Calgary Public Transit II

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MasterG

It would be a ridiculous idea to reduce the usage of car2gos in the core by limiting their parking to designated areas. They are using up a public resource (space) at 2x or greater efficiency than the users on average: both due to their small size being 50% smaller than the average car and the fact that many, many more times per day they are moved, freeing up the space.

This would be a backwards step to punish efficiency if they become restricted to smaller areas.

This city really struggles with the idea that car usage downtown will one-day be a unimportant slice of the transportation picture. It's plain economics; a densifying and intensifying land use in the core coupled with lack of road expansion breeds efficiency. This will happen as it has for years now. People should start acting like only 35% of trips are by auto in the core. And shrinking.

I would think that the new corner spots would actually increase the number of spots available to Car2Go as I doubt that they would prevent them from parking in regular stalls.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I would think that the new corner spots would actually increase the number of spots available to Car2Go as I doubt that they would prevent them from parking in regular stalls.

As long as that is the case then I am happy.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

It would be a ridiculous idea to reduce the usage of car2gos in the core by limiting their parking to designated areas. They are using up a public resource (space) at 2x or greater efficiency than the users on average: both due to their small size being 50% smaller than the average car and the fact that many, many more times per day they are moved, freeing up the space.

This would be a backwards step to punish efficiency if they become restricted to smaller areas.

This city really struggles with the idea that car usage downtown will one-day be a unimportant slice of the transportation picture. It's plain economics; a densifying and intensifying land use in the core coupled with lack of road expansion breeds efficiency. This will happen as it has for years now. People should start acting like only 35% of trips are by auto in the core. And shrinking.

Yup. We have 36 vehicle lanes that entering the downtown. We are not going to have any more, probably ever. Every bridge or road that can have lane reversals (centre street, Louise Bridge, 5th ave/Pumphouse road reversal) has them already. The only solution is to be more efficient with those lanes (and with new transit lanes into the core).

[*Stardust*]

Just visited Montreal and I must say I'm very impressed with their Metro.
More so than the Toronto Subway and the Vancouver Skytrain. Is it too late for Calgary to implement something like this? Or are we stuck with the ground level trains forever?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Just visited Montreal and I must say I'm very impressed with their Metro.
More so than the Toronto Subway and the Vancouver Skytrain. Is it too late for Calgary to implement something like this? Or are we stuck with the ground level trains forever?

Nothing wrong with ground level trains at all. The issue is at grade crossings of roads, and that is only a big issue (for the LRT) downtown - which will eventually be solved for the 201 by the 8th Ave Subway, and the Green line will have it's own subway at least through downtown when that is eventually built.

It's fairly rare for Western cities to build new full subway systems now, they're just too expensive. If a city didn't get it's first subway by around maybe the 60s - 80s, LRT is usually the way they have to go.

[DizzyEdge]

So where the existing LRTs are, the city seems to have created a right of way since maybe the 80s as the city expanded, so it's only in the innercity where you have issues putting in a new line. That said, other than the existing lines and the future NCLRT, has the city reserved ROWs for any other future line in the burbs?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So where the existing LRTs are, the city seems to have created a right of way since maybe the 80s as the city expanded, so it's only in the innercity where you have issues putting in a new line. That said, other than the existing lines and the future NCLRT, has the city reserved ROWs for any other future line in the burbs?

There is one through MacKenzie Town

[DizzyEdge]

So I guess for much of the 'green line'. I guess that' probably it, since although I've seen talk of other fantasy lines, I feel they weren't parts of official plans for the past few decades

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So I guess for much of the 'green line'. I guess that' probably it, since although I've seen talk of other fantasy lines, I feel they weren't parts of official plans for the past few decades

Existing ROWs could work well. The city should look at any pipeline ROWs that are being abandoned for relocation in the Stoney TUC and see if it would be worth reserving them.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Nothing wrong with ground level trains at all. The issue is at grade crossings of roads, and that is only a big issue (for the LRT) downtown - which will eventually be solved for the 201 by the 8th Ave Subway, and the Green line will have it's own subway at least through downtown when that is eventually built.

It's fairly rare for Western cities to build new full subway systems now, they're just too expensive. If a city didn't get it's first subway by around maybe the 60s - 80s, LRT is usually the way they have to go.

Once they build the green line and the 8th ave subway, could they build a subway for 7th ave to have the whole downtown system underground?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Once they build the green line and the 8th ave subway, could they build a subway for 7th ave to have the whole downtown system underground?

Well, if we did the math of
1) at current rates, how many years would LRT usage increases eat up the extra capacity of 4 car trains, and what would the usage be at that point
2) if we then cut that ridership value in half (ie separated lines by burying one under 8th) what would that rate be
3) at current rates, starting from however many years it took 1) to occur, what year would we match the rates once in again in 1) in spite of halving the ridership due to separating them.

at that point we'd have to bury 7th so we could have more frequent or longer trains.

So found a chart that showed that more or less from 1995 - 2005 LRT ridership increased 5% per year. So using those likely wildly inaccurate #s

1) 4 car trains would spread 3 cars full of people over 4 cars, so each would be 75% full.
2) at the 1995-2005 rates, by 2022 those 4 cars would be as full as each of 3 cars were in 2016
3) if those cars were half as full due to twice as frequent trains after burying one under 8th in 2022, at the 1995-2005 rates, by 2037 they'd be full again.

of course my numbers are based on a tiny graph in a pdf, and this doesn't take into account the green line removing riders from the NW/S-Central line, nor the fact the NW/S-Central line is busier than the WLRT/NE line.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Once they build the green line and the 8th ave subway, could they build a subway for 7th ave to have the whole downtown system underground?

Unfortunately, due to the reasons DizzyEdge has pointed out, burying the 202 is unlikely for eons. Once the (busier, more frequent) 201 is separated, there will be a lot of excess capacity on 7th Ave for a long time.

I personally find the ride down 7th Ave maddeningly slow and unreliable, but there is only limited money and other transit will take higher priority for a long time. The situation will at least be improved a little by removing the flat junctions and likely lowering the max frequency on 7th to something more sensible (most full blown metros, with their own ROW, run a lower frequency than we do on 7th Ave at rush hour).

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well, if we did the math of
1) at current rates, how many years would LRT usage increases eat up the extra capacity of 4 car trains, and what would the usage be at that point
2) if we then cut that ridership value in half (ie separated lines by burying one under 8th) what would that rate be
3) at current rates, starting from however many years it took 1) to occur, what year would we match the rates once in again in 1) in spite of halving the ridership due to separating them.

at that point we'd have to bury 7th so we could have more frequent or longer trains.

So found a chart that showed that more or less from 1995 - 2005 LRT ridership increased 5% per year. So using those likely wildly inaccurate #s

1) 4 car trains would spread 3 cars full of people over 4 cars, so each would be 75% full.
2) at the 1995-2005 rates, by 2022 those 4 cars would be as full as each of 3 cars were in 2016
3) if those cars were half as full due to twice as frequent trains after burying one under 8th in 2022, at the 1995-2005 rates, by 2037 they'd be full again.

of course my numbers are based on a tiny graph in a pdf, and this doesn't take into account the green line removing riders from the NW/S-Central line, nor the fact the NW/S-Central line is busier than the WLRT/NE line.

One thing to note is that this also assumes that both lines have and are going to grow at the same rate.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Unfortunately, due to the reasons DizzyEdge has pointed out, burying the 202 is unlikely for eons. Once the (busier, more frequent) 201 is separated, there will be a lot of excess capacity on 7th Ave for a long time.

I personally find the ride down 7th Ave maddeningly slow and unreliable, but there is only limited money and other transit will take higher priority for a long time. The situation will at least be improved a little by removing the flat junctions and likely lowering the max frequency on 7th to something more sensible (most full blown metros, with their own ROW, run a lower frequency than we do on 7th Ave at rush hour).

IIRC approximately 2/3 of the trains on 7th are route 201, there's a small likelihood that it'll never reach capacity again once the 201 is buried

[DizzyEdge]

Oh those numbers assume a whole lot
Hard to say what growth patterns will be. 201 will only be growing southward, and 202 will only be growing NE-ward (other than maybe 1 more station at the WLRT end). A 'green line' I'm guessing will grow in both directions.

[DizzyEdge]

Now that the city has expanded south of the reserve, I wonder if it will start to spread westward, west of Evergreen and Bridlewood, so that even though a route 201/greenline would be close together around 22x, they may both start to spread apart again.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

IIRC approximately 2/3 of the trains on 7th are route 201, there's a small likelihood that it'll never reach capacity again once the 201 is buried

Yep. One forumer did a very good analysis of the potential increase in capacity for the 202 with the increased frequency available and four car trains - it was something stupid like 300%. If we max out 4 car LRVs at 24 TPH then that will be a great situation to be in and would likely justify either burying the line or some other major adjustment.

[MalcolmTucker]

Likely cheaper to buy mared pairs (or however you spell it) to run on the 202 in 40 years when the cars need replacing anyways at a marginal increased cost than pay for new infrastructure when capacity is starting to get tight.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Likely cheaper to buy mared pairs (or however you spell it) to run on the 202 in 40 years when the cars need replacing anyways at a marginal increased cost than pay for new infrastructure when capacity is starting to get tight.

What's the % capacity increase of married pairs vs the consists we run now?

[MalcolmTucker]

Toronto's experience is thus:

The new “Toronto Rocket” subway cars will increase capacity by 3,200 pph compared to the current T1 cars operating the route171. This brings the capacity of the Yonge line from approximately 30,000 to 33,200.

http://www.drlnow.com/yongecapacity.html

The LRT cars have larger cab ends (full width vs half width), and longer gaps for couplers, so 10-15% would be reasonable I think. Can also push out the train beyond the platform length, to the length of which ever block is shortest that will still be used for stopped trains after the transition to 4 car trains.

[Full Mountain]

So approximately 50 more people/ 4 car consist with 2 married pairs. At 25 TPH that'd be 1250 pph increase (22,600 to 23,850).

If you were able to convert the 4 car consist to a single married set, you'd get 100 passengers per consist increase and 2,500 pph increase. Though I would suspect that a consist like this may have turning radius issues, the assumption here is that the coupler sections are able to turn tighter than the middle bends.

Base capacity used "Practical passenger capacity: 226" from Calgary Transit LRT Technical Data - It should be noted though that this isn't crush load.

Interesting that CT uses 2 min headways on their website, is 30 tph even possible in reality on 7th ave?