Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

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.

I should have been clearer than simply saying for almost a decade. Yes, weekday ridership in the fourth quarter of 2011 was 275 000. It was 297 500 in the fourth quarter of 2008. It was 271 100 in the fourth quarter of 2007.

LRT ridership growth was nothing short of spectacular until 2008. It peaked that year then declined and stagnated until the West LRT was built. Growth on the three lines I mentioned has been non-existent for seven and half years. That was when rush hour capacity was hit.

At this stage, I wouldn't be surprised if latent demand was enough to completely account for the gain in capacity from 4 car trains, especially on the South line. This situation is horrible if we want to develop TODs in the inner suburbs, where the trains are full and have been for some time.

[sim]

Originally Posted by sim

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...

... as in that study will commence rather shortly...

[suburbia]

It is interesting that a higher proportion of monkey-whacking renters who do not pay municipal tax would like the higher cost options on the backs of those who do.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I should have been clearer than simply saying for almost a decade. Yes, weekday ridership in the fourth quarter of 2011 was 275 000. It was 297 500 in the fourth quarter of 2008. It was 271 100 in the fourth quarter of 2007.

LRT ridership growth was nothing short of spectacular until 2008. It peaked that year then declined and stagnated until the West LRT was built. Growth on the three lines I mentioned has been non-existent for seven and half years. That was when rush hour capacity was hit.

At this stage, I wouldn't be surprised if latent demand was enough to completely account for the gain in capacity from 4 car trains, especially on the South line. This situation is horrible if we want to develop TODs in the inner suburbs, where the trains are full and have been for some time.

Great points. I agree that the capacity from four car trains will be used up fairly shortly, but I think it will be 5-10 years. That being said, hopefully there is enough capacity added that TOD isn't deterred due to capacity issues. We are just starting to get some serious TOD in this city, especially on the NW line: University City, Groves of Varsity, Sunnyside Station and potential TODs around Lion's Park/North Hill mall and a rumoured infill station at Northland.

With 4 car trains, we would have ~1000 person capacity per train at crush load. That would equal ~36K people per direction per hour on the 7th avenue corridor (IIRC we run 22 trains on the 201 and 14 trains on the 202 during rush hour).

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Tropics

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.

Adding a pedestrian/bike connection from the hill would be a major boon to the communities on the north hill. Having a nice sloped access up the hill will open up active modes to many more people than currently do.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by sim

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...

I'm sure there are plenty of geotechnical reports from the emergency ops center, SAIT, Centre Street bridge work, and other work along that hill over the years that can be used for reference. The beauty of geotechnical reports is that they don't change over time.

That said, I'm sure there will be detailed project specific reports done over then next year or so. I would expect a core to be taken every 300-500m for the entire length over that time frame. The challenge will be getting cores from the river bed and the hill.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Tropics

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.

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Adding a pedestrian/bike connection from the hill would be a major boon to the communities on the north hill. Having a nice sloped access up the hill will open up active modes to many more people than currently do.

I hadn't considered this angle, but it is a very good additional point to be made. We so often talk about pedestrian connectivity, but unfortunately end up looking at projects in silos and overlook the possibility of helping the pedestrian network along. This is very important and should not be discounted. Putting things underground will be a nice to have for a few, but supporting the pedestrian network will add to the vitality of the city and make for a healthier place to be, and that's not a nice to have but something that is needed.

[Surrealplaces]

I like Option B the best, as long as it's done properly. The bridge should be nice and nicely integrate into McHugh bluffs, with a large well done bike path. The station at 9th ave is way too deep on Option D, if going with option D it would be better to skip the station at 9th ave and my be have a large station that covers from 13th all the way to 16th.

[googspecial]

I agree on a suspension or cable-stayed bridge. And if it could be built with a curve as well, to minimize it's impact over Prince's Island Park.

Something like this perhaps:



With an awesome lighting feature... Might even one up the Peace Bridge!

[sim]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I'm sure there are plenty of geotechnical reports from the emergency ops center, SAIT, Centre Street bridge work, and other work along that hill over the years that can be used for reference. The beauty of geotechnical reports is that they don't change over time.

That said, I'm sure there will be detailed project specific reports done over then next year or so. I would expect a core to be taken every 300-500m for the entire length over that time frame. The challenge will be getting cores from the river bed and the hill.

That comment was in regards to the claim that people involved apparently already know that it will be elevated. To be more clear, it seems weird that there is currently an RFP out that aims to study exactly this...

I'm sure there are multitudes of geotech reports all over the place. That is not overly informative if it hasn't been studied how a tunnel would or could go through said soil. Just saying glacial till, can't be done is a little bit presumptuous and predetermined.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by sim

That comment was in regards to the claim that people involved apparently already know that it will be elevated. To be more clear, it seems weird that there is currently an RFP out that aims to study exactly this...

I'm sure there are multitudes of geotech reports all over the place. That is not overly informative if it hasn't been studied how a tunnel would or could go through said soil. Just saying glacial till, can't be done is a little bit presumptuous and predetermined.

True, anything can be done but I suspect there is value engineering going on concurrently with the RFP. I would also suspect that Seattle's recent issues might play in to this at some background level.

I know from the projects I work on the background information is all reviewed prior to any RFP. I would bet one could figure out from the RFP if they have a specific area of concern that might preclude one option or another. Is the RFP available publicly or only to specific parties?

[MalcolmTucker]

The RFQ will likely be public. The RFP can have sensitive information - I know Translink fought in court for a while to keep the Canada Line's private (the RFP allowed the proponent to decide the best method of building for each section, and Cambie businesses sued, in part to see if this was even contemplated in the original RFP, or if Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. had submitted a non-compliant bid that was later approved against the rules due to lower cost).

Some interesting things from the case:

The consortium responsible for the construction of the Canada Line did not publicly disclose that the cut and cover method of construction would be used instead of a bored tunnel.

In the early stages of planning, the general public was advised that the Canada Line would be located in a tunnel on Cambie Street between 2nd Avenue to at least 37th Avenue.

Public information indicated the tunnel would be bored or mined.

There was no indication suggesting that a cut and cover method of tunnel construction would be employed on that portion of the line.

The possibility of cut and cover tunnel construction along Cambie Street was first raised by SNC-Lavalin/Serco in January 2004, when it responded to the Request for Proposals.

The proposal to use this method of construction was not made known to the public because confidentiality agreements prevented disclosure of design proposals and cost estimates under consideration.

The TransLink board approved the proposal, based on a cut and cover trench, on December 1, 2004.

This information first entered the public domain that month by way of disclosure on the Environmental Assessment Office website.

Source: http://prod5.journalofcommerce.com/article/id33973

There was also controversies challenging the P3 process as not taking into account economies of scale that could come from running similar rolling stock on the new line as the original Skytrain system.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The RFQ will likely be public. The RFP can have sensitive information - I know Translink fought in court for a while to keep the Canada Line's private (the RFP allowed the proponent to decide the best method of building for each section, and Cambie businesses sued, in part to see if this was even contemplated in the original RFP, or if Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. had submitted a non-compliant bid that was later approved against the rules due to lower cost).

Some interesting things from the case:

Source: http://prod5.journalofcommerce.com/article/id33973

There was also controversies challenging the P3 process as not taking into account economies of scale that could come from running similar rolling stock on the new line as the original Skytrain system.

It'll be interesting what value engineering can be done on the line.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by suburbia

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

You are really out of touch.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by googspecial

I agree on a suspension or cable-stayed bridge. And if it could be built with a curve as well, to minimize it's impact over Prince's Island Park.

Something like this perhaps:
[IMG]<->[/IMG]
[IMG]<->[/IMG]

With an awesome lighting feature... Might even one up the Peace Bridge!

Anything that is "cool" or "awesome" or "nifty" that doesn't have an engineering purpose is what gets killed during the penny-pinching phase.
(ooops meant to say "Value Engineering" phase)

Especially when a project is going over-budget.

[craner]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

the stations in Beltline will not be underground. It shou stay underground until after Stampede park going onto Ramsay and Inglewood.

Totally, fully agree with this.
Option B with a nice bridge and underground till east of MacLeod gets my vote all the way.

The elevated option is 4 storeys high !!?

[craner]

Originally Posted by PPAR

Great new thread! Clearly the topic du jour in Calgary.

I agree a modded option B is best. The thing I don't understand is the need to go east on tenth ave. Why not take the line south as far as 12th. This would separate the line better from the 7th ave corridor downtown, and improve access to the Sheldon Chumir Centre, students at St. Mary's and Western, and the stampede grounds. There would also be some utilization by people in the Central Memorial Park area to get downtown and on to Red and Green line destinations. Looking at the map, going down 12th ave does not seem to overly interfere with the chosen route from the elbow river crossing on.

Good arguments for taking it south to 12th instead of 10th.
I agree.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by craner

Good arguments for taking it south to 12th instead of 10th.
I agree.

Also agree. The more Beltline coverage you can provide the better. Plus excavating 11th or 12th will be easier as it would be unlikely the entire road would need to be closed during construction. Not to mention the final stations are a few hundred metres closer to where people actually live and work rather than the 10th Avenue wasteland.

[McMurph]

For optimal beltline coverage it would be great to connect SE to NW and NC to S. The SE line could carry all along 12th before connecting under the west end and surfacing south of the 9a street LRT bridge. The South line could use the city hall tunnel stub to carry under 8th Ave before turning up 2nd St to become the North Central. The NE could continue to use the 7th ave surface line alone to connect to the West.

We would get three separate downtown lines, improved beltline coverage and never have to build the full 8th Ave tunnel. But we would lose the low floor LRT option.

[MoXXon]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Also agree. The more Beltline coverage you can provide the better. Plus excavating 11th or 12th will be easier as it would be unlikely the entire road would need to be closed during construction. Not to mention the final stations are a few hundred metres closer to where people actually live and work rather than the 10th Avenue wasteland.

I imagine they want to utilize the CP row along 10th for cost savings, but I totally agree that 12th would be ideal. Have the line follow 12th behind the bus barns along 7st then cross into Inglewood near the existing rail bridge.
I also wish they would move the 4th street a couple blocks east so it would be closer to Inglewood. As it stands now there is a fair distance between 4st station and the 12st bridge station connecting Inglewood with Ramsay