Calgary Public Transit II

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Does anyone know if there has ever been any thoughts by CT of implementing LED boards and/or recordings announcing bus stops, such as is done in Toronto? I found it very useful, particularly if it was a stop I hadn't been to before, and it was dark out, so that I didn't have to be scouring the dark streetscape trying to determine where I should get off.

(ok I wouldn't do that anyway since I'd be using google maps and GPS on my phone, but the question still stands)

Yeah, that's one of the things I like about Shanghai's (massive) bus system - the announcements of every stop. Of course, you still need to know approximately where you want to get off for it to be of any use.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Was there any conflict with existing utilities for that segment of the West LRT? As I understand it, moving utilities is a major cost driver in tunnelling/trenching projects.

At least for the 45th St section, most of the utilities should have needed to be moved anyways, only ones crossing the ROW should have been an issue (you should be relocating utilities that run under the ROW for any significant length even if it was a surface ROW).

[Surrealplaces]

I'm sure this has been asked a few times already, but just wondering what the timeline was for finishing off the 4 train platforms?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

I'm sure this has been asked a few times already, but just wondering what the timeline was for finishing off the 4 train platforms?

2015 probably. The status page on CT's website indicates that Vic Park, 39th Ave, SAIT, Lions Park and Banff Trail won't start until 2013 or 2014. Heritage, Fish Creek, Sunnyside and Chinook all should start this year, and the rest likely this year or next with Chinook, 39th and Banff Trail being ones that will involve closures.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by PPAR

The logic of running an LRT line up the Nose Creek valley strikes me as exactly analogous to the decision Edmonton made with its very first LRT line in the 1970's. They too chose to run their first line into the northeast up an existing rail right of way, in a lightly populated quadrant, in order to meet the new growing suburbs at the cities edge. This saved them money, allowing construction of an underground system in the core. (Of which I am still envious.)

So how did that turn out? Edmonton's LRT sytem was moribund for thirty years

I don't think your analysis of the Edmonton example in contrast to Calgary is completely by a long shot. The major reason Edmonton's line didn't get ridership for a long time is precisely because they spent a LOT of money putting it underground and thus were only able to afford about 25% of the track Calgary was able to get out there. As a result, the opposite of your conclusion could also be argued IE if the NCLRT is forced into a high cost path, it may not happen for longer, or when it does happen, it might not be built out to the distance required and where the population needing the service actually resides.

I'm not saying I like the nosehill plan, but it seems many people are making judgment called with incomplete information. What we really need to understand are the full numbers and implications. EG, nosecreek alignment $1.5B, centre street alignment $4B, expectations on available cashflow over 20 years for this $1.5B, implication, nosecreek alignment could be built out all the way to North Pointe adding 100K users per day, and centre street alignment could be built out to 20ave adding 10K users per day.

Just to be clear, all of the above numbers are fictitious. My point is just that people are making choices without truly understanding the implications. We can't right off anything without really understanding the implications.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by suburb

I don't think your analysis of the Edmonton example in contrast to Calgary is completely by a long shot. The major reason Edmonton's line didn't get ridership for a long time is precisely because they spent a LOT of money putting it underground and thus were only able to afford about 25% of the track Calgary was able to get out there. As a result, the opposite of your conclusion could also be argued IE if the NCLRT is forced into a high cost path, it may not happen for longer, or when it does happen, it might not be built out to the distance required and where the population needing the service actually resides.

I'm not saying I like the nosehill plan, but it seems many people are making judgment called with incomplete information. What we really need to understand are the full numbers and implications. EG, nosecreek alignment $1.5B, centre street alignment $4B, expectations on available cashflow over 20 years for this $1.5B, implication, nosecreek alignment could be built out all the way to North Pointe adding 100K users per day, and centre street alignment could be built out to 20ave adding 10K users per day.

Just to be clear, all of the above numbers are fictitious. My point is just that people are making choices without truly understanding the implications. We can't right off anything without really understanding the implications.

In Calgary's case, the option to build surface vs underground the way edmonton did didnt compormise the effectiveness of the line, it still served the core. In the future it can be burried. If the NCLRT goes up nose creek, it compromises the effectiveness of the line, and kills any future center street LRT opportunities.

This is why I think either wait to build it, or divert funds from elsewhere to get it done, or take on debt.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by suburb

I don't think your analysis of the Edmonton example in contrast to Calgary is completely by a long shot. The major reason Edmonton's line didn't get ridership for a long time is precisely because they spent a LOT of money putting it underground and thus were only able to afford about 25% of the track Calgary was able to get out there. As a result, the opposite of your conclusion could also be argued IE if the NCLRT is forced into a high cost path, it may not happen for longer, or when it does happen, it might not be built out to the distance required and where the population needing the service actually resides.

I'm not saying I like the nosehill plan, but it seems many people are making judgment called with incomplete information. What we really need to understand are the full numbers and implications. EG, nosecreek alignment $1.5B, centre street alignment $4B, expectations on available cashflow over 20 years for this $1.5B, implication, nosecreek alignment could be built out all the way to North Pointe adding 100K users per day, and centre street alignment could be built out to 20ave adding 10K users per day.

Just to be clear, all of the above numbers are fictitious. My point is just that people are making choices without truly understanding the implications. We can't right off anything without really understanding the implications.

I don't really like that comparison either and I agree that Edmonton's lower ridership can partly be attributed to less extensive coverage. What I disagree with is the notion that Edmonton's initial line is comparable to the Nose Creek alignment. It is much more comparable to Calgary's South Line; both follow a freight ROW and, initially in Calgary's case, skirted an area between residential and industrial uses while hitting the cities' respective arenas. The Nose Creek alignment is an entirely different concept. It is truly isolated, sandwiched between a large hill and a major freeway. There are few residences or jobs anywhere near it. It would be a rather expensive project to achieve the limited result of an express train between the Hills communities and downtown. It would in no way serve the population south of Beddington Trail; reaching stations in the Nose Creek valley would be a nightmare for buses, pedestrians, and motorists.

The population needing the service is the entire North Central area of the city. The line's catchment area should not be artificially restricted only to the portion north of Beddington Trail due to our short sighted refusal to spend the money that should be spent on infrastructure we have to live with for a century or more to come. Cheaping out on transit infrastructure makes sense when we have no idea how much ridership will be and twenty five to fifty thousand boardings for a line will be heralded as a success; it does not make sense when we are closing in on three hundred thousand riders on the current system and can only expect that level of ridership to grow with a more complete system.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

In Calgary's case, the option to build surface vs underground the way edmonton did didnt compormise the effectiveness of the line, it still served the core. In the future it can be burried. If the NCLRT goes up nose creek, it compromises the effectiveness of the line, and kills any future center street LRT opportunities.

This is why I think either wait to build it, or divert funds from elsewhere to get it done, or take on debt.

If it goes up Nose Creek, it compromises the effectiveness by only some measures, while increasing the effectiveness by others (mostly cost, which is very important since we don't have an unlimited amount of money). That is what suburb is saying, we can't just dismiss it until a full analysis has been done on all options.

And yes it would likely kill any possibility of LRT on Centre, but would one be needed if the NCLRT runs up Nose Creek to serve the Northern Hill communities? Centre Street could still be very effectively served by the current bus routes, or maybe a tram in the future.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I don't really like that comparison either and I agree that Edmonton's lower ridership can partly be attributed to less extensive coverage. What I disagree with is the notion that Edmonton's initial line is comparable to the Nose Creek alignment. It is much more comparable to Calgary's South Line; both follow a freight ROW and, initially in Calgary's case, skirted an area between residential and industrial uses while hitting the cities' respective arenas. The Nose Creek alignment is an entirely different concept. It is truly isolated, sandwiched between a large hill and a major freeway. There are few residences or jobs anywhere near it. It would be a rather expensive project to achieve the limited result of an express train between the Hills communities and downtown. It would in no way serve the population south of Beddington Trail; reaching stations in the Nose Creek valley would be a nightmare for buses, pedestrians, and motorists.

The population needing the service is the entire North Central area of the city. The line's catchment area should not be artificially restricted only to the portion north of Beddington Trail due to our short sighted refusal to spend the money that should be spent on infrastructure we have to live with for a century or more to come. Cheaping out on transit infrastructure makes sense when we have no idea how much ridership will be and twenty five to fifty thousand boardings for a line will be heralded as a success; it does not make sense when we are closing in on three hundred thousand riders on the current system and can only expect that level of ridership to grow with a more complete system.

The discussion shouldn't be blind of costs and/or opportunity costs and/or time lines linked to cash flow schedules. That was my principal point. I'm not in favour of a nose creek alignment, however, can't make a call as we don't have enough information.

Originally Posted by MichaelS

If it goes up Nose Creek, it compromises the effectiveness by only some measures, while increasing the effectiveness by others. That is what suburb is saying, we can't just dismiss it until a full analysis has been done on all options.

And yes it would likely kill any possibility of LRT on Centre, but would one be needed if the NCLRT runs up Nose Creek to serve the Northern Hill communities? Centre Street could still be very effectively served by the current bus routes, or maybe a tram in the future.

Well said. And I think you're bang on with the comment that other transit services could better serve the centre street alignment than LRT.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by mersar

2015 probably. The status page on CT's website indicates that Vic Park, 39th Ave, SAIT, Lions Park and Banff Trail won't start until 2013 or 2014. Heritage, Fish Creek, Sunnyside and Chinook all should start this year, and the rest likely this year or next with Chinook, 39th and Banff Trail being ones that will involve closures.

Do we know how problematic 39 Avenue Station will be to extend? According to this article http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/re...+Mission+Road+renewal/5964975/story.html, the design charette for Mission Road is suggesting that the station be moved north to be closer to Mission Road. There seems to be plenty of room just south of 36 Ave, which turns into Mission Road. If we ever want to do it now would be the time to do so, before we spend money rebuilding the current station.

In that case it might also make sense to add an infill station near 50 Ave to help serve the planned density along that strip. Though I guess that would depend on the final outcome of the community consultations there.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Do we know how problematic 39 Avenue Station will be to extend? According to this article http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/re...+Mission+Road+renewal/5964975/story.html, the design charette for Mission Road is suggesting that the station be moved north to be closer to Mission Road. There seems to be plenty of room just south of 36 Ave, which turns into Mission Road. If we ever want to do it now would be the time to do so, before we spend money rebuilding the current station.

In that case it might also make sense to add an infill station near 50 Ave to help serve the planned density along that strip. Though I guess that would depend on the final outcome of the community consultations there.

This was a bunch of external consultants suggesting to move the station in the charette. No consultation with Calgary Transit whatsoever. Just a random idea by someone with a design hard on. AFAIK, the station is not moving, nor are there plans for it.

And there is not plenty of room just south of 36th avenue. It is directly adjacent to the Days Inn, which has several driveway accesses from the rear. Putting a station there would require closing the road, thus removing the accesses. The city would have to expropriate the Days Inn most likely. Either that, or the Days Inn would sue the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 out of the city for damages.

[faxri]

Originally Posted by mersar

2015 probably. The status page on CT's website indicates that Vic Park, 39th Ave, SAIT, Lions Park and Banff Trail won't start until 2013 or 2014. Heritage, Fish Creek, Sunnyside and Chinook all should start this year, and the rest likely this year or next with Chinook, 39th and Banff Trail being ones that will involve closures.

Has there been any plans shown for the 4 car platform extensions? I really wonder how they will extend the fish creek platform, it has a large pedestrian ramp at the north end and the pedestrian overpass at the other (with a crossing of the tracks as well)

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

This was a bunch of external consultants suggesting to move the station in the charette. No consultation with Calgary Transit whatsoever. Just a random idea by someone with a design hard on. AFAIK, the station is not moving, nor are there plans for it.

And there is not plenty of room just south of 36th avenue. It is directly adjacent to the Days Inn, which has several driveway accesses from the rear. Putting a station there would require closing the road, thus removing the accesses. The city would have to expropriate the Days Inn most likely. Either that, or the Days Inn would sue the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 out of the city for damages.

I know they're not affiliated with the city. I was just wondering if their suggestion would solve the problem of expanding 39 Ave that some people had pointed out or if there even is a problem (or was it only a problem for a hypothetical expansion to five car platforms?).

As for there being plenty of room, I meant to the east since northbound Burnsland Rd seems far more superfluous than southbound (and past that is a poorly utilized parking lot, though I don't know if it would be needed). In fact, northbound Burnsland Rd doesn't seem to have an access between 36 Ave and 38a Ave and it isn't exactly required for traffic purposes. Rebuilding the northbound tracks further east then placing an island platform in the middle seems much easier than dealing with the Days Inn property.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by faxri

Has there been any plans shown for the 4 car platform extensions? I really wonder how they will extend the fish creek platform, it has a large pedestrian ramp at the north end and the pedestrian overpass at the other (with a crossing of the tracks as well)

There have to be plans somewhere; I've seen the ones for Sunnyside at the station extension open house, and the ones for Banff Trail are shown in the TOD plan. I would like to see ones where there is limited space, and/or where a redesign may be worth thinking about, such as SAIT, Lions Park, Fish Creek, Victoria Park, 39 Ave, and Chinook. A lot of these stations are showing their age, and their design for fewer people than currently use the system. I have heard they are thinking of using Chinook as a test for completely demolishing and rebuilding a station, and I am interested in how that would work as well.

Whenever I've asked Calgary Transit representatives about this at the open houses, I've been told that concrete plans will be made (and presented at the respective open houses) when it's each station's turn to be extended.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by mersar

2015 probably. The status page on CT's website indicates that Vic Park, 39th Ave, SAIT, Lions Park and Banff Trail won't start until 2013 or 2014. Heritage, Fish Creek, Sunnyside and Chinook all should start this year, and the rest likely this year or next with Chinook, 39th and Banff Trail being ones that will involve closures.

Thanks Mersar!

[mersar]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Whenever I've asked Calgary Transit representatives about this at the open houses, I've been told that concrete plans will be made (and presented at the respective open houses) when it's each station's turn to be extended.

Yep, thats the official word. I've seen a peek at the plans for Chinook, but they are working on station at a time so I doubt they've even begun on some of the later stations.

[TransitSupporter]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Does anyone know if there has ever been any thoughts by CT of implementing LED boards and/or recordings announcing bus stops, such as is done in Toronto? I found it very useful, particularly if it was a stop I hadn't been to before, and it was dark out, so that I didn't have to be scouring the dark streetscape trying to determine where I should get off.

(ok I wouldn't do that anyway since I'd be using google maps and GPS on my phone, but the question still stands)

I spoke to Fred Wong about this a couple of years ago. CT is definitely looking at minimally having a voice announcement on the bus for each upcoming stop. This is apparently being driven by a human rights complaint in Toronto that a blind passenger was unable to know where to get off because the driver wouldn't (/couldn't?) announce the stop. Don't know the outcome of that but I think the announcements / LED signs on the C-trains are just one phase of rolling out to the entire system.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by suburb

I don't think your analysis of the Edmonton example in contrast to Calgary is completely by a long shot. The major reason Edmonton's line didn't get ridership for a long time is precisely because they spent a LOT of money putting it underground and thus were only able to afford about 25% of the track Calgary was able to get out there. As a result, the opposite of your conclusion could also be argued IE if the NCLRT is forced into a high cost path, it may not happen for longer, or when it does happen, it might not be built out to the distance required and where the population needing the service actually resides.

I'm not saying I like the nosehill plan, but it seems many people are making judgment called with incomplete information. What we really need to understand are the full numbers and implications. EG, nosecreek alignment $1.5B, centre street alignment $4B, expectations on available cashflow over 20 years for this $1.5B, implication, nosecreek alignment could be built out all the way to North Pointe adding 100K users per day, and centre street alignment could be built out to 20ave adding 10K users per day.

Just to be clear, all of the above numbers are fictitious. My point is just that people are making choices without truly understanding the implications. We can't right off anything without really understanding the implications.

Great response. Whatever decision is taken on a north line, I agree the implications are significant, and could effect transit development for years to come.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by PPAR

The logic of running an LRT line up the Nose Creek valley strikes me as exactly analogous to the decision Edmonton made with its very first LRT line in the 1970's. They too chose to run their first line into the northeast up an existing rail right of way, in a lightly populated quadrant, in order to meet the new growing suburbs at the cities edge. This saved them money, allowing construction of an underground system in the core. (Of which I am still envious.)

So how did that turn out? Edmonton's LRT sytem was moribund for thirty years, while Calgary's less flashy surface system continued to grow and serve more and more people. It was not until Edmonton started to expand the system southwards, through heavily populated areas, that it got a new lease on life. Lets not repeat this history folks.

Not at all, the Nose Creek alignment builds on the very thing that has made the C-Train so successful. The purpose of the Nose Creek LRT was never to serve Centre Street. It was to provide a rapid link from the growing suburbs north of Beddington Trail to the core based on the ability for the LRV's to operate at their maximum speed along most of the Nose Creek ROW.

One might not like that the Nose Creek alignment was intended to serve as a SDBDS (Suburban Douchebag Delivery System) but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that it wouldn't have been successful as one.

The present administration can pencil the line in wherever they like, the future administration that has to budget for it will put it right back. I don't know a soul at Calgary Transit who takes the idea of a Centre Street alignment seriously.

[freeweed]

I'm still awaiting an announcement that the Tuscany extension is on permanent hold.