[mooky]

I believe the side signs are only on the series 8 SD160's which we only have had 2 arrive, and I don't believe the first is even in service yet. But I do remember seeing the side signs on Edmonton's new LRV's.

I assume the old SD160's could be retrofitted, but if they will is anyone's guess.

[SubwayRev]

I found this article in Wired about New York gridlock. What I found interesting is the suggestion of not charging for buses, as the time lost from people feeding coins into the bin actaully costs the city more money than they can collect from fares.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_komanoff_traffic/

[fusili]

I found this article in Wired about New York gridlock. What I found interesting is the suggestion of not charging for buses, as the time lost from people feeding coins into the bin actaully costs the city more money than they can collect from fares.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_komanoff_traffic/

Komanoff's work is really interesting. What was really interesting was how he calculated that each driver costs the city of New York something like $128. I like the argument that they should just provide transit for free, because it actually costs the city less than what drivers cost the city.

[DarkKeyo]

Remember theres also side destination signs on the trains as well now.

Aren't those inside the trains? Though if they're outside too, then all the better.

[mersar]

Aren't those inside the trains? Though if they're outside too, then all the better.

Theres inside facing ones at the end, plus one on the side windows facing out on each side on the new Series 8 LRV's.

[freeweed]

I found this article in Wired about New York gridlock. What I found interesting is the suggestion of not charging for buses, as the time lost from people feeding coins into the bin actaully costs the city more money than they can collect from fares.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_komanoff_traffic/

Sounds like our LRT honour system for fares. Would cost more money to change how it works than you'd bring in from caught fares. At least I imagine someone's ran the numbers on this at one point...

[fusili]

Sounds like our LRT honour system for fares. Would cost more money to change how it works than you'd bring in from caught fares. At least I imagine someone's ran the numbers on this at one point...

Similar, but not exactly. It is amazing to find out that taking public transit, even for free, costs the city less than someone driving. Damn those externalities!

[outoftheice]

Well things really seem to be picking up speed with construction of the SE LRT using the $800 million Green Trip funds... at this rate I could see this being a done deal before the election with construction beginning as soon as the West LRT is completed. I really wanted to see this money leveraged into a P3 construction contract to build the SE LRT tied in to a Centre Street subway alignment of the NC LRT. I figured since this new route would be completely independent of Calgary's existing LRT infrastructure, they could have attracted very competitive bids from some of the world's biggest transportation companies (ie: Bombardier). Even if my dream scenario won't be coming true, this is still a positive step forward for Calgary....

Aldermen back bid to use grant for southeast LRT line


Calgary Herald July 15, 2010

Transit - The southeast LRT is getting rapid approval from aldermen, who unanimously backed a bid at committee Wednesday to build it with the province's Green Trip transit grants.

Much of the Calgary region's $800-million share of the funding would go to a downtown-to-Douglasglen line touted by Ald. Bob Hawkesworth, who will ask full council to back the plan Monday.

The funding application to Alberta Transportation is due in November. Initially, city officials proposed getting only the LRT line's design study to be considered for a Green Trip grant.

"If I'd not brought this forward, council would have missed out," Hawkesworth said.

Transit planners estimate that the full line, starting underground at Eau Claire and extending to the south Calgary hospital at Seton, would cost $1.5 billion.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Aldermen+back+grant+southeast+line/3280126/story.html#ixzz0tmYlgdIT

[ue]

When is the NC/SE LRT lines expected to start/complete by?

[ClaytonA]

Well things really seem to be picking up speed with construction of the SE LRT using the $800 million Green Trip funds... at this rate I could see this being a done deal before the election with construction beginning as soon as the West LRT is completed. I really wanted to see this money leveraged into a P3 construction contract to build the SE LRT tied in to a Centre Street subway alignment of the NC LRT. I figured since this new route would be completely independent of Calgary's existing LRT infrastructure, they could have attracted very competitive bids from some of the world's biggest transportation companies (ie: Bombardier). Even if my dream scenario won't be coming true, this is still a positive step forward for Calgary....

+1 for the City itself versus the region (Okotoks commuters etc) I'd rather the SE LRT gets built than the remaining ring roads.

[You Need A Thneed]

When is the NC/SE LRT lines expected to start/complete by?

The is no timeline yet.

[DarkKeyo]

Well things really seem to be picking up speed with construction of the SE LRT using the $800 million Green Trip funds... at this rate I could see this being a done deal before the election with construction beginning as soon as the West LRT is completed. I really wanted to see this money leveraged into a P3 construction contract to build the SE LRT tied in to a Centre Street subway alignment of the NC LRT. I figured since this new route would be completely independent of Calgary's existing LRT infrastructure, they could have attracted very competitive bids from some of the world's biggest transportation companies (ie: Bombardier). Even if my dream scenario won't be coming true, this is still a positive step forward for Calgary....

I would rather see a SE to N route too, but I'll gladly settle for a SE route.... But they would save a lot of money on buses and gain a lot of ridership if it went just a bit further to mckenzie towne. And also if they dont build the tunnel downtown it needs to end at calgary tower and not 4th st. I wonder which of them I should email to tell them that...

[mooky]

The SE route will end at 11th'ish avenue on 2nd street until downtown tunnel money is found, and that is fine with me.

Have they changed the south terminus? I was under the assumption it was Seton and the south hospital.

I'm hoping if they do the 2nd street tunnel and 8th avenue tunnel together after (again makes sense from a cost savings perspective) and end the SE line in Eau Claire somewhere, at that time, at whatever future date that is, they'll see the logical efficiency of taking the next step and plan to run it up center street as a subway. The 301N BRT carries a hell of a lot of people up Center street already and it fits planIT.

[ue]

Is there a map of the proposed NC and SE LRT lines (perhaps including the current/under construction NW/S/W/NE lines)? The only routes I've seen were from at latest 2005. I'm just not sure these maps are the most up-to-date and maybe routings have changed since then.

Sorry for all the questions of late.

[MalcolmTucker]

Is there a map of the proposed NC and SE LRT lines (perhaps including the current/under construction NW/S/W/NE lines)? The only routes I've seen were from at latest 2005. I'm just not sure these maps are the most up-to-date and maybe routings have changed since then.

Sorry for all the questions of late.
Unlike most cities Calgary's routes for the most part haven't changed much in a very long time - the only real question these days is which route and which line the NCLRT will take & join. Everything else has been set for at least 5 years, with the outer parts of the lines for at least 15.

[fusili]

I would rather see a SE to N route too, but I'll gladly settle for a SE route.... But they would save a lot of money on buses and gain a lot of ridership if it went just a bit further to mckenzie towne. And also if they dont build the tunnel downtown it needs to end at calgary tower and not 4th st. I wonder which of them I should email to tell them that...

The route will stop at 4th Street SE, because after that it will go underground. At the Calgary tower, it might already be a tunnel (Tunnel with either start at 1st SE or 2nd Street SW). An underground station is planned at Centre street and 10th Avenue SW, after which it turns north up 2nd street and goes into downtown with stops at 6th avenue and Eau Claire. I have the functional study for the SE LRT Glenmore to Downtown section and the Downtown LRT feasibility study on my computer. If you want it, PM me so I can email it to you.

[ue]

Unlike most cities Calgary's routes for the most part haven't changed much in a very long time - the only real question these days is which route and which line the NCLRT will take & join. Everything else has been set for at least 5 years, with the outer parts of the lines for at least 15.

Thanks. There is more than one route choice for the NCLRT? The only one I've seen is along Deerfoot going past YYC. What are the other ones?

Also, what will these routes look like Downtown? The only maps I've seen of are city-wide. When mooky said that the SELRT could end at 11th Ave, does that mean the SELRT will be going through the Beltline?

[Wooster]

Thanks. There is more than one route choice for the NCLRT? The only one I've seen is along Deerfoot going past YYC. What are the other ones?

Also, what will these routes look like Downtown? The only maps I've seen of are city-wide. When mooky said that the SELRT could end at 11th Ave, does that mean the SELRT will be going through the Beltline?

See the downtown section of this map by srperry. Basically long term it is planned to go like this. At first, the SE will likely terminate at what he's called "olympic way". As the downtown tunnels on 8th ave and 2nd street or built, theoretically the SE line will terminate at Eau Claire. Ultimately, most people hope that the SE line will then run north below centre street and form the North-Central line - instead of the route up Nose Creek along Deerfoot trail.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/lrtincalgary/FutureMap.html

[ue]

Thanks Wooster. Looks quite ambitious and promising. After all this is done...seems like only areas left really are SW areas around Mount Royal University, Beltline/Mission (which could be served by a potential "C-Tram" versus C-Train), the airport, and maybe Airdrie.

[Jack Doe]

The Downtown LRT Report is here:

http://www.calgarytransit.com///html/reports_surveys.html

click on "Downtown LRT Feasiblity Study" - March 13, 2006 (17.8 MB)

[DarkKeyo]

The route will stop at 4th Street SE, because after that it will go underground. At the Calgary tower, it might already be a tunnel (Tunnel with either start at 1st SE or 2nd Street SW). An underground station is planned at Centre street and 10th Avenue SW, after which it turns north up 2nd street and goes into downtown with stops at 6th avenue and Eau Claire. I have the functional study for the SE LRT Glenmore to Downtown section and the Downtown LRT feasibility study on my computer. If you want it, PM me so I can email it to you.

I've seen the studies and the maps, even before I knew about SSP. (It doesn't go near 11th Ave, Mooky). What I'm saying is that 4 St SE is a pretty crappy terminus, and so is Douglasdale.

4 St SE is a long walk from anything downtown except Stampede, and East Village/Victoria Park which won't be finished even in 5 years. A cut and cover tunnel to the tower *could* work, since that feasibility study shows the tunnel not curving north until past that station. It would only be cut and cover for ~2 blocks, that shouldn't cost too much. This is my opinion, not what they want to do, and because it isn't what they want to do, I'm going to find a way to tell them my opinion.

As for Douglasdale... funneling all the buses from the far SE communities up past the edge of the community to that station, plus all the park and ride traffic to one park and ride, is probably almost as expensive as a few km of track and 3 stations to McKenzie Towne. A line that ends halfway down isn't going to generate as much ridership, or money, as one that goes to the middle of the communities. Besides, Mckenzie towne and Shepard stations are destination stations too, insomuch as the term can be applied to that kind of suburban station.

I'd really like to see what the current downtown study says before they commit to half an LRT line, though.

[DarkKeyo]

Thanks Wooster. Looks quite ambitious and promising. After all this is done...seems like only areas left really are SW areas around Mount Royal University, Beltline/Mission (which could be served by a potential "C-Tram" versus C-Train), the airport, and maybe Airdrie.

C-Tram would fix the Beltline/Mission gap; the Airport tunnel (if built by Nenshi) should have room for transit, if I recall correctly, leaving room for some sort of people mover between the station north of Saddletowne, the terminal, the future 96 Ave commuter/HSR station, and the NCLRT. Of course, these if we can afford the subways and NCLRT, but we really do need them. Airdrie, commuter rail only as an interim measure to NCLRT, otherwise buses to the cities outside the city limits are good for the next 15 years or so.

In the end, the SW where Mount Royal is is the only area without a radial transit line planned from downtown. And the Grand Plan with its loop line (a plan made by Beltliner) would fix that. We can dream big. Hopefully we can get reality to somewhere near the dream.

[ue]

Back to the tram...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4797723725_b47ccb1222_b.jpg

I made up this mediocre map showing some potential routes for a "C-Tram" that I was told of on the previous page of this thread. What are your thoughts? Are these routes plausible in any way or are they unrealistic? If they are unrealistic, what changes should be made?

[DizzyEdge]

The route will stop at 4th Street SE, because after that it will go underground. At the Calgary tower, it might already be a tunnel (Tunnel with either start at 1st SE or 2nd Street SW). An underground station is planned at Centre street and 10th Avenue SW, after which it turns north up 2nd street and goes into downtown with stops at 6th avenue and Eau Claire. I have the functional study for the SE LRT Glenmore to Downtown section and the Downtown LRT feasibility study on my computer. If you want it, PM me so I can email it to you.

You know.. not having that tunnel during the first stage could almost be a blessing, as having the terminus in the middle of Vic Park (ok East Beltline) would bring hundreds of pedestrians into that area every day, helping with the rejuvenation.

[Northski]

An alternative idea to a tram is to run an urban gondola down 33rd st from WLRT to Mount royal. It would be cheaper than an LRT spur line (3kms). If built today it would probably cost 50 million. It wouldn't sever as many destinations as a tram to downtown.

[MichaelS]

You know.. not having that tunnel during the first stage could almost be a blessing, as having the terminus in the middle of Vic Park (ok East Beltline) would bring hundreds of pedestrians into that area every day, helping with the rejuvenation.

Plus it won't be as isolated as other's are making it out to be. With the 4th street underpass, and the revamped station at City Hall, it would only be about a 3-4 block walk to transfer to a line that could take you the entire length of the core.

[MichaelS]

Committee approval for the 17th Ave BRT came this week:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/15/calgary-seventeenth-avenue-southeast-transit-lane.html

Some talk in the article about potentially using portions of the Green Trip funding for this, with a cost of about $250 million. What would you guys like to see go forward? The 17th Ave SE BRT, or the SE LRT? Or, do you think we could do both, just by scaling back/using smaller phases for both, and still have them be effective?

[fusili]

Committee approval for the 17th Ave BRT came this week:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/15/calgary-seventeenth-avenue-southeast-transit-lane.html

Some talk in the article about potentially using portions of the Green Trip funding for this, with a cost of about $250 million. What would you guys like to see go forward? The 17th Ave SE BRT, or the SE LRT? Or, do you think we could do both, just by scaling back/using smaller phases for both, and still have them be effective?

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'll make the argument that the 17th Avenue SE BRT is a better investment.

First, it reaches a greater number of people per length of route. The SELRT has to go through the whole Highfield Industrial area before it reaches any significant population base, and then it is just three communities really- Lynnwood, Ogden and Riverbend. There is still a ways to go until it gets to Douglasdale and MacKenzie town. The 17th Avenue BRT does have to cross Deerfoot, but once across it has the entire greater Forest Lawn area to serve (Forest Lawn, Forest Heights, Radisson Heights, Albert Park, Penbrooke, Erin Woods, Dover, Southview, Fonda and Applewood).

Second, 17th Avenue SE can actually become an urban corridor, and densification is much more possible along the route than along the SE LRT route. The proposed station locations for the SE LRT have very little TOD potential now or into the future. 17th Avenue has tremendous potential. It has gridded streets, which makes redevelopment easier. The whole corridor can densify along with the BRT.

Third, the residents of the greater forest lawn area are more "Transit-dependent" than residents living along the SE LRT route. As such, they have a greater need for the transit upgrade.

So maybe 17th Avenue SE actually is a smarter investment.

Either way, it is good news, because with this, Calgary almost has a real BRT (off vehicle payment and multiple boarding entrances still needed).

[Bassic Lab]

I am still relatively undecided on the virtues of the 17th Ave SE BRT. I, as stated earlier, definitely place it behind the primary C-Train network.

My thoughts on the BRT plan:

The 17th Ave SE BRT seems to have a number of flaws to me. As I understand it, the plan would eventually call for an upgrade to LRT. That has the makings of an even worse situation than 36th St NE written all over it. This is because 17th has far more crossings than 36th. Forest Lawn blocks are also short east-west (the opposite of downtown blocks) so consists would be limited to a max of 3 cars and even that might be a little tight. If we could only manage two car consists that would be a serious limitation. So we would be stuck with a line where max capacity is limited by both small consist sizes and limited headways because of short blocks with a lot of traffic trying to cross 17th. Between serious urban redevelopment in Forest Lawn and suburban development linking Chestermere to the city, I don't know if such a line would be enough. It would be worse than what other lines can currently do.

As it stands Centre St N has the same limitations that 17th Ave SE has without these improvements. Centre, with only local bus service and the express service that we label BRT, carries more passengers on transit. This tells me that 17th has additional transit capacity and that Centre is the greater priority (more on that later). So I would say we are safe putting off improvements to transit on 17th for the time being.


My thoughts on why 17th should wait:

The SE LRT (to enter a debate with Fusili here) is not that limited in redevelopment opportunities. Ogden-Lynnwood-Riverbend is not that much smaller than Greater Forest Lawn. Ogden itself also offers reasonable opportunities for urban redevelopment. We could turn it into quite the urban village. There is also a fantastic opportunity to develop Quarry Park into and urban area from the start. Throw in the ballooning suburbs of the SE and there is a lot of potential.

The NC LRT under Centre Street would be a major expense but I see more benefits to it than 17th Ave SE. Currently transit on Centre Street carries more passengers so I would place it as a greater priority. The corridor also offers more opportunities for urban development than 17th so transit, as a tool for development, can achieve greater results.

The 8th Ave Subway is needed to allow the six lines of the skeleton network to actually function.

So I think 17th Ave SE should wait until those three projects are complete.


As for what to do with 17th Ave:

Some of my complaints against the BRT plan come from playing devil's advocate to some degree. I am still undecided on it. I could end up supporting it but it would still be a lower priority than the six main LRT lines. I do have my own thoughts on what would be best for the corridor as part of my dream system. It involves tunnelling at least the roughly two miles from 26th St/Barlow to just past 52nd and then continuing the line to Chestermere on the surface. It would then be able to function as a full rapid transit line with the speed and capacity to allow for serious redevelopment in Forest Lawn. This would be the eastern half of a south crosstown route (there would also be a north crosstown route generally following 16th Ave, in fact the two could form one line if they joined in Chestermere) that would also service Marda Loop and Mount Royal University with transfer stations to both the SE and S LRT lines.

For those interested, the rest of my dream system involves three additional lines. The first would be a circle line roughly following McKnight, 52nd, Glenmore, and Crowchild with diversions to meet certain activity centres (like Foothills Hospital, Rockyview Hospital, the University, etcetera) and stations on other LRT lines. The second would involve only portions (the rest might never be needed) of a much larger circle line with the first part utilizing Airport Trail, Country Hills Boulevard, and both pieces of Sarcee. It would link the NE LRT, the Airport, the commuter/High Speed Rail station, the North Central LRT, the NW LRT, the 16th Ave Line, the WLRT, and then terminate at the Mount Royal University-17th Ave SE Line's terminus at WestHills. The second portion would start at 37th St then follow Anderson, Deerfoot, and 114th to join up with the SE LRT. I have no idea when we'd ever need the portion from Westhills to Anderson/37th or the Eastern portion built but they would complete the circle. The third would be a 14th St W line from McKnight Boulevard (transfer station with inner circle line) down to 33rd Ave (transfer station with south crosstown). Along the way it would hit other lines. With those eleven lines we'd pretty much be done.

[fusili]

My thoughts on why 17th should wait:

The SE LRT (to enter a debate with Fusili here) is not that limited in redevelopment opportunities.

BRING IT ON!!!! (JK, I will reply in due time my friend, due time).

[DarkKeyo]

I mostly agree with bassic lab. SELRT will get a lot of people out of cars who currently dont use transit because it takes too long. Ive been travelling to and from the SE a lot lately, and its very difficult to get around by bus. There is a lot of employment near the route, such as in the industrial parks. I agree that ogden has development potential, and I think that SouthHill could be a TOD on the same level as whats proposed for Brentwood and Chinook.

17th does need transit improvements, and I agree with redesigning it with transit lanes for the BRT. But it already has the 1 and 305, densification will occur slowly, and this makes the transitway to Inglewood, which ends at the SELRT in the first place, not as important or useful as SELRT. Therefore we shouldn't waste GreenTrip money on it.

[Bassic Lab]

I mostly agree with bassic lab. SELRT will get a lot of people out of cars who currently dont use transit because it takes too long. Ive been travelling to and from the SE a lot lately, and its very difficult to get around by bus. There is a lot of employment near the route, such as in the industrial parks. I agree that ogden has development potential, and I think that SouthHill could be a TOD on the same level as whats proposed for Brentwood and Chinook.

17th does need transit improvements, and I agree with redesigning it with transit lanes for the BRT. But it already has the 1 and 305, densification will occur slowly, and this makes the transitway to Inglewood, which ends at the SELRT in the first place, not as important or useful as SELRT. Therefore we shouldn't waste GreenTrip money on it.

I forgot to mention that the SE LRT will also help to break up some of the overcrowding on the south line. I think a successful TOD at Chinook requires a south line in which morning rush trains north of Anderson are not reminiscent of sardine cans. Transit should be as attractive for those in the inner city as it is for those in Somerset, if not more so. Anything, of course I am including four car consists and reduced headways from the 8th Ave Subway here, that can help achieve that goal should be supported.

As for Fusili, I await your response good sir. Hopefully we can get an interesting exchange of ideas going here.

[Riise]

The 17th Ave SE BRT seems to have a number of flaws to me. As I understand it, the plan would eventually call for an upgrade to LRT. That has the makings of an even worse situation than 36th St NE written all over it. This is because 17th has far more crossings than 36th. Forest Lawn blocks are also short east-west (the opposite of downtown blocks) so consists would be limited to a max of 3 cars and even that might be a little tight. If we could only manage two car consists that would be a serious limitation. So we would be stuck with a line where max capacity is limited by both small consist sizes and limited headways because of short blocks with a lot of traffic trying to cross 17th. Between serious urban redevelopment in Forest Lawn and suburban development linking Chestermere to the city, I don't know if such a line would be enough. It would be worse than what other lines can currently do.

I'm actually in a similar school of thought when it comes to LRT. After travelling on numerous LRT systems consisting of low-floor LRVs and minimal grade separation one of things I have noticed is that these systems are navigating cities much smaller, geographically speaking, than Calgary. As such, I'm a proponent of boulevards with trenched LRT lines running in the median. However, with 17th I can see a tram working so well there. I think that corridor is special and both a tram could work for it, and it could work for a tram.


The SE LRT (to enter a debate with Fusili here) is not that limited in redevelopment opportunities. Ogden-Lynnwood-Riverbend is not that much smaller than Greater Forest Lawn. Ogden itself also offers reasonable opportunities for urban redevelopment. We could turn it into quite the urban village.

The major difference is these are nodes along the SELRT while 17th is an entire corridor ripe for redevelopment. The BRT/tram will be a true people mover in the sense that it will be intra-community (daily movement) rather than just simply inter-community (commuter flows).

[Bassic Lab]

I'm actually in a similar school of thought when it comes to LRT. After travelling on numerous LRT systems consisting of low-floor LRVs and minimal grade separation one of things I have noticed is that these systems are navigating cities much smaller, geographically speaking, than Calgary. As such, I'm a proponent of boulevards with trenched LRT lines running in the median. However, with 17th I can see a tram working so well there. I think that corridor is special and both a tram could work for it, and it could work for a tram.




The major difference is these are nodes along the SELRT while 17th is an entire corridor ripe for redevelopment. The BRT/tram will be a true people mover in the sense that it will be intra-community (daily movement) rather than just simply inter-community (commuter flows).

I think 17th looks like a great corridor because we have so few in Calgary. A tram might work great for the mile and half that has hope but I do not see it working great for the entire stretch out to Chestermere. It is easy to forget just how short the stretch of 17th out to 52nd is, it really is not that much longer than the stretch of Ogden Road that could be nicely turned into a mainstreet.

I am also not entirely sold on the concept that LRT used as a tram is so superior to bus service that it justifies the additional cost. Of course that is an entirely different debate, I am just throwing that out there to let you know where I am coming from. It might not even be relevant; the fact that the city is setting this up as a true BRT, with its own lanes and such, seems to indicate that they are going for LRT type service as opposed to tram type service.

[TETT2]

Back to the tram...


I made up this mediocre map showing some potential routes for a "C-Tram" that I was told of on the previous page of this thread. What are your thoughts? Are these routes plausible in any way or are they unrealistic? If they are unrealistic, what changes should be made?

IMO, I don't think they would work at all. You have way too many turns for a tram line to be effective. Any sharp 90 degree it would make would make it super slow. I'd be better off walking. I do understand what you saying in terms of what you're serving etc, but I think these routes have to have minimal turns. I'm still not 100% sold on trams, I think buses can do the same and have flexibility but there needs to be more focus on bus lanes, priority, branding etc. I am still debating whether trams in the inner city are more for show than for practicality. If there is trams in the Inner City, they have to straighter.

On a personal, selfish note, a tram on 17 Av SW from the Stampede Park to just west of Crowchild, or even tieing into WLRT would be sexy. A nice straight line, tie ines to 2 LRT stations, as well as multiple bus routes into downtown and crosstown.

[TETT2]

http://www.nenshi.ca/new/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Better-Idea-4-Access-to-Airport.pdf

If this has been posted, i'm REALLY sorry.

I absolutely agree with everything here. They City dropping the ball on integrating the closure into the network, and the Airport not giving a sh1t about staff. The BRT's would be awesome, the perception of the direct route from Airport to Downtown, via Deerfoot Tr with no stops in between would help ridership. The other BRT needs to be from the Airport to Saddletown Station where arguably the majority of staff works.
The only problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be resources to do this. When I was reading the budget changes last year, it said Transit had to cut 20,000 or so hours. Not very Plan It friendly to me!

[ue]

IMO, I don't think they would work at all. You have way too many turns for a tram line to be effective. Any sharp 90 degree it would make would make it super slow. I'd be better off walking. I do understand what you saying in terms of what you're serving etc, but I think these routes have to have minimal turns. I'm still not 100% sold on trams, I think buses can do the same and have flexibility but there needs to be more focus on bus lanes, priority, branding etc. I am still debating whether trams in the inner city are more for show than for practicality. If there is trams in the Inner City, they have to straighter.

On a personal, selfish note, a tram on 17 Av SW from the Stampede Park to just west of Crowchild, or even tieing into WLRT would be sexy. A nice straight line, tie ines to 2 LRT stations, as well as multiple bus routes into downtown and crosstown.

I don't think some turns are bad and they are likely inevitable, but I can see what you're saying...it was a little overkill. So, I created this new map with a brand new route. Just one this time, though. It connects to LRT (both future and current) which is key to making sure the Tram is very viable as it means it can be attached to the greater transportation system, allowing more people to use it and get to it easier. Going down 17th Ave and stopping at 4 St as well as creating a rail connection between Downtown and Mount Royal University will probably be key to creating high ridership on the C-Tram. These areas will likely really benefit from rail but it seems are unlikely to get the C-Train.

LRT is significantly better than trams or streetcars. But, you could say subways and other forms of HRT are superior to LRT. The trams have a benefit to them though over buses. They can carry much more people, require less memorization of routes (there's only 1 or 2 routes, depending on which of my maps you go by, and I doubt there will be a huge streetcar network in Calgary in reality), and look more stylish than a bus. Would you rather take a bus or tram, based solely on social stigma? And it's cheaper and requires less infrastructure than LRT.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4800809712_93be9a4e9d_b.jpg

[Ferreth]

I am still relatively undecided on the virtues of the 17th Ave SE BRT. I, as stated earlier, definitely place it behind the primary C-Train network.

I'm going to side with Fusili here, on the proviso that the 17th Ave SE BRT can be built for a reasonable price.


[...]an upgrade to LRT. That has the makings of an even worse situation than 36th St NE written all over it. This is because 17th has far more crossings than 36th. Forest Lawn blocks are also short east-west
(the opposite of downtown blocks) so consists would be limited to a max of 3 cars and even that might be a little tight.

The fix is to close off all the entrances to 17th other than major entrance points. 16th and 19th Ave already work as "back road" local access roads - they would function more so under my scheme - I would leave only 28th, 36th, 44th, and 52nd St. open with full traffic movement - probably 1-2 roads in between as right hand only intersections. Lots of room for BRT and eventual LRT stations. To keep it cheap, I'd say the plan of BRT 1st then eventual LRT would work, assuming BRT could be built cheap enough. Build the SE LRT while waiting for 17th SE to densify/sprawl enough to justify LRT.



Ogden-Lynnwood-Riverbend is not that much smaller than Greater Forest Lawn.
However, the reasonable priced route for the LRT will run along the edge of the community, leaving 1/2 the station radius serving nothing - since a rail yard and an irrigation canal separate it from even the meager commuters numbers the industrial area would provide.


There is also a fantastic opportunity to develop Quarry Park into and urban area from the start.


Too late. It will be built out by the time LRT gets there - assuming we are not in for a double - dip recession.


Throw in the ballooning suburbs of the SE and there is a lot of potential.


Alright, this is where the LRT starts to shine - but we are talking Mckenzie Town before it really works. Douglasdale suffers the same problem as Ogden - the station radius serves only 1/2 residential, and forget re-development - the industrial is built out, and the remaining large parcel of undeveloped land near the LRT will never be built on - former fertilizer plant waste dump - nothing can be built on it - I know because I work on said site and have talked to the reclamation people about this 1/4 section.


The 8th Ave Subway is needed to allow the six lines of the skeleton network to actually function.


I agree with this point. 8th Ave Subway needs to be built, which would help alleviate the need for a SE line, plus help the inner south LRT commute be more bearable.

So I think 17th Ave SE should wait until those three projects are complete.


To pull together my thoughts, I'd build 17th Ave BRT as my #2 project, with 8th Ave subway as my #1 project - providing that 17th Ave BRT ties into the 202 NE LRT line, and with the 201 line being diverted into a subway, the 202 frequency could be bumped up to handle the flow coming in at Max Bell as per Wooster's suggestion, which I think is a better use of $, because 17th Ave is going to have to be built cheap, so that SE LRT is not delayed too many years in the future. SE LRT is just going to be too expensive to get it out where it needs to be, and really, even if the subway downtown is dumped as part of the initial plan, SE LRT needs to go to McKenzie Town at least in order to be really useful. As far as where in the priority queue the North line should fall, if it were to be a subway along Centre, the price could be out of this world, putting it #4 after the SE LRT, even if they went up Nose Hill Creek, the benefits drop so much I'd still leave it at #4.

I do have my own thoughts on what would be best for [17th Ave] corridor as part of my dream system. It involves tunnelling at least the roughly two miles from 26th St/Barlow to just past 52nd and then continuing the line to Chestermere on the surface. It would then be able to function as a full rapid transit line

Why underground? Is it due to what you refer to above with the short block lengths? One other point about 17th Ave SE for those who don't go through there at all - it's a WIDE corridor - 4 lane road with left hand bails, and medians on the sides that allow for parking - it just seems like such a crappy road since the bit east of 36th to 50th st. has not had the road widened any to take advantage of all the space. However, with all the space, it's perfect to put BRT/LRT down the middle, as you'd still have 4 lanes of traffic, plus turn bays where you would need them with hardly a building to be torn down to make room. It's really one of the last places I'd put things underground. Skytrain above ground, perhaps - with buckets of money, but you don't really need it there.

[Jack Doe]

Committee approval for the 17th Ave BRT came this week:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/15/calgary-seventeenth-avenue-southeast-transit-lane.html

Some talk in the article about potentially using portions of the Green Trip funding for this, with a cost of about $250 million. What would you guys like to see go forward? The 17th Ave SE BRT, or the SE LRT? Or, do you think we could do both, just by scaling back/using smaller phases for both, and still have them be effective?

For what it's worth here are by choices:

1-Stephen Avenue Subway
2-SE LRT
3-N LRT (Centre St Subway)
4-E LRT

These are my reasons:

1. Utilization of the exisiting system. Separates the two LRT lines allowing greater capacity on both. Add in four car platforms on both lines and I think this would give you the most bang for your bucks. The latest cost estimates I've seen are $550m for the Stephen Avenue LRT tunnel (LPT2008-38 Attachment 3), $60m for 4 Car Platforms - 201 North and South stations (LPT2008-38 Att2) and $30m for 4 Car Platforms - NE LRT (guestimate). This is within the Green Trip funding envelope and allows funding for such other unfunded projects as the relocation of the Vic Park bus barns (to Highfield I think, probably the reason the City did the 26 Av Connector Study).

2. SE LRT from 4 St SE to Douglasdale (114 Av SE) is my second choice for LRT expansion but actually my first choice for Green Trip funding for reasons I will explain later. I think once the train gets a rollin' it will be hard to stop and the extensions to Downtown, McKenzie and Seton would follow sooner rather than later. BTW, the cost estimates from LPT2008-38 Att3 are:

SE LRT - Phase 1: Downtown to Crossroads $720m (6 stations)
SE LRT - Phase 2: Crossroads to Mackenzie[sic] $890m (9 stations)
SE LRT - Phase 3: Mackenzie[sic] to Seton $230m (3 stations)
SE LRT Maintenance Facility $70m

More recently LPT2010-58 has a "high level estimate" for the entire line at $1.5b.

3. North LRT (Centre Street) has more TOD potential than East LRT.

4. I think only upgraded BRT service should be provided to the Forest Lawn area until an East LRT is built. The main reason is because these are basically throw-away costs that can't be recouped when a proper LRT is built. By the time an ELRT is built presumably Calgary's population will be around the 1.5m mark. At that time we should start considering something other then ground level LRT. My preference for 17th Av SE (considering its limited ROW) would be for an elevated 'Skytrain' solution, maybe continuing as an at grade system from around 68 St SE into an annexed Chestermere.

As for the TOD potential of FL, I can't see an reason why anyone with the means to, would want to move into Gang City...er, I mean Drug Town...um, I mean Ho Ville...uh, I mean Forest Lawn.

Burn it down and start again.

To explain my previous statement about why even though I think the Stephen Avenue Tunnel is a higher priority but that the SE LRT should get the Green Trip funding I offer the following:

IMHO, tunnel projects are notorious for being late and over budget. There are just too many variables into delving into the unknown. Build the SE LRT with the Green Trip funding and any subway as a P3. Transfer the risk inherent with any subway to a corporation (preferably a multi-national with experience and deep pockets) and do what we do best - which is at-grade LRT.

[Bassic Lab]

I'm going to side with Fusili here, on the proviso that the 17th Ave SE BRT can be built for a reasonable price.



The fix is to close off all the entrances to 17th other than major entrance points. 16th and 19th Ave already work as "back road" local access roads - they would function more so under my scheme - I would leave only 28th, 36th, 44th, and 52nd St. open with full traffic movement - probably 1-2 roads in between as right hand only intersections. Lots of room for BRT and eventual LRT stations. To keep it cheap, I'd say the plan of BRT 1st then eventual LRT would work, assuming BRT could be built cheap enough. Build the SE LRT while waiting for 17th SE to densify/sprawl enough to justify LRT.



However, the reasonable priced route for the LRT will run along the edge of the community, leaving 1/2 the station radius serving nothing - since a rail yard and an irrigation canal separate it from even the meager commuters numbers the industrial area would provide.



Too late. It will be built out by the time LRT gets there - assuming we are not in for a double - dip recession.



Alright, this is where the LRT starts to shine - but we are talking Mckenzie Town before it really works. Douglasdale suffers the same problem as Ogden - the station radius serves only 1/2 residential, and forget re-development - the industrial is built out, and the remaining large parcel of undeveloped land near the LRT will never be built on - former fertilizer plant waste dump - nothing can be built on it - I know because I work on said site and have talked to the reclamation people about this 1/4 section.



I agree with this point. 8th Ave Subway needs to be built, which would help alleviate the need for a SE line, plus help the inner south LRT commute be more bearable.


To pull together my thoughts, I'd build 17th Ave BRT as my #2 project, with 8th Ave subway as my #1 project - providing that 17th Ave BRT ties into the 202 NE LRT line, and with the 201 line being diverted into a subway, the 202 frequency could be bumped up to handle the flow coming in at Max Bell as per Wooster's suggestion, which I think is a better use of $, because 17th Ave is going to have to be built cheap, so that SE LRT is not delayed too many years in the future. SE LRT is just going to be too expensive to get it out where it needs to be, and really, even if the subway downtown is dumped as part of the initial plan, SE LRT needs to go to McKenzie Town at least in order to be really useful. As far as where in the priority queue the North line should fall, if it were to be a subway along Centre, the price could be out of this world, putting it #4 after the SE LRT, even if they went up Nose Hill Creek, the benefits drop so much I'd still leave it at #4.



Why underground? Is it due to what you refer to above with the short block lengths? One other point about 17th Ave SE for those who don't go through there at all - it's a WIDE corridor - 4 lane road with left hand bails, and medians on the sides that allow for parking - it just seems like such a crappy road since the bit east of 36th to 50th st. has not had the road widened any to take advantage of all the space. However, with all the space, it's perfect to put BRT/LRT down the middle, as you'd still have 4 lanes of traffic, plus turn bays where you would need them with hardly a building to be torn down to make room. It's really one of the last places I'd put things underground. Skytrain above ground, perhaps - with buckets of money, but you don't really need it there.

Closing access from all the side streets would only serve to destroy every thing that makes 17th Ave SE an attractive corridor. At that point we'd have a carbon copy of 36th St NE; how does it stack up as an urban main street? The ability to cross the street is essential for two reasons. First, it allows people to actually shop on both sides of the street. Second, it allows the entire area to function as one large community that is interconnected. 36th can never function like that and the design is also horrific for traffic movements. 17th is already a marginalized area. If we make it even less attractive it will never look good for redevelopment. The plan should be to eventually improve the area so it can be a nice mixed use community, not to permanently ghettoize it with a barrier down 17th. How attractive would transit look to Chestermere suburbanites if the train has to pass through a much worse version of Forest Lawn than what we currently have.

Saying it is too expensive to build the SE LRT to anywhere useful while dropping a quarter billion on a 17th Ave BRT is problematic. The political will is there right now to bring it down to Douglasdale. It does not look like it will be an election issue because, as it is currently shaping up, every candidate is on board. Extending it down to McKenzie Town from Douglasdale would not cost very much; it might be right around 250 million. There is a protected ROW there and very few bridge structures are needed.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't think some turns are bad and they are likely inevitable, but I can see what you're saying...it was a little overkill. So, I created this new map with a brand new route. Just one this time, though. It connects to LRT (both future and current) which is key to making sure the Tram is very viable as it means it can be attached to the greater transportation system, allowing more people to use it and get to it easier. Going down 17th Ave and stopping at 4 St as well as creating a rail connection between Downtown and Mount Royal University will probably be key to creating high ridership on the C-Tram. These areas will likely really benefit from rail but it seems are unlikely to get the C-Train.

LRT is significantly better than trams or streetcars. But, you could say subways and other forms of HRT are superior to LRT. The trams have a benefit to them though over buses. They can carry much more people, require less memorization of routes (there's only 1 or 2 routes, depending on which of my maps you go by, and I doubt there will be a huge streetcar network in Calgary in reality), and look more stylish than a bus. Would you rather take a bus or tram, based solely on social stigma? And it's cheaper and requires less infrastructure than LRT.

While the 'tram' as you laid out is more than fine, the main use of connecting MRC and downtown would be incredibly slow. The passage along 17th Ave would be incredibly bad, and using Macleod Tr is misguided. It is easy to understand how someone who (assuming here) hasn't really spent much time in the area would choose the alignment, but it doesn't make it good.

If the routes goal is transport between MRC and downtown / the core LRT network, there are numerous options that would be better and cheaper. (straight shots up 33rd or 37th to Westbrook, the unused freeway corridor & sandy beach to the south line being two of them). Especially since none of these routes are especially congested you could actually run a tram service without exclusive ROW without big problems.

If you want a service to encourage main street development, that is fine too. The only problem is Marda Loop is isolated from a develop-able corridor. You are not going to tear down $1million+ single family homes to build high density street front retail with condos above down 14th street. Running from Westbrooke to the Stampede grounds with a tram wouldn't be half bad down 17th, you might even run it as a continuation of the MRC tram. Now it wouldn't be faster than a bus, but it would certainly focus development and encourage a 'complete' main street. It would function in a similar role to the St Clair car in Toronto (before it was rebuilt with its own ROW)

[srperrycgy]

If the routes goal is transport between MRC and downtown / the core LRT network, there are numerous options that would be better and cheaper. (straight shots up 33rd or 37th to Westbrook, the unused freeway corridor & sandy beach to the south line being two of them). Especially since none of these routes are especially congested you could actually run a tram service without exclusive ROW without big problems.


33rd Street is hardly a str8 shot to MRU as you would have to jog over to Sarcee Rd at Richmond Rd. The 33rd St ROW is not wide enough as it is now. With street parking, the road isn't wide enough for two cars to pass each other.

Using 37th St would be a better idea. Much wider ROW.

[srperrycgy]

Another CTrain fatality early this morning. This time, a 17 year old hit at Canyon Meadows.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/17/calgary-c-train-teen-killed.html

[Policy Wonk]

I don't see a tram to mount royal being terribly attractive when hoping on an 18 if your lucky, or a 108 or 112 and then intercepting a 20 would take a fraction of the time.

[fusili]

I won't repeat any arguments regarding the SE LRT vs. 17th Ave BRT. But I do want to say that the lane locations on 17th are poorly designed. I think they should be in the curb lane for several reasons:

1. It feels incredibly safer for those waiting for a bus to stand on the edge of the sidewalk, than in the middle of traffic. Parents with children only have to worry about children running into one lane of traffic, not two.
2. No need for additional ROW width for the stations, which causes weird configurations when placed in the middle of the road. The sidewalk serves as the station (more or less).
3. Those waiting for the bus can interact better with businesses on the street. They can window shop, browse or just hang around in stores while waiting for the bus. This can generate additional business for the stores adjacent to stops.
4. It allows for queue jumping (or what ever the term is called). This is where stations are offset from the transit lane so buses can pass each other when one is stopped at a station. This allows for integration of regional transit (to Chestermere) with the local circulators (the BRT). This is possible because the stations can be set in to the sidewalk area where space is sufficient.

Just my two cents.

[ue]

While the 'tram' as you laid out is more than fine, the main use of connecting MRC and downtown would be incredibly slow. The passage along 17th Ave would be incredibly bad, and using Macleod Tr is misguided. It is easy to understand how someone who (assuming here) hasn't really spent much time in the area would choose the alignment, but it doesn't make it good.

If the routes goal is transport between MRC and downtown / the core LRT network, there are numerous options that would be better and cheaper. (straight shots up 33rd or 37th to Westbrook, the unused freeway corridor & sandy beach to the south line being two of them). Especially since none of these routes are especially congested you could actually run a tram service without exclusive ROW without big problems.

If you want a service to encourage main street development, that is fine too. The only problem is Marda Loop is isolated from a develop-able corridor. You are not going to tear down $1million+ single family homes to build high density street front retail with condos above down 14th street. Running from Westbrooke to the Stampede grounds with a tram wouldn't be half bad down 17th, you might even run it as a continuation of the MRC tram. Now it wouldn't be faster than a bus, but it would certainly focus development and encourage a 'complete' main street. It would function in a similar role to the St Clair car in Toronto (before it was rebuilt with its own ROW)

Thank you. I was iffy about choosing 17th Ave for my map, but I figured it would catch a large portion of people due to the bars and shops along the avenue as well as the high density residential around it. Plus it would have great access to Mission, Lower Mount Royal, and Cliff Bungalow as a result.

My point for the tram was getting enough areas that I would think would use it (high density residential and commercial areas, universities) and connect it to the LRT network so people can easily get even more places by transit. I think my line did that fine.

My only other idea was making a 14th/15th Ave couplet between MacLeod and 14th, which wouldn't be disrupted as much as 17th as they aren't major roads. Instead of it going up MacLeod/1 St SE to the downtown, it could just stop at Victoria C-Train and loop around. At 14 St SW, it could go down 14th and then go west along 17th until Crowchild and go south to MRU. Or, at 14 St it could continue going south until 33rd and go through Marda Loop and then MRU. The second option may not be as quick as it would be stopping more over the first with a bigger portion just on Crowchild, but the second would at least go through some urban communities with the potential for densification (Bankview, South Calgary, and Marda Loop...which the first would only go through one of these). What are your (or anyone elses') thoughts on these routes? Are they realistic or likely to happen?

[Ferreth]

Closing access from all the side streets would only serve to destroy every thing that makes 17th Ave SE an attractive corridor. At that point we'd have a carbon copy of 36th St NE; how does it stack up as an urban main street?

I should clarify that I was thinking of cars - I agree that pedestrians should be able to cross at more points; preferably by pedestrian bridge every 4 blocks. 36th St was pretty much set in stone by the time LRT came along. It was always going to be big malls, strip malls and large stores. LRT at least added a few more pedestrians to the mix. Part of the mess with 36th street from a car perspective is all of the crossings slow traffic to a crawl on a Saturday; LRT exacerbated that problem. Now, talking from a pedestrian perspective, 36th street is daunting to cross, for sure. I grew up in the area and always tried to cross at the Marborough station to avoid the level crossings if possible. I wish a couple of pedestrian bridges would be built; would have helped me a lot in the day. Pedestrian bridges are not cheap however. 17th can be done with a similar layout - but better planning. I'd try some of those new traffic lights for pedestrians only at the right only intersections for cars - the pedestrian would not have to worry about left hand turning traffic (a real bitch on 36th St), and they could be timed to avoid BRT's and eventual LRT's. Ultimate upgrade would be a pedestrian bridge. I'm also pushing right hand only intersections to get rid of the problems 36th St. has with allowing movements in all directions in the process slowing cars down to a crawl. What I've seen proposed for 17th looks like a lot nicer pedestrian environment, with trees, grass, and some separation between traffic and people.



Saying it is too expensive to build the SE LRT to anywhere useful while dropping a quarter billion on a 17th Ave BRT is problematic. The political will is there right now to bring it down to Douglasdale. It does not look like it will be an election issue because, as it is currently shaping up, every candidate is on board. Extending it down to McKenzie Town from Douglasdale would not cost very much; it might be right around 250 million. There is a protected ROW there and very few bridge structures are needed.

I could just flip that first statement around and say that spending a billion to build a SE LRT that doesn't go far enough south and doesn't quite make it into downtown is problematic. I'm not looking at this politically either - Bronco got a NE and NW LRT extension going out of the last civic election and I didn't support building those either - building things politically usually results in building less efficiently specifically because you are building to a political agenda, not a civic planning agenda. So, if 17th Ave BRT were to go ahead for $250M, you might be pushing SE LRT back 2 years; SE LRT would still get built ahead of any 17th Ave LRT option.

It will be interesting to see what planners come up with for $250M - I have a suspicion that the spending will be on SE LRT phase 1 with a P3, and the current capital savings from the P3 applied to a 17th Ave. BRT, with a SE LRT tie in at Inglewood; not a combination I'm liking.

[magnetite]

Think they need to step up the security on the C-Train. I know they have a help button and all, but it would be nice to have a cop on board. I was mauled by a homeless person on my way home from getting a bus pass. He grabbed me pretty hard when I didn't give him any money, then I told him I would use the help button if he didn't stop doing what he was doing.

I was only going one stop anyways, so I'm not sure if that was long enough to warrant pushing the help button. Still.

[freeweed]

Think they need to step up the security on the C-Train. I know they have a help button and all, but it would be nice to have a cop on board. I was mauled by a homeless person on my way home from getting a bus pass. He grabbed me pretty hard when I didn't give him any money, then I told him I would use the help button if he didn't stop doing what he was doing.

I was only going one stop anyways, so I'm not sure if that was long enough to warrant pushing the help button. Still.

An assault is an assault, regardless of how far you're traveling. Not much would be done though even if you did file a police report.

[mwalker_mw]

I was only going one stop anyways, so I'm not sure if that was long enough to warrant pushing the help button. Still.

Pressing the button, even if just to notify them of the incident, is precisely what will influence whether Calgary Transit increases security efforts. By shrugging it off you are hurting your own cause. At the very least, write an email if you want to see action. They can't fix problems they don't know about and they won't fix problems that aren't reported often enough to validate the associated cost.

[McPaul]

You're lucky he didn't get off and follow you! What time was this?

[You Need A Thneed]

At saddletowne station, there is now some structural steel up for the roof.

Martindale station has some of the precast platform sections in place.

Whitehorn station has the grade beams for the platform extension being formed, the concrete will be placed soon.

At McKnight WW, the girders for the new pedestrian bridge over Metis Trail went up yesterday evening.

[srperrycgy]

A few shots from my walk this hot afternoon:

Safety awareness campaign ad:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4824662589_a104d121bf_b.jpg

The LRT Traction Power substation will be located in the "hole" at the NW corner of 7th Ave @ 4th St SW:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4824716703_18105d7053_b.jpg

A couple more of the 4th St platform construction:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4825324534_01e62f00c2_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4824713397_909f1e1119_b.jpg

Something a bit more rare. A bike on a bus bike rack:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4824686807_2a8044ab9c_b.jpg

Ok, it's rare for me to see this. :cool:

[McPaul]

I've never seen this before either. How do they even secure on?

I ended up catching the 13 that went the wrong way. This took me through Westhills. Wow I'm impressed that entire area has grown up so much. Lots more development there. Mostly retail, including a Bestbuy.

On a transit note, it would be nice if bus stops could indicate which way the bus was going. The sign said "mount royal" but it went to west hills. This was at a bus terminal down by a Canadian tire on 51 street I think it was?

Also, when you are at the last train station of the line, and walking up to the platform, if there's two trains sitting there and there's not a stream of people coming off one of them, why isn't there something that tells you which train is leaving first?

[Wooster]

Transit planning needs consistent approach

By William Hamilton (AKA Beltliner)

Last Updated: July 25, 2010 12:07am


It’s the kind of news only Lyle Lanley could love.

The fast-talking monorail mountebank from The Simpsons would surely be rubbing his hands with glee — if it hadn’t been for that unfortunate stop in North Haverbrook — at what came out of city council last week.

Ald. Bob Hawkesworth’s motion to pull together financing for the long-overdue southeast LRT from provincial GreenTRIP funding was carried unanimously.

The decision almost flew under the radar with the commotion over the police budget.

When council has trouble agreeing on what to order for dinner, it is amazing seeing aldermen race to a consensus that raiding the provincial vault to the tune of $800 million to build light rail to Douglas Glen in five to seven years would be a good thing.

There’s just one small issue. Throwing GreenTRIP money at the southeast LRT isn’t as easy as it looks.

Sure, $800 million is a big chunk of change to be able to drop on rails, bricks, and mortar for mass transit, but the provincial GreenTRIP funding comes with enough strings to hogtie a herd of Holsteins.

The province only pays out after the transit projects are built, or at least well under way. The money is meant not just for Calgary, but also for nearby towns and counties as far away as High River and Strathmore.

GreenTRIP may be a windfall, but it isn’t free money, either: For every two dollars the province contributes to a GreenTRIP transit project, the city is expected to ante up a loonie — and that loonie has to come from somewhere.

read more...

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/columnists/2010/07/25/14819501.html#/comment/columnists/2010/07/25/pf-14819501.html

[freeweed]

I don't understand the Simpsons reference. The whole point of that episode was that the monorail was something worthless that bankrupted local economies. Is this story trying to imply that the SE LRT is a complete boondoggle?

[You Need A Thneed]

Also, at MKWW, the catenary and poles have been removed from the tail track at the north end of the station.

[magnetite]

You're lucky he didn't get off and follow you! What time was this?

Middle of the day. That's actually the second time this has happened. I'm not sure what I did to make him grab me. Didn't even talk to him.

[mersar]

Small note on the SE LRT from council meeting tonight, a minor amendment was made to the request from council for administration to undertake the pre-study work for the SE LRT, with the amendment now requiring both the Calgary Regional Partnership and the province to sign on, before it was just the city and the province.

[Aegis]

Small note on the SE LRT from council meeting tonight, a minor amendment was made to the request from council for administration to undertake the pre-study work for the SE LRT, with the amendment now requiring both the Calgary Regional Partnership and the province to sign on, before it was just the city and the province.

Why the change? and what is the Calgary Regional Partnership?

[LFRENCH]

Why the change? and what is the Calgary Regional Partnership?

"We are the Calgary Regional Partnership -- CRP. The CRP is a strong coalition of municipalities that understands the synergistic relationship of local governments in the region. We have recently been taking a proactive approach to regional growth and planning issues. "

http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/AboutUs.aspx

[Wooster]

Why the change? and what is the Calgary Regional Partnership?

http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/AboutUs.aspx

[mersar]

Why the change? and what is the Calgary Regional Partnership?


Essentially because the province's terms for the green trip money say its to be shared within the region, and this is just the city playing nice. Likely if the city went alone and proposed using up a significant amount of the funding without the CRP's agreement the province would say no. So someone realized this and decided we'd better reword the request to make sure the CRP is involved.

[Aegis]

"We are the Calgary Regional Partnership -- CRP. The CRP is a strong coalition of municipalities that understands the synergistic relationship of local governments in the region. We have recently been taking a proactive approach to regional growth and planning issues. "

http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/AboutUs.aspx

I now understand why the change was made, but it seems unnecessary. What business is it of these small towns how our LRT is aligned? Seems like unnecessary red tape.

[mersar]

I now understand why the change was made, but it seems unnecessary. What business is it of these small towns how our LRT is aligned? Seems like unnecessary red tape.

The strings are quiet necessary though. Its not so much that they are saying where the LRT runs, rather they are saying they are OK with Calgary spending X of the Y dollars in the Calgary regions share of the funding.

[fusili]

The strings are quiet necessary though. Its not so much that they are saying where the LRT runs, rather they are saying they are OK with Calgary spending X of the Y dollars in the Calgary regions share of the funding.

While I see the importance of regional planning, I think we might be putting the horse before the cart if we go too far in terms of regional transit before the LRT system is implemented. The LRT system should come first, and then regional transit. I hope the CRP sees it this way too.

[Policy Wonk]

I don't think it is an either-or and it will come sooner than most people would even imagine. Once the ridiculous Blue 22 project is killed for good in Toronto SNC-Lavalin is going to take the show on the road and launch a commuter service in Calgary using the refurbished Budd RDC's that would have been used for Blue 22.

[Me&You]

While I see the importance of regional planning, I think we might be putting the horse before the cart if we go too far in terms of regional transit before the LRT system is implemented. The LRT system should come first, and then regional transit. I hope the CRP sees it this way too.

It's not that they're planning for regional transit, but that they are using regional money for Calgary transit... so it needs the approval of the region.

[jeffwhit]

I don't think it is an either-or and it will come sooner than most people would even imagine. Once the ridiculous Blue 22 project is killed for good in Toronto SNC-Lavalin is going to take the show on the road and launch a commuter service in Calgary using the refurbished Budd RDC's that would have been used for Blue 22.

Really? Do you think commuter rail is that close?

[You Need A Thneed]

Saddletowne Station:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/Saddletowne2.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/Saddletowne1.jpg

Whitehorn Station:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/Whitehorn3.jpg

MKWW Pedestrian Bridge:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/MKWWBridge4.jpg

Sorry, iPhone quality.

[fusili]

It's not that they're planning for regional transit, but that they are using regional money for Calgary transit... so it needs the approval of the region.

No, I understand that. It just might be a problem tying money for Calgary transit improvements to a regional decision process. What if the CRP says no?

[halifaxboyns]

A regional rail system is difficult to implement when rail has competing interests. CP can easily say no; they are under no obligation to say yes at all.

But there can be political pressure put on them to say yes.

This is the same issue that Halifax is having with the regional rail debate there and with CN. For years, Peter Kelly (then mayor of the town of Bedford and now HRM mayor) wanted regional rail to service Bedford and Sackville to get people out of cars and into trains to the downtown station and then bus routes to ferry people onto the major employment centres and the downtown core (Halifax's train station is on the extreme south side of downtown and not in the actual core).

The problem has been CN and the control of the rail line through Halifax. It was originally dual track; but because CN realigned it's routing system - they reduced the number of freight trains out of Halifax to 1 per day. So they removed the second track from the south end out into the rail yard in Rockingham - really putting a kink into regional rail. They've also never been too happy with the idea and have placed insane conditions on the operation like they have to be the ones doing all the train maintenance and be the ones to pick the train cars that operate. I can see them saying they would do the maintenance of the track - but picking the car? Come on.

Right now; sitting in a rail yard in Moncton are about 24 BUDD RDC cars (the self propelled) owned by Via rail (much the same trains that operate on the Victoria rail line). They have replaced the engines with high efficency ones and redone the inside of the cars for regional rail use - mainly because HRM had interest. Because of CN's delays; they have never been bought and just sit there.

If the Calgary Region wanted the implement a regional rail system - those 24 cars are sitting there; ready to go. It's not much; but it's a start and they could easily service a route up to Banff during peak tourist season. Plus since they have their own engines, they don't need the big engines at the front!

[Ferreth]

[...]
If the Calgary Region wanted the implement a regional rail system - those 24 cars are sitting there; ready to go. It's not much; but it's a start and they could easily service a route up to Banff during peak tourist season. Plus since they have their own engines, they don't need the big engines at the front!

I would pay good money to Ride a Budd car to Banff in the summer, and I'm not even a tourist!

[Bassic Lab]

No, I understand that. It just might be a problem tying money for Calgary transit improvements to a regional decision process. What if the CRP says no?

Blame the PCs. Making Green Trip funds regional might make sense in Edmonton but it does not make sense in Calgary. Well it might make sense politically but not practically. 800 million spent on transit in Calgary can seriously reduce traffic congestion and get a lot of people out of cars; it is adding essential infrastructure while benefitting the environment which is the entire point of the program. Busses to the bedroom towns really just makes sprawl marginally more attractive while allowing the province to look like it is accomplishing something for the voters outside of the cities.

[DarkKeyo]

Small note on the SE LRT from council meeting tonight, a minor amendment was made to the request from council for administration to undertake the pre-study work for the SE LRT, with the amendment now requiring both the Calgary Regional Partnership and the province to sign on, before it was just the city and the province.

Good to see that they're doing the pre-study work. Glad to see it get started. After that, I assume it will go through a design process similar to the West LRT? Where various groups and people can have their input? I'm not expecting something like BestWestLRT and their horde of zombies, since the route follows a rail line through Inglewood and Ogden... but I would like to make my argument that making the line just a bit longer, to Calgary Tower and to McKenzie Towne, has a big payoff in ridership and in not having to funnel bus routes and park-and-riders from all over the SE to the end of half of the line. I'd also like to see a detailed set of route plans, since all I've seen have been route options.

As for Regional Rail, let's do the regional buses first and see if anyone uses them. No sense in spending money on commuter trains till after that.

[Vascilli]

So what happened to those Nova buses that the City ordered?

[halifaxboyns]

Good to see that they're doing the pre-study work. Glad to see it get started. After that, I assume it will go through a design process similar to the West LRT? Where various groups and people can have their input? I'm not expecting something like BestWestLRT and their horde of zombies, since the route follows a rail line through Inglewood and Ogden... but I would like to make my argument that making the line just a bit longer, to Calgary Tower and to McKenzie Towne, has a big payoff in ridership and in not having to funnel bus routes and park-and-riders from all over the SE to the end of half of the line. I'd also like to see a detailed set of route plans, since all I've seen have been route options.

As for Regional Rail, let's do the regional buses first and see if anyone uses them. No sense in spending money on commuter trains till after that.

The BUDD RDC cars I mentioned earlier (in Moncton) at last check were going for 2 Million a piece. So buses would be cheaper to start off with...but still 24 cars @ 2 million - 48 isn't too bad?

[SubwayRev]

Blame the PCs. Making Green Trip funds regional might make sense in Edmonton but it does not make sense in Calgary. Well it might make sense politically but not practically. 800 million spent on transit in Calgary can seriously reduce traffic congestion and get a lot of people out of cars; it is adding essential infrastructure while benefitting the environment which is the entire point of the program. Busses to the bedroom towns really just makes sprawl marginally more attractive while allowing the province to look like it is accomplishing something for the voters outside of the cities.

Couldn't agree more. It's disgusting that two cities which make up 65% of the population are needing the approval of tiny, rural communities to spend transportation monies.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't think it is an either-or and it will come sooner than most people would even imagine. Once the ridiculous Blue 22 project is killed for good in Toronto SNC-Lavalin is going to take the show on the road and launch a commuter service in Calgary using the refurbished Budd RDC's that would have been used for Blue 22.

That project isn't going anywhere - the SC Lavalin contract I am not sure really exists anymore however.


A regional rail system is difficult to implement when rail has competing interests. CP can easily say no; they are under no obligation to say yes at all.

But there can be political pressure put on them to say yes.

This is the same issue that Halifax is having with the regional rail debate there and with CN. For years, Peter Kelly (then mayor of the town of Bedford and now HRM mayor) wanted regional rail to service Bedford and Sackville to get people out of cars and into trains to the downtown station and then bus routes to ferry people onto the major employment centres and the downtown core (Halifax's train station is on the extreme south side of downtown and not in the actual core).

The problem has been CN and the control of the rail line through Halifax. It was originally dual track; but because CN realigned it's routing system - they reduced the number of freight trains out of Halifax to 1 per day. So they removed the second track from the south end out into the rail yard in Rockingham - really putting a kink into regional rail. They've also never been too happy with the idea and have placed insane conditions on the operation like they have to be the ones doing all the train maintenance and be the ones to pick the train cars that operate. I can see them saying they would do the maintenance of the track - but picking the car? Come on.

Right now; sitting in a rail yard in Moncton are about 24 BUDD RDC cars (the self propelled) owned by Via rail (much the same trains that operate on the Victoria rail line). They have replaced the engines with high efficency ones and redone the inside of the cars for regional rail use - mainly because HRM had interest. Because of CN's delays; they have never been bought and just sit there.

If the Calgary Region wanted the implement a regional rail system - those 24 cars are sitting there; ready to go. It's not much; but it's a start and they could easily service a route up to Banff during peak tourist season. Plus since they have their own engines, they don't need the big engines at the front!

CP has already said if there is enough money to increase track capacity so that freight operations are minimally impaired they are fine with regional rail. Spending $500 million on rail upgrades to run peak commuter like service to Cochrane doesn't seem like the wisest thing however - to justify the cost I would guess you would need 30 minute headways at least.

[halifaxboyns]

That project isn't going anywhere - the SC Lavalin contract I am not sure really exists anymore however.




CP has already said if there is enough money to increase track capacity so that freight operations are minimally impaired they are fine with regional rail. Spending $500 million on rail upgrades to run peak commuter like service to Cochrane doesn't seem like the wisest thing however - to justify the cost I would guess you would need 30 minute headways at least.

$500 million seems a bit much for upgrades? I mean yes, you would need platforms at some locations and the RDC cars I mentioned are 2 mil a pop - but even with the upgrades it would cost that much? That must have to do with more of their freight operation than a regional transit system.

I'd also suggest that on some days it extend to Banff as a tourist train.

[para transit fellow]

Couldn't agree more. It's disgusting that two cities which make up 65% of the population are needing the approval of tiny, rural communities to spend transportation monies.

I guess i don't understand your disgust. Didn't the Province unveil this program as a _regional_ transit initiative?

[Koolfire]

Couldn't agree more. It's disgusting that two cities which make up 65% of the population are needing the approval of tiny, rural communities to spend transportation monies.

I have to somewhat disagree. While the city should never be bullied into making a bad decision based on the approval of the neighbouring communities this money was set aside but the province with the goal of making the region more sustainable. I'm not convinced that spending all this money on the SE LRT is the right way to go as it does not help the region as a whole. Yes Deerfoot is congested but the SE part of the ring road will reduce traffic on Deerfoot during the rush considerably but will increase traffic on Glenmore, 16th and Mcknight from the east making it harder for Chestermere, Langdon and Stratmore residents to commute. Stoney will probably be open in that section before the SE LRT is operational. To be fair Calgary has gotten a lot of money from the province for the West LRT and Stoney Trail recently.

In my mind the two things that make sense
1. Regional train heading north beside Deerfoot towards Airdire, Crossroads, and final one day Red deer. Two reasons, puts another nail in the Nose Creek LRT alignment coffin. Second if it can one day be extended to Red Deer it could be the first step to high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton. This assumes Edmonton would try a do the same feat heading south.
2. The proposed 17th ave East LRT. This would be more appealing to Chestermere and Stratmore then the SE LRT. It's possible that people living in Mackenze town currently and commuting to downtown via South LRT may make the switch to the East LRT because it would be less crowded and Stoney trail could make it fairly quick to get to.


And don't get me wrong, I support the building of the SE LRT but I'm not certain that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the right way to go. And even if we did the projects I suggested Calgary would still get most of the money and still make the city a better place to live.

[SubwayRev]

I guess i don't understand your disgust. Didn't the Province unveil this program as a _regional_ transit initiative?

Yes it was, and that's my beef. I would like to see the money go to Calgary and Edmonton, not the surrounding communities. Most people in Alberta live in Calgary and Edmonton, and I don't think they should need to consult surrounding sommunities on how to spend these transit dollars.

I have to somewhat disagree. While the city should never be bullied into making a bad decision based on the approval of the neighbouring communities this money was set aside but the province with the goal of making the region more sustainable. I'm not convinced that spending all this money on the SE LRT is the right way to go as it does not help the region as a whole. Yes Deerfoot is congested but the SE part of the ring road will reduce traffic on Deerfoot during the rush considerably but will increase traffic on Glenmore, 16th and Mcknight from the east making it harder for Chestermere, Langdon and Stratmore residents to commute. Stoney will probably be open in that section before the SE LRT is operational. To be fair Calgary has gotten a lot of money from the province for the West LRT and Stoney Trail recently.

In my mind the two things that make sense
1. Regional train heading north beside Deerfoot towards Airdire, Crossroads, and final one day Red deer. Two reasons, puts another nail in the Nose Creek LRT alignment coffin. Second if it can one day be extended to Red Deer it could be the first step to high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton. This assumes Edmonton would try a do the same feat heading south.
2. The proposed 17th ave East LRT. This would be more appealing to Chestermere and Stratmore then the SE LRT. It's possible that people living in Mackenze town currently and commuting to downtown via South LRT may make the switch to the East LRT because it would be less crowded and Stoney trail could make it fairly quick to get to.

And don't get me wrong, I support the building of the SE LRT but I'm not certain that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the right way to go. And even if we did the projects I suggested Calgary would still get most of the money and still make the city a better place to live.

Money spent on transit in Calgary, say the SE LRT, would take more cars off the roads in an hour than any inter-city bus or rail would in a week. There are not enough people communting from these bedroom communities to warrant major investments. In my mind, the best thing for the region, would be transit imporvements in Calgary.

[DarkKeyo]

Money spent on transit in Calgary, say the SE LRT, would take more cars off the roads in an hour than any inter-city bus or rail would in a week. There are not enough people communting from these bedroom communities to warrant major investments. In my mind, the best thing for the region, would be transit imporvements in Calgary.

I mostly agree. While the other communities in the area deserve transportation improvements, there simply won't be enough benefit from that number of commuters.

Implement the bus service from the surrounding communities:
- Cochrane can be served by the extended NWLRT.
- Chestermere and possibly Strathmore can be served by transit improvements on the 17 Av SE corridor (since Calgary and Chestermere now share a boundary the upgraded 305 could run most of the way to Chestermere if they really wanted to. I still don't think the busway to Inglewood is necessary short-term.) Agreeing with Koolfire here:

2. The proposed 17th ave East LRT. This would be more appealing to Chestermere and Stratmore then the SE LRT. It's possible that people living in Mackenze town currently and commuting to downtown via South LRT may make the switch to the East LRT because it would be less crowded and Stoney trail could make it fairly quick to get to.

- Okotoks and further south would actually benefit from the SELRT: it will remove cars from Deerfoot, etc, for people who drive from Okotoks; it will provide a bus terminal (again this would work better if the SELRT ended at Mckenzie Towne) for intercity buses, it could even split them with the South line; it will provide park and rides for people from Okotoks to park at (again works much better if the park and ride lots at Shepard and Mckenzie Towne stations are built with the stations).
- Airdrie is a bit different IMO, because there won't be a NCLRT for a while, so if anywhere that's where they could put actual commuter rail, to serve North Central Calgary, Balzac developments, Airdrie, eventually the various communities north of Airdrie, maybe even Red Deer as someone suggested, and ultimately become part of the link to Edmonton. This corridor has more potential for commuter rail than the other 3 IMO. Again, agreeing with Koolfire here:

1. Regional train heading north beside Deerfoot towards Airdire, Crossroads, and final one day Red deer. Two reasons, puts another nail in the Nose Creek LRT alignment coffin. Second if it can one day be extended to Red Deer it could be the first step to high speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton. This assumes Edmonton would try a do the same feat heading south.

What other communities would we want to consider here other than those? Langdon? Banff could use a passenger train, but not necessarily short term, nor part of the regional commuter network itself. It seems to me that Banff would work better as a privately operated VIA-like train from the existing downtown station.

Anyways, that is my view on what we should do short term. Of course, implementing the downtown tunnels is a must-do too.

[thager]

So what happened to those Nova buses that the City ordered?

there being built, oh and regina stole some for there order. see this thread on www.cptdb.ca
http://www.cptdb.ca/index.php?showtopic=9938&st=120

[Dado]

New Flyer is selling 226 low-floor artics it bought back from Ottawa as part of an out-of-court settlement replacement and new purchase deal:

http://www.newflyer.com/index/fleet-sale

So if you want to get yourselves scores of underpowered, battered and abused artics, now's your chance!

[SubwayRev]

I mostly agree. While the other communities in the area deserve transportation improvements, there simply won't be enough benefit from that number of commuters.

Implement the bus service from the surrounding communities:
- Cochrane can be served by the extended NWLRT.
- Chestermere and possibly Strathmore can be served by transit improvements on the 17 Av SE corridor (since Calgary and Chestermere now share a boundary the upgraded 305 could run most of the way to Chestermere if they really wanted to. I still don't think the busway to Inglewood is necessary short-term.) Agreeing with Koolfire here:



- Okotoks and further south would actually benefit from the SELRT: it will remove cars from Deerfoot, etc, for people who drive from Okotoks; it will provide a bus terminal (again this would work better if the SELRT ended at Mckenzie Towne) for intercity buses, it could even split them with the South line; it will provide park and rides for people from Okotoks to park at (again works much better if the park and ride lots at Shepard and Mckenzie Towne stations are built with the stations).
- Airdrie is a bit different IMO, because there won't be a NCLRT for a while, so if anywhere that's where they could put actual commuter rail, to serve North Central Calgary, Balzac developments, Airdrie, eventually the various communities north of Airdrie, maybe even Red Deer as someone suggested, and ultimately become part of the link to Edmonton. This corridor has more potential for commuter rail than the other 3 IMO. Again, agreeing with Koolfire here:



What other communities would we want to consider here other than those? Langdon? Banff could use a passenger train, but not necessarily short term, nor part of the regional commuter network itself. It seems to me that Banff would work better as a privately operated VIA-like train from the existing downtown station.

Anyways, that is my view on what we should do short term. Of course, implementing the downtown tunnels is a must-do too.

I wouldn't mind seeing bus travel from these communities to the nearest LRT station, but definately not rail; too expensive and too few passengers. The only place I could see it, as you and Koolfire mentioned, would be to Airdrie/Red Deer. That would be the only direction that would have any hope of getting enough passengers.

As for a VIA connection to Banff, that was the first line VIA cut in 1993, but my understanding was the it wa a very successful line for tourists.

[kw5150]

LRT transport and it's benefits

We are so furtunate that we have the option to take transit of this caliber in the City of Calgary. The LRT (light rail train) is linked to so many key areas of Calgary and it packs a punch with it's size.

Thoughts

There are quite a few of you riders out there, but we need a few more of you (pesky little urban buggers) coming downtown.......... so save some money by taking transit downtown and just cab it home with some friends when you are done!

All joking aside…. there may be expensive parking downtown but........ I know plenty of people (myself included) who have taken the train downtown to, shop it, sight-see it, and "patio it up a bit". ..... and then take a cab home.


Urban pub crawl definition: (one drink per establishment, food at some point, and everyone bring cash to make paying easier.....see how many you can hit…. You can do it all downtown!

ha!

[Policy Wonk]

That project isn't going anywhere - the SC Lavalin contract I am not sure really exists anymore however.

As of yesterday (July 30th) SNC was thrown off the project, where that leaves Blue 22 as originally conceived (and the RDC's) is unclear. Metrolinx should make their intentions known fairly quickly. When all is said and done GO might wind up operating the route, which is probably the best possible outcome since Blue 22 as proposed was ridiculous.

So now we wait and see what SNC does next,

[rail car designer]

As of yesterday (July 30th) SNC was thrown off the project, where that leaves Blue 22 as originally conceived (and the RDC's) is unclear. Metrolinx should make their intentions known fairly quickly. When all is said and done GO might wind up operating the route, which is probably the best possible outcome since Blue 22 as proposed was ridiculous.

So now we wait and see what SNC does next,

what does this mean for the project?

[Policy Wonk]

Too soon to say, but it is probably positive. SNC was looking for revenue guarantees and operating subsidies so one less pig at the trough and either harmonization or perhaps integration into the GO system.

I don't see a downside,

[rail car designer]

Too soon to say, but it is probably positive. SNC was looking for revenue guarantees and operating subsidies so one less pig at the trough and either harmonization or perhaps integration into the GO system.

I don't see a downside,

could be a downside to any subcontractors aligned with SNC.

[mersar]

The steel structure for the +15 for the new 4th Street station is now up. Looks pretty good, and pretty much as the renders depicted it in terms of shape (very futuristic looking)

[DizzyEdge]

All joking aside…. there may be expensive parking downtown but........ I know plenty of people (myself included) who have taken the train downtown to, shop it, sight-see it, and "patio it up a bit". ..... and then take a cab home.



For the most part at the times when people would tend to do that (evenings or weekends) all parking is really cheap or free.

[freeweed]

For the most part at the times when people would tend to do that (evenings or weekends) all parking is really cheap or free.

Which is both a blessing and a curse. It's starting to get me downtown more (I mean beyond work), but yeah, there's just no incentive to not booze and drive for many people.

In the past I've done exactly what kw suggests, but many of my acquaintances are horrified at the thought. Public transportation? Why, when I can just drive (and hope the cops don't have a Checkstop)?

[MasterG]

Which is both a blessing and a curse. It's starting to get me downtown more (I mean beyond work), but yeah, there's just no incentive to not booze and drive for many people.

In the past I've done exactly what kw suggests, but many of my acquaintances are horrified at the thought. Public transportation? Why, when I can just drive (and hope the cops don't have a Checkstop)?

Not to mention that if you did leave your car downtown and cab it home after a night on the town, youd have to get up pretty early to get it again without getting a parking ticket the next morning.

Not a welcoming thought after a night boozing :yuck:

Perhaps use an approach at the U of C? students can ask for a pass at the bar they put in the car and gives them an extra few hours to avoid a ticket the following morning. Might not work for weekdays, but perhaps friday/saturday mornings

[DizzyEdge]

Not to mention that if you did leave your car downtown and cab it home after a night on the town, youd have to get up pretty early to get it again without getting a parking ticket the next morning.

Not a welcoming thought after a night boozing :yuck:

Perhaps use an approach at the U of C? students can ask for a pass at the bar they put in the car and gives them an extra few hours to avoid a ticket the following morning. Might not work for weekdays, but perhaps friday/saturday mornings

Depends, if it's a parkplus street you can sign up for their cell phone service so you can pay for parking in the morning from your bed :)

[You Need A Thneed]

It's still 2 years before it'll be open to the public, but the Park & Ride at Saddletowne station has been paved.

[halifaxboyns]

Too soon to say, but it is probably positive. SNC was looking for revenue guarantees and operating subsidies so one less pig at the trough and either harmonization or perhaps integration into the GO system.

I don't see a downside,

Hopefully it will mean those BUDD RDC cars sitting in Moncton will finally get used. Last time I was in Moncton I saw them shunting other via cars going in for repair and repainting and I had a chance to get on one of the refurbished ones during the train safety days. I was really impressed how nice the seats were. The onboard washroom was a nice touch too.

[MalcolmTucker]

$500 million seems a bit much for upgrades? I mean yes, you would need platforms at some locations and the RDC cars I mentioned are 2 mil a pop - but even with the upgrades it would cost that much? That must have to do with more of their freight operation than a regional transit system.

I'd also suggest that on some days it extend to Banff as a tourist train.

They have to double track and triple track some rather tight segments with hills/valley walls (not exactly sure if you could say cliffs) bounded by the river on the other side, mostly running through a Provincial Park. In all, not the easiest proposition, hence the cost.