[ByeByeBaby]

I couldn't agree more with you. I think it partially a structural difference between capital and operating, which isn't really CT's fault -- and everywhere has a problem with capital projects sucking the air out of operating ones; even the fantasy maps are almost always focused on making lines and dots rather than providing frequent, reliable, rapid service. People think that transit is something you build, but -- done right -- it's actually something you operate. But CT also has incredible tunnel vision; they seem to have no interest in or ability to gain new riders outside from ones who are forced into the service. When downtown was booming and parking was hard to find, that's not a problem; but now that this isn't the case, they're going to be in a world of hurt. The same positive feedback forces that can spiral transit ridership upward can also be a death spiral the other way.

Here's a simple example; Calgary Transit has a "Frequent Network Map", which has the two C-train lines and the four MAX lines on it. Imagine you sent two people, one to Saddletowne and one to Heritage and told them to count the transit vehicles heading core-bound from 8:00 AM to 11:59 AM, covering four hours including both morning rush hour and midday offpeak service. The Saddletowne person would count 18 C-trains, and 12 MAX Orange bus departures. The Heritage person would count 22 C-Trains, and 11 MAX Teal bus departures. For a four hour period, you'd expect 16 departures -- evenly spaced -- as a minimum for 'frequent service'. So neither MAX service makes sense as part of a frequent service; even at a 20 minute headway (12 buses in 4 hours) they wouldn't qualify (since there are more frequent buses in the peaks and easy-to-plan-around 25 minute headways in the offpeaks).

But wait, the person at Saddletowne would have seen a bus with almost 16 departures; the #23 has 15 departures, three more than the Frequent Network MAX service. The person at Heritage would have seen a bus with 17 departures, the #3, six more than the Frequent Network MAX Teal. And neither of the observers would have been as busy as possible; someone at North Pointe terminal would have seen the #301 depart 24 times, more frequent than the most frequent LRT. (They also would have seen the #8 depart 12 times, as much as the MAX lines.) None of these routes -- more frequent than MAX -- are shown on the Frequent Network Map. The only reason a route can get on a Frequent Network Map is if capital was spent on it recently -- how does that make sense? How are new riders even expected to be attracted to a system when the best service is on a hidden menu like In-N-Out?

Or as another example; they're cutting service because a bunch of drivers are sick with COVID. I can't blame them for this; it's not ideal, but these are troubled times. When did they announce this? At 4 PM on a Sunday, hope everybody who plans on a commute on Monday morning can check the news. What routes have cut service? If you go to their website, there is a big banner at the top (which is good), but if you click on this, there's no list. All they say is "use our trip planner". It's a ton of work added to everybody who is taking transit. This morning, their twitter has a cheery message about how Mondays suck but the weather's nice:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1483095549624688642

Which has no mention of hundreds of dropped services. There was a tweet earlier at 7:03, but it was buried by four tweets about C-train mechanical issues. You can't have customers show up for buses that aren't coming and expect them to remain customers for long.

I guess my hope for CT is that they execute the basics well; frequent, regular service on a series of core bus routes with consolidated stops and all door boarding for faster service, with clear communication to the public.

 

[CBBarnett]

Great examples. Calgary Transit's branding and social media operation are a huge pain point for me. I'd like to see them completely throw away what they have been doing and try again/outsource the whole thing to a group that understands branding, messaging, social media etc.

Let's compare Twitter profiles of the big transit agencies.
Here's Calgary's:

Calgary is the only agency without a logo visible, we don't have a logo one as far as I know. We have the wordy mission statement. In the place of the logo, CT has an outdated picture of an older-model Route 10 bus, in old livery, covered in third-party advertising. In the dark.

To your point on communications, many of the other organizations split up their "alerts", their planning and their general news into separate profiles. Calgary's flows together into one big messy stream. Their alerts are all super wordy and not written with public reading levels in mind.

Here's the last few tweets for the past few hours:

• Starting today (8 hours ago) routes have been reduced in service
• Detour alert this week for Route 104
• Ad for My Fare app to buy tickets
• Face Mask reminder for "CTRiders"
• "CTRiders" trains are normal again
• Happy Monday meme!
• "CTRiders" train delay alert x 4

Here's the others screen capped for reference.

Vancouver's Translink - clear branding plus advertising "tap in to win" for an added features you get to use transit:

Montreal - clear branding, also line-specific accounts so you monitor the ones you actual use:

Toronto - TTC / Metrolinx / GO:

Ottawa - clear modern picture, clear modern logo:

Edmonton - clear logo (funny enough, I don't think this is their actual logo - "ETS" in bold is):

 

[CBBarnett]

Here's a brain dump of what I would like to see Calgary Transit do, no particular order but loosely grouped into related buckets. All these are to modernize the service to achieve really what they have for decades said they want to: make transit more useful for everyone. In particular, my list is far more focused on improving (not just maintaining) transit speed/reliability than transit's current plans seem to be.

Infrastructure

• Long-term program to remove all at-grade LRT crossings to reduce delays, collisions.
  • This may not be practical everywhere in short-term, but downtown tunnel and spot improvements should never not be on the roadmap.
• Put controlled fare zones, automation and open-gangway trains on long-range plan. Another hard one but must be considered.
• Remove 25% of all stops system-wide to speed up bus travel times
• Remove all bus-bays in the city that do nothing but slow down bus travel times. Never build another one again
• Remove all park-and-rides and convert to higher density development. Change whatever rules (parking, setbacks etc.) to make this happen.
  • We also need to break our TOD = towers like Vancouver logic. Accept lower forms of density, but ones that are *really* transit oriented.

Operations

• If I could sum all this up in one line: transit is competing with cars for riders. Act like it.
  • Stop chasing riders with no choice, start chasing riders who could take transit but don't
  • Largely this means closing the gap in trip times to key destinations but - for the love of god - stop advertising trucks on the windows of C-Trains! It's a doctors office with a smoking add.
• Re-branding and consistent wayfinding.
  • Spend the effort to do this right, with people that actually understand brands, communications, colour choices, consistency etc.
• Fare card. Borrow Edmonton's if we can so we can share one.
• Creative fares:
  • Cheaper short-fares, more expensive long trips
  • Fare capping and automatic monthly passes etc.
  • More creative use of price incentives to travel off-peak, holidays, weekends etc.
• All door-boarding and tap payment functionality standard across entire network
• Skeletal Transit network to all-day, 10 minute service. LRT at a minimum but ultimately all major routes
• Station attendants and security
  • figure out the short and long-term plan to actually improve LRT station safety perceptions.
  • Having staff at each station helps for accessibility so there's always someone to help people navigate the system

Planning

• No major government facility or mall should be permitted unless it's on an existing LRT line. All ones that are so close should be better connected with pedestrian connections as a aggressively and pedestrian prioritized as possible.
  • So much of the existing transit system's weakness is that it often almost get's to an important node, but doesn't bother finishing the final stretch (not always Transit's fault). MRU, Foothills and South Hospital are obvious ones, but PLC, U of C and every major mall is so-close to a station, but so far.
  • Every new hospital, university campus, high school, recreation facility etc. should be integrated as close as possible to transit with true pedestrian priority and parking maximums)
• Pedestrian signal priority and sidewalks prioritized within 1km of transit. A pedestrian should never wait for a turning car near a station. All sidewalks should be wide enough for people to pass each other.
• Reduce the forces that create automobile hegemony:
  • A whole bunch of things but here's a few - reduce level of service of arterial roads everywhere. If the plan says 6 lanes, make it 4 lanes plus nicer sidewalks. If it says 4 lanes make it 2 with nicer sidewalks. No more slip lanes, no more advanced green phases by-standard. Cheap car infrastructure is the new standard - yes driving will start to take longer, but we save a whack load of money, land and pedestrians collisions. Any savings plowed into sidewalks and transit

Measure

• How fast do trains and buses run? Are we getting better or worse? What's their capacity?
  • Measure all this and publish it so people can raise concerns when it doesn't happen.
• Commit to accurate next train and bus times (e.g. no more trains every 8 - 12 minutes ish, commit to a train every exactly 8 minutes)
  • if we can't be accurate with next train times to the minute, that's a sign something is wrong with your design and operational setup

 

[Joborule]

Definitely need to have the downtown LRT for the Red Line be on the horizon. It's actually crazy how acceptable it is for the CTrains to be disrupted downtown due to both mechanical failures and accidents on a daily basis. In the short term, there needs to be improvements on reducing vehicle collisions downtown so it's drastically reduced. Anything that can slow down the train should not be considered okay to tolerate.

I also believe that there needs to be discussion on the vision of the NE Line around Marlbourgh and Rundle station. I feel like everyone is in agreement that the current structure is absolute shit for all currently - pedestrians, drivers, and business. There is so much potential to make that corridor a stronger urban strip that has great vibrancy; the likes that should make it a strong TOD. But the LRT ROW right down the middle is such a barrier, and makes it challenging for both sides of the streets to feel walkable, and more importantly, connected.

It's a street that a slave to vehicles and trains as a result. You could put in money to make wider sidewalks, make it look more pretty with trees and lights, and maybe make the station at-grade access only (take down bridges), but I'm not sure that would be enough to rectify the feel; since the LRT as a high-floor is taking such a vast amount of street space. Is the solution here is to burry the LRT in this area, so then the road ROW is shrunk significantly, and there's plenty more crossing opportunities for pedestrians that arise?

 

[MichaelS]

For Marlborough station, a quick, cost effective win would be to just allow at grade access on the south side of the platform, with pedestrian crossings on the north half of the intersection of 36th Street and 5th Ave. Re-do the curbs at the intersections to tighten the radius, removing the slip lanes for cars, and make it more pedestrian friendly. Wouldn't solve all problems, but would dramatically improve many. All it would take is a bit of concrete, some paint, and a ticket machine at the south end of the platform. When I would use this platform on a daily basis, my office was located west of the station on 5th Ave. It literally added 30% to my walk time, having to go into the station, up the stairs, across on the bridge, and then back down walking all the way back to 5th Ave. Doesn't sound like much, but it is about 200m from the bottom of the spiral ramp to 5th Ave, or about 33% of the distance we typically state as great TOD potential (600m). Add in the part at the start when getting off the train (especially if I was in a car at the back end of the train) and I have gone more than half of that distance, just to get to the same point I started at, except across the lanes of traffic.

I have been told that Calgary Transit is very aware of this, and would love to see this exact solution implemented, but the Roads business unit is the one opposed to it. Another example of our policies all crying out for one thing, but our decisions, budget prioritization, etc... all doing the exact opposite. I would cut through the Metro Ford parkign lot to save a lot of time, but when you are making the transit commute that much harder for someone (didn't help that there were no sidewalks once I left 36th Street) that their only option is to use the property of a business that sells personal vehicles, it is no wonder I stopped commuting by train.

 

[CBBarnett]

Definitely need to have the downtown LRT for the Red Line be on the horizon. It's actually crazy how acceptable it is for the CTrains to be disrupted downtown due to both mechanical failures and accidents on a daily basis. In the short term, there needs to be improvements on reducing vehicle collisions downtown so it's drastically reduced. Anything that can slow down the train should not be considered okay to tolerate.

I also believe that there needs to be discussion on the vision of the NE Line around Marlbourgh and Rundle station. I feel like everyone is in agreement that the current structure is absolute shit for all currently - pedestrians, drivers, and business. There is so much potential to make that corridor a stronger urban strip that has great vibrancy; the likes that should make it a strong TOD. But the LRT ROW right down the middle is such a barrier, and makes it challenging for both sides of the streets to feel walkable, and more importantly, connected.

I agree. There's too much acceptance for poor designs that don't work for anyone, but particularly transit and pedestrians. The 36 Street NE corridor is actually pretty solidly located compared to other lines - surrounded by lots of housing, retail and destinations like Sunridge and PLC. Sure it's low density and car-oriented, but the mix of uses is solid. If there was just the slightest bit of demand for higher density in the area, the parcels along the LRT are perfect for it.

But as you said - the problem is all in design: it sucks and seemingly has no short or long term plan to improve. This is an accepting that we will see more pedestrian fatalities, train delays, and traffic conflicts forever. Even relatively small stuff like limiting drivers from turning across the tracks more systematically or increasing pedestrian island spaces to reduce collisions aren't discussed. And the big stuff like a more structural change to the road system or removing at-grade crossings entirely aren't even on the radar.

For Marlborough station, a quick, cost effective win would be to just allow at grade access on the south side of the platform, with pedestrian crossings on the north half of the intersection of 36th Street and 5th Ave. Re-do the curbs at the intersections to tighten the radius, removing the slip lanes for cars, and make it more pedestrian friendly. Wouldn't solve all problems, but would dramatically improve many. All it would take is a bit of concrete, some paint, and a ticket machine at the south end of the platform. When I would use this platform on a daily basis, my office was located west of the station on 5th Ave. It literally added 30% to my walk time, having to go into the station, up the stairs, across on the bridge, and then back down walking all the way back to 5th Ave. Doesn't sound like much, but it is about 200m from the bottom of the spiral ramp to 5th Ave, or about 33% of the distance we typically state as great TOD potential (600m). Add in the part at the start when getting off the train (especially if I was in a car at the back end of the train) and I have gone more than half of that distance, just to get to the same point I started at, except across the lanes of traffic.

I have been told that Calgary Transit is very aware of this, and would love to see this exact solution implemented, but the Roads business unit is the one opposed to it. Another example of our policies all crying out for one thing, but our decisions, budget prioritization, etc... all doing the exact opposite. I would cut through the Metro Ford parkign lot to save a lot of time, but when you are making the transit commute that much harder for someone (didn't help that there were no sidewalks once I left 36th Street) that their only option is to use the property of a business that sells personal vehicles, it is no wonder I stopped commuting by train.
View attachment 375504

Was just about to use this example. Really highlights the disconnect - every turn movement (including dangerous higher-speed slip lanes) is provided for drivers to navigate near transit stations, but the actual transit users are forced to detour and waste huge amounts of time. It's completely backwards.

Worse still, it's not like this is a new issue, here's the aerial photo from 1995 (27 years ago). The 1985 photo - the year the NE line opened I think - was too grainy to share but is the same.

Forget some of the long-range design fixes to resolve the bigger, structural issues 36 Street NE and transit has like grade-separation - we can't even get a cross-walk built to connect a train station to local destinations after 37 years(!) when everyone involved wants it and knows it's a super cheap opportunity to improve transit?

And this isn't even a transit/pedestrian v. car trade-off scenario - there's so much extra and wasted space to allow for this, you'd probably don't even need to lose any car lanes or capacity.

 

[CBBarnett]

Another minor/cheap thing to fix, but infuriating inflexible bicycle/train policies.

Transit ridership is down 50-75% during the pandemic, all the feeder buses are running at lower frequencies - bicycles would be perfect for many to fill the gap for the majority of the year.

Instead of updating a decades-old policy - by simply just removing it temporarily (at least) until transit ridership recovers - we are sticking to our bicycle policy from decades ago.

Again - this doesn't even get into the more longer-term issues that could be looked at to improve bicycle-train compatibility (pathway connectivity access to stations, train designs, locks etc.) It's just a blanket ban never revisited for practicality or impact.

If peak-hour transit capacity remains an issue despite such a decrease in transit ridership I have another solution for you - run additional trains!

 

[darwink]

Or if there is indeed a floor space consideration re:bikes, make it the ends of the second car only (so its predictable where you might encounter delays, and there is a natural limit), and that you have to stand with your bike (to decrease dwell times and avoid some potential social disorder).

TBH all the difficulties with bikes we already face with larger strollers, so why not just change it? Do they thing we are going to be inundated with bikes? Are there maintenance issues we don't hear about?

 

[Joborule]

Another long term plan that should possibly be considered is a streetcar on 17th Ave from Stampede station down to Westbrook station. I think there was a study on this a while back. There's the consideration of a streetcar from Westbrook to MRU, and figuring out what's the best route for that, but I would like to see them consider also heading east to complement the 17th Ave main street corridor also. If it would be worth it of course.

 

[CBBarnett]

Or if there is indeed a floor space consideration re:bikes, make it the ends of the second car only (so its predictable where you might encounter delays, and there is a natural limit), and that you have to stand with your bike (to decrease dwell times and avoid some potential social disorder).

TBH all the difficulties with bikes we already face with larger strollers, so why not just change it? Do they thing we are going to be inundated with bikes? Are there maintenance issues we don't hear about?

Exactly.

You can bring anything else on to transit with no restrictions (as far as I am aware) for anything large and bulky other than bicycles. Why are they singled out? And if it's a capacity thing, why hasn't anything been done for the fleet design storage requirements the past 20 years of new trains? Any benefit bicycles would receive from this move would be equally or more beneficial to strollers, people with groceries etc.

The bicycles on transit policy has weird catch-22s/cognitive dissidences baked throughout it - where bicycles are both a huge deal but also completely irrelevant to operations or planning:

1. If bicycles on trains are a big problem even in low ridership situations, it would explain why we didn't update the policy during the pandemic. But then, why bother allowing them at all?
2. If bicycles on trains are a big problem because they are large, why not ban all large items?
3. But we also openly advertise how great it is to have bicycles connect with transit on our website.
4. But at the same time bicycles on transit are not a big enough deal to ever do anything about mitigating the challenge in the long-run through better train design.

For fun, I did a quick scan with the search function for the Transit bylaw, which clocks in at 18 pages:

• "Bicycle" is used 38 times.
• "Fare" is used 26 times.
• "Safety" or "safe" is used 8 times.
• "Intoxicant" is used 4 times. "Drugs" and "alcohol" used 1 time each.
• "Loiter" is used 3 times.
• "Stroller" is used 0 times. "Baby buggy" is used 1 time. Is "baby buggy" a common expression?

My take - it's almost like someone got very excited and really dug into the bicycle on trains things a few decades ago, wrote a ton on rules and guidance that all got it baked into the bylaw. This appears to have never been materially revisited since.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Another long term plan that should possibly be considered is a streetcar on 17th Ave from Stampede station down to Westbrook station. I think there was a study on this a while back. There's the consideration of a streetcar from Westbrook to MRU, and figuring out what's the best route for that, but I would like to see them consider also heading east to complement the 17th Ave main street corridor also. If it would be worth it of course.

We can all just dream of this: https://saadiqm.com/2019/04/13/calgary-historic-streetcar-map.html

Adding in a route to MRU would be brilliant.

 

[CplKlinger]

Another minor/cheap thing to fix, but infuriating inflexible bicycle/train policies.
View attachment 375517
Transit ridership is down 50-75% during the pandemic, all the feeder buses are running at lower frequencies - bicycles would be perfect for many to fill the gap for the majority of the year.

Instead of updating a decades-old policy - by simply just removing it temporarily (at least) until transit ridership recovers - we are sticking to our bicycle policy from decades ago.

Again - this doesn't even get into the more longer-term issues that could be looked at to improve bicycle-train compatibility (pathway connectivity access to stations, train designs, locks etc.) It's just a blanket ban never revisited for practicality or impact.

If peak-hour transit capacity remains an issue despite such a decrease in transit ridership I have another solution for you - run additional trains!

Ugh, I'm so sorry. ETS finally repealed a similar rule it had on its LRT network last year; it just makes sense to do. Given the sprawl that Calgary has, it will never be able to offer frequent bus service to cover all the areas around CTrain stations. Even if it's in an area with on demand transit coverage, the ODT option won't be convenient for everyone who needs a quicker connection. Allowing bikes at all times is such a cheap and easy way of helping to close that first mile/last mile gap for a lot of people. The bikes I see on the LRT in Edmonton don't take up too much room, and in my opinion the space loss is pretty minimal actually. You might fit a few less people in the CTrain car by allowing bikes at peak hours, but I think it'd be a net-positive tradeoff by encouraging multi-modal usage, and improving the service without needing to spend money. In Edmonton for example, I could turn a 10-minute walk from home, and another 10-minute walk to work, to a three or four-minute bike commute each.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

On the subject of the NE LRT, I've been staring at it for years and this morning finally had the brainwave of how at-grade access can be provided to the north end of Rundle LRT (north is to the right in this figure - the PLC hospital is the upper right corner):

A crosswalk needs to be added to 36th -- good -- and some equipment might need to be relocated, but I think it's highly plausible. I don't even think the catenary poles need to be moved. Because of the oblique crossing angle you'd want to put in a flashing light arm like the one on the sidewalk west of Kerby, but that's not a huge dealbreaker. Yes, this path is a little narrow, around 10 feet at the narrowest. Until this is built, everybody going this direction will use the 5 foot wide sidewalk along 36th instead, so it doesn't seem that narrow to me.

In return, at least 1000 residents in Rundle and a major hospital - a huge center of employment and also visited by the general public - is moved 300m closer to the train; more like 400m if you can't climb stairs (like, for example, many hospital patients). For perhaps a couple of million bucks, it's a bargain.

 

[darwink]

Another long term plan that should possibly be considered is a streetcar on 17th Ave from Stampede station down to Westbrook station. I think there was a study on this a while back. There's the consideration of a streetcar from Westbrook to MRU, and figuring out what's the best route for that, but I would like to see them consider also heading east to complement the 17th Ave main street corridor also. If it would be worth it of course.

Looked at this on a political campaign last summer. The very preliminary projected cost is $292 million, with $9 million operating a year. At that price, it is a middle of the pack project, with a NPV (basically a way to weigh capital vs operating vs ridership) of $50k per rider.

In comparison, extending Max Purple to 84th Street SE is $12k per rider, 52nd St SE BRT is $17k per rider, major BRT upgrades on Route 305 to Bowness is $26k per rider, Greenline to 64th is $37k per rider.

 

[CBBarnett]

Looked at this on a political campaign last summer. The very preliminary projected cost is $292 million, with $9 million operating a year. At that price, it is a middle of the pack project, with a NPV (basically a way to weigh capital vs operating vs ridership) of $50k per rider.

In comparison, extending Max Purple to 84th Street SE is $12k per rider, 52nd St SE BRT is $17k per rider, major BRT upgrades on Route 305 to Bowness is $26k per rider, Greenline to 64th is $37k per rider.

I am still surprised there wasn't a spur built to MRU as part or as a phase of the West LRT project.

I recall it was discussed at the time and the as-built alignment came out stronger with however they measured it back then. If I recall, there's a ton of anti-spur line attitudes which seemd reasonable at the time. Someone might articulate it better, but if I recall, the general discussion at the time was spur lines = bad because your frequency gets divided by half at the end of the line and that wasn't acceptable. That said, it doesn't seem to stop a ton of larger, far more effective metro systems elsewhere from having spur lines throughout their network so maybe there's more to it in a Calgary context.

Hindsight being 20/20 (and frequencies being less than they were in 2008) - I think it was a mistake to not add a spur line to MRU. 15 years later, and 500K more Calgarians, transit missed another connections to a permanent, major ridership and employment base. Turns out the office jobs we were catering our transit design too were less reliable than a boring, old university!

I found a few images on google from an alignment selection presentation back in 2007. Interesting stuff to read between the lines - it doesn't seem they really considered the MRU spur at all, or more likely considered it but dropped it from consideration early for some reasons that didn't make this presentation. It seems the presentation positioned the route as MRU or western suburbs, not MRU and the western suburbs.

Here's some of my favourites:

Big swing-and-a-miss on TOD potential - how were they possibly thinking TOD would have been better on the current alignment than to MRU through Currie? What did they define TOD as? Even at that time things were starting to kick-off in Marda Loop and the neighbourhoods were starting to boom again, early signs of tons of redevelopment pressure that is coming today. Imagine if that development pressure could be built off a strong transit backbone. Currie could have looked different!

Also interesting seeing the relative cost estimates - I assume this was before the as-built line added a bunch of change orders for 45th Street Station, a high school relocation and the Sarcee Trail vehicle interchange? Had all the additional roadworks costs of the as-built alignment been presented here would the recommendation have changed?

Another "students aren't really that important" decision in a city with a history that's full of them. It's a shame - students as they are such a good transit ridership base, and more loyal than the downtown office commuters. Many other transit systems lean way more heavily on universities to influence alignments - it's the only guaranteed ridership bet you can make because the public owns it. That office boom of the 2000s really put the blinders on for everyone - the downtown commuter is all that matters and they'll never go away!

Now this is just ridiculous this made it to the presentation - a Sarcee Trail spur but not a MRU one? I guess the transit alignment strategy at the time was to just build pointless lines to places where no one lives because it's easier? We are still waiting for any of those power centres to turn over for all the "redevelopment potential" they apparently always have.

Ouch. This one hurts - the current West LRT parkade at 69th Street was purchased from Rundle College?

There's another cognitive dissonance at work again: one of the big points of picking this alignment was it's highest "TOD potential". Yet, in the highest TOD potential sites, we actively purchase even more land, and forever blight it with non-TOD supportive use? I hope we removed all our park and ride acquisitons from the calculation that suggested this route has more TOD potential!

And finally, the cost for reference. I am assuming most of the add-ons, road expansions etc. ended up inflating this a bit.

Final thought:
Overall, I don't think the as-built route was entirely wrong, it was reasonably solid. Predicting the future is impossible so not surprising CT didn't get the slam dunk and guess everything right. But the West LRT is an illustrative example of some of the same biases and anti-transit trade-offs we made (and continue to make) that setup the transit system to not be well positioned for the future.

Thought exercise - imagine if we had built the MRU spur and configured it so that it was ready to be extended towards Chinook in the future to intersect with the red line. Could have replaced the SW MAX route with something more effective and truly created a solid east-west LRT connection. Green Line planning would have been even more of a gong show as a whole other set of tantalizing options would be available!