After the SELRT is built what NCLRT style of transit would you like?
 

The NCLRT isnt being built until the near future but i think its up to you guys to decide on what it should be like?

Since it is expected to be an extension of the SE LRT (North in 2nd St tunnel; over/under Prince's Island; over/under/through the eastern edge of Sunnyside, tunnel under Crescent Heights; run north under Centre St or 4th St to Beddington), most of its design decisions are already finalized.

Similarly, most of the West LRT design decisions were set in place because the new West LRT line is simply an extension of the NE LRT line.

This isn't remotely true in either case, moreso in the former case.

Other than how 'modern' or 'basic' the stations are, there isn't much else that can be changed once you have made the decisions on the train stock and power systems.

I remember noticing how much nicer the stations were at Dalhousie and Crowfoot, but only because they were the newest stations at the time.

Most of the other stations built in the first few phases were 'cookie-cutter' designs to minimize the up-front costs of building the new LRT lines, so I was happy to see the downtown 80's-era pre-cast concrete platforms downtown have been replaced with new station designs that show someone was willing to go beyond the 'boring basic beige box' that is so common with transit stations.

The poll is too simplistic. Again each item, it should list at least two additional items. 1. Number of people that will be served with that particular option, and 2. The cost of the option.

If you don't list cost, certainly 500 km of metro all around the city would be fantastic, but such a poll means little as it is not pragmatic.

You're saying the NE LRT was always supposed to terminate at 7th Av@10th St ? and that the West LRT would terminate somewhere else downtown?

And with the SE LRT terminating at 2nd Av@2nd St, the North LRT would also terminate somewhere else downtown?

If this were true, why bother connecting the South LRT to the NW LRT when they could have built them as separate lines with their own downtown terminals?


Seems quite silly to me to have so many dead-end terminals downtown when the NE LRT trains could (and will) continue west, and the SE LRT trains could continue north.

4th St, hmmm, when there was an open house 6 (?) months back the 3 options Centre St, Edmonton Trail, and Nose Creek. From the conversation during the open house I was under the impression that Centre St up to McKnight was a clear winner with the people attending but after that there seemed to be a group voting for switching to Nose Creek (the Edmonton Trail alignment also merges with Nose Creek alignment somewhere before 64th). 4th St wasn't even a consideration. It will be interesting to see the next report on transit in the North Central. With the new traffic calming feature pretty much making it already a 2 lane road, there is potential cost savings but 4th st doesn't have much density.

Connect it to the SE LRT

Isnt this just going to be a combination of a few different LRT types like the West LRT?

Personally, I'm hoping for and supporting some type of hybrid Metro straight up Centre Street rather than the Nose Creek alignment (obviously). However, having read some of the difficulties that are occurring with Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown LRT and building a completely grade separated low floor LRT, suggests to me that a long stretch of underground low floor LRT may not be the best choice for this corridor. So while, there's logic in connecting the North Central LRT to the SE LRT, I'm not sold that this is necessarily the best choice.

However, decisions like that are generally well above my pay grade and to me the most important thing is that the Centre Street corridor is used and that it is a high capacity rail corridor. The details beyond that still need to be evaluated by experts (or more knowledgeable forum members) before I can venture an opinion further.

With over three decades of experience operating & maintaining the LRT in Calgary, I can't see Transit switching to a non-compatible system - regardless of how much money might be available to spend on nifty new technology.

You go with what you know.

It won't be a surprise to me to see the Siemens-Duewag U2 and/or Siemens SD-160 trains (or younger variants) running on NC LRT when it opens.

I can easily see it happen if it's done as a P3 where car maintenance is part of the contract. Mind you I'm not sure how the P3 would work with the transit union.

That was a recommendation in a Clifton ND study. They said it would link up the SE LRT by the CN railway tracks to the North Central LRT.

I think you might be referring to the 2006 Clifton ND Lea study, which I can't seem to find right now.

There is also the 2010 Clifton ND Lea Compendium (Southeast LRT Compendium of Functional Planning Studies) available here: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Southeast%20LRT%20Compendium.pdf

This 2010 report brings together all the separate SE LRT studies and plans that have been done since the mid-80s and creates one proposed alignment from Downtown to the new South Hospital.

As noted in the 2010 report, if the SE LRT is operated separate from the rest of the LRT system, it can use the new low-floor cars which would be incompatible with the existing LRT system, but it will also need its own maintenance centre (which was not part of the 2010 report scope).

Mid-Century future LRT?
 

A proposal submitted to Plan It Calgary:

http://www.principia-communications-stra...d%20and%20Dream%20a%20Mighty%20Dream.pdf

From the Executive Summary: "The C-Train service plan envisioned in this document encompasses a total of seven light rail transit lines by the year 2040."

I know I've mentioned it before, but I think that the question being posed in this thread is the wrong one. If Centre Street does become the preferred route for the NC LRT I think the question we need to be asking is "How can we build the NC LRT at the same time as the SE LRT?" I realize that with the infrastructure funding programs currently in place, the total cost of building the NC LRT and SE LRT is too much, however people always seem to over-look a P3 model to provide the financing. Some food for thought:

- Putting the NC LRT and SE LRT out to tender at the same time creates an opportunity for savings through economies of scale.

- If there has ever been a time to finance a project through the private sector, now is the time to do it. With interest rates the way they are, money is cheap and with the economy the way it is, those dollars will stretch further.

- While a P3 model will ultimately cost the city more than a traditional funding model, it also allows the shovels to be put in the ground much sooner than they ever would be otherwise. The NC and SE LRT have the power to transform the city by bringing re-investment and added densities to the communties that border the routes. If we are to believe the reports that accompanied the Plan It: Calgary document, continued urban spawl could potentially add $11 BILLION in additional costs to the City. The sooner the shovels go in the ground, the sooner the NC and SE LRT lines can begin to have an impact on where private development dollars are invested. If pursuing a P3 strategy moves up the construction timeline by 10 years or more, I have no doubt the additional costs a P3 model would bring would be more than offset by the savings in reducing Calgary's potential urban footprint.

- Ultimately, any construction financing will have to be sold to the public. There are numerous examples (the Calgary ring-road being one of the most notable) that show the public are much more receptive to a debt burden being added to a government through a P3 than through any other means. Saying "we're borrowing $6 billion to build a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We're spending a $6 billion funding grant on a combined NC/SE LRT" will meet with resistance. Saying "We've entered into a P3 agreement where we will see the NC/SE LRT open with-in 5 years and only then will we have to begin paying a couple hundred million dollars a year with the burden being shared with various levels of government" will probably be easiest to sell out of all the options.

- Building the NC/SE LRT all at once will provide a huge amount of relief off of the city's main artery (Deerfoot Trail). How much economic productivity is lost on an annual basis due to congrestion and grid-lock on this corridor?? Once again, if we can move up the construction timeline by 10 years, how much money can be saved due to recovered economic productivity??

And finally this: The biggest reason I find people give for not building the NC and SE LRTs at the same time is simply that the scale of the project is "too big for Calgary". Well the City of Toronto (more specifically Mayor Ford) has committed itself to spending $12 Billion to build a cross-town LRT line ($8 Billion) and a subway extension ($4 Billion). The subway extension will be financed using a P3 model and can serve as a model for the City of Calgary moving forward. While there is a lot of debate as to exactly what should be built for the money (subway versus LRT, etc....) the fact is that the public in Toronto has realized that rapid transit needs to be a priority and they are willing to spend $12 Billion to make that happen. Calgary has half the population of Toronto and a combined NC/SE LRT would probably carry about half the cost of Mayor Ford's transit plan. If they can make this work in Toronto, why can we not make it work in a city known for it's innovation and can-do spirit and just so happens to sit in one of Canada's wealthiest provinces that is also home to a large number of MPs with Canada's governing party??

Another advantage of doing it P3 is that the liablity for the tunnelling DT would/could be taken on by the private partner rather than the city

I still think the Nose Creek Valley alignment for NCLRT could generate more density than a Centre St alignment. City owned land at the Spring Gardens transist storage site, the neighboring materials storage site. the Midfield Mobile home park and Fox Hollow golf course would provide for huge almost greenfield development. Throw in privately owned land at the Elks Golf Course and Greenview Industrial park and the development potential is massive. A master plan could restore Nose Creek, develop green space along its path and provide a connection westward to the exisiting Confederation/Queens Park green space.

Centre Street would likely only experience 10th Street North like densification at best and that would likely occur even without LRT.

The biggest challenge with a Nose Creek alignment would be how to connect it to the SE line through downtown. Maybe it could branch off the SE line somewhere in Ramsay, and interline with the SE line into downtown.

I agree and I hope this is the case. I don't know why we would swich systems now (i.e low floor cars, etc.) now ?? :shrug:
As for the route - I really hope we go underground up Centre Street to at least 24th Ave.

Thanks for that mid-century LRT plan link - looks like I've got some nighttime reading. :)

One suggestion was to have the NC LRT branch off the NE LRT at Memorial/Deerfoot instead of being treated as an extension of the SE LRT.