Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by suburbia

What 8th avenue subway? I didn't know there were trains running down there?

Never gonna happen either.

You don't know about 8 Avenue Subway? It's the plan to put the Red Line underground at Stephen Avenue in the future as 7 Avenue gets fuller

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by holhm22

You don't know about 8 Avenue Subway? It's the plan to put the Red Line underground at Stephen Avenue in the future as 7 Avenue gets fuller

I recognize that 30 years or so ago there was a plan to for a future tunnel, however, much has changed since then. People are talking as if there are already trains there, but there are not, and it will be many, many decades before it happens if ever. The move to four car trains will drastically change the landscape, as will the next phase of transit, which will be more to do with cross-town mechanisms as opposed to clogging the DT further as a transfer point. City design has also taken a leap, and there is now more than ever a move to keep thinks on the surface (the low height train car trend continues). Lastly, core samples from years subsequent to the original plan and the massive flooding potentials of the inner city, make the original thinking somewhat obsolete and requiring vigorous review.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Begs the question as to why there is even a need for a station there, and why people would travel 164 feet underground to get on a train to get them down the hill to downtown (where everyone is headed).

it's for Calgary's newest TOD, Bunker Hill!!

16 floors of underground reinforced concrete paradise, perfect for the paranoid, forward thinking preppers, mars dreamers, vampires, albinos and cold war nostalgists

after all, why should all high density developments be above ground? we're ignoring a full direction we can build out in and stop the sprawl!

[technomad]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Has there been a decision on the 8th avenue tunnel? I don't recall there having been one. I don't think it has happened and don't think it will. If it happens, will be at least 30 years into the future if ever, given the added capacity 4 car trains provide. As such, the major transfer will be between the green line and the two 7th avenue surface lines. Again, I don't think 8th avenue tunnel will ever happen.

And remember, people want that increased distance between the two existing surface lines and the green line, at a massive additional cost!

insert long list of historic 'we'll never/need/use <object>' quotes.. remember what folks used to say about flying

growth will make 8 av subway an eventuality, might as well do both tunnels at once and get the last big disruptive work for the core over and done with

with different long term planning, elevated could have been an interesting option. unfortunately, library is now in the way, but red line could have gone elevated too, right above the surface line..

cool idea, but subways have been on the books for a long time, and is even already (very) partially built. Calgary has done well with sticking to long term plans, look up north to see what happens when you change your mind every few years...

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I recognize that 30 years or so ago there was a plan to for a future tunnel, however, much has changed since then. People are talking as if there are already trains there, but there are not, and it will be many, many decades before it happens if ever. The move to four car trains will drastically change the landscape, as will the next phase of transit, which will be more to do with cross-town mechanisms as opposed to clogging the DT further as a transfer point. City design has also taken a leap, and there is now more than ever a move to keep thinks on the surface (the low height train car trend continues). Lastly, core samples from years subsequent to the original plan and the massive flooding potentials of the inner city, make the original thinking somewhat obsolete and requiring vigorous review.

It's true that just because we have 150 m of existing tunnel under 8th Ave doesn't mean we have to use this option, and as always I appreciate your out-of-the-box thinking.

Keep reading. There are a few major cons that detract from the notion of surface rail on Stephen Ave:

1. Block lengths impose a 4-car limit (essentially already at max capacity)
2. Multiple E-W Avenues in the west end would potentially be blocked at the same time too
3. We'd still have to connect the SLRT to your surface corridor
4. Stephen Ave would never again look like this
5. Speeds would be much slower, causing it to take 10-15 minutes longer to cross DT than subway

201 will stay where it is for as long as possible, but the time is quickly approaching when 4-car capacity will be maxed. As for geological data, be patient. Nothing is impossible or too difficult. There are dozens of metros that operate below the watertable (including parts of our own). There are solutions to every problem, they just have varying costs and specifications. Constructing an 8th Ave subway is as straightforward as they come and will 100% be cut and cover. Greenline options B, C, and D all could potentially require tunnel boring, and transporting equipment and expertise here will be the largest portion of the cost.

One thing is for sure: whatever greenline option we choose, we need to have a working model for how E-W c-train traffic will be upgraded.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I recognize that 30 years or so ago there was a plan to for a future tunnel, however, much has changed since then. People are talking as if there are already trains there, but there are not, and it will be many, many decades before it happens if ever. The move to four car trains will drastically change the landscape, as will the next phase of transit, which will be more to do with cross-town mechanisms as opposed to clogging the DT further as a transfer point. City design has also taken a leap, and there is now more than ever a move to keep thinks on the surface (the low height train car trend continues). Lastly, core samples from years subsequent to the original plan and the massive flooding potentials of the inner city, make the original thinking somewhat obsolete and requiring vigorous review.

I'm not sure why you are being so obtuse about this. It's in the route ahead plan, so they haven't given up on it. After the green line, it's clearly the most obvious choice for the next major project. Well, maybe doubling transit capacity to Firepark for the new arena complex is first, but it's a close second.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure why you are being so obtuse about this. It's in the route ahead plan, so they haven't given up on it. After the green line, it's clearly the most obvious choice for the next major project. Well, maybe doubling transit capacity to Firepark for the new arena complex is first, but it's a close second.

Building the subway would more than double the possible transit capacity serving Firepark should the Arena be built there. By being interlined downtown the blue and red lines have only 1/2 of their potential capacities.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by andasen

Building the subway would more than double the possible transit capacity serving Firepark should the Arena be built there. By being interlined downtown the blue and red lines have only 1/2 of their potential capacities.

Well there ya go. No way Suburbia can object to a plan that DOUBLES transit service to Firepark. Why are you so against this new arena project, Suburbia? Don't they deserve decent transit?



*shivers* I almost felt like a Harper communications staffer typing that.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by andasen

Building the subway would more than double the possible transit capacity serving Firepark should the Arena be built there. By being interlined downtown the blue and red lines have only 1/2 of their potential capacities.

36 St NE does not have the same capacity as 7 Ave. The 8 Ave Subway will simply move the choke points out of the core for both lines. The 201 would benefit the most since it has fewer bottlenecks outside of the core and the worst of them all have current plans for grade separation.

Why is anyone taking Suburbia seriously on this? Sure, this might be one of the times he is actually engaging instead of trolling but he is wrong. Ridership on the NW, NE, and S legs has been stagnant for almost a decade because 7 Ave has been over capacity that long. Four car trains are nothing but a temporary stop gap measure. The idea that it will buy us ten more years is optimistic to the limit of respectability. If anything, the 8 Ave subway should have been built before the West leg.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

It's true that just because we have 150 m of existing tunnel under 8th Ave doesn't mean we have to use this option, and as always I appreciate your out-of-the-box thinking.

Keep reading. There are a few major cons that detract from the notion of surface rail on Stephen Ave:

1. Block lengths impose a 4-car limit (essentially already at max capacity)
2. Multiple E-W Avenues in the west end would potentially be blocked at the same time too
3. We'd still have to connect the SLRT to your surface corridor
4. Stephen Ave would never again look like this
5. Speeds would be much slower, causing it to take 10-15 minutes longer to cross DT than subway

201 will stay where it is for as long as possible, but the time is quickly approaching when 4-car capacity will be maxed. As for geological data, be patient. Nothing is impossible or too difficult. There are dozens of metros that operate below the watertable (including parts of our own). There are solutions to every problem, they just have varying costs and specifications. Constructing an 8th Ave subway is as straightforward as they come and will 100% be cut and cover. Greenline options B, C, and D all could potentially require tunnel boring, and transporting equipment and expertise here will be the largest portion of the cost.

One thing is for sure: whatever greenline option we choose, we need to have a working model for how E-W c-train traffic will be upgraded.

Yeah, the way I see it is, if Shanghai can build huge amounts of metro in what amounts to river delta mud below sea level, Calgary can figure out how to build a tunnel below the water table downtown.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

36 St NE does not have the same capacity as 7 Ave. The 8 Ave Subway will simply move the choke points out of the core for both lines. The 201 would benefit the most since it has fewer bottlenecks outside of the core and the worst of them all have current plans for grade separation.

Why is anyone taking Suburbia seriously on this? Sure, this might be one of the times he is actually engaging instead of trolling but he is wrong. Ridership on the NW, NE, and S legs has been stagnant for almost a decade because 7 Ave has been over capacity that long. Four car trains are nothing but a temporary stop gap measure. The idea that it will buy us ten more years is optimistic to the limit of respectability. If anything, the 8 Ave subway should have been built before the West leg.

Ridership on those lines has actually more than doubled in the past 10 years. 2001 ridership was 125,00 per weekday, and in 2011 it was 275,000. Post West LRT, it is now over 300,000.

Agreed the 8th Ave subway is needed, and 4-car trains will only help temporarily, but transit ridership growth has been nothing short of spectacular the past 15 years.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

^Option B. I hope some of this is elevated. Potentially some great views of the mountains.

Yeah, absolutely option B with a great looking high bridge. The views of the park and city from the bridge would be awesome and vice versa the views of the core with a really nice looking bridge transit coming up out of Eau Claire to the north would be a great addition to the growing urban landscape.

For the bridge itself, I really hope we get some awesome lighting. This would do nicely.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/501940320943870334/

Option D is not only more expensive but it would actually remove a chance at the ride being more enjoyable with those views and us getting a wicked new bridge spanning the Bow. When the people begin to whine about the cost of the bridge they can be told about the cost of going with plan D instead if they really don't want to spend the money on a bridge.

Plus a LRT bridge can incorporate a pedestrian/bike component into the design and link into a switchback bike path/pedestrian path on the north just before the LRT tunnel for people to get up above the river on the north side easier.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by shogged

Rich coming from you lol

Huh? Who the hell are you? I hardly even post here anymore.

[Tropics]

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

That will be pretty horrific. That street level under the track is going to look like something you would see in the bad part of Gotham in a dark Batman movie...

[sim]

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

Not sure who these individuals might be, but it would seem weird that they already know the conclusive results of studies that haven't happened yet...

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Huh? Who the hell are you? I hardly even post here anymore.

LOL! Chaillaccc has at least a thousand constructive posts, no doubt.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Yeah, the way I see it is, if Shanghai can build huge amounts of metro in what amounts to river delta mud below sea level, Calgary can figure out how to build a tunnel below the water table downtown.

Or Amsterdam building metro lines below sea level. Actually building tram lines below sea level, and roads below sea level and buildings and parks and museums and soccer stadiums. Or just building 30% of the country below sea level.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

Or Amsterdam building metro lines below sea level. Actually building tram lines below sea level, and roads below sea level and buildings and parks and museums and soccer stadiums. Or just building 30% of the country below sea level.

I hear China even has a real navy. Perhaps Calgary should get one too!

[Big Sky]

I'm for option B or D. I'm leaning toward 'B'. D would be my first choice except that the 9th ave and 16th ave stations are really too far down IMO. On option B I think the line needs to stay underground further east.

We need an option E option B but with the line coming up above ground somewhere around Vic Park

Originally Posted by outoftheice

One of the most important pieces of the Green Line LRT has still yet to be determined.... the route and station locations for the line between 16th Ave N and 4th Street SE. There are 4 main options that are under consideration for this portion of the line. Calgary Transit will begin public consultations early this Fall to get feedback on the four options. The final selection of the preferred alignment will be made to Calgary City Council's Transit and Transportation Committee in December, 2015. There are pros and cons to each and every option... here are the ones under consideration:

Option A
Cost of Centre City Segment: $600 million
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.1 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 33-35 minutes

Plan View:



Profile View:

Option B

Cost of Centre City Segment: $800 million
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.3 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 30-32 minutes

Plan View:



Profile View:

Option C

Cost of Centre City Segment: $800 million
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.3 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 30-32 minutes

Plan View:



Profile View:

Option D

Cost of Centre City Segment: $1.3 Billion
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.8 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 28-30 minutes

Plan View:



Profile View:

All images sourced from: http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/about-the-green-line/

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I hear China even has a real navy. Perhaps Calgary should get one too!

Can you say "non-sequitur"?