Calgary Public Transit II

[UofC.engineer]

Stupid Question:

The plan for the SE LRT requires low floor trains. Probably three-five cars per train.

~I personally don't like using low floor trains for the SE LRT because they go slower than a regular commuter train.~

So would the same cars for the SE LRT be used as streetcars? in this case only one car makes up the train

Or would completely new trains need to be bought.

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/en/pub/urban_mobility/rail_solutions/tram.htm

[mersar]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

~I personally don't like using low floor trains for the SE LRT because they go slower than a regular commuter train.~

No they don't. The Siemens S70 is the most commonly mentioned and likely to be choosen (or its successor), and it is capable of the same speeds as the SD160 is, meaning 80km/h maximum (and considering average speed is closer to 40km for the existing CTrain network, the maximum isn't a big factor). And most heavy rail commuter systems max out at no more then 100km/h anyways, at least in North America.

[UofC.engineer]

The South line hits 80km/h during the long stretches, ie chinook-39thave, Anderson-Canyon Meadows.

But your right, most of the time max speed isn't reached.

So could the Siemens S70 be used as a streetcar with a vehicle empty weight of 95700 lbs?

http://transportation.siemens.com/shared/data/pdf/sts_usa_internet/san_diego_s70.pdf

[Policy Wonk]

Low floor trains are a pain in the ass when it comes to handicapped accessibility and it is just a matter of time before Canada ends up with a law or court ruling similar or even harsher than the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Too much potential trouble for no obvious benefit.

[Radley77]

Too bad about the trams. I wonder if it was politically motivated (a 1940's Rob Ford) or was it motivated by cost savings and transportation engineers? If so, was it political activism in Toronto that caused the trams to stay?

I'd hate to see the past repeated.

I wonder if potential Calgary tramlines could be built with a cantilever or suspended monorail with crossovers tracks at the stations. I would like to see a better circulator of similar scale to the "Circle line" in London. This kind of system would be relatively cheap (compared to a subway, plus costefficiency of a single track line), would establish it's own right of way (fast) and not have to compete with vehicular traffic.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Low floor trains are a pain in the ass when it comes to handicapped accessibility and it is just a matter of time before Canada ends up with a law or court ruling similar or even harsher than the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Too much potential trouble for no obvious benefit.

I've never ridden on a low floor train. What makes handicap accessibility so difficult on these trains?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

1. All the tracks were in the inner lanes of traffic so passengers had to board on the middle of the street.

Can be fixed by either using curb lanes, or designing and locating stops better.

2. The power armature would come off the cables and the driver would have to get out and re-attach them.

Fixed, this won't happen now.

3. Every winter the streetcar would derail at least once coming down the hill at 14th st trying to make a turn at 17thave.

It did happen a few times, but can be fixed by not having the streetcar turn onto 17th, and instead go until 12th.

I'd like to see the beltline route be rebuilt within the next 10 years. (Doubt it will ever happen with the way things are going)

So would I.

Any other routes you guys suggest???

Several: Mission (maybe even down Elbow Dr. to Chinook); Marda Loop; Edmonton Trail; 17th Avenue SW to Westbrook; maybe Inglewood.

Streetcars or BRT??? Which is better???

Neither. They serve different functions. Streetcars for dense areas and short routes, BRTs for longer routes. Over simplified, but BRTs should be used where BRTs make sense and Streetcars should be used where Streetcars make sense and the two shouldn't be confused.

[DarkKeyo]

I've also wondered about the benefit of low floor trains, especially on the SELRT. The NELRT (and I guess the NWLRT until it hits Crowchild) is one that I could see it being beneficial for if the technology had existed when it was built, but the SELRT has both the tunnel and a ROW that is inaccessible enough at about half its stations that stations will still be more expensive constructions like Dalhousie where low floor might make a difference, instead of like Sunnyside where it would. And if the NCLRT ends up in a tunnel north from the SELRT like I hope, then the entirety of it will be in tunnel or in the middle of the street...

And, I've ridden the streetcars in downtown Toronto and wished that at least 17th ave and 1st and/or 4th st had them.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Stupid Question:

The plan for the SE LRT requires low floor trains. Probably three-five cars per train.

~I personally don't like using low floor trains for the SE LRT because they go slower than a regular commuter train.~

So would the same cars for the SE LRT be used as streetcars? in this case only one car makes up the train

Or would completely new trains need to be bought.

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/en/pub/urban_mobility/rail_solutions/tram.htm

I would imagine you could use single car consists of the S70 could be used for a streetcar system, and 4-5 car consists for the SE/NC LRT. Even 2-3 car consists could be used for circle routes.

[fusili]

double post

[DizzyEdge]

I'd like to see a MRU -> Marda Loop -> Beltline or DT -> Inglewood -> "International Ave" route. MRU, Marda Loop and International Ave are 3 destinations that aren't tied to the center city which really should be.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I asked my Grandparents about the streetcars in Calgary and they said at that time the public generally prefered buses for a number of reasons.

1. All the tracks were in the inner lanes of traffic so passengers had to board on the middle of the street.

2. The power armature would come off the cables and the driver would have to get out and re-attach them.

3. Every winter the streetcar would derail at least once coming down the hill at 14th st trying to make a turn at 17thave.

They also said it was a pretty bumpy ride, i don't really know how this could happen tho since it's on rail.

I think the city should have kept them tho. Adds some flavour to inner city streets.

I'd like to see the beltline route be rebuilt within the next 10 years. (Doubt it will ever happen with the way things are going)

Also a line from Victoria Park station to Westbrook station along 17thave.

Any other routes you guys suggest???
Streetcars or BRT??? Which is better???

It sure did

[UofC.engineer]

There we go!

Assuming NC LRT ever gets built, but i doubt it. Too much money.

I think the city planners wanna redevelop Nose Creek into TOD.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd like to see a MRU -> Marda Loop -> Beltline or DT -> Inglewood -> "International Ave" route. MRU, Marda Loop and International Ave are 3 destinations that aren't tied to the center city which really should be.

That route is too long and indirect. MRU needs to be connected to a rapid (which streetcars are not) transit system and needs to be able to connect to radial LRT lines easily (especiall the west and south lines). Marda loop can have a streetcar though.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

Can be fixed by either using curb lanes, or designing and locating stops better.

Wouldn't this require ripping out the original lines anyway?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Wouldn't this require ripping out the original lines anyway?

Yeah, but are already ripped up. If they weren't I would keep them in the median, but make some slight realignments to accommodate proper stations. The problem with old streetcars is there were really no proper stations.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Low floor trains are a pain in the ass when it comes to handicapped accessibility and it is just a matter of time before Canada ends up with a law or court ruling similar or even harsher than the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Too much potential trouble for no obvious benefit.

To the bolded: how so?

Although I've never personally boarded one, handicap-accessibility seems no less cumbersome than the current high-floor fleet based on interior photos and layout diagrams I've seen.

Passenger capacity:
72 seats
Approx. 241 total passengers
4 wheelchair spaces

From Houston's S70 spec sheet.

Here's a drawing of the layout of San Diego's low-floor fleet:


(Wikipedia)

Sliding doors equipped with ramps, just like Calgary's vehicles.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Too bad about the trams. I wonder if it was politically motivated (a 1940's Rob Ford) or was it motivated by cost savings and transportation engineers? If so, was it political activism in Toronto that caused the trams to stay?

I'd hate to see the past repeated.

For as well-researched (although often overly complicated, no offense, see below) as some of your posts seem, I'm surprised you don't know a little more about how/why most cities in North America abandoned streetcars in the 1940s and 1950s.

Originally Posted by Radley77

I wonder if potential Calgary tramlines could be built with a cantilever or suspended monorail with crossovers tracks at the stations. I would like to see a better circulator of similar scale to the "Circle line" in London. This kind of system would be relatively cheap (compared to a subway, plus costefficiency of a single track line), would establish it's own right of way (fast) and not have to compete with vehicular traffic.

Unnecessarily complicated and expensive for almost any viable streetcar route you could dream up in Calgary.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I asked my Grandparents about the streetcars in Calgary and they said at that time the public generally prefered buses for a number of reasons.

1. All the tracks were in the inner lanes of traffic so passengers had to board on the middle of the street.

2. The power armature would come off the cables and the driver would have to get out and re-attach them.

3. Every winter the streetcar would derail at least once coming down the hill at 14th st trying to make a turn at 17thave.

They also said it was a pretty bumpy ride, i don't really know how this could happen tho since it's on rail.

Yeah. My grandparents told me cars 60+ years ago didn't have automatic transmissions, suspensions that left a lot to be desired, and some larger trucks even had to be started manually turning a crank. Good to know there's been advancements in the technology since then.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

There we go!

Assuming NC LRT ever gets built, but i doubt it. Too much money.

I think the city planners wanna redevelop Nose Creek into TOD.

There's no land to build TOD on, and they know it. They say that because it's cheaper than saying 'subway'.

I still have never read what the benefits to low floor trains are compared to high floor ones in the context of the SELRT, a route that is mostly in a rail corridor and after that in a tunnel. I'm sure one of you knows, it may even have been mentioned in this thread when I wasn't looking. 7th Ave downtown, I can see benefits for that being low-floor, because it's like a tram, but why bother in a separate ROW? Does it save that much money?