I dont think its really a comparison. Keating keeps pushing the SELRT into the discussion so it gets brought up with every other transit project. His new idea is a revitalization levy similar to how the East Village was re-developed. Its a lot of throwing darts and hopefully one hits a bullseye.
They are comparing 50M projects to a 600M project. I think its just to put the numbers into perspective for the 52M in extra funding transit might get.
Alot seem to think they can nickel and dime a SELRT and I think this study indicates you need the 600M at once, not 50M here, 20M here, 7 M here etc.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
How is that an apples-oranges comparison? The other projects use existing infrastructure, change some roads to a bus lane, while the brunt of the SE cost is technically bridges and grading for an LRT line.
Isn't that kind of the point? The N-C transitway is much lower-hanging fruit.
The idea of this comparison isn't to figure out which would be best bang-for-the-buck normalizing for new bridges etc., it's to figure out which would be best value given the constraints that are actually there.
And of course, the N-C LRT isn't in the comparison because the SE LRT isn't either... it's only looking at busses.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Here's some photos I took a couple days ago of the work there.
Spoiler!
New utility building on south end of the site.
Utility building and new transformer. Tall fence under construction to protect the transformer.
Plaza and bus loop under construction
New bus shelter with plaza construction surrounding
Platform ceiling
Looking south. Pre-cast concrete platform sections still to be installed on top of the gradebeam. Electrical conduits on the east side of the platform.
Looking north
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Calgary Transit is very pleased to announce the reopening of the Red CTrain line between Heritage Station and downtown at the start of service (4:00 a.m.) on Wednesday, July 3.
An enormous amount of work has been completed by Calgary Transit crews over a short period of time to replace 100 metres of track that was damaged by flooding near Erlton-Stampede Station on June 21.
Well like the Stampede, a lot of fare money to be had for Calgary Transit, and better to have a functioning CTrain so people aren't shuttling from both Downtown and the South. That would be annoying for everyone.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I'd like to rehash the discussion of seating arrangements in LRT cars.
There's a few elements that I'm interested to hear thoughts on, drawing upon experiences with both existing cars in Calgary's system as well as examples you've experienced from elsewhere.
1. Transverse vs. longitudinal seating. Transverse is "knee-to-back" seating whereas longitudinal is perimeter seating where the seats on one side of the train face the other side of the train. Let's leave the "conversation style" seating of the oldest LRT cars out of it because no one seems to be doing that anymore.
2. Pole/stanchion/handhold placement, proliferation and types. Where is it good to have them, and where is it not. Preference for certain types (three-pronged, hanging loops from ceiling-mounted poles, etc.). Along the middle of the aisle or running up from the seats or both?
3. Bucket-style seats or straight bench or something in between with just slight grooves?
4. Fold/flip-up seats for wheelchairs? Pretty much have to have these nowadays due to accessibility standards, but any additional thoughts on these? Should they be defaulted to the folded up position or the down-position and you can fold them up and latch them?
5. Seating material? Do you prefer the more-easily-vandalized but cushier vinyl-cushion or upholstered seats or the molded plastic with less cushion?
I'd like to keep the focus primarily on the seating/arrangement topic, but any other thoughts on the customer experience of LRT cars? Noises, announcements, lighting, doors, flooring, etc.
I'm pretty much fine with everything except pole placement on the new longitudinal cars. Those yellow poles with the bowed out sides in the middle are awkward to walk around if someone is sitting in front of them.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RW99 For This Useful Post:
I'd like to rehash the discussion of seating arrangements in LRT cars.
There's a few elements that I'm interested to hear thoughts on, drawing upon experiences with both existing cars in Calgary's system as well as examples you've experienced from elsewhere.
1. Transverse vs. longitudinal seating. Transverse is "knee-to-back" seating whereas longitudinal is perimeter seating where the seats on one side of the train face the other side of the train. Let's leave the "conversation style" seating of the oldest LRT cars out of it because no one seems to be doing that anymore.
2. Pole/stanchion/handhold placement, proliferation and types. Where is it good to have them, and where is it not. Preference for certain types (three-pronged, hanging loops from ceiling-mounted poles, etc.). Along the middle of the aisle or running up from the seats or both?
3. Bucket-style seats or straight bench or something in between with just slight grooves?
4. Fold/flip-up seats for wheelchairs? Pretty much have to have these nowadays due to accessibility standards, but any additional thoughts on these? Should they be defaulted to the folded up position or the down-position and you can fold them up and latch them?
5. Seating material? Do you prefer the more-easily-vandalized but cushier vinyl-cushion or upholstered seats or the molded plastic with less cushion?
I'd like to keep the focus primarily on the seating/arrangement topic, but any other thoughts on the customer experience of LRT cars? Noises, announcements, lighting, doors, flooring, etc.
I think longitudinal seating is a must for capacity reasons. Nothing sours people on transit more than 3 full trains going by during rush hour on a -20 degree day. Since we're not prioritizing the tunnel, the only capacity adds we have available are 4 car trains and higher capacity cars. We'll need both.
The existing longitudinal seats are too small, and are quite uncomfortable. I'd prefer bench plastic seats with a pole every two seat widths to demarcate a reasonable amount of space for people to take up and allow sufficient hand holds. It's important in this case to allow for reasonable seat sizes so they don't all become large single seats.
I like the loops from the ceiling, but wish they were permanently fixed in place. I find currently they sometimes slide when I'm holding on to them. Also, sometimes they'll all be at one end of the pole, which isn't optimal.
I'd vote for longitudinal seating with bench seating and poles (not three-pronged) placed along the benches as bizaro86 suggested along with as many bars/loop handles as possible mounted from the ceiling. The key is the impede the aisles as little as possible which is where the current version fails - those three-pronged poles block most of the aisle and prevent people from moving into the cars (especially since idiots like to take the seats right by the pole first...).
The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenal14 For This Useful Post:
I'd like to rehash the discussion of seating arrangements in LRT cars.
There's a few elements that I'm interested to hear thoughts on, drawing upon experiences with both existing cars in Calgary's system as well as examples you've experienced from elsewhere.
1. Transverse vs. longitudinal seating. Transverse is "knee-to-back" seating whereas longitudinal is perimeter seating where the seats on one side of the train face the other side of the train. Let's leave the "conversation style" seating of the oldest LRT cars out of it because no one seems to be doing that anymore.
2. Pole/stanchion/handhold placement, proliferation and types. Where is it good to have them, and where is it not. Preference for certain types (three-pronged, hanging loops from ceiling-mounted poles, etc.). Along the middle of the aisle or running up from the seats or both?
3. Bucket-style seats or straight bench or something in between with just slight grooves?
4. Fold/flip-up seats for wheelchairs? Pretty much have to have these nowadays due to accessibility standards, but any additional thoughts on these? Should they be defaulted to the folded up position or the down-position and you can fold them up and latch them?
5. Seating material? Do you prefer the more-easily-vandalized but cushier vinyl-cushion or upholstered seats or the molded plastic with less cushion?
I'd like to keep the focus primarily on the seating/arrangement topic, but any other thoughts on the customer experience of LRT cars? Noises, announcements, lighting, doors, flooring, etc.
I work for Calgary Transit, however my post should not reflect on CT as an organization and I am not posting in an official manner by any means.
1) I highly doubt they will ever go back to Transverse seating, simply because it is a crime prevention measure. The transverse seating allows people to become trapped with very little to no escape route.
2) I hate ceiling holds, simply because I am short and can barely reach them. The 3-prong poles take up too much room, its hard to walk by them with people seated by them.
3) I doubt they will go back to bench style seating, simply because it is a measure to curb disorder. Specifically in regards to people sleeping on the trains. The bucket seats make it less likely to have someone lay down across multiple seats.
4) Folded down as a default. I believe it is more likely that an non-wheelchair or baby stroller individual will be using the seating on a regular basis. Then they can easily be placed up when needed. I have always noticed that most people are actually too timid/uncomfortable to flip the seat down. Most people walk by and will stand rather then putting the seat down.
5) Again, from a disorder reducing perspective, the easier to clean/fix is the version they will go for. Unfortunately comfort will be lessened as a result.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to meanmachine13 For This Useful Post:
I work for Calgary Transit, however my post should not reflect on CT as an organization and I am not posting in an official manner by any means.
1) I highly doubt they will ever go back to Transverse seating, simply because it is a crime prevention measure. The transverse seating allows people to become trapped with very little to no escape route.
I doubt it would be for reasons of crime prevention/management. Other cites are still implementing transverse seating patterns. These cities would have comparable or worse crime problems than Calgary. Nevertheless, the properties of the different seating patterns are true and they apply to the more-important-to-Calgary issues of access, egress, passenger flow and capacity.
Rest of your points are more on-the-mark and in-line with the arguments I've read/heard for and against the various options.
To everyone:
Regarding the pole placement, what about an option of keeping the poles (3 pronged or just regular) in the aisles and not ones the running up from the seats. Basically the reverse of what bizaro86 said. Is that a viable option, that there just be less poles in general? I guess what I'm asking is, if we acknowledge that both the number of poles is a problem, and that the placement of them is also a problem, which is the bigger problem to you?
I'd like to rehash the discussion of seating arrangements in LRT cars.
There's a few elements that I'm interested to hear thoughts on, drawing upon experiences with both existing cars in Calgary's system as well as examples you've experienced from elsewhere.
1. Transverse vs. longitudinal seating. Transverse is "knee-to-back" seating whereas longitudinal is perimeter seating where the seats on one side of the train face the other side of the train. Let's leave the "conversation style" seating of the oldest LRT cars out of it because no one seems to be doing that anymore.
2. Pole/stanchion/handhold placement, proliferation and types. Where is it good to have them, and where is it not. Preference for certain types (three-pronged, hanging loops from ceiling-mounted poles, etc.). Along the middle of the aisle or running up from the seats or both?
3. Bucket-style seats or straight bench or something in between with just slight grooves?
4. Fold/flip-up seats for wheelchairs? Pretty much have to have these nowadays due to accessibility standards, but any additional thoughts on these? Should they be defaulted to the folded up position or the down-position and you can fold them up and latch them?
5. Seating material? Do you prefer the more-easily-vandalized but cushier vinyl-cushion or upholstered seats or the molded plastic with less cushion?
I'd like to keep the focus primarily on the seating/arrangement topic, but any other thoughts on the customer experience of LRT cars? Noises, announcements, lighting, doors, flooring, etc.
1. Transverse is better if we had sufficient capacity (and I actually like the "conversational" ones best), but we don't. This is because, as anyone who's played Roller Coaster Tycoon knows, people are more senstive to sideways g-forces than front-to-back g-forces. The new trains have the right idea for more standing room.
2. The current pole placement on the new trains is awful. There's not enough space to squeeze past them.
3. Flat bench all the way. The seats on the new trains are spaced too closely together. Flat bench lets people strecth out when there's space and squeeze in when there isn't. The bucket seats are like urinals without dividers, either you have to leave an empty one or it's too busy for that and then you're too close for comfort.
4. Don't think it makes a major difference, but it might to a person who needs them up. I say default up.
I doubt it would be for reasons of crime prevention/management. Other cites are still implementing transverse seating patterns. These cities would have comparable or worse crime problems than Calgary. Nevertheless, the properties of the different seating patterns are true and they apply to the more-important-to-Calgary issues of access, egress, passenger flow and capacity.
Rest of your points are more on-the-mark and in-line with the arguments I've read/heard for and against the various options.
To everyone:
Regarding the pole placement, what about an option of keeping the poles (3 pronged or just regular) in the aisles and not ones the running up from the seats. Basically the reverse of what bizaro86 said. Is that a viable option, that there just be less poles in general? I guess what I'm asking is, if we acknowledge that both the number of poles is a problem, and that the placement of them is also a problem, which is the bigger problem to you?
Calgary Transit is really embracing the CPTED (crime prevention through environment design) idea. You can really see it when you examine the West LRT and the re-design of Chinook station. It was likely something taken into consideration when choosing seat design, although increased standing room probably played a bigger factor.
GPS system means long bus waits may soon be a thing of the past
By Sherri Zickefoose, Calgary Herald July 18, 2013
Calgary Transit is on track for testing a new service allowing bus riders to receive instant scheduling information through text messages for any bus stop in the city.
Real time arrival technology is being tested on Calgary buses, and officials are hoping to launch the program in 2014.
[...]
The June 20 flood delayed plans for installing GPS technology, but now transit drivers are being trained to use the equipment.
“We’re going to be able to vastly improve the system and its reliability for our customers. It’s going to be a real win-win,” said Collins.
The real-time technology will allow riders to learn arrival times of buses through cellphones, computers and other devices.
Letting customers know if buses are delayed or on time will go a long way toward encourging ridership, said Ald. Brian Pincott.
