Calgary Public Transit II

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by fusili

I know other stations that are quite deep. Nuevos Ministerios in Madrid and Krizikova in Prague both required several sets of escalators to get to the surface from the station platform.

Covent Garden station on the Piccadilly line in London is deep, and is elevator only access (apart from fire escape stairs). The 3 elevators there move large crowds with little difficulty. Part of the secret is to use two doors on the elevator car- one for people to get out, the other one to enter. The elevator cars can hold a good 30 people.

[frinkprof]

Starting on 2011 December 9, new bus-only lanes will be introduced in Inglewood on 9 Avenue between 8 Street and 15 Street S.E.

9 Avenue SE is a key connection to the east side of the city and it will see increased bus service along the corridor in the coming years. With much feedback from the communities during the recent Transportation Planning Study on 17 Avenue and Inglewood, there was a recommendation to have peak period, peak direction bus-only lanes along 9 Avenue.

This was approved by Council, and we are now proceeding with implementing the bus-only lanes.

Each weekday, 9 Avenue S.E. carries eight bus routes including the 301and 302 BRT routes, carrying about 6,500 passengers at a rate of approximately 25 buses per hour during peak periods.



The design of the bus lanes follows the Council approved 17 Avenue S.E. Transportation Planning Study, Part B: Inglewood.



Source: S.E. 17 Avenue Project – Inglewood 2nd Open House Boards:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/...ted-Planning-Projects/17-Avenue-S.E.aspx


For the morning peak hours, the west-bound curb lane will be a bus-only lane.
During the afternoon peak hours, the east-bound curb lane will be a bus-only lane.



The new bus-only lanes will improve transit trips for the buses servicing the area, while increasing connectivity and transportation choices for Calgarians.

Cyclists are welcome to use the bus lane. Motorists are allowed to enter the bus lane in order to access driveways and alleys and to turn right at the next intersection.

There will be no changes to parking.

Traffic signal timing modifications are planned along 9 Avenue to improve the flow for motorists.

Link for more information

[artvandelay]

^ Ugh, there goes my preferred route out of downtown...

[fusili]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

^ Ugh, there goes my preferred route out of downtown...

Yeah, but overall it will (well hopefully), move more people than a regular vehicle lane.

A great idea in my mind.

[bigcanuck]

301 doesn't go through Inglewood.

[MichaelS]

I think it was supposed to say 305.

[5seconds]

Not a bad idea, but I have never really noticed buses having a hard time getting through there.

Are there any other instances of time-dependant bus lanes in the city? I wonder if that will cause some confusion to start, especially when west-bound cars are turning across traffic onto 11th st. You just know people are going to go into those bus lanes to get around people who are turning.

[fusili]

Latest transitcamp blog on catchments, transit and growth:

http://bit.ly/vpDOQ6

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

Latest transitcamp blog on catchments, transit and growth:

http://bit.ly/vpDOQ6

Interesting!

It really highlights the problem with any plans to spur the south LRT line to Providence.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Interesting!

It really highlights the problem with any plans to spur the south LRT line to Providence.

Yeah, IMO, Providence should never be developed unless the SWRR gets built; we have put 5 car trains on the south line and built the Stephen avenue subway. No point in developing 30 000 homes in Providence just to make it so no one north of Fish Creek park can ever ride the train.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Latest transitcamp blog on catchments, transit and growth:

http://bit.ly/vpDOQ6

Awesome. The comment on the SE LRT catchment in the West LRT debates, the city prepared a similar map showing current and future residents. For half the cost, you serve more people until the middle of the next decade if my memory serves me.

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Interesting!

It really highlights the problem with any plans to spur the south LRT line to Providence.

Yeah. If the SE LRT is built with a high capacity tunnel downtown to begin with, growth should really be focused there preferentially. We will build more than enough capacity to support Providence eventually anyways, and the community can be built up then - with 5 cars we can push 35,000 ppdph, vs the maybe 12,000 ppdph shared between the two lines right now.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

Latest transitcamp blog on catchments, transit and growth:

http://bit.ly/vpDOQ6

Can someone explain to me why the southeast lrt gets priority over the north-central lrt? I realize the NC has complexities associated with it but it seems that it currently has some of the highest BRT usage (125+ people per bus at peak, leaving people at the stops), with people finding the other routes actually faster due to the volume of people on the BRT, and it has from the above numbers a higher catchement that even the WLRT. As well given the complexities of the SE it seems it would be equal to that at very least rather than a subseqent 10-15 years after it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Can someone explain to me why the southeast lrt gets priority over the north-central lrt? I realize the NC has complexities associated with it but it seems that it currently has some of the highest BRT usage (125+ people per bus at peak, leaving people at the stops), with people finding the other routes actually faster due to the volume of people on the BRT, and it has from the above numbers a higher catchement that even the WLRT. As well given the complexities of the SE it seems it would be equal to that at very least rather than a subseqent 10-15 years after it.

Good question, and one I think we should look more at. Here are some things to consider:

- Catchment areas: NC 150K vs SE 87K
- Employment areas: NC- limited, SE- Foothills Industrial, Highfield Industrial, South Hospital
- Route costs (bridges, ROWs etc)

The answer isn't obvious. For the SE line, we only serve 87K, and have to spend $3-4B to do so. Plus, the residential concentration is far and disjointed. But we also serve major employment centres outside the downtown, which is very important.

However, with the NC line we population concentrations right away (Crescent heights etc) and the line goes through moderately dense areas for the entire route, with very little space with no or little development. On the other hand, we are not serving as many employment areas, and tunnelling can be quite expensive. It is something we need to look at.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Good question, and one I think we should look more at. Here are some things to consider:

- Catchment areas: NC 150K vs SE 87K
- Employment areas: NC- limited, SE- Foothills Industrial, Highfield Industrial, South Hospital
- Route costs (bridges, ROWs etc)

The answer isn't obvious. For the SE line, we only serve 87K, and have to spend $3-4B to do so. Plus, the residential concentration is far and disjointed. But we also serve major employment centres outside the downtown, which is very important.

However, with the NC line we population concentrations right away (Crescent heights etc) and the line goes through moderately dense areas for the entire route, with very little space with no or little development. On the other hand, we are not serving as many employment areas, and tunnelling can be quite expensive. It is something we need to look at.

Isn't the big factor in prioritizing the SE LRT over the NC LRT the catchment area of the existing NC LRT plans and the cost of changing the line to actually include most of the currently built up area? That is the Nose Creek alignment really only effectively serves the area north of Beddington Trail, which is smaller than the SE LRT catchment area. Of course switching to a Centre Street Subway, as most of us would prefer, effectively makes the North Central catchment larger than the SE but it also drives up costs to the point where the SE LRT may still give us the bigger bang for the buck.

I think it is also important to explore how the growth of other municipalities might burden the LRT system. If Okotoks maintains its current population cap, then the S LRT might face very little burden from outside of the city. Other lines could face much greater use from these municipalities. Here I'm thinking of the effect of: Airdrie on the NC LRT (and possibly the NE LRT too), Cochrane on the NW LRT, Chestermere (and possibly Langdon) on whatever serves Forest Lawn, etcetera.

[TransitSupporter]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Not a bad idea, but I have never really noticed buses having a hard time getting through there.

Are there any other instances of time-dependant bus lanes in the city? I wonder if that will cause some confusion to start, especially when west-bound cars are turning across traffic onto 11th st. You just know people are going to go into those bus lanes to get around people who are turning.

This is what they should do on Centre St N in rush hours. Currently there is a HOV lane, but it is a minority of cars that are 2+ passengers - most are driver only. It infuriates me, but I never see any policing being done. I truly think most people aren't intentionally abusing it, but don't even know what it's for. That said, if the lanes were for BUSES only you might get a slightly greater chance of compliance.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by TransitSupporter

This is what they should do on Centre St N in rush hours. Currently there is a HOV lane, but it is a minority of cars that are 2+ passengers - most are driver only. It infuriates me, but I never see any policing being done. I truly think most people aren't intentionally abusing it, but don't even know what it's for. That said, if the lanes were for BUSES only you might get a slightly greater chance of compliance.

This times a thousand. Calgary Transit is actually asking for this. Dedicated bus lanes on the lane reversal makes complete sense. And enforcement is simplified. Not a bus? You get a ticket.

[tmjr]

Originally Posted by fusili

... we have put 5 car trains on the south line and built the Stephen avenue subway.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

with 5 cars we can push 35,000 ppdph

Is the current expansion of CTrain platforms to four car lengths or five? If not five, why not if that is on the horizon? Is lengthening the platform to five lengths significantly more than four? It seems to me the current extension plan is taking long enough - hate to have to go through it all over again in the not too distant future...

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by tmjr

Is the current expansion of CTrain platforms to four car lengths or five? If not five, why not if that is on the horizon? Is lengthening the platform to five lengths significantly more than four? It seems to me the current extension plan is taking long enough - hate to have to go through it all over again in the not too distant future...

The improvements happening right now are going to extend the platform to 4 cars.

The 7th avenue stations cannot handle 5-car trains, the space between streets is too short to park a 5-car train without blocking a cross street. (39th ave station as well, I believe). In order to accomodate 5 cars, the City has to build the 8th avenue subway (and do something about 39th ave)

They could have extended the other stations to 5 car lengths, but until that subway is built (10 years? 20 years? longer?) they cannot run 5 cars. I guess the decision was made to not spend our money on an improvement that cannot be used for decades. Wait until the 8th ave subway is built with 5-car stations, and then decide when to upgrade the rest of the system to 5.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

Good question, and one I think we should look more at. Here are some things to consider:

- Catchment areas: NC 150K vs SE 87K
- Employment areas: NC- limited, SE- Foothills Industrial, Highfield Industrial, South Hospital
- Route costs (bridges, ROWs etc)

The answer isn't obvious. For the SE line, we only serve 87K, and have to spend $3-4B to do so. Plus, the residential concentration is far and disjointed. But we also serve major employment centres outside the downtown, which is very important.

However, with the NC line we population concentrations right away (Crescent heights etc) and the line goes through moderately dense areas for the entire route, with very little space with no or little development. On the other hand, we are not serving as many employment areas, and tunnelling can be quite expensive. It is something we need to look at.

Well said Fusili, we also have to consider that the SE is currently being served by a poorer transit system as opposed to the NC.

The BRT ride from Mckenzie Towne to Downtown takes 45-55 mins depending on traffic and road conditions. The 302 route snakes its way through a disjointed road system where as the 301 has a straight and direct route towards downtown with better supporting bus routes such as the #3, #4. It's for this reason the SE BRT system is percieved as unattractive as opposed to taking an express bus or driving to DT.
I believe that if the SE LRT is built there will be a higher percentage of people adopting transit as primary method of travel towards DT as opposed to the NC catchment area.

We should definitely build the NC LRT but I'm just throwing another reason for the priority of the SE LRT on the table.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The improvements happening right now are going to extend the platform to 4 cars.

The 7th avenue stations cannot handle 5-car trains, the space between streets is too short to park a 5-car train without blocking a cross street. (39th ave station as well, I believe).

Technically, that's not true*. Calgary's blocks, other than the oddball 3rd-4th Streets block, are 500' or about 150 m long (edge of street RoW to edge of street RoW). A five-car CTrain would be just shy of 125 m, so they would fit with some room to spare. Indeed, on paper, cramming a 6-car train in might just be possible, though with basically no room for error.

The actual problem is dealing with the fact that the platforms are elevated; a low floor train on the same length would face far fewer problems. By the time you get your ramps built, you nominally run out of room because the ramps get added on to the end of the platform. Now that can be sort of avoided by various tricks like separating platform and ramp or adding switchbacks (i.e. sort of the way the stations used to be before they were rebuilt), but that in turn has urban design issues with the surrounding buildings.

So really, the prohibition against 5-car trains is more of an urban design and functional issue related to high-floor vehicles as opposed to 5-car trains being unable to fit.

For its part, 39th Ave looks like it has just enough room on the level for 5-cars before it descends into the tunnel.

*As it happens, we get the same excuse offered up in Ottawa as to why 4-car (120 m) trains "can't" be put through downtown Ottawa on the surface with its 600'/180 m blocks.