afransen
Senior Member
That's not a very compelling argument. If BRT will do, at a fraction of the cost, why not take that route?
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
dunkalunk
Senior Member
While BRT might have the capicity for current transit needs, it won't have that capacity in 20 years. It will be too expensive to replace and too useful to well-used to displace. LRT will be able to handle the density expected on that corridor. Unless of course, you want to spend $2 billion in 2010 dollars on some variety of tunnel.
But if the region has multiple "downtowns", theoretically there would be many more trips than just suburbs to downtown. In a multi-nodal region, would it not make more sense then to build a system that a) has the flexibility to run a number of different routes on the same corridor(s), and b) is cost-effective enough to build the entire region in 1 shot?
Granted, this is just my opinion, but if a medium-sized city is looking to boost ridership and built its first rapid transit system, you would want to get as many KMs of rapid transit in, as quickly as you could, right? If select corridors on the system need upgrading 20 years from now, great, it means the less-expensive BRT system did its job (boost ridership, create TOD, increase density, all that good stuff). It's no secret that you can build around 3kms of BRT for the same price as 1km of LRT. Given that K-W is a multi-nodal city, I would venture to say it makes more sense to implement BRT there than it did it Ottawa, as K-W would likely not experience the same backlog heading into downtown that the Transitway does, because there is no sizeable downtown to speak of, it's a series of different nodes across the city.
In many cases, the addition of LRT may in fact increase people's travel times, as if they are not located within walking distance of the LRT, they may have to transfer onto the LRT in order to reach their destination, whereas before the bus took them directly there. However, BRT offers the flexibility to run non-BRT routes in the BRT corridor in order to reach a destination, even if it's just for part of the route.
Granted, LRT is certainly sexier, and as a result will bring in a slightly higher percentage of new riders than BRT would, just because it's rail-based transit.
nfitz
Superstar
When I lived in Ottawa in the 1980s, the transitway through downtown didn't work that well. Buses everywhere, stuck in downtown. Lots of complaining, people calling for a tunnel.
When did it start working, and how did they achieve that?
That being said though, Ottawa transit usage along the Transitway in the 1980s was far higher than what I've seen in Kitchener through downtown.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
The thing is, gweed, that it's not just the downtowns that are on the line, both the universities, the major hospital, the two major malls and some big private employers like RIM and Manulife (and the Tech Park) are on there, too; most, if not all, of the condo development that has taken place in the twin cities has been along this route as well - even before the construction of higher order transit. KW is not so much a city of two downtowns as it is a linear city that, by either good luck or good planning, has been highly concentrated along a thin line. In this circumstance, LRT is more effective than BRT, which is very useful at funneling multiple suburban lines into a trunk, and very good in suburban environments where wide medians and passing lanes can be provided, but not in a 'string of pearls' situation as it is here - especially because over half of the line trundles through a pre-war area with narrow rights of way. Even if BRT was built, the money saved would not be useful for KWers, since this is the only rapid transit line that is feasible for the region in the forseeable future. It's not as if there were competing transit visions that the money was being taken away from.
The other reason I support LRT here is because I think that the LRT will become a symbol and a point of pride for a midsize city that is starting to mature from a provincial bedroom community into a Canadian city on the same playing field as Winnipeg, Edmonton or Quebec City. Having left former rivals like Windsor in the dust, I think that KW is seriously in the running to become Ontario's third city, not just in population but in feel. When a city grows, it needs a symbol or a collective icon of civic building - and LRT, for all its expense, may serve as a very latent visual symbol for a place like KW that is in desperate need of one. "The smallest city in North America with a rail transit system" could be a good tagline; the idea of the light rail serving as the connecting element of all the disparate, yet linear, attractions of this city might be another. I am not trying to promote rail due to its 'chicness', but I think in rare circumstances in a city's growth, flashier things whose elevated costs are not necessarily in line with elevated ridership estimates may sometimes be needed.
AnarchoSocialist
Active Member
^Well put Hipster.
While Ottawa and KW may seem to be similar I would argue that isnt the case. For one transit was not seen in the same way 25 years ago and Ottawa made a choice at the time that made sense. If Ottawa was in the same position now, would it have chosen LRT? Its hard to say but I would say since funds for transit are easier to come by, and more people are open to it...then they probably would have chosen differently.
I dont know KW and Cambridge well enough to say if this is technically the best choice. But....something about LRT and KW seems right. Its somewhat bold and progressive, for a city its size. But that is also how the city itself comes across and it could set a great precedent for other cities in the country.
For what its worth I think Ottawa still made the right choice at the time. Different cities need different approaches and Ottawa made the right choice for its circumstance.
While Ottawa and KW may seem to be similar I would argue that isnt the case. For one transit was not seen in the same way 25 years ago and Ottawa made a choice at the time that made sense. If Ottawa was in the same position now, would it have chosen LRT? Its hard to say but I would say since funds for transit are easier to come by, and more people are open to it...then they probably would have chosen differently.
I dont know KW and Cambridge well enough to say if this is technically the best choice. But....something about LRT and KW seems right. Its somewhat bold and progressive, for a city its size. But that is also how the city itself comes across and it could set a great precedent for other cities in the country.
For what its worth I think Ottawa still made the right choice at the time. Different cities need different approaches and Ottawa made the right choice for its circumstance.
Last edited:
MisterF
Senior Member
With the exception of the downtown portion, the BRT system in Ottawa works really well.
And to reply to the others, I do definitely see where you're coming from. My point is though that the problem with creating a single line along a "string of pearls" as you put it (very nice analogy BTW, I like that), is that unless you live within walking distance of the line, it doesn't really benefit you (this is specifically for the K-W case, not for cities like Toronto, where the feeder bus service works really well for trunk lines). Bus routes that used to go downtown may no longer go there, and instead dump people off at the closest LRT station. Good for LRT ridership, potentially not so good for people who are looking for a 1 seat ride. While there may not be a defined E-W corridor right now that can use BRT, I'm sure there are sections of corridors that could use upgrades to existing bus services (dedicated lanes, queue-jump lanes, etc). For a city of K-W's size, I would think that creating a true Transit City (pardon the pun, because in this case it's actually true) would be a better goal than creating a trunk line along 1 street.
It doesn't have to be a full dedicated ROW, grade-separated BRT in order to be effective in a city the size of K-W, just enough to get the bus out of traffic. Perhaps just some improvements along the Highland/Victoria corridor in Kitchener, and University Ave in Waterloo would be enough.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to the LRT, I think it'll do great things for the city (or cities rather), but I'm just trying to look at alternatives here.
DavidJamesTO
Active Member
That's the one MisterF! Thanks 
That's because KW and Cambridge had rail transit for half a century already. Kitchener and Waterloo had their own street railway (later converted to trolleybuses that ran until the 70s) while KW, the tri-cities of Cambridge, and every point south to Brantford and Port Dover had a heavy-rail interurban service, the Grand River Railway and Lake Erie and Northern, which made up the Canadian Pacific Electric Lines. Passenger service lasted until 1955, while the wires powered freight service until 1962. Some sections of the old route, such as the line between the Toyota plant and south Kitchener and along Caroline Street in Waterloo, are going to be re-used in the full proposal.
KW isn't getting rail transit; it's getting it back. And hopefully the fates will bring about the return of a connection to Brantford and new connections to Guelph and Hamilton--both former streetcar cities.
That's because KW and Cambridge had rail transit for half a century already. Kitchener and Waterloo had their own street railway (later converted to trolleybuses that ran until the 70s) while KW, the tri-cities of Cambridge, and every point south to Brantford and Port Dover had a heavy-rail interurban service, the Grand River Railway and Lake Erie and Northern, which made up the Canadian Pacific Electric Lines. Passenger service lasted until 1955, while the wires powered freight service until 1962. Some sections of the old route, such as the line between the Toyota plant and south Kitchener and along Caroline Street in Waterloo, are going to be re-used in the full proposal.
KW isn't getting rail transit; it's getting it back. And hopefully the fates will bring about the return of a connection to Brantford and new connections to Guelph and Hamilton--both former streetcar cities.
Last edited:
mpd618
Active Member
What hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that Waterloo Region is really doing a very co-ordinated planning process for the light rail system. Their new Regional Official Plan stakes out a firm urban growth boundary and implements the Places to Grow policies for intensification along the cores; it specifies percentages of development that are to happen in urban core areas and major station areas -- i.e. next to the line. I believe there will also be policies that decrease parking requirements along major transit corridors, and require street-oriented development in general. The new Regional Transportation Master Plan is going to be steadily ramping up funding for transit (tripling per-capita operations funding over 20 years), and the transit network is going to be redesigned to be less of a hub-and-spoke, to have more bus routes along logical corridors, and to have connections at light rail stations instead of at a few terminals. There are also five frequent express bus routes (similar to the iXpress) planned for implementation in the next five years.
The rapid transit has never been just about transit -- it has also been explicitly about reurbanization and directing growth to Waterloo Region's "Central Transit Corridor". That corridor stretches all the way from north Waterloo to Galt (south Cambridge). We don't have a CBD and suburb layout, and that's certainly not something that I think is worth developing where it doesn't exist. Having a single major transit corridor is a good way to guide development, and making it LRT will help that aim.
The rapid transit has never been just about transit -- it has also been explicitly about reurbanization and directing growth to Waterloo Region's "Central Transit Corridor". That corridor stretches all the way from north Waterloo to Galt (south Cambridge). We don't have a CBD and suburb layout, and that's certainly not something that I think is worth developing where it doesn't exist. Having a single major transit corridor is a good way to guide development, and making it LRT will help that aim.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
I don't doubt you. I'm just wondering when it finally started working, and how did they fix it. How many riders do they move now, compared to the late 1980s. I'm sure you remember all the complaining back then ...
jwill
Active Member
The development goals of the region are aiming for exactly that; put as much new development as possible within walking distance of the LRT stations. The transit system already is structured with a linear approach. Feeder buses funnel into the nearest regional mall or closest downtown, and all all of those hubs are connected by both local services and the express bus.
Already within 5-10 minutes of the proposed stations are most of downtown kitchener, all of uptown waterloo, both universities, the two major malls, major employers, a few high schools, the R&T park, the main hospital, etc.
nfitz
Superstar
You make it sound like these cities were unique at the time. What city DIDN'T have such service ... well hang on, I'm sure some didn't. But it was relatively normal back then. I'm sure London and Windsor were similar.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Well, I think you and I might agree that the section of the line below Fairview mall should probably not proceed much further than a BRT. South Kitchener is a hodgepodge of low density sprawl separated by vast, insurmountable valleys. Parts of it actually look very suburban American, complete with 70 km/h mini-expressways (e.g. Homer Watson) or really sloppy commercial strips that look like they came straight out of Atlanta (King St. near Sportsworld). Also, Cambridge it suffers from a very scattered distribution of trip generators and, outside of downtown Galt, is not very attractive for redevelopment.
Last edited:
DavidJamesTO
Active Member
Windsor had streetcars, yes, but not full-size electrified passenger trains running from city to city (with several towns in between also benefitting) and acting in the same way many modern light rail services do. London had the L&PS, Toronto had its radial railways, and KW had its Electric Lines.
And light rail will be able to serve those areas when they no longer look like that. Just because Hespeler Road is a suburban nightmare now doesn't meant it always has to be that way. Cambridge can apply the lessons learned by Mississauga, Scarborough, and North York and urbanize that patch of tarmac properly the first time. Isn't that kind of the point?
Last edited: