longer then driving as it is sitting in the very same traffic, but it has to make more stops.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ummm. It is a commuter rail service. That's the problem.
Trillium should have been twin tracked and electrified and brought up to the same metro standard as the Confederation Line. Unfortunate that it wasn't. They decided to put the money towards extending the line instead. But turning this into a metro is always going to cheaper than building the Bank St. subway. And it's the most likely course of action in the coming decades.

It is not commuter rail. it is a hybrid thing.

[Doady]

Based on ridership per capita and mode share data, Winnipeg already has better transit than Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, London. LRT or BRT doesn't matter, unless there is a specific corridor where riders are concentrated that needs increased capacity. Like so much of Grand River Transit ridership is concentrated in the King Street corridor, connecting multiple downtowns, it is not a typical case.

Until last year, Winnipeg Transit was still operating only 20 articulated buses system wide, so capacity does not seem a big issue there. And it has a much drier climate than places like London and Ottawa, less worry about snow interfering with the operation of articulated buses, so they can increase capacity simply buying more on articulated buses, so LRVs and trains and grade separations should not be needed much.

I think the quality of transit in Canadian cities should not be judged on the amount of subways or light rail or BRT. That mentality did not help US cities and it will not help Canadian cities. Look at urban areas across US and Canada, the correlation that ridership has is with the amount of regular bus service. The amount of subways or LRT or BRT doesn't matter. Subways or LRT or BRT is just about increasing capacity, nothing more less. Big expensive transit projects are to solve the problem of too-high ridership, not the problem of too-low ridership.

[Hybrid247]

Most proponents of a Bank subway acknowledge that it only makes sense 20+ years down the road, so that's an important consideration to acknowledge if anyone's going to argue the justification and feasibility of it.

Generally speaking, the origins of the Bank subway idea come from the imbalance in quality and level of service of rapid transit infrastructure across different areas of the city, where the south will clearly be the odd one out in terms of RT once stage 3 is built.

The Trillium line is a bootleg rapid transit line that has poor service frequency, poor capacity and does not directly serve downtown. A time will come when funneling south-end commuters to Line 1 at Bayview and Hurdman will become unsustainable and a direct service to downtown will be needed for the south.

With Gatineau's LRT likely to use Wellington or Sparks for downtown Ottawa service, there will be limited options to extend Trillium line into downtown from the west. So as an alternative, Bank seems like the most ideal north-south axis to invest in for the long term as it will bring quality rapid transit to a one of Ottawa's most urban corridors and it's many destinations.

If anyone wants to draw comparisons between the Bank subway idea and other lines/projects across the country, Calgary's Green line is the most appropriate comparison IMO. Perhaps Eglinton Crosstown as well.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Most proponents of a Bank subway acknowledge that it only makes sense 20+ years down the road, so that's an important consideration to acknowledge if anyone's going to argue the justification and feasibility of it.

Generally speaking, the origins of the Bank subway idea come from the imbalance in quality and level of service of rapid transit infrastructure across different areas of the city, where the south will clearly be the odd one out in terms of RT once stage 3 is built.

The Trillium line is a bootleg rapid transit line that has poor service frequency, poor capacity and does not directly serve downtown. A time will come when funneling south-end commuters to Line 1 at Bayview and Hurdman will become unsustainable and a direct service to downtown will be needed for the south.

With Gatineau's LRT likely to use Wellington or Sparks for downtown Ottawa service, there will be limited options to extend Trillium line into downtown from the west. So as an alternative, Bank seems like the most ideal north-south axis to invest in for the long term as it will bring quality rapid transit to a one of Ottawa's most urban corridors and it's many destinations.

If anyone wants to draw comparisons between the Bank subway idea and other lines/projects across the country, Calgary's Green line is the most appropriate comparison IMO. Perhaps Eglinton Crosstown as well.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the idea of a Bank Street subway to solve future Trillium issues, including transfers, is not a completely pie-in-the-sky concept.

Of course a Bank street subway is hard to justify today, but in 20-30 years, something will have to be done to solve the inevitable bottlenecks at Bayview and Hurdman.

The case for Rideau-Montreal fantasy subway is a bit different. The density along part of the corridor is catching-up to something that could justify a subway. The east end is poorly served by transit, compared to the west end which will have the Confederation Line and two bus corridors (Baseline with BRT Lite and Carling with bus lanes). The 3 lane Montreal Road greatly limits surface options. Having that future transit line continue east to serve the Cumberland Transitway, thus relieving the Confederation Line when needed, would further bolster ridership.

To be clear to those who are not privy to the urban Ottawa fantasy subway debates, no one is suggesting we will ever need a Montreal Metro/Toronto Subway type service. I think most imagine something between the Canada Line and Broadway Subway, with shorter, automated rolling stock.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Most proponents of a Bank subway acknowledge that it only makes sense 20+ years down the road, so that's an important consideration to acknowledge if anyone's going to argue the justification and feasibility of it.

I've heard everything from 10-40 years. The fundamental problem is always the same. No ridership case as long as there's a parallel line 2km away.

Not to mention most of the neighbourhoods along the line are zoned as stable neighbourhoods, not open to substantial densification, which makes local ridership generation poor.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Generally speaking, the origins of the Bank subway idea come from the imbalance in quality and level of service of rapid transit infrastructure across different areas of the city, where the south will clearly be the odd one out in terms of RT once stage 3 is built.

How so? After Stage 3, the South will have both the Barrhaven extension and the Trillium Line. In fact, after Stage 3, the feed for any Bank St subway will be even lower with the only exclusive catchment left being the Southeast corner of the city and Bank St itself.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The Trillium line is a bootleg rapid transit line that has poor service frequency, poor capacity and does not directly serve downtown. A time will come when funneling south-end commuters to Line 1 at Bayview and Hurdman will become unsustainable and a direct service to downtown will be needed for the south.

This is the only real concern that exists. And it's both a long way off and has solutions other than a Bank St. subway.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

With Gatineau's LRT likely to use Wellington or Sparks for downtown Ottawa service, there will be limited options to extend Trillium line into downtown from the west.

I've not heard of any plans to interline Trillium and the Gatineau LRT. Where is this coming from? But if that happens, again, the need for another metro line servicing the South is less.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If anyone wants to draw comparisons between the Bank subway idea and other lines/projects across the country, Calgary's Green line is the most appropriate comparison IMO. Perhaps Eglinton Crosstown as well.

Eglinton Crosstown doesn't go downtown, isn't fully tunneled or segregated. It's the best case scenario for Bank. Might be able to justify 50m long LRVs and a $1.2B 4.5 km tunnel.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by biguc

A billion dollars on metro rail for 25 thousand people isn't right. I can't imagine a reasonable case for Langley getting Skytrain in the next 30 years. Just run a commuter train to PCS and some express busses into Surrey.

The 25,000 number is pretty misleading. Yes, the city of Langley is around 30,000, but the city limits are tiny; 10.22 km2 to be exact. The lion's share of riders would come from Langley Township which is a rapidly growing area in Metro Vancouver, and has a population of over 120,000 people.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The bus takes longer then driving as it is sitting in the very same traffic, but it has to make more stops.

I'm afraid I might be missing something here. Other forumers say that Halifax should divert road space away from cars for the use of transit in the form of things like bus lanes or dedicated transit corridors to allow transit to move freely and provide a functional alternative to driving. Then you ask what suburban drivers are supposed to do once they lose this road space, and when someone says they should use transit you claim that this isn't feasible because the bus will be stuck in general traffic? When the whole point was to dedicate space to transit so that buses aren't stuck in general traffic? Can someone please tell me what I'm missing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by biguc

A billion dollars on metro rail for 25 thousand people isn't right. I can't imagine a reasonable case for Langley getting Skytrain in the next 30 years. Just run a commuter train to PCS and some express busses into Surrey.

Here in Ottawa we're spending the better part of a billion on the a Trillium Line which carried 20 000 riders per weekday in 2019. And we've spent several pages now discussing building a $2B subway just 2km away. But folks say I'm unrealistic so.....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

To be clear to those who are not privy to the urban Ottawa fantasy subway debates, no one is suggesting we will ever need a Montreal Metro/Toronto Subway type service. I think most imagine something between the Canada Line and Broadway Subway, with shorter, automated rolling stock.

The problem isn't the service. It's the demand for grade separation. Running LRT in-median along an avenue is $100M/km. Tunneling is $250M/km. That doesn't change whether a train runs every 20 min or every 2 mins.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Here in Ottawa we're spending the better part of a billion on the a Trillium Line which carried 20 000 riders per weekday in 2019. And we've spent several pages now discussing building a $2B subway just 2km away. But folks say I'm unrealistic so.....

Ridership went from 12k to 20k virtually overnight with the opening of the Confederation Line. Add the thousands of proposed TOD units, a 900 bed hospital and an ever expanding University campus, and just that original stretch of the Line will continue to gain new riders pretty quickly. On top of that, the Line will now (poorly) serve the airport and a fast growing suburb.

[nname]

Originally Posted by giallo

The 25,000 number is pretty misleading. Yes, the city of Langley is around 30,000, but the city limits are tiny; 10.22 km2 to be exact. The lion's share of riders would come from Langley Township which is a rapidly growing area in Metro Vancouver, and has a population of over 120,000 people.

Plus there's a big chunk of Surrey on the other side of the ALR too. I believe Cloverdale and surrounding area where the line goes through have a population of around 65,000.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ridership went from 12k to 20k virtually overnight with the opening of the Confederation Line. Add the thousands of proposed TOD units, a 900 bed hospital and an ever expanding University campus, and just that original stretch of the Line will continue to gain new riders pretty quickly. On top of that, the Line will now (poorly) serve the airport and a fast growing suburb.

So we're seeing development along the Trillium Line? Exactly my point. No subway along Bank needed for TOD. Just wait another decade and we'll see TOD along the rail corridors dwarf development along Bank.

Also, grade separation is usually justified for 20 000 riders per hour. Not per day.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Can someone please tell me what I'm missing.

Why can't cities build billion dollar subways to get other people out of my way on the road?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So we're seeing development along the Trillium Line? Exactly my point. No subway along Bank needed for TOD. Just wait another decade and we'll see TOD along the rail corridors dwarf development along Bank.

Also, grade separation is usually justified for 20 000 riders per hour. Not per day.

Heavy rail subway, yes, you would want 20k+. Confed is around 10k phpd while Canada started around 5k phpd, which what is expected for the Broadway Subway by 2030.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Heavy rail subway, yes, you would want 20k+. Confed is around 10k phpd while Canada started around 5k phpd, which what is expected for the Broadway Subway by 2030.

5k pphpd can be served with BRT. You need a lot more to justify a subway. Heavy or light is irrelevant. Justifying tunneling at $250M/km and the maintenance cost of these tunnels requires well north of 5k pphpd.



https://stevemunro.ca/2008/04/16/why-transit-city-is-an-lrt-plan-part-3/

The real question is what is Bank St demand with the Trillium Line operating 2 km away. It's not going to be anywhere close to 5k pphpd. In 2030. Or 2050.