Agreed that the bigger the deal, the more people want to force it to be perfect. The rarity of transit builds, means both less construction and project management skills are well developed, and the more focus and push for perfection is required, the more impossible it is to build especially given the relative lack of project management experience.
I would say however, that we need to be careful judging a project too heavily by its capacity. It is the crucial question of decent running speeds, high frequency and actually making the connections with enough capacity for the load, that make a network function. I would suggest Eglinton at its Eastern end, will struggle with the decent running speeds, in part because of too close stops. However, by and large, the number of GO lines it also connects to mid town, and that it allows a ride between subway branches, makes it more valuable than its peak capacity would suggest. Finch west - needed to be longer in both directions, as well as faster. Its value for the network would have been radically higher, connecting to both Kitchener GO and the eastern leg of line 1 (and the bus terminal at Finch). I fully agree, because of politics, the network value is not considered enough, and the politics of "connecting" a location weighs too heavily.
Well, I think Eglinton's huge connectivity potential is exactly why the deficient capacity is such a big problem. Finch I might agree with, but it needs at least 1/3 less stops than it has! Then I would agree that extending it would have a lot of value.
The thing, at least for now, 15k is a lot larger than the current demand. Absolutely there are too many stops on Finch - the number on the 10k would be about right - if the line ran from Kitchener GO - to Yonge Street (spacing at 1k, makes more sense for this line).
"the current projects being built, particularly anything ambitious, will be the last project we ever do" has been something that really irks me. and I'm glad you've mentioned it here. I especially am bothered by it in relation to Alto. It's treated as a grand nation building project like the CPR was, forgetting that the CPR's utility was in all of the lines that it enabled to be built off of it. Alto needs to be viewed as a first step, but instead it's being treated as the goal. I desperately hope that the approach can change to one where where even at this stage, the question is being asked, " and what will be building after Alto?".
Interesting argument. There really might be something about how transit gets covered versus other infra projects.
I can't help but wonder, at least in the US, if some of the difference is that transit expansion often has to go through procedural steps that other infra projects don't. My favorite example is here in Austin: the LRT buildout required a public vote in 2020 to approve the funding mechanism. Meanwhile, the freeway expansion through downtown, which is widely loathed, is being rammed down our throats and over the objections of a lot of our political leaders, with no referendum. The vote on the transit raises the stakes, increases its visibility, and has created an attack surface for opponents (with a rash of lawsuits seeking to overturn the vote on various complicated legal grounds).
Oh this is still 100% true. And the road point basically should be brought up here. Roads are seen as essential so this "ramming" can be excused by many, the same is not extended to transit.
" A big issue you see in places that build and operate low amounts of public transit (North American cities generally) and which have undergone a low-build period, is that each project gets elevated to the status of grand civilizational program. "
San Diego has bucked this trend. Despite starting construction 11 years after the last rail extension, the Mid-Coast LRT had very low per-km costs and construction time (for North America). Thus even within San Diego, it received as little attention as an elevated LRT through the city's biggest University can get.
San Diego's mega-TODs also fly under the NIMBY radar. Take SDSU Mission Valley, an under-construction satellite campus. It's half the area of UT Scarborough but will have as many students, plus 4,600 apartments and an already-open MLS stadium.
A city-wide vote approved SDSU Mission Valley. Still, I talked to in-towners--from urbanists to transit staff standing at SDSU Mission Valley's LRT station directing post-game crowds--who think SDSU Mission Valley is just a stadium and have no idea about the 4,600 apartments and 15,000 student satellite campus!
Agreed that the bigger the deal, the more people want to force it to be perfect. The rarity of transit builds, means both less construction and project management skills are well developed, and the more focus and push for perfection is required, the more impossible it is to build especially given the relative lack of project management experience.
I would say however, that we need to be careful judging a project too heavily by its capacity. It is the crucial question of decent running speeds, high frequency and actually making the connections with enough capacity for the load, that make a network function. I would suggest Eglinton at its Eastern end, will struggle with the decent running speeds, in part because of too close stops. However, by and large, the number of GO lines it also connects to mid town, and that it allows a ride between subway branches, makes it more valuable than its peak capacity would suggest. Finch west - needed to be longer in both directions, as well as faster. Its value for the network would have been radically higher, connecting to both Kitchener GO and the eastern leg of line 1 (and the bus terminal at Finch). I fully agree, because of politics, the network value is not considered enough, and the politics of "connecting" a location weighs too heavily.
Well, I think Eglinton's huge connectivity potential is exactly why the deficient capacity is such a big problem. Finch I might agree with, but it needs at least 1/3 less stops than it has! Then I would agree that extending it would have a lot of value.
The thing, at least for now, 15k is a lot larger than the current demand. Absolutely there are too many stops on Finch - the number on the 10k would be about right - if the line ran from Kitchener GO - to Yonge Street (spacing at 1k, makes more sense for this line).
"the current projects being built, particularly anything ambitious, will be the last project we ever do" has been something that really irks me. and I'm glad you've mentioned it here. I especially am bothered by it in relation to Alto. It's treated as a grand nation building project like the CPR was, forgetting that the CPR's utility was in all of the lines that it enabled to be built off of it. Alto needs to be viewed as a first step, but instead it's being treated as the goal. I desperately hope that the approach can change to one where where even at this stage, the question is being asked, " and what will be building after Alto?".
Feels like a word is missing
`especially because North American media is by and large at covering this stuff and more or less seems uninterested in getting better`
perhaps a word like "bad" between "large" and "at"?
Yep! Thanks!
Interesting argument. There really might be something about how transit gets covered versus other infra projects.
I can't help but wonder, at least in the US, if some of the difference is that transit expansion often has to go through procedural steps that other infra projects don't. My favorite example is here in Austin: the LRT buildout required a public vote in 2020 to approve the funding mechanism. Meanwhile, the freeway expansion through downtown, which is widely loathed, is being rammed down our throats and over the objections of a lot of our political leaders, with no referendum. The vote on the transit raises the stakes, increases its visibility, and has created an attack surface for opponents (with a rash of lawsuits seeking to overturn the vote on various complicated legal grounds).
Oh this is still 100% true. And the road point basically should be brought up here. Roads are seen as essential so this "ramming" can be excused by many, the same is not extended to transit.
" A big issue you see in places that build and operate low amounts of public transit (North American cities generally) and which have undergone a low-build period, is that each project gets elevated to the status of grand civilizational program. "
San Diego has bucked this trend. Despite starting construction 11 years after the last rail extension, the Mid-Coast LRT had very low per-km costs and construction time (for North America). Thus even within San Diego, it received as little attention as an elevated LRT through the city's biggest University can get.
San Diego's mega-TODs also fly under the NIMBY radar. Take SDSU Mission Valley, an under-construction satellite campus. It's half the area of UT Scarborough but will have as many students, plus 4,600 apartments and an already-open MLS stadium.
A city-wide vote approved SDSU Mission Valley. Still, I talked to in-towners--from urbanists to transit staff standing at SDSU Mission Valley's LRT station directing post-game crowds--who think SDSU Mission Valley is just a stadium and have no idea about the 4,600 apartments and 15,000 student satellite campus!