Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Fuzz]

It wouldn't make sense to cheap out on the most expensive portion, the downtown section, at this point. We have grown to a city the size of which needs the red line buried. Why would we start a new project on our back foot?

The argument for 9th st probably mostly has to do with trips outside the core. Most people see the C-train as a way to get downtown, but not all trips go there. So if you remove 9th st, those people still have to get to the core somehow to continue their journey to the University, or wherever. I agree it may not be worth the expense though. Neither does roughing in a station, you may as well go all in.

[GGG]

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/wp-conte...tation-Map.png

Here an early map with much fewer stations.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by GGG

In general we have too much access because people cave to public pressure. This is true on free ways, trains and intersections with traffic lights.

So I'll end my argument here:

The underground portion under the river past 16th ave makes sense to do now because unlike other portions of the line chosen not to bury this cannot be done later so pre-investment is required. Building costly limited use stations however seems to be a prudent cut. 2 less stations one of which is buried will have a minimal affect on day 1 use and reduce capital investment and improve long term service.

I disagree with your assessment. Having too much access to a train system is impossible.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It wouldn't make sense to cheap out on the most expensive portion, the downtown section, at this point. We have grown to a city the size of which needs the red line buried. Why would we start a new project on our back foot?
.

Just to be clear, was being a little facetious. If you really wanted to save a billion dollars running it up center St with no burial would do that.

And yeah.. Agreed with surferguy above me.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

8th/9th/10th ave... what a miss it would be to not have a station south of 16th all the way to the core.

Removing the station below 16th would be simply moronic. You put stations where they give you access to the highest concentration of people, not where it will allow the guy at the end of the line to get to his destination quicker. You don't cut off a densifying inner-city community just so someone in Panorama gets to shave a minute off their commute. If that's the goal, might as well go back to the lazy plan of placing the train line besides Deerfoot.

We need to start moving away from this thinking that the LRT is just a commuter line built to shuttle suburbanites to their jobs and back. As this city grows, public transit is used more and more just to simply get around everywhere. I'd much rather have too many stations in the inner city, than not enough.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I disagree with your assessment. Having too much access to a train system is impossible.

GGGs point is that more access (more stations) means longer travel times. For people weighing the decision of whether to use transit or use another option, travel time absolutely is a factor. A 20 min ride into downtown is going to be more attractive than a 30 min ride.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

GGGs point is that more access (more stations) means longer travel times. For people weighing the decision of whether to use transit or use another option, travel time absolutely is a factor. A 20 min ride into downtown is going to be more attractive than a 30 min ride.

Is that person willing to pay several hundred dollars a month in parking fees to offset that 10 minutes? They don't have to take the train, but it's probably still much better than the alternative.

Increased travel time is one of the trade-offs of living farther away from downtown. It's one of the reasons why property there is cheaper. From the City's perspective, they need to ensure as many people as as possible have access to transit, not to make the experience for a few a little bit better.

[FireGilbert]

An ideal transit system offers a large number of stations close together for easy access while also having shorter commutes from the suburbs by using express trains which only stop at a few major stations. Of course that means doubling up on the number of tracks.

Calgary, for better or worse, has decided to go with single lines reaching far into the suburbs. Because of this a careful balance needs to be struck between access and commute times by limiting the number of stations but not by too much.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Taking the 301 from the Downtown core to the final stop north via BRT is 30-35 minutes. So they're already use to a lengthy commute, further out is used to a longer one. If they were worried about short commutes they wouldn't have lived so far flung from where they work.

The Greeline, even with all those stops, would improve upon those times I'd imagine.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Calgary, for better or worse, has decided to go with single lines reaching far into the suburbs. Because of this a careful balance needs to be struck between access and commute times by limiting the number of stations but not by too much.

Unfortunately that's always been the issue with the C-train...it's trying to be a commuter rail and LRT at the same time... and so comes with it's own compromises.

The reality is though you can't just bypass an entire inner-city neighborhood just to slightly decrease the time of someone on the edges of the city. As the city grows, people will just need to adapt to longer commute times.

[Bill Bumface]

If you can hit maximum capacity on a train line without building it out 30km from the core, you are getting far superior bang for your buck.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Video



http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...ransitway.aspx

Cool video. I live right across Glenmore landing, so that underpass right on 90th and 14th street would impact me directly. While it's a cool idea, I can only image the gong show that would occur, as that intersection is one of the very few arteries into those neighbourhoods. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if it's possible to build that underpass without disrupting traffic entering/exiting 90th ave.

Literally the only other access route is taking a detour to 24th street, then southland and vice versa. That would be brutal and a traffic nightmare. I can also totally see hundreds and hundreds of cars going south on 14th (myself included) taking a detour into the Safeway/Glenmore landing parking lot to get back onto 90th instead of going around.

And I know that the land where the underpass is, is to the East of the JCC. While the current building doesn't extend that far, I'm a member at the community centre and there has been talk of expanding the centre to the east and using up that land. Apparently they want to make the updated center a massive building and I've seen sketches that had it built almost all the way to 90th. I don't know exactly who owns the land, but I wonder if the city and JCC have discussed this with each other.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Cool video. I live right across Glenmore landing, so that underpass right on 90th and 14th street would impact me directly. While it's a cool idea, I can only image the gong show that would occur, as that intersection is one of the very few arteries into those neighbourhoods. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if it's possible to build that underpass without disrupting traffic entering/exiting 90th ave.

The adjacent land would probably be used to temporarily shift the intersection over while the underpass is built. I can't see closing or causing substantial delays to 90th being considered as an option.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Unfortunately that's always been the issue with the C-train...it's trying to be a commuter rail and LRT at the same time... and so comes with it's own compromises.

The reality is though you can't just bypass an entire inner-city neighborhood just to slightly decrease the time of someone on the edges of the city. As the city grows, people will just need to adapt to longer commute times.

Your aren't by bypassing an entire neighbourhood by having a 16th ave station and a 2nd ave station.

Buses also work well for short trips as they do around every other Ctrain station. Trains don't make sense for local commuting as it can't react to demographic changes and needs. The Latte sippers need to find buses as an acceptable form of transit rather that service for the poor. Having 8 ave and north being part of the collector into 16 ave is very reasonable and anyone South is in walking distance to downtown or can bus in.

And I'm not necessarily advocating for 9th ave to go. I'm saying get rid of any two stations between downtown and beddington as right now there are too many.

[ken0042]

The other issue with the 9th ave station is how far underground it will be. I forget the exact numbers, but I seem to recall it being about a dozen stories underground to allow for the slope needed to get the train up the hill. So from the entrance to the station to the platform you have several minutes of escalator rides to get up and down. That changes the catch for that station from being 12 ave and south, to about 10 ave and south.

Looking at the map, the 301 currently doesn't have a stop there, so why should the train?

[Fuzz]

I wonder if the posters' house locations would provide interesting insight to the varied positions they hold on routing/stops/line length?

For instance, I can surmise Ken does not live near 9th ave or 64th ave, and probably lives farther north and would be impacted by a larger travel time. Calgarygeologist probably lives in the deep south, hence wanting the train to run to Seton, but only make it as far north as Beddington. Am I close? Not meaning to offend here, just curious.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Removing the station below 16th would be simply moronic. You put stations where they give you access to the highest concentration of people, not where it will allow the guy at the end of the line to get to his destination quicker. You don't cut off a densifying inner-city community just so someone in Panorama gets to shave a minute off their commute. If that's the goal, might as well go back to the lazy plan of placing the train line besides Deerfoot.

We need to start moving away from this thinking that the LRT is just a commuter line built to shuttle suburbanites to their jobs and back. As this city grows, public transit is used more and more just to simply get around everywhere. I'd much rather have too many stations in the inner city, than not enough.

On the face of it, yes, but...


The big issue with a 9th ave station is the hill.

Because of the hill, the station doesn't capture as big an area as you might think. The capture area is reduced to the south and the west significantly. There are no significant high rises in that area like south of Downtown, and the density isn't that great right along Center St. The area might be inner city, but it doesn't actually look like the inner city. Not enough people, really big wealthy houses.
There is one reason for the stop, Crescent Heights High School. Because of the school, put the 16th ave subway stop to the south of 16th ave, and the school is pretty well covered. 16th ave has the density, and will have increased density in the future with additional high rises.

The Hill also makes the second big, big reason that the 9th St. Station is stupid - the depth. That station is going to be like 9 stories deep. That depth will prevent locals from using it properly, and add to the costs - it's likely going to be the most expensive stop on the route, and certainly the most expensive stop per rider .If that stop was at the surface, or even 3 stories deep, then yeah, I'd be in favor of keeping it, but now? It's a nice to have, not a must have. And considering the cost, it should go.

If you put the "16th ave" stop south of 16th ave, and have the stairs slope upwards towards 16th, then putting the stop south of the actual 16th makes sense, and kills the need for a 9th ave station. In other cities I've been to, most subway stations take up between 2 and 4 blocks anyways between entrances.

Take the distance between the 16th and 28th ave stations - 12 blocks. That makes it 6 blocks at maximum from station to station. 6 blocks south of 16th makes it to 10th, however, there are only like 3 truncated blocks south of 10th before the river and the hill stop movement. And if you look at the type of buildings that are around there, they are almost all single family homes, not condos.

I live in an adjacent neighborhood. I take the 17 bus through this spot every day. When I don't take the bus, I walk through this neighborhood. My office looks out on the Center Street Bridge. No one gets on the bus after the 12th ave stop. Kids get off on the stop after that to go to the school, but that's it. Many of those kids actually get off on the 12th ave stop.

I agree with the general sentiment that you describe, Table5. I live in the inner city because I agree with that sentiment. I'm just saying that for this specific instance, it doesn't quite fit the topography.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The other issue with the 9th ave station is how far underground it will be. I forget the exact numbers, but I seem to recall it being about a dozen stories underground to allow for the slope needed to get the train up the hill. So from the entrance to the station to the platform you have several minutes of escalator rides to get up and down. That changes the catch for that station from being 12 ave and south, to about 10 ave and south.

I want a bomb shelter nice and close to me.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if the posters' house locations would provide interesting insight to the varied positions they hold on routing/stops/line length?

For instance, I can surmise Ken does not live near 9th ave or 64th ave, and probably lives farther north and would be impacted by a larger travel time. Calgarygeologist probably lives in the deep south, hence wanting the train to run to Seton, but only make it as far north as Beddington. Am I close? Not meaning to offend here, just curious.

Nope, no offense taken. I actually live in the deep SE, so I doubt I would ever take the North leg of the green line. I would benefit from the SE leg going all the way down to Seton, but would understand if that leg has to be built later. I can appreciate trying to get the central part of the Green Line done "right" the first time.

Part of my issue is seeing so many stations that are so close together. Let's take an extreme example. If the current south line only stopped at Sommerset, Chinook, and then downtown- with an 80 km/h speed with no stops for traffic, and a 2 minute stop at Chinook, you could go from Sommerset to downtown in around 20 minutes. With that being so much faster than driving, many more people would do it. But adding in 9 more stations along the way, that adds 18 minutes (at 2 mins per stop) and almost double the travel time.

If we can get rid of a couple of stops that may be under utilized, we could add a level of efficiency to the entire line.

[Fuzz]

The problem is, you are serving more people at the end of the line, but costing those in the middle to find it less useful. The LRT is not commuter rail, and has to serve many needs. While there are good arguments against 9th st, there are also good arguments for it. Yes, there are lots of SFH in the area, but this needs to be planned for 50-100 years in the future. By having a station, you incentivize higher density, commercial and residential.

As I mentioned before, lots of people use transit and don't go to the core. Downtown is just a stop on their journey, not the destination. You want those people to be part of the network, not excluded from it. So I disagree with your suggestion that a faster travel time for those at the end of the line is a bigger benefit than serving those who live between stops. Yes, sure you could go to downtown in 20 minutes, but you are excluding almost everyone in between.