Beltliner

City Council Set to Party Like It's 1976

2010-02-22T08:14:00.002-07:00

That clackety sound you’re hearing at City Hall comes from the dominoes tumbling in council chambers. The trouble with dominoes is that even when they do fall in the intricate patterns their creators imagine, they leave a spectacular mess for the morning after.

It started a couple of weeks ago, when Ward 11 Alderman Brian Pincott sold everyone on City Council on the concept of a new bus rapid transit study for his southwest constituents. Then last Thursday, Ward 13 Alderman Diane Colley-Urquhart leapt onto the bandwagon with a City Council motion of her own, calling for more bus rapid transit routes across Calgary. More buses on the roads mean more Calgarians out of their cars, which means local politicians finally following through on their pro-transit rhetoric, right?

Yet nothing so abhors a vacuum as hot air. Politicians love discussing bus rapid transit because it strikes the right notes about quickness and movement while disguising the nebulous cuddly-with-lots-of-firepower nature of their understanding. The three routes Calgary Transit promotes as bus rapid transit are really modernised Blue Arrow 2.0 limited-stop services, which differ from their downtown-suburban express routes, which differ again from the busways and Plexiglas monuments of Curitiba and Ottawa. There’s faint hope of knowing what you’re getting when the politicians don’t.

Now if you’re thinking that someone at the city must have examined this bus rapid transit idea before, you’d be right. Back in 1976, planners took a long, hard look at whether the original Blue Arrow buses from the early Seventies could be upgraded to rapid transit standards. They found it would take too many buses, too much fuel, too much labour, and too much room on roadways that would still be too congested anyway. That’s why Calgary invested in the C-Train light rail system.

The realities planners identified over thirty years ago are, if anything, even more acute in 2010. Sixty-foot bendy buses look like a bargain until it hits home that you have to buy three of them over the lifespan of one C-Train car to carry half the passenger load. Diesel isn’t getting any cheaper. Transit drivers and mechanics still expect to be paid. And you probably don’t believe that your new dedicated median busways will be expropriated, built, and paved for free by the Tarmac Fairy.

Effective bus service will still be a necessary part of an integrated public transit system in Calgary. Buses play an important role in drawing passengers to suburban C-Train stations. Several cross-town bus routes serve their riders well for short trips and long hauls. Express routes provide a valuable service for outlying commuters who need rush-hour alternatives to the car for getting downtown. Even the Blue Arrow 2.0 runs have had the stated objective since 2002 of building long-term demand and local support for C-Train service.

But any alderman who tells you bus rapid transit is just like light rail but cheaper is taking your wallet for a ride. Times may be tough, but City Council is about to let sticker shock and blind panic overwhelm common sense. Light rail transit is a significant capital investment that bears long-term dividends in the form of operating costs that are one-sixth the price per passenger of offering bus service. Spending that kind of capital on buses instead just chases good money after bad.

We’ve known for over three decades that the C-Train delivers strategic public transportation value in Calgary that buses simply do not. The members of City Council have a duty this afternoon to come to their senses, and to take heed of this knowledge.

Happy New Year, and More Exact Change, Please

2009-11-19T15:38:00.002-07:00

It wouldn’t be wise, especially given how easily The Fishwrap’s city beat reporter got Franked a couple of weeks ago, to suggest that the reaction to this morning’s story about Calgary Transit’s fare hikes for 2010 stems entirely from the shut-ins and sociopaths who so enjoy frothing at the mouth in online media comment boxes.

In the broader context, though, the optics of increasing transit fares in the face of a tentative economic recovery are not good. Cash fares are poised to rise $0.25 to $2.75, tickets in ten-pack booklets are slated to rise by a dime to $2.40, and monthly passes are expected to cost $2.25 more a piece at $85.25. When the prices of C-Train tickets, property taxes, power bills, and for that matter bread and butter are all going up, and pay packets are not, Calgarians are naturally going to feel squeezed, threatened, and taken for granted. Also, the pressure on Calgary City Council to deliver a balanced municipal budget for 2010 later this month with as modest an increase in mill rates as possible under the circumstances suggests that service hours on already-underutilised feeder bus routes will be the first item on the chopping block; the effects of the ensuing vicious circle I will leave to my Gentle Readers to determine. One readily appreciates the sense suburban transit patrons would thus experience of being kicked where the hair is short.

Let’s try to put things into perspective, however, and show a little pity for the good burghers of Toronto. (Please. Try. Just a little.)

The Toronto Transit Commission, an entity with its own reasons for giving people cause to complain, approved its own round of fare increases for 2010 a couple of days ago. Red Rocketeers will pay $0.25 more for cash fares at $3.00, $0.25 more for a charmingly quaint metal token at $2.50, and a sobering $12.00 more for a monthly Metropass at $121.00. Now while the TTC imposes a more substantial burden on its patrons to keep the lights on and the trains, at least most of the time, running — farebox revenues cover about 68 percent of TTC operating costs, compared to about 55 percent on a good day for Calgary Transit — the scale of the fare increases Hogtowners are facing very much calls the value proposition of The Better Way™ into question. It also casts some light on the deal Cowtowners get for public transit, or at least for the C-Train and for higher-demand trunk routes, based on what we’re begrudgingly willing to pay at the farebox.

Here are the two systems’ 2010 fare increases head to head:

Calgary Transit:
Cash Fare: $2.50 in 2009, $2.75 in 2010; increase of 10.00%
Ticket Fare: $2.30 in 2009, $2.40 in 2010; increase of 4.35%
Pass Fare: $83.00 in 2009, $85.25 in 2010; increase of 2.71%
Pass/Ticket Multiple: 36.09 in 2009, 35.52 in 2010; decrease of 1.58%
Pass/Cash Multiple: 33.20 in 2009, 31.00 in 2010; decrease of 6.63%

Toronto Transit Commission:
Cash Fare: $2.75 in 2009, $3.00 in 2010; increase of 9.09%
Token Fare: $2.25 in 2009, $2.50 in 2010; increase of 11.11%
Pass Fare: $109.00 in 2009, $121.00 in 2010; increase of 11.01%
Pass/Token Multiple: 48.44 in 2009, 48.40 in 2010; decrease of 0.08%
Pass/Cash Multiple: 39.64 in 2009, 40.63 in 2010; increase of 1.74%

One point we need to compare here between Calgary and Toronto is the annual increase in price of each fare medium. The TTC wins the showdown on cash fares, rising 9.09% in contrast to the 10.00% increase Calgary Transit will see. Where tickets, tokens, and monthly passes are concerned, though, Calgarians are getting a break that their counterparts in Toronto are not. The price of a Calgary Transit ticket in a ten-unit booklet is set to rise 4.35%, while a TTC token, usually sold in units of four, will increase by 11.11%. The price increase of a Calgary Transit pass works out to 2.71%, which is in stark contrast to the 11.01% jump in the price of a TTC Metropass. These numbers imply a much stronger incentive for Calgary Transit passengers to buy ticket books or monthly passes instead of paying cash at the farebox than Red Rocketeers would have.

The other figures worth mentioning are the multiples, which quantify how many fares one would have to pay at the box to cover the cost of a monthly pass. For the TTC, the Pass/Token Multiple stays almost the same, sliding an infinitesimal amount in 2010 from 48.44 to 48.40, meaning that one would have to buy just over four dozen TTC tokens at the bulk rate of $2.50 to cover the $121.00 cost of a 2010 Metropass; perversely, the Pass/Cash Multiple rises slightly in 2010 from 39.64 to 40.63, meaning that even with the increase in cash fares to $3.00, one has to pay one more cash fare in 2010 than in 2009 to cover the price of a Metropass in Toronto. On Calgary Transit, meanwhile, the Pass/Ticket Multiple drops slightly in 2010 from 36.09 to 35.52, and the Pass/Cash Multiple dips significantly in 2010 from 33.20 to 31.00, so that a monthly Calgary Transit pass saves about half a ticket or two cash fares more in 2010 than it does in 2009. What these numbers mean to my Gentle Readers is that Calgary Transit is nudging its passengers in favour of ticket books and monthly passes by way of making the best of the bad situation hiking cash fares by a quarter represents, whereas the Toronto Transit Commission is sharing out the fare-hike misery more or less equally.

Do these figures indicate the superiority of Calgary Transit over the TTC? Not by a long shot, as anyone trying to get across town from deepest, darkest Douglasdale on evenings and weekends would attest. There’s a lot of hard work to be done over the next several weeks, months, and years to do transit right in this town, but for what Calgarians are paying at the farebox for our C-Train, trunk route, and feeder bus service, we could be doing much worse.

2009-10-14T12:30:00.004-06:00

The turn in the weather over the past few days has made the footing treacherous and the going slow for man, beast, and automobile alike here in Calgary. It also brought to mind a photograph an enterprising Ottawa resident contributed to cyberspatial posterity last winter, and one that seemed appropriate to share through the magic of diydespair.com:

So Much for Stoney Trail

2009-07-03T15:56:00.003-06:00

With the recent news of the failed referendum on the southwest extension of Stoney Trail, the discussion of completing Calgary's ring road -- at least that part of the discussion not given over to dark, conspiratorial mutterings -- is turning to potential options for Plan B, involving some sort of grade-separated expressway link across the Elbow River through the Weaselhead Flats and the Glenmore Reservoir. The illustration below hints at the scope of the problem:

This is what a partial cloverleaf interchange at 66 Avenue SW and a southward extension of Crowchild Trail would look like. I leave it as an exercise for my Gentle Readers to compute the chances for the poor souls at ABDoT and the City of Calgary to convince sixty-odd residential landholders in the leafy, bucolic suburban environment of Lakeview, along with the owners of the Earl Grey Golf and Country Club, that a thousand metres of newly-planned expressway would be just the ticket to serve the greater good and to ensure the safe and efficient movement of freight traffic throughout the city.

A Little Exercise in Fare Predictions

2009-05-23T13:57:00.001-06:00

Edmonton Trail Transit Service Radii

2009-05-03T18:11:00.003-06:00

This diagram could use a little explanation.

What I wanted to do was see for myself whether a 504 Edmonton Trail Car would be crowded out or made redundant by previous proposals for light metro C-Train service through north-central Calgary. My hypothesis was that a tram serving more stops more slowly would attract more riders to stops within a 400-metre service radius than to light metro stations (serving fewer stations less slowly, natch) within a 600-metre service radius. To illustrate the conditions on the ground for this hypothesis, however, I needed to draw myself a picture. Thus the product of the magic of Microsoft Paint before your slavering fangs right now:

Line 203 of the C-Train (north to southeast) is the line in green, with smaller blue circles illustrating 400-metre radii from stations and larger, fainter blue circles illustrating 600-metre radii. Line 204 of the C-Train (the orbital line) is the line in orange, with smaller orange circles illustrating 400-metre radii from stations and larger, fainter orange circles illustrating 600-metre radii. The 504 Edmonton Trail Car, in contrast, is the line in red, with smaller yellow circles illustrating 400-metre radii from stops.

UPPITY DATE: I've run some calculations that show a target ridership for the 504 Car in the range of 2,219 to 3,573 daily passengers per mile. The most recent APTA numbers for the C-Train, in contrast, show 10,663 daily passengers per mile.

Garrison Square Turning Radii

2009-04-29T11:32:00.003-06:00

This quick-'n'-dirty diagram shows potential vehicle turning radii at Garrison Square SW, the central gathering and amenity point in Calgary's inner-suburban Garrison Woods development. The white circles each represent a turning radius of 25 metres, while the yellow "yolks" each represent a turning radius of 18 metres.

That these figures represent the standard and compressed turning radii of a Siemens Transportation Systems S70 Avanto is not entirely coincidental.

Hey, Let's Make This an Open Letter to TDL Group's Paul House! Why Not?

2009-04-25T14:16:00.003-06:00

What follows herein is the text of a facsimile I transmitted earlier today to Paul House, the executive chairman of TDL Group Corp., the parent company of the Tim Hortons donut chain.

Thank you so much for the astonishing display of ineptitude and indifference to your customers that it was my dubious pleasure to experience today at your Tim Hortons outlet at the intersection of 11 Street and 12 Avenue SW in Calgary.

My investment of five minutes’ queuing and $4.29 in a box of a half-dozen donuts will be my last at Tim Hortons. Although I must confess to some surprise at the absence from your outlet’s display case of the strawberry jelly donuts on which my wife had set her heart today, what I found particularly galling was the utter lack of interest your outlet’s counter staff demonstrated in identifying an alternative product offering, or even in investigating whether a refreshed supply of said donuts might be in the preparatory stages. Furthermore, when I subsequently informed your outlet’s counter staff that I would, against my better judgement, accept two plain old-fashioned donuts, two Boston Cream donuts, one maple dip donut, and one chocolate glazed donut, I was surprised and nonplussed, to say the least of it, to be offered a box of a half-dozen donuts with none of the selections I had requested. In addition, while I can accept on a conceptual level that Tim Hortons outlets generally and the Tim Hortons outlet at the intersection of 11 Street and 12 Avenue SW in Calgary particularly might not accept the Visa card that I proffered to complete today’s transaction, I cannot and will not countenance the brusque, unpleasant, and perfunctory tone in which I was informed of this specific tenet of TDL Group Corp.’s company policy. When you compound these events with the domestic disappointment and discord that took place, and with the documentation of these proceedings that was of course the inevitable product of today’s experience, you will surely agree that the negative customer experience and the ultimate consequences of my decision to make a Tim Hortons purchase today far exceed the monetary and gustatory value that might be inherent to a Tim Hortons product.

Please rest assured that I have no intention of ever again darkening the doorways of a Tim Hortons outlet, whether at the intersection of 11 Street and 12 Avenue SW in Calgary or elsewhere. The experience is simply not worth the time, the money, the strife, or the aggravation.

Six C-Tram Routes in Search of a Champion

2009-04-23T10:35:00.007-06:00

Some more maps for you folks to ponder:

The 501 Beltline Car;

The 502 Red Mile Car;

The 503 Mission Car;

The 504 Edmonton Trail Car;

The 505 Richmond Road Car;

The 506 Grand Trunk Car.

Антракт: Новые и усовершенствованные схемы Си-Трэйна

2009-04-18T21:44:00.003-06:00

A Question of Providence: Line 207 Phase II — 2040

2008-07-25T12:59:00.002-06:00

Providence is the name the City of Calgary has given to the six square miles of undeveloped lands on the city’s southwest flank that will by 2040 have “reached full development and [comprise] six vibrant and successful communities with 78,000 residents” (City of Calgary, 2006d:11). The city’s “Southwest Regional Policy Plan” anticipates the development of a dedicated bus corridor to “[provide] efficient and direct connections to the LRT further to the east” (2006d:11), but in light of existing long-range plans by the city to construct a southern peripheral light rail connector to the east of Line 201 — to say nothing of the construction of the first phase of Line 207 posited in this document — the most reasonable plan involves constructing an extension of Line 207 to Providence as a means of leveraging the investment already made in its first phase. Moreover, the recently annexed southeastern residential lands beyond the East Freeway Extension corridor will be ready by 2040 for a mass transit connection also, which lends credence to an extension of Line 207 to those nascent areas of the city as well.

The Providence Extension will proceed from the metro interchange at Somerset/Bridlewood Station through a short underground portal to a dedicated surface right of way in the median of 162 Avenue SW, running 800 metres to Shawinigan Station, at the intersection with Shawinigan Drive SW. From there, the line will continue 1,500 metres to James McKevitt Station, and a further 1,300 metres to Bridlecrest Station, at the junction with 24 Street SW. The line will then cross Sarcee Trail and arrive after travelling 1,500 metres at Sarcee Gate Station, where 162 Avenue meets the current 37 Street SW right of way, and then continue 1,700 metres to Providence Centre Station, at the intersection with 53 Street SW, before ending after a final 1,600-metre run at West Providence Station, where 162 Avenue meets 69 Street SW.

The lands to the east of the metro interchange at Auburn Bay Station are sufficiently uncharted to warrant a nod to the works of the speculative fiction master Isaac Asimov in christening the eastward continuation of Line 207 the Foundation Extension for the purposes of this discussion, and the names for the stations to be built will derive from the pages of that mid-twentieth-century trilogy. The Foundation Extension will continue underground generally to the east for 1,600 metres, beneath the planned community of Mahogany and the East Freeway Extension corridor, before surfacing for a 400-metre run to Trantor Station. At that point, the line will curve to the south, proceeding 1,600 metres to Kalgan Station, a further 1,600 metres to Anacreon Station, and a final 1,800 metres to the aptly named Terminus Station.

The total capital investment required for the Providence phase of Line 207 comes to $771-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $39-million from 2041 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2038 to 2040 in three instalments of $257-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Providence Surface Track and Way of 6.40 km
@ $25-million per km: $160-million
plus six surface stations (Shawinigan, James McKevitt, Bridlecrest, Sarcee Gate, Providence Centre, West Providence)
@ $10-million each: $ 60-million

Foundation Metro Track and Way of 1.60 km
@ $155-million per km: $248-million

Foundation Surface Track and Way of 5.40 km
@ $25-million per km: $135-million
plus four surface stations (Trantor, Kalgan, Anacreon, Terminus)
@ $10-million each: $ 40-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

While Providence will see the greatest immediate benefit from the second phase of Line 207 construction, there are a number of additional advantages that apply to this C-Train extension well beyond that district’s boundaries. By interchanging both with Line 201 and Line 203, the completed Line 207 will afford mobility opportunities to Calgarians who desire convenient mass transit access to residential, retail, and commercial destinations across the city’s southern flank. In Providence specifically, the proposed development of local employment centres that “will create local and regional job opportunities and are integral to the operation of the transportation network” (City of Calgary, 2006d:27) and “centrally-located, pedestrian-oriented and mixed use” core commercial centres (2006d:28) will enhance the effectiveness of Line 207 by providing public transportation for area residents and by offering a useful range of services for passengers from outside the area who wish to conduct business with Providence’s professionals and entrepreneurs. Where the greatest opportunity arises, perhaps, is in the as-yet unplanned residential lands to be served by the Foundation Extension, where the opportunity to work from the proverbial blank slate and apply best practices in transportation and transit-orientated development from Calgary and elsewhere is too profound to go unheeded.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (2006d). "Southwest Regional Policy Plan". URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/sw_regional_plan/southwest_regional_policy_plan_one.pdf

A Question of Providence: Line 207 Phase I — 2038

2008-07-25T10:27:00.002-06:00

The City of Calgary’s existing long-range plans for mass transit expansion include a light rail corridor integrated with a segment of the southern arc of the Transportation and Utility Corridor, the land reservation in which provincial Highway 22X runs, although the “Chaparral Area Structure Plan” takes pains to note that conceding that these long-range plans exist “[does] not imply a commitment to construct the LRT to serve Chaparral or any other community south of Midnapore” (City of Calgary, 1988a:5). While a four-lane motorway with plans for its widening would not be the first choice of location for most observers looking for places to put light rail stations, the existence of the Transportation and Utility Corridor does at least provide a direct route which, with judicious use, would ease the implementation of a light rail connection between the C-Train’s south and southeast legs. Where the challenge lies is in bringing enough of this connection to within a reasonable distance of its users to make it convenient to use in the broader context of future extensions bringing a wider variety of passengers and key destinations into the line’s range.

The initial phase of Line 207 would start from a metro interchange with Auburn Bay Station on Line 203, and proceed generally to the northwest for 500 metres underground before emerging onto a surface right of way within the Transportation and Utility Corridor and continuing for 3,300 metres to Cranston Station, at the Highway 22X interchange with Cranston Boulevard SE, and for a further 2,500 metres to Chaparral Station, slightly east of the interchange with Chaparral Boulevard SE. The line would then cross Highway 22X and enter a dedicated surface right of way in the median of Sun Valley Boulevard SE, travelling 3,600 metres to Midnapore Station, at the junction with Midlake Boulevard SE, and a further 1,200 metres to an underground portal crossing beneath Macleod Trail South and arriving after a 500-metre run at a metro interchange with Somerset/Bridlewood Station on Line 201.

The total capital investment required for the first phase of Line 207 comes to $830-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $42-million from 2039 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2036 to 2038 in three instalments of $277-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Marquis of Lorne Metro Track and Way of 1.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $155-million
plus two metro stations (Auburn Bay, Somerset/Bridlewood)
@ $92-million each: $184-million

Marquis of Lorne Surface Track and Way of 9.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $225-million
plus three surface stations (Cranston, Chaparral, Midnapore)
@ $10-million each: $ 30-million

Corridor Yard: $200-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

Although accommodations for connecting transit routes, passenger parking, and pedestrian access to light rail stations are to varying degrees limited in the design of this initial phase of Line 207, it nevertheless offers some critical advantages to the communities it is intended to serve. Phase I provides additional connectivity to the C-Train network as a whole by providing a direct link in the southern reaches of Calgary between Lines 201 and 203, and brings the formerly isolated communities of Chaparral and Cranston into an at least tangential connection to the city’s mass transit network. Also, by utilising a reasonable mix of in-median service through Midnapore and Shawnessy in conjunction with a surface right of way “in an easterly direction along the south side of Marquis of Lorne Trail” (City of Calgary, 1988a:5), this initial phase splits the proverbial difference between serving passengers with readily available access and taking advantage of readily available rights of way adjacent to Highway 22X. The primary benefit of the first phase of Line 207, however, is that it provides a central arterial starting location from which it becomes possible to build more effective connectivity and more robust ridership in the implementation of Line 207’s second phase.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (1988a). “Chaparral Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/chaparral_asp.pdf

An Old Connection and a New Edge City: Line 206 Phase II — 2039

2008-07-24T15:34:00.002-06:00

With the bulk of the time and effort in constructing Line 206 already accomplished in its initial phase, further extensions to the east and west could be accomplished with substantially less effort, and with substantial network-wide benefits. To the west of Bowness lie Canada Olympic Park, a complex of athletic facilities maintained in the wake of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games, and the residential community of Valley Ridge, a lower-density development designed to accommodate 6,000 residents upon its completion (City of Calgary, 1991:4). To the east, on the other hand, lies the bedroom community of Chestermere, a rapidly expanding town whose current population of 10,000 is projected to rise to 15,000 by 2010 and to 24,000 by 2015 (Bunt and Associates, 2007:21), and of whose residents nearly two-thirds — 65.7 percent of 1,264 respondents in a recently commissioned survey (Town of Chestermere, 2008:19) — commute to Calgary for their regular employment. Serving this broad mix of mature and emerging residential populations is an eminently reasonable use of mass transit in the broader context of a long-range light rail service plan for Calgary.

The eastern extension of Line 206 would be a relatively simple affair, proceeding in a dedicated surface right of way in the median of 17 Avenue SE for 1,100 metres from Forest Lawn Station to Elliston Park Station, at the intersection with 61 Street SE, and then for 3,800 metres to Garden Road Station and for 3,200 metres to Rainbow Road Station, before terminating at a 2,000 metre distance at Chestermere Station, at the junction with West Chestermere Drive. While the western extension of Line 206, on the other hand, would be somewhat more complex, it would be eminently feasible to continue from Bowness Station along Bowness Road NW to 83 Street NW, tunnelling under 16 Avenue NW to arrive after 1,500 metres at Canada Olympic Park Station before continuing on an alignment on the southern flank of the Transcanada Highway and tunnelling underneath it once more to terminate after a distance of 2,600 metres at Valley Ridge Station, where Valley Ridge Boulevard meets Valley Ridge Drive NW.

The total capital investment required for the final buildout of Line 206 comes to $593-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $30-million from 2040 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2037 to 2039 in three instalments of $198-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Bowness/Forest Lawn Metro Track and Way of 1.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $155-million

Bowness/Forest Lawn Surface Track and Way of 10.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $250-million
plus six surface stations (Valley Ridge, Canada Olympic Park, Elliston Park, Garden Road, Rainbow Road, Chestermere)
@ $10-million each: $ 60-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

As beneficial as this second and final phase of Line 206 will be to destinations on the west side of Calgary, the merits of its eastward continuation to Chestermere are clearer still. The new station at Canada Olympic Park is situated to take maximum advantage of the core commercial planning area as identified in the “Canada Olympic Park and Adjacent Lands Area Structure Plan” by connecting C-Train passengers with the pedestrian facilities within that sector (City of Calgary, 2005a:14). Furthermore, the central location of the new station at Valley Ridge will minimise the “topographic constraints” inherent to the area that would otherwise compromise the provision of connecting transit services to local area residents (City of Calgary, 1991:33). Those points being made, the advantages of the westward extension of Line 206 pale in comparison to those of providing C-Train service to Chestermere: In an environment where 77.5 percent of 1,307 survey respondents either somewhat or strongly supported the expansion of roadway and public transit networks in Chestermere (Town of Chestermere, 2008:14), and in a municipality facing daily traffic of 21,000 vehicles through Highway 1A, its primary traffic artery, in a mere seven years (Bunt and Associates, 2007:27), it should come as little surprise that 56.3 percent of 1,340 survey respondents would be open to the sort of “apples and oranges” mix of residential uses (Town of Chestermere, 2008:11) that would make transit-orientated development, and by extension the long-range provision for light rail service, a viable possibility for Chestermere to the benefit of town residents and Calgarians alike.

Works Cited

Bunt and Associates Engineering (Alberta) Ltd. (2007). “Town of Chestermere transportation Study: Final Report — Part One”. URL as of 24 Jul 2008 http://chestermere.ca/images/uploads/Planning_TofC_Transportation_study_Part_one_smaller_version.pdf

City of Calgary (1991). “Revised Valley Ridge Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/valley_ridge_asp.pdf

City of Calgary (2005a). “Canada Olympic Park and Adjacent Lands Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/canada_olympic_park/canada_olympic_park_asp_one.pdf

Town of Chestermere (2008). “Community Survey Summary”. URL as of 24 Jul 2008 http://chestermere.ca/images/uploads/TOC_SurveySummary_05152008.pdf

An Old Connection and a New Edge City: Line 206 Phase I — 2037

2008-07-24T14:05:00.002-06:00

Calgary’s connections to the formerly sovereign town of Bowness date back almost a century to 1911, when developer John Hextall donated the current Bowness Park lands and built a bridge over the Bow River in exchange for a tram line to Calgary (City of Calgary, 1995a:7). Bowness would join the towns of Montgomery and Forest Lawn in amalgamating with the City of Calgary in the 1960s, but their distinct identities, their responsiveness to public transportation, and their at times vexing proximity to major roadways leading to the east and west from the boundaries of the unified city give them common ground nearly fifty years onward. In the interest of enhancing the special relationship Calgarians share with these formerly independent communities, and with the aim of strengthening the efficiency and the vitality of their transit connections, Line 206 will strike most observers as a particularly useful addition to Calgary’s light rail transit network.

The initial phase of Line 206 would commence at Bowness Station, a surface level platform at the intersection of Bowness Road and 77 Street NW. From there, the line would proceed in a dedicated surface right of way along Bowness Road NW, travelling 3,600 metres to Montgomery Station, at the junction with 46 Street NW, and then 1,600 metres to Point McKay Station, at the intersection with Point Drive NW, and a further 1,400 metres to a grade-separated interchange with Line 204 at Parkdale Station. At that point, the line would follow Parkdale Avenue and Kensington Road NW for 1,200 metres to West Hillhurst Station, where Kensington Road meets 22 Street NW, and for another 1,100 metres to Westmount Station, at the intersection with 16 Street NW. Line 206 would then enter an underground portal to tunnel underneath 14 Street NW and the Bow River, travelling south and east for 1,100 metres to arrive at Armoury Station, a metro interchange with 11 Street Station on Line 202 located between Eighth and Ninth Avenues SW just east of 11 Street SW. Proceeding from that location underneath Ninth Avenue SW, Line 206 would continue underground for 500 metres to Eighth Street Station; for 400 metres to Fifth Street Station, interchanging with Line 201; for 300 metres to Third Street Station, forming the southern pole of an interchange complex with Lines 201, 202, and 203; for 400 metres to Palliser Station, interchanging at that location with future commuter rail services; and for 800 metres to Edmonton Station, interchanging with Olympic Way Station on Line 203 and with future high-speed rail services. Line 206 would then cross underneath the Elbow River to emerge in a dedicated surface right of way in Ninth Avenue SE and travel for 1,600 metres in total to New Street Station, at the intersection with 13 Street SE, before continuing for 2,600 metres along the southern flank of Blackfoot Trail and then across it to Riverside Quays Station, at the junction of 17 Avenue and 17A Street SE. From that location, Line 206 would bridge the Bow River and Deerfoot Trail SE, travelling through a short underground portal to surface in a dedicated right of way in the median of 17 Avenue SE, proceeding for 2,000 metres to Radisson Heights Station, at the intersection with 31 Street SE, and then for 1,400 metres to 44 Street Station before ending 800 metres east of 44 Street SE at an underground interchange with Forest Lawn Station on Line 204.

The total capital investment required for the initial phase of Line 206 comes to $2,074-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $104-million from 2038 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2033 to 2037 in five instalments of $415-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Bowness/Forest Lawn Metro Track and Way of 4.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $620-million
plus eight metro stations (Parkdale, Armoury, Eighth Street, Fifth Street, Third Street, Palliser, Edmonton, Forest Lawn)
@ $92-million each: $736-million

Bowness/Forest Lawn Surface Track and Way of 12.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $300-million
plus nine surface stations (Bowness, Montgomery, Point McKay, 29 Street, West Hillhurst, Westmount, New Street, Riverside Quays, Radisson Heights, 44 Street)
@ $10-million each: $ 90-million

Hubalta Yard: $200-million
Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

In addition to enhancing the connectivity of the C-Train network within the downtown core and to restoring and improving historical transit linkages to Montgomery, Bowness, and Forest Lawn, the initial stage of Line 206 will generate additional redevelopment benefits within these communities. As a case in point, the “Montgomery Area Redevelopment Plan” highlights the “strategic importance” of the intersection of Bowness Road and 46 Street NW, the intended location of Montgomery Station, to “the objective of encouraging a transition to a pedestrian friendly mixed use (commercial/residential) area” (City of Calgary, 2005b:4). In a similar vein, the construction of Bowness Station at Bowness Road and 77 Street NW would be useful in the context of mitigating the “negative influence on the surrounding area” resulting from current land uses on the Bow Centre site (City of Calgary, 1995a:49) and improving the quality and the density of residential and commercial uses on the site. Perhaps the most profound improvement opportunity arising from the building of Line 206, though, would be the restoration of 17 Avenue SE as a retail and residential corridor, based on activities dating to 2004 engaging local residents and business owners with the aim of transforming the thoroughfare as far east as Rainbow Road “into high density, mixed use environments that utilize existing infrastructure” (T-Six Urbanists Inc., 2008:11).

Works Cited

City of Calgary (1995a). “Bowness Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/bowness_arp/bowness_arp_one.pdf

City of Calgary (2005b). “Montgomery Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/montgomery_arp/montgomery_arp_one.pdf

T-Six Urbanists Inc. (2008). “Profile: January 2008”. URL as of 24 Jul 2008 http://www.tsix.ca/images/TSixProfile-Jan08lr.pdf

Connecting the C-Train to the World: Line 205 — 2033

2008-07-23T11:11:00.002-06:00

The concept of connecting international airports to the downtown cores of Canadian cities has long since escaped the realm of mere fancy. Blue 22, the proposal for a premium-fare commuter rail service between Toronto’s downtown Union Station and Pearson International Airport “designed to complement existing transit services by attracting additional ridership to both the Toronto Transit Commission's and GO Transit's services” by removing as many as 10,000 vehicles per day from the Toronto road network (Queen’s Printer of Canada, 2006), has been on and off the proverbial drawing board since 2003. A downtown-to-airport commuter railway is also in the early discussion stages in Montréal, where The Montréal Gazette’s Henry Aubin reports that the federal and provincial governments are awaiting a consultants’ report this autumn to determine the viability of such a connection (Aubin, 2008). In Vancouver, conversely, the Canada Line light metro connecting downtown Vancouver and the southern city of Richmond anticipates the need for a four-station spur line connecting to Vancouver International Airport by the end of 2009 as something of an ancillary benefit to a mass transit service plan for an urban corridor that is “home to one-third of the region's jobs and 20 percent of its population.…[and] experiences the greatest traffic density and associated problems” (Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc., 2008). The challenge in Calgary’s context is to take advantage of Calgary International Airport’s relative proximity to its downtown while taking maximum advantage of the mass transit tools already in place and creating the least reasonable disruption to transportation and development corridors already in place, and on the basis of the work this document envisions accomplishing to this point, a partial orbital light rail line that interchanges with existing radial lines and also serves airport traffic is the ideal solution to the problem.

Starting from a metro interchange with Line 202 at 88 Avenue Station, Line 205 will follow an underground arc of 800 metres to surface east of 52 Street NE in the Airport Trail median and proceed a further 1,200 metres to arrive at Jacksonport Station, serving that commercial development midway between Métis Trail and 36 Street NE. From there, the line will continue for 2,300 metres in the Airport Trail median underneath the new runway and across Barlow Trail NE before arcing through an underground portal and tunnelling 500 metres to the airport terminal building at YYC Station, before continuing underground an additional 500 metres back to Airport Trail and emerging in that roadway’s median once more to arrive after travelling 400 metres at Stoney Park Station, where Airport Trail intersects 15 Street NE. Line 205 will then proceed westward 1,600 metres, crossing Deerfoot Trail in the Airport Trail median, to Deerfoot Bluffs Station, interchanging at that location with future commuter rail services using the Canadian Pacific Railway corridor, and continue 1,800 metres west to an underground interchange with Aurora Park Station on Line 203. After proceeding 900 metres along Country Hills Road and Country Hills Drive NW to Panorama Crossing Station, at the junction of Country Hills Boulevard and Country Hills Drive NW, Line 205 will continue west in the median of Country Hills Boulevard for 2,300 metres to reach 14 Street Station, and a further 1,500 metres with a southbound turn through a short underground portal into the median of Shaganappi Trail NW to MacEwan Station, where Shaganappi Trail meets the Macewan community pathway. At that point, Line 205 will travel 1,700 metres in the Shaganappi Trail median to Edgemont Station, at the junction with Edgemont Boulevard NW, and a further 2,200 metres to John Laurie Station, at the intersection with John Laurie Boulevard NW, before continuing 700 metres to Northland Village Station, where Shaganappi Trail meets Dalhousie Drive NW, and terminating after a final 700-metre run at Shaganappi Trail Station, a new grade-separated interchange facility connecting Line 205 to Line 201.

The total capital investment required for the full buildout of Line 205 comes to $1,386-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $69-million from 2034 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2031 to 2033 in three instalments of $462-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Airport Metro Track and Way of 2.40 km
@ $155-million per km: $372-million

plus four metro stations (88 Avenue, YYC, Aurora Park, Shaganappi Trail)
@ $92-million each: $368-million

Airport Surface Track and Way of 9.10 km
@ $25-million per km: $228-million

plus nine surface stations (Jacksonport, Stoney Park, Deerfoot Bluffs, Panorama Crossing, 14 Street, MacEwan, Edgemont, John Laurie, Northland Village)
@ $10-million each: $ 90-million

Stoney Park Yard: $200-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

The Calgary Airport Authority anticipated the need for a light rail connection in its 2004 “Calgary International Airport Master Plan”, wherein a Public Transport Interchange immediately adjacent to the airport terminal would function as “a convenient interchange between surface access modes and the passenger terminal system” and consolidate public transit access to the airport “in a single area with a separate access system….[to] relieve congestion on the departures roadway” (Calgary Airport Authority, 2004:10-5–10-6). In addition to providing this mass transit alternative for Calgarians seeking access to the Calgary International Airport, Line 205 provides a method for transit passengers in the northern areas of the city to connect to three of the C-Train’s radial lines, as well as to a future commuter rail hub, while still making use both of available median rights of way and of the light rail corridor protected in the “Aurora Business Park Area Structure Plan” to serve both “a wide range of industrial uses” and “office and retail use as well as hotels and motels serving the Calgary International Airport” (City of Calgary, 2008a:23). What Line 205 provides is a robust and effective means of connecting airport passengers, airside and landside commercial and industrial employees, and leisure transit users alike to a city-wide light rail network serving the downtown core and all points beyond — thus bringing the world to the C-Train’s rails in one fell swoop.

Works Cited

Aubin, Henry (2008). “Light at end of the track”. The Montréal Gazette. URL as of 23 Jul 2008 http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=e251c9de-e833-49ad-b13b-468dcaffc7e4

Calgary Airport Authority (2004). “Calgary International Airport Master Plan 2004”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgaryairport.com/fts/getfile.cfm?FID=3947

Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. (2008). “Canada Line: Meeting Long-Term Needs”. URL as of 23 Jul 2008 http://www.canadaline.ca/aboutNeeds.asp

City of Calgary (2008a). “Aurora Business Park Area Structure Plan” URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/aurora_asp/aurora_asp.pdf

Queen’s Printer of Canada (2006). “Transport Minister Announces Winning Proposal for Toronto Air-Rail Link”. URL as of 23 Jul 2008 http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2003/03-h132e.htm

Expanding from a New Model: Line 204 Phase IV — 2031

2008-07-22T16:31:00.002-06:00

With the previous three phases of Line 204 construction, a number of essential destinations in Calgary, ranging in scope from residential and retail services on the one hand to commercial, institutional, and industrial locations on the other, will be accessible to light rail transit services by direct connections and through interchanges with all three radial lines emanating from the downtown core. The only piece left in the puzzle will be that of creating a central loop that travels through all of the cardinal points in the circle to generate a complete bidirectional path across all of Calgary’s primary flanks. On the basis of the remaining termini on Line 204 — namely, Foothills Medical Station on the northwest end, and College Station on the southwest end — the 37 Street SW alignment suggests itself as a direct solution to the problem, worthy of the capital investment required on that basis alone, and one that also addresses the only orbital-to-radial light rail interchange left isolated from the core C-Train system at this juncture.

Starting from the Phase III terminus at College Station, Phase IV would continue underground to the northwest, running roughly beneath 45 Avenue SW to arrive after 400 metres at Glamorgan Station, where 37 Street SW meets Grafton Road. From there, the line would continue under 37 Street SW for 800 metres to Rutland Park Station, at the intersection with Richmond Road SW, and from there for 700 metres to Killarney Station, at the junction with 26 Avenue SW, before proceeding an additional 1,200 metres to jog slightly to the northeast and interchange with Line 202 at Westbrook Station. At that point, the line would work its way underneath Bow Trail and Spruce Drive SW for 1,200 metres to reach Spruce Cliff Station, at the intersection of Spruce Drive and Third Avenue SW, before descending to cross the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks, the Lawrey Gardens Natural Area, and the Bow River to arrive after 900 metres at Parkdale Station, at the intersection of Parkdale Boulevard and 29 Street NW, before proceeding generally underneath 29 Street NW for 1,200 metres to close the Line 204 circle at Foothills Medical Station.

The total capital investment required for the final buildout of Line 204 comes to $1,672-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $84-million from 2032 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2028 to 2031 in four instalments of $418-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

37 Street Metro Track and Way of 6.40 km
@ $155-million per km: $992-million

plus six metro stations (Glamorgan, Rutland Park, Killarney, Westbrook, Spruce Cliff, Parkdale)
@ $92-million each: $552-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

Aside from the immediate benefits of directly connecting the pre-existing northwest and southwest termini of Line 204 and of integrating the western leg of Line 202 into the resulting completely orbital light rail line, a number of ancillary benefits will also come into play with the full buildout of Line 204. All of the stations to be built between Mount Royal College and the south bank of the Bow River complement and respect the development and traffic management aims for the neighbourhoods to be served by the western arc of Line 204, with the Rutland Park and Killarney stations in particular reinforcing the objectives of the “Killarney Area Redevelopment Plan” to provide convenient access into and out of the community, discourage shortcuttingtraffic and minimize the negative traffic impacts resulting from new development” (City of Calgary, 1986c:27-28). At the same time, the connection across the Bow River to Parkdale and the Foothills Medical Centre will afford new opportunities for the Parkdale community to generate transit-orientated linkages “to surrounding communities, the regional pathway system, local and regional parks, transit stops and pedestrian crosswalks” (City of Calgary, 2004a:28) while respecting local sentiment favouring “pedestrian-orientated scale and massing” and Parkdale Boulevard’s role “as a gateway to Calgary” (2004a:28-29). Perhaps the most important effect of finishing the Line 204 loop, however, will be its ability to redistribute overall gains in passenger traffic to the broad benefit of the C-Train system as a whole; as the Madrid Public Transport Authority's Carlos Cristóbal-Pinto noted in his 2003 case study of the Madrid Metro, the completion of Madrid's orbital Line Six led to immediately discernable passenger redistribution effects in conjunction with a five-year rise of 22.5 percent in system-wide passenger levels (2003:6), indicating "big demand growth without any repercussions on peak hour" headway efficiency (2003:10). For all of these reasons, completing the western arc of Line 204 represents a substantial investment paying all the more substantial dividends for mass transit passengers and for all Calgarians.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (1986c). “Killarney/Glengarry Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/killarney_arp.pdf

City of Calgary (2004a). “Parkdale Special Planning Study”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/parkdale_special.pdf

Cristóbal-Pinto, Carlos (2003). “Madrid Case Study: Last Stretch of Metro Line 6,
Circle Line”. URL as of 22 Jul 2008 http://www.boku.ac.at/verkehr/05_05_Madrid_CRTM.pdf

Expanding from a New Model: Line 204 Phase III — 2029

2008-07-22T14:33:00.003-06:00

One of the sudden and surprising flashpoints in the debate over Calgary’s future as an urbane and sustainable metropolis has been the fate of the Calgary Farmers’ Market on the site of the former Canadian Forces Currie Barracks. Although it is the stated aim of the 200-acre site’s owner, the Crown-administered Canada Lands Company, and of city planners alike to transform the location into “a richer mix of land uses, housing types, and servicing innovations to achieve a more complete community” (Canada Lands Company, 2008:2), a report from The Calgary Herald’s Sean Myers would suggest that in spite of the Calgary Farmers’ Market operating for as few as three days a week, any contemplation of permitting it to decamp from the Currie Barracks upon the October 2009 expiry of its lease "would be a crime," in the words of at least one regular customer interviewed for Myers’ story, on the grounds that "this place is a destination" for Calgary residents and visitors alike (2008:B2). Yet the Calgary Farmers’ Market is but one of several commercial and residential targets along the southern flank of Calgary’s core — along with such locations as the Deerfoot Meadows retail complex and Mount Royal College, as cases in point — that simultaneously are poorly served by previous plans for mass transit in the city and are prime targets for site-specific intensification as Calgary evolves into a more vibrant and viable urban form, and it will be one of the destinations that stands to benefit greatly from a substantial but strategic capital investment in a light rail connector route that brings all of these key destinations into the orbit of an increasingly robust city-wide mass transit network.

Starting from the Phase II terminus at Ogden Station, Phase III would continue underground east by southeast, running for a portion of the route directly beneath Jack Setters Park, for about 1,600 metres before bridging the Bow River and settling into a surface right of way at Heritage Meadows Way SE, proceeding a total of 1,300 metres further to arrive at Deerfoot Meadows Station, where Heritage Meadows Way intersects 11 Street SE. From there, the line would continue across Heritage Drive SE to Heritage Gate and enter an abandoned railway corridor before rising to meet 58 Avenue SE, arriving after a total of 1,800 metres to the intersection with Burbank Road SE at Burns Industrial Station, and then proceeding a further 800 metres along 58 Avenue SE to arrive at Manchester Station, where 58 Avenue intersects Third Street SE. At a westward distance of 300 metres from that location, the line would enter a portal and curve south by southwest below grade for 900 metres before arriving at a metro interchange with Chinook Station on Line 201; from there, the line would curve west and continue underground for 1,200 metres to Mayfair Station, beneath the intersection of Elbow Drive and Malibou Road SW, and then proceed a total of 2,400 metres on a line following the Glenmore Causeway and descending to a route paralleling the western shore of the Glenmore Reservoir to arrive under the intersection of 54 Avenue and 19 Street SW at Glenmore Park Station. The line would continue north by northwest from there for 1,600 to arrive at Garrison Circle Station, beneath the roundabout at Garrison Boulevard and Flanders Avenue SW, before crossing underneath Crowchild Trail SW for 700 metres to Currie Station, at the junction of Caen Avenue and Quesnay Wood Drive SW, and proceeding a further 900 metres to reach its Phase III terminus at College Station, underneath the existing Calgary Transit terminal at the west gate to the Mount Royal College complex.

The total capital investment required for the Glenmore phase of Line 204 comes to $2,250-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $113-million from 2030 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2026 to 2029 in four instalments of $563-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Glenmore Metro Track and Way of 8.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $1,240-million

plus six metro stations (Chinook, Mayfair, Glenmore Park, Garrison Circle, Currie, College)
@ $92-million each: $ 552-million

Glenmore Surface Track and Way of 4.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $ 100-million

plus three surface stations (Deerfoot Meadows, Burns Industrial, Manchester)
@ $10-million each: $ 30-million

30 Street Yard: $ 200-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $ 128-million

The capital investment in Phase III of Line 204 is warranted for a number of reasons related to mass transit enhancement and community building. In the first instance, this third phase of Line 204 would thoroughly address and build upon the aspirations of the "CFB West Master Plan", which anticipates "improved service, in the form of longer hours and more frequent service to Parade Square, Mount Royal College and other activity areas", the Calgary Farmers' Market among them, in conjunction with enhanced connections to Chinook Station and the downtown core and with effective transit circulation within the Currie Barracks lands (City of Calgary, 2000:163). Furthermore, this phase affords a valuable and useful mass transit alternative with city-wide light rail connectivity for a Deerfoot Meadows retail and commercial complex that identifies an employee, customer, and visitor throughput of 120,000people per day (Ivanhoe Cambridge, 2008). In addition, this alignment is compatible with the objectives of the City of Calgary's "Glenmore Trail Land Use Study", wherein the underground component of Line 204 adjacent to Glenmore Trail would permit the retention of the northern right of way along that artery from Macleod Trail to 14 Street SW as park space and residential development (City of Calgary, 2006b:29). Perhaps most crucially, the College Station terminus ties Mount Royal College's 8,346 full-time students, 2,063 employees, and 58,332 part-time, extension, and Mount Royal Conservatory students (Mount Royal College, 2008) into Calgary's transportation network more effectively and more reliably than the current transportation system allows. All of these factors point to a southern arc for Line 204 that pays its way by drawing more passengers into a more robust system that moves more people, more effectively, through more key locations in Calgary — with the added benefit of drawing a nexus for sustainable agriculture more tightly into the embrace of more mobile and more willing Calgarians.

Works Cited

Canada Lands Company CLC Limited (2008). “Information Sheet: Currie Barracks, Calgary, Alberta”. URL as of 22 Jul 2008 http://www.clc.ca/en/pr/factsheets/curriebarracks.pdf

City of Calgary (2000). “CFB West Master Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/cfb_west/cfb_west_one.pdf

City of Calgary (2006b). “Glenmore Trail Land Use Study”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/glenmore_land_use_study.pdf

Ivanhoe Cambridge (2008). “Deerfoot Meadows: Corporate — Power Centre”. URL as of 22 Jul 2008 http://www.deerfootmeadows.com/Corporate/Site1/

Mount Royal College (2008). “Fast Facts: About MRC — Mount Royal College”. URL as of 22 Jul 2008 http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/aboutmrc/fastfacts.shtml

Myers, Sean (2008). “Supporters rally behind market: Site developer 'listening' to boosters”. The Calgary Herald, 22 July 2008, p. B2. URL as of 22 Jul 2008 http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=5d3c3d9d-8951-4269-b943-7286442e494e

Interlude: New Life for Airport Trail?

2008-07-18T23:44:00.002-06:00

So it looks like the City of Calgary's Standing Policy Committee on Land Use, Planning, and Transportation is going to take another look next Wednesday at building a grade-separated extension of Airport Trail NE under the Calgary International Airport's new parallel runway. The engineers have apparently come up with the bright idea of building a series of bridges over the Airport Trail trench instead of one big long tunnel; in addition to saving about $250-million in up-front capital construction costs, the idea also involves shrinking the width of the necessary right of way for the longest bridge of the lot from 60 metres to 49.8 metres. It needn't be said that I would be happiest with this homemade take on the 49.8 cross-section cobbled together from Page 49 of ABDot's Highway Geometric Design Guide and the geometrical characteristics from Calgary Transit's C-Train technical data:

Dunno whether running storm sewer grates in the shoulders is entirely according to Hoyle, but hey--that's what the CIV E types are for, right?

Expanding from a New Model: Line 204 Phase II — 2026

2008-07-18T10:58:00.003-06:00

The second phase of the orbital Line 204 derives from three fundamental premises. Firstly, a reasonably direct connection from one of the first-phase termini to an available and useful right of way that itself is amenable to further expansion must exist. Secondly, that right of way must be able to serve a ridership base that would otherwise be isolated from the C-Train network. Most crucially, that ridership base must serve as the foundation for mass transit passenger traffic to and from its service location relative to other destinations within the city. It is thus fortunate that 52 Street E, an existing major thoroughfare in eastern Calgary that connects a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial precincts, is available to serve as the eastern spine of an orbital light rail line.

Phase II of Line 204 would extend from Rundle Station in a generally east-by-northeast direction for roughly 1,400 metres before curving to the southeast and south for another 200 metres before surfacing in a streetside right of way along 52 Street NE and arriving at Pineridge Station, where 52 Street intersects 26 Avenue NE. From there, the service would continue on the surface adjacent to 52 Street NE, travelling 1,600 metres to Madigan Drive Station and a further 1,500 metres to Penbrooke Meadows Station, at the intersection with Fifth Avenue SE, before proceeding 1,100 metres south to descend through an underground portal to arrive 200 metres due south at Forest Lawn Station, an underground metro station beneath the junction of 52 Street and 17 Avenue SE. The line would continue 200 metres south before surfacing and proceeding a further 1,400 metres at grade along 52 Street SE to arrive at Erin Woods Station, near 34 Avenue SE, and continuing south another 1,400 metres to Eastfield Station, at the intersection with 48 Avenue SE, and a further 1,300 metres to 61 Avenue Station, before covering an 1,100-metre distance to turn through an underground portal to a surface alignment at 72 Avenue SE and arrive at Great Plains Station. At that point, the line would continue westward 800 metres to Foothills Industrial Station, just west of 44 Street SE, and a further 900 metres to 30 Street Station before crossing the Western Headworks Canal and traversing the CPR Ogden Shops at a grade separation to terminate after a distance of 1,800 metres at an underground interchange with Ogden Station on Line 203.

The total capital investment required for the 52 Street Industrial phase of Line 204 comes to $987-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $49-million from 2027 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2024 to 2026 in three instalments of $329-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

52 Street Industrial Metro Track and Way of 2.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $310-million
plus two metro stations (Forest Lawn, Ogden)
@ $92-million each: $184-million

52 Street Industrial Surface Track and Way of 11.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $275-million
plus nine surface stations (Pineridge, Madigan Drive, Penbrooke Meadows, Forest Lawn, Erin Woods, Eastfield, 61 Avenue, Great Plains, Foothills Industrial, 30 Street)
@ $10-million each: $ 90-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

The second phase of Line 204 greatly increases the connectivity of residential neighbourhoods in eastern Calgary to commercial, residential, and institutional destinations throughout the city, but this is far from the only passenger mobility enhancement deriving from the installation of this new element of the C-Train system. As Roderick Diaz notes in “Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values”, one key benefit of a light rail line serving an industrial corridor is that commercial and industrial sites located in proximity to mass transit services “experience higher property values because such properties have increased access to a larger labour market” (Diaz, 1999:4). This rise in city-wide labour mobility results in direct and ancillary benefits to industrial employers and to retail operators serving an enlarged labour pool, which as described in “The Calgary Transportation Effect” turns an increased and more efficient transit passenger throughput into “increased retail activities, expanding the attractiveness of the area to commercial investors and retailers” (Campbell et alia, 2007:9). Both of these effects anticipate the overall development and mobility strategy articulated in the “Southeast Industrial Area Structure Plan”, in which “demand for serviced industrial land can be met in an economical manner and in a manner that is responsive to changing market conditions” (City of Calgary, 1996:4). On multiple levels, therefore, using 52 Street E to define the eastern arc of Line 204 is a strategic transportation benefit to C-Train passengers; to residential, commercial, and industrial development in eastern Calgary; and to the city as a whole.

Works Cited

Campbell, Don R.; Reuter, Ray; and Tennant, Melanie (2007). “The Calgary
Transportation Effect: The Impact of Transportation Improvements on Housing Values in Greater Calgary”. URL as of 24 Mar 2008 http://www.realestateinvestingincanada.com/files/calgary_transportation_%20report.pdf

City of Calgary (1996) “Southeast Industrial Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/southeast_industrial_asp/southeast_industrial_asp_one.pdf

Diaz, Roderick B. (1999). “Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values”. URL as of 18 Jul 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/diaz.pdf

Interlude: Some Downtown C-Train Diagrams

2008-07-17T13:15:00.008-06:00

Figured that my Gentle Readers* out there in the blogosphere could use a little respite from densely-worded narratives today in favour of some more diagrams. So here you go.

Starting from how the C-Train's downtown service looked on opening day in May 1981...

...we'll move on to how things look downtown right now, with future platform renovations not yet complete...

...and carry on from there to see how the downtown would look with the north-to-southeast Line 203 and with metro construction on Lines 201 and 202...

...and finish things off with a nice colour shot of how the downtown could look by 2040 with all the LRT service this burg could use in place:

"But what is this?" my Gentle Readers** enquire. "What of this peculiar 'Line 206' of which we've heard nothing at all ever before?"

Stay tuned for a future post answering that very question. Your regularly scheduled light rail development rant is forthcoming very soon.

UPPITY DATE: By special request, the diagrams are now scalable! Woo-hoo!

___________________
* Yes, both of you.

** Like I said, both of you.

Expanding from a New Model: Line 203 Phase III — 2024

2008-07-16T14:51:00.003-06:00

The third and final phase of Line 203 represents both the redemption of a promise to the citizens of northern Calgary and an overture to those who would reside in the city’s southeastern precincts. Extending the Centre Street Metro northward to join the existing Harvest Hills Boulevard right of way north of Beddington Trail will close the gap between Calgary’s downtown core and the nascent and maturing residential communities between Beddington Trail and the planned Symons Valley Parkway near the northern city limits, providing an effective and efficient mass transit option for Calgarians living and working north of the Bow River. At the same time, laying the foundations for Line 203’s southeastern expansion now permits the city to avail itself of an opportunity to integrate light rail transit mobility and development planning from the outset into emerging residential community proposals that draw from higher-density building principles. Fittingly, the completion of Line 203 Phase III will extend the reach of the C-Train to its greatest overall length.

The northward extension of Line 203 would continue underground from Highland Park Station for 1,600 metres beneath Centre Street to arrive at Thorncliffe Station, at the intersection with 56 Avenue and Northmount Drive NW. It would then proceed underground for another 800 metres before surfacing in the existing Centre Street surface right of way north of 64 Avenue NW and arriving after a further distance of 700 metres at a street-level Huntington Hills Station at the intersection with 68 Avenue NW. From there, the line would run at grade for 900 metres before tunnelling under the intersection of Centre Street and Beddington Boulevard a further 400 metres to Beddington Station, midway between Beddington Boulevard and Bergen Road, and 1,000 metres beyond that under Centre Street across Beddington Trail to emerge into the current surface right of way in the median of Harvest Hills Boulevard, leading an additional 600 metres at grade to Aurora Park Station at the intersection with 96 Avenue N. The northward extension of Line 203 would then proceed 700 metres to Harvest Hills Station, at the intersection with Harvest Oak Gate NE, and a further 900 metres across Country Hills Boulevard to Coventry Centre Station, before continuing 700 metres to Panorama Hills Station, at the intersection with Panamount Boulevard NW, and 800 metres to Panatella Gate Station, at the intersection with Panatella Gate NW. To complete the buildout of the Line 203 northward extension, the line would proceed a further 1,800 metres to cross Stoney Trail and arrive at its terminus of Symons Valley Parkway Station, at the intersection of Harvest Hills Boulevard and the Symons Valley Parkway.

In contrast, the southeast extension of Line 203 would be much shorter, extending southeast from Seton Station across Deerfoot Trail for a total length of five kilometres to cross the Bow River adjacent to the 212 Avenue SE right of way and serve several suburban communities in the early planning stages at Jamieson Station, Pine Creek Station, and Walden Station. Although the southeast extension would be designed to operate in a dedicated surface right of way, the formal demarcation of the route would be contingent on formal subdivision and base mapping of the communities being served by this extension.

The total capital investment required for the final buildout of Line 203 comes to $1,222-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $61-million from 2025 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2022 to 2024 in three instalments of $407-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Centre Street Metro Track and Way of 2.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $310-million

plus two metro stations (Thorncliffe, Beddington)
@ $92-million each: $184-million

Centre Street Surface Track and Way of 9.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $225-million

plus seven surface stations (Huntington Hills, Aurora Park, Harvest Hills, Coventry Centre, Panorama Hills, Panatella Gate, Symons Valley Parkway)
@ $10-million each: $ 70-million

Southeast Surface Track and Way of 5.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $125-million

plus three surface stations (Jamieson, Pine Creek, Walden)
@ $10-million each: $ 30-million

Aurora Park Yard: $200-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

In addition to meeting the immediate light rail service needs of north Calgary residents living in close proximity to Centre Street and to Harvest Hills Boulevard, the buildout of northbound Line 203 presents the opportunity to operate connecting service for the 54,000 residents expected to live in the region defined between 14 Street and Sarcee Trail NW in the Symons Valley Community Plan, which foresees a series of neighbourhood transit nodes “[promoting] transit use and social interaction and [serving] as a gathering place for residents” (City of Calgary, 2001:4). Furthermore, the completion of northbound Line 203 would provide for the accessibility of a major commercial and light industrial development to a truly effective mass transit spine, in accordance with the expectations of the “Aurora Business Park Area Structure Plan” that public transportation “facilitate access from major transit corridors serving commuters living in the surrounding residential communities and working within the Plan area” (City of Calgary, 2008a:33). The buildout of the Line 203 to the southeast will be especially helpful in determining the connectivity and future shape of such proposed residential communities as the Villages of Walden, whose phased higher-density development would be enhanced by the provision of light rail service to a location anticipating 12,000 residents in the first phase alone (City of Calgary, 2007g:4-5). All of these factors speak to the criticality and the strategic import of constructing Line 203 of the C-Train system to its final destinations and boundaries.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (2001). “Symons Valley Community Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/symons_valley_community_plan/symons_valley_cp_oc_one.pdf

City of Calgary (2007g). “Report to Council from Calgary Planning Commission: File LOC2007-0003”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=ccpa.general&msgID=IeyAcAsAKT&msgAction=download&vernum=2

City of Calgary (2008a). “Aurora Business Park Area Structure Plan” URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/aurora_asp/aurora_asp.pdf

Expanding from a New Model: Line 204 Phase I — 2023

2008-07-16T08:50:00.002-06:00

All of the light rail planning that has occurred to this juncture in Calgary has hewn closely to the radial model of service, wherein mass transit lines intersect in the downtown core to reach out in different directions to suburban locations within the city. There is no dispute to the effectiveness and the necessity of the three radial lines on offer thus far. What is needed as an integral component of a long-term mass transit strategy in Calgary is a means to fill in the gaps in service that a radial network would leave, and to accommodate C-Train passengers whose destinations lie outside the downtown core.

The inspiration for solving this problem dates back to 1896, which is when the Glasgow Subway first entered service in that Scottish city as a six-mile-long steam-powered cable-car loop underneath the city centre and the River Clyde. With an annual ridership in the 13-million-passenger range after its electrification through the 1920s and a three-year closure and renovation of the system from 1977 to 1980, the Glasgow Subway is a high-traffic central circulator that is somewhat constrained by a “reduced scope for full commuting journeys, but modal interchange opportunities provide links to radial routes in the city and beyond” (Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, 2008b). The transfer options for Glasgow Subway patrons range from existing connections to three British Rail stations to future integration by 2021 with a comprehensive network of urban light rail, commuter rail, coastal ferries, and city bus and long-haul motor coach services (Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, 2008a:6-7).

While the Glasgow Subway would influence the integration of orbital and radial metro lines in locations as diverse as Moscow and Miami, perhaps the most helpful example of the sequential implementation of an orbital line comes from Singapore, whose Mass Rapid Transit Circle Line is slated to open in five phases starting in 2009. On its completion in 2020, the Circle Line will consist of 33.3 kilometres of electrified double track and 29 underground stations, with multi-level platform interchanges connecting the new service to key stations on Singapore’s three current radial lines (Land Transportation Authority of Singapore, 2008). In proclaiming that the first phase of the Circle Line would commence revenue service in 2009, Singaporean Transport Minister Raymond Lim indicated that this initial segment would bridge the existing northeastern and northern legs of the municipal mass transit system and lead to a twenty-minute reduction in travel times from those sectors of the city, with additional segments entering service in sequence to meet the objective of “[planning] our land transport system around people, not the other way round” (Government of Singapore, 2008).

From a Calgarian perspective, there are four key criteria that the construction of the first phase of an orbital light rail transit line must satisfy. First and foremost among them is the ability of the line to start from logical transit termini that are scalable to further connections and extensions. Additionally, the line must intersect with existing radial C-Train services at a reasonable directness and with a reasonable economy of passenger travel time between them. Moreover, the line must afford passenger access to destinations that either are not served at all by the current light rail service network or are targets for intensification and expansion that risk overloading the C-Train system without effective relief planning. Finally, the line must complement existing corridors for urban development that presuppose strategic transit investments and presage transit orientation, pedestrian safety, and urban vitality. It is in the service of satisfying these key criteria that Phase I of C-Train Line 204 is being put forward as an effective urban transit solution.

The first phase of Line 204 would consist of a total of 12 kilometres of electrified double track running generally in parallel with 16 Avenue North, of which four kilometres would be built with grade separations for maximum operational efficiency. Starting from a metro interchange with the existing Rundle Station, the line would proceed underground for roughly 400 metres before curving into a surface alignment in the 16 Avenue NE median and continuing a further 600 metres to Mayland Heights Station, adjacent to the intersection with 19 Street NE. The line would then continue westward, crossing the interchange of 16 Avenue and Deerfoot Trail NE on its own elevated span, and proceed in dedicated exclusive light rail lanes adjacent to the renovated 16 Avenue median for a total of 2,400 metres to Renfrew Station, at the intersection with Sixth Street NE. From there, the line would proceed another 300 metres to the surface-level Edmonton Trail Station before entering a metro portal for an interchange with the existing Transcanada Station. The line would surface again to dedicated exclusive light rail lanes and arrive after travelling 400 metres at the surface-level Mount Pleasant Station, where 16 Avenue meets Fourth Street NW, before continuing for a total of 2,400 metres to Rosedale Station, at the intersection of 16 Avenue and Eighth Street NW; to Polytechnic Station, at the intersection with 12 Street NW; to Capitol Hill Station, at the intersection with 16 Street NW; and to the transparently-named 19 Street Station. The remaining 3,600-metre length of the initial phase of Line 204 would continue at separated grades, with a metro tunnel leading to an interchange with the existing Banff Trail Station and continuing from there to an elevated track and platform structure at Stadium Station, to be located between University Drive NW and the western flank of McMahon Stadium, before entering the University Drive median at a sufficient incline to arrive underground at Campus Gate Station, beneath the existing Calgary Transit terminal on the University of Calgary grounds. From that location, the first phase of Line 204 would travel under 24 Avenue NW and arrive at West Campus Station, at the intersection with 37 Street NW, before turning southeast to cross underneath 16 Avenue NW once more and arrive at its final stop at Foothills Medical Station, near the existing Calgary Transit terminal on the hospital grounds.

The total capital investment required for the Transcanada phase of Line 204 comes to $1,872-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $94-million from 2024 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2020 to 2023 in four instalments of $468-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Transcanada Metro Track and Way of 4.00 km
@ $155-million per km: $620-million

plus seven metro stations (Rundle, Transcanada, Banff Trail, Stadium, Campus Gate, West Campus, Foothills Medical)
@ $92-million each: $644-million

Transcanada Surface Track and Way of 8.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $200-million

plus eight surface stations (Mayland Heights, Renfrew, Edmonton Trail, Mount Pleasant, Rosedale, Polytechnic, Capitol Hill, 19 Street)
@ $10-million each: $ 80-million

Meridian Park Yard: $200-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

With interchange stations at Banff Trail on Line 201, Rundle on Line 202, and Transcanada on Line 203, the first phase of Line 204 meets the critical objective of bridging the C-Train system’s radial lines and allowing for passenger network effects that otherwise would not be available. It is also worth noting the capacity improvements and the passenger flow redistribution opportunities at the University of Calgary, McMahon Stadium, SAIT Polytechnic, and the Sunridge Mall – Peter Lougheed Hospital initial terminal complex that the Transcanada phase of Line 204 would afford, as well as the further extension of C-Train service connections to the Foothills Medical Centre initial terminus and the West Campus of the University Lands. The Transcanada phase also supports such key urban redevelopment activities as the “Sixteenth Avenue North Urban Corridor Area Redevelopment Plan”, a statutory policy document envisaging a “necklace” of residential and commercial development nodes that “are expected to create a critical mass at these locations that will promote pedestrian activity and business viability” (City of Calgary, 2007h:6). As a response to the call for passenger mobility improvements across Calgary’s breadth, the Transcanada phase of Line 204 meets every key immediate objective and permits further strategic expansion of the C-Train network.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (2007h). “Sixteenth Avenue North Urban Corridor Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/sixteen_avenue_north_study/sixteen_avenue_north_study_one.pdf

Government of Singapore (2008). “Speech by Mr Raymond Lim, Minister for Transport, at the Visit to Kim Chuan Depot, 25 January 2008, 9.00 AM: Doubling Our Rail Network”. URL as of 15 Jul 2008 https://app-pac.mica.gov.sg/data/vddp/embargo/6260896.htm

Land Transport Authority of Singapore (2008). “Circle Line”. URL as of 15 Jul 2008 http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/proj_rail_ccl.htm

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (2008a). “A Catalyst for Change: The Regional Transport Strategy for the West of Scotland, 2008-21”. URL as of 15 Jul 2008 http://www.spt.co.uk/rts/documents/catalyst_for_change.pdf

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (2008b). “SPT Subway: Facts and Figures”. URL as of 15 Jul 2008 http://www.spt.co.uk/subway/facts.html

Expanding from a New Model: Line 203 Phase II — 2021

2008-07-10T13:04:00.002-06:00

The two regions of Calgary whose needs for light rail transit service will remain most pressing with the buildout of Lines 201 and 202 will be the northern and southeastern sectors of the city. Both of these areas share several points in common, among them a mixture of residential and industrial development, a fusion of old Calgary and new suburbia, and a transportation network that with the rapid growth of the city’s population has become increasingly congested and constrained. The key point on which the northern and southeastern sectors differ is the interest that has been shown thus far in serving their respective residents and employees with effective light rail solutions.

Perhaps the most telling example of Calgary Transit’s left hand not knowing what its right hand is doing is the difference in vision for a city of 1.25-million between mass transit service proposals for the northern and southeastern sectors of the city. Light rail transit is identified as a necessity from Inglewood to the far reaches of southeast Seton in a 2005 Calgary Transit report on the basis of a service population of 184,000, employment of 107,000 (Calgary Transit, 2005:3), and the active implementation of transit-orientated development, particularly “at stations located north of Glenmore Trail” en route to the downtown core, as a means of enhancing daily ridership by 22 percent over what could be achieved merely through building the southeast leg of C-Train Line 203 (2005:4). Even the substantial capital investment necessary for the Eau Claire Metro (Clifton ND Lea et alia, 2006:6) is not enough to deter the long-range planning for the southeast leg of the C-Train system.

In that context, it might strike observers as odd that Calgary Transit’s “North Central Calgary Transit Corridor Review” (2006c), filed a mere 13 months later, makes no mention whatsoever of transit-orientated development. These observers might also find it peculiar that the authors of the report make plain their opinion of the 119,000 residents (2006c:9) and 36,700 employees (2006c:11) located within one mile of Centre Street North between Beddington Trail and the Bow River — accounting for 48 percent of the residential base and 64 percent of the employment base in the projected North Calgary service area at the 1.25-million population horizon (2006c:8) — in their argument that because the outlying northern reaches of the city are expected to generate 3,900 of a possible 7,000 peak hour passengers per hour (2006c:17), and because “a central, north/south route suitable for LRT service is not readily available” (2006c:24), the north-central leg of the C-Train might as well be built along the Nose Creek Valley in spite of “limited opportunities to provide access to the line” (2006c:26). Such simple building blocks for building cities as metro construction, streetscaping, transit-orientated development, and the creation of a vital and pedestrian-friendly retail and residential environment along Centre Street all fall by the wayside in a putative vision that most observers would have great difficulty actually discerning, due in no small measure to a poverty of institutional imagination in which the inner neighbourhoods of Centre Street, petrified in amber, make their own way in isolation from the rest of Calgary “by the existing combination of [bus rapid transit], mainline, and express bus services” (2006c:26).

It is in the spirit of correcting this disparity in civic vision that a new solution for building the second phase of Line 203 becomes obvious. On one level, this new second phase is all about building on what has previously come to fruition, most apparently in terms of the southeast extension of the line from Douglasdale to Seton, but most importantly in terms of using the Phase I terminus at Eau Claire as a gateway to northbound service. When one investigates the strategy more closely, however, the Centre Street Metro that is the linchpin of northbound Line 203 is more than a tool for investing in the value proposition of the line — it is a tool for investing in the value proposition of Centre Street itself as a magnet for people, business, industry, and sustainable development in close and accessible proximity to Calgary’s core.

The most complex element of the Centre Street Metro would be its initial 900-metre extension from the completed Eau Claire Station, from which a tunnel would proceed underneath the Bow River, Prince’s Island, and Memorial Drive, rising slightly through a portal beneath the intersection of Crescent Road and Centre A Street NW before curving underneath Centre Street at an approximate 25-metre depth to arrive at Crescent Heights Station, at the intersection with Eighth Avenue NW. From that point, the Centre Street Metro would rise slightly, continuing another 900 metres to arrive at Transcanada Station, 15 metres deep at the junction of Centre Street and 17 Avenue NW. At a further distance of 1,000 metres would come Tuxedo Park Station, ten metres deep at the intersection of Centre Street and 28 Avenue NW. The initial phase of the Centre Street Metro would end 1,200 metres northward at Highland Park Station, where Centre Street meets 40 Avenue NW.

Conversely, almost all of the southeast extension of Line 203 from Douglasdale Station would be accommodated on existing surface rights of way (Calgary Transit, 2005:2). The first segment of this extension would proceed for 3,400 metres in surface corridors paralleling 114 Avenue SE and 40 Street SE to arrive at Shepard Station, near the intersection of 126 Avenue and 48 Street SE. From there, the extension would enter a surface corridor adjacent to 52 Street SE, travelling 1,400 metres to Prestwick Station, where 52 Street meets Prestwick Gate SE, and a further 1,200 metres to McKenzie Towne Station, where McKenzie Towne Link SE. The southeast extension would proceed an additional 2,700 metres along 52 Street, crossing Highway 22X through a grade-separated portal before arriving at Auburn Bay Station, approximately at the intersection of 52 Street and 178 Avenue SE. After continuing 1,800 metres along 52 Street SE, this phase of the southeast extension of Line 203 would turn east through an underground portal to surface and arrive a further 200 metres along at Hospital Station, at the intersection of 45 Street and Front Street SE, before curving southward once more to end after 800 metres at Seton Station.

The total capital investment required for the Phase II extension of Line 203 comes to $1,642-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $82-million from 2022 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2018 to 2021 in four instalments of $411-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Centre Street Metro Track and Way of 4.80 km
@ $155-million per km: $744-million
plus four metro stations (Crescent Heights, Transcanada, Tuxedo Park, Highland Park)
@ $92-million each: $368-million

Southeast Surface Track and Way of 11.20 km
@ $25-million per km: $280-million
plus 0.40 km underpass
@ $155-million per km: $ 62-million
plus six surface stations (Shepard, Prestwick, McKenzie Towne, Auburn Bay, Hospital, Seton)
@ $10-million each: $ 60-million

Rolling Stock of 32 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $128-million

The completion of this second phase of Line 203 would allow for the immediate capture of 31,700 passengers per day between McKnight Boulevard and the Bow River, representing the 76 percent of the total daily ridership in 2005 of 41,500 (Calgary Transit, 2006c:15) that as of 2005 resided within one mile of Centre Street North between Beddington Trail and the Bow River (2006c:9), as well as for the immediate increase in capture to 46,200 passengers per day along the whole of the southeast leg of Line 203 (Calgary Transit, 2005:5). Transit-orientated development along the southeast leg of Line 203 would generate an additional 10,000 daily passengers (2005:5), with a further 10,000 daily passengers being feasible in conjunction with redevelopment on Centre Street as well.

Works Cited

Calgary Transit (2005). “Southeast LRT: Future Population, Employment and Ridership”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=ccpa.general&msgID=QKTTqrsqqA&msgAction=download&vernum=1

Calgary Transit (2006c). “North Central Calgary Transit Corridor Review”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/north_central_calgary_transit_corridor_review.pdf

Clifton ND Lea et alia (2006). “Southeast LRT Functional Planning Study, Phase III: Glenmore Trail to Elbow River”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/SE_LRT_Final_Report.pdf

Building on What Can Work: Line 202 Seventh Avenue Metro — 2024

2008-04-23T14:49:00.002-06:00

It is possible to infer from documents such as the City of Calgary’s “City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan” that the long-range objective for C-Train service through the city centre will involve separate, dedicated metro lines for any light rail line serving the downtown core, to the point of designing the City Hall metro station from a standing start as an interchange between Line 201 and Line 202 (City of Calgary, 1982:30). The vision for this system, as matters stood in 1982, was for Line 201 and Line 202 to meet at City Hall, with Line 201 following the Stephen Avenue Metro described elsewhere in this document, and with Line 202 continuing in a separate metro constructed underneath Seventh Avenue South. Such a line would doubtlessly be technically feasible, accounting for the necessity of interchanging between stations along Line 201 and 202 through the downtown core, and such a line would have the added benefit of paving over the gap between Calgary’s East Village district and its downtown core by bringing a substantial portion of Line 202’s approach to City Hall below the surface. At the same time, it is worth investigating both the option to construct the envisaged Seventh Avenue Metro and the option to multiply one’s force by stacking both metros one atop the other underneath Stephen Avenue, if only to explore possible efficiencies in interchanging and system-wide connectivity.

In the interest of facilitating passenger transfers to the greatest possible extent between Line 201 in the Stephen Avenue Metro and Line 202 in the Seventh Avenue Metro, the latter underground service would operate in parallel with its Stephen Avenue counterpart. Using the roughed-in City Hall Station as a starting point (City of Calgary, 1982:28-30), and bearing in mind the investigation already under way by the city, the Seventh Avenue Metro would continue west for approximately 200 metres to Museum Station, east of Centre Street, to serve the Glenbow Museum and adjacent hotels. From that point, the Seventh Avenue Metro would arrive after a distance of approximately 400 metres at Bankers’ Hall Station, serving adjacent retail and commercial developments and acting as the downtown core’s primary interchange station. At a distance of approximately 300 metres due west would be Fifth Street Station, also serving a number of adjacent retail and commercial developments. The final station on the Seventh Avenue Metro would be approximately 500 metres west at Century Garden Station, serving retail, commercial, and recreational uses between Seventh and Eighth Streets SW. Line 202 trains would then surface at a portal in the vicinity of Tenth Street SW to connect with the Eleventh Street Station already planned for revenue service on the route, and continue westward from that point. While Bankers’ Hall Station would, as noted, serve as the primary interchange station in the downtown core, all of the stations on the Seventh Avenue Metro would, as noted, maintain connections to Line 201 stations on the Stephen Avenue Metro.

The total capital investment required for the Seventh Avenue Metro comes to $757-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $38-million from 2025 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2021 to 2024 in four instalments of $189-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Seventh Avenue Metro:
$233-million
plus five metro stations (City Hall, Museum, Bankers’ Hall, Fifth Street, Century Garden)
@ $92-million each: $460-million
Rolling Stock of 16 LRVs (SD-160)
@ $4-million each: $ 64-million

The overall benefit to completing the Seventh Avenue Metro would approximate the scale of completing the Stephen Avenue Metro, so that Line 202 could also increase peak-hour passenger throughput from its current level of 7,255 passengers per hour per direction on three-car trains running at five-minute headways to an absolute maximum of 36,000 passengers per hour per direction on five-car trains running at two-minute headways (Calgary Transit, 2008c; Siemens Transportation Systems, 2005:1). These enhancements to the effectiveness of the C-Train system as a network would also afford opportunities for more reliable system-wide connectivity and enhanced passenger satisfaction with the service. Only one critical question remains, that question being whether it is technically and fiscally feasible to construct a “stacked” metro in which Line 202 runs underneath Line 201 beneath Stephen Avenue; the benefit of being able to transfer between levels from Line 201 to Line 202 and vice-versa along the same corridor needs to be weighed against the structural and geophysical risks of building metro systems to 25-metre depths through downtown Calgary.

Works Cited

Calgary Transit (2008c). “LRT Technical Data”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

City of Calgary (1982). “City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/city_hall_arp.pdf

Siemens Transportation Systems (2005). “SD160 Light Rail Vehicle, Calgary, Canada: Technical Information”. URL as of 02 Apr 2008 http://www.sts.siemens.com/DS/SD160%20Calgary%20DS.pdf

Building on What Can Work: Line 203 Phase I — 2017

2008-04-23T13:59:00.003-06:00

Two light rail extension options have already been identified in this document, and although both extensions are technically and financially feasible and are functional and useful to Calgary’s C-Train passengers on the whole, they amount to the proverbial low-hanging fruit, being relatively simple and inexpensive additions to the C-Train network as it presently exists. There are two other light rail development projects that will need to be completed by 2017, two years prior to the commencement of revenue service on a built-out Line 201 and three years before revenue service on a built-out Line 202 begins, if the C-Train system is to accommodate the gains in system ridership arising both from the line extensions and from anticipated population growth. To relieve overloaded passenger traffic and tight C-Train headways on the Seventh Avenue Transit Corridor, it will become vital to the success of Calgary’s light rail system to divert Line 201 to the Stephen Avenue Metro, an underground connector built underneath Eighth Avenue. The other critical project will be the commissioning of the Eau Claire Metro, an underground connector built underneath Second Street SW and Tenth Avenue SW, as part of the activation of C-Train Line 203, travelling generally to the southeast from Calgary’s downtown core to residential and commercial areas east of Deerfoot Trail and south of 17 Avenue SE. This phase of C-Train system construction represents a substantial capital investment and involves technical issues peculiar to Calgary’s terrain, but the strategic benefits of this construction outweigh the risks to such an extent that the city is justified in completing this phase with all possible speed.

The concept of metro service through downtown Calgary dates back to 1967’s Calgary Transportation Study (City of Calgary, 1967:27), with service beneath Eighth Avenue SW being identified as a priority as early as 1970 (Simpson and Curtin et alia, 1970:4). Using the roughed-in City Hall Station as a starting point (City of Calgary, 1982:28-30), and bearing in mind the investigation already under way by the city, the Stephen Avenue Metro would continue west for approximately 200 metres to Museum Station, east of Centre Street, to serve the Glenbow Museum and adjacent hotels. From that point, the Stephen Avenue Metro would arrive after a distance of approximately 400 metres at Bankers’ Hall Station, serving adjacent retail and commercial developments and acting as the downtown core’s primary interchange station. At a distance of approximately 300 metres due west would be Fifth Street Station, also serving a number of adjacent retail and commercial developments. The final station on the Stephen Avenue Metro would be approximately 500 metres west at Century Garden Station, serving retail, commercial, and recreational uses between Seventh and Eighth Streets SW. After turning northward to parallel Ninth Street SW, the Stephen Avenue Metro would rejoin the existing surface light rail line at a portal near Sixth Avenue SW, travelling roughly 400 metres in the process (City of Calgary, 2007a:95). While Bankers’ Hall Station would, as noted, serve as the primary interchange station in the downtown core, all of the stations on the Stephen Avenue Metro would maintain connections to Line 202 platforms along the Seventh Avenue Transit Corridor.

The Eau Claire Metro was identified as a necessary condition for the completion of Line 203 of the C-Train, which in turn was defined in 1987 as vital to any concerted effort to offer mass transit to residents in southeast Calgary (Clifton ND Lea et alia, 2006:6). Starting from Eau Claire Station, beneath the intersection of Second Street and Riverfront Avenue SW, the Eau Claire Metro would continue for approximately 500 metres under Second Street SW to arrive at Central Station, between Sixth and Seventh Avenues SW and interchanging both with Bankers’ Hall Station on Line 201 and with Line 202 platforms along the Seventh Avenue Transit Corridor, before turning under the Canadian Pacific Railway to run below Tenth Avenue SW for a total of roughly 700 metres to arrive at Volunteer Way Station at the intersection with Centre Street, and then surfacing at First Street SE to travel for a total of approximately 700 metres to the at-grade Olympic Way Station, where Tenth Avenue intersects with Fourth Street SE (City of Calgary, 2007a:95). Line 203 would then cross the Elbow River and follow the CPR right of way for roughly 1,600 metres to Inglewood/Ramsay Station, at the intersection of 11 Avenue and 11 Street SE (Clifton ND Lea et alia, 2006:59), before continuing 1,200 metres to Crossroads Station, where 11 Avenue and 26 Street SE meet (2006:61), and another 1,200 metres thence to Highfield Station, at the intersection of Ogden Road and Highfield Boulevard SE (2006:63). This line would continue to run parallel to the CPR for an additional 2,200 metres to Lynnwood Station, at the intersection of Ogden Road and Millican Road SE (2006:65), and for a further 1,400 metres to Ogden Station, where Ogden Road meets 69 Avenue SE (2006:67), before crossing Glenmore Trail SE and continuing a further 1,800 metres to South Hill Station, at the intersection of Shepard Road and 85 Avenue SE (2006:69). At this point, Line 203 would diverge from the CPR right of way, continuing south parallel to 24 Street SE for approximately 1,700 metres to Quarry Park Station, as proposed by the developers of the Quarry Park commercial and residential subdivision (Remington Development Corporation, 2008), and from there roughly another 1,500 metres to Douglasdale Station, at the intersection of 29 Avenue and 114 Street SE. The list of destinations along this preliminary stretch of the Eau Claire Metro and Line 203 incorporates an eclectic mix of commercial, residential, and industrial properties.

The total capital investment required for the Stephen Avenue Metro, the Eau Claire Metro, and the first stage of Line 203 to Douglasdale comes to $1,964-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $98-million from 2018 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2012 to 2017 in six instalments of $328-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Stephen Avenue Metro: $233-million
plus five metro stations (City Hall, Museum, Bankers’ Hall, Fifth Street, Century Garden)
@ $92-million each: $460-million
Eau Claire Metro: $233-million
plus three metro stations (Eau Claire, Central, Volunteer Way)
@ $92-million each: $276-million
Southeast Surface Track and Way of 13.00 km
@ $25-million per km: $325-million
plus nine surface stations (Olympic Way, Inglewood/Ramsay, Crossroads, Highfield, Lynnwood, Ogden, South Hill, Quarry Park, Douglasdale)
@ $10-million each: $ 90-million
Ogden Yard: $200-million
Rolling Stock of 37 LRVs (Avanto)
@ $4-million each: $148-million

A number of operational benefits would come into play for the C-Train system on the successful completion of this construction phase. Line 203 alone would bring 55,000 daily revenue passengers to and from the Eau Claire Metro and the city centre in 2017, based on previous analyses of population growth and residency patterns in southeast Calgary (Clifton ND Lea et alia, 2006:56), and furthermore would provide a viable alternative to automobile travel for riders from elsewhere in the city with travel demand to commercial and industrial areas along the line. Even more importantly, perhaps, the availability of the Stephen Avenue Metro to Line 201 would allow both for a reduction in headway times both for Line 201 and 202 through the downtown core, and for an increase in the overall capacity of C-Trains using both lines, so that Line 201 could increase peak-hour passenger throughput from its current level of 7,255 passengers per hour per direction on three-car trains running at five-minute headways to an absolute maximum of 36,000 passengers per hour per direction on five-car trains running at two-minute headways (Calgary Transit, 2008c; Siemens Transportation Systems, 2005:1). These enhancements to the effectiveness of the C-Train system as a network would also afford opportunities for more reliable system-wide connectivity and enhanced passenger satisfaction with the service.

Works Cited

Calgary Transit (2008c). “LRT Technical Data”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

City of Calgary (1967). Calgary Transportation Study, Volume 2. From City of Calgary Archives.

City of Calgary (1982). “City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/city_hall_arp.pdf

City of Calgary (2007a). “Centre City Plan”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/centre_city/centre_city_plan_one.pdf

Clifton ND Lea et alia (2006). “Southeast LRT Functional Planning Study, Phase III: Glenmore Trail to Elbow River”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/SE_LRT_Final_Report.pdf

Remington Development Corporation (2008). “Quarry Park: Site Access”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.quarrypark.ca/site.html

Siemens Transportation Systems (2005). “SD160 Light Rail Vehicle, Calgary, Canada: Technical Information”. URL as of 02 Apr 2008 http://www.sts.siemens.com/DS/SD160%20Calgary%20DS.pdf

Simpson and Curtin et alia (1970). “Transit for Calgary’s Future: Engineering Analysis for 1978 Rapid Transit System”. From City of Calgary Archives.

Building on What Can Work: Line 202 Buildout — 2020

2008-04-23T10:37:00.003-06:00

The announcement today that StoneGate Landing would commence construction in northeast Calgary, east of Deerfoot Trail and north of Calgary International Airport, in 2009 for completion by 2016 speaks to the importance of effective mass transit to the northeast sector of the city. The Calgary Herald’s Mario Toneguzzi reported that the 455-hectare site would be built out over the course of the next eight years to encompass roughly one million square metres of light industrial development, a 200,000-square-metre midrise office campus, and 150,000 square metres of retail and entertainment services incorporating some pedestrian amenities (Toneguzzi, 2008). Moreover, Toneguzzi’s report (2008) referred to StoneGate Landing’s proximity to lands that would accommodate 60,000 residents. Based on these development indicators alone, a horizon is now in sight for the development and completion of C-Train Line 202, primarily from its projected northeast terminus at Saddletowne Station but additionally from its projected western terminus at 69 Street Station, by 2020 — a mere four years after StoneGate Landing and its adjacent residential lands achieve full occupancy.

Light rail extensions of Line 202 to the northeast and to the west have been anticipated in several statutory planning documents. The western extension of the line from 69 Street Station would be relatively short, consisting of 1.60 kilometres of electrified double track at grade paralleling 17 Avenue SW and curving northwest past the intersection of 85 Street SW to a terminal facility at Aspen Woods Station to serve the East Springbank neighbourhood of the same name (City of Calgary, 2005f:I.3). The longer Line 202 extension would be to the northeast, following the 60 Street right of way from Saddletowne Station at grade for roughly 800 metres to 88 Avenue Station (City of Calgary, 1984:19) and a further 2,400 metres to arrive at Country Hills East Station at the junction of 60 Street and Country Hills Boulevard NE (City of Calgary, 2007d:21). This route would continue toward a westward turn at 128 Avenue NE and arrive after a net distance of 2,400 metres at Northpointe Station (2007d:21), where 128 Avenue intersects with 52 Street NE. From this location, Line 202 would continue west along 128 Avenue NE and then turn north to its terminus at Stonegate Station, a transit-orientated retail and commercial development node at the approximate intersection of a reconfigured Barlow Boulevard and the decommissioned 36 Street NE right of way (City of Calgary, 2007e:13).

The total capital investment required for both extensions of Line 202 comes to $364-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $18-million from 2021 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2018 to 2020 in three instalments of $121-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

Northeast Surface Track and Way of 8.40 km @ $25-mil per km: $210-mil
plus four surface stations (88 Avenue, Country Hills East, Northpointe, Stonegate) @ $10-mil each: $40-mil
West Surface Track and Way of 1.60 km @ $25-mil per km: $40-mil
plus one surface station (Aspen Woods) @ $10-mil each: $10-mil
Rolling Stock of 8 LRVs (SD-160) @ $4-mil each: $32-mil

The northeast extension of Line 202 would be particularly valuable to residential passengers in that area of the city travelling to destinations on the C-Train system, and indeed, this function would be the almost exclusive benefit of the western extension of the line. At the same time, the transit-orientated retail and commercial development node at Stonegate Station, and to an appreciably lesser extent the adjacent commercial and light industrial uses envisioned for the remaining portions of StoneGate Landing, afford opportunities for passengers from other precincts of the city to travel northeast along Line 202 counter to predominant traffic flows to downtown Calgary, and thus allow for the possibility of maximising overall use of this capital transportation investment.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (1984). “Saddle Ridge Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 24 Apr 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/saddle_ridge_asp/saddle_ridge_asp_one.pdf

City of Calgary (2005f). “Report to Council from Calgary Planning Commission: East Springbank Area Structure Plan (Aspen Woods).” URL as of 23 Apr 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/cpc_agendas/2005_may_05/m2005_015.pdf

City of Calgary (2007d). “Northeast Community A Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_community_a_asp.pdf

City of Calgary (2007e). “Northeast Industrial Area Structure Plan”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_industrial_asp.pdf

Toneguzzi, Mario (2008). “$3B project city’s biggest ever: Development planned for northeast”. The Calgary Herald, 23 Apr 2008, p. D1. URL as of 23 Apr 2008 http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=95e8a25d-c28f-471a-b857-1689c638f4df&k=62155

Building on What Can Work: Line 201 Buildout — 2019

2008-04-22T11:20:00.000-06:00

With the completion of the northwest leg of the C-Train’s Line 201 to Tuscany and Rocky Ridge expected by the end of 2011, only one stage would remain for Line 201 to operate at its full length. This 5.5-kilometre, three-station extension of Line 201 would continue along existing rights of way in parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and would satisfy revenue passenger service for emerging and planned residential communities south of Alberta Highway 22X, which exists both as a vital east-west motorway artery across the southern flank of the city and as a critical barrier to north-south passenger travel. As a highly economical and thoroughly sustainable means of offering rapid transit to a sector of the city slated for a long-term residential population of 70,000 (City of Calgary, 2007l:10), the buildout of Line 201 represents a quick win for the City of Calgary, and a strategic transportation objective that would easily be met by the year 2019.

The extension of Line 201, as already anticipated in The City of Calgary’s 2007 “South Macleod Regional Policy Plan”, would consist of 5.5 kilometres of electrified double track paralleling the CPR, passing underneath existing bridging along Alberta Highway 22X to serve three light rail stations. Silverado Station would be a surface-level station located about one kilometre due south of Alberta Highway 22X, serving passengers in the new Silverado subdivision. The line would continue from that point to Dawes Road Station, approximately 300 metres south of 194 Avenue SW, which would serve as the epicentre of transit-orientated residential, commercial, and recreational developments in the area (City of Calgary, 2007l:19). Roughly 300 metres north of the current southern city limit, and at the heart of a transit-orientated development supporting a commercial centre (2007l:19), the Line 201 extension would come to its ultimate end at 240 Avenue Station.

The total capital investment required for the extension of Line 201 comes to $200-million, a figure that could be carried over thirty years in instalments of $10-million from 2020 onward, or financed through an MSI-equivalent funding mechanism from 2017 to 2019 in three instalments of $67-million. The details of the necessary capital investment are identified as follows:

* South Surface Track and Way of 5.50 km @ $25-million per km: $138-million
* plus three surface stations (Silverado, Dawes Road, 240 Avenue) @ $10-million each: $30-million
* Rolling Stock of 8 LRVs (SD-160) @ $4-million each: $32-million

The primary opportunity deriving from the southward extension of Line 201 is that of serving residential passengers travelling within the city to destinations on the C-Train system. With intensified residential, commercial, and recreational development in the vicinity of Dawes Road Station, non-residential traffic along this extension remains an outside possibility.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (2007l). “South Macleod Trail Regional Policy Plan”. URL as of 22 Apr 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/south_macleod_trail_rpp/south_macleod_trail_rpp_one.pdf

Operating Assumptions

2008-04-11T14:54:00.000-06:00

Any capital plan for C-Train system expansion in Calgary must account for a number of expenses and complicating factors.

At its simplest level, light rail service of any description requires light rail vehicles, and for operating purposes system costs will be based on a cost per light rail vehicle of four million dollars (City of Calgary, 2007j:13). The Siemens Transportation Systems SD160 is a high-floor light rail vehicle already in multiple-unit service in Calgary, and while C-Train passengers and operators alike are familiar with this vehicle as a result, it does offer some planning constraints in that its single articulation compromises its turning radius, and in that in the Calgary context it would be restricted exclusively to multiple-unit light rail operation; each SD160 vehicle accommodates 64 seated passengers, with a maximum passenger load of 240, and is 2.65 metres wide, 3.84 high, and 24.82 metres long, thus offering a five-car train length of 124.10 metres (Siemens Transportation Systems, 2005:1). Alternatively, the Siemens Transportation Systems S70 Avanto is a 70-percent low-floor light rail vehicle in multiple-unit service in Charlotte, North Carolina, and in San Diego, California, and while this vehicle would be relatively novel in C-Train operation, it does offer some planning advantages in that its double articulation shortens its turning radius, and in that single-unit or double-unit configurations could operate in street-level tram configurations; each Avanto vehicle accommodates 68 seated passengers, with a maximum passenger load of 236, and is 2.65 metres wide, 3.68 high, and 28.53 metres long, thus offering a five-car train length of 142.65 metres (Siemens Transportation Systems, 2006:3-4)

Track, station, and facility capital construction costs are heavily dependent on the extent to which grade separation is employed. Based on current available data from the City of Calgary, surface-level track and way construction is feasible at $25-million per kilometre, with surface-level stations costing $10-million each (City of Calgary, 2007j:12-13). The calculations for metro construction are complex at the best of times, but using cost estimates for Toronto’s metro extension from Downsview Station to the Vaughan Corporate Centre as a reasonable model (Toronto Transit Commission, 2008:22), metro construction is feasible at $155-million per kilometre, with underground stations costing $92-million each. The latter figure is predicated on a rough approximation of Toronto metro station topography, stemming in turn from 1970-era plans for Calgary metro stations (Simpson and Curtin et alia, 1970:8; Figure 4), whereby a mezzanine four metres below the surface would provide access to metro station platforms ten metres below the surface; tunnels and platforms at a second underground level would be feasible at 16 metres below grade, and were a third underground level to be required — for example, three levels of metro construction at Second Street and Stephen Avenue SW, or at a metro portal on the north bank of the Bow River — such construction could conceivably be accommodated at a level of 25 metres below grade. Whereas the Oliver Bowen Maintenance Facility was budget in 2005 to serve 65 light rail vehicles at a total capital cost of $116.4-million dollars (City of Calgary, 2006a:50), a combination of construction inflation, rising land prices, and a change of scope for future yards to accommodate 80 light rail vehicles leaves the capital cost estimate for future light rail vehicle yards at $200-million each for the purposes of this analysis.
All future lines in this analysis are posited for construction at a rate of five kilometres per annum. Project financing is to be costed at constant 2008 Canadian dollars throughout this document, and will reference total project capital costs, thirty-year annualised instalment breakdowns, and best fit annual charges under the Province of Alberta’s Municipal Sustainability Initiative (Queen’s Printer of Alberta, 2007) or conceivable successor funding models.

Works Cited

City of Calgary (2006a). “2006 to 2008 Budget: Transportation Budget Details”. URL as of 11 Apr 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/finance/budget/2006_2008/proposed/transportation_budget_details.pdf

City of Calgary (2007j). “Urgent Multi-Year Infrastructure Investments”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/mayor/lrt_rec_presentation.pdf

Queen’s Printer of Alberta (2007). “Municipal Sustainability Initiative”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/mc_municipal_sustainability_initiative.cfm

Siemens Transportation Systems (2005). “SD160 Light Rail Vehicle, Calgary, Canada: Technical Information”. URL as of 02 Apr 2008 http://www.sts.siemens.com/DS/SD160%20Calgary%20DS.pdf

Siemens Transportation Systems (2006). “S70 Light Rail Vehicle: Technical Information”. URL as of 02 Apr 2008 http://www.siemens.pl/upload/images/TS-Avanto%20S70_usa.pdf

Simpson and Curtin et alia (1970). “Transit for Calgary’s Future: Engineering Analysis for 1978 Rapid Transit System”. From City of Calgary Archives.

Reasons to Abandon Prior Tunnel Vision

2008-04-11T12:08:00.001-06:00

While the C-Train is at present the most successful implementation of light rail transit service in North America, its future effectiveness is at risk. The issue is not one of too few riders, as subsequent analysis will show; nor is it one of too many riders, as prior investigation of Calgary Transit’s light rail expansion strategy made plain. What will bring light rail in Calgary to a screeching halt — if the citizens of our city allow it — will be the deadly combination of inertia and tunnel vision. The managers to whom the people of this city have entrusted the future of the C-Train system are mired in the plans, policies, and political environment of the past, which makes it essential to document the changes in fact that will be needed to precipitate the necessary changes in thought to fortify and expand the C-Train system in new and more effective ways.

Perhaps the most self-evident reason to reconsider the extent and the scale of civic investment in the C-Train system is the sustained and significant rise in light rail ridership in Calgary since 1996, over and above already impressive gains in city population and in system length from that time. From 1996 to 2007, the population of Calgary increased from 768,082 to 1,019,942 inhabitants (Queen’s Printer of Canada, 2007; Queen’s Printer of Canada, 2008; City of Calgary, 2007b), representing a gain of approximately 33 percent, and the overall length of the C-Train system increased from 20.3 miles to 27.9 miles (Calgary Transit, 2008c), representing an approximately 37 percent increase that would be reasonably comparable to the growth in population. As a compilation of American Public Transport Association daily ridership reports since 1996 will demonstrate, however, C-Train ridership has risen from 133,700 riders per day in 1996 (APTA, 1997) to 271,100 riders per day in 2007 (APTA, 2008a) — which means that overall ridership has more than doubled from 1996 levels, representing a 103 percent gain. A relatively simple calculation further demonstrates that on a standard APTA benchmark, daily passengers per mile, the C-Train has grown 48 percent from 6586 to 9719 passengers per mile between 1996 and 2007, in the process both strongly outperforming other North American light rail systems (APTA, 2008c; Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, 2008; San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, 2007; Regional Transportation District of Denver, 2008) and offering service levels comparable on daily ridership and passenger-per-mile metrics to heavy rail metro systems in major metropolitan regions such as Atlanta and the San Francisco Bay Area (APTA, 2008b; Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority, 2004; San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 2008). In a North American context, although it will be some point well into the future before Calgary’s passenger-per-mile figures approach those of New York (APTA, 2008b; New York State Office of the State Comptroller, 1999) or Toronto (APTA, 2008a; Toronto Transit Commission, 2007), Calgary operates what is by any reasonable and statistically valid measure a strong and successful light rail transit system, and has earned its residents’ trust in a stronger, more successful one yet.

A robust light rail transit system will also benefit Calgarians through the strategic escalation of transit-orientated development adjacent to C-Train passenger stations. This concept has been axiomatic to city planning in Calgary since at least 2005 in terms of “[creating] a higher density, walkable, mixed-use environment within station areas in order to optimize use of existing transit infrastructure, create mobility options for Calgarians, and benefit local communities and city-wide transit riders alike” (City of Calgary, 2005e:v). Indeed, the Transportation Research Board identified transit-orientated development in 2007 as a critical step towards building passenger traffic on mass transit systems across North America, noting the additional benefit (2007:91) of “their potential to generate transit trips during off-peak periods (i.e., for restaurants, stores, and entertainment attractions), as well as during the peak commute periods”. In its 2005 ranking of 66 current and proposed C-Train stations by transit-orientated development priority and viability (City of Calgary, 2005c), Calgary Transit was able to hint at Heritage Station’s importance in microcosm to municipal and private-sector site intensification near light rail stations as a whole (2005c:2), and its predictions have borne fruit by way of a station plan envisioning a new and improved Calgary Transit operations and control centre (Calgary Transit, 2007:44), and more tangibly by way of a four-tower, 1200-unit condominium complex advertising its proximity and ready access to Heritage Station as an essential feature (Westcorp Properties Inc., 2008). Although the stated long-range goal of transit-orientated development is to maximise land use and density near mass transit stations, this goal derives fundamentally in Calgary from the existing success of the C-Train system in attracting revenue passengers in the first instance.

In his 2004 re-evaluation of the triple bottom line concept, “Enter the Triple Bottom Line”, business analyst John Elkington identified seven key drivers, or “revolutions” (2004:3-7), that are as applicable to examining the future direction of Calgary’s C-Train system as to responding at the corporate level to “[an] agenda [that] focuses corporations not just on the economic value that they add, but also on the environmental and social value that they add — or destroy” (2004:3). Figures cited above from the American Public Transport Association and from civic censuses clearly articulate the premise that the market for C-Train service in Calgary, the first key driver, is larger and growing more quickly than previously anticipated. What follows from this point is the degree to which Calgarians have taken to using the C-Train system since 1996 as a transportation tool, relative to Calgary’s growth in population — suggesting a fundamental and growing shift in civic values, the second key driver. This document is a direct response to the Plan It Calgary Initiative, which itself is a response to the third key driver of transparency, whereby citizens oblige themselves to offer input and to expect throughput in key municipal decisions. The fourth key driver, life-cycle technology, demands the abandonment of quick fixes in favour of a more strategic and systematic view of overall performance, which in the context of C-Train system planning involves examining ways to take maximum advantage of light rail’s scalability as Calgary’s light rail system matures and expands. Such an exercise demands a level of partnership, the fifth key driver, between passengers and transit managers that integrates trust and responsiveness from both sides into sustained system performance and enhancement. From this point, the sixth key driver — time — becomes important, both as a measure of how quickly service expansions and enhancements can be phased into the C-Train system and as an indicator of how long the system as a whole will be efficient and effective. All of these issues ultimately answer to the seventh and final key driver of corporate governance, and the central issue deriving from this key driver is the extent to which transit directors will be expected — and more crucially, permitted — to direct Calgary’s light rail system by its paying passengers.

For all of these reasons, the growth in Calgary’s population and the dividends being paid to its citizens by the rising success of the C-Train system since 1996 dictate a change in focus for the strategic direction of light rail development in this city. Least-cost routing, whereby the financial efficiency of the system has been paramount in route development, made initial C-Train services feasible and created the early conditions for passenger demand and system effectiveness. The time has come, however, for route development and the expansion strategy of Calgary’s light rail transit service, to follow from greatest-benefit routing, wherein financial considerations — while still necessary and important — are secondary to the ultimate goal of providing the most C-Train service to as many Calgarians as possible. If the Plan It Calgary initiative is to respond to Calgarians’ hopes and aspirations for our city, and therefore if the city is to grow and prosper in a changing world, the C-Train system must become this city’s spine, providing a robust and responsive structure on which Calgarians can built and connect with each other.

Works Cited

American Public Transport Association (1997). “APTA Public Transportation Ridership Report: Canada, Fourth Quarter, 1996”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/96q4can.pdf

American Public Transport Association (2002). “APTA Public Transportation Ridership Report: Canada, Fourth Quarter, 2001”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/01q4can.pdf

American Public Transport Association (2007). “APTA Public Transportation Ridership Report: Canada, Fourth Quarter, 2006”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q4can.pdf

American Public Transport Association (2008a). “APTA Public Transportation Ridership Report: Canada, Fourth Quarter, 2007”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q4can.pdf

American Public Transport Association (2008b). “Heavy Rail Public Transportation Ridership Report: Fourth Quarter, 2007”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q4hr.pdf

American Public Transport Association (2008c). “Light Rail Public Transportation Ridership Report: Fourth Quarter, 2007”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q4lr.pdf

Calgary Transit (2007). “Heritage Station Transit Oriented Development: Station Area Master Plan”. URL as of 11 Apr 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/heritage_station_transit_oriented_development_080225.pdf

Calgary Transit (2008c). “LRT Technical Data”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

City of Calgary (2005c). “Priority Stations Report, 2005 March”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=ccpa.general&msgID=KTAcryyscY&msgAction=download&vernum=1

City of Calgary (2005e). “Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/3405_tod_policy_guidelines.pdf

City of Calgary (2007b). “Civic Census”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_104_0_0_35/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Municipal+Government/Civic+Census/Civic+Census.htm

Elkington, John (2004). “Enter the Triple Bottom Line”. In Enriques, Adrian, and Richardson, Julie, editors (2004). The Triple Bottom Line, Does It All Add Up?: Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR. London: Earthscan. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.johnelkington.com/TBL-elkington-chapter.pdf

Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority (2004). “Media Kit”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.itsmarta.com/newsroom/martafacts.htm

New York State Office of the State Comptroller (1999). “A Guide for Evaluating the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Proposed Capital Program for 2000 Through 2004”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt700/rpt700.htm

Queen’s Printer of Canada (2007). “2001 Community Profiles: Calgary: All Data”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4806016&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&SearchText=calgary&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=

Queen’s Printer of Canada (2008). “2006 Community Profiles: Census Subdivision: Calgary: Population”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4806016&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&SearchText=calgary&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=Population&Custom=

Regional Transportation District of Denver (2008). “RTD Facts”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.rtd-denver.com/Projects/Fact_Sheets/RTD_Facts.pdf

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2007). “General Information”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/About_MTS.asp

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (2008). “BART System Facts”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.bart.gov/about/history/systemfacts.asp

Toronto Transit Commission (2007). “2006 Operating Statistics”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/operatingstatistics2006.pdf

Transportation Research Board (2007). TCRP Report 111: Elements Needed to Create High Ridership Transit Systems. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_111.pdf

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (2008). “MAX Light Rail Project History”. URL as of 21 Mar 2008 http://trimet.org/about/history/maxoverview.htm

Westcorp Properties Inc. (2008). “New Calgary Condos — London at Heritage Station: Building Features: C-Train at Your Doorstep”. URL as of 11 Apr 2008 http://www.ilikelondon.com/flash/index.html

On the Drawing Board

2008-04-10T21:18:00.001-06:00

Calgary’s C-Train system has been in a state of continuous capital planning for extensions since its inception. Most of Calgary Transit’s short- to medium-range capital planning schema derives from its 2006 document “Strategic Development of Calgary’s C-Train System”, a document that tries to anticipate C-Train system needs in Calgary over a 15-year interval. Although Calgary Transit and the City make efforts to project a longer view of their light rail planning strategy, such attempts are frequently overtaken by current events and by the unexpectedly rapid growth in Calgary’s population. Consequently, some of the plans listed below would by definition be more feasible under reasonable technical and budget expectations than others.

The current capital plans for Line 201 would see it built out and expanded to its penultimate form by 2018 (Calgary Transit, 2006d:4), with the possibility of a southward two-station extension beyond 2026 (2008d:4). Line 201’s northwest leg would be completed in 2011 with a 2.2-kilometre single-station extension from Crowfoot Station in the median of Crowchild Trail to Tuscany/Rocky Ridge Station, adjacent to the Rocky Ridge Road right of way (City of Calgary, 2007j:12). The southern leg would see the lengthening of its C-Train platforms from Victoria Park/Stampede to Fish Creek/Lacombe to accommodate four-car trains by 2015, with similar improvements to stations on the northwest leg being completed by 2018 (2006d:9). Two further stops on the south leg of Line 201 have been proposed for Silverado Station, near a new subdivision at 194 Avenue SW, and for 212 Avenue Station, but the opening of these stations before 2026 is not at present being contemplated (2008d:4).

Early gains in the length of the northeast leg of Line 202 will be tempered by relatively slow growth in ensuing years. Two stations extending northeast from McKnight/Westwinds — Martindale Station, a set of platforms running through a dedicated parkway within the northern portion of the Martindale subdivision, and Saddletowne Station, on the northwest arc of Saddletowne Circle NE between 60 Street and 80 Avenue NE — have been approved for construction and for commencement of revenue service in 2011 (City of Calgary, 2007j:12). Service for four-car C-Trains would be instituted for the whole of Line 202 upon the extension of C-Train platforms from Bridgeland/Memorial to Whitehorn by 2021 (Calgary Transit, 2006d:9). A long-range forecast for residential development further northeast in Calgary makes provisions (City of Calgary, 2006b:19) for three additional C-Train stations in the median of 60 Street NE near Airport Trail, Country Hills Boulevard, and 128 Avenue NE, and for a fourth near Barlow Trail and 128 Avenue NE, but none of these stations are expected to be in service prior to 2026 (Calgary Transit, 2008d:4).

Conversely, the six-station, 7.7-kilometre west leg of Line 202 (City of Calgary, 2008c) is expected to be substantially complete by 2012 (City of Calgary, 2007j:12), with only one station being mulled for long-range expansion. The extension would leave the downtown core along Seventh Avenue SW, crossing 11 Street SW and traversing the northern boundary of Shaw Millennium Park toward an elevate guideway stopping at Sunalta Station, near the intersection of 10 Avenue and 16 Street SW. The guide would continue west parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway and skirt the interchange of Crowchild Trail and Bow Trail SW before settling into its own surface right of way on the north flank of Bow Trail and shopping at Shaganappi Station, adjacent to 26 Street SW. At 33 Street SW, Line 202 would enter and underground portal and turn underneath the current Ernest Manning High School site to arrive at the C-Train’s first metro station, Westbrook Station. After a turn underneath 17 Avenue SW, the line would surface at 41 Street SW onto a dedicated surface right of way on the north flank of 17 Avenue to stop at 45 Street Station. Line 202 would continue west onto a dedicated bridge across Sarcee Trail SW and onto a right of way with a stop at Signal Hill Station, adjacent to Costello Boulevard and Sirocco Drive SW. From there, the line would enter an underground portal at Simcoe Boulevard SW and come to a stop underneath 17 Avenue SW at 69 Street Station for its 2012 debut. A 1.7-kilometre extension across 85 Street SW to a potential Aspen Woods Station is not expected to open prior to 2026 (Calgary Transit, 2008d:4).

Even though a functional study has been commissioned by the City of Calgary to investigate and to document by the end of 2008 the technical and financial implications of constructing a metro to accommodate necessary long-range improvements to C-Train service through the centre of Calgary (City of Calgary, 2007j:13), the only current project for upgrading downtown light rail transportation is the series of platform renovations and pedestrian realm enhancements for the current Seventh Avenue transit corridor derived from plans presented to the city by Graham Edmunds Carter and Sturgess Architecture in 2004. Through a combination of renovations in place and of platform relocations, the Seventh Avenue platforms are to be lengthened to serve four-car C-Trains, integrated more closely with existing and future commercial developments along Seventh Avenue, and enhanced with public art, landscaping, and passenger amenities over several phases by 2012 (2004:29-33). Both the Stephen Avenue Metro, meant to accommodate Line 201 downtown, and a long-range Seventh Avenue Metro, where downtown service for Line 202 would ultimately be relocated, are referenced in passing as part of 1982’s “City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan”, in which a proposed Central Station serving both lines would concentrate passenger debarkation, transfer, and amenity spaces in the vicinity of the Calgary Municipal Building (City of Calgary, 1982:28-30). By the same token, an Eau Claire Metro running under Second Street SW from Second Avenue to Tenth Avenue SW, designed for future southeast light rail service, was identified as the more viable option in that line’s engineering study (Clifton ND Lea et alia, 2004:36-37). In all available research documentation, however, the only downtown C-Train system improvement on offer under a specific and current timeline is indeed the Seventh Avenue corridor renovation.

Light rail service to the southeast area of the city is one of two longer-range C-Train system extensions under active consideration between 2021 and 2026 (Calgary Transit, 2006d:4). The southeast leg, provisionally identifiable as Line 203, is planned to start from the downtown core at an underground Eau Claire Station, where Second Street and Second Avenue SW intersect. The Eau Claire Metro described above would continue beneath Second Street SW to an interchange stop, Central Station, at Sixth Avenue with connections to Lines 201 and 202. From there, the line would turn underground to follow Tenth Avenue SW to Volunteer Way Station, at the Centre Street intersection. Line 203 would surface east of Macleod Trail SE and continue to Olympic Way Station, adjacent to Fourth Street SE, and cross the Elbow River, paralleling the Canadian Pacific right of way from that point (Clifton ND Lea et alia, 2004:35), to Inglewood/Ramsay Station, at the intersection of 11 Avenue and 11 Street SE; to Crossroads Station, near the intersection of 11 Street and 26 Avenue SE; to Highfield Station, near the intersection of Highfield Boulevard and Ogden Road SE; to Lynnwood Station, where Ogden Road meets Millican Road SE; to Ogden Station, near the intersection of 69 Avenue and 69 Avenue SE; and thence to South Hill Station, at a realigned 85 Avenue and Shepard Road SE. The line would then run parallel to 24 Street SE, where a private developer (Remington Development Corporation, 2008) has proposed a Quarry Park Station at 100 Avenue SE, before ending its initial stage in 2021 at Douglasdale Station, at the intersection of 114 Avenue and 29 Street SE. Further stations would be built in 2026 or later (Calgary Transit, 2008d:4) to serve Shepard, Prestwick, McKenzie Towne, Auburn Bay, the Southeastern Health Campus, and Seton.

The final C-Train line being investigated for construction in the 2026 timeframe would be the north-central leg, which as a conceived spur of Line 202 (Calgary Transit, 2006c:27) could reasonably be identified as Line 202X. This leg would be constructed in close proximity to the Nose Creek Valley, with stops at Eighth Avenue NE, 32 Avenue NE, 64 Avenue NE, and Airport Trail NE. Line 202X would then closely follow Airport Trail NE for two stops before entering the median of Harvest Hills Boulevard N to serve stations near Harvest Oak Gate, Country Hills Boulevard, Panamount Boulevard, Symons Valley Parkway, Highway 566, and Range Road 272. Very little investigation of this right of way has thus far been completed, although functional studies from 2007 are presently under way (Calgary Transit, 2008d:5-6).

Works Cited

Calgary Transit (2006c). North Central Calgary Transit Corridor Review”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/north_central_calgary_transit_corridor_review.pdf

Calgary Transit (2006d). “Strategic Development of Calgary’s C-Train System”. URL as of 24 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/LRT_STRATEGIC_DEVELOPMENT_update.pdf

Calgary Transit (2008d). “South Nose Creek Planning Area: North Central LRT Alignment Options”. URL as of 24 Mar 2008 http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=ccpa.general&msgID=WKcssssAcO&msgAction=Download

City of Calgary (1982). “City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/planning/pdf/city_hall_arp.pdf

City of Calgary (2006b). “Northeast Regional Policy Plan”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/planning/pdf/northeast_regional_policy_plan/northeast_regional_policy_plan_one.pdf

City of Calgary (2007j). “Urgent Multi-Year Infrastructure Investments”. URL as of 20 Mar 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/mayor/lrt_rec_presentation.pdf

City of Calgary (2008c). “Council Approved West LRT Alignment”. URL as of 10 Apr 2008 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/transportation_infrastructure/West_LRT/Council_Approved_West_LRT_Alignment.pdf

Clifton ND Lea et alia (2004). “Southeast LRT Functional Planning Study, Phase III: Glenmore Trail to Elbow River”. URL as of 26 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/SE_LRT_Final_Report.pdf

Graham Edmunds Carter and Sturgess Architecture (2004). “Seventh Avenue LRT Station Reconstruction and Pedestrian Environment Upgrades”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/7Avenue_LRT_Station_Reconstruction.pdf

Remington Development Corporation (2008). “Quarry Park: Site Access”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.quarrypark.ca/site.html

The Existing C-Train System

2008-04-10T12:07:00.001-06:00

As of 2008, the C-Train system consists of 37 stations offering passenger service along 44.9 kilometres of electrified double track between central Calgary and the city’s northeast, northwest, and south environs. Although the core of the system dates to three primary phases of construction between 1978 and 1987, a short system extension in 1990 and effectively uninterrupted construction through this century’s first decade have combined to increase both the reach and the passenger use of the C-Train in Calgary. Continuous increases in the number of active light rail vehicles have dictated a corresponding rise in investments to light rail vehicle storage and maintenance facilities to ensure a reasonable state of operational capability and good repair for the C-Train’s vehicle fleet.

Light rail transit service in Calgary was inaugurated on 25 May 1981 after three years of construction with the opening of Line 201 from Anderson Road to the city centre along Seventh Avenue SW. The southern terminus of the C-Train line was set at Anderson Station, north of Anderson Road and parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway, with a substantial allocation of space for connecting Calgary Transit buses and for Park and Ride commuter automobile parking. Proceeding northward, the line follows the CPR right of way over roughly five kilometres to three virtually identical stations in architectural form and operational function — Southland Station, Heritage Station, and Chinook Station — with more modest yet still significant Park and Ride and bus transfer facilities for a base of primarily residential commuters. The line then continues for about two kilometres to an underpass at 42 Avenue SE, from which it diverges from the CPR corridor and surfaces at what is now 39 Avenue Station, consisting of two side platforms and offering passenger connections to Macleod Trail and to industrial-area buses. From there, the line parallels Burnsland Road SE before entering a 700-metre tunnel beneath Cemetery Hill and surfacing to a level crossing of 25 Avenue SE to enter what is currently Erlton/Stampede Station, separated from the southern entrance to Stampede Park by the banks of the Elbow River. An 800-metre right of way between Macleod Trail and the western boundary of Stampede Park leads to what is now Victoria Park/Stampede Station, with direct pedestrian connections to the Stampede Park grounds and facilities and to 17 Avenue. The line enters a tunnelled portal at 12 Avenue SE and surfaces at the intersection of Seventh Avenue and Third Street SE, from which Line 201 of the C-Train finished its run downtown, serving westbound platforms at Olympic Plaza, First Street SW, Fourth Street SW, and Seventh Street SW, and serving eastbound platforms at City Hall, Centre Street, Third Street SW, Sixth Street SW, and Eighth Street SW. This initial stage of Line 201 of the C-Train system consisted of an overall length of 12.9 kilometres over seven southbound stations and nine downtown platforms, and at present serves a daily ridership of 86,100 passengers (Calgary Transit, 2008c).

Although it was Calgary Transit’s original stated intention to extend Line 201 to the city’s northwest, planning difficulties and political discontent led to the creation of Line 202 to the northeast, with revenue service commencing on 29 April 1985. Whitehorn Station, the original terminus of the line, was constructed in the median of 36 Street NE at the intersection of 39 Avenue NE. Two southward stations were also completed in the 36 Street NE median — Rundle Station, at the intersection of 25 Avenue NE, and Marlborough Station, at the intersection of 8 Avenue NE. The line then entered an underground portal to turn underneath the intersection of 36 Street and Memorial Drive NE before surfacing in the median of Memorial Drive to reach Franklin Station at the intersection of 27 Street SE. The two subsequent inbound Line 202 stations in the Memorial Drive median — Barlow/Max Bell Station, between Barlow Trail and 19 Street NE, and Zoo Station, at the northeast entrance to the Calgary Zoo — differed from their counterparts in that passengers debarked from the C-Train platforms through underground vestibules with tunnels beneath Memorial Drive to their transfer and pedestrian destinations, rather than to the elevated mezzanines and pedestrian bridges over roadways that are common to the other five original stations. Bridgeland/Memorial Station, in the Memorial Drive median adjacent to 9 Street NE, affords pedestrian connections to the Bow River Pathway System and to The Bridges, a transit-orientated development project on the former site of the Calgary General Hospital, and a flyover bridge across the Bow River connects Line 202 by way of Sixth Street SE to the Seventh Avenue transit corridor, with a new intermediate platform at Third Street SE and a new terminal platform at Tenth Street SW. This initial stage of Line 202 consisted of an overall length of 9.8 kilometres over seven northeast-bound stations and two additional downtown platforms, and at present serves a daily ridership of 58,900 passengers (Calgary Transit, 2008c).

Line 201 was eventually successfully extended to five stations in northwest Calgary in time for use during the XV Olympic Winter Games, with revenue service commencing on 7 September 1987. University Station, the original terminus of the northwest extension, is situated in the median of Crowchild Trail NW, between 24 Avenue and 32 Avenue NW. The line crossed through an underground portal at the intersection of Crowchild Trail and 24 Avenue NW to surface at Banff Trail Station, at the intersection of Banff Trail and 23 Avenue NW. Passing through a second underground portal underneath 16 Avenue NW, the line surfaced again at the intersection of 14 Avenue and 19 Street NW to meet Lions Park Station. From that point, the line followed 14 Avenue across 14 Street NW to arrive immediately adjacent to the Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium at the “Southern Alberta Institute of Technology/Alberta College of Art and Design/Jubilee Station”, which for obvious reasons of brevity will be identified henceforth as Jubilee Station. The line crossed 10 Street NW on a flyover bridge and descended to surface level along 9A Street NW, where at Third Avenue NW it would stop at Sunnyside Station before rising on a bridge to cross Memorial Drive and the Bow River to a right of way paralleling Ninth Street SW that connected to the Seventh Avenue transit corridor. This extension of Line 201 consisted of an overall length of 5.6 kilometres over five northwest-bound stations and two additional downtown platforms, and at present serves a daily ridership of 80,400 passengers (Calgary Transit, 2008c).

The C-Train system was further expanded through a series of incremental extensions, the vast majority of which were to Line 201, and almost all of which came into revenue service after the year 2000 (Calgary Transit, 2008c). The first incremental extension to the system occurred on 31 August 1990, with a 1.0-kilometre line from University Station in the median of Crowchild Trail NW to Brentwood Station, between 32 Avenue and Brisebois Drive NW. Two further stations were added to the southern leg of Line 201 on 26 October 2001, when the line was extended by 3.4 kilometres through Fish Creek Provincial Park to serve Canyon Meadows Station, at the foot of 130 Avenue SW, and Fish Creek/Lacombe Station, adjacent to Shawnee Gate SW and Bannister Road SE. Line 201 would be extended once more to the northwest on 15 December 2003, with a 3.0-kilometre continuation in the median of Crowchild Trail NW to Dalhousie Station, just southeast of the intersection of 53 Street NW. On 28 June 2004, Line 201 would add two further southbound stations along a 3.0-kilometre extension to Shawnessy Station, at the foot of Shawmeadows Gate SW, and to Somerset/Bridlewood Station, located just north of Shawville Gate SW. Line 202 would see its first extension on 17 December 2007 with the completion of a 2.8-kilometre traverse of McKnight Boulevard NE to McKnight/Westwinds Station, sandwiched between Metis Trail and Westwinds Drive NE south of 64 Avenue NE. A further northwest extension of Line 201, consisting of 4.0 kilometres of track in the median of Crowchild Trail NW to Crowfoot Station, northwest of the Nose Hill Drive NW interchange, is presently under construction with revenue service expected to commence by the end of 2008.

The C-Train system operates a total of 152 light rail vehicles, storing and maintaining them at three yard facilities in various locations throughout Calgary (Calgary Transit, 2008c). The Siemens-Duewag U2, of which Calgary Transit currently keeps 80 in active service, was first employed in the C-Train system on its inauguration in 1981, while its operational successor, the Siemens Transportation Systems SD160, first came into service in Calgary in 2000, and presently contributes 72 vehicles to the overall C-Train fleet. The city’s light rail vehicles have been maintained, cleaned, and overhauled from the time of the C-Train system’s inception at Anderson Yard, a 19,000-square-metre facility accommodating 55 light rail vehicles. The Haysboro Storage Facility, opened in 1985, is a 3,500-square-metre carhouse that is used to store 60 light rail vehicles and perform basic light maintenance duties. Scheduled for completion by the end of 2009 is the Oliver Bowen Maintenance Facility, a 20,449-square-metre location allowing for the storage, heavy maintenance, and cleaning of 65 light rail vehicles, with a provision for further expansion to accommodate 108 vehicles in total (EllisDon Corporation, 2008).

Works Cited

Calgary Transit (2008c). “LRT Technical Data”. URL as of 25 Mar 2008 http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

EllisDon Corporation (2008). “Oliver Bowen LRT Maintenance Facility: EllisDon Project Profile”. URL as of 02 Apr 2008 http://www.ellisdon.com/ed/projects/view/?id=3088688

Знак, знак, посвюду знак...

2008-04-08T11:33:00.007-06:00

You'll never guess where these road signs are going up next April Fool's Day. ;)

I Think I'm Getting Better....

2008-04-02T15:09:00.000-06:00

As even a cursory glance at the datelines on this blog would tell you, it has indeed been a while since I last posted here. Deal with it. ;)

In any case, I'm working on a report on long-range light rail transit development that I intend to present to Plan It Calgary, a great blooming city-wide confabulation of people who are more or less expecting to be ignored by the city's Land Use Planning and Policy department as they revisit the civic land use and transportation plan. Here, for your edification and amusement, is the first completed section of my contribution to the city's exercise in tilting at windmills, in which I discuss in brief some of the history behind Calgary's decision to build an LRT. Enjoy — and flame merrily away.

History of Light Rail Planning in Calgary

Rail-based mass transit service for Calgarians has been a part of the city’s public transportation planning process for over forty years. The first indication of Calgary’s commitment to mass transit by rail would appear in 1967’s Calgary Transportation Study, a twenty-year plan devoted mostly to roadway expansion that would nonetheless incorporate a two-line passenger metro system sharing tracks in the downtown core whose initial revenue service would occur in 1978. In subsequent years, a number of factors would contribute to a change in the plan’s focus that would see Calgary commit to light rail transit service in shared rights of way, but by 1977 the momentum was solidly in favour of light rail transit as an option for downtown commuting. What follows is a necessarily brief history of how mass transit by rail evolved and then manifested itself in Calgary.

The Calgary Transportation Study of 1967

The history of light rail transit in Calgary officially began with the publication of the Calgary Transportation Study in December of 1967. Although mass transit was a secondary component of this long-range transportation plan, the Calgary Transportation Study envisioned two metro lines — one with southern and north-western legs, the other with western and northern legs — sharing a common downtown metro with five stations along Seventh Avenue between City Hall and 11 Street SW. In essence, this proposed 38-station metro system was expected to accommodate peak commuter volumes of 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (City of Calgary, 1967:18) along a total system length of 19.61 miles, or 31.55 kilometres, to be constructed in several stages with a system completion date well beyond the twenty-year planning horizon established in the Calgary Transportation Study. The total projected capital investment of $115-million (1967:21) seems almost quaint in light of the construction costs that would be incurred in the development of Calgary’s present light rail transit system.

A total of five metro stations would have been brought into service underneath a 1.33-mile (2.14 kilometres) stretch of Seventh Avenue by 1978 (City of Calgary, 1967:27) to act as the spine of the Calgary Transportation Study’s metro system. The westernmost station downtown would have been built at the intersection of Seventh Avenue and 11 Street SW. From there, the line would have continued eastbound to the intersection of Seventh Avenue and Seventh Street SW, and thence to the intersection of Seventh Avenue and Fourth Street SW. One could argue in hindsight that the two busiest stations in the proposed metro system would have extended eastward along Seventh Avenue to intersections at First Street SW, interchanging with the Hudson’s Bay Company Building, and at Second Street SW, interchanging with City Hall (City of Calgary, 1967:19; Figure A:23).

The nine-station, 4.51-mile (7.26 kilometres) northwest leg of the Calgary Transportation Study’s metro system proposal (City of Calgary, 1967:19-20; Figure A:19) bears obvious similarities, and the occasional striking contrast, to the light rail line that would eventually reach the northwest precincts of the city. The first station outside of the downtown core would have been Hillhurst Station, constructed underneath the intersection of 11A Street and Gladstone Road NW. From there, the line would have passed underneath Riley Park to an Auditorium Station, immediately adjacent of course to the Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium. Two additional stations would have been built at North Hill, at 16 Avenue between 16 and 17 Streets NW to serve the North Hill Shopping Centre, and at Capitol Hill, approximately at the intersection of Capitol Hill Crescent and Tye Street NW. Traffic to McMahon Stadium would have been accommodated at Stadium Station, underneath the northeast corner of the present McMahon Stadium parking lot adjacent to the intersection of Crowchild Trail and 23 Avenue NW. Metro service to the University of Calgary would have been served at University Station, roughly underneath the present site of the university’s Biological Sciences Building. The two northwest-most metro stations to be completed by 1978 would have been constructed underneath Crowchild Trail — Brentwood Station, at the intersection with Charleswood Drive NW, and Brisebois Station, at the intersection with Brisebois Drive NW. A single-station extension of the northwest leg to Banff Trail Station, at the intersection of Crowchild Trail and Northland Drive NW, was expected to be brought into revenue service by 1986 (1967:27).

The third component of the Calgary Transportation Study’s 1978-vintage metro system would have consisted of a ten-station, 5.90-mile (9.49-kilometres) south leg (City of Calgary, 1967:19; Figure A:20) that bore but a slight resemblance to the first iteration of light rail service in Calgary. Stampede Park would have been served by Exhibition Grounds Station, underneath the intersection of the 17 Avenue and Third Street SE rights of way. The line would thence have continued to Mission Station, at the junction of 25 Avenue SW with the west bank of the Elbow River, and to Parkhill Station, at the intersection of Mission Road and First Street SW. Two subsequent stations would have then been built at Stanley Park, where 42 Avenue and Stanley Drive SW meet, and at Windsor Park, at the intersection of 50 Avenue and Fourth Street SW. The current site of Chinook Centre would have earned two metro stations on this proposed line — Southridge Station, at 58 Avenue and Fifth Street SW, and Chinook Station, at Glenmore Trail and Fifth Street SW. By 1978, the southern leg of the Calgary Transportation Study’s metro system would have seen the commissioning of two further stations — Kingsland Station, at the junction of 75 Avenue and 4A Street SW, and Haysboro Station, which would effectively have been directly beneath the present Heritage LRT station at Heritage Drive SW and the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks. By 1986, the southern leg of the metro system would have been extended to Southwood Station, due north of the present Southland LRT station at the intersection of Southland Drive and the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks (1967:27).

At the same time as the south-to-northwest metro line was completed, the Calgary Transportation Study also foresaw the opening of a third seven-station, 3.26-mile (5.25 kilometres) metro leg from the downtown core to the inner-southwest neighbourhoods of the city (City of Calgary, 1967:20; Figure A:22). The first station of this southwest leg outside of the downtown core would have been built under 14 Street SW, between 10 Avenue and 11 Avenue SW, and commissioned as Sunalta Station. The southwest leg would then have been extended beneath 14 Street SW to the aptly-named 17 Avenue Station, at the junction of 14 Street and 17 Avenue SW, and to Bankview Station, where 14 Street and 25 Avenue intersect. From there, the southwest metro leg would have turned beneath 26 Avenue SW to South Calgary Station, at its intersection with 20 Street SW, and to Knob Hill Station, at its junction with Crowchild Trail SW. At that point, the southwest metro leg would have continued to Killarney Station, where 26 Avenue and 29 Street SW intersect, and thence to its terminus at Glendale Station, at the junction of 26 Avenue and 37 Street SW (1967:28).

Even though the Calgary Transportation Study did make a point of mapping a fourth metro leg to serve the northern environs of the city (City of Calgary, 1967:20; Figure A:21), no date for implementing the seven-station, 4.61-mile (7.42 kilometres) extension was defined in the document, indicating that northward metro construction would have occurred well beyond the twenty-year horizon by which the study was constrained (1967:28). Initially, the north leg would have curved out of the downtown core to stop at Renfrew Station, at the intersection of Eighth Avenue and Edmonton Trail NE. The metro would then have eased itself to an alignment under Centre Street North, with stops at Crescent Heights Station, at the junction with 16 Avenue North, and at Tuxedo Station, at the junction with 24 Avenue North. Further stops were set for construction along Centre Street at Northminster Station, where Centre Street meets 32 Avenue North, and at Highland Park Station, at Centre Street’s intersection with 40 Avenue North. After a slight deviation to meet 48 Avenue Station, at the intersection of Centre Street and Laycock Drive North, the north leg of the metro would ease itself under Fourth Street NW to its terminus at Thorncliffe Station, at its junction with Northmount Drive NW.

The Calgary Transportation Study was predicated on the construction of metro service being divided into several stages. The first stage would have seen construction of a continuous metro line from Brisebois Station in the northwest through the downtown core to a southern terminus at Haysboro Station by 1978 (City of Calgary, 1967:27). In its second stage, the Calgary Transportation Study metro system would have been built to the southwest from the city centre to Glendale Station by 1986 (1967:28). Concurrently, by 1986 the original metro line would have been extended to the northwest from Brisebois to Banff Trail Station, and to the south from Haysboro to Southwood Station (1967:28). The fourth and final stage of metro construction in Calgary would then have involved the commissioning of the northeast leg from downtown to Thorncliffe at an indeterminate point in the future (1967:28).

The Decision for Light Rail

By 1970, the planning and design process for passenger metro service in Calgary had progressed to the point where functional engineering studies had generated cost estimates for a re-aligned downtown service underneath Stephen Avenue ranging from $26.5-million to $35.8-million, depending on whether the four proposed downtown metro stations were to be constructed with central platforms or side platforms (Simpson and Curtin et alia, 1970:8). At the same time, 1970 would witness the start of a building boom, and subsequently of construction inflation, in Calgary, thus rendering moot most of the capital cost calculations that the Calgary Transportation Study had estimated three years before. The city’s transportation planners were therefore left to find alternatives to metro construction that required lesser degrees of capital investment while offering most of the operational advantages of metro service. It was over the course of this investigation that the city would seize upon light rail transit as its preferred construction alternative.

In “Selection of LRT for Calgary’s South Corridor”, their 1978 report to the American Public Transport Association, City of Calgary transportation experts W.C. Kuyt and J.D. Hemstock described the incremental improvements and strategic system planning (1978:3-4) that had been implemented between the demise of the Calgary Transportation Study’s metro plan and the commissioning of light rail transit service for the city. The establishment of Blue Arrow express bus services to Calgary’s outlying regions and a series of ancillary road upgrades dated back to 1973. In 1975, it was officially proposed that a light rail transit service be constructed from the downtown core to Anderson Road, using a combination of transit-only surface service along Seventh Avenue and a shared right of way with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Calgary’s City Council approved the construction of this light rail service in May of 1977, and the first stages of light rail implementation in Calgary officially commenced on 25 July 1977. In their analysis and preparations for light rail construction, Kuyt and Hemstock succeeded in their argument for building light rail prior to further roadway upgrades, noting that “potential savings, both financial and environmental, are achievable therefore only if transit precedes road construction” (1978:7).

Kuyt and Hemstock compared light rail’s capital and operational capabilities both to expanded Blue Arrow express bus services and to dedicated busways (1978:13-15), and found both of these alternatives inferior to that of light rail in Calgary. Despite a relative premium over both busways and express bus lanes in required capital funding, Kuyt and Hemstock concluded that light rail service trumped both modes of enhanced bus service by ameliorating roadway traffic congestion and by minimising annual operating costs (1978:13-15). “Most importantly, however,” Kuyt and Hemstock noted, “it was felt that the level of service and capacity which could be offered would be essential in achieving long term transit objectives” (1978:15). In the ultimate analysis that Kuyt and Hemstock offered, “by providing a high level of service at reasonable cost and substantial flexibility for improvement and expansion, LRT is most suitable to meet the City’s objectives” (1978:28).

Works Cited

City of Calgary (1967). Calgary Transportation Study, Volume 2. From City of Calgary Archives.

Kuyt, W.C., and Hemstock, J.D. (1978). “Selection of LRT for Calgary’s South Corridor”. From proceedings of American Public Transport Association Western Conference, 15-19 Apr 1978. From City of Calgary Archives.

Warning: Occupancy of This Austin Mini by More Than 53 Candidates for City Council Is Strictly Forbidden

2007-08-28T11:07:00.000-06:00

With the winding of August along its inexorable and increasingly frigid way towards its end comes the inevitable arrival of a Calgary autumn and of the municipal silly season. That’s right, folks—Calgary’s civic election is back on the radar, coming to a school gymnasium or community hall near you a mere seven weeks from now, on 15 October. Once again, the good citizens of this city are poised to consider the many local issues affecting them in their day-to-day lives and make the sober yet necessary decisions about who will represent their interests in City Council chambers and from the mayoral dais that will ensure the effective and responsible governance of their fair city for the next three years.

Or not.

There’s something about municipal elections in Calgary that draws to the flickering flame of the candle of local democracy the usual eclectic assortment of kooks, wackos, losers, wanna-bes, never-weres, and lifers every third autumn. Would that the city’s voters came out of the woodwork in the same profusion—if the results from the 2004 election are to be trusted, over 80 percent of Calgary electors apparently decided they would find more fulfilment in giving the polls a miss and ranting about the failures of their civic polity on some talk radio show instead. From my standpoint, any government, but especially one so close to the little tangibles such as transportation and tap water that we as citizens take for granted as City Council, operates on the simple principles of RIRO (that is, rubbish in, rubbish out) and use it or lose it.

That’s why I’m willing to do my teensy wee little part to help take back City Council in October.

The Beltline is a part of Ward Eight in Calgary City Council, and although it will still be about three weeks before all the candidates’ nominations are confirmed and posted at City Hall, at this stage the most informed speculation—or at least, as informed a speculation as we currently have—suggests that my selection of candidates will include the following choices:

Steve Chapman—one of two ex-cops considering a run for Ward Eight, and the one with an executive affiliation with Calgary’s favourite platoon of reactionary loons, the Progressive Group for Independent Business;
Madeleine King—the defending cham-peen, ladeeeez and gentlemen; a barrister, urban planning student, and Elboya society maven who occasionally returns telephone calls and occasionally pops into the Beltline to tell the gathered inkslingers how shocked and appalled she is that there are criminal elements in the neighbourhood;
Lindsay Luhnau—a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed environmental advocate of 26 whose platform combines earnestness, an abiding affection for Mother Earth, and a policy on plastic shopping bags that proves, folks, that she has never lived in a conapt with a cat;
John Mar—the other of two ex-cops considering a run for Ward Eight, and the one with his sanity intact; as president of the Scarboro Community Association, he let it be known to City Hall that relocating a halfway house to within Rocko-walking distance of a community park and an elementary school might not be the best conceivable idea; and
Teddy Paraskevopoulos—some guy, apparently, of whom little, including his actual intention to run for City Council, is in point of fact known.

Now given that life in the Beltline has given me some ideas about mass transit, public safety, open communication, and quality of life that I would consider to be in my interest to have addressed on my terms, as opposed to terms set by some seat warmer with an ideological hobby horse and a chip on the shoulder, I came up with a few questions that I will pose—right here, folks, and right now—to all of the candidates for the Ward Eight seat on City Council:

Focus on Community:

F1. Please describe how the most important lesson you learnt in working with your community league is relevant to your work as an alderman.

F2. Please recount a situation wherein you were able to respond constructively to a commercial development proposal for your community that in your estimation was poorly conceived.

Responsiveness:

R1. Please identify the criteria you would use to differentiate between correspondence you would delegate to your constituency assistant and correspondence to which you would respond personally.

R2. Please summarise how you would follow up a query from a constituent who previously called 311 to report a case of vandalism and who has now contacted you to ask why the vandalism has not been remediated.

Addressing Concerns:

A1. Please indicate how you would respond to a constituent's concern that the employees of a city department on whose services the constituent depends for day-to-day living are contemplating a labour disruption that would bring these services to a halt.

A2. Please articulate your position on how you would improve the connection of the western communities of the Beltline (that is, between 4 Street SW and 14 Street SW) to the CTrain system and to other modes of transportation across the CP Rail right of way into the downtown core.

Credibility:

C1. Please explain, in light of Calgary's recent land annexation, how you would reconcile the need to provide civic infrastructure to new communities on the city periphery with the need to maintain and enhance the social, environmental, and structural conditions of such inner-city communities as the Beltline.

C2. Please clarify where you stand on how Calgary's growth in population and international awareness over the past ten years affects its standing and its mandate for action on behalf of its citizenry relative to those of the provincial and federal governments.

Tiebreaker Questions, to be scored individually if needed:

T1. Please compare the relative merits of the existing strategy for planning and building the north-centre line of the CTrain system to those of constructing an underground LRT line beneath Centre Street.

T2. Please suggest a workable public safety strategy for residents of the city centre who have expressed concerns about openly illegal activities on commercial sites immediately adjoining critical locations within the public realm.

A note to all of the candidates, declared and potential alike—these questions are also available for transmittal in an MS Excel workbook that also includes a description of the scoring system; just post a comment with your e-mail address for further details. Please note that especially insightful, vapid, or uproarious responses will more likely than not be posted here for the edification and amusement of my reading public. (Thanks—both of you.)

Personally, I can’t wait to see what the candidates have to say. Let the 2007 silly season commence!

Fort Macleod: All Existing Things Soon Change

2007-08-07T13:27:00.000-06:00

Time is like a river made up of the events that happen, and a violent stream; for as soon as a thing has been seen, it is carried away, and another comes in its place, and this will be carried away, too.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, IV:43

After spending the Heritage Day long weekend with the wife and cat visiting Fort Macleod, a town of about 3,100 just over a hundred miles south-by-southeast of Calgary, I came away with a souvenir tee-shirt, an overwhelming desire for a real holiday, and a sense of sorrow for the pale shadow of its lost ambitions that is Fort Macleod today.

It all seemed to start with such promise. Colonel James Macleod came to the chinook-swept grassland at a bend in the Oldman River with a battalion from the Northwest Mounted Police in 1874, though perhaps it was telling that the townsite bearing his name would take shape ten years later two miles upstream because of the fort’s original island location’s vulnerability to floods. For the next thirty years, the emerging crossroads drew a staggering variety of dreamers, schemers, and the occasional shattered femur in conjunction with the Canadian Pacific and the Calgary and Edmonton Railways, and in a wild fit of starry-eyed optimism, the town fathers dropped the “Fort” from the Town of Macleod on the grounds that it would be unworthy of a ten-line railway nexus rivalling not only Lethbridge, thirty miles due east, but Calgary itself in size and economic importance.

The railways jilted Fort Macleod at the altar, naturally, decamping to Lethbridge and to Calgary as they consolidated their operations elsewhere in 1912. The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 would further drive away both labour and capital, leaving Fort Macleod sufficiently overextended and beggared ten years later that the Alberta provincial government would force the town to accept a low-interest consolidation loan that forbade the issue of municipal debt for capital spending for the next fifty years. What could not be petrified in amber was consequently left to rot.

Perhaps I was expecting more of Historic Main Street to remain standing in its faded brick and sandstone grandeur before we went to Fort Macleod, but what I saw of the district transcended mere disappointment. The frontier architecture of Main Street is confined to one city block, and even that truncated stretch consists of patches of anachronistic vinyl siding filling in the gaps between the commercial blocks of a century long passed. The rest of Main Street is lost but to memory and to silver tincture, buried in a morass of tarmac, cinderblocks, clapboard motels, and thistles and crabgrass elbowing themselves out of the cracks in parking lot pavement.

There was much wringing of hands in last Sunday’s edition of The Fishwrap about the tenebrous state of Fort Macleod’s heritage architecture, although some lovingly maintained gems still exist in the form of the 1912-vintage Empress Theatre and the century-old Reach Block. But the defining metaphor of Fort Macleod’s history is not so much the reconstructed wooden palisades of the Police Museum as it is the empty, boarded-up brickwork shell of the four-storey American Hotel at the west end of Main Street, abandoned to nature and to the limpet-like motel buttressing its eastern wall. And indeed, the future of Fort Macleod may not be so much the Alberta Police Academy, slated to open in 2010 in homage to Fort Macleod’s policing roots, as it is the reconstruction of Highway 2 and Highway 3 on the town’s southern outskirts—an uncomfortable and none-too-subtle reminder to Fort Macleod of the world passing it by.

Blot on the Beltline, Part 1

2007-08-01T15:38:00.000-06:00

It’s an exciting time to be living in the Beltline right now. It seems like every time you turn about, there’s a new condominium tower being built, and the idea of so many people wanting to live, work, and play at the centre of this burgeoning city just warms the cockles of my heart. With the wide variety of public spaces and entertainment places a short walk away, it’s enough to give someone high hopes for the future of this town.

Which is why this place right here, the Stupor Drug Mart on the corner of 14 Street and 12 Avenue SW, drives me absolutely nucking futs:

I stood up and cheered when the riffraffatorium that called itself the 12 Avenue Bar and Grill was drummed out of the southwest corner of this eyesore back in March. With that being said, however, I can’t pass by this place without wondering when the rest of the building is going to come down. I’m sure it served its purpose back in the Sixties, when it first opened with a groceteria and a TD Bank branch, but the years have been kind neither to the building, uncomfortably straddling the boundary between the Beltline and Sunalta as a monument to entropy and decay, nor to the clientèle, left to pick through the second-hand Safeway’s labels and the low-grade dollar shop tchotchkes. Indeed, I doubt that even a New West answer to Ed Mirvish would be able to salvage the place--that would take people who actually cared a wet slap for their customers, and especially in this inflationary town, that sort of employee tends to steer a wide berth past the Stupor Drug Mart.

You know what I’d like to do, folks? I’d like to climb up on the roof of that place and paint a nice big fluorescent bullseye on the roof--you know, just to give the Klingons a sporting chance at hitting something, right? After all, there’s too much potential for something nicer, something more liveable, something less decrepit at that location for the Stupor Drug Mart to be suffered to live.

Cry Havoc!

2007-07-24T15:31:00.000-06:00

And let slip the blogs of yore. Or something like that.

For those of you visiting my little corner of cyberspace in Calgary for the first time, welcome, and get back to work. Prepare to be underwhelmed by rants, raves, and rubbish about living in the Beltline and seeing the centre of Calgary sprouting condominium towers like so many toadstools; about the upcoming silly season; about the Bart Simpsons of professional football, the snakebitten effort to restore professional baseball to Calgary, and suchlike other diversions; and about whatever febrile attempts to channel the spirit of Bob Edwards may strike me.

If you're really lucky, you'll see the odd photograph. (If you're really unlucky, you'll see the odd scrap of poetry.)

Just try and remember that this place is a complete waste of time. Forewarned is forearmed. Now get back to work.