The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Chadillaccc]

Yeah I liked that bit too.

But unfortunately Calgary and Edmonton aren't two and a half million people so can't really rationalize spending on a grade separated system.

[Nouvellecosse]

The issue is not so much their size but their relative lack of density. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal weren't anywhere near 2.5 million people when they built their first grade separated lines.

[Chadillaccc]

Yeah things were also different back then. Material costs were lower and whatnot for the MTL and TO systems. But I do see what you are saying. Both Edmonton and Calgary developed with a lot of sprawl because most of their population didn't settle until after the 40s with the "I need a yard and 2 car garage" mentality.

[dleung]

Not that I'm jealous or anything, but some of these new stations in edmonton/calgary/ottawa look real fancy and spacious, very much unlike the Canada line in Vancouver... so does the ridership justify it?

Like this one looks more like a park and ride, than an actual alternative to private automobile

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by dleung

Not that I'm jealous or anything, but some of these new stations in edmonton/calgary/ottawa look real fancy and spacious, very much unlike the Canada line in Vancouver... so does the ridership justify it?

Like this one looks more like a park and ride, than an actual alternative to private automobile.

<snip>

IIRC, they pegged the initial ridership of the West LRT at around 40,000 trips a day, which is a conservative estimate. The suburbs at the end of this line are very low density, because they are building into areas that were, until annexations in the 2000s, were rural acreages. There is some fantastic TOD potential at the Westbrook site though, which is pictured above.

This is one of the renderings for the densities envisioned in the Westbrook ARP for the station area surrounding the LRT platform.



And an accompanying map to illustrate the desired building heights...



The Sunalta ARP was also amended in 2009 to include concepts for additional density around that station...

[Chadillaccc]

Yeah dude. Calgary actually has a lot of major TOD's in the works. There's also a conceptual plan to turn the Chinook area into a new business and residential core as an alternative to DT. They have already begun building large condo developments in the area and the new station is well UC as seen in this pic:


ch by Chadillaccc, on Flickr

Demolition of the current main building will begin in January, they are just getting the new station house ready for the winter.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

IIRC, they pegged the initial ridership of the West LRT at around 40,000 trips a day, which is a conservative estimate. The suburbs at the end of this line are very low density, because they are building into areas that were, until annexations in the 2000s, were rural acreages. There is some fantastic TOD potential at the Westbrook site though, which is pictured above...

Technically, if you build a subway to any industrial park in the middle of nowhere, it has "fantastic TOD potential" by virtue of being a blank slate. Anyway, the 40,000 ridership seems low for a $1.46 billion, considering Vancouver's evergreen line, at $1.4B will have double the ridership, and the $2B Canada line has over triple that. Of course, it is on par with the rate of return on Toronto's $3 billion Spadina extension, which will add the same ridership as the Evergreen line in 2018.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Calgary's is looking great! Wow.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

After those construction and render pics from Calgary, my mouth is dry from drooling

Yeah, I'm also very happy with Calgary's progress. They've got some very ambitious rapid transit lines going on, some good station designs, and for the most part it's actually grade-separated. Meanwhile, Toronto continues its political squabbles, and London is still figuring out how to get this "road network" concept nailed down. So embarrassing.

Speaking of Toronto, Friday's National Post was talking about a new study which argues that the next major transit project should be the downtown relief line: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/18/...lief-line-to-ease-transit-traffic-study/

The Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study sets down in ink that which is obvious for commuters who cram into trains: “Transit services to and from the downtown core are reaching the limits of their practical peak capacity today,” states the study, which cost $2-million. By 2031, ridership to the downtown is slated to soar by 51%. Even with all the additional room made with new subway trains and automatic train control signal systems, the Yonge line will still be approaching capacity, the report states. Extending the Yonge subway to Richmond Hill will make matters worse, it warns.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by dleung

Technically, if you build a subway to any industrial park in the middle of nowhere, it has "fantastic TOD potential" by virtue of being a blank slate. Anyway, the 40,000 ridership seems low for a $1.46 billion, considering Vancouver's evergreen line, at $1.4B will have double the ridership, and the $2B Canada line has over triple that. Of course, it is on par with the rate of return on Toronto's $3 billion Spadina extension, which will add the same ridership as the Evergreen line in 2018.

Why make such false assumptions? It's not in or anywhere near an industrial park. It's not a blank slate as it's built directly beside a mall and 4 new residential towers that were completed a couple years ago in anticipation of the line, with at least 10 more towers to follow as part of the plan. It seems like you really like to belittle things without even doing the slightest bit of research.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by dleung

Like this one looks more like a park and ride, than an actual alternative to private automobile

I find it odd how some cities have elaborate park and ride setups. In Seattle for example there are some huge garages and terminals by I-5 that are for park and ride bus service. Those must have cost in the tens of millions of dollars. It's hard to see how that money wouldn't have been better spent on incremental improvements to their LRT system or even just more bus lanes.

In Halifax the transit planners are apparently obsessed with "covering" different parts of the city. This extends to areas that are so ill-suited to transit that express buses and park and rides are their only realistic option for useful service. Meanwhile, in the inner-city areas there's tons of demand and buses are packed but investment is extremely low. I guess the reasons for this must be political. There must be a bigger payout to building a service that goes near a lot of voters, even if it's not very practical. Unfortunately, even if people commute to a job in the city from the suburbs they often do not think that transit benefits them unless they personally use it.

There is also a perception that all parts of the city should have the same service levels. Few people seem to realize that differences in built form mean that the per capita cost to provide the same services varies enormously from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. In Halifax you hear people who live on 2 acre lots complaining about how they get inferior bus service compared to other neighbourhoods that might have 50+ units to the acre. Actually in some of those areas people want commuter rail service with park and ride.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Too many interactions with surface streets for my liking. Will be inferior to Edmonton's existing LRT line that is for sure.

I love the positive spin they try and put on having a non-grade separated rail line "here the LRT returns to street level, where it is easiest for riders to hop on and off" Hehe.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Yeah I liked that bit too.

But unfortunately Calgary and Edmonton aren't two and a half million people so can't really rationalize spending on a grade separated system.

Just a note, the line is projected to cost 1.8 billions for 13.1 km... This seems to be much more expensive than the other at-grade LRT lines and even the fully grade-separated lines in Vancouver (2.1 billions for 18.5km; 1.4 billions for 11.1 km). I wonder what's driving the cost up..?

[dleung]

^^So far, it seems like of every jurisdiction in North America, Vancouver gets the most bang for the buck for any transit proposal since 1980. Not sure why.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Why make such false assumptions? It's not in or anywhere near an industrial park. It's not a blank slate as it's built directly beside a mall and 4 new residential towers that were completed a couple years ago in anticipation of the line, with at least 10 more towers to follow as part of the plan. It seems like you really like to belittle things without even doing the slightest bit of research.

I was speaking generally about the usage of "TOD potential" to justify remote station placements. Westbrook is one of the better-justified ones, but you can't deny the fact that stations like 69th street and Sirocco are located in the middle of nowhere.

Like there are acerages and farms on the same block as the station!


The LRT line should have continued south after Westbrook, to allow for future connectivity with the existing South Line, because loop systems (like in Montreal or Vancouver) get the best usage. For future reference, never accuse dleung of not doing his homework...

[ZeDgE]

You have a strange definition of "middle of nowhere".

There is clearly housing developments on either side of that picture, with many under construction. Its likely the stations are also based on future growth patterns in the area.

[nname]

Originally Posted by dleung

^^So far, it seems like of every jurisdiction in North America, Vancouver gets the most bang for the buck for any transit proposal since 1980. Not sure why.

And there are people who thought a line like that can be built with just $131 millions ($10M/km)....

Originally Posted by dleung

I was speaking generally about the usage of "TOD potential" to justify remote station placements. Westbrook is one of the better-justified ones, but you can't deny the fact that stations like 69th street and Sirocco are located in the middle of nowhere.

Like there are acerages and farms on the same block as the station!

Within a few years, the area around the station would be surrounded by mostly single-family housings, like the ones east of it.

[Chadillaccc]

It will probably be like that in about two years, especially with the development spurred by the station. Especially seeing as the line is trenched, so very little noise pollution.

And Dleung, there was a plan to make a spur line heading south to Mount Royal University, it is still possible in the future... in fact I could see either that or the NC lrt - NE lrt connection through the airport being the first section of Calgary's ring system. Realistically though, Calgary will not have a full ring system until like 2050 lol

Though the NC lrt connection to the NE lrt could be done by 2025.

[Wooster]

For those interested, here's the draft of Calgary's $8.7 Billion 30 year Rapid Transit Plan. It's part of a comprehensive strategic plan for Calgary Transit - The RouteAhead.

RouteAhead is not only a network plan - it also looks at customer service, fiscal sustainability, governance and organization of and service delivery objectives of Calgary Transit. I sit on the project's steering commitee representing the Mayor's Office and am doing a bit of writing for a section on the plan, which is kind of fun.

www.routeahead.ca

Here's the draft proposed RouteAhead Network Plan. The language might be a bit confusing. "Transitway" is fully separated busways (with potential conversion to LRT). And "BRT" in Calgary essentially means frequent, limited stop express with some dedicated lanes, signal priority etc. There is one line (Westbrook to U of C and West Campus) that may end up being an aerial tram or gondola because of the geography - it's listed as "other" at this point.





Plan willl be finalized in December. Timing of mode progression and building LRTs is all predicated on funding. If a funding deal can be struck with our Provincial Government in City Charter negotiations, we may be able to move on the two next LRT lines sooner.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by nname

Within a few years, the area around the station would be surrounded by mostly single-family housings, like the ones east of it.

It already is surrounded by development, for the most part. The image is a few years old. There's also a public high school that's open right now, adjacent to the station, and it's just a green field in that photo.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

It already is surrounded by development, for the most part. The image is a few years old. There's also a public high school that's open right now, adjacent to the station, and it's just a green field in that photo.

Are the stations going to typically be surrounded by single detached homes, because if they are, it seems like a waste of the system's capacity.

[logan5]

Question - Has a new set of tracks been built for LRT West? The figure I have from Calgary Transit says that the peak load for all 3 lines is 17 000 people in the peak hour. Is all this load carried on the one set of tracks on 7th Ave., or is there another transit corridor that I'm not seeing on Google Earth?

Edit: It looks like all the lines converge on 7th Ave., including the new LRT West.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by logan5

Are the stations going to typically be surrounded by single detached homes, because if they are, it seems like a waste of the system's capacity.

For the stations further down the line, that is the case. There's redevelopment potential closer to downtown, and there's lots of infill going on these areas that isn't as noticeable but is steadily replacing older building stock and raising the density. My understanding of the situation at the end of the line is that these communities are still developing at very low densities (like 3-5 units per acre), as they were allowed under their old area structure plans. For a comparison, many of the newer suburbs work out at around 9-15 units per acre.