Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Stage 2 Ottawa O-Train images.

Tunney's Pasture, Confederation Line's current western terminus. A new bridge will be built to replace the berm separating the rail line from the busway.







https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1312810059429228544

Bayview, transfer between the Confederation and Trillium Lines. Trillium will be double tracked between Bayview and Beach Street, about 1.5 kilometers.





https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1312816277090697217

Gladstone, a future infill station along the newly double tracked section.




https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1312823710018154503

New Queensway overpass, allowing for double tracking and multi-use pathways on both sides.


https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1312832020473688068

South Keys, the transfer point between the main Trillium Line and airport spur. Transfers between the Trillium Line and South-East Transitway are also possible here (one of two "official" transfer points, with Greenboro one stop north, one of the original 2001 O-Train stations, being the other).

Ottawa is much more rocky underground that most people might expect.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ottawa is much more rocky underground that most people might expect.

Depends where you are - on the east side of town, some areas are pure clay.

[Dengler Avenue]

Yep. Upper Ottawa Valley is actually quite rocky (even between Renfrew and Kenata). The geology within Ottawa seems pretty varied though, from hard rocks to unstable clays, lots of challenges for sure.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by scryer

I woke up this morning and Winnipeg decided to surprise the hell out of me with some awesome concepts for their BRT system:









You can read all about it here on this pdf from the city. Like I said in the MB forums, what sent me over the moon is that the city is prioritizing the downtown connection like the elevated transitway into Union station.

Thanks for posting that scryer. I was gonna post something about the new Winnipeg transit master plan but you were quick!

[milomilo]

That Winnipeg stuff looks great - that is what BRT actually is, not what we have in Calgary. I do wonder though about the wisdom of converting to LRT at an extra date. What that means is; at the exact point where the BRT is bursting at the seams enough to demand more capacity, you have to tear it all out for several years all at once to upgrade it.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

Thanks for posting that scryer. I was gonna post something about the new Winnipeg transit master plan but you were quick!

The devil works fast but I work faster . You're welcome!

Originally Posted by milomilo

That Winnipeg stuff looks great - that is what BRT actually is, not what we have in Calgary. I do wonder though about the wisdom of converting to LRT at an extra date. What that means is; at the exact point where the BRT is bursting at the seams enough to demand more capacity, you have to tear it all out for several years all at once to upgrade it.

It will be a very interesting experiment to see what happens at that point compared to Alberta's LRT systems. The reason why I compare to those cities is because if Winnipeg were to convert their system (plus this addition) today to LRT, that it would function similarly to Calgary and Edmonton's LRT. Anyways, what makes it interesting is that LRT and BRT can execute similar levels of PPHPD depending on the infrastructure. And so, in Canada, we can actually properly compare BRT to LRT technologies.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That Winnipeg stuff looks great - that is what BRT actually is, not what we have in Calgary. I do wonder though about the wisdom of converting to LRT at an extra date. What that means is; at the exact point where the BRT is bursting at the seams enough to demand more capacity, you have to tear it all out for several years all at once to upgrade it.

You mean like Ottawa has been doing?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You mean like Ottawa has been doing?

Yes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That Winnipeg stuff looks great - that is what BRT actually is, not what we have in Calgary. I do wonder though about the wisdom of converting to LRT at an extra date. What that means is; at the exact point where the BRT is bursting at the seams enough to demand more capacity, you have to tear it all out for several years all at once to upgrade it.

Originally Posted by scryer

The devil works fast but I work faster . You're welcome!

It will be a very interesting experiment to see what happens at that point compared to Alberta's LRT systems. The reason why I compare to those cities is because if Winnipeg were to convert their system (plus this addition) today to LRT, that it would function similarly to Calgary and Edmonton's LRT. Anyways, what makes it interesting is that LRT and BRT can execute similar levels of PPHPD depending on the infrastructure. And so, in Canada, we can actually properly compare BRT to LRT technologies.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You mean like Ottawa has been doing?

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes.

I wonder if putting in a lot of infrastructure for BRT is worth it. Having reserved lanes, or shelters is one thing, but putting in new roadways, bridges, tunnels, etc for only buses doesn't make much sense to me.

Ottawa is showing me that BRT really is only a stop gap measure. Had Ottawa built some sort of railed system instead of their BRT, the issues they are facing now may not have happened. There is about 35km of LRT and Transitway. Adding the Trillium line, it is almost 45km of RT that could all be rail. That would place it around 5th, behind Calgary's and ahead of Edmonton's.

So, let's say I were the king of transit. I was in charge of how things would improve, here is how I would do it.

A transit system would first have buses. Demand would be tracked to see where people are coming and going.

Express buses would then be added to help people get there faster. They could be in their own lane. They should have signal priority.

Then, instead of building new roadways just for buses, a new ROW is built for rail. Whether it be subways, LRT, etc, is dependent on the existing demand and expected growth. When building the stations, plans should be made to extend platforms for the future demand.

The idea o the BRT was a way to appease people who think rail is more costly, but as we are seeing with Ottawa, we are doing double the work.

So, when I see Winnipeg, Missisauga, Saskatoon, and others build BRT/Transitways, I think that in 20-40 years, we will be revisiting these routes and replacing them with something railed.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I wonder if putting in a lot of infrastructure for BRT is worth it. Having reserved lanes, or shelters is one thing, but putting in new roadways, bridges, tunnels, etc for only buses doesn't make much sense to me.

Ottawa is showing me that BRT really is only a stop gap measure. Had Ottawa built some sort of railed system instead of their BRT, the issues they are facing now may not have happened. There is about 35km of LRT and Transitway. Adding the Trillium line, it is almost 45km of RT that could all be rail. That would place it around 5th, behind Calgary's and ahead of Edmonton's.

So, let's say I were the king of transit. I was in charge of how things would improve, here is how I would do it.

A transit system would first have buses. Demand would be tracked to see where people are coming and going.

Express buses would then be added to help people get there faster. They could be in their own lane. They should have signal priority.

Then, instead of building new roadways just for buses, a new ROW is built for rail. Whether it be subways, LRT, etc, is dependent on the existing demand and expected growth. When building the stations, plans should be made to extend platforms for the future demand.

The idea o the BRT was a way to appease people who think rail is more costly, but as we are seeing with Ottawa, we are doing double the work.

So, when I see Winnipeg, Missisauga, Saskatoon, and others build BRT/Transitways, I think that in 20-40 years, we will be revisiting these routes and replacing them with something railed.

I would agree with you on constructing dedicated Transitways. What is the point. Most of the BRT in places like Saskatoon amounts to some point on the busses and on the roads. That is a very different strategy than Ottawa with its transitways.

[esquire]

The political reality in Winnipeg is such that only BRT is seen as being within the realm of the possible. It has been discussed and debated for so long that people are used to the idea... they're comfortable with it. No elected politician is really interested in challenging that notion (only former mayor Sam Katz brought up LRT in recent times, and that was as a pretty thinly veiled stalling tactic), so this is what we're stuck with. Unfortunately it has come down to BRT or nothing at all.

[EspionNoir]

Originally Posted by esquire

The political reality in Winnipeg is such that only BRT is seen as being within the realm of the possible. It has been discussed and debated for so long that people are used to the idea... they're comfortable with it. No elected politician is really interested in challenging that notion (only former mayor Sam Katz brought up LRT in recent times, and that was as a pretty thinly veiled stalling tactic), so this is what we're stuck with. Unfortunately it has come down to BRT or nothing at all.

I think it’s a conservative and fairly safe choice for now. The government needs to balance between new infrastructure and spending. I’d say it’s evident that LRT will add much to current debt. Winnipeg probably needs around 1.4 million people, similar to Ottawa, and higher density to make LRT sensible. These two aspects take time to develop.

[J.OT13]

In Ottawa's experience, BRT ha done a great job building-up ridership. It was an effective choice up until the downtown portion was over capacity after about 20 years. BRT also made it easier to build the system piecemeal, a few unconnected segments at a time, resulting in poor or no service at a few points along the way (downtown tunnel was planned, but never built resulting in long lineups during protests, events, snow storms, cars and delivery trucks blocking the way... and the 3 kilometer gap along Richmond where thousands were left unserved).

Another issue with building BRT first and then converting are the major disruptions to service. Sure you get a good, relatively reliable system for 30 years, but riders have to go through 3-4 years of detours during conversion.

Anyway, quick update on Stage 2 in Ottawa. Here's a video showing progress along the 174 between Blair and Montreal, driving east, posted on the RailFans forum. The highway detour realignment is complete. Pillars for the flyover, where Line 1 will go from north of the highway to the median, are well underway. New highway overpasses at Montreal are built and scheduled to open in November (I could see that happening for eastbound, but I have my doubts westbound).

• Video Link

[esquire]

^ That is one thing that was never really part of the BRT civic discussion in Winnipeg... the idea of what will happen when the BRT eventually has to go out of service for years to accommodate a transition to LRT, how that major disruption will be handled, and whether we'd be better off building LRT right from the get-go to avoid that. I suppose the very idea of a transition is so far off into the distant future that it might be seen as the next generation's problem.

Let's put it this way, I'm 41 years old and I do not expect to be riding the rails on a LRT in Winnipeg in my lifetime.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

I would agree with you on constructing dedicated Transitways. What is the point. Most of the BRT in places like Saskatoon amounts to some point on the busses and on the roads. That is a very different strategy than Ottawa with its transitways.

This I feel is a good idea. It is not any major infrastructure. It is akin to my first step, and it will build up the demand to help planners plan out an LRT.

Originally Posted by esquire

The political reality in Winnipeg is such that only BRT is seen as being within the realm of the possible. It has been discussed and debated for so long that people are used to the idea... they're comfortable with it. No elected politician is really interested in challenging that notion (only former mayor Sam Katz brought up LRT in recent times, and that was as a pretty thinly veiled stalling tactic), so this is what we're stuck with. Unfortunately it has come down to BRT or nothing at all.

Ah, yes, playing politics instead of getting things done.

Originally Posted by EspionNoir

I think it’s a conservative and fairly safe choice for now. The government needs to balance between new infrastructure and spending. I’d say it’s evident that LRT will add much to current debt. Winnipeg probably needs around 1.4 million people, similar to Ottawa, and higher density to make LRT sensible. These two aspects take time to develop.

the RM of Waterloo has the Ion LRT. Population is around 500,000. Winnipeg is sitting around 700,000. Sounds to me there is a population excuse going on as apposed to a logical excuse.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

In Ottawa's experience, BRT ha done a great job building-up ridership. It was an effective choice up until the downtown portion was over capacity after about 20 years. BRT also made it easier to build the system piecemeal, a few unconnected segments at a time, resulting in poor or no service at a few points along the way (downtown tunnel was planned, but never built resulting in long lineups during protests, events, snow storms, cars and delivery trucks blocking the way... and the 3 kilometer gap along Richmond where thousands were left unserved).

Another issue with building BRT first and then converting are the major disruptions to service. Sure you get a good, relatively reliable system for 30 years, but riders have to go through 3-4 years of detours during conversion.

To me, this is the single reason to not build more than a reserved lane for buses. Ironically, Toronto was smart with their York Busway in that it was providing BRT service, but was not impacted by the construction of the subway extension.

Other cities should be looking at Ottawa and learn what not to do.

[ssiguy]

One of the primary reasons why Ottawa's Transitway went beyond it's capacity is because they never finished the damn thing. The 2 main routes merged into 1 near the downtown and then met the downtown traffic on the one primary section that was never built......downtown.

Ottawa also slowed down the service by not implementing true BRT benefits such as all-door boarding and pre-paid tickets. Imagine how slow the LRT would be if they didn't have that. Using slow moving diesel vehicles didn't help and to increase capacity substantially they could have used double articulated buses. Also they never brought in true level boarding thru station improvements on the road bed itself to make for perfect and faster running level boarding.

Ottawa could have vastly improved the speed, reliability, capacity, and comfort of the Transitway if they wanted to but the got an LRT hard-on because everyone else has one. Now many Ottawans face a longer commute than they had before as the buses allowed for interlining.

I see no reason why Winnipeg should follow Ottawa's path and transform the system into LRT for the sole reason that "everyone else has one".

[esquire]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One of the primary reasons why Ottawa's Transitway went beyond it's capacity is because they never finished the damn thing. The 2 main routes merged into 1 near the downtown and then met the downtown traffic on the one primary section that was never built......downtown.

Ottawa also slowed down the service by not implementing true BRT benefits such as all-door boarding and pre-paid tickets. Imagine how slow the LRT would be if they didn't have that. Using slow moving diesel vehicles didn't help and to increase capacity substantially they could have used double articulated buses. Also they never brought in true level boarding thru station improvements on the road bed itself to make for perfect and faster running level boarding.

Ottawa could have vastly improved the speed, reliability, capacity, and comfort of the Transitway if they wanted to but the got an LRT hard-on because everyone else has one. Now many Ottawans face a longer commute than they had before as the buses allowed for interlining.

I see no reason why Winnipeg should follow Ottawa's path and transform the system into LRT for the sole reason that "everyone else has one".

Winnipeg also built a somewhat half-assed BRT line. There is no level boarding, no all-door boarding and the LRT moves to on-street diamond lanes when it reaches downtown. So it's not an improvement on Ottawa's original system in any way.

Winnipeg Transit's plan prioritizes building a grade-separated BRT route connecting the existing line with the Graham Avenue Transit Mall... that would create a totally separated BRT route from end to end. But seeing that it involves a fairly significant river crossing plus a new elevated route, it is probably a long shot, at least until covid's effect on the municipal balance sheet wears off.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One of the primary reasons why Ottawa's Transitway went beyond it's capacity is because they never finished the damn thing. The 2 main routes merged into 1 near the downtown and then met the downtown traffic on the one primary section that was never built......downtown.

Ottawa also slowed down the service by not implementing true BRT benefits such as all-door boarding and pre-paid tickets. Imagine how slow the LRT would be if they didn't have that. Using slow moving diesel vehicles didn't help and to increase capacity substantially they could have used double articulated buses. Also they never brought in true level boarding thru station improvements on the road bed itself to make for perfect and faster running level boarding.

Ottawa could have vastly improved the speed, reliability, capacity, and comfort of the Transitway if they wanted to but the got an LRT hard-on because everyone else has one. Now many Ottawans face a longer commute than they had before as the buses allowed for interlining.

I see no reason why Winnipeg should follow Ottawa's path and transform the system into LRT for the sole reason that "everyone else has one".

Do it once, do it right the first time. That is the sole reason for not doing busways/transitways. They are a stopgap. They are not built to meet future demands.

The lack of the central transitway is one part of the failure of Ottawa's BRT system. Had they solved that, maybe they could have put off an LRT for another 10-15 years.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

One of the primary reasons why Ottawa's Transitway went beyond it's capacity is because they never finished the damn thing. The 2 main routes merged into 1 near the downtown and then met the downtown traffic on the one primary section that was never built......downtown.

Ottawa also slowed down the service by not implementing true BRT benefits such as all-door boarding and pre-paid tickets. Imagine how slow the LRT would be if they didn't have that. Using slow moving diesel vehicles didn't help and to increase capacity substantially they could have used double articulated buses. Also they never brought in true level boarding thru station improvements on the road bed itself to make for perfect and faster running level boarding.

Ottawa could have vastly improved the speed, reliability, capacity, and comfort of the Transitway if they wanted to but the got an LRT hard-on because everyone else has one. Now many Ottawans face a longer commute than they had before as the buses allowed for interlining.

I see no reason why Winnipeg should follow Ottawa's path and transform the system into LRT for the sole reason that "everyone else has one".

The biggest issue for sure was the central Transitway downtown, but I feel the need to defend the Transitway on your other points.

The Transitway had all door boarding on articulated buses, which made up most of the main Transitway routes. Same with double deckers if I remember correctly. Only standard buses were front door only.

Diesel buses were pretty much the only option. The only other possibility might have been trolley buses, but that would have required overhead wires, eliminating some of the savings of the BRT option.

Double articulated would not have increased capacity because they would have used up more space on downtown streets. Double deckers were the only way to increase capacity slightly.

Level boarding could not have been implemented when the system was built because low-floor buses did not exist (or at least, we didn't buy any until the early 2000s), but could be a good idea for Winnipeg today.

When the City of Ottawa finally decided on a downtown tunnel in the late 2000s, it was better to go rail because a. rail tunnels are far cheaper and b. doubles the capacity. Stage 1 is a pain in the ass, especially in the west end where it's only 2-3 stations from downtown, but after Stage 2, the system will already be far more efficient.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Level boarding could not have been implemented when the system was built because low-floor buses did not exist (or at least, we didn't buy any until the early 2000s), but could be a good idea for Winnipeg today.

Curitiba built a BRT system around the same time (I think) and they had level boarding. They used high-floor stations with purpose-built buses. At that point, though, you have to wonder what benefit the BRT has over a rail system since the vehicles are confined to certain routes.