Calgary Area Regional Transit

[DizzyEdge]

Thought I'd start a new thread, and invite both residents of Calgary and the outlying cities and towns to comment.

What are the pros and cons of a regional commuter train? Expanding the LRT lines instead?
What are the benefits to Calgary? To cities/towns like Cochrane, Okotoks, and Airdrie? Any cons for the smaller communities? Cons for Calgary?

[Jimby]

Don't put the CART before the horse! Sorry I couldn't help myself. :haha:

[Coldrsx]

"calgary transit" is good enough for this kind of posting isnt it???

seriously

[Beltliner]

Don't put the CART before the horse! Sorry I couldn't help myself. :haha:

Bol'shoye spasibo! Budu zdyes' tsyeluyu nyedyelyu! Poprobovaitye tyelyaitinu!*

________________
* Thanks so much! I'll be here all week! Try the veal!

[Jimby]

I think there should be a passenger train from Langdon into town. There was train service 100 years ago, and Langdon is bigger now.

[jeffwhit]

"calgary transit" is good enough for this kind of posting isnt it???

seriously

why does edmonton need two development threads?

Who cares, that's why.

[Beltliner]

But seriously, folks...

Commuter rail is a good fit for places like Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, commuter rail can be scaled and scheduled to meet the demand for those communities independently of the scaling and scheduling required for effective C-Train service within Calgary's city limits--three-to-ten-minute schedules from downtown Calgary to Cochrane and Okotoks, notwithstanding the merits of Seaman Stadium and MacKay's Ice Cream, is probably overkill for the foreseeable future. More importantly, the basic heavy rail infrastructure from Calgary to places like Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks is already in place*, which makes it much easier to sell these centres on platforms and terminal facilities than would be the case for LRT track and way.

The Calgary Regional Partnership is onside for commuter rail, and so, at least in the early going, is the CPR. There's enough money on the table for Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks to ante up for at least a train set and a no-frills terminal apiece. Why not start laying the groundwork for commuter rail while the stars are aligned? ;)

_____________________
* Insert annoyed grunt from Strathmore here.

[jeffwhit]

I absolutely agree, now is the time to put a plan in place so that this issue doesn't get swept under the rug later.

Heavy rail is certainly the way to go (LRT expansion out to those areas makes very little sense for several reasons, capacity, it will totally mess with the headways in Calgary, and actual Calgarians would get screwed service-wise.)

Heavy Rail with a stop at the edge of the city works best.

[DizzyEdge]

I absolutely agree, now is the time to put a plan in place so that this issue doesn't get swept under the rug later.

Heavy rail is certainly the way to go (LRT expansion out to those areas makes very little sense for several reasons, capacity, it will totally mess with the headways in Calgary, and actual Calgarians would get screwed service-wise.)

Heavy Rail with a stop at the edge of the city works best.

Do you mean the edge of Calgary, or the smaller city? or both?

[Wooster]

I have an editorial on this topic I am submitting to the Herald in the next day or two. I'll post it when its a little closer to being done. It has to do with creating a regional transit authority, rather than having a separately operated commuter rail system (Like the GO Train). Also a real estate development company that acquires and is land developer for TODs in the region.

[Bassic Lab]

For the Airdrie line I'd like to see two stations within the city limits. One at Airport Trail and one at McKnight Boulevard. Both would have substantial park and ride lots. The Airport Trail station would allow transfers to an Airport spur LRT line. Basically I think that two stations on a commuter rail line would be more than adequate for the Nose Creek corridor and would add more incentive for the city to put the North Central LRT line somewhere actually useful prior to arriving at Harvest Hills Boulevard.

Likewise the Okotoks line would have a couple of stations, easily integrated into preexisting LRT stations. Not entirely sure which ones I'd pick, but Anderson and Chinook would definitely be on the short list.

The Cochrane line would have to have a stop somewhere near Bowness or Montgomery.

The Strathmore line would need a stop for Chestermere but beyond that I'm at a loss for the location of any station within Calgary.

[jeffwhit]

Do you mean the edge of Calgary, or the smaller city? or both?

I mean Calgary, I don't really care where Airdrie would want to put their station.

I'm thinking around the rail yard at Stoney Trail and Nose Hill, 22x and Mcloed (or Deerfoot, I'm not sure where it would actually go,) Deerfoot and Country Hills etc. and then run a non-stop bus btween those stations and the closest C-train for those who don't work downtown, go to the U of C etc etc. and charge a lower fare. That way people who live in places like Tuscany, Valley Ridge etc who are willing to pay a little more than a C-train ride can take an express train to work downtown. It should alleviate strain on the LRT system as well.

[Beltliner]

For the Airdrie line I'd like to see two stations within the city limits. One at Airport Trail and one at McKnight Boulevard. Both would have substantial park and ride lots. The Airport Trail station would allow transfers to an Airport spur LRT line. Basically I think that two stations on a commuter rail line would be more than adequate for the Nose Creek corridor and would add more incentive for the city to put the North Central LRT line somewhere actually useful prior to arriving at Harvest Hills Boulevard.

I like the way this guy thinks! :cool:

Likewise the Okotoks line would have a couple of stations, easily integrated into preexisting LRT stations. Not entirely sure which ones I'd pick, but Anderson and Chinook would definitely be on the short list.

The Cochrane line would have to have a stop somewhere near Bowness or Montgomery.

The Strathmore line would need a stop for Chestermere but beyond that I'm at a loss for the location of any station within Calgary.

Only point of contention here is what to do about Strathmore--last I checked, the rail bed through that town was salvaged decades ago, so the furthest you'd get due east would be to Chestermere. Now if you were buying near Kathyrn or Indus for a commuter rail TOD, on the other hand, you'd make it back hand over fist, as Indus is on the CPR mainline, and CN still runs through Kathyrn.... :D

[Bassic Lab]

I have an editorial on this topic I am submitting to the Herald in the next day or two. I'll post it when its a little closer to being done. It has to do with creating a regional transit authority, rather than having a separately operated commuter rail system (Like the GO Train). Also a real estate development company that acquires and is land developer for TODs in the region.

I think I'd rather have a separate authority in charge of regional transit than to combine all public transit into one corporation. Regional transit would require other municipalities having a say and I don't want them to have a say in Calgary Transit. They'd have to work together closely of course, but I don't want service in Calgary to be compromised at all for the benefit of out of towners. Beyond that I think the real estate developing arm of the venture is a great idea.

[jeffwhit]

^^ I believe one co-ordinated regional transit authority would be better myself. (CART!) It's the model many places tend to use (SEPTA, the MTA,) and I think having competing transit systems would cause more harm than good.

[Beltliner]

I think I'd rather have a separate authority in charge of regional transit than to combine all public transit into one corporation. Regional transit would require other municipalities having a say and I don't want them to have a say in Calgary Transit. They'd have to work together closely of course, but I don't want service in Calgary to be compromised at all for the benefit of out of towners. Beyond that I think the real estate developing arm of the venture is a great idea.

Only way I can see an integrated agency working is for Calgary Transit to buy out Airdrie Transit and any other existing transit services in Cochrane, Okotoks, Chestermere, and High River, and to charge franchise fees to MD Rocky View and MD Foothills. It might be more effective to give Calgary Transit a veto equity stake (say, 50 percent plus one share) in a separate regional authority built from scratch to handle commuter rail, co-ordinate in-town feeder and mainline services, and operate a TOD real estate arm.

[mersar]

Regional authority is the only way to go, thats for sure. Give each town/city and possibly the three MD's (Rockyview, Foothills and Wheatland) a seat on the board and let them run it.

The big question that just came to my mind though, is where should the maintenance facilities, garages, etc be? Likely in Calgary somewhere, just for the sake of being central, but it would have to be accessible to the rail networks which does limit it somewhat. Something such as bus service is a bit easier to locate and if it was contracted out on the basis of it being temporary until the rail system is up and running either First Group or Southland has a facility in at least 3 of the surrounding communities that it could be based out of locally.

[KrisYYC]

What about the heavy rail stopping at both the edge of the city and downtown? Have a high capacity central station downtown that connects the heavy commuter rail lines with underground LRT and future rail links to Edmonton. Connections would be a breeze. Or am I dreaming?

[jeffwhit]

^^Umm, I believe it was assumed by most people that all the trains would end their journey downtown, I just meant there should be stations also at the edge of Calgary for each line as well.

I've been dreaming of a grand central terminal around the Calgary Tower myself, which also would be the Bus terminal, and conenct the LRT and possible future streetcar networks as well and that damn HSR. Something truly spectacular, a modern day Penn Station (the old one..)

It would give the Calgary Tower meaning again as it would truly be the central landmark of the city.

[KrisYYC]

^^Umm, I believe it was assumed by most people that all the trains would end their journey downtown, I just meant there should be stations also at the edge of Calgary for each line as well.

I've been dreaming of a grand central terminal around the Calgary Tower myself, which also would be the Bus terminal, and conenct the LRT and possible future streetcar networks as well and that damn HSR. Something truly spectacular, a modern day Penn Station (the old one..)

It would give the Calgary Tower meaning again as it would truly be the central landmark of the city.

Ah, I didn't realize you guys were assuming a downtown stop. My bad.

A "Grand Central Station" would be an awesome thing. I'm usually not one who likes when governments spend big money, but in this case I think we should do it right while we have extra money to play with. With a good transportation network the region can grow to a critical mass that isn't as affected by huge swings in commodity prices.

[Beltliner]

^^Umm, I believe it was assumed by most people that all the trains would end their journey downtown, I just meant there should be stations also at the edge of Calgary for each line as well.

I've been dreaming of a grand central terminal around the Calgary Tower myself, which also would be the Bus terminal, and conenct the LRT and possible future streetcar networks as well and that damn HSR. Something truly spectacular, a modern day Penn Station (the old one..)

It would give the Calgary Tower meaning again as it would truly be the central landmark of the city.

A restored Palliser Station would be just about ideal for downtown transit integration, and the Line 203 connection to the Railtown TGV station would take some of the sting out not being able to walk right to everything. ;)

[MalcolmTucker]

The Strathmore line would need a stop for Chestermere but beyond that I'm at a loss for the location of any station within Calgary.

Strathmore doesn't have any rail lines through it, around it, anywhere near it, as far as I can tell from satellite photos. To go to strathmore, dedicated lines would need to be built. Oh, I guess someone already remarked to this topic. Langdom lost its tracks too I think. I just assumed the ROW looking land was the transcanada pipeline, not reclaimed rail.

Chestermere fortunately has rail at the south end of the lake, but the line tacks to the NE with the last useful station at a crossing of the Trans Canada that I am calling 'New Town East' which would be a TOD built using MRT financing mechanisms.

As for Calgary's downtown station, Palliser Station would be good. A station similar to 125th St on the Metro North would be good in Inglewood on the future SE LRT and near the Greyhound station. It would relieve some capacity from Palliser Station and help the business district spread out.

[Wooster]

The reason I think an authority (to run all transit in the entire region) is a better way to go is system integration. In Toronto, if you commute by GO train into downtown and have to transfer to the subway you have to pay an entirely new fare. Similarly, unless you live right on the GO station, lots of people are taking a local bus service to get to GO.

Also if you cross municipal lines (say from York Region in to Toronto) you have to get off the bus, transfer to another bus and pay a separate fare. When metro areas practically function as one city and people's mobility patterns happen without regard to these boundaries, why should transit be operated based on these lines?

[Bassic Lab]

The reason I think an authority (to run all transit in the entire region) is a better way to go is system integration. In Toronto, if you commute by GO train into downtown and have to transfer to the subway you have to pay an entirely new fare. Similarly, unless you live right on the GO station, lots of people are taking a local bus service to get to GO.

Also if you cross municipal lines (say from York Region in to Toronto) you have to get off the bus, transfer to another bus and pay a separate fare. When metro areas practically function as one city and people's mobility patterns happen without regard to these boundaries, why should transit be operated based on these lines?

I can see your point, integration for the operation of the systems can only be a good thing. Where I see problems arising is in capital expenditures and such. I wouldn't want Calgary to lose out on some much needed LRT line because the Regional authority voted (as in every municipality but Calgary) to rebuild track out to Strathmore for commuter rail (I was unaware in my previous post that the track was ripped up, what a waste), or to purchase new rolling stock for the commuter rail, or what have you.

I don't really know what kind of relationship would be ideal, Beltliner's idea of Calgary Transit owning a 50%+1 stake in the new authority makes sense but I don't know if all the other municipalities would go with a system that gives Calgary the decision making ability.

So yeah, I'd want a system that integrates operations seamlessly but allows for the generation of funding, planning, and capital spending to be separated.

[jeffwhit]

^^ Does anyone know what the official relationship between the Chicago Transit Authority and Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra commuter rail) is? I noticed that Metra has links in their trip planners to MTA rail, I'm curious if there are any official alignment between the services.

[freeweed]

Also if you cross municipal lines (say from York Region in to Toronto) you have to get off the bus, transfer to another bus and pay a separate fare. When metro areas practically function as one city and people's mobility patterns happen without regard to these boundaries, why should transit be operated based on these lines?

A good argument for every unicity concept (of which regional rail is just a nuance). I've never understood how Toronto functioned. Err, sorry, the GTA. I know I'll get knifed by ninjas for suggesting that Toronto is in fact one big city. :P

[MalcolmTucker]

You just use the province land use format to help prevent sprawl, put a condition that if intercity rail is to be extended, a minimum density of 10 units per acre is put in place throughout the service area.

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9026/picture3na6.png

Southern Section
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3007/picture4yb8.png

There are five lines that can be built without reacquiring or buying new ROW:
Cochrane (West) 40.25 km
High River (South) 65.4 km
Airdrie (North) 34.5 km
Chestermere/ New Town (East) 28 km
Carseland (SE) 50 km

New ROW would be required to run out to Strathmore, extending that line to 51.2 km.

Most of the towns have two stations, since i figured the further out stations would likely have a light maintenance facility. This is also since I deicded to keep costs down by not displacing currently used lots along the ROW near the downtowns, and leaving room for park and rides is important.

The Airdrie line could go further north, but I am not sure it would add much to it. There could also be a third east line, but it wouldn't hit any major centres (much like the Carseland line I guess)

Here is my source google map (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=110981100854688850630.0004519ebf2e9c721c8d3&t=p&ll=51.013755,-114.007874&spn=1.309814,2.345581&z=9), where all the Station names include distances from the Palliser Station.

[shogged]

that station you have right on the "dewinton dot" is a waste. Thats right beside heritage lake, and I have a hard time believing they're going to park their lexuses (SP?) and bmws for a ride on the commuter rail :haha:

rest of it looks great though!

[MalcolmTucker]

that station you have right on the "dewinton dot" is a waste. Thats right beside heritage lake, and I have a hard time believing they're going to park their lexuses (SP?) and bmws for a ride on the commuter rail :haha:

rest of it looks great though!

At the intersection of two highways and atv the southern edge of city limits if the stopping time is fairly minimal I'd bet you could have a fairly large park and ride.

I wouldn't be surprised that the SLRT is in DeWinton in 30 years either.

[shogged]

At the intersection of two highways and atv the southern edge of city limits if the stopping time is fairly minimal I'd bet you could have a fairly large park and ride.

I wouldn't be surprised that the SLRT is in DeWinton in 30 years either.

you could! I just don't see anyone using it :rolleyes:

[DizzyEdge]

So is there any advantage to the City of Calgary for this to come to fruition?

[mersar]

Biggest advantage that I know Bronco has brought up in the past is in relation to funding. Any regional system would mean that riders outside the city would be contributing more then they do currently, as there would undoubtedly be some money coming from property taxes from the surrounding areas into the system. If it was a two system setup (ala TTC and GO) then there would likely be some revenue sharing between the two via agreements for transfers, or a single across the region system the funding would be pooled between all the communities (which is partially how Translink works in the lower mainland from my understanding)

They also ran a small story on the commuter rail on Global tonight, the CRP was showing where they are heading. Starting with twinning the rail to Cochrane (around $500M), and sharing the rail to Airdrie and Okotoks, with those 2 legs getting twinned in the future. CP declined comment, but they did mention that unofficially CP had told the CRP that there is too much traffic on the mainline to schedule commuter in without twinning. And one transportation expert they talked to said that he could see it running in two years for the initial phase of rail. And they are supposedly also looking at the bus option in the interm as well (not to mention it may be an idea to keep the buses as a backup option even once the rail is running)

[Corndogger]

Biggest advantage that I know Bronco has brought up in the past is in relation to funding. Any regional system would mean that riders outside the city would be contributing more then they do currently, as there would undoubtedly be some money coming from property taxes from the surrounding areas into the system. If it was a two system setup (ala TTC and GO) then there would likely be some revenue sharing between the two via agreements for transfers, or a single across the region system the funding would be pooled between all the communities (which is partially how Translink works in the lower mainland from my understanding)

They also ran a small story on the commuter rail on Global tonight, the CRP was showing where they are heading. Starting with twinning the rail to Cochrane (around $500M), and sharing the rail to Airdrie and Okotoks, with those 2 legs getting twinned in the future. CP declined comment, but they did mention that unofficially CP had told the CRP that there is too much traffic on the mainline to schedule commuter in without twinning. And one transportation expert they talked to said that he could see it running in two years for the initial phase of rail. And they are supposedly also looking at the bus option in the interm as well (not to mention it may be an idea to keep the buses as a backup option even once the rail is running)

Once detailed (and hopefully accurate and nonideologically driven) budgets are brought forward and saner heads prevail none of this will see the light of day for decades. To spend that kind of money for the "benefit" of so few would be the ultimate in financial waste. The province made the transit announcement strictly for PR purposes. If they start to sense they are not getting the intended benefit (better international press coverage and less boycott talk) you can bet that they will cut the transit funding in short order.

One point that no one here seems to have caught on to or doesn't want to deal with is that the province is going to totally control what gets approved and how much money will be spent (they quickly learned their lesson from last year's infrastructure funding disaster). The Conservatives still need to rely on rural areas to maintain power in the future and there is no way in hell that these folks are going to allow Calgary to dictate how "their" money is spent. Realistically, if anything gets done people in places like Airdrie will see local transit systems setup. If enough does come Calgary's way I hope they use it to redesign the WLRT (tunnels where required and no screwing up of major roads) and build a tunnel downtown. The SE LRT is cost prohibitive and the entire LRT system has now become totally unsustainable from a financial perspective. Fix downtown and limit spending on the system to expanding platforms to 5 cars and buying new cars. No more new lines until we reach at least 2.5 million people.

[MalcolmTucker]

:previous:
Why Calgary will get regional rail = politics. For the ring communities, they get a benefit, Calgary gets the ego boost of being a 'big city'. Province gets to say they brought transit to X# of people (even if the number of cars taken off the road is much smaller). Even better for stoking Calgary's ego, Edmonton will not get a similar system (they will get the stub LRT line to NAIT funded most likely)

Once regional transit is built up, they may even get the gall to build HSR since feeder networks will exist!

All these fit the pattern of a project that will have massive provincial support. The system will also have a name that emphasizes that it is provincially owned and funded.

There won't be many groups opposing this expenditure. Only taxpayers (which opposes everything) and maybe CFIB would oppose, maybe 'friends of parks' (which would put different sides of the environmental movement to fight eachother which the province loves to do) and while they have a constituency, it isn't enough to stop it.

For the size of expenditure the province wants to make, this makes sense, unless the city of Calgary assembles a P3 that can build the SE line for ~$800 million in provincial dollars, regional rail is the next most ready to build project that is something 'new'.

LRT in Calgary has shown it has the ability to generate ridership unlike buses, which is why in last quarter of '07 there was a big increase in transit ridership, but no increase in bus ridership. We aren't going to abandon that philosophy now (but this discussion if it continues in particular should go back on the Cal-Trans thread).

[wild wild west]

I think a regional commuter rail system is a great idea for the Calgary area. Considering the rapid growth of Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks and Chestermere, I would think a strong business case could be made. However, I don't think the expenditure of acquiring new ROW's and building a line to Strathmore could be justified based on their current population.

[jeffwhit]

^^Is there a ROW to Chestemere? That would be a good start so that line can be extended to Strathmore in the future should demand justify it.

[Bassic Lab]

I think a regional commuter rail system is a great idea for the Calgary area. Considering the rapid growth of Airdrie, Cochrane, Okotoks and Chestermere, I would think a strong business case could be made. However, I don't think the expenditure of acquiring new ROW's and building a line to Strathmore could be justified based on their current population.

I think acquiring a ROW can always be justified, in fact it should be done as soon as possible. The line itself, which would be the majority of the cost, can wait forever but it would be foolish to let the land be built up with no plan to ever serve it.

[MalcolmTucker]

^^Is there a ROW to Chestemere? That would be a good start so that line can be extended to Strathmore in the future should demand justify it.

At the south end of the lake, yes. Google Map. (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&msid=110981100854688850630.0004519ebf2e9c721c8d3&ll=51.031031,-113.814754&spn=0.07028,0.115356&z=13)

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8785/picture5zq8.png

[wild wild west]

I think acquiring a ROW can always be justified, in fact it should be done as soon as possible. The line itself, which would be the majority of the cost, can wait forever but it would be foolish to let the land be built up with no plan to ever serve it.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong - perhaps I worded it poorly, but definitely a right of way to Strathmore should be identified, and protected from development (which would either require actual acquisition of the ROW, or a co-ordinated regional planning approach between the various jurisdictions including in particular the MD to ensure that this use is identified in long-range planning). However building the line itself, I would think, should be quite a few years down the road - perhaps when Strathmore reaches, say, at least 30,000.

[lubicon]

As much as I like the concept of regional transit, given the fact that Calgary will likely 'only' see $1 billion of the money at best I think the money would be better spent on LRT within the city. The project that jumps out to me is the SELRT, and that is what I think they should focus on. It would likely serve the highest population, have the highest ridership, and do the most good to the most people.

If we look at the surrounding communities that would likely be served by regional rail, I would say those towns are: Airdie (~30 000), Cochrane (~15 000), Okotoks (~15 000), Chestermere (~5000), and maybe High River. That's approx 65 000 people, maybe 75-80 000 if you add in surrounding communities. Assuming 1/2 those people work (probably optimistic) that's maybe 35-40 000 people tops who would use the service. Of those 40 000 likely only half might work downtown which is where the trains likely would run. So you are looking at spending hundreds of millions of dollars for maybe 15-20 000 people. LRT would have much higher ridership as there are students etc who would also use this service. Add it all up and regional service just does not make sense, ASSUMING there will only be one or the other (regional rail vs LRT expansion). The money would be better spent within Calgary.

However Stelmach seems quite focused on more 'rural' issues, and politically I guess that makes sense as that is his power base. My fear is that we will see regional transit forced upon us at the expense of further LRT expansions inside both Edmonton and Calgary. I would love to see both go ahead if we had the resources, but if it comes down to a choice I have to go with LRT.

[wild wild west]

/\One of the advantages of regional rail transit is that it can run mostly on existing rail lines and entirely within existing rights-of-way and thus, the startup cost would be much cheaper than LRT. The SELRT, conversely, will require entirely new track, possibly elevated and underground sections as well as acquiring additional rights-of-way at significant cost. I agree with you that ultimately the SELRT would get many more riders, but it will also be much more expensive - and assuming we get our billion, it may not be enough.

[jeffwhit]

However Stelmach seems quite focused on more 'rural' issues, and politically I guess that makes sense as that is his power base. My fear is that we will see regional transit forced upon us at the expense of further LRT expansions inside both Edmonton and Calgary. I would love to see both go ahead if we had the resources, but if it comes down to a choice I have to go with LRT.

Should it come down to that choice I would agree with you 100%. That would be ridiculous though as Stelmach could not possibly justify the ridership disparity. What would really infuriate me though is HSR is rammed through before either LRT expansion or regional rail is underway. There is a project that would do very little in terms of the environment compared to LRT. (I'd venture to say the daily ridership in Edmonton and Calgary would be greater than a month of HSR, and that could be a huge underestimate.) Lets not get into the HSR debate here though.

[lubicon]

/\One of the advantages of regional rail transit is that it can run mostly on existing rail lines and entirely within existing rights-of-way and thus, the startup cost would be much cheaper than LRT. The SELRT, conversely, will require entirely new track, possibly elevated and underground sections as well as acquiring additional rights-of-way at significant cost. I agree with you that ultimately the SELRT would get many more riders, but it will also be much more expensive - and assuming we get our billion, it may not be enough.

True, to some extent. North and south could possibly run on existing track, but I don't think there is any way that they could go out to Cochrane without building new track pretty much the whole way. The CPR mainline is just too busy as it is with freight trains, there is no practical way they could add passenger rail to that line.

[mersar]

True, to some extent. North and south could possibly run on existing track, but I don't think there is any way that they could go out to Cochrane without building new track pretty much the whole way. The CPR mainline is just too busy as it is with freight trains, there is no practical way they could add passenger rail to that line.

Thats the position the CRP is taking on it as well, based off what they'd been told by CPR.

[evolv]

As much as I like the concept of regional transit, given the fact that Calgary will likely 'only' see $1 billion of the money at best I think the money would be better spent on LRT within the city. The project that jumps out to me is the SELRT, and that is what I think they should focus on. It would likely serve the highest population, have the highest ridership, and do the most good to the most people.

If we look at the surrounding communities that would likely be served by regional rail, I would say those towns are: Airdie (~30 000), Cochrane (~15 000), Okotoks (~15 000), Chestermere (~5000), and maybe High River. That's approx 65 000 people, maybe 75-80 000 if you add in surrounding communities. Assuming 1/2 those people work (probably optimistic) that's maybe 35-40 000 people tops who would use the service. Of those 40 000 likely only half might work downtown which is where the trains likely would run. So you are looking at spending hundreds of millions of dollars for maybe 15-20 000 people. LRT would have much higher ridership as there are students etc who would also use this service. Add it all up and regional service just does not make sense, ASSUMING there will only be one or the other (regional rail vs LRT expansion). The money would be better spent within Calgary.

However Stelmach seems quite focused on more 'rural' issues, and politically I guess that makes sense as that is his power base. My fear is that we will see regional transit forced upon us at the expense of further LRT expansions inside both Edmonton and Calgary. I would love to see both go ahead if we had the resources, but if it comes down to a choice I have to go with LRT.

regional rail may have more benefit than just getting the people that live in these communities to work

[Corndogger]

:previous:
Why Calgary will get regional rail = politics. For the ring communities, they get a benefit, Calgary gets the ego boost of being a 'big city'. Province gets to say they brought transit to X# of people (even if the number of cars taken off the road is much smaller). Even better for stoking Calgary's ego, Edmonton will not get a similar system (they will get the stub LRT line to NAIT funded most likely)

Once regional transit is built up, they may even get the gall to build HSR since feeder networks will exist!

All these fit the pattern of a project that will have massive provincial support. The system will also have a name that emphasizes that it is provincially owned and funded.

There won't be many groups opposing this expenditure. Only taxpayers (which opposes everything) and maybe CFIB would oppose, maybe 'friends of parks' (which would put different sides of the environmental movement to fight eachother which the province loves to do) and while they have a constituency, it isn't enough to stop it.

For the size of expenditure the province wants to make, this makes sense, unless the city of Calgary assembles a P3 that can build the SE line for ~$800 million in provincial dollars, regional rail is the next most ready to build project that is something 'new'.

LRT in Calgary has shown it has the ability to generate ridership unlike buses, which is why in last quarter of '07 there was a big increase in transit ridership, but no increase in bus ridership. We aren't going to abandon that philosophy now (but this discussion if it continues in particular should go back on the Cal-Trans thread).

Kyle, we clearly live in different "places." Politics is why Calgary will not get what they want. The cabinet is dominated by rural MLAs and a lot of them can't stand Calgary. You are being extremely optimistic if you think these MLAs are going to approve huge expenditures for a regional transit system that will serve very few of their constituents. Calgary Transit can tell Bronco and Druh that 15% of the riders on Calgary transit are from outside of the city but the facts are that number is nothing but a propoganda. If you don't believe me just crunch some numbers. For starters the outlying areas don't even account for anywhere near 15% of the metro population so for Calgary Transit to claim that 15% of their ridership is from bedroom communities is already on shakey ground. The economic agencies (Chambers, etc.) in places such as Airdrie and Okotoks have stated that over half of the working population in their cities works in their cities. Factor in that not everyone works and that of those who do work in Calgary clearly not all work downtown. Like I said in another post, at best we'll see a place like Airdrie getting better local transit. We might see service to the megamall in Balzac if we're lucky.

[MalcolmTucker]

:previous:

It is pretty hard to spend $2 billion on transit without spending some money in Calgary, and I am pretty sure they learned their lesson in there last tangle with the city. The province has always been pragmatic and very technocratic in administration of programs such as this.

If the money is divided up $800, $800 for Calgary, Edmonton, that still leaves $400 for other communities (~ 1000 buses).

Your pretty pessimistic, in thinking that the tories will vindictively deny Calgary (or the Calgary area mind you) funding based on pettiness.

There is more than enough money to build regional rail and bus feeder networks for regional rail in the individual communities in the $2 billion. Once these feeder networks are all done, lets say in ten years, it will be much easier to justify building high speed rail, which is the end goal.

You really have almost no faith in representative democracy don't you? I'm a liberal and I am less pessimistic about what will get done than you for god sakes!

[Bassic Lab]

Kyle, we clearly live in different "places." Politics is why Calgary will not get what they want. The cabinet is dominated by rural MLAs and a lot of them can't stand Calgary. You are being extremely optimistic if you think these MLAs are going to approve huge expenditures for a regional transit system that will serve very few of their constituents. Calgary Transit can tell Bronco and Druh that 15% of the riders on Calgary transit are from outside of the city but the facts are that number is nothing but a propoganda. If you don't believe me just crunch some numbers. For starters the outlying areas don't even account for anywhere near 15% of the metro population so for Calgary Transit to claim that 15% of their ridership is from bedroom communities is already on shakey ground. The economic agencies (Chambers, etc.) in places such as Airdrie and Okotoks have stated that over half of the working population in their cities works in their cities. Factor in that not everyone works and that of those who do work in Calgary clearly not all work downtown. Like I said in another post, at best we'll see a place like Airdrie getting better local transit. We might see service to the megamall in Balzac if we're lucky.

If any thing you've just pointed out why a regional rail system is more likely than support for solely Calgary initiatives. This government is philosophically linked much closer to the interests of the rural communities that would be served by regional rail than to the city.

And no, two billion dollars will not purchase a couple of buses for Airdrie. This is serious money, I imagine a couple hundred million might go to buying buses for L.A. Transit, Red Deer Transit, etcetera but the vast majority of the cash will be going to metropolitan Calgary and Edmonton. Now nine hundred million will buy a lot more than a couple of bus routes in Airdre. It will buy something big, flashy, and blatant for the Tories to point at in three years while they're asking for reelection. A commuter rail system fills the bill, it covers the whole CMA in a perceptible way. Another bus route in the sticks does nothing like that. I'm not saying that this announcement means we'll definitely see commuter rail, we might see a C-Train line instead (not that you'd prefer that) but it is essentially the kind of thing that seems plausible for this government.

[MalcolmTucker]

Here is a question for any project management or engineering type folk:

It will cost alot of money to twin rail to all these suburbs, mostly due to bridge replacement and the need to relocate some cliffs.

Given that the marginal cost of moving a cliff enough to twin the track and the cost of moving the cliff enough to allow the installation of a future third track are likely close to the same amount, should the track be triple lined, not twinned?

The cost will be high for sure, but if you have to rebuild bridges, overpasses, etc already, why not do it all at once, and provide faster service. Should we avoid having to do this in 30 years?

[Bassic Lab]

Here is a question for any project management or engineering type folk:

It will cost alot of money to twin rail to all these suburbs, mostly due to bridge replacement and the need to relocate some cliffs.

Given that the marginal cost of moving a cliff enough to twin the track and the cost of moving the cliff enough to allow the installation of a future third track are likely close to the same amount, should the track be triple lined, not twinned?

The cost will be high for sure, but if you have to rebuild bridges, overpasses, etc already, why not do it all at once, and provide faster service. Should we avoid having to do this in 30 years?

The space could be reserved for a third track to Cochrane at the same time that a second track was laid , the moving of cliffs and such would be more expensive but I'm sure it would save money by the time the third track was actually laid.

I'd be curious to know how long existing infrastructure would be sufficient for the Okotoks/Highriver line and the Airdrie line. If Airdrie could survive on the existing track for fifteen years it might make sense to build two new lines of track at the same time, electrify it and then use the same track for Airdrie-Calgary Commuter Rail and Calgary-Edmonton HSR. I imagine fifteen years to be about the timeline they're gunning for with HSR.

[Wooster]

It will really depend on who makes the strongest pitches and who is ready to go with projects. Calgary has a number of projects lined up that could easily move forward with funding in place. I'm sure Bronco, as usual, is going to be very aggressive in trying to land as much of this money as possible.

I know I'm pushing some buttons trying to get some money for kickstarting the TOD projects in the NW corridor I'm working on (TOD is an area that is eligible for funding under this program). It's an innovative way to use money, the timing is good because we're just wrapping the planning up in the next couple of months. It's important to get people living and working closer to transit, not just to build the transit infrastructure itself it it is to be truly successful at getting people off of the roads. There's a good amount of investment that needs to go into some of these areas to make them much more attractive for transit-supportive development.

[Corndogger]

If any thing you've just pointed out why a regional rail system is more likely than support for solely Calgary initiatives. This government is philosophically linked much closer to the interests of the rural communities that would be served by regional rail than to the city.

And no, two billion dollars will not purchase a couple of buses for Airdrie. This is serious money, I imagine a couple hundred million might go to buying buses for L.A. Transit, Red Deer Transit, etcetera but the vast majority of the cash will be going to metropolitan Calgary and Edmonton. Now nine hundred million will buy a lot more than a couple of bus routes in Airdre. It will buy something big, flashy, and blatant for the Tories to point at in three years while they're asking for reelection. A commuter rail system fills the bill, it covers the whole CMA in a perceptible way. Another bus route in the sticks does nothing like that. I'm not saying that this announcement means we'll definitely see commuter rail, we might see a C-Train line instead (not that you'd prefer that) but it is essentially the kind of thing that seems plausible for this government.

I think you need to go back and read what I wrote and the various news releases about this money from the province. The money is going to be spent over *10* years so that alone should tell you that they are going to be playing games. Like I said before, this is being done strictly as a PR move and if they don't get good press and environmentalists to tone their attacks they'll cancel the program. Do you honestly think that in a matter of a few weeks Stelmach's rural dominated cabinet all of a sudden thought allocating $2 billion to public transit would be a good idea? No way in hell that happened. Anyone who even remotely follows provincial politics knows that the vast majority of rural politicans can't stand the two big cities, especially Calgary. Also, Calgary only accounts for about 30% of the population in the province so I'm at a loss as to why so many people here think we'll get $1 billion of the $2 billion.

Now back to what I said. What I pointed out is why a regional rail system will never get approved. The number of users would be extremely small for the cost and the province is not going to approve project without getting a big bang for the buck. Yeah, buying buses for use in Airdrie wouldn't either but there would be more users of a local transit system and thus more votes. Running buses into Calgary to tie into our system would be a good idea but a rail-based system is simply uneconomical. If the province is going to start throwing money around like that there will be a lot of people demanding they speed up construction of hospitals and quit cutting back on existing plans. That group which are bigger whiners than the transit fanatics will win the day because of their numbers.

If Calgary is realistic they will put forward a plan to build a huge tunnel downtown to handle multiple lines. This will improve traffic flow which will cut emissions. The government clearly said that they will consider any proposal that cuts emissions which, if you read between the lines, means they will be approving road projects in a lot of places because transit is simply not needed/wanted in a lot of areas in this province. But the way Bronco has been acting lately he'll get way too greedy and the province will favor the Edmonton area in the allocation of this money. Plus, they need to calm those guys down from last year when they claimed they got shafted.

[Wooster]

^ Why do rural politicians have such a chip on their shoulder? Shouldn't be the other way around? Urban politicians have much larger constituencies, rural representatives have a disproportionate amount of power considering their population bases.

Having said that, I am sure it won't take long for Calgary and Edmonton to eat up a lot of this money very quickly. Stelmach said it is entirely feasible that this money could be 'spent' (It will be actually paid out over 10 years, but would be allocated in the shorter term) in the next year.

I assume if money is approved for projects there is a legal (or at least political) obligation to come through with it, no?

[Corndogger]

:previous:

It is pretty hard to spend $2 billion on transit without spending some money in Calgary, and I am pretty sure they learned their lesson in there last tangle with the city. The province has always been pragmatic and very technocratic in administration of programs such as this.

If the money is divided up $800, $800 for Calgary, Edmonton, that still leaves $400 for other communities (~ 1000 buses).

Your pretty pessimistic, in thinking that the tories will vindictively deny Calgary (or the Calgary area mind you) funding based on pettiness.

There is more than enough money to build regional rail and bus feeder networks for regional rail in the individual communities in the $2 billion. Once these feeder networks are all done, lets say in ten years, it will be much easier to justify building high speed rail, which is the end goal.

You really have almost no faith in representative democracy don't you? I'm a liberal and I am less pessimistic about what will get done than you for god sakes!

Kyle, very few people vote for someone or a party based on agreeing with everything they stand for or wanting to accept every decision they are going to make. This is why we need to have plebiscites, etc. I should be asking you why you have no faith in voters but I think I already know your answer.

Of course Calgary we'll get funding but your allocation is questionable. I can see Calgary getting about $600 million of this money and Edmonton will probably get about $700 to $800 million to make up for last year. That leaves as much as $700 million for the rest of the province which sounds like a lot. First thing that will happen I believe is that a lot of smaller places like Red Deer, etc. will be given money to buy more buses which I would assume is what they are going to ask for. The two metro regions will ask for better regional transit systems and the response from the government will be funding for studies and to buy land for possibly needed (once the population dramatically increases) rail corridors or funding to build HOV lanes (you're right about the province being pragmatic and someone will realize that the vast majority of people will still drive between outlying areas and the big cities no matter how much they invest in transit).

I'm just being realistic not pessimistic. We should find out by next spring just exactly how serious everyone is about this initiative and I fully expect certain Calgary politicians to be deeply disappointed. But manufacturers of transit buses will be happy!

[fusili]

Although I am a huge proponent of non-automobile transportation (my scars from falling off my bike yesterday prove it), I am not really supportive of regional rail. When it comes to transportation planning what needs to happen is a balancing of objectives. Increases in ridership, impacts on landuse, impacts on the environment, socio-economic characteristics of riders, trip destinations etc have to be balanced against each other. It seems to me that Calgary Transit focuses solely on ridership. This is also the case for regional rail.

Just because regional rail will encourage more people to use alternative transportation and stop driving their cars (which is good), there are negative impacts. First, regional rail can encourage more low-density ex-urban development. What incentive is there to live in a dense, inner-city community if you can easily drive 5 minutes (or less) to your town's train station and get downtown in the same time it would take you to do so from an inner-city community in Calgary?

Second, the benefactors of regional rail are more likely to be upper-middle class office workers (not saying all of them, just a majority). Again this misses the purpose of public transportation. Lower income groups, students, those with mobility difficulties, the elderly etc, are those most negatively impacted by an urban form in which mobility is largely dependent on the ownership of an automobile. It is these groups that have the greatest mobility problems and the ones who most acutely feel the impacts of rising fuel costs, if they are dependent on automobile transportation. What regional rail (and LRT expansions to remote suburbs) does is it gives added mobility benefits to people who already have sufficient mobility. It helps the better off and does nothing for the worse off. That being said, there are probably many people in Cochrane, Airdrie and Okotoks who are lower-income, and so regional rail may be a great benefit to them.

Third, like our LRT system, regional rail does nothing to reduce automobile dependency. Regional rail, like our LRT system is design as a commuter system. It does not greatly help people access services such as doctors, grocery stores, schools etc, it gets people to and from work.

When we plan for a transportation system we should be taking into account not just ridership but, like I said above, a balance of objectives. Mobility is not just about going to and from work. It is picking up groceries, taking children to school, dance practice, going to the doctor etc. Transportation systems also should have the goal of reducing outward urban growth in order to protect both valuable agricultural land and ecologically significant areas, encouraging density, reducing automobile dependence etc etc etc. Calgary does have the most successful LRT system in North America, but I don't think it does much for the transit dependent.

That being said, if someone could prove to me that regional rail would reduce car dependency, increase urban densities in Cochrane, Airdrie and Okotoks, provide access for lower-income groups to services, reduce greenfield urban growth and be cost-effective, I would be all for it.

[lubicon]

I think you need to go back and read what I wrote and the various news releases about this money from the province. The money is going to be spent over *10* years so that alone should tell you that they are going to be playing games. Like I said before, this is being done strictly as a PR move and if they don't get good press and environmentalists to tone their attacks they'll cancel the program. Do you honestly think that in a matter of a few weeks Stelmach's rural dominated cabinet all of a sudden thought allocating $2 billion to public transit would be a good idea? No way in hell that happened. Anyone who even remotely follows provincial politics knows that the vast majority of rural politicans can't stand the two big cities, especially Calgary. Also, Calgary only accounts for about 30% of the population in the province so I'm at a loss as to why so many people here think we'll get $1 billion of the $2 billion.

Now back to what I said. What I pointed out is why a regional rail system will never get approved. The number of users would be extremely small for the cost and the province is not going to approve project without getting a big bang for the buck. Yeah, buying buses for use in Airdrie wouldn't either but there would be more users of a local transit system and thus more votes. Running buses into Calgary to tie into our system would be a good idea but a rail-based system is simply uneconomical. If the province is going to start throwing money around like that there will be a lot of people demanding they speed up construction of hospitals and quit cutting back on existing plans. That group which are bigger whiners than the transit fanatics will win the day because of their numbers.

If Calgary is realistic they will put forward a plan to build a huge tunnel downtown to handle multiple lines. This will improve traffic flow which will cut emissions. The government clearly said that they will consider any proposal that cuts emissions which, if you read between the lines, means they will be approving road projects in a lot of places because transit is simply not needed/wanted in a lot of areas in this province. But the way Bronco has been acting lately he'll get way too greedy and the province will favor the Edmonton area in the allocation of this money. Plus, they need to calm those guys down from last year when they claimed they got shafted.

Valid points Corndogger. In response to your rhetorical question (which I have hilighted in bold). You may be absolutely right, and based strictly on population that would make sense. However, using those same numbers (that the polpulation is split roughly 1/2 Calgary (region), 1/3 Edmonton (region), and 1/3 'rest of Alberta') it is easy to see that spending a significant amount of money outside of Calgary, Edmonton, and immediate areas makes little sense. The population is spread too thinly, and even giving much money to the larger centres (there are only 5 - Med Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, GP, and Ft Mac) isn't the smartest move. Those cities have workforces that are quite spread out and sinking a bunch of money into transit won't help. Really the only case for regional transit outside of Edm and Cal is in Ft Mac and they already do it with the dozens if not hundreds of busses that take workers out to the oilsands mines every day. Based on this logic alone it would make sense (to me) to spend most of the money in/around Edmonton and Calgary with maybe a little for everyone else. That is where the roughly 50/50 split comes from that we are speculating about. Of course this is provincial politics as you have pointed out so logical thoughts are not necessarily going to carry the day.

[Corndogger]

^ Why do rural politicians have such a chip on their shoulder? Shouldn't be the other way around? Urban politicians have much larger constituencies, rural representatives have a disproportionate amount of power considering their population bases.

Having said that, I am sure it won't take long for Calgary and Edmonton to eat up a lot of this money very quickly. Stelmach said it is entirely feasible that this money could be 'spent' (It will be actually paid out over 10 years, but would be allocated in the shorter term) in the next year.

I assume if money is approved for projects there is a legal (or at least political) obligation to come through with it, no?

Josh, there are countless examples of where governments have made promises and backtracked. It shouldn't happen but it does and sometimes for good reason.

Your assessment about rural politicians is right but they definitely do not like the two big cities because they perceive we get way too much. They tend to forget those huge subsidies to farmers, etc. However, knowing some people that have lived in rural areas in this province for years there are some areas in which they do get screwed. Basic infrastructure is way worse than what we have here. I'm not just talking about roads but stuff like decent sewer systems, water treatment, etc. The number of boil water advisories in this province is shocking but something we never even think about in Calgary. I believe Bragg Creek has had a boil water advisory for years now which is crazy in a province with our wealth. It's probably the basics like that which makes rural politicians and residents despise the big cities.

As for eating up the money, I'm sure Bronco will have enough proposals to eat up $10 billion but reality is the province is going to decide what gets approved. I just hope they fully investigate evey proposal because I don't want another cent of my money going into ill-planned projects like the WLRT. If approvals do take until next spring then there is hope that the province will carefully study all proposals and pick the best of the lot. And I'll be shocked if the cabinet allocates all of the money in the first year. Given the construction environment it would be wise that didn't happen to make sure we get value for the money being spent.

[Boris2k7]

Although I am a huge proponent of non-automobile transportation (my scars from falling off my bike yesterday prove it), I am not really supportive of regional rail.

...

A well-put post. I pretty much agree on all counts.

I would go on to add that it goes beyond addressing just income-based or age-based dependencies. Automobile dependency in general is a bad thing. It's entirely unreasonable to expect that every person owns or is compelled to own, and operate, a private automobile. Automobile Dependency limits lifestyle choices.

Past that, it is indeed dubious that Calgary should support any form of commuting that contributes to weakening it's own tax base/increasing it's infrastructure burden.

Now, that said, if the City/Province could force through a solid regional growth strategy that limits the ability of both Calgary and it's surrounding towns to sprawl, that would make commuter rail much more palatable.

[Corndogger]

Valid points Corndogger. In response to your rhetorical question (which I have hilighted in bold). You may be absolutely right, and based strictly on population that would make sense. However, using those same numbers (that the polpulation is split roughly 1/2 Calgary (region), 1/3 Edmonton (region), and 1/3 'rest of Alberta') it is easy to see that spending a significant amount of money outside of Calgary, Edmonton, and immediate areas makes little sense. The population is spread too thinly, and even giving much money to the larger centres (there are only 5 - Med Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, GP, and Ft Mac) isn't the smartest move. Those cities have workforces that are quite spread out and sinking a bunch of money into transit won't help. Really the only case for regional transit outside of Edm and Cal is in Ft Mac and they already do it with the dozens if not hundreds of busses that take workers out to the oilsands mines every day. Based on this logic alone it would make sense (to me) to spend most of the money in/around Edmonton and Calgary with maybe a little for everyone else. That is where the roughly 50/50 split comes from that we are speculating about. Of course this is provincial politics as you have pointed out so logical thoughts are not necessarily going to carry the day.

From a bang for the buck perspective I totally agree with you. But this is a politically driven initiative and as long as rural areas are over represented in the legislature the party in power is going to have to pander to them more than they should in such insistences. Given that reality, I wonder what the reaction would be if a place like Lethbridge said we want to buy xx number of buses and xx number of hybrid vehicles to make our city fleet more fuel efficient. I know the transit crowd would not like the latter part but I think we need to be realistic and admit that vehicles are going to rule for a long time to come. Calgary should also buy more hybrid vehicles given the size of our fleet.

[Wooster]

I think regional rail can be effective it is deployed properly and more responsible, higher density development in communities are enforced as sort of a precondition to getting commuter rail. I'd make the case that a transit authority (which would operate all transit in the region - GO Train/ local systems operating seperately sucks) should be acquiring land for TODs not only in Calgary, but around stations in places like Cochrane.

As for commuter style vs. effective rapid transit. Certainly within Calgary, the commuter orientation of the system in the suburbs is largely due to its right of ways (running down the middle of freeways) and the lack of uses around it. If places like Brentwood, Dalhousie, Anderson build up, even the suburban LRT will operate better to meet the daily needs you're talking about, rather than just commuting.

That is also another argument for integrating commuter rail with Calgary Transit under one authority. People from Cochrane would be able to for instance, get off a train, transfer directly to the local bus and LRT systems to get to place like the University or to shopping destinations. It doesn't work like that with GO.

As for the socio-economic characteristics of transit riders. Calgary overall has a very white coller ridership demographic compared to most cities (largely due to its downtown orientation - all lines end there). Most outlying areas are among the least expensive places to live (except perhaps exurban acerage developments) in the region. In the GTA, it is the surburban enclaves served by commuter rail like Brampton, Vaughn, Markham that are the most ethnically diverse, and in many cases have the most transit dependent people. This will be more and more the case in the Calgary region I am sure.

It is important to have all people in the region have reasonable transit access (whether we like it or not, cochrane, airdrie and Okotoks already exist and they're not going away), so we might as well make the best of the situation.

Having said that, the investment should not promote sprawl, and actually be an impetus for more responsible development (hopefully that is coming with the return of regional planning, and an upcoming metropolitan plan for calgary under the Province's land use framework). Further, it SHOULD NOT preclude aggressive development of LRT within Calgary's municipal boundaries. Making it a truly functional rapid transit system that is convenient and useful for all types of trips is critical. This will happen by completing the radial network, and then begining to make many more cross town connections, ring routes etc covering all areas of the city. This also needs to be coupled with really tying land use to this infrastructure (TODs).

[fusili]

Josh and Boris: I totally agree with everything you say. I think the most important thing that we all agree upon is that the rail system has to be tied to land use. In fact, any transportation planning has to work closely with land use. Hopefully the province's Land Use Framework (LUF), Plan-It and the CRP will work together in a comprehensive and effective way to ensure this. I was able to attend a small conference (just students) put on by the LUF, and I think the people in charge of it have their heads in the right place. IF regional rail is done right, I will support it. I just don't want it to go badly.

[para transit fellow]

I see two challenges with commuter rail in Calgary

Tons of money to buy stuff but is there actually any money to operate the service? Klein did away with the Public Transit Operating Assistance Grant (PTOAG) in 1994. The West Coast Commuter, GO transit and AMT need infusions of local money to keep going. Indeed the biggest benefactor of this rail idea might be CPR (Go transit's biggest expense is to the rail roads).

The other challenge to heavy rail is the local transit infrastructure. Just as High Speed Rail needs a regional transit infrastructure to feed it. Regional rail will need local transit routes to feed the train station. Right now, Cochrane has no local transit service. Airdrie's transit service is on a 40 minute headway and is considered financially unsustainable by some of Airdrie's Council.

I'm pondering a more humble beginning to a Calgary Regional transit system. High capacity buses (double decker or articulated buses) with internet running a BRT route. HOV lanes from outlying areas to make it worth your BRT trip a little faster than the folks who took their cars to work. This and other stuff is very feasible in the very near future.

(disclaimer: your mileage may vary)

[Wooster]

^ I think an express bus or BRT model, similar to what the City does on routes that will be future LRTs is the way to go. I'm not sure the population in these areas really justifies a full blown train network at this point. Get people used to the type of service first, prove the numbers to some degree and then go for it down the line. GO train serves catchment areas that are larger than Calgary. The lakeshore line for instance serves Hamilton (to some degree), Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, and Etobikoke area before making it to union. That is an enormous population.

[Wooster]

Commuter trains touted for region
Eva Ferguson, Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, July 11, 2008

Facing gas price hikes and rapid growth just like the big city, Calgary's bedroom communities are floating a $500-million plan to double existing heavy rail lines that would create a commuter rail system connecting them to existing LRT.

On the heels of this week's $2-billion provincial funding announcement for public transit, officials in Airdrie, Cochrane and Okotoks are expected to meet in the next month to look at speeding up development of commuter rail, hoping to have it done within five years.

The goal would be to either build rails alongside existing CP Rail lines south and west of the city, or use abandoned CN tracks in the north. Publicly run commuter buses are also planned to start in some districts in two years to deal with burgeoning growth.

"We have to do this, and look at all options possible," said Airdrie Ald. Richard Seimens on Thursday, arguing politicians have to do the right thing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help commuters avoid rising gas prices at the pump.

"There's no question something like this would be extremely well used."

Building a new rail line east of the city's existing McKnight LRT station into Airdrie, combined with the city's long-term plan to extend to Calgary airport, has been discussed, Siemens says.

But a cheaper alternative, he added, could be to run a commuter line along the existing abandoned CN Rail line just west of Deerfoot Trail, which becomes Highway 2 to Airdrie.

"That may even be more feasible as the Balzac mall becomes more of a reality," he said.

Construction is underway on a mammoth entertainment complex in Balzac, just south of Airdrie and beside Highway 2, anchored by a horseracing track and what would be the Calgary area's largest shopping mall.

Beth Kish is a councillor for the town of Okotoks and also sits on the Calgary Regional Partnership, a coalition of 18 towns and cities and one native band working to come up with a land-use plan for the area surrounding Calgary.

She says creating a commuter link through heavy rail is a "no-brainer" south of the city and can't happen soon enough.

"We can't wait -- we shouldn't wait for the population to keep growing," said Kish, explaining that nearly 80,000 Calgarians are regular users of the business districts in Okotoks, High River and the surrounding area.

Kish explained CP Rail lines already run alongside the south leg of the LRT, and could either be doubled or shared.

"In Okotoks, we get eight to 12 trains on the CP tracks daily, so there's a lot of room for a larger capacity."

Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride said recent meetings of the Calgary Regional Partnership had CP Rail officials estimate that doubling heavy rail lines to Airdrie, Okotoks/High River and Cochrane would cost about $500 million.

And with a $2-billion promise from the province, the price tag could be feasible, he added.

"This is completely possible. It will become a reality for us."

McBride added 60 per cent of Cochrane commutes to Calgary right now, about 8,500 people.

CP Rail spokesman Mike Lovecchio said he couldn't confirm a price tag for doubling lines, but said the company would be happy to continue to guide Calgary's outlying towns and cities in building a commuter system.

Business-wise, he added, doubling heavy rail infrastructure benefits CP because the region would have to lease its lines.

"It's certainly an opportunity we'd like to explore, but the decisions aren't made. At this stage, it's just speculative, but we'll continue the dialogue."

eferguson@theherald.canwest.com


© The Calgary Herald 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=c8a56b81-f0c7-46aa-a790-93841dcd7880

[Dado]

Here is a question for any project management or engineering type folk:

It will cost alot of money to twin rail to all these suburbs, mostly due to bridge replacement and the need to relocate some cliffs.
If there aren't too many crossings or cliffs to relocate and they're not too long and are sufficiently far apart, you can get away with just twinning everything else and leaving them as single track initially. You can just schedule around the "bottlenecks". As time goes on some of them may prove to be more problematic than others, and these can be prioritized for construction. Since twinning track otherwise isn't all that expensive, the savings from cutting out just a few bridges could be significant.

[Dado]

Perhaps instead of locomotive-pulled heavy rail commuter trains (like the GO Trains), the CRP should be considering diesel light rail vehicles on existing track, like we have in Ottawa with the O-Train (San Diego has recently done the same). Also called "diesel multiple units" (DMUs), in Europe they're marketed as suburban or regional trains. I believe that a demonstration train had been run in Calgary several years back. Examples are the Bombardier Talent (the O-Train) and the Siemens Desiro (San Diego). They have a top speed of around 120 km/h but one of their main advantages - besides cost of course - is that they have much better acceleration than your average locomotive. Because the lines around Calgary are heavily used by freight, it's likely that any commuter service will end up having to pass freight trains, so an ability to accelerate quickly would probably be more useful than a higher top speed (140 km/h) that conventional inter-city VIA trains are capable of.

The main downside at the moment is regulatory, but former federal transport minister David Collenette has had recent contact with federal transport officials with respect to altering the rules to allow a similar regional system in the Ottawa area and there now appears to be a greater willingness to consider such changes on the part of federal officials - in no small part due to the success of the O-Train, which crosses both a VIA mainline and the main access track to a freight railyard at grade diamonds. In Ottawa, the O-Train is legally run by a federally-regulated railway, Capital Railway, which is owned entirely by the transit authority.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/382229936_566469ac9a.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lakerred/382229936/
Ottawa Central freight train waiting for the O-Train to cross the diamond at the access to the Ottawa Central railyard.

[Beltliner]

To bring in a couple of other technology options from another thread:

DMUs are probably the way to go for services to Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks. The line to Cochrane, as a case in point, would probably do with intermediate stops in Bowness, Bearspaw Road, and Lochend Road to capture the acreage ridership especially, but even at a mean speed of 45 miles an hour the jaunt from Cochrane to Palliser Station would be feasible at 35 minutes. In terms of rolling stock for a regional commuter rail system, there are two possibilities:

Wabtec Motive Power MPXpress (http://www.motivepower-wabtec.com/locomotives/commuter/mpxpress.php) locomotive and four Bombardier Bi-Level passenger cars (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles/commuter-and-regional-trains/double-deck-coaches/bilevel---north-america?docID=0901260d80020fe1). Seating for 600; scalable to higher demand by adding more cars; fairly common commuter rail technology in North America for old hands (GO Transit (http://www.gotransit.com/)) and new entrants (FrontRunner (http://www.rideuta.com/projects/commuterRail/default.aspx)) alike.
Colorado Railcar double decker DMU (http://www.coloradorailcar.com/double-deck-dmu-home.htm) in top-and-tail configuration with a middle car. Seating for 600; shorter than locomotive-plus configuration, and apparently cheaper to operate; not scalable to higher demand; higher up-front capital cost for rarer commuter rail technology.

[Policy Wonk]

A restored Palliser Station would be just about ideal for downtown transit integration, and the Line 203 connection to the Railtown TGV station would take some of the sting out not being able to walk right to everything. ;)

The redevelopment of Palliser Square will throw a wrench in that idea,

It isn't like CPR Calgary is Saint Pancras Station, there is no great underlying infrastructure or grand history there to be preserved. Even if the facilities of the 1970's were entirely intact they couldn't support the passenger volume.

The tracks are also much too close together to build reasonable platforms for holding any number of passengers waiting for multiple trains, all the while pulling up the centre tracks would make it difficult for freight trains to pass through the area without disruption.

I would build a new station to the west of 5th street over top of the existing parking lots. The outer tracks would support passengers platforms with new track supporting an additional platform north and south of the existing four.

[Policy Wonk]

Second, the benefactors of regional rail are more likely to be upper-middle class office workers (not saying all of them, just a majority). Again this misses the purpose of public transportation. Lower income groups, students, those with mobility difficulties, the elderly etc, are those most negatively impacted by an urban form in which mobility is largely dependent on the ownership of an automobile.

That isn't a fair statement because the commuter rail would give those people access to higher quality affordable housing in the surrounding area while still connecting them to their places of work, school or support network in the city. These people can't afford to live in a "dense inner-city community" of any quality to begin with.

In most American cities with high utilization of commuter rail the passengers are using it because they can't afford housing in a reasonable section of the city. People aren't taking the train to Manhatten from Montauk or Mastic Long Island just for the sake of sprawling.

[jeffwhit]

The redevelopment of Palliser Square will throw a wrench in that idea,

It isn't like CPR Calgary is Saint Pancras Station, there is no great underlying infrastructure or grand history there to be preserved. Even if the facilities of the 1970's were entirely intact they couldn't support the passenger volume.

The tracks are also much too close together to build reasonable platforms for holding any number of passengers waiting for multiple trains, all the while pulling up the centre tracks would make it difficult for freight trains to pass through the area without disruption.

I would build a new station to the west of 5th street over top of the existing parking lots. The outer tracks would support passengers platforms with new track supporting an additional platform north and south of the existing four.

That's also a great location, I just liked the Calgary tower location because of the symbolism, also I hate the current scheme and redevelopment plan.

[jeffwhit]

That isn't a fair statement because the commuter rail would give those people access to higher quality affordable housing in the surrounding area while still connecting them to their places of work, school or support network in the city. These people can't afford to live in a "dense inner-city community" of any quality to begin with.

In most American cities with high utilization of commuter rail the passengers are using it because they can't afford housing in a reasonable section of the city. People aren't taking the train to Manhatten from Montauk or Mastic Long Island just for the sake of sprawling.

Yeah, Some of the arguments against regional rail strike me as a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

[Boris2k7]

Access to higher quality affordable housing? Bullshit. This isn't Manhattan, and it's absurd to even use that in a comparison. What this statement really means is "access to spacious single-family housing complete with garage and lawn for the same low price of $xxx,xxx."

"These people" can afford to live in a denser environment and often do. The poor sure aren't moving out to Silverado.

The income issue is somewhat beside the point though, although it's been proven in just about every other commuter rail system that's been set up in North America. The bigger problem is funding a system that further promotes sprawl... a self-propogating entity that's destined to collapse under its own weight.

Though if we were as populous and dense as Manhattan, we might actually require commuter rail to relatively cheaper locations. Even then, Montreal's cheap housing gives me a tinge of doubt.

[Policy Wonk]

What this statement really means is "access to spacious single-family housing complete with garage and lawn for the same low price of $xxx,xxx."

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that,

[Boris2k7]

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that,

In your mind at least.

[Policy Wonk]

yeah, there is just no greater evil in the world than somebody living in the type of housing they choose in an area they can afford.

Would you rather they drive from these homes of their choosing to their place of business?

[Boris2k7]

As I pointed out, people can afford to live elsewhere. It simply entails sacrificing some luxuries. I'm also simply unwilling to go into a lengthy debate regarding the free-market bullshit about choice... yeah, yeah, my bleeding heart for your two-car garage. I'll call you whenever I need cash for road repairs.

And yes, I would rather they simply sit in traffic. That money could be directed to transit projects that are actually beneficial to Calgary itself. If people outside of the city are frustrated with traffic, they can move to Calgary. The absolutely worst thing you could do would be to turn outlying towns into low-tax havens with rapid transit to Downtown Calgary.

[Policy Wonk]

As I pointed out, people can afford to live elsewhere. It simply entails sacrificing some luxuries.

Those aren't sacrafices those who aren't already interested in urban living would be prepared to make. This type of development will happen with or without regional transit as Calgary grows. The question is will this population base develop into edge city type situations with large suburban centres of employment and amenties or will the base of employment remain the Calgary core. If you prefer the latter alternative strong regional transportation has to be at the centre of it.

I personally don't have a problem with edge cities or suburbanizing the workforce, total gridlock density isn't a virtue. But I suspect others feel differently.

[Boris2k7]

Those aren't sacrafices those who aren't already interested in urban living would be prepared to make.

Well boo-fucking-hoo. They can either do it voluntarily or be coerced to it through increasing costs.

This type of development will happen with or without regional transit as Calgary grows. The question is will this population base develop into edge city type situations with large suburban centres of employment and amenties or will the base of employment remain the Calgary core. If you prefer the latter alternative strong regional transportation has to be at the centre of it.

That's tenuous at best. Push out the regional lines and the rate of people living the city will accelerate, and the exurban locations will become attractive for employment centres.

I personally don't have a problem with edge cities or suburbanizing the workforce, total gridlock density isn't a virtue. But I suspect others feel differently.

You may not have a problem with it, but it still ends up being a stupid policy. Funny you mention gridlock, because that is exactly what happens when you push people and jobs to the suburbs... it just generates more automobile trips.

[WeavedWeb]

As I pointed out, people can afford to live elsewhere. It simply entails sacrificing some luxuries. I'm also simply unwilling to go into a lengthy debate regarding the free-market bullshit about choice... yeah, yeah, my bleeding heart for your two-car garage. I'll call you whenever I need cash for road repairs.

And yes, I would rather they simply sit in traffic. That money could be directed to transit projects that are actually beneficial to Calgary itself. If people outside of the city are frustrated with traffic, they can move to Calgary. The absolutely worst thing you could do would be to turn outlying towns into low-tax havens with rapid transit to Downtown Calgary.

Boris, these close-minded statements get me too frustrated to prepare a worthy response. If you are that against cars and suburbs, move to Sweden.

About Regional Rail, though, I like the idea of four or five lines to outlying communities. I think Airdrie would be most beneficial at this time, seen as how it would mostly be taking cars off Deerfoot, while Cochrane and Okotoks/High River could have cheaper systems (like buses) for the interim.

[Boris2k7]

Boris, these close-minded statements get me too frustrated to prepare a worthy response. If you are that against cars and suburbs, move to Sweden.

LOL

If you can't even come up with a response, then you should be the one taking a hike. In fact you probably should, you might learn something about proper, functional cities.

As it stands, I have never been against suburbs per se but rather the irresponsible and unsustainable form known as sprawl. And the automobile is important only in so much that it allows sprawl to take place and sucks away funding from public transit (and has for over 50 years). I will continue to fight against this mass stupidity and selfish consumption as long as I feel that it is jeopardizing the future of the city. And as to regional rail, I've pointed out my concerns regarding how it may or may not effect sprawl.

Present me with a regional transit strategy that doesn't cause sprawl, increases mobility and is sustainable, and I'll accept it. If these conditions can't be meant then it shouldn't even be considered.

[MalcolmTucker]

Hey now, even Stockholm has 200 km of commuter rail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_commuter_rail)track to supplement its metro system.

Don't get testy everyone! Commuter rail communities have incentive to build as dense and big as possible around stations in TOD, as it generates the most tax revenue for the least amount of infrastructure spending. With prods from the provincial land use formula, and sprawl limited by water liscenses I think there wouldn't be a problem.

Politically, this government is already the most protransit and pro city in provincial history, some times they have to throw a bone at the bed rock of support. I would much rather have that bone be commuter rail rather than the alternative of new freeways radiating from the ring road.

[Boris2k7]

^ I don't disagree with that, but I also don't see these communities readily agreeing to any framework that limits their ability to expand. They are certain to make a fuss about getting transit but with strings attached.

Stockholm also is not only dense, but has a very extensive public transit system and also has congestion charges applied similar to London's.

Also, your statement about commuter rail communities having incentives to build as dense as possible simply applies to cities in general. That is the case pretty much everywhere... but in fact we don't see that. Instead of building as dense as possible to maximize tax revenue while minimizing infrastructure spending, we have quite typically minimized tax revenue while maximizing infrastructure spending by building sprawl. So while there may be an incentive to build denser, that may not be what happens in the end.

[lubicon]

^ I think an express bus or BRT model, similar to what the City does on routes that will be future LRTs is the way to go. I'm not sure the population in these areas really justifies a full blown train network at this point. Get people used to the type of service first, prove the numbers to some degree and then go for it down the line. GO train serves catchment areas that are larger than Calgary. The lakeshore line for instance serves Hamilton (to some degree), Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, and Etobikoke area before making it to union. That is an enormous population.

And we already have this to an extent. Their are commuter busses running to DT Calgary from Cochrane for sure, and likely Airdrie, Okotoks etc. We could expand this service both in terms of frequency and routes provided.

[shogged]

From the Okotoks Western Wheel - Letters to the Editor

Transit extension will end Okotoks’ small town feel

Dear Editor,
I have to applaud our local politicians for being proactive in regards to the environment and the proposed light rail or LRT extension and there have been plenty of pros mentioned.
However, I assume most of the Okotoks residents have moved to our wonderful community to escape the city. By proposing a rail transit extension we are defeating the small town feel and becoming an extension of the city. This transit system will also make our community more accessible for more than just out of town shoppers, like criminals that prey on that small town honesty. This system will make it easier for these kinds of activities as well. Do we want the undesirables to have easier access to our quiet town? We already have 15-year-olds robbing our merchants, do we want more?
If you don’t like the commute or the price that comes along with it move back to the city. I like the idea that we have some distance between our town and the big city.
Lets allocate these funds to a much needed bullet train between Calgary and Edmonton, that I am sure will reduce way more greenhouse gas than a LRT extension to Okotoks and area.
Greg Baher
Okotoks

http://www.westernwheel.com/editorialpauls.htm

Laughed really hard at this one. I sent in my reply which included things such as, "you must be in serious denial to think that Okotoks isn't already just an extension of Calgary, ever heard of the term bedroom community?" and I also mentioned the lack of existing infrastructure in Edmonton and Calgary that would be needed to support a HSR.

[mersar]

Regional leaders fast-track transportation proposal

By Brad Herron
The Eagle
Regional transportation is being fast-tracked by the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP).

To meet an unknown deadline sometime in September or October, the CRP’s executive committee, which includes mayors and reeves from 18 municipalities such as Cochrane, decided July 25 to develop a proposal for a portion of $2 billion the provincial government recently allocated to public transit.

Rick Butler, chair of the CRP, which is headquartered in Cochrane, said July 25 that the CRP’s transportation committee was given a terms of reference on how to proceed with a previously-announced feasibility study on regional transit and how to use that information to apply for provincial funding.

“We’re looking at starting small, and we hope we will start to get some pieces for those bigger steps, the trains and LRT,” Butler said.

Mayor Truper McBride chairs the transportation committee, but he declined to comment on the matter.

What exactly the CRP will apply for won’t be known until a proposal is officially ratified, something Butler speculated could happen as early as October.

“We are going to probably have a multi-year plan, a 20- to 25-year plan, and we will be starting to put the pieces together,” he said.

Butler said short-term objectives could include a busing service from outlying communities into Calgary and land acquisition for future transit infrastructure.

To achieve those goals, Butler said the mayors and reeves need to work together, and so far, that is exactly what has happened.

“It’s wonderful to be in step or maybe a step ahead of the province on these things,” Butler said.

Copyright © 2008 Cochrane Eagle.

Bit more news

[IntotheWest]

From the Okotoks Western Wheel - Letters to the Editor

Transit extension will end Okotoks’ small town feel

Dear Editor,
I have to applaud our local politicians for being proactive in regards to the environment and the proposed light rail or LRT extension and there have been plenty of pros mentioned.
However, I assume most of the Okotoks residents have moved to our wonderful community to escape the city. By proposing a rail transit extension we are defeating the small town feel and becoming an extension of the city. This transit system will also make our community more accessible for more than just out of town shoppers, like criminals that prey on that small town honesty. This system will make it easier for these kinds of activities as well. Do we want the undesirables to have easier access to our quiet town? We already have 15-year-olds robbing our merchants, do we want more?
If you don’t like the commute or the price that comes along with it move back to the city. I like the idea that we have some distance between our town and the big city.
Lets allocate these funds to a much needed bullet train between Calgary and Edmonton, that I am sure will reduce way more greenhouse gas than a LRT extension to Okotoks and area.
Greg Baher
Okotoks

http://www.westernwheel.com/editorialpauls.htm

Laughed really hard at this one. I sent in my reply which included things such as, "you must be in serious denial to think that Okotoks isn't already just an extension of Calgary, ever heard of the term bedroom community?" and I also mentioned the lack of existing infrastructure in Edmonton and Calgary that would be needed to support a HSR.

Yeah, there is going to be this resistance still. And keep in mind, that there are quite a few residents (such as myself) that don't travel to the city regularly.

However, in the bigger picture, you're absolutely right. Okotoks wouldn't be 21,000 and growth of 43% since 2001 if it was truly a stand-alone town. The biggest problem with the comments this person made is making it "accessible" to out-of-towners. As much as I like Okotoks, I don't know too many that get so bored in Calgary that they need to make the trip south....that applies to "all types".

Anyhow - no rail extension...it might just be a BRT line. What a lot of folks don't realize yet is bedroom community towns need to re-invent themselves as well, or they' just become irrelevant in the not-so-distant future.

[shogged]

Yeah, there is going to be this resistance still. And keep in mind, that there are quite a few residents (such as myself) that don't travel to the city regularly.

However, in the bigger picture, you're absolutely right. Okotoks wouldn't be 21,000 and growth of 43% since 2001 if it was truly a stand-alone town. The biggest problem with the comments this person made is making it "accessible" to out-of-towners. As much as I like Okotoks, I don't know too many that get so bored in Calgary that they need to make the trip south....that applies to "all types".

Anyhow - no rail extension...it might just be a BRT line. What a lot of folks don't realize yet is bedroom community towns need to re-invent themselves as well, or they' just become irrelevant in the not-so-distant future.

my response got published! they don't have the online version but if you get a chance to pick up the paper, check it out! :D

[frinkprof]

^I don't suppose you have it in digital format do you? I'd be interested to read it.

[IntotheWest]

^Excellent...I will get a copy.

As I just posted in the Calgary Construction forum, I think there's still a lot of education to be done to the general public. I agree, give up the "we're a small town, not part of Calgary" mentality, and realize where you're at. If you want a small town feel, move to Kinistino, Sask. No city will bug you there.

[lubicon]

I'm sure it won't be long before we see a website showing before and after images of what Okotoks will look like, a la the Best West LRT site.

[shogged]

^I don't suppose you have it in digital format do you? I'd be interested to read it.

i'll post it as soon as its up online, usually takes 1-2 days after the paper comes out

[mersar]

Theres been a bit of interesting discussion on one of the local forums for Cochrane, where one of the posters is the Mayor the town so we get a bit of an inside track in knowing more detail about whats been publicly said. However the 'we want community consultation' noises are starting to surface, which at the stage that the plan is at probably is a bit premature in my view until an initial plan is hammered out.

[mersar]

More news:

Commuter rail may be on its way

By Brad Herron
The Eagle
Cochrane is a “strong contender” to receive a pilot commuter-rail service, said Mayor Truper McBride.
CP Rail has indicated to the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) that Cochrane may be the first to receive commuter rail due to the relative ease in designing the service, he said July 31.
“From downtown Calgary to downtown Cochrane is one line,” McBride said.
While Airdrie has nearly three times Cochrane’s 13,000-plus population, it would be easier to direct passengers into Calgary from Cochrane.
Although trains are the mayor’s ultimate long-term goal, McBride said he is pushing for a bus service with a station on Calgary Transit’s light rail system.
He is encouraged by the City of Calgary’s enthusiasm for the project, which could potentially remove vehicles from already crowded city roads.
“The city has indicated it is possible for them to do it very, very quickly without any real operating hit to any of the communities,” McBride said.
The regional partnership is currently using a $500,000 grant from the province to research the viability of heavy-rail, light-rail and rapid-bus transit in the region. This includes demographics, travel patterns and potential ridership.
A proposal to the province needs to be completed and sent in September or October. The town is not submitting its own proposal, the mayor said. He still hopes to conduct a local transit feasibility study if it is approved by council.
Premier Ed Stelmach recently announced $2 billion in funding to “green” transit systems across the province. In his announcement, Stelmach indicated heavy-rail transit may be a possibility for Alberta’s major cities.
McBride said the proposal to secure a portion of the money the province recently offered up for transit will likely include funds for a bus service between many of the communities in the CRP and Calgary.
“This wouldn’t be trains, it would be standard buses,” he said.
He hopes it won’t be strictly designed for commuters on a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work schedule. An all-day service would accommodate seniors and students, he said.
“If I had my dream transit system, (buses) would be running on separate lanes. But chances are, they will be on the same lanes,” McBride said.
It is all part of a vision McBride hopes will link the Calgary region through non-vehicular modes of travel.
“There is going to be rapid population booms continuing here, so laying this groundwork and infrastructure down now is going to pay off not just for the region, but for the city in the long term.”

[mersar]

Mayor says transit could be here by March
by SARA LOFTSON
Wednesday September 10, 2008

Cochrane residents can expect to see the Transportation Plan Update 2008 at an open house sometime in mid-October.

Jim Anderson, director of Operational Services, and members of the consulting firm Urban Systems, who prepared the report, presented updates to the transportation plan at the Sept. 8 council meeting.

Council postponed receiving the Transportation Plan Update at their meeting on July 14, so administration could review the transit plans to provide more background on the Town’s economic indicators, the Horse Creek Road crossing and the Hwy 22 and Hwy 1A intersection.

Lynda Cooke-Jepson, a consulting engineer with Urban Systems, reviewed these items with council at the September meeting.

The report has been revised to replace the generic transit plans with plans that will suit the specific needs of Cochrane.

Mayor Truper McBride said that Cochrane could potentially see external transit buses here by March, depending on how fast planning goes.

In July, the Mayor was concerned that the transportation plans did not support the future influx in population that council had anticipated. Now the report estimates that Cochrane will number 30,000 by 2016 and 49,000 by 2026.

Cooke-Jepson stressed that the transportation plan reflects an ambitious attempt to reduce the external employment relative to the labour force participation rate.

Her projections showed that external employment will continue to decrease, showing that in 2006 the external full-time employment rate was 55 per cent, by 2016 it will be 50 per cent and by 2026 it will be 45 per cent.

She showed figures from similar southern Alberta communities to show Cochrane was on par; in 2001, 66 per cent of Airdrie’s population worked outside the city and Okotoks numbered 65 per cent.

The report now clarifies that future roadwork is expected to be completed in two phases: anytime before 2016 and again anytime after 2016 but before 2026.

As for Horse Creek Road crossing, Cooke-Jepson said now it must be completed by 2016. The crossing connects from Hwy 1A to Quigley Drive. By 2016 it will be realigned north of Hwy 1A to connect with Heritage Hill access and open a two-lane at-grade CPR crossing.

The report emphasized that the improvements recommended in Alberta Transportation’s plans for Hwy 22 and Hwy 1A are not sufficient to reach the 2026 development goals. The province does not intend to create an interchange at that intersection.

But Councillor Miles Chester wanted to state more clearly in the report that twinning and creating an interchange at Hwy 22 and 1A is what Cochrane intends to do.

“Okotoks has got it right. They’ve got a four lane highway that goes right through town,” said Chester.

He asked Anderson how council can convince the province that they are serious about the twinning of Hwy 22 and Hwy 1A.

“Why don’t we just put twinning into our transportation plans? It looks like we’ve left it out.”

Anderson responded: “While we agree twinning may be the ultimate solution, but to make a change in the transportation plan would make significant changes to the town.

“We have to accept that the province is not in agreement right now.”

Chester made sure that everyone agreed that the transportation plan is a living, breathing document that can be changed with time.

After the transportation plan open house, any public input will be added into the final summary before the transportation plan is presented to council for adoption. March sounds good to me :)

[mersar]

Premier to hear rail pitch

By Brad Herron
The Eagle
The future of heavy rail commuting for Cochrane residents rests in the hands of Premier Ed Stelmach.
On Oct. 19, Mayor Truper McBride and Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce will meet with the premier in Calgary to bounce ideas off the province’s top politician and convince him their plan to bring passenger rail to Calgary’s outlying communities is the best way to spend a previously-announced $2 billion.
“Indications are the premier right now is very supportive of the direction we are going and heavy rail seems to be a high priority for him as well,” McBride said Oct. 14.
Stelmach has previously announced heavy-rail transit will happen eventually within the Calgary region.
McBride has been told the decision won’t rest with bureaucrats, but with Stelmach and Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette. Donning his Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) cap, McBride recently met with top officials from Alberta Transportation and came away sure the province was listening
“It wasn’t one of those sessions where they were consulting because they have to and they have their minds made up, they really wanted to know what we thought,” he said.
Details of the CRP’s proposal are still scarce, but McBride said the regional group will go towards “helping municipalities acquire land for necessary stations, begin helping municipalities with their transit-feasibility studies internally and reserving rights-of-way along the CP line.”
But if the premier writes the partnership a $1.5-billion cheque, McBride said the first train could leave the station in three years. Realistically, the mayor said Cochrane will likely have rail service within a decade if a significant portion of the Green Trip dollars are allocated to the CRP at year’s end.
“There is going to be an element of the proposal supportive of Calgary’s southeast LRT extension, there is going to be a significant portion going towards prepping the region for a heavy-rail retrofit, there is probably going to be a portion to pulling immediate rapid-bus transit,” McBride said, adding Cochrane could see a public bus service into Calgary by March, although he hopes the province thinks long-term instead.
Other than Stelmach’s decision, McBride said a number of roadblocks lie in wait for commuter rail to Calgary. Alberta Transportation does not allocate dollars towards an operation budget of such a system, although that may be changing due to pressure for a number of interests.
A year ago, the idea of heavy rail transit was a pipe-dream. Only 12 months into his first term, McBride said that idea has gone an “astronomical distance.”
“Even Mayor (Dave) Bronconnier said yes, he has bought into it now. A year ago I spoke with him and he just kind of said, ‘You know Truper, it’s a good idea, but it is not going to happen,’” McBride said.
CP Rail is onside with the project, McBride said, and significant discussions have occurred with the CRP. The group’s first land-use plan will be unveiled Oct. 19.


From today's issue of the Cochrane Eagle

[mersar]

No public buses for now

By Ian Tennant
The Eagle
Buses funded by taxpayers will not be transporting commuters to Calgary in the New Year.
The Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) will instead concentrate on pulling the pieces together for a heavy rail commuter line between the city and surrounding communities, said Mayor Truper McBride.
The Cochrane mayor and Linda Bruce, mayor of Airdrie, met with Premier Ed Stelmach in Calgary on Oct. 17 to discuss the province’s pledge of $2 billion to improve public transit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While Stelmach was “frustratingly vague” at times, McBride said he left the two mayors with the impression that he would rather see the CRP work on long-range “strategic investments,” such as buying land for rail corridors and stations, than offering buses that could have been operational by March.
“I was pleased he didn’t want to see something immediate that would have had a political benefit for him,” said McBride Oct. 20.
It’s the premier’s understanding, said a spokesman Oct. 21, that the government prefers to not be “locked into any particular idea over another.”
David Heyman, communications manager for the premier’s Calgary office, said the ultimate goal it to have communities working together to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by whatever means provides Albertans with a “better bang for the buck.”
McBride also prefers the long-range focus rather than “some kind of political statement” like buses, a “visual” confirmation the premier is acting on the environment.
He notes Southland already offers a service for Cochrane commuters.

From this week's Cochrane Eagle

[gary]

Yes, an absolutely great idea. Calgary and Edmonton could have something like the west coast express in vancouver. If there is the will to do it. Though i wonder how many commuters would use it?

[feepa]

That's it all right there...

Though i wonder how many commuters would use it?

[slide_rule]

i might regret wading into this convo. but it's still better than actually focusing on work.

it doesn't make sense to build commuter lines into sparsely populated hamlets when the city of calgary itself needs to densify and improve its transit infrastructure. it's especially important as calgary is projected to grow rapidly.

i wouldn't compare stockholm with calgary. most of stockholm was built before the era of the car. spending the money for commuter rail won't pay off if it results in more big lot/single family houses, and a lower overall density.

in an ideal world, municipalities would aspire to have higher densities and higher efficiencies. unfortunately it's not an ideal world, and people cling to expensive and inefficient notions of living on a grassy lot like some 19th century english nobleman. then you don't want calgarian office workers spilling into other municipal jurisdictions for tax purposes... i could go on, but the points have already been covered.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ The whole point of this is if the province won't contribute to a Calgary only project, to still get money that can do some good. You couple the money with conditions on minimum density, and a very high density station area plan.

The regional network reinforces the primacy of Calgary's downtown and other nodes over further extensive sprawl. Fortunately water issues constrain many of the municipalities surround Calgary aswell. Providing cheap housing in far off suburbs isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the land use would be supportive of a car free lifestyle, and there is adequate transit.

Also, it would help support HSR, and provide a single seat to the airport (at least to the people mover...).