DOCSLIB.ORG

Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of THE UËE OF EXISTING RAIL RTGHIS-OF_WAY TN THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRITISH AND NORTH AMERICAN LTGHT RATL TRANSIT SYSTEMS: EXCELLENT OPPORTUNTTY OR POTET{TTAL PROBLEM? BY STEVEN HOBSCIN A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Geogral>hy University of Manítoba Winnipeg, Manitoba (c) April L992 NflonarLibrav Bibliothèque nationale H*H du Canada Acquisitions and Direction des acquisitions et Bibliographic Services Branch des services bibliograPhiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Otlawa, Ontar¡o Ottawa (Ontario) K1A ON4 K1A ON4 Your hte Volre télerence Our l¡le Nol.e télércnce The author has granted an L'auteur a accordé une licence irrevocable non-exclus¡ve licence irrévocable et non exclus¡ve allowing the National Library of permettant à la Bibliothèque Canada to reproduce, loan, nationale du Canada de distribute or sell cop¡es of reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou his/her thesis by any means and vendre des copies de sa thèse in any form or format, making de quelque manière et sous this thesis available to interested quelque forme que ce soit pour persons. mettre des exemplaires de cette thèse à la disposition des person nes inttáressées. The author retains ownership of L'auteur conserve la propriété du the copyright in his/her thesis. droit d'auteur qu¡ protège sa Neither the thesis nor substantial thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits extracts from it may be printed or substantiels de celle-ci ne otherwise reproduced without doivent être imprimés ou his/her permission. autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. ISBN Ø-315-78Ø1Ø-X Canadä THE USE OF EXTSTING RAIL RIGHTS-OF-I,IAY IN TITE DEVELOPMENT OF BRITTSIT AND NORTIT AMERICAN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS: EXCELLENT OPPORTI]NITY OR POTENTIAI PROBELM? BY STEVEN IIOBSON A Thesis submitted to the Faculfy of G¡aduate Studies of the Universify of Manitoba in partial fuifillment of the reguirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS @ !992 Ps:rrission has been granted to the LIBRâRY OF THE UNT\aERSITY OF lvfA¡\TTOBA io lend or sell copies of this thesis, to the N¡\TIONAL LIBRARY OF CAÀIADA to mic¡ofil¡r this thesis and to lend o¡ sell copies of the filn, and UNT1ÆRSITY MIG.OFITMS to publ.ish a¡r absaact of this thesis. The author resen¡es other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor exte¡rsÍve exbacts from it may be printed or othenvise reproduced wÍihout the autho/s per:nission- ABSTRACT ïn North America arrd thie Urrited Kingdorn, a r'enewed interest, in the pctential abilíty of rail transport to sol-ve urban transport problems has par'tially manifested itself in support for Light Rail Transit (LRT). For nany of the LRT lines that have been constructed/will be constructed, existing rail rights-of-way have been/will be a vital ingredient in the planning and construction process- This can be attributed to the sirnplified task of construction and lower construction costs afforded by their u.se. Experience gained with the Miami "MetroraiI" rapid transit systen, however, suggests that existing rail alignments do not necessarily serve the best interests of the travelling public. The thesis exami-nes the Calgar-y LRT and the planned "Vancouver-Richmond Rapid Transit Project" and argues that in each case, greater enphasis upon a etreetcar' Ét1r1ç of oFeratiotr migirt be a betier' I-eciprs fot' LRT suecegis than simply using existing r'ai1 allgmnents for engineering and financial simplicity. l_I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wculiì like t.r-r exiend sir¡c:ere thanlis -bo iny ihesis ad.¡isor, Dr- Richar'd i-l- Foster'- His invaluable suggestions and advj-ce (in ]roth academic and administrati.¿e matt=rs), and enthusiasm for the project made life so much easier. I would al-so liire to give thanlçs and appreciation to Dr'- Ramesh C - Tiwari and Dr'. Allan M - Lansdown for kincli-y consenting to be examiners for this thesís- In addition I wish to acknovrledge the financial assistance of the University of Manitoba and the Cauadian Transportation F"esearch Forum- Finally, Ï dedicate thís thesis to my best friend Linda, whose encÕuragement and suppor'i nade it all possi]:l-e - 1rt CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii CONTENTS iv LÏST OF TABLES vii LÏST OF FIGURES viiÍ -1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION I Introduetion ¿ Literature Review cl -t c) Theeis Limitations ILì Definition of Terms 1Cr Methodology and Data Sources D1 ïhesis Organisatlon q/1 CHAPTER TT¡IO: UNDERSTANDTNG LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 2â A Brief History of Urban Transportatlon 27 The Pedestrian City The Horse-drawn Omnibus The Horse-drawn Tram (Horsecar') 30 Ihe Cable Car L]I Electric Tram (Streetcar) Õ¿ Ih"Ihe Motor Bus 34 The Trol-Iey Bus ÕE Other Rail Transport 36 The Automobile (Motor Car) *.rÁ1 What is Líeht Rail Transit? É.1./1 /1 Why Lieht Rail Translt? IV Page CHAPTER THREE: A SURVEY OF NORTH AMERICAN AND BRTTISH LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS 7A Canada: Edmonton {I Boston /o United States: 17 Buffalo TJ-ì Cleveland Dallas oo Los Angeles B9 (1 Pittsburgh È¡tta Portland 4"7 Sacramento IUI San Diego 105 San Jose IUc) Uníted Kingdom: Manchester l{Ð Sheffield r- 1B West Midlands (Birminghan) LLLI öf) Other Systems I¿U1-û Conclusions '1 1'7 CHAPTER FOUR: CASE STUDY A _ THE CALGARY LRT l_s0 1'11t Background to the Calgary LRT I¿ 1. J ?E The System 1'JJ South Corridor AJJ Northeast LRT l-¿rO r Da.ì lrlorthwest LRT -LUùj/ Future Plans L4L 1 /1¡1 Criticism Lnf. South Corridor- LRT LRT atu1 ¡1 0 Northeast '1.4Cl Northwest LRT { Ãt: Transit Mall- IJJ Conclusions IiJO Page CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDY B _ THE VANCOUVER-RICHMOND RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT 16r_ Background to the Vancouver-Richmond Rapid Transit Project roo The Project 166 Introduction 166 The Arbutus Corridor 169 Alternative Alignments T7B Project Footnote 186 -l a¡-7 Conclusions -L(J I l alll CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Ir:lrJ BÏBLIOGRAPHY rllìa vl_ LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Lieht rail construction costs per route-kilometre 6 Tab1e 2. Comparison of annual costs for bus 1ane, busway and LRï systems 135 Tabl-e 3. Distanee breakdown of the Calgary LRT L41 vrL LÏST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Miami "Metroraj-I" System Map Ê Figure 2- Lieht, Rail Transit j-n North America and the United Kingdom 6t FiEure 3. Edmonton LRT - System Map (¿L Figure 4. Boston "Green Lj-ne" LRT - System Map 77 Fieure 5. Buffalo "Metro RaíI" LRT - System Map BO FiÊure 6. Cleveland "Green LinelBlue Line" LRT - System Map (JJOE Figure 7 - Dallas LRT - System Map Figure 8. Los Angeles "Metro Blue Line" LRT - System Map a-] I crÊ Figure 9, Pittsburch LRT - System [-lap JJ Fieure 10 - Portland "Metropolitan Area Express" LRT - System Map oo Figure 11. Sacramento "RT Metro" LRT - System Map 103 Figure L2- San Diego "Tro1ley" LRT - System Map 107 Figure 13. Santa Cl-ara County LRf - System Map 110 Figure L4. Manchester "Metrolink" LRT - System Map 7L4 Figure 15. South Yorkshíre "Supertram" LRT - System Map llB Flsure 16. West Mldlands "Mldland Metro" LRT - Syetem Map Flgure 17 . Calgary "C-Traln" LRf - Syetem Map Figure 18. Rapid Transit in the Greater Vancouver Regi-on rt)3 Fieure 19. Vancouver"-Richmond Rapid Transit Project Study Corrldor: Resldentlal Vancouver comPonent 770 viii CHAPTER ONE: ÏNTRODUCTÏON Introduction Since the late 1970s, but partj-cularly from the rnid 198Os, there has breen a r'enewed interest in r'aíl based urban public transport in North America and the United. Kingdom. It has evolved from a growing belief that "the auto alone cannot satisfy Ithe] transportation needs of cities for physical, social, economic, and environmental reasons" (Vuchic, 1981, Þ.460). fndeed, a publication by the United States Department of Tr.ansportation states that "an integrated" efficient, well-managed public transit system is the sine crua non of the more ener'gy-efficient, less auto- and oil-dependent city of tLre future" (Feir.ce 1980, p.9 ) . A dissatisfaction wi-r,h the existing urban transportation ni>: of car- usage on a large scale ancl an inadequate public transport eystem (often bus only) has promÞted many British and Nor'th Arnerican cities to reconsider the value of rail- transportation- There is now increasing necognition that some forn of electr.ified r.ail system can alleviate road traffíc congestion and remove some noise and air pollution from city streets- The fact remains, however, that it is very difficult to persuade motorists to leave their vehicl-es at home and use public iransport instead. In L967, for example, tv.'o nationwide surveys were conducted ín the United States that asked the question: "The auto pollutes air., creates - traffic, demolishes property, and kiIIs people- Is the contribution the auto makes to our way of life wor'th this?" In 80% of the responses the ansvrer' v¡as "yes" (Demaree L97O, p.L26). This is not really surprising. At the heart of the de'bate lies the notion of "freedom" and the tenacity with which we hold on to it - A car permits the individual to move beyond the confj-nes of the fixed routes and fixed schedules of public transport- The problem of promoting the j-ncreased use of public transport aõ a solution to the transportatíon problems that currently plague our cities ís the problem of persuading individuals to forfeit some of their freedom for the sake of the conmon good- The probl-em might, hor,rrever, be ameliorated through improvements to both the quality and quantity of public iransport available- It is possible that an attractive and relatively itrexpensive transportation alternative to the private car could compensate for the loss of freedom that we experience by l-eaving our car at hone, or by not driving aliogether- Therefore, if there is to be a substantial modal shift from the car to public transport systems, then those systerns rnust prove themselves in the eyes of the public- Part of any success rnust rest with the selection of those pu'blic transport routes which best serve the needs of the travelling public- A poorly selected route will probably result in low ridership, will ultimately be refl-ected itr 4 the rouie's degree of success or failure, and can mar the chances of other lines and systens tha'i; ä.r'e in the Fl-anning stages of gaining funding,/voter approval.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • August 2007 Bulletin.Pub
    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - AUGUST, 2007 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 50, No. 8 August, 2007 The Bulletin SECOND AVENUE SUBWAY Published by the New WILL BE ENERGY-EFFICIENT York Division, Electric WILL BE ENERGY-EFFICIENT Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box The Second Avenue Subway is the biggest Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 3001, New York, New expansion in decades of New York City’s flood maps, which establish flood elevations York 10008-3001. public transportation system. Scheduled for for a 50-year flood, 100-year flood, and 500- completion in 2013, Phase One includes the year flood for each area. In new construction, extension of Q service, with stations at 72nd all entrances, exits, and openings from the For general inquiries, th th contact us at nydiv@ Street, 86 Street, and 96 Street. station and tunnel will be built at least one electricrailroaders.org NYC Transit’s April, 2007 At Your Service foot above the 100-year flood elevation. All or by phone at (212) newsletter describes the energy-efficient fea- underground construction will be water- 986-4482 (voice mail tures of the new subway. In 2004, NYC Tran- proofed and will have pump rooms. The older available). ERA’s subway lines have street gratings which pro- website is sit won the Green Building Design Award for www.electricrailroaders. station skylights, energy-efficient lighting, vide ventilation with the piston action of the org. energy-efficient aluminum third rails, and es- trains. The Second Avenue Subway will not calators that run at a reduced speed when have any street gratings, but will have open- Editorial Staff: they are not used.
    [Show full text]
  • Calgary's Electric Transit: Index
    COLIN K. HATCHER AND TOM SCHWARZKOPF CALGARY’S ELECTRIC TRANSIT: INDEX A Ball, D.B. 136 Bridgeland/Memorial Calgary International Baltimore Transit station 170, 172, 180 Airport 173 Aarons, Walter 27 Company 126 Brill 74, 119 Calgary Municipal Railway Abandonment Sunnyside Baltimore ACF trolley bus ACF 126, 139, 143 14, 24, 29, 32, 35, 36, 46, cut 88 132, 138, 142 Canadian Car 121, 139 49, 50, 56, 59, 65, 66, 67, Ablonczy, Diane. MP 190 Banff Trail station 176, 178, CC&F 126 71, 74, 76, 79, 83, 85, 88, Accessibility 189 181, 182 C36 123 97, 99, 103, 111, 119, 120 Accident 31, 41, 63, 74, 101, Bank of Montreal 92, 101 gasoline coach 121 Calgary Municipal Railway 162, 163 Bankview 30, 31, 50, 53 trolley bus 121 Social Insurance and Sick ACF Brill 126, 132, 134, 139, Barlow/Max Bell station Brinton, motor conductor, Benefit Association 67 142 170 101 Calgary Public Library 152 Adie, George, 14, 34, 98 Bay, The 46 Brisebois 7 Calgary Stampede 174 Aitken, R.T.D. 11 Beal, S.K. 30 British United Traction Calgary Tower 205 Alberta College of Art 177 Belt Line 119, 120, 121, 123, Ltd. 131 Calgary Transit 24, 103, Alberta Hotel 16, 131, 134 Brown Boveri Mercury Arc 107, 140, 141, 185 Alberta Interurban Railway Blackfoot Confederacy 7 Rectifier portable Calgary Transit light rail 35 Block heaters 156, 170 substation 139 transit CTrain 187 Alberta Stockyards building Blue Arrow express bus 145, Brown, R.A. 76, 77, 79, 81, Calgary Transit System 123, 66, 72, 108 162, 176 85, 88, 97, 111 124, 127, 132, 136, 140 Allis-Chalmers-Bullock 12 Blue Rock Hotel
    [Show full text]
  • What's New in North American Light Rail Transit Projects?
    What's New in North American Light Rail Transit Projects? JOHN W. SCHUMANN his paper summarizes North (1986), and Sacramento and San Jose American light rail transit (1987). All these projects have been T( LRT) progress during recent ositive and productive additions to years. Existing system rehabilitation the transit networks in their respective and new project planning, design, con- areas. LRT is under construction in struction, and start-up activities are Los Angeles and in an advanced state discussed. To depict the significant of planning or design in more than a effects of recent changes in the North dozen other places. These projects en- American LRT situation, the text and compass urban areas where LRT may data update the author's paper Evalua- be a natural "step up" from an all-bus tions of Operating Light Rail Transit transit system, as well as cities that and Streetcar Systems in the United have discarded proposals for other States, published in TRB Special Re- guideway technologies. With old sys- port 182 (1978). Since then, U.S. LRT/ tem reconstruction and a flurry of new streetcar cities (Boston, Newark, Phil- starts, LRT has become the guideway adelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New mode of choice for an increasing num- Orleans, Fort Worth, and San Fran- ber of cities. LRT provides adequate cisco) have replaced old cars or rebuilt levels of service, speed, and comfort fixed facilities or both. Similar for realistically projected passenger changes have occurred in Toronto and flows; it is affordable to build and run; Mexico City. Seven cities have opened it enhances urban development with- new LRT systems since 1977: Edmon- out "Manhattanization"; and it is a ton (1978), Calgary and San Diego sensitive, environmentally compatible (1981), Buffalo (1985), Portland neighbor to the communities it serves.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento Streetcar System Plan
    SACRAMENTO STREETCAR SYSTEM PLAN February 2012 Acknowledgements City of Sacramento – City Council Kevin Johnson – Mayor Jay Schenirer – District 5 Angelique Ashby – Vice Mayor, District 1 Kevin McCarty – District 6 Sandy Sheedy – District 2 Darrell Fong – District 7 Steve Cohn – District 3 Bonnie Pannell – District 8 Robert King Fong – District 4 City of Sacramento – Project Coordinators Fedolia “Sparky” Harris – Department of Transportation (DOT) Denise Malvetti – Economic Development Department (EDD) Project Technical Advisory Committee City of Sacramento Sacramento Regional Transit District Hector Barron – DOT RoseMary Covington Bill Crouch – Community Development Jeff Damon Leslie Fritzsche – EDD Ryan Moore – DOT SACOG Tom Pace – Community Development Jim Brown Greg Taylor – Community Development Ed Williams – DOT Consultant Team Fehr & Peers Shiels Obletz Johnsen (SOJ) Bob Grandy (Project Manager) Ken Johnsen David Carter Rick Gustafson Robin Hutcheson Brad Tong Nicole Foletta Kyle Cook HDR Steve Rhyne Charlie Hales Carrie Carsell Jim Hecht Amy Smith Sharon Kelly AIM Consulting Bay Area Economics Gladys Cornell Matt Kowta Ciara Zanze Ron Golem Messagesmith Douglas Wright Consulting Rick Laubscher Doug Wright Sacramento Streetcar System Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................1 Plan Goals . .1 Planning Context . .1 Purpose and Need Statement . 4 II. STREETCAR NETWORK PLANNING PROCESS ..................................6 Planning Stages . .6 III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in Calgary's Green Line LRT (Fall 2015) ATTACHMENT 2
    TT2015-0881 Investing in Calgary's Green Line LRT (Fall 2015) ATTACHMENT 2 Investing in Calgary’s Green Line LRT Fall 2015 TT2015-0881, GREEN LINE FUNDING, STAGING AND DELIVERY/Att2.pdf Page 1 of 14 ISC: Unrestricted Investing in Calgary's Green Line LRT (Fall 2015) ^ The Green Line In 1981, Calgary’s fi st LRT line was opened, revolutionizing transportation in our city. The system has since expanded to become the backbone of the regional transit network with 58 route-kilometres of track and 45 stations. Today, on the average weekday, over 320,000 passengers are carried on the existing LRT network, making it the most successful LRT system in North America. The Green Line is the next LRT line to be built in Calgary. In 2014 Calgary City Council committed $520 million to this project to start initial implementation of the Green Line. On July 24, 2015 the Government of Canada made a historic funding commitment to the Green Line of up to $1.53 billion, contingent on matching provincial and municipal funds. The City of Calgary hopes to use this opportunity to partner with all levels of government and advance construction. North Pointe 96 Ave N Beddington Blvd Tuscany 72 Ave N Saddletowne 64 Ave N McKnight Blvd 40 Ave N 28 Ave N 16 Ave N 9 Ave N 9 Ave N Downtown 4 Street SE Inglewood / Ramsay 69 Street W Downtown Crossroads Highfield Lynnwood Ogden South Hill Green Line Quarry Park Existing LRT NOTE: Alignment, and station locations/ Douglas Glen names subject to confirmation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rundle Station Area Master Plan Stakeholder Report Back: What We Heard February 2017
    Rundle Station Area Master Plan Stakeholder Report Back: What We Heard February 2017 Project overview The City of Calgary is developing a Master Plan for the Rundle LRT Station area. The Plan will guide future development and create a long term vision for the area. Input from stakeholders will be used in the development of the Plan. Engagement overview This report covers Phase 1 of the engagement process. The goal of Phase 1 engagement was to introduce stakeholders to the project, familiarize them with the potential elements of a Master Plan, and get a sense of what people like about the Station Area as it is now. As well, Phase 1 was used to learn about how best to engage stakeholders. Phase 1 consisted of: Face-to-face events: Pop-up events: Rundle Community Association Christmas Craft Sale Rundle LRT Station Cineplex Odeon Sunridge Spectrum Cinemas Sunridge Mall Drop-in sessions: Two sessions were held at the Rundle Community Association Hall in December 2016 Meeting with commercial landowner stakeholders: One meeting was held in November of 2016 Event Details Event Date Purpose Commercial landowner November 4, 2016 Provide updates on project, answer meeting questions. Rundle LRT Station November 25, 2016 Promote December drop-in sessions. Sunridge Cineplex November 25, 2016 Promote December drop-in sessions, answer questions about the project, and seek stakeholder input. 1/26 Rundle Station Area Master Plan Stakeholder Report Back: What We Heard February 2017 Sunridge Mall November 25, 2016 Promote December drop-in sessions, answer questions about the project, and seek stakeholder input. Rundle Community November 26, 2016 Promote December drop-in sessions, Association Christmas answer questions, and seek Craft Sale stakeholder input.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Technologies
    Transit Technologies December 2008 1. Introduction This is one in a series of backgrounders that have been produced by Metrolinx to provide further explanation and clarification on the policies and directions of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is available for downloading at www.metrolinx.com. From an improvised vanpool to leading edge magnetic levitation trains, a wide variety of transit technologies are in service around the world. Many are in use currently in our transportation system. Several more could be implemented. This backgrounder provides information about different transit technologies considered in the RTP. Metrolinx wishes to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of IBI Group to the preparation of this backgrounder. 2. General Variables between Technologies Operational Considerations 1. Average Speed: average speed of the service from end to end, including all stops. Low average speeds are appropriate for local trips but cannot make transit competitive with the private automobile over longer distances. The lower the speed, the more vehicles (and drivers) are required to provide the same frequency and capacity. 2. Station Spacing: distance between stations. A shorter station spacing will reduce the average walk distance to access transit but will lower the average speed because of the need for more frequent stops. 3. Grade Separation: grade separation helps insulate transit traffic from general traffic and can be achieved by routing a line through a tunnel, in an elevated structure, or on the surface with the use of barriers (e.g. at road crossings). Key benefits include greater speed from not stopping at intersections, reduced risk of collision and reduced risk of delay and “bunching” resulting from traffic congestion.
    [Show full text]
  • Calgary's Light Rail Transit Line Page 1 of 2
    Calgary Transit: Calgary's Light Rail Transit Line Page 1 of 2 HOME | CONTACT US | SCHOOL SERVICE | ACCESS CALGARY | CAREER | FARES | ROUTE MAPS | SITE CONTENT Calgary's Light Rail Transit Line Back to Routes and Maps Calgary Transit operates a fleet of 156 Siemens – Duwag built Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) that run on 56 kilometers of double track and serves 44 stations. The “CTrain” as it is known today began operation in 1981 May with one line, starting at Anderson Station and ending at 8 Street West Station. Since then, the CTrain System has expanded several times as shown in the chronology below. • 1985 April 29 – N.E. line opens from Whitehorn Station to 8 Street West Station • 1987 September 7 – N.W line opens. Route 201 now travels from Anderson Station in the south to the University of Calgary in the north. • 1990 August 31 – N.W. line is extended to Brentwood Station • 2001 October 26 – S.W. line is extended to Fish Creek/Lacomb • 2003 December 15 – N.W. line is extended to Dalhousie • 2004 June 28 - S.W. line is extended to Somerset/Bridlewood • 2007 December 17 – N.E. line is extended to McKnight/Westwinds • 2009 June 15 – N.W. line is extended to Crowfoot • 2012 August 27 – N.E. line is extended to include Martindale and Saddletowne • 2012 December 10 - New West LRT line completed from downtown to 69 Street SW. Today the total system is comprised of two distinct lines known as the Route 201 Crowfoot/Somerset- Bridlewood and the Route 202 Saddletowne/69 Street W.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Oriented Development, Best Practices Handbook
    Trransitansit OOrientedriented DDevelopmentevelopment Best Practices Handbook January 2004 ... for smart development around transit stations Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a walkable, mixed use form of development focused around a transit station. Concentrating higher density development near the station makes transit convenient and encourages ridership. This Best Practices Handbook introduces the key planning principles behind successful TOD. It summarizes some of the current practices for designing and implementing transit oriented development. In this handbook, you will find information on the following: • Why plan for land use around transit stations? • Where does TOD occur? • Why is TOD important for Calgary? • What are current Calgary policies for TOD? • What are the TOD “Best Practices”? • Where is TOD being built? • How are cities implementing TOD? • Where can you find out more about TOD? This Best Practices Handbook is not a policy document. It is intended as an information resource for Council, developers, builders, planners, urban designers, communities and the general public. Its purpose is to explain TOD, its characteristics, its benefits and its challenges. It will serve as a background document for future City of Calgary policies which will guide TOD land uses, urban design and implementation strategies at LRT stations. The Handbook will also help stimulate creative thinking and discussion, and ultimately facilitate the smart development of lands around Calgary’s LRT stations. Why Plan for Land Use Around Transit Stations? Calgary City Council has endorsed Advancing Smart Growth as a key priority in its 2002-2004 mandate. Smart Growth recommends a balanced approach to municipal development by supporting economic development, a healthy environment and strong communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Toronto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto Coordinates: 43°42′N 79°24′W From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Toronto (/tɵˈrɒntoʊ/, local /ˈtrɒnoʊ/) is the most populous city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario. It is located in Toronto Southern Ontario on the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario. The City history of Toronto began in the late 18th century when the British Crown purchased its land from the Mississaugas of the New City of Toronto Credit. The settlement established there became York, which lieutenant governor John Graves Simcoe designated as the capital of Upper Canada. The city was ransacked in the Battle of York during the War of 1812. In 1834, York became a city and renamed to Toronto. It was damaged in two huge fires in 1849 and 1904. Since 1954, the city occasionally expanded its borders through amalgamation with surrounding municipalities, most recently occurring in 1998. According to the 2011 Census, the city has 2.6 million residents, making it the fifth-most populous city in North America. However, in 2012, the municipal government published a population estimate of 2,791,140, which led to media reports claiming Toronto as the fourth most populous city in North America and the most populous Great Lakes city, surpassing Chicago.[2][3] The census metropolitan area (CMA) had a population of 5,583,064,[4] and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) had a population of 6,054,191 in From top left: Downtown Toronto featuring the CN Tower and the 2011 Census.[5] Toronto is at the heart of the Greater Toronto Financial District from the Toronto Islands, City Hall, the Ontario Area, and of the densely populated region in Southern Ontario Legislative Building, Casa Loma, Prince Edward Viaduct, and the Scarborough Bluffs known as the Golden Horseshoe.
    [Show full text]
  • CN's Milton Intermodal Terminal
    Box 1197 449 Queen Street West St. Marys, Ontario N4X 1B7 (519) 868-2989 www.allaboardstmarys.ca FOR RELEASE: June 11, 2018 St. Marys citizens’ rail committee to Premier- Designate Ford: We’re watching you closely ST. MARYS, ONTARIO – The election of Doug Ford’s majority Progressive Conservative (PC) government on June 7 is viewed as both good and bad news by the All Aboard St. Marys citizens’ rail action committee. “The good news is there is a handful of MPPs in this government who have shown concern – if not taken action – regarding the accelerating deterioration of our rail passenger and intercity bus services,” says All Aboard St. Marys founder Chris West. “I’m thinking particularly of Interim Leader Vic Fedeli, who has always graciously and sincerely supported efforts to restore the rail passenger service to his hometown of North Bay and all the communities along the route of the Northlander, which the former Liberal government arbitrarily cancelled in 2012.” Although there is this small group of PC members in the new government who have been verbally supportive of practical solutions to our increasingly dysfunctional transportation system, there are far more whose views and past actions concern All Aboard St. Marys. Says West, “In order to deal with this situation, we have asked rail consultant and government policy advisor Greg Gormick to rejoin the All Aboard St. Marys team as our strategic policy advisor. Having completed five major rail studies for Oxford County, including his forthcoming SouthwestLynx: Integrated High-Performance Public Transportation for Southwestern Ontario, he has agreed to assist us.
    [Show full text]
  • University Hill Transportation Study Final Recommendations September 2007
    University Hill Transportation Study Final Recommendations September 2007 Appendices Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey with Wallace Roberts and Todd Alta Planning and Design Contents Appendix A – University Hill Corporation Endorsement Letter – Land Use Concept Appendix B – Streetcar Summary Technical Memorandum Appendix C – Air Quality Analysis Appendix D – Cost Estimations APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY HILL CORPORATION LAND USE CONCEPT ENDORSEMENT LETTER APPENDIX B STREETCAR SUMMARY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM University Hill Transportation Study Appendix B - Technical Memorandum Streetcars Summary August 2007 Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey with Wallace Roberts and Todd Alta Planning and Design University Hill Transportation Study Streetcar Summary CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................2 IMPROVED MOBILITY & ACCESSIBILITY ......................................................................2 PLACE MAKING & ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................5 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION ..............................................................................7 FUNDING ................................................................................................................8 CASE STUDIES ......................................................................................................12 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. PORTLAND STREETCAR ………………………………………………………2 FIGURE 2. REPLICA VINTAGE STREETCAR ………………………………………………4
    [Show full text]