Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[tvp2003]

Two basic questions about the NC line:

1) If they go up centre, is the only option to put it underground? I can't see it working at grade (without annexing a bunch of land) or above grade.

2) Do they have any idea what the cost difference might be between building it on Edmonton Trail as opposed to Centre Street? My guess is that the potential disruption and cost on Edmonton Trail would be a fraction of what it would be if you built it on Centre (although it would be essentially useless from 32nd ave until 96 ave).

[frinkprof]

^Upcoming study will determine both of these.

[GGG]

I really hope that they take a real long look at Gondolas for the Center St line. THis is the kind of area that there reduced footprint holds a lot of advantages.

[frinkprof]

^Yikes. There might be only a very strict set of circumstances under which a gondola would make sense here. Might. It would also be a very unfortunate situation if that set of circumstances were to be the reality.

[SebC]

Interesting article I came accross from an LRT critic.

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/04...incompetitive/

I would love to here what some of our transit gurus think of it (and even the primary study referenced within, if you have time).

[frinkprof]

^I was actually able to make a correct guess as to which "primary study" was referenced by the article before I even clicked on it. I've seen that Steve Lafleur study pop up in all sports if weird and wonderful places in it's over two years of existence. That thing has nine lives, I swear.

A starting point would be to Google the Frontier Center for Public Policy.

There is actually some good discussion on SSP from when the study was first published in March of 2011. It starts at this post and continues for a few pages:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...40#post5221740

Basically, several of Lafleur's conclusions come from flawed analysis and spurious data. One of the main downfalls is that he analyzes costs in absence of a direct comparison with any alternative. For example, he doesn't compare the capital costs of LRT against the capital costs for the road and busway (where he is trying to make a case for BRTs as a replacement) infrastructure that would be required to satiate the equivalent demand. As another example, at one point in his study, he takes the rate of a parking stall downtown and uses it as an assumption for the rate of a parking stall at a suburban Park and Ride (Crowfoot I believe) to benefit his argument.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

^I was actually able to make a correct guess as to which "primary study" was referenced by the article before I even clicked on it. I've seen that Steve Lafleur study pop up in all sports if weird and wonderful places in it's over two years of existence. That thing has nine lives, I swear.

A starting point would be to Google the Frontier Center for Public Policy.

Oh I already know who they are. And I agree there are holes in his argument, but I didn't want to state them and thus influence the response(s).

But there's also arguments that I see that could be made from the data reported that are compatible with my vision for the city. For example, if we're spending more on roads than any other city, perhaps we need to invest more in transit instead? Or maybe stop subsidizing greenfield community development? If LRT is too slow to be competitive with cars, maybe we should speed it up by building the downtown subway? And I happen to agree that transit should be developed in a way that promotes density rather expansion (i.e. more frequency in the inner city, SE-N line should be developed from the centre out, 8th Ave Subway should be prioritized above far out line extensions).

I also realize that a strong CBD with little (but improving) surrounding residential density, rather than any kind of failure of the LRT, is why Calgary has a high mode share of drivers going to downtown. Our downtown is huge, and there's only so many people who can be accomodated by the trains.

And I see the sillyness in the parking subsidy argument. The subsidy is the market value of parking where the cars are parked, not the market value of parking downtown.

Thanks for the response!

PS I came accross the study while looking for the LRT average speed (to compare it to a gondola), so it was at least useful for that. They're actually closer than I expected (35 km/h for LRT vs. 27 km/h for gondola, roughly). LRT wins on throughput though.

[jammies]

Gondolas? All right, let's put in canals! "Calgary - The Venice of the Prairies".

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by jammies

Gondolas? All right, let's put in canals! "Calgary - The Venice of the Prairies".

I'm pretty sure one of the very first plans for downtown involved canals and a concentric circle road design. I've seen a very old newspaper discussing it, but couldn't find it online.

[frinkprof]

^Mawson Plan. Several articles if you Google it. Probably wouldn't have gotten very far if you didn't know the name though.

[Table 5]

I've always loved the Mawson Plan. Even if they didn't go all the way, I always wished they atleast build that main square. Every great city has a great square.

[Addick]

Is there any way or where one could take a closer look at the Mawson Plan? I've never really been able to find more than a couple of pictures.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jammies

Gondolas? All right, let's put in canals! "Calgary - The Venice of the Prairies".

Winnipeg is "The Venice of the Prairies" (or at least it was, in 1950).

[tete]

Originally Posted by SebC

Winnipeg is "The Venice of the Prairies" (or at least it was, in 1950).

Nothing like a little canoeing infront of the Tier building (Or is that Buller?) during exam time...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by SebC

Winnipeg is "The Venice of the Prairies" (or at least it was, in 1950).

Ours would be a less spontaneous redesign.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I've always loved the Mawson Plan. Even if they didn't go all the way, I always wished they atleast build that main square. Every great city has a great square.

Were did they do all the hangings back in the day?

[Violator]

Originally Posted by SebC

Interesting article I came accross from an LRT critic.

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/04...incompetitive/

I would love to here what some of our transit gurus think of it (and even the primary study referenced within, if you have time).

After having lived in Surrey and now Calgary they are booth similar in nature the with the fact that they are spread out completely and don't have a high concentration of people thus making things like transit brutally inefficient.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Couldn't find it on the Calgary Transit website so trying here... Noticed this morning a posting about construction at the University ctrain stop for four cars. It mentioned a new ramp and stairs at the south end of the station. Is there a design anywhere on the CT website that shows what this station will look like when it's done?

[Maccalus]

Updated cost benefit list of transit projects according to the herald

Cost-benefit analysis for transit projects: How they rank
1. Centre Street transitway (to Panorama Hills): startup costs $11.43/rider; large passenger base, would increase room for buses; cut commutes by six minutes
2. Southwest transitway (down Crowchild/14th Street S.W. to Woodbine): $4.44/rider; Uses existing right-of-way, only $40 million; cut commutes by eight minutes
3. South crosstown BRT (Westbrook to MRU to Quarry Park/Douglasglen): $2.86/rider; only $20 million, uses existing lanes, cuts crosstown bus commutes by eight minutes
4. 17th Avenue S.E. transitway (down centre of street): $42.61/rider; boosts redevelopment prospects for Forest Lawn’s main street; cuts commutes by three minutes
5. North crosstown BRT (U of C down 16th Avenue to Rundlehorn and Saddletowne): $5/rider; could produce high greenhouse emissions cuts; cut commutes by eight minutes
6(Tie). Southeast transitway (new bus-only roadway to Quarry Park/Douglasglen) $108.81/rider; high redevelopment potential; $642 million overall; cuts commutes by 13 minutes

6 (tie). West Campus (U of C to LRT to Foothills and Alberta Children’s Hospital): $21.43/rider; low ridership for $30 million project; cut commutes by nine minutes.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Southea...#ixzz2WUuVIQ5X

[BlackArcher101]

How is that an apples-oranges comparison? The other projects use existing infrastructure, change some roads to a bus lane, while the brunt of the SE cost is technically bridges and grading for an LRT line. How come the north LRT line is not lumped into that comparison? How does the recently completed west LRT line compare on a $/rider basis?

The commute time savings seem a bit low, especially on a dedicated transitway.