Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[simster3]

Wouldn't option C have to be at the +45 level. Entering DT from the south would require it to go over the parkade at Gulf and then also over the +30 between 7th and 8th Avenues on 2nd street. Plus CP would probably require at least a +30 level to cross their tracks. I think B is the only real option to consider. The bridge and tunnel portal could be so awesome.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by simster3

Wouldn't option C have to be at the +45 level. Entering DT from the south would require it to go over the parkade at Gulf and then also over the +30 between 7th and 8th Avenues on 2nd street. Plus CP would probably require at least a +30 level to cross their tracks. I think B is the only real option to consider. The bridge and tunnel portal could be so awesome.

When we say +15 and +30, those are not actual measurements, rather, they correlate to a massively oversized floor about the street, and then a second floor, which may not be as large as the first, etcetere. That's why I reverted to speaking normalized measures. The station at 7th avenue and the core would be 15 meters above the ground. Period. Not sure if that would be the +30 or not, but I suspect (as you do) that it might actually be the garden level.

What we do know is:
- the single elevated station with option C would be less distance from the street than all four of the buried levels in option C
- the elevated station with option C can most definitely be integrated into the elevated retail network in the downtown, specifically devonion gardens and the Core shopping mall
- that option D places some stations ridiculously low, like the one station that is 50 meters underground (at a point there there will not be a cross-over station I might add)
- that option C is hundreds of millions less than option D

All of the above points are major points. It is not like a bullet point highlighting a colour preference. Additionally, I don't think people are getting the importance and magnitude of the fourth point. It will have to be shared in real terms / real opportunity costs. So as an example, it would be like build out the entire green line with option C, or have option D and only get to Quarry Park on the SE leg. The price difference is of that type of magnitude. I think people are making choices as if money grows on trees.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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.

Arena at Firepark? I hadn't heard

I'm not surprised that Firepark hasn't been built up. Memorial creates a wall to the south and the area is absolutely barren with little greenery, and packed with industrial and convoluted road networks in every direction. Why you continue to promote that wasteland is beyond me. With areas like East Village, Westbrook, and now Northland being developed right now and in the near future, I honestly can't see Firepark being touched within the next 15-20 years. Get off that train, chief.

Originally Posted by simster3

Wouldn't option C have to be at the +45 level. Entering DT from the south would require it to go over the parkade at Gulf and then also over the +30 between 7th and 8th Avenues on 2nd street. Plus CP would probably require at least a +30 level to cross their tracks. I think B is the only real option to consider. The bridge and tunnel portal could be so awesome.

Yeah there would definitely be a +30 requirement for going over the CPR tracks. Anyways, integration with the CORE at a +30 level is a worthless single benefit to raised tracks when considering the previously stated, well-put comments about destroying the streetscape beneath.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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

It's hard to imagine many people from Dover driving to Lynnwood to ride the train to downtown. First, how many of them work downtown? Second, how many of those that do are going to drive to a park in ride? Third, of those who take the bus to the train isn't the 305 on 17th ave much closer for them?

[nick.flood]

delete

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

It's hard to imagine many people from Dover driving to Lynnwood to ride the train to downtown. First, how many of them work downtown? Second, how many of those that do are going to drive to a park in ride? Third, of those who take the bus to the train isn't the 305 on 17th ave much closer for them?

Total conjecture but the study was from before the BRT was planned, and probably just drew catchment areas and used a universal transform on commuting patterns due to a shift from being a non-lrt area to a lrt area, with drop offs increasing based on distance from the stations, with some form of accounting for the existing dependent transit riders.

From an undergrad course that examined modeling for transport, the entire field seemed filled with assumptions - though can't fault the models for being pretty bang on with the West Line.

[nick.flood]

delete

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Definitely option D. We need to start building like a city of 2 million and stop building like a city of 700 000. Build it right the first time instead of coming back to fix it in 40 years.

The one concern I have with option D is how far underground the stations are. How long does it take to get people up to the surface from that depth? Does that extra travel time take something away from the usefulness?

For example, we are talking about 13-15 stories underground. Assuming we are using escalators and are talking about a 15-20 second travel time per story, that mean 3-5 minutes in travel time. Now take somebody who wants to go just one stop, from 8th ave to 16th ave; it would take just as long to take the train between those two stops as it would to walk. And that is assuming not having to wait more than a minute for the train.

I'd flip your argument around on you. Part of the problem with the 1980s design of the C-Train is the issue where the train doesn't actually go anywhere, it just takes you kind of close to where you are going. For example Chinook is a 7 minute walk, Saddledome is 8 minutes. There are others. I just don't see the benefit of adding extra time to walk out of the station; just to make it a little more underground. Add in the extra construction costs, and it makes D seem less of an option.

[nick.flood]

delete

[McMurph]

The elevated option would be tolerable only if they could find away to run it through the existing plus 15 system. Life should be on the street. Utilities should be under it. Save the sky for buildings and birds.

[Fuzz]

Given the 9th st station probably won't be very busy, they could do elevators like some deep subway stations.

[MasterG]

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

Is there any data published of current ridership by station? Something a bit more updated than these projections.

[ClaytonA]

OK - didn't understand the context of the ridership per station on the other lines.

Also there is no way the actual Option D will require being that far below the Bow River.
This is admin, or others directing the decision-makers away from building something that the City hasn't built before, a long underground section. The link for the presentation in February or January SPC Transportation IIRC that I found earlier isn't working for me here, but to paraphrase the presenter: the "right option" will be chosen. Presumably as much surface streetcar as possible. Whether that's the best economically, socially, or environmentally (enough of an option to Deerfoot to get people out of cars), I hopefully haven't pretended to know. Personally from what I remember, the more grade seperation the better = quality. We get what we pay for.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

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.

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.

Agree with these. I've said it before - elevated downtown is a complete non starter, and was clearly only considered so the city could say they did and ruled it out. There's no way to it wouldn't completely ruin the street below.

B all the way!

[nick.flood]

delete

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

But how cool would it be to connect the station to Devonian Gardens?

No doubt that would be cool, as would the stations connecting into office buildings. Not cool having an entire street doomed to darkness for eternity though.

Has anyone advocating option C wondered if there is a reason Vancouver's Skytrain is elevated almost everywhere except downtown?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

When we say +15 and +30, those are not actual measurements, rather, they correlate to a massively oversized floor about the street, and then a second floor, which may not be as large as the first, etcetere. That's why I reverted to speaking normalized measures. The station at 7th avenue and the core would be 15 meters above the ground. Period. Not sure if that would be the +30 or not, but I suspect (as you do) that it might actually be the garden level.

What we do know is:
- the single elevated station with option C would be less distance from the street than all four of the buried levels in option C
- the elevated station with option C can most definitely be integrated into the elevated retail network in the downtown, specifically devonion gardens and the Core shopping mall
- that option D places some stations ridiculously low, like the one station that is 50 meters underground (at a point there there will not be a cross-over station I might add)
- that option C is hundreds of millions less than option D

All of the above points are major points. It is not like a bullet point highlighting a colour preference. Additionally, I don't think people are getting the importance and magnitude of the fourth point. It will have to be shared in real terms / real opportunity costs. So as an example, it would be like build out the entire green line with option C, or have option D and only get to Quarry Park on the SE leg. The price difference is of that type of magnitude. I think people are making choices as if money grows on trees.

If you really want to argue for option C, you have to steal votes from option B, not D.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The one concern I have with option D is how far underground the stations are. How long does it take to get people up to the surface from that depth? Does that extra travel time take something away from the usefulness?

So say we all.

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

OK - didn't understand the context of the ridership per station on the other lines.

Also there is no way the actual Option D will require being that far below the Bow River.
This is admin, or others directing the decision-makers away from building something that the City hasn't built before, a long underground section. The link for the presentation in February or January SPC Transportation IIRC that I found earlier isn't working for me here, but to paraphrase the presenter: the "right option" will be chosen. Presumably as much surface streetcar as possible. Whether that's the best economically, socially, or environmentally (enough of an option to Deerfoot to get people out of cars), I hopefully haven't pretended to know. Personally from what I remember, the more grade seperation the better = quality. We get what we pay for.

The bolded part is my main issue now. I feel like I can't make an informed decision until I have a better understanding of why it must be so deep and the costs of various methods to solve this problem. Even the Union Cemetery Tunnel (by Erlton) goes below the water table. Is there not some way to seal a tunnel? Also, seeing as how we are going with new low-floor stock, is there not some option that minimizes train height?

[RyLucky]

(duplicate)

[RyLucky]

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

In fairness, all the other lines started with lower ridership that has grown over the years.

More recent stats: In 2012/13 CTrain daily ridership at McKnight-Westwinds, Martindale and Saddletowne Station increased by 70% with approximately 9,300 passengers a weekday compared to CTrain ridership before
the extension. Other than that, there's been little published since WLRT and Tuscany opened.