Calgary Public Transit II

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Calgary_Guy

Anyone else experience the frustration with the Centre Street & McKnight Blvd. intersection during rush hour? Most evenings the traffic is backed up to as far as 40th Ave. North where Tim Horton's sits. The road has a great deal of bus traffic and the lights are timed to stay green for only 30 seconds at a time. It is common to wait for 7 or 8 sequences of lights turning green to red. The problem is Deerfoot congestion on most days going north is only getting worse, and now 4th Street is feeling the effects of this growing frustrations among many motorists. I could never figure out why McKnight was not widened between Deerfoot and 4th Street before all the paving work was done this past summer.

McKnight is a real pain to cross at pretty much every intersection. If traffic is really bad I'll go over to Northmount and take the bridge over. But it's pretty far out of my way. Some days I wonder if we could make the 4th St/Edmonton Trail bus trap open during rush hour and then close it back to bus only traffic after rush hour.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Mcknight merge lane onto Deerfoot extended to the 64th Ave exit. That would help with the evening rush hour traffic a lot.

[YYCguys]

Has the plan to convert McKnight between Edmonton Trail and 4th Street NW into a limited access expressway been abondoned? Removing all those lights would be a huge benefit to keeping traffic moving.

That being said, what would the intersections of Centre/ET/4th Street NW look like and would those be the only access points to McKnight? Doesn't seem to be enough room to build interchanges or even widen the roads.

Edit: Moderator, I thought I was in the Roads thread, perhaps you can move all of the McKnight discussion over there? Thx!

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by DenOfSlack

It has been that way for the 8 or so years I have been riding the bus through that area. It gets bad enough sometimes during the evening rush (northbound) that cars turning left at McKnight will pull into the oncoming lane at the bottom of the hill and drive several hundred meters in the oncoming lane.

I have sent a few emails to the city asking about lane reversal as there is never more than the occasional car going the other way.

Easily adds 10-15 minutes to the commute home almost every single day

You should also suggest a bus-only lane during rush hour. southbound bus lane in the morning rush, and north in the afternoon rush.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary Transit related operating budget proposals from Mayor Nenshi:

The mayor’s budget plan would also:
Offset the end of park-and-ride fees by offering one-quarter of stalls in some LRT lots for $90 monthly reservations;
Increase the monthly transit pass to $88 instead of $90;

[J-D]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Calgary Transit related operating budget proposals from Mayor Nenshi:

This seems okay - Although, I wouldn't mind a solution that found a way to utilize the park plus installations at LRT lots somehow.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by J-D

This seems okay - Although, I wouldn't mind a solution that found a way to utilize the park plus installations at LRT lots somehow.

There will be plenty more Park Plus added to streets in years to come. This equipment will just be redeployed. I'm pretty sure they're the exact same units used elsewhere.

[McPaul]

Originally Posted by McPaul

Apparently there will be a mini grand opening of the Westwinds ped bridge with hot chocolate in the second week of December.

Besides being ecstatic that I'll have a safe walk to work now, I'm rather surprised they are doing a special event. For a bridge. -shrug-

Took them long enough though. This thing has essentially been done for a few weeks now minus a couple of railing sections and an inspection.

I'll post more details as I hear them...

The bridge is open today but pening celebrations for this bridge will be Friday the 10th. Hope to see you all there!!!

[RicoLance21]

Are all the fundings in place to extend all 3-car C-Train platforms to 4? In my opinion, that needs to be fast-tracked, and I mean simultaneous construction on all 3-car stations. The vehicles would be utterly packed...close to Tokyo subway crowds if P&R lots become free.

[sim]

From the Construction Thread:

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I too agree that the city needs a loop route for the CTrain. I think there are enough trips to non DT destinations to warrant one, especially if it goes to MT royal, university, and airport.

I only wanted to quote the second part of your post, as it is more relevant for this thread.

I highly, highly doubt that a loop route would be at all currently feasible for Calgary. There are not near enough decentralized nodes that would warrant the demand. Maybe if/when some of the proposed TOD nodes are fully up, it may have a chance. Really, the reason LRT currently works "well" in Calgary is because of the centralized employement DT. It may be only 150,000 out of 700,000, but I wouldn't call that a small minority (as was said.) That is a fairly significant amount in one small area.

Secondly, a lot of that is due to parking shortages/artificually high parking rates downtown (which I applaud,) and the success of Park n Rides. I can't imagine too many people then wanting to drive to a station (as they would not be within walking distance -which would largely be so in Calgary's case,) park and then get on the train to an area where there is already ample parking anyway. Again, this shows the need for much more and denser nodes.

There are only a handful of cities (off the top of my head) where circular lines work and they are all significantly denser or more ideally built up to warrant such infrastructure. Berlin (where it is actually the busiest line,) Singapore (sort of), Tokyo, New York, Hamburg... I'm sure there are some others.

Bottom line is, not a chance.

[mersar]

Speaking of TOD, theres an open house of sorts for the Banff Trail TOD plan coming up either this week or next at the Banff Trail Community Centre. I saw a sign on 19th Street NW about it, forgot what date it said though.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by sim

From the Construction Thread:




I only wanted to quote the second part of your post, as it is more relevant for this thread.

I highly, highly doubt that a loop route would be at all currently feasible for Calgary. There are not near enough decentralized nodes that would warrant the demand. Maybe if/when some of the proposed TOD nodes are fully up, it may have a chance. Really, the reason LRT currently works "well" in Calgary is because of the centralized employement DT. It may be only 150,000 out of 700,000, but I wouldn't call that a small minority (as was said.) That is a fairly significant amount in one small area.

Secondly, a lot of that is due to parking shortages/artificually high parking rates downtown (which I applaud,) and the success of Park n Rides. I can't imagine too many people then wanting to drive to a station (as they would not be within walking distance -which would largely be so in Calgary's case,) park and then get on the train to an area where there is already ample parking anyway. Again, this shows the need for much more and denser nodes.

There are only a handful of cities (off the top of my head) where circular lines work and they are all significantly denser or more ideally built up to warrant such infrastructure. Berlin (where it is actually the busiest line,) Singapore (sort of), Tokyo, New York, Hamburg... I'm sure there are some others.

Bottom line is, not a chance.

This is a chicken and egg problem, like with most transit issues in this city. If you start planning for a loop line, you can get your ducks in a row and then zone and plan development for the nodes that you require to make a line like this work (MRC, University, Airport, Seton, etc). If you wait and see how things turn out, your ROW are more expensive if not impossible to get.

[fusili]

We could do a loop line, but either as a BRT, or as a street car. Connect MRU, Westrbrook, Foothills Hosptial and Rockyview at least. That would be a start.

[sim]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

This is a chicken and egg problem, like with most transit issues in this city. If you start planning for a loop line, you can get your ducks in a row and then zone and plan development for the nodes that you require to make a line like this work (MRC, University, Airport, Seton, etc). If you wait and see how things turn out, your ROW are more expensive if not impossible to get.

Normally I'd agree with that - such as in looking at the case for HSR. However, we aren't even close to that stage, especially because I think the way you are proposing it to work (above ground ROW) has even less chance of working.

The amount of capital required for this would be insane (above or below ground.) It would never be justifiable, because there is no way you would get the ridership unless the city densifies, say 4 fold. Your station intervals to obtain a decent catchment area to provide enough ridership would have to be so close that the current population density then couldn't actually support them. The trip generation definitely isn't there.

In other words, you can't go build a few km of track between each station as would be Calgary's case at best (when examining any current or foreseeable high density nodes) as it wouldn't justify building the system in the first place.

Secondly, and now speaking strictly about an at grade system, your seperation effects would be immense. It works better for radial lines, because a city also radiates from the center (usually, but for sure Calgary.) Assuming you also don't want to spend billions more on new interchanges or bridges over roads, at level crossings would wreak havoc on headways. Something which is really not ideal as when trains go circular, the headways must be maintained as perfect as possible as there is no (easy) way to make up or withhold time as can be done with end stations where a train sits.

Finally Berlin's line is 37.5 km in length and carries 400,000 passengers per day.
Doing a little high level comparison here and holding true to a "circle" line, that would encompass an area of 111 km2. Calgary is roughly 800 km2 and contains 1.1 million people. Assuming of course, that the density is spread evenly, in Calgary's 111km2, we would then encircle 152625 people....

Even if every single one of them rode the train at least once per day, or more realistically, half of them twice, we would still be 60% short.

I've obviously simplified this a lot, but if anything, probably more so in Calgary's favour.

It just won't work in Calgary. The transit issues that the city faces are, by and large, due to too low of density.

I couldn't even imagine how many kms of line would have to be laid down for a circle line to hit both the airport and seton.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

It just won't work in Calgary. The transit issues that the city faces are, by and large, due to too low of density.

I couldn't even imagine how many kms of line would have to be laid down for a circle line to hit both the airport and seton.

Good points. This is why a circle route would have to be done as a BRT. You could use mostly existing ROWs, if not existing lanes. The amount of new infrastructure would be minimal. A circle route couldn't be done as an LRT.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by fusili

Good points. This is why a circle route would have to be done as a BRT. You could use mostly existing ROWs, if not existing lanes. The amount of new infrastructure would be minimal. A circle route couldn't be done as an LRT.

Does anyone know how well our current circle bus the 72/73 does? Back in the day when I used it to go from Forest Lawn to the University (1hr travel time), it wasn't exactly empty. Although reviewing the route, it seems to be even more winding today than it was back when I used it. I'd probably get off before it turned to Brentwood and walk the rest of the way.

Would the current route be feasible as a BRT?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Does anyone know how well our current circle bus the 72/73 does? Back in the day when I used it to go from Forest Lawn to the University (1hr travel time), it wasn't exactly empty. Although reviewing the route, it seems to be even more winding today than it was back when I used it. I'd probably get off before it turned to Brentwood and walk the rest of the way.

Would the current route be feasible as a BRT?

A circle route yes, a crosstown route yes. The current 72/73? Hell no. A BRT should be as straight a shot as possible, with minimal stops. The current 72/73 is as complicated as it can be. If it took you an hour to go from Forest Lawn to the University, I would say there is a problem. It shouldn't be more than 30 minutes tops.

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by fusili

A circle route couldn't be done as an LRT.

Sure it could.

I've pushed a MRU/Chinook/Foothills route for at least 10 years. It would be a starting point.

I've had variations end at Marlborough, Westwinds and the Airport.

Then go from MRU to the McMahon/Foothills/Childrens/U of Calgary area.

The toughest segemt would likely be U of Calgary to the Aurora Business Park by Harvest Hills.

Would it shares sections with other routes or be its own route to maximize frequency?

Here's a sample circle route 87.30 km.

http://beta.mapmyrun.com/routes/view/map/25870614/?open_ive_done=1

[MalcolmTucker]

It isn't that a circle route wouldn't be useful, or wouldn't be technically feasible. It is that the threshold for ridership to make LRT worthwhile is quite high and a cross town would have a hard time sustaining a ridership higher than any of the planned radial lines. Even with aggressive investment in the system as a whole a cross town line ends up in the later half of the century - not something that is even worth worrying about.

That we would even think of replacing a bus that only runs 17 times during the wide peak (6 am - 9 am) before reverting back to half hour headways is a function of 'it looks good on a map, it is logical, so therefore it is worthwhile'. Well, if there was demand the bus would run a heck of a lot more times than 17 times during a wide rush hour. Works out to 1 3 car c-train an hour!

I like this quote from the blog 'Human Transit' that I think applies here, at least a little bit:

Ultimately, lots of people love the idea of a subway to the sea for the same reason they like the idea of a subway to the airport -- because they can imagine using it occasionally. This can yield a disconnect between the political popularity of a service and its actual ridership potential.

Now I know the route is circuitous and slow right now, and ridership would likely improve with a more limited stop service that doesn't meander too much, but at this point a BRT circle route is quite a leap of faith to use service hours for considering that as you make the route faster you start eliminating trip generators along its length. It would be a useful experiment to try of course, but I doubt the experiment would yield ridership to make the experiment permanent along the entire route except as a political vanity project.

For radial line to radial line commuters, the transfer to the circle route and back to the radial line while it creates a bit more capacity in the inner city, the loop line has to be really fast to be faster than going through downtown and transferring, especially on the time frame we are talking about which is when at least two subways will be done (maybe more subject to the study that is ongoing). That speed is also a function of headway - the loop headway has to be really low to be useful as well.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Now I know the route is circuitous and slow right now, and ridership would likely improve with a more limited stop service that doesn't meander too much, but at this point a BRT circle route is quite a leap of faith to use service hours for considering that as you make the route faster you start eliminating trip generators along its length. It would be a useful experiment to try of course, but I doubt the experiment would yield ridership to make the experiment permanent along the entire route except as a political vanity project.

This is a very important point. Nevertheless, with a circle BRT route that travels along the 16th Ave corridor what I like is that it isn't solely about putting transit where people are going (i.e. transit following people) but using transit to led people (i.e. building ridership and shaping new, supportive transportation patterns).

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

For radial line to radial line commuters, the transfer to the circle route and back to the radial line while it creates a bit more capacity in the inner city, the loop line has to be really fast to be faster than going through downtown and transferring, especially on the time frame we are talking about which is when at least two subways will be done (maybe more subject to the study that is ongoing). That speed is also a function of headway - the loop headway has to be really low to be useful as well.

Another good point and something I have wrangled with when thinking about where a circle LRT line should go. If we go further out and place it in the ring road corridor we can achieve higher speeds but that would also increase the distance that needs to be traversed.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by sim

From the Construction Thread:




I only wanted to quote the second part of your post, as it is more relevant for this thread.

I highly, highly doubt that a loop route would be at all currently feasible for Calgary. There are not near enough decentralized nodes that would warrant the demand. Maybe if/when some of the proposed TOD nodes are fully up, it may have a chance. Really, the reason LRT currently works "well" in Calgary is because of the centralized employement DT. It may be only 150,000 out of 700,000, but I wouldn't call that a small minority (as was said.) That is a fairly significant amount in one small area.

Secondly, a lot of that is due to parking shortages/artificually high parking rates downtown (which I applaud,) and the success of Park n Rides. I can't imagine too many people then wanting to drive to a station (as they would not be within walking distance -which would largely be so in Calgary's case,) park and then get on the train to an area where there is already ample parking anyway. Again, this shows the need for much more and denser nodes.

There are only a handful of cities (off the top of my head) where circular lines work and they are all significantly denser or more ideally built up to warrant such infrastructure. Berlin (where it is actually the busiest line,) Singapore (sort of), Tokyo, New York, Hamburg... I'm sure there are some others.

Bottom line is, not a chance.

Shanghai is another. Line 4 (of which I am a daily rider) is a 33km loop line with 26 stations. Daily ridership is around 800k, but it's been on a serious upward trend since the full line opened in 2007.

It encloses the densest parts of central Shanghai and interchanges with almost every other line in the Metro network. A loop line is great - if you've got a really dense city core and lots of other lines to interchange with, as Shanghai does. In Calgary? Following the 72/73 route? Absolutely not in a million years!