NC LRT Advocacy Group

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by 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.

No matter what you want to imagine that route I suggest would cost the route going straight up Centre Street for the entire distance would cost WAY more. Why? Because the route is the exact same past 41st Ave, going up Centre Street, the difference is that south of 41st street the route I suggested uses open land and does not require the procurment of a huge amount of already developed land and buildings along Centre in it's most dense area.

The route I suggest is going to be WAY cheaper then doing the entire route up Centre, it is designed to avoid the most expensive section of the Centre Street dream, spending hundreds of millions of dollars just buying out people and buildings before you can even START construction of the line.

What about that line would offend you? Do you really think missing the inner city communities that have very good and fast transit options already is a major issue? If so I don't get your point and figure this is just a soapbox issue for you that you like to argue about and you want a centre street line because you think it would be cool and not because of the actual practical reasons. There is no reason to push and spend 1 billion extra dollars to have the NC LRT line on Center south of 40th Ave, it is NOT NEEDED THERE, they are already well served by a quick transit option.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

If the train is full, don't expand. Tuscany, Saddletown etc are all wastes of money until 4 car trains are built.

[polishavenger]

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.

If physics and simple math are a problem for you, then I apologize. Running two lines on 1 track reduces the capacity of each line by 50%, not exactly a controversial statement. You will hit capacity on both lines faster, and the minumum time between trains will be longer to take into account that at some point the line has to accomodate trains from a different route.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

In no way does the nose creek alignment serve more people or anyone better, thats simpy not debatable. Its longer for those running all the way to the end, and probably wont take as many people off the roads as a line that capture the entire center part of the city. The only plus to the nose creek alignment is cost.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tropics

No matter what you want to imagine that route I suggest would cost the route going straight up Centre Street for the entire distance would cost WAY more. Why? Because the route is the exact same past 41st Ave, going up Centre Street, the difference is that south of 41st street the route I suggested uses open land and does not require the procurment of a huge amount of already developed land and buildings along Centre in it's most dense area.

The route I suggest is going to be WAY cheaper then doing the entire route up Centre, it is designed to avoid the most expensive section of the Centre Street dream, spending hundreds of millions of dollars just buying out people and buildings before you can even START construction of the line.

What about that line would offend you? Do you really think missing the inner city communities that have very good and fast transit options already is a major issue? If so I don't get your point and figure this is just a soapbox issue for you that you like to argue about and you want a centre street line because you think it would be cool and not because of the actual practical reasons. There is no reason to push and spend 1 billion extra dollars to have the NC LRT line on Center south of 40th Ave, it is NOT NEEDED THERE, they are already well served by a quick transit option.

A Nose Creek line doesn't offend me at all.

I'm just saying that the route you just drew incurs $1B of cost that the centre street route does not incur - all else being equal. We do know that there will be more property purchase with a centre street routing, and it will likely have to be cut and cover or elevated, which are more expensive. Those costs will eat up that $1B of savings, and likely more. However, we aren't talking about a $500 million Nose creek route vs a $2B Centre Street route.

In today's dollars, I would estimate that a Nose Creek route would cost $2B- $2.5B, and a Centre Street route would cost ~$500 million more, but could be even less then that, depending on how the route is built. The entire Canada line in Vancouver cost $2B total and included a similar amount of tunnelled and elevated rail as a Centre Street alignment would have.

[GTING]

I do like the option the Tropics proposed, however it is also a very expensive option. Running the train along the side of the hill you have there would be nearly impossible without spending an unreasonable amount of money. You have to look at where the current rail lines are and parallel those up to McKnight where you can turn West up to Centre Street. Another problem with that route is buying up the Elks Club golf course. I can tell you right now that they will not be selling you that for cheap becuase essentially you would have to cut the course in half and close it down.

You must look at the elevation changes there before you think that you can put a line up any green space on the map.

This isn't something a bunch of arm chair engineers and planners can solve easily.

[Policy Wonk]

In what transportation system is more than a quarter of peak frequencies falling behind schedule resulting in cascading delays not considered dysfunctional?

The delays are not caused by interlining, trains would still stack up on the edge of the core even if there was no interlining because of LRV's falling out of sync with the lights (which is caused by a million different at-grade irritants).

[fusili]

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.

I believe 7th avenue, with 4 car trains can handle the NE catchment with decades of growth without having to be buried.

Currently, there are 150K people living there, and growth plans call for 150K more. The South line currently serves 220K people. So the combined trains coming out of the east end of downtown are serving a combined catchment of 70K more people than the NE is planned for growth, and that is with 3 car trains. Even if we reduce the number of trains using 7th to increase operational efficiency, there is a lot of capacity on 7th to serve the NE.

If we add the 150K people living in NC Calgary, plus the 180K additional growth expected in Keystone/Evanston area, to 7th via the NE line, of course we will have to bury 7th. It will be situation worse than today.

The point YNAT and I are making is that if we don't share headways on 7th, we don't have to bury it.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by GTING

Another problem with that route is buying up the Elks Club golf course. I can tell you right now that they will not be selling you that for cheap becuase essentially you would have to cut the course in half and close it down.

This is the trick. There is a swath of land west of the golf course that could be used as the line along there, likely cut and cover underground. (The Red Line). You would need to go under that one hole on the NW edge.

The other option is to run between Fox Hollow and the Elks Golf course (shown in blue).

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

If physics and simple math are a problem for you, then I apologize. Running two lines on 1 track reduces the capacity of each line by 50%, not exactly a controversial statement. You will hit capacity on both lines faster, and the minumum time between trains will be longer to take into account that at some point the line has to accomodate trains from a different route.

Interlining doesn't reduce capacity, it is just a way of allocating capacity. But you already knew that.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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

No - you didn't consider dollars because it doesn't help your argument.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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.

On the other hand you're servicing more people and better. Regarding connecting north of Beddington to south of Beddington, if someone wants to skip the co-op, superstore and sobeys to the North to get to the co-op and safeway to the south, there is the bus trap direct access. Works really well (for buses that is).

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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

May this and may that. That's a bunch of hypothetical non-analysis. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I don't see how you could get to Aurora faster, all else equal, it would be roughly the same.

You'd get there at least ten years faster.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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.

An extra few billion is a lot of money no matter how you cut it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

In what transportation system is more than a quarter of peak frequencies falling behind schedule resulting in cascading delays not considered dysfunctional?

The delays are not caused by interlining, trains would still stack up on the edge of the core even if there was no interlining because of LRV's falling out of sync with the lights (which is caused by a million different at-grade irritants).

The most successful LRT system in either Canada or the US certainly cannot be called dysfunctional. It's very functional.

The delays are caused by interlining, but interlining itself isn't the problem. As well, the traffic lights cause delays, but only when the two are combined is there an unmanageable problem. (if we can even call the current situation unmanageable). Interlining itself is very manageable, because trains can run very close together. Street lights themselves are manageable without interlining since each train would be clear of a short wait at a light before the train coming behind it would get there. Like I said, cascading delays happen when two trains arrive at the same side of downtown at the same time, on the two different lines. One train must wait for the other to go, and then stop at a station, and then be able to go on a green light again. Meanwhile, additional trains on each line have just about caught up behind the first ones. Removing interlining all but eliminates this problem, especially at 5 minute headways. There may be slight delays from time to time, but virtually zero cascading delays.

Again, even the current level of delays is manageable, and certainly more palatable than spending an additional $700 million on another grade separated ROW.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

No - you didn't consider dollars because it doesn't help your argument.

I think I can judge what I considered and what I didn't better than you can. Either option is going to require significant funding from other levels or government and/or require significant financing.

Originally Posted by suburbia

On the other hand you're servicing more people and better. Regarding connecting north of Beddington to south of Beddington, if someone wants to skip the co-op, superstore and sobeys to the North to get to the co-op and safeway to the south, there is the bus trap direct access. Works really well (for buses that is).

The same number of people live in the area either way, how could it possibly serve more people? Also, the Nose Creek option serves the people north of Beddington worse (longer travel time) and doesn't really serve the people south of Beddington at all. I'm not sure how that adds up to "better" service.

Originally Posted by suburbia

May this and may that. That's a bunch of hypothetical non-analysis. Give me a break.

Really, you don't see the potential need for upgraded infrastructure in the future in an area that will densify over time? How soon it will be required is up in the air. That it would be required MUCH sooner if the area was bypassed by the LRT no one can argue.

Originally Posted by suburbia

You'd get there at least ten years faster.

Again, read the reasons why the Nose Creek alignment doesn't cost a whole lot less than a centre street alignment. Without help for other levels of government, Either are 20 years+ away. The cost difference isn't going to hold back this project one bit. The willingness of other levels of government to provide money is the only real hold back for this project. The 20% or so cost difference between options isn't going to make much difference at all in that case.

Originally Posted by suburbia

An extra few billion is a lot of money no matter how you cut it.

An extra few billion? No. The centre Street alignment will cost $2 to $2.5 billion total. A Nose Creek alignment will cost at least $2B itself. The cost difference isn't really a big factor.

[kw5150]

OMG....no, no, no. Better of with nothing. People along centre street have been investing in transit for decades. Why are we suddenly forgetting about them or making them take a feeder bus to this hypothetical LRT line in the middle of nowhere? They will just hop on the BRT straight down centre instead. We dont need another line like the one going from city hall to chinook where no one really gets on or off at all.

Im thinking this new LRT (if it goes through the centre street area) will evolve to be something like the Commercial drive area in Vancouver.....a huge success.

Not having LRT going through centre street area will be a devastating blow to that area of the city; an area that relies heavily on transit already. We need to invest in our future, and the nose creek alignment just isn't the way to go. We need to keep developing the centre street area.

Originally Posted by Tropics

This is the trick. There is a swath of land west of the golf course that could be used as the line along there, likely cut and cover underground. (The Red Line). You would need to go under that one hole on the NW edge.

The other option is to run between Fox Hollow and the Elks Golf course (shown in blue).

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

I believe 7th avenue, with 4 car trains can handle the NE catchment with decades of growth without having to be buried.

Currently, there are 150K people living there, and growth plans call for 150K more. The South line currently serves 220K people. So the combined trains coming out of the east end of downtown are serving a combined catchment of 70K more people than the NE is planned for growth, and that is with 3 car trains. Even if we reduce the number of trains using 7th to increase operational efficiency, there is a lot of capacity on 7th to serve the NE.

If we add the 150K people living in NC Calgary, plus the 180K additional growth expected in Keystone/Evanston area, to 7th via the NE line, of course we will have to bury 7th. It will be situation worse than today.

The point YNAT and I are making is that if we don't share headways on 7th, we don't have to bury it.

And the point I am making and is shared by my dumbshit geezer friends at Calgary Transit is using a completely untenable situation operating out of nothing other than sheer necessity, adding the fourth car to the consist and extrapolating that into the potential capacity of 7th Ave and saying grade separation will never be necessary is ridiculous.

It is as though somebody asked what the capacity of a 727 is and somebody said 330 passengers based on that many people being stuffed onto an evacuation flight from South Vietnam.

[kw5150]

You sound like Rick McIvor. He was really angry too and against anything urban. He liked to build "starter cities" with no thought that everyone would have to come fix later.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And the point I am making and is shared by my dumbshit geezer friends at Calgary Transit is using a completely untenable situation operating out of nothing other than sheer necessity, adding the fourth car to the consist and extrapolating that into the potential capacity of 7th Ave and saying grade separation will never be necessary is ridiculous.

It is as though somebody asked what the capacity of a 727 is and somebody said 330 passengers based on that many people being stuffed onto an evacuation flight from South Vietnam.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And the point I am making and is shared by my dumbshit geezer friends at Calgary Transit is using a completely untenable situation operating out of nothing other than sheer necessity, adding the fourth car to the consist and extrapolating that into the potential capacity of 7th Ave and saying grade separation will never be necessary is ridiculous.

Explain how so.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by kw5150

OMG....no, no, no. Better of with nothing. People along centre street have been investing in transit for decades. Why are we suddenly forgetting about them or making them take a feeder bus to this hypothetical LRT line in the middle of nowhere?

Man you are thick...

Anyone south of 20th ave is not going to take a feeder bus to the LRT, they are going to take their current 10 minunte busride straight down Centre Street to downtown. People who live north of that STILL have very good access to the LRT, we are talking 6 blocks from centre street, is that really too much land for you to comprehend people having to travel? How many people do you think live right on a LRT route where we already HAVE LRT going through? Guess what, MOST people don't live 2 blocks from an LRT stop and that is going to still be the case for the people in northern Calgary no matter where you build that new line.

The thing you are trying to do is give people reasonable access to the line. Most of the people I know who commute to downtown via the LRT drive to a Park N' Go and they then take the train from there to downtown, that is the reality for most people because most do not live within walking distance of the LRT despite the fact they live in a quadrant of the city where the LRT goes by. These people do not take feeder buses, that takes too much time, they drive to the LRT station, they park, and then they ride the train into work. They do this for the sole reason that parking in DT Calgary is way too expensive.

If your new line does not allow for people to do what I state already a TON of people DO do on the other lines then you are screwing up royally. For every person living close to the station and walking to it to catch a train you are losing many other people who cannot do what I say above because you did not provide Park N' Go at the stops and they do not live inside of 8 or 10 blocks of the station.

Noone south of 20th ave needs the LRT, they have already been well served by their transit dollars by having one of the easiest transit commutes into the heart of downtown that exists. I used to ride the bus route from Beddington to downtown, the people who live from 20th ave and south and take the bus downtown are EXTREMELY well served and if you are whining about that tranist route not serving you well enough you need to get a grip.

[fusili]

Ok, to clear things up, here are the two options for construction timelines for Nose Creek vs. Centre Street:

Nose Creek
1. Build the 8th Avenue Subway (possible moderate delays on 7th caused by construction at 9th street where the tunnel has to cross under 7th depending on construction style)
2 Build the SE LRT and 2nd Street Subway (possible minor delays as it is tunneled under 7th avenue)
3. Build the 7th Avenue Subway (major reduction in capacity and huge delays as all trains have to use 8th avenue during construction)
*steps 2 and 3 are interchangeable
4. Build the Nose Creek Line
(3 subways required to be built prior to the Nose Creek LRT being built)

Centre Street
1. Build the SE LRT/2nd Street Subway
2. Build the Centre Street LRT
3. Build the 8th Avenue Subway
(1 subway required to be built prior to Centre Street being built)

So which option will result in an LRT to northern hills first again?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The most successful LRT system in either Canada or the US certainly cannot be called dysfunctional. It's very functional.

The delays are caused by interlining, but interlining itself isn't the problem. As well, the traffic lights cause delays, but only when the two are combined is there an unmanageable problem. (if we can even call the current situation unmanageable). Interlining itself is very manageable, because trains can run very close together. Street lights themselves are manageable without interlining since each train would be clear of a short wait at a light before the train coming behind it would get there. Like I said, cascading delays happen when two trains arrive at the same side of downtown at the same time, on the two different lines. One train must wait for the other to go, and then stop at a station, and then be able to go on a green light again. Meanwhile, additional trains on each line have just about caught up behind the first ones. Removing interlining all but eliminates this problem, especially at 5 minute headways. There may be slight delays from time to time, but virtually zero cascading delays.

Again, even the current level of delays is manageable, and certainly more palatable than spending an additional $700 million on another grade separated ROW.

But you aren't really talking about interlining at all, you are talking about headways.

If you increase headways to a level appropriate for such an environment you just blew away most of the capacity you keep raving about making grade separation unnecessary. Which has been my point all along.