[Update: Approved] First Leg of the Green Line LRT

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The geographical area you can practically live in without a car relying primarily on transit in Calgary is massively smaller than in the GVRD. It's most of the GVRD - just about everywhere west of central Surrey that isn't East Richmond or Delta is pretty easy skytrain access. It's nowhere near as convenient here once you get out of the core.

[Ozy_Flame]

I dream of the day when I can be car-free, and only borrow one when I need it (pay-as-you-go). Preferably they are electric cars/SUV's that you can book and control with your app (with driverless car technology so you can get it to your own door).

Looking forward to expanded transit service in Calgary though! When I move back I hope to live in the Ramsay/Inglewood area and this will be very conducive to that.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by blankall

The SkyTrain in Vancouver goes into Surrey Central, so it's accessible by most of the population of Surrey. Although geographically not in the centre of the city, it's in the middle of the population centre.

From what people tell me of Surrey, the train must be full of bullet holes and crack cocaine by the time it gets through Surrey and reaches Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Okotoks and Airdrie are not even close to being contiguous with the City of Calgary - they are small satellites of a large central municipality.

You spelt parasite incorrectly.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ne-lrt-project

Same funding commitment that was made three years ago. Nothing new.

This is probably what we're getting instead of transmountain...

[GirlySports]

Maybe the old C-Trains will be gone by then

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by blankall;

There are about 500,000 daily riders in Vancouver vs. 300,000 in Calgary. Vancouver's ridership is expected to expand as the system is growing rapidly. If they build the UBC line, it'll result in a huge increase. It's not the terrain being the issue in Vancouver, so much as it is dealing with property owners.

Don’t forget cost of living most people in Vancouver only own one car if they can. They have a 21% transit tax on downtown parking and car insurance is significantly more expensive with icbc then our private insurance. I know at least in the circle of people I interact with this pushes a lot of them to pubic transit rather than commute downtown.

[GGG]

Calgary should put a high tax on parking. It doesn't change the price of parking or the supply (it's regulated). So all it does is move profit to the party bearing the cost of having parking. This also encourages development as it decreases the cash flow from undeveloped land.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Okotoks and Airdrie are not even close to being contiguous with the City of Calgary - they are small satellites of a large central municipality. Vancouver is a very different region whereby Surrey is contiguous and has a population not that far below the central municipality of Vancouver.

Skytrain is a good system, no question. Calgary's is quite good too though - we achieve better per capita ridership.

Actually, the corridor north of the city is getting very close. It's only about 3KM from the north edge of the new industrial area to CrossIron Mills, and then less than 2KM from the north edge of the shopping centre to Airdrie. And all three municipalities are gobbling up space along Highway 2 rapidly.

The problem, of course, is what frinkprof notes - the relative lack of population. I doubt very much that the cost of another ~20 km of rail for three stations - CrossIron, South Airdrie, North Airdrie - would be justified by ridership.

And Okotoks makes no sense whatsoever, with a longer distance and 1/3 the population.


Oh, and I think that is now the second time Trudeau has announced a funding commitment that Harper had already committed to. Gotta love political PR.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

Calgary should put a high tax on parking. It doesn't change the price of parking or the supply (it's regulated).

The price of parking is regulated? Why does it differ so much from lot to lot even if they're near each other.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The price of parking is regulated? Why does it differ so much from lot to lot even if they're near each other.

Supply of parking is regulated, it is limited by the city which drives the price up. Therefore price is a function of demand only and increasing taxation comes out of profits for from the owner of the lot rather than being able to be passed on to the consumer. The lot owners are only making that profit because of the market distortion caused by the supply being regulated.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Supply of parking is regulated, it is limited by the city which drives the price up. Therefore price is a function of demand only and increasing taxation comes out of profits for from the owner of the lot rather than being able to be passed on to the consumer. The lot owners are only making that profit because of the market distortion caused by the supply being regulated.

Ok, but if you institute say a 15% tax on all parking... all parking will go up 15%. I'm not sure why a parking lot would just eat that cost.

[rayne008]

I know I'm in the minority, but I do not understand the massive investment in the Green Line when we seem to be on the brink of a transportation breakthrough with electrification and autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles should allow for much more efficient use of existing roadways, while also reducing the need for many personally owned vehicles.

LRT's are just not flexible enough to get around in the city, and an increasing number of the workforce will be moving away from our traditional rush hour downtown commute to a more tele-communication work from home environment.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by rayne008

I know I'm in the minority, but I do not understand the massive investment in the Green Line when we seem to be on the brink of a transportation breakthrough with electrification and autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles should allow for much more efficient use of existing roadways, while also reducing the need for many personally owned vehicles.

LRT's are just not flexible enough to get around in the city, and an increasing number of the workforce will be moving away from our traditional rush hour downtown commute to a more tele-communication work from home environment.

It’s a capacity issue, not a driver vs autonomous issue. It’s not possible to move everyone into single occupant cars, no matter how much more efficiently you move them, you simply can’tmove enough people.

Will a higher percentage of people work from home? Perhaps, but the total number of people working in centralized cores isn’t going to go down.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by rayne008

I know I'm in the minority, but I do not understand the massive investment in the Green Line when we seem to be on the brink of a transportation breakthrough with electrification and autonomous vehicles.

How about the city invests money in to proven technology, and you invest your money in to wishful thinking, and let's see which one gets you downtown first.

[ZedMan]

Originally Posted by rayne008

I know I'm in the minority, but I do not understand the massive investment in the Green Line when we seem to be on the brink of a transportation breakthrough with electrification and autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles should allow for much more efficient use of existing roadways, while also reducing the need for many personally owned vehicles.

LRT's are just not flexible enough to get around in the city, and an increasing number of the workforce will be moving away from our traditional rush hour downtown commute to a more tele-communication work from home environment.

So I see a few issues that will result in the Green Line being a good investment regardless:

1) We may be 'on the brink' but there's still a mountain of progress that needs to be made with autonomous vehicles themselves, legislation, and infrastructure.

2) Even when autonomous vehicles start operating widely, LRT is still a more efficient way of moving people. One c-train car can hold 60 seated people in the same space as 6 (bumper-to-bumer) Honda Civics which would carry 30 (if they were full, but they probably wouldn't be).

[Robbob]

That 60 seems way low. On an 80s car now and i count 72 seats. Add in standing room and it easily almost doubles the capacity.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Robbob

That 60 seems way low. On an 80s car now and i count 72 seats. Add in standing room and it easily almost doubles the capacity.

Depending on the model, an LRV has a total capacity of 190-200 people, including standees.

Urban transportation, at least as it applies to talk of autonomous vehicles, is mostly a geometrical issue, not a technological one. While autonomous vehicles, in theory, may partially solve some geometrical and road capacity issues (don't necessarily need to park them proximate to their owner/passenger, might be able to achieve higher lane throughput, etc.) there will still be a need for high capacity transit (trains and buses) in large cities where a high proportion of passengers are standees.

They may eventually change the model/look of first/last mile transit though, i.e. feeder routes.

[frinkprof]

Next Green Line phase might only extend north to 64 Avenue, leaving advocates disappointed

An analysis of future Green Line staging options, scheduled to go before council’s transportation and transit committee Wednesday, outlines various possibilities for the direction of the project once its first stage is complete.
[...]

The blueprint for the line called for it to go as far north as 160th Avenue N. and south to Seton once completed in its entirety, but the next step depends on available funding.

At $250 million to $400 million, the city says it could extend the line south by two stops from Shepard station to McKenzie Towne station.

With $400 million to $700 million to work with, a two-station extension north is possible, expanding the line from 16th Avenue N. to 40th Avenue N. That level of funding could also be used to extend the southern portion of the line by three stops, from Shepard station to Auburn Bay/Mahogany station.

Three options are on the table at a funding level of $700 million to $1 billion, including a four-station extension north from 16th Avenue N. to 64th Avenue N., or a five-stop extension south from Shepard to Seton station. The third option includes both the two-stop extension north from 16th Avenue N. to 40th Avenue N. and the three-stop extension south from Shepard to Auburn Bay/Mahogany station.
[...]

Link to rest of the article

[Fuzz]

$1billion to go 16th ave to 64th ave? That sounds excessive...


There is going to be a lot of angry northerners if the south line gets extended before the north line exists.

[Lubicon]

Extremely disappointing if true. Sad to see the lack of vision by the various levels of government in this regard.