Calgary Public Transit II

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Robert in Calgary

2. Once it reaches the Crossroads Market, I would actually like the SE LRT to turn towards the Stampede and I would like a new Stampede station to serve South/NW and SE/Centre Street at a minimum

The station at 4 st SE, beside the underpass, will be two blocks away from the start of the Stampede Trail retail development. So, SELRT will improve access to stampede considerably.

Originally Posted by fusili

I would disagree. 6 radial LRT lines should be pretty good, provided they are high capacity. The rest can be circular and crosstown BRTs and some smaller radial and circular streetcars. I think about 10 BRTs and 6 street car routes would do the trick.

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by Koolfire

A better project would be the 8th Ave Subway which could increase service dramatically on the South line without even having to go to 4 car length stations.

Unfortunately, years of not building transit have made all of these projects desirable. We need the subway, the 4 car trains, and the two new lines. By 2020 if possible.

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Interesting though, what if the SE/NC LRT is built as a transit way first. It's something that hasn't been consider up to now.

Look at Ottawa as an example of what can go wrong if you build transitways first and convert later. It cost them a lot, and there was quite a lot of debate. Where would you put a NC transitway anyways?

Originally Posted by Robert in Calgary

I would sooner see a Anderson/Douglas Glen LRT connection with more money going into downtown work. This is 7.2 km vs SE LRT, 13.6km from 10th Ave/2nd St. SW to Douglas Glen.

http://beta.mapmyrun.com/routes/view/25061616/

or, a crosstown route I've been advocating for years.

http://beta.mapmyrun.com/routes/view/21502232/

These would be better as BRT, at least at first, especially since they can be implemented soon.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The problem is that the city is not going to stop growing geographically. The SE suburbs will spread with the SE LRT or without it. The difference will be worse traffic congestion on vital roads, like Deerfoot, and suburbs oriented towards cars instead of transit. It is already as short a drive from outlying towns, like Okotoks, to Somerset-Bridlewood as it would be to the Seton-South Hospital station.

Agreed 100%

[DarkKeyo]

What we really need is to sit down and plan very carefully what we want to do with the transit network in the next 10+ years. We should do studies to find out the benefits of NCLRT under Centre St, to find out the benefits of P3's, and where we can implement BRT's, especially crosstown ones. Didn't Nenshi make that part of his transportation platform?

Toronto's Transit City and Edmonton's latest network plan, at least give them an idea of the direction they want to go and when and how they want to build things. We need something like that, especially one that is suited to current economic times (unlike Transit City).

[MalcolmTucker]

We have a plan, a detailed plan that takes us into at least the middle of the next decade. It is just we want more and more, and are trying to push the SE LRT to the head of the cue when there is little money for it.

Stick to the plan - Stephen Avenue Subway is next, along with 4 and 5 car trains along with other debottlenecking like building the Heritage grade separation.

We just need that study to be done - I am guessing the SE LRT downtown route might be changed in it - due to deep water utilities running under both 10th and 9th at 2nd St - which might change the whole ball game.

[MalcolmTucker]

As for the BRT Routes, we already have 'high order transit' routes in the official plan, with technology to be determined [Page 90]:
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/municipal_development_plan/calgary_transportation_plan.pdf#page=90

The plan is where the 17th Ave SE busway to the SE LRT comes from.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

What we really need is to sit down and plan very carefully what we want to do with the transit network in the next 10+ years. We should do studies to find out the benefits of NCLRT under Centre St, to find out the benefits of P3's, and where we can implement BRT's, especially crosstown ones. Didn't Nenshi make that part of his transportation platform?

Toronto's Transit City and Edmonton's latest network plan, at least give them an idea of the direction they want to go and when and how they want to build things. We need something like that, especially one that is suited to current economic times (unlike Transit City).

You should read the article that was posted a few pages back. It has devoted 10 million to SE LRT research and strategizing.

[kw5150]

Does anyone else find it strange that they tackled all of the major road and LRT construction during the highest construction costs ever recoreded for Calgary? Could they not have saved the money for an economic downturn? Everyone knew secretly that the boom times would not last forever...... Can someone explain why this happened? Could they not have stretched out some of the work???

[craner]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

We have a plan, a detailed plan that takes us into at least the middle of the next decade. It is just we want more and more, and are trying to push the SE LRT to the head of the cue when there is little money for it.

Stick to the plan - Stephen Avenue Subway is next, along with 4 and 5 car trains along with other debottlenecking like building the Heritage grade separation.

We just need that study to be done - I am guessing the SE LRT downtown route might be changed in it - due to deep water utilities running under both 10th and 9th at 2nd St - which might change the whole ball game.

Yes Please !

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Does anyone else find it strange that they tackled all of the major road and LRT construction during the highest construction costs ever recoreded for Calgary? Could they not have saved the money for an economic downturn? Everyone knew secretly that the boom times would not last forever...... Can someone explain why this happened? Could they not have stretched out some of the work???

The way real estate agents talked, I don't thikn everyone knew that the boom times would not last forever.

But seriously, I don't think anybody can predict so accurately when an economic cycle will change. In the mean time, we had a tens of thousdands of people moving to Calgary each year, and the citizens demanding that new infrastructure be built to handle the population increase. Politicians just did what citizens called for. Bronconnier ran on a very large infrastructure platform, and was elected and then went about implimenting it. Give the people what they want.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Does anyone else find it strange that they tackled all of the major road and LRT construction during the highest construction costs ever recoreded for Calgary? Could they not have saved the money for an economic downturn? Everyone knew secretly that the boom times would not last forever...... Can someone explain why this happened? Could they not have stretched out some of the work???

Human psychology. When times are tight, and people don't have money - they don't want "the government" spending like crazy. When things are good and the coffers are overflowing (like Alberta saw from 2005-08), people want the money spent.

It's silly and it's counterproductive, but our elected officials are just that - elected. Even when the populace is wrong, they do have to listen to voters if they want to be re-elected. It's counter-intuitive to most people that government should spend during recessions and save during boom times. Not fair nor logical, but that's just how it is.

[kw5150]

I knew the boom would end. I actually told my mom to withdraw her RRSP's in early July. The economy tanked 2 weeks later. Myself, I saved cash during the boom for a down payment (instead of spending, spending) and capitalized on the lower costs of the housing market this year.

I think a party could gain a lot of recognition if it utilized smarter spending practices. They could still give people what they want...just in smaller peices.

Things were moving so fast and the city approved SO MANY projects from 2003 - 2007 that the whole city was in absolute mayhem. I cant help but think that the designers and construction workers are STILL burnt out from it all........I know I am sometimes.

[Dado]

I think you guys need to sort out your uses of "transitway" et al.

A 'transitway' in its "pure" form is a grade-separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of transit vehicles. Technically, it is technology neutral, so that the SkyTrain right-of-way is arguably a transitway. However, since the term is only really used in Ottawa and was invented as a bit of a cover for a bus-only system it has come to be a sort of synonym for a grade-separated busway but in fact the precise term for that is a "bus transitway". When light rail replaces buses on Ottawa's transitways, they could be called "light rail transitways". Of course even in Ottawa not all the transitways are completely grade-separated: the East and Southeast Transitways are, the West Transitway is discontinuous and the Southwest Transitway (also discontinuous) has numerous at-grade crossings.

A 'busway' is an exclusive roadway for buses. It may or may not be grade-separated. It can even run in the median of a major road, like the 98 B-Line did in Vancouver.

"The Transitway" (capitalized) is the name of Ottawa's so-called rapid transit system. I don't see a problem with using the term post-conversion to light rail, but somehow I think it will be dropped because of its connotations. The capitalized term may also be used as part of a proper name, like road, street, avenue, etc., are: the "West Transitway", the "Southeast Transitway", etc.



Given Ottawa's experience, you basically want to stay away from busways unless you're absolutely sure it will never be converted (or not for a very long time). A busway will function long past the point at which it should have been converted and the temptation is just to put it off until such time as conversion is needed, at which point the conversion is more disruptive. You might be able to add tracks to something like a median busway and have it shared between trams and buses where operation is on line-of-sight and speeds are relatively low. You do not, however, want to share high-speed running of buses and light rail trains.

As a general rule, buses require grade separation at lower passenger and/or cross street volumes than does light rail. Where a train blocking a cross street for a few seconds every few minutes is acceptable, buses tripping preemptions a few times a minute simply would not be. Hence, buses either have to stop some of the time or the crossing gets grade separated. Ottawa has no examples of absolute bus preemption of cross street traffic.

[frinkprof]

Good for a chuckle.

[freeweed]

Not sure I get much of that. And I've tried, with and without Chardonnay.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Not sure I get much of that. And I've tried, with and without Chardonnay.

They're anagrams. Someone must have stared into one of these signs for too long to come up with some of these.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

They're anagrams. Someone must have stared into one of these signs for too long to come up with some of these.

WOW. OK, now I think I get it. I was trying to figure out Crowfoot and failing miserably (for obvious reasons).

That's insanely clever.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

As for the BRT Routes, we already have 'high order transit' routes in the official plan, with technology to be determined [Page 90]:
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/municipal_development_plan/calgary_transportation_plan.pdf#page=90

The plan is where the 17th Ave SE busway to the SE LRT comes from.

I'll have to reread that, since I seem to have forgotten most of it. A quick glance at the map hints that I would still debate or suggest updates to their plans. I'll also read the article kw5150 was referring to. Better to argue my points after I've done my research.

That still leaves us with the problem of needing all of this expansion in the short-term and not having the finances for it, thus leading to debate over what has priority.

[ByeByeBaby]

That's an old map. It's missing:

• Cow Of Rot
• SW Dicks - NW Tight Men

Also, all of the under construction stations like:

• Marital Den
• Last Endowed
• Say C**t ("Any Cuts" in the PG map)
• A-La-Nuts
• Hippo Pants Again?
• Or Best Wok
• Sir Coco

[Wooster]

The fact that Council has to make a snap decision on monday about which projects to prioritize for funding that we've known has been coming for over 2 years is troubling. I really think that the City needs to make a capital priority list for transit and other transportation infrastructure so that when provincial and/or federal money comes along, it's clear what is the highest priority. This should include order of magnitude costing from the outset. A next step would be to come up with a mechanism to pay for a significant share of this infrastructure with predictable sources of funding, so that we can leverage available municipally generated funds into more money to complete projects from senior levels of government. The province and/or feds are much more likely to latch onto big infrastructure projects when it's very clear what they're funding, what the benefit is and when all that needs to happen for it to go ahead is for them to sign the cheque and put their signs up promoting it.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Wooster

The fact that Council has to make a snap decision on monday about which projects to prioritize for funding that we've known has been coming for over 2 years is troubling. I really think that the City needs to make a capital priority list for transit and other transportation infrastructure so that when provincial and/or federal money comes along, it's clear what is the highest priority. This should include order of magnitude costing from the outset. A next step would be to come up with a mechanism to pay for a significant share of this infrastructure with predictable sources of funding, so that we can leverage available municipally generated funds into more money to complete projects from senior levels of government. The province and/or feds are much more likely to latch onto big infrastructure projects when it's very clear what they're funding, what the benefit is and when all that needs to happen for it to go ahead is for them to sign the cheque and put their signs up promoting it.

Could not agree more. Then the important thing to do, is follow that list of priorities, from top to bottom. Currently, we do little projects, because we can't afford the big ones (Think NW and NE LRT extensions). That money should not have been spent on those projects until the higher priority projects were completed. Funding a series of small-impact, low-priority projects for years, instead of pooling that money together for the big ticket items is not the way to build a transit system. Or a road network.

I remember driving in Gilbert, Arizona in the early 90's and seeing a large swatch of land between two suburbs, with a sign saying "Future Santan freeway corridor." The road wasn't built until 2006, but there had been plans, land set aside, even some overpasses built in the middle of the desert, because it was part of their long-term network plans.

You can also look to Phoenix's light rail system. All of their future extensions are already listed, with routes, cost estimates, completion dates, and funding sources. Basically it's 'here's the plan, how we're going to do it and where. Now let's get it done.'

[MalcolmTucker]

1) We have a predictable source of funds, a source that every other city (save other Albertan ones) is insanely jealous of
2) We have very little 'available municipally generated funds', and the funds we do have is largely from debt financing
3) We have a capital projects list. The problem is the projects are so big that it is hard to work out financing at the best of times.

As an aside, the money that is currently being spent on the Rocky Ridge/Tuscany and Saddletowne extensions would have looked pretty good topping up Green Trip, or in general providing enough funds to make the SE LRT somewhat useful in its first phase (getting from Eau Claire to Douglasdale)

I think it is important to look at all of this in perspective. Calgary is building on a cost basis its equivalent of the Canada Line right now. The next project we want to do will cost double that (SE LRT). To expect to be able to go fast on the next project is a bit ridiculous. In the perspective of most city's, starting it in 2017 (when MSI expires) or 2020 would still be going pretty fast all things considered.

There is a huge hole in the SE LRT budget, that I believe is too big to fill by P3 or debt financing without seriously dragging us down in the future. That hole could get bigger with the election of a new government in the province, or the replacement of Stelmach.

If could arrange it with the province, it would be useful to spend this first piece of Green Trip on the West LRT for both parties. The province gets a project that is close to completion to campaign on in the next election. The city frees up capital from the later years of MSI.

If they didn't agree to the above, what you are left with is a program envelope of $300 million over the next two-three years, and $900 million at the in-determinant back end. So what do you spend on?