Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[RyLucky]

Does the new interchange at Glenmore save ROW for the line?

Free-flowing traffic coming to Glenmore Trail S.E.

It seems like they've made a spot for it just to the right of old rail line:

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Does the new interchange at Glenmore save ROW for the line?

Free-flowing traffic coming to Glenmore Trail S.E.

It seems like they've made a spot for it just to the right of old rail line:

Yeah, absolutely that's in the plans. Has been for years, whether it's a transitway or an LRT. I suppose this is the bright side of planning years in advance of projects; these sorts of cheap improvements are made when they can be made. (The downside is that projects that have had a line drawn on the map the longest seem to be the most inevitable, regardless of whether they are actually warranted or whether priorities have changed in the intervening decades.)

[evolv]

Does anyone know if the tunnel options would utilize a TBM or would it be cut and cover?

[MalcolmTucker]

Some images from reports to help provide some facts retunnels and elevated:





All from the City (can't figure out to dynamic report urls)

[suburbia]

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?

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.

Yeah - and any future 8th ave subway would therefore need to be even lower.

Oh - and let's not forget the fact that the line would be down virtually every time there was rain. Definitely yesterday and today.

For those who griped about shadows, we're talking about a single elevated station. People are sounding like the ridiculous NIMBYs who were complaining about the elevated section in sunalta.

[nick.flood]

delete

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by nick.flood

Indeed. The same way all the underground parkades close during heavy rain.

At least in the west end of downtown.

[nick.flood]

delete

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

All from the City (can't figure out to dynamic report urls)

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/North-Central-LRT-Downtown-Study.pdf

[The Fisher Account]

Having talked to some individuals involved with this, it's almost certain that this will be done above ground given the geology of the area

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Having talked to some individuals involved with this, it's almost certain that this will be done above ground given the geology of the area

Above ground as in elevated, or at grade?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

Having talked to some individuals involved with this, it's almost certain that this will be done above ground given the geology of the area

Great news!

Originally Posted by milomilo

Above ground as in elevated, or at grade?

That discounts the overly expensive (and completely disjointed from the street) option D. It doesn't not speak to surface or elevated at all.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Yeah - and any future 8th ave subway would therefore need to be even lower.

Oh - and let's not forget the fact that the line would be down virtually every time there was rain. Definitely yesterday and today.

For those who griped about shadows, we're talking about a single elevated station. People are sounding like the ridiculous NIMBYs who were complaining about the elevated section in sunalta.

The whole of 2nd Street downtown will be in the shadow of the elevated track most of the time.

What about all the many underground sections we have already, are they shut down every time there is rain? What about the 8th ave subway?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The whole of 2nd Street downtown will be in the shadow of the elevated track most of the time.

What about all the many underground sections we have already, are they shut down every time there is rain? What about the 8th ave subway?

Not all underground sections would be exposed to equal risk, and you'll note that even option C has one underground station, but it is at much higher elevation, not in the vicinity of the flood fringe, and not in the unstable geology of the downtown core.

This is no different than the underground parkades in the city. Only the ones in certain areas of downtown continuously and regularly flood, and end up costing "someone" a lot of money.

Anyway - my point has already been proven by the experts' assessment that the geology of the core (read, layers of materials under the ground and location relative to water) will deem option D not a possibility. I'm amazed people are still arguing for it in light of this. If I start saying the earth is round will you start arguing that it is flat, just because I cannot be correct?

[sim]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Not all underground sections would be exposed to equal risk, and you'll note that even option C has one underground station, but it is at much higher elevation, not in the vicinity of the flood fringe, and not in the unstable geology of the downtown core.

This is no different than the underground parkades in the city. Only the ones in certain areas of downtown continuously and regularly flood, and end up costing "someone" a lot of money.

Anyway - my point has already been proven by the experts' assessment that the geology of the core (read, layers of materials under the ground and location relative to water) will deem option D not a possibility. I'm amazed people are still arguing for it in light of this. If I start saying the earth is round will you start arguing that it is flat, just because I cannot be correct?

I'm amazed you keep babbling on as though you have an actual clue. You aren't correct, because you literally cannot be correct in this case.

The report clearly acknowledges the very preliminary nature of the "analysis" and if you had actually read it, it itself states the restrictive nature of an elevated track.

You need only go as far as Vancouver for a lesson in boring in challenging geology.

I won't bother getting into why it will look a lot more complicated than the simple diagram posted above, when it's actually attempted to put an effective station into an elevated alignment. My point here is not to say which is better technically anyway, only that you purporting your voice as somehow authoritarian on the matter is misplaced and grating. Par for the course I suppose.

[Fuzz]

...Not to mention if Suburbia bothered to read the caption, and look at the image he would see 2nd street is in the blue area, not the difficult red/orange/yellow area.

Maybe we should just route the green line through Firepark though and skip downtown, since the stadium development is going there anyway. Might as well be where the action is.

amidoingitright?

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Great news!



That discounts the overly expensive (and completely disjointed from the street) option D. It doesn't not speak to surface or elevated at all.

You do realize that underground rail can very easily be connected to above-ground structures, right? Here in Shanghai there are many Metro stations that have direct underground access to major retail complexes, and I don't see why they couldn't do that in Calgary. Underground rail is hardly 'disjointed'.

[nick.flood]

delete

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

You do realize that underground rail can very easily be connected to above-ground structures, right? Here in Shanghai there are many Metro stations that have direct underground access to major retail complexes, and I don't see why they couldn't do that in Calgary. Underground rail is hardly 'disjointed'.

That's a fair point and perhaps overtime a network that competed against the +15 network could be created below grade, but at the 9th avenue and centre street north station that is 13 floors below grade, what are you going to connect to? A massage parlour?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's a fair point and perhaps overtime a network that competed against the +15 network could be created, but at the 9th avenue and centre street north station that is 13 floors below grade, what are you going to connect to? A massage parlour?

That's why most people agree option B is the best - cheaper and shallow underground stations.