Calgary Public Transit II

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Those are not solutions, you just don't consider them problems. In any event that is creating our own mini Transit City debacle complete with some buffoon who will be promising a subway.

I'm not sure how a description of the technical elements that are and could be used to produce an acceptable level of LRT service is anything but a solution. It's like you're hungry, walk into the kitchen and see bread, butter, ham and cheese and proclaim that that isn't solutions, it's just ways to not consider how hungry you are.

Now if I remember correctly, the Transit City debacle concerned stopping projects that were designed in detail, funded and under construction -- three things that you assure us with every second breath the NCLRT will never be within our natural lives.

Either the NCLRT is a far-off pipe dream, in which the planning of an alignment does no harm, or it's about to be built and the spectre of Transit City should keep us sticking to the plan -- which by the way, isn't Nose Creek anymore.

[Policy Wonk]

Yes, I would characterize that as a disastrous outcome. A combination of every bad compromise that could possibly be made.

But it would also elect some bozo promising a Centre Street subway that they couldn't deliver.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'm not sure how a description of the technical elements that are and could be used to produce an acceptable level of LRT service is anything but a solution.

A solution that would be inherently unacceptable to every other stakeholder isn't a solution. In isolation you can make anything work, but Centre Street is anything but isolated.

Now if I remember correctly, the Transit City debacle concerned stopping projects that were designed in detail, funded and under construction -- three things that you assure us with every second breath the NCLRT will never be within our natural lives.

You're dodging the issue. Politics will shape this as much as anything else does.

Either the NCLRT is a far-off pipe dream, in which the planning of an alignment does no harm, or it's about to be built and the spectre of Transit City should keep us sticking to the plan -- which by the way, isn't Nose Creek anymore.

My parents bought a house in the 1970's based on a line on a map depicting a Centre Street LRT. This process is no more sacrosanct than the ones that placed it on Centre Street before or Nose Creek subsequently.

Maybe things will change, maybe the whole blue-eyed sheiks business will work out and the world really will pay $250 a barrel for our oil sludge. And maybe then Edmonton will shower us in funding for every scheme we can put to PDF. But till then lets not waste time on fantasy projects. At this time the priority should be an implementation level shakedown of the SELRT. Not dreaming about tunnels traversing downtown and half way up Centre Street when even the 8th Ave Subway seems unattainable. But for the time being the only sure thing is Danielle Smith and her entourage of rural focused hillbillies are looming.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have been asking you guys to explain for some time what is fundamentally unsound about these conclusions found in the 2006 North Central Corridor Review and so far nobody has done so beyond stating that because the current mayor and council is more "urban minded" they would just forge ahead anyway without regard for other users of the right-of-way.

This was it?? This was what has had you convinced this entire time? That the LRT won't operate at high speeds? We have enough riders on current buses on Centre Street today to justify an LRT (IIRC ~30K). On slow, stuck-in-traffic buses. With 30K riders. We have full buses on the fastest headways in the city. Solving just the capacity issue alone is probably enough to justify an LRT. We could have 30K riders on day one with not a second of speed improvement. Heck, Seattle's LRT line a ridership of 30K and it is considered a success.

With median lanes, signal pre-emption (which the report mentions as if it is the end of the world as if no other line has that already), LRT (and a BRT) can operate at speeds that are better than today. Not ideal, but they do improve things. And yeah, some side streets will be closed at Centre Street. It is not like through traffic at 27th avenue or 34th or 19th or 22nd is great anyway.

So, in your mind, we can't sacrifice a bit of speed for the following:
- Being able to serve the 100K people living south of Beddington, which the Nose Creek alignment entirely misses
- Having the opportunity to have a transfer with a 16th avenue crosstown BRT, which the Nose Creek alignment cannot do in any functional way
- Sharing an alignment with the SE LRT, enabling single seat trips for those accessing employment areas along either line
- Not interlining with the NE LRT, thus not requiring a 7th avenue subway, and saving billions
- Having a production LRT line for the first 10km, which the Nose Creek will not be in any way at all

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

This was it?? This was what has had you convinced this entire time? That the LRT won't operate at high speeds? We have enough riders on current buses on Centre Street today to justify an LRT (IIRC ~30K). On slow, stuck-in-traffic buses. With 30K riders. We have full buses on the fastest headways in the city. Solving just the capacity issue alone is probably enough to justify an LRT. We could have 30K riders on day one with not a second of speed improvement. Heck, Seattle's LRT line a ridership of 30K and it is considered a success.

This document outlines issues that were in 2006 considered to be unacceptable in any of the identified ROW's and with the exception of 4th Street the same ROW's being considered today.

Your's and others position is that these would merely be tolerated today. I think that is pretty far fetched outside of a clique that relishes the idea of taking away traffic lanes. I further believe this would create a situation where some crackpot will get elected promising the ever-popular but unattainable Centre Street subway.

So, in your mind, we can't sacrifice a bit of speed for the following:
- Being able to serve the 100K people living south of Beddington, which the Nose Creek alignment entirely misses
- Having the opportunity to have a transfer with a 16th avenue crosstown BRT, which the Nose Creek alignment cannot do in any functional way
- Sharing an alignment with the SE LRT, enabling single seat trips for those accessing employment areas along either line
- Not interlining with the NE LRT, thus not requiring a 7th avenue subway, and saving billions
- Having a production LRT line for the first 10km, which the Nose Creek will not be in any way at all

In my mind the NCLRT as commuter rail for the communities North of Beddington Trail is a fundamentally sound proposition and builds on the strategy that has made the LRT so successful. The continued development of those Northern communities is not really in doubt. Significant intensification of Centre Street on the other hand seems far fetched.

In my mind there will never be a shared alignment with the SELRT, linking the two is an insurmountable cost to no particularly productive end justifying that cost. The SELRT will be built at grade and run through downtown on the old CPR station grounds. Further my belief has not changed that 7th Ave will be grade separated long before any variation on the NCLRT is built. You are on the record as disagreeing with me on that. I can believe it or not live with that.

But this ultimately gets back to the whole timing issue, you seem to speak of all this in extremely present terms. Other than a no-frills SELRT I don't perceive these things happening until mid-century in a much larger city.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

This document outlines issues that were in 2006 considered to be unacceptable in any of the identified ROW's and with the exception of 4th Street the same ROW's being considered today.

Your's and others position is that these would merely be tolerated today. I think that is pretty far fetched outside of a clique that relishes the idea of taking away traffic lanes. I further believe this would create a situation where some crackpot will get elected promising the ever-popular but unattainable Centre Street subway.



In my mind the NCLRT as commuter rail for the communities North of Beddington Trail is a fundamentally sound proposition and builds on the strategy that has made the LRT so successful. The continued development of those Northern communities is not really in doubt. Significant intensification of Centre Street on the other hand seems far fetched.

In my mind there will never be a shared alignment with the SELRT, linking the two is an insurmountable cost to no particularly productive end justifying that cost. The SELRT will be built at grade and run through downtown on the old CPR station grounds. Further my belief has not changed that 7th Ave will be grade separated long before any variation on the NCLRT is built. You are on the record as disagreeing with me on that. I can believe it or not live with that.

But this ultimately gets back to the whole timing issue, you seem to speak of all this in extremely present terms. Other than a no-frills SELRT I don't perceive these things happening until mid-century in a much larger city.

Three items:

1. You base your entire LRT belief system on the SDBDS premise. This ignores the current intensification taking place along the Centre St, Edmonton Tr, & 4th St corridors. As well it ignores the continued change in ideas around what the purpose of a LRT/Rapid Transit system can do. The city has recognized that transit can drive development has identified this as a key benefit when selecting a NCLRT route (you would realize this if you had read the most recent report which clearly you didn't).

2. The SE is at best going to get a dedicated busway, once that is in place there will be zero reason to upgrade as there won't be sufficient demand nor will there be sufficient improvement from BRT to LRT to justify the upgrade in either travel time or comfort. Outside of a random politico move that is.

3. As Fusili points out the ridership along Centre is currently sufficient to outperform the westLRT on day one, if we can't build LRT for the people that use it on a daily basis. Why would we build it for those that don't. The SE has plenty of other transportation choices that seem to get people DT each day without much issue, is having a rapid transit alternative going to radically change that, nope, not a chance in hell, the folks that live in that area choose the area for a reason, transit wasn't one of them.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

People are being priced out of traditional homes by a real estate bubble.

This whole song and dance played out in Toronto in the 80's during their first condo bubble. When the market crashed Downtown Toronto was hit disproportionately hard and condos sat empty for years unsaleable at half their bubble price.

Right, have you looked at the homes being built and selling in the inner city? These are not condos they are 800k-1M dollar family homes. If your proposition was correct the only building types we would see going up are condos. Sure some people can't afford a SFH in the inner city, but some of us would rather live in the inner city and live in a smaller home than live in some far flung area with a brutal commute and have a bigger house. We also recognize that by living in the inner city our families have access to amenities that the newly constructed areas won't see for 15-20 years if their lucky.

My community has a pool, ice rink, 3 schools, and a shopping area within walking distance, not to mention at least half a dozen parks and quick access to confederation park and downtown is only a quick walk/bike/bus ride away. Does your far flung suburb have those? Sure it might have some green space, but the only place to get groceries is a 20 min drive and getting downtown to work requires an hour+ long commute.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

This document outlines issues that were in 2006 considered to be unacceptable in any of the identified ROW's and with the exception of 4th Street the same ROW's being considered today.

Your's and others position is that these would merely be tolerated today. I think that is pretty far fetched outside of a clique that relishes the idea of taking away traffic lanes.

You think this is pretty far fetched yet you mentioned earlier that before building the West LRT the City had to update its previous studies. Just like with the West LRT, situations and technology develop offering old solutions new life. The capacity issues the Fusili mentioned are important developments that can change things.

[Socguy]

I've been sitting here thinking about alternatives to the Stepen ave subway and I've had a thought. Would a cheaper alternative be to create car underpasses under 7th ave, kind of like the new 4th street underpass in the EV? Not all the streets mind you, I'm thinking only 2-3 major ones. Obviously it would be tricky because the city would not be able to interrupt the operation of the c-train but at the end of the day that's really just an engineering problem.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that by strategically eliminating 3 intersections from the downtown line and creating free flowing car movement under the tracks:
-the city can get much more aggressive with the remaining intersections in terms of train priority and signal timings thereby substantially improving reliability and timing of trains moving through DT.
-The city could potentially have room to run 5 car trains along 7th ave as platforms could extend over the underpasses.
-The underpasses could be completed in stages, creating incremental improvements to both train operation and vehicle traffic without the city having to come up with a billion dollars for a subway.
-less opportunity for idiots to turn onto the track or play chicken with red lights and trains.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Socguy

I've been sitting here thinking about alternatives to the Stepen ave subway and I've had a thought. Would a cheaper alternative be to create car underpasses under 7th ave, kind of like the new 4th street underpass in the EV? Not all the streets mind you, I'm thinking only 2-3 major ones. Obviously it would be tricky because the city would not be able to interrupt the operation of the c-train but at the end of the day that's really just an engineering problem.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that by strategically eliminating 3 intersections from the downtown line and creating free flowing car movement under the tracks:
-the city can get much more aggressive with the remaining intersections in terms of train priority and signal timings thereby substantially improving reliability and timing of trains moving through DT.
-The city could potentially have room to run 5 car trains along 7th ave as platforms could extend over the underpasses.
-The underpasses could be completed in stages, creating incremental improvements to both train operation and vehicle traffic without the city having to come up with a billion dollars for a subway.
-less opportunity for idiots to turn onto the track or play chicken with red lights and trains.

The primary issue is the interlining of 201 & 202, causing a capacity issue, while your solution would help slightly it likely wouldn't solve the issue in the same way.

As well underpasses have historically a fairly hostile environment for pedestrians, not to say it couldn't be done better.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Right, have you looked at the homes being built and selling in the inner city? These are not condos they are 800k-1M dollar family homes.

They have been building luxury inner city infills since I was a child. There will always be people who desire and are willing to pay for that lifestyle. Just as there will always be people willing to pay for an acreage.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Riise

You think this is pretty far fetched yet you mentioned earlier that before building the West LRT the City had to update its previous studies. Just like with the West LRT, situations and technology develop offering old solutions new life. The capacity issues the Fusili mentioned are important developments that can change things.

There are no new solutions for Centre Street at grade. Just terrible compromises that were long understood to be unacceptable. People with no responsibility who might not even be alive to make the final pitch suggesting something well understood to be unacceptable is a potential alternative is absolutely meaningless.

Push that in the real world and we're in Transit City territory where the project dies at the hands of a demagogue with a catch phrase about subways but no real solution. The idea of a Centre Street subway is popular and that would get traction.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Three items:

1. You base your entire LRT belief system on the SDBDS premise. This ignores the current intensification taking place along the Centre St, Edmonton Tr, & 4th St corridors. As well it ignores the continued change in ideas around what the purpose of a LRT/Rapid Transit system can do. The city has recognized that transit can drive development has identified this as a key benefit when selecting a NCLRT route (you would realize this if you had read the most recent report which clearly you didn't).

And I don't think that is enough. If I thought there was some future for Centre Street that looked like Yonge Street, which is a strip of density you can see from space I would think there was a very strong case for a Centre Street subway. But seeing as genocide is frowned upon that isn't going to happen. There is a big difference between a handful of street facing condos and infills. And even today there are single family infills being built in close proximity to the Bloor line in Toronto.

2. The SE is at best going to get a dedicated busway, once that is in place there will be zero reason to upgrade as there won't be sufficient demand nor will there be sufficient improvement from BRT to LRT to justify the upgrade in either travel time or comfort. Outside of a random politico move that is.

I just might agree with you on that, but politics will dictate otherwise.

3. As Fusili points out the ridership along Centre is currently sufficient to outperform the westLRT on day one, if we can't build LRT for the people that use it on a daily basis. Why would we build it for those that don't. The SE has plenty of other transportation choices that seem to get people DT each day without much issue, is having a rapid transit alternative going to radically change that, nope, not a chance in hell, the folks that live in that area choose the area for a reason, transit wasn't one of them.

I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't generate an acceptable ROW out of thin air or funding. But I still think open discussion of the idea of foregoing a SELRT is wildly unproductive. There is no such decision to be made in any political time frame. We don't need our own Scarborough Subway constituency either.

I know you guys have an extremely dialectical world view, but stoking a decades long battle over the SELRT will be disastrous.

[MalcolmTucker]

The only problem is money, but it isn't a real problem. As long as council can prioritize in the daughter of MSI era there will be enough to finish the core network of LRT (Green Line and 8th Ave Subway). That might mean not building new rec centres for 5 or 10 years, redoing whatever we should call the Epcor Centre, funding an annex to the Art/Planetarium, and other nice to haves.

If we are going to suffer a huge economic collapse who cares then? If it is big enough it will alleviate demand and give more breathing room. Can't plan on everything going belly up.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There are no new solutions for Centre Street at grade. Just terrible compromises that were long understood to be unacceptable.

As capacity is now an issue, at grade-LRT is a solution. If anything, continued use of buses and BRT would be deemed unacceptable in an updated study.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The primary issue is the interlining of 201 & 202, causing a capacity issue, while your solution would help slightly it likely wouldn't solve the issue in the same way.

As well underpasses have historically a fairly hostile environment for pedestrians, not to say it couldn't be done better.

I totally agree that separating the lines with a subway is the optimal solution, I'm just not sure it's ever going to get built. Besides, if the city is able to secure the money to build a subway I would far rather see that subway built up center street and the green line given the go.

I also agree that underpasses have historically been hostile to pedestrians but I suspect that was a product of the thinking in the time they were built rather than an inherent feature of underpasses... exhibit A is our latest underpass. Besides, just because cars are going under doesn't necessarily mean that we can't let pedestrians still cross at ground level. Done right I think this is something that the city realistically could undertake in the next 5-10 years and could help more than a bit especially if trains were given automatic priority at the remaining crossings.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Riise

As capacity is now an issue, at grade-LRT is a solution. If anything, continued use of buses and BRT would be deemed unacceptable in an updated study.

It is only a solution in absolute isolation. Maybe if Calgary had built more freeways re-imagining the role of Centre Street would be a possibility, but we didn't.

And it wouldn't be considered a solution by the public at large, it would just be another encore of the Centre Street subway song and dance.

[Fuzz]

I'm tempted to suggest they go with the nose creek alignment ASAP with a plan to one day have a branch down centre. They could then run express trains up nose creek and build a proper subway to link in when money is available. Bus service could handle the south section until then.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm tempted to suggest they go with the nose creek alignment ASAP with a plan to one day have a branch down centre. They could then run express trains up nose creek and build a proper subway to link in when money is available. Bus service could handle the south section until then.

That had been my proposed solution from at least two years ago. Unfortunately, the mindless Rob Ford subway lobby had larger megaphones.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm tempted to suggest they go with the nose creek alignment ASAP with a plan to one day have a branch down centre. They could then run express trains up nose creek and build a proper subway to link in when money is available. Bus service could handle the south section until then.

Since the objective of the line appears to be to provide the northern suburbs with a commuter LRT line, then the Nose Creek alignment is the best anyway. Running the line down Centre St (especially at surface) confuses its role and it won't perform any function optimally.

Running up Nose Creek needs the 7th Ave Subway first though.