Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[You Need a Thneed]

That 160th Ave NE - future BRT station - basically has to be at Cross Iron Mills.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

That 160th Ave NE - future BRT station - basically has to be at Cross Iron Mills.

By the time the Green Line gets that far north, the city will probably reach Airdrie.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

As a traveller, I like having the option. As a resident of Calgary, the cost/benefit to me and the city isn't worth it.

Obsession is a good word. A train that lots of people will use to live, play, and work? "Public transit is for commies!"

A train that relatively much fewer people will use, most of them non-residents? "Look at us and our expensive train to the airport! We're big time!"

But of course, it is a popular opinion that a train to the airport is so very essential. Whether that's actually true doesn't really matter from a political point of view.

A train to the airport is certainly a good thing to have, a lot of people who work at the airport will use it, but visitors, probably not as much, at least not at this point. What most tourists come to to Calgary to see and do (I'm thinking Banff, Lake Louise, etc...) at this point requires a car anyway, they might as well rent one at the airport and go, I imagine tourists actually staying in Calgary and only in Calgary is pretty minimal.

A train to the airport will also only be as good as the rest of the rapid transit network, the cities where visitors will actually use airport trains are also cities that tend to have a built out and robust public transit system where you could basically reach anywhere you need to and in a somewhat timely manner. Calgary certainly is not one of those cities.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Not that I expect the UCP to be factual in any way, isn't the "underground rivers" thing total nonsense? It always gets trotted out when people are frustrated about the Red/Blue lines running at-grade, despite the real reason it is above ground: the governments of the day favoured the immediate cost over the long-term benefit.

If these underground rivers are so prohibitive, why does every skyscraper downtown have multi-level underground parkades that aren't all swimming pools? Is the public really expecting that as soon as they start digging, the engineers will say "oops - we've hit water! Danielle was right!".

An active DS BS detector is required to parse everything she says. Any time she drops an excuse, it's usually wise to question it, because 95% of the time it's a bull#### line to hide her true intentions, which are mostly driven by how she feels about stuff, not fact, knowledge, or reason. See "pristine viewscapes".

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

A train to the airport is certainly a good thing to have, a lot of people who work at the airport will use it, but visitors, probably not as much, at least not at this point. What most tourists come to to Calgary to see and do (I'm thinking Banff, Lake Louise, etc...) at this point requires a car anyway, they might as well rent one at the airport and go, I imagine tourists actually staying in Calgary and only in Calgary is pretty minimal.

A train to the airport will also only be as good as the rest of the rapid transit network, the cities where visitors will actually use airport trains are also cities that tend to have a built out and robust public transit system where you could basically reach anywhere you need to and in a somewhat timely manner. Calgary certainly is not one of those cities.

Yet. Transit is an investment in Calgary becoming that kind of city in the future. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't become that city.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Yet. Transit is an investment in Calgary becoming that kind of city in the future. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't become that city.

I certainly hope that it does, but at this time it is not. If it does, then an airport rail link will actually make sense.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

A train to the airport is certainly a good thing to have, a lot of people who work at the airport will use it, but visitors, probably not as much, at least not at this point. What most tourists come to to Calgary to see and do (I'm thinking Banff, Lake Louise, etc...) at this point requires a car anyway, they might as well rent one at the airport and go, I imagine tourists actually staying in Calgary and only in Calgary is pretty minimal.

A train to the airport will also only be as good as the rest of the rapid transit network, the cities where visitors will actually use airport trains are also cities that tend to have a built out and robust public transit system where you could basically reach anywhere you need to and in a somewhat timely manner. Calgary certainly is not one of those cities.

A large number of tourists now arrive and get directly on a bus that takes them to their hotel in Banff. Unless they manage some very high speed rail, it's not even going to be time competitive to make up for stops and transfers.

[ken0042]

I often think of who might take a train to/from the airport. Myself living in the deep SE it would be at least 2 connections. Not only does it make it a very long commute, but also adds the possibility of a delay that would cause me to miss a flight.

Somebody who lives close enough to be right on the Ctrain line would also end up with a much cheaper taxi/Uber option, so might also not want to take the train.

Maybe some business travellers who are staying downtown?

[Jimmy Stang]

If we're talking about a train to the airport, I'd rather see the YYC-downtown-Banff "heavy rail" idea instead. That's a different can of worms, for sure, and it would be massively expensive. But it would come with more benefits to the city and region, and also give an "express" option from YYC to downtown instead of a stop-by-stop tour of 36th Street.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

A train to the airport will also only be as good as the rest of the rapid transit network, the cities where visitors will actually use airport trains are also cities that tend to have a built out and robust public transit system where you could basically reach anywhere you need to and in a somewhat timely manner.

That's the important thing. An airport rail connection is great, but in terms of priorities and bang-for-your-buck, there are things that should be higher priorities.

Keep in mind, Vancouver only got its connection to the airport for the 2010 Olympics and Toronto for the 2014 Pan-Am Games. Montreal's is finally under construction and is expected to open in 2027.

Those three cities are all significantly bigger than Calgary and their airports are significantly busier than Calgary. Toronto and Montreal's metro systems are much more mature than the CTrain system.



The Green Line going from north to south should be the top priority (although, the airport link should cost significantly less).

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Not that I expect the UCP to be factual in any way, isn't the "underground rivers" thing total nonsense? It always gets trotted out when people are frustrated about the Red/Blue lines running at-grade, despite the real reason it is above ground: the governments of the day favoured the immediate cost over the long-term benefit.

The downtown and river geology is why they already had to shorten the tunnel in 2019, originally from 4 St SE to 20th Avenue N to ending it at Eau Claire.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5430501/c...n-line-tunnel/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-lrt-1.5443941

[Fuzz]

Going under the river was always going to be the expensive choice(and unnecessary, and with it's own drawbacks). It was never really a serious option, and those can't be the "underground rivers" she is talking about. That just reeks of some blabbing she heard in a handshake line from some doofus "geologist" that she would have replied "wow, ok that's interesting, I haven't heard that before. We definitely won't be doing that." This is how our government functions now.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's gonna be pretty awesome when the south green line is done, and they point to crappy ridership numbers to justify completely canceling the north section. Probably over a decade away from that coming disappointment.

Ultimately, the blame goes to the Green Line planners back in the day deciding a big new maintenance and storage yard in Shepard was more important than replacing the crowded buses in the North.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Going under the river was always going to be the expensive choice(and unnecessary, and with it's own drawbacks). It was never really a serious option, and those can't be the "underground rivers" she is talking about. That just reeks of some blabbing she heard in a handshake line from some doofus "geologist" that she would have replied "wow, ok that's interesting, I haven't heard that before. We definitely won't be doing that." This is how our government functions now.

Going under the river was the selected option from 2016-2019, even though they knew it was expensive.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...green-line-lrt

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Going under the river was the selected option from 2016-2019, even though they knew it was expensive.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...green-line-lrt

Ya, but that was politicians doing things "in principle" before "reality" hit them over the head. This was the time when a bridge was never going to happen, because it would be sullying the pristine wetlands at the east end of Prince's Island(nevermind that they are only decades old, and made by our altering of the river, not natural). To avoid this, they even had the silly idea of running it up the middle of the Centre Street bridge, because "no more river bridges" was a strong mantra of...someone. It's nice years later they finally chose the proper option, unfortunately it may not be built for decades.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's gonna be pretty awesome when the south green line is done, and they point to crappy ridership numbers to justify completely canceling the north section. Probably over a decade away from that coming disappointment.

Well at least it isn't "nowhere to nowhere" anymore. It's "nowhere to just downtown" now!

Originally Posted by accord1999

Ultimately, the blame goes to the Green Line planners back in the day deciding a big new maintenance and storage yard in Shepard was more important than replacing the crowded buses in the North.

B-b-b-b-but Aurora has better uses (none of which appear to be materializing)

B-b-b-b-but it'll take several extra years to acquire the land to go north (said several years ago and we still haven't really started going SE, either)

[GirlySports]

I wish there was a BRT from 69th station and/or MRU to University. A Western side bus.

The only way right now is to go downtown first.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Ultimately, the blame goes to the Green Line planners back in the day deciding a big new maintenance and storage yard in Shepard was more important than replacing the crowded buses in the North.

Blame Sean "The Green line should not come to my riding first" Chu.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That just reeks of some blabbing she heard in a handshake line from some doofus "geologist" that she would have replied "wow, ok that's interesting, I haven't heard that before. We definitely won't be doing that." This is how our government functions now.

I can tell you exactly where it's coming from as staying above ground through downtown and going south first has been the position of Jim Gray's well connected 'adhoc citizens committee' and Re-think the Green Line group for the past 5+ years.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm actually half-surprised they havent.

So. The 'Green-Line Initiative' isnt going down well in Ogden-town. They dont want it.

The City sends out a liaison every few weeks to canvas the neighbourhood and inform the residents of whats going on.

Now. I work in Ogden, but I dont live there. And I'm one of her last stops of the day and she looks like she's been dragged through a fighting pit.

So...I give her some water and rest and I don't harass her because she's had a hard day. Its like a refuge. She can play some Star Wars Arcade and just escape.

My office is a 'Safe Space.'

But make no mistake. The residents of Ogden do not want this.

I'm somewhat ambivalent. If you'd asked me 5 years ago I'd have been 100% in support. But with the advent of Work-from-Home and thus less need to get downtown, and the amount of scum and villainy that perpetuates with Train stations? I can understand the reticence of the residents.

Furthermore, no plans for parking is a questionable decision and...Ogden road is largely 1-Lane in either direction. It is not equipped for the kind of traffic they're going to dump on it.

Are you sure you’re not Rick Bell?