Calgary Public Transit II

[brentwood]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think it should be underground before it even crosses the river.

It would have to be underground...or the separate bridge idea to link with the 2nd Street subway. Having a bridge cross part of Prince's Island would be a tough sell though. Either way it cannot be at grade south of the river...the N-S blocks are too short for multiple LRT cars.

[DizzyEdge]

I for one can't wait to get direct access to the key opportunities.

[Chadillaccc]

Hmmmm.... I was just thinking. You know how people on here have been talking about how The Rift in the East Village will connect with Stephen Ave. through City Hall? I was thinking, when they build the 8th Avenue Subway, they could also include a small reconfiguration of city hall to allow an unimpeded flow of traffic through it, over top of the subway station. I feel like that would solve a lot of problems not only with the justification of altering city hall's structure to make it more free-flow from east to west, but also with the need for the 201 to be buried downtown.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think it should be underground before it even crosses the river.

Agreed, but let's say we just build this thing from 7th Ave to North Point (13km) for, I don't know, $700M (high estimate considering there are no bridges, tunnels, etc) for a period of 10 years. We put in a spur that will allow a future bridge to connect to the 2nd avenue subway.

So for the next ten years, passengers will basically be dumped at the 1st street/Centre street stations. This isn't terrible, as there is a significant amount of office development around there, and many passengers from the south and NE lines will get off at these stops, freeing up room for NC LRT passengers to transfer onto westbound 7th avenue trains.

After 10 years, when we have enough money, we complete the 2nd ST subway, connect a bridge to existing spur from Centre street, and TADA: we have an interlined NC/SE LRT. Then we rip up the rails on the Centre Street Bridge and the station at Centre and 7th street (which is no more than a upgraded sidewalk) and call it a day.

[DizzyEdge]

One thing I didn't quite get from the video is if low floor trains ran down the middle of Centre st, where and how would the platforms be configured?

[RyLucky]

How to stage future rapid transit expansions is interesting. Studies that look at what made a particular LRT system (ie Calgary) successful often cite mode staging and phasing as factors to success. Staging builds travel patterns and gives the government time to secure funding.

However, in the case of Centre Street and the SETway, I think there are a few problems with mode and length staging. For Centre St, the corridor is already a highly-used transit corridor - much higher than the rapid buses that preceded the SLRT and NWLRT in the '70s and '80s. Disrupting service for construction will have a significant cost to transit efficiency. Also, I don't think it is reasonable anymore to introduce a line that will block downtown avenues (trains will be longer than n-s blocks). And, building a line in phases(ie stop at 20th ave N) as Nenshi has suggests, also presents problems, because for the VAST majority of commuters from the North, this will introduce a transfer and INCREASE travel times. The SE is a different but similar situation, where the line has little utility unless it is built the full distance and on a fully separated ROW than transects the Manchester/alyth/Bonnybrook area.

Personally (and my opinion on this is always evolving), I think the best/only move is to build the entire SELRT first, and the 8th ave subway, and then the entire NCLRT extending from the SELRT under the Bow River from 2nd St, underground to Ctr street. While we wait, we can create transit lanes and densify around corridors.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

One thing I didn't quite get from the video is if low floor trains ran down the middle of Centre st, where and how would the platforms be configured?

I would imagine you would do a lane jog, and have the stations in the street (you would need to acquire ~ 3m of ROW on each side of the street for the lane jog, which should be easy considering there is a 3.81m road widening setback on properties from 32nd avenue to memorial and a 5.182m road widening setback on properties from 40th to 32nd). Tuxedo park could accommodate this without taking any property.

The other option would be to do a tandem station in the street. This would be where the ROW goes from two sets of tracks to one, and the remaining space is used for the station. This only allows one train to be at the station at a time, and opposite direction trains will have to wait for the first train to clear before entering the station. This has some considerable impacts on operation, but isn't impossible.

Remember, these are low floor vehicles. Stations are no more than a raised curb. All you need is the space for the station.

They should bury the line at 16th avenue and have an underground station there. That would be the only major cost for the entire line if they went this route.

[DizzyEdge]

I guess another option is staggered middle of the road 'stations', like the Toronto street cars. Southbound station north of an intersection and northbound station south of it. NIce thing about that is the train doesnt have to jog to the curb and affect traffic, and since it's at an intersection the crosswalks are already there. I feel like it might have to be twice as wide as this though:

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=43.647204,-79...XPKPBbvKdiiL6INyTaQ&cbp=12,174.6,,0,3.99

I'm thinking it might not be terrible for all of the many avenues which cross Centre, as you could easily just make them all right turn only other than ones which currently have traffic lights rather than cul-de-sac'ing them all.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

How to stage future rapid transit expansions is interesting. Studies that look at what made a particular LRT system (ie Calgary) successful often cite mode staging and phasing as factors to success. Staging builds travel patterns and gives the government time to secure funding.

However, in the case of Centre Street and the SETway, I think there are a few problems with mode and length staging. For Centre St, the corridor is already a highly-used transit corridor - much higher than the rapid buses that preceded the SLRT and NWLRT in the '70s and '80s. Disrupting service for construction will have a significant cost to transit efficiency. Also, I don't think it is reasonable anymore to introduce a line that will block downtown avenues (trains will be longer than n-s blocks). And, building a line in phases(ie stop at 20th ave N) as Nenshi has suggests, also presents problems, because for the VAST majority of commuters from the North, this will introduce a transfer and INCREASE travel times. The SE is a different but similar situation, where the line has little utility unless it is built the full distance and on a fully separated ROW than transects the Manchester/alyth/Bonnybrook area.

So.. start with 2 or 3 car consists so cross streets downtown are not blocked by platforms. Once the 2nd street subway is built, and longer platforms are possible, we can upgrade to 4 or 5 car consists.

Longer platforms can be accommodated on Centre street simply by closing cross roads. As well, north of 30th avenue, the blocks re-orient themselves to N/S, so a 160m platform can be accommodated without closing roads. It isn't as if closing 29th avenue to Centre street will cause major traffic headaches. In fact, many cross streets could be closed to full turns on centre street, and restricted to right-in-right outs only.

With stations at 16th avenue (underground), 30th ave (tuxedo park), 40th avenue, Northmount, 68th avenue, and Beddington Town Centre, there are really only two stations (30th and 40th avenues) that pose any sort of difficultly.

[DizzyEdge]

Another nice thing about low floor: I feel it would be ideal for there to be a station between 16th and 30th aves, but the current density might not warrant it now. Later on though, it would take little capital to throw in a new raised curb "stop" anywhere on the route.

Actually I changed my mind, they should put in a stop around 23rd ave and around 9th ave.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Another nice thing about low floor: I feel it would be ideal for there to be a station between 16th and 30th aves, but the current density might not warrant it now. Later on though, it would take little capital to throw in a new raised curb "stop" anywhere on the route.

Actually I changed my mind, they should put in a stop around 23rd ave and around 9th ave.

I wouldn't disagree with you. I find it strange the current 301 doesn't have any stops between 40th and 16th. I know we want to avoid unnecessarily close stops, but that is 2400m with no stops in between! Those suggestions sound reasonable.

Let's be honest, travel time for Calgary transit is somewhat elastic for downtown commuters, as the driving force behind ridership is parking prices, not travel times. Even with stops at 9th, 16th, 23rd, 30th, 40th, Northmount, 64th, Beddington and Harvest Hills, the LRT would still beat a downtown commuter to North Point on most days.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by fusili

So.. start with 2 or 3 car consists so cross streets downtown are not blocked by platforms. Once the 2nd street subway is built, and longer platforms are possible, we can upgrade to 4 or 5 car consists.

Longer platforms can be accommodated on Centre street simply by closing cross roads. As well, north of 30th avenue, the blocks re-orient themselves to N/S, so a 160m platform can be accommodated without closing roads. It isn't as if closing 29th avenue to Centre street will cause major traffic headaches. In fact, many cross streets could be closed to full turns on centre street, and restricted to right-in-right outs only.

With stations at 16th avenue (underground), 30th ave (tuxedo park), 40th avenue, Northmount, 68th avenue, and Beddington Town Centre, there are really only two stations (30th and 40th avenues) that pose any sort of difficultly.

I was only referring to downtown avenues; other cross streets can certainly be closed. I seriously question whether the service you propose would be any better than bus service (especially with ROW), given the cost (albeit lower than full build out), conflicts with cross streets, disruption to bus and car traffic duri construction, need for maintenance facility, only a short-term lifespan for the parts to be made obsolete by full build up, and lack of flexibility relative to bus. Why not just give buses more ROW for almost no cost, and many of the benefits?

Were you to propose a LRT/streetcar deally for another part of the city where it is intended as a permanent structure, I might be more receptive, but for the centre street corridor, i think it's all or none. Unfortunately, the part of the project that is most vital to service improvements is also the most expensive (tunnel between SELRT and ctr&16).

INCOMING JOKE: Maybe if we were taken over by China, we would get these projects sooner.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

I would imagine you would do a lane jog, and have the stations in the street (you would need to acquire ~ 3m of ROW on each side of the street for the lane jog, which should be easy considering there is a 3.81m road widening setback on properties from 32nd avenue to memorial and a 5.182m road widening setback on properties from 40th to 32nd). Tuxedo park could accommodate this without taking any property.

The other option would be to do a tandem station in the street. This would be where the ROW goes from two sets of tracks to one, and the remaining space is used for the station. This only allows one train to be at the station at a time, and opposite direction trains will have to wait for the first train to clear before entering the station. This has some considerable impacts on operation, but isn't impossible.

Remember, these are low floor vehicles. Stations are no more than a raised curb. All you need is the space for the station.

They should bury the line at 16th avenue and have an underground station there. That would be the only major cost for the entire line if they went this route.

Hey Fusili! I have a few questions regarding your proposed plan, please forgive my ignorance since I am by no means a transit expert.

1. How does an on-street LRT affect the utilites? Do they need to be relocated in any way? What did the city do for 7th ave?

2. Would using tandem stations or reducing the line to one track significantly reduced capacity and or speed along line?

3. Instead of using Tandem stations on the street and jogging the track, or reducing the line to one track, would it be beneficial to simply close centre street to all auto traffic and replace the two far lanes with a bike path? Also would it be advisable to convert many avenues crossing centre into cul-de-sacs(peds and bike can still go through)?

4. What would be the average speed of the LRT? The LRT seems to crawl when going along 7th ave.

5. What would be the estimated passenger per hour per direction capacity for on street LRT? For Subway?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Hey Fusili! I have a few questions regarding your proposed plan, please forgive my ignorance since I am by no means a transit expert.

1. How does an on-street LRT affect the utilites? Do they need to be relocated in any way? What did the city do for 7th ave?

Not sure. I would imagine water and sewer had to be relocated on 7th avenue. If the services remain under the vehicle lanes, or are relocated there from the centre of the ROW (which is where I imagine they likely are), it should be ok. Shallow utilities should be within the 1st 3m of the properties adjacent. Not sure if this is true though b/c I don't know what the servicing standards were back then.

2. Would using tandem stations or reducing the line to one track significantly reduced capacity and or speed along line?

Both speed and capacity will be affected. Trains have to slow down for stations anyways, so actual vehicle speeds won't be seriously affected. If headways are less than station dwell times, there is a big problem. But if there is a train every 3 min and station dwell times are 1 min, then the impact shouldn't be massive. But it is optimal to have two tracks for operations.

3. Instead of using Tandem stations on the street and jogging the track, or reducing the line to one track, would it be beneficial to simply close centre street to all auto traffic and replace the two far lanes with a bike path? Also would it be advisable to convert many avenues crossing centre into cul-de-sacs(peds and bike can still go through)?

I wouldn't do this. Closing completely is too drastic a change. Businesses still need vehicular access, especially for things such as loading. Closing it completely would be a bit too much. Closing cross streets will actually be quite beneficial

4. What would be the average speed of the LRT? The LRT seems to crawl when going along 7th ave.

LRT crawls along 7th avenue because it doesn't have signal control, which I think it should. If trains control signals at intersections, the speed can be maintained well. With most transit though, the vehicle speed is not what constrains travel times. Frequency, station dwell times, and station spacing are by far more important that actual top speed. Limiting stops, signal control, multiple door boarding and off-vehicle fare payment will keep average speeds high

5. What would be the estimated passenger per hour per direction capacity for on street LRT? For Subway?

Headways multiplied by vehicle capacity. Subways achieve higher capacity because trains can typically be longer, and they can handle more trains per hour than a ROW with cross-traffic. The capacity of 7th avenue is 36 trains per hour (22 on the Red Line, 14 on the blue line) and the crush load of the SD160s is 225 per car I believe. With three car trains that is around 24K per direction per hour. Subways can get crazy high. I think NYC subways have vehicle capacities closer to 1800 per car (11 car consists) and peak headways of about a two minutes. That's 54 000 per hour. Let's say Centre street can get 3 minute headways and 600 passengers per train: that's 12K per direction per hour.

See bolded answers.

[fusili]

So after googling NYC transit to get some numbers I found out that the Lexington Avenue line in NYC has 1.3 Million passengers a day! That's more than the entire transit systems of any other city in North America. It has more riders than the entire systems of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston combined. Jeebus.

[ByeByeBaby]

The idea of building at grade to downtown is interesting. In the downtown, the train could turn and stop on 3rd Ave between Centre and 1st West.

The challenge is that "temporary" infrastructure that is adequate takes a looong time to get rebuilt; the 4 car platforms took 15 years from when we had the capacity need, and we're still waiting on the 8th Ave Subway (and could be for decades). It's a lot harder to argue that the SE LRT is not the next highest priority when there's something in the NC, substandard or not -- even if the truth is that improvements to the NC would be the best way forward.

[MalcolmTucker]

"1. How does an on-street LRT affect the utilites? Do they need to be relocated in any way? What did the city do for 7th ave?

Not sure. I would imagine water and sewer had to be relocated on 7th avenue. If the services remain under the vehicle lanes, or are relocated there from the centre of the ROW (which is where I imagine they likely are), it should be ok. Shallow utilities should be within the 1st 3m of the properties adjacent. Not sure if this is true though b/c I don't know what the servicing standards were back then.
"

Big issue is when utilities need work, can you still use the LRT or the road. If there is a trunk line, you would likely want to move it to the next street if it is for anything but storm water.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

See bolded answers.

Thank you, that was very informative. I think it's a good plan if the LRT can move a lot of people and the travel time from Country Hills to DT is about 20-30min. It's probably the best bang for our buck.

But with only one lane on either side of the tracks and peds crossing here and there, I could see centre street turning into the cluster f**k known as 36th street NE.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Thank you, that was very informative. I think it's a good plan if the LRT can move a lot of people and the travel time from Country Hills to DT is about 20-30min. It's probably the best bang for our buck.

But with only one lane on either side of the tracks and peds crossing here and there, I could see centre street turning into the cluster f**k known as 36th street NE.

36th is a cluster f$%k because it is not good for cars or for pedestrians. Make centre street good for pedestrians and the train and accommodate cars. 4th and Edmonton trail are close by for those who want to travel at a reasonable speed.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

4. What would be the average speed of the LRT? The LRT seems to crawl when going along 7th ave.

This seems to be the common perception, but I'll be honest - I find the 7th Ave performance is pretty damned good, all things considered. Yes, it could be better. Yes, sometimes you wait for lights. But I find most of the "waiting" time seems to be people holding doors, pedestrians crossing against the lights, and just the stops in general. The only really bad times are when the entire line gets backed up due to something happening outside of the core (broken train, etc).

I dunno. It just doesn't seem to be the "crawl" that people describe. I've been using the train to do some inter-downtown trips again lately (getting too lazy to walk and often short on time) and I find it's ridiculously fast. Seems to get up to 30-40km/h between stations, which is as fast as a subway would go given the short separations.