Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

For block length, you have to remember the north-south blocks in the west end that the train usually doesn't travel through free and clear in addition to the north south blocks. I don't have be measuring tape out, but I think a 4 car train might be able to squeeze in some of those blocks, but not all.

I remember reading a study that said the 5 car issue is not just block length issue, but the time needed to clear intersections, both downtown and in the suburbs, being incredibly detrimental to traffic especially when stations are close to intersections and road crossings are on demand, not syncronized with lights outside of downtown.

[uptown]

when will we see 4 car trains on the south/nw route?

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by uptown

when will we see 4 car trains on the south/nw route?

In theory, 2014. If it is 2014, it'll be the end of 2014.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Dado

Technically, that's not true*. Calgary's blocks, other than the oddball 3rd-4th Streets block, are 500' or about 150 m long (edge of street RoW to edge of street RoW). A five-car CTrain would be just shy of 125 m, so they would fit with some room to spare. Indeed, on paper, cramming a 6-car train in might just be possible, though with basically no room for error.

The actual problem is dealing with the fact that the platforms are elevated; a low floor train on the same length would face far fewer problems. By the time you get your ramps built, you nominally run out of room because the ramps get added on to the end of the platform. Now that can be sort of avoided by various tricks like separating platform and ramp or adding switchbacks (i.e. sort of the way the stations used to be before they were rebuilt), but that in turn has urban design issues with the surrounding buildings.

So really, the prohibition against 5-car trains is more of an urban design and functional issue related to high-floor vehicles as opposed to 5-car trains being unable to fit.

For its part, 39th Ave looks like it has just enough room on the level for 5-cars before it descends into the tunnel.

*As it happens, we get the same excuse offered up in Ottawa as to why 4-car (120 m) trains "can't" be put through downtown Ottawa on the surface with its 600'/180 m blocks.

That's good information, thanks for that!

I was also under the impression that there was concern about the fact that C-Trains have to share the road with buses, and that if a longer train was stopped behind a few buses on a block, it would might be more likely to block a cross street... does anyone know if that figures into any of the discussions about longer trains on 7th?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

For block length, you have to remember the north-south blocks in the west end that the train usually doesn't travel through free and clear in addition to the north south blocks. I don't have be measuring tape out, but I think a 4 car train might be able to squeeze in some of those blocks, but not all.

By my measurements on Google Earth, a 4-car train cannot fit between 5th and 6th Avenues and the 3-car trains are already pretty tight between 4th and 5th Avenues.

I remember reading a study that said the 5 car issue is not just block length issue, but the time needed to clear intersections, both downtown and in the suburbs, being incredibly detrimental to traffic especially when stations are close to intersections and road crossings are on demand, not syncronized with lights outside of downtown.

I can't say I'm too persuaded by this argument. Suppose a CTrain is moving at 24 km/h (the number makes the resultant math easier), which is really kind of slow.

The rear of a 3-car train would enter the intersection 11.25 seconds after the front did. Assuming a 20 m wide cross street, it would take 14.25 seconds for the intersection to be completely cleared after the front had entered. Now change that to a 4-car, 100 m train: it would take 18 seconds while a 5-car, 125 m train would take 21.75 seconds. Each car adds 3.75 seconds to the duration taken to clear the intersection.

Now bump the speed up to just 30 km/h. The intersection clearance times for 3, 4 and 5-car trains become 11.4s, 14.4s and 17.4s, respectively. In this case, each car adds just 3 seconds to the duration.

In other words, we're really not talking about durations that are going to cause much of an issue in a 30 second traffic signal window. There is a somewhat higher chance that trains might need to stop and wait at traffic signals more than they do today (i.e. the window of opportunity to enter is reduced by 6-8 seconds), but in terms of time needed to clear an intersection... it looks like a non-problem.

[MalcolmTucker]

In other words, we're really not talking about durations that are going to cause much of an issue in a 30 second traffic signal window. There is a somewhat higher chance that trains might need to stop and wait at traffic signals more than they do today (i.e. the window of opportunity to enter is reduced by 6-8 seconds), but in terms of time needed to clear an intersection... it looks like a non-problem.

More of an issue in the suburbs, where those extra seconds, when you have trains going in both directions count. Have to remember there you also have cross arms et al, you could have trains crossing a road every minute and a half, and since lights aren't synced up (you wouldn't want to delay a train for a full cycle if someone was holding a door for example) you could cut a road's capacity a disproportionately high percentage ccompared to the amount of extra time the road is actually closed.

I believe the crossing in question I read this about was Heritage, and it was studied to see whether the LRT should be grade seperated when they finally get around to the Heritage/Macleod interchange.

[MalcolmTucker]

So the first Transit Advisory Board meeting was today - how'd it go attendees?

[Wooster]

Mostly a get to know you meeting, but a really great group of people and some good conversation.

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

^ Ugh, there goes my preferred route out of downtown...

Pro bono publico!

Originally Posted by fusili

Good question, and one I think we should look more at. Here are some things to consider:

- Catchment areas: NC 150K vs SE 87K
- Employment areas: NC- limited, SE- Foothills Industrial, Highfield Industrial, South Hospital
- Route costs (bridges, ROWs etc)

The answer isn't obvious. For the SE line, we only serve 87K, and have to spend $3-4B to do so. Plus, the residential concentration is far and disjointed. But we also serve major employment centres outside the downtown, which is very important.

However, with the NC line we population concentrations right away (Crescent heights etc) and the line goes through moderately dense areas for the entire route, with very little space with no or little development. On the other hand, we are not serving as many employment areas, and tunnelling can be quite expensive. It is something we need to look at.

We should be building the north-central LRT line before the south east line if you go by the ridership numbers, but if you consider actual productivity gains, freed-up infrastructure, and emissions reductions, the se line should come first.

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by fusili

This times a thousand. Calgary Transit is actually asking for this. Dedicated bus lanes on the lane reversal makes complete sense. And enforcement is simplified. Not a bus? You get a ticket.

I'd like to see this happen. No one respects the HOV lane.

[Doug]

The SE line would also serve the growing employment hub at Quarry Park.

The map of catchment areas is misleading as it assumes hard delineations. A huge benefit of the SE line would be to offload some ridership from the over stressed south line. Sure moving ridership from one line to another is superficially a zero sum gain, but it would allow additional ridership growth without having to upgrade the south line to 5 cars or something even more expensive. I doubt the NC line would offload much capacity from the NE or NW lines and more importantly, those lines aren't likely to face the capacity constraints as the south line.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

The SE line would also serve the growing employment hub at Quarry Park.

The map of catchment areas is misleading as it assumes hard delineations. A huge benefit of the SE line would be to offload some ridership from the over stressed south line. Sure moving ridership from one line to another is superficially a zero sum gain, but it would allow additional ridership growth without having to upgrade the south line to 5 cars or something even more expensive. I doubt the NC line would offload much capacity from the NE or NW lines and more importantly, those lines aren't likely to face the capacity constraints as the south line.

Good point. I tried to allude to this a bit in the post. It is impossible to account for all scenarios and distribution of riders, so hard lines have to be used. Where would riders from Cambrian Heights go? NW line at Sait? or NC line at 16th avenue? Hard to tell, so you have to make hard lines and assume some error in the numbers. But we are talking about hundreds out of about 150K, so it isn't a big deal.

But you are right about the South and SE lines. Residents from Riverbend, Douglasdale etc currently use the South line. However, the map reflects the current population of catchment areas, assuming all the lines are built. So in reality the south line currently serves more than the 219K. So yes, you are right, building the SE line will free up capacity there because the riders from Riverbend, Douglasdale etc will move to the SE line. Something else to consider for sure.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

Good question, and one I think we should look more at. Here are some things to consider:

- Catchment areas: NC 150K vs SE 87K
- Employment areas: NC- limited, SE- Foothills Industrial, Highfield Industrial, South Hospital
- Route costs (bridges, ROWs etc)

The answer isn't obvious. For the SE line, we only serve 87K, and have to spend $3-4B to do so. Plus, the residential concentration is far and disjointed. But we also serve major employment centres outside the downtown, which is very important.

However, with the NC line we population concentrations right away (Crescent heights etc) and the line goes through moderately dense areas for the entire route, with very little space with no or little development. On the other hand, we are not serving as many employment areas, and tunnelling can be quite expensive. It is something we need to look at.

There is also a chicken and egg scenario as places like the Aurora Business Park are waiting for LRT before developing out fully. Certainly that doesn't compare to things like Foothills Industrial, but is still an aspect to consider.

While the NC line would service me, the current challenges with the SE and the employment concentrations still have me supporting that spoke before NC.

Stepping back a bit though, I've never understood why that SE is built out so far. So while the comments from others about it being not as well serviced are true, the developers and buyers in that area are, frankly, responsible for their own current plight. I am annoyed that they are getting a line first because of their errors in judgement

Regarding the catchment areas discussion, while certain areas would now off load the current South line, I think there is another aspect that is being missed here. Given the employment hubs in the SE, not as many people would be traveling to DT from that quadrant and rather remaining where they are (philosophically speaking).

Silly question - but has the City or an independent developer, in recent times, contacted the TT Nation to develop part of their land, perhaps even linking that into the ring road discussions?

[TransitSupporter]

Originally Posted by fusili

This times a thousand. Calgary Transit is actually asking for this. Dedicated bus lanes on the lane reversal makes complete sense. And enforcement is simplified. Not a bus? You get a ticket.

Who do we lobby to support CT? I've tried the alderpeople + the mayor but never get a response.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by suburb

Silly question - but has the City or an independent developer, in recent times, contacted the TT Nation to develop part of their land, perhaps even linking that into the ring road discussions?

Not a silly question.

The Nation themselves have plans drawn up to develop the NE section of the reservation near the casino. (the former Harvey Barracks site). They already have Great West Life committing $1 billion to the development and the BC Pension fund is involved somehow.

The call was for 500+ acres of development; 300 acres of commercial, 150 acres for office parks and 40 acres for cultural/heritage initiatives by the band, not including the 40-50 acres around the casino. There was also talk about private clinic/hospitals that operate outside of the provincial health system, but that's a whole other issue!

All of these plans are contingent on the Ring Road, of course. Also, the ring road agreement of 2009 made allowances for an LRT corridor, and previous development planning documents have spoken about a station in what is currently the reservation near-ish to the casino (this being a spur from the WestLRT at Sarcee)

EDIT:

[Doug]

TT land would be of limited appeal to residential development unless it involved outright sale rather than long term leases.

The SE grew like it did mostly due to sour gas wells just east of the city that restrict residential development.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Doug

TT land would be of limited appeal to residential development unless it involved outright sale rather than long term leases.

I agree. Development on the reserve can (I think) only appeal to 3rd party sectors where land ownership is not part of the standard paradigm. Retail and commercial make the most sense, though I can also see some (very) limited apartment rentals overlooking the elbow valley. I think it's safe to say that there will never be any kind of land sales of the reserve for residential property.

I'm still amazed that there are enough people who are OK with long-term residential leases to make Redwood Meadows viable. Those leases begin to expire in 2049, I believe. It will be interesting to see what happens then.

[DizzyEdge]

Curious if there would be more late night transit demand with the new DUI regulations.

Also wondering what the cost differential might be between running a single car LRT end to end, or a bus the same difference.

For myself if there was a north central bus route that ran until 2 or 2:30am, every half hour, I'd take it regularly after a night at the pub.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

Stepping back a bit though, I've never understood why that SE is built out so far. So while the comments from others about it being not as well serviced are true, the developers and buyers in that area are, frankly, responsible for their own current plight. I am annoyed that they are getting a line first because of their errors in judgement

Little bit of history. A few decades back (don't really know exactly when), the province passed legislation to prohibit any additional road crossings through Fish Creek Park. Deerfoot Trail was actually planned to go over Fish Creek at the time (basically along the Bow Bottom Trail route). That forced a realignment (an expensive one at that), and is why we have the Ivor Strong bridge. As Deerfoot was rerouted to the east of the river, that made land in the SE attractive for residential development. So the residential ends up being below Foothills Industrial, and we have around 70K residents in Calgary who have one way to get around- Deerfoot, and the transportation mess that is the SE. Not saying that a highway over Fish Creek is a good idea, but that is why things are the way they are.

Also the reason why Bow Bottom trail has an absolutely massive right of way for what it is.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

Little bit of history. A few decades back (don't really know exactly when), the province passed legislation to prohibit any additional road crossings through Fish Creek Park. Deerfoot Trail was actually planned to go over Fish Creek at the time (basically along the Bow Bottom Trail route). That forced a realignment (an expensive one at that), and is why we have the Ivor Strong bridge. As Deerfoot was rerouted to the east of the river, that made land in the SE attractive for residential development. So the residential ends up being below Foothills Industrial, and we have around 70K residents in Calgary who have one way to get around- Deerfoot, and the transportation mess that is the SE. Not saying that a highway over Fish Creek is a good idea, but that is why things are the way they are.

Also the reason why Bow Bottom trail has an absolutely massive right of way for what it is.

1974

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=F25...%20through%20fish%20creek&pg=5645%2C9141