Calgary Public Transit II

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by mersar

Someone on cptdb mentioned theres rumors floating around at CT that the station might be opened in March 2012.

I might see if I can go take some photos tonight if the lighting is on again, I haven't seen anything up there in person for quite some time and I've been meaning to go check it out.

If I had to guess, I'd say the start of the summer 'sign-up' is when revenue service would start. Would probably be handed over to CT for training and commissioning in the spring.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

On another note, nothing much has been done to demolish Olympic Plaza, or to finish the concrete alongside the buildings at City Hall WB. City Hall EB has been left in a temporary state that looks ready to be worked on as soon as they close it. And bits of work along 7th from 2nd St to City Hall suggest that most of the sidewalks, and a chunk of Centre St station, will be ripped up and upgraded after stampede.

Heavier work is most certainly set to commence as soon as the south side of City Hall Station closes again. The biggest thing that will be going on there is constructing the connection from the station platform to the City Hall building, under the existing +15.

Also on the Centre Street Station block, there will be work on the north side (right next to The Bow's South Block site) to put in new electrical connections for the new catenary poles.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Someone on cptdb mentioned theres rumors floating around at CT that the station might be opened in March 2012.

I might see if I can go take some photos tonight if the lighting is on again, I haven't seen anything up there in person for quite some time and I've been meaning to go check it out.

I can see the station opening up by then, mostly just track work to do. They would just have to turn it over to CT for testing by the new year, which seems doable. Stations and electrical substations are virtually done, trackwork is well underway (80% in place), tunnel under 64th is complete, they are working on the 2nd of 4 road crossings all should be done by Septemberish, I would think). Catenary poles and lines are the big things that haven't really started yet.

Speaking of Metis Trail/64th Ave, it appears that line painting is about the only thing left to do, then the 50km/h construction zone can finally be removed after nearly 3 years in place. Of course, lots of construction will still be going on just north of the intersection for the Metis Trail twinning and building.


Martindale station might have it's lights on too, it's just hard to tell, as the road is closed due to them putting in the trackwork across Martindale Blvd.

[frinkprof]

Northwest LRT station may be delayed as city eyes construction priorities


By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald July 16, 2011 8:28 AM

The northwest LRT extension to Tuscany and Rocky Ridge could be delayed by several years as council prepares to reshuffle its construction priority list and push ahead other projects the city currently can’t afford.

That planned new C-Train station, which will cost $80.6 million, was among the specific projects that at least one alderman is suggesting could move back in the to-do queue. Ald. Brian Pincott’s southwest ward, which has waited uncomfortably long without a ring-road leg, has its $43.6-million rapid busway project — a “dire need,” he said — sitting on the unfunded list that the city’s transportation committee will debate Wednesday.

[...]

With the 14th Street S.W. bus rapid transit project sharing space on the unfunded list with the newly approved cycling strategy’s upgrades, a $62-million scheme to fuel buses with natural gas, the debate will likely be rife with aldermen fighting for their ward-specific projects at the expense of others.

[...]

The Tuscany/Rocky Ridge LRT project has been funded since 2007, when then-mayor Dave Bronconnier pushed it through along with the west LRT and northeast train extensions, fulfilling an election pledge.

“It’s been delayed enough, in my opinion,” Hodges said of the Tuscany station, currently scheduled for a 2014 opening. The city has already secured the land clearance through the Crowchild Trail-Stoney Trail interchange for the project, and also closed down Rocky Ridge Road, spending roughly $20 million to date, he said.

Nenshi has openly questioned the 2007 council’s snap decision on the northwest and other LRT plans.

Ald. Andre Chabot, the transportation committee’s chairman, was non-committal on the fate of the extra station on the northwest line. “What was the highest priority yesterday may still not be the highest priority today,” he said.

Link to rest of the story

[MalcolmTucker]

While the NW LRT was the wrong decision, delaying it to put in place an operationally expensive stop gap in the SW before the real world changes are going to seen when we move to four cars operations on the south line would be an even greater mistake.

[freeweed]

I'm still not sure I understand why the NWLRT extension is such a controversy to some. It seems like a no-brainer to me to extend the existing LRT lines (it costs peanuts compared to the cost of a new line), and this particular station will see as much if not more traffic as many other existing stations. I think people underestimate the sheer size of the 3 neighbourhoods it's going to service - they just see 3 communities and assume low ridership. Some of the more inner city stations see hardly any use but no one argues against their existence.

I'd be curious to see actual numbers - is Tuscany station going to be the least utilized station in the system?

[mersar]

Far from it if I recall the estimated numbers, somewhere around 16,000 riders/day if I'm correct which should put it in the top 10 stations. I wish CT would put the station statistics back on the web site, I believe the worst stations were around 2000/day (being Barlow and the Zoo)

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by mersar

Far from it if I recall the estimated numbers, somewhere around 16,000 riders/day if I'm correct which should put it in the top 10 stations. I wish CT would put the station statistics back on the web site, I believe the worst stations were around 2000/day (being Barlow and the Zoo)

That 16 000 number seems pretty high from what I recall. I thought it was less than 10 000 as a projection.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by mersar

I wish CT would put the station statistics back on the web site.

I've asked them and nothing to date. Anyone ever filed a FOIP request with the city?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm still not sure I understand why the NWLRT extension is such a controversy to some. It seems like a no-brainer to me to extend the existing LRT lines (it costs peanuts compared to the cost of a new line), and this particular station will see as much if not more traffic as many other existing stations. I think people underestimate the sheer size of the 3 neighbourhoods it's going to service - they just see 3 communities and assume low ridership. Some of the more inner city stations see hardly any use but no one argues against their existence.

I'd be curious to see actual numbers - is Tuscany station going to be the least utilized station in the system?

Part of the issue is that, in an environment with limited funds available, the LRT is at a stage - and has been for quite awhile now - where funds should be going toward capacity expansion as opposed to service expansion. The Saddletown and Tuscany extensions (at least the first Tuscany opening date of 2011/2012) were prioritized before 4 car train implementation, as a start, and also before the 8th Avenue Subway. The West LRT was as well, but unlike Saddletown and Tuscany, it in no way strains the current system capacity, and in fact improves it by moving short-turning of the NE line to 69th Street instead of 10th Street where that function can be problematic in conjunction with the nearby interlocking with the NW line.

With Tuscany and Saddletown, the service is being extended, but it is to lines that have a very limited ability to take on extra ridership. The system is at capacity. In the absence of capacity improvements, any riders boarding at the new stations is not a ridership gain, they are simply riders that:

A. Used to get on at Crowfoot or McKnight-Westwinds
or
B. Will replace riders that will stop using the system because they can not rely on being able to board at existing stations further in (Lions Park or Franklin, for example)

The second case has been an issue for much longer and to a greater scale on the South line due to it being the busiest line with the most stations, however it is also becoming prevalent on the other two lines.

Also, your comment about inner city stations hardly seeing any use is more than legitimate in some cases. This would apply, in my mind, to the following:

Zoo
Barlow/Max Bell
Victoria-Park/Stampede (at least during weekday peak direction rush)
Erlton/Stampede
39th Avenue

These stations have never had the nearby trip generating uses and feeder bus traffic to make them busy at any time. However, I would say there is another category of inner city or mid-line station that sees lower ridership due to other reasons. The trip generators exist, but ridership has been stifled partly due to the unreliability of being able to board, due to the system being at capacity and the further-out stations having a monopoly on that limited peak-direction capacity. The stations that would fall in this category are:

Franklin
Bridgeland/Memorial (particularly in recent years, and in the future as The Bridges builds out)
Southland
Heritage
Chinook
Lions Park
Sunnyside
Banff Trail

All other stations are either downtown stations, the special cases of SAIT and University Stations (high ridership but largely not in the peak direction), or the stations toward the ends of lines that, as mentioned before monopolize the peak direction capacity. The Tuscany extension might actually move Brentwood into the category of a station where people can't rely on being able to board, and the Saddletown extension could do the same with Marlborough. If the South line were to be extended to Silverado and 210th Avenue as a result of being prioritzied ahead of capacity expansions, the same would happen at Anderson and Canyon Meadows Stations.

It's not just Tuscany either. Arguably, the funds spent on the Crowfoot, McKnight-Westwinds, Somerset-Bridlewood, Dalhousie and Fish Creek-Lacombe extensions, in that order, should have gone toward capacity extensions. Namely, 4 car train implementation and the 8th Avenue Subway.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Arguably, the funds spent on the Crowfoot, McKnight-Westwinds, Somerset-Bridlewood, Dalhousie and Fish Creek-Lacombe extensions, in that order, should have gone toward capacity extensions. Namely, 4 car train implementation and the 8th Avenue Subway.

Completely anecdotal, and I was a fairly new Calgarian at that point, but... Dalhousie was a sea change in how the NWLRT operated. It wasn't anywhere CLOSE to capacity (ie: requiring 4 car trains) when Dalhousie opened. Not by a long shot. And to be fair, the "other stations you can't get on the train" scenario only happens (and at that, sporadically) for an extremely brief period of time every day. Maybe 20-30 minutes tops during the busy rush, barring service disruptions. The increased headways in the past couple of years have really improved this problem. Hell, Crowfoot is easily in this category as well. Although much of that was serviced by express buses, so I guess if those are considered "transit inducing", then it could be argued that they were sufficient.

I dunno, I think 4 cars and the subway would have been entirely unnecessary before stations such as Dalhousie. Can't speak for the other lines as I ride them infrequently. Obviously it would have been nice to have a "head start" time wise on those improvements, but in terms of "bang for your buck"... again why I challenge the "Tuscany station is a bad idea" mindset.

Interesting comments otherwise. I'm not the only one curious about actual numbers obviously.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Completely anecdotal, and I was a fairly new Calgarian at that point, but... Dalhousie was a sea change in how the NWLRT operated. It wasn't anywhere CLOSE to capacity (ie: requiring 4 car trains) when Dalhousie opened. Not by a long shot. And to be fair, the "other stations you can't get on the train" scenario only happens (and at that, sporadically) for an extremely brief period of time every day. Maybe 20-30 minutes tops during the busy rush, barring service disruptions. The increased headways in the past couple of years have really improved this problem. Hell, Crowfoot is easily in this category as well. Although much of that was serviced by express buses, so I guess if those are considered "transit inducing", then it could be argued that they were sufficient.

I dunno, I think 4 cars and the subway would have been entirely unnecessary before stations such as Dalhousie. Can't speak for the other lines as I ride them infrequently. Obviously it would have been nice to have a "head start" time wise on those improvements, but in terms of "bang for your buck"... again why I challenge the "Tuscany station is a bad idea" mindset.

Interesting comments otherwise. I'm not the only one curious about actual numbers obviously.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded, mainly which category you are referring to, and what you mean by "transit inducing."

Anyway, yeah I used the word "arguably" in the cases of those 2000s extensions. I think you could only really convincingly argue the last one or two, as the capacity crunch really started to present itself during the last boom. Considering the NE and NW extensions to Saddletown and Tuscany were approved when the capacity really started to be tested, I think it's that much easier to play them against each other as priorities.

One thing about your anecdotal observations though is that the NW line is not the busiest line. The south line is what will continue to be the determining factor for the need to provide expanded capacity, and is indeed what determined the need for those headway improvements you note (additional headway improvements can no longer be added without the 8th Avenue subway by the way). Your estimated window of 20-30 minutes (which you characterize as brief - I wouldn't, assuming it's accurate) would be longer on the south line.

Even though the extensions are being made to the NW and NE, the point still remains that, if funds are to be spent on transit, that capacity improvements (even if the need for them aren't entirely dictated by the NW and NE lines) should have been a higher priority than extensions to the NW and NE.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Not sure what you mean by the bolded, mainly which category you are referring to, and what you mean by "transit inducing."

I mean in the sense that the express buses were considered a "last resort" by people who would much prefer LRT service. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Express buses are people who are *forced* to take transit. LRT is something people seem to *enjoy* taking. LRT "induces" transit use. If we're wanting to "induce" transit, we should do everything we can to expand it to as many people as possible, that's all. As opposed to keeping people on buses and assuming it's enough.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Express buses are people who are *forced* to take transit. LRT is something people seem to *enjoy* taking. LRT "induces" transit use. If we're wanting to "induce" transit, we should do everything we can to expand it to as many people as possible, that's all. As opposed to keeping people on buses and assuming it's enough.

Yeah, I agree with that, divorced from the context of this discussion. Rail bias and all.

The issue becomes that, in the absence of added capacity, LRT is being expanded to people who won't be able to use it when they need to. More correctly, it's being expanded to the detriment of existing and potential riders along the existing system who can no longer use it when they need to.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Yeah, I agree with that, divorced from the context of this discussion. Rail bias and all.

The issue becomes that, in the absence of added capacity, LRT is being expanded to people who won't be able to use it when they need to. More correctly, it's being expanded to the detriment of existing and potential riders along the existing system who can no longer use it when they need to.

I totally agree here. Freeweed is right saying that the capacity issues really didn't exist (at least on the NW line) until Dalhousie opened. But they are very real today. Two friends of mine moved to Bridgeland about 5 years ago. They spent a week trying to get on the train, and each time waited more than 20 minutes to catch a train, sometimes more. They gave up and eventually moved away.

I agree with Frink in that capacity issues need to be addressed before expansions. 4 car trains are going to go a long way to help solve this. But I am going to be crazy here and say that the Stephan Avenue Subway should be delayed. Building the Stephan avenue subway means we get additional capacity on 2 lines. Building the 2nd street subway means we get two entirely new lines (SE and NC). The 2nd street subway will probably be more expensive, but in terms of the increased number of riders, I say it is a much larger benefit. The SE and NC will have catchments of approx 160K and 200K respectively, after the build-out of the areas under the north and southeast regional context studies.

[Ridge]

First post! I have to say I think further delaying the extension is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

First, many people currently boarding at Crowfoot are commuting by bus or care from Tuscany or Rocky Ridge. The extension will greatly increase the efficiency of public transit in the far NW as all the bus routes that trundle their way down to Crowfoot can run much shorter routes to the Tuscany station. The savings on bus routes will no doubt be significant - I remember this being an issue in Edmonton, where there was a station delay contemplated on the new South line, and the operating costs of bus routes alone was a deciding factor with pushing for an earlier opening. I'm not saying that it should be the deciding factor here, but efficient use of bus resource is at least relevant to the discussion, so I'm bringing it up.

Second, a lot of money has been invested in this extension already - a bridge across Stoney trail has been built, the storm sewers are currently being installed, etc. The fact that it's maybe 20% built already makes the NW extension by far the cheapest expansion of the transit network.

Third, the communities of Royal Oak and Rocky Ridge were promised a CTrain station in 2012 to soften the blow from the closure of the local access road to Crowchild that significantly increased bus and car commute times. That station's already been delayed. Further delay would be a frustrating example of the city talking out of both sides of its mouth when dealing with communities affected by near-term infrastructure planning, is unfair, and should be discouraged.

[Ridge]

I also think capacity issues on the NW line are a bit exaggerated. I lived in Brentwood for a year, and never had a problem catching the train except during Stampede. Perhaps I missed the 20 minute window, but I would typically be on the platforms at 7:30 and 4:30. Of course, sometimes you would have to stand, but standing-room only is not, in my view, a reason to delay a long-planned extension.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by fusili

I agree with Frink in that capacity issues need to be addressed before expansions. 4 car trains are going to go a long way to help solve this. But I am going to be crazy here and say that the Stephan Avenue Subway should be delayed. Building the Stephan avenue subway means we get additional capacity on 2 lines. Building the 2nd street subway means we get two entirely new lines (SE and NC). The 2nd street subway will probably be more expensive, but in terms of the increased number of riders, I say it is a much larger benefit. The SE and NC will have catchments of approx 160K and 200K respectively, after the build-out of the areas under the north and southeast regional context studies.

Oh, absolutely. Same with the West Line. The SE and North Central lines (well, at least the North Central routing that should be built - the one that doesn't interline with the Northeast line) don't strain the capacity of the existing system.

I should then clarify my position that line extensions to the existing system (South, Northwest, Northeast) should not be prioritized ahead of capacity improvements.

A lot of this argument is somewhat moot when speaking to the idea of further delaying the Tuscany extension though since 4 car trains will soon be implemented anyway. We should nevertheless be wary when discussions turn to extending to Skyview Ranch and Silverado.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Ridge

I also think capacity issues on the NW line are a bit exaggerated. I lived in Brentwood for a year, and never had a problem catching the train except during Stampede. Perhaps I missed the 20 minute window, but I would typically be on the platforms at 7:30 and 4:30. Of course, sometimes you would have to stand, but standing-room only is not, in my view, a reason to delay a long-planned extension.

As pointed out earlier, anecdotal evidence about capacity constraints on the northwest line are troublesome because the capacity allotment on the northwest line is dictated by the much busier south line, which is over capacity. The northwest line needs more capacity not because of ridership in the northwest, but because it is coupled with the south line, whose ridership creates a need for more capacity.

Welcome to the forum.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Ridge

First post! I have to say I think further delaying the extension is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

First, many people currently boarding at Crowfoot are commuting by bus or care from Tuscany or Rocky Ridge...

Second, a lot of money has been invested in this extension already - a bridge across Stoney trail has been built, the storm sewers are currently being installed, etc. The fact that it's maybe 20% built already makes the NW extension by far the cheapest expansion of the transit network.

Third, the communities of Royal Oak and Rocky Ridge were promised... That station's already been delayed. Further delay would be a frustrating example of the city talking out of both sides of its mouth when dealing with communities affected by near-term infrastructure planning, is unfair, and should be discouraged.

While you bring up some interesting food for thought with your first point, I have to disagree with your other two points.

In regards to your second point, a night out on the town is cheaper than paying my rent but I do need shelter no?

I agree that it is unfair when politicians blow hot air, especially when you wisely make housing decisions according to sustainable development plans, it is also unfair that an inner-city/established-suburb transit user for x years loses their spot on the train because someone in a newer area was promised a spot on the train as well. All these extensions on the NE & NW lines are overbooking the system and we all know how much of a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 flying on standby is.


Allotting Capacity
Are there any creative ways that CT could ensure users down the line on inbound rush hour services could more easily get a spot on the train? A while back I mentioned Skip-Stop service but I'm not sure if that could work or even be useful in Calgary. Another idea proposed a while back was using four car trains today with the fourth car being an express car and only calling at the terminal and 7th Ave stations. What if we took the idea of the fourth car calling at limited stations and applied it to three car trains?

Instead of short-turning trains at stations like Whitehorn or Southland, a train would start at Somerset as an Out Of Service train and would not open its doors until it reached Southland. Although the train would essentially be deadheading, it would be full by the time it got to the core and it would help spread the stress.