Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[fusili]

While I do understand some of the sentiment about extending the LRT far from the centre of the city, I really don't think Route Ahead does that at all. There is a huge focus on crosstown routes and routes serving trips that are not just "suburbanites going downtown." There is a lot of improved service for the inner city.

Take the North Crosstown for example. The line runs east/west on 16th avenue, connecting several schools and hospitals to inner city neighbourhoods (everything around 16th avenue) and other transit lines. It definitely does not extend far out in the city. The south crosstown route does the same, connecting a university and a hospital to existing transit lines and inner city neighbourhoods (Killarney/Glenbrook/Glanmorgan, Chinook Park/Kingsland/Haysboro). The transitway for 17th Avenue SE creates better transit for Greater Forest Lawn, as do improvements on the 305 create better transit for Bowness/Montgomery/Parkdale/Hillhurst.

Also note the phasing of the SE/NC LRT. It goes to Quarry Park first, then to 16th Avenue, before going to the south hospital or northpointe. This is a massive change from Calgary Transit's previous strategy to get the LRTs out as far and fast as possible. The core of the line is built first, and then extended. That is a massive shift in priority.

I think it is a fantastic plan.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

I don't know. The TTC streetcar system seems to be fairly well used. I only have experienced this as a visitor, but everyone I know who lived in downtown Toronto swears by it.

The TTC street cars are just that, street cars. Not LRV's operating in dedicated ROW's with purpose built platforms that could otherwise have been replaced with buses at substantially less cost.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by 93JC

I didn't say that the C-Train should ape the old street car routes.

The point is that to say the C-Train's success is due to suburban commuters taking it downtown is blantantly obvious. Of course it is: those are the only people the LRT system serves.

The service itself is public transit, how it is provided depends on the community being served and other situational constraints. (cost, availability of ROW's, potential off-peak ridership etc).

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Northpointe has been built up for pushing 20 years now, and the population is very much geared towards LRT usage (very heavy BRT usage). Keystone is a field of prairie grass *beyond* Stoney trail. It would be inappropriate to build out to it, including a massively expensive bridge over stoney, within the next 40 years.


Your push to keystone seems counter-intuitive to this latter comment. You can't balance out expensive additional extensions with massive bridges, with the addition of an expensive tunnel at the same time. Arithmetic doesn't work that way.

If LRT is not required in the next 40 years, I'm wondering why bother with BRT for one stop at all - just run some longer feeder buses. Thus my query why the switch - seems to be a lot of hassle put on the end user for little savings. I'm merely asking why the switch - I personally would rather see less emphasis on line expansion to the 'burbs.

[Doug]

The plan is the easy part. Now just need to find $8B from governments that can't even balance a budget with $100 oil.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

One major thing that was not included in the plan was any form of regional rail or express system, whether LRT, transitway, or commuter heavy rail. We are a city with all stoptreins and no sneltreins. The limitations of the C-train are choking growth, and even 5-car trains and a Stephen Ave Metro will not work at alleviating congestion forever. What we need in a sneltrein option that follows existing rail ROW and converges downtown with an HSR station. For example:
High-River-Okotoks-Somerset-Anderson-CHINOOK-DT
Airdrie-Balzac-Airport Trail-Greenview-DT
Strathmore-Langdon-Southhill-DT
Banff-Canmore-Cochrane-Bowness-DT

I'm not saying all lines and regional rail stations need to necessarily be built all at once, but flexibility and accommodation are key. These also need to stop at crosstown hubs, which in the south are Chinook, Anderson, and Somerset. Rush hour express service from downtown to those three stations would already be popular if implemented today. People come from all over the region to visit Chinook and Southcentre, not Heritage.

It's not in Calgary Transit's mandate to build transit in places that are not Calgary.

And I don't think it makes a lot of sense for Calgary acting alone to spend a lot of money to ensure people who don't pay our property taxes have as easy a commute here as possible... this isn't something to be encouraged. I do think that there should be a regional transit agency, which should probably be CT with a larger mandate, but there's no governance there for now. If the Regional Partnership were stronger, that could happen, and I'd prefer a single regional transit agency to the model of several small local agencies, or even a city and a regional agency.

Commuter rail has had an upsurge lately in the US; easy to build without ROW problems, and it's "what big cities have". But the ridership numbers have been terrible. Comparable systems to what we would build (in much larger urban areas) have fewer than 2000 riders per day.

[MalcolmTucker]

The issue with commuter rail in Calgary is our rail lines are at capacity with freight, need huge upgrades to take anything but a symbolic number of people.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Doug

The plan is the easy part. Now just need to find $8B from governments that can't even balance a budget with $100 oil.

Yes, that's a big challenge. Part of the purpose of the plan was so that the Provincial and Federal governments actually understand what the City's vision is, what its long terms needs are, what projects are priorities, and how much it's going to cost. It's impossible to get an adequate funding arrangement without it.

Calgary's also just entering MGA/City Charter discussions right now, so this plan I'm sure will be front and centre. Municipalities are responsible for transit service, but they need the fiscal capacity to actually deliver it. Transit capital more than anything else is way beyond the fiscal capacity of cities under current revenue allocation. I'm also hopeful that when the two major ring roads are done that priorities at the province will shift from highway building to LRT construction - there are many reasons to do so.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Good points ByeByeBaby. I also agree with all points to various degrees. One station on each radial line must be selected as a cross-town hub, and selection of the line needs to be based on where travelers are destined, growth potential, and potential for crosstown ROW. These are:
S-Chinook
W-Westbrook
NW-U of C
NE-PLC/Sunridge/Rundle
Hubs on the NC and SELRT are less clear at this time, and although ostensibly 16th Ave/Ctr St N and Quarry Park, respectively, could probably be somewhere esle if it suited crosstown alignment.

I agree here too:



One major thing that was not included in the plan was any form of regional rail or express system, whether LRT, transitway, or commuter heavy rail. We are a city with all stoptreins and no sneltreins. The limitations of the C-train are choking growth, and even 5-car trains and a Stephen Ave Metro will not work at alleviating congestion forever. What we need in a sneltrein option that follows existing rail ROW and converges downtown with an HSR station. For example:
High-River-Okotoks-Somerset-Anderson-CHINOOK-DT
Airdrie-Balzac-Airport Trail-Greenview-DT
Strathmore-Langdon-Southhill-DT
Banff-Canmore-Cochrane-Bowness-DT

I'm not saying all lines and regional rail stations need to necessarily be built all at once, but flexibility and accommodation are key. These also need to stop at crosstown hubs, which in the south are Chinook, Anderson, and Somerset. Rush hour express service from downtown to those three stations would already be popular if implemented today. People come from all over the region to visit Chinook and Southcentre, not Heritage.

I favour Chinook over Heritage as the major transfer station even though I can see the geographic constraints (it would likely require a fair amount of elevated track/road). That said, University station is a complete no go from a geographic standpoint whether it would be the better location or not. There is just no way, save for expropriating a new ROW through existing city or deep bore tunnelling underneath to bring other transit services to University Station. There just isn't a clear perpendicular route through either the UofC or Charleswood for service to take. Besides, Brentwood will be a major TOD and whatever service intersects with it can also service the UofC (not to mention the Children's Hospital and more) with a west campus station, say somewhere closer to the Olympic Oval.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I favour Chinook over Heritage as the major transfer station even though I can see the geographic constraints (it would likely require a fair amount of elevated track/road). That said, University station is a complete no go from a geographic standpoint whether it would be the better location or not. There is just no way, save for expropriating a new ROW through existing city or deep bore tunnelling underneath to bring other transit services to University Station. There just isn't a clear perpendicular route through either the UofC or Charleswood for service to take. Besides, Brentwood will be a major TOD and whatever service intersects with it can also service the UofC (not to mention the Children's Hospital and more) with a west campus station, say somewhere closer to the Olympic Oval.

I agree. What I meant was that any new line in the NW must necessarily serve the UofC, not necessarily University Station. How another line would hub with the current line I am not sure. I agree that Brentwood is a better hub option.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It's not in Calgary Transit's mandate to build transit in places that are not Calgary.

And I don't think it makes a lot of sense for Calgary acting alone to spend a lot of money to ensure people who don't pay our property taxes have as easy a commute here as possible... this isn't something to be encouraged. I do think that there should be a regional transit agency, which should probably be CT with a larger mandate, but there's no governance there for now. If the Regional Partnership were stronger, that could happen, and I'd prefer a single regional transit agency to the model of several small local agencies, or even a city and a regional agency.

Commuter rail has had an upsurge lately in the US; easy to build without ROW problems, and it's "what big cities have". But the ridership numbers have been terrible. Comparable systems to what we would build (in much larger urban areas) have fewer than 2000 riders per day.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The issue with commuter rail in Calgary is our rail lines are at capacity with freight, need huge upgrades to take anything but a symbolic number of people.

Points taken. However, when 5-car trains with 2 minute headway are full (as I think they will be by the time Calgary has a couple more radial lines), what else can we do to add capacity? What else can offer express service without frequent stops?

Calgary should care about our neighbours because many of them work in the city and come to the city to spend money. They may not pay property taxes to Calgary, but they pay gas tax to the province. It's pretty clear that property taxes will not provide the capital for any of these projects. I too think that a centralized (CT) planning commission should run such an operation, and only if the communities served agree to do their part.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Points taken. However, when 5-car trains with 2 minute headway are full (as I think they will be by the time Calgary has a couple more radial lines), what else can we do to add capacity? What else can offer express service without frequent stops?

Calgary should care about our neighbours because many of them work in the city and come to the city to spend money. They may not pay property taxes to Calgary, but they pay gas tax to the province. It's pretty clear that property taxes will not provide the capital for any of these projects. I too think that a centralized (CT) planning commission should run such an operation, and only if the communities served agree to do their part.

Oh, I think commuter rail should be built, or rather fully considered against other alternatives of opening up new localities for housing and supportive uses. But there should be no illusions that it can be done on the cheap. Personally beyond a certain footprint for the city proper, pearls on a string development on rail lines is as good an option as any.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

They have the most C-Train infrastructure because the light-rail systems that do little more than ape old urban street car routes are not terribly successful.

Very true...; hence, why nobody is building them... anywhere.... Very true.

[MalcolmTucker]

They aren't building them for transit gains, that is for sure. Not saying that they don't have their place since once an onstreet frequent local bus is maxed out they are a good option, just that is not where they are being used.

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

They aren't building them for transit gains, that is for sure. Not saying that they don't have their place since once an onstreet frequent local bus is maxed out they are a good option, just that is not where they are being used.

Also not really correct, but to a lesser extent. They are indeed moreso successful from an accessibility metric as opposed to mobility.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by sim

Very true...; hence, why nobody is building them... anywhere.... Very true.

Sarcasm? (Sorry it doesn't come across well in an online forum)

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

Very true...; hence, why nobody is building them... anywhere.... Very true.

Well I guess it depends on what your goal is. Do you want to efficiently move a whole lot of commuters and get cars off the road at rush hour or are you just looking to fill the perceived hole in the urban fabric left behind with the end of street cars at spectacular cost?

Using light rail as a modern day street car is just dumb. Use a street car (if it will be tolerated) or use a bus.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well I guess it depends on what your goal is. Do you want to efficiently move a whole lot of commuters and get cars off the road at rush hour or are you just looking to fill the perceived hole in the urban fabric left behind with the end of street cars at spectacular cost?

Using light rail as a modern day street car is just dumb. Use a street car (if it will be tolerated) or use a bus.

I suppose the problem is the ambiguity that can be attached to what constitutes light rail and street car and where you draw the line to what the difference is. I mean this both on a general level and from your particular perspecitve. So even when you state the above, it's difficult to really understand, as a streetcar can easily be perceived as another form of light rail, which it often technically is as you've stated. Hence, when you say it is dumb, it's a little confusing as to what exactly is the dumb part. In one way, you are saying "using light rail as a modern day street car is dumb. Use light rail (if it will be tolerated) or use a bus"

So the distinction is unclear. Perhaps a modern street car or tram is one that doesn't use fixed axles? Or perhaps the intent is more so to state that using rail transit in a ROW category C is dumb, use a bus for that and keep rail transit to ROW B or ROW A?

Either way, the point is still not really true. If a street going light rail system - a streetcar - is being heavily utilized, it by and large necessarily means that it has gotten some people out of their cars. Sure a decent proportion could be users who might have otherwise walked or cycled. However, if the context (as I think you have so set forth) is bringing people from outer areas to to main employment hubs (presumably downtown,) then I'd have to agree - a streetcar is not going to be the mode of choice to most effectively do this and get people out of their vehicles. Not that this is broadly true either, but in Calgary's case, very likely to be so.

Thus, this is precisely why a streetcar is more adept at providing attractive service in more urbanized/central areas, and yeah, they have the ability to be a further urban development generator - and bringing it back to the original conversation about increasing services within the inner city, why such an option might also want to be included in a 30 year "technology neutral" plan.

Of interest might also be that the most street going light rail system when remaining in the North American context, is also the most utilized one, as already mentioned by Fusili - the TTC. This may indeed point to the value of network effects over discrete, disconnected corridors with high speeds. Zurich is perhaps a more convincing substantiator of this.

So without a specific example it is kind of hard to grasp which system or what is making a certain streetcar system unsuccessful, especially when broadly stated.

[Policy Wonk]

Light Rail ≠ Street Cars ≠ Subways ≠ Commuter Rail. If Portland starts interlining their Skoda streetcars on Trimax we can revisit the issue.

This is not ambiguous language.

If you have spent millions of dollars building a light rail system serving an urban corridor with ridership that could easily be accommodated by 40ft buses, you have a failure on your hands.

Pittsburgh spent half a billion dollars (1980's dollars), including federal funding to replace the street car system with LRV's and on grade separation. With their ~40 kilometres of track their daily ridership is less than 30,000.

People might feel nostalgic about street cars, but very often buses and buses alone were the correct answer going forward. Would the C-Train have had the same affect (or any at all) on Calgary if the first two routes were doodling around the general contours of the old Grand Trunk and South Calgary street car routes? Calgary got rid of the street cars and trolley buses because they were just too much of a frustration relative to diesel buses.

If some people just don't like buses, that is just too bad. Every situation needs to be evaluated on whether the net improvement in service provided to a community by introducing rail transit justifies the cost or if the said community can even rightfully support the service in the first place.

[craner]

Originally Posted by 93JC

I wonder if those suburbs would have grown like they did if they didn't have an LRT station in the area...

(or the 'promise' of LRT in the future)

Yes . . . I think they would have.

My biggest peeve with the plan is the lack of priority given to getting the LRT underground downtown. This should have been done yesterday.
And get it all underground downtown (i.e. don't build a tunnel and still keep the 7th Ave transit corridor).