Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't get me wrong, as a resident of Mount Pleasant myself, I do enjoy living close to 3 transit corridors (my transit access would be worse if the LRT is completed). But over 50% of the people moved along center are on a bus, this demands dedicated resources. Even when those resources are put in place there will be times during the day when that dedicated resource is near or at capacity.

From a economics stand point the NCLRT makes more sense that the SELRT. Between current ridership and the redevelopment potential the NC has the SE beat from the start. That said the SE does need better transit, I just don't believe that an LRT is the right choice for that route, given the current demand a proper BRT is the right choice, when the demand reaches the capacity of the BRT upgrade. But this shouldn't come at the expense of the NC transit corridor.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

From a economics stand point the NCLRT makes more sense that the SELRT. Between current ridership and the redevelopment potential the NC has the SE beat from the start. That said the SE does need better transit, I just don't believe that an LRT is the right choice for that route, given the current demand a proper BRT is the right choice, when the demand reaches the capacity of the BRT upgrade. But this shouldn't come at the expense of the NC transit corridor.

Fractured land ownership of very small parcels, and a large, well entrenched NIMBY population is better than the SE?

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

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.

Maybe he is? Perhaps the people of his ward don't want a large, noisy train (and the years of construction hassle associated with it) running through their neighbourhoods. Just because a select group of people on an internet forum want something, doesn't mean the general public does too (not saying it has to be the opposite, just that I haven't seen a survey of people in his ward with the results saying they specifically want the NCLRT).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Fractured land ownership of very small parcels, and a large, well entrenched NIMBY population is better than the SE?

Fractured ownership doesn't matter when all you need is a 50 x 120 to put 4 units on. Centre street itself can be used for midrise, but the rest of the area can just be low-rise rowhouses and townhouses.

Here are the redevelopment potential for all the SE LRT stations:

Inglewood: Good.
Crossroads: None. All industrial
Highfield: None. All industrial
Lynwood: None. Heavy metal contamination. They are building a park here.
Ogden: Limited. Industrial to the east.
South Hill: Limited. Industrial to the east. Some opportunities to the west.
Quarry Park: Limited. Station will be on an existing landfill. Provincially mandated setbacks for any residential, schools, hospitals or food services.
Douglas Glen: Perhaps some.
48th Street: Not sure about the setbacks from the Phospho-gypsum stacks to the north.
Prestwick: Mostly built out already.
McKenzie Towne: Mostly built out already
Seton: YAY!!!! TOD!!!!

Where is this huge TOD potential people talk about on the SE LRT??

[MichaelS]

Well, just quickly there is this land:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=50.933848,-113.968585&spn=0.012238,0.01929&t=h&z=16

All vacant (with a land use application in I think) in the NE corner of Deerfoot and 130th ave. Could be quite dense as that is the location of a future train station. And I would say the huge retail lots already in the existing area have very large potential (as much as any of our existing train station TOD areas).

But I guess it is worth the billions spent on a NCLRT for redevelopment if we are able to get some 4 plexs.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Well, just quickly there is this land:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=50.933848,-113.968585&spn=0.012238,0.01929&t=h&z=16

All vacant (with a land use application in I think) in the NE corner of Deerfoot and 130th ave. Could be quite dense as that is the location of a future train station. And I would say the huge retail lots already in the existing area have very large potential (as much as any of our existing train station TOD areas).

But I guess it is worth the billions spent on a NCLRT for redevelopment if we are able to get some 4 plexs.

Quick answer: Sewage Lagoon, Landfill and Gypsum stack setbacks. Have fun with those.

No land use applications in the area.

[Bassic Lab]

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)

Who in this city is going to complain about the subway having 125m platforms instead of 100m? We've been building 100m platforms for the last decade while running 75m trains and I have never heard a single complaint about. People might complain about the entire project, though I think the severity is exaggerated (the only real complaints will come from the SE if 8 Ave goes first), but they won't give a damn about 25m of platform.

That subway routing just doesn't make much sense for the N-SE, or anything else really.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by fusili

Fractured ownership doesn't matter when all you need is a 50 x 120 to put 4 units on. Centre street itself can be used for midrise, but the rest of the area can just be low-rise rowhouses and townhouses.

Here are the redevelopment potential for all the SE LRT stations:

Inglewood: Good.
Crossroads: None. All industrial
Highfield: None. All industrial
Lynwood: None. Heavy metal contamination. They are building a park here.
Ogden: Limited. Industrial to the east.
South Hill: Limited. Industrial to the east. Some opportunities to the west.
Quarry Park: Limited. Station will be on an existing landfill. Provincially mandated setbacks for any residential, schools, hospitals or food services.
Douglas Glen: Perhaps some.
48th Street: Not sure about the setbacks from the Phospho-gypsum stacks to the north.
Prestwick: Mostly built out already.
McKenzie Towne: Mostly built out already
Seton: YAY!!!! TOD!!!!

Where is this huge TOD potential people talk about on the SE LRT??

I'd argue that there is long-term potential for several of the sites your disregarded, but I understand your point in relation to the NCLRT. There is probably moderate office potential too, which can drive up ridership more than residential. The main issue is that the SE can't have good transit without billions of dollars in investment.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by fusili

Fractured ownership doesn't matter when all you need is a 50 x 120 to put 4 units on. Centre street itself can be used for midrise, but the rest of the area can just be low-rise rowhouses and townhouses.

Here are the redevelopment potential for all the SE LRT stations:

Inglewood: Good.
Crossroads: None. All industrial
Highfield: None. All industrial
Lynwood: None. Heavy metal contamination. They are building a park here.
Ogden: Limited. Industrial to the east.
South Hill: Limited. Industrial to the east. Some opportunities to the west.
Quarry Park: Limited. Station will be on an existing landfill. Provincially mandated setbacks for any residential, schools, hospitals or food services.
Douglas Glen: Perhaps some.
48th Street: Not sure about the setbacks from the Phospho-gypsum stacks to the north.
Prestwick: Mostly built out already.
McKenzie Towne: Mostly built out already
Seton: YAY!!!! TOD!!!!

Where is this huge TOD potential people talk about on the SE LRT??

Can I interject a couple of questions here?

-I believe they’re planning on putting a station near the Crossroads market, so wouldn’t they also want to rezone that area to allow for redevelopment? Market right there. Close to Ramsey and Inglewood. There’s quite a bit of other redevelopment going on between there and Ramsey/Inglewood right now. There’s a big chunk of unused city land I believe just west of there.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=inglewood...Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&z=16

-I believe they’re also planning a stop at Lynnwood. Would it make sense to do some more intensive rehabilitation near that station for the purpose of putting in some dense residential? The park would be a plus for that residential, then. The river would also be right there. Transit would give great access to downtown, and to the QP, Seton, etc.

-Ogden. I’ve heard that as well as moving its head office there CP is looking to redevelop of their land there. Have you heard anything about this?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'd argue that there is long-term potential for several of the sites your disregarded, but I understand your point in relation to the NCLRT. There is probably moderate office potential too, which can drive up ridership more than residential. The main issue is that the SE can't have good transit without billions of dollars in investment.

The point I am making is that there seems to be this idea that TOD works best on sites that are completely isolated from everything or require

Honestly, think about two options.
1. You can buy part of a fourplex, a duplex or the like on an established residential street, adjacent to an existing commercial corridor with services, and close to a park. Or
2. You can buy into a new building with nothing around it except a landfill, light industrial and a power centre.

I have no idea why we think complex, contaminated sites adjacent to industrial land are that much more attractive than existing neighbourhoods for TOD. Existing communities can densify quite significantly using established block patterns and fragmented ownership. Altadore/South Calgary is a terrific example (not talking about the Garrison Woods part). The best part is, it can be done by dozens of different developers and builders over a long period of time so that populations increase gradually. TOD doesn't mean block busting or large scale displacement.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Fractured land ownership of very small parcels, and a large, well entrenched NIMBY population is better than the SE?

And this has better redevelopment potential? Oh and you have to travel 10+km to get there too. The redevelopment potential on center starts at the top of the hill.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Allan83

Can I interject a couple of questions here?

-I believe they’re planning on putting a station near the Crossroads market, so wouldn’t they also want to rezone that area to allow for redevelopment? Market right there. Close to Ramsey and Inglewood. There’s quite a bit of other redevelopment going on between there and Ramsey/Inglewood right now. There’s a big chunk of unused city land I believe just west of there.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=inglewood...Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&t=h&z=16

-I believe they’re also planning a stop at Lynnwood. Would it make sense to do some more intensive rehabilitation near that station for the purpose of putting in some dense residential? The park would be a plus for that residential, then. The river would also be right there. Transit would give great access to downtown, and to the QP, Seton, etc.

-Ogden. I’ve heard that as well as moving its head office there CP is looking to redevelop of their land there. Have you heard anything about this?

Agreed on Crossroads. New Urban owns the Ramsay exchange site and there is definitely a potential for more residential there. Challenge is connecting to the station across the traffic circle/CP tracks.

Lynnwood is an issue I don't know enough about. AFAIK, the soil is contaminated with heavy metals. The park they are building is great, but my understanding is that is pretty much all they can build there given the soil.

Ogden- Yup, there is going to be office there for CP.


My point is that the SE LRT is by far the absolute worst line for TOD. Compare it to the NW line, the South line or the NE line, and it becomes obvious. Compare Brentwood, Lion's Park, Dalhousie, Heritage, Anderson, Chinook to any station on the SE line and it is not even a contest.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

My point is that the SE LRT is by far the absolute worst line for TOD. Compare it to the NW line, the South line or the NE line, and it becomes obvious. Compare Brentwood, Lion's Park, Dalhousie, Heritage, Anderson, Chinook to any station on the SE line and it is not even a contest.

I totally agree with you. I also think the NC LRT would have a very high ridership, but if the NC and SE LRT were to be built tomorrow which of the two do you think would take more cars off the road?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

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.

Likely cheaper to just buy a custom train set instead of extending the length adinfinitum. As you grow underground stations costs do not increase in a linear way as at certain thresholds you have to increase safety requirements. Also, a tunnel with 125 metre trains will have 4 to 5 times the current capacity as the NW/S line currently has, without special equipment. Not sure it is needed.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by fusili

The point I am making is that there seems to be this idea that TOD works best on sites that are completely isolated from everything or require

Honestly, think about two options.
1. You can buy part of a fourplex, a duplex or the like on an established residential street, adjacent to an existing commercial corridor with services, and close to a park. Or
2. You can buy into a new building with nothing around it except a landfill, light industrial and a power centre.

I have no idea why we think complex, contaminated sites adjacent to industrial land are that much more attractive than existing neighbourhoods for TOD. Existing communities can densify quite significantly using established block patterns and fragmented ownership. Altadore/South Calgary is a terrific example (not talking about the Garrison Woods part). The best part is, it can be done by dozens of different developers and builders over a long period of time so that populations increase gradually. TOD doesn't mean block busting or large scale displacement.

"Development potential" can be a bit misleading as a reason for a certain station location. The point is that land use practices in these areas are unlikely to ever improve without better infrastructure, in spite of being relatively central. I'm being careful not to oversell any such potential. Were it not for a large population in the far SE, obviously we wouldn't be considering a line through there. Contrast this to the north-central corridor where demand alone will keep these neighbourhoods vibrant for the foreseeable future. It comes down to what we believe the point of transit is: to enable more people to commute downtown? to develop community and connected spirit? to be politically inclusive? to keep commuters comfortable? to reduce emissions? to give us more time with our families? There is no one answer.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I totally agree with you. I also think the NC LRT would have a very high ridership, but if the NC and SE LRT were to be built tomorrow which of the two do you think would take more cars off the road?

Is that the ideal end goal? Should we focus on converting drivers to riders at the expense of the current riders? The whole system starts to look a bit like a pyramid scheme if we continue on that.

The other consideration that needs to be taken into account is are we passively encouraging people to live far from their places of work by the design of our transit system (hub and spoke)?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

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.

What are you talking about, this has been a subject of almost endless public debate for more than thirty years.

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.

Because this isn't Waziristan and we aren't supposed to be particularistic waring factions?

[MalcolmTucker]

I think we shouldn't try to put councillors into boxes like this. He might not agree with using existing funding for NCLRT since it isn't enough to build a useful system, or using council approved tax increases to fund transit expansion, but that doesn't mean he won't be swayed by the appeal of going to the people. If voters agreed to fund it, I don't think he would be opposed. Using a voter approved project specific tax is very much in the conservative tradition. Voters accepting or rejecting the tax to fund it would present a clear choice on costs versus benefits.

Personally I think the people would side with transit funding.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Likely cheaper to just buy a custom train set instead of extending the length adinfinitum. As you grow underground stations costs do not increase in a linear way as at certain thresholds you have to increase safety requirements. Also, a tunnel with 125 metre trains will have 4 to 5 times the current capacity as the NW/S line currently has, without special equipment. Not sure it is needed.

Grade separation downtown and the removal of the interlining could increase the capacity of the system to the point where it could handle a dramatic increase in ridership before being pushed to the 5 car length and it's associated issues.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I totally agree with you. I also think the NC LRT would have a very high ridership, but if the NC and SE LRT were to be built tomorrow which of the two do you think would take more cars off the road?

Not sure. I think we can make a better estimation if we took catchment populations, looked at current ridership data, compared to ridership data for communities with LRT and then figured out a range of potential ridership increases.

I.e. if Tuxedo has a population of 6K, has transit ridership of 8%, but can be assumed to rise to 12% because it is comparable to Banff Trail, then we can assume 240 new transit customers from that community (all these numbers are made up BTW).

That is the best way I can think of answering that question with available data. Huge assumptions in this model though. Anybody want to give it a go?