[mersar]

Noticed this morning that the station announcements on the U2 consist I was on have 4th Street back in the rotation, sounded weird having not heard it for so long.

Pretty much everything visually looks like its ready to go, only thing missing are the maps and time sheets on their boards.

[freeweed]

Yeah, I heard something about a possible delay for 4th St but it may be old info at this point. I wasn't able to really get specifics - and it sure looks ready to go, once they clean up the site.

[mersar]

I asked CT via Twitter and they confirmed this month, and will be announcing the exact date soon.

[frinkprof]

^CTrainDude on CTPDB mentioned either the 21st, or more likely the 28th for 4th Street West Station opening.

[frinkprof]

Made some small updates to the first page information. Mostly updates on vehicle orders. There's a new set of Nova buses on order that have started to arrive. After this order, there will be 79 in the fleet. Also updated the completion dates of the advanced vehicle arrival information and fare payment systems projects. Both are slated to be done in 2012. I hope to add some BRT information in there at some point.

[CTrainDude]

^CTrainDude on CTPDB mentioned either the 21st, or more likely the 28th for 4th Street West Station opening.

Will be open on Friday, January 21st. The long walk is over!

[mersar]

Will be open on Friday, January 21st. The long walk is over!


Awesome. Means no more freezing while waiting for the 6, instead I can catch the 3 to the CTrain again.

[You Need A Thneed]

There is a pile of ties and track sitting at OBMF. Are they getting ready to lay some more storage tracks?

Also, it seems like some LRVs are just parked on "random" tracks at OBMF overnight the last while. Are they out of storage space? McKnight Westwinds doesn't have any tail track right now.

[mersar]

There is a pile of ties and track sitting at OBMF. Are they getting ready to lay some more storage tracks?

Also, it seems like some LRVs are just parked on "random" tracks at OBMF overnight the last while. Are they out of storage space? McKnight Westwinds doesn't have any tail track right now.

Theres been a pile of ties sitting at OBMF for years, though I believe they are also stockpiling all the NE extension materials there.

As for storage space, the short answer is pretty much. Once the entire current order of SD160's arrives there will be zero space free, and they may need to start storing on the tail tracks at Crowfoot and Somerset. So far only 11 of 38 from this order have arrived though, so things are tight.

[mersar]

The city has put out a tender for installation of the support frames for the electronic displays on the LRT station platforms. Nothing to do with the actual installation of the signs yet, but its a good step to see.

[UofC.engineer]

. Once the entire current order of SD160's arrives there will be zero space free, and they may need to start storing on the tail tracks at Crowfoot and Somerset.

Here come the graffiti trains.

[CTrainDude]

There is a pile of ties and track sitting at OBMF. Are they getting ready to lay some more storage tracks?

Also, it seems like some LRVs are just parked on "random" tracks at OBMF overnight the last while. Are they out of storage space? McKnight Westwinds doesn't have any tail track right now.
One of the wash lane doors has been broken for a few days, making the Rail Service folks have to park trains in different places and juggle them around more than usual. But yes, it is pretty much full as it is now. Once all the series 8's arrive, I imagine they'll start with parking outdo at Haysboro first, then to tail tracks if required.

[fusili]

Anyone see this article about the vacant lots owned by the city on 16th avenue and Centre Street.

Link (http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2011/01/09/16820256.html#/news/alberta/2011/01/09/pf-16820261.html)

Station head for the Centre Street Subway anyone?

[Aegis]

Has anyone else checked out San Fran's plans for a "Grand Central Station" in their downtown, called the Transbay Terminal? It is freaking sweet. Best thing ever!

Check it out:

http://transbaycenter.org/

I know we will never have anything close to this level of station design in Calgary, but OMMFG it is awesome!

This is amazing. Too bad we don't have the rail infrastructure to make it possible.

[Bassic Lab]

This is amazing. Too bad we don't have the rail infrastructure to make it possible.

We have the rail infrastructure. What we lack is passenger trains using the infrastructure. That and any need to set up much of a system for the foreseeable future. If the time comes to to start up a commuter/inter-city system we are fortunate in that, while tracks may have to be twinned/tripled, the corridors exist and have more than enough ROW for any needed expansion.

[frinkprof]

Here's the comments that were compiled during the open houses for the Southwest BRT functional study: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/all_comments_open_houses_2010.pdf

Apparently the study will be reported back to council on January 19th, and the study (or just a summary, not sure) will be posted to Calgary Transit's website. I'm not sure what the outcome of the council presentation will be. My guess is that it will just be reported, but there won't be a vote on actually doing it unless one of the council members moves to do so, which would likely come later.

CT link on the SW BRT for reference: http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/sw_brt_2010.html

[UofC.engineer]

The more I think about it, I don't see why the SW BRT is slated to go Mount Royal. When the new West Calgary bus routes kick in there will be two BRT routes which will access the school.

Just have a transfer station on 14th St. and save SW commuters at least 10mins.

http://www.westlrt.ca/files/CT%20Bus%20Network%20Proposed%20Nov-20-09.pdf

[DarkKeyo]

Anyone see this article about the vacant lots owned by the city on 16th avenue and Centre Street.

Link (http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2011/01/09/16820256.html#/news/alberta/2011/01/09/pf-16820261.html)

Station head for the Centre Street Subway anyone?

Heck yes! If they want to "pick my brain" as described in the article I will say 'subway all the way' as many times as I can.

Making sure that a station is included as a possibility at the very least will put more momentum on the idea of the subway, I hope.

[Bassic Lab]

The more I think about it, I don't see why the SW BRT is slated to go Mount Royal. When the new West Calgary bus routes kick in there will be two BRT routes which will access the school.

Just have a transfer station on 14th St. and save SW commuters at least 10mins.

http://www.westlrt.ca/files/CT%20Bus%20Network%20Proposed%20Nov-20-09.pdf

I wonder what the travel times would look like if transit only lanes were constructed on the 14th St ROW between 50 Ave and 38 Ave. The buses would then use the Dam and bypass Glenmore/Crowchild completely. It would depend on how congested 14th St is between 38 Ave and Downtown. There simply is no room to add additional lanes.

I have thought about eventually constructing a 14th St LRT at some point after the six primary lines are complete. The initial routing would run between SAIT and Rockyview Hospital, with later extensions to the north and south. It would require a subway north of 38 Ave so cost would be an issue.

[Bassic Lab]

Heck yes! If they want to "pick my brain" as described in the article I will say 'subway all the way' as many times as I can.

Making sure that a station is included as a possibility at the very least will put more momentum on the idea of the subway, I hope.

I take it we are talking about the various empty lots on the south side of 16th Ave between 4 St NW and 6th St NE? The specific lot that might be useful for a Centre Street Subway would be the SE corner of 16 Ave and Centre St? If that is the case then I would reserve the that lot for a station entrance with some kind of major institutional space on top. Maybe a museum or theatre/opera house. Most of the other lots ought to be sold off for development with one or two held back for affordable housing. Adding a park to one might be an idea but there seems to be a good amount of green space in the vicinity already.

[You Need A Thneed]

That lot at the corner of 16th and Centre MUST be kept open for a potential station entrance. If a subway is ever going to go up that way, the presence of open lots like that one along the way will make or break the budget. Some open space to use during construction will make a large difference in the final project cost.

Other than that lot, and maybe a similar lot by Edmonton Trail (in case it works better to build the subway up that route), build mixed use with retail frontage along 16th, it shouldn't be too hard.

[DarkKeyo]

The more I think about it, I don't see why the SW BRT is slated to go Mount Royal. When the new West Calgary bus routes kick in there will be two BRT routes which will access the school.

Just have a transfer station on 14th St. and save SW commuters at least 10mins.

http://www.westlrt.ca/files/CT%20Bus%20Network%20Proposed%20Nov-20-09.pdf

Why NOT go to Mount Royal? It will be the major destination on the SWBRT, with the far SW south of Rockyview being a distant second in ridership.

I take it we are talking about the various empty lots on the south side of 16th Ave between 4 St NW and 6th St NE? The specific lot that might be useful for a Centre Street Subway would be the SE corner of 16 Ave and Centre St? If that is the case then I would reserve the that lot for a station entrance with some kind of major institutional space on top. Maybe a museum or theatre/opera house. Most of the other lots ought to be sold off for development with one or two held back for affordable housing. Adding a park to one might be an idea but there seems to be a good amount of green space in the vicinity already.

Yes, I do agree that the station entrance should be in some sort of useful building. That corner is a prime location.

[Socguy]

Slate has taken up the debate with a nice little article about the pros and cons of each mode of public transit.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280972/pagenum/all/#p2

[Bassic Lab]

Why NOT go to Mount Royal? It will be the major destination on the SWBRT, with the far SW south of Rockyview being a distant second in ridership.



Yes, I do agree that the station entrance should be in some sort of useful building. That corner is a prime location.

It might make more sense for the SW to be served by two BRT lines (with possible eventual upgrades to LRT). The first would serve the 14th St corridor, going relatively straight to downtown, and be meant to relieve congestion on the SLRT. The Second would serve activity centres like Mount Royal University, essentially as an upgraded express version of the #20 bus. If headways were short enough, then the transfer between the two at Rockyview Hospital Station would not be a major issue. It might even be better if both shared a busway over the dam until 50 Ave where one would split to continue north and one would split west to hit MRU.

[MichaelS]

I take it we are talking about the various empty lots on the south side of 16th Ave between 4 St NW and 6th St NE? The specific lot that might be useful for a Centre Street Subway would be the SE corner of 16 Ave and Centre St? If that is the case then I would reserve the that lot for a station entrance with some kind of major institutional space on top. Maybe a museum or theatre/opera house. Most of the other lots ought to be sold off for development with one or two held back for affordable housing. Adding a park to one might be an idea but there seems to be a good amount of green space in the vicinity already.

Would we need an entire lot for a station entrance? I am picturing a subway to be like Edmonton's downtown, were there would just be a few stair cases coming up onto the sidewalk from the station. We might need to save a bit of a set-back, but the whole lot? I'm not an expert at subway construction, so please let me know if I am wrong.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, along 16th you would likely want a place for free body transfers from buses, which takes up a lot of room.

[UofC.engineer]

It might even be better if both shared a busway over the dam until 50 Ave where one would split to continue north and one would split west to hit MRU.

BINGO!!!

My parents said that cars used to drive over the dam, but only one direction at a time with signal lights on each end because there wasn't enough room.

I think the straightest and most direct route to downtown is essential for the SW BRT to be a success. A lane reversal on 14th street could also speed up time.

Mount Royal is a large transit destination, but you need to consider the traveling time for workers in downtown as well.

[Rational Plan3]

Yes it is supposed to be real-time arrival information. There will be displays at LRT and BRT stops, and for all other bus routes it is supposed to be available on smart phone applications.

London's 'countdown' system is currently being upgraded, alongside it's new i Bus initiative.

"London Buses has now fully rolled out its iBus project - a state-of-the-art Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), radio and an on-bus passenger information display and announcement system - to every bus and garage across London, that's over 8000 buses and 90 garages.

Next stop visual displays and audio announcements on the bus keep you informed every stop of the way so you know where and when to get off. It makes travel easier for everyone."


"Improvements for passengers

More reliable services
Next-stop audio visual, place of interest and final destination announcements. This particularly benefits passengers with disabilities, infrequent travellers or passengers facing language barriers
Route-related service information while on board - drivers can trigger an announcement that keeps passengers informed as soon as a bus goes on diversion from the planned route
iBus makes buses more reliable and information at bus stops more accurate
Improved Countdown predictions at bus stops
Improved response from CentreComm - the 24/7 Emergency Command and Control Centre. In the event of an emergency or accident, the precise location of every bus in the fleet can immediately be shared with the emergency services

Improvements for bus operators

At-a-glance information on the precise location of every bus on a particular route, with the ability to take action to maintain a good service
Detailed journey time data available, allowing bus operators to improve bus routes
Improvements for bus drivers

Improved radio coverage
Drivers don't need to try to identify the precise location of their vehicle to CentreComm as CentreComm will already have that information
Automatic 'low bridge' warnings
Pre-recorded announcements such as 'please move down the bus'"

This will allow countdown travel information to be upgraded.

"Countdown is the electronic information display system that provides real-time bus arrival information for bus passengers throughout London.

The current system has been successful, however it only serves 10 per cent of the network. From 2011, we will be introducing a new, improved Countdown that will show bus arrival predictions for every one of London's 19,000 bus stops.

The new system will provide real-time bus arrival information through a range of channels, including text messages and web. We will also introduce a new generation of Countdown signs at bus shelters."

FEATURES

Text messaging (SMS)

Passengers will be able to text their bus stop code, bus stop name or route to a central telephone number to receive real-time bus arrival times for that stop.

The SMS service will enable visually impaired passengers to use the text-to-speech facility where available in mobile phones to get information.
The text messaging service will cost the standard network rate to send a message, plus a 12p charge to receive the response.

Web
Passengers will be able to get the latest service information using mobile web or their internet at home or at work.
Passengers will be able to search by bus stop name, street name, area and postcode. Those using internet at home or work will also be able to search on a map.

The web service is free*. The web and text messaging services are scheduled to be available in 2011."


This means that passengers that don't have smart phones can still get real time bus updates, via text or free via their smartphone to the web page.

Countdown Signs

"Our improved Countdown signs will provide real-time information to around 2,500 key bus stops in London.

Using the latest technology to ensure easy readability, the signs will comply with disability guidelines on electronic signage.
As well as predicting bus arrival times, they will display service updates, disruption information and network-wide messages.
We are also looking at bus stop-specific audio options to help blind and partially sighted people find their way around the network independently.
The roll out of 2,500 new signs will begin in spring 2011 and will be completed in 2012."

Where will the new signs be located?

New Countdown signs will be installed at stops where they will provide the most benefit to the greatest number of passengers. Factors that will be taken into account include:

How many passengers use the stop
How close the stop is to town centres
Distance to transport interchanges
Distance to key local services
The number of low frequency or night routes serving the stop."

While the new system for Calgary is good, I feel just putting electronic signs at BRT stops displays a lack of ambition, they should look to target their top 10 to 20@ busiest bus stops.

[frinkprof]

Good and thorough article on the C-Train in today's Herald.

Calgary's C-train at 30

Skepticism met people-mover plan

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald January 15, 2011 9:00 AM

Crammed. Feels like a sauna. Winter coats, wool scarves and coffee breath emit more heat.

Newspaper pages rustle loudly. Smartphone buzzes. Can't answer it, or even scratch an elbow, without getting five people to move one step over.

Finally, the doors slide open and the rats spill out into the concrete canyon. Free from the C-Train, and off to another holding cell known as the office cubicle.

Cities with light-rail systems all over North America experience varying degrees of the morning rush, but for the past 30 years, only few know the morning crush like users of Calgary's busy system.

Those who have long boasted that it's the busiest LRT system in the continent overlook the heavier ridership of the Metrorrey system in Monterrey, Mexico. But second ranking is little to be ashamed of in a city notorious for the car's dominance.

[...]

It would roll along the roads, just like the streetcars Calgary had scrapped, rather than the big eastern cities' full-fledged subway systems? When Edmonton's system opened in time for the 1978 Commonwealth Games with stations smartly burrowed underneath its downtown?

But flash forward to the present, when Calgary's 38-station system boasts 268,000 riders on an average weekday and Edmonton's newly expanded 15-stop LRT moves around 74,000 people daily.

Staying above-ground let Cowtown do more by spending less building the initial 13-kilometre Anderson-to-downtown stretch for $175 million, opening in May 1981. By contrast, the 1980s extension of the Edmonton LRT by less than two kilometres and three downtown subway stations cost $160 million.

[...]

New cars finally have air conditioning -- the same new-style cars Edmonton has, Mandryk notes -- and platforms this year will tell riders how many more minutes they have to wait. That might bode for a slower system, but not necessarily a less successful system. North America's No. 1 LRT system in Monterrey runs sleek-looking cars on lines that are fully underground or elevated, not on the road like some lowly streetcar.

And for those wary of that morning crush, stay tuned for longer, four-car trains. In 2014.

Link to rest of article (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Calgary+train/4113831/story.html)

The C-Train turns 30 on May 25th, 2011.

[frinkprof]

^To accompany the above article, here is a Calgary Herald video of Mayor Nenshi speaking about the future of the C-Train, with emphasis on the north-central line and airport service:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/videos/index.html?v=1744823177#/Calgary-Mayor-Naheed-Nenshi/4Zx6JxEaSay_I_qnNOGSanHiQRZZtXUT

[artvandelay]

...and the best part of that article - It's Howie freaking Mandel!:
wtodDMe8als

[frinkprof]

Another good and thorough article in today's Herald about the future of the C-Train. I guess they must be doing some sort of series on it.

Six-legged LRT with 45 new stations slated for Calgary

70-km addition in next 30 years to offer airport, southeast links

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald January 16, 2011 7:34 AM

In its first three decades, the C-Train has spread out its light-rail tendrils 46 kilometres.

With three more decades' worth of expansions essentially mapped out, it stands to stretch out more than 70 additional kilometres, becoming a six-legged monster with more than 45 new stations.

And yes, that includes an airport LRT stop.

Most plans are still many years, engineering studies and billions of dollars away.

"As much as we love the C-Train -- and we do -- there are two drawbacks with C-Train: it's very expensive and it's very inflexible, so we have to be really darn sure when we lay those tracks that's exactly the right thing to do," Mayor Naheed Nenshi says.

"And we have to weigh that against other public transit priorities."

[...]

But with the fullest year of West LRT construction ahead, as well as an imminent council decision on how fast the southeast line gets built and a major consultation on where another train route should go, the C-Train's 30th-anniversary year will be a pivotal one in its history. Here's a look at the C-Train now and into the future:

[...]

Until recently, the city deemed the subway line a necessity this decade, a priority before even the southeast LRT.

McKendrick now says the shift to four-car trains will greatly forestall the plan, although a north-central alignment along Nose Creek would also use the 7th Avenue corridor and hasten the subway dig's timeline.

[...]

LRT Advances

Mid-2011 -¦ Digital displays will be erected at C-Train stations alerting riders when the next three trains will arrive;

-¦ Fare machines at stations that allow credit-card use.

2012 - -Smart-card fare payment begins;

-¦ West LRT opens to 69th Street.

2014 -¦ Four-car trains on Tuscany-Somerset line.

Link to rest of the article (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/legged+with+stations+slated+Calgary/4116006/story.html#ixzz1BDubdZEG)

[freeweed]

Wow, that's one of the best articles on anything I've seen in the newspaper in years. Thorough is a huge understatement. It's very rare to see this much detail and status updates even on this forum. Thanks for the find! :tup:

[Riise]

London's 'countdown' system is currently being upgraded, alongside it's new i Bus initiative.

Thanks for all the info! Currently London buses already say and display the next stop but the new SMS and Web features will be brilliant!

[DarkKeyo]

Another good and thorough article in today's Herald about the future of the C-Train. I guess they must be doing some sort of series on it.

Link to rest of the article (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/legged+with+stations+slated+Calgary/4116006/story.html#ixzz1BDubdZEG)

Public consultation for all 3 possible routes of the NCLRT: Good. Very good.

A stub line or busways in the SE: Bad ideas. Cheaper to save up and build it all.

A spur off the NE line to the Airport rather than off the N line: Not a bad idea.

Making the Stephen Ave Subway less of a priority in favour of 4-car trains: They overestimate the benefits of only adding 4-car trains, especially while extending existing lines. But, it's good to take the time to figure out how to deal with the complex task of putting a subway there anyways.

[MalcolmTucker]

A spur off the NE line to the Airport rather than off the N line: Not a bad ideaWhen you look at the costs versus benefits, no way the public purse ever pays for it.

Making the Stephen Ave Subway less of a priority in favour of 4-car trains

Until we see how much it actually helps, and since there isn't money for the subway anyways until at least the later half of the decade, no point of pushing the subway. It isn't like any other big project will get done ahead of it.

[freeweed]

Why the continual push for LRT to the airport? It's extremely rare in the world and I have a very VERY hard time believing Calgary of all cities is in dire need of it. What's the predominant thinking? Is this more for employees (understandable) or travelers? Because I have some serious chuckles at the latter being used as justification.

I guess I'm just surprised to see it coming up again and again, after I've visited so many cities that survive perfectly fine without it. Especially when our system would have to be seriously detoured to handle it, let alone the cost-benefit analysis. I can think of a dozen better ways to spend our transit monies.

[frinkprof]

Why the continual push for LRT to the airport? It's extremely rare in the world and I have a very VERY hard time believing Calgary of all cities is in dire need of it. What's the predominant thinking? Is this more for employees (understandable) or travelers? Because I have some serious chuckles at the latter being used as justification.

I guess I'm just surprised to see it coming up again and again, after I've visited so many cities that survive perfectly fine without it. Especially when our system would have to be seriously detoured to handle it, let alone the cost-benefit analysis. I can think of a dozen better ways to spend our transit monies.Not to pontificate, but people who don't put the depth of thought into transit that a lot of "us" do can picture themselves using airport LRT. It's sexy. The problem is that people don't think a little deeper about the following:

1. That rapid transit lines are made viable by having a critical mass of regular riders (as in twice daily on most working days). While the LRT is packed during Stampede and after Flames games, if that's where all the ridership came from, they wouldn't be viable.

2. While they might ride it to the airport, they don't think that they only go there 5 times annually, and as per the above, that this actually matters.

3. They forget that when they actually go to the airport, they often have luggage which is cumbersome to carry, especially in situations other than residence/hotel->car/cab/shuttle->terminal or the reverse.

4. If they have travelled to cities that have rail service to their airport, they don't recognize the scale of the city or the traffic the airport gets relative to Calgary, or the fact that the cities in question built their airport rail service when the rest of their system was much more developed than Calgary's.

etc.

Basically it's an attractive proposition at first thought. Who doesn't want that option to ride the train to the airport? The reality is that there's limited funding and other priorities.

[freeweed]

I mostly just picture the average flyer in Calgary, who is either a) a business type (plenty of these) or b) vacationer with money to waste. I have a hard time envisioning either worrying about saving $20 on a cab ride, when a) their company is paying the bills or b) the trip costs $1000+ already.

But what you stated adds to my thoughts nicely. ;)

[ByeByeBaby]

Why the continual push for LRT to the airport? It's extremely rare in the world and I have a very VERY hard time believing Calgary of all cities is in dire need of it. What's the predominant thinking? Is this more for employees (understandable) or travelers? Because I have some serious chuckles at the latter being used as justification.

I guess I'm just surprised to see it coming up again and again, after I've visited so many cities that survive perfectly fine without it. Especially when our system would have to be seriously detoured to handle it, let alone the cost-benefit analysis. I can think of a dozen better ways to spend our transit monies.

Extremely rare is pushing it, unless we're talking about all airports in the world, regardless of whether their city has light rail or not. Here are the mid sized cities in western North America with light rail:
Vancouver - train to airport
Seattle - train to airport
Portland - train to airport
Minneapolis - train to airport
Phoenix - people mover to train under construction
Salt Lake City - train to airport under construction
Denver - train (EMU) to airport under construction

Edmonton - rural airport
Sacramento - rural airport; line under construction planned to reach airport eventually
San Jose - shuttle bus to LRT
San Diego - shuttle bus to LRT

So that's 7 out of 11 once current construction completes, with half of the remaining having airports a long way from the city. Not so unusual. And, yes, most of these cities are larger than Calgary, but they're not so much larger, especially from the perspective of the level of LRT infrastructure and ridership.

Part of the problem with airport transit is the cost-benefit definition. I've chosen destinations (especially for quick weekends away) because high quality transit at the airport made it easy for me to get downtown. For instance, I went to Seattle last Labour day weekend, and I wouldn't have if there hadn't been the train to the airport. From the transit agency's point of view, I'm just another $5 fare to be weighed against the cost of construction and operation. But from the point of view of the city as a whole (which is the ultimate source of the money for transit), they got an extra tourist spending hundreds of dollars, with the associated tax revenue. Building LRT to the airport brings in people who may have gone to Edmonton or held their conference in Vancouver, or who may have bypassed the city and gone straight to Banff.

I don't think we need LRT to the airport tomorrow, but it should be in the plans. More to the point, our current system of service is laughable. If you can find it in the middle of a parkade, you can choose between two buses; one provides a slow tour past every industrial building between the terminal and Whitehorn, and the other provides occasional direct service to the middle of a parking lot, where you can catch another bus to somewhere you may want to be. Both have the 30 minute headways today's business traveller demands. I think improved service to the airport (along the lines that CT proposed, assuming decent headways and ideally with an improved station and waiting area) will help quiet some of the demands for airport service.

[mersar]

So that's 7 out of 11 once current construction completes, with half of the remaining having airports a long way from the city.

And if you go back 5 or 6 years, it was 1 of 11 (Portland opened in 2001, Minneapolis opened in 2004, Vancouver & Seattle in 2009). In my view it should be something to be studied for long range, but none of the existing ones have existed long enough to prove themselves yet. Plus most of the reasoning I keep hearing isn't the passengers who are flying in/out, its the 15,000 employees that they think will all magically switch to using the train.

And in the case of Vancouver, the airport authority footed something like $300M of the construction bill from what I recall. So if anything ever goes ahead, I sure hope that the airport foots some of the bill here as well.

[frinkprof]

And if you go back 5 or 6 years, it was 1 of 11 (Portland opened in 2001, Minneapolis opened in 2004, Vancouver & Seattle in 2009). In my view it should be something to be studied for long range, but none of the existing ones have existed long enough to prove themselves yet. Plus most of the reasoning I keep hearing isn't the passengers who are flying in/out, its the 15,000 employees that they think will all magically switch to using the train.

And in the case of Vancouver, the airport authority footed something like $300M of the construction bill from what I recall. So if anything ever goes ahead, I sure hope that the airport foots some of the bill here as well.Yeah. Considering the airport employees is getting closer to the conversation that needs to be had. It's a numbers game, and the numbers are too low at this point. I don't know what the critical number is, but my guess is we might be approaching it in another 10-15 years and after some more airport expansion.

Extremely rare is pushing it, unless we're talking about all airports in the world, regardless of whether their city has light rail or not. Here are the mid sized cities in western North America with light rail:
Vancouver - train to airport
Seattle - train to airport
Portland - train to airport
Minneapolis - train to airport
Phoenix - people mover to train under construction
Salt Lake City - train to airport under construction
Denver - train (EMU) to airport under construction

Edmonton - rural airport
Sacramento - rural airport; line under construction planned to reach airport eventually
San Jose - shuttle bus to LRT
San Diego - shuttle bus to LRT

So that's 7 out of 11 once current construction completes, with half of the remaining having airports a long way from the city. Not so unusual. And, yes, most of these cities are larger than Calgary, but they're not so much larger, especially from the perspective of the level of LRT infrastructure and ridership.

Part of the problem with airport transit is the cost-benefit definition. I've chosen destinations (especially for quick weekends away) because high quality transit at the airport made it easy for me to get downtown. For instance, I went to Seattle last Labour day weekend, and I wouldn't have if there hadn't been the train to the airport. From the transit agency's point of view, I'm just another $5 fare to be weighed against the cost of construction and operation. But from the point of view of the city as a whole (which is the ultimate source of the money for transit), they got an extra tourist spending hundreds of dollars, with the associated tax revenue. Building LRT to the airport brings in people who may have gone to Edmonton or held their conference in Vancouver, or who may have bypassed the city and gone straight to Banff.

I don't think we need LRT to the airport tomorrow, but it should be in the plans. More to the point, our current system of service is laughable. If you can find it in the middle of a parkade, you can choose between two buses; one provides a slow tour past every industrial building between the terminal and Whitehorn, and the other provides occasional direct service to the middle of a parking lot, where you can catch another bus to somewhere you may want to be. Both have the 30 minute headways today's business traveller demands. I think improved service to the airport (along the lines that CT proposed, assuming decent headways and ideally with an improved station and waiting area) will help quiet some of the demands for airport service.Good post, and I don't think that your opinion is that different than mine, and I would guess Freeweed's as well.

Basically I would agree with everything you said, and my main gripes are:

1. That airport LRT service (not improved bus, not people mover, but full-blown LRT to the airport) is being ranked, by more people than can be attributed to statistical noise, ahead of lines to the southeast and north central areas of the city. Mayoral candidate Craig Burrows wanted to build LRT to the airport ahead of southeast LRT, and he's not the only one that has proposed this.

2. That every proposal of LRT to the airport hasn't included any mention of where the airport authority would fit into the funding picture. Vancouver built the Canada Line spur to the airport because the YVR airport authority footed the bill for it. I haven't read into it, but I would bet that is the case for most of the airports in your list. If YYC airport is footing the bill for LRT to the airport, I say break ground on it tomorrow.

I'm all for airport LRT, but with conditions that other lines that are needed much more aren't put aside to build the airport line, and that funding scenarios that involve the airport authority are at the very least explored.

Wholly agree on doing what can be done to improve bus service to the airport now though. The route 57/430 combination is abysmal. It will be nice to finally get that express bus from McKnight-Westwinds in a few months and the BRT to/from downtown sometime next year.

[1ajs]

yea i saw that today also when i was looking up snowblower coverage quite surprized good on calgary! now if winnipeg could get a better mayor AGGG!

[DizzyEdge]

You can also add Philadelphia to the list of cities with trains to the airport.
That said I agree that it is not priority. As for bus, would purchase of the future LRT right of away and paving a dedicated bus road be useful? I know for the SELRT it might not be due to the actual construction for the train potentially being started later this decade, but for the airport spur the BRT road would probably wear out before construction of an LRT begins.

[Radley77]

Perhaps the cost, revenue and operating costs between the airport and the City of Calgary could be split based on ridership as a joint partnership?

There are 31,753 trips generated daily by the airport, and a further 30,000 trips generated by the employees. This is 61,753 trips daily generated by the YYC.

I'd be curious what the % modal split for the airport would be. Assuming 12%, (less than Calgary as a whole at 17%, the airport on the one hand needs inbound to have transportation, but parking at the airport is also relatively cheap compared to downtown), then the total trips per day would be 7,410. This is comparable to other moderately heavily used C-train stations locations.

Number of Employees
http://www.calgaryairport.com/Default.aspx?cid=247&lang=1

Passenger Statistics
http://www.calgaryairport.com/Default.aspx?cid=117&lang=1

Modal Split
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/trans_planning/data/2008/mobility_monitor_april.pdf

Ridership by C-Train Station (Weekday Ons and Offs)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070608132311/http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/lrt_ridership.html

[MalcolmTucker]

One thing comparisons to other LRT to airport schemes never do is look at ridership, because it will show how truly abysmal it is, and how pointless the entire project would be. Airports are unique trip generators that aren't easy to serve for many reasons.

1. Employees do not work in one easily serviceable area. While the stat X employees work at the airport seems to be trotted out in these debates, there is a reason they don't take transit now. They are spread out, they have free parking, and they travel at odd times. Since most are traveling outside of peak it is very hard to provide a competitive transit service because you have to draw from the entire city to serve one node.

2. Passengers are reasonably well served by the options today. A fair portion of riders whom would otherwise be captive riders are served by social sources (friends, family), which provide door to door service for a price that can't be beat.

3. The LRT is not a very good option to begin with for trips of this type. Most of the population still needs to take a bus, likely after a rail-rail transfer, to get to their destination. Why ask a friend to pick you up at an LRT station when they are just as willing to pick you up at the airport itself. Business users aren't going to fight crush loads to get downtown on the LRT.

4. Other similar cities have shown how big of a failure building LRT to the airport would be. Portland has 2700 on/offs for 14.6 m pax (6.8% modal assuming 100% of users are passengers), St. Louis has 5000 on/offs at their 2 stations for 12.7 m pax (14% modal share, assuming all are passengers, and none were people just transferring between the two terminals). From the last year data is available in Calgary, a similar result would make the airport one of the worst stations for ridership in the city.

5. Other cities have had outside funding for their links, in Vancouver YVR put in hundreds of millions, in Portland their Port Authority (which operations the airport) put in 23% of the cost of the entire line, Denver has a private funder for 32.5% of the line. The airport has not shown a willingness to pay their share on this project.

6. Alternatives exist that would possibly be cheaper and provide a superior service (hence likely garnering a higher modal share) that might be better able to make some of the cost back from fares. A basic spur from a LRT that has already been extended up to airport trail in the NE is just over 5 km of double electrified track. Vs a single track spur to the nose creek freight line of 3.5 km (and unspecified other improvements to allow at least 15 minute service frequency to downtown).

To be honest, neither is needed. A good coach bus to downtown and normal bus to the LRT is more than enough.

People like the idea of LRT to the airport because they can imagine using it some of the time. This isn't a good reason to build something incredibly expensive when we have much more urgent needs.

[polishavenger]

What I never see in LRT discussions is the possibility of introducing express routes. It would need some by-pass tracks around stations, but I think it would greatly decrease communting time. I often hear about people complaining that the trains are full and they cant get on during rush hour.

[You Need A Thneed]

People may want to check out the city's BRT network plan. You can find it on the council agenda and minutes page, on the agenda for the Jan 19 SPC on land use, planning, and transportation.

I would link, but the links expire quickly.

Highlights:
Short term:
301 enhancements
302 enhancements and extension to South Health Campus
305 extension and enhancements
Airport BRT down centre street
SW crosstown from Westbrook station to Quarry Park (serves MRU) - phase 1 only to Heritage Station
SW woodbine to downtown phase 1

Medium Term:
Brentwood to Saddletowne - serving 16th ave and 52nd street NE
Saddletowne to South Health Campus
SW Westbrook to Quarry Park phase 2
305 enhancements - 17th ave SE corridor enhancements
Downtown to woodbine phase 2

Long Term:
Airport BRT phase 2 - terminal to NE LRT
Sage Hill to Brentwood and to 96th ave NE (connections to NW and NC LRT lines)
Somerset Bridlewood to South Health Campus
162nd Ave SW BRT

[You Need A Thneed]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/BRTNetworkPlan.jpg

[Full Mountain]

One thing comparisons to other LRT to airport schemes never do is look at ridership, because it will show how truly abysmal it is, and how pointless the entire project would be. Airports are unique trip generators that aren't easy to serve for many reasons.
<Snip>
To be honest, neither is needed. A good coach bus to downtown and normal bus to the LRT is more than enough.

People like the idea of LRT to the airport because they can imagine using it some of the time. This isn't a good reason to build something incredibly expensive when we have much more urgent needs.

The only way I see an LRT to the Airport working is if it was part of a loop (ie connecting Mcknight-Westwinds to Crowfoot to 69th street to Summerset to Mcknight-Westwinds) with the airport authority paying for their station

[Bassic Lab]

You can also add Philadelphia to the list of cities with trains to the airport.
That said I agree that it is not priority. As for bus, would purchase of the future LRT right of away and paving a dedicated bus road be useful? I know for the SELRT it might not be due to the actual construction for the train potentially being started later this decade, but for the airport spur the BRT road would probably wear out before construction of an LRT begins.

I would question whether or not there would even be a point. 96th Ave/Airport Trail between the 301 on Harvest Hills and the NE LRT at 96th ought to be plenty fast enough for the foreseeable future. I doubt that headways on the busses would justify their own ROW or that traffic on the road would significantly impair the busses speed.

I'm all for planning out Airport Trail to include an LRT ROW from Harvest Hills Boulevard to the NE LRT but doing anything with it is way down on the priority list. Unless the Airport wants to pay for most of it, it has to be below the 8th Ave Subway, the SE LRT, the N LRT, and likely some other lines we have not even considered yet. If the province were to build the HSR earlier it might change matters slightly but I would still want the Centre Street Subway to exist first. That way the line would at least make a connection that might justify some of the cost by allowing NE residents to access the Centre Street corridor without contributing to LRT congestion downtown. It might make sense with the combination of three groups of riders: locals accessing the airport, Albertans making HSR-YYC flight connections, and locals simply using the line to cross to a different LRT line. We would still be talking a post 2030 timeframe in that case.

The thing is Airport connections are pathetic trip generators for cities that have pathetic overall ridership. The cost benefit analysis does not make sense for them. We are in an entirely different situation. They might be sacrificing a routing that generates 10 000 riders for a sexy airport service that generates 5000. We would be spending 500 million (as per Nenshi's rough estimate), from a limited expansion budget, getting 5000 riders when that money could pay for a quarter of the cost of a SE or N LRT that would easily generate more than 100 000 riders. The numbers just do not make sense until we run out of worthwhile routes that attract consistent riders. Our system is a success precisely because we avoided sexy nice to have additions and instead focused on getting people from where they live to where they have to go in a timely manner.

[fusili]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/g_major7/BRTNetworkPlan.jpg

Great ideas for BRT routes. The routes closely approximate what I came up with (Frinkprof and Sperry can confirm). 52nd Street from Saddletown to the South Hospital is a must, as is the 16th avenue BRT. I like where the city is going with this. They can put these in as express routes almost immediately.

[Bassic Lab]

The only way I see an LRT to the Airport working is if it was part of a loop (ie connecting Mcknight-Westwinds to Crowfoot to 69th street to Summerset to Mcknight-Westwinds) with the airport authority paying for their station

The problem with an outer circle line is that it would be very long, like 100 kilometres or more of track long, and the only trip generators out that far are the Airport and the SE Hospital. It would be incredibly expensive and there just isn't much out that far to service. We are likely decades away from the N LRT-NE LRT segment making sense, let alone the whole circle. The same problem exists for a complete inner circle but to a much more limited extent. There are a number of trip generators that exist along the path of such a line. These include Chinook Centre and the future TOD to the east, Rockyview Hospital, Mount Royal University, the Westbrook TOD, Foothills Hospital, the University of Calgary, and the Brentwood TOD. That gives us a roughly 14 km long line that might be justifiable despite the extreme cost due to the entire routing requiring elevated and tunnelled sections. It would be roughly a third of the complete circle. The other two thirds would never generate the same kind of ridership and those phases may never be needed at all. They could be on the books for the remainder of the century before construction would be justified.

With an outer circle we are not talking about an expensive and unnecessary two thirds of the route; we are talking about an expensive and unnecessary 90% or more of the route. It is double the current length of track in our city. If we were to develop a complete dream system for the city I could see such an outer circle being on it (along with an inner circle line, a 16th Ave line, a 14th St line, an MRU-17th Ave SE line, and so on) but if we then worked out a timetable for all of this, it would likely be pushed out into the next century before we would seriously consider completing it. The small segment between the NE LRT, the airport, and the N LRT might squeak in somewhere in the 2030-2050 timeframe.

[mersar]

What I never see in LRT discussions is the possibility of introducing express routes. It would need some by-pass tracks around stations, but I think it would greatly decrease communting time. I often hear about people complaining that the trains are full and they cant get on during rush hour.

It's a non idea thats been brought up before. Property acquisition isn't even an option in most areas, and would be extremely costly in others. Plus the current headways in the downtown will prevent it from even being effective, as you'd either end up clogging up one end or both of each leg with more trains then can be handled, and end up slowing things down. Even if bypassing a couple stations is possible, you might save 5 minutes going from downtown to any terminus, which really isn't worth the hundreds of millions it would probably cost.

[Bassic Lab]

It's a non idea thats been brought up before. Property acquisition isn't even an option in most areas, and would be extremely costly in others. Plus the current headways in the downtown will prevent it from even being effective, as you'd either end up clogging up one end or both of each leg with more trains then can be handled, and end up slowing things down. Even if bypassing a couple stations is possible, you might save 5 minutes going from downtown to any terminus, which really isn't worth the hundreds of millions it would probably cost.

If I understand New York's express trains correctly they work on a route that has four sets of track. So it essentially means two distinct lines following one path. The express line then stops at, roughly, every third station.

Capacity might be an issue on the S LRT but it is hard to imagine a corridor in Calgary that will ever require two lines to properly service it.

[Full Mountain]

The problem with an outer circle line is that it would be very long, like 100 kilometres or more of track long, and the only trip generators out that far are the Airport and the SE Hospital. It would be incredibly expensive and there just isn't much out that far to service. We are likely decades away from the N LRT-NE LRT segment making sense, let alone the whole circle. The same problem exists for a complete inner circle but to a much more limited extent. There are a number of trip generators that exist along the path of such a line. These include Chinook Centre and the future TOD to the east, Rockyview Hospital, Mount Royal University, the Westbrook TOD, Foothills Hospital, the University of Calgary, and the Brentwood TOD. That gives us a roughly 14 km long line that might be justifiable despite the extreme cost due to the entire routing requiring elevated and tunnelled sections. It would be roughly a third of the complete circle. The other two thirds would never generate the same kind of ridership and those phases may never be needed at all. They could be on the books for the remainder of the century before construction would be justified.

With an outer circle we are not talking about an expensive and unnecessary two thirds of the route; we are talking about an expensive and unnecessary 90% or more of the route. It is double the current length of track in our city. If we were to develop a complete dream system for the city I could see such an outer circle being on it (along with an inner circle line, a 16th Ave line, a 14th St line, an MRU-17th Ave SE line, and so on) but if we then worked out a timetable for all of this, it would likely be pushed out into the next century before we would seriously consider completing it. The small segment between the NE LRT, the airport, and the N LRT might squeak in somewhere in the 2030-2050 timeframe.

Very true, the likelihood of viability of it is so small that a bus on a dedicated right of way on Airport Trail (which currently exists) is a better solution for the foreseeable future, given that the airport tunnel actually happens

[SubwayRev]

If I understand New York's express trains correctly they work on a route that has four sets of track. So it essentially means two distinct lines following one path. The express line then stops at, roughly, every third station.

Capacity might be an issue on the S LRT but it is hard to imagine a corridor in Calgary that will ever require two lines to properly service it.

Yes, that's exactly how it works, with the express trains travelling along the inside track until its next stop. The A Train Express, for example, stops at 125th heading downtown, then again at 59th street, skipping four or five stations, while travelling 65 blocks. When the train leaves 125th, it goes full speed for that entire trip, basically ripping down the 'fast lane.'

Without double tracks the entire length, an express train wouldn't be able to travel full speed and would have to essentially weave in and out between local trains, making the time savings very limited and not worth the expense. So unless, the entire South line was twinned, there wouldn't be any point to this project.

Of course there wouldn't really be any point either way, as there simply aren't enough passengers or stations to have it make any sense.

[SubwayRev]

...I'd be curious what the % modal split for the airport would be. Assuming 12%, (less than Calgary as a whole at 17%, the airport on the one hand needs inbound to have transportation, but parking at the airport is also relatively cheap compared to downtown), then the total trips per day would be 7,410. This is comparable to other moderately heavily used C-train stations locations.

Another thing I think would also really affect its ridership is the odd hours. Unlike downtown, where the majority of people are working the same hours, most airport staff would not be working 9 to 5, and hence wouldn't enjoy peak hour service, making transit much less appealing.

In addition, traffic isn't as big a problem getting to the airport as it is to downtown.


Ridership by C-Train Station (Weekday Ons and Offs)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070608132311/http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/lrt_ridership.html

Those are interesting numbers, although a little outdated. If I had my druthers, I'd shut down the Erlton station, as it is only used ten days a year, and that traffic can be diverted to Stampede station, which even has an extra track and platform. With Erlton gone, perhaps the street crossing at 25th Ave could be eliminated.

[DarkKeyo]

Great ideas for BRT routes. The routes closely approximate what I came up with (Frinkprof and Sperry can confirm). 52nd Street from Saddletown to the South Hospital is a must, as is the 16th avenue BRT. I like where the city is going with this. They can put these in as express routes almost immediately.

Agreed, and doubly agreed on putting them in as express routes sooner than later. I bet they could implement the short- and medium-term routes on that map, in the way they've done 301, 302, and 305, by the end of this year.

[DarkKeyo]

Those are interesting numbers, although a little outdated. If I had my druthers, I'd shut down the Erlton station, as it is only used ten days a year, and that traffic can be diverted to Stampede station, which even has an extra track and platform. With Erlton gone, perhaps the street crossing at 25th Ave could be eliminated.

Really? I currently use that station every week. And I don't even live in the many condos in the high density area west of it, or in Mission. And there is TOD planned just west of it on Macleod Trail. And I don't get what you mean by eliminating a crossing at 25 ave.

Most of our lesser-used stations are that way because they are in inconvenient locations (eg. 39th ave, future Martindale, Barlow). We don't necessarily need LESS stations, because we aren't running only an express-type service for far-flung suburbanites. Much of our offpeak ridership is people like me using the train just to get around the city.

(Insert rant here about the rather bad design of most of the south line with far apart/far removed stations, and the gaps between Brentwood Dalhousie and Crowfoot)

[Radley77]

1234567891

[Radley77]

Really? I currently use that station every week. And I don't even live in the many condos in the high density area west of it, or in Mission. And there is TOD planned just west of it on Macleod Trail. And I don't get what you mean by eliminating a crossing at 25 ave.

Most of our lesser-used stations are that way because they are in inconvenient locations (eg. 39th ave, future Martindale, Barlow). We don't necessarily need LESS stations, because we aren't running only an express-type service for far-flung suburbanites. Much of our offpeak ridership is people like me using the train just to get around the city.

(Insert rant here about the rather bad design of most of the south line with far apart/far removed stations, and the gaps between Brentwood Dalhousie and Crowfoot)

I am curious what your thoughts are of divesting the land at Erlton and putting that money towards a Mission tram system instead? My thoughts are that in general, inner city could use more circulators instead of long distance express transit service with large distances between stops.

[Vascilli]

Well, 4th Street opens on the 21st, according to an email from CT.

[SubwayRev]

Really? I currently use that station every week. And I don't even live in the many condos in the high density area west of it, or in Mission. And there is TOD planned just west of it on Macleod Trail. And I don't get what you mean by eliminating a crossing at 25 ave...

Of course it does get used, but not very much, (apprently you and 1,299 others) and I don't see a lot of TOD potential, being surrounded by Stampede park and a cemetary. Plus, it's only about 500m from Stampede Park. Hardly enough space to warrant two stations with under 5,000 total riders. Perhaps an improved station right at the corner of 17th and MacLeod to service both areas would work, in conjunction with a 17th ave entrance into Stampede Park.

By eliminating the street crossing at 25th, we would eliminate a big chunk of the traffic cluster fuck that happends with every single event at Stampede park. Plus it just seems funny that the tunnel ends just in time to cross a street. Why wasn't that tunnel extended an additional 100m? (I realize it was to save money, but it just seems silly.)

Of course I realize none of that will ever happen, but as I said, if I had my druthers...:)

[UofC.engineer]

Good to see "Plan It Calgary" really shaping up

Here are some pics of an excellent construction project beside Canyon Meadows Stations

It's great to see another auto-dealership in the area, the Ford dealership north of the station just wasn't enough, so I guess that's why South Gate Chevrolet needs to be built.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46710160
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46710133
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46710117
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/46710093



Oh yea, and this is sarcasm Aegis...just in case you didn't pick up on it.

[UofC.engineer]

So this is what we got on the east side of Canyon Meadows Station from south to north:

1. Canyon Meadows theatre (Supermarket in the early-mid 90's)
2. Agrium(three stories)
3. South Gate Chevrolet
4. Canyon Meadows Station
5. Ford Dealership
6. Crematorium
7. Avenida Mall

[J-D]

So this is what we got on the east side of Canyon Meadows Station from south to north:

1. Canyon Meadows theatre (Supermarket in the early-mid 90's)
2. Agrium(three stories)
3. South Gate Chevrolet
4. Canyon Meadows Station
5. Ford Dealership
6. Crematorium
7. Avenida Mall

I was hoping it was going to be another parkade :(

[fusili]

You can blame the City for that one. They are the ones that turned down the land use application for residential towers on that site.

[jeffwhit]

So the CT is planning on running NCLRT up Nose Creek, but running an express bus to the airport up Centre Street? Good fucking grief.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ They can't put the NCLRT anywhere else until council tells them to.

[DarkKeyo]

Of course it does get used, but not very much, (apprently you and 1,299 others) and I don't see a lot of TOD potential, being surrounded by Stampede park and a cemetary. Plus, it's only about 500m from Stampede Park. Hardly enough space to warrant two stations with under 5,000 total riders. Perhaps an improved station right at the corner of 17th and MacLeod to service both areas would work, in conjunction with a 17th ave entrance into Stampede Park.

By eliminating the street crossing at 25th, we would eliminate a big chunk of the traffic cluster fuck that happends with every single event at Stampede park. Plus it just seems funny that the tunnel ends just in time to cross a street. Why wasn't that tunnel extended an additional 100m? (I realize it was to save money, but it just seems silly.)

Of course I realize none of that will ever happen, but as I said, if I had my druthers...:)

There isn't really money to do anything about the inefficiencies of that at-grade stretch of LRT, despite all our wishful thinking. Or for the planned interchange at 25th, despite them tearing down all the buildings that were on that block. Unless the developers who are building what is technically TOD are planning on building anytime soon, the demolitions must be for road work...

Ideally, we'd have the mission tram, the 25th Av interchange, the development with the bridge from Erlton station over Macleod, and bury the Victoria Park stretch of route and station under where the Big Four building is/beside the Roundup Centre. Of course ideally we'd also have not built that awful curve at Lion's Park either

[freeweed]

A few comments:

1. At least the City is continuing to allow (and expand) car dealerships near obvious transit sites. Crowfoot is still the worst example of this in my book, but I always get chuckle out of the folks who think a station at Northland is a good idea. Yeah, because we need yet more car dealerships to be LRT-accessible.

2. I've been taking the train home at weird times lately, much later into the evening than I'm used to. I started going to work pretty early several years ago so that I could leave early enough to avoid the crush. Well, I've been hopping on the train around what used to be the peak (5ish) and to be honest - it's not bad at all right now. Either the increased service has made a huge difference, or people have balanced out their commute times (or both). It's a major improvement regardless.

3. When I brought up the silliness and rarity of LRT to the airport, I wasn't meaning only-LRT-to-the-exclusion-of-all-other-rail. That's a pretty narrow way to look at things. My point was that most cities with fixed transit systems do not have trains running to their airports, and those that do are very very recent. You'd think Toronto or Montreal of all cities would benefit most from airport rail. Does NYC even have it? As for transfers to LRT stations - Calgary has had a bus route between YYC and Whitehorn for as long as I can remember. And it's hardly utilized, at least when I've used it.

[YYCguys]

...Calgary has had a bus route between YYC and Whitehorn for as long as I can remember. And it's hardly utilized, at least when I've used it.

Well it's no wonder! It's such a god awful inconvenient route, winding its way through an industrial park first! When I first started doing the flight attendant thing and was living downtown I tried the train/bus thing only a few times and found that it was horribly painful (and more often than not, I ended up having to get a lift from the airport to the station from a coworker because the bus was inconsistent or nonexistent!). That's when I bought a car!

[DarkKeyo]

1. At least the City is continuing to allow (and expand) car dealerships near obvious transit sites. Crowfoot is still the worst example of this in my book, but I always get chuckle out of the folks who think a station at Northland is a good idea. Yeah, because we need yet more car dealerships to be LRT-accessible.

1. There is a lot more near Northland than car dealerships, and car dealerships can be replaced with TOD. We have too many car dealerships as it is, it's a waste having them near LRT stations taking up valuable land.

and 2. Try getting around, using any mode of transportation but a car, the area between Dalhousie and Brentwood stations. It's a pain in the rear. And there are lots of schools, and lots of places that rent to university students, lots of rental in the area to begin with, and by extension lots of people who depend on transit. And two major malls.

I challenge you to understand the problem before you laugh at it.

[freeweed]

1. There is a lot more near Northland than car dealerships, and car dealerships can be replaced with TOD. We have too many car dealerships as it is, it's a waste having them near LRT stations taking up valuable land.

Can. CAN. We have plenty of evidence that this does not happen in this city. If anything, it gets worse. I'd like to see at least ONE of these dealerships move (preferably the majority near any station) before we construct yet more stations surrounded by dealerships.

and 2. Try getting around, using any mode of transportation but a car, the area between Dalhousie and Brentwood stations. It's a pain in the rear. And there are lots of schools, and lots of places that rent to university students, lots of rental in the area to begin with, and by extension lots of people who depend on transit. And two major malls.

I challenge you to understand the problem before you laugh at it.

I have. I lived carless for quite a while in Silver Springs and the 37/43/137/143 combination serves the whole area rather nicely. Now that it goes into Crowfoot it's arguably one of the better serviced areas in the NW if not the entire city. It hits 3 LRT stations, goes very close to 5 major retail areas (Northland, Market Mall, Brentwood, Crowfoot and Dalhousie, and covers off a huge swath of those neighbourhoods.

It may not drop you off at your door but it serves far more "stuff" than most transit routes in this city (at least in the suburbs). I was pretty happy at the time to have what is basically an LRT feeder route that also serviced a ton of other stuff. Most bus routes in the 'burbs are just plain feeders - they go from one neighbourhood to one station, that's it.

Plus from what I recall there are a bunch of other bus routes that service the area, although I'm not sure just how useful each is for local trips. I do remember the 10 seeming pretty popular and it fills a similar role.

I'm not exactly sure what an LRT station at Northland is supposed to accomplish, when you have at least 3 bus routes that go almost directly from the nearest station right to the street facing the mall. It might save 5 minutes travel time. I don't know the headways on those buses anymore either, although there seems to always be one or two at Crowfoot, so they appear to run every few minutes between each other during the day. :shrug: If anything, an LRT station at Northland seems LESS convenient to me, because at least the existing buses go somewhere that's not dead centre in the middle of Crowchild Trail.

[mersar]

I don't know the headways on those buses anymore either, although there seems to always be one or two at Crowfoot, so they appear to run every few minutes between each other during the day. :shrug: If anything, an LRT station at Northland seems LESS convenient to me, because at least the existing buses go somewhere that's not dead centre in the middle of Crowchild Trail.

They aren't that great, but could be worse. My fiance lives right on the 43/143 in Ranchlands so I've used it a lot recently, its about 15 minutes during peak, 30 minutes mid day, 45 minutes late night and I believe 30 minutes on Sat/Sunday. Of course it does help to have the opposing directions running, often time if you miss one you can jump across the street and catch it going the other direction and not take almost any more time (Going from the university via the 201 to Crowfoot and 43 to her house is less then 5 minutes less then doing the 20 to Brentwood, and the 143 from Brentwood to her house)

[DarkKeyo]

I have. I lived carless for quite a while in Silver Springs and the 37/43/137/143 combination serves the whole area rather nicely. Now that it goes into Crowfoot it's arguably one of the better serviced areas in the NW if not the entire city. It hits 3 LRT stations, goes very close to 5 major retail areas (Northland, Market Mall, Brentwood, Crowfoot and Dalhousie, and covers off a huge swath of those neighbourhoods.

It may not drop you off at your door but it serves far more "stuff" than most transit routes in this city (at least in the suburbs). I was pretty happy at the time to have what is basically an LRT feeder route that also serviced a ton of other stuff. Most bus routes in the 'burbs are just plain feeders - they go from one neighbourhood to one station, that's it.

Plus from what I recall there are a bunch of other bus routes that service the area, although I'm not sure just how useful each is for local trips. I do remember the 10 seeming pretty popular and it fills a similar role.

I'm not exactly sure what an LRT station at Northland is supposed to accomplish, when you have at least 3 bus routes that go almost directly from the nearest station right to the street facing the mall. It might save 5 minutes travel time. I don't know the headways on those buses anymore either, although there seems to always be one or two at Crowfoot, so they appear to run every few minutes between each other during the day. :shrug: If anything, an LRT station at Northland seems LESS convenient to me, because at least the existing buses go somewhere that's not dead centre in the middle of Crowchild Trail.

The frequency is horrible, and THAT is the problem. The 43/143 manage half an hour most of the time, and every 15 during rush hour; despite this, I always end up waiting at least 15 min whenever I can't arrive when the buses are scheduled to leave, somehow. The 37/137 schedule says it is the same, but this has to be a recent change because it used to run closer to every 45 min offpeak and 20 peak. And they aren't coordinated with eachother, so they leave at about the same time instead of staggered evenly.

The 22 and 122 are worse, and the 10 is every half an hour and the most reliable of the lot. Basically, it's usually faster to walk, and that takes 15, 30, even 45 minutes depending on where you're going. And that doesn't work in this weather, and is generally interfered with by Crowchild and Shaganappi having limited crossings.

Each of those other suburban feeders you refer to tend to run about as frequently as all of the NW routes put together. And that ignores the schools, which cause daily traffic jams. And, I've looked for other places in the area to rent and they are usually closer to where Northland station would be than to the feeder routes. So I remain living quite close to the Dalhousie bus loop.

That kind of turned into more of a rant than I thought, and they may have fixed some of the scheduling last year, but I would use Northland station very, very often if it existed, and that area seems like such a waste of space, up until you compare it to Crowfoot.

[ByeByeBaby]

3. When I brought up the silliness and rarity of LRT to the airport, I wasn't meaning only-LRT-to-the-exclusion-of-all-other-rail. That's a pretty narrow way to look at things. My point was that most cities with fixed transit systems do not have trains running to their airports, and those that do are very very recent. You'd think Toronto or Montreal of all cities would benefit most from airport rail. Does NYC even have it? As for transfers to LRT stations - Calgary has had a bus route between YYC and Whitehorn for as long as I can remember. And it's hardly utilized, at least when I've used it.

I used LRT because I was trying to look at the most comparable cities. All of the US cities with major heavy rail systems have an airport connection; both ORD and MDW in Chicago, SFO in the Bay, Philly, DCA in DC and Atlanta have in-airport stations; JFK and EWR in NYC have people movers; LAX, Oakland and Boston (as well as BWI in the DC area) use short-distance free shuttle buses to rail; Boston also has a real BRT (including dedicated undersea tunnel) in the terminal, and Oakland has a people mover under construction. The only remaining unconnected airports in major heavy rail cities will be Dulles in DC (Phase 1 of the Metro line there is under construction; Phase 2 still needs funding), LaGuardia in NYC, and the suburban airports in LA (BUR, ONT, SNA, LGB). These connections are mostly well-established; JFK (http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/11/23/nyregion/1247465818963/the-train-to-the-plane.html), DCA and BOS pre-1980, BWI, ORD, PHL and ATL in the 80s, LAX in '95, EWR in 2000 and, surprisingly, SFO not 'til 2003.

Toronto and Montreal happen to be outliers in this regard, not the norm. And the link to Pearson (people mover to GO train) is scheduled to open in 2015.

The 57 to Whitehorn is a terrible bus; it takes a glacial 22 minutes to the terminal, the stop is hard to find and buried in the parking garage, and has half hour headways so you need to leave lots of time to make sure you don't miss your flight. It's unfair to run a lousy service, find out it's lightly utilized, and then use that as a justification to run a lousy service.

[sim]

1. I really hope that no interchange ever gets built at 25th and Macleod. That is not where an interchange belongs. Also, Erlton, and the subsequent crosswalk serve Mission, and I don't think it's a good idea to change a key component as to how it is and will further be developed.

2. I agree with thoughts on an airport stub-line. I think it's necessary to plan for something eventually heading up that way, but it does not have to be implemented today or tomorrow or in 10 years, but perhaps somewhere thereafter. Definitely SE and 8th ave subway should take priority.

3. About the subway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think that thing should be bored and just at a lower depth - perhaps 25 m so that we are in bedrock, and interlined. No settlement problems, no water problems, but much larger capital costs. I maintain that headways will never need to be so close that interlining isn't possible. If cities can do it with 6 - 7 different lines, with heavier and longer trains, then I gaurantee it could be done with 2. Design it for 5 cars, and continuous signalization.... etc. The future NC, and SE will pick up other current riders that currently drive to the existing lines. Or if fully need be, new lines that have yet to be imagined could be implemented - with the help of the then already obtained TBM!

4. I also feel that no fixed transit connection is, or at the very least, will soon be the exception and not the norm for any economically thriving city and one that is looking to stay that way. Again, not yet needed in Calgary's case. Some of the lengths (investment/expenditure) some cities have gone to do as such is pretty mind-blowing (HK for one,) so there is justification for it, especially when regarding the economic viability of it macroscopically (from the whole city's point of view, as was elluded to) versus just that system itself.

5. Car dealerships, crappy bus service etc. We really need to stop designing a mass transit system around a personal transit system. That would entail increased, everyone's favourite word, density!

[The Chemist]

^Interlining is a BAD idea and should be avoided at all costs. Here in Shanghai, for example, two lines (3 and 4) share a 10km section of elevated rail, which is now becoming a bottleneck - extra capacity can't be added, because trains are already running at minimum headways on the section (about 2 minutes between trains), resulting in double the headway (~4-5 minutes between trains) for each of the two lines that are sharing the line. Fixing this bottleneck is becoming important because of overcrowding on both Lines 3 and 4 (especially 4, which has daily ridership of over 800 000) at rush hour, but it's going to be very difficult and very expensive to fix the problem.

Running several lines through one bored tunnel will result in the same kind of problems, which only get magnified the more lines you try to stuff into it. A shallow tunnel for one line (NW-S) along 8th avenue and continuing to use 7th avenue for the other line (NE to W) makes a lot more sense, and will be much cheaper.

[sim]

^Interlining is a BAD idea and should be avoided at all costs. Here in Shanghai, for example, two lines (3 and 4) share a 10km section of elevated rail, which is now becoming a bottleneck - extra capacity can't be added, because trains are already running at minimum headways on the section (about 2 minutes between trains), resulting in double the headway (~4-5 minutes between trains) for each of the two lines that are sharing the line. Fixing this bottleneck is becoming important because of overcrowding on both Lines 3 and 4 (especially 4, which has daily ridership of over 800 000) at rush hour, but it's going to be very difficult and very expensive to fix the problem.

Running several lines through one bored tunnel will result in the same kind of problems, which only get magnified the more lines you try to stuff into it. A shallow tunnel for one line (NW-S) along 8th avenue and continuing to use 7th avenue for the other line (NE to W) makes a lot more sense, and will be much cheaper.


So have two sets of tunnels, one for each line on each avenue? I can't see cut and covering twice the amount, being cheaper than boring just one.

I also don't think interlining should be looked at so negatively. It may not be ideal in a city such as Shanghai which grows everyday by countless (literally) number of people, but Calgary could pull it off. It does work, and in fact, quite effectively in some German cities in what they call, as I don't believe there is a translation for it, a Stammstrecke. I can't speak as well to the effectiveness of it everywhere, but it's done on much higher capacity carrying lines than what we would be looking at in Calgary.

Also, it makes changing trains much easier. The one block of walking...

I just don't think that there will ever be the ridership to demand headways that are subsequently not adequate, especially after the addition of the NC and the SE. And, if so, then further additional lines could be looked at... in oh 100 years.

I know most on here think otherwise, but from the headway calcs I've ever done, it seems to fit.

[The Chemist]

^Not two sets of tunnels. Keep the NE-W line above ground, particularly since the city has just spent all that money to upgrade 7th Avenue. With the NW-S line moved to a tunnel, capacity issues on 7th Ave. will be solved.

[Boris2k7]

City Hall considers express buses for Mount Royal University
(http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+Hall+considers+express+buses+Mount+Royal+University/4123660/story.html)
By Jason Markusoff, with files from Richard Cuthbertson Calgary Herald, Calgary Herald January 18, 2011 6:51 AM


Mount Royal University, Calgary's only major post-secondary without LRT service, could be getting two bus rapid transit lines in the next few years under a plan aldermen will consider Wednesday.

Council is being asked to embrace a long-term expansion of the BRT system, which transit planners tout as a key component of Calgary's future. The plan, even with bus-only lanes or specially built bus-ways, would cost 20 to 40 per cent of new train lines.

...
Story (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+Hall+considers+express+buses+Mount+Royal+University/4123660/story.html)


Some more BRT development news.

[LFRENCH]

Got one of the new trains today. These will be a great help in rush hour, provided people understand the point of having seating along the edges is so you don't need to crowd the door

[sim]

^Not two sets of tunnels. Keep the NE-W line above ground, particularly since the city has just spent all that money to upgrade 7th Avenue. With the NW-S line moved to a tunnel, capacity issues on 7th Ave. will be solved.


Oh fair enough. I'm trying to kill a few birds with one stone. I guess I should mention that my own personal desire would be to see 7th ave turn into a pedestrian only zone or at least something much like 8th. I can see the Herald comments now...

[MalcolmTucker]

I would rather have one great pedestrian street in the core, than two mediocre ones. I think it is easy to forget how long it took to establish 8th successfully and how awful it was before.

[polishavenger]

I would rather have one great pedestrian street in the core, than two mediocre ones. I think it is easy to forget how long it took to establish 8th successfully and how awful it was before.

I would also think that establishing a N-S pedestrian corridor linking eau claire to stephen ave and the beltline would be a higher priority to increase pedestrian circulation amoungst these communities.

[fusili]

I would rather have one great pedestrian street in the core, than two mediocre ones. I think it is easy to forget how long it took to establish 8th successfully and how awful it was before.

Good point. Chicken and egg kind of problem though- what comes first: pedestrian street or lots of retail activity?

[freeweed]

Got one of the new trains today. These will be a great help in rush hour, provided people understand the point of having seating along the edges is so you don't need to crowd the door

Second ride on one today, and no, people aren't figuring it out. It really doesn't help that there's a nice bright WIDE yellow pole exactly where people should be moving in. It pretty much guarantees people don't move in until forced.

[Dado]

Why the continual push for LRT to the airport? It's extremely rare in the world and I have a very VERY hard time believing Calgary of all cities is in dire need of it. What's the predominant thinking? Is this more for employees (understandable) or travelers? Because I have some serious chuckles at the latter being used as justification.

I guess I'm just surprised to see it coming up again and again, after I've visited so many cities that survive perfectly fine without it. Especially when our system would have to be seriously detoured to handle it, let alone the cost-benefit analysis.

With respect to Calgary specifically, I think that's a major issue. Had the terminal been built in the south of the airport, the issue of getting a train to the airport would be far less onerous. It's entirely possible that the routing of the NE line would have been changed to Barlow Trail, for example, to accommodate an alignment into the airport.


When I look at the placement of airports and their terminals in the major Canadian cities, one has to wonder what Transport Canada or the relevant federal authority was thinking at the time. Calgary's airport is decently placed, but the terminal is in an asinine location requiring considerable out-of-the-way travelling. Edmonton's airport is so far out of town as to be a bad joke, leading to this ridiculous argument they're having with respect to the City Centre Airport and its supposed role in reducing traffic at the international airport compared to Calgary. Sorry, Edmonton, the blame for that lies with the distant location of your airport. Montreal went through the Mirabel misadventure and now they're stuck with the constrained Dorval rather than an airport on one of the west islands. Toronto's is not too bad, but no one thought to protect a decent way in for rail in the future given the tangle of freeway interchanges that surround it. Vancouver's location is surprisingly good given the track record everywhere else and the constraints placed by geography. And in Ottawa, the location is fair but the terminal is needlessly far to the south.

[suburb]

Toronto's is not too bad, but no one thought to protect a decent way in for rail in the future given the tangle of freeway interchanges that surround it.

Doesn't the Eglinton Crosstown line (http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/eglinton_crosstown_lrt/pdf/faq_table.pdf) planned to go straight to the airport? No biggie though - don't want to take the conversation away from YYC.

[freeweed]

When I look at the placement of airports and their terminals in the major Canadian cities, one has to wonder what Transport Canada or the relevant federal authority was thinking at the time.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that NO ONE was thinking mass transit in those days. Cars were (or soon to be) king. And I say this with very little knowledge of when these airports were designed and built.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I bet hardly anyone foresaw even a fraction of the air travel we see today. I saw a stat the other day that just blew my mind, in terms of just how many people fly each year in North America compared to just 10 years ago. Compared to 20, it's amazing. Compared to 30, it's disgusting. Of course, when I realize that I can fly to freaking Bermuda for $400 return, it's no wonder everyone does it several times each year. It wasn't too many decades ago when this would be completely out of reach for the average middle class family, or at a minimum they'd save for several years to do it.

Point being, I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of traffic, nor the demographics that can afford to fly today. Why would mass transit be required for that?

[SubwayRev]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that NO ONE was thinking mass transit in those days. Cars were (or soon to be) king. And I say this with very little knowledge of when these airports were designed and built.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I bet hardly anyone foresaw even a fraction of the air travel we see today. I saw a stat the other day that just blew my mind, in terms of just how many people fly each year in North America compared to just 10 years ago. Compared to 20, it's amazing. Compared to 30, it's disgusting. Of course, when I realize that I can fly to freaking Bermuda for $400 return, it's no wonder everyone does it several times each year. It wasn't too many decades ago when this would be completely out of reach for the average middle class family, or at a minimum they'd save for several years to do it.

Point being, I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of traffic, nor the demographics that can afford to fly today. Why would mass transit be required for that?

That's so true. As much as people bitch about the price of air travel, it is less than half of what it was thirty years ago. I remember tickets to Toronto for $800 in the mid 80's, which would be more than $1300 today with inflation. I can get pretty much anywhere in the World for $1300 now.

[MalcolmTucker]

Even then, with the plan for the airport for two north-south runways being set before the new terminal was built, there is only really one other place it could have been built at the time - where the WestJet Campus and other hangars are. In the end I don't think it would be any better from a transit perspective, I wouldn't want a line going up between the runways to deadend at the terminal.

[Bassic Lab]

Even then, with the plan for the airport for two north-south runways being set before the new terminal was built, there is only really one other place it could have been built at the time - where the WestJet Campus and other hangars are. In the end I don't think it would be any better from a transit perspective, I wouldn't want a line going up between the runways to deadend at the terminal.

I agree. In an ideal world we would still want the NE line where it is, so that it is at least somewhat close to where people actually live, and the N line under Centre Street. In terms of cost and ease of servicing the airport there would be no difference if the airport was flipped 180 degrees so that the terminal was in the south. It would simply mean a spur down McKnight Boulevard from one or both lines instead of one down 96th Ave/Airport Trail. If anything, it would seem significantly easier to protect a ROW along Airport Trail, where nothing exists now, then to try to force one onto McKnight. Sure the fact that the terminal is in the north means that both car and transit trips will always be a bit longer for most of the city but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't change anything.

[SubwayRev]

I agree. In an ideal world we would still want the NE line where it is, so that it is at least somewhat close to where people actually live, and the N line under Centre Street. In terms of cost and ease of servicing the airport there would be no difference if the airport was flipped 180 degrees so that the terminal was in the south. It would simply mean a spur down McKnight Boulevard from one or both lines instead of one down 96th Ave/Airport Trail. If anything, it would seem significantly easier to protect a ROW along Airport Trail, where nothing exists now, then to try to force one onto McKnight. Sure the fact that the terminal is in the north means that both car and transit trips will always be a bit longer for most of the city but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't change anything.

It would end the debate about whether or not to have a tunnel under the new runway...:)

[reflexzero]

I dunno, LRT to the airport seems a bit dubious, as I really doubt it would get close enough for air passengers to get from the train to the terminal in a convenient fashion. They would likely have a shuttle bus in between, so if they are getting onto a bus anyways, what is the point of having the LRT so close?

I really doubt we'd see high class business personnel riding transit to the airport, especially through the ghetto to get there. I'm very surprised when I see someone wearing a tie on the NE leg.

[Joborule]

For me, the only reason to make the LRT connect directly to the airport is because it's on a northern cross town spur line. One that connects the NE line to NC line, and the NW line by going along Country Hills Blvd. Therefore it's main intent is to serve the northern portion of the city moving east-west, and the airport station is mainly for convenience/employees. (And make the terminal feel more world class if it does add credibility)

[suburb]

I really doubt we'd see high class business personnel riding transit to the airport, especially through the ghetto to get there. I'm very surprised when I see someone wearing a tie on the NE leg.

Nice. It would be like saying that people from outside the NE are 5-6 times more likely to not have ever flown on a plane and to have never traveled beyond the city limits in their lives - save for their honeymoons and post divorce celebrations that were likely held at Gray Eagle Casino.

[Ramsayfarian]

The Dinger has an interesting column about transit in todays paper.

"Surprise.

Over the years, too many times to count and far too many times to want to count, this ink-stained scribbler has catalogued the spinelessness of this city council.

But Tuesday, four aldermen from the east side of town — Keating, Chabot, Demong and Carra — break the rules of the big blue playpen on Macleod Tr.

They don’t roll over to the city’s tall foreheads. They don’t take the lazy route, aka the usual path of only make-believe resistance.

They actually stand up and they come up with ideas and they put the ideas on paper and they vow to take it to a vote.

Their collective grey matter may be sound, it may be nuts or somewhere in between but beggars can’t be choosers covering the theatre of the absurd downtown.

Gadzooks, Batman. The politicians show a pulse.

The fight is over how to spend money coming from the provincial government for transit projects.

The four aldermen reveal Tuesday they want the creation of something called the Southeast Transit Way.

They pitch the city buy 20 LRT cars instead of city adminstration’s idea of forking out for 50 cars.

They want to improve bus rapid transit along the 17 Ave. S.E. corridor.

That’s the smaller potatoes.

In the brainwave of the aldermen, the bulk of the first chunk of cash would go to buying land for the future southeast LRT.

Then, while waiting for the province to dole out the dollars to build the line, since there isn’t the coin now, they would like to see a bus-only transit route to get people to and from the southeast in a fashion that’s rapid in reality and not just in name.

Keating calls this “giving relief” to Calgarians in the southeast now."

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/rick_bell/2011/01/19/16942331.html