Canadian Skyline Thread III

[Calgarian]

That new Rec Centre in Edmonton looks great! How's the inside?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Not sure where you heard that Eglinton East that it will worsen travel times. Can you share any details?

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-131528.pdf

This study was done before the BRT lanes were implemented too, so the LRT provides the same travel times as mixed-use traffic buses.. and now the buses have dedicated lanes, so they are actually faster.

The existing BRT lanes provide the same travel times or better, better frequencies, and cost several billion dollars less ($0!).

ION phase 2 is similar - the existing express bus, even without dedicated lanes through Cambridge, takes 35 minutes to get from Fairway to downtown Cambridge. The LRT extension, with a same average travel speed of phase 1, would take around 39 minutes. Imagine what BRT could do - probably more like 30 minutes!

The reality is that these types of lines are better with BRT services and taking those saved capital dollars and investing it in real rapid transit which will actually improve travel times.

This of course also ignores that the total travel time for LRT from Cambridge to Kitchener is going to be about an hour. It's too far of a distance with too slow of a technology to work well - that type of distance needs something more rapid transit focussed. perhaps a commuter rail type connection or something more like the O-Train in Ottawa.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-131528.pdf

This study was done before the BRT lanes were implemented too, so the LRT provides the same travel times as mixed-use traffic buses.. and now the buses have dedicated lanes, so they are actually faster.

The existing BRT lanes provide the same travel times or better, better frequencies, and cost several billion dollars less ($0!).

ION phase 2 is similar - the existing express bus, even without dedicated lanes through Cambridge, takes 35 minutes to get from Fairway to downtown Cambridge. The LRT extension, with a same average travel speed of phase 1, would take around 39 minutes. Imagine what BRT could do - probably more like 30 minutes!

The reality is that these types of lines are better with BRT services and taking those saved capital dollars and investing it in real rapid transit which will actually improve travel times.

It sounds like the main benefit is in capacity as is often the case with higher order transit. People often get hung up on travel time reduction as if that's the only valid goal for higher order transit projects since it's such a common secondary benefit.

The segment that really makes this clear is:

"There is a strong need for a higher-order transit service to be provided along the Eglinton East corridor. Future travel demand modelling estimates that approximatelyn4,800 peak period, peak direction (PPPD) riders would ride buses in the Eglinton East corridor in a future scenario where there is no higher-order transit investment. While it is technically possible to provide enough buses to carry this many riders in the future, accommodating them would require large expansions to the Kennedy Station bus terminal and storage facilities. Operations of this terminal and the buses along Eglinton Avenue East would be a challenge, and reliability and comfort would be low."

In other words, substantially increasing bus service to match the needed capacity would not be free. Not only because you'd need so many more bus operators (trading lower upfront cost for much higher long term operations cost) but because additional infrastructure would also be needed at the terminal. Fact is, 4.8k per hour is beyond what can be comfortably handled by buses and would involve additional costs. You'd need to compare the total cost of each option, which is certainly not $0 for the buses, but you'd need a full cost breakdown to see what the cost of that option actually is.

[Innsertnamehere]

Capacity is only a benefit if it's actually needed. And frankly, it's not needed on these two projects, especially ION phase 2.

EELRT is also easily redistributed based on other projects in the area. The government would be better off looking at a future rapid transit connection to UTSC - perhaps a surface-level extension of the Sheppard Subway along the 401 from Scarborough Centre - which would shift ridership away from the EELRT corridor and at a similar cost to the EELRT in which would actually improve travel times and capture new ridership.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Capacity is only a benefit if it's actually needed. And frankly, it's not needed on these two projects, especially ION phase 2.

According to your own source (that i quoted), capacity is indeed needed in the case of Eglinton east. It does say that it's technically possible to serve with buses but that it would be uncomfortable for riders due to crowding and would create operational problems that would require disruptive (and likely expensive) infrastructure upgrades.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Segun

This I can see.

Whenever I visit Toronto or Montreal, I find the amount of foot traffic in comparison to the scale of the street remarkable. You have streets of small businesses and lowrises teeming with foot traffic. This is perhaps why someone might feel as if downtown Toronto and or Montreal is busier. The traffic doesnt match the scale, so psycologically it might feel more "packed" The same goes for the Tenderloin, North Beach in San Francisco.

Chicago does have areas like this (Clark/Diversey, Milwaukee/North, Clark/Belmont), but they are too far from downtown to pickup overflow from the Loop and Michigan Avenue.

It begs the question though. Is it more urban and vibrant to have super-busy areas of commerce funneled into a few streets, or busy areas spread out across the city? I think its about the same. Btw, I agree with your tiered list.

Chicago at its height was denser than SF is today at 220 Sq miles (and way less residential highrises, it was all low rise density) Chicago is seeing a Renaissance, so the probability of it filling its infrastructure, filling its gaps is on the table. It doesnt take as much effort to renew urbanity as it does to construct new urbanity. It should be interesting to see.

Those are fair points. I was in Toronto and Chicago a couple of years back, going to both cities back to back.
My opinion was that Toronto's busiest streets were busier than Chicago's busiest streets, but Chicago does a lot of reasonably busy streets everywhere, and over a huge area, whereas to me Toronto the vibrancy seems funneled more to specific streets. Both are good examples of vibrancy, and some will prefer one type over the other.

[MolsonExport]

great Edmonton shot.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

great Edmonton shot.

Calgary gets all of the praise but Edmonton's been growing pretty darn quickly as well
Alberta has room for 2 "Wooter-villes"

City of Edmonton
2004: ~722,000
2014: ~924,000
2024: 1,190,458

Growth: 468,000+ or almost 65% increase, roughly 23,500/yr

Edmonton CMA
2004: 1,018,099
2024: 1,631,614

Growth: 613,515, 60% increase, roughly 30,675/yr

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

According to your own source (that i quoted), capacity is indeed needed in the case of Eglinton east. It does say that it's technically possible to serve with buses but that it would be uncomfortable for riders due to crowding and would create operational problems that would require disruptive (and likely expensive) infrastructure upgrades.

As someone that occasionally does take the Eglinton East out of Kennedy, I can assure you this is a good idea to build...even if it may seem trivial, this is a busy corridor right to the very end of Scarborough (or well, Kingston or so, wherever it ends). Kennedy is already squeezed in with the Scarborough extension work and GO facilities, and can't be expanded much for it's bus terminal. While I'm not sure how exactly they'd build this out, seeing as the replacement for Line 3 is going east out of Kennedy underground, it's a necessary project to alleviate some of the bus traffic that builds up very quickly in Kennedy station.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Calgary gets all of the praise but Edmonton's been growing pretty darn quickly as well
Alberta has room for 2 "Wooter-villes"

City of Edmonton
2004: ~722,000
2014: ~924,000
2024: 1,190,458

Growth: 468,000+ or almost 65% increase, roughly 23,500/yr

Edmonton CMA
2004: 1,018,099
2024: 1,631,614

Growth: 613,515, 60% increase, roughly 30,675/yr

I never noticed how big a delta had developed between the two. I always just saw them as being basically the same size.

[zoomer]

Crazy - it felt like just the other day (year) that Vancouver was a 2 million city and that was a big deal in the Canadian context and here we have Calgary and Edmonton moving up fast on that. I don't see the same urbanism yet, but I would assume everything from here on in intensifies that as long as residential and light industrial sprawl is curtailed.

[GeneralLea]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I never noticed how big a delta had developed between the two. I always just saw them as being basically the same size.

Same, I'm surprised by how much the gap has grown. They're still big cities nonetheless.

[MolsonExport]

I lived in Vancouver when the metro was 1.7 to 1.9 million. It always felt like a dense metropolis (downtown peninsula, and surrounding areas, and along the skytrain route), but then Vancouver is quite unique in that regard relative to its size.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I never noticed how big a delta had developed between the two. I always just saw them as being basically the same size.

Calgary had been growing between 20-40k/yr in the city for decades. Recently it's been up to 90k plus/yr!

Metro/Calgary CMA growth has been peaking around 100k/yr!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/c...on-estimates-2024-data-release-1.7210191

2024
Edmonton CMA: 1,631,614
Calgary CMA: 1,778,881

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Segun

This I can see.

Whenever I visit Toronto or Montreal, I find the amount of foot traffic in comparison to the scale of the street remarkable. You have streets of small businesses and lowrises teeming with foot traffic. This is perhaps why someone might feel as if downtown Toronto and or Montreal is busier. The traffic doesnt match the scale, so psycologically it might feel more "packed" The same goes for the Tenderloin, North Beach in San Francisco.

Chicago does have areas like this (Clark/Diversey, Milwaukee/North, Clark/Belmont), but they are too far from downtown to pickup overflow from the Loop and Michigan Avenue.

It begs the question though. Is it more urban and vibrant to have super-busy areas of commerce funneled into a few streets, or busy areas spread out across the city? I think its about the same. Btw, I agree with your tiered list.

Chicago at its height was denser than SF is today at 220 Sq miles (and way less residential highrises, it was all low rise density) Chicago is seeing a Renaissance, so the probability of it filling its infrastructure, filling its gaps is on the table. It doesnt take as much effort to renew urbanity as it does to construct new urbanity. It should be interesting to see.

I guess to summarize the gist of my earlier thoughts: Chicago has a more imposing built environment, but Montreal/Toronto feel like they have more human vibrancy.

And while it's ultimately subjective and can't be proven, I don't think it's entirely just perception either - after all, they do have slightly higher population densities (despite the lower-slung built form; living spaces are smaller and pack more people in), a higher mode share of transit or active transportation users, and slightly lower car ownership rates - all things that tend to put more bodies on the street. There's a good point that Chicago does get more tourists, but that's also highly seasonal and the effects tend to be limited to a handful of destination areas.

As for whether it's better to have vibrancy concentrated into a single connected area or spread out in separate pockets across a larger one - well, that's one of SSP's age-old debates! IMO, the latter makes urbanity more easily accessible for more local residents and creates more distinctive neighbourhoods on the one hand, but on the other makes for a less satisfying walking experience - and can also make it hard for visitors to gauge the "true" level of urban vibrancy. I think that might explain part of the perception that some of us non-Chicagoans have had about the city seeming less-busy than expected. Los Angeles of course is the most extreme example of this style, though Vancouver is somewhat like this on a smaller scale as well. Perhaps somewhat ironically, while it seems like Toronto's vibrant areas are more concentrated and Chicago's are more spread out; this is the inverse of their syklines - with Chicago's highly centralized towers vs. Toronto's many suburban skylines.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Calgary had been growing between 20-40k/yr in the city for decades. Recently it's been up to 90k plus/yr!

Metro/Calgary CMA growth has been peaking around 100k/yr!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/c...on-estimates-2024-data-release-1.7210191

2024
Edmonton CMA: 1,631,614
Calgary CMA: 1,778,881

Oh I totally misread that previous post. I read it as Calgary and Edmonton CMAs rather than Edmonton proper vs Edmonton CMA.

I was sure I saw a bigger number than that for Edmonton

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Calgary gets all of the praise but Edmonton's been growing pretty darn quickly as well
Alberta has room for 2 "Wooter-villes"

Calgary always gets the praise and attention over Edmonton. Edmonton is Canada's Rodney Dangerfield of cities.........it get's no respect. New Brunswick is it's provincial counterpart.

[Calgarian]

Edmonton definitely flies under the radar, especially compared to Calgary but they are extremely similar cities.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Calgary always gets the praise and attention over Edmonton. Edmonton is Canada's Rodney Dangerfield of cities.........it get's no respect. New Brunswick is it's provincial counterpart.

I first thought of New Brunswick, but then you beat me to it.

But isn't Winnipeg the Rodney Dangerfield of Canadian cities?

[Nouvellecosse]

True that it still has a lower profile than Calgary. But Edmonton has been getting some attention in urbanist circles like with the Oh the Urbanity! channel doing a feature on their housing strategy and more recently City Nerd doing a whole profile on the city.