Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, the less dirt you have above a tunnel, the more structural strength has to be gained from the tunnel materials itself, not from adapting the ground to use as structure. Plus there would be codes on crossing underneath rivers - wouldn't want the tunnel daylighted during a flood event.

Err, so a tunnel with no soil above it needs to be structurally stronger than one with soil above it....? The New Austrian Method acknowledges and exploits the inherent strength of soils to reduce the structural size of tunnels, but that does not necessarily mean it can be made less structurally strong as you go deeper (reducing the liner size), to a comparative shallower tunnel. Unfortunately I forget most of my soils mechanics and tunneling stuff from Uni, but that much I retained.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by sim

I'd go with Option B or Option D.

Option C is a non-starter. Option A would aid in replicating past mistakes - in that the travel time through the centre would reduce the lines diametrical efficacy, i.e. for trips going through the centre, not to the centre.

Although I'm for Option B or D, I predict and believe what will happen, assuming all the funding does come together, is that when actually looked at a bit closer, Option B will look a lot more challenging and would have actual costs that are much closer to those of D.

The large difference in costs appear to be because D would be bored and B would be cut & cover - otherwise the cost difference doesn't make sense to begin with.

While I don't doubt it can be technically done, I'd be curious as to how it is thought that the savings between the two methods can be realized, given the myriad of operational and logistical challenges presented by cut & cover.

So we are going to go under Macleod, go under CP, go under a parkade entrance, go under the current LRT line supposedly with, remove/relocate countless utilities, remove ~ 5 - 10 high value properties on a bluff and trench into something that will take some considerable stabilization, and disturb/disrupt businesses - some of which likely have disproportionate influence, all with cut and cover..? Or tunnel-jacking? The Evergreen Line jack (posted above) had considerably less constraints than any of the above would.

Well, good luck. Even if all that can directly save some of the $500 million, it may not be worth the headache and likely community opposition.

And that it needs to go 20 metres under the river in Option D, I'm sure can be reevaluated as well. Likely trying to stick to bedrock to avoid boring in very wet till, but if my limited understanding of tunnel methods and soil mechanics serves me correctly, there are methods to address this - freezing it for example.

Ultimately, I think the next step would be to take those two options and look at them in detail.

Great points.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Staying underground means they don't need to find space for a tunnel portal. Not counting the land needed underground (whether sites not on the roadway sterilized from building, or land acquired to retain enough road lanes) for the portal approach, this tunnel to elevated section in Vancouver requires 180 meters.


A tunnel portal where you are already planning to take part of the ROW for the LRT doesn't take any additional land.

Good point. (This was always a bother on SimCity)

[red_179]

I like Option C the best. I like that it elevates earlier on 10th Ave (1st St SE), than where the tunnel would begin (1st St SW). A few extra blocks not being at grade will be helpful for traffic.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by shogged

option c would be my first choice. I think the low floor aspect of the line would be better suited to an elevated design vs a subway. the first station under the hill in option D at 13 stories underground seems insane.

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I think an interesting side effect of the elevated option is that the +15 Network will be increasingly perceived as "public" space. Currently, it is a little uninviting to those who don't have business walking through downtown office towers. If an elevated train was made to inferface beautifully with the +15s.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

After looking at the options and checking out the affected areas on street view, what I fail to understand is why they all involve a tunneled section on centre st before 20th ave. Why not have it elevated?? I mean, it's not like it's going to hurt the "ambiance" of the street or anything.

Out of the existing choices (as someone who's admittedly not a Calgary expert) I'd go with C.

Originally Posted by red_179

I like Option C the best. I like that it elevates earlier on 10th Ave (1st St SE), than where the tunnel would begin (1st St SW). A few extra blocks not being at grade will be helpful for traffic.

Looks like my choice has some momentum here. I've been advocating for an elevated downtown section for a very long time now - from well before the options came out. My thought process had always included what RyLucky is now cluing into, which is that this will enhance the +15 network (while also not being so far away from the street as the burial option would take it). I'd bet the police would prefer the non-buried option also.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I'm probably dreaming in technicolour but............if they decide to go under the Bow then the tunnel will have to be very deep. Is it therefore possible that at roughly Stephen Ave they have the deep Green Line station that connects with a on top and shallower east/west tunnel for the other system lines?

That has always been in my mind likely how the station would end up. Construction may be a bit more complicated as you'd have to build the 8th Avenue subway component at least in some form at the time (possibly similar to how the station below city hall/olympic plaza exists), but with the length of the north-south blocks if you put a station at 7th avenue it could quite feasibly stretch to 8th avenue. Then you could have the north station head adjacent to the end of the existing 3rd Street Station and the south station head connect to the 8th avenue subway and then up to Stephen ave.

[nick.flood]

delete

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Looks like my choice has some momentum here. I've been advocating for an elevated downtown section for a very long time now - from well before the options came out. My thought process had always included what RyLucky is now cluing into, which is that this will enhance the +15 network (while also not being so far away from the street as the burial option would take it). I'd bet the police would prefer the non-buried option also.

The major downside of option C is that in a city that is trying to clean up its underpasses, this option will essentially create an underpass for the entire span of 2nd st and most of 10th ave. Certainly, it won't be as dimly lit and poor ventilated as the CPR underpass, but without a doubt option C would degrade the nature of the streetscape.

I know proponents of option C will try to sell it as though it were the Loop in Chicago, but 2nd st is much narrower and concrete would likely be used instead of steel in Calgary. While Chicago has a lot of great things about to do in it, strolling under the elevated rail is anything but pleasant. Could there be a way to design around these problems? Maybe. If the prices are comparable, option B is probably preferable.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I know proponents of option C will try to sell it as though it were the Loop in Chicago, but 2nd st is much narrower and concrete would likely be used instead of steel in Calgary. While Chicago has a lot of great things about to do in it, strolling under the elevated rail is anything but pleasant. Could there be a way to design around these problems? Maybe. If the prices are comparable, option B is probably preferable.

I have yet to walk under elevated rail in any city (thinking of experiences in Vancouver, Seattle and Chicago) without being uncomfortable with the surroundings. Elevated rail ruins streetscapes in my experience and would be a disaster in downtown Calgary where the street ambiance is improving but continues to be suboptimal.

[ClaytonA]

Interesting... from what I understand Ottawa has gotten commitments from both federal NDP and Liberals for their new LRT funding.

Watching the CTV video of the Calgary Confederation new conference, videos 2 and 4 specifically 4 at about 5 minutes ( http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/liberal-leader-speaks-to-candidates-and-supporters-in-calgary-1.2500331 ), he doesn't answer the question of whether the Liberals would fund the Green Line.

Their platform does include eliminating the P3 requirement, presumably making it easier to qualify for funds, and increasing public transportation funding with a strategy within two years of being elected. I expected a clear answer, ah politics.

[ClaytonA]

Found this table in the publicly accessible January 2005 SELRT Future projections study of preliminary ridership estimates. It's dated now, but with Lynnwood, Ogden, and South Hill being appreciable, it's not as bad as the criticism that it needs to reach Douglasdale/McKenzie Town before significant ridership. Note that 1.25 million population was supposed to be reached in 2033, not 2016-7ish.

When the Southeast area is fully developed beyond the 1.25 million population horizon, daily ridership will increase by about 10 percent above the levels shown below.

Table 4
Projected LRT Weekday Ridership at Southeast LRT Stations

Station Projected Ridership with Current Land Use
Ramsay / Inglewood 1,300
Crossroads 600
Highfield 1,300
Lynnview 5,400
Ogden 1,900
South Hill 5,000
Douglasdale 8,300
Shepard 200
Prestwick 6,600
McKenzie 3,400
Auburn 7,700
SE Hospital 3,100
Seton 1,400
Total 46,200

Projected Ridership with Station Area TOD
Ramsay / Inglewood 2,700
Crossroads 1,600
Highfield 1,600
Lynnview 5,400
Ogden 3,200
South Hill 6,600
Douglasdale 8,500
Shepard 600
Prestwick 6,600
McKenzie 3,500
Auburn 9,000
SE Hospital 4,400
Seton 2,700
Total 56,200

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by PPAR

I have yet to walk under elevated rail in any city (thinking of experiences in Vancouver, Seattle and Chicago) without being uncomfortable with the surroundings. Elevated rail ruins streetscapes in my experience and would be a disaster in downtown Calgary where the street ambiance is improving but continues to be suboptimal.

I agree from an aesthetic perspective; I just feel like because it's only a single street and has several major advantages such as flood resistance, cost, connections to +15, and ease of access, that it's still a viable compromise.

Also, I do think it's possible to make such structures more attractive than many of the common examples. The Paris and Copenhagen metros look nicer than elevated parts of Chicago L or the Skytrain system.

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Found this table in the publicly accessible January 2005 SELRT Future projections study of preliminary ridership estimates. It's dated now, but with Lynnwood, Ogden, and South Hill being appreciable, it's not as bad as the criticism that it needs to reach Douglasdale/McKenzie Town before significant ridership. Note that 1.25 million population was supposed to be reached in 2033, not 2016-7ish.

I can't see there being 5400 people living in the Lynnwood area. Maybe this study is so old that is based on the pre-evacuation population?

[MalcolmTucker]

Maybe Lynnview had a larger park and ride lot in the 2005 study? Probably a transfer point for buses serving Foothills Industrial, and Erin Woods and Dover — it is a six bay bus loop sketched there.

Source: http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/...ine/green-line-functional-study-2010.pdf

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Found this table in the publicly accessible January 2005 SELRT Future projections study of preliminary ridership estimates. It's dated now, but with Lynnwood, Ogden, and South Hill being appreciable, it's not as bad as the criticism that it needs to reach Douglasdale/McKenzie Town before significant ridership. Note that 1.25 million population was supposed to be reached in 2033, not 2016-7ish.

Originally Posted by Wentworth

I can't see there being 5400 people living in the Lynnwood area. Maybe this study is so old that is based on the pre-evacuation population?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Maybe Lynnview had a larger park and ride lot in the 2005 study? Probably a transfer point for buses serving Foothills Industrial, and Erin Woods and Dover — it is a six bay bus loop sketched there.

Ridership numbers are trips, not people, so for a commute you would count two trips. So technically the 5400 for Lynnwood would account for 2700 riders.

I agree Lynnwood's numbers are way off. 5400 trips in a community (technically part of Ogden) with a total population of 8600? No one from anywhere else would use this station other than those from Ogden or Lynnwood who are closer to this station than Ogden station, or who want to drive. I have no idea why the park and ride is so large. Park and rides work for origin stations, not destination stations, which this seems to be more of. A 200 stall park and ride just for the residents of Ogden/Lynnwood? That seems a bit much.

While there will be some trips from workers in Valleyfield etc, industrial demand for transit is low, especially when they have to make a transfer.

[MalcolmTucker]

There are communities to the north that would use Lynnwood as a logical transfer point.


2011 - Population density (persons per square kilometre)
Source: http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/GeoSearch2...2.gif&lang=E&boundaryType=ct&switchTab=0

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Found this table in the publicly accessible January 2005 SELRT Future projections study of preliminary ridership estimates. It's dated now, but with Lynnwood, Ogden, and South Hill being appreciable, it's not as bad as the criticism that it needs to reach Douglasdale/McKenzie Town before significant ridership. Note that 1.25 million population was supposed to be reached in 2033, not 2016-7ish.

It's not as bad? It's worse. I dug up the 2005 platform counts by line. Only one of the 13 stops was even above average; 6 of the 10 lowest ridership stops are on the SE.


Link for full size

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah. The original projections for the SE line had lower ridership than the West line.

Doesn't really matter now. Not like somewhat poor relative performance is going to delay the next big investment - after the Green Line there is only really the downtown subway left besides incremental expansions and whatever form the University-Foothills-Westbrook connector takes.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

Elevated would need to be +30, and while you'd have more use of the +15 to get up to it.

To normalize to the same unit of measure, the elevated station in option C would be 15 meters above ground, so yes, closer to what we normally term +30. Consider that at 15 meters up, it is closer to the surface than all four of the buried stations required in option D. Regarding your comment about it being disconnected from the "+15" network as it would be closer to a "+30' - IE 2nd floor up as opposed to one floor up) the reality is it is a single elevated stop at 7th avenue at 2nd st SW, and would directly integrate into the existing retail "+30" network right there, directly integrated into the CORE and devonion gardens. What you're spin-doctoring into a massive alienation and disjoint from where people are (in favour of keeping it among the fossils) is really a misplaced argument. I think it is a mindblowing option to have an elevated station that feeds directly into the gardens there and the core shopping centre.

Here's the spot folks:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.046721,-1...w%3D100.61637%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

Rant: I'm consistently surprised by how uneducated people are about the specifics of our city and basic mathematics. No wonder we are known for our NIMBYs. Amazing that people want to pay $100's of millions more to create a system that is more disjoint from the surface, while losing the opportunity of integrating with a major retail and tourist spot in the downtown. Makes zero sense.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It's not as bad? It's worse. I dug up the 2005 platform counts by line. Only one of the 13 stops was even above average; 6 of the 10 lowest ridership stops are on the SE.


Link for full size

That's an interesting image. Curious what it looks like 10 years down, but agree with the comments about current SE demand still lagging.

I suspect the NE numbers, cumulatively, will have increased. Interesting to note how much remaining bandwidth there is at Barlow/MaxBell, which is the opportunity for the new arena/sports and entertainment complex at Firepark.