Calgary Public Transit II

[Socguy]

I believe that Nenshi is on the right track here. Trying to drive people onto the feeder bus system by slashing parking will make the whole thing much more dysfunctional which then leads to people abandoning the system.

To use myself as an example: 10 minute drive to southland station and I can be downtown in 30 to 40 minutes flat, plus it's highly predictable. When I take a feeder bus, it can add on anywhere from 20 minutes to over an hour on some late night returns. It's also less predictable and less flexible. Bottom line: If push came to shove, I'd rather drive downtown than take a feeder bus.

In fact, I hate feeder buses so much that I think CT should scale them back and use the savings to really push out the BRT network instead. The more I think about it, the more I've come to believe that good sidewalks/pathways and cycling facilities to many more BRT lines is the answer to so many of CT's problems.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Socguy

I believe that Nenshi is on the right track here. Trying to drive people onto the feeder bus system by slashing parking will make the whole thing much more dysfunctional which then leads to people abandoning the system.

To use myself as an example: 10 minute drive to southland station and I can be downtown in 30 to 40 minutes flat, plus it's highly predictable. When I take a feeder bus, it can add on anywhere from 20 minutes to over an hour on some late night returns. It's also less predictable and less flexible. Bottom line: If push came to shove, I'd rather drive downtown than take a feeder bus.

In fact, I hate feeder buses so much that I think CT should scale them back and use the savings to really push out the BRT network instead. The more I think about it, the more I've come to believe that good sidewalks/pathways and cycling facilities to many more BRT lines is the answer to so many of CT's problems.

Don't forget that the vast majority of our LRT riders come from feeder buses, and surface lots take up lots of useful space.

[lubicon]

While the feeder busses are generally not too bad in general their effectiveness and convenience really depends on the time of day and direction of travel. The few times I have used the system it works extremely well in the morning rush because the bus is predictable (more or less), a train runs every few minutes so there is little waiting and you can plan your trip accordingly. In the afternoon rush it's not quite so slick. The train dumps you off whenever it arrives and the bus schedule is not coordinated at all with this. Sometimes it is there if the timing is right but if you just miss the bus you are waiting another 15-20 minutes. I could actually be at my office quicker in the morning by taking a feeder bus/LRT than I could if I drove but the same was not true in the afternoon. Driving was always faster despite the heavier traffic than you see in the mornings.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by fusili

Don't forget that the vast majority of our LRT riders come from feeder buses, and surface lots take up lots of useful space.

The vast majority might be from feeder buses, but I know for a fact that a lot of park and riders aren't going to switch to feeder buses if forced away. Plain and simple fact is that park and ride keeps a percentage of cars off major roadways.

[PPAR]

The city cold probably have private contractors build and manage parkades at no cost to the city. This is what Alberta Health Services did at the Foothills Hospital. Private contactors built a number of parking structures on site at their own expense in order to obtain the contract to manage all parking services on site. (Of course parking rates climbed). Given park-and-ride demand, the numbers may well work.

[joe498]

Bridge over Prince’s Island, 45-metre deep station among Calgary’s north-central LRT options

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1260461...mong-calgarys-north-central-lrt-options/

[Chadillaccc]

Exciting article. I hope they make the smart choice and think about our future rather than our present. Anything but the two grade-separated-through-downtown options are totally ludicrous.

[Fuzz]

Option three would involve a shorter and shallower tunnel starting at about 20 Avenue South and then emerging to cross the Bow River over a new, “zero emissions” bridge – open to just CTrains, cyclists and pedestrians – that would continue over top of Prince’s Island Park and touch down in Eau Claire, then tunnel beneath the 7 Avenue LRT and CPR tracks.

I really like the idea of the "zero emissions bridge". Cycling down centre street currently isn't much of an option for all but the bravest. The alternative is walking your bike. A connection from the bluff down would be at a nice ride-able grade. Though perhaps they should keep that plan on the down low, considering the typical opposition to anything cycle related in this city. Pair that with another bridge??!! for latte lifters and it could scuttle the whole project

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by PPAR

The city cold probably have private contractors build and manage parkades at no cost to the city. This is what Alberta Health Services did at the Foothills Hospital. Private contactors built a number of parking structures on site at their own expense in order to obtain the contract to manage all parking services on site. (Of course parking rates climbed). Given park-and-ride demand, the numbers may well work.

I have no idea why spots in the high demand lots are free. The real estate underneath them has value, and I think the net benefit to the public is dubious given we are already subsidizing the general Calgary Transit system. They should all be market priced.

And i don't buy the "I will drive downtown instead rather than take a feeder bus" argument. Really? For 25-40 a day? Maybe for a few, but for everyone who is currently parking for free? I'm skeptical.

If work didn't subsidize part of my parking spot cost, I would be thinking really hard about parking at the LRT lot regularly and taking the train. My downtown spot costs more than 4x what the reserved fee is.

[MalcolmTucker]

The reserved fee should be different in different lots really.

[Deepstar]

I don't know or care about the stats on feeder buses, I do know that the feeder bus system 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵. When I used to take the LRT, I drove to the park and ride, because trying to take the feeder bus made the commute into a long drawn out process. If I used the feeder bus it would take me 45 minutes to go from my door to the LRT station, and then a 15 minute ride on the train to downtown. Driving to the parking ride was only 15 minutes, so it was a no brainer.

Originally Posted by fusili

Don't forget that the vast majority of our LRT riders come from feeder buses, and surface lots take up lots of useful space.

Originally Posted by lubicon

While the feeder busses are generally not too bad in general their effectiveness and convenience really depends on the time of day and direction of travel. The few times I have used the system it works extremely well in the morning rush because the bus is predictable (more or less), a train runs every few minutes so there is little waiting and you can plan your trip accordingly. In the afternoon rush it's not quite so slick. The train dumps you off whenever it arrives and the bus schedule is not coordinated at all with this. Sometimes it is there if the timing is right but if you just miss the bus you are waiting another 15-20 minutes. I could actually be at my office quicker in the morning by taking a feeder bus/LRT than I could if I drove but the same was not true in the afternoon. Driving was always faster despite the heavier traffic than you see in the mornings.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

I don't know or care about the stats on feeder buses, I do know that the feeder bus system 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵. When I used to take the LRT, I drove to the park and ride, because trying to take the feeder bus made the commute into a long drawn out process. If I used the feeder bus it would take me 45 minutes to go from my door to the LRT station, and then a 15 minute ride on the train to downtown. Driving to the parking ride was only 15 minutes, so it was a no brainer.

Definitely agree with you. There are too many milk run bus routes in Calgary, long loopy routes that try to reach as many people as possible by sacrificing frequency of buses and travel time. I assume this comes from poor typography of the street layouts in the post 1970's master planned neighborhoods. I believe the definition used by urban planners is curvilinear street layout.

Here is a good document from the UofC faculty of enviromental design:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/urbanlab/files/urbanlab/ISUF_MiddleRing_2011_Small.pdf

When I lived in the SE the number 35 bus was terrible! Poor frequency outside of rush hour, long travel times to Anderson station and when it snowed the bus wouldn't even show up.

I personally think Calgary Transit needs to sit down and re-work the entire bus sytem, IMHO. I really like the map Transit camp proposed, courtesy of Fusili . A nice grid layout.

[MalcolmTucker]

I wonder how much it would cost to develop 'ultimate' routes in neighbourhoods by buying out a couple houses here and there to make the routes more linear with bus only shortcuts.

Even if the city just expropriated a 'right of first refusal' onto all of the properties and bought them organically.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I wonder how much it would cost to develop 'ultimate' routes in neighbourhoods by buying out a couple houses here and there to make the routes more linear with bus only shortcuts.

Even if the city just expropriated a 'right of first refusal' onto all of the properties and bought them organically.

It bothers me that the 35 in Bonavista doesn't go to Canyon Meadows station! All the city had to do was pave 30m of bus only lanes through here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9369886,-114.0663961,205m/data=!3m1!1e3

But instead all the seniors of the community wanted the bus to go to South Centre during the consultation meetings back in 2001. Now we are stuck with this joke of a route.
http://www.calgarytransit.com/sites/default/files/route/035_dec_2013.pdf

I guess the bigger problem is the low density of the neighbourhood does not warrant an effective transit system.

[Surrealplaces]

I had the same problems with the feeder buses when I used to take the LRT. I used to leave early to get a spot at the park and ride...which in a way almost defeated the purpose, but it was great on the commute home. You could get off the station and hop in the car and be home right away, whereas that last long slow bus ride home made the commute seemingly endless.

Maybe the answer would be a feeder bus that has limited stops and higher frequency with the stops being placed in areas where there is some parking available.

[CalgaryAlex]

I'm reading Jarrett Walker's book "Human Transit" right now. There is definitely a case for a higher-frequency, connection-based bus system in Calgary. I would say the case is highest for those windy 70s- and 80s-era communities.

For example, the 54, 77 and 154 (and the 429 which goes through Edgemont to Sherwood) wind through Edgemont and the Hamptons and return all the way back to Dalhousie. Why not have high-capacity vehicles collect passengers along a single main artery with minimal stops from high frequency buses that go shorter routes through the ridiculously transit-unfriendly neighborhood? Calgary Transit needs to seriously re-think the bus system. We have a good fleet of vehicles - time to use them efficiently.

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

I don't know or care about the stats on feeder buses, I do know that the feeder bus system 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵. When I used to take the LRT, I drove to the park and ride, because trying to take the feeder bus made the commute into a long drawn out process. If I used the feeder bus it would take me 45 minutes to go from my door to the LRT station, and then a 15 minute ride on the train to downtown. Driving to the parking ride was only 15 minutes, so it was a no brainer.

Of course it's a no-brainer - the City has set aside expensive real estate to enable you to park next to the station for free.

Would it be as much of a no-brainer if you had to pay the real market price of what that spot is worth?

[MalcolmTucker]

A parking spot prevents at least two bus trips and $6 of subsidy in theorey. So $3 a day for parking was $9.

Not all lots should have had the fee though. And $3 was too little for the West End.

I am not sure who would design our current fee system if they were starting from scratch. It did somewhat fulfill Nenshi's campaign promise, but other than that I would say it is a failure.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Definitely agree with you. There are too many milk run bus routes in Calgary, long loopy routes that try to reach as many people as possible by sacrificing frequency of buses and travel time. I assume this comes from poor typography of the street layouts in the post 1970's master planned neighborhoods. I believe the definition used by urban planners is curvilinear street layout.

Here is a good document from the UofC faculty of enviromental design:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/urbanlab/files/urbanlab/ISUF_MiddleRing_2011_Small.pdf

When I lived in the SE the number 35 bus was terrible! Poor frequency outside of rush hour, long travel times to Anderson station and when it snowed the bus wouldn't even show up.

I personally think Calgary Transit needs to sit down and re-work the entire bus sytem, IMHO. I really like the map Transit camp proposed, courtesy of Fusili . A nice grid layout.

Route 35 is one weird route. Every single route that actually does go to Canyon Meadows is equally bad, though. If I were Calgary Transit I would just combine routes 28 and 83 into a loop to increase the frequency. I don't understand low utilization bus routes that double back and cover the same distance twice.

[sim]

Originally Posted by J-D

The vast majority might be from feeder buses, but I know for a fact that a lot of park and riders aren't going to switch to feeder buses if forced away. Plain and simple fact is that park and ride keeps a percentage of cars off major roadways.

This is only a "plain and simple" fact under 2 assumptions:

1. The city/world is static.
2. That there is too small a portion of the population that would "want" to live near a transit station.

1 is essentially never the case, and 2 might have been true in the past, but I'd be willing to bet it no longer is.

That being said, the actual plain and simple fact is the exact opposite of what you just stated. It holds true whether you observe disaggregate general vehicle trip generation rates (in TOD hubs), look at aggregate transit trips per capita in cities where park n rides are less prevalent (or as big), and simply observe for yourself transit station in urban areas of such cities. I'll gladly post the graphic that shows the aggregate observation that I often do whenever this topic comes up, or link you to empirically observed trip generation rates. I'm not a big fan of facts that aren't facts.

A brief and more intuitive nigh obvious 'why?': Because parking space takes the space of where residents could actually be living, and instead of just serving commuter trips (as they generally do), they serve most or all trip purposes outbound and also increase the propensity for inbound (visitors, shopping, from other similar nodes). Network effects!

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A parking spot prevents at least two bus trips and $6 of subsidy in theorey. So $3 a day for parking was $9.

Not all lots should have had the fee though. And $3 was too little for the West End.

I am not sure who would design our current fee system if they were starting from scratch. It did somewhat fulfill Nenshi's campaign promise, but other than that I would say it is a failure.

I agree with you in principle, but I'm misunderstanding why it prevents/ replaces (?) 2 bus trips? Are we still talking feeder bus and do you mean that a parking spot allows a transit rider to forgo the feeder bus portion segment of the trip? I think the latter (?)

If so, then I don't quite follow the $6 dollar subsidy - in lost revenue? The transit tour costs the rider that and transit collects the same revenue regardless. Did I misunderstand? Not to say that I don't think it's not silly to subsidize something that then requires a greater subsidization of something you are already subsidizing. It is, but this mechanism is the opportunity cost of not increasing ridership due to poor station area land-use, not because park n riders are not taking feeder buses.


Without having read all of Nenshi's plan, preliminarily I'd say it's no good. Why would the City spend even more to provide parking to largely perpetuate the system already in place. Unless, developers can be convinced/nudged to pay a large portion of these, I fail to see how only adding some density to station areas and subsequent increased ridership will offset the maintenance and operations costs that will be incurred even if developers can be convinced to contribute to most or all of the capital. Secondly, why would developers sign on to this if the city already seems to be having so much trouble getting private interest without the additional burden.

I'm a little bewildered with Nenshi's approach here, when normally it's much more economically sound.

Things can't be perpetually made better for everyone at zero cost. The corollary is not then that we are "forcing" people to do something, so much as it is understanding trade-offs are necessary in a world of constrained space, time and money. Parking happens to be the least efficient way of allocating at least two of those.