Calgary Public Transit II

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

Most likely because this route will be intersecting major bus routes (Route 2, 3, 4, and 5). The 10 St stop doesn't make sense--may as well make the 10 St stop as the SAIT stop.

Isn't there a bus route that goes down the hill at 10th into Kensington? Perhaps that's the connection they're trying to allow people to make?

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Maybe the producer had some taste, cringed and couldn't bear to write yet another old-timey fake 'e' on the end of a made up place name.

I'm all for that, they just need to decide one way or the other.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Isn't there a bus route that goes down the hill at 10th into Kensington? Perhaps that's the connection they're trying to allow people to make?

Yes, but the stop at SAIT is ~200m from the 10th st stop. If we can't expect people to walk 200m for a "rapid" bus line, what is the point?

Look,
https://goo.gl/maps/XWRNPDCUhWm
That's a farce.

[para transit fellow]

trivial factoid:

The Airdrie Transit Plan suggests modification to their route 900 in conjunction with the development of the crosstown BRT.

Instead of terminating at McKnight-Westwinds, the route will terminate at Rundle LRT station / BRT terminal.

[suburbia]

Nenshi comments on an airport LRT link at Calgary Chamber talk

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...pics-would-expedite-airport-transit-link

“And then, the airport transit will connect to the Green Line and the Blue Line across the north end of the city down Airport Trail. But, that’s not going to happen anytime soon — unless, of course, we get the Olympics,” he told the crowd.
<snip>
“The airport transit connection is quite low on the list. But, that said, if we were to get a whole bunch of federal funding for something like the Olympics, that would actually allow us to accelerate the whole list,” he said.
<snip>
“The possibility of the Winter Olympics is 10 years away. I’ve always said the demand would likely by there within 10 years, so maybe we can tie it all together. You never know,” he said.

[DizzyEdge]

I'd rather money went towards additional routes or increase frequency of existing. There's already 3 transit routes to the airport, one of which gets you downtown in ~35 minutes.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd rather money went towards additional routes or increase frequency of existing. There's already 3 transit routes to the airport, one of which gets you downtown in ~35 minutes.

Disagree completely.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Disagree completely.

Why? Genuinely curious.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd rather money went towards additional routes or increase frequency of existing. There's already 3 transit routes to the airport, one of which gets you downtown in ~35 minutes.

I'm totally fine with a great bus route running from the Green Line to the future airport trail LRT station in the NE on the Blue Line. Can be replaced by another mode later - maybe even something like super frequent automated buses, or some form of higher order transit.

Just shouldn't fall in love with an expensive solution when what we need is constant but low ppdph solutions.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd rather money went towards additional routes or increase frequency of existing. There's already 3 transit routes to the airport, one of which gets you downtown in ~35 minutes.

There are several reasons, and I've not thought this through completely and am not listing by any sort of priority:

Not all people landing at the airport want to head directly to downtown. If you are traveling to a residence, most are not in downtown. If you are traveling to a hotel, most are not in downtown. While buses getting to people in downtown are nice, we need an expeditious way to get people to a variety of places in the city from the airport.

If the expansion is a hint, expect many more people coming and going from the airport, so demands will increase.

There is a stigma that applies to buses that doesn't apply to trains. This might not be philosophically legitimate, but it is fact. There are many people who will take a train from the airport but will not take a bus. I always have taken a train from airports that have them, but virtually never when it is a bus.

Most cities worth a hill of beans have a train to their airport. This is not a reason in and of itself, but it is fact.

Funding insertions from the Olympics are one way to do major projects, whereas incremental things can be done all along. Large funding opportunities come only once in a while and if they are used to push operations, those opportunities are lost.

Increasing number of buses on a route needs to be directly linked to sustainable revenue IE if the routes demand more buses and could fill them with paying passengers, that is what drives that operations increase, and not using up infrastructure possibilities.

An airport line between the blue and green lines creates an excellent transport link north of the airport for people not going to the airport. It breaks Calgary's spoke and hub skeleton, which has always been difficult to navigate when trying to cut across.

Buses are inherently more environmentally unfriendly.

We need to think about the long run, IE what we'll need in 25 years, and not base a decision that is years out on what we get by with today.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

There is a stigma that applies to buses that doesn't apply to trains. This might not be philosophically legitimate, but it is fact. There are many people who will take a train from the airport but will not take a bus. I always have taken a train from airports that have them, but virtually never when it is a bus.

You know I think it is legitimate, I recall taking the streetcar and a bus a few minutes apart in Toronto, and the experience was night and day. The street car had smoother acceleration/deceleration, a less bumpy ride, and in particular the bumpier ride of the bus meant that everything in that bus, windows, poles, chairs, etc rattled incessantly and made a huge racket. Rail is superior. I do take buses when available simply because I'm curious how good their airport service is, but definitely rail is nicer.

Most cities worth a hill of beans have a train to their airport. This is not a reason in and of itself, but it is fact.

I'm perhaps downplaying the importance due only 2 Canadian cities having rail to the airport, and Toronto only very recently. In an international context I can agree it may make a city seem more 'world class'

Funding insertions from the Olympics are one way to do major projects, whereas incremental things can be done all along. Large funding opportunities come only once in a while and if they are used to push operations, those opportunities are lost.

I can agree with that.

Good comments all around, thank you.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ It is a misconception that Olympics are funding opportunities for major projects though. Now, they certainly decrease opposition as looming deadlines exist however.

Now, twinning and triple tracks the CPR out to Lake Louise might be the exception, along with an airport link, as it is a project that could allow major economic growth while leverage a lot of promotion. But it wouldn't be for the Olympics, and I would argue is super useful even without them.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

I believe the idea is for "mode progression": upgrade the service when ridership or other thresholds are met. It will go from a limited stop service, to a dedicated ROW (transitway) and perhaps eventually to rail. No doubt there will be incremental improvements to operations (signal prioritization or control, rear door boarding, off-vehicle fare payment, queue jumps etc). We may even see stops eliminated as the route is upgraded over time.

That being said, I do agree on the seeming redundancy for certain stops. 10th and SAIT is a good example (I imagine transfers with the 4/5 at 10th is the reason), but perhaps when SAIT develops the NE corner of their campus to a better entrance, the 12th Street station may be eliminated. Same goes for Northland and 19th street.

It is a missed opportunity that a transitway was not incorporated into 16th ave when the road was rebuilt in 2005. IIRC the biggest issue with the old road was that it was two lanes each way and and slow moving semi-trucks were generating traffic jams. Even if nothing done was and the city just waited until 2009/2010 until the northern ring road opened up, the traffic would have been better than pre-2005 levels due to the absence of semi's. Instead the city dropped lots of money for a sub-standard design.

[milomilo]

I agree. Mode progression here is made more difficult because the city decided to put decoration in the middle of 16th. All of that will need to be ripped out if they plan to make Bus not-rapid transit into actual BRT (or LRT down the line).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It is a missed opportunity that a transitway was not incorporated into 16th ave when the road was rebuilt in 2005. IIRC the biggest issue with the old road was that it was two lanes each way and and slow moving semi-trucks were generating traffic jams. Even if nothing done was and the city just waited until 2009/2010 until the northern ring road opened up, the traffic would have been better than pre-2005 levels due to the absence of semi's. Instead the city dropped lots of money for a sub-standard design.

Agreed. 16th was a failed design, and put in too early. Converting it to allow bus only lanes makes sense in the medium term though.

[milomilo]

How 16th should be, assuming 36m ROW:



http://streetmix.net/-/469089

Might need to squeeze the lanes a little to fit the stations in.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, but the stop at SAIT is ~200m from the 10th st stop. If we can't expect people to walk 200m for a "rapid" bus line, what is the point?

Look,
https://goo.gl/maps/XWRNPDCUhWm
That's a farce.

I agree. The 10 Street NW station is intended as a future stop. It wouldn't be there on opening day. Operation will be monitored and it may or may not find its way there in the end.

The station locations represent a balance between greater spacing and connectivity to other routes.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by milomilo

How 16th should be, assuming 36m ROW:



http://streetmix.net/-/469089

Might need to squeeze the lanes a little to fit the stations in.

Reduce it to 2 lanes either direction with turning lanes at major intersections and I would agree.

[UofC.engineer]

Transit mode share dropped to 16.43% in 2016. I think this is due to the economy.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/data/mode-split/modesplit-transit-2016.pdf

The greenline is going to be huge for the communities in the deep SE. All their transit mode share is below 10%

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The greenline is going to be huge for the communities in the deep SE. All their transit mode share is below 10%

I don't get this conclusion. It would be like putting in a cycle track in Cochrane - their bike mode share is below 2%. Defer SE and built out NC.