Calgary Public Transit II - Page 261

RyLucky · #**5201** Posted **Jul 29, 2012, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

I think you're missing the point. The reason we are building a downtown subway is because thousands of people travel to downtown and from downtown for work, during rush hour. That is where the capacity will be at it's limit. So, we want to make it as easy as possible for people to get on and off the train downtown, and to and from the stations.

Even if you managed entrances on 3 streets per station, the platform will still be the same size, and you will have spent the money you were saving on overbuilding the entrances.

If you built the other stations as far from 2nd St as possible, you would end up with almost all downtown traffic as well as any NC-SELRT transfer traffic all in one place. For an example of how crowded that would be, and how much you would need to overbuild, look at Bloor-Yonge station in Toronto.

That said, I'm not sure how I would divide 4 stations downtown. Possibly City Hall (Between 3 St E and 1 St E), between Centre and 2nd, between 4th and 5th, and between 7th and 9th. But without a study, those are just guesses.

I'm not sure what your point is. I was just offering my opinion on how to make 3 stations instead of 4.

RyLucky · #**5202** Posted **Jul 29, 2012, 3:35 PM**

sorry. that was cranky.

DarkKeyo · #**5203** Posted **Jul 29, 2012, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'm not sure what your point is. I was just offering my opinion on how to make 3 stations instead of 4.

My point/opinion is that 3 stations instead of 4 will interfere with the subway functioning properly more than it will save money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

sorry. that was cranky.

No worries. I'm here to watch the ideas bounce around and add my own when I feel I have a good one. Feel free to comment on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Which is why we need a plan!

Agreed, and I will mention it if the RouteAhead bus and I ever end up going in the same direction.

Ferreth · #**5204** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 12:00 AM**

Here's a crazy idea:

Service the SE by extending the south LRT along the ROW of 22X with stops for Chaparral & Cranston. Turn south to meet the current ROW for the SE LRT at 52nd St.

This would require, for the south line:
1) 5 car trains
2) 8th Ave. Subway

This would not preclude building a SE LRT eventually. The capacity increases could handle adding the deep SE plus allow for some growth before a SE line would be required.

With the 8th Ave subway benefiting the west/NE line to an extent as well, might it not be worth building that instead of punching through all the industrial SE?

I would be also thinking along the lines of only expanding the South line to 5 car trains, that terminate downtown. Every 2nd train during the rush would be a 5 car train that terminates DT. 4 car trains could terminate at Shawnessy if the extra capacity is not required from there.

I'm wondering if this would be much cheaper, keeping in mind that the 8th Ave subway has to be built soon anyways, really most of the cost is to expand along the 22X ROW, I think 22X is cheaper than punching through the SE. I could see small Park 'n Rides being built along the 22X, but for the most part people in those communities would have to bus it. I'd also build minimal stations along the 22X, as once the SE line gets built the LRT may not run there anymore, or at reduced frequencies.

From what I see, the only communities that would not be served very well by such a setup would be those north of 130th: Douglasdale for the most part. BRT could keep those areas and further north serviced for the time being.

Am I missing some real deal killer with this idea? Worst disadvantage I can think of is longer commute from the SE - roughly 28KM via south line, vs 23km via SE new build - a grand total of 10 minutes more travel time, assuming average 50km/hr LRT speed.

frinkprof · #**5205** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Here's a crazy idea:

Service the SE by extending the south LRT along the ROW of 22X with stops for Chaparral & Cranston. Turn south to meet the current ROW for the SE LRT at 52nd St.

This would require, for the south line:
1) 5 car trains
2) 8th Ave. Subway

This would not preclude building a SE LRT eventually. The capacity increases could handle adding the deep SE plus allow for some growth before a SE line would be required.

With the 8th Ave subway benefiting the west/NE line to an extent as well, might it not be worth building that instead of punching through all the industrial SE?

I would be also thinking along the lines of only expanding the South line to 5 car trains, that terminate downtown. Every 2nd train during the rush would be a 5 car train that terminates DT. 4 car trains could terminate at Shawnessy if the extra capacity is not required from there.

I'm wondering if this would be much cheaper, keeping in mind that the 8th Ave subway has to be built soon anyways, really most of the cost is to expand along the 22X ROW, I think 22X is cheaper than punching through the SE. I could see small Park 'n Rides being built along the 22X, but for the most part people in those communities would have to bus it. I'd also build minimal stations along the 22X, as once the SE line gets built the LRT may not run there anymore, or at reduced frequencies.

From what I see, the only communities that would not be served very well by such a setup would be those north of 130th: Douglasdale for the most part. BRT could keep those areas and further north serviced for the time being.

Am I missing some real deal killer with this idea? Worst disadvantage I can think of is longer commute from the SE - roughly 28KM via south line, vs 23km via SE new build - a grand total of 10 minutes more travel time, assuming average 50km/hr LRT speed.

This notion was soundly put to bed in the late 90s, early 2000s. Last brought up/championed by Diane Colley-Urquhart.

- South line is over capacity now

- Capacity increase brought by 4/5 cars and 8th Avenue subway should be enough to satisfy the south line's catchment area, but not that plus the southeast catchment area. The southeast catchment is/will be big enough to justify no less than its own line

- This proposal would fail to serve both the area west of MacLeod and south of 22X (Silverado, etc.), as well as everything north of 130th Avenue (including Douglasdale and huge TOD opportunities at Ogden, Lynnwood, etc.).

- The only thing you may see in the distant future is a supplementary crosstown connector line along 22X that would link the south line with the southeast line.

RyLucky · #**5206** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Here's a crazy idea:

Service the SE by extending the south LRT along the ROW of 22X with stops for Chaparral & Cranston. Turn south to meet the current ROW for the SE LRT at 52nd St.

This would require, for the south line:
1) 5 car trains
2) 8th Ave. Subway

This would not preclude building a SE LRT eventually. The capacity increases could handle adding the deep SE plus allow for some growth before a SE line would be required.

With the 8th Ave subway benefiting the west/NE line to an extent as well, might it not be worth building that instead of punching through all the industrial SE?

I would be also thinking along the lines of only expanding the South line to 5 car trains, that terminate downtown. Every 2nd train during the rush would be a 5 car train that terminates DT. 4 car trains could terminate at Shawnessy if the extra capacity is not required from there.

I'm wondering if this would be much cheaper, keeping in mind that the 8th Ave subway has to be built soon anyways, really most of the cost is to expand along the 22X ROW, I think 22X is cheaper than punching through the SE. I could see small Park 'n Rides being built along the 22X, but for the most part people in those communities would have to bus it. I'd also build minimal stations along the 22X, as once the SE line gets built the LRT may not run there anymore, or at reduced frequencies.

From what I see, the only communities that would not be served very well by such a setup would be those north of 130th: Douglasdale for the most part. BRT could keep those areas and further north serviced for the time being.

Am I missing some real deal killer with this idea? Worst disadvantage I can think of is longer commute from the SE - roughly 28KM via south line, vs 23km via SE new build - a grand total of 10 minutes more travel time, assuming average 50km/hr LRT speed.

The thing I like about this plan is that it uses the right of way that the Evergreen spur would eventually take (roughly from the South Calgary Hospital, along 22x, past Somerset to the new communities south of Tsuu Tina along either 22x or 162nd ave SW). For a fraction of the price of the SELRT, you could provide decent service to the deep SE. Eventually, the rest of the SE line could be built, as could the rest of the Evergreen line and none of the infrastructure would be wasted, although there maybe be issues changing regular stations to low-floor stations. Anyway, I think your idea may be worth revisiting.

The problem, as FrinkProf mentioned, is that the SLRT is already over capacity. However, 5-car stations and the Eighth Ave Subway will dramatically increase capacity and decrease headway between trains. There are a lot of people in this town with their hearts set on a commitment to the full SELRT... anything else will be a tough sell. More and more it is starting to look like these said people will be let down. Way to think outside the box! This makes a hell-of-a lot more sense than the Nose Creek LRT!~

frinkprof · #**5207** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

For a fraction of the price of the SELRT, you could provide decent service to the deep SE.

However, 5-car stations and the Eighth Ave Subway will dramatically increase capacity and decrease headway between trains.

The second sentence negates the first. At minimum, the 8th Avenue subway and at least a couple dozen new LRVs would be needed if the 22X route were to be used as a mechanism to delay the full dedicated SE LRT, which makes the true cost of the option no longer a (ostensibly small) fraction of the full SE LRT.

You Need A Thneed · #**5208** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 6:05 AM**

That route from Somerset station to 22x/52nd Street is 9-10 km long. Longer than the WLRT. On top of requiring the 8th ave subway, and probably 5 car trains, the construction cost for just that extention would be nearing $1B on its own. Now we are talking about $2B in expenditures before that route can operate.

Like frinkprof said, it's not a small fraction of the whole proposed SELRT line.

Ferreth · #**5209** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

That route from Somerset station to 22x/52nd Street is 9-10 km long. Longer than the WLRT. On top of requiring the 8th ave subway, and probably 5 car trains, the construction cost for just that extention would be nearing $1B on its own. Now we are talking about $2B in expenditures before that route can operate.

Like frinkprof said, it's not a small fraction of the whole proposed SELRT line.

I was thinking the costs savings might not be enough to justify building an inferior line. However, my idea points out my beef with one aspect of the proposed SE line - new type of equipment. While I acknowledge the benefits of low floor LRT, it brings a big disadvantage - no flexibility to re-allocate equipment or route to other lines as the network evolves. I'm not convinced the plus of smaller platforms and nicer street interface are worth it. We'd be committing to a second type of train that never could be used elsewhere. I would envision a SE line taking some of the stock from the 22X / south line on opening day in 2062

but that can only happen if there is common rolling stock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

- Capacity increase brought by 4/5 cars and 8th Avenue subway should be enough to satisfy the south line's catchment area, but not that plus the southeast catchment area. The southeast catchment is/will be big enough to justify no less than its own line

- This proposal would fail to serve both the area west of MacLeod and south of 22X (Silverado, etc.), as well as everything north of 130th Avenue (including Douglasdale and huge TOD opportunities at Ogden, Lynnwood, etc.).

I'm a bit surprised at your assertion that such an expansion would not be within capacity. Sure, I can see with a full build out of the south and deep SE that there will not be capacity but that would be the point you would build the SE line.

I should add that I would see the south line continuing south eventually to service Silverado etc. You would have a shared line with a split of trains at 22X to cover the two areas, assuming you even get this far before building the SE line. Savy commuters closer in would learn to time there arrival to catch the "Silverado train", which would be emptier than the "Auburn Train" arriving from the SE. It would require a few extra trains to cover the extra 5km, say, 10 cars over the SE requirement. It's all these little things eating away at the potential cost savings that make me unsure there would be much of a savings left. Speaking of which, are low floor LRV's any cheaper? That would swing towards the SE lines favor again.

I certainly agree that this is not an ideal solution, my main question revolves around if you could build this much sooner at a cheaper cost that the SE line - cost / benefit perhaps might tip the balance?

RyLucky · #**5210** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The second sentence negates the first. At minimum, the 8th Avenue subway and at least a couple dozen new LRVs would be needed if the 22X route were to be used as a mechanism to delay the full dedicated SE LRT, which makes the true cost of the option no longer a (ostensibly small) fraction of the full SE LRT.

I completely agree. However, a major advantage is that this is all stuff we need anyway. This way the Eighth Ave Subway, five-car stations, and new LRVs get built, AND THEN one day the rest of the SELRT gets built too, as well as the rest of the Evergreen line. It's a new idea to me and I am not sure whether it's the best way forward, but I'd like you to convince me one way or the other. Afterall, there is a chance the SELRT will not get built at all until after the Eight Ave Subway, and maybe even after the NCLRT...

andasen · #**5211** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferreth

I was thinking the costs savings might not be enough to justify building an inferior line. However, my idea points out my beef with one aspect of the proposed SE line - new type of equipment. While I acknowledge the benefits of low floor LRT, it brings a big disadvantage - no flexibility to re-allocate equipment or route to other lines as the network evolves. I'm not convinced the plus of smaller platforms and nicer street interface are worth it. We'd be committing to a second type of train that never could be used elsewhere. I would envision a SE line taking some of the stock from the 22X / south line on opening day in 2062

but that can only happen if there is common rolling stock.

One thing to keep in mind with High Floor LVRs is that design is being phased out with more and more manufactures dropping their production of it. Global economies of scale are shifting to favour Low floor so it will be more affordable to purchase the low floor vehicles and the technical expertise will be shifting as well.

Though an interesting question is how different are the two technologies in terms of everyday maintenence.

RyLucky · #**5212** Posted **Jul 30, 2012, 10:11 PM**

Moreover, communities like Cranston and Chaparral were designed with Evergreen LRT right of way in mind. The same is true for the ringroad plans. With the exception of the bridge over the Bow, there are relatively few technical challenges for partial construction of the Evergreen Line. Surely, that would reduce costs.

I think I read somewhere that LRT (incl. station) was about $120 000 000 / section (mile). From Somerset to Seton would be around 6 miles. That's 720 mil plus some tens of millions here for a bridge and here for and interchange. Therefore, I estimate construction of this infrastructure to be about $1B, as oppose to twice that for the whole SELRT.

Remember, it will also demand 5-car stations, new LRVs, and 8th Ave Sub. Including all this with the new track mentioned above, the total project cost would probably be close to the price of the SELRT as the plan exists today (I believe it would be a couple hundred million less, somewhere around 2B-ish).

So, if the price of the SELRT1 (as it is planned today) is about equal to the price of this new idea(SELRT2), which would be better to have:

SELRT1: -fast service between the deep SE and Downtown
-great service to Inglewood, Ogden, Douglasdale, McKenzie Town, etc
-the start of a tunnel through downtown, that could eventually be extended to the NCLRT

SELRT2: - service to deep SE (less direct to downtown, but easy access to SLRT)
-5car stations throughout the NW/SLRT
-8th Ave Subway (dramatically improved capacity and travel times on all 4 lines through downtown)
-new LRVs on the NW/SLRT
-a head start on Evergreen LRT as well as future SELRT alleviation, to be built following NCLRT or other extensions

Honestly, as someone who will likely never ride the SELRT past Inglewood, I am a little torn. Thoughts?

armorand93 · #**5213** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 2:01 AM**

If you guys check Winnipeg SSP, we have an interesting discussion about how bad the bus service in Calgary is, compared to here!

frinkprof · #**5214** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 3:46 AM**

Saddletowne and Martindale stations open for service on August 27th. Traditionally there is an opening ceremony on the Saturday before the revenue opening of extensions. This would be on August 25th, although nothing official has been announced for that.

Here's a link with some information about the opening and some of the bus route changes that will come into effect with the new stations. There will be two new routes, Route 71 Taracove and Route 159 Saddlebrook.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/saddletown_opening_20120827.html

I've got all the new/changed route maps below.

UofC.engineer · #**5215** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 4:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by armorand93

If you guys check Winnipeg SSP, we have an interesting discussion about how bad the bus service in Calgary is, compared to here!

Lol, bus service in Winnipeg SHOULD be better. I'd be shocked if it was worse.

1. Winnipeg is a smaller city, 700,000 people.

2. Winnipeg has no LRT

3. Winnipeg is an older city and has more of a grid layout for streets which is beneficial for transit.

Plus, seniors have a high transit ridership, median age in Winnipeg is like 58.

Comet · #**5216** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 4:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by armorand93

If you guys check Winnipeg SSP, we have an interesting discussion about how bad the bus service in Calgary is, compared to here!

Calgarians are more concerned with taking lessons from cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto than worrying about the Regina, Saskatoons and Winnipegs.

UofC.engineer · #**5217** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comet

Calgarians are more concerned with taking lessons from cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto than worrying about the Regina, Saskatoons and Winnipegs.

OH! Snap!

armorand93 · #**5218** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 8:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Saddletowne and Martindale stations open for service on August 27th. Traditionally there is an opening ceremony on the Saturday before the revenue opening of extensions. This would be on August 25th, although nothing official has been announced for that.

Here's a link with some information about the opening and some of the bus route changes that will come into effect with the new stations. There will be two new routes, Route 71 Taracove and Route 159 Saddlebrook.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/saddletown_opening_20120827.html

I've got all the new/changed route maps below.

What are the frequencies of these new routes?

You Need A Thneed · #**5219** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 1:31 PM**

I'm guessing that all of the current routes' frequencies will be unchanged, and I suspect that the two new routes will be 15 minutes at peak times.

fusili · #**5220** Posted **Jul 31, 2012, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Saddletowne and Martindale stations open for service on August 27th. Traditionally there is an opening ceremony on the Saturday before the revenue opening of extensions. This would be on August 25th, although nothing official has been announced for that.

Here's a link with some information about the opening and some of the bus route changes that will come into effect with the new stations. There will be two new routes, Route 71 Taracove and Route 159 Saddlebrook.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/saddletown_opening_20120827.html

I've got all the new/changed route maps below.

These maps are illustrative of why transit costs so much money, but doesn't need to. Here is why:

- Routes 60/61 can be consolidated with route 159 simply with a small detour up to Saddlecrest Blvd. Why run an entire route that consists of a total of 5km?
- Routes 23 and 176 can be consolidated into a single express route running from Saddletowne station to Douglasdale station via 52nd street E. This can be operated similar to the 301 with limited stops and higher frequency
- Route 85 is useless. All it is doing is connecting LRT stations to one another. Service along Martindale Drive can be accommodated by altering the 60/61 to a figure-8 style loop instead of a regular circle.

With simple adjustments we can eliminate 3 of the 8 routes proposed above. And we wonder why transit is subsidized to such a degree.