Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk
When I refer to a date, I am referring to projects. These projects, particularly a Centre Street LRT seems to be spoken of in a nearly present tense and that decisions being made in City Hall today are binding and to be executed on. Fusili draws on a study that refers to a population that is probably no more than a decade away in dismissing the need for something that wouldn't even conceivably be built for another 30 or 40 years.
The argument that I can't follow is that merely allocating all the "capacity" operated today to a single line and then standing before gawd and with absolute confidence claiming that it permanently invalidates the need for a 7th Ave subway, which coincidently enough is perceived to be in direct support of a proposed North Central LRT alignment you really, really don't seem to like.
As for headways, my comfort zone would be in the 3:00 to 3:30 range. Would that be sufficient with four car consists in 2050? Well, I wouldn't make that bet.
But naturally, come that time and with the benefit of history and experience with the new fangled 8th Ave LRT the very possibility of doing the same with 7th Ave will be 100% off the table. A great consensus will be reached to restore the mess on 7th Ave they had just fixed a decade or two earlier.
|
Thanks for answering my headway question.
Personally, when I talk about "the future", I think of a a medium term horizon of ~20-25 years and 1.5 million people (this is the Route Ahead "long term"), and a long term horizon of ~50 years, and around 2 million in the city proper, with another 3/4 million in the outlying communities. Beyond that sort of horizon, societal and technology changes make it difficult to come up with any reasonable definite prediction. The 1966 plan had a freeway along the Bow as the centrepiece; even if we had built it, we would be agitating to pull it down by now. We're speculating about a new Flames arena; 50 years from now, our "new" arena will likely be the "previous" arena and a new (fifth) arena will be speculation fodder. Beyond that, preserving right of way is still important, especially in key restricted corridors.
First, yes, if a NCLRT goes on a Nose Creek, then a 7th Avenue Subway will be needed at some point in the future. To keep on topic, I won't talk about this alignment issue much more.
From the capacity standpoint, what is possible? Obviously, four car trains. That's a 1/3 increase in capacity right around the corner. Currently, the busiest hour (6:45-7:45 AM) has 29 vehicles pass City Hall westbound -- this is obviously unsustainable. I suspect a lighter load of, say, 24 trains would be workable -- it's always the last one that causes the most problems. That's 2:30 headways; your comfort zone of 3:00 headways is 20 trains an hour. However, of those peak 29 trains entering the downtown, 17 are coming from the south and only 12 from the northeast. That means that 24 trains is a clear doubling, and 20 trains is still a substantial 2/3 increase in trains. In terms of total train car capacity, we are currently at 36 cars from the NE; with four car trains at the lower 20 train level, that's 80 cars (222% current) and at the higher 24 train level, that's 96 cars (267% current).
That's pretty close to the maximum capacity - except for a change in fleet; I'm not an expert on rolling stock, but I understand an increasing trend is for single body trains rather than sets of individual cars. An SD-160 is 25m long; the first and last 2m are cab and coupler, with 21m in the middle for passengers. Going to dual 50m cars versus four 25m would add 10% useful length to the trainset; going to a single 100m vehicle would add a total of 15% useful length. It's a reduction in flexibility, but it's a tradeoff that could be made for greater capacity -- the new side-seat fleet has a tradeoff with reduction in passenger comfort made for greater capacity, after all. The maximum 15% increase would mean a tripling of current capacity at 24 trains, and 250% of current capacity on 20 trains. (We both dismiss it, but at 29 trains per hour, the maximum would be 370% of current capacity, for what that's worth.) Overall, the possible range of capacity increases is somewhere in the 200% to 300% range, and my guess is 250% is reasonable without serious service issues.
From a demand point of view, what is in the plans?
This infographic allocates ~500K population worth of greenfield. At status quo growth, that takes us to 1.7 million; with substantial redevelopment in established areas, that could take the city to 1.8 million or more. I suggest that the last 200K to get to my "long term" 2 million horizon will mostly have little impact on the NE LRT; it will be either in the last unplanned greenfield pockets, which are away from the NE (in the SE:E of Seton/Mahogany, the NC:N of Keystone, and SC:S of Tsuu T'ina if transportation permits), outside the ring road in a number of locations, and in established areas.
In the existing NE LRT catchment, I think population may go from ~240K to ~470K. Roughly a doubling, which is consistent with a 2 million population. The allocation of this population growth is important, though. Substantial population growth will occur outside the ring road, in areas less served by the NE LRT. In addition, a lot of employment growth will occur at the north end of the NE LRT; half the city's undeveloped employment lands are north of the airport. Once the train is extended here, this will lead to reverse commuting north -- increased ridership on the train, but not ridership in the congested peak direction.
In addition, there are three major transit projects planned for this area. The 52nd St BRT will help riders in this area get to the SE industrial area where so many work, but I don't think it will have any impact on NE LRT commuters. The North Crosstown BRT from Village Square to the U of C will reduce LRT demand; in particular as riders to SAIT and the greater U of C / Foothills area take the BRT rather than taking the LRT into downtown and transferring. The big impact, though, is the 17th Avenue Transitway. The 17th Avenue Transitway will take almost all of the riders south of roughly Memorial, as well as all of the future riders in Belvedere who are heading downtown.
The map and chart below are my attempt to show my working; I've assumed a percentage of population taking the LRT downtown in the peak hour to come up with a current total that is close to capacity, with the underlying assumptions that people near the LRT ride it 50% more than people who need to take a bus, and that people in the east take it half as much, since there is already BRT and frequent bus service. I assume both an increase in relative ridership along the 36th St corridor as well as a substantial population increase (the equivalent of eight TODs the size of Brentwood or Chinook at max buildout). The dark grey area is the employment growth area; the dark blue lines are the NE LRT (solid) and 17th Transitway (dashed); the light yellow lines are the BRT.
It's back of the envelope, but I think it's a pretty reasonable set of assumptions, leading to an increase in NE LRT ridership that is lower than the increase in population, which in turn is lower than the increase in capacity. The net result is a decent buffer -- and note this is with the comfortable 3:00 headways. This still has room for increased transit ridership due to other reasons.
For the medium term, i.e. the next 30 years, the NE is fine, and it is probably fine into the long term. In a very long term where the city is at 3+ million, who knows. If a low-cost measure at some point in the medium term can save large amounts of money in the very long term, then it makes sense to preserve the ability to build a 7th Ave subway. For instance, if the SE LRT tunnel would need to be strengthened to support a subway built above it on 8th Ave, it clearly should be -- since that's something that's already needed. If the cost was moderate, say a few million dollars, to do the same at 7th, then sure; the odds are low it will be needed, but why take the chance? But I wouldn't increase the cost by $200M if it would save $300M on a 7th Ave Subway, since there are good odds we will never need it.
Were I in power, I'd commission a study looking at, roughly, the costs and what downtown would look like assuming the 8th Ave Subway, with all combinations of the following:
SE LRT: Under 2nd St ending at Eau Claire / continuing under river to NC / bridge over river to NC
NE-W LRT: At grade on 7th Ave / Shared facility with S-NW under 8th Ave / 7th Ave subway
Prev
Linear Mode
