Calgary Public Transit II

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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.

The Canada Line cost upwards of 2 billion dollars. It gets a bit complicated because of the P3 funding model. It is in some ways very comparable. The length of subway would be nearly identical to a route stretching from the terminus of the SE LRT to just north of Beddington Trail. Even the portion of the tunnel bored in Vancouver, downtown and across false creek, would be comparable to a need to bore under the Bow River here. That said there would be a couple of major differences. First, we would not have an additional ten kilometres of elevated track. We would instead have four kilometres of surface track in a reserved ROW in the median of Harvest Hills. This would be much cheaper. Second, we would in all likelihood want longer station platforms. This would make station costs significantly more expensive. I don't know how those two factors would play out. The Centre Street Subway could be either cheaper or more expensive than the Canada Line, depending on which one makes the biggest difference.

On another point. I really don't think it would make sense to end the subway portion at 64 Ave. The ROW is only wide enough for about a mile until Beddington Boulevard. It then narrows slightly until Bergen Rd/Beddington Drive at which point it narrows considerably. Along the stretch north of 64 Ave it would have to rise to grade while also climbing a hill. We might as well at least keep it in a trench between 64 and Beddington Boulevard, then cover it north of there. It would eliminate the need to expropriate much property.

[MalcolmTucker]

Second, we would in all likelihood want longer station platforms. This would make station costs significantly more expensive. I don't know how those two factors would play out. The Centre Street Subway could be either cheaper or more expensive than the Canada Line, depending on which one makes the biggest difference.

Big stations are bloody expensive under or above ground. That is why it would be good to figure out what capacity the city wanted to design for, where and how many stations we want, and then be technologically neutral in the bid. Low floor LRT also requires a very wide tunnel bore since the widest portion of the vehicle is at track level and you need to provision for pantographs.

It may turn out that if we want a Centre St route , it makes financial sense to automate, grade separate, and ratchet up the headway of the entire line to allow for much shorter stations. This is a reason why it would be great to tender together with the SE line - we could end up with a much high level of service by giving up some control.

The SE LRT document has provisions for 5 car trainsets, which end up with platforms north of 150m long. Switching to 80m stations could save enough money that over the length of the project combined with operational savings of having no drivers for 30 years might be cheaper than LRT. The best way to figure out if that is true is by doing a technology neutral P3.

[CTrainDude]

Nevermind.........

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Big stations are bloody expensive under or above ground. That is why it would be good to figure out what capacity the city wanted to design for, where and how many stations we want, and then be technologically neutral in the bid. Low floor LRT also requires a very wide tunnel bore since the widest portion of the vehicle is at track level and you need to provision for pantographs.

It may turn out that if we want a Centre St route , it makes financial sense to automate, grade separate, and ratchet up the headway of the entire line to allow for much shorter stations. This is a reason why it would be great to tender together with the SE line - we could end up with a much high level of service by giving up some control.

The SE LRT document has provisions for 5 car trainsets, which end up with platforms north of 150m long. Switching to 80m stations could save enough money that over the length of the project combined with operational savings of having no drivers for 30 years might be cheaper than LRT. The best way to figure out if that is true is by doing a technology neutral P3.

I am really not sold on the benefits of low floor trains on the SE Line.

A technology neutral P3 would simply give us what a corporation thinks would be the cheapest possible option to achieve what the city estimates it might need. It could just as easily blow up in our faces. The city's estimate might be too low and it would then be on the hook for the much more expensive job of trying to retrofit longer platforms on a previously built line. Even if the estimate is correct, the bidder would have no reason to mitigate any costs that would arise after the terms of the agreement are over. The city could be stuck dealing with multiple incompatible systems for ever. I fail to see how we would end up with a higher level of service by giving up control. The line's capacity would be determined by the city. Anything the bidder could do to make it cheaper would be in their interest even if it was counter to the city's interest. Signing away control just means that we could not stop them from doing it.

[MalcolmTucker]

It is pretty hard to design a system that will break in 30 years plus a day but be perfectly fine at 30 years!

If the city's estimate is too low, it would similarly be too low for 5 car low floor LRT. No advantage either way. the low floor LRT will already be an incompatible system so no disadvantage there if the P3 bidder proposed something else.

I fail to see how we would end up with a higher level of service by giving up control.

If the bidder decided to do a automated light metro instead of low floor LRT, higher frequency can be used with smaller trains to meet capacity demands at all times of day. In that specific case outside of rush hour when capacity would meet supply for both systems, an automated light metro provides a higher service quality, even if it provides the same service quantity.

The whole point is to have all these options costed out so the city can make a rational decision, not to be bound to any one choice early in the process. If low floor LRT wins so be it - same likewise to monorail, ALRT, light metro, high floor LRT, but the decision will be made with eyes open, not only looking at the upfront sticker price.

[fusili]

Ok, here is the interlining issue explained with an example.

In San Francisco all the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) trains coming from the east bay into San Francisco use the West Oakland to Embarcadero Tunnel and that subway ROW extends to Daly City station (where 2 of the lines turn around). There are 4 separate lines using this tunnel (well actually more, because the MUNI trains also use the tunnel), from Fremont, Dublin, Pittsburg and Richmond. Whatever the maximum headway is on the Oakland to Daly City line, that headway has to be divided between the four different lines.

Right now that corridor is at the maximum headway it can handle. None of the east bay lines can increase in frequency anymore because the interlined portion is at capacity. Because of this, any other rail lines in San Fran cannot use the Embarcadero to Daly City metro tunnel. Expansion plans for a subway into Richmond (another Richmond that is in San Fran itself) cannot use the BART tunnel because it is at capacity and most likely a new tunnel will have to be built.

This is exactly the issue with the NC and NE LRT lines. They are forced to share the West LRT ROW. So any benefit that separating the NW/South Line from the NE/West line is negated by interlining again. Effectively the Nose Creek alignment cuts the potential NELRT capacity by half. And with a line that is at capacity already and will only experience additional growth (as YNAT pointed out), cutting its potential frequency by half is a bad idea.

And with regards to your comment about transit planners talking about the benefits of interlining Policy Wonk, they aren't planning in cities like Calgary (or San Francisco) where the headways and consists are at capacity. The cities they are planning in are cities trying to build their ridership up and probaly have dismal ridership. We, on the other hand, are trying to deal with too much ridership. Ask those transit planners to talk to transit planners in San Fran about interlining on the Embarcadero to Daly City line. They will tell them it is hell.

[Policy Wonk]

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?

Because capacity isn't measured by the frequency of a given route, it is measured by the number of trains, any trains, that can operate on a given leg in a given time.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Because capacity isn't measured by the frequency of a given route, it is measured by the number of trains, any trains, that can operate on a given leg in a given time.

What Policy Wonk is getting at is the physical capacity of a line is unchanged regardless of how many routes run on it. What changes is the capacity of each individual route. So lets say the capacity of the tracks between the zoo station and DT is 1. At the current time, the entire capacity of 1 can be used entirely by the NE line. If you interlace the Nose Creek line and run it at the same frequency as the NE line, then the NE has lost .5 of its capacity, and the Nose Creek line has taken the other .5, but the overall capacity is still 1.

[Policy Wonk]

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.

They already schedule it, U of C did a study on this just last year concerning the NE line that was presented at the World Conference on Transport Research. Between the hours of 6 and 9 am 25% of trains are delayed more than a minute traveling between 3rd and 10th street and 21% traveling between 10th street and City Hall.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Also, like I said before, the latest (2010) plan shows a streetcar also going down centre street.

They are throwing a bone to some of the particularly green alderpersons, there is no serious plan to do any such thing. Calgary Transit had a nightmare with the trolley bus catenary on centre street.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Because capacity isn't measured by the frequency of a given route, it is measured by the number of trains, any trains, that can operate on a given leg in a given time.

Exactly, and the number of trains on the NE line and Nose Creek line would only ever be half of the maximum capacity of the 7th Avenue LRT ROW. I don't see how you don't understand that interlining the Nose Creek line with the NE line reduces the maximum capacity by half of both of them.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

They are throwing a bone to some of the particularly green alderpersons, there is no serious plan to do any such thing. Calgary Transit had a nightmare with the trolley bus catenary on centre street.

It's a long term idea anyway, they don't really need a serious plan to "do" anything at this time. That's beside the point.

We also don't even know if they would use overhead catenary at the time it would be built. Perhaps, by that time, they could all be battery operated. If battery technology advances as fast in the time between now and when the line would be built as it has in the last 10-20 years, its certainly believable, but probably more than that - even "likely", IMO.

I'd also like to know how you know what CT was thinking when they put it on the plan, and how you figure that they were simply "throwing a bone." Considering the current bus traffic, and assuming growth in the corridor, it's certainly a logical idea.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Ask those transit planners to talk to transit planners in San Fran about interlining on the Embarcadero to Daly City line. They will tell them it is hell.

Which planners would those be, the BART Operations Planning or local rock throwers? They are implementing an improved railway signal and traffic control system to reduce headways and provisioning for higher capacity rolling stock.

The ultimate problem for the BART is the Transbay Tube. Calgary will get its Centre Street subway before the Bay Area gets a second Transbay Tunnel, estimated cost in 2008 $10.3 billion.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Exactly, and the number of trains on the NE line and Nose Creek line would only ever be half of the maximum capacity of the 7th Avenue LRT ROW. I don't see how you don't understand that interlining the Nose Creek line with the NE line reduces the maximum capacity by half of both of them.

I don't see how you can't understand that this just isn't a problem with a grade separated 7th ave. Something which will have to happen with or without the Nose Creek LRT.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I'd also like to know how you know what CT was thinking when they put it on the plan, and how you figure that they were simply "throwing a bone." Considering the current bus traffic, and assuming growth in the corridor, it's certainly a logical idea.

First hand knowledge, take it or leave it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't see how you can't understand that this just isn't a problem with a grade separated 7th ave. Something which will have to happen with or without the Nose Creek LRT.

I've already shown you why 7th ave will never require grade separation. In short, without increasing the number of trains on 7th ave, the number of people taking the 202 line can roughly triple.

Besides, if we are taking about the expense of tunnelling another tunnel through downtown, why not just tunnel under centre street instead? We could cut and cover tunnel most of the centre street route, while 7th Ave would likely have to be bored - and perhaps involve shutting down the entire 202 line for several years.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Which planners would those be, the BART Operations Planning or local rock throwers? They are implementing an improved railway signal and traffic control system to reduce headways and provisioning for higher capacity rolling stock.

The ultimate problem for the BART is the Transbay Tube. Calgary will get its Centre Street subway before the Bay Area gets a second Transbay Tunnel, estimated cost in 2008 $10.3 billion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Transbay tube not using BART gauge tracks, but the same gauge of tracks as Caltrain and the future High Speed Rail? Which is why the future Geary line is more likely to use the Caltrain gauge of track.

But now we are off topic a bit.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't see how you can't understand that this just isn't a problem with a grade separated 7th ave. Something which will have to happen with or without the Nose Creek LRT.

We don't have to bury the NE/West line ever, as YNAT has pointed out.

We only need to bury the NW/S line because of the reduced frequency due to interlining.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I've already shown you why 7th ave will never require grade separation. In short, without increasing the number of trains on 7th ave, the number of people taking the 202 line can roughly triple.

Besides, if we are taking about the expense of tunnelling another tunnel through downtown, why not just tunnel under centre street instead? We could cut and cover tunnel most of the centre street route, while 7th Ave would likely have to be bored - and perhaps involve shutting down the entire 202 line for several years.

No, you certainly haven't.

And for now the ninth time no matter what form the North Central LRT takes Calgary Transit will NOT be able to operate the at the headways they desire to with surface traffic.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

We don't have to bury the NE/West line ever, as YNAT has pointed out.

We only need to bury the NW/S line because of the reduced frequency due to interlining.

If that were true Calgary Transit wouldn't be struggling with their present peak headways on 7th Ave.

But why don't we cut the bullshit and get back to what this is really about.

Most of you don't care about headways, right-of-ways and had probably never heard of interlining before this topic. This is about favoring the subway concept over the Nose Creek plans because Nose Creek is perceived to be in the service of the suburbs, which it is and the Centre Street subway would be a catalyst for the intensification of Centre Street.

That is all well and good, but it doesn't really serve to mitigate the tremendous political, financial and practical challenges that would go with the subway and intensification route.