Calgary Area Regional Transit

[electricron]

Commuter or Regional Rail is used all over Europe, and is gaining popularity in North America. The costs to build a Regional Rail system varies significantly, depending upon how busy with freight the existing rail lines are.
Since I'm not familiar with the traffic of the Calgary railroad corridors, I'll just list what has been happening in the USA recently.

CapMetro in Austin, Tx has built a ~31 mile (~50 km) Metrorail commuter line for ~$105 million. That averages to ~$2.1 million/km.
CapMetro already owned the ROW, and had maintained the tracks along, so they didn't have to spend much upgrading the tracks. But they did add tracks, turnouts, rebuilt a few bridges, and added stations with park and ride lots. CapMetro bought 6 lightweight Stadler GTW DMUs. The rail line isn't busy, and CapMetro has received temporal separation approval to run their non-FRA complaint trains on the tracks.
http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital-metrorail.shtml

TriMet in Portland, Or has built a ~15 mile (~24 km) WES commuter line for ~$166 million. That averages to ~$7 million/km.
Since the P&W, a local shortline freight company, owns the ROW, TriMet bought trackage rights for the ROW. TriMet also rebuilt all the tracks, added new tracks and turnouts, rebuilt a few bridges, and added stations with park and ride lots. TriMet bought 3 heavy Colorado Railcar DMUs. There aren't that many freight trains on the tracks. Since CR DMUs are FRA compliant, there is no problem running passenger and freight trains on the same tracks.
http://trimet.org/wes/index.htm

New Mexico built a ~100 mile (~161 km) Railrunner commuter line between Albuquerque and Santa Fe for ~$385 million, including all 300 miles of BNSF ROW New Mexico bought for $75 million. That averages to ~$2.4 million/km.
New Mexico only built new tracks on new ROW for just 18 miles, added turnouts, built a few bridges, and added stations with park and ride lots. Railrunner uses Motive Power MP36PH-3C locomotives and Bombardier BiLevel passenger cars. There aren't that many freight trains on the tracks. Since the trains are FRA compliant, there is no problem running passenger and freight trains on the same tracks.
http://www.nmrailrunner.com/

Denton County TX DCTA is building the ~21 mile (~38 km) A-Train commuter line for an estimated ~$317 million. That averages ~$8 million/km. $8 million/km seems high in comparison, but $1 to $2 million per km is for the 10 feet wide concrete bike path.
DCTA is building on an existing publicly owned ROW, replacing every feet of track, replacing all but one bridge, building a parallel bike path, building new turnouts and stations with park and ride lots. DCTA is looking at purchasing 12 light DMUs, but hasn't finalized that yet. There's just one local freight train a day on the tracks. DCTA is asking for temporal separation approval to run their non-FRA complaint trains on the tracks.
http://www.mya-train.com/

Minnesota is building the 40 mile (~64 km) Northstar commuter line for an estimated ~$320 million. That averages ~$5 million per km.
Northstar will be purchasing trackage rights over the BNSF. They are building stations, adding just a few miles of track, building new turnouts and stations with park and ride lots. Northstar is buying Motive Power MP36PH-3C locomotives and Bombardier BiLevel passenger cars. There are many freight trains on the tracks, but they have been doubled tracked for a long time. Since the trains are FRA compliant, there is no problem running passenger and freight trains on the same tracks.
http://www.northstartrain.org/

I haven't discussed California's commuter rail projects because there's so many in service and being planned. I have only posted links to very recently completed projects and projects being built today.
Compared to light rail, commuter rail is cheap. $2 to $8 million per km is the capital costs depending upon how much work is needed.
The main disadvantage for commuter rail is that the stations are placed further apart to maintain the train's average speed. Because the stations are further apart and the trains have longer headways, commuter rail doesn't attract as many passengers. But, do you really want to place a train station in rural areas?

[mersar]

Thanks for all those numbers.

Generally most of the commuter options into Calgary will consist of only 2 stations on each line with possibly one central station in the downtown, the expensive part will be whatever is required to be done to add tracks where they need to be doubled. For sure any line out to Cochrane will need to have at least some, if not all, of the track doubled as it is the CPR main line and has far too much freight traffic. The other 2 easy to do lines are on a lot less utilized freight lines, though I can imagine that some double tracking may still need to be done in a few places.

I'm looking forward to seeing the plan that the CRP has put together when its unveiled

[Vascilli]

I wonder what stock would be used, there's a lot of fun options. (I'm assuming high speed won't be used, given the distance and cost)

[outoftheice]

It would be nice to see some regional rail in the Calgary area. As far as stock goes, my vote is for the Bombardier Bi-level cars. They seem to have worked quite well for GO Transit out in Ontario. Plus it's just fun to watch the world go by from the second level. Before construction begins though, I really hope that the Calgary Regional Partnership buys in to two guiding principals.

1: That any municipality that wants regional rail agrees to a minimum density for any new development. Have it written into the contract for service with stiff financial penalties if the municpality breaks the rules. Calgary is finally starting to try and curb sprawl and without this type of agreement I'm afraid we'll just see the sprawl shifted to Cochrane and Airdrie with the selling point being an easy commute by rail to downtown Calgary.

2: Whatever type of entity ends up running the regional rail system, they should ensure that fares are transferable on to Calgary Transit. As far as how to make this work, I'm not too sure but perhaps the model to look to is the National Rail system in the UK. A day pass on National Rail also allows unlimited travel on London's Tube system. This access makes the transit system much more appealing for commuters looking to use the system. Compare this to somewhere such as Toronto where every transit system that you use (GO Transit, TTC etc...) requires seperate fare payment at every transfer. Although it doesn't seem to be much of a pain, I can say from personal experience that it's enough of a pain to discourage transit use and most people will just drive unless they can limit their travel to just one transit system. The region is trying to change this but their solution is simply to give Transit users the option to use a smart card that will be accepted on all the different transit systems, however the user will still have to pay all the seperate fares.

With these two guiding principals, I think Calgary will be in a great position to move forward with a successful regional rail program.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Vascilli

I wonder what stock would be used, there's a lot of fun options. (I'm assuming high speed won't be used, given the distance and cost)

I hope they don't go with those nasty Bombardier BiLevel coaches! I'd like to see them go with EMU's but electrification might be considered too costly. If they go with double-deck EMU's I'd choose CityRail's A Set, if they go with double-deck DMU's I'd choose these, and if they go with a hybrid I'd choose Bombardier's ACG.

[Beltliner]

Originally Posted by Riise

I hope they don't go with those nasty Bombardier BiLevel coaches! I'd like to see them go with EMU's but electrification might be considered too costly. If they go with double-deck EMU's I'd choose CityRail's A Set, if they go with double-deck DMU's I'd choose these, and if they go with a hybrid I'd choose Bombardier's ACG.

If I had to play a hunch, I would pick a diesel variant of the Siemens Desiro multiple-unit double-decker, on the grounds that Calgary Transit already uses Siemens rolling stock, and may be able to leverage economies of scale in purchasing and maintaining their fleet. Pity that Colorado Railcar fell apart as messily as it did, though.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Beltliner

If I had to play a hunch, I would pick a diesel variant of the Siemens Desiro multiple-unit double-decker, on the grounds that Calgary Transit already uses Siemens rolling stock, and may be able to leverage economies of scale in purchasing and maintaining their fleet. Pity that Colorado Railcar fell apart as messily as it did, though.

That's a good hunch and a nice trainset. While I can see the City's brand loyalty with Siemens, I also think buying Canadian might help provide some Federal funding. Btw, I originally thought the consist featured on the Siemens site was an RER Train because of the similar livery.

[Vascilli]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there won't be enough ridership to justify bi-levels. (Who knows, maybe there will be) Bombardier's Spacium 3.O6 looks nice, lots of room and a smart design.

[MalcolmTucker]

For cost, Calgary is hampered by both geography and industry. Our rail lines are not derelict like many cities so we have to build new instead of converting.

For out to Cochrane, the obvious choice would be to go to three tracks from the beginning. The majority of the cost is earthworks, including trenching, cliff face removal in a provincial park. The future cost of doing only one extra track now, would be very very high.

That being said, I have heard numbers bandied about for a line out to Cochrane in the $500 million dollar range so it might not be the first line you want, especially when the Airdrie line can also serve an airport express, and carry HSR out into the Valley.

Depending on whehther you want future HSR to be FRA complient, you either build an additional track, or optimally two more so your not path dependent on FRA complient rolling stock.

From back in the day (and remember when I say ROW, I mean the land only, not tracks):

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

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.

Southern Section

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, where all the Station names include distances from the Palliser Station.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Vascilli

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there won't be enough ridership to justify bi-levels. (Who knows, maybe there will be) Bombardier's Spacium 3.O6 looks nice, lots of room and a smart design.

BIlevels are sort of a double ended sword. It lets you operate shorter trains, which means shorter (ie cheaper) stations for many years. When you want to upgrade capacity, your up the creek with only expensive options (more tracks, station expansion).

Best is to design what you need for standard car operation, then in 20 years when you need capacity and frequency is already at a pretty good level you go to double deckers. Also remember you do not want too much cpacity initially, or the cars will feel unsafe.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Best is to design what you need for standard car operation, then in 20 years when you need capacity and frequency is already at a pretty good level you go to double deckers. Also remember you do not want too much cpacity initially, or the cars will feel unsafe.

I'm a fan of going with the single-deck sets first but it seems like double-deckers are the norm in northern North America.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Riise

I'm a fan of going with the single-deck sets first but it seems like double-deckers are the norm in northern North America.

Double deckers are the norm with diesel locomtive pulled/pushed trains. But single level DMUs are the norm in North America.

The correct choice depends upon predicted ridership 20 to 30 years into the future. Bi-level Bombardier cars have ~150 seats, a 10 car train has a capacity of ~1500 seats. Standard single level DMU articulated cars have ~100 seats, double articulated DMU cars have ~150 seats, but being limited to a maximum of 6 car trains, their maximum capacity is ~600 and ~900 seats.

Station platform length is usually the determining factor on the number of cars in a train. The 6 car DMU maximum limiting factor is based on train multiple unit controls and coupling capability.

Colorado Railcar was recently liquidated and was the only manufacture building heavy (FRA compliant) DMUs. But there are other manufactures that may start building them soon. Somona-Marin Area Rapid Transit is looking at buying DMUs soon, and has an interesting presentation about the available choices.
Here's the link:
http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/SMART-14JAN09_Revised.pdf

FRA Compliant Heavy DMUs:
1) Bombardier M7 Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design base: LIRR M7 (FRA compliant), Diesel electric drive, No cost estimate available.

2) Nippon Sharyo Designed for Commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, New Design, Diesel hydraulic drive, No cost estimate available.

3) Rotem Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design based on TTA project, Diesel hydraulic drive, ROM cost estimate $8 to $9M. Note: In August 2006, Triangle Transit (formerly Triangle Transit Authority) announced that it would not file a “New Starts” report on the Regional Rail Transit Project with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Federal FY 2008.
Triangle Transit, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), NC Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Alliance will work with the community as we rethink transit in the Triangle.

4) Siemens No information available (Siemens exhibits interest in building FRA-compliant DMU)
5) CAF No information available (CAF offered an FRA-compliant DMU to NJT)

Non FRA Compliant Light DMUs:
1) Alstom Coradia Lint 41 Compliance UIC; EN 15227 Germany, no US application

2) Bombardier Talent VT 643 Compliance UIC, Germany, Ottawa Canada, no US application

3) Siemens Desiro Compliance UIC (CPUC with waivers), Oceanside, CA: 12 vehicles, Temporal separation

4) Stadler GTW 2/6 Compliance UIC, FRA alternate, EN15227, Austin, TX: 6 vehicles, Temporal separation

5) Stadler GTW 2/6 Compliance CPUC, Camden, NJ: 20 vehicles, Temporal separation

6) Breda IC2 Compliance UIC, Proposed for U.S.

[para transit fellow]

I found this but I notice that the survey doesn't cover commuting From Calgary to and outlying community"

Proposed New Regional Two–Way Express Bus Services
Linking Regional Communities to and from the City of Calgary


The Calgary Regional Partnership is developing integrated regional land use and transit plans. Future phases of the regional transit plan involve LRT extensions, new commuter rail services, and bus connections between the regional communities. The first phase of the proposed regional transit plan will include the development of regional bus services providing two-way service linking regional communities to the City of Calgary during the primary commuting hours.

To help us understand your travel needs and how these services could be most effective, we are asking you to complete and submit the following online survey by March 24, 2009.

Calgary Regional Partnership Survey on Linking Regional Communities

This March 2009 there will be a number of meetings where the public will have the opportunity to review the draft plans and provide feedback. Please watch for the date and location of meetings near you.

http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB228TQP6NFX5

[twsnagel]

Originally Posted by mersar

For sure any line out to Cochrane will need to have at least some, if not all, of the track doubled as it is the CPR main line and has far too much freight traffic. The other 2 easy to do lines are on a lot less utilized freight lines, though I can imagine that some double tracking may still need to be done in a few places.

Mersar, I respectfully question whether the CPR mainline is really that close to capacity.

Two weekends ago, I went to the Cave and Basin museum in Banff. They've got an exhibit there on the impact of transportation on the national park.

In the 1960s, there were twice the trains going through the park than there are today. If memory serves, 2000 trains per year then compared to 1000 now. The numbers may be wrong but there were definitely twice the number of trains then verses now.

Also, remember that the mainline has been substantially improved with heavier-weight steel and thermite welds since the 1960s, so the fewer trains will also pass more quickly; occupying the line for less time.

I bet they could easily get away with not double-tracking the line.

I think the biggest argument for double-tracking is that, in my understanding, the CPR does not operate on a schedule any more. They have no tracking of cars across the country - it just works like a pipe: they pour cars into one end and eventually they come out at the other. Each section is controlled so that collisions are avoided, but as I understand it, the trains are no longer scheduled such that a certain train is a certain place at a certain time.

This was one of the big "advantages" that there was to no longer running (schedule-bound) passenger trains on the CPR mainline west of Manitoba.

As I like to say - "This is no way to run a railroad". Bring back the conductors with pocket watches, I say! :-)

[MalcolmTucker]

The question is would CPR allow you to run service without double or triple tracking, and the answer is most likely, if not most definitely no.

There is no reason why the CPR would abandon a formula that works for them. There is no way for our government to compel them to allocate capacity to regional transit with a stick, using a carrot is much more effective. The only carrot we have that is effective is track upgrades.

I also find the 1000 trains a year number suspect. Right now (numbers from 2005) CPR has the capacity to run 38 trains a day, at an average 100 cars. They are spending $500 million to increase the capacity by 4 trains a day (upgrades from Moose Jaw - Vancouver). If CPR needs extra capacity at 38 trains a day, it is arguable they are at or near that limit. That would work out to just under 14,000 trains a year. (source)

[mersar]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

I also find the 1000 trains a year number suspect. Right now (numbers from 2005) CPR has the capacity to run 38 trains a day, at an average 100 cars. They are spending $500 million to increase the capacity by 4 trains a day (upgrades from Moose Jaw - Vancouver). If CPR needs extra capacity at 38 trains a day, it is arguable they are at or near that limit. That would work out to just under 14,000 trains a year. (source)

Yep. Through the middle of the day during the week there is a train through Cochrane about every 20-30 minutes generally, at night it seems to drop to one an hour or so though so there is room for growth but only so much.

The thing with trying to coordinate scheduled traffic with their unscheduled system and no double tracking would mean if a freight train was leaving the west side of the city the passenger train would need to wait in Cochrane until it got through town before it could leave, which would likely be at least 20 minutes. At least with double tracking, even if both sides were shared (which CPR I imagine would love, currently they have to pull at least one train every few hours onto the west siding in Cochrane to wait for a train going the other direction) the train would only need to weight a few minutes if another train in the same direction was going through, and then pull out behind it.

[mersar]

From this week's Cochrane Eagle:

Commuter buses stalled on funding

By Rachel Maclean
The Eagle
Mayor Truper McBride is hoping the provincial government will be able to find enough money in this year’s budget to get express commuter buses rolling.
It would be one of the first steps in the Calgary Regional Partnership’s (CRP) transit plan that could eventually lead to regional train links in the next decade.
But with Finance Minister Iris Evans announcing Feb. 19 that Alberta could be $1 billion in debt at the end of this year, with predictions of 15,000 jobs lost in coming months as the economy shrinks by two per cent, accessing transit funds could pose a problem.
“I understand everyone, including Cochrane, has had difficult budgets this year,” said McBride. “But with that said, recessions are periods when you can affectively restructure economies and make them stronger for the future. Transit is one of the ways to do that. . . . So this is the time to spend on infrastructure projects that will help create the jobs and jump start the economy.”
McBride hopes the province will be able to devote a significant portion of the $2 billion Green Trip Fund announced last July for transit initiatives.
Currently, local charter bus companies, such as Southland Transport, offer two buses with two trips into downtown Calgary in the morning and two trips back out in the evening for Cochrane, Okotoks, Chestermere, Strathmore, High River and Airdrie.
McBride would like to see commuter buses making nine trips, both in the morning and evening, connecting with Calgary transit, the University of Calgary, and even into the other municipalities involved, with a bus pass that works within the entire Calgary transit system.
“It would be a seamless transit integration for Cochrane into the entire region,” said McBride. “So it would be quite possible to catch a bus in Cochrane and take it all the way down to High River.”
He said there would still be room for private charter buses, but the government’s role would be to make it the most accessible cost and maximize the public benefit.
“We are not looking to strong arm companies like Southland or any other private provider that might be in the business at the moment,” said McBride. “We are looking for ways to partner with the private sector.”
The mayor said if the funds are not available this year then the plan is not dead — it just may be stretched out over the next few years.
“Whether it happens sooner or later it will be happening,” said McBride.
The CRP plans to apply for the Green Trip Fund in the near future and will be presenting a transit plan in March as part of the draft Calgary Metropolitan Plan.

Source

9 trips wouldn't be a bad start, assuming a 3 hour 'peak' period thats 20 minute frequency and probably only require 4 actual buses

[mersar]

From this weeks Cochrane Times:

Heavy rail funding down

Provincial government slows transit plans in face of economic downtown

Posted By Brad Herron

A slip in the Alberta economy may be derailing the dream of passenger rail from Cochrane into downtown Calgary.

With the Alberta government slipping into recession, the amount of up-front funding allocated to the Green Trip transportation plan has been slashed to between $10 million and $50 million in 2009. The provincial government has promised $2 billion in transit funding, but the program will be rolled out much slower than originally thought, said Alberta Transportation spokesperson Jerry Bellikka.

“There is a lot of confusion over this, because when we announced the program last July of $2 billion, that we would have that within 4 years. When we announced the program, we never said it would be over four years or there would be X amount of dollars per year,” Bellikka said.

When Green Trip was announced, the province wanted applications completed by the fall of 2008.

Now, almost through February, the government has yet to complete the criteria for application and it could be until early summer before the guidelines are completed. Bellikka said the province is “consulting with a number of municipalities, including Cochrane,” to develop these.

Mayor Truper McBride said a slow pay-off of Green Trip funds would hinder the ability of municipalities to build the infrastructure necessary for a long-term transit system.

He had originally hoped the province would provide the money to quickly establish heavy-rail transit throughout the region, but admits that may be years away.

“Transit isn’t something you can spend a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there on and be a success, it really has to be a commitment from a senior level of government to make it a reality,” said McBride, also chairman of the Calgary Regional Partnership’s transit committee. “They are talking $50 million as the initial injection. Well, you really can’t do anything with that, especially if the province wants to spread that around the entire province.”

The regional partnership’s transit committee has prepared an extension report on transit in the region, which will be made public in March.

McBride said the CRP’s data clearly shows buses, and eventually rail transit, will be needed quickly.

A busing system into Calgary from the region’s outlying communities will be atop the wish list, but McBride said any application will include long-term goals for heavy-rail, which includes land acquisition and funding for station construction.

“Transit will be a necessity if Calgary is to be successful, vibrant city and region in the future. It’s a matter of when and not really if,” McBride said.

“We understand the need to reprioritize our priorities with the economic downturn, so I do understand what the province is doing here, but I disagree the way to do it and reprioritize will be to cut transit, because it's part of the restructuring that should be done during a economic downturn,” he added.

Operating costs are an additional stumbling block for municipalities to climb over. Bellikka said the province has no intention of funding the operation of transit once the infrastucture and capital expenses are completed.

“This is not intended as a public transit operating program,” Bellikka said. “We expect municipalities will be able to find a way of dealing with the operating costs.”

After dealing with a tight budget in January, McBride said Cochrane simply doesn’t have the money to operate a large-scale transit system into Calgary.

If the province doesn’t pick up a bulk of the tab, transit will likely be done on a small scale.

Source

[Wooster]

This Truper McBride seems to be quite on the ball. Is he a good mayor? His name is hilarious - a cochrane stereotype.

This green trip funding is ridiculous. They are totally missing the opportunity to leverage the $2 billion to get into cost sharing agreements with the federal government with their stimulus.

[mersar]

So far he's been pretty effective. When he first ran for council (2 terms ago I believe) there was some worry due to his age (he's now only in his early 30's, when he first ran he was just finishing a degree at U of C and was probably 15 years younger then every other member in council at the time) but is is definitely on the ball on most issues. He ran for mayor in 2007 with regional transit as part of his platform so this is definitely something he has an interest in.

And I'd have to agree the funding is pretty ridiculous. At most the $50 they've put on the table for this coming fiscal year will cover some of the planning for a few projects depending on which ones are chosen.