Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project - Page 17

suburbia · #**321** Posted **Nov 14, 2015, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Uhm, the entire northern section north of 16th. It's basically a streetcar after that from what I understand. So a good 15 kilometers of it.

Forgive Fusilli. He has many of the people that have real data on ignore, so he probably wasn't aware.

CrossedTheTracks · #**322** Posted **Nov 14, 2015, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Uhm, the entire northern section north of 16th. It's basically a streetcar after that from what I understand. So a good 15 kilometers of it.

I don't think "mixed traffic" means what you think it means.

Mixed traffic would be what we would have on 7th Ave if cars were permitted to drive on it.

At grade, dedicated lane/ROW is not "mixed traffic".

Chadillaccc · #**323** Posted **Nov 14, 2015, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I don't think "mixed traffic" means what you think it means.

Mixed traffic would be what we would have on 7th Ave if cars were permitted to drive on it.

At grade, dedicated lane/ROW is not "mixed traffic".

Do we know if it will have a dedicated lane with (hopefully) a barrier to help stop the horrendous drivers in this city from swerving into it? I haven't read anything about that. A Spadina-like solution like this would be nice.

And yes, I know exactly what mixed traffic means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick.flood

By figure out you must mean figure out how to increase the budget for wider tunnels and another track for a dedicated express line.

I don't know. Is that how Toronto is doing it? If so, then yes it's definitely worth looking into. Basically from 28 Avenue Station to Crossroads Station. It would be a good idea, with this section being totally without traffic intersections, to prevent the inevitable line-wide shutdowns we currently often see due to traffic accidents.

shogged · #**324** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 12:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Do we know if it will have a dedicated lane with (hopefully) a barrier to help stop the horrendous drivers in this city from swerving into it? I haven't read anything about that. A Spadina-like solution like this would be nice.

And yes, I know exactly what mixed traffic means.

doesn't sound like you do lol

Chadillaccc · #**325** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 12:57 AM**

How doesn't it? Mixed traffic means cars driving in the same lane as the tracks.

On a different note, why do you only respond to my posts when you want to a douche for no good reason? This is at least the 2nd time in as many months, both being the only times you've ever responded to my comments.

milomilo · #**326** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

How doesn't it? Mixed traffic means cars driving in the same lane as the tracks.

On a different note, why do you only respond to my posts when you want to a douche for no good reason? This is at least the 2nd time in as many months, both being the only times you've ever responded to my comments.

In fairness, the designs we have seen show it entirely in its own lane, so 'mixed traffic' isn't really accurate - I don't know if there will be a barrier though. However the plan as stands won't be much better and it is entirely appropriate to criticise the plan for this. We have plenty of examples in the city of how extensive train/car interaction is a terrible idea, yet we are completely ignoring it.

Chadillaccc · #**327** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

In fairness, the designs we have seen show it entirely in its own lane, so 'mixed traffic' isn't really accurate - I don't know if there will be a barrier though. However the plan as stands won't be much better and it is entirely appropriate to criticise the plan for this. We have plenty of examples in the city of how extensive train/car interaction is a terrible idea, yet we are completely ignoring it.

That is exactly my concern, that's why I mentioned my hope that there would be some sort of barrier, similar to the Spadina Line in Toronto.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/ttcflexityoutlookfleet/interesting/

milomilo · #**328** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is exactly my concern, that's why I mentioned my hope that there would be some sort of barrier, similar to the Spadina Line in Toronto.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/ttcflexityoutlookfleet/interesting/

I can't find any diagrams yet, but I imagine there will be a barrier like in that picture.

The difference with Centre Street though compared to Spadina is that there will only be room for one remaining lane of road traffic. If there is any disruption to the roadway it will stop all traffic completely in the lane, which could be extremely disruptive, and is also hardly going to make for a pleasant street when there will be bumper to bumper cars most of the day.

I presume emergency vehicles will be permitted to use the transitway at least.

outoftheice · #**329** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 6:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I can't find any diagrams yet, but I imagine there will be a barrier like in that picture.

The difference with Centre Street though compared to Spadina is that there will only be room for one remaining lane of road traffic. If there is any disruption to the roadway it will stop all traffic completely in the lane, which could be extremely disruptive, and is also hardly going to make for a pleasant street when there will be bumper to bumper cars most of the day.

I presume emergency vehicles will be permitted to use the transitway at least.

I suppose that depends on your definition of a pleasant street. Centre street between downtown and McKnight Blvd is meant to evolve into a pedestrian oriented mixed use corridor similar to what you'd like find along 17th Ave SW or 4th St SW. I would argue that 17th Ave, where traffic is at slow speeds because it's bumped to bumper for almost the entire day, is a much more pleasant street for pedestrians to be on than examples like 16th Ave N or Macleod Trail where traffic travels at close to the 50 km/h speed limit for most of the day. Calgary really needs to stop looking at traffic issues exclusively from the perspective of the people that drive through a community and start looking at traffic issues from the thousands of people who actually live in that community.

CrossedTheTracks · #**330** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 9:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I can't find any diagrams yet, but I imagine there will be a barrier like in that picture.

A slight variation on Spadina, this example from Seattle: https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.5643635,-...w%3D21.498838%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

milomilo · #**331** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I suppose that depends on your definition of a pleasant street. Centre street between downtown and McKnight Blvd is meant to evolve into a pedestrian oriented mixed use corridor similar to what you'd like find along 17th Ave SW or 4th St SW. I would argue that 17th Ave, where traffic is at slow speeds because it's bumped to bumper for almost the entire day, is a much more pleasant street for pedestrians to be on than examples like 16th Ave N or Macleod Trail where traffic travels at close to the 50 km/h speed limit for most of the day. Calgary really needs to stop looking at traffic issues exclusively from the perspective of the people that drive through a community and start looking at traffic issues from the thousands of people who actually live in that community.

It does. 17th Ave is a good example - I realise this isn't a popular opinion but I don't believe 17th is a pleasant street at all and not a successful pedestrian realm. It is an important route for cars and buses as well as pedestrians and cyclists, and with all this crammed together onto a narrow street it means no one is happy. Sitting on a patio on 17th could be great, but there is the constant roar of buses and other vehicles which ruins the atmosphere, IMO.

The best (only?) example of a pedestrian focused street done right in Calgary is Steven Ave - because there are no/few cars.

The dream of building a nice street on Centre by forcing all the cars into one lane and jamming a train in the middle is unrealistic and the real reason we are doing that is because of cost, plain and simple. If the cars were removed completely, that would be much better but still not as good as a dedicated right of way where the LRT could attain decent speeds neccesary for a commuter line (which is what the Green Line is).

Still, this is mostly irrelevant as this was mostly decided long ago. I don't know what the point of the recent trip to Vancouver, Seattle etc was as if they were actually paying attention they would have seen that the Skytrain is a far superior people mover to the other cities' and Calgary's systems.

MasterG · #**332** Posted **Nov 15, 2015, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

It does. 17th Ave is a good example - I realise this isn't a popular opinion but I don't believe 17th is a pleasant street at all and not a successful pedestrian realm. It is an important route for cars and buses as well as pedestrians and cyclists, and with all this crammed together onto a narrow street it means no one is happy. Sitting on a patio on 17th could be great, but there is the constant roar of buses and other vehicles which ruins the atmosphere, IMO.

The best (only?) example of a pedestrian focused street done right in Calgary is Steven Ave - because there are no/few cars.

The dream of building a nice street on Centre by forcing all the cars into one lane and jamming a train in the middle is unrealistic and the real reason we are doing that is because of cost, plain and simple. If the cars were removed completely, that would be much better but still not as good as a dedicated right of way where the LRT could attain decent speeds neccesary for a commuter line (which is what the Green Line is).

Still, this is mostly irrelevant as this was mostly decided long ago. I don't know what the point of the recent trip to Vancouver, Seattle etc was as if they were actually paying attention they would have seen that the Skytrain is a far superior people mover to the other cities' and Calgary's systems.

Agreed. This is why the the 17th Ave rebuild plan is such a failure. It compromises again, failing to make any significant changes that would encourage 17th to become a nicer, more pedestrian place. I would argue that 17th Ave's main value - currently and the future - is a destination retail and night spot for the city. Those streets need to place pedestrian access and experience at the top of the list. Instead the rebuild treats 17th Ave as if it was any other street, which is a failure to value what matters most about the street.

This is what happens when road projects are built by road departments that can't imagine a road being anything than a way to move cars.

MalcolmTucker · #**333** Posted **Nov 16, 2015, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I presume emergency vehicles will be permitted to use the transitway at least.

This was an issue in Toronto:

Code:

Firefighters raise alarm over dedicated TTC lanes
JEFF GRAY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 19, 2008

St. Clair streetcar lanes safe for fire trucks, chief says
DAKSHANA BASCARAMURTY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jun. 21, 2008 12:00AM EDT

McMurph · #**334** Posted **Nov 16, 2015, 12:57 AM**

As someone who spends a lot of time on 17th (working, drinking, eating, walking, biking, driving etc) I'd say it's not bad but is definitely not ideal. The biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to be a good alternate E-W route nearby for the traffic. I think some of the traffic diverts to 11/12 and will continue to do so as volume itself (and construction) calms 17th, but the noise and exhaust of trucks and buses are definitely unpleasant. As are the idiots on loud bikes. If we made it truck free and had bylaw officer sharpshooters on rooftops with decibel meters and beanbag rifles it could be a lot nicer street.

Centre someday will be fine, if for no other reason than the presence of Edmonton Trail as an alternate route for serious traffic.

MasterG · #**335** Posted **Nov 16, 2015, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMurph

As someone who spends a lot of time on 17th (working, drinking, eating, walking, biking, driving etc) I'd say it's not bad but is definitely not ideal. The biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to be a good alternate E-W route nearby for the traffic. I think some of the traffic diverts to 11/12 and will continue to do so as volume itself (and construction) calms 17th, but the noise and exhaust of trucks and buses are definitely unpleasant. As are the idiots on loud bikes. If we made it truck free and had bylaw officer sharpshooters on rooftops with decibel meters and beanbag rifles it could be a lot nicer street.

Centre someday will be fine, if for no other reason than the presence of Edmonton Trail as an alternate route for serious traffic.

That's the mindset that is the problem (not yours specifically of course, but the attitude of the City and engineers). It only is a primary traffic route because we say it should be. Because we assume all roads should be for traffic, we assume 17th Ave has to stay the way it is, to the detriment of the main user of the area (the walking, eating, drinking, biking crowd). We treat 17th Avenue closer to 14th Street. 17th Avenue is a city-wide destination, whil

11/12th are more than capable of providing the bulk of E-W traffic in the Beltline. They already do this effectively and are over-built outside of rush-hour. Traffic would adjust if pedestrian traffic was prioritized on 17th.

That said, we don't need to do away with cars on 17th. We just need to consider that maybe our most significant pedestrian-retail road can succeed even better if we compromise a bit more away from car travel. What was proposed in the redesign was not a compromise, it was a clear acceptance that traffic efficiency is more important than the street as a destination.

I wonder if we will ever see a pedestrian-focused retail district form as part of the TODs that are planned along the Greenline route? The Centre Street LRT has much obvoious promise, but the SE is a very far way off. Much of the success of the SELRT rests on the assumption that TODs will make most of the lesser stations feasible over time. Perhaps there is hope in a distant future?

Fuzz · #**336** Posted **Nov 16, 2015, 1:21 PM**

If Centre becomes horrible for driving, I'd expect a lot of traffic to divert to 4th. This does not make me happy...

fusili · #**337** Posted **Nov 16, 2015, 3:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Uhm, the entire northern section north of 16th. It's basically a streetcar after that from what I understand. So a good 15 kilometers of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I don't think "mixed traffic" means what you think it means.

Mixed traffic would be what we would have on 7th Ave if cars were permitted to drive on it.

At grade, dedicated lane/ROW is not "mixed traffic".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Do we know if it will have a dedicated lane with (hopefully) a barrier to help stop the horrendous drivers in this city from swerving into it? I haven't read anything about that. A Spadina-like solution like this would be nice.

And yes, I know exactly what mixed traffic means.

I don't know. Is that how Toronto is doing it? If so, then yes it's definitely worth looking into. Basically from 28 Avenue Station to Crossroads Station. It would be a good idea, with this section being totally without traffic intersections, to prevent the inevitable line-wide shutdowns we currently often see due to traffic accidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shogged

doesn't sound like you do lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

How doesn't it? Mixed traffic means cars driving in the same lane as the tracks.

On a different note, why do you only respond to my posts when you want to a douche for no good reason? This is at least the 2nd time in as many months, both being the only times you've ever responded to my comments.

Some clarification-

Right of Way Class A- Fully grade separated right of way for transit with grade separated intersections with vehicles (or no intersections at all). No vehicle crossings whatsoever. Typically what you see when there is an electrified third rail. Most "metro" "El" and "subway" systems have this. There is never a point where traffic (or pedestrians for that matter) can physically cross the tracks.

The NW line of the C-Train is this ROW once it passes Lion's Park (other than the pedestrian crossing at Banff Trail). All intersections are grade separated.

Right of Way Class B- Exclusive right of way, but with intersections at grade with the right of way. Usually involves crossing arms etc.

7th avenue and in fact the South and North East lines are more like this (there are multiple at-grade vehicle crossings on both).

The Centre street LRT will be this. Likely will be a 6" curb, perhaps with bollards, still to be determined.

Right of Way Class C- Mixed traffic. Transit vehicles (streetcars or buses) share the ROW with regular traffic.

I think the confusion above comes from mixing up class B and C rights of way.

Chadillaccc · #**338** Posted **Nov 17, 2015, 1:39 AM**

Yeah, B is what I've been trying to say I hope is the option chosen for Centre. Class C would be horrible.

Surrealplaces · #**339** Posted **Nov 20, 2015, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

I personally am still on the bridge and tunnel option. That way the 9th avenue station is not that deep at all, and we don't have to tunnel all the way under the river.

I'm leaning that way too. I was originally for the idea of skipping 9th and just going with 16th, but I think that would be shortsighted. At some point one would expect to see more density at the top of the hill, and having a station there would really help develop the area. I think it's best to build the station now rather than wish we had one later.

Surrealplaces · #**340** Posted **Nov 20, 2015, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Yeah, B is what I've been trying to say I hope is the option chosen for Centre. Class C would be horrible.

If it's a low floor option and the stations are at grade it might not be too bad. Melbourne is really big for this, and it seems to work decently. On the other hand it could make for some pretty slow train trips.

This video (from the 2:22 mark) shows a tram going down Tourak road in Melbourne mixed in with traffic. It looks like it should be slow, but it gets from point A to B surprisingly fast

• Video Link