Calgary Public Transit II

[suburb]

Originally Posted by kw5150

It would be interesting to have a street car that takes people up the centre st hill to 16th ave (then people could jump on it quickly to go for lunch on Centre street from downtown) ......then after 16th, people would transfer to an LRT station (around the safeway) which becomes elevated from there, using the natural grade of the land to dictate whether the train touches ground, tunnels or is elevated.

It is silly to have the LRT from North Pointe only getting to the safeway. Defeats the purpose completely.

Originally Posted by kw5150

I see the centre street hill as a HUGE obstacle in this project right now. We could figure out a future "grand solution" with a 20 year time frame that we can build towards and have something photo worthy. We dont want anything shabby happening just for the sake of it.

That is why the Edmonton Trail route might be best, while also not eliminating the nice-to-have tram / streetcar from DT to 16th ave up centre.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

My biggest problem with the table and graphic is it presents information completely improperly. Comparisons on capacity (maximum passengers per hour), speed (not maximum operating speed by average speed) and operating costs ($ per passenger) should be front and centre. Yes a subway carries 200 ppl per car, roughly the same as an LRT vehicle, but it can carry more per hour because of grade separation and the ability to use larger consists. ARGHH!!

Ha, I wrote almost this exact thing in the comments box on the survey.

Originally Posted by Suburb To revitalize centre just north of DT and 16th ave, I'd suggest a tram from DT to 16th, and then quick implementation of the cross-town BRT along 16th Ave - connecting the NE line, future NC line, NW line and Foothills / University. So it is not a this OR that - the three pieces together result in a pragmatic solution to the major issues, and don't delay construction due to a uber-expensive route. Along with that I think I'd also continue decent centre street service up to the 78th Ave terminal.

Originally Posted by kw5150 It would be interesting to have a street car that takes people up the centre st hill to 16th ave (then people could jump on it quickly to go for lunch on Centre street from downtown) ......then after 16th, people would transfer to an LRT station (around the safeway) which becomes elevated from there, using the natural grade of the land to dictate whether the train touches ground, tunnels or is elevated.

I'm a tad bit unsure of what Suburb is trying to say here, but I'm understanding this as both of you essentially advocating for a high capacity LRT line to act as a feeder for a tram line. That might just be a world first, but likely for good reason. Interestingly enough, the Ctrain as is already kind of mirrors such a system - in where the ROW level actually degrades as it nears the inner city - another relative oddity in itself, only at least it doesn't require transfering.

I'm gonna have to side with Fusili here again. This thing essentially needs an exclusive ROW the whole way along or else it will quickly lose its effectiveness. Yes it will be more expensive - perhaps vastly, but that is the price you pay for doing something right.

[sim]

Oh oops. Nevermind Suburb... I guess you mean as an interim solution, with them then both running once NLRT is built out?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Some comments about the survey:

first, why even have a question like this:

"Calgary Transit first started building LRT in 1981. Since then many LRT examples have been built in cities around the world.
Do you support reviewing other examples to see what might best meet the needs of north central Calgary communities?"

Asking the public's opinion on whether CT should do proper research seems stupid.

Secondly, this graphic:



Seems to be discouraging underground or elevated right off the bat. Or am I reading this wrong, is Metro (elevated) a different beast than an LRT on an elevated track?

That is positively brutal. The issue with differing capacity constraints is entirely muddled. They definitely should have shown shown it in passengers per direction per hour as opposed to the meaningless per vehicle figure. The stop spacing is also insane. The Toronto Subway has long stretches where stops are every 600m. Vancouver's system, which appears to be what is pictured, has stops of all kinds of distances; the Canada Line through Vancouver has stops 800m apart except for the two locations where future stops are planned that currently cause a spacing of 1600m. 2000-3000m is a distance that most systems will only see in extreme situations while crossing a large obstacle or in the deepest stretches of suburbia. Really 3000m is almost closer to commuter rail stop spacing than metro.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by sim

I'm a tad bit unsure of what Suburb is trying to say here, but I'm understanding this as both of you essentially advocating for a high capacity LRT line to act as a feeder for a tram line.

That is *not* what I was trying to say. I think you snipped my comment regarding the LRT portion. Here is a symposis:

- LRT via Edmonton Trail
- Tram / streetcar from DT to 16th Ave
- Quick implementation of cross town BRT from NE line to future NC line to NW line to Foothills hospital and UCalgary
- Keep good bus service along centre street till 78th ave

The key difference between what you understood and what I attempted to say is that I don't think the tram should have anything to do with the people moving requirement between North Pointe and DT.

Originally Posted by sim

Oh oops. Nevermind Suburb... I guess you mean as an interim solution, with them then both running once NLRT is built out?

Not interim exactly. I think the DT to 16th ave revitalization with a tram / streetcar is a fantastic idea, but it should not be a noose hung around the neck of the NCLRT (which I think would be best to run up Edmonton Trail). No solutions are perfect - and if we aim for perfection, we'll be waiting for 50 years before anything happens, by which time too much will have changed. Instead, what we go for is the best smart solution - and not link things together that are not actually linked.

The 16th ave cross-town BRT is something that I think would be fantastic - that that should happen ASAP!!!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

I'm a tad bit unsure of what Suburb is trying to say here, but I'm understanding this as both of you essentially advocating for a high capacity LRT line to act as a feeder for a tram line. That might just be a world first, but likely for good reason. Interestingly enough, the Ctrain as is already kind of mirrors such a system - in where the ROW level actually degrades as it nears the inner city - another relative oddity in itself, only at least it doesn't require transfering.

I'm gonna have to side with Fusili here again. This thing essentially needs an exclusive ROW the whole way along or else it will quickly lose its effectiveness. Yes it will be more expensive - perhaps vastly, but that is the price you pay for doing something right.

Transfering from an LRT to a tram is absolutely insane. A tram has nowhere near the capacity an LRT does (I know there is a confusion of terms here, but I will persist). First off, a transfer in the first place would kill the system off the start (transfers add roughly half of headways to travel time off the bat and add the fact that people perceive time waiting as much longer than time traveling). Second, even if people transfered, you would have a massive back log because the 400+ people coming off the LRT would have an impossible time cramming onto a single car tram consist that can carry 120.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

That is *not* what I was trying to say. I think you snipped my comment regarding the LRT portion. Here is a symposis:

- LRT via Edmonton Trail
- Tram / streetcar from DT to 16th Ave
- Quick implementation of cross town BRT from NE line to future NC line to NW line to Foothills hospital and UCalgary
- Keep good bus service along centre street till 78th ave

The key difference between what you understood and what I attempted to say is that I don't think the tram should have anything to do with the people moving requirement between North Pointe and DT.

So you would want an LRT, a tram/street car and buses all serving the same catchment area? Operational costs would be horrid. Put in a grade-separated LRT and you will make up the additional capital costs in operating savings in a matter of years.

What I would argue for is when the NCLRT goes in, bus service up centre street stops. Why build the LRT if we are going to keep buses that will consistently run under-capacity?

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

So you would want an LRT, a tram/street car and buses all serving the same catchment area? Operational costs would be horrid. Put in a grade-separated LRT and you will make up the additional capital costs in operating savings in a matter of years.

I'm proposing that an Edmonton Trail LRT (which would be substantially cheaper and quicker to build than a centre street LRT) would not revitalize the DT to 16 Ave corridor, but would allow for enough savings that a DT to 16th ave tram / streetcar could still be considered. The 16th ave cross-town BRT is already in planning, and that would help numerous other issues of getting people from the NE to the U and Foothills Hosp., while also helping reinforce the revitalization of 16th ave. The contentious point you've highlighted is my suggestion that there would still need to be some bus service up centre (I mentioned till 78 ave, but it doesn't have to go up that far I suppose). This would not need to be BRT - rather something like the #3. This would be a catchment that the Edmonton Trail alignment wouldn't necessarily get to (because it also swings out to the CPR tracks. I do agree that it is the weakest piece of my suggestions, so no sweat off my back if we don't all agree with it. My *main* point is, do not link LRT alignment with centre street revitalization immediately north of DT.

Originally Posted by fusili

Why build the LRT if we are going to keep buses that will consistently run under-capacity?

No - I never said run buses at under capacity. The bus system, at the end of the day, is a learning system. Should one continue the #3, as an example, within a few months you'd know if we're bang on or need adjustment.

If nothing else, from my comments take the good and leave the bad.

[kw5150]

Ok guys.....just throwing a fricken bone here.......I was just thinking that it would be great to have direct access to north centre street from downtown......I would go up there for lunch every now and then. There are so many great little restaurants up there.

[sim]

Originally Posted by suburb

I'm proposing that an Edmonton Trail LRT (which would be substantially cheaper and quicker to build than a centre street LRT) would not revitalize the DT to 16 Ave corridor, but would allow for enough savings that a DT to 16th ave tram / streetcar could still be considered. The 16th ave cross-town BRT is already in planning, and that would help numerous other issues of getting people from the NE to the U and Foothills Hosp., while also helping reinforce the revitalization of 16th ave. The contentious point you've highlighted is my suggestion that there would still need to be some bus service up centre (I mentioned till 78 ave, but it doesn't have to go up that far I suppose). This would not need to be BRT - rather something like the #3. This would be a catchment that the Edmonton Trail alignment wouldn't necessarily get to (because it also swings out to the CPR tracks. I do agree that it is the weakest piece of my suggestions, so no sweat off my back if we don't all agree with it. My *main* point is, do not link LRT alignment with centre street revitalization immediately north of DT.



No - I never said run buses at under capacity. The bus system, at the end of the day, is a learning system. Should one continue the #3, as an example, within a few months you'd know if we're bang on or need adjustment.

If nothing else, from my comments take the good and leave the bad.

It's an interesting thought. I have a couple questions though: Why do you feel that it would be substantially cheaper - you may have already mentioned it, but what kind of ROW/construction do you have in mind? How do you suggest the future NLRT would link to the SELRT, or would it not at all? Also, you've just added a nice little chunk of operational costs (the Tram) to acheive the same thing one system could easily and effectively handle - including KW5150's desire to easily get to the center st restaurants. So after 50 years, you might have actually spent a lot more money than just having the single center st NLRT.

Interesting nonetheless, as perhaps there would be future potential to extend streetcars E - W along 16th, and providing some direct links to DT in that regard, but let's not get ahead of ourselves quite yet. At this point "BRT" would suffice one way or another.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

So you would want an LRT, a tram/street car and buses all serving the same catchment area? Operational costs would be horrid. Put in a grade-separated LRT and you will make up the additional capital costs in operating savings in a matter of years.

What I would argue for is when the NCLRT goes in, bus service up centre street stops. Why build the LRT if we are going to keep buses that will consistently run under-capacity?

Well, in many many years, and important to note there is a huge incentive in the current financing model to make sure low operational costs continue, since the city cannot use capital dollars to fund operations.

It makes much sense however.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by sim

Why do you feel that it would be substantially cheaper - you may have already mentioned it, but what kind of ROW/construction do you have in mind?

Any way you cut it, the amount of high cost track required for the Edmonton Trail path would be less than the centre street path, especially with respect to dealing with the hill situation. Larger portions can be at grade from my understanding.

Originally Posted by sim

How do you suggest the future NLRT would link to the SELRT, or would it not at all?

Unlike the CPR option, based on my discussions with the city folks last evening, both centre street and edmonton trail options can relatively easily be linked in with SE LRT (which is a critical point, I agree)

Originally Posted by sim

Also, you've just added a nice little chunk of operational costs (the Tram) to acheive the same thing one system could easily and effectively handle - including KW5150's desire to easily get to the center st restaurants. So after 50 years, you might have actually spent a lot more money than just having the single center st NLRT.

Then scrap the tram.

And NO, I do not thing an LRT (which would be underground in the area of discussion) could do the same thing as a streetcar.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, in many many years, and important to note there is a huge incentive in the current financing model to make sure low operational costs continue, since the city cannot use capital dollars to fund operations.

Actually you'd never make it up when you consider the yearly compounding interest of the major extra costs of grade separated construction.

[polishavenger]

Whats the ROW up demonton trail anyway, and how would it connect with the SE LRT without a long tunnel underground from DT? There are condo's proposed on both sides of the street at the top of the hill, and the couplet at the bottom has an office building proposed at Meredith RD, and an historical building.

[sim]

Originally Posted by suburb

Any way you cut it, the amount of high cost track required for the Edmonton Trail path would be less than the centre street path, especially with respect to dealing with the hill situation. Larger portions can be at grade from my understanding.



Unlike the CPR option, based on my discussions with the city folks last evening, both centre street and edmonton trail options can relatively easily be linked in with SE LRT (which is a critical point, I agree)

How do they (the city folks) actually propose to do this as it currently stands? Are they not planning on a diametrical line? I see this as a very large challenge, so I'm interested to what kind of preliminary solutions they are proposing.

Then scrap the tram.

And NO, I do not thing an LRT (which would be underground in the area of discussion) could do the same thing as a streetcar.



Actually you'd never make it up when you consider the yearly compounding interest of the major extra costs of grade separated construction.

Ok, fair enough. Similiar, let's say. I understand the differentiating benefits a streetcar/tram would have, but about half those benefits (at least when regarding the line from the edge of the CBD to 16th Ave) are effectively nullified due to there being no built up form and no possibility for it because of the geography and bridge. So you might really only squeeze one extra station in there that the NLRT wouldn't have. Not sure if I conveyed that all that clearly...

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by suburb

Actually you'd never make it up when you consider the yearly compounding interest of the major extra costs of grade separated construction.

The cost of plowing under a 7 km row of houses would be pretty mighty too. You have to compare apples to apples, not apples to not having apples. To achieve roughly compareable levels of service along the same corridor at grade would be incredibly expensive. Plus you have to count things like the externalities of closing every cross street you don't grade seperate at, which would add up over time, if you are doing a CBA. Can't just ignore external costs.

Plus, it wouldn't really be compound interest that is the cost, but the lost opprotunity of spending elsewhere, plus the 1 year or more loss of use while waiting for the extra funding assuming it would be approved at all.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The cost of plowing under a 7 km row of houses would be pretty mighty too.

One thing was clear - not enough due dilligence has been completed - as all of us are working with a very large number of unknowns. We certainly know that the per kilometer cost of running along CPR is the least of the options, and we know the construction disruption is also the least.

QUESTION:

Is there any other 'reasonable' way to leverage the ROW along CPR such that we don't clog 7th ave? I'm all for skipping the inner city nightmare, which is already walkable and best served by buses anyway.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by suburb

One thing was clear - not enough due dilligence has been completed - as all of us are working with a very large number of unknowns. We certainly know that the per kilometer cost of running along CPR is the least of the options, and we know the construction disruption is also the least.

QUESTION:

Is there any other 'reasonable' way to leverage the ROW along CPR such that we don't clog 7th ave? I'm all for skipping the inner city nightmare, which is already walkable and best served by buses anyway.

Well, the study for the NC LRT outlined a couple different access plans. Either you come in from the SE through Inglewood, joining up with the SE LRT ROW, or you use the NE LRT ROW. Both options would effectively cut the potential frequency of the route in half.

As for avoiding the inner city, are we ever going to try to develop more nodes, or are these communities going to be left stuck at bus supportable desnities? Personally I would prefer 16th and Centre, and Mcknight and Centre be Yonge and Eglinton and Yonge and Sheppard than areas filled primarily with lower density infills. Yeah, those places took 40 years to develop, buty that is what cities do. The public sentiment seems to be on the side of this 'logic' on this one too, fortunately. If the city wants to run a commuter train down Nose Creek fine, but lets do that as part of a regional plan since there is little about the Nose Creek route for city building.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, the study for the NC LRT outlined a couple different access plans. Either you come in from the SE through Inglewood, joining up with the SE LRT ROW, or you use the NE LRT ROW. Both options would effectively cut the potential frequency of the route in half.

As for avoiding the inner city, are we ever going to try to develop more nodes, or are these communities going to be left stuck at bus supportable desnities? Personally I would prefer 16th and Centre, and Mcknight and Centre be Yonge and Eglinton and Yonge and Sheppard than areas filled primarily with lower density infills. Yeah, those places took 40 years to develop, buty that is what cities do. The public sentiment seems to be on the side of this 'logic' on this one too, fortunately. If the city wants to run a commuter train down Nose Creek fine, but lets do that as part of a regional plan since there is little about the Nose Creek route for city building.

I would imagine Centre @ 16 Ave to be more like Yonge @ Bloor while Centre @ McKnight would be more like Yonge @ Eglinton. Sheppard is pretty far out. Either way, something more shoulf be built to actually service the area. If we actually want Plan It to happen then an area like north central Calgary will need a higher capacity transportation option than the current busses.

There is also an opportunity cost to using the freight ROW through Nose Creek. There is only so much space there, particularly through the two miles of industrial, and it is very likely that the province will eventually want to lay track for HSR/Commuter Rail. Is it even possible to fit six (with 2 LRT, 2 Alberta government, and 2 freight if the railway ever wants to twin the line) theoretical tracks through there? At a minimum it would mean a fair amount of expropriation. Would there be any kind of point?

[fusili]

Nose creek is actually going to be pretty difficult because some of the right-of-way is planned for HSR. So it is not going to be as easy as assumed.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Nose creek is actually going to be pretty difficult because some of the right-of-way is planned for HSR. So it is not going to be as easy as assumed.

Exactly

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&laye...67,-114.04403&spn=0.003693,0.009398&z=17

I would imagine that the railway will want to hold enough land to twin its tracks if they ever feel the need. Does it look like there is enough room there for six tracks? It looks like it would be tight with just four.