Calgary Public Transit II - Page 292

fusili · #**5821** Posted **Dec 12, 2012, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

challenge accepted. I'll throw in Silverado and a few others free of charge.

Actually, there are a lot of really great ideas in here. I like the idea of having the Bowness leg connect to Foothills on the 16th avenue line directly. (Downtown passengers can transfer to the NW or NC lines).

I also like the idea (albeit crazy) of having the 17th Ave SE line continue along 10th avenue, and then what looks like 8th ST/17th Ave/26th AV to get to MRU and then south. I always felt Bankview and South Calgary get the shaft in terms of transit.

tmjr · #**5822** Posted **Dec 12, 2012, 11:55 PM**

I ask this having next to no transit planning insight at all. The green line running down 14th St. NW next to Nose Hill, wouldn't it be better to run down Shaganappi instead? Wouldn't that catch all those communities in the NW better, and also give good access to Northland and Market malls?

Edit - sorry - that line IS running down Shag... Thanks Eggbert!

eggbert · #**5823** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmjr

I ask this having next to no transit planning insight at all.

The green line running down 14th St. NW next to Nose Hill, wouldn't it be better to run down Shaganappi instead? Wouldn't that catch all those communities in the NW better, and also give good access to Northland and Market malls?

That is Shaganappi, it's on the left (west) of Nose Hill vs the right (east).

tmjr · #**5824** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eggbert

That is Shaganappi, it's on the left (west) of Nose Hill vs the right (east).

Doh! I don't know what I as thinking....

However, instead of Shag, perhaps it should go down Sarcee - there's lots of communities in that NW corner that seem far away from LRT...

Just a Rider · #**5825** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 3:09 AM**

Has anyone spotted a U2 set on the west line this week? Is there an operational reason for running them only on the NW and S lines?

Bassic Lab · #**5826** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Can anyone estimate how what percentage more infrastructure for LRT costs than infrastructure for streetcar? Just wondering if a future LRT is necessary to the airport if a streetcar might do. If lowfloor LRT only costs a bit more than streetcar infrastructure then might as well build it as LRT.

That depends on what you mean by streetcar and what you mean by LRT. If it's mixed traffic versus reserved ROW, then it could be a little if you're willing to take a driving lane or a lot if you have to expropriate valuable real estate. If it's one car consists versus multiple car consists, then it could be pretty cheap if you're willing to have bare bones low floor platforms.

Aegis · #**5827** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 3:24 AM**

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have LRT lines that are diagonal to the boundaries of the city, as opposed to a grid of LRT lines?

frinkprof · #**5828** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 3:27 AM**

^They struggle with the gradients on the west line.

lucx · #**5829** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 3:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just a Rider

Has anyone spotted a U2 set on the west line this week? Is there an operational reason for running them only on the NW and S lines?

Also, SD's are stored at OBMF while U2's are stored at Anderson/Haysboro. SD's naturally start and remain on the NE/West Line

Wigs · #**5830** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just a Rider

Has anyone spotted a U2 set on the west line this week? Is there an operational reason for running them only on the NW and S lines?

on the grand opening I swear I saw a U2 sandwiched between two new SD160 NGs. or maybe I've been dreaming about the CTrain again

RyLucky · #**5831** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 5:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Actually, there are a lot of really great ideas in here. I like the idea of having the Bowness leg connect to Foothills on the 16th avenue line directly. (Downtown passengers can transfer to the NW or NC lines).

I also like the idea (albeit crazy) of having the 17th Ave SE line continue along 10th avenue, and then what looks like 8th ST/17th Ave/26th AV to get to MRU and then south. I always felt Bankview and South Calgary get the shaft in terms of transit.

Thanks. My main critique of route ahead is all the disjointedness where there could be a continuous line, as I think you mentioned in a transitcamp post. I think they might eventually come to this conclusion as they set out to make functional plans. Some kind of SW line through the Beltline towards MRU would be great. It's really just a bit of fantasy.. if money was no object..

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmjr

Doh! I don't know what I as thinking....

However, instead of Shag, perhaps it should go down Sarcee - there's lots of communities in that NW corner that seem far away from LRT...

Good point. If there's some way to bring it through more people that would be great. My thinking was there needs to be a crosstown route north of Nose Hill... and seeing as how there's a lot of employment around Market Mall, Northland, ACH, West Campus, Foothills... why not Shag?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have LRT lines that are diagonal to the boundaries of the city, as opposed to a grid of LRT lines?

It ends up being kind of grid like in the south thanks to geographical constraints (reservoir, fish creek). My thinking here with this was to form hubs and better connect major suburban centres. Only so many lines need to go into downtown... I think I made 8 spokes... The whole system only has 6 lines, but they are each like 30km.

Again, it's all just fantasy. Maybe if one day I'm your benevolent dictator... and I have 30B dollars... and a construction crew of 100 000...

kw5150 · #**5832** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 7:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

One SE portion has to come first to accommodate a maintenance facility, as Chris Jordan (the RouteAhead lead) points out. Might as well go to Quarry Park first then up north second.

My plan, and the urbanist in me hates this somewhat, would be to build a massive park'n'ride at Quarry Park (2000 stalls or something) to accommodate the demand from the SE. Once the train is extended, build offices over the park'n'ride, or most of it anyway. That way commuters can avoid the Deerfoot bottleneck at the Ivor Strong Bridge.

And also pollute less. Sometimes it is about fresh air. Period.

ByeByeBaby · #**5833** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 7:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

My plan, and the urbanist in me hates this somewhat, would be to build a massive park'n'ride at Quarry Park (2000 stalls or something) to accommodate the demand from the SE. Once the train is extended, build offices over the park'n'ride, or most of it anyway. That way commuters can avoid the Deerfoot bottleneck at the Ivor Strong Bridge.

I don't know to what degree it was planned originally and to what degree it's a happy accident, but the park and ride system is well suited for decades of evolution. People from beyond the end of the LRT will tend to want to stop at the first park n' ride and get a seat on the train, so the highest demand is at the end of the line. For instance, when Brentwood was the end of the line, it had to handle PnR from half of the northwest; now it really only serves Brentwood, Charleswood, Varsity and the communities along Shaganappi. So new, large park n' ride lots are built out past the big lot at Brentwood, and the more lightly used parking lot is prime redevelopment land, since it's no longer at the edge of the city.

My concern with Quarry Park is it may be a little too far out of the way to attract park and ride trips.

ByeByeBaby · #**5834** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 8:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis

Wouldn't it be more efficient to have LRT lines that are diagonal to the boundaries of the city, as opposed to a grid of LRT lines?

If I understand you correctly, you mean radiating out from the centre?

It's only efficient for commuters to and from the downtown, which is a nice big market. But only about 20% of the workforce is downtown, and (depending on how you cut it) 25% or so of trips are commute trips. So that's a market of 5-7%. The other 95% of trips need transit too, and going downtown is inconvenient for a lot of them. Someone from Beddington going to the U of C or Foothills, or someone from Killarney going to Chinook, or from Forest Lawn to the airport, or any of a thousand other OD pairs will find a grid convenient. I don't know if it all needs to be LRT (I'd be happier with 10 grid routes operating a true BRT service rather than one crosstown LRT for the same cost), but our next major transit project will provide most parts of the city with a direct connection to the downtown; we need to focus on planning for everything else now.

Just a Rider · #**5835** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 2:22 PM**

Cool! Guaranteed A/C in the warmer weather. Thanks for the explanation.

RyLucky · #**5836** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I don't know to what degree it was planned originally and to what degree it's a happy accident, but the park and ride system is well suited for decades of evolution. People from beyond the end of the LRT will tend to want to stop at the first park n' ride and get a seat on the train, so the highest demand is at the end of the line. For instance, when Brentwood was the end of the line, it had to handle PnR from half of the northwest; now it really only serves Brentwood, Charleswood, Varsity and the communities along Shaganappi. So new, large park n' ride lots are built out past the big lot at Brentwood, and the more lightly used parking lot is prime redevelopment land, since it's no longer at the edge of the city.

My concern with Quarry Park is it may be a little too far out of the way to attract park and ride trips.

As a condition of building LRT to Quarry Park, IOL's staff parking should become a park'n'ride lot. (sorry, still a little bitter)

freeweed · #**5837** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 4:14 PM**

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure our LRT trains wouldn't be able to handle the incline going up Shaganappi on the Hill.

(Yes yes, I realize this is just someone having fun - but I couldn't help laughing at the thought of the LRT struggling up that bit. Half the cars in this city can't even keep their speed on that road)

freeweed · #**5838** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

As a condition of building LRT to Quarry Park, IOL's staff parking should become a park'n'ride lot. (sorry, still a little bitter)

I'd instead suggest that IOL fund the construction of the entire station and Park 'n Ride (I'm a lot more bitter).

mersar · #**5839** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucx

Also, SD's are stored at OBMF while U2's are stored at Anderson/Haysboro. SD's naturally start and remain on the NE/West Line

Yep. The U2's will be rare on the 202 (or should I say Blue line) now, and from what was said on cptdb, CT is actively trying to not have them end up on it (there are some issues related to making it up the inline past Sarcee supposedly)

RyLucky · #**5840** Posted **Dec 13, 2012, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure our LRT trains wouldn't be able to handle the incline going up Shaganappi on the Hill.

(Yes yes, I realize this is just someone having fun - but I couldn't help laughing at the thought of the LRT struggling up that bit. Half the cars in this city can't even keep their speed on that road)

In my vision, it's just BRT on Shag until 2027, at which time a new technology becomes available and the hill is no problem.