Calgary Public Transit II

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Well I have to say that I don't envy your position of having to deliver a message like that. However I find that with any large scale transportation project, there will always be a room full of angry people. Let's face it, people don't like change at all and there will always be people who go to the ends of the earth to resist it. The question is, how many of those people are there in relation to the total number of people the project will impact?? There was some well organized resistance to the West LRT by local community groups however at the end of the day, the majority of people recognized the benefits that the LRT could bring to the city and the project is currently well on its way to completion. The West LRT Westbrook ARP includes parts of 17th Ave SW and calls for mid-rise mixed use buildings along 17th Ave and increased density through in-fill projects in the surrounding communities... essentially an identical plan to what would be needed for Centre Street. So we have already seen proof in Calgary that this type of intensification in existing communities can be accepted by residents when it's linked to an LRT project. I'm curious as to why you think a Centre Street LRT and the intensification of the surrounding communities would be received so differently than the West LRT and the related ARPs were?

The West LRT is different, first of all they have only expropriated about fifty properties, fewer than in Sunnyside for the entire length of the route. They also were able to use four blocks worth of CPR right-of-way. And there are only two areas targeted for intensification. One is already relatively urban and the other already home to high-rise condos. The only likely major point of conflict for Westbrook will be whatever is ultimately built on the site of Howdy Doody High School which will probably be a lot like University City and not have enough parking. The West LRT doesn't deviate much from the successful commuter oriented LRT and both Sirocco Station and 69th Street will feature large parking lots. This can't be applied to a Centre Street LRT because first of all bulldozing 7km of largely residential properties is going to upset alot more people than bulldozing a strip mall and a bank and there are also no points along the Centre Street route to provide for Park and Ride facilities. Also assuming the Centre Street LRT would reach no further than 64th Ave or 78th Ave at the very furthest two points of intensification along the route would not be anywhere near sufficient. And to this end at catastrophic cost it has accomplished nothing that hasn't been done admirably well since the Trolley Buses were finally scrapped.

You have also made comments in the past about how people at Calgary Transit pretty much dismiss a Centre Street LRT outright and are just playing along for the sake of the politicians, and I will agree that there have been a few comments in the press by CT spokespeople that seem to jive with this theory. So my question to you (and them as well I guess) is why so negative about what can be done in this city?? Look at current and proposed transit projects for places like Vancouver and Toronto and you will find projects much larger and much more ambitious than a Centre Street subway. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT project in Toronto has a projected cost of over $8 BILLION.... more than the cost of building the SE LRT AND a Centre Street subway. The biggest difference between Calgary and those cities is that Toronto and Vancouver no longer have a choice but to deal with the mess that years of sprawl have brought them and we still have the luxury of time before our planning decisions start to catch up to us. Prioritizing projects like the SE LRT and a Centre Street Subway is a key way to help change the way the city is built (if I remember correctly there was $11 BILLION in savings Plan It: Calgary could potentially save the city if we are able to curb our sprawl) and avoid the traffic gridlock that is plaguing Vancouver and Toronto. Why do you seem to feel that this stuff is out of reach for a city that is in one of the wealthiest provinces in the country when it is currently being done in areas of the country that are strapped for cash even more than we are??

For my part I just don't see the need and or point. I believe that the type of intensification required along Centre Street that would be required for a C-Train line that is unlikely to extend past 64th Ave or 78th Ave at the very furthest is politically impossible to build. At which point we are left with a catastrophic expense to provide a service little better than what has been provided with ordinary buses.

Calgary has developed a highly successful transit culture, not only around the C-Train but buses too. This is an accomplishment and it should be built on rather than trying to impose something nobody wants. So would you prefer a future resident of Hidden Valley Ranch (you know there will be one eventually) leaves work in the morning, drives a short distance to a North Central LRT station and rides to his downtown skyscraper... or do you want him to drive to the Points North Business Park in Balzac. The savings PlanIt might provide for are barely academic because any administration that seriously moves about implementing it will be thrown out on their 🞵🞵🞵.

And for the record I think building the Eglinton Crosstown line below grade is ridiculous.

Speaking for Calgary Transit as best I can the bottom line is transit agencies neither green wash themselves or have a social agenda. They drive buses and operate trains, they go where the people are. They are bureaucrats - the mayor is just a picture on the wall that changes periodically who they are to smile and nod to. To the Calgary Transit bureaucracy the Centre Street LRT is a completely discredited proposal that has been dismissed repeatedly, each time more decisively than the last and just won't stay dead, will never be built and City Hall is wasting their time dredging it up over and over again. The next mayor probably won't care either way and the line will revert to Nose Creek where everyone knows it will eventually be built.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd love LRT or some sort of rail up Centre, but I have to agree with Policy Wonk that the ROI might not be there, until it's so busy that it's back to back busses, which if the original LRT was built might never happen since much of the bus traffic increase would be bringing people down Centre from the NLRT catchment area.

During weekdays the #3 Bus, at least along Centre Street (I didn't check to see if the city has more capacity there than the Elbow Drive stretch but that doesn't matter), currently runs every ten minutes from ~06:30 until ~22:00. Rush hour frequency is even higher, pretty well every five minutes with some gaps of as low as 3 minutes. Of the NC LRT's catchment area, the #3 only serves the Centre Street corridor portion and not the high growth suburbs north of Beddington Trail.

The #301 has roughly similar levels of service. Frequency drops sooner in the late evenings but again it runs every ten minutes for most of the day with that dropping to about five minutes during the peak. I will grant that a significant amount of the ridership may come from north of Beddington Trail but something will have to remain along Centre Street if the Nose Creek alignment is chosen for the NC LRT.

So we have a mix of regular and articulated busses, with one coming roughly every two and half minutes. How many more can realistically be thrown onto a road like Centre Street? I think headways of 150 seconds is already pushing the capacity of a route that lacks dedicated transit lanes, has buses stopping in the right lane to pick-up/drop-off passengers, and has few turning lanes. Back to back busses, or anything close, is simply not realistic in this; every time a bus would need to stop, the entire road would stop.

The NC LRT is a key piece of infrastructure that the city will have to live with for a very long time. What do we think the area between the Bow River and Beddington Trail is going to look like in twenty years when the NC LRT could realistically be constructed? How about fifty when, at oldest, it could be as old as the S LRT is today? How about eighty when it might be as old as Toronto's Yonge Street Subway? Even with the slow pace of moderate intensification we are seeing today, do we seriously think busses will be able to service the population? We don't need a Centre Street Subway to create the demand to intensify North Central Calgary; we need it to allow the demand for intensification of the area, that will surely exist over the coming decades, to be serviced.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The West LRT is different, first of all they have only expropriated about fifty properties, fewer than in Sunnyside for the entire length of the route. They also were able to use four blocks worth of CPR right-of-way. And there are only two areas targeted for intensification. One is already relatively urban and the other already home to high-rise condos. The only likely major point of conflict for Westbrook will be whatever is ultimately built on the site of Howdy Doody High School which will probably be a lot like University City and not have enough parking. The West LRT doesn't deviate much from the successful commuter oriented LRT and both Sirocco Station and 69th Street will feature large parking lots. This can't be applied to a Centre Street LRT because first of all bulldozing 7km of largely residential properties is going to upset alot more people than bulldozing a strip mall and a bank and there are also no points along the Centre Street route to provide for Park and Ride facilities. Also assuming the Centre Street LRT would reach no further than 64th Ave or 78th Ave at the very furthest two points of intensification along the route would not be anywhere near sufficient. And to this end at catastrophic cost it has accomplished nothing that hasn't been done admirably well since the Trolley Buses were finally scrapped.



For my part I just don't see the need and or point. I believe that the type of intensification required along Centre Street that would be required for a C-Train line that is unlikely to extend past 64th Ave or 78th Ave at the very furthest is politically impossible to build. At which point we are left with a catastrophic expense to provide a service little better than what has been provided with ordinary buses.

Calgary has developed a highly successful transit culture, not only around the C-Train but buses too. This is an accomplishment and it should be built on rather than trying to impose something nobody wants. So would you prefer a future resident of Hidden Valley Ranch (you know there will be one eventually) leaves work in the morning, drives a short distance to a North Central LRT station and rides to his downtown skyscraper... or do you want him to drive to the Points North Business Park in Balzac. The savings PlanIt might provide for are barely academic because any administration that seriously moves about implementing it will be thrown out on their 🞵🞵🞵.

And for the record I think building the Eglinton Crosstown line below grade is ridiculous.

Speaking for Calgary Transit as best I can the bottom line is transit agencies neither green wash themselves or have a social agenda. They drive buses and operate trains, they go where the people are. They are bureaucrats - the mayor is just a picture on the wall that changes periodically who they are to smile and nod to. To the Calgary Transit bureaucracy the Centre Street LRT is a completely discredited proposal that has been dismissed repeatedly, each time more decisively than the last and just won't stay dead, will never be built and City Hall is wasting their time dredging it up over and over again. The next mayor probably won't care either way and the line will revert to Nose Creek where everyone knows it will eventually be built.

Why on Earth would a Centre Street route stop at 78 Ave, a mere kilometre away from the reserved ROW in the median of Harvest Hills Boulevard? This debate really doesn't matter for the travel patterns of your Hidden Valley Ranch resident. They'll still have their large Park and Ride lot just off of Stoney Trail at Harvest Hills Boulevard. Whether the train takes a tunnel or the Nose Creek valley to get from Beddington Trail to downtown doesn't change that at all; what changes is the line's capital costs and the utility of the section south of Beddington Trail.

Using a tunnel between downtown and Beddington Trail would solve all of the problems you've outlined with the exception of cost. There would be no fallout from expropriating 7 km of mostly residential. People might 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the traffic delays caused by construction but, as with every other construction project, they'll largely put up with it. In the tunnel trains would be free to operate as fast as they can. At two thirds of the distance, the route could be faster than a Nose Creek alignment and have more stations.

As for the needed intensification necessary to justify such a project, I think you're seriously overestimating the amount of development needed to overburden the bus system along Centre Street while underestimating the amount of development that can freely occur with little organized opposition.

I'm also coming to the conclusion that we have all been very optimistic about the costs of a Nose Creek alignment. The CPR ROW is simply not that wide, ignoring the fact that the province might want a piece of it for HSR, it looks like it could handle three sets of tracks at most. Supposing CP is even willing to let go of their option of ever twinning their tracks to Edmonton, what would they charge us for the privilege of using up the rest of their ROW? Judging by what they charged for the few blocks used in the W LRT construction, it would probably be an obscene amount. I think the Nose Creek alignment would ultimately involve a lot of expropriation, particularly in the industrial parks between 32 Ave and 64 Ave, and the complete rebuild of every bridge over the CPR tracks. There would also be the expensive matter of rebuilding Memorial Drive, and possibly its interchange with Deerfoot, so that Nose Creek tracks could even join up with NE LRT tracks. I also doubt that any thought has been put into the problem of access for any station along Nose Creek.

To me the Nose Creek alignment seems like an incredibly expensive way to give us the equivalent of the S LRT if the S LRT didn't have any stations between Erlton and Fish Creek-Lacombe. The S LRT might be nice for people living in the fast growing suburbs south of Fish Creek Park but its ridership relies a great deal on all of the people living between there and downtown, using busy stations like Chinook, Heritage, and Anderson. If anything the Nose Creek alignment would be a diversion away from what has made the C-Train so successful, with its complete abandonment of all of the residents of the inner city and inner suburbs.

[You Need A Thneed]

As I've said before, Running a Nose Creek alignment means building an entirely new downtown right of way as well, whereas, a centre street alignment could share downtown right of way with the SE line.

The preliminary plans had the Nose Creek alignment just joining up with the existing NE line at the Zoo station, but that will just cause the same capacity constraints that we have now, and will allow very little future growth on either line. This issue will result in the idea of sharing ROW with the NE line being deemed unacceptable. Sharing the ROW from the SE line (up 2nd street to Eau Claire) will save $500M to $1B worth of cost, and again, the WLRT project has shown that buying up ROW from CPR is expensive. A nose creek alignment may also mean that some kind of streetcar system would be required in the future up centre street. You really have to add that cost into the total cost, since a LRT alignment up centre Street would mean that a second system would never be required.

[YYCguys]

What are the preliminary station locations for the proposed NCLRT?

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What you call "poor growth patterns" is the way an extreme plurality of people choose to live. You're probably just going to have to deal with it and settle for maximizing their transit usage.

I would ideally choose to live with a ski hill at my door, a yacht in my backyard, 4 wives inside and a have a job where I watch the minions make me millions. Oh, my choice isn't realistic, nor economically, environmentally and socially viable?

Not too mention that the reality actually is that the vast minority does live like that and it is not changing dramatically anytime soon, and if it did the overall world situation doesn't necessarily improve.

And compared to the ridership achieved by more suburban commuter oriented systems, I would not characterize many modern streetcar systems as successful. If success to you is people hoping on and off to get a coffee - well there you go.

So you've predetermined success based on ridership alone - and even if that were the tell-all metric, it isn't even true. Zurich's trams carry about double what the C-train does per day, for example.

There is no spatial structure that supports much ridership during non-peak hours, the world has been pretty set in the hours it keeps since the industrial revolution.

Yup, except for Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Paris, Berlin, Munich, Zurich, Cairo, Bogota, Shanghai, Barcelona, Stockholm, Istanbul...

Commerce and its transportation needs and mobility in general don't stop from 10:00 am to 3:00 pm. If you develop a system (a city) that isn't geared toward commuters, you get a system that isn't just used by commuters.

I think, in all seriousness, it is helpful in planning in general when there is an outlook a little beyond just that of Calgary or North America...

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Why on Earth would a Centre Street route stop at 78 Ave, a mere kilometre away from the reserved ROW in the median of Harvest Hills Boulevard?

Insurmountable Cost, the burden of reconnecting a Centre Street alignment to Nose Creek north of 64th Ave was part of the reason it has been so decisively rejected in the past.

This debate really doesn't matter for the travel patterns of your Hidden Valley Ranch resident. They'll still have their large Park and Ride lot just off of Stoney Trail at Harvest Hills Boulevard. Whether the train takes a tunnel or the Nose Creek valley to get from Beddington Trail to downtown doesn't change that at all; what changes is the line's capital costs and the utility of the section south of Beddington Trail.

Yeah, those "capital costs" have cast a pretty large shadow over this debate over the last thirty-five years.

Using a tunnel between downtown and Beddington Trail would solve all of the problems you've outlined with the exception of cost.

I love how you guys treat expenses potentially in the tens of billions of dollars as an after thought. If money were no object I would say go for it.

There would be no fallout from expropriating 7 km of mostly residential. People might 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the traffic delays caused by construction but, as with every other construction project, they'll largely put up with it. In the tunnel trains would be free to operate as fast as they can. At two thirds of the distance, the route could be faster than a Nose Creek alignment and have more stations.

See: Sunnyside, where a war was fought over four blocks of clapboard shacks.

As for the needed intensification necessary to justify such a project, I think you're seriously overestimating the amount of development needed to overburden the bus system along Centre Street while underestimating the amount of development that can freely occur with little organized opposition.

Cities the world over serve areas similar to Centre Street with substantially greater density with buses quite successfully.

I'm also coming to the conclusion that we have all been very optimistic about the costs of a Nose Creek alignment. The CPR ROW is simply not that wide, ignoring the fact that the province might want a piece of it for HSR, it looks like it could handle three sets of tracks at most. Supposing CP is even willing to let go of their option of ever twinning their tracks to Edmonton, what would they charge us for the privilege of using up the rest of their ROW? Judging by what they charged for the few blocks used in the W LRT construction, it would probably be an obscene amount.

First of all, the city bought the four block section of the CPR ROW used for the West LRT outright. Secondly there are two rough plans for the Nose Creek LRT, one calls for leasing space within the ROW - the other calls for building it on city-owned land which will require expropriating several wasteland properties near McKnight. As of 2006 the CPR remained supportive. HSR is irrelevant. It will never be built.

I think the Nose Creek alignment would ultimately involve a lot of expropriation, particularly in the industrial parks between 32 Ave and 64 Ave, and the complete rebuild of every bridge over the CPR tracks. There would also be the expensive matter of rebuilding Memorial Drive, and possibly its interchange with Deerfoot, so that Nose Creek tracks could even join up with NE LRT tracks. I also doubt that any thought has been put into the problem of access for any station along Nose Creek.

The industrial parks along Nose Creek aren't worth very much. The bridges aren't a problem and the Nose Creek LRT would cross below westbound Memorial Drive to interline with the Northeast LRT. And yes, there are stations planned.

To me the Nose Creek alignment seems like an incredibly expensive way to give us the equivalent of the S LRT if the S LRT didn't have any stations between Erlton and Fish Creek-Lacombe. The S LRT might be nice for people living in the fast growing suburbs south of Fish Creek Park but its ridership relies a great deal on all of the people living between there and downtown, using busy stations like Chinook, Heritage, and Anderson. If anything the Nose Creek alignment would be a diversion away from what has made the C-Train so successful, with its complete abandonment of all of the residents of the inner city and inner suburbs.

You don't have to like this fact but the North Central LRT was designed EXPLICITLY for serving the fast growing suburbs north of Beddington Trail. Without debating the validity of rail bias, there is not a tremendous improvement in transit service to be realized on Centre Street proportionate to the expense. I recall the exact language in the 2006 report was to the effect of "The Nose Creek corridor provides a suitable alignment for LRT designed primarily to serve the new communities north of Beddington Trail and the future communities that will be developed north of Stoney Trail."

It was conceived as a suburban douchebag delivery system and planned as one and will be highly successful as one.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Cities the world over serve areas similar to Centre Street with substantially greater density with buses quite successfully.

A lot of cities that dense also run rail along a corridor with no one along it into their downtown, to serve an area of low density that will much longer stay that way; with a few stations, so that they can run at best a few service hours in the morning and a few in the evening. Oh wait. No other city that has any sort of hopes of being sustainable does that.

If you care to show even one example of such a city (heck even if it is an American or Australian one, you might have at least a basis.)

I wanted to leave this alone, but I'm sorry, if there is one thing you've shown is that you don't really know what's going on over the world and are using misinformation to base your arguments on.

Strangely enough, busses tend to work better for low density areas. So why not paint some pretty HOV diamonds on deerfoot, put in some signal prioritization and run a few articulated busses at high frequency?

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by sim

Strangely enough, busses tend to work better for low density areas. So why not paint some pretty HOV diamonds on deerfoot, put in some signal prioritization and run a few articulated busses at high frequency?

Maybe this should be an option to consider as well. Save billions of dollars, and still get a high quality level of service.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

It's often been said that 24hr C-train isn't feasible as that downtime between about 2am and 5am is needed for maintenance. But why aren't we running a 24 hr bus? I would assume with the new DUI rules and the taxi issue, that people would quickly fill these busses. Something along the lines of keeping the LRT and BRT routes going over the gap.

Curious if anyone had any comments on this

[srperrycgy]

Having a overnight transit service is inevitable, not just for the drunks, but anyone who needs to get around after midnight. You can't run every route overnight, so priorities would have to be established. Given the need for LRT maintenance overnight, each line could be replaced by buses perhaps on a 30 min frequency. Just off the top of my head, the 1, 2, 3, 7, 20, 23, 72/73, 301 would be good overnight routes. Routes aside, I would be concerned about operator security.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

A lot of cities that dense also run rail along a corridor with no one along it into their downtown, to serve an area of low density that will much longer stay that way; with a few stations, so that they can run at best a few service hours in the morning and a few in the evening. Oh wait. No other city that has any sort of hopes of being sustainable does that.

If you care to show even one example of such a city (heck even if it is an American or Australian one, you might have at least a basis.)

A discussion about the economic, engineering and environmental obstacles that influence mass transit decisions would be an interesting one. Do yourself a favor and don't look at the route of the Lynx Light Rail in Charlotte North Carolina. Its route is derived almost entirely from available remnants of Norfolk Southern right-of-ways. Why? Because the securing a more desirable right-of-way was too expensive.

I wanted to leave this alone, but I'm sorry, if there is one thing you've shown is that you don't really know what's going on over the world and are using misinformation to base your arguments on.

Right, it is the side that isn't trivializing projects that would run into the tens of billions of dollars that would derive no benefit proportionate to the expense that is using misinformation... Those who support the Nose Creek alternative have a plan that is built on a city as it actually exists and reflects the well established habits and lifestyle of people who actually exist. Rather than a hypothetical mob of people that is apparently spontaneously going to embrace urbanity in such large numbers as to substantially displace suburban growth.

Calgary has an amazing transit culture, build on that instead of trying to impose a contrived urbanity at ridiculous cost.

Strangely enough, busses tend to work better for low density areas. So why not paint some pretty HOV diamonds on deerfoot, put in some signal prioritization and run a few articulated busses at high frequency?

Personally I wish they had done this for the airport BRT.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Insurmountable Cost, the burden of reconnecting a Centre Street alignment to Nose Creek north of 64th Ave was part of the reason it has been so decisively rejected in the past.



Yeah, those "capital costs" have cast a pretty large shadow over this debate over the last thirty-five years.



I love how you guys treat expenses potentially in the tens of billions of dollars as an after thought. If money were no object I would say go for it.



See: Sunnyside, where a war was fought over four blocks of clapboard shacks.



Cities the world over serve areas similar to Centre Street with substantially greater density with buses quite successfully.



First of all, the city bought the four block section of the CPR ROW used for the West LRT outright. Secondly there are two rough plans for the Nose Creek LRT, one calls for leasing space within the ROW - the other calls for building it on city-owned land which will require expropriating several wasteland properties near McKnight. As of 2006 the CPR remained supportive. HSR is irrelevant. It will never be built.



The industrial parks along Nose Creek aren't worth very much. The bridges aren't a problem and the Nose Creek LRT would cross below westbound Memorial Drive to interline with the Northeast LRT. And yes, there are stations planned.



You don't have to like this fact but the North Central LRT was designed EXPLICITLY for serving the fast growing suburbs north of Beddington Trail. Without debating the validity of rail bias, there is not a tremendous improvement in transit service to be realized on Centre Street proportionate to the expense. I recall the exact language in the 2006 report was to the effect of "The Nose Creek corridor provides a suitable alignment for LRT designed primarily to serve the new communities north of Beddington Trail and the future communities that will be developed north of Stoney Trail."

It was conceived as a suburban douchebag delivery system and planned as one and will be highly successful as one.

Tens of billions of dollars is no way a realistic assessment of the costs of what I am proposing. It is simply absurd to think that nine kilometres of, mostly cut and cover, tunnel would cost that much. The Canada Line involved essentially the same amount of tunnelling and a similar amount of elevated rail; the total capital cost of the project was somewhere around two and half billion dollars. Why would construction in Calgary cost an order of magnitude more when the tunnelled length is the same and the rest of the route is shorter, in a reserved ROW, and not elevated? I would expect the tunnel portion to cost no more than two billion dollars tops.

I have read the 2006 report. I found it flawed. Its recommendation of a Nose Creek alignment was more of an afterthought. It didn't really look into the costs or performance of such a line. It simply determined that at some point the bus system in North Central Calgary would be overtaxed and a rail based system would be needed then reinforced the preconceived notion of routing it through the Nose Creek valley. The report was really about figuring out when the bus system would be overtaxed, not the best way of supplementing the bus system with rail when that occurs. I think it under estimated population growth in the city and the demand for redevelopment in the area south of Beddington Trail. This led to optimistic forecasts for the bus system's ability to permanently handle the loads from the established communities and new areas along Symons Valley Road (which the report assumed would be serviced by another BRT route using Centre Street to reach the core). There were no plans outlined for station placement; the report itself outlines the extreme difficulty of accessing any stations in the valley without suggesting where they would be.

The report assumed that there would be 11 600 more people living and 9600 more working in the established communities south of Beddington when the city has a population of 1.5 million people. It is pretty vague on a time table for when that would occur but the implication was that it would not be for a long time. That seems incredibly conservative. Their definition of this area is bounded by 14 St NW, Nose Hill, Shaganappi Trail, Stoney Trail, Beddington Trail, Deerfoot Trail, and the Bow River. That is a huge area. There are a lot of houses on 50' lots that simply will not be there in thirty years. Most will likely be subdivided into 25' lots but some will become low rise apartments, as is already happening.

So what is the maximum bus frequency we can expect on Centre Street? North of the lane reversal/HOV zone we already have an hour with 14 #3, 11 #301, and 2 #300 (which I forgot about last time) busses. We're already getting pretty close to 120 second headways. The lane reversal/HOV zone has far more busses on it since other routes, like the mainline #2, use the Centre Street Bridge to access downtown.

[Policy Wonk]

I wasn't placing a dollar value on the North Central LRT, just referring to the running list of infrastructure and other demands and that are presented around here that are impossibly expensive and of dubious value. Centre Street LRT, High-Speed Rail, an unspecified number of galleries that might one day outnumber Starbucks and projects like the East Village redevelopment.

If you have read the 2006 report than you know it explains very concisely why the Nose Creek alignment is suitable. From the first time a Centre Street alignment was rejected as unfeasible the North Central LRT has been planned as a suburban commuter oriented service. I argue for the North Central LRT as a Suburban Douchebag Delivery System, not as a street car for Centre Street. You say it doesn't serve Centre Street adequately, I say the West LRT doesn't either. I do however believe it opens opportunities for redevelopment along Nose Creek which could be exciting.

I don't think those population numbers are unreasonable and I don't see any particularly compelling force for intensifying most of that area outside the immediate proximity to the core and various points on Centre Street. And much of the peak traffic on the 301 is carrying passengers who originated North of Beddington Trail who would be diverted to the LRT. Many feeder routes could also be replaced by routes delivering residents from the immediate North West to the LRT instead of the 78th Ave loop.

[DizzyEdge]

Could of things:

1) I don't think a Centre St LRT would replace the #3 at all, as it would have BRT-spaced stops, or stops even further apart, making it only convenient for those users who happen to be near one of the LRT stations, the rest will continue to use the #3.

2)
Being that the main reason that people are for a centre street line:
- rail bias
- permanent infrastructure to spur density increases

(is there any other reason to want the LRT on centre?)

would a street car system satisfy those desires?

Not one on centre necessarily, but if zoning was changed to upzone streets parallel to centre, and then after say a decade run the street car up and down those parallel streets.

Here's an example in Toronto which is a pretty residential street.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.651005,-79...SaThc9IWP4AinMRJTQ&cbp=12,273.89,,0,5.33

Add some barriers so that streetcars/busses could follow 1st ST NE from 2nd Ave all the way to 42nd ave, but cars could not (maybe a barrier every 5 blocks say)
Also, unlike an LRT, a streetcar is pretty unintrusive, meaning you could likely run it around the edges of parks such as the ones between 42nd ave and 60th ave.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Could of things:

1) I don't think a Centre St LRT would replace the #3 at all, as it would have BRT-spaced stops, or stops even further apart, making it only convenient for those users who happen to be near one of the LRT stations, the rest will continue to use the #3.

2)
Being that the main reason that people are for a centre street line:
- rail bias
- permanent infrastructure to spur density increases

(is there any other reason to want the LRT on centre?)

would a street car system satisfy those desires?

Not one on centre necessarily, but if zoning was changed to upzone streets parallel to centre, and then after say a decade run the street car up and down those parallel streets.

Here's an example in Toronto which is a pretty residential street.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.651005,-79...SaThc9IWP4AinMRJTQ&cbp=12,273.89,,0,5.33

Add some barriers so that streetcars/busses could follow 1st ST NE from 2nd Ave all the way to 42nd ave, but cars could not (maybe a barrier every 5 blocks say)
Also, unlike an LRT, a streetcar is pretty unintrusive, meaning you could likely run it around the edges of parks such as the ones between 42nd ave and 60th ave.

The #3 would see a massive reduction in loads either way, we don't exactly have major bus routes mirroring other C-Train lines, but I really don't see why we would want huge distances between stations. If we followed the Canada Line example we would be aiming at 800 meter stop spacing, possibly with some stations not included in the initial project (like the proposed Canada Line stations at 33 Avenue and 57 Avenue). That kind of spacing would place the entire Centre Street corridor within walking distance of a station. There might still be a need for a more local service along Centre Street, for the elderly and disabled, but the odd community shuttle could handle that. There definitely wouldn't need to be a mainline route on Centre with sub five minute frequencies.

It would also make sense to consider the #2 and #3 together, eliminate extraneous segments, and combine what's left. The W LRT makes the Southwestern segment of the #2 relatively redundant, while a Centre Street Subway would make the northern section of the #3 pretty redundant. We'd end up with a single major route mostly taking Elbow Drive and 4 St NW with a detour over to Centre just to cross the river.

I think the idea of a Nose Creek alignment for the NC LRT combined with a Centre Street streetcar would be pointless. It would probably cost the same, if not more, than simply building the NC LRT under Centre Street and operational costs would be far higher.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I wasn't placing a dollar value on the North Central LRT, just referring to the running list of infrastructure and other demands and that are presented around here that are impossibly expensive and of dubious value. Centre Street LRT, High-Speed Rail, an unspecified number of galleries that might one day outnumber Starbucks and projects like the East Village redevelopment.

If you have read the 2006 report than you know it explains very concisely why the Nose Creek alignment is suitable. From the first time a Centre Street alignment was rejected as unfeasible the North Central LRT has been planned as a suburban commuter oriented service. I argue for the North Central LRT as a Suburban Douchebag Delivery System, not as a street car for Centre Street. You say it doesn't serve Centre Street adequately, I say the West LRT doesn't either. I do however believe it opens opportunities for redevelopment along Nose Creek which could be exciting.

I don't think those population numbers are unreasonable and I don't see any particularly compelling force for intensifying most of that area outside the immediate proximity to the core and various points on Centre Street. And much of the peak traffic on the 301 is carrying passengers who originated North of Beddington Trail who would be diverted to the LRT. Many feeder routes could also be replaced by routes delivering residents from the immediate North West to the LRT instead of the 78th Ave loop.

Just a counter point: North Central Calgary south of Beddington has 90K people. North of Beddington Trail: 60K. While the portion north of Beddington will grow more than south over the next few decades (based on the North Regional Context Study), I don't think it is unreasonable to assume at least some growth south of Beddington trail. Either way, ignoring 90K people with an LRT alignment seems a little short sighted. In comparison, the entire catchment area for the West LRT is 109K.

[YYCguys]

I'm placing this in this thread because I think that the Eamon Camp building should be dismantled and rebuilt and incorporated into the design of the new RR/Tuscany LRT station, if possible! I think it would be a great way to preserve important history of Calgary transportation and to maintain usefulness of the building!

Historic gas station faces uncertain future


By Richard Cuthbertson, Calgary Herald January 16, 2012

CALGARY — In its heyday, the bright lights could be seen for 20 kilometres. And though its glory years have long past, Eamon’s Bungalow Camp remains a landmark on Crowchild Trail.

But now one of Calgary’s last historic service stations faces an uncertain future as the city is buying the land to build a park-and-ride lot for the future LRT station serving Rocky Ridge, Royal Oak and Tuscany.

While the city does have plans to save, restore and reinstall the iconic Eamon’s Camp sign, heritage advocates fear the adjacent mid-century building will be demolished.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Historic+st...+future/6000002/story.html#ixzz1jjRc1i6i

[fusili]

A couple of other points:

1. It was mentioned that interlining isn't a bad thing with the NE LRT. To put this is context, the NE LRT currently serves 150K people, with plans for growth of 50K more. The NC LRT would currently serve 150K people, with plans for 180K more (North Regional Context Study). This would make the NC LRT have a catchment of 330K and the NE LRT with 200K. That is 530K people being served by a single set of tracks from downtown to the zoo station. To me, that seems completely short sighted. The zoo interlocking would hit capacity almost the day the NC LRT opened. And then we would add another 230K people to both lines after this? The numbers make it obvious that the NC LRT needs a separate ROW through the downtown, and the SE LRT makes the most sense.

Just note that neither of these growth figures takes into consideration any growth in existing areas.

2. We discuss on here how densification along centre street is this horrible and would be fought tooth and nail. However, densification doesn't have to be 25 storey towers anywhere. I imagine Centre street would be rezoned much like 16th avenue is now: 8 storey buildings (approx) along the street, 4 storey buildings one block from the street and then townhouses for the balance of the area. Heck, with just 3 storey stacked townhouses, we could almost triple the population. While some may object to townhouses (and really those people object to anything anyway), I think most people are pretty ok with them.

[freeweed]

Well, at least the LRT station looks to still be on track. I'm a bit surprised no one's approached Heritage Village - with the new "gasoline alley" this seems like a perfect fit.

Of course, there's something a bit ironic here. We're worried about preserving a piece of Calgary's early automotive history, to make way for a public transit amenity. Kinda the reverse of how this normally goes. Usually we tear down public transit to make way for vehicle use.