NC LRT Advocacy Group

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The same number of people live in the area either way, how could it possibly serve more people?

A nose creek alignment + centre street BRT would provide fast direct access to DT to more people.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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.

Eglinton LRT - underground portions = $360M/km
Eglinton LRT - surface portions = $85M/km

Show me the business plans that say otherwise.

For Calgary, add the much higher land acquisition costs that would be required for the centre street alignment and the bridge that would be required across the bow river.

[lineman]

Face it, tropics. Your red line route makes as little sense as centre street does to some.
May as well blue line it at that point.

[lineman]

I just checked my map of utilities under centre st. Mostly waterworks. Storm runs along the west side at parts. Some streetlight and traffic controls. No transmission, primary power, telus or shaw. Acto runs along the west side. I dunno. It's not really mind boggling.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Eglinton LRT - underground portions = $360M/km
Eglinton LRT - surface portions = $85M/km

I'm pretty sure that those numbers are high, as cut and cover would cost significantly less than that, and elevated even less. But, let's do a comparison using these numbers, just as a comparison.

From the corner of Harvest Hills Blvd to downtown along centre street is 10.4 km.
From the same corner and down along the Nose Creek route to where the line would connect into the existing line at Zoo Station is 12.4 km. The rest of the line north of there would be the same anyway.

Just for a comparison, let's say we use the underground cost from downtown to 64th ave (that should be easily enough cost per km to cover a bridge across the river), and surface the rest of the way for the centre street line, and surface the whole way for the nose creek line.

CENTRE STREET ALIGNMENT:
Downtown to 64th Ave = 6.5km rest of the way 3.9 km

6.5 x $360M = $2.34B
3.9 x $85M = $331.5M
TOTAL = $2.671.5

NOSE CREEK ALIGNMENT:
12.4 x $85M = $1.02B
7th Ave Subway = $700M
Additional LRVs for extra length = ~25 cars @ $4M each = $100M
(additional cars would be required to fill the whole length of the route, not just the additional track to join with the existing track.)
Additional Streetcar or BRT Infrastructure on Centre Street = $200M
Cost of running alternative service along 7th ave for 2 years = ??? (tens of millions)
TOTAL = $2.02B

DIFFERENCE $651M


Let’s call the land aquisition costs roughly equal by the time property is acquired along Centre Street or along CPs right of way.

However, let’s do the same comparison with more accurate costs for the type of construction that most of us are proposing.

For the first 2.4 kms of the centre street route out of downtown (the end of the SE line to about 20th Ave), those will likely be bored tunnel, or bridge then bored tunnel, either way, let’s use $300M per km.

For the next 4.1 kms (20th Ave to 64th ave), it would be cut and cover tunnel and/or elevated. Let’s say $175M per km. North of 64th, we’ll use the original $85million per km.

2.4 x $300M = $720M
4.1 x $175M = $717.5M
3.9 x $85M = 331.5M
TOTAL = $1.769 billion

If we take out the streetcar or BRT, we are still left with $1.82 billion for a Nose Creek alignment. I don’t think my numbers are unreasonable at all. Without land aquisition costs, I think that the centre street route could actually cost LESS. and despite what PW says, the line isn’t going on city owned land. Certainly, there’s no city owned land through the underpasses under McKnight and 64th Ave, for example. One might argue that even if you built the rest of the line completely on city land, You might have to elevate over top of McKnight and 64th Ave, which would mean that the majority of the line would have to be elevated.

So, for roughly the same cost (at best), we would end up with an inferior line that would take an additional 6.75 minutes to get downtown on, would create two years+ of incredible traffic hassle downtown (way more then cut and cover along Centre Street would cause), that would limit the capacity of both the NE and NC lines decades into the future, cost more to operate perpetually, and cause other problems (such as needing a place for NC trains to turn around at the west end of downtown without them going all the way to 69th St - going all the way to 69th st would require even more LRVs and further add to operational costs).

Also, line fusili said, before a nose creek alignment could be built, 3 new downtown subway routes would have to be built, whereas for the Centre Street alignment, only 1 new downtown subway route would have to be built. This could mean that a Centre Street alignment could be build 1-2 decades sooner than a Nose Creek alignment.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

A nose creek alignment + centre street BRT would provide fast direct access to DT to more people.

For all of the additional people that live in the Nose Creek valley? What is that? 100 total? There may be plenty of land for TOD in the valley, however, there will never be will by anyone to develop any TOD there. There is simply way too many constraints.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

cut and cover would cost significantly less than that

The cost of acquiring all the properties required for cut and cover / or virtually any realistic method for centre street would be massive and beyond what you've suggested.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

those will likely be bored tunnel, or bridge then bored tunnel, either way, let’s use $300M per km.

Why would it be $60M/km cheaper than Eglinton in T.O.?

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

cut and cover tunnel and/or elevated. Let’s say $175M per km.

Where did you pull this number out of? Cut and cover would require massive disruptions and massive purchases of houses and businesses. In fact, there are parts of the Eglinton line where the construction portion would indeed be much cheaper with cut and cover, but they are not doing that because of the indirect costs (which you have ignored).

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Additional Streetcar or BRT Infrastructure on Centre Street = $200M

What additional BRT infrastructure? They already exist. If anything, you'd be trimming down substantially as no need really to go beyond 78th Ave. You wouldn't need additional streetcar for serving ways fewer people on that corridor than currently.

If you only talk about that half-way north area that many including yourself are so worried about, there is no need for any LRT at all, because you can go well beyond 40 Ave from DT in less than 15 minutes currently. The arguments are so fundamentally flawed!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The cost of acquiring all the properties required for cut and cover / or virtually any realistic method for centre street would be massive and beyond what you've suggested. And the traffic for the many years would be a real nightmare (though that aspect is likely neither here nor there).



What additional BRT infrastructure? They already exist. If anything, you'd be trimming down substantially as no need really to go beyond 78th Ave. You wouldn't need additional streetcar for serving ways fewer people on that corridor than currently.

As I said, there would be land aquisition costs for the Nose Creek line as well, from CP Rail that could add up to as much as the Centre Street land acquisition costs. Either option would be $200-500 million.

As the area south of Beddington grows in density, the BRT will need developing beyond what is currently there. It would need it's own right of way, whether it be BRT or streetcar. If that part of the cost bugs you so much, ignore it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Why would it be $60M/km cheaper than Eglinton in T.O.?



Where did you pull this number out of?

The entire Canada line in Vancouver averaged $177M per km, and is almost entirely tunnelled or elevated. The figure you are referencing is for when it was a completely bored line. The river could also be cut and covered under, for less than $300M per km, and a bridge over the river certainly would cost $300M per km. However, I've still used the $300M per km for that stretch.

Either way, my numbers are rough estimates that should be close (easily close enough to make my point).

If the west line cost the values I'm using for the second comparison for it's underground/elevated/surface sections, it would have cost more than it actually did. I think that's easily enough to show that the numbers are more than fair.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

NOSE CREEK ALIGNMENT:
<snip>
7th Ave Subway = $700M

Kinda BS to add this to the total for the line as it is pretty much a must for the future lines of Calgary Transit with or without the NC line. There is a SE line that will need it and a future east line that goes out along/near 17th ave south and towards Chestemere that will eventually need it. The 7th ave subway is a cost that must be incured no matter what, it is not a requirement only with a Nose Creek NC line so adding that cost to the NC line is bunk.

Where pray tell are you going to run the centre street line along? Are you crossing it right over the lionsgate bridge, through Chinatown along center and to where? 7th ave, 8th ave? Are you doing that above grade? Where are the costs for that?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Kinda BS to add this to the total for the line as it is pretty much a must for the future lines of Calgary Transit with or without the NC line. There is a SE line that will need it and a future east line that goes out along/near 17th ave south and towards Chestemere that will eventually need it. The 7th ave subway is a cost that must be incured no matter what, it is not a requirement only with a Nose Creek NC line so adding that cost to the NC line is bunk.

Where pray tell are you going to run the centre street line along? Are you crossing it right over the lionsgate bridge, through Chinatown along center and to where? 7th ave, 8th ave? Are you doing that above grade? Where are the costs for that?

Read the thread, at least today's posts. In short, a 7th ave subway is never needed with a centre street route, and is needed with a nose creek route. The SE line doesn't use 7th ave, and a future 17th ave line wouldn't use 7th ave either. 17th Ave line will definitely be low floor and incompatible with the 7th ave stations. SE line will likely be low floor vehicles too, but either way, it's going on 10th Ave and 2nd Street SW. So, adding this cost only to a nose creek alignment certainly is not BS.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Where pray tell are you going to run the centre street line along? Are you crossing it right over the lionsgate bridge, through Chinatown along center and to where? 7th ave, 8th ave? Are you doing that above grade? Where are the costs for that?

If you think that the Centre Street alignment includes a thousand km deviation west to the Lion's Gate Bridge, that explains your opposition, I suppose.

The SE LRT is planned to enter downtown with a north/south tunnel on 2nd St W, finishing at Eau Claire. It's a pretty obvious solution to extend this line to a Centre St LRT. Either this tunnel would be extended under the river, or the LRT could exit at grade at Eau Claire, then go over Prince's Island and enter a tunnel portal in the side of the bluff somewhere east of the parking lot for the curling club.

YNAT's already listed the costs for this. Back of the envelope, the cost estimates seem reasonable to me, at least enough to suggest that the two alignment alternatives are similar enough in cost that one cannot be disregarded out of hand as wildly more expensive.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The SE line doesn't use 7th ave, and a future 17th ave line wouldn't use 7th ave either. 17th Ave line will definitely be low floor and incompatible with the 7th ave stations. SE line will likely be low floor vehicles too, but either way, it's going on 10th Ave and 2nd Street SW. So, adding this cost only to a nose creek alignment certainly is not BS.

So again I ask, since you did not answer at all, where is the center street line going when it hits memorial? Outline your plan for that line from the time it hits the centre street bridge until its final stop downtown. Since in your arguement post above we are to assume whatever you are doing it wont cost a dime. Were you actually suggesting we go under the freaking river? And you think your cost estimate on coring under the river like that was close to reasonable?

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

The SE LRT is planned to enter downtown with a north/south tunnel on 2nd St W, finishing at Eau Claire. It's a pretty obvious solution to extend this line to a Centre St LRT. Either this tunnel would be extended under the river, or the LRT could exit at grade at Eau Claire, then go over Prince's Island and enter a tunnel portal in the side of the bluff somewhere east of the parking lot for the curling club.

If you are already there why the heck would you curve the line to the east to get to centre street instead of doing a 4th street LRT line. 4th street has WAY more re-development potential for a LRT line then centre street does. There is actually land there that can easily be redeveloped and it links up with centre street just past 64th ave. It is as someone mentioned above actually more central to the target communities putting even more people in walking distance of the stations.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Tropics

So again I ask, since you did not answer at all, where is the center street line going when it hits memorial? Outline your plan for that line from the time it hits the centre street bridge until its final stop downtown. Since in your arguement post above we are to assume whatever you are doing it wont cost a dime. Were you actually suggesting we go under the freaking river? And you think your cost estimate on coring under the river like that was close to reasonable?

I'll jump in here.

From the top of the valley the line curve west ward as it crosses the river and then curves southward to make a seemless connection to the SE line where it ends. All in all, it needs to shift approximately 350 metres west from centre over to 2nd street SW, bypassing the centre street bridge completely with either its own bridge or tunneled under the river.

Question: People have been throwing around the idea of using cut and cover to reduce the cost for tunnelling under the river. This seems rather counter intuitive to my thinking, anyone willing to explain why my thinking is wrong?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Tropics

If you are already there why the heck would you curve the line to the east to get to centre street instead of doing a 4th street LRT line. 4th street has WAY more re-development potential for a LRT line then centre street does. There is actually land there that can easily be redeveloped and it links up with centre street just past 64th ave. It is as someone mentioned above actually more central to the target communities putting even more people in walking distance of the stations.

You ask me, the feasibility study should look at 4th St W, Centre, Edmonton Tr and Nose Creek. Tunnelling, both 4th and Centre are equal possibilities in terms of cost, I suppose. If the bridge to tunnel approach was used, the portal would have to be somewhere between the stairs at 2nd St W and Centre St; bridging over the curling club, the ped bridge on Prince's Island, or part of Sunnyside would be a hell of a lot more difficult.

Centre St is already a well-developed transit corridor, has a much more intense urban form that is consistent with further intensification, and handles more road traffic. It's the more central alignment south of 40th, and of course intersects with 4th at 72nd, so it's just as central overall. There is at-grade right of way north of 64th that 4th St doesn't have. Seems the most logical corridor to me. But a detailed study could indicate otherwise.

[sim]

A couple things, since this is rather hard to follow in a much different time zone and the below is not going to add much to the general discussion.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

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

Don`t be bitter because everytime you claim to have a grasp on transportation trends or thoughts, you are introduced statitistics or introduced concepts that come from outside of your myopic view, one seemingly both of the world on a macro-level and mobility issues on a more micro one. It`s obviously pretty hard to present to you any fully quantifiable backing for the support, or lack there of, of a particular line that hasn`t been built, hence why I continue to ask you to present anything that is an equivalent example to serve as second best evidence. You haven`t and until you do, and it very likely doesn`t much matter to you, but I`ll take you as yet again being proven wrong. You show me otherwise.

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.

Don`t be daft. If you don`t understand accessibility, don`t comment on it. However, you do but just have no real argument to present.

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

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up... So why did you try to argue that somehow a Nose Creek line will serve more people that "will exist" come that time? This discussion might actually prove more fruitful if you at least try to argue the realities of what you are advocating. I think it is pretty clear that a centrally aligned line serves more people as it would serve all the same people that you are including but more - south of Beddington. So are you even trying to discuss this, or purposely inventing non-existent arguments?

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.


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.

Again, want to perhaps increase your sample set or benchmark? What similar city? Edmonton? Winnipeg? Denver? Las Vegas? St. Louis? maybe Munich? Zurich? Strasbourg? Marseille? Karlsruhe? Rostock? Gdansk?

My goal isn`t to berate Calgary Transit as it`s not as if they are doing only bad things, but unrivalled? Why is it that I can`t even go to a bus station and figure out when, where and how often I can expect a bus - if I can even find that station minimally marked with a small white sign and some number that I`m supposed to know to call. Correct me if things have actually changed throughout.

Finally, get over your damn self and this notion that I`m trying to "bend people`s lifestyles to mine." I can`t remember having argued this from a subjective angle yet, and no where have I stated that people should live a certain lifestyle. My stance aligns itself with one of sustainable development by way of transportation that regards all 3 facets of sustainability adhering to what has quite solidly been proven emperically, theoretically and by way of modelling. If you want to adhere to the outliers (say Wendell Cox) then that is your prerogative, but that then doesn`t automatically make an opponent some sort of social engineer or whatever - as it seems you are trying to say without saying it. Is it really that inconceivable to you that how we currently do things (macroscopically) might just not be the most optimal, and that there are steps that can be taken to rectify this? Or are you just too stubborn to even entertain the idea because it might mean you were`nt quite right or might be slightly inconvenienced - which is the entitled generation? I for one would not use the fact that something essentially decided 5 years ago let alone 30, as the foundation for my stance in such a dynamic world - or even more dynamic city.

[sim]

I apologize for the above rant, and I wish to add something a bit more useful:


If the goal is simply to bring people from the North hills to downtown as fast as possible and with minimal financial strain, then why can`t not a true BRT be run down a dedicated lane on Deerfoot and onto a dedicated lane on memorial? Most of the infrastructure already exists.

I`m sure that an immediate reaction to this is its political palpability, but it would actually serve the purpose to near similar levels that a commuter line would at a fraction of the price. In fact, several lines originating from a few key northern hubs could make use of such infrastructure. A high capacity true BRT could easily recoup the lost roadway capacity. Not only that, if a goal in general is to have people move toward transit (as a city with a supposed unrivalled public transit culture might be expected to have,) that is precisely the measure that should be implemented. If despite the more than ample studies and evidence showing that this is so, is still not perceived as true and is therefore still too politically risky (subsequently proving just to what extent the priority of transit takes in the city,) then surely strategically adding an extra lane will still be in significant order cheaper than the construction of a new rail-line, especially once considering the issue with the rail line and its downtown entry-way.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tropics

So again I ask, since you did not answer at all, where is the center street line going when it hits memorial? Outline your plan for that line from the time it hits the centre street bridge until its final stop downtown. Since in your arguement post above we are to assume whatever you are doing it wont cost a dime. Were you actually suggesting we go under the freaking river? And you think your cost estimate on coring under the river like that was close to reasonable?

Heading southbound on Centre Street, at some point while going down the hill, it veers to the West, crosses the river and aligns with 2nd Street SW. There it will connect to the then existing terminus station for the SE LRT at Eau Claire.

My cost estimate takes into account the cost of tunnelling under the river, or building a bridge across the river, yes. It's expensive, but it's not some outrageous expense, either way. The city has tunnelled under the river for a different project within the last 5 years, afterall.

A cut and cover tunnel under the river could easily work too. In fact the only way I see a bored tunnel under the river happening is if the SELRT is bored through downtown, and they just keep going. If it doesn't happen at the same time, I think that they would either cut and cover a tunnel across the river, or bring the line to grade in Prince's Island Park and cross the river on a bridge.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Capacity is the number of trains that can use a given length of track in a certain time. All it does is increase potential utilization and potentially reduce transfers.

You're obviously not familiar with the concept of a bottleneck. You are aware that interlining means two seperate train routes converging on one track. There wouldnt be two parrallel sets of tracks running along the point where the NC and West/NE line converge, so think about it for a bit and you'll quickly come to see how this reduces the maximum capacity of both lines.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Tropics

So again I ask, since you did not answer at all, where is the center street line going when it hits memorial? Outline your plan for that line from the time it hits the centre street bridge until its final stop downtown. Since in your arguement post above we are to assume whatever you are doing it wont cost a dime. Were you actually suggesting we go under the freaking river? And you think your cost estimate on coring under the river like that was close to reasonable?

We already know where the SE LRT is going. Check it out here: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Southeast%20LRT%20Compendium.pdf
The last station is directly east of Eau Claire Market on 2nd Street.

The Centre Street alignment will connect with this line. It will bury at around 10th avenue (wild guess, but I don't know the geodetics), come out of a tunnel portal on the bluff and then cross the river with a bridge, descending to the Eau Claire Tunnel the entire way.