Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why? The distance from north of the pathway and the river edge of the island is longer than the entire west bridge. There's plenty of distance there. A hundred meters isn't going to break it.

I'm just looking at where Centre street bridge starts and ends, and it's incline, and considering if you don't start rising until after the pathway you lose 100m of distance, out of about 475m, so at least 20% less length to rise the same amount. I assume centre is about as steep as you would want to get.

[getbak]

Public engagement page: https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline

Have your say.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm just looking at where Centre street bridge starts and ends, and it's incline, and considering if you don't start rising until after the pathway you lose 100m of distance, out of about 475m, so at least 20% less length to rise the same amount. I assume centre is about as steep as you would want to get.

With the angle you get back to roughly the same distance.

[powderjunkie]

Yuck, not a fan of surface level south of 16th Ave. Really curious about the cost difference of tunnelling straight into the hill after crossing the river vs. this even bigger bridge (especially if you can put any monetary value on the increased disruption to Centre St.


Haven't looked at it in a while, but I'm still curious about a 1st SW alignment instead of 2 st SW...it seems it could be a lot less disruptive around Prince's Island Park, and better connections to 7Ave stations...obviously the CP tracks are a different challenge.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by getbak

Public engagement page: https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline

Have your say.

Sleeping on it, I like that more of the beltline/victoria park area is underground. That's a good call, but the trade off on centre st being at grade isn't ideal. I understand that with these low floor LRV's, that they aren't as much of a barrier as the current LRV's on the red and blue lines are. So I'm hoping the urban realm of Centre St south 16th doesn't have a moderate negative trade off from this.

But 16th Avenue crossing has to be grade separated. I do feel that road, and the pedestrian realm potential of that intersection would have a ton of lost potential and negative repercussions if you have to deal with train crossing arms.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Yuck, not a fan of surface level south of 16th Ave. Really curious about the cost difference of tunnelling straight into the hill after crossing the river vs. this even bigger bridge (especially if you can put any monetary value on the increased disruption to Centre St.

Back in the fall of 2016, the estimated price difference was $250M.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

With the angle you get back to roughly the same distance.

I'm not sure what kind of measuring tools you are using, but in Google maps I get different numbers. For instance, you can't take the diagonal and say it's the same as the centre street bridge, because your landing point is way up the hill. And If I use best case on the curved line, it's about 375m.


Anyway, I'd be surprised if they didn't start the bridge before the path. If they start at Barclay Street they get 60-70m of rise before the path, which isn't much different than the NW LRT over the river.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure what kind of measuring tools you are using, but in Google maps I get different numbers. For instance, you can't take the diagonal and say it's the same as the centre street bridge, because your landing point is way up the hill. And If I use best case on the curved line, it's about 375m.


Anyway, I'd be surprised if they didn't start the bridge before the path. If they start at Barclay Street they get 60-70m of rise before the path, which isn't much different than the NW LRT over the river.

Measurement and distance is irrelevant. The lines I drew are all equal. If it was a bridge for ants instead, they would all be the same length.

The straight run lands higher up the hill yes, but the proposed map released shows curved ends to the bridge which reduces the landing closer to where center street meets 2nd ave NE. The whole bridge could potentially be one full arc like Calatrava’s example Table 5 posted.

If it begins to rise further south, how do you handle the entrance to Barclay Parade, the residential parkade entrance and the uproar from the Parkside residents now looking out to an elevated concrete structure.

There’s roughly 150 feet between the path and the residential parkade entrance. I believe maximum grade is 5-6%. At 6% the track would only be 9 feet above the path, then account for concrete structure underneath. The path will have to be depressed, which I suppose they can do.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Measurement and distance is irrelevant. The lines I drew are all equal. If it was a bridge for ants instead, they would all be the same length.

The straight run lands higher up the hill yes, but the proposed map released shows curved ends to the bridge which reduces the landing closer to where center street meets 2nd ave NE. The whole bridge could potentially be one full arc like Calatrava’s example Table 5 posted.

If it begins to rise further south, how do you handle the entrance to Barclay Parade, the residential parkade entrance and the uproar from the Parkside residents now looking out to an elevated concrete structure.

You tell them to Dill With It.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You tell them to Dill With It.

Can I say Fuzz sent me when I do?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Back in the fall of 2016, the estimated price difference was $250M.

Interesting...though isn't this option D listed vastly under-estimated (hence why we're where we are now)? It just seems hard to trust any numbers associated with this whole thing.

I'm still on the side of dedicated BRT for SE leg, and do full N leg properly as soon as possible (as is the suggestion by many informed experts, I think I've linked to in the past in this thread), but it seems this project will proceed at full steam while off the rails.

Since they're hellbent on SE rail, I'd rather it just terminated at downtown until they're ready to do the north properly, but of course then they can't connect colourful MAX lines on a map that way.


This is beyond my brain power at the moment, but I wonder if there would be any way to sink Centre St entirely under 16 Ave (or vice versa). Like the long-term plan for Crowchild at Kensington Rd/5 Ave NW...but obviously a bit tougher since it's two major thoroughfares

[GGG]

They should build all the tunnels for the full Cadillac route and just use busses.

The Max system offers exceptional service levels, as good as the train. Then as you prove Capacity you add a North Train and finally the SE LRT. The capital expenses take a long time to recover from the reduced operating costs of an LRT compared to a bus. Potentially never.

So do BRT well on dedicated righ-of way with tunnels and overpasses.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Interesting...though isn't this option D listed vastly under-estimated (hence why we're where we are now)? It just seems hard to trust any numbers associated with this whole thing.

Agreed. It's probable that every option is close to or over $2B now. But even for those initial numbers, there really weren't any "cheap" options to get into downtown. A couples years later, we could learn that even this new alignment is too expensive.

I'm still on the side of dedicated BRT for SE leg, and do full N leg properly as soon as possible

I'm in full agreement here. But the City still clings to the hope that somehow they'll build the entire line even as it continues to be pared down. The Mayor still talks about the Green Line as project that will change the lives of 500K people, when Phase 1 will only be walking distance of barely 100K.

Since they're hellbent on SE rail, I'd rather it just terminated at downtown until they're ready to do the north properly, but of course then they can't connect colourful MAX lines on a map that way.

I think there's also the political aspect; not crossing the river makes it all but certain that the NC LRT will not be built for another generation at least and that would probably lose it enough political support that the Gov of Alberta could pull its funding.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

They should build all the tunnels for the full Cadillac route and just use busses.

The Max system offers exceptional service levels, as good as the train. Then as you prove Capacity you add a North Train and finally the SE LRT. The capital expenses take a long time to recover from the reduced operating costs of an LRT compared to a bus. Potentially never.

So do BRT well on dedicated righ-of way with tunnels and overpasses.

I know you’re not serious but by the time you have tunnels and underground stations you might as well just lay track.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Max system offers exceptional service levels, as good as the train. Then as you prove Capacity you add a North Train and finally the SE LRT. The capital expenses take a long time to recover from the reduced operating costs of an LRT compared to a bus. Potentially never.

Agreed, and even with the potentially lower operating cost/passenger of trains the Green Line is expected to cost $40M/year to operate. That's enough to pay for the operating costs of 300K hours of bus service.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I know you’re not serious but by the time you have tunnels and underground stations you might as well just lay track.

No I am absolutely serious.

The only reason the Green Line exists as a train is that the Feds offered 1.5 billion for trains but not buses. Before that money existed a BRT was the solution.

Go ride Max Purple in rush hour. It has dedicated right of way, at grade stations, and overpasses at key points. It is effectively an LRT without tracks at a fraction of the cost. It does have lower capacity though.

A good example is the Seattle Bus Tunnel. It was constructed an operated as a bus tunnel into their downtown for years prior to them adding LRT tracks.

Also with Busses you could stop in more places down town and wouldn’t necessarily need the underground downtown as connecting North to South would be driven my trip demand not maintenance demand.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

No I am absolutely serious.

The only reason the Green Line exists as a train is that the Feds offered 1.5 billion for trains but not buses. Before that money existed a BRT was the solution.

Go ride Max Purple in rush hour. It has dedicated right of way, at grade stations, and overpasses at key points. It is effectively an LRT without tracks at a fraction of the cost. It does have lower capacity though.

A good example is the Seattle Bus Tunnel. It was constructed an operated as a bus tunnel into their downtown for years prior to them adding LRT tracks.

Also with Busses you could stop in more places down town and wouldn’t necessarily need the underground downtown as connecting North to South would be driven my trip demand not maintenance demand.

The current plan will also require substantial shuttle services to feed the line...these never seem to be considered when people compare the operational prices of BRT vs. LRT. BRT may still require feeder systems, but far less, and the whole system is easier to right-size to fluctuating demand.

So many users will be end to end...the optimal route for the SE is dumbbell shaped (ie. large target areas of both downtown and SE communities, with very little in between)...the train line will only serve the hand grip part. Most people will be looking at 1-2 transfers to get where they want to go.

So much more flexibility with BRT; it can be built in phases and operational very quickly. A phase 1 from Ogden Rd (near Deerfoot) to downtown would be a game changer for any SE commuter.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

A phase 1 from Ogden Rd (near Deerfoot) to downtown would be a game changer for any SE commuter.

As a SE resident, If I'm at Ogden road and Deerfoot, I'm just driving the rest of the way to downtown. I would not waste my time parking and taking a BRT at that point.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

The most people I've ever seen on a Max Yellow bus is 4. The average amount I see is zero.

77 million dollars and 3 years of obstruction and delays on 14th Street SW well spent.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

No I am absolutely serious.

The only reason the Green Line exists as a train is that the Feds offered 1.5 billion for trains but not buses. Before that money existed a BRT was the solution.

Go ride Max Purple in rush hour. It has dedicated right of way, at grade stations, and overpasses at key points. It is effectively an LRT without tracks at a fraction of the cost. It does have lower capacity though.

A good example is the Seattle Bus Tunnel. It was constructed an operated as a bus tunnel into their downtown for years prior to them adding LRT tracks.

Also with Busses you could stop in more places down town and wouldn’t necessarily need the underground downtown as connecting North to South would be driven my trip demand not maintenance demand.

I’m not sure I understand your point then. Now you’re saying no tunnel downtown, so why were you talking about tunnel at all? You’re just saying Max BRT the whole route.