In public
policy, just like in business, it’s important at times to think differently,
unconventionally, or from a new perspective in order to come up with novel or
creative solutions to stubborn problems. This is truer when it comes to transit
policy where the benefits can span across entire local, regional, and national
economies. These benefits are widespread and include employment opportunities,
less strain on city infrastructure in and around the downtown core, improved
transit accessibility and convenience, reduced congestion and travel times,
more efficient movement of goods, reduced carbon emissions, and increased
property values. As you can see it is
easy to argue the benefits of improved transit.
For this
reason, as a city, we need to encourage Calgarians to voice their ideas on how
to improve transit. However, if
information is misleading or false in an attempt to promote an agenda citizens
may become disengaged, or maybe worse, misinformed. Recently, I came across a blog post about the
Southeast LRT that claimed the project would provide little to no benefit to
Calgarians. It’s not the writer’s
opinion that bothers me; it is the erroneous facts and outrageous metaphors
used to make his case. Sadly, these comments take away from what might have
been a fairly interesting contribution to the transit debate in Calgary.
The blog
begins by referring to the SE LRT as a three course meal. The “16 ounce steak,
sautéed mushrooms and baked-potato-with-all-the-fixin’s of transit
projects”. No reason is provided as to
why the author makes this claim, but instead he compares the SE LRT to
Edmonton’s ‘Valley Line’ transit project. The Valley line is a 27 km LRT that
will run from Mill Woods to Lewis Farms, crossing through downtown. The estimated cost of the line is $3.2
billion. Edmonton’s City Council has
approved a funding strategy for a shorter portion of the project, reducing the
price tag to $1.8 billion.
The writer argues
that Edmonton’s project is more “ambitious” due to its reduced cost. The writer
also claims that Alberta MLA Honourable Ric McIver will be hard pressed to
support “our SE LRT plan when presented with a less expensive alternative from
Edmonton?” These claims are completely
false. The SE LRT has an estimated cost
of $2.7 billion for a light rail system that stretches 27 kilometres, the same
distance as Edmonton’s project, but at a smaller price tag. City Council, similarly, has discussed funding
a section of the route from downtown to Quarry Park. The reduced price of this segment is
estimated to be $1.65 billion. Clearly,
the Southeast LRT is less expensive than its Edmonton counterpart.
Furthermore,
RouteAhead and Investing in Mobility have identified the Southeast Transit Way
(SETWAY) and SE LRT as priorities due to their advancement in planning and
community readiness. The fact is that
Ward 12 is one of the fastest growing communities in Calgary and it will
account for approximately 35 percent of the City’s growth over the next 10
years. The claim that Mr. McIver will favour one project over another is outlandish. Ultimately, provincial funding decisions are based
on a warrant system that takes into account several factors including the
aforementioned community readiness and need.
The blog
caught my eye because it came to some surprising conclusions. It claimed the SE LRT did not fare well in
rankings within the City of Calgary’s 30 year transit plan, and that the SE LRT
was “consistently outscored by its Centre Street cousins”. This seems really strange. While the Centre Street Transitway from Downtown to 78
Avenue North was given a score of
20, the LRT from downtown to Seton received a score of 22. In fact, the LRT from
downtown to Quarry Park received an equally impressive score of 20. But don’t take my word for it: look
at the report yourself.
It’s
important to point out that the SE LRT project scores higher as it moves away
from the downtown core. This has to do with existing ridership. The
demand for transit services changes by including populous areas between Quarry
Park and Seton. The result is a transit system that now serves more customers. Ridership will increase even further with the
completion of three recreation facilities in southeast Calgary. CP and Imperial
Oil will be opening new offices in the corridor, in addition to other prominent companies
in Quarry Park. The southeast boasts
four major economic hubs—Ogden; Quarry Park; Shepard Park and 130 Street SE; and
South Seton Centre—that will account for over 40,000 new jobs.
Ridership
for the West LRT is more than double what the City projected and is growing
with each month. The West LRT serves
100,000 Calgarians; Ward 12 alone serves over 88,000 residents. We should
expect the same increase in ridership when the SE LRT or a segment of it is
complete.
The writer makes
the claim that the SE LRT is expensive due to distance. “The SE LRT will need 27 kilometres of track
to get downtown to Seton” as compared to Toronto subways “which travel at most
17 kilometres to downtown Union Station.” This is misleading. Subway systems
are notoriously expensive. The LRT is growing in popularity for major cities
because it provides significant transit capacity without the expense of and
density needed for subway systems.
The planning
of a subway extension in Toronto of 8 kilometres was recently billed in excess
of $4 billion. It also costs more to maintain subway systems. Let’s compare that to the SE LRT. The SE LRT
can be implemented as a tool to encourage intensification of densities and land
use development. This will lead to extensive
re-development and transit-oriented development (TOD) resulting in employment
opportunities and less strain on city infrastructure. When the SE LRT is completed properties in
the communities of Downtown East Village, Ramsay, Inglewood, Ogden, Riverbend,
Douglasdale Glen, Quarry Park, New Brighton, Copperfield, McKenzie Towne,
Auburn Bay, Mahogony, and Seton will experience increases in property
values.
After all
this, the writer does make an attempt to provide several alternatives to the SE
LRT. I strongly disagree with his notion of treating the southeast as a
“distant bedroom community that still lies within the City of Calgary
boundaries”, however. Here is my response to these options.
Regional
Transit – “With a growing population currently of some 25,000+ residents [in
Okotoks], why not consider a regional transit link that starts in Okotoks,
stops in the relatively populous Auburn Bay—McKenzie Towne Area, and then runs
express to downtown?”
Recent
transit studies have found that there is sufficient demand to support round trips
from Okotoks to Calgary by bus every 30 minutes in the AM and PM peak periods
(5 to 6 trips per peak period), with approximately 35 passengers travelling the
peak direction and 8 travelling in the reverse flow on each trip. Studies have suggested that Okotoks is ready
for bus routes, but on small scale. One
transit feasibility report—which can be found on the Town of Okotoks website—approximated
that Okotoks can expect 5-10 passengers per operating hour on local
service. These numbers hardly warrant a
LRT, nor do they suggest that Okotok’s infrastructure could handle a service
that would provide a two-way connection between Calgary’s fastest growing
quadrant and downtown Okotoks. If anything, it seems logical
to build an extension from the Somerset LRT station to Okotoks, yet only if the
southeast quadrant is provided with its own LRT or some other alternative
because the Somerset Station is already overburdened.
East-West
Link --“It wasn’t long ago that conceptual LRT planning maps included a line
that ran East-West along Highway 22X to connect with present-day Somerset
Station.”
Studies have
shown that this line lacks sufficient ridership to warrant an LRT. As
mentioned, the Somerset Station is already overtaxed and cannot handle more LRT
traffic without becoming hopelessly mired.
But before even discussing this
option, there needs to be a more fundamental conversation about the goal of
this choice. Does it make sense to force
southeast commuters whose routes are already long and getting longer to
continue to shuttle west across the city to Somerset? Or, is it more reasonable
to build C-Train lines and bus routes according to infrastructure needs and to
ensure equivalent services to all quadrants of the city? This would benefit not only the southeast,
but all of Calgary. Finally, there is no proof that this would cost less than
the $642 million needed to build a dedicated transitway way from southeast
Calgary to downtown.
Deerfoot
BRT. “designate a High Occupancy Vehicle
lane (HOV).” “Widen the road and make Deerfoot truly a 3 lane expressway
end-to-end, but preserve one of these lanes for HOV.”
Adding an
HOV lane to Deerfoot Trail would be ineffective and would most likely make travel
conditions more unsafe. Reducing Deerfoot
to two lanes will increase congestion and travel time. Expansion of the bridges over Anderson and
Glenmore will cost the City several hundred million, if not more. If the HOV lane is located in the far left
lane of Deerfoot Trail, buses travelling in this lane will have to cross three
lanes in rush hour in order to reach the exit.
Similarly, buses entering Deerfoot Trail will have to cross three lanes
of traffic to enter the HOV lane. If the
HOV lane is located in the far right lane (similar to the transit/car pool
lanes on Centre Street) then vehicles that want to turn off Deerfoot will have
to pass through the HOV lane and likewise for traffic entering Deerfoot. The speed differential between the HOV and
general purpose lanes creates a potentially dangerous situation.
What about
expanding Southeast Deerfoot to four lanes in order to designate a HOV lane for
BRT? This also means the widening and
expansion of 15 flyovers and 4 bridges between 17 avenue SE and Seton Boulevard.
Even if it were possible structurally, I can ensure you this would cost more
than the SE LRT. The City would also
lose out on any benefit from re-development and TOD gained from embedding a
c-train and BRT near residential communities.
Conclusion
We have the
opportunity to redefine and build communities that are well supported by
quality transit systems that will serve the life needs of today’s generation
and tomorrow. The integration of
transportation and land use and the improved social, economic, health, and
environmental outcomes that can result by locating housing, jobs, and other
activities near quality transit is beneficial to all Calgarians. For this reason, I welcome Calgarians into the
discussion on how to improve transit. However, this conversation has to be fact-based
and cannot be used to prop up any organization or individual’s mandate.