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

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by 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.

I heard the same story too when I worked there, and if you believe this pile of BS told to young gullible employees, I have a bridge to sell you

[Flames Draft Watcher]

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.

What about a +15 level C-Train? They are finally starting to build some of the west leg above traffic but how stupid is it to have the C-Train slowed down for traffic, to risk deaths of people in cars/pedestrians, etc.

I've used the skytrain in Vancouver/suburbs quite a bit and it is so much more efficient. With no need for operators they can spend more on transit police which ends up enforcing the tickets more and probably gets them more money for transit. With no obstruction due to traffic the whole system runs a lot more efficiently.

Pretty much every European city I visited had a much smarter transit system as well.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What about a +15 level C-Train? They are finally starting to build some of the west leg above traffic but how stupid is it to have the C-Train slowed down for traffic, to risk deaths of people in cars/pedestrians, etc.

Well this really shouldn't happen if people are aware. Sometimes stupid and accidents happens and would still happen with a tunnel or elevated system.

I do agree though that C-Trains should have priorities at lights. Get to the station, and when it's ready to go, the street light in front should be green, and the other street lights ahead should account for the C-Train passing.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Well this really shouldn't happen if people are aware. Sometimes stupid and accidents happens and would still happen with a tunnel or elevated system.

Huh? If the train doesn't intersect with traffic or pedestrians how would accidents still happen outside of people falling off the platform? Stupid argument.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

You can't compare cities with metro populations of well over 5 million (mega-cities) with Calgary. All of the "modern" LRT systems in Europe and North America are at-grade systems similar to Calgary.

Pretty much. Calgary's population was about 500 000 when LRT first started construction. I wouldn't ever fault you for wanting things to be done better Seoulfire, but the comparisons to Edmonton are apt for a few reasons:

1. Similar size

2. Systems both built in the same era

3. Same funding sources for capital projects.

Basically, Edmonton and Calgary (at least up until Calgary's second wave of LRT construction c.~1998) received similar funding for their LRT systems and the results speak for themselves to date. Calgary has triple the track length and 4 times the ridership, most of which is attributable to choosing the much less costly above ground option.

Of course, now Calgary is forced to go underground downtown, but that is after the system's popularity has made a case for it. Contrast that to Edmonton, where the underground line is seen as a costly boondoggle that shouldn't be repeated. While they have pretty good ridership given the length of track they have, their system is seen as paltry compared to Calgary's. Their system to-date has not been seen to justify the expense of the tunnel. They are actually planning on building an at-grade section downtown connecting their next two lines (west and southeast) even though the existing tunnel can handle them.

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Portland is the gold standard for LRT in the USA and it is entirely at grade.

Not to take too much away from Portland because they should be commended. Still, Calgary blows all but Boston out of the water in terms of ridership.

MBTA (Boston): 231 200/weekday
MAX Light Rail (Portland): 119 300/weekday
C-Train (Calgary): 266 100/weekday

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Tunnels or Elevated Guideways are not economically feasible for mid-sized cities.

At-grade crossings are still being built on new LRT systems in mid-sized cities. They just aren't seen as an antiquated design aspect that only backwards cities like Calgary use. Hell, some newer systems have more at-grade operation and crossings than Calgary does. Here's some recent examples:

- Phoenix (system opened 2008)
- Charlotte (system opened 2007)
- Norfolk, VA (system opens 2011)

I've seen some people calling for WestLRT and other future lines to be completely underground. Sorry to say, but that would be a complete show-stopper due to economics. Really, as long as at-grade crossings are planned and designed well enough, negative effects can be mitigated.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What about a +15 level C-Train? They are finally starting to build some of the west leg above traffic but how stupid is it to have the C-Train slowed down for traffic, to risk deaths of people in cars/pedestrians, etc.

I've used the skytrain in Vancouver/suburbs quite a bit and it is so much more efficient. With no need for operators they can spend more on transit police which ends up enforcing the tickets more and probably gets them more money for transit. With no obstruction due to traffic the whole system runs a lot more efficiently.

Vancouver's system is great, and they paid for it. Again though, you have to look at population as a metric:

Calgary now ~1.1 M, when C-Train first built ~500 000
GVRD now ~2.2M, when Skytrain first built ~1M

Vancouver also benefits from more provincial funding, perhaps since the next-biggest metro area in BC is much smaller (Victoria), compared to Calgary-Edmonton.

Also, funny enough not everyone is a fan of Skytrain/grade separation. There is a sizeable debate growing about the future transit line down Broadway toward UBC. Many are calling for it to be an at-grade Calgary-36th Street NELRT-style line or even a streetcar, citing costs and construction disruption.

As another example, the BestWestLRT group from Sunalta/Shaganappi continually cited Vancouver's Skytrain's large "unsightly" guideways in their opposition to the WestLRT's proposed guideway. At least one of the main organizers used to live in Vancouver and apparently wasn't a big fan.

Not saying I agree with either of these sentiments, because I don't.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Huh? If the train doesn't intersect with traffic or pedestrians how would accidents still happen outside of people falling off the platform? Stupid argument.

Accidents still happen is my point. The odd times that people fall of the platform can still occur. If the extra cost to elevate or bury the line is much more then the cost to do it at grade, and doesn't do much to improve train frequency rates, it's not worth it then. We should hold hope that people don't tempt Darwinism too much.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

You can't compare cities with metro populations of well over 5 million (mega-cities) with Calgary. All of the "modern" LRT systems in Europe and North America are at-grade systems similar to Calgary. Portland is the gold standard for LRT in the USA and it is entirely at grade. Tunnels or Elevated Guideways are not economically feasible for mid-sized cities.

I know that a straight across comparison is not viable but these are hardly straight across. If real dollar figures were available for cost and city income the comparison is possible. The project was initiated when Korean economy was still very much in transition (29 or so in the world). At that time it was doubtful that they could forecast the growth to today.

Daejeon (1.2 mil) went full underground (I think...I only visited there during construction not after completion). This is a more straight across example that can highlight both sides - it can be done and it is expensive (2nd line was halted for lack of funding iirc).

Another basis for a faulty comparison is that I do not know how their lines were funded - the overall tax burden is miniscule compared to here yet every city seems to have mega projects on the go.

Really, as long as at-grade crossings are planned and designed well enough, negative effects can be mitigated.

Judging from the "upgrades" to various interchanges in the city I have zero faith that this will be the case.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Accidents still happen is my point. The odd times that people fall of the platform can still occur. If the extra cost to elevate or bury the line is much more then the cost to do it at grade, and doesn't do much to improve train frequency rates, it's not worth it then. We should hold hope that people don't tempt Darwinism too much.

I unsuccessfully tried to find some statistics to validate this presumption, but I'll float it anyway: based on reading/hearing the news, it seems to me that on a per-capita basis, Calgary's LRT kills a lot more people than most cities'. That may be incorrect (hence the need for stats), but that short section of line through downtown offs a lot of people.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

I unsuccessfully tried to find some statistics to validate this presumption, but I'll float it anyway: based on reading/hearing the news, it seems to me that on a per-capita basis, Calgary's LRT kills a lot more people than most cities'. That may be incorrect (hence the need for stats), but that short section of line through downtown offs a lot of people.

I'd be interested in comparing the height of bridges in those cities with the height of our bridges. I have a morbid theory, that the our low bridges cause more people to suicide using the C-train.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Something has to be done about Ward 4. It is a fiasco. Problem is I don't know who to vote for.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Something has to be done about Ward 4. It is a fiasco. Problem is I don't know who to vote for.

Oh come on. With 9 of us, surely one of us must come close to what you are looking for.

Or do you what Bob back?

[SeeBass]

it really isn't a fair comparison when people compare European transit to Calgary the population density is a huge factor.

Calgary 280 square miles-1.1million
Tokyo 240 square miles-
Paris 432 square miles-

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

it really isn't a fair comparison when people compare European transit to Calgary the population density is a huge factor.

Calgary 280 square miles-1.1million
Tokyo 240 square miles-
Paris 432 square miles-

And there isn't a more clear example of how urban sprawl is affecting the city's ability to deliver services to it's citizens than that.

[COGENT]

Most of my major issues have been pointed out but one thing that drives me crazy is how the city patches up side walks with asphalt rather than concrete.

I know, it seems minor compared to urban sprawl or public transit but it still bothers me. I think it speaks to the city's stupid reactionary ideas rather than future planning type ideas.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

it really isn't a fair comparison when people compare European transit to Calgary the population density is a huge factor.

Calgary 280 square miles-1.1million
Tokyo 240 square miles-
Paris 432 square miles-

Tokyo relocated?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Something has to be done about Ward 4. It is a fiasco. Problem is I don't know who to vote for.

Although I don't agree with some of 'First Lady's' overall politics, I've found that her engagement on Twitter and her very thoughful blogs on salient election issues such as the Airport Tunnel sets her apart from the other candidates.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Something has to be done about Ward 4. It is a fiasco. Problem is I don't know who to vote for.

What specific areas are you concerned about? I ask because I too live in Ward 4 - so I guess I want to compare notes.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Although I don't agree with some of 'First Lady's' overall politics, I've found that her engagement on Twitter and her very thoughful blogs on salient election issues such as the Airport Tunnel sets her apart from the other candidates.

Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What specific areas are you concerned about? I ask because I too live in Ward 4 - so I guess I want to compare notes.

I could be wrong, but I think his text should have been a light shade of green.
The one thing I've found while door knocking, is that there is no one overriding issue. Chatting with other candidates, they feel the same way.

With that said though; I would be VERY interested in hearing from each of you as to what you view as the wards' concerns.

Actually I'm also curious about the entire distribution of CP members in terms of what wards they live in. How does one go about getting a poll for something like that?

[Resolute 14]

Ward 12 for me... Freed of Ric McIver as my Alderman, but fearing him as my Mayor.