Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[GreaterMontréal]

• Video Link
• Video Link
• Video Link

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Totally different companies, totally different technologies, no interlining with the existing system, all contracts wrapped in the P3 and not split between departments. Can't even compare it to the Metro Line.

As to the design, it will be fine. The point of the line isn't to whisk residents from far-flung suburbs into the core as quickly as possible, which just encourages more outward sprawl. One of the main goals of the line is to provide new transportation options to residents along the line, and to encourage and spur more infill and density within the city's existing footprint. This has been discussed here many times before.

If you don't want rapid transit to become a sprawl enabler, don't build it to last-ring suburbs. Slowness is not a feature. The idea of using transit to spur development is a slap in the face of actual transit users.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If you don't want rapid transit to become a sprawl enabler, don't build it to last-ring suburbs. Slowness is not a feature. The idea of using transit to spur development is a slap in the face of actual transit users.

the construction of the REM will spark some very big real estate developments in the suburbs.

to name a few

big project (TOD) - First Capital, near Panama station, $800M

TOD - Devimco, in the northeast quadrant of Highways 10-30, $1B

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If you don't want rapid transit to become a sprawl enabler, don't build it to last-ring suburbs. Slowness is not a feature. The idea of using transit to spur development is a slap in the face of actual transit users.

Well said. The real reason they are building the Valley Line to an inferior standard at grade is simply because it is cheaper, same as the Metro Line. The 'benefits' are just excuses.

Shame, as Edmonton built their initial line well with 5 car platforms and underground downtown.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

the construction of the REM will spark some very big real estate developments in the suburbs.

to name a few

big project (TOD) - First Capital, near Panama station, $800M

TOD - Devimco, in the northeast quadrant of Highways 10-30, $1B

I have no issue with the development spurred by transit; it is a real and incredible benefit. But it should not be the reason/justification for rapid transit's construction, because when it is, a subpar project usually results. For whatever reason, development doesn't really seem to discriminate against transit quality.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I have no issue with the development spurred by transit; it is a real and incredible benefit. But it should not be the reason/justification for rapid transit's construction, because when it is, a subpar project usually results. For whatever reason, development doesn't really seem to discriminate against transit quality.

I agree, for last-ring suburbs, commuter rail are the prefered option.

In regards to the REM construction, the system is built along major highways, thus, they have to find a way to attract people to live near the stations.

[MalcolmTucker]

In Montreal 's case government land released for development through Caisse is how the state is partially paying for the project.

[p_xavier]

It is impressive how CDPQ infra is managing this project. It must be the most well managed transit project ever in Canada. No politics involved, it's so rare!

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If you don't want rapid transit to become a sprawl enabler, don't build it to last-ring suburbs. Slowness is not a feature. The idea of using transit to spur development is a slap in the face of actual transit users.

It will operate in its own ROW with signal priority (where signals are needed at all) and station spacing is pretty reasonable. Speed will be fine.

[Coldrsx]

Concur. Not to mention that for 30% of the route, speed is not important.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

No, it's a huge mistake. If they can't afford to do it right then don't do it at all. Calgary's about to make the same mistake but hopefully enough people bitch that they change plans.

Theres only two spots along the main line that could really use grade separation. Other that that, I don't think it should be too much of an issue. I am worried about downtown though, with the next leg. Having it go down 104th at grade is going to cause brutal traffic, unless it's properly timed with the lights, or stops at them.

[Daveography]

^ Won't someone think of the poor cars?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Won't someone think of the poor cars?

Grow up FFS.

[Daveography]

^ Apologies for the snark, but honestly, if your biggest concern when building transit is how traffic will be impacted, then you might not be thinking about transit correctly.

[Beedok]

Traffic does include buses, ambulances, cyclists, and more, it's not just cars.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Traffic does include buses, ambulances, cyclists, and more, it's not just cars.

By far the fastest and most efficient way to speed up buses, ambulances, police, cyclists, trucks, delivery vehicles, construction vehicles, etc. is to implement a total ban of single-occupant personal vehicles.

So you know, if the primary concern is stuff that is not cars, just eliminate cars.

[Aylmer]

I've heard variations on this argument all too often;

"We can't remove on-street parking; how will disabled people/seniors/pregnant mothers get there?"
"We can't put a bus lane there; the ambulances will get stuck in traffic!"
"We can't put up parking meters; poor people will suffer!
And so on.

Most of the time, these arguments spring less from a genuine concern for poor people, ambulances or patrons in wheelchairs and have more to do with a fear of not being able to use it for themselves. So when solutions to the stated concerns are proposed (disabled-only parking, bus/LRT lanes with emergency vehicle access, etc.), the reception is less than enthusiastic.

So yeah, colour me skeptical.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well said. The real reason they are building the Valley Line to an inferior standard at grade is simply because it is cheaper, same as the Metro Line. The 'benefits' are just excuses.

Shame, as Edmonton built their initial line well with 5 car platforms and underground downtown.

Pretty much, Valley line is little more than a multi-billion dollar bus on rails. And with the track record of recent Edmonton transportation projects.. this one going sideways is almost guaranteed.

Originally Posted by Daveography

Totally different companies, totally different technologies, no interlining with the existing system, all contracts wrapped in the P3 and not split between departments. Can't even compare it to the Metro Line.

As to the design, it will be fine. The point of the line isn't to whisk residents from far-flung suburbs into the core as quickly as possible, which just encourages more outward sprawl. One of the main goals of the line is to provide new transportation options to residents along the line, and to encourage and spur more infill and density within the city's existing footprint. This has been discussed here many times before.

The Valley Line ... will make frequent stops, and the stops and stations will be closer together than what Edmontonians may be used to. This means that the Valley Line will typically travel at lower speeds than the Capital Line or the Metro Line: usually at or below community traffic speeds.

https://transformingedmonton.ca/the-...-is-urban-lrt/

Not sure what new transportation options are being provided here? This sounds just like what the bus does already. And using a low bandwidth train to serve an area where you want to increase population is a bit counterproductive.. Vancouver wouldn't have the TOD nodes it does now if skytrain ran below community speeds, every 10 or 15 minutes.

Originally Posted by Daveography

It will operate in its own ROW with signal priority (where signals are needed at all) and station spacing is pretty reasonable. Speed will be fine.

I recall that being said at first... but now there's some very mixed language going on, it will have priority, but sometimes stop?

Also sounds like the city has drank the fancy signaling koolaid again..


The Valley Line LRT will have traffic
priority. Sometimes LRVs will stop
at red lights, with fewer bells,
lights, gates, etc. The Valley Line
LRT will communicate with light
signals at some intersections to
maximize efficiency of traffic flow
and LRT.

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...r_Everyone.pdf

[odogfo]

Green Line LRT tunnel through downtown looking more likely
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ttee-1.3636563

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Apologies for the snark, but honestly, if your biggest concern when building transit is how traffic will be impacted, then you might not be thinking about transit correctly.

Im as big of a transit booster as anyone, but the reality in Edmonton is that our Transit in Edmonton is sub par, and this line won't do that much to change that. For a large portion of the population it doesn't make sense to take transit(including me, and I live really close to downtown. Minimum 45 minutes to anywhere in the city? No thanks). So when you create congestion with a transit line like whats happening at Kingsway, its more than just a concern, because it can actively impact peoples way of life. With the massive right of ways we have in this city, we should be able to build and improve transit without negatively effecting those that aren't able to use it. I'm OK with a certain amount of trade off, but creating 15 minute wait times at an intersection is not an acceptable trade off. And I know the Valley line will be different than the NAIT line, but if not done correctly this line has the potential to create the same issues that either the Metro line or Century Park line have created.