Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[RyLucky]

That 2nd st station between 7th and 8th is going to be the busiest in the city. It might deserve a better name as the 3 stations begin to act like a single station. There will be a big benefit to sharing ramps, escalators, and exits between the two underground stations. Also, a bit of a walk to the WB station on 7th Ave - I wonder if there's a way the subway exits can be oriented towards it.

It occurred to me that every single station is going to have a unique flavour in the central part of this line, a far cry from most of our existing system Downtown. Each of these - Eau Claire/Chinatown, the Hub where all lines meet, 1st st W, and 4th St SE - will be very well used and very distinct.

Eau Claire/Chinatown - picture thousands of facepainted people swarming into the station after Canada Day celebrations or Folk Fest

The crossing/hub/junction/DT - should be the busiest in the city and have a very urban feel

1st st W - The Beltline's first station! A major destination for 20-something barhoppers and a station that will see significant bidirectional traffic. I foresee proximity to this station as a major selling point for future condos in the area

4th St SE - access to the stampede, Saddledome, New Central Library, National Music Centre, East Village, and Victoria Park - and maybe one day the site of a Calgary-Edmonton HSR terminal.

[dtm]

Hi All,

I am new to the forum, but have been a browser for the past 5 years. Just thought I would finally start be a little more active in the thread.

While the current estimates place Option B and C as the same cost. Looking at the rough maps, shows that the tunnel ends pretty quickly on 10 Ave, while the elevated track goes for several more blocks. This may account for the estimates of the same price.

If the tunnel or elevation is going to be extended past Macleod or even 4th St. SE, this will probably cause a large divergence in cost between Option B and C (with C being cheaper of course).

[Socguy]

My initial inclination was option D, but on further consideration option B is the better candidate. Station depth, cost and so on.

My only concern is with the number of stations, there needs to be a few more downtown and in the beltline. Although, I assume that the cost of underground stations is fairly high.

HSR at 4st? Lets do this!

[MalcolmTucker]

Another underground station means another big pit. Since the lines won't be cut and cover most likely according to one of the numerous reports this has generated (New Austrian in the core, bored in the north it sounds like) this saves a lot of disruption. Of course, the proponent might have different ideas on cost benefit of different tunneling methods, but the city can weigh that in the tender by charging road closure fees.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

That 2nd st station between 7th and 8th is going to be the busiest in the city. It might deserve a better name as the 3 stations begin to act like a single station. There will be a big benefit to sharing ramps, escalators, and exits between the two underground stations. Also, a bit of a walk to the WB station on 7th Ave - I wonder if there's a way the subway exits can be oriented towards it.

It occurred to me that every single station is going to have a unique flavour in the central part of this line, a far cry from most of our existing system Downtown. Each of these - Eau Claire/Chinatown, the Hub where all lines meet, 1st st W, and 4th St SE - will be very well used and very distinct.

Eau Claire/Chinatown - picture thousands of facepainted people swarming into the station after Canada Day celebrations or Folk Fest

The crossing/hub/junction/DT - should be the busiest in the city and have a very urban feel

1st st W - The Beltline's first station! A major destination for 20-something barhoppers and a station that will see significant bidirectional traffic. I foresee proximity to this station as a major selling point for future condos in the area

4th St SE - access to the stampede, Saddledome, New Central Library, National Music Centre, East Village, and Victoria Park - and maybe one day the site of a Calgary-Edmonton HSR terminal.

Don't mean to nitpick, but the first belt line station is Victoria park/stampede station.

I love the idea of making the 7th avenue station very grand. I love the name "The Hub" that's the name they should go with

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

-wrt coming to grade on 10th, what is the plan at the 4th St SE crossing?

4 street SE itself is below grade at 10th (which dead-ends with a pedestrian step down). I'm fairly certain the LRT will bridge it.

[CalgaryAlex]

The 10th Ave alignment will be pretty tight if the train comes up to grade immediately south of the CPR tracks (as indicated in the diagrams above). If planners want to avoid at-grade conflicts with 1st St SE and Macleod, it will have to quickly incline between 1st St SW and 1st St SE. Maybe they can trench these conflicting streets to go under both the CPR tracks and 10th Ave and come up to grade at 11th Ave, skipping a 10th Ave connection entirely. Or they can keep the whole thing underground until Railtown before coming up and bridging the Elbow.

I'm pretty excited to see what the final decision is a year or two from now.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Don't mean to nitpick, but the first belt line station is Victoria park/stampede station.

I love the idea of making the 7th avenue station very grand. I love the name "The Hub" that's the name they should go with

Ah, yes! How could I forget about Victoria Park!

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Ah, yes! How could I forget about Victoria Park!

Only because when it comes to rapid transit accessibility in the Beltline, Victoria Park is entirely useless

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Don't mean to nitpick, but the first belt line station is Victoria park/stampede station.

I love the idea of making the 7th avenue station very grand. I love the name "The Hub" that's the name they should go with

I've been thinking that this should be done for awhile ... Would be an awesome central focal point for the season

[ClaytonA]

Could they put the station in the block between 7 Ave and 8 Ave on the Core shopping centre side and integrate it into the mall along with entrances/accesses to the north and south sides of both 7th and 8th Aves?

The Core is a pretty upscale mall and direct access into it could make for a pretty signature station. Probably too much public-private and security concerns, too fanciful, but could make The Core literally the core.

[ClaytonA]

Options A and B do result in wider sidewalks (1.8m and 1.5m respectively) per presentation boards.

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1627&doctype=AGENDA

Advantages: Option B – New Bridge West of the Centre Street Bridge
 Mid-cost option when compared to Options A and D (approximately $800 million for the segment of the route between 10 Avenue South and 24 Avenue North)
 Shallow station can be provided at Centre Street and 9 Avenue North (Crescent Heights)
 Improved travel time compared to Option A
 No impact to existing Centre Street bridge
 Maintains existing traffic capacity on Centre Street, south of 16 Avenue North
 Reduced risk of service disruptions due to conflicts with people walking, compared to Option A. Eliminates at-grade vehicle crossings.
 New bridge can provide connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists

Disadvantages: Option B – New Bridge West of the Centre Street Bridge
 Requires new bridge over the Bow River
 Environmental impacts to Prince’s Island Park, and escarpment on north side of the river (McHugh Bluff)
 Requires further investigation of impact to Bow River Pathway, and existing accesses to condominiums in Eau Claire
 At-grade segment on 2 Street Southwest (Eau Claire) not previously identified in functional plans (Southeast LRT functional plan shows an underground alignment on 2 Street Southwest)
 Likely requires closure of 2, 3, and Riverfront Avenues at 2 Street SW to accommodate station and tunnel entrance

[ClaytonA]

http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1627&doctype=AGENDA

Advantages: Option D – Tunnel from 24 Avenue North to 10 Avenue South
 Fastest travel time of all three options. Estimated travel time from 10 Avenue South to northern terminus at North Pointe (Country Hills Boulevard): 28-30 minutes
 Does not impact traffic capacity on Centre Street, south of 16 Avenue North, or on Centre City streets
 Reduced risk of service disruptions due to collisions, compared to Option A, B, and C. Eliminates at-grade pedestrian and vehicle crossings
 Minimal environmental impact
 Underground stations provide protection from the elements for waiting customers
 Underground station at 7 Avenue South provides good connection to existing LRT service on 7 Avenue, and future 8 Avenue subway
 Received strong community support during public engagement

Disadvantages: Option D – Tunnel from 24 Avenue North to 10 Avenue South
 Highest construction cost of all three options (approximately $1.3 billion for the segment of the route between 10 Avenue South and 24 Avenue North)
 Station on Centre Street at 9 Avenue North may not be built due to depth (50 metres/13 storeys), and ongoing operating costs to move passengers to/from track level to surface with elevators/escalators
 Station on Centre Street at 16 Avenue North is 35 metres/9 storeys deep, and station on 2 Street at 2 Avenue South is 27 metres/7 storeys deep
 2013 flood has highlighted vulnerability of public and private infrastructure in the Centre City

[The Chemist]

I'm definitely a fan of B, again as long as the bridge design is good. It strikes me as being the best balance between cost and grade separation. Full tunnelling seems unnecessary in this regard, especially as will make the Crescent Heights station far too deep.

[ClaytonA]

For the budget numbers thrown around, option D isn't happening. The depth below the Bow River will decrease once administration gets more geologic info I'd imagine, but the City of Calgary should really be doing this cut-and-cover as much as possible for financial cost savings. 20th Ave N was pretty busy so extending the tunnel past there should be done if they use one of the tunnel options.

I'd disagree with outoftheice regarding which intersections should be grade seperated, definitely more than McKnight and 64th. Optimally (with minimum noted):

Arterial road/Urban Blvd, Skeletal Rd
16th Ave 61,000 station right there, slower trains, min
40 Ave NW 10,000 there's a hill on north and E-W route, it'd be easy plus station right there, slower trains
McKnight BLvd 41,000 slight hill, station right there, slower trains, min
64 Ave 32,000 station right there, slower trains, min
4 St NW / 72 Ave NE 17,000 station right there, slower trains
maybe Beddington Blvd 12,000 station right there, slower trains
Beddington Trail 61,000 given
Country Hills Blvd 24,000, min
Country Village Rd 16,000 set up for future extension

What do others think?

[ClaytonA]

Looking at this with the 4% max train grade this is almost trenched in spots for 2 storeys down - catenary wires must require significantly more overhead height than fixed ones. e.g. madrid metro:

Is there a way to couple the grade seperation with the stations facilitating pedestrian access from all four corners of the intersections highlighted for stations along with shelter? This seems like a win-win especially given the fencing and barriers outlined in sections north of McKnight.
Maybe it would be better to elevate it like the WLRT - probably too expensive.

This is probably going to be a much slower, less safe, and somewhat less reliable skeletal LRT than the existing LRT. South of McKnight looks like admin just wants to use curbs. Presentation boards look like Spadina streetcar cross sections as outlined on a LRTogG twitter post:

[lineman]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Looking at this with the 4% max train grade this is almost trenched in spots for 2 storeys down - catenary wires must require significantly more overhead height than fixed ones. e.g. madrid metro:

There is technically no catenary in any of the tunnels in Calgary.

What you have pictured is conductor rail supported contact wire. This is being used on the West line. All older tunnels in the system use tunnel arms to support the contact wire. Using one or the other doesn't affect tunnel ceiling heights.

[ClaytonA]

Thanks lineman appreciate the knowledge; thought I'd remembered somewhere that the overhead aluminum channel "power-rail" used in Madrid was one of the innovations the contractor came up with to allow for a smaller tunnel boring machine. Not sure how it deal with the temperature swings and maybe even snow/ice in Calgary anyway. There's no way the line is going to get trenched for most of it's length.

With signal priority even a solely curbed cross-section streetcar set up is massive for the city. Centre St was a busy bus route, 40-50k per day IIRC.

Traffic disruptions for 4-lane cross roads during construction could be mitigated if the city charges more for road closures as mentioned above with box jacking like SNC came up with for Inlet Centre Station on the Evergreen Line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io6e_Cmbt0M

16th Ave being 6 lanes probably has enough room to shift traffic back and forth and build each side sequentially or in thirds. Centre St bridge has been closed before, so N-S traffic could adjust to other routes. Businesses or at least the landlords only benefit once it's built, so the City's contractor just does its best. I wonder if the City owns some of the properties at the top of the bluff? Maybe with a tunnel a short bore could just go under a house or two - it is mocked up as 3 storeys below grade at the station.

[ClaytonA]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...line/news.aspx

Good Day 4 charette solution for Inglewood-Ramsay that's a lot of new people. Maybe a wash on employment? Ogden Charette Day 3 looks promising too pg 17-19; park and ride at Millican, I'd hope the Ogden development up against the rail yard is office/commercial and not residential - not a complementary zoning. Office/commercial will be one ride away from Quarry Park and is centrally located with good access to Glenmore Trail and Deerfoot Tr. I could see this being a great little zone. Should the Centre St communities have to take on more density/mixed use to make the slower streetcar setup mitigate/ameliorate slightly lower ridership projections due to the capital cost trade-off?

City admin's got a good start.

[ClaytonA]

Would a signature bridge face height restrictions like the Peace Bridge? Should be far enough away from the helipad for something good. It'd be nice to see something with an arch(es) to complement the Centre St bridge. Cross the actual river at a right angle, respecting the river. With the combination of horizontal and vertical changes this could be a really cool design. Plus it will be looked at from below (Memorial Dr, Prince's Island, pathways), the train itself, from the east on the Centre St bridge, and above from the top of the bluff and downtown towers. Very visible.

Something with a space truss with a multi-use path running through it and integrated with column supports like: http://structurae.net/photos/1981-pr...rian-bridge-ii so it looks good from below.
Maybe cable stay-suspenion hybrid for the arch complement accentuating the horizontal curves from above and below like http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...IVUzGICh0TDg7s
coupled with the vertical like this for viewing from the side http://blog.oregonlive.com/environme...03/dylbg_9.JPG . This could be a really important structure.

All right I'm done. I'm sure some are thinking that for the price of a bridge like that you could probably do it underground.