Calgary Public Transit II

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by fusili

The route will stop at 4th Street SE, because after that it will go underground. At the Calgary tower, it might already be a tunnel (Tunnel with either start at 1st SE or 2nd Street SW). An underground station is planned at Centre street and 10th Avenue SW, after which it turns north up 2nd street and goes into downtown with stops at 6th avenue and Eau Claire. I have the functional study for the SE LRT Glenmore to Downtown section and the Downtown LRT feasibility study on my computer. If you want it, PM me so I can email it to you.

I've seen the studies and the maps, even before I knew about SSP. (It doesn't go near 11th Ave, Mooky). What I'm saying is that 4 St SE is a pretty crappy terminus, and so is Douglasdale.

4 St SE is a long walk from anything downtown except Stampede, and East Village/Victoria Park which won't be finished even in 5 years. A cut and cover tunnel to the tower *could* work, since that feasibility study shows the tunnel not curving north until past that station. It would only be cut and cover for ~2 blocks, that shouldn't cost too much. This is my opinion, not what they want to do, and because it isn't what they want to do, I'm going to find a way to tell them my opinion.

As for Douglasdale... funneling all the buses from the far SE communities up past the edge of the community to that station, plus all the park and ride traffic to one park and ride, is probably almost as expensive as a few km of track and 3 stations to McKenzie Towne. A line that ends halfway down isn't going to generate as much ridership, or money, as one that goes to the middle of the communities. Besides, Mckenzie towne and Shepard stations are destination stations too, insomuch as the term can be applied to that kind of suburban station.

I'd really like to see what the current downtown study says before they commit to half an LRT line, though.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Thanks Wooster. Looks quite ambitious and promising. After all this is done...seems like only areas left really are SW areas around Mount Royal University, Beltline/Mission (which could be served by a potential "C-Tram" versus C-Train), the airport, and maybe Airdrie.

C-Tram would fix the Beltline/Mission gap; the Airport tunnel (if built by Nenshi) should have room for transit, if I recall correctly, leaving room for some sort of people mover between the station north of Saddletowne, the terminal, the future 96 Ave commuter/HSR station, and the NCLRT. Of course, these if we can afford the subways and NCLRT, but we really do need them. Airdrie, commuter rail only as an interim measure to NCLRT, otherwise buses to the cities outside the city limits are good for the next 15 years or so.

In the end, the SW where Mount Royal is is the only area without a radial transit line planned from downtown. And the Grand Plan with its loop line (a plan made by Beltliner) would fix that. We can dream big. Hopefully we can get reality to somewhere near the dream.

[ue]

Back to the tram...



I made up this mediocre map showing some potential routes for a "C-Tram" that I was told of on the previous page of this thread. What are your thoughts? Are these routes plausible in any way or are they unrealistic? If they are unrealistic, what changes should be made?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

The route will stop at 4th Street SE, because after that it will go underground. At the Calgary tower, it might already be a tunnel (Tunnel with either start at 1st SE or 2nd Street SW). An underground station is planned at Centre street and 10th Avenue SW, after which it turns north up 2nd street and goes into downtown with stops at 6th avenue and Eau Claire. I have the functional study for the SE LRT Glenmore to Downtown section and the Downtown LRT feasibility study on my computer. If you want it, PM me so I can email it to you.

You know.. not having that tunnel during the first stage could almost be a blessing, as having the terminus in the middle of Vic Park (ok East Beltline) would bring hundreds of pedestrians into that area every day, helping with the rejuvenation.

[Northski]

An alternative idea to a tram is to run an urban gondola down 33rd st from WLRT to Mount royal. It would be cheaper than an LRT spur line (3kms). If built today it would probably cost 50 million. It wouldn't sever as many destinations as a tram to downtown.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

You know.. not having that tunnel during the first stage could almost be a blessing, as having the terminus in the middle of Vic Park (ok East Beltline) would bring hundreds of pedestrians into that area every day, helping with the rejuvenation.

Plus it won't be as isolated as other's are making it out to be. With the 4th street underpass, and the revamped station at City Hall, it would only be about a 3-4 block walk to transfer to a line that could take you the entire length of the core.

[MichaelS]

Committee approval for the 17th Ave BRT came this week:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2...eenth-avenue-southeast-transit-lane.html

Some talk in the article about potentially using portions of the Green Trip funding for this, with a cost of about $250 million. What would you guys like to see go forward? The 17th Ave SE BRT, or the SE LRT? Or, do you think we could do both, just by scaling back/using smaller phases for both, and still have them be effective?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Committee approval for the 17th Ave BRT came this week:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2...eenth-avenue-southeast-transit-lane.html

Some talk in the article about potentially using portions of the Green Trip funding for this, with a cost of about $250 million. What would you guys like to see go forward? The 17th Ave SE BRT, or the SE LRT? Or, do you think we could do both, just by scaling back/using smaller phases for both, and still have them be effective?

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'll make the argument that the 17th Avenue SE BRT is a better investment.

First, it reaches a greater number of people per length of route. The SELRT has to go through the whole Highfield Industrial area before it reaches any significant population base, and then it is just three communities really- Lynnwood, Ogden and Riverbend. There is still a ways to go until it gets to Douglasdale and MacKenzie town. The 17th Avenue BRT does have to cross Deerfoot, but once across it has the entire greater Forest Lawn area to serve (Forest Lawn, Forest Heights, Radisson Heights, Albert Park, Penbrooke, Erin Woods, Dover, Southview, Fonda and Applewood).

Second, 17th Avenue SE can actually become an urban corridor, and densification is much more possible along the route than along the SE LRT route. The proposed station locations for the SE LRT have very little TOD potential now or into the future. 17th Avenue has tremendous potential. It has gridded streets, which makes redevelopment easier. The whole corridor can densify along with the BRT.

Third, the residents of the greater forest lawn area are more "Transit-dependent" than residents living along the SE LRT route. As such, they have a greater need for the transit upgrade.

So maybe 17th Avenue SE actually is a smarter investment.

Either way, it is good news, because with this, Calgary almost has a real BRT (off vehicle payment and multiple boarding entrances still needed).

[Bassic Lab]

I am still relatively undecided on the virtues of the 17th Ave SE BRT. I, as stated earlier, definitely place it behind the primary C-Train network.

My thoughts on the BRT plan:

The 17th Ave SE BRT seems to have a number of flaws to me. As I understand it, the plan would eventually call for an upgrade to LRT. That has the makings of an even worse situation than 36th St NE written all over it. This is because 17th has far more crossings than 36th. Forest Lawn blocks are also short east-west (the opposite of downtown blocks) so consists would be limited to a max of 3 cars and even that might be a little tight. If we could only manage two car consists that would be a serious limitation. So we would be stuck with a line where max capacity is limited by both small consist sizes and limited headways because of short blocks with a lot of traffic trying to cross 17th. Between serious urban redevelopment in Forest Lawn and suburban development linking Chestermere to the city, I don't know if such a line would be enough. It would be worse than what other lines can currently do.

As it stands Centre St N has the same limitations that 17th Ave SE has without these improvements. Centre, with only local bus service and the express service that we label BRT, carries more passengers on transit. This tells me that 17th has additional transit capacity and that Centre is the greater priority (more on that later). So I would say we are safe putting off improvements to transit on 17th for the time being.


My thoughts on why 17th should wait:

The SE LRT (to enter a debate with Fusili here) is not that limited in redevelopment opportunities. Ogden-Lynnwood-Riverbend is not that much smaller than Greater Forest Lawn. Ogden itself also offers reasonable opportunities for urban redevelopment. We could turn it into quite the urban village. There is also a fantastic opportunity to develop Quarry Park into and urban area from the start. Throw in the ballooning suburbs of the SE and there is a lot of potential.

The NC LRT under Centre Street would be a major expense but I see more benefits to it than 17th Ave SE. Currently transit on Centre Street carries more passengers so I would place it as a greater priority. The corridor also offers more opportunities for urban development than 17th so transit, as a tool for development, can achieve greater results.

The 8th Ave Subway is needed to allow the six lines of the skeleton network to actually function.

So I think 17th Ave SE should wait until those three projects are complete.


As for what to do with 17th Ave:

Some of my complaints against the BRT plan come from playing devil's advocate to some degree. I am still undecided on it. I could end up supporting it but it would still be a lower priority than the six main LRT lines. I do have my own thoughts on what would be best for the corridor as part of my dream system. It involves tunnelling at least the roughly two miles from 26th St/Barlow to just past 52nd and then continuing the line to Chestermere on the surface. It would then be able to function as a full rapid transit line with the speed and capacity to allow for serious redevelopment in Forest Lawn. This would be the eastern half of a south crosstown route (there would also be a north crosstown route generally following 16th Ave, in fact the two could form one line if they joined in Chestermere) that would also service Marda Loop and Mount Royal University with transfer stations to both the SE and S LRT lines.

For those interested, the rest of my dream system involves three additional lines. The first would be a circle line roughly following McKnight, 52nd, Glenmore, and Crowchild with diversions to meet certain activity centres (like Foothills Hospital, Rockyview Hospital, the University, etcetera) and stations on other LRT lines. The second would involve only portions (the rest might never be needed) of a much larger circle line with the first part utilizing Airport Trail, Country Hills Boulevard, and both pieces of Sarcee. It would link the NE LRT, the Airport, the commuter/High Speed Rail station, the North Central LRT, the NW LRT, the 16th Ave Line, the WLRT, and then terminate at the Mount Royal University-17th Ave SE Line's terminus at WestHills. The second portion would start at 37th St then follow Anderson, Deerfoot, and 114th to join up with the SE LRT. I have no idea when we'd ever need the portion from Westhills to Anderson/37th or the Eastern portion built but they would complete the circle. The third would be a 14th St W line from McKnight Boulevard (transfer station with inner circle line) down to 33rd Ave (transfer station with south crosstown). Along the way it would hit other lines. With those eleven lines we'd pretty much be done.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

My thoughts on why 17th should wait:

The SE LRT (to enter a debate with Fusili here) is not that limited in redevelopment opportunities.

BRING IT ON!!!! (JK, I will reply in due time my friend, due time).

[DarkKeyo]

I mostly agree with bassic lab. SELRT will get a lot of people out of cars who currently dont use transit because it takes too long. Ive been travelling to and from the SE a lot lately, and its very difficult to get around by bus. There is a lot of employment near the route, such as in the industrial parks. I agree that ogden has development potential, and I think that SouthHill could be a TOD on the same level as whats proposed for Brentwood and Chinook.

17th does need transit improvements, and I agree with redesigning it with transit lanes for the BRT. But it already has the 1 and 305, densification will occur slowly, and this makes the transitway to Inglewood, which ends at the SELRT in the first place, not as important or useful as SELRT. Therefore we shouldn't waste GreenTrip money on it.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

I mostly agree with bassic lab. SELRT will get a lot of people out of cars who currently dont use transit because it takes too long. Ive been travelling to and from the SE a lot lately, and its very difficult to get around by bus. There is a lot of employment near the route, such as in the industrial parks. I agree that ogden has development potential, and I think that SouthHill could be a TOD on the same level as whats proposed for Brentwood and Chinook.

17th does need transit improvements, and I agree with redesigning it with transit lanes for the BRT. But it already has the 1 and 305, densification will occur slowly, and this makes the transitway to Inglewood, which ends at the SELRT in the first place, not as important or useful as SELRT. Therefore we shouldn't waste GreenTrip money on it.

I forgot to mention that the SE LRT will also help to break up some of the overcrowding on the south line. I think a successful TOD at Chinook requires a south line in which morning rush trains north of Anderson are not reminiscent of sardine cans. Transit should be as attractive for those in the inner city as it is for those in Somerset, if not more so. Anything, of course I am including four car consists and reduced headways from the 8th Ave Subway here, that can help achieve that goal should be supported.

As for Fusili, I await your response good sir. Hopefully we can get an interesting exchange of ideas going here.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The 17th Ave SE BRT seems to have a number of flaws to me. As I understand it, the plan would eventually call for an upgrade to LRT. That has the makings of an even worse situation than 36th St NE written all over it. This is because 17th has far more crossings than 36th. Forest Lawn blocks are also short east-west (the opposite of downtown blocks) so consists would be limited to a max of 3 cars and even that might be a little tight. If we could only manage two car consists that would be a serious limitation. So we would be stuck with a line where max capacity is limited by both small consist sizes and limited headways because of short blocks with a lot of traffic trying to cross 17th. Between serious urban redevelopment in Forest Lawn and suburban development linking Chestermere to the city, I don't know if such a line would be enough. It would be worse than what other lines can currently do.

I'm actually in a similar school of thought when it comes to LRT. After travelling on numerous LRT systems consisting of low-floor LRVs and minimal grade separation one of things I have noticed is that these systems are navigating cities much smaller, geographically speaking, than Calgary. As such, I'm a proponent of boulevards with trenched LRT lines running in the median. However, with 17th I can see a tram working so well there. I think that corridor is special and both a tram could work for it, and it could work for a tram.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The SE LRT (to enter a debate with Fusili here) is not that limited in redevelopment opportunities. Ogden-Lynnwood-Riverbend is not that much smaller than Greater Forest Lawn. Ogden itself also offers reasonable opportunities for urban redevelopment. We could turn it into quite the urban village.

The major difference is these are nodes along the SELRT while 17th is an entire corridor ripe for redevelopment. The BRT/tram will be a true people mover in the sense that it will be intra-community (daily movement) rather than just simply inter-community (commuter flows).

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Riise

I'm actually in a similar school of thought when it comes to LRT. After travelling on numerous LRT systems consisting of low-floor LRVs and minimal grade separation one of things I have noticed is that these systems are navigating cities much smaller, geographically speaking, than Calgary. As such, I'm a proponent of boulevards with trenched LRT lines running in the median. However, with 17th I can see a tram working so well there. I think that corridor is special and both a tram could work for it, and it could work for a tram.




The major difference is these are nodes along the SELRT while 17th is an entire corridor ripe for redevelopment. The BRT/tram will be a true people mover in the sense that it will be intra-community (daily movement) rather than just simply inter-community (commuter flows).

I think 17th looks like a great corridor because we have so few in Calgary. A tram might work great for the mile and half that has hope but I do not see it working great for the entire stretch out to Chestermere. It is easy to forget just how short the stretch of 17th out to 52nd is, it really is not that much longer than the stretch of Ogden Road that could be nicely turned into a mainstreet.

I am also not entirely sold on the concept that LRT used as a tram is so superior to bus service that it justifies the additional cost. Of course that is an entirely different debate, I am just throwing that out there to let you know where I am coming from. It might not even be relevant; the fact that the city is setting this up as a true BRT, with its own lanes and such, seems to indicate that they are going for LRT type service as opposed to tram type service.

[TETT2]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Back to the tram...


I made up this mediocre map showing some potential routes for a "C-Tram" that I was told of on the previous page of this thread. What are your thoughts? Are these routes plausible in any way or are they unrealistic? If they are unrealistic, what changes should be made?

IMO, I don't think they would work at all. You have way too many turns for a tram line to be effective. Any sharp 90 degree it would make would make it super slow. I'd be better off walking. I do understand what you saying in terms of what you're serving etc, but I think these routes have to have minimal turns. I'm still not 100% sold on trams, I think buses can do the same and have flexibility but there needs to be more focus on bus lanes, priority, branding etc. I am still debating whether trams in the inner city are more for show than for practicality. If there is trams in the Inner City, they have to straighter.

On a personal, selfish note, a tram on 17 Av SW from the Stampede Park to just west of Crowchild, or even tieing into WLRT would be sexy. A nice straight line, tie ines to 2 LRT stations, as well as multiple bus routes into downtown and crosstown.

[TETT2]

http://www.nenshi.ca/new/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Better-Idea-4-Access-to-Airport.pdf

If this has been posted, i'm REALLY sorry.

I absolutely agree with everything here. They City dropping the ball on integrating the closure into the network, and the Airport not giving a sh1t about staff. The BRT's would be awesome, the perception of the direct route from Airport to Downtown, via Deerfoot Tr with no stops in between would help ridership. The other BRT needs to be from the Airport to Saddletown Station where arguably the majority of staff works.
The only problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be resources to do this. When I was reading the budget changes last year, it said Transit had to cut 20,000 or so hours. Not very Plan It friendly to me!

[ue]

Originally Posted by TETT2

IMO, I don't think they would work at all. You have way too many turns for a tram line to be effective. Any sharp 90 degree it would make would make it super slow. I'd be better off walking. I do understand what you saying in terms of what you're serving etc, but I think these routes have to have minimal turns. I'm still not 100% sold on trams, I think buses can do the same and have flexibility but there needs to be more focus on bus lanes, priority, branding etc. I am still debating whether trams in the inner city are more for show than for practicality. If there is trams in the Inner City, they have to straighter.

On a personal, selfish note, a tram on 17 Av SW from the Stampede Park to just west of Crowchild, or even tieing into WLRT would be sexy. A nice straight line, tie ines to 2 LRT stations, as well as multiple bus routes into downtown and crosstown.

I don't think some turns are bad and they are likely inevitable, but I can see what you're saying...it was a little overkill. So, I created this new map with a brand new route. Just one this time, though. It connects to LRT (both future and current) which is key to making sure the Tram is very viable as it means it can be attached to the greater transportation system, allowing more people to use it and get to it easier. Going down 17th Ave and stopping at 4 St as well as creating a rail connection between Downtown and Mount Royal University will probably be key to creating high ridership on the C-Tram. These areas will likely really benefit from rail but it seems are unlikely to get the C-Train.

LRT is significantly better than trams or streetcars. But, you could say subways and other forms of HRT are superior to LRT. The trams have a benefit to them though over buses. They can carry much more people, require less memorization of routes (there's only 1 or 2 routes, depending on which of my maps you go by, and I doubt there will be a huge streetcar network in Calgary in reality), and look more stylish than a bus. Would you rather take a bus or tram, based solely on social stigma? And it's cheaper and requires less infrastructure than LRT.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I am still relatively undecided on the virtues of the 17th Ave SE BRT. I, as stated earlier, definitely place it behind the primary C-Train network.

I'm going to side with Fusili here, on the proviso that the 17th Ave SE BRT can be built for a reasonable price.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

[...]an upgrade to LRT. That has the makings of an even worse situation than 36th St NE written all over it. This is because 17th has far more crossings than 36th. Forest Lawn blocks are also short east-west
(the opposite of downtown blocks) so consists would be limited to a max of 3 cars and even that might be a little tight.

The fix is to close off all the entrances to 17th other than major entrance points. 16th and 19th Ave already work as "back road" local access roads - they would function more so under my scheme - I would leave only 28th, 36th, 44th, and 52nd St. open with full traffic movement - probably 1-2 roads in between as right hand only intersections. Lots of room for BRT and eventual LRT stations. To keep it cheap, I'd say the plan of BRT 1st then eventual LRT would work, assuming BRT could be built cheap enough. Build the SE LRT while waiting for 17th SE to densify/sprawl enough to justify LRT.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Ogden-Lynnwood-Riverbend is not that much smaller than Greater Forest Lawn.

However, the reasonable priced route for the LRT will run along the edge of the community, leaving 1/2 the station radius serving nothing - since a rail yard and an irrigation canal separate it from even the meager commuters numbers the industrial area would provide.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

There is also a fantastic opportunity to develop Quarry Park into and urban area from the start.

Too late. It will be built out by the time LRT gets there - assuming we are not in for a double - dip recession.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Throw in the ballooning suburbs of the SE and there is a lot of potential.

Alright, this is where the LRT starts to shine - but we are talking Mckenzie Town before it really works. Douglasdale suffers the same problem as Ogden - the station radius serves only 1/2 residential, and forget re-development - the industrial is built out, and the remaining large parcel of undeveloped land near the LRT will never be built on - former fertilizer plant waste dump - nothing can be built on it - I know because I work on said site and have talked to the reclamation people about this 1/4 section.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The 8th Ave Subway is needed to allow the six lines of the skeleton network to actually function.

I agree with this point. 8th Ave Subway needs to be built, which would help alleviate the need for a SE line, plus help the inner south LRT commute be more bearable.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

So I think 17th Ave SE should wait until those three projects are complete.

To pull together my thoughts, I'd build 17th Ave BRT as my #2 project, with 8th Ave subway as my #1 project - providing that 17th Ave BRT ties into the 202 NE LRT line, and with the 201 line being diverted into a subway, the 202 frequency could be bumped up to handle the flow coming in at Max Bell as per Wooster's suggestion, which I think is a better use of $, because 17th Ave is going to have to be built cheap, so that SE LRT is not delayed too many years in the future. SE LRT is just going to be too expensive to get it out where it needs to be, and really, even if the subway downtown is dumped as part of the initial plan, SE LRT needs to go to McKenzie Town at least in order to be really useful. As far as where in the priority queue the North line should fall, if it were to be a subway along Centre, the price could be out of this world, putting it #4 after the SE LRT, even if they went up Nose Hill Creek, the benefits drop so much I'd still leave it at #4.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I do have my own thoughts on what would be best for [17th Ave] corridor as part of my dream system. It involves tunnelling at least the roughly two miles from 26th St/Barlow to just past 52nd and then continuing the line to Chestermere on the surface. It would then be able to function as a full rapid transit line

Why underground? Is it due to what you refer to above with the short block lengths? One other point about 17th Ave SE for those who don't go through there at all - it's a WIDE corridor - 4 lane road with left hand bails, and medians on the sides that allow for parking - it just seems like such a crappy road since the bit east of 36th to 50th st. has not had the road widened any to take advantage of all the space. However, with all the space, it's perfect to put BRT/LRT down the middle, as you'd still have 4 lanes of traffic, plus turn bays where you would need them with hardly a building to be torn down to make room. It's really one of the last places I'd put things underground. Skytrain above ground, perhaps - with buckets of money, but you don't really need it there.

[Jack Doe]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Committee approval for the 17th Ave BRT came this week:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2...eenth-avenue-southeast-transit-lane.html

Some talk in the article about potentially using portions of the Green Trip funding for this, with a cost of about $250 million. What would you guys like to see go forward? The 17th Ave SE BRT, or the SE LRT? Or, do you think we could do both, just by scaling back/using smaller phases for both, and still have them be effective?

For what it's worth here are by choices:

1-Stephen Avenue Subway
2-SE LRT
3-N LRT (Centre St Subway)
4-E LRT

These are my reasons:

1. Utilization of the exisiting system. Separates the two LRT lines allowing greater capacity on both. Add in four car platforms on both lines and I think this would give you the most bang for your bucks. The latest cost estimates I've seen are $550m for the Stephen Avenue LRT tunnel (LPT2008-38 Attachment 3), $60m for 4 Car Platforms - 201 North and South stations (LPT2008-38 Att2) and $30m for 4 Car Platforms - NE LRT (guestimate). This is within the Green Trip funding envelope and allows funding for such other unfunded projects as the relocation of the Vic Park bus barns (to Highfield I think, probably the reason the City did the 26 Av Connector Study).

2. SE LRT from 4 St SE to Douglasdale (114 Av SE) is my second choice for LRT expansion but actually my first choice for Green Trip funding for reasons I will explain later. I think once the train gets a rollin' it will be hard to stop and the extensions to Downtown, McKenzie and Seton would follow sooner rather than later. BTW, the cost estimates from LPT2008-38 Att3 are:

SE LRT - Phase 1: Downtown to Crossroads $720m (6 stations)
SE LRT - Phase 2: Crossroads to Mackenzie[sic] $890m (9 stations)
SE LRT - Phase 3: Mackenzie[sic] to Seton $230m (3 stations)
SE LRT Maintenance Facility $70m

More recently LPT2010-58 has a "high level estimate" for the entire line at $1.5b.

3. North LRT (Centre Street) has more TOD potential than East LRT.

4. I think only upgraded BRT service should be provided to the Forest Lawn area until an East LRT is built. The main reason is because these are basically throw-away costs that can't be recouped when a proper LRT is built. By the time an ELRT is built presumably Calgary's population will be around the 1.5m mark. At that time we should start considering something other then ground level LRT. My preference for 17th Av SE (considering its limited ROW) would be for an elevated 'Skytrain' solution, maybe continuing as an at grade system from around 68 St SE into an annexed Chestermere.

As for the TOD potential of FL, I can't see an reason why anyone with the means to, would want to move into Gang City...er, I mean Drug Town...um, I mean Ho Ville...uh, I mean Forest Lawn.

Burn it down and start again.

To explain my previous statement about why even though I think the Stephen Avenue Tunnel is a higher priority but that the SE LRT should get the Green Trip funding I offer the following:

IMHO, tunnel projects are notorious for being late and over budget. There are just too many variables into delving into the unknown. Build the SE LRT with the Green Trip funding and any subway as a P3. Transfer the risk inherent with any subway to a corporation (preferably a multi-national with experience and deep pockets) and do what we do best - which is at-grade LRT.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

I'm going to side with Fusili here, on the proviso that the 17th Ave SE BRT can be built for a reasonable price.



The fix is to close off all the entrances to 17th other than major entrance points. 16th and 19th Ave already work as "back road" local access roads - they would function more so under my scheme - I would leave only 28th, 36th, 44th, and 52nd St. open with full traffic movement - probably 1-2 roads in between as right hand only intersections. Lots of room for BRT and eventual LRT stations. To keep it cheap, I'd say the plan of BRT 1st then eventual LRT would work, assuming BRT could be built cheap enough. Build the SE LRT while waiting for 17th SE to densify/sprawl enough to justify LRT.



However, the reasonable priced route for the LRT will run along the edge of the community, leaving 1/2 the station radius serving nothing - since a rail yard and an irrigation canal separate it from even the meager commuters numbers the industrial area would provide.



Too late. It will be built out by the time LRT gets there - assuming we are not in for a double - dip recession.



Alright, this is where the LRT starts to shine - but we are talking Mckenzie Town before it really works. Douglasdale suffers the same problem as Ogden - the station radius serves only 1/2 residential, and forget re-development - the industrial is built out, and the remaining large parcel of undeveloped land near the LRT will never be built on - former fertilizer plant waste dump - nothing can be built on it - I know because I work on said site and have talked to the reclamation people about this 1/4 section.



I agree with this point. 8th Ave Subway needs to be built, which would help alleviate the need for a SE line, plus help the inner south LRT commute be more bearable.


To pull together my thoughts, I'd build 17th Ave BRT as my #2 project, with 8th Ave subway as my #1 project - providing that 17th Ave BRT ties into the 202 NE LRT line, and with the 201 line being diverted into a subway, the 202 frequency could be bumped up to handle the flow coming in at Max Bell as per Wooster's suggestion, which I think is a better use of $, because 17th Ave is going to have to be built cheap, so that SE LRT is not delayed too many years in the future. SE LRT is just going to be too expensive to get it out where it needs to be, and really, even if the subway downtown is dumped as part of the initial plan, SE LRT needs to go to McKenzie Town at least in order to be really useful. As far as where in the priority queue the North line should fall, if it were to be a subway along Centre, the price could be out of this world, putting it #4 after the SE LRT, even if they went up Nose Hill Creek, the benefits drop so much I'd still leave it at #4.



Why underground? Is it due to what you refer to above with the short block lengths? One other point about 17th Ave SE for those who don't go through there at all - it's a WIDE corridor - 4 lane road with left hand bails, and medians on the sides that allow for parking - it just seems like such a crappy road since the bit east of 36th to 50th st. has not had the road widened any to take advantage of all the space. However, with all the space, it's perfect to put BRT/LRT down the middle, as you'd still have 4 lanes of traffic, plus turn bays where you would need them with hardly a building to be torn down to make room. It's really one of the last places I'd put things underground. Skytrain above ground, perhaps - with buckets of money, but you don't really need it there.

Closing access from all the side streets would only serve to destroy every thing that makes 17th Ave SE an attractive corridor. At that point we'd have a carbon copy of 36th St NE; how does it stack up as an urban main street? The ability to cross the street is essential for two reasons. First, it allows people to actually shop on both sides of the street. Second, it allows the entire area to function as one large community that is interconnected. 36th can never function like that and the design is also horrific for traffic movements. 17th is already a marginalized area. If we make it even less attractive it will never look good for redevelopment. The plan should be to eventually improve the area so it can be a nice mixed use community, not to permanently ghettoize it with a barrier down 17th. How attractive would transit look to Chestermere suburbanites if the train has to pass through a much worse version of Forest Lawn than what we currently have.

Saying it is too expensive to build the SE LRT to anywhere useful while dropping a quarter billion on a 17th Ave BRT is problematic. The political will is there right now to bring it down to Douglasdale. It does not look like it will be an election issue because, as it is currently shaping up, every candidate is on board. Extending it down to McKenzie Town from Douglasdale would not cost very much; it might be right around 250 million. There is a protected ROW there and very few bridge structures are needed.