Calgary Public Transit II

[Full Mountain]

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.

If you're going to go Nose Creek, don't put a stop till closer to 64th. Leave the area south of there to be served by the existing bus service with upgraded facilities on Centre.

You could keep most of the the bis routes south of 96th the same with the northern terminus being a cross over station at 96th where the 301, 300, the local routes, and the LRT could meet.

The 301 would turn around and head south, the 300 would continue on it's route allowing people to transfer.

On the south end, don't bother going DT, just have a crossover station at the zoo and head south through Inglewood and join the planned ROW there.

Basically you would get a system that would get people from the south of the city to the north and that's about it. Attempting to make it serve DT or the area south of 64th creates issues that current technology won't solve.

In the interim I'd like to see dedicated transit lanes on Centre (I believe this is the case. Based on the experience with them one could have a better understanding as to what affect a surface LRT solution would have.

[You Need A Thneed]

I'm not convinced that building along nose creek is significantly cheaper enough to overcome it's significant number of disadvantages. A savings of 20% at most is what I can see.

[MalcolmTucker]

Probably the 'best' solution is at grade past 16th Avenue with a lot of expropriation, or dodging a block on either side and making a street one way with no parking. Would be super controversial though, and would have been a lot cheaper if they started acquiring property long long ago.

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I'm not convinced that building along nose creek is significantly cheaper enough to overcome it's significant number of disadvantages. A savings of 20% at most is what I can see.

If the goal is to strictly to move NC suburbanites downtown using Nose Creek, why not just build a heavy rail commuter system (similar to GO or West Coast Express). That would avoid putting extra trains on 7th as they could use the station near palliser square.

There are obviously costs associated with doing this, but I'd be surprised if they were anywhere near what it would cost for either of the LRT options, especially if tunnelling could be avoided as a result.

Thoughts?

[andasen]

I don't recall this having been discussed yet but the new connect card readers are starting to be installed.

[DizzyEdge]

Should we just go Nose Creek and then leave Centre south of Bedding to it's own devices, going the route of existing bus, then streetcar in mixed traffic, then streetcar in dedicated lanes as population warrants it (if it ever does), maybe combined with some enhance bus facilities? (like shelters at all stops)

[DizzyEdge]

Also, I was on the #10 bus yesterday, and noticed the stop requested light was gone, with no LED board to replace it, but when the stop cable was pulled a "Stop Requested" voice recording played.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by andasen

I don't recall this having been discussed yet but the new connect card readers are starting to be installed.

Great news. Probably the one of the biggest improvements we can make right now and will be good for riders and the operator.

[Aegis]

This has probably been debated extensively already, but, this topic has a lot of miles on it and has can handle a lot more.

Given that the fiscal environment today is quite different from that of 2006 (re: Policy Wonk's quoted document), is there any good reason why the Green Line couldn't be built using a P3 framework, just like the West LRT was?

I agree that the Nose Creek alignment could probably be built quicker on account of land ownership issues alone, but, Centre Street would clearly be preferable for walkability issues and greater access in a shorter radius to a larger number of people. Given that Centre Street between 16th Ave and 40th Ave is pretty derelict on account of the expected future Green Line development, doesn't it make more sense to pursue that route anyway?\

If the Green Line intersects with downtown on a north-south direction, why would we specifically need an 8th Ave subway? Wouldn't we just need the the subway along 2nd Street? (or wherever the Green Line crosses through downtown).

[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.

Well, since you challenged us to respond to this report directly, here goes:

- Centre Street, 4th Street and Edmonton Trail do not have sufficient right-of-way to accommodate an LRT w/o reduction in road capacity

True, but they can accommodate an LRT and still maintain between 2-3 traffic lanes. Centre Street has sufficient width to accommodate two LRT lanes and two traffic lanes (or three lanes at some locations). Sidewalks won't be able to be super wide (2.0m IIRC), and you wouldn't be able to get a bike lane, but you can still do it. Stantec's most recent review showed Centre street to be the widest of the three possible corridors (4th and Edmonton Tr being the other two). Remember, many modern LRVs require lanes that are less wide than vehicle lanes. I heard this directly from the Stantec consultant. They can fit an LRT on Centre Street without property acquisition. Only station areas will need that.

Remember, Centre streets vehicle volumes are considerably lower than it's transit volume. North of 16th avenue, Centre street only has 19K vehicles per day. It has 30K transit trips. IMO, that more than justifies dedicating two lanes to transit.

- LRT would require barriers, grade separated roadway and pedestrian crossings, traffic signal pre-emption, east/west road closures or restrictions and property acquisition

Barriers: 4" curbs are pretty much all you need to separate the LRT line from vehicle lanes. That is hardly an "intrusion"
Grade separated roadway: Other than 16th avenue and perhaps 20th avenue and 40th, no road way until McKnight has enough volume to justify grade separation. Pedestrians do not need grade separation to cross an LRT line. Hundreds of thousands do it every day across 7th avenue.
Traffic Signal pre-emption: I don't even know why this is listed as an issue. Traffic signal pre-emption is minimally disruptive at worst.
East/West road closures. Again, what's the issue? Most roads here have very limited cross-through traffic. Most people are turning onto Centre, not crossing it. You can close most roads to be right-in/right-out only and leave only larger ones open: 20th, 24th, 28th, 32nd, 40th. These can then have signalized intersections with left turn arrows. It just means that traffic will have to use these roads for left turns onto Centre or cross-throughs. This isn't the end of the world.

- At-grade LRT would not have a considerable speed advantage over regular bus, and thus not justify the costs of construction

Trains are for capacity, not for speed. Speed is achieved by off-vehicle fare payment, dedicated rights-of-way, signal pre-emption and stop spacing. A precursor bus-lane will help accomplish this in and of itself. Doing this on Centre street means that transit can move considerably faster than vehicle traffic. The other thing to consider is, for downtown employees at least, the main driver for transit isn't necessarily travel time, but rather parking costs. If 30K trips are being made on centre today on buses in mixed traffic, I am pretty sure we don't have to worry about the speed advantages of a dedicated transit lane with limited stops and off-vehicle fare payment. We need a train when we want to have 600 people on a vehicle rather than 80.


Cost: Important thing to note: we shouldn't assume a subway from downtown to Centre street (such a tunnel wouldn't surface until about 22nd avenue IIRC from the Stantec presentation). There are two other options:
- coming out of a portal close to the river and bridging the river and then tunnelling into the bluff for a short period or,
- running at grade down the centre street bridge and turning onto 3rd avenue before tunnelling. The trains can make that turn (it may result in some wheel squeak due to the tight turn) and then enter a tunnel portal right away (1st street at 3rd avenue would likely have to be closed to accommodate the portal.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Aegis

If the Green Line intersects with downtown on a north-south direction, why would we specifically need an 8th Ave subway? Wouldn't we just need the the subway along 2nd Street? (or wherever the Green Line crosses through downtown).

The 8th Ave Subway should only be required for a Nose Creek alignment, as it would interline with the at-capacity 202.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Aegis

This has probably been debated extensively already, but, this topic has a lot of miles on it and has can handle a lot more.

Given that the fiscal environment today is quite different from that of 2006 (re: Policy Wonk's quoted document), is there any good reason why the Green Line couldn't be built using a P3 framework, just like the West LRT was?

Well, the West LRT wasn't a true P3. Design, Build, Bridge Finance, Transfer. If there is any federal money in the project it will have to go through a P3 screen. I would be surprised if the project didn't go through as a full P3 (Design, Build, Operate, Maintain, Finance).

The province will have to help a lot with this process if we don't want to inject a whole lot of cash up front. At minimum it would require special regulations, at maximum, special legislation, depending on the status of city charters at the time. With a dedicated revenue stream of transfers from fare revenue, city taxes, and provincial grants the city might be able to stretch beyond the city's debt limit due to the special nature of the project.

In any case, the city should try to get to the point where it can issue an RFI the day after the province grants funding. It is much easier to fund something when there will be significant construction starting within a council and provincial government term.

A reasonable number to think of would be north of $360 million a year over 30 years ($6 billion financed ($324m/yr @3.482%) plus operations and maintenance and a minimal profit on operations above the investment income).

[Fuzz]

Once running, are their substantial cost savings to be seen? I'd think an LRT is cheaper to run than the huge number of buses currently in use.

EDIT:
answered my own question. This PDF, page 10
www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/brt_report.pdf
Shows $0.25 vs $0.89 LRT vs BRT per passenger. It doesn't indicate cost of normal buses though.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ It is really high! Otherwise CT wouldn't need an operational subsidy. Converting bus riders into LRT station walkers represents a huge cost savings for CT. Important to remember that without feeder buses the LRT would have a lot less riders though.

[fusili]

Here is the Steer Davies Gleave October 2013 high level evaluation on the North Central LRT alignment options:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Final%20High%20Level%20MAE%20Report.pdf

And the open house panels showing Centre Street alignment options.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/NCLRT_centre%20st.pdf

Also, just to reiterate- Centre Street carries 20K vehicles per day and 35K transit passengers on 90 buses per hour (9 routes). The operational savings of running 20 trains per hour rather than 90 buses is massive.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by fusili

Here is the Steer Davies Gleave October 2013 high level evaluation on the North Central LRT alignment options:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Final%20High%20Level%20MAE%20Report.pdf

And the open house panels showing Centre Street alignment options.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/NCLRT_centre%20st.pdf

Also, just to reiterate- Centre Street carries 20K vehicles per day and 35K transit passengers on 90 buses per hour (9 routes). The operational savings of running 20 trains per hour rather than 90 buses is massive.

For all the talk of surface LRT disrupting the roadway, surely replacing 90 erratically moving vehicles an hour with 10-20 larger but predictable ones wouldn't be so bad?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Well, since you challenged us to respond to this report directly, here goes:

- Centre Street, 4th Street and Edmonton Trail do not have sufficient right-of-way to accommodate an LRT w/o reduction in road capacity

True, but they can accommodate an LRT and still maintain between 2-3 traffic lanes. Centre Street has sufficient width to accommodate two LRT lanes and two traffic lanes (or three lanes at some locations). Sidewalks won't be able to be super wide (2.0m IIRC), and you wouldn't be able to get a bike lane, but you can still do it. Stantec's most recent review showed Centre street to be the widest of the three possible corridors (4th and Edmonton Tr being the other two). Remember, many modern LRVs require lanes that are less wide than vehicle lanes. I heard this directly from the Stantec consultant. They can fit an LRT on Centre Street without property acquisition. Only station areas will need that.

And you intend to redevelop three and a half miles of real estate at high density with only single lanes of traffic in each direction. In that type of situation you're largely eliminating Centre Street as anything other than a transit corridor. That would also necessitate traffic calming on parallel residential streets that would make the area almost unnavigable.

Remember, Centre streets vehicle volumes are considerably lower than it's transit volume. North of 16th avenue, Centre street only has 19K vehicles per day. It has 30K transit trips. IMO, that more than justifies dedicating two lanes to transit.

And they aren't going to rise enormously with the density you intend to introduce?

- LRT would require barriers, grade separated roadway and pedestrian crossings, traffic signal pre-emption, east/west road closures or restrictions and property acquisition

[/I]
Grade separated roadway: Other than 16th avenue and perhaps 20th avenue and 40th, no road way until McKnight has enough volume to justify grade separation.

See: Traffic Calming

East/West road closures. Again, what's the issue? Most roads here have very limited cross-through traffic. Most people are turning onto Centre, not crossing it.

Why would you want to introduce traffic headed to 4th, Edmonton Trail or 6th from the residential areas West of Centre Street to the reduced lanes on Centre Street?

- At-grade LRT would not have a considerable speed advantage over regular bus, and thus not justify the costs of construction

Trains are for capacity, not for speed. Speed is achieved by off-vehicle fare payment, dedicated rights-of-way, signal pre-emption and stop spacing. A precursor bus-lane will help accomplish this in and of itself. Doing this on Centre street means that transit can move considerably faster than vehicle traffic. The other thing to consider is, for downtown employees at least, the main driver for transit isn't necessarily travel time, but rather parking costs. If 30K trips are being made on centre today on buses in mixed traffic, I am pretty sure we don't have to worry about the speed advantages of a dedicated transit lane with limited stops and off-vehicle fare payment. We need a train when we want to have 600 people on a vehicle rather than 80. [/I]

Huh?

Trains are absolutely for speed, that is most of the distinction between LRV's and street cars. It's extremely expensive dead overhead otherwise. If that's the case you might as well build a street car. And for the purposes of downtown in the long-run one should be aiming higher than merely less expensive than parking and not as bad as driving on Centre Street. Speed is important and will contribute to keeping downtown attractive as businesses struggle with justifying remaining there.

Cost: Important thing to note: we shouldn't assume a subway from downtown to Centre street (such a tunnel wouldn't surface until about 22nd avenue IIRC from the Stantec presentation). There are two other options:
- coming out of a portal close to the river and bridging the river and then tunnelling into the bluff for a short period or,
- running at grade down the centre street bridge and turning onto 3rd avenue before tunnelling. The trains can make that turn (it may result in some wheel squeak due to the tight turn) and then enter a tunnel portal right away (1st street at 3rd avenue would likely have to be closed to accommodate the portal.

And the downtown station will be where exactly? Oh that's right...

This all boils down to more of the same, YOU are willing to accept the severe compromises presented by these alternatives. That doesn't mean the city as a whole is. And it certainly doesn't mean those severely compromised alternatives are the best ones.

[Aegis]

Let's not forget, Centre Street north of 16th Ave isn't much other than a high volume roadway. Even the stretch between the Centre Street bridge and 16th isn't much of a pedestrian corridor. For these reasons, I'm not really opposed to changing the character of Centre Street to accommodate the Green Line and then seeing where the chips fall after that, in terms of redevelopment around the new train stations.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

[/i]

Huh?

Trains are absolutely for speed, that is most of the distinction between LRV's and street cars. It's extremely expensive dead overhead otherwise. If that's the case you might as well build a street car. And for the purposes of downtown in the long-run one should be aiming higher than merely less expensive than parking and not as bad as driving on Centre Street. Speed is important and will contribute to keeping downtown attractive as businesses struggle with justifying remaining there.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Trains, as a vehicle, do not have any significant speed advantage over a bus when operating in an urban setting. In a intercity scenario, such as high speed rail, for sure, but in an urban setting technology choice has little to do with operating speeds. Right of way configuration, fare payment, intersection priority and stop spacing are the primary determinants of operational speeds, not maximum velocity. A street car in mixed traffic where you pay the operator and stops are every two blocks is just as fast as a bus in mixed traffic (see the MUNI in San Francisco as an example). A bus on a dedicated guideway, with off-vehicle fare payment and farther apart stops is just as fast as a train in a similar scenario. The difference between the two options (other than requiring a fixed guideway for a train) is that a train can carry 1000 passengers with a single operator, and a bus cannot. You don't use trains for speed- you use rights of way, fare payment and stop spacing for that.

EDIT- You do realize that LRVs and streetcars are the same damn thing right? There is no distinction between them. Maybe you are confusing vehicles with right of way categories.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The 8th Ave Subway should only be required for a Nose Creek alignment, as it would interline with the at-capacity 202.

The Nose Creek alignment would require the 201 to move to the 8th ave subway and 7th to be grade separated at some point, likely within 10 years of the NC line opening.

Assumption for NC interlining on 7th with the 202 is that it will not connect to the SELRT and that they can either short turn trains downtown or run a higher frequency from the zoo to the end of the west LRT than to the NE. This may or may not work depending on demand from the NE. IMO any argument for an interlined solution is asking for issues when the ridership on the lines that are interlined reach the total capacity of the interlined section, we're seeing it now and yet some are arguing for it...