Calgary Public Transit II

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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

If I recall, the ultimate constraint to North Central bus service is the downtown core itself, specifically the number of busses it can handle. I believe we are nearing the number of North Central busses that the city considered the maximum. So there are only so many more busses that can be accommodated.

That said, there is still a great deal of capacity. I think it involved measures like decreasing the frequency of the #3 to redirect those slots to the #301 and transitioning both the #301 and #3 to be entirely articulated busses during the peak. If a significant number of those 75 7:00-8:00 AM Centre Street busses, say 60, were articulated, then there would be a great deal of room for ridership growth.

[Offside_Ref]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If I recall, the ultimate constraint to North Central bus service is the downtown core itself, specifically the number of busses it can handle. I believe we are nearing the number of North Central busses that the city considered the maximum. So there are only so many more busses that can be accommodated.

That said, there is still a great deal of capacity. I think it involved measures like decreasing the frequency of the #3 to redirect those slots to the #301 and transitioning both the #301 and #3 to be entirely articulated busses during the peak. If a significant number of those 75 7:00-8:00 AM Centre Street busses, say 60, were articulated, then there would be a great deal of room for ridership growth.

Keep in mind, there isn't much curb space in some, if not most, of the blocks with 301 stops. Adding articulated buses without decreasing frequency only adds to the space requirement downtown, which is the main constraint. (Double deckers anyone? ) It really sucks when the bus you need is stuck at the lights on green because there isn't any curb space in the next block for it to stop.

And if they decreased service on the 3 towards the 301, there would still be the south leg of the 3 to deal with. I don't know what the ridership is like on that section, so maybe a reduced frequency would be ok there, but if it isn't and would require the current frequency, they'd have to route buses to do the south leg starting downtown anyways, which would actually add buses to the downtown road network.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by 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.

The fact that it is on 7th allows it to be within easy walking distance of most of the Beltline. If they build the subway built under 8th, that will shorten that walk by just a bit. If they build the SELRT tunnel, the Beltline gets two new stations, on 10th Av, plus the Eau Claire station to very helpfully serve the north half of Downtown.

If the LRT had been built on 5th, that would add quite a lot of time, mostly spent crossing 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

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.

I completely agree that the SE LRT has to extend a good part of the way out for it to make any sense and the further out the better. I'm not sure if the same logic applies to the north.

Ridership on the #302 is anemic and a transfer to a train anywhere north of Quarry Park is not likely to change that; whereas ridership on the #301 is strong and a transfer at 16 Ave is not likely to change that. Further, the north would allow for a connection to the 16 Ave crosstown BRT; whereas the SE LRT lacks such an attractive transfer (though a 17 Ave SE BRT could connect at Crossroads relatively easily so there is a chance of something there, just not to the same extent). Last, the ability to terminate the #301 at 16 Ave would significantly improve bus congestion downtown/on the Centre Street Bridge and eliminate the labour cost of navigating the slowest part of the route; whereas far fewer #302s are needed to keep up with demand so eliminating them does less good.

So I can see there being significant benefits to having the first phase of the N-SE LRT (if the SE is to precede the N) travel between 16 Ave and Seton, or at least extending the SE LRT from Eau Claire to 16 Ave as a second phase. Of course, after 16 Ave the north becomes much the same as the SE with the next logical extension being all the way to Country Village.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Offside_Ref

Keep in mind, there isn't much curb space in some, if not most, of the blocks with 301 stops. Adding articulated buses without decreasing frequency only adds to the space requirement downtown, which is the main constraint. (Double deckers anyone? ) It really sucks when the bus you need is stuck at the lights on green because there isn't any curb space in the next block for it to stop.

And if they decreased service on the 3 towards the 301, there would still be the south leg of the 3 to deal with. I don't know what the ridership is like on that section, so maybe a reduced frequency would be ok there, but if it isn't and would require the current frequency, they'd have to route buses to do the south leg starting downtown anyways, which would actually add buses to the downtown road network.

Making the #3s articulated would mean that a drop in frequency in favour of the #301 would not mean a drop in capacity. It wouldn't be as good but with five minute or better frequency during the peaks there is some room to manoeuvre while still providing frequent service.

[mellbell416]

No wonder the ridership on the 302 is so 'anemic'...I don't know what it is like to the south of Quarry Park, but the ride from Inglewood to QP is beyond depressing - I have never been along such an unattractive route. it goes through industrial wasteland and rundown houses - the garbage dump was the finishing touch for me.

I wouldn't expect ridership to improve that much even with the addition of 3000 IOL employees at QP. They are just not going to want to have subject themselves to that everyday, particularly since it isn't even very fast despite its 'express' status (35 mins from DT) - if you have to make a connection from elsewhere, you're up to an hour commute easy. IOL will be offering free parking for all employees at QP, so there will be little motivation to use transit - expect lots of extra cars on the road!

I have looked and some maps showing the planned rout for the SETWAY -looks like only the section S of Inglewood is diverted a bit to the west, which is a bit of an improvement, but it was the more southern part that is the most objectionable. I wouldn't feel safe on it after dark.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Why? Raiding parties coming out of the industrial wasteland?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ Why? Raiding parties coming out of the industrial wasteland?

That was my thought. I can see how the perception of safety isn't great, because it is so dark and isolating. But really, there is nobody there, so the actual threat to your safety is minimal at best.

But I agree, the landscape around the SE LRT is dismal. Anybody who thinks there is somehow more development potential around the SE LRT compared to the NC LRT has lost their mind.

[sim]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

I wouldn't expect ridership to improve that much even with the addition of 3000 IOL employees at QP.

Without any tangible bus specific infrastructure or prioritization improvements, I wouldn't be surprised if it went down.

The expected move in date is 2014 no, and the SETWAY, if this holds true, could be expected in 2016. Slow clap.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by fusili

Anybody who thinks there is somehow more development potential around the SE LRT compared to the NC LRT has lost their mind.

Maybe by "potential" they mean "crossroads and highfields can only get better". There is a lot of potential at Victoria Park, QP, and Seton. Inglewood and Lynnview practically rely on LRT (among other factors) to achieve potential.

One other problem with the SELRT is the same problem that affects transit in the SE now. That is, it is difficult to access from almost every other part of the city besides the SE, hence the need for more crosstown routes. ie. better transit between the Macleod corridor (Chinook, Anderson, Somerset), Forest Lawn, and the SE corridor (QP and SEton).

[RyLucky]

What I'd give to have a new line constructed next year...

I'd probably off $500 per year if everyone in Calgary did it. $500 000 000 per year... Get the whole NCLRT-SELRT-8th Ave built by 2025.

I know, I know,... never going to happen. Let's just hope the provincial government finds a way to make money again.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

What I'd give to have a new line constructed next year...

I'd probably off $500 per year if everyone in Calgary did it. $500 000 000 per year... Get the whole NCLRT-SELRT-8th Ave built by 2025.

I know, I know,... never going to happen. Let's just hope the provincial government finds a way to make money again.

I wish that could be 2015

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Maybe by "potential" they mean "crossroads and highfields can only get better". There is a lot of potential at Victoria Park, QP, and Seton. Inglewood and Lynnview practically rely on LRT (among other factors) to achieve potential.

One other problem with the SELRT is the same problem that affects transit in the SE now. That is, it is difficult to access from almost every other part of the city besides the SE, hence the need for more crosstown routes. ie. better transit between the Macleod corridor (Chinook, Anderson, Somerset), Forest Lawn, and the SE corridor (QP and SEton).

Contrast that to the NC LRT. The first stop is in the middle of Crescent Heights/Tuxedo/Rosedale. Both 16th Ave and Centre ST have huge potential for redevelopment, mostly being 6-8 storey mixed use office or residential. And then the surrounding communities have huge potential for gradual densification from singles to townhouses. You can quadruple density by allowing three storey townhouses on a parcel.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by fusili

That was my thought. I can see how the perception of safety isn't great, because it is so dark and isolating. But really, there is nobody there, so the actual threat to your safety is minimal at best.

But I agree, the landscape around the SE LRT is dismal. Anybody who thinks there is somehow more development potential around the SE LRT compared to the NC LRT has lost their mind.

Are y'all really trying to call this one in favour of NC? There is development potential at every station north of 130th Ave. Plus a strong anchor currently developing in the south with the hospital and Seton.

Ogden Road Station will be at the heart of the redevelopment along ogden road (which is just starting now).

Once the final allingment of 24th comes in the area around South Hill Station will be prime for development/redevelopment.

Going south that entire strip along 24th is finally developing, There will be a decent strip inbetween the SETWAY allignment and 24th for that side also to develop. Plus then your into the heart of quarry park.

Then the area around Douglasglen is a mixture of preexisting medium density businesses, low density retail, industrial lots and a bit of vacant land. Currently transit supportive density with potential to improve even more.

Shepard Station has pre-existing retail/commercial to the south and future infil development to the north.

This is very different style of development/redevelopment than what can be expected in the north but the situations in the North and Southeast are completely different kettles of fish. Though complimentry kettles of fish.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by andasen

Are y'all really trying to call this one in favour of NC? There is development potential at every station north of 130th Ave. Plus a strong anchor currently developing in the south with the hospital and Seton.

Ogden Road Station will be at the heart of the redevelopment along ogden road (which is just starting now).

Once the final allingment of 24th comes in the area around South Hill Station will be prime for development/redevelopment.

Going south that entire strip along 24th is finally developing, There will be a decent strip inbetween the SETWAY allignment and 24th for that side also to develop. Plus then your into the heart of quarry park.

Then the area around Douglasglen is a mixture of preexisting medium density businesses, low density retail, industrial lots and a bit of vacant land. Currently transit supportive density with potential to improve even more.

Shepard Station has pre-existing retail/commercial to the south and future infil development to the north.

This is very different style of development/redevelopment than what can be expected in the north but the situations in the North and Southeast are completely different kettles of fish. Though complimentry kettles of fish.

I'm just saying Tuxedo, Crescent Heights, Highland Park, Mount Pleasant, etc have a much higher redevelopment potential than Bonnybrook Industrial. There is nothing to redevelop in Lynnwood, unless you want heavy metals in your lawn.

By the time you hit South Hill, you are 9K from the downtown. That is the same distance to Aurora Park. Sure, there is redevelopment potential around Quarry Park and Douglasglen, but that is a far way to travel to get to "redevelopment."

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by andasen

There is development potential at every station north of 130th Ave.

Wow - 130th Ave. Considering that is only the 2/3rds point, that sure is going to be a very long line! I was just looking at the Toronto subway map, and I'd bet that the longest distance Toronto's subway/train extends from their downtown is less than what the mammoth SE-LRT would extend out from our core. Anything at this type of distance is borderline considered commuter train. Of course, Toronto is a city with 5 times the population and having a core up against water ends up sprawling much further, so maybe it is not a fair comparison.

How many kilometers of track is the proposed SE-LRT?

[floobie]

Random thoughts that are likely completely unrelated to current discussion:

- Why don't any (more?) of our stations have bike racks near them? Those bike lockers seem like a really half-assed approach that only benefit like 5 people. I'm sure theft is an issue, but you take that risk leaving your bike anywhere. If that's a reason not to offer bike racks, there shouldn't be any in the entire city. It just occurred to me, but I could totally be riding my bike to the train station every day (when the weather isn't disgusting).

- Why don't any of our non-downtown stations have any retail attached to them? It would be pretty damn convenient if there were a Tim Horton's (or something along those lines) at my station in the morning, so I could quickly grab a coffee before getting on a train. Seems like renting out retail space could be a pretty great source of funding for Calgary Transit. This is always very apparent to me whenever I travel. Calgary is the only city I've been to that doesn't have retail built into their train stations.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by fusili

I'm just saying Tuxedo, Crescent Heights, Highland Park, Mount Pleasant, etc have a much higher redevelopment potential than Bonnybrook Industrial. There is nothing to redevelop in Lynnwood, unless you want heavy metals in your lawn.

That statement is reflective of Lynnwood 10 years ago. Today, not so much

Reclaimation is well underway in Lynnview Ridge

"Since remaining residents received a letter from the Alberta government in 2009 stating the soil was essentially free of serious contamination, the stigma associated with buying and selling homes in the surrounding Lynnwood Ridge area has all but vanished, Whelan said.

The intense fervor over the contamination scandal that once existed in the community has mostly given way to a curiosity for the area's future land-use, particularly the possibility of an LRT station, she said. 'From a real estate perspective, it’s still a very attractive community.' "

Public greenspace still a go for Lynnview Ridge, eventually

For the entire area atleast 1.5 metres of top soil has been replaced and down in the lower areas up to 5 meters have been replaced.

From what information I've been able to find it seems that the area is just about ready start rebuilding. Just a little more to do and it will be ready.

By the time you hit South Hill, you are 9K from the downtown. That is the same distance to Aurora Park. Sure, there is redevelopment potential around Quarry Park and Douglasglen, but that is a far way to travel to get to "redevelopment."

So cancel the redevelopment plans in Shawnee slopes? About the same distance from the core as the Shepard Station will be.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Wow - 130th Ave. Considering that is only the 2/3rds point, that sure is going to be a very long line! I was just looking at the Toronto subway map, and I'd bet that the longest distance Toronto's subway/train extends from their downtown is less than what the mammoth SE-LRT would extend out from our core. Anything at this type of distance is borderline considered commuter train. Of course, Toronto is a city with 5 times the population and having a core up against water ends up sprawling much further, so maybe it is not a fair comparison.

How many kilometers of track is the proposed SE-LRT?

Calgary has done a stupid amount of sprawl, true. The problem is now we have to live with that sprawl and make it work.

The SE line will be slightly longer though in a similar ball park as the South Line will be when built out to 210th Street. (which will happen before the SE LRT gets to Seton)

The North East Line to Stoney will also have a similar length.

Full build out to Seton can not happen in the first go. Building out to douglas glen is in a similar length as the first buildout on the southline to Anderson Station

[andasen]

To be honest though I really don't like trying to defend the southeast in a SE vs NC debate. They are extremely complimentry lines with the NC providing the population and the SE providing the employment or transfers to employment. Does anyone have any ideas of the cost of the SE line without the tunnel through downtown since if considering the NC/SE as a single line will mean that it should be costed equally to both or seperately from either.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by andasen

The SE line will be slightly longer though in a similar ball park as the South Line will be when built out to 210th Street. (which will happen before the SE LRT gets to Seton)

The North East Line to Stoney will also have a similar length.

End of build out south line (current plan) ends at 210 ave south.
End of build out south-east line (current plan) ends at the centre of Seton employment centre - approximately 205 ave south.
End of build out north-east line (current plan) ends at 128 ave north.

So while you're right, the full length of the final NE line might be the same as the SE line, however, the length of the NE line is more indicative of the route of the line (straight east, then north and then west) such as to service the existing density of transit going population, as opposed to linear "sprawl servicing" distance from the city centre.

I clarify my point that the distance the SE line is proposing to service, as measured linear from city centre and thus indicative of sprawl, is more than any of the lines in Toronto. In Toronto, that sort of distance (basically beyond about 180 ave in any direction) would be considered commuter train territory.