Calgary Area Regional Transit

[wild wild west]

/\One of the advantages of regional rail transit is that it can run mostly on existing rail lines and entirely within existing rights-of-way and thus, the startup cost would be much cheaper than LRT. The SELRT, conversely, will require entirely new track, possibly elevated and underground sections as well as acquiring additional rights-of-way at significant cost. I agree with you that ultimately the SELRT would get many more riders, but it will also be much more expensive - and assuming we get our billion, it may not be enough.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by lubicon

However Stelmach seems quite focused on more 'rural' issues, and politically I guess that makes sense as that is his power base. My fear is that we will see regional transit forced upon us at the expense of further LRT expansions inside both Edmonton and Calgary. I would love to see both go ahead if we had the resources, but if it comes down to a choice I have to go with LRT.

Should it come down to that choice I would agree with you 100%. That would be ridiculous though as Stelmach could not possibly justify the ridership disparity. What would really infuriate me though is HSR is rammed through before either LRT expansion or regional rail is underway. There is a project that would do very little in terms of the environment compared to LRT. (I'd venture to say the daily ridership in Edmonton and Calgary would be greater than a month of HSR, and that could be a huge underestimate.) Lets not get into the HSR debate here though.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by wild wild west

/\One of the advantages of regional rail transit is that it can run mostly on existing rail lines and entirely within existing rights-of-way and thus, the startup cost would be much cheaper than LRT. The SELRT, conversely, will require entirely new track, possibly elevated and underground sections as well as acquiring additional rights-of-way at significant cost. I agree with you that ultimately the SELRT would get many more riders, but it will also be much more expensive - and assuming we get our billion, it may not be enough.

True, to some extent. North and south could possibly run on existing track, but I don't think there is any way that they could go out to Cochrane without building new track pretty much the whole way. The CPR mainline is just too busy as it is with freight trains, there is no practical way they could add passenger rail to that line.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by lubicon

True, to some extent. North and south could possibly run on existing track, but I don't think there is any way that they could go out to Cochrane without building new track pretty much the whole way. The CPR mainline is just too busy as it is with freight trains, there is no practical way they could add passenger rail to that line.

Thats the position the CRP is taking on it as well, based off what they'd been told by CPR.

[evolv]

Originally Posted by lubicon

As much as I like the concept of regional transit, given the fact that Calgary will likely 'only' see $1 billion of the money at best I think the money would be better spent on LRT within the city. The project that jumps out to me is the SELRT, and that is what I think they should focus on. It would likely serve the highest population, have the highest ridership, and do the most good to the most people.

If we look at the surrounding communities that would likely be served by regional rail, I would say those towns are: Airdie (~30 000), Cochrane (~15 000), Okotoks (~15 000), Chestermere (~5000), and maybe High River. That's approx 65 000 people, maybe 75-80 000 if you add in surrounding communities. Assuming 1/2 those people work (probably optimistic) that's maybe 35-40 000 people tops who would use the service. Of those 40 000 likely only half might work downtown which is where the trains likely would run. So you are looking at spending hundreds of millions of dollars for maybe 15-20 000 people. LRT would have much higher ridership as there are students etc who would also use this service. Add it all up and regional service just does not make sense, ASSUMING there will only be one or the other (regional rail vs LRT expansion). The money would be better spent within Calgary.

However Stelmach seems quite focused on more 'rural' issues, and politically I guess that makes sense as that is his power base. My fear is that we will see regional transit forced upon us at the expense of further LRT expansions inside both Edmonton and Calgary. I would love to see both go ahead if we had the resources, but if it comes down to a choice I have to go with LRT.

regional rail may have more benefit than just getting the people that live in these communities to work

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Why Calgary will get regional rail = politics. For the ring communities, they get a benefit, Calgary gets the ego boost of being a 'big city'. Province gets to say they brought transit to X# of people (even if the number of cars taken off the road is much smaller). Even better for stoking Calgary's ego, Edmonton will not get a similar system (they will get the stub LRT line to NAIT funded most likely)

Once regional transit is built up, they may even get the gall to build HSR since feeder networks will exist!

All these fit the pattern of a project that will have massive provincial support. The system will also have a name that emphasizes that it is provincially owned and funded.

There won't be many groups opposing this expenditure. Only taxpayers (which opposes everything) and maybe CFIB would oppose, maybe 'friends of parks' (which would put different sides of the environmental movement to fight eachother which the province loves to do) and while they have a constituency, it isn't enough to stop it.

For the size of expenditure the province wants to make, this makes sense, unless the city of Calgary assembles a P3 that can build the SE line for ~$800 million in provincial dollars, regional rail is the next most ready to build project that is something 'new'.

LRT in Calgary has shown it has the ability to generate ridership unlike buses, which is why in last quarter of '07 there was a big increase in transit ridership, but no increase in bus ridership. We aren't going to abandon that philosophy now (but this discussion if it continues in particular should go back on the Cal-Trans thread).

Kyle, we clearly live in different "places." Politics is why Calgary will not get what they want. The cabinet is dominated by rural MLAs and a lot of them can't stand Calgary. You are being extremely optimistic if you think these MLAs are going to approve huge expenditures for a regional transit system that will serve very few of their constituents. Calgary Transit can tell Bronco and Druh that 15% of the riders on Calgary transit are from outside of the city but the facts are that number is nothing but a propoganda. If you don't believe me just crunch some numbers. For starters the outlying areas don't even account for anywhere near 15% of the metro population so for Calgary Transit to claim that 15% of their ridership is from bedroom communities is already on shakey ground. The economic agencies (Chambers, etc.) in places such as Airdrie and Okotoks have stated that over half of the working population in their cities works in their cities. Factor in that not everyone works and that of those who do work in Calgary clearly not all work downtown. Like I said in another post, at best we'll see a place like Airdrie getting better local transit. We might see service to the megamall in Balzac if we're lucky.

[MalcolmTucker]

It is pretty hard to spend $2 billion on transit without spending some money in Calgary, and I am pretty sure they learned their lesson in there last tangle with the city. The province has always been pragmatic and very technocratic in administration of programs such as this.

If the money is divided up $800, $800 for Calgary, Edmonton, that still leaves $400 for other communities (~ 1000 buses).

Your pretty pessimistic, in thinking that the tories will vindictively deny Calgary (or the Calgary area mind you) funding based on pettiness.

There is more than enough money to build regional rail and bus feeder networks for regional rail in the individual communities in the $2 billion. Once these feeder networks are all done, lets say in ten years, it will be much easier to justify building high speed rail, which is the end goal.

You really have almost no faith in representative democracy don't you? I'm a liberal and I am less pessimistic about what will get done than you for god sakes!

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Kyle, we clearly live in different "places." Politics is why Calgary will not get what they want. The cabinet is dominated by rural MLAs and a lot of them can't stand Calgary. You are being extremely optimistic if you think these MLAs are going to approve huge expenditures for a regional transit system that will serve very few of their constituents. Calgary Transit can tell Bronco and Druh that 15% of the riders on Calgary transit are from outside of the city but the facts are that number is nothing but a propoganda. If you don't believe me just crunch some numbers. For starters the outlying areas don't even account for anywhere near 15% of the metro population so for Calgary Transit to claim that 15% of their ridership is from bedroom communities is already on shakey ground. The economic agencies (Chambers, etc.) in places such as Airdrie and Okotoks have stated that over half of the working population in their cities works in their cities. Factor in that not everyone works and that of those who do work in Calgary clearly not all work downtown. Like I said in another post, at best we'll see a place like Airdrie getting better local transit. We might see service to the megamall in Balzac if we're lucky.

If any thing you've just pointed out why a regional rail system is more likely than support for solely Calgary initiatives. This government is philosophically linked much closer to the interests of the rural communities that would be served by regional rail than to the city.

And no, two billion dollars will not purchase a couple of buses for Airdrie. This is serious money, I imagine a couple hundred million might go to buying buses for L.A. Transit, Red Deer Transit, etcetera but the vast majority of the cash will be going to metropolitan Calgary and Edmonton. Now nine hundred million will buy a lot more than a couple of bus routes in Airdre. It will buy something big, flashy, and blatant for the Tories to point at in three years while they're asking for reelection. A commuter rail system fills the bill, it covers the whole CMA in a perceptible way. Another bus route in the sticks does nothing like that. I'm not saying that this announcement means we'll definitely see commuter rail, we might see a C-Train line instead (not that you'd prefer that) but it is essentially the kind of thing that seems plausible for this government.

[MalcolmTucker]

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

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

Given that the marginal cost of moving a cliff enough to twin the track and the cost of moving the cliff enough to allow the installation of a future third track are likely close to the same amount, should the track be triple lined, not twinned?

The cost will be high for sure, but if you have to rebuild bridges, overpasses, etc already, why not do it all at once, and provide faster service. Should we avoid having to do this in 30 years?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

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

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

Given that the marginal cost of moving a cliff enough to twin the track and the cost of moving the cliff enough to allow the installation of a future third track are likely close to the same amount, should the track be triple lined, not twinned?

The cost will be high for sure, but if you have to rebuild bridges, overpasses, etc already, why not do it all at once, and provide faster service. Should we avoid having to do this in 30 years?

The space could be reserved for a third track to Cochrane at the same time that a second track was laid , the moving of cliffs and such would be more expensive but I'm sure it would save money by the time the third track was actually laid.

I'd be curious to know how long existing infrastructure would be sufficient for the Okotoks/Highriver line and the Airdrie line. If Airdrie could survive on the existing track for fifteen years it might make sense to build two new lines of track at the same time, electrify it and then use the same track for Airdrie-Calgary Commuter Rail and Calgary-Edmonton HSR. I imagine fifteen years to be about the timeline they're gunning for with HSR.

[Wooster]

It will really depend on who makes the strongest pitches and who is ready to go with projects. Calgary has a number of projects lined up that could easily move forward with funding in place. I'm sure Bronco, as usual, is going to be very aggressive in trying to land as much of this money as possible.

I know I'm pushing some buttons trying to get some money for kickstarting the TOD projects in the NW corridor I'm working on (TOD is an area that is eligible for funding under this program). It's an innovative way to use money, the timing is good because we're just wrapping the planning up in the next couple of months. It's important to get people living and working closer to transit, not just to build the transit infrastructure itself it it is to be truly successful at getting people off of the roads. There's a good amount of investment that needs to go into some of these areas to make them much more attractive for transit-supportive development.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If any thing you've just pointed out why a regional rail system is more likely than support for solely Calgary initiatives. This government is philosophically linked much closer to the interests of the rural communities that would be served by regional rail than to the city.

And no, two billion dollars will not purchase a couple of buses for Airdrie. This is serious money, I imagine a couple hundred million might go to buying buses for L.A. Transit, Red Deer Transit, etcetera but the vast majority of the cash will be going to metropolitan Calgary and Edmonton. Now nine hundred million will buy a lot more than a couple of bus routes in Airdre. It will buy something big, flashy, and blatant for the Tories to point at in three years while they're asking for reelection. A commuter rail system fills the bill, it covers the whole CMA in a perceptible way. Another bus route in the sticks does nothing like that. I'm not saying that this announcement means we'll definitely see commuter rail, we might see a C-Train line instead (not that you'd prefer that) but it is essentially the kind of thing that seems plausible for this government.

I think you need to go back and read what I wrote and the various news releases about this money from the province. The money is going to be spent over *10* years so that alone should tell you that they are going to be playing games. Like I said before, this is being done strictly as a PR move and if they don't get good press and environmentalists to tone their attacks they'll cancel the program. Do you honestly think that in a matter of a few weeks Stelmach's rural dominated cabinet all of a sudden thought allocating $2 billion to public transit would be a good idea? No way in hell that happened. Anyone who even remotely follows provincial politics knows that the vast majority of rural politicans can't stand the two big cities, especially Calgary. Also, Calgary only accounts for about 30% of the population in the province so I'm at a loss as to why so many people here think we'll get $1 billion of the $2 billion.

Now back to what I said. What I pointed out is why a regional rail system will never get approved. The number of users would be extremely small for the cost and the province is not going to approve project without getting a big bang for the buck. Yeah, buying buses for use in Airdrie wouldn't either but there would be more users of a local transit system and thus more votes. Running buses into Calgary to tie into our system would be a good idea but a rail-based system is simply uneconomical. If the province is going to start throwing money around like that there will be a lot of people demanding they speed up construction of hospitals and quit cutting back on existing plans. That group which are bigger whiners than the transit fanatics will win the day because of their numbers.

If Calgary is realistic they will put forward a plan to build a huge tunnel downtown to handle multiple lines. This will improve traffic flow which will cut emissions. The government clearly said that they will consider any proposal that cuts emissions which, if you read between the lines, means they will be approving road projects in a lot of places because transit is simply not needed/wanted in a lot of areas in this province. But the way Bronco has been acting lately he'll get way too greedy and the province will favor the Edmonton area in the allocation of this money. Plus, they need to calm those guys down from last year when they claimed they got shafted.

[Wooster]

^ Why do rural politicians have such a chip on their shoulder? Shouldn't be the other way around? Urban politicians have much larger constituencies, rural representatives have a disproportionate amount of power considering their population bases.

Having said that, I am sure it won't take long for Calgary and Edmonton to eat up a lot of this money very quickly. Stelmach said it is entirely feasible that this money could be 'spent' (It will be actually paid out over 10 years, but would be allocated in the shorter term) in the next year.

I assume if money is approved for projects there is a legal (or at least political) obligation to come through with it, no?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

It is pretty hard to spend $2 billion on transit without spending some money in Calgary, and I am pretty sure they learned their lesson in there last tangle with the city. The province has always been pragmatic and very technocratic in administration of programs such as this.

If the money is divided up $800, $800 for Calgary, Edmonton, that still leaves $400 for other communities (~ 1000 buses).

Your pretty pessimistic, in thinking that the tories will vindictively deny Calgary (or the Calgary area mind you) funding based on pettiness.

There is more than enough money to build regional rail and bus feeder networks for regional rail in the individual communities in the $2 billion. Once these feeder networks are all done, lets say in ten years, it will be much easier to justify building high speed rail, which is the end goal.

You really have almost no faith in representative democracy don't you? I'm a liberal and I am less pessimistic about what will get done than you for god sakes!

Kyle, very few people vote for someone or a party based on agreeing with everything they stand for or wanting to accept every decision they are going to make. This is why we need to have plebiscites, etc. I should be asking you why you have no faith in voters but I think I already know your answer.

Of course Calgary we'll get funding but your allocation is questionable. I can see Calgary getting about $600 million of this money and Edmonton will probably get about $700 to $800 million to make up for last year. That leaves as much as $700 million for the rest of the province which sounds like a lot. First thing that will happen I believe is that a lot of smaller places like Red Deer, etc. will be given money to buy more buses which I would assume is what they are going to ask for. The two metro regions will ask for better regional transit systems and the response from the government will be funding for studies and to buy land for possibly needed (once the population dramatically increases) rail corridors or funding to build HOV lanes (you're right about the province being pragmatic and someone will realize that the vast majority of people will still drive between outlying areas and the big cities no matter how much they invest in transit).

I'm just being realistic not pessimistic. We should find out by next spring just exactly how serious everyone is about this initiative and I fully expect certain Calgary politicians to be deeply disappointed. But manufacturers of transit buses will be happy!

[fusili]

Although I am a huge proponent of non-automobile transportation (my scars from falling off my bike yesterday prove it), I am not really supportive of regional rail. When it comes to transportation planning what needs to happen is a balancing of objectives. Increases in ridership, impacts on landuse, impacts on the environment, socio-economic characteristics of riders, trip destinations etc have to be balanced against each other. It seems to me that Calgary Transit focuses solely on ridership. This is also the case for regional rail.

Just because regional rail will encourage more people to use alternative transportation and stop driving their cars (which is good), there are negative impacts. First, regional rail can encourage more low-density ex-urban development. What incentive is there to live in a dense, inner-city community if you can easily drive 5 minutes (or less) to your town's train station and get downtown in the same time it would take you to do so from an inner-city community in Calgary?

Second, the benefactors of regional rail are more likely to be upper-middle class office workers (not saying all of them, just a majority). Again this misses the purpose of public transportation. Lower income groups, students, those with mobility difficulties, the elderly etc, are those most negatively impacted by an urban form in which mobility is largely dependent on the ownership of an automobile. It is these groups that have the greatest mobility problems and the ones who most acutely feel the impacts of rising fuel costs, if they are dependent on automobile transportation. What regional rail (and LRT expansions to remote suburbs) does is it gives added mobility benefits to people who already have sufficient mobility. It helps the better off and does nothing for the worse off. That being said, there are probably many people in Cochrane, Airdrie and Okotoks who are lower-income, and so regional rail may be a great benefit to them.

Third, like our LRT system, regional rail does nothing to reduce automobile dependency. Regional rail, like our LRT system is design as a commuter system. It does not greatly help people access services such as doctors, grocery stores, schools etc, it gets people to and from work.

When we plan for a transportation system we should be taking into account not just ridership but, like I said above, a balance of objectives. Mobility is not just about going to and from work. It is picking up groceries, taking children to school, dance practice, going to the doctor etc. Transportation systems also should have the goal of reducing outward urban growth in order to protect both valuable agricultural land and ecologically significant areas, encouraging density, reducing automobile dependence etc etc etc. Calgary does have the most successful LRT system in North America, but I don't think it does much for the transit dependent.

That being said, if someone could prove to me that regional rail would reduce car dependency, increase urban densities in Cochrane, Airdrie and Okotoks, provide access for lower-income groups to services, reduce greenfield urban growth and be cost-effective, I would be all for it.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I think you need to go back and read what I wrote and the various news releases about this money from the province. The money is going to be spent over *10* years so that alone should tell you that they are going to be playing games. Like I said before, this is being done strictly as a PR move and if they don't get good press and environmentalists to tone their attacks they'll cancel the program. Do you honestly think that in a matter of a few weeks Stelmach's rural dominated cabinet all of a sudden thought allocating $2 billion to public transit would be a good idea? No way in hell that happened. Anyone who even remotely follows provincial politics knows that the vast majority of rural politicans can't stand the two big cities, especially Calgary. Also, Calgary only accounts for about 30% of the population in the province so I'm at a loss as to why so many people here think we'll get $1 billion of the $2 billion.

Now back to what I said. What I pointed out is why a regional rail system will never get approved. The number of users would be extremely small for the cost and the province is not going to approve project without getting a big bang for the buck. Yeah, buying buses for use in Airdrie wouldn't either but there would be more users of a local transit system and thus more votes. Running buses into Calgary to tie into our system would be a good idea but a rail-based system is simply uneconomical. If the province is going to start throwing money around like that there will be a lot of people demanding they speed up construction of hospitals and quit cutting back on existing plans. That group which are bigger whiners than the transit fanatics will win the day because of their numbers.

If Calgary is realistic they will put forward a plan to build a huge tunnel downtown to handle multiple lines. This will improve traffic flow which will cut emissions. The government clearly said that they will consider any proposal that cuts emissions which, if you read between the lines, means they will be approving road projects in a lot of places because transit is simply not needed/wanted in a lot of areas in this province. But the way Bronco has been acting lately he'll get way too greedy and the province will favor the Edmonton area in the allocation of this money. Plus, they need to calm those guys down from last year when they claimed they got shafted.

Valid points Corndogger. In response to your rhetorical question (which I have hilighted in bold). You may be absolutely right, and based strictly on population that would make sense. However, using those same numbers (that the polpulation is split roughly 1/2 Calgary (region), 1/3 Edmonton (region), and 1/3 'rest of Alberta') it is easy to see that spending a significant amount of money outside of Calgary, Edmonton, and immediate areas makes little sense. The population is spread too thinly, and even giving much money to the larger centres (there are only 5 - Med Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, GP, and Ft Mac) isn't the smartest move. Those cities have workforces that are quite spread out and sinking a bunch of money into transit won't help. Really the only case for regional transit outside of Edm and Cal is in Ft Mac and they already do it with the dozens if not hundreds of busses that take workers out to the oilsands mines every day. Based on this logic alone it would make sense (to me) to spend most of the money in/around Edmonton and Calgary with maybe a little for everyone else. That is where the roughly 50/50 split comes from that we are speculating about. Of course this is provincial politics as you have pointed out so logical thoughts are not necessarily going to carry the day.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by josh white

^ Why do rural politicians have such a chip on their shoulder? Shouldn't be the other way around? Urban politicians have much larger constituencies, rural representatives have a disproportionate amount of power considering their population bases.

Having said that, I am sure it won't take long for Calgary and Edmonton to eat up a lot of this money very quickly. Stelmach said it is entirely feasible that this money could be 'spent' (It will be actually paid out over 10 years, but would be allocated in the shorter term) in the next year.

I assume if money is approved for projects there is a legal (or at least political) obligation to come through with it, no?

Josh, there are countless examples of where governments have made promises and backtracked. It shouldn't happen but it does and sometimes for good reason.

Your assessment about rural politicians is right but they definitely do not like the two big cities because they perceive we get way too much. They tend to forget those huge subsidies to farmers, etc. However, knowing some people that have lived in rural areas in this province for years there are some areas in which they do get screwed. Basic infrastructure is way worse than what we have here. I'm not just talking about roads but stuff like decent sewer systems, water treatment, etc. The number of boil water advisories in this province is shocking but something we never even think about in Calgary. I believe Bragg Creek has had a boil water advisory for years now which is crazy in a province with our wealth. It's probably the basics like that which makes rural politicians and residents despise the big cities.

As for eating up the money, I'm sure Bronco will have enough proposals to eat up $10 billion but reality is the province is going to decide what gets approved. I just hope they fully investigate evey proposal because I don't want another cent of my money going into ill-planned projects like the WLRT. If approvals do take until next spring then there is hope that the province will carefully study all proposals and pick the best of the lot. And I'll be shocked if the cabinet allocates all of the money in the first year. Given the construction environment it would be wise that didn't happen to make sure we get value for the money being spent.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by fusili

Although I am a huge proponent of non-automobile transportation (my scars from falling off my bike yesterday prove it), I am not really supportive of regional rail.

...

A well-put post. I pretty much agree on all counts.

I would go on to add that it goes beyond addressing just income-based or age-based dependencies. Automobile dependency in general is a bad thing. It's entirely unreasonable to expect that every person owns or is compelled to own, and operate, a private automobile. Automobile Dependency limits lifestyle choices.

Past that, it is indeed dubious that Calgary should support any form of commuting that contributes to weakening it's own tax base/increasing it's infrastructure burden.

Now, that said, if the City/Province could force through a solid regional growth strategy that limits the ability of both Calgary and it's surrounding towns to sprawl, that would make commuter rail much more palatable.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Valid points Corndogger. In response to your rhetorical question (which I have hilighted in bold). You may be absolutely right, and based strictly on population that would make sense. However, using those same numbers (that the polpulation is split roughly 1/2 Calgary (region), 1/3 Edmonton (region), and 1/3 'rest of Alberta') it is easy to see that spending a significant amount of money outside of Calgary, Edmonton, and immediate areas makes little sense. The population is spread too thinly, and even giving much money to the larger centres (there are only 5 - Med Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, GP, and Ft Mac) isn't the smartest move. Those cities have workforces that are quite spread out and sinking a bunch of money into transit won't help. Really the only case for regional transit outside of Edm and Cal is in Ft Mac and they already do it with the dozens if not hundreds of busses that take workers out to the oilsands mines every day. Based on this logic alone it would make sense (to me) to spend most of the money in/around Edmonton and Calgary with maybe a little for everyone else. That is where the roughly 50/50 split comes from that we are speculating about. Of course this is provincial politics as you have pointed out so logical thoughts are not necessarily going to carry the day.

From a bang for the buck perspective I totally agree with you. But this is a politically driven initiative and as long as rural areas are over represented in the legislature the party in power is going to have to pander to them more than they should in such insistences. Given that reality, I wonder what the reaction would be if a place like Lethbridge said we want to buy xx number of buses and xx number of hybrid vehicles to make our city fleet more fuel efficient. I know the transit crowd would not like the latter part but I think we need to be realistic and admit that vehicles are going to rule for a long time to come. Calgary should also buy more hybrid vehicles given the size of our fleet.

[Wooster]

I think regional rail can be effective it is deployed properly and more responsible, higher density development in communities are enforced as sort of a precondition to getting commuter rail. I'd make the case that a transit authority (which would operate all transit in the region - GO Train/ local systems operating seperately sucks) should be acquiring land for TODs not only in Calgary, but around stations in places like Cochrane.

As for commuter style vs. effective rapid transit. Certainly within Calgary, the commuter orientation of the system in the suburbs is largely due to its right of ways (running down the middle of freeways) and the lack of uses around it. If places like Brentwood, Dalhousie, Anderson build up, even the suburban LRT will operate better to meet the daily needs you're talking about, rather than just commuting.

That is also another argument for integrating commuter rail with Calgary Transit under one authority. People from Cochrane would be able to for instance, get off a train, transfer directly to the local bus and LRT systems to get to place like the University or to shopping destinations. It doesn't work like that with GO.

As for the socio-economic characteristics of transit riders. Calgary overall has a very white coller ridership demographic compared to most cities (largely due to its downtown orientation - all lines end there). Most outlying areas are among the least expensive places to live (except perhaps exurban acerage developments) in the region. In the GTA, it is the surburban enclaves served by commuter rail like Brampton, Vaughn, Markham that are the most ethnically diverse, and in many cases have the most transit dependent people. This will be more and more the case in the Calgary region I am sure.

It is important to have all people in the region have reasonable transit access (whether we like it or not, cochrane, airdrie and Okotoks already exist and they're not going away), so we might as well make the best of the situation.

Having said that, the investment should not promote sprawl, and actually be an impetus for more responsible development (hopefully that is coming with the return of regional planning, and an upcoming metropolitan plan for calgary under the Province's land use framework). Further, it SHOULD NOT preclude aggressive development of LRT within Calgary's municipal boundaries. Making it a truly functional rapid transit system that is convenient and useful for all types of trips is critical. This will happen by completing the radial network, and then begining to make many more cross town connections, ring routes etc covering all areas of the city. This also needs to be coupled with really tying land use to this infrastructure (TODs).