Calgary Public Transit II - Page 526

milomilo · #**10501** Posted **Oct 17, 2016, 10:25 PM**

Calgary looks to buy dozens of 'slivers' of private land along 17th Avenue S.E. bus rapid transit route

Progress continues on the 17th Ave SE transitway... and of course Coun. Sean Chu isn't keen on the plan for cycle tracks.*

Because, "It's the cost. You know". Because bicycle lanes are super expensive.

*Actually a separate, but connected project to the East of Stoney Trail

You Need A Thneed · #**10502** Posted **Oct 18, 2016, 3:25 AM**

No major roads should be built now without specific cycling infrastructure. Building any new section of 17th Ave should be built to the same standard that they will be rebuilding the SE section to, ie BRT lanes, etc.

Also, there's no chance that Chu will be a councillor when that money actually gets spent.

lightrail · #**10503** Posted **Oct 25, 2016, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

weird, I thought they couldn't do 4 U2s too.

U2 driving controls allow 5 units to be joined together. Edmonton runs 5-car U2 trains. The limitations would be the signaling and powers supply.

googspecial · #**10504** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 2:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5seconds

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...arys-west-lrt-and-mount-royal-university

Quote:

Administration’s study determined “that the most feasible option for a WLRT to MRU rail connection would be a low-floor mixed traffic streetcar type service aligned on 37 St. S.W. connecting to the WLRT at 25A St. via 17 Ave. S.W.”

My interpretation of that would be something like this...

If the goal of the streetcar is to serve Currie Barracks and MRU - would it not make more sense to run in through that neighbourhood? 37 Street just seems a bit too out of the way for that to be effective. I do understand that it has the most room to accommodate mix-use traffic...

Sarcee Rd seems a bit more effective to hit these nodes, however it still misses the heart of Currie Barracks and a more direct connection to the University... Tricky spot

andasen · #**10505** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

My interpretation of that would be something like this...

If the goal of the streetcar is to serve Currie Barracks and MRU - would it not make more sense to run in through that neighbourhood? 37 Street just seems a bit too out of the way for that to be effective. I do understand that it has the most room to accommodate mix-use traffic...

Sarcee Rd seems a bit more effective to hit these nodes, however it still misses the heart of Currie Barracks and a more direct connection to the University... Tricky spot

It seems ridiculous to have the street car go to Shaganappi Station when there is a built in, historical street car loop right at Westbrook....

MichaelS · #**10506** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 4:05 PM**

Doesn't the SW BRT already cover the route for Currie/Mount Royal? Or even the 306? Rather than fund a street car, why not just properly fund that Bus?

CalgaryAlex · #**10507** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 4:53 PM**

If this is 20 years away, why not consider something bigger? The city would be better served with a proper University Line LRT project that connects U of C/Foothills/ACH with MRU. This could then continue along 50th Ave and hop the Elbow to connect with the Red Line, and continuing over the Bow to connect to the Green Line.

joe498 · #**10508** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 5:07 PM**

Interesting talk this morning:

Quote:

@CBCScott
#yyccc committee on transportation and transit about to get underway. A verrry interesting report on improving transit to MRU on agenda.

Committee hears 37 St between Westbrook Stn area and MRU could accomodate LRT but low floor car is better fit. #yyccc

Recommendation to #yyccc committee on improving transit service to MRU: further study options. No timeline beyond next 4 yr budget

Examples of low-floor streetcars. They can turn tighter corners, lower capacity/cheaper than LRT. #yyccc

Streetcars can have protected right of way or operate in traffic. #yyccc

Pincott says there was supposed to be a design element in Westbrook tunnel to allow for future spur to MRU. Why didn't that happen? #yyccc

Admin says there were cost pressures. No answer why it didn't happen. #yyccc

mersar · #**10509** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 6:48 PM**

It was mentioned a year or so back in a city report to council I believe that there actually is a breakout panel in the tunnel west of Westbrook station to allow the spur to be built eventually, but thats it. Of course if they are going back on that now it makes me wonder what the truth actually is.

Cage · #**10510** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 8:44 PM**

One good point about President Elect Trump is that he is a car centric infrastructure platform (talked about roads and bridges in acceptance speech).

Perhaps Siemens will have a fire sale on LRVs to keep the Sacramento facility open

CrossedTheTracks · #**10511** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

It was mentioned a year or so back in a city report to council I believe that there actually is a breakout panel in the tunnel west of Westbrook station to allow the spur to be built eventually, but thats it. Of course if they are going back on that now it makes me wonder what the truth actually is.

Says the above-linked report:

Quote:

The preferred location for a turnout connecting WLRT to 37 Street SW would be from the tunnel section west of the Westbrook Station. However, there is a 224m vertical curve in this location that precludes installation of a turnout. Accommodating a turnout at this point would entail reconstruction of the existing tunnel section of the LRT, a lengthy, disruptive and expensive proposition. The existing LRT tunnel box would have to be exposed and the track grade would need to be re-profiled from west of Westbrook Station to about 39 Street. This construction disruption would likely be in excess of one year and cost over $100 million.

Obviously accommodating it inside the tunnel at construction time wouldn't have cost $100 million, but that gives some insight as to why they may have avoided it at the time.

MalcolmTucker · #**10512** Posted **Nov 9, 2016, 9:36 PM**

Step 1 in controlling the policy path: present some awful options.

I assume we will be presented with a Seattle type streetcar with reasonable frequencies at a future stage, and it will be quieter and cheaper, and the start of a network before route ahead.

joe498 · #**10513** Posted **Nov 10, 2016, 6:52 AM**

City bureaucrats questioned over west LRT spur line snub:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-bureaucrats-questioned-over-west-lrt-spur-line-snub

MalcolmTucker · #**10514** Posted **Nov 10, 2016, 3:40 PM**

A transfer to a new mode is a better fit for the streets it must travel on anyways, and can provide much higher frequency than a spur. LRT would be hugely disruptive. With some creative intersection jumps a partially mixed traffic streetcar would be pretty close to as fast on those not anywhere near capacity streets.

CrossedTheTracks · #**10515** Posted **Nov 10, 2016, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

MOTION ARISING, Moved by Councillor Farrell, Seconded by Councillor Woolley, that with respect to Report CPC2015-065, that Council direct Administration to undertake a long-range alignment investigation to bring a spur line of Calgary Transit Route 202 (Blue Line) to Mount Royal University and the Currie Barracks, and return to Council through the SPC on Transportation and Transit, with a work plan, including time, costs and impacts to the Action Plan work program.

I just love it when such directives focus on technology choices and say nothing about desired service attributes. Particularly when that technology choice (spur) has an enormous impact on limiting frequency...

suburbia · #**10516** Posted **Nov 10, 2016, 4:46 PM**

retracted. wrong thread.

MalcolmTucker · #**10517** Posted **Nov 10, 2016, 5:03 PM**

Infrastructure and Communities can be:

Quote:

public transit;
social infrastructure, including affordable housing, seniors’ facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational infrastructure;
green infrastructure, including investments in local water and wastewater facilities, clean energy, climate resilient infrastructure like flood mitigation systems, and infrastructure to protect against changing weather; and
Building Canada Fund

I'd bet it is flood/storm water management stuff.

Ferreth · #**10518** Posted **Nov 19, 2016, 5:10 AM**

Calgary's 1st LRT car retired:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-s-1st-lrt-car-retired-1.3856869

CalgaryCheese · #**10519** Posted **Nov 23, 2016, 2:42 AM**

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transit-fare-card-1.3863283

An article by CBC today about how the city is still trying to find options for a smartcard after the whole Connect card fiasco. Thoughts?

CrossedTheTracks · #**10520** Posted **Nov 23, 2016, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryCheese

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transit-fare-card-1.3863283

An article by CBC today about how the city is still trying to find options for a smartcard after the whole Connect card fiasco. Thoughts?

I think it's amazing how something that doesn't seem like it should be so complicated, ends up being that way.

I think I'm glad we're not in Toronto with their Presto system costing nearly $300 million, and feel "lucky" that we've only wasted a trifling fraction of that.