Calgary Public Transit II

[Riise]

I'm not here as much as I use to be so sorry if this article has already been posted.

C-Train Sponsorship Rights Could Fast-Track Revenue: Ald.

15 August 2011
Metro Calgary
Katie Turner

Next stop: Suncor Southland Station.

Those words could become familiar to transit users should Ald. Shane Keating see success in his push to bring in additional revenue for the city.

Keating is exploring the idea of allowing corporations to put their name on C-Train Stations.

“You’d keep the same name like Anderson or Southland, that would always be there … but you may put a corporate name in front of it,” he said. “The one I floated about was ATB Anderson Station,” he said.

Keating said he would like to see that money go towards unfunded projects and necessary lifecycle maintenance around the city rather than into general revenue.

Complete Article

While I don't like the naming convention, I'm personally open to the idea of further corporate sponsorship on public transit as long as the money is pumped back into the system and the adverts are tasteful. I'm kicking myself for not having taken a photo of my own by now but I really like the way Southern, a British train operator, has corporate sponsorship for their stations in London.


Basically, the stations retains its full name and underneath the stations signs is the corporate advert. It's usually "Sponsor Lives Here" or "Home of Sponsor".


Source: Network Rail Media

[MalcolmTucker]

The city could likely make much more money by upping the limit of LRVs and buses in the fleet allowed to be covered by wraps. Allowing 'all station branding' where every ad and surface in a station is allowed to be covered with ads in a unified theme should be considered as well (as long as it doesn't impede function or damage the station in anyway before temporary aesthetics).

As for station branding costs a lot, with needing to redo all the maps and signs in the system, along with limiting competing advertising at at least that station, limits the net back. The two substantial cases of getting appreciable money are the Chicago Apple Store Station, and the future Toronto - Ryerson station.

In both those cases most of the money went or is going to capital expenditures to improve access from the station to the advertiser. The amounts before expenditures in those cases were still below $10 million. If lets say a new Best-Buy at Westbrook wanted a direct underground link to the station, would you say sure, just pay for it, or do you think the city should throw in station naming as well as a bonus?

Cleveland sold the naming rights of an entire line for $6.25m over 25 years ($250k/yr). Little Rock sold 3 stations for $10k/yr, Tampa 3 for $6k/yr. Now I think selling rights in Calgary would be worth more than what Little Rock or Tampa got, but I doubt it would make much impact on a budget that is north of a quarter billion dollars.

If naming rights is adopted, they should only be issued by the company that controls advertising on transit as part of a wider advertising deal which is what Toronto did. That way the city gets a guaranteed return and doesn't have to worry about the wider problems. Even with rights in a deal, I doubt they would ever be taken up by anyone, there are just too many problems.

[fusili]

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.

I guess that could work. But which way is peak on the Glenmore Causeway? I find it can be gridlock both ways at times. Perhaps the Dam route (or is it damn route?) could do an alternating right of way on the bridge, just like the bridge to Kicking Horse resort. Not sure about the impact on headways in that case though. Like you said, could be worthy of study.

[DarkKeyo]

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.

I agree with the points above, and the following discussion, and the question of how BRT will go over the causeway. I would like to point out that you are all overestimating the improvements 4-car trains will bring. OR at the very least you are forgetting that in 2014, at peak, less than 1 in 3 trains will be 4 car under current plans.

And, considering the number of people who pack into trains, wait for empty trains, avoid traveling during rush hour, or refuse to crowd onto trains... You will still see that with every train 4 cars long, especially after a few years of increasing ridership. Statistics aside, I bet it won't make THAT much of a difference.

But I can hope to be wrong

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Riise

I'm not here as much as I use to be so sorry if this article has already been posted.



While I don't like the naming convention, I'm personally open to the idea of further corporate sponsorship on public transit as long as the money is pumped back into the system and the adverts are tasteful. I'm kicking myself for not having taken a photo of my own by now but I really like the way Southern, a British train operator, has corporate sponsorship for their stations in London.


Basically, the stations retains its full name and underneath the stations signs is the corporate advert. It's usually "Sponsor Lives Here" or "Home of Sponsor".


Source: Network Rail Media

I have only one thing to say about this: Never, EVER, name your stations, lines, or other prominent landmarks or even public facilities, after sponsors. Unless they pay for building the entire thing.

More ads? Sure, as long as they aren't the bad ones. Signs like the one in riise's photo? If they really contribute a lot. But no naming rights. NEVER an ATB Anderson station. I'll be writing to the aldermen about that.

[5seconds]

The British examples above do have sponsorship signage, but the station remains un 'branded'. Croydon Station, for instance, is sponsored by Nestle, who has their (british) headquarters there, but the name of the station is still Croydon, and they advertise everything there, not just Nestle. I doubt they would get much money for that though, so if the deal were to be financially lucrative, I think any sponsor would demand a named station...

I don't mind signage, but I hate the idea that the city would sell off sponsorship of itself to the highest bidder one piece at a time. I still call Lindsey Park 'Lindsey Park'. I wonder what Talisman paid for that deal?

As for the Dam route for the BRT: If they could have it one lane over the Dam, but lights to alternate direction as demanded by the buses (stop lights at each end) and if they could make a nice transition from the 14th/Glenmore interchange to the Hospital road network, it might be a good idea. (I suppose a flyover lane from the interchange, over the Glenmore E to 14th S off-ramp and directly into the hospital grounds might be asking for too much?)

I guess it all comes down to cost of implementing it, and actual time saved versus a Glenmore routing. It would probably be cheaper to use the pedestrian 'lane' of Glenmore for the BRT (providing it was built to the same specs as the road lanes), and add a new pedestrian bridge to make up the capacity. Could something be bolted onto the existing causeway? The length isn't that great, could something like the new pedestrian bridge over Bow Trail be used?

[polishavenger]

If Calgary transit wants more revenues, they need to follow the MTR model in Hong Kong as much as appropriate in Calgary. This means treating C-Train stations (at least the busy ones) as valuable real estate assets. Build malls/office parks that encapsulate the stations and leverage the amount of people using the station into a retail/commercial opportunity. Rather than selling the lands around stations destined for TOD, lease the lands to developers.

[MalcolmTucker]

The West LRT was partially financed using value capture.

[You Need A Thneed]

A construction tender is out for the Tuscany extension.

[freeweed]

Oh Jebus, I really wish as a society we'd man up and stop having — ads everywhere, especially on publicly-funded infrastructure.

Bump my taxes by the minuscule amount this actually brings in, PLEASE. Let me have at least one public space that's not festooned with brainwashing. Unless we're talking tens of millions per year for each station, which I highly, highly doubt. I'd be surprised if it ended up bringing in more than a small single digit percentage of transit revenues.

[mwalker_mw]

I'm all for ads everywhere... I look at it as an indirect way for morons...er, I mean rabid consumers.... to subsidize my existence...

[reflexzero]

Well it could be funny, the West, Northwest, and South lines would have adverts for poodle massage parlors and sedation dentistry, while the NE could have adverts for where to go when you get shot on the platform.

I'm also thinking that the real time information boards aren't actually going to be operating in August? Seemed ambitious from the start.

[kap384]

So when there are mechanical failures at the relative extremes of calgary temperatures (c-Train), is there a common culprit? On 2 of the hotter days this summer, including yesterday, there were 15 min+ delays on the Somerset/Crowfoot line during rushour. Last time I was on a schedule and grabbed a cab, this time I was more flexible so walked all the way down to city hall station to at least get on!

I made it, but the the number of people we left on the 7th Ave platforms was pathetic.

Is it cars breaking down or tracks/power systems failing? If the line can't operate reliably in the 'extremes' of our climate, there is a problem.

Frequent failures noted on coldest days as well. This makes more sense (though not acceptable for a CANADIAN transit system), but Calgary's version of 'summer'?? Seriously?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

I guess that could work. But which way is peak on the Glenmore Causeway? I find it can be gridlock both ways at times. Perhaps the Dam route (or is it damn route?) could do an alternating right of way on the bridge, just like the bridge to Kicking Horse resort. Not sure about the impact on headways in that case though. Like you said, could be worthy of study.

Peak for the BRT would definitely be north in the AM and south in the PM. The causeway does see heavy traffic in both directions but the east bound AM traffic is presumably composed of West/Northwest residents heading to Southeast industrial parks; a SW BRT would have no affect on it at all.

That said, I would imagine that alternating traffic on the dam could easily handle anticipated traffic for sometime. At realistic headways of, maybe, five minutes there shouldn't be any problem. It could probably still function with headways under two minutes.

I would really like to see a comparison of estimated travel times for the chosen route compared to a route that travels over the dam and then takes 16 St-38 Ave-14 St to get to the core. It would force Mount Royal students to transfer to the Heritage-MRU-Westbrook BRT at Rockyview Hospital but if headways are short that shouldn't be a problem. The only issue I could see would be the possible need for a bridge over Glenmore Trail from the Hospital grounds to get to the dam. If travel times between the two are comparable, I would much rather see the dam option taken. I think it would be attractive to residents of Altadore, South Calgary, and even Bankview, providing superior inner city transit to any Crowchild routing. If travelling along 16 St in Altadore causes the speed to slow down it would be relatively easy to construct a busway in the parkland to the east, roughly along what would be the 14 St ROW.

I would also be interested in seeing a northern expansion up 14 St to Hidden Valley explored. It would add SAIT as a destination and then draw from a part of North Central Calgary that the 301 doesn't serve as well. It would be forced to intermingle with city traffic because of the lack of road ROW, although a busway could theoretically be built west of 14 St along the Nosehill portion, but that hasn't rendered the 301 as useless. It would then no longer be a SW BRT but instead a 14 St crosstown BRT with a brief detour along 9 Ave and 6 Ave to service downtown.

I also agree with DarkKeyo. I can't see four car trains really solving our congestion issues on the South LRT.Depending on how much traffic it can draw away, the SE LRT might make a big difference but I really think that the 8 Ave Subway will be needed to open up room on the trains. The 33% boost to theoretical line capacity from four car trains could be eaten up very quickly. I would imagine that there is a fair amount of pent up demand that would be induced to take the train if it wasn't currently uncomfortable. The ride really needs to become comfortable if TODs are to be successful at Anderson and, especially, Chinook.

[5seconds]

I like the Dam option, but not sure about removing the MRU from the route. I think the bus could just take 50th east of the university and connect to the dam that way.

Saying that, the document said that there would be no opportunity for dedicated bus lanes on the Crowchild and 14th ramps on Glenmore. I was thinking something like this could work on the Crowchild ramp southbound:



Since it avoids the back-up often associated with that flyover, and keeps the bus in the outside lane (hopefully dedicated bus lane) getting onto Glenmore.

Then again, there might not be enough benefit to bother with this.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Peak for the BRT would definitely be north in the AM and south in the PM. The causeway does see heavy traffic in both directions but the east bound AM traffic is presumably composed of West/Northwest residents heading to Southeast industrial parks; a SW BRT would have no affect on it at all.
.

Great points. However, you note that the SW BRT will have no effect on traffic heading to the SE industrial, which is true. But the BRT from Westbrook will, as it will be planned to eventually travel further east. Currently the plan is to terminate at Quarry Park, but my thinking is that it should instead continue along Glenmore to 52nd Street, to meet up with the 52nd Street BRT, and perhaps even travel south (or north) to catch more of the industrial area. Effectively, the BRT will serve as a primary east-west connection in the south, carrying residents in the west to jobs in the east (as well as from the West LRT and the South LRT). It all hinges on how fast it travels. The Glenmore, Heritage and Glenmore (again) sections will be instrumental, as will distributor routes in the SE industrial area. It will be vital to keep stops to a minimum, ensure dedicated lanes etc. If done properly, it can beat car travel because of congestion on Glenmore.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I like the Dam option, but not sure about removing the MRU from the route. I think the bus could just take 50th east of the university and connect to the dam that way.

Saying that, the document said that there would be no opportunity for dedicated bus lanes on the Crowchild and 14th ramps on Glenmore. I was thinking something like this could work on the Crowchild ramp southbound:



Since it avoids the back-up often associated with that flyover, and keeps the bus in the outside lane (hopefully dedicated bus lane) getting onto Glenmore.

Then again, there might not be enough benefit to bother with this.

I like it.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Great points. However, you note that the SW BRT will have no effect on traffic heading to the SE industrial, which is true. But the BRT from Westbrook will, as it will be planned to eventually travel further east. Currently the plan is to terminate at Quarry Park, but my thinking is that it should instead continue along Glenmore to 52nd Street, to meet up with the 52nd Street BRT, and perhaps even travel south (or north) to catch more of the industrial area. Effectively, the BRT will serve as a primary east-west connection in the south, carrying residents in the west to jobs in the east (as well as from the West LRT and the South LRT). It all hinges on how fast it travels. The Glenmore, Heritage and Glenmore (again) sections will be instrumental, as will distributor routes in the SE industrial area. It will be vital to keep stops to a minimum, ensure dedicated lanes etc. If done properly, it can beat car travel because of congestion on Glenmore.

I didn't think of removing that BRT from the causeway, as it clearly must travel west of the reservoir anyway. I suppose, as 5seconds pointed out, it would be possible to just use 50 Ave to head over.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I didn't think of removing that BRT from the causeway, as it clearly must travel west of the reservoir anyway. I suppose, as 5seconds pointed out, it would be possible to just use 50 Ave to head over.

Either way, it will cut down traffic on the causeway if done properly. Residents from the west can catch it along 37th, or from westbrook. Residents from the NW can take the LRT through to Heritage and transfer there.

[Robert in Calgary]

Re: SW BRT

My apologies if this has been covered....but, will a bus even fit on the dam these days?

Those two pipelines make for a very, very, tight fit.

Or are folks suggesting the pipelines would be removed?