Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

Shouldn't be. Depending how much scope creep ends up in flood recovery projects that then aren't federally reimbursable.

[mersar]

Looks like there may be something to the long rumored putting D60LFR's on the #3. All of the #3 stops I saw today between Anderson and Glenmore are being lengthened (if there was a sidewalk right at the curb for the stop) or being built from scratch (for the couple stops that were on the grass). The lengthened sections look to be about the right length to have all 3 doors of a D60LFR open onto the concrete.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by mersar

Looks like there may be something to the long rumored putting D60LFR's on the #3. All of the #3 stops I saw today between Anderson and Glenmore are being lengthened (if there was a sidewalk right at the curb for the stop) or being built from scratch (for the couple stops that were on the grass). The lengthened sections look to be about the right length to have all 3 doors of a D60LFR open onto the concrete.

I noticed that too. That's going to be a HUGE improvement during the morning rush. I have never been skipped so many times by any bus route than the 3 northbound. And they come every ~5 minutes in the morning. Getting skipped 2 or 3 times every morning is an everyday experience for people living north of Brittania.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I noticed that too. That's going to be a HUGE improvement during the morning rush. I have never been skipped so many times by any bus route than the 3 northbound. And they come every ~5 minutes in the morning. Getting skipped 2 or 3 times every morning is an everyday experience for people living north of Brittania.

Yep. Someone on cptdb confirmed this is actually the plan starting with the September schedule changes.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I noticed that too. That's going to be a HUGE improvement during the morning rush. I have never been skipped so many times by any bus route than the 3 northbound. And they come every ~5 minutes in the morning. Getting skipped 2 or 3 times every morning is an everyday experience for people living north of Brittania.

It was probably already in their plan, but this is one of the recommendations TransitCamp made to the Transportation and Transit Committee during the Route Ahead hearings. We mentioned the #3 specifically as a route that could use an "upgrade" to limited stop service.

[Riise]

To the detriment of anybody that is expecting something from me in the near future, I found this really cool Metro Map Maker.

Here's my first map:

[craner]

what happens when the 8th Ave Subway is completed, and the shown off section of track is only used when trains want to switch from the red line to the blue line

This was posted by YNAT in the construction thread and it triggered a question I thought more appropriate to ask here:
Why do we have to (or want to) keep 7th Ave as a surface LRT corridor once the 8th Ave. subway is completed ?
The train is such a milk run downtown and if you're going to the effort & expense to build a downtown tunnel why not have it accommodate both lines ?
I will likely be dead and gone before the subway is built anyway but I'm just curious what the reasoning is.
Please educate me.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by craner

This was posted by YNAT in the construction thread and it triggered a question I thought more appropriate to ask here:
Why do we have to (or want to) keep 7th Ave as a surface LRT corridor once the 8th Ave. subway is completed ?
The train is such a milk run downtown and if you're going to the effort & expense to build a downtown tunnel why not have it accommodate both lines ?
I will likely be dead and gone before the subway is built anyway but I'm just curious what the reasoning is.
Please educate me.

One word: capacity.

Right now we are fairly close to the point where they can't push more trains down the single route through downtown than they do. Going below ground (and adding the 4th LRV to trains) will gain a limited amount, but it's quite possible that within a few years we would be at the point similar to now again if we still had only one route through downtown for the red and blue lines.

[craner]

^Can they not build 2 tunnels ?
Is that the eventual plan ?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by craner

^Can they not build 2 tunnels ?
Is that the eventual plan ?

Long term possibly, but it's never been officially endorsed. With the recent renovations to all the downtown stations I wouldn't even think it would happen until the new stations start reaching a point of needing major refurbishment again.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by craner

This was posted by YNAT in the construction thread and it triggered a question I thought more appropriate to ask here:
Why do we have to (or want to) keep 7th Ave as a surface LRT corridor once the 8th Ave. subway is completed ?
The train is such a milk run downtown and if you're going to the effort & expense to build a downtown tunnel why not have it accommodate both lines ?
I will likely be dead and gone before the subway is built anyway but I'm just curious what the reasoning is.
Please educate me.

A couple reasons that I can think of:

- Capacity, like Mersar said, though this probably wouldn't be a problem in the short term.
- Ease of use - Less confusing to riders if there is only one line using any platform, no getting on the wrong train.
- Construction ease - Trying to get the NE-W line into the same tunnel adds a level of complication on both ends. Instead of needing to build one complicated access point, you would have to build three.
- Free fare zone - I suspect that the free fare zone will be in effect for the surface trains on 7th, but not the underground trains under 8th. That way, turnstiles could be possible for the entire red line (if CT would want to put them in)

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Long term possibly, but it's never been officially endorsed. With the recent renovations to all the downtown stations I wouldn't even think it would happen until the new stations start reaching a point of needing major refurbishment again.

Yup, the recent refurbishments mean that nothing would be likely to happen until the new stations reach the end of their service life.

But the added capacity 7th ave will have once only the blue line goes through it should be enough that a tunnel is never needed. Essentially, the existing infrastructure can handle a 300% increase in the blue line traffic.

Three cars to 4 cars = 33% increase.
Getting rid of the red line which is ~55% of the traffic on 7th ave = 110% increase.

133% x 210% = 279% = 2.79x the current capacity. That with no improvement to the signalling, capacity of each car, traffic light optimization, etc the could have further slight improvements in capacity.

[fusili]

Both an external study and even Route Ahead pretty much abandoned the idea of the 7th avenue subway for the Blue Line. As well, Route Ahead pushed the Stephan Avenue Subway back in favour of putting in the Green Line (with 2nd street subway) first.

I know PolicyWonk will debate this to death, but there is absolutely no need for the 7th avenue subway, as YNAT pointed out, as it can easily handle the needs of the NE line (which is and will be greater than the west line under any foreseeable circumstance). However, putting the NC line up nose creek and connecting it to the NE line at the Zoo actually would trigger the Stephan Avenue Subway to be needed immediately, and would likely trigger a 7th avenue subway being necessary in the future (with just the NE and NC lines it would be close to the same capacity constraint it is now). Plus if the NE and NC line share 7th avenue with the West line, it would be a massive imbalance of ridership, and with no places to short turn trains, we would be running half empty trains out to 69th street all the time.

So putting the NC line up centre street might actually be cheaper because it eliminates the need to build a third subway line downtown (underneath an operating line, meaning the red and blue lines would have to share the Stephan Ave subway during construction, again adding a massive cost). I would almost bet that the cost of a subway up centre street, to say 20th avenue, would be cheaper than the combined cost of the 7th avenue subway, the operational costs of running all lines in the Stephan Ave Subway during the several years of construction as well as the operational losses of running empty trains to 69th street.

[ByeByeBaby]

The free fare zone actually adds a certain amount of mobility to downtown anyway; with the low headways we have, it's a fast way to go a few blocks east or west, which helps in a downtown that is twice as long east-west as it is north-south. Putting it in a tunnel removes this benefit, which is essentially free for CT to provide, since the trains have to run and it's not like a few extra people riding a few blocks make the train more expensive.

And like others have said, once you are only running one line on 7th, you have a huge amount of capacity. Once we break 3 million residents, there may be enough demand to warrant a second tunnel, but that's not exactly around the corner. And probably not even then, to be honest.

[TallisRH]

Some photos taken earlier today of the construction at Chinook Station:

Landscaped area waiting for sod to be laid - the giant billboard that was previously located here is now gone!




New dumpster area in the 'island' of the bus loop


Looking into the station


New signage


Looking north from the south end


Finishing up the canopy


Looking between the platform and the new bus shelter


New wider sidewalk


Nearly finished bus shelter

Really looking good! I have some older shots here if anyone is interested.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

The free fare zone actually adds a certain amount of mobility to downtown anyway; with the low headways we have, it's a fast way to go a few blocks east or west, which helps in a downtown that is twice as long east-west as it is north-south. Putting it in a tunnel removes this benefit, which is essentially free for CT to provide, since the trains have to run and it's not like a few extra people riding a few blocks make the train more expensive.

And like others have said, once you are only running one line on 7th, you have a huge amount of capacity. Once we break 3 million residents, there may be enough demand to warrant a second tunnel, but that's not exactly around the corner. And probably not even then, to be honest.

I think the free fare zone has another, unintended benefit: allowing people to get on at the end stations (City Hall or 7th street) during rush hour. A lot of westenders, and Beltliners (myself included) take the train through the downtown and get off at 7th street (or 11th). If it wasn't for us getting off there, nobody would be able to get on at those stations. It doesn't create space, but it does provide more equitable chances of catching a train during the peak for those working in the west end of downtown and taking the train the NW. I think the phenomenon is much less pronounced on the east end though, as East Village and Victoria Park have much, much less population than Connaught and Downtown West.

[sim]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

A couple reasons that I can think of:

- Capacity, like Mersar said, though this probably wouldn't be a problem in the short term.
- Ease of use - Less confusing to riders if there is only one line using any platform, no getting on the wrong train.
- Construction ease - Trying to get the NE-W line into the same tunnel adds a level of complication on both ends. Instead of needing to build one complicated access point, you would have to build three.
- Free fare zone - I suspect that the free fare zone will be in effect for the surface trains on 7th, but not the underground trains under 8th. That way, turnstiles could be possible for the entire red line (if CT would want to put them in)

I would have to respectfully disagree and instead state that this is perhaps the single largest advantage - from the user's perspective and as a ridership generator. This would make transferring dead easy - you get out and either walk across the platform or get out and wait for the train from the other line and board again.

So long as even a bit of information is provided, this is vastly advantageous over any extra bit of confusion that it might pose. These are the types of transfers that dreams are made of. I'd argue so much so that aside from cost issues (either greater or less, depending), the option of an interlined (integrated) tunnel should remain on the table.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by sim

I would have to respectfully disagree and instead state that this is perhaps the single largest advantage - from the user's perspective and as a ridership generator. This would make transferring dead easy - you get out and either walk across the platform or get out and wait for the train from the other line and board again.

So long as even a bit of information is provided, this is vastly advantageous over any extra bit of confusion that it might pose. These are the types of transfers that dreams are made of. I'd argue so much so that aside from cost issues (either greater or less, depending), the option of an interlined (integrated) tunnel should remain on the table.

True, there are other ease of use issues that are easier when the trains are interlined.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by sim

I would have to respectfully disagree and instead state that this is perhaps the single largest advantage - from the user's perspective and as a ridership generator. This would make transferring dead easy - you get out and either walk across the platform or get out and wait for the train from the other line and board again.

So long as even a bit of information is provided, this is vastly advantageous over any extra bit of confusion that it might pose. These are the types of transfers that dreams are made of. I'd argue so much so that aside from cost issues (either greater or less, depending), the option of an interlined (integrated) tunnel should remain on the table.

Only building one tunnel but running both lines in it creates the same interlining congestion problems we have now, just underground. So that's not a solution.

Pretty sure building two tunnels would be greater expense than building one. Almost double (actually, quite possibly more). Given the ridership patterns in Calgary and the future transit plans, there are few transfers in the downtown relative to ridership. I expect it would be both cheaper and more popular to hire people to stand around with garbage bags full of ten dollar bills, handing them to people making the LRT-LRT transfer as an apology.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Only building one tunnel but running both lines in it creates the same interlining congestion problems we have now, just underground. So that's not a solution.

Pretty sure building two tunnels would be greater expense than building one. Almost double (actually, quite possibly more). Given the ridership patterns in Calgary and the future transit plans, there are few transfers in the downtown relative to ridership. I expect it would be both cheaper and more popular to hire people to stand around with garbage bags full of ten dollar bills, handing them to people making the LRT-LRT transfer as an apology.

I think much of the congestion comes from the at-grade traffic crossings. I don't think it would be nearly as bad with both lines in one tunnel. I don't know if the lines would ever get to the frequency where congestion from a shared tunnel would be an issue.