[Stang]

I originally posted this in the "advocacy" thread, but probably better suited for here.

Edmonton trail might be interesting if :
1) They hook it into the 8th Ave. Subway via the currently built City Hall connection.

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that the City Hall tunnel/future station curves a bit from 8th Avenue and starts pointing South, similar to how the above-grade tracks currently are, just under City Hall instead. I'm not sure that getting a line in there that is coming from the North and East would be feasible.

I think that I'm going to try and attend one of these meetings and also submit some feedback by email. I think that Centre Street would be optimal, but the expense could prove prohibitive. I would imagine that the tracks would have to be elevated or buried for much of the route, neither of which are cheap.

Edmonton Trail would be a reasonable compromise to me, but they'd have to find a way to prevent sharing the track into downtown for that short stretch from Memorial, over the river, and into whatever downtown corridor they decide to use (7th, 8th, etc.)

Nose Creek would be a disaster. Nobody lives there, nobody will be able to park there, and it will serve as a suburban express line into downtown. If they go that route, they probably shouldn't even put any stations between Beddington and the new Science Centre (sarcasm, mostly). Some people will like that, obviously, but I would see it as a missed opportunity to really enhance Centre or Edmonton Trail. Even though Edmonton Trail isn't as developed as Centre at the moment, I can picture the area doing very well with an LRT - it would really provide a shot in the arm.

How far up Edmonton Trail would the line go I wonder? Suppose it goes all the way up to McKnight, where would it go after that? Into Nose Creek valley until Beddington Trail? Cut across somehow to Centre? Continue up Edmonton/4th Street NE where the bus trap presently is? There's a nice little green area that could allow it to cut across to Centre near 41st Avenue, but then you'd need to elevate/bury it from there until Beddington Trail. There's no easy route for this one, unfortunately.

[You Need A Thneed]

Looks good, though I would certainly think that a centre street line would be made as an extention to the SE line, that way, only one downtown right of way is needed.

It would have to curve over to 2nd street SW to enter downtown.

[DizzyEdge]

Looks good, though I would certainly think that a centre street line would be made as an extention to the SE line, that way, only one downtown right of way is needed.

It would have to curve over to 2nd street SW to enter downtown.

ah ok yeah I didn't really put much thought into the river crossing part.

[DizzyEdge]

Anyone have ballpark figures for costs per.. km or 100m or whatever for boring, cut and cover, elevated, and grade?

[Bassic Lab]

Anyone have ballpark figures for costs per.. km or 100m or whatever for boring, cut and cover, elevated, and grade?

Older numbers that I've seen indicate something like 10 million/km for at grade, 20 million/km elevated, and 100 million+/km tunnelled. Costs, particularly considering Calgary's labour expenses, would likely be higher than that now. I also think that those numbers exclude station costs, which can be quite expensive for elevated or buried stations, and ROW collection which can be quite expensive if a lot of property needs to be expropriated for a surface route. Beyond that, it depends a great deal on the specifics. Buried sections can vary a great deal, cut and cover under bald prairie could be damned cheap but in an urban area moving utilities can cause major issues.

[DizzyEdge]

Older numbers that I've seen indicate something like 10 million/km for at grade, 20 million/km elevated, and 100 million+/km tunnelled. Costs, particularly considering Calgary's labour expenses, would likely be higher than that now. I also think that those numbers exclude station costs, which can be quite expensive for elevated or buried stations, and ROW collection which can be quite expensive if a lot of property needs to be expropriated for a surface route. Beyond that, it depends a great deal on the specifics. Buried sections can vary a great deal, cut and cover under bald prairie could be damned cheap but in an urban area moving utilities can cause major issues.

so it sounds like *in general*, elevated/at grade is WAY cheaper than buried.

Which is good to know because although my route tried to reduced expropriation, if at grade is 90 mill less per km, it might be cheaper to just expropriate.

[polishavenger]

so it sounds like *in general*, elevated/at grade is WAY cheaper than buried.

Which is good to know because although my route tried to reduced expropriation, if at grade is 90 mill less per km, it might be cheaper to just expropriate.

Generally speaking subways only make sense in very high density environments where expropriation is not economically feasible or practicle, or where geographical features prohibit above grade work. I think an elevated system like the vancouver skytrain would be a great solution for the NC LRT with a few tunnel sections (out of DT). I would also like to see the NE line up 36th street be upgraded to an elevated system some day, the current set up is a major pain in the ass.

[DizzyEdge]

Anyone have any opinions if expropriating homes, running the train through the backyard adjacent to the alley, and then reselling the homes with a truncated back yard is doable at all?

[You Need A Thneed]

You don't have to expropriate whole properties. Though people having their backyards expropriated may want their whole property expropriated.

[You Need A Thneed]

Cut and cover tunnelling wouldn't be 5x more expensive than elevated.

[freeweed]

I would also like to see the NE line up 36th street be upgraded to an elevated system some day, the current set up is a major pain in the ass.

This makes a ton of sense. The stations already have to "elevate" you in order to cross the street, so it's not like it would impact riders - in fact it would be easier. Obviously it would improve the traffic situation immensely as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

For Canada I would put prices more in the range of $20m grade, $60m elevated, and $180m underground, without stations.

As for a route, either above or at grade, I would think residents would much rather have an in median route than a backyard route. Utilities would really be the big cost differentiator.

[Stang]

And then re-selling the properties again after might be a tough sell. No yard and a train running out your back door. Of course, the price would have to be reduced accordingly (and substantially), but it would recoup some of the cost and would provide some affordable housing. Re-zoning to commercial would be better, however I doubt that there would be enough room for parking and a strip of businesses there.

I'm not sure what the ideal design for those "tight" parts would be. North of 64th there's probably enough room to run it as a simple at-grade, trenched, or elevated all the way up to Beddington Drive/Bergen Road. After that there are a few blocks of homes along Centre before the bus trap at Beddington Trail where there would need to be some fanciness or bulldozing. And then we're into the "easy" part as there has been ROW set aside.

As ugly and (initially) disruptive as it would be, I wonder how feasible it would be to make a median along Centre where you could put the piers, take away some of the boulevard to compensate for the lost space in the middle, and just run it elevated right down the middle. No expropriation required, the widening could happen in advance to ensure that traffic could still flow during the creation of the median and piers, and things could continue relatively happily below while the launching truss did its thing. I would imagine that some closures would be necessary, but if it was done outside of rush hour, enough alternate routes exist that it wouldn't be much more than a minor inconvenience.

[MalcolmTucker]

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that the City Hall tunnel/future station curves a bit from 8th Avenue and starts pointing South, similar to how the above-grade tracks currently are, just under City Hall instead. I'm not sure that getting a line in there that is coming from the North and East would be feasible.


The City Hall Area Structure Plan from the 80s, which is no longer on the city site, and I can't find the maps I copied to put on here, showed that under Olympic Plaza was contemplated a four track crossover, where a train running under 7th would have the ability to travel south via the CP tunnel, and a train from 8th would be able to cross over to the tracks heading to the NE.

Since the tunnel is wide enough for four tracks, that is the area confused for a station, as eventually 2 stations were planned for the more westerly end of Olympic Plaza, one angling back towards 8th, and one towards 7th in my recollection.

That being said, the 7th Ave tunnel is so far off, and now that a second maintenance facility exists, I am not sure if it would be left in a future plan. We shall see whenever the tunnel study finally comes.

[polishavenger]

What astounds me about the comment from Neil Mckendrick is the fact that you are building infrastructure that will be in place for 100 years and hes concerned about a 2 year disruption? How ridiculous is that? Not only is this another transportation option for the central part of the city, this LRT line has the potential to substantially transform the urban form of the city. If you run it up the Nose Creek alignment, you will not get any additional development and density, and I doubt ridership will be as high as the other options. If you spend the extra time and money now running the LRT up center street, you will have a top notch LRT line in terms of functionality, and you create the potential to densify that corridor and create a high quality urban street. I dont understand how there could be any real debate here. Short term thinking in context of long term decision making drives me nuts.

[Bassic Lab]

A better comparison is Cambie St where they cut and covered, but yeah. They certainly wouldn't have the land to do it in the style of cut and cover adjacent to 17 Ave SW. Traffic would be much worse, compressed to at least three lanes, and in tighter spots 2 for most of the route, with one side of the street not having street access for at least 18 months, more likely 2 years minimum.

It would be messy, that is for sure. For those that would suggest boring, you still need huge station boxes dug out, so if you are adding a bunch of choke points, may as well choke the whole route. Plus boring would be more expensive unless some unknown geology really helped out.

Goal has to be to reduce the underground length as much as possible to reduce cost and perhaps disruption. Might be able to squeeze in an elevated guideway in a 'centre lane' by removing street parking, removing grass between the sidewalk and street, and taking parts of people's front yards as necessary north of 16th Ave at some point. Depending on height, a central guideway should have way less shadowing on private property than many property owners would reflexively expect due to the orientation of the line.

Everything is trade offs of course, but it is important to remember every project will cause opposition if it creates change in a community.

As for the transportation planning managers quote, at least they are being honest with the community, and if the entire city decides this is the way to go, then we will have made the decision with eyes open. I wouldn't expect anything less from breaucrats that are being forced to do these consultations by their political operatives. In the long run, it might make sense to replace that person with a more transit evangelist persona, who is both realistic and can see the vision of the future, not a person who is tied to the great wonders of 'old Calgary Transit' effective capital utilization model that ignores real world external costs and lost benefits from planning decisions made with only the capital budget in mind.

With a hypothetical Centre Street subway as an extension of the SELRT in mind I have a few thoughts. I would imagine that the segments from Eau Claire to just past 16 Ave would need to be bored either way. The river crossing and subsequent climb up the bluffs would necessitate it. It would also be the section that has the most potential to disrupt traffic greatly. Closing down the intersection of Centre Street and 16 Ave, for the station pit, would put a particularly bad strain on the road network. Likewise, if a station was placed at 8 Ave it would also cause problems, just not as severe. To mitigate this we could temporarily create some pseudo traffic circles by making certain streets one way. It would mean ripping up the new median on 16 Ave to let 1 St NW and 1 St NE travel through. Basically 1 St NW would become a southbound one way between 17 Ave and 7 Ave; 1 St NE would become a northbound one way between 7 Ave and 17 Ave; 7 Ave would become a one way eastbound between 1 St NW and 1 St NE; 13 Ave would become a one way eastbound between 1 St NW and 1 St NE; 17 Ave would become a one way westbound between 1 St NE and 1 St NW. Westbound 16 Ave traffic would be directed to take 1st St NE north, 17 Ave N west, and 1 St NW south; Eastbound 16 Ave traffic would take 1 St NW south, 13 Ave N east, and 1 St NE north; Centre Street through traffic would just utilize 1 St NW and 1 St NE as a couplet while local traffic would still have most of Centre Street and all of the minor roads remaining as is.

North of 16 Ave (or 17 Ave, at a minimum, if it needs to stay open as per the plan outlined above) I see far fewer issues with cut and cover. The rest of the road network should be able to handle having Centre Street reduced to one lane each direction for the length of construction. We would probably have to phase it so that only half or a third of the existing intersections are dug up at any one time, to allow traffic to still cross Centre in a decent manner, but that should not be a huge problem. Construction for the Bow was able to dig up 6 Ave, go much deeper in an area far more prone to water issues, and bridge over it in a very timely manner.

We would have to see what kind of issues exist regarding utilities work but I don't think we would necessarily have to limit the underground section to mitigate costs. Seven kilometers of cut and cover, from just north of 16 Ave to Beddington Trail, will not break the bank. Station costs would be a bigger issue, especially since I favour 800 meter spacing to provide for both adequate coverage to the entire corridor and effective perpendicular bus coverage to all of North Central Calgary. I think my plan for the NLRT would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.5 billion. It involves a continuation of the SELRT with stations at 8 Ave, 16 Ave, 24 Ave, 32 Ave, 40 Ave/32 Ave Connector, McKnight Boulevard, Northmount Drive, 64 Ave, 72 Ave/4 St, Beddington Boulevard, 96 Ave, Country Hills Village, and Stoney Trail Park and Ride. 500 million for the ~2 km bored tunnel from Eau Claire to 20 Ave and the stations at 8 Ave and 16 Ave; 1.5 Billion for the ~7 km cut and cover tunnel from 20 Ave to Beddington Trail (then use the existing bus underpass which would be rendered superfluous) and eight corresponding stations; 250 million for the ~5 km surface route along Harvest Hills Boulevard and two corresponding stations; and 250 million for a 10% contingency. That should be quite affordable. Much more so if various stations are eliminated, or at least delayed until developers desire them enough to be convinced to contribute, as others have expressed a desire for fewer of them. I suppose there would be additional costs for LRV purchases and the expansion of the SELRTs maintenance and storage facility but hopefully the contingency would go a long way towards paying for those. Even if the contingency was needed for construction, the entire project should still come in under 3 billion; 250 million would purchase 60+ LRVs, enough for 12 five car trains, providing excellent service frequency; 250 million to expand the SE maintenance and storage facility.

[Bassic Lab]

so it sounds like *in general*, elevated/at grade is WAY cheaper than buried.

Which is good to know because although my route tried to reduced expropriation, if at grade is 90 mill less per km, it might be cheaper to just expropriate.

I don't know about that. Expropriating a 1 km ROW of just houses in this city could easily run in the 25 million+ range. It would then cost significantly more to ready that land for tracks than bald prairie or a freight train ROW would. I would guess that the cost would be upwards of 40 million/km for a surface route built by expropriation, even in a suburban area let alone a more urban one where costs could really balloon. On top of that, we would still have an issue with all of the street crossings.

Generally I'm fine with elevated tracks but I'm just not sure if they would work for Centre Street because of the need for some kind of awkward transition from the subway coming out of downtown.

[Bassic Lab]

For Canada I would put prices more in the range of $20m grade, $60m elevated, and $180m underground, without stations.

As for a route, either above or at grade, I would think residents would much rather have an in median route than a backyard route. Utilities would really be the big cost differentiator.

That really doesn't jive with the cost of the Canada Line. Of its 19.2 km, ~2.5 km were a combination of cut and cover and bored tunnel under downtown and False creek; ~6 km were cut and cover under Cambie; and ~10 km were mostly elevated with some at grade segments on the Airport spur. Your numbers would give a cost of more than 2 billion without any stations. The total cost was only ~2.25 billion (including the massive cost over runs the contractor had to pay). I am positive that the stations, rolling stock, and maintenance facility together cost well over 250 million. This is especially the case when station construction is one of the major costs and the the Canada Line has a lot of stations.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't know about that. Expropriating a 1 km ROW of just houses in this city could easily run in the 25 million+ range. It would then cost significantly more to ready that land for tracks than bald prairie or a freight train ROW would. I would guess that the cost would be upwards of 40 million/km for a surface route built by expropriation, even in a suburban area let alone a more urban one where costs could really balloon. On top of that, we would still have an issue with all of the street crossings.

Generally I'm fine with elevated tracks but I'm just not sure if they would work for Centre Street because of the need for some kind of awkward transition from the subway coming out of downtown.
Like this in Vancouver (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vancouver&sll=37.230328,-95.712891&sspn=49.763534,113.994141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.212327,-123.117256&spn=0,0.111322&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=49.212178,-123.11722&panoid=dtlDPqKispiOF7ICeIeSXw&cbp=12,142.84,,0,2.98)? It goes from portal to station height in 260 meters.

[Stang]

Like this in Vancouver (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vancouver&sll=37.230328,-95.712891&sspn=49.763534,113.994141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.212327,-123.117256&spn=0,0.111322&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=49.212178,-123.11722&panoid=dtlDPqKispiOF7ICeIeSXw&cbp=12,142.84,,0,2.98)? It goes from portal to station height in 260 meters.

Throw in a river crossing, a steep grade on the other side, and expensive properties all along the hillside. It would actually be pretty cool to see how they'd design that if they did opt for the train to pop out of a tunnel on 2nd Street. An inclined, curved bridge could take the train out of downtown and then either go over top of or into another tunnel under Centre for the section as you head up the hill. An elevated track through that section would, unfortunately, ruin what it probably the best driving view of our skyline. IMO, there's nothing better than seeing the skyline unfold as you drive towards it down Centre... but I digress. ;)

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, you're going to have to bore to get up the hill if the goal is to tie into the SE LRT as currently conceived, until the most cost efficient point to no longer do so and switch either to cut and cover, or immediately to elevated.

[Stang]

Yeah, you're going to have to bore to get up the hill if the goal is to tie into the SE LRT as currently conceived, until the most cost efficient point to no longer do so and switch either to cut and cover, or immediately to elevated.

Can the tunnel be bored below the river (at a reasonable depth and/or cost)? Rather than going tunnel-bridge-tunnel, perhaps an option exists to stay underground through downtown (and the then-complete SE LRT), under the river, up the hill, and eventually seeing daylight somewhere where Centre levels out. It might be more efficient to build a long tunnel than a shorter one and a bridge. Realistically there would be no need for a station between downtown and where Centre levels out, so it would be a "simple" tunnel. Of course, I know nothing about the geology there and whether it would even be suited for it.

[You Need A Thneed]

The other option would be to transition from underground to elevated on the south side of the river, and carry the LRT across the river on a bridge.

Perhaps, like the spiral tunnels in Yoho National Park, we could get a spiral bridge.

[polishavenger]

Yeah, you're going to have to bore to get up the hill if the goal is to tie into the SE LRT as currently conceived, until the most cost efficient point to no longer do so and switch either to cut and cover, or immediately to elevated.

The more I think about the Center street alignment the more I think elevated would work in most segments due to the relatively narrow profile of the support columns. Coming out of DT you obviously need the tunnel to about 16th Ave, at which point it can go elevated along the east side of center street. The segment from 16th ave to 28th ave could probably get away without expropriating all the properties as most could continue to operate during and after the construction of an elevated guide away along the property lines. You just need to buy out any houses as nobody wants to live under guideway. After 28th, they should tunnel under to align the line with 4th street, coming out at James Fowler High School. At this point the elevated guideway would follow 4th street on the west side until just south of the huntington super store. It would then cross over to the east side, then meet up with center street and contiue in the median until beddington, where it would cross over to the west side after the mall, and then head north at grade after bergen rd. Stations could be at the center street Safeway, 29th Ave and Center, 4th and 40th Ave, Northmount drive and Center, 72nd and center, and then at bergen rd and center. There would be lots of land to buy, but with 20 years to do it, shouldnt be too difficult.

[MalcolmTucker]

A tunnel under the water table near the river, and a tunnel under the river I would guess is just a matter of degrees for water penetration issue mitigation. Shouldn't be any issues - down between the zoo and weir they built a sewer tunnel and shiphon under the river a couple years ago me thinks.

[Bassic Lab]

A tunnel under the water table near the river, and a tunnel under the river I would guess is just a matter of degrees for water penetration issue mitigation. Shouldn't be any issues - down between the zoo and weir they built a sewer tunnel and shiphon under the river a couple years ago me thinks.

The project shouldn't be any more complicated than the North Shore Connector under construction in Pittsburgh. The Allegheny River makes the Bow look like small creek. That said, really the NLRT could be remarkably similar to the Canada Line. Beddington Trail is only a little further from the start than Marine Drive. There would need to be an initial bored tunnel to cross a water feature, the Bow and False Creek. Really if we decided to put a spur down 96 Ave to the Airport it would be essentially the same project. I would prefer longer stations but I think it is quite comparable.

[The Chemist]

If they can build subway tunnels under the Huangpu River in Shanghai, with Shanghai's mud and being right at sea level, they can build a subway tunnel under the Bow River in Calgary.

[fusili]

Yeah, you're going to have to bore to get up the hill if the goal is to tie into the SE LRT as currently conceived, until the most cost efficient point to no longer do so and switch either to cut and cover, or immediately to elevated.

I like that idea. Go elevated right after 16th avenue.

[DarkKeyo]

I've only just caught up on this discussion, and that really big map, which I could comment on endlessly.

Right now I like the idea of bored tunnel until 16th, elevated until 64th, at-grade the rest of the way except for elevated over Beddington Trail.

I'll be at the open house tomorrow around 6-6:30.

[DizzyEdge]

I've only just caught up on this discussion, and that really big map, which I could comment on endlessly.

Right now I like the idea of bored tunnel until 16th, elevated until 64th, at-grade the rest of the way except for elevated over Beddington Trail.

I'll be at the open house tomorrow around 6-6:30.

That was the point :)

The things which I couldn't wrap my head around as far as cost-benefit were:

- underground downtown and then elevated up and over the river and bluff then underground to 16th VS undergroup to 16th

- elevated around centre/1st st from 16th VS at grade (about half that distance is park space

- elevated north of 64th VS at grade (until you get close to Beddington, an at grade would only affect about 3 intersections)

[DarkKeyo]

That was the point :)

The things which I couldn't wrap my head around as far as cost-benefit were:

- underground downtown and then elevated up and over the river and bluff then underground to 16th VS undergroup to 16th

- elevated around centre/1st st from 16th VS at grade (about half that distance is park space

- elevated north of 64th VS at grade (until you get close to Beddington, an at grade would only affect about 3 intersections)

- I don't see the need to surface anywhere between Downtown and 16th, other than it might help with the supposedly very complex-to-tunnel hill just north of the river.

- Park space is not somewhere people would accept elevated or at-grade trains. People will choose to spend more on a route along Centre St rather than plow through parks, schools, and community centres as shown on your map.

- I agree that at-grade between 64 Av and Beddington Town Centre makes more sense.

[You Need A Thneed]

Calgary Herald Poll right now:

Where should a north-central C-Train line be built?

Nose Creek Valley - 19%
Edmonton Trail - 26%
Centre Street - 55%

[kw5150]

from:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/City+launches+discussion+north+central+route+options/4828196/story.html

Shazam999
3:52 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................

@anon733879405,

The Scenic Acres station is screwed up because so many Scenic Acres residents complained about the original plan that they revised to for "traffic calming".
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply Please wait while we perform your request.
Reply
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 0 Name withheld
Shazam999
3:51 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................

@S_Butler

The SE did not vote for Nenshi. Strangely enough talk about the SE LRT seems to have died off. Now we have talk about the NLRT line. The NW was basically responsible for voting Nenshi in. Remember how Nenshi said in his campaign "I don't understand why Tuscany/Royal Oak is getting a train station", and now all that talk has disappeared as well?

Do I need to break out the hand puppets next? Does patronage not exist in your political understanding?

And if you know where house prices are going to be 20 years from now, please share.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply Please wait while we perform your request.
Reply
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 1 Name withheld
anon733879405
2:50 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................

Will it be like the Scenic Acres LRT station in the NW? You know, the one that has no access for cars from Scenic Acres? The one that people don't use since even though it's close it's too far to walk and takes too long to bus? The one where you have to leave the district and drive around - and by that time you might as well just drive to work? I know the fear is evil Tuscany residents will cut through Scenic Acres because of the huge design mistakes made on the road designs and interchanges. I just hope the city learned something - but I'm sure they haven't.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply Please wait while we perform your request.
Reply
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 2 Name withheld
anon733879405
2:47 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................

How about a little focus on fixing roads? Billion dollar LRT lines are all fine and dandy, but many of our main roads are in urgent need of upgrading. Why city council can find money out of the blue for pet projects, yet ignore LRT and road lines for decades astounds me. We don't need a $300M+ airport tunnel ever, or $50M pedestrian bridges, when we ignore needed bridges and roads elsewhere.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply Please wait while we perform your request.
Reply
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: -1 Name withheld
yycvor
1:26 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................

BTW, option 1 is already somewhat in progress, with the airport trail 96th ave extenstion, they are already building two seperate over rail bridges side by side, about 100 feet apart for a single exisiting CP rail line. Seems obvious that option 1 is already being accomidated for.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply Please wait while we perform your request.
Reply
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: -1 Name withheld
yycvor
1:23 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................
20 yrs is a good time frame, the younger and greener generation is starting to take over the country hills, panorama, country hills, harvest hills area. A large number of people who built in that area have since had their kids grow up, plenty are moving away and is piles of younger couples buying in that area. 20 years is just the right time frame for a second generation of children and parents from that area to utilize the LRT. Im your typical and mostly hated single occupant driving a truck subburb commuter, I would take the LRT daily if I had a choice. More people employed downtown living in the NW then the NE I can guarrentee you that.
0 replies1 reply 0 replies1 reply Please wait while we perform your request.
Reply
Abuse Reported Report Abuse Score: 1 Name withheld
S_ Butler
12:25 PM on May 24, 2011

..................................................................................................................................................................................

Also, a plan IS needed 20 yrs before as that gives more time buy up properties as they come up for sale rather than expropriation.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/City+launches+discussion+north+central+route+options/4828196/story.html#ixzz1NNXhVy00

[Stang]

Calgary Herald Poll right now:

Where should a north-central C-Train line be built?

Nose Creek Valley - 19%
Edmonton Trail - 26%
Centre Street - 55%


^ This is encouraging. Hopefully these sentiments are also being expressed at the open houses.

When compared with every other LRT line (or proposed line) in the city, the NC LRT up Nose Creek would be the only one that largely avoids the key ingredient of its success: passengers. I'd rather see a slightly shorter line initially (Downtown to Beddington, for example) that runs down/near Centre, than a line to the Northern tip of the city that runs down Nose Creek. The net benefit to the city would be greater with a more useful but shorter line. The ROW exists North of Beddington anyway, so an extension would be relatively easy after the fact.

[You Need A Thneed]

I read those Herald comments as well. It's pretty hilarious the ideas people come up with even when the actual answers are pretty easy to find simply by looking at the city's website.

The SE did not vote for Nenshi. Strangely enough talk about the SE LRT seems to have died off. Now we have talk about the NLRT line. The NW was basically responsible for voting Nenshi in. Remember how Nenshi said in his campaign "I don't understand why Tuscany/Royal Oak is getting a train station", and now all that talk has disappeared as well?Nenshi has talked about the SE line a lot. He's trying as hard to get it done as he is the airport tunnel, I would think. The tunnel is just more urgent at this point. Also, a simple check on the city's website would show that the Tuscany station hasn't been forgotten about.

Will it be like the Scenic Acres LRT station in the NW? You know, the one that has no access for cars from Scenic Acres? The one that people don't use since even though it's close it's too far to walk and takes too long to bus? The one where you have to leave the district and drive around - and by that time you might as well just drive to work? I know the fear is evil Tuscany residents will cut through Scenic Acres because of the huge design mistakes made on the road designs and interchanges. I just hope the city learned something - but I'm sure they haven't.Scenic Acres got just what it asked for.

How about a little focus on fixing roads? Billion dollar LRT lines are all fine and dandy, but many of our main roads are in urgent need of upgrading. Why city council can find money out of the blue for pet projects, yet ignore LRT and road lines for decades astounds me. We don't need a $300M+ airport tunnel ever, or $50M pedestrian bridges, when we ignore needed bridges and roads elsewhere.You do realize that this line is ~20 years away, right? Also the self contradiction is just wonderful. First he complains about LRT focus instead of roads, and then later complains about the city ignoring the LRT. I won't even get into the comments about the tunnel or the ped bridges.

BTW, option 1 is already somewhat in progress, with the airport trail 96th ave extenstion, they are already building two seperate over rail bridges side by side, about 100 feet apart for a single exisiting CP rail line. Seems obvious that option 1 is already being accomidated for. No, option 1 is not being accounted for with the bridges you are talking about. One bridge goes over the CP rail line, and the other bridge goes over Nose Creek. If he was so sharp, you would also realize that the nose creek alignment curves over towards Harvest Hills Blvd before it gets to 96th Ave. So, even if the Nose creek alignment is used, NEITHER of those bridges will go over the LRT.

[DizzyEdge]

I comment on those pages almost daily :)

[freeweed]

Quite frankly the comments about the "Scenic Acres" station (chuckle) are bang-on. It was a stupid design that should never have happened.

I also have my suspicions that the Tuscany station might suddenly be delayed indefinitely, as the city scrambles to find money for the airport tunnel. They're hinting very strongly at pillaging other long-on-the-books infrastructure projects in order to fund this thing.

To be honest this may be the most coherent sampling of news article comments I've ever read. Usually they're mindless political rants by the uneducated and/or unemployed and/or unsober. Same crowd that calls into sports radio shows.

[kw5150]

I just hope this city can agree and get something done whatever it is.

I think that the constant bickering that we see on these comment pages is a symptom of greedy politicians trying to divide the people in the city for their own good. Calgary needs to work on unifying itself in order to acheive a clear vision that all of it's citizens will benefit from.

I dont think Larger roads will solve any of the issues in Calgary and Im not sure who has been feeding people that information. It takes many departments to create a successful city. I do agree with a couple of the comments I read but mostly that the city seems to be ignoring the roads we already have (in terms of upgrading to interchages). The only thing is, people need to realize that it is hard to keep updating existing roads with the monetary demands of suburban sprawl.

[outoftheice]

What astounds me about the comment from Neil Mckendrick is the fact that you are building infrastructure that will be in place for 100 years and hes concerned about a 2 year disruption? How ridiculous is that? Not only is this another transportation option for the central part of the city, this LRT line has the potential to substantially transform the urban form of the city. If you run it up the Nose Creek alignment, you will not get any additional development and density, and I doubt ridership will be as high as the other options. If you spend the extra time and money now running the LRT up center street, you will have a top notch LRT line in terms of functionality, and you create the potential to densify that corridor and create a high quality urban street. I dont understand how there could be any real debate here. Short term thinking in context of long term decision making drives me nuts.

I agree 100% The other thing that annoys me is that he is framing the construction head-aches of the West LRT in a negative light when it seems like the average Calgarian doesn't even see it that way. Most people seem to be able to take the long view when it comes to this type of planning and I think the West LRT (once the City started trying harder at addressing community concerns in the planning stages) has shown people how a program of this size can be managed for the long term benefit of everybody. For example:

...the news doesn't seem to bother area residents, who appear to be have accepted the traffic jams, dirt and disrup-tive din as part of life in the west end.

"It's short-term pain for longterm gain," said Paul Langille, who uses 17th Avenue every day to commute downtown from his home in Signal Hill.

or

Dan Jeffrey and Paul Knibbs, who live in Christie Park overlooking the future Sirocco station, are also fine with the increased construction in their area.

"Overall, construction on the project has been pretty good," Jeffrey said.

Neither works downtown and both say they hardly ever hear work being done when they're home.

or

Shelley Keane, owner of Cobblestone Corner in West Market Square, said she doesn't mind the noise or dust but is bracing herself for any further road closures in her area.

For two weekends in March, there were closures that prevented motorists from reaching the Sirocco Drive strip mall where her gift store is located.

"It was hard on all of us. Sales were terrible," she said.

"In the long term, it will be better. We just have to get through the tough times."

All from this article in the Calgary Herald:

Work on West LRT ready to heat up
Residents brace for dust and noise
By Clara Ho, Calgary Herald

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Work+West+ready+heat/4668351/story.html#ixzz1NOlkWOdl

The above quotes should have been reflective of the City's position towards digging up Centre Street for the NC-LRT but instead we got a doom and gloom type line. If the people in the City's transportation department don't believe the pain is worth the gain, can we really hope to see changes in the NC LRT alignment?

[DarkKeyo]

My first observation about the NCLRT open house today is travelling there, on the 301, in the height of rush hour. The sheer amount of people cramming themselves onto the 301, 3, 2, and 5, which go by the stops quite often dependant on traffic lights....

[YYCguys]

Wouldn't that Chinese design for an elevated train (the one that was posted a couple of times here) that was over the entire roadway be really neat on Centre Street! But, as was commented before, there might be traffic issues involved (the cars that are underneath the train)...if the majority of the people here can't even manage a traffic circle, imagine how they'd deal with this!

[elconsulto]

My first observation about the NCLRT open house today is travelling there, on the 301, in the height of rush hour. The sheer amount of people cramming themselves onto the 301, 3, 2, and 5, which go by the stops quite often dependant on traffic lights....

Same with the 46 (32), 89, 20, 4, 64, 54/154 89, 114, 88, 414, 405, and just about everything else in the area.

In the meantime, they could make the 301 more frequent - I have found the BRT to be pretty awesome in terms of reliability and frequency as it is, more often than not its almost as nice as riding the ctrain. Perhaps make another BRT line that goes up 14th Street.

[outoftheice]

Calgary Transit has an online survey available in regards to the North Central LRT. I would encourage everyone on here to take the time to fill it out. It takes about ten minutes to do but I think it will help provide CT with some valuable feedback.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NCLRT

[frinkprof]

A little change of pace. City Hall Station from today.

West side of south platform. Awaiting installation of the ramp. This will be done very soon.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/IMG_1047.jpg


On the north platform.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/IMG_1049.jpg


North platform again. The east side of this platform will also receive its ramp and interface with Bow Valley College.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/IMG_1050.jpg

[CTrainDude]

A little change of pace. City Hall Station


On the north platform.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/IMG_1049.jpg

I love this nice shot of the wrong sign they installed on the north platform. Whoops!

[Danma]

I went to the open house last night. Had a couple discussions with people with Calgary Transit. Based on a lot of the comments on the board there, people recognize that whatever happens, the Nose Creek alignment is stupid. Even the Calgary Transit staff agreed it doesn't reflect modern reality.

I personally think a combination of elevated/underground up center to 64th is the ideal solution. There's just so many crossings and lights on Center that would affect low floor LRT that even with traffic light overrides it would slow it down. Street cars mixed in traffic? Might as well just stick with BRT and not bother at all!

[fusili]

I went to the open house last night. Had a couple discussions with people with Calgary Transit. Based on a lot of the comments on the board there, people recognize that whatever happens, the Nose Creek alignment is stupid. Even the Calgary Transit staff agreed it doesn't reflect modern reality.

I personally think a combination of elevated/underground up center to 64th is the ideal solution. There's just so many crossings and lights on Center that would affect low floor LRT that even with traffic light overrides it would slow it down. Street cars mixed in traffic? Might as well just stick with BRT and not bother at all!

Agreed 100%. And I am a fanatical streetcar advocate. But all the way up centre street to northern hills? Wrong tool for the job.

[DizzyEdge]

Agreed 100%. And I am a fanatical streetcar advocate. But all the way up centre street to northern hills? Wrong tool for the job.

I agree too. I love the idea of streetcars, but they just seem far too problematic. The only way I could see them working properly would be to have them go up one block east of centre and then back south one block west of centre in order to avoid traffic, with switches and cross tracks that would allow them to take the opposite track in order to bypass roadwork, accidents, etc.

[DizzyEdge]

Calgary Transit has an online survey available in regards to the North Central LRT. I would encourage everyone on here to take the time to fill it out. It takes about ten minutes to do but I think it will help provide CT with some valuable feedback.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NCLRT

Some comments about the survey:

first, why even have a question like this:

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

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

Secondly, this graphic:

https://secure.surveymonkey.com/_resources/21094823/3d58954b-abf9-4b7e-9ba3-47381a4f52b4.jpg

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

[srperrycgy]

:previous: LRT construction started in 1978. The system turned 30 yesterday.

[polishavenger]

Some comments about the survey:

first, why even have a question like this:

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

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

Secondly, this graphic:

https://secure.surveymonkey.com/_resources/21094823/3d58954b-abf9-4b7e-9ba3-47381a4f52b4.jpg

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

That graffic doesnt do elevated justice, and the problem is that this line (so long as the idiotic nose creek alignment doesnt go ahead) will be a combination of underground, elevated and at grade, just like the west lrt line.

[DizzyEdge]

That graffic doesnt do elevated justice, and the problem is that this line (so long as the idiotic nose creek alignment doesnt go ahead) will be a combination of underground, elevated and at grade, just like the west lrt line.

Yeah I'm guessing their underground/elevated option indicates a line that is fully underground (with all underground stations) or fully elevated with all elevated stations. "Ctrain" being a mix of everything with at-grade the most used option.

[polishavenger]

Yeah I'm guessing their underground/elevated option indicates a line that is fully underground (with all underground stations) or fully elevated with all elevated stations. "Ctrain" being a mix of everything with at-grade the most used option.

It also over estimates the distance that stations have to be at. Using Hong Kong as an extreme example, their subway stations are usually about 1km apart if not slightly less. Its all about need, so if you want stations closer together, say, 1.5km - 2km then theres no reason why that couldnt work under any of the scenarios presented.

[sim]

I went to the open house last night. Had a couple discussions with people with Calgary Transit. Based on a lot of the comments on the board there, people recognize that whatever happens, the Nose Creek alignment is stupid. Even the Calgary Transit staff agreed it doesn't reflect modern reality.

I personally think a combination of elevated/underground up center to 64th is the ideal solution. There's just so many crossings and lights on Center that would affect low floor LRT that even with traffic light overrides it would slow it down. Street cars mixed in traffic? Might as well just stick with BRT and not bother at all!


Put me down as agreeing 100% as well. I personally think they should take that option right off the table from the get go as well, along with the Nose Creek alignment. If this line is to truely serve both the inner city and suburban populations, the majority of it is going to need an exclusive ROW.

It's encouraging to see that the average Calgarian (at least as representative as the Herald's poll may be) seems to understand that the route by no means should be up Nose Creek.

At the end of the day I believe the only realistic solution is to bore this. As the plan currently had it, the SE LRT is to terminate on 2nd st. I think it is pretty clear that instead of 2 radial lines, the whole thing "should" be one diametrical line, and the SE LRT would then continue on to the NLRT. I can't easily forsee the acceptance of having an elevated structure over Princes Island and furthermore, diaganolly over the existing homes for it to get back on Center St, and what might be the best view of downtown the structure would then impede. I see that is something many will raise arms over.

I also can't foresee a cut and cover operation over the river/Prince's Island, not that it isn't technically possible. A further problem then yet again arises as you get to the North side of the river.

Secondly, while elevating the line past 16th is probably an option, I wouldn't favour it. If part of the overall objective of the line is to improve the Center St corridor, get more people living there, etc, then an elevated line will make that a harder task.

I think the only real question that remains is where boring stops and where cut and cover begins, with maybe a slight chance that elevation could occur towards the outer part of the inner city.

I think Edmonton trail is out largely due to the excerabated problem already faced by getting the alignment from 2nd st downtown over to Edmonton trail. Although the option may become interesting if it were to then head over to Edmonton trail (from Center St) only somewhere once past 16th Ave N. A boring machine would make that an instant possibility, and Greenview (?) Industrial park has the potential to induce a greater ridership demand than the residential parallel to it on center. Furthermore, there may be a chance to slightly elevate it over the creek that flows partly along there (the space is there, but an EIA may squash that.) Either way, it would only make sense for the line to then veer back toward Center.

I'm also not too afraid of the negative impacts any cut and cover, or station pitting would have. It might actually be a stepping stone that then pushes people toward a higher eventual LRT ridership: During construction, CT could initiate a higher frequency BRT run and through some soft or relatively uncomplicated harder measures, prioritize busing through/around any construction zones. People will may then be left with the choice to either sit in mass congestion on Center, try their luck on the then more congested Deerfoot, or hop on the now seemingly more attractive bus ("BRT.") Once construction on the line is finished, modal habits may have changed and an LRT would look only more attractive. In general, we need to be less afraid to make travel more inconvenient for car drivers anyway - or is that too social engineering-y?

I'd put my money on it, that once all said and done, a boring machine will have to be involved, and that the project is going to cost more than most political will, will want to pay for. However, doing it wrong will cost even more in the end.

[fusili]

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

[suburb]

Looked to me like the NCLRT open house was extremely well attended! Couldn't even find parking at Cardel Place!

Regarding comments about number of people using the centre street corridor buses, that's not news to me. There is an unbelievable large amount of people from the 'Northern Hills' that rely on transit via North Pointe. One of the boards at the open house highlighted that there are 1,700 buses on Centre street and Edmonton Trail each day.

Regarding what to go ahead on, I'm actually not all against the CPR rail alignment, however think the real issue there will be 7th avenue congestion. You'd need to go 8th avenue tunnel pretty quick.

Noting that a major issue is moving all the people from the Northern Hills, the 'tram' option is a non-starter. You can't have a tram for 110 blocks. Additionally, while philosophically the centre street alignment looks the best, the high relative cost would mean it would add and additional couple decades to build - more than the decades already estimated before the start! Edmonton trail hybrid, therefore, is likely the best - and also best serves the Aurora Business Park. To revitalize centre just north of DT and 16th ave, I'd suggest a tram from DT to 16th, and then quick implementation of the cross-town BRT along 16th Ave - connecting the NE line, future NC line, NW line and Foothills / University. So it is not a this OR that - the three pieces together result in a pragmatic solution to the major issues, and don't delay construction due to a uber-expensive route. Along with that I think I'd also continue decent centre street service up to the 78th Ave terminal.

The density of the northern hills continues to increase - and the number of multi-family developments in and around Panorama is quite high! Panorama Pointe, Wildstone, and recently Panorama West (by the walkable 'Gates of Panorama' shopping area) are adding to what was already there adjacent to North Pointe. There are, of course, a number of condo projects adjacent to the other side of North Pointe, including Lighthouse Landing.

BTW - they should reduce the number of #3 buses and move them to the #301. It is difficult to put too many more buses along that route, but that shift would help (#3 only goes to 78th ave, and then people stand there and transfer anyway - and the #3 takes longer as it stops all along the way).

[suburb]

Yes a subway carries 200 ppl per car, roughly the same as an LRT vehicle, but it can carry more per hour because of grade separation and the ability to use larger consists. ARGHH!!

... and would take 20 years more to get out to where the people are because of cash flow considerations ... ARGHH!!

[polishavenger]

Secondly, while elevating the line past 16th is probably an option, I wouldn't favour it. If part of the overall objective of the line is to improve the Center St corridor, get more people living there, etc, then an elevated line will make that a harder task.

I think the only real question that remains is where boring stops and where cut and cover begins, with maybe a slight chance that elevation could occur towards the outer part of the inner city.



I am a big proponent of elevated line between 16th ave and 30th Ave, and then again between 40th Ave and 72nd Ave along 4th street. Reason being is that it requires less land, construction intereference is minimal as seen with the launching truss for the west line, and elevated lines allow for use of the real estate below the guideway. You can put in shops, offices, parks or other amenities, pretty much anything except residential.

Im an advocate for moving it to 4th street between 40th ave and 72nd because it puts the line in a more central location in the north corridor, and allows stations near a high school and some shopping areas.

[kw5150]

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

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

[Bassic Lab]

Like this in Vancouver (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vancouver&sll=37.230328,-95.712891&sspn=49.763534,113.994141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Greater+Vancouver+Regional+District,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.212327,-123.117256&spn=0,0.111322&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=49.212178,-123.11722&panoid=dtlDPqKispiOF7ICeIeSXw&cbp=12,142.84,,0,2.98)? It goes from portal to station height in 260 meters.

I would still call that transition a little awkward and it is about as smooth as possible. Centre Street would pose more problems all around. Centre Street has a narrower ROW than Cambie for its entire existence, especially south of 64 Ave where there is no median at all. Centre Street is almost continuously climbing up a slope, making a climb from below the river to elevated difficult, whereas I believe that Cambie is descending in that area. The Canada Line transition is also at the very edge of a residential area, right before an industrial area. Now I tend to discount some of the concerns over the aesthetics and shadowing from an elevated guideway but given Centre Street's limited ROW there just isn't much space for the support columns. Now between 64 Ave and Beddington Boulevard there is enough space but I see no reason to elevate it for a mile before burying it for that last half mile to run under Beddington Trail and into the median of Harvest Hills Boulevard.

I am definitely in favour of an elevated guideway for any 17 Ave SE line. It has the ROW width to include support columns in the middle, then two driving lanes, a parking lane, and quite wide sidewalks. Centre Street just doesn't have that space. I think both lines should be entirely grade separated to avoid cutting off intersections but there is a difference.

[suburb]

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

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

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

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

[sim]

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


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

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

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

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

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

[sim]

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

[Bassic Lab]

Some comments about the survey:

first, why even have a question like this:

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

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

Secondly, this graphic:

https://secure.surveymonkey.com/_resources/21094823/3d58954b-abf9-4b7e-9ba3-47381a4f52b4.jpg

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

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

[suburb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fusili]

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

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

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

[fusili]

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

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

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

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

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

[suburb]

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

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

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

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

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

[kw5150]

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

[sim]

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



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

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


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

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

[MalcolmTucker]

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

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

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

It makes much sense however.

[suburb]

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

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

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

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

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

Then scrap the tram.

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

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

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

[polishavenger]

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

[sim]

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



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


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



Then scrap the tram.

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



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


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

[MalcolmTucker]

Actually you'd never make it up when you consider the yearly compounding interest of the major extra costs of grade separated construction.
The cost of plowing under a 7 km row of houses would be pretty mighty too. You have to compare apples to apples, not apples to not having apples. To achieve roughly compareable levels of service along the same corridor at grade would be incredibly expensive. Plus you have to count things like the externalities of closing every cross street you don't grade seperate at, which would add up over time, if you are doing a CBA. Can't just ignore external costs.

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

[suburb]

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

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

QUESTION:

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

[MalcolmTucker]

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

QUESTION:

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

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

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

[Bassic Lab]

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

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

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

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

[fusili]

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

[Bassic Lab]

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

Exactly

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.092496,-114.044144&panoid=F3VT8-PHtWzVjJQmszgRVw&cbp=12,155.25,,0,0.21&ll=51.092567,-114.04403&spn=0.003693,0.009398&z=17

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

[MalcolmTucker]

Exactly

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.092496,-114.044144&panoid=F3VT8-PHtWzVjJQmszgRVw&cbp=12,155.25,,0,0.21&ll=51.092567,-114.04403&spn=0.003693,0.009398&z=17

I would imagine that the railway will want to hold enough land to twin its tracks if they ever feel the need. Does it look like there is enough room there for six tracks? It looks like it would be tight with just four.
I've been reading all the HSR rail reports commissioned by the Alberta government for work (1976 onwards), and none anticipate building dedicated tracks within the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. The trainsets will be FRA compliant or have a waiver, and the entire corridor will have moving block train control or something equivalent or better, including freight within the corridors.

The cost for building a fully dedicated access is just way too high. Most of the models show three mixed tracks within the cities, until a dedicated station access track branches off. Access downtown will be elevated from Inglewood on, to a station at +15 level, since it is too hard to share the mainline for various reasons.

Still, I doubt 5 tracks would fit.

[Koolfire]

Edmonton trail hybrid, therefore, is likely the best - and also best serves the Aurora Business Park.


I disagree simply based on Edmonton trail not being straight as centre which would mean slightly longer. It makes more sense to do it up centre and then right turn a McKnight if they really think it's better to go through Nose creek for the rest of the way. When you have high per km cost because it's buried 800m is significant. To a certain extent it's splitting hairs with cost as the ROW gets wider north of McKnight anyways. And everyone seems to forget it's likely that in the Nose Creek area if you don't get CP rails row you need to build new bridges. It's likely that hybrid route would need a rebuilt wider bridge at 64th.

[Koolfire]

We certainly know that the per kilometer cost of running along CPR is the least of the options, and we know the construction disruption is also the least.



Do we? There is no agreement between CP Rail and the City (Confirmed by Calgary Transit). This could be the next Airport tunnel where the city has to negotiate a deal with them and who knows what CP comes up with for demands.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Yeah, just like people who anticipated commuter rail to Cochrane would be a cheap win, then CPR came back and said to make it work would require $500 million in track work. Mind you, the main line is a lot more busy than the Calgary - Edmonton line (around forty trains a day compared to fifteen between Edmonton and Calgary on CPR if my memory is correct) but still.

[Bassic Lab]

I've been reading all the HSR rail reports commissioned by the Alberta government for work (1976 onwards), and none anticipate building dedicated tracks within the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. The trainsets will be FRA compliant or have a waiver, and the entire corridor will have moving block train control or something equivalent or better, including freight within the corridors.

The cost for building a fully dedicated access is just way too high. Most of the models show three mixed tracks within the cities, until a dedicated station access track branches off. Access downtown will be elevated from Inglewood on, to a station at +15 level, since it is too hard to share the mainline for various reasons.

Still, I doubt 5 tracks would fit.

Well, there isn't much difference in what the government would have to build between having three mixed tracks and having two dedicated passenger rail tracks. It would all depend on how heavy the demands are from the railway. Really, if the company would accept it, at that point I'd prefer that the province pay for three sets of tracks and give one of them to the railway in exchange for the ROW for the other two. That way it would be done and we would never be in a situation with shared track rights and getting bent over if we want to increase frequency. As it stands, I don't want to imagine the kind of deal the freight railroads will try to negotiate. Probably something insane like five hundred million to the company to triple track it in exchange for the right to put twenty trains through a day.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, the freight railway needs two tracks so freight trains can pass eachother, plus they don't want to be forced into a situation that limits their future operations too much. Nose Creek Valley already has substaintial portions double tracked just to sustain today's freight operations (you often see a train stretching from Memorial to 16th Ave waiting for yard clearance and whatnot, or for a passing train).

Expanding the full ROW to three tracks buys you one track worth of access for HSR, and there isn't anything the provincial government can do to change that. Railroads have the powers they do for very good reasons, and you win more friends with honey than vinegar.

On a totally unrelated note, one of the studies said only 2 tracks (plus sidings and where they currently exist) were needed outside of the cities for both combined freight and HSR operations if you installed high speed crossovers approximately every 12 km.

Getting back to the LRT still it doesn't paint a pretty picture for a Nose Creek alignment, expropriating a 15m ROW through industrial land and building new LRT underpasses at every major road.

[DarkKeyo]

In the midst of all this north lrt talk, has anyone noticed that the new display signs are showing up at stations?

[outoftheice]

In the midst of all this north lrt talk, has anyone noticed that the new display signs are showing up at stations?

Calgary Transit has a timeline up on their website now for all of their new technology.

CCTV replacement December 2010
Transit Email Alerts February 2011
Real Time Information (CTrain) July 2011
Credit/debit card payment machines at various CTrain stations July 2011
Enhanced Trip Planning on the Web December 2011
Electronic Fare Payment June 2012
Real Time Information (Buses) June 2013

Definitely good to see! http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/high_tech.html

[outoftheice]

The initial reviews are in on the NC LRT open house. The public's response looks promising for the elmination of the Nose Creek routing.

Running C-Trains down the unpopulated Nose Creek valley is proving to be the least popular Calgary Transit idea since the $3 park-and-ride fee.

That charge has been axed, and the long-proposed valley alignment for the future north-central LRT line seems on its way out too, given Calgarians’ response to the option at an open house Tuesday.

The public preference is clearly one of the other two dotted lines strung on transit planners’ maps: one option down Centre Street, the other along Edmonton Trail.

It also appears that we're not the only ones who have picked up on the City's resistance to exploring a Centre Street Subway option.

Two other options are coming to the fore: an elevated line — every second open-house visitor seemed to mention Vancouver’s Sky Train — and the low-floor tram that’s common throughout Europe, which Calgary planners are dubbing “urban LRT.”

It’s cheaper than existing light rail because stations can be glorified sidewalks, but operating at street level down Centre Street would be slow.

“Keep in mind they’re not worried about speed in Europe,” transit planning manager Neil McKendrick told a crowd gathered around him.

The city seemed to subtly discourage a north-central subway option. A board showed nine dollar signs next to that possibility, and only five for traditional C-Train and three for a low-floor tram

Full Article Here:
Open house visitors nix Nose Creek valley C-Trains
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Open+house+visitors+Nose+Creek+valley+Trains/4840306/story.html#ixzz1NrJN3OMK

[freeweed]

Real time transit info might finally be the thing that forces me to get a more current smartphone. Nothing worse than missing a bus by 30 seconds... if only I walked just a tiny bit faster... :hell:

Awesome stuff coming down the pipe.

[polishavenger]

Its a breath of fresh air to hear that people are thinking more about the city as a whole rather than just about what they need.

[RicoLance21]

New C-train platform signs installed

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8905/image199n.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/image199n.jpg/)

[freeweed]

CT's going crazy on fare enforcement. 3 times in the past week and a half. I usually get hit up maybe once or twice a year.

[srperrycgy]

:previous:
I was listening to the QR77 Morning Show on Shaw this morning and they interviewed the Security head for CT. Apparently, if you haven't paid your fare and get caught you have the option of doing a 10-question survey on Fare Evaison. For a limited time only.

[polishavenger]

CT's going crazy on fare enforcement. 3 times in the past week and a half. I usually get hit up maybe once or twice a year.

I wonder how long it will take CT to get on a system like the octopus card in hong kong. It looks like a credit card, you preload money on it at any 7-11 and subway station, and you use it to pay your fair on the subway, busses, taxis, and some ferry's. Its so simple and convenient, I cant understand why its not everywhere. In addition it would also help track ridership without connecting it to any one person as no ID is attached to the card. The card also makes paying fares based on distance possible, which I think has some merit as Calgary grows outward and people need to commute further.

[freeweed]

:previous:
I was listening to the QR77 Morning Show on Shaw this morning and they interviewed the Security head for CT. Apparently, if you haven't paid your fare and get caught you have the option of doing a 10-question survey on Fare Evaison. For a limited time only.

Ah, that explains why people have seemed less agitated when caught lately. Usually fare evaders are university-aged kids and they look pretty nervous when getting a ticket. The last few I've seen, the CT guy has been casually chatting them up with a clipboard. And it's not been CT security all the time either, just guys in plainclothes.

Thanks for the enlightenment. This is a positive thing in my opinion - instead of "here's the rules, you break then, PUNISHMENT!", we're actually taking the steps of "hmm, WHY did you break the rules, let's actually try to find out so we can prevent it in the future".

Carrot vs. the stick, and all that. Me likey.

[freeweed]

I wonder how long it will take CT to get on a system like the octopus card in hong kong. It looks like a credit card, you preload money on it at any 7-11 and subway station, and you use it to pay your fair on the subway, busses, taxis, and some ferry's. Its so simple and convenient, I cant understand why its not everywhere. In addition it would also help track ridership without connecting it to any one person as no ID is attached to the card. The card also makes paying fares based on distance possible, which I think has some merit as Calgary grows outward and people need to commute further.

So long as I can still get the convenience of a monthly pass, I'm all for whatever is chosen. I love being able to just hop on and off trains and buses without ever even thinking about fares. Half the time I forget I even have my pass on me until they come asking for it. :haha:

[MalcolmTucker]

I wonder how long it will take CT to get on a system like the octopus card in hong kong. It looks like a credit card, you preload money on it at any 7-11 and subway station, and you use it to pay your fair on the subway, busses, taxis, and some ferry's. Its so simple and convenient, I cant understand why its not everywhere. In addition it would also help track ridership without connecting it to any one person as no ID is attached to the card. The card also makes paying fares based on distance possible, which I think has some merit as Calgary grows outward and people need to commute further.
Electronic Fare Payment is coming June 2012.

[mersar]

New C-train platform signs installed

Yep, the new signs are up at about 1/2 the platforms already and should be working by Stampede.

[CTrainDude]

Yep, the new signs are up at about 1/2 the platforms already and should be working by Stampede.
Umm, they said July - and you guessed it - I believe it's the end of July, not by Stampede.