Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

No, but focussing on low-density phases not walkable to your $250,000,000 transit expansion and not planning to build around said stations for A WHILE is something to chat about.

I know nothing anything about the area but it looks like a large neighborhood that will take decades to build out. These things take time.

While it's obviously not a direct comparison there are some stations along the original 1980s portion of our Skytrain still surrounded by single family homes. It's taken us a handful of system extension projects to get somewhat competent (many may say otherwise!) with the coinciding urban planning process for TODs. Even then it takes years for projects around new stations to get going.

[Coldrsx]

You simply DO NOT build mass transit stations WITHOUT the masses and significant density around it.

That's was the bus system is for.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

You simply DO NOT build mass transit stations WITHOUT the masses and significant density around it.

That's was the bus system is for.

The City of Ottawa didn't get the memo. Much of the O-Train goes through empty fields and SFH areas. Some potential stations in low-income, high-density areas are skipped over. Car oriented retail and surface parking are being proposed near stations.

Meanwhile, areas that are already dense or densifying either never will get higher-order transit, or they have BRT lines drawn on a map with no sign of implementation, like the City figures there's no need to actually build anything if projects are already being proposed and built without actual investment from the City.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by JHikka

GO was testing its new 1KM-long overpass at the Davenport Diamond interchange today:


https://twitter.com/ProjectEND/status/1642889911228301312

This improvement will grade separate the Barrie Line from the east-west CP line it meets at Davenport.

Is t just me, or does anyone wish they would marshal those cars so that all the same colour are together?

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

No, but focussing on low-density phases not walkable to your $250,000,000 transit expansion and not planning to build around said stations for A WHILE is something to chat about.

Edmonton is doing the smart thing by doing this. Places like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa would love to have that problem.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

You simply DO NOT build mass transit stations WITHOUT the masses and significant density around it.

That's was the bus system is for.

It's not like new rapid transit stations are always built in areas with masses of people and significant density. Bessarion Station on Line 4 (Sheppard) of the TTC is a good example. It was opened in 2002 and Bessarion Station had minimal density or high intensity uses around it until the late 2010s when high rise apartments started to be built within walking distance.

2009



2022



These things take time and RT extensions need to happen and sometimes into areas that have yet to be intensified.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Harrison

It's not like new rapid transit stations are always built in areas with masses of people and significant density. Bessarion Station on Line 4 (Sheppard) of the TTC is a good example. It was opened in 2002 and Bessarion Station had minimal density or high intensity uses around it until the late 2010s when high rise apartments started to be built within walking distance.

Or almost all of Vancouver's SkyTrain too. For Edmonton Hollyrood is being built and Dooner mall is being planned and so is Strathern and Millhoods mall.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Edmonton is doing the smart thing by doing this. Places like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa would love to have that problem.

Or a couple stations of the Vaughn extension, with absolutely massive stations with nothing around them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7541367,-79.4779388,496m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7842466,-79.5195307,1180m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Or a couple stations of the Vaughn extension, with absolutely massive stations with nothing around them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7541367,-79.4779388,496m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7842466,-79.5195307,1180m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2

I wonder the empty space around Downsview Station has to do with the airfield nearby.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I wonder the empty space around Downsview Station has to do with the airfield nearby.

When they built Downsview, it was still a somewhat active airfield. One can expect that over the next few decades, that may change.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

No, but focussing on low-density phases not walkable to your $250,000,000 transit expansion and not planning to build around said stations for A WHILE is something to chat about.

The staging of blatchford has felt a bit curious. The much more affordable and accessible options would be in the higher density areas closer to the train. I assume it was the easiest/most logical spot to start tieing into existing ifnrastructure that didn't require the same degree of upfront investemtn, but it doesn't feel like it gave the project a super strong start. Now there are elatively expensive options when the amenities haven't yet materialized.

But I'm not sure it would have made any more sense to try to build a bunch of higher density along a theoretical future LRT corridor. The desireability of the higher density sections feels kind of contingent on the train being there, and it is the backbone of all of the infrastructure along the east side of the site.

Does that mean there will be huge boom as soon as the LRT opens? Not sure its that easy but when a good portion of the community was planned around transit, I'm not sure if we can reasonably expect that community be substantially developed before we bother investesting in the keystone infrastructure. I'd actually argue that the LRT investment could have been more of a priority to support getting blatchford off the ground, not that we should be expecting TOD to materialize before we've bothered to actually put in the transit.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

You simply DO NOT build mass transit stations WITHOUT the masses and significant density around it.
That's was the bus system is for.

Wrong. In North America we do offer rapid transit in these circumstances. It is called expressways. This is why transit performs so poorly. Buses in mixed traffic are generally not competitve
.

[Coldrsx]

BRT, bus hubs with good (5-15mins) frequency.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wrong. In North America we do offer rapid transit in these circumstances. It is called expressways. This is why transit performs so poorly. Buses in mixed traffic are generally not competitve
.

Not to mention how earlier rapid transit in places like NY and London often extended routes into areas in advance of them being developed. Back then it was considered basic infrastructure that you needed to have in place in an urban setting, like sewers and water mains. Here's an example from London where an extension of the Northern Line was planned for a rural area on the outskirts but canceled after the area was covered by the greenbelt. He also talks about how extensions of the Underground caused the rural environs to become suburbs when before they were empty fields. Same thing happened with the outer extensions of the NYC Subway.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by JHikka

GO was testing its new 1KM-long overpass at the Davenport Diamond interchange today:


https://twitter.com/ProjectEND/status/1642889911228301312

This improvement will grade separate the Barrie Line from the east-west CP line it meets at Davenport.

Construction on this sure seems to have gone quickly. The double level overpass at Dupont looks pretty cool too:


Davenport Diamond work progresses - Train emergency tests, Apr 3 2023 by Jeremy Gilbert, on Flickr

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Construction on this sure seems to have gone quickly. The double level overpass at Dupont looks pretty cool too:

Very cool. Would be a great shot at night as well.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

You simply DO NOT build mass transit stations WITHOUT the masses and significant density around it.

That's was the bus system is for.

Wrong. It's cheaper to build transit before the people come, since you don't have to deal with density, infrastructure, and NIMBYs.

Arguably Toronto's biggest transit failure was to not build transit into Humber Bay Shores, Liberty Village, St. Lawrence Market, etc. before the density was built.

[Nite]

Waterfront East LRT Extension - Overview
• Video Link

Waterfront East LRT Extension - Segment 1, Construction
• Video Link

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Wrong. It's cheaper to build transit before the people come, since you don't have to deal with density, infrastructure, and NIMBYs.

Arguably Toronto's biggest transit failure was to not build transit into Humber Bay Shores, Liberty Village, St. Lawrence Market, etc. before the density was built.

It's cheaper because nothing is there, but backwards logic, thinking and a waste of money.

[Dengler Avenue]

Meanwhile in Ottawa subforum, people are bashing the fact that O-Train Line 1 is out again due to freezing rain.
How does each city address that and snow for LRT otherwise?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

It's cheaper because nothing is there, but backwards logic, thinking and a waste of money.

It would only be a waste of money if the population the line was meant to serve didn't arrive in a reasonable time afterward. But if you can be reasonably certain that it will because of consistently strong growth and high demand for housing then there's nothing backward about the logic. In fact, the opposite approach is backward in that if people move in before there's a strong transit service, they will make alternate arrangements like buying cars and pushing the developments to accommodate cars with things like high parking ratios. It's basically starting the development in a car dependent state (which attracts people open to car dependency), then trying to attract people to transit after the initial conditions were already set. It's much harder to get people to switch to transit once they've already built their lives around cars because humans have a psychological bias toward the status quo.

The big examples of backward transit logic I often see is cities building a rapid transit routes through existing areas with the intention of increasing density and ridership, but not changing the zoning regulations to allow the development to occur. Or only allowing high density development on existing rapid transit lines causing the corridors to be overcrowded instead of building new transit lines before the density exists and densifying them over time. It would be like not building sewer lines and water mains first forcing everyone in a development to build septic tanks and wells. Then 5, 10, 15 or whatever years later, tearing everything up and putting in the infrastructure to have everyone switch.