MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Torture

So the North line would be North to Eau Claire and then you have to transfer to get to your destination? Hope you don't work on the south, west, or east ends of downtown or want to go to the new arena. Barf.

No, north would terminate right at 7th Ave, putting you right at both WB and EB stations. Current 2nd St station puts you over 200m from a WB transfer

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by kevman

What happens now if you live in the NE or West and want to go to the Dome? You transfer.

What happens now if you live in the NW or South but work in the NE? You transfer.

What happens now if you live in the NE or West and want to go to the University? You Transfer.

The majority of LRT ridership takes the train downtown to work or to transfer. Why is connecting the two lines so important? You still need to transfer if you want to go to one of the other 4 legs.

There's a big difference between transferring along 7th ave from one train to another - including a choice of multiple stops to make that transfer owing to the load factoring of the trains as they move along 7th - and transferring from the terminus of a train to take you to 7th so that you can then transfer to another train.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Instead of the LRT funneling riders into and through the core of where the vast majority of riders will embark/disembark, they propose to drop them off at the fringes of this area and utilize a greater number of smaller vehicles to ferry riders into the core without creating more traffic congestion. I can't say whether there are working examples of this in other parts of the world.

Nah, I'm proposing people can walk 200-300m to reach their final destination or transfer.

My Uber comment was tounge in cheek. If it's 25% of the line cost to connect 400m of track downtown, is it really worth it or could this be spent elsewhere to increase transit reach?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you'd need duplicate maintence facilities built if they ever build the north line? I dunno, none of this makes any long term sense to me. Build it right the first time, FFS. The fact we are re-studying decisions discarded from 2016 and still have nothing built is crazy.

The Lynnwood alignment needed duplicate MSFs in just the SE.

Shepard means higher deadheading costs from the North. Enough to justify a separate MSF? Probably not on its own, but once you start adding a bridge over the Bow River, additional land expropriation (now a largely sunk cost), and the need to dig deep under 8th Ave, etc the math makes a lot more sense.

Separate the lines and the SE can terminate at 8th Ave with a shallow cut +cover underground, or come to surface north of 9th and terminate at 7th

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

No, north would terminate right at 7th Ave, putting you right at both WB and EB stations. Current 2nd St station puts you over 200m from a WB transfer

The shorter N/S blocks create a problem. I guess they could avoid any other stop downtown stop other than at 7th and they could use the distance between 6th and 8th avenues to fit the trains but then you're blocking 7th ave.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by D as in David

There's a big difference between transferring along 7th ave from one train to another - including a choice of multiple stops to make that transfer owing to the load factoring of the trains as they move along 7th - and transferring from the terminus of a train to take you to 7th so that you can then transfer to another train.

As long as you're not doing it at City Hall station it is fine. The Green Line transfer is going to work the same way whether the N/SE are connected or not. It's a choice between 1 really deep or really high station vs. 2 stations that can be shallow and/or at surface

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by kevman

And after a few stops downtown you could go SW to Mt. Royal.

To me the underground option feels more like a vanity project and isn't actually satisfying a transit need. A green line down 10th Ave makes for some pretty easy connections to the 7th ave lines and, as you said, 350m is a pretty painless transfer. There are longer transfers within the same subway station in New York.

A 350m walk is further than the distance between many of the stops on a regular bus route.

I think the most disappointing aspect of this type of thinking is that it ignores accessibility factors. 350 metre can be a long walk for some Calgarians

[getbak]

Originally Posted by D as in David

The shorter N/S blocks create a problem. I guess they could avoid any other stop downtown stop other than at 7th and they could use the distance between 6th and 8th avenues to fit the trains but then you're blocking 7th ave.

Since 8th is closed to traffic anyway, a surface station could be put between 7th and 9th, along with another on the east side of (the former) Eau Claire Market. The problem with that is you would need to give the trains full green lights between those two stations in each direction so they don't block an intersection when stopped, which would make east-west traffic downtown an absolute disaster. It would be as bad or worse than trying to cross 36th Street in the NE during rush hour, with trains coming by every 4 minutes in each direction.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The Lynnwood alignment needed duplicate MSFs in just the SE.

Shepard means higher deadheading costs from the North. Enough to justify a separate MSF? Probably not on its own, but once you start adding a bridge over the Bow River, additional land expropriation (now a largely sunk cost), and the need to dig deep under 8th Ave, etc the math makes a lot more sense.

Separate the lines and the SE can terminate at 8th Ave with a shallow cut +cover underground, or come to surface north of 9th and terminate at 7th

It is a good point about deadheading, and providing more flexibility for demand by separating the lines. Allow the north to meet capacity.

Buuuut...I've just come up with another brilliant solution. Think of this pretty much all at grade, other than an elevated line over, or tunnel under CPKR. Due to the elevated portion not really affecting buildings like further east, it should help. Gets transit to the beltline, too. This really solves every issue, and is so simple.

Spoiler!

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by kevman

Nah, I'm proposing people can walk 200-300m to reach their final destination or transfer.

My Uber comment was tounge in cheek. If it's 25% of the line cost to connect 400m of track downtown, is it really worth it or could this be spent elsewhere to increase transit reach?

More like 700m to get to City Hall station (unless you're a flying crow) plus no one is getting on an inbound train on one of the existing lines at that station in the morning, let alone a significant number of transfers from a train. During the evening rush hour, Green Line riders become riders of the other two lines along 7th to get to City Hall to then walk 700m to the Green Line terminus.

Maybe I'm bonkers, but bringing riders to the outer fringes of the area you're trying to collect and drop off the majority of your riders seems absurd. Maybe they could terminate the East and West legs of the Blue Line at the fringes and use either the imagined bus loop or walk to the nearest station along 7th?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by getbak

Since 8th is closed to traffic anyway, a surface station could be put between 7th and 9th, along with another on the east side of (the former) Eau Claire Market. The problem with that is you would need to give the trains full green lights between those two stations in each direction so they don't block an intersection when stopped, which would make east-west traffic downtown an absolute disaster. It would be as bad or worse than trying to cross 36th Street in the NE during rush hour, with trains coming by every 4 minutes in each direction.

Sorry, I made the assumption you were proposing bringing the North line down Centre. St. and terminating at 7th.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It is a good point about deadheading, and providing more flexibility for demand by separating the lines. Allow the north to meet capacity.

Buuuut...I've just come up with another brilliant solution. Think of this pretty much all at grade, other than an elevated line over, or tunnel under CPKR. Due to the elevated portion not really affecting buildings like further east, it should help. Gets transit to the beltline, too. This really solves every issue, and is so simple.

Spoiler!

The challenge there is that it doesn't really get to the core of the core - which I'd peg at about 1st St SW and 6th Ave, give or take (a decade or two ago it was probably further west).

The hope is to get enough DT workers close enough to where they won't transfer at all...but of course getting to that heart becomes more difficult as you're going through the most valuable real estate.


Similar idea, but in the other direction (also making things shorter and cheaper):

Spoiler!

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...6/post-2152297

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The challenge there is that it doesn't really get to the core of the core - which I'd peg at about 1st St SW and 6th Ave, give or take (a decade or two ago it was probably further west).

The hope is to get enough DT workers close enough to where they won't transfer at all...but of course getting to that heart becomes more difficult as you're going through the most valuable real estate.


Similar idea, but in the other direction (also making things shorter and cheaper):

Spoiler!

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...6/post-2152297

Ya, none of it is ideal or easy. I'm sure the UCP will figure it out, though.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

A 350m walk is further than the distance between many of the stops on a regular bus route.

I think the most disappointing aspect of this type of thinking is that it ignores accessibility factors. 350 metre can be a long walk for some Calgarians

At this point we're weighing the least bad of bad choices. The Jim Gray solution arrives you 3 floors up with another 200 meters to cover horizontally to get to a station where the arriving train will likely be full. Or the 4th St terminus is even longer...

Even in the city's previously approved solution you'd arrive 2 floors down and roughly 200 meters away from a WB transfer.

Originally Posted by D as in David

More like 700m to get to City Hall station (unless you're a flying crow) plus no one is getting on an inbound train on one of the existing lines at that station in the morning, let alone a significant number of transfers from a train. During the evening rush hour, Green Line riders become riders of the other two lines along 7th to get to City Hall to then walk 700m to the Green Line terminus.

Maybe I'm bonkers, but bringing riders to the outer fringes of the area you're trying to collect and drop off the majority of your riders seems absurd. Maybe they could terminate the East and West legs of the Blue Line at the fringes and use either the imagined bus loop or walk to the nearest station along 7th?

Why is anyone going to City Hall Station? Are you talking about a 4th St SE terminus (which may end up being an interim reality)? kevman is saying that IF you don't cross the CP tracks (or at least not right away) then it would be good to get to 10 Ave and 1st St SW or even further west

[kevman]

Originally Posted by D as in David

More like 700m to get to City Hall station (unless you're a flying crow) plus no one is getting on an inbound train on one of the existing lines at that station in the morning, let alone a significant number of transfers from a train. During the evening rush hour, Green Line riders become riders of the other two lines along 7th to get to City Hall to then walk 700m to the Green Line terminus.

Maybe I'm bonkers, but bringing riders to the outer fringes of the area you're trying to collect and drop off the majority of your riders seems absurd. Maybe they could terminate the East and West legs of the Blue Line at the fringes and use either the imagined bus loop or walk to the nearest station along 7th?

If you weren't connecting the lines I'd think it makes sense to re-introduce the Centre St. station and hopefully a 4th/5th St. station and maybe even an 8th St. station. That helps to alleviate the concern of transferring at a single station. This would actually bring a lot of riders closer to their workplaces than the current layout.

Really I'm just spitballing over here because we currently have a train alignment that isn't working for whatever reason. Without actually knowing the segmented costs it's hard to actually say what makes sense. If the downtown crossing is the reason that we're not getting a North Central line and the SE line is stopping short, than maybe it makes sense to re-evaluate the need to cross downtown.

Or, maybe all 3 levels of government need to realize that this is a $15 billion project, increase their funding commitments, and just get on with it. But that's probably not a very popular opinion either.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

A 350m walk is further than the distance between many of the stops on a regular bus route.

I think the most disappointing aspect of this type of thinking is that it ignores accessibility factors. 350 metre can be a long walk for some Calgarians

What's an acceptable station spacing? I've always thought LRT stations downtown were too close to each other. Compared to a system like New York, where stations are a half mile (800m) apart, it feels like you're always stopped downtown.

400m walking distance to transit seems to be cited often online but I'm not sure on the basis of that.

Edit: I should add that I'm not trying to ignore accessibility factors but am genuinely curious on what is the standard. In a perfect world everyone would live within 100m of a train station. (Well, actually, we do and it's not all it's cracked up to be but that's another topic.) Realistically though there is a cost benefit analysis for station spacing. Anecdotally I feel like those with accessibility needs would be high transit users, so what do they do now when it comes to LRT spacing outside of the downtown core?

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

At this point we're weighing the least bad of bad choices. The Jim Gray solution arrives you 3 floors up with another 200 meters to cover horizontally to get to a station where the arriving train will likely be full. Or the 4th St terminus is even longer...

Even in the city's previously approved solution you'd arrive 2 floors down and roughly 200 meters away from a WB transfer.

200 meters is better than 350m. 350m is better than 700m. Underground is out of the weather. but i believe we are talking about sidewalks and crosswalks to make the connection from one line to another. That will indeed be difficult for some.

When designing transit, it wise to consider the end user. There are Calgary Citizens who can take the LRT and there are Calgary Citizens who MUST take the LRT as they have no options. it doesn't have to seamless... but it certainly should make the effort.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by kevman

If you weren't connecting the lines I'd think it makes sense to re-introduce the Centre St. station and hopefully a 4th/5th St. station and maybe even an 8th St. station. That helps to alleviate the concern of transferring at a single station. This would actually bring a lot of riders closer to their workplaces than the current layout.

Really I'm just spitballing over here because we currently have a train alignment that isn't working for whatever reason. Without actually knowing the segmented costs it's hard to actually say what makes sense. If the downtown crossing is the reason that we're not getting a North Central line and the SE line is stopping short, than maybe it makes sense to re-evaluate the need to cross downtown.

Or, maybe all 3 levels of government need to realize that this is a $15 billion project, increase their funding commitments, and just get on with it. But that's probably not a very popular opinion either.

The two lines need to connect or you have to have two storage/maintenance facilities.

I guess you could make the north central line an extension of the end of the current blue line line that crosses by the airport and comes back down Centre to 16th Street or even end at Eau Claire. That would make use of the existing red/blue facility. You'd have to do high floor though.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

The two lines need to connect or you have to have two storage/maintenance facilities.

I guess you could make the north central line an extension of the end of the current blue line line that crosses by the airport and comes back down Centre to 16th Street or even end at Eau Claire. That would make use of the existing red/blue facility. You'd have to do high floor though.

This should be phrased as without connecting the lines there is a capital and opex cost in building a second maintenance facility. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with having two, it’s just a cost.

Since the North Line is not being built in the underground model for 50 years the NPV of those savings are near 0. If you believe the North Central line gets built in 25 years the NPV is still near 0. If you believe the North central line is built within 10 years then the savings could be meaningful but we are talking 50% of capital savings and less of operating savings. Essentially because the cost savings are so far out into the future it likely shouldn’t be considered as a benefit.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

This should be phrased as without connecting the lines there is a capital and opex cost in building a second maintenance facility. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with having two, it’s just a cost.

Since the North Line is not being built in the underground model for 50 years the NPV of those savings are near 0. If you believe the North Central line gets built in 25 years the NPV is still near 0. If you believe the North central line is built within 10 years then the savings could be meaningful but we are talking 50% of capital savings and less of operating savings. Essentially because the cost savings are so far out into the future it likely shouldn’t be considered as a benefit.

I'd say that was implied pretty obviously so it was phrased perfectly fine. It's best to do more with less. Both for maintenance facilities and written language.