Calgary Public Transit II

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Because that is precisely what a middling western North American city was going to do in the mid-20th Century... I'm sure the possibility of operating a street car instead of building the "Sarcee Expressway" was a major subject of debate in 1960.

Which of these roads would you not have built?

Err, what?

My point wasn't whether or not they were or weren't going to do it, it was that had they not, some higher quality form of transit on Centre St would now be more feasible. Please don't re-frame the discussion so that it suits whatever you're trying to say.

It's obviously rather hard to answer that in retrospect isn't it - they all look very useful now don't they. But that's presumably why you asked it, in hopes of legitimizing your initial point. You're also welcome to simply concede for once... But anyway, without the benefit of a PhD dissertation or having an infallible memory of a time I didn't even exist in yet, my one offer of an example would be Crowchild Tr. Not that the road itself wasn't needed; but it wasn't needed in its Expressway form.

I would gladly go on, but I'd like some assurance that bothering to do so won't be met with an inability to think non-linearly, but in systems terms and with an understanding of the interaction between transportation and land-use. However, in short, it's busy because it's there.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

Err, what?

My point wasn't whether or not they were or weren't going to do it, it was that had they not, some higher quality form of transit on Centre St would now be more feasible. Please don't re-frame the discussion so that it suits whatever you're trying to say.

That is among the more ridiculous things you have ever said. How would Centre Street being even more indispensable as a surface street than it already is accomplish that? The public at large are not going to buy into this eccentric ethos of yours.

The end point is the same in all scenarios that involve a badly compromised Centre Street LRT. Some clown will promise a subway that is never funded or built.

It's obviously rather hard to answer that in retrospect isn't it - they all look very useful now don't they. But that's presumably why you asked it, in hopes of legitimizing your initial point.

It shouldn't be difficult to answer, traffic patterns before and after the construction of these roads is fairly well understood.

You're also welcome to simply concede for once...

To what exactly? That the Calgary of your fantasies is somehow either real or attainable?

My one offer of an example would be Crowchild Tr. Not that the road itself wasn't needed; but it wasn't needed in its Expressway form.

Because it just worked so incredibly well before the interchanges and overpasses were built. Gridlock isn't efficient, it also doesn't necessarily lead people to the "path of the righteous" as you might perceive it.

[MalcolmTucker]

For me, the subway vs taking away traffic lanes comes down to this: I think people are willing to pay to maintain the traffic lanes. We haven't taken away much road functionality at all as the network has been built.

So raise the money. We shouldn't cry for more when the province won't top up funds for this either as Edmonton is embarking on its road capacity reduction LRT plan to keep LRT costs as low as they can.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Downtown Calgary is flourishing, not in spite of bottlenecks- bottlenecks are the result of a flourishing downtown.

Even when downtown Calgary was not flourishing the issues were much the same. There is really no level of economic activity in which this city won't exceed the road and parking capacity into the core.

It is also true that until fairly recently downtown Calgary was generally affordable. There was always good but not great office space to be had downtown. Now unless you want to hop between irregular subleases or sign a headlease with a demolition clause in a C building, or on a Plus 15 level with constant "bathroom issues" the deals just aren't out there.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by fusili

Downtown Calgary flourished because, being an one-industry town, energy companies (and the banks, lawyers, engineers, software companies, marketing firms, etc that support the) see value in co-locating and being part of a shared downtown culture.

This is bang on.

Originally Posted by fusili

To keep downtown relatively hospitable in order to facilitate convenient business meetings, lunches and after work social events, we couldn't let it be torn apart by large roads bisecting the area.

I don't think there's much support for this idea. I think the geography of the area being relatively flat and surrounded on 3 sides by the hills of the local river valley had more to do with the eventual result of concentration of high-rise development.

[simster3]

Is it possible for at grade to be built on centre but have elevated stations over top of intersections to allow for turn lanes? Does that even make sense?

[VIce]

Originally Posted by simster3

Is it possible for at grade to be built on centre but have elevated stations over top of intersections to allow for turn lanes? Does that even make sense?

There are a handful of Skytrain stations built above intersections, but they aren't exactly inconspicuous:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.238266,-1...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJeLPaUOnOELZTrc_EuFTfQ!2e0

[shogged]

Were the station locations from the north central open house ever posted? They weren't official but they were a good ball park for where to expect them in the future. I have pictures if they weren't...

[jawagord]

I keep getting surprized at the pace the driverless car testing is advancing. When an all electric, rechargeable, driverless car hits the market in 10 years or so, it will profoundly change commuting and the way transit is built. The need for destination parking will become redundant when your car can drive itself home or to a charging station or to the next user.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dri...ss-cars-on-public-roads/article19853812/

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Yup. Will still need trunk lines for peak use and long distance, but I wouldn't be surprised if robotic van pools replace most labour intensive but low user per hour transit before 2030.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Agreed completely. If we setup a low-floor tram system on centre to replace the bus service with taking 2 of the four lanes in the centre of the road and convert to dedicated tracks we would be all set. I think there is an unneccessary need in Calgary to have the best, most expensive and least disruptive transportation to preserve "choice". These systems cost a fraction of a subway or Calgary-style LRT with all the ROW needed and grade-separation that is demanded arbitrarily. And they work. Nearly every city in Western Europe over 100,000 has a network of these lines and they can have far greater capacity / service reliability than the existing service of buses on Centre.

If the engineering checks out on the Centre Street Bridge to support the trams, give them light priority and dedicated space to do a turn around on Centre S to 4th Ave westbound, S on 5th Street SW, East on 9th Ave, North again on Centre. Take a lane of car traffic from each road and be done with it. The stations are minimal, usually no more than a ticket machine and shelter, give as much light and turning priority as possible, and separate the lanes from traffic in the congested areas with bollards if Cars just don't get it to get out of the way.

If we chase the expensive dream of full separation to preserve a shrinking mode choice downtown of auto traffic downtown that not only will prevent us from affording building a most extensive network, it will reduce the quality and service of the transit network at the expense of the inefficient car modal choice.

For the price of a fully separated or partially underground subway for the NC/SELRT, we could build cheap but vastly improved service to whole swaths of the city. Replace the entire Route 3 line, Route 1 Line, SE line using light weight trains and minimal station infrastructure. The only catch is that Calgary will have to accept that transit is a more efficient choice and therefore gets priority everywhere it can. That means losing lanes of car traffic, changing signals to ease transit everywhere. It may inconvenience some, but the net benefit is greater and the bill comes in at a hell of a lot cheaper than going for full grade-separation just so that cars don't get mad at transit taking "their" space.

A system like that would cost less than the guess-timated $5B for the NC/SELRT and would provide far greater level of service to more people in more areas.

These European tram comparisons are ridiculous. Yes, Amsterdam has trams instead of busses on certain main routes but they also have subways for rapid transit instead of LRTs. A major European city would not build a tram to provide rapid transit on a high capacity route 15 km long.

Policy Wonk is right. A surface ROW on Centre Street would mean major compromises to all modes of travel, from drivers to pedestrians to transit. There is essentially no way for it not to be a disaster for automobiles without massive expropriation that would defeat the purpose. You might be okay with this; most people will go ballistic.

As for pedestrians and transit, it is basically one or the other. There is a reason that existing LRT routes in this city have wide, fenced off ROWs with crossing arms. It allows the trains to safely travel at speed. The choice with a surface route would be between a glorified bus that can't change lanes and an impenetrable wall in the middle of the road. A rapid transit line, bus or rail, cannot coexist with pedestrian crossings every 100 meters like Centre currently has and nothing will kill the pedestrian realm forcing people to hike a kilometer to cross the street. Some one in this thread seriously said pedestrians will be fine because it works on 7 Ave. Like we're seriously contemplating six miles of 7 Ave being acceptable?

Where I differ with Policy Wonk is that I think a Subway is entirely justifiable and affordable. Seriously a Centre street subway would be almost exactly the same projectas the Canada Line in Vancouver, right down to the amount of bored and cut and cover tunnels required. The major differences being that instead of an elevated R section we have a protected surface alignment on Harvest Hills Boulevard, we can skip the entire A section, and we'd probably want longer platforms on the V section. The Canada Line cost just over 2 billion. Our provincial government is spending more than double that on a quarter of a freeway. In twenty years we will likely be a bigger city than Vancouver was when the Canada Line was built and are a much richer province.

Now, I understand why Policy Wonk thinks a subway is fantastical. He thinks that the provincial government is going to be in 1994 mode for the next thirty years. What is everyone else's excuse for advocating a project that will be considered under built within a decade of opening?

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is among the more ridiculous things you have ever said. How would Centre Street being even more indispensable as a surface street than it already is accomplish that? The public at large are not going to buy into this eccentric ethos of yours.

The end point is the same in all scenarios that involve a badly compromised Centre Street LRT. Some clown will promise a subway that is never funded or built.

Sigh. I find it increasingly amusing that you actually believe yourself to have an understanding of how a land-use, transportation system works. Similarly how resolute you are in defending positions that you build on others' behalf.

I've purposely not stated that I believe it should be at grade along centre street. You made that contention for me. For the record, I believe if it isn't grade separated at least until some point past 16th ave and predominantly within at least a class B ROW thereafter, it won't provide the level of service that it really should. However, that being said, what other posters have stated remains largely true. From a service provision perspective, the difference between a prioritized bus and light rail vehicle is largely a capacity increase and that alone justifies it.

If you would like to continue to pretend to understand the technological differences between all the modes, go ahead and keep arguing.

But more to the point, if you quite simply can't get the land-use - transportation interaction, feel free to admit it. I already know you don't, and you just raise some other points to redirect the discussion. Case in point:

It shouldn't be difficult to answer, traffic patterns before and after the construction of these roads is fairly well understood.

You care to elaborate or substantiate that? I mean, you understand it right - to be making such a bold claim. I'll save you the trouble. You're wrong. Full stop. Or are MIT, ETH, Berkeley, UofT, Delft, U of Minnesota, etc etc, unaware or your knowledge?

To what exactly? That the Calgary of your fantasies is somehow either real or attainable?

But this is really the kicker. You stated that had we built more freeways, a Centre St alignment (let's just say surface going for simplicity) would be more viable. I stated the opposite is likely true. (The likely is openness to outliers, but if you're (and I'm quite serious) open to how one gets to that conclusion if you'd actually like to genuinely ask, I'll genuinely explain.) To which your reply was something along the lines of Calgary was not considering that at the time - something I hadn't stated or makes what I did state any less true. So nice work there. I also didn't state the public NOW would be accepting of it. So why do write as though I did? I never said they would, and it yet again doesn't make what I originally did state less true.

Because it just worked so incredibly well before the interchanges and overpasses were built. Gridlock isn't efficient, it also doesn't necessarily lead people to the "path of the righteous" as you might perceive it.

I recently read a report about the impending gridlock that was to befall Canmore (ca. 1995) were they not to do anything about it. They didn't do anything about it. Gridlock there right?

Gridlock is very efficient if a transit vehicle zooms right on by it all and you aim to get people to patronize it. It's also very efficient if your only objective isn't to move vehicles.

Like said, I know you don't and probably never will understand the complexities involved. No one truly does, hence some of the most complex models you'll ever come across. That's not to say it isn't understood generally.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

If you would like to continue to pretend to understand the technological differences between all the modes, go ahead and keep arguing.

I am extremely confident in my understanding and seek your approval of precisely nothing.

But more to the point, if you quite simply can't get the land-use - transportation interaction, feel free to admit it. I already know you don't, and you just raise some other points to redirect the discussion.

No, in this too I am also very comfortable. I just don't believe that land use and transportation are weapons to be used by eccentric minorities to impose their will on the public at large.

But this is really the kicker. You stated that had we built more freeways, a Centre St alignment (let's just say surface going for simplicity) would be more viable. I stated the opposite is likely true.

If you seriously believe that if the role of Centre Street as a vehicle and transit corridor was performed by some other more suitable road that Centre Street would be a less likely alternative you occupy a head space unreachable to most of us. Centre Street is too many things to be favoured to serve only one of them poorly.

Originally Posted by sim

I recently read a report about the impending gridlock that was to befall Canmore (ca. 1995) were they not to do anything about it. They didn't do anything about it. Gridlock there right?

Gridlock is very efficient if a transit vehicle zooms right on by it all and you aim to get people to patronize it. It's also very efficient if your only objective isn't to move vehicles.

Gridlock wasn't theoretical before the Glenmore interchange was built.

And since vehicles are how most people choose to move about the world that preference should be reflected in processes and planning. I realize you reject that on a deeply visceral level, but that's just the world we live in. Moving vehicles efficiently is a noble goal. If you have to strive to make driving terrible to make transit appealing, your failing on the transit side of the equation. (Edit: for the record I don't believe that is what Calgary has done.) Driving is not a vice, sin or moral failing. It is the primary way that people navigate their world and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that or that preference being reflected by government and society. If you make yourself tone deaf to that, you aren't going to find many looking to you for solutions.

Like said, I know you don't and probably never will understand the complexities involved. No one truly does, hence some of the most complex models you'll ever come across. That's not to say it isn't understood generally.

And as I have always said I wear the scorn of the likes of you and your planning fad driven philosophy as a badge of honour.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Moving vehicles efficiently is a noble goal.

Here's where you're wrong, moving vehicles (particularly SOV's) efficiently is a waste of money, moving people and goods efficiently is a noble goal.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by simster3

Is it possible for at grade to be built on centre but have elevated stations over top of intersections to allow for turn lanes? Does that even make sense?

Originally Posted by VIce

There are a handful of Skytrain stations built above intersections, but they aren't exactly inconspicuous:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.238266,-1...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJeLPaUOnOELZTrc_EuFTfQ!2e0

I think he was referring to partially burying the station with turns over top.

There was and is some consideration for this type of solution at 16th and McKnight, similar to some of the intersections on 17th for the west LRT. [Streetview]

[simster3]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I think he was referring to partially burying the station with turns over top.

There was and is some consideration for this type of solution at 16th and McKnight, similar to some of the intersections on 17th for the west LRT. [Streetview]

I didnt really think about it being sunk under the street, but that works too. In my mind elevated just seems to be easier, I have no technical understanding of construction. I was thinking that the station could be overtop of the intersection, say 16th ave, and go back to grade a few hunderd metres on either side. Then below the elevated station, there will be extra room to give proper turn lanes that will still allow straight-through traffic to unimpeded by left hand turners. Sinking it under the intersection is probably better because the support structures would be easier to build.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by simster3

I didnt really think about it being sunk under the street, but that works too. In my mind elevated just seems to be easier, I have no technical understanding of construction. I was thinking that the station could be overtop of the intersection, say 16th ave, and go back to grade a few hunderd metres on either side. Then below the elevated station, there will be extra room to give proper turn lanes that will still allow straight-through traffic to unimpeded by left hand turners. Sinking it under the intersection is probably better because the support structures would be easier to build.

I would think you wouldn't have to go down as deep as you would have to go up either.

[googspecial]

Having a sunken & semi-exposed station under 16th ave is actually a great idea. We already have 2 stations built similarly, so there is the knowledge of how it would be done, and how we could improve on it. Although I would like to see some more variety in the style of the green line vs the other 2, this seems like it would be the best course of action.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by googspecial

Having a sunken & semi-exposed station under 16th ave is actually a great idea. We already have 2 stations built similarly, so there is the knowledge of how it would be done, and how we could improve on it. Although I would like to see some more variety in the style of the green line vs the other 2, this seems like it would be the best course of action.

Of course all this is moot if it's underground when it crosses the river then it wouldn't surface till north of 16th and only McKnight would be done this way.

[DizzyEdge]

Finally

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1114257...ng-real-time-mobile-app-due-in-december/

All Calgary Transit buses now have GPS tracking, real-time mobile app due in December
By Robson Fletcher
Metro

All city buses now have GPS technology installed in them that allows the vehicles’ position to be tracked remotely – information Calgary Transit says is due to be shared with riders via web and mobile app before the end of the year.

“This has been deployed now and tested individually on our buses in our entire fleet of roughly 1,000 buses,” transit manager of strategic planning Chris Jordan said Thursday. “The next step is to test the communication loads on the entire system while it’s in service.”

As part of the testing, Calgary Transit plans to introduce real-time audio and visual announcements on about 200 buses starting Monday, using the same GPS technology.

more here http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1114257...ng-real-time-mobile-app-due-in-december/