Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[shogged]

option c would be my first choice. I think the low floor aspect of the line would be better suited to an elevated design vs a subway. the first station under the hill in option D at 13 stories underground seems insane.

If the money was available though, i'd go with 5 elevated stations downtown and a bridge over the river with the longest spans possible.

[Chadillaccc]

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

[McMurph]

Although I've said B before and suspect that's what we'll get, I'm kind of hoping they find the money for the full tunnel. The river through the core is incredibly special and unique. It's hard to imagine them not screwing it up at least a bit by bridging both it and the end of Prince's Island. I'm also not keen on losing use of that area for the years it will take to build it. I love the Peace Bridge but its construction was a pain in the ass.

If they went for the tunnel I'm not sure the loss of a Crescent Heights station would be all that big a deal. I bet ridership there would be low regardless. It would be really, really low if it required a deep descent to get to the tracks. Deep metros (like some stations in DC) make me just want to walk.

The idea of elevated tracks in the core is stupid. It would interface beautifully with the plus 15. That's how stupid it is.

[Govertical]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

Bingo.

[lineman]

6% grades are a nightmare for high-rail maintenece vehicles, especially near tunnel heads in the winter where track frosting occurs due to air temperature variance. Runaways are common during these conditions and someone is eventually going to get killed.

For this reason alone, I'd choose option D.

As for deep stations, they're not a far-fetched concept. They built 10 storey deep stations in London 100 years ago.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by lineman

6% grades are a nightmare for high-rail maintenece vehicles, especially near tunnel heads in the winter where track frosting occurs due to air temperature variance. Runaways are common during these conditions and someone is eventually going to get killed.

For this reason alone, I'd choose option D.

As for deep stations, they're not a far-fetched concept. They built 10 storey deep stations in London 100 years ago.

They could build option B and put the 9th Ave. Station deeper to reduce the grade to 4% coming up the hill.

I'm hoping a pedestrian bridge will be built underneath the bridge if they go option B, that will be a spectacular walk into DT.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

Originally Posted by Govertical

Bingo.

And if we're to look 50 years into the future that might be closer to 3 million.

Herald article last year talked about 2.4 million in just 25 years.

[sim]

I'd go with Option B or Option D.

Option C is a non-starter. Option A would aid in replicating past mistakes - in that the travel time through the centre would reduce the lines diametrical efficacy, i.e. for trips going through the centre, not to the centre.

Although I'm for Option B or D, I predict and believe what will happen, assuming all the funding does come together, is that when actually looked at a bit closer, Option B will look a lot more challenging and would have actual costs that are much closer to those of D.

The large difference in costs appear to be because D would be bored and B would be cut & cover - otherwise the cost difference doesn't make sense to begin with.

While I don't doubt it can be technically done, I'd be curious as to how it is thought that the savings between the two methods can be realized, given the myriad of operational and logistical challenges presented by cut & cover.

So we are going to go under Macleod, go under CP, go under a parkade entrance, go under the current LRT line supposedly with, remove/relocate countless utilities, remove ~ 5 - 10 high value properties on a bluff and trench into something that will take some considerable stabilization, and disturb/disrupt businesses - some of which likely have disproportionate influence, all with cut and cover..? Or tunnel-jacking? The Evergreen Line jack (posted above) had considerably less constraints than any of the above would.

Well, good luck. Even if all that can directly save some of the $500 million, it may not be worth the headache and likely community opposition.

And that it needs to go 20 metres under the river in Option D, I'm sure can be reevaluated as well. Likely trying to stick to bedrock to avoid boring in very wet till, but if my limited understanding of tunnel methods and soil mechanics serves me correctly, there are methods to address this - freezing it for example.

Ultimately, I think the next step would be to take those two options and look at them in detail.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

Although I sympathize with your point, just saying we are a city of 2 million doesn't necessarily mean we should build underground rail infrastructure everywhere. We need to have a better discussion of relevant capacities/reliabilities and speeds of above and underground alignments, what the future growth of the corridor will be and what our projections for ridership will be. Saying "we should act like a big city" doesn't do much to elaborate on the conversation.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by McMurph

Although I've said B before and suspect that's what we'll get, I'm kind of hoping they find the money for the full tunnel. The river through the core is incredibly special and unique. It's hard to imagine them not screwing it up at least a bit by bridging both it and the end of Prince's Island. I'm also not keen on losing use of that area for the years it will take to build it. I love the Peace Bridge but its construction was a pain in the ass.

If they went for the tunnel I'm not sure the loss of a Crescent Heights station would be all that big a deal. I bet ridership there would be low regardless. It would be really, really low if it required a deep descent to get to the tracks. Deep metros (like some stations in DC) make me just want to walk.

The idea of elevated tracks in the core is stupid. It would interface beautifully with the plus 15. That's how stupid it is.

I think an interesting side effect of the elevated option is that the +15 Network will be increasingly perceived as "public" space. Currently, it is a little uninviting to those who don't have business walking through downtown office towers. If an elevated train was made to inferface beautifully with the +15s.

I have a feeling B will be the one...

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1627&doctype=AGENDA

Advantages: Option D – Tunnel from 24 Avenue North to 10 Avenue South
 Fastest travel time of all three options. Estimated travel time from 10 Avenue South to northern terminus at North Pointe (Country Hills Boulevard): 28-30 minutes
 Does not impact traffic capacity on Centre Street, south of 16 Avenue North, or on Centre City streets
 Reduced risk of service disruptions due to collisions, compared to Option A, B, and C. Eliminates at-grade pedestrian and vehicle crossings
 Minimal environmental impact
 Underground stations provide protection from the elements for waiting customers
 Underground station at 7 Avenue South provides good connection to existing LRT service on 7 Avenue, and future 8 Avenue subway
 Received strong community support during public engagement

Disadvantages: Option D – Tunnel from 24 Avenue North to 10 Avenue South
 Highest construction cost of all three options (approximately $1.3 billion for the segment of the route between 10 Avenue South and 24 Avenue North)
 Station on Centre Street at 9 Avenue North may not be built due to depth (50 metres/13 storeys), and ongoing operating costs to move passengers to/from track level to surface with elevators/escalators
 Station on Centre Street at 16 Avenue North is 35 metres/9 storeys deep, and station on 2 Street at 2 Avenue South is 27 metres/7 storeys deep
 2013 flood has highlighted vulnerability of public and private infrastructure in the Centre City

How is the city coming up with the conclusion that flooding would be a disadvantage on option D but not option B?

Option B has a tunnel entrance right in the flood zone while D does not. Sumps can easily handle ground water penetration, nothing can handle the Bow River flowing into a tunnel.

[Nouvellecosse]

After looking at the options and checking out the affected areas on street view, what I fail to understand is why they all involve a tunneled section on centre st before 20th ave. Why not have it elevated?? I mean, it's not like it's going to hurt the "ambiance" of the street or anything.

Out of the existing choices (as someone who's admittedly not a Calgary expert) I'd go with C.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

After looking at the options and checking out the affected areas on street view, what I fail to understand is why they all involve a tunneled section on centre st before 20th ave. Why not have it elevated?? I mean, it's not like it's going to hurt the "ambiance" of the street out anything.

Out of the existing choices (as someone who's admittedly not a Calgary expert) I'd go with C.

Staying underground means they don't need to find space for a tunnel portal. Not counting the land needed underground (whether sites not on the roadway sterilized from building, or land acquired to retain enough road lanes) for the portal approach, this tunnel to elevated section in Vancouver requires 180 meters.


A tunnel portal where you are already planning to take part of the ROW for the LRT doesn't take any additional land.

[Nouvellecosse]

What I was referring to is not having anything on centre st. tunnelled and having an elevated structure down the entire corridor.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

After looking at the options and checking out the affected areas on street view, what I fail to understand is why they all involve a tunneled section on centre st before 20th ave. Why not have it elevated?? I mean, it's not like it's going to hurt the "ambiance" of the street out anything.

Out of the existing choices (as someone who's admittedly not a Calgary expert) I'd go with C.

Centre street is fairly narrow so i think an elevated line would completely overpower the street and greatly reduce the potential of creating a super urban corridor. Unless the elevated section could ne off to one side with CRU's directly below. Berlin has this and it seems to work well.

The longer the underground section is, the better imo. At least as far as Centre Street goes.

[jsbertram]

I've been saying for a while that the North LRT should run on 4th St W, not Centre St.

With the tunnel from Downtown already running under the Crescent Rd bluff, its just as easy to tunnel west to 4th St instead of east to Centre.

4th St is the only major road in the area that doesn't have direct access to downtown, so losing some traffic lanes in favour of LRT will make people who are currently using 4th St to get to and from downtown use other parallel streets (Centre, Edmonton Tr, 10th, 14th). Today's traffic on 4th St already has to shift over to the parallel streets to get on a bridge to/from downtown.

The tunnel's north portal can be on the north side of 16th Ave.

4th St can become a "transit corridor" with preference to buses and LRT.

Since 4th St and Center St merge at 72nd Ave, the rest of the alignment north can be left as planned.

[RyLucky]

I guess what I would still like clarified is this:

-Why must the tunnel under the Bow be so deep? Is there no safe technology to build a waterproof tunnel closer to the surface?

What I'd like to see is a more-detailed cost analysis for 7-8 options like B, C, D. There might be a pretty big difference between 2 "B" options with different specs.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, the less dirt you have above a tunnel, the more structural strength has to be gained from the tunnel materials itself, not from adapting the ground to use as structure. Plus there would be codes on crossing underneath rivers - wouldn't want the tunnel daylighted during a flood event.

[ssiguy]

I'm probably dreaming in technicolour but............if they decide to go under the Bow then the tunnel will have to be very deep. Is it therefore possible that at roughly Stephen Ave they have the deep Green Line station that connects with a on top and shallower east/west tunnel for the other system lines?

I know the long term plan has always been to have an east/west tunnel downtown and there is a small section already built and towers along the corridor have had to have an eventual tunnel in mind when building.

By building a deep tunnel thru the core and under the Bow Northbound they could incorporate a east/west tunnel station in the design. This is what Toronto did 65 years ago..............under the Yonge line at Queen station there is another underground station for streetcars or potential subway. It was never used because instead of having the east/west subway along Queen it went to Bloor. It has never been build but the idea is similar.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I've been saying for a while that the North LRT should run on 4th St W, not Centre St.

With the tunnel from Downtown already running under the Crescent Rd bluff, its just as easy to tunnel west to 4th St instead of east to Centre.

4th St is the only major road in the area that doesn't have direct access to downtown, so losing some traffic lanes in favour of LRT will make people who are currently using 4th St to get to and from downtown use other parallel streets (Centre, Edmonton Tr, 10th, 14th). Today's traffic on 4th St already has to shift over to the parallel streets to get on a bridge to/from downtown.

The tunnel's north portal can be on the north side of 16th Ave.

4th St can become a "transit corridor" with preference to buses and LRT.

Since 4th St and Center St merge at 72nd Ave, the rest of the alignment north can be left as planned.

That's an interesting idea, my only concern with how the lrt runs through the 'north hill' area is it's already annoying to cross 4th street (centre is even worse) during higher traffic times as a pedestrian, I wouldn't want the LRT to worsen that.