Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I would go further than you against SELRT spending - we should not spend any money that creates path dependency, or creates useless sunk cost infrastructure should the technology choice that is cheapest for the project turns out not to be what the current conception of the project is. With underground stations, extensive grade seperations, and probable expansion with similar qualities, I doubt low floor LRT is the most cost effective option in the long term. Whether that doubt turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but we should not make decisions that cloud future decisions with todays preferences.

I always questioned the need for low-floor on the SELRT. Not a single station is at grade on a public street ROW, other than a possible 10th avenue and centre street station. So are we really saving that much on station costs?

But interlining with a possible 17 Avenue SE LRT would make a low floor option more appealing, because those stations will all be at grade on the street.

All of this calls for the need to examine, at least at a high level, our entire primary transit network to determine what needs to be considered at each stage- i.e. when planning the SE LRT, do we need to consider interlining with the 17 Avenue SE LRT?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I only agree with this if youu envision inglewood as the terminus point of a 17th ave line that just feeds into the SE line, but does not interline with it.

What is the point of having a terminus at Inglewood? Using the same station is pretty much the same as interlining from an operational perspective (in fact it is worse, because trains are stopping in the middle of the route, and then turning around, instead of at the terminus. Just imagine SE LRT trains waiting before Inglewood constantly for the 17th avenue trains to turn around.) It is better for them to interline and just continue either to Eau Claire, or possibly up the Centre Street ROW).

Unless you mean building two ROWs from the spur to Inglewood station, and then buliding two sets of platforms, one for each train. That then would involve a heck of a lot more property acquisition and a much larger station cost (if could fit there at all). That seems like creating a lot of problems to solve a problem that really isn't there in the first place.

Anyways, the north central catchment area (current 150K, future 330K) is actually larger than the SE catchment (current 90K, future 270K), and warrants greater headways on that route. Plus, there is more employment on the SE line (Foothills industrial plus the south hospital), meaning that the headways from the NC route would need to serve passengers going into the downtown, plus passengers going to the industrial areas and the south hospital. The headways on the SE route only need to be optimized for downtown traffic. Thus, it makes sense to split the headways between the SE LRT and the 17th Ave LRT, say a 70/30 split (the 17th avenue catchment is currently 40K, and future 110K). Inglewood then becomes an important transfer station, warranting full interlining.

I hope any of that made sense.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

What is the point of having a terminus at Inglewood? Using the same station is pretty much the same as interlining from an operational perspective (in fact it is worse, because trains are stopping in the middle of the route, and then turning around, instead of at the terminus. Just imagine SE LRT trains waiting before Inglewood constantly for the 17th avenue trains to turn around.) It is better for them to interline and just continue either to Eau Claire, or possibly up the Centre Street ROW).

Unless you mean building two ROWs from the spur to Inglewood station, and then buliding two sets of platforms, one for each train. That then would involve a heck of a lot more property acquisition and a much larger station cost (if could fit there at all). That seems like creating a lot of problems to solve a problem that really isn't there in the first place.

Anyways, the north central catchment area (current 150K, future 330K) is actually larger than the SE catchment (current 90K, future 270K), and warrants greater headways on that route. Plus, there is more employment on the SE line (Foothills industrial plus the south hospital), meaning that the headways from the NC route would need to serve passengers going into the downtown, plus passengers going to the industrial areas and the south hospital. The headways on the SE route only need to be optimized for downtown traffic. Thus, it makes sense to split the headways between the SE LRT and the 17th Ave LRT, say a 70/30 split (the 17th avenue catchment is currently 40K, and future 110K). Inglewood then becomes an important transfer station, warranting full interlining.

I hope any of that made sense.

I would have to more or less agree with this. Really no point in terminating a line before it gets to its highest demanded destination. Even in it were low floor, it will likely still act as a commuter service simply remembering the city's urban form. However, of course the only way to interline these would be if they are both the same general technology ie, both low floor or conventional LRT. I for one also lean away from the SE alignment being low floor because the length, and especially overall purpose isn't congruent with what low floor often aims to achieve. Mind you, herein would it also be necessary to truely define what is "low floor" and/or "tram." Regardless, it isn't worth trading off for the resulting two incompatible technologies, even if "low floor" could be built cheaper.

Hypothetically, each station could however, be used by both low floor and conventional LRT, but that makes stations unnessesarily long, although it wouldn't be precedent setting (Stuttgart.) Or unless some innovative, but likely operationally expensive solutions are presented.

Now if the wish for 17th Ave E is exclusively low floor or tram style, it might make sense to use that as the start of building up a secondary backbone network. It may be interesting to indeed integrate with an Inglewood station, but should then be continued further into the city perhaps right down 17th Ave proper etc. More thought needed of course, but definitely not having it simply terminate in Inglewood.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

What is the point of having a terminus at Inglewood? Using the same station is pretty much the same as interlining from an operational perspective (in fact it is worse, because trains are stopping in the middle of the route, and then turning around, instead of at the terminus. Just imagine SE LRT trains waiting before Inglewood constantly for the 17th avenue trains to turn around.) It is better for them to interline and just continue either to Eau Claire, or possibly up the Centre Street ROW).

Unless you mean building two ROWs from the spur to Inglewood station, and then buliding two sets of platforms, one for each train. That then would involve a heck of a lot more property acquisition and a much larger station cost (if could fit there at all). That seems like creating a lot of problems to solve a problem that really isn't there in the first place.

Anyways, the north central catchment area (current 150K, future 330K) is actually larger than the SE catchment (current 90K, future 270K), and warrants greater headways on that route. Plus, there is more employment on the SE line (Foothills industrial plus the south hospital), meaning that the headways from the NC route would need to serve passengers going into the downtown, plus passengers going to the industrial areas and the south hospital. The headways on the SE route only need to be optimized for downtown traffic. Thus, it makes sense to split the headways between the SE LRT and the 17th Ave LRT, say a 70/30 split (the 17th avenue catchment is currently 40K, and future 110K). Inglewood then becomes an important transfer station, warranting full interlining.

I hope any of that made sense.

I don't think having two sets of platforms at a station would necessarily be that expensive or difficult. Well, it could be somewhat expensive depending on the kind of station, say if one were subway. That said, an elevated portion, roughly, located over an at grade portion would really only cost as much as an elevated station and an at grade station. I have nothing against transfers when headways are short and thus favour a 17 Ave line that connects to both the SE LRT and S LRT with transfer stations, Crossroads and Erlton stations would work quite well. Eventually the line could even be extended west to serve Marda Loop and Mount Royal University, though that would be more of a distant vision.

I also have some issues with an at grade system on 17 Ave SE, particularly if it is going to be interlined with the NC LRT. In that case the trains would likely be >100m long. That is too long to fit on a single 17 Ave SE block and would require the closure of certain intersections. I think it would be worth it to elevate the ~3 km portion from Deerfoot to just past 52 St either way but especially if we are going to have trains longer than the blocks. It would keep us from repeating the mistakes that were made on the 36 St portion of the NE line. The difference between an elevated option and an at grade option for that ~3 km portion could be as little as 100 million and certainly no more than 200 million. To me, that seems like a small price to pay to ensure: permeability between the areas north and south of 17 Ave, a reduction in the opportunity for conflicts between train and cars/pedestrians, and a higher capacity line.

Of course I agree with you that we should really put much more effort into envisioning how out future system will interact as a whole prior to spending any money on the SE busway and certainly before building lines that narrow our future options. There are certainly options for interlining; the NC LRT could also have spurs, say to the airport or up Symons Valley Rd. It would depend on the needed capacity for the various segments.

[MalcolmTucker]

While I doubt 17 Ave SE needs any sort of large capacity solution. A 'St Claire street car' would likely be more than adequate for it.

That being said I don't believe there has ever been any demand modeling. The corridor was never part of the core network, and only begun to be planned at the urging of the BRZ as part of the corridor ARP (this is my impression, I could be wrong).

There is nothing wrong with a forced transfer at a future SE LRT in Inglewood, or onto the NE LRT at an existing station (my preference since it serves the same purpose and is likely much cheaper). Transfers aren't a negative - especially since this is a supersized local route, not a backbone. The price of not having a transfer in travel time savings for the 17th Ave people in the case of interlining would be headway limits for the SE LRT forever.

If a future 17th Ave transit solution gets busy enough that the number of people transferring overwhelms the SE LRT, you can always build a dedicated access into downtown or the upper Belltine later.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I don't think having two sets of platforms at a station would necessarily be that expensive or difficult. Well, it could be somewhat expensive depending on the kind of station, say if one were subway. That said, an elevated portion, roughly, located over an at grade portion would really only cost as much as an elevated station and an at grade station. I have nothing against transfers when headways are short and thus favour a 17 Ave line that connects to both the SE LRT and S LRT with transfer stations, Crossroads and Erlton stations would work quite well. Eventually the line could even be extended west to serve Marda Loop and Mount Royal University, though that would be more of a distant vision.

The first question is why not interline? We would be spending more money and for what reason? Second, a line going from Forest Lawn to Marda Loop and MRU seems terribly expensive with no clear right of way.

I also have some issues with an at grade system on 17 Ave SE, particularly if it is going to be interlined with the NC LRT. In that case the trains would likely be >100m long. That is too long to fit on a single 17 Ave SE block and would require the closure of certain intersections. I think it would be worth it to elevate the ~3 km portion from Deerfoot to just past 52 St either way but especially if we are going to have trains longer than the blocks. It would keep us from repeating the mistakes that were made on the 36 St portion of the NE line. The difference between an elevated option and an at grade option for that ~3 km portion could be as little as 100 million and certainly no more than 200 million. To me, that seems like a small price to pay to ensure: permeability between the areas north and south of 17 Ave, a reduction in the opportunity for conflicts between train and cars/pedestrians, and a higher capacity line.

You could keep the 17th avenue portion at grade, just use different train consists for this route (2 cars vs 4 or 5; 80m vs 120m). Trains such as the Alstom Citadis are pretty flexible in their configuration, allowing variable lengths. San Francisco does exactly this with both BART trains and the MUNI trams using the same tunnel underneath Market street.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

While I doubt 17 Ave SE needs any sort of large capacity solution. A 'St Claire street car' would likely be more than adequate for it.

That being said I don't believe there has ever been any demand modeling. The corridor was never part of the core network, and only begun to be planned at the urging of the BRZ as part of the corridor ARP (this is my impression, I could be wrong).

There is nothing wrong with a forced transfer at a future SE LRT in Inglewood, or onto the NE LRT at an existing station (my preference since it serves the same purpose and is likely much cheaper). Transfers aren't a negative - especially since this is a supersized local route, not a backbone. The price of not having a transfer in travel time savings for the 17th Ave people in the case of interlining would be headway limits for the SE LRT forever.

If a future 17th Ave transit solution gets busy enough that the number of people transferring overwhelms the SE LRT, you can always build a dedicated access into downtown or the upper Belltine later.

For argument's sake, let's say we use the current C-Train cars (Siemens SD160) and use 5 car consists for the SE line. Crush load would be 875 a train (Siemens states the approximate capacity is 173/car, but we probably pack more ppl in during rush hour in Calgary). Let's say the peak period lasts 2 hours (6:30 to 8:30 and 3:30 to 5:30) and we can operate at headways of 3 minutes (which is conservative considering the route would be entirely grade separated or at least have crossing arms at any intersections). That means we have a peak period capacity of 35 000. That would be roughly 40% of all people living in the SE currently (2011 census = ~87K). With the growth in the SE outlined in the East Regional Context Study and the Southeast Policy Plan, the population would be around 270K (IIRC), so we would still be at 13% of the population for the transit capacity. Take away children, people who work from home, people who work in areas not served by transit and others- I still think it provides enough capacity, even taking some headways for the 17th avenue spur.

In the end, if the NC LRT is a continuation of the SE LRT, it will be the NC LRT that determines headways, which IMO, could be split between the SE and 17th avenue, as their population catchments roughly equal the NC catchment area (currently and into the future).

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

The first question is why not interline? We would be spending more money and for what reason? Second, a line going from Forest Lawn to Marda Loop and MRU seems terribly expensive with no clear right of way.



You could keep the 17th avenue portion at grade, just use different train consists for this route (2 cars vs 4 or 5; 80m vs 120m). Trains such as the Alstom Citadis are pretty flexible in their configuration, allowing variable lengths. San Francisco does exactly this with both BART trains and the MUNI trams using the same tunnel underneath Market street.

Interlining would mean reduced capacity, particularly if some portion of the trains running along the NC Line are shorter so that they can run on the 17 Ave Line. Will there still be enough capacity? Maybe, but it does put a lower limit on the line, one we may eventually regret. Besides, the difference in cost between interlining and forced transfer is essentially meaningless; initially it could simply mean building an additional platform at Crossroads, hardly a huge expense, although I would favour an initial terminus at Erlton. I just don't think every line needs to go downtown, especially if we are building a system to serve the entire city as opposed to only the fifth of the jobs (and sixth of the destination if we include schools) that are located in the core. Forced transfers at Crossroads and Erlton might be somewhat more inconvenient for those headed to the core but it would be slightly less inconvenient for those heading to jobs in the SE and considerably more convenient for those commuting to places on the S LRT, like Chinook for instance. Allowing people who don't need to enter the core to transfer before getting there means we will need less capacity in the most clearly congested portion of the system. It would help to move the C-Train system from an entirely mono-centric system to a more poly-centric one where downtown is still the best served destination but others aren't simply after thoughts.

I'm not entirely sure that you are correct in your assertion that the SE Line needs less capacity than the NC Line. With far more employment in the SE than the north, I could see demand for the two levelling out.

Yes, it would be quite expensive to build out a 17 Ave LRT into a south crosstown line serving Marda Loop, the former CFB communities, and Mount Royal University. It would probably require ~6 km of tunnelling. I could easily see it as a project that would never be built precisely because of the expense. That said, it wouldn't hurt to have it as a long term vision for the line, something we might eventually get around to if demand and funding ever makes it realistic. Until such a theoretical time it would exist as something to plan around so that any projects in the SW, like the various BRT proposals, take into account the possibility of future transfers and are built accordingly.

Thinking about this in more detail, I suppose I would be fine with spur lines and interlining so long as a few factors are met. First, spurs should be built so that in the future they can easily be converted to independent lines that continue on. Second, the lines that are built should be done to C-Train standard. In the case of 17 Ave that pretty much means elevating it to just past 52 St. I think it is well worth it to spend 100-200 million to overbuild it instead of facing the prospect of spending much more at a later date to rip it out and rebuild it. I'm thinking that the tracks connecting the various lines would actually be useful in either case by allowing rolling stock to move between them. That way, even if each line has its own storage yard we could still get by with a single major repair facility for the who system.

As you (at least I think it was you) suggested that the SE LRT be built with a junction in place for an eventual 17 Ave spur, presumably somewhere between Inglewood and Crossroads Station, the 17 Ave spur should be built with a junction in place ready to take the line west to Crossroads and Erlton. In that case Crossroads Station would also need to be built in such a way that a second platform could be added with minimal disruption.

The other places where we could start new lines by initially building portions as spurs would be to the Airport and to MRU. A spur from the NC LRT could serve the HSR station and Airport before it eventually becomes an independent line between the NC LRT and the NE LRT with possible extensions east and west. A spur from the W LRT could take the 37 St ROW down to MRU and later be extended, as an independent line, north to the UofC and Brentwood and south to Rockyview and the SLRT.

[fusili]

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I also have some issues with an at grade system on 17 Ave SE, particularly if it is going to be interlined with the NC LRT. In that case the trains would likely be >100m long. That is too long to fit on a single 17 Ave SE block and would require the closure of certain intersections. I think it would be worth it to elevate the ~3 km portion from Deerfoot to just past 52 St either way but especially if we are going to have trains longer than the blocks. It would keep us from repeating the mistakes that were made on the 36 St portion of the NE line. The difference between an elevated option and an at grade option for that ~3 km portion could be as little as 100 million and certainly no more than 200 million. To me, that seems like a small price to pay to ensure: permeability between the areas north and south of 17 Ave, a reduction in the opportunity for conflicts between train and cars/pedestrians, and a higher capacity line.

I thought that the 17th Ave Plan indicated that some intersections would be closed off to cross traffic. This is very similar to 36th st. If they do close the intersections then 5 car length trains will have no issue about length. If it's at grade they really should put the LRT/Street car on only one side of 17th and not the middle as to avoid the repeat of 36th ave but I think the businesses would be really upset.

I'm not a fan of elevating the line. I would prefer to trench the line like on the WLRT but down the middle so to not restrict access to the business on either side. Space does not seem to be an issue here.

As for one station for both low floor and regular trains, you could put an elevated platform in the middle like Zoo station and low floor station on the outside like city hall station as long as the conventional train is wider then the low floor. If it's narrower then Low Floor train the the lower floor train would hit the elevated platform.

As for the SE line having more ridership because of employment, most of those passengers would likely be heading in opposite direction of peak demand. The South Hospital is at the end of line. And foothills industrial would likely be better served by 52nd Ave BRT then SE LRT for people living in the SE as it travels closer to employment. So yes it will have more ridership but it maybe one of the most balanced lines for peak vs non peak directional ridership.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System

I think we've previously discussed a lot of aspects of that proposal but I'll try to sum up some of my thoughts. Overall, I like a lot of what I see there. I think the most important thing evident in the plan, something that as a city we have really failed to do so far, is the way that it envisions the system as a whole. It considers connections and transfers that would allow the various lines to compliment each other. We really must think about developing a total plan so that individual projects are built as part of a network as opposed to our current set up where our decisions are making the overall network less effective with buses forced to make detours from routes that make sense so that they can make connections with train stations. This is particularly evident with the NE LRT. The best way to service the NE with one mainline route (the NE LRT) would involve relatively straight bus routes that run perpendicular to the mainline; instead the stations are all located far away from the arterial roads where buses could run quickly in straight lines. This means more buses are needed for the same coverage and headways, since routes are longer and more circuitous.

Of course our outlooks are different in a few ways. For one thing, I have a lower threshold for rail construction; at a minimum I favour rail for 17 Ave SE and the 16 Ave crosstown, if not for other lines as well. For another thing, I'm not as fond of interlining. This comes up with the portion of 52 St that includes three BRT lines. I would cut that down to one and simply have transfers to lines running into. Those differences shape how we would envision the kind of network plans that I think we both believe are necessary for developing a a great network.

Beyond that it mostly comes down to small differences that don't really matter and are simply individual preferences. These are things like station locations and routing choices. For instance, I think Chinook makes a better location for a transfer hub than Heritage; I think the 14 St route should continue along the 14 St ROW, over the dam and back to 14 ST instead of detouring over to Crowchild; I think the MRU route between the S LRT and W LRT should somehow be expanded north to hit Foothills Hospital, the UofC, and Brentwood; I think the 16 Ave route should continue west into Bowness, rendering the west half of the 305 redundant. Basically tweaks.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

I thought that the 17th Ave Plan indicated that some intersections would be closed off to cross traffic. This is very similar to 36th st. If they do close the intersections then 5 car length trains will have no issue about length. If it's at grade they really should put the LRT/Street car on only one side of 17th and not the middle as to avoid the repeat of 36th ave but I think the businesses would be really upset.

I'm not a fan of elevating the line. I would prefer to trench the line like on the WLRT but down the middle so to not restrict access to the business on either side. Space does not seem to be an issue here.

As for one station for both low floor and regular trains, you could put an elevated platform in the middle like Zoo station and low floor station on the outside like city hall station as long as the conventional train is wider then the low floor. If it's narrower then Low Floor train the the lower floor train would hit the elevated platform.

As for the SE line having more ridership because of employment, most of those passengers would likely be heading in opposite direction of peak demand. The South Hospital is at the end of line. And foothills industrial would likely be better served by 52nd Ave BRT then SE LRT for people living in the SE as it travels closer to employment. So yes it will have more ridership but it maybe one of the most balanced lines for peak vs non peak directional ridership.

The thing is I don't want to see intersections closed. I want to retain the benefits of the grid that exists along 17 Ave and keep the road permeable as opposed to creating a barrier with an at grade rail line. I think the NE LRT along 36 St is a nightmare for a variety of reasons and nothing to be emulated in the future. It has clearly created a barrier where one didn't need to exist, so pedestrians have a hard time simply crossing the street; it has made traffic worse with delays for left turns and such; and lastly, it has reduced the capacity of the line, which isn't an issue yet but might become one, since only so many trains can travel while major intersections include level crossings.

As for putting the line below grade, either through trenching or cut and cover, I'm not necessarily opposed. The problem though is that instead of maybe costing another 100-200 million over at grade, as elevated would, it would likely cost more like 500 million to a billion over at grade. Unless money starts raining down upon the city that kind of cost difference could really keep the project from ever happening.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System

Yeah, nothing there that is overreaching, while still being ambitious. The system over time benefits from sticking to the long term plan laind out in the 70s and 80s reflected in the 95 Go Plan (adjusted to operational realities like ending interlining on the MacLeod LRT line.

I would however not label new mass rapid transit as technology specific - I would differentiate along similar lines between Mass Rapid Transit (+10,000 people per direction per hour or so) and Rapid Transit (less than 10,000 ppdph). In the sense of LRT (and other mass modes) vs BRT it isn't technology or speed that really differentiates between them, it is ongoing operational costs per rider vs marginal cost per marginal rider.

If lets say Google's or others autonomous vehicle project gains acceptance faster than it seems to be now, a bus way with robotic busses might be the best option for the SE LRT - who am I to say. But you can design BRT systems with high capacity, with permanent facilities, just as you could to a point run more shorter train sets with fewer passengers per driven vehcile to decrease headways.

Todays preference for LRTs is based on technology studies done in the 1970s - there is no reason to believe it is still optimal, even if it may still be. Given the city both wants to build as much as possible within funding envelope, while only directly funding operational costs, a lower operational cost mode for some of the BRT routes identified might make more sense, even if it delays implementation.

All that being said, the 17 Ave SE corridor has a narrow catchment and I doubt will amount to many riders in comparison to other projects. Interlining is likely infeasible not due to causing path dependence on the SE Line, but due to frequencies being so low as the mode wouldn't be attractive to users vs alternatives, at least if only look at it within the current narrow options the city explores.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System

Out of curiosity, was there a reason not to include a SW LRT alignment, either as a branch from the WLRT at Sarcee Trail going south, or as a branch from the SLRT at 162nd ave heading west?

I realise that they wouldn't happen for a VERY long time (if at all?), but as long as it's forward planning, I wondered what your take is on either of those routes.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Out of curiosity, was there a reason not to include a SW LRT alignment, either as a branch from the WLRT at Sarcee Trail going south, or as a branch from the SLRT at 162nd ave heading west?

I realise that they wouldn't happen for a VERY long time (if at all?), but as long as it's forward planning, I wondered what your take is on either of those routes.

SW LRT? You mean to Providence (area west of Evergreen)? I didn't include it because there are way too many unknowns at this point. Going south from the West LRT would mean we would have to cross the T'suu T'ina nation. Plus that line is effectively built, and with no recourse for a spur. Adding it in later will be very costly.

Going west from the South LRT would mean adding riders to a line already at capacity. Heck, I don't think we should ever even develop Providence at all. The south line already serves 219K people. Add in the estimated 80K from the South Macleod area (Chapparrel, Silverado and other communities in that area) and the line is now serving 300K people. And we would want to add another 80K from Providence to that line? It would be full all the time, with no opportunities for relief. I added the SW BRT in part to provide some of that relief. Adding in a spur from the south line would mean no-one would get on the train north of Country Hills Blvd, let alone Anderson, or Glenmore. When the train is full, stop expanding.

Areas like Belvedere (east of Forest Lawn), Keystone Hills or whatever they call it (north of Panorama Hills) and places like Seton are much more suited for development based on future ability to serve it with transit. Belvedere is estimated to have a population of around 70K, slightly smaller than Providence, and to serve it, we can use either a BRT or LRT from Forest Lawn.

Unless you meant something else.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

SW LRT? You mean to Providence (area west of Evergreen)?

Unless you meant something else.

Yes, to Providence. There was a 'long range scenario' at one point to spur the WLRT at Sarcee and run the line south. Stops at "162 ave, 146 ave, Bullhead Rd/Anderson, 90 ave, Tsuu Tina Strathcona Rd, Westhills and Sirocco connection"

Failing a Tsuu T'ina corridor, I'm sure I have seen plans with the LRT heading west along 162nd ave. (Is there really nothing they can do about the capacity that would make this feasible? More trains?)

I agree about Providence long term, and I can see the problems with adding that many people to the SLRT line. Still, if a Tsuu T'ina alignment does happen, I wonder if a WLRT 'extension' would be viable, even with the expense and interruption of a spur at a later date.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I would however not label new mass rapid transit as technology specific - I would differentiate along similar lines between Mass Rapid Transit (+10,000 people per direction per hour or so) and Rapid Transit (less than 10,000 ppdph). In the sense of LRT (and other mass modes) vs BRT it isn't technology or speed that really differentiates between them, it is ongoing operational costs per rider vs marginal cost per marginal rider.

I like that idea. The "primary transit network" really indicates a level of service- i.e. frequency and relative speed (say 10 minute minimum for 16 hours a day, and average travel speed of 40km/hour (with stops)) and all having off-vehicle fare payment. Just ball parking it. And then we can differentiate between capacity (of course we would have to do some demand modelling to figure this out) like you suggested with Mass Rapid Transit and Rapid Transit. To the passenger, the level of service is relatively similar, it is just how much capacity the vehicles that take them where they are going.

The plan of course, is still somewhat rough, and needs some tweaking. But I like your idea.

[UofC.engineer]

Park & Ride survey was released:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Park_and_Ride-Reserved-Parking_Survey_Final_Report.pdf

[sim]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Interlining would mean reduced capacity, particularly if some portion of the trains running along the NC Line are shorter so that they can run on the 17 Ave Line. Will there still be enough capacity? Maybe, but it does put a lower limit on the line, one we may eventually regret. Besides, the difference in cost between interlining and forced transfer is essentially meaningless; initially it could simply mean building an additional platform at Crossroads, hardly a huge expense, although I would favour an initial terminus at Erlton. I just don't think every line needs to go downtown, especially if we are building a system to serve the entire city as opposed to only the fifth of the jobs (and sixth of the destination if we include schools) that are located in the core. Forced transfers at Crossroads and Erlton might be somewhat more inconvenient for those headed to the core but it would be slightly less inconvenient for those heading to jobs in the SE and considerably more convenient for those commuting to places on the S LRT, like Chinook for instance. Allowing people who don't need to enter the core to transfer before getting there means we will need less capacity in the most clearly congested portion of the system. It would help to move the C-Train system from an entirely mono-centric system to a more poly-centric one where downtown is still the best served destination but others aren't simply after thoughts.

It doesn't really mean reduced capacity in general, only per a certain line but I'm guessing that is semantics in this case. Were the lines all to eventually go underground, there exist also the potential to be more flexible with individual line connectivity - as in a future 17 Ave E line could actually diametrically continue on to the now being built WLRT. Of course that is all a lot of ifs and whens.

While I principally agree with the fact that not every line necessarily needs to go downtown, the context of where this line is must not be forgotten: Calgary- a heavily commuter oriented system based on corresponding land-use patterns. Tangential lines work in cities that are much more dense. So, put a moratorium on further outward development for... well a long, long time and perhaps that density might be there. Thus, terminating a ROW B line (one that has a harder time maintaining schedules) at a station outside of the destination point for the large majority of people; requiring them to transfer onto another ROW B line is not really optimal. Again, this may work where a timed transfer system can be implemented based on reliable schedules that ROW A lines can quite reliably provide, but I wouldn't underestimate adversion to non-directness. Ideally, a transfer station would indeed exist there but the line would continue on to a destination somewhere downtown, allowing for what you state later in your post and one of the more optimal network characteristics in general.

If the goal, however, is to use the line as an urban generator, hence, not a commuter line then the thought might be otherwise interesting. I don't think an LRT (standard floor) is then the way to acheive this. One could look at 17th ave as a potential for a boulevard and ponder the use of streetcars either down the middle, or perhaps even better, along the sides. Either way, it would be something that does cause such seperation effect that a ROW B alignment (36th st) would cause. Stations are place at shorter intervals, and full signal prioritization could be given to maintain relatively decent average speeds. Anyway, even more "ifs" and fodder for the "war on cars" crowd.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I would however not label new mass rapid transit as technology specific - I would differentiate along similar lines between Mass Rapid Transit (+10,000 people per direction per hour or so) and Rapid Transit (less than 10,000 ppdph). In the sense of LRT (and other mass modes) vs BRT it isn't technology or speed that really differentiates between them, it is ongoing operational costs per rider vs marginal cost per marginal rider.

I'm of the opposite opinion here. The technology very much has to do with what differentiates them. If looking at it purely economically, and even one that looks at that aspect narrowly, then this might hold true. However, the two systems have rather different characteristics that expand economics and extend into the environmental and social realms.

The increased attraction to rail is not to be underestimated, thus increasing ridership. LRT and rail in general, tend to do better with a sense of permanence (even over a busway) and that can go a long way in urban generation/optimal land-use.

It goes without saying that rail has better traction efficiency, thus uses less energy. There are also no point source emissions and due to higher consit capacities, thus lower frequency of vehicles passing by as well as not using a combustion engine, lower noise emissions.

Furthermore, at high capacities on a per passenger basis, which you were likely alluding to, the use of more vehicles (hence, more drivers, etc) results in greater per passenger opertational costs. In addition, BRT has the benefit of often downloading some of its inherent costs to a roads department, etc.

Finally, their ROW takes up more space, especially if flexibility and skip stop/express operations are desired to increase capacities.

If we want to look at things economically, I think more than just simple fare-box cost recovery or marginal passenger costs need to be taken into consideration.

If lets say Google's or others autonomous vehicle project gains acceptance faster than it seems to be now, a bus way with robotic busses might be the best option for the SE LRT - who am I to say. But you can design BRT systems with high capacity, with permanent facilities, just as you could to a point run more shorter train sets with fewer passengers per driven vehcile to decrease headways.

I guess to go along with what has already been said, a BRT can be designed to basically have the capacities (if not more if you ask Bogota) of even some metro systems. However, the capital costs to do this then often equates if not surpasses that of a LRT system, while potentially expending some greater disbenefits.

I guess you are talking autonomous buses here, but then why not just AGT? It is already on rails and just eliminated a lot of the otherwise complicated guideance that would be necessary.

I'm not trying to be overly deriding of your statement here, but it somewhat seemed like it fell along the classical lines of decisions based on one financial parameter that city admins, especially in North America are trending to, that makes BRT look clearly (falsely) advantageous. I am not against BRT systems, because they most definitely have their place. I largely think those places are outside of North America and Europe however. Labour costs are lower, mega-cities need quick implementation to solver rapidly growing mobility problems and they can be produced with lower capital costs.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

I'm not trying to be overly deriding of your statement here, but it somewhat seemed like it fell along the classical lines of decisions based on one financial parameter that city admins, especially in North America are trending to, that makes BRT look clearly (falsely) advantageous. I am not against BRT systems, because they most definitely have their place. I largely think those places are outside of North America and Europe however. Labour costs are lower, mega-cities need quick implementation to solver rapidly growing mobility problems and they can be produced with lower capital costs.

I would tend to lean your way on many of the rail vs. bus advantages. But BRTs do make sense as crosstown routes, where speed and reliability are needed, but the capacity of a commuter route is not.