Light Rail Boom

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

Buffalo's system seems very bizarre. That said, I'm jealous because, for the time being, Calgary has no underground stations (our first, Westbrook, will open in 2012 as part of the WLRT).

The WLRT video has a groovy soundtrack, for a demonstration video...

BTW, I think the problem with transit planning is forgetting the future and forecasting. Making an appropriate investment, even if it costs more, is the best option because of what can develop after its built. It is an infrastructure investment that will last many, many decades and if maintained correctly indefinitely into the future. I don't think transit is like highways because once you build a transit line, due to the nature of it, development can be radically different than building a highway in the middle of nowhere. Transit is typically built in areas that are already somewhat populated, or very populated. It allows a city to become more developed and redevelop existing neighborhoods as opposed to growth in the middle of nowhere.

And in large urban centers, light rail isn't always enough, but is a good compliment to any core system.

For example, light rail is a good supplemental or starter system for predominantly auto-oriented cities like Denver that will probably never see major transit usage in our lifetimes, but for urban centres like Toronto or New York (places that really depend on transit) it makes more sense to build out heavy rail in the core (already done in NY, hopefully more to come in Toronto) while light rail acts as a supplement to the main heavy rail system. In Toronto's case, the only Transit City line I generally agree with is Eglinton. They should trash the rest of the system and just funnel those funds into building a DRL and other subway enhancements in a mixed fashion. What they have proposed and begun construction on with Sheppard is a total disaster. I don't know of any city that has taken a starter subway line and built the rest of it as LRT with transfer points on a subway line that already requires a secondary transfer point. Transit City is effectively becoming Transfer City. Its the wrong implementation of light rail in that respect, at least for the non-Eglinton lines.

While I was kind of complaining about the JFK light rail system, in a way its a more affordable option for a feeder line that makes sense. Its not the backbone of the network, its just the airport feeder service.

This makes sense for cities that are actually urban/transit oriented. Light rail makes sense for cities that really just have it as a supplement to an auto-oriented culture, such as in St Louis or Denver. Its better to have something than nothing, especially if we ever begin to have major energy supply disruptions. That's the only time I could see cities like Portland, Denver, St Louis, etc start to build serious amounts of TOD development with tens of thousands of housing units around transit and business office parks around transit.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

...This makes sense for cities that are actually urban/transit oriented. Light rail makes sense for cities that really just have it as a supplement to an auto-oriented culture, such as in St Louis or Denver. Its better to have something than nothing, especially if we ever begin to have major energy supply disruptions. That's the only time I could see cities like Portland, Denver, St Louis, etc start to build serious amounts of TOD development with tens of thousands of housing units around transit and business office parks around transit.

I'm just not following you here. I'd say 98% of Denver's existing and planned Light Rail is completely grade separated in dedicated ROW. As I mentioned, the small downtown portion which isn't, has been bypassed with the CPV line to Union Station and is being converted into more of a streetcar starter line.

You say we'll never see major transit usage in Denver in our lifetimes, yet it's being projected to surpass 20% transit usage by 2025. That's fairly major for American cities, especially for medium sized American cities.

You say only if we have major energy supply disruptions, will cities like Portland, Denver & Saint Louis start building major TOD's. Again, I don't get it. Denver's Union Station neighborhood is a downtown TOD which will add over 3 million sq.ft. of office, thousands of residential units and a couple hotels and substantial retail. Then there is the countries largest TOD in Denver at the former Stapleton Airport which is less than 50% built-out and at full build-out will have 35,000 residents, and millions of sq.ft. of mix-use office/retail. There are dozens of other significant TOD's in various stages around Denver (some equally as impressive to the two I described). What exactly would qualify as substantial?

The trend is growing towards these TOD's and sustainable growth. I don't see why this trend will reverse. The next decade should see a lot of urban infill, LRT and EMU construction and increasing transit ridership in Denver.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Cities like Denver , St. Louis , & Portland are great examples on how a smaller system can produce alot positive results. Denver & Portland seem to be expanding at the same speed atm. St. Louis has the backing of the majority of the region. The one thing that LRT does do in every place its built , is attract investors. I think Denver will one day have a system as dense as Boston's. Its not really a question of if it will happen , but when it will happen. In 30 years , i think almost every city in the us will have a Streetcar , Light Rail or Regional Rail station within its borders. Our Country over the past 20 years has slowly gone back to the original days of Streetcars and Regional systems. LRT & any kind of Urban / Suburban molded rapid transit system is our future. Not Highways and roads which have proved nothing but stressful and environmentally damaging. Most of the Northeast plans to rebuild our systems over the next 20 years. So one day in 20 years , you can hope on a Train in Bangor,ME and travel down to Allentown ,PA on various routes. Many cities are planning to build or restore streetcar or light rail service. The Midwest is not that far behind the Northeast , although alot more work needs to be done.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

The WLRT video has a groovy soundtrack, for a demonstration video...

BTW, I think the problem with transit planning is forgetting the future and forecasting. Making an appropriate investment, even if it costs more, is the best option because of what can develop after its built. It is an infrastructure investment that will last many, many decades and if maintained correctly indefinitely into the future. I don't think transit is like highways because once you build a transit line, due to the nature of it, development can be radically different than building a highway in the middle of nowhere. Transit is typically built in areas that are already somewhat populated, or very populated. It allows a city to become more developed and redevelop existing neighborhoods as opposed to growth in the middle of nowhere.

This is one the biggest reasons I love the system in Vancouver. While it is an ALRT and has some similarities to other LRT system in terms of capacity per car. The fact that it is fully automated and grade separated makes it so much more. It might have cost us billions to build it. But it has guaranteed us a system that is more future proofed. It fully proved the worth of having it during the Olympics.

I know there are "people" out there who keep saying. Well you could of built so many more lines if you had built a cheaper LRT system. Sure we could of, but our system overall would have been slower. Once you get down at street level. And other vehicles or people can cross the tracks. It has to run slower for safety reasons. Sure you might be able to run the same frequency or train lengths. But it can't get up to top speed like a fully separated system can.

That said just because you build an LRT line it doesn't mean your are guaranteed TOD development around the stations. You really need a city council that is forward thinking and looking to build those TODs. It also helped that certain areas of Metro Van where commercial / industrial waste lands. So it was very easy to just knock out the buildings and start putting up the towers.