Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

If the gondola works well enough for the west campus/westbrook connector, it could work pretty well for a people mover from the airport to NC LRT and NE LRT. Wouldn't have to build bridges over Deerfoot, CPR, Nose Creek. Shouldn't be crazy hard to build into the tunnel either.

Would be pretty interesting me thinks.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the gondola works well enough for the west campus/westbrook connector, it could work pretty well for a people mover from the airport to NC LRT and NE LRT. Wouldn't have to build bridges over Deerfoot, CPR, Nose Creek. Shouldn't be crazy hard to build into the tunnel either.

Would be pretty interesting me thinks.

I think it would be better for plane spotting to build it over the air field!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the gondola works well enough for the west campus/westbrook connector, it could work pretty well for a people mover from the airport to NC LRT and NE LRT. Wouldn't have to build bridges over Deerfoot, CPR, Nose Creek. Shouldn't be crazy hard to build into the tunnel either.

Would be pretty interesting me thinks.

Gondolas have to slow turn to turn though, and some turns would definitely be required. It's also 9km of route - so it doesn't seem to make sense to switch to Gondola just to save a couple of short bridges. The cars would have to fit in the allotted space in the tunnel as well, which might restrict the gondola car size.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the gondola works well enough for the west campus/westbrook connector, it could work pretty well for a people mover from the airport to NC LRT and NE LRT. Wouldn't have to build bridges over Deerfoot, CPR, Nose Creek. Shouldn't be crazy hard to build into the tunnel either.

Baggage?

Also, isn't there like a right of way through the entire 96th ave corridor and pre-work already complete for any additional drop-ins required?

Doing what you're suggesting would be like spending $30K on a fantastic wedding, and then wearing shorts to save money on a proper suit.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, gondolas come in many shapes and sizes for 1. Two, 9 km of LRT plus bringing a station into the terminal, going to be pretty hard.

I would guess that the LRT airport connection will sit on the books and never be done anyways. It will be more expensive than useful. It will be something else.

[DizzyEdge]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the airport link to just be the NE or NC LRT that bends to the terminal and then bends back on it's way to future communities, rather than a stand-alone spur line?

[MalcolmTucker]

Terminal is just too out of the way.

Personally if we can count on high speed rail in the next 20 years, I would rather a one seat express to downtown on the HSR track, and a short shuttle using the same terminal spur and station connecting the terminal, HSR and the NC LRT.

Can't plan in advance for that possibility however, but anything is possible. Even without HSR I bet could get one seat to downtown for a similar capital cost to LRT from the NE line. Direct from the airport into the convention centre would be something to behold.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Some initial thoughts on Route Ahead:

- Agree with the critique that a BRT connecting the South Hospital to the South LRT is a must. This line should also extend into Evergreen (we can call it the providence line)
- Why not connect a rail connection from the NE line to the NC line. Obviously it wouldn't be able to interline, but it seems funny that if someone was living in the NE and working at Aurora Park, they would transfer twice instead of just once.
- I also prefer the rail connection to the Airport to come from the NC line instead of NE. This allows a more direct connection to downtown
- The 52nd ST BRT and the Mount Royal BRT should connect. I think Quarry Park is a good place to do this. It does create a transfer for NE residents going to the South Hospital, but avoids 2 transfers for passengers using both.
- The North crosstown BRT doesn't really need to go to Saddletown. A transfer at what they call Rundlehorn should be sufficient
- The North crosstown BRT should be able to connect the UofC/ACH/FMC loop. No need for what we all know will be a gondola. The roads can easily handle it (i.e. wide median on 16th west of 29th street, blank slate essentially in west campus, punch through a transit-only lane just west of CCIT)
- That being said, the Westbrook-Foothills gondola is a fantastic idea
- I can think of at least 4 more crosstown BRT routes (but actually just limited stop). One more in the west (14th Street), north (32nd Ave/Northmount), east (Barlow) and South (42nd Avenue)
- The 3 on Elbow Dr. should be upgraded to a limited stop service (again, this is what they call a BRT)


I'll have a TransitCamp blog and a map showing some of these ideas later. But all in all, a great plan.

Doesn't that assertion depend on the N-SE LRT being a different technology from the W-NE line? There is no reason why eastbound Airport trains couldn't interline with the NE LRT to travel downtown and westbound Airport trains do the same with the N LRT.

That said, I don't see a particular need for it to happen so long as frequencies on the N and NE lines are high enough to significantly reduce the transfer penalty. Of course some kind of connection would likely be necessary at one or both ends, simply to allow LRVs to access maintenance and storage facilities.

[fusili]

The latest TransitCamp blog: Some thoughts on the Route Ahead.

http://transitcamp.ca/2012/09/20/the-route-ahead-some-thoughts/

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

There is no reason why eastbound Airport trains couldn't interline with the NE LRT to travel downtown and westbound Airport trains do the same with the N LRT.

I'm framing this and putting it on my wall.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I'm framing this and putting it on my wall.

In my defence, the second paragraph of the post made it pretty clear that I wasn't advocating for it (at least beyond it's utility as a backdoor means to discourage a change of technology for the N-SE line, in which we are, strangely, in agreement with our opposition). Also, there is a big difference between the Airport getting four trains an hour from the NE that 128 Ave doesn't get and the entirety of the N and NE lines splitting the service that the zoo gets.

[Policy Wonk]

The mere acknowledgement that interlining just might have a valid application is an incredible breakthrough. After three years of assailing the very concept I will settle for this for the time being.

[Doug]

I got a strange question. When did CT start offering no transfer NW to NE service? Is there S to NE no transfer service as well? I saw a train leaving SAIT destined for Saddleridge the other day.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The mere acknowledgement that interlining just might have a valid application is an incredible breakthrough. After three years of assailing the very concept I will settle for this for the time being.

Interlining has been successfully demonstrated in other cities, but in Calgary it has been a source of problems so far. As well, I really don't see anywhere in Calgary where it would be necessary, or functional .... Except, I can sort of see how it could be used along the airport link between NC and NE lines. Could you explain that idea a bit better to me?

I do think it makes sense to have the same technology on both those lines. The NCLRT in particular has no reason to be low floor, in my point of view, because it's basically going to be a full-on metro line, like the 201 and 202, not something running in-street with tiny walk on stations.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Doug

I got a strange question. When did CT start offering no transfer NW to NE service? Is there S to NE no transfer service as well? I saw a train leaving SAIT destined for Saddleridge the other day.

NW to NE single trains have been going on since Oliver Bowen Yard became operational. Its a way to get trains from NW to the primary yard. People only really started to notice the NW-NE service when the real time displays became operational.

There is no corresponding NE-S service because this would require turnaround at City Hall or re-alignment of the track. These trains do currently operate S-Downtown and then switch to NE line at 10th street.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Interlining has been successfully demonstrated in other cities, but in Calgary it has been a source of problems so far.

Calgary's only problem has been prioritizing massive buildout such as the West LRT over grade separation in the core. That has approximately nothing to do with interlining and everything to do with the fact the peak headways as scheduled today are simply impossible to operate so long as they are interacting with surface traffic.

The practical problem of course is had the 8th Ave subway come before the West LRT every idiot in S.W. Calgary would be stamping their feet about a "wasteful cadillac project" being built at the expense of the LRT serving their communities.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Cage

NW to NE single trains have been going on since Oliver Bowen Yard became operational. Its a way to get trains from NW to the primary yard. People only really started to notice the NW-NE service when the real time displays became operational.

There is no corresponding NE-S service because this would require turnaround at City Hall or re-alignment of the track. These trains do currently operate S-Downtown and then switch to NE line at 10th street.

Yep, since the real time signs its just more obvious. I know in the mornings when I catch the train from Anderson or Southland theres a lot of Somerset-10th Street trains that most people wouldn't have noticed before (depending on which sign type is on the train they don't always show the actual terminus its heading to, or they switch it to the correct one when it gets to 7th ave). And I'd bet that once the WLRT opens we'll see the occasional 69th Street-Somerset too for trains heading out of service and back to Anderson.

[Rise_of_the_West]

Does anyone on here know the Loading gauge for the CTrain?

From the videos of the WLRT it seems that it is a bit lower than the rest of the network, from the way the panto is compressed (maybe its my imagination though).

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The mere acknowledgement that interlining just might have a valid application is an incredible breakthrough. After three years of assailing the very concept I will settle for this for the time being.

I believe that I've always maintained that interlining is a valid option and I'm still a little befuddled as to why whenever talk of the 8th ave Subway comes up that it's a given that only one of the current lines would make use of it.

Since we tend to agree on so much.., you can hang that on the wall as well.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by sim

I believe that I've always maintained that interlining is a valid option and I'm still a little befuddled as to why whenever talk of the 8th ave Subway comes up that it's a given that only one of the current lines would make use of it.

Since we tend to agree on so much.., you can hang that on the wall as well.

The reason only one line would use it is thats how it was designed and how the tunnel under City Hall is laid out, there is only an approach from the south. To also put the NE/W line under 8th would require realigning it to either loop through the east village to swing around, or major probably impossible structural changes under city hall or moving where the eventual platform under Olympic Plaza is to give enough room for the NE line to actually connect to the line beforehand, or skipping that station entirely.