NC LRT Advocacy Group

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The NE line is just as far away from the Terminal as the future NC line is at Harvest Hills Blvd. If the NC line does cut over to Nose Creek through Aurora Business Park, it's much closer to the terminal from there.

However, I do think that when the LRT is built to serve the airport, it should be built to connect to both the NC and the NE lines.

Sure, but for now, the focus should be on the line that is so close already.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Sure, but for now, the focus should be on the line that is so close already.

Close is a relative term. To get from the currently built end of line (Saddletowne) to the Airport Terminal is still around 6.5 kms of new line. It would take several hundred million dollars to build an extension to the terminal.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

However, I do think that when the LRT is built to serve the airport, it should be built to connect to both the NC and the NE lines.

Yeah absolutely. Following is what I had shared previously (my own scribbles) which allows direct access to and from the airport for the NE, NC, W and SE lines. West-bound from the airport would be a downtown/SE train, and eastbound would be a downtown/W train.



There are implications on number of trains getting to the airport vs. number that would head further north on the NE and NC lines, but it is a reasonable compromise.

Of course there is still the whole conundrum about how to do NC and how to connect to SE, etc., but this is pie in the sky. I'm with policy wonk all the way on this. Use nose creek.

You can see why Aurora Business Park is going to be a fantastic location when the NC gets done (and hopefully the connection to the airport). It will be a consideration for any company looking to get out to the heated downtown market!

[kw5150]

I like it.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Yeah absolutely. Following is what I had shared previously (my own scribbles) which allows direct access to and from the airport for the NE, NC, W and SE lines.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

If it`s any consolation, I`ve similarily stopped taking anything you have to say about transportation seriously. Not that you aren`t knowledgeable about it, but you`ve consistently shown that you are adhering to a paradigm from 20 or 30 years ago. Things have changed and we`ve argued this before, from parking to car ownership/usage and statistics generally win.

I wear the contempt of the likes of you as a badge of honour.

I`m by no means arguing this as an urbanist. I`m arguing it from the standpoint of accessibility. It`s a stupid idea because it is the most inaccessible piece of public infrastructure that can reasonably be conceived. I would still argue in favour of a central line over a Nose Creek alignment even if the consequential corridor would not become even one person denser. I`m not saying that it would still make sense in that case, just that it would still make more sense still than a Nose Creek alignment.

What is inaccessible about it? Will there be a moat? The purpose of the Nose Creek LRT is to provide a commuter link between the communities north of Beddington Trail and the core. This is of course building on the very commuting pattern that has made the LRT successful over the past decades. If you are fundamentally in conflict with this plan then it would seem your objection is indeed urbanist in nature.

But while we are at it, if you yourself either fail or don`t want to recognize that virtually any piece of transportation infrastructure is inextricably linked to land-use, then there is no point talking further. However, since that doesn`t seem to be the case as you yourself have brought up redevelopment, or the supposed redevelopment that would follow in the Nose Creek corridor. So yeah, land use is inevitably going to come up - called that "urbanist" if you will.

I completely acknowledge the Nose Creek LRT is linked to residential land use on the northern fringe.

Secondly, why does your metric continue to be Western Canada?

It isn't really, I just can't think of a single proposal anywhere in Western Canada that has been more throughly, decisively or repeatedly discredited than a Centre Street LRT. I am however opening to revisiting the subject once the Edmonton Muni redevelopment completely descends into madness. This has been beaten to death over and over again for thirty years.

And where do you get this imaginative idea that somehow a centrally located line serves less people than one that goes up Nose Creek? Have you looked at a map? All things being equal, in where the line continues up the already set aside ROW up Beddington, thereby either alignment ending in the same place - which one has the potential to serve more people that are already there (let alone upon completion - which would then also be there)? So that is such a non-argument that it seems like you just decided to leave logic out the window. If the suburbs do inevitably continue spreading further north, then there is no difference, and even if the mandate was to over-cater to suburban residents, as has been pointed out before, the travel times due to having to take a less direct A to B route would be very similar to a centrally located line with (heaven forbid) stations that collect more people.

Because by the time the Nose Creek LRT is finally built there will be another thirty plus years worth of northern fringe sprawl. While sufficient intensification of the Centre Street corridor to justify the investment in your desired alignment is pretty unlikely. Indeed shooting straight down Centre Street is a more direct route - but the costs are so insurmountable as to be irrelevant.

And what you might call over-catering to suburban residents is what has made the LRT wildly successful rather than a right-wing platitude about the folly of public transit. The LRT is commuter rail, deal with it and move on.

And to reiterate, a planner`s job is to plan proactively. While we are being facetious, the word planning largely loses its meaning if said person`s most critically intellectual challenge is to go "oh, people live over there or are for sure going to, perhaps I shall build something so that they have accessibility."

The word planning loses its meaning when planners stop planning around the community they serve and start going off on fanciful tangents that reflect neither the needs or desires of the community and accomplish nothing but injecting conflict and complexity where there otherwise wouldn't be any.

And are you yet again contending that street cars have no place and are across the board unsuccessful?

No, I am contending that the light rail systems that are failures are those light rail systems that pretend to be street cars.

Coming back to the whole redevelopment point and how this could potentially happen along a Nose Creek alignment. You really think that somehow people are going to want to live there - sandwiched between transportation infrastucture and devoid of amenities? I can barely imagine a harder sell.

I can't imagine who wants to live within a couple of blocks of a couple of the countries largest homeless shelters.

But that amenities is it devoid of? Established communities are mere feet away.

I`m still waiting for you to show me a real example of an alignment that mirrors what is being proposed here.

A commuter rail line that was built along an affordable right-of-way linking the suburbs with the business core? Yeah... that is an awfully unorthodox idea right there.

The only prerequisite to that being however, that inner city residents along the then foregone corridor are too provided a higher quality, mostly seperated ROW with over-riding prioritization. You know, seeing as how this is how you build a functioning public transportation system - one that has the potential to go beyond the single purpose of serving expensive commuter trips.

You build a functioning public transportation system by being responsive to the needs of the communities you serve and matching the correct vehicle and service to a particular route within the given constraints. In the case of the Centre Street corridor grade separation is unlikely to be possible but BRT can be done quite successfully.

Calgary by way of the LRT and express buses has done this incredibly well and has built a transit culture unrivalled in any similar city. This is success to be built on rather than turning around and trying to use transit as a blunt instrument to bend peoples lifestyles to yours.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Where the golf course on top of a land fill?! :kook:

From every survey I have seen the northern most fringe of the former landfill is almost a kilometre south of Fox Hollow. I also don't recall any mention of landfill when a 500mm storm sewer line was installed under the fairway. And I think Greenview would be great for redevelopment - if only because it is relatively small compared to the wasteland east of Macleod Trail.

You're very willing to write off everyone who doesn't agree with you as being an urbanist who wants to force their lifestyle on everyone else, but the same could be said for you. I sure as hell don't want to support someone else's decision to live in the burbs any more than they want to support mine.

I only write off those who gloss over insurmountable obstacles while at the same time making an incredulous appeal to authority

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The purpose of the Nose Creek LRT is to provide a commuter link between the communities north of Beddington Trail and the core.


I completely acknowledge the Nose Creek LRT is linked to residential land use on the northern fringe.


Because by the time the Nose Creek LRT is finally built there will be another thirty plus years worth of northern fringe sprawl. While sufficient intensification of the Centre Street corridor to justify the investment in your desired alignment is pretty unlikely. Indeed shooting straight down Centre Street is a more direct route - but the costs are so insurmountable as to be irrelevant.

The LRT is commuter rail, deal with it and move on.

These three parts of your response highlight why I think your position is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, the old purpose of the NC LRT may have been to just service the fringes, but the scope has evolved and the need to provide service for the communities between the fringe and the core is part of the current thinking. Just because you havent been able to let go of 30 year old thinking, doesnt mean others havent moved on and realized there is a lot of benefit to spending more up front and getting much more back in return.

Second, if we continue on as business as usual, then this city will grind to a halt because there is no way we can keep up with road and ctrain building to service constant suburban growth. At a given size, low density starts to fail.

The LRT is not commuter rail anymore, it services more than just people on the fringe, so it needs to be developed accordingly. Its a testiment to bad planning that the LRT was not developed with express service capablility in mind.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Firstly, the old purpose of the NC LRT may have been to just service the fringes, but the scope has evolved and the need to provide service for the communities between the fringe and the core is part of the current thinking. Just because you havent been able to let go of 30 year old thinking, doesnt mean others havent moved on and realized there is a lot of benefit to spending more up front and getting much more back in return.

It seems this is ground covered previously, but just to reiterate, taking the LRT up nose creek does not mean the centre street corridor will be ignored. What it does mean is that the wildly successful 301 along with appropriate cross-town routes will continue to serve this important area and provide exceptional access to downtown. Additionally, from a vibrancy perspective, there is a strong argument suggesting that a bus service will be better for that area, which is closer to the core anyway. Currently 40th Ave to 16th Ave is 6 minutes, and another 8 minutes gets to to 5th Ave. Pretty sweet.

So the suggestion that a nose creek alignment ignores needs of the central areas is a red herring and it is a completely flawed arguement.

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Second, if we continue on as business as usual, then this city will grind to a halt because there is no way we can keep up with road and ctrain building to service constant suburban growth. At a given size, low density starts to fail.

The LRT is not commuter rail anymore, it services more than just people on the fringe, so it needs to be developed accordingly. Its a testament to bad planning that the LRT was not developed with express service capability in mind.

While the discussion uses the term commuter rail, fact is, the Northern Hills are not a commuter community. What is being proposed is a different sort of thinking - creative and smart solutions where it is not a "with us or against us" mentality. Deal with the central areas in the best way. Bus / BRT service. Deal with the populous and growing areas with the best way for them, while keeping costs digestible. Nose creek LRT. This two pronged approach will be cheaper, be built out quicker, and serve more people, and serve them better.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

These three parts of your response highlight why I think your position is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, the old purpose of the NC LRT may have been to just service the fringes, but the scope has evolved and the need to provide service for the communities between the fringe and the core is part of the current thinking. Just because you havent been able to let go of 30 year old thinking, doesnt mean others havent moved on and realized there is a lot of benefit to spending more up front and getting much more back in return.

Second, if we continue on as business as usual, then this city will grind to a halt because there is no way we can keep up with road and ctrain building to service constant suburban growth. At a given size, low density starts to fail.

The LRT is not commuter rail anymore, it services more than just people on the fringe, so it needs to be developed accordingly. Its a testiment to bad planning that the LRT was not developed with express service capablility in mind.

I've said it before, but the biggest flaw in PW's thinking is that he says that 7th Ave will eventually be tunnelled as well (in addition to 8th Ave) - and this is key to his entire arguement. Without it being done, everyone knows that the Nose Creek alignment has no hope. However, I've pointed out before that going to 4 car trains, plus removing the 201 line off of 7th Ave automatically allows the 202 line to have 267% of the capacity that it has currently - and that doesn't yet account for the fact that there are slightly more 201s going through downtown than 202s, and doesn't account for efficiencies due to not having to deal with switching, nor other operational improvements that may be possible in the future. Essentially, a 7th Ave surface line (as it is currently) for the 202 can effectively handle 3 times as many people as it does now. There will definitely be growth, but it's hard to imagine that there will be 3x growth in ridership - at least until decades after the NC line goes ahead.

However, if we are talking about the LRT being so successful that it does in fact grow by 3x in the next 20 years or so, that would mean that the percentage of people riding transit had increased significantly, and there would be increased demand to build a better north central line than a nose creek alignment could offer, and certainly the political will would be there as well. Also, if growth had been that dramatic, why would we then limit future growth by again interlining?

In PW's mind, the nose creek alignment is so much cheaper because there would already be a ROW that would work into downtown, and that another one would not have to be built. However, it just simply isn't the case. The additional cost to build an additional ROW into downtown from Nose Creek would even up some or all of the cost difference.

Also, of note, is that from Harvest Hills Blvd/96th Ave to downtown is about 4.5 km longer distance along the Nose Creek route. This adds to the travel time, which makes the route less attractive for riders, plus adds operational costs. A longer route would also require more LRVs to provide the same headway times. Needing to continue with more buses in the NC area adds to the operational costs as well. There would likely have to be some expensive BRT infrastructure added south of Beddington Trail, and again, that would eat up the cost savings.

With all of the extra cost factors of the Nose Creek alignment, the cost savings associated with that line really start to dwindle, and cost savings is the only reason why anyone considered that route in the first place. A central alignment may cost a bit more, but the difference isn't as big as one might think. Either way, it's a hugely expensive project that isn't going to get done without significant help from other levels of government.

Pros of a Nose Creek alignment:
Lower infrastructure cost
Shorter branch to connect to Airport Terminal

Cons of a Nose Creek alignment:
longer travel time
Higher operational cost
Less effective transportation network for the north central area
doesn't maximize the usage potential of the 2nd Street subway of the SE line
May require extra infrastructure in the NC area on top of the LRT
Would limit future growth on the NC and NE lines, or require an expensive additional ROW into downtown.
Promotes further suburban growth over further densification.
Far less redevelopment/TOD potential.


Rough estimates for additional capital costs incurred by a Nose Creek routing (in today's dollars):
Additional ROW downtown - would have to be tunnelled - $500-700 million
Additional 4.5 km of track - $150-250 million.
Additional 8-10 LRVs - $30-40 million
Alternate Centre Street infrastructure (Streetcar or full BRT) - $100-300 million

If we take numbers in the middle of each of those estimates, we are already at around a billion dollars. A billion dollars gets a fairly significant portion of any tunnel/elevated section of a Centre Street alignment done. North of 64th can likely be surface rail, and south a fair distance from that could be elevated, or at worst cut and cover - and while both of those are more expensive than surface rail, neither of those options is going to add more than several hundred million to the project cost. The portion from Eau Claire to North of 16th Ave is the most difficult part, but good engineering should be able to keep the costs down. Honestly I can't see a central route costing more than, say $500 million more than a Nose Creek route. Combine that with operating savings of millions of dollars a year, and I think the choice is more than obvious.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

longer travel time

Not necessarily.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Higher operational cost

I haven't seen a business plan, especially one that would include the massive savings relative to major additional long-term financing that would be required for any centre street proposal

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Less effective transportation network for the north central area

Red herring, as previously discussed but completely ignored.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

doesn't maximize the usage potential of the 2nd Street subway of the SE line

There is no firm plan in place for the tunnel you are pointing to. This is somewhat of a circular argument.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

May require extra infrastructure in the NC area on top of the LRT

What extra infrastructure? The buses that would serve the central core better than an LRT with limited stops?

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Would limit future growth on the NC and NE lines, or require an expensive additional ROW into downtown.

Not getting you here. Explain.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Promotes further suburban growth over further densification.

This is a flawed "versus" argument. A nose creek row in no way is anti-densification along centre.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Far less redevelopment/TOD potential.

Bull. PW has highlighted several nodes that the centre street alignment would not support. Additionally, the fact that you could get out to Aurora Business Park faster means it will be developed better from the on-set.

No matter if you list 100 arguements in the cons column, the fact that a centre street alignment couldn't be nearly cost effective enough to build out to where the masses are (and who don't have sub-15 minute options currently) within thirty years is a major issue, and trumps just about everything.

Pros of a nose creek street alignment:
It is doable.

Cons of a centre street alignment:
It is not feasible.

[fusili]

YNAT hit it right on the head. To put it simply- if NC LRT interlines with NE LRT 7th needs to be buried in the future. If it doesn't 7th can stay at grade indefinitely. That is at least a $700M saving (being very conservative) and not to mention the complete cluster f*&k that would be trying to accommodate all the NE/West trains while the subway is being built.

Put it this way: Nose Creek alignment requires the 8th avenue subway to be built right before it is built, and the 7th avenue subway to be built in the future. Centre Street alignment requires neither, and just uses the SE LRT tunnel, which will be built anyway.

Would you rather build one tunnel (2nd street) and get two entirely new lines and only require one more (8th ave) in the future), or build two tunnels to get two new lines same purpose (8th avenue, 2nd street) and still require a third in the future?

Why would we put 3 lines in one ROW (NE, NC and West), 2 in another (NW and South) and 1 in another (SE), when we can put 2 in each and only bury two of those lines?

[Policy Wonk]

Estimating the potential long-term capacity of 7th Ave based on allocating the present combined 201 and 202 frequencies to a single line is ridiculous. Status quo is completely dysfunctional - after the 8th Ave subway enters service 7th Ave will never be allowed to return to anywhere near the current level.

If you honestly want to believe that headways comfortably compatible with intersecting surface traffic on 7th Ave will be sufficient to meet demand for the Calgary of 2050 with 2+ million people and boundaries extending from Airdrie to Okotoks and possibly beyond, well knock yourself out. The North East also has much greater prospects for intensification than other communities because of its more transient nature, consider the enormous rental complexes east of 36th Street. Those will all be redeveloped at much greater density.

Both 7th and 8th will be grade separated long before any North Central LRT becomes a priority. I hope at the very least 8th is completed before the S.E. LRT. It should have been done before the West LRT.

Comparing the travel time between a route that can be built and a route that will never be built is irrelevant. This is the core of the problem, Calgary mid-century is going to have a tonne of varied transportation priorities. Splurging on a Centre Street alignment, to no particular productive end when there are other transportation needs will be fighting for resources will be politically unsalable.

The opponents of the Centre Street alignments slogan will be "One LRT Line for The Price of Two" if anyone is still seriously advocating for a Centre Street alignment at that time.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Not necessarily.

4.5 km longer distance means 6.75 extra minutes at an average speed including stops of 40 km/h.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I haven't seen a business plan, especially one that would include the massive savings relative to major additional long-term financing that would be required for any centre street proposal

I didn't include financing costs, because, frankly, neither route is getting built without another level of government paying for the majority of it.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Red herring, as previously discussed but completely ignored.

Additional travel times, needing to continue more buses running downtown, Doesn't connect NC area north of Beddington to area south of Beddington together very well. Just a few examples.

Originally Posted by suburbia

There is no firm plan in place for the tunnel you are pointing to. This is somewhat of a circular argument.

Yes, there is a firm plan in place for a 2nd Street tunnel.

Originally Posted by suburbia

What extra infrastructure? The buses that would serve the central core better than an LRT with limited stops?

Continued growth may require a streetcar or significantly upgraded BRT system.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Not getting you here. Explain.

Explained pretty well in previous posts. In short, the options are to interline with the NE line, or build a new ROW into downtown. Interlining is unacceptable due to limiting capacity on both the lines being interlined.

Originally Posted by suburbia

This is a flawed "versus" argument. A nose creek row in no way is anti-densification along centre.

I didn't say it was. My point still stands.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Bull. PW has highlighted several nodes that the centre street alignment would not support. Additionally, the fact that you could get out to Aurora Business Park faster means it will be developed better from the on-set.

I don't see how you could get to Aurora faster, all else equal, it would be roughly the same. The industrial areas in the Valley and around Deerfoot and the CP rail tracks are never going to significantly redevelop. There simply is too many limitations and difficulties to make it worth spending the money.

Originally Posted by suburbia

No matter if you list 100 arguements in the cons column, the fact that a centre street alignment couldn't be nearly cost effective enough to build out to where the masses are (and who don't have sub-15 minute options currently) within thirty years is a major issue, and trumps just about everything.

Pros of a nose creek street alignment:
It is doable.

Cons of a centre street alignment:
It is not feasible.

Read the added last part of my previous post. In short, a central alignment isn't as outrageously costly as some would make it out to be, and certainly, the Nose Creek alignment isn't nearly as relatively inexpensive as some make it out to be.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Explained pretty well in previous posts. In short, the options are to interline with the NE line, or build a new ROW into downtown. Interlining is unacceptable due to
limiting capacity on both the lines being interlined.

At grade separated headways with modern interlocking interlining is a non-issue. if that is incompatible with your belief system... I apologize.

[kw5150]

Do you take the train on a regular basis?

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Estimating the potential long-term capacity of 7th Ave based on allocating the present combined 201 and 202 frequencies to a single line is ridiculous. Status quo is completely dysfunctional - after the 8th Ave subway enters service 7th Ave will never be allowed to return to anywhere near the current level.

If you honestly want to believe that headways comfortably compatible with intersecting surface traffic on 7th Ave will be sufficient to meet demand for the Calgary of 2050 with 2+ million people and boundaries extending from Airdrie to Okotoks and possibly beyond, well knock yourself out. The North East also has much greater prospects for intensification than other communities because of its more transient nature, consider the enormous rental complexes east of 36th Street. Those will all be redeveloped at much greater density.

Both 7th and 8th will be grade separated long before any North Central LRT becomes a priority. I hope at the very least 8th is completed before the S.E. LRT. It should have been done before the West LRT.

Comparing the travel time between a route that can be built and a route that will never be built is irrelevant. This is the core of the problem, Calgary mid-century is going to have a tonne of varied transportation priorities. Splurging on a Centre Street alignment, to no particular productive end when there are other transportation needs will be fighting for resources will be politically unsalable.

The opponents of the Centre Street alignments slogan will be "One LRT Line for The Price of Two" if anyone is still seriously advocating for a Centre Street alignment at that time.

[kw5150]

Is this seriously only about money? Very sad.

Maybe we should have built the ring road with stop lights only instead of interchanges, and further out of town.....with hopes that future people would live out there.

If the Nose Creek area ever gets some population, then we can consider providing LRT connections then.

This is silly.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

At grade separated headways with modern interlocking interlining is a non-issue. if that is incompatible with your belief system... I apologize.

Exactly, but you continually shouting out that 7th ave will not work at grade, and not giving reasons why, doesn't mean that 7th ave will ever be grade separated.

The reason why 7th ave has most of its delays (it's nowhere near "completely dysfunctional" as you say) is the interlining - combined with the street lights. Remove either one of those, and 7th Ave works perfectly fine, now and in any of our lifetimes. The 8th Ave subway removes the interlining, and therefore the majority of the current delay problems. The current delays happen when two trains come to the edge of the same side of downtown from two different lines at the same time, and one has to wait for the other one to go first.

Even if there were slight delays, a slight increase of the headways would completely clear that up, and you still would have 250% of current capacity. However, everyone in this discussion would rather have a few minor rush hour delays (like we have currently) than spend another $700,000,000 on another ROW. That theoretical $700 million would would have HUGE benefits if spent at other places in the transportation network, and very little benefit if used to create another ROW downtown.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

A central alignment may cost a bit more, but the difference isn't as big as one might think.

Comments like that make me wonder how many of you actually know Centre Street, have drove up it and actually tried to envision where the line would need to go, what buildings would need to be removed, what roads might need to be removed.

The Centre Street line is almost impossible south of 41st Ave, there is simply no room to build the line there and anyone who actually drives that road and tries to envision how they could put a line in there without spending a staggering amount of money on the order of 3 TIMES more then the Nose Creek route is dreaming.

What MIGHT be possible though is a route that does this.

From me

You come up Nose Creek, past the Science Centre, past Fox Hollow Golf course, through Greenview, you then cut up the open land east of the Highland Golf Course to a Highland Stop one block to the east side of Centre. From there you trench in the LRT to go under where the larkland currently is towards the Thorncliffe Community Centre where there is a stop. From there you go under Centre Street and come out north of 64th Street for a stop near the Library and pool and St. Helena Junior High School. From there go back under center and tunnel up to a stop west of the Co-Op. From there going back underground you tunnel under, past Beddington Trail and into Harvest Hills where stuff is easy from there relatively speaking.

I do not think it is feasable to do a 100% Centre Street route, but it IS possible to cut to Centre Street like this on land that is atm available and that could allow for some Park N' Go along the line.

By the time you get to 20th Ave the LRT line would be only 6 blocks from Centre Street, by the time you get to Greenview it is 4 blocks to Centre Street. This is the result of Nose Creek and this land that would be used running NW, not north, and actually getting fairly close to the communities it would be serving.



That is actually walking distance to Centre Street from about 20th Ave north pretty easily and by 41st Ave it cuts in to Centre. And better yet it is actually feasable and doable.

For people that live closer then 20th Ave to Downtown the line is farther away due to going around Bridgeland and Renfrew but do they really need LRT access when an already existing busline can get people living that close to downtown so quickly? Those people are the ones that already have a viable and quick transit option with few stops due to their already awesome proximity to downtown. It is the people farther to the north who would always see the greater benefit and time saving from a LRT line compared to the bus.

[You Need A Thneed]

^The additional billion dollars it would cost to build that route could go a long way to buying up houses and covering the costs of elevated rail.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I hope at the very least 8th is completed before the S.E. LRT. It should have been done before the West LRT.

It is a mug's game to answer west LRT vs 8th Ave tunnel, but yeah pushing the SE LRT before 8th is not wise. The capacity constrainsts on the south LRT is already leading to bad policy choices (14th Street BRT south of Heritage but one example) in both transit, planning and the marketplace.

Moving for more system expansion before existing capacity constrainst are addressed is more stupid moves like the incremental expansion to Saddletown and Tuscany.