whatchyyc
Active Member
Yeah they're drilling the piles for the elevated guideway over Barlow so they're going to be huge
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
whatchyyc
Active Member
This got me thinking, hopefully whoever ends up building the bridge on top of those piles takes notes from Edmonton and remembers to... account for the forces of the train
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
We've guideway'd before without issue; we can guideway again without issue. Their problem isn't our problem. But that is still wild they messed that up so bad.
Last edited:
randomuser
New Member
My experience as well... pleasant experience, but empty.
whatchyyc
Active Member
It'll probably be the same cantilevered box girder construction as we've done for West LRT. For Valley they even messed up the U girder segments and had to replace several of them, but the box girder guideway for Valley Line West seems to be going along well
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
New contract awarded.
Maybe it's just me, but anytime I've taken an airport train they are usually empty, or somewhat empty. The ones I've taken
Atlanta
Vancouver
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Osaka
Seoul
Chicago
London (Elizabeth line)
In all cases the trains were mostly empty except Osaka which was very busy. London's Elizabeth line wasn't busy when it left the airport, but became busy. My sister and brother in law took the Heathrow express and they said it was virtually empty, but maybe because it was quite a bit more money?
This isn't to say we shouldn't have a rail line to the airport, only that I think it's typical for airport trains to be less busy
Atlanta
Vancouver
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Osaka
Seoul
Chicago
London (Elizabeth line)
In all cases the trains were mostly empty except Osaka which was very busy. London's Elizabeth line wasn't busy when it left the airport, but became busy. My sister and brother in law took the Heathrow express and they said it was virtually empty, but maybe because it was quite a bit more money?
This isn't to say we shouldn't have a rail line to the airport, only that I think it's typical for airport trains to be less busy
trtcttc
Senior Member
Not just the train, but thermal expansion? Working engineering in Alberta and not accounting for thermal expansion?This got me thinking, hopefully whoever ends up building the bridge on top of those piles takes notes from Edmonton and remembers to... account for the forces of the train
View attachment 683963
trtcttc
Senior Member
A lot of major cities have multiple links to the airport. Hong Kong has the bus service which most locals take, and the express train that mostly tourist and business people take. Seoul has the Express and Local service on the AREX. Even Toronto has the UP that goes to Union (and also stop on the TTC and GO which a lot of people get off at), but the TTC also runs a direct bus service that connects to Kipling on line 2 subway. The express type service only makes sense if there is significant business travel. If Calgary had a train to "Grand Central" direct and a rail link connecting to the Blue Line. Most locals would take the Blue line because most people don't live in the middle of the CBD, while those staying in a hotel downtown may take the direct route.
The Express trains will always not be super busy. Primarily because airports, especially these large ones work on banks to enable connecting flights, so the airport fluctuates from very busy to not busy at all within a short amount of time. But trains on rails run at a constant pace, with more limited ability to add additional service (you may be able to adjust local/express frequency based on travel patterns). Therefore, to ensure there's not massive crowding during the bank windows, the other times of the day the service level will be higher than demand. Most cities don't build non-stop airport service and instead does something like Vancouver and the REM which combines commuter/local service with the airport service to get good ridership throughout the day.
lemongrab
Active Member
The locals that take the blue line will be airport workers. People in the NE near the blue line fly less than average. People who fly most often tend to do it for business, where their taxi is expensed. It's pretty easy to talk yourself into a cab unless you're a solo traveller with minimal luggage and very close to a train station.
trtcttc
Senior Member
The Blue line is quite long and connects to the Red line. People in the NE are also really close to the airport, so a cab would also be much cheaper.
My comparison of a direct downtown connection vs a Blue line connection is that if someone lives in anywhere except the vicinity of "Grand Central", walking to connect to another transit line would almost always outweigh any time saving compared to taking the Blue Line even if you don't live in the NE. This is why almost no resident of HK takes the airport express. Getting off that train and reconnecting to another subway/bus, it's almost always faster to take a direct bus to the area you actually live. Even if the train option is slightly faster (~10mins), is that amount of time worth almost 10x the cost? Direct airport to downtown lines are incredibly expensive to operate.
zagox
Active Member
Airport-downtown rail links are far more politically popular than their actual ridership justifies.
It’s not rational, but it’s a reality. Just like “we need new transit expansion for the olympics / World Cup, etc.”
The cities that have done well with airport transit (eg Vancouver) are the ones that have used the airport link as an excuse to build useful local transit in the general direction of the airport.
The less successful approach is to build a nonstop airport-downtown link designed only for visitors (eg Toronto original UPX service).
In our case, the blue line extension further into the upper NE (hopefully 2-3 stops further than the airport) should have good local ridership and is the real benefit of a transit connection from the east side.
A heavy rail connection from downtown to the airport via the west side will on its own have low ridership, but that link is the “hard” part of making regional rail to Airdrie, Cochrane, Canmore, and Banff work.
It’s not rational, but it’s a reality. Just like “we need new transit expansion for the olympics / World Cup, etc.”
The cities that have done well with airport transit (eg Vancouver) are the ones that have used the airport link as an excuse to build useful local transit in the general direction of the airport.
The less successful approach is to build a nonstop airport-downtown link designed only for visitors (eg Toronto original UPX service).
In our case, the blue line extension further into the upper NE (hopefully 2-3 stops further than the airport) should have good local ridership and is the real benefit of a transit connection from the east side.
A heavy rail connection from downtown to the airport via the west side will on its own have low ridership, but that link is the “hard” part of making regional rail to Airdrie, Cochrane, Canmore, and Banff work.
ahuch
Active Member
I think they're complicated, because they move both airport workers and travellers... Many airport workers work crazy hours and we rarely run transit at these hours in this city. Then you have the transit situation in the city at large, which has to be good enough to support connections without a crazy travel time that is significantly longer than driving.
Personally, if a city has good train connections around and an Airport train I usually don't mind hopping on with my suitcase. For Calgary, I just can't see many folks hopping on a bus with a suitcase, to get on a train, to transfer to another train that takes them to the Airport when you could just drive or take an Uber probably 3 or 4 times faster. I'm obviously generalizing as it really depends on where you live or are going in the city.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Using airport rail as a backbone of a Green Line and Blue Line link and/or a rail link from Nose Creek to downtown is exactly what it needs to do. Sure, it also serves the airport, but it could/would do so much more.