Edmonton Public Transit

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary's system failings is due to overuse and nothing else. If you're designing LRT that crosses streets often, best not hope for capacity much above 10,000 ppdph. The Millwoods-WEM LRT will be nothing near that, so no worries.

As for Calgary's path vs Edmonton's path, Calgary by the year 1993 had spent almost double the amount on its LRT. The failure wasn't caused by the cost of tunneling, it was that the the political will to sacrifice other things for LRT wasn't there, because traffic into Edmonton's core is less of an issue.

Calgary's tunnel at $5 billion, umm, what are you smoking? Because I want some!

[Mikemike]

It looks like their tunnel will need to be just under 2km. With simple stations and not too many it should cost under $1b, up to 1.5b if they have a lot of stations, extra depth or fancy features. I understand that they are also considering a north-south tunnel for the next line they add, despite it being planned as low floor. That entire line will cost close to $5billion.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by mick

For years, we lamented that going underground killed LRT expansion in this city; the city learns from that mistake, and puts LRT above ground on a lightly trafficked street through the core to save hundreds of millions, and now their short-sighted. You can't be right for being wrong around here. It's ridiculous, people just can't get over there pet route, which they likely drew onto google maps somewhere, wasn't chosen, as a brief read of the never-ending threads on the subject at c2e attests.

It wasn't a mistake to go underground. The tunnel works great, and is a huge asset in this Winter city. It's a mistake not to use an asset like this to it's full extent. It was designed for up to 6 legs of LRT. Not 2, not 3. 6. Lets make the most out of this asset, and stop throwing well-spent money away. Not using this asset to its maximum extent is a discredit to the money we spent building it in the first place. Wasteful, misguided -- and for what?

The mistake was to stop expanding the system in 1992, and holding off any expansion for 15 years. 87th avenue wasn't just something dreamed up on c2e. It was the original plan for WLRT as of 2008.

[Clearshades]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Calgary's system failings is due to overuse and nothing else. If you're designing LRT that crosses streets often, best not hope for capacity much above 10,000 ppdph. The Millwoods-WEM LRT will be nothing near that, so no worries.

As for Calgary's path vs Edmonton's path, Calgary by the year 1993 had spent almost double the amount on its LRT. The failure wasn't caused by the cost of tunneling, it was that the the political will to sacrifice other things for LRT wasn't there, because traffic into Edmonton's core is less of an issue.

Calgary's tunnel at $5 billion, umm, what are you smoking? Because I want some!

I never stated it will cost at 5 billion, but I said, " it could cost.." I used a high potential cost for the fact I have no knowledege of Calgary's geography pertain to issues of tunnelling. Edmonton's tunnelled system cost over 1.1 billion during the mid 70s- mid 80's, so through inflation and other possibilities, just an educated guess. You always want to conclude at the highest cost; not the lowest.

[Clearshades]

^^ also keep in mind Feepa, during that time recessions occured and fundings for transportation was at minimal. Both cities recieved similar fundings. The difference was we went underground; Calgary went above ground. Henced their longer system, and now are paying for their mistake.

Above ground is adequate for certain population size, but once you exceed that target, it becomes problematic. That is why most major cities in the world have underground systems.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Clearshades

I never stated it will cost at 5 billion, but I said, " it could cost.." I used a high potential cost for the fact I have no knowledege of Calgary's geography pertain to issues of tunnelling. Edmonton's tunnelled system cost over 1.1 billion during the mid 70s- mid 80's, so through inflation and other possibilities, just an educated guess. You always want to conclude at the highest cost; not the lowest.

Edmonton spent $310 million in capital between from initial build till '92. Page 9.

Originally Posted by Clearshades

^^ also keep in mind Feepa, during that time recessions occured and fundings for transportation was at minimal. Both cities recieved similar fundings. The difference was we went underground; Calgary went above ground. Henced their longer system, and now are paying for their mistake.

Above ground is adequate for certain population size, but once you exceed that target, it becomes problematic. That is why most major cities in the world have underground systems.

Calgary and Edmonton both recieved similar grants from the province, but Calgary borrowed money and cut services and ended up spending way more. Calgary spent $543 million between 1981-90, where Edmonton spent $310 million between '78 and '92.

[westendjack]

Originally Posted by Clearshades

^^ also keep in mind Feepa, during that time recessions occured and fundings for transportation was at minimal. Both cities recieved similar fundings. The difference was we went underground; Calgary went above ground. Henced their longer system, and now are paying for their mistake.

Above ground is adequate for certain population size, but once you exceed that target, it becomes problematic. That is why most major cities in the world have underground systems.

I wouldn't consider Calgary to be "paying for their mistake." If anything, they have a widely used and successful system. Calgary made a strategic decision to use their funding to reach further into the city and serve more people.

To date, the system is well used but its not exactly suffering for lack of a tunnel. The seventh avenue stations were reaching their end of service life anyways and once the City decided that a future eighth avenue tunnel will only be used for the Northwest and South line, rebuilding the seventh avenue stations for the long term use of the Northeast and West line made a lot of sense.

Would it have been better for Calgary to build a tunnel outright? Yes.

However, given the funding available, did Calgary make the right choice not to build a tunnel at the beginning? Definitely.

In the long run Calgary and Edmonton will hopefully have comparable light rail systems, covering large stretches of both cities and encouraging a shift away from automobile usage. In the interim, though, Calgary's LRT has served a lot more people because it has been able to reach further into the city. That's not a mistake.

[Clearshades]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Edmonton spent $310 million in capital between from initial build till '92. Page 9.

Calgary and Edmonton both recieved similar grants from the province, but Calgary borrowed money and cut services and ended up spending way more. Calgary spent $543 million between 1981-90, where Edmonton spent $310 million between '78 and '92.

You are probably right... I just recall vividly an article in the journal prior to commencent of the grandin- university leg in '91or so stating that cost. The way construction cost today, i wouldn't be shocked if the price was that though.

Perhaps 2.5 billion at least? Your thought?

[Clearshades]

In that case Malcom, do know of hand if Calgary has done a study on tunnelling and projected cost. Just curious now...

[MalcolmTucker]

The number thrown around mid decade in Calgary was $600 million, but I doubt it could be done for less than $800 if they wanted to keep 4 stations. Will be an ugly job though, cut and cover and all that, with longstanding pits at the stations.

[Clearshades]

Thanks for info. Even 800mil seems low, for the fact, so many office towers have gone up- with underground parkades. Tunnelling is fine when attemting linear lines, but any curvertures would be difficult/ impossible; unless they tunnel at extreme depth, and this is where cost factor is applied. As their city continue to grow, they will most likely revisit this option without any choice. Even above ground like NY and Chicago wouldbe a comparable cost.

It is a good thing we did ours back then...

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Keep in mind that a little event known as the Winter Olympics helped greatly with Calgary's LRT expansion.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Clearshades

Thanks for info. Even 800mil seems low, for the fact, so many office towers have gone up- with underground parkades. Tunnelling is fine when attemting linear lines, but any curvertures would be difficult/ impossible; unless they tunnel at extreme depth, and this is where cost factor is applied. As their city continue to grow, they will most likely revisit this option without any choice. Even above ground like NY and Chicago wouldbe a comparable cost.

It is a good thing we did ours back then...

Tunnel has been planned for years, corridor protected and all that. The line has 1 turn that isn't built today, and if the current system can make the turn above ground, a tunnel can do it below ground.

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

Keep in mind that a little event known as the Winter Olympics helped greatly with Calgary's LRT expansion.

Well, in thought process yes, not in dollars. Not anymore methinks than Commonwealth Games in Edmonton for the first leg.

Back on topic

In the end, even if the LRT to WEM took the 87th Ave route, there would still need to be a way to connect in a Millwoods service. After the loow floor route to Millwoods is done, Council could come to its senses and move the WEM line back to 87th and the legacy LRT network, and not have wasted much, except consultation and route exploration dollars. Could end up with a Stony Plain Road LRT in addition to an 87th Ave route even.

[ue]

If Mill Woods were high floor and WLRT was on 87 Ave, the Mill Woods LRT could be connected through Churchill and carry on as NAIT/NWLRT. NAIT LRT would no longer go to Health Sciences, though.

That would be ideal, IMO. Then 87 Ave LRT could be expanded further eastward, down Whyte (maybe underground?), to Sherwood Park. Then there could be an extension to the tunnel down Jasper to service Oliver and Westmount. It could go to Westmount Centre or go down Stony Plain and down 156 St and meet with 87 Ave at Meadowlark. Or that portion could be a straight-up streetcar down 102 Ave.

But the current plan, although imperfect, isn't that bad.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Clearshades

I could see Calgary's delima, if tunnelling now, could cost them in the neigborhood of 5 billion+ due to all the office towers already present. This may play to Edmonton's favor in offices down the road when traffic becomes more insidious for them; but that is a different topic...

Ummm, what? Is that a real number?

Given that the plan was to run underground along 8th Avenue (Bankers Hall has roughed in where they would connect to a station, and apparently City Hall also has provision for tunnel along 8th alignment) I don't see how they possibly need to tunnel under a bunch of office buildings.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Could end up with a Stony Plain Road LRT in addition to an 87th Ave route even.

That would be ideal to me.

The high-floor LRT would then basically be a neat and tidy 'X', connecting all the major centers in the city, and we'd also have a nice low-floor LRT that runs across the downtown core that also connects the Southeast corner of the city and the older, historic West end neighborhoods.

[feepa]

dare to dream...

[Clearshades]

Originally Posted by s211

Ummm, what? Is that a real number?

Given that the plan was to run underground along 8th Avenue (Bankers Hall has roughed in where they would connect to a station, and apparently City Hall also has provision for tunnel along 8th alignment) I don't see how they possibly need to tunnel under a bunch of office buildings.

My apologies... I was using a reference through a recollection of an article in the E Journal over two decades ago until Malcom posted the actual cost; it brought back my memory that they stated the 1975-85 cost would- with inflation to the periond when Grandin station/government was commenced-be around 1.1 billion at that time.

I originally remember the cost as 1.1 billion for the period from 75-85; so on that basis, I added inflation to today's contruction cost to that amount. Just simple error on my part- going senile lol!

[Clearshades]

Originally Posted by feepa

dare to dream...

If Martin Luther is at all inspirational..."I have a dream..." let's be daring! The worst is no; the down fault is not to trying.

[Clearshades]

From that map Feepa, I would rather see the Nait line go to millwoods. The Nait-HS is a minor tweak at minimal cost. The two west lines could meet after downtown and go east eventually; but that is all dependants of which type of system we chose.