Calgary Public Transit II

[CrossedTheTracks]

(These comments based on me living in Erlton 10 years ago, things may have changed!)

I'm but an armchair civil engineer, but it feels like more subtle changes could provide improvements.

The root problem, as I see it, is how westbound 25th gets green to clear the tracks of any cars any time a train comes along -- regardless of whether there are any cars there at all. This is followed by a straight north-south green on Macleod.

This leads to "starvation" for the left turns on Macleod, but especially for all eastbound 25th movements, and also for pedestrians crossing Macleod.

A few suggestions:

• A (planned?) pedestrian bridge would help pedestrians a lot -- even without train preemption, the Macleod signals make for a really long wait.
• What if the east side could be reconfigured to substantially eliminate the risk of cars getting stuck on the tracks? e.g., move a red light to the east side of the tracks, don't allow cars to cross, except perhaps a dedicated right-turn arrow (to Macleod northbound).
• What can we do with modern technology to better detect cars stuck on the track to ensure northbound trains have time to stop?
• Give eastbound 25th turning movements a better chance -- dedicated lanes with signal changes to give them more turns while the trains have the intersection. And Macleod north->25th west, while you're at it.
• Do something to ensure southbound trains don't achieve priority until they're truly ready to depart the station. If the train doors aren't closed, no reason for the rest of the sequence to start. This is really nit-picking, but a few seconds here could help.

Is this "enough", especially with new developments on the NW corner of 25th/Macleod? Would it upset the balance of flow on Macleod north/south? I dunno. Sure would cost peanuts compared to any grade separation...

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Couple bits of transit and close-to-transit news:

2. Birchwood Properties is proposing to replace a set of lower-density townhouses immediately southeast of the Dalhousie Station parking lot and bus loop with a higher-density development. Dalhousie Community Association gives the original proposal as follows (calgary.ca web page says resubmitted application lowers some of these numbers):


Open house coming up on Feb 21, and more details at http://www.calgary.ca/dalhousie

I've always been under the assumption that that was Calgary Housing, but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the links provided. Have I been wrong about this all along?

[jeremy.r]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Couple bits of transit and close-to-transit news:

1. Transportation Planning department to study LRT grade separation at 25the Ave SE; Metro article:

There were some concept plans shown at the June 2016 T&T committee that kicked off the current study:

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2087&doctype=AGENDA&itemid=43727

[technomad]

thanks for the link!

can't say I find these alternative plans all that compelling though..

$130 mil, plus disrupting LRT operations to end up with a disconnected 25 av just makes the original interchange plan look like the right way to go.

maybe that's the idea? hope they don't waste too much time or money re-studying this..

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

SWBRT engagement coming back.

"...online engagement for all Calgarians will be live between February 22 and March 8, 2017"

This follows a more focused engagement session with stakeholders like the different Community Associations, Ready 2 Engage, Calgarians for BRT, MRU, Heritage Park etc.

THanks! I was just driving down 14th the other day wondering what was going on with this project. It needs to be built ASAP!

[The Fisher Account]

When does the first shovel hit the ground for anything related to the Green Line?

[uptown]

I thought they were adding another level crossing into the Stampede at 17 ave? It seems like looking at the entire 25 to stampede station corridor would be a better use of money.

[jeremy.r]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

When does the first shovel hit the ground for anything related to the Green Line?

Looks like some work (such as utility relocation) should be starting later on this year. This presentation says Q2/Q3 2017 - not sure if that's issuing a tender or actually starting construction:

https://arhca.ab.ca/sites/default/files/...nsit%20and%20Transportation%20Office.pdf

[MasterG]

BRT Program question:

What are the expected initial frequencies of the BRT lines? Has that been released yet or is it something that comes towards the end?

I think the B-line program in Vancouver will be an interesting comparison.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Went to the SWBRT kickoff session. It was all about the process of engagement, and not about the project almost at all.

The items that will be 'In Scope' for the upcoming online engagement are:
• Landscaping
• Noise Attenuation
• Parking
• 90th ave pedestrian overpass
• Station connections (inc. existing overpass at 75th ave)
• Construction staging and phasing

They mentioned that the construction for the part of the project north of 75th ave will be starting this year, while the portion along 14th st and southwards will be starting in 2018 .

There were no updates to budget apart from the fact that the budget for the 4 BRT projects are approved at $208m and that the SWBRT's portion is still pegged around $65m.

The parts of the project that have been already discussed and approved by City Council, and therefor not a part of the upcoming engagement is as follows:
• Alternative alignments of the SWBRT
• Budget
• BRT service as opposed to shuttle buses or increased frequency of existing routes and service
• Current ridership and ridership projections
• Station loations
• Deferring the project until completion of the SW Ring Road or running the SWBRT on the ring road
• At grade options at 90th ave
• Timelines

What was the reaction of the people attending?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Is there any data on the efficiency of BRT projects, regarding dollars spent to people moved? And is there a comparison of how that relates to road projects?

A candidate for Ward 11 is painting the SWBRT as a 'waste', and implying that moving the $65 million into the Green Line would be better. I wanted to think more about the actual metrics involved and see if there was any validity to considering the project a waste.

A great question. I did a research paper on this back during my masters on this, comparing BRT to LRT, but it was pretty high level. I think journals like the Journal of Transportation Research (or something like that) was quite good. But also look up Vukan Vuchic, who has done a lot of research on comparisons of various transit systems: costs, capacity etc.

And just my own take on any comparison, make sure the comparison looks at capital cost per trip, rather than road volume. I.e. one section of Deerfoot may handle let's say 140K vehicles per day, but that does not equate to trips. It equates to portions of trips. There is an important difference there.

[MalcolmTucker]

And there is also the problem of assumptions. Like in Kitchener Waterloo where even though the project will only create around 1500 new transit trips, the LRT was modeled to be way more of a trunk line, and so have way more ridership (like 40,000 more trips a day), even when mobility compared to BRT was comparable.

[MalcolmTucker]

At least we don't seem to have the CATO institute people pushing against every single transit project - but I guess we haven't seen what the election will bring with a huge project about to get underway.

[The Chemist]

I don't think that BRT and rail should be thought of as an either/or proposition. I think they can complement one another.

Heck, even in Shanghai, with the world's biggest Metro system, they've just opened a BRT route (albeit one that uses electric trolley buses rather than standard diesel buses).

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Thanks for the thoughts, I will have to look into it more.

Everything I have seen tells me that the SWBRT will improve transportation in the city's SW for less than other solutions. The entire line will cost less than the single Richmond/Sarcee interchange, but yet there is this persistent argument about it being a waste by the same people who don't make a peep about road projects that are being built more often and more expensively...

I don't know how accurate that is when it comes to the SWBRT. While there is certainly an element of the opposition that is specifically anti transit, my impression is that these are essentially the same people who opposed the old 14 St Freeway plans. That is to say, they aren't pro road and anti transit; they are straight up NIMBYs opposed to any increase in capacity.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Is there any data on the efficiency of BRT projects, regarding dollars spent to people moved? And is there a comparison of how that relates to road projects?

A candidate for Ward 11 is painting the SWBRT as a 'waste', and implying that moving the $65 million into the Green Line would be better. I wanted to think more about the actual metrics involved and see if there was any validity to considering the project a waste.

A big problem with universal BRT metrics is the broadness of the term. If you asked 100 people with some knowledge of transit to describe BRT, I suggest none of them would ever describe a bus route running in mixed traffic every 25 minutes with no evening or weekend service. Unless one of them worked for Calgary Transit (BRT 306). And so you have true BRT (separated busways, with frequent all-day service, level boarding, off-board payment, limited crossing traffic, etc) mixed in with much lesser services.

BRT projects can be quite cost-effective; I think the SWBRT - while not perfect - is likely to be one of these. It provides modest travel benefits from the SW 6 (the communities between the reservoir and Fish Creek) to the downtown, but provides substantial travel benefits between the SW6, the major land uses along the way (Rockyview/MRU and in the near future Currie) and between those major land uses and the downtown. And the cost is reasonable.

A candidate for ward 11 seems to be almost entirely full of 🞵🞵🞵🞵, every time I see them say something. Talking about transferring money from this project to the Green Line is stupid. It's a transparent attempt to block transit without being anti-transit. It makes as much sense as saying that instead of buying new shoes, I'll put the money towards a new car instead and just drive around. Not only do they serve different purposes, having 1% more money to buy a car doesn't make any difference on whether or not you can buy the damn thing.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

A big problem with universal BRT metrics is the broadness of the term. If you asked 100 people with some knowledge of transit to describe BRT, I suggest none of them would ever describe a bus route running in mixed traffic every 25 minutes with no evening or weekend service. Unless one of them worked for Calgary Transit (BRT 306). And so you have true BRT (separated busways, with frequent all-day service, level boarding, off-board payment, limited crossing traffic, etc) mixed in with much lesser services.

I've never used a BRT as I've always lived along a train line. However, I recently investigated going from Westbrook down 37th to just north of Glenmore. I knew the 306 ran down that way, and assumed that due it being a BRT bus, it would be an easy transition from train to bus without much wait time. My assumption was that this bus must leave at least every 10 minutes, if not every 5. My assumptions proved to be very wrong.

The city should not be naming these routes "BRT". If they want to distinguish them from other routes, call them "Routes using articulated buses" or "high capacity routes". Calling them "BRT" is a straight-up lie and is but one piece of evidence pointing to the fact that Calgary Transit's approach to bus routes is absolutely backwards and needs a complete overhaul.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I've never used a BRT as I've always lived along a train line. However, I recently investigated going from Westbrook down 37th to just north of Glenmore. I knew the 306 ran down that way, and assumed that due it being a BRT bus, it would be an easy transition from train to bus without much wait time. My assumption was that this bus must leave at least every 10 minutes, if not every 5. My assumptions proved to be very wrong.

The city should not be naming these routes "BRT". If they want to distinguish them from other routes, call them "Routes using articulated buses" or "high capacity routes". Calling them "BRT" is a straight-up lie and is but one piece of evidence pointing to the fact that Calgary Transit's approach to bus routes is absolutely backwards and needs a complete overhaul.

How bad can it be... [checks 306 schedule...] OMG 25 minutes between buses for most of the day??????

I'd say that a 10-minute interval is a reasonable expectation. Maybe not the entire day, but substantial parts of it. 5 minutes is probably hoping for too much, unless capacity requires it.

The only thing that CT has done to make (existing) services "BRT" is limited stops. Key features are: limited stops and substantially unimpeded flow. The infrastructure for "unimpeded flow" can vary on the context. Bus size is irrelevant to the 'rapid' part of BRT -- i.e., a shuttle-sized bus can provide BRT service, if that's all the capacity that's required.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't even call "frequent service" a key requirement of BRT in the abstract, but if you want to make it part of the backbone of your transit network, then it should. (But why on Earth wouldn't a BRT route be part of your backbone?)

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

How bad can it be... [checks 306 schedule...] OMG 25 minutes between buses for most of the day??????

I'd say that a 10-minute interval is a reasonable expectation. Maybe not the entire day, but substantial parts of it. 5 minutes is probably hoping for too much, unless capacity requires it.

The only thing that CT has done to make (existing) services "BRT" is limited stops. Key features are: limited stops and substantially unimpeded flow. The infrastructure for "unimpeded flow" can vary on the context. Bus size is irrelevant to the 'rapid' part of BRT -- i.e., a shuttle-sized bus can provide BRT service, if that's all the capacity that's required.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't even call "frequent service" a key requirement of BRT in the abstract, but if you want to make it part of the backbone of your transit network, then it should. (But why on Earth wouldn't a BRT route be part of your backbone?)

It even has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit_creep

[DarkKeyo]

I haven't been following the threads here recently, but this North Crosstown BRT survey was posted on Calgary Transit's website, and the thread topic seems to still be on BRT:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/survey