Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The report should be read for what it is. It shares data and shares how the data was collected. It is not sharing anything that is "wrong". People are simply getting defensive and responding to what others may conclude. No need to do that - people are smart.

Irrespective, your latter comment about adding even more density resulting in even worse grid-lock is precisely why I recently asked the question, is there a max size for a city to be ultra-efficient, after which it is diminishing returns? What is that size? Would you want to be in a city of 50m people (not that far off for the world)? Within this frame of thinking, absolutely adding more density should be viewed as bad (Kawloon walled city anyone?).

It is not perverse, rather, it is a differential equation. There most certainly is an inflection point after which the negative impact of a further increase of congestion via density is greater than its positive impacts.

OK, I will try and make this more clear. Imagine we measured obesity, not as a total weight, but as a ratio of ice cream eaten to total food consumed. The lower the ratio, the less "obese" someone would be. What would be a simple way to decrease obesity, as measured by this metric? Increase how much non-ice cream you eat. By doubling the amount of food you eat, you decrease your obesity.

Another example. Imagine we measured crime rate, not as a total of the number of crimes committed and weighted so more serious crimes (murder, rape) counted more than other crimes (theft under $1000), but a ratio of "serious" crimes to total crime. Of course, you don't want a high ratio of serious crimes, but if you only use the ratio, you can end up making your crime rate look good by simply increasing small crimes. Again, that is a perverted metric.

The same happens here. Double your commute distance, and you reduce your congestion metric. That doesn't make sense, and the metric should be thrown out. That is what I mean by perverse. If you can make things worse, but the metric gets better, you need to re-examine your metric.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

OK, I will try and make this more clear. Imagine we measured obesity, not as a total weight, but as a ratio of ice cream eaten to total food consumed. The lower the ratio, the less "obese" someone would be. What would be a simple way to decrease obesity, as measured by this metric? Increase how much non-ice cream you eat. By doubling the amount of food you eat, you decrease your obesity.

Measuring congestion during rush hour relative to normal periods is a good way to measure relative congestion on the same roads. Period.

Looking at ratio of food intake is no measure of obesity. Period.

Your parallel would only make sense if they were measuring a cities livability by measuring the congestion, and they were not doing that. That is you projecting. Rather, they are really only providing data. Valid and real data.

Originally Posted by fusili

Double your commute distance, and you reduce your congestion metric. That doesn't make sense.

The measure is at a city level, and they are simply providing a measure such as to compare city to city. The reality of today's Vancouver and where people live in Vancouver to the reality of today's Toronto and where people live in Toronto.

[mellbell416]

A recent interview here with Nenshi talking about Calgary's application for a "big city charter" - they should know by 2013 whether we will succeed in getting this status. Others here may know more about this than I do, but it sounds like it would reduce our dependency on the provincial government's whims around providing funds for our $8b transit plan....

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...ven+better+place+live/7377281/story.html

[MalcolmTucker]

As long as the City remembers with great power comes great responsibility - it is still too common for the City or actors within it to think the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model still exists, and that the provincial share should be additional grants, and the city share should be the MSI, gas tax, etc from the province.

A great example of this is the funding request for the airport tunnel.

The City did take a good step with the community investment fund in that for capital needs the City created its own pot of money. I hope the City won't be reluctant to approach voters with projects that outstrip the ability of the province to support 100% of the cost and ask for additional sources of revenue raised within Calgary.

[mellbell416]

Would it mean that the City would be able can get the developers to start kicking in funds for new LRT lines etc.? That would be a good win-win....

[Bassic Lab]

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.

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."

Past South Hill it really is not redevelopment; it is development.

I'm not sure how hopeless Highfield-Bonnybrook is. There is definitely a lot of under utilized land in the area with all the storage (veering towards junk) yards. Intensive light industry can employ people at transit supportive densities (it is after all where most people used to work), especially in fabrication shops as opposed to warehousing/distribution. I could easily see land in Highfield-Bonnybrook, that is essentially vacant at present, looking more attractive for that kind of a role after a train station shows up next door. On the other hand, 39 Avenue Station it right there with a counter example of nothing changing. So yeah, I really don't know.

I do find it disheartening to hear, quite necessary, centrally located industrial land described as a "wasteland".

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

Would it mean that the City would be able can get the developers to start kicking in funds for new LRT lines etc.? That would be a good win-win....

The city can do that already. Past a certain point it is inequitable the amount of value creation and transfer, and the amount of first mover advantage created. The city isn't there yet, but it is much closer to that than 5 years ago.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Measuring congestion during rush hour relative to normal periods is a good way to measure relative congestion on the same roads. Period.

Looking at ratio of food intake is no measure of obesity. Period.

Your parallel would only make sense if they were measuring a cities livability by measuring the congestion, and they were not doing that. That is you projecting. Rather, they are really only providing data. Valid and real data.

The measure is at a city level, and they are simply providing a measure such as to compare city to city. The reality of today's Vancouver and where people live in Vancouver to the reality of today's Toronto and where people live in Toronto.

What I am saying is that total travel time is a much better measure on a city-wide basis. If you want to measure the congestion of a single road, for instance, Glenmore, you can measure free flow versus congestion speeds. That makes sense. But when you measure the entire city this way, things become distorted. If you metric is improving, does that mean you are easing congestion? Or are total travel times increasing due to longer commutes, thus making the ratio look good? You don't know, because you don't know whether the average commute time is increasing or decreasing.

Let's see if I can make this more simple. If we put more people in Airdrie, the metric goes up. If we add more in Ingelwood the metric goes down. In what crazy world does adding people in Airdrie reduce congestion more than adding people in Inglewood? That is why the metric is perverse.

[mellbell416]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The city can do that already. Past a certain point it is inequitable the amount of value creation and transfer, and the amount of first mover advantage created. The city isn't there yet, but it is much closer to that than 5 years ago.

Hunh - I didn't didn't know that... so what is the impact of getting a "big city charter"? What will it truly mean for future transit projects?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Measuring congestion during rush hour relative to normal periods is a good way to measure relative congestion on the same roads. Period.

On any one road, perhaps.

But that's not what they're doing, either.

They're measuring total trip times in an entire city at rush hour versus some normal period (and I'm just going to leave aside the hopelessly car-centric view of congestion underpinning the whole study).


The basic problem here, which I think fusili is trying to get at, is that congestion does not increase linearly with increases in trip distance. Essentially, the more sprawled out your city, the less congested will be the more outlying roads, even at rush hour, because you have more lane miles per car.

Ok, so someone who lives a long way out will have a lengthy commute at all times due largely to the distance (more distance = more time). At rush hour, they'll face congested conditions for a relatively small fraction of their commute, hence the ratio between rush hour and normal will be on the small side.

Someone who lives a lot closer in may have a short commute at normal times, but since most of that commute is in heavily congested territory at peak periods, the ratio between the two periods will be high.

But those examples are for individuals, pretty much in any city.

We now have to figure out what happens in different types of cities.

In a sprawled-out city, a relatively high proportion of commuters will have long, lengthy commutes that don't increase by a huge proportion at peak periods. In a more compact city where all trips are shorter, those trips will be subject to proportionately higher delays at peak periods.

In the Canadian context, a city like mine, Ottawa, would score reasonably well since the Greenbelt adds a few kilometres of distance and several minutes of unavoidable travel time onto all trips across it (which is quite a few), which has the effect of diminishing the significance of congestion encountered further in. If we could magically erase the Greenbelt and transport the suburbs up to the edge of the central part of the city, then all of a sudden commute times would decrease - normally what one would consider a good thing - but the effect using this measure would be that the now-shortened regular trip time results in a higher congestion ratio.

Just look at the basic math of the ratio:

(congestion ratio) = (rush hour trip time) / (normal period trip time)

We can further expand this:

(rush hour trip time) = (normal period trip time) + (congestion delay)

so:

(congestion ratio) = [(normal period trip time) + (congestion delay)] / (normal period trip time)

therefore,

as (normal period trip time) decreases, (congestion ratio) increases


As fusili says, it's perverse.

The measure is at a city level, and they are simply providing a measure such as to compare city to city. The reality of today's Vancouver and where people live in Vancouver to the reality of today's Toronto and where people live in Toronto.

The metric is only going to be useful in dealing with similar-sized (both in population and physical extent) cities. It's not even useful for looking at the same city over time.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Dado

They're measuring total trip times in an entire city at rush hour versus some normal period (and I'm just going to leave aside the hopelessly car-centric view of congestion underpinning the whole study).

As fusili says, it's perverse.

Thank you for the (much better than my) explanation.

[DizzyEdge]

One comment about the NCLRT, if it does go up centre street, and looking at how the WLRT interfaces with 17th ave past 35th st, I would really not want it to do the same thing, ie ensure that one side of the street will be tracks or otherwise undevelopable LRT ROW. I want Centre to be able to develop on both sides as far as it possibly can, which with the current configuration is likely 64th ave, after that it it already has undevelopable land on one side so I'm not sure if it matters at that point.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

One comment about the NCLRT, if it does go up centre street, and looking at how the WLRT interfaces with 17th ave past 35th st, I would really not want it to do the same thing, ie ensure that one side of the street will be tracks or otherwise undevelopable LRT ROW. I want Centre to be able to develop on both sides as far as it possibly can, which with the current configuration is likely 64th ave, after that it it already has undevelopable land on one side so I'm not sure if it matters at that point.

I think an at-grade operation is totally possible, likely with a median running LRT. Intersections would be modified to be either 1. Full turns. 2. Left Turns onto centre only or 3. Right-in right-out only.

Translink (Vancouver's transit organization) has a proposal for the Broadway corridor transit plan (serving UBC) that illustrates this well: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...0Line%20RT%20Study%20Design%20Guide.ashx. Check out pages 14-16 for illustrations of intersection configurations.

I think this could easily be done for Centre Street. Let's say the line is able to get to grade by 10th avenue, just for the sake of argument (it is probably much further north in reality). The following would be how intersections could be configured:

All turns- 16th Avenue, Mcknight, 64th, Beddington Blvd.
Left in only- 12th ave, 20th ave, 24th ave, 30th ave, 40th ave, Northmount, Blackthorn Rd, 68th ave, 4th street/72nd ave, 78th ave.
Right in right out- all others

I think this can accomplish turns at most important intersections. The great thing about this corridor, is that there are parallel streets on both sides that provide access (4th street NW and Edmonton Trail).

[DizzyEdge]

I actually hadn't thought about median as to me that meant "36 street nightmare". Now I'll get even more greedy and ask for elevated in the middle of centre so we don't have to close intersections

Also this topic brings to mind one thing that I find annoying: that there's no highstreet that doesn't turn into more of a highway type road at some point. I'd love there to be a road that could one day be like Yonge street, one that is developable right to the city limits.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I actually hadn't thought about median as to me that meant "36 street nightmare". Now I'll get even more greedy and ask for elevated in the middle of centre so we don't have to close intersections

Also this topic brings to mind one thing that I find annoying: that there's no highstreet that doesn't turn into more of a highway type road at some point. I'd love there to be a road that could one day be like Yonge street, one that is developable right to the city limits.

36th is a nightmare because it is designed to be both car and pedestrian unfriendly. It has ugly jersey barriers throughout and pedestrian access to stations is via overpasses and has no pedestrian refuges anywhere. Centre Street has parallel streets only 600m and 400m away, while Barlow and 52nd are 1400m away each. Plus the streets between (2nd ST NW, 1 ST NE) continue essentially along the entire length, providing access to residential areas.

I guess my point is that Centre Street and 36th are entirely different beasts.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

36th is a nightmare because it is designed to be both car and pedestrian unfriendly. It has ugly jersey barriers throughout and pedestrian access to stations is via overpasses and has no pedestrian refuges anywhere. Centre Street has parallel streets only 600m and 400m away, while Barlow and 52nd are 1400m away each. Plus the streets between (2nd ST NW, 1 ST NE) continue essentially along the entire length, providing access to residential areas.

I guess my point is that Centre Street and 36th are entirely different beasts.

I think the city should make all of the pedestrian crossings at the very least like the 36th St/39th Ave & 44th Ave crossings.

To do them like the new Whitehorn Station crossing would be great, but that only works where there is room for a refuge in between the tracks.

To upgrade all of the at grade pedestrian crossings probably doesn't cost too much money.

I've also thought for a long time that 36th St would be a good candidate for some smarter traffic sensing traffic lights, that could adjust timings and green light order for intersections based on when the next train was going to come. It could then make sure the lights to go straight on 36th Ave were already green when trains come, instead of interrupting the whole cycle. Currently, the time when the gates are down adds green light time to the straight on 36th vehicles - unless the train signals start when the light is in the turn left off of 36th Ave phase (immediately before the straight on 36th phase). If it is that signal, the lights are only green for the train crossing, then it goes back to the turn left off of 36th St, then it completely skips the straight on 36th phase. This often means that straight on 36th gets significantly less green time then they should have in the rotation. If a couple of those happen close together, it can really back up 36th Street.

Another problem I see is when a pedestrian crosswalk across the tracks has a walk signal when the train lights start. The pedestrian lights immediately start flashing don't walk, but given the width of the whole street, it has to give time for pedestrians to finish crossing the street. Often, this means that no one has a green light for 15-20 seconds, and sometimes means that only 4-5 cars per lane get through a light before the gates go back up. Adding pedestrian refuges on both sides of the tracks in between the tracks and the traffic lanes would help this situation too.

Put those two solutions together, and I think that the problems of 36th Street are eased significantly. Getting rid of the jersey barriers and the jersey barriers with fences on top would help make the street feel more friendly too, although the fences on top were added to keep pedestrians from jaywalking. Some other method of preventing jaywalking would be required.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think an at-grade operation is totally possible, likely with a median running LRT. Intersections would be modified to be either 1. Full turns. 2. Left Turns onto centre only or 3. Right-in right-out only.

Translink (Vancouver's transit organization) has a proposal for the Broadway corridor transit plan (serving UBC) that illustrates this well: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...0Line%20RT%20Study%20Design%20Guide.ashx. Check out pages 14-16 for illustrations of intersection configurations.

Broadway and Centre Street are not exactly comparable. Broadway is 100' or 30 m wide whereas Centre Street is all of 66' or 20 m wide. Take out 7-8 m for the LRT in the middle and you're left with just 12-13 m. Out of this you want some sidewalks, which should be at least 2 m wide per side and we're down to just 8 or 9 m. That works out to basically a single wide lane or a narrow lane with a narrow cycling lane per direction, and nothing else. The Vancouver proposals actually have significantly wider sidewalks than 2 m, but you can do that with a 30 m RoW.

At this point we don't even have any room left for station platforms. You could single-track (gauntlet track) at stations, putting the platform in the space of one of the tracks, but somehow I doubt that design would find much favour.

Otherwise you're going to have to acquire extra land around stations or go above/below grade and put the station platforms over/under the traffic lanes.


You can help yourself a bit by pushing the tracks to opposite curbs, since the sidewalks can double as platform space, as can some of the unused portion of the track lane (~ 2.7 m wide vehicles in 3.5 - 4 m lanes gives a decent amount of spare space for a buffer/platform). Another option is to place both tracks on one side of the street. The remaining space is *just* wide enough for three very narrow lanes or two lanes and some space for a platform/median/parking.

But whatever you do, Centre Street is a very constrained space. You may have to consider using 1 St NE for outbound traffic, for instance.

[DizzyEdge]

Or just elevate or go underground. Of course that leads to great cost, but we do need to make sure we do it right.

Could Centre street support this?


http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2009-05-25

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Or just elevate or go underground. Of course that leads to great cost, but we do need to make sure we do it right.

Could Centre street support this?


http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2009-05-25

Centre Street doesn't have a comparable ROW to that. It would get especially tight around stations. If anything it would look more like this http://maps.google.ca/?ll=41.780422,-87....A372FTBqTrMosEe0sgQ&cbp=12,86.92,,0,1.18 , at least between the tunnel portal and 64 Avenue (north of which the ROW grows and the number of intersections shrinks). I'm not sure how conducive such a design would be to urbanization and can only imagine the NIMBY backlash. I wouldn't blame the NIMBYs either because it is pretty reasonable not to want that in your backyard.

That is basically the reason that I would favour burying the line, at least south of 64 Ave. That said, I could be convinced that elevated would be the way to go if the savings were considerable and the negatives were somehow addressed. I definitely see a place for elevated lines like the one you illustrated, where the ROW seems sufficient. Here I'm thinking specifically of 17 Ave SE but also 16 Ave N (if/when demand warrants an upgrade from BRT) and the NE LRT between Memorial and McKnight (either when the lifecycle of the current tracks nears its end or when demand warrants frequencies that are incompatible with a level crossing of the various East-West routes, especially 32 Ave).

I think surface operation on Centre Street is simply a no go. It would require too many compromises. It could not simultaneously work for pedestrians, trains, and private vehicles. I don't think it could work satisfactorily for more than one of the three and even that one wouldn't be optimal unless we were prepared to seriously harm the other two.

[MalcolmTucker]

If you elevated high enough, and put obscuring glazed soundwalls, at least on the face of it I think it would mitigate issues with the line. Could also stack the tracks to minimize breadth.

Unless our soil changes, elevated should be much cheaper that cut and cover or bored.