Calgary Public Transit II

[Jimby]

^ you want transit money to pay for overpasses to improve the travel time for single occupant vehicle commuters and you are posting that in a transit thread???

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

Does anyone find Nenshi's use of the 520 million dollars towards transit as a well intended but a misplaced/political use of the funds?

I guess this moreso my opinion on the waste the SETWAY is in terms of capital dollars to riders compared to the other BRT routes in the RouteAhead plan. Actually any of the other BRT routes have much better business cases/economics then the SETWAY.

Calgary has a early stage Younge subway situation in its hands with the South LRT and the 4 car trains will be only a stop gap situation. Calgary needs to use this money to increase the S70 train order to get all the 80's U2 trains retired ASAP to increase the reliability of the system immensely and be able to run 4 car trains for rush hour sufficiently. Some of the money should also be spent on 26th ave and Heritage Drive overpasses to decrease travel times and help traffic on McLeod Trail.

The Green line needs a substantial cash infusion to get started on anything that is useful. Most of those other projects can be completed with much smaller amounts of money.

I'm sure council is researching ways to get matching money from other levels of government as well. Frankly, I think we need to figure out a way to get enough money to build the Green line LRT between 16th Ave N and Quarry Park.

4 car trains is going to be only a very temporary solution for the south line. I'm guessing that the 33% capacity increase will be almost entirely used up, by the time that every train has 4 cars.

[Wooster]

Watch Council on the 31st. It'll be a discuss about prioritization and the funding picture for transit. We'll be doing a lot of building, and not just green line in the coming years...

[Joborule]

If we're going to elevate it at any point up centre street, I would hope that's it's aesthetically pleasing so it integrates well with the homes and business that are right upon it, rather than appears as a big barrier.

[sportsdude]

Originally Posted by Jimby

^ you want transit money to pay for overpasses to improve the travel time for single occupant vehicle commuters and you are posting that in a transit thread???

This would be like arguing the 17th Sarcee overpass was not needed for the West LRT. Yes single occupant commuters get secondary benefit of the overpasses but the those two intersections are major bottlenecks for the C-Train this should allow increased frequency and decreased travel times for the South LRT.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

Does anyone find Nenshi's use of the 520 million dollars towards transit as a well intended but a misplaced/political use of the funds?

I guess this moreso my opinion on the waste the SETWAY is in terms of capital dollars to riders compared to the other BRT routes in the RouteAhead plan. Actually any of the other BRT routes have much better business cases/economics then the SETWAY.

Calgary has a early stage Younge subway situation in its hands with the South LRT and the 4 car trains will be only a stop gap situation. Calgary needs to use this money to increase the S70 train order to get all the 80's U2 trains retired ASAP to increase the reliability of the system immensely and be able to run 4 car trains for rush hour sufficiently. Some of the money should also be spent on 26th ave and Heritage Drive overpasses to decrease travel times and help traffic on McLeod Trail.

No. The SETWAY offers the greatest time savings and imo the most value for Calgarians. I think it will also reduce congestion on two of Calgary’s most congested roads, Deerfoot and Glenmore, and I think it will drive redevelopment almost all the way down the line to at least QP. I think it should be our top priority.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Allan83

No. The SETWAY offers the greatest time savings and imo the most value for Calgarians. I think it will also reduce congestion on two of Calgary’s most congested roads, Deerfoot and Glenmore, and I think it will drive redevelopment almost all the way down the line to at least QP. I think it should be our top priority.

Or are we going to see another situation like the SE ring road where volumes on Deerfoot dipped for a few weeks then came right back to nearly normal levels?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

This would be like arguing the 17th Sarcee overpass was not needed for the West LRT. Yes single occupant commuters get secondary benefit of the overpasses but the those two intersections are major bottlenecks for the C-Train this should allow increased frequency and decreased travel times for the South LRT.

The Heritage situation really only benefits cars as the train currently has priority at that intersection, could that intersection cause issues with headways if they wanted to move to shorter headways? Sure, but shorter headways aren't going to occur until we get the 8th Ave subway as the interlocking on 7th is the current limiting factor.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Or are we going to see another situation like the SE ring road where volumes on Deerfoot dipped for a few weeks then came right back to nearly normal levels?

I think to answer that we’d need to understand where those extra vehicles are coming from on Deerfoot. The SE ring road is being well used, so where did the extra traffic come from? Are these people who were taking some other longer route before because they didn’t want to drive on the busy Deerfoot?

[sportsdude]

Originally Posted by Allan83

No. The SETWAY offers the greatest time savings and imo the most value for around 13000 (Estimated daily amount under RouteAhead) Calgarians. I think it will also reduce congestion on two of Calgary’s most congested roads, Deerfoot and Glenmore, and I think it will drive redevelopment almost all the way down the line to at least QP. I think it should be our top priority.

13000 would likely remove a year or two of traffic growth on those roads tops. Outside of Inglewood/Ramsay and Lynnwood/Ogden there isn't much redevelopment potential.

Here is an alternative suggestion that is even cheaper than the SETWAY (667 Million RouteAhead) and would serve at least 10x more Calgarians interests.

Green Line Centre St Transitway to 78th Ave for 135 million which would carry about 3x more passengers then the SETWAY for a fraction of the price and offer significant time savings. The whole corridor is optimal for redevelopment and would ease congestion on Deerfoot North.

Airport LRT Extension of NE Line for 175 million, would ease traffic on Deerfoot, free up Associated Cabs for other parts of the town and would make Calgary one step closer to the big city metropolis we want it to be.

80 SD200 LRT cars for 240 million which would be able to replace the whole U2 fleet/allow for 4 cars trains and would increase reliability (big factor for transit) and comfort for C-Train passengers.

550 Million, much closer to the 520 million city hall plans and still 100 million cheaper than the SETWAY.

[MalcolmTucker]

Airport LRT Extension of NE Line for 175 million

The line would be way more than that. Plus awful path dependency issues. Route Ahead has not made any technology choices for connecting the North Central and North East LRTs along 96th Ave. Could be anything from a spur of either line to a gondola.

[sportsdude]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The line would be way more than that. Plus awful path dependency issues. Route Ahead has not made any technology choices for connecting the North Central and North East LRTs along 96th Ave. Could be anything from a spur of either line to a gondola.

I was under the impression it was the LRT here it is what the report said. I guess whether the rail connection is some sort of personal automated rail system or LRT is anyones guess.

Mode progression: existing bus service to Northeast LRT;
review appropriate technology; construct rail connection
through Airport Trail tunnel

[MalcolmTucker]

How about this: all spurs are connections, but not all connections are spurs.

[lineman]

The sooner those U2s are gone, the better. They tend to cause most of the tear downs.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

...

80 S70 LRT cars for 240 million which would be able to replace the whole U2 fleet/allow for 4 cars trains and would increase reliability (big factor for transit) and comfort for C-Train passengers.
....

Just want to point out, now you've said S70 at least twice, that that isn't what we are getting. The next order of 60 LRV's are high floor SD200 models. S70's are low floor and at this point in time completely incompatible with our existing station infrastructure. The point of a lot of the SD200's is to replace many of the U2's, which I agree can't happen soon enough.

[sportsdude]

Sorry I got S70 and SD200 mixed up and I have edited the previous posts to reflect the proper model. Does anyone know any details about the Stephen Ave Metro and why it was estimated to cost 800 million in RouteAhead? How many stations are planned and for approx 2 KM new tunnel meeting up with the existing tunnel under Olympic Plaza it seems overly expensive. Is this because there would be constant pumps to keep the water out or because of the unique soil of Calgary's downtown?

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

13000 would likely remove a year or two of traffic growth on those roads tops. Outside of Inglewood/Ramsay and Lynnwood/Ogden there isn't much redevelopment potential.

Here is an alternative suggestion that is even cheaper than the SETWAY (667 Million RouteAhead) and would serve at least 10x more Calgarians interests.

Green Line Centre St Transitway to 78th Ave for 135 million which would carry about 3x more passengers then the SETWAY for a fraction of the price and offer significant time savings. The whole corridor is optimal for redevelopment and would ease congestion on Deerfoot North.

Airport LRT Extension of NE Line for 175 million, would ease traffic on Deerfoot, free up Associated Cabs for other parts of the town and would make Calgary one step closer to the big city metropolis we want it to be.

80 SD200 LRT cars for 240 million which would be able to replace the whole U2 fleet/allow for 4 cars trains and would increase reliability (big factor for transit) and comfort for C-Train passengers.

550 Million, much closer to the 520 million city hall plans and still 100 million cheaper than the SETWAY.

I think the whole green line should be a priority, but what was the time savings on the NC part? If it has 3x as many riders, but they only save 1/3 the time, then I’m not sure it provides any more value. I think we should be measuring these routes more in terms of person-minutes saved. The SETWAY offers the advantage of a brand new road that cuts through a maze of railway tracks, freeways, and a river, which give it a big advantage over driving the long way around on congested roads like Deerfoot and Glenmore. It would produce big time savings for this reason, and it would be a premium ride on a smooth dedicated roadway. I think it would attract a lot more riders than they’ve predicted, and I think it would push forward the redevelopment of Inglewood, the Crossroads Market area, Lynnwood, Ogden (I’ve heard a rumour that CP may be planning more developments on their land), the mall and area around the Glenmore Inn, and maybe more between there and QP.

[sportsdude]

Originally Posted by Allan83

I think the whole green line should be a priority, but what was the time savings on the NC part? If it has 3x as many riders, but they only save 1/3 the time, then I’m not sure it provides any more value.

So it is about 1/10th the capital cost and 1/2 the time savings of the SETWAY

Cost-benefit analysis for transit projects: How they rank

1. Centre Street transitway (to Panorama Hills): startup costs $11.43/rider; large passenger base, would increase room for buses; cut commutes by six minutes

6 (Tie). Southeast transitway (new bus-only roadway to Quarry Park/Douglasglen) $108.81/rider; high redevelopment potential; $642 million overall; cuts commutes by 13 minutes


http://www.calgaryherald.com/Southeast+r...cost+benefit+analysis/8533922/story.html

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

So it is about 1/10th the capital cost and 1/2 the time savings of the SETWAY

Cost-benefit analysis for transit projects: How they rank

1. Centre Street transitway (to Panorama Hills): startup costs $11.43/rider; large passenger base, would increase room for buses; cut commutes by six minutes

6 (Tie). Southeast transitway (new bus-only roadway to Quarry Park/Douglasglen) $108.81/rider; high redevelopment potential; $642 million overall; cuts commutes by 13 minutes


http://www.calgaryherald.com/Southeast+r...cost+benefit+analysis/8533922/story.html

I dismissed that study as soon as I read it because it makes no sense. It did no weighting based on time savings. Iirc the 17th east transitway had a time savings of less than 5 minutes, but somehow they had it ranked ahead of the SETWAY which saved 13 minutes. It makes no sense. I believe they also didn’t factor in the fact that the SETWAY will offer a huge advantage over driving, because it will create a new shorter route. I think you can pull certain findings out of that study, but its overall conclusions were nonsense imo.

[milomilo]

I just want to point out how you have just dismissed a study because you disagreed with it, yet you have treated the various HSR reports as gospel. I hope this helps show how studies should be taken with a grain of salt. They are often written with the outcome already decided by the group paying for the report.