Calgary Public Transit II

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Are there reasons why they cannot use the Centre Street bridge at grade, and plunge it below grade right in China town as it exits the bridge? Continue below grade beneath 4th Ave until 10th Ave (tunnel under the tower centre in some fashion). Combines the best of both options, keeps things cheap north of the river, crosses the river on the existing structure, bury on Centre rather than the awkward turn over to 2nd Street. Avoids bridging Prince's Island which would be a terrible shame to one of our best parks. An extra few hundred million to destroy an inner city gem isn't a great way to go.

Personally I prefer the fully underground option, but for an extra 700 million we could get 5-10km of LRT somewhere else (or bury the NW-S line). Much bigger bang for our buck out there.

Does anyone know why they are committed to 2nd Street?

There are greater challenges to burying than the report highlights. Same reason the West leg wasn't buried so as not to disturbe the planetarium and divide up the west end. The soil has major challenges, and with the flooding reality, putting underground will be more complex.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Are there reasons why they cannot use the Centre Street bridge at grade, and plunge it below grade right in China town as it exits the bridge? Continue below grade beneath 4th Ave until 10th Ave (tunnel under the tower centre in some fashion). Combines the best of both options, keeps things cheap north of the river, crosses the river on the existing structure, bury on Centre rather than the awkward turn over to 2nd Street. Avoids bridging Prince's Island which would be a terrible shame to one of our best parks. An extra few hundred million to destroy an inner city gem isn't a great way to go.

Personally I prefer the fully underground option, but for an extra 700 million we could get 5-10km of LRT somewhere else (or bury the NW-S line). Much bigger bang for our buck out there.

Does anyone know why they are committed to 2nd Street?

The tunnel portal in this case should be east/west due to the grading challenges. The portal needs quite a bit of distance before getting low enough for vehicles to pass over. Basically, a tunnel portal going north/south would necessitate the closure of one, if not two cross avenues, as there is not sufficient distance for the train to bury before cars can cross over top. This would mean that likely 4th or 5th avenues (or both) would have to close. That would not be desirable. Going east/west means more space to get underground without closing major streets.

[stophs]

It would be nice to see estimates or at least some acknowledgement of long term cost impacts from the highest up front cost option. I can see a faster service meaning fewer trains purchases, lower maintenance costs, higher use due to a more reliable service etc... We shouldn't be discussing this on upfront costs alone.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

The portal needs quite a bit of distance before getting low enough for vehicles to pass over. Basically, a tunnel portal going north/south would necessitate the closure of one, if not two cross avenues, as there is not sufficient distance for the train to bury before cars can cross over top. This would mean that likely 4th or 5th avenues (or both) would have to close.

Wow! That would be a fail.

[youngregina]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Wow! That would be a fail.

Would be a fail but I don't believe that idea is anywhere in the plans. They definitely wouldn't have to close many cross roads if they went parallel to Centre St, at 2nd St.

[sim]

Originally Posted by stophs

It would be nice to see estimates or at least some acknowledgement of long term cost impacts from the highest up front cost option. I can see a faster service meaning fewer trains purchases, lower maintenance costs, higher use due to a more reliable service etc... We shouldn't be discussing this on upfront costs alone.

Thank you!

Not to mention how terribly a future 8th Ave tunnel would integrate with an elevated line about 25 - 30 m above it. Wicked transfer. Aside from poor connections between LRT, it would integrate terribly with other PT modes, modes in general and the streets.

It'll become exceedingly clear that an elevated guideway is a non-starter (I'm with milomilo) once someone actually attempts to layout a functioning station on 2nd Street. Go ahead and superimpose Sunalta for an idea and remembering that at least one of them will likely be the single busiest station in the system. I have no doubt it is technically possible, but it won't be very desirable from any street users point of view.

Plus, if "we're" so worried about lane removal on Centre with that option, does an elevated option get a free pass on the lanes it will likely need for piers? Or should that come at the detriment of pedestrian space - because.. cars!

I'm not convinced that spending less on a more effective downtown portion is worth it so we can get more track kilometres. Transit systems tend to operate more efficiently under economies of scope, not scale, but let's leave it at that.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by sim

Thank you!

Not to mention how terribly a future 8th Ave tunnel would integrate with an elevated line about 25 - 30 m above it. Wicked transfer. Aside from poor connections between LRT, it would integrate terribly with other PT modes, modes in general and the streets.

Now that's just as silly You would similar vertical distance between transfers between the 7th ave and a green line subway going underneath the 8th ave subway. The plan is still to have NE-W stay at grade on 7th even with a subway.

[Socguy]

Underground is the way to go. Sure it's the most expensive but the benefits are there. With a line a heavily used as this one is sure to be, we can't afford the constant delays of cars, pedestrians and traffic signals interfering with service.

I still have an open mind when it comes to the elevated option, however, it's starting to sound like that will come with it's own set of issues and not enough cost savings to justify that option.

Finally, I'm against taking away lanes on center street. It may be that cars are declining as a mode of transport in and out of the core but you still have to consider overall growth of the core. If we reduce lanes and simultaneously increase people/jobs in the core that's a double whammy. The city should continue to use parking restrictions to control cars and not contribute to gridlock for those people who've already chosen to pay the fee to park downtown.

[stophs]

Originally Posted by sim

I'm not convinced that spending less on a more effective downtown portion is worth it so we can get more track kilometres. Transit systems tend to operate more efficiently under economies of scope, not scale, but let's leave it at that.

I agree. More kilometres of track does not mean it's an effective method of moving people around. I also think the focus of more kilometres has contributed in some ways to encouraging sprawl in the city. The expectation is that the train will be built to different parts of the city no matter the distance. On that note, different fares for different zones needs to be implemented and let's get rid of the honour system on new lines if we build it right this time.

[sim]

Originally Posted by andasen

Now that's just as silly You would similar vertical distance between transfers between the 7th ave and a green line subway going underneath the 8th ave subway. The plan is still to have NE-W stay at grade on 7th even with a subway.

I'm aware of the plan. So, keeping it simple here, about 1 floor is the same as about 3 floors? I'm just going to hope that this kind of thinking does not pervade through further stages of planning and design. It is precisely these marginal differences that compound to differentiate between a system designed for a user and a system designed to look good on a transit map. A user won't be carrying around their ruler. There's something to be said for utility theory, given that it actually accounts for preferences and not what engineers and planners put on a piece of paper.

[PPAR]

Elevated Ctrain downtown would be a disaster. It would absolutely destroy the street underneath. This lesson was learned in Seattle with the monorail they constructed between downtown and the space needle: what had been pleasant streets at the edge of downtown became dark and unwelcoming. The retail along them was lost after a couple years.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by sim

I'm aware of the plan. So, keeping it simple here, about 1 floor is the same as about 3 floors? I'm just going to hope that this kind of thinking does not pervade through further stages of planning and design. It is precisely these marginal differences that compound to differentiate between a system designed for a user and a system designed to look good on a transit map. A user won't be carrying around their ruler. There's something to be said for utility theory, given that it actually accounts for preferences and not what engineers and planners put on a piece of paper.

I'm trying to understand what you are arguing and am failing. I'm not sold on the elevated option but I am perfectly willing to entertain it and there is not solid reason at this stage to discount it. Depending on the geological considerations we may find ourselves with a situation where the lower N-S subway needs to be deeper and thus longer transfer than it would be for an elevated option whose height will also be highly dependent on which street it runs down). We need more information.

[sim]

Originally Posted by andasen

I'm trying to understand what you are arguing and am failing. I'm not sold on the elevated option but I am perfectly willing to entertain it and there is not solid reason at this stage to discount it. Depending on the geological considerations we may find ourselves with a situation where the lower N-S subway needs to be deeper and thus longer transfer than it would be for an elevated option whose height will also be highly dependent on which street it runs down). We need more information.

Yup, in that light, which may be a possibility and considering that something a little more solid is at least 20 m below the till, then my point about poor integration with other modes becomes more moot. This [at what depth it is located] will probably depend on tunneling method in the event that that is the chosen option. I'm going to go ahead and hope that ultimate tunneling method will be driven by aiming to create a system that is well integrated. In any case, assuming that both 2 lines are eventually underground, and that there is decent foresight in planning their interaction, they'd still be directly overlaying each other whether at 30 - 18 m below ground or 2 - 12. Having one line at + 15 m and the other at 2-12 m underground will always imply a greater vertical separation (the 7th Ave connection remaining similar in either case (well +/- about a floor)). I can personally think of an interesting example where I know that transferring at such a location was more onerous, and further down the line you could opt for making a much easier underground transfer to reach the same destination.

It's not really that I'm arguing - I'm not too hesitant to portray it as factual. Even given the paragraph above, it isn't a desirable option. Outside of the Chicago example, essentially everything the report (or in the world really) does not really compare to the context of a standard gauge, dual track carrying elevated guideway going through the heart of a CBD / Downtown core with relatively narrow street ROWs. I'm not sure that we want some concrete monoliths hanging about, no matter how many architects we throw at it, among the other disbenefits - exposure (people and track), noise, space requirements, less horizontal alignment flexibility..

I should add that evaluating this option further and leaving it on the table is probably a good idea, if only to show due process and serve as the benchmark for least desirable.

[joe498]

Quite a lot of talk in the last two days regarding the green line. Glad it is getting some press/discussion time.

[mellbell416]

Would be even better if we were making actual physical progress on the freaking thing! City is growing like mad and things progress at a snail's pace...and we could blame it on the recent drop in oil price, but that will only delay an already sluggish project.

[lineman]

You can also bet that in 20-30 years, it will cost much more than $1.8 billion.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by lineman

You can also bet that in 20-30 years, it will cost much more than $1.8 billion.

I just can't believe that my mom who is 55 and commutes downtown from Quarry Park right now will be 80+ before this thing is built at current progress. Better yet developers in Quarry play it out like the train will be built soon.

Is it unreasonable to expect that those who are taxpayers right now and still have 10-15 years of working left in them to ever get to use this thing?

Mindblowing.

If it makes anyone feel any better NASA plans to have a manned mission to mars in 15 years.

[*Stardust*]

In 20-30 years we might not even get the option we want (underground tunnel). So depressing

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

In 20-30 years we might not even get the option we want (underground tunnel). So depressing

That is not the option "we" want, though it might be the option "you" want.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That is not the option "we" want, though it might be the option "you" want.

You don't represent "we" on this forum, I can say that for sure. Does anybody here actually like you here?

Although you are right. It is me that wants that, but it's also the coolest option available.