Calgary Public Transit II

[andasen]

Originally Posted by MasterG

This dual mandate between frequency and accessibility is a major problem with Calgary Transit. Right now it is largely a focus towards accessibility, meaning short-walk for everyone to low-frequency, low-speed routes to the detriment of creating less accessible (limited stops, farther apart etc.) but more efficient and attractive to users trying to get somewhere faster.

Hopefully with their Route Ahead approach to leverage Primary Transit network will lead to the promotion and restructuring of some of the main routes to be more attractive. The amount of routes that do a few odd turns and strange detours that add 5 minutes to a route to capture relatively few additional riders.

My favourite: Route 305 entering DT from the West. Skips the slow Route 1 journey through Kensignton's congestion by taking 14th street and 9th Ave (Good choice). Turns North on 11th Street to enter congestion there due to trains and lack of priority. Proceeds on 5th Ave, then rejoins Route 1 turning S on 7th Street and eventually onto 7th Ave. This is to capture 1 additional stop on 5th Ave. It usually takes about 10mins longer in rush hour to perform this detour, rather than continue on free-flowing 9th to 6th Street and turn North there to reach 7th ave.

Agreed, conceptually splitting the current network into a primary (ridership orientated) network supplemented with the current coverage orientated network via Route ahead is one of my favorite initiatives in the city.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cage

Can I include the cost of delivering last mile services (feeder busses to the LRT) into the cost recovery effort? Rather than providing feeder bus services to communities with very low ridership, only provide PnR service at the LRT station.

What we do know is that C Transit operates on 50/50 split, that is for each fare paying passenger at $3 the city subsidizes another $3.

What we also know is the LRT is generally profitable without the fare subsidy (On this point I may be wrong), that is a passenger only taking LRT costs less than $3 dollars to service (would this include capital costs plus ROIC? I don't know the answer.)

Given the above would a combined daily PnR & LRT ticket priced at even $10/day would yield significant better financial performance if it included a reduction in the feeder bus services (might not need complete removal of feeder bus, but only reduce feeder bus service to times when its profitable).

At current the free parking at PnR lots is 100% subsidized, we at minimum need to put in place a 50% cost recovery for these spots (note: 50% capital recovery on a $20K structured parking spot is $500/year not including maintenance costs).

Originally Posted by MasterG

This dual mandate between frequency and accessibility is a major problem with Calgary Transit. Right now it is largely a focus towards accessibility, meaning short-walk for everyone to low-frequency, low-speed routes to the detriment of creating less accessible (limited stops, farther apart etc.) but more efficient and attractive to users trying to get somewhere faster.

Hopefully with their Route Ahead approach to leverage Primary Transit network will lead to the promotion and restructuring of some of the main routes to be more attractive. The amount of routes that do a few odd turns and strange detours that add 5 minutes to a route to capture relatively few additional riders.

My favourite: Route 305 entering DT from the West. Skips the slow Route 1 journey through Kensignton's congestion by taking 14th street and 9th Ave (Good choice). Turns North on 11th Street to enter congestion there due to trains and lack of priority. Proceeds on 5th Ave, then rejoins Route 1 turning S on 7th Street and eventually onto 7th Ave. This is to capture 1 additional stop on 5th Ave. It usually takes about 10mins longer in rush hour to perform this detour, rather than continue on free-flowing 9th to 6th Street and turn North there to reach 7th ave.

To both your points I would fully support a reduction in the density of the bus network if it allowed improved frequency on the remaining routes including a number of high frequency routes on key corridors.

[sportsdude]

What are your opinions of the current reserved/free parking system compared to the previous first come first serve pay parking system? Here are some of mine.

Current System Pro's

Encourages users who would not use the train by guaranteeing them parking everyday. (Reliability)

Also attracts cheapskates/people who truly couldn't afford parking costs with the free parking. (Affordability)

Guaranteed Revenue for Calgary Transit and less enforcement costs by only having to check half the parking lot compared to whole previously.

Current System Con's

Only half who benefit from park n ride bear the costs of the system. (Equality)

Reserved spots sit empty on days that could of been used by others. (Efficiency)

The old system pro's and con's are basically vice versa.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

What are your opinions of the current reserved/free parking system compared to the previous first come first serve pay parking system? Here are some of mine.

Current System Pro's

Encourages users who would not use the train by guaranteeing them parking everyday. (Reliability)

Also attracts cheapskates/people who truly couldn't afford parking costs with the free parking. (Affordability)

Guaranteed Revenue for Calgary Transit and less enforcement costs by only having to check half the parking lot compared to whole previously.

Current System Con's

Only half who benefit from park n ride bear the costs of the system. (Equality)

Reserved spots sit empty on days that could of been used by others. (Efficiency)

The old system pro's and con's are basically vice versa.

I think reserved parking should be market priced. Hourly or reserved, whatever. As for enforcement costs, I think it every morning and the same cars stay there anyway, so only 1-2 morning checks is required (perhaps a job for CT drivers after morning rush?). Whatever the price, we can still only serve as many park&riders as there are spots. Keep it parking free evenings and weekends when there is less demand. Perhaps evening transit users feel safer driving right to the station.

Also, keep surface lots conditionally for sale on the following terms:
(1) design of redevelopment meets TOD specification and minimum densities, which presumably "create" more transit users than existing lot, (2) The price of land sale exceeds parking revenue over X years, (3) the buyer agrees to complete construction before a certain date or pay a fine equivalent to parking revenue of the duration. First come, first serve, always for sale.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

To both your points I would fully support a reduction in the density of the bus network if it allowed improved frequency on the remaining routes including a number of high frequency routes on key corridors.

Unfortunately, the bulk of suburban neighbourhoods (1970s and later) are constructed with a circulator road that passes within 400m of all of the houses and very few alternates.

Consider an inner city area: looking at Tuxedo Park, there are buses on 4th St NW (2), Centre(3/301), and Edmonton Tr NE (4/5). These streets are roughly 600m apart, so most people have average 150m walk distance east-west. Viewed in isolation, you could in principle:

• Drop the Centre St bus and have everybody walk to Edmonton or 4th, with an average walk distance of 300m.
• Drop Edmonton/4th and only run Centre (average walk distance of probably 400-500m).
• Run 2nd E and 2nd W (average walk distance around 250 m).

In practice, of course, all three of these are fairly busy bus corridors, in particular Centre St.

But look north to Harvest Hills, where the 88 does a loop through the community. It goes from 78th Ave north up Centre, then does a loop on Harvest Hills Drive, passing within 400m or less of all of the houses (average walk distance of 200m), I count it as a 8.6 km loop or so:

The only feasible density reductions I can think of are cutting a couple of corners, which drops the loop down to 8.1 km, which increases some people's walk distance, but more importantly isn't much of a reduction at all in terms of service; you're pissing off 15% of the community, and saving pennies.

The only other option with this bus is just run the corner of the neighbourhood; this is a more substantial reduction, down to a 6.3 km loop, but half the neighbourhood has really long walks, up to 1200m and there isn't really much of a point in running the bus at all:

Or you could remove the bus entirely and make everybody walk to Centre St, but the average walk distance would probably be over 1 km.

The only other way to reduce density would be to reduce frequency, but the 88 only runs every half hour as it is right now, and the run takes... half an hour. So you can't even really reduce frequency (without merging the route with another) - even if we were to accept hourly buses as something worth doing.

The Alanis Morrisette irony is that the parts of the city with a grid network are both generally the only places you could reasonably reduce bus route density and also the places that have the most transit-supportive land uses and potential for intensification.

[shreddog]

Egads, what a mess up in the NW. Has anyone heard any further details on what may have caused the power lines to drop?? More importantly, as I don't remember hearing about this before, has this ever happened with the C-train previously??

[mersar]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Egads, what a mess up in the NW. Has anyone heard any further details on what may have caused the power lines to drop?? More importantly, as I don't remember hearing about this before, has this ever happened with the C-train previously??

Happens periodically. Usually a wire tears and catches on the pantograph on the train, which then causes it to pull it down. Usually it's not as bad as this time though, last time I think was a year or two back but service was only down for an evening IIRC.

[freeweed]

This is definitely the worst outage I can remember. Down yesterday afternoon/evening, CT now says all day today too.

I got to Crowfoot via shuttle yesterday shortly before 5. The train had gotten stuck just east of the station around 3:20 or so. They were just finally emptying the train - obviously checking for electrical dangers, etc. So people got to sit on a train for nearly 2 hours, that must have been a real blast. There were news cameras everywhere, Global even had their chopper overhead. I've never seen so many emergency vehicles of all kinds, for a train outage. I didn't actually catch the news so I don't know exactly what happened, but I did see the pantograph on one of the cars absolutely snarled in the overhead wires. Quite a mess. Wish I had had a camera on me to show you guys.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I think reserved parking should be market priced. Hourly or reserved, whatever. As for enforcement costs, I think it every morning and the same cars stay there anyway, so only 1-2 morning checks is required (perhaps a job for CT drivers after morning rush?). Whatever the price, we can still only serve as many park&riders as there are spots. Keep it parking free evenings and weekends when there is less demand. Perhaps evening transit users feel safer driving right to the station.

Also, keep surface lots conditionally for sale on the following terms:
(1) design of redevelopment meets TOD specification and minimum densities, which presumably "create" more transit users than existing lot, (2) The price of land sale exceeds parking revenue over X years, (3) the buyer agrees to complete construction before a certain date or pay a fine equivalent to parking revenue of the duration. First come, first serve, always for sale.

Enforcement is relatively straight forward, if they utilized the camera on entrance/exit system the CPA has on their parkades. If you enter and don't pay or exit within a specified period of time you get a ticket. CT could then do spot enforcement on the people with obscured plates.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Unfortunately, the bulk of suburban neighbourhoods (1970s and later) are constructed with a circulator road that passes within 400m of all of the houses and very few alternates.

Consider an inner city area: looking at Tuxedo Park, there are buses on 4th St NW (2), Centre(3/301), and Edmonton Tr NE (4/5). These streets are roughly 600m apart, so most people have average 150m walk distance east-west. Viewed in isolation, you could in principle:

• Drop the Centre St bus and have everybody walk to Edmonton or 4th, with an average walk distance of 300m.
• Drop Edmonton/4th and only run Centre (average walk distance of probably 400-500m).
• Run 2nd E and 2nd W (average walk distance around 250 m).

In practice, of course, all three of these are fairly busy bus corridors, in particular Centre St.

But look north to Harvest Hills, where the 88 does a loop through the community. It goes from 78th Ave north up Centre, then does a loop on Harvest Hills Drive, passing within 400m or less of all of the houses (average walk distance of 200m), I count it as a 8.6 km loop or so:

The only feasible density reductions I can think of are cutting a couple of corners, which drops the loop down to 8.1 km, which increases some people's walk distance, but more importantly isn't much of a reduction at all in terms of service; you're pissing off 15% of the community, and saving pennies.

The only other option with this bus is just run the corner of the neighbourhood; this is a more substantial reduction, down to a 6.3 km loop, but half the neighbourhood has really long walks, up to 1200m and there isn't really much of a point in running the bus at all:

Or you could remove the bus entirely and make everybody walk to Centre St, but the average walk distance would probably be over 1 km.

The only other way to reduce density would be to reduce frequency, but the 88 only runs every half hour as it is right now, and the run takes... half an hour. So you can't even really reduce frequency (without merging the route with another) - even if we were to accept hourly buses as something worth doing.

The Alanis Morrisette irony is that the parts of the city with a grid network are both generally the only places you could reasonably reduce bus route density and also the places that have the most transit-supportive land uses and potential for intensification.

Very true unfortunately.

What about increasing the distance between stops? Take the stops along NB 10th Street NW, is there really need for 4 between Memorial and the bottom of the hill? There's only 3 SB. Or is there need for 3 stops each SB & NB between 20th and 16th on 10th St? I'm not talking about going to BRT spacing but a 100 or so meters more won't hurt 90% of the population. Less stops = more likely to be on time.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by freeweed

This is definitely the worst outage I can remember. Down yesterday afternoon/evening, CT now says all day today too.

I got to Crowfoot via shuttle yesterday shortly before 5. The train had gotten stuck just east of the station around 3:20 or so. They were just finally emptying the train - obviously checking for electrical dangers, etc. So people got to sit on a train for nearly 2 hours, that must have been a real blast. There were news cameras everywhere, Global even had their chopper overhead. I've never seen so many emergency vehicles of all kinds, for a train outage. I didn't actually catch the news so I don't know exactly what happened, but I did see the pantograph on one of the cars absolutely snarled in the overhead wires. Quite a mess. Wish I had had a camera on me to show you guys.

Yep. Theres some photos over on CPTDB (http://www.cptdb.ca/index.php?showtopic=6240&view=findpost&p=630718) and it was pretty bad. The train was going through the crossover to switch tracks when it got caught in the wire from the looks of it. The location is probably why its going to take so long to fix, it probably damaged wires on both tracks as well as the crossover.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

The Alanis Morrisette irony is that the parts of the city with a grid network are both generally the only places you could reasonably reduce bus route density and also the places that have the most transit-supportive land uses and potential for intensification.

Hahaha! The newer suburbs do seem to have a very undesirable road network. Does the city have any say in the road design within developments? The developer has no real incentive to build efficient roads, only what will expediently sell the house the first time.

[mersar]

City just posted an update. Essentially no CTrain today, a 'shuttle train' running on a single track tomorrow and Friday between Dalhousie and Crowfoot, then back to buses for the weekend with the hope of normal CTrain service resuming for Monday.

So its going to be a slightly painful rest of the week, I'd suspect that the 'shuttle train' will require every person to transfer between the train that brought them to Dalhousie and it (the purpose of it is to keep headways the same for the rest of the system)

[MalcolmTucker]

Not an awful contingency plan.

[freeweed]

Wow, thanks mersar. I'm up to my ass in alligators so this is the only website I've been able to check for anything today. Good to be prepared for the rest of the week.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Hahaha! The newer suburbs do seem to have a very undesirable road network. Does the city have any say in the road design within developments? The developer has no real incentive to build efficient roads, only what will expediently sell the house the first time.

I wondered this as well. There seems to be a large lag between what is being built now even though the city's policy towards dead-end roads has changed significantly. I suspect the road outline for many area had been approved much earlier than the construction, before more stringent standards were in focus. But this is a guess, maybe someone else has a better answer?

Oh all my critiques of surburban neighbourhood design, the road network is what I hate the most. It creates such a fixed use environment that is so difficult to densify or provide effective non-auto transport options..

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by mersar

City just posted an update. Essentially no CTrain today, a 'shuttle train' running on a single track tomorrow and Friday between Dalhousie and Crowfoot, then back to buses for the weekend with the hope of normal CTrain service resuming for Monday.

So its going to be a slightly painful rest of the week, I'd suspect that the 'shuttle train' will require every person to transfer between the train that brought them to Dalhousie and it (the purpose of it is to keep headways the same for the rest of the system)

They must have lost a bunch of equipment. Energized AC line falling on DC = very bad news. Shocked there wasn't rider poles installed at the crossing location.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by mersar

City just posted an update. Essentially no CTrain today, a 'shuttle train' running on a single track tomorrow and Friday between Dalhousie and Crowfoot, then back to buses for the weekend with the hope of normal CTrain service resuming for Monday.

So its going to be a slightly painful rest of the week, I'd suspect that the 'shuttle train' will require every person to transfer between the train that brought them to Dalhousie and it (the purpose of it is to keep headways the same for the rest of the system)

nvm.

[MalcolmTucker]

Isn't CT still running on a DC supply, and converting it for cars newer than the 1980s?

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Isn't CT still running on a DC supply, and converting it for cars newer than the 1980s?

Yes. Overhead lines are DC.