Calgary Public Transit II

[andasen]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Article in the Herald about the SE LRT, though they give a final date of 2039, and a budget of $2.7 billion

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...003/story.html

Oops forgot to mention the price tag. To rectify that:

-Looking at a busway being constructed in two phases. Phase one will have two halves, from 4th Street to Crossroads and from Ogden station to Douglasglen. (Completion by 2016)
- Phase 2 of the bus way will fill in the gap and cross the Bow
-Both phases are expected to be finished by 2019 at cost of $667 million
-Depending on the when the Ogden Road-Glenmore Trail interchange happens the bus way may just tunnel under the intersection should the interchange not be on the books in time.

LRT would be done in Two Phases
- Phase One would include the downtown tunnel and would extend from Eau Claire to Quarry Park. (At of cost of $1.053 Billion)
-Phase two would extend all the way to Seton. To be completed by 2029/2039*** at a cost of $ 940 Million.

-The Bus way would be specifically contructed do be later converted to LRT.

Total cost $2.66 Billion

*** There is discrepancy in the documents the date I originally reported for final completion being 2029 as was stated in the staging plan attatchment while the cover report says completion by 2039. I appologize for not initially catching this discrepancy.

[Doug]

...and the much shorter west line was supposed to cost ~$600M and came in at a total close to $1.4B.

[Aegis]

At risk of stating the obvious... This kind of timeline is garbage. The SE LRT is needed now, and it could be built using a P3 funding arrangement in the same way as the WLRT. Yes it would be debt financed, but, that's the way of the future for mega projects in this province.

The economic growth benefits would be tremendous (increased efficiency of the transportation network, and the construction itself).

[floobie]

Read the article. It definitely serves the underlying point that cities should be retaining more of the tax dollars from its residents. The timeline is absolutely ridiculous. The city will have grown immensely by 2039... likely to the point where the SE LRT line will be woefully insufficient to accommodate the increase in population. As I understand it, the need is already here now. It isn't just going to hold constant for 27 years.

I also had to laugh at the comments, as usual. Apparently the airport tunnel is costing us 25 billion dollars.

[jeffwhit]

“As a Calgary southeast resident, I’d love to see the southeast LRT. (But) the city has to choose its priorities, and the city (of Calgary) chose not to prioritize the southeast LRT back when we put those infrastructure dollars in the system.”

Got to love a politician who repays votes with dickishness.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by floobie

Read the article. It definitely serves the underlying point that cities should be retaining more of the tax dollars from its residents. The timeline is absolutely ridiculous. The city will have grown immensely by 2039... likely to the point where the SE LRT line will be woefully insufficient to accommodate the increase in population. As I understand it, the need is already here now. It isn't just going to hold constant for 27 years.

I also had to laugh at the comments, as usual. Apparently the airport tunnel is costing us 25 billion dollars.

Or collecting fees or project specific taxes.

Municipal politicians rarely state where they want this extra money they want to come from. It isn't like there are lots of programs people would be ok with not existing tomorrow to redirect existing revenues from.

• Video Link

[Cage]

Calgary Transit has a survey out for seating configuration and seating issues. See below for survey addy:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/survey...-mobility.html

Full Description of the survey:

CTrain LRV Seating and Mobility Survey

Calgary Transit is preparing to buy additional CTrain cars. In determining the interior layout of these next CTrain cars, Calgary Transit considers factors such as:

Customer comfort
Ride quality
Customer safety
Customer mobility - ability to move around the car
Ease to get on and off the CTrain car
Ease to clean and maintain
Durability and vandalism protection
Cost
Calgary Transit would like your feedback on the following topics:

Seating arrangement
Seating comfort and fit
Safety
Handholds
Ability to move around
Ability to enter and exit
Please take a few minutes and complete the following survey:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CT-LRV
Please note that they survey is hosted on surveymonkey.com.

Thank you.

Calgary Transit

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Or collecting fees or project specific taxes.

Municipal politicians rarely state where they want this extra money they want to come from. It isn't like there are lots of programs people would be ok with not existing tomorrow to redirect existing revenues from.

Carbon Capture and Storage, Fighter Jets, expensive and unnecessary prisons.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Carbon Capture and Storage, Fighter Jets, expensive and unnecessary prisons.

So, $100 million a year divided over the entire province, an incremental cost between the jets we will end up buying and the F-35s over the 30 year time frame (so $5-10 billion divided over the entire country, max $300 million a year over the entire country), and $2 billion over 10 years over the entire country?

You've identified $33 million + $10 million + $6 million a year that would be available if all those funds saved were reallocated.

To pay for the SE LRT price estimate today (borrow it all, pay it off over 30 years) would cost $145,436,898.46 a year. Alberta Capital Finance Authority - LOAN CALCULATOR

Great start. So with your identified sayings, assuming that the two levels of government would reallocate those savings despite a likely structural deficit at the federal level you still need to find an extra $96 million a year.

So to find that either from the province or federal government would represent finding $290 million a year at the provincial level, or $3.18 billion at the federal level.

Keep going. And this is only to pay for the SE LRT with only newly committed money with debt financing.

To me at least raising a regional gas tax by $0.10 a liter is a much more likely way to get the money over the long term. And more democratically accountable too.

[Radley77]

Can Calgary hold a plebiscite on the SE LRT? I wouldn't have an issue with voting yes to fund this through debt financing and levy over say a 25 year amortization period.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Can Calgary hold a plebiscite on the SE LRT? I wouldn't have an issue with voting yes to fund this through debt financing and levy over say a 25 year amortization period.

Can't do that without a city charter. But something like that is what might get it built.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So, $100 million a year divided over the entire province, an incremental cost between the jets we will end up buying and the F-35s over the 30 year time frame (so $5-10 billion divided over the entire country, max $300 million a year over the entire country), and $2 billion over 10 years over the entire country?

You've identified $33 million + $10 million + $6 million a year that would be available if all those funds saved were reallocated.

To pay for the SE LRT price estimate today (borrow it all, pay it off over 30 years) would cost $145,436,898.46 a year. Alberta Capital Finance Authority - LOAN CALCULATOR

Great start. So with your identified sayings, assuming that the two levels of government would reallocate those savings despite a likely structural deficit at the federal level you still need to find an extra $96 million a year.

So to find that either from the province or federal government would represent finding $290 million a year at the provincial level, or $3.18 billion at the federal level.

Keep going. And this is only to pay for the SE LRT with only newly committed money with debt financing.

To me at least raising a regional gas tax by $0.10 a liter is a much more likely way to get the money over the long term. And more democratically accountable too.

Wasn't CCS a $2 billion grant? (you would obviously know more than I do on this). Split that 3 ways (YEG, YYC, ROA) and we get ~$700M. That is a definite start. How about nixing the SWRR, even from TCH to Highway 8. That is another several billion, just for Calgary alone. Heck, simply moving money from Alberta Transportation (AKA- Highway junkies) to MSI could accomplish a lot.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Wasn't CCS a $2 billion grant? (you would obviously know more than I do on this). Split that 3 ways (YEG, YYC, ROA) and we get ~$700M. That is a definite start. How about nixing the SWRR, even from TCH to Highway 8. That is another several billion, just for Calgary alone. Heck, simply moving money from Alberta Transportation (AKA- Highway junkies) to MSI could accomplish a lot.

$2 billion over ~20 years. The vast majority hasn't been spent, but it is not sitting waiting in a bank account either. One of the projects has already been shelved however.

[5seconds]

Just saw this on Reddit. Bombardier's new low-floor LRV car being shown off on Stephen Avenue:

http://instagram.com/p/NMmfQ8LCT8/
By Instragram user Bonnaventure

EDIT:
I guess they are touring it. Here is a more indepth look at it.

http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/tag...-rail-vehicle/

[Elbownian]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Just saw this on Reddit. Bombardier's new low-floor LRV car being shown off on Stephen Avenue:

I rode an earlier model in Vancouver during the Olympics, which I believe was on loan from Brussels. Extremely smooth ride, though I don't think it ever got up above 50km/hr.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Cage

Calgary Transit has a survey out for seating configuration and seating issues. See below for survey addy:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/survey...-mobility.html

Full Description of the survey:

Thanks for that - I'd have forgotten to fill it out.

I wish they would have had a question on which you would rather have, more capacity, or more seats. Considering the discussion here on how much money we need for SE LRT (among many other projects) I commented that I would like to see maximum capacity with enough seating to cover those that need it. The whole seating preference thing was honking me off a bit - I never get a seat at Barlow-Max Bell when going in for work - I only care about being able to get on the train. I'd assume every other inner-city train user is in pretty much the same boat coming in the morning rush. I have no sympathy for able-bodied people whining about the lack of seating when the city has so many priorities to spend on.

[You Need A Thneed]

The bombardier looks too small for the SE or NC LRT. That aisle is pretty narrow.

It might be a good vehicle for the 17th AVE SE corridor transit way.

[Offside_Ref]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The bombardier looks too small for the SE or NC LRT. That aisle is pretty narrow.

It might be a good vehicle for the 17th AVE SE corridor transit way.

I've always been skeptical about low floor LRT for that line for that reason. While the SE LRT may be able to handle that narrow of inside, IMO you'd have to build the NC LRT pretty much to metro/pre-metro capacity, something I doubt low floor LRT would be able to provide, or at least wouldn't be very comfortable doing. (Assuming the NC and SE are one continuous line)

I took a ride on the one in Vancouver during the Olympics, and it felt more like a tram than an LRT. Definitely agree that it's more suited to 17th Ave SE.

[You Need A Thneed]

Updates on the City's webpage:

7th Ave between 8th and 11th Update - July 9

Closure of 10th St West info

Downtown West - Kerby Station update

7th Ave refurb phase 4 update

[Elbownian]

Originally Posted by Offside_Ref

it felt more like a tram than an LRT

Worth noting that, while that particular model was intended for single-consist tram operation, some systems use multiple-unit consists, and/or extended models with capacities upwards of 250 people and over 40m in length. It's a very adaptable product.

That said, I have to agree that the benefits of low-floor seem fairly minimal for an LRT line, unless the intention is to have stations that are shared with buses. If the city does go ahead with a transitway project, maybe this makes a certain amount of sense, as much of the station infrastructure could be built now to serve LRVs in the future.