Calgary Public Transit II

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Route 2 had a 60' bus on it last night, not sure if this was just a failure replacement or if it's and increase in capacity, 95% of the seats were full and had a few people standing coming out of downtown, would have packed a 40' bus for sure.

Can they get a bendy bus around the corner at 12th ave and 4th st NW? Half the time a normal bus doesn't even make it without hopping the curb.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can they get a bendy bus around the corner at 12th ave and 4th st NW? Half the time a normal bus doesn't even make it without hopping the curb.

The 60' buses are actually more maneuverable than the 40' (learnt this from a CT mechanic), the bend actually helped get around the corner and stop at the stop immediately after the turn. That said the stops are not designed for a 60' bus so you end up getting of at weird points (i.e. directly into the bench, and the like)

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can they get a bendy bus around the corner at 12th ave and 4th st NW? Half the time a normal bus doesn't even make it without hopping the curb.

Surprisingly the 60' buses actually have a better turn control than the 40' buses do. Best example is by Sunnyside station, they can make the turn from 9A street onto 4th easily. I'd imagine 12th and 4th wouldn't be any worse, especially with a good driver.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by mersar

Surprisingly the 60' buses actually have a better turn control than the 40' buses do. Best example is by Sunnyside station, they can make the turn from 9A street onto 4th easily. I'd imagine 12th and 4th wouldn't be any worse, especially with a good driver.

Seems those are becoming fewer and farther between, you really appreciate a good driver when you get one now though (smooth acceleration and stopping)

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Seems those are becoming fewer and farther between, you really appreciate a good driver when you get one now though (smooth acceleration and stopping)

Amen.

[DizzyEdge]

Has CT done any studies or had any thoughts about where the WLRT might go west of 93rd st?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Has CT done any studies or had any thoughts about where the WLRT might go west of 93rd st?

I don't think anyone has ever thought about the LRT going west out of the city boundaries, even in hypothetical far-future scenarios; not only is it not Calgary jurisdiction, but no existing, planned or hypothetical land use would even begin to support it. You might be the first person with a thought about that, in all seriousness.

[You Need A Thneed]

I'm not sure the WLRT is ever going to be extended further than that. The acreages will make it far too hard to build anything dense enough to support it.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I'm not sure the WLRT is ever going to be extended further than that. The acreages will make it far too hard to build anything dense enough to support it.

I was wondering of acreages were having the same blocking effect there as they are in the NW.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Has CT done any studies or had any thoughts about where the WLRT might go west of 93rd st?

I think it will get to 85th St in 2033 (at 2 million population, narrowly and unjustly snuck in past council ahead of more pressing infrastructure needs), and then nothing will happen to the line until some technology/social-attitude arises that revolutionizes transportation, government, construction, or all three - something that may or may not be compatible with the existing c-train configuration.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I was wondering of acreages were having the same blocking effect there as they are in the NW.

The "blocking effect" depends on the situation. If the land value is high enough, people will always sell unless zoning is prohibited or if folks donate their land as nature preserves when they die.

The NW has a different effect that will also prevent it from ever extending. Even with 5 car trains, we should be able to fill nearly every train in the first couple stops once density and transit mode share increase a bit. There is no point of extending a line that cannot carry any more people. But, this is only true if people are headed in only one direction. It goes like this: 1) We consider extending to Bearspaw. 2) We realize all our rush hour trains are full and we should extend our platforms to 4-car system-wide. 3) We've improved service dramatically by adding more trains AND the city has grown for a decade without extending the line so rush-hour trains are full again and we now demand 5-cars. 4) 5-car trains are longer than a downtown city block, so now we have to spend a billion dollars on a downtown tunnel. 5) As we are spending billions on upgrading existing service, the NC, SE, MRU, and 17th Ave SE corridors are languishing, so we have to spend billions in all other parts of the city. 6) 5-car trains and a DT tunnel have dramatically improved service, and decades have passed, and the city has densified along existing corridors because the relative cost of transportation is skyrocketing as traffic in Calgary keeps us in gridlock for longer than ever. The result is that 5-car trains in the NW are used to capacity even though we've never extended beyond Crowfoot. Time to build a 6-car train.

Calgary was very smart to build the original lines when it did, but from 2006 onward, Calgary will be playing catch-up indefinitely. I don't expect we'll ever catch up unless growth is stopped (i.e. long recession, low oil prices),or a radical shift in taxation and public spending occurs.

[DizzyEdge]

Do we perhaps need a 'downtown' at or near the terminus of the NW line so that it can be fully utilized in both directions? Maybe a long in the future transformation of Crowfoot.

[DizzyEdge]

Does the LRT have the ability to shorten headways during rush hour or are they already running as often as they can?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Do we perhaps need a 'downtown' at or near the terminus of the NW line so that it can be fully utilized in both directions? Maybe a long in the future transformation of Crowfoot.

I would rather keep out office concentration (2nd highest in North America) in the downtown. Much better for everyone that way.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Does the LRT have the ability to shorten headways during rush hour or are they already running as often as they can?

With current infrastructure? Nope. Headway on 7th ave is close to 120 seconds during rush hour (5 minutes on blue line, 3-5 minutes on red line), which is remarkable given the at-grade crossings, and suffers from serious congestion at the switching locations at both ends of downtown. Given the 8th ave subway one day, both lines could be reduced to 120 seconds considering only downtown limitations, but then they'd have serious congestion near at-grade intersections outside of the downtown core (Heritage drive would need grade separation, and 36th street might have some serious pinch points of its own, etc.)

Basically we're at the point where all the low-hanging fruit have disappeared, and the next LRT improvement will be billions.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

I would rather keep out office concentration (2nd highest in North America) in the downtown. Much better for everyone that way.

I agree the single location is advantageous, just seems like at some point transportation to that location will max out.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I agree the single location is advantageous, just seems like at some point transportation to that location will max out.

Fair point, but office concentrations outside the core do little to ease that, as the majority of transit users will have to do a downtown transfer, so will use up downtown bound capacity anyway. I think locations like Chinoook (being on the South line and freeing up capacity for Erlton and 39th staiton) and Heritage (same as above, plus having the 306 BRT getting riders from the SW) and good locations for non-downtown office concentrations.

Downtown transit is and should continue to be our major focus. Expanding capacity to that location is the first priority.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Calgary was very smart to build the original lines when it did, but from 2006 onward, Calgary will be playing catch-up indefinitely. I don't expect we'll ever catch up unless growth is stopped (i.e. long recession, low oil prices),or a radical shift in taxation and public spending occurs.

This isn't a completely 'bad' problem to have however. Few, if any cities (especially ones growing like Calgary) have the perfect PT systems for their needs.

That said, the city, and its population, is going to need to mature its attitude to start funding infrastructure which, as you say, is going to get rapidly more expensive.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by VIce

With current infrastructure? Nope. Headway on 7th ave is close to 120 seconds during rush hour (5 minutes on blue line, 3-5 minutes on red line), which is remarkable given the at-grade crossings, and suffers from serious congestion at the switching locations at both ends of downtown. Given the 8th ave subway one day, both lines could be reduced to 120 seconds considering only downtown limitations, but then they'd have serious congestion near at-grade intersections outside of the downtown core (Heritage drive would need grade separation, and 36th street might have some serious pinch points of its own, etc.)

Basically we're at the point where all the low-hanging fruit have disappeared, and the next LRT improvement will be billions.

Just a couple minor points:

7 Ave will not be able to manage the same headways with four car trains as with four car trains.

An 8 Ave Subway with modern signalling, when taken in isolation, would be able to beat 120 second headways; 90 should be doable.

I would also add that post construction of the 8 Ave Subway, capacity boosts to the NW-S line will return to affordability very quickly. Heritage Drive and 25 Avenue would likely pose immediate issues and need to be addressed concurrently with Subway construction, unless Roads builds interchanges first, but the proposed interchanges are not overly complex and wouldn't break the bank. After that though we'll have plenty of spare capacity and additional capacity boosts won't cost much. Five car trains would mean rebuilding SAIT and 39 Ave, minor track realignments, and platform extensions. It would be comparable to the current move from three to four cars.

The NW-S line is, outside of downtown, just ridiculously close to being grade separated. It wouldn't even be that expensive to grade separate it. The W-NE line is different. Large portions of it, pretty much all of 36 St, would need to be completely rebuilt.

[Chadillaccc]

When are 4 car trains being introduced now? It looks pretty far behind schedule.