Calgary Public Transit II

[Policy Wonk]

I remain completely baffled as to what exactly the perceived purpose of this exercise was or what a successful outcome would be for the proponents.

This mayor and council is needlessly serving the public a buffet of brussels sprouts. It's just an opening to others (with no greater ability to execute than they) to offer ice cream.

At least Transit City was real. This is creating a debate that will be just as caustic when there is no honest discussion to even be had. This is barely theoretical in the time frame this mayor and council acknowledges.

Although I think it's a lousy alternative for a lot of reasons, I at least respect that they're planning in the realm of the possible. But when there is no decision to be made today, tomorrow or a decade from now why breathe political life to an issue that just wasn't one?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I remain completely baffled as to what exactly the perceived purpose of this exercise was or what a successful outcome would be for the proponents.

This mayor and council is needlessly serving the public a buffet of brussels sprouts. It's just an opening to others (with no greater ability to execute than they) to offer ice cream.

At least Transit City was real. This is creating a debate that will be just as caustic when there is no honest discussion to even be had. This is barely theoretical in the time frame this mayor and council acknowledges.

Although I think it's a lousy alternative for a lot of reasons, I at least respect that they're planning in the realm of the possible. But when there is no decision to be made today, tomorrow or a decade from now why breathe political life to an issue that just wasn't one?

Because planning is important. It sets the direction for property acquisition, infrastructure servicing, zoning, among others. If we decide how to build this LRT in the next few years, and have a semi-concrete idea of the alignment, we can plan around it. This includes everything from development setbacks to water and sewer upgrades/relocations, road rights of way etc.

[Policy Wonk]

None of that requires this public song and dance. The zoning and infrastructure for intensification of Centre Street is covered by PlanIt. And you don't need anything this articulated for land acquisition.

This is just setting up for a Vaudeville House dedicated to subways. I appreciate that a plan has been devised that is actually doable. I think it would be a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for the ages. But it's possible and in a scenario where there were decisions to be made between such an alternative today or an incomplete subway line today or a subway (maybe) at a much later date this would be a valid alternative. But that isn't the situation and nobody, much less this mayor and council are pretending otherwise.

You can't get a whole lot of traction running against a list of half a dozen roman numerals in a bureaucratic document outlining various future scenarios subject all sorts of modifications. That can be completely wrapped up and put to bed by saying the discussion is premature, but were leaving all options open and nobody committing to one or the other today should be taken seriously.

This mayor and council has taken ownership of something they freely admit is in the distant future and while they have made a commendable good faith attempt at planning something that could actually be done they have made compromises in doing so that will prove unpopular. But they can't deliver this and won't be judged on having delivered it. Likewise those who will promise a subway won't be either.

I get the ethos of all this, but creating controversies where there wouldn't be one otherwise is stupid.

And for the record I continue to believe that this will never be built.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

None of that requires this public song and dance. The zoning and infrastructure for intensification of Centre Street is covered by PlanIt. And you don't need anything this articulated for land acquisition.

This is just setting up for a Vaudeville House dedicated to subways. I appreciate that a plan has been devised that is actually doable. I think it would be a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for the ages. But it's possible and in a scenario where there were decisions to be made between such an alternative today or an incomplete subway line today or a subway (maybe) at a much later date this would be a valid alternative. But that isn't the situation and nobody, much less this mayor and council are pretending otherwise.

You can't get a whole lot of traction running against a list of half a dozen roman numerals in a bureaucratic document outlining various future scenarios subject all sorts of modifications. That can be completely wrapped up and put to bed by saying the discussion is premature, but were leaving all options open and nobody committing to one or the other today should be taken seriously.

This mayor and council has taken ownership of something they freely admit is in the distant future and while they have made a commendable good faith attempt at planning something that could actually be done they have made compromises in doing so that will prove unpopular. But they can't deliver this and won't be judged on having delivered it. Likewise those who will promise a subway won't be either.

I get the ethos of all this, but creating controversies where there wouldn't be one otherwise is stupid.

And for the record I continue to believe that this will never be built.

Pretty much all wrong. Up-zoning centre street is fundamentally different with vs without a train. Utility upgrades are fundamentally different- do they need to be moved to make way for a subway or not. Property acquisition is fundamentally different- do we have to purchase properties for stations, rights-of-way and the like or not. There is a whole lot of stuff we would need to do if there is a train that would otherwise not be done.

You do need a pretty strong case for property acquisition, especially if it is an expropriation, or legal taking. Municipal governments just can't force-ably take property without a clear municipal purpose. That is in the MGA.

There needs to be a public "song and dance" because community consultation is an important part of making large civic decisions like this one.

I would rather us have an alignment, station locations, etc as soon as we can for this, then waiting until it is too late and having to use a bunch of kludges where simple forethought would have resulted in a better solution.

[Cage]

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/

Looked at the Denver funding analysis, overall disappointed the blog writers did not include other obvious factors that influenced project funding and citizen buy in.

For example T-Rex was an auto and transit proposal. The comparable to green line would be to spend 4 billion to put LRT down southern half of Deerfoot, fix Glenmore and Anderson interchanges along the way as well as putting Deerfoot at 4 lanes plus 2 express lanes. By the way, the northern half of the city gets nothing from this proposal.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Pretty much all wrong. Up-zoning centre street is fundamentally different with vs without a train. Utility upgrades are fundamentally different- do they need to be moved to make way for a subway or not. Property acquisition is fundamentally different- do we have to purchase properties for stations, rights-of-way and the like or not. There is a whole lot of stuff we would need to do if there is a train that would otherwise not be done.

We seem to be right back to where communication between you and I usually falls apart. You are speaking of the distant, almost unfathomable future in nearly present terms. The plausible intensification of Centre Street will probably be mostly built-out by the time any variation on the NCLRT is built.

You do need a pretty strong case for property acquisition, especially if it is an expropriation, or legal taking. Municipal governments just can't force-ably take property without a clear municipal purpose. That is in the MGA.

Expropriation? Seriously? In this time frame? That would be Mirabel and Pickering Airport insane. As opposed to opportunistically buying properties as they come to market.

There needs to be a public "song and dance" because community consultation is an important part of making large civic decisions like this one.

There is no decision to be made and it sounds like by all accounts public input that expressed a preference for subways and preserving traffic lanes was dismissed. This will just become political cover for buffoons promising subways.

I would rather us have an alignment, station locations, etc as soon as we can for this, then waiting until it is too late and having to use a bunch of kludges where simple forethought would have resulted in a better solution.

Which also goes back to the point that this is not a sacrosanct decision. Another mayor and council can put it right back in Nose Creek, elevate it, bury it or put it somewhere else entirely. This time is not different.

[DizzyEdge]

Re: Denver and their 0.4% sales tax increase. The funding was approved via referendum. Would such a referendum result in a win here in Calgary? if it didn't would that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 all political will to put money into transit from any source of funding?

[MalcolmTucker]

Can't know unless you try, but when did an anti transit candidate get anywhere in a city wide election?

Sometimes you have to go all in to get the big win.

[Aegis]

Just got back from NYC about a month ago, stayed there for a week and used public transit exclusively (no taxis). It got me thinking about comparisons between our train system and theirs.

It made me wonder about two things.

First, it was immediately obvious that one of the key advantages of having a purely subterranean and elevated train system (as NYC has) is that trains can be extremely long (compared with our 3-car trains.) In the context of adding more train capacity Downtown as the next big step in expanding our system, and since the majority of our system will only be able to support 4-car trains for at least the medium term, it seems like we're wasting our money burying the line under 8th Avenue if we can't leverage the biggest benefit of a subterranean line (long trains).

Second, can anyone comment on whether CT has ever considered adding capacity along existing lines (for example, 4 tracks supporting the Tuscany line) to allow for express trains that have limited stops?

Public transit in NYC is really quite amazing. I wish we could leverage more of the best parts of it for our own benefit.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Second, can anyone comment on whether CT has ever considered adding capacity along existing lines (for example, 4 tracks supporting the Tuscany line) to allow for express trains that have limited stops?

I doubt they have ever considered this. I am sure there are plenty of reasons for that too, but I will leave it to the better informed.

There are some serious benefits to burying the NW-S line even if the trains never get longer than 4 or 5 cars. Spliting the two existing lines means that extra space can use for more trains on those lines which is an enormous capacity increase over the current interlining. Not likely 2x (due to existing over-crowding of the track from what I have heard) but serious capacity increases nonetheless. Also makes the system much more resilient to back-ups and issues as the lines operate independently and more room in the schedule in event of a problem.

What I think is more likely in the medium to long term (apart from the 8th Ave Subway) would be some level of commuter rail that could theoretically function like express trains. I would assume following the existing CPR ROW in a few directions. The obvious one for me is the South Line. Perhaps an Somerset & Anderson & Chinook transfer stations between Rail and existing LRT and then a central station downtown.

I am sure there are many issues with this due to existing freight traffic and space for new sidings etc. but in a long enough timeframe I wouldn't be surprised.

A Nose Creek - Airport Transfer - Airdrie line could work as well, and a Bowness Line is possible. I would expect a much larger population and much higher densities would be required to support such a system, but we are well on our way.

Be patient, New York didn't get to 8 million over-night

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I doubt they have ever considered this. I am sure there are plenty of reasons for that too, but I will leave it to the better informed.

There are some serious benefits to burying the NW-S line even if the trains never get longer than 4 or 5 cars. Spliting the two existing lines means that extra space can use for more trains on those lines which is an enormous capacity increase over the current interlining. Not likely 2x (due to existing over-crowding of the track from what I have heard) but serious capacity increases nonetheless. Also makes the system much more resilient to back-ups and issues as the lines operate independently and more room in the schedule in event of a problem.

What I think is more likely in the medium to long term (apart from the 8th Ave Subway) would be some level of commuter rail that could theoretically function like express trains. I would assume following the existing CPR ROW in a few directions. The obvious one for me is the South Line. Perhaps an Somerset & Anderson & Chinook transfer stations between Rail and existing LRT and then a central station downtown.

I am sure there are many issues with this due to existing freight traffic and space for new sidings etc. but in a long enough timeframe I wouldn't be surprised.

A Nose Creek - Airport Transfer - Airdrie line could work as well, and a Bowness Line is possible. I would expect a much larger population and much higher densities would be required to support such a system, but we are well on our way.

Be patient, New York didn't get to 8 million over-night

Keep in mind IIRC the current vehicles have a limit of 5 cars in a consist.

Complete grade separation has the added benefit of being able to reduce headways. Something that Calgary will have to look at some point in the future.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't know about express tracks - just imagine how fast service could run and at what headways before the electromechanical signalling systems were installed in New York in the 20s and 30s. Do you need the extra tracks in this day and age, when you can squeeze extra capacity out of automated train operation? Not that express doesn't feel faster in New York. I would prefer the money go to more lines to increase coverage once you are getting to the 45,000 ppdph wall, rather than express lines.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Keep in mind IIRC the current vehicles have a limit of 5 cars in a consist.

Complete grade separation has the added benefit of being able to reduce headways. Something that Calgary will have to look at some point in the future.

Yes that is true, I think the type of cars we buy are limited to 5-car consists. I think we will be sticking with 4 car platforms for a while. The way the political situation and the RouteAhead plans are pushing things, I suspect we will see greater coverage being the focus for the foreseeable future, rather than sheer capacity of any one line (beyond the NW-S 8th Ave project). Alternative lines and the BRT network would be a better solution for a long time to relieve the main-line LRT skeleton.

If I could have 1 wish it would be for the 16th BRT line. yes there is development potential along the corridor - we will see some serious projects in good time - but that is not the only goal. All the building blocks of a well-used route are already there. NE LRT connection at PLC / Whitehorn / Sunridge Mall , Centre Street Connection for the NC LRT and existing busiest bus corridor in the city, SAIT, North Hill mall, University / Foothills / ACH. The potential is enormous, particularly if they do a true, limited stop BRT that is reliable and faster than transferring downtown for students.

The Northeast has an enormous university-aged population who commute through the core and switch to go to the education hub on the inner NW. Taking 10,000 of these passengers away / per day to the 16th Ave BRT and you would free up some room for downtown and SLRT commuters.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I doubt they have ever considered this. I am sure there are plenty of reasons for that too, but I will leave it to the better informed.

There are some serious benefits to burying the NW-S line even if the trains never get longer than 4 or 5 cars. Spliting the two existing lines means that extra space can use for more trains on those lines which is an enormous capacity increase over the current interlining. Not likely 2x (due to existing over-crowding of the track from what I have heard) but serious capacity increases nonetheless. Also makes the system much more resilient to back-ups and issues as the lines operate independently and more room in the schedule in event of a problem.

What I think is more likely in the medium to long term (apart from the 8th Ave Subway) would be some level of commuter rail that could theoretically function like express trains. I would assume following the existing CPR ROW in a few directions. The obvious one for me is the South Line. Perhaps an Somerset & Anderson & Chinook transfer stations between Rail and existing LRT and then a central station downtown.

I am sure there are many issues with this due to existing freight traffic and space for new sidings etc. but in a long enough timeframe I wouldn't be surprised.

A Nose Creek - Airport Transfer - Airdrie line could work as well, and a Bowness Line is possible. I would expect a much larger population and much higher densities would be required to support such a system, but we are well on our way.

Be patient, New York didn't get to 8 million over-night

SAIT would have trouble expanding to five car platform length without re-routing a road, and in the south a few new grade separations would be required for longer trains and shorter headways, but in principle the 201 is expandable to something like 30k ppdph. Thats comparable to the Toronto subway and the ultimate future capacity of Vancouver's Expo line, so there's a huge amount of growing room there. As far as I know the 202 line is lower because of the 36th St mess, but still would have a large headroom available if not for the current interlining.

Heavy rail to the south is also really simplified by the LRT following the CP ROW for a large part of its length. I believe Siemens and CP ran a trial commuter rail line that went from 162nd to Anderson, where people transferred to the CTrain. Although you could really see people using the CTrain to commute south to transfer to the less crowded heavy-rail option if it went all the way downtown. In the north the idea of a 96th ave station - international terminal - domestic terminal - heavy rail station people mover makes me giddy, although probably not viable at all.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't know about express tracks - just imagine how fast service could run and at what headways before the electromechanical signalling systems were installed in New York in the 20s and 30s. Do you need the extra tracks in this day and age, when you can squeeze extra capacity out of automated train operation? Not that express doesn't feel faster in New York. I would prefer the money go to more lines to increase coverage once you are getting to the 45,000 ppdph wall, rather than express lines.

In New York, the 4-tracked sections are really fully used as far as I know. The 4-tracked Lexington Ave line handles 1.3 million passengers per weekday. The combined local/express system has a mean headway of about 60 seconds during rush hour (55,000 ppdph), so they're actually utilizing all four tracks. Although part of this has to do with the fact that the 2nd Ave subway has been short on funding for nearly a century.

[joe498]

Calgary commuters riding CTrain backwards to secure seats at Tuscany Station:

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1188454...ards-to-secure-seats-at-tuscany-station/

Calgary’s newest LRT station is already so busy that regular riders say they don’t even use it, opting instead to get on the CTrain one station earlier and ride the rails in reverse for one stop in order to secure a seat.

How people are arriving at Tuscany Station:
• 36% bus
• 36% auto (26% drop off, 10% Park and Ride)
• 25% walk
• 3% cycle

[fusili]

Originally Posted by VIce

In New York, the 4-tracked sections are really fully used as far as I know. The 4-tracked Lexington Ave line handles 1.3 million passengers per weekday. The combined local/express system has a mean headway of about 60 seconds during rush hour (55,000 ppdph), so they're actually utilizing all four tracks. Although part of this has to do with the fact that the 2nd Ave subway has been short on funding for nearly a century.

The lexington avenue line is the busiest in North America IIRC.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by joe498

Calgary commuters riding CTrain backwards to secure seats at Tuscany Station:

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1188454...ards-to-secure-seats-at-tuscany-station/

Happens in the south every day too. I've done it at least once where I've gone from Anderson down to Fish Creek just to get onto the train.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by VIce

SAIT would have trouble expanding to five car platform length without re-routing a road, and in the south a few new grade separations would be required for longer trains and shorter headways, but in principle the 201 is expandable to something like 30k ppdph. Thats comparable to the Toronto subway and the ultimate future capacity of Vancouver's Expo line, so there's a huge amount of growing room there. As far as I know the 202 line is lower because of the 36th St mess, but still would have a large headroom available if not for the current interlining.

Heavy rail to the south is also really simplified by the LRT following the CP ROW for a large part of its length. I believe Siemens and CP ran a trial commuter rail line that went from 162nd to Anderson, where people transferred to the CTrain. Although you could really see people using the CTrain to commute south to transfer to the less crowded heavy-rail option if it went all the way downtown. In the north the idea of a 96th ave station - international terminal - domestic terminal - heavy rail station people mover makes me giddy, although probably not viable at all.

4 cars can't come soon enough.

Speaking of the 36th Ave mess, is there a reason to use the rock ballast and the large ROW rather than something else? I feel the width of track is twice as wide as it should be. Is this just a reserve for potential lane expansions or siding track if it is ever needed? or is there a technical/maintenance reason for the amount of room there?

[MalcolmTucker]

Likely all comes down to cost.