Calgary Public Transit II

[Stang]

I originally posted this in the "advocacy" thread, but probably better suited for here.

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Edmonton trail might be interesting if :
1) They hook it into the 8th Ave. Subway via the currently built City Hall connection.

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that the City Hall tunnel/future station curves a bit from 8th Avenue and starts pointing South, similar to how the above-grade tracks currently are, just under City Hall instead. I'm not sure that getting a line in there that is coming from the North and East would be feasible.

I think that I'm going to try and attend one of these meetings and also submit some feedback by email. I think that Centre Street would be optimal, but the expense could prove prohibitive. I would imagine that the tracks would have to be elevated or buried for much of the route, neither of which are cheap.

Edmonton Trail would be a reasonable compromise to me, but they'd have to find a way to prevent sharing the track into downtown for that short stretch from Memorial, over the river, and into whatever downtown corridor they decide to use (7th, 8th, etc.)

Nose Creek would be a disaster. Nobody lives there, nobody will be able to park there, and it will serve as a suburban express line into downtown. If they go that route, they probably shouldn't even put any stations between Beddington and the new Science Centre (sarcasm, mostly). Some people will like that, obviously, but I would see it as a missed opportunity to really enhance Centre or Edmonton Trail. Even though Edmonton Trail isn't as developed as Centre at the moment, I can picture the area doing very well with an LRT - it would really provide a shot in the arm.

How far up Edmonton Trail would the line go I wonder? Suppose it goes all the way up to McKnight, where would it go after that? Into Nose Creek valley until Beddington Trail? Cut across somehow to Centre? Continue up Edmonton/4th Street NE where the bus trap presently is? There's a nice little green area that could allow it to cut across to Centre near 41st Avenue, but then you'd need to elevate/bury it from there until Beddington Trail. There's no easy route for this one, unfortunately.

[You Need A Thneed]

Looks good, though I would certainly think that a centre street line would be made as an extention to the SE line, that way, only one downtown right of way is needed.

It would have to curve over to 2nd street SW to enter downtown.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Looks good, though I would certainly think that a centre street line would be made as an extention to the SE line, that way, only one downtown right of way is needed.

It would have to curve over to 2nd street SW to enter downtown.

ah ok yeah I didn't really put much thought into the river crossing part.

[DizzyEdge]

Anyone have ballpark figures for costs per.. km or 100m or whatever for boring, cut and cover, elevated, and grade?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Anyone have ballpark figures for costs per.. km or 100m or whatever for boring, cut and cover, elevated, and grade?

Older numbers that I've seen indicate something like 10 million/km for at grade, 20 million/km elevated, and 100 million+/km tunnelled. Costs, particularly considering Calgary's labour expenses, would likely be higher than that now. I also think that those numbers exclude station costs, which can be quite expensive for elevated or buried stations, and ROW collection which can be quite expensive if a lot of property needs to be expropriated for a surface route. Beyond that, it depends a great deal on the specifics. Buried sections can vary a great deal, cut and cover under bald prairie could be damned cheap but in an urban area moving utilities can cause major issues.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Older numbers that I've seen indicate something like 10 million/km for at grade, 20 million/km elevated, and 100 million+/km tunnelled. Costs, particularly considering Calgary's labour expenses, would likely be higher than that now. I also think that those numbers exclude station costs, which can be quite expensive for elevated or buried stations, and ROW collection which can be quite expensive if a lot of property needs to be expropriated for a surface route. Beyond that, it depends a great deal on the specifics. Buried sections can vary a great deal, cut and cover under bald prairie could be damned cheap but in an urban area moving utilities can cause major issues.

so it sounds like *in general*, elevated/at grade is WAY cheaper than buried.

Which is good to know because although my route tried to reduced expropriation, if at grade is 90 mill less per km, it might be cheaper to just expropriate.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

so it sounds like *in general*, elevated/at grade is WAY cheaper than buried.

Which is good to know because although my route tried to reduced expropriation, if at grade is 90 mill less per km, it might be cheaper to just expropriate.

Generally speaking subways only make sense in very high density environments where expropriation is not economically feasible or practicle, or where geographical features prohibit above grade work. I think an elevated system like the vancouver skytrain would be a great solution for the NC LRT with a few tunnel sections (out of DT). I would also like to see the NE line up 36th street be upgraded to an elevated system some day, the current set up is a major pain in the ass.

[DizzyEdge]

Anyone have any opinions if expropriating homes, running the train through the backyard adjacent to the alley, and then reselling the homes with a truncated back yard is doable at all?

[You Need A Thneed]

You don't have to expropriate whole properties. Though people having their backyards expropriated may want their whole property expropriated.

[You Need A Thneed]

Cut and cover tunnelling wouldn't be 5x more expensive than elevated.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I would also like to see the NE line up 36th street be upgraded to an elevated system some day, the current set up is a major pain in the ass.

This makes a ton of sense. The stations already have to "elevate" you in order to cross the street, so it's not like it would impact riders - in fact it would be easier. Obviously it would improve the traffic situation immensely as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

For Canada I would put prices more in the range of $20m grade, $60m elevated, and $180m underground, without stations.

As for a route, either above or at grade, I would think residents would much rather have an in median route than a backyard route. Utilities would really be the big cost differentiator.

[Stang]

And then re-selling the properties again after might be a tough sell. No yard and a train running out your back door. Of course, the price would have to be reduced accordingly (and substantially), but it would recoup some of the cost and would provide some affordable housing. Re-zoning to commercial would be better, however I doubt that there would be enough room for parking and a strip of businesses there.

I'm not sure what the ideal design for those "tight" parts would be. North of 64th there's probably enough room to run it as a simple at-grade, trenched, or elevated all the way up to Beddington Drive/Bergen Road. After that there are a few blocks of homes along Centre before the bus trap at Beddington Trail where there would need to be some fanciness or bulldozing. And then we're into the "easy" part as there has been ROW set aside.

As ugly and (initially) disruptive as it would be, I wonder how feasible it would be to make a median along Centre where you could put the piers, take away some of the boulevard to compensate for the lost space in the middle, and just run it elevated right down the middle. No expropriation required, the widening could happen in advance to ensure that traffic could still flow during the creation of the median and piers, and things could continue relatively happily below while the launching truss did its thing. I would imagine that some closures would be necessary, but if it was done outside of rush hour, enough alternate routes exist that it wouldn't be much more than a minor inconvenience.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Stang

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that the City Hall tunnel/future station curves a bit from 8th Avenue and starts pointing South, similar to how the above-grade tracks currently are, just under City Hall instead. I'm not sure that getting a line in there that is coming from the North and East would be feasible.

The City Hall Area Structure Plan from the 80s, which is no longer on the city site, and I can't find the maps I copied to put on here, showed that under Olympic Plaza was contemplated a four track crossover, where a train running under 7th would have the ability to travel south via the CP tunnel, and a train from 8th would be able to cross over to the tracks heading to the NE.

Since the tunnel is wide enough for four tracks, that is the area confused for a station, as eventually 2 stations were planned for the more westerly end of Olympic Plaza, one angling back towards 8th, and one towards 7th in my recollection.

That being said, the 7th Ave tunnel is so far off, and now that a second maintenance facility exists, I am not sure if it would be left in a future plan. We shall see whenever the tunnel study finally comes.

[polishavenger]

What astounds me about the comment from Neil Mckendrick is the fact that you are building infrastructure that will be in place for 100 years and hes concerned about a 2 year disruption? How ridiculous is that? Not only is this another transportation option for the central part of the city, this LRT line has the potential to substantially transform the urban form of the city. If you run it up the Nose Creek alignment, you will not get any additional development and density, and I doubt ridership will be as high as the other options. If you spend the extra time and money now running the LRT up center street, you will have a top notch LRT line in terms of functionality, and you create the potential to densify that corridor and create a high quality urban street. I dont understand how there could be any real debate here. Short term thinking in context of long term decision making drives me nuts.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A better comparison is Cambie St where they cut and covered, but yeah. They certainly wouldn't have the land to do it in the style of cut and cover adjacent to 17 Ave SW. Traffic would be much worse, compressed to at least three lanes, and in tighter spots 2 for most of the route, with one side of the street not having street access for at least 18 months, more likely 2 years minimum.

It would be messy, that is for sure. For those that would suggest boring, you still need huge station boxes dug out, so if you are adding a bunch of choke points, may as well choke the whole route. Plus boring would be more expensive unless some unknown geology really helped out.

Goal has to be to reduce the underground length as much as possible to reduce cost and perhaps disruption. Might be able to squeeze in an elevated guideway in a 'centre lane' by removing street parking, removing grass between the sidewalk and street, and taking parts of people's front yards as necessary north of 16th Ave at some point. Depending on height, a central guideway should have way less shadowing on private property than many property owners would reflexively expect due to the orientation of the line.

Everything is trade offs of course, but it is important to remember every project will cause opposition if it creates change in a community.

As for the transportation planning managers quote, at least they are being honest with the community, and if the entire city decides this is the way to go, then we will have made the decision with eyes open. I wouldn't expect anything less from breaucrats that are being forced to do these consultations by their political operatives. In the long run, it might make sense to replace that person with a more transit evangelist persona, who is both realistic and can see the vision of the future, not a person who is tied to the great wonders of 'old Calgary Transit' effective capital utilization model that ignores real world external costs and lost benefits from planning decisions made with only the capital budget in mind.

With a hypothetical Centre Street subway as an extension of the SELRT in mind I have a few thoughts. I would imagine that the segments from Eau Claire to just past 16 Ave would need to be bored either way. The river crossing and subsequent climb up the bluffs would necessitate it. It would also be the section that has the most potential to disrupt traffic greatly. Closing down the intersection of Centre Street and 16 Ave, for the station pit, would put a particularly bad strain on the road network. Likewise, if a station was placed at 8 Ave it would also cause problems, just not as severe. To mitigate this we could temporarily create some pseudo traffic circles by making certain streets one way. It would mean ripping up the new median on 16 Ave to let 1 St NW and 1 St NE travel through. Basically 1 St NW would become a southbound one way between 17 Ave and 7 Ave; 1 St NE would become a northbound one way between 7 Ave and 17 Ave; 7 Ave would become a one way eastbound between 1 St NW and 1 St NE; 13 Ave would become a one way eastbound between 1 St NW and 1 St NE; 17 Ave would become a one way westbound between 1 St NE and 1 St NW. Westbound 16 Ave traffic would be directed to take 1st St NE north, 17 Ave N west, and 1 St NW south; Eastbound 16 Ave traffic would take 1 St NW south, 13 Ave N east, and 1 St NE north; Centre Street through traffic would just utilize 1 St NW and 1 St NE as a couplet while local traffic would still have most of Centre Street and all of the minor roads remaining as is.

North of 16 Ave (or 17 Ave, at a minimum, if it needs to stay open as per the plan outlined above) I see far fewer issues with cut and cover. The rest of the road network should be able to handle having Centre Street reduced to one lane each direction for the length of construction. We would probably have to phase it so that only half or a third of the existing intersections are dug up at any one time, to allow traffic to still cross Centre in a decent manner, but that should not be a huge problem. Construction for the Bow was able to dig up 6 Ave, go much deeper in an area far more prone to water issues, and bridge over it in a very timely manner.

We would have to see what kind of issues exist regarding utilities work but I don't think we would necessarily have to limit the underground section to mitigate costs. Seven kilometers of cut and cover, from just north of 16 Ave to Beddington Trail, will not break the bank. Station costs would be a bigger issue, especially since I favour 800 meter spacing to provide for both adequate coverage to the entire corridor and effective perpendicular bus coverage to all of North Central Calgary. I think my plan for the NLRT would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.5 billion. It involves a continuation of the SELRT with stations at 8 Ave, 16 Ave, 24 Ave, 32 Ave, 40 Ave/32 Ave Connector, McKnight Boulevard, Northmount Drive, 64 Ave, 72 Ave/4 St, Beddington Boulevard, 96 Ave, Country Hills Village, and Stoney Trail Park and Ride. 500 million for the ~2 km bored tunnel from Eau Claire to 20 Ave and the stations at 8 Ave and 16 Ave; 1.5 Billion for the ~7 km cut and cover tunnel from 20 Ave to Beddington Trail (then use the existing bus underpass which would be rendered superfluous) and eight corresponding stations; 250 million for the ~5 km surface route along Harvest Hills Boulevard and two corresponding stations; and 250 million for a 10% contingency. That should be quite affordable. Much more so if various stations are eliminated, or at least delayed until developers desire them enough to be convinced to contribute, as others have expressed a desire for fewer of them. I suppose there would be additional costs for LRV purchases and the expansion of the SELRTs maintenance and storage facility but hopefully the contingency would go a long way towards paying for those. Even if the contingency was needed for construction, the entire project should still come in under 3 billion; 250 million would purchase 60+ LRVs, enough for 12 five car trains, providing excellent service frequency; 250 million to expand the SE maintenance and storage facility.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

so it sounds like *in general*, elevated/at grade is WAY cheaper than buried.

Which is good to know because although my route tried to reduced expropriation, if at grade is 90 mill less per km, it might be cheaper to just expropriate.

I don't know about that. Expropriating a 1 km ROW of just houses in this city could easily run in the 25 million+ range. It would then cost significantly more to ready that land for tracks than bald prairie or a freight train ROW would. I would guess that the cost would be upwards of 40 million/km for a surface route built by expropriation, even in a suburban area let alone a more urban one where costs could really balloon. On top of that, we would still have an issue with all of the street crossings.

Generally I'm fine with elevated tracks but I'm just not sure if they would work for Centre Street because of the need for some kind of awkward transition from the subway coming out of downtown.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

For Canada I would put prices more in the range of $20m grade, $60m elevated, and $180m underground, without stations.

As for a route, either above or at grade, I would think residents would much rather have an in median route than a backyard route. Utilities would really be the big cost differentiator.

That really doesn't jive with the cost of the Canada Line. Of its 19.2 km, ~2.5 km were a combination of cut and cover and bored tunnel under downtown and False creek; ~6 km were cut and cover under Cambie; and ~10 km were mostly elevated with some at grade segments on the Airport spur. Your numbers would give a cost of more than 2 billion without any stations. The total cost was only ~2.25 billion (including the massive cost over runs the contractor had to pay). I am positive that the stations, rolling stock, and maintenance facility together cost well over 250 million. This is especially the case when station construction is one of the major costs and the the Canada Line has a lot of stations.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I don't know about that. Expropriating a 1 km ROW of just houses in this city could easily run in the 25 million+ range. It would then cost significantly more to ready that land for tracks than bald prairie or a freight train ROW would. I would guess that the cost would be upwards of 40 million/km for a surface route built by expropriation, even in a suburban area let alone a more urban one where costs could really balloon. On top of that, we would still have an issue with all of the street crossings.

Generally I'm fine with elevated tracks but I'm just not sure if they would work for Centre Street because of the need for some kind of awkward transition from the subway coming out of downtown.

Like this in Vancouver? It goes from portal to station height in 260 meters.

[Stang]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Like this in Vancouver? It goes from portal to station height in 260 meters.

Throw in a river crossing, a steep grade on the other side, and expensive properties all along the hillside. It would actually be pretty cool to see how they'd design that if they did opt for the train to pop out of a tunnel on 2nd Street. An inclined, curved bridge could take the train out of downtown and then either go over top of or into another tunnel under Centre for the section as you head up the hill. An elevated track through that section would, unfortunately, ruin what it probably the best driving view of our skyline. IMO, there's nothing better than seeing the skyline unfold as you drive towards it down Centre... but I digress.