Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[sim]

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. In addition whether you want to see it or not the SE employs more people than DT does. As for transit stats, they are always based on the brt running to the CBD. I haven't seen stats for the amount of transit users going into the employment areas of the office and industrial parks from other parts of the city. I see many people waiting for the bus every day by my office. This incidentally will be within very close proximity to the green line.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the argument for this infrastructure on the above basis. Again, surely you can look at a satellite map of the City and understand why claiming that the SE has as much or more employment than downtown is of little value. Centrality and land use intensity can do wonders for the economics of transit. I mean no disrespect, but it is quite evident that you are arguing this based on emotion and vested interest, not what is or would be good for transit. Running a trainset through some 10 km of not much wouldn't garner very much ridership, even if a couple stations further south might - itself somewhat dubious.

I'm also not against this line, but it really isn't ideal and despite what I'm sure are some perhaps pie-in-the-sky, lovely, future brownfield and TOD plans, it's doubtful those will materialize at a level quick enough for this portion of the future Greenline to not have a comparatively poor cost recovery ratio.

Transit generally works on economies of density not size.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Wooster

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

Mostly true, but there are additional considerations necessary - vehicle longevity / repair-ability and serviceability / low-floor bogies are generally less robust, or flexibility in vehicle deployment and even network changes.

This is not to say I'm against low-floor.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Wooster

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

It's true that low floor can be run like the current high floor trains, but the concern is whether or not they will be. Do we get a rocket to downtown or something with a million stops and low travel speeds which meanders through various neighborhoods?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Socguy

It's true that low floor can be run like the current high floor trains, but the concern is whether or not they will be. Do we get a rocket to downtown or something with a million stops and low travel speeds which meanders through various neighborhoods?

It will operate very much like our current system in terms of exclusive right of way, station distance and speed.

The reason for going low floor is that is much easier to procure than high floor (which have basically become a custom build for our fleet replacement and growth). As well it means much less bulky and expensive station infrastructure. If Calgary's LRT had started 8 or 10 years later it would have been low floor from the start.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by Wooster

It will operate very much like our current system in terms of exclusive right of way, station distance and speed.

The reason for going low floor is that is much easier to procure than high floor (which have basically become a custom build for our fleet replacement and growth). As well it means much less bulky and expensive station infrastructure. If Calgary's LRT had started 8 or 10 years later it would have been low floor from the start.

so the argument is, we have a product with low production count, so instead of increasing the fleet numbers and lowering production costs, let's switch gears, partially.. and double up training costs, parts supplies, and make the maintenance facilities less compatible?

7 ave rebuild also makes the station cost argument pretty moot. simple low cost stations can be done with high floor too where appropriate, and high floor would handle snow better

the way I figure, take the ticket, ride the ride.. we're already in the high floor game, might as well make the most of it

[technomad]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Nice try, but it has nothing to do with the SE. I'm not a fan of pushing towards the extreme boundaries in ANY direction.

The farther you go out, the smaller and smaller the return on investment, as less people are using your service. At some point you have to draw the line, and put resources towards things that work towards your long term goals of a sustainable city. And I'm sorry, but just because somebody WANTS to live in a new detached-house like their parents did and the only place they can do so is Greater Montana, doesn't mean that the we should necessarily accommodate them with serious public dollars. And yes, development will go on, but by acquiescing to these communities by making them more attractive to live and work in, the boundary to what's acceptable keeps stretching. In the meantime, the larger chunk of the urban core, where more people will use the service, is deprived of funding.

I'm not saying you don't eventually run the train out there. But not right away, and not until higher ROI transit needs have been taken care of.

this is why the green line project needs to include 8 ave subway.. takes a huge expensive project from being 'only for them' to helping the whole city

I'd say, quarry park to aurora park with 8 ave subway opening day, extensions to the lines from there

[technomad]

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..

too slow... maglev direct to DT ftw

[CorporateWhore]

Personally, I love the low-floor trains. High-floor LRT's just always feel needlessly heavy, more akin to commuter trains. Low-floor trains feel much less imposing, and better integrate into communities as they can get by with leaner/cheaper stations that don't feel like fortresses. I also don't really get the snow argument...they have low-floor all over Northern Europe, and it sure snows there (possibly even more than here, where we really don't get as much snow as some like to think).

Since Calgary is one of the few places that still has high-floor, I'm sure parts and maintenance are a lot more expensive as well. Getting on the low-floor train from now on will at least make those lines cheaper going forward.

Do we get a rocket to downtown or something with a million stops and low travel speeds which meanders through various neighborhoods?

At some point, transit that meanders through neighbourhoods hitting all the hot spots is a good thing as it allows citizens to get access to more things in their town. Although important in this town, not everything needs to be about suburbanites zooming back and forth from work as fast as possible.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by technomad

so the argument is, we have a product with low production count, so instead of increasing the fleet numbers and lowering production costs, let's switch gears, partially.. and double up training costs, parts supplies, and make the maintenance facilities less compatible?

7 ave rebuild also makes the station cost argument pretty moot. simple low cost stations can be done with high floor too where appropriate, and high floor would handle snow better

the way I figure, take the ticket, ride the ride.. we're already in the high floor game, might as well make the most of it

Our various fleets are big enough I don't think it really matters much. Probably hit diminishing increasing returns to scale once you get to the point you need a second heavy maintenance lift. And we already have 5 (6?) different models that are all a bit different.

[CalgaryAlex]

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.

Oh, I totally agree that a bus is far more cost effective. A couple quick routes between the airport and the two nearest train lines will do the trick for years and years.

I just wonder if the city planners have gotten a bug up their ass about a train to the airport... they certainly enjoyed pointing out (over and over) the tunnel's capacity for trains when it opened.

[googspecial]

Originally Posted by technomad

this is why the green line project needs to include 8 ave subway.. takes a huge expensive project from being 'only for them' to helping the whole city

I'd say, quarry park to aurora park with 8 ave subway opening day, extensions to the lines from there

^^ This, plus a serious discussion about commuter lines to the satellite cities.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Oh, I totally agree that a bus is far more cost effective. A couple quick routes between the airport and the two nearest train lines will do the trick for years and years.

I just wonder if the city planners have gotten a bug up their ass about a train to the airport... they certainly enjoyed pointing out (over and over) the tunnel's capacity for trains when it opened.

I think they talk about it in the media because the media ask them about it. And the planners put it in the plans to be studied and rejected later because why have the fight now?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Personally, I love the low-floor trains. High-floor LRT's just always feel needlessly heavy, more akin to commuter trains. Low-floor trains feel much less imposing, and better integrate into communities as they can get by with leaner/cheaper stations that don't feel like fortresses. I also don't really get the snow argument...they have low-floor all over Northern Europe, and it sure snows there (possibly even more than here, where we really don't get as much snow as some like to think).

Since Calgary is one of the few places that still has high-floor, I'm sure parts and maintenance are a lot more expensive as well. Getting on the low-floor train from now on will at least make those lines cheaper going forward.



At some point, transit that meanders through neighbourhoods hitting all the hot spots is a good thing as it allows citizens to get access to more things in their town. Although important in this town, not everything needs to be about suburbanites zooming back and forth from work as fast as possible.

Very true.

I think the best practice now is to tailor the infrastructure to the context. This line will both be going through industrial areas, be closely embedded in residential communities and go through places like downtown. It can be at grade where necessary with a lighter touch on the surroundings and slower speeds, or it can be elevated in places with much higher operating speeds.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

In addition whether you want to see it or not the SE employs more people than DT does.

No even f%&king close. Not by a long shot. Not now, not ever. I am going to have to dig up that employment report again from geodemographics and post it again.

Oh, how about here: http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/calgary-snapshots.pdf

and here:

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Documents/Publications/employment-area-growth-2013.pdf

Central area employment 2011: 268K (from first link page 84) of which ~161K is in the Centre City (second link, page A2-1)
SE area employment: 22K (albeit this is before the hospital)

So even if the hospital employs 10K people, the SE is still 230K less jobs than the central area, and 130K less than the centre city.

In fact, the SE is actually the second SMALLEST employment sector in the entire city.

Stop making stuff up and do some actual research before just pulling numbers from the air.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Personally, I love the low-floor trains. High-floor LRT's just always feel needlessly heavy, more akin to commuter trains. Low-floor trains feel much less imposing, and better integrate into communities as they can get by with leaner/cheaper stations that don't feel like fortresses. I also don't really get the snow argument...they have low-floor all over Northern Europe, and it sure snows there (possibly even more than here, where we really don't get as much snow as some like to think).

Since Calgary is one of the few places that still has high-floor, I'm sure parts and maintenance are a lot more expensive as well. Getting on the low-floor train from now on will at least make those lines cheaper going forward.

At some point, transit that meanders through neighbourhoods hitting all the hot spots is a good thing as it allows citizens to get access to more things in their town. Although important in this town, not everything needs to be about suburbanites zooming back and forth from work as fast as possible.

The question was what's the concern with low-floor and the point was that slowing down service is the concern for many. I know low-floor doesn't have to mean slower service, but it could if that's the way the city decides to go.

I also understand the local benefits of having a train stop more often at the smaller destinations, problem being that obtaining those benefits does seem to come at the expense of those zooming suburbanites who, by-and-large, are making the current setup so successful. I'm not saying that it's right to prioritize the suburban commuter, (a train more focused on things outside of DT could very well be even more successful), I'm just explaining where the concern comes in.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't see the concern in the existing plans. Now, if a bunch more stations get added due to community concerns?

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by Socguy

I also understand the local benefits of having a train stop more often at the smaller destinations, problem being that obtaining those benefits does seem to come at the expense of those zooming suburbanites who, by-and-large, are making the current setup so successful. I'm not saying that it's right to prioritize the suburban commuter, (a train more focused on things outside of DT could very well be even more successful), I'm just explaining where the concern comes in.

Yeah, I hear ya. It's always going to be a bit of a balancing act...is the LRT more of a tool for commuting (at the cost of access), or a tool more of a general transportation tool (at the cost of speed)?

That's why I think having circle-trams should be the next step in transit planning, as I think they lean much less towards the commuting aspects of life (even though you can of course still use them that way). LRTs right now are very commuter focused.

Or ideally it would be nice if there was a third set of rails on the LRT lines that could be used as Express train during rush hour.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by googspecial

^^ This, plus a serious discussion about commuter lines to the satellite cities.

It's a stupid idea, the gargantuan cost not warranted by the size of the towns.

Thanks for the discussion.

[CorporateWhore]

We can talk about commuter rail from satellite towns when those towns are ready to spend virtually 100% of the cost to make it happen. Otherwise, there's pretty much very little benefit to Calgary itself.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Our various fleets are big enough I don't think it really matters much. Probably hit diminishing increasing returns to scale once you get to the point you need a second heavy maintenance lift. And we already have 5 (6?) different models that are all a bit different.

Fair points, just figured between EDM/CGY, maybe get WPG on board, could be enough steady demand to justify a small fab shop out west, diversify local manufacturing and all

If a new system is in the cards, I'd rather see ALRT than low floor or high floor. Route is pretty close to full grade separated in the SE, and maybe the ops savings are enough to justify tunneling to north of beddington? thinking canada line, but with better station expansion