Calgary Public Transit II

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by VIce

So today was the day that engineering students presented their 4th year thesis projects. One group had a project commissioned by Calgary Transit's planning group, looking at an LRT circle route for a design time frame of 2060. Now, of course, being a student thesis project it's several steps back from reality, but they did have a pretty comprehensive job and a they had printouts of a detailed alignment study.

I asked them to email me their actual final document when it's complete, which they were happy to do. I'm curious if anybody is interested in seeing it? Sorry for the grainy photo.

Cool! I would definitely be interested.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Halofire

Depends on where you enter the hill, and maybe you need to tunnel a bit, but not enough to require boring machine.

I'm talking about bridging across, ~parallel to Centre Street, at which point, there's enough room on either side of the bluff to enter without any interference with the surface developments (other than road).

1 St SE, and SW are both decent entry points into DT. In fact the SW option wouldn't impact Prince's Island significantly, as opposed to trying to bring it in to Eau Claire on 3rd St SW

From what I can remember from the presentation to Committee, I believe the reason why a tunnel portal into either side of the bluff hasn't been included as one of the available options is due to soil stability concerns. Either the LRT will have to be a deep bored tunnel under the bluff to prevent any issues with soil stability or the LRT will have to make use of the Centre Street bridge due to the very top of the bluff on either side of the Centre Street bridge exceeding the maximum climb gradients possible for the LRVs as they exit the downtown core. It's going to be an expensive exercise getting the NCLRT up to 16th Ave and I'm interested to see what option eventually wins out.

[sim]

Originally Posted by VIce

So today was the day that engineering students presented their 4th year thesis projects. One group had a project commissioned by Calgary Transit's planning group, looking at an LRT circle route for a design time frame of 2060. Now, of course, being a student thesis project it's several steps back from reality, but they did have a pretty comprehensive job and a they had printouts of a detailed alignment study.

I asked them to email me their actual final document when it's complete, which they were happy to do. I'm curious if anybody is interested in seeing it? Sorry for the grainy photo.

So I'm not so sure about how much value me stating this here will bring as I was also once in a very similar position, but I nevertheless feel compelled to point out a couple things. I know they aren't obviously showing all their numbers, but from what they are showing... well..

Simple maths would dictate that their cycle time is 1.19 hrs (59.5 km / 50 kph) and not 1.13, so either they are not showing some sort of seemingly important assumption, made a pretty consequential typo or missed something kind of fundamental.

But the thing about circle lines and why the are very tricky operationally is that headway has to be an integer multiple of the cycle time. There is no about or near to. Neither 1.19 nor 1.13 would fit the bill. You by definition can't really have a terminal time to make up for this and although you could have a spur off of the line, it's generally not optimal to just have passengers waiting and waiting somewhere to accommodate this. It also by and large precludes it from having any at grade crossings, as they need to run like absolute clockwork. Not sure what is being shown there regarding that.

So given that they had various degrees of freedom here, they might as well have assumed a speed fitting into this scenario - in fact, this is (to my knowledge) what the systems that actually run circle lines generally do - constrain the speed. Ultimately it seems the advisors should have noted this as well.

The ridership model is undoubtedly very optimistic.

An interesting project though in any case, even if only to get more of these guys thinking about transit. Nevertheless, I remain adamant and with absolute certainty that from an ever-to-implement perspective, a circle line is a waste of time. Might as well look at ATasaurus's second ring road instead.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by sim

So I'm not so sure about how much value me stating this here will bring as I was also once in a very similar position, but I nevertheless feel compelled to point out a couple things. I know they aren't obviously showing all their numbers, but from what they are showing... well..

Simple maths would dictate that their cycle time is 1.19 hrs (59.5 km / 50 kph) and not 1.13, so either they are not showing some sort of seemingly important assumption, made a pretty consequential typo or missed something kind of fundamental.

But the thing about circle lines and why the are very tricky operationally is that headway has to be an integer multiple of the cycle time. There is no about or near to. Neither 1.19 nor 1.13 would fit the bill. You by definition can't really have a terminal time to make up for this and although you could have a spur off of the line, it's generally not optimal to just have passengers waiting and waiting somewhere to accommodate this. It also by and large precludes it from having any at grade crossings, as they need to run like absolute clockwork. Not sure what is being shown there regarding that.

So given that they had various degrees of freedom here, they might as well have assumed a speed fitting into this scenario - in fact, this is (to my knowledge) what the systems that actually run circle lines generally do - constrain the speed. Ultimately it seems the advisors should have noted this as well.

The ridership model is undoubtedly very optimistic.

An interesting project though in any case, even if only to get more of these guys thinking about transit. Nevertheless, I remain adamant and with absolute certainty that from an ever-to-implement perspective, a circle line is a waste of time. Might as well look at ATasaurus's second ring road instead.

I do generally agree with all of this. However, a couple points were a communication issue rather than a technical one on their part. The headway point, for instance, they picked a headway that they liked and then computed the non-integer number of train-sets required, and then rounded the number of train-sets up and modified the headway afterwards giving an even multiple. There were also figures displayed with varying precision, which is quite poor form.

That said, what I'm interested to see is if there's any planning insight from CT that they might have had available that is not generally in the public domain. That's perhaps what I'm most interested in seeing.

[RyLucky]

cute.


jk, that's actually a pretty cool project.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

From what I can remember from the presentation to Committee, I believe the reason why a tunnel portal into either side of the bluff hasn't been included as one of the available options is due to soil stability concerns. Either the LRT will have to be a deep bored tunnel under the bluff to prevent any issues with soil stability or the LRT will have to make use of the Centre Street bridge due to the very top of the bluff on either side of the Centre Street bridge exceeding the maximum climb gradients possible for the LRVs as they exit the downtown core. It's going to be an expensive exercise getting the NCLRT up to 16th Ave and I'm interested to see what option eventually wins out.

Bingo. All these tunnel-bridge-tunnel ideas present engineering challenges that would be incredibly difficult to deal with. Trying to start a tunnel in an unstable hill side would be an absolute nightmare. It would be much simpler to go over the hill or deep enough under it to be digging through a more stable and consistent layer.

Now boring a tunnel is an expensive option but, given that the only decent ROW over the hill is Centre Street, I think it's the only way to go. I can't see taking lanes from Centre south of 16 Ave as a legitimate option. I don't think it would be ideal between 16 Ave and 64 Ave either but the existence of 4 St at least makes it an option. There just isn't a viable alternative that can take up the slack from it.

[Fuzz]

What about a bridge then elevated like Vancouver to 16th? Is that to a steep a grade?

Also Edmonton manged to tunnel into their riverbank, would our geology be that different? I'd imagine there were similar challenges.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What about a bridge then elevated like Vancouver to 16th? Is that to a steep a grade?

Also Edmonton manged to tunnel into their riverbank, would our geology be that different? I'd imagine there were similar challenges.

It could easily be elevated. With elevation, it can climb earlier than Centre Street does and end up requiring a less steep grade. The issue is that you're left with the same problem as an at grade route; the only decent ROW is Centre Street and elevated or at grade both require taking lanes or expensive expropriation to enlarge the ROW.

I'm not that familiar with Edmonton's issues or geography but I would assume that there wasn't much of a choice due to the depth of the system. Other factors would be the width of their river valley. There is a difference between a complicated tunnel portal to save at most ~300m of tunnelling, which doesn't necessarily save any costs, and a distance more than twice as long. Edmonton's river valley is the space between downtown and Strathcona so a tunnel downtown is well above it; in Calgary downtown is in the river valley so a tunnel their is already at the right height to go under.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What about a bridge then elevated like Vancouver to 16th? Is that to a steep a grade?

Also Edmonton manged to tunnel into their riverbank, would our geology be that different? I'd imagine there were similar challenges.

That particular section of the river bank around Centre is particularly unstable, the hole that was dug for the emergency ops center (in Rotary park, directly east of Centre) nearly took out a number of buildings across the street when the sides started collapsing, forcing them to back fill the hole prior to restarting work.

I forget the exact number but when SAIT was completing soil testing prior to the latest building spree, I heard that they had drilled 500-700 feet and still hadn't reach bedrock, from my understanding that hill is primarily gravel and it continues well below river level.

Attempting to build above ground north from downtown without using the existing centre st bridge, very well could cost more than boring.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It could easily be elevated. With elevation, it can climb earlier than Centre Street does and end up requiring a less steep grade. The issue is that you're left with the same problem as an at grade route; the only decent ROW is Centre Street and elevated or at grade both require taking lanes or expensive expropriation to enlarge the ROW.

I'm not that familiar with Edmonton's issues or geography but I would assume that there wasn't much of a choice due to the depth of the system. Other factors would be the width of their river valley. There is a difference between a complicated tunnel portal to save at most ~300m of tunnelling, which doesn't necessarily save any costs, and a distance more than twice as long. Edmonton's river valley is the space between downtown and Strathcona so a tunnel downtown is well above it; in Calgary downtown is in the river valley so a tunnel their is already at the right height to go under.

As Fusili had posted earlier, there seams to be a bit of buffer space in the ROW(he claimed enough to run at grade and still have 2 lanes of traffic + turning), and someone had posted how little space the pillars for the skytrain take up. I don't see it as being unworkable if grade isn't an issue... It may even be cheaper than having to tunnel under 16th.

Skytrain:
http://goo.gl/maps/ldXdJ

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As Fusili had posted earlier, there seams to be a bit of buffer space in the ROW(he claimed enough to run at grade and still have 2 lanes of traffic + turning), and someone had posted how little space the pillars for the skytrain take up. I don't see it as being unworkable if grade isn't an issue... It may even be cheaper than having to tunnel under 16th.

Skytrain:
http://goo.gl/maps/ldXdJ

I really don't think Fusili was correct there. Two LRT lanes, three driving lanes, poles for catenary, and safety factors seems ridiculously tight. With elevation you could probably maintain three driving lanes but it would be awkward, could require significantly rebuilding the existing bridge structure, and raise nimby complaints while shadowing much of the pedestrian realm.

[Fuzz]

I was thinking something like this



Once across centre they could cut into the bank a bit for the pillars, and not need to take any traffic lanes away. and not have to worry about using the Centre St bridge at all
http://goo.gl/maps/jBakx

Wow, hrrmm, not sure if the is would work with the new Eau Claire project, but could they run it underground basically on 3rd st and follow the Barclay Parade alignment then out facing east and curve north as I've drawn? Much more central to downtown. It may save a bunch of tunneling costs if they could plan this with the construction...Obviously just dreaming here now...

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was thinking something like this



Once across centre they could cut into the bank a bit for the pillars, and not need to take any traffic lanes away. and not have to worry about using the Centre St bridge at all
http://goo.gl/maps/jBakx

Wow, hrrmm, not sure if the is would work with the new Eau Claire project, but could they run it underground basically on 3rd st and follow the Barclay Parade alignment then out facing east and curve north as I've drawn? Much more central to downtown. It may save a bunch of tunneling costs if they could plan this with the construction...Obviously just dreaming here now...

Another alignment would be down 1st St SW, and then turn westward at the earliest/easiest point.

Slope stability is a valid concern, however is it not unmanageable? Starting by building sidewalls and moving from the hill to the bluff as well as some deep foundations for the tunneled part not mitigate those concerns? ...I'm no engineer, so I could be way off... but I think a couple good ones could figure it out.

As for the width, I believe that Fusili was accounting for of low floor LRTs ROW, which I believe are narrower than the current ones we have.

[Fuzz]

I think it'd be awesome to have stop right where the Barclay Parade loop is on the left of my map. You could get on or off there, then walk the river path west or east to get to your office. Plus sweet access for Prince's Island and the new Eau Claire development. A stop around 4th and 8th and DT would be well covered. Or just 8th to save $$$

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was thinking something like this



Once across centre they could cut into the bank a bit for the pillars, and not need to take any traffic lanes away. and not have to worry about using the Centre St bridge at all
http://goo.gl/maps/jBakx

Wow, hrrmm, not sure if the is would work with the new Eau Claire project, but could they run it underground basically on 3rd st and follow the Barclay Parade alignment then out facing east and curve north as I've drawn? Much more central to downtown. It may save a bunch of tunneling costs if they could plan this with the construction...Obviously just dreaming here now...

The problem with 3 St is Gulf Canada Square is in the way on the southern entrance to downtown. With 4 St or 5 St the CP underpasses could create problems. The city has been aiming at 2 St for the downtown alignment of the SELRT for a reason.

From your map, what does it do at 7 Ave N? It seems to me that it would need to either use the existing Centre Street ROW, taking traffic lanes, or expropriate the east side.

[Fuzz]

Expropriate land I guess? They did a huge amount of that for 16th ave and the west leg of the LRT, I don't see it being a huge issue.

Didn't think of the issue with Golf Canada Square. 2nd st would still work with my route though.

[DizzyEdge]

You know, looking at Centre street, both sides have quite wide sidewalks, even buildings as old as the 1930s Tigerstedt building are set back quite a bit. It seems like elevated would work without taking much roadway.

Like maybe 1/2 a lane

compare

http://goo.gl/maps/TtLAe

to

http://goo.gl/maps/I54yt

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Expropriate land I guess? They did a huge amount of that for 16th ave and the west leg of the LRT, I don't see it being a huge issue.

Didn't think of the issue with Golf Canada Square. 2nd st would still work with my route though.

That would require expropriating some pretty substantial buildings. The stretch the half mile of Centre Street south of 16 Ave is relatively intensely developed. It really isn't like anything that was expropriated for 16 Ave's expansion, the WLRT, or Glenmore. Just eyeballing that stretch gives me some pretty serious doubts about whether expropriating a side of Centre would be any cheaper than tunnelling. You're also compromising the pedestrian realm and raising the ire of nimbys.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

That would require expropriating some pretty substantial buildings. The stretch the half mile of Centre Street south of 16 Ave is relatively intensely developed. It really isn't like anything that was expropriated for 16 Ave's expansion, the WLRT, or Glenmore. Just eyeballing that stretch gives me some pretty serious doubts about whether expropriating a side of Centre would be any cheaper than tunnelling. You're also compromising the pedestrian realm and raising the ire of nimbys.

Given the traffic flows and expected growth patterns, I suspect that a at grade, mid-street (but dedicated ROW) is the answer for the northern sections. On the norther stretches, a few properties can be expropriated for the shifting out the width of the road to accommodate narrow stations, while more substantial intersections can be sunken or elevated and include a station and allow for vehicular turns.

An Idea would be to have underground Station at 16th Ave intersection, remaining underground through crescent heights and exit the portal in the embankment. North of 16 return to grade, sinking under 40th Ave, McKnight and 64th, included stations at those sites if appropriate. Other interim stations can be at grade and less substantial.

There would be some turn restrictions and cross-traffic interference, but not nearly as if it was entirely on ground.

A key tenant of this proposal would be using the narrower bodied LRTs discussed by others, not your traditional C-train or anything heavy. Like the new Toronto "Streetcars" which are really enormous, yet take no room compared to our current LRT ROWs. The capacity that they can handle, especially in dedicated ROW and and underground downtown stretch to avoid congestion issues there would be substantial and likely enough for the foreseeable future.

Getting Calgary used to a narrower bodied train might be tough ( bigger is better, we should have a real metro, rabble rabble etc.) but for the cost and expected population growth? I suspect a proposal like mine might be the most effective for the next 50 - 100 years.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Given the traffic flows and expected growth patterns, I suspect that a at grade, mid-street (but dedicated ROW) is the answer for the northern sections. On the norther stretches, a few properties can be expropriated for the shifting out the width of the road to accommodate narrow stations, while more substantial intersections can be sunken or elevated and include a station and allow for vehicular turns.

An Idea would be to have underground Station at 16th Ave intersection, remaining underground through crescent heights and exit the portal in the embankment. North of 16 return to grade, sinking under 40th Ave, McKnight and 64th, included stations at those sites if appropriate. Other interim stations can be at grade and less substantial.

There would be some turn restrictions and cross-traffic interference, but not nearly as if it was entirely on ground.

A key tenant of this proposal would be using the narrower bodied LRTs discussed by others, not your traditional C-train or anything heavy. Like the new Toronto "Streetcars" which are really enormous, yet take no room compared to our current LRT ROWs. The capacity that they can handle, especially in dedicated ROW and and underground downtown stretch to avoid congestion issues there would be substantial and likely enough for the foreseeable future.

Getting Calgary used to a narrower bodied train might be tough ( bigger is better, we should have a real metro, rabble rabble etc.) but for the cost and expected population growth? I suspect a proposal like mine might be the most effective for the next 50 - 100 years.

Toronto's new streetcars are 11.4 centimetres narrower than SD-160s. When it comes to a ROW, that is next to meaningless. Where did this idea come from that switching to low floor will seriously affect ROW width, platform dimensions, or a host of other factors?

The last page has been about detailing how a tunnel portal in the face of the hill won't work.