Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this subject to location. For examaple many of the newer communities have storm water retention ponds. This would allow for the settling of solids, however, communities that abut the river would see their storm water go directly into the water.

More like subject to the time built. New communities require storm water ponds and facilities as a matter of subdivision requirements. These didn't exist when most of Calgary was built and are in fact quite a recent development. Storm water ponds are needed because infiltration significantly decreases with developed land (more impervious surfaces) and so more water enters the river directly without being infiltrated into the ground water table. Stormwater ponds act as holding tanks to allow water to slowly infiltrate the ground water table over time.

The whole issue with stormwater management is that water in urbanized areas entering the river is: too hot, too much, has too much dissolved minerals and has too little dissolved oxygen (or too much, I kinda forgot). Basically water flowing over impervious surfaces messes fish up.

Stormwater ponds mitigate this by reducing the volume of water flowing into the river, cooling it down, allows minerals to settle (and some to be absorbed through bio-filtration) and re-establishing an appropriate level of dissolved oxygen.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this subject to location. For examaple many of the newer communities have storm water retention ponds. This would allow for the settling of solids, however, communities that abut the river would see their storm water go directly into the water.

Subject to location yes, but the city is working on building storm ponds in older communities and closer to the river as well.

[Aegis]

Does anyone else find it a stretch to refer to BRT as "rapid transit"? Notwithstanding the acronym, it seems like a stretch to me. To me, "rapid transit" means high-speed rail.

That being said.. I think setting up at least a BRT route from downtown to the airport is a much better use of infrastructure funds than the airport tunnel. Would be even better if they had specially-designed busses that could handle people with a few pieces of luggage each. Comments?

Edit, for clarity: If funds were considered limited, and we could only choose one of the two projects.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Aegis

That being said.. I think setting up at least a BRT route from downtown to the airport is a much better use of infrastructure funds than the airport tunnel. Would be even better if they had specially-designed busses that could handle people with a few pieces of luggage each. Comments?

Both need to happen, for unrelated reasons.

[Innersoul1]

Thanks Fusilli and YNAT.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Does anyone else find it a stretch to refer to BRT as "rapid transit"? Notwithstanding the acronym, it seems like a stretch to me. To me, "rapid transit" means high-speed rail.

That being said.. I think setting up at least a BRT route from downtown to the airport is a much better use of infrastructure funds than the airport tunnel. Would be even better if they had specially-designed busses that could handle people with a few pieces of luggage each. Comments?

Edit, for clarity: If funds were considered limited, and we could only choose one of the two projects.

Calgary's "BRT" is anything but. Other cities, like Curitiba, Bogota, Adelaide etc actually have BRTs. Calgary has an express bus, or more properly named, a limited-stop bus.

A BRT should have several of the following elements:
- Off-vehicle fare payment (not in Calgary)
- Multiple entry doors (not in Calgary)
- Exclusive lanes (or at least sections thereof) (Calgary does not have)
- Easily identifiable stops (Calgary partially has)
- Higher capacity vehicles (Calgary has)
- Traffic signal control or advanced signals (Calgary kinda has)
- Limited stops (Calgary has)

So Calgary basically has two elements of a BRT, limited stops and larger buses, and partial elements of a few others (identifiable stops, traffic signal control) but is missing the three most critical elements: exclusive lanes, off vehicle fare payment and multiple entry doors. Calgary Transit can fool most people with the BRT label, but many of us on this forum would disagree with calling it a BRT.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by fusili

Calgary's "BRT" is anything but. Other cities, like Curitiba, Bogota, Adelaide etc actually have BRTs. Calgary has an express bus, or more properly named, a limited-stop bus.

A BRT should have several of the following elements:
- Off-vehicle fare payment (not in Calgary)
- Multiple entry doors (not in Calgary)
- Exclusive lanes (or at least sections thereof) (Calgary does not have)
- Easily identifiable stops (Calgary partially has)
- Higher capacity vehicles (Calgary has)
- Traffic signal control or advanced signals (Calgary kinda has)
- Limited stops (Calgary has)

So Calgary basically has two elements of a BRT, limited stops and larger buses, and partial elements of a few others (identifiable stops, traffic signal control) but is missing the three most critical elements: exclusive lanes, off vehicle fare payment and multiple entry doors. Calgary Transit can fool most people with the BRT label, but many of us on this forum would disagree with calling it a BRT.

Why is off-vehicle fare payment critical? I think the issue with BRT in Calgary is not necessarily transporting vast numbers of people.. but transporting a slightly lesser amount of people for longer distances..or am I wrong there?

[thager]

the novas have started to arrive.

thanks to peter from busdrawings for the pic

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Why is off-vehicle fare payment critical? I think the issue with BRT in Calgary is not necessarily transporting vast numbers of people.. but transporting a slightly lesser amount of people for longer distances..or am I wrong there?

Off-vehicle fare payment allows passengers to board quickly. The time it takes for each passenger to show the driver their fare is considerable. This factor is multiplied when the vehicle is high capacity. It can take minutes just for people to get on the bus. Boarding times are a incredible hinderance to maintaining speed and accurate headways. Off-vehicle fare payment also allows for boarding from multiple doors.

There was a study done in New York that found out that the time cost of having passengers pay the fare to the bus driver was actually higher than the cost of the fare itself.

[srperrycgy]

New +15 to 4th St W platform:



Very funky. I like this one.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by rail car designer

any idea if this RFP will be based on the RFP released by SNC?

I have no idea, but I suspect they will be looking to distance themselves from SNC's efforts.

[wmp.dll]

Originally Posted by thager

the novas have started to arrive.

thanks to peter from busdrawings for the pic

So when will we see these hit the streets? Any specific routes that I will be able to catch them on?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by wmp.dll

So when will we see these hit the streets? Any specific routes that I will be able to catch them on?

They'll be based out of SG from what we've heard so far (as most new buses usually are), and I'd expect to see them on any route that gets a 40' bus currently. The first 3 are here of 40 (give or take, it may be 32 as Regina took 8 from either Calgary's order or Calgary's options for next years order), so probably in September or October for them to hit the streets (brand new bus model for Calgary from a new manufacturer so probably some learning to do first)

[Aegis]

Why did CT decide to start buying Nova busses? As opposed to staying with New Flyer? (and increasing efficiency through compatible parts, etc)

[mersar]

They put out a tender and Nova happened to be the better bid. And while I won't disagree about efficiencies, considering CT is buying between 40 and 80 of them, its a small factor. Especially if they are a better bus (as many of the CT operators say they are from experiencing them in other cities)

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by mersar

They put out a tender and Nova happened to be the better bid. And while I won't disagree about efficiencies, considering CT is buying between 40 and 80 of them, its a small factor. Especially if they are a better bus (as many of the CT operators say they are from experiencing them in other cities)

I'm sure they go through a basic project analysis, but I gotta wonder how buying 40-80 units that are different from the majority of the fleet (requiring new training programs, a different parts inventory, and different service life) would be a reasonable choice.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

New +15 to 4th St W platform:



Very funky. I like this one.

Good to see Calgary has its own bridge to nowhere.

[rail car designer]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have no idea, but I suspect they will be looking to distance themselves from SNC's efforts.

that would really be a shame as that specification was one of the best I've ever seen. very performance based.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by thager

the novas have started to arrive.

thanks to peter from busdrawings for the pic

On appearances alone it looks like a rather low budget bus.

New Flyer's new Excelsiors hit Winnipeg streets a few weeks ago.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by fusili

Off-vehicle fare payment allows passengers to board quickly. The time it takes for each passenger to show the driver their fare is considerable. This factor is multiplied when the vehicle is high capacity. It can take minutes just for people to get on the bus. Boarding times are a incredible hinderance to maintaining speed and accurate headways. Off-vehicle fare payment also allows for boarding from multiple doors.

There was a study done in New York that found out that the time cost of having passengers pay the fare to the bus driver was actually higher than the cost of the fare itself.

Here's an article on that study: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_komanoff_traffic/