Calgary Public Transit II

[joe498]

Underground CTrain tunnel gets top marks in new report on Green Line

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/967676/...s-top-marks-in-new-report-on-green-line/

Tunnelling under downtown is being hailed the top-option in plans to build and connect Calgary’s next CTrain lines, according to a new report.

This week, city councillors will preside over a report on different ways to bridge the north-central and southeast legs of a future cross-town LRT known as the Green Line.

The highest-ranked route in the report — albeit one of the priciest — sees underground rail service starting at 16 Avenue N. Moving south, it eventually meets 2 St. SW around Eau Claire and carries on through the core to the CP Rail train tracks.

William Hamilton, with advocacy group TransitCamp YYC, sided with calls for the downtown portion to be buried below grade to avoid big-time traffic complications.

“The moment you turn the Green Line to a north-south axis through the city centre, you have to run it underground,” Hamilton said, noting the low-floor-style train cars are too long to sync up with traffic lights.

He did admit: “Light-rail tunnels do not, however, come cheaply.”

As a general rule, Calgary Transit planner Jon Lea said constructing underground rail tunnels costs 10 times more than street-level lines. Lea noted there could be other hurdles in going underground including utility hazards, soil conditions and flood-related fears.

“Everything is a challenge,” Lea said. “ Especially building an LRT in existing communities in centre city and downtown.”

Some of the alternatives LRT alignments pitched in the report by Edmonton-based consultants, such as meandering routes further west through the Beltline, were shot down earlier in the process in favour of lines geared toward moving more people in and out of the core.

A city committee will review the update this week, and further consultations are planned in late April or May.

Until now, debate on the upper half of the Green Line has mostly raged over picking a north-south corridor from Beddington Trail to 16 Avenue N. However, planners have now narrowed the options to Edmonton Trail or Centre Street.

That was the “big decision” up for discussion this week for Ward 9 Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra, who applauded the move to put public transit closer to where people live, and away from previous plans around Nose Creek.

“We’re trying to create a new transit rider who uses transit on a daily basis,” Carra said.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by joe498

“We’re trying to create a new transit rider who uses transit on a daily basis,” Carra said.

You don't need to create them. They already exist, and suffer daily on overcrowded slow buses. You just need to service them better.

[Chadillaccc]

Our year over year increase in transit ridership is incredible.

Q4 2012
C-train - 285 000/ weekday
Bus - 263 000/ weekday
Total - 548 000
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2012-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf


Q4 2013
C-train - 298 000/ weekday (+13 000)
Bus - 275 000/ weekday (+12 000)
Total - 573 000 (+25 000)
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by joe498

Underground CTrain tunnel gets top marks in new report on Green Line

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/967676/...s-top-marks-in-new-report-on-green-line/

Great news on the underground option coming on top! Although given the flaws in the earlier report makes me question the credibility of this one.

“The moment you turn the Green Line to a north-south axis through the city centre, you have to run it underground,” Hamilton said, noting the low-floor-style train cars are too long to sync up with traffic lights.

Has this decision been made? I thought it hadn't, and train length is (obviously) independent of floor height.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Great news on the underground option coming on top! Although given the flaws in the earlier report makes me question the credibility of this one.



Has this decision been made? I thought it hadn't, and train length is (obviously) independent of floor height.

Any type of train at a reasonable capacity would be too long.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Our year over year increase in transit ridership is incredible.

Q4 2012
C-train - 285 000/ weekday
Bus - 263 000/ weekday
Total - 548 000
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2012-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf


Q4 2013
C-train - 298 000/ weekday (+13 000)
Bus - 275 000/ weekday (+12 000)
Total - 573 000 (+25 000)
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf

Look at the numbers for the fourth quarter of 2008. The last five years have been lousy. The 8 Ave Subway can't come fast enough.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Any type of train at a reasonable capacity would be too long.

Thinking about it, low floor vehicles would actually allow longer trains downtown if at grade as no ramps would be required at the stations, and would maybe allow 4 car trains, which is all the existing lines will ever get while they stay on 7th.

Great username by the way!

[RicoLance21]

Based on this article, I wonder how soon will Calgary get funding for the SELRT.

http://www.660news.com/2014/03/11/edmonton-transit-announcement-a-good-omen-for-calgary/

[andasen]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Great news on the underground option coming on top! Although given the flaws in the earlier report makes me question the credibility of this one.

The earlier report being the NC alignment study which came out at the same time? If that's the case the two studies were conducted by different consultants. Or are you referring to a different study?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by andasen

The earlier report being the NC alignment study which came out at the same time? If that's the case the two studies were conducted by different consultants. Or are you referring to a different study?

Oh they are different consultants? You were correct that was the one I was referring to, I assumed they were just two parts to the same report released a few days apart. I guess it's still early days with these still being fairly loose plans, but it is great to see the project gaining traction.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Oh they are different consultants? You were correct that was the one I was referring to, I assumed they were just two parts to the same report released a few days apart. I guess it's still early days with these still being fairly loose plans, but it is great to see the project gaining traction.

Stantec was the primary consultant on the downtown alignment study whle Steer Davis was the primary consultant on the NC alignment study.

They will both be coming to under the same item to T&T later this week so they are kinda the same report. They communicated throughout the process (for example Steer Davis shortlist of alignments affected the potential options Stantec considered). But ya having read both Stantec's methodology is less open to criticism. They consulted with the community to identify preferred routing then evaluated the options given the physical constrains (ie geology) and technical constraints (train length).

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

Based on this article, I wonder how soon will Calgary get funding for the SELRT.

http://www.660news.com/2014/03/11/edmonton-transit-announcement-a-good-omen-for-calgary/

Well $450 million in additional funding will be ready when the city is ready to move.

Over above whatever comes of MSI (which now includes a rolled in provincial gas tax amount) after the contractual obligations by the province are done, minus the Airport tunnel plus interest, the New Building Canada Fund and federal Gas Tax Fund (around a billion over 2014-2024).

So with a bit of padding from this year's provincial school tax cut, the existing RouteAhead fund, the provincial top up thingy from today, and the Building Canada Fund you might be able to do the full SE LRT. Without much innovation in financing. If there is debt room left, could use the tax supported funding to support debt entirely over 30 years.

Rough accounting:
$1,400.00 30 years of tax supported debt at 3.64 % ($77.08 million a year with lifetime $912.40 million in interest)
$450 GreenTRIP and loan (borrowing from future MSI)
$1000 Federal Grants

I think that may be just enough to do it. Feds will have a love hate with it though, with so much funding going to only one project. Proportionally it would eat more federal grant room than the Canada Line did in the lower mainland. The Jason Kenney Line anyone?

That would leave future unallocated MSI to spend on other things. If

The SE LRT will still need its a new conceptual design then detailed design. Then costing and P3 screen. Summer 2017 ground breaking anyone?

[andasen]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well $450 million in additional funding will be ready when the city is ready to move.

Over above whatever comes of MSI (which now includes a rolled in provincial gas tax amount) after the contractual obligations by the province are done, minus the Airport tunnel plus interest, the New Building Canada Fund and federal Gas Tax Fund (around a billion over 2014-2024).

So with a bit of padding from this year's provincial school tax cut, the existing RouteAhead fund, the provincial top up thingy from today, and the Building Canada Fund you might be able to do the full SE LRT. Without much innovation in financing. If there is debt room left, could use the tax supported funding to support debt entirely over 30 years.

Rough accounting:
$1,400.00 30 years of tax supported debt at 3.64 % ($77.08 million a year with lifetime $912.40 million in interest)
$450 GreenTRIP and loan (borrowing from future MSI)
$1000 Federal Grants

I think that may be just enough to do it. Feds will have a love hate with it though, with so much funding going to only one project. Proportionally it would eat more federal grant room than the Canada Line did in the lower mainland. The Jason Kenney Line anyone?

That would leave future unallocated MSI to spend on other things. If

The SE LRT will still need its a new conceptual design then detailed design. Then costing and P3 screen. Summer 2017 ground breaking anyone?

If we were to jump straight into P3 we could probably skip a few steps. Save a few dimes and see if we can develop synergies with Edmonton's P3 for their valley line.

[MalcolmTucker]

Though I am a big proponent of folding even preliminary design into a P3, it does add complexities and lengthens the process. There is always a small chance a bidder would come back with an automated exclusive ROW skytrain, which could save money (lighter shorter in both height and length trains mean smaller stations, narrower tunnels, no drivers and bridges designed to hold less weight). Have to prepare the P3 very perfectly though or you can end up with very little capacity for future expansions.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I blame the city for allowing them to move there and approving QP in its current form without real transit. I went there today and the amount of vehicles is staggering. The entire SE part of the city will suffer for this and I don't think that's fair. Then again, the city's idea was probably that because QP was also offering residential that people would just live and work there. Of course reality is a bitch.

The City should be thankful for QP. Remington spent huge to remediate contaminated land and raise it above floodplain. Commercial is the only land use that could support the upfront costs. In terms of load on the transportation system, the development would likely have gone to an even more remote location than QP.

Given Calgary's high commercial property tax rates, QP is likely a huge cash cow for the City.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

Given Calgary's high commercial property tax rates, QP is likely a huge cash cow for the City.

Not anywhere close to what it would have been if it was downtown.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Doug

The City should be thankful for QP. Remington spent huge to remediate contaminated land and raise it above floodplain. Commercial is the only land use that could support the upfront costs. In terms of load on the transportation system, the development would likely have gone to an even more remote location than QP.

Given Calgary's high commercial property tax rates, QP is likely a huge cash cow for the City.

Oh is it ever...

Market value in QP is absolutely jaw-dropping

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

Based on this article, I wonder how soon will Calgary get funding for the SELRT.

http://www.660news.com/2014/03/11/edmonton-transit-announcement-a-good-omen-for-calgary/

Malcomtucker really alluded to this already, but I doubt a single cent wil come to Calgary until we actually have an approved project that is shovel ready. The Feds and/or province aren't going to commit any kind of funding to a line that the City cannot even commit to on it's own. Once Calgary get's off its ass and approves the line then I am sure funding will follow in some sort of fashion.

[mersar]

Sounds like the T&T Committee has officially axed the Nose Creek and 4th Street alignments for the Green Line. Final decision on which of Centre Street or Edmonton Trail to go to council near end of the year.

[milomilo]

This article seems to confirm that this will be a low-floor system:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/2-...tes-nixed-by-council-committee-1.2569957