[DarkKeyo]

As an aside, the money that is currently being spent on the Rocky Ridge/Tuscany and Saddletowne extensions would have looked pretty good topping up Green Trip, or in general providing enough funds to make the SE LRT somewhat useful in its first phase (getting from Eau Claire to Douglasdale)

Ending at Douglasdale is nowhere NEAR somewhat useful. If they have to build a first phase that would be somewhat useful, 4 St SE to Mckenzie Towne would be much, much better than ending at Douglasdale. That is a line to nowhere. So much of the ridership for SELRT will come from the block of communities south of Douglasdale, they're even partly designed around LRT.'

To use your Canada line comparison, that would be like ending at Bridgeport station and going no further south.

[MichaelS]

never mind.

[MalcolmTucker]

Ending at Douglasdale is nowhere NEAR somewhat useful. If they have to build a first phase that would be somewhat useful, 4 St SE to Mckenzie Towne would be much, much better than ending at Douglasdale. That is a line to nowhere. So much of the ridership for SELRT will come from the block of communities south of Douglasdale, they're even partly designed around LRT.'

To use your Canada line comparison, that would be like ending at Bridgeport station and going no further south.

It is useful in that it lets every bus from the deep SE avoid the Deerfoot, Bow Bottom, Anderson pinch. Bridgeport on the Canada Line is in fact where most of their buses from the suburbs come in, which makes the analogy particularly apt.

When the proposals on the table is about building far less (east of Macleod Tr to just south of Glenmore I believe), I wouldn't complain about trying to build at least a somewhat functional line that actually went downtown to a logical suburban terminus. From Douglasdale, future expansions are relatively cheap and should be easy to carve off money to get it down to the south hospital within a decade or 15 years.

Building the truncated LRT line without the downtown section and a terminus that is not particularly useful is just building LRT to say we are building it, which is exactly what people are advocating against on the north central LRT up Nose Creek. Just because it was a campaign promise, I don't know why people think that meant shovels in the ground ASAP - and it shouldn't be a reason to.

[Robert in Calgary]

The station at 4 st SE, beside the underpass, will be two blocks away from the start of the Stampede Trail retail development. So, SELRT will improve access to stampede considerably.



I would actually prefer for a line heading out to 17th Avenue SE to be the route that has a northside Stampede station located near 4th Street/10th/11th or 12th Avenues. (presuming the Victoria barns are finally relocated.)

ps - I want SE LRT and a Centre Street line to operate as one. Swinging SE LRT to the Stampede adds to Stampede access while leaving room on the northside for a 17th Avenue SE line.
SE LRT can also travel along 15 or 17th Avenue a wee bit before turning into downtown improving access in that area.

[Robert in Calgary]

As an aside, the money that is currently being spent on the Rocky Ridge/Tuscany and Saddletowne extensions would have looked pretty good topping up Green Trip, or in general providing enough funds to make the SE LRT somewhat useful in its first phase (getting from Eau Claire to Douglasdale)

(snip)

There is a huge hole in the SE LRT budget, that I believe is too big to fill by P3 or debt financing without seriously dragging us down in the future. That hole could get bigger with the election of a new government in the province, or the replacement of Stelmach.


How much of the listed $115 million for the NW extension is pure LRT work?

Since the actual track construction isn't slated for 2012-14, how much can we 'grab' back and redeploy by delaying track construction?

[Robert in Calgary]

Ending at Douglasdale is nowhere NEAR somewhat useful.

Actually, it's very useful.

Downtown to Douglas Glen is the same as Downtown to Panorama.

[Robert in Calgary]

Building the truncated LRT line without the downtown section and a terminus that is not particularly useful is just building LRT to say we are building it, which is exactly what people are advocating against on the north central LRT up Nose Creek. Just because it was a campaign promise, I don't know why people think that meant shovels in the ground ASAP - and it shouldn't be a reason to.

If they want a temporary (8-12 years) downtown terminal coming in via 10th Avenue, I would suggest the parking lot bordered by 1st Street SW/10th Avenue/Gulf Canada Square parkade/CPR tracks.

Make connections to the Penn West buildings, wide plus 15 over 9th Avenue to the parking lot between the Lougheed Building and the new Bankers Court building.

Or go further and use the area between 5th and 7th Streets SW. Making connections to the Centennial Parkade.

[mersar]

How much of the listed $115 million for the NW extension is pure LRT work?

Since the actual track construction isn't slated for 2012-14, how much can we 'grab' back and redeploy by delaying track construction?

If I'm right there were 7 additional LRV's ordered for this extension (these are in the order thats already arriving), so theres roughly $25M. About $10M for the station itself (Crowfoot I believe was around $10M). Couple million for the park and rides probably. The bridges were a significant chunk of change, but those are already built and paid for. So the station, one traction power substation, caternary and track work will eat the rest. Theres really not much roadworks cost for this extension (unlike others), as the province picked up most of that tab by the sheer fact that they were already working there and things like re-aligning Crowchild to ensure the required R.O.W. was done in their plans.

Theres not much in the 2010/2011 budget for the extension above and beyond the bridges, the bulk of the money is 2012-2015. And as far as I'm aware track construction IS slated for 2012-2014, opening is still set for late 2014.

In the original capital budget it was something like 35M in year 1, 40M in year 2 and 12M in year 3 (the latter being mostly landscaping and finish-off costs I'd assume)

[MalcolmTucker]

For those just joining us, here are the options put forward by the transportation department as told by the newspaper :

Option 1
$10 million on southeast LRT planning
$200 million for extra C-Trains and a new regional bus system
$750 million over the next decade for a comprehensive network of new bus-only lanes and the vehicles for them (likely 17th Ave SE exclusive lanes, some for 14th St and 24th south of the reservoir)

Option 2

$10 million on southeast LRT planning
$? million on SE LRT land acquisition
$200? million on extra lrvs and a regional bus system
$750 million SE LRT from 10th Ave to Riverbend (Glenmore Tr and Sheperd Rd) Option 3 (would not exactly fit Green Trip and would likely require both Calgary Regional Partnership approval, and cabinet approval for not fulfilling the 'regional' requirement)
A full line from Douglas Glen to 10th Avenue S. on downtown's edge
As an additional thought, remember none of these options have ground breaking on the SE LRT anytime soon.

A second additional thought: not only governments are eligible for Green Trip money. If SNC Lavalin as has been rumoured puts forward a plan to run commuter trains in partnership with CP, the government could approve that for a chunk of the funds. The government has been very fickle about this program, has been disappointed with the lack of 'innovation' in preliminary proposals, and changed the program substantially more than once.

[mersar]

Heres the exact options from the Council Agenda (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=2029) for tomorrow (item C2010-69 (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=2029))

Option 1 proposes the purchase of 50 Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) plus funding for the Southeast LRT pre-design, land acquisition and other initial steps. When timing for the availability of additional Green TRIP funding is announced, The City will be in a better position to begin construction of the first segment of the Southeast LRT with a more detailed design and costing, a phasing strategy and additional funding sources. The purchase of additional LRVs will provide additional CTrain service capacity to handle growth in customer demand created by new inter-municipal regional transit services, serve additional Calgary-based customers, and allow for full four-car train operation. Additional funding from other Provincial programs, such as the Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI), can be used to provide the required 1/3 Calgary contribution.

Option 2 is to allocate all Green TRIP funds to Southeast LRT construction (10 Avenue S to Douglas Glen). Initially, during the first two to three years, pre-design, land acquisition and other initial steps are required. Since these steps are required before construction can start, much of the initial funding cannot be spent. Construction can only begin when the balance of the Green TRIP funds are made available. Pending availability of full Green TRIP funding, and identification of matching funds, it is anticipated that construction of the Southeast LRT could begin as early as 2013.

Option 3 (recommended) proposes the combination of the purchase of 50 LRVs, funding for the Southeast LRT pre-design and initiating BRT projects. The LRV purchase is identical to Option 1. The Southeast LRT predesign would be similar to option 1 but would not fund land purchase in the short term. The focus of Option 3 is to commence work on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects. When additional Green TRIP funding is announced, remaining funds would be allocated towards projects based on the priorities identified in administration’s forthcoming response to NM2010-08 (BRT Network Plan), due in 2011 February.Administration is recommending to council that they adopt option 3.

Costs are:

Option 1:
$200M for LRVs (city's matching funds are from pre-allocated monies for 20 LRV's)
$25.6M for SE LRT pre-design
$244.8M for SE LRT construction (matched by $489.6M from greentrip)

Option 2:
$320M for SE LRT from city matched hopefully by $640M from greentrip with no guarantee

Option 3:
$200M for LRV's (same as Option 1)
$10M for SE LRT pre-design
$15.6M for BRT now
Remaining GreenTrip funds to BRT as they become available past 2014 based on recommendations in NM2010-08 which is due in February 2011

[frinkprof]

Option 1:
$200M for LRVs (city's matching funds are from pre-allocated monies for 20 LRV's)
$25.6M for SE LRT pre-design
$244.8M for SE LRT construction (matched by $489.6M from greentrip)I don't seem to recall this. There was already money allocated for 20 more LRVs?

[mersar]

I don't seem to recall this. There was already money allocated for 20 more LRVs?

According to the 2009-2011 capital budget there was $60M in 2011 and a further $36M in 2013 allocated for LRV purchases. That said there wasn't any in 2009 or 2010, and I'm guessing that the current order is probably the 2011 amount.

[frinkprof]

^Yeah I figured something like that would be the case.

[mersar]

Couple updates on the Electronic fare payment system. From LPT2010-66 which is going to the LPT committee this week (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=71&doctype=AGENDA):

A request for proposal (RFP) for a new EFC system was released in 2010 June and closed in September. Calgary Transit is evaluating the proposals received. Selection of a vendor and finalizing an agreement for purchase and implementation is expected to take place late in 2010. The system design phase will occur throughout most of 2011 with implementation planned for early 2012.

Calgary Transit is working towards implementing the first phase of an electronic fare collection (EFC) system. This system will provide customers with more convenient and flexible means of purchasing and using transit fares while creating opportunities for innovative fare strategies after the system has been in place for an appropriate length of time.

As well, Calgary Transit is investigating modification of some existing fare collection equipment to provide customers with an option to pay for a transit fare using their credit card at LRT stations. If feasible, these modifications could take place in 2011.

[Northski]

There is a few more details in the attachments to the agenda minutes

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/2/daj4pn55vcprjc55iecgn2am/1312611072010065122894.PDF

[DarkKeyo]

Swinging SE LRT to the Stampede adds to Stampede access while leaving room on the northside for a 17th Avenue SE line.
SE LRT can also travel along 15 or 17th Avenue a wee bit before turning into downtown improving access in that area.
I think I see what you're getting at, but there is no way to get the SELRT over to the Stampede and then to downtown without a ridiculous amount of tunneling or elevated rail.
Actually, it's very useful.
Downtown to Douglas Glen is the same as Downtown to Panorama.
The difference is that Panorama is the edge of the city, for a while at least, whereas Douglasglen is about halfway to the edge. It would be like ending the SLRT at Southland, the WLRT at Westbrook, etc...

But I guess we will find out during the detailed design process. Hopefully they accept lots of public input for that

[DarkKeyo]

Option 3:
$200M for LRV's (same as Option 1)
$10M for SE LRT pre-design
$15.6M for BRT now
Remaining GreenTrip funds to BRT as they become available past 2014 based on recommendations in NM2010-08 which is due in February 2011
Given these choices, I'll take this one over half of a SELRT. At least the planning process will be started. At least we will get some BRT, and we will be able to run 4-car trains when we upgrade all the stations. It's just too bad none of this gets us SELRT, NCLRT, or the 8th ave subway.... It's also too bad that commuter trains are getting more attention than LRT.

[mooky]

No DarkKeyo, but the $10M SE pre-design doesn't preclude the possibility of getting a P3 partner down the road and going full tilt into it once the pre-design is done by the city, at that point, its shovels in the ground and off to the races! Then you have BRT routes out the ying-yang and a SE LRT... and perhaps by that time, post 2012 completion of West-LRT, Mayor Nenshi might have people on board with a NC line up Center Street, and make it a P3 SE-> NC line ... wishful dream on my part I know, but gotta dream big! :)

[fusili]

Anybody have any idea why SELRT is proposed to use low floor vehicles?

[mersar]

Low floor is the way that most new systems are going, cost of construction is far less (less material for the stations, less engineering). From my understanding the cost of LRV's is pretty much the same. Since the SELRT won't be tied directly into the existing lines using different equipment shouldn't be an issue (track guage would likely still be the same so they could theoretically use the same storage/maintance facilities if a link were built, but none has been envisioned to my knowledge)

[shogged]

less material for the stations

this is the biggest reason, you go from the stations we see today, to literally a slightly elevated curb if you so choose. Calgary will likely have a little more flare, but you certainly won't see anderson/crowfoot style stations!

cool example...

http://www.trendir.com/ultra-modern/alicante-tram-station-5.jpg

[CorporateWhore]

I prefer the aesthetic of low-floor trains anyway. They look more human-scaled and friendly in an urban environment (for pedestrians and cars). High-floors always look a little too commuter-trainy, especially along a 7th-ave type of situation where it's integrated into the street. I always wished that we had low-floor throughout the entire system.

[mersar]

I prefer the aesthetic of low-floor trains anyway. They look more human-scaled and friendly in an urban environment (for pedestrians and cars). High-floors always look a little too commuter-trainy, especially along a 7th-ave type of situation where it's integrated into the street. I always wished that we had low-floor throughout the entire system.

Yep, the low floor are a lot more human scale.

That said, the newer 7th Avenue stations are a ginormous improvement over what we used to have in terms of improving the scale of them and fixing their integration into the pedestrian realm. I'm looking forward to when 4th Street reopens as well, its been making good progress but still a ways to go until it reopens early 2011.

[fusili]

Don't get me wrong, I love low-floor trains. But my understanding is that they are not as fast and they are a little more expensive. Considering the SELRT does not have a single street-side station (at least in my understanding), I do not see the point of low-floor trains.

But a good thing is that the low-floor trains can be used as streetcars as well. Things like the SELRT could run proper multi-car consists, maybe 4-5, while any streetcar system could run the same vehicles, but with single car consists. Maintenance facilities can be shared in that way.

[CorporateWhore]

Low-floor does seem more ideal for denser areas.... whereas the SE line feels like it would be more of a commuter type of situation compared to the others.

Low-floor would be perfect to run up Centre Street if the North line gets realigned (which frankly, it better), and as you suggested, in some sort of street-car scenario.....I could see it running from Eau Claire and down 4th.

[CorporateWhore]

Not news of course, but I like that Edmonton is going that way as well....
http://photos.edmonton.ca/Transportation/LRT-Concept-Art/Artists-rendition-of-what-low/835827749_m84mi-S.jpg

[MalcolmTucker]

Besides station scale, the big difference is in internal layout - when capacity gets tight you can't just eliminate seats and have all side seating like we have with the new LRV order. Also, you usually end up with a little less capacity per meter of train, but that can be played with it you use longer vehicles instead of standard for germany 25 m models.

They are more expensive, but just as fast, and can usually do tighter turns, which might contribute to people's impression of a lower speed.

One of the bigger costs of the se line with low floor lrvs is needing a new heavy repair shop. I know a new line would need a new shop already, but would it require the full kit, or more just light maintenance and storage if it was a standard high floor.

[Innersoul1]

Sorry, I seem t be missing something. Is Calgary planning on going Low-Floor?

[MalcolmTucker]

For the SE LRT.

[fusili]

Low-floor does seem more ideal for denser areas.... whereas the SE line feels like it would be more of a commuter type of situation compared to the others.

Low-floor would be perfect to run up Centre Street if the North line gets realigned (which frankly, it better), and as you suggested, in some sort of street-car scenario.....I could see it running from Eau Claire and down 4th.

That makes sense for the non-subway portion of it. I think once you get north of 40th avenue, or maybe even earlier, you could use an at-grade option. That is where the low floor would fully be utilized.

[Northski]

In the future, city and the province should be required to do cost benefit studies to justify the choice between various infrastructure investments. Here are some past decisions that may have been made incorrectly.
Stony trail versus building out LRT.
Martingale/Tuscany/4 car trains versus 8th avenue subway.
SELRT versus NCLRT
Nose creek alignment versus Center street alignment for NCLRT
Choosing LRT versus grade separated BRT or ALRT.
West LRT versus 8th ave subway, SELRT, NCLRT.
Various changes to grade separation and route for West LRT.

In British Colombia, due to the larger infrastructure backlog, cost benefit studies are done for most new projects to decide which projects get advanced and scope of the project. For example, ALRT was choose over BRT or LRT for the evergreen line because it had twice the ridership half the travel time, 40% lower operating cost for 40% more capital cost.
Part of the problem stems from a lack of long term stable financing from the province and so projects in Calgary are done in a piecemeal fashion without proper planning.

[MalcolmTucker]

Neither lack of planning nor lack of stable funding is true. It is just we act like we have neither. The amount of studies needed can be bad - in Ontario they just exempted transit from full environmental assessments which included things like you said (technology choice, routing, cost benefit between the options) because they couldn't get anything done with the formal study process taking two years. It is now scaled back to 6 months and focuses only on environmental factors internal to the project.

[MalcolmTucker]

City Council refers the Green Trip report back to LPT.

[Dado]

Neither lack of planning nor lack of stable funding is true. It is just we act like we have neither. The amount of studies needed can be bad - in Ontario they just exempted transit from full environmental assessments which included things like you said (technology choice, routing, cost benefit between the options) because they couldn't get anything done with the formal study process taking two years. It is now scaled back to 6 months and focuses only on environmental factors internal to the project.

Actually, there were two changes that came one after the other.

The first was the inclusion of whole classes of transit projects in the "Municipal Class EA". To make a long story short, the Ontario EA Act allows for the creation of 'Class EA's, which is fancy way of saying a process to carry out assessments for numerous activities/project types, or even to exclude whole classes of projects from requiring an assessment at all (the way the OEAA was written, you'd be doing well if you could repair a washout without an EA). This allowed, for example, the MTO to have its own Class EA which features different processes for assessing highway improvements, new highways, twinning of highways to freeways, and new freeways, based on the types of impacts those activities typically have. Theoretically, each municipality could create its own Class EA for anything it might want to do, but what the Municipal Engineers of Ontario did was create one themselves for general use. It was initially road and sewer-focused, so transit projects continued to require individual EAs. That changed in the latest update of their Class EA, so now just about every conceivable transit project type is included in one of three categories, requiring no assessment, some assessment, or "full" assessment (but still less than that for an individual EA).

The second change was by the Province itself, which is the change noted earlier, the so-called 6-month process. What happens now is that the proponent does their planning study and towards the end they start the assessment portion of it and after a bit of "consultation" where the input of the public is noted and ignored, the assessment is filed (within 4 months of starting the EA process), and after a further month or so of opportunity for people to bitch to the ministry, the ministry has another month to yay/nay it, and its possible rationales for naying are pretty limited.

The thing is, the planning study portion that precedes the assessment portion basically looks like a regular EA study anyway because it requires all the usual assessment-y stuff to be done. What the 6-month process has done is cut down on the time the ministry has to approve a project and remove the requirement to assess the "do nothing" and "alternatives to", but the real savings in terms of time taken to carry out the studies came from the changes to the Municipal Class EA.


Frankly, you guys are lucky in Alberta not to have any of this stuff relating to transit projects. Just look at how much text it took me to make a basic explanation of a change in Ontario. Calgary Council can apparently just change the routing of, for example, the West LRT at will without any complicating assessments. The public consultations in Ontario are completely bogus (they seldom change anything) so they just end up wasting everyone's time. In Ottawa, we can't do anything without running into federal land, so we need to conform to the CEAA as well, though in practise that doesn't prove to be as much of a PITA - the OEAA is so involved that you basically can't do the latter without meeting the requirements of the former.

[Bassic Lab]

Low-floor does seem more ideal for denser areas.... whereas the SE line feels like it would be more of a commuter type of situation compared to the others.

Low-floor would be perfect to run up Centre Street if the North line gets realigned (which frankly, it better), and as you suggested, in some sort of street-car scenario.....I could see it running from Eau Claire and down 4th.

I'd say the opposite is true, that low floor is ideal for areas with lower density. At least along corridors that are the backbone of the entire system. Low floor trains seem like streetcars to me whereas high floor trains seem more like a light metro. I would use low floor trains on an at grade line with frequent stops, something meant as much for intra-community travel as inter-community travel; they can function the same way as busses and with less impact on the community than a high floor. So I guess I kind of agree with your distinction but would change it by adding a third layer. It would be:

1) Suburban areas where the line functions like a commuter system and there is little urbanity to integrate with. Use High Floor

2) Urban areas where the line does not justify grade separation and community integration is vital but capacity is not the major concern. Use Low Floor.

3) Urban areas where capacity is a major concern and grade separation is seen as required. This type is likely the urban component of a line that travels to the suburbs, where it is type 1, and is meant for traveling long distances as much as short ones. Community integration is less of a concern as regards platform height because the platform is never supposed to function as a sidewalk. Use High Floor.

If we built a N-SE Line, that included a Centre Street Subway, there would be no urban areas where the line can pleasantly integrate with sidewalks; it would be under ground every where that mattered. Capacity would be a major concern for the line. High floor trains simply have better capacity given a certain maximum length, as dictated by station platforms.

Sure, if we ever decide to reintroduce a Beltline or Marda Loop, then low floor all the way. I just don't particularly see how a sidewalk type station in Douglasdale or thirty feet under Centre Street is a goal to strive for. This is especially true when it can lead to capacityissues. First with the reduced capacity of low floor trains. Second with the inability for the city to allocate resources, as in extra trains, to whichever line needs the additional capacity. If all six mainlines are high floor then the city has one pool of trains that can be utilized wherever the need is greatest without waiting for a new order. If one is low floor then we have two distinct systems and capacity issues on either one will require an expensive order of new trains.

I have been curious about the ability of a single line to utilize both high floor and low floor trains. I wonder if it could work to have larger stations with a high floor island platform and low floor side platforms, or vice versa. It would allow one expensive piece of infrastructure to be used by two different types of lines. Like the Centre Street Subway could function as a downtown gateway for both the high floor mainline North LRT and low floor Spur lines (say a 16th Ave N streetcar system) that would depart from the main tunnel, quickly return to grade, and then function as trams in mixed traffic.

[fusili]

1) Suburban areas where the line functions like a commuter system and there is little urbanity to integrate with. Use High Floor

2) Urban areas where the line does not justify grade separation and community integration is vital but capacity is not the major concern. Use Low Floor.

3) Urban areas where capacity is a major concern and grade separation is seen as required. This type is likely the urban component of a line that travels to the suburbs, where it is type 1, and is meant for traveling long distances as much as short ones. Community integration is less of a concern as regards platform height because the platform is never supposed to function as a sidewalk. Use High Floor.


You said exactly what was on my mind. To me the SELRT is never in condition 2.

[MalcolmTucker]

Simple solution - tender the project as non-specific technology but with a specific capacity. See what gets bid, and buy it.

[Bassic Lab]

Simple solution - tender the project as non-specific technology but with a specific capacity. See what gets bid, and buy it.

How is that really a solution? It is just exporting the decision from City of Calgary planners and politicians to a corporation's planners and management. If anything, in a design-build-operate wouldn't SNC-Lavalin be more likely to pick whatever option was cheapest for the city's capacity requirement with no concern for any problems that might arise in twenty years when the system is handed over to the city. Interoperability would initially be of no concern to either partner. No politicians will care about problems some council, seven elections later, will have to face when the city runs both and the private corporation will care even less.

If we were to add requirements for high floor platforms, easily expanded to 125 meters, we would then have options to utilize the line have ever we want to when we inherit it. Then the winning bid might even pick some technology we would want to replace the U2s and SD-160s with. It doesn't really make much sense to have multi car consists with cabs in the middle.

[that_twisted_cm]

How is that really a solution? It is just exporting the decision from City of Calgary planners and politicians to a corporation's planners and management. If anything, in a design-build-operate wouldn't SNC-Lavalin be more likely to pick whatever option was cheapest for the city's capacity requirement with no concern for any problems that might arise in twenty years when the system is handed over to the city. Interoperability would initially be of no concern to either partner. No politicians will care about problems some council, seven elections later, will have to face when the city runs both and the private corporation will care even less.

If we were to add requirements for high floor platforms, easily expanded to 125 meters, we would then have options to utilize the line have ever we want to when we inherit it. Then the winning bid might even pick some technology we would want to replace the U2s and SD-160s with. It doesn't really make much sense to have multi car consists with cabs in the middle.

So maybe say..."married" pairs of trains?

If that is what you mean: THANK YOU! I had totally forgotten about those! :banana:

KCRC in Hong Kong had the same issues back before the yellow-fronted Metro Cammells were refurbished. The idea of 3-5 cars, merged (or "married" into one another) to form a train, with passageways in between cars.

It may be a heavy rail idea, but for capacity, it may not be a bad idea for Light Rail as well.

[You Need A Thneed]

The tender for Southland Station's 4 car extension is now out.

The project is supposed to be done by the end of June 2011.

Includes:
Extended platform
New south end platform access, much bigger than the current one
Partial replacement of the existing platform.
I think some renos inside the station head.
Concrete repairs to existing grade beams and deck.

[frinkprof]

^Good to see something happening with these extensions.

[frinkprof]

CTV will be running a segment on Calgary Transit's history and future on tonight's 6PM news broadcast. Not sure when in the broadcast it will be, but I think these things tend to be toward the middle, in between the top news and the sports segments.

[You Need A Thneed]

Whitehorn station has it's ramp all done, mostly the above platform stuff left to go (including an actual canopy)

The pedestrian bridge at McKnight Westwinds Station over Metis Trail is nearing completion, just a few lengths of railng to go, then all of the railing is done.

The tunnel under 64th Ave for the LRT extention to Saddletowne is mostly backfilled over, and might have traffic going over it in a few weeks.

[jeffwhit]

Welcome to 1996, Calgary Transit. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/11/10/calgary-transit-ctrain-fares-debit-credit-machines.html)

From the sounds of it, only the WRT stations will offer debit and credit to begin with, but the old machines will be retrofitted to be more honest and print "FUCK YOU" on the ticket when you put $3 in the machine...

[frinkprof]

Here's the link for the CTV story on Calgary Transit's history and future mentioned earlier.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101111/CGY_transit_50years_101111/20101111?hub=CalgaryHome

[RicoLance21]

Here's the link for the CTV story on Calgary Transit's history and future mentioned earlier.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101111/CGY_transit_50years_101111/20101111?hub=CalgaryHome

I am glad CTV has mentioned trolleybuses. I think Calgary should look at bringing them back.

It may be a bit more expensive to operate, but not as expensive as streetcars. Not only the wires should be maintained, but also the tracks, especially during the winter.

Also, would streetcars affect road capacity due to stops on the median? Trolleybuses share the road with cars, and it works best in high density areas to make the best use of the overhead wires, which is why I think Route 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 305 are great candidates.

Would streetcars be less flexible due to full reliance on the metal tracks while today's trolleybuses can travel away from the overhead lines for a kilometre or two? If Route 3 were to be operated with trolleybuses, they can manouever away from the wires for a few blocks while Remembrance Day ceremony takes place at Central Memorial Park with little headache; streetcars can never do that and has to rely on contingent buses even for such minor situations.

I understand that electricity is primarily coal-powered, but didn't Calgary adopted ride-the-wind for the LRT? Also, aren't we moving away from coal as we speak and more so in the future? And isn't southern Alberta going to see a wind-energy boom in the near future?

"Trolleybus dewires putting drivers at risk while fishing the poles back onto the wires." While this is true, today's trolleybuses are less likely to dewire, plus the poles automatically lower immediately after dewiring to avoid damaging on the overhead wires. Plus, since they can go off wire for several blocks, drivers can rewire at a next or convenient bus stop instead of in the middle of an intersection.

Those who think wires are ugly, did they know that streetcar relies on overhead wires too?

Oh yes, and one more reason to bring trolleybuses back is to give Edmonton a big F-ck you for abandoning theirs.

[freeweed]

I'm not sure I understand the love of trolley buses in the slightest. Surely we have enough technology available that we can run electric buses off batteries (or hell, natural gas), thereby entirely removing the safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

Is this just more pointless nostalgia or is there something I'm missing?

[MalcolmTucker]

I understand that electricity is primarily coal-powered, but didn't Calgary adopted ride-the-wind for the LRT? Also, aren't we moving away from coal as we speak and more so in the future? And isn't southern Alberta going to see a wind-energy boom in the near future?

While this isn't the proper place to discuss it at length, wind power does not reduce reliance on coal. Over the next 50 years electricity will be much better than oil for at least high frequency routes where the capital cost will offset gradually increasing and volatile oil prices.
Would streetcars be less flexible due to full reliance on the metal tracks while today's trolleybuses can travel away from the overhead lines for a kilometre or two?
While I have heard this many times, I have been on brand new trolleys that have lost their wire in Vancouver and died. So buyer beware? Not that I think it is a big issues anyways with trolley buses at least being able to switch lanes to get around disabled vehicles.

Would streetcars affect road capacity due to stops on the median?
All depends on the design of the street, stops etc. While I am not very familiar on street car vs trolley bus costs, I am under the impression that a 60ft trolley is in the range of a million where a streetcar might be in the $3 million range. Given that, unless a route needs really high capacity where headways need to reduce beyond what is reasonable, which means you have more drivers than you want, trolley buses would likely win in a head to head comparison on cost basis.

[RicoLance21]

I'm not sure I understand the love of trolley buses in the slightest. Surely we have enough technology available that we can run electric buses off batteries (or hell, natural gas), thereby entirely removing the safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

Is this just more pointless nostalgia or is there something I'm missing?

The most obvious problem is cost. A bus with a battery that can run for several kilometers may end up costing more than a streetcar; not to mention availablily, which is clearly tougher to purchase than a trolleybus. New Flyer from Winnipeg makes trolleybuses for Vancouver (no need to import from overseas or across the border).

Don't streetcar wires have the same safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

As for natural gas - http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/cng-is-not-worth-the-extra-cost/

[RicoLance21]

While this isn't the proper place to discuss it at length, wind power does not reduce reliance on coal. Over the next 50 years electricity will be much better than oil for at least high frequency routes where the capital cost will offset gradually increasing and volatile oil prices.

While I have heard this many times, I have been on brand new trolleys that have lost their wire in Vancouver and died. So buyer beware? Not that I think it is a big issues anyways with trolley buses at least being able to switch lanes to get around disabled vehicles.


All depends on the design of the street, stops etc. While I am not very familiar on street car vs trolley bus costs, I am under the impression that a 60ft trolley is in the range of a million where a streetcar might be in the $3 million range. Given that, unless a route needs really high capacity where headways need to reduce beyond what is reasonable, which means you have more drivers than you want, trolley buses would likely win in a head to head comparison on cost basis.

True, but I believe we will see more and more natural gas as base load. The proposed natural gas plant at Shepard at the east side of Calgary will probably be one.

[fusili]

It may be a bit more expensive to operate, but not as expensive as streetcars. Not only the wires should be maintained, but also the tracks, especially during the winter.

Disagree. Streetcars would have lower lifecycle costs, as they are cheaper to maintain and last longer.

Also, would streetcars affect road capacity due to stops on the median? Trolleybuses share the road with cars, and it works best in high density areas to make the best use of the overhead wires, which is why I think Route 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 305 are great candidates.

Streetcars don't have to run in the median. They can also operate in mixed traffic. I agree with you on the routes though. All those routes could be upgraded to a streetcar along with land use redesignations within 400m of stops to higher density residential and in some places, commercial.

Would streetcars be less flexible due to full reliance on the metal tracks while today's trolleybuses can travel away from the overhead lines for a kilometre or two?

If Route 3 were to be operated with trolleybuses, they can manouever away from the wires for a few blocks while Remembrance Day ceremony takes place at Central Memorial Park with little headache; streetcars can never do that and has to rely on contingent buses even for such minor situations.

Other than that one situation, I can't think of a time when the streetcar route would cause a headache. Just don't run it that day, it is stat holiday anyways.

PS- Flexibility in a transit system is bad for high usage routes. Very, very bad.


Those who think wires are ugly, did they know that streetcar relies on overhead wires too?


Bombardier has developed an inductive power transfer system that safely powers the streetcar from underground. No need for wires.

[freeweed]

The most obvious problem is cost. A bus with a battery that can run for several kilometers may end up costing more than a streetcar; not to mention availablily, which is clearly tougher to purchase than a trolleybus.

I'll be honest, I have zero clue how expensive they are (hence my poorly worded inquiry). Still, those overhead wires must cost something to install and maintain.... not sure how it all evens out. You'd think that it's just a matter of critical mass, ie: once enough places order all-electric buses, they shouldn't cost too much nor should availability be an issue. Then again, I'm not sure where state-of-the art is for the batteries required to power a fully loaded bus. I'm naively optimistic that we're close enough that we could in theory start switching large fleets of vehicles to batteries only (you don't necessarily need a 500km range on an inner-city transit bus), but who knows.

Don't streetcar wires have the same safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

Yes, but I'm not a fan of streetcars either, unless it's on an LRT-style setup. One line, one set of wires. Trolley buses tend to have these rats' nests of wires everywhere, or so Edmonton and Vancouver would lead me to believe. They're just plain ugly to my eye.

[CorporateWhore]

Whatever strawman, go back to your suburbs. :)

I guess I'm one of the few, but I actually LIKE the way trolley/streetcar wires look in a city. Must be nostalgia....

[freeweed]

I guess I'm one of the few, but I actually LIKE the way trolley/streetcar wires look in a city. Must be nostalgia....

I'm not sure if it's hypocritical or what - I LOVE the look of an LRT line, wires and all. But trolley buses just look messy and a bit ghetto to me. Maybe it's that an LRT is separated from everything else in its own ROW. :shrug:

[sim]

Disagree. Streetcars would have lower lifecycle costs, as they are cheaper to maintain and last longer.



Streetcars don't have to run in the median. They can also operate in mixed traffic. I agree with you on the routes though. All those routes could be upgraded to a streetcar along with land use redesignations within 400m of stops to higher density residential and in some places, commercial.



Other than that one situation, I can't think of a time when the streetcar route would cause a headache. Just don't run it that day, it is stat holiday anyways.

PS- Flexibility in a transit system is bad for high usage routes. Very, very bad.



Bombardier has developed an inductive power transfer system that safely powers the streetcar from underground. No need for wires.


Totally agree. Trolley buses essentially take the disadvantages of free driving buses and the disadvantages of street cars and mix them into one.

Wireless systems already exist in places (Bourdeaux I think.) that aren't by induction. They work by powering only the section right where the tram is at any moment. This way no one gets electrocuted obviously. A wireless system actually existed in Budapest over 100 years ago. Not much information about it, and I'm not so sure if they had measures in place aside from people's awareness to prevent electrocution.

The Bombardier induction system is only in trial stages in Augsburg, Germany. I believe the premise and difference between the above and this one is that the induction would only occur in certain sections of track and the batteries powers it the rest of the time. Of course, both systems have much greater captial costs attached to them then caternary.

[RicoLance21]

Totally agree. Trolley buses essentially take the disadvantages of free driving buses and the disadvantages of street cars and mix them into one.

Wireless systems already exist in places (Bourdeaux I think.) that aren't by induction. They work by powering only the section right where the tram is at any moment. This way no one gets electrocuted obviously. A wireless system actually existed in Budapest over 100 years ago. Not much information about it, and I'm not so sure if they had measures in place aside from people's awareness to prevent electrocution.

The Bombardier induction system is only in trial stages in Augsburg, Germany. I believe the premise and difference between the above and this one is that the induction would only occur in certain sections of track and the batteries powers it the rest of the time. Of course, both systems have much greater captial costs attached to them then caternary.

Can you please clarify this part for me? I don't quite understand what you said.

As for cost of induction system embed in tracks, yes I imagine it would be very expensive to build (likely more than LRT) and would be harder to re-route if needed. It really makes rerouting trolleybus wires sound easy peasy.

[MalcolmTucker]

It runs on a rail, where the rail is selectively powered, so there is no rail with electricity running through it that is not covered by a streetcar. The logistics of it are expensive, even where it is used, it is only used in heritage districts and areas where caternary would be hard to implement.

[RicoLance21]

Disagree. Streetcars would have lower lifecycle costs, as they are cheaper to maintain and last longer.



Streetcars don't have to run in the median. They can also operate in mixed traffic. I agree with you on the routes though. All those routes could be upgraded to a streetcar along with land use redesignations within 400m of stops to higher density residential and in some places, commercial.



Other than that one situation, I can't think of a time when the streetcar route would cause a headache. Just don't run it that day, it is stat holiday anyways.

PS- Flexibility in a transit system is bad for high usage routes. Very, very bad.



Bombardier has developed an inductive power transfer system that safely powers the streetcar from underground. No need for wires.

Would flexibiity be even worse if the whole streetcar line suddenly stalled due to a car accident, and then we would wait for contingency buses to come in? That happens quite a few times with the C-Train system.

[para transit fellow]

Would flexibiity be even worse if the whole streetcar line suddenly stalled due to a car accident, and then we would wait for contingency buses to come in? That happens quite a few times with the C-Train system.

Edmonton had trolley buses BUT also ended up keeping a large set of diesel buses to be put into service if a trolley line died (ie: electical interruptions were frequent as the Caternay set-up aged)).

They did recognize that failure of a single vehicle could be managed by pushing off the route-- something that they couldn't do with an LRT ( rail) unit.

anyone know how toronto deals with it?

[sim]

Can you please clarify this part for me? I don't quite understand what you said.

As for cost of induction system embed in tracks, yes I imagine it would be very expensive to build (likely more than LRT) and would be harder to re-route if needed. It really makes rerouting trolleybus wires sound easy peasy.


What Sir Humphrey said. Basically, the electrical infrastructure lies below the rails (obviously) and it isn't just one continuously long wire or contact. The "wire" for lack of a better term (at least not one that comes to mind) is let's say laid in 5 m long sections that do not contact eachother. So as the tram drives over said section, that section becomes electrified. The tram vehicle then needs two contacts as once the first contact leaves the electrified section, the second one is still touching it. The first contact then comes into contact with the next section which is then also electrified. So you would at times have two sections that are powered, but only ever right below the tram.

I'm not sure how exactly the sensing works - where the section becomes electrified only when the tram is there, but I can't imagine it being all that complicated or hard to implement that.

Hope that clears it up. A picture would be much easier. You could try searching Alstom, as it is their system, but you might have trouble getting too much more detail.

[You Need A Thneed]

I say no to rat's nets of wires overhead as well. Keep it very limited.

[fusili]

Can you please clarify this part for me? I don't quite understand what you said.


Check out these links:

Primove Caternary Free System (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZylrGjebnw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZylrGjebnw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[RicoLance21]

Edmonton had trolley buses BUT also ended up keeping a large set of diesel buses to be put into service if a trolley line died (ie: electical interruptions were frequent as the Caternay set-up aged)).

They did recognize that failure of a single vehicle could be managed by pushing off the route-- something that they couldn't do with an LRT ( rail) unit.

anyone know how toronto deals with it?

For Edmonton's system, it is rare that an electrical failure is the cause. It was mostly due to many reasons like road work, emergency vehicles, heck-even a crane blocking off parts of a road. Edmonton's trolleybuses were old technology with no batteries to go off-wire, hence made an atrociously-inefficient system. Trolleybuses with today's technology would rely way less on contingency backup buses--way way less.

[You Need A Thneed]

Oh, forgot to mention, there is some track laid out along the line now through Martindale. Not installed yet.

The "light towers" are framed up at Saddletowne Station, they will look really good, I think. Makes it look so much better then just the wavy roof would have looked.

The replacement platform at whitehorn has much more of a crown (slight arch) then the old one did. They had to re do the doors into the station - so that they worked in the meantime.

[The Chemist]

In central Shanghai they run battery (or it could be super-capacitor, I'm not sure - but they are electric) powered buses that can recharge their batteries via a roof mounted pantograph at certain bus stops - the pantograph is just raised while passengers are on and off-loading, and then lowered again so the bus can go.

There are also a few routes still served by genuine trolley buses, but those seem to becoming fewer and fewer every year.

[RicoLance21]

In central Shanghai they run battery (or it could be super-capacitor, I'm not sure - but they are electric) powered buses that can recharge their batteries via a roof mounted pantograph at certain bus stops - the pantograph is just raised while passengers are on and off-loading, and then lowered again so the bus can go.

There are also a few routes still served by genuine trolley buses, but those seem to becoming fewer and fewer every year.

Again, availability issues; let alone the cost of replaceable parts, especially overseas. There should be multiple manufacturers to be feasible. Supercapacitor buses, AFAIK, are still manufactured by one company. If they are proven to be feasible, there should have been a few cities operating by now.

[srperrycgy]

If anyone is curious to see how our LRVs are made, "Factory Made" produced a segment showing how Siemens LRVs are manufactured. If you have Discovery World HD on Shaw Channel 228, the program is on again at 10:30pm tonight. The segment showed a Salt Lake City S70 being built and one of Denver's SD160s being run on the test track. Very cool stuff for us train geeks. :cool:

[freeweed]

How It's Made was a much better show. This new one is too .. I dunno, forced-drama or something. Just show and describe how shit is made, kthx.

[Wooster]

Trams, Trams, Trams

Published November 11, 2010
by Geoff Ghitter & Noel Keough in Urban Living

Among the stories we tell about ourselves in Calgary is a tale of desperate love — for our cars. Calgarians are having a mass “affaire de coeur” with their four-fendered darlings. Our automotive passions run so deep, we believe that life without cars is utterly inconceivable.

Funnily, it’s a story repeated worldwide, from Paris to Portland. Everyone everywhere, apparently, loves their cars more than anyone else. But it’s a myth.

We know because wherever high-quality, convenient and speedy alternatives have been built, people readily abandon their clunkers and take to the rails, to bikes and to their feet. Some places have actually ripped out highways only to discover they are not missed.

...

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/life-style/urban-living/trams-trams-trams-6585/

[para transit fellow]

Found out some facts about Vancouver's trolley buses.
Trolley buses need 1.2 times the maintenance of diesel buses. The cost of the electicity to drive a trolley is about $9000/yr vs some $40,000 for a diesel bus.
Cost of the trolley buses are double that of a diesel bus.

[DizzyEdge]

Found out some facts about Vancouver's trolley buses.
Trolley buses need 1.2 times the maintenance of diesel buses. The cost of the electicity to drive a trolley is about $9000/yr vs some $40,000 for a diesel bus.
Cost of the trolley buses are double that of a diesel bus.

The additional maintenance seems odd, shouldn't there be many less parts?

[halifaxboyns]

Found out some facts about Vancouver's trolley buses.
Trolley buses need 1.2 times the maintenance of diesel buses. The cost of the electicity to drive a trolley is about $9000/yr vs some $40,000 for a diesel bus.
Cost of the trolley buses are double that of a diesel bus.

I read somewhere that despite the cost saved in fuel; the maintenance cost brings up the overall operating costs but still beats diesel just barely.
HRM (Halifax) has bought the same buses that Translink uses as trams but in Diesel form and apparently has been having great success with them.

A friend at translink tells me that many of the major problems of the old tram buses (where the electric connector would come loose at multiple feed turns) as been fixed and is much better. Still happens, but not as frequently.

[Dado]

I would really like to know why buses with electric motors should cost more than buses with diesel engines to maintain. Heck, just to start a gas engine (likely the same for diesel) requires two separate electric motors. Then you've got water and fuel pumps, filters, sensors, radiators, exhaust systems with catalytic converters, coolants and various lubricants in quantity, etc. With motors - practically none of that save a bit of lubrication. There's very little to go wrong with an electric system.

The only ways I can see electric being more expensive is (1) the wiring keeps failing, requiring costly searches for the fail and/or (2) the motors fail so often that they have to be replaced frequently, and their cost exceeds the equivalent costs on a diesel bus.

[You Need A Thneed]

The additional maintenance seems odd, shouldn't there be many less parts?

I can't figure out why trolley busses cost more than diesel busses either. An electric system is so ridiculously simple. There is fewer moving parts and systems, which should mean less up front cost, and then it costs so much less to maintain the vehicle since there is far less scheduled maintenance. If the busses include some battery backup, that could offset the savings, but the batteries shouldn't need to be huge if they are just needed to drive the bus a km or two.

It's like the electric car, which is the "new" idea for personal vehicles. The electric car is OLDER than oil powered cars!

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Remember that for the most part, the electrical system is retrofitted into a conventional bus, not a purpose designed bus made for an electrical system. So that means still needing a way to power all the subsystems, likely off a secondary motor instead of a pure electric system. Making the two parts play well together could be difficult.

If you designed an electric bus from scratch with the goal of low maintenance costs I am sure you could do it - but on a life cycle basis, and the design cost spread over a limited number of buses I don't think you would come out ahead.

Now if the federal government suddenly said that they won't cost share on diesel vehicles anymore, that would be a different ball game. But we aren't there yet.

[CorporateWhore]

Would be nice to have these beauties driving around Calgary...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/12/londons-new-double-decker-bus-unveiled-w-video/

[YYCguys]

It would indeed!

[SFUVancouver]

The life cycle cost of the trolleys in Vancouver is still lower than diesels because the former last longer than the latter. Also the trolleys run on the busiest, most urban routes in the city so the wear and tear from passenger loads and city traffic add to the costs. Back in 2007 the top five trolley bus routes in Vancouver moved about 125,000 people per day and the top ten brought us up to just over 180,000 people per day. Overall, six of the top ten bus routes were electric trolleys. I wish we had more up to date information because the third busiest route, the articulated diesel #98 B-Line, has since been replaced by the Canada Line, while the busiest route, the articulated diesel #99 B-Line, has increased to well over 75,000 people a day and still 4,000 to 5,000 people a day are being passed up by full buses. The Central Broadway corridor, where the 99 and a bunch of electric trolleys run, is now moving more than 115,000 people a day by bus. It's just silly that an underground SkyTrain extension isn't a sure thing.

Would be nice to have these beauties driving around Calgary...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/12/londons-new-double-decker-bus-unveiled-w-video/

Wow!

[Canadian74]

Would be nice to have these beauties driving around Calgary...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/12/londons-new-double-decker-bus-unveiled-w-video/

Bloody impressive!

[Riise]

Would be nice to have these beauties driving around Calgary...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/12/londons-new-double-decker-bus-unveiled-w-video/

TfL is actually looking to push these in order to lower the production costs. Although the model pictured is tailored for London, a model without the rear platform and staircase could work well in Calgary.

[para transit fellow]

The Vancouver trolley's have a battery pack that has got a 10 km max range. The challenge is that if you do a max range more than a few times you ruin the battery pack ( 109 cells costing $40,000) and have to replace them. The battery pack is useful for short moves of a couple of hunfred metres.

One other aspect of the cost of trolleys is that you need extra facilities for servicing. The vancouver trolley service bays have catwalks at bus roof height ---so the electonics tech can service the power supply ( located on top of the bus).

[jeffwhit]

TfL is actually looking to push these in order to lower the production costs. Although the model pictured is tailored for London, a model without the rear platform and staircase could work well in Calgary.

If we get electronic fare payment in place, a black platform would be great here.

[Koolfire]

The Vancouver trolley's have a battery pack that has got a 10 km max range. The challenge is that if you do a max range more than a few times you ruin the battery pack ( 109 cells costing $40,000) and have to replace them. The battery pack is useful for short moves of a couple of hunfred metres.


That's crazy. I wonder what type of battery that is, NiMH, Li-ion or something else. But draining a rechargable battery a few times should not ruin it. Maybe the max charge is only 99% after the first couple times but that's far from ruined.

We're things can get interesting is if more hybrid buses get built/used. You should be able to add a pole system so that it can draw and return power (when braking if battery/capacitor is at 100%) from overhead lines and run as a hybrid the rest of the time.

[that_twisted_cm]

If we get electronic fare payment in place, a black platform would be great here.

Question is, how high are they? Do they have the clearance to clear some of the underpasses (Brisebois/Crowchild, CP tracks, etc.)?

[jeffwhit]

Question is, how high are they? Do they have the clearance to clear some of the underpasses (Brisebois/Crowchild, CP tracks, etc.)?

I can't find the heights on the new Routemaster prototypes, but the originals were 14', 4 1/2" tall, across all generations.

Clearance on Crowchild/Brisebois is over 17.5 feet, but the CPR underpasses are under 14'.

Those CPR tracks are a huge pain in the ass. I wonder what the clearance on the new 4th Street underpass will be.

[mersar]

4th Street is supposed to be a lot higher clearance, thats part of the reason why they had to drop 9th Ave on the north side and why there will not be any access to 10th Ave on the south side as the slopes are longer.

[frinkprof]

Would be nice to have these beauties driving around Calgary...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/12/londons-new-double-decker-bus-unveiled-w-video/No thanks, even with Riise's proposed modifications.

Capacity of the London-spec double-decker: 87 with 2 doors

Capacity of the D60LFR (articulated buses Calgary runs): 108 with 3 doors.

Cost comparison: Not sure, but any savings on the double-decker likely can't make up for the loss of capacity and onloading/offloading problems.

[Riise]

If we get electronic fare payment in place, a black platform would be great here.

The main purpose of the rear platform is so passengers can hop on and off during stop and go traffic in Central London and on busy high streets. In Calgary, I don't think there are many routes that feature this environment. Also, when you consider the cost of staffing the rear platform with a conductor and the fact that you can place a card reader near the middle door the rear platform doesn't make much sense.

However, if rapid alighting is a high priority then you could make a case in a debate over double deckers and bendy busses.



No thanks, even with Riise's proposed modifications.

Capacity of the London-spec double-decker: 87 with 2 doors

Capacity of the D60LFR (articulated buses Calgary runs): 108 with 3 doors.

Cost comparison: Not sure, but any savings on the double-decker likely can't make up for the loss of capacity and onloading/offloading problems.

If the new Routemasters are run in a three door configuration then the capacity would increase due to the removal of a staircase and doorway. In addition, a three door configuration would provide alighting times closer to those of a bendy bus but would also reduce transfer times, necessary size of bus docks/zones, and road space being occupied.

Nonetheless, even if bendy busses have better specs they provide a God awful riding experience in comparison to double deckers. Add in the slick design of the new Routemasters and you start to give public transport a fun factor.

[UofC.engineer]

The tender for Southland Station's 4 car extension is now out.

The project is supposed to be done by the end of June 2011.

Includes:
Extended platform
New south end platform access, much bigger than the current one
Partial replacement of the existing platform.
I think some renos inside the station head.
Concrete repairs to existing grade beams and deck.

Where can I find the documents for the plan? I checked CT website but only the Whitehorn plans were there

[You Need A Thneed]

Where can I find the documents for the plan? I checked CT website but only the Whitehorn plans were there

On Coolnet (Internet), or at the construction association. If you don't know what Coolnet is, you won't be able to log on to see it there.

[frinkprof]

There's some information/feedback sessions coming up for the possible (i.e. no timeline or exact routing set) SW BRT service.

Here's a map of the probable route with probable major stops.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/frinkprof/swbrt.jpg

It's from this brochure: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/SW_BRT_Calgary_Brochure_sPg1.pdf

Looks like they could go a step further with this BRT route and introduce more robust stations and busways (separated bus-only lanes) along some of the route.

Info sessions:

Public Meetings:

November 23 from 11:30am - 2:00pm
Rockyview General Hospital: 7007, 14 Street SW

November 23 from 3:30pm - 8:00pm
Southland Leisure Centre: 2000 Southland Drive SW

November 24 from 11:30am - 2:00pm
Mount Royal University: 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW

November 24 from 3:30pm - 7:00pm
Braeside Community Association: 11024 Braeside Drive SW

More info: http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/sw_brt_2010.html

--------------------

Thoughts on a possible SW BRT?

[frinkprof]

Where can I find the documents for the plan? I checked CT website but only the Whitehorn plans were thereWelcome to the forum.

[MalcolmTucker]

On SW BRT, I would be reluctant to support it without detailed studies that showed it improved full trip travel times vs cheaper alternatives like reinforcing the existing feeder bus network or implementing an arterial quasi BRT feeding LRT going along the following routes

24th --> Southland --> Southland Station
90th --> 14th --> Heritage --> Heritage Station

I get that the plan is likely in reaction to the south LRT being full, lowering the effectiveness of the feeder network in the area, but capital dollars should not be spent to ameliorate a temporary problem that will be solved by 2014.

Now, that being said in the long term there will be BRT running connecting the south LRT to Mount Royal College, and on to the West LRT likely at Westbrook. So using one of the lanes to perhaps become a HOW lane between norther 14th St, along Glenmore, and along southern Crowchild might help. But again, I would want a study to make sure that the trade off in road capacity was actually a net benefit to people as a whole.

I think in general we have to remind decision makers about the high operational cost of BRT and the need for higher constant subsidy the more of our core transit network includes lower capacity diesel buses to make sure they don't binge on cheap incremental BRT improvements that leave our transit system unsustainable financially.

[fusili]

Now, that being said in the long term there will be BRT running connecting the south LRT to Mount Royal College, and on to the West LRT likely at Westbrook.

This, IMHO, is absolutely necessary. Mount Royal should be connected to a circle route BRT that could connect to the West LRT, the South and SE LRT and even the North LRT. This would eliminate a lot of transfers and really reduce trip times, especially for those coming from the South and SE lines.

[srperrycgy]

A Circle Route BRT would be a excellent idea. The current Circle Route is ok, except for the f-ing long and largely unnecessary layovers. In my current commute from Killarney to 58th Ave @ Blackfoot: Chinook Station and Crowchild @ 54th Ave SW.

[fusili]

A Circle Route BRT would be a excellent idea. The current Circle Route is ok, except for the f-ing long and largely unnecessary layovers. In my current commute from Killarney to 58th Ave @ Blackfoot: Chinook Station and Crowchild @ 54th Ave SW.

Don't get me started with how bad stop spacing and route timing is in Calgary. I took the 7 (or was it the 6) back from Marda Loop once. It stopped 3 times in four blocks. Has this city ever heard of rapid transit?

[srperrycgy]

Don't get me started with how bad stop spacing and route timing is in Calgary. I took the 7 (or was it the 6) back from Marda Loop once. It stopped 3 times in four blocks. Has this city ever heard of rapid transit?

That would have been the #7.

CT did modify a couple of WB stops on the #6 on 26th Ave between 29th and 34th Streets a couple of years ago. The stupid thing is that CT re-signed the stops that were closed with the "Future Bus Zone" signs. :rolleyes:

[kw5150]

This, IMHO, is absolutely necessary. Mount Royal should be connected to a circle route BRT that could connect to the West LRT, the South and SE LRT and even the North LRT. This would eliminate a lot of transfers and really reduce trip times, especially for those coming from the South and SE lines.

Yes, and this more fuctional circle route for buses (and increased frequency and some good marketing) could take a whole bunch of students off Crowchild during rush hour!

It would also help it the circle was going in both directions.....every 5 mins. How many buses would that take? 60 or so?

[kw5150]

Don't get me started with how bad stop spacing and route timing is in Calgary. I took the 7 (or was it the 6) back from Marda Loop once. It stopped 3 times in four blocks. Has this city ever heard of rapid transit?

I guess they feel liek they can be lax on the bus routes because of the LRT...... which is unfortunate. Winnipeg has a very good rapid bus system. We could have one like that which cloud parellel our LRT not just feed it...

[freeweed]

Don't get me started with how bad stop spacing and route timing is in Calgary. I took the 7 (or was it the 6) back from Marda Loop once. It stopped 3 times in four blocks. Has this city ever heard of rapid transit?

My bus route in Royal Oak has 3 stops in a single block. I'm not kidding. 2 on one road, and a 3rd once you round the corner. And these aren't huge downtown blocks either.

I realize it's not intended to be a rapid transit route, but get serious. CT has some mind-bogglingly stupid stop arrangements.