PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Calgary Public Transit II



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

MalcolmTucker
Sep 7, 2010, 10:20 PM
^ Oh, it isn't that they want to do that (I think). They are doing what bureaucracy does best, they are framing an issue.

The natural reaction of most people looking at that would likely be 'why are they duplicating the Centre St tram and the NC LRT, isn't that stupid' which hopefully leads to the answer of ' for only this marginal cost, we can have a Centre St subway, avoid duplication and have better service'.

The bureaucracy can't just go and delete the current NC LRT alignment and replace it with something else, it has been voted on by council, however preliminarily.

In any case, the NC LRT shouldn't service the airport, no matter what its form.

fusili
Sep 7, 2010, 10:36 PM
^ Oh, it isn't that they want to do that (I think). They are doing what bureaucracy does best, they are framing an issue.

The natural reaction of most people looking at that would likely be 'why are they duplicating the Centre St tram and the NC LRT, isn't that stupid' which hopefully leads to the answer of ' for only this marginal cost, we can have a Centre St subway, avoid duplication and have better service'.

The bureaucracy can't just go and delete the current NC LRT alignment and replace it with something else, it has been voted on by council, however preliminarily.

In any case, the NC LRT shouldn't service the airport, no matter what its form.

Fully agree, but do you think Transit Planning is really on board for the Centre Street Subway. I am afraid they are honestly thinking that the NC-LRT will go up Nose Creek and a Tram will go up Centre Street and service the airport. These are bad ideas.

mersar
Sep 8, 2010, 12:03 AM
My take is that that presentation was thrown together quickly by someone so CT doesn't look like they're about to get caught with their pants around their ankles in terms of planning on how to handle the Barlow closure. Theres obvious mistakes in it (the NC LRT is shown following something near Beddington, not in the median of Harvest Hills) and somehow the route 100 shifts from using Metis to using 36th Street between now and the future, I'd assume it should go the other way, which just screams to me that it was a rush job just so they have something to show. Duplication of the routes by putting the tram along Centre St makes me at least hopeful that someone at transit planning is pushing for moving the NCLRT to that alignment. Changes like the route 100 do make a lot of sense and this isn't the first plan thats at least alluded to that route, and as a first step its a good one (supposedly thats been worked on for a bit, according to someone on cptdb the route 100 destinations of McKnight and Airport [as well as whitehorn which may mean at one point they considered going that far south] are already programmed into the destination signs on the buses)

Dado
Sep 8, 2010, 1:53 AM
My take is that that presentation was thrown together quickly by someone so CT doesn't look like they're about to get caught with their pants around their ankles in terms of planning on how to handle the Barlow closure.

Devil's advocate here: maybe they do know what they're doing and are just setting the stage for the future.


Theres obvious mistakes in it (the NC LRT is shown following something near Beddington, not in the median of Harvest Hills)

True, but development is occurring in Symons Valley and the current LRT plans don't serve those areas too well. Perhaps a Nose Creek-Symons Valley line is in the offing, with a North Central line to carry on northwards through Harvest Hills.


and somehow the route 100 shifts from using Metis to using 36th Street between now and the future, I'd assume it should go the other way,

Something has to serve all that future airport sprawl... and won't 36th basically be trashed during runway construction with all the equipment that will be operating there?


which just screams to me that it was a rush job just so they have something to show. Duplication of the routes by putting the tram along Centre St makes me at least hopeful that someone at transit planning is pushing for moving the NCLRT to that alignment.

As above, with my comment on the possibility of a Nose Creek - Symons Valley line, which would essentially be a sort of quasi-commuter rail line to the far north of the city.

A tram line serving Harvest Hills would need far more capacity south of Beddington than north of it, so splitting it between the airport and Harvest Hills at Beddington would make sense. People could also transfer to the Nose Creek line there for the trip downtown, whether they are coming from the airport or Harvest Hills. The trams would then be largely emptied out for service on Centre St.


Changes like the route 100 do make a lot of sense and this isn't the first plan thats at least alluded to that route, and as a first step its a good one (supposedly thats been worked on for a bit, according to someone on cptdb the route 100 destinations of McKnight and Airport [as well as whitehorn which may mean at one point they considered going that far south] are already programmed into the destination signs on the buses)

I will certainly welcome something better than the god-forsaken #57 the next time I visit Calgary. The #57 actually has a reputation beyond Calgary.

The #430 will probably be good for UoCalgary students from elsewhere since they can avoid going downtown, though I don't get the detour down Beddington - why not just stay on Country Hills to Nose Hill Drive?

TETT2
Sep 8, 2010, 2:55 AM
My take is that that presentation was thrown together quickly by someone so CT doesn't look like they're about to get caught with their pants around their ankles in terms of planning on how to handle the Barlow closure. Theres obvious mistakes in it (the NC LRT is shown following something near Beddington, not in the median of Harvest Hills) and somehow the route 100 shifts from using Metis to using 36th Street between now and the future, I'd assume it should go the other way, which just screams to me that it was a rush job just so they have something to show. Duplication of the routes by putting the tram along Centre St makes me at least hopeful that someone at transit planning is pushing for moving the NCLRT to that alignment. Changes like the route 100 do make a lot of sense and this isn't the first plan thats at least alluded to that route, and as a first step its a good one (supposedly thats been worked on for a bit, according to someone on cptdb the route 100 destinations of McKnight and Airport [as well as whitehorn which may mean at one point they considered going that far south] are already programmed into the destination signs on the buses)

My opinion:
-I don't think anyone in Transit wants the LRT to run up Nose Hill, BUT because it is in the approved plan, how else are they supposed to show it?
-Because of that, I think the tram is there just to show something right now.
-I like Route 100 from the NE line to the Airport, hopefully no stops along the way.
-I dont like trams in any setting unless they have a dedicated ROW *cough beltline cough* ;)

DarkKeyo
Sep 8, 2010, 5:05 AM
The tram will never work, nor will a nose creek LRT. I just hope they know that. The first thing I'd point out to them is that the 430 doesn't run midday or weekends, and is thus useless most of the time. It would make a very effective crosstown route, living in the NW I would use it to get to Country Hills and the airport if it ran when I wanted to go there.

430 and 100 need half hour or less frequencies, for all normal service hours, like 57 has now. (there will probably be a few stops on the 100 along the way, but not many since there is nowhere on Metis for it to stop. I'm assuming its future routing on 36 st will be to serve the developments that will be there at that point).

310 is a good idea, why wait until 2012?

And that really is a horrible future map. Neither the NLRT or the high speed rail are anywhere near where they're planned to be. I could make a better map than that.

Koolfire
Sep 8, 2010, 6:12 AM
Devil's advocate here: maybe they do know what they're doing and are just setting the stage for the future.



True, but development is occurring in Symons Valley and the current LRT plans don't serve those areas too well. Perhaps a Nose Creek-Symons Valley line is in the offing, with a North Central line to carry on northwards through Harvest Hills.



Something has to serve all that future airport sprawl... and won't 36th basically be trashed during runway construction with all the equipment that will be operating there?



As above, with my comment on the possibility of a Nose Creek - Symons Valley line, which would essentially be a sort of quasi-commuter rail line to the far north of the city.

A tram line serving Harvest Hills would need far more capacity south of Beddington than north of it, so splitting it between the airport and Harvest Hills at Beddington would make sense. People could also transfer to the Nose Creek line there for the trip downtown, whether they are coming from the airport or Harvest Hills. The trams would then be largely emptied out for service on Centre St.



I will certainly welcome something better than the god-forsaken #57 the next time I visit Calgary. The #57 actually has a reputation beyond Calgary.

The #430 will probably be good for UoCalgary students from elsewhere since they can avoid going downtown, though I don't get the detour down Beddington - why not just stay on Country Hills to Nose Hill Drive?


I'm with Mersar on this. It looks like they had an intern put this together and intern had to go back to school. The NLRT doesn't go through Beddington on this map but through Harvest hills, Country Hills and Panorama. There is no ROW for it and there is no way they will ever consider buying up properties to make it happen.

My thought was if Country Hills LRT station on the NELRT is open would you not run the 100 from there?:shrug:


The #430 probably would stop at Sandstone terminal so that people can make transfers. Probably returns to Country Hills on 14th st because it isn't marked going south on 14th St.

Riise
Sep 8, 2010, 10:47 AM
^ Oh, it isn't that they want to do that (I think). They are doing what bureaucracy does best, they are framing an issue.

The natural reaction of most people looking at that would likely be 'why are they duplicating the Centre St tram and the NC LRT, isn't that stupid' which hopefully leads to the answer of ' for only this marginal cost, we can have a Centre St subway, avoid duplication and have better service'.

The bureaucracy can't just go and delete the current NC LRT alignment and replace it with something else, it has been voted on by council, however preliminarily.

I can see you doing that if you were in charge, but your obviously a smart guy. Although the CT team has been improving, I think this is still a little beyond them.

MalcolmTucker
Sep 8, 2010, 2:38 PM
A pretty logical, easy airport access plan from my point of view. You can add in the cross town route to Crowfoot as well, but I don't think it would garner enough riders to survive.

2015
Local Direct Routes to Saddle Ridge and North Pointe, Coach Downtown Shuttle at cost recovery basis
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/51/2015o.jpg

Later: Centre St subway is built
Automated shuttle to Centre St Subway Station (1 track) with provision for station with passing track at the CP line, Coach Downtown Shuttle at cost recovery basis, Local Direct to Saddle Ridge
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/584/csswn.jpg

Later still: HSR to Edmonton
Automated shuttle to Centre St Subway Station (1 track) and a station with passing track at the high speed rail station, 1 track spur from HSR track to terminal (for a downtown 1 seat service), Local Direct to Saddle Ridge
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6792/hsry.jpg

Further in the future I could see an automated shuttle to Saddle Ridge, but I doubt the ridership would ever be there to justify it

You Need A Thneed
Sep 9, 2010, 3:55 PM
Martindale station:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/Martindalestation.jpg
By me, last week I think.

xAnderblaze
Sep 9, 2010, 4:16 PM
:previous: Minus the fact that it would be super handy having a CTrain station right outside your house, it would really suck to live there...

YYCguys
Sep 9, 2010, 4:43 PM
I wonder if the prices of the homes along that section of the line, and especially those that are right next to the station, have gone up or gone down.

fusili
Sep 9, 2010, 4:55 PM
I wonder if the prices of the homes along that section of the line, and especially those that are right next to the station, have gone up or gone down.

Home prices generally benefit from access to public transportation, especially rail, but immediate adjacency to a line could hurt. Commercial properties on the other hand....

Riise
Sep 9, 2010, 10:03 PM
Home prices generally benefit from access to public transportation, especially rail, but immediate adjacency to a line could hurt. Commercial properties on the other hand....

I wonder if type of residential would make a difference. For instance, if the house is being used as a rental property, especially a subdivided property, it would be great for the owners.

Ferreth
Sep 10, 2010, 1:53 AM
Martindale station:


Wow, that pic really shows how the city didn't even think to put at least townhouses up against an LRT station and up the density a little. I mean, seriously, single family home 5ft from an LRT station? :koko:

As mentioned, a little commercial as a buffer would be nice too, especially if it generated a bit of traffic to keep the ruffians at bay :rolleyes:

You Need A Thneed
Sep 10, 2010, 2:08 AM
Wow, that pic really shows how the city didn't even think to put at least townhouses up against an LRT station and up the density a little. I mean, seriously, single family home 5ft from an LRT station? :koko:

As mentioned, a little commercial as a buffer would be nice too, especially if it generated a bit of traffic to keep the ruffians at bay :rolleyes:

There's a bunch of townhouses that are right next to the other platform (the outbound platform). The platform seen is the inbound platform.

DarkKeyo
Sep 10, 2010, 3:08 AM
A pretty logical, easy airport access plan from my point of view. You can add in the cross town route to Crowfoot as well, but I don't think it would garner enough riders to survive.

2015
Local Direct Routes to Saddle Ridge and North Pointe, Coach Downtown Shuttle at cost recovery basis

Later: Centre St subway is built
Automated shuttle to Centre St Subway Station (1 track) with provision for station with passing track at the CP line, Coach Downtown Shuttle at cost recovery basis, Local Direct to Saddle Ridge

Later still: HSR to Edmonton
Automated shuttle to Centre St Subway Station (1 track) and a station with passing track at the high speed rail station, 1 track spur from HSR track to terminal (for a downtown 1 seat service), Local Direct to Saddle Ridge

Further in the future I could see an automated shuttle to Saddle Ridge, but I doubt the ridership would ever be there to justify it

I agree with your ideas here, and good job on the maps. Too bad you aren't in charge of the transit planning department...

I do, however, think that the crosstown route to Crowfoot is justified. If we're adding easy access from the NE with the tunnel/route 100, from the south with that coach downtown shuttle, Centre St subway, and eventually HSR, from the North with the automated shuttle... why leave out the NW? The 430 now would get ridership if it actually had frequency, and ran normal hours.

On another topic, good to see Martindale station coming along, although I still resent a bit that they'd spend money on a station surrounded by single family homes and not on Northland station, which has higher density, TOD opportunity at the mall, the mall itself, several schools, and a recreation centre. I know I post about that a lot, but I would use that station just that much.

mersar
Sep 10, 2010, 7:05 PM
Series 8 LRV's 2301-2307 have arrived as of today. 2301 and 2302 have been painted and are being put through testing, so it won't be long hopefully before the first consist goes into service, maybe a few more weeks.

Dado
Sep 12, 2010, 3:41 PM
Martindale station:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/Martindalestation.jpg
By me, last week I think.

:previous: Minus the fact that it would be super handy having a CTrain station right outside your house, it would really suck to live there...

It could be worse: you could have a busway running past your house...

https://sites.google.com/site/ottawadado/files/SWTwy-Highbury_Park_overpass01.jpg
Southwest Transitway extension, Ottawa (Barrhaven), future Highbury Park overpass. Photo mine.

Since the busway is in a dip here to go under the bridge, the buses will be travelling at full speed and power to climb out on either side (the other way to look at it is the bridge exists so buses won't have to slow down, but either way they're at full speed and power).

The secondary retaining wall beneath the bridge is to carry a pathway under the road.

reflexzero
Sep 15, 2010, 2:53 PM
Martindale station:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/Martindalestation.jpg
By me, last week I think.

Notice the hooded ruffian, on his way to start a fire in a garbage can... oh wait that's not Sunalta.

joking aside, I don't know how safe I would feel with a place for persons to congregate right beside my house, as generally people are pigs or thieves.

MasterG
Sep 16, 2010, 5:15 AM
Notice the hooded ruffian, on his way to start a fire in a garbage can... oh wait that's not Sunalta.

joking aside, I don't know how safe I would feel with a place for persons to congregate right beside my house, as generally people are pigs or thieves.

its too bad they never thought to develop a block or two around the station at a higher zoning density. having a few multi-family spots and more people on the street would do wonders for increase the eyes to watch out for these hooligans ;)

but i can just imagine once this kid and his neighbourhood buddies turn 18 and stumble home from the bar on the train and relieve themselves all over this poor guy's front porch... ugh

Policy Wonk
Sep 16, 2010, 8:11 AM
Public urination accounts for the vast majority of reasonable complaints made to Calgary Transit when people are complaining about a stop in close proximity to their home. Vandalism is a distant second.

I know a family that had hoped removing the bushes from their front yard might discourage people, it didn't. The men do it anyway, now directly on the side of their house and the women will let themselves into their back yard and periodically leave a little something extra.

Aegis
Sep 16, 2010, 9:14 PM
Public urination accounts for the vast majority of reasonable complaints made to Calgary Transit when people are complaining about a stop in close proximity to their home. Vandalism is a distant second.

I know a family that had hoped removing the bushes from their front yard might discourage people, it didn't. The men do it anyway, now directly on the side of their house and the women will let themselves into their back yard and periodically leave a little something extra.

I think one of the worst bus stops ever was at the intersection of Uxbridge Drive and Unwin Road NW. The students from Van Horne High pretty much destroyed the bus stop and urinated everywhere. A Great bunch, they were.

SubwayRev
Sep 16, 2010, 10:24 PM
Public urination accounts for the vast majority of reasonable complaints made to Calgary Transit when people are complaining about a stop in close proximity to their home. Vandalism is a distant second.

I know a family that had hoped removing the bushes from their front yard might discourage people, it didn't. The men do it anyway, now directly on the side of their house and the women will let themselves into their back yard and periodically leave a little something extra.

I've always thought there should be some public toilets along the C-Train route, especially near the end of the line.

Eliminating public urination is as easy as providing facilities. People would rather use a toilet, but if there isn't one, they're going to go anyway. When you gotta go, you gotta go.

Policy Wonk
Sep 16, 2010, 10:55 PM
The tragedy of most public amenities is we would rather remove them entirely than deal with the lowlifes who abuse them. I worked in a building downtown where the card key doors on each floor were moved to the elevator lobby because they couldn't keep the Larry Craig's of the world out of the washrooms, who didn't just fuck in there but left them absolutely disgusting and vandalized the tile wall with their "personal ads"

Although there are some problematic locations in very close proximity to public washrooms where people let loose anyways. I guess they don't want to risk missing the next bus?

Much of it just comes down to people having no respect for their community, or as the case may be too intoxicated to care where they do it.

Riise
Sep 16, 2010, 11:29 PM
The tragedy of most public amenities is we would rather remove them entirely than deal with the lowlifes who abuse them.

I'd suggest pay-per-use automated toilets.

Policy Wonk
Sep 16, 2010, 11:34 PM
The homeless garrisoned them in Seattle until they were removed,

Ultimately public misbehaviour has to be confronted,

mooky
Sep 17, 2010, 4:26 PM
The best public toilets are public toilets with an attendant on site.

There is a public toilet near Westminster Abbey in London, England, at the entrance is a turnstile I believe I had to throw 10 pence in.

They weren't luxurious, but more then adequate and well used, and I'm sure the fee paid for some/most of the attendants wage.

outoftheice
Sep 17, 2010, 5:52 PM
its too bad they never thought to develop a block or two around the station at a higher zoning density. having a few multi-family spots and more people on the street would do wonders for increase the eyes to watch out for these hooligans ;)

but i can just imagine once this kid and his neighbourhood buddies turn 18 and stumble home from the bar on the train and relieve themselves all over this poor guy's front porch... ugh

I definately agree... especially since the LRT right of way was built into the community plan. It definately leaves me scratching my head why anybody involved in planning thought that this was the way to go... I guess maybe the whole 'let's integrate transit into the neighbourhood?' angle... but there's got to be a better way to integrate transit....

MalcolmTucker
Sep 17, 2010, 6:02 PM
I forget whether that station itself was in the original plan (when the neighborhood was laid out). I would also think it would have been hard to sell dense housing there up until the point when transit was built, which wasn't predicted for many more years.

Aegis
Sep 17, 2010, 6:37 PM
they couldn't keep the Larry Craig's of the world out of the washrooms, who didn't just fuck in there but left them absolutely disgusting and vandalized the tile wall with their "personal ads"

At the risk of ruining everyone's lunch.. who is/was Larry Craig?

mersar
Sep 17, 2010, 6:46 PM
At the risk of ruining everyone's lunch.. who is/was Larry Craig?

A US senator who was accused of solicitation in a mens washroom at an airport in Minneapolis.


And in transit news, it seems that CT has figured out a way to get the U2's and SD160's to run together in revenue service. And not just the 2 AC U2's, but the DC U2's as well.

Rusty van Reddick
Sep 17, 2010, 9:43 PM
At the risk of ruining everyone's lunch.. who is/was Larry Craig?

At the risk of ruining yours, have you heard of google?

Aegis
Sep 17, 2010, 10:35 PM
At the risk of ruining yours, have you heard of google?

I tried to google it, but my employer's firewall blocked the results.

SmokWawelski
Sep 18, 2010, 12:46 AM
At the risk of ruining yours, have you heard of google?

My, my....aren't we on a high horse...

xAnderblaze
Sep 20, 2010, 5:09 AM
I was curious if anyone is aware of any plans to add express trains to the lines, whereas the train would go from the last station and not stop until it reached downtown or possibly 1 or 2 other stations along the lines. It seems our system is kinda in need of that when it is shoulder to shoulder by the time it gets to the second or third station.

mersar
Sep 20, 2010, 5:35 AM
Nope, it would actually be a pretty horrible waste of resources in my opinion as it wouldn't be any faster as the trains would still need to wait the same amount at each station even if they didn't open the doors otherwise they'd get too close to the train in front. The load from each station at any given time of day also varies quite a bit on a daily basis to make it likely that rather then running a full train (or over-full train), you might end up running a half empty train all the way downtown and leaving people waiting on the platforms in between, making their commutes even longer.

fusili
Sep 20, 2010, 6:07 AM
I was curious if anyone is aware of any plans to add express trains to the lines, whereas the train would go from the last station and not stop until it reached downtown or possibly 1 or 2 other stations along the lines. It seems our system is kinda in need of that when it is shoulder to shoulder by the time it gets to the second or third station.

The problem you state and your solution don't seem match up. If the first three stations fill up the train, then either larger trains, more frequent trains, or trains that don't go all the way to the end of the line are needed. Express trains aren't going to make it easier for people to get on the train further down the line. Plus, express trains are really used in places like NY, where there are numerous destinations along all lines, and trains need to stop frequently to make walking distance to the stations shorter. The express trains bypass all these stops in order to allow people to cross the city quicker without having to use local service trains. In Calgary, there really is only one destination- Downtown, and the rest of the stops are just origin stops, not really destinations (UofC and SAIT being two exceptions). So there really is no benefit for express trains.

People on the first three stops are getting on fine, it is the people closer to the core who can't get on the train. Four car trains, greater headways due to the subway and even an inner-city streetcar system are what is needed.

freeweed
Sep 20, 2010, 1:14 PM
Plus the only way express trains could possibly work here is a completely separate rail line. As mersar outlined, how else could the express trains pass the regular trains?

4 car trains, plus greater frequency - it's the only option.

Danma
Sep 20, 2010, 5:23 PM
^ Not to mention your timings need to be much sharper if you have multiple trains at different speeds on the same tracks. You'd have to invest in an ATC system for keeping trains from blocking each other... sigh. Complicated!

para transit fellow
Sep 20, 2010, 6:51 PM
Wasn't there someone who taught at SAIT suggesting that the LRT should only stop every other station... as a means of enhancing capacity.

(my brain hurts when I try to wrap my head around that piece of thinking)

Riise
Sep 20, 2010, 9:35 PM
Wasn't there someone who taught at SAIT suggesting that the LRT should only stop every other station... as a means of enhancing capacity.

(my brain hurts when I try to wrap my head around that piece of thinking)

He may have been referring to Skip-Stop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip-stop) service.

hulkrogan
Sep 20, 2010, 9:39 PM
All you need is a siding at each station for express lines.

With all of the stations which have platforms on the outside of the tracks (and not an island in the middle) it gets pretty tough to through the short stretch of 3rd track in without messing the whole thing up.

MasterG
Sep 24, 2010, 3:26 AM
Does anyone remember when the c train is supposed to have next train times on the LED screens at the refurbished stops downtown?

artvandelay
Sep 24, 2010, 4:00 AM
Does anyone know if CT has the ability to make doors on the C-Train automatically open and close like they do on a real metro system?
This morning my train was delayed at Chinook, 39th, and Vic park due to people holding/blocking the doors. I know it's not a huge delay but it adds up. Manually operated doors were fine when ridership was lower, but I don't think it's working anymore.

jeffwhit
Sep 24, 2010, 4:39 AM
Does anyone know if CT has the ability to make doors on the C-Train automatically open and close like they do on a real metro system?
This morning my train was delayed at Chinook, 39th, and Vic park due to people holding/blocking the doors. I know it's not a huge delay but it adds up. Manually operated doors were fine when ridership was lower, but I don't think it's working anymore.

Yes they do.

CTrainDude
Sep 24, 2010, 5:49 AM
Yes they do.

Ummm...no, they don't - at least not on all vehicles. It is possible on the SD160s, but not on the U2s.

jeffwhit
Sep 24, 2010, 6:59 AM
I stand corrected? I had read that in the early days of the c-train the operator did open and close the doors.

shogged
Sep 24, 2010, 9:13 PM
they can't force the doors shut if something is blocking them if that is what you mean. or at least i've never seen that happen and i've been waiting a good 5 minutes for people to realize they aren't going to fit.

I'm still pretty sure the doors are manually operated though. In a sense that, when the train arrives in station, the operator would select which side and open them, then start the "closing process" with another touch of the button.

jeffwhit
Sep 25, 2010, 12:56 AM
^^No, I understand that, but i thought I read that the driver could open all the doors on one side, then set them to close. I was looking in the cockpit of the tarin this mornign to see what I could see and I think I am just misremembering.

Bassic Lab
Sep 25, 2010, 5:44 AM
Does anyone know if CT has the ability to make doors on the C-Train automatically open and close like they do on a real metro system?
This morning my train was delayed at Chinook, 39th, and Vic park due to people holding/blocking the doors. I know it's not a huge delay but it adds up. Manually operated doors were fine when ridership was lower, but I don't think it's working anymore.

I can't see it making any difference. It wouldn't be safe to design doors that force closing. Just like elevators, they're not designed so that passengers can hold them open; they're designed so that passengers are not crushed. The ability to hold the doors open is simply a side effect of that.

Koolfire
Sep 25, 2010, 5:51 AM
We should higher station attendants like in Japan help with closing doors on crowded trains. j/k

What about having a clock/timer on the door that people can see for how long the door is to stay open. Similar to the new pedestrian crosswalk signals. Might save lives if someone knows the door is closing in 2 seconds and they don't have a chance to catch the train it might make them not do something stupid.

DarkKeyo
Sep 25, 2010, 8:19 AM
Toronto and Vancouver trains have doors that open automatically for a set period of time, and then they chime three times before closing. That's about as close to a timer as you could get, and they can still be held open, though not as easily. But to close the door on our trains, the driver disables the buttons that open it, rather than specifically closing them all at the same time.

If we replaced those buttons with something with a brighter light that could be seen from more than a few feet away, then people running for it would know that the train is about to leave. Unfortunately this wouldn't discourage people who intentionally hold the doors open anyways... Maybe a red coloured light? The current set of buttons are pretty crummy anyways, I never understood why they chose that particular button...

SubwayRev
Sep 25, 2010, 11:33 AM
I can't see it making any difference. It wouldn't be safe to design doors that force closing. Just like elevators, they're not designed so that passengers can hold them open; they're designed so that passengers are not crushed. The ability to hold the doors open is simply a side effect of that.

It works fine on every other train system in the world. I think it would be safe here as well.

Riise
Sep 25, 2010, 12:19 PM
In a sense that, when the train arrives in station, the operator would select which side and open them, then start the "closing process" with another touch of the button.

If I recall correctly, the doors are on a timer (~20s) and start the closing process automatically. The conductor only activates the open feature.


It wouldn't be safe to design doors that force closing. Just like elevators, they're not designed so that passengers can hold them open; they're designed so that passengers are not crushed. The ability to hold the doors open is simply a side effect of that.

Nope, it's a design flaw. Door closing fatalities are a rarity on the London Underground and Paris Metro as the doors do not crush passengers but rather stop upon contact, allowing the passenger to remove their limb, while not re-opening the entire doorway. It avoids both injury and abuse.

jeffwhit
Sep 25, 2010, 4:56 PM
Why is it that people who get on at Centre street station (in particular) have a hard time with the "people get off, then people get on" system of train boarding? Jesus, I practically got showed back onto the train twice yesterday.
seriously, if you get on the train at Centre Street, you're probably some kind of stupid asshole.

srperrycgy
Sep 25, 2010, 7:30 PM
Why is it that people who get on at Centre street station (in particular) have a hard time with the "people get off, then people get on" system of train boarding? Jesus, I practically got showed back onto the train twice yesterday.
seriously, if you get on the train at Centre Street, you're probably some kind of stupid asshole.

Not just a Centre Street problem. I used to experience the same issue at McKnight in the afternoon when the cleaning ladies are heading downtown to work. Good thing I'm a big guy. But some of those gals are quite feisty and will push trying to get a seat with their friends. :cool:

Bassic Lab
Sep 25, 2010, 11:10 PM
If I recall correctly, the doors are on a timer (~20s) and start the closing process automatically. The conductor only activates the open feature.




Nope, it's a design flaw. Door closing fatalities are a rarity on the London Underground and Paris Metro as the doors do not crush passengers but rather stop upon contact, allowing the passenger to remove their limb, while not re-opening the entire doorway. It avoids both injury and abuse.

I haven't been on either system so correct me if I'm wrong but if the doors stop closing when they hit something how does that stop someone from holding them all the way open before they start closing. Really I can't imagine a system where passengers cannot at least push the doors open more if they close on a body part; my foot is larger than my ankle and that seems relatively common.

SubwayRev
Sep 25, 2010, 11:17 PM
I haven't been on either system so correct me if I'm wrong but if the doors stop closing when they hit something how does that stop someone from holding them all the way open before they start closing. Really I can't imagine a system where passengers cannot at least push the doors open more if they close on a body part; my foot is larger than my ankle and that seems relatively common.

What happens is the door stops closing, but does not re-open. In Calgary, if someone stops the door, it fully opens again, forcing the process to start all over again. Most train systems, when the door comes in contact with something, it stops, allows that arm or foot or backpack to be pulled out, then resumes closing.

I suppose doors could be held open, but I don't ever recall seeing it happen anywhere else.

YYCguys
Sep 25, 2010, 11:37 PM
With so much Ctrain platform construction going on downtown, I don't know which ones are open and which ones are under construction and closed. I am going to Lasik Eye Centre on 7th Ave, do you know which station would be open and closest to that business?

mersar
Sep 25, 2010, 11:45 PM
4th, and City Hall are closed, and 3rd Street SE is gone forever. I believe Lasik MD is over by 7th and 8th Street stations so you shouldn't have a problem no matter which direction you are coming from.

YYCguys
Sep 26, 2010, 4:17 AM
mersar, the ever knowledgeable one, thank you!

McPaul
Sep 26, 2010, 4:36 AM
Not just a Centre Street problem. I used to experience the same issue at McKnight in the afternoon when the cleaning ladies are heading downtown to work. Good thing I'm a big guy. But some of those gals are quite feisty and will push trying to get a seat with their friends. :cool:

Still happens every morning at Westwinds. Sometimes I have to push back. Sometimes hard enough that I get some comments and looks. Glad when the next station opens up and were not at the end of the line anymore

Btw, anyone know when the peed bridge opens? We haven't heard anything.

mersar
Sep 27, 2010, 12:26 AM
Ped bridge looked like its got about a month or so of work left when I saw it this afternoon.

And 8101 (the first of the Novas) has been given its livery, and it doesn't look too bad. Pictures can be found here (http://www.busdrawings.com/Transit/alberta/calgary/nova/8101-8114/index.htm)

mersar
Oct 1, 2010, 3:20 AM
Another report from cptdb that the Nova's will be going into service as of Monday on select routes. Based out of Spring Gardens so mostly inner city and northern routes. Only ~14 of them have arrived so far, but the rest will be coming soon.

Vascilli
Oct 1, 2010, 4:22 AM
That lone seat between the driver and the wheel well looks like it'll become the seat of choice. Lots of arm room and storage.

You Need A Thneed
Oct 1, 2010, 5:06 AM
I think it was yesterday that I saw at least 2 of the cars in a three car train were the newest SD160s. Are they now in service, or were they in transit to OBMF?

mersar
Oct 1, 2010, 7:26 AM
They've been running training runs with the newer LRV's, all in 2 and 3 car consists, all out of service. What you might have seen was the refurbished units with the plastic skirting around the roof that looks a bit like the new LRV's, but isn't as smooth, as these LRV's are used randomly in the fleet like any other older LRV.

You Need A Thneed
Oct 1, 2010, 4:25 PM
They've been running training runs with the newer LRV's, all in 2 and 3 car consists, all out of service. What you might have seen was the refurbished units with the plastic skirting around the roof that looks a bit like the new LRV's, but isn't as smooth, as these LRV's are used randomly in the fleet like any other older LRV.

They were definitely the new restyled ones, it likely was a training run then.

halifaxboyns
Oct 1, 2010, 8:27 PM
Just saw one of the new Nova Buses that CT ordered this morning parked on 7th Avenue in front of the CT ticket office. Wasn't painted (was all white) but certainly looked sharp.

I haven't seen a Nova Bus since I moved from Halifax; since neither CT or ETS use them.

reflexzero
Oct 3, 2010, 6:27 PM
Btw, anyone know when the peed bridge opens? We haven't heard anything.

Hey anyone happen to know the price tag of that pedestrian overpass? Buddy of mine had the idea that it cost the same as the new tri-services building in Saddleridge.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 3, 2010, 6:32 PM
From city of calgary:
Project Name Pedestrian Overpass Description Construction of a new pedestrian overpass in the northeast. The budget amount covers Pedestrian Overpass Program Budget for several projects since 2009 which have not yet been included on this site. Address Whitehorn / Westwinds Service Type http://www.calgaryinfrastructure.ca/img/i.gif Mobility Estimated Total Project Cost http://www.calgaryinfrastructure.ca/img/i.gif $4,200,000 Project Budget Since 2009 http://www.calgaryinfrastructure.ca/img/i.gif $36,132,000 (This amount may support more than one project within a Program.) Design / Tender / Bid Start http://www.calgaryinfrastructure.ca/img/i.gif Summer 2008 Construction / Purchase Start http://www.calgaryinfrastructure.ca/img/i.gif Fall 2008 PROJECT COMPLETION http://www.calgaryinfrastructure.ca/img/i.gif Summer 2009 PROJECT STATUS Completed PROJECT STATUS UPDATED ON July 1, 2010

mersar
Oct 3, 2010, 6:39 PM
I think thats for the other pedestrian bridge up there that was done last year. But I can't see this one costing more then twice that other one (its bigger)

Edit: the one over Metis is listed on calgaryinfrastructure.ca as a cost of $5,200,000 and completion late 2010

You Need A Thneed
Oct 4, 2010, 5:15 AM
Hey anyone happen to know the price tag of that pedestrian overpass? Buddy of mine had the idea that it cost the same as the new tri-services building in Saddleridge.

The pedestrian bridge has a budget of 5.2 million, and the Saddleridge Tri-services has a budget of 26 million, according to calgaryinfrastructure.ca

Your buddy certainly isn't correct.

reflexzero
Oct 4, 2010, 2:35 PM
Thanks. Seemed ridiculous, so I wanted to be sure.

TransitSupporter
Oct 4, 2010, 3:12 PM
Just saw one of the new Nova Buses that CT ordered this morning parked on 7th Avenue in front of the CT ticket office. Wasn't painted (was all white) but certainly looked sharp.

I haven't seen a Nova Bus since I moved from Halifax; since neither CT or ETS use them.

Saw 8103 on the Route 3 this morning, nice & shiny.

kap384
Oct 4, 2010, 4:20 PM
Canopy structure now up for the 4th St. station.

mersar
Oct 4, 2010, 7:05 PM
Yep, it went up last weekend. They did appear to have run into a problem though, the stairs to the +15 they had built have since been torn down (which looked like a fun process, as it was cast in place concrete from the looks of it)

You Need A Thneed
Oct 7, 2010, 5:32 PM
Whitehorn station will be getting it's entirely new 4 car platform installed this weekend, I believe. Ctrain service ends at rundle, 36th street southbound will be closed all weekend, and the existing platform has pretty much been stripped bare.

mersar
Oct 7, 2010, 7:21 PM
Whitehorn station will be getting it's entirely new 4 car platform installed this weekend, I believe. Ctrain service ends at rundle, 36th street southbound will be closed all weekend, and the existing platform has pretty much been stripped bare.

Yep, plus they are doing canopy installation at City Hall on the WB side of the station, so its pretty limited CTrain service this weekend.

Another thing I noticed of late is that CT seems to be changing the naming for the stations in most of their news releases, Victoria Park/Stampede is being called Stampede Station, and Erlton/Stampede is now just Erlton. I know that a few people including the Beltline Community association has been pushing for this of late, and CT seems to be going that way. Too bad that actually changing the names of the stations requires a vote by council, maybe it might happen though after the election as from what I've heard the new transportation boss at the city seemed open to the idea when he was told about it and supposedly the Stampede Board was in favour of it too.

srperrycgy
Oct 7, 2010, 7:35 PM
Another thing I noticed of late is that CT seems to be changing the naming for the stations in most of their news releases, Victoria Park/Stampede is being called Stampede Station, and Erlton/Stampede is now just Erlton. I know that a few people including the Beltline Community association has been pushing for this of late, and CT seems to be going that way. Too bad that actually changing the names of the stations requires a vote by council, maybe it might happen though after the election as from what I've heard the new transportation boss at the city seemed open to the idea when he was told about it and supposedly the Stampede Board was in favour of it too.

I'd like to see Somerset-Bridlewood shortened to just Somerset. Considering Bridlewood is a fair distance from the station.

YYCguys
Oct 7, 2010, 7:56 PM
McKnight-Westwinds Station is closer to 64th Ave NE than it is to McKnight and should be shortened to Westwinds, as well.

Cage
Oct 7, 2010, 9:12 PM
Hopefully the Station name shortening also catches up with Jubilee/SAIT/ACAD. The station should simply be SAIT.

hulkrogan
Oct 7, 2010, 9:19 PM
The X/Y Stations drive me nuts.

I also noticed that on the route maps on board some stations are X-Y and some are X/Y which makes no sense.

I really wish they would start including route names when referencing trains instead of just terminus stations which change way too often.

I prefer the color line naming scheme, but even 201 North - Crowfoot, 201 South - Somerset would be a big improvement and less confusing for people not familiar with the system.

I always hear people on the platform asking "Is this a Northeast train?".

SubwayRev
Oct 7, 2010, 9:19 PM
Half the stations on the system should be changed. There shouldn't be any double (or triple) names, nor any hyphens or slashes.

I would also prefer if they were named after streets, and not communities.

fusili
Oct 7, 2010, 9:45 PM
The X/Y Stations drive me nuts.

I also noticed that on the route maps on board some stations are X-Y and some are X/Y which makes no sense.

I really wish they would start including route names when referencing trains instead of just terminus stations which change way too often.

I prefer the color line naming scheme, but even 201 North - Crowfoot, 201 South - Somerset would be a big improvement and less confusing for people not familiar with the system.

I always hear people on the platform asking "Is this a Northeast train?".

Or how about just direction. NW, South, NE, West and the future SE and North should do it.

Stang
Oct 7, 2010, 9:58 PM
I hope that the trend to shorter names sticks. The simpler the better.

Pick the most prominent landmark, street, community etc. nearby and just leave it at that.

srperrycgy
Oct 7, 2010, 10:10 PM
I prefer the color line naming scheme, but even 201 North - Crowfoot, 201 South - Somerset would be a big improvement and less confusing for people not familiar with the system.

I always hear people on the platform asking "Is this a Northeast train?".

Using red and blue to differentiate the two lines would be easy to implement. The "what train is this?" question, should abate a little with the New LRVs; they have a side destination sign as well as the front and back ones. However, people will likely be as oblivious as they are now. :cool:

Mazrim
Oct 7, 2010, 11:39 PM
Based on this thread, we should consider ourselves fortunate that the Tuscany-Rocky Ridge station got shortened to just Tuscany. I would hate to see the backlash for that. ;)

Ferreth
Oct 8, 2010, 2:05 AM
Using red and blue to differentiate the two lines would be easy to implement. The "what train is this?" question, should abate a little with the New LRVs; they have a side destination sign as well as the front and back ones. However, people will likely be as oblivious as they are now. :cool:

YES! Hopefully the side destination signs will be kept accurate. I've had many a situation where I missed seeing the sign on the front of the train as it whizzed by, then try to second guess if the signs in between cars are right or not (pretty much 50-50, from my experience). The whole terminus thing should calm down a bit after these latest expansions are done - I don't see another one happening for at least 10 years.

Koolfire
Oct 8, 2010, 2:21 AM
YES! Hopefully the side destination signs will be kept accurate. I've had many a situation where I missed seeing the sign on the front of the train as it whizzed by, then try to second guess if the signs in between cars are right or not (pretty much 50-50, from my experience). The whole terminus thing should calm down a bit after these latest expansions are done - I don't see another one happening for at least 10 years.

Depends, if the airport tunnel gets build I could see expansions for the next ten years. Saddletown-> Airport -> Aurora Business Park -> Harvest Hills -> Panarama. The only problem I see is that the 301 would be still faster from North Pointe to Downtown then the LRT. :haha: I say it's possible but I'm not sure if it will/should.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 8, 2010, 2:49 AM
Airports are notoriously bad trip generators, and the NE LRT already has a route. The way route planning works in the city one would have to move heaven and earth to get a report out of notice of motion that showed a higher value for serving the airport than the current future plans.

It is just like the servicing to Mount Royal College in the last go round - there was enough support to examine it but when the chips were down council couldn't build a line that was technically inferior and served less people for more money.

DizzyEdge
Oct 8, 2010, 2:53 AM
Airports are notoriously bad trip generators, and the NE LRT already has a route. The way route planning works in the city one would have to move heaven and earth to get a report out of notice of motion that showed a higher value for serving the airport than the current future plans.

It is just like the servicing to Mount Royal College in the last go round - there was enough support to examine it but when the chips were down council couldn't build a line that was technically inferior and served less people for more money.

Speaking of MRU, I've always thought that some sort of streetcar, going from MRU -> Marda Loop -> Beltline -> Inglewood -> 17th Ave SE would be awesome, connecting the school and two retail areas that are not easy to walk to from downtown to the centre of the city. No idea if that would be at all feasible.

The Chemist
Oct 8, 2010, 2:54 AM
Using red and blue to differentiate the two lines would be easy to implement. The "what train is this?" question, should abate a little with the New LRVs; they have a side destination sign as well as the front and back ones. However, people will likely be as oblivious as they are now. :cool:

Yes, ideally they'd have different colours on the vehicles themselves to indicate what line the train belongs to. Here in Shanghai there's a stretch of track/stations shared by two subway lines, but I've never gotten confused as to which line is which because the two lines have completely different colours on their trains (one is purple, the other is yellow).

Still, I don't think Calgary has anything nearly as confusing as Shanghai Metro where two adjacent stations have nearly the same name (one is Shanghai Stadium, the other is Shanghai Indoor Stadium) and one is a transfer station and the other is not. I get the impression that even locals get confused quite frequently by this.

srperrycgy
Oct 8, 2010, 3:12 AM
Yes, ideally they'd have different colours on the vehicles themselves to indicate what line the train belongs to. Here in Shanghai there's a stretch of track/stations shared by two subway lines, but I've never gotten confused as to which line is which because the two lines have completely different colours on their trains (one is purple, the other is yellow).

If both lines were separated, I could see that. If the SELRT was low-floor as we suspect, a different livery and colours might happen.

Still, I don't think Calgary has anything nearly as confusing as Shanghai Metro where two adjacent stations have nearly the same name (one is Shanghai Stadium, the other is Shanghai Indoor Stadium) and one is a transfer station and the other is not. I get the impression that even locals get confused quite frequently by this.

From looking at pics of the Shanghai system, that doesn't surprise me at all. :)

Riise
Oct 8, 2010, 9:57 AM
Yes, ideally they'd have different colours on the vehicles themselves to indicate what line the train belongs to. Here in Shanghai there's a stretch of track/stations shared by two subway lines, but I've never gotten confused as to which line is which because the two lines have completely different colours on their trains (one is purple, the other is yellow).

The other day I was thinking that when the lines stop sharing trains, they could change the colour the poles and handrails to match the line's colour.

fusili
Oct 8, 2010, 1:59 PM
Almost every city I have been to that has a metro uses colours to identify the lines. The problem is when you start to get more than 10 or so lines, you just run out of easily distinguishable colours. You have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple and then lighter versions of each. After that it gets confusing. A combination of colours and numbers is best. And the routes should be numbered 1-10 not this 201-202 crap.

Riise
Oct 8, 2010, 2:18 PM
Almost every city I have been to that has a metro uses colours to identify the lines. The problem is when you start to get more than 10 or so lines, you just run out of easily distinguishable colours. You have red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple and then lighter versions of each. After that it gets confusing. A combination of colours and numbers is best. And the routes should be numbered 1-10 not this 201-202 crap.

Colours and numbers are probably the all-round best but I do like names. When I was going to Uni last year I enjoyed taking the Victoria line to the Jubilee line. Since Calgary doesn't have any rail companies to derive the names from, they could use animals and colours. You could have:

The Monkey Line
The Elephant Line
The Flamingo Line
The Dove Line
The Smurf Line

Stang
Oct 8, 2010, 3:01 PM
Colours and numbers are probably the all-round best but I do like names. When I was going to Uni last year I enjoyed taking the Victoria line to the Jubilee line. Since Calgary doesn't have any rail companies to derive the names from, they could use animals and colours. You could have:


What do those names have to do with the rail companies? I think that they're based on the monarchy. Not that we need to honour monarchs with our line names, of course.

MalcolmTucker
Oct 8, 2010, 3:27 PM
The Crowchild-Macleod line mayhaps?