Calgary Public Transit II

[frinkprof]

From Ald. Shane Keating's blog regarding the SE Transitway.

The City of Calgary is planning to hold three Public Information Sessions from January 24 – 26. These sessions will include a series of information boards/panels that citizens can read and study, and then have opportunity to ask questions or make comments to the various project team members in attendance.
The feedback that the City receives will be incorporated into the study's reports.
Here are the confirmed dates, times and locations for these public sessions.


January 24, 2012

Riverbend Community Hall

19 Rivervalley Drive SE

4 – 8 pm
January 25, 2012

Ramsay Community Hall

1136 – 8 Street SE

4 – 8 pm
January 26, 2012

McKenzie Towne Hall

40 McKenzie Towne Blvd SE

4 – 8 pm

http://shanekeating.blogspot.com/2011/12/setway-pre-design-study-public.html

[You Need A Thneed]

How many people does a transfer between the south line and the SE benefit? It doesn't matter to people coming from the NE, NW, or West lines.

For nearly everyone going from somewhere along the SE line to somewhere on the South line, or vice versa, getting crosstown on a bus would take a much shorter time anyway.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Due to human minds not working that well, almost everyone that would transfer at the planned 2nd St 8th Ave transfer from the SE LRT under current conception, would transfer on the east side of downtown instead.
There is a a paradox that exists in traffic modelling that sometimes reducing choice and removing parts of the network can make all trips faster. Of course one would need modelling to prove this, but I believe this would certainly be a case where there is long term costs to the system in addition to the capital costs of the proposed change.

In essence, subtraction by addition.

Yup, Braess's paradox (sp?). Sometimes referenced to explain how road closures can improve traffic flow. The closure of Broadway in Manhattan around Times Square is a good example.

[Full Mountain]

A couple of thoughts on the SE LRT

1. Doesn't the tunnel ultimately need to be below the level of the 8th ave subway anyway? Thereby negating the advantages of not tunneling till after Macleod
a. Wouldn't starting the tunnel around the 4th Street SE station make more sense? i.e. trench the station then head down under the existing tunnel, swing down to 10th for the station and then head north to Eau Claire?

2. Vic Park station - This station should be reconstructed around 11th underground with a common terminal head with a station on the SE LRT, this then places the station around the north end of the stampede park, a third station could then be added somewhere around 17th (u/g of course) to fit in with the future 'Dome' replacement

3. If the city were to move ahead as above the station transfer between the S and SE lines would be something that open around the time of the 8th ave subway, using that opportunity to move the s line u/g till cemetery hill, removing the barrier that currently seperates stampede park and vic park from the rest of the beltline to the west

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Re: a east end of downtown transfer
Due to human minds not working that well, almost everyone that would transfer at the planned 2nd St 8th Ave transfer from the SE LRT under current conception, would transfer on the east side of downtown instead. This would place the transfer load onto the LRT mainline at the point of maximum use, the entrance to downtown from the south line, instead of in the middle of downtown.

Why? Why would someone going north on the future SE line trying to get to downtown switch to another line also heading downtown? Unless maybe their destination is on the SLRT line, which then only makes it logical. Hence, exactly why such a connection is ideal. Similarily, and vice versa for someone heading toward the core on the SLRT line.

The 5 minutes you save a few people is in no way worth the massive penalty you apply to everyone else by creating a new station and transfer point at the edge of the core service area (think the Yonge-Bloor transfer in Toronto as an extreme example of this).

This presupposes that somehow the network (and the station location) would be exactly the same after the 8th ave tunnel and this proposal would be built: First of all, the stations may indeed be different. Secondly, a line in a tunnel (regardless of which one we are talking about, but let's assume SLRT (201, whatever)) has now just made it possible to operate at max or near to max allowable operating speed. Thus, travel times have just been decreased. Presumably, you are saying that they could be decreased even more so, but (a), that can't be perceived by the rider (because the other option isn't there) and (b) where is the trade-off with connectivity, transferabilility and to reiterate, accessibility of two lines to a future long distance railway station. If furthermore, and I understand your perspective (and do correct me if I'm out to lunch,) you are saying that a transfer station might cause increased station dwell times due to high passenger movements, then I think we would be talking about seconds at most.

Essentially, by that logic, no other station should really exist in between the highest ridership generating one (in Calgary a somewhat safe bet that it is a PnR station at or near to the end of the line) and the center. An O-D analysis would likely confirm that. However, that isn't, or damn well shouldn't be the point of transit or we might as well call it a "people mover."

Most people will not make the logical choice and transfer at 8th and 2nd St if there is an opprotunity to transfer earlier in their trip, even if it ends up taking more time for them. Since time is hard to measure, most people will measure trips as distance, and will try to plan their trips to have the lowest possible distance, both on the train and walking.

Again, why would anyone transfer to the other line if their destination isn't on that line. If their destination is on that line, then the exact purpose of the location of this proposed transfer station has been fulfilled.

There is a a paradox that exists in traffic modelling that sometimes reducing choice and removing parts of the network can make all trips faster. Of course one would need modelling to prove this, but I believe this would certainly be a case where there is long term costs to the system in addition to the capital costs of the proposed change.

Again, I'll give you capital costs any day of the week. Firstly, we aren't talking about traffic modelling here. Secondly, that paradox isn't a given. I must admit, perhaps I am misunderstanding you wrong in general here, but I am not seeing where and how transfering is causing a disbenefit. If we are talking about what might be a seemingly "unneeded" extra station, then my first paragraph above stands. Cost/Benefit on travel time and on one line only is rather narrowly scoped.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

How many people does a transfer between the south line and the SE benefit? It doesn't matter to people coming from the NE, NW, or West lines.

For nearly everyone going from somewhere along the SE line to somewhere on the South line, or vice versa, getting crosstown on a bus would take a much shorter time anyway.

It's not so much the S to SE that is important as much as the SE to NW. UofC and SAIT are major transit destinations.

[DarkKeyo]

People keep mentioning in here that Victoria Park station is up for re-evaluation, alongside the new arena and extension of 17th Av into the Stampede park. I only ever remember us talking about that on here; I don't recall the City having any plans beyond extending both Stampede stations to 4-car platforms with minimal changes.

I think there should be some sort of plan here, and not just for Victoria Park station. The 8th Ave subway (something else we need a plan for) will be designed for 5-car trains, because it is hard to dig out a station expansion should we decide to do that. I've also seen plans for a couple stations (Banff Trail and Sunnyside) that show how they will be extended to 5 cars if the time comes. The stations on the 201 are also aging, and I know there are plans in the works to replace them (eg. 39th Av being rebuilt entirely during it's conversion to 4-car platform; Chinook being demolished and rebuilt entirely, building and all, for the same reason; the renovations they've already done to Whitehorn).

I think every station on the 201 that wasn't built in the last decade should have a plan for replacement and upgrades to handle the massive increase in use it has seen since it was built. Especially if we will be developing TOD's at most of them. Or, I would like to know what those plans are. Banff Trail, Lions Park, Victoria Park, Chinook, Heritage, and Anderson can barely handle current peak period traffic, and we anticipate traffic requiring 5-car trains.

Thoughts?

[Koolfire]

I've been toying with the SE LRT approach to downtown. What I've been thinking is to build the 8th Ave subway first (or make it part of the SE project). Then you could interline the SE with W-NE line and maybe even some with the S-NW line. The tunnel under the CPR tracks would have to be rebuilt to accommodate an extra set of tracks and switches. This would boost capacity on NE line as it will become the more frequent train on 7th, boost capacity on South line even more so. I think this solution could work for about 20-30 years before all the capacity is at max. Then I would build the NC LRT down Centre till Bow River then 2nd st all the way down to 17th and then tie into the existing track at MacLeod and 17th. With that built shift SE completely to 8th Ave. This way if we spend a billion dollars on a tunnel downtown all the routes gain capacity.

[CalgaryTransit guy]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Another person was hit by the C-train last night, this is getting ridiculous! What are people doing when they are around the trains, pay attention where you are going or you are going to get run over and killed!

I really don't know what can be done to improve safety if people aren't willing to use common sense and actually watch where they are going...

Thanks for bringing that up. When i saw some C-Train videos, i saw some peple JAYWALKING. That is unacceptable.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by sim

Again, why would anyone transfer to the other line if their destination isn't on that line. If their destination is on that line, then the exact purpose of the location of this proposed transfer station has been fulfilled.

What I am talking about is people, who under the current plan would transfer downtown in the middle of the free fare zone to reach their other destinations in downtwon, so they don't need to walk as far as walking from the SE line directly.

Making the transfer easiest the point where the transfer would be onto a portion of the line that will be the busiest point from now and into the future is not smart. For reasons of economy you really never want any extra capacity passing between Chinook and City Hall than you actually need.

Unless you are willing to provide much more capacity at that point of the south line, the hypothetical east SE LRT and South LRT transfer station (could be short turn trains not travelling the full line, or full line service), you create demand that can never be fulfilled.

I am not worried about SE to south transfers, or SE to north transfers. I am worried about SE to downtown transfers.

Where the transfer is planned for now, it is a given that there will always be more capacity to accomadate the transfers than at the hypothetical east SE LRT and South LRT transfer station. Some people will get off the south and north LRTs downtown before the transfer people get on. Plus you distribute the transfers in two directions instead of one.

As for imposing costs on other users, an extra station will at all times impose a cost on users. It will increase trip time from it not existing in all but special circumstances. My main worry is not really about that delay, since that delay is easily measured and weighed.

The harder to measure increase in trip time is from the extra congestion transfers from the SE to downtown transfers at a hypothetical east SE LRT and South LRT transfer stationwould cause, not only to SE riders as a whole, but south lrt riders heading northbound as well. (if you could limit the transfers to counter demand trips you wouldn't have this problem but it is impossible).

Having people trying to board a full train will cause higher station dwell times. Plus unless there is way too much extra capacity not everyone will make the first transfer they attempt.

I'm going to try to explain it with a crude graphic:

The boxes are catchment areas, the lines are lines. Thick arrows are transfers, and thin arrows are riders exiting to the catchment zone on foot.

By having the transfer before riders from the south line start to exit the line, freeing capacity you create capacity problems you wouldn't have in the other system .

Since the number of people for the foreseeable future with the final destination of downtown will continue to greatly outnumber cross town trips, there is no reason to create a situation to disadvantage the many, at the cost of the few.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's not so much the S to SE that is important as much as the SE to NW. UofC and SAIT are major transit destinations.

For them, the 2nd street transfer station would work just fine. It works just fine for everyone except transferring from S to SE, or vice versa.

[freeweed]

Odd observation - Crowfoot now seems to have the train times displayed on the boards outside, but inside the station it still reads "delayed due to construction". Seems weird that all 3 boards aren't linked.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by CalgaryTransit guy

Thanks for bringing that up. When i saw some C-Train videos, i saw some peple JAYWALKING. That is unacceptable.

I will jaywalk across the tracks downtown if there's no trains coming, but I've noticed that some people see you cross, and then they just cross without looking to see if there is a train coming, people can be such sheep at times.

[bigcanuck]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I will jaywalk across the tracks downtown if there's no trains coming, but I've noticed that some people see you cross, and then they just cross without looking to see if there is a train coming, people can be such sheep at times.

Cops were ticketing jaywalkers outside Holt Renfrew last week during lunch hour - saw one guy extremely ticked off and shouting at them while reluctantly accepting his ticket.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by bigcanuck

Cops were ticketing jaywalkers outside Holt Renfrew last week during lunch hour - saw one guy extremely ticked off and shouting at them while reluctantly accepting his ticket.

They do that every once in a while, but I usually look around and make sure there are no cars coming, or no cops standing around. I've been Jaywalking as long as I've lived and worked downtown (about 8 years) and have never got a ticket. I really don't get how some people have no concept of what's going on around them.

I think jaywalking tickets are only like $50 anyway, so I would just take it and be on with my life, getting mad at the cops isn't going to make them change their mind and tear up the ticket. lol

[TransitSupporter]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Odd observation - Crowfoot now seems to have the train times displayed on the boards outside, but inside the station it still reads "delayed due to construction". Seems weird that all 3 boards aren't linked.

Does anyone know whether the display signs @ 4St Station (across from Holt Renfrew) are flaky? I go there every Thursday morning and last week they were 'normal' (i.e. CITY CENTRE 0 MIN, CROWFOOT 2 MIN, etc) but today just the date and time. Many weeks I've noticed they're not going but others seem ok.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by TransitSupporter

Does anyone know whether the display signs @ 4St Station (across from Holt Renfrew) are flaky? I go there every Thursday morning and last week they were 'normal' (i.e. CITY CENTRE 0 MIN, CROWFOOT 2 MIN, etc) but today just the date and time. Many weeks I've noticed they're not going but others seem ok.

They haven't been working for the most part. CT has acknowledged that this is one of the last stations to go online. If you saw them working, it was probably during a test.

[DizzyEdge]

Re: transit lane in Inglewood

Counted 17 cars in the lane at 5pm yesterday. Which is interesting because hasn't that lane always been no stopping during evening rush hour? (curb lane in the west-bound direction)

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

What I am talking about is people, who under the current plan would transfer downtown in the middle of the free fare zone to reach their other destinations in downtwon, so they don't need to walk as far as walking from the SE line directly.

Making the transfer easiest the point where the transfer would be onto a portion of the line that will be the busiest point from now and into the future is not smart. For reasons of economy you really never want any extra capacity passing between Chinook and City Hall than you actually need.

Unless you are willing to provide much more capacity at that point of the south line, the hypothetical east SE LRT and South LRT transfer station (could be short turn trains not travelling the full line, or full line service), you create demand that can never be fulfilled.

I am not worried about SE to south transfers, or SE to north transfers. I am worried about SE to downtown transfers.

Where the transfer is planned for now, it is a given that there will always be more capacity to accomadate the transfers than at the hypothetical east SE LRT and South LRT transfer station. Some people will get off the south and north LRTs downtown before the transfer people get on. Plus you distribute the transfers in two directions instead of one.

As for imposing costs on other users, an extra station will at all times impose a cost on users. It will increase trip time from it not existing in all but special circumstances. My main worry is not really about that delay, since that delay is easily measured and weighed.

The harder to measure increase in trip time is from the extra congestion transfers from the SE to downtown transfers at a hypothetical east SE LRT and South LRT transfer stationwould cause, not only to SE riders as a whole, but south lrt riders heading northbound as well. (if you could limit the transfers to counter demand trips you wouldn't have this problem but it is impossible).

Having people trying to board a full train will cause higher station dwell times. Plus unless there is way too much extra capacity not everyone will make the first transfer they attempt.

I'm going to try to explain it with a crude graphic:

The boxes are catchment areas, the lines are lines. Thick arrows are transfers, and thin arrows are riders exiting to the catchment zone on foot.

By having the transfer before riders from the south line start to exit the line, freeing capacity you create capacity problems you wouldn't have in the other system .

Since the number of people for the foreseeable future with the final destination of downtown will continue to greatly outnumber cross town trips, there is no reason to create a situation to disadvantage the many, at the cost of the few.

I get your point and it is indeed a good one. The sketch is appreciated.

A couple things:

First of all I would reference Wardrop's Principle. The users will theoretically create a system equilibrium. If they see that they can never get on the northbound SLRT train and their destination lies somewhere in between the two stations, they may very quickly opt to continue to the next transfer station and "backtrack" that one or possibly two future stations.

Secondly, all that is actually moot because this is assuming alignment through tunnels where capacity has now been substantially increased - due of course to the SLRT no longer being interlined with the NELRT (although I've never been a full fan of that idea, but regardless,) increased speeds and more reliable and consistent headways due to the removal of current grade-level extraneous interactions.

In network planning, connections are good, not bad and not not smart. If economics are futhermore the main measure that is to be used to decide what determines a successful network, then so to do the economics have to be extrapolated along the whole network and not just one line. Ideally, even that network's interaction with the resulting land-use.

If we want to continue to plan the city and the corresponding transportation (specifically the mass transit) network geometrically conducive and optimal for commuting trips only (which is interestingly even reflected in the latest Project Calgary article where the Angus Reid question was only about getting to work (Aside: I believe a forumer has a quote in their as well),) then yes forget about adding more transfer nodes. I'm not claiming that a SELRT to SLRT trip would be very frequent as is. Talking long-term here.

YNAT indeed has a point in saying that cross town trips will be and continue to be made with buses. Agreed, ideally another transfer station might be a couple of stations south of the one I propose. What puts this over the age would be its adjacency to the future HSR station. Furthermore, one is hard pressed to find a network map of most large-scale systems where lines cross over each other without any interaction. Of course it occurs, but I wouldn't advocate for CT to be a purveyor of it and have a disproportionately large ratio (50%) of such an occurence on the onset.

[Radley77]

West LRT Bicycle Route Improvements

Map of West LRT Bicycle Route Improvements Project (click here)

This looks great. I'm a big fan of the interstreet cycling route spacing, and the tie-ins to the LRT system. This is the kind of continuity needed for a successful cycling strategy.