Calgary Public Transit II

[Dado]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, how fast does the O-Train travel between stations? Are the tracks speed limited at all?

There are effective track speed limitations in the area under discussion due to a pedestrian crossing and another railway crossing. The pedestrian crossing could easily be removed by routing it under a nearby bridge crossing of a creek.

Even if that was done though, there would be a constraint by the schedule: there's not really a need to go faster given the current operation and its scheduled frequency.

It's also worth noting that the stretch of adjacent transitway from which lrt's friend made the comparison is the ONLY stretch in the entire network with a 90 km/h speed limit; all others have 80 km/h speed limits or less. It too used to have an 80 km/h speed limit, but that changed after the O-Train got running. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though. I mean, it's not like Ottawa is known to be bus-loving or BRT-obsessed or anything like that, after all.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

2. 16th Avenue North- Peter Lougheed to Foothills/UofC
3. 52nd Street East- From Saddleridge station to SE Hospital (perhaps it will terminate on one SE LRT stations prior to that, which will act as a transfer station)

The 16th crosstown BRT can't stop at Peter Lougheed. The NE LRT should have run down 52nd st in the first place, and the crosstown needs to get to at least 52nd. It would also allow for a transfer to the 52nd East BRT.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburb

The 16th crosstown BRT can't stop at Peter Lougheed. The NE LRT should have run down 52nd st in the first place, and the crosstown needs to get to at least 52nd. It would also allow for a transfer to the 52nd East BRT.

The city's proposed BRT lines were Saddletowne to South Hospital, and Saddletowne to Foothills Hospital along 52nd and 16th. Many places in the overall map where multiple lines could share some infrastructure.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

The 16th crosstown BRT can't stop at Peter Lougheed. The NE LRT should have run down 52nd st in the first place, and the crosstown needs to get to at least 52nd. It would also allow for a transfer to the 52nd East BRT.

Because of the tear in the space/time fabric there?

Actually it can stop there and that is exactly where Transit Planning is proposing a stop. The 16th avenue BRT can go on 16th to 36th street, turn north, stop at the LRT stations along the way and at Peter Lougheed, then turn east after the Hospital to join up with the 52nd Street BRT. Pretty much exactly as the City planned it.

[MalcolmTucker]

From an article back in November:

City planners estimate that the 14th Street BRT lanes could move between 15,000 and 20,000 people a day using articulated buses

Calgary launched BRT service in 2004 with Route 301. It carries 17,000 people a day from Country Hills Boulevard down Centre Street and onto Bow Trail and 17th Avenue West. Even without fully separated lanes, buses on the 301 average 22 km/h, compared to 30 km/h for the LRT.

Pincott will push the proposal -- he's been working on it for two years -- at council in the New Year. It seems like a no-brainer. Pincott believes the bullet buses would get people from Cedarbrae and Woodlands "to downtown in half an hour every single day."

So from these we get a route that travels at an average of 40 km/h while making 18 stops (faster than most transit in the entire country, save for Skytrain and commuter rail), that has twice the frequency of the 301 (unless you assume there will be a crazy amount of back haul from downtown to MRU, which if BRT to the West LRT is implement is unlikely even if it would be faster, most passengers will try to stay on rail for as long as possible because humans have trouble judging travel time trade offs).

The 301 peaks at a bus every 7 minutes, so perhaps as low as 4 minutes for peak for this route which works out to maybe 1200 ppdph, assuming articulated buses with 80 pax capacity.

There are lots of questions about implementing this route, most that have to do with what Calgary Transit is for:
Should the goal be the fastest trip into downtown, the cheapest (operationally), or the cheapest (capital cost)?
Should areas that do not recieve trips into downtown below a certain trip time threshold using the feeder bus --> LRT mode recieve special service?
Should the goal be creating the best network for aggregate low travel time, or the best network for low travel travel time on most trips while the rest is left by the wayside?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

From an article back in November:

There are lots of questions about implementing this route, most that have to do with what Calgary Transit is for:
Should the goal be the fastest trip into downtown, the cheapest (operationally), or the cheapest (capital cost)?
Should areas that do not recieve trips into downtown below a certain trip time threshold using the feeder bus --> LRT mode recieve special service?
Should the goal be creating the best network for aggregate low travel time, or the best network for low travel travel time on most trips while the rest is left by the wayside?

Definitely questions worth asking. The way I see it, the busway from Rockyview to Heritage makes sense, as with any improvements on Glenmore or around MRU (which as I understand there are none for now), because that would be shared with the Westbrook to Heritage BRT, which I see as very essential.

I do see some need for this route, simply because the south line is heavily ridden and serves the highest catchment area. But you do bring up good points.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

Because of the tear in the space/time fabric there?

Actually it can stop there and that is exactly where Transit Planning is proposing a stop. The 16th avenue BRT can go on 16th to 36th street, turn north, stop at the LRT stations along the way and at Peter Lougheed, then turn east after the Hospital to join up with the 52nd Street BRT. Pretty much exactly as the City planned it.

I should have been more clear. I meant it cannot terminate there and should continue on. I agree with the city plan, but not the prior post where it was suggested it only go to the hospital (which is at the Western edge of the residential there).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

I should have been more clear. I meant it cannot terminate there and should continue on. I agree with the city plan, but not the prior post where it was suggested it only go to the hospital (which is at the Western edge of the residential there).

Oh ok. I should have been more clear about the route. It was a very rough description of the route.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Definitely questions worth asking. The way I see it, the busway from Rockyview to Heritage makes sense, as with any improvements on Glenmore or around MRU (which as I understand there are none for now), because that would be shared with the Westbrook to Heritage BRT, which I see as very essential.

I do see some need for this route, simply because the south line is heavily ridden and serves the highest catchment area. But you do bring up good points.

We're adding capacity to the south line. Once that is done building intersection improvements to help feeder buses cue skip would be much cheaper, and would increase capacity without increasing operational costs (faster on the route means higher frequency with same number of buses). Faster route times and higher frequency is a double win for total trip times.

If we go on the path with the International Ave BRT, the SETway and the 14th St BRT I could see Calgary 20 years from now not having expanded LRT due to continual small BRT projects. I believe that would be a mistake, and lead to lower overall welfare (due to lower speed) since I don't believe we would go whole hog on the projects and provide grade seperation where we would for LRT (mostly downtown, and at choke points), and much higher operational costs as we move more people on buses.

This infrastructure will be with the city for at least 20 years, possibly more, and there should be true cost benefit analysis so that we don't get to a situation like Ottawa in 30 years where to keep the system expanding we basically have to shut it down for 5 years and replace everything.

So many peoople express dismay at building the West LRT before the Stephen Avenue subway, or not having just built the subway in the first place, and yet they seem ok with investing in piecemeal transit that can largely be seen as throw away infrastructure.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We're adding capacity to the south line. Once that is done building intersection improvements to help feeder buses cue skip would be much cheaper, and would increase capacity without increasing operational costs (faster on the route means higher frequency with same number of buses). Faster route times and higher frequency is a double win for total trip times.

If we go on the path with the International Ave BRT, the SETway and the 14th St BRT I could see Calgary 20 years from now not having expanded LRT due to continual small BRT projects. I believe that would be a mistake, and lead to lower overall welfare (due to lower speed) since I don't believe we would go whole hog on the projects and provide grade seperation where we would for LRT (mostly downtown, and at choke points), and much higher operational costs as we move more people on buses.

This infrastructure will be with the city for at least 20 years, possibly more, and there should be true cost benefit analysis so that we don't get to a situation like Ottawa in 30 years where to keep the system expanding we basically have to shut it down for 5 years and replace everything.

So many peoople express dismay at building the West LRT before the Stephen Avenue subway, or not having just built the subway in the first place, and yet they seem ok with investing in piecemeal transit that can largely be seen as throw away infrastructure.

Good points. I for one, am not a fan of the SETway unless whatever infrastructure is built can be repurposed for actual LRT (so basically bridges and ROW acquistion).

For the SW BRT, I can see the need for the Heritage to Rockyview Portion as it would be needed for the other BRT (which I can't see being served as LRT ever). The 90th avenue tunnel and the rest of the guideway may be excessive though. But you are correct, we should not be spending too much money on capital improvements if that is not ultimately the plan. BRT capital investment should go into routes that would only be BRT (crosstown routes) and which cannot be addressed by adding capacity to the LRT network, which would include things such as the 16th avenue BRT, the 52nd Street BRT and the Westbrook/Heritage BRT.

EDIT: I would support building some infrastructure on the SW BRT after we have gone to 4 car operation on the south line and if we hit capacity constraints.

[You Need A Thneed]

I can't remember how many of the city's proposed future BRT lines use this infrastructure, but it was more than just the one line. I think it was 2-3, wasn't it?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I can't remember how many of the city's proposed future BRT lines use this infrastructure, but it was more than just the one line. I think it was 2-3, wasn't it?

The portion from MRU to Heritage Dr would be used by 2 different BRTs. But once you get south of Heritage, it would just be the one.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

The portion from MRU to Heritage Dr would be used by 2 different BRTs. But once you get south of Heritage, it would just be the one.

Yeah, I was just trying to find that BRT network map. So the underpass under 90th ave would only be used by one BRT, hmmmm.

Probably best to wait until 4 car trains are running, and the ring road is in operation, then see what's needed. If you invest money on BRT now, invest in places that help now, but where the benefits increase over time.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Yeah, I was just trying to find that BRT network map. So the underpass under 90th ave would only be used by one BRT, hmmmm.

Probably best to wait until 4 car trains are running, and the ring road is in operation, then see what's needed. If you invest money on BRT now, invest in places that help now, but where the benefits increase over time.

That's what I figure. Build the busway from Rockyview to 14th Street, but stop there. Have buses use regular lanes on 14th from Heritage to Southland and have north bound buses connect into the busway by turning left at Heritage for the time being. And only run enough buses to ensure fairly high use per bus. If we get to four car trains and the South Line is still facing serious capacity constraints, then complete the rest of the guideway and run more buses. But until then, build only what we will definitely need in the future.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

That's what I figure. Build the busway from Rockyview to 14th Street, but stop there.

Since there is only 1 intersection between Glenmore and Heritage, does this even make sense? Since there were no grade separations along this section, the busway would still have lights at the hospital and Heritage Park, so would this busway actually offer anything that simple bus lanes would not? especially if the extra off-ramps, dedicated traffic lights, and extra crossings end up eliminating any benefit over a simple bus lane. (Cost-wise overall, and timing wise going North)

Not sure.

I like the idea of the extra dedicated lanes all the way down, especially if there is a chance that this BRT would be eliminated in the future. With the South LRT, or some Ring-Road based SW spur was deemed to be sufficent for transit needs, those lanes could be converted into carpool lanes for general traffic, and still be of use.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Since there is only 1 intersection between Glenmore and Heritage, does this even make sense? Since there were no grade separations along this section, the busway would still have lights at the hospital and Heritage Park, so would this busway actually offer anything that simple bus lanes would not? especially if the extra off-ramps, dedicated traffic lights, and extra crossings end up eliminating any benefit over a simple bus lane. (Cost-wise overall, and timing wise going North)

Not sure.

I like the idea of the extra dedicated lanes all the way down, especially if there is a chance that this BRT would be eliminated in the future. With the South LRT, or some Ring-Road based SW spur was deemed to be sufficent for transit needs, those lanes could be converted into carpool lanes for general traffic, and still be of use.

The busway is located to the west of the regular traffic lanes. The intersection of 75th and 14th wouldn't affect southbound buses, as they would connect to the internal Rockyview road after the turnoff from Glenmore onto 14th. More than anything, this busway would avoid traffic backed up on 14th.

But it does bring up the biggest point and that is how to deal with the Glenmore/Crowchild section of the route. Currently there are no dedicated lanes for the buses proposed (not even shoulder operation because of the bridge width), which may mean the buses just sit stuck on the Glenmore causeway. In my opinion, traffic-free operation is the biggest draw of a BRT system, so I think we should really examine possibilities to avoid this. However appealing, a route over the damn using 19th street and 50th avenue does not seem viable to me.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

The busway is located to the west of the regular traffic lanes. The intersection of 75th and 14th wouldn't affect southbound buses, as they would connect to the internal Rockyview road after the turnoff from Glenmore onto 14th. More than anything, this busway would avoid traffic backed up on 14th.

The busway still crosses the traffic coming into the hospital and Eagleridge, so there is still some level of street traffic to interact with, both at the initial crossing just after the southbound lane enters the hospital land (well before the lights), and at the lights themselves, as that is the entrance to the main parking structure. Is there a way of dealing with these crossings without lights and still giving the bus the right of way?

Originally Posted by fusili

But it does bring up the biggest point and that is how to deal with the Glenmore/Crowchild section of the route. Currently there are no dedicated lanes for the buses proposed (not even shoulder operation because of the bridge width), which may mean the buses just sit stuck on the Glenmore causeway.

There is a shoulder on both the east and west lanes of Glenmore (and the exit off to 14th) along the causeway. Neither is a lane width in itself, but if the central median was shifted north on the main causeway bridge structure, they might just be able to squeek out a lane on the existing infrastructure. Either that or take over the cycle-path and build a new cycle path bridge?

Originally Posted by fusili

In my opinion, traffic-free operation is the biggest draw of a BRT system, so I think we should really examine possibilities to avoid this. However appealing, a route over the damn using 19th street and 50th avenue does not seem viable to me.

I never even though of that... Why is that a bad idea? It seems to give an almost identical route, on less busy roads, and over infrastructure that is already largely there... it sounds like a good idea... no?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

There is a shoulder on both the east and west lanes of Glenmore (and the exit off to 14th) along the causeway. Neither is a lane width in itself, but if the central median was shifted north on the main causeway bridge structure, they might just be able to squeek out a lane on the existing infrastructure. Either that or take over the cycle-path and build a new cycle path bridge?

From what I understand, not enough of a shoulder to add a lane. At least that is what the study says. If they could squeeze a dedicated lane for all the way to MRU that would be absolutely amazing.

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I never even though of that... Why is that a bad idea? It seems to give an almost identical route, on less busy roads, and over infrastructure that is already largely there... it sounds like a good idea... no?

Operating over the dam would be a nightmare. Plus the dam serves as part of the cycling path.

[MalcolmTucker]

Could do one way over the dam in peak direction, reversing for the other peak. Move the pedestrian and cycle path onto a catwalk over the watermain. Not a perfect solution, but worth of study.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Could do one way over the dam in peak direction, reversing for the other peak. Move the pedestrian and cycle path onto a catwalk over the watermain. Not a perfect solution, but worth of study.

The dam had alternating one lane traffic over it until 1980.