Calgary Public Transit II - Page 173

You Need A Thneed · #**3441** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 2:28 PM**

I would assume that the first tunnel to go in will build at minimum a section of the second tunnel at the 8th Ave/ 2nd Street intersection. No sense digging up that intersection twice.

MalcolmTucker · #**3442** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 3:40 PM**

If you call that the first tunnel, we already have it under City Hall

You Need A Thneed · #**3443** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 3:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If you call that the first tunnel, we already have it under City Hall

I mean, whichever tunnel goes ahead first, the 8th Ave one or the 2nd Street one. Whichever goes fully goes ahead first, will build at the very least a small portion of the second.

DizzyEdge · #**3444** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Shot I took of the City Hall new look:

City Hall Station Revamp by RemotelyBoris, on Flickr

What's funny to me, is although it looks modern, just add some rivets on those steel columns and it would look right out of the 1800s.

Bender77 · #**3445** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 6:12 PM**

Does anyone know if they have fixed the powerlines for the CTrain by Heritage yet? They sent out an email yesterday, but there have been no updates since then.

mooky · #**3446** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bender77

Does anyone know if they have fixed the powerlines for the CTrain by Heritage yet? They sent out an email yesterday, but there have been no updates since then.

http://twitter.com/#!/calgarytransit/status/93667759736631296

Bender77 · #**3447** Posted **Jul 20, 2011, 7:45 PM**

Thanks Mooky.

DarkKeyo · #**3448** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:07 AM**

It's been quite interesting catching up on the last few pages of posts. I can't think of many comments, yet, so I'll share something instead.

I went to the Sunnyside 4-car extension open house, and among the things I learned was that the extension of Chinook is going to be rather different. Apparently the entire station, building and all, will be demolished, and a platform will be rebuilt without the building part.

frinkprof · #**3449** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

It's been quite interesting catching up on the last few pages of posts. I can't think of many comments, yet, so I'll share something instead.

I went to the Sunnyside 4-car extension open house, and among the things I learned was that the extension of Chinook is going to be rather different. Apparently the entire station, building and all, will be demolished, and a platform will be rebuilt without the building part.

2 level crossings. Interesting. Pending seeing more details, I think this is good. The monolithic south line stations need to be rethought. There's no need to have to walk up a flight of stairs, cross a sizeable concourse and descend another set of stairs just to cross a track (2 tracks if coming from the east, which you currently have to do anyway to access the building entrance).

CTrainDude · #**3450** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

2 level crossings. Interesting. Pending seeing more details, I think this is good. The monolithic south line stations need to be rethought. There's no need to have to walk up a flight of stairs, cross a sizeable concourse and descend another set of stairs just to cross a track (2 tracks if coming from the east, which you currently have to do anyway to access the building entrance).

Not two - there will no longer be a south access. Level crossing from the north end of the platform will be the only access at Chinook.

J-D · #**3451** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:25 AM**

They're only going to have one crossing to the platform at Chinook? That seems a bit absurd if it stays in its current position - and while I agree the buildings are a bit vestigial nothing beats staying warm until the train arrives in -30.

You Need A Thneed · #**3452** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 4:38 AM**

Really crappy photo of Saddletowne station: (mine)

DarkKeyo · #**3453** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

2 level crossings. Interesting. Pending seeing more details, I think this is good. The monolithic south line stations need to be rethought. There's no need to have to walk up a flight of stairs, cross a sizeable concourse and descend another set of stairs just to cross a track (2 tracks if coming from the east, which you currently have to do anyway to access the building entrance).

While I'm quite glad to see the small, awkward stairs-and-concourse go (except the nice tiles on the walls that give it the impression of being a real station), I prefer to, if possible, not cross the tracks at level crossings. Especially ones that cross both tracks. And therefore this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

Not two - there will no longer be a south access. Level crossing from the north end of the platform will be the only access at Chinook.

...Seems like a really bad idea, especially for a well used station like Chinook. Especially since I was told this is a "test" of this format of station which may be implemented, ultimately, at the rest of the SLRT stations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

They're only going to have one crossing to the platform at Chinook? That seems a bit absurd if it stays in its current position - and while I agree the buildings are a bit vestigial nothing beats staying warm until the train arrives in -30.

And this is one big reason why it's a bad idea. Heated shelters would be necessary. I end up frozen at Lion's Park every winter and now it's the station I live closest to. I wrote "heated shelters" as a suggestion at the open house, and I'll also see how the TOD area plan fits into that.

As for Sunnyside, redeveloping the tiny parks near it as shown at the open house would make it nicer, and the elevated substation option, while awkward to maintain and probably disliked my many residents, looked extremely cool in the rendering.

You Need A Thneed · #**3454** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 5:51 AM**

All the new stations have heated shelters on the platforms, whether they have a building or not.

eggbert · #**3455** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 1:58 PM**

CBC News
Posted: Jul 20, 2011 1:25 PM MT
Last Updated: Jul 20, 2011 4:56 PM MT

A city hall committee is considering distance-based fares for passengers riding on Calgary's buses and C-Trains.

Creating a zone system, where riders pay more for longer rides, would raise money for the cash strapped transit system, proponents argue. Vancouver has a zone-based transit system.

"So we can actually reduce the price for those people who live close to downtown and increase the price for those people who are actually driving into our city and using our transportation system to take them into the downtown core," said Ald. Andre Chabot, who chairs the city's transportation committee.

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/07/20/calgary-transit-fares.html?ref=rss

freeweed · #**3456** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eggbert

"So we can actually reduce the price for those people who live close to downtown and increase the price for those people who are actually driving into our city and using our transportation system to take them into the downtown core," said Ald. Andre Chabot, who chairs the city's transportation committee.

I will eat my words if it ever comes to pass, but... anyone who thinks fares will be reduced substantially for short trips is an idiot. This is being discussed as a pretty blatant fare hike (but keep the short trips at pretty much the same price, therefore simpletons will think they're getting a "deal"!). I love how Chabot completely ignores the majority of transit users in Calgary, which are neither people who live close to downtown nor people who drive in from outside of the city. But hey, let's just conveniently not discuss the largest user base. This is a way to get back at those nasty out-of-towners!

Note: I am all in favour of fare increases for Transit. Calgarians have plenty of disposable income in general. I'm dead serious - raise my monthly pass to $200 and I'll gladly pay it, if it means a better transit system.

I also laughed at Lowe talking about how he, as a senior, can afford more than $35/year for transit. First off, do ANY of our Alderman even USE transit? Don't they all get free parking spots downtown, and claim transit isn't feasible due to their ever-so-important jobs? Second.. Calgary has approximately 15 seniors. Raising fares for their passes will bring in roughly 0.00001% of Transit's budget. Seems like a really silly thing to go after.

I dunno, maybe it's just my cynicism but they're really not putting a good front on this. I can already hear those who are on the fence about transit saying "fuck it, I'm driving".

fusili · #**3457** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

Calgary has approximately 15 seniors.

That made my morning.

polishavenger · #**3458** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:15 PM**

I love how people bitch and moan about zone based transit fares, but dont seem to mind the defacto zone based property tax scheme. "Wah, I'll have to pay more for using more of a given service" is all I hear from opponents of this. Its about paying your fare share. I dont like zones because they create a lot of unfair situations (depending on how its implemented of course), I prefer paying for the lenght of your ride, something which should be just as easy to implement and enforce as zones. Have a minimum fare of $1.50 or something, and then charge more the further you go.

MalcolmTucker · #**3459** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:36 PM**

^Because short bus trips, and short LRT trips in peak direction in peak hours are the most expensive trips to service.

For LRT only trips variable fares make sense outside of congestion times, especially since the lowest fare would still be far above the cost of providing the service.

As for punishing people from out of town, I would much rather people from out of town park and take the LRT vs driving the entire length into downtown. Also, it is a price we pay for the Calgary Regional Partnership delaying the ask for regional rail for decades. I would much rather have out of towners pay fares much higher than the service costs (if they are on LRT only), while generating large positive externalities (not contributing to a traffic jam), and allowing capital to go to expanding transit within the city.

Northski · #**3460** Posted **Jul 21, 2011, 3:39 PM**

A rider taking the C-train from Somerset to Tuscany doesn't cost the system anymore then a rider traveling from 39th street to City hall station. The capacity bottle neck that cost a lot to expand and operator is getting into downtown in the morning. As well a rider that travels a long distance is also not using the road system for a long distance and someone you want to get on the transit system. There are also some riders who travel a long distance on the system because there is no direct connection, you would not want to provide a further disincentive.

One of the arguments against including Victoria Park / Stampede in the free fare zone is it would displace riders traveling a long distance over riders that would have otherwise walked or paid a fare.

Also a distance based system would reward park and riders over people who taken the shuttle to an LRT station.