Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[getbak]

Even though they're low-floor, the Green Line cars won't be much shorter than the existing cars...



The clearance of the second deck of the Centre Street Bridge is 2.7m.


Also, keep in mind that in 2013, the lower deck was completely submerged during the flood.

[Rando]

Took the train from the game Saturday night. Can't describe how uncomfortable those new cars are. What was wrong with the folding seats in the middle? How are those leaning benches acceptable? That's just what parents with strollers and those with mobility issues want, a leaning bench where seats used to be?

Just terrible decisions. I understand the trains shouldn't be moving shelters but that's just embarrassing.

[Looch City]

No way, those leaning spots are the best! (Just not the middle one)

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

No way, those leaning spots are the best! (Just not the middle one)

Yeah, they're far more comfortable than the bench seats, actually. The bump on the seats goes right into my spine if I sit all the way back.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

And then what? How does it cross Memorial? Or get up the hill? And it's still a net loss of 2 lanes...

Oh yeah, I forgot about Memorial running underneath there. Maybe they should just either elevate it or bury it all the way there then. The Skytrain pillars look like they barely take up one lane.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Yeah, they're far more comfortable than the bench seats, actually. The bump on the seats goes right into my spine if I sit all the way back.

That's not saying much though because you're right, the bench seating is terrible. Dug right into my back. The lean bench.. maybe I am just too tall. I found it awkward.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Rando

That's not saying much though because you're right, the bench seating is terrible. Dug right into my back. The lean bench.. maybe I am just too tall. I found it awkward.

Ha. I must be short. My butt rests nicely on the lean bench.

[morgin]

I just don’t understand at all how the low floor train and cars could share the RoW on centre. Either centre is reduced to one lane each way, or the train service will be no better than buses/street cars because once you let cars drive overtop the tracks, they won’t move even if a train is coming up behind them.

Centre with one lane each direction from the bridge to 16th is a nightmare scenario. I drive that route in rush hour and it’s already a gigantic mess. Could you imagine if someone headed south during rush hour decides to stop to make a right turn with pedestrians crossing and the cumulative backup effect. Going north leaving downtown in the evening is usually bumper to bumper once you get across the bridge and a bit up the hill - you want to make that single lane with everyone downtown funneling into one lane?

This is the stupidest idea I have ever seen.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rando

Took the train from the game Saturday night. Can't describe how uncomfortable those new cars are. What was wrong with the folding seats in the middle? How are those leaning benches acceptable? That's just what parents with strollers and those with mobility issues want, a leaning bench where seats used to be?

Just terrible decisions. I understand the trains shouldn't be moving shelters but that's just embarrassing.

You only need about 10 seats on the train for parents and those with mobility issues. I certainly have never been on a train where a lack of seats for those who need them was an issue. The standing area on the train accommodates far more people in rush hour. The arrangement of the leaning area and the bars allows way more standing capacity than the older trains.

The biggest problem with the knee trains is the bench poll spacing. The distance between the first bar and poll could accommodate two people uncomfortablely but with out the seating imprints usually only one person will sit there. Same with the middle as it could accommodate 4 but without the ass grooves it only does 3. So you end up with just 5 people sitting on those benches instead of the potential 8. If they just had moved the polls about 6 inches in on each side it would easily fit 2/3/2. Giving 8 more seats per train without taking any additional room.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

You only need about 10 seats on the train for parents and those with mobility issues. I certainly have never been on a train where a lack of seats for those who need them was an issue. The standing area on the train accommodates far more people in rush hour. The arrangement of the leaning area and the bars allows way more standing capacity than the older trains.

The biggest problem with the knee trains is the bench poll spacing. The distance between the first bar and poll could accommodate two people uncomfortablely but with out the seating imprints usually only one person will sit there. Same with the middle as it could accommodate 4 but without the ass grooves it only does 3. So you end up with just 5 people sitting on those benches instead of the potential 8. If they just had moved the polls about 6 inches in on each side it would easily fit 2/3/2. Giving 8 more seats per train without taking any additional room.

The polls are in. Less poles, more seats.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

The polls are in. Less poles, more seats.

Unless J-Lo is involved, of course.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by GGG

You only need about 10 seats on the train for parents and those with mobility issues. I certainly have never been on a train where a lack of seats for those who need them was an issue. The standing area on the train accommodates far more people in rush hour. The arrangement of the leaning area and the bars allows way more standing capacity than the older trains. 8 more seats per train without taking any additional room.

I think a better balance could've been struck.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by morgin

I just don’t understand at all how the low floor train and cars could share the RoW on centre. Either centre is reduced to one lane each way, or the train service will be no better than buses/street cars because once you let cars drive overtop the tracks, they won’t move even if a train is coming up behind them.

Centre with one lane each direction from the bridge to 16th is a nightmare scenario. I drive that route in rush hour and it’s already a gigantic mess. Could you imagine if someone headed south during rush hour decides to stop to make a right turn with pedestrians crossing and the cumulative backup effect. Going north leaving downtown in the evening is usually bumper to bumper once you get across the bridge and a bit up the hill - you want to make that single lane with everyone downtown funneling into one lane?

This is the stupidest idea I have ever seen.

Word. Your options for northbound out of downtown are already restricted by capacity; it’s not as if 10th dan become an alternate for any real increase in traffic.

A transit system that does nothing to mitigate its impact on the rest of the transportation network does not seem like a solid investment, nor an agreeable solution.

[getbak]

Last week, after Council was briefed about the new alignment plan, Druh tweeted out something about them getting rid of street parking and reducing the width of the sidewalks on Centre Street.

That makes me think that the plan that was presented will maintain 2 lanes of travel in each direction even with the trains.

Right now, the curb lanes on Centre Street are quite wide because parking is allowed on the street at certain times of the day. The curb lanes aren't quite double width, but they are wide enough to have a vehicle parked at the curb with vehicles driving past in the adjacent lane (it's not a lot of extra room, but it is doable).

Also, the existing sidewalks are all very wide along the length of Centre Street, so they could be reduced and still be perfectly functional. Most of the buildings along Centre Street are set back a decent distance from the road, so the road should be able to be widened without disrupting too many existing buildings. The ones that might be problematic are older, smaller places that the city could likely replace with something that generates more tax revenue after the train is running.


The bus pullouts will likely be a casualty of this construction, but if you look at the Max bus lines, they didn't build many (if any) dedicated pullouts for them, so there's probably some data that shows pullouts aren't good and they'd probably like to get rid of them anyway.

[Rando]

Removing street parking on center should've been done years ago

[powderjunkie]

I'm sure the businesses and local residents are going to love that.

[Wormius]

I think they might enjoy more business if there was easy access from the train and less parking hassle. There’s like how many parking spots along the street anyway? You end up having to park on a side street anyway.

[BrolyTheUnholy]

I wish they'd left the seats. The trains often got so packed, crowded, and hot that more often than not I'd start feeling a little woozy during the trip home. A seat definitely helped. This city always boggles the mind with its transit decisions. This question is probably answered in one of the 178 or so pages on here, but does anyone know why they abandoned the underground train tunnel through downtown so long ago? Flooding risks from the river? Budget?

[Wormius]

I think because the material was harder than expected, although I really have doubts about how that wasn’t known before when tunneling was the option they were going with.

[BrolyTheUnholy]

I'm still shocked they haven't come up with an alternative in the 40ish years it's been running.