Calgary Public Transit II

[frinkprof]

2010 Q4 APTA ridership report is out.

Average weekday ridership for LRT is up about 6% over previous quarter to 267 500. Bus ridership also up to 246 900.

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2010_q4_ridership_APTA.pdf

[mersar]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

I hope they aren't intending to do this with every station... There are few stations that can be closed without a lot of disruption.

As for why.... maybe the heavy rail tracks? Otherwise the station is surrounded by some greenspace and its own park-and-ride. Particularly since they're only tearing up half the platform last I heard.

Sounds like its due to how the stations were constructed. From what I've been told since yesterday they need to do a lot of jack hammering and such to actually demolish the platform, unlike Whitehorn where they could just life the platform segments up off their footings, as the south stations were mostly all poured in place. You have to remember, Southland was one of the first stations, and even in the couple years between the south and NE legs, they figured out how to build the stations a bit better.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Well there is a large problem with what you said. There is no 16th ave BRT. And the nice thing about BRT is that it can be routed on to12th ave or ran on 20/24th ave for a short while to get to a station.

Second problem is that NW LRT will take you pretty close to Foothills hospital. And 16th ave BRT will likely run by Loins Gate Station anyways. 16th ave isn't amazingly fast so transferring downtown and at Loins would likely be faster then riding through downtown and transferring at 16th. (Assuming your going to Foothills)

I would only agree with you if there was a LRT or another subway running down 16th that could not be rerouted.

16th Avenue BRT is planned. Not funded of course, but it is in the long range BRT plan. You can't run it down 24th or 20th mostly because there is no ROW capacity, but also because they won't go anywhere. 16th Avenue is adjacent to SAIT, all the commercial on 16th and Foothills, to name a few. 20th and 24th are adjacent to single detached houses.

And yes the 16th avenue BRT will run close to Lions Park, but by your reasoning a person travelling from the northern hills area will have to take the NCLRT downtown, transfer to the NW LRT, go north, transfer to the 16th Avenue BRT and then get to the foothills. If the station is on 16th there is one transfer.

NW LRT takes you nowhere close to Foothills Hospital, that is the problem.

[frinkprof]

^Unfortunately I haven't had time to dive into the the meat of the NCLRT debate (although I do have some thoughts on the matter), but I have to concur with fusili on this point. Not really sure where you're going with your arguments re: 16th Ave. Koolfire. 16th/Centre is the major intersection and activity hub in that vicinity and is already a bit of a transfer hub and major stop. Intentionally offsetting any rapid transit stop a few blocks north or south doesn't provide any value to compensate for whatever you lose by having people walk to the activity and connections near 16th/Centre.

Think Chinook Station being a few blocks over from MacLeod and the mall, except in that case there was a little bit of benefit in that the south line followed the CP right of way, whereas no such situation exists for the north central corridor.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by fusili

16th Avenue BRT is planned. Not funded of course, but it is in the long range BRT plan. You can't run it down 24th or 20th mostly because there is no ROW capacity, but also because they won't go anywhere. 16th Avenue is adjacent to SAIT, all the commercial on 16th and Foothills, to name a few. 20th and 24th are adjacent to single detached houses.

And yes the 16th avenue BRT will run close to Lions Park, but by your reasoning a person travelling from the northern hills area will have to take the NCLRT downtown, transfer to the NW LRT, go north, transfer to the 16th Avenue BRT and then get to the foothills. If the station is on 16th there is one transfer.

NW LRT takes you nowhere close to Foothills Hospital, that is the problem.

First off you said SE not Northern Hills.

Second, the my understanding is the ROW on 24 is larger then usual as it was meant to be a expressway at one point.

Third, I'm not talking running it on 24 all the way, just from 4th ST NW to Centre and back to 16th, or Edmonton trail to centre and back to 16th. 4 blocks.

As for 16th ave BRT being planned. It's dubious. 305 runs where it would past shaganappi and to the east past centre st it could only see it running to Edmonton trail as past that, there is 6th street and nothing more. I'm not sure what the routing after that would be.

As for your last point, I didn't mean that NW takes you close to Foothills, I meant it that the 16th BRT would stop at Loins Gate. So a passenger coming out of downtown would likely be able to hop onto the BRT either on the same bus or the ahead of the passenger gets on at Centre.

As for Northhill residents see below

Originally Posted by frinkprof

^Unfortunately I haven't had time to dive into the the meat of the NCLRT debate (although I do have some thoughts on the matter), but I have to concur with fusili on this point. Not really sure where you're going with your arguments re: 16th Ave. Koolfire. 16th/Centre is the major intersection and activity hub in that vicinity and is already a bit of a transfer hub and major stop. Intentionally offsetting any rapid transit stop a few blocks north or south doesn't provide any value to compensate for whatever you lose by having people walk to the activity and connections near 16th/Centre.

Think Chinook Station being a few blocks over from MacLeod and the mall, except in that case there was a little bit of benefit in that the south line followed the CP right of way, whereas no such situation exists for the north central corridor.

Um, no. I know it looks nice on a map, but no. There is one and a half routes that run across 16th at centre which are 19 and the 119 that runs almost the same route as 19. The problem is that the headways would indicate that it is not well used at all. 19 and 119 both has weekday (all day) 40 minute headway so there is one bus crossing centre once every 20 minutes.

I don't really have anything against 16th ave station other then the close proximity of 8th and 24th stations. I would much rather just have 2 then 3.

I would like to challenge Calgary Transit that after North Central ready to go, to produce a map and a plan that includes the last 2 legs left, East-East (ie 17th ave LRT) and Southwest (ie MRU) and 2 ring routes, one at 5-7 km from core and second 11-13 km from core. The reasoning is different both rings and they could be built in sections with a long term goal. The one 6 km out is to connect the different lines to each other to allow transfers outside of downtown. The one at 12 km out would be because that gaps between lines get enormous out at that range. So for fusili, I would argue that a Northern Hills passenger going to foothills they would transfer to the ring and likely stay on the ring as it would pass pretty close to Foothills hospital.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Um, no. I know it looks nice on a map, but no. There is one and a half routes that run across 16th at centre which are 19 and the 119 that runs almost the same route as 19. The problem is that the headways would indicate that it is not well used at all. 19 and 119 both has weekday (all day) 40 minute headway so there is one bus crossing centre once every 20 minutes.

I don't really have anything against 16th ave station other then the close proximity of 8th and 24th stations. I would much rather just have 2 then 3.

Oh I see part of issue now. You think there should be a station at 24th Ave, and furthermore that there should be one there and not one at 16th Avenue. To keep it brief, I simply disagree and haven't the foggiest clue why anyone would come up with that idea.

Regarding your response to my comment of "already a bit of a transfer hub and major stop," I guess I should have maybe put "major stop" ahead of "transfer hub" and placed more emphasis on the words "bit of." I agree that there isn't much transferring done there, but it's a hell of a lot more than occurs at 12th, 20th, 24th or any other avenue that you've proposed stops for. 16th is a major stop on the 301 and 3 routes. Lots of people on and off, and again, lots more than 12th, 20th, 24th avenues.

Furthermore, 16th Avenue, especially around the intersections at Centre Street and Edmonton Trail has the potential to grow into a much larger activity center and trip generator than 12th, 20th and 24th Avenues. It already is. Now, I actually in (sort of) agreement with Policy Wonk that the "tool for intensification" angle as an argument for the Centre Street route isn't the best, but the 16th Ave./Centre Street station transcends that a bit I think because it already is a sizeable activity centre and will grow in density with or without a subway. Frankly, I'm amazed that someone would scoff at putting a station there.

One more thing, and please don't take this as an insult, and it isn't tied in any way to my above points, but you habitually misname an misspell Lion's Park as "Loins Gate." Unfortunately, a spell checker wouldn't help in this case, as "loins" is actually a word. Again, I don't mean that as an insult, but I think it bears pointing out.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Oh I see part of issue now. You think there should be a station at 24th Ave, and furthermore that there should be one there and not one at 16th Avenue. To keep it brief, I simply disagree and haven't the foggiest clue why anyone would come up with that idea.

Regarding your response to my comment of "already a bit of a transfer hub and major stop," I guess I should have maybe put "major stop" ahead of "transfer hub" and placed more emphasis on the words "bit of." I agree that there isn't much transferring done there, but it's a hell of a lot more than occurs at 12th, 20th, 24th or any other avenue that you've proposed stops for. 16th is a major stop on the 301 and 3 routes. Lots of people on and off, and again, lots more than 12th, 20th, 24th avenues.

Furthermore, 16th Avenue, especially around the intersections at Centre Street and Edmonton Trail has the potential to grow into a much larger activity center and trip generator than 12th, 20th and 24th Avenues. It already is. Now, I actually in (sort of) agreement with Policy Wonk that the "tool for intensification" angle as an argument for the Centre Street route isn't the best, but the 16th Ave./Centre Street station transcends that a bit I think because it already is a sizeable activity centre and will grow in density with or without a subway. Frankly, I'm amazed that someone would scoff at putting a station there.

I don't see 16th and Centre being the centre of intensification. I see it a primarily south of it and that's why I prefer it closer to 12th. To me it street feels more pedestrian friendly. 16th ave with it's small sidewalks close to heavy traffic and lack of green makes me. The south side of the street isn't bad but the north side is awful.

As for everyone getting off 301 at 16th, well that's the only stop between 40th and downtown. I'd be curious to see what a passenger survey would say to the stop being moved a block or two north or south. I'm not sure what to say about 3 though.

And I use 12th as it's as it was in between 16th and 8th. But really if the actual spot turns out to be 14th ave, I wouldn't mind that, and at that point we're talking 100 metres from end of station to 16th.

[MalcolmTucker]

A big issue with stops much earlier than 16th Ave is how deep the station will be. A 150m box (which is what is currently envisioned with low floor LRT) is expensive enough just below grade, the deeper you go the costs in both capital and ongoing maintenance appreciate markedly.

As for intensification, it makes sense that 16th and Centre would be the centre of intensification. It is easier to justify investments where there is already some investment. Easier to get zoning where there is already some intensity (from the 16th Ave ARP/ corridor plan whatever it is called). People like activity, and if they want to walk a couple extra blocks they can live somewhere with a more suburban visage.

As for spacing, it is approximately 2 km from 16th Ave N to 4th Ave S, with the dividing line of 1 km just between 6th and 7th Ave N. It isn't unreasonable that some people will have to walk (either direct to downtown or up to 16th). People will walk further for rail transit (there was a study some years backs that had walker intercepts at one of the NE stations and the average distance walked was over 600m, and may have even been more in my recollection). Otherwise people can take the local bus.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A big issue with stops much earlier than 16th Ave is how deep the station will be. A 150m box (which is what is currently envisioned with low floor LRT) is expensive enough just below grade, the deeper you go the costs in both capital and ongoing maintenance appreciate markedly.


As for spacing, it is approximately 2 km from 16th Ave N to 4th Ave S, with the dividing line of 1 km just between 6th and 7th Ave N. It isn't unreasonable that some people will have to walk (either direct to downtown or up to 16th). People will walk further for rail transit (there was a study some years backs that had walker intercepts at one of the NE stations and the average distance walked was over 600m, and may have even been more in my recollection). Otherwise people can take the local bus.

Exactly! There shouldn't be a station before 16thave. It will do the Crescent Heights students good to walk 5 blocks from 16th. Second off, if there was a station at 10th ave it would only be 500m from 16th!

Having a station at 10th would increase the commuter time from the Northern Hills and increase the cost significantly.

Plus, most people living in the Crescent Heights community could walk to downtown as Kyle said.

[frinkprof]

Airdrie's Transit system, including the Intercity Express (ICE) routes will be making some service changes in April. Perhaps the biggest change is that there will now be a shared Park and Ride facility at the Rob Ebbeson arena that the 901 ICE route will service. Changes to the 3 local routes and 2 ICE routes are detailed here:

http://www.airdrie.ca/transit/PubConsult_posterboard_All_web2.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, don't forget that Calgary's own Spring Service Changes take effect tomorrow (March 14th):

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/spring_service_revisions_2011.html

[Ferreth]

I did a little math based on elevations reported by Google Earth. Assuming a maximum 7% grade, and no need to go under the river by more than a few meters, the line could be back to cut'n cover by about 10th Ave - a good location for a station if the density of the area is encouraged to increase. I was looking at spacings in London and New York - pretty much follow the model of our LRT where closer in, the spacings get tighter. The spacings I was seeing were typically 600-700m, with a few stations in the core down to 400-500m. I don't see the big deal of having one station "extra" close in to support some good density.

Tunnelling under the Bow River is going to be expensive. I wonder how much cheaper it would be to bring the train to ground level at Eau Claire, and then go up over Prince's Island, then shallow tunnel in the hill to get to Centre street? I doubt it would ever fly politically, even though I think a nice bridge could look really cool without disrupting the rest of the park as it would be on the very east side of the used area of the park.

[frinkprof]

^I believe maximum grade for LRT is typically 6%. I don't think it differs for low floor trains. They had to max out the grade to get the LRT to ground level from the deep station under the University in Edmonton for the south LRT line.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

I did a little math based on elevations reported by Google Earth. Assuming a maximum 7% grade, and no need to go under the river by more than a few meters, the line could be back to cut'n cover by about 10th Ave - a good location for a station if the density of the area is encouraged to increase. I was looking at spacings in London and New York - pretty much follow the model of our LRT where closer in, the spacings get tighter. The spacings I was seeing were typically 600-700m, with a few stations in the core down to 400-500m. I don't see the big deal of having one station "extra" close in to support some good density.

Calgary is not London or New York. The purpose of this LRT is to act as both an inner city subway and commuter train...I use the word lightly. We have to consider the travel time of the suburbian Northern Hills residents as well. Where as London and New York have actual heavy commuter trains to bring in people from far away suburbs. If you look at the CRP transit plan it shows the NC LRT going all the way to Airdrie (Which I think is stupid)

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Tunnelling under the Bow River is going to be expensive. I wonder how much cheaper it would be to bring the train to ground level at Eau Claire, and then go up over Prince's Island, then shallow tunnel in the hill to get to Centre street? I doubt it would ever fly politically, even though I think a nice bridge could look really cool without disrupting the rest of the park as it would be on the very east side of the used area of the park.

I would probably be a lot cheaper but the only problem is you still have to tunnel under houses by centre street and 6thave NW, unless you want a sharper curve from Centre street to 2nd street. It's a good idea but a study needs to be done to really determine the logistics of it all.

[suburb]

I think this is a good move. As an aside, this will look quite different when Airport Trail is complete.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/route_maps/rte100.html

[You Need A Thneed]

The opening of Metis Trail and Airport Trail through the tunnel will make that route so much better.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Calgary is not London or New York. The purpose of this LRT is to act as both an inner city subway and commuter train...I use the word lightly. We have to consider the travel time of the suburbian Northern Hills residents as well. Where as London and New York have actual heavy commuter trains to bring in people from far away suburbs. If you look at the CRP transit plan it shows the NC LRT going all the way to Airdrie (Which I think is stupid)

The two do have some conflict - LRT as a commuter train is okay, but too many stops close in. LRT as a subway replacment is okay, but the stops are a little far apart to fully serve some areas. I'd build an extra stop south of 16th and eliminate one north of 16th if I really wanted to provide overall better service to the 'burbs.

I think the best of both worlds would be to build a commuter train using the current CPR ROW into downtown with a station at 96th Ave and a bus network feeding that - no stops until downtown; other than perhaps an eventual Inglewood stop for a connection to a SE line. It could be extended to Airdrie some day as well, with an eventual upgrade to HSR to Edmonton. The Centre St. subway would connect to 96th Ave as a terminus, many years in the future. The intial build would be cheap, with the savings being put towards starting a Centre St. subway. People mover to the Airport would connect to this 96th St station as well.

[UofC.engineer]

I agree with your commuter rail proposal parallel to the CRP tracks but I think we are forgetting two important things:

1. The area north of Stoney Trail and Harvest Hills Blvd has been identified as a major growth corridor in future years, so it doesn't really make sense to end the NC LRT at 96th ave.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/g...t+study/North+Regional+Context+Study.htm


2. The neighborhood of Crecsent Heights is only 1.5km^2 in area(excuse the matlab notation for the power sign) and currently has 6000 people.

Tuxedo park, Mount Pleasent and Winston Heights have a combined population of about 13000 and more area for future densification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Heights,_Calgary

One might argue Rosedale and Renfrew residents could use a station south of
16th but these neighborhoods are walking distance(except Renfrew) from downtown and are boardered by 16th ave on the north(people could take the bus to 16th ave station if they don't like walking to downtown).

Before replying to my comment go on google earth and take a look at the situation...then comment again. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but just have a good look the the whole area north of the bow.

[DarkKeyo]

Regarding 16th Ave:

Route 19 and 119 may have horrible frequency, but I've never figured out why, other than the sheer traffic and car-oriented development discouraging people from using it... I would use it more if it offered frequency. It's a crosstown route, it hits SAIT and Foothills, Centre St and Sunridge. It's useful.

People here have always talked about 16th as a potential rapid transit corridor, and now the City has put a BRT there on their network plan. We won't know more until they hold the open house for that route, but you can't ignore it.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I agree with your commuter rail proposal parallel to the CRP tracks but I think we are forgetting two important things:

1. The area north of Stoney Trail and Harvest Hills Blvd has been identified as a major growth corridor in future years, so it doesn't really make sense to end the NC LRT at 96th ave.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/g...t+study/North+Regional+Context+Study.htm


2. The neighborhood of Crecsent Heights is only 1.5km^2 in area(excuse the matlab notation for the power sign) and currently has 6000 people.

Tuxedo park, Mount Pleasent and Winston Heights have a combined population of about 13000 and more area for future densification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Heights,_Calgary

One might argue Rosedale and Renfrew residents could use a station south of
16th but these neighborhoods are walking distance(except Renfrew) from downtown and are boardered by 16th ave on the north(people could take the bus to 16th ave station if they don't like walking to downtown).

Before replying to my comment go on google earth and take a look at the situation...then comment again. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but just have a good look the the whole area north of the bow.

I think you and me are looking at different beasts for what a Centre street subway should be. I'm looking at it as serving the inner city with more stops, you are looking at it as all-in-one solution to inner city and 'burb service. I don't think you're wrong to look at it as an all in one 'burb/inner city service either, it's been successful so far for LRT.

Your points about 96th not being a good terminus are valid - at some point service needs to be extended up the ROW on Harvest Hills. However, I'd be looking at building the Nose Creek "express" into downtown, it's going to be cheap compared to the subway, and I think would get built before a subway managed to make it to 96th Ave. I would be looking to run it down the CP ROW into downtown, at this point I think there is time to plan for the room to have 6 tracks, but I'm not sure. 96th Ave would be a transfer point for those wanting a stop/transfer in the north end on the subway before DT.

I'm looking at a Google Earth map right now - just looking at the potential development area 600m around a 10th St station, I see the area from 10 o'clock to about 7 o'clock being somewhat limited by the high school and topography for development. Is this what you are referring to? Other than that, I see the whole area between Centre and Edmonton Trail turning into a 3-5 story apartment kind of area especially since you can already walk to DT if you're up for a longer walk.

I'm also assuming people are quite lazy. While I would walk DT from that area in a heartbeat, and I suspect many people who buy there now would too, I think you would get more people in if they had a subway within 250m, diminishing returns further out from there. Doesn't Calgary transit use a 600m radius for what it considers walking distance to a station?

I mentioned several pages back in this debate that I don't think a NC subway is going to work until there is some more density to support the stations along the line - the only area even starting in that direction right now is Crescent Heights - there would need to be more here, and north of 16th to build "phase 1" of this line, which I would see as being only as far as roughly 24th Ave, using 800 m station spacings north of 16th. Phase II - 32nd, 41st, McKnight, 56th, 64th Ave, Phase III to 96th, not necessarily along Centre all the way to Beddington Tr for that one.

Timing wise, I could see commuter to 96th Ave in about 10 years, subway up Centre is all dependent on getting density up first, but likely even phase I would be 10+ years out.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Regarding 16th Ave:

Route 19 and 119 may have horrible frequency, but I've never figured out why, other than the sheer traffic and car-oriented development discouraging people from using it... I would use it more if it offered frequency. It's a crosstown route, it hits SAIT and Foothills, Centre St and Sunridge. It's useful.
[...]

Agreed - Don't forget it terminates at the U of C. Friends of mine used to live in Mayland Heights specifically because they could rent cheap there and still be to school faster than the people doing the bus/LRT transfer. The 19 is actually quite direct, for a bus.