Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

With high natural gas prices before recent there wouldn't have been much of a cost advantage. But now, the gap is very much in gas's favour.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by freeweed

they said that 7th Ave will be ready for 4 cars, or something to that effect. But it sure did sound like they were implying 4 cars are coming shortly.

I thought that some of the older stations that were done a few years ago needs small retro fits to make the 4 car lengths. Centre Street station comes to mind. I could be completely wrong though.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

I thought that some of the older stations that were done a few years ago needs small retro fits to make the 4 car lengths. Centre Street station comes to mind. I could be completely wrong though.

Correct. Centre Street still needs to be extended and the new 11th Street Station needs to be completed.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

With high natural gas prices before recent there wouldn't have been much of a cost advantage. But now, the gap is very much in gas's favour.

Back when the most recent CNG trials were done NG was quite a bit cheaper. But compared to diesel you might be right about fuel costs, the big factor though now might be the significantly higher (upwards of 2x) cost of the equipment itself versus diesel. Hybrids are almost cheaper, and still have been ruled out by CT as being too costly.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Shovel Ready Projects:
http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/0/peixsgav5ad4c5452w20i2mz/566620718201104570298.PDF

Calgary Transit Funding and Fare Strategy:
http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/0/peixsgav5ad4c5452w20i2mz/5665807182011050420567.PDF

Those BRT costs are pretty high. There were a bunch of folks on Facebook a couple months ago tooting about how BRT should be the end game. I think looking at some of those figures may create reason for pause.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

With high natural gas prices before recent there wouldn't have been much of a cost advantage. But now, the gap is very much in gas's favour.

And I think it will remain that way. There is a real glut of natural gas, and it isn't going anywhere fast any time soon!

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by mersar

Back when the most recent CNG trials were done NG was quite a bit cheaper. But compared to diesel you might be right about fuel costs, the big factor though now might be the significantly higher (upwards of 2x) cost of the equipment itself versus diesel. Hybrids are almost cheaper, and still have been ruled out by CT as being too costly.

Hybrids promised fuel savings have proved illusory in colder climes so far, but perhaps the current trials will show different.

If CNG, or if tested LNG proves to be not of worth, after the initial fleet is done it can be replaced with something else. I would guess that a project of such a scale would not make it into proposal stage if at least preliminary study was not done, and earlier performance issues were solved. Likely the city will be able to access significant climate mitigation grants from the province to defray a large portion of the cost gap of the buses, and installation of a compressor and fuel distribution system in a section of one of the bus barns which helps.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

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.

Which will free up that land for Anderson Station TOD development! A great location for a residential/retail/office/entertainment mix!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by fusili

I did a little research using the 2010 Census and this is what I came up with for catchment areas for each LRT line:

NW- 172K
South- 219K
NE- 148K
West- 105K

Just for a point of discussion. SE and NC lines to come shortly.

Following up the catchments for the SE and NC lines:

SE- 87K
NC- 150K

Also, I made an error on the West line- it is closer to 115K than 105K.

So the West actually has a larger catchment area than the SE. But if we look in terms of future growth the SE (Mahogany, Seton etc) and the North Central (Northern Hills) have the most potential while the NE (Skyview Ranch etc) and the West (Aspen Woods etc) have some limited growth.

I find this interesting. The west line actually has a larger catchment than the SE, contrary to what many people believed. While much more employment exists in the SE, the West line has more people. Also interesting is the fact that 90K live on the NC line south of Beddington Trail. That is the population that would be essentially bypassed by the Nose Creek alignment. Also interesting is that the NC is actually much larger than the SE. Even with the projected growth in the SE (according to the context study, between 80K and 110K), the NC area will be larger (with a project additional 60K according to the context study). So when you consider that many trips on the SE line will be to the Hospital, Foothills or Highfield Industrial, it is very possible that the NC line will require more capacity than the SE line.

[fusili]

Just a note about the above mentioned catchment statistics. As I mentioned before, areas that are not served by the LRT, either because they are closer to the downtown than the LRT or because they are geographically separated.

The Symon's Valley Area was included in the NC catchment area, with the assumption that feeder buses would serve either the Country Hills station or the Aurora Park Station.

Bowness/Montgomery/Parkdale/Point McKay/West Hillhurst are excluded (served by the 305).

Greater Forest Lawn (excluding Albert Park/Radisson and Forest Heights, which are more or less served by the NE line) is also excluded (served by the 305) and includes Forest Lawn, Dover, Erin Woods, Penbrooke and Southview.

South Calgary (Bankview, South Calgary, Altadore and North Glenmore Park) were also excluded because the feeder bus distance to the West LRT is probably longer than it is to downtown.

The Centre City (Beltline, Mission, Lower Mount Royal etc) are also not included as they are closer to downtown that the LRT network.

So after the SE and NC LRT, it is really only these 4 areas will need to be served with a primary transit network. A BRT/Streetcar could work for these areas. Thoughts?

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by mersar

Back when the most recent CNG trials were done NG was quite a bit cheaper. But compared to diesel you might be right about fuel costs, the big factor though now might be the significantly higher (upwards of 2x) cost of the equipment itself versus diesel. Hybrids are almost cheaper, and still have been ruled out by CT as being too costly.

Both options are more environmentally friendly than diesel. Those fumes stink and when diesel engine fall into disrepair, they spew thick black smoke.

[DizzyEdge]

So, after taking the new 300 Airport 'BRT' to and from YYC recently, as well as similar service to and from Pearson in Toronto, I have a question:

Is it needed? I believe the BRT is actually more service than Toronto has, in Toronto you take the subway to the last station and then the airport bus (192?) to Pearson. In Calgary we have airport busses at two different stations, both the last station on the NE line, as well (and I didn't realise this) the last station in the NW line. Do we also need the third option of the BRT? I'm going with the assumption that the BRT will be a cost and not break even.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Which will free up that land for Anderson Station TOD development! A great location for a residential/retail/office/entertainment mix!

Not entirely. The TOD proposal for Anderson is all east of the LRT tracks from what I recall of it, the transit garage will remain but will be converted back to bus only.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So, after taking the new 300 Airport 'BRT' to and from YYC recently, as well as similar service to and from Pearson in Toronto, I have a question:

Is it needed? I believe the BRT is actually more service than Toronto has, in Toronto you take the subway to the last station and then the airport bus (192?) to Pearson. In Calgary we have airport busses at two different stations, both the last station on the NE line, as well (and I didn't realise this) the last station in the NW line. Do we also need the third option of the BRT? I'm going with the assumption that the BRT will be a cost and not break even.

As someone who generally thinks the need for transit to the airport is a bit overstated (I think the concept of an LRT line to the airport is a ridiculous waste that will see hardly any use until Calgary is much larger, for example)... yes.

The YYC BRT is more designed as a downtown shuttle service and not public transit per se. And the buses to the NE/NW LRT lines are painfully slow.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by freeweed

As someone who generally thinks the need for transit to the airport is a bit overstated (I think the concept of an LRT line to the airport is a ridiculous waste that will see hardly any use until Calgary is much larger, for example)... yes.

The YYC BRT is more designed as a downtown shuttle service and not public transit per se. And the buses to the NE/NW LRT lines are painfully slow.

I agree that it is more of a downtown shuttle, and looking at google maps it appears the ~45 min downtown-yyc 300 is twice as quick as the ~90 min downtown ctrain->100 airport bus->yyc

Also a agree that an LRT line would only ever make sense if packed busses one after another are heading to and from the airport.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Also a agree that an LRT line would only ever make sense if packed busses one after another are heading to and from the airport.

But I think it won't ever get to that level, because well before that happens, people will seek out alternatives. By recognising patterns early, we can implement transit solutions that encourage people into more efficient and less congested modes of travel.

I think projects like this are a Chicken and Egg situation. Do you wait for the ridership and then implement a service, or do you implement the service to attract the ridership?

I think this is a good idea, and if they didn't implement steps like this, people would be driving and taking taxis, and the potential ridership would be largely invisible. I think it's a matter of 'If you build it, they will come'

[suburb]

Originally Posted by freeweed

As someone who generally thinks the need for transit to the airport is a bit overstated (I think the concept of an LRT line to the airport is a ridiculous waste that will see hardly any use until Calgary is much larger, for example)... yes.

Stepping back and looking at the map, I'd think that any LRT service to the airport would actually be part of a new LRT line that was not a spoke. Rather, it would go Aurora Business park (transfer station to NC LRT), Airport and all the industrial around it, run East and have a transfer with the NE line somewhere, run town 52 through Foothills Industrial, all the way to the South Hospital (transfer station to the SE line).

Not sure if the above is ridiculous - just putting it out there.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Both options are more environmentally friendly than diesel. Those fumes stink and when diesel engine fall into disrepair, they spew thick black smoke.

Definitely, just yesterday I witnessed one of the older buses blanketing part of the beltline with some brown haze.

That actually brings up some thoughts of the streetcars in Toronto, where I just spent 12 days. Loved the street cars, but also can see that the cost + limited flexibility in the face of unexpected obstacles makes it prohibitive to implement from scratch (but I would fully support retaining them where they already exisit in Toronto).

I rode the bus and streetcars extensively when I was there, and there is definitely a 'higher class' feeling when travelling the streetcars. That feeling is a bit fuzzy, so I tried to figure out what it was exactly, and I think it came down mostly to just a smoother ride, + since a portion of the windows slide open every couple of seats, you get a bit of a 'resting your arm on the open windowsill of a car' sort of feel. Note though, the closed window buses have A/C.

Anyway, the buses on the other hand seem like vibration machines, every bump every window and seemingly everything everywhere in the bus shakes and rattles, giving a big impression of a crappier ride and crappier vehicle. It occured to me yesterday that my 15 yr old car with rather worn out suspension gives me about the same ride feel as the streetcars, so I'm wondering if simply higher grade suspension would remove any of the lessor quality feel of busses vs streetcars? Can anyone give their observations of the rattling or lack there of in some of the newer buses here in Calgary?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

But I think it won't ever get to that level, because well before that happens, people will seek out alternatives. By recognising patterns early, we can implement transit solutions that encourage people into more efficient and less congested modes of travel.

I think projects like this are a Chicken and Egg situation. Do you wait for the ridership and then implement a service, or do you implement the service to attract the ridership?

I think this is a good idea, and if they didn't implement steps like this, people would be driving and taking taxis, and the potential ridership would be largely invisible. I think it's a matter of 'If you build it, they will come'

I agree with your sentiment in principle, but I just don't see that many families lugging suitcases onto public transit within my lifetime. Short of a massive change in society. And I don't see a bunch of oil executives taking the LRT to their afternoon meeting either. The demographics of YYC just don't justify it. Build it all you want - but there's just no one to "come".

Maybe I'm wrong and there's a lot of average people traveling with very little luggage. I'm sure someone has done a study on this, right?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Can anyone give their observations of the rattling or lack there of in some of the newer buses here in Calgary?

I know exactly what you're talking about with the rattling. The more modern buses are light years ahead in this category.

A streetcar, much like the LRT, still feels more "higher class". I don't even really know why that is. When I rode a bus to work in years past, I was doing it to "save money" and "help the environment". Today I proudly tell people that "I take the train into the office". It just has some indescribable cachet.