Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

They won't matter nearly as much with trains. The big expense is labour. It is justifiable to run a train a quarter full but not to run three 60' busses when a community shuttle could handle the load.

A whole lot of short turning downtown would solve that problem but we wouldn't really have a bus line anymore. We'd have the same 301 we have now and a 302 extended to the north. I think labelling both routes with the same number would just add confusion.

If we did extend the 302 to the north, while trimming the number 0f 301s in operation by a corresponding amount, it would make scheduling more difficult but it could make sense. It could help build some NC-SE ridership in anticipation of the LRT. It would also allow the the 301 to be extended south to Chinook (say a loop of 58th Ave, 5 St, and Glenmore back to Elbow) to relieve the most congested portion of the 3 in the south.

So you're thinking if the 302 needs to be 1/3 the frequency of the 301, just have the 302 meet the south needs and 1/3 of the north needs, with the 301 filling in for the other 2/3?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

For a 30 year plan, that Green Line announcement assuming the rest of the funding comes through was a big ahead-of-schedule boost. Calgary's doing pretty good.

Is the land use matching the transit investments? How is the city tracking for development at the edges versus on its existing footprint? How are the station area plans going for the SELRT? Is zoning along 16th Ave N, 17 Ave SE, and the South-Crosstown route being changed for more density and mixed uses? Not all those new inner ring houses add density; some are just million dollar+ mansions that will be even harder to re-zone to greater density in the short and medium term.

Are the BRT's going to have different livery, larger covered stations with electronic next bus signs, and queue-jumper lanes with signal priority (i.e. significant infrastructure)? The angst over cycle tracks taking space and cost $x could indicate appreciable push-back from the SOV drivers. Calgary's also been getting massive road investment.

As part of investment, the city could have density/use targets correlated to triple-bottom-line - a little more granularity on reaching the MDP and ImagineCalgary. Politically challenging for investments, but communities should not have the option of taking/not taking new density and mixed use, just how to shape it. For example fewer, taller buildings as a node or a lower FAR spread out. There's plenty of areas further from skeletal transit for the Mcmansions.

Calgary should institute a gas tax to help pay for these and the road (i.e. transportation) investments. There hasn't been anyone complaining about the provincial PC government raising gas taxes this spring.

16th Ave N has significant unbuilt density waiting for development, I hope that the BRT will spur some of that development and potential help calm traffic as well.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

They won't matter nearly as much with trains. The big expense is labour. It is justifiable to run a train a quarter full but not to run three 60' busses when a community shuttle could handle the load.

A whole lot of short turning downtown would solve that problem but we wouldn't really have a bus line anymore. We'd have the same 301 we have now and a 302 extended to the north. I think labelling both routes with the same number would just add confusion.

If we did extend the 302 to the north, while trimming the number 0f 301s in operation by a corresponding amount, it would make scheduling more difficult but it could make sense. It could help build some NC-SE ridership in anticipation of the LRT. It would also allow the the 301 to be extended south to Chinook (say a loop of 58th Ave, 5 St, and Glenmore back to Elbow) to relieve the most congested portion of the 3 in the south.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So you're thinking if the 302 needs to be 1/3 the frequency of the 301, just have the 302 meet the south needs and 1/3 of the north needs, with the 301 filling in for the other 2/3?

How much would the capital savings be if the Green line was split in two the NC leg ending north of 8th ave SW, and the SE leg ending on 10th Ave? This would eliminate the deep dig under the CP ROW.

In the above, one has to ignore some of the operability challenges that arise in the scenario.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

How much would the capital savings be if the Green line was split in two the NC leg ending north of 8th ave SW, and the SE leg ending on 10th Ave? This would eliminate the deep dig under the CP ROW.

In the above, one has to ignore some of the operability challenges that arise in the scenario.

Whatever savings there are, we would lose in terms of operations and system integration. A huge benefit of the subway is it allows a lot of single seat trips from NC Calgary to SE Calgary and vice versa. Imagine if the NW and South lines both terminated two blocks from each other and required a forced walking transfer for those two blocks.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So you're thinking if the 302 needs to be 1/3 the frequency of the 301, just have the 302 meet the south needs and 1/3 of the north needs, with the 301 filling in for the other 2/3?

It is the only way I could really see it working if we wanted to provide a bus route matching the Green line in anticipation of its construction. That said, I don't know if it would be worth the hassle it would cause for scheduling.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by fusili

Great points. I agree that the capacity from four car trains will be used up fairly shortly, but I think it will be 5-10 years. That being said, hopefully there is enough capacity added that TOD isn't deterred due to capacity issues. We are just starting to get some serious TOD in this city, especially on the NW line: University City, Groves of Varsity, Sunnyside Station and potential TODs around Lion's Park/North Hill mall and a rumoured infill station at Northland.

With 4 car trains, we would have ~1000 person capacity per train at crush load. That would equal ~36K people per direction per hour on the 7th avenue corridor (IIRC we run 22 trains on the 201 and 14 trains on the 202 during rush hour).

IIRC studies show it takes about two years of measurement for transportation modal changes to be effectively measured? (perhaps there's someone with more social/behavioural science background that can provide more accurate/precise info?) Given frictions like paying for parking on a yearly basis and other instances changes happen over a period of time.

I agree with BasicLab's premise that by 2007ish the LRT was at capacity at rush hour. Along with his stagnant growth of ridership, the peak ridership times were getting broader [Peak Ridership Changes for Bus and LRT report under Travel Choice- http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Planning/Transportation-Data/Mobility-Monitor.aspx]. This is despite City of Calgary reports in 2005 https://www.calgarytransit.com/sites/def...ective_capital_utilization_trb_paper.pdf pg 4] stating the system was at capacity in 2005 with plans to add more trains in 2006. After 2006 because there was no spare capacity for more trains, four car trains began to be invested in. For an efficiently used system, just like roads, this is not necessarily a bad thing; it's fair to say that transit, like roads, should experience congestion at peak times or they have had relatively inefficient capital investment. Except the city wants to grow transit use, so they don't have to build much more expensive freeways to and around downtown (compared to a McLeod or Elbow Dr freeway mention the relatively inexpensive Crowchild Tr bridge starting planning here at least partially - come on how much traffic comes off of Bow Trail? It's 1 of 3 lanes...). From personal experience, back in 2008, I disliked the rush hour riding experience on LRT - I can only assume it's gotten more crowded for a longer period of time.

In 2007 there was roughly 34.9 million square feet of office space in downtown.
[http://renx.ca/renx-special-on-the-downtown-calgary-office-market/ 32+2.9mm] Some reports indicate this was the inventory in 2010 [http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=2ade9ef8-335e-453c-aeb9-2aa43238d8b9], so the growth could have been more with a lower 2007 number. Let's be conservative and use the approach giving us a lower estimate.
In 2015 it is 39.3 million sq ft [http://calgaryherald.com/business/commer...own-office-market-takes-a-beating-in-q1] with 3.8mm more under construction, and reasonably can be assumed to be in use (pending the economy...) before the 4-car trains are entirely implemented by the end of 2018 [per 2015-2018 Transportation Action Plan or City of Calgary budget process], for a total of 43.1 million square feet of office space.

11.1 million sq ft of additional space, or a 35% increase. Per google, 150 sq ft to 225 sq ft are average employees per sq ft; therefore 49,000 to 74,000 new employees. There's a report that in 2010 140,000 people work downtown, so that seems too high. If there were 34.9 million sq ft of office space and 140,000 employment that implies 34.9mm/140k = ~250 employment/sq ft. Let's be conservative and use the approach giving us a lower estimate. That's 11.1mm/250 = 44,400 additional employment.


At 50% transit modal share [Downtown Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Methodology report under Travel Choices - http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Planning/Transportation-Data/Mobility-Monitor.aspx] given that downtown modal share has declined to 45% in 2014 [http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/feat...id=ec88c456-b458-409e-a263-f70a06c948e7] that indicates 22,200 potential new transit users.

At 14 and 22 trains per hour on 7 Ave per Fusili's post that's 9,000 pphpd additionally: (14+22)*250=9,000. The LRT capacity increases by 33%, from 750 people per train to 1000 [http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Four+project+price+hits+300M/10089255/story.html]. Aside per reports 780 boardings on a 750 capacity train... If all those additional transit users were potential LRT riders, that's 22,200/9,000= 2.5 hours to clear/bring the system back below capacity.

Hhmm alternatively using rounded numbers for potential LRT users and the above Herald story stating modal share's down from 50% to 45% and assuming all that 5% shift would be to LRT;
43.1mm sq ft / 250 sqft per employee = 172,400*0.05=8,620
So just to regain the previous transit modal share of 50% up from 45% in 2014, assuming all of that 5% drop was due to LRT capacity constraints, that additional 9,000 pphpd supply vs 8,620 demand is already used up during rush hour with four car trains (additional room incents shift their trip time or change modes from cars, cycling, or walking).

I think people at rush hour will feel that the capacity has been used up much sooner, maybe even immediately as the four cars are phased in 2016-2018, versus a 5-10 year timeframe; in 5-10 years Calgary could be at the same point it is now with crush loads (and transit police(?) at least at this year's Stampede supervising downtown loading/unloading because the trains were over-capacity). The peak may not even get that much sharper and stay broader if ridership is attracted and buses remain at current capacity. How many people would use LRT when they would't use the Elbow Dr bus?

The MDP modal share target is 60% IIRC, and, with the core being the most transit friendly, actual modal share to the core may have to be slightly higher than 60% to downtown to achieve this target. The Green Line's and attracting ridership to the Green Line's pretty important for this target.

4 cars will be at capacity sooner than 5-10 years, max 3-5 years depending on the economy, and some will feel they will make no difference to LRT crowding.

What do other's think?

The big thing missing to me is how the Green Line will affect ridership; how much ridership will it divert from the South and NW lines? There's many other aspects I've missed and this analysis only betrays my ignorance; it's ridiculously over-simplified. Where has the growth in where people live happened and will the new people working downtown be as willing to park-and-ride? Then there's competing road investment in the last decade - it either hasn't grown directly (Deerfoot Tr if one erroneously discounts the Ring Road), or is now full (Glenmore Tr, Crowchild Tr). Alternatively how many LRT users actually work in the beltline, other neighbouring areas, or would commute through downtown with the new capacity? One of those reports said currently it was 25% of current ridership commuting through downtown, so it's not even just downtown growth. Have some new buildings also been allowed to build less parking than before too? There's myriad appreciations of inter-connections missed.

[ClaytonA]

Oh and after the BRT's and before LRT to Mount Royal and potentially to Foothills Hospital or whatever that NW Mobility Hub is supposed to be, and especially if the Green Line gets lower quality infrastructure or the element that sees low floor technology and wants a slow street-car achieves more of their goals at the expense of the outlying suburbs, the 8th Ave Subway has to be next. This is based on what Calgary already has and the demand for the LRT, never mind additional TOD. Should the TOD, to be allowed to proceed, also have harder targets for employment, e.g. office space, to mitigate some requirement to commute via LRT during rush hour? Should it be more mixed use than Groves, University City, Sunnyside developments, London, & etc have done as current TOD? It could be a greater barrier to these developments? Should more of the roads capital budget be shifted to transit capital projects to meet the MDP goals mitigating development within the existing footprint?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

The big thing missing to me is how the Green Line will affect ridership; how much ridership will it divert from the South and NW lines?

Diversion from other lines will be minimal, because the catchments to downtown are essentially isolated. In other words, most of the way along the green line, it is faster to ride existing transit (slow thought it is) or even walk to downtown than to ride to 201 and transfer downtown. The exceptions to this rule are those who drive from outside Calgary to park and ride, who might start using the greenline instead of 201. There are also some who ride from the southeast to Somerset or Heritage, but fortunately these poor souls are few.

I think the NC leg will quickly use up 4-car capacity. The current bus commuters in that direction alone probably competes with 202 numbers.

There's also a phenomenon that adding capacity anywhere to a network increases activity everywhere. I think routes like 19 will become even busier.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Diversion from other lines will be minimal, because the catchments to downtown are essentially isolated. In other words, most of the way along the green line, it is faster to ride existing transit (slow thought it is) or even walk to downtown than to ride to 201 and transfer downtown. The exceptions to this rule are those who drive from outside Calgary to park and ride, who might start using the greenline instead of 201. There are also some who ride from the southeast to Somerset or Heritage, but fortunately these poor souls are few.

I think the NC leg will quickly use up 4-car capacity. The current bus commuters in that direction alone probably competes with 202 numbers.

There's also a phenomenon that adding capacity anywhere to a network increases activity everywhere. I think routes like 19 will become even busier.

There are quite a few in the SE that drive and park and ride on the south line, so there will be an easing of congestion on that line.

As for the NW, you might have some in Rosemont, Cambrian Heights etc that drive and park and ride at Brentwood to get downtown, but I suspect these numbers are very small. Most transit riders in this area would probably take the 4/5 anyway.

I think we can all agree that 4 car trains on the 201 will get used up very quickly. It will be amazing if a transit system can add 33% more capacity and have it absorbed within 5 years or less.

I also have no doubt that the NC line will open up with more ridership than the west leg on day one.

[milomilo]

AFAIK we actually only get a 25% increase in peak capacity because the longer trains take more time to clear lights on 7th Ave, so max frequency is reduced.

All the more reason to separate the lines.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by milomilo

AFAIK we actually only get a 25% increase in peak capacity because the longer trains take more time to clear lights on 7th Ave, so max frequency is reduced.

All the more reason to separate the lines.

Good point. Does anyone know if 7th is at it's theoretical capacity in terms of signals, or is there still room to put more trains on the avenue if we prioritize LRT signals over vehicles? I do know trains often wait at the 4th avenue crossing sometimes, which makes no sense to me.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Good point. Does anyone know if 7th is at it's theoretical capacity in terms of signals, or is there still room to put more trains on the avenue if we prioritize LRT signals over vehicles? I do know trains often wait at the 4th avenue crossing sometimes, which makes no sense to me.

There should be a City Report to council on this from 1999 if anyone has ready access to the central library or some such. There was a $1.5 million 7th Avenue transit signal priority project approved that October according to the Herald.

[Fuzz]

I think they wait at the 4th ave crossing becuase there is no capacity for more trains.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

Good point. Does anyone know if 7th is at it's theoretical capacity in terms of signals, or is there still room to put more trains on the avenue if we prioritize LRT signals over vehicles? I do know trains often wait at the 4th avenue crossing sometimes, which makes no sense to me.

Some years ago, the City did a project retiming all the downtown signals to maximize LRT throughput already. The only thing we could get with additional priority is some way of handling minor incidents (read: bozos holding the doors open) that cause trains to miss signals, and that would have spillback effects on auto traffic, necessitating more work there.

Last time I checked, there were 26 trains per hour each direction; there are heavy rail systems with bottlenecks (DC Metro across the Potomac from Alexandria, BART across the bay, Yonge St line in Toronto) that run 26 trains or fewer. And these are with dedicated tracks, obviously. So we're close to if not at maximum, especially considering the existence of north-south traffic.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Some years ago, the City did a project retiming all the downtown signals to maximize LRT throughput already. The only thing we could get with additional priority is some way of handling minor incidents (read: bozos holding the doors open) that cause trains to miss signals, and that would have spillback effects on auto traffic, necessitating more work there.

Last time I checked, there were 26 trains per hour each direction; there are heavy rail systems with bottlenecks (DC Metro across the Potomac from Alexandria, BART across the bay, Yonge St line in Toronto) that run 26 trains or fewer. And these are with dedicated tracks, obviously. So we're close to if not at maximum, especially considering the existence of north-south traffic.

Thanks for the info.

I thought we had 38 trains- 22 on the 201 and 16 on the 202. I could definitely be wrong, I am just getting this from my head.

[simster3]

I have always thought a good way of giving more priority to the train during rush hour would be to have the cross streets that do not go under the tracks closed off. This should speed the train up during the busiest time. I imagine that those roads are not greatly used in general, but I am sure there would be a huge uproar if they were closed for the 2-3hrs/day. Has the city looked into this? They could install retractable bollards in the street.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by simster3

I have always thought a good way of giving more priority to the train during rush hour would be to have the cross streets that do not go under the tracks closed off. This should speed the train up during the busiest time. I imagine that those roads are not greatly used in general, but I am sure there would be a huge uproar if they were closed for the 2-3hrs/day. Has the city looked into this? They could install retractable bollards in the street.

It wouldn't really improve anything. The cross streets(I assume you just mean N/S, not 4th 5th 6th ave) are all timed with the LRT. Unless someone has delayed the LRT holding a door open, the LRT shouldn't be waiting at those lights. So the green light cycle for traffic is timed when the trains are stopped to load/unload.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It wouldn't really improve anything. The cross streets(I assume you just mean N/S, not 4th 5th 6th ave) are all timed with the LRT. Unless someone has delayed the LRT holding a door open, the LRT shouldn't be waiting at those lights. So the green light cycle for traffic is timed when the trains are stopped to load/unload.

I would support any measure that gave the LRT doors more aggressiveness when closing and instant locking so that someone can't reset the timer to reopen the door.

I am sure this is a problem elsewhere too, how do other agencies deal with door holders?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

Thanks for the info.

I thought we had 38 trains- 22 on the 201 and 16 on the 202. I could definitely be wrong, I am just getting this from my head.

I just checked again using today's schedule; there are 27 trains crammed in the peak direction.

And for a fun comparison, Sprawling Calgary vs the Urbanist Utopia Of Portland:

[DizzyEdge]

Out of curiosity, is there any data out there which would indicate which lines where a downtown bypass would be most useful? My guess would be that there are more people coming up from the south and hitting the NW vs any other half-line to half line.
Of course with a stephen avenue subway that route may get so much more capacity than others, the current 2nd place candidate route might actually end up being more deserving.