Calgary Public Transit II

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

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

Other than the NIMBY issues, I think it is mostly because there are other areas, actually linked to the LRT that are a whole lot more desirable for re-development. North of 16th, or out of walking distance of downtown what's the draw? It's a gridlocked accidental arterial road with few amenities.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

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

Not sure how that is a response to my comments....

I thought we agreed on the fact that this government isn't likely to be the one build this, yet this is the best argument that you can come up with against this happening with a future government (likely to have similar inclinations to the current one). Let's be honest it's unlikely that this city will elect a government that isn't urban in mind set, more and more of the city is starting to redevelop and the area & population that these communities cover is only going to get larger and will have a larger influence on policy.

[Policy Wonk]

You're saying the identified short-comings addressed in the prior corridor review are things that the current mayor and council might tolerate as urban minded. But they aren't the ones who would have to sell the immediate area and city as a whole on those compromises. They have no real responsibility here, they could decide on an elevated pneumatic tube. The political will of this mayor and council will mean nothing to the Calgary of 2040. Does anyone sit around and ask "What would Ross P. Alger do?"

And I believe Calgary is fully capable of electing a slate of suburban reactionaries. I believe Calgary is fully capable of electing Rob Anders mayor.

[Chadillaccc]

A big city thinking like a city of 500 000. Calgary planning to a T. *sigh*

By the time this thing is operational, Calgary will be a city of 2 million without any adequate metro service. You guys are talking about at-grade LRT on a main thoroughfare as if it's a good thing. Absolutely crazy, I can't even believe it. I would have thought urban enthusiasts would be supporting thinking ahead, not regressing to the mistakes of the past.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

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.

Ya, I've spent the winter walking the 5km home any day its warmer than -5. The walk takes 50 minutes, at best the bus is 35, at worst 1.5 hours. Awesome transit

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

A big city thinking like a city of 500 000. Calgary planning to a T. *sigh*

By the time this thing is operational, Calgary will be a city of 2 million without any adequate metro service. You guys are talking about at-grade LRT on a main thoroughfare as if it's a good thing. Absolutely crazy, I can't even believe it. I would have thought urban enthusiasts would be supporting thinking ahead, not regressing to the mistakes of the past.

I isn't about good and bad, it is about reality and fantasy in what is very likely to be an era of severe austerity.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, I've spent the winter walking the 5km home any day its warmer than -5. The walk takes 50 minutes, at best the bus is 35, at worst 1.5 hours. Awesome transit

Yeah, it's about equal for me ~30 min on transit or walking. Pretty sad that a corridor with similar ridership to the WestLRT has only one small section of dedicated infrastructure.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

A big city thinking like a city of 500 000. Calgary planning to a T. *sigh*

By the time this thing is operational, Calgary will be a city of 2 million without any adequate metro service. You guys are talking about at-grade LRT on a main thoroughfare as if it's a good thing. Absolutely crazy, I can't even believe it. I would have thought urban enthusiasts would be supporting thinking ahead, not regressing to the mistakes of the past.

Market st is SF was a mistake? The trams in Amsterdam are a mistake?

Would I like to see a proper subway absolutely, but as much as I hate to say it I agree with Policy Wonk on this it's unlikely to be feasible to spend the money required on a subway. Not to mention this line needs to be built now, not in 10-20 years.

All that said, there isn't an absolutely requirement to have a subway to provide transit service to a city of 2M, the requirement is to have good if not excellent transit.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You're saying the identified short-comings addressed in the prior corridor review are things that the current mayor and council might tolerate as urban minded. But they aren't the ones who would have to sell the immediate area and city as a whole on those compromises. They have no real responsibility here, they could decide on an elevated pneumatic tube. The political will of this mayor and council will mean nothing to the Calgary of 2040. Does anyone sit around and ask "What would Ross P. Alger do?"

And I believe Calgary is fully capable of electing a slate of suburban reactionaries. I believe Calgary is fully capable of electing Rob Anders mayor.

They do have a responsibility to sell it, their re-election depends on it. Also if they continue to delay it, by prioritizing other projects over it, their re-election chances will take a hit.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Other than the NIMBY issues, I think it is mostly because there are other areas, actually linked to the LRT that are a whole lot more desirable for re-development. North of 16th, or out of walking distance of downtown what's the draw? It's a gridlocked accidental arterial road with few amenities.

Well, I guess you and I have a very different view of the development pressure for inner city communities, even those north of the river. If people are paying $800 for a semi in Mount Pleasant, I would imagine there would be at least a few people who see the area as a desirable place to live.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

A big city thinking like a city of 500 000. Calgary planning to a T. *sigh*

By the time this thing is operational, Calgary will be a city of 2 million without any adequate metro service. You guys are talking about at-grade LRT on a main thoroughfare as if it's a good thing. Absolutely crazy, I can't even believe it. I would have thought urban enthusiasts would be supporting thinking ahead, not regressing to the mistakes of the past.

Being an urban enthusiast doesn't mean you need to think of every transit project or corridor as Manhattan-level density. At-grade transit systems work in many urban areas around the world and do so effectively. Subway-or-nothing is a great way to make the decision easy for anyone.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

A big city thinking like a city of 500 000. Calgary planning to a T. *sigh*

By the time this thing is operational, Calgary will be a city of 2 million without any adequate metro service. You guys are talking about at-grade LRT on a main thoroughfare as if it's a good thing. Absolutely crazy, I can't even believe it. I would have thought urban enthusiasts would be supporting thinking ahead, not regressing to the mistakes of the past.

Yeah, until the city started mentioning it, since the other options have insane direct costs, unlike the surface option which has insane indirect costs, I don't think anyone seriously thought surface was an option. And realistically it isn't, but officials have to responsibly present the options.

But that is why we have council - to make the though call with the evidence presented in front of them. It is unlikely the surface option will get very far. The extra cost of more grade separation or buying a surface corridor instead of using existing lanes is spread throughout the entire city, while the cost of taking lanes is concentrated amongst the local group. Much easier to revise the budget up a billion dollars than fight the community and businesses.

Heck, during the west LRT the budget grew by almost that much behind the scenes from scope changes on a much smaller project!

[Policy Wonk]

Although this was one of Nenshi's campaign promises, I seriously doubt the eventual alignment of an LRT line decades away will figure prominently in the next election. There are far more immediate transit concerns than this. Although I suspect the big issue next election will be housing affordability and little else.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, until the city started pushing it, since the other options have insane direct costs, unlike the surface option which has insane indirect costs, I don't think anyone seriously thought surface was an option.

But that is why we have council - to make the though call with the evidence presented in front of them.

I never thought surface would work either, until it was brought up and I started looking a bit more closely at it.

Remember Centre street has a 22m ROW north of the bridge. With 2m sidewalks, that means 18m of space for lanes. Low-floor LRVs can function with 3m lanes, and a 3.5m travel lane is totally adequate. The contentious left-turns are northbound centre onto 12th and onto 16th and southbound centre onto 16th. So that means you could actually have two lanes running northbound and one lane southbound.

As for stations: Have an underground station at 16th (station heads at 16th and 14th aves which covers most of crescent heights in terms of a 600m radius) and then another station at Tuxedo park (the actual park), where lanes can jog slightly into the park to make room for the station. Alternatively, the LRT can run completely in the easterly lanes north of 16th avenue, thus allowing all the left turns from northbound centre uninhibited by the LRT, and you can have alternate left turn bays on the remaining 3 vehicle lanes. Tuxedo station can use the park as a portion of the platform and use the third lane as the other platform (lane jog at the intersections).

That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Well, I guess you and I have a very different view of the development pressure for inner city communities, even those north of the river. If people are paying $800 for a semi in Mount Pleasant, I would imagine there would be at least a few people who see the area as a desirable place to live.

Clarify then, what do you consider moderate growth to a level that would support the level of pedestrian oriented retail (such that accessibility to vehicles just isn't that big a deal) that Full Mountain speaks of?

I'm not thinking duplexes.

[O-tacular]

All this hand wringing over the NC alignment is pushing this further and further out. Why not build the SELRT which already has a definitive alignment now while this is getting figured out? I still disagree with building the entire line all at once.

[Fuzz]

Fusili, If we accept north of 16th at grade, is the cost to tunnel aprox. 1.25-1.5km really that big of an obstacle? The west LRT goes 1km underground at Westbrook. Especially if you talk about an underground station at 16th, what is the added cost of another km? I'm not sure where the massive "this is unattainable" argument is coming form.

[MalcolmTucker]

Oh, the SE line isn't close to being ready either. 1 to 2 years until RFI, at least 18 months after that for deal close. Depending on how the rail roads act could have an interesting time doing corridor acquisition. And that is if there is money to be found.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

All this hand wringing over the NC alignment is pushing this further and further out. Why not build the SELRT which already has a definitive alignment now while this is getting figured out? I still disagree with building the entire line all at once.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time? As you said, we've got the south alignment figured, the North is much more complex. Better to get working on it now... I don't think the SE section is getting delayed while they work out the North.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by fusili

Being an urban enthusiast doesn't mean you need to think of every transit project or corridor as Manhattan-level density. At-grade transit systems work in many urban areas around the world and do so effectively. Subway-or-nothing is a great way to make the decision easy for anyone.

It isn't a 'subway or nothing' scenario. It is a specific portion (2km) and a river crossing that are really the issue. Is it expensive? Yes, but compare it to the WLRT elevated, tunneled and trenched tracks, is it that much to ask for? I'd rather wait an extra 10 years to do this line properly than rush it through and get a compromised solution.