Calgary Public Transit II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Methinks IOL is going to lose a lot of employees who live in the NW.

That IOL will lose employees is a given, however I would be interested in finding out IOL position. IOL HR has a huge amount of information on the potential impact of the move though their employee surveys. Having no inside information or access this informaiton, any assessment is purely conjecture. There are a couple of items to think about.

Longterm "career life" IOL employees are the most likely to move to South. The 2014 to 2016 move to QP allows these employees lots of time to assess their situation.

Short term "career stepping stone" IOL employess are the most likely candidates to leave IOL for another job downtwon. However these employees likely only have a 2-4 year career with IOL to begin with. So in essence, while these employees will leave once their position transitions to QP, they would have likely have moved onto another employer in most circumstances.

Getting back to the original quote above, who are the most likely types of candidates to leave IOL when their job position moves to QP?

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

just gimme a second to go check the couch.....

i know it's not cheap, but i think building out from downtown slowly in 2 directions is better than further out in 1 direction. since the 8 ave subway is required for either of the 2 lines, it's cost is a moot point isn't it?

The 8 ave subway is not needed for either the SE LRT or the NC LRT. It is the NW and South line that will run on the 8 ave subway. There will be a subway under 2nd street for the SE line (and potentially the NC line, depending on what alignment is needed).

I think that the majority of riders in the SE would be on the train commuting to downtown from Douglasdale, so the SE line needs to make it at least that far in order to be effective in my opinion. The further south it goes, the more riders it will attract.

Spending huge amounts of money on an ineffective NC-SE line that doesn't reach majority of commuters would not be as good as just going to the majority of them in 1 direction.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

The 8 ave subway is not needed for either the SE LRT or the NC LRT. It is the NW and South line that will run on the 8 ave subway. There will be a subway under 2nd street for the SE line (and potentially the NC line, depending on what alignment is needed).

I think that the majority of riders in the SE would be on the train commuting to downtown from Douglasdale, so the SE line needs to make it at least that far in order to be effective in my opinion. The further south it goes, the more riders it will attract.

Spending huge amounts of money on an ineffective NC-SE line that doesn't reach majority of commuters would not be as good as just going to the majority of them in 1 direction.

i realize the 8 ave subway is for the nw/s line, but having the se/nc line underground downtown would require some small part of the 8 ave subway to be designed and built.

i thought the brt could bring people from the se and nc to the first stations on the respective line, then transfer from bus to train and off to the races. lrt half way is better than brt all the way.

[MichaelS]

And LRT all the way is better than BRT for half and LRT for half. I think that is what makes this such a difficult decision in some ways. You are essentially picking one quadrant over the other and with the limited capital dollars, it could leave the 2nd choice without an LRT line for a very long time.

I guess with the limited funds right now it also means that the 1st choice will be without an LRT line for a very long time too .

[DizzyEdge]

What is the status of the existing "BRT" route? Is it at capacity?

[eggbert]

nm

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

just gimme a second to go check the couch.....

i know it's not cheap, but i think building out from downtown slowly in 2 directions is better than further out in 1 direction. since the 8 ave subway is required for either of the 2 lines, it's cost is a moot point isn't it?

Building out slowly in 2 directions is begging for the line to be tagged a "boondoggle" or something, since nobody would ride it and it would be incredibly expensive.

For instance, the last time ridership numbers were released about a decade ago, (come on, CT -- what happened to open government?) there were 25 stations outside the downtown. The closest half were within 6 km of the downtown (The Core specifically) -- as far as University, Franklin and Chinook. In terms of future lines, this is as far as 45th St W, McKnight and Lynwood. The half of the stations closest to the downtown had only 30% of the ridership, and one-third of that was from University and Chinook.

It's not worth the hassle of a transfer to go from a bus to a train, if it only saves a couple of minutes. An initial segment from 4th St E to Douglasdale would probably cost as much as the tunnel from 4th St E to Eau Claire, and would have higher ridership. The other logistic problem, of course, is that the NC/SE line has to go out far enough to build a maintenance facility to handle the trains. I think South Hill (Glenmore) is the closest in possible area.

[RyLucky]

Picture a SELRT graph: Ridership vs Billions of Dollars spent

$1B - 2K riders - downtown to Inglewood
$2B - 15K riders - to Lynnwood
$2.5B - 50K riders - to QP
$2.7B - 70K riders - to Douglasdale
$3B - 100K riders - to Mackenzie Towne
$3.3B - 120K riders - to SEton
These numbers are just my estimates, but the point is the first billion dollars do almost nothing. The same is true for NCLRT (as you'll probably need a billion just to tunnel to 16th ave), although every station after the first one will bring substantially more ridership. The NCLRT will be very expensive south of 16th, moderately expensive from 16th to Beddington Trail, and less expensive north of Beddington (approx $130 million for a mile and 1 station). The big advantage of doing the SELRT first is that it makes a new direct route (a much shorter ROW than any existing road), and should therefore attract new transit riders.

Who deserves it more: the poorly-served SE or the transit-loving North? I'm not sure... but I think I'm leaning towards... BOTH. And the 8th Ave tunnel. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the SE because I think it will mean more people using transit overall.


PS. I just realized that IOL employees will have to ride through Lynnwood on their way to the QP. #Irony

[mellbell416]

I certainly agree that the SE needs the LRT badly and that it deserves first priority. I also understand the arguments against building in both N and S directions slowly - not enough users. Once the SE is well underway, though, it sakes that you could argue for its extension to the north along the N-C line. If the first northern part is so expensive, it would allow for a slower build to the north as funds are accrued. I still haven't heard any good arguments for the Eau Claire station, and IMHO it would big a waste of mucho bucks.

[MalcolmTucker]

it would allow for a slower build to the north as funds are accrued

This is the wrong way to think about infrastructure. You don't pay as you go on your house - once you have a reasonably assurance of future cash flow you take out a loan.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

There is a legitimate danger that either the Centre Street Bridge or the downtown street network will become overburdened by North Central busses prior to the planned construction of the NC LRT. I previously worked out how many busses cross the Centre Street Bridge into downtown during the peak hour and it is approaching the maximum level that the city estimated could be handled.

Beyond the #3(~16), #301 (~12), and #300 (~2), there is also the #2 (~10), #62 (~5), #64 (~10), #109 (~5), #116 (~8), and #142 (~5). So roughly 73 busses use the Centre Street Bridge to access downtown Calgary between ~7:00 AM and ~8:00 AM.

I think a strong case could be made that if the SE LRT precedes the NC LRT, then the SE LRT should immediately terminate at 16 Ave N instead of Eau Claire. That would at least allow some flexibility should the Centre Street Bridge become seriously overburdened.

edit: I forgot the #17 with 2 busses. So it's 75 busses.

It may make sense even today to move 109,116 and 142 over to Edmonton Trail. I would be curious to see if there would improvements in speed if the routes were Harvest Hills -> Beddington Trail -> Beddington Blvd -> 4th St NE/Edmonton Trail. There's significantly less traffic on this route due to the vehicle trap on 4th north of Mcknight but it's 2 km longer route (about 22% longer).

Other options would be moving 2 and 17 onto Edmonton Trail and routing 62 and 64 onto 14th either all the way downtown or onto 10th at Northmount.

[suburbia]

Cars2go Toronto just tweeted this. Wonder if they'll consider a similar deal in Calgary?

#carsharing in #Toronto just got better! Become a lifetime #car2go member for just 10 bucks + you'll get 30mins drivetime. p-code FALL2012

BTW - posting on this thread as cars2go is virtually public transit!

[Bigtime]

I thought the Car2Go membership was lifetime already? Are they just wording it that way for the promo in Toronto?

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Cage

That IOL will lose employees is a given, however I would be interested in finding out IOL position. IOL HR has a huge amount of information on the potential impact of the move though their employee surveys. Having no inside information or access this informaiton, any assessment is purely conjecture. There are a couple of items to think about.

Longterm "career life" IOL employees are the most likely to move to South. The 2014 to 2016 move to QP allows these employees lots of time to assess their situation.

Short term "career stepping stone" IOL employess are the most likely candidates to leave IOL for another job downtwon. However these employees likely only have a 2-4 year career with IOL to begin with. So in essence, while these employees will leave once their position transitions to QP, they would have likely have moved onto another employer in most circumstances.

Getting back to the original quote above, who are the most likely types of candidates to leave IOL when their job position moves to QP?

I agree with you assessment. To answer your question (in my opinion) - the most likely people to leave will be the technical people with unique skills. Geologists, Geophyics, Engineers - that sort of thing. Their network is downtown and that is where they will likely want to stay, unless they are career IOL people.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by lubicon

I agree with you assessment. To answer your question (in my opinion) - the most likely people to leave will be the technical people with unique skills. Geologists, Geophyics, Engineers - that sort of thing. Their network is downtown and that is where they will likely want to stay, unless they are career IOL people.

I would say the career IOL people will likely stay, but anybody that has been there only a few years, young, a professional (geologists, geophysicists & engineers like you said), or living in the north or west is a serious flight risk. If this was 2006, it would have been a stupid move, because everyone was looking for workers. Not as much now, but still something to consider.

My friend's dad has been with IOL for probably 30+ years, and isn't happy at all about the move (he takes the train from the NW)

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

I still haven't heard any good arguments for the Eau Claire station, and IMHO it would big a waste of mucho bucks.

I don't think the Eau Claire station is a must-have while only the SELRT is built, although having only one downtown station for the SELRT will make that terminal extremely busy.

Continuing north from the same line, up 2nd st W towards the bow, and eventually under the river to Ctr Street N, it makes very good sense to build a station at Eau Claire. Eau Claire is actually kind of far from the LRT relative to the rest of downtown and supports a lot of captive transit market from surrounding hotels, offices, Chinatown, and festival goers.

I wonder if there is a way that the SELRT could be made operational with only stops at QP, Inglewood, Stampede Park, and Central, while the rest of the stations are being constructed. If so, would it be worth considering, or do the relatively cheap price of low-floor stations relative to the expensive price of ROW negate this idea.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

I certainly agree that the SE needs the LRT badly and that it deserves first priority. I also understand the arguments against building in both N and S directions slowly - not enough users. Once the SE is well underway, though, it sakes that you could argue for its extension to the north along the N-C line. If the first northern part is so expensive, it would allow for a slower build to the north as funds are accrued. I still haven't heard any good arguments for the Eau Claire station, and IMHO it would big a waste of mucho bucks.

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I don't think the Eau Claire station is a must-have while only the SELRT is built, although having only one downtown station for the SELRT will make that terminal extremely busy.

Continuing north from the same line, up 2nd st W towards the bow, and eventually under the river to Ctr Street N, it makes very good sense to build a station at Eau Claire. Eau Claire is actually kind of far from the LRT relative to the rest of downtown and supports a lot of captive transit market from surrounding hotels, offices, Chinatown, and festival goers.

I wonder if there is a way that the SELRT could be made operational with only stops at QP, Inglewood, Stampede Park, and Central, while the rest of the stations are being constructed. If so, would it be worth considering, or do the relatively cheap price of low-floor stations relative to the expensive price of ROW negate this idea.

Steer Davies Gleave did an external review of the downtown network for Calgary Transit, and one of their recommendations was to better serve the northern portion of the CBD. The geographic centre of employment in the CBD is closer to 5th avenue, so 7th is a bit south of it. Putting a station in Eau Clair helps serve the northern portion of the CBD better.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

Steer Davies Gleave did an external review of the downtown network for Calgary Transit, and one of their recommendations was to better serve the northern portion of the CBD. The geographic centre of employment in the CBD is closer to 5th avenue, so 7th is a bit south of it. Putting a station in Eau Clair helps serve the northern portion of the CBD better.

I've always thought 7th was a poor choice. Sure it helps the richies in Banker's Hall, but most of downtown has to walk several blocks to and from the train each day. The horror, I know.

I'm not sure why 7th was chosen - probably cheaper than putting it on 5th and routing bridges, etc to connect to 7th.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I've always thought 7th was a poor choice. Sure it helps the richies in Banker's Hall, but most of downtown has to walk several blocks to and from the train each day. The horror, I know.

I'm not sure why 7th was chosen - probably cheaper than putting it on 5th and routing bridges, etc to connect to 7th.

Probably because it doesn't disturb the direct bridge connections to 9th, 6th, 5th or 4th. Stephen's on 8th, so that leaves 7th.

[MalcolmTucker]

I think 7th was chosen in the 1960s - I think they may have anticipated more development along 9th as the warehouses and grain elevators were removed.