Calgary Public Transit II

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by McMurph

Northland Mall and 50th Ave S seem like obvious candidates for new stations. Someday it would be nice to see that sort of intensification of transit in addition to the inevitable (and much more expensive) line extensions.

Yes both of these are great candidates. If necessary to maintain a desired travel time, I also think that a 50th Ave station could be justification to remove the 39th Avenue station, which has less potential and a smaller walk-shed.

Along the same lines as the Councillor and the importance of TOD, I would love to see a fund created to upgrade the TOD orientation around existing stations. Too many of our stations (and the surrounding land owners) have done nothing to encourage better integration.

Sunridge Mall, Marlborough Mall, Peter Lougheed Centre, University of Calgary and others all have great LRT service with poor walking connectivity for the last section of the trip.

The proposed upgrades at 61st Avenue at Chinook are in line with what many stations require. A few million dollars goes a long way to make a station a lot more accessible and functional by providing appropriate sidewalks, pedestrian priority signals/bridges if necessary.

It's the old story where Calgary does macro-elements well (LRT capacity, speed, length, frequency) but screws up the details in the station areas (unnecessary fences, large surface parking lots, narrow sidewalks, lack of pedestrian crossings directly to the stations, orientation of major building entrances to the far side to transit access etc.) It's not just the City of course, some property owners along the routes have done a lot to simply pretend the LRT isn't there.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Yes both of these are great candidates. If necessary to maintain a desired travel time, I also think that a 50th Ave station could be justification to remove the 39th Avenue station, which has less potential and a smaller walk-shed.

Along the same lines as the Councillor and the importance of TOD, I would love to see a fund created to upgrade the TOD orientation around existing stations. Too many of our stations (and the surrounding land owners) have done nothing to encourage better integration.

Sunridge Mall, Marlborough Mall, Peter Lougheed Centre, University of Calgary and others all have great LRT service with poor walking connectivity for the last section of the trip.

The proposed upgrades at 61st Avenue at Chinook are in line with what many stations require. A few million dollars goes a long way to make a station a lot more accessible and functional by providing appropriate sidewalks, pedestrian priority signals/bridges if necessary.

It's the old story where Calgary does macro-elements well (LRT capacity, speed, length, frequency) but screws up the details in the station areas (unnecessary fences, large surface parking lots, narrow sidewalks, lack of pedestrian crossings directly to the stations, orientation of major building entrances to the far side to transit access etc.) It's not just the City of course, some property owners along the routes have done a lot to simply pretend the LRT isn't there.

Completely agree. They've even fixed a lot of their long-running communication issues and improved their maps (this map even makes a couple dozen poorly-designed bus routes look pretty) but they aren't getting some major, city-changing things done.

For example, this seriously stupid parking lot. From my count it holds 107 cars. With the daily ridership of the C-Train at over 330,000, what impact does this parking lot have on the system? Say, for the sake of argument, everyone who uses this particular lot each day were to completely abandon the C-Train if the lot were removed and developed into something completely different. How many daily trips would be lost? 300, maybe? I'm sure these people would park elsewhere or take a feeder bus rather than drive downtown as an alternative.

So, what's the point of that lot? Unlike some areas immediately next to stations, I can't see there being any tangible objection to even a high-rise residential development, which would add a hell of a lot more daily users than a measly 107-space lot. And with all of Crowfoot being walkable from that location, an N3-style building would be very workable. But I don't see any progressive thought being put into things like this that would have a genuine impact on transit use in the city.

So many missed opportunities, but I understand that the city's priorities have always been to put the tracks down and have faith in residents to use it as best they can, instead of Vancouver's model of molding the city around its stations. Would be nice if they could change their perspectives a bit, or even hand over a few park and rides to the CMLC (who, by the way, seems to be interested in developing Erlton's park and ride lot - a very good sign that things will change over time!)

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Also important to remember a lot of the SFH zoning and neighbourhood amenities that came with that were based on much larger household sizes. So moving from Strathcona (6-8 units per acre) to the newest south lake communities (12-14+ units per acre) you don't end up with a commensurate growth in population, even if it may seem like it because more people are adults. If has a copy of the Calgary Project they can grab more useful stats on neighbourhood evolution.

This household shrinking continues more slowly today:

You're right, however, we need to be more thoughtful in understanding the details here. While overall averages are way down, the rate of decline is not consistent across people who live in all areas, unit types, or cultural groups for that matter. It is quite possible, as an example (and I'm pulling this out of thin air) that there might be need still for a smallish subset for four bedroom homes, while there also being a need for more one bedroom dwellings. When we think of families being smaller, it also doesn't address potential changes in co-habitation and multi-generational housing. We generally live longer now-a-days (which is also a driver for overall average family size coming down). From a people per unit perspective, while I suspect most of us are youngish, at some point a larger number of us may have parents or a single surviving parent with us - particularly when those elders retain good health and don't require more expensive supported options (and this may be driven by the expense part).

Anyway - there are clearly many more variables at play, and just meaning to highlight that we cannot normalize. If the average family in Calgary needs 1.5 bedrooms (whatever that means), odds are if all the houses became 1.5 bedrooms, 90% of people would not be accommodated.

[ggopher]

For example, this seriously stupid parking lot. From my count it holds 107 cars. With the daily ridership of the C-Train at over 330,000, what impact does this parking lot have on the system? Say, for the sake of argument, everyone who uses this particular lot each day were to completely abandon the C-Train if the lot were removed and developed into something completely different. How many daily trips would be lost? 300, maybe? I'm sure these people would park elsewhere or take a feeder bus rather than drive downtown as an alternative.

So, what's the point of that lot? Unlike some areas immediately next to stations, I can't see there being any tangible objection to even a high-rise residential development, which would add a hell of a lot more daily users than a measly 107-space lot. And with all of Crowfoot being walkable from that location, an N3-style building would be very workable. But I don't see any progressive thought being put into things like this that would have a genuine impact on transit use in the city.

That is an excellent point. The cookie cutter says put a parking lot at all the LRTs. I do prefer to drive to the LRT, but if i didn't have the option, then I would figure something else out.

Building a LRT Parking Lot is a good thing. But is there something even better that you could put there. Like a condo, or a coffee shop, or a plaza. That would generate more people traffic.

They are trying to think a bit different on the Green Line, but they have a long ways to go.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Isn't the lot more of an equity lot to ensure people from the north side of the station don't need to go all away around to the south lot? If you're talking about removing park and rides, deciding whether to downsize the large intercept lots versus the small 'community' lots is an interesting challenge. The easiest way to see whether they are worth it is to bring back charges for every stall, perhaps a tad dynamic (repriced monthly or quarterly?) targeting 95% full. If some lot's price is way below others then it is pretty obvious it is too big.

I think Park and ride has an important role in introducing reluctant riders to the system - it would just be nice if the market could move them along out of the lots over time, instead of early risers becoming free riders.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

For example, this seriously stupid parking lot. From my count it holds 107 cars. With the daily ridership of the C-Train at over 330,000, what impact does this parking lot have on the system? Say, for the sake of argument, everyone who uses this particular lot each day were to completely abandon the C-Train if the lot were removed and developed into something completely different. How many daily trips would be lost? 300, maybe? I'm sure these people would park elsewhere or take a feeder bus rather than drive downtown as an alternative.

So, what's the point of that lot? Unlike some areas immediately next to stations, I can't see there being any tangible objection to even a high-rise residential development, which would add a hell of a lot more daily users than a measly 107-space lot. And with all of Crowfoot being walkable from that location, an N3-style building would be very workable. But I don't see any progressive thought being put into things like this that would have a genuine impact on transit use in the city.

Your "seriously stupid" parking lot sits atop about three stories of fill. It cannot take any form of high density development without a lot of engineered expensive solutions. The expensive solution will make any high density residential proposal uneconomical.

Being right beside the LRT, the lot is of particular interest to off peak users. arbour Lake residents going to flames or stampeders games as an example. Maybe some will go to south lot, but all users will be negatively inconvenienced. The negative feelings will translate into poorer image of transit.

Cut 110 parking spaces and city policy means a 55 spot reduction to reserved LRT. There is another 55 calgarians who are Inconvenienced. If feeder bus or regular LRT parking was a viable option, these 55 users would not be willing spending $85/ month for parking.

That corner of Crowfoot area is poul acted by small owner operated businesses. These same businesses will have increased costs from more LRT Packers using their private parking lots meant for the business traffic. So now these small business have increased costs and reduced customer satisfaction. So there are another 100 or so people who are now against transit and transit oriented development.

So for the benefit of a 40 door TOD initiative, you have turned a minimum 500 voters off TOD. These voters are not going to the Nenshi, Farrell, Carra, Pincott campe; there are going to the Manning Centre camp of Chu, Magliocca, Sutherland, etc.

[Cage]

For the record I take transit about half the days I commute to downtown. I drive to crowfoot LRT and then train from there. I am also for TOD where it's located in the right places and there are lots of places where TOD works.

However turn Crowfoot into TOD or decide that TOD everywhere is appropriate, I and I will reverse my position and become the most anti transit and TOD person out there. Might even have to buy a Mercedes and die my hair grey.

Why the change, well I live in a car dependent community and that's not going to change ever. I am at the crowfoot area 2-4 times per week and need abundant vehicle parking to make my life work. I can't take feeder bus transit because I have to pick up my kid from dayhome. Feeder bus would add 40 minutes into 10 minute commute from LRT to dayhome to home. Plus no chance to pick up dinner at the Co-op.

Brentwood park and ride made a lot of sense when it was end of the line. Now the parking lot is never at capacity, so introducing TOD makes sense there.

Finally Cowfoot is one of the busiest LRT stations on the network. It doesn't need TOD to bring in customers. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Cage

I can't take feeder bus transit because I have to pick up my kid from dayhome. Feeder bus would add 40 minutes into 10 minute commute from LRT to dayhome to home.

The inner-city condo extremists aren't going to care. They have no kids, aren't going to get any because that requires finding a female, and only have their monkeys for company.

[McMurph]

I think the issue (photo) that provoked this conversation was with the teeny tiny surface lot inside the bus loop. With ridership levels where they're at on the red line it's hard to imagine that lot is of use to very many... unless you drop your kid off at daycare at 5:30AM.

Park 'n Ride is fine in the right places. I live inner city, but if I were in the burbs I'd probably favour foot-to-train, then car-to-train then bus-to-train for my commute. Parking structures (like at 69th) ultimately make the most sense for serving both car / train commuters and TOD.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Cage

For the record I take transit about half the days I commute to downtown. I drive to crowfoot LRT and then train from there. I am also for TOD where it's located in the right places and there are lots of places where TOD works.

However turn Crowfoot into TOD or decide that TOD everywhere is appropriate, I and I will reverse my position and become the most anti transit and TOD person out there. Might even have to buy a Mercedes and die my hair grey.

Why the change, well I live in a car dependent community and that's not going to change ever. I am at the crowfoot area 2-4 times per week and need abundant vehicle parking to make my life work. I can't take feeder bus transit because I have to pick up my kid from dayhome. Feeder bus would add 40 minutes into 10 minute commute from LRT to dayhome to home. Plus no chance to pick up dinner at the Co-op.

Brentwood park and ride made a lot of sense when it was end of the line. Now the parking lot is never at capacity, so introducing TOD makes sense there.

Finally Cowfoot is one of the busiest LRT stations on the network. It doesn't need TOD to bring in customers. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

You seeing any sort of contradiction or issue with your contention there? I'm not going to speak directly to this lot, but your argument is indicative of, dare I say, a broader mentality, in that you've made the issue pretty much entirely about you. Your tone is as though as if the City (and transit) should very much be planned around what works for you and your choices. Some would call this entitled.

Unfortunately, it's quite clear and factual that transit becomes more effective and efficient, the more TOD (generally intensity) that is around a station, and is part of a positive feedback loop for more efficient land use as well. So I think you should expect very limited sympathy when you explicate on what could easily be labelled as a proverbial first world problem, while not acknowledging that your requirement comes at the cost of hundreds of people who may like to live immediately adjacent to an LRT station and perhaps thousands that would like their walk to the station be X parking lot size meters closer.

That being said, I'd probably agree that Crowfoot at the moment, should not be a very big TOD or intensification focus.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Gian-Carlo Carra wants administration to look at adding more stations along Red Line. More stops equals more TOD nodes. I'm torn on the idea. More nodes would be nice, but more stops would tick me off.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/201...r-pitches-red-line-transit-stations.html

It's a great question!

Planners expect passengers to walk up to 800 m to the station, which means stations ought to ideally be separated by 1.6 km, depending on geography and local barriers. This is the case for most of our LRT network. However, there are 2 obvious gaps where we have ~3 km between stations: between chinook and 39th ave, and between Brentwood and Dalhousie. This is roughly the perfect distance to add a station between. The obvious locations would be 50th ave and Northland Mall. If we want to add more stations to the system, we could add these 2 for a fraction of the price of extending the line.

On the other hand, both of these are expected to have below-average ridership and would add 1-2 minutes to travel times for everyone traveling past. Compare that to extending the line, which adds more people but has a negligible affect on existing travel patterns.

In my opinion, building stations at 50th and Northlands makes sense if we plan on densifying the surrounding areas and improving walkability. Both have great TOD potential. These are especially great locations to live because both are surrounded by employment nodes and great residential neighbourhoods with lots of green space, schools, and recreation.

[RyLucky]

I totally agree with MasterG about how building walkable station areas is just as important as the station itself.

I also agree with CalgaryAlex about how park and ride is an ineffective way to draw folks to the station compared to developed town centres.

I ALSO agree with Cage's point about the political role of ParknRide, and it's particular importance off hours. The neighbourhood wants to precieve that they could use the train even if they hardly ever will.

ParknRide seems a natural placeholder for a generation while demand for condos and offices builds up.

[speedog]

I find the debates in this thread quite interesting and the end are valid concerns raised by all, valid because it really depends on their lifestyle. I have been fortunate enough over the past 31 years to have lived within 3 blocks of a direct bus route to the core or a crosstown bus (19) or circle route (72, 73) and as such, the LRT has never been a part of my commuting plans. I am quite happy for that but at the same time, I personally have not had need of transit services for the past 9 years now because for my employment over that span of time.

As much as I would like to be critical of those that require Park'n'Ride lots to be a part of their life, I also understand why they're almost a requirement for the past 20 or so years and will continue to be so. So that makes the north green line interesting in that there probably will be no significant PnR lots until you get north of Beddinton Trail - will that become a problem. This is because of the lay of the land (development) up to that point but the again, I don't perceive a great amount of the potential LRT ridership that line coming from the areas south of Beddington Trail and besides that, there really isn't anywhere Beddington south that one can build a significant PnR lot without buying some expensive real estate.

So will what appears to be a lack of PnR lots along the southern portion of the north green line be an issue? What of the folks who have kids in day homes in this area, where will they park or is there enough of them in these established communities to really make a difference that has to be addressed? Obviously PnR is an issue or it appears to be and could even be more so if direct bus routes into the downtown core like the number 2 or 4 disappear to be replaced by east/west feeder routes.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by speedog

I find the debates in this thread quite interesting and the end are valid concerns raised by all, valid because it really depends on their lifestyle. I have been fortunate enough over the past 31 years to have lived within 3 blocks of a direct bus route to the core or a crosstown bus (19) or circle route (72, 73) and as such, the LRT has never been a part of my commuting plans. I am quite happy for that but at the same time, I personally have not had need of transit services for the past 9 years now because for my employment over that span of time.

As much as I would like to be critical of those that require Park'n'Ride lots to be a part of their life, I also understand why they're almost a requirement for the past 20 or so years and will continue to be so. So that makes the north green line interesting in that there probably will be no significant PnR lots until you get north of Beddinton Trail - will that become a problem. This is because of the lay of the land (development) up to that point but the again, I don't perceive a great amount of the potential LRT ridership that line coming from the areas south of Beddington Trail and besides that, there really isn't anywhere Beddington south that one can build a significant PnR lot without buying some expensive real estate.

So will what appears to be a lack of PnR lots along the southern portion of the north green line be an issue? What of the folks who have kids in day homes in this area, where will they park or is there enough of them in these established communities to really make a difference that has to be addressed? Obviously PnR is an issue or it appears to be and could even be more so if direct bus routes into the downtown core like the number 2 or 4 disappear to be replaced by east/west feeder routes.

Interesting point. In another thread it was discussed how the mid inner city is hollowing out and becoming the lowest density, and these are the kind of neighborhoods the north Green Line goes through. Luckily however the road network is laid out perfectly for these emptying houses to be bought up and redeveloped and I think eventually this section of the LRT will be the most successful even if it has not too high ridership at first.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Interesting point. In another thread it was discussed how the mid inner city is hollowing out and becoming the lowest density, and these are the kind of neighborhoods the north Green Line goes through. Luckily however the road network is laid out perfectly for these emptying houses to be bought up and redeveloped and I think eventually this section of the LRT will be the most successful even if it has not too high ridership at first.

It's too bad that Calgary Transit doesn't publish more data on their bus ridership. It would be interesting to see how the busiest routes perform. Clearly there is some knowledge that isn't public. They adjust routes and tweak times every quarter based on measured fluctuations in demand.

For example, anecdotally it seems that most rider-ship of the 3 and 301 are from the large terminal stations north of Beddington. However this ridership must be more "peaked" than elsewhere due to the primarily regular, 9-5pm commuter flow. Other spots may see more all day rider-ship as they have more seniors, students and other activities/services than a park and ride that produce non-peaked travel demand.

This kind of data is one of the big, hidden reasons that fare cards are so attractive to transit agencies. It allows this kind of analysis to be done at a greater level of detail and in real-time.

Anyone with insider knowledge of Calgary Transit operations know the process of how they figure out their ridership for bus routes? What level of detail do they get?

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Anyone with insider knowledge of Calgary Transit operations know the process of how they figure out their ridership for bus routes? What level of detail do they get?

Up until recently, ridership was measured with passenger count cards. Each bus had a manual counter, and the operator would count the number of people that boarded, recording the total numbers at each time point. Slowly, the buses have automated passenger counters that count passengers electronically, while recording the time of boarding (or with the very new ones, and on the new LRVs), with GPS data.

I'd also suggest that the route 3 certainly isn't getting its largest loads north of Beddington, since it doesn't go north of Beddington Trail. It's the busiest route in the city, and the busiest section runs from Sandstone to the core.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

Up until recently, ridership was measured with passenger count cards. Each bus had a manual counter, and the operator would count the number of people that boarded, recording the total numbers at each time point. Slowly, the buses have automated passenger counters that count passengers electronically, while recording the time of boarding (or with the very new ones, and on the new LRVs), with GPS data.

I'd also suggest that the route 3 certainly isn't getting its largest loads north of Beddington, since it doesn't go north of Beddington Trail. It's the busiest route in the city, and the busiest section runs from Sandstone to the core.

Thanks for this information, it's always fascinating to hear how the sausage is made - in terms of data-gathering techniques for transit systems anyways. I didn't realize that the 3 didn't go north of Beddington, it's been a while since I have taken it that far north. I had thought it followed the 301 route to Harvest Hills.

Transit's quarterly update and adjustments stated they are expanding the peak-service (10 minute frequency) hours for the 301 to 10am in the morning and starting again at 2pm in the afternoon for the evening rush. That's another step in the right direction of reliable and frequent transit along the corridor while the Greenline is being cooked up.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by speedog

So will what appears to be a lack of PnR lots along the southern portion of the north green line be an issue?

By "be an issue", do you mean "suffer from poor ridership"?

A very back-of-the-napkin calculation shows that about 10% of LRT customers use park-and-ride. (220,000 weekday daily boardings says this report https://www.calgarytransit.com/sites/default/files/reports/calgarys_lrt_1st_25years_trb_revised.pdf, divide by 2 for round trips, divide by the 12221 parking stalls available in the 2006 network from https://www.calgarytransit.com/park-ride-locations). A very coarse number, don't quote it as fact, just a quick estimate for discussion.

10% tells me, in my non-expert opinion, that park and ride is just part of the mix. Very important to that 10% I'm sure, but not so high that it's going to make-or-break a few stations.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

It's a great question!

Planners expect passengers to walk up to 800 m to the station, which means stations ought to ideally be separated by 1.6 km, depending on geography and local barriers. This is the case for most of our LRT network. However, there are 2 obvious gaps where we have ~3 km between stations: between chinook and 39th ave, and between Brentwood and Dalhousie. This is roughly the perfect distance to add a station between. The obvious locations would be 50th ave and Northland Mall. If we want to add more stations to the system, we could add these 2 for a fraction of the price of extending the line.

On the other hand, both of these are expected to have below-average ridership and would add 1-2 minutes to travel times for everyone traveling past. Compare that to extending the line, which adds more people but has a negligible affect on existing travel patterns.

In my opinion, building stations at 50th and Northlands makes sense if we plan on densifying the surrounding areas and improving walkability. Both have great TOD potential. These are especially great locations to live because both are surrounded by employment nodes and great residential neighbourhoods with lots of green space, schools, and recreation.

I'm in agreement with Socguy and Rylucky, I am doubtful if the new infill stations proposed by GCC would have greater benefits than inconveniences and capital cost.

Speaking of the NW line (the one I am most familiar with) Increased trip time would be of great inconvenience to the 2/3 of commuters whose origin or destination is Tuscany, Crowfoot, and Dalhousie. If the proposed Jorthland station could do at least 10,000 additional passengers (IIRC crowfoot does about 18,000 per day) then I could see the net benefit test being met. When I say additional passengers, this excludes any passengers that were transferred from either Dalhouseie or Brentwood.

Correct me if I am wrong, but both of Lions Park and 39th Avenue stations are infill. Neither of these stations have lived up to its potential for increased ridership.

I am most familiar with Lions Park, my daily commute I wonder why 300 people are inconvenienced to allow for additional 5-15 pax. Further, with the closeness of downtown, could these 5-15 pax using Lions Park not be handled through bus service to downtown. To/from the NW I don't see anyone using Lions Park as a destination.

Back in the day when I was living downtown one major client was along the South LRT line. Again I would question the need for 39th avenue station based solely on the lack of pax getting on and off. If the proposal was to move 39th avenue to 50th avenue, I could see this being a good compromise.

Before we start a conversation about adding stations along the red line, we should have conversation about the importance of TOD along the green line. My understanding is that SE green line sucess is heavily dependent on new TOD development for the majority of new stations that are between Ramsay and Quarry Park.

If we are putting in billions dollar investment into new LRT line that doubles our network capacity and service area, then we should concentrate all efforts to make this line a day one sucess. My estimate has SE green line has minimum of 5 stations completely dependent on TOD to justify the stations existence. To put this into perspectives he following stations have TOD under construction; Heritage, Brentwood, Westbrook, and dalhousie (limited to one development). Did I miss any TOD near LRT?

If my estimate is correct, SE green line will double the number of TOD areas with immediate potential. Simultaneously constructing the north green line will bring more TOD areas on stream. To protect the massive investment in green line, perhaps delaying new TOD on the redline is the best course of action.

[RyLucky]

In an ideal world, what you could probably do is have 2 entire tracks each direction: an express train that stops every third station at hubs, and another train that stops everywhere. This is the case in the Netherlands and some other places.

Short of having 2 lines, I think it's best to have many stops, every 1.5 km, as we do. This is best for building a connected, inclusive, and cost-effective transit system. Otherwise, you can almost build an argument for only servicing the terminal stations (amongst the busiest) and downtown, and then the whole system falls apart. Why should thousands be inconvenienced for hundreds? Because democracy, that's why.