Calgary Public Transit II

[DizzyEdge]

Sorry to interrupt the NCLRT arguments, but does anyone in the know have an idea how much fares would need to go up to cover a) applying the currently livery design to all transit vehicles, including older buses, so there is actually consistent branding b) ban full wrap bus and LRV ads. (ads on panels is ok)

It really bugs me how tacky those two thinks make vehicles look.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, it most certainly does. Single buses are not going to be replaced with four car trains.

Headways are a function of demand and vehicle capacity with ROW constraints (lights, interlining, etc.) playing in as well. Vehicle technology has little if anything to do with it i.e. if you could get a bus with the same capacity as a rail vehicle you could run them at the same headway on the same ROW.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Sorry to interrupt the NCLRT arguments, but does anyone in the know have an idea how much fares would need to go up to cover a) applying the currently livery design to all transit vehicles, including older buses, so there is actually consistent branding b) ban full wrap bus and LRV ads. (ads on panels is ok)

It really bugs me how tacky those two thinks make vehicles look.

Is that fare calculator CT published a while back still available? Might be able to throw that scenario in there and see.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Headways are a function of demand and vehicle capacity with ROW constraints (lights, interlining, etc.) playing in as well. Vehicle technology has little if anything to do with it i.e. if you could get a bus with the same capacity as a rail vehicle you could run them at the same headway on the same ROW.

Well, this isn't real so the point stands. Unless the route is operated by some tiny bus sized streetcar the system will collapse long before the headways approach what they are with buses.


Wikipedia

[Cage]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Sorry to interrupt the NCLRT arguments, but does anyone in the know have an idea how much fares would need to go up to cover a) applying the currently livery design to all transit vehicles, including older buses, so there is actually consistent branding b) ban full wrap bus and LRV ads. (ads on panels is ok)

It really bugs me how tacky those two thinks make vehicles look.

From my memory of completing the CT fare calculator, adding or removing advertising was not a single bullet solution to the 10million dollars revenue shortfall problem. I highly doubt that full bus/train wrap advertising accounts for more than 10-15% of the total advertising revenue. Probably talking about 25 cent fare increase.

The other way to look at full wrap advertising, is there an opportunity to improve the visuals so there is greater appeal. For example of over on the airport thread a geeks drool over the prospect of a special livery, even if it's advertising for another travel company. The WS Disney plane comes to mind.

I think better product advertising would have greater positive affect. It's also possible for CT to branch out to the advertising creation aspect.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Out of curiousity, what differentiates a tram from an LRV? The ability to have multiple units in a consist in LRV's and not in trams?

The varying definitions of transit systems has been the subject of many tedious debates on boards like these. Essentially every system is bespoke with characteristics designed for specific circumstances.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not really. The major differences between Toronto's LRVs and new streetcars are: doors on only one side; traction power sets for higher grade; traction power sets for higher load at high grade (all cars must be able to tow or push a disabled car on all track sections); wheel chair ramp deployable to street grade; tighter turning radius; different guage; and, they are built for single point switches (grooved rail).

None of those qualities is unique enough to draw a fine dividing line between the two.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The varying definitions of transit systems has been the subject of many tedious debates on boards like these. Essentially every system is bespoke with characteristics designed for specific circumstances.

So trams are essentially LRV's for low speed applications. Something that the NC LRT is unlikely to be regardless of routing.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So trams are essentially LRV's for low speed applications. Something that the NC LRT is unlikely to be regardless of routing.

LRVs range between Vancouver's SkyTrain and SanFran's cable cars. Its so broad a term it ranges on useless.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by VIce

Its so broad a term it ranges on useless.

Nailed it!

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is only a solution in absolute isolation. Maybe if Calgary had built more freeways re-imagining the role of Centre Street would be a possibility, but we didn't.

And it wouldn't be considered a solution by the public at large, it would just be another encore of the Centre Street subway song and dance.

Most everything else has been rather covered, but I found this point interesting.

What's interesting about it, is that the opposite is actually true. If Calgary had built less freeways, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now (regarding the roll of Centre St. and/or others like it). What is truly befuddling is how hard this seems for most to grasp.

Why would the loss of inefficient vehicular travel lanes in one place need to be offset by more in another when a perfectly good alternative would be in place instead? Is mode choice a static demand? To stoke internal competition within a monopolistic entity for a solo proverbial race to the bottom? To offer "choice" wherein one choice can be unquestionably impeded and the other, unquestionably not?

Had we built more freeways our pathetic timeline for whatever this may turn out to be would in all likelihood be even sadder.

It's called a Transportation System for a reason.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by sim

Most everything else has been rather covered, but I found this point interesting.

What's interesting about it, is that the opposite is actually true. If Calgary had built less freeways, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now (regarding the roll of Centre St. and/or others like it). What is truly befuddling is how hard this seems for most to grasp.

Why would the loss of inefficient vehicular travel lanes in one place need to be offset by more in another when a perfectly good alternative would be in place instead? Is mode choice a static demand? To stoke internal competition within a monopolistic entity for a solo proverbial race to the bottom? To offer "choice" wherein one choice can be unquestionably impeded and the other, unquestionably not?

Had we built more freeways our pathetic timeline for whatever this may turn out to be would in all likelihood be even sadder.

It's called a Transportation System for a reason.

Nailed it, we need to move our transportation system away from a choice (lowest common denominator) to an efficiency model. Transit is more efficient spacewise than a SOV or an HOV, time to give priority to those modes that make better use of our constrained resources (money, space, etc.).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is only a solution in absolute isolation. Maybe if Calgary had built more freeways re-imagining the role of Centre Street would be a possibility, but we didn't.

And it wouldn't be considered a solution by the public at large, it would just be another encore of the Centre Street subway song and dance.

Originally Posted by sim

Most everything else has been rather covered, but I found this point interesting.

What's interesting about it, is that the opposite is actually true. If Calgary had built less freeways, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now (regarding the roll of Centre St. and/or others like it). What is truly befuddling is how hard this seems for most to grasp.

Why would the loss of inefficient vehicular travel lanes in one place need to be offset by more in another when a perfectly good alternative would be in place instead? Is mode choice a static demand? To stoke internal competition within a monopolistic entity for a solo proverbial race to the bottom? To offer "choice" wherein one choice can be unquestionably impeded and the other, unquestionably not?

Had we built more freeways our pathetic timeline for whatever this may turn out to be would in all likelihood be even sadder.

It's called a Transportation System for a reason.

I found this point interesting as well. Calgary, with a downtown office size of 40+ million square feet, dwarfing cities twice our size, with the second highest downtown office concentration in North America (with 61% of office in the CBD behind NYC with 64%), with the 5th highest transit ridership per capita in North America (all trips, not just commute) with 50% transit ridership to the CBD, should have built more freeways? That is such backwards thinking, I don't know where to start.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

What's interesting about it, is that the opposite is actually true. If Calgary had built less freeways, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now (regarding the roll of Centre St. and/or others like it). What is truly befuddling is how hard this seems for most to grasp.

Because that is precisely what a middling western North American city was going to do in the mid-20th Century... I'm sure the possibility of operating a street car instead of building the "Sarcee Expressway" was a major subject of debate in 1960.

Which of these roads would you not have built?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

I found this point interesting as well. Calgary, with a downtown office size of 40+ million square feet, dwarfing cities twice our size, with the second highest downtown office concentration in North America (with 61% of office in the CBD behind NYC with 64%), with the 5th highest transit ridership per capita in North America (all trips, not just commute) with 50% transit ridership to the CBD, should have built more freeways? That is such backwards thinking, I don't know where to start.

Downtown Calgary has flourished in spite of it's bottlenecks, not because of them and better road connections wouldn't have generated more parking.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by VIce

Its so broad a term it ranges on useless.

Only if you're being deliberately obtuse.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Nailed it, we need to move our transportation system away from a choice (lowest common denominator) to an efficiency model. Transit is more efficient spacewise than a SOV or an HOV, time to give priority to those modes that make better use of our constrained resources (money, space, etc.).

Agreed completely. If we setup a low-floor tram system on centre to replace the bus service with taking 2 of the four lanes in the centre of the road and convert to dedicated tracks we would be all set. I think there is an unneccessary need in Calgary to have the best, most expensive and least disruptive transportation to preserve "choice". These systems cost a fraction of a subway or Calgary-style LRT with all the ROW needed and grade-separation that is demanded arbitrarily. And they work. Nearly every city in Western Europe over 100,000 has a network of these lines and they can have far greater capacity / service reliability than the existing service of buses on Centre.

If the engineering checks out on the Centre Street Bridge to support the trams, give them light priority and dedicated space to do a turn around on Centre S to 4th Ave westbound, S on 5th Street SW, East on 9th Ave, North again on Centre. Take a lane of car traffic from each road and be done with it. The stations are minimal, usually no more than a ticket machine and shelter, give as much light and turning priority as possible, and separate the lanes from traffic in the congested areas with bollards if Cars just don't get it to get out of the way.

If we chase the expensive dream of full separation to preserve a shrinking mode choice downtown of auto traffic downtown that not only will prevent us from affording building a most extensive network, it will reduce the quality and service of the transit network at the expense of the inefficient car modal choice.

For the price of a fully separated or partially underground subway for the NC/SELRT, we could build cheap but vastly improved service to whole swaths of the city. Replace the entire Route 3 line, Route 1 Line, SE line using light weight trains and minimal station infrastructure. The only catch is that Calgary will have to accept that transit is a more efficient choice and therefore gets priority everywhere it can. That means losing lanes of car traffic, changing signals to ease transit everywhere. It may inconvenience some, but the net benefit is greater and the bill comes in at a hell of a lot cheaper than going for full grade-separation just so that cars don't get mad at transit taking "their" space.

A system like that would cost less than the guess-timated $5B for the NC/SELRT and would provide far greater level of service to more people in more areas.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Agreed completely. If we setup a low-floor tram system on centre to replace the bus service with taking 2 of the four lanes in the centre of the road and convert to dedicated tracks we would be all set. I think there is an unneccessary need in Calgary to have the best, most expensive and least disruptive transportation to preserve "choice". These systems cost a fraction of a subway or Calgary-style LRT with all the ROW needed and grade-separation that is demanded arbitrarily. And they work. Nearly every city in Western Europe over 100,000 has a network of these lines and they can have far greater capacity / service reliability than the existing service of buses on Centre.

If the engineering checks out on the Centre Street Bridge to support the trams, give them light priority and dedicated space to do a turn around on Centre S to 4th Ave westbound, S on 5th Street SW, East on 9th Ave, North again on Centre. Take a lane of car traffic from each road and be done with it. The stations are minimal, usually no more than a ticket machine and shelter, give as much light and turning priority as possible, and separate the lanes from traffic in the congested areas with bollards if Cars just don't get it to get out of the way.

If we chase the expensive dream of full separation to preserve a shrinking mode choice downtown of auto traffic downtown that not only will prevent us from affording building a most extensive network, it will reduce the quality and service of the transit network at the expense of the inefficient car modal choice.

For the price of a fully separated or partially underground subway for the NC/SELRT, we could build cheap but vastly improved service to whole swaths of the city. Replace the entire Route 3 line, Route 1 Line, SE line using light weight trains and minimal station infrastructure. The only catch is that Calgary will have to accept that transit is a more efficient choice and therefore gets priority everywhere it can. That means losing lanes of car traffic, changing signals to ease transit everywhere. It may inconvenience some, but the net benefit is greater and the bill comes in at a hell of a lot cheaper than going for full grade-separation just so that cars don't get mad at transit taking "their" space.

A system like that would cost less than the guess-timated $5B for the NC/SELRT and would provide far greater level of service to more people in more areas.

I totally agree with you, but I think the LRT would need three lanes on centre street due to station placement. If the LRT were to only use two lanes and run on the shoulders of centre street there would be too many car & lrt crossings to make the system "rapid".

https://www.google.ca/maps/@29.755498,-9...3m4!1e1!3m2!1scW_42TX5Ruy3tWMq-uzCMg!2e0

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Agreed completely. If we setup a low-floor tram system on centre to replace the bus service with taking 2 of the four lanes in the centre of the road and convert to dedicated tracks we would be all set. I think there is an unneccessary need in Calgary to have the best, most expensive and least disruptive transportation to preserve "choice". These systems cost a fraction of a subway or Calgary-style LRT with all the ROW needed and grade-separation that is demanded arbitrarily. And they work. Nearly every city in Western Europe over 100,000 has a network of these lines and they can have far greater capacity / service reliability than the existing service of buses on Centre.

If the engineering checks out on the Centre Street Bridge to support the trams, give them light priority and dedicated space to do a turn around on Centre S to 4th Ave westbound, S on 5th Street SW, East on 9th Ave, North again on Centre. Take a lane of car traffic from each road and be done with it. The stations are minimal, usually no more than a ticket machine and shelter, give as much light and turning priority as possible, and separate the lanes from traffic in the congested areas with bollards if Cars just don't get it to get out of the way.

If we chase the expensive dream of full separation to preserve a shrinking mode choice downtown of auto traffic downtown that not only will prevent us from affording building a most extensive network, it will reduce the quality and service of the transit network at the expense of the inefficient car modal choice.

For the price of a fully separated or partially underground subway for the NC/SELRT, we could build cheap but vastly improved service to whole swaths of the city. Replace the entire Route 3 line, Route 1 Line, SE line using light weight trains and minimal station infrastructure. The only catch is that Calgary will have to accept that transit is a more efficient choice and therefore gets priority everywhere it can. That means losing lanes of car traffic, changing signals to ease transit everywhere. It may inconvenience some, but the net benefit is greater and the bill comes in at a hell of a lot cheaper than going for full grade-separation just so that cars don't get mad at transit taking "their" space.

A system like that would cost less than the guess-timated $5B for the NC/SELRT and would provide far greater level of service to more people in more areas.

This is a good point, one of the reasons that Calgary has such an extensive LRT network today was because they went with the cheap option 30 years ago and ran it at grade DT, something our neighbours to the north choose not to do and as a result they have a significantly smaller system today.

I think there could be an at grade option for a centre street LRT from 16th through DT to the SELRT, possibly instead of heading west from centre head east and cut south through the 4st underpass to turn east again.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Downtown Calgary has flourished in spite of it's bottlenecks, not because of them and better road connections wouldn't have generated more parking.

Downtown Calgary flourished because, being an one-industry town, energy companies (and the banks, lawyers, engineers, software companies, marketing firms, etc that support the) see value in co-locating and being part of a shared downtown culture. To keep downtown relatively hospitable in order to facilitate convenient business meetings, lunches and after work social events, we couldn't let it be torn apart by large roads bisecting the area. Those same roads would have sterilized neighbouring communities.

Downtown has flourished because it was able to accommodate the majority of commuters on transit, thus avoiding massive physical intrusion into the downtown. Downtown Calgary is flourishing, not in spite of bottlenecks- bottlenecks are the result of a flourishing downtown.

[Spring2008]

Besides transit, I've noticed a huge and ever increasing amount of pedestrian and cycling commuters from communities south into the CBD. No doubt the hot weather's a factor, but positive sign for sure.