[ByeByeBaby]

The podcast was interesting, but very basic. I'd like to see an actual study with some level of detail and rigour into this.

28 km/h doesn't sound that fast, but some possible connections:
Lion's Park to Foothills: 3.5 km, 8 minutes versus 9 minutes for #91
Brentwood to Foothills: 6 km, 13 minutes versus 16 minutes for #91
U of C to Westbrook: 6 km, 13 minutes versus 14 for #72
And, of course, the frequencies would be off the charts. The trade off might be queuing when the load is sporadic; when a train arrives at a gondola station, it could disgorge several gondola cars worth of riders at the same time.

I don't know what adding intermediate stations would do to the travel time; I've only ridden the Portland Aerial Tram, which was nice, but not all that frequent.

[suburb]

Lion's Park to Foothills: 3.5 km, 8 minutes versus 9 minutes for #91
Brentwood to Foothills: 6 km, 13 minutes versus 16 minutes for #91
<snip>
And, of course, the frequencies would be off the charts.

#91 is ever 16 minutes in rush hour, so average wait is 8 minutes. Average wait for the every 1 minute gondola would be 30 seconds.

The trade off might be queuing when the load is sporadic; when a train arrives at a gondola station, it could disgorge several gondola cars worth of riders at the same time.

Good point. Study is required to get the details flushed out. It would be interesting to understand if, for some reason, more people use the transit as a result.

[MalcolmTucker]

The podcast was interesting, but very basic. I'd like to see an actual study with some level of detail and rigour into this.

28 km/h doesn't sound that fast, but some possible connections:
Lion's Park to Foothills: 3.5 km, 8 minutes versus 9 minutes for #91
Brentwood to Foothills: 6 km, 13 minutes versus 16 minutes for #91
U of C to Westbrook: 6 km, 13 minutes versus 14 for #72
And, of course, the frequencies would be off the charts. The trade off might be queuing when the load is sporadic; when a train arrives at a gondola station, it could disgorge several gondola cars worth of riders at the same time.

I don't know what adding intermediate stations would do to the travel time; I've only ridden the Portland Aerial Tram, which was nice, but not all that frequent.

Certainly queuing time would exist, but I doubt it would ever reach average waiting time for a similar capacity BRT.
For certain trips gondolas make sense. It would be interesting to see a cost benefit analysis vs BRT for those potentially low capacity routes where it is still useful to have higher order transit like a 16th Ave connector across the city. 28 km/hr is almost subway speed, and waiting time would be way less.

What would they top out at - arounnd 3,500 ppdph?

I don't think the routes talked about above make sense on anything but a service quality point of view. The travel time savings is too low, unless demand is seriously constrained by total trip time due to current low frequency (which is hard to measure).

I could see a cross town Lions Park or Foothills over to the NE LRT, and Chinook to the Glenmore SE LRT station /SETWAY terminus. Routes where corridor is at a premium, but mixed traffic buses are constrianed during peak.

[Offside_Ref]

Hopefully this round of media attention to gondola transit goes better than the one a few months ago. I posted some comments on the Herald's website to answer some of the doubts that non-transit enthusiasts would question/be downright against for no particular reason. While it may not be the best idea in specific situations after feasibility studies, a more clear understanding of all our transit options would certainly lead to better solutions.

I think the biggest hurdle to anything of this type happening in Calgary is just more public awareness...think about what LRT meant to people before the Calgary, Edmonton, and San Diego systems went it (I'm assuming it's the same general thing - I'm not old enough to know)

I'm sure it's been posted here before, but here's Steven Dale's project website. It's a good read, and has a well organized educational blog entries if you want to learn more. http://gondolaproject.com/

[fusili]

Certainly queuing time would exist, but I doubt it would ever reach average waiting time for a similar capacity BRT.
For certain trips gondolas make sense. It would be interesting to see a cost benefit analysis vs BRT for those potentially low capacity routes where it is still useful to have higher order transit like a 16th Ave connector across the city. 28 km/hr is almost subway speed, and waiting time would be way less.

I think 16th is better served as a BRT. I mean, we have the lane capacity already, it is just a matter of making it a BRT. As well, station costs would be lower. If there was a dedicated lane, I would imagine speeds would be above 28km/hr (I think the 301 currently operates at 35K/hr, but I could be mistaken. Have to re-read the BRT report)

What would they top out at - arounnd 3,500 ppdph?

That's about what the presenter was quoting.

I don't think the routes talked about above make sense on anything but a service quality point of view. The travel time savings is too low, unless demand is seriously constrained by total trip time due to current low frequency (which is hard to measure).

I could see a cross town Lions Park or Foothills over to the NE LRT, and Chinook to the Glenmore SE LRT station /SETWAY terminus. Routes where corridor is at a premium, but mixed traffic buses are constrianed during peak.

I think Westbrook to Foothills Hospital/UofC makes the most sense. The escarpment is too steep to have a train or bus cross, plus the travel time savings by avoiding the Crowfoot bridge would cut travel times in half, at the very least, especially considering the way that Bow Trail eastbound turns into Crowchild northbound (by going under the underpass, doing a ridiculous U-Turn and then joining the 10th avenue connection). Plus, much of the ROW would be over a golf course or the river, so privacy issues could be addressed.

[TransitSupporter]

#91 is ever 16 minutes in rush hour, so average wait is 8 minutes.

Sorry for the sidebar here, but this is an example of a pet peeve of mine with CT. What kind of idiotic frequency is 16 minutes? I take the 91 daily, and it drives me nutes. Here are some of the timings for this bus leaving the Foothills Hospital in the PM: 3:32p, 3:48p, 4:04p, 4:20p, 4:36p, 4:52p, 5:08p, 5:24p, 5:40p, 5:56p ... now I don't know about most people but there's no easy way for me to remember those times. Besides that, the 19/119 which I transfer to @ Lions Park runs on a 20 minute fequency, so what're the odds of those two ever connecting with a reasonable transfer wait time?

Edmonton Transit used to (hopefully still the case) have standard frequencies on the majority of its routes - high volume ran q10 minutes, medium were q15/q20, non-rush q30. This allowed buses that converged at a terminal to (a) often arrive and depart together, or (b) not have too bad of a wait if Route A was q10 min and Route B was q15. I don't know if this same scheduling thoughtfulness exists ANYWHERE in the CT system - if so I've not encounterd it. My snarky perception is that the scheduling group either naively think 99% of passengers can get to their destination on only 1 bus, or else they just don't give a shit.

Ranting over. Thank you everyone.

[fusili]

Ranting over. Thank you everyone.

Rant away. You have understandable frustrations. But you do have some hints of ways to improve. Perhaps transit can work to better align frequencies, most importantly, ensuring that routes are running at similar times each hour.

[suburb]

Sorry for the sidebar here, but this is an example of a pet peeve of mine with CT. What kind of idiotic frequency is 16 minutes? I take the 91 daily, and it drives me nutes. Here are some of the timings for this bus leaving the Foothills Hospital in the PM: 3:32p, 3:48p, 4:04p, 4:20p, 4:36p, 4:52p, 5:08p, 5:24p, 5:40p, 5:56p ... now I don't know about most people but there's no easy way for me to remember those times. Besides that, the 19/119 which I transfer to @ Lions Park runs on a 20 minute fequency, so what're the odds of those two ever connecting with a reasonable transfer wait time?

Edmonton Transit used to (hopefully still the case) have standard frequencies on the majority of its routes - high volume ran q10 minutes, medium were q15/q20, non-rush q30. This allowed buses that converged at a terminal to (a) often arrive and depart together, or (b) not have too bad of a wait if Route A was q10 min and Route B was q15. I don't know if this same scheduling thoughtfulness exists ANYWHERE in the CT system - if so I've not encounterd it. My snarky perception is that the scheduling group either naively think 99% of passengers can get to their destination on only 1 bus, or else they just don't give a shit.

Ranting over. Thank you everyone.

The frequency is based on the length of the route divided by number of buses. They can modulate a bit depending on how long the bus needs to remain as the time check point (IE they can make it a longer period by making the bus wait at various points, but they cannot make the period shorter). Other considerations would likely include things like when the trains arrive and/or other connections. The size of bus and/or number of buses are dictated by number of passengers, and sometimes by the nature of the road. On longer routes, they could consider adjusting the route length, making it shorter, to get you to 15 minutes, but I don't think this particular route could get much shorter than it already is. It is an efficient route.

Can't speak to your claim that Edmonton routes all had frequencies of 5/10/15/20/25/30 minutes - I would doubt that, but I could be wrong.

[TransitSupporter]

The frequency is based on the length of the route divided by number of buses. They can modulate a bit depending on how long the bus needs to remain as the time check point (IE they can make it a longer period by making the bus wait at various points, but they cannot make the period shorter). Other considerations would likely include things like when the trains arrive and/or other connections. The size of bus and/or number of buses are dictated by number of passengers, and sometimes by the nature of the road. On longer routes, they could consider adjusting the route length, making it shorter, to get you to 15 minutes, but I don't think this particular route could get much shorter than it already is. It is an efficient route.

Can't speak to your claim that Edmonton routes all had frequencies of 5/10/15/20/25/30 minutes - I would doubt that, but I could be wrong.


Thanks for the feedback suburb & fusili. I think I have an understanding of how they arrive at the 16-min frequency in the case of the 91. I guess what kind of bugs me is whether in fact it SHOULD be 20 minutes (given they can't make it 15) so that (a) we passengers would know WHEN it came (for example, 4:05, 4:25, 4:45, etc.), and (b) it could have a better chance of connecting with other routes it meets. Obviously I can't argue that many (the majority of?) people would prefer it come q16 vs q20, but that delta is relatively small, and presumably it would give the operator a bit of leeway to stay on schedule.

I admit I'm hot on this topic today because I just missed by a hair a connection with the 19 yesterday afternoon. This left me with a 20 min (well, I guess it was only 19 minutes by that time) wait for the next one. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't complain - I bet that's not bad compared to what some riders in other parts of Calgary face :|

[MalcolmTucker]

Can't speak to your claim that Edmonton routes all had frequencies of 5/10/15/20/25/30 minutes - I would doubt that, but I could be wrong.
My general experience is that Edmonton's system is set up very differently than Calgary's. The suburban transit centres operate on a pulse system which tries to minimize transfer times if one is doing a suburb to suburb transfer.

Calgary's system is largely a resource optimization thing. No point adding pointless waits at the station or along the route to syncronize schedules. Better to have the bus out being productive.

In the end I am not sure what is better - Calgary's system will have longer waiting times on average, but total trip times including waiting times should be less than Edmonton's if buses are being productive for longer out of each service hour.

With the LRT in rush hours last thing you want is a coordinated pulse, as it would increasing waiting time unless pulses were perfectly coordinated so that pulses at different stations did not attempt to board the same train as it travelled down the line.

[ByeByeBaby]

Edmonton Transit used to (hopefully still the case) have standard frequencies on the majority of its routes - high volume ran q10 minutes, medium were q15/q20, non-rush q30. This allowed buses that converged at a terminal to (a) often arrive and depart together, or (b) not have too bad of a wait if Route A was q10 min and Route B was q15. I don't know if this same scheduling thoughtfulness exists ANYWHERE in the CT system - if so I've not encounterd it. My snarky perception is that the scheduling group either naively think 99% of passengers can get to their destination on only 1 bus, or else they just don't give a shit.

Not to sound like a CT apologist, but clockface scheduling with round multiples like you describe does mean buses have to spend longer waiting at timepoints. For example, consider a totally made up route that takes 77 minutes to drive, including recovery time. To fit in the 10/15/20/30 paradigm, there need to be 3 buses assigned to the route, and an additional 13 minutes built into the schedule somewhere, so the route takes 90 minutes and has 30 minute headways. That means that 14% (13/90 minutes) of the cost of operating the route is just in keeping the schedule neat and tidy. That also means that a trip across the timepoint is a lot longer; on a looping route this is especially difficult. (Consider a rider on a looping route like the 72/73 going from, say, Ogden to MRU -- some of the additional time added to keep to schedule would likely be spent on waiting at Chinook, so this makes the trip longer.) And I don't know if it's happened to you, but one of my pet peeves is getting to Lion's Park heading to Foothills, getting on the 91 that arrives, only to sit while the driver waits to go back on schedule and a 40 comes and goes.

CT's model seems to me to be saturating the LRT, and then running buses serving the LRT as frequently as possible, neatness of schedule be damned.

That being said, I actually agree with you -- there should be more attention paid to crosstown-type services, and more clearly defined schedules. Usability is more important than CT seems to think it is, although I think they're getting better.

[AgentGibb]

Can't speak to your claim that Edmonton routes all had frequencies of 5/10/15/20/25/30 minutes - I would doubt that, but I could be wrong.

I can lend some anecdotal support to what TransitSupporter is saying about Edmonton based on five car-less years spent there during university.

For whatever reason, their bus system seemed to be much better timed to allow transfers, which meant less time standing around in the cold (not a small deal in Edmonton). I'm not sure how they managed it, but it was just much better than Calgary Transit. In particular, I remember arriving at an empty transit center, and within the few-minute "dwell time" of the bus that I was on, virtually every other route that serviced that transit center also arrived. Transfer time would have been virtually zero for anyone changing buses there.

I haven't used either transit system with regularity for several years (current workplace is not serviced by CT in any meaningful way), so I can't speak to the current state, but maybe CT could learn something from ETS when it comes to bus scheduling (or maybe they already have).

ETS also seemed to have more crosstown routes with frequent service than CT at the time. This is something I'd like to see CT do more of (maybe someday people like me would even be able to take the bus to work sometimes).

[fusili]

My general experience is that Edmonton's system is set up very differently than Calgary's. The suburban transit centres operate on a pulse system which tries to minimize transfer times if one is doing a suburb to suburb transfer.

Calgary's system is largely a resource optimization thing. No point adding pointless waits at the station or along the route to syncronize schedules. Better to have the bus out being productive.

In the end I am not sure what is better - Calgary's system will have longer waiting times on average, but total trip times including waiting times should be less than Edmonton's if buses are being productive for longer out of each service hour.

With the LRT in rush hours last thing you want is a coordinated pulse, as it would increasing waiting time unless pulses were perfectly coordinated so that pulses at different stations did not attempt to board the same train as it travelled down the line.

The pulse is interesting, but IMO, works better for commuter rail or other systems with lower frequencies (I am thinking GO Train), but high capacity. If the train is coming every 4 minutes (like our LRT), the time savings due to a pulse are quite small. However, if 400 passengers are disembarking from a commuter train every 20 minutes, a pulse makes perfect sense.

[MalcolmTucker]

Not to sound like a CT apologist, but clockface scheduling with round multiples like you describe does mean buses have to spend longer waiting at timepoints. For example, consider a totally made up route that takes 77 minutes to drive, including recovery time. To fit in the 10/15/20/30 paradigm, there need to be 3 buses assigned to the route, and an additional 13 minutes built into the schedule somewhere, so the route takes 90 minutes and has 30 minute headways. That means that 14% (13/90 minutes) of the cost of operating the route is just in keeping the schedule neat and tidy. That also means that a trip across the timepoint is a lot longer; on a looping route this is especially difficult. (Consider a rider on a looping route like the 72/73 going from, say, Ogden to MRU -- some of the additional time added to keep to schedule would likely be spent on waiting at Chinook, so this makes the trip longer.) And I don't know if it's happened to you, but one of my pet peeves is getting to Lion's Park heading to Foothills, getting on the 91 that arrives, only to sit while the driver waits to go back on schedule and a 40 comes and goes.

CT's model seems to me to be saturating the LRT, and then running buses serving the LRT as frequently as possible, neatness of schedule be damned.

That being said, I actually agree with you -- there should be more attention paid to crosstown-type services, and more clearly defined schedules. Usability is more important than CT seems to think it is, although I think they're getting better.


It is a necessary conversation to have, is it worth it for everyone to have slightly longer trips to make the the trips easier to make. Personally in a world where google transit works pretty well on my phone, I'm fine with complication since I know despite my personal annoyances with transfers that the trip is better than alternatives.

It would be really hard to design transit schedules and routes with the goal of making them easy to remember.

[sim]

Rant away. You have understandable frustrations. But you do have some hints of ways to improve. Perhaps transit can work to better align frequencies, most importantly, ensuring that routes are running at similar times each hour.

Noooo, CT shouldn't bother with actually improving and optimizing conventional transit... An urban gondola will fix it instead! (Not directed at anyone)

The frequency is based on the length of the route divided by number of buses.

While this is true mathematically, the demand, therefore capacity required, therefore frequency required is what determines (or should) the number of buses, not the other way around. Perhaps I just misunderstood.


Calgary's system is largely a resource optimization thing. No point adding pointless waits at the station or along the route to syncronize schedules. Better to have the bus out being productive.

This doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or situation. This can be changed in route/network design, making it longer or shorter (thereby fitting to the cycle time) - goes for the first part of the post below too.

Not to sound like a CT apologist, but clockface scheduling with round multiples like you describe does mean buses have to spend longer waiting at timepoints. For example, consider a totally made up route that takes 77 minutes to drive, including recovery time. To fit in the 10/15/20/30 paradigm, there need to be 3 buses assigned to the route, and an additional 13 minutes built into the schedule somewhere, so the route takes 90 minutes and has 30 minute headways. That means that 14% (13/90 minutes) of the cost of operating the route is just in keeping the schedule neat and tidy. That also means that a trip across the timepoint is a lot longer; on a looping route this is especially difficult. (Consider a rider on a looping route like the 72/73 going from, say, Ogden to MRU -- some of the additional time added to keep to schedule would likely be spent on waiting at Chinook, so this makes the trip longer.) And I don't know if it's happened to you, but one of my pet peeves is getting to Lion's Park heading to Foothills, getting on the 91 that arrives, only to sit while the driver waits to go back on schedule and a 40 comes and goes.

I'm guessing you chose those times as an example purposely. That is sort of a rule of thumb recovery time (15%.) For a loop line I would say it is ideal that any extra terminal time above the 15% (to fit schedule) is of course done only at that one terminal and not, or very slightly so, prorated throughout the route stops. Again though, this can also be minimized by route design. Secondly the 15% is a rule of thumb. If a route cycle time, especially on one that is proven to have low variability is larger, this 15% can be lowered giving for a better terminal time to revenue operation rate ratio. However, it can't be forgotten that driver's need breaks as well and therefore, this constraint, and it is largely dictated from the union, is to be heeded. No idea what CT has to adhere to here. Anyone? It can also make run-cutting more difficult.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that routes can be optimized so that there isn't an overly high proportion of non-operation time and that they can adhere to a clearer, more user-friendly schedule. Not saying this is easy though, as the two act circuitously - ie, change route, change demand, change capacity, change cycle time, change frequency, change...

The pulsing, or time transfer system vs stagerring bus arrivals is another interesting thing though...






But back to the first, and yes, critical point about Urban gondolas and their applicability in Calgary. To be frank, that applicability is essentially next to zero with the odd exception that perhaps sometime in the future a Brentwood/University node is linked with a Westbrook one.

I don't want to say that it isn't worth investigating or knowing more about, but this may quickly become a case of a technology fascination.

Combining comments from the CBC article and the podcast, I believe that Steven Bates is not really getting the "Last Mile" problem right. This could potentially act as a feeder if the O-D stations are serving very high demand nodes, which I don't think Foothills counts as, especially with all that parking. Not too mention, that while although cheap in capital for a transit system, it isn't exactly a cheap feeder service.

Let's, however, say that Foothills or wherever is a high demand node, then the 1 minute waiting time also quickly starts to disentigrate - so too does it in a non-high demand case for that matter. Yes, while you may wait only 1 minute to get on from the Foothills, all that has been done is that that waiting time has been allocated to the one after that trip - to the one for the LRT in our case. Perhaps not a big deal when the LRT is at a frequency of 5 mins. This however would become more evident if, people that are frequent users understand when tranfer times (based on the LRT schedule) occur, they would tend to all want to ride the same transit unit, in this case a gondola, at the same time. This then becomes impossible and waiting times occur. The same thing in reverse, as someone had already mentioned would also occur.

In essence a near linearly continuous capacity is serving or feeding one that, on a disagregated level, supplies a capacity at discrete time steps. It makes any sort of timed transfers impossible and, as the service is foreseen to be as such, isn't necessarily an effective feeder service in way of making transfers efficient (or theoretically efficient). To that point, and thanks to the LRT's large variability in schedule, this possibility might actually be diminished though. A case of two wrongs making a right?

I further doubt that the max capacity one could provide is even close to the current actual demand. Underutilization? With that, I also don't believe the claim that only 1 operator is needed for the system. One at each station, perhaps. What happens when they need a break? There is also a greater need for mechanical supervision and operations, as a technical break can prove much more fatal (and scary for the public in general) if something goes wrong - compared to a bus, let's say. This was the case in one of the championed (tourist system nonetheless), namely the Ngong Ping Cable Car in HK.

Lastly, its ability to go over everything, touted as an advantage, at the same time can also work against it, especially in the case of solving the last mile problem. It might solve this problem only if your last mile happens to be the node it ends/starts at and is thus a very poor collector service. In fact, if the span of the stations happen to be the literal mile, it is the very definition of the last mile problem itself. The way to remedy this would be to add stations of course. This costs next to nothing for a bus. However, in this case adding stations destroys the exact two main advantages it has. Average speed and capital cost.

I don't want to come across a hater of this technology, but I see it quickly becoming the next monorail (admittedly probably a bit more effective.) It looks cool, effective and cheap on the onset and especially, dare I say, to those with a more limited understanding of PT.

That's not to say that Steven Bates should stop supporting and pushing this system, but I think the flat, topographically easy, high rate of existing road infrastructure city that Calgary is, is about the last place this system could work. Even Edmonton probably looks more applicable. DT to Whyte Ave? This is especially the case when simple, as we've just discovered, things such as making the bus system a bit more optimal can largely fix many problems. How about bus actuated garaunteed signalling?

[fusili]

Noooo, CT shouldn't bother with actually improving and optimizing conventional transit... An urban gondola will fix it instead! (Not directed at anyone)


But back to the first, and yes, critical point about Urban gondolas and their applicability in Calgary. To be frank, that applicability is essentially next to zero with the odd exception that perhaps sometime in the future a Brentwood/University node is linked with a Westbrook one.

That's not to say that Steven Bates should stop supporting and pushing this system, but I think the flat, topographically easy, high rate of existing road infrastructure city that Calgary is, is about the last place this system could work.

My point exactly. Westbrook to Foothills makes sense geographically. Not only that, but the alternatives are very difficult and not optimal (BRT, LRT, regular bus). Anywhere else, BRT makes more sense to me. Urban gondolas are just one tool in the toolbox, and we can't forget about the rest.

[WIGS]

I just read that Edmonton's LRT is already using 4 car trains and they've upgraded a couple of stations to accommodate 5 car trains.
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt.aspx

Why is Edmonton thinking so far ahead yet Calgary behind the times? Is it because the platforms on 7th Ave would be too long? just curious :shrug:

[mersar]

I just read that Edmonton's LRT is already using 4 car trains and they've upgraded a couple of stations to accommodate 5 car trains.
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt.aspx

Why is Edmonton thinking so far ahead yet Calgary behind the times? Is it because the platforms on 7th Ave would be too long? just curious :shrug:

Partially. 5 LRV consists simply won't fit onto 7th avenue as the trains would take the entire block and then some, so stations would also in most cases span well over onto the next once you take into account the length needed for ramps, etc to the station itself. We're getting closer to 4 LRV stations but Edmonton is ahead of us simply because they spent the money up front doing it that way (both 4 car LRV and underground in downtown), but it stunted growth of their system for years (roughly half the stations and half the track length for roughly the same amount of capital investment IIRC). That said, they then skimped on some of the newer stations and had to go back and extend to 5 LRV length after they were opened in recent years.

[DizzyEdge]

Partially. 5 LRV consists simply won't fit onto 7th avenue as the trains would take the entire block and then some, so stations would also in most cases span well over onto the next once you take into account the length needed for ramps, etc to the station itself. We're getting closer to 4 LRV stations but Edmonton is ahead of us simply because they spent the money up front doing it that way (both 4 car LRV and underground in downtown), but it stunted growth of their system for years (roughly half the stations and half the track length for roughly the same amount of capital investment IIRC). That said, they then skimped on some of the newer stations and had to go back and extend to 5 LRV length after they were opened in recent years.

Curious, how many cars could Edmonton's underground platforms allow?

[MalcolmTucker]

Partially. 5 LRV consists simply won't fit onto 7th avenue as the trains would take the entire block and then some, so stations would also in most cases span well over onto the next once you take into account the length needed for ramps, etc to the station itself. We're getting closer to 4 LRV stations but Edmonton is ahead of us simply because they spent the money up front doing it that way (both 4 car LRV and underground in downtown), but it stunted growth of their system for years (roughly half the stations and half the track length for roughly the same amount of capital investment IIRC). That said, they then skimped on some of the newer stations and had to go back and extend to 5 LRV length after they were opened in recent years.
Edmonton had spent way less by the time the expansion again started in both Edmonton (to Health Sciences) and Calgary (to Fish Creek).

$446.2 year 2000 USD for 18.2 miles in Calgary and $319.0 in Edmonton for 7.6 miles. http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/calgary_ctrain_effective_capital_utilization_TRB_paper.pdf

Calgary invested in expanding the LRT beyond the first leg by using debt, Edmonton was unwilling to. To this day Edmonton carries less debt, and in exchange they have less recreation facilities (first new pool in 25+ years opened recently iirc) and way less investment in park infrastructure.

The councils Klein led made tough calls that really changed the city in important ways.

[suburb]

Edmonton had spent way less by the time the expansion again started in both Edmonton (to Health Sciences) and Calgary (to Fish Creek).

$446.2 year 2000 USD for 18.2 miles in Calgary and $319.0 in Edmonton for 7.6 miles. http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/calgary_ctrain_effective_capital_utilization_TRB_paper.pdf

Calgary invested in expanding the LRT beyond the first leg by using debt, Edmonton was unwilling to. To this day Edmonton carries less debt, and in exchange they have less recreation facilities (first new pool in 25+ years opened recently iirc) and way less investment in park infrastructure.

The councils Klein led made tough calls that really changed the city in important ways.

20/20 hindsight would suggest Calgary had the better plan, as construction costs skyrocketed way faster than inflation and interest rates, so carrying debt to construct early was a very good way to go from a dollars perspective, while at the same time allowing us to have more infrastructure earlier.

[lightrail]

The frequency is based on the length of the route divided by number of buses. They can modulate a bit depending on how long the bus needs to remain as the time check point (IE they can make it a longer period by making the bus wait at various points, but they cannot make the period shorter). Other considerations would likely include things like when the trains arrive and/or other connections. The size of bus and/or number of buses are dictated by number of passengers, and sometimes by the nature of the road. On longer routes, they could consider adjusting the route length, making it shorter, to get you to 15 minutes, but I don't think this particular route could get much shorter than it already is. It is an efficient route.

Can't speak to your claim that Edmonton routes all had frequencies of 5/10/15/20/25/30 minutes - I would doubt that, but I could be wrong.

It's generally true. Edmonton tries to run its routes on a 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 or 60 schedule (with 10, 20 and 45 rarely used).

The reason: Edmonton invented to the hub and spoke method of handling a transit system. The Edmonton system is built on major terminals all connected by main routes, with feeder routes from those terminals to the neighbourhoods. To make it work you need to have a gaurenteed timed transfer system. So the mainlines run every 15min in the daytime (and every 7/8 minutes in the peak) with the feeders running every 30 or 60 minutes.

This system is also known as a "pulse network" - all the buses leave the terminals at the same times, a pulse.

The advantaqe is the timed transfers; the disadvantage is the bus frequency might not be perfect for the loads and so costly to add (double the freqency) to keep to the pulse. Another distadvantage is the buses end up waiting at terminals for the next pulse before departing, costing more in bus hours.

Victoria uses a system like Calgary with buses running on various frequencies - we have 24 minutes, 22 minutes, 13 minutes, 9 minutes, etc.

Vancouver runs some suburban routes on the pulse system, but most mainlines run on the best schedule to maximise the use of the equipment.

[DizzyEdge]

Can anyone tell me why Calgary has never tried to integrate the LRT stations with the buses like this, so you don't have to be outside in the elements to wait for a bus?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=toronto&hl=en&ll=43.637307,-79.536563&spn=0.006452,0.013937&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=57.030354,114.169922&hnear=Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario,+Canada&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.637307,-79.536563&panoid=xZfTWFStycoc8FmbljNVoA&cbp=12,94.68,,0,-2.29

It's always a bit bizarre to me that CT doesn't seem to do better design to keep people comfortable while they wait/transfer.

[MalcolmTucker]

It is expensive, and then you need better security to stop loittering. Also, when so many stations have acted as termini at different points in time, would had led to massive overbuilds.

[DizzyEdge]

It is expensive, and then you need better security to stop loittering. Also, when so many stations have acted as termini at different points in time, would had led to massive overbuilds.

The moving ends of the lines is a good point.

I'm not impressed about the other one, although I'm sure it's true. It seems to fall into the pattern of "people will take transit because parking is so expensive", "people won't loiter because there's no heat", etc. I'd prefer a mindset of "people will take transit because it's great".

[suburb]

"people won't loiter because there's no heat".

I don't think that would be much of an issue in the suburbs though IE if there was heat, you still wouldn't get too many just hanging out. I think transit has caught on to that - I believe more shelters are getting heat.

[frinkprof]

Chinook Station will be rebuilt next year and there will be a new passenger waiting building in the bus loop that will be heated.

[DizzyEdge]

Chinook Station will be rebuilt next year and there will be a new passenger waiting building in the bus loop that will be heated.

Excellent news.

[suburb]

I don't think that would be much of an issue in the suburbs though IE if there was heat, you still wouldn't get too many just hanging out. I think transit has caught on to that - I believe more shelters are getting heat.

Chinook Station will be rebuilt next year and there will be a new passenger waiting building in the bus loop that will be heated.

Yeah - that is part of the move I mentioned above (and it is not just Chinook). They are reviewing and creating better and heated spaces in many of the suburan areas, where there shouldn't be the issue of people loitering because of no where to go. Looking forward to it!

[MichaelS]

Yeah - that is part of the move I mentioned above (and it is not just Chinook). They are reviewing and creating better and heated spaces in many of the suburan areas, where there shouldn't be the issue of people loitering because of no where to go. Looking forward to it!

There are also heated shelters on some (all?) of the new 7th ave platforms. They are the plain glass shelters, but have a button in them that turns on a heater to warm them up, based on a timer. When the time runs out, you press the button again (similar to a hand dryer I suppose).

The shelters' glass doesn't go all the way to the ground, leaves a few inches of exposed air to prevent people from sleeping in them, as it would be pretty cold to lay down on the ground, despite the heater.

[You Need A Thneed]

There are also heated shelters on some (all?) of the new 7th ave platforms. They are the plain glass shelters, but have a button in them that turns on a heater to warm them up, based on a timer. When the time runs out, you press the button again (similar to a hand dryer I suppose).

The shelters' glass doesn't go all the way to the ground, leaves a few inches of exposed air to prevent people from sleeping in them, as it would be pretty cold to lay down on the ground, despite the heater.

At McKnight Westwinds the heated shelters originally only had glass that came down to about 6 inches off of the ground, as you mentioned, but not to lang after they opened, they were extended down to the ground. Still, it doesn't get "warm" in there.

MKWW has a heated bus shelter, and I believe the Saddletowne will as well. Whitehorn Station now has heated shelters on the LRT platform, something which all the newest stations are getting.

[kw5150]

There are also heated shelters on some (all?) of the new 7th ave platforms. They are the plain glass shelters, but have a button in them that turns on a heater to warm them up, based on a timer. When the time runs out, you press the button again (similar to a hand dryer I suppose).

The shelters' glass doesn't go all the way to the ground, leaves a few inches of exposed air to prevent people from sleeping in them, as it would be pretty cold to lay down on the ground, despite the heater.

I thought that was a self-destruct button. :jester:

[DizzyEdge]

Now if we could change Anderson station so that waiting on the platform doesn't feel like being in a bombed out WWII submarine pen :)

[kw5150]

Now if we could change Anderson station so that waiting on the platform doesn't feel like being in a bombed out WWII submarine pen :)

Or get some serious condo/townhome/commercial development around it........

[kw5150]

This is from the "end of line" at 10th st west. I swear this train station gets busier everyday! Good to see lots of healthy people walking.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6383/dsc0083xkt.jpg
By kw5150 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kw5150) at 2012-02-22

[5seconds]

The covering came off of the platform extension work on Centre Street station. The entire length of the platform extension is installed from the edge to about 5 feet back, but still more to do on the side closest to the convention centre.

[TransitSupporter]

I've always wondered where CT gets all the shuttle buses + operators when the C-Train goes suddenly out of service. The backup buses seemingly appear magically, but I somewhat doubt that's how it works. I can't imagine CT keeps that many vehicles and drivers on "standby" just in case?

[mersar]

I've always wondered where CT gets all the shuttle buses + operators when the C-Train goes suddenly out of service. The backup buses seemingly appear magically, but I somewhat doubt that's how it works. I can't imagine CT keeps that many vehicles and drivers on "standby" just in case?

Depends on the time of day. But they don't have a pile of drivers just waiting around. Usually they'll first ask for drivers who have finished their scheduled runs (its quite common for drivers to radio in after they've finished to see if theres any overtime work available even when there isn't a ctrain disruption), then if they still need more they'll start re-allocating drivers from scheduled runs to provide enough service. This is part of the reason it can take 20-30 minutes to get shuttle service in place after a disruption.

[DarkKeyo]

Calgary Transit has posted their spring schedule revisions on their site. They've included their incredibly bad idea of cutting the first and last trips on the 201 and 202...

[armorand93]

This is from the "end of line" at 10th st west. I swear this train station gets busier everyday! Good to see lots of healthy people walking.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6383/dsc0083xkt.jpg
By kw5150 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kw5150) at 2012-02-22

Lol @ guy on the right jumping off

[CTrainDude]

This is from the "end of line" at 10th st west. I swear this train station gets busier everyday! Good to see lots of healthy people walking.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6383/dsc0083xkt.jpg
By kw5150 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/kw5150) at 2012-02-22
Too bad all of these people will have to walk from 7th Street when they tear down 10th Street in September. At least they'll be even healthier!

[DarkKeyo]

Too bad all of these people will have to walk from 7th Street when they tear down 10th Street in September. At least they'll be even healthier!

If they remove 10th Street 3-6 months before WLRT opens (and I realize they have to because it's in the way), do they now have a plan for where to terminate route 202 trains?

[CTrainDude]

If they remove 10th Street 3-6 months before WLRT opens (and I realize they have to because it's in the way), do they now have a plan for where to terminate route 202 trains?
The trains will still terminate at the same spot (they can realign the south rails and catenary in a weekend once the platform is torn down), there just won't be a platform for customers.

[frinkprof]

The trains will still terminate at the same spot (they can realign the south rails and catenary in a weekend once the platform is torn down), there just won't be a platform for customers.So passengers will use the steps on the trains?

[CTrainDude]

So passengers will use the steps on the trains?
I don't think that would be very efficient :) Nope, passengers must disembark at 7th Street, or remain on the train while the driver changes ends where 10th Street currently is and go back to 8th Street. There will be no way for passengers to leave the train at the end of the line.

[fusili]

I don't think that would be very efficient :) Nope, passengers must disembark at 7th Street, or remain on the train while the driver changes ends where 10th Street currently is and go back to 8th Street. There will be no way for passengers to leave the train at the end of the line.

So I take it we will have a period before the west line opens with 11th street station, where people in that area have no transit stop?

[frinkprof]

So I take it we will have a period before the west line opens with 11th street station, where people in that area have no transit stop?Yes. The period won't be all that much though by the look of it. Enough time to shut down 10th Street Station, demolish it, re-align the tracks and catenaries, tie-in signals to the new line, some quick testing and open Kerby Station (if not the whole West Line, but I'd imagine that Kerby Station will open by itself for a short time).

Might be looking at a couple or three weeks for all this to take place I'd imagine.

The bigger concern for me is if there will be a way for trains to get from the existing tracks at the 10th Street terminus up to the west line before all this happens. If not, then testing of the new line will be delayed. The testing of the new line should take at least a couple or three months as I understand it.

There is a rumour going around that the new West line will in fact open as originally scheduled in December. My guess is still that any source of delay (leading to the official opening being put off until March 2013) was mostly caused by the Kerby Station being behind. Can you confirm any of this CTrainDude?

[CTrainDude]

Yes. The period won't be all that much though by the look of it. Enough time to shut down 10th Street Station, demolish it, re-align the tracks and catenaries, tie-in signals to the new line, some quick testing and open Kerby Station (if not the whole West Line, but I'd imagine that Kerby Station will open by itself for a short time).

Might be looking at a couple or three weeks for all this to take place I'd imagine.

The bigger concern for me is if there will be a way for trains to get from the existing tracks at the 10th Street terminus up to the west line before all this happens. If not, then testing of the new line will be delayed. The testing of the new line should take at least a couple or three months as I understand it.

There is a rumour going around that the new West line will in fact open as originally scheduled in December. My guess is still that any source of delay (leading to the official opening being put off until March 2013) was mostly caused by the Kerby Station being behind. Can you confirm any of this CTrainDude?
The north tracks at 10th Street are already aligned and will be tied in probably in April. Once this happens, LRVs will be able to use the north track to access the West line so the DBC can start their testing. In the fall (late Sept/early Oct) 10th Street is demolished, the south track and catenary are realigned and tied in. There will be some weekend closures for some work and signals tie-in. Assuming that the West line is turned over to Transit by October for testing/commissioning, it should open in December as scheduled (latest I've heard is that it's back on schedule). There will be no intermediate period where 11th Street is the end of the line, no matter when the West opens.

[frinkprof]

The north tracks at 10th Street are already aligned and will be tied in probably in April. Once this happens, LRVs will be able to use the north track to access the West line so the DBC can start their testing. In the fall (late Sept/early Oct) 10th Street is demolished, the south track and catenary are realigned and tied in. There will be some weekend closures for some work and signals tie-in. Assuming that the West line is turned over to Transit by October for testing/commissioning, it should open in December as scheduled (latest I've heard is that it's back on schedule). There will be no intermediate period where 11th Street is the end of the line, no matter when the West opens.Good to know, thanks. So we are looking at a few months where 7th/8th Street is the passenger terminus for the 202?

[CTrainDude]

Good to know, thanks. So we are looking at a few months where 7th/8th Street is the passenger terminus for the 202?
In a nutshell, yes.

[You Need A Thneed]

Saddletowne station will be the first terminal station in Calgary to not have a large Park and Ride (only ~130 stalls). I wonder how early in the morning it's going to fill up to capacity.

[kw5150]

Too bad all of these people will have to walk from 7th Street when they tear down 10th Street in September. At least they'll be even healthier!

Ill be on a bike in September, no worries there. I really wish the shutdown could start in the early summer instead though! If I have to walk two extra blocks for a couple months (or even a year) I welcome it. I have never felt more healthy and fit from all of this walking.

[floobie]

Maybe I missed this, but based on the ticket machines at the banff trail station it looks like a few connect card thingies have been installed. Is there a "beta test" for this or something?

[5seconds]

Maybe I missed this, but based on the ticket machines at the banff trail station it looks like a few connect card thingies have been installed. Is there a "beta test" for this or something?

They are installing the hardware right now (most of the buses I have been on recently have had them). The pilot project starts in April, full roll out in the summer.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/connect.html

Interesting that they are introducing a key fob in addition to a traditional card.

[DizzyEdge]

They are installing the hardware right now (most of the buses I have been on recently have had them). The pilot project starts in April, full roll out in the summer.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/connect.html

Interesting that they are introducing a key fob in addition to a traditional card.

We used to use access cards at work, but over time they all ended up splitting and being useless. We switched to fobs and they've been great.

One issue I can thing of with the smart cards is people will likely be guestimating how much $$ they have left, and may have a rude awakening while at the entrance to the bus tapping it.

EDIT: I see Negative Balance Protection will be an option, good to know.

[MalcolmTucker]

We used to use access cards at work, but over time they all ended up splitting and being useless. We switched to fobs and they've been great.

One issue I can thing of with the smart cards is people will likely be guestimating how much $$ they have left, and may have a rude awakening while at the entrance to the bus tapping it.
Hopefully that will move people slowly over to auto-reload on the system.

Anyone know whether they have planned a system that charges by the ride then when it gets to the level of a monthly pass it caps it automatically?

I am impressed by the roll out, CT has at least kept the upfront cost down, and accomplished much more in a short amount of time compared to lets say the Presto roll out on the TTC. (which is still a long time away and predicted to cost at least $250 million).

[Wooster]

On the reloadable cards there will be an overdraft allowance. I believe the screen will display balance.

[mersar]

They are installing the hardware right now (most of the buses I have been on recently have had them). The pilot project starts in April, full roll out in the summer.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/connect.html

Interesting that they are introducing a key fob in addition to a traditional card.

Yep. The readers have been installed at all the stations I believe now (I haven't seen one without at least one reader), and probably approaching a majority of the buses. Still haven't seen a new look with a reader, but to me that indicates that the roughly 30 that are left will be retired by this summer.

[bigcanuck]

So, a question about monthly pass options with the new connect system... It indicates that tapping the card will "...recognize that you have a valid pass" - so does that mean you can purchase a monthly pass via the MyConnect website? For frequent riders, a monthly pass is typically a cheaper option than per trip payment.

[eggbert]

Hopefully that will move people slowly over to auto-reload on the system.

Anyone know whether they have planned a system that charges by the ride then when it gets to the level of a monthly pass it caps it automatically?

I am impressed by the roll out, CT has at least kept the upfront cost down, and accomplished much more in a short amount of time compared to lets say the Presto roll out on the TTC. (which is still a long time away and predicted to cost at least $250 million).

I don't think that will ever happen. What would be the point of buying a monthly pass anymore if you had a guaranteed cap?

[mersar]

So, a question about monthly pass options with the new connect system... It indicates that tapping the card will "...recognize that you have a valid pass" - so does that mean you can purchase a monthly pass via the MyConnect website? For frequent riders, a monthly pass is typically a cheaper option than per trip payment.

I believe that is the plan. Plus the ability to auto-reload and we will have a very seamless system and far less hassle then having to go buy a new pass each month.

[5seconds]

Calgary Transit has finalised the Bus routes that are changing in the wake of the WestLRT opening.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/west_lrt.html

[ByeByeBaby]

Saddletowne station will be the first terminal station in Calgary to not have a large Park and Ride (only ~130 stalls). I wonder how early in the morning it's going to fill up to capacity.

I've made a couple of rough maps comparing Park and Ride in the south versus the Northeast. Here's the album (http://imgur.com/a/39U4E#0). The colours show approximate catchments for Park and Ride stations (white for people who are so close to a station I doubt they'd park and ride - they'd just walk). I assume that people aren't likely to backtrack too much, that is, go north to Saddletowne to get on a southbound train; it's both psychologically backwards as well as could take longer considering ride time. Basically, the only people who will park at Saddle Ridge are residents of Saddle Ridge and the north part of Taradale. Something on the order of 16-20K residents. I estimate on the order of 30K for Westwinds.

On the terminal station at Somerset, I'd estimate 45K versus 14K for Shawnessy and 20K for Fish Creek. That doesn't include the 60K people living east of the Bow River, who may take 22X to park and ride at Somerset (15K each in Mackenzie Towne, Mackenzie Lake, Cranston/Auburn and New Brighton/Copperfield), or the 25K people in Okotoks. But even as the terminal Somerset has 900 stalls and 13,000 riders -- so park and ride is a small portion of the ridership.

Saddletowne is close to Shawnessy in capacity (130 vs 200 stalls) and not that much bigger in terms of market. In the long run, as Saddle Ridge and Skyview build out, the demand will increase, and I'd expect to see the lot get busier and busier. But it may be okay for the short term, and I believe the next station at 96th Avenue has a much more substantial park and ride.

[ByeByeBaby]

Calgary Transit has finalised the Bus routes that are changing in the wake of the WestLRT opening.

That #82 is bizarre. Is there a large market of people in northern Westgate and Rosscarrock that won't walk five blocks, but will walk two blocks to a bus? I didn't see any old age homes in a two-second google maps check.

[DarkKeyo]

Calgary Transit has finalised the Bus routes that are changing in the wake of the WestLRT opening.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/west_lrt.html

I have quite a lot to say about this, surprisingly.

It's nice to see the Westbrook-Chinook BRT given a number, 303. The switching places of the 17 and 403 is interesting, and making route 6 run roughly its original routing makes more sense than having that part be the 106, and the 6 run from Westbrook to further southwest.

There are a lot of things I don't understand. Where is the 301 from downtown to MRU that was on the previous version?
(I know several MRU students who were looking forward to it.) How did the 101 and 104 end up so long, and circuitous? I'm not sure of the point of the 82 either, but if there is one, it seems like a better candidate for a community shuttle route, number 400-something.

I also see that there is no confirmation in that document that the line may open as planned in December.

On a related note, are they still opening the Saddletown extension a few months before the WestLRT?

[JBinCalgary]

what are the daily ridership numbers for calgary transit?

[andasen]

How did the 101 and 104 end up so long, and circuitous?

Serval routes merged which makes the new route more flexible in terms of frequency. ie the 101 = Coach hill-69 Station Route, 69th Street-Westhills-45th, 45th-Westbrook via Spruce Drive (not sure which is the dominant community this runs through.) Longer routes mean that frequency can be more responsive to demand because the only 1 new bus to slightly increase frequency instead of 3 new buses for each route to massively increase frequency to levels which the area doesn't have to ridership to justify it.

[mersar]

There are a lot of things I don't understand. Where is the 301 from downtown to MRU that was on the previous version?

Replaced by the 18 which in the future will be upgraded to closer to BRT (was in the news last week about this, essentially the 18 will be pretty rapid anyways since its mostly on Crowchild)


I also see that there is no confirmation in that document that the line may open as planned in December.

Nothing officially has been said, latest official word was its delayed until Spring but unofficially its back on track for December


On a related note, are they still opening the Saddletown extension a few months before the WestLRT?

Yes, in late September is what I've heard.

[5seconds]

Replaced by the 18 which in the future will be upgraded to closer to BRT (was in the news last week about this, essentially the 18 will be pretty rapid anyways since its mostly on Crowchild)

Here's the article:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Express+service+delayed/6214176/story.html

Well that answers my questions about the 18. In the last 2 open houses, they had radically reworked the 18. The first had it originate at Chinook, through Lakeview and MRU and into Currie Barracks. The next iteration had it starting Downtown, up 14th street, across 33rd through Marda Loop, through the Currie Barracks to MRU and Lakeview.

I assume that the 18 re-work only made sense with a 'parallel' BRT, which is apparently no longer happening (for now).

What I don't understand is why the 18 is now being turned around 5 blocks earlier downtown (It turns around on 1st street SW right now, but the PDF of the new route shows it turning around on 6th street SW). There was talk of having the 18 extend as far as the new Library site at one point, not sure why they went the other way with it.

Mersar, do you have any info about upgrades to this route? Much of it is already in transit lanes along Crowchild, but are you talking about an increase of frequency, or extended buses?

[mersar]

Mersar, do you have any info about upgrades to this route? Much of it is already in transit lanes along Crowchild, but are you talking about an increase of frequency, or extended buses?

All I know is what was in the article. From my take on it in the future they want to use bigger buses with fewer stops and separate it from traffic, but that won't be any time soon for at least the latter part.

[5seconds]

All I know is what was in the article. From my take on it in the future they want to use bigger buses with fewer stops and separate it from traffic, but that won't be any time soon for at least the latter part.

There were some articulated buses spotted in Lakeview, which leads me to believe they were doing trials of how the larger buses navigate the streets of Lakeview for the number 18 route.

I would like to see a more express-like service to MRU (provided existing routes can service the stops that would be removed) and then maintained service through Lakeview. Hopefully they can get a level of service approaching the BRT this way.

[You Need A Thneed]

I know it's only two more wires, but something about the new catenary system looks like it's way more wires than before.

Enmax has been making good progress on catenary installation for the NE extention. With better weather hopefully sticking around, it probably won't be very long until it's done.

[MalcolmTucker]

I know it's only two more wires, but something about the new catenary system looks like it's way more wires than before.

Enmax has been making good progress on catenary installation for the NE extention. With better weather hopefully sticking around, it probably won't be very long until it's done.
More vertical connections?

[You Need A Thneed]

More vertical connections?

I don't think that there are any more vertical connections, no.

[Full Mountain]

I know it's only two more wires, but something about the new catenary system looks like it's way more wires than before.

Enmax has been making good progress on catenary installation for the NE extention. With better weather hopefully sticking around, it probably won't be very long until it's done.

I noticed this on the weekend, what's the purpose of the second set of wires? reliablity?

[You Need A Thneed]

I noticed this on the weekend, what's the purpose of the second set of wires? reliablity?

The extra wire is to help supply the extra power required to run 4 car trains. In the next couple of years, all of the catenary in the system will be upgraded to what is being seen for the NE extention and the West LRT.

[RyLucky]

The 20 use to connect the SW to Foothills. I guess there 72 would take you within a 15 minute walk... that or take the train to Lions Park and grab a 91 or 40?

[mersar]

The 20 use to connect the SW to Foothills. I guess there 72 would take you within a 15 minute walk... that or take the train to Lions Park and grab a 91 or 40?

Huh?

The 20 still goes to the Foothills

[fusili]

Has this been posted yet:

Calgary Transit's Long Range Strategic Plan

http://www.routeahead.ca/

[5seconds]

Calgary Transit are handing out a notice on the 305. The 305 is being cut way back, and will only be operating at peak times. The number 1 is having it's frequency increased in the off-peak times to make up for it.

Part of their budget cuts.

[DizzyEdge]

Has this been posted yet:

Calgary Transit's Long Range Strategic Plan

http://www.routeahead.ca/

Hmmm I've seen that circle before..
http://www.routeahead.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/LRSTP-wheel-of-focus.jpg
http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/03/06/the-gross-decline-of-bizarre-graphics/

[MMMBeer]

Calgary Transit are handing out a notice on the 305. The 305 is being cut way back, and will only be operating at peak times. The number 1 is having it's frequency increased in the off-peak times to make up for it.

Part of their budget cuts.

On a related note, 302 is also moving to community shuttle in off-peak.

[Wooster]

Has this been posted yet:

Calgary Transit's Long Range Strategic Plan

http://www.routeahead.ca/

RouteAhead is a big deal. It basically touches every element of Calgary Transit - capital, network planning, service delivery, governance and structure of the organization, fiscal strategy, customer service. I'll be present at steering committee meetings and working closely with the project team so feel free to use this thread as a conduit for ideas. There of course will be many ways to provide input into the process as it ramps up.

Something that the Mayor promised during the election, so we're very happy it's moving ahead.

[RyLucky]

Huh?

The 20 still goes to the Foothills

It still does... for now, but I don't see it on the 2013 plan. Did I miss something?

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/West%20LRT%20Bus%20Network_March-2013.pdf

[frinkprof]

It still does... for now, but I don't see it on the 2013 plan. Did I miss something?

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/West%20LRT%20Bus%20Network_March-2013.pdfThe route 20 will still exist after West LRT is operational, it just wasn't part of the feeder bus network because it doesn't stop at any West LRT stations.

[RyLucky]

The route 20 will still exist after West LRT is operational, it just wasn't part of the feeder bus network because it doesn't stop at any West LRT stations.

gotcha! Thanks!

[RicoLance21]

Looks like Route 17 is going to supplement more of Route 3 when West LRT opens. Awesome for Mission and Beltline. Route 3 is absolutely packed during peak hours from Mission to Stephen Avenue. Sincere comment from a daily Route 3 rider.

Does that mean Ramsay will have a second full-size bus route for the peak hours?

[You Need A Thneed]

The addition to OBMF (for additional LRV storage capacity) is out for tender.

The new storage bay are 12m longer then the existing bays - an extra 1m per LRV that they will store.

I'm pretty sure that means that Calgary Transit will not be purchasing the next batch of 50 LRVs from Siemens.

[You Need A Thneed]

According to the agenda of the Transportation and Transit Committee, the sity wants to initiate a report on moving the NC LRT line to Centre Street or Edmonton Trail and out of Nose Creek.

[MalcolmTucker]

According to the agenda of the Transportation and Transit Committee, the sity wants to initiate a report on moving the NC LRT line to Centre Street or Edmonton Trail and out of Nose Creek.
The wheels of government move slowly! Big win for team progress!

[DizzyEdge]

This may be a tired subject, but is there any real arguments for streetcars anymore? I understand the 'permanence' argument and the rail bias, but would the negatives such as the inability to detour plus track and catenary cost basically blow those out of the water? Full disclosure, I'd love a streetcar on Centre, just not sure if the cons outweigh the pros.

Offtopic, the auto spellcheck of Chrome is terrible, it thinks catenary isn't a word.

[DizzyEdge]

On another topic, is it just Route 411 or do all of the community shuttle buses have a ride quality of driving using suspension made of granite? No exaggeration I feel like I'm going to chip a tooth riding on that route, just going over the smallest of bumps in the road.

[MalcolmTucker]

This may be a tired subject, but is there any real arguments for streetcars anymore? I understand the 'permanence' argument and the rail bias, but would the negatives such as the inability to detour plus track and catenary cost basically blow those out of the water? Full disclosure, I'd love a streetcar on Centre, just not sure if the cons outweigh the pros.

Offtopic, the auto spellcheck of Chrome is terrible, it thinks catenary isn't a word.
Potential for a lower number of drivers per passngers. Other than the real estate concentration argument, that is it.

[fusili]

Potential for a lower number of drivers per passngers. Other than the real estate concentration argument, that is it.

I like streetcars, but they really only have an real cost advantage if they are using larger consists (2-3 cars), which probably means they need their own right-of-way. IMO, a streetcar should really be operating in what is essentially a 7th avenue environment, otherwise, it is a waste of capital.

[AgentGibb]

On another topic, is it just Route 411 or do all of the community shuttle buses have a ride quality of driving using suspension made of granite? No exaggeration I feel like I'm going to chip a tooth riding on that route, just going over the smallest of bumps in the road.

I haven't had the misfortune of riding in one of those in years, but your description matches pretty closely with my recollection. I also remember the driver on the route that I used to ride appeared to derive some sick satisfaction out of driving as quickly as possible in order to make the bumps even more extreme.

I eventually figured out that it was mostly the rear "suspension" that was super hard, so you can mitigate the effect by sitting as close to the front of the bus as possible.

[DizzyEdge]

Potential for a lower number of drivers per passngers. Other than the real estate concentration argument, that is it.

I like streetcars, but they really only have an real cost advantage if they are using larger consists (2-3 cars), which probably means they need their own right-of-way. IMO, a streetcar should really be operating in what is essentially a 7th avenue environment, otherwise, it is a waste of capital.

I'm wondering if a compromise could be the smoothest riding buses available on a calgary-style BRT route, with more train-like station infrastructure, including heat. Then you have some of that permanence, with a bit of train-like perks, and bus flexibility. Does anyone know if there are buses with CVT (continuously variable transmission) which might provide smooth electric-like acceleration (although not much you can do about stopping I suppose, or maybe?)

So buses with CVT, nicest suspension available (this would also reduced the cheapening rattle you get in buses), heated "stations", LED signs, etc. Maybe extending the HOV lanes further north as well.

Of course I'm referring to the 301/Centre Street. Another thing which could be done to make it seem 'rail-like' is to have one station downtown where the 301 pulls into a covered area so that one can transfer from bus to train without being in the elements.

[MalcolmTucker]

Can always just only provide motive force using electric motors, like the new Routemaster (New bus for London).

[DizzyEdge]

Can always just only provide motive force using electric motors, like the new Routemaster (New bus for London).

Good call, why mimic electic operation with a CVT when you can have actual electric operation (well I'm guessing it also has a CVT)

[sim]

Potential for a lower number of drivers per passngers. Other than the real estate concentration argument, that is it.

Lower traction power necessary, less local emissions (if not electric or hydrogen), less PM production, and if built correctly, lower noise. If built with green track, even lower noise emissions, and a measurable (as trivial as it might sound) heat island effect reduction due to increased vegatation evapotranspiration, as well as increased aesthetic.

If looking at it systemically, the "rail bias" which can be significant, also then reduces SOV trips thereby contributing to overall decreases to congestion, as well as the corresponding local emissions, noise, accident costs and parking spaces necessary.

I would be of the opinion that trams are generally undervalued, due to the fact that on a travel time savings metric, they don't generate much for perceived benefits.

[DizzyEdge]

I suppose the "can't detour" con can't be properly evaluated without some metrics about how often buses on Centre have had to follow a detour or detour around vehicles/obstructions/etc in the outside lane. If it happens a couple of times a year, it's not such a big deal. If it happens every week, then it likely is.