Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd argue that without the streetcar lines, downtown Toronto would be as bad as Montreal.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd argue that without the streetcar lines, downtown Toronto would be as bad as Montreal.

More or less. Montreal has better subway service in its urban core (depending on where you want to go) but Toronto's streetcar network does make it easier to get around otherwise, to say nothing of the efficient and frequent TTC bus network beyond it.

Anyway, if Mississauga can run an LRT up and down Hurontario, and if Kitchener can snake one through its core, then there's no reason Winnipeg can't or shouldn't.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by JHikka

More or less. Montreal has better subway service in its urban core (depending on where you want to go) but Toronto's streetcar network does make it easier to get around otherwise, to say nothing of the efficient and frequent TTC bus network beyond it.

Anyway, if Mississauga can run an LRT up and down Hurontario, and if Kitchener can snake one through its core, then there's no reason Winnipeg can't or shouldn't.

And KW is smaller population than Winnipeg.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Doady

Does Winnipeg include undeveloped land within its borders? Because the developed area seems very similar in size to Mississauga.

I can get behind LRT to help transform Portage and Main and shape the future growth of Winnipeg. Such an LRT system would be much better than those idiotic LRTs under construction in Toronto, that's for sure. But is it as urgent as LRT for Quebec City and Hamilton? That's the real question.

Have you been to Winnipeg lately? Winnipeg is in desperate need of better transit. A simple tram system is not enough. I agree with you though, we should avoid making the same mistake Toronto is making with those LRT lines.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Have you been to Winnipeg lately? Winnipeg is in desperate need of better transit. A simple tram system is not enough. I agree with you though, we should avoid making the same mistake Toronto is making with those LRT lines.

So, a full subway system?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, a full subway system?

No, But something grade seperated as much as possible.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

No, But something grade seperated as much as possible.

When I hear LRT, I think more like Ottawa and less like Toronto. Mind you, if it is in a reserved lane and has signal priority, then it is good enough.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

When I hear LRT, I think more like Ottawa and less like Toronto. Mind you, if it is in a reserved lane and has signal priority, then it is good enough.

Something like Ottawa would be great. With better trains though.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Something like Ottawa would be great. With better trains though.

The problem does not sound like a train issue, but a quality issue.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Luisito

The Toronto street cars are cool but they don't really make getting around downtown toronto better or easier than getting around downtown montreal. Montreal has two metro lines going through it's downtown.

Well sure, that's why I said bus and streetcar rather than just streetcar. The streetcars are only a small part of the surface transport system. And downtown is just one part of a larger city and metro area.

[ericmacm]

Hoping a revived LRT discussion in Winnipeg leads to something of substance. The original plan for the Winnipeg subway system from the 1950s that never emerged would have changed everything. It is tragic it was never realized, but I am hoping that the opportunity for LRT is taken.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Hoping a revived LRT discussion in Winnipeg leads to something of substance. The original plan for the Winnipeg subway system from the 1950s that never emerged would have changed everything. It is tragic it was never realized, but I am hoping that the opportunity for LRT is taken.

Interestingly, the existing RT and the planned RT line up with those rough lines.

[Doady]

I was wrong, Portage Ave actually has around 4-5 minute service all day. Similar to Hurontario St with 3-4 minute service all day before the LRT construction, but mostly with articulated buses instead of conventional.

The problem with Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge is all their downtowns and the university are located on a single line so the ridership was almost as concentrated as in Hamilton. Before the LRT, that corridor represented over one third of Grand River Transit ridership. The 7 Mainline had 7.5 minute frequency all day and 200 Express 10 minutes all day.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Doady

I was wrong, Portage Ave actually has around 4-5 minute service all day. Similar to Hurontario St with 3-4 minute service all day before the LRT construction, but mostly with articulated buses instead of conventional.

The problem with Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge is all their downtowns and the university are located on a single line so the ridership was almost as concentrated as in Hamilton. Before the LRT, that corridor represented over one third of Grand River Transit ridership. The 7 Mainline had 7.5 minute frequency all day and 200 Express 10 minutes all day.

So, does that mean you can see how LRT can make sense regardless of actual population?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Doady

Does Winnipeg include undeveloped land within its borders? Because the developed area seems very similar in size to Mississauga.

I can get behind LRT to help transform Portage and Main and shape the future growth of Winnipeg. Such an LRT system would be much better than those idiotic LRTs under construction in Toronto, that's for sure. But is it as urgent as LRT for Quebec City and Hamilton? That's the real question.

Toronto has the "Avenues Plan" to highlight corridors with high redevelopment potential and Portage and Main in Winnipeg would definitely be considered Avenues by Toronto's standard. Finch West? Not so much. A Wilson LRT would have been made a lot more sense than the Finch LRT by Toronto's own standards. But that's what happens when you let short term politicians like Adam Giambrone decide where to build new transit. Winnipeg, continue taking your time, think long term, don't make the same mistake Toronto did. No urgency is a good thing.

Finch Ave at Bathurst St:
https://goo.gl/maps/dWHkw2qknYtWm9c69

Wilson Ave at Bathurst St:
https://goo.gl/maps/RnqCy6d1WwkzR6aP9

The Finch west bus was the busiest bus route in the city with the most overcrowding, which should be the only reason any route should be turned into a higher order transit route than how your feelings about the street.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, a full subway system?

Like most cities in Canada, Winnipeg and Ottawa should have gone with a skytrain like system which is mostly elevated (cheaper and faster to build) with tunnel or elevated portion downtown with high frequencies and that is full automatic saving operation cost.

Two 15 km skytrain routes would serve Winnipeg well, a north-south one and east west one, both elevated the entire route.

If i was in the city government I would contact translink in Vancouver or the CDPQ in Montreal (REM Builders) and ask them to design, build and maybe operate the system to the same standard and rolling stock as vancouver or the REM and save much needed expense and time coming up with a novel system since they would know how to build and run it already.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Nite

Like most cities in Canada, Winnipeg and Ottawa should have gone with a skytrain like system which is mostly elevated (cheaper and faster to build) with tunnel or elevated portion downtown with high frequencies and that is full automatic saving operation cost.

Two 15 km skytrain routes would serve Winnipeg well, a north-south one and east west one, both elevated the entire route.

If i was in the city government I would contact translink in Vancouver or the CDPQ in Montreal (REM Builders) and ask them to design, build and maybe operate the system to the same standard and rolling stock as vancouver or the REM and save much needed expense and time coming up with a novel system since they would know how to build and run it already.

Surface construction is always the cheapest option.

It can easily be argued that Ottawa chose the wrong type of train, but making most of the route elevated would have been more expensive and would have received more NIMBY resistance.

I would wait until Montreal's REM has been in operation for a while and fully debugged before embarking on a similar project in Winnipeg and using it as a model. Vancouver's skytrain has not been proven reliable for a harsh climate.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Nite

Like most cities in Canada, Winnipeg and Ottawa should have gone with a skytrain like system which is mostly elevated (cheaper and faster to build) with tunnel or elevated portion downtown with high frequencies and that is full automatic saving operation cost.

Two 15 km skytrain routes would serve Winnipeg well, a north-south one and east west one, both elevated the entire route.

If i was in the city government I would contact translink in Vancouver or the CDPQ in Montreal (REM Builders) and ask them to design, build and maybe operate the system to the same standard and rolling stock as vancouver or the REM and save much needed expense and time coming up with a novel system since they would know how to build and run it already.

Exactly.

Any city not choosing not to go with automated trains (or at least prioritizing this technology) at this point is just inflating their YoY operating expenses.

Spend a little more to grade separate the route, save a ton down the road on having to hire a bunch of drivers that will need raises, benefits, etc. Always seemed like a no brainer to me since 1985 .

But politicians gonna politick.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Surface construction is always the cheapest option.

It can easily be argued that Ottawa chose the wrong type of train, but making most of the route elevated would have been more expensive and would have received more NIMBY resistance.

I would wait until Montreal's REM has been in operation for a while and fully debugged before embarking on a similar project in Winnepeg and using it as a model. Vancouver's skytrain has not been proven reliable for a harsh climate.

You are correct surface is always cheaper but to keep a line completely grade seperated in Winnipeg there would probably have to be some elevated sections. I think one good option would be to work something out with the rail companies and use some of the existing lines. There are rail lines all over this city. What ever the case, I think Winnipeg should aim a bit higher than at grade trams.

NIMBYs have ruined and killed great projects. Dang Karens!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Nite

Like most cities in Canada, Winnipeg and Ottawa should have gone with a skytrain like system which is mostly elevated (cheaper and faster to build) with tunnel or elevated portion downtown with high frequencies and that is full automatic saving operation cost.

Two 15 km skytrain routes would serve Winnipeg well, a north-south one and east west one, both elevated the entire route.

If i was in the city government I would contact translink in Vancouver or the CDPQ in Montreal (REM Builders) and ask them to design, build and maybe operate the system to the same standard and rolling stock as vancouver or the REM and save much needed expense and time coming up with a novel system since they would know how to build and run it already.

I love automated light metro, but the idea that it's significantly cheaper than heavy metro and not much costlier than LRT is contingent on there being a suitable corridor. Vancouver happened to get lucky with the original Expo line in that most of it was built along current and former rail ROWs with the elevation just being done to add grade separation. That's a lot different than just having an elevated line through typical cityscape since that always leads to NIMBY conflict over noise and aesthetics. In Montreal there was strong opposition to the REM l'est despite the surface section mostly using an existing ROW since it hasn't been used recently for rail. REM on the other hand is mostly just a conversion of an existing rail route with the other sections being mostly along highways. So no new surface or elevated route though regular cityscape.

This is also demonstrated with the Canada line which is about 1/2 tunneled, much more than the expo or millenium routes. In other words, the major cost saving advantage of REM and the older skytrain lines is in having a suitable corridor that makes surface or elevated running easier. That's a major cost savings whether it's used for light metro or traditional heavy metro (which can also be automated). Ottawa could probably have done light metro since they mostly just added rails to the existing BRT corridors but for Winnipeg, a metro - light or otherwise - would be far costlier than LRT. Well, unless it has suitable existing ROWs I'm not aware of.