News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Calgary Transit

Urban Outdoorsman said:
Just listened to that today actually, gotta say I'm leaning towards the option of having better service and fewer routes, although I definitely get the draw backs I definitely avoid taking the bus solely due to the long waits
Click to expand...
I'm leaning that way myself. Councilor Mian mentions that Calgary Transit can't be all things to everyone, and I tend to agree with her. It would be nice and with a enough money maybe it could, but realistically it can't....especially in a sprawling city like Calgary. We are more or less forced to decide.

Recently when staying in and around central London - a city far more dense than Calgary - I found that taking a feeder bus to the subway station was not actually very feasible. It was far easier to walk the approximately 1km to the underground station. One thing I did notice was the area pathways leading to the underground, were generally better than ours here in Calgary. By not having a system of curvilinear suburban roads it was easy to walk over to the station. I like the idea of the more frequent spine system, but the city will also need to improve the methods of getting there for pedestrians, cyclists or handicapped.
 
^ Yeah. A system of strategic aquisitions to straighten transit and walking routes would probably be one of the most cost-effective things we could do. But I bet it would be exceedingly controversial.
 
Better service and fewer routes feels like the obvious answer... But how does that affect lower income users in places where there's typically lower income housing (further out from the city centre). If better service and fewer routes is the move then there has to be an affordable place to live in the areas surrounding this system. The obvious answer is building TOD at all the existing LRT and even BRT stations, but we've covered how difficult that needle is to move. Who knows maybe if you do both you can lessen the impact?
 
Count me in favour of more frequent service, but less coverage. We’re already seeing a trend of development near LRT stations or busy corridors geared towards people without cars. Over time it will balance out. Most of the people who use transit will end up gravitating near areas that have good and frequent transit. Those who don’t use transit will end up buying a house with a double car garage in the burbs somewhere, something we’ve already seen that for the last 30 or 40 years.
 
Urban Outdoorsman said:
Just listened to that today actually, gotta say I'm leaning towards the option of having better service and fewer routes, although I definitely get the draw backs I definitely avoid taking the bus solely due to the long waits
Click to expand...
darwink said:
^ Yeah. A system of strategic aquisitions to straighten transit and walking routes would probably be one of the most cost-effective things we could do. But I bet it would be exceedingly controversial.
Click to expand...
On the extremely controversial side, an "arterial reform" program would also go a long way.

Essentially bolt on something similar to Toronto's suburban style of development to our 1970s - 2010s era arterials. What would that look like:
  • Fill in all road setbacks on arterials with development at apartment density with retail as required.
  • Reduce lane widths, speeds, channelized turn lanes and everything that makes these routes unlivable currently and enormous barriers to transit, walking and cycling.
  • Reconnect all existing extremely low density, single use neighbourhoods with direct pedestrian and cycling connections to the new reformed arterial corridors so mobility and access to services is improved for existing and new residents.
  • Finally the transit part - strip out all existing circuitous routes in those low density neighbourhoods and replace with new frequent ones that follow the arterial grid. This allows transit to finally leverage the higher transit speeds possible from the arterials for quality cross-town capability, but now featuring a mid-density, mixed use corridor at a density that's closer to transit supportive.
Some examples - Sarcee and John Laurie:
1669669566164.png

32 Ave & Shaganappi NW:
1669669702726.png


While we are arguing about that big idea, we should completely reform suburban TOD at existing stations. Change all rules, remove all barriers so that 90% of all infill apartments go right next to the station.

Demand is there - we see random apartments going up all over - just make them easier to build next to existing priority network. That will slowly shift the needle in the right direction and utilize the strongest bits of the transit network that already exists so we aren't reliant of fickle political cycles for new stuff - more people will live near quality transit if we build more homes next to quality transit.

Ultimately for much of 1970s - 2010s Calgary this is the big reality check: many places in the city are no where close to the intensity and mix of use to support frequent transit at anywhere close to the coverage we have currently.

Big change is required.
 
It would probably have to be a bit of a gradual shift, but if you can map the plan enough in advance then people could/should make their lifestyle choices accordingly. By trying to serve fewer people you would probably make the service good enough that you end up serving more.

When it comes to streamlining certain routes, I wonder if reducing the coverage will even be that bad...the first& last mile may take longer on each side, but reduced waiting times and faster/more direct travel would offset a lot of it.
 
lemongrab said:
It would probably have to be a bit of a gradual shift
Click to expand...
When implemented elsewhere, it has usually been in one big shift. One of the big benefits is from network effects, and without the network, there is no network effect.

Not that it really matters with avoidance of building a network even for MAX, with piecemeal investments in stitching the network together.
 
lemongrab said:
It's amazing how terrible the experience must be to walk from University District to Market Mall.
Click to expand...
It's probably about as good as it's ever been, which is saying something! The Market Mall side is also at fault here too - no direct sidewalk from the intersection, the route is circuitous unless you want to cut across an icy, windswept parking lots. In an alternative timeline - a gridded transit network and a more thoughtful mall orientation to bring it closer to the intersection could have created a nice transit node here and made the arterials an asset rather than a barrier.

I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason University District's grid tilts away from the 32 Ave/Shaganappi intersection at all is to accommodate the intersection and setback for future road expansion/interchange set in place in the 1970s when this area was first developed. The University District then decided to fill the area closest to the intersection for a storm basin/attractive water feature. It's nice enough - but status quo in arterial/land use interaction.

Calgary's bizarre fetish for wide arterials and future-proofing for interchanges is a very strange way to build our arterials - almost no other suburban Canadian city has actually sat aside hectares of land everywhere under the assumption that the majority of the suburban arterial grid would one day be converted to interchanges. Sure, other cities have set aside space on a corridor here or there, but not the spamming and enormous setbacks across all quadrants for future interchanges the way Calgary did. All assuming some mega-sized clover-leafs too!

The great irony is that due to the same sprawling low density issues that make suburban transit very difficult, Calgary has also make it almost impossible to justify new interchanges on these spots, some of them sitting fallow for 50+ years now. These areas are just so low density, demand will never materialize to even make the case for an interchange here, especially when prioritizing against other pressing priorities of the day.

Back to transit - this failure in car planning can be the opportunity for transit planning. Activate all these enormously wasteful, empty spaces with people and more activity to generate more trip demand, then add an arterial transit network that can take advantage of improved travel competitiveness by staying on the same arterials for faster service everywhere.
 
CBBarnett said:
It's probably about as good as it's ever been, which is saying something! The Market Mall side is also at fault here too - no direct sidewalk from the intersection, the route is circuitous unless you want to cut across an icy, windswept parking lots. In an alternative timeline - a gridded transit network and a more thoughtful mall orientation to bring it closer to the intersection could have created a nice transit node here and made the arterials an asset rather than a barrier.

I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason University District's grid tilts away from the 32 Ave/Shaganappi intersection at all is to accommodate the intersection and setback for future road expansion/interchange set in place in the 1970s when this area was first developed. The University District then decided to fill the area closest to the intersection for a storm basin/attractive water feature. It's nice enough - but status quo in arterial/land use interaction.

Calgary's bizarre fetish for wide arterials and future-proofing for interchanges is a very strange way to build our arterials - almost no other suburban Canadian city has actually sat aside hectares of land everywhere under the assumption that the majority of the suburban arterial grid would one day be converted to interchanges. Sure, other cities have set aside space on a corridor here or there, but not the spamming and enormous setbacks across all quadrants for future interchanges the way Calgary did. All assuming some mega-sized clover-leafs too!

The great irony is that due to the same sprawling low density issues that make suburban transit very difficult, Calgary has also make it almost impossible to justify new interchanges on these spots, some of them sitting fallow for 50+ years now. These areas are just so low density, demand will never materialize to even make the case for an interchange here, especially when prioritizing against other pressing priorities of the day.

Back to transit - this failure in car planning can be the opportunity for transit planning. Activate all these enormously wasteful, empty spaces with people and more activity to generate more trip demand, then add an arterial transit network that can take advantage of improved travel competitiveness by staying on the same arterials for faster service everywhere.
Click to expand...
On top of this, most of these intersections with all the empty space are the places where transfers would naturally occur under a more gridded transit system. So it makes a lot of sense to fill them in with development. By contrast, building interchanges at each one would destroy transit's ability to serve their corridors (and destroy the ability to transfer) thereby locking in car dependence permanently.
 
Winter service changes are out: https://www.calgarytransit.com/content/transit/en/home/news/winter-service-changes-2022.html

Mostly minor tweaks, but sounds like we are going to see 4 car trains again on the Red Line. I think there's a service increase too midday and off peak (15 minutes to 10 minute frequency), but those might already be incorporated so don't know for sure:

1669740689732.png


In the spirit of plain/public-facing language, I wish they just called these Red and Blue and put at the top of the list rather than the "201" and "202" buried in all the minor route change list.

I also don't know what 3/4/5 minutes means but that is good service quality regardless (e.g. does that mean 3 - 5 minutes frequency?)
 
CBBarnett said:
I also don't know what 3/4/5 minutes means but that is good service quality regardless (e.g. does that mean 3 - 5 minutes frequency?)
Click to expand...
It'd be nice if they explained it lol. My best guess is the frequency is 3 minutes downtown and 5 minutes out in the burbs so "3 or 4 or 5" minute frequency depending on which station you're at
 
CBBarnett said:
Winter service changes are out: https://www.calgarytransit.com/content/transit/en/home/news/winter-service-changes-2022.html

Mostly minor tweaks, but sounds like we are going to see 4 car trains again on the Red Line. I think there's a service increase too midday and off peak (15 minutes to 10 minute frequency), but those might already be incorporated so don't know for sure:

View attachment 441889

In the spirit of plain/public-facing language, I wish they just called these Red and Blue and put at the top of the list rather than the "201" and "202" buried in all the minor route change list.

I also don't know what 3/4/5 minutes means but that is good service quality regardless (e.g. does that mean 3 - 5 minutes frequency?)
Click to expand...
I agree. 10 minutes off peak during the day, and 15 minutes for late evening is good. I've been at subway stations, late evening in places like New York/London/Paris/Munich, and many of the lines have similar frequencies.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top