Calgary Public Transit II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by freeweed

You don't think that the general public should have to fund transit that they don't use, but you think that all Flames fans should?

Yes because I believe that parking lots for major sporting venues are crimes against civilization. Sporting events and concerts are very conducive to using public transit at an off peak time and need to be encouraged at all costs.

My dream can best be captured by a Google maps screen shot of the Melbourne Cricket Club. 100,000 seat stadium and parking for about 5,000 but excellent connections to public transit.

I think the transit fee approach could apply to all Saddledome, Jubilee, Epcor mainstage events. I would not attach smaller theatre events or Stampede tickets with the same approach as this could kill off the smaller productions.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Cage

Yes because I believe that parking lots for major sporting venues are crimes against civilization. Sporting events and concerts are very conducive to using public transit at an off peak time and need to be encouraged at all costs.

My dream can best be captured by a Google maps screen shot of the Melbourne Cricket Club. 100,000 seat stadium and parking for about 5,000 but excellent connections to public transit.

I think the transit fee approach could apply to all Saddledome, Jubilee, Epcor mainstage events. I would not attach smaller theatre events or Stampede tickets with the same approach as this could kill off the smaller productions.

You could, but it wouldn't capture as many as your estimate. Both Flames and Stamps have significant transit ridership already for games. So does the Stampede during the summer.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MasterG

You could, but it wouldn't capture as many as your estimate. Both Flames and Stamps have significant transit ridership already for games. So does the Stampede during the summer.

Actually it would capture as much as my estimate.

The only lost revenue would be those who pay cash single ticket fares.

I would be very interested to see the mode split for Flames and Stampeders games. What is the percentage for public transit vs private car vs private transport (e.g. Bust Loose bus) vs walking.

In the public transit category I would love to see the split between cash fare vs monthly pass.

Also consider that under my scenario, the monthly pass holders are double charged because there would be no mechanism to discount game day tickets for those who have monthly pass. The monthly pass double charge makes up for lost revenue on cash fares.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Ideally? Yes. I would love to see public transit be literally "free" for all users. Do I think it's realistic? Probably not. I don't really know of anywhere that does it on a large scale, even places that are way more transit-dependent than we are. I suppose there's reasons why not.

But a man can dream...

You should have a look at Tallin - they dream. They offer all PT at zero fare, and if I recall correctly are the largest jurisdiction to do so for many many years. Although the city is smaller, off the top of my head I believe they do offer more service hours than Calgary. If not, in any case they'd be similar.

Originally Posted by Doug

Transit prices could rise substantially and still be far less expensive than driving. Rush hour commuters could easily absorb a 2/3 increase (ex. single trip increase from $3 to $5). The best way to target out of towners would be a $10 per month surcharge on all vehicles registered in the Calgary region. The last funding piece would be a province wide 10c/litre in fuel taxes. Combined with some opex restraint (ex. 3 year city hiring and wage freeze followed by wage increases no more than inflation), the City should be able to fund all transportation initiatives without any new debt.

Well that's basically only the case here if you have to pay for parking and therefore have high out-of-pocket costs. You could add fuel in there, but other than that no one factors the cost of the car (and depreciation, maintenance, etc.) once they have it - sunk costs and all.

The purpose of good and useful public transit is to be rather extensive and not just serve peak time commuters in and out of a downtown core only. Thus, for trips not to the core the large majority of people don't have to realize those out of pocket costs when driving and transit is easily the more expensive option - in monetary costs alone. Add the cost of time and you start to see quite quickly why our transit mode share is nothing to write home about once excluding peak hour trips to the core.

Why fares continue to rise as more people choose public transit while driving's generalized costs are in some cases decreasing yet we still don't think that parking is a commodity that should be universally (in a city) charged for, is a bit perplexing.

[jawagord]

I'm amazed at how quickly this self driving vehicle technology is developing. This is going to change transit significantly in 15-20 years and make private transit much more popular. A self driving electric car that will pick you up and take you where you want to go and then goes somewhere else will be the ultimate car to go, a PRT without tracks. Some of our multi-billion dollar LRT lines may never materialize in they are dragged out beyond 2030.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/535ec...iverless-cars-are-mastering-city-streets

[Fuzz]

That would make traffic considerably worse if everyone on transit took individual vehicle trips. Might be useful for getting people to LRT stations from their homes, though. It could replace commuter shuttles, certainly not LRT's.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm amazed at how quickly this self driving vehicle technology is developing. This is going to change transit significantly in 15-20 years and make private transit much more popular. A self driving electric car that will pick you up and take you where you want to go and then goes somewhere else will be the ultimate car to go, a PRT without tracks. Some of our multi-billion dollar LRT lines may never materialize in they are dragged out beyond 2030.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/535ec...iverless-cars-are-mastering-city-streets

How do you mean? If everyone drove automated cars, there will be $20 000+ private vehicles that require a driver clogging our roads won't there?

Now flying cars, those would open up the roads! How many dimensions can we drive in!?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm amazed at how quickly this self driving vehicle technology is developing. This is going to change transit significantly in 15-20 years and make private transit much more popular. A self driving electric car that will pick you up and take you where you want to go and then goes somewhere else will be the ultimate car to go, a PRT without tracks. Some of our multi-billion dollar LRT lines may never materialize in they are dragged out beyond 2030.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/535ec...iverless-cars-are-mastering-city-streets

Urban mobility is a problem of space. Driverless cars aren't going to increase lane capacity much beyond the typical 2000 people per direction per hour. Mass transit, especially light and heavy rail, solves the problem of getting a lot of people to a compact destination with limited right of way capacity to handle the volume.

http://www.humantransit.org/2013/01/driv...ons-of-the-complete-imagined-future.html

However, if every car on the road was driverless, it would be great, because you could jaywalk with impunity.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

How do you mean? If everyone drove automated cars, there will be $20 000+ private vehicles that require a driver clogging our roads won't there?

Now flying cars, those would open up the roads! How many dimensions can we drive in!?

Flying cars - heaven forbid. We already have enough drivers who can't accomplish getting around in a 2D environment without hitting stuff - adding in a 3rd dimension just gives them another direction to mess my car up.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by fusili

Urban mobility is a problem of space. Driverless cars aren't going to increase lane capacity much beyond the typical 2000 people per direction per hour. Mass transit, especially light and heavy rail, solves the problem of getting a lot of people to a compact destination with limited right of way capacity to handle the volume.

http://www.humantransit.org/2013/01/driv...ons-of-the-complete-imagined-future.html

However, if every car on the road was driverless, it would be great, because you could jaywalk with impunity.

This is true. But 2000 ppdph is more typical of a freeway. A road with many at-grade intersections is going to be substantially lower. But automated cars promise automated queuing and avoidance at intersections, such that both those going straight through and those turning should be able to use the same intersection simultaneously without stopping. So your average road would also have something close to that capacity, not just your freeways. That makes many more roads viable paths to enter the city efficiently. Lanes could also presumably be narrower, and headways reduced.

Now, do I think it is reasonable to expect any of this to happen? Not so much. The benefits of automated vehicles aren't really realized until a large enough majority of road users have finished adoption that you can ban regular vehicles. When is this going to happen? Probably long after the transit system in its entirety is automated itself, which makes automated personal vehicles redundant.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm amazed at how quickly this self driving vehicle technology is developing. This is going to change transit significantly in 15-20 years and make private transit much more popular. A self driving electric car that will pick you up and take you where you want to go and then goes somewhere else will be the ultimate car to go, a PRT without tracks. Some of our multi-billion dollar LRT lines may never materialize in they are dragged out beyond 2030.

http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/535ec...iverless-cars-are-mastering-city-streets

Google is still years if not decades from a completely autonomous vehicle, currently the AI is far more cautious than your typical driver, defaulting often to the driver. (see the Atlantic Cities article from April) [Link]

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

How do you mean? If everyone drove automated cars, there will be $20 000+ private vehicles that require a driver clogging our roads won't there?

Now flying cars, those would open up the roads! How many dimensions can we drive in!?

We cant even drive properly in two dimensions. I'd hate to see how we would handle flying cars!

[DizzyEdge]

Does anyone in the know have the bleeding edge estimates for:
4 car train platform completion date
4 car train operation date
smart card implementation date
GPS tracking of next bus via cell phone date
stop notifications on the the bus message boards that have been installed

[DizzyEdge]

RE: NCLRT I just went through the city's website about possible routes http://www.calgarytransit.com/planning/north-central-lrt.php

Initially I was all for the Centre Street route due to it being a busier route and a more westerly route covers more residential. But I'm really concerned that an LRT running down centre will restrict ped crossing of Centre even more than it is now which will really hurt any thoughts of Centre being a highstreet of sorts. If I see something across the street of interest am I really going to walk 2 or 3 blocks just to cross the street and double back? They do have an option of underground up to 24th ave, but I think that should be extended to 32nd. I see the "never will there be retail on this side of the street" trenching on the WLRT 17th ave portion, and don't want any sort of disruption on Centre.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

RE: NCLRT I just went through the city's website about possible routes http://www.calgarytransit.com/planning/north-central-lrt.php

Initially I was all for the Centre Street route due to it being a busier route and a more westerly route covers more residential. But I'm really concerned that an LRT running down centre will restrict ped crossing of Centre even more than it is now which will really hurt any thoughts of Centre being a highstreet of sorts. If I see something across the street of interest am I really going to walk 2 or 3 blocks just to cross the street and double back? They do have an option of underground up to 24th ave, but I think that should be extended to 32nd. I see the "never will there be retail on this side of the street" trenching on the WLRT 17th ave portion, and don't want any sort of disruption on Centre.

I don't see any alternative but Centre, however as you point out the risk of creating a barrier effect is high if not done right. I say you keep it to the middle two lanes, minimal station structure, separated ROW and above ground whereever possible with level crossings (except the main pinch points (16th to downtown, possibly 24th, McKnight etc.).

Think Europe, not 36 Street NE . Low floor, still much higher capacity and reliability than current setup. We have to get away from the perception that everything must look like the current LRT or larger to be successful. We sound like Torontonians with their LRT vs. Subway debate, where they think LRT means "street car" so they dismiss it. They literally had public education campaigns to remind people what the differences are and that LRT does not mean low-capacity

Obviously a full-underground so no one is bothered is preferrable, but not realistic. It is just too expensive and redevelopment/density to warrant a full separation is still too far out, even in booming Calgary.

Key non-negotiable for me:

• Train priority over cars
• Pedestrian crossings everywhere possible (under 100m between crossings
• Improved public realm (one of my main arguments against elevated is that I am not convinced they can be done in a way that is positive urban experience except for the obvious speed and efficiency improvements)
• No or minimal loss to the centre facing properties (not trenches ever again)
  

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

RE: NCLRT I just went through the city's website about possible routes http://www.calgarytransit.com/planning/north-central-lrt.php

Forgive my ignorance, but on the narrow sections of centre/edmonton trail how will the stations be installed? With auto traffic running in both directions?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by fusili

However, if every car on the road was driverless, it would be great, because you could jaywalk with impunity.

On a more cynical note imagine show and tell between cars.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Forgive my ignorance, but on the narrow sections of centre/edmonton trail how will the stations be installed? With auto traffic running in both directions?

No idea, maybe Toronto streetcar style?


google maps

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

No idea, maybe Toronto streetcar style?


google maps

Looks like there is a lot of room on that road(8 lanes), centre and edmonton trail are only 4.

It looks pretty nice though, the station platform is very narrow.

[milomilo]

I highly doubt that a new station designed like that would ever pass modern safety/usability standards (for good reason).

On street would be fine if this was an inner city tram type system, but that doesn't appear to be the aim, which is partly as a commuter line for northern suburbs. Using on street would likely make the commute from the north unacceptably long and unreliable, and wouldn't attract as much ridership. The maximum capacity would be much lower also.