Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[ericmacm]

Bill 61 was tabled in Quebec yesterday.

This bill is going to fast track a lot of projects by allowing environmental assessments to be eased, allow projects to start before all land parcels are obtained, and speed up expropriation. There are 202 projects total that this bill covers, including 16 transit projects. The Blue Line extension and REM extensions have been confirmed to be included here. I'm assuming that the LRTs in the various other cities in Quebec are also included here, but I can't find a full list.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not a fan of Watson but I agree with him on this. The city's debt levels are high coming out of Stage 2. And going to get worse coming out of this crisis. Also, more than LRT expansion, Ottawa needs more frequent bus service, better bus shelters, better payment integration with STO and enabling new payment methods (open payment).

Personally, I think any federal stimulus money for transit should focus on bus electrification, growing bus fleets, IT infrastructure and SOGR backlogs for all cities. None of that is really sexy. But it all needs to get done. And would vastly improve the transit experience while reducing operating costs. And can actually be accomplished in 2-3 years.

The problem with buses in Canada is that a lot of places in Canada get a lot of snow, and articulated buses cannot operate in snow, so the extent to which Canadian systems can rely on buses to keep up with growing ridership and increase efficiency is limited. Ottawa especially knows about the limitations of artics in snow all too well, and you may have heard about those troubles too...

I think rail expansion is vastly overrated in the US and buses ignored too much. But here in Canada, where both ridership and snowfall is much higher, maybe systems rely on buses too much, especially Ottawa. Ottawa, a region with over 1 million people, over 100 million riders annually, the time to convert bus to rail was 30 years ago.

Look at a city like London, located in the Snowbelt, the potential of articulated buses there is very limited. With 400,000 people and 20 million riders annually, it probably won't be long before they need to convert routes to LRT as well.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Bill 61 was tabled in Quebec yesterday.

This bill is going to fast track a lot of projects by allowing environmental assessments to be eased, allow projects to start before all land parcels are obtained, and speed up expropriation. There are 202 projects total that this bill covers, including 16 transit projects. The Blue Line extension and REM extensions have been confirmed to be included here. I'm assuming that the LRTs in the various other cities in Quebec are also included here, but I can't find a full list.

List is here. http://m.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-par...i-61-42-1.html

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Bill 61 was tabled in Quebec yesterday.

This bill is going to fast track a lot of projects by allowing environmental assessments to be eased, allow projects to start before all land parcels are obtained, and speed up expropriation. There are 202 projects total that this bill covers, including 16 transit projects. The Blue Line extension and REM extensions have been confirmed to be included here. I'm assuming that the LRTs in the various other cities in Quebec are also included here, but I can't find a full list.

Unfortunately it's the right bill but not the right projects (transportation-wise)

[Aylmer]

^What projects would you rather see?

From a Gatineau perspective, this would be quite advantageous; it includes both an extension of the Rapibus BRT to the far east of the city as well as the LRT project to the west.

I remain somewhat conflicted though; on the one hand, many of the measures in the bill will be handy (maybe even necessary) for these transit projects to get done. On the other, it introduces some pretty sweeping legislative powers to suspend usual evaluation processes.

The current process for major transit projects is unquestionably broken. Minor projects are fine up to basic BRT. But beyond that, all major projects have required special legislation in order for it to advance (Ligne Bleue, REM, QC Tram) because the normal process just can't handle them. Those which haven't on the other hand (Gatineau LRT) have been stuck in the byzantine loop that is the transport and environment ministries' approvals processes.

This legislation effectively extends many of the same shortcuts to all projects, which is great for good projects and concerning for bad projects. Thankfully, Gatineau has been spared the business end of this double-edged sword for now. But if this sort of legislation is renewed enough times, we'll eventually be confronted with a project where we'll have wished for a more thorough review.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

^What projects would you rather see?

From a Gatineau perspective, this would be quite advantageous; it includes both an extension of the Rapibus BRT to the far east of the city as well as the LRT project to the west.

I remain somewhat conflicted though; on the one hand, many of the measures in the bill will be handy (maybe even necessary) for these transit projects to get done. On the other, it introduces some pretty sweeping legislative powers to suspend usual evaluation processes.

The current process for major transit projects is unquestionably broken. Minor projects are fine up to basic BRT. But beyond that, all major projects have required special legislation in order for it to advance (Ligne Bleue, REM, QC Tram) because the normal process just can't handle them. Those which haven't on the other hand (Gatineau LRT) have been stuck in the byzantine loop that is the transport and environment ministries' approvals processes.

This legislation effectively extends many of the same shortcuts to all projects, which is great for good projects and concerning for bad projects. Thankfully, Gatineau has been spared the business end of this double-edged sword for now. But if this sort of legislation is renewed enough times, we'll eventually be confronted with a project where we'll have wished for a more thorough review.

I'm mostly talking about what I know (Montreal) so what I said excludes Quebec City and Gatineau.

Instead of getting REM extensions because of senseless politically-drawn lines the CAQ put on their transit program, they should be listening to the ARTM and the prioritization of projects it unveiled a few weeks ago. These consist of a bunch of smaller projects but also more important ones like the West branch Orange line extension to Laval, first allowing for a connection between the REM and the Orange line at Bois-Franc.

Such a project would ensure at least a 5% capacity relief of the Orange line's east branch which has been saturated for years.

Montreal doesn't need another REM along a highway (Laval) or a REM to nowhere (Chambly).

For the third project linking the East End with the West End (piloted by CDPQ Infra), we've yet to see what it's about so I remain skeptical about it. One of my engineer friends who did a pre-feasability study said it looked like lunacy. I saw a preliminary render and thought it was weird too... We don't even know if it's rapid transit or LRT.

I personally don't mind the South Shore LRT project, the Longueuil Agglomeration definitely needs structuring transit to redevelop itself.

[p_xavier]

^ And I could say I told you so but you said many times that I didn't know what I was talking about. Politics will always handle the transit file.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

^ And I could say I told you so but you said many times that I didn't know what I was talking about. Politics will always handle the transit file.

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out... The CAQ government is just worse than past governments in that regard.

When you have a former car salesman as your transport minister I don't except smart decisions either.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out... The CAQ government is just worse than past governments in that regard.

Worse, right... Most previous governments, instead of doing projects that not everyone agreed with, just did nothing (or next to nothing) instead, That is not better.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Worse, right... Most previous governments, instead of doing projects that not everyone agreed with, just did nothing (or next to nothing) instead, That is not better.

That's my opinion also. Plus the REM extensions are rather cheap. Better do them now than in the future.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

That's my opinion also. Plus the REM extensions are rather cheap. Better do them now than in the future.

Moi aussi!

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Worse, right... Most previous governments, instead of doing projects that not everyone agreed with, just did nothing (or next to nothing) instead, That is not better.

You're right in saying that most governments did nothing. Mea culpa on my part.

Couillard's government did come up with the REM however and basically moved forward with the most serious stages of the Blue line extension, two of the biggest projects since the 80's... On which the CAQ is now piggybacking. They're basically trying to realize projects on a map that an intern probably came up with during the campaign.

In our era where mobility is key and unavoidable it would be very unwise for the CAQ not to do anything, especially after what the Liberals did right before (not forgetting all their flaws). And most projects they're currently going forward with are just not a very good way to spend money (REM extensions that make no sense and the Third Link in Quebec City). We shouldn't be content with that "just because they're doing projects". The impact that an REM extension to Chambly would have on urban sprawl would be disastrous.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Doady

The problem with buses in Canada is that a lot of places in Canada get a lot of snow, and articulated buses cannot operate in snow, so the extent to which Canadian systems can rely on buses to keep up with growing ridership and increase efficiency is limited. Ottawa especially knows about the limitations of artics in snow all too well, and you may have heard about those troubles too...

I think rail expansion is vastly overrated in the US and buses ignored too much. But here in Canada, where both ridership and snowfall is much higher, maybe systems rely on buses too much, especially Ottawa. Ottawa, a region with over 1 million people, over 100 million riders annually, the time to convert bus to rail was 30 years ago.

Look at a city like London, located in the Snowbelt, the potential of articulated buses there is very limited. With 400,000 people and 20 million riders annually, it probably won't be long before they need to convert routes to LRT as well.

If articulate buses are a problem I am surprised we don't see as many double deck buses. Here in Vancouver we have a large number of articulate buses a smaller number of double deck. Victoria has lots of double deck.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by casper

If articulate buses are a problem I am surprised we don't see as many double deck buses. Here in Vancouver we have a large number of articulate buses a smaller number of double deck. Victoria has lots of double deck.

In general, snow’s hard on heavy vehicles. We get lots of them in Ontario. Remember how 145 struggles to ascend Burnaby Mountain when it snows.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

That's my opinion also. Plus the REM extensions are rather cheap. Better do them now than in the future.

Agreed. The best time to build is in the present while things are cheap. Transit projects will always get more expensive the longer they sit and are debated. Some projects may not be the best choice in terms of the route chosen, but things can always be changed or reworked later down the road once the norm has been established with the transit infrastructure in place. REM extensions to "nowhere" like Laval and Chambly may seem unnecessary now, but in 20 years, that likely won't be the case.

The worst is needing it and not having it, and then having to build it anyway in the future for a significantly higher cost. Ottawa and Winnipeg are two fantastic examples of this, both had subway plans in the 1950s that got tossed, and both are now scrambling to catch up with their various rapid transit solutions, with Ottawa doing the better job of the two.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Agreed. The best time to build is in the present while things are cheap. Transit projects will always get more expensive the longer they sit and are debated. Some projects may not be the best choice in terms of the route chosen, but things can always be changed or reworked later down the road once the norm has been established with the transit infrastructure in place. REM extensions to "nowhere" like Laval and Chambly may seem unnecessary now, but in 20 years, that likely won't be the case.

The worst is needing it and not having it, and then having to build it anyway in the future for a significantly higher cost. Ottawa and Winnipeg are two fantastic examples of this, both had subway plans in the 1950s that got tossed, and both are now scrambling to catch up with their various rapid transit solutions, with Ottawa doing the better job of the two.

Except that there won't be a "pressing need" for an REM to Chambly for a while. It's a town of 30,000 smack in the middle of fields with no density whatsoever. The reason why the REM might go there is because their MP, Jean-François Roberge, is the Minister of Education and probably had his say in this during the CAQ's campaign.

Same as the need for an REM along A-15 to Laval which simply won't help with relieving congestion on the A-15. There are smarter ways of bringing public transit to Laval without adding a fourth branch to the REM (thus reducing frequency on other lines).

I could decide that there is a need to bring an REM line to Joliette because in 50 years there might be enough demand, but that doesn't make it justifiable or a good idea.

The pressing needs are mostly in Montreal with the coverage of high-density and transit-poor areas and the relief of the east branch of the Orange line.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by Doady

The problem with buses in Canada is that a lot of places in Canada get a lot of snow, and articulated buses cannot operate in snow, so the extent to which Canadian systems can rely on buses to keep up with growing ridership and increase efficiency is limited. Ottawa especially knows about the limitations of artics in snow all too well, and you may have heard about those troubles too...

I'd be curious to know why articulated buses seem to have a harder time dealing with winter conditions in Ottawa vs elsewhere: in Montreal and Quebec City, there are hundreds of articulated buses and snow has rarely - if ever - caused issues, as far as I know.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Except that there won't be a "pressing need" for an REM to Chambly for a while. It's a town of 30,000 smack in the middle of fields with no density whatsoever. The reason why the REM might go there is because their MP, Jean-François Roberge, is the Minister of Education and probably had his say in this during the CAQ's campaign.

Same as the need for an REM along A-15 to Laval which simply won't help with relieving congestion on the A-15. There are smarter ways of bringing public transit to Laval without adding a fourth branch to the REM (thus reducing frequency on other lines).

I could decide that there is a need to bring an REM line to Joliette because in 50 years there might be enough demand, but that doesn't make it justifiable or a good idea.

The pressing needs are mostly in Montreal with the coverage of high-density and transit-poor areas and the relief of the east branch of the Orange line.

There will be a E-W LRT for the Island? What parts of the citie won't be cover or just a few km from a rapid transit line? That LRT line is close enough to the Pink line without the costs. The Laval REM extension has the major points of interests nearby. And for Chambly, it'll probably cost a couple of hundreds of millions. Studies cost more than that. Plus transit usage is already high on the Island. Often, the goal is to convert car owners to transit users (which I don't always agree). The Pink Line will never achieve that. You probably have the correct estimated numbers and can prove me wrong.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Except that there won't be a "pressing need" for an REM to Chambly for a while. It's a town of 30,000 smack in the middle of fields with no density whatsoever. The reason why the REM might go there is because their MP, Jean-François Roberge, is the Minister of Education and probably had his say in this during the CAQ's campaign.

Same as the need for an REM along A-15 to Laval which simply won't help with relieving congestion on the A-15. There are smarter ways of bringing public transit to Laval without adding a fourth branch to the REM (thus reducing frequency on other lines).

I could decide that there is a need to bring an REM line to Joliette because in 50 years there might be enough demand, but that doesn't make it justifiable or a good idea.

The pressing needs are mostly in Montreal with the coverage of high-density and transit-poor areas and the relief of the east branch of the Orange line.

Ah, but they won't prioritize that, because Montreal didn't vote CAQ. Politics is always politics. You see that in Toronto with the relief line constantly punted in favour of suburban subway projects, and in Ottawa with extensions across the Greenbelt prioritized over urban LRT projects.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Ah, but they won't prioritize that, because Montreal didn't vote CAQ. Politics is always politics. You see that in Toronto with the relief line constantly punted in favour of suburban subway projects, and in Ottawa with extensions across the Greenbelt prioritized over urban LRT projects.

The biggest transit project in their plan is the E-W LRT on the Island of Montréal.