Comments on: Walksheds Visualized Showing Populations near Montreal Rail Stations

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 01:06:05 +0000

*did include the people who don’t walk

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 01:05:27 +0000

It’d be much more accurate if you didn’t include all the people who don’t walk, but drive to the nearest train station… For example, Deux-Montagnes has people from Deux-Montagnes, St. Marthe, St. Eustache, Oka, Pointe-Calumet, etc, etc, which is what’s making the AMT not putting either double deckers or much more frequent trains during rush hour (and more parking closer than 5 blocks away) a problem; there’s just too many people, the trains (especially a certain 2-3 in the morning and another certain 2-3 in the evening) are absolute hell to be on, but unless you like the idea of waiting another 20-45 minutes to get home, depending on the time, you’re stuck taking the rolling can of sardines.

By: JÃ©rÃ©mie Dunn

JÃ©rÃ©mie Dunn — Fri, 27 May 2016 21:53:45 +0000

On the other site, very close stations such as Cadillac and Langelier or Berri and St-Laurent my share the same population, biasing the results.

By: JÃ©rÃ©mie Dunn

JÃ©rÃ©mie Dunn — Fri, 27 May 2016 21:22:19 +0000

This way to analyse the usefulness of each station does not include people transiting via a mÃ©trobus or suburban busses.

By example, density around HonorÃ©-Beaugrand my be low but is does not counts that almost every commuter from MontrÃ©al-Est or Pointe-aux-Trembles enter the mÃ©tro system via this station without living in it’s surroundings.

Just before HonorÃ©-Beaugrand, Radisson was built especially to play the role of a bus hub. There are busses lines from the east-end, Laval, Terrebonne, LanaudiÃ¨re and even the south shore coming there via A-40, Notre-Dame/Sherbrooke, A-25 or the tunnel.

That’s why these stations count many entries but don’t have a really high population around. Consider too the fact that the Place Versailles mall has no population. I’m sure that there are some anomalies on other stations i know less.

By: Peter Laws

Peter Laws — Thu, 16 May 2013 01:23:00 +0000

Fascinating, as pointed out, to see how well some AMT stations are placed and how poorly some Metro stations are placed.

The Red Line (Line 3) was to run from (I believe) Bridge St to Cartierville (yes, the Deux-Montagnes line had a spur to Cartierville). It was to use more standard steel-wheel technology. The only reason it never happened, or at least didn’t get to the point of serious negotiations with CN, was that Montreal was awarded the 1967 World’s Fair … and a Metro line was needed to serve that.

What I’ve always been curious about was how the Expo Express fits into this scenario. Was there any connection between that project, which was pretty extensive and used standard technology nearly identical to TTC trains of the time, and what would have become Line 3? Seems to me that it’s almost as if the cars got displaced from one project to the other (and then scrapped, sadly, long before they were worn out).

But I’ve never seen a hint that that was the case.

As for adding buses, I’d like to see the walksheds for some of the busier lines on the Frequent Network Map you made.

By: Ronald Houde

Ronald Houde — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:18:49 +0000

Very Nice! Can the same infographic be generated for Montreal’s CyclingShed, let’s say within a 3km radius of stations? It would also be nice to shade the zone covered, just to see how much of the CMM territory the CyclingShed covers.
I’m sure the infographic would show the viability of deploying the BIXI network and VÃ©lo-Stations around those stations.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:21:25 +0000

Interesting, but flawed. Understates stations such as mont-royal, berri-uqam, guy concordia. Should work in some bar/restaurant statistics to account for nightlife.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:42:11 +0000

Oh yeah, totally forgot to mention that it doesn’t just depend on the area around the stations etc., but also the individuals. I guess people can figure that out for themselves 😉

By: Jason Meggs

Jason Meggs — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:57:40 +0000

Really wonderful approach! The concept of walkshed is so warm and fuzzy, it’s great to see it described for everyone to see. I was lucky enough to have lived in Montreal as a boy and to have visited recently, and am a walkability planner among other things, so this is particularly fun for me.

For comparison, to help resolve any double-counting considerations regarding the areas of overlap (e.g., where 800m walksheds includes other stations’ walksheds, so people have more choice), there could be another map, or an underlayer here, showing in blobby-form, the true 800m walkshed for all stations. As an alternative this could be placed on a good map of the city. Then we could also hatch the areas underserved by transit and consider where there could be improvements, or reduced development over time (e.g., restoring natural areas with transfer of development rights).

One idea that I hope people would like to consider here is that of the carfree city. The circular population nodes reminded me of the “reference design” for a city without cars. An excellent book by J.H. Crawford, also summarised nicely on his website carfree.com, goes into the detail of this ideal for livability and sustainability both. (A carfree city saves 80% of the land over a car-full city, allowing for more parks and greenways, for instance.)

A fine point: nice definition that walksheds are “the area around a particular point of interest from where people are willing to walk to said point of interest”, however this is of course an oversimplification, everyone’s preferences may differ, so the 800m used is more of an average.

As for adding in the bus lines, that would be another project! 😉

Thank you!

By: qatzelok

qatzelok — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:29:39 +0000

This is a fantastic infographic for anyone who wants to know how effective the various transit corridors are. The blue line would obviously have been a better investment than the Laval extension – if ridership is what mass transit is looking for. Thanks for doing all this work towards the common good.