Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I personnally don't know which alignment is more beneficial to the city.

NC tunnel:

PRO's:
-Faster
-Underground
-Little neighborhood distruption(noise, land purchase)
- Better TOD potential
- Existing ridership within 400 m distance of alignment
- Established commercial corridors on Centre Street and 16th avenue already
- Office development on Centre street established, especially south of 16th avenue
- Due to three points above, less risk of being "first in" for TOD development
- Grid pattern of development surrounding route alignment, making for easier parcel consolidation and redevelopment
- Residential redevelopment already happening (especially around 16th avenue)
- Can connect to a future 16th avenue crosstown BRT (especially important for any riders who wish to go to SAIT or Foothills hospital)
- Will eliminate need for 301 BRT, freeing up capacity (well some) on Centre Street)
- Will not need to tie into NE/WLRT ROW on 7th avenue, reducing capacity on NE/W LRT
- Ties into SELRT, reducing transfers for all NC riders going to Highfield Industrial, Foothills industrial and South Hospital
- Reduces transfers for SE riders going anywhere on the NC line (offices on Centre Street) or to the Foothills hospital (from 2 transfers to 1) if a 16th avenue BRT is built


CON's:
-It's gonna cost a lot of money (and have a greater tax benefit for the city. Also you need to include either the lost capacity on the NE/W LRT line, or the cost of a whole new ROW downtown in the cost of the NoseCreek alignment


Maybe the city could buy an auger to bring down the cost??? I dunno. I'm not a civil engineer.

Nose Creek:

PRO's:
-Most of it is ROW protected(Easy land purchase from CPR/CNR)
-Offers opportunity for redevelopment (a definite no)
-Nose Creek could look a lot nicer which a bit of engineering(embankment improvement, greater water flow) (this has nothing to do with the LRT, Nose Creek will look nicer due to other improvements, not the LRT, which in fact, will make it worse)
-Easier to create potential Airport LRT (only somewhat true)

CON's:
-Redevelopment would occur right beside Deerfoot(noise, pollution)
-Longer trip to Panorama/Country Hills
-NELRT line from Zoo to downtown would be more crowded
- Almost impossible to connect to a future 16th avenue crosstown BRT
- Stations south of 16th
- TOD development will be isolated from rest of NC area
- Large risk of TOD development of being "first in"
- Mainly industrial areas around corridor- making residential development undesirable
- Reduces capacity on the NE/W LRT
- Creates additional transfers for riders along the SE/NC line
- Eliminates ability for NC and SE riders to get to Foothills hospital on rapid transit


You guys probably all support NC LRT subway option and you're probably gonna tear me up.

But let's hear what you think?

Fixed for you.

[MalcolmTucker]

have a greater tax benefit for the city

Remember that in Calgary's tax model, and in the unicity, unless you are inducing demand that somehow wouldn't happen in similar value elsewhere within the city, the city's benefit is a wash. Also in the revenue neutral tax system, even if extra value was generated, the only way to capture it is to have an across the board tax increase.

Just the nature of the beast.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Remember that in Calgary's tax model, and in the unicity, unless you are inducing demand that somehow wouldn't happen in similar value elsewhere within the city, the city's benefit is a wash. Also in the revenue neutral tax system, even if extra value was generated, the only way to capture it is to have an across the board tax increase.

Just the nature of the beast.

I should have been more clear, sorry about that. I understand the mill rate system and the revenue neutral system. But I do understand that as a property value to cost of services ratio, the development around the centre street subway is a definite winner. I should have said something closer to "Will result in a more efficient development pattern, which is more cost-effective for servicing." Although the cost is higher for the subway construction, I believe it will result it a higher ridership and over time, fair revenue will pay off the increased capital expenditure.

[MalcolmTucker]

Hmm, what about a land transfer tax selectively applied in a district surrounding a new line to capture a portion of the property value increases that in effect were paid for by the government.

It would be new substantial money that isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul.
It wouldn't hurt existing residents (the tax would collect a percentage value less than the estimated property value increase)
The amount would expire after a set number of years, or set dollars being collected

Thoughts?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Hmm, what about a land transfer tax selectively applied in a district surrounding a new line to capture a portion of the property value increases that in effect were paid for by the government.

It would be new substantial money that isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul.
It wouldn't hurt existing residents (the tax would collect a percentage value less than the estimated property value increase)
The amount would expire after a set number of years, or set dollars being collected

Thoughts?

DO IT. It might be tricky to calculate what the tax increase would be and it would hit a bunch of hurdles with new development- i.e. almost all the tax from a redeveloped site would be considered as part of the property value increase, which runs into the same problems as a TIF.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

And isn't that "platform" about 6" high?

I believe they are 16"

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Riise

So they should be written off because, despite all of their positive attributes and ability to perform well, they are unable to achieve one of their original goals?

Well, other than being able to operate without platforms, what are these other positive attributes?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ The new Toronto streetcars are getting an extend-able ramp for loading wheelchairs, because the system operates as a true streetcar. I have no idea how Portland manages for their streetcar.

Also a raised platform, although lower than those in Houston or San Diego.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I personnally don't know which alignment is more beneficial to the city.

Regarding the NCLRT, I was going to point out how your own pros and cons make the Centre St Subway sound better, thusly not teraing into you, but then fusili did it better than I could have.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It isn't the internal layout that presents a problem, it is getting a wheelchair bound passenger from street level and into the cabin. In both Houston and San Diego this is accomplished with a station platform - completely defeating the purpose of the low floor vehicle which is passengers boarding directly from street level.

Again fusili beats me with a reply, but my own 2 cents are that low floor systems I'm aware of (example: Phoenix METRO) that aren't streetcars like Toronto have raised sidewalks at stations to allow that access, and that raising a sidewalk a bit is cheaper than building a platform, including utilities, like our 7th Ave platforms.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well, other than being able to operate without platforms, what are these other positive attributes?

Even with a 16" high platform, there is little disruption to the street. The benefit of a low floor vehicle is that station costs are low, not that they are not needed at all. If the station is nothing more than a 16" raised sidewalk, there is little disruption to pedestrian movement on the street itself, and little disruption to building entrances adjacent to the stations. Contrast that with the mess that Quincy's had to go through with the 6th street station.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

DO IT. It might be tricky to calculate what the tax increase would be and it would hit a bunch of hurdles with new development- i.e. almost all the tax from a redeveloped site would be considered as part of the property value increase, which runs into the same problems as a TIF.

Oh, the increased property value thing would be simple - studies show extra transportation increase value by 20% - so set property transfer tax at anything less than that.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Radley77

More expensive than a streetcar is right, but it would add more value than a streetcar. This is from the perspective that a monorail system would have right of way and get people where they want to go faster instead of a streetcar which would travel at (or in some cases slower) than an automobile that would be competing with regular traffic congestion.



I would think elevated/suspended rails are going to be more expensive than a system that is at grade, but less expensive than a subway. The difference in value being that the an elevated rail would improve circulation to a much greater extent than an at grade system.

So, you're thinking something like the Detroit People Mover then? I'm not sure if that example has ridership that was worth the cost. I can't think of any other examples right now...

For getting from place to place, for getting around Downtown and the Beltline, elevated would be generally more efficient and convenient, and less congesting, albeit expensive. Streetcars work better in a high density urban environment though, especially on urban main streets like 17th. It depends if you want a 'circulator' or a series of routes following major streets, if you want something that fits in the urban environment, what kinds of disruption you want, and how much you want to spend.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ The new Toronto streetcars are getting an extend-able ramp for loading wheelchairs, because the system operates as a true streetcar. I have no idea how Portland manages for their streetcar.

All the Portland streetcar stops that I noticed when I was there were raised sidewalk style stops (probably about 12" high?)

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Even with a 16" high platform, there is little disruption to the street. The benefit of a low floor vehicle is that station costs are low, not that they are not needed at all. If the station is nothing more than a 16" raised sidewalk, there is little disruption to pedestrian movement on the street itself, and little disruption to building entrances adjacent to the stations. Contrast that with the mess that Quincy's had to go through with the 6th street station.

Prior to the ADA low-floor vehicles were not typically being operated with platforms. Sacramento even does street level boarding with the same Siemens U2's used in Calgary. (Wheel chair ramps have been installed at each station, which the operators seem to be incapable of lining up with)

A 16" platform is plenty disruptive to the street given it will be equipped with shelters, benches, signage, ticket machines and a ton of people waiting for the train.

So given the low-floor trains will not be operated without platforms of some character, those platforms will still be disruptive to foot traffic and low-floor vehicles really aren't any less expensive - what is accomplished by introducing a proprietary sub-fleet of cars that can't be used anywhere else in the system and don't really accomplish anything other than saving a couple feet of concrete?

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

So, you're thinking something like the Detroit People Mover then? I'm not sure if that example has ridership that was worth the cost. I can't think of any other examples right now...

For getting from place to place, for getting around Downtown and the Beltline, elevated would be generally more efficient and convenient, and less congesting, albeit expensive. Streetcars work better in a high density urban environment though, especially on urban main streets like 17th. It depends if you want a 'circulator' or a series of routes following major streets, if you want something that fits in the urban environment, what kinds of disruption you want, and how much you want to spend.

I could definitely see trams being a better option in an area like the Beltline, where you might want to move on a block by block scale and not overly concerned with traffic congestion.

I was definitely thinking more of a fast circulator, that would actually compete and be a bit speedier due to right of way, and not have to link to other parts of the public transit network, as well as having several stops within a neighbourhood.

As for the Nose Creek alignment, I think the first thing to do before a Centre Street alignment would be to amend some of this zoning for higher density in places like Bridgeland and Sunnyside and then see what happens... There needs to be some proof that TOD communities like this will organically densify... I had pulled the stats on this during the election and I strongly suggest one look at the population change in LRT connected communities over the last several decades. For this reason, am leaning more towards the Nose Creek alignment (masterplanned community should be able to add residential units faster for reasons of larger parcels and greater flexibility with property rights); although amending zoning in TOD communities should be a very first step to proving up a possible Centre Street alignment based on larger population growth. Also, I am in favour of a value study in the nearterm of the different options from an NPV standpoint to assess the cost and benefit of both routes.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Prior to the ADA low-floor vehicles were not typically being operated with platforms. Sacramento even does street level boarding with the same Siemens U2's used in Calgary. (Wheel chair ramps have been installed at each station, which the operators seem to be incapable of lining up with)

A 16" platform is plenty disruptive to the street given it will be equipped with shelters, benches, signage, ticket machines and a ton of people waiting for the train.

So given the low-floor trains will not be operated without platforms of some character, those platforms will still be disruptive to foot traffic and low-floor vehicles really aren't any less expensive - what is accomplished by introducing a proprietary sub-fleet of cars that can't be used anywhere else in the system and don't really accomplish anything other than saving a couple feet of concrete?

Even if low floor trains are less disruptive to the street scape, how does that benefit the SE LRT? The only place it is going with a street scape that can be disrupted is downtown. It will avoid disrupting it by being underground. Any damage done along 7 Ave has already been done and there is nothing to damage in Douglasdale and points south.

[freeweed]

I find the new platforms on 7th Ave are (for the most part) extremely well integrated into the pedestrian realm. I'm really not grokking the perception that there's anything wrong with them.

I haven't spent much time riding low floor cars, so maybe I'm missing something huge here. If you have a platform, what difference does it ultimately make how high it is? With NO platform, I can see some positives - you can board in between stations in a pinch - but otherwise...?

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I was definitely thinking more of a fast circulator, that would actually compete and be a bit speedier due to right of way, and not have to link to other parts of the public transit network, as well as having several stops within a neighbourhood.

Where in the city do you think this would be useful, then? I'm curious.

Originally Posted by Radley77

Also, I am in favour of a value study in the nearterm of the different options from an NPV standpoint to assess the cost and benefit of both routes.

I am also in favour of such a study, although I'd bet that, in terms of population served, existing Centre St would beat developed Nose Creek.

I don't really like making another post saying we need studies, but... I can't think of much else to say without more information.

[The Chemist]

I've only had limited experience with a low floor LRT system (the Luas system in Dublin) but from my recollection the stations were far better integrated with their surrounding communities, with far less disruption to the area, than even the new high-platform C-Train stations downtown. Low floor platforms definitely are more human scale and are much more suitable for neighbourhood stations, such as those that will be found on the south end of the SE line.

[You Need A Thneed]

The 11th street W station is out for tender.