Calgary Public Transit II

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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.

I really think some of it is that even if there are bumps, the cars of an LRT or streetcar just don't rattle. Perhaps just the weight keeps things feeling a lot more 'tight'?

[DizzyEdge]

And not just the rattling, but the smoothness of acceleration and deceleration. Just a less jerky ride, in both the x and the y axis.
Wonder what the feasibility of a CVT tranny in a bus would be.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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?

Yea, I don't know. Since we are so set up for car travel, it sometimes seems like it's not realistic to use transit this way. I use to live in London, and I took the underground and the overground trains to Gatwick and Heathrow fairly regularly, even with luggage. So did my family when they came to see me. When you are already in a public transit mindset, it wasn't bad at all.

I think that as we get larger, the shift in balance towards transit is inevitable, so it all has to start somewhere.

[Boris2k7]

I see people travelling with luggage on public transit all the time, and part of that is that I myself do so whenever I'm getting around. It surely isn't a majority of travellers or even most but it usually is enough to sustain such services.

That said, LRT to the airport is a low priority right now but it is good that there will be the ability to build it in later.

[DizzyEdge]

Taking the sky train between downtown and YVR is enough of a breeze that I'm not sure if I'd bother taking a cab even if it was the same price.

Taking a bus isn't quite as nice (you can just roll your suitcase on and off a train, vs lugging it through the narrow middle of a bus), but it still isn't that bad at all, particularly if the bus has enough vacant seats that your suitcase can have a seat of its own.

[Boris2k7]

The RER train I took into Paris from CDG didn't have any extra luggage areas, but most of the cars (including ours) had fold-down seats in the standing areas, so I could just sit the luggage down in the standing area and not have to put it up on a seat.

On the way back to the airport, the articulated buses had a 3-level vertical luggage rack that could fit suitcases for up to about 10 people.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

The RER train I took into Paris from CDG didn't have any extra luggage areas, but most of the cars (including ours) had fold-down seats in the standing areas, so I could just sit the luggage down in the standing area and not have to put it up on a seat.

On the way back to the airport, the articulated buses had a 3-level vertical luggage rack that could fit suitcases for up to about 10 people.

That's pretty cool, would make lugging your bag through a bus that is reasonably full much easier.

[fusili]

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.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

I see people travelling with luggage on public transit all the time, and part of that is that I myself do so whenever I'm getting around. It surely isn't a majority of travellers or even most but it usually is enough to sustain such services.

That said, LRT to the airport is a low priority right now but it is good that there will be the ability to build it in later.

I agree with both posts. Airport LRT is not needed now and an express bus to downtown is fine. But we should have it on the plans. That is essential. Building the airport tunnel, IMO, was a smart move because it allows a future transit connection between the NE and NC lines to the airport. It may be 25 years off, but you should at least plan for it.

[frinkprof]

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.

To the bolded (I am reading it as a conclusion you have come to): Hence, it is within the purview of "public" transit. Profitability is not a goal.

Personally, I can't wait to try out the new route 300, but haven't gotten the chance to yet as I haven't had a need to visit the airport since is has started service, and probably won't for at least a matter of weeks and maybe months. That statement encapsulates something about public transit routes (especially more capital-intensive rail projects), most people will see it as a service that should be provided, because they can envision themselves using it - the only thing is that they tend to forget that they only have cause to go to the airport 5-10 times a year, save for airport employees and the odd person who travels very frequently.

That said, I think the BRT and route 100 are a good start and something that is low-cost enough and can be scaled to accommodate any ridership growth while providing an attractive-enough service.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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?

Rail bias. Google it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Rail bias. Google it.

Jarrett Walker, who does the Human Transit blog, does a really good job at breaking down the rail bias. If anyone is really interested in transit planning, he offers a really in-depth understanding of transit issues and is especially good at breaking down misconceptions of transit, especially the bus vs train debate. The blog is here:

http://www.humantransit.org/

His recent post on the Gensler Architects video about improving transit in LA is great. He really tears apart their "pie-in-the-sky" viewpoint and how some of their recommendations will actually make transit worse. I suggest anyone interested in transit read it.

[You Need A Thneed]

The 300 isn't just a shuttle to the airport, it also adds relief for the 301 coming down centre street. People south of 64th should have a much emptier BRT bus coming every once in a while.

[YYCguys]

Mersar, that transit garage just doesn't seem to fit into the neighborhood, with houses directly adjacent to it. And with the TOD planned on the east side of the tracks, it will look out of place even more. It should be moved out of that area for sure.

As for airport LRT, I often take the TTC's "Rocket" bus (express service) from Pearson Int'l to the nearest subway station, which is Kipling Station. The service has been around forever, yet they still use regular buses with no luggage racks. It is heavily used by travelers and employees alike. Either they need articulated buses with luggage racks or a airport train service. It's so annoying!

[Bassic Lab]

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. 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.

It really shouldn't cost anything close to a billion dollars. A relatively recent subway station in Toronto cost 90 million. Our stations would be significantly shorter and should be much cheaper. Likewise, the tunnel section is roughly one mile long, utilities have been moved when work was needed for some time, it can all be done with cut and cover, and there are no real obstacles like travelling under a river. A mile of cut and cover tunnel with three stations should cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 million, maybe a bit more but not much. Even if we used the TTC's 90 million cost, then 500 million should be an absolute ceiling.

Remember the entire Canada Line cost just over two billion and it included six miles of tunnels, both cut and cover and a bored section under downtown and False Creek, along with a similar amount of elevated track.

[Wooster]

Great blog.

Originally Posted by fusili

Jarrett Walker, who does the Human Transit blog, does a really good job at breaking down the rail bias. If anyone is really interested in transit planning, he offers a really in-depth understanding of transit issues and is especially good at breaking down misconceptions of transit, especially the bus vs train debate. The blog is here:

http://www.humantransit.org/

His recent post on the Gensler Architects video about improving transit in LA is great. He really tears apart their "pie-in-the-sky" viewpoint and how some of their recommendations will actually make transit worse. I suggest anyone interested in transit read it.

[Ferreth]

Regarding Quality Transit to the Airport, I see it as being about:

a) Servicing a large employment centre - for which having buses is just fine for the foreseeable future.

b) For the business traveler, they will get into a cab or a hotel shuttle. I could see the 300 being an option - if CT got together with the Downtown hotels perhaps they could cost share nicer buses, with proper luggage storage, and very few stops between downtown and the airport. To get any appreciable business traffic, the service will have to be fast, and somewhat more comfortable than a regular bus. However, are there too many hotels to stop at downtown now to do it with one route? Do hotels at the end of the run pay less? How do you juggle things if a new hotel wants in? This is not a straight forward arrangement, for sure.

c) And of course, the touri$t. I view having a service as one of the check list items to promote your city. If you have a train or subway, it's a big check mark in your favor. But having the nicer bus for the touri$t will go a long ways to cement a favorable impression. You care little about tourists. They don't spend money in your city, unlike touri$ts.

The ridership numbers are not comparable to other routes. If a service had 1000 touri$ts and 500 business people riding every day I would value those way higher than 1500 workers traveling to/from the airport, especially if some of them have a more favorable impression of the city due to the nice bus/train/gondola that they rode in from the airport. Why? They spend lots of money in the city. Too bad the city has few ways to capture taxes in this spending - however this is where the province and the feds should step in, as they certainly benefit.

Even having said all that, I can't see LRT being at the airport until the city doubles - twice. Perhaps if we end up with a Vancouver situation where a line is going in close by and it is not going to cost much extra, we can look at it sooner. But until then, some better bus service will have to do. I also thing LRT or a people mover will eventually be built west to connect with a 96th Ave HSR/LRT hub of some sort. LRT in the airport tunnel would happen for similar reasons as the current road - partial for airport access, mostly to start building a ring type/cross town service, after the connection west.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

Building the airport tunnel, IMO, was a smart move because it allows a future transit connection between the NE and NC lines to the airport. It may be 25 years off, but you should at least plan for it.

Agreed 100%. As someone else mentioned, when we hit 4 million it will become essential. Or at least something we surely will benefit from.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

That statement encapsulates something about public transit routes (especially more capital-intensive rail projects), most people will see it as a service that should be provided, because they can envision themselves using it - the only thing is that they tend to forget that they only have cause to go to the airport 5-10 times a year, save for airport employees and the odd person who travels very frequently.

And there's a heavy airport use bias here compared to the general population, which is evidenced in your statement (and the way I talk about the airport as well). Most people go to the airport maybe once, twice a year. 5-10 would be someone who travels "very frequently" compared to the average person. But to many of us that's just normal use (that would be light use for me). Might be the age demographic showing, or perhaps we're all travel geeks.

Well, unless you include picking up and dropping off friends/family - but those trips would almost certainly not involve transit. They CAN, and I've in fact experienced that in other cities/countries - but it's not exactly common, at least not here.

[Boris2k7]

Shot I took of the City Hall new look:


City Hall Station Revamp by RemotelyBoris, on Flickr

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It really shouldn't cost anything close to a billion dollars. A relatively recent subway station in Toronto cost 90 million. Our stations would be significantly shorter and should be much cheaper. Likewise, the tunnel section is roughly one mile long, utilities have been moved when work was needed for some time, it can all be done with cut and cover, and there are no real obstacles like travelling under a river. A mile of cut and cover tunnel with three stations should cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 million, maybe a bit more but not much. Even if we used the TTC's 90 million cost, then 500 million should be an absolute ceiling.

Remember the entire Canada Line cost just over two billion and it included six miles of tunnels, both cut and cover and a bored section under downtown and False Creek, along with a similar amount of elevated track.

100m per station is the price quoted for the Eglinton line which will have 90m platforms, the Spadina line extension which has 150m platforms, enclosed bus stations (some with more than 10 bays), and 'starchitect' designed stations are projected to be in the $135 million - $150 million range. Neither of the projects have been tendered however, but the stations on the Spadina line should be soon, which will be interesting given that since the TTC contracts all the parts separately will be able to see the exact costs of each station.

If the scope on the 8th Avenue subway doesn't balloon due to either the tunnel study (ie: stacked tunnel to move more operations underground earlier) or from councilors pushing for misguided 'world leading' design it shouldn't be more than $400m given its shallow depth, lack of need for assisted ventilation, likely avoidance of costly concourse levels, additional fire exits (stations will be close enough together) and fare barrier rooms.

Keep it simple and maybe taxpayers will trust that a second and third subway tunnel is practical to do in the future.