Calgary Public Transit II

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by tomthumb2

One thing I'd like to live long enough to see: the entire downtown line underground! Right now you're humming along until you get to the dt core and then you just sit at every light forever. It's sooooo slow - I usually get out and walk if I can. We must have the lousiest dt transit in Canada.

I could not agree with you more. That includes Beltline as well too. If the Ctrain goes above ground on 10th Avenue, I will not be a happy camper.

If the province and the federal government stays true to their word on infrastructure funding, we will have these projects funded sooner than later

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

I could not agree with you more. That includes Beltline as well too. If the Ctrain goes above ground on 10th Avenue, I will not be a happy camper.

If the province and the federal government stays true to their word on infrastructure funding, we will have these projects funded sooner than later

Would love to see the Beltline receive real rapid transit one day, both N-S into downtown and east-west. One of the disappointing elements of the Green Line was that it barely provides service to the Beltline, and earlier options to route the line south on 4th Street were tossed out for consideration.

Arguably a Beltline Station at 4th Street & 12th Ave or 4th & 17th Ave would be a higher ridership station than all others currently proposed on the Green Line ( except downtown stations, and perhaps the Quarry Park & South Hospital would perform similarly well at full build-out). Not to a mention a Beltline Station would be a true all-day station, as it would connect late-night 17th Ave and Beltline spots and the city's only significant high density mixed use neighbourhood.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Would love to see the Beltline receive real rapid transit one day, both N-S into downtown and east-west. One of the disappointing elements of the Green Line was that it barely provides service to the Beltline, and earlier options to route the line south on 4th Street were tossed out for consideration.

Arguably a Beltline Station at 4th Street & 12th Ave or 4th & 17th Ave would be a higher ridership station than all others currently proposed on the Green Line ( except downtown stations, and perhaps the Quarry Park & South Hospital would perform similarly well at full build-out). Not to a mention a Beltline Station would be a true all-day station, as it would connect late-night 17th Ave and Beltline spots and the city's only significant high density mixed use neighbourhood.

"Arguably". I'd like to see the argument. Arguably I'd be better at hockey than Sidney Crosby, if only I learned how to skate again.

It makes no sense to spend a fortune routing LRT on some circuitous tour through the Beltline; if it were built at grade it would only cost half a fortune but delay the modest number of SE riders more than necessary, given the point of the Green Line is to reduce travel time to the SE.

The office part of the Beltline already has LRT service; 11th Ave S is the same distance from 7th as 3rd Ave N, and no one is arguing that Canterra or Livingston Place or City Centre need LRT service. The best way to improve LRT access for the northern Beltline is to improve the existing pedestrian underpasses and to add more connections (e.g. 7th St).

17th Avenue has an LRT station already; it's historically modest in ridership and would be much less if the Stampede wasn't such a big draw. And there's already an LRT station at 17th Ave and 4th St already; sure, it says "#3 bus" on it, but the vehicles come every 10 minutes 6 AM to 11 PM and more in the rush hours - the same frequency as LRT - and it's a short enough trip to the downtown that there would be minimal speed up by converting to train. People use the bus certainly between 17th and downtown, but not such a crush of people that a train is warranted - offpeak, the articulated buses seem pretty empty.

An argument could be made for special circulator-type buses from an urbanist, community-building perspective, but in general, I'd prefer CT spend its money taking cars off roads, rather than pedestrians off sidewalks.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

"Arguably". I'd like to see the argument. Arguably I'd be better at hockey than Sidney Crosby, if only I learned how to skate again.

It makes no sense to spend a fortune routing LRT on some circuitous tour through the Beltline; if it were built at grade it would only cost half a fortune but delay the modest number of SE riders more than necessary, given the point of the Green Line is to reduce travel time to the SE.

The office part of the Beltline already has LRT service; 11th Ave S is the same distance from 7th as 3rd Ave N, and no one is arguing that Canterra or Livingston Place or City Centre need LRT service. The best way to improve LRT access for the northern Beltline is to improve the existing pedestrian underpasses and to add more connections (e.g. 7th St).

17th Avenue has an LRT station already; it's historically modest in ridership and would be much less if the Stampede wasn't such a big draw. And there's already an LRT station at 17th Ave and 4th St already; sure, it says "#3 bus" on it, but the vehicles come every 10 minutes 6 AM to 11 PM and more in the rush hours - the same frequency as LRT - and it's a short enough trip to the downtown that there would be minimal speed up by converting to train. People use the bus certainly between 17th and downtown, but not such a crush of people that a train is warranted - offpeak, the articulated buses seem pretty empty.

An argument could be made for special circulator-type buses from an urbanist, community-building perspective, but in general, I'd prefer CT spend its money taking cars off roads, rather than pedestrians off sidewalks.

Let's assume a 17th Ave & 4th Station is in the works. Imagine a Green line that instead of turning at 10th Ave eastward towards Inglewood, it heads south towards 4th Street and crosses back to the original alignment on a 25th Ave route towards Highfield industrial park. Skips Inglewood, but otherwise same length and travel time for most of the southern sections of the Green Line. Assume underground alignment like downtown.

Ok let's look at the Mainstreets initiative for some figures.Details here:

1. 17th Ave SW from 14th Street to McLeod has some 7,200 jobs, 7,500 people in the area that they define in the "Mainstreet" which includes a block or two on either side of the Avenue
   
2. It is zoned for some 300,000m^2 of office and up to ~16,000 people, in 10,000 units (see link for details). For comparison, Quarry Park has some 1.7million sqft (~160,000m^2) of office space built or planned and some ~2,200 units or 5,000 people (figures for Quarry Park here). It is also built at a lower density, less pedestrian and transit-friendly neighbourhood which would hurt LRT ridership somewhat.
   
3. Keeping in mind that the mainstreet is just a proxy number, the true population/jobs within 1km of the 17th Ave & 4th Street Stations would be different, as it would include more of the densest part of the Beltline and Mission and less of 17th Ave farther away towards 14th Street. We can probably assume that both population and jobs would be higher in the true catchment. Let's estimate a current population of 10,000 jobs / 10,000 people within 1 km of the station.
   
4. So already a 17th Ave Station would have significantly better prospects than anything the SE LRT can produce currently, in both jobs, population and density around the station. It is true that many people walk in the Beltline (and still would) but servicing a booming, high density mixed-used neighbourhood on the SE Line is hardly a bad thing. I would sacrifice an Inglewood stop for the alignment I proposed.

I would love to access Inglewood by LRT, but it's mainstreet profile/growth prospects is hardly as tempting as a 4th Street SW route. Currently around 3,500 people and 2,000 jobs in Inglewood, with only limited opportunities for significant intensification (see profile here)

Additional benefits over the existing route:

• Access to prime city-wide entertainment districts in Beltline, encouraging true all-day/night usage of the LRT as opposed to a commuter-hour focused design of the current system.
• Maintain similar travel times for SE Green Line to Downtown, doesn't sacrifice access to key SE nodes at Quarry Park, South Hospital etc.
• Gives SE & NC residents access to Beltline jobs and vice versa. Doesn't sacrifice access for the northern Beltline office areas, who are easily served with existing lines and would still have access to Green line either in Downtown or at 17th Ave.
• Gives high student population of Beltline & Mission fast access to Centre Street & future 16th Ave BRT to University & SAIT
• Higher growth potential in Beltline in both jobs, population for the foreseeable future than nearly any other community currently served by transit
• Possibility for a Mission Station further down 4th Street

Let me know what you think, I am aware these are some cocktail-napkin calculations/ideas here (and a bit late considering they finalized the route without considering this option). Overall though, I feel a more southern Beltline station would be much more helpful in building a transit culture in this city and offer far more benefits to SE, Central and Centre Street commuters/residents than the current Inglewood alignment.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

"Arguably". I'd like to see the argument. Arguably I'd be better at hockey than Sidney Crosby, if only I learned how to skate again.

It makes no sense to spend a fortune routing LRT on some circuitous tour through the Beltline; if it were built at grade it would only cost half a fortune but delay the modest number of SE riders more than necessary, given the point of the Green Line is to reduce travel time to the SE.

The office part of the Beltline already has LRT service; 11th Ave S is the same distance from 7th as 3rd Ave N, and no one is arguing that Canterra or Livingston Place or City Centre need LRT service. The best way to improve LRT access for the northern Beltline is to improve the existing pedestrian underpasses and to add more connections (e.g. 7th St).

17th Avenue has an LRT station already; it's historically modest in ridership and would be much less if the Stampede wasn't such a big draw. And there's already an LRT station at 17th Ave and 4th St already; sure, it says "#3 bus" on it, but the vehicles come every 10 minutes 6 AM to 11 PM and more in the rush hours - the same frequency as LRT - and it's a short enough trip to the downtown that there would be minimal speed up by converting to train. People use the bus certainly between 17th and downtown, but not such a crush of people that a train is warranted - offpeak, the articulated buses seem pretty empty.

An argument could be made for special circulator-type buses from an urbanist, community-building perspective, but in general, I'd prefer CT spend its money taking cars off roads, rather than pedestrians off sidewalks.

While everything you say is right, can we not envision a future where transit is not simply about transporting people from the far flung suburbs in the morning and then back at night? In great cities, people use trains and trams to do things other than work, fun things. I don't think it's wrong to question why the densest area of the city and centre for nightlife is unserved by transit.

[milomilo]

In fact, do you what would be an awesome public transit network in our city?

This:

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by fusili

Thought about this quite a bit a few years ago. Here is a basic idea of what I think would be a good start for a grid:



http://transitcamp.ca/2012/10/04/the-transitcamp-network-plan/

Thoughts?

The red line will likely be extended to terminate at 85th street in the west at some point in the next decade. Right of way is already in place.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm curious if CT would have any metrics showing a loss of ridership this past year of low oil prices. We were commenting a year ago that at current rates we'd probably use up the extra capacity from 4 car trains in maybe 5 years, wondering how that looks now.

I find it interesting that the two major capacity-increasing projects on the books, the greenline and the 8th ave subway are likely to be built in the next 30 years, but I don't think there are really any major projects beyond those two even on the books, not in my lifetime anyway, just more minor improvements such as quasi-BRT/express buses. It will be a sad way when those 2 are realized and there's no transit megaprojects to look forward to

I see the next major infrastructure initiative after the green line and 8th Ave subway as a regional transit hub downtown. This will integrate the 8th ave and green line subway connection, regional rail services, and the high speed rail service to Edmonton. This will not be needed until a Calgary of 2.5 million +.

Of course, it is also possible that Calgary ends up a city in relative decline, and never develops further transit infrastructure after the green line.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

Thought about this quite a bit a few years ago. Here is a basic idea of what I think would be a good start for a grid:



http://transitcamp.ca/2012/10/04/the-transitcamp-network-plan/

Thoughts?

I have a comment on the cosmetics of the map. Why did you guys depict the S/NW line as the blue line and W/NE as the red line? The opposite is currently the case on the CT map.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I have a comment on the cosmetics of the map. Why did you guys depict the S/NW line as the blue line and W/NE as the red line? The opposite is currently the case on the CT map.

This was made before they decided on the route colours.

[joe498]

http://www.660news.com/2015/11/10/city-council-moves-on-green-line-lrt-approvals/

City council approved station locations Tuesday, among other things, for the Green Line LRT.

It reviewed several reports for the southeast transit system, which is expected to be complete in 2024.

Jeff Binks, with the Green LRT Foundation, says the new leg could be a reality sooner rather than later.

“The best news of course is Coun. Keating’s motion that’s going to have Mayor Nenshi formally ask the provincial government for funding their third of the Green Line. That will hopefully put shovels in the ground soon,” he says.

The project needs another $1.53 billion to match commitments from the City of Calgary and federal government.

[MasterG]

SELRT: I know transit-oriented design features prominently in future plans, but I don't see much initial usage in these industrial park stations. The NW is starting to see a bit of TOD development, in a primary residential quadrant with no major hindrances along the line to large population growth.

The south line hasn't seen much success in TOD development - for any pedestrian-focused office, industrial or residential. It has a similar structure to much of the SE line, although much of the SE is even more industrial of character.

Are all Greenline stations expected to open at the same time? I think someone has mentioned this before, but Crossroads, Highfield and many of the others must be expecting to have some small rider-ship at the start of operations. Is there any plan to phase them in?

[ClaytonA]

Looks good, also fair bit of background info on ward 11 website; http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/ward-11/Pages/News/SW-Transitway-BRT-Project-Update.aspx

From 5second's link;

The Southwest Transitway is an upgrade to service already provided to the estimated 12 million annual southwest Calgary passengers.

That entire 12mm is not in the ridershed of this transitway. Since these BRT's are baby LRTs, are there any plans to do TOD-like planning, ARPs?, around the stations unlikely to change in a LRT conversion? I realize the City of Calgary already default allows greater density around it's primary transit network. Given the concerns in the SWRR thread, does it make sense to have some park and rides somewhere for those driving from south of Fish Creek?

[srperrycgy]

Posted by @coltonium on Twitter this morning:


S200.jpg-large by Steve Perry, on Flickr

[outoftheice]

Great news about the arrival of the new LRVs. Not a fan of how the red and gold stripes look on the side though.

[You Need A Thneed]

Frankly, they look awful. Nothing like the design that Calgarians chose.

Too much black. Swoopy striping needs to be continuous.

[artvandelay]

I'd like to see them ditch the white and grey/gold and go with an all red/black look. That swoosh design belongs back in the early 2000s.

[You Need A Thneed]

For reference, here's the design Calgarians picked:

[Northski]

The picture of the new LRV looks like it is not finished. The gold on the bottom looks like it will have a decal on it or it will be painted. It also looks like there is a missing panel on the front end.

[Nouvellecosse]

I like the rendering a lot better, but perhaps it is indeed still a work in progress.