Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

In addition to Teal that goes to Westbrook, there is a fourth line coming in 2019 that will run between Downtown and Woodbine.

Can't keep up with all these new bus lines!

[Drummer]

Was driving on 17 Ave SE last night and there were 2 busses in the traffic lane (not in the dedicated middle bus lane) stopping at regular stops and blocking the right lane. I didn’t know that certain routes would still require buses on 17th in the traffic lanes, I assumed they would all move to the middle.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Drummer

Was driving on 17 Ave SE last night and there were 2 busses in the traffic lane (not in the dedicated middle bus lane) stopping at regular stops and blocking the right lane. I didn’t know that certain routes would still require buses on 17th in the traffic lanes, I assumed they would all move to the middle.

That's correct, only the Max lines move to the dedicated lanes. It's not practical for all busses to use these lanes, there would be no way for them to pass each other and the slower local routes would clog up the lane.

[Drummer]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

That's correct, only the Max lines move to the dedicated lanes. It's not practical for all busses to use these lanes, there would be no way for them to pass each other and the slower local routes would clog up the lane.

I thought it might be because the other buses need to turn down 36 / 52 St and can’t if they are in the middle.

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by Drummer

I thought it might be because the other buses need to turn down 36 / 52 St and can’t if they are in the middle.

Add advanced turns so that the bus takes up 30sec in a light sequence.
Not like it can possibly make 36St any worse.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Drummer

I thought it might be because the other buses need to turn down 36 / 52 St and can’t if they are in the middle.

I know there is a lane at 52nd for busses to exit from the dedicated lane into the left turn lane to the right so that the bus can turn left (with regular traffic).

[sleepingmoose]

nm

[Wormius]

Is Erlton station worth keeping open? I am curious how many people use that station as it’s usually just onesies and twosies when it stops here during rush hour.

[Joborule]

In the long run, when the area across Macleod gets density development, it will be.

[Lubicon]

It’s only for 10 days but that station is very busy during Stampede too

[getbak]

These numbers are over a decade old, but the relative difference from station to station is probably pretty close: https://web.archive.org/web/20070608...ridership.html

Erlton is the least-busy station on the red line, but not the least-busy overall. Bridgeland, the Zoo, and Barlow/Max Bell are less-busy.


Since those counts are from the spring of 2005, I'd expect Bridgeland's numbers have probably increased because of all the new construction in Bridgeland. The Zoo and Barlow/Max Bell, like Erlton likely see their numbers fluctuate quite a bit depending on the time of year and events taking place at their locations. If you did the count during the summer, the Zoo's numbers would likely be quite a bit higher. If you did it during Stampede week, Erlton would likely be one of the busiest stations on the system.

[Wormius]

Does the new funding announcement mean the extra stations in the north will be built, or is it going into expediting the project?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...gary-1.4998862

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has pledged $1.53 billion toward Calgary's Green Line LRT project, which she calls "the most ambitious LRT project in Calgary's history.

[getbak]

It sounds like this is just solidifying the money that was already pledged. It isn't anything new.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Does the new funding announcement mean the extra stations in the north will be built, or is it going into expediting the project?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...gary-1.4998862

I believe that this just formalizes the funding that was expected from the province for the first chunk. Cameras, smiles, sound bites, etc.

Hopefully the remainder will get funded while the first segment is under construction and they can just keep on going with it.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by getbak

It sounds like this is just solidifying the money that was already pledged. It isn't anything new.

Well that sucks. I thought the funding for the truncated Green line was was already secured. This doesn't seem really newsworthy then.

[Lubicon]

Looks to me like they are just reinforcing where the money is coming from so they can use it as an election issue against the UPC. This announcement appears to be all about politics.

[frinkprof]

In this case, it is hitting the news cycle again because the actual funding agreement was signed by the Province, instead of the money just being committed to, but not yet officially.


It is annoying that it keeps getting re-announced. It can be confusing too, as evidenced by your question about whether this is in addition to funds already announced. I wish it wasn't a thing either. The system is basically set up to re-announce funding at several stages (estimated figure, committed, funding agreement actually signed, sent out for bid/tendering/RFQ, contracts signed with proponent, signs up during construction, project completed). This, of course, is to remind (again and again) the taxpayers/voting public of the funding. In this case, the Province is very definitely dictating the timing of these events to coincide with the upcoming election.


The real point of no return though is the signing of contracts with the winning proponent. The RFQ isn't out yet. Basically no one can back out at that point without losing a lot of real money. This happened to Ottawa in 2006 with the first iteration of their LRT line after a change in municpal government.


This article from a few days ago has Jason Kenney criticizing the Green Line plan, which should be taken as a message that a UCP government may cancel the funding agreement if they are able to:


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...tions-continue


The City had better get the RFQ out and award a contract before the provincial election, which I would expect to happen. No government, UCP or otherwise, would go back on it if a contract has been awarded to proponent.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by getbak

It sounds like this is just solidifying the money that was already pledged. It isn't anything new.

Nothing is solidified if the premier is threatening cancellation of the project if the carbon tax is removed by the next government.

Seems very political to me.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The City had better get the RFQ out and award a contract before the provincial election, which I would expect to happen. No government, UCP or otherwise, would go back on it if a contract has been awarded to proponent.

The current timeline seems to indicate that the contracts won't be awarded until after the election:





http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation.../timeline.aspx

[redforever]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

In this case, it is hitting the news cycle again because the actual funding agreement was signed by the Province, instead of the money just being committed to, but not yet officially.


It is annoying that it keeps getting re-announced. It can be confusing too, as evidenced by your question about whether this is in addition to funds already announced. I wish it wasn't a thing either. The system is basically set up to re-announce funding at several stages (estimated figure, committed, funding agreement actually signed, sent out for bid/tendering/RFQ, contracts signed with proponent, signs up during construction, project completed). This, of course, is to remind (again and again) the taxpayers/voting public of the funding. In this case, the Province is very definitely dictating the timing of these events to coincide with the upcoming election.


The real point of no return though is the signing of contracts with the winning proponent. The RFQ isn't out yet. Basically no one can back out at that point without losing a lot of real money. This happened to Ottawa in 2006 with the first iteration of their LRT line after a change in municpal government.


This article from a few days ago has Jason Kenney criticizing the Green Line plan, which should be taken as a message that a UCP government may cancel the funding agreement if they are able to:


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...tions-continue


The City had better get the RFQ out and award a contract before the provincial election, which I would expect to happen. No government, UCP or otherwise, would go back on it if a contract has been awarded to proponent.

He is not criticizing the Green Line. In fact, the article you referenced says that he supports it.

He is questioning why the plan for the current Green Line will only be half the size of the project as originally planned by the City and funded by the feds.

“They cut the Green Line in half,” said Kenney, in remarks partly directed at the NDP government, while speaking on CBC’s Alberta at Noon. “I’m committed to the Green Line, but my first question to the City of Calgary is: why aren’t we getting the same Green Line that I funded federally? How do we expand it?”