NC LRT Advocacy Group

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by fusili

The one thing Calgary Transit can be damn proud of is the fact that we are having discussions about capacity of the system. No other city of this size has these issues (ok, maybe some). But the fact that the system is hitting capacity constraints shows how successful it is.

Any idea on feasibility of putting in by pass tracks around stations to create an express option? In my mind this is the biggest problem the Ctrain has. Along the vast majority of the route, its already full and the long the line gets, the bigger the problem. Adding a fourth car wont solve this problem.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Any idea on feasibility of putting in by pass tracks around stations to create an express option? In my mind this is the biggest problem the Ctrain has. Along the vast majority of the route, its already full and the long the line gets, the bigger the problem. Adding a fourth car wont solve this problem.

Possible (but probably very expensive) with centre loading stations, but nearly impossible with side loading stations. Not very useful IMO because express and local services should be on separate tracks all the time, which would be ridiculously expensive for Calgary. Express trains really don't make sense unless you are as big as New York or Paris.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

Possible (but probably very expensive) with centre loading stations, but nearly impossible with side loading stations. Not very useful IMO because express and local services should be on separate tracks all the time, which would be ridiculously expensive for Calgary. Express trains really don't make sense unless you are as big as New York or Paris.

And not actually possible - no matter the station design - where the station is located in the median of a road, like the majority of the stations in the NE and NW. Or where there are other constraints like the CPR next to the track, like much of the south. Or where the station is elevated or underground, like in the west.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Thanks, that pretty much makes my point I think.

And that would be what exactly? Given just this morning you spoke of buying land from CP Rail for hundreds of millions of dollars? Further if you read the subsequent findings on the Nose Creek alignment from 2008 onward you would know that because of Stelmach's HSR bullshit the CP ROW was pretty much eliminated from the discussion.

Yes, the city owns most of the land in the valley, that's fine. The line could avoid using the CP right of way for the most part, if they wanted to. However, let's compare some options:

Option 1 - Do not use CP ROW at all, but stay close to it

Would require a new bridge on 8th ave over the LRT line
would require a new bridge on 16th Ave over the LRT line in both directions
likely require golf course modifications
would require a new bridge on 32nd ave over the new LRT line
would have to purchase some industrial properties between 32nd and McKnight
would require a new bridge on McKnight over the LRT line
would have to purchase industrial land between Mcknight and Laycock park
new bridge over Nose Creek by Laycock Park
would require a new bridge on 64th Ave over the LRT line
would require some realigning of the Nose Creek pathway in some spots
may require some modifications to the Beddington Trail bridges
would require new bridge over West Nose Creek
Likely require some realignment of West Nose Creek

Option 1A - Follow Nose Creek

Still requires all of the same new bridges as option 1
Might avoid some industrial land purchase.
Topography might make construction more difficult, would have to avoid building in flood plain of the creek.


Option 2 - Elevate the whole thing, or at least enough to avoid building new bridges under existing roads.

Option 3 - Build off of the CP right of way, except for under existing roads

Option 4 - Build entire line in CP right of way.

A bridge is needed over Nose Creek immediately south of 64th Ave. in Laycock Park. Were you under the impression the space under the bridges precisely corresponded to the width of the CPR ROW? From some point north west of Nose Creek it will be elevated till such a point it can be connected to the alignment North of Beddington Trail.

CP might say no to the city buying any right of way anyway. Looking at it, any high speed rail line would require the use of the same bridges under existing roads. There's no way that the LRT AND two new high speed tracks are going to fit in that space. Either way, the LRT would have to be the westernmost set of tracks, which might mean that the city would have to build new underpasses under all the existing roads anyway.

Since 2008 the assumption has been that the CPR ROW is unavailable, this may or may not be the case but certainly not the preferred approach given the city held land. HSR is another boondoggle that will never be built - so it is all moot.

The city might want to build a flyover that would get the tracks over the Westbound lanes of memorial too - this would be the only way to avoid a really sharp corner at Nose creek if they would go under. This would be the case for all options.

Why don't you read some of the exhaustive publications on the Nose Creek LRT alignment and find out for sure. (Hint: It is known as Option 4)

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

No amount of modernization will change the laws of physics. Until you develop technology that allows two trains to occupy the same physical space, all you can do is maximize efficiency.

And no amount of repetition changes the fact that when expenses are measured in the billions of dollars you make sacrifices and look for efficiencies. Thankfully modern railroad technology allows for getting a whole lot of capacity out of the same track.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Dado

Ok then... LRT as a poor man's commuter rail system. If that's the frame of reference, then Centre Street probably isn't the way to go.

But... that doesn't mean that Nose Creek is, either. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Nose Creek alignment doesn't really have much of a catchment until north of 64th.

If you want to use Nose Creek for a long distance commuter service, let's be serious about it instead of wasting money trying to needlessly force it into an LRT service: just go with DMUs like Ottawa's O-Train and run those out of the old train station downtown and up to the airport, to Airdrie and even into Symon's Valley while keeping the number of stations to a minimum south of Beddington, maybe just McKnight, 16th, Memorial/NE LRT and 12th St SE/SE LRT.

I don't disagree with that in principle, but don't see building an eclectic mix of diesel and electric rolling stock as a great outcome either. And while that would be workable today in the long-run it would be a nuisance to the CPR as ridership grew with the northern suburbs with a whole range of bad outcomes to choose from, such as investing in the CPR's track rather than your own and or eventually having to invest in heavy rail bi-level type rolling stock and locomotives leading to an even more unwieldy fleet.

The only way I see it working in the short-term is with ancient junk with extremely low capital costs like Budd RDC's that can afford to be operated in one direction and then parked for the day. There has been a private proposal to this effect taking shape... but that wouldn't be serving North Calgary - it would be true commuter communities.

It's been fun guys, but I am leaving for holidays at bright and early tomorrow... so see ya later.

[RyLucky]

After the SELRT is built, 8th Ave subway is constructed, 4/5 car stations throughout system, here is a list of priorities over which we will be arguing:

-Centre St N LRT
-The first leg of LRT circle line (serving FMC, MRU, Rockyview)
-commuter rail Airdrie (With stops at YYC and in Nose Creek Valley)
-commuter rail Okotoks (with stops at Somerset, Anderson, Chinook)
-the remainder of the LRT circle

All of these projects will be competing for money from provincial&municipal coffers. I predict commuter rail will be built first because it will be cheaper than the NCLRT and help to alleviate some of its demand, delaying the NCLRT project. Serving FMC and MRU might be even more expensive and complicated than the NCLRT. There will also be growing pressure to build:

-LRT along 17th Ave SE to Chestermere
-Evergreen spur LRT linking communities south of Tsuu Tina to Somerset and the South Health Campus
-commuter Rail cochrane with a stop in Bowness
-HSR & more.

What I'm trying to say is, the NCLRT will not only demand a huge one-time commitment, but a paradigm shift in civic planning.

[RyLucky]

... A shift that I full-heartedly support.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

After the SELRT is built, 8th Ave subway is constructed, 4/5 car stations throughout system, here is a list of priorities over which we will be arguing:

-Centre St N LRT
-The first leg of LRT circle line (serving FMC, MRU, Rockyview)
-commuter rail Airdrie (With stops at YYC and in Nose Creek Valley)
-commuter rail Okotoks (with stops at Somerset, Anderson, Chinook)
-the remainder of the LRT circle

All of these projects will be competing for money from provincial&municipal coffers. I predict commuter rail will be built first because it will be cheaper than the NCLRT and help to alleviate some of its demand, delaying the NCLRT project. Serving FMC and MRU might be even more expensive and complicated than the NCLRT. There will also be growing pressure to build:

-LRT along 17th Ave SE to Chestermere
-Evergreen spur LRT linking communities south of Tsuu Tina to Somerset and the South Health Campus
-commuter Rail cochrane with a stop in Bowness
-HSR & more.

What I'm trying to say is, the NCLRT will not only demand a huge one-time commitment, but a paradigm shift in civic planning.

Agree with this in general.

Can't we just build the commuter service out to Airdrie sooner rather than later with a stop and a stop downtown, at 96th and one or two out in airdie and call it a day. Shut up all the people living in the far north demanding lrt service for what really amounts to a commuter service and would be completely empty for the majority of the day since there are no heavy lifting retail districts or educational institutions (or connection) worth mentioning in the entire route. Let the Airport BRT mature in its ridership and further add to the transit enduced density south of 64th on centre until the corridor has the critical mass where the question of an urban alignment is not a matter of cost but a matter of neccity. (mind you this would be much harder to achieve since broadway has UBC and Vancouver General anchoring it where as centre has nothing anchoring it of that scale.

Also I really can't think of a justification for having more than one suburban stop for the commuter services. Let them transfer to the LRT at Somerset if they want access to Anderson/Chinook otherwise they can wait til they get downtown.

Not sure if the circle RRT should be in the same horizon as the other projects. We are counting our chickens before they hatch given the time scales we are looking at before we even have a complete BRT circle let alone upgrading to rail (let alone my reservations about whether Calgary actually needs a complete circle, I will not voice them here though)

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is a commuter rail line, mirroring a natural and long established right-of-way. If you want to over think that - be my guest.


I understand - it simply doesn't apply. It has been explained exhaustively every single time the corridor has been reviewed. This line will serve the new suburban communities and not the Centre Street corridor. If you disagree with serving the new communities - well that is another argument.

Well you keep presenting how the line was originally conceptualized and hold that it should therefore be constructed in such a manner. I get that yeah, but I`m saying it has been wrongly conceptualized or at least that conceptualization has aged. I`m not against serving the new communities, but I`m against how it`s being done. Nor do I agree that the C-train system`s purpose has only ever been to function as a commuter rail. The problem is it`s trying to do 2 things at once, and does neither overly well. I lastly, and its probably where I diverge from most people`s views on here, don`t regard the system of one as being wholly successful. The ridership numbers might look good, but then that can be moreso attributed to a high downtown job density and a concimitant parking policy - the single best transportation policy the city has. However, does the C-train do a good job of getting people where they want to go outside of work hours? Is it an attractive system in that regard? It`s sort of trying to be and its sort of not - I`d use the University station as a sort of an example to that without getting in to it. So back to a Nose Creek alignment - why exacerbate this?

However, this is obviously where we will continually diverge, so until this thread dies down again and gets revived in about 3 to 6 months and we do it all over again, I`ll leave it at that.

Calgary is a city of affluent, predominantly suburban professional white people. Who don't merely patronize the LRT but buses as well. I had some folks from the US who wanted me to take them on a rush hour tour of Calgary's best neighbourhoods so they could study and interview the affluent white bus commuter. Calgarians don't merely tolerate transit - they have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards transit. You can see the CEO of a top shelf energy producer on a certain bus route. You couldn't ask for a better starting point for building transit than Calgary - but one also has to acknowledge this was built on a certain commuter oriented paradigm that shouldn't be significantly deviated from.


Wendell Cox is a loud mouth, but he isn't an outlier, a whole lot of people are going to have to retire and or die before your attitudes represent any sort of consensus.

I, in all seriousness, encourage you to look beyond the borders of North America (and maybe Australia and NZ.) You just used Americans as a barometer for proving a transit system enviable... Essentially outside of NY, that`s like showing someone who knows only a rotary phone a 10 year old Nokia.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tropics

That project you linked and a LRT tunnel under the river are completely different types of projects that would be installed in an entirely different fashion.

There is no way they are going under the river, it would be WAY more expensive then you are guessing at. The only way they could do it would be to divert the river much like they did when they did the work on the weir. They would be doing a bridge as it would be many times cheaper.

A bored tunnel under the river is a completely different project from a bored tunnel under the river?

Why would it be way more expensive than I'm getting at? I've mentioned several different methods of getting under the river, including cut and cover. Tunnelling under a river isn't any different than tunnelling under anything else. A cut and cover tunnel under the river should be significantly cheaper than $300M/km, I would think.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And no amount of repetition changes the fact that when expenses are measured in the billions of dollars you make sacrifices and look for efficiencies. Thankfully modern railroad technology allows for getting a whole lot of capacity out of the same track.

Its not repetition. Each time you've changed your position as you were shown to be wrong. Now you have shifted your argument again, finally to a point which can be debated and has some merit.

Yes there are many efficiencies that can be acheived with technology, the question is whether or not we need the future physically maximum capacity of a given line or not. You have stated several times how much the north is growing, and I added the the NE is growing as well, so is it wise to build a solution that doesnt provide for the maximum possible future capacity? What happens in 50 years when both the NE and NCLRT are maxed out because of interlining? I can only imagine that the solution would be far more expensive than what was saved by doing the Nose Creek alignment. My argument is that even though the center street line is significantly more expensive, you get disspraportionately more benefit for that additional cost.

1) You have a line that ties in with the SE leg creating efficieny that you would not have if they were two seperate lines.
2) You service far more people as you capture the central part of the city
3) The city has the opportunity to upzone all of the center street corridor due to added transportation capacity
4) A non interlined NCLRT allows for the full theoretical capacity to be utilized servicing the north growth corridor, and does not cut into the maximum capactity of the NE line.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

A bridge is needed over Nose Creek immediately south of 64th Ave. in Laycock Park. Were you under the impression the space under the bridges precisely corresponded to the width of the CPR ROW? From some point north west of Nose Creek it will be elevated till such a point it can be connected to the alignment North of Beddington Trail.

Not sure what you are saying here. Where is this "some point north west of Nose Creek"? So you mean that the whole thing is planned to be an elevated line?

[Dado]

I hope everyone here realizes that one of the major constraints on 7th Ave is not the interlining per se, but the way the lines come together?

At the east end for example, a westbound train from the south line entering 7th Ave can block as many as three other trains at once: it can block another westbound train from the northeast line and it can block a northeastbound train coming out of downtown. That train in turn can itself block a southbound train. Naturally there is a similar issue at the west end. Combined, the effect is to substantially reduce the number of train slots that can actually be used.

But if the NE and NC lines were to operate on the same track, that kind of issue could be avoided. Think about where the two lines would come together: the area of the Memorial & Deerfoot interchange just east of Zoo Station. Immediately east of Zoo Station, build a third track in the centre (roughly in line with the platform) for outbound NC trains, with the switch just east of the platform. That third track to the NC line could dip down below the inbound track of the NE line and since the switch is at the station, switching delays would be minimal. There would never be any blocking between outbound NC trains and inbound NE trains, nor any possibility of it cascading. The inbound track from the NC line could also come up in the median, or it could come up between westbound Memorial and the inbound NE track.

There would still be an effective halving of track capacity beyond Zoo Station on both lines, but the kind of problems you have on 7th just would not exist.

[fusili]

Thought I would post this here as well:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/06/27/wha...ansit-network/

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

A bored tunnel under the river is a completely different project from a bored tunnel under the river?

Yes, if you horizontal drill a 2 foot diameter steel pipe under the river it is far different then installing a 6 foot diameter concrete sewer pipe, and both of those are far different then installing the rail tunnel under the English Channel.

Some pipes you can actually push in after the auger, others you need to build piece by piece as the auger/drill is going through.

Depending on size of the tunnel and the shape of the tunnel and what it is built out of they are very different projects.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Tunnelling under a river isn't any different than tunnelling under anything else.

That there is a clueless statement. EVERY project when you are doing something like this the sediment you are tunneling through and how hard it is, how much it slumps, what the water table is like, how permeable it is, all of these change the projects to a GREAT degree.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Yes, if you horizontal drill a 2 foot diameter steel pipe under the river it is far different then installing a 6 foot diameter concrete sewer pipe, and both of those are far different then installing the rail tunnel under the English Channel.

Some pipes you can actually push in after the auger, others you need to build piece by piece as the auger/drill is going through.

Depending on size of the tunnel and the shape of the tunnel and what it is built out of they are very different projects.



That there is a clueless statement. EVERY project when you are doing something like this the sediment you are tunneling through and how hard it is, how much it slumps, what the water table is like, how permeable it is, all of these change the projects to a GREAT degree.

The siphon they tunneled under the river was significantly larger than a 6 ft concrete pipe. It was a bored tunnel, done very much the same as a slightly bigger LRT tunnel.

Yes, there are factors that change the difficulty, however, none of those things are specific to being under a river. If boring such a tunnel under the river is too difficult, they will do something different. The point is that $300M per km is enough to cover the cost. If boring would cost more than that, they won't bore.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Its not repetition. Each time you've changed your position as you were shown to be wrong. Now you have shifted your argument again, finally to a point which can be debated and has some merit.

I have not changed my position. Capacity is the number of train movements supported by a given length of track in a given time. Lines for transit purposes are colored bars on maps and names on signs. When the costs are in the billions of dollars you can't just lay down track where it might be convenient to.

Yes there are many efficiencies that can be acheived with technology, the question is whether or not we need the future physically maximum capacity of a given line or not.

That is the wonderful thing about interlining, the capacity of the track can be allocated based on need. The great thing about technology is the headways provided for on modern grade separated track are ridiculous. It is criminal negligence to plan a modern grade separated line without provisions for interlining because the track capacity is so great. To argue that interlining diminishes potential capacity you first have to argue that a route has any probability of being impeded by track capacity in the modern grade separated environment we speak of. And I don't even want to imagine where headways will be in the future when the only living, breathing C-Train operator is at Heritage Park.

You have stated several times how much the north is growing, and I added the the NE is growing as well, so is it wise to build a solution that doesnt provide for the maximum possible future capacity? What happens in 50 years when both the NE and NCLRT are maxed out because of interlining?

Because 7th Ave will have been grade separated decades earlier to eliminate the surface traffic bottleneck affecting route 202 it won't be a problem.

My argument is that even though the center street line is significantly more expensive, you get disspraportionately more benefit for that additional cost.

1) You have a line that ties in with the SE leg creating efficieny that you would not have if they were two seperate lines.
2) You service far more people as you capture the central part of the city
3) The city has the opportunity to upzone all of the center street corridor due to added transportation capacity
4) A non interlined NCLRT allows for the full theoretical capacity to be utilized servicing the north growth corridor, and does not cut into the maximum capactity of the NE line.

There is no relative disproportionate benefit in favour of something that can't be built. Arguing about this sort of alignment is like some guys at the airport with a King Air contemplating a fleet of 777's.

1. / 2. You still have to be able to built it in the first place.
3. That is a whole other war in and of itself that is unlikely to be successful unless a virulent plague kills off the population of Centre Street North of 16th ave.
4. Grade separation is a marvelous and inevitable thing even if no North Central LRT is ever built.

In a future Calgary there will be many competing transportation priorities. Building a single LRT line for the price of two to serve the backwater that is most of Centre Street is going to be completely unsalable.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Not sure what you are saying here. Where is this "some point north west of Nose Creek"? So you mean that the whole thing is planned to be an elevated line?

Northwest of Nose Creek is a ravine, it will have to be crossed by any alignment before it links up to the ROW north of Beddington Blvd.

These are the best pictures I can find of it.





This internet connection sucks, that's all for now.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Northwest of Nose Creek is a ravine, it will have to be crossed by any alignment before it links up to the ROW north of Beddington Blvd.

These are the best pictures I can find of it.





This internet connection sucks, that's all for now.

Ah, yes, I understand now. Yes, they will have to have some kind of a bridge over that ravine.