News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

Rainforest said:
This line is very short, 1.5 mile = 2.4 km. Even at 12 kph, the trip time would not exceed 12 min.

Great out-of-the-box thinking on the part of New Orleans transit planners, as they found the right place to build a streetcar line. But a 15-km or 20-km transit corridor won't necessarily thrive with the same technology choice.
Click to expand...
Theres quite a difference between mixed traffic, and ROW
 
Amy Rose said:
Theres quite a difference between mixed traffic, and ROW
Click to expand...

Yes, ROW is definitely a better option for a long line.

I am not trying to say that LRT or streetcar is a bad idea; just that an impact of one successful line should not be mechanically projected to every street-rail project, when the underlying conditions are different.
 
There is a journal article by Herman Huang called "The Land Use Impacts of Urban Rail Transit Systems." It is published in 1996.

Here is the abstract:
Herman Huang said:
This article reviews research regarding the impacts of urban rail transit systems on real estate development in the United States and Canada. Transit played an instrumental role in urban expansion during the nineteenth century. More recently, rail transit has also often influenced urban development, but in conjunction with favorable zoning, attractive sites, and a strong market for development. Numerous examples of station-area projects can be found in San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, D.C. In several cities, land near transit stations has realized rent premiums. The effects of rail transit on development, independent of zoning and other factors, are not readily identified. Most research has not examined specific real estate projects from the developer's perspective. It is not clear whether rail transit is the most cost-effective means of directing development, but if rail transit is built, then station-area development should be encouraged to enhance the returns on the investment.
Click to expand...

Thus, the three most important requirements to bring success to real estate development with LRTs include a favourable policy, ample developable land, and demand for the land.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
I thought Eglinton's spacing was 800 m, and SELRT was 400 m?
Click to expand...
Easily checked.

According to the project website the Sheppard East LRT currently under construction has 26 stops and is 12 km long; therefore the average stop spacing is 480 m. With the Phase 2 extension to Meadowvale it would be 29 stops and 14 km long, making the average spacing 500 m.

The Eglinton LRT under construction is 19 km long with 27 stops, so the average spacing is 730 metres; and with the Phase 2 extension to Pearson would then be 33 km long with 42 stops, to the average spacing would be 800 metres.

Finch West is 11 km long with 20 stops giving a 580 metre spacing, and Phase 2 would extend it from Finch West station to Finch station making it 17 km long with 30 stops, and a 585 metre spacing.

The reconstructed SRT would be 9.9 km long with 8 stops with an average spacing of 1400 metres which would remain about the same in Phase when they add a 9th stop1500 metres away.
 
gweed123 said:
Oh come on, who wouldn't want Martian Bistros and patio cafes? :p
Click to expand...

With the two moons (and Earth) floating over the red sky.

Mars22Jul.jpg
 
Heavy rail and light rail can both create transit oriented development in nodes or along corridors, it depends more upon stop spacing than which mode is used. Bloor and Danforth both have tighter stop spacing, and there aren't high rises popping up at every stop. Likewise the Minneapolis LRT will see most of its new development around the stations than in between them.

Nodal development arguably is better than a long strip of TOD. Human settlement has always been focused around cores rather than long corridors, and the transit line serves a more practical purpose of transporting people between these nodes rather than being not much more than a glorified local transit route.
 
Electrify said:
Heavy rail and light rail can both create transit oriented development in nodes or along corridors, it depends more upon stop spacing than which mode is used. Bloor and Danforth both have tighter stop spacing, and there aren't high rises popping up at every stop. Likewise the Minneapolis LRT will see most of its new development around the stations than in between them.

Nodal development arguably is better than a long strip of TOD. Human settlement has always been focused around cores rather than long corridors, and the transit line serves a more practical purpose of transporting people between these nodes rather than being not much more than a glorified local transit route.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what type of development you want. If you're looking for mid-rise development, corridor is probably best. If you're looking for anything denser than that, I think you're better off to go with nodal.
 
The predictions that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT would spur development turned out to be true for much of its route.

Here's hoping that the Ontario Line would spur development along the route.
 
Johnny Au said:
The predictions that the Eglinton Crosstown LRT would spur development turned out to be true for much of its route.

Here's hoping that the Ontario Line would spur development along the route.
Click to expand...

Yes, but holy thread necro Batman!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top