Calgary Public Transit II

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

I don't disagree that the north section is probably going to be much better patronised and better value for money. But there is no transit worth bothering with in the SE right now, so of course no one is taking it! Currently commuting to downtown from the SE has one half decent option - Deerfoot. After the Green Line they will have two options.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

When the LRT is built from down town to Mckenzie do you think the percentage of people using transit in the neighborhood of Mckenzie Towne will go up? Or will it go down?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

When the LRT is built from down town to Mckenzie do you think the percentage of people using transit in the neighborhood of Mckenzie Towne will go up? Or will it go down?

If Cochrane puts in a cycle track, will the number using a cycle go up or go down? It will go up undoubtedly, but when assessing implementation timelines while having constrained budgets, you need to decide on bang for the buck and greatest value to people. That's where a Cochrane cycle track and the SE LRT line both pale when compared with the NC LRT. Additionally, I still think treating that SE portion past 130th as a commuter line makes fiscal sense - charge a small premium.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

If Cochrane puts in a cycle track, will the number using a cycle go up or go down? It will go up undoubtedly, but when assessing implementation timelines while having constrained budgets, you need to decide on bang for the buck and greatest value to people. That's where a Cochrane cycle track and the SE LRT line both pale when compared with the NC LRT. Additionally, I still think treating that SE portion past 130th as a commuter line makes fiscal sense - charge a small premium.

Another way to look at it though - there is a lot of growth in the pipeline in the SE. Unless we build more (any) quality transit, many of those people are going to have to take Deerfoot to commute. So we'd likely have to upgrade Deerfoot to accommodate them - how would that cost compare to building the SE section of the Green Line?

(Luckily, likely we'll end up both building the Green Line and upgrading Deerfoot eventually)

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by suburbia

If Cochrane puts in a cycle track, will the number using a cycle go up or go down? It will go up undoubtedly, but when assessing implementation timelines while having constrained budgets, you need to decide on bang for the buck and greatest value to people. That's where a Cochrane cycle track and the SE LRT line both pale when compared with the NC LRT. Additionally, I still think treating that SE portion past 130th as a commuter line makes fiscal sense - charge a small premium.

I was looking for a "yes" or "no" sort of anwser.

All I said was "the greenline is going to be huge for the communities in the deep SE" I didn't think I'd find that statement triggering a debate

Do you think the greenline is going to be huge for the communities in the deep SE?

In all honesty...I like you Suburbia...I like the way you humble us inner city folks when our smug levels get too high. However, repeatedly being contentious and making unnecessary strawman arguments you inadvertently award yourself the designation as the "village idiot" on ssp Calgary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[UofC.engineer]

3 proposals for 90th ave & 14th street overpass.

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2203&doctype=AGENDA


I don't really like any of them, but if I had to pick I'd choose, I'd pick option 1.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

3 proposals for 90th ave & 14th street overpass.

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2203&doctype=AGENDA


I don't really like any of them, but if I had to pick I'd choose, I'd pick option 1.

Why is Calgary (actually, every city I've lived in) so bad at designing pedestrian overpasses? Switchbacks are horrible, it can't be that hard (and pennies compared to a road overpass) to put a couple ramps at each end leading in the direction of the pedestrian demand.

I agree, 1 is the best of a bad bunch.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why is Calgary (actually, every city I've lived in) so bad at designing pedestrian overpasses? Switchbacks are horrible, it can't be that hard (and pennies compared to a road overpass) to put a couple ramps at each end leading in the direction of the pedestrian demand.

I agree, 1 is the best of a bad bunch.

I wish we had more ped bridges like the one that crosses memorial at 21st Street N.W.. On the south side of that bridge there is an arc approach from both directions.

[outoftheice]

Anyone make it out to the 17Ave SE BRT phase 2 open house last night?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why is Calgary (actually, every city I've lived in) so bad at designing pedestrian overpasses? Switchbacks are horrible, it can't be that hard (and pennies compared to a road overpass) to put a couple ramps at each end leading in the direction of the pedestrian demand.

I agree, 1 is the best of a bad bunch.

I have wondered this myself. I wonder how many pedestrian overpasses we have compared to other cities? My feeling is that Calgary has significantly more pedestrian bridges than other Canadian cities.Most other cities in Canada wouldn't bother to have a bridge at all.

At-grade pedestrian crossings at major intersections are far more common on similar roads in suburban GTA cities, Montreal and Vancouver. More dangerous, but cheaper, and far more accessible.

Each overpass option at 14th and 90th SW described here adds 2 - 4x more distance to cross 14th than a regular cross-walk would. Seems like a lot of effort to provide an inferior level of access (but with improved safety of course).

[McMurph]

I wish more pedestrian bridges had stair short cuts. Winding round and round on circular ramps is ridiculous when you're able and on foot. Maybe we use some guerrilla tactics and install rope ladders and fireman poles on the most egregious ones (like the south side of the Bridgeland LRT bridge).

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why is Calgary (actually, every city I've lived in) so bad at designing pedestrian overpasses? Switchbacks are horrible, it can't be that hard (and pennies compared to a road overpass) to put a couple ramps at each end leading in the direction of the pedestrian demand....

Agreed. It seems to me that the primary function of ped overpasses here is to keep pedestrians and cyclists off roads so cars don't have to stop rather than providing efficient infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists to get around.

I recently walked the new Anderson overpass. It just made me angry.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Agreed. It seems to me that the primary function of ped overpasses here is to keep pedestrians and cyclists off roads so cars don't have to stop rather than providing efficient infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists to get around.

I recently walked the new Anderson overpass. It just made me angry.

Naturally the more 'fair' design would be to trench the roadway underneath the at grade ped crossing, making those motorized do the extra work rather than those using human power. The cost of course though would be substantial compared to a ped overpass, but I'd be curious what the two costs would actually look like. Anyone?

[Socguy]

Yes, that would be a much better solution. Though, as you say, the cost will be more.

The other issue is placement and connection. They are often placed 'in the middle' so that one sort of works for everybody, but not very well.

Going back the Anderson one, it's not obvious at all how to get to it and once you've crossed, you're in a residential neighborhood and have to navigate a maze of streets.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

3 proposals for 90th ave & 14th street overpass.

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2203&doctype=AGENDA


I don't really like any of them, but if I had to pick I'd choose, I'd pick option 1.

I took the question of switchbacks being anti cyclist and lack of stairs being anti pedestrian to The designers through SPC TNT.

The answer back from stantec/administration was that these plans are highly preliminary and they want to hear back from stakeholders before putting in the users requested items.

My interpretation is that these plans are the base model of the car used for pricing purposes in order to get the buyer through the front door. Once you get into the showroom, the salesman shows you the upgraded model with all the bells and whistles for just a little bit more money.

So if you want stairs and don't want switchbacks, then you have to show up in large numbers at the city engagement sessions and show up at the local community association meeting to voice your concerns to the councillor.

The engagement sessions for the 90th ave pedestrian overpass will occur in February as part of the larger engagement on SW BRT. Councillor Pincott is going to work with administration to separate the two issues as much as possible.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by McMurph

I wish more pedestrian bridges had stair short cuts. Winding round and round on circular ramps is ridiculous when you're able and on foot. Maybe we use some guerrilla tactics and install rope ladders and fireman poles on the most egregious ones (like the south side of the Bridgeland LRT bridge).

Firemen don't even get poles anymore lol, the new Mount Pleasant Response Station has 3 spiral slides installed!

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Do you have any details on that? I want to take part.

Talk to Pincott's office. I share Brian's concern that any engagement sessions under the SW BRT banner will attract the Ready to Engage crowd and drown out the pedestrian/cyclist crowd.

This bridge has tremendous opportunity to open up South Glenmore to residents of Chinook Park, Haysboro, and maybe even Acadia. However, it has to be done right. In this case, spending a little bit more money for greater functionality is good plan.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Yes, that would be a much better solution. Though, as you say, the cost will be more.

The other issue is placement and connection. They are often placed 'in the middle' so that one sort of works for everybody, but not very well.

Going back the Anderson one, it's not obvious at all how to get to it and once you've crossed, you're in a residential neighborhood and have to navigate a maze of streets.

So, you're angry that the pedestrian overpass put in for the residence of these residential areas dumps you in to the residential areas?

Do you live in the area? Doesn't sound like it by the way you say the maze of streets.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Going back the Anderson one, it's not obvious at all how to get to it and once you've crossed, you're in a residential neighborhood and have to navigate a maze of streets.

I live literally 6 houses down the street from it, and the issue is actually that all the connecting pathways aren't built yet. It wasn't intended to connect the two neighborhoods, its actually a connector for the greenway path system to replace the existing surface connection at Bullhead Road, but there is no path yet leading from the existing greenway to the bridge as that is being done as part of the ring road project. The city is also building a new path from the Woodbine side along the top of the berm along to 24th Street, but its also not done yet.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by mersar

I live literally 6 houses down the street from it, and the issue is actually that all the connecting pathways aren't built yet. It wasn't intended to connect the two neighborhoods, its actually a connector for the greenway path system to replace the existing surface connection at Bullhead Road, but there is no path yet leading from the existing greenway to the bridge as that is being done as part of the ring road project. The city is also building a new path from the Woodbine side along the top of the berm along to 24th Street, but its also not done yet.

Yeah, it's not done yet. However, it would make more sense if the approach for the ramps faced west instead of East...both pathways come from the west.