I just may be the only Calgarian who used a public bikesharing program every month from March to December last year.  That’s because my husband and I spent 2011 dividing our time between Denver, Colorado and our home in Calgary.  From the get-go, I grabbed any and all opportunities presented to me in Denver and the best was the Denver B-cycle program.

Those who know Denver know that it is remarkably similar to Calgary when it comes to geography, sprawling footprint, economy, weather patterns, age relative to the rest of the country, vibe and more. And this means that I got to try out bikesharing as my primary mode of transportation in a city that is so much like Calgary, I sometimes had to remind myself it wasn’t Calgary.

So, after an extended trial period, this 50 year old, somewhat timid, fairweather, wouldn’t-wear-lycra-if-you-paid-me cyclist wholeheartedly supports a bikeshare program for Calgary.  Even so, I agree with many – if not most – Calgary cyclists, including the thoughtful bunch over at Bike Calgary, that a safe network of dedicated cycling lanes downtown must be in place for a bikeshare to succeed in Calgary.  But since we’ve already committed to establishing that safe network downtown, why wait to start on a bikeshare plan?  Start now and by the time it’s ready to roll out, the necessary infrastructure will be there.  And once a bikeshare is established, it can grow along with the on-street biking network.

Now, here’s why I support a bikeshare for Calgary, the sooner, the better.

It extends and enhances the reach of transit. A bikeshare integrated with public transit allows users to cycle to their destination or to extend their bus or light rail trip to areas where buses don’t travel simply by checking out a bike at or near their final transit stop. In transit-speak, this means bikesharing provides a great solution to the “last mile problem” of moving people to and from transit hubs like C-train stations. Denver’s B-cycle network worked so well for me that the first thing I checked before tackling any errand or appointment was whether there was a B-cycle station near my destination.  If there was, I biked; if not, I took the bus or drove.

It’s flexible and convenient. Users can grab a bike anytime, anywhere, simply by signing one out at a kiosk. If you start out on a bike and your plan – or the weather – changes, you can dock the bike and switch to an alternate mode like the bus, the train or a cab.  A bikeshare in Calgary would allow people to combine biking with public transit without having to consider which buses have racks on the front and when bikes are permitted on the LRT.  In fact, it would allow them to do this on the spur of the moment, without planning ahead at all.

It provides more options. The system of being able to ride from docking station to docking station without returning the bike to your starting point provides more wayfinding options.  Often, Denver B-cycle was more convenient for me than transit. If the bus schedule would get me there way too early or too late, if the route didn’t quite take me where I needed to go or if I missed the bus altogether, I jumped on a bike instead. For those who work in downtown Calgary, think of the times when you need to get to or from a meeting downtown that isn’t on the free-fare C-train route.  A bikeshare would mean you could grab a bike rather than walk or drive to that meeting.  With docking stations adjacent to many downtown Denver office towers, I saw people dressed for the office and with briefcase in the bike basket on a daily basis, using B-cycles for exactly this purpose.

There’s a low participation threshold and people don’t have to make a huge commitment to try it out. Bikesharing means people can try out cycling on a regular basis without committing to owning and maintaining a bike.  They can try it once or twice, here and there or they can use it regularly.  I tried Denver B-cycle the first time on a whim.  The sun was shining, I was curious and I gave it a try.  It was easy and fun and I bought an annual membership immediately after that first ride.  My membership card meant I could check out a bike electronically whenever and wherever I liked.  Which for me turned out to be several times a week, sometimes several times a day.

It’s a highly visible symbol that a city is committed to cycling. A cycling strategy is just a strategy as long as it exists only on paper.  Nothing says a city supports cycling as a cost-effective, healthy, environmentally-friendly, low impact means of transportation like a proliferation of distinctive bikeshare bikes (in Denver they’re bright red, upright 3-speeds with sponsor logos) across the downtown core and beyond.

Tourists will love it. Notice I mentioned them last.  The day we launch a bikeshare in Calgary, I know they’ll eagerly try it out and, like our visitors to Denver last year, rave about it to their friends when they go back home again.  And their rental fees will certainly defray the operating costs of the system overall.  But I think there are plenty of other reasons to adopt a bikeshare in Calgary before we even get to the tourism benefits.

Council has already committed us to a new cycling plan for Calgary and that plan contains a bikeshare.  As someone who has experienced – and embraced – the benefits of bikesharing firsthand, I’m hoping Monday’s decision by Council will be to walk the talk and commit to a Calgary bikeshare now.

Editor’s Note:  Here is the latest posting from Calgary TransitCamp contributor Peter Schryvers on the Calgary TransitCamp vision for better public transportation in Calgary.  Your comments are welcome!

This week, Kim Jones, a fellow member of Calgary TransitCamp who works in the central business district, explained to me that for her morning commute she boards the LRT at Shawnessy station (on the South Line), and heads south. Of course, Kim isn’t actually headed south, as her ultimate destination is in the opposite direction; she is actually taking the train to the end of the line simply so she can get a seat. What makes this behavior even more exceptional is that Shawnessy station is only the second stop on the line.

For those who do not regularly take the LRT in Calgary, this may seem strange, but to those of us who do, it is not an uncommon sight. Some riders will take a train heading west through the downtown, only to get off at the last downtown station, and cross the street so they can get a seat on the trains heading east. Others do the opposite, riding the train to City Hall station and changing trains.

Calgary suffers from a transit problem that many cities (outside of much larger and denser cities) simply do not have: the train is full. At stations just outside the downtown, such as Sunnyside, Bridgeland, and Erlton, getting on the train during rush hour is virtually impossible. The same is true for stations even further out. And the south line is arguably the worst. In short, the LRT is a victim of its own success.

To understand why this is, and to shed some light on the issue, we have done a little number crunching and work with maps. Below is a map showing the different catchments (the term transit planners use to describe an area that is served by a transit line) of the different LRT lines in Calgary (existing, under construction and proposed). We have taken these areas and calculated what the population is of each, based on the most recent civic census (which gives population breakdowns by community). Some of the numbers and areas on the map will be rough, as it isn’t always clear cut which communities are served by which lines, but the general picture is illustrative. We have also added numbers showing future growth in each catchment- which are based on long-term growth plans for the city (namely the West Regional Context Study, the SW Regional Policy Plan, the South Macleod Trail Regional Policy Plan, the NE Regional Policy Plan, the SE Regional Policy Plan, the East Regional Context Study, and the North Regional Context Study, all of which can be found in PDF format here).

The above map shows us a lot. First, it gives us a good idea of the relative populations served by each existing line. The 219,000 people served by the south line (compared to 172,000 for the northwest line and 148,000 for the northeast line) is a good indication that it will be the busiest of all the lines, which is why it is so full so quickly.

Second, it shows us what the populations are of future lines, both those planned, and under construction. I, for one, was surprised that the West LRT in fact had a larger catchment than the future Southeast LRT, an interesting fact considering the debates occurring prior to the construction of the West LRT; of course, raw residential population isn’t and shouldn’t be the only factor when planning transit lines, but it is interesting nonetheless. Also interesting to note is how large the north central catchment area really is. After the South and Northwest lines, the North Central line, if it were built today, would serve the third-largest population of any line.

Third, the map shows some areas that are not served either by current LRT lines, or by lines planned in the future. These are areas where the distance to the nearest LRT station, by bus or by walking, is almost comparable to the distance to the downtown: what we call Bowness, Greater Forest Lawn and South Calgary. These areas are the subject of a future blog, but we want you to keep them in mind.

But the map above doesn’t just tell us about the current state of our city and transit system; it gives us some insights into the future. Growth plans and documents show that the future (mostly suburban) planned growth of the city is concentrated in the north-central, south and southeast regions of our city. There is some growth in the northeast and east parts of the city, and admittedly there will be growth in the west as well, but there is no regional plan outlining future growth in this area, at least not that we could find.  The bulk of the growth, though, is in these three areas. This leads to a lot of questions.

First, if the south line is currently at capacity, and is almost full by the second station and serves almost 50,000 more residents than any other line, is this the best place to plan for an additional 151,000 people? And should we be planning for all of them at the end of the line? If it is hard to get on the train now further down the line, it will be nearly impossible with this additional growth.

Second, are the growth plans for the southeast and north-central areas similarly troublesome? The southeast region of the city is arguably the farthest from the downtown and suffers from considerable traffic problems already, with the locations where Deerfoot crosses the Bow River at the Ivor Strong and Calf Robe Bridges being perhaps the two biggest headaches. Is this a good place to plan for an additional 189,000 people? The same question can be asked of the north central region’s plans for growth.

Finally, when we add up these suburban growth projections, it comes to a whopping 650,000 more people. Is this level of outward suburban growth even desirable? Or should we be making more effort to focus growth within the current boundaries of our city, and especially close to existing transit lines? This is of course part of a much larger discussion our city is having, but from a transit perspective, it is quite interesting.

The good news is that plans are not destiny. Just because these population growth estimates are in our plans, it does not mean that they will come to be. And perhaps now is a good time to pause and think about not just the future growth of our city, but also the role that transit plays in this growth. Before we end this blog post, we want all of you to consider the following:

Should we base our plans for growth on transit capacity? That is to say, should our approval of development in the city be based on our ability to serve that growth with transit? These are big issues for our city to consider, but we should never shy away from complex problems arising from growth. Planning around transit capacity may be one step we can take to ensure a more sustainable city in the future.

The Governance, Finance, and Infrastructure Group (CC-GFIG) spoke to Calgary City Council on Monday about the City Budget.  This is a summary of what we said.

After careful review, we recommended an increase in taxes in the order of 8% per year over the next three years.  This level of tax increase is justified for several reasons:

• Most Calgarians feel they are receiving good, but not excellent service from the City.  Calgarians have made it clear that excellence is expected and will only be achieved when more money is provided in key areas.  (2011 Citizen Satisfaction Survey, Public Engagement Process & Results)

• A tax increase of around 7.5% per year for the next ten years is needed to eliminate the City’s operating and capital deficits (Long Range Financial Plan 2011).

• Sixty per cent of Calgarians are willing to pay more for the services they need – 27% want taxes increased to expand services (2011 Citizen Satisfaction Survey).

• Calgary will remain competitive with other cities even with three years of 8% increases.

We believe the primary goal of government is to help those who have been disadvantaged by circumstances or poor choices. We also know government holds the key to ensuring safety, sustainable development, and a level playing field for business. As a result, we recommended that additional money be provided in these areas:

• The Police Service: Inadequate funding is the primary reason the Police Service has not achieved the excellence the public expects.

• The Fire Department: Response times remain below safety standards and, since 2006, have declined for six safety standards out of eigh

• Calgary Transit: Transit is the key to reducing traffic congestion by providing high-quality service that will retain regular transit users and encourage occasional and former transit riders to become loyal customers.

• Family & Community Support Services: Under the proposed budget, FCSS services will be spread even thinner, resources leveraged through partnerships will decline, and participation in after-school and other out-reach programs will, at best, remain static.  This will particularly affect new communities where a police presence is difficult to maintain.

• Office of Land Servicing & Housing and Calgary Housing Company: It is vital that the City provides more funding to ensure that Calgary’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness will be a success.

• Land Use Planning and Policy: Additional funding is needed for analytical tools for the Growth Management Framework and to build the “more proactive, strategic model” for addressing Calgary’s regional interests

To make these things happen, we recommended that, using the tools available now, Administration develop by early 2012 a comprehensive plan for improving the way the City raises revenue.  The objectives of the revenue plan would be to:

• Meet imagineCalgary’s financial targets

• Less reliance on property taxes.
• General revenues based on progressive taxation.
• Public goods and services priced according to public benefits.

• Maintain and improve service.

• Eliminate the deficits in operating and capital funding.

• Implement a cost-recovery policy for roads.

By adopting these recommendations, the 2012-2014 Budget will move Calgary towards becoming a truly global, vibrant, and sustainable city. Calgarians are looking to Council for leadership.  Council has made a good start with this year’s process to build a better budget. Now is the time to finish the job. Let the Mayor and your Alderman know what you think.

Read CC-GFIG’s letter to Council on the budget here.

Editor’s Note:  Here is the latest posting from Calgary TransitCamp contributor Peter Schryvers on the Calgary TransitCamp vision for better public transportation in Calgary.  Your comments are welcome!

The North Crosstown route is perhaps one of the most important transit routes in Calgary’s primary transit network. It creates a strong east-west access corridor across the north side of the city, providing essential links between the Northwest, North Central and Northeast LRT lines across the city, along with connecting important activity areas such as Peter Lougheed Hospital, SAIT, McMahon Stadium, and most importantly the currently under-serviced Foothills Hospital.

Implementing this route will come with its challenges. Along the route, the character of the roads being used changes dramatically from residential arterial roads (52 Street and 32 Avenue NE), to an commercial arterial road shared with the C-Train (36 Street NE), to a free-flowing expressway (16 Avenue N east of Deerfoot), to an urban boulevard intersected by numerous cross streets (16 Avenue N from west of Deerfoot Trail to approximately Crowchild Trail), and finally to a loop comprised of several different roads between the Foothills Hospital, Children’s Hospital, and the University of Calgary. Each of these portions has different challenges and opportunities, but it is the most urban section that we are going to discuss in this blog: the section of 16 Avenue N between Crowchild Trail and Deerfoot Trail.

Between 2006 and 2010, 16 Avenue N between Deerfoor Trail and 19 Street NW underwent a considerable upgrade, widening the existing two lanes in each direction (plus left land turning lanes) to three lanes in each direction.  The upgrades also included many additional elements, such as median planters, new lighting fixtures, landscaping, and better sound barriers. But what was missing from the upgrade was something we at Calgary TransitCamp consider to be the most important: a dedicated bus lane.

However, we believe that not all is lost, and with some creative thinking and prudent design we can turn this section of 16 Avenue N into a BRT route with little capital expense. One of our pillars at Calgary TransitCamp is to build it right, don’t build it twice. So instead of reworking the entire streetscape, we need to find creative ways to work with what we have. To do this we need to consider four things: how do we create the lanes, where do the lanes go, how do we integrate stations, and how do we deal with intersections?

So how do we integrate the bus lanes into the existing road without any significant capital expenditure?  The answer is pretty simple: paint and plastic barriers. Simply put, we just need to paint existing traffic lanes a different colour (I like red, but any colour would probably do), add some “BUS ONLY” markings, and install some plastic jersey barriers (usually filled with water, but with our winters sand will have to do).

The other three questions can be answered all at once: use the centre lane for the bus lane, use left hand turn lanes to incorporate the stations, and design intersections to give buses priority. We’ve created some images to show how it can all work.

First, let’s see how the current situation works along the avenue:

As you can see, this is how the current situation works on 16 Avenue N. Three lanes travel in either direction (2), with buses mixed in regular traffic (1). For the buses, this arrangement is not optimal as they are subjected to traffic delays (1), which increase both travel times for passengers and operational costs for transit. As well, as stations are located on the right hand lane and the buses sometimes must make a left hand turn, they must cross several lanes of traffic to do so, which is not only difficult for the buses (especially the extra-long articulated buses), but also disruptive to the flow of traffic, as other vehicles have to accommodate the buses switching lanes. 

Now, let’s see how adding a bus lane changes this situation:

The dedicated bus lane allows buses to travel freely (1), considerably reducing travel times, especially during times of congestion. An added benefit of the bus lanes is that emergency vehicles (2), such as ambulances, fire trucks, and police vehicles, can use the lanes to bypass traffic, decreasing response times. The lanes are easily implemented using paint and plastic barriers (3), thus reducing the construction costs of implementing the lanes. A downside of the bus lanes is that regular vehicle traffic is reduced to two lanes (3).

Next, let’s see how intersections currently operate, as shown below:

The current operation of intersections can cause considerable delays for buses, as they have to wait with regular traffic at each signal (1). The current intersection design isn’t optimal for pedestrians either, who have to cross a considerable distance (7 lanes typically) to get from one side of the street to the other without a break (2). Bus stops are located on the side of the street (3), which can cause traffic delays as buses back up traffic with each stop. Furthermore, the traffic signals do not give buses priority, adding to further delays (4). However, the intersection configuration does allow for three full lanes of traffic, plus a left turning lane (5), which improves traffic flow for vehicles.

When adding bus lanes to an intersection, there are two different configurations to consider: intersections with a station and without a station. First, let’s look at an intersection without a station:

The new intersection configuration has several advantages for bus operations. First, because a dedicated lane is provided (1), the buses are not delayed by traffic and queue at the front of the intersection, rather than waiting behind backed up traffic. As well, a special signal can be controlled by the buses so that the light is green when they approach (2). Left turning vehicles still have a dedicated turning lane (3), controlled by a turning signal (4), which can be activated by approaching buses to turn red on their approach (or some other signal to indicate to left turning vehicles that a bus is approaching from behind so they are not to make a turn). This still allows for vehicles to turn left, and even maintains an advanced green for turning, while also allowing buses to reduce times at intersections.

Intersections with stations function slightly differently than those without stations. The bus still has a dedicated lane (1), and a specialized signal (4), but now, where the left turning vehicle lane was before, there is now a transit station (3). The station can include shelters and other infrastructure to shelter waiting passengers (even barriers to separate them from adjacent traffic), greatly enhancing rider comfort. The station also serves as a pedestrian refuge for crossing the intersection (2), which can help elderly pedestrians who may not be able to cross a regular intersection in time (and also serves as a waiting area for departed passengers to cross the intersection). The station is created by jogging the bus lane (5), and using the left turning vehicle lane for the station itself. This jog does cause buses to slow down at intersections, but seeing as they will slow down to stop at the station anyway, this isn’t a big problem. The biggest downside to intersections with stations is that it considerably reduces opportunities for vehicles turning left, as the turning lane is eliminated. As such, stations should be located at intersections where left turns can either be eliminated, or where they are less of a priority (6 Street NW, for example). However, at intersections such as Centre Street, where the station must be located at the intersection in order to facilitate transfers to other transit lines (such as the North Central LRT), the left turning vehicles have to be accommodated by other means.

With a little creative design, some paint, some plastic barriers, specialized traffic signals, and what amounts to a raised curb with some shelters and barriers for stations, we can create an effective Bus Rapid Transit route on 16 Avenue N. The amount of disruption to the existing road is minimal, as the only significant new infrastructure are the stations themselves (and they won’t be that expensive), so the overall capital costs are low. The loss or reduction of left hand turns at station intersections is a downside, but the benefits are enormous. The route connects to major employment and educational centres (SAIT, U of C, Foothills Hospital, Children’s Hospital, Peter Lougheed Hospital) as well as important commercial areas (North Hill Centre, Sunridge Mall, Motel Village, 16 Avenue N itself), and it not only makes these areas accessible to people living along the route, but because of the integration with three LRT lines, it connects any Calgarian with access to the primary transit system to these areas. Finally, although not something we’ve discussed as of yet, because of the design of the lanes and stations, the route is upgradable. That is to say, it can be converted in the future into rail. While this may not happen tomorrow, it is something to think about.

We’ll leave you with the last image below to help you visualize what this might look like. Enjoy.

by CivicCamp’s Governance, Finance, and Infrastructure Group

This month Calgary City Council will approve the City’s budget for the next three years.  Now’s the time to have your say on how tax dollars are spent until 2015.

We, CivicCamp’s Governance, Finance, and Infrastructure Group, have decided to take the plunge and figure out what the budget means for Calgary’s future.  It’s a formidable undertaking, so we need your help.

If you have knowledge or expertise to offer concerning how the City spends or should spend Calgarians’ money, let us know (ccgfig@shaw.ca).  All advice and information will be appreciated.

It’s particularly important to get involved this time around because the City budget could be ground-breaking.  Earlier this year, the City’s Our City, Our Budget, Our Future project asked Calgarians what they wanted their tax dollars spent on.  In response, City Council approved a new Fiscal Plan which, among other things, puts a priority on safety, affordable housing, sustainable water services, and transit.

By the end of today, information about the budget should be available here for the November 9^th meeting of Council’s Finance & Corporate Services Committee.  The draft budget will appear on the Our City, Our Budget, Our Future website by November 9^th.  Following that, there will be information sessions where you can talk to City officials about the budget.

Tuesday, November 15^th:
1 p.m. to 3 p.m. & 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Kerby Centre, 1133 -7^th Avenue SW

Wednesday, November 16^th:
5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Alexandra Centre, 922 – 9^th Avenue SE

Thursday, November 17^th:
5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Cardel Place, 11950 Country Village Link NE

Saturday, November 19^th:
10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
South Fish Creek Recreation Association
100, 333 Shawville Boulevard SE

City Council is scheduled to begin debating the budget on November 21^st.

We will update you once the draft budget is out.  In the meantime, take a look at our template for evaluating the budget’s jigsaw puzzle of statistics and promises.  Let us know how you can help fill in the blanks.

In its July post Our Opportunity to Make Growth Sustainable, the Governance, Finance, and Infrastructure Group reported on the City of Calgary’s effort to implement a Framework for Growth and Change.  This is CC-GFIG’s update on that initiative.

This fall, City Administration asked “key stakeholders” for their ideas on what the criteria should be and how they should be applied.  One-on-one meetings were held with each stakeholder group, followed by a forum on October 17^th.  CivicCamp’s Governance, Finance, and Infrastructure Group was fortunate enough to be included in this consultation process.

City Administration is now reviewing the comments they received.  On Wednesday, December 14^th, Administration will present recommended criteria to City Council’s Land Use, Planning and Transportation Committee (LPT).  Administration’s report to LPT will include all comments received from the public.

CivicCampers have shown a keen interest in how Calgary develops and how our tax dollars are invested to support that development.  An essential step toward ensuring the best development and the best use of our taxes will be to make sure our voices are heard on the criteria for managing growth.

On December 14^th, the public will be allowed to speak to LPT on this issue. So mark that date on your calendar as a time you can have a significant influence on Calgary’s future.  You can also write the Mayor, the LPT Chairman, and other Aldermen to let them know your views.

In the meantime, take a look at CC-GFIG’s submission on the growth management criteria.  CC-GFIG conducted an exhaustive analysis of the imagineCalgary long-range plan and the Municipal Development Plan.  It concluded that, among other things:

• The City needs stronger, more inclusive criteria than were presented to key stakeholders.

• Thresholds, that is, minimum standards, for development proposals are needed to meet the City’s growth targets.

• Criteria and thresholds should create a more open and innovative market by remaining neutral in terms of developers’ financing, technology, and strategy.  In particular, factors such as “market demand,” “developers’ interest,” and “innovation” should not be the preconditions for, but instead the outcomes of the City’s investments.

• The City’s capital and operating budgets should be closely aligned with the goals of Plan-It so the majority of the City’s investment is oriented toward intensification.

• Evaluation of the worthiness of a development proposal should not be based on the internal characteristics of the proposal, but on how it works as a component of the broader city-system.

• An important component of any city-wide intensification strategy is mid-level high rise, i.e., 5 to 9 storey development.  Very little of this important market niche is being built in Calgary, largely due to the very high cost of concrete in Calgary.  The market is clearly not working for this type of development.  The City needs to intervene to ensure that the social, economic, and environmental benefits to the city of mid-level high rise development are realized.  Mid-level high rise is too valuable as a component of intensification to allow market failure to quash this important housing niche.

If you have questions, need more information, or want to become involved with CC-GFIG’s work, e-mail ccgfig@shaw.ca.

1. Calgary Primary Transit Network Plan

We discussed this plan, created by TransitCamp member Peter Schryvers. The group would like to get feedback on this plan from other Calgarians, Calgary Transit staff and City Council members. The goal is to inspire Calgary Transit to create a similar (and clear) long-term transit plan for Calgary.

2. Transit Commissioner

Alderman Diane Colley-Urquhart will bring a Notice of Motion to City Council on November 7, 2011. It proposes the creation of a Transit Commissioner for Calgary (much like they have in Toronto). TransitCamp urges its members to contact City Council with your feedback. We will be drafting a response to the Notice of Motion from TransitCamp by October 27, 2011. The general feeling from TransitCamp members is that Calgary Transit’s governance needs reform; however, a more thorough review of other cities is required before a decision is made.

3. TransitCamp Event

TransitCamp is holding a CivicCamp-style citizen engagement event with a focus on transit in early 2012. We are looking for an engaging speaker to discuss transit issues.

4. Complete Mobility Conference

A TransitCamp member reported on the Complete Mobility conference organized by the Van Horne Institute. Another meeting is scheduled for November.

The next TransitCamp meeting is scheduled for Thursday November 10, 2011.

Editor’s Note:  Calgary TransitCamp contributor Peter Schreyvers continues his series of postings tonight on our vision for a public transportation system for this great city where taking transit is second nature. Here is his next entry in the series.

Over the course of the next eight months, Calgary TransitCamp will undertake an exploration of the future of transit in Calgary, a tour of what is to come. We believe Calgary can become a truly great transit city. A city where transit is a convenient, fast, affordable, and comfortable mode of transportation for all Calgarians.

Bus Rapid Transit. It is something we have discussed on this blog before and is a term familiar to many, but still unknown to some. It is an integral part of the future transit network for Calgary, providing much-needed crosstown routes and access to places not served by the LRT system, like Mount Royal University, Rockyview Hospital and Foothills Industrial Park. It provides high frequency, fast, and convenient transit service. But what is it?

Bus Rapid Transit is sort of a hybrid between light rail transit and regular bus service. Essentially it is a beefed-up bus route that provides more rapid service, but sacrifices some aspects of regular bus service, such as area coverage and close stop spacing. There are generally four components to a Bus Rapid Transit route that make it, well, rapid. These four measures all address one area where regular buses spend too much time: in traffic, collecting fares, stopping for passengers, and stopped at lights.

Dedicated Lanes — Regular buses suffer from a terrible affliction. They get stuck in traffic. As passengers on rail transit whizz by snarled traffic, regular buses are the regular traffic. Probably the most significant feature of a Bus Rapid Transit system is that it avoids this affliction by completely removing itself from traffic.

Bus Rapid Transit typically operates in lanes that are dedicated for its use (bus only lanes), or at least in lanes restricted to traffic in some way. This can be in the form of fully dedicated lanes, to queue jumps (places where buses can move ahead of regular traffic while waiting for a traffic signal), to lanes shared with other, yet still restricted, vehicles. In different cities taxis, carpool vehicles, emergency vehicles, and reverse- commute traffic is permitted to share the lane with transit. Sometimes the bus lanes are simply regular traffic lanes that have been converted to bus lanes using some paint and other materials and other times they are entirely new structures, built with bridges, overpasses, and even elevated sections.

Dedicated lanes are, in our opinion, a must for a BRT system. Operating in regular traffic turns a route from BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) to BST (a Bus Stuck in Traffic). The entire point of a BRT system is to eliminate delays caused by traffic and to provide predictability in travel times. As our city develops its long term network plan, implementing dedicated bus lanes is essential. In future blogs, we will discuss the opportunities and challenges for dedicated lanes that go along with each route.

Off-Vehicle Fare Payment/Multi door boarding — A bus spends a considerable amount of time on its route simply waiting as customers line up one-by-one to board the bus and for each to individually pay the driver or show their pass to the driver. One study in New York found that the costs associated with the time it takes for one passenger to pay their fare (lost time, labour cost of the operator, cost of gas, etc.) was in fact greater than the fare itself. In order to reduce this time waiting, many BRT systems use off-vehicle fare payment, where passengers pay for their fare prior to boarding the bus, using ticket machines or other means and multiple doors for boarding. Instead of using just the one door at the front of the bus, passengers can get on and off using multiple doors. Restricting use to paying customers is done either through the use of controlled gates (like most subway systems) or through the proof-of-purchase system, where transit officials will randomly check passengers on transit vehicles and issue tickets to those who don’t have a pass (as is currently practiced on the Calgary LRT).

Off-vehicle fare payment and multiple door boarding are incredibly important because they reduce the time burden of each passenger on the system. For regular bus service, each time a customer boards they delay everyone else on the bus by a few seconds (what we would call an externality). So the busier the bus gets, the longer everyone’s trip takes, including the passenger who is paying. This can lead not only to longer travel times, but also to unreliability of service. However, by requiring each passenger to pay for their fare prior to getting on the bus the time each passenger takes paying their fare delays only them, and not everyone else. The result is a much less time spent on transit for everyone.

Limited Stops — Another downside of regular bus service is that it stops so frequently. While useful for local routes that intend to provide greater coverage and easier accessibility to stops, locating stops every few blocks can make a crosstown journey incredibly slow. In order to combat this, BRT systems typically space stops much farther apart. While some passengers have to walk farther to access the stations, everyone’s commute is shortened because the amount of time the bus spends stopped is reduced. BRT stations tend to be at major destinations (such as Mount Royal University), or at major intersections, where passengers may be transferring from other routes. Because of its limited stops, BRT does not serve as an everywhere-to-everywhere service. Instead it is a rapid, limited stop service that gets people from one point to another quickly.

Signal Priority and Control — Finally, regular bus services, unlike separated transit services, spend a lot of time waiting at traffic lights. While this doesn’t necessarily put buses at a disadvantage compared to regular traffic, it doesn’t give them a leg up either. To be truly effective, a BRT system has to have an appeal over driving, and to do that it needs to avoid delays that regular traffic faces, such as waiting at traffic lights. To accomplish this, many BRT systems implement some sort of technology that provides them an advantage at traffic signals. This could include devices equipped on buses that send signals to traffic lights to turn (or remain) green when the bus approaches, thus avoiding red lights, or it could simply mean that signals are timed so as to facilitate buses moving through multiple intersections. Either way, this advantage at traffic lights gives BRT systems a leg up on regular traffic, which can be the difference between a successful system and a failed system.

I welcomed the announcement that Calgary Transit and the Mayor’s Office were launching a Calgary Transit Customer Advisory Group in the wake of what Mayor Nenshi described as a  “rough summer” for transit.  According to Fred Wong, the Director of Calgary Transit, there were 56 service disruptions of over 30 minutes this year.

The main purpose of this Advisory Group is to provide Calgary Transit with ongoing input on how to improve the customer experience. 

 I was disappointed to learn that the Advisory Group’s terms of reference precludes discussion of major transit issues. This makes me worry that the Advisory Group is more about improving public relations than it is about improving transit.

Here are the topics that the Advisory Group cannot discuss from its terms of reference:

• Scheduling or other operational issues related to specific bus or train routes
• Issues pertaining to the supply of service, such as frequency, directness etc.
• Route or network planning

 After a year of working with TransitCamp, a citizen-led transit advocacy group in Calgary, I believe that the Advisory Group, or another customer group, should have a broad mandate to discuss operational issues, route planning and delays. Calgary Transit shouldn’t limit the advice it receives from its customers; it should embrace it. 

 Why do terms of reference matter?

Terms of reference matter because they confine the mandate of citizen advisory groups. I’m on the City of Calgary’s Public Art Board and we constantly review our Terms of Reference to determine whether we have a role in a specific issue. Here is a possible result of the Advisory Group’s restrictive terms of reference:

 Advisory Group member: Why is implementation of the Real Time Transit Information system is several months late on the north-east LRT.

Calgary Transit: I’m sorry we can’t discuss issues related to specific bus or train routes.

Advisory Group member: Why was there a major delay on the north-east LRT yesterday?

Calgary Transit: I’m sorry we can’t discuss issues related to the supply of service.

Advisory Group member: To mitigate future problems, will the proposed north-central LRT connect to north-east LRT?

Calgary Transit: I’m sorry we can’t discuss route or network planning.

I’m being a bit facetious here, as it is unlikely that the terms of reference would be applied so rigidly. However, it is unnecessary and counter-productive to place the volunteer Advisory Group on such a short leash.

The terms of reference should direct the Advisory Group to focus on strategic issues. If a group member complains that a specific bus is late, the conversation should not end; it should turn to minimize the impact of delays on customers system wide.

The main response that I have received from Mayor’s office staff is that Calgary Transit can engage customers in several different ways such as on Twitter and through open houses. While this may be true, this does not address the problems with the transit Advisory Group’s terms. There is no benefit to muzzling this group.

I offer three recommendations to improve how Calgary Transit receives feedback from its customers.

1.             Create a formal customer advisory group to address route planning 

There is no formal way for Calgary Transit to engage customers on many planning and operational issues. There were great public consultations held for the North-Central LRT. However, these consultations were ad hoc and largely in response to a disastrous process that led to the current LRT Network Plan (which calls for building the north-central LRT along Deerfoot Trail). 

Ask anyone who is involved with TransitCamp, we need a permanent group to address route-planning issues and follow up on consultations.

2.             Focus on a major reason the group was formed—to address delays

The Mayor did promise to better engage customers in Calgary Transit during the last election campaign. However, this issue was not tackled for nearly a year and after the weekly delays of more than 30 minutes this year. The Director of Calgary Transit announced this group immediately after talking about the many service disruptions that customers experienced this year. Like it or not, the genesis of the Advisory Group inextricably links it to addressing transit delays.

Some delays are inevitable for maintenance or security issues. But commuters should have a reasonable expectation of getting to work on time. The terms of the Advisory Group seek to limit discussion related to the supply of service or specific routes. I’ve been assured that delays will be generally discussed. Addressing delays should be a clear mandate of the Advisory Group, and its members should not be discouraged from discussing this key issue.

3.             Amend the terms to meaningfully engage customers in Calgary Transit

Calgary Transit can use the Advisory Group’s restrictive terms to exclude almost any issue. This would defeat the very purpose of the group, using customers to improve the customer experience. For example, the rollout of Calgary Transit’s Real Time Information system has been delayed for months without a clear explanation (I’m told that this system is complex). Based on a plain reading of the Advisory Group’s terms, discussion of this system is outside of its mandate since it relates to frequency of service.

The terms of the Advisory Group should be amended to include a broader ranger of issues. This group, or another customer group, should be created to provide feedback on route planning. The Advisory Group should clearly be authorized to address delays.

Transit customers deserve a stronger voice in strategic level transit decisions. The Advisory Group is good start to achieving this; however I fear that its terribly restrictive terms could make it impotent.

Editor’s Note:  Calgary TransitCamp contributor Peter Schreyvers continues his series of postings tonight on our vision for a public transportation system for this great city where taking transit is second nature. Here is his next entry in the series.

Over the course of the next eight months, Calgary TransitCamp will undertake an exploration of the future of transit in Calgary, a tour of what is to come. We believe Calgary can become a truly great transit city. A city where transit is a convenient, fast, affordable, and comfortable mode of transportation for all Calgarians.

This week we are going to examine one piece of our future primary transit network, which we’re calling BRT 308, the Southwest Bus Rapid Transit line.

Now it may seem odd to choose this Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route as the first route to discuss as part of the primary transit network. The route may not seem a high priority, like the east-west crosstown routes (BRTs 304 and 306 on our network map) or the 52 Street E north-south crosstown route (BRT 307). Nor does the route serve an area of the city that does not have an existing LRT (such as the southeast or north central areas of the city). The route does accomplish some important goals, like providing a direct connection from downtown to Mount Royal University and the Rockyview Hospital*, but in terms of its order of impact, this BRT isn’t high on the list. However, the route does offer us some lessons in how we apply the Eight Pillars of Transit Planning to the decisions we make about transit. It turns out we still have some things to learn.

As noted above, the City of Calgary commissioned a functional study for the route in 2010. The study examined six aspects of the route: station locations, operations on 14 Street SW, a traffic analysis of 14 Street, the potential for using shoulder lanes on Crowchild and Glenmore Trails, terminal operations in Woodbine (essentially how the buses turn around), and an order-of-magnitude cost estimate. While each of these items is worthy of discussion (and we will dedicate an entire post later to the Woodbine question), what is important isn’t so much what was included in the study, but what was left out.

Firstly, the study neglected to consider how the BRT fits in with the rest of the network — especially how the BRT 306 Crosstown South will integrate with this BRT, specifically at the intersection at 14 Street SW and Heritage Drive. It is here that buses from the BRT 306 will turn off from the 14 Street busway and head east toward Heritage LRT Station and further on to the Foothills Industrial area (and where westbound buses from Heritage Drive will turn right onto the 14 Street Busway). Omitting an analysis of the possible ways this could happen is a failure for us to Be Part of the Picture. Because we didn’t consider this intersection in the functional study, many questions remain unanswered: Will buses simply make a left turn through the intersection to get onto Heritage Drive? If so, will there be a transit-only turning signal (as the left-turning buses will conflict with southbound traffic on 14 Street)? Alternatively, will buses turn from 14 Street onto Heritage Drive by way of an elevated flyover? If so, how will the flyover be aligned? Will there be dedicated bus lanes on Heritage Drive, and if so, where will they be located (both together in the median, both on the north or south of the existing road, or as two single lane bus lanes on the far right lanes)? All these questions affect the current design of the busway on 14 Street. If a flyover is used, the station at Heritage Park will have to be relocated slightly to the north; provisions will have to be made for merging the flyover with the busway, and each busway alignment on Heritage Drive will have a different flyover design. Either way, if we build the 14 Street busway without considering the intersection at Heritage Drive, we run the risk of Building it Twice, Not Building it Right. If we simply build the busway as it is designed in the functional study now, we run the risk of either having to rebuild parts of the busway and stations at the Heritage Drive intersection, or we may have to live with a lesser solution because we didn’t consider it in the first place. Doing either would be a mistake.

Secondly, we have to ask: Is the Southwest BRT necessary now, where is it on the list of our priorities, and which investments on the route will have the greatest impact? One of the main arguments for the Southwest BRT is that it will provide relief to the profoundly congested 14 Street SW (which, according to a 2009 city traffic count, handles 87,000 vehicles a day), which the South LRT line currently cannot relieve, because, well, it is full. However, with the implementation of four-car trains on the South LRT in a few years, this may provide enough relief to southwest residents trying to go downtown. In this sense, doing much in terms of BRT infrastructure for this route may not make much sense. In this sense, we need to Be Patient. Let’s wait until the South LRT line starts operating with four-car trains and see if the BRT is still necessary at that point. Otherwise any money we spend on the Southwest BRT is lost, depriving Calgary’s capital transit strategy of funding that could have gone to other, higher priorities. (That being said, I myself am confident that this route will be needed in the future, mostly because given the sheer numbers of people the South LRT line needs to serve, some relief will be necessary — but that is a subject of another post.)

The Southwest BRT is a great idea, and is something Alderman Pincott (who was instrumental in coming up with and championing the route) definitely has to be commended for. The BRT provides essential relief to 14 Street SW, while simultaneously providing a direct transit link between Mount Royal University, Rockyview Hospital and the downtown (which are currently unconnected), and provides a piece of infrastructure for the Crosstown South BRT. However, it may be an idea that just has to wait.

_______________________________

* Rockyview Hospital may actually be better served by a transfer from the South LRT to the Crosstown South BRT at Heritage Station because of the dreaded Glenmore Causeway. Doing something about this is the subject of a future post.