Southeast Transitway/Southeast LRT | ~17 Stations | $2 Billion | Proposed

[s211]

Originally Posted by Allan83

If you’re on a transitway it shouldn’t be bouncy. If you’re on a BRT but off the transitway then all the deficiencies of the regular roads do apply.

It was the transitway portion of the Silver Line from South Station to World Trade Centre, much of it underground.

[monocle]

Having just got back from Bangkok, riding around their wicked transit has me thinking that the Centre St portion should be elevated. Am I taking crazy pills? What are the drawbacks?

[Spring2008]

I think an elevated track def makes for a better ride experience. Street level, not sure? Would having an elevated track down Centre Street detract from the pedestrian experience?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So the trade off is more expensive platforms for high floor, vs 25% reduced capacity? So you will need to go to 4 or 5 car trains sooner, isn't that just going to eat up the savings on platforms? If it goes up north centre, its going to need all the capacity it can get. Not sure about SE. Does that tradeoff makes sense, unless there are other benefits?

Its quite possible that it wouldn't have to be 25% less capacity. A lot of it comes down to the seating arrangement (after all, somehow the city managed to gain 13% capacity between the Series 7 and Series 8 SD160's by just changing the seating around within the same physical sized box). Portland's S70's are far more spacious than our SD160's I found, far wider seats and more legroom. San Diego's S70's by contrast, which are actually shorter than Portland's, are rated for 200 people, so its also a matter of how you calculate standing room space.

In terms of ridership, if its 4 LRV from the outset, at the near frequency as the Red line is now, there would be more than enough capacity for quite a while.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Riise

Isn't it a case of transferring a large amount of passengers into smaller groups heading in different directions? While there is a fair amount of passengers trying to cross London, which is is currently difficult due to capacity issues, you'd imagine the bulk of the passengers are trying to get to destinations across Central London, which is better served by a feeder network of Underground and Tube lines. If this is the case, the mistake made in London was not providing enough crosstown capacity.

In Calgary's case, I could see an argument being made that two or three tram lines connecting to an LRT line running through Beltline could help distribute passengers closer to their final destinations in Beltline and the Core.

Thanks for the replies everyone . It is true that London is a big and multi centered city so one station could never hope to serve everywhere. Cross city lines are far more efficient however. A two platform underground station can better handle 30 trains an hour than a 20 platform mega station like Waterloo. This is proved by the fact that Crossrail alone will increase London's already huge rail capacity by 10% (by my calculation, that is probably more than Calgary Transit's entire system!).

While an inner city tram would be great if money was no object, it simply wouldn't stack up in terms of value for money compared to improvements the main network or more lines.

The LRT trundling through at snails' pace on 7th is bad enough (to the people saying it's not that bad - it is, period), imagine if you had to get off and change to a tram at Sunnyside to get downtown. When (if ) the Subway is built, I would also support reducing the number of stations to 3 or 4, 5 is way too many currently.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The SLRT really only requires grade separation at 25th Ave and Heritage for significantly shorter head ways. Both of which have interchanges planned for that purpose. The other crossings would become pretty annoying for motorists but vehicles could still get through. The problem with 25th Ave and Heritage is the proximity of the crossings to Macleod. Between the train's signal priority and the light timing on Macleod, there just wouldn't be any chance for cross traffic to make it through both. Basically the only vehicles that could use a green signal on Heritage or 25th would be the couple that can fit between Macleod and the LRT tracks. Both roads are too important for that. The other solutions would involve removing C-Train signal priority at those crossings, which we don't really want to start doing, or screwing with Macleod's light timing, which would have all kinds of repercussions.

After those interchanges are built, or downgraded to just grade separate the LRT (although that would be difficult and possibly even more costly in those locations), we could run with pretty much the highest frequencies we'd ever want to on the SLRT (of course that would require matching upgrades elsewhere, specifically the 8th Ave subway, to work). Other grade separations might happen but they would only be needed for additional safety or automobile capacity. The whole route doesn't need grade separation just so we can say we have a metro, C-Train capacity would be the same either way.

This is a sensible proposal. While full grade separation would be nice it would be very difficult in many places for little gain unfortunately.

I dislike all this talk of doing stuff on the cheap. The long term needs to be thought of. While the SE line might not intersect now, what about when we are building the fourth or fifth line? Do you think Toronto would've been happy with their decision if they had just built some glorified streetcar lines instead of their subway?

I know there is 'no money' (surprising since Calgary is a very prosperous city) but if you don't think big, Calgary will forever be a provincial backwater. And I would rather we built shorter, high quality lines than these endless, sprawl encouraging LRT extensions. If you chose to live in Mackenzie 'Towne' you don't deserve rail based transit (there, I said it!).

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is a sensible proposal. While full grade separation would be nice it would be very difficult in many places for little gain unfortunately.

I dislike all this talk of doing stuff on the cheap. The long term needs to be thought of. While the SE line might not intersect now, what about when we are building the fourth or fifth line? Do you think Toronto would've been happy with their decision if they had just built some glorified streetcar lines instead of their subway?

I know there is 'no money' (surprising since Calgary is a very prosperous city) but if you don't think big, Calgary will forever be a provincial backwater. And I would rather we built shorter, high quality lines than these endless, sprawl encouraging LRT extensions. If you chose to live in Mackenzie 'Towne' you don't deserve rail based transit (there, I said it!).

An 8th Ave underground tunnel would really help efficiency on cold days like today ... Plus it would get people out of the cold

[Chadillaccc]

Having lived in Vancouver for years, I love elevated tracks. However, there is no major pedestrian street in that city or the metro area where the track runs down the middle(if anyone wants to argue that Lougheed Highway is a pedestrian street I will laugh at you). I think it would be a mistake for Centre Street to do that. Every major street in Van either has it going under it (Cambie, Burrard/Granville) or beside it a hundred meters over (Kingsway). Centre Street is basically Calgary's Cambie (a horrible version of Cambie, but still, our closest comparison), and Macleod is our Kingsway (both have their RT tracks a block or so away from the actual road). I think we have to go under Centre just like they did for Cambie in Vancouver. Having it on the street in the urban area (south of 30th Avenue) would be a huge mistake, tantamount to the current ongoing debate about the UBC line in Vancouver having a tram line down Broadway.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

A buried line from 30th Ave N down Centre St would create some excellent TOD projects and enhance the corridor for pedestrians, particularly from 16th Ave N southward

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Having lived in Vancouver for years, I love elevated tracks. However, there is no major pedestrian street in that city or the metro area where the track runs down the middle(if anyone wants to argue that Lougheed Highway is a pedestrian street I will laugh at you). I think it would be a mistake for Centre Street to do that. Every major street in Van either has it going under it (Cambie, Burrard/Granville) or beside it a hundred meters over (Kingsway). Centre Street is basically Calgary's Cambie (a horrible version of Cambie, but still, our closest comparison), and Macleod is our Kingsway (both have their RT tracks a block or so away from the actual road). I think we have to go under Centre just like they did for Cambie in Vancouver. Having it on the street in the urban area (south of 30th Avenue) would be a huge mistake, tantamount to the current ongoing debate about the UBC line in Vancouver having a tram line down Broadway.

Agree with this too. Centre street is a horrible road for traffic already, there's no way having an LRT on the surface would improve things for anyone, car traffic, buses and LRT would all be dog slow. Ideally have a bridge next to the road bridge and smash into the bluffs and carry on in bored tunnels, it would look awesome! Would be expensive though as it wouldn't be able to surface for a long way north and I don't think cut and cover would be feasible. Once this is done, I'd like to see improvements to Centre St to make it nice for pedestrians, it really isn't an enjoyable street for any road user currently.

[Chadillaccc]

Key word being bored tunnels, meaning minimal disruption of traffic on Centre through the construction process. They could even design the stations so that they come out onto the feeder roads of Centre, right at the intersections of Centre, as to not even cause months/years long disruptions to the street as would happen if the built the stations directly under the street. Bring the line up to grade somewhere between 30th and 40th Avenues and have it continue in a reserved ROW from there as a "Spadina Line" type streetcar.

[DizzyEdge]

My impression was the Bloor Subway was mostly cut and cover, I wonder how disruptive it was.

I'm assuming cut and cover since all along it's ROW you'll see things like this:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=toronto&hl...-xnTtvwnIF4nesYxKw&cbp=12,249.04,,0,1.04

Newer (but often 'traditionally styled) multifamily homes on one side and a park on the other. Looks like about a 50 ft wide ROW about 50 m off Bloor. Maybe Calgary could do that? Would require buying 4 small homes per block though.

Here's a question, does the city have more power to upzone land it owns, or would it go through all the process of a private owner? Just thinking the cost of buying 2 houses might be mitigated by upzoning the 50 ft loot to 3 story walkup density.

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Agree with this too. Centre street is a horrible road for traffic already, there's no way having an LRT on the surface would improve things for anyone, car traffic, buses and LRT would all be dog slow. Ideally have a bridge next to the road bridge and smash into the bluffs and carry on in bored tunnels, it would look awesome! Would be expensive though as it wouldn't be able to surface for a long way north and I don't think cut and cover would be feasible. Once this is done, I'd like to see improvements to Centre St to make it nice for pedestrians, it really isn't an enjoyable street for any road user currently.

Actually if it's going to be bored already, I would prefer to keep it underground below the river. With a station at 2nd St/2nd Ave or 2nd St/3rd Ave, I'm not sure there would be enough room to pop up just before the river, cross over the east end of Prince's Island and then smash into the bluffs. Also, aesthetically and maybe environmentally I'd prefer it avoids Prince's Island.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WaitWhat?

Actually if it's going to be bored already, I would prefer to keep it underground below the river. With a station at 2nd St/2nd Ave or 2nd St/3rd Ave, I'm not sure there would be enough room to pop up just before the river, cross over the east end of Prince's Island and then smash into the bluffs. Also, aesthetically and maybe environmentally I'd prefer it avoids Prince's Island.

It would be very deep though, although I guess that only matters if there's a station. You're probably right, it would be hard to fit a bridge in there. I still think it would look cool though .

[Chadillaccc]

Even still, many cities have VERY deep stations. In Canada my best example would be Granville Station in Vancouver, I believe it is about 40 meters below the street? The Moscow Metro has several dozen stations capable of withstanding a 50 megaton nuclear detonation, the tunnels are designed to support a population of something like 5 million people. The deepest of which is 74 meters.

[brentwood]

Originally Posted by monocle

Having just got back from Bangkok, riding around their wicked transit has me thinking that the Centre St portion should be elevated. Am I taking crazy pills? What are the drawbacks?

Just say no to elevated tracks down the middle of Centre Street. Although the Skytrain in Bangkok is cool, I still prefer the subway system there. The elevated tracks and especially the stations absolutely dominate the streets which in most cases are wider (not much wider though) than Centre Street. In a tropical climate, the shade created by the Skytrain can be welcoming and does not really detract from a crazy pedestrian environment but in Calgary's climate it would be dreary. Also it helps to have high density development that can access the stations off the second and third floors which Bangkok has in abundance. Centre Street would have none of this initially.

After you use the Bangkok Skytrain a lot you begin to see its deficiencies. It is a real pain in the ass to get to and from street level especially since there are limited up and down escalators and usually one elevator for handicapped use. Not to mention the ticket hall is on one level and the platforms above that one. You often are forced to choose between climbing stairs or walking to the other end of the station to access an escalator. Then there is the issue of short packed trains when most platforms are twice as long. Sound familiar? The Vancouver Skytrain is much more user friendly IMO.

If you move the elevated tracks just off Centre Street, that would be better but privacy issues related to resident's homes and yards would scuttle that plan pretty quick.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Even still, many cities have VERY deep stations. In Canada my best example would be Granville Station in Vancouver, I believe it is about 40 meters below the street? The Moscow Metro has several dozen stations capable of withstanding a 50 megaton nuclear detonation, the tunnels are designed to support a population of something like 5 million people. The deepest of which is 74 meters.

Deep stations are neither cheap nor desirable though. I doubt there is too much engineering experience in North America to build a massive cavern underground, and I don't know if the rock is suitable for it. Also you want to avoid passengers having to make a 5 minute journey just to get to the surface.

Anyway, if we can't even afford an LRT in the SE, it doesn't seem likely we could afford something like that. The stations themselves would probably be best cut and cover off the side of Centre St.

[Fuzz]

Could they fit the LRT under half the road(on centre street), and sidewalk, and only have to cut and cover half the road, keeping half of it open during construction? Or is that not wide enough? Obviously they'd have to tear up the whole road for the stations, but at least the track part could be dug while lanes are kept open.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Could they fit the LRT under half the road(on centre street), and sidewalk, and only have to cut and cover half the road, keeping half of it open during construction? Or is that not wide enough? Obviously they'd have to tear up the whole road for the stations, but at least the track part could be dug while lanes are kept open.

What I think will happen is they will first widen the road to create bus-only lanes. When they eventually bury an LRT between downtown and 24th Ave N (just speculating), presumably the road will be wide enough to keep some open during construction.

[andasen]

<snip to new post, cause I forgot to finish my commentary before posting>

Originally Posted by brentwood

Just say no to elevated tracks down the middle of Centre Street. Although the Skytrain in Bangkok is cool, I still prefer the subway system there. The elevated tracks and especially the stations absolutely dominate the streets which in most cases are wider (not much wider though) than Centre Street. In a tropical climate, the shade created by the Skytrain can be welcoming and does not really detract from a crazy pedestrian environment but in Calgary's climate it would be dreary. Also it helps to have high density development that can access the stations off the second and third floors which Bangkok has in abundance. Centre Street would have none of this initially.

After you use the Bangkok Skytrain a lot you begin to see its deficiencies. It is a real pain in the ass to get to and from street level especially since there are limited up and down escalators and usually one elevator for handicapped use. Not to mention the ticket hall is on one level and the platforms above that one. You often are forced to choose between climbing stairs or walking to the other end of the station to access an escalator. Then there is the issue of short packed trains when most platforms are twice as long. Sound familiar? The Vancouver Skytrain is much more user friendly IMO.

If you move the elevated tracks just off Centre Street, that would be better but privacy issues related to resident's homes and yards would scuttle that plan pretty quick.

So did I just read an excellent argument for elevated (+30) C-train through Downtown. If we are being honest with ourselves all of the pedestrian intensity is at the +15 level, its better to build off that, maybe get something like New Westminster Station in Vancouver happening at the plus 30 of 2nd ave.