Canadian Transit Thread II

[hipster duck]

I remember Edmontonians used to complain that they had over invested in building a downtown subway initially, and now they didn't have the money or political will to expand their system after the original line. This was about 25 years ago and, at the time, Calgary's system had expanded slowly but steadily and was more than twice the size of Edmonton's with more than triple the ridership. Maybe not so much for ridership, but when it comes to expansion, the tables have turned.

Calgary is making the same mistake that Toronto made 40 years ago, where they spend the first 30 years building a fairly robust system that the locals begin to depend on, and then sit on their hands for the next 30 years while the city continues to grow in size.

Just like in Toronto's case, I feel that in Calgary there was a plan concocted when the city was quite small, and the planners eventually built all of that within about a generation. After that, there was a crisis of imagination. What should they build next? In Toronto, this was in the form of one-off stub projects that didn't really enhance the network as a whole, like the Scarborough RT or the Sheppard subway, and it looks like Calgary is going down the same road with the truncated Green Line that doesn't connect to the rest of the system and uses a different technology.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Docere

^ Because Edmonton has three underground LRT stations.

Six underground stations.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I remember Edmontonians used to complain that they had over invested in building a downtown subway initially, and now they didn't have the money or political will to expand their system after the original line. This was about 25 years ago and, at the time, Calgary's system had expanded slowly but steadily and was more than twice the size of Edmonton's with more than triple the ridership. Maybe not so much for ridership, but when it comes to expansion, the tables have turned.

Calgary is making the same mistake that Toronto made 40 years ago, where they spend the first 30 years building a fairly robust system that the locals begin to depend on, and then sit on their hands for the next 30 years while the city continues to grow in size.

Just like in Toronto's case, I feel that in Calgary there was a plan concocted when the city was quite small, and the planners eventually built all of that within about a generation. After that, there was a crisis of imagination. What should they build next? In Toronto, this was in the form of one-off stub projects that didn't really enhance the network as a whole, like the Scarborough RT or the Sheppard subway, and it looks like Calgary is going down the same road with the truncated Green Line that doesn't connect to the rest of the system and uses a different technology.

Seems like a good analysis. UPC should take significant blame for delaying the Green Line though. Had they just stuck to the Calgary agreement with the NDP, the first phase would probably be open by now, and for far cheaper than today's watered down plan.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

After that, there was a crisis of imagination. What should they build next? In Toronto, this was in the form of one-off stub projects that didn't really enhance the network as a whole, like the Scarborough RT or the Sheppard subway, and it looks like Calgary is going down the same road with the truncated Green Line that doesn't connect to the rest of the system and uses a different technology.

The truncated part of the Green Line is only temporary as the plan is still to bring it into downtown. How much of a delay is still not known as there is debate over underground or elevated.

Personally, I wish they had stayed with high floor LRV for the Green Line like the rest of the system, but that's a whole other debate.

At the end of the day, sometimes transit solutions will be mixed, and that's fine as long as it does a good job of moving people. We've seen that with pretty much all cities, where there is a mixture of high floor, low floor, elevated, surface or underground, trams versus dedicate rail etc.. I don't know that there is a single solution that works best for every case.

[Airboy]

Having seen the build out in Most cities in Canada I would have to say downtowns should be underground. When running on the surface it divides the city. Above just doesn't make sense. But out of the cores, a combination of Surface and elevated make way more sense.

We are seeing that with Edmonton's west extension. However there are a couple of level crossings that should have been separated.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Having seen the build out in Most cities in Canada I would have to say downtowns should be underground. When running on the surface it divides the city. Above just doesn't make sense. But out of the cores, a combination of Surface and elevated make way more sense.
.

I respectfully disagree. I don't find Calgary's downtown corridor separates the city any more than a regular vehicle road and instead ties into the downtown urban fabric much better than a regular vehicle road in that there are always lots of people along the corridor.

I only prefer underground for the logistics portion as it's easier to move trains quicker, but above ground has other advantages. As mentioned it ties into the street level urban fabric better, and the stations are far more accessible and easy to use.

The green line will have to do either underground or elevated and that's fine also. It is what it is. For the record I really like what's happening with the Valley line being at surface in Edmonton's downtown. It's going to add life into the street level.

[Chocolite]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I respectfully disagree. I don't find Calgary's downtown corridor separates the city any more than a regular vehicle road and instead ties into the downtown urban fabric much better than a regular vehicle road in that there are always lots of people along the corridor.

I only prefer underground for the logistics portion as it's easier to move trains quicker, but above ground has other advantages. As mentioned it ties into the street level urban fabric better, and the stations are far more accessible and easy to use.

The green line will have to do either underground or elevated and that's fine also. It is what it is. For the record I really like what's happening with the Valley line being at surface in Edmonton's downtown. It's going to add life into the street level.

I agree with you that Calgary’s downtown LRT isn’t dividing the downtown, to me, it feels like Toronto’s trams, something I’m already used to. I also agree the stations are a lot more accessible than an underground station. My only gripe is that the cars have the right of way over the LRT. The trains would go through downtown quicker if they were underground. I took the LRT in the free ticket zone a few times and it was very handy, but it was frustrating to be stopping at red lights.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The truncated part of the Green Line is only temporary as the plan is still to bring it into downtown. How much of a delay is still not known as there is debate over underground or elevated.

This is a bit of a dangerous game, though, because the downtown section is the most complicated, expensive portion of the Ctrain ever proposed. There's still no agreement on what should be built, so there's a high risk that it gets descoped and the line remains truncated to the Stampede lands for the foreseeable future. Then Calgary is stuck with a weird line where one line doesn't even connect to the rest of the network, and is still a bit of a hike from downtown. This could result in the line getting less ridership than what was anticipated, and politicians being even less likely to support building the downtown segment.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I remember Edmontonians used to complain that they had over invested in building a downtown subway initially, and now they didn't have the money or political will to expand their system after the original line.

This is part of the lore and it's a real design decision that had an impact, but I wonder how important it was relative to other factors like choice of alignment and the nature of employment and zoning in the cities. Calgary has a much more concentrated CBD of office workers that is the perfect hub for the system.

Edmonton LRT began operation in 1978 and Calgary in 1981, so we're talking about a timeline of 50 years or so of planning and development. Both cities have grown so much that the debt and maintenance burden of older infrastructure must be pretty light (vs., for example, Buffalo).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The truncated part of the Green Line is only temporary as the plan is still to bring it into downtown. How much of a delay is still not known as there is debate over underground or elevated.

It's weird to have so many decades of planning, almost start work 5 years ago, and still not be sure about basic aspects of the project. I wonder if part of the problem is that the city works on the project directly, and Calgary's former mayor is now the opposition leader provincially. Maybe it would be good to take steps to try to de-politicize the system and create some sort of arm's length transit authority, even though it's basically for one municipality.

I don't know about the cost breakdown or how reasonable it is but the $6B or so price tag with cost-sharing in place doesn't seem like a deal breaker given the scale of Calgary (apparently $130B+ GDP) and the run-up in inflation that we have had. Post-covid inflation has contributed to a political environment where sticker shock can be used as an excuse to selectively kill just about any project.

I also think the public and media often don't think correctly about infrastructure costs that should be amortized over decades. A transit tunnel may be used for 50-100+ years, so large dollar figures may make perfect sense. Culturally, we seem to have lost some long-term perspective or vision or a sense of leaving something better for future generations.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's weird to have so many decades of planning, almost start work 5 years ago, and still not be sure about basic aspects of the project. I wonder if part of the problem is that the city works on the project directly, and Calgary's former mayor is now the opposition leader provincially. Maybe it would be good to take steps to try to de-politicize the system and create some sort of arm's length transit authority, even though it's basically for one municipality.

I don't know about the cost breakdown or how reasonable it is but the $6B or so price tag with cost-sharing in place doesn't seem like a deal breaker given the scale of Calgary (apparently $130B+ GDP) and the run-up in inflation that we have had. Post-covid inflation has contributed to a political environment where sticker shock can be used as an excuse to selectively kill just about any project.

I also think the public and media often don't think correctly about infrastructure costs that should be amortized over decades. A transit tunnel may be used for 50-100+ years, so large dollar figures may make perfect sense. Culturally, we seem to have lost some long-term perspective or vision or a sense of leaving something better for future generations.

It's sad how the project got derailed. There were some screwups with the city, and of course with the province as well publicized. Perhaps the biggest wrench in the mix was the tunnel cost, and in a way could be considered the main factor for the delay and political bickering.

Well into the project it was discovered the tunnel would be triple the initial estimate. Calgary has some unique geographical constraints that make tunneling very expensive (why this wasn't discovered earlier IDK), and from there it unraveled. Combined with a big bump in construction costs in general and the budget was long blown.
Even as the Green line is well into construction, the downtown portion is still being debated.

I agree with you 100% though, just spend the money and get it done. If it ends up being elevated I'm okay with that also. I just want the decision done with and things moving on.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

This is a bit of a dangerous game, though, because the downtown section is the most complicated, expensive portion of the Ctrain ever proposed. There's still no agreement on what should be built, so there's a high risk that it gets descoped and the line remains truncated to the Stampede lands for the foreseeable future. Then Calgary is stuck with a weird line where one line doesn't even connect to the rest of the network, and is still a bit of a hike from downtown. This could result in the line getting less ridership than what was anticipated, and politicians being even less likely to support building the downtown segment.

With the current plan there's always been a worry that the green line will get stuck at the Stampede lands. Mostly about the time between it finishing and the next phase getting completed.
I'm confident it will get built to downtown, just a matter of how much of a gap in between. The UCP has offered to help fund an elevated design, so at this point it's a political game of chicken. It's going to be one of two things. The province blinks and helps fund a tunnel. The city blinks and they go with elevated.


The ironic part is the UCP won all the suburban ridings in SE Calgary; the very same ridings the green line will serve. It was those ridings that got the UCP over the hump and into power.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Chocolite

I agree with you that Calgary’s downtown LRT isn’t dividing the downtown, to me, it feels like Toronto’s trams, something I’m already used to. I also agree the stations are a lot more accessible than an underground station. My only gripe is that the cars have the right of way over the LRT. The trains would go through downtown quicker if they were underground. I took the LRT in the free ticket zone a few times and it was very handy, but it was frustrating to be stopping at red lights.

The speed is an issue, but there's also the issue of frequency. Even if the LRT had full signal priority over cars, you can only move so many trains through the corridor since cross traffic (not just cars but even pedestrians) would have trouble crossing. Although with the green line being the only route that would share its downtown corridor, any at-grade crossings elsewhere on the route makes downtown become a moot point since they would be the bottleneck even if downtown wasn't. But it's an issue with the red and blue lines because of the two routes sharing the downtown corridor which doubles the frequency in that stretch.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

I agree with you 100% though, just spend the money and get it done. If it ends up being elevated I'm okay with that also. I just want the decision done with and things moving on.

To lay it out more explicitly I'd say that spending $6B on a major line running across town with a cost-sharing agreement between 3 levels of government is a big project, but it's not a make-or-break gamble for a Calgary-sized city, and there's a track record of success with LRT ridership there.

I think for the most part Canadian governments have been too conservative about building transit projects. Yes, fiscal responsibility is important, but the double standards are hard to ignore. We see huge fiscal bleeds created by transfers and entitlements for example.

[J.OT13]

Question for the Edmonton folks. It seems that construction on MacEwan Station started around the same time Katz bought the land for the arena. Did the City make modifications to the stations design to accommodate large crowds? And what does it look like after games? Do most people get on at MacEwan and transfer at Churchill (for those going north or down the Valley Line), or do a lot of folks just walk to Churchill?

The two LeBreton stations were designed for large crowds, with multiple entry points, escalators (up only) and decently wide platforms. Not sure they had an arena in mind at the time, but LeBreton was already the site of Bluesfest (Ottawa's largest music festival).

[ssiguy]

I understood that one of the reasons why the relatively small underground section in downtown was so expensive was that the downtown sits on a very high water table. This is why Calgary went at-grade downtown to begin with on the other lines. It is also why Calgary doesn't have an underground city like Tor/Mon but rather an above ground one with the Plus-15 system.

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Question for the Edmonton folks. It seems that construction on MacEwan Station started around the same time Katz bought the land for the arena. Did the City make modifications to the stations design to accommodate large crowds? And what does it look like after games? Do most people get on at MacEwan and transfer at Churchill (for those going north or down the Valley Line), or do a lot of folks just walk to Churchill?

The two LeBreton stations were designed for large crowds, with multiple entry points, escalators (up only) and decently wide platforms. Not sure they had an arena in mind at the time, but LeBreton was already the site of Bluesfest (Ottawa's largest music festival).

MacEwan was annoyingly not designed for large crowds, even though it is adjacent to Rogers Place. The City actually promoted people to get off at other nearby LRT stations like Bay Enterprise and Churchill during events so as to avoid overcrowding MacEwan.

Thankfully, Stadium Station adjacent to Commonwealth Stadium was recently renovated and the work did take the large crowds from the stadium (that seats over 56,000) into account and it even has a Spanish solution layout that is used during events (normally, the side platform is closed outside of events and all boarding and alighting is done from the centre platform).

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harrison

MacEwan was annoyingly not designed for large crowds, even though it is adjacent to Rogers Place. The City actually promoted people to get off at other nearby LRT stations like Bay Enterprise and Churchill during events so as to avoid overcrowding MacEwan.

Thankfully, Stadium Station adjacent to Commonwealth Stadium was recently renovated and the work did take the large crowds from the stadium (that seats over 56,000) into account and it even has a Spanish solution layout that is used during events (normally, the side platform is closed outside of events and all boarding and alighting is done from the centre platform).

Thanks for the response. That's too bad for MacEwan Station. Bad timing I guess.

Stadium Station looks really good and I'm glad it's working out well.

Maybe they'll make a similar upgrade to MacEwan in 20-30 years.

Wonder how the Victoria Park/Stampede Station rebuilt helped down in Calgary.

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

• Video Link