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

[darwink]

And this is where even ALRT is no guarantee of good service. The Bangkok skytrain has gotten worse and worse over the years as they've expanded the lines, but doesn't seem like they've added more trainsets! 10 minute waits are pretty bad on a system that should be capable of a 2 minute frequency. So much transit investment there, but the results are still frustrating and dysfunctional..

The Canada Line in Vancouver suffers from this yet as well so many transit enthusiasts just revert back to talking points from 20 years ago and call it under built. Even with 80m platforms, it would suffer from minor crowding due to not enough rolling stock.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

if your plan involves running the train underground due to the expected usage

It isn't expected usage that has forced it underground. It is the CP rail line (need to go over or under), 7th Ave (need to go over or under) and the +15 (need to go under). You cannot navigate all those obstacles on the ground or even in the air without tight turns (nearly impossible) and going very high (the required clearance for the CP rail line is very high).

I'm hoping the Grand Central the province is teasing caps the CP rail line east of 4th Street SE. Could make for a cool link between VP and EV.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

It isn't expected usage that has forced it underground. It is the CP rail line (need to go over or under), 7th Ave (need to go over or under) and the +15 (need to go under). You cannot navigate all those obstacles on the ground or even in the air without tight turns (nearly impossible) and going very high (the required clearance for the CP rail line is very high).

I'm hoping the Grand Central the province is teasing caps the CP rail line east of 4th Street SE. Could make for a cool link between VP and EV.

7th Ave separation is nice-to-have but not need-to-have, IMO.

I can't imagine the CP rail being capped in any way; not only does it have the same type of constraints east of 4th St SE (it needs to go over or under the Elbow River), freight trains are much less manoeuvrable than LRT, and CP has no need to do anything they don't want to.

 

[darwink]

7th Ave separation is nice-to-have but not need-to-have, IMO.

Problem is block lengths in general and the crossing, which all together make a surface station running north-south quite difficult.

Also, despite everything, it isn't only about cost. You want capacity and speed/travel time improvements. Those are what you are paying for, not the aesthetics of using a higher order mode.

 

[Mountain Man]

How much time is lost on 7th having the train at grade stopping at traffic lights? how many incidents are there with cars or people? How much more work do they have to do to those tracks compared to what would be required in a tunnel? The idea of running any of the green line at grade downtown is just bonkers to me.

 

[CBBarnett]

The Canada Line in Vancouver suffers from this yet as well so many transit enthusiasts just revert back to talking points from 20 years ago and call it under built. Even with 80m platforms, it would suffer from minor crowding due to not enough rolling stock.

I am always surprised how the Canada Line never inspired more projects to copy it's value approach with respect to grade-separated, automated, but with tiny bare-bones stations, small trains and standardization of everything. It's competitively fast, efficient and functional.

The Canada Line's problems now (the trains are crowded because the line is too useful) hardly outweigh the alternative (it might not exist at all) had they gone full metro-sized development with the substantially greater costs, complexity and risks, even back then in cheaper times to build stuff. With today's much more drastic construction inflation environment you'd think everyone would be trying the same approach - create ultra lean, but travel time competitive transit.

Montreal's REM project is a more recent project to watch, at a greater scale, that seems to understand creating good value for investment. Compared to Canada Line, it has much more complexity and benefits from other investments that aren't "priced in" for it's cost (i.e. the Champlain Bridge was priced separately, the Mont Royal tunnel is 100 years old they could partially reuse etc.) but is essentially creating an entirely new automated, high-speed, grade-separate metro network (26 stations, 67 kilometres) for only $9 billion - notably up from ~$5B originally estimated.

 

[thecivilengineer]

They could have done downtown section underground or elevated back in 80's but they always tryin to save cost, even Edmonton has underground.

 

[FCC1982]

How much time is lost on 7th having the train at grade stopping at traffic lights? how many incidents are there with cars or people? How much more work do they have to do to those tracks compared to what would be required in a tunnel? The idea of running any of the green line at grade downtown is just bonkers to me.

Me too.

 

[accord1999]

How much time is lost on 7th having the train at grade stopping at traffic lights? how many incidents are there with cars or people? How much more work do they have to do to those tracks compared to what would be required in a tunnel?

But at lot of the slowness also comes from having many stations close together, requiring more stops and total dwell time and forcing the train to constantly accelerate and decelerate. Even with a tunnel, if it had to stop every 500 m a train wouldn't be all that fast.

The idea of running any of the green line at grade downtown is just bonkers to me.

The idea is only back because the tunnel is something like $1B/km now and a underground station fully built out will probably cost as much as the event centre and that even with 20+ years worth of transit capital funding, it can't provide any benefit to the North or the SE.

 

[Mountain Man]

But at lot of the slowness also comes from having many stations close together, requiring more stops and total dwell time and forcing the train to constantly accelerate and decelerate. Even with a tunnel, if it had to stop every 500 m a train wouldn't be all that fast.

Sure, but it's made 2x as bad by stopping at lights or waiting for the train in front to clear the red at the station. The whole point of mass transit is to avoid traffic delays.

The idea is only back because the tunnel is something like $1B/km now and a underground station fully built out will probably cost as much as the event centre and that even with 20+ years worth of transit capital funding, it can't provide any benefit to the North or the SE.

It's better to spend the money now and do it right, than to half ass it and have a harder problem to solve in the future. Downtown is too busy to have the trains at grade we have now, adding another line will make it a damn mess!

 

[MichaelS]

It's better to spend the money now and do it right, than to half ass it and have a harder problem to solve in the future. Downtown is too busy to have the trains at grade we have now, adding another line will make it a damn mess!

Prove it, with verifiable analysis and an accurate cost estimate, that shows this extra cost is actually worth it. Saying sweeping statements like "downtown is too busy we must tunnel!" Without sound analysis, or "the train must go up Centre Street because that is where the people are" is the type of high level decision making on this project that has lead to the mess we are in, a lost decade and $1 billion spent with literally nothing to show for it except reduced budget for the rest of the transit network, and thus worse overall service.

Not meaning to call you out personally but I am just so fed up with the lack of critical thought that has gone into what was supposed to be the biggest project in this city's history. Instead, we have had emotional high level rhetoric based on "trends", and whenever someone tries to raise concerns about this approach they are insulted and accused of being partisan hacks.

 

[badc0ffee]

They could have done downtown section underground or elevated back in 80's but they always tryin to save cost, even Edmonton has underground.

I think part of it was that downtown Edmonton has much better geology for tunneling. In Calgary, downtown is essentially at the bottom of a riverbed.

 

[darwink]

I think part of it was that downtown Edmonton has much better geology for tunneling. In Calgary, downtown is essentially at the bottom of a riverbed.

Edmonton is sand on top of a coal mine. Perhaps less water saturated. In any case, Edmonton threw money at the problem. It was a tradeoff.

 

[thecivilengineer]

in that case we could have done elevated, and on street level a streetcar would have been better option and the main road in downtown would have been useful for other traffic. its very bad that main means of transit have to stop at red lights at every intersections.

 

[darwink]

in that case we could have done elevated, and on street level a streetcar would have been better option and the main road in downtown would have been useful for other traffic. its very bad that main means of transit have to stop at red lights at every intersections.

We could have. 7th and 8th were set aside for downtown revitalization as transit and pedestrian respectively.

Saving money enabled far more LRT to be built.

I think it was an acceptable tradeoff for the time.