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

[badc0ffee]

I'm not sure the green line part of this works as you'd need to go under the new-ish 4 St SE underpass, and I'm not sure the red line tunnel is deep enough.

 

[Red Star]

I'm not sure the green line part of this works as you'd need to go under the new-ish 4 St SE underpass, and I'm not sure the red line tunnel is deep enough.

I think a parallel bridge would be needed over the 4th street underpass. Then the train would have to descend to meet up with the Red-line tunnel. I don't know how deep the existing tunnel is, but there is about 180m of 'run-way' to make the descent. Not sure if that is enough.

 

[thecivilengineer]

Does 8th ave subway means in future relocating existing 7th ave track to underground?

Yes. It could be used.

IMHO the downtown alignment seemed pretty ill thought out. The underground section was way too ambitious...especially when low-floor LRT was to be the preferred technology. It's my understanding that rider capacity is limited on a low-floor LRT as passengers cannot stand on top of the wheel chassis.

To save costs and increase the efficacy of the project, I'd implement the following:

SE Leg:
1. Make the SE LRT a high-floor system. It runs in a dedicated ROW. There's no need to make it a low-floor system.
2. Fit-out the existing underground City Hall station shell and build the first section of the 8th ave subway to a station at Centre street. (450m of cut and cover along 8th Ave.)
3. Have a small section interlace with the red-line. (This kind of sucks because it hampers travel-time on the Red-line. Ideally red-line trains would be given priority until the entire 8th ave Subway is built)
4. Only rough-in stations at 26th ave, Milligan and 86th ave. to save cost and travel time. They can be built when ridership demand catches up.

NC Leg:

1. Utilize a low floor train. Have the entire NC-LRT run along Centre street. Low floor can be integrated into Centre street more easily than a high-floor system.
2.Built a Subway station between 6th and 7th ave.
3. Have the LRT surface north of 4th ave and have a surface station in Chinatown.
4. Utilize the Centre street bridge to save costs.

Forgive the terrible sketch I made during my lunch break...
View attachment 594974

 

[badc0ffee]

Does 8th ave subway means in future relocating existing 7th ave track to underground?

Just the red line. The blue line would still run on 7 Ave. This increases track capacity for both lines.

 

[whatchyyc]

Yes. It could be used.

IMHO the downtown alignment seemed pretty ill thought out. The underground section was way too ambitious...especially when low-floor LRT was to be the preferred technology. It's my understanding that rider capacity is limited on a low-floor LRT as passengers cannot stand on top of the wheel chassis.

To save costs and increase the efficacy of the project, I'd implement the following:

SE Leg:
1. Make the SE LRT a high-floor system. It runs in a dedicated ROW. There's no need to make it a low-floor system.
2. Fit-out the existing underground City Hall station shell and build the first section of the 8th ave subway to a station at Centre street. (450m of cut and cover along 8th Ave.)
3. Have a small section interlace with the red-line. (This kind of sucks because it hampers travel-time on the Red-line. Ideally red-line trains would be given priority until the entire 8th ave Subway is built)
4. Only rough-in stations at 26th ave, Milligan and 86th ave. to save cost and travel time. They can be built when ridership demand catches up.

NC Leg:

1. Utilize a low floor train. Have the entire NC-LRT run along Centre street. Low floor can be integrated into Centre street more easily than a high-floor system.
2.Built a Subway station between 6th and 7th ave.
3. Have the LRT surface north of 4th ave and have a surface station in Chinatown.
4. Utilize the Centre street bridge to save costs.

Forgive the terrible sketch I made during my lunch break...
View attachment 594974

Not too crazy considering it was a studied alternative:

View attachment 594852Is this proposal back on the table then??

But IMO if you're building a subway under 8th ave you might as well just bury the Red Line instead and put the Green Line on 7th Ave, rather than kneecap the Red Line with the interline

 

[CBBarnett]

But IMO if you're building a subway under 8th ave you might as well just bury the Red Line instead and put the Green Line on 7th Ave, rather than kneecap the Red Line with the interline

Not a bad idea - do this above ground Green Line thing, but split the Red Line out with it's Stephen Ave subway project. For a similar length of tunnelling you get some total system improvements and a broader capacity bump, especially on the always-busy Red Line. I mean if we are going to spend $5B+ on some complicated big-city train system, this would be a really good upgrade.

 

[accord1999]

In this scenario, could the NC line go all the way to Calgary Tower and then somehow punch through an underground or elevated and covered pedestrian pathway from a Calgary Tower NC line station to a Green Line station on 10 Ave and Centre Street? Not ideal but I recall making quite a lengthy connection between lines in NYC via an underground pedestrian pathway. Just my two cents worth and I have no engineering background so feel free to give any feedback you wish!

It may be possible but I think the concept of an independent NCLRT coming into DT on the Centre Street Bridge is relatively new and probably only looked at a high-level. The previous designs using Centre Street would go west around 3rd Ave in order to eventually link with the SELRT. There likely isn't enough information to determine how south it can reach yet.

 

[accord1999]

Well if the SE isn't going to connect, it doesn't really need to be LRT either does it?

As I'd mentioned a few weeks back, I suspect the dedicated ROW BRT plan would service the SE just fine for a generation or so. Plus it would have the advantage of also being a bicycle freeway, as well as providing unimpeded emergency vehicle access to the SE hospital if needed.

Should be the other way around IMO. Start with BRT for SE, build LRT for NC, then extend LRT to the SE as phase 3.

I fully agree with you here, except that the lack of any progress in planning or land acquisition in the North mean it'll be hard to flip the alignment. And other than Michelle Rempel, there's really no politicians even talking about the North anymore. Unfortunately the train will go SE first. The most that the North can hope for is that the train to Seton costs as little as possible to save future funding for the NCLRT.

 

[accord1999]

Ridership is one piece of the puzzle (and I suspect new modelling might show some minor differences with post-covid shifts out of downtown cores), but there are also a ton of operational considerations with disconnected lines. Then you end up with the need for a minimum of two facilities to maintain, wash, store trains and no real ability to get trains between the two segments in peak demand periods (e.g. a hockey game lets out, lets increase the number of trains in the south segment).

I'm not claiming to be a transit expert by any means, but every time you add a connection or mode change there has to be some expectation of ridership drop. If you make transit faster or more convenient, people may actually see it as a viable alternative which it rarely is today in our city.

Yes, in an ideal world it would be connected and grade-separated. But the significant costs over-run have already compromised the Green Line:

-high ridership NC segment cut
-the top ranked Bow River crossing using a tunnel was downgraded to the poorly ranked bridge, before being cut
-most of the SE segment cut
-maintenance yard moved from spacious Shepard to cramped Highfield
-Centre Street underground station deferred
-stations limited to 2-cars

It's a zero-sum game right now, spending an extra $2B on a tunnel in the DT means that NCLRT will be pushed back even further. Does council really want to spend its life savings on a "chassis" with no idea of when it can afford the drivetrain, body, interior and tires? Or does it make due with a serviceable sedan?

 

[O-tac]

Just got an e-mail reply from my MLA Matt Jones. I guess the UCP is going to send some soon to be complete propaganda about their ‘vision’ for the Greenline that will explain everything. They’re hiring an ‘independent’ third party to study other options, but it’s going to be an elevated 7th ave alignment. Is the consultant Jim Gray?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

elevated 7th ave alignment

What?! Is this you or Matt Jones saying this?

 

[badc0ffee]

I can't wait for a 2-storey City Hall station. Levels of sketch previously undreamed of.

 

[accord1999]

Hard to find information from so long ago, but in some of the 2016 alignment documentation it doesn't seem like it was given a very fair shake.

Yeah, it was likely another one of those studies which were biased to a specific option, the full tunnel. This report has a more detailed breakdown of the scoring and the elevated option was a decent all-rounder except for community stuff. But because it wasn't the best at anything, it didn't get any checks.

Loading…

pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com

 

[darwink]

What an analysis like ^this^ lacked is a few more lines: estimated cost and $ per 'point'. With operating and maintenance estimates, you can combined cost into an npv. then you can use ridership estimates to get npv per incremental rider.

Also, the financial section for some reason negatively scores acquiring property, assuming that buying twice as many lots is as equally bad as paying twice as much for the entire project.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I think this was from 2013

View attachment 594926

View attachment 594927

Yeah that looks familiar, thanks!
Still seems like this would be the quickest win for that quadrant of the city. Of the money spent on green line so far with util relocations etc, was it in support of this alignment?
If so, its not really money lost, which would be nice to see for a project that's gone so far off the rails.