Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Beedok

But look at how Calgary is already having troubles with capacity on their LRT downtown at only like 1.5 million and what, 30 year?

This is a product of having a disproportionately large downtown workforce. We don't have the road capacity to let everyone drive, so parking is restricted (therefore expensive) to limit the number of people driving into the core, so that inflates transit ridership and puts pressure on the system. The tax base is too small to be able to really afford a proper RT system, so we make due with what we have.

[milomilo]

Firstly I want to say I'm not the world's biggest fan of LRT and do find it can be severely compromised if it's too much of the light and not enough of the rapid. But...

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Meanwhile, speed isn't improved, which is far more important in shifting mode share from cars to transit than the sex appeal of the transit vehicle. That's why I'm willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. LRT's not even good. It goes the same speed as a bus, except it's on rails. Whoop dee doo.

This just isn't true, at least in respect to the C-Train. Calgary's LRT system is superior to a bus transitway, and far, far superior to mixed bus operations.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Is LRT today really worth delaying a metro by a decade or two? I would say only in the case of somewhere that's clearly basically plateaued in transit use. For instance, some of Toronto's downtown streetcar routes are obviously stable enough that once the DRL actually gets built they'll have enough capacity for a century or two. But look at how Calgary is already having troubles with capacity on their LRT downtown at only like 1.5 million and what, 30 year?

Again, this isn't fair. Yes Calgary has capacity issues downtown (oh no, it's been too successful!). But this can be solved, and has been planned from the beginning, by a tunnel on one of the lines for much less than the price of a full metro. With that built (as it absolutely should be), then we will have plenty of capacity for a while on those lines.

If Calgary hadn't built LRT back then I can all but guarantee we still wouldn't be building a metro now, but would be looking at a city with worse transit and more sprawl that is even less likely to have rail transit built. You can't 'save up' that money either, it doesn't work that way.

[lrt's friend]

I don't know where everybody is from but metros are not going to be built except in Canada's three largest cities.

There simply is not enough density away from downtowns to justify the extra expense and this likely is not going to change in any of Canada's second tier cities.

We saw what happened in Edmonton when they built a downtown tunnel. It killed expansion for a generation. So there is a downside to overbuilding.

This would have happened in Ottawa too, if they had prioritized a downtown tunnel a generation ago for its Transitways.

LRT has a place and as an Ottawan, I am dismayed with the obscene amount of waste that is going into rebuilding our Transitways. We are spending way more doing this than if we had built LRT from day one, even if the downtown portion had been at street level like in Calgary.

To compare Ottawa's transitways with Calgary's C-Train is foolish. Ottawa was way ahead in ridership when this all started but ridership has been flat for years. Calgary's C-Train has made massive gains despite not having an exclusive right of way everywhere.

Now, I am not blaming the Transitways for the failure to grow ridership in Ottawa. It really has been a city council who killed the 2006 project (completely new rapid transit) and their years of austerity and lack of innovation waiting for the Confederation Line white knight to provide massive ridership growth (not likely).

Regarding the O-Train (now the Trillium Line), it serves a purpose in moving university students and did bring in new ridership. It's growth will be limited by its inadequate single track design, a reflection of it being a pilot project that is not likely to ever pass that stage entirely and we are already 15 years into service.

I think the choice of metro or nothing is too limiting when ridership demand will never justify that choice. I even look at Toronto and its vanity project, the Sheppard subway. This should have always been LRT and we see the challenges in upgrading service on the Sheppard corridor. The rest of the Sheppard corridor will never justify a subway, yet improving transit on the corridor is desirable.

[caltrane74]

For those indicating that the KW LRT is hindering a future possible "subway" or "metro" , when exactly did you see this happening if no LRT was built?

Like the previous posters have stated Calgary and Edmonton are approaching 1.5 million and still do not have full true grade seperated Metro. Even the most optimistic doesn't see Kitchener at 1 million in 30 years.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

For sure. I do have a big problem with LRT costs over buses, and the imbalance with the cost/benefit ratio there. But my biggest problems is that LRT doesn't delay metros; it removes the possibility of them ever happening. It's one thing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but here I think the good prevents the perfect from occurring at all.

I don't think it entirely makes a metro impossible (I believe the Yonge and possibly Bloore-Danforth subway lines were built from tearing up old Streetcar routes), but I do think it delays them far too much.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Again, this isn't fair. Yes Calgary has capacity issues downtown (oh no, it's been too successful!). But this can be solved, and has been planned from the beginning, by a tunnel on one of the lines for much less than the price of a full metro. With that built (as it absolutely should be), then we will have plenty of capacity for a while on those lines.

Ottawa's issues are all about capacity problems downtown without using LRT, so that's another 'oh no, it's been too successful'. So it's clearly not the technology that's the issue.

I also suspect that the downtown tunnel for Calgary is going to end up like the DRL in Toronto.

Originally Posted by milomilo

You can't 'save up' that money either, it doesn't work that way.

It does in the minds of (suburban) tax payers, and they're the ones voting for councillors who decide when transit is built. Spending real capital also spends political capital and makes non-transit users complain 'we just built LRT, now they want a metro?'.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't know where everybody is from but metros are not going to be built except in Canada's three largest cities.

And Ottawa. And Edmonton a couple decades ago.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We saw what happened in Edmonton when they built a downtown tunnel. It killed expansion for a generation. So there is a downside to overbuilding.

And means that when capacity is reached they're not going to have to spend a huge amount reworking the heart of their system, unlike Ottawa and Calgary, because they built in right the first time. Sure, a second line was delayed, but as a city of under a million until recently a second line wasn't really needed. So now that they're transitioning to a proper big city they already have in place needed infrastructure.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

LRT has a place and as an Ottawan, I am dismayed with the obscene amount of waste that is going into rebuilding our Transitways. We are spending way more doing this than if we had built LRT from day one, even if the downtown portion had been at street level like in Calgary.

Except Ottawa probably would have needed to spend an obscene amount of money fixing an LRT transitway instead. In place of the extra grade separation justified by 'BRT is cheaper' that the Transitway saw, we'd have likely seen more level crossings because 'LRT is expensive, need to save money', and the downtown portion would still need a major overhaul (heck, this time they nearly made it a tramway downtown, far worse than what Calgary has, you can't tell me they'd have done a better job without the lessons of a couple decades). And any one small spot needing to be redone to work around past shortsightedness would have shut down the whole system rather than just meaning annoying detours like we're seeing with having had BRT first.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

To compare Ottawa's transitways with Calgary's C-Train is foolish. Ottawa was way ahead in ridership when this all started but ridership has been flat for years. Calgary's C-Train has made massive gains despite not having an exclusive right of way everywhere.

Calgary also had the opportunity to build their city around the C-Train while Ottawa's was working significantly within a quite built out city trying to find awkward work arounds. So Calgary should have been doing much better than Ottawa.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think the choice of metro or nothing is too limiting when ridership demand will never justify that choice. I even look at Toronto and its vanity project, the Sheppard subway. This should have always been LRT and we see the challenges in upgrading service on the Sheppard corridor. The rest of the Sheppard corridor will never justify a subway, yet improving transit on the corridor is desirable.

It's not Metro or nothing. There's simple bus lanes, and more thorough bus ways akin to what's planned for Baseline or like Viva seems to have in Markham. (The latter has proven nearly an equal to a full metro in Colombia, though obviously is starting to strain at a developing city of 8 million's sole transit source.) Both options provide solid transit improvements while being massively cheaper to build (and therefore more acceptable to the majority of voters who don't take transit).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

And what Ottawa did with buses was more successful (the Ottawa's municipal population is quite a bit lower than Calgary's, yet OC transpo has basically the same ridership, the impact from the O-train being negligible).

The major downside of Ottawa's approach, though, was that it led to much higher operating costs.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Firstly I want to say I'm not the world's biggest fan of LRT and do find it can be severely compromised if it's too much of the light and not enough of the rapid. But...



This just isn't true, at least in respect to the C-Train. Calgary's LRT system is superior to a bus transitway, and far, far superior to mixed bus operations.



Again, this isn't fair. Yes Calgary has capacity issues downtown (oh no, it's been too successful!). But this can be solved, and has been planned from the beginning, by a tunnel on one of the lines for much less than the price of a full metro. With that built (as it absolutely should be), then we will have plenty of capacity for a while on those lines.

If Calgary hadn't built LRT back then I can all but guarantee we still wouldn't be building a metro now, but would be looking at a city with worse transit and more sprawl that is even less likely to have rail transit built. You can't 'save up' that money either, it doesn't work that way.

Calgary's, and Edmonton's for that matter, LRTs are not what I'm thinking of when I talk about the issues of LRT. Both of their LRTs are in mostly separated right-of-ways along railways and highways, which really makes it more like a frequent commuter rail system with lots of stations (note: this doesn't mean it's not a good system).

What I'm thinking of when I think LRT is in-street systems that are in their own lanes with frequent crossings. We don't have any systems like this in Canada at the moment, but Waterloo's, Eglington's above-ground portion and the proposed Surrey system is what I have in mind when I talk about poor LRT configurations.

Also, since you brought it up, I actually think LRT has made sprawl worse in Calgary. Building rail transit to the very edge of an urban area only serves to subsidize and encourage people living there. I know it takes people out of their cars (for work trips if they live in the suburbs), but it also takes funds away from providing service to those that want to live urban-oriented lives in the inner city.

Originally Posted by caltrane74

For those indicating that the KW LRT is hindering a future possible "subway" or "metro" , when exactly did you see this happening if no LRT was built?

Like the previous posters have stated Calgary and Edmonton are approaching 1.5 million and still do not have full true grade seperated Metro. Even the most optimistic doesn't see Kitchener at 1 million in 30 years.

I don't know, in 4-5 decades I guess? Like I said, I just don't see a rush to get rapid transit done. I get the idea: you want to establish both a flagship transit line, as well as a corridor designated for urban growth. And I think that's important, I just don't think it's as important as moving people in the most efficient way possible is.

My argument is that there are two (simplified) choices: have one LRT line with the rest of the buses in the city averaging 30 minute frequencies, or have no LRT line but with buses averaging 15 minute frequencies. To me this is an easy choice, especially given that a very bare-bones BRT line (just simple bus lanes, no fancy stations or anything like that) would provide pretty much the same level of service as LRT except just not on rails. I know for a lot of people no rail=no transit, but I think buses are severely underappreciated and can really accomplish a lot in urban transportation systems.

There isn't a right answer to this, as I think it's question of values. I value frequency, speed and comprehensiveness above all else in transit systems. Other may value urban development, mode (bus vs. rail), or whatever. Neither of these positions is right or wrong. Which is what makes this recurring discussion pretty meaningless honestly.

[SpongeG]

1 hour from Vancouver to Seattle? Washington state budgets $1M for high-speed rail study
The Cascadia region — Vancouver to Seattle to Portland — fits the bill for a high speed line, says expert
CBC News Posted: Feb 14, 2017 9:00 AM PT Last Updated: Feb 14, 2017 9:00 AM PT

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...tudy-1.3981747

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I know for a lot of people no rail=no transit, but I think buses are severely underappreciated and can really accomplish a lot in urban transportation systems.

It's an inconvenient truth that buses suck. No one wants to ride a bus because it is never better than driving, as buses are slow, noisy, smelly, vibrating, bouncy pieces of crap (especially diesel ones in mixed traffic). But most people will ride a train if it's a good option. You might not like this, transit planners don't, but that is the way it is.

I agree with you that building LRT down the middle of streets is bad design and that it would be better to spend/wait a little more to avoid - as I argue about Calgary's coming Green Line alignment on Centre St. But I've come to accept that some grade crossings are an OK compromise, and am mostly happy with the LRTs Calgary has built, other than 7th Ave which is a joke.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's an inconvenient truth that buses suck. No one wants to ride a bus because it is never better than driving, as buses are slow, noisy, smelly, vibrating, bouncy pieces of crap (especially diesel ones in mixed traffic). But most people will ride a train if it's a good option. You might not like this, transit planners don't, but that is the way it is.

I agree with you that building LRT down the middle of streets is bad design and that it would be better to spend/wait a little more to avoid - as I argue about Calgary's coming Green Line alignment on Centre St. But I've come to accept that some grade crossings are an OK compromise, and am mostly happy with the LRTs Calgary has built, other than 7th Ave which is a joke.

I just disagree that it's a truth. I've just never experienced all the complaints that people have about buses. They're slow, because they're built that way. You put them in designated lanes like LRT has, and they'll be fast. I don't find them any noisier, smellier, or bouncier than rail. But again, that's just me.

And I said before, I don't care about rail snobs. If they're too good for the bus, they'll be an inconsistent form of ridership even for rail, since many trips still require bus connections. My goal is to make it as easy as possible to get around without a car, not to finally drag some guy from the suburbs onto a train into the city.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I just disagree that it's a truth. I've just never experienced all the complaints that people have about buses. They're slow, because they're built that way. You put them in designated lanes like LRT has, and they'll be fast. I don't find them any noisier, smellier, or bouncier than rail. But again, that's just me.

And I said before, I don't care about rail snobs. If they're too good for the bus, they'll be an inconsistent form of ridership even for rail, since many trips still require bus connections. My goal is to make it as easy as possible to get around without a car, not to finally drag some guy from the suburbs onto a train into the city.

As you say, you can make buses approach rail based transport by providing dedicated ROWS, level boarding, off vehicle ticketing, well maintained infrastructure etc. But it still won't be quite as good and if you are going to spend that much money you might as well build the track and do it properly. When a city says they are building a BRT they will always see opportunity to cut corners, so all those infrastructure niceties may get cut where it's too difficult or expensive, and in the end you just get a couple queue jumps and bus lanes in the least congested areas. If a city is building a rail line, they are forced to give it infrastructure.

[lrt's friend]

And means that when capacity is reached they're not going to have to spend a huge amount reworking the heart of their system, unlike Ottawa and Calgary, because they built in right the first time. Sure, a second line was delayed, but as a city of under a million until recently a second line wasn't really needed. So now that they're transitioning to a proper big city they already have in place needed infrastructure.

Clearly ridership is less important to you than building it correctly when the tax base was much smaller.

Just check the relative ridership figures. This tells you more about which city did it right.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As you say, you can make buses approach rail based transport by providing dedicated ROWS, level boarding, off vehicle ticketing, well maintained infrastructure etc. But it still won't be quite as good and if you are going to spend that much money you might as well build the track and do it properly. When a city says they are building a BRT they will always see opportunity to cut corners, so all those infrastructure niceties may get cut where it's too difficult or expensive, and in the end you just get a couple queue jumps and bus lanes in the least congested areas. If a city is building a rail line, they are forced to give it infrastructure.

Again, I disagree that it won't be quite as good (especially for the money!) and there's nothing inherent to the proposal being watered down. That's the politicians' fault, not the vehicles'.

[lrt's friend]

Except Ottawa probably would have needed to spend an obscene amount of money fixing an LRT transitway instead. In place of the extra grade separation justified by 'BRT is cheaper' that the Transitway saw, we'd have likely seen more level crossings because 'LRT is expensive, need to save money', and the downtown portion would still need a major overhaul (heck, this time they nearly made it a tramway downtown, far worse than what Calgary has, you can't tell me they'd have done a better job without the lessons of a couple decades). And any one small spot needing to be redone to work around past shortsightedness would have shut down the whole system rather than just meaning annoying detours like we're seeing with having had BRT first.

I don't know if you are really paying attention to what is happening, but most of the Transitway corridor is being completely rebuilt including all the stations and many of the bridges. A fortune was also spent to reroute buses by widening the Queensway and Hurdman's Bridge and service standards have fallen. Phase 2 promises at least as much reconstruction. In other words, not much of the original Transitway investment is being preserved.

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Clearly ridership is less important to you than building it correctly when the tax base was much smaller.

Just check the relative ridership figures. This tells you more about which city did it right.

I would like to hear your reasoning, and extrapolations from the numbers you allude to.

[SpongeG]

they don't call busses the loser cruiser for nothing. It's just a perception problem.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

they don't call busses the loser cruiser for nothing. It's just a perception problem.

Yep. Jarett Walker actually writes on this topic extensively. The most important part of making transit succesful is its speed, frequency and destinations served. The vehicle that performs those tasks isn't really important. This is pretty much my position as well.

Anyway, he once commented that in a lot of European cities, there is no distinction made between streetcars and buses. No separate streetcar maps, no branded stations, any of that. It's a local service with frequent stops, and it doesn't matter whether it's on tires or rails. So it's absolutely cultural. I'd say the predominant reason why rail is considered higher class here is because our leaders treat it as such. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[caltrane74]

Riding the bus is the absolute worst part of my day.

No matter how bad things are at work/the world or my personal life. Lol!

[caltrane74]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yep. Jarett Walker actually writes on this topic extensively. The most important part of making transit succesful is its speed, frequency and destinations served. The vehicle that performs those tasks isn't really important. This is pretty much my position as well.

Anyway, he once commented that in a lot of European cities, there is no distinction made between streetcars and buses. No separate streetcar maps, no branded stations, any of that. It's a local service with frequent stops, and it doesn't matter whether it's on tires or rails. So it's absolutely cultural. I'd say the predominant reason why rail is considered higher class here is because our leaders treat it as such. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the other hand, I absolutely love riding the streetcar old or new, but especially the new ones. To be honest, I can't ride them enough. Lol!

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

On the other hand, I absolutely love riding the streetcar old or new, but especially the new ones. To be honest, I can't ride them enough. Lol!

I thought of you every time I rode the streetcar when I first visited Toronto in December Sure enough, didn't really get the hype. But I'm willing to acknowledge that maybe I'm just weird.