Calgary Public Transit II [Archive] - Page 26

Robert in Calgary

Mar 8, 2011, 3:31 AM

Well yeah, that would be a little difficult in an area that was built-up over the last 40-70 years.

Make up your mind.

Is it a little difficult or impossible?

There's nothing unreasonable about demanding some sort of Centre Street route that will serve Calgarians instead of the foolish Nose Creek option to avoid serving Calgarians.

The city has no qualms about buying property for projects, in some cases over decades. Centre Street LRT is no different. Small efforts over the last 30 years and we would have the entire ROW right now.

For me, I'm fine with a route that generally stays close to Centre Street.

Between 41st and 56th Avenue, for example there is open space, green space, school yard space. It actually extends to 60th Avenue but I would want a station at 56th.

I guess all the professionals just "missed" all that space. :haha:

Between 64th Avenue and Beddington Blvd. Centre Street becomes wider and there's more green buffer space to work with.

Underground, open trench or some surface, it would all work here.

Tada! Right there, we've got about half the distance between downtown and Beddington Blvd.

Little difficult is correct grasshopper. :cool:

Bassic Lab

Mar 8, 2011, 3:53 AM

I'm going to throw this out there and by no means fully though this out:
4th St NW is going through traffic calming measures.
Why not just reduce 4st NW from 4 lanes to 2 and run it on the surface.
10th st and Centre st run in parallel in close proximity to 4th st able to handle the extra traffic.
There is enough space and 4st and Edmonton trail to do a interchange.
Between 16th st and 40th st no home front onto 4th street on the westside.
Between Mcknight and centre st no homes front the east side.
There would be some commercial properties effected.
This route would pass 2 high schools and 3(?) elementary schools.

There are way too many crossings to effectively run an LRT system on the surface of any route. The blocks are too short to have stations that could handle more than three cars. It would be incredibly slow if it operated in the street; it would not be able to provide rapid service to downtown. It would create traffic chaos throughout north central Calgary. It would essentially be a nightmare to try and run anything west of Nose Creek that isn't either buried or elevated.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean. 4 St NW doesn't intersect with Edmonton Trail so how could they have an interchange. Likewise, Centre Street and McKnight do intersect so there is no area between them.

Jay El

Mar 8, 2011, 3:56 AM

Had a question about the SD-160 model trains. Why do the brakes make a buzzing noise when the train is slowing down?

I believe it is the excess energy created while braking being released as heat. The energy is released from the bulky, silver boxes on the roof of the car. As an added benefit: it reminds people to hold on!

This is from an ETS document (page 2.9):

The SD160 LRV has three braking systems.
• Dynamic Braking System
Controlled dynamic braking will be continuously available from maximum vehicle speed
down to a speed of 5 km/h or less. This dynamic braking will be regenerative or rheostatic
depending on the receptivity of the overhead catenary system. The regenerative brake
control algorithm must return the maximum practicable amount of electric power to the
catenary until the overhead catenary system reaches a maximum voltage.
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/Ch2_Vehicles_Final.pdf

Koolfire

Mar 8, 2011, 5:22 AM

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean. 4 St NW doesn't intersect with Edmonton Trail so how could they have an interchange. Likewise, Centre Street and McKnight do intersect so there is no area between them.

Meant McKnight trail. I was thinking closing 4 out 5 intersections at least. The more I think about it trenching would be the way to go from 16th on.

I'm starting to think this route would be on par with the per km cost of WLRT.
4th st compares to 17th ave trench
mcknight and 4th st compares to 17th and Sarcee Trail. Sunalta station compares to getting from beddington blvd to beddington trail.
Highland Golf course vs Shaganappi Golf course.
James Fowler compares to Ernest Manning but I don't see a need to demolish James Fowler.

WLRT 700million about 8 km, NC LRT 12 km so let's say 1.5 billion and add 500 million to tunnel under the bow river. I'm starting to see this as possible.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:22 AM

I kind of wonder why you are arguing; You're doing a very good job of improving every pro-subway argument through practice, and I thank you for that, if not for the pages of reading debate, or for this:

Well, I can't really figure out what you guys are arguing either other than a subway would be bitchin' and money is no object when something is so totally cool.

You want to use a centre street subway as an instrument for the intensification of the centre street corridor. That is ridiculous because this would unleash a war the likes of which the city has never seen before and there is no money to do it in the first place. Pushing it is a distraction that undermines real potential LRT expansion.

Nose Creek is cost effective because it leverages a great deal of existing infrastructure and requires minimal "3D".

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:38 AM

Why would as many busses still need to access downtown? In the event of a Centre Street Subway the areas bus service should be entirely reworked. Instead of a system of north-south bus routes we would have west-east routes intersection with subway stations. People would be forced to transfer to the subway.

Have you guys actually read anything that Calgary Transit itself has said on the subject? Or is this just another subject around here where collective fantasy becomes the conventional wisdom?

In 2006 when the North Central alignment was last reviewed Calgary Transit said themselves that communities south of Beddington Blvd would continue to be served by conventional bus routes. The Nose Creek LRT is intensely focused around serving the Northern suburbs. You might not appreciate that but but please at least judge its suitability relative to the only purpose it has ever been intended for and not as an instrument to intensify centre street. The subway doesn't really change that because there will only be a handful of stations to begin with. So yes, there will be, as there are today a significant number of buses shadowing the Centre Street subway along with other buses enroute to the core.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:48 AM

Make up your mind.

Is it a little difficult or impossible?

You are calling negligence on the city for failing to develop contingencies for something they have no intention of doing... It would have served no purpose and would have been very difficult to no productive end.

I guess all the professionals just "missed" all that space. :haha:

No... the professionals who see the big picture that includes budgets, politics and other boring things saw this for the pipe dream it is decades ago and circular filed it accordingly.

Nothing has been said here that wasn't said in 1985.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 7:04 AM

Right, so we can build and LRT what can do that on tracks beside CPR mainline and a commuter running on track(s) beside the CPR Mainline. I'm not sure if dual tracks would be necessary for the commuter rail but there is no reason that we couldn't build a separate track within city limits and join up with the regular track outside the city.

Great... I eagerly await the visit of the heavy rail fairy right after the visit of the subway fairy.

I hope the NC LRT doesn't wipeout my existence. It's not about having more riders from existing neighbourhoods but serving existing riders. Even if there is no intensification of the area, what everyone seems to miss is that the area will attract more residents that will ride the LRT to get around. Over years riders will replace non-riders increasing ridership. Non-riders usually will not move as close to station as they don't value the station as much.

There can be no credible case for a subway (at any cost) without major intensification, there can be no intensification without a full fledged war which will give rise to local demagogues out to "save the community" who will either make City Hall cave or themselves get elected to City Hall and wreak havoc on that and other issues.

Complete BS, look no further then Maxbell station and Mayland Heights industrial. There's even a large area that has been environmentally reclaimed and still undeveloped. And Industrial areas can have just as much NIMBY's as the next neighbourhood but with deeper pockets.

No, it is entirely different. What is the reason it is so difficult to redevelop zones of discard? Because you can build the nicest building the world has ever seen - but the next block is still shit. The advantage of Nose Creek is the area just isn't that large and can be digested quickly.

My biggest fear is that an Nose Creek alignment will result in worse service for residents south of Beddington by a drop in bus frequencies and rerouting current routes from downtown to LRT stations which result in longer commutes.

It has always been the intention of Calgary Transit to retain existing legacy routes and BRT south of Beddington Trail. The Nose Creek LRT has always been oriented to serving the Northern suburbs, the rest just doesn't come into it.

Koolfire

Mar 8, 2011, 7:07 AM

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

Policy Wonk I had to look up this post from way back when. Spending more then 100 million on the NC LRT Nose Creek would be crazy as it only improves service speed from the furthest destination by a whooping 4 minutes. LRT ride 30 minutes, Bus 34 minutes. We could get 4 minute improvement by an interchange at McKnight and Centre and 16th and Centre with way less cost. Even with the cost to acquire property.

Bassic Lab

Mar 8, 2011, 7:12 AM

Well, I can't really figure out what you guys are arguing either other than a subway would be bitchin' and money is no object when something is so totally cool.

You want to use a centre street subway as an instrument for the intensification of the centre street corridor. That is ridiculous because this would unleash a war the likes of which the city has never seen before and there is no money to do it in the first place. Pushing it is a distraction that undermines real potential LRT expansion.

Nose Creek is cost effective because it leverages a great deal of existing infrastructure and requires minimal "3D".

Does it leverage existing infrastructure or does it overburden existing infrastructure? How long will 7 Ave, even after the NW-S line is moved, have spare capacity that can be turned over to the N LRT? Aside from issues of cost and redevelopment, what do you suggest we do when capacity is maxed because of interlining?

I can't think of very many fixes that would be significantly cheaper than simply building the Subway in the first place.

Koolfire

Mar 8, 2011, 7:16 AM

Great... I eagerly await the visit of the heavy rail fairy right after the visit of the subway fairy.

Do you have their number?

There can be no credible case for a subway (at any cost) without major intensification, there can be no intensification without a full fledged war which will give rise to local demagogues out to "save the community" who will either make City Hall cave or themselves get elected to City Hall and wreak havoc on that and other issues.

I'm not convinced.

No, it is entirely different. What is the reason it is so difficult to redevelop zones of discard? Because you can build the nicest building the world has ever seen - but the next block is still shit. The advantage of Nose Creek is the area just isn't that large and can be digested quickly.

No it worse. Mayland Heights is build beside residential. There is already a community there but the industrial area has not been absorbed what so ever. And it's a smaller area then what your talking about.

It has always been the intention of Calgary Transit to retain existing legacy routes and BRT south of Beddington Trail. The Nose Creek LRT has always been oriented to serving the Northern suburbs, the rest just doesn't come into it.

We'll see. But I have serious doubts because as soon as you have stations at 64th and 32nd your going to have route capacity diverted.

Bassic Lab

Mar 8, 2011, 7:42 AM

Have you guys actually read anything that Calgary Transit itself has said on the subject? Or is this just another subject around here where collective fantasy becomes the conventional wisdom?

In 2006 when the North Central alignment was last reviewed Calgary Transit said themselves that communities south of Beddington Blvd would continue to be served by conventional bus routes. The Nose Creek LRT is intensely focused around serving the Northern suburbs. You might not appreciate that but but please at least judge its suitability relative to the only purpose it has ever been intended for and not as an instrument to intensify centre street. The subway doesn't really change that because there will only be a handful of stations to begin with. So yes, there will be, as there are today a significant number of buses shadowing the Centre Street subway along with other buses enroute to the core.

We have read the city documents. Of course the city would maintain bus service south of Beddington if they built the Nose Creek alignment. They would have to. That has no bearing on what Calgary Transit would do if they built a Centre Street Subway instead.

We are all aware that Nose Creek was chosen with the intention of serving northern suburbs. This was not because it was necessarily the best option. It was predicated on two determinations. First, that a subway would be too expensive. Second, that ridership would be low enough on the NE LRT and the N LRT that interlining would not cause problems. Since that decision was made things have changed. The city's financial situation has improved with the addition of gas tax money from the federal government and MSI funding from the province. Ridership has increased a great deal. The C-Train is much more successful than anyone thought it would be. It does not have the same kind of spare capacity that planners believed it would. Given those changes it is time we rethink the alignment of the North LRT.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 9:04 AM

No it worse. Mayland Heights is build beside residential. There is already a community there but the industrial area has not been absorbed what so ever. And it's a smaller area then what your talking about.

Mayland Heights is a toilet in its own right with or without the industrial and was there first, that doesn't address the potential for redevelopment of the Greenview Insdustrial area.

We'll see. But I have serious doubts because as soon as you have stations at 64th and 32nd your going to have route capacity diverted.

Routes will be adjusted based on the demand from North that is diverted to the LRT, but there is no reason to believe they could cut off Centre Street.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 9:07 AM

Policy Wonk I had to look up this post from way back when. Spending more then 100 million on the NC LRT Nose Creek would be crazy as it only improves service speed from the furthest destination by a whooping 4 minutes. LRT ride 30 minutes, Bus 34 minutes. We could get 4 minute improvement by an interchange at McKnight and Centre and 16th and Centre with way less cost. Even with the cost to acquire property.

That doesn't account for two things:

1. An LRT consist holds a lot more people than an articulated bus and I personally had to stop riding transit because I couldn't squeeze my ass on the 301 before 8:45 in the morning boarding opposite the 78th ave loop. The 301 and its success North of Beddington Trail is what led the city to reaffirm its commitment to the Nose Creek alignment pre-Nenshi.
2. The Nose Creek alignment will have several areas where the LRV's can operate at high speed given distances between stations and the distance between 64th Ave and the first stop on the Northern ROW.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 9:13 AM

Does it leverage existing infrastructure or does it overburden existing infrastructure? How long will 7 Ave, even after the NW-S line is moved, have spare capacity that can be turned over to the N LRT? Aside from issues of cost and redevelopment, what do you suggest we do when capacity is maxed because of interlining?

I can't think of very many fixes that would be significantly cheaper than simply building the Subway in the first place.

For the millionth line the limitations of 7th Ave will have to be confronted with or without the Nose Creek LRT and probably will have been years before construction of the Nose Creek or Centre Street LRT commences.

We ran the LRT above ground through downtown, we have to live with that.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 9:35 AM

We have read the city documents. Of course the city would maintain bus service south of Beddington if they built the Nose Creek alignment. They would have to. That has no bearing on what Calgary Transit would do if they built a Centre Street Subway instead.

Okay... so not only are going to find money for building this subway, they can also afford to build stations really, really close together?

Why didn't the Nose Creek LRT plan call for feeder buses running east and west to the Nose Creek stations rather than maintaining bus service on Centre Street? There will buses shadowing the LRT route and combined with those just enroute to the core via Centre Street and with significant frequency. Route 10 for instance mirrors a trip one can make entirely on the C-Train! Why does this seem unlikely to people?

We are all aware that Nose Creek was chosen with the intention of serving northern suburbs. This was not because it was necessarily the best option. It was predicated on two determinations. First, that a subway would be too expensive. Second, that ridership would be low enough on the NE LRT and the N LRT that interlining would not cause problems.

No, as originally conceived the North Central LRT would have run up Centre Street as far as 64th Ave before segueing to the Nose Creek ROW. Following the Nose Creek ROW from the start came only after the Centre Street alternative had been decisively rejected.

Since that decision was made things have changed. The city's financial situation has improved with the addition of gas tax money from the federal government and MSI funding from the province. Ridership has increased a great deal.

Again, this was last revisited in 2006. Nothing was deemed to have changed at that time - except costs further favoured Nose Creek than ever before.

The C-Train is much more successful than anyone thought it would be. It does not have the same kind of spare capacity that planners believed it would. Given those changes it is time we rethink the alignment of the North LRT.

None of that comes into the alignment of the North LRT. It is successful because of its utility in delivering suburban douchebags to their jobs downtown. Not by its virtue as an urban transit system.

Bassic Lab

Mar 8, 2011, 12:37 PM

For the millionth line the limitations of 7th Ave will have to be confronted with or without the Nose Creek LRT and probably will have been years before construction of the Nose Creek or Centre Street LRT commences.

We ran the LRT above ground through downtown, we have to live with that.

The current limitations of 7 Ave will be dealt with by burying the NW-S Line under 8 Ave. This will end interlining and effectively double capacity into the core. Having done that we will decide it makes sense to reinitiate interlining and cause ourselves the same problem all over again? Doing so would cripple its ability to effectively deliver people from the suburbs to downtown, be they douchebags or not. We do have to live with 7 Ave; we do not have to make it worse.

I do agree with you that some bus service would undoubtedly continue along major corridors in North Central Calgary. Just looking at the S LRT would show us the need. There is still bus service along Macleod Trail and the #3 continues to be busy despite operating on a parallel route in close proximity along Elbow Drive. That said, a subway would undoubtedly lead to significant changes, including an overall decline in the number of busses operating, to service in the area. Just like how bus service in South Calgary would have to change substantially were the S LRT to disappear.

The only negative to the Centre Street Subway is cost. In every other aspect it is equal, if not superior, to the Nose Creek alignment. It would serve the northern suburbs just as well. It would increase the maximum theoretical capacity into the downtown core. It would service the area south of Beddington Trail much better. Those benefits are worth something. Are they worth the increased cost? That is a matter for debate. At a minimum the city should develop some more concrete cost estimates. Then we would know what kind of numbers we are talking about. I think that an extra 30 000 or so people per hour into the core (roughly the maximum capacity of a single LRT line) is worth a great deal while better service along Centre Street is worth somewhat less but still valuable.

If we are going to build a line primarily to service the northern hills suburbs and interline it with the NE LRT we might as well use 96 Ave/Airport Trail to do it. I do think an Airport connection is mostly a vanity project but the Airport is a more valid destination than anything along Nose Creek. Cost should be comparable between the two options. Then, when some mixture of available funding, capacity issues along the interlined portion, and natural intensification along Centre Street makes the Subway necessary or attractive, we can still revisit the decision without having wasted money on the Nose Creek alignment. At some point we would likely build an Airport connection either way, simply because a lot of people want it. Travel times would be longer than using Nose Creek until the Harvest Hills portion was rerouted to the Subway but sooner or later it would be. 7 Ave and the NE LRT would eventually become overburdened. Bus congestion along Centre Street will eventually become a problem

fusili

Mar 8, 2011, 4:20 PM

Have you guys actually read anything that Calgary Transit itself has said on the subject? Or is this just another subject around here where collective fantasy becomes the conventional wisdom?

Calgary Transit will be starting the public consultation aspect of the Centre Street Subway in fall. That is a fact. They are as much on board about this as we are.

You Need A Thneed

Mar 8, 2011, 4:22 PM

Simply put, either we spend money tunnelling some of the NC line under centre street, or we spend money figuring how to get the NC line from the nose creek valley into down town, and create another new line downtown.

If we connect the NC LRT as an extention of the SE LRT, that saves the additional downtown line cost for that line, which would cover a whole bunch of the tunneling under centre street cost.

Like was stated, the Nose Creek line is envisioned as joining the NE line at Zoo station. This would require one of:

1. Interlining between 11th Street W and the Zoo - not acceptable due turn around train in the middle of a line, operational problems.
2. Interlining between 69th Street W and the Zoo - would overserve the West line, and underserve the NE line - not acceptable.
3. Require a transfer onto the NE line at zoo station - capacity issues.

Policy Wonk, you claim that a centre street subway is never going to happen due to cost, but you also have to recognize that a Nose Creek routing is never going to happen due to being completely inadequate, or not saving much money at all.

Also, the city's latest plan (2010) shows a Nose Creek line, PLUS a streetcar down centre street - why not just combine the costs into one solution? Especially when the problems with the Nose Creek routing still exist as I and others have described, and a streetcar still has to interact with traffic, limiting its effectiveness.

I bet you could build the NC line up centre street as an extension of the SE line for roughly the same cost as a Nose Creek alignment and a centre street streetcar. The centre street LRT routing would be roughly the same cost, and much more effective.

fusili

Mar 8, 2011, 4:38 PM

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:05 PM

The current limitations of 7 Ave will be dealt with by burying the NW-S Line under 8 Ave.

Only partially so, 7th will still have to be addressed in its own right. The frequency that will ultimately be required can't effectively be served at grade in traffic.

This will end interlining and effectively double capacity into the core. Having done that we will decide it makes sense to reinitiate interlining and cause ourselves the same problem all over again?

Interlining in and of itself isn't a problem, obstructing "rapid transit" in traffic is the problem.

I do agree with you that some bus service would undoubtedly continue along major corridors in North Central Calgary. Just looking at the S LRT would show us the need. There is still bus service along Macleod Trail and the #3 continues to be busy despite operating on a parallel route in close proximity along Elbow Drive.

Great, were making progress.

The only negative to the Centre Street Subway is cost. In every other aspect it is equal, if not superior, to the Nose Creek alignment. It would serve the northern suburbs just as well. It would increase the maximum theoretical capacity into the downtown core. It would service the area south of Beddington Trail much better. Those benefits are worth something. Are they worth the increased cost? That is a matter for debate. At a minimum the city should develop some more concrete cost estimates.

This exercise has been repeated over and over again since the 1970's, the horse is bone meal.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:06 PM

Calgary Transit will be starting the public consultation aspect of the Centre Street Subway in fall. That is a fact. They are as much on board about this as we are.

I don't know a soul at Calgary Transit who has expressed any thoughts on the subject other than "Oh no, not this shit again!.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 8, 2011, 6:16 PM

They are as much on board about this as we are.

Remember they are mere bureaucrats, they are the government of the day's humble servants. Also, what agency is going to be against building something awesome for them to run? It is called empire building! I am sure the chief of transit would win an award for building mostly what would be called a subway in a small city and be headhunted by agencies across the continent to do the same for them.

None of that is to say I don't support the project with certain caveats, like supportive zoning, letting the bidder decide where it is cheapest to come above ground Canada Line style.

Just bureaucratic support is a given - look at Toronto's transit agency and how fast they moved from being in median LRT evangelists to subway or nothing supporters with the election of a new Mayor.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:18 PM

In response to your comment (ad libbed) Policy Wonk:

Communities would be up in arms about additional density: All the communities around 16th Avenue have already agreed to additional density on 16th avenue through the 16th Avenue North Corridor Plan. We are talking building heights of 9 to 17 stories along the corridor and FARs of 4.0 to 8.0 (Arriva is 11.0). That is serious density. And all of that was without the promise of better transit.

When have zoning concessions ever placated angry residents? Nobody will be seriously paying attention until significant proposals are made.

Turning East on 64th Avenue As others have said, there is a massive ROW on Centre Street north of 64th avenue. An LRT ROW could easily fit here.

So, you propose running the C-Train at grade between Centre Street and the various Huntford/Huntridge named residential streets. Just ask Sunnyside - they will LOVE it.

Redevelopment is better on the Nose Creek Alignment Because everyone wants to live in Greenview Industrial?

No, because Greenview Industrial will simply cease to exist. That is the nice thing about Greenview it is actually a manageable size for rapid redevelopment as opposed to say the wasteland east of McLeod Trail that is insurmountable.

fusili

Mar 8, 2011, 6:49 PM

When have zoning concessions ever placated angry residents? Nobody will be seriously paying attention until significant proposals are made.

It is already approved. The land use redesignations have all gone through and the zoning is in place. I don't seem to grasp your point here. Are you saying people will be up in arms regarding an upzoning, because they weren't.

So, you propose running the C-Train at grade between Centre Street and the various Huntford/Huntridge named residential streets. Just ask Sunnyside - they will LOVE it.

Yup. That is what I am proposing. We ran an LRT up 17th avenue SW as well. If we have to trench, so be it.

No, because Greenview Industrial will simply cease to exist. That is the nice thing about Greenview it is actually a manageable size for rapid redevelopment as opposed to say the wasteland east of McLeod Trail that is insurmountable.

So you are proposing that we buy out every single property owner in that area, or just magically assume they will all come in with land use applications at the same time and all start building at the same time as well? Who would want to be first in in that situation. Let's build a residential condo adjacent to the LRT station, and oh yeah, acres upon acres of adjacent industrial!!

Changing an industrial area to a residential area is nearly impossible. I don't know what makes you think this can happen.

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:51 PM

Nevermind, Redundant

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 6:59 PM

It is already approved. The land use redesignations have all gone through and the zoning is in place. I don't seem to grasp your point here. Are you saying people will be up in arms regarding an upzoning, because they weren't.

Indeed, you are absolutely right - residents never complain about projects that conform with zoning. And even if 16th has really drunk the koolaid - what about the rest of the strip?

Yup. That is what I am proposing. We ran an LRT up 17th avenue SW as well. If we have to trench, so be it.

Great, you can go door to door delivering the news. Were you around for the fight over the LRT alignment through Sunnyside?

So you are proposing that we buy out every single property owner in that area, or just magically assume they will all come in with land use applications at the same time and all start building at the same time as well? Who would want to be first in in that situation. Let's build a residential condo adjacent to the LRT station, and oh yeah, acres upon acres of adjacent industrial!!

Changing an industrial area to a residential area is nearly impossible. I don't know what makes you think this can happen.

Yup, that is why Greenview works - it is an industrial wasteland but it is a small industrial wasteland. Redeveloping industrials areas is nearly impossible because they are huge and there is always another block of blight. Greenview Industrial is small, has explicitly defined boundaries and is already in close proximity to community amenities in the surrounding area.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 8, 2011, 7:11 PM

Some images from the Sunnyside fight (lifted from Scartissue (http://www.scartissue.org/pastpro/lrt.html)):

http://www.scartissue.org/images/whatphoto.jpg

http://www.scartissue.org/images/lrt/lrtalert.jpg

http://www.scartissue.org/images/lrt/billboard.jpg

http://www.scartissue.org/images/lrt/rk.jpg

http://www.scartissue.org/images/lrt/kingkong.jpg

http://www.scartissue.org/images/benefit.jpg

http://www.scartissue.org/images/lrt/rockagainst.jpg

Radley77

Mar 8, 2011, 7:31 PM

sim

Mar 8, 2011, 7:46 PM

That is just taking for granted the people will exist to be served, the continued growth of the Northern fringe suburbs isn't in doubt. The serious intensification of the Centre Street corridor is unlikely.

Yes, if that kind of development continues - the kind that isn't at all conducive to efficient, operationally feasible transit. This isn't novel thinking, it's pretty damn obvious. Or... that kind of development is inched further and further away from, and we focus on increasing density - which is much friendlier to transit.

Well, the purpose of the North Central line has never been to serve the inner city and the Nose Creek alignment is an extremely economical route to the area it is intended to serve. It will be the cheapest track they have ever put down. It also opens up redevelopment opportunities in the Nose Creek wasteland of warehouses and barren golf courses where there are no NIMBY's to wage war.

True, purposes should never be changed... Nothing changes, and first and initial ideas are always the best.

I also have trouble believing that you actually believe that that area has much hope of redevelopment before, well, about every other single area of the city that is slated for redevelopment. See Edmonton Municipal Airport thread.

When 2173?

Even if this is built, it will never go an inch past 64th Ave, the costs of reaching the right-of-way north of Beddington Blvd are insurmountable.

How do you figure? So getting to 64th is fine, but that extra ca 2.5 km is gonna be a killer? Are you basing this off of property buy out, C and C, Boring, Elevating, Trenching?

I will be blunter still, the Centre Street subway will NEVER be built. And the great thing about Nose Creek is it wouldn't cost a billion dollars, indeed it will be the cheapest track ever laid.

May well be true. The cheapest and the stupidest. That may have an upside though - it can then be used in the future as an example for what not to do.

Nobody is breaking new ground here, these issues were flogged to death twenty five years ago and nothing has really changed in that time other than costs of all kinds have increased.

Lots has changed, well for some people, and it will continue to do so. Transit perception, construction technology, energy prices, development perception, environmental focus, etc.

We are arguing different things anyway. You're arguing what is/was, and I'm arguing what could (or should) be. Change is good.

fusili

Mar 8, 2011, 7:50 PM

When I looked at the 16th Avenue ARP, it didn't look like there was much upzoning for residential. At most 6 storeys for residential, and only directly against that block. The vast majority of residential zoning near 16 Ave are still zoned as R-C2. Maybe it just illustrates people are okay with upzoning if they believe it is on the edge of their community...

16 Avenue ARP (http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/sixteen_avenue_north_study/sixteen_avenue_north_study_one.pdf)

Centre and 16 Ave Land Use (http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/dba/lud_section_maps/1p2007/27C.pdf)

Depends on what you are building. Typical residential floor height is about 3m, and commercial is 4m. So most of the C-COR1 zoning on 16th avenue would get you 1 commercial storey and about 6 residential stories on top of that, if not more.

And it is more important to note the FAR rather than the height, because FAR is what controls density not height. A FAR of 4.0 can get you some considerable density.

kw5150

Mar 8, 2011, 7:58 PM

The stations between Stampede and Chinook Centre on the south LRT line seem utterly useless....no? Why would we repeat this condition? It has taken 30 years for just a few condos to be built along that stretch. We need something that serves the people now not later. AND......some solutions only seem to focus on moving people from the suburbs to the city centre.......these people knew what they were getting into when they moved way out there. If I moved to the burbs.........I would EXPECT to drive or take a lengthly bus trip everyday. I wouldn't expect the city to build a train line for me right away. The most successful areas of train lines (interms of vibrancy and popularity) run next to shopping malls, houses, and important venues. The lines running through industrial areas are quickly forgotten.

The best route would be something that runs through the inner city.....then out to the burbs........just as fusili is pointing out. Policy, you have to weigh all of the points. I do like the idea that an industrial area could slowly convert into a mixed commercial - residential area but there are reasons why that area is NOT a residential area right now that may be hard to change until 30 years later. Surely we can find a great solution.

Why is it ok to bulldoze 300 homes for a ring road but doing it for a sensible, semi quiet, train line is not?

OMG....talking in circles and no time to edit.....

Policy Wonk

Mar 8, 2011, 8:08 PM

Some images from the Sunnyside fight (lifted from Scartissue (http://www.scartissue.org/pastpro/lrt.html)):
http://www.scartissue.org/images/benefit.jpg

The city tired (unsuccessfully) to get the crown to press sedition charges for that one,

DizzyEdge

Mar 8, 2011, 8:14 PM

So funny since everyone I know who loves in the area loves that the train is right there.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 8, 2011, 8:17 PM

So funny since everyone I know who loves in the area loves that the train is right there.

The lovers may love, but the haters gonna hate.

DizzyEdge

Mar 8, 2011, 8:56 PM

Er lives in the area.
.....well probably loves too.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 8, 2011, 9:10 PM

Er lives in the area.
.....well probably loves too.

Where will the children play takes on a whole new meaning ...

kw5150

Mar 8, 2011, 11:28 PM

Where will the children play takes on a whole new meaning ...

lol.....that line will never get tiring. Although, oddly enough, I have been factoring that into my daliy thoughts about design. Where will the children play?

Koolfire

Mar 9, 2011, 12:39 AM

Mayland Heights is a toilet in its own right with or without the industrial and was there first, that doesn't address the potential for redevelopment of the Greenview Insdustrial area.

Right Greenview Industrial is such a nice area with it dirt roads and active rail line. Greenview with all it's amenities makes it sooo attractive. The grocery store, nope, walking clinic, nope, fitness/gym,nope, school, 1 but Mayland has 3. Greenview has nothing to compare. Like you say the subway won't exist, let me be clear Greenview industrial will not be redeveloped. EVER. History is not on your side. 39th ave station has beautiful homes on the other side of McLeod, it was part of the original LRT line, and there has be no, zip, residental redevelopment in the industrial area.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Greenview, it's not a better candidate for redevelopment.

Koolfire

Mar 9, 2011, 1:27 AM

Yup, that is why Greenview works - it is an industrial wasteland but it is a small industrial wasteland. Redeveloping industrials areas is nearly impossible because they are huge and there is always another block of blight. Greenview Industrial is small, has explicitly defined boundaries and is already in close proximity to community amenities in the surrounding area.

A not small, be blight of Deerfoot and the industrial on the side of deerfoot will still exist.
B No one wants really wants to live next to a rail line.
C The legality of expropriating property to change the zoning and reselling to a developer is dubious. (If this possible then expropriate Sunnyside) Losing a job is right up there with losing a home. At least with losing you home your compensated.
D The carrying costs required to purchase all the land that you expropriated makes a Subway seem cheap. Especially seeing how fast developers snapped up East Village. How many years did that take? To buy all the land your could be talking 3 billion? @ 8% for 10 years.
E Then there is demolish costs and reclamation costs. Both time and money.
F The land would have to be developed in a way that there is profit, industrial land is expensive, way more then farmland, so you would have to build big to breakeven.
G Brings us back to time to develop all that land, building big means lots and lots of unit and who knows how long it would take Calgary to absorb that much excess inventory.
H Road infrastructure, the current system is bounded (/w no access) on the north by McKnight, East by Deerfoot, and West Nose Creek. 32 ave connector is not going to be enough to handle the amount of people we're talking about. So now we have to look at bridging Nose Creek and upgrading Edmonton trail, likely an interchange at Edmonton trail and McKnight as direct access to McKnight is impossible. Direct Access to Deerfoot is impossible, flyover is possible but then your in the blight of another industrial area.

Bassic Lab

Mar 9, 2011, 2:40 AM

Only partially so, 7th will still have to be addressed in its own right. The frequency that will ultimately be required can't effectively be served at grade in traffic.

Interlining in and of itself isn't a problem, obstructing "rapid transit" in traffic is the problem.

Great, were making progress.

This exercise has been repeated over and over again since the 1970's, the horse is bone meal.

To what extent is capacity constrained on 7 Ave because of traffic interactions? We know that interlining would halve capacity when compared to having two routes into downtown. Is surface operation really worse than that? I would still like to see some numbers for maximum theoretical capacity on a surface 7 Ave route and a tunnelled route. Then we would be able to see if either could actually handle the projected ridership of both the N and NE lines.

Really, if the 7 Ave surface route is only used by the W-NE line then it should suffice for the foreseeable future. We may want to bury it eventually to improve travel time, traffic flow, and system safety but capacity should not be a problem. That is, unless we expect the W-NE line to carry significantly more passengers than the entire system carries today. I can't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

I wouldn't say we're making much progress on the bus issue. Maybe if you ignore everything that came after what you quoted. As in the part where I still contend that a Centre Street Subway would undoubtedly both change and reduce the current bus service to the area. That does not mean that bus service would be eliminated but it does mean that there would not be a duplication of subway and bus service.

fusili

Mar 9, 2011, 4:45 AM

Ramsayfarian

Mar 9, 2011, 4:55 AM

Just read an interesting article on Slugging. I know we don't a lot of HOV lanes here, but I wish Calgarians would start doing this just to lighten the traffic.

"And off the three go toward the highway — and the suburbs — complete strangers, with not the least concern for personal safety, trying to shave 20 or 30 minutes, maybe more, off their afternoon trip home. “People are cooperating … to commute?” says Marc Oliphant, underscoring the novelty of what is going on here. “It’s like the opposite of road rage!”"
Rest of the article http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/slugging-the-peoples-transit-28068/

Bassic Lab

Mar 9, 2011, 5:18 AM

Just to be clear, the interlining issue has nothing to do with travel time or interaction with traffic in the downtown. Because the Nose Creek alignment will access the downtown through the NE line at the zoo, it forces all the cars from the NE and the NC (Nose Creek) to travel to the terminus of the west line @ 69th street station, because that is the only turn around. That forces a situation where the west line has to run at double the frequency of the other two lines, even though it won't have double the ridership. In fact the west line is going to have less ridership than the NE line, which is what will determine frequency. If you have two portions of a line, it shouldn't be the lower ridership portion that determines frequency.

Well, it has a little something to do with traffic interaction downtown. With the Nose Creek alignment, trying to meet demand on both the N LRT and NE LRT would mean both an abundance of unnecessary capacity on the W LRT and more trains operating on 7 Ave. Pushing more trains onto 7 Ave will affect traffic interactions.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 6:05 AM

Just to be clear, the interlining issue has nothing to do with travel time or interaction with traffic in the downtown. Because the Nose Creek alignment will access the downtown through the NE line at the zoo, it forces all the cars from the NE and the NC (Nose Creek) to travel to the terminus of the west line @ 69th street station, because that is the only turn around. That forces a situation where the west line has to run at double the frequency of the other two lines, even though it won't have double the ridership. In fact the west line is going to have less ridership than the NE line, which is what will determine frequency. If you have two portions of a line, it shouldn't be the lower ridership portion that determines frequency.

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, the North Central LRT will run to the terminus of the West LRT - this is not a revelation or a problem. Perhaps you are familiar with the route of the 301 which serves as the proof of concept for both the Nose Creek and West LRT. I also have on good authority that the 201 LRT runs all the way from Crowfoot to Bridlewood.

And yes, if you want to reject interlining on the grounds of 7th Ave capacity you can't ignore that capacity is forfeited when trains are stopped for red lights for minutes at a time. This has nothing to do with the North Central LRT and will have to be confronted long before any Northern alignment is built out.

mooky

Mar 9, 2011, 7:37 AM

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, the North Central LRT will run to the terminus of the West LRT - this is not a revelation or a problem.

It is a problem when you have 2 lines going into one which is what is supposed to happen around Zoo Station where the NC and NE lines are, given the current configuration alignment, to meet and merge before heading into downtown.

The point of the 8th avenue subway is to take the 2 existing lines and split them, and then you just want to go right back to slamming 2 lines into one line again when and if they build the NC line up nose creek? Are you mad? 20 years out the LRT is going to have even higher ridership than it currently enjoys, we'll be right back to a bottle-neck.

Is the NC subway up Center cheap? No, no one has suggested that. Is it the smarter of the two routes? Heck yes!

A SE -> NC LRT with a subway through downtown and probably up to at least 64th Avenue makes the most practical use of infrastructure. 3 distinct lines that all have a common meeting point in and around 7/8th avenue downtown as a transfer hub.

You're only argument that has any merit Policy Wonk is the financial aspect. Otherwise your arguments have already been rebutted by other forummer's whose arguments also have merit and are well thought out.

I'm no planner, but the plan on the books for nose creek makes as much sense as having the proposed SE LRT skip its own tunnel into downtown and somehow miraculously turn it westbound (prior to Inglewood) and merge it with the SW LRT (maybe at 39th avenue) and then have them share the tunnel into downtown... I know, it's a stupid idea, packing two sets of trains onto the already overloaded SW line... such silliness ;)

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 7:41 AM

A not small, be blight of Deerfoot and the industrial on the side of deerfoot will still exist.

It is certainly small relative to other blighted industrial areas.

B No one wants really wants to live next to a rail line.

No kidding, have you seen Coventry Hills or Inglewood, they look like a Scooby Doo ghost town.

C The legality of expropriating property to change the zoning and reselling to a developer is dubious. (If this possible then expropriate Sunnyside) Losing a job is right up there with losing a home. At least with losing you home your compensated.

D The carrying costs required to purchase all the land that you expropriated makes a Subway seem cheap. Especially seeing how fast developers snapped up East Village. How many years did that take? To buy all the land your could be talking 3 billion? @ 8% for 10 years.

[/quote]

Who said anything about expropriation? A commitment, a coherent redevelopment plan and a a whole lot of warning with suffice. And on that note lets talk about the East Village.

The greatest impediment to the redevelopment of the East Village is the concentration of social services agencies. Even fully built out it will still be a magnet for vagrants and all that goes with it. This on the other hand is a relatively isolated area along a recreation corridor a short distance from the amenities of established communities.

The warehousing in the area is far more truck than train oriented, the location is of little consequence. Several of those warehouses are completely empty

Then there is demolish costs and reclamation costs. Both time and money.

Warehousing isn't a particularly problematic land use from a reclamation standpoint. And you could bring down a giant warehouse in a matter of hours. They aren't complicated or formidable structures.

F The land would have to be developed in a way that there is profit, industrial land is expensive, way more then farmland, so you would have to build big to breakeven.

It can be expensive or not, the Wallace and Carey facility, with its own railroad siding is only assessed at less than $7 million, other large but largely unimproved sites are assessed at less than a million. This is the least of the challenges.

G Brings us back to time to develop all that land, building big means lots and lots of unit and who knows how long it would take Calgary to absorb that much excess inventory.

Over the course of a decade, not overwhelming.

H Road infrastructure, the current system is bounded (/w no access) on the north by McKnight, East by Deerfoot, and West Nose Creek. 32 ave connector is not going to be enough to handle the amount of people we're talking about. So now we have to look at bridging Nose Creek and upgrading Edmonton trail, likely an interchange at Edmonton trail and McKnight as direct access to McKnight is impossible. Direct Access to Deerfoot is impossible, flyover is possible but then your in the blight of another industrial area.

I thought you guys were all about transit oriented development? Since when did insufficient roadways dampen your spirit? And no, the crescent of Beaver Dam Road and Goddard Ave to 4th Street would be sufficient combined with new internal roadways.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 8:01 AM

It is a problem when you have 2 lines going into one which is what is supposed to happen around Zoo Station where the NC and NE lines are, given the current configuration alignment, to meet and merge before heading into downtown.

The point of the 8th avenue subway is to take the 2 existing lines and split them, and then you just want to go right back to slamming 2 lines into one line again when and if they build the NC line up nose creek? Are you mad? 20 years out the LRT is going to have even higher ridership than it currently enjoys, we'll be right back to a bottle-neck.

Even if no North Central LRT is ever build 7th Ave will independently reach capacity as constrained by surface traffic. Interlining is not in and of itself a problem, trains stopped at red lights and squandering capacity is a problem. I am laughing my ass off at this thread because I know some guys in the states working on an interlining project, the belief being that reducing transfers will stimulate ridership. This is not a bad word.

Is the NC subway up Center cheap? No, no one has suggested that. Is it the smarter of the two routes? Heck yes!

Ruthlessly advocating for something that is impractical for half a dozen independent reasons and unlikely to ever be built isn't smart. It is wasted energy and in this case sabotage against thirty years of solid planning.

You're only argument that has any merit Policy Wonk is the financial aspect. Otherwise your arguments have already been rebutted by other forummer's whose arguments also have merit and are well thought out.

You guys haven't rebutted anything because all your arguments are based on necessities occurring that have no basis in reality (or are simply incorrect) and an unquestioning public embrace of urban intensification. If money was no object a subway would be pretty interesting, if air was no object we could live under the sea - but i'm not house hunting for submarine pineapples just in case.

The Chemist

Mar 9, 2011, 8:22 AM

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 8:32 AM

To what extent is capacity constrained on 7 Ave because of traffic interactions? We know that interlining would halve capacity when compared to having two routes into downtown. Is surface operation really worse than that? I would still like to see some numbers for maximum theoretical capacity on a surface 7 Ave route and a tunnelled route. Then we would be able to see if either could actually handle the projected ridership of both the N and NE lines.

This is really, really simple. Headways are the time and distance between trains. Stationary trains require longer headways which reduces potential frequency. With the present situation LRT's traverse the core at low speed while stopping at intersections dramatically reducing the potential capacity.

Really, if the 7 Ave surface route is only used by the W-NE line then it should suffice for the foreseeable future. We may want to bury it eventually to improve travel time, traffic flow, and system safety but capacity should not be a problem. That is, unless we expect the W-NE line to carry significantly more passengers than the entire system carries today. I can't see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

The stated goal of Calgary Transit is to eventually operate at 2 or 3 minute headways with 82 trainsets system wide. That isn't practical interacting with surface traffic on 7th ave.

I wouldn't say we're making much progress on the bus issue. Maybe if you ignore everything that came after what you quoted. As in the part where I still contend that a Centre Street Subway would undoubtedly both change and reduce the current bus service to the area. That does not mean that bus service would be eliminated but it does mean that there would not be a duplication of subway and bus service.

I think we have made great progress seeing as we started with a near consensus that all recognizable forms of bus service would be replaced with feeder routes running east-west to the new subway stations.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 8:39 AM

Interlining IS bad. Period. It reduces capacity on both lines. The only way it works is if you quadruple-track the interlined sections and have 4 platforms per station, because then trains running on one line don't require headway separation with trains on the other line.

There is interlining on a section of the Shanghai Metro, and it's terrible - it increases the minimum headway on both lines at rush hour to 5 minutes, when both lines really need 2.5 minute headway.

Interlining doesn't reduce capacity, it is just a way of allocating capacity between multiple routes which can also create flexibility and economies of scale.

In the case of 7th Ave even operating independently at grade Calgary Transit will not be able to operate at the headways they propose even if the North Central LRT is never built.

Bassic Lab

Mar 9, 2011, 8:51 AM

Even if no North Central LRT is ever build 7th Ave will independently reach capacity as constrained by surface traffic. Interlining is not in and of itself a problem, trains stopped at red lights and squandering capacity is a problem. I am laughing my ass off at this thread because I know some guys in the states working on an interlining project, the belief being that reducing transfers will stimulate ridership. This is not a bad word.

Ruthlessly advocating for something that is impractical for half a dozen independent reasons and unlikely to ever be built isn't smart. It is wasted energy and in this case sabotage against thirty years of solid planning.

You guys haven't rebutted anything because all your arguments are based on necessities occurring that have no basis in reality (or are simply incorrect) and an unquestioning public embrace of urban intensification. If money was no object a subway would be pretty interesting, if air was no object we could live under the sea - but i'm not house hunting for submarine pineapples just in case.

Interlining is great if the portion that is being interlined has the capacity for more service and the branches do not require very much service. You haven't shown that to be the case here. The NE line needs a great deal of service and 7 Ave doesn't have the capacity to let it in. I cannot imagine grade separation in downtown would double the capacity of the line. Interlining would halve the capacity of the line.

A Centre Street Subway is hardly the money is no object option. It is two or three times the expense of the West LRT we are currently building. It is easily half of whatever the price tag is eventually going to be for the ring road. It would be a big, expensive project but not a wild flight of fancy. If we can afford the West LRT and the ring road, then we can afford it.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 9:24 AM

And for the sixth or seventh time the capacity constraints of 7th Ave, even operating independently will have to be addressed long before any North Central LRT is built and even if it is never built. Grade separation would dramatically increase capacity by allowing for headways that don't have to accommodate traffic lights and traversing the core at tricycle speed.

Only 2 or 3 times the cost... the cost of the West LRT was a heresy in and of itself. Deviating from a well accepted and economical alignment to something only "two or three times the cost of the West LRT" isn't going to win many parties over.

sim

Mar 9, 2011, 10:04 AM

Even if no North Central LRT is ever build 7th Ave will independently reach capacity as constrained by surface traffic. Interlining is not in and of itself a problem, trains stopped at red lights and squandering capacity is a problem. I am laughing my ass off at this thread because I know some guys in the states working on an interlining project, the belief being that reducing transfers will stimulate ridership. This is not a bad word.

Gonna have to agree with you there. I don't see interlining as a problem in and of itself. Thus, I've maintained that any 8th ave subway should see the two lines interlined. The necessary headways can be acheived (far into the future as far as I'm concerned,) with optimal operations. It's just the many external factors that destroy this at grade and within traffic. Traffic lights being only one of those. Were it not interlined, but at grade there would of course still be the problems created by this, but at a much more manageable level. It's a lot easier to optimize and prioritize signals for half the amount of trains.

However, what Fusili is saying is indeed a good point. As it currently sits, we would see the NW - S line underground and thus, the NC and NE line running further on to the West. The SE would presumably terminate downtown (already not a good idea in itself (long-term.))

Thus, the W line would see double the frequency. Quite simply, the NE or NC could operate as the NE does now and just terminate at the west end of DT (definitely not the east) to mitigate that problem, but that still leaves us right back with the problem of why the NW-S line was buried to begin with. I don't see what is confusing about that? You very much seem to be advocating for solving the 7th Ave at grade problem (and I fully agree interlined or not,) yet your particular solution seems to only further reinforce it. That is confusing.

The Chemist

Mar 9, 2011, 10:35 AM

Interlining doesn't reduce capacity, it is just a way of allocating capacity between multiple routes which can also create flexibility and economies of scale.

How does interlining NOT reduce capacity if you could run trains every 2.5 minutes on each line without it but can only run trains every 5 minutes with it?

Koolfire

Mar 9, 2011, 2:59 PM

The stated goal of Calgary Transit is to eventually operate at 2 or 3 minute headways with 82 trainsets system wide. That isn't practical interacting with surface traffic on 7th ave.

They already do. Between 7 and 8 there is 11 trains on 202 and 16 on 201 that pass through 7th ave Eastbound. So that under 3 but slightly over 2.

You Need A Thneed

Mar 9, 2011, 3:32 PM

Whitehorn Station South Access:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/18d68f62.jpg

You Need A Thneed

Mar 9, 2011, 4:00 PM

How does interlining NOT reduce capacity if you could run trains every 2.5 minutes on each line without it but can only run trains every 5 minutes with it?

Let's look at it this way. When the 8th Ave subway is built, and only the NE-W line is running on 7th ave, the capacity of the NE line is 3 times what it currently is. going up to 4 car trains increases capacity by 33%. Using all the time slots used by S-NW trains currently increases capacity by 100%, but even more than that, because there are a few more 201 trains going through downtown than 202 trains. And that's assuming no improvements can be made with signallingm, etc, and means that no more trains go through downtown on 7th ave than what CURRENTLY do.

I see no reason why a 3 fold increase in capacity won't be enough for the NE-W line throughout my lifetime, at least.

Interlining immediately cuts capacity in half (since the NC would have similar ridership to the NE line), meaning that we don't get a 3x increase in capacity on the NE line, we only can get about a 50% increase in capacity from what is current. We know that without signalling improvements, its tough to practically fit more trains downtown. The NE line is quite full currently, has two more stations opening up next year, which will add a little to the ridership, plus there are four more future stations planned for, which will go through future residential areas that aren't small, then on to a dense new industrial/commercial centre, and considering that the MD has set aside space for the LRT, the NE line could eventually head up to Cross Iron Mills. I think a threefold increase in capacity can handle that. I KNOW that a 50% increase will not be nearly enough.

Obviously, a transfer at Zoo station would not be accessible either, there would never be room for extra riders to get on, and especially not in the numbers that would be riding the NC line.

So, if we would require a different downtown access for the NC line (we do, clearly), why not save the cost and build the NC line as an extension of the SE line, where the downtown infrastrcuture would already be in place? Sure, a subway up Centre Street would be expensive (I don't think anyone has said it wouldn't be), but the costs become much closer together for the different options when you save the $500 or so million that a new downtown connection would cost if the NC route is used.

Also, like I said before, the latest (2010) plan shows a streetcar also going down centre street. Doing a subway would eliminate the need for that, so we can use the cost of that system in the cost comparision as well. Like I said before, the $500M on a downtown connection, and $500 million on a centre street streetcar (rough guesses) would go quite a ways to building a centre street subway. Like others have said, the subway only has to go as far as 64th Ave, no further, before it can become an at-grade system. Keeping lots like the former The Brick lot at the corner of Centre and 16th clear to aid future subway construction, and provide a station head, could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future as well.

I think the tunneling could easily be done cut and cover, saving cost, and I don't think it would be outrageously expensive. How much did the entire Canada line in Vancouver cost? A centre street subway here should be somewhat cheaper.

Bassic Lab

Mar 9, 2011, 4:01 PM

They already do. Between 7 and 8 there is 11 trains on 202 and 16 on 201 that pass through 7th ave Eastbound. So that under 3 but slightly over 2.

That gives a maximum capacity (given the maximum per car figure of 236 passengers) of about 19 000 PpHpD with three car trains (with less than 8000 devoted to the NE LRT) and about 25 000 with four. A theoretical 7 Ave subway would allow five car trains, nearly 32 000 PpHpD right there, and some improvement in maximum headways. I have no idea to what degree headway times could be decreased. Anyone have any idea of just how many more trains could be pushed through a buried downtown route compared to a surface one?

Bassic Lab

Mar 9, 2011, 4:41 PM

Let's look at it this way. When the 8th Ave subway is built, and only the NE-W line is running on 7th ave, the capacity of the NE line is 3 times what it currently is. going up to 4 car trains increases capacity by 33%. Using all the time slots used by S-NW trains currently increases capacity by 100%, but even more than that, because there are a few more 201 trains going through downtown than 202 trains. And that's assuming no improvements can be made with signallingm, etc, and means that no more trains go through downtown on 7th ave than what CURRENTLY do.

I see no reason why a 3 fold increase in capacity won't be enough for the NE-W line throughout my lifetime, at least.

Interlining immediately cuts capacity in half (since the NC would have similar ridership to the NE line), meaning that we don't get a 3x increase in capacity on the NE line, we only can get about a 50% increase in capacity from what is current. We know that without signalling improvements, its tough to practically fit more trains downtown. The NE line is quite full currently, has two more stations opening up next year, which will add a little to the ridership, plus there are four more future stations planned for, which will go through future residential areas that aren't small, then on to a dense new industrial/commercial centre, and considering that the MD has set aside space for the LRT, the NE line could eventually head up to Cross Iron Mills. I think a threefold increase in capacity can handle that. I KNOW that a 50% increase will not be nearly enough.

Obviously, a transfer at Zoo station would not be accessible either, there would never be room for extra riders to get on, and especially not in the numbers that would be riding the NC line.

So, if we would require a different downtown access for the NC line (we do, clearly), why not save the cost and build the NC line as an extension of the SE line, where the downtown infrastrcuture would already be in place? Sure, a subway up Centre Street would be expensive (I don't think anyone has said it wouldn't be), but the costs become much closer together for the different options when you save the $500 or so million that a new downtown connection would cost if the NC route is used.

Also, like I said before, the latest (2010) plan shows a streetcar also going down centre street. Doing a subway would eliminate the need for that, so we can use the cost of that system in the cost comparision as well. Like I said before, the $500M on a downtown connection, and $500 million on a centre street streetcar (rough guesses) would go quite a ways to building a centre street subway. Like others have said, the subway only has to go as far as 64th Ave, no further, before it can become an at-grade system. Keeping lots like the former The Brick lot at the corner of Centre and 16th clear to aid future subway construction, and provide a station head, could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future as well.

I think the tunneling could easily be done cut and cover, saving cost, and I don't think it would be outrageously expensive. How much did the entire Canada line in Vancouver cost? A centre street subway here should be somewhat cheaper.

The Canada Line cost upwards of 2 billion dollars. It gets a bit complicated because of the P3 funding model. It is in some ways very comparable. The length of subway would be nearly identical to a route stretching from the terminus of the SE LRT to just north of Beddington Trail. Even the portion of the tunnel bored in Vancouver, downtown and across false creek, would be comparable to a need to bore under the Bow River here. That said there would be a couple of major differences. First, we would not have an additional ten kilometres of elevated track. We would instead have four kilometres of surface track in a reserved ROW in the median of Harvest Hills. This would be much cheaper. Second, we would in all likelihood want longer station platforms. This would make station costs significantly more expensive. I don't know how those two factors would play out. The Centre Street Subway could be either cheaper or more expensive than the Canada Line, depending on which one makes the biggest difference.

On another point. I really don't think it would make sense to end the subway portion at 64 Ave. The ROW is only wide enough for about a mile until Beddington Boulevard. It then narrows slightly until Bergen Rd/Beddington Drive at which point it narrows considerably. Along the stretch north of 64 Ave it would have to rise to grade while also climbing a hill. We might as well at least keep it in a trench between 64 and Beddington Boulevard, then cover it north of there. It would eliminate the need to expropriate much property.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 9, 2011, 5:13 PM

Second, we would in all likelihood want longer station platforms. This would make station costs significantly more expensive. I don't know how those two factors would play out. The Centre Street Subway could be either cheaper or more expensive than the Canada Line, depending on which one makes the biggest difference.

Big stations are bloody expensive under or above ground. That is why it would be good to figure out what capacity the city wanted to design for, where and how many stations we want, and then be technologically neutral in the bid. Low floor LRT also requires a very wide tunnel bore since the widest portion of the vehicle is at track level and you need to provision for pantographs.

It may turn out that if we want a Centre St route , it makes financial sense to automate, grade separate, and ratchet up the headway of the entire line to allow for much shorter stations. This is a reason why it would be great to tender together with the SE line - we could end up with a much high level of service by giving up some control.

The SE LRT document has provisions for 5 car trainsets, which end up with platforms north of 150m long. Switching to 80m stations could save enough money that over the length of the project combined with operational savings of having no drivers for 30 years might be cheaper than LRT. The best way to figure out if that is true is by doing a technology neutral P3.

CTrainDude

Mar 9, 2011, 5:18 PM

Nevermind.........

Bassic Lab

Mar 9, 2011, 7:01 PM

Big stations are bloody expensive under or above ground. That is why it would be good to figure out what capacity the city wanted to design for, where and how many stations we want, and then be technologically neutral in the bid. Low floor LRT also requires a very wide tunnel bore since the widest portion of the vehicle is at track level and you need to provision for pantographs.

It may turn out that if we want a Centre St route , it makes financial sense to automate, grade separate, and ratchet up the headway of the entire line to allow for much shorter stations. This is a reason why it would be great to tender together with the SE line - we could end up with a much high level of service by giving up some control.

The SE LRT document has provisions for 5 car trainsets, which end up with platforms north of 150m long. Switching to 80m stations could save enough money that over the length of the project combined with operational savings of having no drivers for 30 years might be cheaper than LRT. The best way to figure out if that is true is by doing a technology neutral P3.

I am really not sold on the benefits of low floor trains on the SE Line.

A technology neutral P3 would simply give us what a corporation thinks would be the cheapest possible option to achieve what the city estimates it might need. It could just as easily blow up in our faces. The city's estimate might be too low and it would then be on the hook for the much more expensive job of trying to retrofit longer platforms on a previously built line. Even if the estimate is correct, the bidder would have no reason to mitigate any costs that would arise after the terms of the agreement are over. The city could be stuck dealing with multiple incompatible systems for ever. I fail to see how we would end up with a higher level of service by giving up control. The line's capacity would be determined by the city. Anything the bidder could do to make it cheaper would be in their interest even if it was counter to the city's interest. Signing away control just means that we could not stop them from doing it.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 9, 2011, 8:17 PM

fusili

Mar 9, 2011, 8:54 PM

Ok, here is the interlining issue explained with an example.

In San Francisco all the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) trains coming from the east bay into San Francisco use the West Oakland to Embarcadero Tunnel and that subway ROW extends to Daly City station (where 2 of the lines turn around). There are 4 separate lines using this tunnel (well actually more, because the MUNI trains also use the tunnel), from Fremont, Dublin, Pittsburg and Richmond. Whatever the maximum headway is on the Oakland to Daly City line, that headway has to be divided between the four different lines.

Right now that corridor is at the maximum headway it can handle. None of the east bay lines can increase in frequency anymore because the interlined portion is at capacity. Because of this, any other rail lines in San Fran cannot use the Embarcadero to Daly City metro tunnel. Expansion plans for a subway into Richmond (another Richmond that is in San Fran itself) cannot use the BART tunnel because it is at capacity and most likely a new tunnel will have to be built.

This is exactly the issue with the NC and NE LRT lines. They are forced to share the West LRT ROW. So any benefit that separating the NW/South Line from the NE/West line is negated by interlining again. Effectively the Nose Creek alignment cuts the potential NELRT capacity by half. And with a line that is at capacity already and will only experience additional growth (as YNAT pointed out), cutting its potential frequency by half is a bad idea.

And with regards to your comment about transit planners talking about the benefits of interlining Policy Wonk, they aren't planning in cities like Calgary (or San Francisco) where the headways and consists are at capacity. The cities they are planning in are cities trying to build their ridership up and probaly have dismal ridership. We, on the other hand, are trying to deal with too much ridership. Ask those transit planners to talk to transit planners in San Fran about interlining on the Embarcadero to Daly City line. They will tell them it is hell.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 10:05 PM

How does interlining NOT reduce capacity if you could run trains every 2.5 minutes on each line without it but can only run trains every 5 minutes with it?

Because capacity isn't measured by the frequency of a given route, it is measured by the number of trains, any trains, that can operate on a given leg in a given time.

polishavenger

Mar 9, 2011, 10:37 PM

Because capacity isn't measured by the frequency of a given route, it is measured by the number of trains, any trains, that can operate on a given leg in a given time.

What Policy Wonk is getting at is the physical capacity of a line is unchanged regardless of how many routes run on it. What changes is the capacity of each individual route. So lets say the capacity of the tracks between the zoo station and DT is 1. At the current time, the entire capacity of 1 can be used entirely by the NE line. If you interlace the Nose Creek line and run it at the same frequency as the NE line, then the NE has lost .5 of its capacity, and the Nose Creek line has taken the other .5, but the overall capacity is still 1.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 10:39 PM

They already do. Between 7 and 8 there is 11 trains on 202 and 16 on 201 that pass through 7th ave Eastbound. So that under 3 but slightly over 2.

They already schedule it, U of C did a study on this just last year concerning the NE line that was presented at the World Conference on Transport Research. Between the hours of 6 and 9 am 25% of trains are delayed more than a minute traveling between 3rd and 10th street and 21% traveling between 10th street and City Hall.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 10:43 PM

Also, like I said before, the latest (2010) plan shows a streetcar also going down centre street.

They are throwing a bone to some of the particularly green alderpersons, there is no serious plan to do any such thing. Calgary Transit had a nightmare with the trolley bus catenary on centre street.

fusili

Mar 9, 2011, 10:45 PM

Because capacity isn't measured by the frequency of a given route, it is measured by the number of trains, any trains, that can operate on a given leg in a given time.

Exactly, and the number of trains on the NE line and Nose Creek line would only ever be half of the maximum capacity of the 7th Avenue LRT ROW. I don't see how you don't understand that interlining the Nose Creek line with the NE line reduces the maximum capacity by half of both of them.

You Need A Thneed

Mar 9, 2011, 11:09 PM

They are throwing a bone to some of the particularly green alderpersons, there is no serious plan to do any such thing. Calgary Transit had a nightmare with the trolley bus catenary on centre street.

It's a long term idea anyway, they don't really need a serious plan to "do" anything at this time. That's beside the point.

We also don't even know if they would use overhead catenary at the time it would be built. Perhaps, by that time, they could all be battery operated. If battery technology advances as fast in the time between now and when the line would be built as it has in the last 10-20 years, its certainly believable, but probably more than that - even "likely", IMO.

I'd also like to know how you know what CT was thinking when they put it on the plan, and how you figure that they were simply "throwing a bone." Considering the current bus traffic, and assuming growth in the corridor, it's certainly a logical idea.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 11:36 PM

Ask those transit planners to talk to transit planners in San Fran about interlining on the Embarcadero to Daly City line. They will tell them it is hell.

Which planners would those be, the BART Operations Planning or local rock throwers? They are implementing an improved railway signal and traffic control system to reduce headways and provisioning for higher capacity rolling stock.

The ultimate problem for the BART is the Transbay Tube. Calgary will get its Centre Street subway before the Bay Area gets a second Transbay Tunnel, estimated cost in 2008 $10.3 billion.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 11:39 PM

Exactly, and the number of trains on the NE line and Nose Creek line would only ever be half of the maximum capacity of the 7th Avenue LRT ROW. I don't see how you don't understand that interlining the Nose Creek line with the NE line reduces the maximum capacity by half of both of them.

I don't see how you can't understand that this just isn't a problem with a grade separated 7th ave. Something which will have to happen with or without the Nose Creek LRT.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 11:43 PM

I'd also like to know how you know what CT was thinking when they put it on the plan, and how you figure that they were simply "throwing a bone." Considering the current bus traffic, and assuming growth in the corridor, it's certainly a logical idea.

First hand knowledge, take it or leave it.

You Need A Thneed

Mar 9, 2011, 11:46 PM

I don't see how you can't understand that this just isn't a problem with a grade separated 7th ave. Something which will have to happen with or without the Nose Creek LRT.

I've already shown you why 7th ave will never require grade separation. In short, without increasing the number of trains on 7th ave, the number of people taking the 202 line can roughly triple.

Besides, if we are taking about the expense of tunnelling another tunnel through downtown, why not just tunnel under centre street instead? We could cut and cover tunnel most of the centre street route, while 7th Ave would likely have to be bored - and perhaps involve shutting down the entire 202 line for several years.

fusili

Mar 9, 2011, 11:49 PM

Which planners would those be, the BART Operations Planning or local rock throwers? They are implementing an improved railway signal and traffic control system to reduce headways and provisioning for higher capacity rolling stock.

The ultimate problem for the BART is the Transbay Tube. Calgary will get its Centre Street subway before the Bay Area gets a second Transbay Tunnel, estimated cost in 2008 $10.3 billion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Transbay tube not using BART gauge tracks, but the same gauge of tracks as Caltrain and the future High Speed Rail? Which is why the future Geary line is more likely to use the Caltrain gauge of track.

But now we are off topic a bit.

fusili

Mar 9, 2011, 11:51 PM

I don't see how you can't understand that this just isn't a problem with a grade separated 7th ave. Something which will have to happen with or without the Nose Creek LRT.

We don't have to bury the NE/West line ever, as YNAT has pointed out.

We only need to bury the NW/S line because of the reduced frequency due to interlining.

Policy Wonk

Mar 9, 2011, 11:54 PM

I've already shown you why 7th ave will never require grade separation. In short, without increasing the number of trains on 7th ave, the number of people taking the 202 line can roughly triple.

Besides, if we are taking about the expense of tunnelling another tunnel through downtown, why not just tunnel under centre street instead? We could cut and cover tunnel most of the centre street route, while 7th Ave would likely have to be bored - and perhaps involve shutting down the entire 202 line for several years.

No, you certainly haven't.

And for now the ninth time no matter what form the North Central LRT takes Calgary Transit will NOT be able to operate the at the headways they desire to with surface traffic.

Policy Wonk

Mar 10, 2011, 12:07 AM

We don't have to bury the NE/West line ever, as YNAT has pointed out.

We only need to bury the NW/S line because of the reduced frequency due to interlining.

If that were true Calgary Transit wouldn't be struggling with their present peak headways on 7th Ave.

But why don't we cut the bullshit and get back to what this is really about.

Most of you don't care about headways, right-of-ways and had probably never heard of interlining before this topic. This is about favoring the subway concept over the Nose Creek plans because Nose Creek is perceived to be in the service of the suburbs, which it is and the Centre Street subway would be a catalyst for the intensification of Centre Street.

That is all well and good, but it doesn't really serve to mitigate the tremendous political, financial and practical challenges that would go with the subway and intensification route.

You Need A Thneed

Mar 10, 2011, 12:10 AM

No, you certainly haven't.

So you don't think that roughly tripling the current capacity of the 202 line will be enough? Where do you think so many more people are going to start riding from? If you don't see it as a tripling, explain how, because it's fairly simple math. Again going to 4 car trains increases capacity by 33%, removing the 201 line from 7th ave increases capacity by 100% (actually slightly more, since there are more 201 trains than 202 trains). Multiply those together, and we get 267% of the capacity we have now, and that's not accounting for the extra 201 trains. In the future, more improvements could made made in the signalling, to further increase that capacity.

And for now the ninth time no matter what form the North Central LRT takes Calgary Transit will NOT be able to operate the at the headways they desire to with surface traffic.
So, if the NC line line is buried under centre street, creating no additional crossing points with traffic downtown than there currently is, and capacity on the 202 line will be tripled for what it currently is, with headways exactly the way they are today (which should be enough for 100 years), how does that mean that CT will not be able to operate at the headways they desire. They are operating mostly fine right now, and if anything, the headways would be greater than they are now for many years.

Once the 201 line is under 8th ave, and if a SE-NC line is underground all the way through downtown, the headways CT will have will be significantly BETTER than they are RIGHT NOW for the rest of our lifetimes, since the 202 line won't need more than double the capacity that they have now, for many years.

fusili

Mar 10, 2011, 12:10 AM

No, you certainly haven't.

And for now the ninth time no matter what form the North Central LRT takes Calgary Transit will NOT be able to operate the at the headways they desire to with surface traffic.

Just to be clear, all of us are assuming the Stephan Avenue Subway gets built and is used for the NW/South line while the NE/West line continues to use the 7th Avenue ROW. The Nose Creek Line would interline with the NE/West line. The NE/W line having exclusive use of the 7th Avenue ROW can operate at the headways they desire. That is the point of the Stephan Avenue Subway.

If Calgary Transit wants 3 minute headways on the NE line, they can't do it by interlining with the NC LRT. Interlining the NE line and Nose Creek line puts us right back into the same situation we are in now. So any benefit of the Stephan Avenue Subway on the NE/West line is lost immediately.

You Need A Thneed

Mar 10, 2011, 12:16 AM

That is all well and good, but it doesn't really serve to mitigate the tremendous political, financial and practical challenges that would go with the subway and intensification route.

The Nose creek route may not have political challenges, but the financial and practical challenges will be nearly equal, when everything is accounted for.

Like I said, the nose creek route would requires a massive project to increase capacity on 7th ave, and that would pretty much eat up any cost savings by going to the Nose Creek route.

Policy Wonk

Mar 10, 2011, 12:17 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Transbay tube not using BART gauge tracks, but the same gauge of tracks as Caltrain and the future High Speed Rail? Which is why the future Geary line is more likely to use the Caltrain gauge of track.

But now we are off topic a bit.

The Transbay Tube is "Broad Gauge" but it isn't really an operational issue. The proposed second tunnel would have provisions for HSR but it can't run on the same track of any gauge per FRA crash standards.

The FRA gets beat up alot by passenger rail enthusiasts but none of their regulations are actually that unreasonable.

Policy Wonk

Mar 10, 2011, 12:38 AM

So you don't think that roughly tripling the current capacity of the 202 line will be enough? Where do you think so many more people are going to start riding from? If you don't see it as a tripling, explain how, because it's fairly simple math. Again going to 4 car trains increases capacity by 33%, removing the 201 line from 7th ave increases capacity by 100% (actually slightly more, since there are more 201 trains than 202 trains). Multiply those together, and we get 267% of the capacity we have now, and that's not accounting for the extra 201 trains. In the future, more improvements could made made in the signalling, to further increase that capacity.

Calgary 2040: Official Estimated Population 1.5 Million. Enormous residential growth will occur in the N.E. as will the N.E. develop as an employment centre. I don't plan on being alive in 2040 but I would make that bet.

And improved signaling doesn't really increase capacity when trains are yielding to other traffic. Unlike the BART example where a corridor is more or less saturated with other rail traffic, in Calgary the traffic is surface traffic the train is yielding to. At that point you simply have to separate the two.

Policy Wonk

Mar 10, 2011, 12:41 AM

Like I said, the nose creek route would requires a massive project to increase capacity on 7th ave, and that would pretty much eat up any cost savings by going to the Nose Creek route.

And now for the tenth time... that will have to happen with or without it, Calgary Transit can not run 2-3 minute headways on 7th ave. in any combination of routes today or tomorrow at grade without significant delays. If you are running at that level and 21-25% (as they are today) of trains are falling behind schedule your are just making a mess.

The 21%-25% is for route 202, I have no idea what it is for 201.

Koolfire

Mar 10, 2011, 1:07 AM

They already schedule it, U of C did a study on this just last year concerning the NE line that was presented at the World Conference on Transport Research. Between the hours of 6 and 9 am 25% of trains are delayed more than a minute traveling between 3rd and 10th street and 21% traveling between 10th street and City Hall.

That doesn't mean much. 1 minute delay on one train will cascade causing every train after that to run 1 minute behind assuming the absolute minimun headway between trains. I'm shocked that number isn't 90%. In the grand scheme of things 20+ trains make it through so your still under 3 minute headways.

kap384

Mar 10, 2011, 2:06 AM

Noticed today that the Digital 'Arrival' sign on the 1st St station is removed. An indication that new GPS equipment is coming soon, or broken?

Bassic Lab

Mar 10, 2011, 2:54 AM

It is pretty hard to design a system that will break in 30 years plus a day but be perfectly fine at 30 years!

If the city's estimate is too low, it would similarly be too low for 5 car low floor LRT. No advantage either way. the low floor LRT will already be an incompatible system so no disadvantage there if the P3 bidder proposed something else.

If the bidder decided to do a automated light metro instead of low floor LRT, higher frequency can be used with smaller trains to meet capacity demands at all times of day. In that specific case outside of rush hour when capacity would meet supply for both systems, an automated light metro provides a higher service quality, even if it provides the same service quantity.

The whole point is to have all these options costed out so the city can make a rational decision, not to be bound to any one choice early in the process. If low floor LRT wins so be it - same likewise to monorail, ALRT, light metro, high floor LRT, but the decision will be made with eyes open, not only looking at the upfront sticker price.

I'm not saying that it would break as soon as the city takes possession but there are all kinds of issues that could cause the city headaches in the long term while saving the bidder money. Replacing two fleets of vehicles can be more expensive than one, especially if we end up locked into some kind of proprietary technology. Platform extensions can be easy or near impossible. These are things the bidder has no reason to care about while the city should care about them. Exporting decision making just gives no guarantee that better decisions will be made. If it can be built cheaper at the city's expense, it would be.

The Canada Line will look like a very bad idea if Translink is forced to extend platform lengths and is unable to freely utilize future vehicle purchases on whichever line ends up needing it more in the future.

I'm not in favour of using low floor trains either way. I see no reason why the SE LRT should use a different technology from the rest of the system. The only upside would be letting Auburn Bay have sidewalk stations, which seems somewhat pointless.

mersar

Mar 10, 2011, 3:03 AM

Noticed today that the Digital 'Arrival' sign on the 1st St station is removed. An indication that new GPS equipment is coming soon, or broken?

New signs are cooing by next month for the gps equipped system. They've removed all the signs on all the 7th avenue stations.

DarkKeyo

Mar 10, 2011, 3:22 AM

New signs are cooing by next month for the gps equipped system. They've removed all the signs on all the 7th avenue stations.

Nice! I've actually missed the old signs, they were more useful than I thought. I'm glad the new signs are coming so soon.

DarkKeyo

Mar 10, 2011, 3:58 AM

Whew. 90 posts since I last had time to check the thread. But, I read it all. I think that if people considered other people's arguments (almost every thing I read was a good argument) then we would make progress. Instead, we get locked in one viewpoint. That's bad debate.

Policy Wonk, I wrote out a good page of counter-arguments for you, half of which were later put forth by other posters such as fusili, sim, YNAT, Bassic Lab, and TheChemist. But, you have already decided what is absolute fact. You can read them if you'll actually consider what I've written. I agree with the above posters, mostly, but I have my own perspective too.

So, I'll just answer this one, cause I have opinions too:

But why don't we cut the bullshit and get back to what this is really about.

Most of you don't care about headways, right-of-ways and had probably never heard of interlining before this topic. This is about favoring the subway concept over the Nose Creek plans because Nose Creek is perceived to be in the service of the suburbs, which it is and the Centre Street subway would be a catalyst for the intensification of Centre Street.

That is all well and good, but it doesn't really serve to mitigate the tremendous political, financial and practical challenges that would go with the subway and intensification route.

We know about headways, right-of-ways, and especially interlining, which is half our capacity problem. We easily know as much as you do. Some of us are using the intensification as the main angle, but most of us are using the angle that a subway will serve BOTH functions and not ONLY suburbanites or residents of intensification. We know what the political, financial, and practical challenges are, and you've apparently missed several good strategies for dealing with them that were posted.

I favour the subway concept for this reason: it serves people. It does not skip areas people would want to travel to and from. Look at how many people use the 301, and especially the 3, there are obviously reasons to travel to places on Centre St. Additional costs are made up for by the sheer potential for ridership it provides.

You are essentially advocating ignoring everyone but *one* demographic of ridership. Just like how the South line works, a line that was built with similar poor planning and would have hit high levels of ridership had it been built along Macleod somehow instead of out of the way along a rail corridor with stations far from everything. It would not need to depend on suburban travel from the far far south if it caught more ridership further in. But, that's almost a separate argument of its own.

Ultimately, I advocate building a system that provides rapid transit, and from there feeder and crosstown routes, to ultimately reach as many places in the city as efficiently as possible. I use myself as an example. I now commute from Dalhousie to Centre St like a suburbanite. But, I also counter-commute to Crowfoot. And, I take more train trips to various stations all over the city than either of those. I know plenty of people who do the same, and plenty of people who don't do the downtown commute at all. And many of them have cars.

If we are going to provide a service, why not make it useful to as many people as possible? This is efficiency, this generates more ridership, this is not merely a flight of fancy. This is not about "cool". It's about being USEFUL. And people USE a useful transit system.

That is my perspective, and other than to clarify it if asked, I'm not going to prolong the debate further. Next topic. We can come back to this one after the NCLRT consultations, at which we can voice all these arguments.

MalcolmTucker

Mar 10, 2011, 4:13 AM

I'm not saying that it would break as soon as the city takes possession but there are all kinds of issues that could cause the city headaches in the long term while saving the bidder money. Replacing two fleets of vehicles can be more expensive than one, especially if we end up locked into some kind of proprietary technology. Platform extensions can be easy or near impossible. These are things the bidder has no reason to care about while the city should care about them. Exporting decision making just gives no guarantee that better decisions will be made. If it can be built cheaper at the city's expense, it would be.

The Canada Line will look like a very bad idea if Translink is forced to extend platform lengths and is unable to freely utilize future vehicle purchases on whichever line ends up needing it more in the future.

I'm not in favour of using low floor trains either way. I see no reason why the SE LRT should use a different technology from the rest of the system. The only upside would be letting Auburn Bay have sidewalk stations, which seems somewhat pointless.

The whole point is not to reduce construction expenses, but to reduce total project expenses including maintenance, operating, etc over the 30 year time frame (I choose 30 years since it is typical for these sorts of deals.

Sure, if the city made decisions the same way, they could make the same decisions that a bidder would. But they don't. The biggest gain is from having politicians and planners deciding what they want the project to do before they have a price tag in front of it. Locking down the scope saves money and is something politicians are really bad at. For example the original scope of the west LRT didn't include the grade separation at 45th St or the interchange at Sarcee and 17th Ave. While we might like the things that are added, we don't need the McKnight - Nosehill Dr connector project added to the NC LRT for example. You are buying a transit system first and foremost, and an extra bauble shouldn't be needed to pacify the local councillor.

For vehicle fleets I get the concern about orphan or proprietary technology but it is misplaced. You might be surprised that Calgary and Edmonton basically operate an orphan technology right now - we are just lucky that the vehicles we have were developed (the SD-100s/160s) at all. They were developed as low floor walk up trains before modern style low floor trains became widespread. Any advanced signalling system is by design proprietary. Even odd tech doesn't bind you to certain suppliers - there is at least one system in Asia which had an initial bombardier skytrain fleet which is now augmented by cars by another manufacturer. Right now the plan is to have another fleet already since it will save initial capital costs. How is that going to change going down the path we are on now I ask?

Koolfire

Mar 10, 2011, 4:17 AM

And now for the tenth time... that will have to happen with or without it, Calgary Transit can not run 2-3 minute headways on 7th ave.

I was thinking over the NE route and headways and realized that without a restructure of NE LRT along 36th ave, 3 minute headways are going to be the max. 2 minute headways traffic wouldn't be able to cross the tracks reasonably. It's pretty bad currently with 6 minute headways, 3 minutes is going to be really really bad, 2 minutes impossible. You have to remember a train in that area has right of way and shuts down the intersection for about 30-40 seconds, with trains heading in opposite directions intersections are going be closed 30-80 seconds every 120 seconds. That's going to be brutal. Interchanges at most of the intersections are difficult fit. They would be quite costly.

So I see no reason to bury 7th ave if it's only W-NE until 36th is redone. And at least 20 trains make it through 7th ave with normal conditions with regular traffic congestion. So 3 minute headway.

So once we start talking burying 7th plus Nose Creek vs SE LRT plus centre street subway. It would be irresponsible by the city and Calgary transit not to make a fair comparison. If they ram Nose Creek and burying 7th ave without a study comparing the options, I would be asking for a criminal investigation. Until the day the shovel is in the ground these two options are going to be rehashed over and over again. This isn't a bad thing. Things change and plans should reflect the changes as best possible.

There's also another consideration, the 17th Ave East LRT, one version has it interlining at Max Bell. There's only capacity even with 7th ave subway to have 2 lines interconnected. So it's either NC or 17th plus NE not all 3.

Ferreth

Mar 10, 2011, 5:37 AM

You brought up some good points Koolfire.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to avoid interlining on a Nose Creek alignment by running a north line on top of the NE line from Memorial into DT. It would continue onto 7th Ave running above ground, with the NE-W line running underground. If it is possible, how might the cost per km compare to burying a line?

Such a thing might never be needed if both lines can run on 3 minute headways with an interlined portion running into an underground downtown portion on 1.5 minute headways. The north line would have to have a spur built in DT to allow north line trains to turn around off the 7th Ave alignment.

As far as a Centre street line goes, I see no reason to bury it north of 64th Ave. You'd have to bulldoze 19 houses north of Beddington Dr. If you're going to piss off the whole area with densification, you might as well take out a few houses and at least save some money.

Policy Wonk

Mar 10, 2011, 5:51 AM

Whew. 90 posts since I last had time to check the thread. But, I read it all. I think that if people considered other people's arguments (almost every thing I read was a good argument) then we would make progress. Instead, we get locked in one viewpoint. That's bad debate.

Policy Wonk, I wrote out a good page of counter-arguments for you, half of which were later put forth by other posters such as fusili, sim, YNAT, Bassic Lab, and TheChemist. But, you have already decided what is absolute fact. You can read them if you'll actually consider what I've written. I agree with the above posters, mostly, but I have my own perspective too.

This isn't a post-modernist humanities course, there are some things that are simply true or not true. This issue has been beaten to death over and over again for thirty years. The only new angle is serious intensification as espoused in Plan It and that only serves to raise demons nobody has the stomach for and could have all sorts of lousy consequences owing to local demagogues who will mobilize to "save the community".

I favour the subway concept for this reason: it serves people. It does not skip areas people would want to travel to and from. Look at how many people use the 301, and especially the 3, there are obviously reasons to travel to places on Centre St. Additional costs are made up for by the sheer potential for ridership it provides.

Yes, the 301 - the route that as a proof of concept vindicated the Nose Creek alignment when it was last reviewed in 2006. At peak hours the 301 might as well be the Nose Creek LRT since it is C-Train stuffed before it even reaches Beddington Blvd.

The 3 as it operates on Centre Street is likely to be with us, significantly in that form even with a Centre Street LRT. And the 3 doesn't do a bad job of serving Centre Street. And while dismissed here Calgary Transit believes the Nose Creek alignment will cut about 30% off the travel time compared to the 301 owing to the fact they can operate at high speed for much of the route.

How much of a time savings would the subway save over the 3 south of 64th ave given signal priority?

You are essentially advocating ignoring everyone but *one* demographic of ridership. Just like how the South line works, a line that was built with similar poor planning and would have hit high levels of ridership had it been built along Macleod somehow instead of out of the way along a rail corridor with stations far from everything. It would not need to depend on suburban travel from the far far south if it caught more ridership further in. But, that's almost a separate argument of its own.

It isn't about ignoring everyone, it is about recognizing why the LRT is successful and that is because it serves as a quasi commuter rail system.

Where are the people commuting to downtown in the hundreds of thousands coming from? The South line wasn't poor planning but a reflection of the fact Calgary is a substantially a concentric city and to get to the ridership rich areas you have to pass through the wasteland. The light rail systems that are ridership blackholes are the ones that pretend to be streetcars.

If we are going to provide a service, why not make it useful to as many people as possible? This is efficiency, this generates more ridership, this is not merely a flight of fancy. This is not about "cool". It's about being USEFUL. And people USE a useful transit system.

The service is public transportation in aggregate, it need not be one size fits all. It doesn't matter if an area is bypassed by the LRT if it can be well served by other means.

Koolfire

Mar 10, 2011, 6:22 AM

Yes, the 301 - the route that as a proof of concept vindicated the Nose Creek alignment when it was last reviewed in 2006. At peak hours the 301 might as well be the Nose Creek LRT since it is C-Train stuffed before it even reaches Beddington Blvd.

I always though the 301 was more of a band-aid then anything, as the LRT was decades away. 301 doesn't really prove the concept as it was more or less already proven. If the 301 failed, that might of worked more in favour Nose Creek alignment as you want the cheapest route possible as few people would ride it and capacity wouldn't be an issue. (Go ahead, say interlining won't reduce capacity for the 11th time, I'll just shake my head for the 10th time.)

The 3 as it operates on Centre Street is likely to be with us, significantly in that form even with a Centre Street LRT. And the 3 doesn't do a bad job of serving Centre Street. And while dismissed here Calgary Transit believes the Nose Creek alignment will cut about 30% off the travel time compared to the 301 owing to the fact they can operate at high speed for much of the route.

Where are you getting your facts from. I need to ask for citations. Is the 30% improvement based on reaching downtown or reaching the same point? If it's reaching downtown, then ya I could see 30% improvement as I was basing my calculations on get to 7th/6th and Centre st.

How much of a time savings would the subway save over the 3 south of 64th ave given signal priority?

It would cut it by half as a subway could do high speed between stations too. All depends on station spacing. If they are far apart then the subway could reach 80km/h without problem. Also you don't have to deal with idiot drivers. Remember 3 is a milk run, stop at almost all the stops during rushhour. At least 301 skips some.

kw5150

Mar 10, 2011, 6:40 AM

If that were true Calgary Transit wouldn't be struggling with their present peak headways on 7th Ave.

But why don't we cut the bullshit and get back to what this is really about.

Most of you don't care about headways, right-of-ways and had probably never heard of interlining before this topic. This is about favoring the subway concept over the Nose Creek plans because Nose Creek is perceived to be in the service of the suburbs, which it is and the Centre Street subway would be a catalyst for the intensification of Centre Street.

That is all well and good, but it doesn't really serve to mitigate the tremendous political, financial and practical challenges that would go with the subway and intensification route.

:tup: we can do it :tup: I think both designs are actually interesting and I am actually enjoying this debate.

Lets see some ideas for nose creek and centre street on paper and see the feasibility of each. What have other cities done with transit? What was the result? Can we get a summary? lol

The message is not intended as indication for Consultants to commence on the Project as discussed above.

kw5150

Mar 10, 2011, 7:18 AM

Centre Street

The New line could parallel the centre street bridge, go under the park, daylight at the top of the hill, and become an elevated LRT line up the right side of centre street (3 stories high). with urban format shops, restos, and stores until the 3rd, 4th or 5th floors and condos above.

Design tangent.....

There would be guidelines for stepping all new buidings. Access to the elevated stations would be provided in large, central pedestrian circulation hubs with multiple sets of stairs and escalators and access to stores and restos. It could be the Central Calgary Mall.

Up at the LRT line level (4th floor) there could be large patios with panoramic views to the rockys and downtown. Access to the large parks on the edge of the escarpment would be provided by two large calatrava bridges.

Tangent done.......

North of 16th ave, the LRT would continue to run, possibly at grade and then finding a route that connected as many amenities as possible. Would it be a sin to run the line along confed park, 14th street, and then along Nose Hill Park up to the rest of Calgary?