I mean, I was on the train platforms at 10 this morning, theres a train on every block already. There's isn't room for more trains.
Getting back 4-car trains will increase peak hour capacity by at least 25%. And a past study has suggested a theoretical limit of 36 trains/hour in one direction. The capacity issue with 7th Av in the past was due to plans that also wanted connected the NC LRT to it from the East too (via Nose Creek). It could handle 3 lines, but not 4.
Quote:
The whole point of getting all of this money was to build the expensive and hard part, to which adding extensions is fairly easy.
The Green Line got so much money to start with because it was supposed to build most of the line (if not all of it) in one phase, with useful end stations, high ridership and replacement of many buses. The original Green Line "Core" was Beddington-Shepard. Then it was 16th-Shepard, then Eau-Claire to Shepard and now Eau Claire-Lynnwood.
And probably c), with political parties coming to the next election, this lays a bit of the groundwork for conservative saviours liberating us from years of socialist oppression. Pulling funding ensures that the project fails, and they'll be hammering it home at every opportunity. Circle back a point a) - tying Nenshi to civic failures and ignoring the UCP role in them will be beneficial in both the next provincial and civic elections.
Getting back 4-car trains will increase peak hour capacity by at least 25%. And a past study has suggested a theoretical limit of 36 trains/hour in one direction. The capacity issue with 7th Av in the past was due to plans that also wanted connected the NC LRT to it from the East too (via Nose Creek). It could handle 3 lines, but not 4.
The Green Line got so much money to start with because it was supposed to build most of the line (if not all of it) in one phase, with useful end stations, high ridership and replacement of many buses. The original Green Line "Core" was Beddington-Shepard. Then it was 16th-Shepard, then Eau-Claire to Shepard and now Eau Claire-Lynnwood.
Its been mentioned on here and elsewhere many times in the past that 7th ave is at is functional capacity for trains. If there's a "theoretical" higher capacity, its almost certainly not achievable.
Getting back 4-car trains will increase peak hour capacity by at least 25%. And a past study has suggested a theoretical limit of 36 trains/hour in one direction. The capacity issue with 7th Av in the past was due to plans that also wanted connected the NC LRT to it from the East too (via Nose Creek). It could handle 3 lines, but not 4.
The Green Line got so much money to start with because it was supposed to build most of the line (if not all of it) in one phase, with useful end stations, high ridership and replacement of many buses. The original Green Line "Core" was Beddington-Shepard. Then it was 16th-Shepard, then Eau-Claire to Shepard and now Eau Claire-Lynnwood.
What problem does 4 car trains solve exactly? I haven’t seen a full (3 car) train in years.
What problem does 4 car trains solve exactly? I haven’t seen a full (3 car) train in years.
Going back to 4-cars, you can reduce the frequency of Red and Blue Line trains and use those freed up "slots" for a SE Line while keeping the per-hour passenger capacity about the same for rush hour.
Users of the older lines will have to wait longer between trains but not needing a new underground or elevated line through DT will save a lot of money. Easily enough to reach Seton, and maybe a downpayment on something for the North.
Going back to 4-cars, you can reduce the frequency of Red and Blue Line trains and use those freed up "slots" for a SE Line while keeping the per-hour passenger capacity about the same for rush hour.
Users of the older lines will have to wait longer between trains but not needing a new underground or elevated line through DT will save a lot of money. Easily enough to reach Seton, and maybe a downpayment on something for the North.
...uuuhh ... you do not want to reduce the headway between trains unless you are willing to accept a loss of customers (transit planning concept of elasticity).
changes in the headways (frequency) downtown, mean that the Entire Red/ Blue line(s) experience the change in headway-- and loss of ridership
The Following User Says Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
changes in the headways (frequency) downtown, mean that the Entire Red/ Blue line(s) experience the change in headway-- and loss of ridership
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Seems like a solution that causes additional problems.
Sure, ideally you don't want to to do this. But with the large cost escalations, there isn't a win-win solution anymore. An elevated option may be the best compromise but a lot of DT stakeholders were adamantly against it.
Sure, ideally you don't want to to do this. But with the large cost escalations, there isn't a win-win solution anymore. An elevated option may be the best compromise but a lot of DT stakeholders were adamantly against it.
There’s a win-win solution still available. Elect a real government.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
There’s a win-win solution still available. Elect a real government.
And? Will the NDP actually be willing to put in another $2.5B to finish the Green Line, and probably more if Canada isn't willing to fund that much and Calgary can't find anymore money.
Notley wasn't willing to contribute anymore money for the 2019 campaign and only offered a tiny amount for 2023.
Regardless of who's in government, it's hard to just spending $13$, $14B on a LRT line for 140K/day ridership.
Wasn't 140k like many years? Pretty sure the stats say over 250k now...were like #2 or 3 still in North America ridership...
Right, the current system is very well used.
But a new line that goes to Riverbend wouldn't be. Even all the way to the south east is likely low usage.
They've cancelled this plan (which is good because it sucks) and are trying to replace it with a new even suckier plan (you think this sucks, the UCP says "hold my beer").
Just switch back to the north, start at Eau claire and get after it.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
But a new line that goes to Riverbend wouldn't be. Even all the way to the south east is likely low usage.
They've cancelled this plan (which is good because it sucks) and are trying to replace it with a new even suckier plan (you think this sucks, the UCP says "hold my beer").
Just switch back to the north, start at Eau claire and get after it.
Forget Eau Claire, just run straight down the bridge (and underground from 4th to 7th)
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
If the downtown core is at max capacity with 2 lines interlining along 7th Avenue,
What kind of frequency production to we get when we try to add in a third line..
If you have to reduce headways amongst the three lines for that choke point of seventh avenue, you are doing so by reducing the frequency across the entire city.
There are elasticity guidelines that suggest even with four car units.You will lose some total ridership ridership.
If you would like to quickly learn about transit planning, especially mass transit, I suggest you look for a book titled Human Transit
Jarrett Walker
As if it's not enough to have the province and the city constantly changing transit plans, we've now also got to deal with rich Banff "philanthropists" telling us solutions. Which just happen to make their project viable, once us taxpayers foot the bills for the expensive bits.
Quote:
But hiding in plain sight is an opportunity to integrate two Calgary infrastructure assets — the Plus-15 network and the CPKC corridor — to create an effective, low-cost mass transit rail solution. As the proponents of the Calgary Airport Banff Rail (CABR) project, my firm, Liricon, and our partner, Plenary Americas, are proposing the CADE Plus-15 solution.
If CPKC gets on board, the province can build CADE from the airport to downtown within the CPKC rail corridor and then elevate the track for 5.5 km between the Bow River and 11th Street S.W. CADE’s 2.4-km downtown section could include three new stations along 9th Avenue: Downtown East (at 4th Street S.E. — Grand Central Station), Midtown (at 3rd Street S.W.) and Downtown West (at 11th Street S.W). All three stations will be connected through the Plus-15 network north to 7th Avenue.
The CADE Plus-15 solution addresses all previously identified issues. The Green Line is integrated at ground level at the Downtown East Station, just south of the CPKC rail corridor. Green Line passengers then walk to the Blue Line and Red Line via a new Plus-15 along 9th Avenue, and then north on 3rd Street S.E. behind City Hall to 7th Avenue. This roughly 500-metre walk is similar to the distance riders in Toronto walk between the Union Pearson Express from Union Station to the Union Station subway line.
Uh, except, you know, traversing downtown to enable the north green line? You know, the one that started this entire project, and the greatest need for transit in the city? That one? Did you solve it? No, you did not, you muppet. Pay full attention to the rapidly moving hand over here, while we pick your pocket and tell you you are pretty.
Quote:
The CADE Plus-15 solution also provides additional downtown east-west mass transit rail capacity for the 2.4 km between the Downtown East and West stations, relieving pressure on the Blue and Red Lines on 7th Avenue. The Midtown Station and Downtown West Station would require passengers to walk four minutes to the 7th Avenue LRT stations via the Plus-15 network. This couldn’t be easier.
Said no one about an integrated (5?) line 150km transit project, ever.
They've got a website to push it, and video. Sure, why not. Handing off billions to billionaires to make millions more is a timed honoured tradition in this city/province. Why not connect one of those projects to another? can we get a cancelled pipeline in there, too? I'm sure it'll work out just fine for us.
