Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil
http://www.granvilleonline.ca/gr/blogs/e...why-do-you-want-subway-ubc#ixzz0RGYHLOjK
Arrrrrrrrgh!
Arguing against Skytrain under Broadway and using the London DLR as your case study?
Hello! Are you there McFly? Think will ya?!
The DLR is a fully automated, fully grade separated, medium capacity rail way. The exact same thing as Skytrain! The only difference is that the DLR stations are closer together, about 750m from each other. Which is something we could do with Skytrain if we wanted. And Skytrain has a much higher capacity and is more successful than the DLR.
I can't tell if he is arguing for or against Skytrain anymore? Or is he saying that first we spend hundreds of millions on a slow system, THEN build the subway once it is proved he is a moron for not building Skytrain first? Why not cut to the chase and build Skytrain right away, no need to build a system that will be obsolete by the time it opens.
The reason it was so cheap was because it was built in a run down industrial part of town, that was then redeveloped. And they didn't build the DLR as a first step, it was an accident it was so popular. The system was too small for a growing mega city like London, so they had to augment it with a Subway.
And the lack of developments around stations in Vancouver is the Vancouver's problem, not a Skytrain problem. The city of Vancouver is deadly slow at developing land and rezoning. It will happen eventually, especially around some Canada Line stations, but if you want to see what Skytrain can do look at New West or Metrotown or Joyce, or Guilmore/Brentwood/Holdom.
There will be development around stations on Broadway, as pieces of the land, especially on Broadway are already zoned commercial (its easier to rezone commercial to mixed use high density than low density residential to something else). Just look at all the building that HAS happened on Cambie South of Broadway, and all along the Broadway Corridor from Cambie to Burrard. There is room for much more than Skytrain can help make a reality.
|
I will second your arrrrrghhh. I will call bullshit on on commuters preferring an elevated DLR station to a tube station. All they want is access to a frequent transit service and will pay a premium to be within easy walking distance. There is a reason that Rightmove, the UK's biggest property website allows to search for properties within 1/4 and half mile distances from a station.
Also I hate the hindsight bullshit about how the Jubilee line extension was inevitable. That the DLR was built to small etc. It's a woeful ignorance of how the former docklands came to be the new city it is now.
The problem for the Docks is that they were situated in the the big loops that the river makes downstream. This meant that all this now empty land was far from the main railways and roads that bypassed them to the North and South.
The Docks were isolated and the communities that lived there were isolated from the rest of the city.
Previous regeneration schemes of the 60's and 70's had failed to take off. There are many interesting books (well, to an urban geographer) on the blow by blow accounts of how this came about and how the Docklands developed but I'll keep it brief.
Those put in charge of regenerating the area had to find a way of opening up the docks for redevelopment. At the time it was envisigned that the Docks would become the typical inner London full of middle tier support companies occupying crinkley metal sheds providing catering, PR, trades and incubator space for new businesses.
Now modelling suggested that the low level of development just needed an enhanced bus service. But agencies involved argued that to change opinions about the East End (urgh dirty and nasty) you needed a high profile sign that change was permanent.
They argued that a light rail service would boost demand and more intensive redevelopment would take place. So they cobbled together some former freight routes with some new viaduct over the docks and built the initial railway for just £77 million. Which was cheap even in 1987. Little did they realise what they had unleashed. Suddenly apartment blocks and low rise office blocks were sprouting before it had opened and they started planning platform extensions.
The DLR has been continually expanded since it has opened and now carries 60 million passengers up from 7 million. By the time the latest expansion works are done close £2 billion would have been spent and passenger numbers should be around 100 million. Now with hindsight they could have built it one go and could saved them selves some money in construction. But such a huge investment would never have been approved without any obvious demand.
The lesson to be drawn, is build for what you can support in passenger number upon opening. But leave enough space for expansion. If allow as much development as possible near transit, then watch your passenger numbers soar over the years.
Prev
. . . yes . . .
Linear Mode
