Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[Riise]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Again, your argument in general terms sounds nice, but long ago the city decided to green light Quarry Park and the SE Health campus contingent on there being an lrt line eventually. So no, they are not acquiescing to these communities demands, they are fulfilling the framework required for these mega projects to properly function.

I think you are overlooking the fact that providing sustainable developments in Quarry Park with LRT service also provides unsustainable developments in Quarry Park, Seton, High River and Okotoks with more convenient access to LRT service. We cannot judge a project solely on its positive effects and must also consider its negative effects even if they are unintended.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There are now probably 30,000 people living south of the Ring Road within city limits (Auburn Bay, Cranston and Mahoganny). Mahoganny alone at full build out will have 20,000 residents. This says nothing of future communities like Seton, which I believe will be getting their first multi family town homes sometime this year. Again, I know it's not as sexy as the Beltline but there is a lot happening on the fringes down here that I don't think many on this forum pay attention to.

That's not the point. The point is that the LRT goes for almost 10km between Ramsay and Quarry Park with very little ridership potential. I'm not saying the SE doesn't have a large population, I am saying it is far away from the city and completely isolated due to Foothills Industrial, Deerfoot and the Bow River. Compare this to the NC portion where it cross the river and is immediately in a dense neighbourhood (Crescent heights) and continues along unbroken residential development the entire length of the corridor.

So for the SE portion, we have to go through kilometres of industrial before hitting any ridership generators, whereas we do so right away on the NC corridor. Plus, the NC corridor is larger than the SE (~150K compared to ~90K currently) but is also projected to equal amounts of growth (Keystone Hills).

I am not saying we shouldn't build the SE line, I am just saying the development pattern and location isn't ideal.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

What I mean is we could have probably saved billions of dollars and millions of hours of congestion if we had built some of the centres on that list along existing transit corridors. For example, there could have been a way to build South Health at Somerset, for instance, thereby delaying the need to build the SELRT in the first place.

Of course, that ship has sailed, but moving forward, let's ensure more input from the city (and especially transit) when it comes to building future provincial and federal projects with high employment density.

That's what I thought you meant. So in other words, it's a nice idea to have, but since all of the facilities you listed, save South Health, were built prior to any "existing transit corridors", I think you're focus is misdirected.

What instead could've possibly saved billions of dollars and millions of hours would have been to route the LRT based on the pre-existing major facilities you listed... Connecting the dots, if you will. Now, since the routes are established, I agree future large scale facilities would ideally be located adjacent to transit.

Agreed on South Health, but as you say, that ship has sailed. On the bright side, having SH located where it is further justifies the Green Line and likely pushed the prioritization of the line.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

What I mean is we could have probably saved billions of dollars and millions of hours of congestion if we had built some of the centres on that list along existing transit corridors. For example, there could have been a way to build South Health at Somerset, for instance, thereby delaying the need to build the SELRT in the first place.

Of course, that ship has sailed, but moving forward, let's ensure more input from the city (and especially transit) when it comes to building future provincial and federal projects with high employment density.

Well the province has already bought land for a new hospital north of the north ring road, forget exactly where though.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I agree with you that suburbs are being built more methodically today but in my opinion there is still a ways to go. A grid layout should be implemented in new developments along with a "main street" type area. I think these features are going to come to fruition with new greenfield developments like Rangeview. It will be serviced by the SE LRT as well.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Current-studies-and-ongoing-activities/Rangeview.aspx

I don't disagree with you, but there will in most likelihood be an evolution and compromise. Some areas don't have a main-street, but do have a town centre. There is "some" merit in how non-rectilinear arrangements integrate right of ways for walking and cycling, and also natural areas, parks and schools. Don't get me wrong - I think Tuscany and Evanston are disasters for their lack of permeability, but there are other areas that are much better getting in and and of, and around within, that are also not defined by an overly rigid grid. Some of this, of course, is informed by varying natural landscapes.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well the province has already bought land for a new hospital north of the north ring road, forget exactly where though.

Oooh - well that's interesting. Would be great to find out where if it ever passes your screen again.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by fusili

After this line, Calgary should really focus on buildings its core transit, including the crosstown BRTs and perhaps even some streetcars (dedicated lanes of course). As Corporate said above, spreading transit out (any infrastructure for that matter) is just not efficient.

Although I would love to see a complete overhaul and prioritization of core transit, I predict the city will prioritize an airport connection (along with a NE extension to 96 Ave) after the Green Line is fully funded.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Although I would love to see a complete overhaul and prioritization of core transit, I predict the city will prioritize an airport connection (along with a NE extension to 96 Ave) after the Green Line is fully funded.

Nah, once the airport interchanges are properly built, the bus will be plenty fast - to two LRT lines! The cost in dollars and in restricting the NE LRT further out/benefits just aren't there.

[DizzyEdge]

I really feel that having 3 bus routes to the airport now is plenty. Even Pearson only had bus service until I think this year.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Nah, once the airport interchanges are properly built, the bus will be plenty fast - to two LRT lines! The cost in dollars and in restricting the NE LRT further out/benefits just aren't there.

Why wouldn't we just have a people-mover type connection off the NE line for an additional surcharge? Similar to the way NYC connects JFK with their subway? Effectively the people needing to go to the airport pay for the cost of it, and, it wouldn't detour riders not needing to go to the airport..

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Why wouldn't we just have a people-mover type connection off the NE line for an additional surcharge? Similar to the way NYC connects JFK with their subway? Effectively the people needing to go to the airport pay for the cost of it, and, it wouldn't detour riders not needing to go to the airport..

That would be optimal, connecting to both lines, and a couple hotel / rental car nodes. For that to be better you have to think about travel time with travel to the stations. Either you build one station at the terminal and almost everyone has to walk, or two for twice the price. Plus you have to get up into the thing in the first place, probably above the upper parkade access skywalks (level 5?)! The distances aren't short between the terminal and the lines either - probably too long for a cable car like Toronto's, so you're up into another price bracket.

Have to consider walking time, waiting time at the stations, and other things.

A bus will be good for a long time. Houston has an automated system between the terminals but still uses buses to get to the central car rental facility. It isn't the worst thing in the world.

Plus the best bus system with will be two orders of magnitude cheaper.

FYI, ~6 km to centre street and ~ 7 km to Saddle Town

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well the province has already bought land for a new hospital north of the north ring road, forget exactly where though.

Originally Posted by suburbia

Oooh - well that's interesting. Would be great to find out where if it ever passes your screen again.

I believe the corner of Centre Street and 144th Ave N.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I believe the corner of Centre Street and 144th Ave N.

Yup, that was enough to find an article:
Developer earmarks land for future north hospital

I am not sure if the province followed through or not. Probably still time if not - a hospital would help make it a dense node for sure.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

That would be optimal, connecting to both lines, and a couple hotel / rental car nodes. For that to be better you have to think about travel time with travel to the stations. Either you build one station at the terminal and almost everyone has to walk, or two for twice the price. Plus you have to get up into the thing in the first place, probably above the upper parkade access skywalks (level 5?)! The distances aren't short between the terminal and the lines either - probably too long for a cable car like Toronto's, so you're up into another price bracket.

Have to consider walking time, waiting time at the stations, and other things.

A bus will be good for a long time. Houston has an automated system between the terminals but still uses buses to get to the central car rental facility. It isn't the worst thing in the world.

Plus the best bus system with will be two orders of magnitude cheaper.

FYI, ~6 km to centre street and ~ 7 km to Saddle Town

I would have thought a combination LRT/people mover station could work at 96th Avenue. The problem with bus service for an airport connection (I agree that route 300 is good, but Nenshi had to move mountains even to get this it implemented) is that it's too prone to cutbacks which eventually undermines its effectiveness. CT isn't usually forward looking.

Could a people-mover to the airport just be independent of Calgary Transit, either private or owned by the airport authority?

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't disagree with you, but there will in most likelihood be an evolution and compromise. Some areas don't have a main-street, but do have a town centre. There is "some" merit in how non-rectilinear arrangements integrate right of ways for walking and cycling, and also natural areas, parks and schools. Don't get me wrong - I think Tuscany and Evanston are disasters for their lack of permeability, but there are other areas that are much better getting in and and of, and around within, that are also not defined by an overly rigid grid. Some of this, of course, is informed by varying natural landscapes.



Oooh - well that's interesting. Would be great to find out where if it ever passes your screen again.

The benefits of the grid system is that it allows for an easier evolution over time. Every neighbourhood goes through transition at some point.

[MalcolmTucker]

All comes down to who comes to the table with cash. Anything is possible! I don't think you'd recover anything close to the capital cost.

Dug up some old posts from the main thread:
2011:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

One thing comparisons to other LRT to airport schemes never do is look at ridership, because it will show how truly abysmal it is, and how pointless the entire project would be. Airports are unique trip generators that aren't easy to serve for many reasons.

1. Employees do not work in one easily serviceable area. While the stat X employees work at the airport seems to be trotted out in these debates, there is a reason they don't take transit now. They are spread out, they have free parking, and they travel at odd times. Since most are traveling outside of peak it is very hard to provide a competitive transit service because you have to draw from the entire city to serve one node.

2. Passengers are reasonably well served by the options today. A fair portion of riders whom would otherwise be captive riders are served by social sources (friends, family), which provide door to door service for a price that can't be beat.

3. The LRT is not a very good option to begin with for trips of this type. Most of the population still needs to take a bus, likely after a rail-rail transfer, to get to their destination. Why ask a friend to pick you up at an LRT station when they are just as willing to pick you up at the airport itself. Business users aren't going to fight crush loads to get downtown on the LRT.

4. Other similar cities have shown how big of a failure building LRT to the airport would be. Portland has 2700 on/offs for 14.6 m pax (6.8% modal assuming 100% of users are passengers), St. Louis has 5000 on/offs at their 2 stations for 12.7 m pax (14% modal share, assuming all are passengers, and none were people just transferring between the two terminals). From the last year data is available in Calgary, a similar result would make the airport one of the worst stations for ridership in the city.

5. Other cities have had outside funding for their links, in Vancouver YVR put in hundreds of millions, in Portland their Port Authority (which operations the airport) put in 23% of the cost of the entire line, Denver has a private funder for 32.5% of the line. The airport has not shown a willingness to pay their share on this project.

6. Alternatives exist that would possibly be cheaper and provide a superior service (hence likely garnering a higher modal share) that might be better able to make some of the cost back from fares. A basic spur from a LRT that has already been extended up to airport trail in the NE is just over 5 km of double electrified track. Vs a single track spur to the nose creek freight line of 3.5 km (and unspecified other improvements to allow at least 15 minute service frequency to downtown).

To be honest, neither is needed. A good coach bus to downtown and normal bus to the LRT is more than enough.

People like the idea of LRT to the airport because they can imagine using it some of the time. This isn't a good reason to build something incredibly expensive when we have much more urgent needs.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, looking at the Canada Line, 1 you can have supplemental fares without expensive gates.

2, the line has 11% modal share for passengers. So 1.87 million passengers. Only passengers pay the add fare (people using passes are assumed to be employees and don't pay the add fare) which helps pay for the additional operating costs of the spur.

To pay off the capital cost of the YVR contribution to the Canada Line over 30 years assuming no financing charges and flat mode share and pax numbers would require an additional add fare of $5.36.

I don't think we should build an airport LRT link in the first place, but I also don't think that if we do that we should try to recover capital costs. Transit is there partly for captive riders and should be as cheap as possible.

With the underpass, I think people will be surprised how fast the express bus from Saddletown will be. 7 km on the bus will be 10 minutes or so. So two buses for 15 minute service will cost $1.2 million plus maybe 300k operating a year. This is versus 7 km of LRT, enough cars to keep headway on the spur (maybe 12 or so with no stops in between if use Tuscany as the model), and all the operating costs. Just because it looks close on a map doesn't make it close.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I would say Mckenzie Towne is the textbook example (though lrt is not yet there). It has exactly the form that DizzyEdge described. Main Street with shops surrounded by multifamily, slowly giving way to sfh's. It even has secondary suites above garages in some parts.

It's a good try, and it would have been fair for me to mention it. But the description of a 'cartoon version of a town centre' someone else mentioned is fairly accurate. Definitely a step in the right direction, but it's still fairly similar to our standard 'park and ride next to a shopping mall' we have lots of in Calgary, and on the opposite side of the station we have this:

Streetview

Tonnes of residential within spitting distance of the future LRT. Yet it's low density, facing away with fences towards it. All of those residents have to walk far further than neccesary. And why does the LRT always have to be built parallel to major roadways? Doing so has no benefits and plenty of cons.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Aegis

I would have thought a combination LRT/people mover station could work at 96th Avenue. The problem with bus service for an airport connection (I agree that route 300 is good, but Nenshi had to move mountains even to get this it implemented) is that it's too prone to cutbacks which eventually undermines its effectiveness. CT isn't usually forward looking.

Could a people-mover to the airport just be independent of Calgary Transit, either private or owned by the airport authority?

A popular, well-used bus route is probably not all that prone to cutbacks. If no one is using the service (and the service is decently provided), then the underlying demand is in question. I mean, nobody's saying that there needs to be rails on Centre Street because they're worried the buses will get cut back. (The SE on the other hand...)

Oakland opened an airport connector of this type last year; 5 km of people mover for half a billion dollars connecting in to the main BART system. Only 3000 users a day. (OAK has about 2/3 the passenger volume of YYC). San Francisco, which has BART running right into the airport has 14K daily riders and is 3 1/2 times the size of Calgary.

[Wooster]

I don't get the concern with low floor. Low floor or high floor os not a determinant of capacity or speed.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's a good try, and it would have been fair for me to mention it. But the description of a 'cartoon version of a town centre' someone else mentioned is fairly accurate. Definitely a step in the right direction, but it's still fairly similar to our standard 'park and ride next to a shopping mall' we have lots of in Calgary, and on the opposite side of the station we have this:

Streetview

Tonnes of residential within spitting distance of the future LRT. Yet it's low density, facing away with fences towards it. All of those residents have to walk far further than neccesary. And why does the LRT always have to be built parallel to major roadways? Doing so has no benefits and plenty of cons.

Yeah Copperfield and New Brighton are the shits. They are a beige eyesore.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well the province has already bought land for a new hospital north of the north ring road, forget exactly where though.

Originally Posted by Me&You

That's what I thought you meant. So in other words, it's a nice idea to have, but since all of the facilities you listed, save South Health, were built prior to any "existing transit corridors", I think you're focus is misdirected.

What instead could've possibly saved billions of dollars and millions of hours would have been to route the LRT based on the pre-existing major facilities you listed... Connecting the dots, if you will. Now, since the routes are established, I agree future large scale facilities would ideally be located adjacent to transit.

Agreed on South Health, but as you say, that ship has sailed. On the bright side, having SH located where it is further justifies the Green Line and likely pushed the prioritization of the line.

Just to be clear, I am all for the new line. I'd just like if future investments were made with input from Calgary Transit. As of now, CT has no voice at the table when provincial and federal decisions are made.

The next hospital is also supposed to be on the line (Centre St and 144th Ave N).