Calgary Roads

[PPAR]

I would add that basically all of Calgary's current bank of serviced greenfield industrial land sits in the area north and east of the airport. The airport tunnel will serve an area that is going to see the largest employment growth in the region over the next decade.

[craner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Count me in with the people that doesn't see the need for the Airport Tunnel - it seems to connect nowhere to nowhere (even after the East side is built out). What's wrong with CHB?

Count me in with the people that say "thank you city for building the airport tunnel". I think it will/is paying dividends faster than expected with the pace the City is growing.
Probably should have made it wider as it will be reduced to 2 lanes each way when the LRT goes in.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by craner

Count me in with the people that say "thank you city for building the airport tunnel". I think it will/is paying dividends faster than expected with the pace the City is growing.
Probably should have made it wider as it will be reduced to 2 lanes each way when the LRT goes in.

There will still be three lanes each way with the LRT in.

In all likelihood, any rail system built is going to single track through the tunnel. Whichever direction tunnel the one track goes through, just gets it's lanes and shoulder narrowed slightly.

[milomilo]

Thanks for explaining - I actually looked back after I posted that and did find some good info, especially from You Need A Thneed.

I still don't really understand the city's thought processes though. So CHB is going to get a tonne of signals. Why not have designed that as a three lane freeway from the start? It's all got to go onto Deerfoot anyway so excess capacity is waste.

All the other suburban expressways are not freeflow, I guess I don't understand what makes this road special, but I shouldn't really complain about the city showing foresight.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I wonder though, won't the outward pressure cause property values there to skyrocket, perhaps leading to selloffs to cash in?

Of course. But it takes many years for enough land to be collected together to form a "development". Hell, Rocky Ridge is still not complete because of this, and it started out what, nearly 20 years ago? When you add in the fact that it's not just old shitty farmhouses anymore - the majority of it is pricey McMansions - I just don't see the land getting that valuable that we'll see wholesale selling and redevelopment anytime soon.

Count me in as one who supports the airport tunnel. I'm shocked at just how short-sighted people can be. Road to nowhere? Have you people even LIVED in this city more than 3 months? Before you know it, that tunnel will be considered "inner city" and be used by 200,000 cars every day. I exaggerate, but the pace of development in this city feels close to that sometimes.

[Mazrim]

We need a sticky with a link to that big post I believe You Need A Thneed wrote a while back explaining the rationale and reasoning for the airport tunnel. There's been plenty of times, especially now, that it could use some reposting.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

We need a sticky with a link to that big post I believe You Need A Thneed wrote a while back explaining the rationale and reasoning for the airport tunnel. There's been plenty of times, especially now, that it could use some reposting.

I think I've had several.

[MalcolmTucker]

Was there not an entire thread on the tunnel issue? In any case, it was way cheaper in real terms and when considering construction prices versus interest rates, likely a boat load cheaper than the alternative.

[craner]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

There will still be three lanes each way with the LRT in.

In all likelihood, any rail system built is going to single track through the tunnel. Whichever direction tunnel the one track goes through, just gets it's lanes and shoulder narrowed slightly.

Really ?
The images I've seen show rail both directions through the tunnel with 2 lanes of traffic and a shoulder each side.
I hope you're right and I'm sure you are as the images I'm referring to are likely early conceptual ones.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by craner

Really ?
The images I've seen show rail both directions through the tunnel with 2 lanes of traffic and a shoulder each side.
I hope you're right and I'm sure you are as the images I'm referring to are likely early conceptual ones.

The LRT studies that have come out recently talk about only needing a single track.

[DizzyEdge]

That makes sense, a spur might only be 4-5kms long, with a travel time of maybe 5 mins so headways would be 10-12 mins long with a single train that goes back and forth on one track.

[MalcolmTucker]

That would be getting into territory where a bus is more effective for a trip to downtown. Especially if there is a transfer, because are we really going to cut frequencies to the newer transit supportive dense neighbourhoods to the north down by a 1/3rd or half? Would be way cheaper to put a gondola in the tunnel, plus no waiting, no transfer penalty. Not like it is going anywhere soaring over residential either.

[You Need A Thneed]

The idea was that it would go back to two tracks on either side of the tunnel. It shouldn't interfere with minimum frequency much at all, it would only be 700-800 metres with only one track. A five minute headway in each direction would easily be doable.

[MalcolmTucker]

Still, doesn't change the fact that it is still an awful transit link, nothing more than a shinny bauble. Speaking as someone who could possible have nearly door to door service to the airport (would likely be walking further at the airport than from the station).

[RyLucky]

While I think the tunnel is fine and dandy and will be a good investment in the long run (though planning for it went... less than smoothly), I thought it was interesting that it will still cost another $80M to get roads up to snuff, on top of the $295M already spent on the tunnel, and another $175M to connect LRT - if that ever happens. Writing candidly late at night, the reason I think it's "interesting" is because everybody knows that we will have no problem spending another $80M to improve airport access by road access from good to very good, whereas it is almost unthinkable to instead spend $175M to bring ctrain access from terrible to excellent.

I'm not saying I'd do things differently. It's just that some expenses we take for granted as "needs" and others we assume are "nice to have". Opponents to improved transit service will say "but only x thousand take the bus to the airport - it would be a waste of money". Of course, that's missing the point. Airport transit is awful. It's 2.5 times more expensive than every other route in the city. It's slow. There's hardly even signage! It's obvious why nobody uses it. It makes me jealous of Vancouver, everywhere in Europe, even Toronto. Anyway, complain, complain, complain, goodnight.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'm not saying I'd do things differently. It's just that some expenses we take for granted as "needs" and others we assume are "nice to have". Opponents to improved transit service will say "but only x thousand take the bus to the airport - it would be a waste of money". Of course, that's missing the point. Airport transit is awful. It's 2.5 times more expensive than every other route in the city. It's slow. There's hardly even signage! It's obvious why nobody uses it. It makes me jealous of Vancouver, everywhere in Europe, even Toronto. Anyway, complain, complain, complain, goodnight.

The complaints will be because only x thousand WILL take transit to the airport.

Airport transit is a "nice to have", but compared to nearly any transit link we create, will be highly underutilized. I've been to cities of 10 million that don't have train service to their airports, and they survive just fine.

And transit to/from the airport is cheaper than any other method, for single travellers, which is 90% of who will use it. Families and groups will never, ever bother with it. Have you SEEN what the average family flies with these days?

[MalcolmTucker]

Oh, I support spending more on a better transit link.. $200 million is a pretty low estimate too. Can run a whole lotta buses to various employment clusters around the airport and connect to the LRT for many years and still spend less.

If we are going to spend $200 million on a bauble, lets at least make it a somewhat impressive one - one seat, 1 (future) stop service to downtown.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

The complaints will be because only x thousand WILL take transit to the airport.

Again, if you are talking about that report from a couple years back, there are huge holes in their logic, which was almost totally based on current ridership.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Airport transit is a "nice to have", but compared to nearly any transit link we create, will be highly underutilized. I've been to cities of 10 million that don't have train service to their airports, and they survive just fine.

I could name a dozen cities I've been to with transit to the airport and <1M pop. I liked visiting them more than cities with poor transit.

Originally Posted by freeweed

And transit to/from the airport is cheaper than any other method, for single travellers, which is 90% of who will use it. Families and groups will never, ever bother with it. Have you SEEN what the average family flies with these days?

I'd predict that the majority of those who travel to the airport are (1) airport employees, (2) business travellers, (3) students, and (4) people travelling individually, with more families travelling on school holidays. Plus, there's the fact that you can't bring a car on a plane. I believe measuring transit success purely by ridership is wrongheaded in this case. If on average, each of the 13M annual YYC passengers spends $50 on cabs/parking - that's $650M/year that Calgarians are willing to spend on airport transportation, not including employees. If YYC business did not increase (which it will), and half of those people were able to spend $3 to get to the airport, then the transit users would spend $39M/year and the drivers/cabbers $325M/year. Throw in double the transit tickets cost for operating cost, and the city would spend just over $400M/year on going to the airport - $150 million less than now! If the capital cost is only $175M to build LRT, we should definitely do it!

Now, of course I've made a lot of assumptions, but I think it is possible to get 6.5M people to users to take transit eventually. Not in the first few years perhaps, but over time as YYC gets busier, more frequent travellers become comfortable with the line, and transit improves in the rest of the city. Even if my assumptions were off by an entire order of magnitude, this still makes sense in the long run. Of course, if we never spend $80M to upgrade airport trail, that would take a huge bit out of the differential and result in higher transit ridership. Just saying.

Anyway, just some food for thought. The first step is creating low-cost, frequent bus service with proper signage and infrastructure at YYC. 301 is OK, but if confusing to use even to someone who is from the city. Should everyone who arrives in Calgary have $8.50 CAD cash? I'm not sure if they've improved signage, but last time I was there the bus was nearly impossible to find. I can't imagine trying to find it if I didn't speak or read English well. Oh, and it comes every 30 minutes and there is no schedule posted. Base your assumptions on current service and of course the estimate will be low. Not the best welcome to our city.

This all could have been avoided had we built the terminal anywhere but where it is on airport land.

[MalcolmTucker]

Best example is Vancouver post Canada Line. Last time I looked it had less than 15% modal share for the airport. Plus the airport authority paid for its marginal capital costs.

Edit: Found it

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

In Vancouver the airport authority put $300 million into the airport spur of the Canada Line for daily ridership of: 13,460 YVR, 1,173 Sea Island and 4,427 at Templeton, which includes the free fare travel between the stations. Templeton's main draw is the YVR employee lot, as is Sea Island. So 8000 trips a day? For 46,575 passengers and 26,000+ airport workers. A good 8.1% modal share.

When the airport wants to step up to build a connecting service to Nose Creek, Centre St, and the 96th Ave NE station I'd be fine with a public cost share. But five kilometers of track and continual interlining to connect the LRT on the public dime? Nah.

FYI, the LRT takes 24 minutes to get from Saddletown to Centre Street. The bus would be competitive except in exceptional circumstances, especially since if demand warrants it we could run the bus more frequently than the LRT to the airport which at best we could run every 12 minutes (more likely every 18 or 24) without the Stephen Ave Subway being built prior.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Again, if you are talking about that report from a couple years back, there are huge holes in their logic, which was almost totally based on current ridership.

I could name a dozen cities I've been to with transit to the airport and <1M pop. I liked visiting them more than cities with poor transit.

I'd predict that the majority of those who travel to the airport are (1) airport employees, (2) business travellers, (3) students, and (4) people travelling individually, with more families travelling on school holidays. Plus, there's the fact that you can't bring a car on a plane. I believe measuring transit success purely by ridership is wrongheaded in this case. If on average, each of the 13M annual YYC passengers spends $50 on cabs/parking - that's $650M/year that Calgarians are willing to spend on airport transportation, not including employees. If YYC business did not increase (which it will), and half of those people were able to spend $3 to get to the airport, then the transit users would spend $39M/year and the drivers/cabbers $325M/year. Throw in double the transit tickets cost for operating cost, and the city would spend just over $400M/year on going to the airport - $150 million less than now! If the capital cost is only $175M to build LRT, we should definitely do it!

Now, of course I've made a lot of assumptions, but I think it is possible to get 6.5M people to users to take transit eventually. Not in the first few years perhaps, but over time as YYC gets busier, more frequent travellers become comfortable with the line, and transit improves in the rest of the city. Even if my assumptions were off by an entire order of magnitude, this still makes sense in the long run. Of course, if we never spend $80M to upgrade airport trail, that would take a huge bit out of the differential and result in higher transit ridership. Just saying.

Anyway, just some food for thought. The first step is creating low-cost, frequent bus service with proper signage and infrastructure at YYC. 301 is OK, but if confusing to use even to someone who is from the city. Should everyone who arrives in Calgary have $8.50 CAD cash? I'm not sure if they've improved signage, but last time I was there the bus was nearly impossible to find. I can't imagine trying to find it if I didn't speak or read English well. Oh, and it comes every 30 minutes and there is no schedule posted. Base your assumptions on current service and of course the estimate will be low. Not the best welcome to our city.

This all could have been avoided had we built the terminal anywhere but where it is on airport land.

You're expecting 50% higher ridership at the airport than San Francisco gets; it has the highest airport transit use in the US. You're expecting double the ridership that the Toronto Union Pearson Express project is forecasting. Your estimate is not credible.

I like airport transit a lot; I think that a good transit service that provides a direct, legible, easy-to-understand trip to the central city is a valuable thing. I understand there's been some improvements on the user-friendliness side (the last couple of times I've arrived have been late enough I haven't even looked for transit); for a million or two we could probably do a very good job of providing good signage.

Maybe there's a political benefit to airport transit, maybe there's a visitor benefit, maybe it gives people a warm feeling inside. But you can never justify rail transit to the airport on ridership.