After the SELRT is built what NCLRT style of transit would you like?

[CalgaryTransit guy]

The NCLRT isnt being built until the near future but i think its up to you guys to decide on what it should be like?

[jsbertram]

The NCLRT isnt being built until the near future but i think its up to you guys to decide on what it should be like?

Since it is expected to be an extension of the SE LRT (North in 2nd St tunnel; over/under Prince's Island; over/under/through the eastern edge of Sunnyside, tunnel under Crescent Heights; run north under Centre St or 4th St to Beddington), most of its design decisions are already finalized.

Similarly, most of the West LRT design decisions were set in place because the new West LRT line is simply an extension of the NE LRT line.

[frinkprof]

Since it is expected to be an extension of the SE LRT (North in 2nd St tunnel; over/under Prince's Island; over/under/through the eastern edge of Sunnyside, tunnel under Crescent Heights; run north under Centre St or 4th St to Beddington), most of its design decisions are already finalized.

Similarly, most of the West LRT design decisions were set in place because the new West LRT line is simply an extension of the NE LRT line.This isn't remotely true in either case, moreso in the former case.

[jsbertram]

Other than how 'modern' or 'basic' the stations are, there isn't much else that can be changed once you have made the decisions on the train stock and power systems.

I remember noticing how much nicer the stations were at Dalhousie and Crowfoot, but only because they were the newest stations at the time.

Most of the other stations built in the first few phases were 'cookie-cutter' designs to minimize the up-front costs of building the new LRT lines, so I was happy to see the downtown 80's-era pre-cast concrete platforms downtown have been replaced with new station designs that show someone was willing to go beyond the 'boring basic beige box' that is so common with transit stations.

[suburb]

The poll is too simplistic. Again each item, it should list at least two additional items. 1. Number of people that will be served with that particular option, and 2. The cost of the option.

If you don't list cost, certainly 500 km of metro all around the city would be fantastic, but such a poll means little as it is not pragmatic.

[jsbertram]

This isn't remotely true in either case, moreso in the former case.

You're saying the NE LRT was always supposed to terminate at 7th Av@10th St ? and that the West LRT would terminate somewhere else downtown?

And with the SE LRT terminating at 2nd Av@2nd St, the North LRT would also terminate somewhere else downtown?

If this were true, why bother connecting the South LRT to the NW LRT when they could have built them as separate lines with their own downtown terminals?


Seems quite silly to me to have so many dead-end terminals downtown when the NE LRT trains could (and will) continue west, and the SE LRT trains could continue north.

[Koolfire]

Since it is expected to be an extension of the SE LRT (North in 2nd St tunnel; over/under Prince's Island; over/under/through the eastern edge of Sunnyside, tunnel under Crescent Heights; run north under Centre St or 4th St to Beddington), most of its design decisions are already finalized.

4th St, hmmm, when there was an open house 6 (?) months back the 3 options Centre St, Edmonton Trail, and Nose Creek. From the conversation during the open house I was under the impression that Centre St up to McKnight was a clear winner with the people attending but after that there seemed to be a group voting for switching to Nose Creek (the Edmonton Trail alignment also merges with Nose Creek alignment somewhere before 64th). 4th St wasn't even a consideration. It will be interesting to see the next report on transit in the North Central. With the new traffic calming feature pretty much making it already a 2 lane road, there is potential cost savings but 4th st doesn't have much density.

[Calgarian]

Connect it to the SE LRT

[kw5150]

Isnt this just going to be a combination of a few different LRT types like the West LRT?

[westendjack]

Personally, I'm hoping for and supporting some type of hybrid Metro straight up Centre Street rather than the Nose Creek alignment (obviously). However, having read some of the difficulties that are occurring with Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown LRT and building a completely grade separated low floor LRT, suggests to me that a long stretch of underground low floor LRT may not be the best choice for this corridor. So while, there's logic in connecting the North Central LRT to the SE LRT, I'm not sold that this is necessarily the best choice.

However, decisions like that are generally well above my pay grade and to me the most important thing is that the Centre Street corridor is used and that it is a high capacity rail corridor. The details beyond that still need to be evaluated by experts (or more knowledgeable forum members) before I can venture an opinion further.

[jsbertram]

Isnt this joust going to be a combination of a few different LRT types like the West LRT?

With over three decades of experience operating & maintaining the LRT in Calgary, I can't see Transit switching to a non-compatible system - regardless of how much money might be available to spend on nifty new technology.

You go with what you know.

It won't be a surprise to me to see the Siemens-Duewag U2 and/or Siemens SD-160 trains (or younger variants) running on NC LRT when it opens.

[Koolfire]

With over three decades of experience operating & maintaining the LRT in Calgary, I can't see Transit switching to a non-compatible system - regardless of how much money might be available to spend on nifty new technology.


I can easily see it happen if it's done as a P3 where car maintenance is part of the contract. Mind you I'm not sure how the P3 would work with the transit union.

[CalgaryTransit guy]

Connect it to the SE LRT

That was a recommendation in a Clifton ND study. They said it would link up the SE LRT by the CN railway tracks to the North Central LRT.

[jsbertram]

That was a recommendation in a Clifton ND study. They said it would link up the SE LRT by the CN railway tracks to the North Central LRT.

I think you might be referring to the 2006 Clifton ND Lea study, which I can't seem to find right now.

There is also the 2010 Clifton ND Lea Compendium (Southeast LRT Compendium of Functional Planning Studies) available here: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Southeast%20LRT%20Compendium.pdf

This 2010 report brings together all the separate SE LRT studies and plans that have been done since the mid-80s and creates one proposed alignment from Downtown to the new South Hospital.

As noted in the 2010 report, if the SE LRT is operated separate from the rest of the LRT system, it can use the new low-floor cars which would be incompatible with the existing LRT system, but it will also need its own maintenance centre (which was not part of the 2010 report scope).

[jsbertram]

A proposal submitted to Plan It Calgary:

http://www.principia-communications-strategies.com/To%20Stand%20and%20Dream%20a%20Mighty%20Dream.pdf

From the Executive Summary: "The C-Train service plan envisioned in this document encompasses a total of seven light rail transit lines by the year 2040."

[outoftheice]

I know I've mentioned it before, but I think that the question being posed in this thread is the wrong one. If Centre Street does become the preferred route for the NC LRT I think the question we need to be asking is "How can we build the NC LRT at the same time as the SE LRT?" I realize that with the infrastructure funding programs currently in place, the total cost of building the NC LRT and SE LRT is too much, however people always seem to over-look a P3 model to provide the financing. Some food for thought:

- Putting the NC LRT and SE LRT out to tender at the same time creates an opportunity for savings through economies of scale.

- If there has ever been a time to finance a project through the private sector, now is the time to do it. With interest rates the way they are, money is cheap and with the economy the way it is, those dollars will stretch further.

- While a P3 model will ultimately cost the city more than a traditional funding model, it also allows the shovels to be put in the ground much sooner than they ever would be otherwise. The NC and SE LRT have the power to transform the city by bringing re-investment and added densities to the communties that border the routes. If we are to believe the reports that accompanied the Plan It: Calgary document, continued urban spawl could potentially add $11 BILLION in additional costs to the City. The sooner the shovels go in the ground, the sooner the NC and SE LRT lines can begin to have an impact on where private development dollars are invested. If pursuing a P3 strategy moves up the construction timeline by 10 years or more, I have no doubt the additional costs a P3 model would bring would be more than offset by the savings in reducing Calgary's potential urban footprint.

- Ultimately, any construction financing will have to be sold to the public. There are numerous examples (the Calgary ring-road being one of the most notable) that show the public are much more receptive to a debt burden being added to a government through a P3 than through any other means. Saying "we're borrowing $6 billion to build a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We're spending a $6 billion funding grant on a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We've entered into a P3 agreement where we will see the NC/SE LRT open with-in 5 years and only then will we have to begin paying a couple hundred million dollars a year with the burden being shared with various levels of government" will probably be easiest to sell out of all the options.

- Building the NC/SE LRT all at once will provide a huge amount of relief off of the city's main artery (Deerfoot Trail). How much economic productivity is lost on an annual basis due to congrestion and grid-lock on this corridor?? Once again, if we can move up the construction timeline by 10 years, how much money can be saved due to recovered economic productivity??

And finally this: The biggest reason I find people give for not building the NC and SE LRTs at the same time is simply that the scale of the project is "too big for Calgary". Well the City of Toronto (more specifically Mayor Ford) has committed itself to spending $12 Billion to build a cross-town LRT line ($8 Billion) and a subway extension ($4 Billion). The subway extension will be financed using a P3 model and can serve as a model for the City of Calgary moving forward. While there is a lot of debate as to exactly what should be built for the money (subway versus LRT, etc....) the fact is that the public in Toronto has realized that rapid transit needs to be a priority and they are willing to spend $12 Billion to make that happen. Calgary has half the population of Toronto and a combined NC/SE LRT would probably carry about half the cost of Mayor Ford's transit plan. If they can make this work in Toronto, why can we not make it work in a city known for it's innovation and can-do spirit and just so happens to sit in one of Canada's wealthiest provinces that is also home to a large number of MPs with Canada's governing party??

[Full Mountain]

I know I've mentioned it before, but I think that the question being posed in this thread is the wrong one. If Centre Street does become the preferred route for the NC LRT I think the question we need to be asking is "How can we build the NC LRT at the same time as the SE LRT?" I realize that with the infrastructure funding programs currently in place, the total cost of building the NC LRT and SE LRT is too much, however people always seem to over-look a P3 model to provide the financing. Some food for thought:

- Putting the NC LRT and SE LRT out to tender at the same time creates an opportunity for savings through economies of scale.

- If there has ever been a time to finance a project through the private sector, now is the time to do it. With interest rates the way they are, money is cheap and with the economy the way it is, those dollars will stretch further.

- While a P3 model will ultimately cost the city more than a traditional funding model, it also allows the shovels to be put in the ground much sooner than they ever would be otherwise. The NC and SE LRT have the power to transform the city by bringing re-investment and added densities to the communties that border the routes. If we are to believe the reports that accompanied the Plan It: Calgary document, continued urban spawl could potentially add $11 BILLION in additional costs to the City. The sooner the shovels go in the ground, the sooner the NC and SE LRT lines can begin to have an impact on where private development dollars are invested. If pursuing a P3 strategy moves up the construction timeline by 10 years or more, I have no doubt the additional costs a P3 model would bring would be more than offset by the savings in reducing Calgary's potential urban footprint.

- Ultimately, any construction financing will have to be sold to the public. There are numerous examples (the Calgary ring-road being one of the most notable) that show the public are much more receptive to a debt burden being added to a government through a P3 than through any other means. Saying "we're borrowing $6 billion to build a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We're spending a $6 billion funding grant on a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We've entered into a P3 agreement where we will see the NC/SE LRT open with-in 5 years and only then will we have to begin paying a couple hundred million dollars a year with the burden being shared with various levels of government" will probably be easiest to sell out of all the options.

- Building the NC/SE LRT all at once will provide a huge amount of relief off of the city's main artery (Deerfoot Trail). How much economic productivity is lost on an annual basis due to congrestion and grid-lock on this corridor?? Once again, if we can move up the construction timeline by 10 years, how much money can be saved due to recovered economic productivity??

And finally this: The biggest reason I find people give for not building the NC and SE LRTs at the same time is simply that the scale of the project is "too big for Calgary". Well the City of Toronto (more specifically Mayor Ford) has committed itself to spending $12 Billion to build a cross-town LRT line ($8 Billion) and a subway extension ($4 Billion). The subway extension will be financed using a P3 model and can serve as a model for the City of Calgary moving forward. While there is a lot of debate as to exactly what should be built for the money (subway versus LRT, etc....) the fact is that the public in Toronto has realized that rapid transit needs to be a priority and they are willing to spend $12 Billion to make that happen. Calgary has half the population of Toronto and a combined NC/SE LRT would probably carry about half the cost of Mayor Ford's transit plan. If they can make this work in Toronto, why can we not make it work in a city known for it's innovation and can-do spirit and just so happens to sit in one of Canada's wealthiest provinces that is also home to a large number of MPs with Canada's governing party??

Another advantage of doing it P3 is that the liablity for the tunnelling DT would/could be taken on by the private partner rather than the city

[Doug]

I still think the Nose Creek Valley alignment for NCLRT could generate more density than a Centre St alignment. City owned land at the Spring Gardens transist storage site, the neighboring materials storage site. the Midfield Mobile home park and Fox Hollow golf course would provide for huge almost greenfield development. Throw in privately owned land at the Elks Golf Course and Greenview Industrial park and the development potential is massive. A master plan could restore Nose Creek, develop green space along its path and provide a connection westward to the exisiting Confederation/Queens Park green space.

Centre Street would likely only experience 10th Street North like densification at best and that would likely occur even without LRT.

The biggest challenge with a Nose Creek alignment would be how to connect it to the SE line through downtown. Maybe it could branch off the SE line somewhere in Ramsay, and interline with the SE line into downtown.

[craner]

With over three decades of experience operating & maintaining the LRT in Calgary, I can't see Transit switching to a non-compatible system - regardless of how much money might be available to spend on nifty new technology.

You go with what you know.

It won't be a surprise to me to see the Siemens-Duewag U2 and/or Siemens SD-160 trains (or younger variants) running on NC LRT when it opens.

I agree and I hope this is the case. I don't know why we would swich systems now (i.e low floor cars, etc.) now ?? :shrug:
As for the route - I really hope we go underground up Centre Street to at least 24th Ave.

Thanks for that mid-century LRT plan link - looks like I've got some nighttime reading. :)

[jsbertram]

I still think the Nose Creek Valley alignment for NCLRT could generate more density than a Centre St alignment. City owned land at the Spring Gardens transist storage site, the neighboring materials storage site. the Midfield Mobile home park and Fox Hollow golf course would provide for huge almost greenfield development. Throw in privately owned land at the Elks Golf Course and Greenview Industrial park and the development potential is massive. A master plan could restore Nose Creek, develop green space along its path and provide a connection westward to the exisiting Confederation/Queens Park green space.

Centre Street would likely only experience 10th Street North like densification at best and that would likely occur even without LRT.

The biggest challenge with a Nose Creek alignment would be how to connect it to the SE line through downtown. Maybe it could branch off the SE line somewhere in Ramsay, and interline with the SE line into downtown.

One suggestion was to have the NC LRT branch off the NE LRT at Memorial/Deerfoot instead of being treated as an extension of the SE LRT.

[Bassic Lab]

I know I've mentioned it before, but I think that the question being posed in this thread is the wrong one. If Centre Street does become the preferred route for the NC LRT I think the question we need to be asking is "How can we build the NC LRT at the same time as the SE LRT?" I realize that with the infrastructure funding programs currently in place, the total cost of building the NC LRT and SE LRT is too much, however people always seem to over-look a P3 model to provide the financing. Some food for thought:

- Putting the NC LRT and SE LRT out to tender at the same time creates an opportunity for savings through economies of scale.

- If there has ever been a time to finance a project through the private sector, now is the time to do it. With interest rates the way they are, money is cheap and with the economy the way it is, those dollars will stretch further.

- While a P3 model will ultimately cost the city more than a traditional funding model, it also allows the shovels to be put in the ground much sooner than they ever would be otherwise. The NC and SE LRT have the power to transform the city by bringing re-investment and added densities to the communties that border the routes. If we are to believe the reports that accompanied the Plan It: Calgary document, continued urban spawl could potentially add $11 BILLION in additional costs to the City. The sooner the shovels go in the ground, the sooner the NC and SE LRT lines can begin to have an impact on where private development dollars are invested. If pursuing a P3 strategy moves up the construction timeline by 10 years or more, I have no doubt the additional costs a P3 model would bring would be more than offset by the savings in reducing Calgary's potential urban footprint.

- Ultimately, any construction financing will have to be sold to the public. There are numerous examples (the Calgary ring-road being one of the most notable) that show the public are much more receptive to a debt burden being added to a government through a P3 than through any other means. Saying "we're borrowing $6 billion to build a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We're spending a $6 billion funding grant on a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We've entered into a P3 agreement where we will see the NC/SE LRT open with-in 5 years and only then will we have to begin paying a couple hundred million dollars a year with the burden being shared with various levels of government" will probably be easiest to sell out of all the options.

- Building the NC/SE LRT all at once will provide a huge amount of relief off of the city's main artery (Deerfoot Trail). How much economic productivity is lost on an annual basis due to congrestion and grid-lock on this corridor?? Once again, if we can move up the construction timeline by 10 years, how much money can be saved due to recovered economic productivity??

And finally this: The biggest reason I find people give for not building the NC and SE LRTs at the same time is simply that the scale of the project is "too big for Calgary". Well the City of Toronto (more specifically Mayor Ford) has committed itself to spending $12 Billion to build a cross-town LRT line ($8 Billion) and a subway extension ($4 Billion). The subway extension will be financed using a P3 model and can serve as a model for the City of Calgary moving forward. While there is a lot of debate as to exactly what should be built for the money (subway versus LRT, etc....) the fact is that the public in Toronto has realized that rapid transit needs to be a priority and they are willing to spend $12 Billion to make that happen. Calgary has half the population of Toronto and a combined NC/SE LRT would probably carry about half the cost of Mayor Ford's transit plan. If they can make this work in Toronto, why can we not make it work in a city known for it's innovation and can-do spirit and just so happens to sit in one of Canada's wealthiest provinces that is also home to a large number of MPs with Canada's governing party??

A P3, exactly like debt financing it ourselves except that we could probably get a better interest rate than the consortium, is still a long term liability to the city's finances. If we cannot afford, or are blocked by statue from attaining, six billion in debt then we cannot afford to pay someone else to take on that debt. With that 6 billion figure, we would be looking at payments in the neighbourhood of 425 million a year on a 30 year agreement just for a build contract if we couldn't pay for any of the initial construction costs. It would be even higher if we had a build/operate/maintain contract. I do not think the city can take on that kind of an annual liability at this time.

The thing is, Toronto is not spending 8 billion on the Eglinton line; Ontario is paying for it. Likewise, we need the support of a higher level of government for such a project. Hopefully, with the completion of the Ring Roads, Alberta will see the value in building out Calgary and Edmonton's primary transit networks. I simply can't see it being done without the province, if not the feds as well, on board.

[polishavenger]

I still think the Nose Creek Valley alignment for NCLRT could generate more density than a Centre St alignment. City owned land at the Spring Gardens transist storage site, the neighboring materials storage site. the Midfield Mobile home park and Fox Hollow golf course would provide for huge almost greenfield development. Throw in privately owned land at the Elks Golf Course and Greenview Industrial park and the development potential is massive. A master plan could restore Nose Creek, develop green space along its path and provide a connection westward to the exisiting Confederation/Queens Park green space.

Centre Street would likely only experience 10th Street North like densification at best and that would likely occur even without LRT.

The biggest challenge with a Nose Creek alignment would be how to connect it to the SE line through downtown. Maybe it could branch off the SE line somewhere in Ramsay, and interline with the SE line into downtown.


I doubt any of this density would materialze with a C-train running up that corridor. That area is all industrial, and adjacent to deerfoot, less than appealing residential land, and not at all appealing for commercial. Keep it industrial and focus on upping density along center street beyond what it would without LRT, and servicing all the other populations along that alignment better than if it was in the Nose Creek alignment.

[Full Mountain]

I still think the Nose Creek Valley alignment for NCLRT could generate more density than a Centre St alignment. City owned land at the Spring Gardens transist storage site, the neighboring materials storage site. the Midfield Mobile home park and Fox Hollow golf course would provide for huge almost greenfield development. Throw in privately owned land at the Elks Golf Course and Greenview Industrial park and the development potential is massive. A master plan could restore Nose Creek, develop green space along its path and provide a connection westward to the exisiting Confederation/Queens Park green space.

Centre Street would likely only experience 10th Street North like densification at best and that would likely occur even without LRT.

The biggest challenge with a Nose Creek alignment would be how to connect it to the SE line through downtown. Maybe it could branch off the SE line somewhere in Ramsay, and interline with the SE line into downtown.

I believe the if the Nose Creek alignment is choosen there won't be a direct connection to the SE LRT, rather an interline with the NE-W line which ultimately reduces capacity of 3 lines (NE-W, N, and to some extent SE). By making the NLRT an extension of the SELRT you can remove interlining completely with future 7th (NE-W) and 8th (NW-S) ave subways thereby allowing for future growth in the sytem

[Full Mountain]

I doubt any of this density would materialze with a C-train running up that corridor. That area is all industrial, and adjacent to deerfoot, less than appealing residential land, and not at all appealing for commercial. Keep it industrial and focus on upping density along center street beyond what it would without LRT, and servicing all the other populations along that alignment better than if it was in the Nose Creek alignment.

In addition to it being industrial and having deerfoot right there, there is also a significant rail line there which would cause both noise and access issues.

[Doug]

One suggestion was to have the NC LRT branch off the NE LRT at Memorial/Deerfoot instead of being treated as an extension of the SE LRT.

Branching off would be OK if it didn't require a transfer: SE LRT line would merge onto NE line and then branch off by zoo.

[jsbertram]

I doubt any of this density would materialze with a C-train running up that corridor. That area is all industrial, and adjacent to deerfoot, less than appealing residential land, and not at all appealing for commercial. Keep it industrial and focus on upping density along center street beyond what it would without LRT, and servicing all the other populations along that alignment better than if it was in the Nose Creek alignment.

My reason for using a 4th St alignment from downtown right through to Beddington is that 4th St is the one street that doesn't have direct vehicular access to downtown - which Edmonton Tr, Centre St, and 10th St do have - so 4th St could become a more transit-focused street. I'm not saying it should be made Transit-only like 7th Ave downtown, but instead private vehicles should be discouraged from using 4th St and should instead use the other parallel streets that have direct downtown access.

Having 4th St as a 'straight shot' to Beddington makes for a simpler construction although some people might be bored with a line that has few curves.

Having LRT on (and under) 4th St can pull in riders from as far away as 10th St on the west and Deerfoot on the east, and there are many areas along 4th St that are ripe for TOD re-developments near LRT stations. Just because 4th St is low density today doesn't prevent pockets of higher-density developments from happening as a result of a new LRT line being put in.

[Policy Wonk]

By the time the SELRT is completed the need to take the 7th Ave LRT below or above grade like 8th Ave presumably will be should be a much more pressing need than the Nose Creek LRT. A couple people here doggedly insist that 7th will never need to be taken out of traffic, ever but this isn't the case. Calgary Transit can't operate their peak headways as scheduled today and their long-term goal is two minute headways on both 201 and 202 are simply incompatible with 7th Ave at grade. Surely they will be along shortly along with the anti-interlining people.

I doubt any of this density would materialze with a C-train running up that corridor. That area is all industrial, and adjacent to deerfoot, less than appealing residential land, and not at all appealing for commercial. Keep it industrial and focus on upping density along center street beyond what it would without LRT, and servicing all the other populations along that alignment better than if it was in the Nose Creek alignment.

Oddly enough master planned high density development along new mass transit lines seems to work just about everywhere else on earth. Yet on this website the conventional wisdom appears to be that this is insanity and the only probable approach is persuading Grandpa Simpson and Maude Flanders of the virtues of massive intensification in the mature communities along Centre Street. Which would be a war of the likes this city has never seen. Is too costly to seriously contemplate and is unlikely to ever reach the suburbs north of Beddington Trail the NCLRT was intended to serve in the first place.

[fusili]

The type of system to be used for the NCLRT is probably going to be a mix of underground, at-grade and elevated. The whole "urban LRT" "metro" etc is really confusing. Calgary Transit fell into this trap as well, using undefined and vague terms for the types of transit.

To know what we are talking about, we need to ask the following questions:

What kind of right-of-way does the system use? (Fully separated, separated but with at grade vehicle crossings, or operates in mixed traffic)
How long are the consists? (3 cars, 4 cars, 5 cars, 9 cars, etc)
Where is power provided from? (electrified third rail, over head caternaries)
Where are the stations? (at grade, elevated, underground)
What type of vehicle? (low floor LRV, high floor LRV, Lyle Lannley's Monorail)

[albertantraingeek]

For once, I actually agree with PolicyWonk. What kind of of Black magic is this :haha:

[Bassic Lab]

By the time the SELRT is completed the need to take the 7th Ave LRT below or above grade like 8th Ave presumably will be should be a much more pressing need than the Nose Creek LRT. A couple people here doggedly insist that 7th will never need to be taken out of traffic, ever but this isn't the case. Calgary Transit can't operate their peak headways as scheduled today and their long-term goal is two minute headways on both 201 and 202 are simply incompatible with 7th Ave at grade. Surely they will be along shortly along with the anti-interlining people.



Oddly enough master planned high density development along new mass transit lines seems to work just about everywhere else on earth. Yet on this website the conventional wisdom appears to be that this is insanity and the only probable approach is persuading Grandpa Simpson and Maude Flanders of the virtues of massive intensification in the mature communities along Centre Street. Which would be a war of the likes this city has never seen. Is too costly to seriously contemplate and is unlikely to ever reach the suburbs north of Beddington Trail the NCLRT was intended to serve in the first place.

I could easily see the W-NE line requiring grade separation through the core eventually. I don't think that is an argument in favour of interlining a North Line in the same tunnel. I could easily see 7 Ave on the surface handling W-NE traffic better than a tunnel could handle W-NE/N. If the NE LRT and N LRT were both to require two minute headways, then that would mean one minute headways in the tunnel. It would also add either the complication of some trains short turning downtown to return to their origins, affecting tunnel capacity, or the expense of over capacity along the W LRT.

I think that, for a Nose Creek alignment to not harshly limit total system capacity, it would still need to be either a continuation of the SE LRT or it would require a fourth downtown ROW for an entirely independent operation. The expense of either would quickly push the cost of a Nose Creek alignment much closer to that of a Centre Street route. That is ignoring the cost of competing with both the province and a freight railway for part of what could quickly become a very sought after ROW.

The Centre Street corridor will intensify with or without an LRT. I have serious doubts that freeway adjacent industrial parks, entirely cut off from existing residential services, will ever become attractive areas for redevelopment. I would imagine that the thirty year old 39 Avenue Station would be surrounded by condos if such an eventuality were likely. Besides, the entire plan would be built upon the already iffy proposition that we ought banish industry, and the decent paying blue collar jobs associated with it, from the inner city. As for the golf courses, Shawnee Slopes seems to counteract the notion that NIMBYs will be cool with their redevelopment.

[Doug]

The Centre Street corridor will intensify with or without an LRT. I have serious doubts that freeway adjacent industrial parks, entirely cut off from existing residential services, will ever become attractive areas for redevelopment. I would imagine that the thirty year old 39 Avenue Station would be surrounded by condos if such an eventuality were likely. Besides, the entire plan would be built upon the already iffy proposition that we ought banish industry, and the decent paying blue collar jobs associated with it, from the inner city. As for the golf courses, Shawnee Slopes seems to counteract the notion that NIMBYs will be cool with their redevelopment.

Nose Creek Valley would work as it would only be cut off on the east side. The 32nd Ave connector could be redesigned to calm traffic, and eliminating the relatively small Greenview industrial park would allow tie in to existing residential off to the west. Commercial development could be clustered adjacent to Deerfoot and the actual LRT/freight rail corridor. A real win would be including the privately owned Elks golf course.

[YYCguys]

A real win would be including the privately owned Elks golf course.

What do you mean? Redevelop the golf course into residential, etc? We've seen how well that's gone over with the neighbors of Shawnee Golf Course. :koko:

[Doug]

What do you mean? Redevelop the golf course into residential, etc? We've seen how well that's gone over with the neighbors of Shawnee Golf Course. :koko:

But Shawnee is happening anyways. Besides Elks doesn't have any existing housing backing on to it. Neither does Fox Hollow.

[YYCguys]

Speaking of Shawnee Park, Geo-Energy had hoped to have that project in front of CPC before Christmas and to Council in the new year, but I guess that's not gonna happen, as the last CPC agenda for the year has only 3 items on it, and this isn't one of them. Despite all the hoopla over it, I'm actually curious to see what the project will look like and if it actually gets underway. Geo-Energy is in the process of putting up security fencing and "no trespassing" signs all along the perimeter of the golf course, so they must be getting ready for a 2012 start.

Whoops, wrong thread. Mod, please move.

[artvandelay]

A real win would be including the privately owned Elks golf course.

I hope not, Elks is one of the best public courses in Calgary!

[jsbertram]

I hope not, Elks is one of the best public courses in Calgary!

However, being privately owned land they can do whatever they want with their land (after rezoning it of course).

I think the CPR ROW along Nose Creek isn't big enough to accommodate the twin tracks for LRT (and the extra room needed for stations), and the High Speed Rail tracks, and the CPR line to Edmonton.

Any talk of running LRT up Nose Creek may be a red herring

[fusili]

However, being privately owned land they can do whatever they want with their land (after rezoning it of course).I think the CPR ROW along Nose Creek isn't big enough to accommodate the twin tracks for LRT (and the extra room needed for stations), and the High Speed Rail tracks, and the CPR line to Edmonton.

Any talk of running LRT up Nose Creek may be a red herring

Nope. Not even close. Welcome to the fantastic world of discretionary planning. There is little in Calgary that people can build outside of contextual single detached dwellings, some signs and utilities on their property. Almost everything else is discretionary and can be refused by the City. The myth that people can do whatever they want with their property just is not true.

[westendjack]

However, being privately owned land they can do whatever they want with their land (after rezoning it of course).

I think the CPR ROW along Nose Creek isn't big enough to accommodate the twin tracks for LRT (and the extra room needed for stations), and the High Speed Rail tracks, and the CPR line to Edmonton.

Any talk of running LRT up Nose Creek may be a red herring

I don't see the advantage of a Nose Creek alignment at all anyhow. Bypassing all of those central communities with proven transit usage in favour of trying to squeeze a few new developments into the Nose Creek valley alongside the city's major freeway, major north-south freight train route, and the existing light industrial businesses seems to be missing a golden opportunity.

If the City formally committed to a Centre Street alignment it could then implement a policy of gradually increasing density along the corridor in anticipation of construction. The transition would be stretched out over a longer period of time and fewer people would feel they were being "pushed out."

Out here in Metro Vancouver, the Tri-Cities area in the Northeast has been continuing to densify in advance of the planned Evergreen Line. They've been taking a proactive strategy (unlike the City of Vancouver) and Calgary should think about doing the same thing. The Centre Street corridor could absorb a lot of future growth and provide unique and distinct urban communities with an LRT down Centre Street.

[CalgaryTransit guy]

I don't see the advantage of a Nose Creek alignment at all anyhow. Bypassing all of those central communities with proven transit usage in favour of trying to squeeze a few new developments into the Nose Creek valley alongside the city's major freeway, major north-south freight train route, and the existing light industrial businesses seems to be missing a golden opportunity.

If the City formally committed to a Centre Street alignment it could then implement a policy of gradually increasing density along the corridor in anticipation of construction. The transition would be stretched out over a longer period of time and fewer people would feel they were being "pushed out."

Out here in Metro Vancouver, the Tri-Cities area in the Northeast has been continuing to densify in advance of the planned Evergreen Line. They've been taking a proactive strategy (unlike the City of Vancouver) and Calgary should think about doing the same thing. The Centre Street corridor could absorb a lot of future growth and provide unique and distinct urban communities with an LRT down Centre Street.

Of course, i agree with you. The Nose Creek alignment is not that good.
I guess council should run the NCLRT as a centre street route connecting to the SELRT.