Calgary Public Transit II

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

So a drastic improvement in public transit will have absolutely no impact on the number of cars on the road?

Edit: If the street itself has less vehicle capacity, drivers will want to go elsewhere and avoid that particular road. I can't see why the traffic volume would stay the same if changes have been made to the lane structure (and probably speed limits with pedestrian-minded changes)

He is saying the traffic volume in the area will stay the same. They will move off centre to 4th st and Edmonton Trail. Will their be an overall reduction in traffic? I think that's tough to say. More people will take transit if it is an improvement over current buses and future driving conditions, but their will also be an increase in population and people for who transit still doesn't work.

The proportion of people taking transit will most likely increase in 20 years with an LRT, but the actual number of vehicles may stay the same as now. That's why I think removing vehicle lanes needs to be seriously considered as a poor decision for the future. Edmonton Trail and 10th st are the roads that may be most impacted by an at grade LRT, as 4th st still requires centre in the north and south.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

Ripple effect? Watch Edmonton Trail and 4th Street NW get much busier and NB 4th is often now backed up almost a kilometer south from McKnight during the PM rush - 2 lanes of vehicles off of Centre Street just aren't going to magically start taking transit and especially so since Centre Street is the most heavily used in terms of a busing corridor in the city. Stuffing a few more buses in 2 new dedicated lanes isn't going to make those 2 lanes of cars go away IMHO - they just move elsewhere for the most part. For people like me that have a 32km N-S across the city, the loss of these 2 lanes will just most likely add to my commute time (business is in deep south, residence is north central, been living there 18+ years and have no intentions of moving and business can't be moved either). I'll be one that will advocate for an underground solution at least to somewhere north of 40th Avenue if not McKnight - anything less is just a compromise IMHO.

As far as ripple effect, when there's an accident on Centre Street then 4th Street usually bears the brunt and I have seen NB 4th backed up a solid 3km south from McKnight - 4th Street with it's 2 lane sections in Mount Pleasant and Highwood just can not accommodate huge amounts of traffic volume.

IMO 4th St should not be seen as a primary vehicle movement corridor and should be upgraded to serve it's purpose as a neighbourhood boulevard. This would include additions of wider sidewalks, more traffic and pedestrian lights. Given it's classification by the Complete Street Policy goods and auto movements are not required to be accommodated in the street design and walking and cycling should be given the highest priority.

Originally Posted by Complete Streets Policy

Goods, Autos - Not required, or poor performance is acceptable
Walking, Cycling - Accommodated with high standards
Transit - Accommodated with variable standards

Traffic is the best method to regulate the number of vehicles on the road, if traffic becomes sufficiently bad it will push people onto other modes or routes. If the traffic is the result of transit improvements then there is additional capacity absorb those people moving towards downtown. I realize this doesn't help you or others where their destination is not downtown, but I don't foresee a significant increase in total traffic volume between the three roadways.

Additionally there are likely people who currently drive you may be inclined to use transit if there was space on the buses, but currently by the time the bus arrives at their location it is full.

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

So a drastic improvement in public transit will have absolutely no impact on the number of cars on the road?

Edit: If the street itself has less vehicle capacity, drivers will want to go elsewhere and avoid that particular road. I can't see why the traffic volume would stay the same if changes have been made to the lane structure (and probably speed limits with pedestrian-minded changes)

I foresee that 4th and Edmonton trail will see significant changes that will reduce the wide and fast nature of them as they are now. I would hope that there will be at least 2 lights put in on 4th within Mt. Pleasant along with an expansion of the design used in the area around the commercial area in Mount Pleasant both to the south and the north. Given that 4th feeds onto Centre, I would expect that Edmonton Tr. will bear the brunt of any route changes by vehicles.

Ultimately it comes back to inducing demand on the most efficient mode of transportation, by building a higher capacity and more reliable transit system on Centre we can induce demand onto transit rather than onto vehicles.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

He is saying the traffic volume in the area will stay the same. They will move off centre to 4th st and Edmonton Trail.

Ah, got it. Was just thinking about Centre, not the area as a whole.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by speedog

Ripple effect? Watch Edmonton Trail and 4th Street NW get much busier and NB 4th is often now backed up almost a kilometer south from McKnight during the PM rush - 2 lanes of vehicles off of Centre Street just aren't going to magically start taking transit and especially so since Centre Street is the most heavily used in terms of a busing corridor in the city. Stuffing a few more buses in 2 new dedicated lanes isn't going to make those 2 lanes of cars go away IMHO - they just move elsewhere for the most part. For people like me that have a 32km N-S across the city, the loss of these 2 lanes will just most likely add to my commute time (business is in deep south, residence is north central, been living there 18+ years and have no intentions of moving and business can't be moved either). I'll be one that will advocate for an underground solution at least to somewhere north of 40th Avenue if not McKnight - anything less is just a compromise IMHO.

Emphasis mine.
You say you don't think having a short commute is all that important to you; that's 100% your right - we all have different priorities. But I'm not sure that it's in the city's best interests to spend billions of dollars to try to placate someone who doesn't think a short commute is a priority in their life. And there are really not a lot of people like you, if you truly commute 32 km across the city.

That said, there are a lot of people who use the corridor, but I don't think that the trafficmageddon will occur; the City's flow maps show that traffic on 4th/Centre/EdTrail across McKnight peaked a decade ago and has been dropping since. Once the BRT is in place, Centre will no longer have hundreds of buses a day entering and leaving the traffic stream, and even a slight additional shift to transit could really take the edge off any additional auto congestion. I've always thought that Edmonton Trail might benefit from a lane reversal once the busway is created.

The one risk is perceptual; if people feel their commutes are getting worse, that's terrible press for a busway. And some people will think their commutes will get worse - it takes time for people to adjust and find optimal routes once any traffic system is adjusted.

[MalcolmTucker]

Again, it doesn't matter whether 'trafficmageddon' occurs. If traffic is even marginally worse on one day in the initial lane loss period (that isn't directly blamed on a massive accident), the amount of people hearing traffic reports that assign the blame is much much larger than the number of people who will think logically about this.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Emphasis mine.
You say you don't think having a short commute is all that important to you; that's 100% your right - we all have different priorities. But I'm not sure that it's in the city's best interests to spend billions of dollars to try to placate someone who doesn't think a short commute is a priority in their life. And there are really not a lot of people like you, if you truly commute 32 km across the city.

That said, there are a lot of people who use the corridor, but I don't think that the trafficmageddon will occur; the City's flow maps show that traffic on 4th/Centre/EdTrail across McKnight peaked a decade ago and has been dropping since. Once the BRT is in place, Centre will no longer have hundreds of buses a day entering and leaving the traffic stream, and even a slight additional shift to transit could really take the edge off any additional auto congestion. I've always thought that Edmonton Trail might benefit from a lane reversal once the busway is created.

The one risk is perceptual; if people feel their commutes are getting worse, that's terrible press for a busway. And some people will think their commutes will get worse - it takes time for people to adjust and find optimal routes once any traffic system is adjusted.

36.6km this morning, took a slightly longer route this morning but it's usually 32km, taking the ring road adds another 14km and it needs to be noted that I don't expect the city to spend billions to placate my commute - my commute is a matter of circumstances and personal choices and I accept it for what it is. It is easy enough to find alternatives that will cut 10-15 minutes of my commute time if the regular route is congested for whatever reason - just have to know the city well as well as utilize traffic radio reports, Google Maps traffic as well as Twitter.

All I know is that I've lived in this north central part of Calgary for close to 30 years and I just don't see things improving at all - one only has to look at NB Cambrian Drive NW up near 14th Street and see the mess that is now there during the PM rush hour due to a lane being taken away for cyclists. Yeah, I am well aware that one can't compare cycle lanes and transit lanes but I truly believe Centre Street (and Edmonton Trail and 4th Street NW) are in for a whole lot of hurt once the dedicated transit lanes come into being. Morning and afternoon rush hours on Centre Street currently see all 3 lanes very, very congested - don't see how that's going to get any better despite what the proponents are saying. That said, I will stand on my opinion that taking away lanes on Centre Street is not going to improve anything in the short term or long term - maybe time will prove me wrong and that would be a good thing, no?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by speedog

36.6km this morning, took a slightly longer route this morning but it's usually 32km, taking the ring road adds another 14km and it needs to be noted that I don't expect the city to spend billions to placate my commute - my commute is a matter of circumstances and personal choices and I accept it for what it is. It is easy enough to find alternatives that will cut 10-15 minutes of my commute time if the regular route is congested for whatever reason - just have to know the city well as well as utilize traffic radio reports, Google Maps traffic as well as Twitter.

All I know is that I've lived in this north central part of Calgary for close to 30 years and I just don't see things improving at all - one only has to look at NB Cambrian Drive NW up near 14th Street and see the mess that is now there during the PM rush hour due to a lane being taken away for cyclists. Yeah, I am well aware that one can't compare cycle lanes and transit lanes but I truly believe Centre Street (and Edmonton Trail and 4th Street NW) are in for a whole lot of hurt once the dedicated transit lanes come into being. Morning and afternoon rush hours on Centre Street currently see all 3 lanes very, very congested - don't see how that's going to get any better despite what the proponents are saying. That said, I will stand on my opinion that taking away lanes on Centre Street is not going to improve anything in the short term or long term - maybe time will prove me wrong and that would be a good thing, no?

With the city growing it's inevitable that traffic is going to increase, and with road access to downtown via bridges permanently limited, the city has limited options as to how to best manage the problem. Dedicating lanes to a more efficient mode is one way of doing it - it won't improve car drivers' commutes, but it should make it better for those using transit.

Personally I'd like to see lanes built on Centre and a bored tunnel ASAP afterwards. Once the tunnel is built, remove those lanes permanently and widen the sidewalks and add bike lanes. That would make the corridor a lot more pleasant than the mess it currently is.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

With the city growing it's inevitable that traffic is going to increase, and with road access to downtown via bridges permanently limited, the city has limited options as to how to best manage the problem. Dedicating lanes to a more efficient mode is one way of doing it - it won't improve car drivers' commutes, but it should make it better for those using transit.

Personally I'd like to see lanes built on Centre and a bored tunnel ASAP afterwards. Once the tunnel is built, remove those lanes permanently and widen the sidewalks and add bike lanes. That would make the corridor a lot more pleasant than the mess it currently is.

This is basically the no-compromise solution that I think most people would be happy with. Any fear of impact on car/bus traffic could easily minimized be diverting to edmonton trail and 4th street north of 16th. I think the under river tunnel is crap, and would prefer a 1st st sw aligned bridge over the 2nd st sw, but maybe there's a valid reason not to (The old, cranky, and skeptical side of me thinks they put it up 2nd to make it a less desirable option due to it's impact on the Prince's Island).

Without the tunnel, I'd rather just stick with the 80% solution of dedicated lane BRT.

[Full Mountain]

Couple thoughts:

1. I would suspect that 1 of the 3 lanes during lane reversal is ~80% bus traffic.
2. Primary pinch points for Centre are 16th and between 4th & 6th Aves downtown, these are the primary turning points (16th for cars, 4th for cars, 6th for buses).
3. Removal of buses from the main traffic flow can provide a number of benefits for the remaining traffic, with advance signals for turns at 12th, the 2 won't have to make a 3 lane move and potentially block traffic. Vehicles moving out from behind buses can cause disruption to the remaining traffic flow.
4. I would suspect that Centre may become one way during rush hour to provide for 2 vehicle travel lanes.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Halofire

This is basically the no-compromise solution that I think most people would be happy with. Any fear of impact on car/bus traffic could easily minimized be diverting to edmonton trail and 4th street north of 16th. I think the under river tunnel is crap, and would prefer a 1st st sw aligned bridge over the 2nd st sw, but maybe there's a valid reason not to (The old, cranky, and skeptical side of me thinks they put it up 2nd to make it a less desirable option due to it's impact on the Prince's Island).

The biggest issue with having the bridge aligned with 1st is the sharp corners needed to jump over from 2nd (going down 2nd was decided a while ago). This is also another reason I'm firmly against the surface option - these corners would be wheel-screechingly tight and slow down the already not-fast line.



I agree though it would be much more sensitive to the island. I'm leaning towards thinking the city will take the under river option, with or without the 9th Ave station. It will be politically easiest.

Originally Posted by Halofire

Without the tunnel, I'd rather just stick with the 80% solution of dedicated lane BRT.

This I agree with.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Again, it doesn't matter whether 'trafficmageddon' occurs. If traffic is even marginally worse on one day in the initial lane loss period (that isn't directly blamed on a massive accident), the amount of people hearing traffic reports that assign the blame is much much larger than the number of people who will think logically about this.

Oh, I absolutely agree. People really lack perspective on congestion, and that's just human nature. The hour I spent waiting for my doctor last week still cheeses me off and I'm still griping; the hour I spent waiting five years ago is completely forgotten. Most people don't travel all that much, and those that do don't often go and drive around in places with serious congestion. (People also lack the perspective that the largest group of people affected by congestion on Centre Street today are bus passengers, not car drivers.)

One interesting thing I see is that I don't hear anyone, including long time residents, bring up the spectre of 2001, even though then Centre Street was reduced from 4 car lanes to 0, rather than 2. It doesn't seem to have left much of a psychological stain; indeed, most people just took a slightly different route or left for work a few minutes earlier.

An interesting data point to add is I just looked at the frequency of transit service in this corridor - as a proxy, looking at the number of buses crossing McKnight southbound between 7:00-7:59 AM. In 2002, there were 15 number 3 buses. By 2006, there were 13 number 3s, but the 301 "BRT" was added and there were 6 of them per hour. Today, there are 11 number 3s, 14 301s and 3 more airport BRTs for fun. All together, it's almost a doubling in bus volume.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Oh, I absolutely agree. People really lack perspective on congestion, and that's just human nature. The hour I spent waiting for my doctor last week still cheeses me off and I'm still griping; the hour I spent waiting five years ago is completely forgotten. Most people don't travel all that much, and those that do don't often go and drive around in places with serious congestion. (People also lack the perspective that the largest group of people affected by congestion on Centre Street today are bus passengers, not car drivers.)

One interesting thing I see is that I don't hear anyone, including long time residents, bring up the spectre of 2001, even though then Centre Street was reduced from 4 car lanes to 0, rather than 2. It doesn't seem to have left much of a psychological stain; indeed, most people just took a slightly different route or left for work a few minutes earlier.

An interesting data point to add is I just looked at the frequency of transit service in this corridor - as a proxy, looking at the number of buses crossing McKnight southbound between 7:00-7:59 AM. In 2002, there were 15 number 3 buses. By 2006, there were 13 number 3s, but the 301 "BRT" was added and there were 6 of them per hour. Today, there are 11 number 3s, 14 301s and 3 more airport BRTs for fun. All together, it's almost a doubling in bus volume.

And your bus count doesn't include express buses which I can only imagine are up significantly too.

It also should be noted that 60% of traffic on the Centre St bridge is on a bus, seems that the remaining 40% of the traffic can be accommodated in 50% of the road way.

[Halofire]

The yellow line is more of what I had in mind... you could cross prince's island more, but no where near as aggressive as the current proposed option.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Oh, I absolutely agree. People really lack perspective on congestion, and that's just human nature. The hour I spent waiting for my doctor last week still cheeses me off and I'm still griping; the hour I spent waiting five years ago is completely forgotten. Most people don't travel all that much, and those that do don't often go and drive around in places with serious congestion. (People also lack the perspective that the largest group of people affected by congestion on Centre Street today are bus passengers, not car drivers.)

One interesting thing I see is that I don't hear anyone, including long time residents, bring up the spectre of 2001, even though then Centre Street was reduced from 4 car lanes to 0, rather than 2. It doesn't seem to have left much of a psychological stain; indeed, most people just took a slightly different route or left for work a few minutes earlier.

An interesting data point to add is I just looked at the frequency of transit service in this corridor - as a proxy, looking at the number of buses crossing McKnight southbound between 7:00-7:59 AM. In 2002, there were 15 number 3 buses. By 2006, there were 13 number 3s, but the 301 "BRT" was added and there were 6 of them per hour. Today, there are 11 number 3s, 14 301s and 3 more airport BRTs for fun. All together, it's almost a doubling in bus volume.

Plus I'm guessing that many of the #3s today are articulated buses, vs maybe not any in 2002.

[ggopher]

From my observations the Centre Street bridge is actually not that busy during PM rush hour.

Before we have to make any final decisions on the route for the Green Line LRT. The rapid bus lanes on Centre Street will be installed "soon". Those will take up 2 permeant lanes. That should be a good test run.

Also, since this LRT line is going to be a low floor technology. It is not going to be the same impact as what you see on 36th Street NE, that is an ugly monstrosity that kills a community. I think the Green LRT will be a good fit right on Centre Street and the bridge. Unfortunately it does come down to money.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ggopher

Also, since this LRT line is going to be a low floor technology. It is not going to be the same impact as what you see on 36th Street NE, that is an ugly monstrosity that kills a community. I think the Green LRT will be a good fit right on Centre Street and the bridge. Unfortunately it does come down to money.

36th Street is a monstrosity due to poor design, not high floor technology. That section really should have been elevated, or taken another route - it can't kill a community as it passes through a wasteland of parking lots.

Take Sunnyside of an example of how high-floor can integrate well in the neighborhood.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Halofire

The yellow line is more of what I had in mind... you could cross prince's island more, but no where near as aggressive as the current proposed option.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The biggest issue with having the bridge aligned with 1st is the sharp corners needed to jump over from 2nd (going down 2nd was decided a while ago). This is also another reason I'm firmly against the surface option - these corners would be wheel-screechingly tight and slow down the already not-fast line.



I agree though it would be much more sensitive to the island. I'm leaning towards thinking the city will take the under river option, with or without the 9th Ave station. It will be politically easiest.



This I agree with.

I suspect that if we do in fact go forward with the surface option, we will include an option for eventual tunnelling between Eau Claire and 16th Ave, similar to how there is a dead-end tunnel beneath City Hall for the eventual Stephen Ave Tunnel.

[joe498]

'Ramsay businesses at risk as CP balks on rail land sale for southeast transitway'

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...-rail-land-sale-for-southeast-transitway

[joe498]

'No busway down 11th Street S.E., Ramsay residents say'

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/no-busway-down-11th-street-s-e-ramsay-residents-say

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by joe498

'Ramsay businesses at risk as CP balks on rail land sale for southeast transitway'

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...-rail-land-sale-for-southeast-transitway

Originally Posted by joe498

'No busway down 11th Street S.E., Ramsay residents say'

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/no-busway-down-11th-street-s-e-ramsay-residents-say

This is an interesting challenge, would think that Heritage Properties would make it uneconomical to buy the snowden building from them given the amount of work they've put into it.

IMO I think they could take away 2 lanes on 11th and there would still be plenty of room for vehicles.