Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

In all fairness, I am a huge transit advocate (many of you know this about me) and I would have voted against both extensions. But can we move this to the transit thread or the NCLRT thread. I will copy this response to both.

Yeah those extensions were a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Radley77

That statement is not very accurate, if you look at places like Bridgeland which has had LRT service, population growth over 19 years was some 16% over that period. And I think Bridgeland is a fair representative of an LRT adjacent community. Why would a Centre Street LRT densify any more effectively than in Bridgeland when one had some land available from the hospital implosion? Is 25% over 25 years reasonable cost expenditure to what could be achieved with greenfield growth?

There is no justification based on densification that would justify that sort of cost.

Secondly, a subway would increase operational costs over the cost of the BRT route. It is easier to build a masterplanned community that is built around the LRT than build an LRT and hope the community can respond.

Any economic model needs to be based on realistic economic assumptions. There needs to be an LRT study on the cost-feasibility of either option that looks at the value as well as the costs involved with either system.

If we knew that within ten years we could sell x number of units near the LRT in masterplanned TOD then the NCLRT might be ok in Nose Creek. but the example you cite of Bridgeland being a bad thing for the centre street LRT alignment, is actually a much better argument against a nose creek alignment. The bridges is a master planned redevelopment and we can't get it done. And we want to do 3 or 4 of these for nose creek, at almost an order of magnitude bigger for each one? The city could end up with quite a white elephant in that case.

For Centre St, you allow organic intensification as is already happening, supported by zoning which makes it much easier to build bigger. It is not rocket science.

As for operating costs of LRT Centre St being higher than BRT, I wouldn't think that based on back of envelop analysis. All the north south buses in the corridor are 81 buses an hour. (2006 numbers, before the BRT was expanded to an all day, all week service if my memory serves me). Given an LRT car can handle about 12x the amount of people as a bus (1 service hour of a bus average boardings [32.4] vs 1 service average of an lrv average boardings [410.7]), is the centre st LRT marginal operational cost over the nose creek alignment really going to me more than the cost savings from the buses? I really doubt it.

Even with all the extra costs of operating a tunnel south of 96th Ave, it would have to be extraordinarily expensive to be more than operating buses on that stretch.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Robert in Calgary

I'm getting ready to head out to the mayoral forum in Marlborough.

I've long thought that cities and their transit systems should work more closely with Canada's Pension funds over projects like this. Win/Win/Win

On Monday I took a walk up 1st Street NE between 5th and 16th Avenues. Then a drive along Centre Street up to 78th Avenue and back. I would encourage folks to just walk the area bounded by Centre Street, 16th Avenue, 1st Street NE and say...7th or 8th Avenues.

Looking though my report, over 9km, I envisioned purchases of 107 single family homes, 74 duplexes, 4 Fourplexes and 1 seven unit building. Total 204 units.

GE5 had 57+
16th Avenue 130+ (?)

Yeah, but lets let a private bidder decide what is cheaper - the government shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. The private bidder on the Canada Line enclosed an extra 20 blocks of trench than the government said was minimum, presumably due to either lower capital or operational costs.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Yeah those extensions were a bad idea.


If we knew that within ten years we could sell x number of units near the LRT in masterplanned TOD then the NCLRT might be ok in Nose Creek. but the example you cite of Bridgeland being a bad thing for the centre street LRT alignment, is actually a much better argument against a nose creek alignment. The bridges is a master planned redevelopment and we can't get it done. And we want to do 3 or 4 of these for nose creek, at almost an order of magnitude bigger for each one? The city could end up with quite a white elephant in that case.

For Centre St, you allow organic intensification as is already happening, supported by zoning which makes it much easier to build bigger. It is not rocket science.

As for operating costs of LRT Centre St being higher than BRT, I wouldn't think that based on back of envelop analysis. All the north south buses in the corridor are 81 buses an hour. (2006 numbers, before the BRT was expanded to an all day, all week service if my memory serves me). Given an LRT car can handle about 12x the amount of people as a bus (1 service hour of a bus average boardings [32.4] vs 1 service average of an lrv average boardings [410.7]), is the centre st LRT marginal operational cost over the nose creek alignment really going to me more than the cost savings from the buses? I really doubt it.

Even with all the extra costs of operating a tunnel south of 96th Ave, it would have to be extraordinarily expensive to be more than operating buses on that stretch.

I had a look at the Sunnyside ARP as it has a similar urban structure compared to the lands adjacent to Centre Street and similar to Bridgeland. Over the last 10 years, there has been a population drop of 9.8% from 8,939 to 8,063. This is even less population 'growth' than Bridgeland which at least has had some population growth due to The Bridges.

Zoning is an issue, but there is also the fact that many people might not want to sell, so it could make it very hard to assemble a land package.

So, as much as I'd like to sell it on growth of an established community, I think realistically one would see more population growth in the some 2 square kilometres or so of green space that is potential to be developed. This is what I think is a lower hanging fruit in terms of development opportunities.

And as for operational costs, I would think the operational costs for having a subway versus a at-grade LRT would probably be 25% more or so. I don't think a tunnel's HVAC system, water sumping system, additional lighting throughout the day would be cheap to operate or maintain, also add in some sort of annual tunnel inspection. Things like less weathering might actually reduce number of track repairs.

One would also have to compare the various economic models against the costs of expanding the BRT or HOV network. I don't know what the critical 'break-even' point would be when on a per rider basis when it becomes cheaper to go the LRT route than the BRT route. This number would be nice to know because it would provide guidance on when the LRT subway could be built.

Obviously NCLRT is still a long way off, but I think the best thing to do is to compare the various economic cases as you had mentioned earlier and to determine what is the most cost-efficient option that summarizes capital costs, operational costs, revenue streams, and the value of other developable land opportunities. City administration is already spending money on Nose Creek alignments studies so it's important to address this sooner than later to determine priorities.

There needs to be a realistic framework that goes into these economic models. One could run a P75, P50 and P25 case to capture some of the uncertainty of the assumptions.

Naheed has said that the Nose Creek alignment is not good and would plan for a Centre Street or Edmonton Trail alignment, yet has no economic support for his alternate arguments, and it is also a position that is not supported by previous council administration or by the previous transportation engineering group. Nenshi is intelligent, but by no means is he qualified to offer his own analysis and plan without a independent evaluation.

[MalcolmTucker]

Naheed has said that the Nose Creek alignment is not good and would plan for a Centre Street or Edmonton Trail alignment, yet has no economic support for his alternate arguments, and it is also a position that is not supported by previous council administration or by the previous transportation engineering group. Nenshi is intelligent, but by no means is he qualified to offer his own analysis and plan without a independent evaluation.

The way the city works, I don't think anyone can just change the plans without a study or two. To go back to election talk, what is easier to explain to the voter:
1) I will commit to run a study that I am confident will support my position to run lrt under centre st vs in the nose creek valley
vs
2) I commit to running nc lrt under centre st

If the study comes back with a thumbs down it is just about the easiest thing to walk away from. "the numbers don't support it". Why would you fill your election communications with all that Gobblygook in the mean time.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

The way the city works, I don't think anyone can just change the plans without a study or two. To go back to election talk, what is easier to explain to the voter:
1) I will commit to run a study that I am confident will support my position to run lrt under centre st vs in the nose creek valley
vs
2) I commit to running nc lrt under centre st

If the study comes back with a thumbs down it is just about the easiest thing to walk away from. "the numbers don't support it". Why would you fill your election communications with all that Gobblygook in the mean time.

I see your point. But that isn't what Nenshi practiced in the past:

Nenshi said about the airport tunnel "we need to build the tunnel, no matter what it costs" in June of 2009.

http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/local/ar...on-tables-savings-plan-on-airport-tunnel

This is before the studies were coming out on the airport tunnel:

Dec 2009: Independent Engineering Report on $500-Million Tunnel Costs
Dec. 2009: City of Calgary and Airport Authority Agreement to Pursue 96 Ave. NE Extension
Jan. 2010: City of Calgary Airport Tunnel Memorandum of Agreement
Feb. 2010: Airport Authority Response to East Extension of Airport Trail
July 2010: City of Calgary Transportation Report

So why would one trust him to do an independent evaluation first?

[MalcolmTucker]

"No matter what it costs" is still within the context of the price being a maximum of $500 million, as that was the quoted price from the city the entire time. It isn't like he was committing to spend a couple billion on it, to do something illogical. The road was was shelved due to costs being in the half billion range far before the independent report came out in December - the city did its own costing. There was a reason a notice of motion was pushed to have an independent report because Alderman didn't trust the city's own estimate.

And why should one trust him to do an independent evaluation? Because without one it would be highly unusual to change an official plan. I can't really think of a time when it was done. Maybe the last was when the province intervened to stop Deerfoot crossing Fish Creek Park, and that was under Premier Lougheed I believe? I guess there is also stopping the 14th St SW expansion in the early 2000s, but it is very different to stop something than start something. Stopping is just budgeting (I am not sure if the last transportation plan really recognized 14th St as a different class of road than it was in the 90s Go Plan, because that would be the analogous change)

And you have the entire council one has to convince with more the retoric alone - and the Mayor's political office would be hard stretched to draft amendments to all the documents needs to change the plan without at least referring to the staff once. There are only 8 people in the office I believe.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by Radley77

So, as much as I'd like to sell it on growth of an established community, I think realistically one would see more population growth in the some 2 square kilometres or so of green space that is potential to be developed. This is what I think is a lower hanging fruit in terms of development opportunities.

This argument makes sense on a certain level, but it also comes across as saying that the people who already live in the catchment area of a Centre Street subway have no value and do not deserve to be served by adequate transit. I think it's far more important to serve actual real Calgarians than hypothetical ones that might move into island developments along Nose Creek (the market viability of which is unproven.) Looking at the c-train system purely from the commuter perspective is outdated I believe. If one of the goals of transit is to reduce traffic congestion, then continuing to build a system dependent on park and rides is counterproductive. If the current levels of bus ridership along the corridor are any indication, and you factor in people who drive because they refuse to ride a bus, but would ride a c-train (a substantial number I believe, and a claim that will be backed up by the WLRT ridership figures) then you already have the numbers at current density levels to justify building the system today.

This is not to mention the opportunity for intensification along the centre street corridor which would have enormous benefit for the entire city. That whole strip from 10th ave to 40th ave, or even McKnight is an amazing opportunity waiting to happen. An ARP and BRZ in conjunction with a metro line will allow the market to take care of that itself.

Save the Nose Creek alignment for commuter rail, it makes so much more sense.

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Obviously NCLRT is still a long way off,

8 years ago, some folks at city hall were telling me SE LRT was 25, 30, 35 years down the road. I kept pushing.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Even with money flowing, it is still after the Stephen Ave subway unless it is built as an extension of the SE LRT. (or doesn't share track with the W-NE LRT in another way). So a long ways off.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

This argument makes sense on a certain level, but it also comes across as saying that the people who already live in the catchment area of a Centre Street subway have no value and do not deserve to be served by adequate transit. I think it's far more important to serve actual real Calgarians than hypothetical ones that might move into island developments along Nose Creek (the market viability of which is unproven.) Looking at the c-train system purely from the commuter perspective is outdated I believe. If one of the goals of transit is to reduce traffic congestion, then continuing to build a system dependent on park and rides is counterproductive. If the current levels of bus ridership along the corridor are any indication, and you factor in people who drive because they refuse to ride a bus, but would ride a c-train (a substantial number I believe, and a claim that will be backed up by the WLRT ridership figures) then you already have the numbers at current density levels to justify building the system today.

This is not to mention the opportunity for intensification along the centre street corridor which would have enormous benefit for the entire city. That whole strip from 10th ave to 40th ave, or even McKnight is an amazing opportunity waiting to happen. An ARP and BRZ in conjunction with a metro line will allow the market to take care of that itself.

Save the Nose Creek alignment for commuter rail, it makes so much more sense.

By building a city that makes effective use of a land base it helps address affordability issues. This is a social value as well. It addresses the issue of inner city sprawl. Intensification is a pipe dream; don't believe me, look at the population results of Sunnyside and Bridgeland over the past 20 years. I am concerned because I think the field results speak for themselves and I think some people's goals are unrealistic. Building a Centre Street alignment may not be a cost-effective solution so a study is 100% required first as a starting point.

I view Nose Creek alignment as low hanging fruit in terms of over development of the city, other areas include Currie Barracks, and West and East Village. These areas are key to affordable land supply that are closer to some of the major activity nodes and have the potential to be constructed as what Nenshi likes to call complete communities.

Transit needs to be grown in a capital-efficient manner, and if it is not properly budgeted for it puts other civic issues at risk, both transit and other priorities.

All I am pointing out now is saying that the city administration and next city council should revisit this issue and it should have a study done. There is already multiple studies done on the Nose Creek alignment, so let's make sure if this is the right choice and is not wasting money.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Robert in Calgary

8 years ago, some folks at city hall were telling me SE LRT was 25, 30, 35 years down the road. I kept pushing.

Good There needs to be long term champions of the LRT at city hall so that long range plans can be developed over time that will protect right of ways and acquire the lands needed.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

"No matter what it costs" is still within the context of the price being a maximum of $500 million, as that was the quoted price from the city the entire time. It isn't like he was committing to spend a couple billion on it, to do something illogical. The road was was shelved due to costs being in the half billion range far before the independent report came out in December - the city did its own costing. There was a reason a notice of motion was pushed to have an independent report because Alderman didn't trust the city's own estimate.

And why should one trust him to do an independent evaluation? Because without one it would be highly unusual to change an official plan. I can't really think of a time when it was done. Maybe the last was when the province intervened to stop Deerfoot crossing Fish Creek Park, and that was under Premier Lougheed I believe? I guess there is also stopping the 14th St SW expansion in the early 2000s, but it is very different to stop something than start something. Stopping is just budgeting (I am not sure if the last transportation plan really recognized 14th St as a different class of road than it was in the 90s Go Plan, because that would be the analogous change)

And you have the entire council one has to convince with more the retoric alone - and the Mayor's political office would be hard stretched to draft amendments to all the documents needs to change the plan without at least referring to the staff once. There are only 8 people in the office I believe.

I think I have already pointed this out; but at that time, there was no value estimate. I have also pointed out that the rate of return as per Nenshi's own estimates is below that of a Government of Canada bond yield. This is one definition of illogical (investing in a project that offers a lower rate of return than a 100% safe asset class).

There needs to be some due diligence in terms of a cost and some sort of capital-efficiency metric. Unfortunately, can't consider sunk costs of money already spent on Nose Creek alignment studies and unfortunately I have very little understanding of the regulatory environment of how civic plans are drafted, approved and what amendments would be required if any.

[DarkKeyo]

I agree with Sir Humphrey (post 1241) and Jeffwhit (post 1247). And good for you, Robert_in_Calgary, for pushing the development of transit

I would also like to know two things, Radley77:

1. Where in Nose Creek do you think there is ANY greenfield whatsover? It is all park, railway, and Deerfoot Trail with no road access. And, I would like to add, even if Centre St doesn't intensify one bit, it has more desnity than Nose Creek would EVER have.

And 2. Why are you even arguing for a train that goes nowhere and will not get any ridership? You know that they chose this WLRT alignment and not one to Mount Royal because of ridership and catchment area, so you know that that is their priority. A Centre St Subway's costs compared to Nose Creek will be justified by amount of ridership it would get in comparison. This is the same reasoning that says that the SELRT MUST go to at least Mckenzie Towne in order for ridership to justify cost. If we take too long in building SELRT, then it will need to go to Seton to justify the cost. We should run the LRT where there are people as much as possible, and not make them travel way out of their way to get to the LRT.

By all means, do a study. All the ones already done have the bias of doing things the cheap, ineffective, way, and therefore the results tend towards penny-pinching and not good planning. A study will only prove that Centre St is better. Since we don't want cheap and ineffective, the McIvers of the world should probably be kept far away from this. Planners only.

Please excuse the bad grammar, I might edit this when it isn't this late.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

I agree with Sir Humphrey (post 1241) and Jeffwhit (post 1247). And good for you, Robert_in_Calgary, for pushing the development of transit

I would also like to know two things, Radley77:

1. Where in Nose Creek do you think there is ANY greenfield whatsover? It is all park, railway, and Deerfoot Trail with no road access. And, I would like to add, even if Centre St doesn't intensify one bit, it has more desnity than Nose Creek would EVER have.

And 2. Why are you even arguing for a train that goes nowhere and will not get any ridership? You know that they chose this WLRT alignment and not one to Mount Royal because of ridership and catchment area, so you know that that is their priority. A Centre St Subway's costs compared to Nose Creek will be justified by amount of ridership it would get in comparison. This is the same reasoning that says that the SELRT MUST go to at least Mckenzie Towne in order for ridership to justify cost. If we take too long in building SELRT, then it will need to go to Seton to justify the cost. We should run the LRT where there are people as much as possible, and not make them travel way out of their way to get to the LRT.

By all means, do a study. All the ones already done have the bias of doing things the cheap, ineffective, way, and therefore the results tend towards penny-pinching and not good planning. A study will only prove that Centre St is better. Since we don't want cheap and ineffective, the McIvers of the world should probably be kept far away from this. Planners only.

Please excuse the bad grammar, I might edit this when it isn't this late.

I am not a McIver fan. It's important that a wide team can wrap their head around this issue, as well as planners. Bottom line, a great plan needs to have great business sense and needs to account for costs as well as value. Think of is as focusing on low hanging fruit first.

As for question 1: Look at a map, couple of golf courses available along this route as well as the trailer park on 16 ave. Think of it, as a potential series of West Villages. The development potential for a West Village may be higher than Centre Street which is predominantly surrounded by single family homes. Again, Sunnyside population has dropped over the last decade. The majority of the growth (90ish%) is and continues to be greenfield development on the outskirts of the city. This is a fact. Cannot address urban sprawl without first addressing inner city sprawl, and looking at different transportation solutions.

As for question 2: Well what I'm saying is there needs to be a study. The overall direction of both city administration and reports I have read from transportation engineering cites a broad list of concerns with a Centre Street alignment. These reports haven't attached a cost or value to them, so these figures are required in making an informed decision.

I have pointed out some of the benefits to the Nose Creek route are better design for transit use including developable land and walkable complete communities, opportunity for park'n'ride to extend catchment, reduced operational costs compared to a tunnel, and greatly reduced capital costs compared to a tunnel. On the upside, there is a bigger catchment, but on the downside, the other route would be worse at helping address affordability issues in the city. One needs an economic feasibility study to fully capture the cost and value.

It's pointless to argue about this because we don't have a full economic feasibility study in front of us to compare options. I have wrote to the city administration requesting a report on a feasibility study...

[kw5150]

How about having the nose hill alignment somehow tied with the SELRT? Like a separate node. Then construct and Central LRT loop system that links the centre street area with the mount royal college area..That is where the bulk of the density is.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Intensification is a pipe dream; don't believe me, look at the population results of Sunnyside and Bridgeland over the past 20 years.

Ok, I had to respond to this. First intensification is not a pipe dream. Both the Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP and the Bridges ARP are very recent documents. The Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP was passed in what, 2009? And the Bridges document is only a few years older than that. Truth is, these things take time.

The reason why almost no inner city growth has occurred in the last 20 years is because it was essentially illegal. Every ARP in the city basically said the purpose of the ARP was to maintain the existing low density character of the community. This doesn't make land use redesignations to higher density easy. So when you ask yourself why there has not been growth in the inner city, don't look to the market, look to the regulation.

The Beltline is a great counter example. Since 2003, when the community basically said "Build things here" and "Density is good" it has had incredible growth. People like Wooster can tell you how much ridiculous amount of activity was happening in a very short period of time. People want to live in the inner city, developers are more than able to buy up existing property and replace it with higher density housing. It isn't hard. As long as you let them. But if you drag them through the mud for several years, keep changing your mind, and ultimately end up fighting them, they will leave (I am looking at you Hillhurst/Sunnyside).

Long story short- intensification is entirely possible. In fact, Centre Street is an almost ideal place for it. Nothing but single family homes, in a gridded street pattern. That makes land assembly and demolition incredibly easy. Developers would be all over being able to buy 6 houses, tear them down and put up a 60 unit, 5 storey building. The thing is, they're not allowed to.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by kw5150

How about having the nose hill alignment somehow tied with the SELRT? Like a separate node. Then construct and Central LRT loop system that links the centre street area with the mount royal college area..That is where the bulk of the density is.

Getting the SELRT over to Nose Creek, in it's own ROW, would easily destroy most of the cost savings found in that alignment. If it piggybacked on the NE LRT ROW it would be even worse, restricting capacity on NE, W, SE, and N lines.

I am in favour of an eventual circle line in the city but it really cannot serve the Centre Street corridor. It would have one stop on Centre. Does the South line serve the Glenmore corridor? No, it serves the Macleod corridor.

[sim]

Basically what Fusili said.

Also, I don`t know if I`d look to Bridgeland as being that good of an example for Center St either. The Bridgeland stations sits to one side of the community and has both a physical and psychological barrier that cuts it off somewhat - that being Memorial. That station is what, somewhere between a 5 - 10 min walk from 1st Ave where Bridgeland is most dense.

Imagine instead that a line running underground under 1st Ave. That would be a more accurate comparison of what the a Center St alignment would acheive.

I do agree that eventually that area of the city (along Nose Creek) could be used to house more people but there are so many other areas that need, are more viable and better suited for intensification first. I mean that list is huge. Beltline, Mission, Sunnyside, East Village, West Village, Marda, Victoria Park, Inglewood, Bridgeland, and half of the areas surrounding current Ctrain stations.

I know I for one would want to live in every single one of those places I just mentioned before even thinking about living in that area. We could do a feasability study for sure, and it might full well point to a route up Nose Creek. I`d however put my money on it that we`ll have a couple of stations where about 100 people a day get on and off to then walk their dog or something for the next 50 years. White elephant for sure, and even the ordinary citizen will be left wondering what the city was thinking when they see a station sitting in a field.

My thoughts.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I am not a McIver fan. It's important that a wide team can wrap their head around this issue, as well as planners. Bottom line, a great plan needs to have great business sense and needs to account for costs as well as value. Think of is as focusing on low hanging fruit first.

As for question 1: Look at a map, couple of golf courses available along this route as well as the trailer park on 16 ave. Think of it, as a potential series of West Villages. The development potential for a West Village may be higher than Centre Street which is predominantly surrounded by single family homes. Again, Sunnyside population has dropped over the last decade. The majority of the growth (90ish%) is and continues to be greenfield development on the outskirts of the city. This is a fact. Cannot address urban sprawl without first addressing inner city sprawl, and looking at different transportation solutions.

As for question 2: Well what I'm saying is there needs to be a study. The overall direction of both city administration and reports I have read from transportation engineering cites a broad list of concerns with a Centre Street alignment. These reports haven't attached a cost or value to them, so these figures are required in making an informed decision.

I have pointed out some of the benefits to the Nose Creek route are better design for transit use including developable land and walkable complete communities, opportunity for park'n'ride to extend catchment, reduced operational costs compared to a tunnel, and greatly reduced capital costs compared to a tunnel. On the upside, there is a bigger catchment, but on the downside, the other route would be worse at helping address affordability issues in the city. One needs an economic feasibility study to fully capture the cost and value.

It's pointless to argue about this because we don't have a full economic feasibility study in front of us to compare options. I have wrote to the city administration requesting a report on a feasibility study...

I'm not sure you'd want to use the East or West Village as examples of great development to follow. East Village has a $200 million+ subsidy, and last I read West Village might crack $500 million in the subsidy department.

As for operational costs - look at the entire picture. Nose Creek you need N-S buses in the Central Corridor, Centre St you don't. In 2006 there were approximately 28,600 boardings in the corridor that weren't express buses from suburbs or cross town buses. Each bus boarding has a subsidy of approximately $2.75, whereas each LRT boarding makes a profit of around $2. (assuming all trips unlinked). You have to have insane costs to make the marginal cost of maintenance be above the $35 million you save every year (calculation uses only weekday numbers assuming 260 weekdays) by replacing all the north south buses with LRT.

Now the savings would likely be less than $35 million in the real world, but every bus rider you convert to a pedestrian (commute only)--> LRT saves Calgary Transit $9.50 a day or $2,470 a year. This is real savings, not some future in theory savings from TOD users. As a business, would you avoid your customers in one area, to more cheaply serve customers in another - ignore a profit Centre? Busing those same customers to Nose Creek to take the LRT does not save this money (a customer touching a bus at all requires a subsidy).

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Radley77

As for question 2: Well what I'm saying is there needs to be a study. The overall direction of both city administration and reports I have read from transportation engineering cites a broad list of concerns with a Centre Street alignment.

Please don't be fooled into thinking that traffic engineers are some sort of authority on urban planning issues. While urban designers and planners are starting to take a people-first and holistic approach urban planning, traffic engineers are, for the most part, still pre-occupied with increasing the speed and volume of traffic flowing between points x, y, and z rather than considering both the journey and D&Os.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

For Centre St, you allow organic intensification as is already happening, supported by zoning which makes it much easier to build bigger. It is not rocket science.

Centre Street is really ripening for development. Unlike Bridgeland and Sunnyside, the underground section would not be a collection of TODs but rather one large TOD. As there are a lot of commercial properties, the NIMBYism would not be a strong as normal and, to be honest, NIMBYism is especially strong and well-organized in Sunnyside.

The Centre Street corridor is like ready-to-make mashed potato mix. Most importantly, it has a large pre-existing pool of potential riders. It also has a lot, if not all, of the facilities that re-development needs (e.g. schools and shops). Furthermore, its pre-existing population will need less new development to bring the corridor closer to the threshold require for the provision of even more services. Centre Street is basically the mix and the underground would be the hot water.

Of course there needs to be a study to confirm this but please, just add the bloody water.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Yeah, but lets let a private bidder decide what is cheaper - the government shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. The private bidder on the Canada Line enclosed an extra 20 blocks of trench than the government said was minimum, presumably due to either lower capital or operational costs.

Usually I'm rather sceptical about allowing the private sector to take control of public transportation systems/facilities but the more you describe the Canada Line process the more I buy into it. However, even if it does prove to be a durable system I'd like to see where it may fall apart as one of its implementations inevitably will. Nonetheless, I usually find myself exporting good ideas from Europe to Canada so it's good to be able to do the reverse. God knows the UK's transportation system could do with all the help it can get.