Calgary Public Transit II

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by MasterG

An alternative: Why does this train have to go down 2nd Street at all? Why can't it drop underground between 3rd Ave and 4th Ave on Centre when it exits the bridge and continue deep enough that it goes under the CPR tracks at an angle on Centre to connect with the SELRT? Yes, you miss Eau Claire by a block but put the core transfer station at Centre - 7th Ave - 8th Ave by Telus Convention Centre, the Bow, Telus Sky, Petro-Canada and many other mega-buildings; hardly a poor compromise. Surely this cost would be similar than a weird turn onto 2nd Street before heading underground? But this removes the need to turn awkwardly off the bridge and keeps the speed higher.

Hell, it can re-enter a cut-and-cover tunnel immediately after the Bridge to the North too, essentially keep the entire subway plan, minus the expensive, challenging and awkward grade climb of both avoiding the Centre Street Bridge while being underground under the river.

Not sure if that makes sense, perhaps I need to provide a diagram.

Please do, because I read and re-read your idea, and I'm sure it sounds great, but I can't visualize what you are describing.

[joe498]

Latest from @LRTontheGreen examines Denver and how they built 76km of LRT track.

The Search for Funding Solutions: Looking South

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/lrtotg-posts/funding-south/

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I think criticism of the on-street approach is over-blown. Not as effective as underground, but given that no one wants to suggest taxes need to be raised, a federal government that couldn't care less about the cities to fund them properly and the provincial government can't seem to figure out a reliable, substantive funding arrangement for a city larger than 100,000 people I can hardly blame Calgary Transit for recommending the view they took. They even say that underground is ideal, but can't afford it with the current arrangement.

With proper coordination and signal priority - as well as dedicated lanes with full priority over auto traffic - on street could be effective. At grade stations, with low-floors and minimal infrastructure can be quite quick. Modern low-floor lines have no requirement for being set in the rock-ballast, they can have paved surfaces to double as emergency lanes for first-responders. Key intersections can be tunneled like 16th Ave and McKnight.

An alternative: Why does this train have to go down 2nd Street at all? Why can't it drop underground between 3rd Ave and 4th Ave on Centre when it exits the bridge and continue deep enough that it goes under the CPR tracks at an angle on Centre to connect with the SELRT? Yes, you miss Eau Claire by a block but put the core transfer station at Centre - 7th Ave - 8th Ave by Telus Convention Centre, the Bow, Telus Sky, Petro-Canada and many other mega-buildings; hardly a poor compromise. Surely this cost would be similar than a weird turn onto 2nd Street before heading underground? But this removes the need to turn awkwardly off the bridge and keeps the speed higher.

Hell, it can re-enter a cut-and-cover tunnel immediately after the Bridge to the North too, essentially keep the entire subway plan, minus the expensive, challenging and awkward grade climb of both avoiding the Centre Street Bridge while being underground under the river.

Not sure if that makes sense, perhaps I need to provide a diagram. But that saves the cost of the deep-bore tunnel, maintains access in Crescent Heights and get's people the underground experience they want. Think of how the Bloor Street subway uses the Prince Edward Viaduct while entering and existing the tunnel just for the bridge structure over the Don Valley in Toronto.

It still requires two lanes of the bridge, but as of 2017 those will be taken away anyway with the BRT lanes. They are hardly needed anyway in a world with vastly improved capacity by adding a LRT like this.

I suppose tunneling under the Tower complex would pose a challenge, as would the interfaces between the tunnel portals (but hardly as difficult as the expensive full underground approach), but that is what the engineers are for. Surely they could figure out how to make that work.

Thoughts?

I still think it should be elevated coming through the downtown and then be left with less of a grade as it crosses the river. Running as a plus 15, it would connect directly with our existing +15 network.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by joe498

Latest from @LRTontheGreen examines Denver and how they built 76km of LRT track.

The Search for Funding Solutions: Looking South

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/lrtotg-posts/funding-south/

This is exactly what I had in mind and would be fully supportive of.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by joe498

Latest from @LRTontheGreen examines Denver and how they built 76km of LRT track.

The Search for Funding Solutions: Looking South

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/lrtotg-posts/funding-south/

Knowing that low floor trains are the rage right now with uber urbanists and the green line will probably consist of these, I hope they're not like the Denver ones where a person has to take three steps up. It looks like an accessibility nightmare for those with limited mobility.


http://metro-cincinnati.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/rtd_lg.jpg
Ugh.

[fusili]

I wouldn't call that a low floor train.

[lineman]

Low opening high floor train?

[MalcolmTucker]

Just like this U2a:

Source: Lensovet via wikimedia commons
And San Diego's original U2s


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Trolley#Floor_plans
from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Koman90

[joe498]

Tuscany Station exceeds ridership estimates:

http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2014/10/tuscany-station-exceeds-ridership.html

[simster3]

Everything about that image is confusing.

[simster3]

Originally Posted by joe498

Tuscany Station exceeds ridership estimates:

http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2014/10/tuscany-station-exceeds-ridership.html

Thats awesome that 10% are new transit riders. That is a huge impact on the roads.

[lubicon]

Great initial results for the Tuscany Station. I know several of my kids friends are using it to get to school rather than taking the school bus. It is much faster and more flexible for their schedules. And for them it's a dead simple trip to make.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

And everyone is going to cry foul because you're only taxing drivers. A general sales tax is by far a more equitable way of getting the money.

1. It taxes everyone
2. It's only applicable to non essential purchases, so it impacts the lower income portions of the population less

Transit buses use fuel as well - seems equitable as transit users would contributing less to the system as compared to someone using their private vehicle. Everyone pretty much utilizes a motorized form of transportation in Calgary and would be contributing fairly - those driving more fuel efficient vehicles would contribute less, those driving lifted gas guzzling 4x4's or powerful sports cars would pay more in fuel taxes, seems fair, no?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by craner

I'm with Chad and the others who think we need to start thinking and planning for a city of 2+million. This surface LRT decision is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and very dissapointing.
I for one would welcome a dedicated tax for transportation projects.

I was disappointed to hear the city is giving up on a tunnel, but not surprised in the least. Frankly, even the cheapest possible SE/NCLRT will take decades to fund at current funding levels. Without new taxes or huge provincial windfalls, it will never happen.

The one saving grace of their plan, is I believe it keeps the possibility open to one day extend the 2nd st tunnel northward, kind of like how there is a tunnel under 8th st at City Hall. The tunnel would save about 5 minutes per trip (or 2500 Calgarians' hours/day at a ridership of 30k).

[MalcolmTucker]

even the cheapest possible SE/NCLRT will take decades to fund at current funding levels.

The City of Calgary received $648 million in provincial Municipal Affairs and Transportation grants last year for those keeping score at home.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The City of Calgary received $648 million in provincial Municipal Affairs and Transportation grants last year for those keeping score at home.

Yes, but the full LRT is going to cost 3-5 Billion.

Are you implying that Calgary can expect this commitment annually?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Yes, but the full LRT is going to cost 3-5 Billion.

Are you implying that Calgary can expect this commitment annually?

Pretty close. If the MSI had reached the originally intended level of funding on time, funding between it and gas tax transfer would be $600 million a year (what used to be the gas tax is now a $120-125 or so million a year transfer as part of an expanded MSI). The following on to the current funding envelope for fiscal 2017 (might be 18), should be higher than that.

I fully expect the province to transfer enough money to meet the original end date for the MSI envelope (basically transfering the debt obligations Calgary has taken on in lieu of funding), and commit to continueing the planned transfer level (or figure out a way for the city to raise the same money) plus some before the next provincial election.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Yes, but the full LRT is going to cost 3-5 Billion.

Are you implying that Calgary can expect this commitment annually?

He's implying that we likely get that every year and could dedicate 10 years and fund it out right.

[MalcolmTucker]

I would still finance it so spread out the cost, especially at today's interest rates, so the city can do other things too. I would prefer the city also try for an additional tax of some sort so it could invest even more. But the situation isn't likely to be dire unless the bottom falls out of the economy in a way that stops growth pressures.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

Transit buses use fuel as well - seems equitable as transit users would contributing less to the system as compared to someone using their private vehicle. Everyone pretty much utilizes a motorized form of transportation in Calgary and would be contributing fairly - those driving more fuel efficient vehicles would contribute less, those driving lifted gas guzzling 4x4's or powerful sports cars would pay more in fuel taxes, seems fair, no?

What about the person who works in an area that's served by transit, is under served altogether, or doesn't have service when the person starts or finishes work? Are they to be charged because they don't work in an area where there is good transit? Also remember that the majority of the top paying jobs are downtown where the best transit is, so that person may be making less than $20/hour.

A sales tax, taxes disposable income. Gas tax taxes a necessity for many due to decades of planning around the car. Can you live without a car sure, but probably isn't going to be nice to get to the foothills industrial area at 1am to start your grave yard shift after all the buses to the area have stopped running.