News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

jhappy77 said:
...

The one place that I think would actually be ready for a streetcar today is 17th Ave between Westbrook and Vic Park / Stampede. Would be an instant hit. Then pedestrianize the rest like Bahnofstrasse in Zurich:
View attachment 423955
Click to expand...

lemongrab said:
As dumb as it seems, I think a big barrier to bus ridership is simply stigma/image/reputation. I wonder if running high freq 'cool-looking' busses on a vibrant route might be as effective as a streetcar? Probably with a full-blown marketing campaign that makes them 'feel' somehow different than regular busses:

streetcar-3.jpg



Hipster Express Route: Westbrook-MRU-Marda Loop-17th-Stampede (could conceivably be a figure 8 running up 14th St to SAIT, too)

I could see myself more likely to hop on that to go for dinner, but that idea seems completely incongruous with a 'typical' bus for some reason. I think it could replace a lot of use-cases we used to see with Car2Go
Click to expand...
If we're going to build an initial streetcar line to spur development and ridership in a corridor due to it's coolness, I definitely think either of those routes would be awesome.
 
I understand buses and streetcars seem interchangeable and CT has other things to worry about (frequency and safety) first but why not walk and chew gum at the same time?

I found a reddit post the referenced a study [pdf] looking at replacements for the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor bus system. The Debate was LRV or BRT (keep in mind, this doesn't account for the benefits a hydrogen system would have over standard LRV):

  • BRT would have lower up front lower capital costs than the LRV, but the annual operating costs would be higher than a rail based system.

  • Taking into account the increased ridership from either option BRT would need to run every 2 minutes. meanwhile, a rail based system would provide sufficient passenger capacity and could be expanded to support additional ridership growth.

  • There's also a reduction in emissions and energy use with LRV (I don't know if CT plans on buying more fuel efficient buses?) The study actually said BRT could increase emissions compared to the current system, depending on the route.

Not to be dismissed LRV were preferred by the public, as has been pointed out, coolness matters. The goal is to have people riding transit isn't it?

Of note however, I can't find any evidence in a quick google that this project ever went anywhere...

I also saw a lot of general anecdotal talk, Just want to repeat a few points:

  • Streetcars do better in winter because they clear their own tracks.
  • They cost less long term because LRVs last longer than buses (20-30 years versus 8-10).
  • LRVs have lower labour costs because you can have trains with 3 or 4 times the capacity of a bi-articulated bus and the buses and bus drivers required to operate the increased frequency of a bus service don't cost nothing (someone did say labour is the largest expense to a transit system, I don't think that's true...).
  • Buses also weigh a lot and contribute to increased road maintenance.
  • Reduced noise (I think, not sure how loud a Hydrogen LRV would be?)
  • Developers are more likely to invest in surrounding properties because streetcars are more permanent (I don't think a BRT increases property values)

But I do worry about having a streetcar interact with traffic, but maybe having a street car would reduce traffic? Buses are more flexible and can have their routes changed, but I do think anywhere you'd put a streetcar is not likely somewhere you would be removing service.

Either way, IMO I don't think the bus and LRV debate is close but I'm biased. And I currently take the bus.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
I understand buses and streetcars seem interchangeable and CT has other things to worry about (frequency and safety) first but why not walk and chew gum at the same time?

I found a reddit post the referenced a study [pdf] looking at replacements for the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor bus system. The Debate was LRV or BRT (keep in mind, this doesn't account for the benefits a hydrogen system would have over standard LRV):

  • BRT would have lower up front lower capital costs than the LRV, but the annual operating costs would be higher than a rail based system.

  • Taking into account the increased ridership from either option BRT would need to run every 2 minutes. meanwhile, a rail based system would provide sufficient passenger capacity and could be expanded to support additional ridership growth.

  • There's also a reduction in emissions and energy use with LRV (I don't know if CT plans on buying more fuel efficient buses?) The study actually said BRT could increase emissions compared to the current system, depending on the route.

Not to be dismissed LRV were preferred by the public, as has been pointed out, coolness matters. The goal is to have people riding transit isn't it?

Of note however, I can't find any evidence in a quick google that this project ever went anywhere...

I also saw a lot of general anecdotal talk, Just want to repeat a few points:

  • Streetcars do better in winter because they clear their own tracks.
  • They cost less long term because LRVs last longer than buses (20-30 years versus 8-10).
  • LRVs have lower labour costs because you can have trains with 3 or 4 times the capacity of a bi-articulated bus and the buses and bus drivers required to operate the increased frequency of a bus service don't cost nothing (someone did say labour is the largest expense to a transit system, I don't think that's true...).
  • Buses also weigh a lot and contribute to increased road maintenance.
  • Reduced noise (I think, not sure how loud a Hydrogen LRV would be?)
  • Developers are more likely to invest in surrounding properties because streetcars are more permanent (I don't think a BRT increases property values)

But I do worry about having a streetcar interact with traffic, but maybe having a street car would reduce traffic? Buses are more flexible and can have their routes changed, but I do think anywhere you'd put a streetcar is not likely somewhere you would be removing service.

Either way, IMO I don't think the bus and LRV debate is close but I'm biased. And I currently take the bus.
Click to expand...

An important factor for the bus' favor is that you can upgrade as much or as little infrastructure as you need. A "true" BRT can be quite expensive to build. But a BRT-Lite, which may include minor touch-ups like painting lanes in strategic locations to be bus lanes or adding signal priority, costs significantly less - and can perform nearly identically. Plus, any bus route can use existing road infrastructure to continue running even in areas with zero infrastructure upgrades, so you can tack on extra areas to routes that wouldn't necessarily make sense to serve with a streetcar.

That said, I'm all for building streetcars if we ever do a study that says they make more financial sense along any particular corridor.
 
@CalgaryTiger I agree with you that being proactive in building a streetcar in an area that would be compatible with it in the long run is not bad idea. If we want to be encouraging more riders in the city, convenience and frequency is most important. But form also is important, and people likely would be more willing to use a route that's on a streetcar if it takes them to urban or high ridership areas.
 
@jhappy77 the financials seem decent to me, I'd love a study but I see it this way with routes along 17th Ave and 37th St: Property values go up along the route thus property taxes increase (TOD at Westbrook would be great), labour and material costs decrease or are more front loaded (fewer buses and drivers), and the increased ridership might just make up any difference that remains.
Joborule said:
If we want to be encouraging more riders in the city, convenience and frequency is most important. But form also is important, and people likely would be more willing to use a route that's on a streetcar if it takes them to urban or high ridership areas.
Click to expand...
I don't think the fact that twice the amount of drivers and buses would be required to increase frequency on routes from 30 minute intervals to 15 minutes. That doesn't cost nothing.

And would that really increase ridership that much? (I'd love to see a study on this). It would get some people on the bus but really I think you would only be spreading out your current ridership, not increasing it. And I don't see congestion on current buses as a problem. Current frequency is inconvenient for current riders but I don't think its keeping that many people off the bus.
 
Last edited:
Frequency is absolutely a make or break for people to use (or continue to use) the service or not. It doesn't take many instances of arriving 5 minutes before a scheduled bus and then waiting 39 minutes for one to actually come by for a person to find an alternative.

The user experience of waiting for a bus that may or may not arrive is a lot different than waiting for a train that you KNOW will definitely come sooner or later.

Obviously we could strive for better reliability/timeliness of service, but it's a big complex world out there and s### happens (and building more buffer into strictly regimented schedules has downsides like waiting too long at time stops, which is another negative user experience).

As a taxpayer, I would prefer to pay more bus drivers and more mechanics to drive/fix more busses, as those individuals will circulate money into the economy better than money directed to 'more efficient' options like streetcars, unless the ridership case for a higher capacity option is absolutely rock solid.
 
lemongrab said:
Frequency is absolutely a make or break for people to use (or continue to use) the service or not. It doesn't take many instances of arriving 5 minutes before a scheduled bus and then waiting 39 minutes for one to actually come by for a person to find an alternative.

The user experience of waiting for a bus that may or may not arrive is a lot different than waiting for a train that you KNOW will definitely come sooner or later.

Obviously we could strive for better reliability/timeliness of service, but it's a big complex world out there and s### happens (and building more buffer into strictly regimented schedules has downsides like waiting too long at time stops, which is another negative user experience).

As a taxpayer, I would prefer to pay more bus drivers and more mechanics to drive/fix more busses, as those individuals will circulate money into the economy better than money directed to 'more efficient' options like streetcars, unless the ridership case for a higher capacity option is absolutely rock solid.
Click to expand...
Also with the feeder buses that go to the LRT stations. With a frequencies of 30 minutes or so, it sucks if you miss one. It changes the commute time from say..40 minutes to 1 hour 10 min.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
  • BRT would have lower up front lower capital costs than the LRV, but the annual operating costs would be higher than a rail based system.

LRVs have lower labour costs because you can have trains with 3 or 4 times the capacity of a bi-articulated bus and the buses and bus drivers required to operate the increased frequency of a bus service don't cost nothing (someone did say labour is the largest expense to a transit system, I don't think that's true...).
Click to expand...

Labour is obviously the largest operating expense in a transit system. You yourself quote a study where providing multiple buses has a higher operating cost than a single train; if paying multiple drivers wasn't a big part of operating cost, then this wouldn't be the case. Calgary doesn't release any statistics, nor does the Canadian transit association; the American one does -- figure 31 on page 26 of the 2021 APTA Fact Book shows that 61% of transit agency operating expense is the cost of labour; this is actually an understatement because a big chunk of the remainder is outsourcing transportation (and presumably the companies hired to do that also pay wages). Excluding the outsourcing, 72% of transit agency operating expense is labour cost.

1662179775262.png


CalgaryTiger said:
@jhappy77 the financials seem decent to me, I'd love a study but I see it this way with routes along 17th Ave and 37th St: Property values go up along the route thus property taxes increase (TOD at Westbrook would be great), labour and material costs decrease or are more front loaded (fewer buses and drivers), and the increased ridership might just make up any difference that remains.

I don't think the fact that twice the amount of drivers and buses would be required to increase frequency on routes from 30 minute intervals to 15 minutes. That doesn't cost nothing.

And would that really increase ridership that much? (I'd love to see a study on this). It would get some people on the bus but really I think you would only be spreading out your current ridership, not increasing it. And I don't see congestion on current buses as a problem. Current frequency is inconvenient for current riders but I don't think its keeping that many people off the bus.
Click to expand...

I really like Todd Littman's work summarizing elasticities in general; he has a lengthy report on summarizing transit elasticities specifically, which has further cites of the studies if you want more direct information. The summary of elasticities from the studies he covers is here:
1662180427345.png


So for example, if transit fares went up by 10%, you would expect overall ridership to change somewhere between -0.2*10% = -2% and -0.5*10% = -5%; i.e. a 2 to 5 percent reduction in ridership in the short run (which means months) with a 6% to 9% reduction in the long run (a few years).

Note that changes in costs are outside of inflation; for instance, twenty years ago a single trip in Calgary was $1.75 and a monthly pass was $60; now they're $3.60 and $112 respectively, so it seems like they've doubled. However, inflation means that all prices have gone up -- if fares had only gone up to track inflation, a single trip would be $2.67 and a monthly pass would be $91 today. So there is about a 20-30% increase in transit fares in real terms over this time frame, which we would expect to result in a 12-27% reduction in ridership, all else being equal (which it hasn't been; the city's grown, other costs have changed, transit has expanded their service, etc.)

So the elasticity with respect to service is somewhere between 0.5 and 0.7 short run and 0.7 to 1.1 long run; an elasticity of 0.7 means that doubling service in general will increase ridership by in the 70% range; this will depend on many other factors -- how good the service is apart from frequency, how good the competing modes are, socioeconomic conditions, what the service is before and after (going from 30 minute to 15 minute service is a bigger improvement than going from 6 minute to 3 minute service, even though both are doubling).

There's a general perception in the public (including high level decision makers) that transit is something you build, and that what's important is building new stations or new lines or new vehicle types. Transit is, more than anything, something you operate, and what is actually the most important is having frequent service when and where people want to ride it. Sadly,.because of completely arbitrary rules, there's always money to build a nice shelter to wait in with a fancy high tech clock to watch your bus coming in 37 minutes, but there's never money to just have buses coming every few minutes so you don't need a shelter or a countdown clock.
 
Last edited:
Surrealplaces said:
Definitely seems busier. I took the bus from downtown yesterday (#4) at 2:00pm and it was full from when I got on to when I got off.
Click to expand...
Would love to see the ridership data by route which as far as I know, has never been published. The City does publiish aggregated numbers monthly but is only broken out by bus v. Ctrain and fare product, and only starts in mid-2020 so not particularly useful to compare how ridership has shifted from pre v. post pandemic and by route.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top