Calgary Roads

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Seems like they were doing fine for 20-30 years.

Aw come on . . . my point was that they suffered under 2 - 3 years of construction after which access was worst than before.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Aw come on . . . my point was that they suffered under 2 - 3 years of construction after which access was worst than before.

I do agree that the construction broke the backs of many businesses there, and things will probably only get worse. My point is that things were healthy there for decades (I just don’t agree that access was “never easy” before, I think it was fine).

[MalcolmTucker]

The mall should look at re-configuring its internal circulation and parking they do bare some responsibility here. The southern right-in-right-out shouldn't have parking backing on to it, nor have two t intersections on it, nor end in a stop sign.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Well I prefer an incremental evidence-based approach. Start with something modest, upgrade as the need is proven. The risk is low if it fails. You’re free to hold another opinion, but that shows poor judgment in my mind.

Ask people in SW Edmonton how they feel about incremental upgrades to Anthony Henday and I doubt you'll find much agreement. You're asking for more disruption and higher costs if you do it incrementally.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Ask people in SW Edmonton how they feel about incremental upgrades to Anthony Henday and I doubt you'll find much agreement. You're asking for more disruption and higher costs if you do it incrementally.

How is the planning process in Edmonton relevant here? Bad planning is bad planning, whether it results in something underbuilt or overbuilt. If you think that some unrelated and entirely different project makes for a valid argument, I again question your judgment.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Just because they kept an out-of-date image on that webpage doesn't mean the costs haven't changed. The 2020 update is on a separate page and doesn't mention anything about costs. (EDIT: To be clear, my main focus on that image is 17th Avenue. I haven't seen anything that says that the SWBRT has changed in budget from that image)

https://www.660citynews.com/2019/04/...er-20-million/
You don't need to look hard to find a news article referencing a City statement. This article is in reference to 17th Avenue Phase 1. Malcolm helpfully explained the two phases of 17th Avenue to me and I updated the number with Phase 2 added on.

I never said the SWBRT had changed in price. I was questioning your various segment amounts as overall they appeared to low. The info I provided is correct as far as I can tell.

The news article you linked to has nothing to do with the 17th Ave S.E. BRT project.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Yah, and that Safeway might very well go out of business. A lot of shops in Glenmore Landing have already left.

I went down today and had a look. This is hardly a ghost town. I didn't see one vacant storefront and the parking lot was very full. Much better than the shopping centres where I live in North Central Calgary. This is just my objective view, but it looks the same as always in the shopping centre.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Nick

I went down today and had a look. This is hardly a ghost town. I didn't see one vacant storefront and the parking lot was very full. Much better than the shopping centres where I live in North Central Calgary. This is just my objective view, but it looks the same as always in the shopping centre.

I didn’t say it was a “ghost town”, I said “a lot of shops have already left”. Pet Planet, Callebaut, M&M Meats, at least one restaurant and a few clothing stores. I know that Safeway wanted to leave but was locked in, though COVID has probably helped them out, but even so it’s never busy.

Pre-BRT, it was often difficult to find any parking spot. I do suspect a lot of people use that parking lot to access Glenmore Park.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I never said the SWBRT had changed in price. I was questioning your various segment amounts as overall they appeared to low. The info I provided is correct as far as I can tell.

The news article you linked to has nothing to do with the 17th Ave S.E. BRT project.

Whoops! Good catch, thanks. Not sure why I thought that was the same project. I suppose the SW one should be added to the road projects list, though.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

How is the planning process in Edmonton relevant here? Bad planning is bad planning, whether it results in something underbuilt or overbuilt. If you think that some unrelated and entirely different project makes for a valid argument, I again question your judgment.

You used terms like "incremental evidence based approach" and "the risk is low if it fails". Do you understand how infrastructure projects are planned in the first place? They used forecasted traffic volumes and the development forecasts for the city at the time, and the standard is 30 years down the road. The best evidence can fail you, because they are predictions.

For a more local example, when the Deerfoot extension from Anderson to 22X was in the planning stage, they had an initial design and a 30 year ultimate design planned to account for growth. When it came time to build the initial design interchanges at 130th Avenue and McKenzie Towne, the modeling showed that they would need the ultimate design sooner than expected - in about 10 years. They decided to build the ultimate design for the road right away. There was only a few years between the planning stage and the construction stage.

Things change and thankfully they were able to catch that change before they started construction. It would have really sucked to have to go back in there a few years later and redo a bunch of Deerfoot over again, which unfortunately happened a lot in Calgary between 2003 and 2013.

[milomilo]

I do wonder how they came up with the specific BRT designs though, it seems far more based on where it is easy to build infrastructure than where demand needs it. Are there really more bus users on 14th St SW than there would be on 16 Ave N?

[Porfiry]

For a more local example, when the Deerfoot extension from Anderson to 22X was in the planning stage, they had an initial design and a 30 year ultimate design planned to account for growth. When it came time to build the initial design interchanges at 130th Avenue and McKenzie Towne, the modeling showed that they would need the ultimate design sooner than expected - in about 10 years. They decided to build the ultimate design for the road right away. There was only a few years between the planning stage and the construction stage.

So where is the model that shows the “ultimate” version of the SWBRT would be needed anytime in the foreseeable future? We went from zero bus service and zero actual data about ridership needs along that route to the ultimate build out with no intermediate phases.

It’s obvious that the SWBRT is 1000x overbuilt for the needs today, and any promises about future needs is wishful dreaming. Feel free to dream all you want, but that’s exactly what leads to bad models and bad plans.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I do wonder how they came up with the specific BRT designs though, it seems far more based on where it is easy to build infrastructure than where demand needs it. Are there really more bus users on 14th St SW than there would be on 16 Ave N?

It isn't about the number of users though. It is about the amount of congestion those users are facing.
With 16th Ave, I remember more early on there was active consideration of HOV lanes. Then, the engineers got to work and they found congestion was localized and that the buses would pass by almost all of the congestion with skip lanes where there is congestion which combined with post intersection stop placement you get results with a far lower cost.
If you can get 95% there at 10% the cost, that is what you do. Where there is still congestion today, or 10 years from now, you can extend the skips, or put in more skips to make up even more time elsewhere.
It isn't always about the simple analysis of users justify investment. It is utility justifies investment. The SW BRT infrastructure adds a lot of utility that was otherwise missing, and for far more potential users than solely the SW BRT to Woodbine.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Whoops! Good catch, thanks. Not sure why I thought that was the same project. I suppose the SW one should be added to the road projects list, though.

Why would the SW BRT be added to the roads list instead of the transit list?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It isn't about the number of users though. It is about the amount of congestion those users are facing.
With 16th Ave, I remember more early on there was active consideration of HOV lanes. Then, the engineers got to work and they found congestion was localized and that the buses would pass by almost all of the congestion with skip lanes where there is congestion which combined with post intersection stop placement you get results with a far lower cost.
If you can get 95% there at 10% the cost, that is what you do. Where there is still congestion today, or 10 years from now, you can extend the skips, or put in more skips to make up even more time elsewhere.
It isn't always about the simple analysis of users justify investment. It is utility justifies investment. The SW BRT infrastructure adds a lot of utility that was otherwise missing, and for far more potential users than solely the SW BRT to Woodbine.

It has to have some consideration of the number of users though. Do we have any data on the ridership of the BRTs? My impression is that 17 Ave and 16 Ave BRTs have OK but not stellar ridership, however still more than those riding the SWBRT. We only had a few months of it being open though so it's going to be a while before we have representative data.

I don't buy the argument that 16 Ave doesn't present a delay to buses. During peak non COVID times, especially the PM, it's definitely busy. And if the economy ever turns around, that can only get worse. Since buses are already far slower and crappier than driving, they need all the advantage they can get to be competitive.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

Why would the SW BRT be added to the roads list instead of the transit list?

He mistakenly thought the 17 Avenue S.W. "beautification" project was part of the S.E. BRT project. I would definitely not include the 17 Avenue S.W. project under roads. Are they done with that yet? What percentage of businesses along that stretch were killed off by that never-ending project?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It has to have some consideration of the number of users though. Do we have any data on the ridership of the BRTs? My impression is that 17 Ave and 16 Ave BRTs have OK but not stellar ridership, however still more than those riding the SWBRT. We only had a few months of it being open though so it's going to be a while before we have representative data.

I don't buy the argument that 16 Ave doesn't present a delay to buses. During peak non COVID times, especially the PM, it's definitely busy. And if the economy ever turns around, that can only get worse. Since buses are already far slower and crappier than driving, they need all the advantage they can get to be competitive.

Truthiness as transit planning strikes again. Yeah, when 16th was 2 lanes each way, they were planning to put in exclusive lanes eventually. Because it was congested. Now when I want to get across town, I am usually on 16th preferentially if I am anywhere proximate because going to 3 lanes relieved the congestion except for at lights. Even then. Multi light waits are rare in cars. With skip lanes? I'd say it would take a series of coincidences to cause it.

There are solutions other than exclusive right of way to speed up congestion. And they used them!

Speed once you hit a tipping point isn't the be all and end all. Max Orange runs plenty fast - remember seeing 29kph. Frequency is more important, as average waiting time has to be considered as part of trip time. That is where the newly developed BRTs fall short. Frequency. Not travel time.

[milomilo]

Frequency definitely is a failing. But is there true justification to increase it? Probably a little on 16 Ave, the buses looked quite busy, if not packed, when SAIT was running.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Truthiness as transit planning strikes again. Yeah, when 16th was 2 lanes each way, they were planning to put in exclusive lanes eventually. Because it was congested. Now when I want to get across town, I am usually on 16th preferentially if I am anywhere proximate because going to 3 lanes relieved the congestion except for at lights. Even then. Multi light waits are rare in cars. With skip lanes? I'd say it would take a series of coincidences to cause it.

You must have good luck with that road. I find all of the extra lights have made it even worse than when it was two lanes.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

You must have good luck with that road. I find all of the extra lights have made it even worse than when it was two lanes.

It flows though instead of having successive multi light waits. It might feel slower but it is definitely faster. The near simultaneous completion of the North ring road helped too. Or was it the improvements on Glenmore / Higway 8 which made that flat route much better for trucks for heavy loads. In any case, it is much much better.