Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Jimmy Stang]

^ I don't know much about the different types (except what you just told me!), but wouldn't it be more efficient to either order the new cars with the similar couple as the existing ones, or retrofit the old ones to be able to pair with the new ones? There isn't much that you can do about the AC vs. DC issue though.

And then we'll have the low-floor trains for the SE line that won't be able to run anywhere on the existing system. It sort of seems that we're getting a variety of incompatible types of trains. Wouldn't it be more efficient to try and standardize things a little bit?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

^ I don't know much about the different types (except what you just told me!), but wouldn't it be more efficient to either order the new cars with the similar couple as the existing ones, or retrofit the old ones to be able to pair with the new ones? There isn't much that you can do about the AC vs. DC issue though.

And then we'll have the low-floor trains for the SE line that won't be able to run anywhere on the existing system. It sort of seems that we're getting a variety of incompatible types of trains. Wouldn't it be more efficient to try and standardize things a little bit?

I thought the low floor trains were just proposed as an idea. It would be great though.

Cheaper, simpler stations. Nicely integrated to the street. I like what I saw in the medical district in Houston. The low floor train line runs up the middle of the road and the tracks are are shared with cars as the left turning lanes at intersections.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I thought the low floor trains were just proposed as an idea. It would be great though.

Cheaper, simpler stations. Nicely integrated to the street. I like what I saw in the medical district in Houston. The low floor train line runs up the middle of the road and the tracks are are shared with cars as the left turning lanes at intersections.

I don't mind the idea in theory for more urban areas especially. I have been on "trams" in Rome and Amsterdam that share the street with other vehicles and pedestrians and it works well there, even through they run slower for obvious reasons. I'm not convinced that it is necessary through the foothills industrial area, for example, but somewhere like Inglewood would have some benefits.

I think that the big difference is that the C-Train here is a way of getting people in and out of the core (because of our city's design), and generally not for short hops within the core. A mostly-separated system without a lot of interaction between cars/people is the most efficient way to do what it does. I'm not against the idea of trams/low-floor cars, but I wonder if the SE is the area that would benefit from it. Centre Street, 17th Ave, etc. would be great places.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but pedestrians and motorists in Calgary can't even seem to handle flashing lights, ringing bells, and crossing arms properly without getting hit, so I think that sharing the right of way with a train might become an experiment in Darwinism. Not saying that's a bad thing, necessarily.

Edit: And yes, I don't believe that anything is set in stone yet, so they'll probably conduct studies to see what works best, etc.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

^ I don't know much about the different types (except what you just told me!), but wouldn't it be more efficient to either order the new cars with the similar couple as the existing ones, or retrofit the old ones to be able to pair with the new ones? There isn't much that you can do about the AC vs. DC issue though.

And then we'll have the low-floor trains for the SE line that won't be able to run anywhere on the existing system. It sort of seems that we're getting a variety of incompatible types of trains. Wouldn't it be more efficient to try and standardize things a little bit?

I believe the issue with the coupler difference is that the new ones have pins for the video feed (due to the side mirrors being replaced by cameras), whereas the old ones don't. I think the speculation was that the older SD160s might be able to run in a consist where the newer SD160 is "enslaved" by the other two cars and runs as the middle (belly) car in the consist. They do this in one of the configurations of the AC U2/SD160 mix I think, and also for things like towing cars in the yard, etc.

If it came down to it, the coupling difference doesn't seem so big that they couldn't rig something up or maybe retrofit some old ones to make it work. As it is, I don't think all the proprietary car types would make a huge headache for scheduling and operations. It would mostly be a matter of planning and maintenance.

As far as adding another type of train (low-floor), I think the bigger issue becomes maintenance and interchangeability of parts. If they go with something like the Siemens S70, this would help a lot because it is basically an SD160 just with a lower door and interior floor height.

Anyway, that might all sound convoluded, but I'm going off of whatever second-hand information I've cobbled together.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I don't mind the idea in theory for more urban areas especially. I have been on "trams" in Rome and Amsterdam that share the street with other vehicles and pedestrians and it works well there, even through they run slower for obvious reasons. I'm not convinced that it is necessary through the foothills industrial area, for example, but somewhere like Inglewood would have some benefits.

I think that the big difference is that the C-Train here is a way of getting people in and out of the core (because of our city's design), and generally not for short hops within the core. A mostly-separated system without a lot of interaction between cars/people is the most efficient way to do what it does. I'm not against the idea of trams/low-floor cars, but I wonder if the SE is the area that would benefit from it. Centre Street, 17th Ave, etc. would be great places.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but pedestrians and motorists in Calgary can't even seem to handle flashing lights, ringing bells, and crossing arms properly without getting hit, so I think that sharing the right of way with a train might become an experiment in Darwinism. Not saying that's a bad thing, necessarily.

Edit: And yes, I don't believe that anything is set in stone yet, so they'll probably conduct studies to see what works best, etc.

There's nothing that says a low-floor car can't be grade seperated (i.e. seperated from traffic). It just means the platforms don't have to be as high.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by SebC

There's nothing that says a low-floor car can't be grade seperated (i.e. seperated from traffic). It just means the platforms don't have to be as high.

True enough. It just seems like an unnecessary change to low-floor trains if it is going to be grade separated anyway. That would effectively negate what makes low-floor successful in other places where it integrates better into the streetscape.

If we're going to end up with something similar to the south line where the train is mostly running alongside CPR tracks, through industrial areas, etc., then why go low-floor in the first place? If the height of the platform is the only additional consideration, I'm sure that a few more truckloads of gravel to make the platform "regular" height isn't going to be a deal breaker.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

True enough. It just seems like an unnecessary change to low-floor trains if it is going to be grade separated anyway. That would effectively negate what makes low-floor successful in other places where it integrates better into the streetscape.

If we're going to end up with something similar to the south line where the train is mostly running alongside CPR tracks, through industrial areas, etc., then why go low-floor in the first place? If the height of the platform is the only additional consideration, I'm sure that a few more truckloads of gravel to make the platform "regular" height isn't going to be a deal breaker.

In San Francisco they have trains that run on the street and operate on their underground platforms. I think they had one side with stairs down to the street and the middle side for the platforms. It created quite a high risk situation where you were getting out into a potential lane of traffic.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

True enough. It just seems like an unnecessary change to low-floor trains if it is going to be grade separated anyway. That would effectively negate what makes low-floor successful in other places where it integrates better into the streetscape.

If we're going to end up with something similar to the south line where the train is mostly running alongside CPR tracks, through industrial areas, etc., then why go low-floor in the first place? If the height of the platform is the only additional consideration, I'm sure that a few more truckloads of gravel to make the platform "regular" height isn't going to be a deal breaker.

Maybe low-floor means less vertical clearance is required for tunnels, reducing cost? Maybe it makes the stations lower profile and thus more attractive?

[fundmark19]

Would low floors work with all of our snow here and terrible street clearing?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

Would low floors work with all of our snow here and terrible street clearing?

Ask Salt Lake City or Denver.





The low-floor aspect doesn't really change how the system operates in different weather conditions.

[SebC]

Why doesn't Google Transit have data for Calgary? Seems this happens every new year.

[frinkprof]

^Not sure. It might be due to the schedule changes that come into effect every year just before Christmas.

In other news, 4th Street West Station is almost ready to re-open. I haven't seen anything official, but I would guess this coming Friday.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

^Not sure. It might be due to the schedule changes that come into effect every year just before Christmas.

In other news, 4th Street West Station is almost ready to re-open. I haven't seen anything official, but I would guess this coming Friday.

Noticed the LED lighting up and in full effect a few days ago (was flashing between colors). Not sure how long its been up and running, but it sure looked cool.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by SebC

Why doesn't Google Transit have data for Calgary? Seems this happens every new year.

That's odd, i've never noticed it. How long does it usually take to come back online?

[frinkprof]

Transit’s GPS era not far off

KATIE TURNER

METRO CALGARY
Published: January 07, 2011 5:48 a.m.
Last modified: January 07, 2011 12:53 a.m.


Commuters will soon have a real-time look at where their train or bus is as Calgary Transit prepares to roll out its GPS system.

Ron Collins of Calgary Transit said GPS installation in trains could be done this spring.

“It’s part of our whole way to introduce new technology into the whole system and make things easier for customers,” said Collins, adding GPS tracking will be installed on C-Trains starting this April.

By June 2012, Collins said, they should have GPS on bus rapid transit, and by December 2012, all buses should be equipped.

Leigh McDonald of Mediumrare, the Calgary company that designed the recently released Calgary Transit smartphone application, said they hope to incorporate the tracking into their app.

[...]

Link to rest of the article

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

^Not sure. It might be due to the schedule changes that come into effect every year just before Christmas.

In other news, 4th Street West Station is almost ready to re-open. I haven't seen anything official, but I would guess this coming Friday.

Thanks for pointing this out. I used that station to get to school from work and when they took it out I diverted the other way so I have not kept up on progress.

[MrMastodonFarm]

The heated seats and new shelters at the Brentwood bus loop are pretty fantastic.

The doors that swing into the shelter are a little odd however, especially when I have to shove an inattentive asian fellow out of the way to get in.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

In other news, 4th Street West Station is almost ready to re-open. I haven't seen anything official, but I would guess this coming Friday.

Really? I thought I had heard this station wasn't going to be open again until spring. (You know, right in time for me to not mind walking the extra 3 blocks)

If its opening soon that's GREAT news.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Really? I thought I had heard this station wasn't going to be open again until spring. (You know, right in time for me to not mind walking the extra 3 blocks)

If its opening soon that's GREAT news.

Yeah, no promises as I haven't seen anything official, but they've installed the LEDs and Ticket Vending Machines and have removed most of the construction material. On all the other stations this has meant that the station was 2 weeks or less away from opening.

This leaves the following left to do before the 7th Avenue work is done:

- Complete both platforms at City Hall (should be done later this year)

- Removal of Olympic Plaza Station (will be done shortly after City Hall opens)

- Extend Centre Street Station (shouldn't take long, and probably won't start until City Hall is done)

- Complete dual platforms at 11th Street West (being done as part of WestLRT)

- Remove 10th Street West Station (will be done when 11th Street is open)

[frinkprof]

Here's a new survey by Calgary Transit regarding the Park and Ride fee. Asks questions about your use of the lots before and after the fee was implemented, your evaluation of aspects of the service, your opinion on the proposed paid-reserved spots idea for portions of the lots, etc.

It takes about 5 minutes to do and is for both users and non-users of the Park and Ride lots.

Calgary Transit link: http://www.calgarytransit.com/survey/index.html

Survey itself: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CT2011ParkAndRideSurvey