whatchyyc
Active Member
I noticed that of nearly every queue jump in the city, the project included maintaining or increasing vehicle capacity so much so that the vast majority of the time bus drivers don't even bother waiting in the queue jump lane
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Transit Apologist
New Member
The 301 is the oldest rapid transit-branded bus route in the system, with its first day being August 30 2004. It’s also easily the most successful one: in a FOIP a friend did for 2023 ridership data the 301 averaged 6109 riders per day, vs 1544 for the 300, 2405 for the 302 and 2847 for the MAX Purple (the only MAX route that even comes close is the Orange with 5285). Therefore, 6109 riders are putting up with dirty, graffitied 20-year old red-painted versions of regular shelters at every stop. Even if 301 MAX-ification turned out to be nothing more than a rebrand and new shelters it would be an improvement IMO. As a frequent user of North Pointe and the 301 in particular I’m fine with the SE Green being built first, and I’m not happy about a fairly simple improvement suddenly requiring $500 million. However, I can’t help being a little jealous & frustrated watching every other rapid transit route have improvements completed or on the way while the most-used one only has an outdated brand and a single queue jump to show for itself.
whatchyyc
Active Member
I would rather that we maybe throw in another $50-100M to MAXify the 301. The $500M is definitely for land acquisition and other work to create a convertible corridor because even for only 2 general traffic lanes there's not enough space. IMO there's no point to build a convertible BRT because it would just reach failure even faster than SETWAY would have and we decided to skip that too
accord1999
Active Member
Even more annoying for NC Calgary is that the SETWAY was skipped because they said BRT wasn't adequate for the Centre Street N corridor in the medium term. And now, it probably won't even have that in the long term.
I suspect the $500M ask is a bone to throw to NC Calgary for when the Bow River crossing gets canceled and whatever money remains is used to extend the SE LRT. But like so much of the NC Green Line segment, the BRT will never get any follow through and is forgotten in the future.
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Within reading the rest of the report for additional context, seems like a weird conclusion - I think I am missing the assumptions that were used here. The biggest part that's missing is what do they mean by "transitway"?
Two possible definitions:
- If "transitway" means full dedicated lanes, while preserving all car capacity - yeah that's prohibitively disruptive, expensive and a terrible idea. Glad it was rejected
- If "transitway" means reallocated existing road space to increase quality and capacity of transit service - that's affordable and won't disrupt the neighbourhood at all.
But there's also a larger point here in the subtext that seems to be ignored - clearly, bus corridors with far higher capacity, ridership and frequency than Centre Street exist all over, without dedicated lanes and aren't "hampering" the ability of these corridors to develop into Main Streets. If anything it's actually reverse - you need a successful Main Street and density to run the transit you want as it's where the riders and density are.
Almost every urban corridor in Toronto and Vancouver are examples, such as this one on West 10th in Vancouver towards UBC. That stop has like 30 (!) buses/hour most of the day and yet through some sort of magic they didn't tear down the neighbourhood with a bunch of property acquisitions and there are no lay-bys to slow busses down (and trigger more expropriation). The most expensive thing is the actual service to run buses that frequently:
All this is to say, transit on Centre Street (or any main bus corridor) can be substantially better without widening the road and wasting a ton of money to keep cars (the competition) running faster than ever on the same corridor. The trick is to not see this as a major engineering capital project with a fixed requirement to not impact car capacity. It's a small amount of capital, a better focus on operations, and a far more aggressive land use development approach to boost transit's usefulness.
darwink
Senior Member
It is.
darwink
Senior Member
So that intersection in Vancouver, the peak hour movement on 10th is 647 vehicles. It is not even a controlled intersection--the phase is only triggered by pedestrian and bike beg buttons. Cars only go across West 10th via a stop sign. West Tenth is also entirely within the 600 m walk shed from West 4th, and West 16th, both being firmly in the stroadish territory, with six lanes, with only two regularly used for traffic, effectively providing bus lay bys along their entire route. West tenth because they were paralyzed and couldn't take away any more road capacity, is getting a subways which is more expensive than the green line.
The Calgary intersection I choose for comparison was Centre and 32nd Ave, within the lower demand section. The Calgary number is higher at 884.
accord1999
Active Member
Good question. I assume that it's something based on the RouteAhead plans from 2012 but unfortunately those documents no longer seem to be available online anymore. This page gives a brief summary of what their plans were and sounds like a re-allocation of roads (and some sidewalks) for BRT travel and boarding:
darwink
Senior Member
"The proposed improvements to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system outline a strategic, phased approach to enhancing public transportation efficiency, reliability, safety, and passenger comfort across several key city corridors. The plan includes the introduction of transit-only lanes, upgrading stations to MAX standard, and establishing park and ride facilities. By aligning these improvements with the existing 301 BRT and future Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations, the proposal aims to ensure seamless integration within the city’s broader transit network. Short-term and long-term enhancements focus on improving downtown connectivity, streamlining Centre Street North services, and extending the BRT network to accommodate future growth. Emphasizing user experience, the plan prioritizes operational efficiency, accessibility, and the integration of multi-use pathways. This comprehensive approach seeks to attract more users to public transit, reduce car dependency, and promote sustainable urban mobility, preparing the groundwork for a unified, efficient, and user-friendly transit system."
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I didn't realize this, but there is already north BRT construction work underway. Link to project page.
There are new stations being built at Country Hills Blvd, 96th Ave, Beddington mall area, 78th, 64th, 56th, 40th and 28th Aves. The only one with a pull-out layby is 78th, which is a timepoint.
Also, new paving being done at four places; at CHB, at 96th Ave, at Beddington Trail and at 40th Ave.
40th Ave is a pure car capacity increase project; it's adding a left-turn lane. Beddington Trail is basically building the same thing that already exists at the bus-only crossing, but bigger and with more (red) concrete. 96th Ave is a small car capacity increase, making the northbound left turn lane longer.
Here's the CHB improvements: the pink is red transit-only paving, the yellow is car paving, the light green boxes are the stations.
Basically, adding a transit-only lane queue jump past the intersection and maintaining car capacity. Two things caught my eye. One is that southbound buses stop after the intersection, so the queue jump gets them to the station faster but they have to hope the traffic goes by while passengers are boarding.
The second thing I noticed is the sidewalk across the median on the south side (right side of the figure). There's a cross-slope across the median, so I suspect a straight across sidewalk is too steep for wheelchairs. The existing solution clearly isn't working well for most users, given the obvious desire line:
So I guess what they figured is that this shows that people really like walking in angles, so the new solution is:
Now there's twice as many angles to walk down! Win!
There are new stations being built at Country Hills Blvd, 96th Ave, Beddington mall area, 78th, 64th, 56th, 40th and 28th Aves. The only one with a pull-out layby is 78th, which is a timepoint.
Also, new paving being done at four places; at CHB, at 96th Ave, at Beddington Trail and at 40th Ave.
40th Ave is a pure car capacity increase project; it's adding a left-turn lane. Beddington Trail is basically building the same thing that already exists at the bus-only crossing, but bigger and with more (red) concrete. 96th Ave is a small car capacity increase, making the northbound left turn lane longer.
Here's the CHB improvements: the pink is red transit-only paving, the yellow is car paving, the light green boxes are the stations.
Basically, adding a transit-only lane queue jump past the intersection and maintaining car capacity. Two things caught my eye. One is that southbound buses stop after the intersection, so the queue jump gets them to the station faster but they have to hope the traffic goes by while passengers are boarding.
The second thing I noticed is the sidewalk across the median on the south side (right side of the figure). There's a cross-slope across the median, so I suspect a straight across sidewalk is too steep for wheelchairs. The existing solution clearly isn't working well for most users, given the obvious desire line:
So I guess what they figured is that this shows that people really like walking in angles, so the new solution is:
Now there's twice as many angles to walk down! Win!
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
This isn't Green Line related, but it is an old documentary of the original line built in 1981. Interesting to compare 1981's version to today Green Line.
FCC1982
Active Member
^Ahhhh - talk about a trip down memory lane for me. Thanks for posting that.
Not just the two lines, but even the city in general.
O-tac
Active Member
Saw an online ad by the provincial government touting an lrt extension to the airport. I know that was Danielle Smith's priority pet project over the greenline. Is funding safe for the greenline or can it be taken away when the full scope of the project and its budget gets presented in June? I don't trust the UCP or Danielle Smith at all.
darwink
Senior Member
The province can change its mind at anytime, about any grant, any program. The only penalty to them would be political.