Calgary Public Transit II

[Ridge]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

As pointed out earlier, anecdotal evidence about capacity constraints on the northwest line are troublesome because the capacity allotment on the northwest line is dictated by the much busier south line, which is over capacity. The northwest line needs more capacity not because of ridership in the northwest, but because it is coupled with the south line, whose ridership creates a need for more capacity.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the welcome! I've been a long-time lurker, and really appreciate the general quality of the discussions here. Consider me a fan.

I understand the need for more capacity on the NW-S line in order to recover from capacity issues on the South line. However, if I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons to delay the Tuscany station that's been advanced above is that the NW line is over capacity, such that a new station shouldn't be added that would aggravate that situation. Sorry if I was picking on a straw man - maybe that's not a live issue.

If we're just talking about south line capacity, and the need to increase it, I agree. I just don't think anything can be done in the medium-term other than the existing expansion to 4 car trains. The next step is a subway.

I'm not sure if we're still on the topic of the Tuscany extension, but if we are, then capacity issues on the South line are irrelevant to the decision to spend an additional 60 million to finish an extension in the NW. It would be quite inefficient to postpone all transit improvements until we can come up with a billion or two to build both subway lines downtown.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

I totally agree here. Freeweed is right saying that the capacity issues really didn't exist (at least on the NW line) until Dalhousie opened. But they are very real today. Two friends of mine moved to Bridgeland about 5 years ago. They spent a week trying to get on the train, and each time waited more than 20 minutes to catch a train, sometimes more. They gave up and eventually moved away.

I agree with Frink in that capacity issues need to be addressed before expansions. 4 car trains are going to go a long way to help solve this. But I am going to be crazy here and say that the Stephan Avenue Subway should be delayed. Building the Stephan avenue subway means we get additional capacity on 2 lines. Building the 2nd street subway means we get two entirely new lines (SE and NC). The 2nd street subway will probably be more expensive, but in terms of the increased number of riders, I say it is a much larger benefit. The SE and NC will have catchments of approx 160K and 200K respectively, after the build-out of the areas under the north and southeast regional context studies.

It really depends on the result of four car trains on the system but the idea of new lines instead of the 8 Ave Subway is flawed. The subway study (when is that thing going to be released anyway, I feel like we've been waiting for it forever) should give more definitive numbers but I would easily expect the difference in cost between the two to be an order of magnitude. It is much easier to come up with a few hundred million than four or five billion. With numbers like that it ceases to be an either/or proposition; the cost of a combined N-SE line being so massive that it is in its own category while the 8 Ave Subway would merely be a large project not wholly unlike the current extensions or the GE5. It would be like creating a conflict between whether we needed the ring road or the GE5; it might not have mattered which was done first but the cost was not comparable and without the province stepping in we simply could not have managed the latter. That issue might be mitigated by building the SE LRT and waiting to extend it to the north but 2 billion is still nothing like 300 million.

There might also be issues with construction that mean it makes the most sense to build significant segments of both subways at the same time. They will have to interact around the intersection of 8 Ave and 2 St, one passing over the other and some attempt at an integrated transfer station for both.

Really, if 2015 rolls around and we have used up the capacity bump from four car trains then it is definitely time to look into the 8 Ave subway. Unless other levels of government decide to start showering us with infrastructure money, the choice won't be between the 8 Ave subway and the N-SE line; it will be between the 8 Ave subway now or save for another five years for just the SE in 2020. Remember, it was a Calgary Transit official who said that we will need the 8 Ave subway and ought to build it before anything else.

[Ferreth]

As a rider of LRT @ Barlow/Maxbell up until shortly after the McKnight/Westwinds station opened, I was of the opinion that LRT hit a "quality capacity" at that point. By "quality capacity" I mean that it is still possible to cram more people/hr on the LRT but it is becoming markedly more unpleasant for the people having to cram on, by either having to wait for the next train or squeeze on beyond what most people are comfortable with for personal space. Since we usually had to wait for the south train to clear the tracks entering downtown, I got to see that train most mornings, it was always packed to capacity, outside of some vacation periods. I was coming in for 7:30 in the morning, no choice beyond coming in early, like so many others downtown. So yeah, when Bronco announced he was going to expand NW/NE LRT for his last election campaign, I certainly wasn't a supporter.

I would point out that if we really want TOD in the inner city, then the LRT has to have some spare capacity to support it. Frankly, if I lived in the Bridges, I'd just walk to DT every day, even in the middle of the winter as the LRT is too crowded - especially in the middle of winter when I really would want to use it. So, if 4 car LRT's are only going to fix the problem for the next 10 years, we should be planning 8th avenue subway now. As long as we keep expanding current lines further out, and building new lines to the edges of the city, it doesn't do anything to encourage people to choose to live closer in.

I'd also point out that station numbers are not all we should judge station worthiness by - future expansion potential, and tourist destination status should factor in too - the Zoo station has low ridership number, but I wouldn't skip having an LRT station there; I'm sure lots of tourists appreciate being able to stay downtown, walk/LRT to the Stampede, then take the LRT to the Zoo, among other destinations.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Riise

Allotting Capacity
Are there any creative ways that CT could ensure users down the line on inbound rush hour services could more easily get a spot on the train? A while back I mentioned Skip-Stop service but I'm not sure if that could work or even be useful in Calgary. Another idea proposed a while back was using four car trains today with the fourth car being an express car and only calling at the terminal and 7th Ave stations. What if we took the idea of the fourth car calling at limited stations and applied it to three car trains?

Instead of short-turning trains at stations like Whitehorn or Southland, a train would start at Somerset as an Out Of Service train and would not open its doors until it reached Southland. Although the train would essentially be deadheading, it would be full by the time it got to the core and it would help spread the stress.

It's a good idea and I think you're heart is in the right place but I can see a big loop hole in the plan.

When the train gets to Southland I could see a lot of the standing passengers in the other three cars getting off at the platform and moving to the fourth car to get a seat. So by the time the train got to 39th all cars would have equal occupancy.

I think the city is just gonna have to bite the bullet.

1. 8th ave Subway
2. We're gonna need to built a C-train storage depot at 194 ave with an extension at Silverado to accommodate 5 car stations.
3. 5 car platforms
4. Buy a whack load of trains
5. SE LRT
6. East/West BRT routes

I wanna see this done by 2020. Let's take to the streets and protest all levels of government.

[Ridge]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

As a rider of LRT @ Barlow/Maxbell up until shortly after the McKnight/Westwinds station opened, I was of the opinion that LRT hit a "quality capacity" at that point. By "quality capacity" I mean that it is still possible to cram more people/hr on the LRT but it is becoming markedly more unpleasant for the people having to cram on, by either having to wait for the next train or squeeze on beyond what most people are comfortable with for personal space.

I can see your point - but CTrains are expensive, and in order to justify major capital expenditures they have to be very well used, no? The bigger numbers the better, up to the point of people not being able to get on the train, in my opinion. We need to squeeze every passenger we can out of the existing system and have it running as efficiently as possible in order to present the best possible case to every level of government for additional funding for major capacity expansions.

Edit: Sometimes people here talk enviously about the transit systems in major centers, but I've never been so squeezed as I was on the London Tube on a regular basis. It's that kind of usage that justifies massive capital investment.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's a good idea and I think you're heart is in the right place but I can see a big loop hole in the plan.

When the train gets to Southland I could see a lot of the standing passengers in the other three cars getting off at the platform and moving to the fourth car to get a seat. So by the time the train got to 39th all cars would have equal occupancy.

I think the city is just gonna have to bite the bullet.

1. 8th ave Subway
2. We're gonna need to built a C-train storage depot at 194 ave with an extension at Silverado to accommodate 5 car stations.
3. 5 car platforms
4. Buy a whack load of trains
5. SE LRT
6. East/West BRT routes

I wanna see this done by 2020. Let's take to the streets and protest all levels of government.

I agree - but the City is going to have to get a lot of funding from the provincial and federal governments. Those 6 projects are like $3.5-$4.0 billion.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Ridge

I can see your point - but CTrains are expensive, and in order to justify major capital expenditures they have to be very well used, no? The bigger numbers the better, up to the point of people not being able to get on the train, in my opinion.

I disagree. I get what you're saying, as a theory, but in practice I don't think that philosophy works. If you see added capacity as only truly a need when no one can physically fit on anymore, that doesn't mean that it is every potential rider's "breaking point." Not everyone feels comfortable squeezing onto a train that is 100% minus one person full, especially when there are other travel options for them to weigh it against. I seem to recall a report mentioning that somewhere around 95% of the vehicle's physical capacity is when most people will feel uncomfortable about riding, and thus boarding it. Considering the South line has been at this point for some time, and the other lines are beginning to realize this as well, it raises a few questions:

1. How many people have tried boarding for some time, and via their mixed experiences with squeezing on, not wanting to squeeze on, and being physically unable to squeeze on to any number of trains, have decided to not try any longer?

2. How many people have merely heard via friends or coworkers or just seeing a few passing trains about the difficulty with boarding and dismissed any fleeting thoughts about taking transit?

3. How many former riders, who rode daily for months or years have experienced the LRT's crowding grow and surpass their comfort levels and have subsequently chosen other travel options, never to return, or perhaps to only return when the level of crowding has been mitigated?

Basically, I'm saying that it's not just the few people on the platform this coming September 1st (LRT ridership is highest in fall and winter) that we are losing out on, its those people, plus all others who either were on the platform a week earlier than that and gave up, or might walk onto the platform the following week if they get the impression that there will be a space for them.

I'm suggesting that there probably exists a level of pent up demand for the LRT service, should the capacity for them actually be provided. A prediction I've been formulating for some time is that 4 car train service implementation (it won't be all train consists at first, it might be as many as 50% of them, and then ramping up from there), will open everyone's eyes to this pent up demand and the extra capacity provided will be soaked up rather quickly.

The other thing I'd like to say is that while it might be good to say that capacity should be added once existing capacity is filled up completely, that's not really what we're dealing with here. These things have to be anticipated. It shouldn't be, "wow the trains are filled to the brim, better start planning to come up with a solution for maybe possibly figuring out a way to deal with this." That's a bit of hyperbole, but really we're still 3 year s away from the first four car trains being put into service, and a matter of decades away from the 8th Avenue Subway. The system is at capacity now, which means no growth from now until then.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

2. We're gonna need to built a C-train storage depot at 194 ave with an extension at Silverado to accommodate 5 car stations.

The new storage and maintenance facility will be in the vicinity of the 210th Avenue Station, and will act as a replacement for Anderson Garage's LRV storage/maintenance duties.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It really depends on the result of four car trains on the system but the idea of new lines instead of the 8 Ave Subway is flawed. The subway study (when is that thing going to be released anyway, I feel like we've been waiting for it forever) should give more definitive numbers but I would easily expect the difference in cost between the two to be an order of magnitude. It is much easier to come up with a few hundred million than four or five billion. With numbers like that it ceases to be an either/or proposition; the cost of a combined N-SE line being so massive that it is in its own category while the 8 Ave Subway would merely be a large project not wholly unlike the current extensions or the GE5. It would be like creating a conflict between whether we needed the ring road or the GE5; it might not have mattered which was done first but the cost was not comparable and without the province stepping in we simply could not have managed the latter. That issue might be mitigated by building the SE LRT and waiting to extend it to the north but 2 billion is still nothing like 300 million.

I get the impression that we will never see the subway study. There was some work completed by a engineering/consulting firm, but I get the impression that it was more for internal purposes. Honestly the whole process has puzzled me a great deal, and even discussing the matter with Calgary Transit higher ups hasn't shone much more light on it. I think a different approach will be taken and a new study will be commissioned, perhaps building on any work this one has done, when the subway issue gets more political clout behind it and a firmer potential ground-breaking date becomes clear.

Also, I really think your $300M figure is pretty low. I have a feeling it will be closer to $1B if not over. Probably a multi-year project on the scale of the 7th Avenue Refurbishment too.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's a good idea and I think you're heart is in the right place but I can see a big loop hole in the plan.

When the train gets to Southland I could see a lot of the standing passengers in the other three cars getting off at the platform and moving to the fourth car to get a seat. So by the time the train got to 39th all cars would have equal occupancy.

I think the city is just gonna have to bite the bullet.

1. 8th ave Subway
2. We're gonna need to built a C-train storage depot at 194 ave with an extension at Silverado to accommodate 5 car stations.
3. 5 car platforms
4. Buy a whack load of trains
5. SE LRT
6. East/West BRT routes

I wanna see this done by 2020. Let's take to the streets and protest all levels of government.

Here's what I want to see by 2021:
2015: 8th Avenue subway
2016: C-train storage depot at 194 ave with an extension at Silverado
2018: SELRT, more trains, and more BRT routes
2021: Join SELRT with North LRT to Country Village (via elevated line along Centre Street N)

SELRT to NCLRT - 5-car platforms
The rest - 4-car platforms

[frinkprof]

Sorry to respond to your posts in reverse-chronological order, not exactly following a message board convention.

Originally Posted by Ridge

I understand the need for more capacity on the NW-S line in order to recover from capacity issues on the South line. However, if I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons to delay the Tuscany station that's been advanced above is that the NW line is over capacity, such that a new station shouldn't be added that would aggravate that situation. Sorry if I was picking on a straw man - maybe that's not a live issue.

I think the best way to put it is that the scale of the capacity constraints are larger on the south line, but that they also are starting to appear on the northwest line as well. The demand on the south line will be the determining factor on any improvements to the 201, but any prolonged timeframe where the south line is over capacity (which is the case now), and the limits of the northwest line will begin to be tested as well.

Originally Posted by Ridge

If we're just talking about south line capacity, and the need to increase it, I agree. I just don't think anything can be done in the medium-term other than the existing expansion to 4 car trains. The next step is a subway.

I'm not sure if we're still on the topic of the Tuscany extension, but if we are, then capacity issues on the South line are irrelevant to the decision to spend an additional 60 million to finish an extension in the NW. It would be quite inefficient to postpone all transit improvements until we can come up with a billion or two to build both subway lines downtown.

Yeah, I suppose I'm with you on this. I think the more correct way to put it is:

"capacity issues on the South line are irrelevant to the decision to spend an additional 60 million to finish an extension in the NW as an isolated project."

The concern isn't Tuscany, in isolation, the concern is the trend of all these projects being priortized, in aggregate, ahead of capacity improvements. There was more discussion this past municipal election about extending the LRT to the airport than there was about the 8th Avenue Subway, and not just as a sidebar to the airport tunnel issue. Next election it may be Silverado and Skyview. In kind, in 2007 it was Tuscany and Saddletown.

[Rocks off]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I get the impression that we will never see the subway study. There was some work completed by a engineering/consulting firm, but I get the impression that it was more for internal purposes. Honestly the whole process has puzzled me a great deal, and even discussing the matter with Calgary Transit higher ups hasn't shone much more light on it.

The impression I get from CT folks is that the study was stillborn; the conclusion was that any study should follow, not precede, a decision whether the SE/2nd Street line was going to go first or the 8Ave NW-S line was going to go first. In other words, which tunnel sits atop? That has massive implications for stations, construction plans, etc. Hubbell wanted the 8ave line to go first, but now the political pressure will make the SE line a priority, and I can't see Nenshi doing the Stephen ave subway first. So going very far with a study that assumes 8ave tunnel primacy is folly, and why bother drafting up two detailled plans when at least one is 100% guaranteed to be a waste? Plus, with no cash sources coming anytime soon (Green Trip is all tied up in SELRT, and won't even cover it all), what's the rush, besides our curiosity?
Post-Hubbell, transit planners have expressed hope that 4-car service postpones the need for splitting the existing two downtown lines. And the political consequences of the Big Dig on Calgary's best heritage strip gives the city the runs.

[freeweed]

Love it or hate it, the decision to greenlight the Tuscany station at least forced the city/province to build a proper interchange at Crowchild & Stoney, instead of the typical half-ass situation where it would just be another construction mess in a few years. That alone sold me on the concept of the Tuscany extension - road and rail infrastructure spending in tandem, reducing overall costs for both in the long run.

I have an honest query here - I keep seeing people on this forum mention capacity issues, but in real life, not so much. Now, 3 years ago - absolutely. Every line was jam packed, people often had to wait for another train, etc. But from personal experience and what I hear from others, this has gone down dramatically due to the increased headways recently. Maybe I just know people smart enough to go to work 10 minutes earlier to avoid the crush or something, but I almost never hear anyone complain about overfull trains anymore. And I work with some serious whiners who avoided the train for years.

Are we still seeing daily situations of completely packed trains? Or are people having one experience and extrapolating? I'd think daily rush hour commuters would be the most sensitive to it, as they'd be experiencing it every single day. Or has my crowd just migrated away from the crunch time and so I'm simply not hearing about it as much?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Love it or hate it, the decision to greenlight the Tuscany station at least forced the city/province to build a proper interchange at Crowchild & Stoney, instead of the typical half-ass situation where it would just be another construction mess in a few years. That alone sold me on the concept of the Tuscany extension - road and rail infrastructure spending in tandem, reducing overall costs for both in the long run.

I have an honest query here - I keep seeing people on this forum mention capacity issues, but in real life, not so much. Now, 3 years ago - absolutely. Every line was jam packed, people often had to wait for another train, etc. But from personal experience and what I hear from others, this has gone down dramatically due to the increased headways recently. Maybe I just know people smart enough to go to work 10 minutes earlier to avoid the crush or something, but I almost never hear anyone complain about overfull trains anymore. And I work with some serious whiners who avoided the train for years.

Are we still seeing daily situations of completely packed trains? Or are people having one experience and extrapolating? I'd think daily rush hour commuters would be the most sensitive to it, as they'd be experiencing it every single day. Or has my crowd just migrated away from the crunch time and so I'm simply not hearing about it as much?

There has been a slight decrease in morning rush ridership on the northwest line, from a peak in 2007/2008, and in the afternoon rush a slight increase in ridership from 2007 levels, after a brief 2008 drop-off. Ridership on the Northwest line is projected to remain roughly the same until 2014, and then increase from there (the report assumes a 2014 Tuscany Station opening).





Also, this blurb on the northwest line:

Northwest Line

The northwest line’s ridership activity grows steadily from 6:30am to 8:00am when it reaches a peak over 1,800 passengers. There is a brief decline after 8:00am with a secondary peak between 8:30am and 8:45am. Capacity is under pressure between 7:30am and 8:00am. Additional four car trains during this period would help reduce crowded conditions and improve customer comfort. Projecting ridership out to 2020 sees continued growth in the 7:30am to 8:00am time period. Additional capacity between 7:15am and 7:30am would better meet the demand. The extension to Tuscany is expected to generate a moderate amount of new passengers given the small scope of the station. 2010 shows a requirement for two trains to be four car, while 2020 shows the need for a total of four trains to be four car.

The demand for travel in the afternoon along the northwest line is steady between 4:00pm and 5:45pm. Pressure on capacity is apparent starting just before 5:00pm. Additional capacity via four car trains is warranted for that period. Growth to 2020 shows a growing need for four car trains between
4:30pm and 5:45pm. A total of two trains is required in 2010 and seven in 2020.

The lower number of four car trains is partially due to the amount of service already allocated to the northwest line as a result of it being connected to the south line. The northwest carries around 12,000 passengers compared with 17,000 to 19,000 for the south line.

Also, as per the discussion earlier, a blurb about perception of crowding.

Passengers have a variety of perceptions when it comes to crowded conditions on the CTrain. The ultimate capacity of each car is accepted to be 200 passengers. There are room for 56 – 60 seated passengers depending on the model of train. Based upon experience and feedback from customers, capacity criteria has been developed. When the train is 70% full in relation to the ultimate capacity, customers perceive that the train is busy. At 70% 80 passengers would be standing. When the number of passengers reaches 170 (85% full) customers become uncomfortable and the movement within the cars become restricted. At 95% full or 190 passengers, customers perceive that the train is full or overloaded. At this level, boarding and alighting times are affected and some more timid customers may not be able to board the train.

[...]

Time periods where the passenger loads approach or exceed 95% of the capacity are considered in need of attention. These periods would
benefit greatly from four car trains.

All this is from the report "Delivering 4 Car Train Service" that was part of a presentation from administration to the Land Use Planning and Transporation Committee in May 2011.

It can be found by clicking this link, scrolling to the last item (4.11), clicking it, and in the right hand margin, clicking the third document from the top.

[freeweed]

Interesting numbers, but they still don't really help my understanding.

I guess I'm remembering back to the days a few years ago when such stations as Banff Trail, Lions Park, and SAIT would be almost impossible to get in at. Sunnyside - most people just gave up and walked. We had serious capacity issues on the NW line then. Today, I only ever see this with a major service disruption (frozen trains in winter, etc). My commute time is virtually unchanged - I'm pretty early in the morning but right before it gets "busy".

I don't have much direct experience on the south line during rush hour so I have nothing to compare it to.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's a good idea and I think you're heart is in the right place but I can see a big loop hole in the plan.

When the train gets to Southland I could see a lot of the standing passengers in the other three cars getting off at the platform and moving to the fourth car to get a seat. So by the time the train got to 39th all cars would have equal occupancy.

Sorry, I don't think I explained it correctly. What I was trying to put forward was the idea of having a three car train travel empty until it reached an inner-city/established-suburb station, where it would resume normal service.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's a good idea and I think you're heart is in the right place but I can see a big loop hole in the plan.

When the train gets to Southland I could see a lot of the standing passengers in the other three cars getting off at the platform and moving to the fourth car to get a seat. So by the time the train got to 39th all cars would have equal occupancy.

I think the city is just gonna have to bite the bullet.

1. 8th ave Subway
2. We're gonna need to built a C-train storage depot at 194 ave with an extension at Silverado to accommodate 5 car stations.
3. 5 car platforms
4. Buy a whack load of trains
5. SE LRT
6. East/West BRT routes

I wanna see this done by 2020. Let's take to the streets and protest all levels of government.

5 car trains require a lot of the grade level crossings to be grade separated, and will be very expensive. There will be lots of capacity with 4 car trains and the 8th Ave subway that will take many many years to meet capacity.

3 minute trains with 4 cars will carry 13,600 people an hour at 85% capacity, more than enough to carry an entire peak period of double that amount, which shouldn't be reached until at least 2025, and that is not counting any people switching to the SELRT once it is built.

[eggbert]

So, I'm watching the morning news and they were talking about the City Hall CTrain station closing again to finish construction. At the end of the report they say, "once that's done 4 car CTrains will be used. The station is expected to officially open in August."

Now, if I didn't know they still had to complete 4 car platforms on all of the lines outside of downtown I'd be pretty excited this morning hearing that.

Talk about misinforming the public with inaccurate news coverage!

[fusili]

Great conversation on the subway/network planning/capacity topic. I think it would be useful to have the following information (I am sure CT has it somewhere):

1. The ridership (total and peak hour) on each line, including station boarding data for each station.
2. Catchment areas for each line (and each station, although there is some overlap).
3. Projected population increases along each line.
4. Capacity of each line.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by fusili

Great conversation on the subway/network planning/capacity topic. I think it would be useful to have the following information (I am sure CT has it somewhere):

1. The ridership (total and peak hour) on each line, including station boarding data for each station.

Like I posted earlier, they have been reluctant to release the information for whatever reason for about 4 years now.