Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Clarify then, what do you consider moderate growth to a level that would support the level of pedestrian oriented retail (such that accessibility to vehicles just isn't that big a deal) that Full Mountain speaks of?

I'm not thinking duplexes.

2% annual growth average. 4 storey woodframes on Centre street, Edmonton Trail and 4th street, 4-unit walkups (or 2 semis for 4 units on 50' lots) gradually developed over the next 30 years. Population density can triple on converting existing singles to four-unit developments alone.

My rough FAR and lot size estimations for "developable" lots on Centre Street between 16th and 30th alone result in 1000 units at 1000 sq ft average. 4th street and Edmonton Trail are obviously harder because they are all side-lotted, but significant density increases through mid-rises along the corridor and low-rises elsewhere is possible.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by Halofire

An LRT line that connects it to both T&T Supermarket and the extension of chinatown on centre street north of the river... I think it wouldn't be as hard to sway the community for LRT access.

As for the turning radii, Shell's podium is adjustable, and there's a parking lot in Chinatown that could be used. Both these are issues are there for an at-grade LRT down Centre Street.


Nobody seems to take issue with bridging the east side though?

The issue I raised is with the east side bridging you've proposed. You should take a walk down 3rd Avenue in Chinatown on a Saturday before you assume the business community there could be swayed to having a LRT line run through.

Fair enough that the podiums may be adjustable, but are landowners flexible?

[lineman]

Originally Posted by Halofire

It isn't a 'subway or nothing' scenario. It is a specific portion (2km) and a river crossing that are really the issue. Is it expensive? Yes, but compare it to the WLRT elevated, tunneled and trenched tracks, is it that much to ask for? I'd rather wait an extra 10 years to do this line properly than rush it through and get a compromised solution.

I completely agree.

Are they even sure that the Centre Street bridge can handle 320 tonnes of LRVs?

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Halofire

It isn't a 'subway or nothing' scenario. It is a specific portion (2km) and a river crossing that are really the issue. Is it expensive? Yes, but compare it to the WLRT elevated, tunneled and trenched tracks, is it that much to ask for? I'd rather wait an extra 10 years to do this line properly than rush it through and get a compromised solution.

This. Exactly this. I'm not asking to be New York. I'm asking to think like a city of over a million, in predominantly car-dependant North America. The reality of vehicle usage is changing, but to compare Calgary's LRT to the trams in Amsterdam and wherever else in Europe is absolutely ludicrous.

It most definitely needs to be underground through downtown, and almost definitely needs to be underground until at least 17th Avenue North. Less than 4 kilometers of underground is not out of the question. It's doing it right the first time so that future generations don't need to say "wow, those 🞵🞵🞵 holes really fucked the dog back then," like many of us are currently saying about our existing, inadequate lines and capacity. If it was my choice, it would be grade-separated from Balmoral all the way to Ramsay/Inglewood. Not to say it would be UG for that SE section, but bridges and underpasses there for sure.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

They do have a responsibility to sell it, their re-election depends on it. Also if they continue to delay it, by prioritizing other projects over it, their re-election chances will take a hit.

Somebody better tell Sean Chu (and all the people who voted for him) that.....

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This. Exactly this. I'm not asking to be New York. I'm asking to think like a city of over a million, in predominantly car-dependant North America. The reality of vehicle usage is changing, but to compare Calgary's LRT to the trams in Amsterdam and wherever else in Europe is absolutely ludicrous.

It most definitely needs to be underground through downtown, and almost definitely needs to be underground until at least 17th Avenue North. Less than 4 kilometers of underground is not out of the question. It's doing it right the first time so that future generations don't need to say "wow, those 🞵🞵🞵 holes really fucked the dog back then," like many of us are currently saying about our existing, inadequate lines and capacity. If it was my choice, it would be grade-separated from Balmoral all the way to Ramsay/Inglewood. Not to say it would be UG for that SE section, but bridges and underpasses there for sure.

I think the only place we disagree is the portion south of 16th avenue (I think 16th avenue itself should be underground). I agree the downtown portion should be underground, but I think it can go elevated right after Eau Claire station and not have to bore under the river. I am not comparing this to Amsterdam trams, I am comparing it to things such as the Eglinton LRT. Dedicated ROW and signalized intersections.

As for our "inadequate lines and capacity", I would gladly take this transit problem over the transit problems of most any other North American city. I think most (but not all) of our LRT decisions in the past were actually pretty good.

[Socguy]

From my perspective I just don't see any new lines running through DT that are not underground. Not that I don't believe it couldn't be done, I just believe that not doing it would doom the line on so many levels, not the least of which would be driver revolt. Next, I think that an alignment Center street or thereabouts is the best approach to DT. It fits much better with how people are looking at transit these days.

Having said that, I do agree with Policy Wonk that by no means is the Nose Creek alignment dead. 20 years is a long time.

The tidbit I would really like to contribute to this discussion that doesn't seem to be already out there is that of changing demographics. The projects we're seeing now are largely driven by the priorities of a generation that was in love with the car. That's slowly changing with successive generations and thus we are seeing a gradual shift in the thinking of people to a city where there is at least an consideration towards alternate modes of transit. If the peoples priorities continue the shift, governments in 20 years might be much more open to spending the money. Adding to that, when you start to factor in issues around climate change and a (eventual) price on carbon, suddenly it's not unrealistic to imagine even Alberta finding economic value in funding some of these projects.

Or not...

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

This is not new thinking, my parents bought a house in the 70's based on assurances that the Centre Street LRT was imminent. I think someone here posted a map depicting a Centre Street alignment even older than that.

1967:



And the line was shown to cross the river around where the new foot bridge is going to St. Patricks Island in the East Village, north through Bridgeland and Renfew before hitting Centre Street at about 16th ave.

[Bcasey25raptor]

What is the main differences between an LRT and an RT?

I know that an RT is grade separated and runs on dedicated tracks, my question is why didn't Calgary pursue an RT system considering this is the case?

Is it really all that much more expensive? How do they both work?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

They do have a responsibility to sell it, their re-election depends on it. Also if they continue to delay it, by prioritizing other projects over it, their re-election chances will take a hit.

Write down Ward 1 to 14 plus Mayor and give me a reason for each position why their re-election depends on supporting all or a portion of the green line.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Fusili, If we accept north of 16th at grade, is the cost to tunnel aprox. 1.25-1.5km really that big of an obstacle? The west LRT goes 1km underground at Westbrook. Especially if you talk about an underground station at 16th, what is the added cost of another km? I'm not sure where the massive "this is unattainable" argument is coming form.

West LRT was completed using traditional cut and cover. NCLRT tunnel option will require TBM and a lot more digging for each station. The TBM alone adds big dollars to the project cost.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

What is the main differences between an LRT and an RT?

I know that an RT is grade separated and runs on dedicated tracks, my question is why didn't Calgary pursue an RT system considering this is the case?

Is it really all that much more expensive? How do they both work?

Just a guess, but growth of LRT potential capacity with postwar improvements in technology led to less need for huge future proofing expense of going RT from the get go.

[milomilo]

Do we know what the estimated passenger numbers on the NCLRT are? I wouldn't be surprised if they are similar to the NW line and with the potential to be even higher. If that's the case then the line must be built with 4 or probably 5 car operation in mind. Very few systems run on street with more than 2 or 3 car lengths (I can't think of any?), partly for practical reasons (clearing junctions) and because if you are designing for that sort of capacity, then you can justify spending more on infrastructure. With all that said, a grade separated system has to be the only option.

[frinkprof]

Interesting video about changes to the lighting system after the floods last year. The new LED light fixtures are water tight.

• Video Link

Flood sheds new light on transit tunnels

The flood of 2013 caused extensive damage to Calgary Transit’s infrastructure. Tracks were damaged, signal equipment was waterlogged, seven traction power substations lost power and three tunnels were filled with water.

Removing millions of litres of water from the tunnels was no easy feat, and once the water was gone there was still plenty of repair work needed. Overhead wires, signals, help telephones and the lighting systems all needed to be replaced.

A new system of Nemalux LED lights was installed that will be able to withstand future flooding. The lighting fixtures are water tight (like the lights used in aquariums) so they won’t be damaged if another flood happens. Additionally, safety has been improved by increasing light quality inside the tunnels. The intensity of the light transitions as trains go in or out of tunnels, depending on the amount of natural light outside. For example, when a train enters a tunnel on a bright sunny afternoon, the lights gradually transition from brighter to dimmer, and vice versa when exiting the tunnel. This makes it easier on the driver’s eyes, and easier to spot any safety hazards. In the centre of the tunnel, the lights are set to a standard level of brightness to ensure maximum visibility and safety

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/new-light-on-transit-tunnels.html

[J-D]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

The intensity of the light transitions as trains go in or out of tunnels, depending on the amount of natural light outside. For example, when a train enters a tunnel on a bright sunny afternoon, the lights gradually transition from brighter to dimmer, and vice versa when exiting the tunnel. This makes it easier on the driver’s eyes, and easier to spot any safety hazards. In the centre of the tunnel, the lights are set to a standard level of brightness to ensure maximum visibility and safety

That's really interesting! Not something I would have thought about but makes perfect sense.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by Cage

West LRT was completed using traditional cut and cover. NCLRT tunnel option will require TBM and a lot more digging for each station. The TBM alone adds big dollars to the project cost.

Only if it goes under the river. They can do cut and cover elsewhere. In fact I think most people here understand that under the river is a very unlikely scenario. Bridging a right-of-way to either side of centre street bridge is a possible compromise.

As for running through Chinatown (1ST SE to Centre), I'm sure they're would be opposition, but I wouldn't rule it out as an option. One of the 2 options being considered turns onto 3rd ave off centre, which would also impact the area as well.

Losing 3rd avenue to a surface LRT wouldn't be terrible from a DT traffic standpoint, but it would mean that many of the towers would have to re-align their parking garage entrances (if they even could). Again, that would be the case for almost any surface route DT.

[You Need A Thneed]

Cut and cover under the river certainly is possible, cut and cover up the hill however is difficult.

[MalcolmTucker]

It isn't revolutionary to tunnel without using a boring machine, which for a possible tunnel profile with its widely variable ground characteristics would be pretty hard to use.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Cut and cover under the river certainly is possible, cut and cover up the hill however is difficult.

Depends on where you enter the hill, and maybe you need to tunnel a bit, but not enough to require boring machine.

I'm talking about bridging across, ~parallel to Centre Street, at which point, there's enough room on either side of the bluff to enter without any interference with the surface developments (other than road).

1 St SE, and SW are both decent entry points into DT. In fact the SW option wouldn't impact Prince's Island significantly, as opposed to trying to bring it in to Eau Claire on 3rd St SW

[VIce]

So today was the day that engineering students presented their 4th year thesis projects. One group had a project commissioned by Calgary Transit's planning group, looking at an LRT circle route for a design time frame of 2060. Now, of course, being a student thesis project it's several steps back from reality, but they did have a pretty comprehensive job and a they had printouts of a detailed alignment study.

I asked them to email me their actual final document when it's complete, which they were happy to do. I'm curious if anybody is interested in seeing it? Sorry for the grainy photo.