Jump to content
1604

Green Line LRT

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, CanadianTransitTycoon said:

I assume Siemens does not offer the S70 anymore? If they still did, I'd bet on that being their offering.

I'm pretty sure they still offer the S70 - the Twin Cities in Minnesota were due to receive some this year.  I imagine it would likely be some variation of that proposed for Calgary, along with the "we've never steered you wrong before, we're buddies, aren't we?" pitch (which can be debated at another time, in another forum....).

Unless there's something that absolutely doesn't have a suitable North American crash rating, and how the vehicles handle extreme cold, I don't think there's much in terms of technology that would differ between European and North American light rail.  Light rail manufacturers will build you whatever your want, combining all sorts of vehicles and modules together to meet your needs - while theoretically there's an "off-the-shelf" version of each model, every agency heavily customizes the vehicles they order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CTrainDude said:

I'm pretty sure they still offer the S70 - the Twin Cities in Minnesota were due to receive some this year.  I imagine it would likely be some variation of that proposed for Calgary, along with the "we've never steered you wrong before, we're buddies, aren't we?" pitch (which can be debated at another time, in another forum....).

Unless there's something that absolutely doesn't have a suitable North American crash rating,

Well on the bright side, unlike the German autobahns, no one's going to be going down Deerfoot, Centre Street or 52nd St SE anytime soon at over 200 km/h, so collisions shouldn't be a concern. Especially with Calgary's speed limits mostly capped at 50/60. Would the crash ratings and safeties really vary that much though between Europe and Canada? Or Japan and Canada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, armorand said:

Well on the bright side, unlike the German autobahns, no one's going to be going down Deerfoot, Centre Street or 52nd St SE anytime soon at over 200 km/h, so collisions shouldn't be a concern. Especially with Calgary's speed limits mostly capped at 50/60. Would the crash ratings and safeties really vary that much though between Europe and Canada? Or Japan and Canada?

You’re assuming that the crash ratings are stricter in Europe - The safety standards in the US for LRVs are stricter, so anything offered in “North America” generally satisfies those standards.  And keep in mind that LRVs in North America often travel faster when used as commuter-type rail than those used as trams in Europe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CanadianTransitTycoon said:

I assume Siemens does not offer the S70 anymore? If they still did, I'd bet on that being their offering.

The S70 is still offered, but it's a 70% low floor, not 100% low floor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, armorand said:

https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/mobility/rail-solutions/rolling-stock/trams-and-light-rail/avenio.html - found this page while looking up 100% Siemens lowfloor LRV's.

Has it just not been approved to run in North America? Problem with power conversions from European to North American power supplies and systems? Or literally just never offered by Siemens/not much demand due to high floor infrastructure thats been utilized in almost all North American mass transit systems and expensive to reconfigure for LRV's? That and maybe lack of new (low floor-based LRT) systems and other preferences elsewhere for Siemens, maybe? 

 

Power certainly isn't the issue- 750VDC is 750VDC anywhere in the world. The AC power into the substation though it what would differ and require different configurations of equipment, but, that's not an LRV issue.

" high floor infrastructure thats been utilized in almost all North American mass transit systems" my emphasis is bolded and italicized because I think that's quite false. Edmonton, Calgary, San Fransisco, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis I think are largely the only systems using a true high floor LRV. Those systems that have/ had LRV's with steps (ie San Diego, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland) are moving to 70% low floors, and I suspect others systems would go to 70% low floors when they replace equipment next time around (Sacramento, Buffalo) and a number of new systems have started off with 70% low floors (Houston, Charlotte, Sound Transit I believe). Plus, the plethora of smaller start ups that are 100% low floor. High floor systems are in the minority by a pretty good margin.

The simple answer is North American (US!) requirements. Siemens does have this to say (with my emphasis added):
"Low-floor concepts with low-level entrances, car floors without steps and the right level of comfort are the main criteria for such light rail vehicles.   Siemens offers you trams and light rail vehicles that optimally fit your requirements and your city, such as innovative single-articulated trams or highly flexible multi-articulated trams from the Avenio family. We have also developed a separate platform to meet specific North American market requirements with regard to technical standards, operating conditions, and localization."
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/mobility/rail-solutions/rolling-stock/trams-and-light-rail.html

 

Also they say:
"The body has a lightweight construction to reduce total weight. However, it takes into account the especially strict U.S. guidelines regarding static strength, crashworthiness, and fire protection."

As I recall with the TTC streetcar procurement, Siemen's did put in a bid and it came in something like $500 million more than Bombardier. Now there were some specific TTC requirements which meant that simply porting a European design wasn't going to work, but, even for a green field development like Edmonton or Calgary, perhaps there just isn't enough demand still for Siemen's to competitively port their 100% low floor design from Europe. Edmonton "only" bought 26 cars, so, I could see without an off the shelf LRV no consortium would have probably wanted Siemen's involved, and Siemen's couldn't competitively price a new product that has to go through R&D for a relatively small number of cars.
In Bombardier's case they won the TTC procurement and have since been able to offer that basic design from a large 204 car order for smaller purchases (Waterloo, Edmonton), and then the Metrolinx order, plus, being involved in the Calgary procurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Northern span of Green Line LRT could be built first due to downtown obstacles

If the challenge of constructing the central segment of the future Green Line LRT through downtown Calgary is not overcome, the northern segment could be built first instead.

A City of Calgary staff report ahead of a Wednesday city council meeting highlights this possibility, with city staff possibly conducting a feasibility review of building the North Pointe to 16th Avenue segment along Centre Street in the first stage of the project.

But without any ability to transfer to the CTrain, this means transit passengers travelling from Calgary’s northern suburbs towards downtown would have to switch from the LRT to a bus at 16th Avenue.

The city will consider further exploration of this option if the central segment from 16th Avenue to 4th Street is not resolved by January 2020.

Earlier this year, city staff stated there were greater challenges than initially expected with building the designated first stage from 16th Avenue North to Ramsay within the established budget. This segment — a four-km-long tunnel with four underground stations — would burrow under the Bow River, but it is hampered by technical issues, such as the need to remove and relocate major utilities that come in the path of the tunnel.

Without value engineering changes to the design, the underground portion of the central segment, as currently planned, would cause the LRT project to exceed its $4.9-billion budget by 10%.

City staff are considering scope-cutting options that include shortening the length of the tunnel by changing to a street-level LRT, changing the construction methods for reducing the depth of risk with underground construction, and even pursuing a bridge option for the Bow River crossing.

“In addition, the technical risks were pushing the underground stations deeper than originally anticipated, impacting the overall transit rider experience and project vision,” reads a city staff report.

“Re-evaluating the design of this section of Green Line will ensure that the project remains on budget, manages risks, delivers benefits to Calgarians, and achieves the vision of the Green Line LRT project.”

To help achieve the project goals, the municipal government is appointing an independent technical committee to support the oversight of the project and provide additional review that assists with risk management.

Four individuals with an engineering background, specifically with major infrastructure projects, from across the country have been appointed to the committee. This includes Vancouver-based Donald Fairbairn (Terasen, BC crown corporation Transportation Investment Corporation), who will chair the committee, as well as Toronto-based Erich Neugebauer (contractor for Toronto Eglington Crosstown and Metro Budapest), Toronto-based Albert Sweetnam (SNC-Lavalin, Encana), and Bragg Creek-based Eric Tromposch (experience with Confederation Bridge, Montreal’s new St. Lawrence River bridge, and Calgary BRT and LRT).

https://dailyhive.com/calgary/green-line-lrt-calgary-northern-span-option?fbclid=IwAR1QX7l1eXEHfVEujmFoN6nsHyOIAGxmd2o5XkGkvHl-tOUyWagYeyKQ28s

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the whole point of the Green Line is to speed up the process of getting people into and out of the core every day, doing the line from North Pointe to 16th Ave will add minimal value.

Speaking anecdotally, the worst part of the 300/301 commute is navigating and exiting downtown itself. Once you're northbound past 16th Ave, it's fairly smooth sailing. (I live in Citadel but occasionally use the 300 or 301 to go to my mother's place after work).

Of course it will fulfill the objective of just getting that part of the project actually done. But that's about all one can expect. The additional burden of switching from BRT to the train will almost certainly negate any time advantages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nick B said:

If the challenge of constructing the central segment of the future Green Line LRT through downtown Calgary is not overcome, the northern segment could be built first instead.

This is mostly media speculation with agitation by Councillor Jyoti Gondek. At the September 18 Green Line update, Gondek said she would rather have buses feeding regional rail down Nose Creek than support a delay in Green Line north. Everyone else remained focus on the (precarious) status of Stage 1 rather than go into hyperbole and hypotheticals. There is no appetite at committee for 2 disjointed segments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the main reason why we can't have an elevated section through downtown? Is it the lack of width? I can't imagine it being just due to the pedestrian +15s, which could probably be replaced with a covered ground level crossing or something similar - whatever it is, it has to be cheaper than tunneling through all downtown?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TimmyC62 said:

So what's the main reason why we can't have an elevated section through downtown? Is it the lack of width? I can't imagine it being just due to the pedestrian +15s, which could probably be replaced with a covered ground level crossing or something similar - whatever it is, it has to be cheaper than tunneling through all downtown?

  • The building owners don't support it and will fight it aggressively.
  • The councillors were never a fan of it because of negative impacts to the public realm.
  • A lot of the public think it looks ugly.

Because of this no one really took this option seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, lucx said:
  • The building owners don't support it and will fight it aggressively.
  • The councillors were never a fan of it because of negative impacts to the public realm.
  • A lot of the public think it looks ugly.

Because of this no one really took this option seriously.

I'd like to see what would happen if they told Chicago that their El should be street running

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one talks about noise, but that’s a potential problem too. I can hear trains operating on the elevated section of the Blue Line from quite a distance at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downbeat said:

No one talks about noise, but that’s a potential problem too. I can hear trains operating on the elevated section of the Blue Line from quite a distance at times.

I mean immediately north of Sunnyside there are apartment buildings right beside the track, and I think people live there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chills_on_the_train said:

They're not exactly nice apartment buildings though...

People that live in those apartment buildings need to be mindful and make sure that when they're getting ready for work or maybe inviting their boyfriend over for a drink after a date... they need to close their blinds otherwise you can see everything.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Blake M said:

I mean immediately north of Sunnyside there are apartment buildings right beside the track, and I think people live there.

That section is ballasted though which makes it pretty quiet compared to the direct fixation on other bridges/sections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blake M said:

I'd like to see what would happen if they told Chicago that their El should be street running

Chicago has had decades with the El so a surface version of the same thing would be a downgrade. Similarly a massive guideway through downtown Calgary would be considered a downgrade.

A representative from Chinatown spoke at the Sept 18 meeting to reaffirm the community's support for a tunnel under 2nd street. He doesn't support surface on 2nd, 1st or Center street as it "destroys Chinatown by having it dissected". I would argue Chinatown is already dissected with heavy traffic on Center. A quiet, low floor surface system on 2nd will only bring more visitors to Chinatown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, lucx said:

Chicago has had decades with the El so a surface version of the same thing would be a downgrade. Similarly a massive guideway through downtown Calgary would be considered a downgrade.

A representative from Chinatown spoke at the Sept 18 meeting to reaffirm the community's support for a tunnel under 2nd street. He doesn't support surface on 2nd, 1st or Center street as it "destroys Chinatown by having it dissected". I would argue Chinatown is already dissected with heavy traffic on Center. A quiet, low floor surface system on 2nd will only bring more visitors to Chinatown.

"Destroys Chinatown"

That's kind of an extreme argument... plus I'm in Chinatown all of the time, some of the smaller malls and centres in Chinatown are virtually dead, minus a bunch of Chinese seniors playing mahjong... surface LRT in Chinatown will do absolutely NOTHING to destroy the community, whatsoever. If anything, it will bring in hundreds of thousands of extra customers per year, which is needed, because last time I checked - those retailers are on thin ice. And alot are leaving due to lack of customers/business.

If they have issues with LRT in Chinatown, then why not bulldoze part of Eau Claire Market, and use the LRT around there instead - underground, surface, elevated or otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBYism. Chinatown community association doesn’t want the line beside the Chinese Cultural Centre. But frankly that place needs the foot traffic. And bringing the alignment closer to Chinatown’s core would only help. 

Surface on 1st street and sacrificing Sen Lok park for a bridge approach may be more palatable than sacrificing part of Prince’s Island. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LRT said:

20190921_174216.jpg

Where is this located?

On that note, I should mention that an old sign saying "future LRT park and ride" still exists in the empty field at 96 Ave NE/Harvest Hills Blvd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 5:03 PM, lucx said:

NIMBYism. Chinatown community association doesn’t want the line beside the Chinese Cultural Centre. But frankly that place needs the foot traffic. And bringing the alignment closer to Chinatown’s core would only help. 

Surface on 1st street and sacrificing Sen Lok park for a bridge approach may be more palatable than sacrificing part of Prince’s Island. 

They've seen Shanghai and Beijing lately, right...? They practically bulldozed the old city walls just to get the subway in. Is that why they fear it though? Because Calgary wouldn't ever do that as a city - they might have bulldozed all those old building for skyscrapers, but bulldoze Chinatown for LRT?! Its unthinkable

On 9/21/2019 at 11:34 PM, Blake M said:

McKenzie Towne?

I live in Auburn Bay now, and have never seen these 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...