Calgary Public Transit II

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

I agree. What we have in Calgary is a fairly efficient, straight-forward and useful LRT system, complemented by about 4 or so bus routes of an only slightly less optimal utility (the 301, #3, #305, #302(ish) and the #306. The rest of the system, however, is run like transit from some sprawling Sun-Belt city where ridership is like 3%. Way too many milk-runs, circuitous routes and general inefficiencies to make transit useful by any means.

We need more crosstown routes that are direct, frequent and with limited stops. 16th avenue is a huge one, but so are routes like 52nd street east or in your case, 14th street west. I always thought a route from the Diefenbaker/Superstore/etc area down 4th street, then to Northmount, then 14th street, 33rd avenue and Richmond road terminating at Westhills would be a very useful route.

I disagree, however, that a route on 14th street north of John Laurie should be used. It is too far removed from anybody to be useful.

Check out the map here:
http://transitcamp.ca/2012/10/04/the-transitcamp-network-plan/

I'd be ok with these useful direct routes just being in the grid pattern portion of the city.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

An interesting report for the North-Central LRT:

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/...0csoi3lw3fle/31010812152014084114572.PDF

The report shows detailed station locations north of 16th ave. Different options for tunnelled and at-grade are presented for travelling over the Bow.

With LRT running down the median of Centre Street I hope to god this doesn't turn into a cluster f**k like 36th street N.E.

Your link isn't working right now.

I don't visit Centre St very often, but I had to take the 301 a few weeks ago. The road is nowhere near wide enough to host fast rail! Not just south of 24th but north also. This train, designed primarily as commuter transit, is going to be only marginally faster than the slow bus it replaces. I don't think it's going to achieve the success they envision...

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Your link isn't working right now.

I don't visit Centre St very often, but I had to take the 301 a few weeks ago. The road is nowhere near wide enough to host fast rail! Not just south of 24th but north also. This train, designed primarily as commuter transit, is going to be only marginally faster than the slow bus it replaces. I don't think it's going to achieve the success they envision...

The agenda and meeting minutes site is down for now.

Calgary should buy this for Centre Street:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/21/...to-chinese-company-for-just-9-2-million/

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The agenda and meeting minutes site is down for now.

Calgary should buy this for Centre Street:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/21/...to-chinese-company-for-just-9-2-million/

That article seems a bit sensationalist! AFAIK it's extremely rare to re use TBMs, they'll get stripped of good parts and the rest disposed of. They are often just driven to the side and left entombed.

$51m sounds like a pretty good price to me, cheaper than I expected.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd be ok with these useful direct routes just being in the grid pattern portion of the city.

Once you get out of the pre-1950s suburbs, you have to adjust to the road patterns there. However, the 1960s/1970s suburbs, while not being grids, still had main arterials centralized within the community and had commercial nodes focused on them. The road also didn't have back-lotting of every residential parcel onto them. These can act as good transit streets as they are centralized, access commercial areas and can add density over time. Northmount Drive, Elbow Drive, Fairmont Drive, 33rd Ave/Richmond Road, 52nd street, etc are streets that act like this.

It wasn't until the 1980s/1990s that road patterns within communities were created with the purpose of inhibiting through traffic, so transit routing becomes incredibly difficult.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The agenda and meeting minutes site is down for now.

Calgary should buy this for Centre Street:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/21/...to-chinese-company-for-just-9-2-million/

Stories like this are pretty funny. At least this one doesn't veer too much into know nothing populism.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Your link isn't working right now.

I don't visit Centre St very often, but I had to take the 301 a few weeks ago. The road is nowhere near wide enough to host fast rail! Not just south of 24th but north also. This train, designed primarily as commuter transit, is going to be only marginally faster than the slow bus it replaces. I don't think it's going to achieve the success they envision...

We get 30K riders a day on centre street (mostly the 3 and 301). 30K a day. That is more than the West LRT. That is higher than almost every light rail line in North America outside of Calgary. This is on a "slow" bus without a dedicated lane. They could put in a train on Centre Street today, at grade, with the same amount of stops, with the same travel speed and they would probably get 40K riders on day one. If it wasn't in Calgary, that line would be considered one of the most successful light rail lines on the continent.

If we are getting this level of transit ridership at these travel times, I don't think "fast" transit needs to be the goal. If your theory is that only fast transit attracts riders, you have already been disproven by how many people take the bus as it stands today.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by fusili

We get 30K riders a day on centre street (mostly the 3 and 301). 30K a day. That is more than the West LRT. That is higher than almost every light rail line in North America outside of Calgary. This is on a "slow" bus without a dedicated lane. They could put in a train on Centre Street today, at grade, with the same amount of stops, with the same travel speed and they would probably get 40K riders on day one. If it wasn't in Calgary, that line would be considered one of the most successful light rail lines on the continent.

If we are getting this level of transit ridership at these travel times, I don't think "fast" transit needs to be the goal. If your theory is that only fast transit attracts riders, you have already been disproven by how many people take the bus as it stands today.

I'm sure it will be very well used, which is why I think the corridor deserves better. This LRT will likely be close to capacity on day one.

If I understand the motives of the city correctly, the main goal of transit is to transport as many commuters from the suburbs downtown as possible. So while the NCLRT will be very well used by existing transit users, how many new users will choose to use a system which will inevitably be slower and lower capacity than the two lines we have already? These people already have a way of getting where they need to go, they need to offered a better alternative, or they'll keep driving.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm sure it will be very well used, which is why I think the corridor deserves better. This LRT will likely be close to capacity on day one.

If I understand the motives of the city correctly, the main goal of transit is to transport as many commuters from the suburbs downtown as possible. So while the NCLRT will be very well used by existing transit users, how many new users will choose to use a system which will inevitably be slower and lower capacity than the two lines we have already? These people already have a way of getting where they need to go, they need to offered a better alternative, or they'll keep driving.

Hillbilly logic. That's like Harper ignoring Albertans because they already vote con.

You need to support those areas that are heavy users. It would be like not doing anything in downtown because many already use transit. Going after anti-urban commuters first is like appeasing Germany. It doesn't achieve anything.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Hillbilly logic. That's like Harper ignoring Albertans because they already vote con.

You need to support those areas that are heavy users. Going after anti-urban commuters first is like appeasing Germany.

I don't disagree, but I think both need to be catered for. This line is going to need to be capable of high capacity - running at high frequency with stations big enough for 4-5 car trains. I don't think a line running at grade on Centre St will be capable of that.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm sure it will be very well used, which is why I think the corridor deserves better. This LRT will likely be close to capacity on day one.

If I understand the motives of the city correctly, the main goal of transit is to transport as many commuters from the suburbs downtown as possible. So while the NCLRT will be very well used by existing transit users, how many new users will choose to use a system which will inevitably be slower and lower capacity than the two lines we have already? These people already have a way of getting where they need to go, they need to offered a better alternative, or they'll keep driving.

That's what a dedicated lane, limited stops and a massive increase to capacity does. Don't forget that the bus is also full, which is currently an impediment to additional ridership, especially for those south of Beddington.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

An interesting report for the North-Central LRT:

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/...0csoi3lw3fle/31010812152014084114572.PDF

The report shows detailed station locations north of 16th ave. Different options for tunnelled and at-grade are presented for travelling over the Bow.

With LRT running down the median of Centre Street I hope to god this doesn't turn into a cluster f**k like 36th street N.E.

Really interesting to consider the alignment options from downtown to 16th avenue north. One option shows the route tunneling from 10th avenue to accommodate the 7th avenue station, but then coming up to grade for the Eau Claire station, bridging the river and then going into another tunnel in the bluff until just north of 20th avenue. The advantage of this is that it keeps the tunnels pretty shallow (the 9th avenue N station is only 7m from grade to the top of the tunnel) and doesn't have huge impacts on any major roads. If I read it right, only 2nd avenue downtown will have to be closed at 2nd street. Not a huge loss.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

Check out the map here:
http://transitcamp.ca/2012/10/04/the-transitcamp-network-plan/

Do you know if Calgary Transit considering this proposal from transit camp? I think it is an excellent map.

[fusili]

Let's discuss this (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/...0csoi3lw3fle/31010812152014084114572.PDF).

It looks like they broke out the evaluation into three chunks- downtown to 20th avenue, 20th avenue to Beddington Blvd and Beddington blvd north to Beddington trail (a really short segment).

The 3 options for downtown to 20th are basically as follows and are determined primarily how they cross the river:
1. New bridge over the river.
- Underground from 10th avenue to 3rd avenue. Bridge over the river to a tunnel portal in the bluff. Underground until 20th avenue
- 7th avenue station underground
- 2nd ave station (Eau Claire) at grade
- 9th avenue station underground, about 7m from surface.
- $770M capital cost
2. Centre Street Bridge (preferred option)
- Underground from 10th avenue to 3rd avenue. Turns onto 3rd avenue to get to grade, then uses centre street at grade for the rest of the way, except for an underground station at 16th avenue
- 7th avenue station underground
- 3rd avenue station at grade
- 9th avenue station at grade
- $660M capital cost
3. Fully underground.
- underground from 10th avenue to 20th avenue
- tunnelled under the river
- 9th avenue station is ~40M deep (wow!)
- $1.3B capital cost

From 20th to Beddington, there are two options, one being a wider right of way (two lanes of traffic each way), the other narrower (single lane of traffic each way).
- Tunnel under McKnight
- Stations at 28th, 40th, McKnight (doesn't show on the alignment sections, but does show on the map), 60th,
- Full turns intersections at 28th, 32nd, 40th, Laycock Dr., McKnight, 64th, 68th, 72nd and Beddington Blvd.

[MalcolmTucker]

New bridge is a reasonable compromise.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

New bridge is a reasonable compromise.

I feel the same way. It saves a lot of money vs the subway, keeps important stations and roads grade separated (i.e. centre street south of 20th avenue, downtown south of 3rd avenue) and avoids crazy expensive and difficult stations like the 40+ metre deep 9th avenue station. While I do like the idea of using at-grade sections for this line, I really don't think Centre street south of 16th avenue is a good candidate for that.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

New bridge is a reasonable compromise.

It seems a no-brainer from those costs, but I'm surprised that the cost difference of burying 2km of line is $110m - that can't be right?

I'm still not able to view those minutes - is it just me?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It seems a no-brainer from those costs, but I'm surprised that the cost difference of burying 2km of line is $110m - that can't be right?

I'm still not able to view those minutes - is it just me?

The at grade option still has to bury under 16th avenue, so the difference is 810m for that option vs 1575m for the bridge option. The bridge involves about 100m more downtown tunneling as well. So you are looking at $100M for 865m of extra tunnel and a new bridge. Also, I believe there is some structural reinforcement needed on the centre street bridge for that option.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

I feel the same way. It saves a lot of money vs the subway, keeps important stations and roads grade separated (i.e. centre street south of 20th avenue, downtown south of 3rd avenue) and avoids crazy expensive and difficult stations like the 40+ metre deep 9th avenue station. While I do like the idea of using at-grade sections for this line, I really don't think Centre street south of 16th avenue is a good candidate for that.

Also avoids any issues where a decade down the road they determine the centre street bridge isn't handling the load very well.

[DizzyEdge]

Personally I'd like to see a station between 16th and 28th ave, but i guess with low floor that wouldn't take much effort to put in any time. Particularly since the diamond shaped 600m catchment showed that at the midpoint between the stations basically only people right on Centre or a block off would be in the 600m area.