Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Turning Centre Street into 36 St NE but with half the traffic lanes will definitely cause a backlash and for good reason; it will hugely affect traffic and create a massive barrier between the east and west for vehicles and pedestrians.

36th avenue doesn't have two parallel roads 600m in either direction. Nor does Centre street have massive industrial and retail centres on one side. 36th avenue carries 46K vehicles per day and Centre carries 16K (2010 traffic flow map stats). Pedestrians cross 7th avenue in the hundreds of thousands every single day. I am sure they can do the same on Centre.

Are left turns from Centre Street onto 26th, 18th or 22nd avenues that important. We could probably count the turn movements onto each avenue in the hundreds per day.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The decision between underground north of 16th and at grade has to be a political one. If you can commit to taking all buses off the road, two lanes for LRT wouldn't be such a huge loss. And from a purely rational perspective, you will gain a lot more corridor capacity than is lost.

To make the judgement call that the loss of road capacity would scuttle the project from a public outcry perspective is not one consultants can or should make.

It seems it should be a simpler argument than that. A Centre Street LRT at grade could be built. A subway will never be built. Take it or leave it.

[O-tacular]

Wow, the discussion on this thread seems to parallel the endless back and forth at the city level that is only making this project more complicated than it needs to be. In my mind the simplest solution is to do like Chadillac said and build it from McKnight to QP. The fact that they are looking at building the entire line in one go is the reason why it is rapidly becoming a 30 year project. Why can't they build it to serve the most crucial areas first, then add extensions when there's money later? I mean the biggest no-brainer to me is to run it to QP from DT and deal with the NC alignment later. At the pace these discussions are going we'll all be using fusion powered flying cars by the time this gets built.

[O-tacular]

I'm also beginning to wonder if the lower deck train cars are the way to go. From a fleet management perspective I'd think you'd want as many interchangeable cars as possible.

[Fuzz]

Is running the train up the middle of centre even possible? I just measured on Google, and found at minimum on 36th st it takes 23m for the train + 2 lanes of traffic, and the stations are over 27m with 2 lanes. Centre street is under 16m wide. So at minimum we would need 7 extra metres, more for stations, and that doesn't allow any space for left turn lanes at 12th and 16th.

Lets not forget if you take lanes from centre, people will use 4th NW until they are forced back onto centre at 12th, which will probably end up backed up to 16th in rush hour(as it already is some days). I can't see this at grade stuff making any sense whatsoever south of 20th ave.

[Policy Wonk]

I would think Centre Street at grade would require closing it to non-local traffic. But it could actually be built.

The terms of comparison are flawed, things that are actually doable are being judged against perfect case scenario, spared no expense fantasies and the fact that something is actually plausible does not appear to be reflected in the analysis.

What I want someone to explain is why it is different this time, in the 70's my parents were so confident that the Centre Street LRT was a done deal and soon to be built that they bought a house nearby. Other than the the stated preference of the powers that be going into this round, why of all the times this issue has been beaten to death, why is this refrain assumed to be actionable?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is running the train up the middle of centre even possible? I just measured on Google, and found at minimum on 36th st it takes 23m for the train + 2 lanes of traffic, and the stations are over 27m with 2 lanes. Centre street is under 16m wide. So at minimum we would need 7 extra metres, more for stations, and that doesn't allow any space for left turn lanes at 12th and 16th.

Lets not forget if you take lanes from centre, people will use 4th NW until they are forced back onto centre at 12th, which will probably end up backed up to 16th in rush hour(as it already is some days). I can't see this at grade stuff making any sense whatsoever south of 20th ave.

Centre street from 32nd ave to Memorial is 22.8m but with a road widening setback, it gets to be 30m (property line to property line). A low-floor LRV width can be as low as 2.7m (IIRC). So two LRV lanes would be ~6m. Add another 4m for a station platform (the sidewalk acts as the other platform) and you get 10m for the LRT. 2m sidewalks on either side leaves a road ROW of ~8.8m which can almost handle three lanes. Perhaps using the western two lanes is feasible with maintaining 3 traffic lanes. Stations can be at locations where the road widening has been taken.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Yep. We're the good ol' Conservative base, yet they only throw us crumbs. I guess they feel they can just count on our vote forever. Funny when I read your thing about the gangrene limb I was thinking more about the Federal Conservatives than Quebec.

Could apply to both

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is running the train up the middle of centre even possible? I just measured on Google, and found at minimum on 36th st it takes 23m for the train + 2 lanes of traffic, and the stations are over 27m with 2 lanes. Centre street is under 16m wide. So at minimum we would need 7 extra metres, more for stations, and that doesn't allow any space for left turn lanes at 12th and 16th.

Lets not forget if you take lanes from centre, people will use 4th NW until they are forced back onto centre at 12th, which will probably end up backed up to 16th in rush hour(as it already is some days). I can't see this at grade stuff making any sense whatsoever south of 20th ave.

With low floor trains you don't end up with as wide of a ROW as you do with high floor models, typically they would only be slightly wider than a typical lane. [Edit: Fusili has the numbers]

The stations are only a raised curb and can be <2 feet wide (if code will allow it), here's an example of a low floor station in Amsterdam [Streetview].

For the most part the two outer lanes of Center are not used by a significant number of vehicles as the bus volume is so high that you just get stuck behind them. Will it slow cars a bit sure, but the capacity of the roadway will grow exponentially with the introduction of the train.

IMO the comparisons to 36th looking at it wrong, if you implement low floor similar to Amsterdam you can cross the ROW at any point, and it would be nicer than crossing 7th or any other road in the city, stop look both ways and proceed when clear. I didn't truly understand the benefits of low floor until I visited Amsterdam, having stations that become part of the road way revolutionizes how you use transit, you can be walking a train pulls up and you hop on, there is no need to make a detour to get on the train (like you do on 36th). It also completely changes how it effects the street, with 36th it presents a barrier, low floor would be no more of a barrier than that of the existing roadway, in fact by reducing the width dedicated to cars you end up with a more friendly street than you would otherwise.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

Centre street from 32nd ave to Memorial is 22.8m but with a road widening setback, it gets to be 30m (property line to property line). A low-floor LRV width can be as low as 2.7m (IIRC). So two LRV lanes would be ~6m. Add another 4m for a station platform (the sidewalk acts as the other platform) and you get 10m for the LRT. 2m sidewalks on either side leaves a road ROW of ~8.8m which can almost handle three lanes. Perhaps using the western two lanes is feasible with maintaining 3 traffic lanes. Stations can be at locations where the road widening has been taken.

8.8 meters could handle 2 lanes and a parking lane. Minimum lane widths are 3.3 meters. So 6.6m for 2 lanes, and a 2.2m parking lane.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

130 Ave and south is three suburban stations on a SE portion that is entirely within a dedicated ROW. The difference between high floor and low floor is nominal for the SE.

The report suggesting at grade north of 16 Ave is the entire debate. It is deeply flawed, it arbitrarily gives additional points to at grade in various categories. This includes an instance where at grade is given additional points over underground for the portion north of Beddington Trail where both options follow the same at grade ROW in the median of Harvest Hills Boulevard. Basically the report was written so as to favour predetermined routes. Even still it notes that additional grade separation would be needed. It is hardly the final word on deciding that the NC LRT will run in street.

Turning Centre Street into 36 St NE but with half the traffic lanes will definitely cause a backlash and for good reason; it will hugely affect traffic and create a massive barrier between the east and west for vehicles and pedestrians.

Low floor systems involve 15% higher costs to vehicle maintenance and 20% higher costs for track maintenance. The vehicles are also generally more expensive. The designs of low floor vehicles involve real compromises that affect performance. Combine that with all of the synergies that a unified fleet allows and there is no reason to create a second low floor system in Calgary. Low floor systems might make sense in routes that swing closer to the streetcar end of the spectrum in cities that lack preexisting routes, which isn't Calgary, isn't the SE LRT, and shouldn't be the NC LRT.

For me and I would argue for Calgary's best interest the advantages around the integration in the street out weight the additional costs that come with the second type. An additional thought is that there is potential that at some point you could convert the other two lines to low floor (I know pie in sky!) to bring the system back to a single type.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Another thing about the tunnel vs at grade for the NCLRT that I noted:

Both options have their downsides, council’s transportation committee was told Wednesday. Charting across the 98-year-old bridge will take out two lanes of traffic on a heavily used crossing, and engineers aren’t certain yet whether the structure could handle trains.

Before choosing either option, this should be studied first and foremost .. Otherwise it will put the argument to rest really

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by fusili

Centre street from 32nd ave to Memorial is 22.8m but with a road widening setback, it gets to be 30m (property line to property line). A low-floor LRV width can be as low as 2.7m (IIRC). So two LRV lanes would be ~6m. Add another 4m for a station platform (the sidewalk acts as the other platform) and you get 10m for the LRT. 2m sidewalks on either side leaves a road ROW of ~8.8m which can almost handle three lanes. Perhaps using the western two lanes is feasible with maintaining 3 traffic lanes. Stations can be at locations where the road widening has been taken.

Not to doubt you, I just don't understand the numbers. Lane widths are about 3m(Centre street bridge is 12.6m, so this makes sense). I'm not sure how this comes to 22.8m? Unless you count sidewalk width, but its still a big stretch to 30m.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

With low floor trains you don't end up with as wide of a ROW as you do with high floor models, typically they would only be slightly wider than a typical lane. [Edit: Fusili has the numbers]

The stations are only a raised curb and can be <2 feet wide (if code will allow it), here's an example of a low floor station in Amsterdam [Streetview].

For the most part the two outer lanes of Center are not used by a significant number of vehicles as the bus volume is so high that you just get stuck behind them. Will it slow cars a bit sure, but the capacity of the roadway will grow exponentially with the introduction of the train.

IMO the comparisons to 36th looking at it wrong, if you implement low floor similar to Amsterdam you can cross the ROW at any point, and it would be nicer than crossing 7th or any other road in the city, stop look both ways and proceed when clear. I didn't truly understand the benefits of low floor until I visited Amsterdam, having stations that become part of the road way revolutionizes how you use transit, you can be walking a train pulls up and you hop on, there is no need to make a detour to get on the train (like you do on 36th). It also completely changes how it effects the street, with 36th it presents a barrier, low floor would be no more of a barrier than that of the existing roadway, in fact by reducing the width dedicated to cars you end up with a more friendly street than you would otherwise.

I've been to Amsterdam as well, and that is not a low floor LRT.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The decision between underground north of 16th and at grade has to be a political one. If you can commit to taking all buses off the road, two lanes for LRT wouldn't be such a huge loss. And from a purely rational perspective, you will gain a lot more corridor capacity than is lost.

To make the judgement call that the loss of road capacity would scuttle the project from a public outcry perspective is not one consultants can or should make.

This is a great point only those elected can make a decision like this, but it also leads into Policy Wonk's comments:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It seems it should be a simpler argument than that. A Centre Street LRT at grade could be built. A subway will never be built. Take it or leave it.

I agree, I think the at grade is likely the only option that can even possibly be considered from a likely to be approved perspective

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I would think Centre Street at grade would require closing it to non-local traffic. But it could actually be built.

The terms of comparison are flawed, things that are actually doable are being judged against perfect case scenario, spared no expense fantasies and the fact that something is actually plausible does not appear to be reflected in the analysis.

What I want someone to explain is why it is different this time, in the 70's my parents were so confident that the Centre Street LRT was a done deal and soon to be built that they bought a house nearby. Other than the the stated preference of the powers that be going into this round, why of all the times this issue has been beaten to death, why is this refrain assumed to be actionable?

I would hope that this time there is the political will, but it's true this line has been suggested and in some level of proposal for years and yet we don't have even bus lanes for 99% of the line.

[mellbell416]

Given all these running controversies, where is the transit improvement money going to be spent over the next 5 years? Just when you think the city is getting somewhere, suddenly everything takes a left turn and it's off for yet more studies...

North LRT seems to be destined for more agonizing for a while (maybe decades). So is money over the next 5 years going into the Green Line BRT? Or, cancel that and go full-tilt for the SE LRT? What about the other BRTs like the South Crosstown route?

It is exhausting trying to keep up with the transit improvement plans!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

Another thing about the tunnel vs at grade for the NCLRT that I noted:



Before choosing either option, this should be studied first and foremost .. Otherwise it will put the argument to rest really

That's the other thing, do we really want to be putting our newest piece of infrastructure on a 100 year old bridge? In 50 years, is that going to be the best decision?

The other thing with eliminating 2 traffic lanes is its worse than that due to the lane reversal. By going from 4 down to 2, in rush hour you are really going from 3 lanes down to 1 in the main flow direction.


This seams like a typical Calgary decision. Build it once, then rebuild it again in 20 or 30 years when it costs 5x as much, creates 10x the headache, and they do it how it should have been done the first time. Someone on this forum said it well a while ago, we don't ever have the money to do it right, but we have the money to do it twice.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

we don't ever have the money to do it right, but we have the money to do it twice.

Too much real life...

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

8.8 meters could handle 2 lanes and a parking lane. Minimum lane widths are 3.3 meters. So 6.6m for 2 lanes, and a 2.2m parking lane.

Thanks.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've been to Amsterdam as well, and that is not a low floor LRT.

Are you talking about the trams, or the Metro?