Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit

[accord1999]

I'm hoping @accord1999 puts out a book eventually on this project. That poster seems to have followed the twists and turns pretty closely.

You're very kind but I likely would be not neutral enough...

In the north, it could be as few as 3-4 'euro-style' sidewalk stations between 28th-64th Aves. Of course they could do more of them like that...or they could end up prioritizing grade separation anyways as has happened with most everything else we've built recently.

Based on the 2021 concepts for the 16th and 9th Ave Stations, I think these further north stations would still be pretty substantial. You need to protect the waiting riders from weather and water/snow vehicle spray.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=162691

16th Ave

 

[darwink]

Savings have to be pretty marginal when it boils down to a little less landscaping & cement, and no ramps/guardrails.

Yeah. Numbers I’ve seen is $5 million a station of saving ($7–>$2) but that is old. If land acquisition is a concern or integration into existing street front retail (like 7th Ave when rebuilt) you can see the appeal and cost savings. Whether worth it?

 

[darwink]

You need to protect the waiting riders from weather and water/snow vehicle spray.

A nice to have for sure. A need, no.

 

[CBBarnett]

Which is basically what we've achieved here, minus the 7 Ave stretch. I'll never understand the reluctance/outright opposition to using the GL as a catalyst to achieve that massive upgrade. Building half the 8 Ave subway was actually considered as a negative point FFS!

7th Ave is interesting - it's got to be near the top of the list for highest capacity at-grade rapid transit lines around the continent.

How they achieved this is was absolute signal priority, not just on 7th, but for downtown as a whole to keep LRTs moving including across all the major avenues in the NW Red line. Having two lines operate reasonably well with 24 trains an hour at peak is an incredible feat.

Of course, at modern ridership levels and frequencies, the design has limitations and reliability. At-grade inevitably has more collisions. Last week switching issues were caused by a car driving into the vehicle trap near 8th Street for example, leading to substantial delays. Importantly focusing on hyper-utilization on a single line means there's no redundancy, if anything happens on 7th - both Red and Blue are impacted severely.

Further, I doubt there's much more space to fit more trains per hour so wait times are already near the floor of what's possible with the current configuration and tech (although 4 car trains can be added to dramatically increase capacity). So for the foreseeable future, headways under 5 minutes are not a thing Calgarians will experience unless they travel to more transit-focused cities.

There's a bunch of lessons learned from 7th, notably:

1. If you give transit absolute priority in an area, you can add a surprisingly lot of capacity and frequency cost-effectively at-grade.
2. If you do #1, you will get incredible ridership that justifies further transit service improvements.
3. There's an upper limit to what you can do at-grade before you run into reliability problems.

So we should be applying lesson #1 to everything transit, particularly buses. Just prioritize them - particularly around pinch points and congested areas - sometimes that's queue jumps, others lanes and flyovers, others just simply closing a bus bay to prevent a time-wasting merge into traffic again. There's so much low hanging fruit on our bus system just waiting for a 7th Avenue treatment - cheap but effective.

Ironically, it seems like the low-hanging fruit is what is keeping us distracted - 7th Avenue is so good relative to under-performance almost everywhere else in the system, it's hard to imagine making many (expensive) improvements on 7th v. all the many improvements needed elsewhere. Culturally at transit it seems a shift towards accepting the LRT being more at-grade v. grade-separated seems to be entrenching, such as the 17th Avenue crossing. Cost control on major projects may be a factor here - transit is so expensive to build it starts to seem unrealistic and insurmountably expensive to build a grade-separated modern system.

I'd prefer we move towards a light-metro style Red and Blue line - full grade-separation, automation, higher capacity and higher frequencies - instead of more towards making these systems more like modern LRT.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I still think the HF/LF debate is a fairly pointless distraction from the real mode choice that can still be made with GL. Should it be fully automated or not? (Aka skytrain spec)

Myself, I'd much rather see a ~10bil fully crosstown line able to provide the fastest, most frequent and reliable service possible, which means no mixed traffic (and no drivers)

Having sub 5 minute frequencies will do more to induce usage of GL than any kind of street integration alchemy will...

Hopefully in the not so distant future the province will have the HSR project underway and those with a streetcar fetish can take a quick trip up to Shelbyville to get their fix!

 

[lemongrab]

You're very kind but I likely would be not neutral enough...


Based on the 2021 concepts for the 16th and 9th Ave Stations, I think these further north stations would still be pretty substantial. You need to protect the waiting riders from weather and water/snow vehicle spray.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=162691

16th Ave

View attachment 659817

Oh for sure, I definitely expect them to end up 'looking' like most other stations, but with a few differences we don't really see anywhere else (except maybe 7th ave):

- actually taking away car lanes - you'll cross a one lane on a 'street' to get to the platform instead of a multi-lane stroad.
- and the walk to the station could feel a lot less hostile (though I fully expect the single traffic lane to be wide and see traffic whip by at 60kph)
- slightly smaller footprint
- even less seating, no bike racks, etc

I'm particularly curious if there will be crossing gates for cars and/or pedestrians with loud audible alarms? The loud dinging every few minutes would particularly change the 'vibes' to resemble any other station. I would guess that is where we end up (of course those systems aren't cheap)...which would also continue the funny situation where our busiest stretch of interlined track apparently does not require this belt+braces approach (and tbf I don't think crossing arms/signals in DT would do much to reduce conflicts/incidents)

 

[trtcttc]

Ironically, it seems like the low-hanging fruit is what is keeping us distracted - 7th Avenue is so good relative to under-performance almost everywhere else in the system, it's hard to imagine making many (expensive) improvements on 7th v. all the many improvements needed elsewhere. Culturally at transit it seems a shift towards accepting the LRT being more at-grade v. grade-separated seems to be entrenching, such as the 17th Avenue crossing. Cost control on major projects may be a factor here - transit is so expensive to build it starts to seem unrealistic and insurmountably expensive to build a grade-separated modern system.

I'd prefer we move towards a light-metro style Red and Blue line - full grade-separation, automation, higher capacity and higher frequencies - instead of more towards making these systems more like modern LRT.

17th Ave is a one off and I don't see proposals to rebuild any other station. The new 17th station was a pretty successful, with the Stampede Station site, the Truman hotel site, and the activation of that entire corner wouldn't have been possible without the new station.
It comes down to the trade offs within the budget a primarily car oriented city dedicates to transit. When you visit a city with extensive transit, they have heavy capacity rail, regional rail, LRT for specific areas and each line serves its purpose. Because we are only building one line, the line has to cross downtown elevated like a medium capacity metro, street oriented on Centre St N, suburban commuter rail in the SE and North. We have one vehicle and one technology to satisfy all these needs.

I still think the HF/LF debate is a fairly pointless distraction from the real mode choice that can still be made with GL. Should it be fully automated or not? (Aka skytrain spec)

Myself, I'd much rather see a ~10bil fully crosstown line able to provide the fastest, most frequent and reliable service possible, which means no mixed traffic (and no drivers)

Having sub 5 minute frequencies will do more to induce usage of GL than any kind of street integration alchemy will...

Hopefully in the not so distant future the province will have the HSR project underway and those with a streetcar fetish can take a quick trip up to Shelbyville to get their fix!

I don't think it can be fully automated if it's not 100% grade separated. And automation is more of a cost saving than operational improvement. If they have a modern CBTC signaling system, the trains are essentially automated anyways

 

[Red Star]

I don't think it can be fully automated if it's not 100% grade separated. And automation is more of a cost saving than operational improvement. If they have a modern CBTC signaling system, the trains are essentially automated anyways

I think automating a metro systems allows for shorter headways. With human drivers there is a minimum safe headway.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I don't think it can be fully automated if it's not 100% grade separated. And automation is more of a cost saving than operational improvement. If they have a modern CBTC signaling system, the trains are essentially automated anyways

That's sort of my point, it wouldn't take too many changes to make ph1 of the SE route fully separated, and the benefits that could offer far outweigh the costs of doing so. It wouldn't just be drivers saved, but having high frequency service means the trainsets and stations don't need to be as long, so cheaper. It also keeps fresh people cycling through stations more often, which would help make them safer.

If I'm not mistaken, skytrain tech can run trains as often as every 90 seconds! If GL were built to that spec, offering fast reliable weather resistant service, that was available with nearly no wait times at nearly any time of day, Calgary would have something that could truly justify a car free life for a lot more people.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I'd prefer we move towards a light-metro style Red and Blue line - full grade-separation, automation, higher capacity and higher frequencies - instead of more towards making these systems more like modern LRT.

I'd like to see ctrain go this way as well.

Further to that end, I'd be interested in seeing if a ph3 SE extension could be done that would link up with red line at 210 av. Could be a great spot for a hub station with commuter rail too.

 

[trtcttc]

=

I think automating a metro systems allows for shorter headways. With human drivers there is a minimum safe headway.

That's sort of my point, it wouldn't take too many changes to make ph1 of the SE route fully separated, and the benefits that could offer far outweigh the costs of doing so. It wouldn't just be drivers saved, but having high frequency service means the trainsets and stations don't need to be as long, so cheaper. It also keeps fresh people cycling through stations more often, which would help make them safer.

If I'm not mistaken, skytrain tech can run trains as often as every 90 seconds! If GL were built to that spec, offering fast reliable weather resistant service, that was available with nearly no wait times at nearly any time of day, Calgary would have something that could truly justify a car free life for a lot more people.

You can achieve 90 second headway with CBTC signaling, no need for automation. The reason operating headway is 100 seconds is for station dwell, which will be there automated or not. The limiting factor won't be automation, but the number of trains and service Calgary Transit will actually operate at. Automating it just introduces extra requirements on the North segment with essentially zero operational gain.

 

[darwink]

Automating it just introduces extra requirements on the North segment with essentially zero operational gain.

Trying to automate in Edmonton for their tunnel segment created a world of hurt. I am skeptical as whether they've achieved it, or just quietly abandoned it for a workable solution.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

You can achieve 90 second headway with CBTC signaling, no need for automation. The reason operating headway is 100 seconds is for station dwell, which will be there automated or not. The limiting factor won't be automation, but the number of trains and service Calgary Transit will actually operate at. Automating it just introduces extra requirements on the North segment with essentially zero operational gain.

It's sort of a catch 22 though.. While the signaling tech may be capable, we know damn well that we'll never see 90 second LRT frequencies if a driver is still required.

So indirectly, automation IS the limiting factor as it defines whether additional expensive humans are needed to provided the increased frequency.

As for the current at grade NC plans, the sooner they find their way to a dumpster the better! Every one of those crossings is a service disruption waiting to happen...

 

[lemongrab]

I don't think it can be fully automated if it's not 100% grade separated. And automation is more of a cost saving than operational improvement. If they have a modern CBTC signaling system, the trains are essentially automated anyways

Does this include pedestrian grade separation? Google tells me 100% grade separation is not necessarily required for automation, but obviously you want to be as close as possible. What about remote monitoring? Human(s) watching CCTV of the few spots that can't be sensibly grade separated...

And the other question is why do we apply a much stricter standard to automation than human operators? We have no shortage of incidents already...it seems likely that we could reduce that by striving for automation, even if we only hit 98% grade separation.

I still think the HF/LF debate is a fairly pointless distraction from the real mode choice that can still be made with GL. Should it be fully automated or not? (Aka skytrain spec)

Myself, I'd much rather see a ~10bil fully crosstown line able to provide the fastest, most frequent and reliable service possible, which means no mixed traffic (and no drivers)

The first phase of the SE GL is pretty darn close to grade separation - I believe just 7 crossings of minor roads: Highfield Blvd, Highfield Cres? 69 Ave, 86 Ave, 107 Ave, 29 St SE, 40 St SE. Most of these wouldn't be terribly hard to achieve as there aren't many constraints (or they are simple enough roads that robust crossing gates should work). It would probably be a lot harder to achieve with the extensions, but I'd imagine it would still pay for itself if we truly wanted to 'build it right the first time'.


It's not terribly realistic for a variety of factors unrelated to the specific alignments, but red line NW and blue line west are surprisingly close to full grade separation (from vehicles).

Red Line NW:
2 ave and 4 ave on either side of Sunnyside are simple enough that robust gates should work.

Then it's just the stretch from SAIT station to just west of Lion's Park station (about 1000 meters). In an alternate timeline perhaps they could have integrated a new elevated SAIT station into the new student centre building currently under construction. Then stay elevated over the 14 St interchange (or perhaps you combine SAIT/Lion's Park into a single station spanning 14 St).

Then it's just 14 ave to deal with. Not super easy if you keep LP station as is, but certainly doable.


Blue Line W is a bit tougher, but it's really just 3 main conflicts to resolve (26 St, Sarcee/Costello, and Christine Crossing). it would require some out of the box thinking, like neutering Sarcee Tr with traffic circles on either side of the bridge (but the city seems hellbent in turning it into another freeway), and maybe extending 8 ave through the golf course (it's crazy, but not as crazy as it sounds, and would actually be really good for mobility/connectivity, especially to the new development on the east side).


Anyways, it doesn't quite make sense from an overall system standpoint, but just some silly sim-city fun.

As for the current at grade NC plans, the sooner they find their way to a dumpster the better! Every one of those crossings is a service disruption waiting to happen...

Sadly we are right on the cusp of chiselling those plans into stone with the sunk cost fallacy of getting the SE leg through DT. It wouldn't be too late to opt for running at-grade through the beltline and terminate at 8 ave with a cut and cover tunnel under the CPKC tracks, but that in itself has already killed with other sunk-cost fallacies.

 

[whatchyyc]

69 Avenue will be closed this summer once they finish the 78 Ave tunnel so that's already one less crossing