Southeast Transitway/Southeast LRT | ~17 Stations | $2 Billion | Proposed

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Not true at all.

The 153 serves Copperfield, New Brighton, Mckenzie Lake, Mckenzie Towne and ends up at Sommerset.

The 406 serves Cranston, Auburn Bay, Mahogany, Seton and Mckenzie Towne and ends up at Sommerset.

The 96 serves Mckenzie Lake, Douglasdale, Douglasglen and ends up at Anderson.

The 92 serves Mckenzie Towne, Douglasdale, Douglasglen and ends up at Anderson.

The 409 serves Douglasglenn, Foothills industrial and ends up at Anderson.

The 136 Serves Riverbend, Douglasglen and ends up at Chinook.

The 23 serves Foothills, R̶i̶v̶e̶r̶b̶e̶n̶d̶ and ends up at Chinook.

The 36 and 41 serves Lynnwood, Ogden, Riverbend and ends up at Chinook.

If virtually no one or very few people use the south line from SE communities seems like an awful lot of community routes going to South line stations.

This is just for communities south of the rail yards. Forrest Lawn, Dover, West Dover, Erin Woods all have busses that go to NE line stations.

Alas the 23 is express service west of the Canal. Once SE LRT gets built the 23 will probably truncate there which will put a big hole in Chinook's usage.

Also worth nothing that the 36/41 don't even connect with the 302

[Aegis]

This might be a dumb question,but...

So let's say the SE Transitway is completed and then a few years later, the funds are available to convert it for LRT use. Are users then looking at a massive disruption when it's closed for construction? If that's the case, why don't we just use the $52M to leverage the project as a P3 and build LRT right from the beginning?

I'm also concerned that once the SE Transitway is complete, politicians will lose whatever political will exists to complete the project, and just not bother building the LRT. "Busways are good enough".

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Aegis

This might be a dumb question,but...

So let's say the SE Transitway is completed and then a few years later, the funds are available to convert it for LRT use. Are users then looking at a massive disruption when it's closed for construction? If that's the case, why don't we just use the $52M to leverage the project as a P3 and build LRT right from the beginning?

I'm also concerned that once the SE Transitway is complete, politicians will lose whatever political will exists to complete the project, and just not bother building the LRT. "Busways are good enough".

Short answer: No.

The existing 302 route travels on almost none of the proposed transitway, which is essentially an entirely new Right-of-way, one that is basically where the LRT will go. The current 302 currently takes Ogden Road all the way from Inglewood to Glenmore. So during the LRT conversion, the BRT will revert back to using Ogden road. Definitely a decrease in speed and reliability during construction, but nothing like Ottawa's experience.

[ken0042]

Or could they do something where they work on 1 km of track at a time; one lane at a time? Basically you would have 1km where it goes to single lane, so buses would have to wait for the other one to pass. But worst case at 40 km/h that would just be a delay of less than 2 minutes.

Once the track is in place, the buses could still drive over it. They do so on 7th ave anyway.

(I ask the above because I don't know- just an idea I had.)

[mersar]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Or could they do something where they work on 1 km of track at a time; one lane at a time? Basically you would have 1km where it goes to single lane, so buses would have to wait for the other one to pass. But worst case at 40 km/h that would just be a delay of less than 2 minutes.

Once the track is in place, the buses could still drive over it. They do so on 7th ave anyway.

(I ask the above because I don't know- just an idea I had.)

Wouldn't work without making the cost a lot higher. Track in road bed is likely to be a significant amount more expensive than track on top of concrete/asphalt and even more so than track on top of gravel.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Aegis

This might be a dumb question,but...

So let's say the SE Transitway is completed and then a few years later, the funds are available to convert it for LRT use. Are users then looking at a massive disruption when it's closed for construction? If that's the case, why don't we just use the $52M to leverage the project as a P3 and build LRT right from the beginning?

I'm also concerned that once the SE Transitway is complete, politicians will lose whatever political will exists to complete the project, and just not bother building the LRT. "Busways are good enough".

A P3 is essentially still debt. If Calgary is too over leveraged to take on additional debt to build it, than it is too over leveraged to take on a P3.

I would really like a detailed account of just how much of the transitway's cost will directly reduce the cost of the future SE LRT. It might make sense to revisit Bob Hawkesworth's SE LRT plan from 2010. Build it from Olympic Way to Douglasglen as phase one, maybe with a temp extension further west into downtown on CP land with a cheap short term (10-20 years) lease. Extensions to the south could be done at the city's leisure and the 2nd Street Subway can be built with the NC LRT when bus capacity, either on Centre Street or downtown, is maxed out. Which will presumably happen some time in the 2020s.

It would have the benefit of significantly increasing capacity into the downtown core and improving transit in the SE. A Busway only does the latter while if anything hastening the capacity crunch in the core.

[YYCguys]

I wish the name Olympic Way would go away, for what's left of the street and for the proposed downtown transit station. It understand the significance of the name, but to just randomly assign it to some insignificant street that has no real presence or importance in the neighbourhood seems so arbitrary to me. Olympic Way needs to be applied to a street that has much more presence and importance, like 7th Ave, for example.

[artvandelay]

I'm not crazy about this proposal. I'd prefer that the city build LRT right away rather than going with this high op-cost stopgap solution (also, nobody wants to ride on stinking buses). I can see this busway being built and stagnating for years before the LRT conversion - as has happened in Ottawa.

With a $52 million debt service over 20 years, the City should be able to borrow $725 million at current rates (or $900 million over 30 years). Is this not enough to get started on LRT construction?

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by rajuncaucasian

I know of a couple people in McKenzie that drive over and they say they are not alone, so there might be more than you think

I agree I think a lot of people make the trek across. The SE line will alleviate packed trains on the South line during peak periods, and will allow riders to get on further down the line like Heritage and Erlton.

[Chadillaccc]

I really wish they were putting it down 17th rather than 10th Ave. Just have it under 17th then travel down 2nd Street from there. I'm dreaming obviously But it is certainly the best choice, being our most popular weekend street.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

With a $52 million debt service over 20 years, the City should be able to borrow $725 million at current rates (or $900 million over 30 years). Is this not enough to get started on LRT construction?

Well the cost of the bus line in is the $700 million range I think. To do LRT would be multiple billions, so I don't think it would be enough to ever get started on LRT. The line would wear out/need replacing before you have paid off the initial cost using only the $52 million a year.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I wish the name Olympic Way would go away, for what's left of the street and for the proposed downtown transit station. It understand the significance of the name, but to just randomly assign it to some insignificant street that has no real presence or importance in the neighbourhood seems so arbitrary to me. Olympic Way needs to be applied to a street that has much more presence and importance, like 7th Ave, for example.

I'm assuming it received its name because it was the route to the Olympic Saddledome and if that's the case, I think it should retain its name. Why? Character.

In older cities, there are numerous examples of streets with names that don't speak about their current surroundings but tell a story about what use to be there. It's one of those small things that humanizes a city and adds to the sense of place.

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I can see this busway being built and stagnating for years before the LRT conversion - as has happened in Ottawa.

If 240,000 passengers a day is stagnation, I'll take a cup of that.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I really wish they were putting it down 17th rather than 10th Ave. Just have it under 17th then travel down 2nd Street from there. I'm dreaming obviously But it is certainly the best choice, being our most popular weekend street.

Your idea isn't that far fetched.

Most of the overground rail lines (i.e. commuter rail) in London initially terminated at the edge of Central London. When the London Underground opened, it linked these terminal stations and provided a new option for people to transverse Central London. Instead of having the underground support the overground, Calgary could have a tram support the LRT.

It would be interesting to see the LRT enter the Beltline via 11th, 12th or 17th and be connected to the core via tram lines that run North/South or maybe even in a circle.

[sportsdude]

My two cents about South East LRT being proposed as low-floor LRT

While I like the ability to have more community friendly stations and the tighter turning radius it just doesnt make sense to introduce another type of LRT car in the fleet that would decimate Calgary's future bulk discount purchasing power for new cars for expansion or replacement within the fleet and involve extra millions for staff training, spare parts etc. Also does anyone else see a large problem with low floor LRT that it would get stuck in the snow during days like today?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

My two cents about South East LRT being proposed as low-floor LRT

While I like the ability to have more community friendly stations and the tighter turning radius it just doesnt make sense to introduce another type of LRT car in the fleet that would decimate Calgary's future bulk discount purchasing power for new cars for expansion or replacement within the fleet and involve extra millions for staff training, spare parts etc. Also does anyone else see a large problem with low floor LRT that it would get stuck in the snow during days like today?

Yeah, no.

LRT cars aren't exactly purchased from Costco. Having a custom design created would require a massive purchase to justify, but using a relatively off-the-shelf model won't, whether it's a SD160 or a S70 or beyond. The low floor design has (almost?) completely replaced the high floor design in new systems, so the market for low floor trains will always be larger than the high floor market in the future.

The SE/NC LRT won't intersect with the existing LRT, so there must be entirely separate garages for them in any event, with separate mechanical crews, spare parts, drivers and so on. It's not like we're talking about a four-train operator here.

Have you ever actually seen an LRT vehicle in person? There is already a lot of the vehicle, such as the bogies, that is close to the ground. It's not like the difference between high and low floor trains is that the former is sitting up on 42 inch wheels or something. A high floor train just has the floor above the stuff that is close to the ground, as opposed to integrated with it. Low floor trains operate in places like Switzerland that are not strangers to snow; soon Toronto and Ottawa will be added to the list.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I wish the name Olympic Way would go away, for what's left of the street and for the proposed downtown transit station. It understand the significance of the name, but to just randomly assign it to some insignificant street that has no real presence or importance in the neighbourhood seems so arbitrary to me. Olympic Way needs to be applied to a street that has much more presence and importance, like 7th Ave, for example.

After a billion dollars of investment within a block of 4th St E, I'd argue it's importance is more 'olympic' than ever:
-new underpass
-NMC
-District Energy
-Upside Engineering
-Biscuit Block
-Stampede Trail
-Evolution
-Hilton
-Guardian
-RioCan
-New Central Library
-Riverwalk
-Green Line infrastructure
-other rumoured developments

Originally Posted by artvandelay

With a $52 million debt service over 20 years, the City should be able to borrow $725 million at current rates (or $900 million over 30 years). Is this not enough to get started on LRT construction?

Unfortunately, it could take that much just to build a bus-only ROW.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I really wish they were putting it down 17th rather than 10th Ave. Just have it under 17th then travel down 2nd Street from there. I'm dreaming obviously But it is certainly the best choice, being our most popular weekend street.

It was considered as an option. The main disadvantage is it would cost hundreds of millions more (especially if it was tunneled), would have many more conflicts with major roads and the SLRT, and bypasses Inglewood. If it only went as far west as 2nd St W, that's only 4 blocks better than the existing SLRT.

Check out Inglewood sometime. SELRT will open the doors for a lot of opportunities there. It will be like Kenstington, but with better music venues and historic buildings.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Riise

Most of the overground rail lines (i.e. commuter rail) in London initially terminated at the edge of Central London. When the London Underground opened, it linked these terminal stations and provided a new option for people to transverse Central London. Instead of having the underground support the overground, Calgary could have a tram support the LRT

OK, first post!

This is actually regarded as a huge mistake caused by a misguided law and exacerbated by having multiple private railway companies. London has 10+ terminal stations each handling large numbers of 8-12 car mainline trains, the passengers of which are then funneled onto tiny 6-8 car Tube trains. All those mainline trains also have to be turned round in these massive stations which is a highly inefficient use of space and trains.

This mistake is being slowly rectified at huge cost by linking pairs of terminals across the city, first London Bridge and St Pancras by Thameslink, which was 'relatively inexpensive' at £5.5 billion as it reused some old tunnels. The current project, Crossrail 1, will link Paddington and Liverpool Street with bored tunnels. This will cost £16 billion ($25 Billion!).

The lessons to be learned from this - dumping passengers from large trains onto small ones is a bad idea, and more importantly - do things right the first time as it will be far more expensive to fix in the future.

Which is why I would support skipping a bus way and building LRT straight away, even if it takes longer. That said, IMO, grade separation of the existing lines should take priority however. Being in a train and waiting at lights for cars is just embarrassing.

[sportsdude]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Yeah, no.

LRT cars aren't exactly purchased from Costco. Having a custom design created would require a massive purchase to justify, but using a relatively off-the-shelf model won't, whether it's a SD160 or a S70 or beyond. The low floor design has (almost?) completely replaced the high floor design in new systems, so the market for low floor trains will always be larger than the high floor market in the future.

The SE/NC LRT won't intersect with the existing LRT, so there must be entirely separate garages for them in any event, with separate mechanical crews, spare parts, drivers and so on. It's not like we're talking about a four-train operator here.

Have you ever actually seen an LRT vehicle in person? There is already a lot of the vehicle, such as the bogies, that is close to the ground. It's not like the difference between high and low floor trains is that the former is sitting up on 42 inch wheels or something. A high floor train just has the floor above the stuff that is close to the ground, as opposed to integrated with it. Low floor trains operate in places like Switzerland that are not strangers to snow; soon Toronto and Ottawa will be added to the list.

Yes, I ride one everyday to work or university. First of all its is well documented that Low Floor LRT have more of its mechanical components and its body closer to the ground so this will increase the exposure to debris and moisture that will increase overall maintenance costs. Also Low Floor LRT has less clearance needs to have its tracks plowed at a more frequent rate which will have increased operating expenses and decrease of reliability of overall service if either an extremely rare case that the LRT gets stuck in the snow or delays in service because the tracks need to get plowed mid-day to continue safe operations. You already know how impatient Calgarians are with transit delays because of cold weather. Imagine a brand new train on the newest line getting stuck because of snow the media would have a field day and Calgarians would demand heads for short-sighted planning.

I believe you fail to understand the basic concept called economies of scale that if Calgary continued with its current Southwest Airlines like model we would see greater efficiencies because of increased purchasing power in terms of spare parts, LRT Fleet expansion orders by keeping one style of LRT. We would also see greater employee flexibility that operators, mechanics etc would not need to learn multiple systems and employees could be easily transferred to wherever the demand was. Also with your Low Floor LRT market increasing much faster than the High Floor LRT market would mean that Low Floor LRT would be more expensive than High Floor LRT based on simple supply/demand that manufacturers would be more inclined to discount High Floor LRTs inorder to keep the factory running compared to Low Floor LRTs where the orders have been accounted for years of production. Also we could receive the High Floor LRT in a more stately fashion.

If the C-Train system was in initials stages today I would be all for having a Low Floor LRT system and I do see the advantages of it. However Calgary's C-Train is known for its barebones low cost approach and do not see them betraying its core principle that made it such a success.

[monocle]

Originally Posted by sportsdude

<Snip> Also we could receive the High Floor LRT in a more stately fashion.

Typo? Timely fashion?
Just wanting to understand.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The lessons to be learned from this - dumping passengers from large trains onto small ones is a bad idea, and more importantly - do things right the first time as it will be far more expensive to fix in the future.

Isn't it a case of transferring a large amount of passengers into smaller groups heading in different directions? While there is a fair amount of passengers trying to cross London, which is is currently difficult due to capacity issues, you'd imagine the bulk of the passengers are trying to get to destinations across Central London, which is better served by a feeder network of Underground and Tube lines. If this is the case, the mistake made in London was not providing enough crosstown capacity.

In Calgary's case, I could see an argument being made that two or three tram lines connecting to an LRT line running through Beltline could help distribute passengers closer to their final destinations in Beltline and the Core.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Riise

Isn't it a case of transferring a large amount of passengers into smaller groups heading in different directions? While there is a fair amount of passengers trying to cross London, which is is currently difficult due to capacity issues, you'd imagine the bulk of the passengers are trying to get to destinations across Central London, which is better served by a feeder network of Underground and Tube lines. If this is the case, the mistake made in London was not providing enough crosstown capacity.

In Calgary's case, I could see an argument being made that two or three tram lines connecting to an LRT line running through Beltline could help distribute passengers closer to their final destinations in Beltline and the Core.

I would disagree. Calgary has a very, very, very concentrated core, very similar to New York in Midtown/Financial District. If we had a more disperse core and passengers were headed to various locations, transferring to a tram system would make sense. However, our downtown office core is a small area, and served pretty easily by a line going right through it. Stopping an LRT outside of downtown and transferring to a tram would be akin to stopping trains in New York in Harlem or Hoboken instead of Grand Central or Penn station.