Transit - is speed obsolete?

[edmonton daily photo]

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/...obsolete-.html

is speed obsolete?

For a while now, a strain of urbanist thought has been asking: Should we want transit to be slower?

Patrick M. Condon explicitly states a radical idea that many urban planners are thinking about, but that not many of them say in public. He suggests that the whole idea of moving large volumes of people relatively quickly across an urban region, as "rapid transit" systems do, is problematic or obsolete:

The question of operational speed conjures up a larger issue: who exactly are the intended beneficiaries of enhanced mobility? A high speed system is best if the main intention is to move riders quickly from one side of the region to the other. Lower operational speeds are better if your intention is to best serve city districts with easy access within them and to support a long term objective to create more complete communities, less dependent on twice-daily cross-region trips.

.....

In the current Broadway rapid transit debate in Vancouver, for example, Condon challenges the idea that the existing driverless metro system, SkyTrain, should be extended west out Broadway to his own campus, UBC, which lies at the western tip of the city. Instead, he would spend the same funds on a vast streetcar network. Here's his estimate of how much streetcar Vancouver could have for the cost of that one SkyTrain line.

[edmonton daily photo]

I am going to duck and cover now.. ps it will be very clear who actually reads the article and understands what is really about and who just reacts from their gut.

[McBoo]

Careful, someone might agree with you.

Not sure of the theory overall, but in Vancouver's case you could argue that UBC is already well served by the B(?)-Line and extending Skytrain down what is largely a shopping - then later monster house area is a waste of money alright.

Indeed, of the people I know who have attended / taught at UBC, never heard one complain about transit service.

[Medwards]

From the article: Finally, there's a crucial sustainability question.* Slow transit competes more with walking and cycling, while fast transit competes more with cars.*

----
Not sure if the author actually has a conclusion though he seems to argue for both, just depends on the situation. As I've always stated there is not one solution that can fit for all transit situations, which is why the best cities in the world have all sorts. Pedestrian and cyclist network, local, arterial and limited access roads. Buses trolleys street cars rapid lrt subways and intracity commuter rail. Most cities don't force their street car to also be a high speed suburban commuter. They separate these networks

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Interesting topic. Portland is often held up as an example of the merits of streetcars. As much as I love the city, I don't agree. The MAX light rail daily ridership is only about 130,000, which I think is almost pathetic for a city and a system of that size...especially one where so many people don't own cars. In fact, it's not much higher than the ridership on our single-line LRT, whose system length is 1/4 of Portland's.

Clearly speed matters to people who use transit. I think streetcars are appropriate only for very high density neighbourhoods where the distances covered are not great. A streetcar going east and west across downtown Vancouver from Stanley Park to Yaletown would be a good example.

Streetcars just don't work well over longer distances, as demonstrated by Toronto's King, Queen and St. Clair lines. Trip times are frustratingly long and there are major problems with overcrowding and bunching of the streetcar vehicles.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ Careful.. the streetcar is not MAXX and this article is about the street car.. they are separate.

You cannot compare MAXX to Canada. you have to compare MAXX to a USA city of similar like kind and quality. The two climates they operate in are very different. This has been hashed out elsewhere. Portland's MAXX has very good ridership for a city of it's size and for a USA city particularly...

The streetcar is only 6.3 km long and serves some 12,000 daily riders

[edmonton daily photo]

You can see where MAXX meets the streetcar. Streetcar is orange MAXX is black

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^ Careful.. the streetcar is not MAXX and this article is about the street car.. they are separate.

You cannot compare MAXX to Canada. you have to compare MAXX to a USA city of similar like kind and quality. The two climates they operate in are very different. This has been hashed out elsewhere. Portland's MAXX has very good ridership for a city of it's size and for a USA city particularly...

Fair enough, but as shown on your map, the streetcar serves a very small area. This is not at all comparable to the idea of running streetcars across the entire city of Vancouver. It would be more like my example of running it across the downtown peninsula.

As for not comparing Canadian and US cities, Portland is more similar to Canadian cities than US ones in terms of density and levels of car ownership.

[Medwards]

Doesn't Toronto have a big street car network? It's complimented with subways, LRT, metro rail and regional rail. Not to mention large freeways right into the downtown core.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

The streetcar is only 6.3 km long and serves some 12,000 daily riders

Also, from what I remember the Portland streetcar is free downtown. So is that 12,000 number paying customers or total ridership? Obviously a free service is going to have inflated ridership.

[edmonton daily photo]

Here are some more detailed chats on street car ridership.

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf...s_20120425.pdf

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile

Fair enough, but as shown on your map, the streetcar serves a very small area. This is not at all comparable to the idea of running streetcars across the entire city of Vancouver. It would be more like my example of running it across the downtown peninsula.

As for not comparing Canadian and US cities, Portland is more similar to Canadian cities than US ones in terms of density and levels of car ownership.

Portland is not in Canada! it's not the same.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile

Also, from what I remember the Portland streetcar is free downtown. So is that 12,000 number paying customers or total ridership? Obviously a free service is going to have inflated ridership.

you can't nitpick they system... the system is the system -- free or not ridership is ridership--

You can't say it's over inflated because you have nothing to compare it too.. Transit in the USA also tends to be very inexpensive. Bus fare in many USA cities is a dollar or so. using your rationality that cheap = overinflated the USA ridership should be much higher than canadian but statistically across canada over 10% of people use transit to get to work where its less than 5% nation wide in the USA..

Two very different countries with very different views towards public transport.

The question is.. if we took MAXX and transplanted it in Edmonoton.. what would the ridership be?!

[sundance]

I like the New York City subway model, they have local trains that stop every stop and express trains that stop every 5-10 stops. But to do this New York needs 4 tracks and of course much wider stations and connecting stairs (elevators, escalators).

I think we need a mix of "slow" feeder transit and spines of fast express transit, both have their purpose.

[edmonton daily photo]

This is the reality of Portlands Transit system

Portland has a comprehensive public transportation system. The bus and rail system is operated by TriMet, its name reflecting the three metropolitan area counties it serves (Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington). Portland's rate of public transit use (12.6% of commutes in 200 is comparable to much larger cities like Los Angeles, and higher than in most similarly sized U.S. cities, but is lower than in some similarly sized cities, such as Baltimore and Seattle

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

you can't nitpick they system... the system is the system -- free or not ridership is ridership--

You can't say it's over inflated because you have nothing to compare it too.. Transit in the USA also tends to be very inexpensive. Bus fare in many USA cities is a dollar or so. using your rationality that cheap = overinflated the USA ridership should be much higher than canadian but statistically across canada over 10% of people use transit to get to work where its less than 5% nation wide in the USA..

Two very different countries with very different views towards public transport.

The question is.. if we took MAXX and transplanted it in Edmonoton.. what would the ridership be?!

I've spent a fair bit of time in Portland and I simply don't agree that they have an especially different view towards public transit. I would argue they are more in line with Canada than the rest of the US. And I'm pretty sure that a higher percentage of people do not own a car in Portland than Edmonton. They just happen to walk or bike more than take transit. I would argue this is partially due to their transit not being particularly efficient.

I think you're misinterpreting my argument, which in a nutshell is that Portland should not be used as a model for streetcar or light-rail transit because its usage levels are quite low. The streetcar is no exception. 12,000 daily riders for a 6 km line is not very much and is in fact much less per km of track than Edmonton's LRT. If you want examples of successful streetcar systems, there are many. Amsterdam and Montpellier, France are two that I've used. They work because they serve very dense, compact areas, which are not characteristic of most North American cities.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by sundance

I like the New York City subway model, they have local trains that stop every stop and express trains that stop every 5-10 stops. But to do this New York needs 4 tracks and of course much wider stations and connecting stairs (elevators, escalators).

I think we need a mix of "slow" feeder transit and spines of fast express transit, both have their purpose.

Agreed, but in my opinion the slow feeder transit you speak of is the role of the bus system, at least in Edmonton. It doesn't make sense to me to spend a huge amount of money developing a parallel slow system like a streetcar network when what we really need is a rapid transit network.

[edmonton daily photo]

^
.. tell that to the Pearl District...

See what street car spurred there. Maybe what we need to street car in the Quarters, DT and surrounding areas. Maybe the intensification and the building up of these inner city areas that are underused is more important on a grans scheme than getting rail service out to the suburbs?!

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^
.. tell that to the Pearl District...

See what street car spurred there. Maybe what we need to street car in the Quarters, DT and surrounding areas. Maybe the intensification and the building up of these inner city areas that are underused is more important on a grans scheme than getting rail service out to the suburbs?!

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I wanted rail service to the suburbs. I support densification and I support the current LRT plan, although I think some of the planned stations are unnecessary. I don't even oppose the idea of a streetcar for downtown, but I don't think it's practical for the city as a whole, or for the entire city of Vancouver for that matter.

Can you offer any proof that the streetcar is the reason for the Pearl District's development? How about the fact that it's a central, walkable neighbourhood with lots of great, historic architecture that's right beside downtown. But oh no, apparently a streetcar system that has 12,000 total riders in a day is single-handedly responsible for thousands of people moving to that area. It just doesn't add up.

[edmonton daily photo]

I just posed a question... Not put words in your mouth. Many people will feel very differently about what we "need"

The reality is that Portland has a far reaching LRT system and then they started to develop the street car network. I am not in disagreement with you.

As for the pearl district... many things i read attribute the street car to being a very large reason for the districts success. There is rarely ever one singe "magic bullet" to say that one thing caused it is simplistic but to deny that it didn't play a role is equally so.

I am not even agreeing with the article or the viewpoint of the UBC instructor. As the writer of the article puts it.. this is a debate over an idealistic concept. a concept when applied to the real world, imo, would likely have to be altered.

its and an intersting idea, concept, theory.

Thats why I said it will be clear who reads the entire article and who doesn't

[East McCauley]

edp, Jarrett Walker's blog posting you linked to is a critique of Patrick Condon's street car fantasies not an endorsation.

This is a key point from Walker's critique: "Condon, like many, argues that introducing streetcars is a return to something that worked well in the past, so the idea seems like a logical extension of today's "neo-traditional" concepts of good town planning. But as this marvelous 1906 video shows, streetcars worked well around 1900 because there were very few cars or buses. Not much got in the way of a streetcar, and no competing transit service could run faster than it did. That's not the reality of the 21st century street. And however much we wish it wasn't so, we choose our transportation mode from among the available alternatives, so a solution that worked when there were fewer alternatives may not work as well now."

[edmonton daily photo]

^ Yes I know

But Jarrett Walker, in his own article, questions his own bias. Look at teh words he uses such as "may not work well" MAY

There are a lot of things to think about in this article and Jarrett recognizes that.

In the Amsterdam video we saw how peoples commutes exploded from a few KM to 20+ Km. What if we reversed expectations about how fast we should be able to travel through our cities.. what if we looked backwards to go forwards...

Safer streets, compact living, friendlier public spaces..

Look at Capital Blvd although the speed limit will still be 50KM an hour zone one can surmise that traffic will be slowwed due to the nature of the design, with more mixed usage and such..and I thik we are in agreement that this change is welcome. We are all anxious about that redo.. so now what happens if we apply those same ideas elsewhere and to other things such as transit.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

I take issue with the entire premise of slow transit. Streetcar systems are not in place to "slow down" travel. That would be nonsensical. They make sense for certain environments for various reasons. One example would be a smaller European city like Montpellier that probably couldn't make the investment in a subway and doesn't have the population to support it, and is compact enough for a streetcar to make sense. It's not about wanting to slow down travel.

And yes, I read the entire article.

[East McCauley]

^^I walk downtown almost everyday, and am all for making it more walkable and pedestrian friendly. It's one of the reasons I favour keeping future LRT lines underground through the downtown.

[edmonton daily photo]

Have the lrt underground has no effect on walkability what so ever

[East McCauley]

^Of course it does. Underground LRT means one less transportation mode competing for limited public ROW space.

Don't believe it. Try walking Calgary's 7th Avenue transit mall from one end of downtown to the other. Then compare it to walking Jasper Avenue.

[Medwards]

Could you imagine Toronto with out a subway? San Fran without the Bart? Vancouver without the sky train? Paris or montreal without the metro?

Great walk able cities

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

^Of course it does. Underground LRT means one less transportation mode competing for limited public ROW space.

Don't believe it. Try walking Calgary's 7th Avenue transit mall from one end of downtown to the other. Then compare it to walking Jasper Avenue.

I have walked 7th Ave many many times... I crossed it and used it on a daily basis when I lived in Canada.

The chicken little attitude that the sky will fall if everything isnt underground is silly. Using the same rational all car traffic should be underground to protect walkability.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Medwards

Could you imagine Toronto with out a subway? San Fran without the Bart? Vancouver without the sky train? Paris or montreal without the metro?

Great walk able cities

When we reach a population in the multi millions we can explore other options. Or maybe the transport beam will have been invented or flying cars...


http://veethree.files.wordpress.com/...up-scotty3.jpg

[AShetsen]

The political choice is whether to move medium-sized loads of people over long distances, or whether to move small batches of people over small distances, but in aggregate potentially adding up to a large volume.

For many self-proclaimed urbanists, the answer is obvious: local is good, people should live, work, and play in the same area, vibrancy is slow, etc.

Of the two main problems with this approach, one is obvious and one is perhaps less so. The fact that people who are forced to travel long distance is of course known but irrelevant to the urbanists: commuting suburban trash are commuting suburban trash. The other problem will only bite them in the long run. Namely, desirable areas will eventually be priced out of livable reach if transportation to them is slow and only an afterthought.

[edmonton daily photo]

Commuting suburban "trash" as you put it. Chose to live on the outskirts of city... it is unreasonable for them to expect that they can get DT in 15 min or that a multi billion dollar transportation system be build for them while ignoring the inner city...

bulding a multi billion dollar transit system that services the inner city and gets the suburban "trash" (again your words) into DT in 28 or so minuets is perfectly fair and a better use of funds.

And the transport volume is hardly low. One train is going to equal the carrying capacity of many buses.

but it's ok you are just posting for dramatic effect... not accuracy.

[Medwards]

The streetcar shouldn't go out to the suburbs. We shouldn't be creating one solution, and selling it as a cure all. Street car should be kept to the Post WWII Suburbs. LRT should be used to connect the outer nodes with the inner nodes.

Once you stop looking insular at one part of the city and look at this region holistically, you'll see what I and many others are talking about.

All of the city deserves good transit, especially if you want this city to be more walkable. Remember - more people work OUTSIDE of the central areas than in the central areas.

[AShetsen]

Keep in mind that if a city's area is big enough, the residents who live in outlying areas pay taxes into the city's coffers and therefore have a very reasonable demand to be provided with rapid urban transit.

By the way, I haven't yet stated which modes or which mix of modes I would prefer for Edmonton.

[AShetsen]

I live on Whyte Avenue and work in Leduc -- not my choice; I was transferred. A streetcar is fine, but largely irrelevant: I don't really need it, I can walk, even to the centre if necessary.

A high-speed transit line out to the suburbs though... That would be a different story!

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I have walked 7th Ave many many times... I crossed it and used it on a daily basis when I lived in Canada.

The chicken little attitude that the sky will fall if everything isnt underground is silly. Using the same rational all car traffic should be underground to protect walkability.

Here is an excerpt from an article in Canadian Architect magazine on Calgary's 7 Avenue much more in keeping with my view than yours:
"The Future of Downtown Calgary, released in 1966, was the last approved "visionary" document for downtown, and included a proposal for rapid transit which is still being realized (the expressway between downtown and the Bow River that was also proposed in this plan was mercifully killed). In the 1980s, as the city began to implement the idea, the choice was made to place the downtown leg of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system above grade, an economic decision which sparked intense debate at the time and continues to be regularly questioned. Seventh Avenue was envisioned as a "transit mall" for the exclusive use of trains and buses in counterpoint to the established Stephen Avenue pedestrian mall running parallel one block south. At that time, the available LRT cars had high floors and required raised platforms for entry. A series of stations were designed which minimized their width and incorporated all of the access stairs and ramps within the platform's area in an attempt to reduce the impact of the raised structures on the adjacent sidewalks and the businesses fronting the structures. The result was a series of compact but crowded stations which still acted as barriers between the shops and the street, and sparked the gradual decline of both the businesses and the quality of the street itself.

Fast forward 20 years. Calgary is again experiencing unprecedented growth with no end in sight. The LRT system has among the highest ridership of any in North America and is bursting at the seams. One of the proposed remedies is to increase the number of cars per train from three to four, but none of the downtown stations can accommodate this. The transit mall is a huge success at moving commuters in and out of the core, but it is a business and pedestrian wasteland--7th Avenue is the most used and the most hated street in the downtown." Source: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthr...ect-Article%29

Too once again set the record straight. I'm not talking about putting "everything" underground, only future LRT lines by optimizing the use of the existing tunnel.

[edmonton daily photo]

Great.. and our DT LRT connector will be at grade without the horrid barriers and unsightly platforms.

That thread and article are also almost a decade old...

A lot has changed in 10 years. When last I was in calgary i went to a VERY popular, breakfast brunch resto right on 7th ave.

It is hardly the wasteland it once was.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...rbishment.aspx

[kkozoriz]

This is why the low floor system should be confined to the inner part of the city, say, within the inner ring road. If rail transit extends past that point it should be the high floor lines that do it. Use the low floor system to connect inner hubs (Westmount/Coronation/Telus Science Centre) to downtoan and to other hubs.

Imagine a low floor line, not by itself but just this one portion) running from Westmount down 111th ave passing Kingsway (connection with LRT), Stadium (Ditto), Northlands and eventually Highlands/Beverly. This would give a large number of people one transfer transit to the major nodes and same mode service to a number of smaller ones. A Westmount line could also run south on 124 st to downtown.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

This is why the low floor system should be confined to the inner part of the city, say, within the inner ring road. If rail transit extends past that point it should be the high floor lines that do it. Use the low floor system to connect inner hubs (Westmount/Coronation/Telus Science Centre) to downtoan and to other hubs.

Imagine a low floor line, not by itself but just this one portion) running from Westmount down 111th ave passing Kingsway (connection with LRT), Stadium (Ditto), Northlands and eventually Highlands/Beverly. This would give a large number of people one transfer transit to the major nodes and same mode service to a number of smaller ones. A Westmount line could also run south on 124 st to downtown.

ba-ba-ba-ba-bingo.

[edmonton daily photo]

I and others would disagree.. so we will just have to accept that we don't see eye to eye

[Medwards]

I definitely disagree with you. DT has a great tunnel, and those platforms/stations are certainly not unsightly. The tunnel offers no barriers to pedestrian movements at street level at all. Where as, any at grade surface line will create barriers.

Some people want to use LRT as a weapon against car drivers. Others see it as a transportation tool.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Great.. and our DT LRT connector will be at grade without the horrid barriers and unsightly platforms.

That thread and article are also almost a decade old...

A lot has changed in 10 years. When last I was in calgary i went to a VERY popular, breakfast brunch resto right on 7th ave.

It is hardly the wasteland it once was.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...rbishment.aspx

Our DT Connector will likely have platforms only 2 feet lower than the existing platforms. Hardly an overwhelming difference. All of the other disadvantages of DT street level LRT remain. It's easy to get fooled by renderings and schematics (pretty pictures). The built reality is often far less appealing.

Many Calgarians, including many of my wife's relatives, would describe the 7th Avenue refurbishments as putting lipstick on a pig. Underground LRT is about the only thing they think is better about Edmonton compared to Calgary.

[EveB]

I happen to like street level LRT and I spent 15 years living in downtown Calgary. However, I have to admit that the tunnels make for a way quicker ride. I can get from the Health Sciences station to the basement of the Telus building in about 8 to 10 minutes. This compares favourably with my trips between my apartment near 10th Street Station to the Public Library (across from City Hall) in Calgary.

I also have to reluctantly agree that the surface stops did not usually enhance the relationship between waiting transit riders and the neighboring businesses. When I was there the strips immediately adjacent to the train platforms were vaguely skeevy with few exceptions. However, I felt much more connected to the real world when riding above ground.

Outside of downtown, the Calgary C-train had enough rights of way that the only stops tended to be at the actual platforms. I don't know how it compares speedwise with the tunnels. Probably slower because the operators had to remain keenly aware of the chance of people crossing the train lines inappropriately either by foot or car.

I think there is a place for both fast transit that allows people to go sizable distances in a short time, and the slower travel of inner city types who need frequent stops. I'm curious how the new low-floor lines will function in real life.

Eve

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Our DT Connector will likely have 30 cm (1 foot) platforms rather than 60 cm (2 foot) platforms. Hardly an overwhelming difference. All of the other disadvantages of DT street level LRT remain. It's easy to get fooled by renderings and schematics (pretty pictures). The built reality is often far less appealing.

Many Calgarians, including many of my wife's relatives, would describe the 7th Avenue refurbishments as putting lipstick on a pig. Underground LRT is about the only thing they think is better about Edmonton compared to Calgary.

I am sorry the raised platforms of calgarys LRT are much higher than two feet.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Medwards

I definitely disagree with you. DT has a great tunnel, and those platforms/stations are certainly not unsightly. The tunnel offers no barriers to pedestrian movements at street level at all. Where as, any at grade surface line will create barriers.

Some people want to use LRT as a weapon against car drivers. Others see it as a transportation tool.

How very Rob Ford of you..

THIS WAR ON CARS MUST STOP!!

I don't know why you can't graciously;y agree to disagree and drop it..

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by EveB

I happen to like street level LRT and I spent 15 years living in downtown Calgary. However, I have to admit that the tunnels make for a way quicker ride. I can get from the Health Sciences station to the basement of the Telus building in about 8 to 10 minutes. This compares favourably with my trips between my apartment near 10th Street Station to the Public Library (across from City Hall) in Calgary.

I also have to reluctantly agree that the surface stops did not usually enhance the relationship between waiting transit riders and the neighboring businesses. When I was there the strips immediately adjacent to the train platforms were vaguely skeevy with few exceptions. However, I felt much more connected to the real world when riding above ground.

Outside of downtown, the Calgary C-train had enough rights of way that the only stops tended to be at the actual platforms. I don't know how it compares speedwise with the tunnels. Probably slower because the operators had to remain keenly aware of the chance of people crossing the train lines inappropriately either by foot or car.

I think there is a place for both fast transit that allows people to go sizable distances in a short time, and the slower travel of inner city types who need frequent stops. I'm curious how the new low-floor lines will function in real life.

Eve

Calgary's downfall was making the LRT wait at stop lights... something that will rarely happen with our system apart for required timing.. but that already happens.

[East McCauley]

My experience of Calgary's LRT is similar to Eve B's. Slow through DT and Hillhurst-Sunnyside, but if anything, the balance of the NW line, the South line, and the soon to open West line are faster with more grade separations than Edmonton's LRT.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I am sorry the raised platforms of calgarys LRT are much higher than two feet.

Posted in too much of a rush. The high floor cars used in both Edmonton and Calgary are 98 cm (3.2 feet) above grade (top of rail). What I should have said is the difference between low floor and high floor platforms is about 2 feet. Corrected the original post.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Posted in too much of a rush. The high floor cars used in both Edmonton and Calgary are 98 cm (3.2 feet) above grade (top of rail). What I should have said is the difference between low floor and high floor platforms is about 2 feet.

which is a huge visual and physical impact.

I remember very vividly trying to walk behind Calgary's DT platforms in on the dark poorly maintained narrow sidewalks that smelt like urine.

Calgary's 7'th ave is failure for many reasons... its not LRT that caused it though.. maybe someones poor Lrt planning.

Again our system wil have ROW and light priority and wont be like 7th ave at all.. there will still be car traffic down 102 ave, nice wide sidewalks and a new DT urban park alongside two growing post secondary institutions.

Not a cheap boarding house like 7th ave had

This is all chicken little thinking.

[expatinvancouver]

The point that is missed in his article is that from the Broadway?commercial skytrain station to UBC, the transit traffic is almost at the saturation point. Running articulated buses on the B-Line there are times during the rush hour you have 2 loading at the stops at the same time, with another puling in a minute or two later. Vancouver is pushing for density on it's main corridors, and in order for this to not create gridlock, a more efficient system is needed to UBC along the Broadway corridor.
This plan would be the equivalent of Edmonton having replaced it's trolley bus network with streetcars. The Edmonton equivalent would be building the West LRT with insufficient capacity to downtown on day 1 of operation. The original LRT was designed to be adaptable to higher loads, building a system to replace a local bus will not work long term.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Calgary's downfall was making the LRT wait at stop lights... something that will rarely happen with our system apart for required timing..

Ohhh it only happens in Calgary too, when required for timing...

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I am sorry the raised platforms of calgarys LRT are much higher than two feet.

I'm sorry, but they are not... 3.2 feet is not much higher.

[edmonton daily photo]

oooo so now your the official decider of what is and isn't much.

sorry next time i will the file the appropriate form..

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by expatinvancouver

This plan would be the equivalent of Edmonton having replaced it's trolley bus network with streetcars. The Edmonton equivalent would be building the West LRT with insufficient capacity to downtown on day 1 of operation. The original LRT was designed to be adaptable to higher loads, building a system to replace a local bus will not work long term.

As great as it would be for bus riders, I agree wouldn't make sense, as would become an expensie system to maintain like the trolleys were.

LRT makes the most sense not streetcars in traffic, and the most economic and effective implementations of LRT today (best bang for buck) are urban form, by replacing lanes of traffic (minimal speed difference or capacity difference versus fenced off ROW, which rarely goes higher than auto speed anyway) rather than wasting billions on perfect ROW's, which just prevents building more LRT to more communities.