Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

+1.

+2. Even just north of 16th (say 18th) would suffice.

[ggopher]

The Wild Rose presented their version of the budget titled 2012 Wildrose Balanced Budget Alternative, available here:
http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2012/02/Wildrose-Balanced-Budget-Alternative-2012.pdf
Date published: 10 Feb 2012

In it they propose stretching infrastructure spending over 4 years instead of 3. But claim the total spending is the same.

Total 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
PC Capital Spending 16.483 5.744 5.723 5.016
Wildrose Capital Spending 16.483 4.121 4.121 4.121 4.121

However it assumes that the PC's will spend $0 in 2015-16. I doubt that would be the case. We are playing catchup on our infrastructure after years of cuts. We can't afford to delay it anymore. I would not use Quebec as a model for proper infrastructure funding.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by ggopher

The Wild Rose presented their version of the budget titled 2012 Wildrose Balanced Budget Alternative, available here:
http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2012/02/Wildrose-Balanced-Budget-Alternative-2012.pdf
Date published: 10 Feb 2012

In it they propose stretching infrastructure spending over 4 years instead of 3. But claim the total spending is the same.

Total 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
PC Capital Spending 16.483 5.744 5.723 5.016
Wildrose Capital Spending 16.483 4.121 4.121 4.121 4.121

However it assumes that the PC's will spend $0 in 2015-16. I doubt that would be the case. We are playing catchup on our infrastructure after years of cuts. We can't afford to delay it anymore. I would not use Quebec as a model for proper infrastructure funding.

A few years ago when the economy was in full swing, construction costs were rising astronomically. Every year you waited, your dollar didn't go nearly as far. If the Wildrose wants to spread out spending at a time when it looks like the province's economy is set to boom again (with labour and matterial costs as well) the money won't go as far with their plan, even spending the same money.

[MalcolmTucker]

The Wildrose is also against alternative project financing, which would help stretch dollars.

[Wooster]

Some Calgary Transit news - Doug Morgan, previously Manager of Transit Service Design and Project Lead for RouteAhead has been named new Director of Calgary Transit.

An excellent choice, Doug will be a very good leader particularly as a new direction for CT is forged.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Some Calgary Transit news - Doug Morgan, previously Manager of Transit Service Design and Project Lead for RouteAhead has been named new Director of Calgary Transit.

An excellent choice, Doug will be a very good leader particularly as a new direction for CT is forged.

Great to hear, especially since RouteAhead is going to be so instrumental.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Not advocating a centre street subway (except up to about 20th avenue).

So what would you consider a satisfactory level of density along a surface Centre Street alignment that would justify the investment?

This is where I cease to understand, I just can't conceptualize a plausible outcome that would justify the expense of this type of investment in Centre Street.

[Northski]

I'm not sure on cost estimates but lets say,

Center st: 160million/km * 14km = 2.2 Billion,
Nose Creek: 70million/km * 17km=1.2 Billion.

But if eventually you have to build a 7th ave subway in addition to the 8th ave subway this puts another 650million dollars on the Nose creek alignment cost+a major disruption downtown.

Costs could be more like

Center st: 200million/km * 14km = 2.8 Billion
Nose Creek: 50million/km * 17km=0.850 Billion+7th ave subway

The nose creek alignments total length is about 22km including the NE portion so its going to have 50% higher operating costs supposing that it can be short turned near the 11ave station.

Even in the second cost estimate the more than double ridership and lower operational cost per passenger make the center st alignment at least as good.

[MalcolmTucker]

It should be competitive as long as council can stop the NIMBYs from causing huge scope and cost increases through unnecessary grade separation (beyond the point where elevated costs more than expropriation), and changes from elevated to underground on too much of the route.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So what would you consider a satisfactory level of density along a surface Centre Street alignment that would justify the investment?

This is where I cease to understand, I just can't conceptualize a plausible outcome that would justify the expense of this type of investment in Centre Street.

Centre Street is only an option because of how bad the other options are. Nose Creek alignment fails to serve the 123 000 who will live in existing communities south of Beddington, and provides indirect, ineffective service to those North of Beddington. On top of that, it will impact service for the W-NE LRT, making the entire LRT network worse. That's why if this line gets built at all, it has to be under Centre Street. Only Centre Street alignment will tie in with the SELRT, which will make the entire system WAY more efficient.

Even the Nose Creek option will come in around 1.5-2 B minimum: Big cost - medium benefit.

I have no idea what a tunnel under the Bow, 20 blocks of subway under Centre Street, and HUNDREDS of concessions/property acquisitions/disputes will cost, but I estimate 2-3 B for the whole line: huge cost - big benefit.

Housing prices within 800 m of stations would be expected to rise by about 20%, and commercial property values in the area could rise by as much as 50%. If done right, and homebuyers like the new line, property values could increase everywhere in the city that is near a C-train, ESPECIALLY, if they make provisions for an airport spur.

As a thought experiment, play with some math! 111 400 people (2006 NC corridor review) lived in the area south of Beddington that could be serviced by the LRT (~11.1% of the total population). Total city residential taxable assessment value = 165 154 970 489 (2011 budget); 11.1% of that is about 18 billion. If the value of this entire part of the city was increased by 10% (1.8 billion), that's about 11 098 000 more tax dollars to city and provincial coffers/year, meaning that the benefit of Centre Street alignment would take between 45 and 90 years to pay off (assuming 0.5-1B more expensive than Nose Creek) with zero growth and not including the broader economic impact of jobs created, hours saved by a more direct commute, or commercial property value increases. While the broader economic impact should not be understated, it seems clear to me that increased density is a must if we want to see this thing pay for itself in 10 or 20 years. By the time this thing gets built, the city expects about 10% more population here, but we'll have to do better than that. I'd argue that only with a rapid transit option is investment in Yonge-Street-like TOD density practical on Centre Street... so a bit of a chicken and the egg thing.

Personally, I think this would be a great project in the long term and that Nose Creek Alignment is a non-starter, the question is: is this worth doing at the expense of other projects. As PW mentioned, the difference is likely enough to extend each of the existing 4 lines another station. I'd think that the ROW (and knowing that LRT is coming) does almost as much for property values as actually extending the line to the current city limits and that travelling a short distance to park and ride is good enough for communities just beyond c-train's reach (at least, temporarily), and therefore there is more value in providing quality service to an under-served part of the city. That said, a billion dollars could go a long way to serving areas like FMC, MRU, Rockyview, Forest Lawn, Evergreen, and the Airport; or alternatively, establish commuter rail (that would serve the Nose Creek corridor anyway).

Sorry about writing the longest narrative on SSP that isn't by Tropics.

Here's a decent article with some good links for property values and LRT if you haven't seen it:
http://www.realestateinvestingincanada.com/portals/0/media/calgary_transportation_%20report.pdf

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Centre Street is only an option because of how bad the other options are. Nose Creek alignment fails to serve the 123 000 who will live in existing communities south of Beddington,

It doesn't need to and was never intended to. That can be accomplished very satisfactorily with BRT.

and provides indirect, ineffective service to those North of Beddington.

That is negated almost entirely by the ability of the LRV's to operate at their maximum speed along Nose Creek.

On top of that, it will impact service for the W-NE LRT, making the entire LRT network worse.

SSP Groupthink, modern interlocking (already being implemented) and an inevitable 7th Ave grade separation negate that completely, all this will be accomplished long before any North Central LRT. New Jersey Transit created the equivalent of a third track in the North River Tunnels out of thin-air by way of modernizing their interlocking. The bottle neck is 7th Ave - not interlining.

By the time this thing gets built, the city expects about 10% more population here, but we'll have to do better than that. I'd argue that only with a rapid transit option is investment in Yonge-Street-like TOD density practical on Centre Street... so a bit of a chicken and the egg thing.

I wouldn't even be opposed to that if I thought it was possible. But the danger is just as great we could wind-up with some of the Bloor stations, of which the newest are thirty years old and surrounded by most of the same parking lots of single family housing that was there before.

Personally, I think this would be a great project in the long term and that Nose Creek Alignment is a non-starter,

How is exactly that a line that can be built almost entirely on city owned land, on a flat right-of-way where LRV's can operate at 110km/h over much of the route, will serve an area that will be sprawling for decades to come and be populated by archetypal C-Train commuters be a non-starter? This was quite possibly the least controversial standing transit plan ever until the mayor latched on to it. It isn't sexy - but as a SDBDS (Suburban Douchebag Delivery System) it would be second to none.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It doesn't need to and was never intended to. That can be accomplished very satisfactorily with BRT.

That is negated almost entirely by the ability of the LRV's to operate at their maximum speed along Nose Creek.

SSP Groupthink, modern interlocking (already being implemented) and an inevitable 7th Ave grade separation negate that completely, all this will be accomplished long before any North Central LRT. New Jersey Transit created the equivalent of a third track in the North River Tunnels out of thin-air by way of modernizing their interlocking. The bottle neck is 7th Ave - not interlining.

So given that the 201 and 202 run in separate tunnels downtown and the 202 is running at maximum headway given a grade separated 36 St NE, you now add a NC route, how does this fit in? I understand that at this point this scenario is a ways off but so is the NC LRT, but I'm struggling to understand how you would fit the equivalent of double the frequency on a already maxed line.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I wouldn't even be opposed to that if I thought it was possible. But the danger is just as great we could wind-up with some of the Bloor stations, of which the newest are thirty years old and surrounded by most of the same parking lots of single family housing that was there before.

How is exactly that a line that can be built almost entirely on city owned land, on a flat right-of-way where LRV's can operate at 110km/h over much of the route, will serve an area that will be sprawling for decades to come and be populated by archetypal C-Train commuters be a non-starter? This was quite possibly the least controversial standing transit plan ever until the mayor latched on to it. It isn't sexy - but as a SDBDS (Suburban Douchebag Delivery System) it would be second to none.

I agree with this and also a negative to the center street alignment is that you’re likely to run into problems similar to that which the south/northwest line struggles with on a daily basis (i.e. overcrowding) preventing people south of Beddington from getting on the trains anyway.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is negated almost entirely by the ability of the LRV's to operate at their maximum speed along Nose Creek.

Even if the nose creek alignment allows faster speed, the distance from Beddington to DT is about 50% longer (incl the re-used track along the NELRT) than Centre Street alignment. If there were no stops at all between Memorial and Beddington, you could travel 80-100 km/h, but with stops you will only achieve an average speed of 35-45 km/h. A separated ROW at Centre Street would no doubt be slower (25-35 km/h average). Given that the distance from Beddington Tr & Ctr Street to the Core is 50% longer via Nose Creek, the Nose Creek train would need to be at least 50% faster than a Centre Street train to offer competitive travel times.

[westendjack]

Question: if the goal of the North Central LRT is to deliver 9 to 5 downtowners to and from work Monday through Friday, why build it as an LRT at all?

Okay, even assuming that conventional Go Transit or West Coast Express commuter trains and track sharing are out of the question, wouldn't diesel multiple units like Bombardier's Talents on their own double tracked right of way through the valley effectively provide that same service?

With the North Central LRT plan as it stands, the off peak demand is going to be almost non-existent and there's going to be very little downtown demand from people south of Beddington for it either, so there's not much point in even building any stations to service those areas. There also isn't going to be a lot of reverse commuting either on this line.

I'm just wondering how you justify all day electrified service on a route like this.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by westendjack

Question: if the goal of the North Central LRT is to deliver 9 to 5 downtowners to and from work Monday through Friday, why build it as an LRT at all?

Okay, even assuming that conventional Go Transit or West Coast Express commuter trains and track sharing are out of the question, wouldn't diesel multiple units like Bombardier's Talents on their own double tracked right of way through the valley effectively provide that same service?

With the North Central LRT plan as it stands, the off peak demand is going to be almost non-existent and there's going to be very little downtown demand from people south of Beddington for it either, so there's not much point in even building any stations to service those areas. There also isn't going to be a lot of reverse commuting either on this line.

I'm just wondering how you justify all day electrified service on a route like this.

How about this: do whatever on centre street (subway, elevated etc.) as its the better choice. Use the current nose creek alignment for commuter rail to airdrie, which will be a good idea eventually anyways. Stops at airport, beddington, conventry hills area etc), offers higher speeds to cover the extra distance. No inner city stops on commuter rail until downtown. Everyone wins. You can have your cake and it it too

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by westendjack

I'm just wondering how you justify all day electrified service on a route like this.

In response to this, and a lot of the comments on who this line is serving and density needed on it... and ignoring for a minute the method of construction...

I have to ask why we are looking at this so differently from the 3 (4) existing LRT lines.

They all travel through relatively low density areas that have been slow to increase, they all function both for commuters in far-off suburbs as well as inner-city communities, they all have a mix of trip generators along the way, they all replaced express bus service that had very high ridership and used a lot of buses.... and the list goes on

I don't see why the NCLRT wouldn't, if opened on Centre St today, have equal ridership to the NE and NW lines, at any time of the day, with equal potential to grow. Whereas the Nose Creek LRT might achieve ridership equal to the WLRT on opening day, with no potential to grow, particularly since it would feed into the smaller WLRT and not the longer SELRT which includes the trip generators of Stampede, and the Industrial SE.

To me, there's no question of where to go, just how to get there functionally and without spending more money than needed. And, we seem to have a good list of ideas of how to do that even before the study has been done.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

I have to ask why we are looking at this so differently from the 3 (4) existing LRT lines.

One difference is that the three existing lines have existing upstream activity centers (Chinook, Southcenter, U of C, Airport (via McKnight), Sunridge, Marborough, Peter Lougheed Center) where the NC line doesn't have any existing activity nodes to my knowledge beyond access to the airport.

This needs to be addressed before construction can begin.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MasterG

How about this: do whatever on centre street (subway, elevated etc.) as its the better choice. Use the current nose creek alignment for commuter rail to airdrie, which will be a good idea eventually anyways. Stops at airport, beddington, conventry hills area etc), offers higher speeds to cover the extra distance. No inner city stops on commuter rail until downtown. Everyone wins. You can have your cake and it it too

This is obviously the only practical solution in my opinion. But I think the key is a spur from the NClrt to the airport trail commuter rail station - to YYC itself - to the NELRT. That will really spur on hotel development around Stampede Park.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by andasen

One difference is that the three existing lines have existing upstream activity centers (Chinook, Southcenter, U of C, Airport (via McKnight), Sunridge, Marborough, Peter Lougheed Center) where the NC line doesn't have any existing activity nodes to my knowledge beyond access to the airport.

This needs to be addressed before construction can begin.

The West LRT doesn't have any upstream activity centers, yet it's being built, in fact it's not even connecting to the largest activity center in the area, MRU. The North Central part of calgary has a huge proven transit usage and has the best potential for becoming a major urban corridor out of all the existing and planned LRT routes

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

In response to this, and a lot of the comments on who this line is serving and density needed on it... and ignoring for a minute the method of construction...

I have to ask why we are looking at this so differently from the 3 (4) existing LRT lines.

They all travel through relatively low density areas that have been slow to increase, they all function both for commuters in far-off suburbs as well as inner-city communities, they all have a mix of trip generators along the way, they all replaced express bus service that had very high ridership and used a lot of buses.... and the list goes on

I don't see why the NCLRT wouldn't, if opened on Centre St today, have equal ridership to the NE and NW lines, at any time of the day, with equal potential to grow. Whereas the Nose Creek LRT might achieve ridership equal to the WLRT on opening day, with no potential to grow, particularly since it would feed into the smaller WLRT and not the longer SELRT which includes the trip generators of Stampede, and the Industrial SE.

To me, there's no question of where to go, just how to get there functionally and without spending more money than needed. And, we seem to have a good list of ideas of how to do that even before the study has been done.

This is the way we need to go building a commuter system in nose creek is significantly less than optima using LRT technology. Building it up center street will cost a significant amount of money, finding the best cost benefit alignment and elevation (above, at, or below grade) is what needs to be studied further.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Centre Street is only an option because of how bad the other options are. Nose Creek alignment fails to serve the 123 000 who will live in existing communities south of Beddington, and provides indirect, ineffective service to those North of Beddington.

What tells me that your comments are from someone who actually doesn't live north of Beddington?

1. Using the nose creek route does not preclude the folks living between DT and 78ave from being service by a very effective BRT.
2. It would certainly provide people North of Beddington very good service.
3. It would limit the risk of funds being exhausted before the track reaches North of Beddington and/or would get the project off the ground sooner as the funding challenges would be smaller. Some of the plans being put forth by people who'd never be using this line are so darn expensive that the track would stop short of where the service is actually needed.

Some years ago, the thought was BRT is for routes that are awaiting an LRT. Subsequently, it was realize (by some) that BRT will become an effective and integral part of the final design. Within this context, I'm blown away by people's refusal to see that a centre street BRT till the 78the Ave terminal could be particularly effective in conjunction with a nose creek LRT alignment that would be cheaper and easier to build. This two pronged approach serves more people, covers more territory (including, as an example, the new science centre), and would in all likelihood be easier and cheaper to build.

Question:

Why could the Nose Creek alighnment not follow a path approximately that of the prior HSR design, serving Inglewood en route to DT, and avoiding the capacity limits of 7th ave? See bottom circle in the blue map here.

EDIT - I see policywonk has much of what I said covered, but the routing part leveraging the envisioned HSR path is something to consider.