Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[andasen]

Originally Posted by MoXXon

I imagine they want to utilize the CP row along 10th for cost savings, but I totally agree that 12th would be ideal. Have the line follow 12th behind the bus barns along 7st then cross into Inglewood near the existing rail bridge.
I also wish they would move the 4th street a couple blocks east so it would be closer to Inglewood. As it stands now there is a fair distance between 4st station and the 12st bridge station connecting Inglewood with Ramsay

One option, especially if the line ends up elevated would be to put it down the old spur line ROW which is now an alley between 10th and 11th Aves

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

...This is probably going to be a much slower, less safe, and somewhat less reliable skeletal LRT than the existing LRT. South of McKnight looks like admin just wants to use curbs. Presentation boards look like Spadina streetcar cross sections as outlined on a LRTogG twitter post:

With respect to the images in the Green Line being just like Toronto's streetcars;

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Comm...te.pdf#page=34

pg 2 and pg 11 under the heading Punctuality

grade seperated; Headway +3 minutes (i.e. on-time performance) actual: 95.5-99.5% goal: 96-98%

streetcar; Headway +/- 3 minutes actual: 63.5% goal 70%

From RouteAhead pg 25; Comments from Engagement
Reliability was 6th at 5.5% after Frequency, Network design, Fares, Other, and Vehicles
Transit Priority was at 2.8% (which could overlap with speed) added to reliability would put it in the top three priorities.

In the budget tool the top three priorities seem reliability related;
Communication (accidents and other delays) 52%
Real-time arrival signs for buses 45%
CTrain repairs 45%

Interestingly crowding is ranked really low on this page and the next page under the budget tool. Maybe that 8th Ave subway can wait longer?

and pg 37;

RouteAhead’s customer experience strategy is guided by the core principles for public transit in Calgary:
» Increase the travel time advantage
» Overcome issues of reliability and delay
» Increase passenger capacity

What's projected needs to be communicated. There are trade-offs without essentially grade seperation and the Centre St N alignment from the Bow River to 64th Ave is more urban than what the rest of the system is-people should understand with a streetcar setup they are not getting a section like the rest of Calgary's system. With a more expensive option what would be the trade-off? To pay for it, mitigating the I-don't-want-to-live-right-next-to-it, could adjacent communities accept more development (and TIFF money) or maybe it goes as far as 96th Ave N instead of across Country Hills to Northpointe until a later phase? Did the other lines go right to the city edge right away?

“The quality remains long after the price is forgotten.” Henry Ford So will cut-and-cover construction where people are worried about disruption during construction.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by MoXXon

I imagine they want to utilize the CP row along 10th for cost savings, but I totally agree that 12th would be ideal. Have the line follow 12th behind the bus barns along 7st then cross into Inglewood near the existing rail bridge.
...

It'd be less of a curve radius to use 6 St SE, but I'd imagine they'd have to purchase property on the NW corner of the 6 St - 12 Ave intersection.

If it is going to be underground/elevated until east of McLeod Trail and/or the South LRT, then there's much fewer driveways or property access conflicts than in the studies selecting 10th Ave as the route. In the fantasy thread, i.e. really, really long term, isn't there one or two options with LRT on 17 Ave SE through to 17 Ave SW? From a connected grid network standpoint, with a SLRT station at Victoria Park-Stampede, that put the lines on 7, 8, 12, and 17 really extending downtown southward.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

What's projected needs to be communicated. There are trade-offs without essentially grade seperation and the Centre St N alignment from the Bow River to 64th Ave is more urban than what the rest of the system is-people should understand with a streetcar setup they are not getting a section like the rest of Calgary's system. With a more expensive option what would be the trade-off? To pay for it, mitigating the I-don't-want-to-live-right-next-to-it, could adjacent communities accept more development (and TIFF money) or maybe it goes as far as 96th Ave N instead of across Country Hills to Northpointe until a later phase? Did the other lines go right to the city edge right away?

“The quality remains long after the price is forgotten.” Henry Ford So will cut-and-cover construction where people are worried about disruption during construction.

Toronto has long had a problem with closing cross streets or removing left turns when they install surface transit. There is no political will to do so and little communications between Roads and the TTC to make sure they aren't working at cross purposes. Heck, even the fire department got in the game and insisted that instead of curbs and bollards that a soft curve should be put in instead so fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can 1) pull a u turn, and 2) use the street car lanes (for the newer lines, since they were mad from being restricted from using that part of the road on Spadina).

Also development doesn't create more tax money (unless the city raises taxes more due to the city's capital stock growing), and TIFs don't generate more money for the city than just raising taxes on everybody, they just create a ring fenced amount of future property tax revenue to borrow against.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

With respect to the images in the Green Line being just like Toronto's streetcars;

[snip]

pg 2 and pg 11 under the heading Punctuality

grade seperated; Headway +3 minutes (i.e. on-time performance) actual: 95.5-99.5% goal: 96-98%

streetcar; Headway +/- 3 minutes actual: 63.5% goal 70%

[snip]

Unfortunately, that report doesn't separate mixed-traffic streetcar routes from dedicated-ROW streetcar routes -- at least not in the sections you highlighted. I'd be shocked out of my mind if the Spadina and St Clair lines did not have substantially higher reliability than King, Queen, Dundas, etc., lines. (I'm willing to be proven wrong with actual data, of course!)

I don't think anyone's contemplating mixed traffic, so making comparisons with the TTC's overall streetcar performance is not a good metric to choose.

So what it really comes down to, is how well are would the city to isolate in-street sections? How many left-turn lanes would they close down? How hard will it be for a car accident to impinge on the LRT ROW? etc.

[MalcolmTucker]

Spadina should improve as the newer higher capacity streetcars come onstream and they increase the headway a bit. My experience a few years ago when I lived there was that bunching was a major issue and at least on the central section (south of U of T, north of Front) that walking was faster. They just run too many street cars to run them well right now.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Spadina should improve as the newer higher capacity streetcars come onstream and they increase the headway a bit. My experience a few years ago when I lived there was that bunching was a major issue and at least on the central section (south of U of T, north of Front) that walking was faster. They just run too many street cars to run them well right now.

That's actually pretty interesting, I had always thought of the TTC streetcars as sort of a static service, but like any transit line in a growing city, at some point the frequecy of streetcars needed might reach a level where LRT is needed..

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Unfortunately, that report doesn't separate mixed-traffic streetcar routes from dedicated-ROW streetcar routes -- at least not in the sections you highlighted. I'd be shocked out of my mind if the Spadina and St Clair lines did not have substantially higher reliability than King, Queen, Dundas, etc., lines. (I'm willing to be proven wrong with actual data, of course!)

I don't think anyone's contemplating mixed traffic, so making comparisons with the TTC's overall streetcar performance is not a good metric to choose.

So what it really comes down to, is how well are would the city to isolate in-street sections? How many left-turn lanes would they close down? How hard will it be for a car accident to impinge on the LRT ROW? etc.

Luckily, it's easy to find TTC route level performance data, by such tricks as googling "TTC route performance". The two dedicated ROW trains, the 510 Spadina and 512 St. Clair have much higher on time performance; 78% and 85% respectively. It's also worth noting that these trains routinely cross much higher volume roads at-grade than the NCLRT would (with Beddington, McKnight and 16th not being crossed at grade).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Unfortunately, that report doesn't separate mixed-traffic streetcar routes from dedicated-ROW streetcar routes -- at least not in the sections you highlighted. I'd be shocked out of my mind if the Spadina and St Clair lines did not have substantially higher reliability than King, Queen, Dundas, etc., lines. (I'm willing to be proven wrong with actual data, of course!)

I don't think anyone's contemplating mixed traffic, so making comparisons with the TTC's overall streetcar performance is not a good metric to choose.

So what it really comes down to, is how well are would the city to isolate in-street sections? How many left-turn lanes would they close down? How hard will it be for a car accident to impinge on the LRT ROW? etc.

I think they will likely close all intersections for left turns expect the following (from past 20th, where the LRT will likely surface, to McKnight):

- 24th
- 28th (south of the proposed station)
- 30th (north of the proposed station)
- 32nd
- 40th
- 42nd

Left turns can more easily be handled at station locations, as the light timing can take advantage of the stopped trains.

As for accidents, bollards do a great job of stopping anything short of a freight train. A simple bollard and chain barrier, plus 6" curb along the ROW will prevent most vehicular accidents from impinging on the ROW. Pedestrian crosswalks can be put up at all existing intersections.

Just my thoughts.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Luckily, it's easy to find TTC route level performance data, by such tricks as googling "TTC route performance". The two dedicated ROW trains, the 510 Spadina and 512 St. Clair have much higher on time performance; 78% and 85% respectively. It's also worth noting that these trains routinely cross much higher volume roads at-grade than the NCLRT would (with Beddington, McKnight and 16th not being crossed at grade).

Exactly, with grade separation of these three roads, it is really only 40th avenue, 64th avenue, and Beddington Blvd that have any significant volume of traffic crossing. These have volumes (2013) of 11 000, 32 000, and 12 000 vehicles per day. Not large volumes comparatively. Perhaps 64th would need to be grade separated, but that shouldn't be too hard given the grade change.

[MalcolmTucker]

Those counts for 40th and Beddington Blvd are lower than 45 St in the SW iirc, where the LRT was originally proposed to cross at grade.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Those counts for 40th and Beddington Blvd are lower than 45 St in the SW iirc, where the LRT was originally proposed to cross at grade.

I believe potential delays in emergency response time was the reason 45th street was grade separated. There is a fire and police station just north of the tracks.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I believe potential delays in emergency response time was the reason 45th street was grade separated. There is a fire and police station just north of the tracks.

It was actually NIMBY whining, with the fire station as an excuse. IIRC, the fire department didn't even think it would be an issue. Separating the LRT crossing was far more expensive than building and operating a second fire station right across the street. (Or anywhere else in the west, which would have been the real way to reduce response times.) But the sacred nature of fire, police and EMS...

[Fuzz]

They better grade separate 40t ave, otherwise all the morons lined up for the Tim Hortons are going to end up blocking the train. Hate those morons soooo much.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They better grade separate 40t ave, otherwise all the morons lined up for the Tim Hortons are going to end up blocking the train. Hate those morons soooo much.

Cheaper to move the Tim Hortons! Or post a police officer there for rush hour every day for 50 years.

[Fuzz]

Oh yes, let's move Tim Hortons! All the way to Balzac, please. All of them.

On a more serious not,e that intersection does get very backup up in rush hour, I've seen it almost to Edmonton trial before. Would an LRT alter the length of time the light cycle lasts for?

I also assume a lot of land will need to be expropriated for a station and space for turn lanes and such. I wonder if the church will go? Actually, that's perfect. Get rid of the church on one side, and Tim's on the other. 2 religious institutions I could do without!

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh yes, let's move Tim Hortons! All the way to Balzac, please. All of them.

On a more serious not,e that intersection does get very backup up in rush hour, I've seen it almost to Edmonton trial before. Would an LRT alter the length of time the light cycle lasts for?

I also assume a lot of land will need to be expropriated for a station and space for turn lanes and such. I wonder if the church will go? Actually, that's perfect. Get rid of the church on one side, and Tim's on the other. 2 religious institutions I could do without!

My recollection is that it is a rather large church. I'd doubt they would go easy, though this is likely a price.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by suburbia

My recollection is that it is a rather large church. I'd doubt they would go easy, though this is likely a price.

That one isn't all that big. They have their main one a few blocks away in the industrial area. I believe they are both the "Centre Street Church" with the original being on centre, and much larger new one in the industrial area.

[lineman]

That's correct. They both belong to the same church, with the giant newer one being on the old Sunset Drive In parcel. I'd assume they're speculatively holding onto the old Centre St. location to cash in on any future LRT development.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by suburbia

My recollection is that it is a rather large church. I'd doubt they would go easy, though this is likely a price.

Expropriations for churches is ludicrously expensive mostly because the city has made the parking requirement very high so lots of land is required for the replacement property. Heads of compensation can be very high compared to the commercial value of the land as we saw on the west line.