16th Avenue North Calgary :: The People's Corridor

[Riise]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, as some of you might know this week has marked the end of the summer semester at the University of Calgary. As such, it has meant that the group project for the course that I was taking, Urban Studies 505 – The Transit City, was due for submission. I was lucky enough to have been placed in one of my best project groups ever and we managed to overcome the time-constraints of the shortened semester to produce a quality product that I’m happy to now share with you. Rather than submitting the normal written project document our group decided to create a more interactive website. Unfortunately, the other night we accidentally lost a couple of pages. However, we worked hard to restore the website within 24 hours, but this meant that the overall quality has dropped slightly as we were unable to devote as much time to re-editing as we would have liked.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the fruits of our labour! Before I lead you to the website I’d like to thank my fellow group members, Tommy Au and David Nguyen. Like I said above, you guys were one of the best groups I have ever worked with, cheers!

Our Project Website
Our Executive Summary

[Boris2k7]

I'm liking what I see. I'll try and give some more useful critique before I leave for vacation, if I can.

So far, I'm identifying the use of ArcGIS software, Paint.net or Photoshop, Sketchup, actual sketches, photography, and of course whatever software was being used to create the website (which looks great, BTW).

Being familiar with your previous studies, I can see that instead of pushing streetcars as usual, you've switched for BRT in this case study. You've provided your rational for that change though. You also made a point about the capital costs being cheaper than LRT and dedicated busways (and used a graph that I also used in a report on BRT during our Transportation Studies class last year). It seems that you are providing some sort of dedicated bus lanes, not quite the same as a busway of course, but definately a median-seperated laneway. I hope that is correct. I would definately agree that it is a better use of this road widening than just adding more cars to the road.

Great stuff.

[The Kid]

Very cool! Knowing nothing about these things on my part, I found that very interesting. Good job.

[Beltliner]

Riise, you crazy little socceroo, you....

I like your 16 Avenue site a lot. I really do. You laddies put a lot of work and a lot of insight into it, and you deserve a good grade for your project on almost every level...

...except for your advocacy of BRT for 16 Avenue.

The main issue, and it's one that trips up a lot of BRT fans everywhere, is that BRT looks so much cheaper to break out of the box than an LRT system does that people don't look at the high-maintenance lifestyle a BRT lives once it's up and running. To compare apples to apples, even as I cut you guys as many breaks as I can, LRT is a better strategic fit and a better long-haul value than BRT can ever claim to be. Please let me present Exhibit A:

16 Avenue Crosstown Route: Rundle Station to Foothills Hospital via McMahon Stadium and West Campus

Phase I: System Inauguration

Right of Way:
BRT: 8.5 miles surface at $6 mil/mile = $51 mil
LRT: I'm going to splurge--7 miles surface at $25 mil/mile plus 1.5 miles (three-quarters at each end) metro at $90 mil/mile = $310 mil

Makes BRT look pretty good to start, but...

Vehicles
BRT: 24 NewFlyer D60FLs (110 pax) at $1 mil a pop plus 24 more when they go kaboomsie after 20 years = $48 mil
LRT: 12 Siemens S70 Avantos (212 pax) at $3.5 mil a piece, good for 40 years = $42 mil

The gap is narrowing just a tad, right?

40 Years of Operator Overhead
BRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 24 vehicles x 40 years = $336 mil
LRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 12 vehicles x 40 years = $168 mil

In a town like Calgary, the labour costs are looking especially painful. Now howzabout:

Energy Costs
BRT: 17 miles per circuit per vehicle x 24 circuits per day x 0.5 gallon of diesel consumed per mile x $5.00 per gallon x 14,610 days in service x 24 vehicles in service = $360 mil
LRT: 4 motors per vehicle x 130 kW draw/motor x 24 hours in service x $0.10/kWh x 14,610 days in service x 12 vehicles in service = $216 mil

Totting up the running totals for Phase I:
BRT: 51+48+336+360 = $795 mil
LRT: 310+42+168+216 = $736 mil

Phase II: System Fleet Expansion

So what happens if we double up the vehicle fleet for added capacity?

Vehicles
BRT: 24 NewFlyer D60FLs (110 pax) at $1 mil a pop plus 24 more when they go kaboomsie after 20 years = $48 mil
LRT: 12 Siemens S70 Avantos (212 pax) at $3.5 mil a piece, good for 40 years = $42 mil

40 Years of Operator Overhead
BRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 24 vehicles x 40 years = $336 mil
LRT: $100K per operator per year x 3.5 operators per vehicle x 12 vehicles x 40 years x number of additional operators necessary to operate two-car Avanto trains = zilch

Energy Costs
BRT: 17 miles per circuit per vehicle x 24 circuits per day x 0.5 gallon of diesel consumed per mile x $5.00 per gallon x 14,610 days in service x 24 vehicles in service = $360 mil
LRT: 4 motors per vehicle x 130 kW draw/motor x 24 hours in service x $0.10/kWh x 14,610 days in service x 12 vehicles in service = $216 mil

Totting up the running totals for Phase I:
BRT: 48+336+360 = $720 mil
LRT: 42+0+216 = $258 mil

Grand Total, Phase I + Phase II (drumroll, please....):
BRT: $795 mil + $720 mil = $1515 mil
LRT: $736 mil + $258 mil = $994 mil

[Riise]

First off, thanks for your comments guys!

Originally Posted by Boris550

Being familiar with your previous studies, I can see that instead of pushing streetcars as usual, you've switched for BRT in this case study... It seems that you are providing some sort of dedicated bus lanes, not quite the same as a busway of course, but definately a median-seperated laneway. I hope that is correct. I would definately agree that it is a better use of this road widening than just adding more cars to the road.

Great stuff.

I'm definitely a tram guy but in this case we selected the system with the best capacity and current-cost for the corridor in the near future. You are correct; the BRT ROW will be separated from regular traffic as it is in Curitiba. However, as I’ll discuss below, we plan on learning from Curitiba’s mistake and cashing out on BRT at the right time.

We were looking at including a streetcar line to provide local service along the Urban Corridor part of 16th but the complexity of that, as well as the project time limit, ruled the inclusion out. It was actually a bit strange that although I love trams, in the beginning I was actually opposed to including them in the corridor. Even though our plan doesn’t call for streetcars along the corridor itself we believe that streetcars have a place in our plan; as a connection.

Calgary needs to put the streetcar back in the streetcar suburbs! There should be trams running along Edmonton Trail, Centre Street, and 14th Street which would allow these corridors to intensify in a transit-oriented fashion. In addition, it would provide 16th with transit connections into the core and, in the case of Edmonton Trail, to the Bridges. It would expand out city’s radial rail network but it would be complemented by a cross-town BRT network.

Originally Posted by Beltliner

Riise, you crazy little socceroo, you....

I like your 16 Avenue site a lot. I really do. You laddies put a lot of work and a lot of insight into it, and you deserve a good grade for your project on almost every level...

...except for your advocacy of BRT for 16 Avenue.

The main issue, and it's one that trips up a lot of BRT fans everywhere, is that BRT looks so much cheaper to break out of the box than an LRT system does that people don't look at the high-maintenance lifestyle a BRT lives once it's up and running...

Thanks, those are awesome calculations that show the hidden costs of BRT. However, we did have your foresight and took them into consideration. We chose BRT over LRT as we saw it as the first phase of a transitional rapid transit system in the corridor. BRT will precede some form of LRT that will replace the BRT at a point in the future where LRT is viable and, as you calculations show, less costly.

[murman]

Jeez, with a title like "The People's Corridor" I figured we'd all sit on some public building steps, sing "We Shall Overcome" and then set fire to an effigy of the latest capitalist tyrant to make the front pages...

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by murman

Jeez, with a title like "The People's Corridor" I figured we'd all sit on some public building steps, sing "We Shall Overcome" and then set fire to an effigy of the latest capitalist tyrant to make the front pages...

I can't even read the word People's anymore without hearing the voice of the subway destination announcer from the Shanghai metro - I just LOVE the way she renders 'People's Square' with her lovely Chinese accent.

On topic, I'd love to see all the heavy trucks off of 16th. The stretch of 16th between Peters Drive in and SAIT would be a pretty nice urban artery if not for the huge amount of truck traffic on it.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Riise

............David Nguyen................

...... He isn't from E-town by any chance?

[Wooster]

Riise. I am very, very impressed by the quality of work in this project. We rarely did projects this comprehensive in scope as this at the graduate level in planning.

Great stuff. Do you plan to go into planning, or transportation planning of something following urban studies?

[Distill3d]

Originally Posted by "16corridor.com

Traffic Management

Goal: Allow for the efficient movement of goods and people that must travel by private-automobile.

Challenge: Opposition from car lobbyists and commercial trucking industry.

Policy Response: Ensure that the quality of life and urban form that results from implementation of our plan is worth more to Calgarian's than the small price paid by drivers and local industry. In other words, ensure full implementation of the plan which puts people first!

-Where feasible, all new developments along the corridor should provide parking through underground parking garages.

-Parking requirements will be based on maximum provision of parking stalls rather than minimum.

-Where feasible, implement public parking for short stay (maximum of two (2) hours) for the purpose of public parking in the rear lane north and south of the 16th Avenue Corridor.

-Short stay facilities will be monitored and strictly enforced by the Parking Control, Calgary Parking Authority and Bylaw Enforcement.
-Short stay parking will be charged through pay and display machines on a fee schedule determined by the Calgary Parking Authority, to be allocated to a fund responsible for maintaining the Avenue and its public amenities.

-Installation of speed humps, raised sidewalks, traffic circles, partial or fully closed blocks, road markings, and traffic control signs should be investigated and implemented in all communities adjacent to 16th Avenue North.

-Review maximum Corridor speed and determine the suitability of the present speed limit along the Avenue.

-Ensure that the curbside lane has a width of at least 3.66metres to safely accommodate light and medium-duty commercial truck traffic.

not that i'm going to quash your dream here, its a wonderful concept and one I personally would love to see implimented. however, that said, there is nothing in your plans to reroute of existing traffic. and no mention of promoting usage of the ring road as an alternative to using 16 Avenue. i am intrigued to know which alternate routes your proposal offers.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Distill3d

not that i'm going to quash your dream here, its a wonderful concept and one I personally would love to see implimented. however, that said, there is nothing in your plans to reroute of existing traffic. and no mention of promoting usage of the ring road as an alternative to using 16 Avenue. i am intrigued to know which alternate routes your proposal offers.

"Reroute existing traffic... ?"

Why? Who uses 16th to go through the city? The Ring Road will speak for itself. There's no need to promote alternative routes. It would be a little more inconvenient for people driving east-west, but who cares?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Boris550

"Reroute existing traffic... ?"

Why? Who uses 16th to go through the city? The Ring Road will speak for itself. There's no need to promote alternative routes. It would be a little more inconvenient for people driving east-west, but who cares?

I believe 96% of traffic on 16th North is local traffic.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by josh white

I believe 96% of traffic on 16th North is local traffic.

That's what I thought. And in that case, let people find other routes by themselves. It's not like we are using our current road infrastructure to capacity. No sense in building more.

Heaven forbid that we have 4 lanes to drive on instead of 6! :O

[Riise]

Originally Posted by josh white

Great stuff. Do you plan to go into planning, or transportation planning of something following urban studies?

Thanks! I'm planning on attending a planning school in Europe. I have my eyes set on the Bartlett School of Planning at the University College London. They have a great 3+1 program where in your first three years you works towards a The BSc in Urban Planning, Design & Management, and in your last year you work towards an MSc in Spatial Planning.

Originally Posted by Distill3d

not that i'm going to quash your dream here, its a wonderful concept and one I personally would love to see implimented. however, that said, there is nothing in your plans to reroute of existing traffic. and no mention of promoting usage of the ring road as an alternative to using 16 Avenue. i am intrigued to know which alternate routes your proposal offers.

As Josh and Boris have pointed out, most of the traffic along 16th is local; cross-town commuters. If we were to provide BRT as a quick transportation option we believe a healthy share of the traffic can be re-routed through transit. As for the remaining traffic, our mobility section handles that, but thank you for pointing this out though. It's a point that after our presentation we thought needed to be clarified yet we didn't clarify it enough, sorry!

Originally Posted by 16corridor.com

Mobile Drivers

As 16th Avenue North is a crucial component of the Skeletal Road Network and a part of the Trans-Canada Highway, it is important to maintain and support the level of traffic that is expected from these functions. While the goal of the redevelopment of 16th Avenue North is not to cause reduced capacity for motorists, it is envisioned in The Plan that the proposed regional and local high capacity BRT service will provide some relief for the Corridor. In addition to this, with the opening of the Ring Road the city is planning for through-truck traffic to bypass the city and avoid using 16th Avenue. However, even with the reduced demands placed on the Avenue it must also cater to traffic which will need to use the road. Therefore, the environment of 16th Avenue must not only be conducive to the pedestrian and transit alone, but also needs to enable the safe and controlled movement of automobiles and semi-trucks. The Plan ensures that inner-city truck traffic which utilizes light to medium duty trucks (Dodge Sprinters/GMC Tilt Cabs), which we deem as more than adequate for local commercial trucking purposes, will be comfortably accommodated on the carriageway and will experience a high level of mobility.

[Aralaus]

it'd be a hard political sell given that we just invested some serious money and time into getting it to six lanes, and to retract it back to four would be near political suicide, especially to those of us who remember the four lane conditions. Granted the semi-trucks would be on the ring road, but there are enough '86 Buick Regals travelling at 30 km/h that it would enfuriate people. Yes its crosstown traffic, but even to somebody who does actually commute along 15 km of 16th avenue daily (points to self) my truck would still be preferred simply because of logistics (there is a major reason why people point to free park'n'ride for the LRTs success here).

To really sell this project, you have to be able to not only get a sizeable enough share of commuters onto the BRT lanes, but also provide a credible E-W road in that sector of the city... so most likely this would have to coincide with an expansion of McKnight/John Laurie.

That being said, great vision there De, and a great project, definately on par for somebody following a history of ambitious projects.

[Distill3d]

Originally Posted by Aralaus

...but there are enough '86 Buick Regals travelling at 30 km/h that it would enfuriate people...

OT: there are some of us here who do drive '86 Buick Regal's that don't do 30 km/h, even in school zones lol

anyways, i agree this should be pitched with expansion of McKnight/John Laurie. i would also mention this would be a wonderful model for the 17 ave SE "International Avenue" concept.

[Tau1]

The goal of this project is to implement Transit-Oriented development along an existing transportation Corridor. While one goal is to provide movement for automobiles in an east-west fashion, and to support local traffic and the regional context, the project strives to stimulate and provide options to intensify mixed-use and quality residences, commercial, institutional, and other uses as seen along 17th Avenue - Red Mile.

Absolutely correct about having to garner enough ridership for the BRT. It is important and this is something the City needs to catch up to, is to provide the transit service before the development, or have it as part of the development plan. For this project, it is envisioned the increased development, in addition to the fact that it is now an additional option for east-west movement (to address the jobs-housing imbalance in Calgary), that ridership in an east west fashion would be justified. It is in a sense an overall scope and the project looks ultimately to link to Chestermere in the east and Canmore in the west.

Anyway, to people who don't know me.
I'm Tommy. One of the group members on the project. Hello De. =)

[The Geographer]

I agree with the statement that the advantages of BRT are exaggerated.

My biggest problem with the comparison of Ottawa and Calgary, holding Ottawa as the superior example, is that it mixes up correlation and causation for land use development and transportation.

The disadvantages of Ottawa's BRT is that it has cost almost as much to build as Calgary's LRT while: lacking ability to expand capacity through the most congested (appropriate) areas of the city, a lack of reliability due to dependence on roadways in congested areas, and a higher operating cost due to greater labour/fuel/maintenance.

The generally stated advantage of Ottawa's BRT is that it was deployed faster and thus was able to affect development towards a higher density, transit-oriented development. This is supposed to justify the fact that Ottawa will now have to build and LRT anyway so as to increase capacity. The problem is that there is a whole list of reasons why Calgary has developed the way it has that doesn't have to do with a lack of LRT. Zoning policy, to how the city let developers operate over the decades had more to do with how Calgary grew. Calgary has poor development despite its LRT, not because of it.

While Ottawa's BRT is correlated with more transit-oriented development, I think it is a stretch to say that it was the cause of it. While Calgary's LRT is correlated with less-transit-oriented development, it is also a stretch to say it is the cause of it (relative to BRT).

[Wooster]

^ Ottawa has practically no good examples of Transit Oriented Development save for maybe Holland Cross since the inception of BRT. At Queen's planning our major land use project course was looking at the TOD potential of a future LRT line on Montreal and Blair Roads in East Ottawa. We scoured Ottawa and asked many of the planners for good precedents regarding TOD. There aren't any.

In fact, probably the best executed TOD in Canada is Bridges, perhaps Collingwood in Vancouver.

[You Need A Thneed]

Yeah, the city sure can dictate where trucks will drive. I'm not sure if 16th Ave will remain a truck route, it still might. But Truck traffic will use the ring road anyway, because even though it will be a longer distance, the number of lights will be only 3 or 4 to start instead of 20 or so, and that's not to mention the 100 or 110 speed limit as opposed to the 60km/h that will be the posted speed through the centre of town when all the construction is done.

Truck drivers much prefer less lights, its much easier to drive.