Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The 301 used to go to where 69th station is now so that part got cut once the West line was complete.

I could see the north part of the 3 go to 16th ave station and then the other part of the 3 go from Heritage to a southern green line station.

The number 3 is an extremely popular route from downtown to Heritage station. And there would still need to be a bus that has many stops along Centre Street N intersections, the number 3 most likely will not be changing; even when the green line is extended as planned.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Having people possibly board a feeder bus, then take the 3 or 301, or one of the several others), then transfer to an LRT is recipe for fewer transit users, not more. Every transfer is another barrier. This would be worse service than they currently have.

Yes, in the past the City has indicated that 64th Avenue is the most southern station where stopping bus routes would be beneficial.

But given how fragile Centre Street N below 16th Avenue will be with just one lane each way, Transit may end up having no choice and be forced to stop buses at 16th.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Maybe similar to Westbrook? Station underground with a small building and a bus loop around it

They've indicated that the station will be surface; the older plans had 16th Avenue underground so it's most likely that they can't afford to put it underground anymore.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Yes, in the past the City has indicated that 64th Avenue is the most southern station where stopping bus routes would be beneficial.

But given how fragile Centre Street N below 16th Avenue will be with just one lane each way, Transit may end up having no choice and be forced to stop buses at 16th.

And that's why skipping the LRT for now, and using the new bridge as a busway makes a lot of sense. A dedicated transit bridge would improve service and traffic instead of making both worse.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

I'm wondering who's going to take the train from 16th Ave? A lot of people who live that close to downtown already walk to work, or hop on the bus when its cold. All of the cars from far North will still be taking Center St cause this line doesn't help them for now. Am I missing something?

The forecasted ridership at 16th Avenue is 11,000 trips/day, which is pretty substantial considering the entire Green Line Stage 1 is expected to only have 60-65K trips/day.

Even with the possible transfers with east/west connection,I think it's optimistic in order to make the Green Line Stage 1 look better.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The number 3 is an extremely popular route from downtown to Heritage station. And there would still need to be a bus that has many stops along Centre Street N intersections, the number 3 most likely will not be changing; even when the green line is extended as planned.

Yeah, I was thinking that maybe the 3 goes from Heritage to the new South Hill station and then the train goes downtown.


But looking at the map, that's a total nightmare.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And that's why skipping the LRT for now, and using the new bridge as a busway makes a lot of sense. A dedicated transit bridge would improve service and traffic instead of making both worse.

Yeah, for value and immediate transit benefit, BRT improvements would be the best. But the fear would be that if you don't have "LRT facts on the ground" north of the river now, you may never get it.

Cynically, I think the Green Line team has gone with the worst possible alignment for Centre Street N with the hope that the NC will say "No Mas" and accept BRT improvements only. Then with the savings, they can continue to build out the SE LRT.

[Fuzz]

I don't think a bridge is the worst option, I prefer it over the deep tunnel. The worst option is surface up centre though. Ideally they'd end the bridge in such a way that it could go underground into the bluff at that point, or elevated after, so there is a choice when funds are available.



I get what Frinkprof was saying about needing to get that bridge down now so the entire option doesn't disappear in the future. That's a good point. But I don't think it excludes the option of using it for buses in the short term.


An elevated section like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/4HQyY5HdQ1HqyXSo7


up centre to 20th ave or so would be the best cost/non-obstructive balance, I think.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There are also a lot of express buses from the outlying NW / NE communities that travel down Centre St to DT. Those would only have to go to 16th Ave.

If you happen to work on the western or eastern side of downtown, you'd also be looking at yet another transfer onto the red/blue line to get close.

The nice thing about BRT is that it can more effectively cover a destination 'zone' that is anything other than a narrow corridor (even if it's not much dedicated infrastructure at that point).

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think a bridge is the worst option, I prefer it over the deep tunnel. The worst option is surface up centre though. Ideally they'd end the bridge in such a way that it could go underground into the bluff at that point, or elevated after, so there is a choice when funds are available.



I get what Frinkprof was saying about needing to get that bridge down now so the entire option doesn't disappear in the future. That's a good point. But I don't think it excludes the option of using it for buses in the short term.


An elevated section like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/4HQyY5HdQ1HqyXSo7


up centre to 20th ave or so would be the best cost/non-obstructive balance, I think.

What's really the benefit of having it elevated though? Since it's a low floor train, it's pretty much a streetcar and isn't as obstructive for the whole street realm. All of centre street is going to deal with it anyway, so the short section between the river and 16th can do fine with at grade LRT. Making it elevated might actually be the worse option from a street realm perspective.

The only area that needs to be grade separated is the 16th Ave intersection. Cost wise with the new proposal, it may be cheaper now to go with the Hybird option, so we still get the underground 16th Ave station, as the the 9th Ave station.

[Fuzz]

I disagree that it isn't obstructive. It is still on a dedicated ROW. Yes, you can cross it more easily, but it eats 2 lanes of traffic. I haven't read anything that enables these lanes to be shared with buses. And from how Vancouver did theirs, I don't see it being a all that intrusive to the street realm.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I disagree that it isn't obstructive. It is still on a dedicated ROW. Yes, you can cross it more easily, but it eats 2 lanes of traffic. I haven't read anything that enables these lanes to be shared with buses. And from how Vancouver did theirs, I don't see it being a all that intrusive to the street realm.

It does eat up 2 lanes of traffic, so it would only be 1 each way. But I suppose the trade off in reducing the vehicles using that road is worth it from a cost perspective. As long as there's wide enough shoulder lanes, buses could still make stops along there. I figure it would be the same design as the LRT will be north of 16th Ave.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Joborule

All of centre street is going to deal with it anyway, so the short section between the river and 16th can do fine with at grade LRT.

I think for that narrow portion of Centre Street N between McKnight and 20th Avenue, it dropping down to one lane each way is acceptable on the assumption that the LRT would have also reached far North enough (after a few years of construction pain) where it could replace almost all buses and many car trips.

Right now, it appears to be a worst-of-both worlds situations where road capacity is badly reduced without improving transit capacity. And where there is no time frame, (or money) on when it can be improved.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think a bridge is the worst option, I prefer it over the deep tunnel. The worst option is surface up centre though. Ideally they'd end the bridge in such a way that it could go underground into the bluff at that point, or elevated after, so there is a choice when funds are available.



I get what Frinkprof was saying about needing to get that bridge down now so the entire option doesn't disappear in the future. That's a good point. But I don't think it excludes the option of using it for buses in the short term.


An elevated section like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/4HQyY5HdQ1HqyXSo7


up centre to 20th ave or so would be the best cost/non-obstructive balance, I think.

Yuck, that's hideous and would be horrible for the Center Street urban realm.
Center is going to look like this https://goo.gl/maps/kk1vSbAoNt1hvG9f9. Well, probably without the trees.

As for east/west connections, I wonder who owns the land on the SE corner of 16th that's vacant. The city could acquire it if they already haven't and use it as a pseudo transfer station. I believe the city was using it for a staging area while doing the BRT.

[Fuzz]

Pretty sure the city owns it, it's the old Brick.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I think for that narrow portion of Centre Street N between McKnight and 20th Avenue, it dropping down to one lane each way is acceptable on the assumption that the LRT would have also reached far North enough (after a few years of construction pain) where it could replace almost all buses and many car trips.

Right now, it appears to be a worst-of-both worlds situations where road capacity is badly reduced without improving transit capacity. And where there is no time frame, (or money) on when it can be improved.

I'm sure everyone knows this, but it would dropping from 3 lanes to 1 lane at each rush hour. Yikes. For the limited benefit of phase 1 of this whole thing, I think it would make the entire project a net negative impact on moving people around this city (or at the very least across the river). How does that not threaten the future viability/support of the line extensions?

I wonder if they could cut into the eastern escarpment and realign the road lanes between 2 ave and 7 aveN, leaving space for the new line to integrate at surface, and sink into a cut/cover portal far enough south of 7 ave (retaining 4 lanes south of 16th in the long run). Cut and cover until north of 16th ave (relatively short construction bottleneck, too).

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

i'm sure everyone knows this, but it would dropping from 3 lanes to 1 lane at each rush hour. Yikes. For the limited benefit of phase 1 of this whole thing, i think it would make the entire project a net negative impact on moving people around this city (or at the very least across the river). How does that not threaten the future viability/support of the line extensions?

Agreed, I think it's going to be a nightmare. Even with 3 lanes in the peak direction, it's pretty easy to jammed up. There was a tweet from the City about a jam caused by a stall that struck me because there were 7 buses trying to go north in the same frame. I don't see how it's going to work with one lane and all these buses still trying to run.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1187879423875276800

Perhaps the goal is to be so bad that it forces the UCP/Federal governments to chip in a few hundred million more to allow for a shallow tunnel.

i wonder if they could cut into the eastern escarpment and realign the road lanes between 2 ave and 7 aven, leaving space for the new line to integrate at surface, and sink into a cut/cover portal far enough south of 7 ave (retaining 4 lanes south of 16th in the long run). Cut and cover until north of 16th ave (relatively short construction bottleneck, too).

Gian-Carlo Carra seems to indicate that they can't afford any tunnel at this time:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1223835321168580613

[Wormius]

Why don’t they just trench it and have the train cross on he lower deck of Centre St bridge?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why don’t they just trench it and have the train cross on he lower deck of Centre St bridge?

The lower deck doesn't have nearly enough clearance for that. Also, I'd be surprised if the angle you'd have to rise up to the top of the hill isn't far too steep at that point.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Gian-Carlo Carra seems to indicate that they can't afford any tunnel at this time:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1223835321168580613

Says the guy whose ward is getting full benefits without any compromises/losses...

Counterpoint: we can't afford to not bury it.

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why don’t they just trench it and have the train cross on he lower deck of Centre St bridge?

And then what? How does it cross Memorial? Or get up the hill? And it's still a net loss of 2 lanes...