[Surrealplaces]

Sort of quick question for those in the know. How much of a price difference would it be for elevated DT as compared to the tunnel DT?

 

[darwink]

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?

It was studied. The brt line does not currently go on Deerfoot and is not on congested roads until inglewood/ Ramsay. Building a dedicated row next to not congested roads while leaving the expensive parts to build later is just a waste.

 

[darwink]

Sort of quick question for those in the know. How much of a price difference would it be for elevated DT as compared to the tunnel DT?

I’d ballpark at 1/5th the cost - more if still trying to get a fixed price.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

It was studied. The brt line does not currently go on Deerfoot and is not on congested roads until inglewood/ Ramsay. Building a dedicated row next to not congested roads while leaving the expensive parts to build later is just a waste.

Oh ok, well I'm not too familiar with what the current BRT route is, tbh I didn't realize there was one already running!

When I refer to the dedicated ROW for SE BRT I'm going back to a plan from ten-ish years ago when I was living there. Don't have any of the old PDF docs handy, but iirc it followed what is more or less the currently proposed SE LRT route, but it was to have three lanes, two for bus use and one for bicycles. Plenty of grade separation, but maybe not completely?

It was then to be upgraded to rail later on, sort of like what Ottawa did, but the third lane would have been used for buses while the new rails were laid and then restored to cycle use once complete.

Pretty sure that was how the SE plans started off, but it's been a long time and I did get a lot of sun today, so I may be remembering things imperfectly..

 

[Dārayavauš]

Sort of quick question for those in the know. How much of a price difference would it be for elevated DT as compared to the tunnel DT?

I was trying to find the costs, but can’t seem to. I recall it being around 1/3 the cost of underground and was really quite surprised that that option was thrown out so quickly. It seemed that everyone just wanted to get a subway for Calgary.

 

[ahuch]

I was trying to find the costs, but can’t seem to. I recall it being around 1/3 the cost of underground and was really quite surprised that that option was thrown out so quickly. It seemed that everyone just wanted to get a subway for Calgary.

Hard to find information from so long ago, but in some of the 2016 alignment documentation it doesn't seem like it was given a very fair shake.

https://hdp-ca-prod-app-cgy-engage-files.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/7414/7215/3342/CC-options-combined.pdf

https://engage.calgary.ca/download_file/view_inline/228

 

[lemongrab]

Oh ok, well I'm not too familiar with what the current BRT route is, tbh I didn't realize there was one already running!

When I refer to the dedicated ROW for SE BRT I'm going back to a plan from ten-ish years ago when I was living there. Don't have any of the old PDF docs handy, but iirc it followed what is more or less the currently proposed SE LRT route, but it was to have three lanes, two for bus use and one for bicycles. Plenty of grade separation, but maybe not completely?

It was then to be upgraded to rail later on, sort of like what Ottawa did, but the third lane would have been used for buses while the new rails were laid and then restored to cycle use once complete.

Pretty sure that was how the SE plans started off, but it's been a long time and I did get a lot of sun today, so I may be remembering things imperfectly..

I think this was from 2013

 

[Surrealplaces]

I’d ballpark at 1/5th the cost - more if still trying to get a fixed price.

Thanks! We were having a discussion at work, and none of us knew the approximate difference.

I was trying to find the costs, but can’t seem to. I recall it being around 1/3 the cost of underground and was really quite surprised that that option was thrown out so quickly. It seemed that everyone just wanted to get a subway for Calgary.

I don't remember the costs either, but I was one of those in favor of the subway. Under the previous cost assumptions, I was okay with paying extra to do the subway. If the elevated is 1/5, 1/4 or even 1/3 of the costs, then we need to look at it for sure.
My only concern about the elevated option was the effect on the street vibrancy, but on top of cost there are also some benefits to elevated. Maybe it's just me but as a rider, I always prefer natural light and scenery to nothing but black and perhaps there's a way to tie the DT stations into the +15?

 

[darwink]

I think this was from 2013

View attachment 594926

View attachment 594927

The travel time savings listed here also aren't accurate anymore, due to road upgrades in the mean time, including the ogden road, Glenmore interchange, the twinning of 24th st SE between Glenmore and Douglas dale, connecting ogden road to 24th. The cost would also be off, due too everything.

 

[Red Star]

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

Yes. It could be used.

IMHO the downtown alignment seemed pretty ill thought out. The underground section was way too ambitious...especially when low-floor LRT was to be the preferred technology. It's my understanding that rider capacity is limited on a low-floor LRT as passengers cannot stand on top of the wheel chassis.

To save costs and increase the efficacy of the project, I'd implement the following:

SE Leg:
1. Make the SE LRT a high-floor system. It runs in a dedicated ROW. There's no need to make it a low-floor system.
2. Fit-out the existing underground City Hall station shell and build the first section of the 8th ave subway to a station at Centre street. (450m of cut and cover along 8th Ave.)
3. Have a small section interlace with the red-line. (This kind of sucks because it hampers travel-time on the Red-line. Ideally red-line trains would be given priority until the entire 8th ave Subway is built)
4. Only rough-in stations at 26th ave, Milligan and 86th ave. to save cost and travel time. They can be built when ridership demand catches up.

NC Leg:

1. Utilize a low floor train. Have the entire NC-LRT run along Centre street. Low floor can be integrated into Centre street more easily than a high-floor system.
2.Built a Subway station between 6th and 7th ave.
3. Have the LRT surface north of 4th ave and have a surface station in Chinatown.
4. Utilize the Centre street bridge to save costs.

Forgive the terrible sketch I made during my lunch break...

 

[badc0ffee]

I'm not sure the green line part of this works as you'd need to go under the new-ish 4 St SE underpass, and I'm not sure the red line tunnel is deep enough.

 

[Red Star]

I'm not sure the green line part of this works as you'd need to go under the new-ish 4 St SE underpass, and I'm not sure the red line tunnel is deep enough.

I think a parallel bridge would be needed over the 4th street underpass. Then the train would have to descend to meet up with the Red-line tunnel. I don't know how deep the existing tunnel is, but there is about 180m of 'run-way' to make the descent. Not sure if that is enough.

 

[thecivilengineer]

Does 8th ave subway means in future relocating existing 7th ave track to underground?

Yes. It could be used.

IMHO the downtown alignment seemed pretty ill thought out. The underground section was way too ambitious...especially when low-floor LRT was to be the preferred technology. It's my understanding that rider capacity is limited on a low-floor LRT as passengers cannot stand on top of the wheel chassis.

To save costs and increase the efficacy of the project, I'd implement the following:

SE Leg:
1. Make the SE LRT a high-floor system. It runs in a dedicated ROW. There's no need to make it a low-floor system.
2. Fit-out the existing underground City Hall station shell and build the first section of the 8th ave subway to a station at Centre street. (450m of cut and cover along 8th Ave.)
3. Have a small section interlace with the red-line. (This kind of sucks because it hampers travel-time on the Red-line. Ideally red-line trains would be given priority until the entire 8th ave Subway is built)
4. Only rough-in stations at 26th ave, Milligan and 86th ave. to save cost and travel time. They can be built when ridership demand catches up.

NC Leg:

1. Utilize a low floor train. Have the entire NC-LRT run along Centre street. Low floor can be integrated into Centre street more easily than a high-floor system.
2.Built a Subway station between 6th and 7th ave.
3. Have the LRT surface north of 4th ave and have a surface station in Chinatown.
4. Utilize the Centre street bridge to save costs.

Forgive the terrible sketch I made during my lunch break...
View attachment 594974

 

[badc0ffee]

Does 8th ave subway means in future relocating existing 7th ave track to underground?

Just the red line. The blue line would still run on 7 Ave. This increases track capacity for both lines.

 

[whatchyyc]

Yes. It could be used.

IMHO the downtown alignment seemed pretty ill thought out. The underground section was way too ambitious...especially when low-floor LRT was to be the preferred technology. It's my understanding that rider capacity is limited on a low-floor LRT as passengers cannot stand on top of the wheel chassis.

To save costs and increase the efficacy of the project, I'd implement the following:

SE Leg:
1. Make the SE LRT a high-floor system. It runs in a dedicated ROW. There's no need to make it a low-floor system.
2. Fit-out the existing underground City Hall station shell and build the first section of the 8th ave subway to a station at Centre street. (450m of cut and cover along 8th Ave.)
3. Have a small section interlace with the red-line. (This kind of sucks because it hampers travel-time on the Red-line. Ideally red-line trains would be given priority until the entire 8th ave Subway is built)
4. Only rough-in stations at 26th ave, Milligan and 86th ave. to save cost and travel time. They can be built when ridership demand catches up.

NC Leg:

1. Utilize a low floor train. Have the entire NC-LRT run along Centre street. Low floor can be integrated into Centre street more easily than a high-floor system.
2.Built a Subway station between 6th and 7th ave.
3. Have the LRT surface north of 4th ave and have a surface station in Chinatown.
4. Utilize the Centre street bridge to save costs.

Forgive the terrible sketch I made during my lunch break...
View attachment 594974

Not too crazy considering it was a studied alternative:

View attachment 594852Is this proposal back on the table then??

But IMO if you're building a subway under 8th ave you might as well just bury the Red Line instead and put the Green Line on 7th Ave, rather than kneecap the Red Line with the interline