C-Train to airport

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

What advantage does a street-car route have over a bus route?

Well off the top of my head, street-car lines have a sense of permanence to them that buses don't. People (locals and tourists) always seem to use trains more often the buses, and business often build around stations as they know they will be there for the long-term. Street-cars themselves have much longer life spans than buses and offer greater capacity (meaning fewer drivers need to be paid per passenger). They are also better in terms of pollution and noise.

Plus they look awesome.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SebC

What advantage does a street-car route have over a bus route?

This same question was asked in another thread, and here was my response:

Well to start, each one can fill a much different role in the transportation network. Local vs. regional, long distance service, circulation vs. collection and distribution, etc. Streetcar systems usually take a role closer to that of buses than to LRT systems like the C-Train, so they are more often compared to buses when looking at advantages/disadvantages.

A few key advantages are:

- Can run in-street in mixed traffic using existing infrastructure.

- Much less costly than LRT, but more than buses

- Less noisy than buses and less odorous emissions

- Streetcars offer a smoother ride than buses

- Streetcars often have more capacity than buses.

- Has been shown to attract nearby development much more effectively than buses due to the permanency. Developers see it as the municipality making a long-term "investment" in the area and the route

- Has been shown to attract more choice riders than buses with same capacity and speed on same routes. This is due to a concept called rail bias, whereby people are more willing to take rail public transit than bus public transit if they have the choice. It is seen as a more attractive travel option.

As is often the case, other people have said it better than myself. Here's some links:

In depth:

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/v...agetrolley.htm

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009...r-renaissance/

Concise:

http://www.cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Streetcar

The streetcar (or tram) wikipedia page also gives a good synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Also keep in mind for you in the SW, the West LRT will be part of the NE line, so no transfer downtown for you.

Not necessarily regarding the WLRT being coupled with the NELRT. They may end up running it with the South LRT.

Also, a transfer would be required at some point anyway, since any airport LRT would most likely be a spur off the future north central line.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

European cities have public transport like trains connected to the airport and it works great.

not to mention just about every big American city.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by peter12

not to mention just about every big American city.

Using the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport...orth_America_2 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_urban_areas

By my count, only 13 cities in the US currently have direct passenger rail service to their main airport(s). 6 of the 10 largest cities in the US do not: Los Angeles, Miami (under construction for 2011-12), Dallas (under construction for later this year), Boston, Detroit, and Houston.

Even the AirTrain to JFK in New York just opened in 2003.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

- Has been shown to attract more choice riders than buses with same capacity and speed on same routes. This is due to a concept called rail bias, whereby people are more willing to take rail public transit than bus public transit if they have the choice. It is seen as a more attractive travel option.

In that case, couldn't realtime schedule information / GPS-tracking provide similar effects, potentially at lower cost. I believe that kind of improvement also increases use for a given capacity and speed.

I find it funny that the priority for this kind of information will be for BRT/LRT routes, when they are the ones that run most frequently and thus need it the least. Far more important to know if your feeder bus that comes once an hour is running early, or if you just missed it.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SebC

In that case, couldn't realtime schedule information / GPS-tracking provide similar effects, potentially at lower cost. I believe that kind of improvement also increases use for a given capacity and speed.

Well the observed "rail bias" phenomenon is something a little different. Apparently a lot of people view a rail mode such as streetcar or LRT as more sophisticated, possibly partly due to it being a smoother ride with less noise and exhaust smell. Basically, there's people who are willing to board a rail car, but would never step foot on a bus, even if they were running the exact same route and had similar travel times. Another related term is "bus shame" where buses are seen as only tolerable for the lower classes, and certain people feel ashamed of riding the bus. It's more pronounced in the US.

Originally Posted by SebC

I find it funny that the priority for this kind of information will be for BRT/LRT routes, when they are the ones that run most frequently and thus need it the least. Far more important to know if your feeder bus that comes once an hour is running early, or if you just missed it.

I agree. However, there was a limited amount of funding made available for this project.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Well the observed "rail bias" phenomenon is something a little different. Apparently a lot of people view a rail mode such as streetcar or LRT as more sophisticated, possibly partly due to it being a smoother ride with less noise and exhaust smell. Basically, there's people who are willing to board a rail car, but would never step foot on a bus, even if they were running the exact same route and had similar travel times. Another related term is "bus shame" where buses are seen as only tolerable for the lower classes, and certain people feel ashamed of riding the bus. It's more pronounced in the US.

I agree. However, there was a limited amount of funding made available for this project.

Consider me among that group. I flat refuse to take the bus anywhere, although I can't think of a situation where the bus would actually be quicker than the subway for me.

[frinkprof]

Wrong thread - delete.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Airport LRT lines typically have low ridership numbers, especially relative to their costs. This should not be done unless the airport authority pays for it. If it comes to that, they may just want to build their own automated people mover that connects to the future north central line, or perhaps their own direct train link to downtown.

Originally Posted by frinkprof

This routing will be changed once Barlow Trail closes. There will be bus service along Centre Street to and from downtown. Frequency is planned to increase as well.

Not to be forgotten are airport employees. However, the numbers just aren't there, and there are other mitigating factors. Airport employees have free or cheap parking and many work irregular (not 9-5) shifts that are conducive to a strong transit ridership base.

Following up on this:

Calgary Transit plans airport express buses, future tramway

Blueprint offers options without tunnel

BY JASON MARKUSOFF, CALGARY HERALD SEPTEMBER 5, 2010 7:59 AM

CALGARY -- Calgary Transit is proposing two express bus routes to the airport terminal by 2012 and has added a future streetcar-style link west of Airport Trail into its long-range plans in a dramatic departure from the lesser-known and more meandering airport transit service of today.

As many candidates in the mayoral election muse about LRT access to the airport via a northeast tunnel, the city's transit planners have quietly released a detailed blueprint for multiple transit links that would work without adding a tunnel.

Starting in mid-2011, Calgary Transit will introduce an express line from McKnight-Westwinds LRT station to the terminal, via Metis Trail and Country Hills Boulevard.

A year later comes a "bus rapid transit" airport route from downtown, cutting up Centre Street and across a new 96th Avenue N.W. extension.

[...]

As ridership on the express buses builds, the city would replace the Centre Street line with what a planner's report calls a "European-style tram or streetcar" that could also pick up passengers from future North-Central LRT and high-speed rail stations.

[...]

Although politicians and Tourism Calgary brass have been calling for better airport service by transit, Logan noted that only 800 people take buses to the airport daily.

"Our ridership demand is fairly low -- there's a lot of parking for employees and travellers, and it's not that expensive," he said Saturday.

"And there's a lot of places we could add service in the city."

[...]

Link to Full Story

[bizaro86]

This goes back to the chicken and the egg problem. People don't take transit to the airport because the service is terrible. Calgary Transit says, "People don't take transit to the airport, so we can't improve the service."

If the service to the airport was decent, people would use it.

Personally, I'm not sure why they can't build a connecting tram from the airport to Mcknight. Its not that far, and you could do a driverless system (like San Francisco's Airtrain, for example). Even with a $5 fare just for the connector, it'd be way cheaper than taking a cab downtown, and just as fast, at least during rush hour.

[SeeBass]

You can put me down as a transit snob.

I would rather pay for a taxi than take a bus but I would take the rail if it was a reasonable option.

[FireFly]

I've taken the bus to the airport and it sucks. BRT would be awesome to the airport. If you're only going for a couple days, much better than paying for parking or a cab to and fro depending on where you live anyway.

[Regorium]

I think this is a reasonable solution.

I take transit to the airport in Toronto, and from downtown, it is a 25 minute subway ride followed by a 15 minute bus express that comes every 20 minutes and I never found it to be terrible - the alternative being a $55 cab ride.

Getting to the airport in Calgary atm is more like an hour and a half, and the bus that links from Whitehorn might not even come due to its rarity and the many issues with buses (traffic, road problems, construction, etc.). The cost to cab is also much lower, something in the realm of $30-$35.

A 10 minute express from Mcknight station would actually make getting to the airport via transit a reasonable endeavour, and I am a big fan of this staged improvement to the system.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Following up on this:
CALGARY -- Calgary Transit is proposing two express bus routes to the airport terminal by 2012 and has added a future streetcar-style link west of Airport Trail into its long-range plans in a dramatic departure from the lesser-known and more meandering airport transit service of today.
...

Although politicians and Tourism Calgary brass have been calling for better airport service by transit, Logan noted that only 800 people take buses to the airport daily.

Link to Full Story

Not sure how many people know about that link... I sure didn't.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Not sure how many people know about that link... I sure didn't.

There is bus service to the airport, but it takes forever and runs infrequently. There have been times when it would have been very convenient for me to take transit from downtown to the airport, but I've always ended up taking a cab because of the huge time difference.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This goes back to the chicken and the egg problem. People don't take transit to the airport because the service is terrible. Calgary Transit says, "People don't take transit to the airport, so we can't improve the service."

There's absolutely something to this argument, and I actually was questioning my own highlighting of the "only 800 people" comment since the context that it was on an infrequent and circuitous bus routing was kind of lost.

In fact, for the overall system, I've always thought a bigger shift toward a "build it and they will come" approach was needed. If only that pesky issue of funding didn't get in the way.

However...

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If the service to the airport was decent, people would use it.

Yes, to a point. Improved bus service would absolutely see ridership gains, but there's a ceiling to that, which depends on a few factors. Rail transit to airports in other cities (almost all of which are larger than Calgary, both city and airport size) has shown the limited potential for ridership at airports in general.

Also, there's something to be said for ridership development, something touched on above by another poster saying "staged improvement." Ridership patterns to the airport can to be established by things like this improved BRT service. When that grows, along with the airport itself growing, a rail link can be more easily justified. Look at the 301 route along the now-under-construction WestLRT route and future North Central LRT route, and the newer 302 route along the future SE LRT.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Personally, I'm not sure why they can't build a connecting tram from the airport to Mcknight. Its not that far, and you could do a driverless system (like San Francisco's Airtrain, for example). Even with a $5 fare just for the connector, it'd be way cheaper than taking a cab downtown, and just as fast, at least during rush hour.

Agreed. I've alluded in the past about the possibility of an automatic people mover, and this is where I was going with it. Although I've always had it connecting to the future north central line first.

What I'd like to know, and it may be premature at this point, is where the airport authority is in all of this in terms of funding the eventual rail link (be it streetcar, people mover, or LRT) to the airport. Vancouver's YVR airport paid for their leg of the recently completed Canada Line.

[bizaro86]

I've always wondered if you could get a private infrastructure fund investor to fund a "People-Mover" type link between the airport and the current c-train line to the North East. It really isn't that far, so the cost should be manageable. Even at $5 a ride (or whatever) it would get ridership, the question would be does it support the cost, I suppose. Has anyone ever tried this?

I suppose you'd have to get the city/calgary transit to agree, as well as the airport authority, and it doesn't seem like those parties agree on much of anything.

[Muta]

Another option to consider is the high-speed rail link, starting downtown and having its next stop at the Airport before continuing on to Red Deer and Edmonton. That, in itself, is a whole new can of worms. I do know people who are championing for this, however (and people in power in this city, no less). A non-stop, extremely fast ride from downtown to the airport would be highly desirable for travellers of all types.

This would mean that the LRT wouldn't have to extend up right to the airport - although, I would also be a huge proponent of this. A rail link from international airports to city centres is quickly becoming a critical component of infrastructure. Of the top of my head, I know that Vancouver, BC and virtually every major city in Japan have this type of infrasructure. It works, and WORKS WELL. Granted, each is tailored to their respective population sizes and anticipated number of travellers per year.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Muta

Another option to consider is the high-speed rail link, starting downtown and having its next stop at the Airport before continuing on to Red Deer and Edmonton. That, in itself, is a whole new can of worms. I do know people who are championing for this, however (and people in power in this city, no less).

A whole new can of worms indeed. High Speed Rail is at least 25 years away from being viable, which is beyond the timeframe for a City/airport authority rail link. The stop would likely not be at the terminal itself anyway, necessitating some sort of people mover to/from the rail stop and airport terminal anyway.

Originally Posted by Muta

A non-stop, extremely fast ride from downtown to the airport would be highly desirable for travellers of all types.

The high speed rail link wouldn't be moving "extremely fast" between downtown and the airport. Certainly not much faster than a direct LRT route would be. The HSR wouldn't pick up speed until it's out of the city.

Originally Posted by Muta

A rail link from international airports to city centres is quickly becoming a critical component of infrastructure. Of the top of my head, I know that Vancouver, BC and virtually every major city in Japan have this type of infrasructure. It works, and WORKS WELL. Granted, each is tailored to their respective population sizes and anticipated number of travellers per year.

Except the part where Vancouver's (and Portland's, and St. Louis', and Atlanta's, and...) airport lines/stops don't get good ridership relative to the rest of the system.