Calgary Public Transit II

[Calgarian]

So the train would go down 10th Ave and go into a tunnel right before 2St SW as the preferred option? would they elevate it or something?

[frinkprof]

Winter Service Revisions information is up. Changes take effect December 26th.



Nothing really remarkable overall. No new routes, no deleted routes, and not really much service added. Looks to just be a few scheduling changes, some to help schedule adherance. 19 routes affected.



http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/winter_service_revisions_2011.html

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

So the train would go down 10th Ave and go into a tunnel right before 2St SW as the preferred option? would they elevate it or something?

Perhaps it is better for me just to link the study. It can be found on Calgary Transit's website here. Pages 13 and 14 show the comparisons of the two tunnel options.

The train would be at grade along 10th until the tunnel. I was incorrect earlier in that in the one option, the tunnel starts just before 1st SE, so just outside the Skytower site (and outside a building where a certain architecture office is located that you may be familiar with ).

[Calgarian]

Thanks Fusili. I forgot the SELRT was to be a low floor LRT, and can just run in it's own ROW on the street. So basically where there is currently parking and bike lanes on 10th, that would be where the trains would run. I can see that causing major headaches for people trying to pull out of parkades on 10th if they go the cheaper route. I definitely think the longer tunnel is the better option, though that will cost a hell of a lot more.

Is there any line that's supposed to connect to it in the future? (don't have time to read the whole document linked) I thought the NCLRT was going to, but it appears to be a branch off the NELRT line.

[YYCguys]

Would this idea work to get a SE LRT built out to the southern communities, yet save $ for opening day?

Build the line itself from DT to Seton but only build only the most necessary stations for opening day such as those downtown and then from Douglasdale southwards. As future $ comes available the stations in between can be built.

[5seconds]

Having thought about the bus lanes on 9th in Inglewood, another problem comes to mind.

At the intersection of 9th ave and 15th street (before 9th goes under the bridge) there are only 2 lanes going east. If the bus route take up the curb lane, that leaves one lane. There is always a good number of people turning left at the lights there, and since there is no advance green, and no turning lane, that inside lane always gets blocked up. The only way that intersection stays moving most days is that you can hop into the curb lane to pass the turning cars.

From friday, the bus lane will end at 15th street, but I think it needs to end a block earlier.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Thanks Fusili. I forgot the SELRT was to be a low floor LRT, and can just run in it's own ROW on the street. So basically where there is currently parking and bike lanes on 10th, that would be where the trains would run. I can see that causing major headaches for people trying to pull out of parkades on 10th if they go the cheaper route. I definitely think the longer tunnel is the better option, though that will cost a hell of a lot more.

Is there any line that's supposed to connect to it in the future? (don't have time to read the whole document linked) I thought the NCLRT was going to, but it appears to be a branch off the NELRT line.

No problem. The tunnel is definitely preferred from a traffic perspective (also a pedestrian perspective), but there are drawbacks. For instance, going the tunnel rout somehow implies a conflict with a certain historic building (Demcor building), that I am quite familiar with. Not sure what exactly that conflict is, but it better not be demolition. One option I think could work would be to go elevated from the 4th street station until after 1st SE and then drop quickly to a tunnel.

As for your second paragraph, currently there is no plan to connect it to the NC LRT. That being said, there really is not a plan at all. The NC LRT was previously proposed to interline with the NE LRT just after the zoo station, but that is now all under revision, which is good. Many people believe (myself included) that the SE LRT should connect straight through to the NC LRT via the subway, for various reasons (see my blog on it here). One of the biggest reasons is that the tunnel is an expensive piece of infrastructure, and we better make the best use of it. As well, through running trains can operate with smaller headways (less time between trains) than dead-end trains.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Would this idea work to get a SE LRT built out to the southern communities, yet save $ for opening day?

Build the line itself from DT to Seton but only build only the most necessary stations for opening day such as those downtown and then from Douglasdale southwards. As future $ comes available the stations in between can be built.

I think most stations outside the downtown should be built, maybe a couple could be left off, like the Highfield station.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Would this idea work to get a SE LRT built out to the southern communities, yet save $ for opening day?

Build the line itself from DT to Seton but only build only the most necessary stations for opening day such as those downtown and then from Douglasdale southwards. As future $ comes available the stations in between can be built.

Some people (for example mayoral candidate Bob Hawkesworth) had the plan to build the SELRT from the 4th street SE station to Douglasdale without building the tunnel or anything past Douglasdale for the time being. It is kind of like your idea, but with modifications.

However, in respect to your point I think if a station does not have to be built at first, it probably never has to be built. That being said, I do not think any of the stations are unnecessary as currently planned. Maybe one of Lynwood or Ogden can be removed as they both really serve the same catchment area, but outside of that, every station is important.

[sim]

I'm just going to go ahead and say that both those options are rather terrible:

It would appear that even an extended tunnel would still be grade crossing Macleod Trail. Did nobody learn any lessons from what has previously been done and is now going on?

Secondly, it's intersecting the other line without any interaction...(??) Why? (Aside from the obvious fact that it is cheaper and that transit planning remains an afterthought.) Integrating lines vis a vis stations is always a preferable option. It allows for greater operational flexibility, better connectivity and a more comprehensive network. Oh, not to mention that this potential practical and well positioned transfer station would be sitting on the doorstep of the future HSR station. Instant access and direct transportation to and on 2 of the 3 presumably (future) diametrical lines and the backbone of the city's PT and what should be the city's transportation network.

I don't necessarily see the current tunnel as a large barrier. Tunnel under it? Construct a station and add a station to the current line.

If assurity of continued operation of the current line is what is desired, perhaps the 8th ave project, especially if done as cut and cover could be extended to the current Victoria Park station or ideally past it (to the currenty tunnel under the cemetery.) Isn't the new arena slated to be built elsewhere? Integrate it. Anyway, then operation on the current SLRT could mostly continue smoothly until tying in. Secondly, and if the NCLRT is to come into the picture as well, I'm rather convinced that a boring machine will be required regardless.

Oh, I also see that provisions for a downtown station within relative proximity to the 8th ave subway has also been designed to integrate and connect well for efficient future transfers...(/sarcasm)

The whole thing might sound too expensive and too wishful, but then it might be time to look at what other cities of similiar size have done/are doing. The planning of transit and its interaction definitely need to be taken up several notches here, and each project shouldn't be regarded so discretely. Involve a broader range of stakeholders. It might even mean that some actually challenging civil engineering might be seen in the city. G5 does not count as such.

And if it seems like I've written this hastily and with a bit of content it is because I just read the Sun article on bike sharing and well, because the current SELRT plans... ummm, 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

Secondly, it's intersecting the other line without any interaction...(??) Why? (Aside from the obvious fact that it is cheaper and that transit planning remains an afterthought.) Integrating lines vis a vis stations is always a preferable option. .

Agree a thousand times. Any transfer station (LRT/LRT, LRT/BRT, BRT/BRT) should be planned and designed with consideration of the transfer. There should either be a shared concourse between the 2nd Street Subway and the 8th avenue subway. Not maybe, not it would be nice. MUST. Of course cross platform transfers are impossible because the trains are heading in perpendicular directions, but at least make the transfer possible within the station. And for goodness sake, build both stations at the same time. Costs more up front, but saves money in the future.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

Oh, not to mention that this potential practical and well positioned transfer station would be sitting on the doorstep of the future HSR station. Instant access and direct transportation to and on 2 of the 3 presumably (future) diametrical lines and the backbone of the city's PT and what should be the city's transportation network.
.

Just a minor correction- the HSR station is going to be adjacent to the 4th St SE station, not on 2nd SW. I know some planners put it there on the Centre City plan, but they probably did it without consulting the province. The province owns the land for the station already and has it set aside for the future. That being said, I believe (and I hope I am not wrong) that the SE LRT station and the HSR station are being co-designed (Stantec or IBI I think), so transfers will be incorporated into the design. You know, like they should be.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Just a minor correction- the HSR station is going to be adjacent to the 4th St SE station, not on 2nd SW. I know some planners put it there on the Centre City plan, but they probably did it without consulting the province. The province owns the land for the station already and has it set aside for the future. That being said, I believe (and I hope I am not wrong) that the SE LRT station and the HSR station are being co-designed (Stantec or IBI I think), so transfers will be incorporated into the design. You know, like they should be.

I apologize for my post being a tad bit confusing and rambling, but I meant that one as well. What I was saying is that the future SELRT is planned to cross right over the existing SLRT line (at grade,) without any interaction. I see this as another hugely lost opportunity, and that this tunnel should not only extend from where it goes north - south on 2nd ave, but that it should extend right underneath the existing line (as shown below by the blue parallel lines.) The one for 8th Ave and 2nd street, like you say is a complete given. It shouldn't even be questioned. Anyway, this crappy sketch is kind of what I mean:



Original source: SELRT Compendium, Calgary Transit 2010 (http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Southeast%20LRT%20Compendium.pdf)

The red scribbled line being a reroute built in congruency with the 8th ave subway. This, so that a transfer station between the two lines could be built easier if the case might be that that would make it so, and to bring the overall new transfer station that much closer to the eventual HSR as it is shown on that crappy cut out. Or for scenario's sake, the whole SELRT if being tunneled anyway, could be closer to Stampede with still really close proximity to the future HSR by going down 11 Ave. Anyway, that isn't really the issue, it's that the plan has two rail lines crossing over without any interaction. 1 transfer downtown is an absolute given, 2 is ideal and 3, completing a sort of triangle is optimal (of course, depending on actual network geometry.)

Anyway, my initial post really wasn't very clear. Hope that shows it better.

[DarkKeyo]

I'm going to guess that the reason that the 7th Ave station on the SELRT doesn't tie into the 8th Ave subway is that they will have to bore tunnel under 7th Ave itself, in order to not interfere with existing train service during construction. That, and the lack of any sort of detailed plan for the 8th Ave subway.

That said, they *Should* have the SELRT station a block further south than it is, and have a plan for both subways before they build either one. Transfer station and all.

As for a transfer station where the S line crosses the SE line... Lots of reasons this is impractical, from the cost of reconstructing the S line tunnel, to the fact that they cross exactly halfway between ideal station locations. But I do not think the SE line should cross Macleod at-grade.

Of course, all of these necessities cost money, which is the reason why we haven't started building the SELRT at all.

[sim]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

I'm going to guess that the reason that the 7th Ave station on the SELRT doesn't tie into the 8th Ave subway is that they will have to bore tunnel under 7th Ave itself, in order to not interfere with existing train service during construction. That, and the lack of any sort of detailed plan for the 8th Ave subway.

That said, they *Should* have the SELRT station a block further south than it is, and have a plan for both subways before they build either one. Transfer station and all.

As for a transfer station where the S line crosses the SE line... Lots of reasons this is impractical, from the cost of reconstructing the S line tunnel, to the fact that they cross exactly halfway between ideal station locations. But I do not think the SE line should cross Macleod at-grade.

Of course, all of these necessities cost money, which is the reason why we haven't started building the SELRT at all.

I'll give you the cost, but that's about it.

What determines ideal station spacing? What are ideal station spacings? Does the C train in the area of consideration operate (characterisically) as a metro, a commuter rail, more as a new LRT? Is where the future 8th Ave tunnel's stations to go are, set in stone? I would argue that where you have the possibility for a transfer station adjacent to a long distance train station with further future potential for high density land development and proximity to the 4th St E and its envisioned plans as something that would over-rule stringent equidistant station spacings. Also, it would be rather near to where the 4 st SELRT station already is planned and mirrors distances that the current line already sees downtown on a revamped SLRT line, so regardless it somewhat fits with classical spacing.

I did forget to mention that additionally, the current Victoria park station and its location and function would also have a re-examination. I believe it has been mentioned before that this is indeed the case anyway: that there are future plans (or visions) for it. Again, perhaps also depending on eventual location of a new arena.

Agreed though, costs wouldn't be pretty. I personally think, however, necessary.

[fusili]

I think in general as long as you have one transfer between lines, that typically is sufficient enough. Travelling an extra station to do the transfer is not much of a penalty and justifies the savings. That being said, a transfer between the two is essential.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think in general as long as you have one transfer between lines, that typically is sufficient enough. Travelling an extra station to do the transfer is not much of a penalty and justifies the savings. That being said, a transfer between the two is essential.

Well yes, depending on which way you are going after the transfer. If the goal is to go from the SELRT to the SLRT, so say from Inglewood to Chinook as a thrown-out-there example, then you've just saved a possible ca. 5-10 mins on your travel time. Would have to calculate more directly.

With a transfer at an 8th ave station, you've now gone 2 further stations one way and (depending on what 8th Ave would look like in the future) at least 2 more on the way back to where you would have initially been able to transfer at (seeing as how the two lines actually intersect in an x-y plane.) This may seem rather insignificant and admittedly, in a city such as Calgary and it's respective structure, it might be so at first. The point is that a network becomes more comprehensive with more transfer possibilities and it slowly breaks away from a system meant almost exclusively for commuting trips. This allows some adjacency in the network.

Additionally interesting would of course be the potential to have physical connections between the actual lines. This allows for much more flexible operability, especially in the case of problems in a tunnel or on a longer term basis, if the actual lines might want to be changed in the future. I.E. NWLRT to SELRT for example, not that I'm saying that that makes sense in this case.

Lastly, and probably the largest potential benefit- immediate access to two of the lines for anyone getting off of a long-distance train requiring no transfers. That is very optimal.

Anyway, I guess I shall rest my case, but I do think the discussion is interesting and to me, highlights a case of more strategic, long term thinking that is largely necessary regardless of the above or not. To be more blunt, having transit designed and planned better.

[fusili]

Excellent points. Transfers are a huge issue in any transit system, and getting them right is really important. If you are super interested in stuff like this I suggest you check out Alon Levy's blog Pedestrian Observations. He writes a lot on transit financing and cost structures, but also a lot on route design etc.

His cross post on the Transport Politic on regional rail in New York (found here) is really good for those interested in transit planning for large networks.




Wow, I am a huge nerd.

[MalcolmTucker]

Re: a east end of downtown transfer

Well yes, depending on which way you are going after the transfer. If the goal is to go from the SELRT to the SLRT, so say from Inglewood to Chinook as a thrown-out-there example, then you've just saved a possible ca. 5-10 mins on your travel time. Would have to calculate more directly.

Due to human minds not working that well, almost everyone that would transfer at the planned 2nd St 8th Ave transfer from the SE LRT under current conception, would transfer on the east side of downtown instead. This would place the transfer load onto the LRT mainline at the point of maximum use, the entrance to downtown from the south line, instead of in the middle of downtown.

The 5 minutes you save a few people is in no way worth the massive penalty you apply to everyone else by creating a new station and transfer point at the edge of the core service area (think the Yonge-Bloor transfer in Toronto as an extreme example of this).

Most people will not make the logical choice and transfer at 8th and 2nd St if there is an opprotunity to transfer earlier in their trip, even if it ends up taking more time for them. Since time is hard to measure, most people will measure trips as distance, and will try to plan their trips to have the lowest possible distance, both on the train and walking.

There is a a paradox that exists in traffic modelling that sometimes reducing choice and removing parts of the network can make all trips faster. Of course one would need modelling to prove this, but I believe this would certainly be a case where there is long term costs to the system in addition to the capital costs of the proposed change.

In essence, subtraction by addition.

[CalgaryTransit guy]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

What will determine when the NCLRT gets built is the SELRT, that is the most important piece of transit infrastructure in the city (maybe along with the SW ring road), and it's probably the most expensive as well.

Yes basically because the city cannot find a proper route in the NCLRT and must consult with residents of that area. But i cannot wait until the SELRT opens. Unfortunatley the SELRT might not be built until the 2015-2023 period.