Calgary Public Transit II

[UofC.engineer]

The city has posted a detailed plan on their website:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Transit-projects/Southwest-Transitway.aspx

[ByeByeBaby]

I'm personally excited for the early 2000s when telecommuting will solve all of our congestion problems; the "information superhighway" will enable workers to work on the "World Wide Web" and no one will have to commute any more!

I don't know who here talking about roads full of autonomous vehicles realizes they are talking about 2075 and who doesn't, although I have some suspects. (I'd also note that none of this discussion is about public transit.)

The city has posted a detailed plan on their website:

This is another good step; the detailed plan looks good. They missed the hordes of shoplifters and vandals and zombies, but maybe that's too small for the resolution of the plan. The one element that I don't see that should be added is a pedestrian bridge from Haysboro; the houses that are across from the station at Glenmore Landing are ~60-75m from the platform, but 400m by foot including crossing both 14th and 90th at the signal. And as an added bonus, it would improve ped/bike access to the shopping centre.

The other thing that is unclear is whether this is a proof-of-payment service; one open house note says there is "provision for ticket vending machines", but doesn't explicitly say that this is all-door boarding and so on. I'm also a little frustrated that the boards talk in detail about schedules, budgets and so on - things that are important to administration - but are completely silent on frequencies and travel times - the things that are important to customers.

I also wonder a little about the jog to serve MRU, especially during rush hour. I think there are broadly three markets for this service in decreasing order of size: 1) south-of-reservoir residents to the CBD (relieving congestion on the LRT/#3); 2) most-of-city residents to institutions on the line like MRU and Rockyview (connecting from the downtown); 3) south-of-reservoir residents going to the institutions (where currently the transit isn't very direct). In the AM northbound direction, the jog to MRU serves market 3 at the expense of 1 (and the same in the reverse for the PM). The jog adds a couple of kilometres, and a bunch of signals - potentially as much additional time added to the trip as you save by building the busway along 14th St.

I think there might be a market for an express version that doesn't stop at MRU. This is particularly true since the two markets are somewhat temporally separated - most workers heading downtown want to be at work by 8 while 8 is pretty early for most PSE students. I'd look into running at least half the buses that arrive downtown before 7:45 as express runs skipping MRU. Assuming you have decent headways on this thing and a decent way of communicating this additional complexity (both big assumptions), it wouldn't be too onerous on the small number of people who want to go to MRU before 7:30 but would make the service more attractive for downtown commuters.

[sim]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'm personally excited for the early 2000s when telecommuting will solve all of our congestion problems; the "information superhighway" will enable workers to work on the "World Wide Web" and no one will have to commute any more!

I don't know who here talking about roads full of autonomous vehicles realizes they are talking about 2075 and who doesn't, although I have some suspects. (I'd also note that none of this discussion is about public transit.)



This is another good step; the detailed plan looks good. They missed the hordes of shoplifters and vandals and zombies, but maybe that's too small for the resolution of the plan. The one element that I don't see that should be added is a pedestrian bridge from Haysboro; the houses that are across from the station at Glenmore Landing are ~60-75m from the platform, but 400m by foot including crossing both 14th and 90th at the signal. And as an added bonus, it would improve ped/bike access to the shopping centre.

The other thing that is unclear is whether this is a proof-of-payment service; one open house note says there is "provision for ticket vending machines", but doesn't explicitly say that this is all-door boarding and so on. I'm also a little frustrated that the boards talk in detail about schedules, budgets and so on - things that are important to administration - but are completely silent on frequencies and travel times - the things that are important to customers.

I also wonder a little about the jog to serve MRU, especially during rush hour. I think there are broadly three markets for this service in decreasing order of size: 1) south-of-reservoir residents to the CBD (relieving congestion on the LRT/#3); 2) most-of-city residents to institutions on the line like MRU and Rockyview (connecting from the downtown); 3) south-of-reservoir residents going to the institutions (where currently the transit isn't very direct). In the AM northbound direction, the jog to MRU serves market 3 at the expense of 1 (and the same in the reverse for the PM). The jog adds a couple of kilometres, and a bunch of signals - potentially as much additional time added to the trip as you save by building the busway along 14th St.

I think there might be a market for an express version that doesn't stop at MRU. This is particularly true since the two markets are somewhat temporally separated - most workers heading downtown want to be at work by 8 while 8 is pretty early for most PSE students. I'd look into running at least half the buses that arrive downtown before 7:45 as express runs skipping MRU. Assuming you have decent headways on this thing and a decent way of communicating this additional complexity (both big assumptions), it wouldn't be too onerous on the small number of people who want to go to MRU before 7:30 but would make the service more attractive for downtown commuters.

That jog will also serve Currie Barracks. To the best of my knowledge, there will be a station in Currie Barracks. I can only speculate why it isn't shown on the map, so I won't.

[sim]

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

I wonder if automakers are worried about this future?

I know with Car2Go and living near work, my wife and I have went from two vehicles to one. That one vehicle barely gets 20 000 km/year. And that is with all of our family living either in BC or in Northern Alberta.

I would love it if self-driving cars were introduced on a subscription model. I love paying for a vehicle only when we need it.

I think a lot of times people romanticize the journey inside of the goal of transportation. Status symbols to get us from point A to point B.

Just a question to get people thinking. I posted this a couple of weeks ago to my Facebook page. I really think this technology will help immensely for safety.

"If Teleportation were invented tomorrow with the caveats:
- 1.24 million people would die from it each year
- Those deaths would cost $518 billion
- It would cost $1 trillion dollars globally to operate/maintain
- It would be the leading cause of deaths in people 15-29

Would we accept this new technology?

These stats are from worldwide motor vehicle use (the best I could find). 14 people were killed on Alberta roads this weekend. As most of you know, this subject impacts me greatly. My mom was one of those statistics a couple of years ago, but I refuse to let her be just that. There needs to be a serious debate between convenience and safety.
Why does society deem it acceptable for someone who endangers or kills people while operating a motor vehicle to retain their license in the majority of cases, but if an airline pilot exhibited those same behaviors they would lose their license?
For every one person who dies from a plane crash, 1629 die in car crashes. All of this and I haven't even mentioned the 50 million people who are injured worldwide each year in car accidents."

I'm happy to see that more people (presumably outside of the transportation engineer, planning or politics fields) are raising this question. Sadly, it's also fairly evident that most people within those fields have themselves very limited understanding of and unwittingly put an implicit price on life. It's something that is ethically inconvenient, but it's very real.

And yet, we continue to move ever onward on that same track. Most of the engineering field still believes that in an urban context, wider lanes are safer, clear zones must be maintained and congestion is inherently dangerous.

I like your thought experiment. Sadly, this is probably a problem of the marginal. Slowly but surely we built this system, and slowly but surely it's become the norm. Similar to how providing (free) parking has become more important than providing affordable housing.

On a related note, I'm not at all convinced that autonomous vehicles will actually solve any of this, including the safety aspect, especially if safety were to be grouped with health. (I'm a little more "optimistic" than 2075, but not by much. Tesla, much like for it's hyperloop, thinks technology is infallible and exists in vacuum).

[Riise]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The city has posted a detailed plan on their website:

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Transit-projects/Southwest-Transitway.aspx

If this is a transitway rather than a single line, I have to question the jog over to MRU as well. One of the advantages that BRT has over LRT is that busses can leave the RoW and also return. Is it really necessary to have everyone travelling along the transitway route through MRU? Could the transitway not continue on Crowchild and still service MRU directly by having a certain portion of busses temporarily leave the RoW and complete the jog?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Riise

If this is a transitway rather than a single line, I have to question the jog over to MRU as well. One of the advantages that BRT has over LRT is that busses can leave the RoW and also return. Is it really necessary to have everyone travelling along the transitway route through MRU? Could the transitway not continue on Crowchild and still service MRU directly by having a certain portion of busses temporarily leave the RoW and complete the jog?

Only parts of the line (basically, 14th Street) would qualify as a transitway (separated lanes, occasional grade separation), with some other parts (Glenmore eastbound, Crowchild) having dedicated lanes.

Looks like the jog to MRU won't involve any real transitway infrastructure, not even sure it will have (or need) dedicated lanes.

So it's entirely a question of, does traffic to MRU justify the detour for people who aren't going there? I don't really know the answer to that, but having certain buses for "downtown express", or just giving it an entirely different route number, will certainly compromise the usefulness for MRU. Frequency is very important!

[MalcolmTucker]

Increased frequency probably makes up for any additional travel time, unless around MRU is crazy congested and skip infrastructure is not put in place.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Riise

If this is a transitway rather than a single line, I have to question the jog over to MRU as well. One of the advantages that BRT has over LRT is that busses can leave the RoW and also return. Is it really necessary to have everyone travelling along the transitway route through MRU? Could the transitway not continue on Crowchild and still service MRU directly by having a certain portion of busses temporarily leave the RoW and complete the jog?

Again, although it was also originally planned to do this jog, mind you not get back to Crowchild via 50th, the route will also serve the new Currie Barracks developments.

Not having the route go through Currie Barracks would be a large missed opportunity. For once, it seems, reasonably good quality transit is actually being planned in tandem with land use here. Not that the colossal shit-pile of an interchange that is Flanders really speaks to this.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by sim

Not that the colossal shit-pile of an interchange that is Flanders really speaks to this.

I can't agree more with this.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Only parts of the line (basically, 14th Street) would qualify as a transitway (separated lanes, occasional grade separation), with some other parts (Glenmore eastbound, Crowchild) having dedicated lanes.

[...]

but having certain buses for "downtown express", or just giving it an entirely different route number, will certainly compromise the usefulness for MRU. Frequency is very important!

While staying on Crowchild may not keep it in a proper transitway, it would be shoulder lanes no? If so, I believe these have proven to be rather useful in the States and could justify having MRU served by a spur service. It may complicate things a bit but big cities are complex and the option that is the easiest to understand isn't going to cut it in many situations.

Originally Posted by sim

Not having the route go through Currie Barracks would be a large missed opportunity.

As with MRU, Currie Barracks can still be served by rapid transit even if the transitway doesn't go through the community due to the flexibility of BRT.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Riise

While staying on Crowchild may not keep it in a proper transitway, it would be shoulder lanes no? If so, I believe these have proven to be rather useful in the States and could justify having MRU served by a spur service. It may complicate things a bit but big cities are complex and the option that is the easiest to understand isn't going to cut it in many situations.


As with MRU, Currie Barracks can still be served by rapid transit even if the transitway doesn't go through the community due to the flexibility of BRT.

Sure, but that kind of misses the point of the service that we've, in any case, mislabelled as BRT. BRT is not an express service - meaning that there are supposed to be intermediate stops - just with greater spacing - not that some systems don't skip stops (because they already have such small headways).

Why would a "BRT" or a BRT service sometimes skip an area that is envisioned to be rather active and a significant node? Assuming that what you are saying is that only some of the buses (say every second run) would serve the area, at the moment this would mean that it would be serviced every 20 minutes and that travel times for everyone else would be highly variable.

If you're saying that the area should/could be served by an entirely different route, then that is a different story. It is also, largely, exactly what is already happening. Other parallel routes will utilize the shoulder bus lanes and transitway where they overlap.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by sim

Sure, but that kind of misses the point of the service that we've, in any case, mislabelled as BRT. BRT is not an express service - meaning that there are supposed to be intermediate stops - just with greater spacing - not that some systems don't skip stops (because they already have such small headways).

Why would a "BRT" or a BRT service sometimes skip an area that is envisioned to be rather active and a significant node? Assuming that what you are saying is that only some of the buses (say every second run) would serve the area, at the moment this would mean that it would be serviced every 20 minutes and that travel times for everyone else would be highly variable.

If you're saying that the area should/could be served by an entirely different route, then that is a different story. It is also, largely, exactly what is already happening. Other parallel routes will utilize the shoulder bus lanes and transitway where they overlap.

We've definitely applied the BRT label incorrectly but even in places where they have a true BRT system, the system's flexibility allows for nodes to be accessed without the busway passing through the said nodes. Nevertheless, I'd imagine that a true SW BRT would pass through MRU and Currie Barricks or at least provide service via a true BRT spur. However, the proposed SW BRT is a Frankenstein line built on compromises (e.g. Shoulder vs Dedicated lanes) and I feel that a complete jog is another damaging compromise.

The improvements that would be made if the 'transitway' were to continue along Crowchild would more closely resemble a true BRT than the proposed jog to MRU/Currie Barracks. As MRU/Currie Barracks could be serviced with a similar style of service regardless of the location of the 'transitway' (i.e. basic improvements), why not embrace the opportunity to make upgrades that could have a measurable effect?

Since we are using busses rather than trains, we wouldn't be orphaning MRU/Currie Barracks like an LRT would in this instance.

[CrossedTheTracks]

A few fun pictures and facts from the streetcar days, from the Calgary Herald: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/five-things-about-calgarys-old-streetcars

[UofC.engineer]

The old U2's are being decommissioned. I hope they keep at least one car.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2015/12/16/saying-bye-to-calgary-transit-first-ctrain-car.html

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The old U2's are being decommissioned. I hope they keep at least one car.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2015/12/16/saying-bye-to-calgary-transit-first-ctrain-car.html

Yeah they really should, and restore it to like-new condition. It's cool how Toronto has antique street cars for special occasions.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yeah they really should, and restore it to like-new condition. It's cool how Toronto has antique street cars for special occasions.

Could it be modified to run along with the street car at Heritage park?

[lineman]

It would be nice to keep one. I grew up riding the old U2. Even got to drive one through downtown once

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Could it be modified to run along with the street car at Heritage park?

Really? Do you also want a couple of old Plymouth Duster's to cruise the dirt streets with alongside their Model A's. The U2's may be historic, but they're not quite antique.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by McMurph

Really? Do you also want a couple of old Plymouth Duster's to cruise the dirt streets with alongside their Model A's. The U2's may be historic, but they're not quite antique.

Well that's why the street car at Heritage park is a reproduction, because we got rid of all of them before they were antiques.

[MalcolmTucker]

My understanding is that pantographs require higher tension in the supply lines than trolley poles do, meaning the cable would have to be upgraded to use.

In any case, CT isnèt retiring them all right now. Just the oldest ones.