Calgary Public Transit II - Page 140

monocle · #**2781** Posted **Mar 29, 2011, 11:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radley77

No way! The Willy is such a versatile vehichle. I have used it from everything for hauling around slough pumps to climbing steep coulee hills and picking rocks. My dad said he has seen the City of Calgary's CJ's roaming around and I had been looking out for them. They really would be perfect for clearing a bike or bus lane.

I vote for the City to contract 250 of these:

from this guy:

http://www-bdnew.fnal.gov/pbar/organizationalchart/peterson/snowplow_files/Bike_Plow.html

Maybe the Cops on Bike patrol could drag them around with them?

Rational Plan3 · #**2782** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Without physical separation, you get people cheating all the time and using the lane, either consciously or by accident. A physical barrier makes it very obvious and is more or less self enforcing. The whole point is to make the buses faster by removing traffic from the lane. Without the barrier, the exercise seems rather pointless, as traffic will impede the buses anyway. As well, the cost of enforcing the rules and using police time to do so is probably more expensive in the long run then using the barriers (if done inexpensively).

A good example is the 10th avenue bicycle lane. Not a single driver knows it is there, and absolutely no one respects the lane. Without the physical barrier, people completely ignore the rules.

The simple solution is cameras on the front of buses. This was the solution in London with a £100 fine for infringement. within a short time no one cut into a bus lane anymore.

DizzyEdge · #**2783** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

The simple solution is cameras on the front of buses. This was the solution in London with a £100 fine for infringement. within a short time no one cut into a bus lane anymore.

How would that work exactly, as in would someone need to review all the video from every bus that uses the ROW every day?

I'm assuming not, but unsure how it would work.

mersar · #**2784** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

How would that work exactly, as in would someone need to review all the video from every bus that uses the ROW every day?

I'm assuming not, but unsure how it would work.

GPS to trigger where it actually records (and where it doesnt), image recognition to detect license plate numbers, and it is essentially automated. Might be an idea to have someone review the video/photo before its mailed but its not too much. Really no less work then what CPA does currently for parkplus violation tickets which work on a similar principle.

DizzyEdge · #**2785** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

GPS to trigger where it actually records (and where it doesnt), image recognition to detect license plate numbers, and it is essentially automated. Might be an idea to have someone review the video/photo before its mailed but its not too much. Really no less work then what CPA does currently for parkplus violation tickets which work on a similar principle.

Oh ok, yeah image recognition would take care of it.

Bigtime · #**2786** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 2:13 PM**

I'm interested to see what you all think of this article:

Quote:

C-Train system is costly and inefficient

By Steve Lafleur, Calgary Herald March 30, 2011

Calgary's C-Train is turning 30 this May. While this anniversary will no doubt be met with fanfare, it is also an opportunity to examine the performance of the system.

Has the C-Train delivered value for money? More importantly, does expanding the C-Train make sense for the city? Sadly, the answer to both questions is no.

Light-rail transit has become a fad among urban planners in mid-sized North American cities. They argue that LRT is a happy medium between buses and subways. In reality, LRT combines the disadvantages of both. LRT is slow, inflexible and expensive. Moreover, the C-Train has exacerbated the very problem it is meant to fix: rampant urban sprawl.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Train+system+costly+inefficient/4526384/story.html#ixzz1I5m4qa4W

fusili · #**2787** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm interested to see what you all think of this article:

This deserves a triple facepalm. Jean-Luc Picard, John Stewart and Homer no less.

Bigtime · #**2788** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 2:29 PM**

That's about what I was expecting. Although I can't find it online Naomi Lakritz has an editorial in today's paper as a rebuttal to this article, and she makes some excellent counterpoints.

fusili · #**2789** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 2:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

That's about what I was expecting. Although I can't find it online Naomi Lakritz has an editorial in today's paper as a rebuttal to this article, and she makes some excellent counterpoints.

Am I going to agree with Naomi Lakritz? Oh please no, I thought the world had more time. It is all over!!!!!

MalcolmTucker · #**2790** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Through creative accounting, some proponents of LRT have created the illusion that the C-Train is cost effective. They point to the C-Train's lower operating costs compared with buses. However, the massive capital costs of LRT swamp the operatingcost savings. Take the proposed southeast C-Train extension.

If we had a unitary state that would be the case, but upper levels provide for capital cost, and lower levels cover operating costs. The city has massive incentive to reduce operational costs as much as people.

You Need A Thneed · #**2791** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 2:52 PM**

The article seems to completely ignore the capital cost of the roads the buses drive on as well. If we didn't have the LRT, we'd need a couple more freeways into downtown, and that would cost more money than the LRT ever would.

fusili · #**2792** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The article seems to completely ignore the capital cost of the roads the buses drive on as well. If we didn't have the LRT, we'd need a couple more freeways into downtown, and that would cost more money than the LRT ever would.

19 more lanes, IIRC.

The problem with all analyses like these that look at capital costs of transit, never, ever compare them to the capital costs of roads. How much money does it cost in capital and maintenance to provide roads. Deerfoot Trail isn't free, neither are interchanges.

You Need A Thneed · #**2793** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

19 more lanes, IIRC.

The problem with all analyses like these that look at capital costs of transit, never, ever compare them to the capital costs of roads. How much money does it cost in capital and maintenance to provide roads. Deerfoot Trail isn't free, neither are interchanges.

And, after a winter like this last one, most of the roads in Calgary need repaving.

You Need A Thneed · #**2794** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:20 PM**

And, had Calgary never built an LRT, and had built 19 more lanes of Freeway into downtown, we'd be looking at how to switch to LRT or subway now.

Plus. we'd have one ugly, undesirable downtown.

monocle · #**2795** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Oh ok, yeah image recognition would take care of it.

Or RFID tags embedded in Registration stickers. That way, we'd be all set to turn Macleod and Crowchild into Toll Roads for all the bedroom community commuters!

fusili · #**2796** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by monocle

Or RFID tags embedded in Registration stickers. That way, we'd be all set to turn Macleod and Crowchild into Toll Roads for all the bedroom community commuters!

Anybody ever thought of having a congestion charge to enter the Centre City? Implementation would not be too hard, as you would only have to control 15 points of entry (bridges and underpasses from the Beltline). Obviously not something we would do in the short term, just an idea I am throwing out there for discussion.

srperrycgy · #**2797** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:50 PM**

Mr. Lafleur's "comments" are idiotic. If they came from The Sun, I'd understand. What would his solution be? Agree with the triple facepalm.

Disagree with the congestion charge though. Existing high parking rates probably act in the same fashion.

You Need A Thneed · #**2798** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Disagree with the congestion charge though. Existing high parking rates probably act in the same fashion.

Yeah, I don't think we need both high parking rates and a congestion charge. I'd probably prefer high parking rates to a congestion charge.

MalcolmTucker · #**2799** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Anybody ever thought of having a congestion charge to enter the Centre City? Implementation would not be too hard, as you would only have to control 15 points of entry (bridges and underpasses from the Beltline). Obviously not something we would do in the short term, just an idea I am throwing out there for discussion.

Easier just to up the existing parking spot specific tax (think it was either brought in or last upped under Duerr), and to be honest Calgary's congestion isn't that bad. A whole heck of a lot congestion isn't connected with the centre city either.

Plus Calgary's congestion is mostly as a result of a very narrow peak, which other strategies could address better than a flat area charge.

fusili · #**2800** Posted **Mar 30, 2011, 4:11 PM**

Yeah, a congestion charge seems a bit too much to me. Just a thought. Parking is expensive enough already and does the job. In 30 years maybe, and probably not even then.