Calgary Public Transit II

[DarkKeyo]

Regarding the SELRT on 10th Ave, I have hopes that they'll have the sense to design it so it doesn't interact with the roads. Like the existing routes, it'll be more like a metro than a streetcar, and shouldn't interact much with the roads, or other streetcars.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Regarding the SELRT on 10th Ave, I have hopes that they'll have the sense to design it so it doesn't interact with the roads. Like the existing routes, it'll be more like a metro than a streetcar, and shouldn't interact much with the roads, or other streetcars.

It should be a tunnel for every inch it runs down 10th, or any of downtown for that matter.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by MasterG

13th greenway is nice, but not optimized for cyclists. No traffic priority or stop signs for N-S traffic on some of the streets, as well as long light waits on 4th and 5th. Plus it is 3 blocks farther south of all the offices and development on 10th. That wouldn't be so bad, but you have the same problem that pedestrians face: significant light priority for 12th and 11th. It has taken me 10mins to cycle from 17th ave to 10th on 7th street due to waiting at the lights for multiple minutes at 17th, 12th and 11th aves. Some of these need to re-calibrated to provide more cross traffic, especially out of rush hour.

This is disappointing to hear, and raises the question for me, what is the point of the Greenway project then? Most of 13th ave is already just fine for pedesitrians, with quiet streets and large trees already. So why spend all the money putting in a bike lane that isn't optimized for cyclists?

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

This is disappointing to hear, and raises the question for me, what is the point of the Greenway project then? Most of 13th ave is already just fine for pedesitrians, with quiet streets and large trees already. So why spend all the money putting in a bike lane that isn't optimized for cyclists?

The location of that project does seem odd, but than again I see this more as a quiet stroll type corridor once it's all done. I agree about the impracticality of having bicycle lanes run down 13th ave though. It would make more sense to have bicycle lanes along a one way street like 11th or 12th ave or even the north side of 10th ave since only about a half of the streets cross 10th ave as part of an underpass.

I'd hope that 10th ave is at least being given a high priority for near future streetscape improvements. There are already a few developments with large retail components about to be added to the south side of 10th. We might start to see some of the south side of the lots developed as mid-rise office/retail, and this avenue could become another large shopping/entertainment/commercial corridor.

Another priority should really be 17th ave east of 2nd street sw. This section really needs A LOT of work.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

It should be a tunnel for every inch it runs down 10th, or any of downtown for that matter.

Functional plans have identified the stretch between 2nd and 1st SE for the train to go or waiting until the stretch between 1st and 2nd SW to go underground. Either way the station north of the stampede grounds will be at grade. The other proposed station along 10th could go either way. Train has to stay at grade atleast until its passed over the S line's tunnel.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

It should be a tunnel for every inch it runs down 10th, or any of downtown for that matter.

It has to run above grade until at least Macleod because of the South LRT Tunnel. I guess they could go deeper from the very beginning, and they probably could if it starts tunneling right after 4th street. That would make sense if it is to be the deeper of the two tunnels. I believe the ND Clifton Lea study recommended tunneling only as early as just before Centre Street though.

EDIT- Andasen beat me to it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

I'd hope that 10th ave is at least being given a high priority for near future streetscape improvements. There are already a few developments with large retail components about to be added to the south side of 10th. We might start to see some of the south side of the lots developed as mid-rise office/retail, and this avenue could become another large shopping/entertainment/commercial corridor.

Another priority should really be 17th ave east of 2nd street sw. This section really needs A LOT of work.

We did a pedestrian audit of the Beltline a few years ago. The worst sections were all on 10th avenue (some sections scored a 14 out of 100), but the section of 17th east of 2nd street wasn't far behind. The fact that there are places in the Beltline still without actual sidewalks is embarrassing.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

We did a pedestrian audit of the Beltline a few years ago. The worst sections were all on 10th avenue (some sections scored a 14 out of 100), but the section of 17th east of 2nd street wasn't far behind. The fact that there are places in the Beltline still without actual sidewalks is embarrassing.

There is a strange number of sidewalks that have been skipped over for improvements. I assume that new developments pay for things like sidewalk upgrades in alot of cases? (fact check me please).

The whole 9th ave south-side and 10th ave north-side are ridiculous. Particularily 9th ave, due to heavy usage for transit and pedestrians. A lot of serious bus routes have stops on 9th, but there is only the 2-foot wide sidewalk covered in gravel for pedestrians and transit-waiting commuters. I am surprised more people haven't been killed over the years by someone clipping a pedestrian squeeze on the sidewalk.

14th street has the same problem for transit stops. I know the whole corridor rebuild is expensive, but they could at least widen the sidewalks around the stops...

[kora]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

what is the point of the Greenway project then? Most of 13th ave is already just fine for pedesitrians, with quiet streets and large trees already. So why spend all the money putting in a bike lane that isn't optimized for cyclists?

I agree. My prediction is that the off-street bike lane / pathway will end up being used as a 2nd sidewalk most of the time. So, good outcome either way. Especially since last I heard, the completion of the Greenway west of 8 Street is being put on hold, as priorities shift to the 8 Street corridor. We may very well end up with a Greenway that ends at 8 Street.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by fusili

It has to run above grade until at least Macleod because of the South LRT Tunnel. I guess they could go deeper from the very beginning, and they probably could if it starts tunneling right after 4th street. That would make sense if it is to be the deeper of the two tunnels. I believe the ND Clifton Lea study recommended tunneling only as early as just before Centre Street though.

EDIT- Andasen beat me to it.

So, during the study, they sat down and calculated that it would be better to make the train cross both directions of busy Macleod Trail, and then have the entrance to the tunnel be in what is now the middle of 10 Ave SW, compared to using the ~200m (of empty land) between 4 St SE and the SLRT tunnel to get far enough underground?

There are many, many places on the LRT that don't function well because planners were cheap and short sighted, including nearly every major road crossing. I would be surprised if the accidents, delays, and maintenance weren't more expensive overall than it would have been to build a little bit better.

Of course, since we can't seem to afford to do a detailed design for, let alone build, any new LRT lines, we have a very long time to debate these questions...

[Riise]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Typical response by obsolete businesses.

Someone comes up with a technological innovation to improve the customer experience - SUE THEM!

The Taxi industry is even more of a racket than the music business. And that's saying something.

I took great delight in the fact that this lawsuit is probably going to be excellent and free advertising for FastCab. After I read the article I went to the Play Store and downloaded it.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by kora

I agree. My prediction is that the off-street bike lane / pathway will end up being used as a 2nd sidewalk most of the time. So, good outcome either way. Especially since last I heard, the completion of the Greenway west of 8 Street is being put on hold, as priorities shift to the 8 Street corridor. We may very well end up with a Greenway that ends at 8 Street.

Yeah it still will be a really nice corridor, one that should be done on alot of routes of the innercity. Just not great for commuter cyclists. Rec cyclists would probably enjoy, but the path used as a sidewalk is definitely going to push them onto the road which is fine.

8th street is a better project and would look great when connected to 13th ave. The combination of those projects would greatly improved the pedestrian experience in all of the beltline.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

There is a strange number of sidewalks that have been skipped over for improvements. I assume that new developments pay for things like sidewalk upgrades in alot of cases? (fact check me please).

Yes. Most new developments pay for upgrades to sidewalks as part of the conditions on the development permit. The same goes for any new development along existing roads. If you do an infill, the city will require you to repair any curb damage on driveways. Heck, even sometimes for change of use applications, the City may condition you to upgrade the sidewalks and pay for better street lighting.

The problem with this strategy is that sidewalks end up being nice in front of new buildings and bad in front of old buildings. So you get an inconsistent sidewalk treatment, which makes absolutely no sense.

What I think would work better is to implement a small levy on new development that would go towards a communal fund to improve sidewalks throughout the district. It would be based on floor area and developments would get commensurate reductions for the amount of their own sidewalk they upgrade. This way sidewalk improvements are undertaken on a more consistent and comprehensive approach.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by fusili

Yes. Most new developments pay for upgrades to sidewalks as part of the conditions on the development permit. The same goes for any new development along existing roads. If you do an infill, the city will require you to repair any curb damage on driveways. Heck, even sometimes for change of use applications, the City may condition you to upgrade the sidewalks and pay for better street lighting.

The problem with this strategy is that sidewalks end up being nice in front of new buildings and bad in front of old buildings. So you get an inconsistent sidewalk treatment, which makes absolutely no sense.

What I think would work better is to implement a small levy on new development that would go towards a communal fund to improve sidewalks throughout the district. It would be based on floor area and developments would get commensurate reductions for the amount of their own sidewalk they upgrade. This way sidewalk improvements are undertaken on a more consistent and comprehensive approach.

That makes a lot of sense, I never really thought of that before but would explain the inconsistency in quality between buildings.

How does set-backs work for new buildings with respect to sidewalk/pedestrian infrastructure? I know some corridors have specific restrictions, but the same issue has happened: older buildings had far less of a set-back right next to a new building that has 2 to 3 x the sidewalk space.

I assume that there are density bonuses and other incentives on new developments in the beltline when they provide addition pedestrian space/amenities which would explain alot of the huge spaces in front of many new buildings.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

That makes a lot of sense, I never really thought of that before but would explain the inconsistency in quality between buildings.

How does set-backs work for new buildings with respect to sidewalk/pedestrian infrastructure? I know some corridors have specific restrictions, but the same issue has happened: older buildings had far less of a set-back right next to a new building that has 2 to 3 x the sidewalk space.

I assume that there are density bonuses and other incentives on new developments in the beltline when they provide addition pedestrian space/amenities which would explain alot of the huge spaces in front of many new buildings.

Some of it is that. Most of it is what are called road widening setbacks. This is where the city requires buildings be set back in order to accommodate a future road widening. Although no roads are really to ever be widened in the Beltline, the City uses the setbacks for wider sidewalks. Older buildings, especially warehouse buildings, were usually built as zero lot line bulidings, hence the inconsistency with newer buildings.

The Curtis Block was demolished over a disagreement to do with a road widening setback. Many of us are pretty choked about the whole thing.

[simster3]

Nevermind

[fusili]

Looks like some of our ideas were heard by Calgary Transit (or more likely, they probably already had the idea): Limited Stop service for the 3 along Elbow Drive.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/572520/elbow-express-could-be-coming-soon-to-calgary-transit/

[halifaxboyns]

The Alberta Professional Planners Institute (APPI - Calgary Events Committee) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE - Southern Alberta) are partnering to present a public discussion called - Let's Talk Transit. It will be held on Wednesday, March 6th at the Dutton Theatre at the DT public library. Doors open at 6:30pm with the interactive discussion to begin at 7pm.

Special guest speakers include Karen Stintz (Chairperson of the Toronto Transit Commission and City Councillor), Christopher Hume (Urban Affairs Columnist with the Toronto Star) and Doug Morgan (Director of Calgary Transit). This event is free (food bank donations appreciated) and open to the public. It will be an interactive discussion with the panelists and the public. All are welcome!

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by fusili

Looks like some of our ideas were heard by Calgary Transit (or more likely, they probably already had the idea): Limited Stop service for the 3 along Elbow Drive.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/572520/elbow-express-could-be-coming-soon-to-calgary-transit/

Great idea.

Since 4th street is called broadway, I've always thought that some kind of limited stop route down 4th st, elbow drive, and 50th avenue (over the elbow and terminating at MRU) would be like Calgary's version of Vancouver's b-line. I guess I have 99 envy.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Great idea.

Since 4th street is called broadway, I've always thought that some kind of limited stop route down 4th st, elbow drive, and 50th avenue (over the elbow and terminating at MRU) would be like Calgary's version of Vancouver's b-line. I guess I have 99 envy.

Not too mention the daily issue of every single stop in mission being skipped by buses everyday because its full to the brim. You think that buses every 3 to 5 mins would have a space or two. Express bus or a mission short turn route is more than overdue.