Calgary Public Transit II

[H.E.Pennypacker]

I don't think northbound Edmonton Trail approaching 16th Ave can handle any more capacity in rush hour .. It's pretty backed up already ... Actually that whole area around rush hour is a clusterfuck - 16th, Edmonton Trail and Centre St are all slow moving coming out of the core and going both east and west

At grade LRT up Centre St really concerns me for cars trying to get across east-west and left turns in general ... At grade approaching 16th Ave to have to go under ground to a station under 16th is an intriguing idea that might help mitigate it .. (similar to Westbrook I suppose) Would the line surface and run parallel to Centre St via a trench for a good portion before being at grade?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

I don't think northbound Edmonton Trail approaching 16th Ave can handle any more capacity in rush hour .. It's pretty backed up already ... Actually that whole area around rush hour is a clusterfuck - 16th, Edmonton Trail and Centre St are all slow moving coming out of the core and going both east and west

At grade LRT up Centre St really concerns me for cars trying to get across east-west and left turns in general ... At grade approaching 16th Ave to have to go under ground to a station under 16th is an intriguing idea that might help mitigate it .. (similar to Westbrook I suppose) Would the line surface and run parallel to Centre St via a trench for a good portion before being at grade?

The capacity of the corridor will be increase exponentially with the LRT (50k/day to 450k/day) that alone will reduce that congestion.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by lineman

The turning radii involved would mean tearing down the Shell building and that mall in Chinatown. Speaking of Chinatown, remember that stink raised over a bike lane? Imagine how they'd feel about an LRT line.

An LRT line that connects it to both T&T Supermarket and the extension of chinatown on centre street north of the river... I think it wouldn't be as hard to sway the community for LRT access.

As for the turning radii, Shell's podium is adjustable, and there's a parking lot in Chinatown that could be used. Both these are issues are there for an at-grade LRT down Centre Street.


Nobody seems to take issue with bridging the east side though?

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by fusili

Because we need to run a subway every time we encounter a road? 2nd Avenue in New York needs a subway. Geary Boulevard in San Francisco needs a subway. Centre Street in Calgary? Not so much.

I imagine so too. Building a right-of-way that can handle 25K passengers per hour would really help with that, wouldn't you think?
Agreed about turn movements at 16th, so why don't we build a short underpass under 16th (like how the NW LRT does at 16th avenue between Lion's Park and Banff Trail), and perhaps put a station there? That would maintain turn movement capacity, while reducing the amount of underground operations.

Like above, most left turns are at 16th avenue. That can be managed with an underground (or elevated) portion for that one intersection. The good thing with Centre street is that it has two parallel routes that can take on extra capacity within a few blocks (4th and Edmonton Trail).

With current numbers, sure I believe it can handle it, however, we don't know what's going to happen long-term. The increase in density on the corridor will increase all forms of traffic (hopefully in a better ratio). Switching from 4 lanes down to two:

• leaves very little room for stations at-grade
• there would have to be major restrictions on turning
• limited to no parking
• Alleys would be congested with business deliveries + parkade access for the expected multi-story developments

There's so much more could be done with the surface if it wasn't occupied by the train - pedestrian boulevard & patio space? angled parking? maybe some trees, and 3 lanes (2+ alternating turning)... just some ideas.

...that's if the densification/PlanIt ideal happens, otherwise the street can still be used as is for buses servicing the areas south of Beddington Trail.

Cut & cover tunnels only, and a new bridge. Is it that unreasonable for the flexibility & benefits it offers?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by fusili

Like above, most left turns are at 16th avenue. That can be managed with an underground (or elevated) portion for that one intersection. The good thing with Centre street is that it has two parallel routes that can take on extra capacity within a few blocks (4th and Edmonton Trail).

I'm not sure you can consider 4th an alternative, because you still have to make a left northbound to get to 4th, either at 12th or 16th ave. 12th ave can often get backed up from 16th ave all the way down to Centre street. I'd say that's at capacity as it is.

As for Full Mountain's comment that >50% of traffic is buses, that's simply not true. There are a lot of buses, but the vast majority of vehicles are still cars. Switching those buses to LRT isn't going to take >50% of the traffic off the road. I'd imagine buses like the #2 will still run? Any others?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

By no means am I saying that.

Well people are applying awfully definitive language to a process that carries really no weight then.

The Nose Creek alignment as been just as decisively discredited, by this government and the studies they've commissioned.

They didn't discredit it, they said they don't like it. And they aren't proposing an actionable alternative while they're at it.

What about these two statements has ceased to be true in the past eight years:

A review of the North Central Calgary study area indicates that to attract and serve increasing transit demand for trips to the downtown, service should be centrally located within the corridor. Unfortunately, south of Beddington Trail, a central, north/south route suitable for LRT service is not readily available. Existing north / south road rights-of-way such as Centre St., 4 St NW, or Edmonton Tr, do not have sufficient width to accommodate LRT without either a reduction in road capacity and function (e.g. loss of traffic lanes, turn lanes and space for on-street stopping or parking) or significant property acquisition.

It is not feasible to locate LRT within one of the major road corridors in North Central Calgary (e.g. Centre St N) and have it provide the travel speed necessary to address ridership demand without significant physical intrusion into the local communities. A CTrain line here would require barriers along the right-of-way, grade separated roadway and pedestrian crossings, traffic signal preemption, east/west road closures or restrictions and property acquisition. Alternately, without these measures, even with a dedicated lane, LRT would have to operate at much reduced speeds over most of its route. In this environment, LRT would not improve on the travel speed offered by a bus. In this scenario, the full operating capabilities of LRT could not be realized and the substantial investment could not be justified.

I personally think that Centre Street is doable at grade and partially trenched, but that would require closing Centre Street to non-local traffic. I don't think that is a good idea, but I acknowledge it is possible.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure you can consider 4th an alternative, because you still have to make a left northbound to get to 4th, either at 12th or 16th ave. 12th ave can often get backed up from 16th ave all the way down to Centre street. I'd say that's at capacity as it is.

As for Full Mountain's comment that >50% of traffic is buses, that's simply not true. There are a lot of buses, but the vast majority of vehicles are still cars. Switching those buses to LRT isn't going to take >50% of the traffic off the road. I'd imagine buses like the #2 will still run? Any others?

>50% of the people movements (not vehicle). A vehicle with 1 person in it should never have priority or inhibit the flow of a vehicle with 25-100 people.

Buses like the #2 I would imagine would be removed completely with feeder system being put in place, i.e. buses would change from running N-S to E-W and terminating at LRT stations/nodes, this is what happened on WestLRT and I see no reason to believe that NC would be any different.

If the LRT was to run at grade on Centre, all other transit would likely cease to use the road, so the remaining lanes would be purely for vehicles.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well people are applying awfully definitive language to a process that carries really no weight then.

They didn't discredit it, they said they don't like it. And they aren't proposing an actionable alternative while they're at it.

What about these two statements has ceased to be true in the past eight years:

I personally think that Centre Street is doable at grade and partially trenched, but that would require closing Centre Street to non-local traffic. I don't think that is a good idea, but I acknowledge it is possible.

Is not having pass through vehicle traffic going to kill the neighborhood? I doubt it, those people are not the ones supporting the businesses in the area, why do we need to cater to them at the expense of the people that live/work/play/shop/etc. there? This is similar to saying we thought about building a nice community street in front of your house, but instead decided to build a freeway because of the people in the communities farther than you want a fast way to their destination.

Many studies have proven that vehicle traffic through an area doesn't make for successful businesses and areas. Why do we keep holding onto the idea that we have to have traffic flow through a neighbourhood? Into, out of, and within absolutely, but not through.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

>50% of the people movements (not vehicle). A vehicle with 1 person in it should never have priority or inhibit the flow of a vehicle with 25-100 people.

Buses like the #2 I would imagine would be removed completely with feeder system being put in place, i.e. buses would change from running N-S to E-W and terminating at LRT stations/nodes, this is what happened on WestLRT and I see no reason to believe that NC would be any different.

If the LRT was to run at grade on Centre, all other transit would likely cease to use the road, so the remaining lanes would be purely for vehicles.

Ok, I can see 50% person capacity...

Sounds like they would need to run lots of feeder buses to replace the convenience of the #2. How many would be needed between, say 64th ave and 12th ave given the #2 stops about every 200-500m?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Is not having pass through vehicle traffic going to kill the neighborhood? I doubt it, those people are not the ones supporting the businesses in the area, why do we need to cater to them at the expense of the people that live/work/play/shop/etc. there? This is similar to saying we thought about building a nice community street in front of your house, but instead decided to build a freeway because of the people in the communities farther than you want a fast way to their destination.

Many studies have proven that vehicle traffic through an area doesn't make for successful businesses and areas. Why do we keep holding onto the idea that we have to have traffic flow through a neighbourhood? Into, out of, and within absolutely, but not through.

I don't think a lot of those businesses would be viable without bringing people in from other communities. Making it inconvenient to get to them will certainly have an impact, no? I live about 30 blocks form the area and shop occasionally and go to restaurants. Limiting access will have me looking at alternatives.

[Policy Wonk]

Many studies have proven that vehicle traffic through an area doesn't make for successful businesses and areas. Why do we keep holding onto the idea that we have to have traffic flow through a neighbourhood? Into, out of, and within absolutely, but not through.

That requires a whole lot of density that Centre Street is not likely to ever achieve.

And I would still like you to address point-by-point what is unsound about the findings of the previous corridor review where the possibilities that remain on the table today are concerned. What has changed that makes these actionable alternatives today?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think a lot of those businesses would be viable without bringing people in from other communities. Making it inconvenient to get to them will certainly have an impact, no? I live about 30 blocks form the area and shop occasionally and go to restaurants. Limiting access will have me looking at alternatives.

Access in & out is needed absolutely, but a person travelling through an area without stopping adds zero value(net impact is actually negative), if those trips can be discouraged, your trip to the restaurant becomes much easier.

Alternatively if you live within walking distance of the new LRT, rather than driving (not sure which direction your 40 blocks is in) you could hop on the train and be at your destination without the hassle of finding parking or navigating the traffic restrictions. For me this might mean I stop there rather than passing through (yes, I travel through the area south of 16th on a daily basis only leaving the impact of my transportation choice for the day (walking/transit)).

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well people are applying awfully definitive language to a process that carries really no weight then. .

Yeah; I agree that using unjustly definitive language around here is a real problem. You might want to talk to this guy, he seems to be the worst offender:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The mayor and council that actually builds it will put it right back in Nose Creek. It's destined to be commuter rail, deal with it and move on.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ok, I can see 50% person capacity...

Sounds like they would need to run lots of feeder buses to replace the convenience of the #2. How many would be needed between, say 64th ave and 12th ave given the #2 stops about every 200-500m?

A fair number I would imagine, alternatively the #2 could continue to run, but would terminate at 12th & Centre rather than continuing downtown.

In my experience the #2 is quite likely the least reliable route in the city, it rarely comes on time and many times they come in 2's. I find it more convenient to walk the additional 4 blocks to Centre st than to wait for the #2. I firmly believe that stop location and frequency on Centre, 4th & 10th (possibly Edmonton Tr too but I can't speak from experience) needs to be reviewed as there are locations where the are 3 stops within 500m.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That requires a whole lot of density that Centre Street is not likely to ever achieve.

And I would still like you to address point-by-point what is unsound about the findings of the previous corridor review where the possibilities that remain on the table today are concerned. What has changed that makes these actionable alternatives today?

Political will to do a number of items listed here:

A CTrain line here would require barriers along the right-of-way, grade separated roadway and pedestrian crossings, traffic signal preemption, east/west road closures or restrictions and property acquisition.

Particularly the underlined ones which likely would have been unpalatable for previous governments.

Additionally many previous studies have looked at a much wider ROW requirement (i.e. high floor vehicles) (I'm not sure where your quotes came from so I can't confirm if that was the basis for those studies) than is currently being considered for a surface implementation.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Political will to do a number of items listed here:



Particularly the underlined ones which likely would have been unpalatable for previous governments.

Additionally many previous studies have looked at a much wider ROW requirement (i.e. high floor vehicles) (I'm not sure where your quotes came from so I can't confirm if that was the basis for those studies) than is currently being considered for a surface implementation.

This government has acknowledged as much that they aren't going to be the ones to build this.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Yeah; I agree that using unjustly definitive language around here is a real problem. You might want to talk to this guy, he seems to be the worst offender:

There is a difference between imaging there is a guy standing next to the mayor at City Hall who's job it is to say "So let it be written, so let it be done" and believing that the ultimate form of the NCLRT will be based on a long-standing consensus on an alignment that will more than adequately perform the only role it was ever intended to (serving communities North of Beddington Trail) and won't price itself into the realm of fantasy.

That is what this is about. Stomping your feet and demanding something that will never be built is ridiculous. Forcing something that can be built to compete on its merits against something that is only precariously theoretical is worse still.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

A fair number I would imagine, alternatively the #2 could continue to run, but would terminate at 12th & Centre rather than continuing downtown.

In my experience the #2 is quite likely the least reliable route in the city, it rarely comes on time and many times they come in 2's. I find it more convenient to walk the additional 4 blocks to Centre st than to wait for the #2. I firmly believe that stop location and frequency on Centre, 4th & 10th (possibly Edmonton Tr too but I can't speak from experience) needs to be reviewed as there are locations where the are 3 stops within 500m.

I agree. The only real reason it is unreliable is the drivers though. In downtown northbound they rush through early so they can have a nice long stop at 1st street and everyone on the bus gets to do nothing. Meanwhile the bus behind gets slowed down picking up everyone that missed the earlier one. I often take the 301 home because sitting around for 15 minutes is ridiculous.

Southbound I can't figure out why its schedule drifts so badly, I get on at 40th which isn't all that far from the start of the route. Do these drivers not set their clocks the same? Yesterday I don't even think the scheduled 7:00 bothered to show up for work. The next one was jammed and sloooow. Rode my bike in today though, and looks like I should be good for summer now! Won't miss the shitty bus.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That requires a whole lot of density that Centre Street is not likely to ever achieve.

And I would still like you to address point-by-point what is unsound about the findings of the previous corridor review where the possibilities that remain on the table today are concerned. What has changed that makes these actionable alternatives today?

Why? Is it inconceivable that in a span of several decades, this area cannot sustain a moderate level of growth?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I agree. The only real reason it is unreliable is the drivers though. In downtown northbound they rush through early so they can have a nice long stop at 1st street and everyone on the bus gets to do nothing. Meanwhile the bus behind gets slowed down picking up everyone that missed the earlier one. I often take the 301 home because sitting around for 15 minutes is ridiculous.

Southbound I can't figure out why its schedule drifts so badly, I get on at 40th which isn't all that far from the start of the route. Do these drivers not set their clocks the same? Yesterday I don't even think the scheduled 7:00 bothered to show up for work. The next one was jammed and sloooow. Rode my bike in today though, and looks like I should be good for summer now! Won't miss the shitty bus.

My wife waited 2 hours for a #2 to show up one day, I take either the 5 or walk to Centre, I avoid the 2 like the plague. I can only guess is that stop spacing and traffic contribute to the constant delays/missing buses.

For northbound I don't even bother unless I happen to be at the time stop by 2nd, otherwise it's the 4 home.

Now that it's getting warmer I'm going to need to get back into walking to work, quite a nice walk from my place in.