Calgary Area Regional Transit

[fusili]

Josh and Boris: I totally agree with everything you say. I think the most important thing that we all agree upon is that the rail system has to be tied to land use. In fact, any transportation planning has to work closely with land use. Hopefully the province's Land Use Framework (LUF), Plan-It and the CRP will work together in a comprehensive and effective way to ensure this. I was able to attend a small conference (just students) put on by the LUF, and I think the people in charge of it have their heads in the right place. IF regional rail is done right, I will support it. I just don't want it to go badly.

[para transit fellow]

I see two challenges with commuter rail in Calgary

Tons of money to buy stuff but is there actually any money to operate the service? Klein did away with the Public Transit Operating Assistance Grant (PTOAG) in 1994. The West Coast Commuter, GO transit and AMT need infusions of local money to keep going. Indeed the biggest benefactor of this rail idea might be CPR (Go transit's biggest expense is to the rail roads).

The other challenge to heavy rail is the local transit infrastructure. Just as High Speed Rail needs a regional transit infrastructure to feed it. Regional rail will need local transit routes to feed the train station. Right now, Cochrane has no local transit service. Airdrie's transit service is on a 40 minute headway and is considered financially unsustainable by some of Airdrie's Council.

I'm pondering a more humble beginning to a Calgary Regional transit system. High capacity buses (double decker or articulated buses) with internet running a BRT route. HOV lanes from outlying areas to make it worth your BRT trip a little faster than the folks who took their cars to work. This and other stuff is very feasible in the very near future.

(disclaimer: your mileage may vary)

[Wooster]

^ I think an express bus or BRT model, similar to what the City does on routes that will be future LRTs is the way to go. I'm not sure the population in these areas really justifies a full blown train network at this point. Get people used to the type of service first, prove the numbers to some degree and then go for it down the line. GO train serves catchment areas that are larger than Calgary. The lakeshore line for instance serves Hamilton (to some degree), Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, and Etobikoke area before making it to union. That is an enormous population.

[Wooster]

Commuter trains touted for region
Eva Ferguson, Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, July 11, 2008

Facing gas price hikes and rapid growth just like the big city, Calgary's bedroom communities are floating a $500-million plan to double existing heavy rail lines that would create a commuter rail system connecting them to existing LRT.

On the heels of this week's $2-billion provincial funding announcement for public transit, officials in Airdrie, Cochrane and Okotoks are expected to meet in the next month to look at speeding up development of commuter rail, hoping to have it done within five years.

The goal would be to either build rails alongside existing CP Rail lines south and west of the city, or use abandoned CN tracks in the north. Publicly run commuter buses are also planned to start in some districts in two years to deal with burgeoning growth.

"We have to do this, and look at all options possible," said Airdrie Ald. Richard Seimens on Thursday, arguing politicians have to do the right thing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help commuters avoid rising gas prices at the pump.

"There's no question something like this would be extremely well used."

Building a new rail line east of the city's existing McKnight LRT station into Airdrie, combined with the city's long-term plan to extend to Calgary airport, has been discussed, Siemens says.

But a cheaper alternative, he added, could be to run a commuter line along the existing abandoned CN Rail line just west of Deerfoot Trail, which becomes Highway 2 to Airdrie.

"That may even be more feasible as the Balzac mall becomes more of a reality," he said.

Construction is underway on a mammoth entertainment complex in Balzac, just south of Airdrie and beside Highway 2, anchored by a horseracing track and what would be the Calgary area's largest shopping mall.

Beth Kish is a councillor for the town of Okotoks and also sits on the Calgary Regional Partnership, a coalition of 18 towns and cities and one native band working to come up with a land-use plan for the area surrounding Calgary.

She says creating a commuter link through heavy rail is a "no-brainer" south of the city and can't happen soon enough.

"We can't wait -- we shouldn't wait for the population to keep growing," said Kish, explaining that nearly 80,000 Calgarians are regular users of the business districts in Okotoks, High River and the surrounding area.

Kish explained CP Rail lines already run alongside the south leg of the LRT, and could either be doubled or shared.

"In Okotoks, we get eight to 12 trains on the CP tracks daily, so there's a lot of room for a larger capacity."

Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride said recent meetings of the Calgary Regional Partnership had CP Rail officials estimate that doubling heavy rail lines to Airdrie, Okotoks/High River and Cochrane would cost about $500 million.

And with a $2-billion promise from the province, the price tag could be feasible, he added.

"This is completely possible. It will become a reality for us."

McBride added 60 per cent of Cochrane commutes to Calgary right now, about 8,500 people.

CP Rail spokesman Mike Lovecchio said he couldn't confirm a price tag for doubling lines, but said the company would be happy to continue to guide Calgary's outlying towns and cities in building a commuter system.

Business-wise, he added, doubling heavy rail infrastructure benefits CP because the region would have to lease its lines.

"It's certainly an opportunity we'd like to explore, but the decisions aren't made. At this stage, it's just speculative, but we'll continue the dialogue."

eferguson@theherald.canwest.com


© The Calgary Herald 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...0-93841dcd7880

[Dado]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Here is a question for any project management or engineering type folk:

It will cost alot of money to twin rail to all these suburbs, mostly due to bridge replacement and the need to relocate some cliffs.

If there aren't too many crossings or cliffs to relocate and they're not too long and are sufficiently far apart, you can get away with just twinning everything else and leaving them as single track initially. You can just schedule around the "bottlenecks". As time goes on some of them may prove to be more problematic than others, and these can be prioritized for construction. Since twinning track otherwise isn't all that expensive, the savings from cutting out just a few bridges could be significant.

[Dado]

Perhaps instead of locomotive-pulled heavy rail commuter trains (like the GO Trains), the CRP should be considering diesel light rail vehicles on existing track, like we have in Ottawa with the O-Train (San Diego has recently done the same). Also called "diesel multiple units" (DMUs), in Europe they're marketed as suburban or regional trains. I believe that a demonstration train had been run in Calgary several years back. Examples are the Bombardier Talent (the O-Train) and the Siemens Desiro (San Diego). They have a top speed of around 120 km/h but one of their main advantages - besides cost of course - is that they have much better acceleration than your average locomotive. Because the lines around Calgary are heavily used by freight, it's likely that any commuter service will end up having to pass freight trains, so an ability to accelerate quickly would probably be more useful than a higher top speed (140 km/h) that conventional inter-city VIA trains are capable of.

The main downside at the moment is regulatory, but former federal transport minister David Collenette has had recent contact with federal transport officials with respect to altering the rules to allow a similar regional system in the Ottawa area and there now appears to be a greater willingness to consider such changes on the part of federal officials - in no small part due to the success of the O-Train, which crosses both a VIA mainline and the main access track to a freight railyard at grade diamonds. In Ottawa, the O-Train is legally run by a federally-regulated railway, Capital Railway, which is owned entirely by the transit authority.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/lakerred/382229936/
Ottawa Central freight train waiting for the O-Train to cross the diamond at the access to the Ottawa Central railyard.

[Beltliner]

To bring in a couple of other technology options from another thread:

Originally Posted by Beltliner

DMUs are probably the way to go for services to Airdrie, Cochrane, and Okotoks. The line to Cochrane, as a case in point, would probably do with intermediate stops in Bowness, Bearspaw Road, and Lochend Road to capture the acreage ridership especially, but even at a mean speed of 45 miles an hour the jaunt from Cochrane to Palliser Station would be feasible at 35 minutes. In terms of rolling stock for a regional commuter rail system, there are two possibilities:

• Wabtec Motive Power MPXpress locomotive and four Bombardier Bi-Level passenger cars. Seating for 600; scalable to higher demand by adding more cars; fairly common commuter rail technology in North America for old hands (GO Transit) and new entrants (FrontRunner) alike.
• Colorado Railcar double decker DMU in top-and-tail configuration with a middle car. Seating for 600; shorter than locomotive-plus configuration, and apparently cheaper to operate; not scalable to higher demand; higher up-front capital cost for rarer commuter rail technology.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Beltliner

A restored Palliser Station would be just about ideal for downtown transit integration, and the Line 203 connection to the Railtown TGV station would take some of the sting out not being able to walk right to everything.

The redevelopment of Palliser Square will throw a wrench in that idea,

It isn't like CPR Calgary is Saint Pancras Station, there is no great underlying infrastructure or grand history there to be preserved. Even if the facilities of the 1970's were entirely intact they couldn't support the passenger volume.

The tracks are also much too close together to build reasonable platforms for holding any number of passengers waiting for multiple trains, all the while pulling up the centre tracks would make it difficult for freight trains to pass through the area without disruption.

I would build a new station to the west of 5th street over top of the existing parking lots. The outer tracks would support passengers platforms with new track supporting an additional platform north and south of the existing four.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Second, the benefactors of regional rail are more likely to be upper-middle class office workers (not saying all of them, just a majority). Again this misses the purpose of public transportation. Lower income groups, students, those with mobility difficulties, the elderly etc, are those most negatively impacted by an urban form in which mobility is largely dependent on the ownership of an automobile.

That isn't a fair statement because the commuter rail would give those people access to higher quality affordable housing in the surrounding area while still connecting them to their places of work, school or support network in the city. These people can't afford to live in a "dense inner-city community" of any quality to begin with.

In most American cities with high utilization of commuter rail the passengers are using it because they can't afford housing in a reasonable section of the city. People aren't taking the train to Manhatten from Montauk or Mastic Long Island just for the sake of sprawling.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The redevelopment of Palliser Square will throw a wrench in that idea,

It isn't like CPR Calgary is Saint Pancras Station, there is no great underlying infrastructure or grand history there to be preserved. Even if the facilities of the 1970's were entirely intact they couldn't support the passenger volume.

The tracks are also much too close together to build reasonable platforms for holding any number of passengers waiting for multiple trains, all the while pulling up the centre tracks would make it difficult for freight trains to pass through the area without disruption.

I would build a new station to the west of 5th street over top of the existing parking lots. The outer tracks would support passengers platforms with new track supporting an additional platform north and south of the existing four.

That's also a great location, I just liked the Calgary tower location because of the symbolism, also I hate the current scheme and redevelopment plan.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That isn't a fair statement because the commuter rail would give those people access to higher quality affordable housing in the surrounding area while still connecting them to their places of work, school or support network in the city. These people can't afford to live in a "dense inner-city community" of any quality to begin with.

In most American cities with high utilization of commuter rail the passengers are using it because they can't afford housing in a reasonable section of the city. People aren't taking the train to Manhatten from Montauk or Mastic Long Island just for the sake of sprawling.

Yeah, Some of the arguments against regional rail strike me as a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

[Boris2k7]

Access to higher quality affordable housing? Bullshit. This isn't Manhattan, and it's absurd to even use that in a comparison. What this statement really means is "access to spacious single-family housing complete with garage and lawn for the same low price of $xxx,xxx."

"These people" can afford to live in a denser environment and often do. The poor sure aren't moving out to Silverado.

The income issue is somewhat beside the point though, although it's been proven in just about every other commuter rail system that's been set up in North America. The bigger problem is funding a system that further promotes sprawl... a self-propogating entity that's destined to collapse under its own weight.

Though if we were as populous and dense as Manhattan, we might actually require commuter rail to relatively cheaper locations. Even then, Montreal's cheap housing gives me a tinge of doubt.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

What this statement really means is "access to spacious single-family housing complete with garage and lawn for the same low price of $xxx,xxx."

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that,

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that,

In your mind at least.

[Policy Wonk]

yeah, there is just no greater evil in the world than somebody living in the type of housing they choose in an area they can afford.

Would you rather they drive from these homes of their choosing to their place of business?

[Boris2k7]

As I pointed out, people can afford to live elsewhere. It simply entails sacrificing some luxuries. I'm also simply unwilling to go into a lengthy debate regarding the free-market bullshit about choice... yeah, yeah, my bleeding heart for your two-car garage. I'll call you whenever I need cash for road repairs.

And yes, I would rather they simply sit in traffic. That money could be directed to transit projects that are actually beneficial to Calgary itself. If people outside of the city are frustrated with traffic, they can move to Calgary. The absolutely worst thing you could do would be to turn outlying towns into low-tax havens with rapid transit to Downtown Calgary.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

As I pointed out, people can afford to live elsewhere. It simply entails sacrificing some luxuries.

Those aren't sacrafices those who aren't already interested in urban living would be prepared to make. This type of development will happen with or without regional transit as Calgary grows. The question is will this population base develop into edge city type situations with large suburban centres of employment and amenties or will the base of employment remain the Calgary core. If you prefer the latter alternative strong regional transportation has to be at the centre of it.

I personally don't have a problem with edge cities or suburbanizing the workforce, total gridlock density isn't a virtue. But I suspect others feel differently.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Those aren't sacrafices those who aren't already interested in urban living would be prepared to make.

Well boo-fucking-hoo. They can either do it voluntarily or be coerced to it through increasing costs.

This type of development will happen with or without regional transit as Calgary grows. The question is will this population base develop into edge city type situations with large suburban centres of employment and amenties or will the base of employment remain the Calgary core. If you prefer the latter alternative strong regional transportation has to be at the centre of it.

That's tenuous at best. Push out the regional lines and the rate of people living the city will accelerate, and the exurban locations will become attractive for employment centres.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I personally don't have a problem with edge cities or suburbanizing the workforce, total gridlock density isn't a virtue. But I suspect others feel differently.

You may not have a problem with it, but it still ends up being a stupid policy. Funny you mention gridlock, because that is exactly what happens when you push people and jobs to the suburbs... it just generates more automobile trips.

[WeavedWeb]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

As I pointed out, people can afford to live elsewhere. It simply entails sacrificing some luxuries. I'm also simply unwilling to go into a lengthy debate regarding the free-market bullshit about choice... yeah, yeah, my bleeding heart for your two-car garage. I'll call you whenever I need cash for road repairs.

And yes, I would rather they simply sit in traffic. That money could be directed to transit projects that are actually beneficial to Calgary itself. If people outside of the city are frustrated with traffic, they can move to Calgary. The absolutely worst thing you could do would be to turn outlying towns into low-tax havens with rapid transit to Downtown Calgary.

Boris, these close-minded statements get me too frustrated to prepare a worthy response. If you are that against cars and suburbs, move to Sweden.

About Regional Rail, though, I like the idea of four or five lines to outlying communities. I think Airdrie would be most beneficial at this time, seen as how it would mostly be taking cars off Deerfoot, while Cochrane and Okotoks/High River could have cheaper systems (like buses) for the interim.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by WeavedWeb

Boris, these close-minded statements get me too frustrated to prepare a worthy response. If you are that against cars and suburbs, move to Sweden.

LOL

If you can't even come up with a response, then you should be the one taking a hike. In fact you probably should, you might learn something about proper, functional cities.

As it stands, I have never been against suburbs per se but rather the irresponsible and unsustainable form known as sprawl. And the automobile is important only in so much that it allows sprawl to take place and sucks away funding from public transit (and has for over 50 years). I will continue to fight against this mass stupidity and selfish consumption as long as I feel that it is jeopardizing the future of the city. And as to regional rail, I've pointed out my concerns regarding how it may or may not effect sprawl.

Present me with a regional transit strategy that doesn't cause sprawl, increases mobility and is sustainable, and I'll accept it. If these conditions can't be meant then it shouldn't even be considered.