Calgary Public Transit II

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by fusili

This is nonsense. Monorails are good for two things: amusement parks and massive airports. For everything else, they are useless.

THat's a pretty non-objective thing to say. Centre street is not an amusement park or a massive airport but it would benefit from the following attributes of an elevated rail:

Increased transportation capacity in comparison to a tram due to right of way
Reduced cost in comparison to subway due to less spent in burrowing a line

I think there are some better examples of effective elevated rail systems out there that would be better analogs.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Radley77

THat's a pretty non-objective thing to say. Centre street is not an amusement park or a massive airport but it would benefit from the following attributes of an elevated rail:

Increased transportation capacity in comparison to a tram due to right of way
Reduced cost in comparison to subway due to less spent in burrowing a line

I think there are some better examples of effective elevated rail systems out there that would be better analogs.

First, there is a difference between elevated rail and a monorail. Don't confuse the two. Monorails are systems that use a single rail, and the train kinda "hugs" the rail or either side. Monorails don't function very well at grade, because they need to have two trenches dug on either side of the rail to function, which is a massive safety hazard (people can fall in and get trapped). The same goes for underground construction. Monorails are not the same as elevated rails.

But in terms of elevated rail for Centre street I have the following questions/comments:
- Where would the supports go? Are you planning on having them in the middle of Centre Street? That would negate the existing lane reversal and would be a massive safety hazard on the road. Or maybe you want them on the side? That would destroy any potential Centre Street has as a pedestrian commercial corridor, not to mention the visual disruption of the ROW itself. Either way, an elevated rail over Centre Street would make vehicle traffic or pedestrian traffic horrendous. Any other alignment would require incredible amounts of property acquisition.
- How would the elevated rail get through the downtown? Every corridor is blocked by a +15.
- What would the stations look like and where would the station heads go?
- Where would the elevated portion being/end?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I think there are some better examples of effective elevated rail systems out there that would be better analogs.

I agree, there is one good example of elevated rail systems I know: Berlin. Berlin is a viaduct that is not built over an existing street ROW. That would be nearly impossible in Calgary.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by fusili

First, there is a difference between elevated rail and a monorail. Don't confuse the two. Monorails are systems that use a single rail, and the train kinda "hugs" the rail or either side. Monorails don't function very well at grade, because they need to have two trenches dug on either side of the rail to function, which is a massive safety hazard (people can fall in and get trapped). The same goes for underground construction. Monorails are not the same as elevated rails.

But in terms of elevated rail for Centre street I have the following questions/comments:
- Where would the supports go? Are you planning on having them in the middle of Centre Street? That would negate the existing lane reversal and would be a massive safety hazard on the road. Or maybe you want them on the side? That would destroy any potential Centre Street has as a pedestrian commercial corridor, not to mention the visual disruption of the ROW itself. Either way, an elevated rail over Centre Street would make vehicle traffic or pedestrian traffic horrendous. Any other alignment would require incredible amounts of property acquisition.
- How would the elevated rail get through the downtown? Every corridor is blocked by a +15.
- What would the stations look like and where would the station heads go?
- Where would the elevated portion being/end?

I don't know if the entire thing should be built elevated rail but there are definitely some sections that this is going to be I think a clearer better option:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=centre+stre...eoURO45inJvZoj7aw&cbp=11,352.03,,0,-3.03

Elevated rail and monorail in particular can be suprising flexible meaning it could be cantilevered over existing sidewalks or thoroughfares. As for the +15 system, it actually could be well integrated with the +15 system rising above it where necessary, and creating station platforms and wrapping around building in other cases.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by fusili

This is nonsense. Monorails are good for two things: amusement parks and massive airports. For everything else, they are useless.

The Chongqing Monorail delivers 140 million annual rides on a 19km network, so I wouldn't exactly call that useless. But the reason they use monorail in Chongqing is due to the hilly terrain, since monorails can climb hills much better than regular trains can.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

First, there is a difference between elevated rail and a monorail. Don't confuse the two. Monorails are systems that use a single rail, and the train kinda "hugs" the rail or either side. Monorails don't function very well at grade, because they need to have two trenches dug on either side of the rail to function, which is a massive safety hazard (people can fall in and get trapped). The same goes for underground construction. Monorails are not the same as elevated rails.

But in terms of elevated rail for Centre street I have the following questions/comments:
- Where would the supports go? Are you planning on having them in the middle of Centre Street? That would negate the existing lane reversal and would be a massive safety hazard on the road. Or maybe you want them on the side? That would destroy any potential Centre Street has as a pedestrian commercial corridor, not to mention the visual disruption of the ROW itself. Either way, an elevated rail over Centre Street would make vehicle traffic or pedestrian traffic horrendous. Any other alignment would require incredible amounts of property acquisition.
- How would the elevated rail get through the downtown? Every corridor is blocked by a +15.
- What would the stations look like and where would the station heads go?
- Where would the elevated portion being/end?

Elevated rail would not necessarily be the death of a pedestrian commercial corridor. People have dealt with worse than the shadows and other cities function fine with elevated track. That said, it would really be a non-starter in an existing corridor. The residents and businesses would fight it tooth and nail. It would also be, as you point out, impossible to integrate elevated track into the downtown core. The plus-15 system negates elevated track downtown and dropping it into a subway to join the SELRT would be a nightmare. It just does not make sense for the NLRT. That said, it could make sense in other corridors where opposition may not be present and integration is not an issue. It would not preclude the development of urban spaces in those corridors. The elevated portion of the WLRT seems fine to me. We should remain open to the concept but only for routes where it makes sense.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Elevated rail would not necessarily be the death of a pedestrian commercial corridor. People have dealt with worse than the shadows and other cities function fine with elevated track. That said, it would really be a non-starter in an existing corridor. The residents and businesses would fight it tooth and nail. It would also be, as you point out, impossible to integrate elevated track into the downtown core. The plus-15 system negates elevated track downtown and dropping it into a subway to join the SELRT would be a nightmare. It just does not make sense for the NLRT. That said, it could make sense in other corridors where opposition may not be present and integration is not an issue. It would not preclude the development of urban spaces in those corridors. The elevated portion of the WLRT seems fine to me. We should remain open to the concept but only for routes where it makes sense.

With respect to the pedestrian environment thought I could share some pictures of how it could be integrated. I agree that it might be fought tooth and nail, but compared to a subway which if built using cut and cover could also be fiercely fought by motorists during a long construction phase, or a tram which would also have construction issues and similar noise issues to monorail as well as being fought by motorist. I would think many longer term business owners would like the idea because it would increase connectivity to customers, similar to a subway. If an elevated rail would be several $100 million less compared to a subway, maybe this is something that could be considered. Also, something to consider is that subways would have identical issues with respect to accessiblity (wheelchairs) as elevated rail. Another benefit of the elevated rail from a safety standpoint is it might be more open and benefit from 'eyes on the street.'

Below is a couple examples of possible integration:

Sydney Monorail - Possible integration into the +15 network cantilevered over sidewalk, imagine this during gridlock



Wuppertal Monorail - with pedestrian market underneath



Wolmido Monorail - a very 'light' and flexible design

[Bassic Lab]

You have just proven our point. How is that in anyway able to integrate with the plus-15 network? It is going straight through the place where we have the walkways. All three of your examples have incredibly limited capacity. First of all they are single track. Add another track to allow bidirectional travel and shadowing concerns become major issues. Second, they are very light systems. They cannot support multi train consists or large carriages.

You have pointed out some networks that are essentially toy systems. They serve a purpose on small loops, like in an airport, but are not capable of replacing the kind of system that a main radial line needs. A heavy duty system, like that in Chongqing, is more comparable to any other elevated rail network. It takes up space, it casts shadows, and it needs real supports.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

You have just proven our point. How is that in anyway able to integrate with the plus-15 network?

Well one could just have the elevated rail run have stations right on the +15 network, and where need be it can have a slow grade up and over the +15.

Sure there is going to be a tradeoff by putting it as elevated versus subway. It depends on how much one values shadowing issues versus costs of burrowing. If I had unlimited funds I'd put in a subway all the way. Perhaps there are portions of the system that can be above and below grade. An elevated rail centre street route might be capital efficient enough to compete with a project like the Nose Creek LRT for prioritization.

[frinkprof]

Are you fucking serious Lyle Lanley? Although, to be fair I could see your monorail proposal working in Ogdenville and North Haverbrookn.

As usual, a wonderfully researched idea... that ignores several important details that would make its application, as you are proposing it, a failure, if at all possible. Over-thought and half-baked.

You quoted and responded to part of Bassic Lab's post, but what about the rest of it?

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

You have just proven our point. How is that in anyway able to integrate with the plus-15 network? It is going straight through the place where we have the walkways. All three of your examples have incredibly limited capacity. First of all they are single track. Add another track to allow bidirectional travel and shadowing concerns become major issues. Second, they are very light systems. They cannot support multi train consists or large carriages.

You have pointed out some networks that are essentially toy systems. They serve a purpose on small loops, like in an airport, but are not capable of replacing the kind of system that a main radial line needs. A heavy duty system, like that in Chongqing, is more comparable to any other elevated rail network. It takes up space, it casts shadows, and it needs real supports.

What about these points from fusili?

Originally Posted by fusili

- What would the stations look like and where would the station heads go?
- Where would the elevated portion being/end?

As far as shadows go, in Sydney and China it may be fine to have pedestrian traffic under elevated lines, and even things like markets, etc. in some areas. In Calgary, shadows are a killer. Due to our elevation and climate, shadows can make a space uncomfortably cold in all but the warmest weeks (not months, it really is a matter of weeks) of the year. A cool-ish evening in late spring sitting/walking in the sun would be ruined if you had to walk under a structure. Nevermind winter. It's why the (much-maligned by height enthusiasts) shadow laws are so important. Any significant shadowing on the wonderful river paths would be their death knell, and the same goes for any potential of Centre Street as a pedestrian corridor.

Both fusili and Bassic Lab have said it best already - monorails work best (or, at all) as circulators in very set circumstances, which usually apply only to amusement parks, airports and sometimes college campuses. Downtown applications are mostly toys, and low-capacity ones at that.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Both fusili and Bassic Lab have said it best already - monorails work best (or, at all) as circulators in very set circumstances, which usually apply only to amusement parks, airports and sometimes college campuses. Downtown applications are mostly toys, and low-capacity ones at that.

I could perhaps see monorail as a people mover from the airport to a HSR station, onto a connection with a center st. subway, especially if significant bridging is required over Deerfoot/Nose Hill Creek.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Are you fucking serious Lyle Lanley? Although, to be fair I could see your monorail proposal working in Ogdenville and North Haverbrookn.

I hate to be someone who just responds with but ...

That was pure awesomesauce. I thought the exact same thing when I learned about Calgary's neighbourhoods.

Fortunately, Batman's a scientist.

[artvandelay]

A little OT but check this out - I was browsing through Glenbow Archives and found this:

New 12 passenger buses for the Dial-A-Ride service from Calgary Transit were put into operation. The newest addition to the Dial-A-Ride service had extended head space and extended rush hour times. By calling a number, passengers could be picked up by their homes and taken to a commuter station

First time I've heard of this - pretty much a free taxi service, seems terribly inefficient.

[freeweed]

Winnipeg had something very much like this when I lived there, not sure if it still exists.

Basically instead of running buses continually on a route, the bus would sit parked somewhere until "hailed" - then it would come get you at a designated stop ("by their homes" is how the CT description puts it) and drop you off at a designated stop shared by the major bus routes (in Calgary's case, maybe a C-Train station too).

For very underutilized routes, it saves fuel and running buses needlessly. It's not really like a cab, it doesn't come right to your house and it only drops you off at a few designated spots. The far-flung Winnipeg burbs had this, and used vehicles similar this this - basically glorified vans.

It's a neat idea but was a huge pain in the ass in the days before cellphones. The service worked in reverse, too - so you'd have to use a payphone from the major commuter station, hail the bus, wait until it got to you, and then tell the driver where to drop you off.

[MalcolmTucker]

Dial a bus actually saves money but can only be effective in areas of low ridership otherwise the scale tips the other way. I could see something like dial-a-bus coming back if Calgary Transit wanted to concentrate more on BRT type service that might require people to walk a bit further than the current transit standard. Usually they operate covering territory where a 'pulse' system even provides too much capacity outside of a peak period, so they replace 2 or 3 normal routes with a single dial a bus.

Government of Ontario ran a similar service in Toronto for a while http://www.angelfire.com/ca/TORONTO/history/GOdialabus.html
while St Albert continues to operate a similar system now http://www.stalbert.ca/dial-a-bus-service

[para transit fellow]

Airdrie's evening service is a dial-a-bus (AKA demand response)

[frinkprof]

Tomorrow will be the first day of revenue service for the new LRT cars, including the new seating arrangement. So far, just one train will be in service on weekdays and weekends. I believe it will serve the 201 - South/Northwest line. We will see more coming online though over the next few months as new cars arrive, are prepared, tested, and commissioned, and drivers are trained.

For those who don't remember from the first page, this is what they will look like.

Exterior:



New Seating Arrangement:



Video:

• Video Link

[Pavlov]

^ The move to this new seating arrangement is a big improvement. That, plus the air conditioning, will make the cars much more pleasant during rushes.

[freeweed]

Wow, I hope it's just the picture and the real thing is better. Those of us who ride the train regularly notice one thing people do here that's more annoying than anything else - they jam up the doorways instead of moving into the train cars. And then when people are trying to enter/exit, it's a massive push just to get past the 8 idiots who don't seem to realize that if you're not getting off at the next stop, DON'T STAND IN THE ENTRANCE.

Those pics show a near-solid maze of bars and handles. Which could easily dissuade people from moving in even more. I really hope it's just a bad pic.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Wow, I hope it's just the picture and the real thing is better. Those of us who ride the train regularly notice one thing people do here that's more annoying than anything else - they jam up the doorways instead of moving into the train cars. And then when people are trying to enter/exit, it's a massive push just to get past the 8 idiots who don't seem to realize that if you're not getting off at the next stop, DON'T STAND IN THE ENTRANCE.

Those pics show a near-solid maze of bars and handles. Which could easily dissuade people from moving in even more. I really hope it's just a bad pic.

At least the walls around the doors look to be gone? Part of the reason the doors get clogged up is it is to easy to just lean against the wall there rather than moving further in and grabbing a rail.

People need to be a bit more outgoing in this city sometimes. Speaking up and saying "buddy, put down the paper and move in so other people can get on the train" would clue in the clueless or at least embarrass them into doing the right thing.