Calgary Public Transit II

[mersar]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

So that's 7 out of 11 once current construction completes, with half of the remaining having airports a long way from the city.

And if you go back 5 or 6 years, it was 1 of 11 (Portland opened in 2001, Minneapolis opened in 2004, Vancouver & Seattle in 2009). In my view it should be something to be studied for long range, but none of the existing ones have existed long enough to prove themselves yet. Plus most of the reasoning I keep hearing isn't the passengers who are flying in/out, its the 15,000 employees that they think will all magically switch to using the train.

And in the case of Vancouver, the airport authority footed something like $300M of the construction bill from what I recall. So if anything ever goes ahead, I sure hope that the airport foots some of the bill here as well.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by mersar

And if you go back 5 or 6 years, it was 1 of 11 (Portland opened in 2001, Minneapolis opened in 2004, Vancouver & Seattle in 2009). In my view it should be something to be studied for long range, but none of the existing ones have existed long enough to prove themselves yet. Plus most of the reasoning I keep hearing isn't the passengers who are flying in/out, its the 15,000 employees that they think will all magically switch to using the train.

And in the case of Vancouver, the airport authority footed something like $300M of the construction bill from what I recall. So if anything ever goes ahead, I sure hope that the airport foots some of the bill here as well.

Yeah. Considering the airport employees is getting closer to the conversation that needs to be had. It's a numbers game, and the numbers are too low at this point. I don't know what the critical number is, but my guess is we might be approaching it in another 10-15 years and after some more airport expansion.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Extremely rare is pushing it, unless we're talking about all airports in the world, regardless of whether their city has light rail or not. Here are the mid sized cities in western North America with light rail:

• Vancouver - train to airport
• Seattle - train to airport
• Portland - train to airport
• Minneapolis - train to airport
• Phoenix - people mover to train under construction
• Salt Lake City - train to airport under construction
• Denver - train (EMU) to airport under construction
  
• Edmonton - rural airport
• Sacramento - rural airport; line under construction planned to reach airport eventually
• San Jose - shuttle bus to LRT
• San Diego - shuttle bus to LRT

So that's 7 out of 11 once current construction completes, with half of the remaining having airports a long way from the city. Not so unusual. And, yes, most of these cities are larger than Calgary, but they're not so much larger, especially from the perspective of the level of LRT infrastructure and ridership.

Part of the problem with airport transit is the cost-benefit definition. I've chosen destinations (especially for quick weekends away) because high quality transit at the airport made it easy for me to get downtown. For instance, I went to Seattle last Labour day weekend, and I wouldn't have if there hadn't been the train to the airport. From the transit agency's point of view, I'm just another $5 fare to be weighed against the cost of construction and operation. But from the point of view of the city as a whole (which is the ultimate source of the money for transit), they got an extra tourist spending hundreds of dollars, with the associated tax revenue. Building LRT to the airport brings in people who may have gone to Edmonton or held their conference in Vancouver, or who may have bypassed the city and gone straight to Banff.

I don't think we need LRT to the airport tomorrow, but it should be in the plans. More to the point, our current system of service is laughable. If you can find it in the middle of a parkade, you can choose between two buses; one provides a slow tour past every industrial building between the terminal and Whitehorn, and the other provides occasional direct service to the middle of a parking lot, where you can catch another bus to somewhere you may want to be. Both have the 30 minute headways today's business traveller demands. I think improved service to the airport (along the lines that CT proposed, assuming decent headways and ideally with an improved station and waiting area) will help quiet some of the demands for airport service.

Good post, and I don't think that your opinion is that different than mine, and I would guess Freeweed's as well.

Basically I would agree with everything you said, and my main gripes are:

1. That airport LRT service (not improved bus, not people mover, but full-blown LRT to the airport) is being ranked, by more people than can be attributed to statistical noise, ahead of lines to the southeast and north central areas of the city. Mayoral candidate Craig Burrows wanted to build LRT to the airport ahead of southeast LRT, and he's not the only one that has proposed this.

2. That every proposal of LRT to the airport hasn't included any mention of where the airport authority would fit into the funding picture. Vancouver built the Canada Line spur to the airport because the YVR airport authority footed the bill for it. I haven't read into it, but I would bet that is the case for most of the airports in your list. If YYC airport is footing the bill for LRT to the airport, I say break ground on it tomorrow.

I'm all for airport LRT, but with conditions that other lines that are needed much more aren't put aside to build the airport line, and that funding scenarios that involve the airport authority are at the very least explored.

Wholly agree on doing what can be done to improve bus service to the airport now though. The route 57/430 combination is abysmal. It will be nice to finally get that express bus from McKnight-Westwinds in a few months and the BRT to/from downtown sometime next year.

[1ajs]

yea i saw that today also when i was looking up snowblower coverage quite surprized good on calgary! now if winnipeg could get a better mayor AGGG!

[DizzyEdge]

You can also add Philadelphia to the list of cities with trains to the airport.
That said I agree that it is not priority. As for bus, would purchase of the future LRT right of away and paving a dedicated bus road be useful? I know for the SELRT it might not be due to the actual construction for the train potentially being started later this decade, but for the airport spur the BRT road would probably wear out before construction of an LRT begins.

[Radley77]

Perhaps the cost, revenue and operating costs between the airport and the City of Calgary could be split based on ridership as a joint partnership?

There are 31,753 trips generated daily by the airport, and a further 30,000 trips generated by the employees. This is 61,753 trips daily generated by the YYC.

I'd be curious what the % modal split for the airport would be. Assuming 12%, (less than Calgary as a whole at 17%, the airport on the one hand needs inbound to have transportation, but parking at the airport is also relatively cheap compared to downtown), then the total trips per day would be 7,410. This is comparable to other moderately heavily used C-train stations locations.

Number of Employees
http://www.calgaryairport.com/Default.aspx?cid=247&lang=1

Passenger Statistics
http://www.calgaryairport.com/Default.aspx?cid=117&lang=1

Modal Split
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/trans_planning/data/2008/mobility_monitor_april.pdf

Ridership by C-Train Station (Weekday Ons and Offs)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070608132311/http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/lrt_ridership.html

[MalcolmTucker]

One thing comparisons to other LRT to airport schemes never do is look at ridership, because it will show how truly abysmal it is, and how pointless the entire project would be. Airports are unique trip generators that aren't easy to serve for many reasons.

1. Employees do not work in one easily serviceable area. While the stat X employees work at the airport seems to be trotted out in these debates, there is a reason they don't take transit now. They are spread out, they have free parking, and they travel at odd times. Since most are traveling outside of peak it is very hard to provide a competitive transit service because you have to draw from the entire city to serve one node.

2. Passengers are reasonably well served by the options today. A fair portion of riders whom would otherwise be captive riders are served by social sources (friends, family), which provide door to door service for a price that can't be beat.

3. The LRT is not a very good option to begin with for trips of this type. Most of the population still needs to take a bus, likely after a rail-rail transfer, to get to their destination. Why ask a friend to pick you up at an LRT station when they are just as willing to pick you up at the airport itself. Business users aren't going to fight crush loads to get downtown on the LRT.

4. Other similar cities have shown how big of a failure building LRT to the airport would be. Portland has 2700 on/offs for 14.6 m pax (6.8% modal assuming 100% of users are passengers), St. Louis has 5000 on/offs at their 2 stations for 12.7 m pax (14% modal share, assuming all are passengers, and none were people just transferring between the two terminals). From the last year data is available in Calgary, a similar result would make the airport one of the worst stations for ridership in the city.

5. Other cities have had outside funding for their links, in Vancouver YVR put in hundreds of millions, in Portland their Port Authority (which operations the airport) put in 23% of the cost of the entire line, Denver has a private funder for 32.5% of the line. The airport has not shown a willingness to pay their share on this project.

6. Alternatives exist that would possibly be cheaper and provide a superior service (hence likely garnering a higher modal share) that might be better able to make some of the cost back from fares. A basic spur from a LRT that has already been extended up to airport trail in the NE is just over 5 km of double electrified track. Vs a single track spur to the nose creek freight line of 3.5 km (and unspecified other improvements to allow at least 15 minute service frequency to downtown).

To be honest, neither is needed. A good coach bus to downtown and normal bus to the LRT is more than enough.

People like the idea of LRT to the airport because they can imagine using it some of the time. This isn't a good reason to build something incredibly expensive when we have much more urgent needs.

[polishavenger]

What I never see in LRT discussions is the possibility of introducing express routes. It would need some by-pass tracks around stations, but I think it would greatly decrease communting time. I often hear about people complaining that the trains are full and they cant get on during rush hour.

[You Need A Thneed]

People may want to check out the city's BRT network plan. You can find it on the council agenda and minutes page, on the agenda for the Jan 19 SPC on land use, planning, and transportation.

I would link, but the links expire quickly.

Highlights:
Short term:
301 enhancements
302 enhancements and extension to South Health Campus
305 extension and enhancements
Airport BRT down centre street
SW crosstown from Westbrook station to Quarry Park (serves MRU) - phase 1 only to Heritage Station
SW woodbine to downtown phase 1

Medium Term:
Brentwood to Saddletowne - serving 16th ave and 52nd street NE
Saddletowne to South Health Campus
SW Westbrook to Quarry Park phase 2
305 enhancements - 17th ave SE corridor enhancements
Downtown to woodbine phase 2

Long Term:
Airport BRT phase 2 - terminal to NE LRT
Sage Hill to Brentwood and to 96th ave NE (connections to NW and NC LRT lines)
Somerset Bridlewood to South Health Campus
162nd Ave SW BRT

[You Need A Thneed]

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

One thing comparisons to other LRT to airport schemes never do is look at ridership, because it will show how truly abysmal it is, and how pointless the entire project would be. Airports are unique trip generators that aren't easy to serve for many reasons.
<Snip>
To be honest, neither is needed. A good coach bus to downtown and normal bus to the LRT is more than enough.

People like the idea of LRT to the airport because they can imagine using it some of the time. This isn't a good reason to build something incredibly expensive when we have much more urgent needs.

The only way I see an LRT to the Airport working is if it was part of a loop (ie connecting Mcknight-Westwinds to Crowfoot to 69th street to Summerset to Mcknight-Westwinds) with the airport authority paying for their station

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

You can also add Philadelphia to the list of cities with trains to the airport.
That said I agree that it is not priority. As for bus, would purchase of the future LRT right of away and paving a dedicated bus road be useful? I know for the SELRT it might not be due to the actual construction for the train potentially being started later this decade, but for the airport spur the BRT road would probably wear out before construction of an LRT begins.

I would question whether or not there would even be a point. 96th Ave/Airport Trail between the 301 on Harvest Hills and the NE LRT at 96th ought to be plenty fast enough for the foreseeable future. I doubt that headways on the busses would justify their own ROW or that traffic on the road would significantly impair the busses speed.

I'm all for planning out Airport Trail to include an LRT ROW from Harvest Hills Boulevard to the NE LRT but doing anything with it is way down on the priority list. Unless the Airport wants to pay for most of it, it has to be below the 8th Ave Subway, the SE LRT, the N LRT, and likely some other lines we have not even considered yet. If the province were to build the HSR earlier it might change matters slightly but I would still want the Centre Street Subway to exist first. That way the line would at least make a connection that might justify some of the cost by allowing NE residents to access the Centre Street corridor without contributing to LRT congestion downtown. It might make sense with the combination of three groups of riders: locals accessing the airport, Albertans making HSR-YYC flight connections, and locals simply using the line to cross to a different LRT line. We would still be talking a post 2030 timeframe in that case.

The thing is Airport connections are pathetic trip generators for cities that have pathetic overall ridership. The cost benefit analysis does not make sense for them. We are in an entirely different situation. They might be sacrificing a routing that generates 10 000 riders for a sexy airport service that generates 5000. We would be spending 500 million (as per Nenshi's rough estimate), from a limited expansion budget, getting 5000 riders when that money could pay for a quarter of the cost of a SE or N LRT that would easily generate more than 100 000 riders. The numbers just do not make sense until we run out of worthwhile routes that attract consistent riders. Our system is a success precisely because we avoided sexy nice to have additions and instead focused on getting people from where they live to where they have to go in a timely manner.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Great ideas for BRT routes. The routes closely approximate what I came up with (Frinkprof and Sperry can confirm). 52nd Street from Saddletown to the South Hospital is a must, as is the 16th avenue BRT. I like where the city is going with this. They can put these in as express routes almost immediately.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The only way I see an LRT to the Airport working is if it was part of a loop (ie connecting Mcknight-Westwinds to Crowfoot to 69th street to Summerset to Mcknight-Westwinds) with the airport authority paying for their station

The problem with an outer circle line is that it would be very long, like 100 kilometres or more of track long, and the only trip generators out that far are the Airport and the SE Hospital. It would be incredibly expensive and there just isn't much out that far to service. We are likely decades away from the N LRT-NE LRT segment making sense, let alone the whole circle. The same problem exists for a complete inner circle but to a much more limited extent. There are a number of trip generators that exist along the path of such a line. These include Chinook Centre and the future TOD to the east, Rockyview Hospital, Mount Royal University, the Westbrook TOD, Foothills Hospital, the University of Calgary, and the Brentwood TOD. That gives us a roughly 14 km long line that might be justifiable despite the extreme cost due to the entire routing requiring elevated and tunnelled sections. It would be roughly a third of the complete circle. The other two thirds would never generate the same kind of ridership and those phases may never be needed at all. They could be on the books for the remainder of the century before construction would be justified.

With an outer circle we are not talking about an expensive and unnecessary two thirds of the route; we are talking about an expensive and unnecessary 90% or more of the route. It is double the current length of track in our city. If we were to develop a complete dream system for the city I could see such an outer circle being on it (along with an inner circle line, a 16th Ave line, a 14th St line, an MRU-17th Ave SE line, and so on) but if we then worked out a timetable for all of this, it would likely be pushed out into the next century before we would seriously consider completing it. The small segment between the NE LRT, the airport, and the N LRT might squeak in somewhere in the 2030-2050 timeframe.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

What I never see in LRT discussions is the possibility of introducing express routes. It would need some by-pass tracks around stations, but I think it would greatly decrease communting time. I often hear about people complaining that the trains are full and they cant get on during rush hour.

It's a non idea thats been brought up before. Property acquisition isn't even an option in most areas, and would be extremely costly in others. Plus the current headways in the downtown will prevent it from even being effective, as you'd either end up clogging up one end or both of each leg with more trains then can be handled, and end up slowing things down. Even if bypassing a couple stations is possible, you might save 5 minutes going from downtown to any terminus, which really isn't worth the hundreds of millions it would probably cost.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by mersar

It's a non idea thats been brought up before. Property acquisition isn't even an option in most areas, and would be extremely costly in others. Plus the current headways in the downtown will prevent it from even being effective, as you'd either end up clogging up one end or both of each leg with more trains then can be handled, and end up slowing things down. Even if bypassing a couple stations is possible, you might save 5 minutes going from downtown to any terminus, which really isn't worth the hundreds of millions it would probably cost.

If I understand New York's express trains correctly they work on a route that has four sets of track. So it essentially means two distinct lines following one path. The express line then stops at, roughly, every third station.

Capacity might be an issue on the S LRT but it is hard to imagine a corridor in Calgary that will ever require two lines to properly service it.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The problem with an outer circle line is that it would be very long, like 100 kilometres or more of track long, and the only trip generators out that far are the Airport and the SE Hospital. It would be incredibly expensive and there just isn't much out that far to service. We are likely decades away from the N LRT-NE LRT segment making sense, let alone the whole circle. The same problem exists for a complete inner circle but to a much more limited extent. There are a number of trip generators that exist along the path of such a line. These include Chinook Centre and the future TOD to the east, Rockyview Hospital, Mount Royal University, the Westbrook TOD, Foothills Hospital, the University of Calgary, and the Brentwood TOD. That gives us a roughly 14 km long line that might be justifiable despite the extreme cost due to the entire routing requiring elevated and tunnelled sections. It would be roughly a third of the complete circle. The other two thirds would never generate the same kind of ridership and those phases may never be needed at all. They could be on the books for the remainder of the century before construction would be justified.

With an outer circle we are not talking about an expensive and unnecessary two thirds of the route; we are talking about an expensive and unnecessary 90% or more of the route. It is double the current length of track in our city. If we were to develop a complete dream system for the city I could see such an outer circle being on it (along with an inner circle line, a 16th Ave line, a 14th St line, an MRU-17th Ave SE line, and so on) but if we then worked out a timetable for all of this, it would likely be pushed out into the next century before we would seriously consider completing it. The small segment between the NE LRT, the airport, and the N LRT might squeak in somewhere in the 2030-2050 timeframe.

Very true, the likelihood of viability of it is so small that a bus on a dedicated right of way on Airport Trail (which currently exists) is a better solution for the foreseeable future, given that the airport tunnel actually happens

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If I understand New York's express trains correctly they work on a route that has four sets of track. So it essentially means two distinct lines following one path. The express line then stops at, roughly, every third station.

Capacity might be an issue on the S LRT but it is hard to imagine a corridor in Calgary that will ever require two lines to properly service it.

Yes, that's exactly how it works, with the express trains travelling along the inside track until its next stop. The A Train Express, for example, stops at 125th heading downtown, then again at 59th street, skipping four or five stations, while travelling 65 blocks. When the train leaves 125th, it goes full speed for that entire trip, basically ripping down the 'fast lane.'

Without double tracks the entire length, an express train wouldn't be able to travel full speed and would have to essentially weave in and out between local trains, making the time savings very limited and not worth the expense. So unless, the entire South line was twinned, there wouldn't be any point to this project.

Of course there wouldn't really be any point either way, as there simply aren't enough passengers or stations to have it make any sense.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Radley77

...I'd be curious what the % modal split for the airport would be. Assuming 12%, (less than Calgary as a whole at 17%, the airport on the one hand needs inbound to have transportation, but parking at the airport is also relatively cheap compared to downtown), then the total trips per day would be 7,410. This is comparable to other moderately heavily used C-train stations locations.

Another thing I think would also really affect its ridership is the odd hours. Unlike downtown, where the majority of people are working the same hours, most airport staff would not be working 9 to 5, and hence wouldn't enjoy peak hour service, making transit much less appealing.

In addition, traffic isn't as big a problem getting to the airport as it is to downtown.

Originally Posted by Radley77

Ridership by C-Train Station (Weekday Ons and Offs)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070608132311/http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/lrt_ridership.html

Those are interesting numbers, although a little outdated. If I had my druthers, I'd shut down the Erlton station, as it is only used ten days a year, and that traffic can be diverted to Stampede station, which even has an extra track and platform. With Erlton gone, perhaps the street crossing at 25th Ave could be eliminated.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by fusili

Great ideas for BRT routes. The routes closely approximate what I came up with (Frinkprof and Sperry can confirm). 52nd Street from Saddletown to the South Hospital is a must, as is the 16th avenue BRT. I like where the city is going with this. They can put these in as express routes almost immediately.

Agreed, and doubly agreed on putting them in as express routes sooner than later. I bet they could implement the short- and medium-term routes on that map, in the way they've done 301, 302, and 305, by the end of this year.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

Those are interesting numbers, although a little outdated. If I had my druthers, I'd shut down the Erlton station, as it is only used ten days a year, and that traffic can be diverted to Stampede station, which even has an extra track and platform. With Erlton gone, perhaps the street crossing at 25th Ave could be eliminated.

Really? I currently use that station every week. And I don't even live in the many condos in the high density area west of it, or in Mission. And there is TOD planned just west of it on Macleod Trail. And I don't get what you mean by eliminating a crossing at 25 ave.

Most of our lesser-used stations are that way because they are in inconvenient locations (eg. 39th ave, future Martindale, Barlow). We don't necessarily need LESS stations, because we aren't running only an express-type service for far-flung suburbanites. Much of our offpeak ridership is people like me using the train just to get around the city.

(Insert rant here about the rather bad design of most of the south line with far apart/far removed stations, and the gaps between Brentwood Dalhousie and Crowfoot)