[GreatTallNorth2]

Canada has two cities with subway systems: Toronto and Montreal. Will another Canadian city ever consider building a subway line? We are talking heavy rail, not LRT.

[MolsonExport]

ever? that is a long time indeed.

The answer is, yes.

[matt602]

Ever? Of course. I'd bet on one out in the West, either Calgary or Vancouver.

In the next 10 years? No. 20 years? Maybe.

[caltrane74]

That new line in Vancouver looks very close to a Subway.

So I say yes. it will happen, if not already.

[IntotheWest]

^It's just an LRT.

Considering the new line to the airport is costing some $2 billion-ish (or whatever the tally is now), I highly doubt they'll build a heavy rail...unless it's possible to convert at some point (?), which I doubt.

Calgary is in the same position...the new west leg will cost near a billion as well (last I recall). So, the next step after that will be converting all the existing stations to handle 4-car trains.

Has a new subway gone in even in the US in the last couple decades? I'm thinking everything has been LRT.

Unless Van doubles it's population - or Edm, Cgy, Ottawa quadruple there's - I don't think there's a need.

[240glt]

^ I agree. Each of the three western cities that have LRT are heavily invested in those systems. since most of the build-outs involve suburban connections I really don't think you'll see a true subway out west. Calgary will bury its downtown LRT line at some point, but that's as close to a subway as it'll get.

Why did the original poster call subways "heavy rail" ? Isn't heavy rail the same as conventional rail ?

[IntotheWest]

Well, I was thinking that too ("heavy rail" vs conventional)...In that case the Go Train is Heavy Rail, as is the West Coast Express.


BTW - what would the capacity limits of a Subway vs Light Rail be?? Has there been a maximum set? Just think after adding a 4th car to the C-train, the next step will be frequency (which I believe is every 4 minutes during rush hour).

EDIT: For an example of a larger city just building a rail system, I believe Phx's new system is light-rail...a city that's over 4 million.

[harls]

This is as close as Ottawa will get to a subway.. a light rail tunnel downtown.

http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/tmp/transit_options/index_en.html

[Rico Rommheim]

didn't we have this exact thread with the same exact title last year? And didn't that one also explode in an orgy of semantics and regional bitterness?

[IntotheWest]

^Really?? How does that question turn into "regional bitterness"?

Ottawa's plan looks good...the window for building this just says "2031" - any idea when they'll start? Also, what's with the two-headed black arrow between the end of the tunnel and Gatineau?

I still think Winnipeg could do with at least one long line as well - similar to what Edm currently has. Go from the UofM to maybe Polo Park (or just past that).

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary could end up with a subway like light rail up and down centre street for the North LRT, but if the Cambie cut is still considered light rail, then not sure what counts.

Once Calgary has the downtown tunnel, the NW-S LRT in Calgary will be 5 car trains, with 2 minute frequency during rush hour. In many peoples mind that would be 'heavy rail subway' like capacity.

The line between LRT and Heavy Rail is so blurred, mostly because LRT in alot of places was developed as mass rapid transit.

I guess a better question to ask would be:

Will Canada ever build another under ground mass rapid transit line with capacity over 20,000 people per direction per hour. ?

[GreatTallNorth2]

didn't we have this exact thread with the same exact title last year? And didn't that one also explode in an orgy of semantics and regional bitterness?

And how is this different from every other thread for the last several years? Regional bitterness and repeat threads are the bread and butter of this forum.

Judging from your "Ocean of Hate", it should be a perfect opportunity for you to slam another city.

[jeremy_haak]

^Really?? How does that question turn into "regional bitterness"?

Ottawa's plan looks good...the window for building this just says "2031" - any idea when they'll start? Also, what's with the two-headed black arrow between the end of the tunnel and Gatineau?

I still think Winnipeg could do with at least one long line as well - similar to what Edm currently has. Go from the UofM to maybe Polo Park (or just past that).

Without actually looking at the plan, I believe the two-headed black arrow refers to a rapid transit link that would evolve from further study between the Cities of Ottawa, Gatineau, and the NCC.



The problem with stating that a subway is exclusively heavy rail is that it is ultimately a meaningless distinction when you consider the actual implementation of rapid transit. Consider, for example, that the LRT vehicles used with the C-Train have a greater capacity than those used on the Montreal Metro.

Personally I feel that the only real qualification for a subway or metro would be total grade separation, both from roadways and other railways, and a significant underground component. According to my definitions then, Toronto, and Montreal both have subways and the Canada Line would also be a subway.

[canucklehead2]

I doubt any city in North America will ever build a full-fledged heavy rail system again. I think part of that has to do with engineering creep from LRT, which is the process of upgrading LRT design standards to be virtually identical to those of heavy rail. In other words welded rail with concrete ties on exclusive right's of way, rather than bolted rail on wooden ties with joint or semi-exclusive ROW's. This has pushed costs as high as heavy rail, so it's pretty much taking the place of what subway's normally would from a financial perspective...

Personally I'd still love to see the Winnipeg subway revived, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime, unless Manitoba becomes some sort of socialist republic. And no, right-wing hawks having and NDP government doesn't count...

[WhipperSnapper]

AFAIK, Vancouver's is ICTS which is technically "intermediate" between light rail and heavy rail.

[SpongeG]

i don't think many places in the world are building heavy rail subways

they are extensions to existing but it seems LRT and above street systems are cheaper and more favoured

[vid]

If everything goes according to plan, Thunder Bay will have an underground LRT tunnel to Downtown Fort William by the fall of 2100.

Lots of places are building subways. I think Belgrade is building one, there is that little city in France (Rennes?) that has one that just open, Torino opened one before the last Winter Olympics, and I think Astana, Kazakhstan's new RT system is subway?

[Only The Lonely..]

Personally I'd still love to see the Winnipeg subway revived, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime, unless Manitoba becomes some sort of socialist republic. And no, right-wing hawks having and NDP government doesn't count...

I know it's pretty pie in the sky at this point, but I think Winnipeg is well suited to a subway.

Having an underground rail system would certainly be popular in a city with such extreme winters.

If only we had actually gone through with our subway plan in the 50's. :(

Personally, i'd love to commute into town and get off at Union Station or the Canadian Pacific Station on Higgins.

[canucklehead2]

I agree. If any city is suited for a subway it's Winnipeg. It's got hard bedrock to drill through and it's got extreme swings in climate not to mention a fairly dense intact inner city. I'd personally champion it myself, if I had any influence in the provincial or federal government, because it would be a good city-building project. Here's hoping that someone will be able to revive it...

Yeah, I agree though besides a few cities in the developing world, or those left over from Soviet times, there aren't that many new subway projects which is a shame. To me they are still the most worthwhile transit project a city can develop, hands down... Expensive, yes! Worth it? totally...

[SpongeG]

is torinos a real subway though?

if that qualifies than the canada line sure does

looks small to me

http://image59.webshots.com/559/0/11/79/2718011790094258363qiLDFu_ph.jpg
source (http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2718011790094258363qiLDFu)

[canucklehead2]

I think they are using the automated VAL technology from France, which is like Vancouver's Skytrain... More like a high-tech LRT that uses exclusive ROW's... Not quite LRT, not quite full on Metro...

[IntotheWest]

I know it's pretty pie in the sky at this point, but I think Winnipeg is well suited to a subway.

Having an underground rail system would certainly be popular in a city with such extreme winters.

If only we had actually gone through with our subway plan in the 50's. :(

Personally, i'd love to commute into town and get off at Union Station or the Canadian Pacific Station on Higgins.

Not sure about an underground subway - at least from a cost perspective. I kinda liked Juba's idea...but a "monorail" style is also hugely expensive. Can't recall what the original path was though...

[fever]

This sort of question that needs to be defined. Capacity is the most important factor, but being underground should also count for something because underground lines tend to fit into dense urban settings better than above grade lines. The weight of the trains, type of power supply, and the type of wheel are just interesting details.

The M-Line West extension through the Broadway corridor in Vancouver would meet the fully grade-separated, mostly underground, and 20,000 pphpd criteria. It would use existing skytrain technology, however, which is not really light rail and not really heavy rail. The Canada line might be considered heavy rail but it will not move 20,000 pphpd.

The Toronto subway is going to be extended to York? There was recently an extension to Laval. There may be relatively minor extensions in those two cities? I expect any entirely new lines will be built as LRT or skytrain-like systems.

[Jared]

Subway simply refers to building something underground, capacity isnt really part of the equation. Its entirely possible for something to be both subway and LRT (i.e. sections of Edmonton's system).

The real problem here is the obsession with categorizing systems into single word categories, without any agreed upon definition as to what these categories mean. If one asks people what the difference is between "Heavy Rail" and "Light Rail", you'll probably get an answer along the lines of "City X's system is HRT, City Y's system is LRT". Problem is, there are many important differences between the two systems, but no explaination as to which one(s) are the ones that determine the LRT or HRT status. Any even if some are suggested, others people will disagree. Not to mention that you can usually find a system that is labelled inconsistently with that particular categorization convention All this results in no clear definition, and thus rather meaningless terms.

I prefer to simply look at the qualities of the individual systems: capacity (current and maximum), existence of a dedicated ROW, existence of pre-paid boarding etc.

[vid]

Subway simply refers to building something underground

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2518066374_e8c20ca356.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidioman/2518066374/)

One of three in my neighbourhood.

:hi:

[1ajs]

bahahah

[Rico Rommheim]

And how is this different from every other thread for the last several years? Regional bitterness and repeat threads are the bread and butter of this forum.

Judging from your "Ocean of Hate", it should be a perfect opportunity for you to slam another city.

What the fuck? Is there something you're trying to say here?

[youngregina]

There is one subway that i can recall being built in North America. Hve people already forgotton about the 2nd avenenue subway being built in new york city in manhatten. It's expected to carry roughly 250 000 people per day you know!!

[SpongeG]

as well as LA

[dennis]

What is the difference between "light" and "heavy" rail?

[SpongeG]

in my mind - toronto's subway is heavy rail and vancouver's is light rail

everyone seems to have a different definition

usually heavy rail has greater capcity and is larger where as light rail has less capacity and carries less people

ex: light rail - shorter
http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/lm-lrt-openday-grasstrk-cut-20071118x_Latil-22.jpg
pic from google search lightrail now

ex: heavy rail - longer
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/3218/376dj3.jpg
Pic from ssc via google search

[GreatTallNorth2]

Would it not also be fair to say that heavy rail (subways) travel a lot faster than light rail?

[SFUVancouver]

Some time ago it was easy to distinguish a subway from lighter forms of rail transit, including LRT. The trouble is that the lines have blurred so much that in many respects all we can really compare now is level of service, namely system capacity and frequency.

Consider Vancouver's SkyTrain, including the soon-to-be-completed Canada Line. SkyTrain is difficult to label precisely because it features many of the hallmarks of conventional subways while retaining features of light rail transit. All three SkyTrain lines, which total 68.5km, are fully grade-separated and thus entirely qualify as rapid transit. The trains and stations are universally accessible, even though many subway systems are not. The SkyTrains are fully automated and travel at speeds up to 70kph. Line capacities currently top out at about 15,000 passengers per hour, per direction, and there are plans being worked up to nearly double the capacity of the original Expo Line to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25- to 30,000 passengers per hour, per direction, easily in the realm of a conventional subway. It is also worth nothing that the original Expo Line is revenue positive, thanks in no small part to automation and the miserly energy consumption rate of the linear induction motors that drive SkyTrain. I mention this because high operating revenue recovery rates are one more hallmark of a subway.

Frequency is a huge factor in determining a rapid transit system's level of service and during rush hour the SkyTrain Expo Line operates with 75-second frequency, which is significantly better than most conventional subways. This frequency drops to between two- to six-minutes for the remainder of the day and then dips further to a low of eight-minute frequency for late night service. This is still on par with many conventional subways and is significantly better than some of the standard bearers of LRT, including Portland’s MAX LRT, which drops to 30-minute service late at night. Monday to Friday SkyTrain runs 21.5 hours a day, 20.5 hours on Saturdays, and 18.5 hours on Sundays. Lastly, when the SkyTrain Canada Line begins service in 18 months the number of underground stations on the system will increase from 4 to 12, including the new platform at Waterfront Station, while the total number of stations will increase from 33 to 48.

At the end of the day I think that the term 'rapid transit' is the new gold standard for describing urban rail-based transit systems and it side-steps the complications of labeling the various sub-types. A subway is clearly high-capacity rapid transit, while the rest, SkyTrain, LRT, etc., fit in their respective places on the rapid transit continuum based on their level of service.

[d_jeffrey]

It's all about how many passengers per hour the system can handle. More than 20 000pph, it's entering metro.

As for Vancouver, it's a light metro system because of the ridership it can handle. it will probably change to metro as soon as the platforms are updated. Montreal cars could pass from light rail, because of the short width of their cars.

[jimj_wpg]

I agree. If any city is suited for a subway it's Winnipeg. It's got hard bedrock to drill through and it's got extreme swings in climate not to mention a fairly dense intact inner city. I'd personally champion it myself, if I had any influence in the provincial or federal government, because it would be a good city-building project. Here's hoping that someone will be able to revive it...

Yeah, I agree though besides a few cities in the developing world, or those left over from Soviet times, there aren't that many new subway projects which is a shame. To me they are still the most worthwhile transit project a city can develop, hands down... Expensive, yes! Worth it? totally...

You can start by printing off some of our pamphlets and distributing them to people at the bus stops and posting them to places like transit stops in Winnipeg....

The URL

http://truwinnipeg.org/testing/truwinnipeg-pamphlet.pdf (http://truwinnipeg.org/testing/truwinnipeg-pamphlet.pdf)

UPS Store charges $17.92 per 100 copies double-sided, black and white ink.

Go for it people. If you want this thing, you have to make an effort tooo.

[Xelebes]

Edmonton's LRT, apart from its seating pattern within the carriage, allows for a capacity that matches HRT, given that the overhead wires and platforms can handle 5-car consists. Speeds are capped at 50 or 60 kph, but have the capacity for 80 km/h.

[Mille Sabords]

Strictly speaking Montreal has the only true subway in Canada since it is all underground (due to the rubber tire technology they use) while Toronto's has untunnelled sections.

I prefer using a broader definition that includes Toronto's subway and Edmonton's downtown LRT tunnel, and therefore Vancouver's Canada Line and Ottawa's future downtown LRT tunnel.

Someone said that Winnipeg once had a subway? Was it a plan or did it actually operate? There was a whole generation of streetcar subways in the early 20th century. Boston's subway started that way. There was a plan in Ottawa for a streetcar subway system in 1915 but it was never carried out. There is also one streetcar subway that actually operated for about 30 years and was closed so that parts of its rights-of-way could be used for a freeway: Rochester, NY. I've seen some amazing photos from people who know how to go into the tunnels and the closed stations of the old Rochester subway which apparently is now a whole underworld society of the homeless and drug addicts.

[Mikemike]

Edmonton's LRT, apart from its seating pattern within the carriage, allows for a capacity that matches HRT, given that the overhead wires and platforms can handle 5-car consists. Speeds are capped at 50 or 60 kph, but have the capacity for 80 km/h.


Edmonton shouldn't be calling our rail transit LRT. It's really a light metro system, with very little in common with most other 'LRT' Systems.

Our Capacity with the station and vehicle size will max out at about 30,000ppdph, which is about 4x current operated capacity. I don't have any hard #s, but I think Montreal Metro max capacity is something like 35,000-40,000ppdph, and toronto is more like 50,000+ so we don't really match, but I think we do OK.

[Mille Sabords]

Edmonton shouldn't be calling our rail transit LRT. It's really a light metro system, with very little in common with most other 'LRT' Systems.

Our Capacity with the station and vehicle size will max out at about 30,000ppdph, which is about 4x current operated capacity. I don't have any hard #s, but I think Montreal Metro max capacity is something like 35,000-40,000ppdph, and toronto is more like 50,000+ so we don't really match, but I think we do OK.

Actually in retrospect it looks pretty obvious that Edmonton had the smartest LRT strategy of its day, compared with how both Calgary and Ottawa dealt with their first crack at rapid transit back in the 1970's. I think it's awesome that Edmonton dug their downtown tunnel back then. They probably went through a lot less of the BS we see here now.

[mersar]

Actually in retrospect it looks pretty obvious that Edmonton had the smartest LRT strategy of its day, compared with how both Calgary and Ottawa dealt with their first crack at rapid transit back in the 1970's. I think it's awesome that Edmonton dug their downtown tunnel back then. They probably went through a lot less of the BS we see here now.

It was smart in some regards, though Calgary's decision to not build underground did lead to a significantly greater ridership level and far more coverage across the city. Calgary's downtown tunnel (which is coming eventually) will cost a lot more then if we had built it then, but even at the greater cost I suspect that most would rather have the expansive system then the tunnel (at least up until a few years ago when we started having capacity issues)

In terms of ppdph, Calgary's LRT has a theoretical max of 23,040 currently, with that being bumped to over 30,000 once the platform renovations to handle 4 LRV consists is completed (hopefully within a decade). Compared to our current pphpd of around 7000 according to CT's statistics (which seems a bit low IMO), we're doing pretty good with around 270,000 passengers a day versus Edmontons roughly 50,000 passengers/day. Mind you that Edmonton should see a nice jump once the current extensions are complete.

[jeffwhit]

Someone said that Winnipeg once had a subway? Was it a plan or did it actually operate? There was a whole generation of streetcar subways in the early 20th century. Boston's subway started that way. There was a plan in Ottawa for a streetcar subway system in 1915 but it was never carried out. There is also one streetcar subway that actually operated for about 30 years and was closed so that parts of its rights-of-way could be used for a freeway: Rochester, NY. I've seen some amazing photos from people who know how to go into the tunnels and the closed stations of the old Rochester subway which apparently is now a whole underworld society of the homeless and drug addicts.

Winnipeg's subway Sadly never came to fruition, though it was planned, and many believe the original plan is still the way to go:

http://www.truwinnipeg.org/wilsons-maps-of-the-winnipeg-subway/

Philadelphia still has a large portion of it's remaining streetcars in a subway tunnel, they're really cool.

[Mille Sabords]

It was smart in some regards, though Calgary's decision to not build underground did lead to a significantly greater ridership level and far more coverage across the city. Calgary's downtown tunnel (which is coming eventually) will cost a lot more then if we had built it then, but even at the greater cost I suspect that most would rather have the expansive system then the tunnel (at least up until a few years ago when we started having capacity issues)

In terms of ppdph, Calgary's LRT has a theoretical max of 23,040 currently, with that being bumped to over 30,000 once the platform renovations to handle 4 LRV consists is completed (hopefully within a decade). Compared to our current pphpd of around 7000 according to CT's statistics (which seems a bit low IMO), we're doing pretty good with around 270,000 passengers a day versus Edmontons roughly 50,000 passengers/day. Mind you that Edmonton should see a nice jump once the current extensions are complete.

Yeah I hear you, it's a toss here too with the Transitway. It's a workhorse, good for 100 million rides a year, but man do the stations look rickety, and the whole idea of rapid transit by bus is just plainly amateurish now that we really need good rapid transit. Served us well but time to move on... and painful to do so.

I look forward to seeing Calgary get a downtown tunnel too, makes plenty of sense. When I was there a couple of years ago I rode the C Train a few times and it already works like an above-ground subway. But the downtown stations need to be buried.

[Cambridgite]

I don't think it really matters whether it's above ground or below ground really. As long as it has capacity, frequency, speed, goes to the right places, and has its own right of way, it's all the same.

And for what it's worth, I was pretty impressed by Ottawa's transitway system...except for the bomb threat at St. Laurent station before my run, lol.

To address the OP, I don't think we'll be seeing any new subways, although maybe some extensions of existing subway systems in Toronto and Montreal. What we do have is new LRT systems proposed in Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, and across the GTA. Not sure about other cities like Winnipeg, Halifax, etc. Subways are cool, but they don't have many benefits over LRT and they tend to be very expensive in comparison.

[ssiguy]

To my way of think Edmonton LRT is LRT but with high capacity and large underground sections.
As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with the rail guage, ridership, or how much is underground but just one thing...........can it be used atgrade/ROW. If not then it is LRT, which is fine.
TransitCity Eglinton Line is LRT but will have atleast 6km of tunnel at Yonge area.
This is why I think of Vancouver's SkyTrain as sortof a light-metro.

As far as the new Canada Line although it does not have TTCsubway/Montreal Metro capacity it is a true subway. It is heavy guage, cannot at anypoint use a ROW down a regular street.
It is similar to Glascow's subway, the stations/trains are small but it is a subway in all respects.
The Canada Line uses standard heavy rail technology and subway cars.
TTC subway cars could use the Canada Line.

I don't think Canada will have a new subway city.
Few cities in NA or even Europe for that matter are building new subway lines. There arer certainly extentions but few actual new lines. The massive costs with construction, diverse living and working locations, and time involved in construction are just too prohibitive.
This is why I am a strong LRT advocate. I can certainly see subway line extentions but I think subways are too inflexible and expensive to justify their construction.
LRT capacity can be as high as subway but has the flexibility to be used in different capacities depending on need, urban enviornment, geography etc.
From tunnel to elevation to ROW/atgrade it offers options that subways can simply not provide.
Except for very density cities like in Asia/Latin America etc can subways be justified also helped by the fact that they are built with labour costing up to a tenth the price of Western countries. These areas are also cities/areas that have had almsot no mass transit to begin with as opposed to most Western cities which already subways/metros as their backbones of their systems. In otherwords they have a lot of ground to make up.

One kn of subway can provide up to 5 km of LRT for the same price. Even LRT tunnels are cheaper to build than standard Metro/subway tunnels.

It's becoming a LRT world in the West and I think that is a great thing.

[agrant]

Sorry, but what is heavy rail technology and WTH is a subway car - different from an above ground car, and what if they do both??? From my experience in reading threads on this, I would try to steer clear of the naming conventions of rail based transit. It's blurred enough with everyone putting their own spin on it. Interesting discussion though.

[vid]

A subway is just rail transit that's underground. The only difference is it's location relative to the surface.

Heavy Rail carries more people than Light Rail. (The words have nothing to do with car weight.) Rapid transit refers to any transit system designed to carry large volumes of people to their destinations quickly.

Heavy and light rail essentially use the same technology.

[agrant]

A subway is just rail transit that's underground. The only difference is it's location relative to the surface.

Heavy Rail carries more people than Light Rail. (The words have nothing to do with car weight.) Rapid transit refers to any transit system designed to carry large volumes of people to their destinations quickly.

Heavy and light rail essentially use the same technology.I'll stand by with my popcorn... ;)

[vid]

Yeah.... http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5258/iconpopcornyq5.gif

[jimj_wpg]

I don't think it really matters whether it's above ground or below ground really. As long as it has capacity, frequency, speed, goes to the right places, and has its own right of way, it's all the same.


And that's exactly why putting rapid transit underground in a downtown area is the best option... so you can accommodate trains longer than one city block.

Compare Houston's LRT with Charlotte's. I posted YouTube videos of them here a few pages back or on the Winnipeg Transit/Rapid Transit thread.

Charlotte's trains are longer.

[jimj_wpg]

To my way of think Edmonton LRT is LRT but with high capacity and large underground sections.
As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with the rail guage, ridership, or how much is underground but just one thing...........can it be used at-grade/ROW. If not then it is LRT, which is fine.

TransitCity Eglinton Line is LRT but will have atleast 6km of tunnel at Yonge area.

This is why I think of Vancouver's SkyTrain as sortof a light-metro.

As far as the new Canada Line although it does not have TTC subway/Montreal Metro capacity it is a true subway. It is heavy guage, cannot at any point use a ROW down a regular street.
It is similar to Glasgow's subway, the stations/trains are small but it is a subway in all respects.

The Canada Line uses standard heavy rail technology and subway cars.

TTC subway cars could use the Canada Line.

I don't think Canada will have a new subway city.
Few cities in NA or even Europe for that matter are building new subway lines. There are certainly extensions but few actual new lines. The massive costs with construction, diverse living and working locations, and time involved in construction are just too prohibitive.

This is why I am a strong LRT advocate. I can certainly see subway line extensions but I think subways are too inflexible and expensive to justify their construction.

LRT capacity can be as high as subway but has the flexibility to be used in different capacities depending on need, urban environment, geography etc.

Yes, there have been several cities in Europe and Asia that have built underground LRT in the past decade. I'm not going to list them here, you'll just have to go to this website and view the build/completion dates:

http://www.urbanrail.net/

And your comment about LRTs being more flexible than subways. Calgary should have built that tunnel underground decades ago because the downtown section can be unsafe to use in some places -- pedestrians crossing tracks where fast moving trains go.

I hope Winnipeg doesn't make the same mistake for its rapid transit line(s).

[jimj_wpg]

As I've been handing out the pamphlets about our group TRUWinnipeg in the past couple of weeks the most frequent comment is not "Is Winnipeg BIG enough for an LRT/Subway?" but rather "Will the soil conditions underground be able to handle one?"

So then to refresh my memory I was looking for quotes in the Wilson report, on my way there found this great guy named Ralph who was born in Winnipeg and who died earlier this year at the age of 95. He was a geological engineer who at the age of six moved to the Chicago area with his family and later became known as a guru in his field.

Read more at our website...

Dig Deeper Winnipeg! (http://www.truwinnipeg.org/2008/07/05/dig-deeper-winnipeg/)

[jimj_wpg]

Time to grow up
City must face reality of rapid transit (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/westview/story/4198275p-4789858c.html)

Jeff Lowe, Winnipeg Free Press
July 13, 2008

As one who has written extensively on the subject, it has been difficult to fend off the frustration one feels at the small-town tone the “debate” over rapid transit in our city has assumed.

The reportage has been framed as if the only “realistic” choice is between building a short, insufficient initial length of exclusive “bus rapid transit” (BRT) or setting aside bus-only “diamond” lanes on major thoroughfares.

It has been sorrowing to witness the parade of supporters of better public transit clambering to lend their support to an “environmental improvement” which contemplates further defacing our city by pouring hundreds more lane-miles of concrete pavement.

Worse, rail reservation land would be confiscated to create a “freeway for buses”: whereas a rail rapid transit line sympathetic to the context, can be fit into drastically less space.

Air quality and the emission of greenhouse gases would realize scant improvement.

Why, too (given our adverse winter climate) would we for one moment consider staking our transit future on a system whose mainstay remained shackled to rubber-tired vehicles?

Consider Ottawa’s experience. Instead of BRT serving as a transportation “lifeline,” the inevitable winter storms and snow-packed conditions turn “transitways” into obstacle courses littered with jackknifed articulated buses.

Whatever the weather, Ottawa’s transitways discharge buses by the dozens onto streets designated for them spewing clouds of diesel fumes.

Opponents of urban sprawl, too, should be given pause by spiels that BRT “is perfect for this city because we lack the density of development to support a rail system.”

In other words, entrench a deplorable status quo, a tacit admission that bus rapid transit is an arrangement designed to serve sprawl, not curb it.

Rail-based rapid transit, by contrast, acts as an impetus for a denser urban form by creating the structural framework to attract and nourish intensive development. Only rail has demonstrated that it can attract development; the bus, no matter how gaudily you dress it up, is a bust.

This last point is illuminating in that within it lurk two clashing visions as to the optimal role of mass transit.

The bus vision contends that most people will normally shun transit and drive almost always. This option (which unfortunately seems to have buy-in from Winnipeg Transit) assumes that even an upgraded bus system’s ordained place is to supplement the almighty, owner-driven automobile.

The better rail vision projects a scenario under which a greatly enlarged and enriched transit system is outfitted to credibly offer an urban transportation experience superior to the car.

In this view, rail and bus are not antithetical, but function together within a citywide network. It seeks to move decisively “beyond petroleum” and render Winnipeg Transit fully and aggressively competitive with all other urban transport options.

Every city in Canada the size of Winnipeg or larger has either built rail-based rapid transit or pledged to do so. Likewise for the U.S. Even cities smaller than Winnipeg — Hamilton; Quebec City; Waterloo Region; Victoria — have recently joined the ranks.

In most that possess both bus corridors and rail rapid transit, the BRTs function strictly as adjuncts to rail lines — the “South Busway” delivers commuters from the far reaches of Dade County to the southern terminus of Miami’s MetroRail; the Orange Line BRT to the northern terminus of the Los Angeles Red Line subway).

It has become a popular expedient for cities endlessly debating rapid transit to break the logjam by building a greatly less costly and complicated downtown streetcar circulator as a sort of prototype.

These include: Indianapolis, Providence, Birmingham, Cincinnati, Spokane, Omaha and Columbus (Ohio).

(Winnipeg Transit and The Forks North Portage Partnership commissioned a $75,000 feasibility study of just such a downtown streetcar circulator for Winnipeg. But they’ve kept it from the public since 2003.)

The streetcar system connecting Portland’s downtown to a de-commissioned docklands and railway-yard area is an oft-cited example of the power of a rail transit line to generate handsome economic paybacks.

The streetcars attracted $2.2-billion in new construction within a two-block radius of the tracks in just nine years.

In cities where rail rapid transit has been built, it usually been the case that the local Chamber of Commerce (keenly aware of the huge dividends for the business community) led the charge. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile has never publicly expressed the slightest awareness of the issue.

The ever-expanding LRT systems in oil-soaked Alberta’s two major metropolises run on electricity; indeed, the “juice” that powers Calgary’s C-Trains is entirely wind-generated.

It beggars belief that the principal city of hydro-rich Manitoba could, against economic and environmental logic, cling to a transit policy that requires an all-bus fleet that is 100 per cent diesel-dependent. Why does our provincial government tolerate this?

It’s a source of shame that of the five major hydro-electric-producing provinces, only Manitoba and Newfoundland have not taken advantage of their clean, abundant and renewable energy to power big-city transit.

Curiously, in Winnipeg the original hydro-electric system was created as a subsidiary of and, initially, underwritten with profits from, the private street railway company. (Assiniboine Credit Union — so named because the central streetcar barn stood on the site now occupied by Bonnycastle Park — was founded by employees of the Winnipeg Electric Company that ran both.)

But whereas elsewhere that laudable linkage was maintained, in Winnipeg the two were wrest apart and the streetcars were scrapped.

In the 1950s, Toronto and Winnipeg (at the time, Canada’s second- and third-largest cities by population) faced similar decisions.

Both commissioned plans that recommended subway systems be built.

Toronto kept its surface streetcar lines and installed its first subway: Winnipeg tore out its streetcar tracks (building no subways to take their place) and substituted buses.

That Toronto has since risen to “world city” status — and Winnipeg declined in stature — in retrospect can be explained to some degree by this starkly contrasting valuation of public transit.

If this city could somehow afford (at the turn of the 20th century) to assemble the far-flung and well-patronized streetcar system it once boasted, it can manage in the year 2008 to display similar moxie and foresight.

Full-fledged cities — cities that court admiration by acting with a firm belief in their abilities and potential and revel in their urbanity — all have rail rapid transit.

Let’s grow up.

Jeff Lowe is an expert on urban transit and its relation to land use, economic development and the environment.

[Dmajackson]

Well I can say with certainty that neither Halifax or St. John's will ever have a subway even if we grow enough to have the ridership levels. Both are on solid bedrock just inches (if that) below the surface which kills any project's budget wuth the extreme blasting and blasting under our downtown(s) would probably destroy the heritage above. Both are on steep hills so subways just dont make sense and Halifax at least has very old crumbling tunnels underground leading to the Citadel that no-one knows the exact location and state of right now.

Let the bikkering begin....

[jimj_wpg]

Well I can say with certainty that neither Halifax or St. John's will ever have a subway even if we grow enough to have the ridership levels. Both are on solid bedrock just inches (if that) below the surface which kills any project's budget wuth the extreme blasting and blasting under our downtown(s) would probably destroy the heritage above. Both are on steep hills so subways just dont make sense and Halifax at least has very old crumbling tunnels underground leading to the Citadel that no-one knows the exact location and state of right now.

Let the bikkering begin....

And in Peg Town they say they clay is too SOFT. But really it is safe to burrow deep down to between 35 and 50 feet below street level to reach the bedrock, depending on the location.

[IntotheWest]

Toronto kept its surface streetcar lines and installed its first subway: Winnipeg tore out its streetcar tracks (building no subways to take their place) and substituted buses.

That Toronto has since risen to “world city” status — and Winnipeg declined in stature — in retrospect can be explained to some degree by this starkly contrasting valuation of public transit.


Well, I agree with most of what this article said, but concluding that because of these transit decisions, Toronto grew into Canada's largest city while Winnipeg "declined in stature" is a little far-fetched...even to "some degree".

But, I think Winnipeg should just bite the bullet and plan to build it - even if slowly. If the other cities-by-example have shown it'll work, then there's 0% risk to Winnipeg (Spokane has a street-car??).

Don't go crazy with a Miami or Vegas style ($$$$) mono-rail. But, something like the C-train in Calgary would be a start...considering Calgary and Edmonton were considerably smaller than Winnipeg is now when they made their initial investment some 30 years ago.

[someone123]

Peninsular Halifax has a fair amount of soil in places actually and is mostly built on slate, which is relatively easy to dig through. Some suburban areas are solid granite and that would be extremely expensive to dig tunnels through. Beyond that there are other requirements like harbour crossing that would each cost a lot.

Of course, a true subway is infeasible anyway because it would cost much more than the city would be able to afford. A small LRT system would work fine and could have some small underground segments to avoid bottlenecks.

I don't really see the point of building a subway in Winnipeg either. Even if it were affordable, a lot more above-ground light rail could be constructed for the same price.

I am surprised that we aren't seeing more serious light rail projects in smaller Canadian cities given the fact that they can be run on practically any power source. Even electric buses should be fairly attractive now from that point of view and they are also much nicer to have running on city streets.

[vid]

When (really, if, but I think it would be a when) CN stops using it's ROW that cuts through the city (the diagonal one through Intercity is anyone knows what I'm talking about) it could be used for LRT or even BRT, running straight from the waterfront (which the city is trying to turn into a new hub) to Intercity (and given the position of Intercity along the tracks, integrating an LRT or BRT station into the mall is possible) and then to Downtown Fort William, branching off at Vickers, then turning onto Victoria to get to Victoriaville. CN's mainline is wide enough for double tracking from around Intercity to Vickers Street (the old CN station for Fort William was on Vickers at Victoria; a spur ran down the street which is why it's so wide) so you would have room for vehicles going both ways. Between Intercity and the Waterfront, there is space to expand the right of way if necessary, so it wouldn't be much of a problem there, either.

The city just has no vision. A University of Calgary study into about 10 medium sized cities in Canada which included Thunder Bay reported that of all the cities they looked at, Thunder Bay was the only one not considering some form of faster, more efficient transit, be it LRT, BRT or just a limited stop bus.

The city has been investing a lot into transit lately, though. About $3 million for fleet replacements (we got 5 new buses last month, and will get three more later this year or early next year), a GPS system (www.nextbus.com; Guelph also has the system.), bike racks and some other improvements. They've brought fixed route service to rural areas in the city so pretty much anywhere that has houses is within walking distance of a bus (though in rural areas, only on two days a week right now; routes 5 and 19 are pilot projects) and the Municipality of Neebing is looking to set up either a fixed route or park-and-ride system with the city. I'd like to see a regional transit commission formed (something like YRT) to cover the entire Greater Lakehead, which is Thunder Bay's CMA, the LSAs of Nolalu, Lappe, Kaministiquia, and Hurkett, and the townships of Red Rock and Nipigon, a population of about 135,000 where most people (except in Red Rock and Nipigon) commute to Thunder Bay for work. I think a park-and-ride system connecting all larger communities (any with more than 500 people) would be feasible, and even a commuter rail route if the funds are available. (There are several railway right of ways that have been abandoned but might still be usable with a bit of work, and construction of new tracks).

All really long term stuff though. Park and ride systems would be the cheapest solution. When Thunder Bay was being formed in the late 1960s, their goal was to make the entire district a single-tier municipality.

[drew]

And in Peg Town they say they clay is too SOFT. But really it is safe to burrow deep down to between 35 and 50 feet below street level to reach the bedrock, depending on the location.

They would just need to excavate down 20 feet or so, pour a proper foundation and create the tunnel structure with steel or concrete. Fill it in, and voila you have a subway tunnel. I can't imagine there is any real need to go down to bedrock.

You "could" conceivably be able to do this without massive intrusions in the city while the construction in ongoing.

That being said, there is a major cost "premium" for excavating a 20' x 20' section of ground, building the foundations, and the tunnel...versus simply plunking the tracks at grade level...

[Koolfire]

Even electric buses should be fairly attractive now from that point of view and they are also much nicer to have running on city streets.

Tell that to Edmonton which is scraping it's fleet.

[someone123]

I don't know what the cost of installing and maintaining the overhead wires is, but it's really hard to imagine that being outweighed by the fuel issue. The electric buses themselves cost more but they're also more powerful and cleaner than diesel or hybrids and I would also expect them to have a longer life.

One problem with the electrics is that they have to follow the wires (unless you get a hybrid), but they're not nearly as bad as streetcars because they can change lanes and alternate routes don't require extra tracks.

In Canada I think a lot of transit authorities are simply poorly managed and overly conservative, which is unfortunate because Canadians in general are receptive to transit and it's pretty easy to get ridership in most cities. The US is full of gold-plated transit systems few people use while Canada has poorly supported systems bursting at the seams.

[WhipperSnapper]

technically, are suburban cities not cities?

[Mille Sabords]

Well, I agree with most of what this article said, but concluding that because of these transit decisions, Toronto grew into Canada's largest city while Winnipeg "declined in stature" is a little far-fetched...even to "some degree".

But, I think Winnipeg should just bite the bullet and plan to build it - even if slowly. If the other cities-by-example have shown it'll work, then there's 0% risk to Winnipeg (Spokane has a street-car??).

Don't go crazy with a Miami or Vegas style ($$$$) mono-rail. But, something like the C-train in Calgary would be a start...considering Calgary and Edmonton were considerably smaller than Winnipeg is now when they made their initial investment some 30 years ago.

This is a very good point. Edmonton in particular was the most far-sighted when it comes to a downtown tunnel. Both Alberta cities took a much bolder step than Ottawa at the time and we are now reeling from the pain of having to interrupt service, or somehow provide alternative service, during the conversion to rail, which eventually becomes necessary. Funny how a city like Winnipeg can benefit from a quarter-century's worth of experience in Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton.

And as for bedrock or clay soils, etc., I'm not an expert but I notice that the story changes as time gets on... when a tunnel was deemed too expensive for Ottawa, there were plenty of soils-related arguments why we shouldn't do it. Now that we're doing a tunnel, somehow it seems we have the most ideal soil possible. Go figure. I know that tunneling technology has advanced in the last 25 years but, still... goes to show, when the time comes, it becomes technologically possible too.

[miketoronto]

No doubt Winnipeg should get rapid transit. However remember that Winnipeg has a higher % of residents take transit to work than Calgary or Edmonton, eventhough Winnipeg has no rapid transit.
I wonder if Winnipeg is dragging its feet, because the city is so small. I think at the most, development spills 8-10KM from downtown. So Winnipeg is pretty compact.

[wild wild west]

No doubt Winnipeg should get rapid transit. However remember that Winnipeg has a higher % of residents take transit to work than Calgary or Edmonton, eventhough Winnipeg has no rapid transit.
I wonder if Winnipeg is dragging its feet, because the city is so small. I think at the most, development spills 8-10KM from downtown. So Winnipeg is pretty compact.

I'm afraid you're wrong again here, Mike: from what I've seen rates are higher in the latter cities. However, in my view, this only reinforces the need for Winnipeg to invest in LRT since typically cities with mass transit systems have seen ridership increase faster than those without. I don't buy the size argument either: Winnipeg is considerably larger than Calgary and Edmonton were when their LRT systems opened. I think the numbers have demonstrated that LRT has not only been successful in the Alberta cities, but has grown to become a necessity. I'm pretty sure Winnipeg at ~60% the size of the Alberta cities could support an LRT system.

[miketoronto]

I did not say Winnipeg should not get LRT. I said that Winnipeg may have put it off because land wise it is a small city. Not saying that is right though.

As for % of people who use transit. According to Winnipeg Transit, 20% of residents use transit to get to work. That may have changed now.

[vid]

According to Thunder Bay Transit, city buses are the best way to get around town.

And I'm sure if you asked Stalin how things were going he's say they were just peachy.

Use a neutral source, kthx.

[Only The Lonely..]

No doubt Winnipeg should get rapid transit. However remember that Winnipeg has a higher % of residents take transit to work than Calgary or Edmonton, eventhough Winnipeg has no rapid transit.
I wonder if Winnipeg is dragging its feet, because the city is so small. I think at the most, development spills 8-10KM from downtown. So Winnipeg is pretty compact.


Winnipeg is dragging its feet because our entire city council is comprised of suburbanites who haven't ridden a bus in at least 25 years.

In fact as I write this, city council has voted to use our rapid transit fund to build a waterslide park. :rolleyes:

The $$$ issue is always of concern too. Somehow the province and the city think that rapid transit will get cheaper the longer we put it off.


If only we had built Steve Juba's monorail in the late 70's when it was a quarter of the price of what it would cost to construct today.

Calgary / Edmonton and Vancouver all had much more foresight in this regard.


I still feel that in Winnipeg's case the most practical form of lrt would be to bring back our Street Car. Afterall, a good chunk of our older neighbourhoods were built around the old tram lines and it wouldn't take much to adapt the rest.

With gas prices inching towards $2 perhaps common sense will prevail.

I do hope that we can learn from what has worked in other cities such as Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary.

[Wooster]

In fact as I write this, city council has voted to use our rapid transit fund to build a waterslide park. :rolleyes:


WTF????? That sounds so absurd, it almost sounds made up.

[IntotheWest]

^I think he's refering to the new stadium/hotel/waterpark/surface parking/etc proposed for Point Douglas area in Winnipeg...and yes, at first glance, it doesn't look like the best idea.

[IntotheWest]

Edmonton in particular was the most far-sighted when it comes to a downtown tunnel.

Well, I'm not sure if it's worked out exactly how they planned 30 years ago, but I would think that trying to build as much line as possible on the cheapest budget (i.e. above ground) was the smartest decision. I believe it's costing a couple billion to get Edmonton's out of the ground to bring the line south. When it's all done, it will be a nice system...but I think the way Calgary went was the best way - and it shows in the ridership #s.

Though I agree putting the line underground downtown Calgary is a "nice to have", I'm not sure it's a "need to have"...I'll leave those questions to be answered by the planner forumers on here :)

As for Winnipeg...The streetcar system I think would have to be fairly extensive to make it worth while. It would end up covering a fairly large area to get the ridership, but wouldn't (I don't think) be able to provide the speed or capacity required.

I think a line going west, and one going south would be the best start to getting something going.

EDIT: I guess it should have a stop at the future waterpark too ;)

[Andy6]

According to Thunder Bay Transit, city buses are the best way to get around town.

And I'm sure if you asked Stalin how things were going he's say they were just peachy.

Use a neutral source, kthx.

You're saying that it's not legitimate to quote statistics from a public transit authority about its ridership? That seems like a rather high standard and, I'm guessing, one invented on the spot because of the person who had referred to the statistic.

Mike is exactly right. Winnipeg is too small to justify a rapid transit system on a cost-benefit analysis. There is little difficulty getting around the city by car. Rapid transit is a solution in search of a problem as far as Winnipeg is concerned. Beyond improving bus service, the city should focus on real priorities of its own, not on things that would make fine priorities in other cities but which have little relevance to Winnipeg.

[drew]

As for Winnipeg...The streetcar system I think would have to be fairly extensive to make it worth while. It would end up covering a fairly large area to get the ridership, but wouldn't (I don't think) be able to provide the speed or capacity required.


I think Winnipeg would benefit from a "rapid" spoke feeder system that leads into the core area of the city where a slower more extensive modern at grade streetcar system (a la Portland) will take riders where they need to go in the downtown and inner city areas. Underground would be "nice" for downtown Winnipeg, but the cost will always be prohibitive for the city budget to even begin planning for.

Winnipeg really needs to set realistic small goals that will eventually lead to a complete system. This city was designed around streetcars, and these really make the most sense financially and geographically for transit in and around downtown.

Ideally, I would like to see Winnipeg move towards this inner city at-grade streetcar system in the near future with the goal of eliminating buses operating in the downtown all together. For example, the buses would "stop" at Polo Park in the west, and Confusion Corner in the south.

Till we get the ridership and $$ available to build the "rapid" feeder systems from the far flung suburbs, we could at least return the "sexy" to downtown Winnipeg and transit by adding the at-grade streetcar system. I have no doubt that a modern at-grade streetcar system would vastly improve both the optics of public transit in Winnipeg, but would also improve the number of paying butts in the seats. Tourists like them too.

The express buses and super express buses we currently have are adequate to get people to and from downtown.

[J-MAN]

WTF????? That sounds so absurd, it almost sounds made up.

:haha: if only you knew...

[vid]

According to Winnipeg Transit, 20% of residents use transit to get to work. That may have changed now.

Mode of transportation to work

Total employed labour force 15 years and over with a usual place of work or no fixed workplace address
315,855 (or 100%)

Public transit
44,735 (or 14.2%)

44,735 divided by 315,855 equals 0.14163, or about 14.2 per cent. How, exactly, does that become 20 per cent?

What Winnipeg Transit probably did was take it's daily ridership and use that to figure out the percent, but then that would assume everyone who used the bus was taking it to work. In Thunder Bay, 1,745 people use transit to get to work. Our daily ridership is 12,000. The statement "10% of Thunder Bayers use Thunder Bay Transit to get to work" is wrong. Only 3.5% do.

It had nothing to do with Miketoronto being Miketoronto, as I would have made that comment regardless of who posted that statement.

If he cited an actual report from Winnipeg Transit and not just a blurb on their website then it would have been OK; if he cited something from CUTA, it would have been OK; but to cite a blurb in the hokey "Did you know?!" part of a website isn't a very reliable source, even if it comes from the same source as more accurate information. The "20% of Winnipeggers use transit to get to work" 'fact' is a promotional gimmick. Just like Thunder Bay Transit's "The best way to get around Thunder Bay" statement and MTA's "You haven't seen New York until you've seen it from a city bus!" (Because, you know, looking through a bus window is a great way to experience a city!! :rolleyes:).

[Andy6]

Ideally, I would like to see Winnipeg move towards this inner city at-grade streetcar system in the near future with the goal of eliminating buses operating in the downtown all together. For example, the buses would "stop" at Polo Park in the west, and Confusion Corner in the south.

Till we get the ridership and $$ available to build the "rapid" feeder systems from the far flung suburbs, we could at least return the "sexy" to downtown Winnipeg and transit by adding the at-grade streetcar system. I have no doubt that a modern at-grade streetcar system would vastly improve both the optics of public transit in Winnipeg, but would also improve the number of paying butts in the seats. Tourists like them too.

I guess so, but is it really the responsibility of the transit system to be sexy? Streetcars bring with them a lot of problems, notably that they are inflexible. You can't move them in response to demand and when one breaks down the whole system is stuck. I'm also having a hard time picturing how they would load and unload in the middle of Portage Avenue or Main Street in the middle of winter, or who would want to stand and wait for them there. But if it were possible, I agree that it would look nice.

[miketoronto]

Actually it was from their official report. However I just found out why the stat differs. The 20% mark is for work and school trips combined.

[The Chemist]

Mike is exactly right. Winnipeg is too small to justify a rapid transit system on a cost-benefit analysis. There is little difficulty getting around the city by car. Rapid transit is a solution in search of a problem as far as Winnipeg is concerned. Beyond improving bus service, the city should focus on real priorities of its own, not on things that would make fine prioritIies in other cities but which have little relevance to Winnipeg.

I'm sure glad that voices like yours didn't prevail on Calgary's City Council back in the late 1970s. Remember, Calgary and Edmonton were BOTH smaller than Winnipeg is now when they started their LRT systems.

[miketoronto]

Miketoronto's version of a rapid transit system for Winnipeg. The transit logos would be the stops.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=49.858128,-97.160339&spn=0.130587,0.354309&z=12&msid=102251676755671311847.0004521a190b7794e15ae

[Andy6]

I'm sure glad that voices like yours didn't prevail on Calgary's City Council back in the late 1970s. Remember, Calgary and Edmonton were BOTH smaller than Winnipeg is now when they started their LRT systems.

True, but they had legitimate reason to forecast high population growth, which was already occurring. They were also drowning in oil money at the time. In addition, construction costs and approvals processes (especially environmental reviews) were nowhere near as onerous then. The physical layout of the cities may also allow for more effective feeder routes that can build up traffic on a small number of RT lines. Winnipeg is mostly narrow bands of city along rivers with few crossings, meaning that there are not the concentrations of population that are needed to support a major RT project. The rivers impair the ability to feed traffic into the RT. Nor is there the likelihood of significant population growth that would quickly turn an RT rooute into a major population corridor so as to justify its own existence retroactively. The reality is that by the time most people even managed to get to the local RT stop, they could have hopped in their cars and been most of the way downtown anyway -- and I'm pretty sure that the latter is the choice they'll continue to make.

[ToxiK]

Miketoronto's version of a rapid transit system for Winnipeg. The transit logos would be the stops.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=49.858128,-97.160339&spn=0.130587,0.354309&z=12&msid=102251676755671311847.0004521a190b7794e15ae

Nice job!

[vid]

Better coverage than the plan they had in 1950 (http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/61/winnipegky7.jpg)! :tup:

[drew]

I guess so, but is it really the responsibility of the transit system to be sexy? Streetcars bring with them a lot of problems, notably that they are inflexible. You can't move them in response to demand and when one breaks down the whole system is stuck. I'm also having a hard time picturing how they would load and unload in the middle of Portage Avenue or Main Street in the middle of winter, or who would want to stand and wait for them there. But if it were possible, I agree that it would look nice.

re. sexy: I believe that transit does have the responsibility to try to increase ridership and attract new customers. It's a publically funded system, so a return on the investment might be something to strive for.

As for loading and unloading in the middle of the street - who says the streetcars need to run down the centre of the street? Portage avenue and Main Street have 3-4 lanes to choose from. I would suggest that running the tracks down the curb lane or the next one over would be the way to go. (Except Broadway, if any street demands a median track system, its that one).

If they did choose the centre for most streets, there is no reason that the stops couldn't coincide with major intersections, allowing traffic light sequencing to load and unload passengers for curb-side shelters.

It's not like Winnipeg would be breaking the street-car mold or anything. These systems exist elsewhere, even places with winter! I am sure most of these issues have been ironed out in the 60 or so years since Winnipeg ripped out it's last street car system.

[RTA]

Well, I'm not sure if it's worked out exactly how they planned 30 years ago, but I would think that trying to build as much line as possible on the cheapest budget (i.e. above ground) was the smartest decision. I believe it's costing a couple billion to get Edmonton's out of the ground to bring the line south. When it's all done, it will be a nice system...but I think the way Calgary went was the best way - and it shows in the ridership #s.

Although as I understand it, Calgary has run into a number of problems with having the LRT running on the street downtown, not the least of which is the inability to expand the platforms for anything more than four cars, and capacity issues compounded by being mixed with traffic. Isn't Calgary even now looking at digging a new tunnel for the LRT downtown?

Calgary has the ridership numbers because you built your LRT and you kept building it. Edmonton lost the political will after building a stubby line, perhaps in part due to the costs incurred by digging, but not solely because of it.

Now we are expanding, and yes it is costing a lot of money to bring the trains above ground, but we have stations that can be extended as needed, can handle several lines, and aren't interfered with by downtown traffic.

I guess one can look at it from either perspective and come away with several positives, but I think the very fact that Calgary is considering digging now says that maybe Edmonton did it right, even if it did cost us a fair bit. It would be interesting to see, though, how the costs of Edmonton having dug early versus the cost of Calgary digging now compare.

[IntotheWest]

^They are considering putting the line under 8th - or at least that's some long-term goal. I'm just saying I'm not so sure its as urgent as its made out to be (that's why I'll leave that open for a planner to comment on). 7th Ave is closed to traffic, and I don't believe it's ever been a goal to extend past 4 cars.

Calgary kept building (re: extending the existing three lines) because it was relatively cheap to do so. I believe Calgary's original 3 lines cost about the same (or less?) than the small line Edmonton built from downtown to Commonwealth.

The cost to get it out of the ground at the University area is exactly why it's taken so long to push forward...it's no different than how it's taken Calgary so long to decide on building a completely new line.

Bang-for-the-buck though, Calgary got 3 lines spreading through the city vs just the one in Edmonton. That's the big difference.

Regardless - I think they may end up at the same place in about 20 years time anyway :)

[IntotheWest]

This city (Winnipeg) was designed around streetcars, and these really make the most sense financially and geographically for transit in and around downtown.

I see your point. That does make sense as a starting point.

[twoNeurons]

How did this thread turn from "Will there be another Subway?" to "The Winnipeg Transit Thread?" :)

Anyway, on the subject of "will there be another subway?" I think one has to consider that there is little NEED for Subways like they used to build.

One of the reasons that these Subways were built is because they were required for capacity reasons at the time. There was little in the ways of automation and speed required the system to be "big"

The only way to get the capacity was to build it bigger.

With automation and computers, trains can be shorter and run as often as many of these heavy rail systems or more often.

If you had the choice of building a traditional monolithic Heavy Rail system with long trains, deep tunnels, and large price tag... or an LRT in its own ROW that ran every 3 minutes and had 80m platforms, (vs every 6 minutes with 150m platforms) you'd really have to weight your options carefully. Automation can bring headways down to just over 1 minute.

For example if Toronto or Montreal ran trains every 1 or 2 minutes, would the trains, at their current length be underutilized? I would suspect that they would.

Saying that... I think current subways will prove useful in the future... however, I'd much rather have two parallel routes (down two adjacent arterial streets, for example) than one high capacity one.

I'm thinking of New York here... and how it has one line on either side of Central Park.

[someone123]

I personally think the heavy rail/light rail distinction is kind of silly since capacity is the real factor to consider. Another very important factor is speed of travel and having a system mixed in with traffic versus one in its own dedicated ROW without crossings makes a huge difference.

I suspect that we will continue to see light rail become more and more attractive as time goes on and a number of new systems will start up in Canada over the next 10-20 years (I think they would work in Victoria, Winnipeg, K-W, Hamilton, Quebec City, and Halifax). In some cases these might have a number of underground stations but I don't think cities currently without rail will be building full underground lines during that time period.

In the coming years Vancouver will effectively have a small subway system, with portions of multiple lines underground in the downtown area.

[lubicon]

^They are considering putting the line under 8th - or at least that's some long-term goal. I'm just saying I'm not so sure its as urgent as its made out to be (that's why I'll leave that open for a planner to comment on). 7th Ave is closed to traffic, and I don't believe it's ever been a goal to extend past 4 cars.

Calgary kept building (re: extending the existing three lines) because it was relatively cheap to do so. I believe Calgary's original 3 lines cost about the same (or less?) than the small line Edmonton built from downtown to Commonwealth.

The cost to get it out of the ground at the University area is exactly why it's taken so long to push forward...it's no different than how it's taken Calgary so long to decide on building a completely new line.

Bang-for-the-buck though, Calgary got 3 lines spreading through the city vs just the one in Edmonton. That's the big difference.

Regardless - I think they may end up at the same place in about 20 years time anyway :)

Agreed, although Calgary now faces the challenge of going underground, with the associated cost and the extra inconvenience (that Edmonton has avoided by doing it in the first place). Like you say, in about 20 years both systems may be in similar shape and will ultimately have cost approx the same to build.

[wild wild west]

/\Calgary is also at least twice the size it was when its LRT system was first built...I would imagine the suggestion of building a downtown subway for a city of ~500,000 would seem extravagant back in its day. Still, they supposedly did rough in stations under City Hall and Bankers Hall - so some foresight apparently went into it.

Calgary's at-grade LRT system, was more than adequate for the city at the time it was built - however at 1.2 million people, and soon to hit 40 million sf of downtown office space, a downtown subway is justifiable - and, indeed, needed - in the current context. The only real problem is that it doesn't seem to be high enough on Council's priority list to happen in the near future.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver has SkyTrain with all stations downtown underground. The UBC SkyTrain ext will be 60% tunneled which includes Cambie to UBC grounds.
The Canada Line will have 14km of tunnel using standard subway cars the same ones being used currently in the Athens Metro.

[jimj_wpg]

I talked with someone high up at the City on Friday, and he said that CN is unwilling to let Winnipeg Transit (or its successor) use the the R-O-W for an LRT or BRT on the Lettelier Subdivision (portion south of Jubilee) -- the line is too strategic for CN freight between Canada and the United States to give up for other uses.

This has been the case since 1994 when CN was made private again (since 1923). Prior to this, when CN was owned by the Federal Government, the Liberal party (via Axworthy) must have been pressuring CN to give up the Letellier line and to designate it as "abandoned". But after privatization CN had reconsidered.

This implies that the Southwest Transit Corridor must be built as subway under Pembina Hwy.

The cost of an LRT from downtown to the Univ. of Manitoba would be at least $1 B in today's cost.

[jimj_wpg]

Personally I'd still love to see the Winnipeg subway revived, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime, unless Manitoba becomes some sort of socialist republic. And no, right-wing hawks having and NDP government doesn't count...

What this country, province and city needs is not more socialism, but rather governments with a libertarian ideology.

Communism sucks, but I guess we'll all find out soon enough when Barrack and the EU and Asia join into the One World Government that has been written about in Revelations.

I'm beginning to believe that Winnipeg won't get a rail transit subway until AFTER the Second Coming.

You're right on that point... Because at that point... if we're really that close to the Biblical "tribulation" times... then I guess it won't really matter if we're alive or headed for Heaven or Hell. We'll all just be looking down on Winnipeg from space and will be looking at that great new subway for Winnipeg, but we won't be able to physically ride it... Lucky future Winnipeggers will.

An alternate reality could play out like this...

The NAU (look it up if you don't know what it is) is formed... Barrack Obama becomes President of the NAU. Massive amounts of $$ are poured into infrastructure programs to keep people working, including the buildling of a Winnipeg LRT or subway.... However by the time it's complete we'll all have been microchipped...

[MonkeyRonin]

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/9702/1226252675256vm3.jpg

[RTA]

^^ That's pretty special, right there.

[Aylmer]

I think that the "era" of subways is over and is being taken over by LRT.

But I would Love to see ULR in my backyard... :slob:

http://mtru.com/images/lutonulrt3.jpg

:)

[Metro-One]

The canada line is essentially a subway, and the UBC skytrain line extension is expected to be primarily underground, so that will basically be a subway as well. For me personally skytrain feels more like a subway/heavy rail system then an LRT.

The Canada line actually is a heavy rail vehicle line.

[vid]

What this country, province and city needs is not more socialism, but rather governments with a libertarian ideology.

Communism sucks, but I guess we'll all find out soon enough when Barrack and the EU and Asia join into the One World Government that has been written about in Revelations.

I'm beginning to believe that Winnipeg won't get a rail transit subway until AFTER the Second Coming.

You're right on that point... Because at that point... if we're really that close to the Biblical "tribulation" times... then I guess it won't really matter if we're alive or headed for Heaven or Hell. We'll all just be looking down on Winnipeg from space and will be looking at that great new subway for Winnipeg, but we won't be able to physically ride it... Lucky future Winnipeggers will.

An alternate reality could play out like this...

The NAU (look it up if you don't know what it is) is formed... Barrack Obama becomes President of the NAU. Massive amounts of $$ are poured into infrastructure programs to keep people working, including the buildling of a Winnipeg LRT or subway.... However by the time it's complete we'll all have been microchipped...

Well, we'll be living on the moon then so who cares? :shrug:

[Metro-One]

:previous: The moon? You are aiming low, try Mars for myself!

[Aylmer]

:previous: The moon? You are aiming low, try Mars for myself!

I get dibs on Venus!

:)

[manny_santos]

There was a conceptual proposal in London back in the early 1970s that called for several mass transit corridors, with subways listed as one possibility. I doubt London will ever have a subway, even if a mass transit corridor plan is eventually implemented - no matter what my repetitive dreams involving London having a subway along Riverside Drive and Dundas Street might say.