MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Ironhorse]

I can see your point about LRV delivery times, although I don't think the order timeline is as out of sync as you may think. We're still looking at 4-5 years before the Green Line is ready, 2027-2028 seems wildly optimistic with how projects get done around here.

I don't think you're going to see any sort of "hop on / hop off near your location" type of action on these trains the way you seem to describe. Our city and traffic is just not adaptable to it. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to see a whole bunch of SunnySide style stations up Center Street (if it ever gets that far) with strict platform guidelines and barriers. The entire SouthEast leg will not benefit whatshoever from hopping on/off in close proximity to their events, since it is designed as a station to station right-of-way.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

I can see your point about LRV delivery times, although I don't think the order timeline is as out of sync as you may think. We're still looking at 4-5 years before the Green Line is ready, 2027-2028 seems wildly optimistic with how projects get done around here.

I don't think you're going to see any sort of "hop on / hop off near your location" type of action on these trains the way you seem to describe. Our city and traffic is just not adaptable to it. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to see a whole bunch of SunnySide style stations up Center Street (if it ever gets that far) with strict platform guidelines and barriers. The entire SouthEast leg will not benefit whatshoever from hopping on/off in close proximity to their events, since it is designed as a station to station right-of-way.

2027-28 for first phase construction completion is probably unfeasible now, but even with the pre-September levels of UCP shenanigans, it wasn't an unreasonable first phase construction completion target 12-18 months ago when the Green Line was still moving ahead.

The SE isn't the main demographic for the Green Line. The highest ridership portions and hop-on/hop-off vision was always going to be the dense 7-8km stretch between Ramsay and Mount Pleasant. SE was just the logical starting point for the Shepard maintenance facility with a bonus that SE commuters would finally have a relatively inexpensively constructed LRV option for commuting downtown to work.

[powderjunkie]

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.

In a sense yes, for the project as a whole (moreso than just the LF trains). Though tbf to the city most of the decisions were based on sound reasoning at the time (even if I disagree with a lot of the prioritization). A big factor in the early days being to secure funding with one unified project instead of multiple legs/components, which seemed messy and complicated. Of course now we are down to one stub of a leg.

LF trains aren't the end of the world, but they are limiting our opportunity to get best bang for our buck here. Everyone is bitching about the issues with 7th Ave, but instead of taking the opportunity to bury our busiest line (with lots of through-ridership in our new transit reality with a reduced focus on the core), we're giving the white-glove premium treatment to the line with the lowest ridership and lowest through-ridership. And then we celebrate that doing this means we don't have to bury the red line for another 50 years.


boogerz raises good points about the benefits of LF. But it's a negligible difference for nearly all of the SE stations (and it's 100% irrelevant for the many stations originally planned to be underground), until you get to McKenzie Towne and Seton. At this point it's probably cost us an extra two decades before that happens. And when working with a dedicated ROW you can mitigate the HF station drawbacks pretty well.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by boogerz

2027-28 for first phase construction completion is probably unfeasible now, but even with the pre-September levels of UCP shenanigans, it wasn't an unreasonable first phase construction completion target 12-18 months ago when the Green Line was still moving ahead.

The SE isn't the main demographic for the Green Line. The highest ridership portions and hop-on/hop-off vision was always going to be the dense 7-8km stretch between Ramsay and Mount Pleasant. SE was just the logical starting point for the Shepard maintenance facility with a bonus that SE commuters would finally have a relatively inexpensively constructed LRV option for commuting downtown to work.

Starting from the SE for this stretch, at one time or another the plans for each of these stations have been:

elevated (Ramsay)
underground
underground
underground
underground
underground
underground (16th)


And the target date for the EC to Millican stub approved in July was 2031.

[powderjunkie]

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.

Here's a crazy idea for how you could send the Green Line to 8th Ave despite LF trains:

Spoiler!

More explanation here - it's an underground terminus at Olympic Plaza. It could even happen off 11th Ave instead of 12th as drawn there.

Olympic Plaza is about to be torn up anyways...it would have been a very opportune time

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by boogerz

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.

The order is only 28 LRVs because the 2020 plan ridership wasn't expected to be high and only needed 2-car trains at 8 min frequencies.

https://www.calgary.ca/green-line/tr...d-testing.html

[getbak]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

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.

That's not ignoring them.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by getbak

That's not ignoring them.

I'm not sure what you meant then?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm not sure what you meant then?

I was responding to the original suggestion that they go elevated and ignore the +15 issues. I wasn't sure what ignoring them meant.

Given the response to my question, I'm still not exactly sure what is being suggested...

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

I assume this means to build the elevated tracks at a reasonable height and demolishing the +15s that are in the way. Honestly, it's not the worst idea in the world, but it would cause its own problems, and I don't think there's any chance it would ever happen. Too many people love the +15 network and would never support removing connections. It would be especially hard at The Core, where it's two levels high and makes the whole space a functional shopping mall.

[Joborule]

I'd figure that all +15 can either be preserved, or in The Core Mall's case, integrated into the elevated LRT. Definitely should be achievable since this isn't rocket science.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Starting from the SE for this stretch, at one time or another the plans for each of these stations have been:

elevated (Ramsay)
underground
underground
underground
underground
underground
underground (16th)


And the target date for the EC to Millican stub approved in July was 2031.

You're right about the Ramsay. Although in 2019-ish, there was talk and some concept renderings (IIRC) about making Inglewood and Ramsay street-integrated stations, but I guess those didn't make it into the Phase 1 plans. Probably because they wanted to get Phase 1 started and didn't want to redesign too much.

Around the same time, the Centre Street concept was and still is (if the current vision is salvaged) intended to be above-ground and street-integrated:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...escent-heights

https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/...rescentheights

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by getbak

I was responding to the original suggestion that they go elevated and ignore the +15 issues. I wasn't sure what ignoring them meant.

Given the response to my question, I'm still not exactly sure what is being suggested...

I assume this means to build the elevated tracks at a reasonable height and demolishing the +15s that are in the way. Honestly, it's not the worst idea in the world, but it would cause its own problems, and I don't think there's any chance it would ever happen. Too many people love the +15 network and would never support removing connections. It would be especially hard at The Core, where it's two levels high and makes the whole space a functional shopping mall.

Not sure the quality will be good enough to see, but it simply goes over everything (this graphic also omits a +15 to the south of the +30)



There's probably a conversation to be had about that +30 though; how much would it save if the train dropped to +30 level north of CP tracks? Probably 600 meters at 10m high instead of at 15m.

Perhaps that +30 is replaced with a +45? A +30 level station would definitely be better for riders; not sure if it would be better or worse for streetscape.


Its also worth noting this option at the time, which IMO was always the best bang for buck:

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by boogerz

You're right about the Ramsay. Although in 2019-ish, there was talk and some concept renderings (IIRC) about making Inglewood and Ramsay street-integrated stations, but I guess those didn't make it into the Phase 1 plans. Probably because they wanted to get Phase 1 started and didn't want to redesign too much.

Around the same time, the Centre Street concept was and still is (if the current vision is salvaged) intended to be above-ground and street-integrated:

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...escent-heights

https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/...rescentheights

Yup, Centre St will absolutely be a street integration. Which goes back to the want (its not a need) of connecting the lines. The July 30 option needed two MSFs in the SE. There would be operational savings and benefits from MSFs in both N and SE.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

full-ish is an optimistic assumption in this scenario (it'll kinda suck so not that many people will ride it), but that was also going to be true for a Millican terminus.

Kevman's point is that there is little intrinsic value in connecting the N and SE. Main benefit is sharing a maintenance & storage facility (which also means substantial deadhead costs every single day for the next century). But the Millican terminus was going to need 2 MSFs anyways!

But if you move off the desire to connect the lines, you open up a lot of [much cheaper] options:

1. beltline terminus further west (gets you ~350 meters from 7th Ave connections)

2. shallow cut&cover terminating underground before eventual 8th Ave subway (100 meters from 7th ave)

3. shallow underpass under CP tracks; come to surface north of 9 Ave for a terminus between 7th and 8th Ave (optimal connections forever)

4. for something fun you could run a single track couplet/loop - for instance up 4th St to 8th Ave (station) and back down 5th st. (There's a whole bunch of complexities and that example is just illustrative - in the past they were considering couplets for 10th&11th or 11th&12th, which really helps mitigate a lot of the issues running at-grade)

And after a few stops downtown you could go SW to Mt. Royal.

To me the underground option feels more like a vanity project and isn't actually satisfying a transit need. A green line down 10th Ave makes for some pretty easy connections to the 7th ave lines and, as you said, 350m is a pretty painless transfer. There are longer transfers within the same subway station in New York.

I'd love to know the actual breakdown of the costs per segment. If someone told me it was going to cost $2 billion to link 4th St. to Eau Claire, I'd say we could fund public Ubers for the 100 people a day that need that connection. But if that same $2 billion got you the Eau Claire line north it's a no brainer IMO.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by kevman

And after a few stops downtown you could go SW to Mt. Royal.

To me the underground option feels more like a vanity project and isn't actually satisfying a transit need. A green line down 10th Ave makes for some pretty easy connections to the 7th ave lines and, as you said, 350m is a pretty painless transfer. There are longer transfers within the same subway station in New York.

I'd love to know the actual breakdown of the costs per segment. If someone told me it was going to cost $2 billion to link 4th St. to Eau Claire, I'd say we could fund public Ubers for the 100 people a day that need that connection. But if that same $2 billion got you the Eau Claire line north it's a no brainer IMO.

Where would it turn north?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by kevman

Well no one was ever going from Sheppard up the north central line either. The whole point is to get people downtown and then they can transfer. The 4th St. SE station is 600m to the city hall station. There are longer transfers within the same stop in other cities.

If it meant getting the full line north and the full line south, I'd take a 4th st and south line and a Eau Clair and north line. Well I'd prefer they get the south line to the belt line and a little further west but they don't actually need to cross the existing tracks IMO.

So the North line would be North to Eau Claire and then you have to transfer to get to your destination? Hope you don't work on the south, west, or east ends of downtown or want to go to the new arena. Barf.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by kevman

And after a few stops downtown you could go SW to Mt. Royal.

To me the underground option feels more like a vanity project and isn't actually satisfying a transit need. A green line down 10th Ave makes for some pretty easy connections to the 7th ave lines and, as you said, 350m is a pretty painless transfer. There are longer transfers within the same subway station in New York.

I'd love to know the actual breakdown of the costs per segment. If someone told me it was going to cost $2 billion to link 4th St. to Eau Claire, I'd say we could fund public Ubers for the 100 people a day that need that connection. But if that same $2 billion got you the Eau Claire line north it's a no brainer IMO.

With hindsight the North and West lines would have made the most sense to connect with LF trains:

https://metrodreamin.com/edit/MjJEb3...ZSVDBoRUZKM3ww (gold and silver lines are really one line)

The SE is really classic Calgary LRT with full dedicated ROW, so HF trains would work just fine. But 3 trains entering 7th from the east could not work for long, so red line would have to move to 8th

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Where would it turn north?

It wouldn't. A stop at Bottle Screw Bill's puts you less than 350m from 7th ave and 230m from 8th. Can do the same at 4th/5th and 8th.

It's not ideal, but it's much better than a terminus east of City Hall. You could add high frequency bus loop(s) to circulate downtown. 6th Ave and 9th should get dedicated bus lanes for the MAX routes anyways.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Torture

So the North line would be North to Eau Claire and then you have to transfer to get to your destination? Hope you don't work on the south, west, or east ends of downtown or want to go to the new arena. Barf.

What happens now if you live in the NE or West and want to go to the Dome? You transfer.

What happens now if you live in the NW or South but work in the NE? You transfer.

What happens now if you live in the NE or West and want to go to the University? You Transfer.

The majority of LRT ridership takes the train downtown to work or to transfer. Why is connecting the two lines so important? You still need to transfer if you want to go to one of the other 4 legs.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

With hindsight the North and West lines would have made the most sense to connect with LF trains:

https://metrodreamin.com/edit/MjJEb3...ZSVDBoRUZKM3ww (gold and silver lines are really one line)

The SE is really classic Calgary LRT with full dedicated ROW, so HF trains would work just fine. But 3 trains entering 7th from the east could not work for long, so red line would have to move to 8th

It wouldn't. A stop at Bottle Screw Bill's puts you less than 350m from 7th ave and 230m from 8th. Can do the same at 4th/5th and 8th.

It's not ideal, but it's much better than a terminus east of City Hall. You could add high frequency bus loop(s) to circulate downtown. 6th Ave and 9th should get dedicated bus lanes for the MAX routes anyways.

So you'd need duplicate maintence facilities built if they ever build the north line? I dunno, none of this makes any long term sense to me. Build it right the first time, FFS. The fact we are re-studying decisions discarded from 2016 and still have nothing built is crazy.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Torture

So the North line would be North to Eau Claire and then you have to transfer to get to your destination? Hope you don't work on the south, west, or east ends of downtown or want to go to the new arena. Barf.

Instead of the LRT funneling riders into and through the core of where the vast majority of riders will embark/disembark, they propose to drop them off at the fringes of this area and utilize a greater number of smaller vehicles to ferry riders into the core without creating more traffic congestion. I can't say whether there are working examples of this in other parts of the world.