Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab
Consider these assumptions:
One, that nearly all population growth in established communities will need to be serviced by transit since road capacity will not grow in the area. I would say that this is incredibly likely.
Two, that the established area of the NE will see substantial redevelopment within the next 50 years. This is a an iffier proposition as it certainly isn't the city's favored quarter but I would still contend that it is likely. Nearly all of Western Rundle, facing 36 St, is composed of rental townhouses in super blocks that will reach the end of their life cycle at essentially the same time. These will be redeveloped with much more density. 36 St could then become a major TOD corridor, with the west side becoming mixed use. This could inspire in fills in the surrounding areas.
Three, that future employment growth will occur along transit lines and transit's modal share in these areas will resemble downtown's today. This would continue to push riders to the downtown transit hub for transfers even as employment growth in the core evaporates as it runs out of additional space. This is by far the biggest assumption, as it contradicts established patterns of urban growth over the past century, but it is the city's plan.
I could easily see those assumptions about the future coming to pass and leading to significant ridership growth on the NE Line. That is without even considering other plausible, if less foreseeable, ways to overburden 7 Ave in the future. We could easily decide to add branches to existing lines, like building an MRU/Currie Barracks spur to the W LRT, that would once again mean interlining on 7 Ave.
|
One, the northeast just got a massive increase in road capacity called Stoney Trail (well under capacity today, with designs on the books for future widening). Looking at other major roads east of Barlow as a reference point, in 2015 Memorial Drive carried only 72% of the daily volume it carried in 2000, and 36th St carried 67%. 16th is flat and McKnight went up 23% (the four roads combined are at 92% of 2000 volumes) but
here's the expansion plans for 16th and
here's the expansion they're currently building of McKnight. So there's a lot of road capacity to take growth in the area.
Two, let's talk about that area in western Rundle. It seems like the best potential area for TOD development, so it' s a best case scenario. The multifamily developments there are about 23 hectares of land. At 10,000 people per sq km (the densest census tract in the city - the Beltline between 14th and 8th St), that's a total of 2,300 people. At 20,000 people per sq km (typical density for downtown Vancouver, and the density of the Brentwood TOD plan at "Maximum Bonus" density and removing the Crowchild ROW), that's a total of 4,600 people. Even at 40,000 people per sq km (the densest CT in Vancouver, the towers at Joyce-Collingwood station) that's 9200 people.
What's the population of Rundle today? I looked it up, and it's 11,500. Adding 9200 people - unprecedented density - represents less than 100% growth, and that's in the best site in the corridor. Pineridge next door isn't going to grow nearly as much. And of course, when I looked up the population of Rundle, I couldn't help but notice that 3,200 people live in townhouses - mostly the very townhouses we are talking about knocking down. (Clusters of 2-3 bedroom 3 story townhouses are actually pretty dense.) Once we take that into account, we could build that area dense enough that Vancouverites shake their head, and not increase the population of Rundle by 50-60%. And you're worried about the NE demand more than tripling.
Three, employment growth on transit corridors does not necessarily increase the need for trips through downtown. If a bunch more people live near transit and a bunch more jobs locate near transit, one thing that happens is a bunch more people walk from their new home, right past the transit stop to the new job down the block. Another thing that happens is reverse commuting; instead of the new Rundle resident having to take the train to the downtown, they can take the train to their new office in Stonegate.
You raise this spectre based on people transferring downtown and this increasing demand. But you haven't considered the impact of additional transit reducing demand and the need to transfer downtown. Today, it seems to me that Marlborough is the busiest station, because it serves as a collection point for all of "East Calgary", aka the area between Memorial and Peigan. Also known as the catchment for the 17th Ave Busway, which will provide a high quality service for lots of people who currently transfer to the Blue Line, thus reducing capacity problems. (And the 17th Busway is likely to be upgraded to LRT before anyone gets around to burying 7th Ave.) Another project in the works is east-west BRT along 16th Ave, again reducing the number of people who take the train into the downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab
And for that, I'm just advocating that one, the Green Line be designed so that another tunnel and platform could be built on top of it on 7 Ave, two, that the Red Line tunnel be built to accommodate another tunnel passing over it where it travels under 7 Ave (possibly with another transfer station), and three, that future utility work in the core takes the possibility of a 7 Ave tunnel into account.
Yes, we may never need to bury the W-NE Line downtown, but that is no reason to make doing so an impossibility. The choices we make now will continue to affect the city for a very long time. So long as the costs are reasonable, we should consider how the Green and Red Line tunnels will function a hundred years from now.
|
I think we agree that it's not stupid to at least look at the impacts when designing, but let's be serious. First, there's no such thing as an "impossibility" - you're talking about some utility moves and a deeper tunnel at worst. Second, there's a cost to doing things today - for instance, making the Red line tunnel deeper than it needs to be. Let's say that we agree that there's no chance of 7th being buried in 50 years, but there's a 10% chance it's done 75 years from now, 25% chance it's done each of 100 years and 125 years, and the remaining 40% chance it's done in 150 years. Using a social discount rate of 5%, every dollar we spend today needs to save $188 in future 7th Ave tunnel costs. (The Treasury Board recommends an 8% discount rate, which I think is too high but means we'd need to save over $2200 to be willing to spend a dollar today - at that rate, you couldn't even justify a million dollar study on how to minimize impacts).
And finally, we're talking about infrastructure that may or may not be needed 100+ years from now. What's the useful lifespan of a tunnel? About a hundred years before serious reconstruction. So the 2130 Green Line Tunnel Rehabilitation project planners can also make the decision then about whether it needs to be restrengthened to handle a blue line tunnel underneath, and they'll have the benefit of knowing a hell of a lot more about whether it's needed.
Prev
Linear Mode
