Exploring Pointe Saint-Charles. Quite a different urban landscape from the ones people associate with Montréal. This area was developed before the age of plexes.
So it's dominated by various types of "single family "Maisonnettes de ville" and multy-family "maison de faubourg"
And, of course, Montréal's parallel world: the ruelles.
Bonus pic: the new but underused Exo commuter train's Operation and Maintenance facility at Pointe St-Charles.
Other bonus pic: poles for the OLE going up on the REM
Even more bonus pics: the newest and the oldest bridge over the Saint Laurent river
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's always interesting to note how, unsurprisingly, the history of transportation planning is nested in the shifting larger paradigms of urban planning.
The only two sizable "greenfield" outlying sections of Frankfurt U-Bahn follow two different paradigms of urban integration.
The only greenfield section part of the overall pre-metro scheme built in the initial phases run either underground or in a freeway median, within an area of interwar (Romerstadt) and postwar modernist development.
Grade-separation was the "gold standard" for everything back then
The 2000s addition to the U-Bahn network, serving the large greenfield development of Riedberg, whose own urban design reverts to the "traditional" perimeter block, run as a tramway on a street tree-lined median with signal-controlled intersections. Quite the change of paradigm.
One of the reasons why French tramways tend to be relatively slow is that they often have very curvy and zigzagging alignments. There are two main reasons for that, one linked to the history of urban development in France, the other to how and when French networks developed.
The historical reason is that France, outside of Paris intramuros, it's not a country of Grand Boulevards and large urban schemes. With one of the most property owners-friendly land regimes, French cities mostly grew with chaotic street patterns during both the 19th and 20th c.
Streets, even major radial arterials, tend to be narrow until the postwar era, outside of a few isolated redevelopment schemes, such as Grenoble's 20th c. boulevards or Bordeaux 18th c. Triangle. Provincial elites never indulged in the grandiose schemes of the capital city.
Not only Seattle (and many other cities) opt for mined stations in city-center areas, but they also do it in the most bloated way, with full-length mezzanines and wide off-street access shafts.
Let's look at a more sober approach to mined stations from u/c Vienna's U5
First, the Seattle approach (veru common in NA mined stations) is to go with a large cavern encompassing both tracks, a central platform and a "full-length mezzanine, that is a slab above the platform level allowing for horizontal circulation outside of platform space
The wide two-level single cavern is connected to the vertical shafts via two "transepts" (mined tunnels perpendicular to the cavern), as the shafts are built rigorously off-street. Additionally, a diagonal mined tunnel can host escalators.
Today, the much-awaited, 5, 5 km, 8 station, metro line 6 in Naples was finally (re)opened* (with limited service) after a 40+ years-long saga that is emblematic of how the bad choices and habits of the 1980s still haunt Italy today.
A 🧵
Naples' line 6 has a very troubled history. It was initially planned in the early 1980s as the "Linea Tranviaria Rapida", an LRT-like system mixing at-grade and grade-separated segments crossing the city East-West roughly along the coast.
It was planned following the approval of a national law encouraging the construction of "LRT-like" systems, to be built with local and national funds with the involvement of the state-controlled IRI conglomerate, via non-competitive 30 years "concessions of sole construction"
A recent exchange in here reminded me that historically there has essentially been two main paths toward level boarding of mainline rail.
The prevalence of one type or the other in a country depends a lot of when and how the railway became a commuter-oriented mobility tool.
A🧵
The 19th c. railways had very low platforms, just slightly higher than the tracks, either in wood, masonry, or simply a stone curb filled with gravel. Essentially, a glorified sidewalk.
That was ok for a railway with sparse traffic and generous dwelling times.
But platforms that require passengers to climb several steps to get into the trains, whose boogie-mounted floors are often >100 cm high above the track, are unfit for the need of the higher frequency, high traffic railway catering to the hinterland-to-city commuters.
How does Zurich achieve consistent running times and an elevated average speed on its legacy tramway network despite the fact that it's not fully running on dedicated lanes?
An example of urban integration and conflict management strategies along a segment of line 3
A🧵
Tramway line 3 covers the 4.3 km, 11-stop section between its terminus at Albisrieden to Sihlpost /HB in 16 minutes, with consistent running times throughout the say, averaging a pretty good 16 km/h speed.
How does it achieve these performances?
Let's start from line 3 western terminal loop, where the tram enters the general circulation protected by a traffic light and then continues along the central lanes of a suburban street. All lateral streets yield to the main arterial which is a "priority street"