Calgary Public Transit II

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by joe498

Calgary commuters riding CTrain backwards to secure seats at Tuscany Station:

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1188454...ards-to-secure-seats-at-tuscany-station/

Calgary’s newest LRT station is already so busy that regular riders say they don’t even use it, opting instead to get on the CTrain one station earlier and ride the rails in reverse for one stop in order to secure a seat.

How people are arriving at Tuscany Station:
• 36% bus
• 36% auto (26% drop off, 10% Park and Ride)
• 25% walk
• 3% cycle

Which means they are driving to Crowfoot (or getting dropped off by someone driving) since there is no bus service outside the community anymore.

[mykalberta]

I apologize for this long winded post, I have asked a few people I know at the City and none of them know (non work for Transit).

Does anyone in the know when and if Calgary Transit ever audits its routes or asks for public input.

This is sort of a rant about where I live, not from a Nimby POV (I hope) but more from a "I wonder 🞵🞵🞵 CT planners are thinking about" and why things arent allocated differently

I recently got married and have a baby with a few more planned so my 2 bedroom condo in Crescent Heights just wasnt going to cut it and neither was my wifes 1 bd in the beltline. My wife and I decided on Rivebend - we tried to justify 300K more for a noodle or duplex infil but just couldnt. We were hoping to find reasonably priced (6-750K) 3bdrm condo but as we all know housing like that doesnt exist in Calgary (ahh to live in an Amsterdam walkup)

I have to admit I didnt really research the transit options only assuming that since QP was up and coming to the south that transit must be ok. I didnt even consider the SELRT because my future kids will be graduating high school before that gets built - not blaming anyone, just because you bought a cheap house in the burbs with no transit doesnt mean you deserve fast service anytime soon especially if its costly and relatively unused especially with a flat fare structure (entitlement is a peculiar thing).

For those who dont know there are 4 bus routes dedicated to RB and LW.

1 - 75 is an express with 3->downtown in the AM departing between 630 and 705 and 2 in the afternoon->LW/RB
2 - 36 is a curcular route that goes from Chinook to Glenmore to south on 18th then around RB and on to LW then back to Chinook
3 - 41 is the same as the 36 but it goes to LW first then RB
4 - 136 is the same as the 36 just goes in opposite direction through RB and as such needs bus stops on the other side of the road.

Now looking at the raw numbers people should be flocking to RB/LW to get some of the citys best bus service (excluding the 75 for now). Anyone in Calgary would be jealous of the below (theortical) timings (other than the evening which is a different discussion)

The bus routing times are as follows:
530-900 = 36*9, 41*9, 136*9
=210min/27departures = 8 minute wait time at each bus stop

900-1500 = 36*12, 41*12
=360min/24departures = 15 minute wait at each bus stop

1500-1830 = 36*9, 41*8, 136*10
=210min/27 = 8 minute wait time at each bus stop

1830-midnight = 36*8
=330min/8 = 42min wait time at each stop (but understandable)

My confusion with CT comes from the current bus routing and how it could be much more efficient because the Riverbend/Lynwood bus routing seems to have been designed to be the least efficient way of routing a bus and the least passenger friendly from any possible measure of useability. And while CT could be advertising 8-12 minute transit in RB/LW durring peak and increase revenues and ridership the current allocated routings make me wonder if this is perhaps one of the largest examples of modified Nimbyism in the city or just seeminly incompenant transit planners who seem to have forgotten this routing.

Now RB and LW arent exactly bastions of urban living (I think there might be a handfull of apartments in LW and none in RB). But the way they route the non express busses seem to be an exercise in telling people that you should just drive to Chinook mall CTRAIN instead of bus because its frkn terrible.

Now while I like to think I follow transit more than 95% of the other people in this City (less obviously than some on this forum), its very peculiar to me as to why the 3 routes even exist in the first place and why not just 1 to Chinook that leaves at regular intervals (I would throw the 75 in as I believe it unneeded and its capacity could be re added to a unified RB/LW route but there could be other operational reasons for it).

If CT wanted to be really efficient they could increase the 8min wait times durring peak to say 12 (oh dear god what would we do) and replace them with a few articulated busses thereby saving on driver costs. But in order to go that far into transit analysis we first need to fix the obvious problems.

I really hope this is just a one off and there arent more examples in this City of in-efficient transit planning - im almost afraid to check CT schedule map to see what else I could find.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by MasterG

4 cars can't come soon enough.

Speaking of the 36th Ave mess, is there a reason to use the rock ballast and the large ROW rather than something else? I feel the width of track is twice as wide as it should be. Is this just a reserve for potential lane expansions or siding track if it is ever needed? or is there a technical/maintenance reason for the amount of room there?

Width of the right of way is partially a factor of speed, and the fact its located within the road right of way (which is fairly consistently the same width, around 47m, from 16th to Whitehorn, and wider further south). If you look at it from overhead the road right of way itself is fairly straight, but due to differing number of turn lanes the track and its right of way jogs back and forth and I'd surmise its much cheaper to fill those wider areas with ballast than to constraint the tracks within a narrower passage and then fill those areas with concrete or grass. And it does allow for potential lane expansions in places, which likely wouldn't happen but there is definitely room to do it in places.

Some quick measurements show the widest point I could find is about 20m, and the narrowest (minus right at a crossing) is about 10, with most places being about 15, though usually with more space on one side than the other.

Compared to the NW, its really no different except that the NW doesn't have the turn lanes encroaching into it. Most of the NW is around 15m or so, with the narrowest being about 10m as it comes out of the Crowchild tunnel for instance.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Sorry, I meant a median running, side loading, BRT. That means pedestrians would still have to cross to get to the station platform, but the platform would be split for each direction. Median running BRTs are preferable to curb lane BRTs for many, many reasons. In fact, I can't think of many dedicated transit lanes in curb lanes. Anyone have any examples?

Well, I don't think it's as rare or necessarily as unfavourable as one might think. I believe a decent amount of Las Vegas's is curb lane, some of Viva is, as is some of the Boston Silverline. There are certainly others. The question also has a lot of overlap with what really constitutes a BRT service. A lot of European systems have what we, and as you know, especially in Calgary, would equate to BRT service that are effectively normal bus service that are just prioritized in the right places - often curb lanes. And unless I completely remember wrong, about the only dedicated transit lanes we currently have on our ...BRT lines... are curb lanes. And really Calgary's (Winnipeg's ?) transit mall are more or less dedicated transit bus curb lanes. It does depend a bit on the context - in terms of the what constitutes a BRT and in terms of the context a BRT line is to be place in.

But in general the true BRTs; the Transmilenios, Jakarta, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Guangzhou, Brisbane etc, are mostly in median running ways.

[para transit fellow]

Re riverbend/Lynwood

you might want to pick up a book titled "human Transit" by Jarred Walker

His central argument that decreasing headway (what you are calling "waiting at the stop") decreases the public desire to use transit and people start taking their cars instead


Update: some days we have one concept in our head while the fingers type another.... The concept... Anything that decreases the frequency of the buses driving by tends to impair the public's desire to use transit...

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Re riverbend/Lynwood

you might want to pick up a book titled "human Transit" by Jarred Walker

His central argument that decreasing headway (what you are calling "waiting at the stop") decreases the public desire to use transit and people start taking their cars instead

I was under the impression that decreasing headways increased ridership.

[Doug]

Extending the existing tunnel on the NE line North past Marlborough Mall would solve most of the issues on 36th. That would mean an underground or trenched replacement for Marlborough station. Despite all of the at grade crossings, average speed on the NE line doesn't seem to suffer.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Doug

Extending the existing tunnel on the NE line North past Marlborough Mall would solve most of the issues on 36th. That would mean an underground or trenched replacement for Marlborough station. Despite all of the at grade crossings, average speed on the NE line doesn't seem to suffer.

Simply Beautifying the LRT ROW along 36th Street would go a long way.

Get rid of the concrete and chain link fence barriers, replace with something nicer. Install some planter beds with same greenery. and trees And rebuid all of the pedestrian crossings to have refuges on both sides of the tracks in the median, instead of just one.

That would make that corridor o much better.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Re riverbend/Lynwood

you might want to pick up a book titled "human Transit" by Jarred Walker

His central argument that decreasing headway (what you are calling "waiting at the stop") decreases the public desire to use transit and people start taking their cars instead

It does; and it's higher quality service:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-it-matters.html

Instead of 5 car trains they should increase the frequency of the trains, i.e. decrease headway, or decrease wait period between trains.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

It does; and it's higher quality service:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-it-matters.html

Instead of 5 car trains they should increase the frequency of the trains, i.e. decrease headway, or decrease wait period between trains.

They physically can't. We are at peak headways on 7th avenue. The reason why we are going to four car trains is because there is no other way to increase capacity on the lines.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, Calgary is in a very different situation compared to most metros in non Latin America on headways and capacity (except the big ones, San Fran, DC, maybe Washington (don't know enough about it), and New York).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, Calgary is in a very different situation compared to most metros in non Latin America on headways and capacity (except the big ones, San Fran, DC, maybe Washington (don't know enough about it), and New York).

And Toronto of course.

I read somewhere that the Yonge line is the busiest single transit line in all of the US and Canada (the Lexington Avenue Subway has two sets of tracks for the express and the local, so it is technically two lines).

[VIce]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

It does; and it's higher quality service:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-it-matters.html

Instead of 5 car trains they should increase the frequency of the trains, i.e. decrease headway, or decrease wait period between trains.

The advanced signalling, automated control, and linear induction motors on the SkyTrain allow for 75 second headways. As TransLink normally runs 2 minute headways, this gives them room to expand by reducing headways. But for the more conventional system in Calgary, Siemens doesn't recommend going below 120 seconds. This is the actual current headway on 7th avenue during rush hour today. Approx. 18 trains per hour on the 201, and approx. 12 trains per hour on the 202. Reducing headways means a huge infrastructure project, no matter what you do.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, Calgary is in a very different situation compared to most metros in non Latin America on headways and capacity (except the big ones, San Fran, DC, maybe Washington (don't know enough about it), and New York).

Both Metrorail and BART suffer the same issue as Calgary with respect to interlining limiting headways. In DC, all the lines are interlined with at least one other line except for the Red line. Their minimum achievable headway is 3 minutes, giving 6 minutes on most lines during peak hours. BART has a minimum achievable headway of 200 seconds, and because it is quadruple-interlined, runs most lines with 13.33 minutes spacing.

[ClaytonA]

Apologies for any of the misunderstanding - refer to post 9034 on the previous page. I was trying to capture both quotes above...software usage ineptitude I suppose. Yes the interlining and other issues on 7th Ave are the major constraint on N-S LRT usage. As others more knowledgable than me have predicted, I wouldn't be surprised if upon 4 car trains running, all extra capacity was close to being used up on start-up.

People were discussing going to a 5 car LRT along with the 8th Ave subway planned in RouteAhead for 1.6 million population. The better way between the two to increase capacity would be through frequency and not longer trains. This would increase the qaulity of the service more than just another consist for passengers by making transit more convenient as well. More bang for the buck so to speak.

Personally I'd much rather see this than further extensions to 210th ST and the NE extension planned, but as also already discussed above buy-in from the entire city is necessary. Would've been interesting to see this inter-lining taken out instead of the 4 car trains too, but it was lower hanging fruit and also logical to also do regardless of removing the inter-lining.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Doug

Extending the existing tunnel on the NE line North past Marlborough Mall would solve most of the issues on 36th. That would mean an underground or trenched replacement for Marlborough station. Despite all of the at grade crossings, average speed on the NE line doesn't seem to suffer.

The set up of 36 St isn't a problem for the NE Line, at least not yet. It's a problem for crossing traffic, left turns, and pedestrians. I forget how long the crossing arms have to be down for but I believe it's close to thirty seconds. This makes it pretty much impossible to properly sequence the lights with current train headways during the peaks. It will become a problem for the NE Line in the future because it essentially caps capacity on line. We already have a train going through every 2.5 minutes. Four car trains will require the crossing arms being down even longer. We'll quickly reach a point where something will have to give. It will either be impossible to accommodate traffic crossing the median or trains will have to lose the automatic ROW and will have to wait at lights like on 7 Ave. Neither is ideal.

The cheapest solution would probably be to just elevate the train for the three miles and three stations of 36 St.

[andasen]

With Riverbend/Ogden/Quarry Park being my backyard I think I can help you understand the "messiness" of the transit service in our area

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Does anyone in the know when and if Calgary Transit ever audits its routes or asks for public input.

This is sort of a rant about where I live, not from a Nimby POV (I hope) but more from a "I wonder 🞵🞵🞵 CT planners are thinking about" and why things arent allocated differently

---

For those who dont know there are 4 bus routes dedicated to RB and LW.

1 - 75 is an express with 3->downtown in the AM departing between 630 and 705 and 2 in the afternoon->LW/RB
2 - 36 is a curcular route that goes from Chinook to Glenmore to south on 18th then around RB and on to LW then back to Chinook
3 - 41 is the same as the 36 but it goes to LW first then RB
4 - 136 is the same as the 36 just goes in opposite direction through RB and as such needs bus stops on the other side of the road.

Gonna have to expand on this extensively

First of all Riverbend is services by the following routes 36, 41, 75, 136 and the 302.

Ogden is served by the following routes 36, 41, 75, 24, 72, 73 and the 302

Quarry Park is served by the 92, 96, 136, and the 302.

Not all these routes have complete coverage but they do service parts of the communities.

For starters

The 36 and 41 are paired routes that are actually really useful. Each has a circulating time of ~45 minutes so if they were merged into a single route the people at the start of the route would be faced with a 30 minute bus ride just to get to Chinook Station. In order to reduce the "wasted time" on the express portions of the route they have the 36 operate as a bus that drops off riders in Riverbend and picks up riders in Lynnwood/Ogden. The 41 does the opposite. This means more of the bus's time is spent picking up/dropping off customers than providing express service while also providing a measure of North-south connectivity between the two communities. The biggest group of N-S users is Riverbend students attending Sherwood JH to my knowledge.

The 136 originally was weird but as it now has extended service down into Quarry Park it makes a bit more sense. I will acknowledge that it makes far more left turns to service QP than if it followed the 36 and 41 pathway but a decent chunk of its ridership that enables it to serve QP this early is by Riverbend riders wanting to have shorter trips to Chinook (savings between 5-10 minutes depending on where you live to take the 136).

The 75 is a downtown express service which utilizes the nascent setway corridor. Time savings getting to downtown for the peak rush. Would increase travel times if scrapped. Serves all of Riverbend and a central 18th street spine of Ogden.

The 302 Provides service to South Riverbend, Northeast Riverbend and East Ogden connecting to DT and the areas to the south (the lack of transit connections to the 302 for large portions of Riverbend and Ogden does make some unhappy)

The 72/73 provide service to South Ogden connecting to Foothills to the east and Deerfoot meadows/industrial/Chinook/MRU to the west

The 24 services most of Ogden running from the South East to the North west of the community. It provides connections to the Ogden Industrial areas and DT all day and also parts of the SE industrial during peak.

Now looking at the raw numbers people should be flocking to RB/LW to get some of the citys best bus service (excluding the 75 for now). Anyone in Calgary would be jealous of the below (theortical) timings (other than the evening which is a different discussion)

The bus routing times are as follows:
530-900 = 36*9, 41*9, 136*9
=210min/27departures = 8 minute wait time at each bus stop

900-1500 = 36*12, 41*12
=360min/24departures = 15 minute wait at each bus stop

1500-1830 = 36*9, 41*8, 136*10
=210min/27 = 8 minute wait time at each bus stop

1830-midnight = 36*8
=330min/8 = 42min wait time at each stop (but understandable)

My confusion with CT comes from the current bus routing and how it could be much more efficient because the Riverbend/Lynwood bus routing seems to have been designed to be the least efficient way of routing a bus and the least passenger friendly from any possible measure of useability. And while CT could be advertising 8-12 minute transit in RB/LW durring peak and increase revenues and ridership the current allocated routings make me wonder if this is perhaps one of the largest examples of modified Nimbyism in the city or just seeminly incompenant transit planners who seem to have forgotten this routing.

Now RB and LW arent exactly bastions of urban living (I think there might be a handfull of apartments in LW and none in RB). But the way they route the non express busses seem to be an exercise in telling people that you should just drive to Chinook mall CTRAIN instead of bus because its frkn terrible

As you will see from my above descriptions of the routes, all these routes provide significantly different services. I for one prefer the 36/41 arrangement over having a combined route as it means that my trips are shorter and the frequency is just high enough that it is worth it. At least during peak, if I'm about to leave home and realize I've missed the 41 going from RB to Chinook it makes more sense for me to putz around home for the 15 minutes then leave to go be suitably early for the bus then to leave and catch a 36 that comes 5 minutes later as my total trip time will be longer.

The 75 is your standard run of the mill express service that will get discontinued once the green line goes to rail.

The 136 provides the critical service to QP and as the area continues to grow expect to see its routing change. Heck just a few months ago it was shifted to service West Quarry Park rather than East Quarry Park as a bunch of residential & IOL comes online and west QP is well served by the 302 (for now).

The 36/41/136 design actually are designed to be compete with the vehicle to get people to Chinook (by creating options to make everyone roughly the same time-distance from chinook no matter where in the communities you live.

I really hope this is just a one off and there arent more examples in this City of in-efficient transit planning - im almost afraid to check CT schedule map to see what else I could find.

Ogden arguable has some of the best transit options in the city. The part of Riverbend that can access the 302 also are in a fairly good position. This will only increase as the green line improvements are made. Also the develpment of the green line allow these areas to be less dependent on the South line for their service allowing the routes to be improved. The single biggest change that is to come will be the SW crosstown service which will develop 18th into a proper transit corridor for Riverbend and QP. (with 24th inheriting all the cut through traffic )

[pulkit10]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have to admit I didnt really research the transit options only assuming that since QP was up and coming to the south that transit must be ok. I didnt even consider the SELRT because my future kids will be graduating high school before that gets built - not blaming anyone, just because you bought a cheap house in the burbs with no transit doesnt mean you deserve fast service anytime soon especially if its costly and relatively unused especially with a flat fare structure (entitlement is a peculiar thing).

My confusion with CT comes from the current bus routing and how it could be much more efficient because the Riverbend/Lynwood bus routing seems to have been designed to be the least efficient way of routing a bus and the least passenger friendly from any possible measure of useability. And while CT could be advertising 8-12 minute transit in RB/LW durring peak and increase revenues and ridership the current allocated routings make me wonder if this is perhaps one of the largest examples of modified Nimbyism in the city or just seeminly incompenant transit planners who seem to have forgotten this routing.

Now RB and LW arent exactly bastions of urban living (I think there might be a handfull of apartments in LW and none in RB). But the way they route the non express busses seem to be an exercise in telling people that you should just drive to Chinook mall CTRAIN instead of bus because its frkn terrible.

I really hope this is just a one off and there arent more examples in this City of in-efficient transit planning - im almost afraid to check CT schedule map to see what else I could find.

The bold: Uh...try telling that to the people who just put their downpayment on $800k houses in Mahogany. Prices down in that far SE corner are far from what you'd term "cheap" - they're frankly ridiculous.

As for the routing, the way I see it, CT goes by two principles when it comes to residential neighborhoods: cover the maximum amount of area possible and to tie it into an existing main line nearby. The Riverbend area, along with Quarry Park, are being tied into the SETWAY/302 thing so that's probably why direct service to Chinook isn't all that great. You could just send CT an email and see what happens but I doubt they'd change a whole lot there. There's reason for optimisim though - the upcoming upgrades to the 302 route are probably going to give you a good alternative to go to downtown (last I timed it from there, it was only a 20 minute commute during rush hour so definitely not bad and more or less on par with Chinook).

[andasen]

Originally Posted by pulkit10

The bold: Uh...try telling that to the people who just put their downpayment on $800k houses in Mahogany. Prices down in that far SE corner are far from what you'd term "cheap" - they're frankly ridiculous.

As for the routing, the way I see it, CT goes by two principles when it comes to residential neighborhoods: cover the maximum amount of area possible and to tie it into an existing main line nearby. The Riverbend area, along with Quarry Park, are being tied into the SETWAY/302 thing so that's probably why direct service to Chinook isn't all that great. You could just send CT an email and see what happens but I doubt they'd change a whole lot there. There's reason for optimisim though - the upcoming upgrades to the 302 route are probably going to give you a good alternative to go to downtown (last I timed it from there, it was only a 20 minute commute during rush hour so definitely not bad and more or less on par with Chinook).

With the exception of small pieces of Riverbend in walking distance of 302 stops the transit service for the area is geared towards making it easy to access Chinook. Full Stop.

[pulkit10]

Originally Posted by andasen

With the exception of small pieces of Riverbend in walking distance of 302 stops the transit service for the area is geared towards making it easy to access Chinook. Full Stop.

Mostly it is. I imagine they'd be changing that a bit when they actually upgrade that SETWAY system since you know, it's kind of important? Full stop?