Calgary Public Transit II - Page 266

suburbia · #**5301** Posted **Aug 8, 2012, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

i get in at 8:20

The bus will be better no matter what time you get in, generally speaking.

RyLucky · #**5302** Posted **Aug 8, 2012, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 93JC

Me too. Shockingly smaller scale compared to the old one. The new design looks like a slightly improved 39th Ave Station. I can see why they wanted to remove the pedestrian overpass--it will definitely help disabled users access the platform--but the idea of at-grade pedestrian crossing doesn't sit well with me.

I wonder if the city has ever considered underpasses akin to some of the ones in Edmonton (e.g. Stadium Station). I thought they were a much more elegant solution than building up.

The old way of thinking was that pedestrians are far too stupid to cross a train track without getting hit by a train. In reality, at-grade crossings can move more people, much faster than forcing them to walk through an overpass.

The biggest crowds occur when a southbound train has just arrived at a station and unloaded a crowd, with virtually everyone wanting to cross the southbound track to head west. By the time the crowd has assembled at the crossing, the train has moved leaving several minutes before the next train. Those who step off a southbound train and cross at the north end of the station will never have to wait.
Northbound trains unload much smaller crowds. People arrive at the station to board a train only a few at a time, or sometimes a bus at a time, and won't have to wait long at the crossings. Furthermore, people will never have to cross both tracks on the same trip.
The only way the design could better accommodate crowds is if the tracks ran through the middle of the station the way they do in downtown. There would be challenges in achieve a design like that at Chinook due to the rail line on the east and because we'd like to keep the track open during construction.

What really needs the most improvement at Chinook (in addition to becoming a 4-car station), is the pedestrian environment between the station and the mall. One day...

RyLucky · #**5303** Posted **Aug 9, 2012, 9:47 PM**

Build your own Transit System! A great way to understand operational and capital costs of transit: http://ivrnethosting.com/routeahead/index.php?src=forms&id=Transit_Tool

Full Mountain · #**5304** Posted **Aug 9, 2012, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Build your own Transit System! A great way to understand operational and capital costs of transit: http://ivrnethosting.com/routeahead/index.php?src=forms&id=Transit_Tool

Interesting they say that pushing stop distances to 600m could save 11.5mil a year!

You Need A Thneed · #**5305** Posted **Aug 11, 2012, 2:56 AM**

Rider's guide for the new NE extension.. Renderings of what the finished public art is supposed to look like are in there.

frinkprof · #**5306** Posted **Aug 12, 2012, 5:34 AM**

Here's a photo of the piles for the new bus shelter at Chinook from Wednesday.

frinkprof · #**5307** Posted **Aug 12, 2012, 5:59 PM**

EDIT: Wrong thread.

You Need A Thneed · #**5308** Posted **Aug 15, 2012, 8:31 PM**

Details on what will happen for the remaining NE platform extensions.

New furniture similar to Whitehorn Station
Will not have heated shelters or a canopy like Whitehorn

Will get new shelters in a later phase.

fusili · #**5309** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 2:07 PM**

New TransitCamp post: Stop Spacing, Speed and Simplicity.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/08/16/stop-spacing-speed-and-simplicity/

Always appreciate the comments and discussion.

fusili · #**5310** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

New TransitCamp post: Stop Spacing, Speed and Simplicity.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/08/16/stop-spacing-speed-and-simplicity/

Always appreciate the comments and discussion.

Anybody have thoughts on what other routes it could be useful to upgrade to a limited stop service?

Full Mountain · #**5311** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Anybody have thoughts on what other routes it could be useful to upgrade to a limited stop service?

The 72/73 seems like a great candidate.

Edit: Additional ones could the feeder routes for the LRT, this would increase the overall speed of LRT trips involving feeder buses, significantly reducing the demand for LRT parking all while providing a higher quality service to more people, reducing rail bias.

Full Mountain · #**5312** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

New TransitCamp post: Stop Spacing, Speed and Simplicity.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/08/16/stop-spacing-speed-and-simplicity/

Always appreciate the comments and discussion.

I like what your proposing, I think each route should be classified to either serve a large or small area or be express/'BRT', those routes that serve a large area should focus on speed and frequency and the small area ones should focus on coverage. The delineation between the two could be based on the number of communities served, 2 or less = small area, 3 or more = large area.

Large area routes would have 800-1000 meter stop spacing and small area routes would aim 400-600 meter spacing. In addition to this you could have the 'BRT' style routes with 1500-2000 meter spacing on select routings.

I would imagine the majority of the routes would fall in the large area with smaller numbers in both the small area and express. This allows the system to be biased towards speed and frequency without giving up on the coverage completely

You Need A Thneed · #**5313** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 6:20 PM**

Steel going up at OBMF.

fusili · #**5314** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The 72/73 seems like a great candidate.

Edit: Additional ones could the feeder routes for the LRT, this would increase the overall speed of LRT trips involving feeder buses, significantly reducing the demand for LRT parking all while providing a higher quality service to more people, reducing rail bias.

I agree with the 72/73. I think it could be broken up into several crosstown (both north/south and east/west) routes with limited stop service. If speed increases are substantial, any delays due to transfers would be mitigated. Personally, I don't think the 72/73 should even exist. Any bus travelling that distance should be a limited stop service. Local service buses could serve each area within the route.

DizzyEdge · #**5315** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 8:33 PM**

I like the 72/73 simply because of the transfer possibility from N-S 4th street to E-W Northmount

frinkprof · #**5316** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 11:39 PM**

Photo Update of Heritage Station Extension

srperrycgy · #**5317** Posted **Aug 17, 2012, 12:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

I agree with the 72/73. I think it could be broken up into several crosstown (both north/south and east/west) routes with limited stop service. If speed increases are substantial, any delays due to transfers would be mitigated. Personally, I don't think the 72/73 should even exist. Any bus travelling that distance should be a limited stop service. Local service buses could serve each area within the route.

Leave the 72/73 alone for now. It provides an alternative to having to use the CTrain for any trip from one quadrant to another. Establish alternatives, then consider modifications. The timepoints are a pain the ass though. Frequently, I sit at Chinook Stn for up to 15 minutes in the morning. I'm only travelling a few stops beyond it. I can walk the same distance instead of sitting for the bus to abide by the timetable. Besides, I like having a one seat trip from Killarney to Manchester for getting to work.

fusili · #**5318** Posted **Aug 17, 2012, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Leave the 72/73 alone for now. It provides an alternative to having to use the CTrain for any trip from one quadrant to another. Establish alternatives, then consider modifications. The timepoints are a pain the ass though. Frequently, I sit at Chinook Stn for up to 15 minutes in the morning. I'm only travelling a few stops beyond it. I can walk the same distance instead of sitting for the bus to abide by the timetable. Besides, I like having a one seat trip from Killarney to Manchester for getting to work.

Yeah, I wouldn't touch it until the crosstowns are in operation and have been established as viable routes.

With our updated TransitCamp route map, you will have a route that goes directly from 37th Ave/26th Street straight to Manchester (and on to Foothills). Maybe that will help.

Bassic Lab · #**5319** Posted **Aug 19, 2012, 1:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

New TransitCamp post: Stop Spacing, Speed and Simplicity.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/08/16/stop-spacing-speed-and-simplicity/

Always appreciate the comments and discussion.

I would say that it depends greatly on the comparison between official stop spacing (or theoretical stop spacing) and the amount of actual stopping that a typical bus does (or practical stop spacing). Busses aren't trains; they don't stop just because there is a bench and a sign on the side of the road. Eliminating stops will only improve speed if it means that a typical bus is actually stopping less often. I'm not sure if that would really be the case for very many routes.

I used to ride the #3's southern portion quite extensively and still have some experience with it. Each bus seems to already skip a large proportion of stops.

So, for instance, if we call the stops A, B, C, D, etcetera. Bus 1 is stopping at ACDFILMOQT..., then bus 2 is stopping at BDGIKLPR..., and so on. Will eliminating half the stops really make much of a difference or will it simply mean that every bus is now stopping at ACEGIKMOQS...?

That said there is definitely room for weeding out existing stops. Stops simply should not be less than 200 meters apart and even less than 300 meters should require some justification. Furthermore, as a general rule I think 400 meter spacing on local routes (normal city busses) and 800 meter spacing on express/mainline/crosstown routes (essentially what we have been calling BRTs) is an ideal worth striving for. Commuter routes can have more distant spacing (past ten kilometers given circumstances that make sense) but no line that is intended to service pedestrians should have spacing much greater than 1000 meters.

I would also be more open to the idea of significant stop elimination if it meant a real change in the nature of the stops. Something along the line of replacing a large number of bus "stops" with a smaller number of bus "stations" that involves an upgrade in stop amenities and a corresponding change in the zoning. Not to the extent of a C-Train Station but definitely something in between.

5seconds · #**5320** Posted **Aug 23, 2012, 4:15 AM**

Lowering the LRT speed in the new NE section because residents think it will kill someone?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/speeds+dropped+stations+after+residents+outcry/7130579/story.html

First, who approved that decision, and second, who ever allowed a Neighbourhood/LRT ROW to be designed in a way that would even raise that possibility?