Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[DizzyEdge]

Yeah I can understand Carra not being a NCLRT proponent. I live in Mount Pleasant a few houses away from the Tuxedo Park border, and although I'd love an LRT, the Centre street corridor is great for transit (expecially if you include the buses on 4th st NW and Edmonton trail). The SE though doesn't have great service. I can't see anyone up here punishing him for not pushing for NCLRT, but I can see SE residents punishing him for not pushing for the SELRT.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

^ I think the NCLRT will have more bumps in the road with NIMBY's as well since Centre St backs up against pretty much all residential areas, as the the first half of the SELRT predominately goes through industrial/commercial areas

I feel like the 8th Ave subway needs to start being more seriously considered, as others have mentioned .. Costly venture though - and difficult to present to taxpayers in a cost-benefit analysis (I can't see projections for a potential increase in ridership justifying the cost of it)

I still think a plan for a large-scale connector station downtown for the 8th Ave subway and a N-S subway leg would be an excellent landmark addition for downtown ... Would really centralize the core and add vibrancy overall

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

^ I think the NCLRT will have more bumps in the road with NIMBY's as well since Centre St backs up against pretty much all residential areas, as the the first half of the SELRT predominately goes through industrial/commercial areas

I feel like the 8th Ave subway needs to start being more seriously considered, as others have mentioned .. Costly venture though - and difficult to present to taxpayers in a cost-benefit analysis (I can't see projections for a potential increase in ridership justifying the cost of it)

I still think a plan for a large-scale connector station downtown for the 8th Ave subway and a N-S subway leg would be an excellent landmark addition for downtown ... Would really centralize the core and add vibrancy overall

The thing is, once the 8th Ave Subway is being screamed for due to overcrowding, what is the timelines for it to get done, 5 years? a decade? (assuming $$ was available)

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

No, by doing exactly what Keating is doing for the SE. Talk about it, I haven't heard any of the three (Carra, Farrell, or Chu) mention it or request that it occurs before the SE leg.

More talk about the NCLRT, Yes, that is just what we all need. Maybe we can capture it as a thermal energy source. And Chu has mentioned it, he favours building the SELRT first.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The thing is, once the 8th Ave Subway is being screamed for due to overcrowding,

It will never be screamed for, the public only perceives value in new miles of track. When the time does come for the 8th and eventually 7th Ave subways the general public will be outraged by the "wasteful cadillac project" coming at the expense of new service.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

It depends how you look at it. Technically, we are only at/near capacity for a few hours/day and mainly in one direction (exception being between SAIT and City Hall where it is packed both directions, and for a longer duration). Even with a fourth car, there will be a few times when capacity will be topped out, but another train will always come.

Annual Ridership: (source)
2013 107.5 million
2012 102.0
2011 96.2
2010 94.4
2009 94.2
2008 95.3
2007 90.3
2006 88.7
2005 82.0
2004 80.6
2003 78.0

38% increase in 10 years. If the economy stays hot, I'd say we can expect 5% increase/year. Therefore, after 4-car trains arrive, I'd expect things will be as crowded as they are today in ~6-7 years. 2020. If the economy crashes, add a few years. Also bear in mind that Downtown's population will likely grow by around 30% in that time, and Downtown office space will grow by 10-20%. Most new Calgarians will have 50+ min commutes.

It probably makes more sense to look at the period leading to 2008. At that point growth stalled because of the capacity crunch. The latter growth has to do with the WLRT. Growth on that line can't really be considered since the rest of the system is still largely stalled.

It is impossible to say for sure but a lot of the new capacity from four car trains could be sucked up immediately with pent up demand from the last six years.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It will never be screamed for, the public only perceives value in new miles of track. When the time does come for the 8th and eventually 7th Ave subways the general public will be outraged by the "wasteful cadillac project" coming at the expense of new service.

That's what I'm getting at - there is, and always will be, those in the public who all over their taxes like a fat kid on a cupcake ... An potential increase in taxes to build something that might not benefit them directly will cause an uproar, particularly if it's not going to generate a ton of additional revenue for the City

Not everything can be measured in dollars and cents though, the inherent value of having underground lines through the core is pretty substantial

It'll take a gutsy politician to make a strong push to get it but I hope it doesn't wait too long, it's not going to get any cheaper anyways

[technomad]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Very roughly drafted, that's 25-30km of track. Is that more useful than spending money on the NC/SE line? Burying the downtown LRT? If we had infinite money, sure, nice route.

Nope, and never said it was.

Definitely prefer to see NC/SE from McKnight to Quarry Park, and the Stephen ave subway happen first, as one project.

The specific point to my last was that a western crescent line could have a fairly easy ROW with minimal property acquisition required.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

The biggest winner in terms of transit investment, IMO, would be transit lanes on 5th and 6th avenue downtown, combined with a transit- and right turns-only lane reversal on Centre street and a transit-only curb lane to curb lane turn signal from 5th avenue eastbound to Centre Street northbound.

There are so many buses using downtown that I see a huge benefit to improving bus times through the downtown via a dedicated lane. The benefit is that so many routes could use the lanes. The 301, 302, 305, 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (just to name a few) are all routes that could make use of a dedicated transit lane downtown. Not only this, it could remove buses from regular traffic. A large part of the congestion on 5th avenue, for example, is caused by buses trying to change 4 lanes to make a left turn onto centre street and blocking traffic in the process (hence the curb-lane to curb-lane transit only turn signal).

Agreed the biggest winner for transit dollars is the 5th and 6th Avenue transit only lanes. However selling a dedicated transit lane is a tough job and its unlikely the transit geek and the car geeks can come to a mutual agreement. Throw in the bike geeks and everyone is fighting a war on two fronts.

Couple of simple ideas that could make the dedicated lanes work from the car and transit geek perspective:
1) Dedicated lanes should have some sort of demarcation barrier between the transit and regular lanes. This could easily be accomplished by a minor speed bump to segregate the lane. Is it possible for busses to climb a minor curb if they needed to without busting the undercarriage?
2) Commitment by Transit that once implemented, transit only sticks to their dedicated lane except where the bus ahead is busted.
3) No parking and no stopping in the right hand lane of 5th and 6th Ave and no provisions for drop off.
4) Transit only lanes are just for Transit, no taxis allowed on the transit lanes. No bikes or other vehicular traffic of any kind.
5) Instead of a right curb to right curb left hand dedicated transit turn at 5th and Center, would it be acceptable if Transit completed three right hand turns at 5th/1st, 1st/6th, 6th/Centre?
6) Recognize that for transit and car geeks to get along, they might both have to toss the bike geeks under the bus. Specifically no bike only lanes on the Avenues with heavily unsafe situation on 5th and 6th Avenues.

[technomad]

Precisely why NC/SE and 8av, potentially the largest, most expensive and disruptive infrastructure projects to ever be done in the city, should present value to citizens from all areas, particularly if an X cent gas tax or the like is to be used to fund it.

Aside from direct cost savings of including both tunnels in the same project, the economic impact to downtown from disruption when building the tunnels is halved by doing both at the same time.

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

That's what I'm getting at - there is, and always will be, those in the public who all over their taxes like a fat kid on a cupcake ... An potential increase in taxes to build something that might not benefit them directly will cause an uproar, particularly if it's not going to generate a ton of additional revenue for the City

Not everything can be measured in dollars and cents though, the inherent value of having underground lines through the core is pretty substantial

It'll take a gutsy politician to make a strong push to get it but I hope it doesn't wait too long, it's not going to get any cheaper anyways

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cage

Couple of simple ideas that could make the dedicated lanes work from the car and transit geek perspective:
1) Dedicated lanes should have some sort of demarcation barrier between the transit and regular lanes. This could easily be accomplished by a minor speed bump to segregate the lane. Is it possible for busses to climb a minor curb if they needed to without busting the undercarriage?
2) Commitment by Transit that once implemented, transit only sticks to their dedicated lane except where the bus ahead is busted.
3) No parking and no stopping in the right hand lane of 5th and 6th Ave and no provisions for drop off.
4) Transit only lanes are just for Transit, no taxis allowed on the transit lanes. No bikes or other vehicular traffic of any kind.
5) Instead of a right curb to right curb left hand dedicated transit turn at 5th and Center, would it be acceptable if Transit completed three right hand turns at 5th/1st, 1st/6th, 6th/Centre?
6) Recognize that for transit and car geeks to get along, they might both have to toss the bike geeks under the bus. Specifically no bike only lanes on the Avenues with heavily unsafe situation on 5th and 6th Avenues.

Not sure about the barriers, but I don't think transit needs to be forced into their lanes. Obviously keep everyone out of the transit lanes.

5) ? Sure, lets add another 10 minutes to an already painful bus ride.

It seams you are of the opinion we NEED to placate drivers in some way. I'm of the opposite. We should be making transit as easy as possible to use, I don't care if it adds 10 minutes to a single person in an SUV's commute. Buses transport upwards of 50 people each and transit users already suffer enough inconveniences. If transit is horrible (which it is) people say screw it, and drive and the problem gets worse.

I'd argue we need 2 transit lanes on 5th with all the buses on it. 6th, I don't see much of a problem at all with, though it around 7:30. Maybe it is worse later.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Cage

6) Recognize that for transit and car geeks to get along, they might both have to toss the bike geeks under the bus. Specifically no bike only lanes on the Avenues with heavily unsafe situation on 5th and 6th Avenues.

I think the City has to begin thinking like this more often - minority users will have to make (minor and reasonable) compromises to benefit the majority. This applies to many other things also like having access points to every little building on major roads.

Originally Posted by Cage

5) Instead of a right curb to right curb left hand dedicated transit turn at 5th and Center, would it be acceptable if Transit completed three right hand turns at 5th/1st, 1st/6th, 6th/Centre?

Remember that buses have a very wide swing path - they can't make sharp right hand turns very easily and the routes almost certainly take this into account.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It probably makes more sense to look at the period leading to 2008. At that point growth stalled because of the capacity crunch. The latter growth has to do with the WLRT. Growth on that line can't really be considered since the rest of the system is still largely stalled.

It is impossible to say for sure but a lot of the new capacity from four car trains could be sucked up immediately with pent up demand from the last six years.

Those numbers are transit ridership, not just c-train.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by technomad

Precisely why NC/SE and 8av, potentially the largest, most expensive and disruptive infrastructure projects to ever be done in the city, should present value to citizens from all areas, particularly if an X cent gas tax or the like is to be used to fund it.

Aside from direct cost savings of including both tunnels in the same project, the economic impact to downtown from disruption when building the tunnels is halved by doing both at the same time.

I'm in favour of building out the LRT to McKnight-QP too .. Hell I'd go as far as Beddington for the NCLRT ... I think it's an optimal plan over picking one leg and going full-out - and it's pretty equal treatment from a taxpayers POV .. The remainder can then be built as required as the economy and budget allow itself

I would be all for throwing the 8th Ave subway in that mix simply because there will never be a time that it won't be a pain in the ass to construct .. At the same time taxpayers could be swayed to think is necessary if we're going to built out the remaining LRT legs from downtown to maximize the LRT's effectiveness

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not sure about the barriers, but I don't think transit needs to be forced into their lanes. Obviously keep everyone out of the transit lanes.

5) ? Sure, lets add another 10 minutes to an already painful bus ride.

It seams you are of the opinion we NEED to placate drivers in some way. I'm of the opposite. We should be making transit as easy as possible to use, I don't care if it adds 10 minutes to a single person in an SUV's commute. Buses transport upwards of 50 people each and transit users already suffer enough inconveniences. If transit is horrible (which it is) people say screw it, and drive and the problem gets worse.

I'd argue we need 2 transit lanes on 5th with all the buses on it. 6th, I don't see much of a problem at all with, though it around 7:30. Maybe it is worse later.

Barriers primary purpose is to demarcate the lane as being transit only and prevent even inadvertent use by other traffic.

There is also a secondary advantage of keeping transit vehicles in their own lane. In this instance it would enforce the conga line approach and make all drivers and transit passengers responsible for ensuring smooth operation of the dedicated transit lanes. Specifically this would prevent transit from using the second right lane as a leap frog lane. In this instance its a compromise between car and transit users. Each user has a benefit (exclusive use of the right lane by transit, buses not pulling out into general traffic) to go along with their cost (loss of rights to one or more lanes).

Also, you need to consider that for dedicated transit lanes to be successful, they need to have the support of the majority of electorate. At a minimum the dedicated transit lane initiative should not anger a significant portion of the electorate such the project becomes an wider civic issue. It is anger a large section of the electorate that scuttle Crowchild Trail Corridor study. Meaningful engagement process starts with taking into account the needs of all stakeholders. So while you may not like the position of the SUV driver, you need their support, hence my call for best alternative to negotiated settlement (each group of drivers gets their own lane).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cage

Also, you need to consider that for dedicated transit lanes to be successful, they need to have the support of the majority of electorate. At a minimum the dedicated transit lane initiative should not anger a significant portion of the electorate such the project becomes an wider civic issue. It is anger a large section of the electorate that scuttle Crowchild Trail Corridor study. Meaningful engagement process starts with taking into account the needs of all stakeholders. So while you may not like the position of the SUV driver, you need their support, hence my call for best alternative to negotiated settlement (each group of drivers gets their own lane).

I hate to have to point out the blindingly obvious, but your suggestion is to give vehicles 4 lanes and buses 1. Mine is 3 for vehicles, 2 for buses, though one of the bus lanes is a bus loading zone. Almost every block has 1/2 of it used for loading that also sees buses stopped at timing points preventing the "conga line" of hell from being a possibility. So in reality, you need 2 transit lanes to make it at all worth while.

Just curious, have you ever ridden the bus down this stretch in rush hour? You seam to want to force buses to be in a restricted one lane zone that would actually make it far worse than it already is. I'm not sure you get the mechanics of it...

Frankly, I don't care about "buy in" from single person vehicles. We elect a council to make the city work better, and improving transit and getting more people using it will improve it for everyone, despite the initial appearance. If it was up to drivers, they think they would be better off without all the buses clogging up the streets. I've heard them on the news before complaining about them. They'd of course be completely wrong, but that's how they see it.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

so let's say 7-10 years. What would be a guess for both lead/planning time and construction time to construct the 8th ave subway? I'm guessing that the underground portion will have quite a bit more longevity since the trains could be longer than 4 car?

CT is still doing their renovations to extend platforms to run 4-vehicle trains, so building an 8th Ave subway with room for 5 or 6 -vehicle trains might make sense to some people (future-proofing the new construction), but others will see it as a waste of money until the rest of the existing platforms are also extended to load 5 or 6 -vehicle trains.

The work-around is to have part of the new 8th Ave subway be built as part of the North - SE line, and build the entire line with platforms for 5 or 6 -vehicle trains from the outset. This 8th Ave subway would run (i.e.) from 2nd St W to City Hall, and surface somewhere in East Village.

The western half of the 8th Ave subway could be built later to extend it from 2nd St W and under the Mewata Armoury and surface somewhere in Shaw Park.

As each piece of the 8th Ave subway is built, it is also connected to the West, Northwest, East and South lines for flexibility, and the shorter 3 or 4 -vehicle trains can use these longer subway platforms until these lines get their own platform extensions (again)

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

CT is still doing their renovations to extend platforms to run 4-vehicle trains, so building an 8th Ave subway with room for 5 or 6 -vehicle trains might make sense to some people (future-proofing the new construction), but others will see it as a waste of money until the rest of the existing platforms are also extended to load 5 or 6 -vehicle trains.

The work-around is to have part of the new 8th Ave subway be built as part of the North - SE line, and build the entire line with platforms for 5 or 6 -vehicle trains from the outset. This 8th Ave subway would run (i.e.) from 2nd St W to City Hall, and surface somewhere in East Village.

The western half of the 8th Ave subway could be built later to extend it from 2nd St W and under the Mewata Armoury and surface somewhere in Shaw Park.

As each piece of the 8th Ave subway is built, it is also connected to the West, Northwest, East and South lines for flexibility, and the shorter 3 or 4 -vehicle trains can use these longer subway platforms until these lines get their own platform extensions (again)

5+ car trains will require a complete rethink of just about all station locations across the city, there will only be a small number that would be able to stay in place without a complete change.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

More talk about the NCLRT, Yes, that is just what we all need. Maybe we can capture it as a thermal energy source. And Chu has mentioned it, he favours building the SELRT first.

I would bet that 95+% of the people in Calgary don't even know about the NCLRT let alone the RouteAhead plan. All they know about transit expansion plans are what they hear in the media, the NCLRT is typically only mentioned at the bottom of the articles about the SETWAY/SELRT.

Why in the world is Chu pushing for something that won't benefit his ward, he was elected as a representative for his area, if he can't/won't fight for what his area needs, maybe he should consider running in a different ward next time.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cage

Agreed the biggest winner for transit dollars is the 5th and 6th Avenue transit only lanes. However selling a dedicated transit lane is a tough job and its unlikely the transit geek and the car geeks can come to a mutual agreement. Throw in the bike geeks and everyone is fighting a war on two fronts.

Couple of simple ideas that could make the dedicated lanes work from the car and transit geek perspective:
1) Dedicated lanes should have some sort of demarcation barrier between the transit and regular lanes. This could easily be accomplished by a minor speed bump to segregate the lane. Is it possible for busses to climb a minor curb if they needed to without busting the undercarriage?
2) Commitment by Transit that once implemented, transit only sticks to their dedicated lane except where the bus ahead is busted.
3) No parking and no stopping in the right hand lane of 5th and 6th Ave and no provisions for drop off.
4) Transit only lanes are just for Transit, no taxis allowed on the transit lanes. No bikes or other vehicular traffic of any kind.
5) Instead of a right curb to right curb left hand dedicated transit turn at 5th and Center, would it be acceptable if Transit completed three right hand turns at 5th/1st, 1st/6th, 6th/Centre?
6) Recognize that for transit and car geeks to get along, they might both have to toss the bike geeks under the bus. Specifically no bike only lanes on the Avenues with heavily unsafe situation on 5th and 6th Avenues.

How about this, 1 transit only lane, 1 HOV lane, the remaining lanes can be for your SOV. This leaves 75% of the road accessible to private vehicles and 50% for the least efficient mode of transportation on our roads today.

At some point a politician is going to have to make a decision that make this city better rather that following popular opinion. This comes down to efficient use of a scarce resource (road space), the more efficient the transportation mode the higher the priority it should get (i.e. transit before SOV's). If you don't like this I would gladly accept a user pay situation as well, you can pay by the km, prices will change depending on your location, the time you are driving, & how many people you are transporting.