Future Canadian Transit Maps

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by ehlow

Why didn't they build for two tracks originally for the O Train? Did they not foresee a future where ridership & service levels would increase?

Can it handle ridership as is with trains only every 15 min?

Mostly. The 8:15AM departures leave people on the platform but aside from that it can handle ridership pretty well. Going up to 8.5 minutes, which is happening in March, will result in significant extra capacity, probably more than enough for the next 20 years, after which either double tracking or train coupling will likely be pursued.

[Chadillaccc]

The future of Calgary's mass/rapid transit network as approved by the current administration, along with the most up to date timeline.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I've explained it twice... there is no schedule change when the new stations are added, the passing siding stop will be relocated to the stations.

Right now (or rather, next month):
-Station stop at Bayview
-Siding stop in the north
-Station stop at Carling
-Station stop at Carleton
-Station stop at Confederation
-Siding stop in the south
-Station stop at Greenboro
A total of 7 train stops

The new north siding is only a few hundred metres away from Gladstone Avenue, and the new south siding is only a few hundred metres away from Walkley Road. When the stations are built, they'll simply extend the sidings so that way they do reach those two roads, and then trains can pass each other at the stations. You literally replace siding stops with station stops. So it will become:
-Station stop at Bayview
-Station stop at Gladstone
-Station stop at Carling
-Station stop at Carleton
-Station stop at Confederation
-Station stop at Walkley
-Station stop at Greenboro
A total of 7 train stops!

The technical documents have always said 8.5mins. The City until very recently was always saying 8 minutes.

In what document is this information provided?

If this is the plan, why have they not placed the passing track at the location of the proposed stations in the first place?

The reason is of course, that they are located where the trains will normally meet to maintain the proposed schedule. This will not change. If the trains will be meeting at Brookfield Road (the location of the new passing track), they will have to stop there to allow the two trains to pass safely, regardless of the opening of Walkley Station, at least 500 m to the south.

Any adjustments to the passing tracks, means another significant shutdown in service. It is inevitable.

And if the passing track is extended to Walkley Station, it also means a reconstruction of the Walkley Road overpass since the rail subway under Walkley Road only has room for one set of tracks. The station will be located adjacent to the hotel/condo complex immediately on the south side of Walkley Road.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Huh? The Confederation Line will be accompanied with increases in bus service, worth about $15M-$20M per year. And there's two VIVA-style BRT routes funded as well.

Again, provide a link to the report that supports this. The only report I have seen concerning bus service changes relating to the Confederation Line was highly controversial (it proposed substantial suburban service rationalization - service cuts in many neighbourhoods) . Those proposals came very early in the planning process and there has been another service rationalization since then so I am sure that the city needs to come up with something completely new before the line opens in 2018. I know there have been several proposals concerning VIVA-style BRT routes but my understanding is that they are not being coordinated with the opening of the Confederation Line. The Baseline Road BRT was supposed to be part of Phase 2 but will funding be available for it?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In what document is this information provided?

The reports from the engineers, according to a contact of mine at the RIO. I'll bug him to see if I can get copies.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If this is the plan, why have they not placed the passing track at the location of the proposed stations in the first place?

The reason is of course, that they are located where the trains will normally meet to maintain the proposed schedule. This will not change. If the trains will be meeting at Brookfield Road (the location of the new passing track), they will have to stop there to allow the two trains to pass safely, regardless of the opening of Walkley Station, at least 500 m to the south.

Because the city, in its infinite non-wisdom, wanted to build sidings to double service without building the new stations, so it first needs sidings best suited for train passing. If they were originally located at the new station sites without building the new stations, as you said, they wouldn't be at the right spot. But by extending the passing siding to cover both spots (the new station AND the meet point) there's no need to stop twice on the siding. This is hard to explain without diagrams but I'll try with words. Imagine you have two trains, meeting on the siding, the northbound arrives first, then the southbound arrives a few seconds later. That's what happens when the Brookfield siding is in place. Now, when the siding is extended south 500m to Walkley. When the northbound train stops, the southbound train is still 500m to the north at the old meetpoint. Northbound stops at Walkley, then goes up again. By the time the northbound train reaches the old meetpoint, the southbound train is at Walkley now. They've passed each other safely.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Any adjustments to the passing tracks, means another significant shutdown in service. It is inevitable.

No, this is absolutely not true unless the city is being very stupid. You do not need to shut down active railway tracks to build sidings. Any rail engineer will agree with me. VIA, CN, CP build new sidings on their tracks all the time without shutting them down. VIA just built a bunch on the Ottawa-Brockville track, they're building one right now near Richmond.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And if the passing track is extended to Walkley Station, it also means a reconstruction of the Walkley Road overpass since the rail subway under Walkley Road only has room for one set of tracks. The station will be located adjacent to the hotel/condo complex immediately on the south side of Walkley Road.

Yeah... and? This stops Walkley station from being built somehow?

Awesome on the location BTW. I didn't know exactly where the station site was planned before. That's exactly where it should be. Woot, the city

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Again, provide a link to the report that supports this. The only report I have seen concerning bus service changes relating to the Confederation Line was highly controversial (it proposed substantial suburban service rationalization - service cuts in many neighbourhoods) . Those proposals came very early in the planning process and there has been another service rationalization since then so I am sure that the city needs to come up with something completely new before the line opens in 2018. I know there have been several proposals concerning VIVA-style BRT routes but my understanding is that they are not being coordinated with the opening of the Confederation Line. The Baseline Road BRT was supposed to be part of Phase 2 but will funding be available for it?

The $15-$20M bus service increase, Jim Watson said so during the campaign. IIRC it was the Carleton debate. Now, there is obviously a difference between campaign statements and reality, but we don't have much else to go on at this point. The old report you're referring to, that's the one from like 2008 or so right? The one that first recommended extending Orleans local to Blair and extending the (now longer existing) #3 bus to Gatineau? Don't recall seeing suburban service cuts in there, but then again, I never actually read through it, just saw glimpses. I'll assume you're correct on it though, it does sound like something from that era.

I have zero evidence of this but I suspect that the 6-101-102 realignment that happened last year was done with the Confederation Line in mind, it works perfectly for it. That was a change for the better, and it didn't cost much (my rough estimate by looking at the before vs after schedules is that its 5-10% more service hours than before).

Funding is there for Baseline & March, they made it through the 2013 TMP. They're also being funded entirely by the city's transit reserve which is regularly filled with gas tax money, so need for other moneys to come through. The timeline for Baseline is construction beginning in 2019 once the reserve fills up enough, so it will be done between Phases 1 & 2 of Confederation (VIVA takes 2-3 years to build their BRTs, so I'm assuming it will be the same timeline here).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Surprised to see the 8 Av subway so far down the timeline, from what I hear from the Calgary forumers it seems pretty urgently needed.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Surprised to see the 8 Av subway so far down the timeline, from what I hear from the Calgary forumers it seems pretty urgently needed.

Ha, that sounds like Toronto (DRL) and Vancouver (Broadway).

The "ignoring the obvious need for a core-focused subway in favour of transit expansion in the suburbs" is almost a theme now.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Ha, that sounds like Toronto (DRL) and Vancouver (Broadway).

The "ignoring the obvious need for a core-focused subway in favour of transit expansion in the suburbs" is almost a theme now.

Yep... add Bank/Rideau/Montreal subway (Ottawa) to your list.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yep... add Bank/Rideau/Montreal subway (Ottawa) to your list.

Also the whole Hamilton LRT debacle.

[Innsertnamehere]

Hamilton isn't ignoring downtown for the suburbs, just ignoring transit in general.

[Boris2k7]

The biggest thing holding up the subway in Calgary is funding. The estimated cost of the subway is about $800 million (let's be realistic, probably closer to $1.2-1.4 Billion by the time it's built). The City is supposed to get about $300 million of gas tax revenue from the federal government over the next 20 years. The City has $327 million left in it's GreenTRIP allocation from the Province to spend, and the funding formula currently allows only the province to cover up to two thirds of the cost of any single project. Meaning, if the subway came in at the estimated cost, the City would have to come up with $267 million in Capital funding and there isn't enough GreenTRIP funding left to cover the province's portion of $533 million. And a weak economy and the big hit to the provincial budget means there's no guarantee of the program continuing past 2020.

The second biggest thing -- politics. Even if the City had money to spend, it would choose to spend it on reaching out to voters in suburbs with no access to rapid transit.

What is absurd to me is that somehow a rail connection to the airport would be considered for the medium term before the subway ever got built.

EDIT: Also, this is in the same city where the province is prepared to spend $5 Billion on the remaining leg of the ring road.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Hamilton isn't ignoring downtown for the suburbs, just ignoring transit in general.

Hamilton's LRT is sinking because it's seen as downtown improvements over the suburbs.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

The biggest thing holding up the subway in Calgary is funding. The estimated cost of the subway is about $800 million (let's be realistic, probably closer to $1.2-1.4 Billion by the time it's built). The City is supposed to get about $300 million of gas tax revenue from the federal government over the next 20 years. The City has $327 million left in it's GreenTRIP allocation from the Province to spend, and the funding formula currently allows only the province to cover up to two thirds of the cost of any single project. Meaning, if the subway came in at the estimated cost, the City would have to come up with $267 million in Capital funding and there isn't enough GreenTRIP funding left to cover the province's portion of $533 million. And a weak economy and the big hit to the provincial budget means there's no guarantee of the program continuing past 2020.

The second biggest thing -- politics. Even if the City had money to spend, it would choose to spend it on reaching out to voters in suburbs with no access to rapid transit.

What is absurd to me is that somehow a rail connection to the airport would be considered for the medium term before the subway ever got built.

EDIT: Also, this is in the same city where the province is prepared to spend $5 Billion on the remaining leg of the ring road.

Isn't the subway tied in with the north-central and southeast routes? If that is the case, then building the subway alone is not enough. You need some minimum portion of the new route to make it worthwhile.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't the subway tied in with the north-central and southeast routes? If that is the case, then building the subway alone is not enough. You need some minimum portion of the new route to make it worthwhile.

The subway on 8th would be for the existing South to Northwest (201) route, which is the most heavily used. That would leave the West to Northeast (202) route on 7th Ave. The North-Central to Southeast route would be running along 10th Ave until it curves into a subway oriented North-South under 2nd Street SW, so that line has no effect at all on congestion for existing routes (except in the sense that it would take some pressure off the South line from people who bus over to Anderson).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The $15-$20M bus service increase, Jim Watson said so during the campaign. IIRC it was the Carleton debate. Now, there is obviously a difference between campaign statements and reality, but we don't have much else to go on at this point. The old report you're referring to, that's the one from like 2008 or so right? The one that first recommended extending Orleans local to Blair and extending the (now longer existing) #3 bus to Gatineau? Don't recall seeing suburban service cuts in there, but then again, I never actually read through it, just saw glimpses. I'll assume you're correct on it though, it does sound like something from that era.

I have zero evidence of this but I suspect that the 6-101-102 realignment that happened last year was done with the Confederation Line in mind, it works perfectly for it. That was a change for the better, and it didn't cost much (my rough estimate by looking at the before vs after schedules is that its 5-10% more service hours than before).

Funding is there for Baseline & March, they made it through the 2013 TMP. They're also being funded entirely by the city's transit reserve which is regularly filled with gas tax money, so need for other moneys to come through. The timeline for Baseline is construction beginning in 2019 once the reserve fills up enough, so it will be done between Phases 1 & 2 of Confederation (VIVA takes 2-3 years to build their BRTs, so I'm assuming it will be the same timeline here).

The new Route 6 and 101 uses the Hurdman transit bridge. That will soon be gone.

Anyways, we will wait for some concrete proposals.

Have they actually started an Environmental assessment for the Baseline BRT? The Baseline route will involve a major rebuild of Baseline Road.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

The subway on 8th would be for the existing South to Northwest (201) route, which is the most heavily used. That would leave the West to Northeast (202) route on 7th Ave. The North-Central to Southeast route would be running along 10th Ave until it curves into a subway oriented North-South under 2nd Street SW, so that line has no effect at all on congestion for existing routes (except in the sense that it would take some pressure off the South line from people who bus over to Anderson).

So we are talking about 2 subway proposals.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

The subway on 8th would be for the existing South to Northwest (201) route, which is the most heavily used. That would leave the West to Northeast (202) route on 7th Ave. The North-Central to Southeast route would be running along 10th Ave until it curves into a subway oriented North-South under 2nd Street SW, so that line has no effect at all on congestion for existing routes (except in the sense that it would take some pressure off the South line from people who bus over to Anderson).

How come both the red and blue lines can't use the potential tunnel?

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

>Originally Posted by 1overcosc
>Surprised to see the 8 Av subway so far down the timeline, from what I hear from the Calgary forumers it seems pretty urgently needed.

Ha, that sounds like Toronto (DRL) and Vancouver (Broadway).

The "ignoring the obvious need for a core-focused subway in favour of transit expansion in the suburbs" is almost a theme now.

Not exactly. The 8th avenue subway will be a realignment of one LRT line, increasing capacity for that line and no longer sharing the surface route through downtown with the other one. It benefits commuters as it will enable these 2 lines to expand ridership further and extend further out into the burbs. It won't be long before, sharing the surface line, trains will be bumper to bumper downtown and no more capacity possible.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

How come both the red and blue lines can't use the potential tunnel?

The biggest reason to separate them would be to improve the headway between trains during peak rush hour. Another side reason would be that we just paid to make all these shiny new stations and it would be a shame not to get the maximum use out of them.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So we are talking about 2 subway proposals.

Well, the one we are specifically talking about for the purposes of this conversation (WRT the RouteAhead Plan) is the 2km stretch down 8th Ave for the existing line. The other one will have to go underneath the 8th Ave subway but will be a much shorter tunnel.