Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by sim

Although the discussion on this is just beating a dead horse, this notion that 10 Ave is more direct at a magnitude that makes it a substantial issue continues to perpetuate. It irrefutably is more direct, but this marginal amount of additional directness comes at the cost of the latter point.

It's strange to me how directness, which is merely a proxy for [decreased] travel time, is an issue at the same time when access distance, another proxy for travel time, is not. In that sense, a 10th ave alignment is very much not direct for many residents south of the general area (or those transit users along the line wishing to access the area or 17 Ave.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, looking purely at this idea of directness (in terms of travel time), would put the alignment right back up Nose Creek and not Centre St.

You're correct, directness shouldn't be the only metric to consider. However, look at the outcome we have now. The city is pushing to demolish 10 additional houses and potentially eviscerate Ramsay. There are far more traffic conflicts with this plan than there was with the 10th ave alignment.

It's strange to me how access time for Beltline residents has swayed this decision so much. Where exactly are the Beltliners taking the train to?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's strange to me how access time for Beltline residents has swayed this decision so much. Where exactly are the Beltliners taking the train to?

Arguable, but Beltline should also be recognized for it's destination qualities, not just high-density housing. After the CBD, the Beltline has the highest concentrations of employment and destinations in the city, a trend that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Would the 10th Ave v. 12th Ave alignment difference of 2-3 blocks (3-5 minute walk time) make a difference for me? Probably not. But I am a high-speed, millennial, urbanite who is able-bodied and enjoys walking. I don't represent the majority of the population. Shaving off 5 minutes of walk time for thousands of visitors for anyone heading to the 17th Ave - Stampede corridor may be worth the loss of 10 homes (assuming that they can't find a way to reduce this number once exact specifications and alignments are confirmed).

This has gotten me thinking: I wonder how they can evaluate the transit demand of visitors for mixed-use neighbourhoods like the Beltline? On any given night there may be more visitors from outside the Beltline at all the various bars/restaurants/events within the neighbourhood than live in a neighbourhood of Ramsay (2,200 people in 2016).

[craner]

Originally Posted by Jaspertf

The budget for the Green Line is getting out of hand, why not convert it to a street car like Toronto, or a tram like the Sheffield Supertram? Route would be a lot cheaper and easily fit along the roads:

Harvest Hills Blvd N
Centre St N
9 Ave SE
12 St SE - 11 St SE
26 Ave SE
Ogden Rd SE
24 St SE
114 Ave SE
40 St SE
52 St SE

As part of my estimating exercise for Alberta Regional Rail, I found that a tunnel would cost at least $15million per km and twinned surface lines $5million per km.

When the LRTs of Calgary and Edmonton were first developed, Edmonton went underground whilst Calgary stayed on the surface. Now Edmonton is keeping their new line on the surface, and Calgary is going underground. Thing is with the large amount of rain last summer and the frequent closure of the Red Line due to the flooding of tunnels, and the fact that downtown Calgary is in a floodplain, is tunnelling really going to be the smart option?
Also the proposed rail vehicles are low-floor streetcar/tram design.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

My thoughts exactly. This entire project needs to be halted and redesigned because we're going to end up with a very expensive white elephant that few will want to use but many will suffer from. I'd love to know who's bright idea it was to use different cars when we've been told for decades that by having just one type of car we can save a lot of money on maintenance and achieve other efficiencies. To me it's rather clear that criteria other than overall transportation efficiencies are driving these asinine decisions.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Arguable, but Beltline should also be recognized for it's destination qualities

So massages and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

So massages and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵?

And you wonder why people consider you a troll and don't take anything you say seriously?

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Arguable, but Beltline should also be recognized for it's destination qualities, not just high-density housing. After the CBD, the Beltline has the highest concentrations of employment and destinations in the city, a trend that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Would the 10th Ave v. 12th Ave alignment difference of 2-3 blocks (3-5 minute walk time) make a difference for me? Probably not. But I am a high-speed, millennial, urbanite who is able-bodied and enjoys walking. I don't represent the majority of the population. Shaving off 5 minutes of walk time for thousands of visitors for anyone heading to the 17th Ave - Stampede corridor may be worth the loss of 10 homes (assuming that they can't find a way to reduce this number once exact specifications and alignments are confirmed).

This has gotten me thinking: I wonder how they can evaluate the transit demand of visitors for mixed-use neighbourhoods like the Beltline? On any given night there may be more visitors from outside the Beltline at all the various bars/restaurants/events within the neighbourhood than live in a neighbourhood of Ramsay (2,200 people in 2016).

The issue for me has less to do with distance and more to do with car/train crossings. What really bothers me is the fact that that the 12th ave alignment has far more traffic conflicts. 12th ave would be relatively unusable for cars and cyclists and the cycle tracks would probably have to be relocated...who wants to open that can of worms again?

Also, with the 10th ave alignment it could bring more life to that stretch of the road...but as Sim rightfully said, I'm beating a dead horse right now.

[craner]

^Isn't there still an option to keep it underground thus eliminating the street conflicts (I sure hope so).

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Jaspertf

The budget for the Green Line is getting out of hand, why not convert it to a street car like Toronto, or a tram like the Sheffield Supertram? Route would be a lot cheaper and easily fit along the roads:

Harvest Hills Blvd N
Centre St N
9 Ave SE
12 St SE - 11 St SE
26 Ave SE
Ogden Rd SE
24 St SE
114 Ave SE
40 St SE
52 St SE


As part of my estimating exercise for Alberta Regional Rail, I found that a tunnel would cost at least $15million per km and twinned surface lines $5million per km.

When the LRTs of Calgary and Edmonton were first developed, Edmonton went underground whilst Calgary stayed on the surface. Now Edmonton is keeping their new line on the surface, and Calgary is going underground. Thing is with the large amount of rain last summer and the frequent closure of the Red Line due to the flooding of tunnels, and the fact that downtown Calgary is in a floodplain, is tunnelling really going to be the smart option?
Also the proposed rail vehicles are low-floor streetcar/tram design.

With regards to the flooding issue, I think that's actually a non-issue. It's perfectly possible to design an underground system to deal with flooding. Heck, the Shanghai Metro is built in the mud of the Yangtze River delta, in a city that gets quite a bit more rain than Calgary does, and with the possibility of typhoon flooding, yet they don't have an issue with flooded tunnels here.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Jaspertf

The budget for the Green Line is getting out of hand, why not convert it to a street car like Toronto, or a tram like the Sheffield Supertram? Route would be a lot cheaper and easily fit along the roads:

Harvest Hills Blvd N
Centre St N
9 Ave SE
12 St SE - 11 St SE
26 Ave SE
Ogden Rd SE
24 St SE
114 Ave SE
40 St SE
52 St SE


As part of my estimating exercise for Alberta Regional Rail, I found that a tunnel would cost at least $15million per km and twinned surface lines $5million per km.

When the LRTs of Calgary and Edmonton were first developed, Edmonton went underground whilst Calgary stayed on the surface. Now Edmonton is keeping their new line on the surface, and Calgary is going underground. Thing is with the large amount of rain last summer and the frequent closure of the Red Line due to the flooding of tunnels, and the fact that downtown Calgary is in a floodplain, is tunnelling really going to be the smart option?
Also the proposed rail vehicles are low-floor streetcar/tram design.

Err, you may need to either clarify this or revisit your estimates. If you're applying regional rail, as in constructed in relative greenfield areas, to an urban context, you're off by a good factor of 10-20 [for a tunnel].

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

With regards to the flooding issue, I think that's actually a non-issue. It's perfectly possible to design an underground system to deal with flooding. Heck, the Shanghai Metro is built in the mud of the Yangtze River delta, in a city that gets quite a bit more rain than Calgary does, and with the possibility of typhoon flooding, yet they don't have an issue with flooded tunnels here.

Or how about the countless tunnels that are built underneath many rivers and bodies of water all over the world. Subways and roads in New York, George Massey Tunnel Vancouver, Channel in Europe, Sydney Harbour Tunnel...like there's tons of them.

[sim]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

You're correct, directness shouldn't be the only metric to consider. However, look at the outcome we have now. The city is pushing to demolish 10 additional houses and potentially eviscerate Ramsay. There are far more traffic conflicts with this plan than there was with the 10th ave alignment.

It's strange to me how access time for Beltline residents has swayed this decision so much. Where exactly are the Beltliners taking the train to?

Let's beat it a bit more.

The Ramsay issue/option not withstanding, I think that question is a product (and a natural inclination) to think in terms of commute trips to work. Focusing on these trips only will perpetuate a system that largely remains useful for work commute trips only. A good 80 - 85% of trips that occur are not work commute trips. While transit wouldn't necessarily accommodate many of these (a quick trip to the coffee shop etc), it is often under-regarded as means of access for many other purposes. The easy example here is 17 Ave and all its activity.

So while I can't say for sure where Beltliners will be taking it, or if it's for sure that a 12 Ave alignment would generate more ridership, most transit planning principles I can think of would indicate it would. It's likely that this will be driven just as much by people coming to the area, as those originating from it.

The number of crossings and impacts to other street users is a more relevant concern in my mind. But also in my mind, vehicles have 10 Ave, 11 Ave, 13 Ave, 14 Ave, 15 Ave, 16 Ave, 17 Ave etc, as alternatives. I believe that's a play out of the "don't put bike lanes here" book.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by craner

^Isn't there still an option to keep it underground thus eliminating the street conflicts (I sure hope so).

This is still on the table AFAIK. If the City had already decided on the surface alignment already I'd be amassing a stockpile of torches and pitchforks.

----

There was an information session last Thursday (March 2nd) regarding the Southeast portion of the line, but it seems that by the time the City had dropped it in my mailbox, the date had already passed.

There are also three information sessions this month for the north line (March 15th, 16th, and 21st).

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by sim

The number of crossings and impacts to other street users is a more relevant concern in my mind. But also in my mind, vehicles have 10 Ave, 11 Ave, 13 Ave, 14 Ave, 15 Ave, 16 Ave, 17 Ave etc, as alternatives. I believe that's a play out of the "don't put bike lanes here" book.

But this is not the case east of Macleod Trail. There's only 10th, 11th, and 12th. 10th cuts off at 4th Street and 11th cuts off at 6th Street. All current and proposed residential development is between 11th and 12th.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by fusili

And you wonder why people consider you a troll and don't take anything you say seriously?

Yupp, he really 🞵🞵🞵🞵 the bed with that one. Sometimes there are promising little glimpses of normality but then he goes and off loads a turd like that last one. Too bad really.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's strange to me how access time for Beltline residents has swayed this decision so much. Where exactly are the Beltliners taking the train to?

Don't forget that a lot of households have two people who are working in them so although one of the two may work downtown and can easily walk to work, there is a good chance that the other may work outside of the downtown core. The fact should not be lost that the Green Line will service Aurora Business Park, Quarry Park and Seton and all three are destined to become major employment hubs in their own right. This is in addition to the fact that the Green Line will offer a quick connect to the airport which is already a major employment hub. I wouldn't be surprised to see beltline residents traveling opposite the traditional rush hour commuter pattern when using the Green Line however accessibility to residents (by moving the line south to 12th Ave) will be a key component in whether or not this occurs.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

It's strange to me how access time for Beltline residents has swayed this decision so much. Where exactly are the Beltliners taking the train to?

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Don't forget that a lot of households have two people who are working in them so although one of the two may work downtown and can easily walk to work, there is a good chance that the other may work outside of the downtown core. The fact should not be lost that the Green Line will service Aurora Business Park, Quarry Park and Seton and all three are destined to become major employment hubs in their own right. This is in addition to the fact that the Green Line will offer a quick connect to the airport which is already a major employment hub. I wouldn't be surprised to see beltline residents traveling opposite the traditional rush hour commuter pattern when using the Green Line however accessibility to residents (by moving the line south to 12th Ave) will be a key component in whether or not this occurs.

Transit access for the Beltline is a difficult question. While many in the Beltline work downtown, there is a benefit in providing access to the LRT for reverse-commutes and other non-core trips. The problem with the Beltline is geography, which shapes where the LRT currently goes vs. where the population lives. Beltline is spread out on an east-west access and the primary destination is to the north. The problem is that it is bounded on the south by Mount Royal, which is a low density community with lots of hills- not a place ideal to run transit through. Mission is the optimal connection to run a north/south line through, but the LRT ended up going up Macleod instead (for good reasons- Stampede being one of them) so that horse has left the barn. So now The south LRT skirts the edge of the community along Macleod Trail, but the bulk of residential density is between 14th street and 1st street. This same problem happens with the West LRT which barely captures the far NW corner of the Beltline population. The greenline is similarly difficult: it is hard to capture the main residential area without major detours. The population of the Beltline is on the opposite end of where the greenline is to run through.

Most Beltliners (and Lower Mount Royalers like myself) just end up walking to the train on 7th. Although it is a long walk (1550m for myself to get to 8th street station), it is one that is amenity rich, so it isn't so bad.

My thought is that the best option is a future rapid transit for the Beltline is to have lines running down 4th street that connects mission to the downtown, and go on further south on Elbow Drive, Macleod (via Mission Road) and Fairmount/Macleod (via Mission road and 61st Avenue). These would essentially be local lines for the south as compared to the express line that is the south LRT. Buses to start, but maybe in the long term, these could be trams. Probably not something that will happen for a long time, but perhaps useful when the city gets to a higher population.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Don't forget that a lot of households have two people who are working in them so although one of the two may work downtown and can easily walk to work, there is a good chance that the other may work outside of the downtown core. The fact should not be lost that the Green Line will service Aurora Business Park, Quarry Park and Seton and all three are destined to become major employment hubs in their own right. This is in addition to the fact that the Green Line will offer a quick connect to the airport which is already a major employment hub. I wouldn't be surprised to see beltline residents traveling opposite the traditional rush hour commuter pattern when using the Green Line however accessibility to residents (by moving the line south to 12th Ave) will be a key component in whether or not this occurs.

Fair enough. But we need to consider the benefits grade separation in a high density area. I'd like to see a high quality final product.

As the famous poster Chadillac used to say on the dreaded Canada forums "The Greenline will be completely grade separated from 24th ave N to Lynnwood station. About 13kms!"(Assuming the CPR goes through with their plan to close the 8th street crossing).

To me it's lunacy not to use the CPR right of way to 4th ave. After 4th ave they can start tunneling and go below the Red line.

We have about 275m to get below the Red line tunnel.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0433308,-114.0562165,258m/data=!3m1!1e3

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

Transit access for the Beltline is a difficult question. While many in the Beltline work downtown, there is a benefit in providing access to the LRT for reverse-commutes and other non-core trips. The problem with the Beltline is geography, which shapes where the LRT currently goes vs. where the population lives. Beltline is spread out on an east-west access and the primary destination is to the north. The problem is that it is bounded on the south by Mount Royal, which is a low density community with lots of hills- not a place ideal to run transit through. Mission is the optimal connection to run a north/south line through, but the LRT ended up going up Macleod instead (for good reasons- Stampede being one of them) so that horse has left the barn. So now The south LRT skirts the edge of the community along Macleod Trail, but the bulk of residential density is between 14th street and 1st street. This same problem happens with the West LRT which barely captures the far NW corner of the Beltline population. The greenline is similarly difficult: it is hard to capture the main residential area without major detours. The population of the Beltline is on the opposite end of where the greenline is to run through.

Most Beltliners (and Lower Mount Royalers like myself) just end up walking to the train on 7th. Although it is a long walk (1550m for myself to get to 8th street station), it is one that is amenity rich, so it isn't so bad.

My thought is that the best option is a future rapid transit for the Beltline is to have lines running down 4th street that connects mission to the downtown, and go on further south on Elbow Drive, Macleod (via Mission Road) and Fairmount/Macleod (via Mission road and 61st Avenue). These would essentially be local lines for the south as compared to the express line that is the south LRT. Buses to start, but maybe in the long term, these could be trams. Probably not something that will happen for a long time, but perhaps useful when the city gets to a higher population.

Excellent post!

You're correct, transit access for the Beltline is a difficult question. I'll probably get flayed for saying this, but due to geography, I don't really think the Beltine needs rapid transit for the foreseeable future.

Here is the open house material from Mar.2:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/...y-public-meeting-presentation-slides.pdf

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Don't forget that a lot of households have two people who are working in them so although one of the two may work downtown and can easily walk to work, there is a good chance that the other may work outside of the downtown core.

Yes and no. If we were speaking of neighbourhoods in the northern hills where most households have multiple working aged residents, I'd agree with you. As we are talking about the Beltline, the data doesn't support your hypothesis. Firstly, the average per unit occupancy in the Beltline is only 1.2. When you factor in workforce ratios, you actually come up with an average of less than 1 person per unit in the Beltline who works or is looking to work.

This is a great example of where the details are important. I'm not saying that you're categorically wrong, but the data I'm aware of doesn't jive with your conclusions. If you have other data that could result in an opposite conclusion, would be happy to see that.

The general comment about people working outside of the downtown (at a city-wide level), however, is completely valid. We do know that a vast majority of jobs in Calgary are outside of the core. This is undeniable.