Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Nouvellecosse]

With stop spacing, I find it depends on the goal a line is meant to achieve, ie, the problem it's meant to solve. A line meant as an upgrade to local service due to crowding on local surface routes would need a high density of local stops (ie,oronto Bloor line). A line meant as an upgrade for a longer corridor is best with stops spaced more widely since it's important to cover the route in a reasonable time frame (ie. Expo line). Often times it's the latter with a rail line acting as an express where people are willing to travel a little farther to get to it since it offers such speed once they're on it. It's a common mistake to take a one-size-fits-all approach as in "a rapid transit line should do X". It should do what you need it to do which can be different things in different contexts.

A lot depends on the density of the area being served with less dense areas benefiting from wider stop spacing. In this case, the density drops off after Broadway so i agree there probably should be another station on the peninsula, but the rest of the route seems adequate.

[GenWhy?]

For the Canada Line planning (can't remember if it's the City or TransLink) they've identified 2 potential additional stops. One at 33rd Ave (least likely to happen) and a one at 57 Ave, which does have local developments funds being pooled to built it. I forget how many millions they've secured from the 2 giant developments to the west (Dogwood-Pearson and Langara Gardens, which i think combined is over 3,000 units), but it still won't be enough money to build on its own.

The amount of development adjacent the newest station at Capstan is substantial.

The current Canada Line stops at King Ed, 41st, and 49th are already major transit corridors and are planned major East-West transit upgrades. As well adding additional stops slows the overall travel time for the line.

[hipster duck]

One thing I like about the Canada line is the fact that there are relatively few stops, which makes it super competitive with driving at almost times of the day. I honestly wouldn't go ahead with infill stations at either 33rd or 57th. They're both minor local streets with no bus service, so you'd be relying on walk-in traffic. 33rd has the hospital, but it's still a few hundred meters, and maybe only a 5 minute walking advantage over King Edward. QE park is on the other side, so your redevelopment potential and walkshed is cut in half.

57th has the Langara golf course which they could [read: should] target for high density redevelopment, but I'm not sure if that would be enough to warrant digging out a new station.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

57th has the Langara golf course which they could [read: should] target for high density redevelopment, but I'm not sure if that would be enough to warrant digging out a new station.

About 6k homes are planned / under construction to the west of Cambie at 57th Avenue.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

One thing I like about the Canada line is the fact that there are relatively few stops, which makes it super competitive with driving at almost times of the day. I honestly wouldn't go ahead with infill stations at either 33rd or 57th. They're both minor local streets with no bus service, so you'd be relying on walk-in traffic. 33rd has the hospital, but it's still a few hundred meters, and maybe only a 5 minute walking advantage over King Edward. QE park is on the other side, so your redevelopment potential and walkshed is cut in half.

57th has the Langara golf course which they could [read: should] target for high density redevelopment, but I'm not sure if that would be enough to warrant digging out a new station.

That's generally my mindset as well. Most parts of most cities aren't even on a rapid transit line and manage to get by with local buses feeding into the closest one which may be several km away in some cases. So we shouldn't expect every place on a line to get its own stop either unless there's a strong payoff in patronage. It isn't just a case of "well if's on the line so we may as well" since it isn't just not having a stop that has downsides. Adding stops also has downsides in that they require additional cost and travel time.

[biguc]

It's not competitive at all with driving if you live on top of it and can't walk to it in a reasonable amount of time. 800 m stop spacing is the gold standard for metro lines because evryone who lives directly on top of the line can walk to it in 5 minutes (assuming they can walk) and, therefore, will use the line.

Building a subway line under an area without providing service is a waste. If the line is meant to achieve something else, build something else. Like a light rail line.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's not competitive at all with driving if you live on top of it and can't walk to it in a reasonable amount of time. 800 m stop spacing is the gold standard for metro lines because evryone who lives directly on top of the line can walk to it in 5 minutes (assuming they can walk) and, therefore, will use the line.

There isn't any "gold standard" for a metro line, and if there was it would be at least 1km. The average stop spacing of both the Montreal Metro and Toronto Subway is about 1km, while it's about 1.5km on the Expo line, the oldest and busiest Skytrain line. A line like Yonge - the country's busiest, oldest, and arguably most successful rapid transit service - has several gaps of over 2km in lower density stretches. For instance, the stretch between York Mills and Lawrence and between Lawrence and Eglinton.

Claiming it has to have one particular arbitrary goal is just dogmatism which has no place is transit planning.

Originally Posted by biguc

Building a subway line under an area without providing service is a waste. If the line is meant to achieve something else, build something else. Like a light rail line.

Crossing longer distances quickly is exactly what many metro lines are meant to achieve. So it's actually a light rail line that's more suited to local transit with shorter stop spacing than an underground metro line. Surface stations are much cheaper to build making it easier to afford more of them, and it takes less time to enter and exit them compared to going underground making them more suited to shorter trips. So if anything, if you want short stop spacing you should build an LRT rather than a metro. But that would also be an over generalization since both LRT and metro can provide slower local service or faster express service. The best option depends on the density of the corridor, available surface alignment, the destinations served, and the cost of each option. The takeaway is it's certainly not a waste if a line is successful in carrying out its goal which is up to a city and planners choose.

The Canada Line gets excellent ridership relative to its length and upfront cost while connecting downtown with the airport and an important suburb. The fact that it doesn't carry out other potential goals - at millions in additional cost - isn't an issue. Maybe some people on the line aren't a short walk to a station, but they still have a much shorter bus trip compared to if the line wasn't there. And in lower density areas dominated by detached housing, feeder buses are as - or more - important than walk-ups. It's definitely still competitive with driving if it allows people to bypass congestion and avoid the cost and hassle of parking. I'd actually say that it's a waste to spend millions of extra dollars and add extra journey time to countless trips just to attract a few more walk-ups in low density areas. It's providing walk-up service in low density areas that isn't what rapid transit is intended for.

[MonkeyRonin]

It's also worth consideration that the Skytrain does double duty as a sort of hybrid metro/commuter rail system. This does of course come with both it's benefits and challenges - on the one hand, it covers a lot of distance for a relatively low and cost and subsequently has the best suburban transit in the country bar none, with fast, frequent rail service across most of the metro area; but it sacrifices the level of inner city service and local or cross-town travel that you get on the Toronto Subway or Montreal Metro. It makes for very well-connected regional transit, but is largely dependant on suburb-to-core trips (or vice versa).

Now, in most cases I'd agree that given a choice between one of the two, cities tend to be better served by the conventional metro system model - as these are more reliable trip-generators, even if overall system length is sacrificed. Vancouver doesn't (and never did) have the same development patterns as most older cities though - it's a multi-nodal region with a fairly consistent density profile: outside of the very dense downtown core, there's a moderate density level from the inner city through to the outer suburbs, with spikes of higher-density in the various suburban city centres (as opposed to Toronto or Montreal, with dense inner cities and lower-density suburbs).

In an ideal world of course, you'd have both the faster, long-distance suburban connector lines supplemented with a tighter grid of conventional metro lines in the inner city; but given real-world budgetary constraints, I think Vancouver got a lot more bang for the buck by going the route they did with Skytrain. We'll get there eventually though - the Broadway extension is the important first piece of a proper inner-city crosstown line; and then we'll just need a West End-Hastings line.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's also worth consideration that the Skytrain does double duty as a sort of hybrid metro/commuter rail system. This does of course come with both it's benefits and challenges - on the one hand, it covers a lot of distance for a relatively low and cost and subsequently has the best suburban transit in the country bar none, with fast, frequent rail service across most of the metro area; but it sacrifices the level of inner city service and local or cross-town travel that you get on the Toronto Subway or Montreal Metro. It makes for very well-connected regional transit, but is largely dependant on suburb-to-core trips (or vice versa).

Now, in most cases I'd agree that given a choice between one of the two, cities tend to be better served by the conventional metro system model - as these are more reliable trip-generators, even if overall system length is sacrificed. Vancouver doesn't (and never did) have the same development patterns as most older cities though - it's a multi-nodal region with a fairly consistent density profile: outside of the very dense downtown core, there's a moderate density level from the inner city through to the outer suburbs, with spikes of higher-density in the various suburban city centres (as opposed to Toronto or Montreal, with dense inner cities and lower-density suburbs).

In an ideal world of course, you'd have both the faster, long-distance suburban connector lines supplemented with a tighter grid of conventional metro lines in the inner city; but given real-world budgetary constraints, I think Vancouver got a lot more bang for the buck by going the route they did with Skytrain. We'll get there eventually though - the Broadway extension is the important first piece of a proper inner-city crosstown line; and then we'll just need a West End-Hastings line.

Yes it absolutely depends on the type of city/metro area. Skytrain's hybrid set up is similar to the DC area where they have a much longer metro system that stretches farther into the suburbs compared to peer cities like Boston and Philly but also has much less extensive commuter rail than them. And DC Metrorail has long had higher ridership than the combined subway and commuter rail of either Boston or Philly, although that would likely change if Boston and Philly's commuter rail was more frequent.

It's also true about Vancouver being quite multi-nodal, and there's also the issue of DC and Vancouver not having as many mainline rail corridors that could be used for frequent suburban rail. Having separate services is often more out of expedience than absolute desirability since it's so much cheaper and easier to use a surface corridor. But with the Canada line, the only surface option other than slow street running would have been an elevated structure on the Arbutus corridor (assuming they could overcome the NIMBYs). But that would have been a couple km longer and therefore slower.

Meanwhile, there'd be much less justification for a metro line in the city proper part of the Canada line route since it would lose the passengers from Richmond and the airport which would be carried by the Arbutus express line. Having more stops would increase passenger counts a little, but more stops in low density detached house areas isn't going to make up for what it lost while the line's cost would be higher due to having more stations. Plus, in order for the Arbutus line to be a fast suburban/airport route on a longer corridor it would need even wider station spacing than Canada line. So the same complaint about it not being a short enough walk for everyone near it would apply.