[ByeByeBaby]

Reminder that there is already a busy-during-events pedestrian crossing of both Macleod and the LRT at grade, at the south end of Erlton station. It's staffed during Stampede, but I've never seen an operational problem with it in the few dozen times I've crossed there during Stampede.

 

[Transit Apologist]

that was Calgary Transit public parking, put in place in the mid 1950s when the city build out was only 3 blocks beyond it, probably for the residents of the towns of Montgomery and Bowness to 'park and ride' the CT bus system. It was only closed in 2016 and by that time the most westerly bus stop was over 10 kms away. It seems it should have been removed in the mid 1960s once Bowness and Montgomery were almalgamated.

Bowness & Montgomery bus service existed as early as 1963 (and probably earlier) then provided by route 25 Bowness. That lot was the loop for route 1 when it was a trolleybus. The 1 was dieselized in 1965 and extended east from Inglewood to Forest Lawn and west from Parkdale to Bowness sometime in 1965-75. However, a companion “1A” service remained, which operated the original Parkdale/Inglewood routing and continued to use 3rd & 34th as a terminus until sometime in 1975-78. (all-time trolleybus system map attached, 1975 CT system map linked)

https://transitspotlight.com/memorabilia/Calgary%20Transit%20System%20Maps/1975.pdf

 

[CalgaryTiger]

a companion “1A” service remained, which operated the original Parkdale/Inglewood routing and continued to use 3rd & 34th as a terminus until sometime in 1975-78

What a concept; an 'A' service that increases frequency in the more dense part of a route. This needs to be the part of a PTN. There is nothing worse than a bus driving by a stop closer to the core because it is full. Happened to me during the last cold snap, needless to say I snapped! With no one to actually get mad at I just went and bought a cheap fat tire bike and have completely given up on the bus.

 

[outoftheice]

Today's provincial budget had $43 million in funding for a Blue Line extension to 88th Ave N. This sets the stage for the eventual airport terminal connection. Given how George Chahal represents the area, I'm sure federal funding will be added shortly.

There was also $9 million for a passenger rail master plan with a 15 year delivery timeline. The plan will "assess connecting Calgary and Edmonton airports to their downtowns, regional communities to Calgary and Edmonton, Calgary to the Rocky Mountain park system and commuter rail service opportunities, such as from Airdrie to Okotoks." That's kind of an exciting idea but Alberta has had lots of passenger rail plans so hopefully the UCP follow through with more funding on execution.

 

[Urban Outdoorsman]

I personally would love to see Calgary connected by rail to Airdrie, Okotoks and Cochrane.

 

[badc0ffee]

I don't really love this video or this YouTuber, but:

A few years ago I heard that the wisdom was direct airport->downtown links might seem like a good idea when you're traveling and visiting a new city as a tourist, but are not worth the money as they don't do much for the city itself. But now we have 3 Canadian cities with airport rail links, and urbanism/planning enthusiasts like this guy calling for an Edmonton light rail expansion to its airport, of all things.

As for Calgary, I thought the people mover plan was more advanced than he seems to be saying in the video. I also don't think it's such a terrible idea. Direct blue/green line service to the airport would be more expensive, and also cut into service frequency on the other branches of those lines. Finally he doesn't really explain why he thinks Calgary is dropping the ball on LRT planning compared to Edmonton. I get that the green line has had setbacks, but when it's done it won't be less useful than Edmonton's new Valley line, and the stub NW extension they're building.

 

[trtcttc]

I don't really love this video or this YouTuber, but:

A few years ago I heard that the wisdom was direct airport->downtown links might seem like a good idea when you're traveling and visiting a new city as a tourist, but are not worth the money as they don't do much for the city itself. But now we have 3 Canadian cities with airport rail links, and urbanism/planning enthusiasts like this guy calling for an Edmonton light rail expansion to its airport, of all things.

As for Calgary, I thought the people mover plan was more advanced than he seems to be saying in the video. I also don't think it's such a terrible idea. Direct blue/green line service to the airport would be more expensive, and also cut into service frequency on the other branches of those lines. Finally he doesn't really explain why he thinks Calgary is dropping the ball on LRT planning compared to Edmonton. I get that the green line has had setbacks, but when it's done it won't be less useful than Edmonton's new Valley line, and the stub NW extension they're building.

Direct airport links don’t work with our level of traffic. Even Toronto’s UP Express has been a money loser from day 1 and once they build the GO Extensions and Eglinton West, it might even be closed, or merged with GO Service. It’ll work if the city has a large transit network that traveller can actually visit without cars, which is not the case here considering a lot of our traffic is to the Rockies. It’ll mostly be for airport workers, which by the time the Blue/Green line extensions are done, the airport and surrounding area will be a big employment centre

 

[Surrealplaces]

Just my opinion, but having a rail line to the airport is a nice to have, not a need to have. Once the green line is done and the dust is settled, it's something to look at for sure, but depending on the cost, it's likely that the money could be better spent improving the existing LRT lines. A regular bus shuttle from the Blue Line and the Green line should suffice for airport workers, who are the people who would benefit from it most.

 

[darwink]

trying to balance the transfers within the airport district, the want to serve the blue and green lines and the desire to connect to downtown much sooner to super charge visitation, I think Calgary will end up with something that might feel a little odd at first but once we let it stew for a bit will make sense.

 

[badc0ffee]

If we do end up with something like the JFK AirTrain, that's not so bad. That thing is great - I've used it. It allowed JFK to collect to two different subway lines, and one commuter line, in different directions from the airport. Which is kind of exactly what it would give us here, if you substitute light rail for subway.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I've used a few rail-airport connections in various cities and here are my observations:

Looked well used: All three of these cities have large, busy transit systems, and a rail link seemed a good fit.
London
Paris
Hong Kong

Not well used IMO:
Vancouver - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff. Awkward getting from the station into the heart of the airport.
Phoenix - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff. IMO a total waste of money. Really awkward connection getting from terminal to station. No tourists using it....almost nobody at all using it.
Atlanta - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff.
Chicago - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff. Surprisingly very little tourist usage for such a large city and busy airport. Not only was the train mostly empty, but I think I was the only non-staff.

 

[badc0ffee]

My own thoughts:

Vancouver - I think YVR's rail connection is great, and seemed well used to me. I never rent a car when I'm there (or I'll only have one for a day trip), and used to take buses to and from the airport. Both the public transit option (2 buses) and the private shuttle were often slow due to traffic, and packed full (I was denied boarding once). As much as I resent those goofy little trains, the Canada Line is a godsend - like a 20-25 minute trip right into downtown and never a wait for the train. Much faster than a taxi.
Toronto - Before the UP Express, I used to take the Airport Rocket bus to the end of the Bloor line. That was actually fine, but a bit of a long subway trip. The UP Express is better, but not much better. It's expensive (or it used to be), there's a wait for the train, and then you need to deal with Union Station when you're in the city. Union is pretty terrible for wayfinding, and not as convenient for me as being on the Bloor-Danforth line. Like Vancouver, both options are faster than a taxi, as Toronto's traffic has seemingly increased exponentially in the last 10 years.
SFO - No complaints. Looked like other tourists were using it. I think it was as fast or a bit faster than taking a taxi on the 101 (which can have traffic jams at midnight).
London (pre-Elizabeth Line) - I think I was going to somewhere on the Central Line, and had to take a meandering journey across multiple tube lines. Actually pretty annoying with luggage.
Hong Kong - As you said, a good fit. Just amazingly convenient, like the most obvious place to go after your flight is right on to the train. I remember Amsterdam/Schipol being like this too.

I wonder about the other light rail airport links in the US like Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland and St. Louis. I suspect they're something like Phoenix in terms of popularity.

 

[artvandelay]

I've used a few rail-airport connections in various cities and here are my observations:

Looked well used: All three of these cities have large, busy transit systems, and a rail link seemed a good fit.
London
Paris
Hong Kong

Not well used IMO:
Vancouver - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff. Awkward getting from the station into the heart of the airport.
Phoenix - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff. IMO a total waste of money. Really awkward connection getting from terminal to station. No tourists using it....almost nobody at all using it.
Atlanta - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff.
Chicago - Looked to be used mostly by airport staff. Surprisingly very little tourist usage for such a large city and busy airport. Not only was the train mostly empty, but I think I was the only non-staff.

I disagree with respect to YVR. Canada Line is very well used by travelers as well as employees - that's the model we should follow, using a Green Line spur rather than this people mover idea.

 

[darwink]

I disagree with respect to YVR. Canada Line is very well used by travelers as well as employees - that's the model we should follow, using a Green Line spur rather than this people mover idea.

Choosing a spur, or a people mover as currently studied, will leave this opportunity for decades in the future.

I forget exactly where I saw this, but the Banff Downtown YYC proposal was looking at using the same stations and tech as a people mover to also connect on an exclusive ROW to downtown. There would be a forced transfer downtown for a more conventional train to Banff (would be forced no matter the tech due to the vastly different headways). The province funded the study to try to get everyone working together, so we don't end up with 2 or 3 different systems at the airport exploding costs.

An automated train with twin track on shared sections and single track to downtown (with a passing section) could lower costs and meet everyone's needs. It could solve problems (by elevating) with this section for downtown access that is driving cost estimates for the airport link.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I disagree with respect to YVR. Canada Line is very well used by travelers as well as employees - that's the model we should follow, using a Green Line spur rather than this people mover idea.

It could be. Those were just my observations, and I've only used it 4 times (2 times in each direction). Maybe YVR has stats on tourists, etc.. But on the times I've used it it wasn't very busy, and a lot of the people got on/off at the two stations before the final airport station.
Definitely as a traveler, I liked it, as a Vancouver/BC taxpayer I don't know. It makes me question whether we would need it in Calgary

London (pre-Elizabeth Line) - I think I was going to somewhere on the Central Line, and had to take a meandering journey across multiple tube lines. Actually pretty annoying with luggage.

I wonder about the other light rail airport links in the US like Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland and St. Louis. I suspect they're something like Phoenix in terms of popularity.

That's a good point about London that I forgot about. Travelling through the train system with luggage was awful if you have to change from the Elizabeth line, and now that I think about it the Paris deal wasn't much better with luggage. Hong Kong was perfectly setup for folks with luggage.