Calgary Public Transit II

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

There's no land to build TOD on, and they know it. They say that because it's cheaper than saying 'subway'.

I still have never read what the benefits to low floor trains are compared to high floor ones in the context of the SELRT, a route that is mostly in a rail corridor and after that in a tunnel. I'm sure one of you knows, it may even have been mentioned in this thread when I wasn't looking. 7th Ave downtown, I can see benefits for that being low-floor, because it's like a tram, but why bother in a separate ROW? Does it save that much money?

I think it's mostly for the neighbourhood stations from Douglasdale southward. The perceived benefit is that the stations would be a little more human-scaled. As for tunnels go, Seattle just built a tunnel section in their light rail system, which is serviced by low-floor trains. You're right though, in a tunnel or trench it doesn't particularly matter where the floor of the train is, so far as I'm aware anyway.

I'd imagine a noticeable (significant) amount would be saved on station construction.

[frinkprof]

Digging this up, sorry I haven't been able to reply until now, well after the discussion took a turn into some hyperbolic arguments and other areas.

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'll still stand by my comment. On a forum where I'm regularly berated to move somewhere to fulfill someone *else's* idea of a better lifestyle, I don't think it's out of line to suggest that someone should be willing and able to move if it will improve *their* lifestyle.

And if one cannot, then one should learn to deal with the consequences.

I've been stuck in a shitty area before, but I didn't have Youtube to whine to about it. Just my friends and family. If anything, that Youtube video shouldn't be about "sustainable communities" (or whatever the end credits were about) - it would be a great public service announcement for "you too can actually plan for your future".

I wish someone had shown me a video like THAT back when.

I think our disagreement partly stems from me not exactly understanding what you were speaking to. I thought you were trying to speak more generally, but had fitted your statement to the specific example as shown in the video (the source of the woman's living arrangement being a product of affordability).

That was the source of my confusion and why I attempted to amend your point so that it would speak to the general case (suburb-to-suburb commuting on an atypical route, regardless of the circumstances as to why that person has to make that trip).

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

There's no land to build TOD on, and they know it. They say that because it's cheaper than saying 'subway'.

I still have never read what the benefits to low floor trains are compared to high floor ones in the context of the SELRT, a route that is mostly in a rail corridor and after that in a tunnel. I'm sure one of you knows, it may even have been mentioned in this thread when I wasn't looking. 7th Ave downtown, I can see benefits for that being low-floor, because it's like a tram, but why bother in a separate ROW? Does it save that much money?

My recollection from initial report to CT suggesting low floor for SELRT - the two main reasons were cheaper stations (minimal platform requirements) and smaller turning radius of some low floor cars, which was required to make the turn from E-W to N-S in downtown. Although I don't know why a high floor LRT couldn't be designed with a smaller turning radius.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

There's no land to build TOD on, and they know it. They say that because it's cheaper than saying 'subway'.

I still have never read what the benefits to low floor trains are compared to high floor ones in the context of the SELRT, a route that is mostly in a rail corridor and after that in a tunnel. I'm sure one of you knows, it may even have been mentioned in this thread when I wasn't looking. 7th Ave downtown, I can see benefits for that being low-floor, because it's like a tram, but why bother in a separate ROW? Does it save that much money?

I think you misunderstood me. If the Nose Creek LRT alignment were to be approved by the city high floor trains would be chosen since the line would probably tie into the NE LRT at memorial drive.

The industrial district of Greenview could have potential for redevelopment. It's only 4-5km from downtown. It's mostly been used for storage of light industry so I don't think the ground is contaminated...but this is only speculation.

[frinkprof]

Digging up another one, sorry for the late reply.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That brings us to the great urban impasse, the type of urban development that is championed by most of those on this website is the very thing that makes any tenable urban community unaffordable. There is no land-use pattern conducive to high density affordable housing in the adult urban playground aspired to here.

Yes, I generally agree. Sacrifices to either attainability/affordability or the quality of, as you put it, the adult urban playground with coffee shops galore have to be made to make the other more realistic.

However, to be fair, you have to chalk some of that "championing" up to the type of wild-eyed dreaming that occurs on almost every niche online community. It's like Flames fans on Calgary Puck dreaming up trade proposal after trade proposal involving the Flames basically getting the world for the proverbial bag of pucks. It just ain't going to happen, but you can always hope that win a small victory every now and again.

[UofC.engineer]

I personnally don't know which alignment is more beneficial to the city.

NC tunnel:

PRO's:
-Faster
-Underground
-Little neighborhood distruption(noise, land purchase)

CON's:
-It's gonna cost a lot of money


Maybe the city could buy an auger to bring down the cost??? I dunno. I'm not a civil engineer.

Nose Creek:

PRO's:
-Most of it is ROW protected(Easy land purchase from CPR/CNR)
-Offers opportunity for dedevelopment
-Nose Creek could look a lot nicer which a bit of engineering(embankment improvement, greater water flow)
-Easier to create potential Airport LRT

CON's:
-Redevelopment would occur right beside Deerfoot(noise, pollution)
-Longer trip to Panorama/Country Hills
-NELRT line from Zoo to downtown would be more crowded


You guys probably all support NC LRT subway option and you're probably gonna tear me up.

But let's hear what you think?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

My recollection from initial report to CT suggesting low floor for SELRT - the two main reasons were cheaper stations (minimal platform requirements) and smaller turning radius of some low floor cars, which was required to make the turn from E-W to N-S in downtown. Although I don't know why a high floor LRT couldn't be designed with a smaller turning radius.

I a feeling that part of it is as simple as the fact that low floor trains are now in vogue. I can definitely see the advantages to low floor trains in the context of streetcars, or a street car like route (the same function as local bus service but higher capacity and a sense of permanence that may generate development), but the SE LRT plans are really more about using LRT like a subway/commuter line instead of a streetcar line.

Available low floor designs currently suffer from capacity sacrifices when compared to high floor designs. That might change in the future but who knows. We would want as much capacity as we could get for a given platform length on any N-SE LRT line. Sidewalk stations in far out suburbs that will never be urban just do not seem worth the sacrifice to me.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I personnally don't know which alignment is more beneficial to the city.

NC tunnel:

PRO's:
-Faster
-Underground
-Little neighborhood distruption(noise, land purchase)

CON's:
-It's gonna cost a lot of money


Maybe the city could buy an auger to bring down the cost??? I dunno. I'm not a civil engineer.

Nose Creek:

PRO's:
-Most of it is ROW protected(Easy land purchase from CPR/CNR)
-Offers opportunity for dedevelopment
-Nose Creek could look a lot nicer which a bit of engineering(embankment improvement, greater water flow)
-Easier to create potential Airport LRT

CON's:
-Redevelopment would occur right beside Deerfoot(noise, pollution)
-Longer trip to Panorama/Country Hills
-NELRT line from Zoo to downtown would be more crowded


You guys probably all support NC LRT subway option and you're probably gonna tear me up.

But let's hear what you think?

This has been discussed numerous times, as have streetcars. I'd recommend skimming through this thread and the previous one (Link). You'd probably learn a lot that you didn't know you didn't know, as well as get an idea of what most of us think.

Not saying it's not worth discussing again, of course.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Sidewalk stations in far out suburbs that will never be urban just do not seem worth the sacrifice to me.

I don't know. The Seton/South Hospital area could bely that.

[UofC.engineer]

Oh, Ok

Ignore that post then

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Oh, Ok

Ignore that post then

I didn't mean it as an insult or anything, just a suggestion since you seem interested and I've personally learned a lot from these forums and the various links and references people have posted here over time.

On North Central LRT - I would say my position is that I would rather it use a corridor that is west of the Nose Creek corridor. Centre Street and Edmonton Trail are the most obvious candidates.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I personnally don't know which alignment is more beneficial to the city.

NC tunnel:

PRO's:
-Faster
-Underground
-Little neighborhood distruption(noise, land purchase)

CON's:
-It's gonna cost a lot of money


Maybe the city could buy an auger to bring down the cost??? I dunno. I'm not a civil engineer.

Nose Creek:

PRO's:
-Most of it is ROW protected(Easy land purchase from CPR/CNR)
-Offers opportunity for dedevelopment
-Nose Creek could look a lot nicer which a bit of engineering(embankment improvement, greater water flow)
-Easier to create potential Airport LRT

CON's:
-Redevelopment would occur right beside Deerfoot(noise, pollution)
-Longer trip to Panorama/Country Hills
-NELRT line from Zoo to downtown would be more crowded


You guys probably all support NC LRT subway option and you're probably gonna tear me up.

But let's hear what you think?

I would say there is a great deal of potential to redevelop large portions of north central Calgary in an urban manor. Much of it is already on a grid and reasonably attractive. If the area between 4 St NW and Edmonton Trail were to urbanize it would require rail transportation, buses can work for what is there now but not much else. Centre Street already has the heaviest bus ridership in the city, higher than a lot of the LRT lines being built in the US. There just is not enough room to add much more capacity there.

Any TODs built in the nose creek alignment could never really connect into the existing fabric of the city. They would be, possibly very dense, suburban nodes disconnected from the existing environment. There may be some question of whether the ROW is wide enough to allow both commuter/HSR tracks and LRT tracks through the area. If we want to have LRT to the airport, the distance between a station in nose creek and one along Harvest Hills Boulevard is hardly a major detriment.

All that is enough to make me favour the Centre Street routing but it is not the biggest reason. Restricting future capacity for both the NLRT and the NELRT to half of what it could otherwise be is incredibly short sighted and negligent. Capacity along 7 Ave is essentially maxed out right now because of interlining the NW-S and W-NE lines. Four car trains will give us another 33%. Will 33% really be enough to allow for future ridership growth? I doubt it. Five car consists dedicated to the N and four car consists dedicated to the NE would allow 125% more capacity into downtown. That is a huge benefit.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Unnecessarily complicated and expensive for almost any viable streetcar route you could dream up in Calgary.

More expensive than a streetcar is right, but it would add more value than a streetcar. This is from the perspective that a monorail system would have right of way and get people where they want to go faster instead of a streetcar which would travel at (or in some cases slower) than an automobile that would be competing with regular traffic congestion.

I think it would be a mistake to put in streetcars if they would cost more capital, and cost more to operate than a bus system, but don't do anything to increase productivity. Eventually it will come a point when major repairs are needed, and will have to revisit scrapping the system.

My preference would be to install something that won't compete with automobile traffic, and replaces the circulation function of the old streetcars but with greater capacity and speed.

As for why the streetcar was abandoned in the 1940's and 1950's, I have read everything from the GM streetcar scandal to urban sprawl. I'm inclined to think that the biggest contributing factor were large increases in cars per capita and congestion (removing the streetcars increased road thoroughput which increased traffic flow, and could be accomplished with buses at lower capital installation costs and operational costs):

Pre-1945 people were used to living in a different scaled environment than now.



And this is also reflected in increases in oil consumption per capita:



Finally, this pattern is fundamentally unsusustainable (constant per capita energy consumption), in comparison to growth patterns which have new vintage buildings having the longest commute distances (primarily suburbs):



THis makes a case that future vehichles will have to either be getting exponentially smaller or exponentially more fuel efficient.

I think it's important to recognize some of the concerns about streetcars and congested roads that people like Rob Ford have made. The goal should be to build things that are more sustainable AND reduce congestion.

I would think elevated/suspended rails are going to be more expensive than a system that is at grade, but less expensive than a subway. The difference in value being that the an elevated rail would improve circulation to a much greater extent than an at grade system.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I don't know. The Seton/South Hospital area could bely that.

It could but our history of developing secondary downtown employment centres does not inspire confidence. I still remember when a city planner made a presentation to my elementary class. The secondary downtown in WestHills was going to solve the cities problem with live in the west, work in the east commuting patterns. Instead we got a big box hell. Even if a real employment centre can be developed in Seton, the land just is not valuable enough to force developers to put parking below grade instead of in large surrounding lots. I cannot see possible rents in the area justifying the kind of construction we get in the downtown/Beltline.

Of course I really hope to be proven wrong here.

[freeweed]

Anyone who wants to know what happened to streetcar systems just needs to watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

To the bolded: how so?

Although I've never personally boarded one, handicap-accessibility seems no less cumbersome than the current high-floor fleet based on interior photos and layout diagrams I've seen.



From Houston's S70 spec sheet.

Here's a drawing of the layout of San Diego's low-floor fleet:


(Wikipedia)

Sliding doors equipped with ramps, just like Calgary's vehicles.

It isn't the internal layout that presents a problem, it is getting a wheelchair bound passenger from street level and into the cabin. In both Houston and San Diego this is accomplished with a station platform - completely defeating the purpose of the low floor vehicle which is passengers boarding directly from street level.

[Policy Wonk]

You guys are aware that the street cars in Calgary were replaced with trolley buses and they remained in use until the mid-70's right?


www.trolleybuses.net

They were phased out because the catenary was too frequently damaged and they were difficult to maintain after Canadian Car and Foundry ceased supporting AFC-Brill trolleys and buses during one of their many changes of ownership.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It isn't the internal layout that presents a problem, it is getting a wheelchair bound passenger from street level and into the cabin. In both Houston and San Diego this is accomplished with a station platform - completely defeating the purpose of the low floor vehicle which is passengers boarding directly from street level.

So they should be written off because, despite all of their positive attributes and ability to perform well, they are unable to achieve one of their original goals?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ The new Toronto streetcars are getting an extend-able ramp for loading wheelchairs, because the system operates as a true streetcar. I have no idea how Portland manages for their streetcar.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It isn't the internal layout that presents a problem, it is getting a wheelchair bound passenger from street level and into the cabin. In both Houston and San Diego this is accomplished with a station platform - completely defeating the purpose of the low floor vehicle which is passengers boarding directly from street level.

And isn't that "platform" about 6" high?