Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

If it ever got to the point where there was pressure to add a 4th lane in each direction on the QEII between Calgary and Airdrie, it would be interesting to make it a dedicated transit lane for an enhanced ICE

Maybe a multi-passenger lane, but I can't see the Airdrie to Calgary public transit use justifying a full lane for a very long time to come. I've noticed in Toronto and other larger places that many of their high occupancy lanes are 3 or more, and not 2 or more as we have in Calgary, so maybe that type of middle ground could work.

[Rollerstud98]

There are high occupancy lanes in Calgary?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

There are high occupancy lanes in Calgary?

Yes - such as here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.05421...7i13312!8i6656

They don't exist in most places in the city, but centre street is of course extremely heavy at points in the day.

Here is Toronto's explanation of why theirs are 3 or more, instead of 2 or more:

http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgeb...000040264.html

Why do the City of Toronto HOV lanes require 3 passengers vs Provincial Hwy HOV lanes that require only 2 passengers?
When the City's HOV lanes were being established in the early 1990s, the decision to use 3+ vehicles (i.e. vehicles with three or more people) over 2+ vehicles (i.e. vehicles with two or more people) balanced levels of anticipated use with the expected operating speed of the lane and, also considered vehicle occupancy patterns in the City.

It was felt that a 2+ occupancy would result in too many 'carpools' utilizing the HOV lane, thus detracting from travel time incentives the HOV lanes offered, and interfering with the operations of transit vehicles. By improving transit efficiency and providing incentive for ridesharing, it was reasoned that mobility in the city would be improved and this in turn would help address the City's environmental concerns associated with congestion conditions.

In recent years, the Province has introduced its HOV lanes on some 400 series highways, as you have noted, as 2+ lanes. These lanes were 'add-ons' to the existing highway cross-section in that they added an additional lane of highway capacity in the corridors and along those lengths of roadway in which they operated. Furthermore, they are currently operated 'full-time' 24 hours/day. In contrast, the City HOV lanes were conversions, taking one lane of capacity from the existing network of general-purpose traffic lanes, and using it for the purpose of creating a HOV lane. As well, the City HOV corridors exists to facilitate people-movement in the most congested periods - the rush periods (i.e., 7-10 am and 3-7 pm). Otherwise, the road network generally remains as one of general purpose lanes.

Transportation Services Division will be reviewing the state of the City's entire HOV network. This review will include a review of the efficacy of the existing lanes, and assess the impact of both relaxing the 3+ vehicle occupancy designation to 2+, (i.e. the same as the MTO highway HOV lanes), or reverting them to a bus-only lane network. This review is expected to be undertaken later this year and brought before City Council in 2011.

[Rollerstud98]

I don't know the last time I drove down centre to get to downtown. Probably why I never knew about that HOV lane. Thanks for showing me that.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

I don't know the last time I drove down centre to get to downtown. Probably why I never knew about that HOV lane. Thanks for showing me that.

It is an appropriate discussion here, because this, as well as lane reversals, are all piece-meal attempts to solve the transportation challenges on centre, till the green line's NC arm is complete. There is very little else that could be done going up the NC spine.

[EDIT]

IF there are true challenges from the SE, I think the stretch up to Southland should really have a "3 or more" HOV lane. MacLeod is another example that could do well with an HOV lane IMHO.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Why would Calgary want to incentive people living outside of the city?

Absolutely. And to that end, the ring-road should really be a firm marker in my view.

[mytwocents]

I like the idea of the ring road being the cut off point for LRT or at least close to it as the green line goes 3 stops past. I read they were mulling around LRT going out to Airdrie but it may have just been wishful thinking.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Maybe a multi-passenger lane, but I can't see the Airdrie to Calgary public transit use justifying a full lane for a very long time to come. I've noticed in Toronto and other larger places that many of their high occupancy lanes are 3 or more, and not 2 or more as we have in Calgary, so maybe that type of middle ground could work.

Yeah I agree, could start with 4 passengers+ and then reduce that if it's not utilized enough.

EDIT: or perhaps 3+

[PPAR]

You would be amazed at how few vehicles at rush hour have even 2 people in them. I remember a few years back driving through San Francisco with my wife. We were stuck in rush hour traffic with a nice open HOV lane next to us, a little ways down the road we see a sign indicating two or more needed for HOV lane use... I look around and realize sure enough every other car has only one person in it! Off we went, through town in no time.

[milomilo]

The Green Line continues to be tweaked:

https://twitter.com/cityofcalgary/st...57399499493376

Originally Posted by Tweet

#GreenLineYYC project considers alternate route in Victoria Park & Ramsay (dotted line = tunnel; solid = surface)

Seems sensible and I'm surprised this wasn't the original routing. Eliminates some of the super tight corners there, but still leaves the turn from 2nd St to 12th which will be excruciatingly tight and probably the worst on the network - does anyone designing this ride the current LRT? Trains coming out of Lions Park Station crawl around the corner heading north there, and that is a less severe curve than this one on the Green Line.

[Fuzz]

Direct from the tweet above.

Without knowing details, it seems like it would make sense to do a more gradual turn underground, and have it come to surface on 12th, rather than having to do the turn at grade and dealing with an LRT, 2nd st and 12 st traffic at one intersection.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

While I think it makes a lot of sense, and avoids having to deal with CP along that river crossing, it eliminates an exit from the community in the same place as another exit is being closed. If both the 8th street rail crossing is closed, and the McDonald bridge, then getting out of Ramsey relies on roads that get blocked by trains, roads that are fairly out of the way from that area, or 12th street that often gets backed up when connecting to 9th ave.

It's an interesting problem to solve. I don't envy the planners on this one.

I don't see any details on "build a new bridge adjacent to MacDonald bridge" vs. "widen MacDonald bridge" vs. "take over bridge"... do you? I'm curious exactly what they have in mind. I'm optimistically assuming they aren't considering closing MacDonald bridge to vehicle traffic...

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I don't see any details on "build a new bridge adjacent to MacDonald bridge" vs. "widen MacDonald bridge" vs. "take over bridge"... do you? I'm curious exactly what they have in mind. I'm optimistically assuming they aren't considering closing MacDonald bridge to vehicle traffic...

MacDonald street also, some houses will have to be demolished for the line to go that way.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I don't see any details on "build a new bridge adjacent to MacDonald bridge" vs. "widen MacDonald bridge" vs. "take over bridge"... do you? I'm curious exactly what they have in mind. I'm optimistically assuming they aren't considering closing MacDonald bridge to vehicle traffic...

The way it's drawn in that very low res map is like this



So maybe an LRT-only bridge?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by mytwocents

MacDonald street also, some houses will have to be demolished for the line to go that way.

If the line shifted slightly to the north at 8th street they might be able to get away with only demolishing one of the houses on 8th, possibly.

[CalgaryAlex]

I think the graphical communication here is very poor. There isn't a good, clear explanation provided for the MacDonald Bridge option, which will produce many negative reactions. Which is too bad, because I do think this is a viable option and will reduce the amount of elevated track needed for this stretch. Appropriating a few houses will probably cost less than a kilometer of elevated tracks.

It looks to me like there would be a new bridge over the Elbow to provide a straight shot over the river from 12 Ave to MacDonald Ave. I assume MacDonald Bridge will continue to provide vehicle access to 12 Ave. If my assumptions are wrong and the bridge will no longer handle vehicles, I'd say the city needs to invest in an underpass to link 8 St with 9 Ave once again.

As a side note, I remember that the Riverwalk plans involve the elimination of 7 St from 9 Ave to 12 Ave, so this will simplify the road network here, possibly removing the stop signs as you exit the bridge travelling east.

[ByeByeBaby]

I'm a little disappointed in this modification. I understood when 10th was shelved in favour of 12th - the issues around utility work aren't obvious until you study them, so I don't fault Transit for not knowing that 10th would be more challenging. But the rationale given here is entirely that it would interfere with transit operations - that the curves are sharp enough to cause problems and that the track would interfere with Vic Park bus barn operations. Who wouldn't know that putting a train through the site of a bus barn would interfere with the barn operations? And maybe not everybody knows the issues with sharp LRT curves (although they're no surprise to me), but probably the person involved with literally designing the curves for the track should know the issues.

I hope that 10th is back on the table, at least as a possibility. It feels like a bait-and-switch to dismiss 10th in favour of 12th, then change 12th substantially. I'm sure this wasn't the intention, but the issues on 10th may seem smaller now.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'm a little disappointed in this modification. I understood when 10th was shelved in favour of 12th - the issues around utility work aren't obvious until you study them, so I don't fault Transit for not knowing that 10th would be more challenging. But the rationale given here is entirely that it would interfere with transit operations - that the curves are sharp enough to cause problems and that the track would interfere with Vic Park bus barn operations. Who wouldn't know that putting a train through the site of a bus barn would interfere with the barn operations? And maybe not everybody knows the issues with sharp LRT curves (although they're no surprise to me), but probably the person involved with literally designing the curves for the track should know the issues.

I hope that 10th is back on the table, at least as a possibility. It feels like a bait-and-switch to dismiss 10th in favour of 12th, then change 12th substantially. I'm sure this wasn't the intention, but the issues on 10th may seem smaller now.

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of the utility conflicts on 10th ave. Was it due to the substation and HV line?

I was never keen on the 12th ave alignment.

in my opinion 12th ave was a short sighted plan, as the the 10th street alignment has the potential to integrate into a future HSR station. 10th ave has less intersection conflicts and it's a more direct route.

I'm also not keen on cutting through Ramsay. The CPR right of way is there, why not use it.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by mytwocents

MacDonald street also, some houses will have to be demolished for the line to go that way.

Maybe 8 homes?

[Fuzz]

Plus 12th ave has bike lanes. Do we really want to re-open that debate?