URBS 310 FINAL

Flattened density gradient
Made possible suburbs and commuters/commuting (streetcar suburbs)
Densities were lower but still high enough that people lived close together and walked to public transit

strated by private company
Greatest extent of track reached in 1933: 520 km, at a time when the metropolitan population of Montreal was 1 million.
By 1951, the end of the railway city era (peak in about 1930), the City of Montreal had reached a population of 1,036,542 inhabitants

Beginning in 1912 buses (1st trolley buses and later diesel buses) began replacing streetcars
Streetcar popularity persisted during the 1930s (great depression) and early 1940s (WW2) but by the late 1940s rapid removal began
Led by engineers in the us, plans were underway to build a new type of fast road (expressway, highway, freeway) surrounding and through all cities

1956 the last streetcar on st catherine street, and the last one ever in 1959

A shift had occurred- from public transport as transport infrastructure run by private firms for profits, to govt owned and operated infrastructure run for the benefits but not charging full price. But by that stage most government investment was going into roads for automobiles

first truly modern car produced in 1901, and assembly line manufacturing of automobiles pioneered by Ford in Detroit, early 20th century
mass manufacturing made the car an attainable good for the many middle class households.
its adoption is slow – the infrastructure wasn’t sufficient and people’s incomes weren’t high enough to own and run

Fast roads used almost mainly by automobiles (and to a lesser extent buses and trucks) and not by non-motorized transport or railways
Necessary component of “automobile cities” or “automobile dependent cities”
Made possible by large government (“public”) investments, even in some cases where private owner-operators are involved to some extent

NY subway began operation in 1904, expanded until 1930s
cause:
Urban rails congested the street → led to idea of putting them underground
Montreal: removed fast rails network of street to be replaced by automobiles

London has first rapid transit with electric traction- 1890
1st version were using coal to power - 1863
NYC is first 4 track rapid transit subway line for local and express services- 1904

Opened 1904
First expressed service- 40 miles or 65 km
Stimulated development of northern manhattan and the bronx
1913 expansion conceived by progressive reformers to allow lower manhattan's poor to move outward
3rd network 1932-1940, and after that all roads and highways for decades
1940 public takeover

1. investments in new transit infrastructure continue in many cities, even in the US beginning in the 1970s
2. expansion of urban rail mass transit (both heavy/metro/subway and LRT) and suburban rail mass transit, and experiments with bus semi-rapidapid transit
3. new urban rail infrastructure is most successful at carrying large numbers of people in areas built up during the streetcar era
4. challenge in encouraging public transit ridership in automobile suburbs (incompatible land use issue)

UK:
in the decade after World War II, all Britain’s major cities moved to scrap their tram systems
the real reason for the end seems to have been deliberate policy
city planning departments tended to regard trams as an old-fashioned mode of transport which seemed inappropriate to the brave new world they were trying to create

Germany:
in Germany the trains (“rolling stock”) was upgraded and in response to congestion, trams were put underground – a lower cost solution than a new rail rapid transit system
new light rail systems (LRT) were encouraged in larger cities of Germany

rail investment stopped in the US, from 1930s until 1970s
In 1960s a program of federal transit aid created
in the US new urban heavy rail systems (some of which more like commuter-metro hybrids) and new light rail systems built in 1970s and 1980s
transit investment boomed

1950s: Canada’s first subway (in second largest city)
1960s: first subway in Canada’s largest city
1970s: significant upgrade to commuter rail in Toronto, and light rail transit in Edmonton and Calgary
1980s: mini-metro (automated and elevated/ underground light rail) in Toronto (Scarborough) and Vancouver (SkyTrain), bus rapid transit /transitway in Ottawa
1990s: revival of commuter rail in Montreal (AMT trains), first commuter rail in Vancouver (West Coast Express) and continued expansion of LRT and rail rapid transit in Toronto and Vancouver

2000s: new subway line in Toronto and one new line (Canada Line to airport) in Vancouver, and expansion of Montreal Metro to Laval, and new commuter train line in Montreal, Viva bus rapid transit in suburban Toronto
2010s: LRT in Kitchener-Waterloo (Ion), Ottawa (O-Train Line 1), new Vancouver SkyTrain line, Toronto airport line, expansion of Toronto subway north, new Calgary Ctrain line
2020s: new metro/light rail system in Montreal, new LRT lines (Crosstown, Finch West LRT, Hazel McCallion LRT Line) in Toronto, Phase 2 LRT in Ottawa, extension of Vancouver SkyTrain at two ends, LRT in Hamilton and/or Quebec City

Urban (frequent all day service with many stops in the built up area – not just an “express” or “suburban” stopping pattern) rail rapid transit infrastructure made possible the survival and expansion of dense built environments in the automobile era (particularly when the timing was good – during a period of growth and before too much had been destroyed).

Caveat: land use policies and planning that discourage building around transit cancel potential for saving the city.

Local stops: very close together
Rapid: less stops
Express: skip many stops with few at the beginning and more at end with none in middle

Walking catchment of rail is about 800m and 400m for buses
Need all 3 services to be efficient

Locally focused on walking networks around stations and the public transit lines
Tends to be caried out by planners of new public transit lines (railway lines or bus routes) and regional or municipal transit agencies, and some municipal or regional land use planning departments concerned with the long –term municipal or metropolitan land use/development plan
“free-form” – there’s not a clear template
Thinking small scale, local, and case-by-case
Long history, revived in recent years

A larger scale type of transportation planning.
Estimating/forecasting/predicting where people will travel on a regional scale by automobile and public transit
It is based on a series of stages
Based on predictions of movement between small “zones” across a whole metropolitan area or a substantial part
Infrastructure focused – it is used for assessing proposals for infrastructure projects (mainly freeways and urban rail rapid transit or LRT)
Usually carried by metropolitan transportation planning authorities or provincial governemnts
Using mathematical equations / statistics
Has tended to be used in support of more automobile use, although it can be used forecasting demand for new public transit lines

Prior to the 1940s, transportation planning was not done systematically – if there was demand from people to travel on a route, a companyusiness would build
In that era, there was not much land use control by public authoritiesovernment so land owners could build infrastructure and develop land with few constraints
More recently,
governments begin regulating and planning the use of land

Benefit:
Large scale
Provide “objective” forecasts

Criticisms
1) biased in favour of travel by higher income commuters travelling longer distances by car and rapid transit
Didn’t take into account walking
Didn’t take account people working at home or people working locally
2) under-predicted car use and over-predicted rapid transit use
3) overlooked induced travel

Extra travel resulting from the new infrastructure and land use patterns
In the past, not taken into account by the urban transport planners who assumed more infrastructure would decrease congestion

Transportation and land use are linked
Land use ---> travel behaviour
If we want higher use of public transit, we need supportive land use patterns. In particular, relatively dense, mixed use, with “walkability”
Also, that travel behaviour → land use

Tod should precede transit – TODs can exist without transit
Fundamental structure is nodal
these principles are not new, but are fundamentally different from the ideas the ideas that have guided planning for the last two generations

Not enough of it – it’s focused but doesn’t change the overall pattern – lacks the regional scale
Taken advantage of by private developers seeking profits and displacement occurs
Concept is mix-used to refer to other things including park and ride, the thing that TOD was proposed to replace

Change in supply
Construction of new highway
What is the effect on congestion? Travel times?

Change in demand
Introduction of road use tax

Origins and destination
Designed to understand travel behaviour in a region
Trips taken
Origin-destination
Start and end time
Travel mode used
Trip purpose
Collected data used
For modeling and analytic

Montreal OD- started in 1970 and every 5 years now

Computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI)
Significant resources
3 months of collection
1,000 persons day of work

Info collected
Goal: average patterns for average fall day
For each household:
Location
Number of people and automobiles
Income
For each person
Demographic
Trips:
Automobile itineraries

Generation:
goals : how many trips originate from this zone, and end in this zone
Distribution
Fill in OD matrix
Mode split
the method to make the trip
Assignment
Predict routes through the road and transit network
Result: system performance

mobility and travel generally have environmental and social impacts that extend beyond the individuals
cumulative effects types of problems – it doesn’t matter if individuals drive, take transit, or walk – it’s the cumulative effect of six million trips in metro Montreal.

Fine particulate matter and ground‐level ozone (O3) are the main components of smog and they have been associated with eye, nose and throat irritations, shortness of breath, exacerbation of respiratory conditions and allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death. The young, the elderly, those with acute illnesses and those living near cities are at greater risk.

…energy savings experienced in high density apartment are due to shared walls, centralized heating and cooling systems, abd smaller dwelling units
Potential exists to substantially reduce environmental impacts while accommodating new residents if redevelopment concentrates residential and commercial growth around existing high capacity transit service

Shifting from fossil fuels as primary energy sources to renewable energy sources
Affect level if emissions
Usually requires changing engines- although sometimes gasoline mixture or fuel type

Changing engines and fuel production processes, as well as fuel distribution, and reducing vehicle weights and sizes
More efficient and smaller vehicles
Get more out of less fuel

More walking, cycling, transit
Re orienting infrastructure investments and redesigning streets

Change trip frequencies and distances through land use change
densification / intensification, smart growth, TOD, land preservation (ie green belts, parks)

Amount and mode shares are fairly stable- fairly predictable
lots of transport infrastructure
gov have lots of influence over transport and land use
lawsegulations, infrastructure, taxes

Changing quickly
cities of the future are being built now
high levels of motorcycles
lots of informal activity
informal transport

Throughout the Global South, the car –
poses serious to communities: poor local
air quality and unsafe streets
Public health crises

'small-vehicle' modes
'illicit'- lacking official endorsement and privately operated by self-employed
'gap fillers' in places with large shortfalls in services
high externalities per unit of productivity (lack of
insurance, health and safety, unhealthy
competition)

Constraining car ownership and use will be necessary
Providing attractive and convenient public transportation
Pedestrian spaces
bicycle networks

Motorization: the process of change from movement requiring human (or animal) power to the use of vehicles (automobiles, buses, trucks,
motorcycles) which have fuel-burning engines

This new form of transport provides higher access to opportunities
(accessibility) by increasing individual mobility, but with high
social costs

The problems will continue to be difficult if, as household incomes rise, people
“trade in” their motorcycles for cars, which take up a lot more space.
ex: Ho Chi Man City

Motorization of the Global South is leading to an amplification
of benefits of higher levels of mobility (greater accessibility of
opportunities located further away), as well as the negative
consequences (including local air pollution, global greenhouse
gas emissions, vehicle collisions resulting in injuries and
deaths).

Collisions between automobiles, motorcycles, and
people accounted for more than one million deaths in
2013 (WHO, 2013).

South East Asian and South Asian countries reporting
data to the WHO: 75,331 fatalities of riders of 2 and 3
wheeled vehicles in 2007

highest cause of death among peole aged 15-29