Calgary Public Transit II

[PPAR]

This has been an interesting thread the last few days!

My take on the green line is that by combining the north and south legs, the city has forced a situation whereby the city has to bite the bullet on a major decision on transit funding. This is because:
1) All agree that the functionality of the lines lie in extending them fully into the suburbs from day one (thus avoiding the core stub system that Edmonton endured for 20 years).
2) Common wisdom is the downtown portion on 2nd street should be buried.
3) Sending the north line from an underground terminus at eu Clair, across the river on the centre street bridge, and then up a steep embankment along increasingly congested rights of way seems to make the tunnel option to 16th (though much more expensive) an appealing move.
4) The low floor streetcar type line seems to be a losing argument- on this thread at least.

To me, it seems like crunch time on a Calgary decision to fund a "big dig" in transit, vs building a system to meet current need in small chunks, with frequent need to upgrade.

[Fuzz]

^

For item number 3, why is it not an option to come above ground at Eau Claire(2nd st or 1st st), skirt the east end of Prince's Island, then either into the bluff (preferred) or get on Centre street that way? The West leg built a large elevated portion very quickly, why are we afraid of another bridge? Seams much cheaper and less complicated than tunnelling under the river.

Also, Eau Claire is a long way from Centre street, how do you get the train from there over to the bridge given turning radius limitations, bring it up to grade AND not destroy China town? You think they were upset about a bike lane?

[mellbell416]

Are we seriously going to wait until 2017 to begin construction on the Green line or the other BRTs with completion by 2021 (SEVEN years)? Surely there is construction could start this year even if all the details haven't been worked out?

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^

For item number 3, why is it not an option to come above ground at Eau Claire(2nd st or 1st st), skirt the east end of Prince's Island, then either into the bluff (preferred) or get on Centre street that way? The West leg built a large elevated portion very quickly, why are we afraid of another bridge? Seams much cheaper and less complicated than tunnelling under the river.

Also, Eau Claire is a long way from Centre street, how do you get the train from there over to the bridge given turning radius limitations, bring it up to grade AND not destroy China town? You think they were upset about a bike lane?

This is exactly what I envision for the longest time. I think it is, in my opinion, the cheapest, yet still relatively intrusive-free option. It makes me wonder why transit planners did not consider this option; they present only two options to cross the Bow River--on Centre Street Bridge or under the river. Now, if flood is the fear factor for the new bridge option, it is not much different than tunneling under the river. What is preventing Eau Claire station entrances from water seeping in?

[Fuzz]

The only reason I found in the report is that Prince's island is a sensitive ecosystem. I hardly thing a bridge pillar is going to cause to much of an issue though. There are always environmental impacts, in this case I think it is well worth it.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

This is exactly what I envision for the longest time. I think it is, in my opinion, the cheapest, yet still relatively intrusive-free option. It makes me wonder why transit planners did not consider this option; they present only two options to cross the Bow River--on Centre Street Bridge or under the river. Now, if flood is the fear factor for the new bridge option, it is not much different than tunneling under the river. What is preventing Eau Claire station entrances from water seeping in?

There would be an immediate uproar about putting a bridge through one of our most heavily used parks in Calgary, even if it only cut through a little eastern tip of it. *IF* it could be shown to save significant tunneling costs, I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of east park solitude. But I wonder too if it was not considered due to potential backlash.

[PPAR]

To my mind city core park space must be non-negotiable. Do you think Central Park in New York would have any hope of existing if it's parameters were negotiable:

"Hey mayor, I'll give you 1 billion dollars if you allow me to develop just this small corner..."

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

This is exactly what I envision for the longest time. I think it is, in my opinion, the cheapest, yet still relatively intrusive-free option. It makes me wonder why transit planners did not consider this option; they present only two options to cross the Bow River--on Centre Street Bridge or under the river. Now, if flood is the fear factor for the new bridge option, it is not much different than tunneling under the river. What is preventing Eau Claire station entrances from water seeping in?

Creating a tunnel portal in the middle of an unstable embankment would have it's own challenges. Supporting the hill would be a nightmare. Boring a tunnel under the river shouldn't be much harder than doing it on either side; the ground water situation would be the same. It makes sense to restrict the choices to over the hill or under the unstable soil.

As for flooding, it is much easier to raise a station entrance above the flood level than it is to raise a tunnel portal. Rain and ground water intrusion can be taken care of by sump pumps. Floodwater pouring into a tunnel portal can't be stopped and would quickly fill the tunnel and everything attached to it.

[Ferreth]

I'd be thinking in terms of bringing LRT out of the ground starting at 3rd Ave, level crossing at 2nd, and elevated beyond that. You wouldn't be digging into the hill, as you'd have 830 meters to rise the 40 meters to be level with the embankment at Crescent road and Center A st.

Downsides I see are that you'd have bridge with a couple of piers going through Prince's Island park, and expropriation of any property on top of the hill is going to be mighty expensive. Also, there would be some noise impact on residential both south and north of the river. As previously mentioned, having a portal between 3rd and 2nd Ave is a flood risk. Could the portal be raised to mitigate the risk?

There are variations on this theme too - you could cut and cover once you are on top of the hill, possibly being able to keep the station for Eau Claire at grade, then not being as huge an impact on top of the hill, although you would still have to expropriate some expensive properties.

I suspect a bridge would be cheaper than tunneling under the river, through Crescent Heights to at least 8th Ave with a portal there. Cheap enough to be worth considering - who knows as currently the option is not being looked at.

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by fusili

I am starting to be more and more convinced that an at-grade alignment on Centre street could work. This study (http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/casestu...tions-along-vancouvers-broadway-corridor) by Steer Davies Gleave for the Broadway corridor in Vancouver illustrates how you can handle intersections and pedestrian crossings along a constrained corridor.

I remember seeing a larger report with several intersection diagrams, but can't seem to find it now. Too bad.

Would it be more efficient to have the train running down the median as you illustrate or along the side a la WLRT along 17th ave? I suppose it would depend on levels of traffic turning east or west?

[technomad]

Originally Posted by Cage

8 Ave Subway requires boring for the entire length due to the proposed position of the tunnel.

2nd Street tunnel can be completed using cut and cover for most of the tunnel, which reduces the cost.

Why is that?

I would have thought the opposite, Steven Ave would be easier as C&C, with green line bored to go under 8 Ave subway and the river.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm just curious how this will play out with the water diversion tunnel going east on 50th from the Elbow to the Bow? It needs to be tunneled, not cut and cover iirc. I also seem to remember Nenshi musing about other uses they could find for such an expensive tunnel boring machine. I'm just saying, couldn't the case be made to the province to roll all of these tunneling projects together to maybe get a price break?

Having a good sized TBM for flood relief would really open up a lot of options...

Boring green line under downtown is a no-brainer IMO, and running it under the river is the best flood mitigation for it as well, and if we already have the machine... presumably the economics of running underground up to at least 64 ave change for the better too.

Beyond flood relief and green line, the TBM could be used to provide an unobtrusive final ROW for HSR, starting in nose creek, under the river and Inglewood, into an underground station DT.

Depending on how big it was, a vehicle tunnel under 16 av n could even be feasible, finishing up the inner freeway ring

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by PPAR

To my mind city core park space must be non-negotiable. Do you think Central Park in New York would have any hope of existing if it's parameters were negotiable:

"Hey mayor, I'll give you 1 billion dollars if you allow me to develop just this small corner..."

Just an FYI that Central Park has several roads and subway lines cutting through it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Just an FYI that Central Park has several roads and subway lines cutting through it.

And restaurants, museums, amusement parks....

[MalcolmTucker]

TBMs are not the cost constraint in constructing tunnels .

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by technomad

Having a good sized TBM for flood relief would really open up a lot of options...

Boring green line under downtown is a no-brainer IMO, and running it under the river is the best flood mitigation for it as well, and if we already have the machine... presumably the economics of running underground up to at least 64 ave change for the better too.

Beyond flood relief and green line, the TBM could be used to provide an unobtrusive final ROW for HSR, starting in nose creek, under the river and Inglewood, into an underground station DT.

Depending on how big it was, a vehicle tunnel under 16 av n could even be feasible, finishing up the inner freeway ring

I've seen this posted a few times and I don't think it's a realistic option. TBMs are built to order for specific projects and are often one time beasts. Many, such as those used in the Channel Tunnel, are simply driven to the side and abandoned forever. I've tried to find some information on what usually happens to the TBMs after and can't find much, but I believe once they're finished they are pretty beat up regardless and will need to be dismantled and reconstructed.

There is also the issue that a TBM to build a flood relief tunnel in the South will have a different spec to one building a rail line or a roadway in different areas - different geology and tunnel size mainly. Rail lines almost always take two smaller ones.

[MMMBeer]

Anything involving significant tunneling is going to cost big $$$.

Check out this project from Seattle. Only 5km of track and two stations, and projected budget is US$2 billion, due to significant tunneling with TBMs:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Projects-and-Plans/University-Link-Extension

And this one from San Francisco, only 3.5km of tunnel, four stations, TBM also needed, US$1.6 billion budget:

http://www.centralsubwaysf.com/content/project-overview

[joe498]

Good article and I have to agree:

$5-billion cost for last leg of Calgary ring road ‘horrendous’

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...+ring+road+horrendous/9624198/story.html

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Just an FYI that Central Park has several roads and subway lines cutting through it.

Yes, but the subways are underground and the roads are park boulevards. All amenities in Central Park are associated with the primary function. Even the pass through roads have limitations to make them undesirable for commuting.

[Fuzz]

Just to throw another angle at this... I just spent 1 hour on the 301 "express" bus; about 35 minutes of it on 5th ave to travel 5 blocks. No sign of an accident, just heavy traffic and loads of buses. Given a 20 year time frame, does 5th ave have the capacity for all the buses that are going to be on it? It already seams to be beyond capacity, with bendy buses blocking north/south traffic at intersections. If there is some sort of busway up centre, this is only going to get worse.

I've been playing that mini metro game, and I keep getting thoughts of the game ending when I hit around 650 passengers and finally they all get fed up! Calgary's future?