Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit

[MichaelS]

Just looking at that table, how could "Green Line N - 96 Ave to North Point" rank below "Green Line N - North Point to 160 Ave"? I am sure there is some nuance in the detailed report that explains this, but a quick glance at the table makes it seem like they feel an actual, sperated segment of LRT is more important than the connected piece.

 

[CBBarnett]

Just looking at that table, how could "Green Line N - 96 Ave to North Point" rank below "Green Line N - North Point to 160 Ave"? I am sure there is some nuance in the detailed report that explains this, but a quick glance at the table makes it seem like they feel an actual, sperated segment of LRT is more important than the connected piece.

I think it's a product of their evaluation model :

The possible project list assumes some logic on phasing, which they broke Greenline north of 64th Ave into chunks. The chunks are then evaluated with the criteria, so North Point to 160 Ave is a marginally better leg than 96 Ave to North Point (in reality, these multi-criteria exercises being a few points apart is pretty meaningless, particularly for long-term projects). Best guess on a quick glance at land uses as the low - density, existing 1990s era sprawl with limited infill potential. North Point to 160 Ave has newer development planned for better densities and mix of uses more 2020 era sprawl. Slightly more transit friendly.

In reality you can't do the North Point to 160 Ave without already having built the 96 to North Point section, but you'd probably want to know the relative benefit of each section independently so you can always review it against any other option once you get around to it.

EDIT - thinking about this again, many transit projects will have a tough go to push through that 1970s - 2000s ring of low-density sprawl. We need to build a lot of kilometres of expensive infrastructure with limited immediate benefit, ridership or new destinations (and low redevelopment potential, at least for now) before you get into the newer, better designed sprawl on the other side. The Green Line South and North have this problem. Blue Line NE also has a big gap in development for whatever reason so the areas farther north that could benefit from a Blue extension need to build a few kilometres through undeveloped land just to get there. Red Line will always struggle given it's rail corridor/freeway adjacencies that stretch things out - need lots of kilometres of LRT just to reach each new neighbourhood.

Unsurprisingly, car-dominated sprawl patterns is strangling transit - making each project less effective due to distances and lower returns, plus making the potential project list longer that competes for limited funding. This goes back to the criticality of getting TOD going and network speed/quality improvements - the best transit projects are the ones we already have built in areas that are somewhat promising to service with competitive transit.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I think it's a product of their evaluation model :

View attachment 443218

The possible project list assumes some logic on phasing, which they broke Greenline north of 64th Ave into chunks. The chunks are then evaluated with the criteria, so North Point to 160 Ave is a marginally better leg than 96 Ave to North Point (in reality, these multi-criteria exercises being a few points apart is pretty meaningless, particularly for long-term projects). Best guess on a quick glance at land uses as the low - density, existing 1990s era sprawl with limited infill potential. North Point to 160 Ave has newer development planned for better densities and mix of uses more 2020 era sprawl. Slightly more transit friendly.

In reality you can't do the North Point to 160 Ave without already having built the 96 to North Point section, but you'd probably want to know the relative benefit of each section independently so you can always review it against any other option once you get around to it.

EDIT - thinking about this again, many transit projects will have a tough go to push through that 1970s - 2000s ring of low-density sprawl. We need to build a lot of kilometres of expensive infrastructure with limited immediate benefit, ridership or new destinations (and low redevelopment potential, at least for now) before you get into the newer, better designed sprawl on the other side. The Green Line South and North have this problem. Blue Line NE also has a big gap in development for whatever reason so the areas farther north that could benefit from a Blue extension need to build a few kilometres through undeveloped land just to get there. Red Line will always struggle given it's rail corridor/freeway adjacencies that stretch things out - need lots of kilometres of LRT just to reach each new neighbourhood.

Unsurprisingly, car-dominated sprawl patterns is strangling transit - making each project less effective due to distances and lower returns, plus making the potential project list longer that competes for limited funding. This goes back to the criticality of getting TOD going and network speed/quality improvements - the best transit projects are the ones we already have built in areas that are somewhat promising to service with competitive transit.

Do we think there's any benefit to building the rail but maybe skipping some stations in less dense areas? You can go back and add stations, running the rail to places that LRT could better serve seems logical to me. Either way IMO extensions to existing lines on anything but the Blue Line in the NE should be very far off.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Do we think there's any benefit to building the rail but maybe skipping some stations in less dense areas? You can go back and add stations, running the rail to places that LRT could better serve seems logical to me. Either way IMO extensions to existing lines on anything but the Blue Line in the NE should be very far off.

It's not a bad idea. My only concern would be whether it saved enough money to be worth it. I'm not sure how much a station costs, and how much it would cost to build it in after the fact.

 

[CBBarnett]

Do we think there's any benefit to building the rail but maybe skipping some stations in less dense areas? You can go back and add stations, running the rail to places that LRT could better serve seems logical to me. Either way IMO extensions to existing lines on anything but the Blue Line in the NE should be very far off.

Context specific for sure you could skip some stations to save a few dollars (but probably not a lot), but even more important any infill station - or any built station for that matter - should be really focused on preparing for boosting those intensities at the station areas from Day 1.

The amount of low density zoning along existing lines is already a problem - even on relatively new extensions such as the NE to Saddletowne, there's plenty of R-1 directly adjacent to the stations, which is a waste of valuable transit investment. It's not as if theses areas can't have demand for higher intensities - plenty of apartments and townhome developments are existing everywhere in the burbs - just counter-intuitively all the higher intensity stuff is located away from the rapid transit and main activity centres.

So infill or not, setting it up right from Day 1 can make the transit investment far more attractive and you don't have to go as far to reach far more stuff.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Context specific for sure you could skip some stations to save a few dollars (but probably not a lot), but even more important any infill station - or any built station for that matter - should be really focused on preparing for boosting those intensities at the station areas from Day 1.

The amount of low density zoning along existing lines is already a problem - even on relatively new extensions such as the NE to Saddletowne, there's plenty of R-1 directly adjacent to the stations, which is a waste of valuable transit investment. It's not as if theses areas can't have demand for higher intensities - plenty of apartments and townhome developments are existing everywhere in the burbs - just counter-intuitively all the higher intensity stuff is located away from the rapid transit and main activity centres.

So infill or not, setting it up right from Day 1 can make the transit investment far more attractive and you don't have to go as far to reach far more stuff.

Very fair, I'm just trying to think of ways to build transit around our neighborhood reality. The Victoria Park/Stampede Station is estimated to cost $83M. So I think not building stations and just tracks would save some but not that much in the grand scheme of a 5+ billion dollar line.

 

[darwink]

I'm not sure how much a station costs, and how much it would cost to build it in after the fact.

All other things being equal, somewhere between $5 and $10 million for direct, incremental costs for a walk up station. In the context, not very much at all.

 

[Reecemartin]

Thought I'd chime in, I mainly lurk but y'know . . .

The people-mover part is the weak link in the existing plans - I'd rather see a Green Line spur at 96 Ave (or elsewhere) that connects Airport and Blue Line. Agreed that it doesn't have to be a priority, but should be on the list of obvious future transit connections. The Canada Line spur in Vancouver is pretty effective version of this.

The Airport-Downtown-Banff proposal sounds good in theory too. For the Airport to Downtown stretch, it seems like it'll be a bit like UP in Toronto, which is hardly a best-in-class airport transit service, but still is really effective and popular for what it is.

In our case though, I don't have confidence the boosters can pull it off to the level required to make it an effective transit option. The Airport authority and CP both seem indifferent to it and they whole project seems distracted with boosterism and shiny new tech (e.g. hydrogen trains), rather than boring but more important stuff like service levels and infrastructure.

Maybe the renewed provincial interest (and funding) would help, but seems pretty last-minute electioneering than a serious commitment to effective airport transit.

Would a separate line that just runs between the green and blue lines with a stop at the airport work? That could be the beginning of an e-w north LRT in the distant future.

A people mover *is* an option and its not the end of the world however let me present what I think is a better option.

You are going to eventually have two rail lines running up either side of the airport, both will in theory has relatively decent service, so branches seem like reasonable options. Say the Blue and Green Lines both operate every 6 minutes - that's 10 trains per hour, send 4 of them down a branch east / west to the airport and points north still get a train every 10 minutes. When service is reduced off peak you can consider running a shuttle train with a timed cross platform transfer.

The tracks leading to the airport can mostly be single because you're just doing 15 minute service which is plenty initially and can always be increased. You put an island with 2 tracks at the airport - ideally enclosed and heated / air conditioned - maybe even with screen doors (trains can pull in slowish and align like the UP in Toronto). One train comes off the mainline and pulls in, once its clear of the single track spur the other train goes out, should be able to do that operation in roughly 15 minutes and repeat.

This gives you a heated and cooled airport station and a direct connection to Downtown on one train - good for Calgary given the strong downtown and a better experience than having to take a people mover and change with luggage (most likely up or down a level or a long walk). If you've travelled to airports in the US / followed the discourse around air rail links there places like New York where the train doesn't go all the way to the airport and you have to take a shuttle are oft complained about - so much so that the rail link to LGA has been changed from a people mover shuttle to a subway extension.

I think this is key because Calgary is one of Canada's four big airports and has hugggge growth potential - at the same time the terminal design lends itself to a direct single seat ride (because there aren't several terminals that are widely spaced like Toronto, JFK, etc). If you look at Canada's other big airports - YUL, YVR, and YYZ all will have a direct downtown to airport train - Ottawa is sort of the laughing stock here because you will need to take three different trains to get downtown!

On a completely different point, I really think express service on the Green line makes sense - but wait I am not crazy!

The Green Line south in particular is going to be really long, some express trains would be great to speed up some trips - this does not require entirely dedicated express tracks like the NY Subway but rather just some bypasses - you can actually see something like this on the HB LRT which is just across the Hudson River from New York:

Bypass tracks like this won't let you run express trains every 3 or 5 minutes, but like the suggested airport branch for a small additional bit of infrastructure you could run an express train that bypasses a few stops every 15 minutes or so!

 

[ByeByeBaby]

On a completely different point, I really think express service on the Green line makes sense - but wait I am not crazy!

The Green Line south in particular is going to be really long, some express trains would be great to speed up some trips - this does not require entirely dedicated express tracks like the NY Subway but rather just some bypasses - you can actually see something like this on the HB LRT which is just across the Hudson River from New York:

Spoiler

View attachment 444709

Bypass tracks like this won't let you run express trains every 3 or 5 minutes, but like the suggested airport branch for a small additional bit of infrastructure you could run an express train that bypasses a few stops every 15 minutes or so!

Here's my take on how the math for express trains works (doesn't work in this case).

An express train is faster because it doesn't stop. It doesn't go any faster on the rails themselves. The time a train spends on a stop is three things; first time lost because the train is decelerating (rather than going through at top speed), then a dwell time while passengers get on and off, then acceleration time to get back to the top speed. The acceleration and deceleration of an Urbos 100 is 1.32 m/s^2 (symmetrical) per Wikipedia. That means that the added time for accelerating and decelerating are each in the range of 7.3 to 8.3 seconds (depending on top speed - those are for 70 and 80 km/h top speeds). So that's 16-17 seconds. Then there's the dwell time, which is in the 15-30 second range. So the total time is 30-45 seconds saved per stop.

Let's say we're skipping four stops; South Hill, Lynnwood, Highfield and 26th Ave. South Hill is currently nothing much, Lynnwood will never be much. Highfield and 26th Ave are lower density industrial parks. Note that eventually South Hill is intended to develop at a fairly high density, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the central hub for bus service to the SE industrial area (perhaps the Max Teal is routed through here), so maybe skipping it doesn't make sense. But in any case, there's 4 stops skipped, let's say 30 seconds per stop. Here's what that looks like from Shepard (I'm assuming 30 minutes to the downtown for simplicity; the Green Line website quotes 37 minutes to 16th Ave, and 10 minute frequency).

What is clear from this is that the express doesn't save you all that much time. No matter when you arrive at Shepard station, you should take the next train, express or local. Unless you want to go to the four skipped stops (and there are hundreds of jobs around Highfield and 26th Ave in particular) - in which case, you have to wait an extra 10 minutes if the next train is local. Similar if you're at one of the skipped stops; you have a train only every 20 minutes, all to save Shepardites 2 lousy minutes going to downtown.

Note also that the express train never catches up with the local train, so no passing infrastructure needs to be built. A service pattern like this could be run on the existing lines today, if we wanted to cut transit service for a lot of people to save a couple of minutes for a few.

Here's the extreme example; let's assume that the train runs twice as frequently and skips twice as many stops - the four above as well as Quarry Park, Ogden, Inglewood/Ramsay, and the east Beltline stop at 4th St. Douglas Glen is the major park and ride lot, as well as the main bus terminal, as far as I know. But if you want to service QP, you could skip it instead.

Only here, having made a lot of really strong assumptions, do we have an express train that gets you there faster. But not by a lot; I caught a bus this morning, and given the choice of getting on board right away or waiting more 5 minutes outside and getting to my destination 1 minute faster, I wouldn't pick the express option. And that's assuming I want to get downtown, not to Quarry Park or any of the industrial areas, and that I'm coming from Shepard, not Ogden or Ramsay -- in any of these cases, I can't take the express train and my service is just straight worse.

The secret as to why only New York has express trains isn't because nobody else is smart enough (or even densely built enough), it's that New York made the mistake in the first place of building the local trains. A forgivable mistake - first movers always make them. But express vs. local works there, where to take an example the 1 and 2 lines run parallel from 96th Ave to Chambers. The 1 stops 18 times, and the 2 only 6 times on the same segment; the express train takes 23 instead of 16 minutes; 35 seconds less per stop. But they also run incredibly frequently - 4 and 5 minute headways all day. So you get something more like this:

where it always makes sense to take the express if you're going somewhere it serves. But the thing is that it's 17 km from Shepard to the Beltline, with 9 stops in between, a stop every 1.8 km. And it's 9.5 km from 96th to Chambers, on the express 2 there are 4 stops in between, one every 2.4 km. It's not that we should trying to add express trains, we already are. It's the local service - (16 stops from 96th to Chambers, a stop every 500m) - that we're not building.

PS: The bypass you show isn't regularly used by the Hudson Bergen light rail, from what I can find out. They actually do operate skip-stop express service (the "Bayonne Flyer") in the rush hour on a different line, which I'd bet money is because New Yorkers (and NJers who think they're New Yorkers) have a positive image of express service, and it's really a marketing ploy. The express trains don't pass the locals, so no bypass tracks are needed, and they only take 4 minutes less end to end.

 

[Reecemartin]

Here's my take on how the math for express trains works (doesn't work in this case).

An express train is faster because it doesn't stop. It doesn't go any faster on the rails themselves. The time a train spends on a stop is three things; first time lost because the train is decelerating (rather than going through at top speed), then a dwell time while passengers get on and off, then acceleration time to get back to the top speed. The acceleration and deceleration of an Urbos 100 is 1.32 m/s^2 (symmetrical) per Wikipedia. That means that the added time for accelerating and decelerating are each in the range of 7.3 to 8.3 seconds (depending on top speed - those are for 70 and 80 km/h top speeds). So that's 16-17 seconds. Then there's the dwell time, which is in the 15-30 second range. So the total time is 30-45 seconds saved per stop.

Let's say we're skipping four stops; South Hill, Lynnwood, Highfield and 26th Ave. South Hill is currently nothing much, Lynnwood will never be much. Highfield and 26th Ave are lower density industrial parks. Note that eventually South Hill is intended to develop at a fairly high density, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the central hub for bus service to the SE industrial area (perhaps the Max Teal is routed through here), so maybe skipping it doesn't make sense. But in any case, there's 4 stops skipped, let's say 30 seconds per stop. Here's what that looks like from Shepard (I'm assuming 30 minutes to the downtown for simplicity; the Green Line website quotes 37 minutes to 16th Ave, and 10 minute frequency).
View attachment 444727
What is clear from this is that the express doesn't save you all that much time. No matter when you arrive at Shepard station, you should take the next train, express or local. Unless you want to go to the four skipped stops (and there are hundreds of jobs around Highfield and 26th Ave in particular) - in which case, you have to wait an extra 10 minutes if the next train is local. Similar if you're at one of the skipped stops; you have a train only every 20 minutes, all to save Shepardites 2 lousy minutes going to downtown.

Note also that the express train never catches up with the local train, so no passing infrastructure needs to be built. A service pattern like this could be run on the existing lines today, if we wanted to cut transit service for a lot of people to save a couple of minutes for a few.

Here's the extreme example; let's assume that the train runs twice as frequently and skips twice as many stops - the four above as well as Quarry Park, Ogden, Inglewood/Ramsay, and the east Beltline stop at 4th St. Douglas Glen is the major park and ride lot, as well as the main bus terminal, as far as I know. But if you want to service QP, you could skip it instead.
View attachment 444728
Only here, having made a lot of really strong assumptions, do we have an express train that gets you there faster. But not by a lot; I caught a bus this morning, and given the choice of getting on board right away or waiting more 5 minutes outside and getting to my destination 1 minute faster, I wouldn't pick the express option. And that's assuming I want to get downtown, not to Quarry Park or any of the industrial areas, and that I'm coming from Shepard, not Ogden or Ramsay -- in any of these cases, I can't take the express train and my service is just straight worse.

The secret as to why only New York has express trains isn't because nobody else is smart enough (or even densely built enough), it's that New York made the mistake in the first place of building the local trains. A forgivable mistake - first movers always make them. But express vs. local works there, where to take an example the 1 and 2 lines run parallel from 96th Ave to Chambers. The 1 stops 18 times, and the 2 only 6 times on the same segment; the express train takes 23 instead of 16 minutes; 35 seconds less per stop. But they also run incredibly frequently - 4 and 5 minute headways all day. So you get something more like this:
View attachment 444731
where it always makes sense to take the express if you're going somewhere it serves. But the thing is that it's 17 km from Shepard to the Beltline, with 9 stops in between, a stop every 1.8 km. And it's 9.5 km from 96th to Chambers, on the express 2 there are 4 stops in between, one every 2.4 km. It's not that we should trying to add express trains, we already are. It's the local service - (16 stops from 96th to Chambers, a stop every 500m) - that we're not building.

PS: The bypass you show isn't regularly used by the Hudson Bergen light rail, from what I can find out. They actually do operate skip-stop express service (the "Bayonne Flyer") in the rush hour on a different line, which I'd bet money is because New Yorkers (and NJers who think they're New Yorkers) have a positive image of express service, and it's really a marketing ploy. The express trains don't pass the locals, so no bypass tracks are needed, and they only take 4 minutes less end to end.

If you provide a meaningfully faster service (a few minutes or a morning commute can mean a lot) you can definitely get people to time their arrivals, which works well with TOD / park and ride and less well with transit connection. That being said - the only reason I shared the idea around express trains is that the Green Line is going to get quite a bit longer when its eventually extended down to Seton - the marginal cost also isn't that high, you make the stop slightly wider and lay bypass tracks in the middle. There's also the assumption everyone is headed to the CBD, this and the other stuff are reasonable assumptions today, but I'd like to think Calgary will more polycentric in the long term.

That being said I think you assumptions are also not so generous. A line this long *should* probably be aiming for higher than 70-80kph top speed, Ottawa is 105kph for example. At the same time those assumed frequencies would clearly need to be tweaked with multiple service patterns, you can run 2 more tph and make both express and local every 15. That being said you don't have to do that, there are lines in Japan with a half hourly express train that bypasses lots of stops, it can be tuned. That dwell time is also probably low for peak periods, low floor LRVs have less door per meter than high floor and a more restrictive layout internally that slows down boarding and alighting.

FWIW NY definitely isn't the only place that does express, just one of the popular North American examples - Chicago, Philly, and Santiago also does express and that's only Americas. Loads of cities in Europe and Asia have express or "rapid" services.

 

[trtcttc]

This was probably studied but doesn't express service work best when there's a large suburban population commuting in and it'll skip the lower population stops closer to the city centre? But if there is a relatively even spread of boardings throughout the line, the express trains probably would be better used to increase frequency.

 

[whatchyyc]

Yeah I think 100kph operation would be a better goal than express service

 

[Reecemartin]

This was probably studied but doesn't express service work best when there's a large suburban population commuting in and it'll skip the lower population stops closer to the city centre? But if there is a relatively even spread of boardings throughout the line, the express trains probably would be better used to increase frequency.

Even if there is an even distribution it makes sense as frequency can be balanced with more room left free on trains closer in.

Express service is out of the overton window for most cities in North America, and if they were to study they would likely only study the quad track New York approach and then assume that if you can't do that nothing is worth it. Anyways, a little time savings (even a few minutes) for thousands of riders can add up to some very serious economic benefit when scaled to even just a 30 year time horizon.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Sorry for the thread bump… but is anyone else starting to get kind of furious with the lack of progress and communication on this thing? Like, we don't even have station designs yet for christ sake. No schedule for the beginning of tunnel construction. We still don't even know if the bridge from Eau Claire to Crescent Heights will be going ahead in stage 1 or not. Absolutely bonkers for the most expensive infrastructure project in provincial history.

 

[darwink]

“Following evaluation, one of the proponents will be selected in early 2023 as the Development Partner.”

Procurement status | Green Line

www.calgary.ca