News   Apr 03, 2020
 4.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 6.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 3.8K     0 

Calgary Transit

0-2018 July 12 034a.jpg

0-2018 July 12 035.jpg
0-2018 July 12 036.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 0-2018 July 12 035.jpg
    0-2018 July 12 035.jpg
    369.6 KB · Views: 536
  • 0-2018 July 12 036.jpg
    0-2018 July 12 036.jpg
    348.2 KB · Views: 513
  • 0-2018 July 12 034a.jpg
    0-2018 July 12 034a.jpg
    463.9 KB · Views: 513
On my way home from work tonight, thought it was pretty.

fullsizeoutput_121f.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • fullsizeoutput_121f.jpeg
    fullsizeoutput_121f.jpeg
    173.4 KB · Views: 527
Gonna cross post this on a few forums, some comments on a Toronto area forum compared the C-Train to GO transit in many ways and it does seem to be a somewhat apt comparison:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...cluding-extensions.4952/page-826#post-1361622

How do people think we can improve the number of people using the C-Train outside of commuting? TOD, off-peak discount etc?

obama-looking-pissed-annoyed.jpg


It's not really an apt comparison. Nor is comparing the C-train to the subway or any other street running LRT an apt comparison.


Do you really want to know more about the C-train? Or are you here to pollute the boards?
 
Last edited:
The system could discount off-peak LRT only trips heavily. I'm not sure whether you would ever find a sweet spot for making the change revenue neutral though.
 
obama-looking-pissed-annoyed.jpg


It's not really an apt comparison. Nor is comparing the C-train to the subway or any other street running LRT an apt comparison.


Do you really want to know more about the C-train? Or are you here to pollute the boards?

Of course, I want to learn more?

Of course, the C-Train and GO aren't the exact same thing but something like Lakeshore West is not that dissimilar in service pattern from the C-Train in that both are largely commuter systems that are accessed through park and rides and neither has huge off-peak utilization.
 
The system could discount off-peak LRT only trips heavily. I'm not sure whether you would ever find a sweet spot for making the change revenue neutral though.

Well if it attracted more riders then it could certainly be. I mean in any case, if the trains are running how much effect does being a quarter full vs. half full have on costs?
 
Like many commuter and metro systems around the world, the primary purpose of the C-train is to the ferry passengers from the four quadrants of the city to the City Center and back again.

The secondary purpose of the C-train is to provide a 20 hour service to the following 'Institutions' around the city.

Post-Secondary Educational:

-UofC
-SAIT
-ACAD
-Ambrose
-St. Mary's
-(Lots of high schools are also along the C-train lines)

Cultural:
-Zoo
-Science Center
-Jubilee Auditorium
-Glenbow Museum
-Central Library
-National Music Center
-Stampede
-BMO Center(Conferences)

Sports:
-Mcmahon Stadium(Football)
-Saddledome(Hockey)
-Max Bell Arena
-Repsol Center

Malls:
-Chinook
-Sunridge
-Northill
-South Center
 
Like many commuter and metro systems around the world, the primary purpose of the C-train is to the ferry passengers from the four quadrants of the city to the City Center and back again.

The secondary purpose of the C-train is to provide a 20 hour service to the following 'Institutions' around the city.

Post-Secondary Educational:

-UofC
-SAIT
-ACAD
-Ambrose
-St. Mary's
-(Lots of high schools are also along the C-train lines)

Cultural:
-Zoo
-Science Center
-Jubilee Auditorium
-Glenbow Museum
-Central Library
-National Music Center
-Stampede
-BMO Center(Conferences)

Sports:
-Mcmahon Stadium(Football)
-Saddledome(Hockey)
-Max Bell Arena
-Repsol Center

Malls:
-Chinook
-Sunridge
-Northill
-South Center

My point is that while a majority of passengers in most Canadian cities also follow a similar commute pattern of in and out I think the current best practices being employed recognize that you get more ridership and a better roi on the infrastructure when you don't treat servicing all areas of the city as secondary to commuter service.
 
My point is that while a majority of passengers in most Canadian cities also follow a similar commute pattern of in and out I think the current best practices being employed recognize that you get more ridership and a better roi on the infrastructure when you don't treat servicing all areas of the city as secondary to commuter service.

Okay.
 
Well if it attracted more riders then it could certainly be. I mean in any case, if the trains are running how much effect does being a quarter full vs. half full have on costs?
I don't know if there's a way to increase ridership off hours, other than for the city to keep leveraging the current LRT stations with new development and increased density. In the end transit has only one purpose.....getting people from point A to B. The city needs to fatten up point A and point B, and build better transit into Point A and B from surrounding areas.

As a side note I would point out that during the day (outside of peak hours) and after work until about 7:30pm the trains are still pretty busy, definitely more than half or a quarter full, until you start to get closer to the end of the line.
 
I don't know if there's a way to increase ridership off hours, other than for the city to keep leveraging the current LRT stations with new development and increased density. In the end transit has only one purpose.....getting people from point A to B. The city needs to fatten up point A and point B, and build better transit into Point A and B from surrounding areas.

As a side note I would point out that during the day (outside of peak hours) and after work until about 7:30pm the trains are still pretty busy, definitely more than half or a quarter full, until you start to get closer to the end of the line.

Would certainly be good to develop more to use counter peak capacity
 

Back
Top