Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well, why would you want to ruin a perfectly good train by putting buses on it?

The idea is kinda like a BRT system, well not quite. A main line (the low floor train) runs the crosstown, high speed route, while feeder buses move in and out of the ROW. The buses really only stop at one or two stations in a row, but then leave the ROW to do the feeder route. It is just an idea to handle a feeder system without a separate ROW for each vehicle.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by fusili

The idea is kinda like a BRT system, well not quite. A main line (the low floor train) runs the crosstown, high speed route, while feeder buses move in and out of the ROW. The buses really only stop at one or two stations in a row, but then leave the ROW to do the feeder route. It is just an idea to handle a feeder system without a separate ROW for each vehicle.

Combining busses and LRVs on the same station doesn't seem like a very efficient idea. Better to keep the separate so that the delays of one don't affect the other.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Combining busses and LRVs on the same station doesn't seem like a very efficient idea. Better to keep the separate so that the delays of one don't affect the other.

What delays? Buses, stop, board and leave. So would the LRVs. Design the stations so that one of each can fit. It would work exactly like regular BRT stations, like in Bogota, Curitiba, etc etc, except that one of the vehicles would be an LRV.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by fusili

What delays? Buses, stop, board and leave. So would the LRVs. Design the stations so that one of each can fit. It would work exactly like regular BRT stations, like in Bogota, Curitiba, etc etc, except that one of the vehicles would be an LRV.

So, what happens when a customer delays the bus? This happens all the time (fare disputes, disorderly behavior, safety isssues, etc). The LRVs and busses behind the delayed vehicle must wait. For the small savings in land, the potential time delays aren't a good trade-off.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Aegis

So, what happens when a customer delays the bus? This happens all the time (fare disputes, disorderly behavior, safety isssues, etc). The LRVs and busses behind the delayed vehicle must wait. For the small savings in land, the potential time delays aren't a good trade-off.

Off vehicle fare payment.

[freeweed]

I'd love feeder buses to share platforms with the LRT. One of the larger drawbacks with taking the LRT in our climate is the several minutes of needless walking in -20 weather that I have to do twice a day already. It's a huge disincentive towards taking transit for anything but the absolutely essential trips (ie: working downtown).

I'm sure I'm about to be reproached for whining, but the fact of the matter is anything that makes transit "worse" than driving is a bad thing. And this one's a big one with the stupid design of many of our stations. Brentwood I recall being particularly annoying during the winter. I realize much of this is predicated on the design of Crowchild, but why repeat the same mistakes elsewhere only because we've already committed them?

I've always dreamed of a complete redesign of our stations, all with stations on either side of the tracks (a la Lion's Park) where the far side of a larger platform is essentially a long bus bay. Obviously we can't do this on much of the existing C-Train but it's definitely something that should be looked at for the future.

[MalcolmTucker]

Level transfers is fine, but sharing ROW isn't a good idea. You would have to run the trains much slower - last thing you want is a train rear ending a full bus. You would have to set speed limits based on visibility whereas now the signaling system takes care of that.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Level transfers is fine, but sharing ROW isn't a good idea. You would have to run the trains much slower - last thing you want is a train rear ending a full bus. You would have to set speed limits based on visibility whereas now the signaling system takes care of that.

Very true. Unless there was a way to have the signaling system handle the presence of buses as well?

Still would only really work when the tracks aren't full of trains. As it is right now, my train has to stop and wait pretty much every day because there are always 2 trains ahead of it pulling into Crowfoot. Any more traffic on the lines would mean gridlock (I realize that Crowchild wouldn't see buses on the ROW, but the principle is the same on any fully utilized line).

[sim]

Tram and Bus Stop


Here is an example of what you are talking about. Buses use that right of way as well, even though it can't directly be seen in that image. As can be seen, however, these are trams and not Low Floor LRVs but I don't see why it couldn't also work.



I would link the image directly, but for whatever reason I seem to no longer be able to do such things on here.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Very true. Unless there was a way to have the signaling system handle the presence of buses as well?

Still would only really work when the tracks aren't full of trains. As it is right now, my train has to stop and wait pretty much every day because there are always 2 trains ahead of it pulling into Crowfoot. Any more traffic on the lines would mean gridlock (I realize that Crowchild wouldn't see buses on the ROW, but the principle is the same on any fully utilized line).

This is something I've never really understood. I'm not sure it it's at all the end stations, but at Dalhousie the 3rd train would always wait on whichever one was to leave first- before the switch (obviously.)

Why wouldn't the train that pulls in, and after unloading passengers go further past the station, switch there and then line up to load passengers again, allowing any other incoming train to also unload? Seems like a pretty easy solution to me for peak hour service to avoid that wait. Maybe I'm overlooking something?

[freeweed]

Safety issue for the driver, perhaps? Of course they do just this at the end of the day anyway, so who knows.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by sim

Tram and Bus Stop


Here is an example of what you are talking about. Buses use that right of way as well, even though it can't directly be seen in that image. As can be seen, however, these are trams and not Low Floor LRVs but I don't see why it couldn't also work.



I would link the image directly, but for whatever reason I seem to no longer be able to do such things on here.

There the train would be under street rules - the difficulty is adding one bus anywhere in the system impairs the entire rail line. There is no reason a bus should travel along a ROW that carries trains. People can transfer.

I know it would be good for some customers - if we built a system that had customer service as the number one goal (embodied in point to point trips without transfers) we would build a busway like Ottawa's. One of the reasons transit is successful in Calgary is that subsidy constraints to 50% of the operational budget force the system to be run smartly, and to cut routes that might attract more ridership but would cost a lot of money. As more C-Train routes are built better and better feeder bus services can be implemented with the same amount of service increasing frequency far above what could be achieved on a direct to destination service model such as Ottawa's.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by sim

Why wouldn't the train that pulls in, and after unloading passengers go further past the station, switch there and then line up to load passengers again, allowing any other incoming train to also unload? Seems like a pretty easy solution to me for peak hour service to avoid that wait. Maybe I'm overlooking something?

Just a matter of system design. The Skytrain in Vancouver operates like this at King George station I believe, though having the trains automated it does change things slightly. Though I'm not so sure that it would actually speed thins up in reality, though it may seem faster (what it would do is force everyone to board all at once, rather then staggered over the 3-10 minutes the train is waiting at the terminal station)

[Cage]

Skytrains automated system is a big advantage to having separate loading and unloading platforms at the terminal stations. Trains can switch directions in about 30 seconds.

At Crowfoot Ctrain station it takes about 3-4 minutes for a driver to shutdown at one end, walk to the other end, startup and go. At present this is accomplished by completing shut down and lock off while passengers are disembarking (about 45 seconds). By the time the last passenger has left Ctrain the driver is has walked about 1/3 the way up the train. The time spent unloading and locking off would have to be separated and likely take the train longer than 5 minutes to turn around.

The solution however can be found in New York Subway. The Subway employs extra drivers such that there is a driver stationed at the other end to hop on and immediately begin startup procedures. If this were done at Crowfoot there would be 2-4 minutes of savings. Addiitonally the drivers could do breaks during the down time (e.g. station 3 extra drivers at Crowfoot to account for 15 minute break.

[MalcolmTucker]

^^^ Makes sense once frequencies warrant, but I can't see it being a technical limitation on capacity until the subway is built.

[sim]

Originally Posted by mersar

Just a matter of system design. The Skytrain in Vancouver operates like this at King George station I believe, though having the trains automated it does change things slightly. Though I'm not so sure that it would actually speed thins up in reality, though it may seem faster (what it would do is force everyone to board all at once, rather then staggered over the 3-10 minutes the train is waiting at the terminal station)

No no, I mean the one train (let´s call it the 2nd in the sequence) would then go wait out in the back to make way for the 3rd one (incoming) thus still allowing for the 1st one (the one due to leave) to have plenty of time to load. Once it zips out, the 2nd one pulls up, becoming the new 1st one, and repeat.

I think even with the current system this is possible isn´t it? Isn't there a switch behind the station? There should be!

[MalcolmTucker]

Solution in search of a problem.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Solution in search of a problem.

How can you imply it's not a problem? Sitting on a motionless train for upwards of 5 minutes on the way home (and then often missing your feeder bus) is a huge pain in the ass for hundreds of people at a time. And this goes on for hours every evening.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Solution in search of a problem.

Originally Posted by freeweed

How can you imply it's not a problem? Sitting on a motionless train for upwards of 5 minutes on the way home (and then often missing your feeder bus) is a huge pain in the ass for hundreds of people at a time. And this goes on for hours every evening.

I have to agree with Freeweed and Sim here. If the problem isn't the need to increase frequency (at least right now, and likely not until well after the tunnel is built), then it is the need to decrease travel times and/or improve reliability, as Freeweed points out.

The next bottleneck after the 7th Avenue interlining is the speed of turnarounds at the terminus stations.

[MalcolmTucker]

The solutions above have significant capital and operational costs. Easier to solve is to keep faster runs closer to schedule, by perhaps advising slower speed limits for the last couple sections of a run when a train is going fast, or by accounting for the faster run time at different times of the day in schedules.

To have to wait five minutes is likely an exaggeration - it means a particular train basically caught up with the one ahead of it. If it happens continuously (almost like a standing traffic wave) it means the schedule is wrong.

If you attempt solve the problem at the ends by clearing trains faster without improving the scheduels, you will just end up with a pack of trains traveling, each being delayed by the one in front of it along the entire line rather than solely at the termini. (this happens in Toronto on the streetcars which comply with timetables in only rough form since they don't use signaling, so much so that trains are canceled and reversed mid run to try to rebalance the line.)

May have to try to fix this in the future when headways get really short and trains get longer (likely won't be able to walk a 5 car train and complete a shutdown and startup in 4 minutes) but with frequencies at two minutes I have no doubt there will be more than enough people taking breaks at the termini to make quick handoffs the norm.