Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

[/i]

And the downtown station will be where exactly? Oh that's right...

You do realize that your Nose Creek proposal requires not one, but two subways through the downtown, one of which (the fantasy 7th avenue subway) will have to be built under an operating LRT line (or both lines will have to use 8th avenue during construction). Not only that, both will have to be built prior to your North Central LRT being built, because 7th wouldn't be able to handle the traffic of both the NC and NE LRTs (if just 8th avenue is used). And we rehash the fact that running cars from NC and NE LRT down the entire length of the west LRT before they can turn around is operational idiocy, considering the NE and NC catchments are both much higher than the west, but that is always forgotten in your scenario.

So where are your downtown stations? Oh right, all of them are underground from day one. So under your scenario, all LRT expansion in the city is halted until 2 subways can be built, either simultaneously, or one after the other. After that, we can build the NC LRT. Yay!!

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

You do realize that your Nose Creek proposal requires not one, but two subways through the downtown, one of which (the fantasy 7th avenue subway) will have to be built under an operating LRT line (or both lines will have to use 8th avenue during construction). Not only that, both will have to be built prior to your North Central LRT being built, because 7th wouldn't be able to handle the traffic of both the NC and NE LRTs (if just 8th avenue is used). And we rehash the fact that running cars from NC and NE LRT down the entire length of the west LRT before they can turn around is operational idiocy, considering the NE and NC catchments are both much higher than the west, but that is always forgotten in your scenario.

So where are your downtown stations? Oh right, all of them are underground from day one. So under your scenario, all LRT expansion in the city is halted until 2 subways can be built, either simultaneously, or one after the other. After that, we can build the NC LRT. Yay!!

The best part is that he's always mentioning that CT planners will chain themselves to the tracks before they allow themselves to get to the same situation they are now in, and then goes on to suggest interlining a line again....

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The best part is that he's always mentioning that CT planners will chain themselves to the tracks before they allow themselves to get to the same situation they are now in, and then goes on to suggest interlining a line again....

Haha. Exactly. Let's never interline 7th again!!! (unless it is for the NC LRT which has the 3rd highest catchment in the City right now and will be the 2nd counting growth in Keystone Hills and let's do it with the NE LRT, which has the 4th highest catchment)

[Policy Wonk]

The issue I keep coming back to in my mind is, "Why Centre Street?" What makes it an excellent (or even suitable) candidate for intensification in the first place? I don't see it and never have. It presents every possible challenge with few good solutions.

36th Street on the other hand... if it can be done anywhere, it can be done there. But I have never sensed much interest.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The best part is that he's always mentioning that CT planners will chain themselves to the tracks before they allow themselves to get to the same situation they are now in, and then goes on to suggest interlining a line again....

I know this is a lost cause with most of you, but interlining is not the problem, capacity of an at-grade ROW interfacing with intersecting traffic is.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

You do realize that your Nose Creek proposal requires not one, but two subways through the downtown...

And here we are again at the point where we are talking past one another by decades. I don't see a lot of point pressing on with this. You are talking about a Calgary in the fairly near future. I am talking about a much larger city mid-century.

both will have to be built prior to your North Central LRT being built

I have never argued otherwise, I have always said I believe both lines will be grade separated long before any variation on the NCLRT is built.

So where are your downtown stations? Oh right, all of them are underground from day one.

And this will be funded how? How is it that begging for money from Edmonton is going to become so much more lucrative than it has been up to this point. Especially in your time frame where I'm guessing Calgary and Edmonton are not going to enjoy the most constructive relationship with the Wild Rose government.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Trains, as a vehicle, do not have any significant speed advantage over a bus when operating in an urban setting.

That is purely a function of the ROW. They certainly can.

EDIT- You do realize that LRVs and streetcars are the same damn thing right? There is no distinction between them. Maybe you are confusing vehicles with right of way categories.

That is a generalization on the level of a child who thinks everything with four legs is a dog.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is a generalization on the level of a child who thinks everything with four legs is a dog.

Not really. I wouldn't go as far to say they were the exact same, but LRVs and modern trams are more or less interchangeable.





Both run on street.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is a generalization on the level of a child who thinks everything with four legs is a dog.

An LRV is a light rail vehicle, typically with overhead catenary power supply and a narrower track gauge than heavier rail systems. A streetcar is a light rail vehicle operating on a right-of-way class B or C (dedicated lanes with at-grade vehicle crossings, or mixed traffic) and typically uses LRVs as the vehicle type. A subway or metro (heavy rail) operates using heavy rail vehicles on class A rights of way (full grade separation of both the guideway and crossings), typically due to the electrified third rail. The main difference between light and heavy rail is the ability for a person or vehicle to physically cross the tracks.

An LRV is a vehicle type. A street car is a right of way operation. Maybe you are referring to LRT, which, typically means class B right of way operation, as compared to a streetcar, which typically means class C right of way operation.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not really. I wouldn't go as far to say they were the exact same, but LRVs and modern trams are more or less interchangeable.

Both run on street.

Out of curiousity, what differentiates a tram from an LRV? The ability to have multiple units in a consist in LRV's and not in trams?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I know this is a lost cause with most of you, but interlining is not the problem, capacity of an at-grade ROW interfacing with intersecting traffic is.

So do you plan that the NC trains will short turn downtown? Or are you going to attempt to double or triple the capacity on the west leg to achieve the required capacity on both the NE and NC lines? Of course all this means that somehow CT is going add the 7th Ave subway to the capital plan.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is purely a function of the ROW. They certainly can.



That is a generalization on the level of a child who thinks everything with four legs is a dog.

So can buses on the same level of dedicated ROW. Progression goes from mixed traffic to dedicated ROW, what vehicle type you put on the ROW doesn't matter. A bus and a train can achieve a similar speeds on the same road section, in fact it may be safer to operate a bus at higher speed given it's lower mass and better traction (bare pavement). The only reason to upgrade from bus to train (both on dedicated ROW) is to increase capacity, not to increase speed.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not really. I wouldn't go as far to say they were the exact same, but LRVs and modern trams are more or less interchangeable.

If that is the case why does Portland keep on buying both Siemens LRV's and US build Skoda streetcars at the same time? Are they just stupid? Did Fusili not get to them in time?

No, it's because the street cars in question can barely do 40mph with a tailwind.

It is a different vehicle for a different purpose built to those parameters. Anything else is just wasteful.

The Portland Streetcar can interline on the MAX track, it is just so slow and disruptive that they only use that ability to transport the streetcars to the TriMet depot for maintenance after 1am.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Out of curiousity, what differentiates a tram from an LRV? The ability to have multiple units in a consist in LRV's and not in trams?

Not really. The major differences between Toronto's LRVs and new streetcars are: doors on only one side; traction power sets for higher grade; traction power sets for higher load at high grade (all cars must be able to tow or push a disabled car on all track sections); wheel chair ramp deployable to street grade; tighter turning radius; different guage; and, they are built for single point switches (grooved rail).

None of those qualities is unique enough to draw a fine dividing line between the two.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And here we are again at the point where we are talking past one another by decades. I don't see a lot of point pressing on with this. You are talking about a Calgary in the fairly near future. I am talking about a much larger city mid-century.

I have never argued otherwise, I have always said I believe both lines will be grade separated long before any variation on the NCLRT is built.

And this will be funded how? How is it that begging for money from Edmonton is going to become so much more lucrative than it has been up to this point. Especially in your time frame where I'm guessing Calgary and Edmonton are not going to enjoy the most constructive relationship with the Wild Rose government.

I don't know why you think we are talking in different time periods. Sure, the phasing and short term timelines might be off, but our dispute is about building a transit system for Calgary mid century. I think a centre street alignment for such a scenario is better than a nose creek alignment.

Here is my thought on timing, in order of how things are built, in case you think that I believe the centre street subway/LRT will be built in the next 5 years.
1. Bus only lanes built on Centre Street (median running), as well as along the majority of the SE right of way (current operation on 9th avenue in Inglewood may change to lane reversals and better enforced bus only lanes). Likely built in the next 5 years.
2. Centre portion of "Green Line" LRT is built. Quarry Park to 64th avenue or maybe to North Pointe. Likely 20 years from now.
3. Stephan Avenue Subway built. Likely 25 years from now.
4. Green line extended to Keystone Hills and South Hospital. 30 years from now.

I love how all your arguments somehow place the centre street alignment as this ridiculously expensive proposal, but burying both the 8th avenue and 7th avenue lines somehow isn't.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So can buses on the same level of dedicated ROW.

Trains have longer headways and much better acceleration. Even with dedicated bus lanes on Centre Street they will still stack up.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Trains have longer headways and much better acceleration. Even with dedicated bus lanes on Centre Street they will still stack up.

Headways have nothing to do with the vehicle type. Acceleration for sure, but headways are a function of scheduling, not vehicle.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

I don't know why you think we are talking in different time periods. Sure, the phasing and short term timelines might be off, but our dispute is about building a transit system for Calgary mid century. I think a centre street alignment for such a scenario is better than a nose creek alignment.

Little that you say suggests to me that you think much about how thirty or forty years of growth is going to reshape this city. To unequivocally state that 7th Ave will never need to be grade separated is crazy to me. Especially given the NE is probably the only area in the city where major intensification is really possible given the LRT and massive amount of mostly unencumbered land.

Here is my thought on timing, in order of how things are built, in case you think that I believe the centre street subway/LRT will be built in the next 5 years.

No I didn't think that. But I don't think twenty years is that much more realistic.

I love how all your arguments somehow place the centre street alignment as this ridiculously expensive proposal, but burying both the 8th avenue and 7th avenue lines somehow isn't.

All my arguments are based on a 7th Ave subway already existing at the time any NCLRT is built. With no realistic prospect for significant intensification along Centre Street and the at-grade alternative you suggest serving only to significantly thwart that further, I just don't see how it makes sense. It's would just be another bottleneck and would just end up in a Transit City/Scarborough Subway type mess.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Trains have longer headways and much better acceleration. Even with dedicated bus lanes on Centre Street they will still stack up.

Originally Posted by fusili

Headways have nothing to do with the vehicle type. Acceleration for sure, but headways are a function of scheduling, not vehicle.

There are a few items that cause trains to keep more consistent headways all of which can be implemented on buses

1. Acceleration control system - the gas pedal on a bus has a far greater range than the acceleration control on a train, implement a controlled system and you not only increase the consistency of the scheduling but of the ride as well. Anyone know what the rated acceleration is for the buses in the CT fleet? They only have the data points for the LRT vehicles.

2. Vehicle make & age - When was the last time you saw 10 buses in a row that were purchased at the same time? A 20-30 year old bus doesn't get the same acceleration a new one and a 60' bus is slower off the mark than a 40' one. Additionally a train consist can accelerate at the same rate regardless of the number of units as each unit adds additional power, something that doesn't necessarily happen with buses (60' buses likely have similar power to a 40').

3. Central control - Rail control can easily pick out a train that is getting ahead or behind schedule and mitigate the issue, with buses this currently isn't in place, I would imagine that with the implementation of the real time system this will assist in this.

4. Traffic lights - On most of the LRT's ROW Trains (outside of 7th) don't have to wait for lights, this is not the case on any of Calgary's bus routes, putting this in place would have the greatest effect in reducing stacking.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Headways have nothing to do with the vehicle type. Acceleration for sure, but headways are a function of scheduling, not vehicle.

No, it most certainly does. Single buses are not going to be replaced with four car trains.