Calgary Public Transit II

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

New signs are cooing by next month for the gps equipped system. They've removed all the signs on all the 7th avenue stations.

OK, I wondered if I was crazy. It's a bit sad that I only find this sort of information by coming here - CT and the City should at least attempt to communicate to its customers from time to time. Those signs were awesome and I was a bit miffed to see them suddenly gone (in the case of the new 4th St station, I don't know that it ever got one).

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by freeweed

OK, I wondered if I was crazy. It's a bit sad that I only find this sort of information by coming here - CT and the City should at least attempt to communicate to its customers from time to time. Those signs were awesome and I was a bit miffed to see them suddenly gone (in the case of the new 4th St station, I don't know that it ever got one).

The new ones will be awesomer since they are real-time and will be installed at all stations by summer.

[fusili]

There seems to be a ceasefire in the Policy Wonk vs. Everyone Else forum war. It is quite. Too quiet.......

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

There seems to be a ceasefire in the Policy Wonk vs. Everyone Else forum war. It is quite. Too quiet.......

It's not worth wasting my time arguing with someone who refuses to try to understand.

When you give numbers backing up your viewpoint, and he just repeatedly comes back with "it doesn't work" without giving reasons, its not worth talking about any more.

[xAnderblaze]

Originally Posted by fusili

There seems to be a ceasefire in the Policy Wonk vs. Everyone Else forum war. It is quite. Too quiet.......

Trying to poke the fire?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

There seems to be a ceasefire in the Policy Wonk vs. Everyone Else forum war. It is quite. Too quiet.......

Please forgive me, sometimes retaining female companionship and employment comes before refighting decade old and long settled battles.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

It's not worth wasting my time arguing with someone who refuses to try to understand.

When you give numbers backing up your viewpoint, and he just repeatedly comes back with "it doesn't work" without giving reasons, its not worth talking about any more.

I don't refuse to understand, I just refuse to accept arguments that gloss over nearly insurmountable challenges while making an apparent appeal to logic.

[MalcolmTucker]

Look, I think everyone realizes a Centre St LRT is a big hill to climb with lots of challenges and extra costs compared to a Nose Creek Route. The big difference in opinion is whether those challenges and extra costs are worth it.

I think they are, as long as the costs are contained as much as possible and community impact is limited to stations, transitions and guideway (ie: no long distance ROW plowing down housings for kilometers at a time).

Besides for some views on the level of bus service Policy Wonk believes would still be provided in North Central Calgary after the LRT went in, he isn't twisting facts or anything. It would cost a lot more, and zoning to make it worthwhile would be a big fight. Anyone saying a Centre St route would be easy is a fast forgetor of past fights on LRT construction.

Just because someone has different perspectives doesn't mean you have to demonize them.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

I always though the 301 was more of a band-aid then anything, as the LRT was decades away. 301 doesn't really prove the concept as it was more or less already proven. If the 301 failed, that might of worked more in favour Nose Creek alignment as you want the cheapest route possible as few people would ride it and capacity wouldn't be an issue. (Go ahead, say interlining won't reduce capacity for the 11th time, I'll just shake my head for the 10th time.)

I don't see how the failure of the 301 would have helped the argument for a North Central LRT in any form.

Where are you getting your facts from. I need to ask for citations. Is the 30% improvement based on reaching downtown or reaching the same point? If it's reaching downtown, then ya I could see 30% improvement as I was basing my calculations on get to 7th/6th and Centre st.

The 2006 North Central LRT review, it is based on the present BRT station in Coventry Hills and "the centre of downtown" which at the time was explained to me to be 4th Street Station.

It would cut it by half as a subway could do high speed between stations too. All depends on station spacing. If they are far apart then the subway could reach 80km/h without problem. Also you don't have to deal with idiot drivers. Remember 3 is a milk run, stop at almost all the stops during rushhour. At least 301 skips some.

For your sake I really hope it doesn't, if stations are spaced in such a way - what is the point? It would be way too dependent on feeder buses to get the desired effect usually associated with TOD. Were I in favour of this I would settle for nothing less than stations in the proximity of 8th Ave, 16th Ave, 30th Ave, 40th Ave, Mc Knight, Northmount and 64th Ave.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

For your sake I really hope it doesn't, if stations are spaced in such a way - what is the point? It would be way too dependent on feeder buses to get the desired effect usually associated with TOD. Were I in favour of this I would settle for nothing less than stations in the proximity of 8th Ave, 16th Ave, 30th Ave, 40th Ave, Mc Knight, Northmount and 64th Ave.

Agreed. I think the best station locations would be at 10th Avenue, 16th Avenue, 24th Avenue, 36th Avenue, 56th Avenue, 64th and Beddington Blvd.

EDIT- Forgot to say that stop spacing on this line, because of the lack of space for park-n-rides, would have to be fairly close, because much of the ridership would be pedestrian or from feeder buses. The 10th/16th/24th avenue would be closest, because that is where the greatest amount of density would be. A a parkade at 56th avenue or the 36th avenue station is a possibility. There seems to be enough room for a park n ride by the 64th avenue station. After that, land because more available.

[kw5150]

Vancouver built a buried line. Lets do it too. Ok that reasoning sounds funny. I mean.....they picked the best route and found a way to do it.

People are about to see how a well-planned LRT route really runs! Wait until the West line opens. It will be a flood of people on transit

.......secretly I am kind of sad that in a couple years, the trains will be packed to the brim at the 10st SW station but whatever....its for the good of the city!

[PrairieDog]

Southeast LRT route may displace unpopular Ramsay chicken plant

Jason Markusoff, Postmedia News · Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011


The odour of rotten chicken, the dusty rumble of poultry trucks, the odd feather or clawed foot on Ramsay residents' front lawn - it could be all replaced by the electrical hum of a C-Train.

The long-suffering neighbours of the Lilydale chicken plant have long looked anxiously for the factory to leave or be pushed out. Another long-awaited breakthrough for southeast Calgary stands to provide that push.

The southeast LRT's current routing plan demands the city acquire the Lilydale property, among other sites listed in a recently released Calgary Transit document.

While the $800 million in much-touted provincial transit grants isn't enough to get the train link built, council has pledged some of the "Green Trip" program's first slice to buying needed property along the line.

It's the neat convergence of two major issues on rookie Councillor Gian-Carlo Carra's plate: better southeast transit and the end of foul fowl in Ramsay.

"This would provide the impetus to solve the Lilydale problem," he said Wednesday.

"It allows us the ability to purchase the land, which is pretty exciting."

Robin Tufts moved across a field from the plant 20 years ago, when it was smaller and less productive. The nighttime trucks, the stench - "I think everyone knows what rotting chicken smells like" - and 2009's toxic ammonia leak prompted Tufts and neighbours to hire an Ecojustice lawyer to get the city and other authorities to crack down on the plant.

Residents can measure small victories, like when the plant moved its offal and waste bins indoors after the public-health office's decision. That means the Tufts no longer finds feathers and chicken parts on his property, which sits across a field from Lilydale.

If the southeast LRT's progress can hasten the plant's exit strategy, that makes it an even more worthwhile project, he said.

"If the city has more reasons to make it so, they they're more likely to leave," Tufts said of Lilydale.

Company officials hadn't seen the transit-planning report until Wednesday, but have known for about five years that the LRT project might need the land between 2015 and 2020, spokeswoman Stephanie Gillis-Paulgaard said.

A move is on the radar for new Lilydale parent firm Sofina Foods, but there haven't been talks with the city, she said. "There's no definitive plans about when or where we would relocate to."

Neil McKendrick of Calgary Transit cautioned that details in the report posted online last month are based on an earlier planning study for the LRT alignment. The plans might change when the city performs a fuller pre-design study over the next two years - it shows the line would require a portion of the Lilydale property's backside, but it could wind up needing less land, or only rights to go overhead on a guideway, he said.

So the decision won't be final for a while, even though Calgary Transit is well aware that Lilydale is one property purchase Ramsay community would love to see happen, the transit planning manager said.

"They're probably lining up to help us do that, but they're not bringing money," McKendrick quipped. The city assesses the plant property at $5.2 million.

After Ward 9 predecessor Joe Ceci tried unsuccessfully to find a new industrial site for Lilydale, Carra told voters during the fall election that he'd seek some other "sweetheart deal" to induce the plant's departure from Ramsay, with money to be recouped from a transit-area development project on the land. The rookie member and city officials will meet with Sofina officials next month, he said.

Some neighbours are hopeful the plant's days are numbered, but they've been forced to keep up their hopes for too long for them to actually be confident things will change.

"I'm not counting those guys out," Glenn Larsen said. "I think they're going to cling to that site with all their being."

The city needs to acquire 27 partial or full properties for the LRT alignment - about half of the lots it had to expropriate or otherwise purchase for the West LRT. But it will also need to get into negotiate with both Canadian Nation and Canadian Pacific railways for right-of-way as well, McKendrick said.


Calgary Herald

[kw5150]

Welcome to the forum. Lots of new members lately and hopefully this is a sign of people taking more interest in urban issues!

Thanks for that. I still love the thought of an LRT line through Ramsay. It completes that neighborhood perfectly. Heck, for now, it could be the end of line right there at the Lilydale site. The area would experience immediate densification at the "ramsay exchange" and hopefully get an urban format grocery store in the prrocess.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't refuse to understand, I just refuse to accept arguments that gloss over nearly insurmountable challenges while making an apparent appeal to logic.

Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone agrees there are challenges, however, you claimed that 7th Ave would have to be grade separated at some point in the future anyway. I made an argument as to why that was not the case, an argument made from simple math. This argument you have not even tried to refute.

Moving the 201 into a tunnel allows the 202 to hold roughly 3x as many people as its current capacity without adding a single train onto 7th ave from the current situation. The number of people riding will likely increase double over the years (which is why interlining with the NC isn't a solution) but increasing threefold is really out of the question. So, for a LOOOOONG time into the future, there will be less trains on 7th Ave than there are now, and with no interlining (the main source of delays from what I've heard, and in my experience - someone could confirm), One can only come to the conclusion that delays on 7th ave will be virtually nonexistant.

In short, 7th Ave will NEVER need to be grade separated.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't see how the failure of the 301 would have helped the argument for a North Central LRT in any form.

We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. The way I see it is that with a failure of 301 congestion on Deerfoot would be twice as bad current and the residents north of would be demanding LRT for relief. Because the 301 has fail it indications that the Centre St is not a good area for ridership. (Remember this is complete failure of 301 both north and south of Beddington and I don't see a scenario were 301 is failing and 3 is a booming success) This would make the indication that Centre st ridership would not justify increasing service levels and they are adequate. (Never fully understood why some people will ride LRT but refuse to take the bus)

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

For your sake I really hope it doesn't, if stations are spaced in such a way - what is the point? It would be way too dependent on feeder buses to get the desired effect usually associated with TOD. Were I in favour of this I would settle for nothing less than stations in the proximity of 8th Ave, 16th Ave, 30th Ave, 40th Ave, Mc Knight, Northmount and 64th Ave.

The point is to be a rapid transit solution not a milk run so you can walk to any point of centre st for a station in under 3 minutes.
And I haven't really advocated TOD, as I don't see it as a reason to build the Subway. Doing TOD's around stations, go ahead but to think your going to have a continuous string of TOD is nuts. If anything I've been arguing against the idea of TOD. We can rehash this in 20 years after we see how successful Brentwood, Motel Village, Chinook and Westwood TODs are. But if we need to advocate TOD get it build, sure I'll do it, but I reserve the right to change my mind after it's build. If we get to the point were TOD's have grown so big they are budding up to each other, we can explore other options like street-cars. Keep the Subway fast.


IMHO those spacings are to short. Also remember stations lengths can be anywhere between 100 metres to 150 metres. So putting stations 800 metres apart is too close. Minimum should be 1.2 km so that the half way point is a minimum of 600 metres. So my station locations are between 10th and 12th, 24th, somewhere between 32nd and 40th, Between Mcknight and Northland road, near Thorncliff rec-centre, Beddington. 6 stations max not the 8 your thinking, (Assuming Beddington didn't make your list). I don't see a reason to have a station at 16th ave. If the density is that large, build an underground plus 15 so that you can enter it anywhere between those stations and increase pedestrian traffic flow.

Keep in mind because it's a major road artery it doesn't make it a good station location. No bus travels across centre st at McKnight, 24th, 12th no (2 and 17 run to it then south), and 64th(32 runs to it, and then north). 40th yes, Beddington there a bus terminal at 78th which is a stones throw away.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone agrees there are challenges, however, you claimed that 7th Ave would have to be grade separated at some point in the future anyway. I made an argument as to why that was not the case, an argument made from simple math. This argument you have not even tried to refute.

Moving the 201 into a tunnel allows the 202 to hold roughly 3x as many people as its current capacity without adding a single train onto 7th ave from the current situation. The number of people riding will likely increase double over the years (which is why interlining with the NC isn't a solution) but increasing threefold is really out of the question. So, for a LOOOOONG time into the future, there will be less trains on 7th Ave than there are now, and with no interlining (the main source of delays from what I've heard, and in my experience - someone could confirm), One can only come to the conclusion that delays on 7th ave will be virtually nonexistant.

In short, 7th Ave will NEVER need to be grade separated.

It is the funniest thing, this is exactly what I am talking about.

Despite the fact that is in direct contradiction to the stated goals of Calgary Transit and oblivious to the enormous growth that is to occur in this city in the coming decades both points N.E. and West you simply insist "7th Ave will NEVER need to be grade separated." This is the glossing over I refer to, it would seem any discussion of a Centre Street subway is deserving on the longest term strategic thinking, while anything not advancing that goal isn't.

Am I willing to bet the Calgary of 1,500,000 people will be adequately served by the 202 at the maximum theoretical capacity of 7th ave today? Absolutely Not!

The goal is to increase the modal share of trips made by C-Train right?

And most of the delays are caused by people holding the doors open and causing the trains to fall out of sync with the traffic lights.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. The way I see it is that with a failure of 301 congestion on Deerfoot would be twice as bad current and the residents north of would be demanding LRT for relief. Because the 301 has fail it indications that the Centre St is not a good area for ridership. (Remember this is complete failure of 301 both north and south of Beddington and I don't see a scenario were 301 is failing and 3 is a booming success) This would make the indication that Centre st ridership would not justify increasing service levels and they are adequate. (Never fully understood why some people will ride LRT but refuse to take the bus)

I think your missing some words, I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph

The point is to be a rapid transit solution not a milk run so you can walk to any point of centre st for a station in under 3 minutes.

I don't disagree with that, but there is a happy medium.

And I haven't really advocated TOD, as I don't see it as a reason to build the Subway. Doing TOD's around stations, go ahead but to think your going to have a continuous string of TOD is nuts. If anything I've been arguing against the idea of TOD. We can rehash this in 20 years after we see how successful Brentwood, Motel Village, Chinook and Westwood TODs are. But if we need to advocate TOD get it build, sure I'll do it, but I reserve the right to change my mind after it's build. If we get to the point were TOD's have grown so big they are budding up to each other, we can explore other options like street-cars. Keep the Subway fast.

And you further lose me here, if not intensification what is the point? I can understand why proponents would favour the Centre Street LRT as an avenue to intensification, but without it we just seem to be as building a subway for the sake of building a subway.

IMHO those spacings are to short. Also remember stations lengths can be anywhere between 100 metres to 150 metres. So putting stations 800 metres apart is too close. Minimum should be 1.2 km so that the half way point is a minimum of 600 metres. So my station locations are between 10th and 12th, 24th, somewhere between 32nd and 40th, Between Mcknight and Northland road, near Thorncliff rec-centre, Beddington. 6 stations max not the 8 your thinking, (Assuming Beddington didn't make your list). I don't see a reason to have a station at 16th ave. If the density is that large, build an underground plus 15 so that you can enter it anywhere between those stations and increase pedestrian traffic flow.

Keep in mind because it's a major road artery it doesn't make it a good station location. No bus travels across centre st at McKnight, 24th, 12th no (2 and 17 run to it then south), and 64th(32 runs to it, and then north). 40th yes, Beddington there a bus terminal at 78th which is a stones throw away.

Me and fusili were just going for landmarks, and both in the context (presumably) of intensification. And I didn't exclude any since I don't believe it would be built past 64th ave.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Am I willing to bet the Calgary of 1,500,000 people will be adequately served by the 202 at the maximum theoretical capacity of 7th ave today? Absolutely Not!

I'll take that bet as I've already argued 202 limiting capacity is 36th st not 7th ave.

And as crazy as this sounds, if 203 (SELRT and Centre st is built with no at grade crossings) and is able to do 1 minute or less headways with 5 car length trains, then interline north of Beddington, through Aurora Business park, Airport and then through the airport tunnel to the 202 where it will interline (assuming same tech) and attempt to reduce load on 202. They want to build a station at the airport anyways and this would be cheaper then burying 7th ave and as a bonus connect NC with NE.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I think your missing some words, I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph
Is this better.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And you further lose me here, if not intensification what is the point? I can understand why proponents would favour the Centre Street LRT as an avenue to intensification, but without it we just seem to be as building a subway for the sake of building a subway.

Quality of service. More places near the stations, Doesn't mean every place has to be walkable distance.
Speed, will be way faster then Nose Creek(NC). Subway would have similar top speed to NC and my 6 stations vs 5 (not including Aurora Business Park, 6 including) It takes about 200 metres to get to 80km/h and another 200 to go from 80 to 0. So for anywhere between 800 and 1200 metres it goes top speed. And being able to operate the track section at high speed will never be faster than not having to do the extra distance.
The fact that interlining at the zoo could be devastating to the NE line in terms of capacity. As soon as you start talking burying 7th, Centre st Subway becomes a lot more reasonable. And look that maximum practical headway through a 7th ave tunnel would be 2 minutes, which means as a NE and NC train can't exist in the same time and space which means 30 trains pass Zoo station an hour, (30-X) trains pass max bell and X trains pass the new science centre. Would that be ok past the 1.5 million mark? Doubt it. And now what do you do, you already buried 7th.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Me and fusili were just going for landmarks, and both in the context (presumably) of intensification. And I didn't exclude any since I don't believe it would be built past 64th ave.

I don't get this, you go have stations about 800 metres apart to 3.5 KM. Harvest Hills to Northe Pointe is on 2 KM.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. The way I see it is that with a failure of 301 congestion on Deerfoot would be twice as bad current and the residents north of would be demanding LRT for relief. Because the 301 has fail it indications that the Centre St is not a good area for ridership. (Remember this is complete failure of 301 both north and south of Beddington and I don't see a scenario were 301 is failing and 3 is a booming success) This would make the indication that Centre st ridership would not justify increasing service levels and they are adequate. (Never fully understood why some people will ride LRT but refuse to take the bus)





The point is to be a rapid transit solution not a milk run so you can walk to any point of centre st for a station in under 3 minutes.
And I haven't really advocated TOD, as I don't see it as a reason to build the Subway. Doing TOD's around stations, go ahead but to think your going to have a continuous string of TOD is nuts. If anything I've been arguing against the idea of TOD. We can rehash this in 20 years after we see how successful Brentwood, Motel Village, Chinook and Westwood TODs are. But if we need to advocate TOD get it build, sure I'll do it, but I reserve the right to change my mind after it's build. If we get to the point were TOD's have grown so big they are budding up to each other, we can explore other options like street-cars. Keep the Subway fast.


IMHO those spacings are to short. Also remember stations lengths can be anywhere between 100 metres to 150 metres. So putting stations 800 metres apart is too close. Minimum should be 1.2 km so that the half way point is a minimum of 600 metres. So my station locations are between 10th and 12th, 24th, somewhere between 32nd and 40th, Between Mcknight and Northland road, near Thorncliff rec-centre, Beddington. 6 stations max not the 8 your thinking, (Assuming Beddington didn't make your list). I don't see a reason to have a station at 16th ave. If the density is that large, build an underground plus 15 so that you can enter it anywhere between those stations and increase pedestrian traffic flow.

Keep in mind because it's a major road artery it doesn't make it a good station location. No bus travels across centre st at McKnight, 24th, 12th no (2 and 17 run to it then south), and 64th(32 runs to it, and then north). 40th yes, Beddington there a bus terminal at 78th which is a stones throw away.

A half mile, or 800 meters, is pretty well standard for subway lines. The entire point of going underground is to have close station spacing while being able to maintain rapid speeds.

I'd plan the line with stations at 8 Ave, 16 Ave, 24 Ave, 32 Ave, McKnight, Northmount, 64 Ave, 72 Ave, Beddington Boulevard, 96 Ave, and Country Village. 32 Ave, Northmount, and 72 Ave could be built at a later date when more of the corridor has come into its own.