[MichaelS]

Welp, cuts the beltline out of the line pretty much completely.

Designed by people imagining downtown from the 1990s with zero understanding that the beltline is more actively used today than the core is.

Didn't the City's latest plan (removing the Centre Street station) also cut the beltline out of the equation entirely? at least this one has the potential to save us several billion dollars as well.

 

[ahuch]

Didn't the City's latest plan (removing the Centre Street station) also cut the beltline out of the equation entirely? at least this one has the potential to save us several billion dollars as well.

Save us billions at what cost? City admin and independent studies have repeatedly said that 7 ave can't support ridership in the manner proposed here, and with the additional delays what does ridership on 7 ave look like in the 2030s?

 

[Ramsayite]

Didn't the City's latest plan (removing the Centre Street station) also cut the beltline out of the equation entirely? at least this one has the potential to save us several billion dollars as well.

Yes, but with an opportunity for future build out. Every new iteration of this has cut out the beltline more and more from this line. This latest version of " too many cooks in the kitchen" will nail that coffin shut.

And I suppose this is classic Calgary; save money building something mediocre (or downright hostile ) that we won't be able to fix later.

 

[thecivilengineer]

There’s another track excavation happening in downtown. I'm not sure how much extra maintenance expense this will add each year and ofc delays.

 

[MichaelS]

Yes, but with an opportunity for future build out. Every new iteration of this has cut out the beltline more and more from this line. This latest version of " too many cooks in the kitchen" will nail that coffin shut.

And I suppose this is classic Calgary; save money building something mediocre (or downright hostile ) that we won't be able to fix later.

I question how much of an "opportunity" that would really be. It would be extremely expensive to go in and build a new underground station. This would compete with numerous line extensions that are also seekign funding. That "opportunity" would likely become no different than the "opportunity" of planning for a future station at Northland Village Mall. We maybe would see it in 50-70 years?

 

[Chinese_T]

I question how much of an "opportunity" that would really be. It would be extremely expensive to go in and build a new underground station. This would compete with numerous line extensions that are also seekign funding. That "opportunity" would likely become no different than the "opportunity" of planning for a future station at Northland Village Mall. We maybe would see it in 50-70 years?

Bit of a misunderstanding here. They would dig out the entire station and platforms, just not finish it or add entrances. The station would be built relatively cheaply at a later date.

 

[O-tac]

We're one week away from finding out how much sunk cost is in this thing. I wonder how much will be reconsidered... From what I see about the second meeting with the city and the province at the end of last week is there's nothing the city can do to satisfy the province. The province wants to take over this project. Maybe they see an easy win because they can do the cheaper thing downtown, elevate it, and that savings alone will make it go further south. The province says to SETON and I guess if they're willing to pay for it, fill your boots Danielle. It will be the whole, "what they couldn't do in 10 years, we did in four months." I really do think it is that simple. I don't see them moving away from low floor, going to BRT, or even going north.

I wasn't aware there was going to be a new announcement. I completely agree with you about the UCP and Danielle Smith's simplistic and petty intensions at the expense of Calgarians. She has a dictator complex and thinks she is smarter than everyone.

 

[badc0ffee]

This is what the Jim Gray group has been pitching and given that the premier and minister have been parroting the Jim Gray group's talking points almost verbatim, my guess is this is what the province is going to deliver.

Honestly not as terrible as I expected.

It will be a South East LRT that dead-ends at an elevated station behind city hall, forcing the vast majority of the 600 or so people who can fit on a 2 car train to head down the escalators, walk over to the City Hall station and try to cram themselves on the Red/Blue line trains that are entering downtown already full to get themselves to where they actually want to go which is 4 St SW and 7th Ave according to the City of Calgary's early Green Line work that tried to pinpoint where the highest concentration of jobs were downtown.

If they can integrate this into the +15 that connects the two City Hall platforms, via a longer +15 walkway, I don't think circulation will be all that bad.

As for the line not making it that last 900 metres to 2 St SW, I agree it's not ideal, but I also don't see it as a dealbreaker. There are more people than ever merely transferring through downtown and not just using the train as a commuter service to their job at 4 St. This trend has been happening since the oil price dip in 2014. These people would need to transfer anyway. And, City Hall station is still a short walk to a bunch of destinations like the performing arts complex/Glenbow, Chinatown, offices on Centre St, Bow Valley College, etc.

I also think that if we're going to have to see and hear an elevated train on some street downtown, you could do at lot worse than 3 St SE. It is basically institutional buildings for that stretch. Further south near the CPKC tracks it also fits the landscape of Platform and the District Energy Centre just fine.

 

[Tothewest]

View attachment 595389View attachment 595390

This is what the Jim Gray group has been pitching and given that the premier and minister have been parroting the Jim Gray group's talking points almost verbatim, my guess is this is what the province is going to deliver.

It will be a South East LRT that dead-ends at an elevated station behind city hall, forcing the vast majority of the 600 or so people who can fit on a 2 car train to head down the escalators, walk over to the City Hall station and try to cram themselves on the Red/Blue line trains that are entering downtown already full to get themselves to where they actually want to go which is 4 St SW and 7th Ave according to the City of Calgary's early Green Line work that tried to pinpoint where the highest concentration of jobs were downtown.

In the afternoons, the reverse will be true as those 600 people ride the free fare zone to City Hall to catch their SE LRT train back to the 'burbs but of course those are now 600 spots not available on a red or blue line train to the people who actually want to ride those trains meaning those trains will be departing City Hall station fairly empty with tons of potential riders stranded at other downtown stations.

So ya, looks great as a quick and easy way to save money when sketched out on a map, but I think it will be an absolute disaster for transit operations. Plus, of course, it also kills the concept of a connected SE-NC LRT

Wow, that's pretty bad.. much worse than I was expecting. Why even bother with a dead end line like that? Especially when the terminus is so far east...

Have they put a price tag on that proposal?

Assuming construction costs have doubled since the 2013 upgradable BRT plan, it would be roughly 3 billion to built that all the way to Seton.
If 10av was used as an interim in the core there could be select stops all the way to 14st, or even sunalta station, much better access for transit users!
It may not be properly 'downtown' but 3 blocks south seems minor if it can offer a full east/west spread.

This is how most urban rail systems work, you come in on one line, and may have to walk a block and then up or down to get to the other line. It does save a SIGNIFICANT amount of money, which is literally the entire goal. The intent is to get the maximum number of people into the downtown core, does it mean those people may have to connect onto another line, or grab a bus, YES, 100%. But we'd be achieving significant extra distance on the line, in exchange for an elevated component down a non-residential street, bordered by civic/education facilities. Ideal, maybe not, but a valuable tradeoff. Nobody is going to go for an elevated line in the beltline, servicing a neighborhood with minimal extended ridership, i would contend.

 

[Tothewest]

Welp, cuts the beltline out of the line pretty much completely.

Designed by people imagining downtown from the 1990s with zero understanding that the beltline is more actively used today than the core is.

The beltline plan was already cut, because the residential ridership would likely be shockingly low. 95% who get on there, would travel a stop or two. Given it's a 5 block walk to 7th for the majority of beltline offices, they are already serviced. LRT's are not built for short urban to urban connections, they are a designed to move people large distances, reducing car usage....which in non europe/asia countries means, the suburbs

I wasn't aware there was going to be a new announcement. I completely agree with you about the UCP and Danielle Smith's simplistic and petty intensions at the expense of Calgarians. She has a dictator complex and thinks she is smarter than everyone.

would you rather someone who decided to not throw good money after bad, or parts of council who are prepared to spend WHATEVER it takes in the name of "green economy transit", benefitting a SHOCKINGLY low number of calgarians. The speculated plan seems very reasonable to me, the current plan was a disaster

 

[ahuch]

This is how most urban rail systems work, you come in on one line, and may have to walk a block and then up or down to get to the other line. It does save a SIGNIFICANT amount of money, which is literally the entire goal. The intent is to get the maximum number of people into the downtown core, does it mean those people may have to connect onto another line, or grab a bus, YES, 100%. But we'd be achieving significant extra distance on the line, in exchange for an elevated component down a non-residential street, bordered by civic/education facilities. Ideal, maybe not, but a valuable tradeoff. Nobody is going to go for an elevated line in the beltline, servicing a neighborhood with minimal extended ridership, i would contend.

Have you ever tried to get on the train at City hall in rush hour? It's not the concept, it's the fact that the city has already said that (even with 4 car trains - that's a separate problem right now) the capacity can't support the ridership projections.

 

[artvandelay]

Why not run at grade on 11 Ave turning north onto 1st Street SW?

Might have to dig out the CP underpass a little. They could then do a short cut and cover tunnel for a station immediately north of 9th Ave, come back to grade north of 7th, and then have an elevated station near Sien Lok Park.

Easy peasy.

 

[badc0ffee]

That elevated third street station offers an interesting opportunity to put the green line over the river and up Edmonton Trail, possibly turning west on 16th and then onto centre north, thereby keeping it all one line. It may not be ideal but I think it’s a pretty solid option given the issues the project is facing.

I think I like this, too. More than a new bridge over Prince's Island, for sure.

Street running on Edmonton Trail, possibly with some elevated transition to help with the steep grade of the hill, and a stop at 7-8 Ave NE. Then, turn west at 16th into a short tunnel that emerges in the middle of Centre St north of 16th.

 

[darwink]

These people would need to transfer anyway.

Okay. Get ready for some math. We all love math right? HAHA

This might be hard to follow on your phone due to tables.

So this is old (2005 ish), for the 1.5 million population horizon. Lets accept it as true.
It is: "Projected AM Peak Hour / Peak Direction LRT Ridership and Train Requirements Entering Downtown"

Now, that adds up to 27,200 entering from the east side, and 9,200 entering from the west side.

When this report was written (2004-2005, likely from 2003 data), demand was 6,600 from the south, and 4,700 from the north east, and that was maxing out comfortable capacity already.

11,300 divided by 180 average per hour capacity per car = 62.8 cars divided by 3 car trains, 21 3 car trains, or service just above one train every 3 minutes.

This capacity was considered maxed out to the point where the work to switch to 4 car trains was already beginning.

So now, more math.

4 car trains * 180 people * 28 trains per hour (this would be pushing it, but lets be ambitious) = 20,160 people of capacity. A shortfall of 7,000 people of capacity at the 1.5 million population horizon.

Now, if you think of downtown as a single destination, a single node, a single station, the Gray group proposal seems smart. It adds capacity at a super low cost. Easy Peasey.

But it breaks down when you start thinking about flows within downtown.

Here is the 3rd St SE station 600m catchment vs a 2nd street SW catchment:

So you'll have attempts at transfers, at City Hall. We can look at presumed day 1 conditions, since the city is at the population threshold already.

Now I am going to build a very simple model. I assumed 25% of all demand coming in from the east will go east or get off at city hall. East in this case means anywhere east of the city hall station, so it includes red line south.

So just with the SE you have:

At 25 years of 1% demand growth, you breach the capacity limits:

Now we can also add in North Central via the blue line.
Which breaks capacity on day 1:

And in 25 years requires an extra 8 trains an hour above theoretical capacity:

So doing the Jim Gray 'solution' locks Calgary to starting the Red Line tunnel at the very least by 2040 if one is building the Greenline SE, or simultaneously if one builds the North Central Greenline too.

If one builds a different solution for the Green Line(s), which doesn't overburden the cuplet from the east, a Red Line tunnel could start construction as late as 2070.

How much more would an elevated solution at 2nd Street SW cost over an elevated solution at 3rd Street SE? It would be less than 1000 meters of elevated guideway and maybe a station. You're talking what, $500 million extra (which is likely a vast over estimate) for a vastly superior transit implementation

 

[badc0ffee]

So doing the Jim Gray 'solution' locks Calgary to starting the Red Line tunnel at the very least by 2040 if one is building the Greenline SE, or simultaneously if one builds the North Central Greenline too.

If one builds a different solution for the Green Line(s), which doesn't overburden the cuplet from the east, a Red Line tunnel could start construction as late as 2070.

I still like this outcome more than what we were facing with the stubway to Lynnwood.

How much more would an elevated solution at 2nd Street SW cost over an elevated solution at 3rd Street SE? It would be less than 1000 meters of elevated guideway and maybe a station.

Are you saying that:

• All this demand from the SE would be new with the green line (i.e., it's above and beyond what services like Max Purple and the 302 are already bringing to City Hall)
• Even given 4 car trains on red+blue, and a bump in frequency to the limit on 7 Ave, this demand would overwhelm the red+blue
• Moving this stop to the west, at 2 St, and no longer serving City Hall at all with the green line, would shed enough passengers to completely avoid that for decades?
  

You're talking what, $500 million extra (which is likely a vast over estimate) for a vastly superior transit implementation

$500 million is one thing, but also a can of worms in terms of an elevated train in the core of downtown, managing curves because you need to head west, and then having to double back to build the NCLRT (assuming it will still be connected to the green line). But maybe, as you're saying, that all does need to happen.

This might be hard to follow on your phone due to tables.

You're not wrong. I'm too much of a filthy casual to dig into the numbers.