Southeast Transitway/Southeast LRT | ~17 Stations | $2 Billion | Proposed

[joe498]

Perhaps what we should do is host the Olympics.

Then we can basically build whatever we want.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by fusili

I would disagree. Calgary has a very, very, very concentrated core, very similar to New York in Midtown/Financial District. If we had a more disperse core and passengers were headed to various locations, transferring to a tram system would make sense. However, our downtown office core is a small area, and served pretty easily by a line going right through it.

That is an important consideration. I should also give fair play to milomilo's point about moving people from one technology to another and recognize that even if the capacities align it would require the dreaded transfer. Combined with your point, that's a pretty solid blow to the idea.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The lessons to be learned from this - dumping passengers from large trains onto small ones is a bad idea, and more importantly - do things right the first time as it will be far more expensive to fix in the future.

Which is why I would support skipping a bus way and building LRT straight away, even if it takes longer. That said, IMO, grade separation of the existing lines should take priority however. Being in a train and waiting at lights for cars is just embarrassing.

I totally agree. Welcome to the forum Milo!
I wonder what the cost would be to fully separate the 201 line? Probably not that much when considering just the areas outside of downtown. In conjunction with the 8th Avenue subway($800 million) which we need anyways, the entire project would probably end up around $1 billion. It seems like a lot, but to achieve metro capacity and metro headways on our busiest and longest line(s), it's a pretty reasonable price, in my opinion.

[suburbia]

Looks like the decision is Centre Street!

https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/408322981819990016

[Chadillaccc]

Fantastic

[Bri-Guy]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

Yes, I ride one everyday to work or university.

I believe you fail to understand the basic concept called economies of scale that if Calgary continued with its current Southwest Airlines like model we would see greater efficiencies because of increased purchasing power in terms of spare parts, LRT Fleet expansion orders by keeping one style of LRT. We would also see greater employee flexibility that operators, mechanics etc would not need to learn multiple systems and employees could be easily transferred to wherever the demand was. Also with your Low Floor LRT market increasing much faster than the High Floor LRT market would mean that Low Floor LRT would be more expensive than High Floor LRT based on simple supply/demand that manufacturers would be more inclined to discount High Floor LRTs inorder to keep the factory running compared to Low Floor LRTs where the orders have been accounted for years of production. Also we could receive the High Floor LRT in a more stately fashion.

This post made me chuckle - a few times. Thanks.
Maybe we should look for some other, even more out of favour technology to save $ and pick up some cheap/discounted units. Coal/Steam-powered perhaps? These aren't manufactured in volumes like TVs or cars. While the underlying models do change as they evolve, each order is custom, and aside from network expansion, the city won't be buying gross amounts of new vehicles for turnover/fleet service life expiry. These are long-term decisions, not to go with whatever platform has a lower nominal price. The correct solution will be the cheaper, better value one. I am not knowledgeable enough regarding alternative platforms so I will not offer my opinion there.

And welcome to the forum Milomilo, good insight

[brentwood]

Originally Posted by Riise

Isn't it a case of transferring a large amount of passengers into smaller groups heading in different directions? While there is a fair amount of passengers trying to cross London, which is is currently difficult due to capacity issues, you'd imagine the bulk of the passengers are trying to get to destinations across Central London, which is better served by a feeder network of Underground and Tube lines. If this is the case, the mistake made in London was not providing enough crosstown capacity.

Not entirely sure as I have only visited London versus living there but I imagine travelling by train from say Cambridge to Brighton is a real pain. Coming into Liverpool Street and then having to tube it to Victoria and catch another train. Just an example but I guess this is one reason to spend megabucks to link terminal stations. It will theoretically reduce passengers using the tube just to cross London and open capacity for people moving around central London. In Calgary's case having multiple LRT technologies is not ideal but perhaps that is just the way it has to be.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

I believe you fail to understand the basic concept called economies of scale that if Calgary continued with its current Southwest Airlines like model we would see greater efficiencies because of increased purchasing power in terms of spare parts, LRT Fleet expansion orders by keeping one style of LRT. We would also see greater employee flexibility that operators, mechanics etc would not need to learn multiple systems and employees could be easily transferred to wherever the demand was. Also with your Low Floor LRT market increasing much faster than the High Floor LRT market would mean that Low Floor LRT would be more expensive than High Floor LRT based on simple supply/demand that manufacturers would be more inclined to discount High Floor LRTs inorder to keep the factory running compared to Low Floor LRTs where the orders have been accounted for years of production. Also we could receive the High Floor LRT in a more stately fashion.

I can't really speak to the airline side of it, but when it comes to LRVs, I would wager that many of the components on a Siemens low floor LRV are the exact same on a high floor LRV - the systems are all basically the same, just in a different package. I don't think that operators and mechanics would really need to learn all new systems, as something like the S70 low-floor is probably near identical in every way to the new S200 high-floor, just lower.

We just have high-floor now, and the differences between systems are probably more dramatic now than they would be if we went from current high-floor technology to current low-floor technology. Not a lot of parts and systems shared between U2s and SD160s.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I totally agree. Welcome to the forum Milo!
I wonder what the cost would be to fully separate the 201 line? Probably not that much when considering just the areas outside of downtown. In conjunction with the 8th Avenue subway($800 million) which we need anyways, the entire project would probably end up around $1 billion. It seems like a lot, but to achieve metro capacity and metro headways on our busiest and longest line(s), it's a pretty reasonable price, in my opinion.

The SLRT really only requires grade separation at 25th Ave and Heritage for significantly shorter head ways. Both of which have interchanges planned for that purpose. The other crossings would become pretty annoying for motorists but vehicles could still get through. The problem with 25th Ave and Heritage is the proximity of the crossings to Macleod. Between the train's signal priority and the light timing on Macleod, there just wouldn't be any chance for cross traffic to make it through both. Basically the only vehicles that could use a green signal on Heritage or 25th would be the couple that can fit between Macleod and the LRT tracks. Both roads are too important for that. The other solutions would involve removing C-Train signal priority at those crossings, which we don't really want to start doing, or screwing with Macleod's light timing, which would have all kinds of repercussions.

After those interchanges are built, or downgraded to just grade separate the LRT (although that would be difficult and possibly even more costly in those locations), we could run with pretty much the highest frequencies we'd ever want to on the SLRT (of course that would require matching upgrades elsewhere, specifically the 8th Ave subway, to work). Other grade separations might happen but they would only be needed for additional safety or automobile capacity. The whole route doesn't need grade separation just so we can say we have a metro, C-Train capacity would be the same either way.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Looks like the decision is Centre Street!

https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/408322981819990016

Yes please. This could possibly become like the Broadway area along the Canada Line in Van.

[Chadillaccc]

The Canada Line goes down Cambie.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

I can't really speak to the airline side of it, but when it comes to LRVs, I would wager that many of the components on a Siemens low floor LRV are the exact same on a high floor LRV - the systems are all basically the same, just in a different package. I don't think that operators and mechanics would really need to learn all new systems, as something like the S70 low-floor is probably near identical in every way to the new S200 high-floor, just lower.

We just have high-floor now, and the differences between systems are probably more dramatic now than they would be if we went from current high-floor technology to current low-floor technology. Not a lot of parts and systems shared between U2s and SD160s.

Yeah, the negative wouldn't be incompatible trains, we have that already and it will only continue as technology changes, but incompatible systems. With a single system we can share reserve cars with every line, adjust for unforeseen capacity crunches on any line, and order only one model at a time. Each of those have their own benefits and further combine to promote bulk orders. An RFP for 200+ cars that will meet our specs draws interest, and bids, from every car maker on the planet. More frequent and much smaller orders for high floor, low floor, and whatever the fad is when it comes time for an International Ave line will damn us to always pay more for off the shelf designs that don't match out unique needs.

[Chadillaccc]

In regards to what model we should get, what about the airport link that will likely be shared by both the NC and NE lines? That fact alone should be a major part in the decision making process, I see the benefits of the low floor design. However, for the sake of fluidity, I vote status quo.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

In regards to what model we should get, what about the airport link that will likely be shared by both the NC and NE lines? That fact alone should be a major part in the decision making process, I see the benefits of the low floor design. However, for the sake of fluidity, I vote status quo.

Personally I feel that the airport link will be, and should be, some other technology that terminates at the CTrain station but is not the CTrain itself. The NE LRT functional plan explores and I believe even recommends that option. Plus it could then be owned (and paid for) by CAA rather than CT

[Chadillaccc]

That is a good idea, probably better even. Something similar to the "link" technology Toronto's airport uses to connect the terminals.

[Spring2008]

Would it be more efficient to link with the future NC line?

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The Canada Line goes down Cambie.

I meant the area around Broadway station, at least I think that's what it's called.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by brentwood

Not entirely sure as I have only visited London versus living there but I imagine travelling by train from say Cambridge to Brighton is a real pain.

Those trips are probably a very small portion of the crosstown trips made on a daily basis in London. The far majority of the trips are probably journeys starting and ending in London. For instance, Croydon to Islington or Wimbledon to Harrow. With these trips I don't find myself having to go from overground to underground and back to overground.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Yeah, the negative wouldn't be incompatible trains, we have that already and it will only continue as technology changes, but incompatible systems. With a single system we can share reserve cars with every line, adjust for unforeseen capacity crunches on any line, and order only one model at a time. Each of those have their own benefits and further combine to promote bulk orders. An RFP for 200+ cars that will meet our specs draws interest, and bids, from every car maker on the planet. More frequent and much smaller orders for high floor, low floor, and whatever the fad is when it comes time for an International Ave line will damn us to always pay more for off the shelf designs that don't match out unique needs.

Do I understand your scenario correctly -- there's an unforeseen capacity crunch on the new Green Line one day, so we just run a Blue Line train into the yard at the OBMF, call in a crane, lift the train cars onto a series of trucks and secure them, then drive them to the SE LRT maintenance facility, bring in another crane and lower the train onto the tracks there, then bring it into service? That seems like a pretty difficult way of solving a short term crunch.

Recently Houston and Salt Lake City partnered to bring in new LRVs together; our existing high floor trains prevent us from partnering with the vast majority of North American operators, including Seattle, Portland, Denver, Ottawa and Toronto. If we don't think that our $200 million deals aren't big enough to attract bids (for some reason; we've been doing fine so far), then surely the answer is to be able to partner with most other agencies, as opposed to Edmonton and... Edmonton.

And of course high floor platforms are more expensive to start with; they'll always have that cost problem starting from day one. In fact, from before day one, with the plan to build a busway and then convert it -- unless you want to have a special fleet of high floor buses to run on the line before the conversion, which takes you back into all of your procurement problems and flexibility problems times two.

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by mersar

Personally I feel that the airport link will be, and should be, some other technology that terminates at the CTrain station but is not the CTrain itself. The NE LRT functional plan explores and I believe even recommends that option. Plus it could then be owned (and paid for) by CAA rather than CT

Oakland, California is doing this to link OAK airport to the BART system.

http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/oac

Interestingly OAK has similar passenger numbers to YYC. I think funding would be an issue for us - their 5km connector is forecast to cost US$484m. I think that would be better spent elsewhere in the near term if the City had to pay for it, and I don't see YYCAA paying that kind of money for that when a whole new terminal and runway only cost $2bn and change in comparison.