If you could name one ridiculous thing.....

[yads]

The most ridiculous thing the city can do is give departments a blank check.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by yads

Not a chance is that the most ridiculous thing done by council. In fact it's probably one of the smartest. If they had put it underground, our mass transit system would be in the same state as Edmonton's

So you prefer the needless waiting at poorly designed C-train crossings? The C-train interaction with the roads is brutal and creates needless congestion.

Have you ever lived in a city with a well-run and well-maintained subway? It absolutely blows away the C-train for efficiency in running and not affecting traffic. Using the state of affairs in Edmonton as a seemingly inevitable result is a rather fallacious conclusion to say the least.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

I used to work for the City of Calgary and once spoke with one of the City engineers about the transit system. I know this story is anecdotal and I could not find anything online referencing it, but I found the story he told me extremely interesting. He worked as an engineer at the City at the time all this was going on.

Apparently, when they were first planning the LRT, there was a very wealth Saudi man who basically approached the City and offered to completely finance a LRT-like system. It would have had multiple legs, (I believe it was 2 south, one west, and two north including one clear up to where the the airport is, but that might be my memory messing up) and he would have fronted the entire cost. He would have expected a certain percentage return (fairly high) on each ticket sold for the first 10 years or so, and then a lower percentage in perpetuity thereafter. It would have been a very high quality system he was offering. The total cost would have ran into the tens or hundreds of millions. He approached City Council with all the plans and everything ready to go pending acceptance and approval of his plan.

This was, however, the 1970s. Back then, anything private was a bad idea. It didn't matter that he would have built the entire bloody system on his own coin, but City Council essentially said "thanks, but no thanks," and proceeded to build what is, in my opinion, one of the worst transit systems in any major city.

Anyhow, I don't know if the story is 100% true, but if it was then I think City Council messed up big time. Not that it matters to me now, because I no longer live there, but there you go.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

So you prefer the needless waiting at poorly designed C-train crossings? The C-train interaction with the roads is brutal and creates needless congestion.

Have you ever lived in a city with a well-run and well-maintained subway? It absolutely blows away the C-train for efficiency in running and not affecting traffic. Using the state of affairs in Edmonton as a seemingly inevitable result is a rather fallacious conclusion to say the least.

I think he may have meant that the LRT would have been just downtown and then maybe up to Sait and that is about it. By then they would have run out of money. So, which do you prefer. The current LRT or nothing? Those are your options.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

So you prefer the needless waiting at poorly designed C-train crossings? The C-train interaction with the roads is brutal and creates needless congestion.

Have you ever lived in a city with a well-run and well-maintained subway? It absolutely blows away the C-train for efficiency in running and not affecting traffic. Using the state of affairs in Edmonton as a seemingly inevitable result is a rather fallacious conclusion to say the least.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the C-Train downtown is annoying. To build it underground, though, would have cost the City significantly more. The trade-off was between an underground subway with a shorter route or the system we have -- a longer route serving more areas of the city but over-ground. I think the council back when the C-Train was first built made the right call.

[SeoulFire]

Not wishing for a hijack so will be my last post on this. I think that the above reasons are valid yet still highlight the shortsightedness of the city - do it the cheap way now and pay the consequences in the future.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Not wishing for a hijack so will be my last post on this. I think that the above reasons are valid yet still highlight the shortsightedness of the city - do it the cheap way now and pay the consequences in the future.

Actually, the decision to built the c-train out made it a success and helped keep it a success. Look at the Edmonton LRT, which did go the opposite route of Calgary's, and what a failure it is compared to our LRT.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Not wishing for a hijack so will be my last post on this. I think that the above reasons are valid yet still highlight the shortsightedness of the city - do it the cheap way now and pay the consequences in the future.

While I don't think it applies to the C-Train, in general I very much agree with that statement.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

CPA Park Plus System.

If ever there was a reason for me to start some anarchy...

What's the issue with this? I only use it occasionally. When I can find a spot it seems okay. I keep meaning to register with my cell, but never have gotten around to it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Those accordion buses that don't fit under the 14th St. S.W. bridge going into downtown.

They also fold in half very easily with a little bit of ice, just about anywhere on Centre St. N

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by worth

I thought it was pretty ridiculous that the work done on Deerfoot this summer was mostly done during the day.

I drive Deerfoot maybe once a month, so it wasn't an inconvenience for me, (I don't even know if their done yet or not, I haven't been on it in a while) but, in my opinion, if you're going to close down one of the cities busiest and most important arteries, time is off the essence. To see work only being done 8 hours or 10 hours a day just makes no sense to me. Have 2 or 3 shifts and get it done 2 or 3 times faster.

I'm sure the work was contracted, and maybe it wasn't possible to do it that way, but I just found it hard to believe that they city would allow that to happen.

I know some of them go at night. Earlier this month I drove my husband to the airport at 3 AM and they had McKnight & 12 Ave lit up like it was noon.
They were paving.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Not wishing for a hijack so will be my last post on this. I think that the above reasons are valid yet still highlight the shortsightedness of the city - do it the cheap way now and pay the consequences in the future.

Are you comparing the LRT to transit systems in cities that are 10 or more times the size of Calgary?

[worth]

Yes, indeed, some projects do go at night. Which is great. I just would have thought the busiest freeway in the city might go at night as well.

Actually, they did pave deerfoot at night this summer. I did see that, but i'm talking more about the calf robe bridge work they have done. I never saw anyone working there at night, and it was down to one lane in the SB direction. I would think they would want to clear that mess up as soon as possible.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the C-Train downtown is annoying. To build it underground, though, would have cost the City significantly more. The trade-off was between an underground subway with a shorter route or the system we have -- a longer route serving more areas of the city but over-ground. I think the council back when the C-Train was first built made the right call.

That's probably true, that building it above ground downtown was the right call. But not building it to the airport on the NE line? Dumb. And just because it wasn't built underground downtown originally, doesn't mean they shouldn't have put it underground when they started replacing all the stations. (Which is still ongoing)

Michael

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That's probably true, that building it above ground downtown was the right call. But not building it to the airport on the NE line? Dumb. And just because it wasn't built underground downtown originally, doesn't mean they shouldn't have put it underground when they started replacing all the stations. (Which is still ongoing)

Michael

How would it be possible to put stations underground as they replace them along 7th ave?

Unless you wanted to shut down the entire downtown LRT line for 3 years...

[bizaro86]

How would it be possible to put stations underground as they replace them along 7th ave?

Unless you wanted to shut down the entire downtown LRT line for 3 years...

The plan was to put the new underground line under 9th avenue, so you could leave 7th avenue open during construction of the 9th avenue line. I think there was also another reason they couldn't do it under 7th avenue, something to do with the soil or adjacent buildings or something, but I don't recall exactly.

Michael

[troutman]

Allowing Canuck fans to move here.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Are you comparing the LRT to transit systems in cities that are 10 or more times the size of Calgary?

I guess I lied about last post (not that there was ever any doubt).

Think small remain small and that about sums up my feelings on this. The Seoul subway was initiated in the 70s (above ground line) and expanded in the late 70's to 80's. The three expansion lines were either elevated or underground. At the time S. Korean economy was 1/10 the size of Canada. And yes, Seoul was about 10 times as big as Calgary when it began. There are now 9 lines with 5 spinoff lines - all constructed under existing roadways without shutting down traffic at a very very high cost. They considered that the investment in the infrastructure and the non-disruptive nature was well worth it in the long term.

If the city/province/country was serious about getting things done while thinking for the future the money would be allocated. Sadly we are left faced with bureaucrats who are not willing to make the difficult calls (to maintain their popularity and job security) while selling out the future. People continue to make comparisons to Edmonton but I prefer to choose a more successful model.

For the record, I was not referring to the downtown core for the traffic disruptions - it was in regards to the NE line and the S line mostly.Any more above ground and not over/underpassed is just laying the foundation for future traffic problems which the "fix" could cost more than doing it right in the first place.

If you are happy with glorified cable cars so be it. I am just happy that my job does not require that I have to use the pathetic excuse for public transit in this city. vote Nenshi It is overpriced (rider and parking) and under-serviced using 1980s technology in fare collection/management.

So after all of this I will concede that you are correct - it was not a ridiculous decision. It was merely a decision lacking in vision and ambition rationalized by budgetary constraints.

Rant over.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

under-serviced using 1980s technology in fare collection/management.

Amen to that. Cities like London, Sydney, Frankfurt, New York, and Barcelona have fare gates that work with magnetic swipe card, or smart cards. Why doesn't city council try to be more like the great cities of the world, and spend less time trying to compare ourselves to Edmonton.

I've taken it downtown for 3 years in a row, and never had my ticket checked during rush hour. I'm pretty sure half the people on it aren't paying, its too packed for them to check tickets anyway. You'd easily make the cost of the system back.

They say 90+% of people are paying, but that's when they're checking outside of rush hour (at least on the NW line)

Michael

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That's probably true, that building it above ground downtown was the right call. But not building it to the airport on the NE line? Dumb. And just because it wasn't built underground downtown originally, doesn't mean they shouldn't have put it underground when they started replacing all the stations. (Which is still ongoing)

Michael

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The plan was to put the new underground line under 9th avenue, so you could leave 7th avenue open during construction of the 9th avenue line. I think there was also another reason they couldn't do it under 7th avenue, something to do with the soil or adjacent buildings or something, but I don't recall exactly.

Michael

Alright, time for clearing up some transit-related things, low-hanging fruit first:

Airport LRT

Airport LRT lines/stations typically have relatively low ridership due to a number of factors including: business travelers often choosing taxi rides they can write off, airport workers not being a strong ridership base (odd hours, low cost parking), limited or non-existent development potential around stations due to flightpaths, luggage (even with specially designed train cars to accommodate some luggage), etc. Quite a few examples attest to this: Portland, Atlanta and Vancouver are a few.

As for the NE line not going to the airport either what is currently built or future expansion, it simply follows stronger ridership bases: a mix of residential and retail corridor. The average Calgarian (I would guess) goes to the airport about 5 times a year, while most travel to work 200+ times a year. Getting to and from work is what the vast majority use (intracity) rail transit for. There are hundreds of thousands of Calgarians both in NE Calgary and elsewhere (SE, North Central) that should be served by the LRT for this purpose before the airport is. Simply a numbers game.

Airport LRT sounds like a nice thing to have, and it would be. However, other priorities have to come first, both in terms of new lines (SE, North Central) and the current and future routing of the NE LRT.

Underground LRT History

History as I know it, just copy/pasting from an old post of mine:

When the LRT was first planned in the early to mid 70s, having it run under 8th Avenue downtown was plan A, and the surface transit mall along 7th Avenue was plan B. When costs started to escalate in the later planning stages, 7th Avenue was chosen, but not before some facilities under City Hall (specifically, the shell of an underground station) had been constructed when the new City Hall was constructed.

In the years since, it was planned that eventually at least one of the LRT lines would have to move under 8th Avenue as 7th Avenue approached capacity. Every new building along 8th Avenue has had to take this into account, and every time there has been utility work in the area, they have moved as many utilities as possible to make way for the eventual 8th Avenue Subway. For example, there is a space in the lower levels of the Banker's Hall complex that is currently being used as an auditorium but is actually a placeholder for the tunnel and/or station.

This is the first I've heard of the story about the rich Saudi guy bankrolling LRT in the 70s. To be quite honest, it sounds far-fetched. I would assume that, at the very most, it was just some very preliminary musing on the part of the City and/or the Saudi person.

Underground LRT Future

Some more copy/paste:

Fast forward to now. The 7th Avenue transit mall is at capacity and political will and public sentiment has been growing to finally build the 8th Avenue Subway. 2007 mayoral candidate Sandy Jenkins had it in his platform, and others mused about it. A budget was approved after the 2007 election for a preliminary engineering study that will recommend routes, station locations, alignment, platform lengths, construction methods and staging, timeframe, costing, etc.

Also being dealt with will be the SELRT downtown alignment, which will be in its own separate subway. This study is just getting underway now (as far as I understand anyway) and is supposed to be completed next year sometime.

Planning done to date points toward the 201 line (south and northwest legs) using the 8th Avenue Subway with 3 or 4 stations. The SE LRT will enter downtown from the east on 10th Avenue, go underground somewhere east of MacLeod Trail, travel under 10th Avenue to 2nd Street West, turn north, continue underground all the way to Eau Claire.

Stations tentatively at 1st Street West, 7th/8th Ave., and Eau Claire. The 202 line (northeast and west legs) would continue to use the existing 7th Ave. The recommendations in the study may change some of these elements but will probably resemble most of it. After that, it would need approval, to be made a priority, and the biggest hurdle, funding.

This also explains why the current work on 7th Avenue (replacing old stations) does not mean that underground LRT has been abandoned. The two projects are independent of each other.