Calgary Public Transit II

[mersar]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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

It won't happen (being put on hold that is). Too much money has already been spent that if the city were to stop there would be an outcry of "why did you even start and waste all that money then"

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

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.

Cost is not an effectiveness measure, otherwise you might as well not build anything, which is always the cheapest option.

You are missing the most important part of all, transit is for the whole city, not just people living on the fringe who dont pay enough in property tax to justify such preferable treatment. Also, not LRT up center street limits the cities ability to density what is the most logical area to densify in the city.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Cost is not an effectiveness measure, otherwise you might as well not build anything, which is always the cheapest option.

You are missing the most important part of all, transit is for the whole city, not just people living on the fringe who dont pay enough in property tax to justify such preferable treatment. Also, not LRT up center street limits the cities ability to density what is the most logical area to densify in the city.

Cost alone is not an effective measure, but cost/benefit together is. Like I posted before, if I told you it would cost $100 Billion dollars to run it up Centre street, would you still think it is worth it? How about $50? How about $20? If it was only $1 billion, yeah absolutely run it up there. But at some point you simply cannot ignore the cost of it. We DO NOT have unlimited money, and spending billions more on the centre street aligment might not get that many more passengers relative to the dollars spent (won't know unless we analyze all options) and will mean that other projects, such as libraries or fire halls, or even other transportation infrastructure, will have to go unfunded.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

It won't happen (being put on hold that is). Too much money has already been spent that if the city were to stop there would be an outcry of "why did you even start and waste all that money then"

I'm crossing my fingers, but I could easily see someone at City Hall pointing out that the extra $100m required to finish it (or whatever the final figure is) could be better spent on a Centre Street alignment for the NCLRT, or whatever is the hot topic of the day. Seeing as it's already been argued by many that Crowfoot adequately services the areas that Tuscany is intended to service.

Cities abandon infrastructure projects all the time, although you're right - Calgary in particular seems to really fall for the "sunk cost" fallacy.

[fusili]

In terms of a cost/benefit analysis it is absolutely fundamental to include as much as possible to reflect the entire system costs and not just a simply ROW cost analysis.

- Network effects of each option, such as "What is the marginal cost of the decrease in capacity on the NE line due to interlining with Nose Creek?" "What is the marginal cost for a new tunnel in the downtown due to additional capacity needed on 7th avenue"
- Incorporate an analysis of integration with the BRT network, especially the 16th ave crosstown route
- We also need to take into account single seat trips from NC Calary to the South Hospital/Foothills Industrial vs. transfers for the Nose Creek alignment (i.e. we need to incorporate a transfer penalty).
- Include consideration of through running trains through Eau Claire station rather than dead-ending them. Is there an operational efficiency that results from this?
- Include an analysis of marginal costs for maintenance facilities. Since the trains on the SE will be low floor, they will require a new maintenance facillity. So, what is the economies of scale savings from expanding the low-floor maintenance facility vs. the high-floor facilities at OBMF etc?
- Analysis of potential for added density along each route

Although I am a supporter of the Centre Street routing, it is because I believe that a full systems analysis makes it a better route. I could be proven wrong, but I think it is important that we consider everything when we examine the alternatives.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm crossing my fingers, but I could easily see someone at City Hall pointing out that the extra $100m required to finish it (or whatever the final figure is) could be better spent on a Centre Street alignment for the NCLRT, or whatever is the hot topic of the day. Seeing as it's already been argued by many that Crowfoot adequately services the areas that Tuscany is intended to service.

Cities abandon infrastructure projects all the time, although you're right - Calgary in particular seems to really fall for the "sunk cost" fallacy.

Honestly, Crowfoot already does a pretty good job servicing the area now. Even as a resident of Tuscany I would be OK with the project being halted for awhile. Now that the Stoney interchange has been built to ultimate design (as a result of the Tuscany LRT extension) anything more is a bonus.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

In terms of a cost/benefit analysis it is absolutely fundamental to include as much as possible to reflect the entire system costs and not just a simply ROW cost analysis.

- Network effects of each option, such as "What is the marginal cost of the decrease in capacity on the NE line due to interlining with Nose Creek?" "What is the marginal cost for a new tunnel in the downtown due to additional capacity needed on 7th avenue"
- Incorporate an analysis of integration with the BRT network, especially the 16th ave crosstown route
- We also need to take into account single seat trips from NC Calary to the South Hospital/Foothills Industrial vs. transfers for the Nose Creek alignment (i.e. we need to incorporate a transfer penalty).
- Include consideration of through running trains through Eau Claire station rather than dead-ending them. Is there an operational efficiency that results from this?
- Include an analysis of marginal costs for maintenance facilities. Since the trains on the SE will be low floor, they will require a new maintenance facillity. So, what is the economies of scale savings from expanding the low-floor maintenance facility vs. the high-floor facilities at OBMF etc?
- Analysis of potential for added density along each route

Although I am a supporter of the Centre Street routing, it is because I believe that a full systems analysis makes it a better route. I could be proven wrong, but I think it is important that we consider everything when we examine the alternatives.

Exactly, and this analysis has to be done on ALL options. I don't want to see Nose Creek discounted simply because someone says "its not near the people". If Centre Street really is the better alignment, the analsyis should have no trouble showing that.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

In terms of a cost/benefit analysis it is absolutely fundamental to include as much as possible to reflect the entire system costs and not just a simply ROW cost analysis.

- Network effects of each option, such as "What is the marginal cost of the decrease in capacity on the NE line due to interlining with Nose Creek?" "What is the marginal cost for a new tunnel in the downtown due to additional capacity needed on 7th avenue"
- Incorporate an analysis of integration with the BRT network, especially the 16th ave crosstown route
- We also need to take into account single seat trips from NC Calary to the South Hospital/Foothills Industrial vs. transfers for the Nose Creek alignment (i.e. we need to incorporate a transfer penalty).
- Include consideration of through running trains through Eau Claire station rather than dead-ending them. Is there an operational efficiency that results from this?
- Include an analysis of marginal costs for maintenance facilities. Since the trains on the SE will be low floor, they will require a new maintenance facillity. So, what is the economies of scale savings from expanding the low-floor maintenance facility vs. the high-floor facilities at OBMF etc?
- Analysis of potential for added density along each route

Although I am a supporter of the Centre Street routing, it is because I believe that a full systems analysis makes it a better route. I could be proven wrong, but I think it is important that we consider everything when we examine the alternatives.

We should probably rethink low floor trains on the SE while we're at it; if the Centre Street route provides a rationale for it all the better. I've yet to hear a reasonable justification for switching over.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

We should probably rethink low floor trains on the SE while we're at it; if the Centre Street route provides a rationale for it all the better. I've yet to hear a reasonable justification for switching over.

The largest cost saving is on station costs, as you don't have to build up the height of the station. This is especially true for in-street stations (such as 7th avenue). Think of how much we would have saved in concrete and construction costs (not to mention access issues with adjacent buildings) if the original trains were low floor. You would have to compare the cost savings on the vehicles with the cost savings on the stations to get a better answer. I also think tunnels for low floor vehicles may have to be larger than otherwise. Does someone know better?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

The largest cost saving is on station costs, as you don't have to build up the height of the station. This is especially true for in-street stations (such as 7th avenue). Think of how much we would have saved in concrete and construction costs (not to mention access issues with adjacent buildings) if the original trains were low floor. You would have to compare the cost savings on the vehicles with the cost savings on the stations to get a better answer. I also think tunnels for low floor vehicles may have to be larger than otherwise. Does someone know better?

The other trade off is capacity. Every low floor train design has less capacity for a given platform length and there has to be a reason for that. I'm not sure how significant cost saving would have been for our current system, particularly outside of 7 Ave, since very few of our stations could take advantage of enlarged sidewalks as stations. If we had wanted to save money we could have built far more modest stations, whether high floor or low. And yeah, as I understand it low floor design would have essentially no affect on elevated station costs and would significantly increase the costs of buried/trenched stations.

I know that one of the arguments in favour of low floor is station integration into the urban realm but the SE LRT has maybe two stations where that could apply.

I just really don't think that it is worth the reduction in capacity and the costs/inflexibility inherent in running two incompatible fleets to start building low floor in the future.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

You are missing the most important part of all, transit is for the whole city, not just people living on the fringe who dont pay enough in property tax to justify such preferable treatment. Also, not LRT up center street limits the cities ability to density what is the most logical area to densify in the city.

The word is transit and it can be provided in a great many ways depending on the community. Centre Street south of Beddington Trail is well served by buses. The further growth of the northern fringe suburbs isn't in doubt, while the significant intensification of Centre Street is unlikely to impossible. How anyone can who remembers the war over several blocks in Sunnyside can believe otherwise is beyond me.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

We should probably rethink low floor trains on the SE while we're at it; if the Centre Street route provides a rationale for it all the better. I've yet to hear a reasonable justification for switching over.

I have yet to hear anyone even articulate a single tangible advantage of low-floor vehicles. Since street level boarding won't be done regardless due to accessibility sensitivities.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

if the original trains were low floor. You would have to compare the cost savings on the vehicles with the cost savings on the stations to get a better answer. I also think tunnels for low floor vehicles may have to be larger than otherwise. Does someone know better?

There isn't a low-floor version of the original LRV's - but there is a street level boarding one which is used in Sacramento.


Flickr

They have been a handicapped accessibility nuisance since they day they entered service. The forward most door on the right-hand side has to be lined up with a stationary ramp installed at each stop. This has generally proven to be beyond the abilities of Sacramento transit operators.

Low-floor vehicles might hearken back to street cars, but they are an accessibility nightmare unless operated with a platform and the only advantage to low-floor vehicles in the first place is street level boarding. So what is the advantage again of introducing this proprietary fleet?

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There isn't a low-floor version of the original LRV's - but there is a street level boarding one which is used in Sacramento.


Flickr

They have been a handicapped accessibility nuisance since they day they entered service. The forward most door on the right-hand side has to be lined up with a stationary ramp installed at each stop. This has generally proven to be beyond the abilities of Sacramento transit operators.

I don't think think this is an issue with the train so much as it is with platform height and poor urban design.

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/shared/data/pdf/sts_usa_internet/portland_s70.pdf

To my understanding it doesn't matter if the boarding height is 10m or 1cm high(exaggeration). As long as the train floor and the platform line up there should be no difference in wheelchair boardings with regular and low-floor trains.

[UofC.engineer]

In the picture it looks like the designers have taken a regular sidewalk and bolted fare payment machines to it with no regard for platform height.

[Policy Wonk]

There is no platform, Sacramento uses street level boarding, the Sacramento Light Rail predates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Typically post-ADA low-floor rolling stock uses a 16" platform to facilitate handicapped boarding.

The question in Calgary is identifying a tangible advantage that justifies introducing a proprietary sub-fleet of vehicles given street car style street level boarding isn't practical.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

The largest cost saving is on station costs, as you don't have to build up the height of the station. This is especially true for in-street stations (such as 7th avenue). Think of how much we would have saved in concrete and construction costs (not to mention access issues with adjacent buildings) if the original trains were low floor. You would have to compare the cost savings on the vehicles with the cost savings on the stations to get a better answer. I also think tunnels for low floor vehicles may have to be larger than otherwise. Does someone know better?

Are you implying (saying) that the extreme cost and 6-10 month build time for the 7th Ave platforms was simply due to the higher concrete aprons used?

I'm kinda being an 🞵🞵🞵 deliberately, but I'm pretty sure the cost and time savings would be minimal at best. If those platforms were simply concrete blocks we might be talking a million bucks worth of grey, tops. I always was told the high cost and insanely long construction times were due to mechanical/electrical/canopy complexity, none of which would go away with low floor platforms. In fact they could make that stuff worse (more digging required for utility lines).

Unless I'm completely full of 🞵🞵🞵🞵. I just find it hard to believe that a 3' elevated platform is the major cost component in a station that takes nearly a year to construct. I've seen things like that poured over a weekend.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The word is transit and it can be provided in a great many ways depending on the community. Centre Street south of Beddington Trail is well served by buses. The further growth of the northern fringe suburbs isn't in doubt, while the significant intensification of Centre Street is unlikely to impossible. How anyone can who remembers the war over several blocks in Sunnyside can believe otherwise is beyond me.

This is a very good point. How many people actually expect highrise development along Centre Street, north of 20th ave? And even south of 20th, the highest buildings will be at the intersection with 16th Ave, which is happening again regardless of LRT. I do think we will see lots of increased density in the form of low to midrise developments, but this is already happening, without the City spending billions on putting an LRT up there. There are several DP's in for 3-4 storey office and residential projects along the corridor.

To me the biggest impediment to the Nose Creek alignment is the interlining with the NE-W route. This might be a big enough problem to justify the costs of putting it up Centre Street.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

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.

I don't get how this is an argument against the Centre St alignment; from 96th and Harvest Hills to the middle of downtown is 15 km via Nose Creek and 11 km via Centre Street. The Nose Creek alignment would have 7 stations before entering the CBD; an example proposal for Centre Street is... 7 stations. So the "rapid link" you are arguing for is the one that goes 36% farther and stops as frequently.

Although the Nose Creek line would provide double the service to the two least-used stations in the whole system, so there's that benefit. Too bad we'd wind up digging ourselves an 8th ave tunnel at significant expense to relieve the congestion due to interlining on 7th Ave, then undo that by reintroducing it.

There's an argument to be made on costs vs. benefits; but both are lower for Nose Creek.

Well, capital cost, at least. Certainly the dozens of buses down Centre St. could be largely replaced by LRT, so the operating costs are way lower for a Centre St. LRT. And there's the added costs (to the City and other agencies) of further sprawl; these are harder to quantify, but to the degree a Centre St. LRT reduces the need for additional tri-services coverage, or new schools, etc., there is also the potential for cost savings. And if the value of property goes up 10-20% near LRT stations, the increase in the property tax base is radically higher for a Centre St. alignment.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if an accounting of all costs and revenue to government agencies over the project lifecycle showed Centre St. to be cheaper than Nose Creek, or at least within reach. The benefits of Centre St. are clearly higher.

[sim]

To avoid writing another essay.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Not at all, the Nose Creek alignment builds on the very thing that has made the C-Train so successful. The purpose of the

By what metric? Kim Jong Il was a successful leader.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The word is transit and it can be provided in a great many ways depending on the community.

No, the word is public transit. As such a public good, and something that benefits society maximally when maximally accessible.

Originally Posted by fusili

In terms of a cost/benefit analysis it is absolutely fundamental to include as much as possible to reflect the entire system costs and not just a simply ROW cost analysis.

- Network effects of each option, such as "What is the marginal cost of the decrease in capacity on the NE line due to interlining with Nose Creek?" "What is the marginal cost for a new tunnel in the downtown due to additional capacity needed on 7th avenue"
- Incorporate an analysis of integration with the BRT network, especially the 16th ave crosstown route
- We also need to take into account single seat trips from NC Calary to the South Hospital/Foothills Industrial vs. transfers for the Nose Creek alignment (i.e. we need to incorporate a transfer penalty).
- Include consideration of through running trains through Eau Claire station rather than dead-ending them. Is there an operational efficiency that results from this?
- Include an analysis of marginal costs for maintenance facilities. Since the trains on the SE will be low floor, they will require a new maintenance facillity. So, what is the economies of scale savings from expanding the low-floor maintenance facility vs. the high-floor facilities at OBMF etc?
- Analysis of potential for added density along each route

Although I am a supporter of the Centre Street routing, it is because I believe that a full systems analysis makes it a better route. I could be proven wrong, but I think it is important that we consider everything when we examine the alternatives.

A good list so far. I'd also add the forgone accessibility to a line serving much fewer people.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if an accounting of all costs and revenue to government agencies over the project lifecycle showed Centre St. to be cheaper than Nose Creek, or at least within reach. The benefits of Centre St. are clearly higher.

Good point.


If what a successful system is, is a predifined notion and doesn't take into account entire intermodal network effects, and the resulting interactions of land-use, I think it would be rather easy to steer a cost/benefit analysis to make nose creek a better option.

That being said, of course doing a cost/benefit analysis for all routes would be a neccessary step. The reservations I have though, is that it will turn that document into a be all, end all decision making tool and the tool will be created and used by someone/some group that overlooks many very important indicators, that are basically impossible to monetize or extend much further into the entire system than will inevitably be investigated. Based on retrospect of historical decisions made, this seems to have been the case then too.

I'm rather convinced that if you simpy look at capital costs, resulting load factors and subsequent fare-box recovery rates according to its then optimally based schedule, the nose creek alignment would win everytime in a cost/benefit. This might then also be called a successful system.