Calgary Public Transit II

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is a huge misconception about the dedicated Busway. Everyone has this notion that you can build a road then in the future slap some rails on it and Bob's your uncle.

In reality there is very little to no synergies between the civil works required for a road and a LRT line. Basically bridges and that's about it. Acquiring the right of way now spreads that cost over time, which is a positive.

Chris didn't say they were going to convert road to rails.

[DoubleK]

My comment was directed to the population in general. Not to Chris in particular.

[Bassic Lab]

As I understand it, much of the SE LRT will be elevated (possibly with earthwork like the CN line that's ROW is being followed) between Lynwood Station and Inglewood-Ramsay Station. Would this 400 million dollar busway essentially ready that area, with grading and bridgework, for the laying of rail? If so, I am curious (as are others here) as to how much of the 400 million is going towards work that will have to be done anyway for the LRT and how much isn't. That is to say, having spent 400 million on the Busway, how much less will the SELRT cost?

I suppose that if less than 100 million is ultimately wasted then it would be a good idea. Any more than that and it could be too much waste.

[frinkprof]

There was a meeting today of the standing policy committee on Transportation and Transit. One of the agenda items was a presentation of the Calgary Transit Business Plan Update.

Here's the report: http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/0/zevgkk55qzwdgb55zlkglozu/8036801242012095556865.PDF

with attachments (which are shorter and probably more illustrative of what is upcoming, if you don't have time to read everything)

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/0/zevgkk55qzwdgb55zlkglozu/8036901242012095559470.PDF (Attach 1)

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/0/zevgkk55qzwdgb55zlkglozu/8037001242012095602450.PDF (Attach 2)

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/2/zevgkk55qzwdgb55zlkglozu/8037101252012073039748.PDF (Attach 3)

The first two are the best tie to what will happen to service.

Basically, during budget deliberations all City departments were asked a couple months ago to find efficiences (aka, generally make cuts to service). Calgary Transit came back with cuts that amount to a loss of 37 000 annual transit hours, and some other changes were made (such as use of shuttles in place of big bus on some routes). Meanwhile, The City of Calgary's own overall guiding document, the Calgary Transportation Plan (well, one of them, the other being the Municipal Development Plan) as well as the 2020 Sustainability Direction, actually call for there to be an addition of 80 000 annual transit hours in each of 2012, 2013, 2014.

These cuts are detailed in attachment 2.

Some of the big ones include:

- Route 302 will operate as a community shuttle bus during off-peak times
- Cancellation of first and last trips of the day on each LRT line
- Route 92/96 McKenzie Towne/Douglasdale reduced frequencies during mid day
- Route 305 off-peak service cut altogether
- Several other community feeder routes are having their offpeak service cut altogether or reduced drastically

There's also some other items on the list such as the route 300 Airport BRT now being added to the transit budget whereas it was paid for under a different program until now (innovation fund).

----------

During the same budget deliberations, a separate process led to $1M over each of the next 3 years being added to the transit operational budget. This money was provided in order to fund items in Transit's "wishlist" of unfunded items for those 3 years. The items that will be funded (and there are several others that will remain unfunded) are detailed in attachment 1.

Some of the things that will be funded by this "extra" $1M include:

- Service extension of route 302 to South Hospital
- Improvements to some mainline routes during midday such as the routes 2, 6, 72, 73.
- Investment in a "service reliability" program that will study and implement changes to scheduling to ensure more schedule adherence, especially in peak periods

There are several items on the 3-year "wishlist" which remain unfunded, including:

- Service to a bunch of new areas such as Walden, Stoney Industrial, New Brighton, Mahogany, Springbank Hill, etc.
- Improving service (including new BRT routes) to Mount Royal University
- Improving service to all routes currently feeding into South LRT line, such as adding trips during the late PM rush and very early AM rush, etc.

---------------

The third attachment goes over some statistics which show the correlation between ridership and employment, population growth and growth in service hours.

[MalcolmTucker]

Until the provincial budget comes, everything should be on hold. Potentially significant changes to provincial transfers are likely. Could be anything from accelerated MSI to tax room transfer.

In either case, transit could likely get away with moving some elements from the operational budget to the capital budget, to safe guard services. Sure, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul, but you need to break eggs to make omeletts.

[DizzyEdge]

- Cancellation of first and last trips of the day on each LRT line

That's too bad. I'd prefer they kept the coverage (or even expanded it) even if it meant a slight increase in times between each train spread over the day.

[ByeByeBaby]

I went to the SETWay (shades of WEDWay ) open house in Ramsay this evening.

They presented a series of alternatives: LRT all the way to Seton; busway (separate ROW along the future LRT path) all the way; LRT to South Hill (aka Shepard Road aka just south of Glenmore); busway to South Hill; LRT to South Hill then busway to Seton, and on-street BRT which is close to existing with a series of small improvements, e.g. queue jumps, extra lanes, potentially an underpass or two. They included automated (SkyTrain-like) trains as an alternative to LRT, but they seemed to cost twice as much with little ridership improvement.

The approach the team seems to prefer is the transitway to South Hill. (If I don't say otherwise, that's what I mean by transitway). It's $400M or so, and the only other project that could be funded within GreenTrip is the BRT with upgrades; the estimate for that was $80M. The general service plan for the transitway would be a BRT type service all the way to Seton all day, with additional neighbourhood-to-downtown routes in the peak.

Predicted near-term ridership (2029) was around 29,000 for the transitway, compared with around 13,000 for the BRT. That BRT number is a lot of growth relative to the current 3200 on the route; part of that is from the massive population growth expected (something like 60-100K, mostly south of 22X) and significant job growth; surely the opening of the hospital in Seton with thousands of jobs at the other end of the line will help. The other part is expected speed improvements; they predicted 50 minutes for transitway from Seton to downtown, and 60 for the BRT with improvements; it's currently 60 minutes from Mackenzie Towne, and expected to be 70 minutes from Seton once the transitway opens. So the improvements represent roughly 10 and 20 minutes improvement for BRT and transitway as opposed to current. LRT all the way was predicted to have 54,000 riders, with a running time of 35 minutes.

I talked a lot with one of the Stantec guys about the potential reuse for LRT; he was clear that this is a preliminary analysis that didn't include the level of detail needed to give a full estimate, but he was clearly very aware of the issue, and certainly said that the team was thinking in terms of what they would want to be there if they were put in charge of building LRT over top of the transitway a decade or two from now. The impression he gave me is that the bulk of the expenses -- the subgrade structure, drainage, earthworks and retaining walls, the structures over and under other roads and rail lines -- would be reusable, even saying they would consider whether it made sense to erect catenary poles during this phase. The impression I had was that they were hoping to build essentially the first portion of the LRT project, but with a temporary asphalt/concrete running surface instead of tracks and ballast. It certainly sounded like the vast majority of the money would be going into reusable aspects, although the detailed estimates will tell for sure.

He also indicated that the future phasing that made the most sense was to have an intermediate stage of LRT to South Hill and transitway south to Seton, but I think that's far enough into the future and dependent on funding availability that it's not really worth worrying too much about.

Overall, assuming that a more detailed design backs up the preliminary analysis, I have to admit I'm somewhat convinced, at least given the constraint of spending this capital money on service to this area.

[MalcolmTucker]

It is good to hear the level of study that seems to be going on, even if the Skytrain vs LRT cost number is way inflated given how much our current LRT projects are costing.

The LRT vs. Skytrain study is a long ways out however, but it hopefully won't be glossed over when the time comes to take the next step.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

- Cancellation of first and last trips of the day on each LRT line

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

That's too bad. I'd prefer they kept the coverage (or even expanded it) even if it meant a slight increase in times between each train spread over the day.

This is a terrible idea. The last trains are always full of people who are there entirely because it is the last train.

[Aegis]

Geez. $400M on a busway with low synergy to the future LRT line? If the total SE LRT is estimated at $1.6B, spending 25% of the cost on what is esentially a disposable project (what use will it have after the LRT is built?) seems like a bad idea to me. Let's just bite the bullet and build the SE LRT in segments.It might take longer to reach Seton, but overall it would be a more efficient use dollars.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

This is a terrible idea. The last trains are always full of people who are there entirely because it is the last train.

Imagine how full the last train or BRT route busses would be if they ran at 2:30am on Friday and Sat nights... In fact, maybe they should continue to stop the buses around midnight, and then just run one at 2:30 from downtown.

[DizzyEdge]

nevermind...

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Geez. $400M on a busway with low synergy to the future LRT line? If the total SE LRT is estimated at $1.6B, spending 25% of the cost on what is esentially a disposable project (what use will it have after the LRT is built?) seems like a bad idea to me. Let's just bite the bullet and build the SE LRT in segments.It might take longer to reach Seton, but overall it would be a more efficient use dollars.

Is some of that $400M ROW acquisition, ROW clearing, stations, tunnels and bridges?

[frinkprof]

Here's the information boards being shown at the SETway open houses, in pdf form:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/SETWAY_info_boards.pdf

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Here's the information boards being shown at the SETway open houses, in pdf form:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/SETWAY_info_boards.pdf

Is the daily cost per passenger per daily passenger? ie a $1 cost per passenger @ 10k passengers per day would = $10k per day, or $3.65 million per year?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The full AART seems like an interesting option. Yes, the cost to construct it is double than LRT, but it appears that in less than a decade the operating cost savings would completely cover that excess capital cost.

If that is the case, if done as a full P3, AART would end up being cheaper in total.
Edit:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Is the daily cost per passenger per daily passenger? ie a $1 cost per passenger @ 10k passengers per day would = $10k per day, or $3.65 million per year?

Yeah, that sounds right, but all the operating costs seem high, and are way above the operating costs for the current system, unless they are counting system renewal (lifecycle maintenance and vehicle replacement) as operations (which they should be doing!).

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If that is the case, if done as a full P3, AART would end up being cheaper in total.

I ninja edited because the question I posed above would need to be true, but if so, then yes I agree AART would be a money saver in the long run.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If that is the case, if done as a full P3, AART would end up being cheaper in total.
Edit:

Yeah, that sounds right, but all the operating costs seem high, and are way above the operating costs for the current system, unless they are counting system renewal (lifecycle maintenance and vehicle replacement) as operations (which they should be doing!).

Is it just me or does fifty some thousand in ridership seem like a conservative estimate for 2029? That is significantly less than our current lines are generating.

I'm also not sold on the estimate that a grade separated ROW would cost twice as much as LRT. As I understand it, most of the ROW north of South Hill Station would have to be grade separated anyway and there just aren't that many crossings along the rest of the route. I suppose the tunnel section would need to be extended further east along 10 Ave but the tunnel could also be smaller without the need for catenary strung along the top. That could make a, primarily tunnelled, NLRT (well not LRT in that case but meh) extension to the line considerably cheaper.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Is it just me or does fifty some thousand in ridership seem like a conservative estimate for 2029? That is significantly less than our current lines are generating.

I'm also not sold on the estimate that a grade separated ROW would cost twice as much as LRT. As I understand it, most of the ROW north of South Hill Station would have to be grade separated anyway and there just aren't that many crossings along the rest of the route. I suppose the tunnel section would need to be extended further east along 10 Ave but the tunnel could also be smaller without the need for catenary strung along the top. That could make a, primarily tunnelled, NLRT (well not LRT in that case but meh) extension to the line considerably cheaper.

In general, I think you're right, but the tunnel can only be extended so far along 10 Ave before it hits the existing S LRT tunnel; then what? You can't have the whole line grade separated except for three blocks including heavy pedestrian use and the intersection with Macleod; that's the area with the most conflicts. It might be possible to go elevated, with the 4th St E and the 10th Ave stations elevated, then dropping like mad to get into a tunnel by 2nd, but that may not be possible. They could try tunneling under the S LRT, but that would be ruinously expensive and have the same grade issues in reverse, going from at grade at 4th (can't go lower due to the underpass) to under the S LRT tunnel around 150m later. It may be that the 1 km section from 4th E to 2nd W is responsible for the bulk of the increase.

[MalcolmTucker]

Tunnel diameter would be a small savings, holes are holes - and when they say ART, they don't mean necessarily SkyTrain, Canada Line is counted in the example.

Big savings comes from being able to build shorter stations - underground station boxes are expensive! To figure out the ART cost you need to do way more than a back of the envelope, you need grade profiles and system capabilities because depending on the ROW, you might still be able to run much of it at ground level.

Just checking the math here

You have 54,000 riders saving $0.87. Using capacity at 50 weeks of working days, and half loads at other times, (307.5 'days') you have 16,605,000 trips with a savings of $14,446,350 a year. That is, the operational cost differential takes 138.44 years to pay for, without interest costs.

I think a decimal point must of been misplaced in the calculation above.

Also, the display boards capital cost per rider while they might be proportionally correct, do not really reflect any real value it seems.