Calgary Public Transit II

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by thager

does anyone have any photos of the expansion at Haysboro storage ?

There's nothing to take photos of. Hasn't started.

[mersar]

Any idea when it will?

It looked like the expansion at Spring Gardens is nearly done the last time I was up that way, makes that yard look quite tight.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by mersar

Any idea when it will?

Not for a while yet. There's some things that need to get worked out first.

[joe498]

Calgary aims to ‘go for the touchdown’ with huge ask for federal transit funds

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1405367...with-huge-ask-for-federal-transit-funds/

[Socguy]

That's exactly the right thing to do. Cities have been underfunded for these kinds of infrastructure projects for decades. The Conservatives are facing a new threat from the left in terms of city issues and funding so they're going to look to combat that by starting to move on those issues.

Alberta has just hired David Dodge to look into which infrastructure projects are the most pressing and which make sense to borrow for:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...nor-for-spending-advice/article25040020/

Combine that with a weakening labour market and rock bottom borrowing costs and now may be the time that we start building this Provence again!

[MalcolmTucker]

The coming collision point is if the province gives money on condition of not using a private partner, and the feds give money conditional of using a private partner, will be super interesting.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by thager

does anyone have any photos of the expansion at Haysboro storage ?

Does anyone know the current and future capacity of the Haysboro storage building/barn?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Does anyone know the current and future capacity of the Haysboro storage building/barn?

From RouteAhead:
» Haysboro – this facility was retrofitted as a temporary storage facility in 1984 and is used only to store LRVs.
...
Additional four-car trains could be supplied from Haysboro storage, but that facility is also not configured for four-car train storage.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

From RouteAhead:
» Haysboro – this facility was retrofitted as a temporary storage facility in 1984 and is used only to store LRVs.
...
Additional four-car trains could be supplied from Haysboro storage, but that facility is also not configured for four-car train storage.

Thanks for posting. I apologize but I still don't understand.

What was the final verdict from the city regarding 4 train configurations?

1. All trains will originate from OBMF?

2. Anderson and Haysboro will be retrofitted?

3. We wait until a new facility gets built in Silverado and Anderson get converted to purely bus barns?

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Thanks for posting. I apologize but I still don't understand.

What was the final verdict from the city regarding 4 train configurations?

1. All trains will originate from OBMF?

2. Anderson and Haysboro will be retrofitted?

3. We wait until a new facility gets built in Silverado and Anderson get converted to purely bus barns?

Capacity at Haysboro isn't going to change. There will just be a building extension to park 8 LRVs inside the building on each track, instead of 6. If you parked 4 car trains in there right now, one train would be sticking out by two cars, and you couldn't close the garage doors (which somewhat defeats the purpose of a garage in winter).

Anderson will not change, other than extension to the wash lane.

[MalcolmTucker]

How many train sets are on the 201 right now on an average day? 10 4 car sets will mean 1/3rd of the additional fleet will be able to be on the south line without deadheading, albeit at the cost of having to assemble the remaining 2 car sets outside into full trains every day, or the loss of storage capacity.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by malcolmtucker

how many train sets are on the 201 right now on an average day? 10 4 car sets will mean 1/3rd of the additional fleet will be able to be on the south line without deadheading, albeit at the cost of having to assemble the remaining 2 car sets outside into full trains every day, or the loss of storage capacity.

32

[Chealion]

After seeing a rumour on Twitter on the weekend that Connect's contract has been cancelled again ( https://twitter.com/TransitVenture/status/615250982365040641 ) followed with an addition to Council's agenda today about the Electronic Fare System. (In Camera unfortunately).

Please stay a silly rumour.

[MalcolmTucker]

At this point I would be happy with a MasterCard based system like Chicago has. Just give up, let someone else run the entire thing in exchange for a cut.

[ByeByeBaby]

I hope they cancel it at this point because of the lack of tap-in tap-out functionality. While that may have been state-of-practice back in 2002 when they first started trying Connect, putting a smart card in place without that functionality in 2015 (or 2016 or 2018 or 2022...) is just a complete waste of effort and money. Tap-in tap-out gets you:

- The ability to introduce zone fare systems
- All door boarding on all vehicles, speeding up all bus routes immediately.
- Phenomenally better data on transit use

I've just been to Australia, and the tap-in tap-out systems there have so many features that Connect won't. It's phenomenal how many ways they can encourage higher usage of transit with fare strategies:

- Zone fares, so short trips are cheaper
- Discounts during off-peak periods to encourage time shifting
- Automatic caps on travel costs to encourage higher usage (instead of passes)

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I hope they cancel it at this point because of the lack of tap-in tap-out functionality. While that may have been state-of-practice back in 2002 when they first started trying Connect, putting a smart card in place without that functionality in 2015 (or 2016 or 2018 or 2022...) is just a complete waste of effort and money. Tap-in tap-out gets you:

- The ability to introduce zone fare systems
- All door boarding on all vehicles, speeding up all bus routes immediately.
- Phenomenally better data on transit use

I've just been to Australia, and the tap-in tap-out systems there have so many features that Connect won't. It's phenomenal how many ways they can encourage higher usage of transit with fare strategies:

- Zone fares, so short trips are cheaper
- Discounts during off-peak periods to encourage time shifting
- Automatic caps on travel costs to encourage higher usage (instead of passes)

What is it about these smart cards that are so difficult to implement? It's hardly just Calgary Transit that has had a difficult time.

You would think that now that so many agencies everywhere do these cards now that the basic infrastructure and implementation practices are pretty much figured out.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MasterG

What is it about these smart cards that are so difficult to implement? It's hardly just Calgary Transit that has had a difficult time.

You would think that now that so many agencies everywhere do these cards now that the basic infrastructure and implementation practices are pretty much figured out.

Because the easy features aren't really better than paper tickets, and the complex features either require constant connections to a database, or accepting compromises that really reduce the utility.

Would you accept a mandatory overnight wait before value you added to a card over the internet showed up? Because that would solve a lot of the problems. In exchange the city would have to accept that from time to time cards would go negative in value before an automatic top up happened.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Because the easy features aren't really better than paper tickets, and the complex features either require constant connections to a database, or accepting compromises that really reduce the utility.

Would you accept a mandatory overnight wait before value you added to a card over the internet showed up? Because that would solve a lot of the problems. In exchange the city would have to accept that from time to time cards would go negative in value before an automatic top up happened.

Since the amount of fares one person would use in a 24 or 48 period isn't much money, seems reasonable to allow a user to go into overdraft for a 24 hr period.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I hope they cancel it at this point because of the lack of tap-in tap-out functionality. While that may have been state-of-practice back in 2002 when they first started trying Connect, putting a smart card in place without that functionality in 2015 (or 2016 or 2018 or 2022...) is just a complete waste of effort and money. Tap-in tap-out gets you:

- The ability to introduce zone fare systems
- All door boarding on all vehicles, speeding up all bus routes immediately.
- Phenomenally better data on transit use

I've just been to Australia, and the tap-in tap-out systems there have so many features that Connect won't. It's phenomenal how many ways they can encourage higher usage of transit with fare strategies:

- Zone fares, so short trips are cheaper
- Discounts during off-peak periods to encourage time shifting
- Automatic caps on travel costs to encourage higher usage (instead of passes)

Maybe I'm not thinking this through, but you don't need "tap out" for the above, except for "zone fare systems" and "phenomenal data".

Heck, you don't even need "smart cards" for all-door boarding. You just need to mandate proof-of-payment on all vehicles, all the time. Have a pass or transfer? You can board on back doors. Need to pay cash or use a ticket? Board at the front, and get a transfer. Attach a ticket validator next to rear doors on high-volume buses to make it even better. (Not sure this makes overall sense given extra costs of enforcement, just saying it's all technically possible. You can of course half-do it by implementing only on 3xx routes, for example.) Of course smart cards would be nicer, but we don't need to wait.

Edit: yes, off-peak discounts could be made "more precise" with tap-out. Not sure it's really worth the effort though. I'd be shocked if you could get significant time-shifting out of any discount. The people who put up with being crush-loaded on the train at 7:35 am surely won't shift to 9:00 am if they can't be bothered to go slightly earlier or slightly later to avoid the worst of the congestion.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Maybe I'm not thinking this through, but you don't need "tap out" for the above, except for "zone fare systems" and "phenomenal data".

Heck, you don't even need "smart cards" for all-door boarding. You just need to mandate proof-of-payment on all vehicles, all the time. Have a pass or transfer? You can board on back doors. Need to pay cash or use a ticket? Board at the front, and get a transfer. Attach a ticket validator next to rear doors on high-volume buses to make it even better. (Not sure this makes overall sense given extra costs of enforcement, just saying it's all technically possible. You can of course half-do it by implementing only on 3xx routes, for example.) Of course smart cards would be nicer, but we don't need to wait.

One of my pet peeves with Transit - likely not unique to Calgary's agency - is they seem incapable, unwilling or oblivious to make changes quickly. I understand they are funding constrained, and have mandated coverage rates and specific requirements that hand-tie them, but surely all agencies have the same problem? It's not like they don't know what to do, they have excellent planning and wish-lists compiled of all sorts of useful projects.

An example is the 4th Street SW transit-only lane. Received approval over a year ago, after a few years of internal discussion, but no direction on timelines to implement. I had to follow up with my Councillor directly to find out what the delay was. Turns out decided to wait a bit longer and see how the 5th Avenue lane-reversal pilot works out (never mind it is a completely different orientation and traffic pattern and includes all cars not just buses). So another year until they think about it again, + design and build time. We might not see the southbound lane for 4 or 5 years.

It's relatively such an easy win for transit for such a little cost, it boggles my mind that it and other simple win projects (i.e. all door boarding, stop spacing optimization etc.) don't get looked at closer.

I can understand why mega-corridors like the WLRT and SELRT take a few decades to implement, but how can an approved lane take this long?