Calgary Public Transit II

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Yup, that is why Greenview works - it is an industrial wasteland but it is a small industrial wasteland. Redeveloping industrials areas is nearly impossible because they are huge and there is always another block of blight. Greenview Industrial is small, has explicitly defined boundaries and is already in close proximity to community amenities in the surrounding area.

A not small, be blight of Deerfoot and the industrial on the side of deerfoot will still exist.
B No one wants really wants to live next to a rail line.
C The legality of expropriating property to change the zoning and reselling to a developer is dubious. (If this possible then expropriate Sunnyside) Losing a job is right up there with losing a home. At least with losing you home your compensated.
D The carrying costs required to purchase all the land that you expropriated makes a Subway seem cheap. Especially seeing how fast developers snapped up East Village. How many years did that take? To buy all the land your could be talking 3 billion? @ 8% for 10 years.
E Then there is demolish costs and reclamation costs. Both time and money.
F The land would have to be developed in a way that there is profit, industrial land is expensive, way more then farmland, so you would have to build big to breakeven.
G Brings us back to time to develop all that land, building big means lots and lots of unit and who knows how long it would take Calgary to absorb that much excess inventory.
H Road infrastructure, the current system is bounded (/w no access) on the north by McKnight, East by Deerfoot, and West Nose Creek. 32 ave connector is not going to be enough to handle the amount of people we're talking about. So now we have to look at bridging Nose Creek and upgrading Edmonton trail, likely an interchange at Edmonton trail and McKnight as direct access to McKnight is impossible. Direct Access to Deerfoot is impossible, flyover is possible but then your in the blight of another industrial area.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Only partially so, 7th will still have to be addressed in its own right. The frequency that will ultimately be required can't effectively be served at grade in traffic.



Interlining in and of itself isn't a problem, obstructing "rapid transit" in traffic is the problem.



Great, were making progress.



This exercise has been repeated over and over again since the 1970's, the horse is bone meal.

To what extent is capacity constrained on 7 Ave because of traffic interactions? We know that interlining would halve capacity when compared to having two routes into downtown. Is surface operation really worse than that? I would still like to see some numbers for maximum theoretical capacity on a surface 7 Ave route and a tunnelled route. Then we would be able to see if either could actually handle the projected ridership of both the N and NE lines.

Really, if the 7 Ave surface route is only used by the W-NE line then it should suffice for the foreseeable future. We may want to bury it eventually to improve travel time, traffic flow, and system safety but capacity should not be a problem. That is, unless we expect the W-NE line to carry significantly more passengers than the entire system carries today. I can't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

I wouldn't say we're making much progress on the bus issue. Maybe if you ignore everything that came after what you quoted. As in the part where I still contend that a Centre Street Subway would undoubtedly both change and reduce the current bus service to the area. That does not mean that bus service would be eliminated but it does mean that there would not be a duplication of subway and bus service.

[fusili]

Just to be clear, the interlining issue has nothing to do with travel time or interaction with traffic in the downtown. Because the Nose Creek alignment will access the downtown through the NE line at the zoo, it forces all the cars from the NE and the NC (Nose Creek) to travel to the terminus of the west line @ 69th street station, because that is the only turn around. That forces a situation where the west line has to run at double the frequency of the other two lines, even though it won't have double the ridership. In fact the west line is going to have less ridership than the NE line, which is what will determine frequency. If you have two portions of a line, it shouldn't be the lower ridership portion that determines frequency.

[Ramsayfarian]

Just read an interesting article on Slugging. I know we don't a lot of HOV lanes here, but I wish Calgarians would start doing this just to lighten the traffic.

"And off the three go toward the highway — and the suburbs — complete strangers, with not the least concern for personal safety, trying to shave 20 or 30 minutes, maybe more, off their afternoon trip home. “People are cooperating … to commute?” says Marc Oliphant, underscoring the novelty of what is going on here. “It’s like the opposite of road rage!”"
Rest of the article http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/slugging-the-peoples-transit-28068/

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Just to be clear, the interlining issue has nothing to do with travel time or interaction with traffic in the downtown. Because the Nose Creek alignment will access the downtown through the NE line at the zoo, it forces all the cars from the NE and the NC (Nose Creek) to travel to the terminus of the west line @ 69th street station, because that is the only turn around. That forces a situation where the west line has to run at double the frequency of the other two lines, even though it won't have double the ridership. In fact the west line is going to have less ridership than the NE line, which is what will determine frequency. If you have two portions of a line, it shouldn't be the lower ridership portion that determines frequency.

Well, it has a little something to do with traffic interaction downtown. With the Nose Creek alignment, trying to meet demand on both the N LRT and NE LRT would mean both an abundance of unnecessary capacity on the W LRT and more trains operating on 7 Ave. Pushing more trains onto 7 Ave will affect traffic interactions.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Just to be clear, the interlining issue has nothing to do with travel time or interaction with traffic in the downtown. Because the Nose Creek alignment will access the downtown through the NE line at the zoo, it forces all the cars from the NE and the NC (Nose Creek) to travel to the terminus of the west line @ 69th street station, because that is the only turn around. That forces a situation where the west line has to run at double the frequency of the other two lines, even though it won't have double the ridership. In fact the west line is going to have less ridership than the NE line, which is what will determine frequency. If you have two portions of a line, it shouldn't be the lower ridership portion that determines frequency.

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, the North Central LRT will run to the terminus of the West LRT - this is not a revelation or a problem. Perhaps you are familiar with the route of the 301 which serves as the proof of concept for both the Nose Creek and West LRT. I also have on good authority that the 201 LRT runs all the way from Crowfoot to Bridlewood.

And yes, if you want to reject interlining on the grounds of 7th Ave capacity you can't ignore that capacity is forfeited when trains are stopped for red lights for minutes at a time. This has nothing to do with the North Central LRT and will have to be confronted long before any Northern alignment is built out.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, the North Central LRT will run to the terminus of the West LRT - this is not a revelation or a problem.

It is a problem when you have 2 lines going into one which is what is supposed to happen around Zoo Station where the NC and NE lines are, given the current configuration alignment, to meet and merge before heading into downtown.

The point of the 8th avenue subway is to take the 2 existing lines and split them, and then you just want to go right back to slamming 2 lines into one line again when and if they build the NC line up nose creek? Are you mad? 20 years out the LRT is going to have even higher ridership than it currently enjoys, we'll be right back to a bottle-neck.

Is the NC subway up Center cheap? No, no one has suggested that. Is it the smarter of the two routes? Heck yes!

A SE -> NC LRT with a subway through downtown and probably up to at least 64th Avenue makes the most practical use of infrastructure. 3 distinct lines that all have a common meeting point in and around 7/8th avenue downtown as a transfer hub.

You're only argument that has any merit Policy Wonk is the financial aspect. Otherwise your arguments have already been rebutted by other forummer's whose arguments also have merit and are well thought out.

I'm no planner, but the plan on the books for nose creek makes as much sense as having the proposed SE LRT skip its own tunnel into downtown and somehow miraculously turn it westbound (prior to Inglewood) and merge it with the SW LRT (maybe at 39th avenue) and then have them share the tunnel into downtown... I know, it's a stupid idea, packing two sets of trains onto the already overloaded SW line... such silliness

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

A not small, be blight of Deerfoot and the industrial on the side of deerfoot will still exist.

It is certainly small relative to other blighted industrial areas.

B No one wants really wants to live next to a rail line.

No kidding, have you seen Coventry Hills or Inglewood, they look like a Scooby Doo ghost town.

C The legality of expropriating property to change the zoning and reselling to a developer is dubious. (If this possible then expropriate Sunnyside) Losing a job is right up there with losing a home. At least with losing you home your compensated.

D The carrying costs required to purchase all the land that you expropriated makes a Subway seem cheap. Especially seeing how fast developers snapped up East Village. How many years did that take? To buy all the land your could be talking 3 billion? @ 8% for 10 years.

[/quote]

Who said anything about expropriation? A commitment, a coherent redevelopment plan and a a whole lot of warning with suffice. And on that note lets talk about the East Village.

The greatest impediment to the redevelopment of the East Village is the concentration of social services agencies. Even fully built out it will still be a magnet for vagrants and all that goes with it. This on the other hand is a relatively isolated area along a recreation corridor a short distance from the amenities of established communities.

The warehousing in the area is far more truck than train oriented, the location is of little consequence. Several of those warehouses are completely empty

Then there is demolish costs and reclamation costs. Both time and money.

Warehousing isn't a particularly problematic land use from a reclamation standpoint. And you could bring down a giant warehouse in a matter of hours. They aren't complicated or formidable structures.

F The land would have to be developed in a way that there is profit, industrial land is expensive, way more then farmland, so you would have to build big to breakeven.

It can be expensive or not, the Wallace and Carey facility, with its own railroad siding is only assessed at less than $7 million, other large but largely unimproved sites are assessed at less than a million. This is the least of the challenges.

G Brings us back to time to develop all that land, building big means lots and lots of unit and who knows how long it would take Calgary to absorb that much excess inventory.

Over the course of a decade, not overwhelming.

H Road infrastructure, the current system is bounded (/w no access) on the north by McKnight, East by Deerfoot, and West Nose Creek. 32 ave connector is not going to be enough to handle the amount of people we're talking about. So now we have to look at bridging Nose Creek and upgrading Edmonton trail, likely an interchange at Edmonton trail and McKnight as direct access to McKnight is impossible. Direct Access to Deerfoot is impossible, flyover is possible but then your in the blight of another industrial area.

I thought you guys were all about transit oriented development? Since when did insufficient roadways dampen your spirit? And no, the crescent of Beaver Dam Road and Goddard Ave to 4th Street would be sufficient combined with new internal roadways.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by mooky

It is a problem when you have 2 lines going into one which is what is supposed to happen around Zoo Station where the NC and NE lines are, given the current configuration alignment, to meet and merge before heading into downtown.

The point of the 8th avenue subway is to take the 2 existing lines and split them, and then you just want to go right back to slamming 2 lines into one line again when and if they build the NC line up nose creek? Are you mad? 20 years out the LRT is going to have even higher ridership than it currently enjoys, we'll be right back to a bottle-neck.

Even if no North Central LRT is ever build 7th Ave will independently reach capacity as constrained by surface traffic. Interlining is not in and of itself a problem, trains stopped at red lights and squandering capacity is a problem. I am laughing my ass off at this thread because I know some guys in the states working on an interlining project, the belief being that reducing transfers will stimulate ridership. This is not a bad word.

Is the NC subway up Center cheap? No, no one has suggested that. Is it the smarter of the two routes? Heck yes!

Ruthlessly advocating for something that is impractical for half a dozen independent reasons and unlikely to ever be built isn't smart. It is wasted energy and in this case sabotage against thirty years of solid planning.

You're only argument that has any merit Policy Wonk is the financial aspect. Otherwise your arguments have already been rebutted by other forummer's whose arguments also have merit and are well thought out.

You guys haven't rebutted anything because all your arguments are based on necessities occurring that have no basis in reality (or are simply incorrect) and an unquestioning public embrace of urban intensification. If money was no object a subway would be pretty interesting, if air was no object we could live under the sea - but i'm not house hunting for submarine pineapples just in case.

[The Chemist]

Interlining IS bad. Period. It reduces capacity on both lines. The only way it works is if you quadruple-track the interlined sections and have 4 platforms per station, because then trains running on one line don't require headway separation with trains on the other line.

There is interlining on a section of the Shanghai Metro, and it's terrible - it increases the minimum headway on both lines at rush hour to 5 minutes, when both lines really need 2.5 minute headway.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

To what extent is capacity constrained on 7 Ave because of traffic interactions? We know that interlining would halve capacity when compared to having two routes into downtown. Is surface operation really worse than that? I would still like to see some numbers for maximum theoretical capacity on a surface 7 Ave route and a tunnelled route. Then we would be able to see if either could actually handle the projected ridership of both the N and NE lines.

This is really, really simple. Headways are the time and distance between trains. Stationary trains require longer headways which reduces potential frequency. With the present situation LRT's traverse the core at low speed while stopping at intersections dramatically reducing the potential capacity.

Really, if the 7 Ave surface route is only used by the W-NE line then it should suffice for the foreseeable future. We may want to bury it eventually to improve travel time, traffic flow, and system safety but capacity should not be a problem. That is, unless we expect the W-NE line to carry significantly more passengers than the entire system carries today. I can't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

The stated goal of Calgary Transit is to eventually operate at 2 or 3 minute headways with 82 trainsets system wide. That isn't practical interacting with surface traffic on 7th ave.

I wouldn't say we're making much progress on the bus issue. Maybe if you ignore everything that came after what you quoted. As in the part where I still contend that a Centre Street Subway would undoubtedly both change and reduce the current bus service to the area. That does not mean that bus service would be eliminated but it does mean that there would not be a duplication of subway and bus service.

I think we have made great progress seeing as we started with a near consensus that all recognizable forms of bus service would be replaced with feeder routes running east-west to the new subway stations.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Interlining IS bad. Period. It reduces capacity on both lines. The only way it works is if you quadruple-track the interlined sections and have 4 platforms per station, because then trains running on one line don't require headway separation with trains on the other line.

There is interlining on a section of the Shanghai Metro, and it's terrible - it increases the minimum headway on both lines at rush hour to 5 minutes, when both lines really need 2.5 minute headway.

Interlining doesn't reduce capacity, it is just a way of allocating capacity between multiple routes which can also create flexibility and economies of scale.

In the case of 7th Ave even operating independently at grade Calgary Transit will not be able to operate at the headways they propose even if the North Central LRT is never built.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Even if no North Central LRT is ever build 7th Ave will independently reach capacity as constrained by surface traffic. Interlining is not in and of itself a problem, trains stopped at red lights and squandering capacity is a problem. I am laughing my ass off at this thread because I know some guys in the states working on an interlining project, the belief being that reducing transfers will stimulate ridership. This is not a bad word.



Ruthlessly advocating for something that is impractical for half a dozen independent reasons and unlikely to ever be built isn't smart. It is wasted energy and in this case sabotage against thirty years of solid planning.



You guys haven't rebutted anything because all your arguments are based on necessities occurring that have no basis in reality (or are simply incorrect) and an unquestioning public embrace of urban intensification. If money was no object a subway would be pretty interesting, if air was no object we could live under the sea - but i'm not house hunting for submarine pineapples just in case.

Interlining is great if the portion that is being interlined has the capacity for more service and the branches do not require very much service. You haven't shown that to be the case here. The NE line needs a great deal of service and 7 Ave doesn't have the capacity to let it in. I cannot imagine grade separation in downtown would double the capacity of the line. Interlining would halve the capacity of the line.

A Centre Street Subway is hardly the money is no object option. It is two or three times the expense of the West LRT we are currently building. It is easily half of whatever the price tag is eventually going to be for the ring road. It would be a big, expensive project but not a wild flight of fancy. If we can afford the West LRT and the ring road, then we can afford it.

[Policy Wonk]

And for the sixth or seventh time the capacity constraints of 7th Ave, even operating independently will have to be addressed long before any North Central LRT is built and even if it is never built. Grade separation would dramatically increase capacity by allowing for headways that don't have to accommodate traffic lights and traversing the core at tricycle speed.

Only 2 or 3 times the cost... the cost of the West LRT was a heresy in and of itself. Deviating from a well accepted and economical alignment to something only "two or three times the cost of the West LRT" isn't going to win many parties over.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Even if no North Central LRT is ever build 7th Ave will independently reach capacity as constrained by surface traffic. Interlining is not in and of itself a problem, trains stopped at red lights and squandering capacity is a problem. I am laughing my ass off at this thread because I know some guys in the states working on an interlining project, the belief being that reducing transfers will stimulate ridership. This is not a bad word.

Gonna have to agree with you there. I don't see interlining as a problem in and of itself. Thus, I've maintained that any 8th ave subway should see the two lines interlined. The necessary headways can be acheived (far into the future as far as I'm concerned,) with optimal operations. It's just the many external factors that destroy this at grade and within traffic. Traffic lights being only one of those. Were it not interlined, but at grade there would of course still be the problems created by this, but at a much more manageable level. It's a lot easier to optimize and prioritize signals for half the amount of trains.

However, what Fusili is saying is indeed a good point. As it currently sits, we would see the NW - S line underground and thus, the NC and NE line running further on to the West. The SE would presumably terminate downtown (already not a good idea in itself (long-term.))

Thus, the W line would see double the frequency. Quite simply, the NE or NC could operate as the NE does now and just terminate at the west end of DT (definitely not the east) to mitigate that problem, but that still leaves us right back with the problem of why the NW-S line was buried to begin with. I don't see what is confusing about that? You very much seem to be advocating for solving the 7th Ave at grade problem (and I fully agree interlined or not,) yet your particular solution seems to only further reinforce it. That is confusing.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Interlining doesn't reduce capacity, it is just a way of allocating capacity between multiple routes which can also create flexibility and economies of scale.

How does interlining NOT reduce capacity if you could run trains every 2.5 minutes on each line without it but can only run trains every 5 minutes with it?

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The stated goal of Calgary Transit is to eventually operate at 2 or 3 minute headways with 82 trainsets system wide. That isn't practical interacting with surface traffic on 7th ave.

They already do. Between 7 and 8 there is 11 trains on 202 and 16 on 201 that pass through 7th ave Eastbound. So that under 3 but slightly over 2.

[You Need A Thneed]

Whitehorn Station South Access:

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

How does interlining NOT reduce capacity if you could run trains every 2.5 minutes on each line without it but can only run trains every 5 minutes with it?

Let's look at it this way. When the 8th Ave subway is built, and only the NE-W line is running on 7th ave, the capacity of the NE line is 3 times what it currently is. going up to 4 car trains increases capacity by 33%. Using all the time slots used by S-NW trains currently increases capacity by 100%, but even more than that, because there are a few more 201 trains going through downtown than 202 trains. And that's assuming no improvements can be made with signallingm, etc, and means that no more trains go through downtown on 7th ave than what CURRENTLY do.

I see no reason why a 3 fold increase in capacity won't be enough for the NE-W line throughout my lifetime, at least.

Interlining immediately cuts capacity in half (since the NC would have similar ridership to the NE line), meaning that we don't get a 3x increase in capacity on the NE line, we only can get about a 50% increase in capacity from what is current. We know that without signalling improvements, its tough to practically fit more trains downtown. The NE line is quite full currently, has two more stations opening up next year, which will add a little to the ridership, plus there are four more future stations planned for, which will go through future residential areas that aren't small, then on to a dense new industrial/commercial centre, and considering that the MD has set aside space for the LRT, the NE line could eventually head up to Cross Iron Mills. I think a threefold increase in capacity can handle that. I KNOW that a 50% increase will not be nearly enough.

Obviously, a transfer at Zoo station would not be accessible either, there would never be room for extra riders to get on, and especially not in the numbers that would be riding the NC line.

So, if we would require a different downtown access for the NC line (we do, clearly), why not save the cost and build the NC line as an extension of the SE line, where the downtown infrastrcuture would already be in place? Sure, a subway up Centre Street would be expensive (I don't think anyone has said it wouldn't be), but the costs become much closer together for the different options when you save the $500 or so million that a new downtown connection would cost if the NC route is used.

Also, like I said before, the latest (2010) plan shows a streetcar also going down centre street. Doing a subway would eliminate the need for that, so we can use the cost of that system in the cost comparision as well. Like I said before, the $500M on a downtown connection, and $500 million on a centre street streetcar (rough guesses) would go quite a ways to building a centre street subway. Like others have said, the subway only has to go as far as 64th Ave, no further, before it can become an at-grade system. Keeping lots like the former The Brick lot at the corner of Centre and 16th clear to aid future subway construction, and provide a station head, could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future as well.

I think the tunneling could easily be done cut and cover, saving cost, and I don't think it would be outrageously expensive. How much did the entire Canada line in Vancouver cost? A centre street subway here should be somewhat cheaper.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

They already do. Between 7 and 8 there is 11 trains on 202 and 16 on 201 that pass through 7th ave Eastbound. So that under 3 but slightly over 2.

That gives a maximum capacity (given the maximum per car figure of 236 passengers) of about 19 000 PpHpD with three car trains (with less than 8000 devoted to the NE LRT) and about 25 000 with four. A theoretical 7 Ave subway would allow five car trains, nearly 32 000 PpHpD right there, and some improvement in maximum headways. I have no idea to what degree headway times could be decreased. Anyone have any idea of just how many more trains could be pushed through a buried downtown route compared to a surface one?