Calgary Public Transit II

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by 93JC

It totally sucks for me. I live in North Glenmore, and by the looks of it all of my possible routes to downtown are being nuked save for the 63 Lakeview express (which runs very infrequently)

The 7 won't go to the west side of downtown anymore, which means I'd have to take it downtown and walk or catch a train. The 18 won't go north of MRU. The 107 won't go by North Glenmore at all anymore.

It looks like I'd have to walk to 50th Ave and catch a #13 or catch a BRT bus to Westbrook Station.

Absolutely brutal for the community. I'd probably drive downtown if this plan went through. Parking is only $10-11 for the day and driving is 2-3 times faster as it is, let alone the extra walking or transfers I'd have to make. $5-7 per day in transportation costs over taking the bus would be well worth it, given the extra hour (at least!) I'd save in commute time.

I know. My family only has one car, so my wife keeps it, and I take transit to my work in Inglewood. I take 2 buses in each direction (one to downtown, and then one to Inglewood), which is fine, but if I will have to now take 6 buses per day (3 in each direction) or 4 buses and 2 trains, I think the plan to get another car might actually have to happen now. I am going to the open house in June.

[Boris2k7]

For those in the deep south, the city is holding workshops for the Fish Creek/Lacombe station area plan on June 21st and 22nd. Registration deadline is June 10th.

http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2011/05/tod-wants-your-opinion-on-fish-creek.html

[Wooster]

So the Mayor's Innovation Fund project for an airport-downtown BRT was passed by Council tonight. Route will start by Stampede.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Wooster

So the Mayor's Innovation Fund project for an airport-downtown BRT was passed by Council tonight. Route will start by Stampede.

Sorry if I've missed this, but is there a map of the route anywhere?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Sorry if I've missed this, but is there a map of the route anywhere?

there is in the council agenda attachments.

For now:
Airport Trail - Deerfoot - 64th Ave - Centre Street

Next year, with the opening of 96th Ave west of Deerfoot:
Airport Trail - Centre Street

[DizzyEdge]

^^^ just curious how many blocks away the downtown stop is from major hotels.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

^^^ just curious how many blocks away the downtown stop is from major hotels.

the document calls the downtown route, "the hotel loop."

EDIT: looking it up...

4th Ave - 5th Street - 9th Ave - McLeod Trail loop.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

the document calls the downtown route, "the hotel loop."

EDIT: looking it up...

4th Ave - 5th Street - 9th Ave - McLeod Trail loop.

Ok sweet, yeah that would be pretty convenient.

[nick.flood]

delete

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

Should be great for airport workers, and travelers on short trips, but how well will the bus handle luggage?

Normal buses worked just fine for Vancouver before the Canada Line, and for Toronto now. When we start providing a premium level of service, you need to start charging premium fares. Plus, why edge in on the private sector's turf.

[Stang]

After hearing about this morning's electrical problem at Bridgeland, I was wondering: If the outbound line is working just fine, why not switch the inbound trains to the that track to ensure that rush hour commuters by pass the issue and the lower volume outbound traffic can utilize the shuttles?

Obviously, I know nothing about how feasible this would be. Perhaps this is an argument for some additional switches along the route to allow for easier bypassing of unforeseen problems like this (but, of course, that adds maintenance costs to the system). Do other LRT/subway systems have the ability to switch tracks to make better use of lesser-used capacity in the other direction during peak time emergencies? Is this simply too unsafe to try?

[Stang]

^ Of course, now I read that it is in both directions. I swear that I read earlier that it was only inbound trains that were delayed by it. But the original question remains - is there a more ewfficient way to deal with major outages like this?

[suburb]

Even if one side was alright, the trains in both direction are physically the same ones (do out to the end of the line, and then turn around). They don't get produced by glacier melt!

[Stang]

Originally Posted by suburb

Even if one side was alright, the trains in both direction are physically the same ones (do out to the end of the line, and then turn around). They don't get produced by glacier melt!

You are quite right. I just wonder whether there would be a way to utilize the open side (assuming that is/was one - not necessarily in this case) without completely shutting down traffic in both directions. Although it would delay things, could both directions use the same line through the trouble spot and then switch back onto their proper lines? I'm guessing not, or they would've done that, but what are the limiting factors? Is the trouble spot too long due to a lack of switches? Would the delays to the rest of the system (trains queuing up) be more of a headache than simply running shuttle buses? Dispatching/safety nightmare?

I guess I'm just trying to think of a way that one electrical wire doesn't shut down the inbound line for thousands of commuters during rush hour. But perhaps that's just a side effect of our type of system.

[frinkprof]

Reminder about the North Central LRT open houses coming up this week:

Wednesday May 25, 2011(4pm – 8pm)
Location: Cardel Place
11950 Country Village Link NE (lobby area)

Thursday May 26, 2011 (4pm – 8pm)
Location: Winston Heights Community Association
520-27 Ave NE (main hall)

Saturday May 28, 2011 (10am – 2pm)
Location: Huntington Hills Community Association
520-78 Ave NW (main hall)

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/north_central_lrt_oh_2011.html

If you can't make it, you can e-mail your comments to [email protected]

I heard that they will be looking to create a group made up of members of nearby communities for further consultation meetings after this round of open houses. If you're interested in that, you may want to bring it up if you attend the open houses next week.

[outoftheice]

Article in the Herald regarding the upcoming NC LRT open houses. It's encouraging to see the discussion starting although I find the attitude displayed by the City's transit planning manager slightly concerning... The points made are valid but the way those concerns are presented by the City are going to be key in these discussions and I don't think we're off to a good start...

To imagine construction woes for a north LRT route, think of the west LRT project tearing up 17th Avenue, and “just consider magnifying that by about two or three,” transit planning manager Neil McKendrick said.

“Is that the kind of disruption you want in your community for two or three years, as well as have a rather large bill attached with that?” McKendrick said.

City launches discussion of north-central LRT route options
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/City+launch...options/4828196/story.html#ixzz1NEvwT17y

[MalcolmTucker]

A better comparison is Cambie St where they cut and covered, but yeah. They certainly wouldn't have the land to do it in the style of cut and cover adjacent to 17 Ave SW. Traffic would be much worse, compressed to at least three lanes, and in tighter spots 2 for most of the route, with one side of the street not having street access for at least 18 months, more likely 2 years minimum.

It would be messy, that is for sure. For those that would suggest boring, you still need huge station boxes dug out, so if you are adding a bunch of choke points, may as well choke the whole route. Plus boring would be more expensive unless some unknown geology really helped out.

Goal has to be to reduce the underground length as much as possible to reduce cost and perhaps disruption. Might be able to squeeze in an elevated guideway in a 'centre lane' by removing street parking, removing grass between the sidewalk and street, and taking parts of people's front yards as necessary north of 16th Ave at some point. Depending on height, a central guideway should have way less shadowing on private property than many property owners would reflexively expect due to the orientation of the line.

Everything is trade offs of course, but it is important to remember every project will cause opposition if it creates change in a community.

As for the transportation planning managers quote, at least they are being honest with the community, and if the entire city decides this is the way to go, then we will have made the decision with eyes open. I wouldn't expect anything less from breaucrats that are being forced to do these consultations by their political operatives. In the long run, it might make sense to replace that person with a more transit evangelist persona, who is both realistic and can see the vision of the future, not a person who is tied to the great wonders of 'old Calgary Transit' effective capital utilization model that ignores real world external costs and lost benefits from planning decisions made with only the capital budget in mind.

[DizzyEdge]

One comment on the 'Centre vs Edm Trail'.

I think south of McKnight that might be a valid comparison, but north of 64th Centre has ROW on either side, whereas "Edmonton Trail" (ie 4th st) ends up on the east edge of communities/industrua similar to the Nose Creek alignment around 60th, so I think whichever is chosen you'd want a Centre st alignment at or before 64th ave.

Otherwise kind of torn.
Looking at it purely from a 'encourage redevelopment' angle, I would say that Edmonton Trail south of 16th ave, and Centre north of 16th ave really could use some good redevelopment, and both of those sections have some turn of the century and later commercial and multifamily, but sporadic. Centre South of 16th ave is already pretty filled in with commercial, and Edmonton Tr north of 16th to Mcknight has only about 17 retail establishments in 3 kms, not including the blocks of industrial park.

Anyone know of any examples where the negatives of elevated track was more than made up for by increased development?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Might be able to squeeze in an elevated guideway in a 'centre lane' by removing street parking

Replace curb parking with centre-lane parking:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=philadelph...97,-75.223637&spn=0.000374,0.001742&z=20

[DizzyEdge]

How bout something like ... this.

Red = underground
Cyan = elevated
Yellow = at grade
Purple = unknown

I tried to use the route that would require the least number of buildings expropriated.






I only count about 37 properties that would need to be expropriated, and I bet most would not need to be torn down, they'd just lose half their back yards. Could the city actually expropriate just a say 20-30 ft of the back yard and pay the owners for the land if they wanted to remain there?

Also, arguably 36 ave to 60th ave could be at grade, at the cost of expropriating perhaps 17 additional small houses plus 1 medium multi family and 2 apartment blocks, or using the other side of 1st ST NE and expropriating 10 lots, only half of which would have buildings which would need to be fully or partially demolished (1st st could bend westward north of 40th ave to increas the ROW on the east side)

This could be an alternate middle portion: