Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Firstly I want to say I'm not the world's biggest fan of LRT and do find it can be severely compromised if it's too much of the light and not enough of the rapid. But...
This just isn't true, at least in respect to the C-Train. Calgary's LRT system is superior to a bus transitway, and far, far superior to mixed bus operations.
Again, this isn't fair. Yes Calgary has capacity issues downtown (oh no, it's been too successful!). But this can be solved, and has been planned from the beginning, by a tunnel on one of the lines for much less than the price of a full metro. With that built (as it absolutely should be), then we will have plenty of capacity for a while on those lines.
If Calgary hadn't built LRT back then I can all but guarantee we still wouldn't be building a metro now, but would be looking at a city with worse transit and more sprawl that is even less likely to have rail transit built. You can't 'save up' that money either, it doesn't work that way.
|
Calgary's, and Edmonton's for that matter, LRTs are not what I'm thinking of when I talk about the issues of LRT. Both of their LRTs are in mostly separated right-of-ways along railways and highways, which really makes it more like a frequent commuter rail system with lots of stations (note: this doesn't mean it's not a good system).
What I'm thinking of when I think LRT is in-street systems that are in their own lanes with frequent crossings. We don't have any systems like this in Canada at the moment, but Waterloo's, Eglington's above-ground portion and the proposed Surrey system is what I have in mind when I talk about poor LRT configurations.
Also, since you brought it up, I actually think LRT has made sprawl worse in Calgary. Building rail transit to the very edge of an urban area only serves to subsidize and encourage people living there. I know it takes people out of their cars (for work trips if they live in the suburbs), but it also takes funds away from providing service to those that want to live urban-oriented lives in the inner city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caltrane74
For those indicating that the KW LRT is hindering a future possible "subway" or "metro" , when exactly did you see this happening if no LRT was built?
Like the previous posters have stated Calgary and Edmonton are approaching 1.5 million and still do not have full true grade seperated Metro. Even the most optimistic doesn't see Kitchener at 1 million in 30 years.
|
I don't know, in 4-5 decades I guess? Like I said, I just don't see a rush to get rapid transit done. I get the idea: you want to establish both a flagship transit line, as well as a corridor designated for urban growth. And I think that's important, I just don't think it's as important as moving people in the most efficient way possible is.
My argument is that there are two (simplified) choices: have one LRT line with the rest of the buses in the city averaging 30 minute frequencies, or have no LRT line but with buses averaging 15 minute frequencies. To me this is an easy choice, especially given that a very bare-bones BRT line (just simple bus lanes, no fancy stations or anything like that) would provide pretty much the same level of service as LRT except just not on rails. I know for a lot of people no rail=no transit, but I think buses are severely underappreciated and can really accomplish a lot in urban transportation systems.
There isn't a right answer to this, as I think it's question of values. I value frequency, speed and comprehensiveness above all else in transit systems. Other may value urban development, mode (bus vs. rail), or whatever. Neither of these positions is right or wrong. Which is what makes this recurring discussion pretty meaningless honestly.
Threaded Mode