Calgary Public Transit II

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by PPAR

There was a semi serious discussion here a year or two ago about a gondola system linking the U of C, Foothills Hospital, and then across the river to Westbrook c-train.
The argument was it allows for high frequency on routes with moderate demand, and can be put in densely developed areas.

Not so easy...


Friendly Neighbors of the Tram by Misserion, on Flickr

from wiki: Portland_Aerial_Tram#Objections_from_underlying_neighborhoods

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by PPAR

There was a semi serious discussion here a year or two ago about a gondola system linking the U of C, Foothills Hospital, and then across the river to Westbrook c-train.
The argument was it allows for high frequency on routes with moderate demand, and can be put in densely developed areas.

I believe it is still in consideration, but the Westbrook link was a shoehorn from the discussion here, and is not being seriously considered. It would likely be lion's park, foothills, children's, main campus, then either UCalgary station or Brentwood. Depending on arrangement, could be a free fair zone, or alternatively, some arrangement for this segment for UCalgary / AHS folks.

[MalcolmTucker]

There is a city, AHS, university working group/study on what I believe is now called the north west mobility hub.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I rode the train from Downtown to Crowfoot today for the first time in a very long time. I was very impressed with the LRT driver. He came on the PA as we were leaving the free fare zone and introduced himself and thanked all the passengers for riding CT. He gave a little weather update and again thanked us for using CT. I have never heard that before in Calgary, or anywhere for that matter and it was very a welcome treat!

Yeah, I know of that driver, he won a citizen award circa 2009. He use to talk about his weekend/new grand daughter or give flames updates. But usually he just thanked us for riding CT and gave weather updates. I wish more people in the world were like him

[joe498]

Banff is actually exploring this:

Banff considers potential of gondola network - December 29, 2014

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-business/banff-considers-potential-of-gondola-network

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Yeah, I know of that driver, he won a citizen award circa 2009. He use to talk about his weekend/new grand daughter or give flames updates. But usually he just thanked us for riding CT and gave weather updates. I wish more people in the world were like him

Yah the CTRAIN driver who makes you wonder if he is a retired pilot. Hes seems to always be driving the NW/SW line going south around 435ish from downtown.

Most of the stuff I would rather he not announce, but durring the delays encountered he is much better at providing updates. A month or so ago when a truck hit a train on 7th ave around City Hall he gave everyone an honest assessment that this train likely wouldnt be going anywhere for at least 90 minutes and to find alternate transportation.

Thankfully my bus was 30 minutes late that day so I was able to run to Inglewood and catch it (assuming I would catch a different one and just walk from QP home).

[fusili]

Gondolas:

- Can only operate in straight lines without utilizing turning stations.
- Cannot increase/reduce frequency to meet demand. The frequency at late night is the same as it is during the peak.
- Capacity is lower than a train (30K/hr vs ~2K/hr). In fact this capacity is equal to a single car lane. Not really mass transit.
- Require staff at all stations at all times, often more than one.
- Slow (generally)
- No possibility of at-grade boarding. Universal access requires elevators at every station

Yes, gondolas or aerial trams can and do work. But they can and do work in certain situations and conditions. Crossing a river where a bridge is too hard, going up steep slopes where roads or rail cannot go, going over a dense urban area where roads infrastructure for transit is difficult. Going to the SE in a gondola is a bad, bad idea.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

Gondolas:

- Can only operate in straight lines without utilizing turning stations.
- Cannot increase/reduce frequency to meet demand. The frequency at late night is the same as it is during the peak.
- Capacity is lower than a train (30K/hr vs ~2K/hr). In fact this capacity is equal to a single car lane. Not really mass transit.
- Require staff at all stations at all times, often more than one.
- Slow (generally)
- No possibility of at-grade boarding. Universal access requires elevators at every station

Yes, gondolas or aerial trams can and do work. But they can and do work in certain situations and conditions. Crossing a river where a bridge is too hard, going up steep slopes where roads or rail cannot go, going over a dense urban area where roads infrastructure for transit is difficult. Going to the SE in a gondola is a bad, bad idea.

Agreed that any suggestion of a gondola as an LRT replacement is uneducated. Need to leverage them where their advantages can be exploited.

[flipstah]

Gondolas as public transportation is a good way to bring tourists in. We just need cooler buildings!

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by flipstah

Gondolas as public transportation is a good way to bring tourists in. We just need cooler buildings!

The NW hub would be a great spot within this context, as it would highlight the river valley, mountains, and also a nice view of the core. It would also bring in the Nickel Arts and other UCalgary assets into the tourism front of mind. There are also a 'few' coolish buildings / spaces, including the children's hospital, olympic oval, UC main quad with taylor family digital library, etc.

[MalcolmTucker]

Nickel Arts likely wouldn't be any closer to a gondola or bus or other than the current LRT I think. (no inside knowledge on this despite my position at the university dealing with interactions with government)

[MasterG]

A high-quality, at-grade street-car / tram would be what we should end up with. Most roads in the area have more than enough capacity to take a lane away and they have high-enough capacity and reliability.

One tricky bit would be around the Foothills / 16th intersection to U of C south-loop. But the rest seems easy and minimal effort.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

A high-quality, at-grade street-car / tram would be what we should end up with. Most roads in the area have more than enough capacity to take a lane away and they have high-enough capacity and reliability.

One tricky bit would be around the Foothills / 16th intersection to U of C south-loop. But the rest seems easy and minimal effort.

You need to design with future in mind, and not only for current situations.

Firstly, you are correct in pointing out that the 29th street intersection is already an absolute nightmare. Not only is it a minimum 3-4 light wait to turn towards the hospital from west-bound 16th during busy periods, it is a massive issue for EMS to navigate going to a very busy ER.

What you'd be adding would be development of stadium shopping centre, and then West Campus, both of which are substantial. So taking away lanes within this context in this area is akin to giving a constipated 60 year old a butt plug for Christmas. Need to be more thoughtful in figuring out a solution.

All the above having been said, one way that could be interesting is to go straight across 14th ave from Lion's Park, come over Crowchild (new bridge) into 13th ave, go past current main door of the hospital and loop across the south of the hospital, installing appropriate infrastructure required for logistics when parking lot 1 in front of Foothills gets re-done. You'd then swing somewhat close to UC TRW before coming across to West Campus blvd. This route 'could' work on paper, however, there is little chance of negotiating this with the residential area you'd need access through. Too many multi-million dollar rich inner city NIMBYs there.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by suburbia

You need to design with future in mind, and not only for current situations.

Firstly, you are correct in pointing out that the 29th street intersection is already an absolute nightmare. Not only is it a minimum 3-4 light wait to turn towards the hospital from west-bound 16th during busy periods, it is a massive issue for EMS to navigate going to a very busy ER.

What you'd be adding would be development of stadium shopping centre, and then West Campus, both of which are substantial. So taking away lanes within this context in this area is akin to giving a constipated 60 year old a butt plug for Christmas. Need to be more thoughtful in figuring out a solution.

All the above having been said, one way that could be interesting is to go straight across 14th ave from Lion's Park, come over Crowchild (new bridge) into 13th ave, go past current main door of the hospital and loop across the south of the hospital, installing appropriate infrastructure required for logistics when parking lot 1 in front of Foothills gets re-done. You'd then swing somewhat close to UC TRW before coming across to West Campus blvd. This route 'could' work on paper, however, there is little chance of negotiating this with the residential area you'd need access through. Too many multi-million dollar rich inner city NIMBYs there.

Do this. Trams going in both directions of the loop. Like the new Toronto streetcar. Plenty of capacity for all the constipated 60-year olds out there. Never enough for the doomsayers.

NW yyc by manda335

Of all the spots, the only effort that will be needed is the immediate area around the Foothills hospital and the crossing of 16th Ave (I don't have a plan for this, but some engineers/planners certainly could figure one out).

The rest of the streets have few intersections, minimal traffic, minimal lights even in rush hour. At least not enough that would be worth any sort of grade-separation.

In 20 years when the West Campus and Stadium plaza are finished, add a stop or two and adjust a bit of signal timing. Traffic patterns would have already adjusted to the reality that this tram is here.

Remember, the whole point of why this area is attractive for development is that these huge activity nodes are within reasonable walking distance from each other. This is not planning for a 85%+ mode-share car-oriented suburb. This will be a pedestrian-focused urban centre in 30 years. Cars don't need that much space here. Accommodating extra lanes for them is pointless and expensive in most places in the NW Hub area.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Do this. Trams going in both directions of the loop. Like the new Toronto streetcar. Plenty of capacity for all the constipated 60-year olds out there. Never enough for the doomsayers.

NW yyc by manda335

Of all the spots, the only effort that will be needed is the immediate area around the Foothills hospital and the crossing of 16th Ave (I don't have a plan for this, but some engineers/planners certainly could figure one out).

The rest of the streets have few intersections, minimal traffic, minimal lights even in rush hour. At least not enough that would be worth any sort of grade-separation.

In 20 years when the West Campus and Stadium plaza are finished, add a stop or two and adjust a bit of signal timing. Traffic patterns would have already adjusted to the reality that this tram is here.

Remember, the whole point of why this area is attractive for development is that these huge activity nodes are within reasonable walking distance from each other. This is not planning for a 85%+ mode-share car-oriented suburb. This will be a pedestrian-focused urban centre in 30 years. Cars don't need that much space here. Accommodating extra lanes for them is pointless and expensive in most places in the NW Hub area.

I love it the plan MasterG, where would you envision the maintenance facility for the trams? Also, I would like to see this area connected to Westbrook C-train station somehow.

Streetcars are nice but they are not very flexible if there is an accident or this:
• Video Link

I think Calgary should bring back streetcars to the inner city but I would rather see a BRT system serve this area. I hope the current 306 BRT could evolve into a circular route that serves, 16thave->NW hub->Westbrook->Heritage->Quarry Park->52nd street->Rundle->back to 16th ave

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I love it the plan MasterG, where would you envision the maintenance facility for the trams? Also, I would like to see this area connected to Westbrook C-train station somehow.

Streetcars are nice but they are not very flexible if there is an accident or this:
• Video Link

I think Calgary should bring back streetcars to the inner city but I would rather see a BRT system serve this area. I hope the current 306 BRT could evolve into a circular route that serves, 16thave->NW hub->Westbrook->Heritage->Quarry Park->52nd street->Rundle->back to 16th ave

I wouldn't know the first thing about how many trams you might need to operate a reliable 5 or 10 minute frequency in both directions (and therefore the amount of space needed for a maintenance facility). I would suspect not a significant number due to the short length of the line but someone else could better answer that.

As for RoW, I would envision a mix of dedicated and not dedicated. I would guess 50 - 75% of the route I described could be mixed (around most of U of C, research park etc.) because of low traffic and conflicts, or at least minimally separated to allow turns where the right lane is dedicated but cars can enter and cross if turning. Higher conflict zones should be separated. Nothing like a C-train with the wide RoW, in-street. All stops should be separated lanes that cars shouldn't enter.

I haven't seen this setup at all in North America, but is common in many European cities. Innsbruck, Austria had a great tram line, all with a population of 100,000 people - some separated from traffic and some with it. No grade separation at all. I would suspect that 100,000 is close to the population + commuters of the NW Hub as well.

It's light-weight, but cheap, and provides most bang for the buck: vastly improving transit service, road capacity and connectivity, while not costly 10-25x to grade separate entirely.

My thoughts anyways.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I wouldn't know the first thing about how many trams you might need to operate a reliable 5 or 10 minute frequency in both directions (and therefore the amount of space needed for a maintenance facility). I would suspect not a significant number due to the short length of the line but someone else could better answer that.

As for RoW, I would envision a mix of dedicated and not dedicated. I would guess 50 - 75% of the route I described could be mixed (around most of U of C, research park etc.) because of low traffic and conflicts, or at least minimally separated to allow turns where the right lane is dedicated but cars can enter and cross if turning. Higher conflict zones should be separated. Nothing like a C-train with the wide RoW, in-street. All stops should be separated lanes that cars shouldn't enter.

I haven't seen this setup at all in North America, but is common in many European cities. Innsbruck, Austria had a great tram line, all with a population of 100,000 people - some separated from traffic and some with it. No grade separation at all. I would suspect that 100,000 is close to the population + commuters of the NW Hub as well.

It's light-weight, but cheap, and provides most bang for the buck: vastly improving transit service, road capacity and connectivity, while not costly 10-25x to grade separate entirely.

My thoughts anyways.

Why not buses? I can't see initial demand being anywhere close to requiring a tram, put a couple community shuttles on it and prove the need then upgrade (including grade separation) as needed.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Do this. Trams going in both directions of the loop. Like the new Toronto streetcar. Plenty of capacity for all the constipated 60-year olds out there. Never enough for the doomsayers.

NW yyc by manda335

Of all the spots, the only effort that will be needed is the immediate area around the Foothills hospital and the crossing of 16th Ave (I don't have a plan for this, but some engineers/planners certainly could figure one out).

The rest of the streets have few intersections, minimal traffic, minimal lights even in rush hour. At least not enough that would be worth any sort of grade-separation.

In 20 years when the West Campus and Stadium plaza are finished, add a stop or two and adjust a bit of signal timing. Traffic patterns would have already adjusted to the reality that this tram is here.

Remember, the whole point of why this area is attractive for development is that these huge activity nodes are within reasonable walking distance from each other. This is not planning for a 85%+ mode-share car-oriented suburb. This will be a pedestrian-focused urban centre in 30 years. Cars don't need that much space here. Accommodating extra lanes for them is pointless and expensive in most places in the NW Hub area.

Simplify this. When it comes to transit, you need to really consider what you are adding in value with each stop and alignment.

- By making this a full route, you double the route length, either cutting frequency in half, or doubling operating costs. This should be a single route from Foothills to ACH to Brentwood.
- Eliminate stations to leave only one at Foothills (intersection of 16th and 29th), one at ACH (where you show it), one at UofC (roughly where you show it by Macewan Hall/Kines) and one at Brentwood station. All three campuses are walkable from a central location.
- Tie this into a 16th avenue BRT- this way the route is not just a connector between the 3 campuses, but also a commuter route/crosstown route as well. So essentially you get a connection at Brentwood for NW commuters, one at Lions park for commuters from the S and then connections to Centre Street LRT and at Rundle station for NE LRT.

However, fully agreed on the dedicated lanes.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Why not buses? I can't see initial demand being anywhere close to requiring a tram, put a couple community shuttles on it and prove the need then upgrade (including grade separation) as needed.

As long as we hold the line on the other improvements that a tram usually comes with I am all for it. Some dedicated RoW, proper stops (with shelter, map, lighting etc.), real-time next bus time information and all door boarding I am all for buses.

All that other stuff is really what makes trams often faster and more efficient. Trams are often just the flashy centre-piece that makes all that other stuff palatable to pay for.

There is something to be said for the quality of ride, overall capacity and quietness to better integrate into its surroundings - all big bonuses of having a tram, that usually do attract more riders than an identical bus system - but the real wins happen with the more obvious stuff like RoW.

So yes fine to put buses instead of trams, as long as we build with the goal of making this a fast, efficient and attractive service. The regular BS Calgary Transit shuttle strategy won't come close to giving this area the transit it deserves.

There is a real opportunity here to do it right from the start.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

Simplify this. When it comes to transit, you need to really consider what you are adding in value with each stop and alignment.

- By making this a full route, you double the route length, either cutting frequency in half, or doubling operating costs. This should be a single route from Foothills to ACH to Brentwood.
- Eliminate stations to leave only one at Foothills (intersection of 16th and 29th), one at ACH (where you show it), one at UofC (roughly where you show it by Macewan Hall/Kines) and one at Brentwood station. All three campuses are walkable from a central location.
- Tie this into a 16th avenue BRT- this way the route is not just a connector between the 3 campuses, but also a commuter route/crosstown route as well. So essentially you get a connection at Brentwood for NW commuters, one at Lions park for commuters from the S and then connections to Centre Street LRT and at Rundle station for NE LRT.

However, fully agreed on the dedicated lanes.

I guess that's true, the circle is a bit gratuitous. You could cut the whole second part from the McCaig Tower / University medical building stop to Brentwood via. South Loop of U of C. Just have the end stops reverse order.

Gives you the access you want, skips the chaos of the 16th Ave Crossing near stadium shopping plaza and keeps the potential of a 16th BRT open, likely at it's terminus around the interchange there. Merge that with the McCaig Tower / University medical building stop. I wrongly assumed that a fixed point in the line was the main entrance of the Foothills, which it certainly doesn't have to be.

Good critique Fusili, we just shaved 100 million off the design