Calgary Public Transit II

[MichaelS]

So with Ric McIver being named the new Transportation Minister today, what do you think the odds of a SE LRT happening any sooner are?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

So with Ric McIver being named the new Transportation Minister today, what do you think the odds of a SE LRT happening any sooner are?

Dr No as the Transport Minister, not a chance that SE LRT will be happening. Everyone here thought the Wild Rose government would be bad for infrastructure spending, well Transport projects are going to dry up all over the province.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cage

Dr No as the Transport Minister, not a chance that SE LRT will be happening. Everyone here thought the Wild Rose government would be bad for infrastructure spending, well Transport projects are going to dry up all over the province.

I don't think you read the promises in the platform, or know that McIver was a huge transit advocate.

Big increases in funding coming in Municipal Affiars. Plus the GreenTrip agreement from Transportation whenever the city finally decides what to spend money on.

Originally Posted by MichaelS

So with Ric McIver being named the new Transportation Minister today, what do you think the odds of a SE LRT happening any sooner are?

With the SE LRT, if there was money today, there still isn't even as concrete a plan as the West LRT when it was moved forward to my knowledge, so it couldn't move forward anyways.

To my knowledge MSI or whatever MSI may become in the future isn't allocated further out than the 2017 original 10 year funding envelope. Assuming all the ongoing yearly grant programs that exist today continue (MSI, Basic Municipal Transportation Grant ($114 million this year)) direct funding, assuming no increases from existing commitments or levels of funding, works out to approximately $458,795,573 in MSI, and $114 million in transportation grants.

So $573 million a year? More than enough to pay for the SE LRT and NC LRT up centre st if the city can contain scope creep. A good plan to pay for them over 20 years would still leave close to half of those grants for non-transit projects, which is a lower percentage than the past couple of years.

If the City thinks it needs more than the province can provide, they can raise taxes (which was done last year to fund the library and recreation centres iirc), or ask their voters to implement taxes in new areas to fund the projects.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't think you read the promises in the platform, or know that McIver was a huge transit advocate.

I think you mean McIver was a huge transit-to-his-ward advocate.

What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall during the first meeting between Minister McIver and Mayor Nenshi. Awkward....

[MalcolmTucker]

Grants are grants, the public perception that personalities matter much on things like this is overblown, at least in Alberta. In Ontario or BC where projects aren't funded through block grants, it is different.

I would expect any Minister to advocate in private for as much grant room as possible, and in public to defend the government's decisions and budget.

I don't think anyone is proposing or wants to upload transit to the province as the ring roads and Deerfoot has been.

[bigcanuck]

Interesting site that lets you see how far you can travel in 30 minutes in several major world cities (including Calgary) by only using public transit:

Mapnificent

You can also change the number of minutes to see how far you could go in an hour, etc.

[Aegis]

During the mayoral campaign, McIver was a strong advocate of the SE LRT. It's Nenshi doesn't seem to want to spend the money on SE LRT as LRT.

I recognize the merits of Nenshi's argument that we can move just as many people for less money on BRT, but it doesn't seem like a good use of public funds to build BRT in an LRT right-of-way and then have to rip it up to reconfigure as LRT when funding is available. I think we should just bite the bullet and build the LRT now. Also busses are more prone to service cutbacks by CT Administration which undermines the whole idea of putting in BRT in the first place.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Aegis

During the mayoral campaign, McIver was a strong advocate of the SE LRT. It's Nenshi doesn't seem to want to spend the money on SE LRT as LRT.

I recognize the merits of Nenshi's argument that we can move just as many people for less money on BRT, but it doesn't seem like a good use of public funds to build BRT in an LRT right-of-way and then have to rip it up to reconfigure as LRT when funding is available. I think we should just bite the bullet and build the LRT now. Also busses are more prone to service cutbacks by CT Administration which undermines the whole idea of putting in BRT in the first place.

Nenshi wants the SELRT as much as anyone else. There's currently no money to build even a piece of it that's in any way useful.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Aegis

It's Nenshi doesn't seem to want to spend the money on SE LRT as LRT.

False.

Originally Posted by Aegis

I recognize the merits of Nenshi's argument that we can move just as many people for less money on BRT

This has never been claimed or argued, much less by Nenshi.

Originally Posted by Aegis

but it doesn't seem like a good use of public funds to build BRT in an LRT right-of-way and then have to rip it up to reconfigure as LRT when funding is available.

I wholeheartedly agree. This has never been a quality of any SE Transitway/BRT talk to date though, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Originally Posted by Aegis

Also busses are more prone to service cutbacks by CT Administration as a direct result of council budgetary decisions which undermines the whole idea of putting in BRT in the first place.

Fixed.

[fusili]

I think that the SE BRT can have moderate investment to help with trip duration today, but still be used in the future. New bridges that will be used for the LRT but just for buses today fall under this category. Other than that, I agree and I don't think we should be spending much money on something that will be LRT in the future.

[Wooster]

Anyone interested in Transit, I'd recommend attending this event this weekend. It's a customer to customer engagement as part of the RouteAhead Strategic Plan for Transit. The Mayor will be participating (a good chance to meet and talk about transit directly with him) and is being hosted by the Calgary Transit Customer Advisory Group.

www.customer2customer.eventbrite.com.

Saturday Morning at the Telus Convention Centre. It's free.

[Offside_Ref]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think that the SE BRT can have moderate investment to help with trip duration today, but still be used in the future. New bridges that will be used for the LRT but just for buses today fall under this category. Other than that, I agree and I don't think we should be spending much money on something that will be LRT in the future.

Are there any other BRT lines in other cities that were always planned to be replaced by LRT, and not just as a potential future option? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I don't think there's much potential for building bridges now and using them for BRT. After Lynnwood (inbound), the LRT is planned to run along other rail ROW and grade separated when crossing streets, so you'd probably have to build the entire section to Inglewood to make it worth it, and that would be too much investment IMHO for something right now. Maybe the section between Ogden and Douglasdale in Quarry Park could be built and used...I'm not familiar with the area though, so it's just speculation.

[mersar]

Noticed tonight that the city appears to have acquired all the LRT ties and ballast for I'd guess the XRT extension as theres huge piles of both stockpiled at the Bearspaw Dam Road city yard. That or just stuff for other maintenance work, but I'd bet its for the XRT work.

[suburbia]

I don't know where this fits best ...

City council changes Calgary taxi rules

Council agreed late Monday to issue 55 new accessible taxi plate licenses to eligible drivers — not brokers — and require the plate holder to drive a minimum of 981 hours each year. Drivers would also work between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. Friday and Saturday.

It’s the first time in recent years the city has agreed to issue new licenses.

But with the extra plates come big changes, and benchmarks that allow the city to ensure cabs are in use when customers need them.

<>

NENSHI: “We’re spreading power more through the industry rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few brokers.”

[fusili]

Thought I should post this here.

A case for bus lanes in downtown Calgary:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/05/30/bus-lanes-for-downtown-calgary-calgary/

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

Thought I should post this here.

A case for bus lanes in downtown Calgary:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/05/30/bus-lanes-for-downtown-calgary-calgary/

Excellent. Logical, well thought out and well presented. I agree that something needs to be done, and I can't see why this would be a win-win for everyone.

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Excellent. Logical, well thought out and well presented. I agree that something needs to be done, and I can't see why this would be a win-win for everyone.

Not sure if you need two on 6 Ave - the right lane with the buses in it is already a de facto bus lane and interestingly moves the fastest. I drive with the buses in that lane getting out of downtown in rush hour every day and trust me it's almost always the fastest lane anyway. Even with the various bus routes slowing each other down by having to stop at diferent stops - things still keep moving. Also some routes don't exclusively travel in the right lane and make lefts at some point on 6 Ave to head SB (e.g. 2, 3) so the bus lane doesn't help those buses when they need to cross 4-5 lanes.

You would still need exceptions to the bus lane to allow for right turns so nothing would change there.

Also where does the westbound capacity go if you take 2 lanes from 6 Ave? 4 Ave clogs right at Bow Trail because naturally it goes down to one lane. Stupid design but not gonna be changed anytime soon. I don't see this working as well as the author thinks it might.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

Thought I should post this here.

A case for bus lanes in downtown Calgary:

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/05/30/bus-lanes-for-downtown-calgary-calgary/

Great blog post and the idea is worthy of further study.

Biggest issue, IMHO, is the use of two lanes versus single lane.

Current configuration has 5th and 6th Avenues at 5 lanes each. The far left hand lane has off peak parking, the far right lane is effectively bus only lane with the exception of cars dropping off pedestrians and those making right hand turns. Three middle lanes are used by all vehicle traffic.

For the two bus lane idea to work the far left off peak parking lane would be toast. This will significantly reduce the avialable on street parking Downtown and cause Business Associations to pull their support for the idea.

Cars making a right hand turn would have to be prohibited. Especially if as the OP suggests Busses would make left hand turns from the right hand lane. Any idea having all other vehicle turning right from the center lanes would cause gridlock.

Bicycles are another troublesome point not raised in thr article. Nothing slows down a bus on 5th Avenue like being stuck behind a cyclist taking up the whole lane. To make the process work, bicycles may have to be band from the road.

Finally, Busses turning out of the stop areas usual take up 2.25 to 2.5 lanes of traffic as they swing out extra wide.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

Not sure if you need two on 6 Ave - the right lane with the buses in it is already a de facto bus lane and interestingly moves the fastest. I drive with the buses in that lane getting out of downtown in rush hour every day and trust me it's almost always the fastest lane anyway. Even with the various bus routes slowing each other down by having to stop at diferent stops - things still keep moving. Also some routes don't exclusively travel in the right lane and make lefts at some point on 6 Ave to head SB (e.g. 2, 3) so the bus lane doesn't help those buses when they need to cross 4-5 lanes.

You would still need exceptions to the bus lane to allow for right turns so nothing would change there.

Not sure if 2 lanes is required, but the post mentions enought to make it worth a study.

As for the turns; both left and right turns are dealt with in the post. Again, enough thought is there to make a study worthwhile, IMO.

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

Also where does the westbound capacity go if you take 2 lanes from 6 Ave? 4 Ave clogs right at Bow Trail because naturally it goes down to one lane. Stupid design but not gonna be changed anytime soon. I don't see this working as well as the author thinks it might.

I assume you mean capacity as referring to westbound traffic? Since there is only 3 lanes after 11th street anyway, and the post is suggesting 3 regular-traffic lanes, I think it could be managed. There would need to be some rejiging at that end, but I'm not sure it would mean the bottleneck you are implying. And if it works the way it's portrayed, then the car-only lanes may well become more efficient, not having to deal with buses. Not sure really.

I do see what you mean about 4th. Just because you free up that road from buses, it all still reduces into a single lane anyway... Maybe 4th couldn't take the buses, and free up 6th. The buses could still filter to 1 lane, and the other traffic would use the larger capacity connection at 6th? Again, not sure!

I'm not saying it's a sure-fire solution to anything, but there is enough merit to warrant a good look at it.

[fusili]

Ok, some responses:

2 lanes vs 1: This is really only to address leap-frogging of buses that can be considerably delayed by waiting for other buses loading/alighting. One way to remedy this would be to consolidate all the stops into 4 or 5 stations that serve all routes. This can pose other problems though, especially with passengers having to move around to get on the right bus, especially for those in wheelchairs. The 2 lanes would only really exist around the stations, and would narrow to one lane to allow for right hand vehicle turn bays.

Bikes: Shouldn't be in the bus lane. Dedicated bike lanes on other streets (8th avenue, 3rd avenue, 2nd street etc) should accommodate bicycles.

Capacity My greatest critique of concerns about capacity and congestion is that often they use the wrong metric. Congestion should be measured in person-hour delays, not vehicle delays. A full bus is equivalent to 80 vehicles (give or take), so a bus should technically be weighted 80 times higher than a vehicle. The whole point is to increase the efficiency of the movement of people. If vehicles are slowed down, but more people on transit improve their travel time, it is a net benefit and we should pursue it.

Turns I will try and clear this up. Vehicle turns first. Obviously left hand turns will not be impacted, as the bus lanes are in the right lane. For right hand turns off of 5th or 6th, there would almost always be a right hand turning bay. Depending on operations, cars would either be able to turn on green (watching for buses obviously) or only on red. I think both could work. For right hand turns onto 5th or 6th from cross streets, the bus lanes can be shortened to 1 lane near those intersections as well to allow for right hand turns onto the avenue (i.e. cars would turn onto the vacated bus lane- this actually facilitates right turns as the lane the cars turn onto will be empty, and they just have to watch for buses). Bus stops should ideally be located at intersections with one ways, so right hand turns are not affected (i.e. where you can't make a right turn because you will be turning into the wrong direction of traffic). I hope that makes sense.

Bus turns. Buses obviously will be able to make right turns easily, as they are in the right lane. The trick will be to manage the routes through downtown so that they are only ever making right turns. One way to do this would be to facilitate left turns by doing 3 rights instead. For example a eastbound bus on 6th avenue trying to go south on 5th street, instead of turning left from 6th onto 5th, will make a right onto 6th street, then a right onto 5th avenue, and finally another right onto 5th (many delivery companies, such as UPS route all their trucks so they never make a left turn). This is obviously not optimal, but routes can be designed to avoid left turns where possible.

I will draw up a diagram for this eventually to explain how the turns could work.