Calgary Public Transit II

[mersar]

The second Series 8 SD160 LRV has arrived. This one revealed a new detail that was missed being seen on the first, being that the 'cap' around the top that hides the mechanical stuff on the roof is actually pre-painted in red (or might be cast in red plastic). We're assuming its 2302 on cptdb, but it may be 2303 (both are scheduled to arrive this month and sometimes they arrive out of order)

[fusili]

Speaking of the 17th Ave SE transit lane, I had a few thoughts of how dedicated transit lanes could work on roads with only 4 lanes, while maintaining existing vehicle traffic volumes. It would go something like this:

Morning peak (6:00 - 9:00) (inbound traffic is heading into Downtown):
Inbound curb lane: transit only (and right-turning vehicles onto selected roads only)
Inbound centre lane: Regular traffic inbound.
Outbound centre lane: Lane reversal: regular traffic inbound.
Outbound curb lane: Reverse traffic, mixed transit and vehicles.

Evening peak (3:30 - 6:30) (outbound traffic is heading out of Downtown):
Outbound curb lane: transit only (and right-turning vehicles on selected roads only)
Outbound centre lane: Regular traffic inbound.
Inbound centre lane: Lane reversal: regular traffic outbound.
Inbound curb lane: Reverse traffic, mixed transit and vehicles.

Non-peak hours:
Curb lanes: Mixed transit and vehicles
Centre lanes: Regular traffic

I think this model could work well for sections of routes like the 301 and the 305 (Centre Street and Memorial/Parkdale/Bowness Road) as well as for other streets like 14th Street SW, 17th Avenue SW, 4th Street SW and 10th Street NW. Centre street and memorial already have lane reversals, you would just have to dedicate one of the lanes as a transit lane. This could work for either buses or streetcars (high speed LRTs won't be able to operate in mixed traffic). Provides a quick win in my opinion. The difficulty will be designing it so that vehicles understand the how transit only lanes function.

[MichaelS]

^ I think they do something similar to that on Centre for HOV lanes.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Speaking of the 17th Ave SE transit lane, I had a few thoughts of how dedicated transit lanes could work on roads with only 4 lanes, while maintaining existing vehicle traffic volumes. It would go something like this:

Morning peak (6:00 - 9:00) (inbound traffic is heading into Downtown):
Inbound curb lane: transit only (and right-turning vehicles onto selected roads only)
Inbound centre lane: Regular traffic inbound.
Outbound centre lane: Lane reversal: regular traffic inbound.
Outbound curb lane: Reverse traffic, mixed transit and vehicles.

Evening peak (3:30 - 6:30) (outbound traffic is heading out of Downtown):
Outbound curb lane: transit only (and right-turning vehicles on selected roads only)
Outbound centre lane: Regular traffic inbound.
Inbound centre lane: Lane reversal: regular traffic outbound.
Inbound curb lane: Reverse traffic, mixed transit and vehicles.

Non-peak hours:
Curb lanes: Mixed transit and vehicles
Centre lanes: Regular traffic

I think this model could work well for sections of routes like the 301 and the 305 (Centre Street and Memorial/Parkdale/Bowness Road) as well as for other streets like 14th Street SW, 17th Avenue SW, 4th Street SW and 10th Street NW. Centre street and memorial already have lane reversals, you would just have to dedicate one of the lanes as a transit lane. This could work for either buses or streetcars (high speed LRTs won't be able to operate in mixed traffic). Provides a quick win in my opinion. The difficulty will be designing it so that vehicles understand the how transit only lanes function.

Seems like a good idea. Two things though.

I know this is probably something not easily admitted by planners, but isn't part of the reason for doing something like this to make public transport (in this case buses) look more attractive and driving less so? While travel time may decrease for on a bus, car travel time remains the same. I see little motivation for most people to switch. However, if bus travel time decreases and car travel time increases, I'm inclined to think that that would cause a greater shift in modes.

Secondly, I could foresee an issue where having only one lane for a given direction (depending on the peak time) may cause too slow of travel time and thus, a disproportionate cycle. Probably not really an issue though, as I'm sure this happens on other current routes already.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

^ I think they do something similar to that on Centre for HOV lanes.

Exactly, I was just thinking they could dedicate one of those lanes to transit only.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

Seems like a good idea. Two things though.

I know this is probably something not easily admitted by planners, but isn't part of the reason for doing something like this to make public transport (in this case buses) look more attractive and driving less so? While travel time may decrease for on a bus, car travel time remains the same. I see little motivation for most people to switch. However, if bus travel time decreases and car travel time increases, I'm inclined to think that that would cause a greater shift in modes.

Secondly, I could foresee an issue where having only one lane for a given direction (depending on the peak time) may cause too slow of travel time and thus, a disproportionate cycle. Probably not really an issue though, as I'm sure this happens on other current routes already.

For your first point, I think the issue is really about increasing the efficiency of the road. Providing the transit lane doesn't reduce car travel in the short term, but it does guarantee good transit in the long term. In that way growth along the corridor can be accommodated by increased transit usage (without the dedicated lane, there will be no incentive to use transit, as it will not have any advantages over vehicle trips). Growth in vehicle trips would increase congestion, pushing more people to use transit, which would increase its advantage in speed over time. In this way, the lane serves much more as a redevelopment tool than as a purely transit tool. By increasing the efficiency of the ROW, growth can be accommodated, where it cannot in the existing situation.

With regards to the second point, see Michael S's point above. Centre street already does this, and it works fine. Transit running the opposite direction doesn't suffer as much from the problem of being stuck in traffic, as there is little bi-directional traffic on these streets.

[MalcolmTucker]

Isn't there more than enough room for 4 auto lanes and 2 centre bus lanes/future tramway/LRT ROW? You would have to knock out the median and the 'green ways' and or other easements that already seem to exist along most of the length for road expansion, but there is a reason why it is planned to cost just shy of $100 million. You would likely need to do some acquisition too, but from going down the road on Streetview I can't imagine there would even need to be any demolitions.

[Bassic Lab]

I might be alone here but I really hope city council votes this down. There is no reason that it should be on the ten year infrastructure plan. There are simply far more pressing transit projects that could use the quarter billion during that timeframe. I will have to put more thought into the project before I decide whether I support it in general but the South East Line (all the way to Eau Claire), North Line, and 8th Ave Subway should definitely all take precedence.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I might be alone here but I really hope city council votes this down. There is no reason that it should be on the ten year infrastructure plan. There are simply far more pressing transit projects that could use the quarter billion during that timeframe. I will have to put more thought into the project before I decide whether I support it in general but the South East Line (all the way to Eau Claire), North Line, and 8th Ave Subway should definitely all take precedence.

Why would this necessarily take away from the budget for other transit plans and not for road infrastructure? I agree that the SE LRT, SAS and NCLRT are bigger priorities, but I think transit spending in general has to start taking a greater share of capital budgets over roads.

[ue]

Are there any plans to have LRT (or streetcar/tram) to have LRT going through the Connaught part of the Beltline as well as Mission? If not, why not? These areas seem high density enough to support it and would give an even bigger boost in ridership to Calgary's already insanely high C-Train ridership. Why is it these high density urban neighborhoods have been (aside from the eastern parts around MacLeod/1 St SE and the Stampede Grounds) have been overlooked for LRT?

Edmonton isn't really better though. Strathcona isn't directly connected to LRT and Oliver only has direct access in the eastern portion around Grandin (much like how the eastern portion of the Beltline...Victoria Park does). But Oliver is going to be fully connected to LRT in our next big expansions, and Strathcona hopefully in another 5-10 years. So I was wondering if Calgary had any plans like these for their dense urban neighborhoods?

[Wooster]

^ One of our forumers is pushing hard on a "C-Tram" system that would serve many of these inner communities you talk about. It has some traction with the Ward Alderman already.

[ue]

^Anything official I could look at?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

^Anything official I could look at?

You'll have to wait.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Why would this necessarily take away from the budget for other transit plans and not for road infrastructure? I agree that the SE LRT, SAS and NCLRT are bigger priorities, but I think transit spending in general has to start taking a greater share of capital budgets over roads.

As much as I wish otherwise, I do not think we could afford all three over the next ten years let alone additional transit projects. They represent some five billion dollars worth of construction, probably closer to seven if we go the smart route and push the NCLRT under Centre Street. We are not going to manage that unless other levels of government decide to start dropping real money. I am all for such a program but let us face it; it's wishful thinking.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Plan includes:
17th Avenue transit lanes - $94 million
Busway to connect 17th Ave SE with SE LRT in Inglewood - $153 million, plus land purchases

I was wondering - why go to the SE LRT? Why not up to Barlow/Maxbell? The route is shorter, doesn't need the SE LRT (which might not get all the way downtown in the first phase), and likely much cheaper to shore up a hill side that to buld bridges over a rail yard, freeway, canal and river.

Orange = SE LRT
Red = NE LRT
Yellow = Barlow Maxbell 17th BRT connector
Blue = 17th BRT and Inglewood Transitway

Interesting idea. They don't even really need to build an extra lane(s). That part of Barlow never gets that busy, and if they build a bus only road that uses the (currently unused) tunnel underneath Memorial to turn around and come back, it could be quite cheap. Just need build a new transfer station where the north Max Bell entrance is right now.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Plan includes:
17th Avenue transit lanes - $94 million
Busway to connect 17th Ave SE with SE LRT in Inglewood - $153 million, plus land purchases

I was wondering - why go to the SE LRT? Why not up to Barlow/Maxbell? The route is shorter, doesn't need the SE LRT (which might not get all the way downtown in the first phase), and likely much cheaper to shore up a hill side that to buld bridges over a rail yard, freeway, canal and river.

Orange = SE LRT
Red = NE LRT
Yellow = Barlow Maxbell 17th BRT connector
Blue = 17th BRT and Inglewood Transitway

Well, first, my input on the plan outlined in the article is: it's pretty interesting. Ultimately there should be a rapid transit corridor down 17th Ave, and when they're redesigning it (and designing communities along it between Stonry Trail and Chestermere) they should make sure its designed for the ultimate plan of an East LRT. However, That's a long term plan. I think the bus lanes on 17th itself are enough for the short term, while we build density, ridership, and presumably sprawl the city towards Chestermere. This busway between Barlow and Inglewood is good if it will ultimately be LRT, but isn't really as important as, say, the SELRT. (I agree with Bassic Lab that other things have priority here, and $154 million could make a difference.) I disagree with the part about dipping into the Green Trip for it. We need that in order to build an Inglewood-Ramsay station for this busway to go to in the first place.

That said, I like the idea here to go to Barlow-Max Bell station while there are only bus lanes. You'd still have to run buses between Barlow and Downtown, i.e. #305 to Barlow station and #1 to downtown, or something. And we'd still have to protect a corridor for future LRT between Inglewood and Barlow somehow.

And, if you'll allow me to nitpick your map for a moment, the SELRT is further west than you've drawn it. I have the urge now to doodle the actual route... The rest of the map is very good though.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by mersar

The second Series 8 SD160 LRV has arrived. This one revealed a new detail that was missed being seen on the first, being that the 'cap' around the top that hides the mechanical stuff on the roof is actually pre-painted in red (or might be cast in red plastic). We're assuming its 2302 on cptdb, but it may be 2303 (both are scheduled to arrive this month and sometimes they arrive out of order)

Looking at these new trains, it seems to me that the destination sign on the front/back is very hard to see. I'd have to see it lit up to be sure, but... unless they're going to give us the promised new information signs at the stations (which I'm hoping will be a lot like the Canada Line's), we need to be able to see the destination pretty clearly.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

Looking at these new trains, it seems to me that the destination sign on the front/back is very hard to see. I'd have to see it lit up to be sure, but... unless they're going to give us the promised new information signs at the stations (which I'm hoping will be a lot like the Canada Line's), we need to be able to see the destination pretty clearly.

Remember theres also side destination signs on the trains as well now.

[TransitSupporter]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

^ I think they do something similar to that on Centre for HOV lanes.

The HOV lane on Centre is a joke, especially northbound in the afternoon. Over 50% of the vehicles are single-passenger cars that drive right up from downtown to 16th Ave. Maybe it is monitored, but I've never seen anyone policing or giving warnings. I bet most people don't even notice that it's supposed to be for multi-passenger vehicles. It would bug me if I were a transit operator.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Remember theres also side destination signs on the trains as well now.

Weird, I haven't noticed this yet. Is it on every car? It'd have to be by every door to be useful really... Thankfully all the new 7th Ave stations have a nice sign saying "next train is..." although I've seen those screw up from time to time.