Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Class 5 is not the same as preliminary.

Sorry I mean a more scale of magnitude estimate. Definitely low on the accuracy scale though. The price of the line can easily skyrocket higher.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We spent the same amount a decade ago to put the Westbrook Station and line segment underground versus elevated.

Money well spent due to context for this section of the Greenline, especially to avoid cross Macloed and 1st St SE at grade, both 26,000 Vehicles/Day crossings, effectively one 52,000 Vehicles/Day road, which is the equivalent of the west line crossing Sarcee Trail at grade. Added benefits of urbanness and whatnot, and maintaining other cycling/road infrastructure.

+1 on this. I am really coming to believe that underground on 12th is the best option.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We spent the same amount a decade ago to put the Westbrook Station and line segment underground versus elevated.

There was a real value proposition there - an enhanced TOD including building up above the station, etc. The parallel doesn't exist and is an attempted red herring.

[MalcolmTucker]

^No. Valuing a tiny bit of future potential (plenty of nice urban developments around elevated lines elsewhere such as Vancouver) over breaking many existing things and future potential is a logical failure. Really hard to fix this later compared to the tradeoff of stopping the line for now at the planned large bus exchange stations, or less tunnel north of 16th Ave.

Also the politics of it. There won't be the votes to cut the capacity of Macleod while degrading the built environment. It is the project team's job to present the best lowest cost alternative and the best all around alternative. Council will pick and choose, optimizing with elements from both within the constraints they have.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

There are already two nearby LRT lines, an existing bike lane, and a proposed bike lane. A surface alignment on 12th would jeopardize at least one of those investments. Again, only a single road which connects all the way through this part of the community, and that's the one you want to compromise for a surface line?

What's wrong with 9th Ave? In the context of comparative travel times among those modes, the circuity imposed onto car drivers by having to use 9th Ave as the nearest east west connection is relatively minimal in terms of travel time.

I will continue to harp on this if only in effort to demonstrate the institutionalized and systemic bias for vehicle travel (even among many self-professed urbanists). Why do we really need a road there at all? Why is it ok for the LRT lines to be somewhat nearby, but roads need to go everywhere?

While losing the 12 Ave cycletrack would not necessarily be an ideal, it wasn't exactly a large investment. It also provides the opportunity, and I dare say it could all be done within the 12 Ave ROW to provide unidirectional cycle-tracks - which are, in most contexts, better.

Whether you/we like it or not, these are the steps we have to take if we truly desire to have a transportation system that isn't completely oriented around the automobile with a couple half-baked transit routes and wavy lines for bicyclists thrown in for good measure.

But ultimately, I'm not not a fan of underground for the extent of the area that is in question here.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^No. Valuing a tiny bit of future potential (plenty of nice urban developments around elevated lines elsewhere such as Vancouver) over breaking many existing things and future potential is a logical failure. Really hard to fix this later compared to the tradeoff of stopping the line for now at the planned large bus exchange stations, or less tunnel north of 16th Ave.

Also the politics of it. There won't be the votes to cut the capacity of Macleod while degrading the built environment. It is the project team's job to present the best lowest cost alternative and the best all around alternative. Council will pick and choose, optimizing with elements from both within the constraints they have.

Which location are you talking about exactly? I believe we were talking about spending money you don't have in the beltline in a fashion that doesn't increase servicing for anyone.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Which location are you talking about exactly? I believe we were talking about spending money you don't have in the beltline in a fashion that doesn't increase servicing for anyone.

Building underground increases service quality for all users, rather than anyone specifically. That said, I'm not sure if underground is worth the money here though.

I still think the biggest issue that no one seems to notice is the 90 degree turn from 2nd street onto 12th ave. Unless this is built differently than depicted, which is tight enough to be within an intersection (not sure that's even possible with LRVs), then it will slow down the line downtown much more than the difference between surface and elevated.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Which location are you talking about exactly? I believe we were talking about spending money you don't have in the beltline in a fashion that doesn't increase servicing for anyone.

Removing a bottleneck on the Greenline and on the Macloed/1 St SE cuplet by going underground earlier. Lots of different things at play, not just where stations are. And yeah, a government announcing funding doesn't create it from a giant money tree. The money is there, already in transit specific infrastructure allocations—just because it isn't announced for a specific project doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

[CalgaryAlex]

With these newer options floating around I almost think it would work better if the line went all the way down 2 St to 17 Ave, turned east from there to cross the Stampede Grounds, and go through Ramsay along 17 Ave before joining the established route going south from there. You'd capture way more people, be much closer to important retail corridors, include a large amount of the Mission catchment area, and provide an early Red Line connection at Victoria Park.

The line would be underground until the Stampede Grounds, where it elevates to punch through Scotsman's Hill, coming out on the other side of 8 St SE. I won't pretend that this wouldn't be much more expensive, but if you consider the added benefits, it makes a bit of sense.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by sim

What's wrong with 9th Ave? In the context of comparative travel times among those modes, the circuity imposed onto car drivers by having to use 9th Ave as the nearest east west connection is relatively minimal in terms of travel time.

I will continue to harp on this if only in effort to demonstrate the institutionalized and systemic bias for vehicle travel (even among many self-professed urbanists). Why do we really need a road there at all? Why is it ok for the LRT lines to be somewhat nearby, but roads need to go everywhere?

While losing the 12 Ave cycletrack would not necessarily be an ideal, it wasn't exactly a large investment. It also provides the opportunity, and I dare say it could all be done within the 12 Ave ROW to provide unidirectional cycle-tracks - which are, in most contexts, better.

Whether you/we like it or not, these are the steps we have to take if we truly desire to have a transportation system that isn't completely oriented around the automobile with a couple half-baked transit routes and wavy lines for bicyclists thrown in for good measure.

But ultimately, I'm not not a fan of underground for the extent of the area that is in question here.

I'm not sure how far I want to follow you down into this world where hockey games and big events don't exist, and properties don't need vehicular access. Yes, there's a lot of area dedicated to private vehicles, and there's ways to address that without closing down roads. I'm not interested in your war on cars.

If it's a necessary step, you certainly haven't made that case. What you are proposing is in fact a half-baked solution, whether it's because you feel that Beltline is an acceptable area to save money or because you have the mistaken idea that the LRT is a streetcar.

I want the money spent for proper grade separation, and I don't care if that means the train only makes it to McKenzie Towne (they can build the rest later) or the City has to ask for more money.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Building underground increases service quality for all users, rather than anyone specifically. That said, I'm not sure if underground is worth the money here though.

That's a thoughtful and acceptable position. Agreed on both counts.

I will say, however, I don't appreciate the noise of traveling in a subway, and I don't appreciate the view nearly as much as above grade. Consider that view you get of downtown as you go past Crowchild east-bound on the west LRT. In that type of scenario, I'll take that view and the lower noise over underground any day (and being cheaper is a huge bonus to boot).

[ggopher]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Which location are you talking about exactly? I believe we were talking about spending money you don't have in the beltline in a fashion that doesn't increase servicing for anyone.

According to the latest report from the city. Undergound has a big advantage for most users. I think it is a worth the money. http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=517940

The Beltline represents the busiest segment of the Green Line with 40% to 50% of all Green
Line riders expected to travel through the Beltline. The analysis indicates:
• Travel times for the tunnel option are approximately 50% of what is forecast with the surface option. This means travel savings of approximately 5 min per passenger for approximately 45,000 Calgarians on opening day.
• The tunnel option produces societal benefits (primarily time savings) of almost $380 million over 30 years.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by ggopher

According to the latest report from the city. Undergound has a big advantage for most users. I think it is a worth the money. http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=517940

I'm surprised the time savings over 30 years only amount to $380 million dollars. Anyway, tunneling is the way to go and they should start the tunnel sooner to avoid sharp turns where the train has to slow down to 2 mph. Do transit planners not ride the NW line? Going into and coming out of the tunnel by North Hill Mall is something they should not be trying to repeat.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I'm surprised the time savings over 30 years only amount to $380 million dollars. Anyway, tunneling is the way to go and they should start the tunnel sooner to avoid sharp turns where the train has to slow down to 2 mph. Do transit planners not ride the NW line? Going into and coming out of the tunnel by North Hill Mall is something they should not be trying to repeat.

Thank you. However, I'm not even sure how tunneling will avoid this, as the intersection we are talking about (2nd street and 12 ave) has development on three corners and a park on the least relevant corner (Park Point is under construction on the NW corner). I would expect the line to be fairly close to the surface here so cut and cover would be the construction method, so if nothing is demolished it will still have to follow the road. A bored tunnel would likely have to be very deep to avoid the basements at this point, deeper than would be wanted to surface a few blocks to the east.

I think some of these buildings will have to go:

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thank you. However, I'm not even sure how tunneling will avoid this, as the intersection we are talking about (2nd street and 12 ave) has development on three corners and a park on the least relevant corner (Park Point is under construction on the NW corner). I would expect the line to be fairly close to the surface here so cut and cover would be the construction method, so if nothing is demolished it will still have to follow the road. A bored tunnel would likely have to be very deep to avoid the basements at this point, deeper than would be wanted to surface a few blocks to the east.

Are there any examples of a tunnel "expropriating" a parking garage? I am no engineer so I really don't know. Could the SW corner of the building just lose a corner of it's parking? Perhaps not enough to maintain a full-speed curve radii, but enough to avoid the structural columns of the building preventing major demolition.

That whole block only has 1 level of underground parking btw.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Are there any examples of a tunnel "expropriating" a parking garage? I am no engineer so I really don't know. Could the SW corner of the building just lose a corner of it's parking? Perhaps not enough to maintain a full-speed curve radii, but enough to avoid the structural columns of the building preventing major demolition.

That whole block only has 1 level of underground parking btw.

Not that I know of but I am also no expert. I would assume you would have to be very lucky with how they built the basement though for it to work out so you could thread a railway through, doesn't sound feasible to me.

Just saying, but making the turn from 2nd onto 10th instead would be a much easier proposition. I do wonder how many experienced engineers are involved in this early route finding stuff, as it seems that there have been loads of obvious (to me) problems that should have been noticed right away. But of course I am just an observer, and maybe there is more thought behind the scenes.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

I'm not sure how far I want to follow you down into this world where hockey games and big events don't exist, and properties don't need vehicular access. Yes, there's a lot of area dedicated to private vehicles, and there's ways to address that without closing down roads. I'm not interested in your war on cars.

If it's a necessary step, you certainly haven't made that case. What you are proposing is in fact a half-baked solution, whether it's because you feel that Beltline is an acceptable area to save money or because you have the mistaken idea that the LRT is a streetcar.

I want the money spent for proper grade separation, and I don't care if that means the train only makes it to McKenzie Towne (they can build the rest later) or the City has to ask for more money.

I meant that generally, not that I had figured out the solution in 5 minutes. But then you decided to post the bolded, and I've decided that you are no longer worth engaging with. False dichotomies and poor ability to challenge the conventional wisdom do not interest me.

[craner]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Money well spent due to context for this section of the Greenline, especially to avoid cross Macloed and 1st St SE at grade, both 26,000 Vehicles/Day crossings, effectively one 52,000 Vehicles/Day road, which is the equivalent of the west line crossing Sarcee Trail at grade. Added benefits of urbanness and whatnot, and maintaining other cycling/road infrastructure.

Quoted for MFT.
The benefit of underground isn't the underground station (as Suburbia keeps bringing up) but in the elimination of conflicts with surface transportation and thus increasing efficiency of the LRT.

[craner]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

With these newer options floating around I almost think it would work better if the line went all the way down 2 St to 17 Ave, turned east from there to cross the Stampede Grounds, and go through Ramsay along 17 Ave before joining the established route going south from there. You'd capture way more people, be much closer to important retail corridors, include a large amount of the Mission catchment area, and provide an early Red Line connection at Victoria Park.

The line would be underground until the Stampede Grounds, where it elevates to punch through Scotsman's Hill, coming out on the other side of 8 St SE. I won't pretend that this wouldn't be much more expensive, but if you consider the added benefits, it makes a bit of sense.

I would be in favour of this option given the projections supporting Beltline users and it could eliminate the problem of the tight south to east / west to north turn that milomilo has pointed out.

[PPAR]

If the green line is underground on 12th, the plan is to cross under the red line east of Macleod. That implies at least 5 more blocks underground from the corner of 2nd and 12th. Given that, I suspect the line could in fact be quite deep, and pass under any foundations as required. Also, as the tunnel looks to be several kilometres long, and go under the river, it is likely that a boring machine will end up being the most cost effective option. I would not worry about having to make a sharp corner.

If you want to read an example of tunnelling underground through density, look up the crossrail project in London, amazing things done there.