Calgary Public Transit II

[Radley77]

FYI: How City Will Spend $225.5 Million In Green Trip Funds:

- $73.4 million: on land acquisition and some bus-only lanes or busways along southeast LRT corridors

- $20 million for transit upgrades along 17th Avenue S.E., making way for median bus lanes

- $12 million for detailed studies on southeast LRT and densification around train stops

- $120.2 million for 30 LRT cars; 20 to replace old vehicles, 10 to start limited four-car service by 2014

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Counci...unclear/4136449/story.html#ixzz1BbQOPo7s

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

Can anyone elaborate on the "bus-only transit-way" referred to in the article?

Essentially the idea is to take some of the right of way that is being secured for the SE LRT (most of its already secured, the $70M or so that is proposed for this use should secure the rest) and build a bus only road to shortcut between some areas as an initial way to bump up transit. Then when the rest of the money is found, rip out these busways and put in full LRT.

[Innersoul1]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by fusili

I don't see what people are talking about here. Most of the Green Trip funding went towards the SELRT. There is not enough money to build the line yet, and a lot of money is being dedicated to securing the ROW for the future LRT.

For some reason, the number $800M seemed familiar to me for the amount of funding they were getting as a one-time allocation to transit..but I don't see that number repeated here. I guess I had wrong information.

[Canadian74]

If i read the articles right, will all Ctrain stations have electronic displays by this summer with realtime GPS information (and buses by 2012-2013)?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Aegis

For some reason, the number $800M seemed familiar to me for the amount of funding they were getting as a one-time allocation to transit..but I don't see that number repeated here. I guess I had wrong information.

$800M is the regions entire greentrip funding, however most of that funding won't be available for many many years yet and not all of it is for Calgary itself (Cochrane gets something like $18M for instance). The $225M is the first chunk that will be available in the next couple years and that the province is soliciting the city for how they will spend it is where these current discussions are coming from.

[tmjr]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

He finds it “surprising” the city was planning stations for four LRT trains without having any four-LRT trains.

“It’s a bit strange, really,” he says.

I don't quite get this - is the city not planning to run 4-car trains once the stations are ready?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by tmjr

I don't quite get this - is the city not planning to run 4-car trains once the stations are ready?

Essentially the issue is that there won't be enough LRV's in the fleet to run only 4 LRV consists during peak as things stand now. There will be enough to run some, but not all. The 30 additional LRV's will help bring it closer to all, but buying those LRV's (plus others that are likely to be ordered) has been in the plans in some form or another the entire time anyways.

With 38 new LRV's coming now, bringing the fleet up to around 200 LRV's and keeping in mind theres usually about 5-10% of the fleet that is unavailable at any time (due to maintenance, breakdowns, etc) theres still a small gap. Then you have the retirement of some of the U2's, initially 20 over the next few years. But even running some 4 LRV consists would be a great start.

[tmjr]

Originally Posted by mersar

Essentially the issue is that there won't be enough LRV's in the fleet to run only 4 LRV consists during peak as things stand now. There will be enough to run some, but not all. The 30 additional LRV's will help bring it closer to all, but buying those LRV's (plus others that are likely to be ordered) has been in the plans in some form or another the entire time anyways.

With 38 new LRV's coming now, bringing the fleet up to around 200 LRV's and keeping in mind theres usually about 5-10% of the fleet that is unavailable at any time (due to maintenance, breakdowns, etc) theres still a small gap. Then you have the retirement of some of the U2's, initially 20 over the next few years. But even running some 4 LRV consists would be a great start.

So what exactly is the mayor 'surprised' at - that there were no plans in place for the extra cars?

[fusili]

What I find missing from this discussion, and from the general discussion about transit in general in this city is why the hell are we planning transit on such a terrible funding system? Calgary (and Edmonton) needs consistent, reliable and predictable transit funding from the province. Not this terrible, one off, ad hoc system of grants.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by mersar

Essentially the issue is that there won't be enough LRV's in the fleet to run only 4 LRV consists during peak as things stand now. There will be enough to run some, but not all. The 30 additional LRV's will help bring it closer to all, but buying those LRV's (plus others that are likely to be ordered) has been in the plans in some form or another the entire time anyways.

With 38 new LRV's coming now, bringing the fleet up to around 200 LRV's and keeping in mind theres usually about 5-10% of the fleet that is unavailable at any time (due to maintenance, breakdowns, etc) theres still a small gap. Then you have the retirement of some of the U2's, initially 20 over the next few years. But even running some 4 LRV consists would be a great start.

How many LRVs does CT need ideally, if the money is there, to run 4-car only trains during the peak hours and also retire some U2s, in addition to the 38 already coming.

45-50?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

How many LRVs does CT need ideally, if the money is there, to run 4-car only trains during the peak hours and also retire some U2s, in addition to the 38 already coming.

45-50?

They were saying 50, which is why that was their number in the option that was given to LPT. So if they can put off retiring the 20 U2's, or not run every key as 4 LRV's 30 might be ok.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by fusili

What I find missing from this discussion, and from the general discussion about transit in general in this city is why the hell are we planning transit on such a terrible funding system? Calgary (and Edmonton) needs consistent, reliable and predictable transit funding from the province. Not this terrible, one off, ad hoc system of grants.

If this province had a revenue stream that was a little more stable than the energy sector it would be a lot easier to have a a consitent and reliable funding.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

What I find missing from this discussion, and from the general discussion about transit in general in this city is why the hell are we planning transit on such a terrible funding system? Calgary (and Edmonton) needs consistent, reliable and predictable transit funding from the province. Not this terrible, one off, ad hoc system of grants.

It seems to come down to the ring road. The province is spending a great deal, on a continuing basis, paying for transportation in Calgary and Edmonton already. They thought, rightly or wrongly, that highways were a more important investment than transit.

My main complaint with the province involves the Green Trip program. The goals were too warped by political interference and lack of vision from the beginning. The delays have only made matters worse.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

If this province had a revenue stream that was a little more stable than the energy sector it would be a lot easier to have a a consitent and reliable funding.

Or if the MGA was altered to allow different styles of taxing, Cities could create their own reliable funding. Politically very difficult, but another option.

[Radley77]

I am fairly disappointed with the recent fighter jet purchase. I don't get how spending $16 billion on 65 fighter jets is a better idea than say spending $80 million on 20 light rail vehichles. I think that federal government could do a much better job of supporting and funding long term strategic transit priorities. /end rant

[MalcolmTucker]

I say this as a big L Liberal, besides the lack of tendering for the fighter contract which may have saved some money, I have no issues with it. The world is a dangerous place and being put in a situation where we couldn't contribute to western or north american collective defense would be the end of Canada as we know it.

There is no reason we can't do both, taxes and interest rates are at generational lows. Just have to watch out for construction inflation on the infrastructure side.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Radley77

[...]

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Counci...unclear/4136449/story.html#ixzz1BbQOPo7s

4 car platforms, and according to the article, they will be able to run 4 car trains on less than one quarter peak period runs. Ugh. But, is that over the whole network, or only for the south line? If the extra cars could be concentrated on the south line, that would be not as bad.

I'm happy the city is buying land for an eventual LRT corridor - the bus lane thing, who knows? I'm dusting off my idea of having lane reversal along Ogden road, with the extra lane being bus only for the primary direction of travel in the mornings, between Glenmore and the Crossroads Market at least. Very little lane addition needed.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Dado

Actually, what we need to do is hire city planners rather than engineers to design our transit system. It's engineers who are responsible for the mess we're in. That's what happens when highway engineers are let loose in transit planning. Let the planners do the planning and then they can hand it over to the engineers for detailed design work.

Ouch...that ones gonna leave a mark

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It seems to come down to the ring road. The province is spending a great deal, on a continuing basis, paying for transportation in Calgary and Edmonton already. They thought, rightly or wrongly, that highways were a more important investment than transit.

Don't get me wrong, I love public transit, but in landlocked cities like Calgary and Edmonton frieght rail and highway systems are very important from an economical stand point. Gotta move the goods in and out.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I say this as a big L Liberal, besides the lack of tendering for the fighter contract which may have saved some money, I have no issues with it. The world is a dangerous place and being put in a situation where we couldn't contribute to western or north american collective defense would be the end of Canada as we know it.

There is no reason we can't do both, taxes and interest rates are at generational lows. Just have to watch out for construction inflation on the infrastructure side.

I agree that could be doing both, moreso am frustrated with the lack of ideas, plans and funding on transit as well as a broad national energy policy. Are all 65 planes a necessity?

I typically lean conservative, the current government has had so little thoughts about future energy supply and demand. Canada is a cold country, squandering our depleting non-renewable resources is not an option. Canada should be looking at countries like Japan, Denmark and Switzerland which have simultaneouly increased quality of life and gdp, and reduced their energy consumption per capita for examples of how to grow.