Calgary Public Transit II

[Socguy]

Actually I have a question about the low floor design. It was my understanding that the drive to make the switch is largely due to low floor being more conducive to neighborhood integration (More frequent stops and smaller stations).

In this case, if major portions of the line end up getting buried then is it still worth it to make the switch? Once you go underground are you not just building a subway, the purpose of which is to transport large numbers of people long distances at higher speeds, in part by isolating them from the neighborhoods they cross? Doesn't that basically defeat the primary reason for going low floor? If so, is there something to the argument that we should keep our equipment standardized as much as possible?

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Actually I have a question about the low floor design. It was my understanding that the drive to make the switch is largely due to low floor being more conducive to neighborhood integration (More frequent stops and smaller stations).

In this case, if major portions of the line end up getting buried then is it still worth it to make the switch? Once you go underground are you not just building a subway, the purpose of which is to transport large numbers of people long distances at higher speeds, in part by isolating them from the neighborhoods they cross? Doesn't that basically defeat the primary reason for going low floor? If so, is there something to the argument that we should keep our equipment standardized as much as possible?

*sigh* Well, we've never talked about this one before.
1. No proposed alignments of the green line are even 10% underground, and roughly 2/3 of the stations will be at grade. So your whole premise is moot.
2. The floor height of a rail vehicle has nothing to do with the frequency of stops it makes.
3. The primary reason for low floors are to minimize the impact of stations in neighbourhoods, as you have said - and there are plenty of neighbourhood stations. Secondary reasons include cheaper station construction, more pleasant riding conditions and easier procurement.
4. The current plans for the green line involve busways before LRT; low floor platforms can serve both vehicles -- if anything is a standard on this corridor, it's low floor.
5. The point of having standard equipment is to save costs; having standard equipment is in itself no benefit to anyone but the OCD. The potential benefits of having similar rail vehicles on different lines is very low in this case; the green line does not connect to the red/blue, and the maintenance and storage facilities on the red/blue lines are already pretty well at capacity. We already do not have standard rail equipment; by the end of next year, there will be four different models of train on our tracks.
6. In the end, the existence of high floor platforms somewhere in the city shouldn't affect our decision on the green line; there are benefits to low floor vehicles in terms of potential station reuse and neighbourhood impacts. There could be additional maintenance costs for low floor vehicles, there could be a tighter turning radius permitting a cheaper alignment, purchase of low floor vehicles could be cheaper or more expensive. These should drive the decision.

So no, there's nothing to the argument that we should keep our equipment standardized as much as possible.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Toronto's new streetcars are 11.4 centimetres narrower than SD-160s. When it comes to a ROW, that is next to meaningless. Where did this idea come from that switching to low floor will seriously affect ROW width, platform dimensions, or a host of other factors?

The last page has been about detailing how a tunnel portal in the face of the hill won't work.

The idea that low floor platforms are smaller comes from every low floor system in the world, a curb is far smaller than those required by a high floor system such as our current one.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The idea that low floor platforms are smaller comes from every low floor system in the world, a curb is far smaller than those required by a high floor system such as our current one.

I know that the height is obviously lower; I'm not an idiot. I'm referring to talk in this thread of low floor being able to have platforms a couple of feet wide. Platform width has nothing to do with technology choice. It has to do with the safety requirements for a given passenger load. A streetcar replicating a bus can use a sidewalk, like a bus, for stations. The C-Train cannot; the load is too high.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, even at breakneck speed the Ottawa system should be close to operational before we have the chance to make a final decision, so people can see a similar set up with their own eyes.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I know that the height is obviously lower; I'm not an idiot. I'm referring to talk in this thread of low floor being able to have platforms a couple of feet wide. Platform width has nothing to do with technology choice. It has to do with the safety requirements for a given passenger load. A streetcar replicating a bus can use a sidewalk, like a bus, for stations. The C-Train cannot; the load is too high.

Not true. An elevated station on a sidewalk requires greater width and length for ramps up to the station, and sufficient space for the station to facilitate access to storefronts that are currently at grade.

[Policy Wonk]

You can't take that for granted, I have seen low-floor "platforms" that are far wider than anything here. Waiting passengers, shelters, vending machines, landscaping all impede traffic.

There is also the accessibility issues that favor higher floor vehicles. It is really, really difficult to break a concrete ramp. While many street car and low-floor internal ramps are broken more often than not and increase dwell times.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You can't take that for granted, I have seen low-floor "platforms" that are far wider than anything here. Waiting passengers, shelters, vending machines, landscaping all impede traffic.

There is also the accessibility issues that favor higher floor vehicles. It is really, really difficult to break a concrete ramp. While many street car and low-floor internal ramps are broken more often than not and increase dwell times.

The current LRT vehicles have an internal ramp too, not sure how going high floor changes things...

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not true. An elevated station on a sidewalk requires greater width and length for ramps up to the station, and sufficient space for the station to facilitate access to storefronts that are currently at grade.

The stations may need to be slightly larger to accommodate stairs, ramps, and other changes of grade from a high platform; it depends on the way it is accessed and surrounding buildings. I didn't say station; I said platform. What I said was true.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The stations may need to be slightly larger to accommodate stairs, ramps, and other changes of grade from a high platform; it depends on the way it is accessed and surrounding buildings. I didn't say station; I said platform. What I said was true.

I was also referring to platform width. Semantics.

It does come down to the details obviously, but high-floor platforms are more likely to require stairs or ramps not only at each end, but also where the platform abuts an existing building. In the case for at-grade operation on Centre Street for example, high-floor platforms would have trouble integrating with buildings without an extended platform width.

[Halofire]

Originally Posted by fusili

I was also referring to platform width. Semantics.

It does come down to the details obviously, but high-floor platforms are more likely to require stairs or ramps not only at each end, but also where the platform abuts an existing building. In the case for at-grade operation on Centre Street for example, high-floor platforms would have trouble integrating with buildings without an extended platform width.

I don't see much benefit in high platforms. Nor do I see a problem with low-floors in underground stations. Low floors have the benefit that buses can use the same ROW and load a the same locations in the when the trains aren't running for whatever reason.

[MalcolmTucker]

Easy solution is to do a technology agnostic tender, and see what the price difference is. Let the free market provide the answer!

[93JC]

Originally Posted by MasterG

A key tenant

tenet

of this proposal would be using the narrower bodied LRTs discussed by others, not your traditional C-train or anything heavy. Like the new Toronto "Streetcars" which are really enormous, yet take no room compared to our current LRT ROWs. The capacity that they can handle, especially in dedicated ROW and and underground downtown stretch to avoid congestion issues there would be substantial and likely enough for the foreseeable future.

Getting Calgary used to a narrower bodied train might be tough ( bigger is better, we should have a real metro, rabble rabble etc.) but for the cost and expected population growth? I suspect a proposal like mine might be the most effective for the next 50 - 100 years.

None of this makes any sense.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

I was also referring to platform width. Semantics.

It does come down to the details obviously, but high-floor platforms are more likely to require stairs or ramps not only at each end, but also where the platform abuts an existing building. In the case for at-grade operation on Centre Street for example, high-floor platforms would have trouble integrating with buildings without an extended platform width.

I'll freely admit that low floor systems are easier to integrate into an existing street scape. That might apply to a single station on the SELRT. There is no reason to make the SELRT, in isolation, a low floor system and plenty of reasons not to.

As for the NLRT, there is no part of Centre with buildings meeting the property line where at grade stations would be remotely acceptable. Running trains on the surface of Centre Street south of 16 Ave is a complete non-starter. Monopolizing Centre for transit between 16 Ave and 64 Ave is liable to cause a mass revolt of area residents but can at least be defended. South of 16 Ave is very different. That said, a case could still be made that low floor stations will provide a better street scape. You want to run with that argument, go for it but it has nothing to do with platform width.

Personally, I don't see a surface route ever passing community opposition unless it is downgraded to a glorified streetcar. Which would pretty much be the reverse of the Nose Creek alignment, servicing south of Beddington at the expense of the north. The only way to effectively serve both while keeping the communities on board is substantial grade separation.

[googspecial]

This is how I'd like to see the Green line through Downtown. (With the NW-S line sunk under 8th Ave)




I think a portal could be built, and Rotary Park would probably be one of the best places to do so. Yes, the ground isn't very stable, but I believe it is doable. Cut/Cover through the park to Centre and continue directly underneath it to somewhere between 16 and 20 ave. Get rid of Samis Rd and turn it into a walkway. I always see more people walking up than driving any ways.

A funky curved suspension bridge across the river and over top the lowest part of the Centre St Bridge to continue next to Riverfront at the +30 level.

Similar along the lines of this:


It would stay at the +30 level throughout downtown. Perhaps lower to the +15 level through the Beltline. The elevated line would likely have its supports along a median on 2nd St and 10 Ave.

(1) Eau Claire - Chinatown Station
Curved station/platform as the line turns down 2nd St.

(2) Core Station
As a transfer point between all 3 lines and direct connection to the Core Shopping Centre at the +30 level.

(3) MacLeod Trail/Victoria Park Station
After crossing the rail tracks and turning along 10th Ave, a station in the Beltline before continuing on as the SE line.


These are just my thoughts about it any ways. Likely will never happen

[RicoLance21]

Bus 7959 on Route 3 has the Trouncer system now. Display not working yet. Just a trial run. Female voice.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by googspecial

This is how I'd like to see the Green line through Downtown. (With the NW-S line sunk under 8th Ave)




I think a portal could be built, and Rotary Park would probably be one of the best places to do so. Yes, the ground isn't very stable, but I believe it is doable. Cut/Cover through the park to Centre and continue directly underneath it to somewhere between 16 and 20 ave. Get rid of Samis Rd and turn it into a walkway. I always see more people walking up than driving any ways.

A funky curved suspension bridge across the river and over top the lowest part of the Centre St Bridge to continue next to Riverfront at the +30 level.

Similar along the lines of this:


It would stay at the +30 level throughout downtown. Perhaps lower to the +15 level through the Beltline. The elevated line would likely have its supports along a median on 2nd St and 10 Ave.

(1) Eau Claire - Chinatown Station
Curved station/platform as the line turns down 2nd St.

(2) Core Station
As a transfer point between all 3 lines and direct connection to the Core Shopping Centre at the +30 level.

(3) MacLeod Trail/Victoria Park Station
After crossing the rail tracks and turning along 10th Ave, a station in the Beltline before continuing on as the SE line.


These are just my thoughts about it any ways. Likely will never happen

I imagine Core Station would completely cover 2nd Street. The +15 level over the street would be reconstructed into an elevated concourse with one or two short pedways to Stephen Avenue were there would have escalators to both ground level and underground Red line. Lighting on 2nd Street would be needed 24/7.

As for Eau Claire Station, I think it is better to have the station built over 2nd Street as well--starting south from the 2nd Avenue intersection. The tracks can then have a sharper turn radius at Riverfront Avenue, which means more room for development on that parking lot.

[googspecial]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

I imagine Core Station would completely cover 2nd Street. The +15 level over the street would be reconstructed into an elevated concourse with one or two short pedways to Stephen Avenue were there would have escalators to both ground level and underground Red line. Lighting on 2nd Street would be needed 24/7.

I like this idea actually. The concourse at the +15 level would feel similar to how the Core extends over 4th and 3rd Streets. These are both lighted underneath as well.

[joe498]

City hall braces for extra costs of $5B ring road project

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...sts+ring+road+project/9738554/story.html

Coun. Druh Farrell encouraged senior staff to press the Alberta government to provide a cost-benefit analysis on the ring road — which did not appear to have been recently performed when the Herald inquired in recent months.

She said the $5 billion could likely be better spent on public transit.

“Do they even ask us what our needs are or do they just assume? I think times have changed,” the inner-city councillor said.

[Full Mountain]

Route 2 had a 60' bus on it last night, not sure if this was just a failure replacement or if it's and increase in capacity, 95% of the seats were full and had a few people standing coming out of downtown, would have packed a 40' bus for sure.