Calgary Public Transit II

[Wigs]

wrong thread woops

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Part of the purpose of the plan is to try and attract funding. If other levels of government do not have a clear idea of what the City's vision, it is hard for them to support funding it, particularly at this magnitude. See what happened with TransitCity in Toronto, it was able to attract billions of dollars in funding committments.

The City is also in City Charter negotiations with the Province, which includes conversations about long term capital funding needs (parhaps something like extending the MSI program permanently or letting the City keep all property taxes for its capital purposes). It's important that this plan is on the table, so that they understand clearly what the City's needs are.

That really benefits Calgary much more than other communities, especially Edmonton. I have to guess that is one of the larger reasons why the transfer wasn't done and instead the MSI was implemented in ~2007, even if it wasn't said outloud much.

[mellbell416]

A very interesting article on Calgary traffic congestion, how it compares to other North American cities (it ain't great) and the focus on cheap but effective ways to improve traffic. It's clear that the City believes that improving transit is the best way forward instead of making massive investments in highways because new/bigger highways just get filled up instead of improving traffic flow..

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Calg...+common+planners+turn/7664063/story.html

[Doug]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I forgot about the south part of Aurora; I suppose that is a possibility, although it would be better off as TOD. Highland Park is only possible from Edmonton Tr; it's a steep-ass hill from Centre or 4th.

And in the interest of covering all the bases, a Nose Creek alignment could have a site at Spring Gardens or elsewhere in the industrial area, or, since it would be a spur from the 202, could use the OBMF in Westwinds -- except that it is already at capacity(!) per my skim of Route Ahead.

I thought the City bought CN's Ogden property (CN is moving to Conrich, just NE of Calgary), part of which will be used for LRT maintenance and storage. It is right along the future SE line.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

A very interesting article on Calgary traffic congestion, how it compares to other North American cities (it ain't great) and the focus on cheap but effective ways to improve traffic. It's clear that the City believes that improving transit is the best way forward instead of making massive investments in highways because new/bigger highways just get filled up instead of improving traffic flow..

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Calg...+common+planners+turn/7664063/story.html

Really a great article by Jason Markusoff.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

A very interesting article on Calgary traffic congestion, how it compares to other North American cities (it ain't great) and the focus on cheap but effective ways to improve traffic. It's clear that the City believes that improving transit is the best way forward instead of making massive investments in highways because new/bigger highways just get filled up instead of improving traffic flow..

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Calg...+common+planners+turn/7664063/story.html

Oddly, the CTrain is really showing signs of "induced demand" in the same way roads see it. Fortunately the 4-car consists aren't too far off anymore - but it will be interesting to see how long those take to fill up once more people realize the capacity is there again.

Not that this is a bad thing, mind you. I just find it a pleasing parallel.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Doug

I thought the City bought CN's Ogden property (CN is moving to Conrich, just NE of Calgary), part of which will be used for LRT maintenance and storage. It is right along the future SE line.

The Ogden Yard's are CP not CN.

If the city bought something it would be the yards paralleling 50th Ave, Since the Conrich yard will replace this.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Oddly, the CTrain is really showing signs of "induced demand" in the same way roads see it. Fortunately the 4-car consists aren't too far off anymore - but it will be interesting to see how long those take to fill up once more people realize the capacity is there again.

Not that this is a bad thing, mind you. I just find it a pleasing parallel.

That reminds me, I've been wondering how long it will take to fill the 4 car consists, and also how much increased capacity putting a line under 8th ave will give is, and how long it will take to fill THAT, and then what?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

That reminds me, I've been wondering how long it will take to fill the 4 car consists, and also how much increased capacity putting a line under 8th ave will give is, and how long it will take to fill THAT, and then what?

My feeling is that the 4 car trains will fill up fairly quickly. However, I don't think the 8th avenue subway should be built before the SE/NC subway. At the same time? Maybe, as long as cost savings due to simultaneous construction make sense and off-set the extra upfront cost.

[Radley77]

I've been curious, has frequency been reduced on the other lines as a result of the West LRT, and if so, how much?

Also, I noticed that Google Maps is already doing route planning using the West LRT leg. Pretty cool! https://maps.google.ca/?ll=51.04161,-114.039803&spn=0.159525,0.41851&t=m&z=12

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

My feeling is that the 4 car trains will fill up fairly quickly. However, I don't think the 8th avenue subway should be built before the SE/NC subway. At the same time? Maybe, as long as cost savings due to simultaneous construction make sense and off-set the extra upfront cost.

There would be some economy, but not much compared to the full project cost me thinks. That being said if interest rates remain low enough, no reason to not go simultaneous or at least fold into the same contract and stage them once funding is in place.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

There would be some economy, but not much compared to the full project cost me thinks. That being said if interest rates remain low enough, no reason to not go simultaneous or at least fold into the same contract and stage them once funding is in place.

It's too bad that in one of the richest parts of the planet, we couldn't figure out some way to fund all 3 at once (downtown subway, SE/NC lines).

Maybe I woke up in pinko commie socialist mode (the holidays in this city tends to do that to me), but I bet a very large chunk of Calgarians could afford to pay quite a lot more tax for a few years to get these going. Might cut into that 3rd Audi or 8th trip to Maui I guess...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by freeweed

It's too bad that in one of the richest parts of the planet, we couldn't figure out some way to fund all 3 at once (downtown subway, SE/NC lines).

Maybe I woke up in pinko commie socialist mode (the holidays in this city tends to do that to me), but I bet a very large chunk of Calgarians could afford to pay quite a lot more tax for a few years to get these going. Might cut into that 3rd Audi or 8th trip to Maui I guess...

Building too much too fast can lead to big labour and material supply issues, but with a big contract and reasonable time frame should be able to source all over the place.

Money will be found, partially from voters (I think), and partially from traditional funding sources. After that it is up to the city what the pace should be.

[Northski]

Simultaneous constructions seams like kind of a pipe dream. I'd settle for serial construction. Building the 8th ave subway and the 2nd st subway would together would cause a lot of disruption downtown. But the real key is money. With the province running a 2-3 billion dollar a year deficits right now and the SW ring road next in line for funding, the best case scenario looks like the start of construction of SELRT in 5 years. Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which should be announce soon will help the province balance the books but that still 3 years away from completion.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Northski

Simultaneous constructions seams like kind of a pipe dream. I'd settle for serial construction. Building the 8th ave subway and the 2nd st subway would together would cause a lot of disruption downtown. But the real key is money. With the province running a 2-3 billion dollar a year deficits right now and the SW ring road next in line for funding, the best case scenario looks like the start of construction of SELRT in 5 years. Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which should be announce soon will help the province balance the books but that still 3 years away from completion.

Inevitably, the two subways will cross. Where they do, the ground should only be broken once. The REAL headache would be if they have to close the NWLRT for a year... which I think they might need to do. It will be a total mess. I hope they come up with some clever solution that avoids this.

Maybe from the river, go under 8th street and turn under the park to Stephen Ave? Put a station under 7th Ave before it turns? This sounds like a reasonable way to avoid closing the NWLRT. Maybe they should consider it before the redevelop the 8th st streetscape and century gardens.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Inevitably, the two subways will cross. Where they do, the ground should only be broken once. The REAL headache would be if they have to close the NWLRT for a year... which I think they might need to do. It will be a total mess. I hope they come up with some clever solution that avoids this.

Maybe from the river, go under 8th street and turn under the park to Stephen Ave? Put a station under 7th Ave before it turns? This sounds like a reasonable way to avoid closing the NWLRT. Maybe they should consider it before the redevelop the 8th st streetscape and century gardens.

I don't follow the reasoning behind this.

I've been under the impression that for both subways they would have to be bored tunnels. As long as the geology is sufficiently known and compensated for if needed during the boring of the first tunnel there should be no issue with the eventual passing of the 2nd street subway underneath the 8th avenue subway as is the approved plan.

Besides given the plans that have come out of Route ahead the SE-NC would come first so the engineering needed should be a bit easier than if the upper subway was built first.

Am I completely out to lunch on what you were trying to say?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by andasen

I don't follow the reasoning behind this.

I've been under the impression that for both subways they would have to be bored tunnels. As long as the geology is sufficiently known and compensated for if needed during the boring of the first tunnel there should be no issue with the eventual passing of the 2nd street subway underneath the 8th avenue subway as is the approved plan.

Besides given the plans that have come out of Route ahead the SE-NC would come first so the engineering needed should be a bit easier than if the upper subway was built first.

Am I completely out to lunch on what you were trying to say?

With tunnel boring, you still need a large site to actually put the machine in the pit; also, I don't know if downtown's geology supports bored tunnelling.

In any case, I'm not sure if this is what RyLucky is worried about, but what I'm worried about is getting the NW LRT from the tunnel to the surface. One of the big restrictions on how many trains can use 7th is the at-grade crossings of 5th and 6th Avenues on the west end of downtown; ideally, a tunnelled LRT would remove this conflict.

My back-of-the-envelope design would have the train cross 4th at grade (no choice; that's right at the end of the bridge), then drop down; 5th would probably have to be elevated a few feet above the train, and the train would be underground by 6th. The only place to put it would be on the existing right of way, but it's not exactly possible to construct a tunnel portal across existing tracks.

A possible plan is (this is expensive, but maintains maximum flow through the area):
Phase 1: Modify 9th St / 4th Ave intersection to handle two or three lanes of right turns; modify 4th Ave/10th St intersection and 10th St down to 5th Ave.
Phase 2: Shut down 9th St between 4th Ave and 7th Ave; southbound traffic detours down 4th Ave/10th St, which can connect to 5th Ave. Construct temporary LRT tracks on 9th Ave, tying in to 7th Ave.
Phase 3: Remove existing LRT tracks, start constructing tunnel portal.
Phase 4: Shut down two north lanes on 5th Ave, construct elevated bridge over LRT.
Phase 5: North lanes on 5th reopen, shut down south lanes on 5th Ave, construct elevated bridge over LRT.
Phase 6: Tie portal into rest of subway, lay tracks and catenary.
Phase 7: Open 8th Ave subway returning LRT to original ROW, demolish temporary 9th St tracks and rebuild 9th St, including elevating it for intersection with 5th Ave.
Phase 8: Reopen 9th St; make modifications to 4th/10th detour route to restore the pedestrian environment.
Phase 9: Send the bill to Edmonton.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

That reminds me, I've been wondering how long it will take to fill the 4 car consists, and also how much increased capacity putting a line under 8th ave will give is, and how long it will take to fill THAT, and then what?

In theory, the more places that are well-connected to the system, the more each individual station is used. Therefore, I'm wondering how the new WLRT will affect use on the other lines. Look forward to seeing numbers when they are available.

This also leads into our discussion of what to do once we are at capacity. It almost becomes a problem similar to road construction (building more roads/lanes causes more drivers), except way more sustainable and better for the city - a popular rapid transit system is a good problem to have!

In 2011, Calgary had a median total family income of $88k. (2009) Each household spends about 16k/yr on shelter, 4k on household operations, 11k on transportation, 2k on healthcare, 1400 on personal care, 5k on recreation, 300 on books, 1400 on education, 2k on booze/smokes, ...
In total: 60k on expenditures, 19k on taxes, 7k on pension/donations/insurance.

Interesting to note: Albertan households pay around 18k to taxes, more than any other province. This is because of our higher incomes, putting more of use in higher tax brackets. The Canadian average is 14k per household. Why this matters is because if we want to build $13B of infrastructure, we will get there faster by increasing local taxes, not by asking for federal grants.

If we want to sustain 500M/year for transit capital (which routeahead calls for), we would need to devote approx 1200/household/year ~ish
from every Calgarian household. This can be done in a few ways: [1] rebate that amount from provincial and federal taxes. No change to household taxes - just where they go. We would still contribute more taxes ($/household) than any other province. [2] A new tax. We would still take home more income than any other province. [3] A combination, naturally.

Anyway, my point is, Calgary needs reliable, long-term capital investments in transit infrastructure. We can't achieve this the way things are now. Because of our relative high income, generating funding locally (municipally or provincially) will provide the best value. There are several advantages to doing it locally (municipally), most important of which are VALUE and AUTONOMY. However, there are problems and obstacles to a local approach including competition from Rockyview and other jurisdictions, constitutional issues and issues with what a city is allowed to tax, lack of precedents, political risks, and resistance to change. Namely, Calgary could greatly benefit from being able to impose income tax on its own citizens ESPECIALLY if this was a "tax-deductible tax".

Will it ever happen? Probably not, or at least not in this form, but it's an important conversation that municipalities need to have with their provinces. I do not yet know what is "fair" per se, but it certainly seems that if the province can't give us funding, we should be able to raise it ourselves. It would give growing municipalities with strong economies the tools they need to keep up with infrastructure demands.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-202-x/62-202-x2008000-eng.pdf

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

In any case, I'm not sure if this is what RyLucky is worried about, but what I'm worried about is getting the NW LRT from the tunnel to the surface. One of the big restrictions on how many trains can use 7th is the at-grade crossings of 5th and 6th Avenues on the west end of downtown; ideally, a tunnelled LRT would remove this conflict.

Bingo. Your plan would work too, and I had sort of assumed that might be the plan. Ideally there is a solution that eliminates all conflicts with avenues, doesn't require the existing LRT to be closed for more than a weekend here and there, and once constructed can be switched into with the pull of a lever.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by andasen

I don't follow the reasoning behind this.

I've been under the impression that for both subways they would have to be bored tunnels. As long as the geology is sufficiently known and compensated for if needed during the boring of the first tunnel there should be no issue with the eventual passing of the 2nd street subway underneath the 8th avenue subway as is the approved plan.

Besides given the plans that have come out of Route ahead the SE-NC would come first so the engineering needed should be a bit easier than if the upper subway was built first.

Am I completely out to lunch on what you were trying to say?

You're right about alignment plans. The issue is where the NWLRT comes into downtown as BBB described. I doubt there would be boring (at least for the NW-S line) as it's not deep enough. Cut and cover. The SENCLRT might be able to bore as it is much deeper and has to go under the river... I could be wrong. I'm no geologist or engineer.

ok. that's my quota for posts today