Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Corndogger]

"City has spent $101M on Green Line LRT so far, land acquisition going 'pretty smoothly'"

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-has-spent-101m-on-green-line-lrt-so-far

[canucklehead2]

I'd love to see the province and CP partner to double-track and electrify the existing rail corridor between Edmonton and Calgary. According to the mid 2000's HSR study the corridor could support up to 240 km/h service on it, with only one or two curves that might require extensive rebuilding near Blackfalds. Otherwise, most of the line is a straight-ish North-south corridor. So yeah, it could offer regional rail service with possible extensions perhaps south to Lethbridge at some point or more realistically west to Banff/Lake Louise...

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

I'd love to see the province and CP partner to double-track and electrify the existing rail corridor between Edmonton and Calgary. According to the mid 2000's HSR study the corridor could support up to 240 km/h service on it, with only one or two curves that might require extensive rebuilding near Blackfalds. Otherwise, most of the line is a straight-ish North-south corridor. So yeah, it could offer regional rail service with possible extensions perhaps south to Lethbridge at some point or more realistically west to Banff/Lake Louise...

I would guess non-high speed rail would be more likely to succeed. Once speed is high enough, full grade separation is required, immensely increasing the cost. The faster service is better of course - faster, less risk of accidents - however, 160-200km/h core-to-core would still beat a regular car by 30 - 60 minutes, with much less grade-separation. That time gap is likely only to widen with increasing congestion entering/exiting either city on the end. Better downtown infrastructure and destinations, local transit expansions on either end, and car rental/sharing are all getting close enough to minimize the challenges of connecting locally.

However, in the medium term, I think the best bang for the buck is still that Calgary / Banff / Lake Louise train. It seems to have a perfect confluence of factors that make rail an ideal and popular solution:

• Park entrance fees makes driving more expensive, a rarity in highways-are-free Alberta
• 3 or 4 destinations, spread 20-30km apart, along an existing straight rail corridor that each have acute congestion and parking issues (Canmore, Banff, Sunshine, Lake Louise)
• High proportion of tourists used to train travel / willing to pay for it
• Limited ability to further expand highway capacity within the Park
• Large amounts of tourist infrastructure already setup for it (hotels, tour busses all solving the last-mile problem etc.)

Importantly, it offers big benefits for Calgary too. This solves that "many tourists go directly from the airport, skipping Calgary" story and can be a big draw of tourist activity into the city. With all the recent downtown hotel expansion - presumably where any rail station would be located - it all fits together for a 160km/h rail.

Of course the big asterisks** is that CPR will not play ball, so additional trackage will need to be constructed expensively. However, assuming population and tourist numbers continue to grow there are few cheap options to improve capacity and accessibility (anyone without a car/unwilling to drive), while minimizing the environmental footprint in a sensitive natural area.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I would guess non-high speed rail would be more likely to succeed. Once speed is high enough, full grade separation is required, immensely increasing the cost. The faster service is better of course - faster, less risk of accidents - however, 160-200km/h core-to-core would still beat a regular car by 30 - 60 minutes, with much less grade-separation. That time gap is likely only to widen with increasing congestion entering/exiting either city on the end. Better downtown infrastructure and destinations, local transit expansions on either end, and car rental/sharing are all getting close enough to minimize the challenges of connecting locally.

However, in the medium term, I think the best bang for the buck is still that Calgary / Banff / Lake Louise train. It seems to have a perfect confluence of factors that make rail an ideal and popular solution:

• Park entrance fees makes driving more expensive, a rarity in highways-are-free Alberta
• 3 or 4 destinations, spread 20-30km apart, along an existing straight rail corridor that each have acute congestion and parking issues (Canmore, Banff, Sunshine, Lake Louise)
• High proportion of tourists used to train travel / willing to pay for it
• Limited ability to further expand highway capacity within the Park
• Large amounts of tourist infrastructure already setup for it (hotels, tour busses all solving the last-mile problem etc.)

Importantly, it offers big benefits for Calgary too. This solves that "many tourists go directly from the airport, skipping Calgary" story and can be a big draw of tourist activity into the city. With all the recent downtown hotel expansion - presumably where any rail station would be located - it all fits together for a 160km/h rail.

Of course the big asterisks** is that CPR will not play ball, so additional trackage will need to be constructed expensively. However, assuming population and tourist numbers continue to grow there are few cheap options to improve capacity and accessibility (anyone without a car/unwilling to drive), while minimizing the environmental footprint in a sensitive natural area.

Nah. The 1980s study concluded to have any service that is faster than a bus, you basically need to grade separate the corridor, and that once you do that, rebuilding corners for high speed (well, European mainline speeds, 200 kph) means you can achieve a return on your investment. However, doing that isn't much smaller of an investment than building an entirely new corridor where you can get faster speeds, run lighter train sets, and run more frequently at peak, and that extra speed increases the ROI a whole bunch.

As for rail to the park, I think if we decide as a society to bring in more tourists without displacing locals, we will need to do this, concentrating mass visitation to a few sites. Tourism from outside the province, or redirecting Alberta tourist outbound trips to in Alberta trips is like exporting a product. It is great for GDP growth.

I think there is a high speed rail and or regional transit sitting around here somewhere though.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by MasterG

This solves that "many tourists go directly from the airport, skipping Calgary" story and can be a big draw of tourist activity into the city.

Yes...they'll go from the airport to the train station by bus, and then straight on the train out to Banff. They'll be in the City, but would they would essentially still be skipping Calgary.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Yes...they'll go from the airport to the train station by bus, and then straight on the train out to Banff. They'll be in the City, but would they would essentially still be skipping Calgary.

something confuses me.

Tourists will benefit by taking a Calgary subsidized transit bus to a provincially subsidized train (running a commuter schedule) to their hotel in Banff. Instead of taking the current commercial bus/shuttle directly from the airport to their hotel.

I am not seeing the benefit for Calgary

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

something confuses me.

Tourists will benefit by taking a Calgary subsidized transit bus to a provincially subsidized train (running a commuter schedule) to their hotel in Banff. Instead of taking the current commercial bus/shuttle directly from the airport to their hotel.

I am not seeing the benefit for Calgary

We should grow the economy by making tourism as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible! We will get a higher percent of a smaller pot! No matter that that number will be smaller than a small percentage of a larger pot, we will feel tremendously better about the city's ability to intercept tourists!

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

something confuses me.

Tourists will benefit by taking a Calgary subsidized transit bus [on provincial subsidized highways, subject to congestion and traffic delay] to a provincially subsidized train (running a commuter schedule) to their hotel in Banff. Instead of taking the current commercial bus/shuttle directly from the airport to their hotel.

I am not seeing the benefit for Calgary

I updated your comment for the other subsidy you missed. We subsidise stuff all the time but that alone isn't a reason not to do something.

Calgarians benefit for being able to access the mountains reliably, without the need for a car. More visitors to the Park are from Calgary than elsewhere. In a city of 1.3 million, some people don't have cars or can no longer drive. This group is expected to continue to grow - particularly the older, can no longer drive category.

We could ask these people to take the bus, but then we are asking them to take a slower service that is generally lower quality. A bus is better for congestion than if everyone took their private cars, but it still takes up highway space, pollutes more per person, and is subject to any of the same delays on the highway that any other car would.

Train service improves the resiliency of the transportation network to the mountains by offering alternatives to the highway. The past decade has seen increasing congestion, collision-related closures and delays, that affect all travellers to the mountains parks and beyond. Alternatives are good to have if you can drive enough ridership, capture enough market to afford them.

I take it having subsidized trains is inherently more unpopular than subsidized roads, but given how crowded the tourist hotspots are - Canmore, Banff, Sunshine, Lake Louise - what other solutions are available to provide more transportation capacity? Highway expansion and larger surface parking lots in the national park? My guess is that if are aiming for any sort of sustainability goals while maintaining access, 1960s-style car capacity increases aren't the best way to go.

Mind you I might just be cranky because I am getting tired of getting stopped on the highway or diverted on 1A due to a roll-over around Morley every summer weekend the past few summers

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Nah. The 1980s study concluded to have any service that is faster than a bus, you basically need to grade separate the corridor, and that once you do that, rebuilding corners for high speed (well, European mainline speeds, 200 kph) means you can achieve a return on your investment. However, doing that isn't much smaller of an investment than building an entirely new corridor where you can get faster speeds, run lighter train sets, and run more frequently at peak, and that extra speed increases the ROI a whole bunch.

Yeah, good point. I recall discussion a while back about the existing right-of-way being terrible enough that a whole new right-of-way isn't that much more expensive.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

So, as a recap of how we got to this point (not casting judgement here, just laying everything out)...

- the selection of the elbow river crossing as an entry point to downtown meant that the line has to be somewhere in the area between fort calgary and the stampede grounds

- the separate approval of the downtown portion of the line has roughly half the budget for the project going to the tunnel

- the mayor's (and others') insistence that the line be built all at once necessarily means that there isn't going to be enough money to do everything right

- some folks wanted the line moved south from 10th to 12th so that it would be closer to the population centre of the community and to stampede

- the city's continuous refusal to move the transit facility and/or accept private offers to buy the land means the line has to go around the structure
- meanwhile, we have some councillors who want the line built as cheaply as possible and some who want to convince everyone that the lrt is actually a trolley, while local residents and businesses push back either about the lrt surfacing too early or amputating part of their community

This is the part that baffles me most. How the City overlooked the fact the barns were right in the way of the LRT is beyond comprehension. I thought the City has been musing about moving them for several years now, this seems like the perfect time to do it. The location always has seemed odd to me anyhow.

[milomilo]

I feel that building passenger rail now is like retirement investing - the benefits right now are going to be small compared to the cost, but in a few decades we'll be really glad we started and annoyed at ourselves for not starting sooner. You have to choose the right investment though.

We've got to just start with something, and I think a train to Banff is the best bet. It will take years to be truly successful as it will need to benefit from behavioral changes and the network effects of infrastructure that will be incorporated into it over time. But the more you build, the better it will get. A half assed commuter train to Airdrie with 3 trains each way a day isn't going to be good enough to justify growing further. Perhaps a full on HSR with multiple stops and airport branches might also be worth it, but it's a much bigger investment.

[lineman]

I'm not a fan of extending LRT to other cities surrounding Calgary. However, I do like the idea of a commuter rail system from places like Aidrie to downtown Calgary with perhaps a stop or two in-between.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

I would guess non-high speed rail would be more likely to succeed. Once speed is high enough, full grade separation is required, immensely increasing the cost. The faster service is better of course - faster, less risk of accidents - however, 160-200km/h core-to-core would still beat a regular car by 30 - 60 minutes, with much less grade-separation. That time gap is likely only to widen with increasing congestion entering/exiting either city on the end. Better downtown infrastructure and destinations, local transit expansions on either end, and car rental/sharing are all getting close enough to minimize the challenges of connecting locally.

However, in the medium term, I think the best bang for the buck is still that Calgary / Banff / Lake Louise train. It seems to have a perfect confluence of factors that make rail an ideal and popular solution:

• Park entrance fees makes driving more expensive, a rarity in highways-are-free Alberta
• 3 or 4 destinations, spread 20-30km apart, along an existing straight rail corridor that each have acute congestion and parking issues (Canmore, Banff, Sunshine, Lake Louise)
• High proportion of tourists used to train travel / willing to pay for it
• Limited ability to further expand highway capacity within the Park
• Large amounts of tourist infrastructure already setup for it (hotels, tour busses all solving the last-mile problem etc.)

Importantly, it offers big benefits for Calgary too. This solves that "many tourists go directly from the airport, skipping Calgary" story and can be a big draw of tourist activity into the city. With all the recent downtown hotel expansion - presumably where any rail station would be located - it all fits together for a 160km/h rail.

Of course the big asterisks** is that CPR will not play ball, so additional trackage will need to be constructed expensively. However, assuming population and tourist numbers continue to grow there are few cheap options to improve capacity and accessibility (anyone without a car/unwilling to drive), while minimizing the environmental footprint in a sensitive natural area.

I'm totally on board with your idea. I can't really see any level of government willing to foot the bill for this project. The only way this could get traction is if Calgary gets the 2026 olympics.

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Of course the big asterisks** is that CPR will not play ball, so additional trackage will need to be constructed expensively. However, assuming population and tourist numbers continue to grow there are few cheap options to improve capacity and accessibility (anyone without a car/unwilling to drive), while minimizing the environmental footprint in a sensitive natural area.

Back in 2009 There was the Calgary Region Transportation Plan which said a 3 line commuter rail system (Okotoks, Cochrane, Airdrie) with upgraded tracks on the existing CP lines, stations, downtown station and land acquisition would be around 1.105 to 1.240 billion. I'm interested to know the costs now because at the same time still don't think the LRT should extend to Airdrie or Okotoks and instead focus on inner ring road communities. Not to shun suburbs but because I don't think the LRT could handle the load.

Edit - Link to the transportation plan

http://calgaryregion.ca/dam/Website/repo...nal-transit-plan---November-20--2009.pdf

[Boris2k7]

Willem put up a great blog post about the Green Line a couple days ago. Go check it out.

http://www.spuryyc.org/the-green-line-through-the-lens-of-density/

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Willem put up a great blog post about the Green Line a couple days ago. Go check it out.

http://www.spuryyc.org/the-green-line-through-the-lens-of-density/

Thanks for posting. I think the metrics to gage the staging of the greenline are far more complex than looking at density alone.

"Why all this press about the southeast? Why is there less political and press coverage of the north leg of the LRT, when it has more density? Perhaps this has to do with the local area councillors, or maybe it’s already understood that the north leg of the Green Line will come first when phasing is decided on."

Because you have a catchment area of over 100,000 people that are severely undeserved by transit. Long trip times to downtown and low volume on buses. We are not talking about a population the size of Cochrane or Langdon here.

"Why all this press about the southeast? Why is there less political and press coverage of the north leg of the LRT, when it has more density? Perhaps this has to do with the local area councillors, or maybe it’s already understood that the north leg of the Green Line will come first when phasing is decided on."

There is no doubt that the north leg has a higher catchment population, a direct route, and the BRT buses are close to breakdown. However, there is still somewhat infrastructure in place. Once again, density should not be the only metric we are evaluating.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

There is no doubt that the north leg has a higher catchment population, a direct route, and the BRT buses are close to breakdown. However, there is still somewhat infrastructure in place. Once again, density should not be the only metric we are evaluating.

It is one factor, but an important factor. Density increases value per kilometer, which is why we don't have a line to Pincher Creek.

Main considerations in my view include:
1. Number of people accustom to using transit / build up of transit users ensuring success on day one.
2. Density and TOD possibilities.
3. Limitations to existing infrastructure. As we know, CT has said Centre cannot handle more buses, Centre already has lane reversal and HOV lanes, and there isn't much more possible there. Maybe the other whiners should first get some of those things, and also maybe start using buses.
4. Shorter leg for more bang.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by suburbia

It is one factor, but an important factor. Density increases value per kilometer, which is why we don't have a line to Pincher Creek.

Main considerations in my view include:
1. Number of people accustom to using transit / build up of transit users ensuring success on day one.
2. Density and TOD possibilities.
3. Limitations to existing infrastructure. As we know, CT has said Centre cannot handle more buses, Centre already has lane reversal and HOV lanes, and there isn't much more possible there. Maybe the other whiners should first get some of those things, and also maybe start using buses.
4. Shorter leg for more bang.

At this point I don't really care which leg goes first. I can debate you until the cows come home and you can continue to provide false equivalences and non-sequitur's...neither of us will budge.


I am more concerned with how the alignment has unfolded, as I have become less excited about this project.

1. 10th ave was the better choice IMHO.

• Direct.

• Less conflict with cars, bikes and pedestrians...traffic in general.

• Tie's into future HSR station.

• Residents of Beltline can walk two blocks north.

2. The intersection at 64th ave needs to be grade separated
3. 9th ave station should remain(not a popular opinion on this thread)
4. The tunnel portal on the north side should start just north of 20th ave. Leaving the intersection of 20th and centre grade separated.

If these issues are addressed, then I'd be okay with the north line going first.

[sim]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

At this point I don't really care which leg goes first. I can debate you until the cows come home and you can continue to provide false equivalences and non-sequitur's...neither of us will budge.


I am more concerned with how the alignment has unfolded, as I have become less excited about this project.

1. 10th ave was the better choice IMHO.

• Direct.

• Less conflict with cars, bikes and pedestrians...traffic in general.

• Tie's into future HSR station.

• Residents of Beltline can walk two blocks north.

2. The intersection at 64th ave needs to be grade separated
3. 9th ave station should remain(not a popular opinion on this thread)
4. The tunnel portal on the north side should start just north of 20th ave. Leaving the intersection of 20th and centre grade separated.

If these issues are addressed, then I'd be okay with the north line going first.

Although the discussion on this is just beating a dead horse, this notion that 10 Ave is more direct at a magnitude that makes it a substantial issue continues to perpetuate. It irrefutably is more direct, but this marginal amount of additional directness comes at the cost of the latter point.

It's strange to me how directness, which is merely a proxy for [decreased] travel time, is an issue at the same time when access distance, another proxy for travel time, is not. In that sense, a 10th ave alignment is very much not direct for many residents south of the general area (or those transit users along the line wishing to access the area or 17 Ave.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, looking purely at this idea of directness (in terms of travel time), would put the alignment right back up Nose Creek and not Centre St.

[Jaspertf]

The budget for the Green Line is getting out of hand, why not convert it to a street car like Toronto, or a tram like the Sheffield Supertram? Route would be a lot cheaper and easily fit along the roads:

Harvest Hills Blvd N
Centre St N
9 Ave SE
12 St SE - 11 St SE
26 Ave SE
Ogden Rd SE
24 St SE
114 Ave SE
40 St SE
52 St SE


As part of my estimating exercise for Alberta Regional Rail, I found that a tunnel would cost at least $15million per km and twinned surface lines $5million per km.

When the LRTs of Calgary and Edmonton were first developed, Edmonton went underground whilst Calgary stayed on the surface. Now Edmonton is keeping their new line on the surface, and Calgary is going underground. Thing is with the large amount of rain last summer and the frequent closure of the Red Line due to the flooding of tunnels, and the fact that downtown Calgary is in a floodplain, is tunnelling really going to be the smart option?
Also the proposed rail vehicles are low-floor streetcar/tram design.