Calgary Public Transit II

[polishavenger]

Not sure if this was addressed by earlier posts (dont feel like reading dozens of pages to find out), but what pisses me off about this decision, is the ridiculous idea of parring down centre street to one lane each way south of mcknight. This will be a major cluster f***. Also, im peeved that the option of doing an elevated section from 16th ave to mcknight was not even considered. Something like the canada line or the section of the west lrt would run nicely along the east side of center street, and enable grade seperated, rapid transit.

I would hate to see the lrt become a damn street car that is bogged down by street level traffic and crossings. that would entirely eliminate the point of this whole exercise.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Not sure if this was addressed by earlier posts (dont feel like reading dozens of pages to find out), but what pisses me off about this decision, is the ridiculous idea of parring down centre street to one lane each way south of mcknight. This will be a major cluster f***. Also, im peeved that the option of doing an elevated section from 16th ave to mcknight was not even considered. Something like the canada line or the section of the west lrt would run nicely along the east side of center street, and enable grade seperated, rapid transit.

I would hate to see the lrt become a damn street car that is bogged down by street level traffic and crossings. that would entirely eliminate the point of this whole exercise.

These are my two biggest concerns about it actually too .. Anyone have any insight into this?

[simster3]

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1138113...result-in-compensation-and-lawsuits-chu/

Sean Chu speaks.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by simster3

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1138113...result-in-compensation-and-lawsuits-chu/

Sean Chu speaks.

Not easy to believe, but he is entirely wrong on this:

businesses affected by the construction should receive tax breaks to compensate for lost revenue, says a city councillor who represents much of the area.
...
He said the city should also be wary of lawsuits from businesses if major road-construction activity affects their customer traffic, as Vancouver saw when it built the Canada Line extension of the SkyTrain ahead of the 2010 Olympics.

Except the appeals court, and the supreme court confirmed that no compensation was due. If someone with a lease doesn't rent with the knowledge that this project might happen, it is their fault given the long timelines. As for owners, they will be 'compensated' through property value gains.

Canada Line lawsuit turned down by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the appeal of Susan Heyes, the owner of maternity-wear shop Hazel and Co who has been fighting for compensation because of Canada Line construction.
...
Heyes won a $600,000 award at B.C. Supreme Court in 2009
...
But in February that decision was overturned at the B.C. Court of Appeal, which ruled that the Canada Line project obtained the necessary approvals at each phase of construction and was well within its rights to decide upon the less expensive cut and cover option.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not easy to believe, but he is entirely wrong on this:
Except the appeals court, and the supreme court confirmed that no compensation was due. If someone with a lease doesn't rent with the knowledge that this project might happen, it is their fault given the long timelines. As for owners, they will be 'compensated' through property value gains.

He also complained that yesterday on twitter was the first time he's heard of the decision. Transit Director sent a memo to inform all members of Council on August 12th.

[DizzyEdge]

I see the faux outrage is in full swing on the Herald article comments.

The city really needs a social media person giving the other side on these articles. Instead there's a vacuum which is always always filled by naysayers, who control the message. I see this time and time again with the city, communications with the public are just about zero, so the Rick Bells etc of the world end up doing that job for them.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Not sure if this was addressed by earlier posts (dont feel like reading dozens of pages to find out), but what pisses me off about this decision, is the ridiculous idea of parring down centre street to one lane each way south of mcknight. This will be a major cluster f***. Also, im peeved that the option of doing an elevated section from 16th ave to mcknight was not even considered. Something like the canada line or the section of the west lrt would run nicely along the east side of center street, and enable grade seperated, rapid transit.

I would hate to see the lrt become a damn street car that is bogged down by street level traffic and crossings. that would entirely eliminate the point of this whole exercise.

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

These are my two biggest concerns about it actually too .. Anyone have any insight into this?

This was addressed in the recent package (posted here a couple days ago). When addressing 3 types of community steakholders (transit steering committee, public that showed at open houses, and one more... I think community associations), groups were offered 3-5 choices for each segment of the route and asked which they preferred. The choices range from "narrow" meaning removing a traffic lane, to "wide" meaning maintaining 2 traffic lanes each direction with lrt in the middle, to "tunnel".

All groups agreed that a tunnel is preferable south of 24th I think. Two of the groups prefered "narrow" for the stretch between 24th and McKnight, while the public at the open house prefered "wide" in this stretch. Presumably, the advantage of "narrow" over "wide" is that far less land needs to be appropriated, meaning the LRT would be more integrated as opposed to a barrier. This also means less road capacity, and would cost a fraction of "wide". North of McKnight, all parties preferred "wide".

So, yes, there might be a risk of narrowing ctr street at some point between 24th and McKnight if that is the option citizens prefer. Could save hundreds of millions and not force people from their homes. Traffic on this section of ctr street is also much less than south of there, and less than Harvest. It's our choice as a city how to proceed.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Wooster

He also complained that yesterday on twitter was the first time he's heard of the decision. Transit Director sent a memo to inform all members of Council on August 12th.

He is such an idiot.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

This was addressed in the recent package (posted here a couple days ago). When addressing 3 types of community steakholders (transit steering committee, public that showed at open houses, and one more... I think community associations), groups were offered 3-5 choices for each segment of the route and asked which they preferred. The choices range from "narrow" meaning removing a traffic lane, to "wide" meaning maintaining 2 traffic lanes each direction with lrt in the middle, to "tunnel".

All groups agreed that a tunnel is preferable south of 24th I think. Two of the groups prefered "narrow" for the stretch between 24th and McKnight, while the public at the open house prefered "wide" in this stretch. Presumably, the advantage of "narrow" over "wide" is that far less land needs to be appropriated, meaning the LRT would be more integrated as opposed to a barrier. This also means less road capacity, and would cost a fraction of "wide". North of McKnight, all parties preferred "wide".

So, yes, there might be a risk of narrowing ctr street at some point between 24th and McKnight if that is the option citizens prefer. Could save hundreds of millions and not force people from their homes. Traffic on this section of ctr street is also much less than south of there, and less than Harvest. It's our choice as a city how to proceed.

Wouldn't Wide be more important south of McKnight rather than north of it assuming that you'll have more traffic the closer you are to downtown?

[holhm22]

I was wondering, has Calgary ever considered an electronic route map in their LRT cars like Hong Kong's MTR trains do?


For example: Next station, Heng Fa Chuen. Doors will open on the left.

[Photo courtesy of me]

And I drew up a Calgarian version: The next stop is City Hall. Transfer station for the Red Line towards Tuscany.

[Sorry, it is a bit big]

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ The provincial government has to catch up on MSI to fulfill the original funding plan to 2017. The coming budget could set the formula for 2017 onwards to allow projects to start. Federally there is money, it just isn't much. Don't expect more than $500 million for this over ten years.

We need something more permanent and reliable than MSI to ever have any hope of building Green Line LRT...including the ability to borrow against long term revenue (probably 20yrs).

Will be curious to see the replies to the Mayor's Cities Matter survey from the PC leadership candidates.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A new infrastructure deal will come before the provincial election. The question becomes does Calgary put transit at #1 (like Edmonton has done) and ignore other projects for a bit, or continue the current spread of projects and complain about the pot not being big enough to build everything on the wish list.

But we do need a fiscal arrangement that addresses all our various infrastructure needs. At this point, Wildrose's 10/10 plan seems to hold more promise than anything the government has talked about (assuming 10/10 doesn't mean an end to police and FCSS operating grants - which they have yet to clarify).

Seems the Wildrose is much more intent on giving municipalities greater autonomy and no strings attached transfers than the PCs who like to control everything so they can pop signs up when it's politically expedient.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by holhm22

I was wondering, has Calgary ever considered an electronic route map in their LRT cars like Hong Kong's MTR trains do?

Toronto has these as well.

[outoftheice]

This was tweeted out by @lrtonthegreen this evening. I think it deserves a mention in the discussions about the LRT on the Centre Street as the north central portion of the Green Line should be championed as not only a transportation improvement project but also as a way to drive investment and redevelopment in Calgary's existing communities.

The tweet mentions London but I think the data from Manchester is the more important bit as it's a city that is much closer to Calgary in size and the Metrolink tram network in Manchester closely resembles what Calgary Transit is proposing along Centre Street.

What the distance from the station does to the price of your house

Survey by Nationwide of London, Manchester and Glasgow puts numbers on the value of living close to public transport

Patrick Collinson
theguardian.com, Wednesday 20 August 2014 15.50 BST

A nearby tube station adds £42,000 to the price of a London house, a Manchester Metrolink stop adds £12,000, while proximity to a Glasgow rail station is worth £9,400, according to analysis by Nationwide building society.

Researchers found that buyers in London will pay an average of 10.5% more for a home that is within 500 metres of a tube station, equal to £42,000 on a typical property. If the walk to the station is just another 250 metres – which should take less than five minutes – the price drops by more than £10,000, while at more than 1,500 metres (around a mile) from the station, the price premium disappears altogether.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/20/distance-from-station-value-of-house-nationwide-uk

More info on Manchester's Metrolink Tram: http://www.metrolink.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx

[sim]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Not sure if this was addressed by earlier posts (dont feel like reading dozens of pages to find out), but what pisses me off about this decision, is the ridiculous idea of parring down centre street to one lane each way south of mcknight. This will be a major cluster f***. Also, im peeved that the option of doing an elevated section from 16th ave to mcknight was not even considered. Something like the canada line or the section of the west lrt would run nicely along the east side of center street, and enable grade seperated, rapid transit.

I would hate to see the lrt become a damn street car that is bogged down by street level traffic and crossings. that would entirely eliminate the point of this whole exercise.

Prediction: It won't be a major clusterf***.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Wouldn't Wide be more important south of McKnight rather than north of it assuming that you'll have more traffic the closer you are to downtown?

In an ideal world, there would be plenty of width for everything everywhere. South of McKnight, building something other than Wide would result in massive expropriation; hundreds of millions of dollars and huge public upset.

So it turns out I made the same assumption as you that higher volumes are closer to downtown. However, per the most recent flow map, the highest volumes on Centre Street (Harvest Hills Bvld) are:
1. North of Beddington Trail to 96th Ave (31K) - there is a wide right of way set aside to easily build transit in the median here.
2. 16th Ave into downtown (25K) - this section has to be tunnelled in any realistic world.
3. Between Beddington Bvld (the mall) and the 4th St/Centre split at the Superstore (23K) - there is enough right of way here that the train can be accommodated without taking property
4. From 96th Ave to Country Hills Bvld (21K) - see #1
5. From Country Hills Bvld to Panamount Bvld (21K) - see #1
6. From 4th St to 64th Ave (21K) - see #3
7. North of 24th Ave (19K) - this is the first section that the Narrow configuration is preferred. It's hard to tell exactly where the 19K volume ends, since it drops to 14K by the section between Northmount and McKnight.

From 24th St north to the end of the like (Country Hills Towne Centre) is 10 km; the 5 km with the highest volumes all have sufficient right of way to build the Wide configuration and maintain the road capacity without taking any property.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Not sure if this was addressed by earlier posts (dont feel like reading dozens of pages to find out), but what pisses me off about this decision, is the ridiculous idea of parring down centre street to one lane each way south of mcknight. This will be a major cluster f***. Also, im peeved that the option of doing an elevated section from 16th ave to mcknight was not even considered. Something like the canada line or the section of the west lrt would run nicely along the east side of center street, and enable grade seperated, rapid transit.

Also, while people are correcting the record, the option of doing an elevated section from 16th ave to McKnight was considered and rejected.

[Policy Wonk]

The guaranteed clusterfuck in this proposal is it will just elect some mook with a simplistic slogan like "lanes and trains" who promises the unattainable subway.

• Video Link

[Fuzz]

Most of the properties north of 24th to McKnight are pretty trashy anyway. I'd say at least half the route is already dilapidated properties or vacant lots. Is it so bad to use this space for transit? Seams a no brainier to me...

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The guaranteed clusterfuck in this proposal is it will just elect some mook with a simplistic slogan like "lanes and trains" who promises the unattainable subway.

Keep up the good fight my man.