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

[badc0ffee]

I like it, but yeah, we need the 4 St SE station, and would miss out on service to Inglewood/Ramsay, which are both a big draw and have future potential.

 

[jhappy77]

Here's what I would do to mitigate costs downtown.

Guessing it's too late to go this route? But if y'all think there's any chance otherwise I would happily send this to every city councillor.

 

[badc0ffee]

Guessing it's too late to go this route? But if y'all think there's any chance otherwise I would happily send this to every city councillor.

The issues I see there have to do with the distance required to get to proper tunnel depth. Your tunnel would have to go under the underpass at 1 St SE and the train wouldn't be able to get to the surface by 2 St SE, which means it would have to stay at depth (2 St SE also has an underpass). Perhaps it could surface just west of 4 St SE.

 

[kempes_78]

I'm just going to comment on the strange fact that you created this account recently just to post these kinds of cryptic messages of outrage and opposition. You've posted like 10 times in this thread to say basically the same thing.

Stating an opinion!

 

[Red Star]

Not that anybody asked, but here's what I would have built instead of this:

• Phase 1
  • Use the existing LRT vehicle type for the SE green line.
  • Make the SE green line branch off 7 Ave, and take 4 St E to go under the CP tracks.
  • This means the red, blue and SE green lines would share 7 Avenue, which is not good long-term, but that leads us to:
• Phase 2
  • Red line tunnel under 8 Ave (this would be shallower than the proposed green line tunnel that has to go under both the red line tunnel and CP tracks)
• Phase 3
  • Build a completely different line to go north - THAT line can use the low floor vehicles, and would need its own MSF somewhere in the north. It could use a reinforced Centre St bridge, enter a tunnel at 2 or 3 Ave S, and dead-end at 7 Ave to provide transfers to the blue and SE green lines, and a short pedestrian tunnel to the red line under 8 Ave.
    • 16 Ave N station would certainly need to be in a short tunnel

Alternatively we could do phase 3 first (3 -> 1 -> 2).

You proposal would be a massive cost savings. I only see two problems:

1. 7th Ave. in downtown is already at full C-train capacity.
2. South of Shepard, a high-floor C-train doesn't really work so full as there are lots of at-grade crossings and high-floor stations don't integrate into the existing streetscapes so well. Also, high-floor C-train stations increase the overall cost.

 

[badc0ffee]

7th Ave. in downtown is already at full C-train capacity.

I was thinking that the double blow of oil post-2014 and WFH post-Covid would have changed this, but maybe I'm wrong, in which case we would need to build the red line tunnel before the SE green line (which sounds politically untenable, but then, my proposal isn't real anyway

South of Shepard, a high-floor C-train doesn't really work so full as there are lots of at-grade crossings and high-floor stations don't integrate into the existing streetscapes so well. Also, high-floor C-train stations increase the overall cost.

That is fair, especially in Seton. But I think it would work on the stations along the reserved ROW next to 52 St (McKenzie Towne, Auburn Bay, etc), at least as well as it works in the far NE stations like Martindale.

 

[darwink]

You proposal would be a massive cost savings. I only see two problems:

1. 7th Ave. in downtown is already at full C-train capacity.
2. South of Shepard, a high-floor C-train doesn't really work so full as there are lots of at-grade crossings and high-floor stations don't integrate into the existing streetscapes so well. Also, high-floor C-train stations increase the overall cost.

The original intention was a red line spur which exclusively served Douglas Glen and south. In the 90s when low floor trains were a curiosity. #2 is totally bogus

The cost difference is really small when you look at the project. The 'integration' is even pretty minimal.

What we do know is for 25 years, new systems elsewhere were getting fancy new low floor cars. Simultaneous to that construction, millions went into street scape improvements. Much like street scape improvements when the 17th Ave SE BRT was built. Simultaneously we replaced the stations on 7th Ave with modern ones, and rebuilt the street and electrical infrastructure.

All that conflated and of course we would like to spend less (but never do a true tradeoff analysis if low floor means longer trains which means bigger underground stations which means MUCH MORE cost, and given that low floor trains cost more to maintain and more to procure, just maybe the station cost isn't what matters!).

 

[outoftheice]

Can we talk about how this was the plan for the now deferred Centre St station? You ride a subway in Europe and in order to do so you walk down a short staircase to the platform. Here in Calgary we were apparently planning a massive underground station with elevators, escalators, and a mezzanine level and we pat ourselves on the back that eliminating it will save $400 million? Maybe we should bring the station back and build it realistically instead of as some university ideal fantasy project. This station is supposed to serve 2,000 riders per day!!! (Renderings from the Green Line website)

 

[darwink]

The problem was tunnel depth to get around the Red Line Tunnel. That compounded with not crossing Macleod at grade drove so many design decisions.

If elevated was on the table, plenty of different options could be considered.

Alas.

 

[badc0ffee]

Here in Calgary we were apparently planning a massive underground station with elevators, escalators, and a mezzanine level and we pat ourselves on the back that eliminating it will save $400 million?

I agree about the mezzanine. It looks like those crazy oversized stations in Edmonton, like Bay and Corona.

But we have to have an elevator (assuming a centre platform) or two for accessibility.

 

[lemongrab]

Here's what I would do to mitigate costs downtown.
View attachment 585247
Guessing it's too late to go this route? But if y'all think there's any chance otherwise I would happily send this to every city councillor.

I've been big on this 1st St SW idea for a long time. Even just having the 1st Street underpass as an already dug out starting point will fully supported walls would have to make things so much easier (though I imagine it would need to go a bit deeper there, too).

Lots of options for what to do south of the heavy tracks. I know we've discussed it a lot, but I could talk myself into at grade across the Macleod Trails, though certainly not ideal. Funny how that option suddenly seems a lot more tolerable in this new state of affairs.

Or...if you ran down 10th, what about extending the Macleod underpasses 1 block further south (like how 4th St W goes under 9 Ave)? Still gotta figure out Olympic Way

The original intention was a red line spur which exclusively served Douglas Glen and south. In the 90s when low floor trains were a curiosity. #2 is totally bogus

The cost difference is really small when you look at the project. The 'integration' is even pretty minimal.

What we do know is for 25 years, new systems elsewhere were getting fancy new low floor cars. Simultaneous to that construction, millions went into street scape improvements. Much like street scape improvements when the 17th Ave SE BRT was built. Simultaneously we replaced the stations on 7th Ave with modern ones, and rebuilt the street and electrical infrastructure.

All that conflated and of course we would like to spend less (but never do a true tradeoff analysis if low floor means longer trains which means bigger underground stations which means MUCH MORE cost, and given that low floor trains cost more to maintain and more to procure, just maybe the station cost isn't what matters!).

Where was the spur going to split off to the east?

 

[kempes_78]

Stating an opinion!

Hardly outrage just plain construction economics.

 

[kempes_78]

I've been big on this 1st St SW idea for a long time. Even just having the 1st Street underpass as an already dug out starting point will fully supported walls would have to make things so much easier (though I imagine it would need to go a bit deeper there, too).

Lots of options for what to do south of the heavy tracks. I know we've discussed it a lot, but I could talk myself into at grade across the Macleod Trails, though certainly not ideal. Funny how that option suddenly seems a lot more tolerable in this new state of affairs.

Or...if you ran down 10th, what about extending the Macleod underpasses 1 block further south (like how 4th St W goes under 9 Ave)? Still gotta figure out Olympic Way



Where was the spur going to split off to the east?

The original intention was a red line spur which exclusively served Douglas Glen and south. In the 90s when low floor trains were a curiosity. #2 is totally bogus

The cost difference is really small when you look at the project. The 'integration' is even pretty minimal.

What we do know is for 25 years, new systems elsewhere were getting fancy new low floor cars. Simultaneous to that construction, millions went into street scape improvements. Much like street scape improvements when the 17th Ave SE BRT was built. Simultaneously we replaced the stations on 7th Ave with modern ones, and rebuilt the street and electrical infrastructure.

All that conflated and of course we would like to spend less (but never do a true tradeoff analysis if low floor means longer trains which means bigger underground stations which means MUCH MORE cost, and given that low floor trains cost more to maintain and more to procure, just maybe the station cost isn't what matters!).

Any phazing/ sections, and construction must be optimized to meet the construction plan. Starting points to be carefully selected. Tunneling is key and critical. Costs must stand alone when calculated.

 

[jmarchy]

Here's what I would do to mitigate costs downtown.
View attachment 585247
Guessing it's too late to go this route? But if y'all think there's any chance otherwise I would happily send this to every city councillor.

I have mostly been a lurker here but this image makes me feel a bit better about the 4 St SE station change for what the above ground portion will look like in Victoria Park (assume it will still be shorter than this). Seems to have minimal impact on any C+E district redevelopment plans and might even be easier to integrate if they do end up building a central train station here. Kind of makes me wonder why they didn't have this as the plan in the first place.

Can we talk about how this was the plan for the now deferred Centre St station? You ride a subway in Europe and in order to do so you walk down a short staircase to the platform. Here in Calgary we were apparently planning a massive underground station with elevators, escalators, and a mezzanine level and we pat ourselves on the back that eliminating it will save $400 million? Maybe we should bring the station back and build it realistically instead of as some university ideal fantasy project. This station is supposed to serve 2,000 riders per day!!! (Renderings from the Green Line website)

Agree this is way overkill for what this station needed to be. The purpose of the mezzanine level seems to just be to allow access over the top of the track or the escalator would go right through it, but it could have been 1/3rd of the size easily. No real need for elevators to even stop at that level. If this is the scale they're building it at, I don't see how this station would ever be worthwhile to add to the line down the road - if that's even planned, or has it been fully cut?

 

[kempes_78]

I have mostly been a lurker here but this image makes me feel a bit better about the 4 St SE station change for what the above ground portion will look like in Victoria Park (assume it will still be shorter than this). Seems to have minimal impact on any C+E district redevelopment plans and might even be easier to integrate if they do end up building a central train station here. Kind of makes me wonder why they didn't have this as the plan in the first place.


Agree this is way overkill for what this station needed to be. The purpose of the mezzanine level seems to just be to allow access over the top of the track or the escalator would go right through it, but it could have been 1/3rd of the size easily. No real need for elevators to even stop at that level. If this is the scale they're building it at, I don't see how this station would ever be worthwhile to add to the line down the road - if that's even planned, or has it been fully cut?

You need to think like a designer with a deep underground structure: a mezzanine will be necessary as there is sophisticated electrical and mechanical plant to install. Consider future expansions and station capacity without extending the footprint.