Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 39 81.3%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 2 4.2%
  • Total voters
    48
For the elevated line discussion, from reading the Alignment Options document from 2020 it appears that for the non-tunnel options they don't require NC and SE to connect which would simply things a lot. The elevated option presented won't even have the SE line cross the CPR tracks:

RpKhlQz.png


 
accord1999 said:
For the elevated line discussion, from reading the Alignment Options document from 2020 it appears that for the non-tunnel options they don't require NC and SE to connect which would simply things a lot. The elevated option presented won't even have the SE line cross the CPR tracks:

RpKhlQz.png


Click to expand...
I can't help thinking this is one of those deliberately bad options that gets included in proposal reports to help guide the decision makers to the consultant's preferred choice.

It's not really a transit network if the lines don't connect or interconnect..
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
I can't help thinking this is one of those deliberately bad options that gets included in proposal reports to help guide the decision makers to the consultant's preferred choice.

It's not really a transit network if the lines don't connect or interconnect..
Click to expand...
It could be a "situating the appreciation" type review in order to get the favored option look good and selected. That seems to have happened a lot with the Green Line.

But they had mentioned in 2019 that not connecting the two line would only cause a modest loss of long-term ridership. With the original concept of Green Line far more expensive than what the UCP is willing to pay for (and even more favorable governments will probably stretch out their payments over decades), more compromises need to be made.
1725668044876.png
 
accord1999 said:
For the elevated line discussion, from reading the Alignment Options document from 2020 it appears that for the non-tunnel options they don't require NC and SE to connect which would simply things a lot. The elevated option presented won't even have the SE line cross the CPR tracks:

RpKhlQz.png


Click to expand...
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!
 
accord1999 said:
It could be a "situating the appreciation" type review in order to get the favored option look good and selected. That seems to have happened a lot with the Green Line.

But they had mentioned in 2019 that not connecting the two line would only cause a modest loss of long-term ridership. With the original concept of Green Line far more expensive than what the UCP is willing to pay for (and even more favorable governments will probably stretch out their payments over decades), more compromises need to be made.
View attachment 594492
Click to expand...
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.
 
I've always been a fan of the BRT option initially.

What is by far the most important option is selecting a right-of-way that is appropriately grade separated everywhere. Second to that is appropriate integration into the core, vis a vis pedestrian realm. Everything else is secondary.

We had that with the shortened line.

Now we roll the dice.

My worry is we will get an option that butchers the public realm in the core at the expense of kilometers of track. Good on paper, but something that can never be unf*cked if we screw up the grade profile or street interaction.
 
accord1999 said:
It could be a "situating the appreciation" type review in order to get the favored option look good and selected. That seems to have happened a lot with the Green Line.

But they had mentioned in 2019 that not connecting the two line would only cause a modest loss of long-term ridership. With the original concept of Green Line far more expensive than what the UCP is willing to pay for (and even more favorable governments will probably stretch out their payments over decades), more compromises need to be made.
View attachment 594492
Click to expand...
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.
 
Could the current station box under City Hall be repurposed as an interim terminus for the Green Line? Drop under 11th after the 4th St station, tie into the existing City Hall/CP tunnel and interline the short distance to the station junction. Gets the line into the actual core, an interchange with the Red and Blue lines and could feasible act as a kick start to the eventual build out of the 8th ave tunnel. And just a few blocks of tunnel build out.

With the complaints about tunneling the Green line, I can't see 8th Ave being built out in anyone here's lifetimes or grandkids.... without some sort of kick in the teeth to get started.

It might mean station boxes need to be larger, either longer platforms( 1a high floor, 1b lowfloor) so a station less along the route or dual island platforms in the eventual (if ever) build out and you could ( not an engineer so Im guessing ) have the NC run on street into the core, then drop it for a block or 2 ( depending on grade ) to get down to the 8th ave tunnel.

Just a thought I had whilst driving by Olympic Plaza the other day .

The Province is going to throw every pie in the sky idea out there so may as well start
 
Gazyyc said:
Could the current station box under City Hall be repurposed as an interim terminus for the Green Line? Drop under 11th after the 4th St station, tie into the existing City Hall/CP tunnel and interline the short distance to the station junction. Gets the line into the actual core, an interchange with the Red and Blue lines and could feasible act as a kick start to the eventual build out of the 8th ave tunnel. And just a few blocks of tunnel build out.

With the complaints about tunneling the Green line, I can't see 8th Ave being built out in anyone here's lifetimes or grandkids.... without some sort of kick in the teeth to get started.

It might mean station boxes need to be larger, either longer platforms( 1a high floor, 1b lowfloor) so a station less along the route or dual island platforms in the eventual (if ever) build out and you could ( not an engineer so Im guessing ) have the NC run on street into the core, then drop it for a block or 2 ( depending on grade ) to get down to the 8th ave tunnel.

Just a thought I had whilst driving by Olympic Plaza the other day .

The Province is going to throw every pie in the sky idea out there so may as well start
Click to expand...
There isn’t a station box under city hall. It is a double crossover track. Station boxes were to be under Olympic plaza.

You’d be introducing a second interline for little reason (to save a few hundred metres of tunnel) which would mean all three lines would interact greatly complicating operations and signalling.
 
Gazyyc said:
Could the current station box under City Hall be repurposed as an interim terminus for the Green Line? Drop under 11th after the 4th St station, tie into the existing City Hall/CP tunnel and interline the short distance to the station junction. Gets the line into the actual core, an interchange with the Red and Blue lines and could feasible act as a kick start to the eventual build out of the 8th ave tunnel. And just a few blocks of tunnel build out.

With the complaints about tunneling the Green line, I can't see 8th Ave being built out in anyone here's lifetimes or grandkids.... without some sort of kick in the teeth to get started.

It might mean station boxes need to be larger, either longer platforms( 1a high floor, 1b lowfloor) so a station less along the route or dual island platforms in the eventual (if ever) build out and you could ( not an engineer so Im guessing ) have the NC run on street into the core, then drop it for a block or 2 ( depending on grade ) to get down to the 8th ave tunnel.

Just a thought I had whilst driving by Olympic Plaza the other day .

The Province is going to throw every pie in the sky idea out there so may as well start
Click to expand...
With office vacancies the way they are, I'm guessing that 8av subway is further down the priority list than it was before, but I don't think it's a write off. The problem for the green line tunnel was going under the river and the risk of leaks or collapse during construction. If I'm not mistaken, 8av was going to be C&C, not a bored tunnel, so much less risk.
 
darwink said:
BRT doesn’t reduce travel time much unless you build a bus tunnel(or elevate it) from Inglewood west, which would be more expensive not less than a train.
Click to expand...
Really? I would think the dedicated row would offer significant time savings vs using deerfoot, especially at commute times.

Could a brt not run through the proposed central station site and bridge over 4st to 10av as an interim solution?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top