MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Muta]

Do it properly and put downtown LRT infrastructure underground. Many, many first-world, cold climate cities have underground networks, and so should we - we are approaching 2 million population size, and will be looking at 3 million in the horizon. Calgary and the province need to stop being cheap.... spend the money, and do this RIGHT. We have only have one chance to do this.

[puffnstuff]

But how does the province spending the money to do that 'own the libs' exactly?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Muta

Do it properly and put downtown LRT infrastructure underground. Many, many first-world, cold climate cities have underground networks, and so should we - we are approaching 2 million population size, and will be looking at 3 million in the horizon. Calgary and the province need to stop being cheap.... spend the money, and do this RIGHT. We have only have one chance to do this.

The whole reason we've been in this ordeal for now a decade, is trying to force a tunnel that year by year, is becoming cost prohibitive.

If it was the only viable option, that's one thing. But if elevated can accomplish the same goals of service and reliability, at a considerably cheaper cost, then wouldn't it be better to do that rather than the subway? With the costs savings, you can allow the line to reach further parts of the city faster. Although I say we can't have 80s philosophy for transit building anymore, that is one thing that happened in the 80s that has made the CTrain as successful as it is.

I think the elevated option was disregarded way to earlier in the planning process, and wasn't given a fair shake. Now we're circling back to see if it's what should be done now. As long as it's not the Jim Gray proposal, and it's intended to go through the core of downtown, and connect to Centre Street for the north extension, I think that may be the best choice.

The subway can be built for the red line when it makes sense to do it decades from now. But for a low floor LRT, it seems odd that trying to force a subway for a vehicle that's intended to be better suited for at grade operation has been non-negotiable until now. Elevated should be the preferred choice once costs escalated beyond scope.

[Ozy_Flame]

I couldn't imagine Montreal or Toronto having elevated subway tracks downtown (Toronto's streetcars on their own are sources of contention). Couldn't imagine Vancouver's Canada Line being at grade either (going underground was the absolute right decision). And those aren't even alpha cities like London or Tokyo, which rely so heavily on underground lines.

Calgary couldn't use the tunnels they dug under 8th ave. Just crazy to think.

Personally I think if you just make the investment now, get it done proper, you'll have years to review and collect data (while inflation still grows). This "can at-grade achieve the same success" is a time-honored tradition in Calgary infrastructure planning which keeps bringing everyone back to the table every 10 years for the same debate. Over. And over. And over.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

But how does the province spending the money to do that 'own the libs' exactly?

Do you own research to find out.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or go elevated and ignore the shading and plus 15 cut off issues.

You can ignore the shading, but I'm not sure how you ignore the plus 15s.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by getbak

You can ignore the shading, but I'm not sure how you ignore the plus 15s.

Oh, that part is easy.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by GGG

How much is the 8 ave tunnel?

Connect this train to 7th and bury 8th ave red line then run north at grade on center st. If we are going to bury something it may as well be the most needed infrastructure.

Or go elevated and ignore the shading and plus 15 cut off issues.

I feel i am missing something.

if we bury the red line and leave the blue and green lines running along 7th avenue, are we also talking about additional LRT stations for the low-floor Green line vehicles?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by getbak

You can ignore the shading, but I'm not sure how you ignore the plus 15s.

You turn all the plus 15s into these.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I feel i am missing something.

if we bury the red line and leave the blue and green lines running along 7th avenue, are we also talking about additional LRT stations for the low-floor Green line vehicles?

I still don't understand why the Green Line needs low floor vehicles when the other two large lines are already running high floor trains. It makes no sense from a maintenance and integration perspective. Can someone enlighten me as to why this is so necessary?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

I still don't understand why the Green Line needs low floor vehicles when the other two large lines are already running high floor trains. It makes no sense from a maintenance and integration perspective. Can someone enlighten me as to why this is so necessary?

The initial plan meant that sharing maintenance facilities didn't have many benefits, because there would be enough trains on the green line to justify their own. Most car manufacturers build low floor, and most places buy them, so there are limited suppliers for high floor. Stations are cheaper. The line initial had a bit of Druh Farrel city tram vision with it integrating at street level, which low floor do better.


I'm not arguing these points, just that these are some that were brought up over the years.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I feel i am missing something.

if we bury the red line and leave the blue and green lines running along 7th avenue, are we also talking about additional LRT stations for the low-floor Green line vehicles?

You’re right we bought the low floor cars already so that’s out.

How about going back to the 2006 idea of on surface along 10th ave?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

You can ignore the shading, but I'm not sure how you ignore the plus 15s.

You choose not to care and deal with the affect of some buildings being on the wrong side of the network because you decide that it’s not worth a billion dollars to preserve them.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

I still don't understand why the Green Line needs low floor vehicles when the other two large lines are already running high floor trains. It makes no sense from a maintenance and integration perspective. Can someone enlighten me as to why this is so necessary?

one reason to consider low floor is that the infrastructure costs for each station are drastically lower. Our existing stations need fencing, ramps, stairs to guide passengers to a platform. the low floor vehicles simplify that structure design aspect improving accessibility (wheelchairs, baby strollers, wheelie carts, bicycles, e-scooters).

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by GGG

You’re right we bought the low floor cars already so that’s out.

How about going back to the 2006 idea of on surface along 10th ave?

how do we turn north?

Or do we travel 10th avenue and head to the SW? (MRU and on south to Paliser /woodbine?

[Muta]

As Nenshi has stated before, accommodating at-grade 4-car LRT turning radiuses in the downtown core just isn't feasible, unless you're now undertaking massive demolition / urban reconfiguration projects. Exact same issue with the above-grade scenario, including the requirement to punch though the +15 networks. Ironically (but not surprisingly), underground allows for the most maneuverability/mobility in transit planning. The only way to maybe do cost-efficient at-grade or above-grade is if the line cuts through downtown in a single direction, and then you're still going to have to accommodate turning through the Beltline.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I couldn't imagine Montreal or Toronto having elevated subway tracks downtown (Toronto's streetcars on their own are sources of contention). Couldn't imagine Vancouver's Canada Line being at grade either (going underground was the absolute right decision). And those aren't even alpha cities like London or Tokyo, which rely so heavily on underground lines.

Calgary couldn't use the tunnels they dug under 8th ave. Just crazy to think.

Personally I think if you just make the investment now, get it done proper, you'll have years to review and collect data (while inflation still grows). This "can at-grade achieve the same success" is a time-honored tradition in Calgary infrastructure planning which keeps bringing everyone back to the table every 10 years for the same debate. Over. And over. And over.

Calgary didn't really dig tunnels under 8th Avenue. They left a bunch of space empty that would otherwise have been parking levels under the municipal building. (which does tie into the tunnel from Stampede Station that currently goes to 7th)

Originally Posted by getbak

You can ignore the shading, but I'm not sure how you ignore the plus 15s.

You go over them. You have to be like 14 meters over the CP tracks, which puts you at +45 level and above everything that already exists.

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

I still don't understand why the Green Line needs low floor vehicles when the other two large lines are already running high floor trains. It makes no sense from a maintenance and integration perspective. Can someone enlighten me as to why this is so necessary?

The answer is kinda hilarious. LF was needed to navigate the beltline at grade, and then make tight turns and grade changes to get through DT with cut and cover tunnels (which LF does better than HF). But all of that became irrelevant when the city developed deep bore tunnel vision.

One option in DT was to turn off 2nd St onto 3 Ave and then onto Centre St and up the bridge (90 degree turns possible with LF). But apparently it was better to expropriate a demolish a bunch of housing units and then carve a bridge through our nicest DT park so that it can join Centre St 600 meters further north.

The whole SE ROW was set aside with the expecatation of HF. LF is only necessary for Centre St from DT to 64th Ave.


But everybody who wants to future proof this thing has no issue with the lower capacity of LF trains, which won't work well in the long term as 3 car trains will be too long for stations on our shorter N-S blocks.

[Ironhorse]

So it sounds to me like the city painted themselves into a bit of a corner with these LF trains because of a misguided / obsolete vision, and now is now too stubborn or embarrassed to cut bait and change to a system that has more integration possibilities with the other lines.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

how do we turn north?

Or do we travel 10th avenue and head to the SW? (MRU and on south to Paliser /woodbine?

The 2006 alignment had it going up 2nd st NW or 6st NW

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

So it sounds to me like the city painted themselves into a bit of a corner with these LF trains because of a misguided / obsolete vision, and now is now too stubborn or embarrassed to cut bait and change to a system that has more integration possibilities with the other lines.

How is lower station-related DBOM costs and better street-level integration misguided and obsolete?

Especially with respect to street-level integration, unless it's a fully grade-separated medium rail system like a "proper" subway or metro, using low floor light rail follows recommended urban design principles for large cities. People being able to get off on the street in close proximity to the all of the action (i.e. business activity, social events, etc.) is desirable for community building and place-making because it makes engagement between people, places, and things easier - e.g. you're a few feet away from things instead of a couple blocks and/or multiple vertical floors. This is the way it's done all over the world and this was the vision for Calgary because the line would be running through dense corridors such as Downtown, Center Street, and the (future) Ramsay/Victoria Park areas.

Also, LRVs are long lead items. These are custom-built vehicles that are not interchangeable with light rail transit systems in other cities (except for rare exceptions like the Calgary and Edmonton Siemens U2). Everything about an LRV is highly specialized based on the local infrastructure of the city...the pantographs, traction power systems, electrical system requirements, etc. The construction, delivery (from overseas because LRVs typically aren't manufactured in North America due to low demand), and local commissioning takes time.

The Green Line project needed 100 LRVs and had committed funding from three levels of government, which was ordered all at once to increase economies of scale and save costs. If anything, ordering high-floor LRVs that need to be compatible with both a new Green Line and with the older LRV infrastructure supporting the current Siemens SD 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 trains would be more costly for the City in all aspects.

Not to mention, imagine the backlash on the City if the LRVs were ordered late (without 3-5 years of lead time), but the actual first phase of the line was constructed for 2027-28 per the last plans (assuming minimal UCP interference) and LRVs weren't ready in time for line opening...