WestLRT Construction Transgression thread

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Muta

GirlySports: or, it would just be based on zones, where Calgary would have three or four of them. Every zone you cross, you pay more. Not confusing in the slightest; Vancouver does this.

No, Translink - a transit agency that serves the GVRD, made up of dozens of separate municipalities - does this. The City of Vancouver proper is contained within one discrete zone.

Translink Zone Map Link

You cannot compare Calgary and its unicity model directly to the GVRD on issues such as this for which the justification is largely based on there being many different municipalities served.

Besides - there is already fare discrimination in the Calgary region and it will continue to become more prevalent. Within Calgary any trip over 90 minutes costs double the fare. This will become a larger issue as these trips become more common. There is also the small free fare zone downtown for the LRT.

Also, The City of Airdrie has begun an Intercity Express service which provides service between Airdrie and Calgary and it has a separate fare. The rest of the parasite communities inevitably implement something like this in time.

---------------------

I'm not entirely against distance based fares, but am very much against discrete zones within the City of Calgary as it creates more problems than it solves and is much more difficult to justify.

[frinkprof]

One idea I've seen proposed for the loss of the 101 is to keep it as a premium express route like used to exist in the far northwest before Crowfoot opened (and before that Dalhousie).

You would keep some runs of the 101 for AM and PM peak but riders boarding it would pay an additional fare (on top of their pass or cash fare for each ride). Crowfoot opening eliminated the last of the premium express routes, but at that time it was an additional 50 cents per boarding. Maybe bump it up to 75 cents to account for inflation.

Now, personally I'm not entirely on board with the idea, I'm fine with the bus network as has been proposed, just an idea.

What I really think should happen (and will probably happen anyway), is that the proposed network should be tried out for a few months to see how it works in reality and then changes can be made after that. I'm fully expecting quite a few issues to crop up - probably involving increased travel times for those in Coach Hill as well as issues arising from the cutting of the 108.

[Ducay]

Something like a premium 101 service is actually a good compromise, if Coach Hillers keep complaining about the 101 once WLRT opens for service, assuming there is sufficient demand. I don't take offense with such a service, as it will likely decrease number of people driving and parking at 69th station. As well, if it was a premium service I wouldn't expect it to stop all along Bow, which is my main gripe against keeping the 101/104

[stevinder]

The Bus network is reasonable, but not perfect. I have my own gripe about losing a direct bus to WestHills, but consultations were done and the decision has been made.

If Coach Hill wants a Premium Express service, they will have to pay for it. The premium over the current fare should be $2 or $3 + regular fare each way.

$1.2 Billion was spent on the WestLRT to get the CTrain up the hill, the least the Coach Hill entitled whiners could do is use it.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Are monthly bus passes till the same price for everyone? Then it's still an advantage to live far.

No - they sell 1, 2 and 3 zone monthly passes as well. Costs in Van for fares are 2.50 for one zone, 3.75 for two and 4.50 IIRC for three. So if you have a one-zone monthly pass and need to go two zones on the bus, you have to pay an additional $1.25 for that trip. However, after 6:30pm weekdays, and all day weekends and holidays, the zones go away (i.e. the entire translink system is considered to be one zone and costs 2.50 for wherever you're going).

I don't get why the unicity model vs. multiple municipalities should mean this isn't a feasible way of structuring fares.

[sevenarms]

Originally Posted by RW99

I'm quite happy being on a direct to DT bus route. People who take the train seem to be late to work a lot more often.

Except when it snows.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

No - they sell 1, 2 and 3 zone monthly passes as well. Costs in Van for fares are 2.50 for one zone, 3.75 for two and 4.50 IIRC for three. So if you have a one-zone monthly pass and need to go two zones on the bus, you have to pay an additional $1.25 for that trip. However, after 6:30pm weekdays, and all day weekends and holidays, the zones go away (i.e. the entire translink system is considered to be one zone and costs 2.50 for wherever you're going).

I don't get why the unicity model vs. multiple municipalities should mean this isn't a feasible way of structuring fares.

Might have to do with laws. For example Airdrie have their own mayor and council right? So it would be weird to have different payzones within Calgary for people who essentially paid the same taxes for the C-Train... if the C-Train went to Airdrie then those people would have to pay more to ride it because they didn't pay for it in the first place.

If this were an American city, people in Airdrie would have to pay a toll to enter Calgary.

[GirlySports]

WEST LRT would be pretty handy right now!

[Ozy_Flame]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...578/story.html

Just what I really wanted with the removal of bus routes downtown - over two years of three-car train service. I think Peter Demong says it all:

“It’s going to be almost devastating,” said Ald. Peter Demong, who represents the city’s deep south. “You get trains in the morning that are sardine cans already, and we are bringing in, what, 30,000 people a year? It’s just going to get fuller and fuller.”

[frinkprof]

^So, just to clarify, you think that the West LRT line, upon just opening, and serving by far the lowest catchment among all the lines will demand the same service that the other well-established and much larger catchments that the other lines serve?

Besides, with this initial round of capacity growth, the south and northwest lines will receive the lion's share of 4 car trains, not the lower demand west - northeast line.

[mykalberta]

What was City Hall debating about when these funds were available? To me it sounds like much to do about nothing, the Province had this grant, the city will use it, the city will get it.

[frinkprof]

Alright, I'll take a different approach with you Muta.

Instead of the projected ridership table, which you either don't believe, you think isn't convincing, or both, here's some numbers.

During the hour between 5:00 - 6:00 (one PM rush hour), there are the following buses serving the general West LRT catchment area:

9 x 301 West BRT (let's assume them all to be the 60 foot D60LFR articulated)

8 x 101 Coach Hill (some of these are run as 60 footers as well, let's be generous and assume they all are)

8 x 104 Strathcona (40 foot buses of varying models, all other routes below are also served with 40 footers)

8 x 108 Richmond Hill

5 x 112 Sarcee Road

2 x 166 Glenbrook Express

2 x 179 Cougar Ridge Express

6 x 2 17th Avenue

3 x 67 Signal Hill Express

4 x 17 Spruce Cliff

Let's assume they are all running at crush load capacity. That's 38 40 foot buses and 17 60 foot buses. While there are a few different bus models in play here, the capacity of a 40 foot bus tops out at about 70 passengers, while for a 60 foot bus it is 105 passengers.

That's 4445 passengers per direction per hour.

Now, the NE LRT line is running 3 car trains at a headway of 5-6 minutes at rush (for the sake of interest, the south - northwest line is running at a little less headway, 4-5 minutes). For the benefit of your side of the argument, let's handicap it at 6 minutes, so an even 10 per hour. That's 10 three car trains per hour. The practical passenger capacity for a single LRV is 226 (so 678 per 3 car train).

That's a capacity of 6780 p.p.d.p.h.

Now, I should also mention that I've made another assumption here that would benefit your side of the argument. The people taking the 108 and 112 will, for the most part, not be transferring to the LRT. Many will end up taking the other routes that have been created and/or changed as part of the new bus network. Mostly the #18 or the remaining #112.

[Ducay]

Just as an FYI; those backups on EB Bow due to the 10th Ave exit are likely to last another couple weeks

Originally Posted by Westlrt rep

The back-ups [EB Bow] are due to lane reductions on 10 Avenue at the bottom of the ramp as we complete the construction of the concrete median on 10 Avenue that was removed to accommodate construction. We expect to have all this work done in the next couple weeks.

[IntenseFan]

^While they are at it working on the concrete around there, I sincerely hope they are someday going to get to that 5 metre hole in the EB Bow Tr. bridge right after the merge from Crow. It has to have been there at least two months now.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What was City Hall debating about when these funds were available? To me it sounds like much to do about nothing, the Province had this grant, the city will use it, the city will get it.

The city has not recieved the money from the province yet. They can't order anything until they have the money to do so.

[Madman]

In the Hearld article it mentions they will be looking at other vendors other than Seimens for the new cars.

What are the options for LRVs that they will be looking at?

If they did go with another vendor, I'm guessing those new cars could only be used with cars of the same brand - or are they inter-operable?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Madman

In the Hearld article it mentions they will be looking at other vendors other than Seimens for the new cars.

What are the options for LRVs that they will be looking at?

If they did go with another vendor, I'm guessing those new cars could only be used with cars of the same brand - or are they inter-operable?

Manufacturers:
Seimens
Bombardier
Kinkisharyo
CAF or Skoda

CT probably won't use Seimens though, It sounds like they are not happy with Seimens.

The new cars likely wouldn't be interoperable with any of the old cars, but that no different than the three sets of non-interoperable cars we have now:

Old U2 LRVs
Older SD160 LRVs (the 2 AC powered U2 cars 2101-2102 can operate with these)
Newest SD160 LRVs

Adding a fourth set of non-interoperable cars wouldn't be a problem. They might get some features that will improve the design (married pairs or fully walkable consists)

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Alright, I'll take a different approach with you Muta.

Instead of the projected ridership table, which you either don't believe, you think isn't convincing, or both, here's some numbers.

During the hour between 5:00 - 6:00 (one PM rush hour), there are the following buses serving the general West LRT catchment area:

9 x 301 West BRT (let's assume them all to be the 60 foot D60LFR articulated)

8 x 101 Coach Hill (some of these are run as 60 footers as well, let's be generous and assume they all are)

8 x 104 Strathcona (40 foot buses of varying models, all other routes below are also served with 40 footers)

8 x 108 Richmond Hill

5 x 112 Sarcee Road

2 x 166 Glenbrook Express

2 x 179 Cougar Ridge Express

6 x 2 17th Avenue

3 x 67 Signal Hill Express

4 x 17 Spruce Cliff

Let's assume they are all running at crush load capacity. That's 38 40 foot buses and 17 60 foot buses. While there are a few different bus models in play here, the capacity of a 40 foot bus tops out at about 70 passengers, while for a 60 foot bus it is 105 passengers.

That's 4445 passengers per direction per hour.

Now, the NE LRT line is running 3 car trains at a headway of 5-6 minutes at rush (for the sake of interest, the south - northwest line is running at a little less headway, 4-5 minutes). For the benefit of your side of the argument, let's handicap it at 6 minutes, so an even 10 per hour. That's 10 three car trains per hour. The practical passenger capacity for a single LRV is 226 (so 678 per 3 car train).

That's a capacity of 6780 p.p.d.p.h.

Now, I should also mention that I've made another assumption here that would benefit your side of the argument. The people taking the 108 and 112 will, for the most part, not be transferring to the LRT. Many will end up taking the other routes that have been created and/or changed as part of the new bus network. Mostly the #18 or the remaining #112.

Great numbers, and it does put my mind at ease a bit,but consider a few things:

Calgary Transit estimates PRACTICAL single direction capacity per car is actually 162. 162 people x 3 cars per train x 10 trains per hour = 4860 capacity.

A full train (shoulder-to-shoulder) would be = 226 x 3 cars per train x 10 trains per hour = 6780 capacity.

Of course, this is assuming three cars, and that we are using the newer models, which half the trains are not (Older models have a load capacity of 200). Therefore, lets assume, to support your side of the argument, half are old trains, half are new:

200 x 3 x 5 = 3,000
226 x 3 x 5 = 3,390

Which is to say, 6390. Slightly smaller, but still a difference.


Now, that is assuming 3 cars. Of course, 4 cars would increase load capacity, but now they will likely be delayed until at least 2014.

You also forgot to add the 72 / 73 crowd, which also feeds through the West LRT area, and many regulars will adjust now to take these buses to catch the LRT route downtown. Let's assume half of each bus gets off at Westbrook to go downtown, and that 6 buses run during peak hour:

2 bus routes x 12 buses per hour x 35 passengers : 840 extra passengers.

So, 4,445 + 840 = 5285 passengers per hour.

This number doesn't include the "snow crowd" that take the LRT on cold days because they don't want to drive. So lets bump that up to about 6,000 assuming 700 more fair-weathered transit users.

So, roughly 6,000 people are going to be using the service in the winter (which is upcoming), and we have a PRACTICAL capacity of 4860.

We aren't even considering a general Calgary population growth rate over a 5-year period of roughly 12% either.

We certainly fall in the theoretical capacity loads, but given my original grief is the shoulder-to-shoulder crowd, I believe the next two years are going to be a crowded, unpleasant clusterfudge that will only marginally improve my transit time.

Like Fotze said, if you get on on the 69th station or Sirocco, there isn't an issue. But I hate crowds, I hate standing shoulder-to-shoulder with people, and I don't exactly see how this is going to improve my commute.

It should improve my property value though, telling a potential buyer I'm on an LRT line.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Great numbers, and it does put my mind at ease a bit,but consider a few things:

Calgary Transit estimates PRACTICAL single direction capacity per car is actually 162. 162 people x 3 cars per train x 10 trains per hour = 4860 capacity.

[Long analysis that doesn't really prove anything follows]

So your argument against Frink's analysis is to compare PRACTICAL loads on C-trains to MAXIMUM loads on buses. Following your logic, you need to drop bus capacity to practical levels as well to get a true comparison, and you'll be back to a point where the C-train offers much higher levels of passenger movements.

And you argument AGAINST the C-train is snow days when it will be packed? Those are the days it will shine; buses will take 1+ hours to get into downtown, while the C-train will be close to standard timing, who cares if you're smooshed like a sardine if it only takes 20 minutes instead of more than an hour.

[Ozy_Flame]

My argument is not against the C-Train. It's against the the idea that it's not going to be packed.

I am aguing a practical load vs. a full load. We seem to be approaching the full load, which is the bulk of my grief in the first place.

But none of us will know until it actually opens. So it's all estimations and hypothetical at this point.