HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6481  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 10:25 PM
MasterG's Avatar
MasterG MasterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Only building one tunnel but running both lines in it creates the same interlining congestion problems we have now, just underground. So that's not a solution.

Pretty sure building two tunnels would be greater expense than building one. Almost double (actually, quite possibly more). Given the ridership patterns in Calgary and the future transit plans, there are few transfers in the downtown relative to ridership. I expect it would be both cheaper and more popular to hire people to stand around with garbage bags full of ten dollar bills, handing them to people making the LRT-LRT transfer as an apology.
True. Most metros don't interline. Big transfer stations, sure, but the level of overlap of 7th Ave definitely not as common. Spliting them up would be the best way to do it, and coordinate to have entry points of key stations as close as possible to 7th ave stations (or at least as practical as possible so transfers can figure it out). Plenty of metros all over the place operate like that just fine, the LRT can too.
     
     
  #6482  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 10:42 PM
RyLucky's Avatar
RyLucky RyLucky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,498
I like 7th ave the way it is. Sure, metros have a lot of advantages too, but I've never been to one anywhere in the world that feels as safe, welcoming, and hassle free as 7th ave. Having the transit system so visible makes it easy to use. I hate turnstiles and I love sunlight. Just because most big cities do it underground doesn't mean we have to.
     
     
  #6483  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 10:43 PM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Only building one tunnel but running both lines in it creates the same interlining congestion problems we have now, just underground. So that's not a solution.
Well that's assuming you have the same amount of stations in a tunnel and that currently the traffic lights never come into play, which they do. Not too mention the fact that you can likely run faster speeds when not having to drive-by-sight and the fact that you are removing a lot of the variability in headways that the transit mall (along with other surface crossings) invariably create. Finally, were it to go that far, extentions to 5 car consists also become a possibility in a tunnel; won't be interfering with any N-S streets (of course posing susbstantial costs to extend all platforms again).

~1 min headways (in the interlined portion) are not out of the realm of possibility.

Finally, it can be assumed that at least some of the current demand on the South - North Red line will be diverted to the hopefully built-out NC-SE Green line.

In short, I'm not convinced that those same problems will occur before a measurable increase in capacity has again become overwhelmed.

Quote:
Pretty sure building two tunnels would be greater expense than building one. Almost double (actually, quite possibly more). Given the ridership patterns in Calgary and the future transit plans, there are few transfers in the downtown relative to ridership. I expect it would be both cheaper and more popular to hire people to stand around with garbage bags full of ten dollar bills, handing them to people making the LRT-LRT transfer as an apology.
Agreed on the expense. I meant it depends on whether the NE-W would then also be tunneled or just left as is.

You may well know these patterns better than I, but I would be interested to see an OD matrix nevertheless. I'd also be wary of predicating future ridership patterns on current ones after a pretty fundamental change in infrastructure occurs. Again, not too mention that it also sets up the entire system for more easy and attractive transfers once a green line is implemented, provides for a more integrated network overall and allows for more operational flexibility.

Not to say that it's the best and only solution, but I think it's been prematurely discounted without the proper understandings of the potential benefits it may bring and without looking at the system more broadly and over the longer term.
     
     
  #6484  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 10:43 PM
Cage Cage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: YYC
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Only building one tunnel but running both lines in it creates the same interlining congestion problems we have now, just underground. So that's not a solution.
Separating the LRT from car and pedestrian traffic would result in sizeable congestion reduction, so its quite feasible to have two line on one tunnel.

Also the underground option would likely lose one station in each direction, there would only be a need for 3 stations on the underground line.
     
     
  #6485  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 10:45 PM
Cage Cage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: YYC
Posts: 2,748
Sim,

great minds think alike.
     
     
  #6486  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 10:47 PM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterG View Post
True. Most metros don't interline. Big transfer stations, sure, but the level of overlap of 7th Ave definitely not as common. Spliting them up would be the best way to do it, and coordinate to have entry points of key stations as close as possible to 7th ave stations (or at least as practical as possible so transfers can figure it out). Plenty of metros all over the place operate like that just fine, the LRT can too.
I wouldn't say most. I would agree that the most optimal solution (disregarding costs) would be two seperate tunnels where at least at some point they are very adjacent to one another.
     
     
  #6487  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2013, 11:55 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,363
Quote:
Only building one tunnel but running both lines in it creates the same interlining congestion problems we have now, just underground. So that's not a solution.

Pretty sure building two tunnels would be greater expense than building one. Almost double (actually, quite possibly more). Given the ridership patterns in Calgary and the future transit plans, there are few transfers in the downtown relative to ridership. I expect it would be both cheaper and more popular to hire people to stand around with garbage bags full of ten dollar bills, handing them to people making the LRT-LRT transfer as an apology.

I think much of the congestion comes from the at-grade traffic crossings. I don't think it would be nearly as bad with both lines in one tunnel. I don't know if the lines would ever get to the frequency where congestion from a shared tunnel would be an issue.
^Exactly what I was going to say Michael S. (& Sim & Cage)
My main issue is how slow the trains are getting through downtown.

And I also think there would be cost savings to build 2 tunnels (or one larger tunnel) at the same time.

Last edited by craner; Aug 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM.
     
     
  #6488  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 1:35 AM
RicoLance21's Avatar
RicoLance21 RicoLance21 is offline
Bring buildings to life
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Windsor Park, Calgary
Posts: 2,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cage View Post
Separating the LRT from car and pedestrian traffic would result in sizeable congestion reduction, so its quite feasible to have two line on one tunnel.

Also the underground option would likely lose one station in each direction, there would only be a need for 3 stations on the underground line.
There would be cost savings to operate two lines in one tunnel by having less trains and reduced capacity while transporting the same amount riders if the frequency of both lines stay the same.

The bonus would be a much faster commute through downtown.

Edmonton is lucky to get the underground part of the LRT right and is now taking advantage of using the NAIT line to interline with the first line.
__________________
Calgary: more than just a redneck city...much more. Just ask the mayor.
     
     
  #6489  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 3:34 AM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim View Post
Well that's assuming you have the same amount of stations in a tunnel and that currently the traffic lights never come into play, which they do. Not too mention the fact that you can likely run faster speeds when not having to drive-by-sight and the fact that you are removing a lot of the variability in headways that the transit mall (along with other surface crossings) invariably create. Finally, were it to go that far, extentions to 5 car consists also become a possibility in a tunnel; won't be interfering with any N-S streets (of course posing susbstantial costs to extend all platforms again).

~1 min headways (in the interlined portion) are not out of the realm of possibility.

Finally, it can be assumed that at least some of the current demand on the South - North Red line will be diverted to the hopefully built-out NC-SE Green line.

In short, I'm not convinced that those same problems will occur before a measurable increase in capacity has again become overwhelmed.



Agreed on the expense. I meant it depends on whether the NE-W would then also be tunneled or just left as is.

You may well know these patterns better than I, but I would be interested to see an OD matrix nevertheless. I'd also be wary of predicating future ridership patterns on current ones after a pretty fundamental change in infrastructure occurs. Again, not too mention that it also sets up the entire system for more easy and attractive transfers once a green line is implemented, provides for a more integrated network overall and allows for more operational flexibility.

Not to say that it's the best and only solution, but I think it's been prematurely discounted without the proper understandings of the potential benefits it may bring and without looking at the system more broadly and over the longer term.
Seriously? Where are trains operated by humans, with cab control, on one minute headways? And exactly how fast do you think a train is going to run between two stations three blocks apart? You could have 200 km/h speed operations, it would take the same amount of time, since it's spent almost entirely accelerating and decelerating. And our downtown blocks are 150m; six car consists would be a problem but five are fine. (Four was not possible at 3rd St E, but that's no longer an issue.)

Interlining does reduce capacity (in addition to the obvious reduction by sharing one set of tracks between two lines). I'll use the City Hall interlocking as an example. If only trains to/from the NE were using the tracks, they could follow one another about as closely as possible given safe operating practise with inbound trains and outbound trains not interfering with each other. With the interlining, a train heading outbound to the NE blocks an inbound train from the S, and vice-versa.

Transfers would generally not be made more convenient by putting trains into a tunnel, since the dozens of bus routes that also go downtown are all at surface level. The only transfer that would be made more convenient by moving the Red line (NE-W) into the same tunnel as the Blue (NW-S) would be the transfer between the lines. Every other transfer to the Red line would be made more difficult, as there is now flights of stairs in the way. And the SELRT may reduce demand on the S line a little, but the future investment in transitways (the north transitway connects NE-NW and the south connects W-S) will reduce the demand for train-to-train transfers in the downtown.

I just don't understand why we would either choose to put ourselves at the same risk of an overcapacity line by interlining, or to spend an extra billion dollars we don't have on a second tunnel, just to make most transfers more difficult. Other than checking a box on some railfan scorecard. I'm also not sure why anybody disregards costs when talking practically about infrastructure; why don't we disregard gravity instead, it's about as realistic and a lot more fun.

The traffic lights aren't perfect, but we don't lose a lot of time due to them. And putting trains in a tunnel adds travel time to everyone who gets off them, which is most people. Obviously we need to put a line in a subway due to congestion, but it's not a great boon.
     
     
  #6490  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 4:10 AM
RyLucky's Avatar
RyLucky RyLucky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
^Exactly what I was going to say Michael S. (& Sim & Cage)
My main issue is how slow the trains are getting through downtown.

And I also think there would be cost savings to build 2 tunnels (or one larger tunnel) at the same time.
The biggest conflicts are with 4th 5th & 6th aves. The streets (as opposed to aves) downtown carry only a fraction of what those avenues carry. That's why the main priority is to bury the NW-S line. Total downtown train capacity will essentially quadruple by burying this line. Burying this line will greatly improve travel times through downtown for both lines. No need to burry 7th ave unless there is demand for 5-car trains, at which point that line alone will have a daily ridership capacity over 300 000 (2-3 times what it is now).
     
     
  #6491  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 5:28 AM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Seriously? Where are trains operated by humans, with cab control, on one minute headways? And exactly how fast do you think a train is going to run between two stations three blocks apart? You could have 200 km/h speed operations, it would take the same amount of time, since it's spent almost entirely accelerating and decelerating. And our downtown blocks are 150m; six car consists would be a problem but five are fine. (Four was not possible at 3rd St E, but that's no longer an issue.)

Interlining does reduce capacity (in addition to the obvious reduction by sharing one set of tracks between two lines). I'll use the City Hall interlocking as an example. If only trains to/from the NE were using the tracks, they could follow one another about as closely as possible given safe operating practise with inbound trains and outbound trains not interfering with each other. With the interlining, a train heading outbound to the NE blocks an inbound train from the S, and vice-versa.

Transfers would generally not be made more convenient by putting trains into a tunnel, since the dozens of bus routes that also go downtown are all at surface level. The only transfer that would be made more convenient by moving the Red line (NE-W) into the same tunnel as the Blue (NW-S) would be the transfer between the lines. Every other transfer to the Red line would be made more difficult, as there is now flights of stairs in the way. And the SELRT may reduce demand on the S line a little, but the future investment in transitways (the north transitway connects NE-NW and the south connects W-S) will reduce the demand for train-to-train transfers in the downtown.

I just don't understand why we would either choose to put ourselves at the same risk of an overcapacity line by interlining, or to spend an extra billion dollars we don't have on a second tunnel, just to make most transfers more difficult. Other than checking a box on some railfan scorecard. I'm also not sure why anybody disregards costs when talking practically about infrastructure; why don't we disregard gravity instead, it's about as realistic and a lot more fun.

The traffic lights aren't perfect, but we don't lose a lot of time due to them. And putting trains in a tunnel adds travel time to everyone who gets off them, which is most people. Obviously we need to put a line in a subway due to congestion, but it's not a great boon.
I'll give you my overzealousness on the headway if it isn't ATO. So 90 to 100 seconds maybe. And I also agree that there is a conflict point per direction at the switches and you would need clockwork-like timing (reliability) to be able to always avoid it under such a tight headway regime. Yet this too can be eliminated if the tunnel is made infrastructurally more complicated at the interlining zones - think 3D and not what we currently have: To use your example, the S in-bound train wouldn't block the NE outbound, as it could go over or under.

There is also a difference between perceived travel time and actual travel time, and that's what matters for users. And don't underestimate the value of reliability.

I was disregarding costs for the benefit of proponents of 2 tunnel profiles (one for each line) as one is obviously cheaper if the goal were to be to remove both as street-going lines.

Loss of time due to lights: Well things may have changed since 2008 when I personally spent time evaluating this, but at that time during PM rush hour the trains took an average of 5.25 mins longer to go from Sunnyside to Victoria than as stated by CTs schedule. Plus, if decelerating and accelerating take up most of the time, the removal of a station is going to further reduce in-vehicle travel times. You could also track-dip in a tunnel - make slight Us between stations, to make accelerating quicker.

But yes, it likely would make transfers to buses less desirable, although I believe taking an escalator in a sheltered structure that is in the middle of the underground platform requires no more effort than walking the length of current platforms to bus stops.

Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily optimal but it should remain on the table with a broad, detailed evaluation.
     
     
  #6492  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 4:47 PM
joe498 joe498 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 295
What I can't understand is why Quarry Park is such a "hot" area right now when it's still an hour by bus to downtown and it's 20 minutes provided you drive and have parking.

Perhaps Developers should pitch in and build a portion of the SE LRT? This would make it a much more attractive area.
     
     
  #6493  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 5:02 PM
DarkKeyo DarkKeyo is offline
Transit/Cartography Geek
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
I just don't understand why we would either choose to put ourselves at the same risk of an overcapacity line by interlining, or to spend an extra billion dollars we don't have on a second tunnel, just to make most transfers more difficult. Other than checking a box on some railfan scorecard. I'm also not sure why anybody disregards costs when talking practically about infrastructure; why don't we disregard gravity instead, it's about as realistic and a lot more fun.
This sums it up quite nicely, for me.


As for Quarry Park, if you look at it on a map, it doesn't seem more dense than, say, Brentwood, or Westmount campus at Mount Royal, but it gets a lot of attention.
     
     
  #6494  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 5:57 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKeyo View Post
This sums it up quite nicely, for me.


As for Quarry Park, if you look at it on a map, it doesn't seem more dense than, say, Brentwood, or Westmount campus at Mount Royal, but it gets a lot of attention.
That's because it's only about 1/3 complete. QP currently has ~1.5M sq feet of occupied office space, ~1.5M u/c and another ~1.5M planned. Most of the single family housing is built out, but it has over 1,000 condo units to come. The project scope keeps growing. A high rise hotel was recently approved, the developer plans ~1.2M sq ft of office space on the former Inland site, a portion of the site next to future LRT alignment originally zoned warehouse is now planned for ~500L sq ft office space, more warehouse zoning to the north of that is now advertised as future office space and a site along 18th St is now advertised as child care centre. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining site along 18th becomes retail. Thinking even broader, the east side of 24th that is now either trailer park or used for RV storage could be developed as office space right along the SELRT. The Lafarge site on the other side of the river is also prime for redevelopment, probably as office or retail.
     
     
  #6495  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 6:00 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe498 View Post
What I can't understand is why Quarry Park is such a "hot" area right now when it's still an hour by bus to downtown and it's 20 minutes provided you drive and have parking.

Perhaps Developers should pitch in and build a portion of the SE LRT? This would make it a much more attractive area.
It's proven to be attractive without LRT:
-very high quality office space, some of the best in the city
-on the river (although the river side parkland was washed out by the flood prior to being completed)
-offers true work and live options with condos, detached houses and town homes
-future rec centre, high rise hotel and child care centre

QP is really only lacking on the retail side.
     
     
  #6496  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 6:49 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Re: Quarry Park.

There is that whole landfill and fertilizer plant issue though.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
     
     
  #6497  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2013, 9:38 PM
Rusty van Reddick's Avatar
Rusty van Reddick Rusty van Reddick is offline
formerly-furry flâneur
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bankview, Calgary
Posts: 6,906
I just took the 300 home from the airport for the first time. Great service, very pleased. But when the bus is carrying many foreign or otherwise out of town visitors, I think that stop announcements are crucial.

Got off, grabbed a car2go by the Globe theatre, very nice commute.
     
     
  #6498  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 6:05 AM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
Re: Quarry Park.

There is that whole landfill and fertilizer plant issue though.
The Ecco Landfill is just to the NE. It only started operation in 1994, only accepts construction waste and was built to modern standards (i.e. completely capped). The fertilizer plant that used to stand on the site of Douglas Square ceased operation in the 1970's. It left behind two gypsum stacks, the closest one of which has been dewatered and capped. It can't be built on, but poses low risk of contamination as gypsum is highly stable. The fertilizer plant on what is now Deerfoot Meadows closed in the 1980's and the site was remediated, including a ground water plume that extended towards but did not reach Quarry Park. QP itself was a gravel quarry where some of the pits where backfilled with asphalt, concrete and rebar. All of that was excavated and recycled starting in the late 1990's. The contamination on QP was low level methane. The true source was never identified, but the strongest evidence is that it was naturally occurring. QP has an extensive methane gathering and venting system. The site has received so much attention, that the risk of any remaining environmental contamination at QP is very low.
     
     
  #6499  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 7:30 PM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Scary... i'm agreeing with sim on something...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
I know PolicyWonk will debate this to death, but there is absolutely no need for the 7th avenue subway,
That is only true if you believe that after the construction of the 8th Ave subway that 7th Ave will once again be allowed to reach anywhere near its present level of traffic, which at its peak sees a quarter of trains fall behind schedule and create cascading delays. Status quo is tolerated only out of absolute necessity. Once this is alleviated by by the construction of the 8th Ave subway 7th Ave will never be allowed to return to such a situation. So projecting capacity based on allocating a presently unworkable schedule to only a single line is ridiculous. The need for a 7th Ave subway will occur decades before the Nose Creek LRT line is built and even if it is never built.

And once again, interlining does not reduce capacity, capacity is movements per interval. Building a ROW in any challenging, costly urban environment without provisions for interlining is criminal negligence.

But I realize this is all unshakable SSP group think, so I will leave it at that.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
     
     
  #6500  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2013, 8:31 PM
Rusty van Reddick's Avatar
Rusty van Reddick Rusty van Reddick is offline
formerly-furry flâneur
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bankview, Calgary
Posts: 6,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
. But I realize this is all unshakable SSP group think, so I will leave it at that.
"Groupthink" pertains to group-based decision making. The term you want might be "orthodoxy."
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:56 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.