There is a school of thought that elevated rail is bad, or at least suboptimal, for cities. The thinking is that it's a visual blight, it's noisy, it disconnects neighbourhoods, and it can even reduce surrounding real estate values. Having a train passing directly in front of your window is admittedly less ideal than not having a train passing directly in front of your window.
But there is no shortage of examples from around the world where elevated rail does far more to benefit a community than detract from it. Tokyo is perhaps the obvious place to look. It is decidedly rail-oriented city with the majority of its network above ground and countless examples of active commercial spaces being tucked under and adjacent to elevated rail.
Here, for example, is a restaurant that I visited on my last trip and that was immediately adjacent to a track:
But you don't have to travel all the way to Japan to find examples where elevated rail does little to detract from the urban experience. Here's Marine Drive station in Vancouver, integrated into a newish development:
And here's what the elevated guideway looks like as it heads toward the station:
The obvious advantage of elevated rail is that it's significantly cheaper than underground rail. According to global data collected by the Transit Costs Project at New York University, underground rail tends to be at least 2x the cost — often it's even more. Are the benefits worth this additional cost, and is it worth building less overall transit with the same capital budget?
Elevated rail is not without its drawbacks, but good design and urban sensibilities can help to mitigate many of them. As is the case with a lot of urban design, what matters most is how we treat the ground plane underneath the rail. So, to the extent that it remains out there, I think it's time we get rid of any stigmas associated with elevated rail. More transit is better than less transit.
Cover photo by Daiji Sasahara on Unsplash
Yesterday morning, I took the train from Toronto to Montréal. I'm here for one night for a few meetings. I love trains. You can show up right before departure, the seats are more spacious, and they go downtown to downtown. Plus, there's something romantic to me about whizzing through the landscape. But currently, this trip takes just over 5 hours once you factor in the above stops (see cover photo). That's too long in this day and age, so Canada is, as I understand it, working on a new high-speed rail solution called
Good morning, and welcome back to work and school.
I remember a moment very early on in my development career when I was sitting in a boardroom with dozens of "gray hairs" and the topic of Toronto's Union Station revitalization came up. Specifically, the proposed plan to dig out a new basement and add significant retail throughout the station. This was before construction had started in 2010 and it was considered a rather novel move.
At the time, Union Station was essentially a transit hub with a few ancillary retail offerings like Jugo Juice and Cinnabon (for the good smells). My comment was along the lines of "Finally, more retail, what a great idea," but everyone looked at me like I had three heads. The consensus in the room was, "It'll never work, Brandon." And what was implied was that I just didn't have enough real estate experience to get that.
But what I didn't understand was their reaction. Union Station is the busiest mobility hub in the country. Hundreds of thousands of people pass through it each day. Today, I think the number is somewhere around 300,000 people. This is like the entire population of Markham or Vaughan passing through one building every single day. It's hard to imagine a better anchor than rail. Surely, if you put retail in front of this foot traffic, you'll be able to monetize it!
Fast forward to today.
Over the weekend, Bianca and I took the subway to a Raptors game. As we walked through the concourse, the first thing I said to her was, "I really love what they have done here. Union finally feels like a station fit for a global city like Toronto." It feels grand, there are global retailers like Uniqlo, Shake Shack, Arabica, and many others, and the wayfinding seems to only be getting better. The pathway to Scotiabank Arena felt deliberate — finally.
I have no firsthand experience with the revitalization program or the leasing at Union Station. So I couldn't tell you quantitatively how the stores and restaurants are performing. I also recognize that construction was massively delayed and ran over budget. But anecdotally, I can say that you do have to wait a long time for a burger from Shake Shack, even late at night. The place is always busy.
Union Station seems well on its way to being a commercial success, and it seems to be establishing itself not only as a mixed-use rail hub, but as a destination in downtown Toronto. If any of you have firsthand experience, please drop a comment below.
There is a school of thought that elevated rail is bad, or at least suboptimal, for cities. The thinking is that it's a visual blight, it's noisy, it disconnects neighbourhoods, and it can even reduce surrounding real estate values. Having a train passing directly in front of your window is admittedly less ideal than not having a train passing directly in front of your window.
But there is no shortage of examples from around the world where elevated rail does far more to benefit a community than detract from it. Tokyo is perhaps the obvious place to look. It is decidedly rail-oriented city with the majority of its network above ground and countless examples of active commercial spaces being tucked under and adjacent to elevated rail.
Here, for example, is a restaurant that I visited on my last trip and that was immediately adjacent to a track:
But you don't have to travel all the way to Japan to find examples where elevated rail does little to detract from the urban experience. Here's Marine Drive station in Vancouver, integrated into a newish development:
And here's what the elevated guideway looks like as it heads toward the station:
The obvious advantage of elevated rail is that it's significantly cheaper than underground rail. According to global data collected by the Transit Costs Project at New York University, underground rail tends to be at least 2x the cost — often it's even more. Are the benefits worth this additional cost, and is it worth building less overall transit with the same capital budget?
Elevated rail is not without its drawbacks, but good design and urban sensibilities can help to mitigate many of them. As is the case with a lot of urban design, what matters most is how we treat the ground plane underneath the rail. So, to the extent that it remains out there, I think it's time we get rid of any stigmas associated with elevated rail. More transit is better than less transit.
Cover photo by Daiji Sasahara on Unsplash
Yesterday morning, I took the train from Toronto to Montréal. I'm here for one night for a few meetings. I love trains. You can show up right before departure, the seats are more spacious, and they go downtown to downtown. Plus, there's something romantic to me about whizzing through the landscape. But currently, this trip takes just over 5 hours once you factor in the above stops (see cover photo). That's too long in this day and age, so Canada is, as I understand it, working on a new high-speed rail solution called
Good morning, and welcome back to work and school.
I remember a moment very early on in my development career when I was sitting in a boardroom with dozens of "gray hairs" and the topic of Toronto's Union Station revitalization came up. Specifically, the proposed plan to dig out a new basement and add significant retail throughout the station. This was before construction had started in 2010 and it was considered a rather novel move.
At the time, Union Station was essentially a transit hub with a few ancillary retail offerings like Jugo Juice and Cinnabon (for the good smells). My comment was along the lines of "Finally, more retail, what a great idea," but everyone looked at me like I had three heads. The consensus in the room was, "It'll never work, Brandon." And what was implied was that I just didn't have enough real estate experience to get that.
But what I didn't understand was their reaction. Union Station is the busiest mobility hub in the country. Hundreds of thousands of people pass through it each day. Today, I think the number is somewhere around 300,000 people. This is like the entire population of Markham or Vaughan passing through one building every single day. It's hard to imagine a better anchor than rail. Surely, if you put retail in front of this foot traffic, you'll be able to monetize it!
Fast forward to today.
Over the weekend, Bianca and I took the subway to a Raptors game. As we walked through the concourse, the first thing I said to her was, "I really love what they have done here. Union finally feels like a station fit for a global city like Toronto." It feels grand, there are global retailers like Uniqlo, Shake Shack, Arabica, and many others, and the wayfinding seems to only be getting better. The pathway to Scotiabank Arena felt deliberate — finally.
I have no firsthand experience with the revitalization program or the leasing at Union Station. So I couldn't tell you quantitatively how the stores and restaurants are performing. I also recognize that construction was massively delayed and ran over budget. But anecdotally, I can say that you do have to wait a long time for a burger from Shake Shack, even late at night. The place is always busy.
Union Station seems well on its way to being a commercial success, and it seems to be establishing itself not only as a mixed-use rail hub, but as a destination in downtown Toronto. If any of you have firsthand experience, please drop a comment below.
The first phase will connect Ottawa to Montréal (construction is expected to start in 2029), and a subsequent phase will connect Ottawa to Toronto. The top speed will be around 300 km/h, which I'm guessing will result in an effective speed closer to 200 km/h when you factor in stops and any speed limits required near urban centers. With this, the goal is to bring the journey from Toronto to Montréal down to around 3 hours.
One thing to keep in mind is that Ottawa does not lie on the fastest route between Toronto and Montréal; it adds about 70 km. But it's of course necessary. In theory, an express route with no stops running TGV or Shinkansen-like trains could bring the journey time down closer to 2 hours. But that's not what is being planned from what I have read. Regardless, 3 hours is still a big deal and a meaningful improvement. It makes the trip faster than flying, and certainly faster than driving.
Could current drive times ultimately change with autonomous vehicles? Maybe, but it's unlikely to be by this much. I hate long road trips and the same would be true even if a robot were driving me. So I look forward to one day — in my 50s? — doing this journey in 3 hours. If we could get it down to 2 hours and change, that much better. That's a trip worth taking for a night out or just to stock up on bagels.
The first phase will connect Ottawa to Montréal (construction is expected to start in 2029), and a subsequent phase will connect Ottawa to Toronto. The top speed will be around 300 km/h, which I'm guessing will result in an effective speed closer to 200 km/h when you factor in stops and any speed limits required near urban centers. With this, the goal is to bring the journey from Toronto to Montréal down to around 3 hours.
One thing to keep in mind is that Ottawa does not lie on the fastest route between Toronto and Montréal; it adds about 70 km. But it's of course necessary. In theory, an express route with no stops running TGV or Shinkansen-like trains could bring the journey time down closer to 2 hours. But that's not what is being planned from what I have read. Regardless, 3 hours is still a big deal and a meaningful improvement. It makes the trip faster than flying, and certainly faster than driving.
Could current drive times ultimately change with autonomous vehicles? Maybe, but it's unlikely to be by this much. I hate long road trips and the same would be true even if a robot were driving me. So I look forward to one day — in my 50s? — doing this journey in 3 hours. If we could get it down to 2 hours and change, that much better. That's a trip worth taking for a night out or just to stock up on bagels.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
