West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[Blue_Cypress]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

There is no real way to tunnel under a river without a TBM.

Ever heard of a cofferdam? TBM is a better plan for that one though, less damage to the river that way, and ultimately it'll probably be the cheaper way to go of the two, if we're going to tunnel.

I have no particular issue with having the cut and cover section start closer to the river or the bored section extending further north. I simply picked the vicinity of just 16 Ave because, my understanding of the engineering, leads me to believe that it would be the most feasible and least expensive option. I don't think the LRVs could manage the kind of grade that it would take to have a tunnel climb from below the river to an elevation suitable for cut and cover much further south than that.

I see no reason why it would add significant delays to the project. We will be digging a pit in Eau Claire for the (planned) terminal station of the SE LRT. It would not be that difficult to include provisions for lowering the machine there. The project, as I envision it, would essentially be a replication of Vancouver's Canada Line. It included a bored tunnel under downtown and across False Creek, followed by a length of cut and cover roughly equivalent to the distance from 16 Ave to Beddington Trail.

You want to tunnel under a CBD, under a park/river, and up an unstable hill, in a region (river valley) notorious for being hard to dig in, and you think there'll be no schedule delays? Best of luck, it'll be a hard go. The work can be done, but I fully expect it'd run over budget and schedule. It is a well-rounded idea though...

The other (much cheaper) option will be a tunnel portal somewhere in or near sien lok park transitioning into a bridge crossing over the river to align with centre st. on the north side, and then you're either elevating or going cut and cover, maybe on the east side of the street. I'm sure Jim Shaw will hate it. We may end up with your all-tunnel plan after all.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If we were an American city, the kind of ridership we could estimate would have the Feds giving us billions for Subways.

Yeah, having a performance based mass rapid transit fund at the federal level would really help, but I doubt it will ever happen. Too many regional cleavages and rivalries to deal with, plus a federal government that would rather stay out of the decision making process (they will seek the credit when funds flow to a project for sure, but that doesn't mean they care too much on what those projects are, as long as they are local priorities).

We are stuck with the Building Canada model for now - but I would be surprised if there is anything very different in what will replace it post 2014.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

Ever heard of a cofferdam? TBM is a better plan for that one though, less damage to the river that way, and ultimately it'll probably be the cheaper way to go of the two, if we're going to tunnel.



You want to tunnel under a CBD, under a park/river, and up an unstable hill, in a region (river valley) notorious for being hard to dig in, and you think there'll be no schedule delays? Best of luck, it'll be a hard go. The work can be done, but I fully expect it'd run over budget and schedule. It is a well-rounded idea though...

The other (much cheaper) option will be a tunnel portal somewhere in or near sien lok park transitioning into a bridge crossing over the river to align with centre st. on the north side, and then you're either elevating or going cut and cover, maybe on the east side of the street. I'm sure Jim Shaw will hate it. We may end up with your all-tunnel plan after all.

Cofferdam is interesting, and I did think about it, but as you said, probably more expensive than a TBM.

I do like your idea of a tunnel portal to bridge over the river and then possibly back to a tunnel. But it wouldn't be Sien Lok park, it would be Prince's Island Park, because the SELRT station is at Eau Claire. If we curve the bridge just right, we can avoid a lot of expropriation. The tunnel portal on the other end could probably start where 7th avenue hits Centre Street.

[You Need A Thneed]

A cofferdam wouldn't be all that hard or expensive. I assure you, the weir project used more cofferdam building and moving than would be needed to cut and cover a tunnel across the river. And the total construction contract was $16 million or so. The Bow River isn't particularly hard to build cofferdams in, it is shallow and relatively narrow. The question would be the environmental approvals, but should be possible, especially if it means saving a great deal of money.

That being said, I think the most likely solution is coming out of the ground south of the river and crossing the river by bridge.

the TBM Method would be at least one order of magnitude more expensive.

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by fusili

Cofferdam is interesting, and I did think about it, but as you said, probably more expensive than a TBM.

I do like your idea of a tunnel portal to bridge over the river and then possibly back to a tunnel. But it wouldn't be Sien Lok park, it would be Prince's Island Park, because the SELRT station is at Eau Claire. If we curve the bridge just right, we can avoid a lot of expropriation. The tunnel portal on the other end could probably start where 7th avenue hits Centre Street.

Sounds very similar to what was done in Edmonton between Grandin and university stations.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

A cofferdam wouldn't be all that hard or expensive. I assure you, the weir project used more cofferdam building and moving than would be needed to cut and cover a tunnel across the river. And the total construction contract was $16 million or so. The Bow River isn't particularly hard to build cofferdams in, it is shallow and relatively narrow. The question would be the environmental approvals, but should be possible, especially if it means saving a great deal of money.

That being said, I think the most likely solution is coming out of the ground south of the river and crossing the river by bridge.

the TBM Method would be at least one order of magnitude more expensive.

Easiest solution, in the contract you say where you want your stations, and you also say you don't care how you get between them, beyond not crossing streets at grade beyond a certain capacity.

Presto - changeo! You don't have to have government try to guess which is cheaper or better, the builder/operator can do that and is held to their prediction.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Easiest solution, in the contract you say where you want your stations, and you also say you don't care how you get between them, beyond not crossing streets at grade beyond a certain capacity.

Presto - changeo! You don't have to have government try to guess which is cheaper or better, the builder/operator can do that and is held to their prediction.

But then we can't have fun imagining the possibilities. But I agree, that is best way to do it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

But then we can't have fun imagining the possibilities. But I agree, that is best way to do it.

It's the way it has to be done really. Instead of the city paying a consultant to figure that all out for them, why not just get the bidders to do that work for them?

(Of course, the city would eventually pay for it anyway)

[srperrycgy]

Twitter News Flash:

@markusoff West LRT to open 4months late, in March 2013. Plus cost overruns, big unfunded item.

More in tomorrow's Herald.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Twitter News Flash:

@markusoff West LRT to open 4months late, in March 2013. Plus cost overruns, big unfunded item.

More in tomorrow's Herald.

Hmm, so I wonder what was left to chance in the P3 agreement besides property acquisition?

I would guess that it may have something due to the intent (stated only in the contracting framework and never explicitly afterwards) of property transfer and sale by the proponent to defray costs. I could see the value of property to be transfered to having dropped dramatically from when the contract was negotiated, and perhaps the proponent being entitled to a potential give back in exchange for cash instead. Since the final zoning was not decided on when the contract was signed, I could see a provision existing for the variable value of the land.

As for unfunded items, if the Calgary Transit Office building at Westbrook is to be turned over to the city instead of being leased back that would make a major dent? Especially if the cost of it will be more expensive than its potential value at sale. Similar issues could exist for the parkade at 69th St, and the park and ride / Market Square properties at the Signal Hill stop.

Unfunded items also likely includes the 17th Ave/Sarcee overpass. May also include the expansion at the NE maintenance yard.

Otherwise, cost overruns for in scope elements should be covered by the proponent.

[frinkprof]

I'm most shocked about the late opening date. I wonder if it's due to the Kerby Station construction/10th Street Station closure logistics. I really can't see what else it could be. Everything else looks to be on schedule.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I wonder if it's due to the Kerby Station construction/10th Street Station closure logistics.

That would be my guess too. The work there is taking a long time.

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

The other (much cheaper) option will be a tunnel portal somewhere in or near sien lok park transitioning into a bridge crossing over the river to align with centre st. on the north side, and then you're either elevating or going cut and cover, maybe on the east side of the street. I'm sure Jim Shaw will hate it. We may end up with your all-tunnel plan after all.

I have always envisioned Centre St. LRT crossing over the river.

Originally, it was around MacLeod Trail/3rd St. SE crossing over to a 1st ST NE alignment. Newer buildings have complicated that.

Second is from around 2nd St. SW crossing over the river then swinging over to either Centre St itself or to 1st NE.

Third would be way over to 6th or 7th St. SW. Cross over the river and elevated along 5A St NW and heading into the hillside.

Back in 2002 I suggested to the city that they use an "open trench" method along 1st ST NE, from roughly 7th Avenue to 41st Avenue NE. It was pooh-poohed then magically showed up on the West LRT where it was deemed a "great idea" with the community demanding more of it.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

Ever heard of a cofferdam? TBM is a better plan for that one though, less damage to the river that way, and ultimately it'll probably be the cheaper way to go of the two, if we're going to tunnel.



You want to tunnel under a CBD, under a park/river, and up an unstable hill, in a region (river valley) notorious for being hard to dig in, and you think there'll be no schedule delays? Best of luck, it'll be a hard go. The work can be done, but I fully expect it'd run over budget and schedule. It is a well-rounded idea though...

The other (much cheaper) option will be a tunnel portal somewhere in or near sien lok park transitioning into a bridge crossing over the river to align with centre st. on the north side, and then you're either elevating or going cut and cover, maybe on the east side of the street. I'm sure Jim Shaw will hate it. We may end up with your all-tunnel plan after all.

I'm wondering why the North LRT line needs to be on (under) Centre St in the downtown core?

If the line was built under 4th St west, it still hits most of the CBD, plus Prince's Island, and can stay buried under the River, Sunnyside and Rosedale until it reaches 16th Ave.

The difference between using Centre St and 4th St north of 16th Ave isn't much, but it would be easier to bypass construction on 4th St than on Centre St, since Centre St is the major connector to downtown.

Furthermore, Centre St and 4th St connect at 72nd Ave, so from that point north the LRT line continues to Beddington and Harvest Hills as before.

You'll end up with a boring straight-line LRT from Downtown to Harvest Hills, but boring == simpler == cheaper.
(pun intended)

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Where would you cut and cover though? Centre street itself? How long would that take? And how much of the street would be closed?

In the long run, would it make more sense to buy the buildings on one side, cut + cover, and then re-sell the land on top? With the extra value of transit in the area, the city could sell the land for a profit a couple of years down the road...?

I don't really know, just thinking out loud.

How well has that turned out for the land that was expropriated for the widening of 16th Ave?
Does anyone know if the City turned a profit reselling the unused strips of land?

[albertantraingeek]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Twitter News Flash:

@markusoff West LRT to open 4months late, in March 2013. Plus cost overruns, big unfunded item.

More in tomorrow's Herald.

You may want to change the text under your username then
***
I don't believe this . The excitement is already killin' me & now we have to wait 4 months

[frinkprof]

Delays are attributed to utility relcocation issues. West LRT budget faces $35M shortfall.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...aves+budgets+derailed/5693850/story.html

[Aegis]

3.5% cost overrun isn't too bad at all. But, why did they bother trenching the line in some areas? What advantage did that offer?

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Aegis

But, why did they bother trenching the line in some areas? What advantage did that offer?

From what I remember the revised trenching was so that access to a fire and police station in the area was not hampered by the tracks, and because 45th street was already over capacity. If other roads were cut off to the neighbourhood, then 45th would get busier at the same time as it's access would be impacted.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I'm wondering why the North LRT line needs to be on (under) Centre St in the downtown core?

If the line was built under 4th St west, it still hits most of the CBD, plus Prince's Island, and can stay buried under the River, Sunnyside and Rosedale until it reaches 16th Ave.

Because there is not really anything on 4th street. Centre Street is an established commercial corridor, with already some office development on it. Parcel consolidation for development is also easier for commercial properties, as the life duration of occupation (time each tenant uses the space) is much less for a commercial space than it is for a residential property (families stay in homes longer than businesses), and typically leases are on shorter time periods than mortgages. As well, homeowners are much less likely to relocate than a business. As such, commercial properties are always easier to redevelop than residential (except for rental properties which can usually be vacated in a year).

EDIT: That being said, the portion of 4th street from McKnight to 72nd might work. A jog at the golf course going from Centre Street to 4th Street could work there.