Calgary Public Transit II

[Fuzz]

“It will be interesting to see what that sort of threshold point is where parking users say enough is enough. Now that starts to get a little complicated because not only does it bring parking policy into play but it also brings public transportation into play. I think we’ve already seen some evidence that major corporations are very prepared to move out to the suburbs. Imperial Oil would be an example of that, moving out to Quarry Park. There would be a myriad of reasons they did that deal but I’m certain that part of it would have been the attractiveness of having far greater availability of parking at greatly reduced costs to employees.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/On...owntown+parking+rates/9690733/story.html

Though this article is on parking, I think it underscores the risks the city is taking, and that if it wants to limit traffic by constraining parking supply it MUST make transit a viable alternative, and do it properly, not half-assed and not 20 years from now. Given the continued boom in large scale office towers, how many more people are going to be coming into the core in the next 10 years? Any numbers on that?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It seams implementation plans would be very important to deciding on a final route.

That type of planning won't generate the answers that the current city council wants to hear.

I still want someone to explain what makes this exercise any more actionable or sacrosanct than every past corridor review and those still to come. Or why when the 8th Ave Subway seems unattainable a subway from 16th Ave to the SELRT is to be considered a serious proposal. Particularly when the SELRT can be built entirely at grade and for that matter a Centre Street LRT too. And for the record I still believe the eventual NCLRT will be built along Nose Creek. But unlike a Centre Street subway I believe the LRT at grade on Centre Street is actually in the realm of the possible.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That type of planning won't generate the answers that the current city council wants to hear.

I still want someone to explain what makes this exercise any more actionable or sacrosanct than every past corridor review and those still to come. Or why when the 8th Ave Subway seems unattainable a subway from 16th Ave to the SELRT is to be considered a serious proposal. Particularly when the SELRT can be built entirely at grade and for that matter a Centre Street LRT too. And for the record I still believe the eventual NCLRT will be built along Nose Creek. But unlike a Centre Street subway I believe the LRT at grade on Centre Street is actually in the realm of the possible.

Why not go above grade past the Eau Claire Station on 2nd street, and keep it at grade on Centre, with perhaps an underpass under 16th?

[Policy Wonk]

That is working on the assumption that an Eau Claire station will exist. The SELRT has never had an implementation level shake-down either.

[Colin]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Agreed, to bad it'll be primarily underground, preventing us from having a grand station.

I think it's been mentioned before, but it seems like the most logical spot for a potentail grand central station would be the podium space south of the Scotia Tower on the corner of Stephen Ave and 2nd Street.

One can only dream...

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That type of planning won't generate the answers that the current city council wants to hear.

I still want someone to explain what makes this exercise any more actionable or sacrosanct than every past corridor review and those still to come. Or why when the 8th Ave Subway seems unattainable a subway from 16th Ave to the SELRT is to be considered a serious proposal. Particularly when the SELRT can be built entirely at grade and for that matter a Centre Street LRT too. And for the record I still believe the eventual NCLRT will be built along Nose Creek. But unlike a Centre Street subway I believe the LRT at grade on Centre Street is actually in the realm of the possible.

Two words - political will. There is more will to add riders than to improve service for existing riders (see phasing for green line, SE first then NC)

Originally Posted by fusili

Why not go above grade past the Eau Claire Station on 2nd street, and keep it at grade on Centre, with perhaps an underpass under 16th?

no reason not too.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is working on the assumption that an Eau Claire station will exist. The SELRT has never had an implementation level shake-down either.

There probably isn't even reason to have more immediately downtown, the proposed Eau Caire station could be placed around Centre and 4th ave and serve a similar area. This would be particularly true if it turned onto 4th ave before going south on 2nd. Potentially it could then east again on 9th ave rather than attempting to go under the tracks, clearly being at grade across 7th would have some drawbacks but the saved money could very well present a more attractive picture for council and citizens.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Colin

I think it's been mentioned before, but it seems like the most logical spot for a potentail grand central station would be the podium space south of the Scotia Tower on the corner of Stephen Ave and 2nd Street.

One can only dream...

One can! Here's to hope!

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Colin

I think it's been mentioned before, but it seems like the most logical spot for a potentail grand central station would be the podium space south of the Scotia Tower on the corner of Stephen Ave and 2nd Street.

One can only dream...

Or if Brookfield (the second tower) and FCCII can collaborate with the City on ingritating a central station between the two developments at the podium level/underground

Dream indeed

I also hope there is an nice underground station with the Eau Claire Market redevelopment if they go with option 1 ... Really hope they decide to bury the line

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by fusili

Why not go above grade past the Eau Claire Station on 2nd street, and keep it at grade on Centre, with perhaps an underpass under 16th?

The day they decide to put the LRT at-grade on Centre, is the day it loses most of its value. By the time the line gets implemented, the corridor will be a dedicated BRT line anyways. How much capacity could the LRT add over buses? Will switching technologies really have a significant increase in quality of service?

What is the real benefit?

I used to be a huge proponent of the NCLRT... but it isn't making sense anymore to me. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

[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 Halofire

The day they decide to put the LRT at-grade on Centre, is the day it loses most of its value. By the time the line gets implemented, the corridor will be a dedicated BRT line anyways. How much capacity could the LRT add over buses? Will switching technologies really have a significant increase in quality of service?

What is the real benefit?

I used to be a huge proponent of the NCLRT... but it isn't making sense anymore to me. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Trains do have higher capacity(~200/lrt car vs ~100/60' articulated bus).

IMO Centre st could be upgraded to a train now and would have sufficient demand to keep the trains running at a relatively short headway.

[Full Mountain]

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.

[Rant] You continue to put this theory forward yet you discount the fact that the west LRT didn't go along the bow river or out bow trail the whole way (the equivalent routing to nose creek). I get how you view the CTrain (SDBDS) but I don't think Calgary Transit views it in the same way and this is reflected in the RouteAhead plan and it's focus on utilizing transit to spur redevelopment. There is zero redevelopment potential in the nose creek valley, and how pray tell are you going to get buses up that hill to Renfrew? If you want a commuter rail system, advocate for that, but stop imposing your views on the LRT.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/On...owntown+parking+rates/9690733/story.html

Though this article is on parking, I think it underscores the risks the city is taking, and that if it wants to limit traffic by constraining parking supply it MUST make transit a viable alternative, and do it properly, not half-assed and not 20 years from now. Given the continued boom in large scale office towers, how many more people are going to be coming into the core in the next 10 years? Any numbers on that?

Parking rates are only one part of the equation... the role of attracting talent, working with other companies and so much infrastructure already existing in downtown's real estate and transportation sectors are all major competitive advantages over suburban sites and are likely going to be increasingly so for the forseeable future.

That doesn't mean that you won't see offices start or move to the suburbs. I suspect you will see some decentralization but more as a function of population (and number, diversity and size of companies) than anything. Manhattan has lots of office space, but not every company wants or can operate there. Same with the financial core of Toronto. Plenty of offices, more all the time but only one piece of the picture of the overall office market.

I don't think downtown has much to worry about.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Parking rates are only one part of the equation... the role of attracting talent, working with other companies and so much infrastructure already existing in downtown's real estate and transportation sectors are all major competitive advantages over suburban sites and are likely going to be increasingly so for the forseeable future.

That doesn't mean that you won't see offices start or move to the suburbs. I suspect you will see some decentralization but more as a function of population (and number, diversity and size of companies) than anything. Manhattan has lots of office space, but not every company wants or can operate there. Same with the financial core of Toronto. Plenty of offices, more all the time but only one piece of the picture of the overall office market.

I don't think downtown has much to worry about.

I agree, I think IOL's size got people all rattled, but it's something that companies have and will continue to do with little impact to the overall centre city office market.

Keep in mind we have a new tallest going up after IOL moved, no reason to believe that there won't be another in a few years. People were predicting (on here and in other publications) that after the Bow we wouldn't see another tower, let alone a new tallest for 5+ years, here we are 2 years after it was completed and we have another 1+million sq ft under construction in one building, plus multiple smaller buildings.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Parking rates are only one part of the equation... the role of attracting talent, working with other companies and so much infrastructure already existing in downtown's real estate and transportation sectors are all major competitive advantages over suburban sites and are likely going to be increasingly so for the forseeable future.

That doesn't mean that you won't see offices start or move to the suburbs. I suspect you will see some decentralization but more as a function of population (and number, diversity and size of companies) than anything. Manhattan has lots of office space, but not every company wants or can operate there. Same with the financial core of Toronto. Plenty of offices, more all the time but only one piece of the picture of the overall office market.

I don't think downtown has much to worry about.

My point was more that without reasonable alternatives to driving, people are going to start getting frustrated. If the cities policy is to restrict car commuting, they better damn well have a good plan in place to allow that and should be going "all in".

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

My point was more that without reasonable alternatives to driving, people are going to start getting frustrated. If the cities policy is to restrict car commuting, they better damn well have a good plan in place to allow that and should be going "all in".

This is very true, we need to increase the efficiency of our transportation system, to do this we need to invest in dedicated transit and cycling infrastructure now.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

This is very true, we need to increase the efficiency of our transportation system, to do this we need to invest in dedicated transit and cycling infrastructure now.

Agreed. And largely you are seeing it happen - with some of the expected speed-bumps (suburban drivers against cycling, lack of funding to upgrade transit as quickly as I would like).

Remember that density increases in the inner city are also an outcome of the lag of to upgrade the transportation as well as a solution that helps to resolve it - having 20,000 new people living in the Beltline + DT in the next 10 years who are walking and cycling are using the most efficient form of transportation available, not to mention the 40,000-50,000 that already live in the walkable distance of the core and surrounding areas.

But I am all for it, any infrastructure that increases the efficiency of moving people around downtown is key to adding more jobs and residents effectively.

[Chadillaccc]

What? Are we actually talking about LRT on the street up Centre, as if it is a good thing? Having it above ground would be a disastrous mistake for the future of this city, unless it was completely elevated of course.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Trains do have higher capacity(~200/lrt car vs ~100/60' articulated bus).

IMO Centre st could be upgraded to a train now and would have sufficient demand to keep the trains running at a relatively short headway.

Absolutely it could be built and operationally cost effective, but from a capital expense how many years would it take to recover the costs to convert? Will it serve the communities it goes through equally, or will it benefit those north of Beddington trail at the expense of those south of it. Essentially, the burden of implementation is on those to the south of it, while the benefit is primarily for those to the north.

Another possibility is to divert BRT traffic serving north of beddington trail to edmonton trail, and have 2 transit right of ways. I just feel there are so many more options & possibilities with buses and the agility to adjust to demand by area than an at-grade LRT that is so... permanent and inflexible.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

[Rant] You continue to put this theory forward yet you discount the fact that the west LRT didn't go along the bow river or out bow trail the whole way (the equivalent routing to nose creek). I get how you view the CTrain (SDBDS) but I don't think Calgary Transit views it in the same way and this is reflected in the RouteAhead plan and it's focus on utilizing transit to spur redevelopment. There is zero redevelopment potential in the nose creek valley, and how pray tell are you going to get buses up that hill to Renfrew? If you want a commuter rail system, advocate for that, but stop imposing your views on the LRT.

[Rant] You guys continue to put this theory forward that the decisions of this mayor and council are sacrosanct and will be binding on Calgary for all times.

And the Nose Creek LRT isn't some crazy idea, it was the standing policy while there are few projects that have been more decisively discredited than the Centre Street subway. This is fundamentally about the difference between reality and fantasy. A Nose Creek or at grade Centre Street LRT are actually doable. While this SELRT/NCLRT married by a giant tunnel is laughable. Look at the things we can't get done in this city and tell me with a straight face that this is actually plausible in any of our lifetimes. My disagreement with a Centre Street subway is that even if it were possible, the corridor would never intensify enough to have justified the investment. While the continued growth of the suburbs north of Beddington Trail that the NCLRT was intended to serve really isn't in doubt.

Mayor and council can plan whatever they like, yet they are blissfully free of responsibility when they themselves acknowledge nothing is going to be built for decades. But political pet projects being what they are, with a changing of the guard comes overflowing recycling bins.

The LRT is a commuter rail system, that is why it is successful. You can build on this success or stare longingly at pictures of street cars.