Calgary International Airport II

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Riise

Do you know what great cities do? They do what their great city needs rather than what other great cities have done. Calgary needs a great deal of things more than it needs airport rail and focusing on what we need will be greatly beneficial.

Our great city needs to fix the Crowchild mess from 17th Avenue SW to 24th Avenue NW, get a new football stadium built or the existing one majorly renovated, a new arena, an extended Riverwalk, repair the Harvey Passage, address the creosote contaminated lands, finish the East Village, get Rail Town developed, the Green line done, repurpose Firepark and get the unfinished portion of the ring road done before worrying about LRT to the airport. LRT to the airport could happen before any passenger rail stuff though but the aforementioned stuff should be a priority before Airport LRT or passenger rail.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Riise

Do you know what great cities do? They do what their great city needs rather than what other great cities have done. Calgary needs a great deal of things more than it needs airport rail and focusing on what we need will be greatly beneficial.

Totally agree, but there's no harm in keeping our options open as we design the Green Line. Who know's what we'll need or what we'll wish we'd done in 30 years. Designing flexibility today is free.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Totally agree, but there's no harm in keeping our options open as we design the Green Line. Who know's what we'll need or what we'll wish we'd done in 30 years. Designing flexibility today is free.

Yup! Avoiding path dependency is awesome.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Riise

Do you know what great cities do? They do what their great city needs rather than what other great cities have done. Calgary needs a great deal of things more than it needs airport rail and focusing on what we need will be greatly beneficial.

Totally agree. However many hundreds of millions of dollars that an airport rail link would cost would be many times more beneficial giving Calgary attractions and an nicer downtown environment for locals and non-locals. A few hundred million dollars will pay for changing nearly every street in the core to one that is more attractive, accessible and pleasant. Finance a major destination of the type that tourist like to go to in downtowns like a science centre with fancy, interesting architecture in the Beltline. Give the business travellers a more favourable impression, give Banff tourists a reason to stop in Calgary for a few days. People don't enjoy a place because it's easy to get to. People enjoy a place because it's a good place.

Thought exercise: which problem is more likely and which should we attempt to solve? Let's say we have 500 million dollars.

1. "I didn't like going to Calgary. Downtown was quiet and it didn't feel like there was much going on."
   
   
2. "I didn't like going to Calgary. It was too hard to get to the airport".

I've only heard one of those sentiments expressed many times more often than the other.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Totally agree, but there's no harm in keeping our options open as we design the Green Line. Who know's what we'll need or what we'll wish we'd done in 30 years. Designing flexibility today is free.

Absolutely agree with this. It doesn't take much to give us the option down the road if the time ever comes.

Out of curiosity, what does the airport think of transit? I get the feeling they are generally opposed to transit connections and really don't care about making a pleasant experience. Just the way they acted during the tunnel negotiations and their general layout. Perhaps the rental car / taxi industry is their primary stakeholders so they don't really care about another option.

CT has done some good work in improving the usability of their service since it first opened, with a new kiosk, ticket machine and so on. Every time I have taken the bus it's been surprisingly busy too.

[MalcolmTucker]

Transit is a pretty small modal share now. They make money from shuttle buses renting bays, taxis, and rental cars, though I doubt it is much above cost recovery given capital costs of building these facilities (besides the taxi company exclusivity contract). That they've changed short term parking's 30 minutes free to using the cellphone lot shows the cost recovery mentality too.

So yeah, switching a friends and family pickup to transit is cost neutral for them. Moving other users to transit would be negative in the sense that they have built facilities to be paid for with currently expected revenues, and signed contracts with taxis. It would be a very long term project to get the board onside with a much higher level of transit service, and it may be impossible before a certain date due to contract obligations. I guess a way to lay the groundwork is to ensure the Calgary Chamber of Commerce is onside as they appoint much of the board (ten out of sixteen) due to a historical quirk.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Transit is a pretty small modal share now. They make money from shuttle buses renting bays, taxis, and rental cars, though I doubt it is much above cost recovery given capital costs of building these facilities (besides the taxi company exclusivity contract). That they've changed short term parking's 30 minutes free to using the cellphone lot shows the cost recovery mentality too.

So yeah, switching a friends and family pickup to transit is cost neutral for them. Moving other users to transit would be negative in the sense that they have built facilities to be paid for with currently expected revenues, and signed contracts with taxis. It would be a very long term project to get the board onside with a much higher level of transit service, and it may be impossible before a certain date due to contract obligations. I guess a way to lay the groundwork is to ensure the Calgary Chamber of Commerce is onside as they appoint much of the board (ten out of sixteen) due to a historical quirk.

Thanks Malcolm, I love little background stories like this. So many decisions and policies are created in the backroom of weird boards like this, where the general public has little ability to easily access and see the underlying people, relationships and vested interests pulling the strings.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Thanks Malcolm, I love little background stories like this. So many decisions and policies are created in the backroom of weird boards like this, where the general public has little ability to easily access and see the underlying people, relationships and vested interests pulling the strings.

City Council appoints three people to sit as members of the Airport Authority Board. Any ordinary citizen can apply for the job, actually getting it is another matter.

I got close about four years ago.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Absolutely agree with this. It doesn't take much to give us the option down the road if the time ever comes.

Out of curiosity, what does the airport think of transit? I get the feeling they are generally opposed to transit connections and really don't care about making a pleasant experience. Just the way they acted during the tunnel negotiations and their general layout. Perhaps the rental car / taxi industry is their primary stakeholders so they don't really care about another option.

CT has done some good work in improving the usability of their service since it first opened, with a new kiosk, ticket machine and so on. Every time I have taken the bus it's been surprisingly busy too.

From everything I've read on the issue, I get the impression that Transport Canada and the Calgary Airport Authority... how do I say this... it isn't exactly that they are against transit, nor that they explicitly favour one mode over another, it's just that they don't see what city transit has to do with them. They are more concerned with security, safety, and managing economic activity. Unfortunately, the result of this neutrality/indifference favours the status quo with regards to transit. I have a feeling TC and CAA will become ever more progressive, collaborative, and balanced (as we all are becoming) towards this issue in the generations to come. Right now, I think they view transit as beyond their scope. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe they are already more progressive than I think.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Totally agree, but there's no harm in keeping our options open as we design the Green Line. Who know's what we'll need or what we'll wish we'd done in 30 years. Designing flexibility today is free.

Definitely.

[The Chemist]

When it comes to rail to the airport, you have to do it right if you're going to do it at all, or you'll end up spending way more than you should have. Shanghai didn't do it right with the Maglev and now it's a major white elephant, and it's so much of a white elephant that I've read rumours that once the standard rail link (160km/h) between Pudong Airport and Hongqiao Airport is complete, the thing they should have built in the first place if they weren't so concerned about the bragging rights of having a maglev, they may consider ripping the whole thing down.

Given the distance to the airport in Calgary away from populated areas, I just don't think the cost of the rail link is worth it at the moment. At some point it may become worthwhile, but as Riise pointed out, there's a lot more pressing needs for Calgary's limited money at the moment.

[yyc_engineer]

Surprised at the lack of enthusiasm for an airport rail link.

Reading all the comments has made me depressed.

Here are some new IFP photos to cheer up the thread.

View down the Transborder Pier

http://i.imgur.com/9jGFcp6.jpg

View down the sterile corridor (International Pier)

http://i.imgur.com/HJzngbF.jpg

West seating area of the International Holdroom

http://i.imgur.com/bM4FECO.jpg

A portion of the new "Connections Corridor" for International -> Domestic connections

http://i.imgur.com/vnkcJu6.jpg

YYC "Link" station in the IFP

http://i.imgur.com/np2gsux.jpg

"Link" signage

http://i.imgur.com/ub34HUT.jpg

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by yyc_engineer

Surprised at the lack of enthusiasm for an airport rail link.

Reading all the comments has made me depressed.

Calgary has nowhere near the critical mass of passengers to justify such a link. I am a transit fan as much as anyone but the $$$ would be a poor investment.

Also, if the ride is YYC people mover > Spur > LRT > (and possible bus connection)...I gotta say if you're going anywhere other then the NW, that's gonna be one looongg ride. What, 1.5 hours to get downtown total? Vs. 20 mins in a cab? That would probably be a 2 hr trip to get to my house, vs. a 30 min drive.

All those connections would be a PITA with luggage too.

Business travelers and vacationing families will stay away in droves.

Sorry, just don't see the benefit. I've ridden quite a few airport rail links throughout the world for fun - however my view on one for YYC is different as paying for it it would come partly out of my wallet

[milomilo]

Transit from the airport right now is so terrible that it is easy to make it much better:

• Signage, branding etc. Right now there is almost no advertising inside the airport and it is hard to find the stop
• Change the bus stop location to right on the concourse or somewhere more visible
• Make it easier to buy tickets, not in Macs which is — moronic
• Dedicated buses suitable to carrying baggage that don't have — suspension like the regular ones do
• An obvious location where it drops off downtown (and elsewhere). I literally have no idea where I would have to go to get the bus to the airport. Some sort of actual terminal would be nice

The first three hardly cost anything but would make a big difference, the last two would still be almost nothing compared to rail but would make a huge difference.

[holhm22]

Awesome update yyc_engineer! It's been a while

[mersar]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Transit from the airport right now is so terrible that it is easy to make it much better:

• Signage, branding etc. Right now there is almost no advertising inside the airport and it is hard to find the stop
• Change the bus stop location to right on the concourse or somewhere more visible
• Make it easier to buy tickets, not in Macs which is — moronic
• Dedicated buses suitable to carrying baggage that don't have — suspension like the regular ones do
• An obvious location where it drops off downtown (and elsewhere). I literally have no idea where I would have to go to get the bus to the airport. Some sort of actual terminal would be nice

The first three hardly cost anything but would make a big difference, the last two would still be almost nothing compared to rail but would make a huge difference.

Pretty sure #1 was done last year, #3 was solved by them adding a ticket vending machine, #4 is covered with the custom buses for the route 300 and #5 requires you looking no further than the new signage I mentioned in #1. If you are already downtown then I believe that all the CTrain maps as of last year include reference to where the route 300 stops are both in the LRV's and on the platforms.

I agree its not perfect, but they've made significant improvements.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by mersar

Pretty sure #1 was done last year, #3 was solved by them adding a ticket vending machine, #4 is covered with the custom buses for the route 300 and #5 requires you looking no further than the new signage I mentioned in #1. If you are already downtown then I believe that all the CTrain maps as of last year include reference to where the route 300 stops are both in the LRV's and on the platforms.

I agree its not perfect, but they've made significant improvements.

It's been 4 years since I took it so glad to hear things have changed since then, but I still don't think it's particularly well signed and the bus bay is still some dank place on the opposite side of the concourse. It really was an awful first impression of the city when I did use it, bouncing along Centre St.

[craner]

Originally Posted by speedog

our great city needs to fix the crowchild mess from 17th avenue sw to 24th avenue nw, get a new football stadium built or the existing one majorly renovated, a new arena, an extended riverwalk, repair the harvey passage, address the creosote contaminated lands, finish the east village, get rail town developed, the green line done, repurpose firepark and get the unfinished portion of the ring road done before worrying about lrt to the airport. Lrt to the airport could happen before any passenger rail stuff though but the aforementioned stuff should be a priority before airport lrt or passenger rail.

x2

That said I agree with Ry's statement that the NC Green line should be designed to accommodate future LRT link to the airport.
I also think MT's suggestion to build a gondola linking the NE & NC LRT lines through the YYC terminal makes a lot of sense - something I never even considered.

[MalcolmTucker]

Not through the terminal, but a station that provides through travel, sort of like Sunshine Village's Goat's Eye Station. A marginally cheaper option would be something like Revelostoke's Mid Mountain station where you have to walk between the two lines.

If you set it up well, the turn facilities could even be stations at a rental car/remote parking lot, though that would need to be planned for really soon, as it would have to be perfectly aligned with the Airport Trail tunnel. The Green Line Station would end up south of the T&T super market instead of on Country Hills Rd (I guess on the south side of the station). A stop on the CPR alignment in Nose Creek for whatever may be built in the future could be added at a later point (shouldn't take more than a few months of shutdown time). Nose Creek would probably make sense to move Greyhound to as well.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

Also, if the ride is YYC people mover > Spur > LRT > (and possible bus connection)...I gotta say if you're going anywhere other then the NW, that's gonna be one looongg ride. What, 1.5 hours to get downtown total? Vs. 20 mins in a cab? That would probably be a 2 hr trip to get to my house, vs. a 30 min drive.

Agreed that it has to be done right or not at all. (By not at all, I mean bus service + the improvements MiloMilo mentioned).

That said, if the year 2050 comes around, and we have the opportunity to spur the Green Line, for $100-200M, to create a one-seat-from-terminal-to-downtown, approximately a 30 minute trip, seemlessly integrated into Calgary Transits growing network, which by then has stronger crosstown BRTs, in a city that by then has only 50% car ownership, in a city that has densified the north-central corridor, in a city where parking is increasingly prohibitive, in a city where Deerfoot has been over capacity for decades, to an airport that by then employs 30 000 people, to an airport that by then serves 30M PAX annually, then and only then should we build it. And, if these things happen (which they likely will), we should build it.

Even today, there are a lot of ways you can look at the value of the line. 15M PAX are currently paying $40 median price for a taxi, having relatives drive a median 40 km round trip to drop off and another median 40 km round trip to pick up, or spending $50 on ParknJet. All these cars are clogging the cues to the arrivals area adding 3-5 minutes to the travel time, and another few minutes to Deerfoot's congestion. Just looking at the business of getting folks to the airport now, excluding externalities, Calgary values transportation to the airport around $600M/year today. If even 10% of customers used transit, there's a case for a public investment - probably not for an entire $3B line downtown, but probably for a $100-200M spur onto a project that will already be seamlessly integrated into CT's network. Like I said, not in 2016, but the cost/benefit ratio decreases every year.

In order to keep cost of airport transit minimal and the benefit maximal, I think the Green Line has a major role to play.