Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

^Yeah well the way you make sure they don't cheap out on construction is force them to maintain it for 30 years or more for a fixed cost, also you do the same with operating it so they don't build the cheapest but most expensive to run system.

It is interesting that in the end we could put out a tender for what we think is LRT and get an automated light metro. The market at work.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^Yeah well the way you make sure they don't cheap out on construction is force them to maintain it for 30 years or more for a fixed cost, also you do the same with operating it so they don't build the cheapest but most expensive to run system.

Okay. What I was trying to get at was I know even the most fool-proof scheme will get screwed up eventually by someone. As such, I'm interested in finding the areas of the Canada Line process where idiots can mess things up in order to avoid these idiots from doing so. I really like the idea so I want to be able to protect it from incorrect implementations if I'm ever in that position.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Riise

Okay. What I was trying to get at was I know even the most fool-proof scheme will get screwed up eventually by someone. As such, I'm interested in finding the areas of the Canada Line process where idiots can mess things up in order to avoid these idiots from doing so. I really like the idea so I want to be able to protect it from incorrect implementations if I'm ever in that position.

A good case study from the line, goes through the tendering process. http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files/documents/CanadaLinecasestudy_000.pdf

Biggest fub-ub seemed to be on the communications with the public piece, since the exact details of the line weren't concrete it was difficult to engage the public, which led to impressions that a large section would be bored tunnel which ended up being cut and cover.

[CTrainDude]

Three car Series 8 train heading downtown now (11:56, and it's inbound at Heritage). Anyone interested should go take a look. They sure look slick.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by kw5150

How about having the nose hill alignment somehow tied with the SELRT? Like a separate node. Then construct and Central LRT loop system that links the centre street area with the mount royal college area..That is where the bulk of the density is.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Getting the SELRT over to Nose Creek, in it's own ROW, would easily destroy most of the cost savings found in that alignment. If it piggybacked on the NE LRT ROW it would be even worse, restricting capacity on NE, W, SE, and N lines.

I am in favour of an eventual circle line in the city but it really cannot serve the Centre Street corridor. It would have one stop on Centre. Does the South line serve the Glenmore corridor? No, it serves the Macleod corridor.

Thank you. Just wondering. There is a situation in Vancouver like that around commercial drive that forms a second main transit node. Commercial drive has evolved quite a bit as a reasult.

[jeffwhit]

I'm not sure how this is going to be better than google maps, but it's something:

http://www.calgarytransitschedule.com/

if they enabled some sort of e-ticket functionality into the app, it would be amazing. In a POP system, it would only require co operation from CT.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

I'm not sure how this is going to be better than google maps, but it's something:

http://www.calgarytransitschedule.com/

if they enabled some sort of e-ticket functionality into the app, it would be amazing. In a POP system, it would only require co operation from CT.

Sounds like a fancy interface to their teleride system. e-ticket tie-in would be cool and not that hard to do.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

A good case study from the line, goes through the tendering process. http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files/documents/CanadaLinecasestudy_000.pdf

Cheers, I'll definitely have a read.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Sounds like a fancy interface to their teleride system. e-ticket tie-in would be cool and not that hard to do.

Yeah, I'm hoping there's some killer functionality not yet revealed. People ho have phones that can run this app already have a more useful transit helper with google maps.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I'm not sure you'd want to use the East or West Village as examples of great development to follow. East Village has a $200 million+ subsidy, and last I read West Village might crack $500 million in the subsidy department.

As for operational costs - look at the entire picture. Nose Creek you need N-S buses in the Central Corridor, Centre St you don't. In 2006 there were approximately 28,600 boardings in the corridor that weren't express buses from suburbs or cross town buses. Each bus boarding has a subsidy of approximately $2.75, whereas each LRT boarding makes a profit of around $2. (assuming all trips unlinked). You have to have insane costs to make the marginal cost of maintenance be above the $35 million you save every year (calculation uses only weekday numbers assuming 260 weekdays) by replacing all the north south buses with LRT.

Now the savings would likely be less than $35 million in the real world, but every bus rider you convert to a pedestrian (commute only)--> LRT saves Calgary Transit $9.50 a day or $2,470 a year. This is real savings, not some future in theory savings from TOD users. As a business, would you avoid your customers in one area, to more cheaply serve customers in another - ignore a profit Centre? Busing those same customers to Nose Creek to take the LRT does not save this money (a customer touching a bus at all requires a subsidy).

Well if one is only looking at saving $35 million annually, then the most one could justify spending on this kind of capital project is about $875 million which isn't enough to get the project done.

I think a study needs to be done on this as soon as possible. There needs to be the right long term plan in place that is a quantifiable approach that looks at the net present value of a variety of options.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by fusili

Ok, I had to respond to this. First intensification is not a pipe dream. Both the Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP and the Bridges ARP are very recent documents. The Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP was passed in what, 2009? And the Bridges document is only a few years older than that. Truth is, these things take time.

The reason why almost no inner city growth has occurred in the last 20 years is because it was essentially illegal. Every ARP in the city basically said the purpose of the ARP was to maintain the existing low density character of the community. This doesn't make land use redesignations to higher density easy. So when you ask yourself why there has not been growth in the inner city, don't look to the market, look to the regulation.

The Beltline is a great counter example. Since 2003, when the community basically said "Build things here" and "Density is good" it has had incredible growth. People like Wooster can tell you how much ridiculous amount of activity was happening in a very short period of time. People want to live in the inner city, developers are more than able to buy up existing property and replace it with higher density housing. It isn't hard. As long as you let them. But if you drag them through the mud for several years, keep changing your mind, and ultimately end up fighting them, they will leave (I am looking at you Hillhurst/Sunnyside).

Long story short- intensification is entirely possible. In fact, Centre Street is an almost ideal place for it. Nothing but single family homes, in a gridded street pattern. That makes land assembly and demolition incredibly easy. Developers would be all over being able to buy 6 houses, tear them down and put up a 60 unit, 5 storey building. The thing is, they're not allowed to.

Should get rid of those overly restrictive ARP's in places like Sunnyside, and see what happens. My personal preference as an engineer would be to put in a subway, but if it is limited by economics of not being able to grow up, then it's a much harder case compared to Nose Creek alignment which has less issues with trying to assemble say a 6 house land package, and can be built from a masterplanned perspective instead.

I get that there is a desire for this kind of neighbourhood, but I also think there is a desire to stay in that neighbourhood. Without flux, in and out, one can't develop. If one looks at some of the areas that were built up recently, a lot of that growth happened precisely because of the vacated house and outward migration that had occurred at one time. This takes time...

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Should get rid of those overly restrictive ARP's in places like Sunnyside, and see what happens. My personal preference as an engineer would be to put in a subway, but if it is limited by economics of not being able to grow up, then it's a much harder case compared to Nose Creek alignment which has less issues with trying to assemble say a 6 house land package, and can be built from a masterplanned perspective instead.

I get that there is a desire for this kind of neighbourhood, but I also think there is a desire to stay in that neighbourhood. Without flux, in and out, one can't develop. If one looks at some of the areas that were built up recently, a lot of that growth happened precisely because of the vacated house and outward migration that had occurred at one time. This takes time...

Developers are having an easy time finding houses to knock down in the area already. Look at how many original bungalows with 50' lots are being replaced by new infill houses. A Subway would add an incentive to go further and replace those homes with apartments instead of new SFHs. Developers do not even need to assemble large pieces of land. An apartment building can be built on a 50' lot. Each floor can easily contain four ~1000 s/f apartments. Replacing a significant number of SFHs between 4th St NW and Edmonton Trail with three to four story apartments would raise density massively without raising the ire of nimbys worried about towers. Neighbourhoods reaaly do not have to be very tall to be very dense.

[Koolfire]

From my perspective as a ward 4 resident near Nose Creek I would prefer no NCLRT C-train to a C-train in Nose Creek. What makes me nervous is that I doubt taking a bus to the C-train then transferring will be any faster then taking a bus straight downtown. From 64th Ave Nose Creek alignment is about 10km, Centre st is about 7km. Timewise, route 301 from 64th is about 20 min, route 202 from Whitehorn roughly the same distance 64th LRT station would be takes 17 minutes. That leaves 3 minutes to walk/bus over and transfer. It's a relevant to were a person lives as some would be close to the stations but most would be worse off with LRT in Nose Creek as it would likely result is poorer bus service for most of the area as service would have to be now split between routes servicing LRT and routes going downtown.


As for the (re)developable land in Nose Creek I have doubts. The biggest issue I see is that it's a fairly undesirable place to live. You got a very active rail going through there. Your very near the takeoff/landing route. The area would be psychological/physically separated from existing neighborhoods by the escarpment. Then finally living beside Deerfoot is also undesirable. In all honesty this some sour low hanging fruit. I don't see why any developer would be interested in doing this project as there is lots of other much more profitable projects available assuming they can turn a profit on this. I would hate to have to build the C-train down Nose Creek and then subsidize TOD. I would rather keep the inner-city green/park space then develop it. Bottomline, it's undesirable to live there and Nose Creek should make the area be environmentally protected.

With the current transit service the real choke point for buses is the Centre St bridge/Chinatown being 4 lanes. That's not getting wider and there is no way to get more buses on there without making the bridge buses only. I would imagine that would be wildly unpopular. From Country Hills on 301 it takes 24 minutes to get to 16th from Country Hills(10km or average speed 25km/h) then it takes 10 minutes to get to 6th (2km or 12km/h). For reference, the NELRT from Whitehorn to downtown is 17mins (10 km or 35km/h) and Nose Creek alignment would be about 17km to Country Hills from Downtown and there for assuming similar speed that one gets to Whitehorn it would be about 30 minute trip. Now if you could maintain the 25km/h average up downtown then the bus and Nose Creek LRT would arrive at the same time.

I like the idea of a Centre St subway. The costs to do it all at once is enormous. But what about extending the SELRT to just 16th st and building a transfer point like an underground bus terminal so that from the door of the bus to the door of the train is under 20 metres. (I'm assuming this tunnel wouldn't be much below grade). Or, if SELRT is lowfloor cars if the LRT changed into streetcar mixed traffic north of 16th it would be able to actually have better speed then the Nose Creek LRT by about 3 minutes. Major problem with this is that the blocks south of 32 Ave are only 100 meters, 5 car lengths would be 125 metres. Without redoing the entire grid system it would mean on 3 car length trains would be possible but still problem as it I'm not sure what they would do for property access for the business. I would find it weird to get off the train to be standing in front of a car trying to get onto Centre street. The other thing with this is that you brought the people mover to the heart of were any density grow will happen.

Thank you for reading my rant.

[fusili]

@Koolfire. Thanks for your post. I think you hit the nail on the head concerning Nose Creek development. It really is undesirable. From 32nd to 64th it is all industrial, before that you might have one TOD site, but one that is completely removed from all other development up the escarpment. The Nose Creek alignment favours residents of North Hills at the expense of everybody else. It needs to be abandoned.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by fusili

@Koolfire. Thanks for your post. I think you hit the nail on the head concerning Nose Creek development. It really is undesirable. From 32nd to 64th it is all industrial, before that you might have one TOD site, but one that is completely removed from all other development up the escarpment. The Nose Creek alignment favours residents of North Hills at the expense of everybody else. It needs to be abandoned.

so having lrt accessing industrial, where people work, is undesirable? it seems ok for the selrt to access huge swaths of industrial, why does the nclrt have to be different?

[mooky]

MonctonGoldenFlames>

In the end its about density. Should we forget about the 30,000 people that already use the 301N and 3 up Center Street? If you look at that as a starting point versus 0 (pre-TOD taking 10-20-30 years to flush out) up Nose Creek until 32nd ave and then industrial from 32 to 64th avenue, and then residential, I think the argument leans heavily on Center Street LRT servicing now and into the future more potential customers. Center can still be turned eastward so it doesn't preclude a run to the airport, or a people mover to connect to the LRT system.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

so having lrt accessing industrial, where people work, is undesirable? it seems ok for the selrt to access huge swaths of industrial, why does the nclrt have to be different?

By the time either of the possible NCLRT corridors hit the industrial area, they are 1 km apart at most. And the Nose Creek corridor is separated from all the industrial but the small, little-used area right at McKnight Blvd by Deerfoot Trail. So, you still have to take a bus to get to where people work from either of the NCLRT routes. At most, having the LRT at Centre St will add a few minutes onto feeder bus trips from LRT to industrial.

Which will be true for the SELRT too, since most of the industrial jobs on that route will also be accessed by bus from SELRT train stations. The point is that this is an improvement because buses won't have to travel from the depths of the industrial park to far-off existing LRT lines. Instead, they'll have (I hope) more routes, more frequency, that travel a shorter distance, to the new LRT lines.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by mooky

MonctonGoldenFlames>

In the end its about density. Should we forget about the 30,000 people that already use the 301N and 3 up Center Street? If you look at that as a starting point versus 0 (pre-TOD taking 10-20-30 years to flush out) up Nose Creek until 32nd ave and then industrial from 32 to 64th avenue, and then residential, I think the argument leans heavily on Center Street LRT servicing now and into the future more potential customers. Center can still be turned eastward so it doesn't preclude a run to the airport, or a people mover to connect to the LRT system.

i'm not saying we should ignore the 30,000 or so people who use the 301 or 3, but we should also not ignore the thousands of people who travel the deerfoot to reach downtown.

i think it really comes down to what the purpose of the lrt should be. a suburban commuter or inner city development tool, maybe even both. we should do our due diligence and fairly assess all route options, not just focus on centre street, just because there is more residential there.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

so having lrt accessing industrial, where people work, is undesirable? it seems ok for the selrt to access huge swaths of industrial, why does the nclrt have to be different?

While there is industrial, it isn't large enough to generate significant trips for a station. Industrial really never does have the density to generate considerable pedestrian trips from rapid transit stations. When rapid transit accesses an industrial area, such as the SE industrial area, it needs feeder buses to distribute riders once they get off the station.

Put it this way, residential and commercial land uses can be much more dense in terms of people or jobs per area than industrial uses, both because of the structural organization of space and the number of people per area of floor space. Condos and offices can be in towers, warehouses and manufacturing plants cannot. Basically the FAR in commercial and residential can be much higher than in industrial. In terms of floor area per person, industrial will have a much lower ratio of people per square metre than office uses (there is a great diversity, but think of a warehouse compared to an office of cubicles). Therefore, in terms of TOD, only residential and commercial can really generate considerable pedestrian traffic. Industrial needs feeder buses to work.

So in the case of Nose Creek, the industrial uses are not dense enough to justify stations based only on pedestrian traffic, and they also discourage residential density (no one wants to live beside an industrial area). Secondly, the industrial areas around Nose Creek are small, and not large enough to justify a station by themselves, even with feeder routes. The SE industrial is massive.

In short, the NCLRT needs to be based on a model very different from Calgary's traditional LRT planning. Calgary's LRT ridership right now is based almost exclusively on feeder buses and Park-N-Rides with very little pedestrian trips (I am talking about trip origins not destinations, everyone walks from the LRT, almost nobody walks to the LRT). The NCLRT needs to be different. There just isn't a lot of space for Park-N-Rides, but incredible potential for redevelopment near to stations (if the Centre street option is chosen). The NWLRT, NELRT, and SLRT have terrible potential for TOD because they are median stations- meaning people have to walk over an overpass just to access the station. The NCLRT subway would be fundamentally different. Development will be immediately adjacent, and even possibly right on top of, the stations. And that makes a massive difference.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

so having lrt accessing industrial, where people work, is undesirable? it seems ok for the selrt to access huge swaths of industrial, why does the nclrt have to be different?

Ummm, Short answer, yes. While industrial is a huge employment area the transit service is usually crap. Look at the foothills bus service on the 409 line it has 20 minute headway at peek then drops to 40 in non peek and last bus is done the last route at 8pm (starts at 6:40). So if current levels don't indicate it being good ridership generator. But I will admit that it is a bit of chicken vs the egg problem were poor transit service levels produces poor transit ridership and poor ridership produces poor service. I guess we'll see how successful SELRT will be in Foothills. I'm willing to change my mind on this but find the industrial area that has high ridership and high service level.