NC LRT Advocacy Group

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

We closed the Centre Street Bridge into downtown for years to rebuild it not too long back, and people found alternate routes. There is excess capacity in the local network, people are just too shortsighted to make use of it. I know this, because I live in the area (Rush hour traffic? hello 4th street!) This area is one of the most suitable to do major road closures of any in the city, because it is a grid, not a bunch of cul-de-sacs and loops. Most of the streets are approximately equivalent width to one another, and are all tied together. This means that with very little work, efficient detours are entirely plausible. They may even work better than the current traffic pattern.

Definitely agree with you on this one. Honestly, Centre Street could be closed completely to traffic today, and the conditions would almost improve. 4th and Edmonton Trail are incredibly close, and very efficient. Grids are awesome for this very reason.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

You'll never get that approved.

No, I don't expect it would. But it would work. That said, if the light rail line doesn't surface until north of 12th Ave, which doesn't seem unreasonable given the height needed to climb, there probably isn't much need to do anything drastic along Crescent Rd anyway.

Speaking of which, does anyone have an accurate idea of the height differences involved here? Google Maps-Terrain doesn't really get close enough in, but even with that it looks to be between 30 and 40 m difference, depending on starting and ending points. If we assume surfacing between 12th and 16th, we're looking at a gradient of something like 3-4%; if north of 16th it would probably drop to below 3%.

Also, what is the general view here of going across the Bow? Should it go below the Bow or over it? From a gradient perspective over is definitely preferable, but then the line also needs to deal with Memorial, either across at grade or over on an overpass with sufficient clearance.

Originally Posted by fusili

Definitely agree with you on this one. Honestly, Centre Street could be closed completely to traffic today, and the conditions would almost improve. 4th and Edmonton Trail are incredibly close, and very efficient. Grids are awesome for this very reason.

Well if you're willing to close off Centre Street to contiguous traffic...

Put the tracks in the two centre lanes. Where stations are required, only ever put in a platform serving one direction in any block, leaving the last lane for opposite direction traffic. So most blocks would have two tracks and two lanes, a few would have two tracks, a northbound lane and a southbound platform and a corresponding few would have two tracks, a southbound lane and a northbound platform. The placement of platforms would have to be planned according to the number of accesses impacted and availability of back lanes and sidestreets. Also, the unused bits of the lane either side of the platform may come in handy for making one-way local access circuits.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Dado

Well if you're willing to close off Centre Street to contiguous traffic...

Put the tracks in the two centre lanes. Where stations are required, only ever put in a platform serving one direction in any block, leaving the last lane for opposite direction traffic. So most blocks would have two tracks and two lanes, a few would have two tracks, a northbound lane and a southbound platform and a corresponding few would have two tracks, a southbound lane and a northbound platform. The placement of platforms would have to be planned according to the number of accesses impacted and availability of back lanes and sidestreets. Also, the unused bits of the lane either side of the platform may come in handy for making one-way local access circuits.

Would it be possible to keep stations at grade, but just jog vehicle lanes around the stations? This would require property acquisition at the stations, but nowhere else, and maintains one vehicle lane in each direction. 16th can be an elevated station.

I also think grade separation at key intersections (20th, 30th and 40th), either elevated or buried, could maintain road connectivity in the area.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Dado

Also, what is the general view here of going across the Bow? Should it go below the Bow or over it? From a gradient perspective over is definitely preferable, but then the line also needs to deal with Memorial, either across at grade or over on an overpass with sufficient clearance.

I would certainly think that there are sever al options that are possible. I would think that it could be designed to come out of the 2nd street tunnel south of the river and transition immediately onto a bridge that would go over the river and Memorial Drive. If you go over the river, there is no sense in a level crossing with Memorial drive - the line would already be above that level. This option would let the LRT come out of tunnel earlier (and certainly would be able to be cut and cover tunnelled earlier. The disadvantage would be permanently losing a portion of Prince's Island Park and/or the riverfront area to the transition structure, and probably a larger area while the construction was going on.

Under the river is certainly possible too, either with bored tunnel or cut and cover. However, on the North side of the river it would have to be bored, and for a longer distance than if the line goes over the river. The advantage is that it leaves Prince's Island park untouched (at least after construction is finished) It would likely cost significantly more.

However, if the downtown section of the SE line is bored anyway, maybe they would be smart and just keep going under the river and up the hill while they are at it, that would save a bunch of cost in the long run, saving setup and takedown costs, bringing the cost of tunnelling closer to the cost of cut and cover.

[Cruzer]

Would it be too farfetched to think we can pull a "Skytrain" and go fully elevated throughout the major portions of the track?
IE. Continuous through downtown and even further SE, then up until say ~78th ave N over Centre St? To me that just seems like the most viable option to serve the population without MUCH disruption... Obviously assuming there'd be partial if not full closures of Centre Street... also assuming costs would be somewhat overwhelming compared to other options, what else would stand in the way? NIMBYs?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Colin

I currently live in Beddington and I take the 3 route everyday to downtown. If the NCLRT is to be built along the now rejected Nose Creek route (west of Deerfoot), believe me, I will not be taking this route nor would anyone south of Beddington.

That wouldn't be the idea anyway (perhaps you didn't get the nuance in my note). The centre street bus corridor would remain if the LRT path went Nosecreek south the Aurora Business Park. You would continue using the centre street bus, which in my mind invigorates the area immediately North of DT better than a below grade train up the spine anyway.

Still, input is valuable. Thanks.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by fusili

Would it be possible to keep stations at grade, but just jog vehicle lanes around the stations? This would require property acquisition at the stations, but nowhere else, and maintains one vehicle lane in each direction. 16th can be an elevated station.

Sure, that's done quite a bit in Europe, but it does add constraints in finding suitable locations where property can be acquired. Clearly, the sooner the route planning takes place, the less chance there is of losing out on those opportunities since it stands to reason that those properties are also the ones most likely to be redeveloped.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That wouldn't be the idea anyway (perhaps you didn't get the nuance in my note). The centre street bus corridor would remain if the LRT path went Nosecreek south the Aurora Business Park. You would continue using the centre street bus, which in my mind invigorates the area immediately North of DT better than a below grade train up the spine anyway.

Still, input is valuable. Thanks.

There's often much talk of street car infrastructure revitalizing corridors, but yeah I'd like to hear people's opinions on whether widely spaced LRT stations would do the same at all.

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by Cruzer

Would it be too farfetched to think we can pull a "Skytrain" and go fully elevated throughout the major portions of the track?
IE. Continuous through downtown and even further SE, then up until say ~78th ave N over Centre St?

Someone has to say it: the skytrain runs below grade in downtown vancouver.

[MalcolmTucker]

Re: Stop spacing's impact on development

All other things being equal (street, sidewalk, neighborhood amentity improvement, other zoning across the city), beyond the local zoning and the transportation infrastructure improvement.

I think you'd end up with a different pattern of development to be sure. With the right zoning transportation improvements focus development around the infrastructure.

If you think about development effects with different infrastructure, the example I would use is a bed sheet strung up to represent the developable land. Then you place different weighted objects at the infrastructure's interface with the neighborbood, the station entrances or stops. Transportation solutions with faster trip times to desired destinations (in this case downtown, the transfer to the 16th Ave BRT and the airport/96th Avenue commercial industrial zone) would be represented by higher weight objects being placed on the bed sheet.

If there are enough station stops on the LRT with good street access (but not too many to make it slow), the fewer larger drops on the sheet should displace more area than a mixed traffic streetcar with more lighter drops, or an exclusive corridor streetcar that removes traffic lanes (would have to take away weight for car mobility impairment).

(to illustrate the example)


Of course, none of this matters much if you artificially limit the number of units allowed around stations or stops through zoning.

[Cruzer]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

Someone has to say it: the skytrain runs below grade in downtown vancouver.

My bad. What if we pulled a Burnaby/Richmond/Coquitlam/Surrey and have the track run fully elevated for the majority of the line?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Re: Stop spacing's impact on development

All other things being equal (street, sidewalk, neighborhood amentity improvement, other zoning across the city), beyond the local zoning and the transportation infrastructure improvement.

I think you'd end up with a different pattern of development to be sure. With the right zoning transportation improvements focus development around the infrastructure.

If you think about development effects with different infrastructure, the example I would use is a bed sheet strung up to represent the developable land. Then you place different weighted objects at the infrastructure's interface with the neighborbood, the station entrances or stops. Transportation solutions with faster trip times to desired destinations (in this case downtown, the transfer to the 16th Ave BRT and the airport/96th Avenue commercial industrial zone) would be represented by higher weight objects being placed on the bed sheet.

If there are enough station stops on the LRT with good street access (but not too many to make it slow), the fewer larger drops on the sheet should displace more area than a mixed traffic streetcar with more lighter drops, or an exclusive corridor streetcar that removes traffic lanes (would have to take away weight for car mobility impairment).

(to illustrate the example)


Of course, none of this matters much if you artificially limit the number of units allowed around stations or stops through zoning.

Are you trying to say that frequent stopping streetcar can produce this continuously in the corridor:


maps.google.com



whereas LRT can produce this but just around each station:


maps.google.com

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Of course, none of this matters much if you artificially limit the number of units allowed around stations or stops through zoning.

Neat explanation, it is a good way of visualizing it. To the quoted part, I know this is something Policy Wonk has talked of/warned about in this thread. It will be very difficult to get really high density zoning (according to him) in these already existing communities due to fractured ownership and community opposition.

How likely is it that we would see the full benefit of the max zoning required for the limited stop LRT system?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I think any approval of improved transportation infrastructure that is crazy expensive and takes a long time (I would guess longer than the just under 6 years the West LRT will have taken) should have concurrent zoning changes especially when the reason d'etre of the project is to cause development pattern changes by directing mobility improvements.

[MichaelS]

I think an analysis of how likely it is to see that change take place should be done as part of the consideration of what to build. If it is very unlikely that we will see 30 storey towers up Centre Street at spaced out LRT stations, perhaps we should look at more of the street car style system (or leave the current bus in place).

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I think an analysis of how likely it is to see that change take place should be done as part of the consideration of what to build. If it is very unlikely that we will see 30 storey towers up Centre Street at spaced out LRT stations, perhaps we should look at more of the street car style system (or leave the current bus in place).

If the zoning is there, the towers will come to places with mobility improvement. Houses and small multi family will become too valuable to occupy as is. The only thing that could stop them is council.

[MichaelS]

How long will it take for the towers to get there? It could take decades (maybe even longer?).

The ARP in Chinook has been in place for about 4 years now, and we haven't seen any towers go up next to that station yet.

Having said that, zoning increase seems to have had a very quick effect on the Kensington area, so maybe it would happen quickly on Centre Street. All something to consider I guess when evaluating this project.

[polishavenger]

I think the only option on the center street corridor is to go elevated after it comes out from the undergroud portion south of 16th ave. I think its a terrible idea to narrow center street down to 1 lane in each direction. The idea is to create mutliple methods of commuting, not destroy one in the place of another. Theres either already enough room for support columns along either side of the road, or you could expropriate the cheaper real estate along one side of the road and upzone whats left over after LRT ROW.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't think anyone should expect a switch to flip and Centre St and McKnight will be Yonge and Sheppard. That took 40 years to develop somewhat organically (would have been faster with more supportive zoning).

Cities take a long time to build. It might be frustrating to think whether a project will be positive lets say 100 years from now, but that is what we should do.

I don't think if would be positive to push product to market rapidly like a MTR Corporation type development along transit.

I think a great question to ask would be:
Does this project contribute positively to a Calgary with 3 million people?
Along with compliance with the standard imagineCalgary vision and Plan-it goals.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

How long will it take for the towers to get there? It could take decades (maybe even longer?).

The ARP in Chinook has been in place for about 4 years now, and we haven't seen any towers go up next to that station yet.

Having said that, zoning increase seems to have had a very quick effect on the Kensington area, so maybe it would happen quickly on Centre Street. All something to consider I guess when evaluating this project.

The difference is commercial land is far more valuable then single family zoned land so it will take a lot longer for a transition to occur but in time it will. Likely starting with the strip mall areas rather then the big box components.