[freeweed]

The driver cab is such a tiny amount of space that while it's an interesting idea, it'll never happen. Even the space over the couplings isn't that great. You're talking a 5, maybe 10% MAX capacity increase for a huge loss of flexibility with these cars.

Remember, this isn't heavy rail - all cars are or at least can be powered. You can basically swap anything with anything (I believe there are a few subtle combination restrictions), and have a functioning train. Going to a "locomotive plus freight" setup changes this. We'd have to have a lot more "locomotives" as spares sitting around. Right now any car can do this function. Better to just spend that extra money on a few more general purpose cars, and increase frequency. It would more than make up for whatever miniscule capacity increase we're talking about here.

[MalcolmTucker]

Plus, with longer cars a maintenance issue takes out more square footage. I know this is a reason New York has opted not to order integrated train sets (plus even within their two compatible line families, different lines run different lengths of trains).

[Cage]

The driver cab is such a tiny amount of space that while it's an interesting idea, it'll never happen. Even the space over the couplings isn't that great. You're talking a 5, maybe 10% MAX capacity increase for a huge loss of flexibility with these cars.

Just like perimeter seating vs conventional forward/backward seating. :notacrook::notacrook::notacrook:

Just couldn't resist getting my be BWA HA HA HA HA!.

Happy Halloweening everyone.

[Radley77]

I was curious if a loading profile study has ever been performed on some of the LRT lines? There are maybe 5 or so people boarding\exiting the Bridgeland station on a crowded train during peak periods... Is it feasible to skip stations like this to increase frequency and reduce overall passenger travel-times?

[ByeByeBaby]

Is it feasible to skip stations like this to increase frequency and reduce overall passenger travel-times?

At peak periods, I understand that trains are coming in about as fast as they can enter 7th Ave. Skipping Bridgeland would only put the train closer to the one ahead, and it would spend those 10 seconds waiting at 3rd St E.

There may be a hypothetical timing where a train that skips Bridgeland could sneak ahead of another one from Somerset or something, but it would be unlikely, would depend on everything going like clockwork (e.g. no one holding the doors of a departing train), and would piss the hell out of the handful of people who were waiting at Bridgeland, only to see a train fly by.

To really make station skipping feasible, you need passing track so that express trains can pass locals, and that necessitates an additional right-of-way that would be hard to get without taking lanes from the road.

There were station boarding volumes on CT's website a few years ago, but they have been quietly taken down. I'd be interested in seeing them again, if anyone has the old numbers saved or access to new ones. (IIRC, Bridgeland did have pretty terrible ridership.)

[Cage]

I was curious if a loading profile study has ever been performed on some of the LRT lines? There are maybe 5 or so people boarding\exiting the Bridgeland station on a crowded train during peak periods... Is it feasible to skip stations like this to increase frequency and reduce overall passenger travel-times?

No loading profile study that I am aware of. I suspect that we will not see another load profile study until the smart card system is implemented fleet wide. If CT implements smart cards with tap in tap out feature, they would get a tonne of invaluable true origin and destination information (the type of information that airlines pay millions of dollars to acquire, grocery stores are the same with their loyalty cards like Safeway Card).

As for skipping train stations, the idea warrants merit but not for LRT efficiency but rather to help increase overall network capacity and provide for more efficient use of the available capacity. Basic idea is to increase overall capacity by shifting shorter length trips onto frequent bus service in order to dedicate LRT capacity to long-haul services. This can be accomplished by close peak hour peak direction services.

Closing stations during peak use would operate like this:
1. Stations under consideration for peak hour closure: Victoria Park, Bridgeland, Sunnyside, Lions Park.
2. Improve peak period bus service between the catchment area servicing the closed station and downtown (or vice versa for the afternoon commute).
3. After about 3-6 months getting used to the new bus service. Close said station during peak periods (peak hour peak direction) to encourage users to take the bus.
4. Use the additional time gained by the station closure to allow for service reliability and to increase station dwell times.

Overall CT needs to look at network management and less on route management inorder to improve customer experience and peak period services. Network management techniques such as the one described above would accomplish these goals in a least costly manner.

Respectfully submitted.

[mooky]

I personally don't mind perimeter seating, with one caveat. I would prefer benches to buckets. The buckets are small, even for my narrow arse, and when a big person sits next to me, I have to lean either out and give up my back rest, or off to the other side (if another moderately sized person isn't already using their alloted space) ... after a short while, leaning off to one side in a bucket ends up hurting my butt and back as it's putting them at an uncomfortable angle, with a bench, I could shuffle my butt over a couple centimeters to compensate, but with a bucket that's kinda the point of it - "butt goes right here"

[sim]

No loading profile study that I am aware of. I suspect that we will not see another load profile study until the smart card system is implemented fleet wide. If CT implements smart cards with tap in tap out feature, they would get a tonne of invaluable true origin and destination information (the type of information that airlines pay millions of dollars to acquire, grocery stores are the same with their loyalty cards like Safeway Card).

As for skipping train stations, the idea warrants merit but not for LRT efficiency but rather to help increase overall network capacity and provide for more efficient use of the available capacity. Basic idea is to increase overall capacity by shifting shorter length trips onto frequent bus service in order to dedicate LRT capacity to long-haul services. This can be accomplished by close peak hour peak direction services.

Closing stations during peak use would operate like this:
1. Stations under consideration for peak hour closure: Victoria Park, Bridgeland, Sunnyside, Lions Park.
2. Improve peak period bus service between the catchment area servicing the closed station and downtown (or vice versa for the afternoon commute).
3. After about 3-6 months getting used to the new bus service. Close said station during peak periods (peak hour peak direction) to encourage users to take the bus.
4. Use the additional time gained by the station closure to allow for service reliability and to increase station dwell times.

Overall CT needs to look at network management and less on route management inorder to improve customer experience and peak period services. Network management techniques such as the one described above would accomplish these goals in a least costly manner.

Respectfully submitted.


I'm not so sure that is necessarily a good idea. Firstly, I can think of only the New York metro as employing skip stop operation (but I think there are a few other cases,) as they can be rather complicated for passengers.

Secondly, from an operations perspective, this would be done for two reasons: To increase the overall speed so that there is the potential for less units operating, and correspondingly less drivers, and to increase customer satisfaction.

In the C train's case, I'm not sure that leaving out a couple stations would accomplish the first goal. I can't say that I know what kind of a terminal time they actually have built into the overall cycle time, but I imagine due to the peak hour variability caused by at grade conflict points and signalization, it is either quite large or it may not even be relevant. Probably some of the other posters actually know this for sure. Hence, I can't forsee much potential for eliminating a consit and driver and thus, saving much on overall operational costs.

While it is always a good thing to decrease travel time, especially in an often non-competitive (regarding travel time) mode such as PT, I'm not sure that further encouraging an already heavily commuter oriented system is a long term strategy worth pursuing.

Lastly, adding those buses would only add to operational costs and require acquiring new ones that would then be rather underutilized all to provide a service that basically already exists (the train) unless I'm understanding your proposal wrong. Buses that interact with rail station areas should serve as feeders and perhaps increase that stations catchment area and not something that should really run in parallel with a trunk line.

My personal feelings on what can be done for those poorly used stations is simply increase their land-use intensity. Encourage TOD and more mixed use and cut some red tape to get there, if not even monetarily incentivize it. The expensive transportation infrastructure is already there. No sense in discouraging its use further, so if it is currently under used, change the reasons for that.

[DarkKeyo]

Closing stations during peak use would operate like this:
1. Stations under consideration for peak hour closure: Victoria Park, Bridgeland, Sunnyside, Lions Park.
2. Improve peak period bus service between the catchment area servicing the closed station and downtown (or vice versa for the afternoon commute).
3. After about 3-6 months getting used to the new bus service. Close said station during peak periods (peak hour peak direction) to encourage users to take the bus.
4. Use the additional time gained by the station closure to allow for service reliability and to increase station dwell times.

Respectfully submitted.

No.

1. I assure you that those stations are only used lightly *in comparison* to other stations. They are still used a lot during rush hour. I live at Lions Park, I can attest that this will not work. People, at 5 at the worst of it, get on and off at Sunnyside, SAIT, and Lions park, and are often making trips just between those three stations (which is very awkward when the train is full).

As sim pointed out, encouraging TOD is a good idea, although because of how close they are to downtown and how (in particular Sunnyside and Lions Park) are not really designed to handle very many people to begin with, changes would have to be made to the stations to handle heavier use.

2. The buses (the 9 and 10, really) that currently serve those areas from downtown suffer from the traffic leaving downtown at rush hour, and take three times as long as a 2 station train trip. And all possible routes pass through areas like Kensington, and Victoria Park, where there is no way to improve bus routing.

3. Here, you hose people who live close to downtown in favour of people who live at terminus stations.

4. You will gain no time. Trains, on the assumption that these stations are used less, dwell for less time than at a busy station where more people will hold open the doors, etc. And the trains slow down at stations they don't stop at, anyways.

In summary, and it's unfortunate I typed this much.... you, Cage, and Radley, by looking at shaving off a few minutes here and there as increasing efficiency, and at inconvenience to the customer as not a problem.... I respectfully submit that you are looking at this from the WRONG angle.

I would think a better angle to look at would be "How can we help move people efficiently (*not* decrease travel times) in between all stations".

I invite the rest of you to come up with some angles that are better than what I wrote down. I suppose the problem we are solving, since shaving seconds of of travel time *isn't* one, is that it is often awkward to commute to those near-core stations at the same time as people are commuting to the end of the line.



However, Cage, I will give you this.... The following statement was a perfect end to that previous discussion. That made my day.

Just like perimeter seating vs conventional forward/backward seating. :notacrook::notacrook::notacrook:.


As an aside, the Real Time signs are testing now.

[freeweed]

As an aside, the Real Time signs are testing now.

According to what I saw last night, August 2011 is "coming in a few weeks".

[mersar]

According to what I saw last night, August 2011 is "coming in a few weeks".

The Realtime information is now live at most stations, the terminus stations are still coming soon as a few random stations aren't working yet (Whitehorn and 1 or two platforms downtown). The rest of the system is up and working and pretty accurate.

[CTrainDude]

The Realtime information is now live at most stations, the terminus stations are still coming soon as a few random stations aren't working yet (Whitehorn and 1 or two platforms downtown). The rest of the system is up and working and pretty accurate.
This may answer a few questions:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/real_time_faq.html

[freeweed]

This may answer a few questions:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/real_time_faq.html

Thanks, that really helps fill in the blanks. This caught my attention:

Due to technical issues, the stations at the end of the CTrain lines (terminus stations) are not displaying predicted times for trains yet. These issues will be worked on throughout November. These stations are different that the other ones in that the times appearing on the displays will be the departure times for the next three trains, not the arrival times.

Not sure I understand the logic here. No one cares when a train is LEAVING. We want to know when we can board and get out of the goddamn cold. And when it's really bad, how long we should stand indoors, etc. Also when one train is sitting there nearly packed... should I hop on because the next one is still 5 minutes away, or wait for space because it's only 2 minutes away? Seeing as trains at terminal stations sit for completely random times, departure times are for all practical purposes useless.

Surprised someone wasn't able to figure this out. It should follow the same logic as at any other station, although I can imagine all sorts of idiotic design decisions by people who don't actually ride the train.

Edit: this leads me to believe that at least one person at CT understands that arrival times are what matters here:

The system measures the progression of trains through the system and develops predictions of the next arrival times for each station.

Just bizarre.

[Bassic Lab]

Thanks, that really helps fill in the blanks. This caught my attention:



Not sure I understand the logic here. No one cares when a train is LEAVING. We want to know when we can board and get out of the goddamn cold. And when it's really bad, how long we should stand indoors, etc. Also when one train is sitting there nearly packed... should I hop on because the next one is still 5 minutes away, or wait for space because it's only 2 minutes away? Seeing as trains at terminal stations sit for completely random times, departure times are for all practical purposes useless.

Surprised someone wasn't able to figure this out. It should follow the same logic as at any other station, although I can imagine all sorts of idiotic design decisions by people who don't actually ride the train.

Edit: this leads me to believe that at least one person at CT understands that arrival times are what matters here:



Just bizarre.

I don't have a great deal of experience with terminal stations either way but I'm of the opposite mindset. I want to know when I'm leaving so that I can judge the time to my destination and plan any connections accordingly. I really don't care if a train will be available for me to sit around and wait in for an unknown period of time.

Outside of the terminal stations it really doesn't matter since arrival and departure times are essentially the same.

[AgentGibb]

Not sure I understand the logic here.


Moreover, if they are showing the departure times... isn't that just the schedule? I wonder what "technical issues" could prevent them from posting the next scheduled departures?


No one cares when a train is LEAVING.


I would say that both pieces of information (arrival and departure) would be useful at the terminal stations. That way if there are two trains waiting at the platform and one is packed and the other not, you know easily how long afterward the second one will leave. That way, if you have a few minutes to spare you can make an informed decision to sit on the empty one rather than cram into the full one.


I can imagine all sorts of idiotic design decisions by people who don't actually ride the train.


It should be a requirement for all transit planners and city councilors to take transit to and from work every day, IMHO. If the service isn't good enough for them, how is it good enough for the rest of us?

[freeweed]

Moreover, if they are showing the departure times... isn't that just the schedule? I wonder what "technical issues" could prevent them from posting the next scheduled departures?

Bingo, this is exactly why I find it meaningless. I appreciate Bassic Lab's comment, but... that's what schedules are for. And most LRT riders aren't doing transfers. Terminal stations primarily feed commuters going to the downtown core.

I would say that both pieces of information (arrival and departure) would be useful at the terminal stations. That way if there are two trains waiting at the platform and one is packed and the other not, you know easily how long afterward the second one will leave. That way, if you have a few minutes to spare you can make an informed decision to sit on the empty one rather than cram into the full one.

Hmm, hadn't thought of this, it's a good point. Usually when there are 2 trains people in a rush take the full one, those with time to spare go for some space with the hope that it's leaving in a few minutes max.

However, I suspect the decision went like this: hey, it's only practical to have one time on the board (this I actually have no issue with). So let's go with departure times because obviously everyone cares about when they get to work, right?

Meanwhile, the thousands of us coming in from a terminus every day only give a shit about how long we have to stand outside in the cold. Trust me, the vast majority of folks do exactly this - huddle inside the station until the last possible second, then shove each other out of the way when the train finally comes into view. Some expectation of when a train is coming would be nice. And it would also help overcrowding at inbound stations - if people don't think another train is coming for a while (with zero information, how do you know?) they will jam pack the train sitting there. If they know there's another only a couple of minutes away, they'll wait, which leaves space for people to board at Dalhousie, Brentwood, etc. At Crowfoot when the light is right you can see the next train a ways away, and you can observe this behaviour - people wait for it, because being 2 mins late for work is better than being a human sardine.

Convenient based on our discussion yesterday, it was damn cold and windy this morning at Crowfoot. The usual winter behaviour was back in full force, with a mostly full train sitting there and no next train in sight. It was amusing to watch people wrestle with the decision.

It should be a requirement for all transit planners and city councilors to take transit to and from work every day, IMHO. If the service isn't good enough for them, how is it good enough for the rest of us?

Preaching to the converted here. At least make them take it once a week, instead of handing out free parking spots downtown (which is pretty much the polar opposite of our parking/transit strategy - ah, hypocrisy).

[You Need A Thneed]

There's room on the displays for three times, I think they should be able to show both the arrival and departure times. I'm not sure why anyone cares about when the third train from now is coming at most stations.

[freeweed]

There's room on the displays for three times, I think they should be able to show both the arrival and departure times. I'm not sure why anyone cares about when the third train from now is coming at most stations.

Yeah, this should really only matter on 7th Ave.

[Rusty van Reddick]

It should be a requirement for all transit planners and city councilors to take transit to and from work every day, IMHO. If the service isn't good enough for them, how is it good enough for the rest of us?

So you wouldn't allow them to walk or bike?

Also- EVERY DAY? That's just insane.

[J-D]

It should be a requirement for all transit planners and city councilors to take transit to and from work every day, IMHO. If the service isn't good enough for them, how is it good enough for the rest of us?

Nothing would ever get done if the transit planners and aldermen were constantly late for work and meetings :jester:

[SubwayRev]

No one cares when a train is LEAVING.

I would disagree with you here, the departure time is the only relevant information. Personally, I don't care when a train arrives at a station, just as I don't care when the previous flight arrived at the airport, or when the previous sailing docked for the ferry. I only care when I will be leaving, and that's the information I need/want.

[DizzyEdge]

I would disagree with you here, the departure time is the only relevant information. Personally, I don't care when a train arrives at a station, just as I don't care when the previous flight arrived at the airport, or when the previous sailing docked for the ferry. I only care when I will be leaving, and that's the information I need/want.

Isn't this sort of a moot point since the arrival/leaving times will be within 20 seconds of each other?

[frinkprof]

Isn't this sort of a moot point since the arrival/leaving times will be within 20 seconds of each other?Except at terminus stations, which is what is being debated here.

[freeweed]

I would disagree with you here, the departure time is the only relevant information. Personally, I don't care when a train arrives at a station, just as I don't care when the previous flight arrived at the airport, or when the previous sailing docked for the ferry. I only care when I will be leaving, and that's the information I need/want.

I guess I just don't see why this is a concern. Knowing the departure time can in no way influence your behaviour or help you make a decision. It's not like you're going to choose to board or not based on that. You're already there, and if any timing is important you're in a hurry to get somewhere. So you'll always board the first train.

Arrival times at least give you an idea of whether or not to stand around indoors, take the train sitting there or wait for the next one, etc. But I just don't see what knowing a departure time gets you. It's the same thing as looking at a schedule (which I hope you've already done if you're making connections). I used to live at a timing point on a bus route (ie: where the bus sits for a random amount of time) and I can't remember ever caring when it left. I only wanted to know how much longer I had to stand outside in the cold/rain. It left on schedule every time.

As for the airport, I don't think I understand - obviously you don't care when the PREVIOUS flight arrived, but trust me: every flier I know damn well cares when THEIR flight has arrived. Because that dictates whether or not you need to start going through security, get ready for boarding, etc. You've already committed to a departure time so it's not like knowing about a change in that matters all that much. You still have to be there assuming it's on time - but if your flight has not arrived yet, you still have time to hit the head, sit in the lounge for another drink, or what have you.

Different priorities, I guess. :shrug:

[ByeByeBaby]

I guess I just don't see why this is a concern. Knowing the departure time can in no way influence your behaviour or help you make a decision. It's not like you're going to choose to board or not based on that. You're already there, and if any timing is important you're in a hurry to get somewhere. So you'll always board the first train.

Arrival times at least give you an idea of whether or not to stand around indoors, take the train sitting there or wait for the next one, etc. But I just don't see what knowing a departure time gets you. It's the same thing as looking at a schedule (which I hope you've already done if you're making connections). I used to live at a timing point on a bus route (ie: where the bus sits for a random amount of time) and I can't remember ever caring when it left. I only wanted to know how much longer I had to stand outside in the cold/rain. It left on schedule every time.

Knowing the departure time tells you as you approach the station whether you have to rush for the train or not, and whether you have to jump on at the first doors or whether you have a couple of minutes to walk to the less-crowded middle.

Why would you stand around indoors or wait for another train if there's a train already sitting there at a terminal? And why provide any information, if people are going to have to refer to schedules?

And, of course, the answer to how long you have to stand outside in the rain at a C-train station is 0 minutes, since they all have shelters.

Really, there are three possible states at a terminal station, each of which has their own most important information:
If there are two trains: Which one leaves first?
If there is one train: When does this train leave?
If there are no trains: When does the next train arrive, so I can get on?

[freeweed]

And, of course, the answer to how long you have to stand outside in the rain at a C-train station is 0 minutes, since they all have shelters.

Logic says this, granted. People's behaviour is vastly different. The terminal stations see the effect of people cramming inside during inclement weather, only to dash outside in a mad rush as soon as an empty train shows up.

Really, there are three possible states at a terminal station, each of which has their own most important information:
If there are two trains: Which one leaves first?
If there is one train: When does this train leave?
If there are no trains: When does the next train arrive, so I can get on?

1. Pretty much always, it's the emptier train. You can easily spot those in a rush vs those who want a seat more than getting to work 5 minutes earlier.

2. More people seem to do a quick mental check of "hmm, it looks full, do I stand or do I chance it waiting for the next one to arrive". But yeah, I'll give you this one as being on the fence.

3. Bingo. Do I stand outside for 2 minutes in -20 because it's coming shortly, or do I crowd the station with 100 other people because it may be another 5+ minutes?

I do a lot of people watching (I'm almost never in a rush and will gladly wait for a seat) so I'm just relaying what people actually seem to DO, as opposed to what might make logical sense. Good point about the "do I cram on, or walk to the middle" which I forgot to quote - that's definitely a mindgame many people play every morning.

[Barnes]

Plus, the first train to arrive doesn't always leave first. Sometimes they make an announcement, some times they don't.

[earl69]

Have to say, since the installation of the digital arrival boards at the C-train stations along the South line, service is the best it has ever been (and this is from someone who has rode the train, through thick and thin, for 9 long years). It is almost as if there is now some accountability with these guys. Anyways, keep it up.

[mersar]

They've started installing the SmartCard readers onto some of the buses, someone over on cptdb spotted one on 7685.

[5seconds]

They've started installing the SmartCard readers onto some of the buses, someone over on cptdb spotted one on 7685.

I noticed your post on that forum, and the proposed increase of the bus tickets from the current $24 per 10 to $30 per 10. Do you have any more information about that?

I'm interested to see how the card readers work in buses. Presumably there has to be some kind of mechanism that lets the bus driver know you 'tapped in', but with the volumes some buses see, I wonder how easy it will be for a driver to check who paid and who hasn't (like if 30 people get on in one stop, how easy it will be to see which 'payment indication' correlates to which person)

[freeweed]

Plus, the first train to arrive doesn't always leave first. Sometimes they make an announcement, some times they don't.

Not often, but yeah this does happen (usually when something breaks or they're running weird schedules to compensate for trouble further down the line). Which makes me curious as to how they plan on implementing this. Will there be arrows that clearly show "the train on your left is departing first"? Because if you can't clearly tell which train is departing first, it comes back to my belief that departure times are next to useless for the morning rush.

[freeweed]

They've started installing the SmartCard readers onto some of the buses, someone over on cptdb spotted one on 7685.

I hope they're RFID cards and not Smart cards.

If anyone doesn't understand the difference, Google it or don't worry. Suffice it to say that Smart cards would be an unmitigated disaster in terms of loading times.

[MalcolmTucker]

I believe SmartCards have become the kleenex of 'data' carrying cards. We already know they will be contactless cards.

[mersar]

I noticed your post on that forum, and the proposed increase of the bus tickets from the current $24 per 10 to $30 per 10. Do you have any more information about that?

From the Herald's analysis of the proposed budget:

Transit fare
- Seniors annual pass rises from $35 now, to $55 next year, $75 year after and $96 in 2014.
-Adult monthly passes from $90 now to $94 next year, to $96 in 2014
-Youth monthly pass from $54.25 now to $57.50 next year, $60 in 2014
-Adult cash fares from $2.75 now to $3 in 2013
-Youth cash fares from $1.75 now to $2 in 2014
-Adult ticket 10-pack from $24 now to $27.50 next year and $30 in 2013
-Youth ticket 10-pack from $15 now to $17.50 next year and $20 in 2014

Source: Calgary Herald (http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/11/09/2012-2014-budget-highlights-taxes-and-fees/)

I'm interested to see how the card readers work in buses. Presumably there has to be some kind of mechanism that lets the bus driver know you 'tapped in', but with the volumes some buses see, I wonder how easy it will be for a driver to check who paid and who hasn't (like if 30 people get on in one stop, how easy it will be to see which 'payment indication' correlates to which person)

Probably similar to other cities where it will have an indicator light somewhere or make an audible noise based on if its a valid fare.

[5seconds]

Great, thanks!

EDIT: That's kind of shocking, when a monthly pass is going up $4-$6 but a book of 10 is going up by $6 (And with only a solid-week's worth of tickets, that could translate into a 'monthly' increase of $24!)

Right now I buy books of 10 because when I did the math, I think I only had to get a ride 3 days a month for the tickets to work out to be a better price (or 1 bank holiday and 2 rides etc.) Of course if this goes ahead, I will be buying monthlys, but the flexibility was nice.

EDIT EDIT: I use to have a yearly pass when I lived in the UK. It was expensive, but LOTS of employers would give you an interest free loan and it would just be deducted from your salary. It was great, and the savings was very substantial. I wonder if that would be on the cards any time.

[AgentGibb]

Transit fare
- Seniors annual pass rises from $35 now, to $55 next year, $75 year after and $96 in 2014.
-Adult monthly passes from $90 now to $94 next year, to $96 in 2014
-Youth monthly pass from $54.25 now to $57.50 next year, $60 in 2014
-Adult cash fares from $2.75 now to $3 in 2013
-Youth cash fares from $1.75 now to $2 in 2014
-Adult ticket 10-pack from $24 now to $27.50 next year and $30 in 2013
-Youth ticket 10-pack from $15 now to $17.50 next year and $20 in 2014


It looks like starting next year there will be no discount for buying the 10-pack versus the cash fare. I presume the idea is to phase out the 10-packs once the contactless cards are available...

[bigcanuck]

Right now I buy books of 10 because when I did the math, I think I only had to get a ride 3 days a month for the tickets to work out to be a better price (or 1 bank holiday and 2 rides etc.) Of course if this goes ahead, I will be buying monthlys, but the flexibility was nice.



I hope you took into account that you get a tax deduction for purchasing the monthly pass. Not so with tickets.

[freeweed]

Monthly passes SHOULD be cheaper than the equivalent cash fares (and even somewhat fewer) that the average person would use commuting 5 days a week. It's one of the better ways to encourage even more transit use. You already have the pass, so why not take transit instead of driving to the game, or the mall, or the bar, or whatever. When you're debating another $5-6... most people would just drive.

I'm still waiting to hear if I have to "tap in" or not with a pass on the LRT. Seeing as they have to check your pass anyway for fare enforcement, there's no actual reason other than ridership tracking. And it's just another time I have to take off my gloves and whip out my wallet in -30 weather. Needless to say, I'm really hoping they go with serving the customer's interests first.

[5seconds]

I hope you took into account that you get a tax deduction for purchasing the monthly pass. Not so with tickets.

I did. If I got dropped off, picked up, or took the car just 3 times most months, I think I broke even. Add in a bank holiday or a sick day or something and it was usually more to get a pass.

The tickets are more flexible: I knew that if I didn't use the bus on a certain day, I could use those tickets to pay for a ride next month or whenever. With a pass, once the month is over, it's over.

Occasionally a pass might have been a few dollars cheaper, but the price difference is so close that I preferred the flexibility, especially when I wouldn't see the savings for a year (via tax return). Though if the ticket book prices go up, the decision to get a pass will be a very easy one.

Monthly passes SHOULD be cheaper than the equivalent cash fares (and even somewhat fewer) that the average person would use commuting 5 days a week. It's one of the better ways to encourage even more transit use. You already have the pass, so why not take transit instead of driving to the game, or the mall, or the bar, or whatever. When you're debating another $5-6... most people would just drive.

I agree, actually. For me the book-price going up will be less convenient, but the monthly pass would be about the same price. It might encourage me to use the bus more (not that I can ride it that much more than I do, but maybe a little)

[MalcolmTucker]

Monthly passes SHOULD be cheaper than the equivalent cash fares (and even somewhat fewer) that the average person would use commuting 5 days a week. It's one of the better ways to encourage even more transit use. You already have the pass, so why not take transit instead of driving to the game, or the mall, or the bar, or whatever. When you're debating another $5-6... most people would just drive.

I'm still waiting to hear if I have to "tap in" or not with a pass on the LRT. Seeing as they have to check your pass anyway for fare enforcement, there's no actual reason other than ridership tracking. And it's just another time I have to take off my gloves and whip out my wallet in -30 weather. Needless to say, I'm really hoping they go with serving the customer's interests first.

They could just put very powerful readers by station entrances so get people walking through. If that wouldn't contravene whatever standard they are using. On a story for Global National or W5, or Marketplace they showed RFID reading from more than 20 feet away, so not impossible....

[5seconds]

Some creative accounting looks to kick start funding for the SE LRT earlier than expected:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fund+swap+could+boost+southeast+Calgary+transit/5704999/story.html

[MalcolmTucker]

Some creative accounting looks to kick start funding for the SE LRT earlier than expected:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fund+swap+could+boost+southeast+Calgary+transit/5704999/story.html

Smart. Now hopefully the province allows this - Edmonton did a similar thing for the NAIT LRT line. Helps reduce financing costs too, since MSI has been continuously 'reprofiled' to deliver more of its funding in the later years of the agreement to reduce the provincial deficit in more 'creative' accounting.

That being said, this doesn't free up nearly enough money to do anything for the SE LRT other than what was already planned with the Green Trip money. Planning, setting aside money for property acquisition (likely by optioning land, some acquisition if people want to sell today), and maybe building some of the 'SETWAY' (at least McKenzie through Douglasdale, at most up to Glenmore).

[fusili]

Smart. Now hopefully the province allows this - Edmonton did a similar thing for the NAIT LRT line. Helps reduce financing costs too, since MSI has been continuously 'reprofiled' to deliver more of its funding in the later years of the agreement to reduce the provincial deficit in more 'creative' accounting.

That being said, this doesn't free up nearly enough money to do anything for the SE LRT other than what was already planned with the Green Trip money. Planning, setting aside money for property acquisition (likely by optioning land, some acquisition if people want to sell today), and maybe building some of the 'SETWAY' (at least McKenzie through Douglasdale, at most up to Glenmore).

Whatever it is, it better be mostly property acquisition. Any spending on a Busway, unless easily (and cheaply), upgraded to rail is a waste of money in the long term.

[fusili]

I forgot to post this earlier, but here is the latest installment of the CivicCamp blog series on long range transit planning. This one is on the North Crosstown route (16th avenue north):

http://www.civiccamp.org/2011/11/the-calgary-transitcamp-vision-the-north-crosstown-route/

[You Need A Thneed]

It should be mentioned that this funding will also move up the 17th Ave SE corridor funding as well. That will be a big bonus for the BRT in that area.

For SELRT, I agree with fusilli here. Don't waste money on infrastructure that will have to be torn out when full funding comes.

Build for rail, then think of ways to use it for busses in the interim. Don't build bus specific facilities now.

[5seconds]

It should be mentioned that this funding will also move up the 17th Ave SE corridor funding as well. That will be a big bonus for the BRT in that area.

What is the long-term plan for 17th? Is it just BRTs on dedicated busways? I thought I heard something about a tram at one time, was that ever a serious proposal?

[You Need A Thneed]

What is the long-term plan for 17th? Is it just BRTs on dedicated busways? I thought I heard something about a tram at one time, was that ever a serious proposal?

Dedicated bus lanes (centre busway), with the possibility of changing to a streetcar.

[MalcolmTucker]

Dedicated bus lanes (centre busway), with the possibility of changing to a streetcar.
The biggest part of the expense is the over Deerfoot portion - I have to wonder whether that part is really worth it, vs. doing nothing west of 17th Ave SE proper, or connecting to Barlow Station instead.

From way back in the thread, unfortunately the map no longer is served.


City studying bus-only lane on International Avenue

$248M plan pitched for Inglewood area


Read more (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/City+studying+only+lane+International+Avenue/3269039/story.html#ixzz0tZwhFJCd)

Plan includes:
17th Avenue transit lanes - $94 million
Busway to connect 17th Ave SE with SE LRT in Inglewood - $153 million, plus land purchases

I was wondering - why go to the SE LRT? Why not up to Barlow/Maxbell? The route is shorter, doesn't need the SE LRT (which might not get all the way downtown in the first phase), and likely much cheaper to shore up a hill side that to buld bridges over a rail yard, freeway, canal and river.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8214/17thbrt.jpg
Orange = SE LRT
Red = NE LRT
Yellow = Barlow Maxbell 17th BRT connector
Blue = 17th BRT and Inglewood Transitway

[5seconds]

Interesting, thank you both. I found the article, but not the map:

http://www.globaltvbc.com/city+studying+bus-only+lane+on+international+avenue/79835/story.html

I don't see how they plan on getting a busway from the Blackfoot Truckstop to the Inglewood LRT station, but the 17th ave portion sounds promising.

[You Need A Thneed]

SE 17th Ave Corridor Plan (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/se-17-corridor-plan.pdf)

Open House Info Panels (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/se-17-panels-april.pdf)

Inglewood Routings from Inglewood Open Houses. (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/studies/17_av_se/inglewood_second_open_h_2010.pdf)

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't see how they plan on getting a busway from the Blackfoot Truckstop to the Inglewood LRT station, but the 17th ave portion sounds promising.
You can do a lot with $153 million big ones. Whether it should be done is another matter. The connection is only really useful if the SE LRT first phase includes the downtown tunnel, which is a long way off.

[5seconds]

SE 17th Ave Corridor Plan (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/se-17-corridor-plan.pdf)

Open House Info Panels (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/se-17-panels-april.pdf)

Inglewood Routings from Inglewood Open Houses. (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/studies/17_av_se/inglewood_second_open_h_2010.pdf)

Thank you for those. Really exciting plans they have for the area.

I was going to comment that the proposed busway through Inglewood does not serve the Inglewood very well directly, but I guess it would already be served well by the LRT and existing bus services. The busway would be more of a way to get through the area quickly so that it can better serve the 17th ave corridor.

That's a lot of infrastructure, but in light of the new 4th street underpass' $70m. price tag, would the $153m. go as far as they need it to? (I realise that much of that went to CPR, but do they think they can get the bridges/tunnels built for that much?)

[outoftheice]

Some creative accounting looks to kick start funding for the SE LRT earlier than expected:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fund+swap+could+boost+southeast+Calgary+transit/5704999/story.html

Sadly I think this will just serve to delay the SE LRT to the point where we may never see it. The current council seems to be on-board with using the funds to build a dedicated bus-way in the South East. The South East LRT will be a very expensive project and I'm concerned that after dumping so much money into a dedicated bus-way, future councils will take the approach that small investments into further improving the bus-way will be a much better use of funds than tearing up all the infrastructure that's already there and spending billions on the LRT. If people living in the deep South East realized that a vote for dedicated BRT is a vote against the LRT I think you would see support for the BRT dry up overnight.... Unfortunately I think that PR battle has already been lost....

[You Need A Thneed]

Sadly I think this will just serve to delay the SE LRT to the point where we may never see it. The current council seems to be on-board with using the funds to build a dedicated bus-way in the South East. The South East LRT will be a very expensive project and I'm concerned that after dumping so much money into a dedicated bus-way, future councils will take the approach that small investments into further improving the bus-way will be a much better use of funds than tearing up all the infrastructure that's already there and spending billions on the LRT. If people living in the deep South East realized that a vote for dedicated BRT is a vote against the LRT I think you would see support for the BRT dry up overnight.... Unfortunately I think that PR battle has already been lost....

That depends on how it is built. If what they build needs to be ripped up to build the LRT, then you are right. That's not the intention of this though.. The intention is to build something that can easily be converted into LRT later. That's why the suggestion that this money gets used for property acquisition.

[MalcolmTucker]

The intention is to build something that can easily be converted into LRT later.
The rub is the definition of easily - does that mean 2 year shutdown or 6 months...

[fusili]

SE 17th Ave Corridor Plan (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/se-17-corridor-plan.pdf)

Open House Info Panels (http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/se-17-panels-april.pdf)

Inglewood Routings from Inglewood Open Houses. (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Documents/studies/17_av_se/inglewood_second_open_h_2010.pdf)

In my opinion the only routing through Inglewood that makes sense is the first option presented on the open house panels. This obviously infers an LRT, as it interlines with the SE LRT. So I could see it making sense to build the busway on 17th avenue up until just before Deerfoot, and then using one of the other alignments (not actual construction of lanes, but using lane reversals or peak-period transit only lanes) in the mean time. But in terms of phasing, I think the SE LRT should come even before the SE 17 Bus Lanes.

[DarkKeyo]

In my opinion the only routing through Inglewood that makes sense is the first option presented on the open house panels. This obviously infers an LRT, as it interlines with the SE LRT. So I could see it making sense to build the busway on 17th avenue up until just before Deerfoot, and then using one of the other alignments (not actual construction of lanes, but using lane reversals or peak-period transit only lanes) in the mean time. But in terms of phasing, I think the SE LRT should come even before the SE 17 Bus Lanes.

Agreed. I also agree that while the 17th Ave bus lanes are worthwhile, building anything west of Deerfoot should wait until SELRT is at least under construction.

I am very against any sort of temporary transitway that could be converted to SELRT. I really don't think we should spend any money when the LRT could begin construction within 5 years, especially if that money could be used to make sure that construction can begin within 5 years. As well, because of the sheer length of the route, and the need to adjust buses in the SE to feed into the LRT anyways, a transitway does not actually provide any benefit on that route.

If we are going to spend money on that corridor before being able to construct the LRT, why not spend it on things that will have to be done to construct the LRT anyways? Such as, but not limited to, property acquisition, grading/route preparation, building interchanges and other road improvements that the LRT will require (off the top of my head, these road improvements include 8 St SE and 9 Av SE, 11 St SE at the at-grade rail crossing at Portland St, Glenmore Trail/Ogden Rd/Shepard Rd), and also TOD planning and planning for Eau Claire station to ensure it could have a NCLRT extend north from it.

Anything to make the final price tag affordable.

[fusili]

Agreed. I also agree that while the 17th Ave bus lanes are worthwhile, building anything west of Deerfoot should wait until SELRT is at least under construction.

I am very against any sort of temporary transitway that could be converted to SELRT. I really don't think we should spend any money when the LRT could begin construction within 5 years, especially if that money could be used to make sure that construction can begin within 5 years. As well, because of the sheer length of the route, and the need to adjust buses in the SE to feed into the LRT anyways, a transitway does not actually provide any benefit on that route.

If we are going to spend money on that corridor before being able to construct the LRT, why not spend it on things that will have to be done to construct the LRT anyways? Such as, but not limited to, property acquisition, grading/route preparation, building interchanges and other road improvements that the LRT will require (off the top of my head, these road improvements include 8 St SE and 9 Av SE, 11 St SE at the at-grade rail crossing at Portland St, Glenmore Trail/Ogden Rd/Shepard Rd), and also TOD planning and planning for Eau Claire station to ensure it could have a NCLRT extend north from it.

Anything to make the final price tag affordable.

Fully agreed. Property acquisition and constructing any road upgrades that will happen anyway will not only take those costs off the ultimate price tag, they will speed up construction once the money is in place.

The two things I think we must absolutely do (as you alluded to above) is design Eau Claire for a possible extenstion (as you mentioned), but also to plan a spur just south of Inglewood station, for any eventual spur line to 17th Avenue SE. What does a sput cost really? If we never even use it, the cost of the short spur is so minimal, but if we do use it, the cost savings and reduction of construction interruption on the future SE LRT would be astronomical.

[MalcolmTucker]

I would go further than you against SELRT spending - we should not spend any money that creates path dependency, or creates useless sunk cost infrastructure should the technology choice that is cheapest for the project turns out not to be what the current conception of the project is. With underground stations, extensive grade seperations, and probable expansion with similar qualities, I doubt low floor LRT is the most cost effective option in the long term. Whether that doubt turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but we should not make decisions that cloud future decisions with todays preferences.

[polishavenger]

The two things I think we must absolutely do (as you alluded to above) is design Eau Claire for a possible extenstion (as you mentioned), but also to plan a spur just south of Inglewood station, for any eventual spur line to 17th Avenue SE. What does a sput cost really? If we never even use it, the cost of the short spur is so minimal, but if we do use it, the cost savings and reduction of construction interruption on the future SE LRT would be astronomical.

I only agree with this if youu envision inglewood as the terminus point of a 17th ave line that just feeds into the SE line, but does not interline with it.

[fusili]

I would go further than you against SELRT spending - we should not spend any money that creates path dependency, or creates useless sunk cost infrastructure should the technology choice that is cheapest for the project turns out not to be what the current conception of the project is. With underground stations, extensive grade seperations, and probable expansion with similar qualities, I doubt low floor LRT is the most cost effective option in the long term. Whether that doubt turns out to be true or not remains to be seen, but we should not make decisions that cloud future decisions with todays preferences.

I always questioned the need for low-floor on the SELRT. Not a single station is at grade on a public street ROW, other than a possible 10th avenue and centre street station. So are we really saving that much on station costs?

But interlining with a possible 17 Avenue SE LRT would make a low floor option more appealing, because those stations will all be at grade on the street.

All of this calls for the need to examine, at least at a high level, our entire primary transit network to determine what needs to be considered at each stage- i.e. when planning the SE LRT, do we need to consider interlining with the 17 Avenue SE LRT?

[fusili]

I only agree with this if youu envision inglewood as the terminus point of a 17th ave line that just feeds into the SE line, but does not interline with it.

What is the point of having a terminus at Inglewood? Using the same station is pretty much the same as interlining from an operational perspective (in fact it is worse, because trains are stopping in the middle of the route, and then turning around, instead of at the terminus. Just imagine SE LRT trains waiting before Inglewood constantly for the 17th avenue trains to turn around.) It is better for them to interline and just continue either to Eau Claire, or possibly up the Centre Street ROW).

Unless you mean building two ROWs from the spur to Inglewood station, and then buliding two sets of platforms, one for each train. That then would involve a heck of a lot more property acquisition and a much larger station cost (if could fit there at all). That seems like creating a lot of problems to solve a problem that really isn't there in the first place.

Anyways, the north central catchment area (current 150K, future 330K) is actually larger than the SE catchment (current 90K, future 270K), and warrants greater headways on that route. Plus, there is more employment on the SE line (Foothills industrial plus the south hospital), meaning that the headways from the NC route would need to serve passengers going into the downtown, plus passengers going to the industrial areas and the south hospital. The headways on the SE route only need to be optimized for downtown traffic. Thus, it makes sense to split the headways between the SE LRT and the 17th Ave LRT, say a 70/30 split (the 17th avenue catchment is currently 40K, and future 110K). Inglewood then becomes an important transfer station, warranting full interlining.

I hope any of that made sense.

[sim]

What is the point of having a terminus at Inglewood? Using the same station is pretty much the same as interlining from an operational perspective (in fact it is worse, because trains are stopping in the middle of the route, and then turning around, instead of at the terminus. Just imagine SE LRT trains waiting before Inglewood constantly for the 17th avenue trains to turn around.) It is better for them to interline and just continue either to Eau Claire, or possibly up the Centre Street ROW).

Unless you mean building two ROWs from the spur to Inglewood station, and then buliding two sets of platforms, one for each train. That then would involve a heck of a lot more property acquisition and a much larger station cost (if could fit there at all). That seems like creating a lot of problems to solve a problem that really isn't there in the first place.

Anyways, the north central catchment area (current 150K, future 330K) is actually larger than the SE catchment (current 90K, future 270K), and warrants greater headways on that route. Plus, there is more employment on the SE line (Foothills industrial plus the south hospital), meaning that the headways from the NC route would need to serve passengers going into the downtown, plus passengers going to the industrial areas and the south hospital. The headways on the SE route only need to be optimized for downtown traffic. Thus, it makes sense to split the headways between the SE LRT and the 17th Ave LRT, say a 70/30 split (the 17th avenue catchment is currently 40K, and future 110K). Inglewood then becomes an important transfer station, warranting full interlining.

I hope any of that made sense.


I would have to more or less agree with this. Really no point in terminating a line before it gets to its highest demanded destination. Even in it were low floor, it will likely still act as a commuter service simply remembering the city's urban form. However, of course the only way to interline these would be if they are both the same general technology ie, both low floor or conventional LRT. I for one also lean away from the SE alignment being low floor because the length, and especially overall purpose isn't congruent with what low floor often aims to achieve. Mind you, herein would it also be necessary to truely define what is "low floor" and/or "tram." Regardless, it isn't worth trading off for the resulting two incompatible technologies, even if "low floor" could be built cheaper.

Hypothetically, each station could however, be used by both low floor and conventional LRT, but that makes stations unnessesarily long, although it wouldn't be precedent setting (Stuttgart.) Or unless some innovative, but likely operationally expensive solutions are presented.

Now if the wish for 17th Ave E is exclusively low floor or tram style, it might make sense to use that as the start of building up a secondary backbone network. It may be interesting to indeed integrate with an Inglewood station, but should then be continued further into the city perhaps right down 17th Ave proper etc. More thought needed of course, but definitely not having it simply terminate in Inglewood.

[Bassic Lab]

What is the point of having a terminus at Inglewood? Using the same station is pretty much the same as interlining from an operational perspective (in fact it is worse, because trains are stopping in the middle of the route, and then turning around, instead of at the terminus. Just imagine SE LRT trains waiting before Inglewood constantly for the 17th avenue trains to turn around.) It is better for them to interline and just continue either to Eau Claire, or possibly up the Centre Street ROW).

Unless you mean building two ROWs from the spur to Inglewood station, and then buliding two sets of platforms, one for each train. That then would involve a heck of a lot more property acquisition and a much larger station cost (if could fit there at all). That seems like creating a lot of problems to solve a problem that really isn't there in the first place.

Anyways, the north central catchment area (current 150K, future 330K) is actually larger than the SE catchment (current 90K, future 270K), and warrants greater headways on that route. Plus, there is more employment on the SE line (Foothills industrial plus the south hospital), meaning that the headways from the NC route would need to serve passengers going into the downtown, plus passengers going to the industrial areas and the south hospital. The headways on the SE route only need to be optimized for downtown traffic. Thus, it makes sense to split the headways between the SE LRT and the 17th Ave LRT, say a 70/30 split (the 17th avenue catchment is currently 40K, and future 110K). Inglewood then becomes an important transfer station, warranting full interlining.

I hope any of that made sense.

I don't think having two sets of platforms at a station would necessarily be that expensive or difficult. Well, it could be somewhat expensive depending on the kind of station, say if one were subway. That said, an elevated portion, roughly, located over an at grade portion would really only cost as much as an elevated station and an at grade station. I have nothing against transfers when headways are short and thus favour a 17 Ave line that connects to both the SE LRT and S LRT with transfer stations, Crossroads and Erlton stations would work quite well. Eventually the line could even be extended west to serve Marda Loop and Mount Royal University, though that would be more of a distant vision.

I also have some issues with an at grade system on 17 Ave SE, particularly if it is going to be interlined with the NC LRT. In that case the trains would likely be >100m long. That is too long to fit on a single 17 Ave SE block and would require the closure of certain intersections. I think it would be worth it to elevate the ~3 km portion from Deerfoot to just past 52 St either way but especially if we are going to have trains longer than the blocks. It would keep us from repeating the mistakes that were made on the 36 St portion of the NE line. The difference between an elevated option and an at grade option for that ~3 km portion could be as little as 100 million and certainly no more than 200 million. To me, that seems like a small price to pay to ensure: permeability between the areas north and south of 17 Ave, a reduction in the opportunity for conflicts between train and cars/pedestrians, and a higher capacity line.

Of course I agree with you that we should really put much more effort into envisioning how out future system will interact as a whole prior to spending any money on the SE busway and certainly before building lines that narrow our future options. There are certainly options for interlining; the NC LRT could also have spurs, say to the airport or up Symons Valley Rd. It would depend on the needed capacity for the various segments.

[MalcolmTucker]

While I doubt 17 Ave SE needs any sort of large capacity solution. A 'St Claire street car' would likely be more than adequate for it.

That being said I don't believe there has ever been any demand modeling. The corridor was never part of the core network, and only begun to be planned at the urging of the BRZ as part of the corridor ARP (this is my impression, I could be wrong).

There is nothing wrong with a forced transfer at a future SE LRT in Inglewood, or onto the NE LRT at an existing station (my preference since it serves the same purpose and is likely much cheaper). Transfers aren't a negative - especially since this is a supersized local route, not a backbone. The price of not having a transfer in travel time savings for the 17th Ave people in the case of interlining would be headway limits for the SE LRT forever.

If a future 17th Ave transit solution gets busy enough that the number of people transferring overwhelms the SE LRT, you can always build a dedicated access into downtown or the upper Belltine later.

[fusili]

I don't think having two sets of platforms at a station would necessarily be that expensive or difficult. Well, it could be somewhat expensive depending on the kind of station, say if one were subway. That said, an elevated portion, roughly, located over an at grade portion would really only cost as much as an elevated station and an at grade station. I have nothing against transfers when headways are short and thus favour a 17 Ave line that connects to both the SE LRT and S LRT with transfer stations, Crossroads and Erlton stations would work quite well. Eventually the line could even be extended west to serve Marda Loop and Mount Royal University, though that would be more of a distant vision.

The first question is why not interline? We would be spending more money and for what reason? Second, a line going from Forest Lawn to Marda Loop and MRU seems terribly expensive with no clear right of way.

I also have some issues with an at grade system on 17 Ave SE, particularly if it is going to be interlined with the NC LRT. In that case the trains would likely be >100m long. That is too long to fit on a single 17 Ave SE block and would require the closure of certain intersections. I think it would be worth it to elevate the ~3 km portion from Deerfoot to just past 52 St either way but especially if we are going to have trains longer than the blocks. It would keep us from repeating the mistakes that were made on the 36 St portion of the NE line. The difference between an elevated option and an at grade option for that ~3 km portion could be as little as 100 million and certainly no more than 200 million. To me, that seems like a small price to pay to ensure: permeability between the areas north and south of 17 Ave, a reduction in the opportunity for conflicts between train and cars/pedestrians, and a higher capacity line.

You could keep the 17th avenue portion at grade, just use different train consists for this route (2 cars vs 4 or 5; 80m vs 120m). Trains such as the Alstom Citadis are pretty flexible in their configuration, allowing variable lengths. San Francisco does exactly this with both BART trains and the MUNI trams using the same tunnel underneath Market street.

[fusili]

While I doubt 17 Ave SE needs any sort of large capacity solution. A 'St Claire street car' would likely be more than adequate for it.

That being said I don't believe there has ever been any demand modeling. The corridor was never part of the core network, and only begun to be planned at the urging of the BRZ as part of the corridor ARP (this is my impression, I could be wrong).

There is nothing wrong with a forced transfer at a future SE LRT in Inglewood, or onto the NE LRT at an existing station (my preference since it serves the same purpose and is likely much cheaper). Transfers aren't a negative - especially since this is a supersized local route, not a backbone. The price of not having a transfer in travel time savings for the 17th Ave people in the case of interlining would be headway limits for the SE LRT forever.

If a future 17th Ave transit solution gets busy enough that the number of people transferring overwhelms the SE LRT, you can always build a dedicated access into downtown or the upper Belltine later.

For argument's sake, let's say we use the current C-Train cars (Siemens SD160) and use 5 car consists for the SE line. Crush load would be 875 a train (Siemens states the approximate capacity is 173/car, but we probably pack more ppl in during rush hour in Calgary). Let's say the peak period lasts 2 hours (6:30 to 8:30 and 3:30 to 5:30) and we can operate at headways of 3 minutes (which is conservative considering the route would be entirely grade separated or at least have crossing arms at any intersections). That means we have a peak period capacity of 35 000. That would be roughly 40% of all people living in the SE currently (2011 census = ~87K). With the growth in the SE outlined in the East Regional Context Study and the Southeast Policy Plan, the population would be around 270K (IIRC), so we would still be at 13% of the population for the transit capacity. Take away children, people who work from home, people who work in areas not served by transit and others- I still think it provides enough capacity, even taking some headways for the 17th avenue spur.

In the end, if the NC LRT is a continuation of the SE LRT, it will be the NC LRT that determines headways, which IMO, could be split between the SE and 17th avenue, as their population catchments roughly equal the NC catchment area (currently and into the future).

[Bassic Lab]

The first question is why not interline? We would be spending more money and for what reason? Second, a line going from Forest Lawn to Marda Loop and MRU seems terribly expensive with no clear right of way.



You could keep the 17th avenue portion at grade, just use different train consists for this route (2 cars vs 4 or 5; 80m vs 120m). Trains such as the Alstom Citadis are pretty flexible in their configuration, allowing variable lengths. San Francisco does exactly this with both BART trains and the MUNI trams using the same tunnel underneath Market street.

Interlining would mean reduced capacity, particularly if some portion of the trains running along the NC Line are shorter so that they can run on the 17 Ave Line. Will there still be enough capacity? Maybe, but it does put a lower limit on the line, one we may eventually regret. Besides, the difference in cost between interlining and forced transfer is essentially meaningless; initially it could simply mean building an additional platform at Crossroads, hardly a huge expense, although I would favour an initial terminus at Erlton. I just don't think every line needs to go downtown, especially if we are building a system to serve the entire city as opposed to only the fifth of the jobs (and sixth of the destination if we include schools) that are located in the core. Forced transfers at Crossroads and Erlton might be somewhat more inconvenient for those headed to the core but it would be slightly less inconvenient for those heading to jobs in the SE and considerably more convenient for those commuting to places on the S LRT, like Chinook for instance. Allowing people who don't need to enter the core to transfer before getting there means we will need less capacity in the most clearly congested portion of the system. It would help to move the C-Train system from an entirely mono-centric system to a more poly-centric one where downtown is still the best served destination but others aren't simply after thoughts.

I'm not entirely sure that you are correct in your assertion that the SE Line needs less capacity than the NC Line. With far more employment in the SE than the north, I could see demand for the two levelling out.

Yes, it would be quite expensive to build out a 17 Ave LRT into a south crosstown line serving Marda Loop, the former CFB communities, and Mount Royal University. It would probably require ~6 km of tunnelling. I could easily see it as a project that would never be built precisely because of the expense. That said, it wouldn't hurt to have it as a long term vision for the line, something we might eventually get around to if demand and funding ever makes it realistic. Until such a theoretical time it would exist as something to plan around so that any projects in the SW, like the various BRT proposals, take into account the possibility of future transfers and are built accordingly.

Thinking about this in more detail, I suppose I would be fine with spur lines and interlining so long as a few factors are met. First, spurs should be built so that in the future they can easily be converted to independent lines that continue on. Second, the lines that are built should be done to C-Train standard. In the case of 17 Ave that pretty much means elevating it to just past 52 St. I think it is well worth it to spend 100-200 million to overbuild it instead of facing the prospect of spending much more at a later date to rip it out and rebuild it. I'm thinking that the tracks connecting the various lines would actually be useful in either case by allowing rolling stock to move between them. That way, even if each line has its own storage yard we could still get by with a single major repair facility for the who system.

As you (at least I think it was you) suggested that the SE LRT be built with a junction in place for an eventual 17 Ave spur, presumably somewhere between Inglewood and Crossroads Station, the 17 Ave spur should be built with a junction in place ready to take the line west to Crossroads and Erlton. In that case Crossroads Station would also need to be built in such a way that a second platform could be added with minimal disruption.

The other places where we could start new lines by initially building portions as spurs would be to the Airport and to MRU. A spur from the NC LRT could serve the HSR station and Airport before it eventually becomes an independent line between the NC LRT and the NE LRT with possible extensions east and west. A spur from the W LRT could take the 37 St ROW down to MRU and later be extended, as an independent line, north to the UofC and Brentwood and south to Rockyview and the SLRT.

[fusili]

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System (http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Transitcamp-Route-Map-2.jpg)

[Koolfire]

I also have some issues with an at grade system on 17 Ave SE, particularly if it is going to be interlined with the NC LRT. In that case the trains would likely be >100m long. That is too long to fit on a single 17 Ave SE block and would require the closure of certain intersections. I think it would be worth it to elevate the ~3 km portion from Deerfoot to just past 52 St either way but especially if we are going to have trains longer than the blocks. It would keep us from repeating the mistakes that were made on the 36 St portion of the NE line. The difference between an elevated option and an at grade option for that ~3 km portion could be as little as 100 million and certainly no more than 200 million. To me, that seems like a small price to pay to ensure: permeability between the areas north and south of 17 Ave, a reduction in the opportunity for conflicts between train and cars/pedestrians, and a higher capacity line.


I thought that the 17th Ave Plan indicated that some intersections would be closed off to cross traffic. This is very similar to 36th st. If they do close the intersections then 5 car length trains will have no issue about length. If it's at grade they really should put the LRT/Street car on only one side of 17th and not the middle as to avoid the repeat of 36th ave but I think the businesses would be really upset.

I'm not a fan of elevating the line. I would prefer to trench the line like on the WLRT but down the middle so to not restrict access to the business on either side. Space does not seem to be an issue here.

As for one station for both low floor and regular trains, you could put an elevated platform in the middle like Zoo station and low floor station on the outside like city hall station as long as the conventional train is wider then the low floor. If it's narrower then Low Floor train the the lower floor train would hit the elevated platform.

As for the SE line having more ridership because of employment, most of those passengers would likely be heading in opposite direction of peak demand. The South Hospital is at the end of line. And foothills industrial would likely be better served by 52nd Ave BRT then SE LRT for people living in the SE as it travels closer to employment. So yes it will have more ridership but it maybe one of the most balanced lines for peak vs non peak directional ridership.

[Bassic Lab]

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System (http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Transitcamp-Route-Map-2.jpg)

I think we've previously discussed a lot of aspects of that proposal but I'll try to sum up some of my thoughts. Overall, I like a lot of what I see there. I think the most important thing evident in the plan, something that as a city we have really failed to do so far, is the way that it envisions the system as a whole. It considers connections and transfers that would allow the various lines to compliment each other. We really must think about developing a total plan so that individual projects are built as part of a network as opposed to our current set up where our decisions are making the overall network less effective with buses forced to make detours from routes that make sense so that they can make connections with train stations. This is particularly evident with the NE LRT. The best way to service the NE with one mainline route (the NE LRT) would involve relatively straight bus routes that run perpendicular to the mainline; instead the stations are all located far away from the arterial roads where buses could run quickly in straight lines. This means more buses are needed for the same coverage and headways, since routes are longer and more circuitous.

Of course our outlooks are different in a few ways. For one thing, I have a lower threshold for rail construction; at a minimum I favour rail for 17 Ave SE and the 16 Ave crosstown, if not for other lines as well. For another thing, I'm not as fond of interlining. This comes up with the portion of 52 St that includes three BRT lines. I would cut that down to one and simply have transfers to lines running into. Those differences shape how we would envision the kind of network plans that I think we both believe are necessary for developing a a great network.

Beyond that it mostly comes down to small differences that don't really matter and are simply individual preferences. These are things like station locations and routing choices. For instance, I think Chinook makes a better location for a transfer hub than Heritage; I think the 14 St route should continue along the 14 St ROW, over the dam and back to 14 ST instead of detouring over to Crowchild; I think the MRU route between the S LRT and W LRT should somehow be expanded north to hit Foothills Hospital, the UofC, and Brentwood; I think the 16 Ave route should continue west into Bowness, rendering the west half of the 305 redundant. Basically tweaks.

[Bassic Lab]

I thought that the 17th Ave Plan indicated that some intersections would be closed off to cross traffic. This is very similar to 36th st. If they do close the intersections then 5 car length trains will have no issue about length. If it's at grade they really should put the LRT/Street car on only one side of 17th and not the middle as to avoid the repeat of 36th ave but I think the businesses would be really upset.

I'm not a fan of elevating the line. I would prefer to trench the line like on the WLRT but down the middle so to not restrict access to the business on either side. Space does not seem to be an issue here.

As for one station for both low floor and regular trains, you could put an elevated platform in the middle like Zoo station and low floor station on the outside like city hall station as long as the conventional train is wider then the low floor. If it's narrower then Low Floor train the the lower floor train would hit the elevated platform.

As for the SE line having more ridership because of employment, most of those passengers would likely be heading in opposite direction of peak demand. The South Hospital is at the end of line. And foothills industrial would likely be better served by 52nd Ave BRT then SE LRT for people living in the SE as it travels closer to employment. So yes it will have more ridership but it maybe one of the most balanced lines for peak vs non peak directional ridership.

The thing is I don't want to see intersections closed. I want to retain the benefits of the grid that exists along 17 Ave and keep the road permeable as opposed to creating a barrier with an at grade rail line. I think the NE LRT along 36 St is a nightmare for a variety of reasons and nothing to be emulated in the future. It has clearly created a barrier where one didn't need to exist, so pedestrians have a hard time simply crossing the street; it has made traffic worse with delays for left turns and such; and lastly, it has reduced the capacity of the line, which isn't an issue yet but might become one, since only so many trains can travel while major intersections include level crossings.

As for putting the line below grade, either through trenching or cut and cover, I'm not necessarily opposed. The problem though is that instead of maybe costing another 100-200 million over at grade, as elevated would, it would likely cost more like 500 million to a billion over at grade. Unless money starts raining down upon the city that kind of cost difference could really keep the project from ever happening.

[MalcolmTucker]

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System (http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Transitcamp-Route-Map-2.jpg)

Yeah, nothing there that is overreaching, while still being ambitious. The system over time benefits from sticking to the long term plan laind out in the 70s and 80s reflected in the 95 Go Plan (adjusted to operational realities like ending interlining on the MacLeod LRT line.

I would however not label new mass rapid transit as technology specific - I would differentiate along similar lines between Mass Rapid Transit (+10,000 people per direction per hour or so) and Rapid Transit (less than 10,000 ppdph). In the sense of LRT (and other mass modes) vs BRT it isn't technology or speed that really differentiates between them, it is ongoing operational costs per rider vs marginal cost per marginal rider.

If lets say Google's or others autonomous vehicle project gains acceptance faster than it seems to be now, a bus way with robotic busses might be the best option for the SE LRT - who am I to say. But you can design BRT systems with high capacity, with permanent facilities, just as you could to a point run more shorter train sets with fewer passengers per driven vehcile to decrease headways.

Todays preference for LRTs is based on technology studies done in the 1970s - there is no reason to believe it is still optimal, even if it may still be. Given the city both wants to build as much as possible within funding envelope, while only directly funding operational costs, a lower operational cost mode for some of the BRT routes identified might make more sense, even if it delays implementation.

All that being said, the 17 Ave SE corridor has a narrow catchment and I doubt will amount to many riders in comparison to other projects. Interlining is likely infeasible not due to causing path dependence on the SE Line, but due to frequencies being so low as the mode wouldn't be attractive to users vs alternatives, at least if only look at it within the current narrow options the city explores.

[5seconds]

In terms of a primary transit system, what do you think of this (MRU is not labeled but it is served by two BRTs):

Transitcamp Primary Transit System (http://www.civiccamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Transitcamp-Route-Map-2.jpg)

Out of curiosity, was there a reason not to include a SW LRT alignment, either as a branch from the WLRT at Sarcee Trail going south, or as a branch from the SLRT at 162nd ave heading west?

I realise that they wouldn't happen for a VERY long time (if at all?), but as long as it's forward planning, I wondered what your take is on either of those routes.

[fusili]

Out of curiosity, was there a reason not to include a SW LRT alignment, either as a branch from the WLRT at Sarcee Trail going south, or as a branch from the SLRT at 162nd ave heading west?

I realise that they wouldn't happen for a VERY long time (if at all?), but as long as it's forward planning, I wondered what your take is on either of those routes.

SW LRT? You mean to Providence (area west of Evergreen)? I didn't include it because there are way too many unknowns at this point. Going south from the West LRT would mean we would have to cross the T'suu T'ina nation. Plus that line is effectively built, and with no recourse for a spur. Adding it in later will be very costly.

Going west from the South LRT would mean adding riders to a line already at capacity. Heck, I don't think we should ever even develop Providence at all. The south line already serves 219K people. Add in the estimated 80K from the South Macleod area (Chapparrel, Silverado and other communities in that area) and the line is now serving 300K people. And we would want to add another 80K from Providence to that line? It would be full all the time, with no opportunities for relief. I added the SW BRT in part to provide some of that relief. Adding in a spur from the south line would mean no-one would get on the train north of Country Hills Blvd, let alone Anderson, or Glenmore. When the train is full, stop expanding.

Areas like Belvedere (east of Forest Lawn), Keystone Hills or whatever they call it (north of Panorama Hills) and places like Seton are much more suited for development based on future ability to serve it with transit. Belvedere is estimated to have a population of around 70K, slightly smaller than Providence, and to serve it, we can use either a BRT or LRT from Forest Lawn.

Unless you meant something else.

[5seconds]

SW LRT? You mean to Providence (area west of Evergreen)?

Unless you meant something else.

Yes, to Providence. There was a 'long range scenario' at one point to spur the WLRT at Sarcee and run the line south. Stops at "162 ave, 146 ave, Bullhead Rd/Anderson, 90 ave, Tsuu Tina Strathcona Rd, Westhills and Sirocco connection"

Failing a Tsuu T'ina corridor, I'm sure I have seen plans with the LRT heading west along 162nd ave. (Is there really nothing they can do about the capacity that would make this feasible? More trains?)

I agree about Providence long term, and I can see the problems with adding that many people to the SLRT line. Still, if a Tsuu T'ina alignment does happen, I wonder if a WLRT 'extension' would be viable, even with the expense and interruption of a spur at a later date.

[fusili]

I would however not label new mass rapid transit as technology specific - I would differentiate along similar lines between Mass Rapid Transit (+10,000 people per direction per hour or so) and Rapid Transit (less than 10,000 ppdph). In the sense of LRT (and other mass modes) vs BRT it isn't technology or speed that really differentiates between them, it is ongoing operational costs per rider vs marginal cost per marginal rider.


I like that idea. The "primary transit network" really indicates a level of service- i.e. frequency and relative speed (say 10 minute minimum for 16 hours a day, and average travel speed of 40km/hour (with stops)) and all having off-vehicle fare payment. Just ball parking it. And then we can differentiate between capacity (of course we would have to do some demand modelling to figure this out) like you suggested with Mass Rapid Transit and Rapid Transit. To the passenger, the level of service is relatively similar, it is just how much capacity the vehicles that take them where they are going.

The plan of course, is still somewhat rough, and needs some tweaking. But I like your idea.

[UofC.engineer]

Park & Ride survey was released:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Park_and_Ride-Reserved-Parking_Survey_Final_Report.pdf

[sim]

Interlining would mean reduced capacity, particularly if some portion of the trains running along the NC Line are shorter so that they can run on the 17 Ave Line. Will there still be enough capacity? Maybe, but it does put a lower limit on the line, one we may eventually regret. Besides, the difference in cost between interlining and forced transfer is essentially meaningless; initially it could simply mean building an additional platform at Crossroads, hardly a huge expense, although I would favour an initial terminus at Erlton. I just don't think every line needs to go downtown, especially if we are building a system to serve the entire city as opposed to only the fifth of the jobs (and sixth of the destination if we include schools) that are located in the core. Forced transfers at Crossroads and Erlton might be somewhat more inconvenient for those headed to the core but it would be slightly less inconvenient for those heading to jobs in the SE and considerably more convenient for those commuting to places on the S LRT, like Chinook for instance. Allowing people who don't need to enter the core to transfer before getting there means we will need less capacity in the most clearly congested portion of the system. It would help to move the C-Train system from an entirely mono-centric system to a more poly-centric one where downtown is still the best served destination but others aren't simply after thoughts.

It doesn't really mean reduced capacity in general, only per a certain line but I'm guessing that is semantics in this case. Were the lines all to eventually go underground, there exist also the potential to be more flexible with individual line connectivity - as in a future 17 Ave E line could actually diametrically continue on to the now being built WLRT. Of course that is all a lot of ifs and whens.

While I principally agree with the fact that not every line necessarily needs to go downtown, the context of where this line is must not be forgotten: Calgary- a heavily commuter oriented system based on corresponding land-use patterns. Tangential lines work in cities that are much more dense. So, put a moratorium on further outward development for... well a long, long time and perhaps that density might be there. Thus, terminating a ROW B line (one that has a harder time maintaining schedules) at a station outside of the destination point for the large majority of people; requiring them to transfer onto another ROW B line is not really optimal. Again, this may work where a timed transfer system can be implemented based on reliable schedules that ROW A lines can quite reliably provide, but I wouldn't underestimate adversion to non-directness. Ideally, a transfer station would indeed exist there but the line would continue on to a destination somewhere downtown, allowing for what you state later in your post and one of the more optimal network characteristics in general.

If the goal, however, is to use the line as an urban generator, hence, not a commuter line then the thought might be otherwise interesting. I don't think an LRT (standard floor) is then the way to acheive this. One could look at 17th ave as a potential for a boulevard and ponder the use of streetcars either down the middle, or perhaps even better, along the sides. Either way, it would be something that does cause such seperation effect that a ROW B alignment (36th st) would cause. Stations are place at shorter intervals, and full signal prioritization could be given to maintain relatively decent average speeds. Anyway, even more "ifs" and fodder for the "war on cars" crowd.

I would however not label new mass rapid transit as technology specific - I would differentiate along similar lines between Mass Rapid Transit (+10,000 people per direction per hour or so) and Rapid Transit (less than 10,000 ppdph). In the sense of LRT (and other mass modes) vs BRT it isn't technology or speed that really differentiates between them, it is ongoing operational costs per rider vs marginal cost per marginal rider.

I'm of the opposite opinion here. The technology very much has to do with what differentiates them. If looking at it purely economically, and even one that looks at that aspect narrowly, then this might hold true. However, the two systems have rather different characteristics that expand economics and extend into the environmental and social realms.

The increased attraction to rail is not to be underestimated, thus increasing ridership. LRT and rail in general, tend to do better with a sense of permanence (even over a busway) and that can go a long way in urban generation/optimal land-use.

It goes without saying that rail has better traction efficiency, thus uses less energy. There are also no point source emissions and due to higher consit capacities, thus lower frequency of vehicles passing by as well as not using a combustion engine, lower noise emissions.

Furthermore, at high capacities on a per passenger basis, which you were likely alluding to, the use of more vehicles (hence, more drivers, etc) results in greater per passenger opertational costs. In addition, BRT has the benefit of often downloading some of its inherent costs to a roads department, etc.

Finally, their ROW takes up more space, especially if flexibility and skip stop/express operations are desired to increase capacities.

If we want to look at things economically, I think more than just simple fare-box cost recovery or marginal passenger costs need to be taken into consideration.


If lets say Google's or others autonomous vehicle project gains acceptance faster than it seems to be now, a bus way with robotic busses might be the best option for the SE LRT - who am I to say. But you can design BRT systems with high capacity, with permanent facilities, just as you could to a point run more shorter train sets with fewer passengers per driven vehcile to decrease headways.

I guess to go along with what has already been said, a BRT can be designed to basically have the capacities (if not more if you ask Bogota) of even some metro systems. However, the capital costs to do this then often equates if not surpasses that of a LRT system, while potentially expending some greater disbenefits.

I guess you are talking autonomous buses here, but then why not just AGT? It is already on rails and just eliminated a lot of the otherwise complicated guideance that would be necessary.

I'm not trying to be overly deriding of your statement here, but it somewhat seemed like it fell along the classical lines of decisions based on one financial parameter that city admins, especially in North America are trending to, that makes BRT look clearly (falsely) advantageous. I am not against BRT systems, because they most definitely have their place. I largely think those places are outside of North America and Europe however. Labour costs are lower, mega-cities need quick implementation to solver rapidly growing mobility problems and they can be produced with lower capital costs.

[fusili]

I'm not trying to be overly deriding of your statement here, but it somewhat seemed like it fell along the classical lines of decisions based on one financial parameter that city admins, especially in North America are trending to, that makes BRT look clearly (falsely) advantageous. I am not against BRT systems, because they most definitely have their place. I largely think those places are outside of North America and Europe however. Labour costs are lower, mega-cities need quick implementation to solver rapidly growing mobility problems and they can be produced with lower capital costs.

I would tend to lean your way on many of the rail vs. bus advantages. But BRTs do make sense as crosstown routes, where speed and reliability are needed, but the capacity of a commuter route is not.

[lineman]

Heads up:

7th will be shut down next weekend (Nov. 26-27) for traction power upgrades and transferring of catenary to new poles.

[sim]

I would tend to lean your way on many of the rail vs. bus advantages. But BRTs do make sense as crosstown routes, where speed and reliability are needed, but the capacity of a commuter route is not.

Yeah fair enough. I guess something what is in general necessary to clarify is whether true BRT is being talked about - largely ROW B, or what the term has come to mean in Calgary's context.

Actually, as you being creator or partial creator (I believe) of the civic camp route visions, that is a question I have - are those routes mostly running along given steets as is, or is the vision for mostly lane seperation?

[fusili]

Yeah fair enough. I guess something what is in general necessary to clarify is whether true BRT is being talked about - largely ROW B, or what the term has come to mean in Calgary's context.

Actually, as you being creator or partial creator (I believe) of the civic camp route visions, that is a question I have - are those routes mostly running along given steets as is, or is the vision for mostly lane seperation?

Lane separation for sure on all routes (I share your criticism of what Calgary calls BRT- I mean it has absolutely no elements of any BRT system other than stop spacing and big buses). The only places it wouldn't be would be a few select places on certain routes, and the BRT out to Bowness, which would probably be a lane reversal. So there would be a dedicated transit lane, but only in the peak direction, and would be enforced using cameras and lights.

[DarkKeyo]

Heads up:

7th will be shut down next weekend (Nov. 26-27) for traction power upgrades and transferring of catenary to new poles.

The schedules and replacement bus route maps have been posted on CT website now. The NW line will terminate at SAIT again, meaning that the replacement shuttles will terminate at Lions Park. This would be a very good time for Calgary Transit to observe how this setup at Lions Park doesn't function well. It wasn't designed for articulated buses, or for high volumes of foot traffic. As well, Bridgeland is an awkward connection, with the shuttles taking a circuitous route to their stop, and the stop is in a slightly awkward place.

While we will have fewer downtown shutdowns in the future, both Lions Park and Bridgeland will have TOD develop over time, and are two of several stations which would need upgrades to handle increased usage.

[ggopher]

Shane Keating, the alderman for Ward 12 in the SE, has posted this paper on the BRT vs LRT in the SE.

Friday, November 18, 2011
SETWAY - A Comprehensive Analysis of the Southeast Transit Way
http://shanekeating.blogspot.com/2011/11/setway-comprehensive-analysis-of.html

During the election he was a major advocat for the SE-LRT. Now that he is in office, I think he has realized the large cost and lack of funding that is actually available. Now he supports the SETWAY using dedicated roads for the BRT to the SE.

Before we go ahead with this, we need to make sure we know the true cost and timeline for the eventual transition to LRT. As was mentioned here before, I agree that the BRT will delay the ultimate LRT.

It is too bad we can't just save our money and wait till we have enough to do it right. These half solutions just to get something built never works out in the end.

[AB Born]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6403482277_71633431d3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403482277/)
Saddleridge LRT Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403482277/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6100/6403486447_aee2f4d8a0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403486447/)
Saddleridge LRT Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403486447/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6104/6403485639_ee6aa607e4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403485639/)
Saddleridge LRT Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403485639/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7156/6403515897_9d51c6747c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403515897/)
Martindale LRT Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403515897/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7148/6403505567_d7e49348a2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403505567/)
Martindale LRT Station - Northbound (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403505567/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6220/6403491045_0dbfba0cac_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403491045/)
Martindale LRT Station - Southbound (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403491045/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6403500919_9daedb6028_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403500919/)
Martindale LRT Station - Southbound (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanw-ca/6403500919/) by JordanW.ca (http://www.flickr.com/people/jordanw-ca/), on Flickr

[J-D]

Great pics - they really put it into perspective just how close the train runs to those houses... I would hate to live THAT close to the train.

[artvandelay]

It really makes you wonder what our city planners were smoking when they decided to zone for single family residential immediately next to a future station site. It's stupidity like this we need to move away from when new suburbs are designed (thankfully this is happening with the plans for the area around the south hospital).

[You Need A Thneed]

It really makes you wonder what our city planners were smoking when they decided to zone for single family residential immediately next to a future station site. It's stupidity like this we need to move away from when new suburbs are designed (thankfully this is happening with the plans for the area around the south hospital).

There is a parcel of townhomes directly beside the outbound platform (the curved one). Enough density for so close to the station? No, but it isn't all single family homes.

[Canadian74]

Umm.. what's wrong with the train close to the houses?

[MichaelS]

My biggest issue would be noise, especially from the crossing lights/bells.

[5seconds]

My biggest issue would be noise, especially from the crossing lights/bells.

And the people at night, waiting for/getting off the train and making noise.

[armorand93]

My biggest issue would be noise, especially from the crossing lights/bells.

I'm a Winnipegger who lives with buses running over potholes, 747s over my head (runway) and drunks yelling outside at 2 am within 10 metres of my house. I'd rather have the train and bells over all those three combined :P

[TransitSupporter]

My biggest issue would be noise, especially from the crossing lights/bells.

I stayed in a residence close by the Health Sciences Centre station in Edmonton for a couple of weeks one summer, and listened to the crossing bells there. They started about 5:15 in the morning and rang every 10 minutes minimum during the day (more in rush hours), and every 15 in the evening until close to 1 AM - both directions! Believe me it really can get on your nerves, although that said I guess you can get used to anything.

[earl69]

I heard that folks who were waiting to get bussed into the core this morning(several hundred of them) were greeted with small community shuttles at the stations. How fucking pathetic is that.

[DizzyEdge]

I heard that folks who were waiting to get bussed into the core this morning(several hundred of them) were greeted with small community shuttles at the stations. How fucking pathetic is that.

weird, last night they were using bendy busses to shuttle people.

[fusili]

I heard that folks who were waiting to get bussed into the core this morning(several hundred of them) were greeted with small community shuttles at the stations. How fucking pathetic is that.

I transferred at Lion's park. They had a few shuttles, a few regular buses and some articulated buses. There were probably around 800 people waiting at a time. I got a coffee and waited a bit until it cleared up. It could have been handled a bit better, but they did a decent job.

[floobie]

I followed the advice of the train conductor in the morning, got off at Brentwood, and took the 9 bus downtown. It took a while (about 45 minutes later than normal), but after hearing from a few people who had come back from Lions Park after waiting for well over an hour, I'm pretty glad I did what I did.

[fusili]

I followed the advice of the train conductor in the morning, got off at Brentwood, and took the 9 bus downtown. It took a while (about 45 minutes later than normal), but after hearing from a few people who had come back from Lions Park after waiting for well over an hour, I'm pretty glad I did what I did.

I got off at Lion's Park as well. Probably around 1000 ppl waiting for shuttle buses, many people taking trains back north, probably for the very reason you did. I went into North Hill, got a coffee, read for about 20 minutes and then went back out, waited for about another 15 minutes and finally got on a shuttle. It sucked, but hey, it was a freak windstorm, so I don't blame Calgary Transit. Some announcements could have been more descriptive (at first, there was no indication where the shuttles were leaving from), and the shuttle operators could have been better at letting passengers know where the stops were to be, but all in all it was handled well.

One thing does come out of this though- a clear demonstration of the differences in capacity between a train and a bus. One train of passengers probably required around 6-8 large buses. Makes the SETWAY (a BRT for the SE), look like a ridiculous idea.

[Northski]

Could the the trains have gone to Sunnyside? Are track there track switches near sunnyside? It seems that a lot of people could have walked downtown from here in 15minutes rather then take a shuttle bus. Also its only a 30 walk from sait to the middle of downtown.