Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project - Page 58

MasterG · #**1141** Posted **Nov 17, 2016, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I still think choosing 12th Ave over 10th is stupid. It pushes the Olympic Way station further away from the East Village and Railtown for limited benefit. Most people in Connaught are still going to be better off walking to 7th Avenue.

I think treating Beltline like it's solely a trip-generator as opposed to a destination in it's own right is an over-sight. Particularly on the time-scale that this project will be operating on.

suburbia · #**1142** Posted **Nov 17, 2016, 11:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I still think choosing 12th Ave over 10th is stupid. It pushes the Olympic Way station further away from the East Village and Railtown for limited benefit. Most people in Connaught are still going to be better off walking to 7th Avenue.

I think this is a massive point. Consider the expected developments north of the current stampede grounds, the national music centre, fort Calgary, and the full-on destination that East Village is expected to evolve to even above and beyond where it already is.

The Beltline, certainly 12th, is not a destination, and while that specific cooridor will develop, is not going to be like East Village or 17th Ave.

UofC.engineer · #**1143** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy.r

Some more detailed concept drawings for the two Beltine options (12th Ave surface or tunnel) are up on the City's website. The 12th Ave surface option would have 11th Ave become one way Eastbound and 10th Ave one way Westbound.

http://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/beltline
Surface Option
Tunnel Option

There is no mention of what happens to the cycle track on the surface option.

UofC.engineer · #**1144** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

We need fewer one-ways, not a more complicated system of one-ways spread across 3 instead of 2 E-W routes.

Wasn't there a plan put forth to convert 11th and 12th avenues to two way? I think Evan Woolley brought it up a few years ago.

Wooster · #**1145** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

There is no mention of what happens to the cycle track on the surface option.

Maybe a jog to 11th or 10th ave on the east end of the route?

Wooster · #**1146** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Wasn't there a plan put forth to convert 11th and 12th avenues to two way? I think Evan Woolley brought it up a few years ago.

It's been mused about many times, never much traction. Better to just make them better, nicer one ways in terms of streetscape.

ClaytonA · #**1147** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

... What is the point of using a low floor technology if so many people here are advocating subway from 16th ave to Inglewood? ...

Sometimes more flexible technology is both good and bad. The technology choice is missing the point. Are there different goals in what some want this project to do/function as/be useful for? Should the low floor technology choice govern the amount of grade separation (i.e. speed, frequency, reliability, safety)?

ClaytonA · #**1148** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 3:12 AM**

It's ironic that in the council meeting Carra took heat from Keating about giving Tuxedo/Crescent Heights the option of grade separation to 28 Ave N, but the community fought to push the portal back south from 24 Ave to 16Ave and have it at grade when the Beltline is fighting for underground.

McMurph · #**1149** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 4:32 AM**

However much I like tunnels, the underground option ends up with the easternmost VP station a block too far to the east.

suburbia · #**1150** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMurph

However much I like tunnels, the underground option ends up with the easternmost VP station a block too far to the east.

The benefits of getting a station in the wrong place, while being a more expensive option. I'm with you McMurph.

craner · #**1151** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 6:30 AM**

Just for the record ... I HATE streetcars.
Stupid idea for Center St. (or anywhere else except a historic district).

jeremy.r · #**1152** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

There is no mention of what happens to the cycle track on the surface option.

The cycle track is shown on the north side of 11th Ave in the concept drawing.

Wooster · #**1153** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 5:41 PM**

I like how in the tunnel option the "4th Street Station" is actually between 5th and 6th Streets.

fusili · #**1154** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Just for the record ... I HATE streetcars.
Stupid idea for Center St. (or anywhere else except a historic district).

What do you define as a street car? Exclusive ROW vs mixed traffic operation? Grade separation of intersections vs at grade? Grade separation of ROW vs elevated or underground? Overhead catenary power vs third rail electrification?

I imagine what you mean is you hate light rail (catenary power vs third rail) vehicles operating in a mixed traffic right of way operation. If you definition is anything else, then you hate the CTrain. It is not grade separated, it crosses many intersections at grade and has catenary power.

The Urbanist · #**1155** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I still think choosing 12th Ave over 10th is stupid. It pushes the Olympic Way station further away from the East Village and Railtown for limited benefit. Most people in Connaught are still going to be better off walking to 7th Avenue.

I strongly disagree. First off, the 4th Street SE station would be 1 block from Railtown and better service the new master plan that CMLC is creating for the Stampede lands (new arena location*** hint,hint). The Centre Street station on 12th is a much better option, as it will capture a significantly larger portion of the south Beltline that isn't currently serviced by the C-train. Between 2nd Street SW and 4 Street SE, the 10th Ave option overlaps the catchment area already serviced by the 7th Ave line. To not service the SE portion of the Beltline seems completely crazy, considering there are roughly 5,000 residential units in the pipeline. This is why Councillor Woolley and the Beltline Community Associate pushed for the 12th Ave underground option to be put back into the mix.

milomilo · #**1156** Posted **Nov 18, 2016, 11:16 PM**

Looking at those plans I've warmed to the idea of 12th Ave and don't even mind it being on the surface much - I doubt it'll have much of a negative effect on much and should save a chunk of cash. Along with that, if they move the Centre St station a block to the west, that would service a meaningful additional amount of the Beltline.

They have got to do something to fix those curves though. The sharp curves on the existing system at Lions Park and the approaches to 7th Ave are already intolerable, yet the ones proposed appear to be even tighter. Yuck.

craner · #**1157** Posted **Nov 19, 2016, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

What do you define as a street car? Exclusive ROW vs mixed traffic operation? Grade separation of intersections vs at grade? Grade separation of ROW vs elevated or underground? Overhead catenary power vs third rail electrification?

I imagine what you mean is you hate light rail (catenary power vs third rail) vehicles operating in a mixed traffic right of way operation. If you definition is anything else, then you hate the CTrain. It is not grade separated, it crosses many intersections at grade and has catenary power.

Your assumption is correct. I don't mind the existing C-Train setup other than downtown (but that is another discussion alltogether).
I don't like the "mixed traffic" idea. It's supposed to be a rapid transit line is it not ?

UofC.engineer · #**1158** Posted **Nov 20, 2016, 12:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

Your assumption is correct. I don't mind the existing C-Train setup other than downtown (but that is another discussion alltogether).
I don't like the "mixed traffic" idea. It's supposed to be a rapid transit line is it not ?

I don't think anyone is advocating for the greenline to run in mixed traffic.

Corndogger · #**1159** Posted **Nov 20, 2016, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Agree this is a good design; it's a streetcar-like, not rapid transit. Are pedestrians going to be able to cross at every intersection given the halfway rapid transit design Calgary is implementing? No. Do one or the other. Rapid transit to move high volumes of people, similar to Calgary's existing LRT. Or a slow streetcar set up, with long trains, pedestrian crossings ever block, to fit into the neighbourhood versus cutting it in two.

If the community wants that kind of vision, streetcar-like, communicate the trade-off and make it successful by having the community accept more employment and residential density to support the pedestrian realm/other modes for a commercial district like Kensington or 17 Ave.

Instead from what's on the station plans Calgary's getting buildings zoned denser pretty much exclusively on Centre St and very limited crossings to mitigate ridership losses due to less mobility (the ability to travel a given distance in a given time) further north. How easy will it be too reduce the speed/frequency of the LRT, hopefully maintaining safety, to facilitate trips across Centre St in the future once people expect the shorter trip time?

Don't halfway it like 16 Ave N. Calgary ended up with not a limited access high volume road, nor a urban boulevard stimulating redevelopment and multi-modal use. Calgary got a road motorists complain about because it has too many lights, congestion, etc. and 6-8 lanes of traffic, vacant property, large setbacks with parking in front, and blank stone sound walls making the pedestrian realm terrible. Planters in the median and high-end streetlamps. Jack of all trades, master of none. Still salvageable though (parking lane, travel lane, transit lane, x2...) High hopes for North Crosstown BRT.

You nailed it. This will be another planning disaster rammed down our throats by a city administration that has shown time and again that they are incompetent.

Corndogger · #**1160** Posted **Nov 20, 2016, 3:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

I think I see what you're getting at but Centre street is already terrible for the pedestrian. Many successful LRT's have been run on street.

Take this section of U-bahn in Stuttgart for example. The train runs at about 40-50 km/h

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Stuttga...11c7791cfe4!8m2!3d48.7758459!4d9.1829321

traffic gridlock: Who that lives along centre street would want to drive to downtown on a daily basis when there is a rapid transit system at least 800m from their residence. If they really want to drive they can take Edmonton trail, 10th street or deerfoot depending on where they live.

Now it's time to ask you a question. How much do you think it costs to build one km of subway on centre street?

Your point about traffic gridlock has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

As for how much 1km of subway would cost on Center Street that would depend on a lot of factors. I see what you're getting at but like the majority of people I'd rather the project be done properly so we gain the most benefit from it. Screwing over drivers using the excuse we could possibly save ~$400m while conveniently not factoring in costs for wasted time, lost business, etc. is not going to wash with the majority of Calgarians. Too many of us have been here a lot longer than those proposing these ruinous policies and have seen too many projects done on the cheap to the benefit of no one. If this project has to wait a bit longer that will be for the best. It was never intended to be built this soon anyway.