Calgary Public Transit II

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If Calgary's system operated under capacity like many systems do that provide substaintial on train bike amentities (Portland comes to mind) it would be awesome to remove some benches and add some bike mounts. I'm not sure you get much benefit having hangers for just off peak - there is enough room to just bring bikes on already off peak.

One nice thing about the hangers is that, along with getting the bikes out of the way, it enables riders to sit down rather than having to stand around babysitting their wheels. And during peak, one fewer bench makes more standing room anyways.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

Transit and the "War on Cars":

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/09/06/transit-and-the-war-on-cars/

Always like to hear your thoughts.

Consider in the article the assumption bias in favour of transit, for example:
- Cars are completely inefficient (e.g. high cost of car ownership, not everyone has new car, plus only one occupant ascribed to each car) while transit is always portrayed as completely efficient (e.g. bus and LRT are always full to capacity).
- Transit assumptions do not take into account deadhead/positioning trips.

[Stang]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

They've been doing that fairly consistently for about a week. Testing, maybe, but it must be confusing to some people. To add to the confusion, the old maps on the trains haven't been updated to include Saddletowne, even though several have 'closed' stickers on 10 St W, two weeks early.

With the opening of the Saddletowne extension, and the mention of the "new" terminus of 69th Street on the other end (when it opens), I have wondered recently: Why doesn't Calgary Transit just make each line a colour, and instead of naming the train after the terminus of the day, just name it after the direction. That way it always stays the same regardless of the current terminus, especially when it sounds as ridiculous as Saddletowne.

Blue Northeast, Blue West, Red Northwest, Red South. Done. Then instead of taking the 202 Saddletowne to Whitehorn, it would be Blue Northeast to Whitehorn. I know that it doesn't seem like a big difference, but we are all used to the system. But instead of two names (terminus and station) and a route number, it seems more intuitive to use colours, directions, and stations.

I know that CT is moving towards colours finally, but changing the name of the train with each extension is confusing and inefficient, especially for those who have no need or desire to go to Saddletowne. Why a system-wide rename every time?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Stang

With the opening of the Saddletowne extension, and the mention of the "new" terminus of 69th Street on the other end (when it opens), I have wondered recently: Why doesn't Calgary Transit just make each line a colour, and instead of naming the train after the terminus of the day, just name it after the direction. That way it always stays the same regardless of the current terminus, especially when it sounds as ridiculous as Saddletowne.

Blue Northeast, Blue West, Red Northwest, Red South. Done. Then instead of taking the 202 Saddletowne to Whitehorn, it would be Blue Northeast to Whitehorn. I know that it doesn't seem like a big difference, but we are all used to the system. But instead of two names (terminus and station) and a route number, it seems more intuitive to use colours, directions, and stations.

I know that CT is moving towards colours finally, but changing the name of the train with each extension is confusing and inefficient, especially for those who have no need or desire to go to Saddletowne. Why a system-wide rename every time?

Colours can be helpful but are not the end all. Reason is, trains switch lines, and it has to happen this way when you consider extra cars for rush hour and then where the garages are. So a line heading south from the northwest may actually have a Saddletown terminus. You can't just name the lines yellow and blue and expect people to understand that there is a swap like that when the colour shows up as green.

[Ayreonaut]

I don't recall being on a system that didn't announce the final destination anyway, so it would be more like "this is a Blue Northeast train, destination Saddletowne."

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Cage

Consider in the article the assumption bias in favour of transit, for example:
- Cars are completely inefficient (e.g. high cost of car ownership, not everyone has new car, plus only one occupant ascribed to each car) while transit is always portrayed as completely efficient (e.g. bus and LRT are always full to capacity).
- Transit assumptions do not take into account deadhead/positioning trips.

First point: Where was it ever stated that cars are inefficient? It was stated that on a per space basis, transit achieves a maximum capacity higher than cars, and therefore, on a per space basis, are more efficient when operating close to maximum capacity. Nowhere was it stated that transit always achieves this capacity, nor was the argument made that every single road should have a transit lane (which is a poor use of space in my opinion). As well, the costs of vehicle maintenance and operation and pretty general and were used to just highlight the financial savings a household can experience when using transit instead of purchasing a second car. This is hardly "biased."

Second point: the article has nothing to do with transit operational costs, nor deadheading or positioning trips. Deadheading has almost nothing to do with transit capacity on a ROW, because most often the buses are traveling on entirely separate roads (at least in reverse peak direction) to access storage facilities. The article is simply about allocating road space to the more efficient mode of travel. When a train is full, it should have priority over cars because it is moving more people more efficiently.

Look, this is a simple concept. A bus lane or rail right of way can carry more people per lane than a vehicle lane, when it is close to capacity. That is just the physical properties of the different modes of transportation.

This article isn't arguing that people shouldn't have cars, or that cars serve no use. Nor was it saying that cars are bad in any way. It was clearly stated that that is not the case at all. It was simply stating that when we make decisions for things like road space allocation or signal priority it should be done on a per person basis, rather than a per vehicle basis. We can't compare one car to one bus, because a bus is going to carry much more people. If there are 50 cars and a bus carrying 60 people, the bus should have priority. If there are 50 cars and a bus carrying 10 people, the cars should have priority. The argument is that decisions based on moving the most people efficiently is not a "war on cars" it is a "war for efficiency." I do not see what is so hard about this concept to grasp and how it in any way constitutes some sort of bias.

[Stang]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

I don't recall being on a system that didn't announce the final destination anyway, so it would be more like "this is a Blue Northeast train, destination Saddletowne."

London, for example, has some circular lines that are just colours. You just hop on the one in the direction you need (based on the next few stations listed, which requires good signage, of course), and off you go.

[Stang]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Colours can be helpful but are not the end all. Reason is, trains switch lines, and it has to happen this way when you consider extra cars for rush hour and then where the garages are. So a line heading south from the northwest may actually have a Saddletown terminus. You can't just name the lines yellow and blue and expect people to understand that there is a swap like that when the colour shows up as green.

Good point - I hadn't considered that. In that case, you could either drop the colour designation and the direction would still be Northeast. So someone could hop on at Dalhousie and know that the train is going to the NE. Or... if I'm at Dalhousie and see a Blue Northeast train coming, I know that I won't be heading South after downtown.

But colours aside, I guess my main point was more about using the direction instead of the terminus. When Saddletowne opened, the change on the trains was instant, yet maps and other information lagged behind for a number of days (and it sounds like a lot of it isn't updated). So we have maps that don't show Saddletowne yet trains that go there. My point is, who cares whether the line ends at Saddletowne, McKnight, Whitehorn, etc. unless you're actually going there? The direction is plenty and wouldn't require as many changes each time a new terminus opens.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Stang

With the opening of the Saddletowne extension, and the mention of the "new" terminus of 69th Street on the other end (when it opens), I have wondered recently: Why doesn't Calgary Transit just make each line a colour, and instead of naming the train after the terminus of the day, just name it after the direction. That way it always stays the same regardless of the current terminus, especially when it sounds as ridiculous as Saddletowne.

Blue Northeast, Blue West, Red Northwest, Red South. Done. Then instead of taking the 202 Saddletowne to Whitehorn, it would be Blue Northeast to Whitehorn. I know that it doesn't seem like a big difference, but we are all used to the system. But instead of two names (terminus and station) and a route number, it seems more intuitive to use colours, directions, and stations.

I know that CT is moving towards colours finally, but changing the name of the train with each extension is confusing and inefficient, especially for those who have no need or desire to go to Saddletowne. Why a system-wide rename every time?

I don't know. 69th/Saddletown has a certain ring to it!

[Stang]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't know. 69th/Saddletown has a certain ring to it!

How dare you drop the faux old-timey and contrived "e" on the end of Saddletowne.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

First point: Where was it ever stated that cars are inefficient? It was stated that on a per space basis, transit achieves a maximum capacity higher than cars, and therefore, on a per space basis, are more efficient when operating close to maximum capacity. Nowhere was it stated that transit always achieves this capacity, nor was the argument made that every single road should have a transit lane (which is a poor use of space in my opinion). As well, the costs of vehicle maintenance and operation and pretty general and were used to just highlight the financial savings a household can experience when using transit instead of purchasing a second car. This is hardly "biased."

Second point: the article has nothing to do with transit operational costs, nor deadheading or positioning trips. Deadheading has almost nothing to do with transit capacity on a ROW, because most often the buses are traveling on entirely separate roads (at least in reverse peak direction) to access storage facilities. The article is simply about allocating road space to the more efficient mode of travel. When a train is full, it should have priority over cars because it is moving more people more efficiently.

Look, this is a simple concept. A bus lane or rail right of way can carry more people per lane than a vehicle lane, when it is close to capacity. That is just the physical properties of the different modes of transportation.

This article isn't arguing that people shouldn't have cars, or that cars serve no use. Nor was it saying that cars are bad in any way. It was clearly stated that that is not the case at all. It was simply stating that when we make decisions for things like road space allocation or signal priority it should be done on a per person basis, rather than a per vehicle basis. We can't compare one car to one bus, because a bus is going to carry much more people. If there are 50 cars and a bus carrying 60 people, the bus should have priority. If there are 50 cars and a bus carrying 10 people, the cars should have priority. The argument is that decisions based on moving the most people efficiently is not a "war on cars" it is a "war for efficiency." I do not see what is so hard about this concept to grasp and how it in any way constitutes some sort of bias.

I'm not sure if giving C-Trains signal priority at every crossing would work. They already have it everywhere except downtown and that's where the real problems would show up. The volume of trains is just so heavy that it could seriously undermine the efficiency of every crossing on 7 Ave with gridlock cascading across the entire core.

There is really only one solution to the problems of 7 Ave and it involves digging.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Stang

But colours aside, I guess my main point was more about using the direction instead of the terminus. When Saddletowne opened, the change on the trains was instant, yet maps and other information lagged behind for a number of days (and it sounds like a lot of it isn't updated). So we have maps that don't show Saddletowne yet trains that go there. My point is, who cares whether the line ends at Saddletowne, McKnight, Whitehorn, etc. unless you're actually going there? The direction is plenty and wouldn't require as many changes each time a new terminus opens.

CT should just change the destination signs to read "North East" "West" "South" and "North West" They would never have to change the signs and everyone knows what they mean. It is easy to tell a tourist to 'get on the South train and get off at the first stop to get to the Stampede grounds'. The current system of changing names has me confused as a native Calgarian. To me, the North East line is still the Whitehorn line, which just confuses some people I talk to now.

[srperrycgy]

From this morning's Herald:

There were mock funerals, foretelling the death of Sunnyside.

On Valentine’s Day, a red heart impaled on a knife was sent to an official’s door. Another day, the top bureaucrat’s face appeared on posters that read: Unwanted, Dead or Alive.

No, sir, Sunnyside did not want the LRT entering its neighbourhood in the 1980s.

The community organization held a benefit rock and blues concert for the long court fight against that station on 9A Street N.W. The cheeky concert poster featured instructions from a handbook on blowing up a railroad.

The residents’ blowups failed. Twenty-five years ago this week, an LRT station opened that has become such a cherished feature of the Kensington district that some want to tear down the green fence that obscures it from sight and install something that helps showcase the train.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/CTrain+fata...gerated/7209704/story.html#ixzz25tCzczBb

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

If there are 50 cars and a bus carrying 60 people, the bus should have priority. If there are 50 cars and a bus carrying 10 people, the cars should have priority.

The statement quoted above is the best example of an unbiased/neutral discussion point among all the statements made discussing the "War on Cars".

Here is my point, if you want to avoid the war on cars bias only speak in terms of realistic and proven statistics and do not use theoretical minimums or maximums. This is a critical point I have learned through experience delivering reports to executives and board members. To be more persuasive in my practice I use the standard of "reasonable possibility" rather than theoretical maximums or minimums.

[MarkL]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

From this morning's Herald:

There were mock funerals, foretelling the death of Sunnyside.

On Valentine’s Day, a red heart impaled on a knife was sent to an official’s door. Another day, the top bureaucrat’s face appeared on posters that read: Unwanted, Dead or Alive.

No, sir, Sunnyside did not want the LRT entering its neighbourhood in the 1980s.

The community organization held a benefit rock and blues concert for the long court fight against that station on 9A Street N.W. The cheeky concert poster featured instructions from a handbook on blowing up a railroad.

The residents’ blowups failed. Twenty-five years ago this week, an LRT station opened that has become such a cherished feature of the Kensington district that some want to tear down the green fence that obscures it from sight and install something that helps showcase the train.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/CTrain+fata...gerated/7209704/story.html#ixzz25tCzczBb

What a great commentary on NIMBYism. Thanks for posting the link, I don't read the Herald.

[DizzyEdge]

Re: Sunnyside LRT

“We tried to tell them that this line could transform the Hillhurst-Sunnyside area into one of the most dynamic pedestrian-friendly places in town,” recalls Rod Love, aid to then-mayor Ralph Klein.

“But they thought we were lying and it was going to be all highrise and high density and we were going to destroy the community. It’s kinda nice to look back and say: Hey, we were right.”

One comment I will make is that the increased density zoning they feared has only gone ahead in the past few years, and for example there is a project looking to demolish and entire block side of houses and there will likely be more.

I'm not necessarily against the project, but just worth mentioning that the changes to the makeup of the neighbourhood are just beginning now.

[Radley77]

Interesting comments from the mayor on public transit:

"How ironic that our transit subsidies go to neighbourhoods that cannot support transit, where people are not inclined to use transit. And the folks in neighbourhoods where transit is an important choice are paying for that?

"We have to have a discussion, that if we're going to continue doing this [subsidizing], we say to these people, well, you're not going to get city services at the same level, that people in other parts of the city have, because we just cannot afford the subsidy forever and ever, amen. And that's a tough, tough conversation...

"Not necessarily fare zones, I'm just saying, why would we ever put transit up here [in Springbank Hill], period? It's two kilometres from the [future LRT extension] LRT."

Should Calgary taxpayers be subsidizing public transit in areas where it's rarely used?
http://www.openfile.ca/calgary/blog/2012...blic-transit-areas-where-its-rarely-used

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Interesting comments from the mayor on public transit:



Should Calgary taxpayers be subsidizing public transit in areas where it's rarely used?
http://www.openfile.ca/calgary/blog/2012...blic-transit-areas-where-its-rarely-used

It is kind of akin to spending millions of dollars so that a few dozen cyclists can put their bikes on buses. Doesn't make sense!

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by suburbia

It is kind of akin to spending millions of dollars so that a few dozen cyclists can put their bikes on buses. Doesn't make sense!

I think this is a good topic for public conversation to help direct: Does Calgary build services that are solely to provide a safety net, to provide compelling and efficient service, or to build a handful of gold-plated showcase projects. Calgary can do one of these really well, or some combination to varying degrees.

[You Need A Thneed]

NE trains will be turning around at City Hall Station is weekend, while the 10th Street Station is demolished.

Going through downtown at turning around at the west end of downtown would mean that the trains would have to pull up right alongside the demolition in progress, slowing down the work, and making it more complicated.

Link.