Fun tidbit - it's not a high priority right now (obviously), but when I was on the West Calgary design committee, I found out the City was studying the idea of putting streetcars (similar to those in Toronto) on 17th Avenue - from MacLeod Trail all the way to 45th Street SW. I think that would be an absolutely terrific idea, and a great way for people to move down this important artery. There used to be streetcars on 17th way back in Calgary's early days too.
If we could do it over, the West LRT should have run all the way down 17th to 1st St SW, and then straight north to Centre Street for the North LRT line. These are the most 'urban' lines that would make sense for low floor. The SE line is more classic Calgary LRT and high floor would suit it just fine.
This idea doesn't totally make sense for 7th ave, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK
There is likely a breakup fee in that LRV contract. I don't get the sense that this project has passed the point of no return.
It would be one thing if they are biting the bullet and putting in the hardest most expensive section of the line, but that simply isn't the case.
More ideally you'd simply delay receipt of the LRVs (or just store them) until the North LRT is ready to go. Which wouldn't have to be much later than 2031.
Just gotta convince the feds/province that the original idea pre-2015 has always still made the most sense; sorry for bull####ting you for the last decade about how wonderful the SE train will be.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
This I would like to know more about too. If you know specifically where you heard that from, please share.
What transit accessibility is attempting to achieve is that a passenger, regardless of mobility device, can enter/ exit the vehicle without assistance.
The on-going problem is with many "low-Floor" community shuttles and streetcar ramps is that they are still too steep for a passenger to independently board the transit vehicle under their "own power." (even if that power is a manual wheelchair)
Kneeling bus systems, "raised curb" platforms are all about creating a gentle slope for the mobility device. (Exiting a TTC tram in the middle of the block is not a situation with a "gentle slope")
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
What transit accessibility is attempting to achieve is that a passenger, regardless of mobility device, can enter/ exit the vehicle without assistance.
A noble objective, but it should still be subject to cost/benefit analysis just like everything else.
A noble objective, but it should still be subject to cost/benefit analysis just like everything else.
No person shall
(a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public,
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.
(Alberta Human Rights Act, section 4)
Reducing a person's accessibility to public transit because we did a cost-benefit analysis and decided "it's not worth the money" is precisely why we have this in the Human Rights Act...
Last edited by timun; 08-01-2024 at 03:47 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
A noble objective, but it should still be subject to cost/benefit analysis just like everything else.
Sure, but you should weigh access for folks with mobility challenges very very high, as their alternative options are often much more limited. It should be pretty darn close to a non-negotiable.
Kneeling bus systems, "raised curb" platforms are all about creating a gentle slope for the mobility device. (Exiting a TTC tram in the middle of the block is not a situation with a "gentle slope")
Sure, that will always be the case with streetcars, unless they run on the outside lanes of the roads (which they won't). Challenges with accessibility in streetcars will always be a concern, but as SebC said, it should in no way impede the full discussion of streetcar vs. bus. Toronto is already using these streetcars and wouldn't be doing so if the deemed it was a total, preventative hinderance to accessibility.
Sure, but you should weigh access for folks with mobility challenges very very high, as their alternative options are often much more limited. It should be pretty darn close to a non-negotiable.
Sure, but you should weigh access for folks with mobility challenges very very high, as their alternative options are often much more limited. It should be pretty darn close to a non-negotiable.
There's some line where providing an alternative accommodation is better value for everyone involved.
Eg: if the Green line cost $1B without accessibility and $20B with accessibility then you should build it without and use the money to run a parallel handi-bus system that's free and goes everywhere in perpetuity.
Now, I'm not saying that's the price difference (I doubt it would be that high) but if the disabled can get better service in a cheaper way that doesn't seem like discrimination to me.
A noble objective, but it should still be subject to cost/benefit analysis just like everything else.
oh i have heard that argument before.
" we didn't have the money to design/modify an level-access /accessible building so we are going with the stairs... (Calgary Police Service rational for lack of wheelchair access for their Victoria park station)
"...We have Calgary Transit Access so we don't need to make the LRT accessible." (CTA costed Calgary taxpayers $57 per passenger trip in 2022 $45 million Budget)
But the demo graphic fact is the Boomers are aging. With age will come a certain incidence of disability. The simple percentage game is that we will have more citizens with a mobility impairment. Every North American city is going to have to provide MORE and MORE accessible transportation in the coming decades.
and accessibility is cheapest when you design it into the project right at the start. retrofits and work-arounds always cost more.
Last edited by para transit fellow; 08-01-2024 at 04:34 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
There's some line where providing an alternative accommodation is better value for everyone involved.
Eg: if the Green line cost $1B without accessibility and $20B with accessibility then you should build it without and use the money to run a parallel handi-bus system that's free and goes everywhere in perpetuity.
Now, I'm not saying that's the price difference (I doubt it would be that high) but if the disabled can get better service in a cheaper way that doesn't seem like discrimination to me.
The parallel system is not cheaper. nor are they getting better service with a parallel
Calgary should be designing the Mass transit route to be accessible. then instead of driving one or two people from downtown to the South Health centre in a wheelchair accessible bus, a downtown paratranit bus drops them off at the Green line, They easily access the LRT and ride to Mackenzie lake ( or whereever)where a different bus works that region to provide the final segment. then the Accessible LRT provides an incredible ROI.
RM of York has been doing this type of "family of service" trips for the past decade or so. Their Paratransit scheduling systems books all three segments. Calgary could do similar if only we had more of the accessible LRT stations.
(a) deny to any person or class of persons any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public,
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.
(Alberta Human Rights Act, section 4)
Reducing a person's accessibility to public transit because we did a cost-benefit analysis and decided "it's not worth the money" is precisely why we have this in the Human Rights Act...
But this puts us into perverse situations. Like, say we don't have money for a station (perhaps centre street in the beltline if it's at grade). A low floor train could just stop there. That's it. And yeah, maybe people in wheelchair couldn't get on and off. So instead of having a stop that able-bodied people can use, we get no stop, because having the train stop would be "discrimination". That's silly and against net public benefit. It's BS. I don't care if it's the law. The law can be wrong and need revision.
Like here's a case out of BC where I find the outcome unfair. A four unit strata has build a hillside tram for a disabled senior, costing $130K ($35K each charged to the other owners). Like, instead, how about a disabled senior doesn't actually need to live on top of a hill? I agree that we need accessible places, but do all places need to be accessible? My apartment isn't accessible. If it no longer suited my needs, perhaps I should just find a place that is.
Imagine a treatment that could save a person's life at $1 trillion. Compare that to all the good $1 trillion could do. There's a point where we have to draw a line - it should not be blanketly off-limits to consider.
And we do make exceptions. You see them at amusement parks all the time.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
" we didn't have the money to design/modify an level-access /accessible building so we are going with the stairs... (Calgary Police Service rational for lack of wheelchair access for their Victoria park)
"...We have Calgary Transit Access so we don't need to make the LRT accessible." (CTA costed Calgary taxpayers $57 per passenger trip in 2022 $45 million Budget)
But the demo graphic fact is the Boomers are aging. With age will come a certain incidence of disability. The simple percentage game is that we will have more citizens with a mobility impairment. Every North American city is going to have to provide MORE and MORE accessible transportation in the coming decades.
and accessibility is cheapest when you design it into the project right at the start. retrofits and work-arounds always cost more.
Saying that it passes a cost-benefit analysis is an entirely different argument than calling it a non-starter.
But this puts us into perverse situations. Like, say we don't have money for a station (perhaps centre street in the beltline if it's at grade). A low floor train could just stop there. That's it. And yeah, maybe people in wheelchair couldn't get on and off. So instead of having a stop that able-bodied people can use, we get no stop, because having the train stop would be "discrimination". That's silly and against net public benefit. It's BS. I don't care if it's the law. The law can be wrong and need revision.
Like here's a case out of BC where I find the outcome unfair. A four unit strata has build a hillside tram for a disabled senior, costing $130K ($35K each charged to the other owners). Like, instead, how about a disabled senior doesn't actually need to live on top of a hill? I agree that we need accessible places, but do all places need to be accessible? My apartment isn't accessible. If it no longer suited my needs, perhaps I should just find a place that is.
Imagine a treatment that could save a person's life at $1 trillion. Compare that to all the good $1 trillion could do. There's a point where we have to draw a line - it should not be blanketly off-limits to consider.
And we do make exceptions. You see them at amusement parks all the time.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I don't have a concrete answer, but I accept that there are tradeoffs between individual rights and collective benefits. I am quoting Vulcan philosophy as the counterpoint to individual rights that are detrimental to society.
Let's just say that the trolley problem is not a problem at all. Flip the switch. To not do so is akin to murdering four people.
I don't have a concrete answer, but I accept that there are tradeoffs between individual rights and collective benefits. I am quoting Vulcan philosophy as the counterpoint to individual rights that are detrimental to society.
It made for an incredible movie moment, but I'm not sure how applicable it is to public policy. I get what you are going for, but the tyranny of the majority isn't exactly great either.
Yes, picture an empty field in the suburbs with tracks running through it. The train stops and you step out onto a 5' deep "sidewalk", that's raised to 34cm, for the length of the train. At each end, the "sidewalk" gradually slopes down to standard sidewalk height (15cm). There's a small sign denoting where you are and maybe some lighting. That literally happens all over the world. The minimum you need for people to enter and exit the train. I'm saying we massively overbuild everything here to overcompensate for the stupids.
Ok, I'm totally with you now. Basically a "platform" needs be nothing more than a glorified higher sidewalk with a sign post. We are in agreement, I'm slow.
