Calgary Public Transit II

[Wooster]

Chu criticizes city staff over Centre Street ‘Green Line’ notification, memo suggests otherwise

By Robson Fletcher
Metro

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

[ByeByeBaby]

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.
[ROB FORD VIDEO][/ROB FORD VIDEO]

Ah, the now-traditional argument that we shouldn't try to build urban-focused transit because the public may elect some blowhard idiot who will stop us from building urban-focused transit. Really, we may as well not even bother getting out of bed in the morning.

Because god forbid - if Centre Street is pushed, then the NC corridor could elect some blowhard idiot.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

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.

This is important.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

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.

Wow that's really great info.

info the city should have included in a news release about their decision (not in that much detail, but reference that the narrow section was down the list in traffic volume.

[DizzyEdge]

Is there any ideas on what the configuration might be at cross streets, as of course the main worry is a repeat of 36 st NE

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Ah, the now-traditional argument that we shouldn't try to build urban-focused transit because the public may elect some blowhard idiot who will stop us from building urban-focused transit. Really, we may as well not even bother getting out of bed in the morning.

I would rather frame it as don't create controversy out of thin air, don't give the blowhard idiot something to latch on to. That hypothetical blowhard idiot is going to be in roughly the same position as the current mayor and council and completely free of responsibility in that they just aren't going to be around to actually have to fund or build anything either.

It's like the open discussion of NCLRT before SELRT, when there is no actionable decision to be made between the two, why stir things up?

The current mayor and council prefers a Centre Street alignment, we knew that, okay. But breathing political life to what is otherwise a mostly theoretical endeavour in the time frames in question with open discussion of removing traffic lanes is insane. Leave it to the imagination, saying that discussion is premature and will be shaped by technology and funding in the distant future is a completely acceptable public position.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I would rather frame it as don't create controversy out of thin air, don't give the blowhard idiot something to latch on to. That hypothetical blowhard idiot is going to be in roughly the same position as the current mayor and council and completely free of responsibility in that they just aren't going to be around to actually have to fund or build anything either.

It's like the open discussion of NCLRT before SELRT, when there is no actionable decision to be made between the two, why stir things up?

The current mayor and council prefers a Centre Street alignment, we knew that, okay. But breathing political life to what is otherwise a mostly theoretical endeavour in the time frames in question with open discussion of removing traffic lanes is insane. Leave it to the imagination, saying that discussion is premature and will be shaped by technology and funding in the distant future is a completely acceptable public position.

What is your general reasoning behind this never getting built(or not any time soon?) The other lines are built out almost as far as they can go. I'd expect that in order to get any funding, the city needs an actionable plan. So what is wrong with that? I know their have been studies before, but it looks like they are finally getting into the details of the thing. Once they have that, aren't they in a far better position to go beg for cash?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

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.

I think where they are discussing the narrow configuration, they should also be mindful of future traffic. Given increased densities, their well could be more traffic on Centre street in 20 years. Since the goal is to increase population around the trains, wouldn't it be wise to maintain road capacity as well? Are their any other sections of the Ctrain line in Calgary with only a 2 lane road? Let alone a fairly major road like Centre?

I would suspect if it is cut to 2 lanes 4th st will see large increases in commuter traffic as drivers choose to turn off centre there. I'm not sure 4th has much extra capacity further south. I've been stuck lined up from centre, around 12th ave, up to 16th many times.

[joe498]

Thoughts on generating transit revenue through toll roads? (Vancouver does this.)

Have a $3-4 toll on all roads entering the city Monday-Friday 5-10am on all roads.

I think tolls during rush hour is critical because you look at the growth of places like Airdrie, Chestemere, Okotoks and Cochrane, almost all will commute to Calgary for work using our LRT, Buses & Parking stalls. They get all the benefits of our city but they don't pay for any of it via tax. It's not right that others can freely use our transit and infrastructure and not pay for the true cost of supporting such infrastructure. With the continued growth of our population, we need need to take control fast.

Tolls at city limits:
-NW Crowchild
-1A from the East
-Deerfoot at North and South
-2A South
-Centre St N for those sneaky Airdries

Lets say that about 40 000 cars are commuting into Calgary daily from these communities. 40 000 X $4 is $160 000/day. 260 work days in a year X $160 0000=$41 million per year.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is your general reasoning behind this never getting built(or not any time soon?) The other lines are built out almost as far as they can go. I'd expect that in order to get any funding, the city needs an actionable plan. So what is wrong with that? I know their have been studies before, but it looks like they are finally getting into the details of the thing. Once they have that, aren't they in a far better position to go beg for cash?

This plan is no more actionable than the ones that came before and I didn't think I would live long enough to see any of those built either. Even leaving the inevitable controversy associated with this alignment out of it, the biggest single problem with the "Green Line" is the downtown subway linking the SELRT and NCLRT.

Calgary's "business model" for decades has been waiting for windfalls of money from Edmonton. It has generally not been terribly successful. Why this strategy will somehow become more fruitful in an era of provincial governments that won't merely be indifferent to urban issues but likely openly hostile combined with a US oil glut is a mystery to me.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by joe498

Thoughts on generating transit revenue through toll roads? (Vancouver does this.)

Have a $3-4 toll on all roads entering the city Monday-Friday 5-10am on all roads.

I think tolls during rush hour is critical because you look at the growth of places like Airdrie, Chestemere, Okotoks and Cochrane, almost all will commute to Calgary for work using our LRT, Buses & Parking stalls. They get all the benefits of our city but they don't pay for any of it via tax. It's not right that others can freely use our transit and infrastructure and not pay for the true cost of supporting such infrastructure. With the continued growth of our population, we need need to take control fast.

Tolls at city limits:
-NW Crowchild
-1A from the East
-Deerfoot at North and South
-2A South
-Centre St N for those sneaky Airdries

Lets say that about 40 000 cars are commuting into Calgary daily from these communities. 40 000 X $4 is $160 000/day. 260 work days in a year X $160 0000=$41 million per year.

Actually Vancouver does not do this. Translink, the quasi provincial agency in charge of transportation in Metro Vancouver, has tolls on two crossings over the Fraser River out of a total of five. The tolls on these crossing are to pay for cost of building said bridges. Translink is actually having the problem right now of both bridges being behind on their projected toll revenue thus the short fall needing to be recouped up from their tax revenue that would otherwise be going to transit and regional roads.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think where they are discussing the narrow configuration, they should also be mindful of future traffic. Given increased densities, their well could be more traffic on Centre street in 20 years. Since the goal is to increase population around the trains, wouldn't it be wise to maintain road capacity as well? Are their any other sections of the Ctrain line in Calgary with only a 2 lane road? Let alone a fairly major road like Centre?

I would suspect if it is cut to 2 lanes 4th st will see large increases in commuter traffic as drivers choose to turn off centre there. I'm not sure 4th has much extra capacity further south. I've been stuck lined up from centre, around 12th ave, up to 16th many times.

A comparable would be Macleod Trail. The number of cars on that route coming from the south into the core peaked in the 1990s I believe, as did 1st Street SW and a few other underpasses despite the growth in population overall, and the increases in density of the immediate area.

In Macleod Trail's case, that was a large reason to choose that for the cycletrack network: essentially the volume of traffic had decreased to a point where the city felt they could give up a lane between the core and the Elbow River as they had 4 southbound lanes and really only needed 3 for most of the route. The idea was ultimately unsuccessful on this route but the numbers of drivers have not increased and the capacity of the road hasn't changed.

The growth and increasing service quality of the SLRT in the past 15 years is part of that of course, so is the general attitude of people in the Beltline, the majority who walk to work from the new towers in that area.

So auto traffic is not always tied to population or density changes, especially in inner city areas where ample options are available as effective alternatives. Centre Street already has a majority of road users using transit in the inner portions, I expect this to increase with the quality of service with BRT and then LRT improvements meaning we are unlikely to enter into a situation where more cars are on the road.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think where they are discussing the narrow configuration, they should also be mindful of future traffic. Given increased densities, their well could be more traffic on Centre street in 20 years. Since the goal is to increase population around the trains, wouldn't it be wise to maintain road capacity as well? Are their any other sections of the Ctrain line in Calgary with only a 2 lane road? Let alone a fairly major road like Centre?

I would suspect if it is cut to 2 lanes 4th st will see large increases in commuter traffic as drivers choose to turn off centre there. I'm not sure 4th has much extra capacity further south. I've been stuck lined up from centre, around 12th ave, up to 16th many times.

Here is an articule on the subject, Macleod Trail peaked at 64,000 vehicles per day into the core in 1998, averaging 49,800 per day for the last 5 year period.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1122607...downtown-streets-less-busy-than-in-1964/

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Here is an articule on the subject, Macleod Trail peaked at 64,000 vehicles per day into the core in 1998, averaging 49,800 per day for the last 5 year period.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1122607...downtown-streets-less-busy-than-in-1964/

Kind of also shows what an inefficient use of space that road is - it's almost as wide as Deerfoot but carries a fraction of the vehicles.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Kind of also shows what an inefficient use of space that road is - it's almost as wide as Deerfoot but carries a fraction of the vehicles.

Mind you, the speed limit on Macleod is 80 & it has endless traffic lights.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by joe498

Mind you, the speed limit on Macleod is 80 & it has endless traffic lights.

50km/hr. Where are you getting 80? South of Anderson maybe, but its 50 to the north.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by joe498

Mind you, the speed limit on Macleod is 80 & it has endless traffic lights.

Well yeah that's why it can't handle more cars- so why does it need to be 8 lanes wide? It's almost a shame the SLRT is where it is as a surface LRT down Macleod could be the perfect balance to the NCLRT.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by fusili

50km/hr. Where are you getting 80? South of Anderson maybe, but its 50 to the north.

South of Anderson it is 80km/h and defined as an "expressway". I should if mentioned that it is 50km/h north of Anderson.

[SquattingBear]

Originally Posted by fusili

50km/hr. Where are you getting 80? South of Anderson maybe, but its 50 to the north.

Macleod is :
80 from city limits till north of anderson
70 from there to north of southland
60 from there to the river.

Its only 50 once you hit city center.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by SquattingBear

Macleod is :
80 from city limits till north of anderson
70 from there to north of southland
60 from there to the river.

Its only 50 once you hit city center.

Ah yes, that makes sense.