The Future of the C-Train in Calgary: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Southeast TransitWay BRT/LRT November 2011

Prepared By: Shane Keating, Alderman of Ward 12 Contributions from: Neil McKendrick Jason Letourneau Brianna Rogers

Table of contents Executive Summary..................................... History....................................................... Comparison of BRT versus LRT..................... Page 3 Page 3 Page 6

The need for the LRTs in Calgary.................. Page 9 Conclusion.................................................. Endnotes.................................................... Page 12 Page 13

Executive Summary
With the 30th anniversary of the C-train upon us, many Calgarians wonder what is planned for the future. Shane Keating, Alderman if one of Calgarys fastest growing constituencies, Ward 12, would like to ensure that the next priority in expanding the citys C-train service be the development of the Southeast TransitWay (SETWAY). As the City of Calgary grows in population, the needs of transit also grow. Finding the right balance of needs, services, and costs is a tricky combination. Managing this balance brings forward possible solutions, each with their own set of pros and cons. One of these solutions would be the never ending debate between LRT (Light Rail Transit) and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit). We examine how each of these systems operates in Calgary today and how we hope to use them in the future. There are those who are strongly for, or against the use of LRT networks over that a BRT infrastructure, pitting both viewpoints against each other. Critics argue many points such as costs, benefits, and many other factors that would seem to make one a superior choice over the other. As the debate continues, and not likely to end any time soon, Alderman Keating would like to explore all options. In doing this he hopes to find out what would be the best for the SETWAY, an initiative not only to the citizens of Ward 12 and the SE, but for all of Calgary.

History
The 30 year old story of the C-Train actually dates back to 1967 when the City of Calgary recognized the need to provide a transit link from the northern part of the city to the deep the south. From a plan approved by Council in 1977, a single line from the downtown core to the Anderson C-Train Station was built and opened in May of 1981.i

With the growth of the city, the convenience of the LRT option and the approaching Winter Olympic Games in 1988, Northeast and Northwest lines were constructed and became the basis of Calgarys transit artery. Since the Olympic Games in 1988, Calgary Transit has continued to build the LRT network outward using the current and future LRT lines as arteries to access the citys core. Year
ii

Stations

Quadrant Downtown -

1981 8th St. SW to Anderson

Southwest Downtown-

1985 10th St SW to Whitehorn 1987 Sunnyside to University 1990 Brentwood Canyon Meadows to Fish 2001 Creek/Lacombe 2003 Dalhousie 2004 Shawnessy to Somerset/Bridlewood 2007 McKnight/Westwinds 2009 Crowfoot 2012 Martindale to Saddletowne 2012/2013 Sunalta to 69th St 2014 Tuscany

Northeast Northwest Northwest

Southwest Northwest Southwest Northeast Northwest Northeast Southwest Northwest

Currently, there is a plan, initiated by Alderman Keating, to acquire funding through the Province of Albertas GreenTrip Program iii, and direct it towards the development of the Southeast TransitWay (SETWAY); a transit link from the South Calgary Health Centre, in the community of Seton, to the downtown core. The SETWAY would lay the groundwork for a future LRT line, by creating a dedicated transit lane to be utilized by a BRT route. As future funding and ridership levels determine a need for a greater infrastructure, a light rail track would be laid for a permanent LRT line. Compared to that of Ottawa, a major city which relies primarily on bus transit on non-dedicated roadways, the issue of bus congestion becomes a great concern.

BRT System in Ottawa

To compliment the fleet of LRT vehicles that have grown with the population since 1981, Calgary Transit has expanded its bus service from 78 routes to 157 routes and has expanded its bus fleet to 260 busses. Part of Calgary Transits transportation policy is to use the concept of feeder busses, Park and Ride lots, BRTs and the LRT system to efficiently move Calgarians from Point A to where ever Point B may be.

Comparison of BRT versus LRT

Rapid transit may be defined as transit service separated partially or completely from general vehicular traffic and therefore able to maintain higher levels of speed reliability and vehicle productivity than can be achieved by transit vehicles operating in mixed traffic. iv In doing research for this paper, it seems that the argument for BRT vs. LRT is a timeless saga. Members of the academic community and supporters from either side have produced countless papers and journal entries that highlight, contrast, and compare the two, each side arguing for its superiority. When looking at the differences between an LRT system and a BRT system there are many factors that need to be determined before a true comparison can be made. Without the clarification it is easy for the comparison to be skewed, not representing the true nature of the project in question. A clear first point to consider is the type of LRT and BRT system to be used. In Dean C. Ruffillis paper entitled Federal support for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit Systems in Canada v, he points out that BRTs and LRTs can both run on dedicated right of way roads and some on street service. In Calgary we operate a portion of the lines on streets but for the purpose of this paper as it relates to the SETWAY ( Southeast Transit Way) let us only focus on what the plan would be for that portion of LRT system, which would be a dedicated right of way with none or very little on street service. The Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) defines a BRT system as such: Exclusive bus ways generally not used by other traffic, located either in the median or boulevard of an existing road, or in a separate corridor Dedicated lanes for transit or high-occupancy vehicles on existing roads, possibly with transit signal priority to maintain schedules and service intervals

Mixed traffic lanes where dedicated facilities are not needed to guarantee reliability, and where isolated delay points are addressed through queue jumps or signal priority measures

Ideally, the BRT that would be used for the SETWAY would be the first description. We would want this type of BRT service because it is the most superior and would provide the greatest level of services to the riders. This is very import because perception plays a huge role when it comes to ridership. Although a very subjective topic, perception is a very important aspect. According the National BRT Institute the image of Light Rail versus conventional bus service is no contest, people generally: Feel safer on light rail Think it is more reliable Are more comfortable Look at bus services as a last resort

Because of these perceptions to conventional bus service, in the minds of the public, they translate to BRT service even though they are not the same. Ruffilli makes an excellent point that, This perception can make LRT more attractive than BRT to discretionary users (i.e., those who can choose between travelling by car or public transit.) From discussions from various SE community associations it would seem that there is potentially a large number of discretionary users that because of the lacking system are currently driving. A widely held opinion is, Why sit on a bus in traffic when I can have the freedom and privacy of my own car and sit in the same traffic, a thought that is hard to shake. In order to make the new BRT a success in the interim while waiting for the addition of the LRT it would have to be of the service level mentioned above; exclusive bus ways generally not used by other traffic, located either in the median or boulevard of an existing road, or in a separate corridor. The City of Calgary does have a BRT service but compared to the definitions provided it would barely meet the standards Other comparison factors are important as well:
7

Size: LRV (Light Rail Vehicle) capacity is about 180 passengers per car; running a 3 car train is 540 passengers. The City of Calgary is moving toward 4 car trains, which would carry 740 passengers in one train. BRT Bus capacity is about 100. Clearly the carry capacity for the LRT is far superior than for the BRT, and when you factor in loading and payment time, time that on a LRT is much less than that of the BRT Bus, it would seem that the LRT is more efficient. Routes: The scope of the SETWAY is that the proposed dedicated right of way route would be outfitted for the BRT first, and then when the time came to upgrade to the LRT, the track would be lain on the existing route. This would mean that the route would be exactly the same for the both. The difference would be that if something should happen on the BRT route, the buses would have the option to get off the route and detour. LRT would have to wait until the situation was cleared up. Also worth noting the LRT operates at an average speed of 35 km/hr or 75% faster than the average bus operating speed of about 20 km/hr. With time being a huge factor in peoples everyday commute this would add to perceptions.

Taken from www.ottowa.ca Moving forward with Rapid Transit

The need for the LRTs in Calgary.

In 1976, realizing the need to provide Calgarians with an effective method of public transportation, Calgarys City Council approved the concept of what is now known to be one of the premier transit systems in Canada, Calgarys LRT network. Though the concept and planning for a rapid transit system began in the 1960s, a decision to invest in a rail transit system was decided in 1976. In 1981, Calgarys population was 613,000. Many critics felt that building LRT was too ambitious for a city of this size. However, without this foresight, Calgarys transit system would not have been capable of serving the demand for transit travel along the 3 major transportation corridors. The downtown could not have developed as a high density employment area without LRT. Since the decision to embark on a light rail transit system, the population of Calgary has grown to 1,065,455 based on the 2009 civic census vi Currently, Calgarys LRT system is a three pronged thread of transit lines connecting Southwest, Northwest and Northeast residents to the core of the city. Plans for Calgarys future transit infrastructure include six legs of the LRT that will create a webbed transit corridor linking every quadrant of the city to the Downtown core. A webbed LRT hub is one part of the overall vision for Calgarys transit system, but it is not the only part. Parking policies created by the City in the early 70s have allowed for a very compact and efficient downtown. A typical day in downtown Calgary, which is home to many major corporations and businesses, would have a population of close to 130,000 employees in about 3 square kilometres.

This high density downtown would not be possible without: the restrictions placed on parking supply, the controlled location of parking structures within the downtown, A high capacity transit service (bus and LRT) serving the downtown

To get commuters out of their cars and utilizing the LRT in a city of over 1 million people, the City of Calgary has embedded a comprehensive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and bus route system across the entire city. Without the webbed LRT infrastructure that Calgary enjoys the 94.4 million transit users, who paid to ride Calgary Transit in 2010 vii, would have clogged the citys roads with a multitude of busses travelling to and from the downtown core. A typical 3 car LRV can transport 540 riders across the city with scheduled pick-ups every 5-15 minutes viii Compare that to a typical BRT bus that has a passenger capacity of 100 passengers per trip with scheduled pick-ups ranging from every 10-30 minutes. ix The City of Calgary is heading towards running 4 car trains on the LRT lines which would essentially raise the passenger capacity to roughly 720 transit users every 5-15 minutes of the day. If Calgary were to focus on a bus-only method of transit, the stress on Calgarys roadways would surely be felt as it would take seven articulated busses to match the capacity of one LRT trip. To match the frequency pick-up times during an afternoon rush hour (4:00pm 6:30pm) would equate to the following:

10

Comparison during rush hour (4:00pm 6:30pm) Capacity Total stops at the station during the period (using transit route information for the LRT at Olympic Plaza and BRT route at 9th Avenue and Macleod Trail) Total passengers Number of articulated busses that would be needed to match the timing and capacity of one LRT route heading in one direction

4 Car LRV 720

Articulated Bus 100

37 26,640

16 1,600

266

Using these numbers, commuters would be greeted with possible traffic snarls of 266 articulated busses sharing the road heading south during rush hour. Add to that the other three quadrants of the city that are not included in this example. Costs Some critics point out that the cost of utilizing an LRT is exorbitant in comparison to an articulated or feeder bus option. According, the report done on the Build Canada Fund a BRT with a dedicated right of way that would run along the same route as the future LRT would cost approximately $34 200 000 x. Of course this is much less than the estimated $734.4 million that it would cost for just the first phase of the LRT. Vehicles alone, a brand new LRV (Light Rail Vehicle) cost in the neighbourhood of $4 million xi where as a bus for the BRT would cost a quarter of that at $1 million xii. Although the cost benefit would apparently be clear there are other factors that contribute to the attractiveness of either that go far beyond costs alone as were mentioned earlier.

11

Conclusion
Over the last 30 years we have seen a lot of changes in Calgarys transportation; the addition of new lines, new cars and most importantly, an increases in overall presence to meet the needs of the growing population. The time has come to address the need of this kind of transit service for those living in the SE. The SETWAY is an imperative part of future transportation goals for the City of Calgary, without it we will be far behind the services needed and provided for those living in the Southeast. We have outlined the differences between an LRT and BRT and hopefully have proven why a BRT will be the best option first while we are waiting for its completion with an LRT.

12

Hubbell, John. Light Rail in Calgary: The First 25 Years. Presented at the 2006 Joint International Light Rail Conference. St. Louis, Missouri. April 8-12, 2006. P. 5. Available online at http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Calgarys_LRT_1st_25Years_TRB_revised.pdf. Hubbell, John. Light Rail in Calgary: The First 25 Years. Presented at the 2006 Joint International Light Rail Conference. St. Louis, Missouri. April 8-12, 2006. P. 6. Available online at http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Calgarys_LRT_1st_25Years_TRB_revised.pdf.
iii

ii

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4280.htm

iv

Metrolinx, Section 8.0: Glossary of Terms, The Big move: Transforming Transportation in the greater

Toronto and Hamilton Area. Retrieved April 5, 2011.

v

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-64-e.htm http://www.calgary.ca/DocGallery/BU/cityclerks/city.pdf
http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/2010_Customer_Satisfaction_Survey_Final_Report.pdf

vi

vii

viii

http://tripplanning2.calgarytransit.com/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookup

ix

http://tripplanning2.calgarytransit.com/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookup

Build Canada Fund Proposed Transit Investment for Calgary. Project #3: Southeast Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Updated September 2, 2009. P.3
xi

Southeast LRTGreen Trip Proposal. Province of Alberta Green TRIP Programs Cash Flow and Proposal Outline. Option 1 P. 2 Build Canada Fund Proposed Transit Investment for Calgary. Project #3: Southeat Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Updated September 2, 2009. P.3

xii

13