HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4101  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 3:04 PM
jules_landlocked jules_landlocked is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socguy View Post
Here is an interesting video about why high floor LRT is probably a better choice for about 90% of lines in North America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6oi8x7HYc
I'm far more positive on low floor than a lot of folks on this board, but I think each technology is dependent on the use case.

The SE leg of the Greenline makes far more sense to be using high floor given 100% of the line will be dedicated right of way and that it will be ultimately acting as commuter rail for the vast majority of riders. In an ideal world, the SE Greenline probably should be a spur line of the existing Red line.

I think you can make a case for low floor - if for example, you want to replace the 16th Avenue North Max BRT or 17th Avenue SE BRT with a tramway down the road. It would be much cheaper to deploy onto the existing road network and far less disruptive to the surrounding communities. Low floor also makes sense if ridership or car/bus traffic is low enough on some portion of the line that you want to support shared use.

The more puzzling question for North American city transportation planners is why they are so resistant to not cannibalizing existing road capacity for shared use with tramways or transition to dedicated right-of-ways for BRT or Low/High floor LRTs.

European cities and towns have plenty examples of both shared use and dedicated right-of-ways.

Last edited by jules_landlocked; Jul 11, 2021 at 3:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4102  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 3:46 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,135
Long in the future the Purple Max is likely to be a spur of the Green Line. Grade separation of Purple Max to the Inglewood Ramsay LRT station is an in the books but low priority project-no functional plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4103  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 4:57 PM
GreaterMontréal's Avatar
GreaterMontréal GreaterMontréal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by jules_landlocked View Post
I'm far more positive on low floor than a lot of folks on this board, but I think each technology is dependent on the use case.

The SE leg of the Greenline makes far more sense to be using high floor given 100% of the line will be dedicated right of way and that it will be ultimately acting as commuter rail for the vast majority of riders. In an ideal world, the SE Greenline probably should be a spur line of the existing Red line.

I think you can make a case for low floor - if for example, you want to replace the 16th Avenue North Max BRT or 17th Avenue SE BRT with a tramway down the road. It would be much cheaper to deploy onto the existing road network and far less disruptive to the surrounding communities. Low floor also makes sense if ridership or car/bus traffic is low enough on some portion of the line that you want to support shared use.

The more puzzling question for North American city transportation planners is why they are so resistant to not cannibalizing existing road capacity for shared use with tramways or transition to dedicated right-of-ways for BRT or Low/High floor LRTs.

European cities and towns have plenty examples of both shared use and dedicated right-of-ways.
I think there is a difference between a LRT that act as a suburb feeder towards the downtown core and a LRT (tramway) that will be used by locals, like a Subway. A tramway should be low floor, a LRT that travels long distance at high speed (like the REM) should be high floor. But IMO, you can't have both system on the same network or the same line, it would defeat the purpose of the transit plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4104  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 5:07 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal View Post
I think there is a difference between a LRT that act as a suburb feeder towards the downtown core and a LRT (tramway) that will be used by locals, like a Subway. A tramway should be low floor, a LRT that travels long distance at high speed (like the REM) should be high floor. But IMO, you can't have both system on the same network or the same line, it would defeat the purpose of the transit plan.
This isn’t uncommon at all world wide. Even interlining subways and regional trains happens in Kyoto.

Calgary and Edmonton's systems were conceived from the start to be hybrids, much like the German systems they were modelled on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4105  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 5:30 PM
GreaterMontréal's Avatar
GreaterMontréal GreaterMontréal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
This isn’t uncommon at all world wide. Even interlining subways and regional trains happens in Kyoto.

Calgary and Edmonton's systems were conceived from the start to be hybrids, much like the German systems they were modelled on.
I think it has to do with the fact that Calgary won't build the Green Line stations near TOD, or the planning was not to build TODs near every station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4106  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 10:32 PM
jules_landlocked jules_landlocked is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Long in the future the Purple Max is likely to be a spur of the Green Line. Grade separation of Purple Max to the Inglewood Ramsay LRT station is an in the books but low priority project-no functional plan.
Assuming the Green Line going North is going to be deferred for some time because of cost considerations, I wonder if this spur would be re-prioritized to better utilize those tunnels and two underground stations downtown? It seems a waste to not better utilize them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4107  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2021, 11:07 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,135
Extending the green line further north is likely by far the most capital efficient per incremental rider ~$35,000 by going to 64 Ave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4108  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2021, 8:28 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
Near Generational
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socguy View Post
Here is an interesting video about why high floor LRT is probably a better choice for about 90% of lines in North America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6oi8x7HYc
Confirmation bias aside, he's raising a lot of the points raised by posters in this thread, myself included.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4109  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2021, 4:54 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,656
Yeah, I feel like the only reason the City went low-floor is because it is the “trendy” thing to do. High floor makes a lot more sense for the Green Line IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:10 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.