Calgary Public Transit II

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Our next post on the Transitcamp blog: http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the-calgary-transitcamp-vision-the-plan/

and the associated route map:

(Image too large to post on the forum)

And in case you missed it, the first post in the series,"The Eight Pillars of Transit Planning" :http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the-calgary-transitcamp-vision-the-eight-pillars-of-transit/

Let me know your thoughts.

It seems to me like the three BRTs coming together in the NE might be overkill for 52nd. Wouldn't coverage be better if they were spread out a bit. Like keeping the 16 Ave BRT on 36th/Metis so as to serve Skyview and whatnot.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It seems to me like the three BRTs coming together in the NE might be overkill for 52nd. Wouldn't coverage be better if they were spread out a bit. Like keeping the 16 Ave BRT on 36th/Metis so as to serve Skyview and whatnot.

First, splitting up routes also means splitting up headways. If we were to, for example, run similar routes down 68th and 36th, we would cut the headway into 1/3s or triple our operating costs. Second, these are BRTs, not regular bus service. The intention is to move quickly and carry a lot of passengers, not to increase coverage. That is what feeder buses are for.

A big part of each of the the three BRTs is to connect NE residents with three major employment centres not served by the LRT network: Foothills Hospital/ACH/UofC, Blackfoot Industrial (Manchester, Highfield, Bonnybrook) and Foothills Industrial. They also serve as cross town routes not served the the LRT network. Going up 36th accomplishes very little, as the LRT already does that. The geographic centre of population in the NE is on 52nd Street (36th being one boundary and 85th the other) as it is the street that runs between the sections of land that were subdivided to develop the NE (one on either side). Therefore, almost all residents who currently use feeder buses to get to the LRT can do exactly the same for the BRTs. There is no other street that can accomplish what 52nd does (running almost straight from Saddleridge to Foothills Industrial with no turns).

As for Skyview, it is a simple transfer for them from the LRT (Skyview Station) to the BRTs at either Airport Trail or Saddletown station.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by fusili

Our next post on the Transitcamp blog: http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the-calgary-transitcamp-vision-the-plan/

and the associated route map:

(Image too large to post on the forum)

And in case you missed it, the first post in the series,"The Eight Pillars of Transit Planning" :http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/09/the-calgary-transitcamp-vision-the-eight-pillars-of-transit/

Let me know your thoughts.

Thought 1: That's a rather nicely done map to illustrate your ideas.

Thought 2: Your Route 304 would be much better if it, like the existing 91, terminated at Brentwood. On a related note, Route 304 even as an on-street BRT, ASAP, would be very useful to the entire northern half of the city. The 19 is useless.

Thought 3: Interesting idea, using Blackfoot for a BRT. I can see how that would be useful.

Thought 4: I've mentioned this before, but there are gaps in the "crosstown" aspect of this plan in the NW: From the WLRT to NWLRT (across the Bow River somewhere, somehow), and from the Airport west. If your grey line that connects the airport is going to be BRT, it should continue west along possibly Country Hills to connect that part of the NW to the NE employment centres. As it is, there is, albeit spread out, a lot of residential in the far NW that is a long way from any of the employment centres.

Final Thought: I had mentioned before, when I was at Transit Camp, that I'd be interested in further involvement, but I haven't been told where and when it meets.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Final Thought: I had mentioned before, when I was at Transit Camp, that I'd be interested in further involvement, but I haven't been told where and when it meets.

I just sent you the mailing list invite. You haven't missed much, we've been pretty dormant over the summer. Looking to fire things up again in the fall.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

First, splitting up routes also means splitting up headways. If we were to, for example, run similar routes down 68th and 36th, we would cut the headway into 1/3s or triple our operating costs. Second, these are BRTs, not regular bus service. The intention is to move quickly and carry a lot of passengers, not to increase coverage. That is what feeder buses are for.

A big part of each of the the three BRTs is to connect NE residents with three major employment centres not served by the LRT network: Foothills Hospital/ACH/UofC, Blackfoot Industrial (Manchester, Highfield, Bonnybrook) and Foothills Industrial. They also serve as cross town routes not served the the LRT network. Going up 36th accomplishes very little, as the LRT already does that. The geographic centre of population in the NE is on 52nd Street (36th being one boundary and 85th the other) as it is the street that runs between the sections of land that were subdivided to develop the NE (one on either side). Therefore, almost all residents who currently use feeder buses to get to the LRT can do exactly the same for the BRTs. There is no other street that can accomplish what 52nd does (running almost straight from Saddleridge to Foothills Industrial with no turns).

As for Skyview, it is a simple transfer for them from the LRT (Skyview Station) to the BRTs at either Airport Trail or Saddletown station.

I see where some of the benefits are but combining the three BRTs to achieve better headways along that stretch of 52 St seems kind of pointless. I'd imagine that most of the ridership would be from the residential area where all three pass through to the various employment areas. Having a 16 Ave or a Blackfoot Trail BRT come first won't do someone headed to Foothills Industrial any good. Wouldn't it be better to simply get rid of the combined element along 52 St and add that capacity to the three separate lines. It would require a transfer then but if headways are short then a transfer isn't a big deal.

I just see interlining making a lot more sense at a destination, like downtown, than at the source. I would much rather have one bus every five minutes going where I need to go than three every ten with only of them going to my destination. So if the 52 St portion of the Blackfoot Trail BRT was removed, it looks like that would allow the frequency of the rest of the route to double with the same number of buses.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Yeah that is crazy, 3 fatalities in about 3 weeks or so I believe. The LRT is becoming the Darwin machine for the city.

I wonder how this is affecting CTS' drivers. Even being free of blame, that has to be a horrible experience.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Thought 1: That's a rather nicely done map to illustrate your ideas.

Adobe Illustrator is awesome. I just overlaid a google earth map onto illustrator and put the lines over it, with some justifying to make the map look cleaner. The station representations I got from Barcelona.

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Thought 2: Your Route 304 would be much better if it, like the existing 91, terminated at Brentwood. On a related note, Route 304 even as an on-street BRT, ASAP, would be very useful to the entire northern half of the city. The 19 is useless.

Good point about the need ASAP. There will be a post about this in the future. Termination at Brentwood is appealing, but why connect to both Brentwood and Lion's Park? Those going to the research park or UofC from the NW LRT would just get off at Brentwood and the UofC station anyways, and transfering to the 304 to get to Foothills from Lion's Park would be faster than from Brentwood. But a good thought to consider. Currently the idea is to run from the AHC staight to UofC via 24th avenue to the Bus Loop and then south on University Drive back onto 16th. Different options will be elaborated on later.

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Thought 3: Interesting idea, using Blackfoot for a BRT. I can see how that would be useful.

Thanks. Other than some slight tweaks to their proposed BRT plan, this is the only thing I have that differs from the City's BRT network plan (and my deletion of the Shaganappi BRT- WTF?), so I am proud of it. Basically I thought this whole thing up over a year or so, and then the city came up with their BRT plan, and I was like- wow, so I guess these routes do make sense.

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Thought 4: I've mentioned this before, but there are gaps in the "crosstown" aspect of this plan in the NW: From the WLRT to NWLRT (across the Bow River somewhere, somehow), and from the Airport west. If your grey line that connects the airport is going to be BRT, it should continue west along possibly Country Hills to connect that part of the NW to the NE employment centres. As it is, there is, albeit spread out, a lot of residential in the far NW that is a long way from any of the employment centres.

The far NW does have a considerable gap I admit. But there is almost no employment up there (and don't say the NW industrial area- that is all gravel pits and they employ like 6 people). NW residents simply get on the train at Tuscany, Crowfoot or Dalhousie and then make their transfers from there. I only put in crosstown routes if they had both origins and major destinations (such as the Hospitals or industrial areas).

There is a plan for connecting the WLRT to the NWLRT, but that is to come much later in the blog posts (and one I think many here would find interesting if not ballsy)


But thanks for the comments.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I see where some of the benefits are but combining the three BRTs to achieve better headways along that stretch of 52 St seems kind of pointless. I'd imagine that most of the ridership would be from the residential area where all three pass through to the various employment areas. Having a 16 Ave or a Blackfoot Trail BRT come first won't do someone headed to Foothills Industrial any good. Wouldn't it be better to simply get rid of the combined element along 52 St and add that capacity to the three separate lines. It would require a transfer then but if headways are short then a transfer isn't a big deal.

I just see interlining making a lot more sense at a destination, like downtown, than at the source. I would much rather have one bus every five minutes going where I need to go than three every ten with only of them going to my destination. So if the 52 St portion of the Blackfoot Trail BRT was removed, it looks like that would allow the frequency of the rest of the route to double with the same number of buses.

I meant headways on each line. So take the 307 for example. It runs from Airport Trail/Saddletown to Shepard via 52nd Street. It's purpose is basically to connect people to Foothills Industrial. If you were to run it on 52nd, 68th and 36th (in order to increase coverage) each line would have 1/3 the frequency and you would have to spend money putting dedicated transit lanes on 3 different roads, multiplying your costs by 3.

Perhaps I am confusing your comments though- do you mean that each line should go up a different route (36th, 68th etc) or that the Blackfoot BRT shouldn't go up 52nd? If it is the first case, I disagree, but if it is the second, I see your point.

I do agree there is an opportunity to terminate the Blackfoot BRT on 17th (at Belvedere) and just have transfers. That is definitely a possibility. But I thought if you had already built the busway and the majority of riders on the line would be coming from the NE (it has more population than greater Forest Lawn), why not run it up 52nd? It would be something that would require further examination.

But for the other two routes, I don't see much other viable options for alignment, the 307 should just stick to 52nd, and the 304 needs to go north on 36th from 16th avenue to get to the Peter Lougheed. It just makes sense to connect it through the existing ROW to get up to Saddletown while increasing coverage slightly (those close to 36th would just transfer at Rundle)

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

I meant headways on each line. So take the 307 for example. It runs from Airport Trail/Saddletown to Shepard via 52nd Street. It's purpose is basically to connect people to Foothills Industrial. If you were to run it on 52nd, 68th and 36th (in order to increase coverage) each line would have 1/3 the frequency and you would have to spend money putting dedicated transit lanes on 3 different roads, multiplying your costs by 3.

Perhaps I am confusing your comments though- do you mean that each line should go up a different route (36th, 68th etc) or that the Blackfoot BRT shouldn't go up 52nd? If it is the first case, I disagree, but if it is the second, I see your point.

I do agree there is an opportunity to terminate the Blackfoot BRT on 17th (at Belvedere) and just have transfers. That is definitely a possibility. But I thought if you had already built the busway and the majority of riders on the line would be coming from the NE (it has more population than greater Forest Lawn), why not run it up 52nd? It would be something that would require further examination.

But for the other two routes, I don't see much other viable options for alignment, the 307 should just stick to 52nd, and the 304 needs to go north on 36th from 16th avenue to get to the Peter Lougheed. It just makes sense to connect it through the existing ROW to get up to Saddletown while increasing coverage slightly (those close to 36th would just transfer at Rundle)

Yeah, there was definitely a misunderstanding. I didn't mean splitting the 52 St BRT onto separate routes. I just didn't see much of a point of interlining multiple routes along a purely residential section of 52 St. I see two ways of getting rid of the interlined portion. Either one, simply removing the interlined portion of the other BRTs an having them terminate at 52 St, or two, direct them elsewhere. I see either one being an improvement.

Part of the issue is the design of the NE LRT. Having all of the stations halfway between the major intersecting arterials (Memorial, 16 Ave, 32 Ave, McKnight) really makes transfers between different mainline routes (LRT or BRT) needlessly complicated. It would be nice if the NE LRT had a station at 16 Ave (even nicer if the Peter Lougheed was there too) so that the 16 Ave line could just be a simple simple and straight forward direct east-west link across the city. I hope any future lines, of any mode, try to take transfers into account better by putting stations where intersecting routes will go.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Part of the issue is the design of the NE LRT. Having all of the stations halfway between the major intersecting arterials (Memorial, 16 Ave, 32 Ave, McKnight) really makes transfers between different mainline routes (LRT or BRT) needlessly complicated. It would be nice if the NE LRT had a station at 16 Ave (even nicer if the Peter Lougheed was there too) so that the 16 Ave line could just be a simple simple and straight forward direct east-west link across the city. I hope any future lines, of any mode, try to take transfers into account better by putting stations where intersecting routes will go.

Agreed 100%. That is the problem with designing a transit system piece by piece. Later transfers become very awkward. In my opinion, Rundle station should have been directly adjacent to PLC.

[Ramsayfarian]

Did anyone hear about another fatality on the C-Train? This one happened on Sunday at Chinook.

http://newsroom.calgary.ca/pr/calgary/lrt-fatality-collision-215221.aspx?link_page_rss=215221

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Did anyone hear about another fatality on the C-Train? This one happened on Sunday at Chinook.

http://newsroom.calgary.ca/pr/calgary/lrt-fatality-collision-215221.aspx?link_page_rss=215221

Victim was waiting on the platform, and no newspaper report. Suicide?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Victim was waiting on the platform, and no newspaper report. Suicide?

The string of recent deaths (4 in the last two weeks) was alluded to at the council meeting this morning. The city transportation guy hinted that the city suspected that more than one were suicides.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The string of recent deaths (4 in the last two weeks) was alluded to at the council meeting this morning. The city transportation guy hinted that the city suspected that more than one were suicides.

Seems like some copycatting perhaps.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Victim was waiting on the platform, and no newspaper report. Suicide?

The city did put out a news release, the Herald had a story but its disappeared off the web site since. It happened at the station which typically has been either suicides, or fooling around/not paying attention. Based on the lack of news about this, I'd suspect the former.

[floobie]

According to the Herald, reserved parking spots aren't too popular:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Reserved+parking+lots+proving+unpopular/5386152/story.html

As usual, the comments section for the article is full of face-palm material. But, I get the impression that some additional tweaking of this idea is necessary. Though, I'd think demand should increase as the weather turns to shit.

As for the deaths... sheesh. Some of these must be suicides. Makes me not want to ride the train for a while. I don't really feel like witnessing something like this.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm not sure what the solution is for the parking. Now they said that they have this shortfall due to the lack of people paying for parking. What about before the $3 was imposed? Or is the parking fees supposed to pay for parking lot services which weren't happening before (upkeep, security, etc)

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by mersar

The city did put out a news release, the Herald had a story but its disappeared off the web site since. It happened at the station which typically has been either suicides, or fooling around/not paying attention. Based on the lack of news about this, I'd suspect the former.

That's what I suspected as well.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

That's what I suspected as well.

Like YNAT said, Malcolm Logan alluded to this at the Council hearing today in response to a question from Alderman Jones (all three deaths have been in his ward). I believe an external safety audit was conducted and completed about a week ago. Either way it is terribly unfortunate and quite sad. Although there is very little we can do to stop this at that point, I just wish people knew more about resources such as the suicide prevention centre in Calgary and other resources available to people in this situation.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

Like YNAT said, Malcolm Logan alluded to this at the Council hearing today in response to a question from Alderman Jones (all three deaths have been in his ward). I believe an external safety audit was conducted and completed about a week ago. Either way it is terribly unfortunate and quite sad. Although there is very little we can do to stop this at that point, I just wish people knew more about resources such as the suicide prevention centre in Calgary and other resources available to people in this situation.

Perhaps there should be notices of those services at the stations.