Calgary Public Transit II

[sim]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

^Interlining is a BAD idea and should be avoided at all costs. Here in Shanghai, for example, two lines (3 and 4) share a 10km section of elevated rail, which is now becoming a bottleneck - extra capacity can't be added, because trains are already running at minimum headways on the section (about 2 minutes between trains), resulting in double the headway (~4-5 minutes between trains) for each of the two lines that are sharing the line. Fixing this bottleneck is becoming important because of overcrowding on both Lines 3 and 4 (especially 4, which has daily ridership of over 800 000) at rush hour, but it's going to be very difficult and very expensive to fix the problem.

Running several lines through one bored tunnel will result in the same kind of problems, which only get magnified the more lines you try to stuff into it. A shallow tunnel for one line (NW-S) along 8th avenue and continuing to use 7th avenue for the other line (NE to W) makes a lot more sense, and will be much cheaper.

So have two sets of tunnels, one for each line on each avenue? I can't see cut and covering twice the amount, being cheaper than boring just one.

I also don't think interlining should be looked at so negatively. It may not be ideal in a city such as Shanghai which grows everyday by countless (literally) number of people, but Calgary could pull it off. It does work, and in fact, quite effectively in some German cities in what they call, as I don't believe there is a translation for it, a Stammstrecke. I can't speak as well to the effectiveness of it everywhere, but it's done on much higher capacity carrying lines than what we would be looking at in Calgary.

Also, it makes changing trains much easier. The one block of walking...

I just don't think that there will ever be the ridership to demand headways that are subsequently not adequate, especially after the addition of the NC and the SE. And, if so, then further additional lines could be looked at... in oh 100 years.

I know most on here think otherwise, but from the headway calcs I've ever done, it seems to fit.

[The Chemist]

^Not two sets of tunnels. Keep the NE-W line above ground, particularly since the city has just spent all that money to upgrade 7th Avenue. With the NW-S line moved to a tunnel, capacity issues on 7th Ave. will be solved.

[Boris2k7]

City Hall considers express buses for Mount Royal University

By Jason Markusoff, with files from Richard Cuthbertson Calgary Herald, Calgary Herald January 18, 2011 6:51 AM


Mount Royal University, Calgary's only major post-secondary without LRT service, could be getting two bus rapid transit lines in the next few years under a plan aldermen will consider Wednesday.

Council is being asked to embrace a long-term expansion of the BRT system, which transit planners tout as a key component of Calgary's future. The plan, even with bus-only lanes or specially built bus-ways, would cost 20 to 40 per cent of new train lines.

...

Story

Some more BRT development news.

[LFRENCH]

Got one of the new trains today. These will be a great help in rush hour, provided people understand the point of having seating along the edges is so you don't need to crowd the door

[sim]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

^Not two sets of tunnels. Keep the NE-W line above ground, particularly since the city has just spent all that money to upgrade 7th Avenue. With the NW-S line moved to a tunnel, capacity issues on 7th Ave. will be solved.

Oh fair enough. I'm trying to kill a few birds with one stone. I guess I should mention that my own personal desire would be to see 7th ave turn into a pedestrian only zone or at least something much like 8th. I can see the Herald comments now...

[MalcolmTucker]

I would rather have one great pedestrian street in the core, than two mediocre ones. I think it is easy to forget how long it took to establish 8th successfully and how awful it was before.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I would rather have one great pedestrian street in the core, than two mediocre ones. I think it is easy to forget how long it took to establish 8th successfully and how awful it was before.

I would also think that establishing a N-S pedestrian corridor linking eau claire to stephen ave and the beltline would be a higher priority to increase pedestrian circulation amoungst these communities.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I would rather have one great pedestrian street in the core, than two mediocre ones. I think it is easy to forget how long it took to establish 8th successfully and how awful it was before.

Good point. Chicken and egg kind of problem though- what comes first: pedestrian street or lots of retail activity?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by LFRENCH

Got one of the new trains today. These will be a great help in rush hour, provided people understand the point of having seating along the edges is so you don't need to crowd the door

Second ride on one today, and no, people aren't figuring it out. It really doesn't help that there's a nice bright WIDE yellow pole exactly where people should be moving in. It pretty much guarantees people don't move in until forced.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Why the continual push for LRT to the airport? It's extremely rare in the world and I have a very VERY hard time believing Calgary of all cities is in dire need of it. What's the predominant thinking? Is this more for employees (understandable) or travelers? Because I have some serious chuckles at the latter being used as justification.

I guess I'm just surprised to see it coming up again and again, after I've visited so many cities that survive perfectly fine without it. Especially when our system would have to be seriously detoured to handle it, let alone the cost-benefit analysis.

With respect to Calgary specifically, I think that's a major issue. Had the terminal been built in the south of the airport, the issue of getting a train to the airport would be far less onerous. It's entirely possible that the routing of the NE line would have been changed to Barlow Trail, for example, to accommodate an alignment into the airport.


When I look at the placement of airports and their terminals in the major Canadian cities, one has to wonder what Transport Canada or the relevant federal authority was thinking at the time. Calgary's airport is decently placed, but the terminal is in an asinine location requiring considerable out-of-the-way travelling. Edmonton's airport is so far out of town as to be a bad joke, leading to this ridiculous argument they're having with respect to the City Centre Airport and its supposed role in reducing traffic at the international airport compared to Calgary. Sorry, Edmonton, the blame for that lies with the distant location of your airport. Montreal went through the Mirabel misadventure and now they're stuck with the constrained Dorval rather than an airport on one of the west islands. Toronto's is not too bad, but no one thought to protect a decent way in for rail in the future given the tangle of freeway interchanges that surround it. Vancouver's location is surprisingly good given the track record everywhere else and the constraints placed by geography. And in Ottawa, the location is fair but the terminal is needlessly far to the south.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Dado

Toronto's is not too bad, but no one thought to protect a decent way in for rail in the future given the tangle of freeway interchanges that surround it.

Doesn't the Eglinton Crosstown line planned to go straight to the airport? No biggie though - don't want to take the conversation away from YYC.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Dado

When I look at the placement of airports and their terminals in the major Canadian cities, one has to wonder what Transport Canada or the relevant federal authority was thinking at the time.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that NO ONE was thinking mass transit in those days. Cars were (or soon to be) king. And I say this with very little knowledge of when these airports were designed and built.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I bet hardly anyone foresaw even a fraction of the air travel we see today. I saw a stat the other day that just blew my mind, in terms of just how many people fly each year in North America compared to just 10 years ago. Compared to 20, it's amazing. Compared to 30, it's disgusting. Of course, when I realize that I can fly to freaking Bermuda for $400 return, it's no wonder everyone does it several times each year. It wasn't too many decades ago when this would be completely out of reach for the average middle class family, or at a minimum they'd save for several years to do it.

Point being, I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of traffic, nor the demographics that can afford to fly today. Why would mass transit be required for that?

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that NO ONE was thinking mass transit in those days. Cars were (or soon to be) king. And I say this with very little knowledge of when these airports were designed and built.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I bet hardly anyone foresaw even a fraction of the air travel we see today. I saw a stat the other day that just blew my mind, in terms of just how many people fly each year in North America compared to just 10 years ago. Compared to 20, it's amazing. Compared to 30, it's disgusting. Of course, when I realize that I can fly to freaking Bermuda for $400 return, it's no wonder everyone does it several times each year. It wasn't too many decades ago when this would be completely out of reach for the average middle class family, or at a minimum they'd save for several years to do it.

Point being, I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of traffic, nor the demographics that can afford to fly today. Why would mass transit be required for that?

That's so true. As much as people bitch about the price of air travel, it is less than half of what it was thirty years ago. I remember tickets to Toronto for $800 in the mid 80's, which would be more than $1300 today with inflation. I can get pretty much anywhere in the World for $1300 now.

[MalcolmTucker]

Even then, with the plan for the airport for two north-south runways being set before the new terminal was built, there is only really one other place it could have been built at the time - where the WestJet Campus and other hangars are. In the end I don't think it would be any better from a transit perspective, I wouldn't want a line going up between the runways to deadend at the terminal.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Even then, with the plan for the airport for two north-south runways being set before the new terminal was built, there is only really one other place it could have been built at the time - where the WestJet Campus and other hangars are. In the end I don't think it would be any better from a transit perspective, I wouldn't want a line going up between the runways to deadend at the terminal.

I agree. In an ideal world we would still want the NE line where it is, so that it is at least somewhat close to where people actually live, and the N line under Centre Street. In terms of cost and ease of servicing the airport there would be no difference if the airport was flipped 180 degrees so that the terminal was in the south. It would simply mean a spur down McKnight Boulevard from one or both lines instead of one down 96th Ave/Airport Trail. If anything, it would seem significantly easier to protect a ROW along Airport Trail, where nothing exists now, then to try to force one onto McKnight. Sure the fact that the terminal is in the north means that both car and transit trips will always be a bit longer for most of the city but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't change anything.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I agree. In an ideal world we would still want the NE line where it is, so that it is at least somewhat close to where people actually live, and the N line under Centre Street. In terms of cost and ease of servicing the airport there would be no difference if the airport was flipped 180 degrees so that the terminal was in the south. It would simply mean a spur down McKnight Boulevard from one or both lines instead of one down 96th Ave/Airport Trail. If anything, it would seem significantly easier to protect a ROW along Airport Trail, where nothing exists now, then to try to force one onto McKnight. Sure the fact that the terminal is in the north means that both car and transit trips will always be a bit longer for most of the city but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't change anything.

It would end the debate about whether or not to have a tunnel under the new runway...

[reflexzero]

I dunno, LRT to the airport seems a bit dubious, as I really doubt it would get close enough for air passengers to get from the train to the terminal in a convenient fashion. They would likely have a shuttle bus in between, so if they are getting onto a bus anyways, what is the point of having the LRT so close?

I really doubt we'd see high class business personnel riding transit to the airport, especially through the ghetto to get there. I'm very surprised when I see someone wearing a tie on the NE leg.

[Joborule]

For me, the only reason to make the LRT connect directly to the airport is because it's on a northern cross town spur line. One that connects the NE line to NC line, and the NW line by going along Country Hills Blvd. Therefore it's main intent is to serve the northern portion of the city moving east-west, and the airport station is mainly for convenience/employees. (And make the terminal feel more world class if it does add credibility)

[suburb]

Originally Posted by reflexzero

I really doubt we'd see high class business personnel riding transit to the airport, especially through the ghetto to get there. I'm very surprised when I see someone wearing a tie on the NE leg.

Nice. It would be like saying that people from outside the NE are 5-6 times more likely to not have ever flown on a plane and to have never traveled beyond the city limits in their lives - save for their honeymoons and post divorce celebrations that were likely held at Gray Eagle Casino.

[Ramsayfarian]

The Dinger has an interesting column about transit in todays paper.

"Surprise.

Over the years, too many times to count and far too many times to want to count, this ink-stained scribbler has catalogued the spinelessness of this city council.

But Tuesday, four aldermen from the east side of town — Keating, Chabot, Demong and Carra — break the rules of the big blue playpen on Macleod Tr.

They don’t roll over to the city’s tall foreheads. They don’t take the lazy route, aka the usual path of only make-believe resistance.

They actually stand up and they come up with ideas and they put the ideas on paper and they vow to take it to a vote.

Their collective grey matter may be sound, it may be nuts or somewhere in between but beggars can’t be choosers covering the theatre of the absurd downtown.

Gadzooks, Batman. The politicians show a pulse.

The fight is over how to spend money coming from the provincial government for transit projects.

The four aldermen reveal Tuesday they want the creation of something called the Southeast Transit Way.

They pitch the city buy 20 LRT cars instead of city adminstration’s idea of forking out for 50 cars.

They want to improve bus rapid transit along the 17 Ave. S.E. corridor.

That’s the smaller potatoes.

In the brainwave of the aldermen, the bulk of the first chunk of cash would go to buying land for the future southeast LRT.

Then, while waiting for the province to dole out the dollars to build the line, since there isn’t the coin now, they would like to see a bus-only transit route to get people to and from the southeast in a fashion that’s rapid in reality and not just in name.

Keating calls this “giving relief” to Calgarians in the southeast now."

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/rick_bell/2011/01/19/16942331.html