ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted North Central North Central LRT Corridor Study LRT December 1, 2014
Route Final Draft Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study ATTACHMENT TT2014-0916 Page 1 of 104 5 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled North Central LRT Corridor Study was North prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of The City of Calgary (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document
Central by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are LRT based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any Route subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third Planning
party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible North for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Study Central
Prepared by Recommendations (signature) Dena Ghoneim, E.I.T. LRT Reviewed by (signature) David Thatcher, P.Eng. Corridor
Att 5.pdf Study Page
2 of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
North Table of Contents 8.5 TRANSPORTATION ...... 8.7 8.6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT ...... 8.9 ABBREVIATIONS ...... II 8.7 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT ...... 8.10
Central 8.8 DELIVERABILITY ...... 8.11 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1.1 1.1 VISION & OBJECTIVES ...... 1.1 9.0 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MAE 2 ...... 9.2 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1.2 9.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE CAPITAL COST ...... 9.2 LRT 1.2.1 Existing Plans/Policy Documents ...... 1.2 9.2 FINANCIAL CAPACITY ...... 9.2 1.2.2 Study Process ...... 1.6 9.3 COMMUNITY WELL BEING ...... 9.3
Route 1.2.3 Evaluation Steps ...... 1.9 9.4 PROSPEROUS ECONOMY ...... 9.5 9.5 TRANSPORTATION ...... 9.6 2.0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ...... 2.11 9.6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT ...... 9.8
Planning 2.1 STUDY PARAMETERS ...... 2.11
9.7 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT ...... 9.13 North
3.0 HIGH LEVEL MAE: 16 AVENUE N TO BEDDINGTON TRAIL ...... 3.13 9.8 DELIVERABILITY ...... 9.13 3.1 OVERVIEW...... 3.13 10.0 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MAE 3 ...... 10.16 3.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...... 3.14 Study 10.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE CAPITAL COST ...... 10.16 Central 4.0 DOWNTOWN REVIEW ...... 4.1 10.2 FINANCIAL CAPACITY ...... 10.16 10.3 COMMUNITY WELL BEING ...... 10.16 4.1 HIGH LEVEL REVIEW OF ALIGNMENTS ...... 4.2 Recommendations 10.4 PROSPEROUS ECONOMY ...... 10.17 4.2 ELEVATED OPTIONS IN DOWNTOWN ...... 4.2 10.5 TRANSPORTATION ...... 10.18 5.0 EDMONTON TRAIL VS CENTRE STREET ...... 5.5 10.6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT ...... 10.19 10.7 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT ...... 10.22 LRT 6.0 DEVELOPING CENTRE STREET OPTIONS...... 6.1 10.8 DELIVERABILITY ...... 10.22 6.1 PRINCIPLES ...... 6.1 11.0 EVALUATION SUMMARY ...... 11.1 6.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRE STREET ...... 6.1 Corridor 6.3 IDENTIFYING ALIGNMENT OPTIONS ...... 6.2 12.0 CONCLUSION ...... 12.3 6.4 BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) ...... 6.2
Att 12.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 12.3 6.5 MAE 1: DOWNTOWN TO 9 AVENUE N ...... 6.3 12.2 NEXT STEPS ...... 12.3
5.pdf 6.5.1 Option 1: New Bridge River Crossing ...... 6.3 6.5.2 Option 2: Existing Centre Street Bridge River Crossing ...... 6.3
6.5.3 Option 3: Tunnel River Crossing ...... 6.3 Study 6.6 MAE 2: 24 AVENUE N TO MCKNIGHT BOULEVARD ...... 6.9 6.6.1 Option 1: Narrow Cross-Section ...... 6.9 6.6.2 Option 2: Wide Cross-Section ...... 6.9 6.7 MAE 3: BEDDINGTON BOULEVARD TO BEDDINGTON TRAIL ...... 6.11 6.7.1 Option 1: No Parking in Right of Way ...... 6.11 6.7.2 Option 2: Parking in Right of Way ...... 6.11 6.7.3 General Consideration: Crossing Beddington Trail ...... 6.11
7.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ...... 7.1
8.0 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MAE 1: DOWNTOWN TO 9 AVENUE ...... 8.2 8.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE CAPITAL COST ...... 8.2 8.2 FINANCIAL CAPACITY ...... 8.3 8.3 COMMUNITY WELL-BEING ...... 8.4 8.4 PROSPEROUS ECONOMY ...... 8.6 Page
3 gd c:\users\dghoneim\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\guwmryto\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx i
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
North LIST OF TABLES Table 9.13: MAE 2 – Transportation: Changes in Journey Time - LRT ...... 9.6 Table 9.14: Segment 2 – Transportation: Changes in Journey Time - Auto ...... 9.6 Table 1.1.1: Applicable imagineCalgary Targets...... 1.3 Table 9.15: Segment 2 – Transportation: Reliability ...... 9.6 Table 1.1.2: Mode Share: Current and Recommended Direction ...... 1.4
Central Table 9.16: MAE 2 – Transportation: Impact of Displaced Traffic and Demand on Parallel Streets Table 3.1 High Level MAE Summary ...... 3.14 ...... 9.7 Table 5.1: Summary of High Level MAE ...... 5.5 Table 9.17: Segment 2 – Transportation: Impact on Parking ...... 9.7 Table 5.2 – Boardings Comparison North of 16th Avenue North ...... 5.6 Table 9.18: Segment 2 – Urban Development: Land Acquisition Impacts ...... 9.8
LRT Table 5.3: MAE summary...... 5.9 Table 9.19: Segment 2 – Urban Development: Contribution to Improved Streetscape and Public Table 6.1: Characteristics of Centre Street ...... 6.1 Realm ...... 9.8 Table 8.1: MAE 1 – Opinions of Probable Capital Cost to 24 AVE ...... 8.2 Route Table 9.20: MAE 2 - Sustainable Environment: Impact on Existing Natural Environment ...... 9.13 Table 8.2: MAE 1 – Financial Capacity: Phasing Possibilities ...... 8.3 Table 9.21: MAE 2 - Sustainable Environment: Noise Impacts ...... 9.13 Table 8.3: MAE 1 – Financial Capacity: Impact on Existing City Assets (e.g. Land) ...... 8.3 Table 9.22: MAE 2 - Deliverability: Constructability (technical constraints)...... 9.13 Table 8.5: MAE 1 - Community Well-Being: Impact on Community Cohesion - Severance ...... 8.4 Planning Table 9.23: MAE 2- Deliverability: Construction Impacts ...... 9.13 Table 8.6: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Safety ...... 8.4 North Table 9.24: MAE 2 - Deliverability: Conformance to CTP & MDP ...... 9.13 Table 8.4: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Impact on Community Cohesion – Visual Intrusion 8.4 Table 9.25: MAE 2 - Deliverability: Acceptability ...... 9.14 Table 8.7: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Security ...... 8.5 Table 10.1: MAE 3 – Opinion of Probable Capital Costs ...... 10.16 Table 8.8: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Emergency Access...... 8.5
Study Table 10.2: MAE 3 – Financial Capacity: Phasing Possibilities ...... 10.16
Table 8.9: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: User Centered Design / Accessibility ...... 8.5 Central Table 10.3: MAE 3 – Financial Capacity: Impacts to Existing City Assets ...... 10.16 Table 8.10: MAE 1 – Prosperous Economy: Value Capture ...... 8.6 Table 10.4: MAE 3 – Community Well-Being: Impact on Community Cohesion - Visual Intrusion Table 8.11: MAE 1 – Prosperous Economy: Impact on Goods Movement ...... 8.6
Recommendations ...... 10.16 Table 8.12: MAE 1 – Transportation: Improvements for Walking and Cycling ...... 8.7 Table 10.5: MAE 3 – Community Well-Being: Impact on Community Cohesion - Severance .. 10.17 Table 8.13: MAE 1 – Transportation: Changes in Journey Time – LRT ...... 8.7 Table 10.6: MAE 3 – Community Well-Being: Safety ...... 10.17 Table 8.14: MAE 1 – Transportation – Changes in Journey Time - Auto ...... 8.7 Table 10.7: MAE 3 – Community Well-Being: Security ...... 10.17 LRT Table 8.15: MAE 1 – Transportation: Reliability ...... 8.8 Table 10.8: MAE 3 – Community Well-Being: Emergency Access ...... 10.17 Table 8.16: MAE 1 – Transportation: Impact of Displaced Traffic and Demand on Parallel Routes Table 10.9: MAE 3 – Community Well-Being: User Centered Design / Accessibility ...... 10.17 ...... 8.8 Table 10.10: MAE 3 – Prosperous Economy: Value Capture ...... 10.17 Table 8.17: MAE 1 – Transportation: Impact on Parking ...... 8.8 Corridor Table 10.11: MAE 3 – Prosperous Economy: Impact on Goods Movement ...... 10.18 Table 8.18: MAE 1 – Urban Development: Land Acquisition Impacts ...... 8.9 Table 10.12: MAE 3 – Transportation: Improvements for Walking and Cycling ...... 10.18 Table 8.19: MAE 1 – Urban Development: Contribution to Improved Streetscape and Public Att Table 10.13: MAE 3 – Transportation: Changes in Journey Time - LRT ...... 10.18 Realm ...... 8.9 Table 10.14: MAE 3 – Transportation: Changes in Journey Time - Auto ...... 10.18 5.pdf Table 8.20: MAE 1 – Sustainable Environment: Impact on Existing Natural Environment ...... 8.10 Table 10.15: MAE 3 – Prosperous Economy: Reliability ...... 10.18 Table 8.21: MAE 1 – Sustainable Environment: Noise Impacts ...... 8.10 Table 10.16: MAE 3 – Transportation: Impact on Displaced Traffic and Demand on Parallel Table 8.22: MAE1 – Deliverability: Constructability (technical constraints) ...... 8.11 Study Routes ...... 10.19 Table 8.23: MAE 1 – Deliverability: Construction Impacts ...... 8.11 Table 10.17: MAE 3 – Transportation: Impact on Parking ...... 10.19 Table 8.24: MAE 1 – Deliverability: Conformance to CTP & MDP...... 8.12 Table 10.18: MAE 3 – Urban Development: Land Acquisition Impacts ...... 10.19 Table 8.25: MAE 1 – Deliverability: Acceptability ...... 8.12 Table 10.19: MAE 3 – Urban Development: Contribution to Improved Streetscape and Public Table 9.1: MAE 2 – Opinion of Probable Capital Costs ...... 9.2 Realm ...... 10.19 Table 9.2: MAE 2 – Financial Capacity: Phasing Possibilities ...... 9.2 Table 10.20: MAE 3 - Sustainable Environment: Impact on Existing Natural Environment...... 10.22 Table 9.3: MAE 2 – Financial Capacity: Impacts to Existing City Assets ...... 9.2 Table 10.21: MAE 3 - Sustainable Environment: Noise Impacts ...... 10.22 Table 9.4: MAE 2 – Community Well-Being: Impact on Community Cohesion: Visual Intrusion .. 9.3 Table 10.22: MAE 3 - Deliverability: Constructability (technical constraints) ...... 10.22 Table 9.5: MAE 2 – Community Well-Being: Impact on Community Cohesion - Severance ...... 9.3 Table 10.23: MAE 3 - Deliverability: Construction Impacts ...... 10.22 Table 9.6: MAE 2 – Community Well-Being: Safety ...... 9.3 Table 10.24: MAE 3 - Deliverability: Conformance to CTP and MDP ...... 10.22 Table 9.7: MAE 2 – Community Well-Being: Security ...... 9.4 Table 10.25: MAE 3 - Deliverability: Acceptability ...... 10.22 Table 9.8: MAE 2 – Community Well-Being: Emergency Access...... 9.4 Table 11.1: Preferred Option Summary ...... 11.1 Table 9.9: MAE 2 – Community Well-Being: User Centered Design / Accessibility ...... 9.4 Table 11.2 Detailed MAE Evaluation Summary ...... 11.2 Table 9.10: MAE 2 – Prosperous Economy: Value Capture ...... 9.5 Table 9.11: MAE 2 – Prosperous Economy: Impact on Goods Movement ...... 9.5
Table 9.12: MAE 2 – Transportation: Improvements for Walking and Cycling ...... 9.6 Page
4 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx ii
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
North LIST OF FIGURES Figure 6.5: MAE 2 - Typical Cross Section for Option 1 and 2 ...... 6.8 Figure 6.6: MAE 3 - Typical Cross Sections for Option 1 and 2 ...... 6.10 Figure 1.1 Summary of Community Principles ...... 1.2 Figure 8.1: Heritage Resources ...... 8.3 Figure 1.2: Existing Plans and Policy Documents ...... 1.2
Central Figure 9.1 to 9.4: Land Acquisition Impacts for MAE 2 ...... 9.9 Figure 1.3 A Policy Shift Example: Coverage to Ridership ...... 1.4 Figure 10.1 to 10.2: Land Acquisition Impacts for MAE 3 ...... 10.19 Figure 1.4 Green Line Implementation ...... 1.5 Figure 11.1 to 11.18: Recommended Alignment ...... 11.3 Figure 1.5: Project Timeline ...... 1.6
LRT Figure 1.6: Road and Street Palette ...... 1.7
Figure 1.7: Decision Process Chart ...... 1.9 Figure 2.1.1 Study Area Boundary ...... 2.11 Route Figure 2.2: Study Area Boundary ...... 2.11 Figure 3.1: Candidate Corridors ...... 3.13 Figure 4.3.1 Key Downtown Considerations ...... 4.1 Planning Figure 4.2: Calgary West LRT Sunalta Station ...... 4.2 LIST OF APPENDICES North Figure 4.3 Potential Elevated Option in the Downtown ...... 4.4 Figure 5.1 Public Preference (Open House and Online Respondents) ...... 5.5 APPENDIX A PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... A.1 Figure 5.2 Right of Way Width Comparison ...... 5.5
Study APPENDIX B MODELLING ...... B.2 Figure 5.3 Narrow Option (LRT plus one travel lane in each direction) ...... 5.6 Central Figure 5.4: Wide Option (LRT plus two travel lanes in each direction) ...... 5.6
Figure 5.5 Centre Street LRT Walksheds ...... 5.7 APPENDIX C TOD REPORTS ...... C.3 Recommendations Figure 5.6 Edmonton Trail LRT Walksheds...... 5.7 APPENDIX D HIGH LEVEL MAE ...... D.4 Figure 5.7: Access challenges into Downtown ...... 5.8 Figure 5.8: Sites with TOD Potential...... 5.8 APPENDIX E DOWNTOWN REPORTS ...... E.5 Figure 5.9: Areas with potential speed restriction ...... 5.8 LRT Figure 6.1: Centre Street Segments ...... 6.2 APPENDIX F CENTRE STREET VS. EDMONTON TRAIL ...... F.6 Figure 6.2: MAE 1 - Option1 ...... 6.4
Figure 6.3: MAE 1 - Option 2 ...... 6.5 APPENDIX G OPINION OF PROBABLE COST ...... G.7 Corridor Figure 6.4: MAE 1 - Option 3 ...... 6.6
Att 5.pdf Study Page
5 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx iii
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
North
THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Central LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page
6 gd c:\users\dghoneim\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\guwmryto\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx i
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
North Abbreviations Central
BAU Business As Usual BRT Bus Rapid Transit
LRT Context Context Research Ltd. CPR Canadian Pacific Rail LRT Light Rail Transit Route LRV Light Rail Vehicle LUN Land-Use and Network
Planning MAE Multiple Account Evaluation NCLRT North Central LRT North NE Northeast NW Northwest OCS Overhead Catenary Systems Study OMSF Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Central OPC Opinion of Probable Cost
Recommendations RC BRT Rail Convertible BRT ROW Right of Way RTM Regional Transportation Model
SE Southeast LRT SELRT Southeast LRT SETWAY Southeast Transitway
Stantec Stantec Consulting Ltd. Corridor SW Southwest The City The City of Calgary Att TIA Transportation Impact Assessment
5.pdf TOD Transit Oriented Development TPSS Traction Power Substation Study
Page
7 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx ii
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 VISION & OBJECTIVES Detailed Project Objectives for the GL-NC: Central The City of Calgary has a number of existing documents and An affordable and cost-effective service; A service with The North Central LRT Concept Study represents a departure from policies that set out the philosophical priorities for The City. The manageable costs, that is sustainable in the longer term the previously approved plan to build one of the two final objective of this study has been to align the recommendations for and provides value for money LRT branches of Calgary’s six-branch LRT network parallel to Nose the NCLRT with these guiding policy documents. Policy documents A safe, secure and socially inclusive service that improves Creek. The previously approved alignment had the advantage of that were reviewed during the development of the project Route access to key community destinations and encourages minimizing community impact and achieving low travel times objectives include the 2020 Sustainability Direction, Calgary ‘Triple walking and cycling between the City Centre and the communities north of Bottom Line,’ the Transportation Infrastructure Investment Plan and Beddington Trail. However, many stakeholders viewed the subsequently Investing in Mobility, imagineCalgary, the Municipal A service that promotes economic development by Planning
previously approved alignment as a lost opportunity for creating a Development Plan (MDP), Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP), and improving access to employment, without adversely North positive impact in communities north of the Bow River, such as RouteAhead. impacting goods movement Crescent Heights, Tuxedo Park, Mount Pleasant, and Highland Park. A draft project vision was A high priority transit service
Study Vision that promotes transit use, walking Moving the North Central LRT line away from the Nose Creek developed through a review of the Central and cycling as preferred mobility alignment has had several implications: City policies, consultation with City A transit service that improves mobility in existing and new Administration and a several series choices for Calgarians, improves the
Recommendations communities in North Central Calgary, connecting people The North Central line no longer has to join the Northeast customer experience and integrates of public workshops. Following the and places, and enhancing the quality of life in the City. LRT line. Instead, The City has stated that the North Central input received throughout the with, meets the future demands of, LRT will be connected to the Southeast LRT line to form consultation process, the vision was and strengthens the regional and LRT what is being referred to as the Green Line. refined based on input from the Overall Project Objective frequent transit networks Project Steering Committee which The Green Line will operate independently of the existing A service that supports The objective of this study is to identify a preferred corridor includes representation various City Corridor LRT system which allows for a change in vehicle current and future land use and and alignment and supporting conceptual details such as technology from high floor to low floor. The City’s selection departments including Calgary intensification of development along Transit, Transportation Planning, station locations, roadway geometry, opinions of probable
Att of low-floor LRT as the preferred technology for the Green the corridor, integrating with the cost (OPC), land use development prospects, and place- Line will provide an opportunity to integrate rail based Transportation Infrastructure, character of the communities it making opportunities for the NCLRT. 5.pdf transit with land use in a manner that has difficult to Roads, and Land Use Policy & passes through accomplish in the City of Calgary with the current high Planning. The final vision statement A service that facilitates a reduction in GHG emissions while Study floor LRT. developed based on input from all of the above parties was to not impacting The City’s current natural environment provide “A transit service that improves mobility in existing and new For the time being, planning and design for the Green Line – North communities in North Central Calgary, connecting people and A service that can be constructed and operated without Central (NCLRT) and Green Line – Southeast (SETWAY) are places, and enhancing the quality of life in the City.” To be significant technical issues or constraints proceeding on different schedules, although coordination is successful, the study must identify a transit service for existing and Through the stakeholder consultation process, a number of occurring at The City and consultant levels. It is expected that the new communities in North Central Calgary that will achieve these community members requested that the vision be expanded to results of this study will be able to serve as the basis for preliminary outcomes. design efforts. be more specific about certain issues. Although the sense was The project objectives are intended to be the manner in which the that these issues had been covered adequately in the vision The balance of this report summarizes the approach to and vision is brought to life as a series of value based statements. The and the project objectives, an additional set of ‘community findings of this study. In some cases the information contained in policy document review and assimilation of feedback generated principles’ for the project and the consultation process were this document is a brief summary of the more detailed by stakeholders and the public culminated in the following project formed. The community principles laid out below, sit between memorandums or reports that have been prepared and are objectives. the vision and objectives and aim to expand on some of the appended to this study. points in the vision without having to create a very detailed and complex vision statement. Page
8 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.1
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
Community Principles for the NCLRT: Contribute to the vitality of businesses in the community by 1.2 BACKGROUND
Central promoting business development and access Enhance connectivity between people and places, This section provides additional information about the plans and connecting to all modes of transportation in the community Enhance the environment by contributing to reducing policy documents that were used as a basis for the Vision & GHGs, protecting natural areas and urban beautification Contribute positively to community development and Objectives and how they specifically relate to the North Central LRT revitalization Create a positive transportation experience; one which is LRT Concept Study. In many respects, each of the plans / policy safe, accessible, and efficient documents utilized in this study builds on the previous document Route Be the affordable transportation mode referenced. Figure 1.2 shows how the plans and policy documents Contribute to complete streets principles including Be accessible for people to get to, board and use related to each other and to the NCLRT. landscaping and urban form, and pedestrian and cycling
Planning Contribute to the character and cohesion of the systems. 1.2.1 Existing Plans/Policy Documents North community through integrated design with no barriers to
accessibility Figure 1.1 shows a summary of community input that was received City of Calgary Triple Bottom Line Policy throughout the first round of public consultation that helped form Contribute to an efficient traffic management system that The City of Calgary’s Triple Bottom Line policy was adopted in Study the community principles listed above. Further information on the promotes the right transportation choice, and reduces Central complete public consultation process can be found in September 2005 and is currently being updated. The policy states congestion and travel times Appendix A. that The City must consider and address the social, economic,
Recommendations environmental and smart growth impacts of all of its decisions in order to ensure a high quality of life for future generations. The objectives of the North Central LRT Concept Study are consistent
with the Triple Bottom Line Policy Framework in their attention to LRT community impacts, cost, safety, economic development, land use intensification, and air quality. Corridor ImagineCalgary (Calgary’s Plan for Long Range Urban Sustainability) Att This plan was the result of a comprehensive consultation process
5.pdf called imagineCalgary that gathered input from some 18,000 Calgarians over the course of 18 months and was completed in 2006. The plan was developed to capture the long-term, 100-year Study aspirations residents had for The City. The input was summarized into goals and targets in the following categories: Built environment and infrastructure system
Economic system
Governance system Natural environment
Social
In total, 114 targets were developed, and the intention is for organizations and governments to reflect and report on their
Figure 1.1 Summary of Community Principles progress towards achieving these targets every year.
Page
9 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.2
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
Table 1.1.1: Applicable imagineCalgary Targets Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and Calgary
Central Transportation Plan (CTP) Target Target Description Great effort was put into developing the MDP and CTP to be Number complementary documents that provide a framework for the
LRT implementation of the visions outlined in Imagine Calgary. T14 By 2036, we are developing “complete communities” Preparation of these documents began in 2007 when City Council that, among other aspects, allow people to obtain
Route approved the Terms of Reference for an Integrated Land Use and daily goods and services within a reasonable walking Mobility Plan that built on the previous transportation plan (The Go distance from home. Plan (1995)) and the previous development plan (The Calgary Plan
Planning T15 By 2036, all new commercial buildings are designed to (1998)). Collectively, the MDP and CTP set a long-term 60-year North encourage the use of alternative forms of strategy of a more sustainable city form for Calgary and the transportation (e.g. walking, cycling and transit). transportation networks needed to serve it.
T22 By 2036, we reduce the annual private vehicle Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Study
kilometres travelled per capita by 20 per cent. Central The MDP for Calgary was finalized in September 2009 and provides T23 By 2016, we increase the residential population within high level goals and policies for land use in The City. The goals and
Recommendations walking distance (600 metres) of LRT stations and major policies are broken down into six categories, as follows: transit nodes by 100 per cent. Prosperous economy
T24 By 2016, we increase the number of jobs within walking Shaping a more compact urban form LRT distance (600 metres) of LRT stations and major transit Creating great communities nodes by 35 per cent. Urban design
T26 By 2036, we increase peak period transit, walking and Connecting the City Corridor cycling and carpool travel to downtown by 50 per Greening the City cent, 40 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively. Att These policies and goals are discussed in the context of six key land T28 By 2036, transit trips per capita increase 40 per cent
5.pdf use typologies: Centre City, Activity Centres, Corridors, Developed over 2006 levels. Residential Areas, Developing Residential Areas, and Industrial
T29 By 2036, the number of on-street bikeways increases by Areas. The plan recognizes that a transportation network will Study 200 per cent, and the number of pathways by 100 per contain both roads and streets, where roads serve the movement cent. of vehicles, and streets serve all modes and encourage an interaction between land use and the people traveling through T30 By 2036, fatal collisions per 100,000 people and injury the corridor. The plan also encourages the diversification of Figure 1.2 Relevant Plans and Policy Documents collisions per 1,000 people decrease by 50 per cent. housing choice in communities such as those in the North Central T62 By 2036, all publicly provided goods and services are corridor through the construction of more townhouses, cottage The imagineCalgary targets most applicable to the North Central affordable, accessible and priced in accordance with houses, and accessory suites. LRT Concept Study are listed in Table 1.1.1Error! Reference source their public benefits. not found. The 2020 Sustainability Direction is the short-term plan for The MDP supports the concept that the GL-NC project is as much moving Calgary towards the goals established in imagineCalgary. T103 By 2016, 95 per cent of Calgarians report that they feel about land use as it is about transportation. The MDP expects that In addition, the work completed as part of ImagineCalgary safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods and transit stops be surrounded by vibrant, mixed-use areas informed the development of the Municipal Development Plan walking alone downtown after dark. incorporating public gathering areas and public art. It is expected (MDP) and the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP). that the GL-NC should contribute to the goals and strategies listed
above in a cost-effective manner. Page 10 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.3
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) Table 1.1.2: Mode Share: Current and Recommended RouteAhead
Central Direction This document, adopted by Council in September 2009, lays out RouteAhead was developed to the long-term transportation goals and policies for The City of provide a comprehensive Calgary. The document recognizes that the design of the City’s Percent of all daily trips strategy for transit in Calgary
LRT “transportation system has a significant impact on the urban form over the next 30 years. It aims to of the city. It contributes to the shape of our communities and Mode of Transportation Recommended address issues beyond the basic employment centres, and it determines how we move within and Current Route Direction structure of the transit network among these places. It supports the economy by facilitating the (i.e., the bus routes and LRT lines) timely movement of goods, services and people within the City. It Walk / Cycle 14% 20% - 25% and crystalizes a vision for the can either enhance or degrade the environment depending on Planning
key elements that support transit, such as the organization that North how well it is integrated with its surroundings and the degree to Transit 9% 15% - 20% provides transit services, the financing of transit, and transit which we depend on fossil fuels to reach our destinations.” The infrastructure. plan lays out seven key goals: Vehicles 77% 65% - 55% (SOV & HOV) To create RouteAhead, intensive efforts were dedicated to public Study Align transportation Planning and infrastructure investment Central with City and regional land use directions and engagement. Engagement efforts included outreach with current implementation strategies. Source: Calgary Transportation Plan transit riders and the use of creative outreach mechanisms such as
Recommendations the RouteAhead Engagement Bus and an on-line budget Promote safety for all transportation system users. Map 2 in the CTP identifies the Primary Transit Network for the City. allocation tool. Multiple stakeholder groups were engaged, such as Provide affordable mobility and universal access for all. That map indicates that the full length of Centre Street and City employees and students. Over the course of the project, the Edmonton Trail from the downtown to 32 Avenue form part of the LRT Enable public transit, walking and cycling as the preferred project team met with 4,000 people and received thousands of Primary Transit Network (PTN) which provides frequent, fast, reliable mobility choices for more people. comments. The public engagement activities associated with this and connected transit service on less than 10 minute frequency at project collected more comments about customer service than
Promote economic development by ensuring the efficient least 15 hours a day 7 day/week. These north-south connections Corridor any other topic. The top five concerns were related to frequency, movement of workers and goods. will be supported by a series of east-west cross town primary transit network design, fares, vehicles, and reliability. connections. These east-west routes are planned to be located Att Advance environmental sustainability. along 16 Avenue, 32 Avenue, 96 Avenue (Airport Trail), and Figure 1.3 A Policy Shift Example: Coverage to Ridership 5.pdf Ensure transportation infrastructure is well managed. Country Hills Boulevard. At the time the CTP was prepared, the The plan focuses on a significant shift in how people move North Central LRT was approved to be located within the Nose throughout the City. Unlike how much of the planning in the City Creek Corridor. Pending Council’s approval of this concept study, Study had historically taken place, the CTP places a high priority on an amendment to Map 2 will required to show the new proposed moving people rather than on moving vehicles. As Table 1.1.2 alignment of the Skeletal Light Rail Transit (LRT) Network. indicates, one of the goals outlined in the CTP is an increase in the
share of trips made by walking, cycling, and transit. This shows a significant shift in the transportation priorities for the City from Single
Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) and even High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) towards walking, cycling and transit.
The NCLRT, along with other City investments and policies are focused on increasing the transit mode share, and to some extent,
increase walking and cycling mode share to support The City goals of shifting how people move. Source: RouteAhead
Page 11 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.4
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
Figure 1.4 Green Line Implementation Investing in Mobility: 2015-2024 Transportation Infrastructure
Central Investment Plan
Approved on May 26, 2014, this plan summarizes the major transportation infrastructure projects anticipated between 2015
LRT and 2024 and organizes them into the following six categories: Mobility Hubs and Transit Corridors Route Goods Movements and Traffic Growth
Transportation Network Optimization Planning
Lifecycle and Asset Management North
Support Functions
Source: RouteAhead Flood-related Projects Study Central These projects are identified as aligning as much as possible with RouteAhead resulted in the development of many core principles Project evaluation criteria based on land use, customer City directives such as the CT, Corporate Growth Management
Recommendations that have been applied to the planning of the NCLRT in the experience, and project characteristics and Route Ahead with specific focus on the Green Line Program. development of the Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) framework The plan budgets approximately $674 million for the Green Line Mode progression in key corridors from existing BRT to that was used to inform decisions made throughout the project. Program ($524 million funded and $150 million unfunded).
upgraded BRT to LRT, with upgrades tied to demand driven LRT The core RouteAhead principles include: by the development and population growth in respective The Green Line Program includes segments of dedicated bus-only Easy connections corridors lanes and transit priority measures that will improve travel time
Safe waiting environments RouteAhead directly identifies (see Figure 1.4) the NCLRT project as reliability along the entire length of the Green Line. The plan notes Corridor part of the overall phasing of the Green Line project changing that “this is particularly important for the Centre Street Transitway, Reliable services area and technology as ridership dictates. It refers to a future line which has the highest ridership and most frequent service of all Att Stations that are easy to access along Centre Street as the Green Line, starting as a transitway non-LRT corridors in Calgary.” These improvements will improve
5.pdf The development of a grid network segment connecting downtown to 24 Avenue N, extending to 78 customer experience within the corridor and include the provision Avenue N in the future. In future years, this transitway could be of streetscape and pedestrian improvements at key locations
Study Attracting current non-users to transit converted to LRT along its entire length, likely in stages. along the corridor which will support land use intensification at Focusing investments on features that will attract strategic locations. passengers Based on the findings from the NCLRT concept study, the Centre Achieve 50/50 or 55/45 revenue/cost targets Street Transitway is expected to be key part of phasing the LRT on Make transit the preferred transportation option Centre Street. The plan notes that even “if Centre Street is not selected as the alignment for the north –central portion of the Pursue investments that fit within the funding allocation for Green-Line LRT, it will continue to operate as a bus-based transit projects transitway.” The provision of a transitway on Centre Street will form Use high-capacity vehicles when necessary to reduce the base scenario for comparison of the LRT later described in
crowding Section 6.4. Use energy-efficient vehicles Allow for spontaneous trip-making
Page 12 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.5
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
1.2.2 Study Process Central This study was launched in May 2013 to evaluate the potential to change the previously approved corridor alignment that placed the NCLRT on the Nose Creek alignment. The potential to change LRT the alignment opened up the opportunity for a review of alternative alignments that would better serve existing Route neighbourhoods – particularly those south of Beddington Trail. This potential change in alignment would also allow the project team to explore the opportunity to link the NCLRT line to the Southeast Planning
LRT line and to use a more adaptable and more accessible vehicle North technology than the one currently used within the existing CTrain system. Study
The study was organized into the following four stages shown in Central Figure 1.5; Defining Stage, Developing Stage, Deciding Stage, and Delivering Stage. Recommendations
Defining Stage In the Defining Stage of the project the vision, objectives and the LRT study boundaries were defined. The development of the multiple account evaluation frameworks was also undertaken during this stage as it is tied to the project vision and objectives. This stage Corridor included extensive public consultation to ensure that the project met the needs of the communities in the study area. Att Developing Stage 5.pdf In the Developing Stage, the project team carried out various forms of analysis to inform the decisions that would need to be Study made later on in the Deciding Stage. These analyses included the development and evaluation of options for the downtown alignment and the alignment north of 16 Avenue N, traffic simulation, market potential analysis, and a comparison of the Figure 1.5: Project Timeline analyzed corridors. In addition, modelling and tunneling evaluations are some of the key elements that supported the development of different options throughout the project. be expected to generate. For the purposes of our study, a forecast A number of different scenarios were specified by the consultant year of 2076 was used along with the Land-Use and Network (LUN) team and then coded and run by City staff. The aim was to make Modelling version of the existing model. While the outputs from models should best use of the existing models and undertake a limited number of In order to inform development of the alignment for the North not be assumed to be an exact representation of what will occur in scenarios that could best inform the option evaluation. Initial work Central LRT project, the City of Calgary Regional Transportation the future, they can provide information to help inform decisions focused on generating a comparison between the potential Model (RTM) was used. The RTM uses the latest City forecasts for that are based on the City’s best forecasts for how the City may Centre Street, Edmonton Trail and Nose Creek alignments which land-use and population, in conjunction with the existing and grow and develop in the future. helped inform the decision to remove Nose Creek from further planned transportation infrastructure to help provide insight into consideration. Later work ran more refined scenarios for the the likely ridership that the new line in North Central Calgary might
Page Edmonton Trail and Centre Street options to allow a decision to be 13 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.6
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
made on the emerging preferred alignment. The final scenarios The 2014 Complete Streets Guide provides definition of the traffic signal operation with the assumption that full priority would
Central refined the Centre Street alignment option to better reflect the characteristics of the Liveable Streets “family” introduced in the be given to LRT movements. emerging route detail. Standard outputs produced included CTP. It notes that these streets “serve to provide higher-capacity ridership on the proposed NCLRT line as well as wider transit streets within communities and development areas where active The analysis was carried out using existing and forecasted AM and ridership, traffic flows and impacts across the City. Further modes and local commercial activity will take precedence over PM peak volumes to capture the full effect of the traffic demand. LRT information about the modelling work undertaken is provided in private vehicle and goods movement activity.” It also states that a VISSIM version 5.4 was used for the analysis. A baseline model was Appendix B. “liveable street is a street with emphasis on modes of travel that first created using existing signal timing plans, existing lane Route enable social interaction (e.g. walking, cycling, transit). It is a geometry, and existing travel volumes. The model was set up such Street Classification destination as well as a route for travel.” that all signalized intersections were represented and intermediate The development of a Complete Streets Guide was directed by intersections were created to balance the flows. Planning
the Plan It Calgary Implementation Committee that was formed at Within the liveable streets family, the Urban Boulevard is identified North the direction of Council in 2009. The guide builds on the 22 as the “backbone of higher density corridors and activity centres” The 2076 simulation reduced the available left turns, redirecting complete streets principles that are included within the CTP. The where “high volumes of vehicular traffic are still expected”, but traffic to the signalized intersections. The 2076 simulations included classification of the corridors was an important consideration in the “walking, cycling and and transit are given higher priority.” It also LRT stations, five-minute headways, 37 second dwell times, and 3- Study
evaluation process as the classification provides guidance on the notes that “a level of congestion appropriate for a dense urban car vehicles. A 2076 version without LRT was also developed to Central level of mode accommodation anticipated within each of the area is acceptable for this street type.” Centre Street is classified as assess the impact of the LRT. For Centre Street, the 2076 no build corridors. Figure 1.6 shows the road and street Palette contained an Urban Boulevard between the Bow River and McKnight scenario was similar to the LRT scenario because it included only Recommendations in the City’s Complete Streets Guide. The 2014 Complete Streets Boulevard and Edmonton Trail is classified as an Urban Boulevard one lane of traffic in each direction, due to the assumed existence Guide was approved by Council on November 3, 2014. between 1 Avenue NE and 32 Avenue NE. of an exclusive bus lane. As anticipated, this analysis showed significant impacts to vehicular traffic in comparison to existing LRT Also within the liveable streets family, the Neighbourhood conditions, but in comparison to the scenarios where the number Boulevard is noted as being “similar to an Urban Boulevard, but on of travel lanes were already reduced there was a relatively limited a smaller scale, with walking and cycling given higher priority. impact. These operations are in line with those anticipated based These streets are destinations for the local communities surrounding on the street classifications. Additional analysis will be required in Corridor them, and provide the highest level of connectivity within this future studies to look at impacts to the selected corridor in more
Att family of streets. Though not a requirement, these streets support detail as well as considering improvements to adjacent routes. mixed-use retail and medium-density residential uses.” 5.pdf TOD These street classifications were an important consideration when With the new low-floor technology of the proposed Green Line, the Study evaluating the corridors, since as noted in Figure 6 they speak to a NCLRT is bringing the LRT closer to the existing communities through different emphasis for the accommodation of automobile traffic alignments along Centre Street, Edmonton Trail and 4 Street NW. within the subject corridors than currently exists. Urban Boulevards Due to the importance of regeneration of the North Central accommodate autos with variable standards and Neighbourhood communities and the potential for economic development, an Boulevards accommodation of autos is noted as not required or economic evaluation of the alternative alignments was done poor performance acceptable. based two main criteria: • Ability to catalyze TOD – the selected alternative should Using the traffic data outputs from the model runs described enhance the feasibility of mixed-se, mid- or high-rise previously, analysis of the anticipated traffic operations was development. This was assessed base on availability of performed . on the Centre Street and Edmonton Trail corridors. The vacant and publicly owned lots, as well as short and long analysis focused on evaluating traffic conditions at 2076 levels of term TOD potential. demand with LRT in operation. The 2076 scenario assumed one Figure 1.6: Road and Street Palette lane of general traffic in each direction on both Edmonton Trail • Impact on existing and future businesses – the selected Source: 2014 Complete Streets Guide and Centre Street, a corridor-wide ban on U-turns, left turns alternative should minimize disruption to existing businesses restricted to a set number of signalized intersections, and optimized during construction and create a favorable environment for
Page existing, returning, and new businesses after construction is 14 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.7
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
complete. This was assessed based on existing retail and Construction crews would maintain round the clock work as Tunnel cross sections may need to be locally enlarged to
Central mixed-use parcel sizes. the ground has time dependent behavior (i.e. ground accommodate for the ventilation system (fans) settlement) Reports on the TOD evaluation can be found in Appendix C. The tunnel lining will be designed to accommodate ground Two twin tunnels running parallel at the same elevation with and hydrostatic loads which can change the tunnel
LRT Road Geometrics an assumed tunnel separation of approximately 1.5 tunnel diameter diameters For each of the alignments, road geometrics were assessed to Deciding Route determine the feasibility of at-grade LRT. With the LRT able to Tunnel inverts depth below the river bed at 19m achieve a 6% vertical grade all of the alternatives were deemed (approximately 3 tunnel diameters) The Deciding Stage involved the development of a final set of feasible. The ROW widths were also assessed to ensure that at distinct options and a comprehensive analysis of how they Planning minimum one vehicle lane of traffic in each direction, sidewalks on TBM (type to be determined) for the longer tunnel option
compared in relation to a set of uniquely tailored evaluation North below the Bow River both sides, and two LRT tracks could fit into the existing ROW. The criteria. The high level MAE criteria were revisited to develop a set ROW geometrics are further explained in section Error! Reference SEM is more economical for shorter tunnel lengths ie. of detailed MAE criteria that would support in distinguishing source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.. downtown tunnel options between the options. Study Minimum overburden at the tunnel portals would be 5m to Central Tunneling Delivering In order to develop different options to cross the Bow River and the ground surface
Recommendations other constraints in the downtown, two tunneling methods were Impacts due to groundwater would be assessed in later The Delivering Stage involved finalizing the corridor choice and studied for the North Central LRT project. The two methods include; studies alignment recommendations for the final report and engagement Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Excavation, and Sequential to bring forward a project recommendation at the end of 2014. The approach structures (110m long) and the cut and LRT Excavation Method (SEM). cover portion (85m long) will be located at each end of the The TBM excavation is a mechanical excavation method which mined tunnels
uses a rotating cutter head. There are different shield types for this The width of the excavation pit based on the twin tunnel Corridor machine that may be selected depending on the ground concept is in order of 25m conditions, surface conditions, dimensions of the tunnel section, Public Consultation
Att Twin-tube and single-tube tunnel systems can be designed boring distance, tunnel alignment, and construction schedule. in different geometric conditions and arrangements – these To complement and support the technical stages of the study,
5.pdf Replacement of the cutter head based on different geology can can be refined in further studies public consultation was carried out throughout the duration of the be extremely costly and result in schedule delays and higher risk in project. A communication and engagement plan was developed cost fluctuations. For the purposes of this study it was assumed that o Single-tube tunnel systems are typically favored Study in collaboration with the project team and the City of Calgary. The tunneling would be deep enough to be in consistent geological from a civil engineering point of view goals of this plan were to: material. Based on the assumptions made and the length of o Twin-tube tunnel systems are favored from an tunneling TBM would be anticipated to be approximately 3.5 years aerodynamic, ventilation, or safety point of view – 1. Build public and stakeholder awareness and understanding of 24 hour 7 days construction operations. this was used for all assumed tunnel options for the about the value of, and need for the NC LRT NC LRT study SEM excavation is a method where the surrounding rock or soil 2. Inform the public and stakeholders about the alignment formations of a tunnel are integrated into an overall ring-like Designing shallow tunnels will require foundation analysis to options, including the challenges and opportunities posed support structure. Due to higher costs this method is typically used be taken into consideration which has not been completed by different alignments for shorter tunnels and is more versatile to deal with complex and in this study varying geological conditions and different cross-section Near surface soils are expected to have more movements 3. Engage the public and stakeholders so they can provide geometry. than soils in confined conditions at greater depth – as a informed input to the design of the engagement program, result SEM excavation is assumed for these tunnels due to its and the analysis and selection of a preferred route option. In ordered to develop options for the LRT alignment the various ability to deal with variable geology assumptions needed to be made given the lack of detailed
Page information available at this stage of the study. 15 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.8
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION December 1, 2014 North
4. Foster community support for LRT and public transit as a 5. Determine the alignment within the corridor – based on the assessed on the mechanics of the corridor including means to improve the livability of communities within the selection of one preferred corridor additional details were impacts on traffic lanes, pedestrian movements, station Central City locations, grade separation with tunneling or bridge structures, etc… A series of open houses, public workshops, and ongoing online
LRT engagement was held throughout the year to provide different methods for people to be engaged and provide their
Route input. In addition, a Community Advisory Group (CAG) was also developed as a focus group of community members that received information and provided advice during the concept
Planning planning phase including input on the public consultation process and the potential effects of the NC LRT route options North on North Central communities. The CAG was engaged throughout the consultation process in order to get ongoing feedback on the alignment, design concepts, and the public Study engagement strategy. Central
As previously noted, further information about the public Recommendations consultation process and the feedback generated by participants is provided in Appendix A. LRT 1.2.3 Evaluation Steps
The evaluation process for the NCLRT concept study was a 5 step process shown in Figure 1.7 that included: Corridor
1. Boundary Definition – definition of the scope area in Att order to determine all potential corridors. 5.pdf 2. Identify all possible corridors Study 3. Refine possible corridors to 2 preferred corridors – this included a high level MAE of the identified corridors and a secondary step to determine the possible connections into downtown as well as potential routing within the downtown. This secondary step was critical in determining the challenges of the downtown area as well as the options for the connection to the southeast portion of the Green Line.
4. Selection of one preferred corridor – additional evaluation done on the top two preferred corridors to determine which meets more of the project objectives and community principles. Page
t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.9
16 Figure 1.7: Decision Process Chart of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
North December 1, 2014
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Central LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page 17 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 1.10
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
/Study Area Boundary
North December 1, 2014 2.0 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Central
The study area was initially presumed to be all areas between Nose
LRT Hill and Nose Creek and between Downtown and Stoney Trail. As the process of understanding available statistics, influence of the
Route existing LRT lines on neighborhoods, and avoiding unnecessary review of areas where a decision on the corridor has already been finalized (north of Beddington Trail in the median), the study area
Planning boundary was redefined using Transportation Zones (TZ). The area north of Beddington Trail was retained but only to ensure that the North connectivity between the neighborhoods remained a critical consideration at the north end of the study area. The final study area is shown in Figure 2.1.1. Study Central
Recommendations 2.1 STUDY PARAMETERS
Through the development of options additional considerations for LRT fully elevated and fully tunneled options from the downtown to McKnight Boulevard (or further north to North Pointe station) were not considered in detail. Due to the city’s mobility priorities, emphasizing active modes and transit before private vehicles was Corridor a key factor as part of the City’s Triple Bottom Line approach to the
Att project. Fully tunneling or fully elevating the alignment was seen as an emphasis to maintain road capacity for motorists incurring 5.pdf higher capital costs, rather than more economical options that would still meet the needs of active modes and transit service. Study
Figure 2.2: Study Area Boundary
Page Figure 2.1.1 Study Area Boundary 18 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 2.11
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
/Study Area Boundary
North December 1, 2014
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Central LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page 19 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 2.12
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
High Level MAE: 16 Avenue N to Beddington Trail
North December 1, 2014
3.0 HIGH LEVEL MAE: 16 AVENUE N TO Central BEDDINGTON TRAIL
LRT 3.1 OVERVIEW The evaluation of the ten alternatives considered seven
Route The high level MAE involved the identification and high level accounts, each one aligned with the project’s vision and evaluation of the potential corridors within the study area. In objectives. addition to the then council approved Nose Creek corridor, there Financial Capacity/Sustainable Corporation - Planning were initially only two additional corridors selected for evaluation: primarily financial impact of the option North Centre Street and Edmonton Trail. However, after the initial public consultation and engagement, a fourth corridor was added to the Community Well-Being – how well the option evaluation: 4 St NW. The candidate corridors are shown in Figure allows for connectivity to key community
Study 3.1. destinations Central Prosperous Economy – evaluation of the future The purpose of the high level MAE was to evaluate the alternative population and employment along the corridor Recommendations locations and configurations for the NCLRT and identify two and the access to Calgary Airport alignment options that would best meet the objectives for the project. Four corridors were evaluate during the high level MAE: Transportation – A review of potential ridership, Centre Street, 4 Street NW, Edmonton Trail, and Nose Creek. transit efficiency and compatibility with the future LRT Elevated, at-grade, and tunnel alternatives were considered for network of routes and the journey time Centre Street, 4 Street NW, and Edmonton Trail, and an at-grade Urban Development / Urban Realm – A review of alternative was considered for the Nose Creek alignment. This Corridor the development opportunity around stations and resulted in a total of ten alternatives considered during the MAE the impact on the urban realm both positive and process. Since the alignments were assumed to be the same north Att negative of Beddington Trail and due to a mandate to consider the
5.pdf downtown options through a separate process, the evaluation of Sustainable Environment – this refers to the impact alternatives was confined to the area between the 16 Avenue N on the natural environment Study and Beddington Trail in the north. Deliverability – what are the technical constraints on the corridor Each area is evaluated on a scale from 1 (greatest 10 options were evaluated for impact or least positive) to 5 (best or most positive the high level MAE review impact).
The 4 Street NW corridor was added based on public input
Page Figure 3.1: Candidate Corridors 20 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 3.13
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
High Level MAE: 16 Avenue N to Beddington Trail
North December 1, 2014
Central 3.2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Table 3.1 High Level MAE Summary
LRT
As shown in Table 3.1, the at-grade options along Centre Street Route and Edmonton Trail received the highest scores from the evaluation process. Based on this evaluation, both 4 Street NW and Nose Creek corridors were determined to be less able to meet the Planning
stated objectives of the LRT than either Edmonton Trail or Centre North Street. Fully tunneled and fully elevated alignments were considered at this stage of the project as a due diligence in the comparison of the alignments. The fully tunneled options on any of Study
the corridors typically ranked lower due to higher capital cost. Fully Central elevated options on any of the corridors also ranked lower due the negative impact on directly adjacent communities. As a result of Recommendations this evaluation, the number of corridors was reduced to two to be brought forward for further analysis: Centre Street and Edmonton Trail. Further details about the high level MAE are provided in LRT Corridor
Att Following the high level MAE review the top two options were: 5.pdf
CENTRE STREET AT-GRADE & Study EDMONTON TRAIL AT-GRADE
With further considerations for grade separation of portions of the alignment to be considered as a tool to overcome technical constraints.
Appendix D.
Page 21 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 3.14
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
/Downtown Review
North December 1, 2014
Central 4.0 DOWNTOWN REVIEW
The downtown component of this review was undertaken in order LRT to develop an understanding of the relationship between the two LRT projects – the North Central LRT and the Southeast Transitway. Route These two lines, though now termed the Green Line, have not undergone significant evaluation of the downtown routing as a united line. Therefore, a higher level review was developed to Planning
provide direction to this review as well as future preliminary North engineering of the SELRT.
The downtown review consisted of a workshop with City staff, a Study
multiple account evaluation, a review of corridors and alignments, Central a high level review of geology and traffic, as well as potential growth opportunities. This review was intended to fix a connecting Recommendations point to the SELRT alignment as well as understand the general location of a north-south corridor. Further refinement is required in subsequent stages of the project in order to fully understand the LRT below grade risks and challenges in the downtown area. Figure 4.3.1 shows a summary of the key considerations in the downtown.
Corridor
Att Due to challenges in the downtown and current data,
5.pdf 1 STREET SW was the highest ranked corridor in the MAE for the southeast to north central connection. Without further
detailed analysis, the alignment in the downtown could shift Study east or west. To remain consistent with the approved SELRT alignment, and with input from City administration the recommended corridor in the downtown is between 3 STREET SW to 1 STREET SW.
Figure 4.3.1 Key Downtown Considerations Page 22 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 4.1
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
/Downtown Review
North December 1, 2014
4.1 HIGH LEVEL REVIEW OF ALIGNMENTS alignment would follow the street network and resemble the
Central conceptual alignment of the approved SELRT alignment along 2 The City and the project team collaborated on the process to Street. A conceptual plan and profile is shown in Figure 4.3. identify a preferred alignment in the downtown area. The results reflect careful consideration of the vision for the Centre City, the At street level, it is unlikely that sufficient space will be available in LRT goals for transportation and the tecltnical analysis conducted by the downtown roadways for piers to be placed in sidewalks without the NCLRT project team. The workshop showed a clear preference severely impacting the pedestrian environment. Rather, the piers Route for a corridor further west on 4 Street SW than from the MAE, will probably be placed in the median of the streets. This will slightly however, the degree of questions regarding the environment, reduce shadows and preserve pedestrian space, but will require geology, and existing infrastructure and below grade building considerable redesign of the streets, including the possible Planning
structures mean that the variablity from the preferred corridors may disruption to utilities and removal of a lane of traffic. With the North be several blocks. There were a number of options reviewed (5 height clearance requirements of the +15 network and CPR, the from the workshop and 18 for the MAE) representing the full cross taller the elvated structure is, the wider the supporting piers must section of options through the downtown area. The top two be, resulting in greater street level impacts. Study
options from this analysis included a fully tunneled option along 1 Central Shadows Street SW (option1 in the report “Centre City connection between the North Central and Southeast Lines” in Appendix E) and a Recommendations As a northern city, Calgary’s streets will be impacted by an aerial partially at-grade option along 1 Street SW with a shorter tunnel structure that is more than two levels above the street with more below the 7 Avenue and CPR tracks (option 3A in the report Figure 4.2: Calgary West LRT Sunalta Station shadows introduced along 2 Street SW. Mitigation may be possible
“Centre City connection between the North Central and Southeast LRT through additional lighting, as well as heating and wind protection. Lines” in Appendix E). The detailed downtown MAE was presented recommended from other cities with elevated rail lines in their The impacts may also be reduced if stations are integrated into to the Standing Policy Committee on Transportation and Transit on downtowns in the event elevated LRT becomes a feature of the buildings rather than built as stand-alone structures. This opportunity March 12 ,2014. A full version is available online at: Green Line. will only present itself for new construction or significant remodeling Corridor http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid in a location a station. =1310&doctype=AGENDA Existing Infrastructure Att Noise / Vibration The existing infrastructure in Downtown provides some constraints 5.pdf 4.2 ELEVATED OPTIONS IN DOWNTOWN on a future aerial structure. For one, the aerial structure would have Elevated tracks will create a new noise source, separate from the
The downtown analysis assumed that the downtown alignment of to pass over the 7 Avenue LRT catenary wires and also have to general traffic noise coming from street level. Tenants in the third Study the Green Line would be at-grade or tunneled or a combination of avoid interfering with the existing overhead walkway network (the and fourth floors of buildings will be particularly impacted by noises two. The approved alignment for the SELRT includes a tunnel in the “+15” Network). This network is continually being expanded and associated with turns and announcements at stations. In addition Centre City, and the high level MAE had resulted in a improved and will require an aerial LRT structure to rise at least there will likely need to be some special trackwork in the recommendation to pursue the analysis of at-grade options, so at- three stories (or twelve metres) above street level or higher where Downtown to accommodate alternative operations, such as short grade and tunnel were assumed to be the preferred alignment the +15 network is at the +30 height. For reasons of cost, passenger turns. Special trackwork tends to introduce additional noise as a types in the Centre City. In response to a request to consider comfort, and noise abatement, it is likely preferable for an aerial result of the trains traveling over switches. Noise walls may be able elevated LRT in the downtown in the interest of saving construction alignment to maintain a constant elevation throughout the to mitigate the impacts of noise to some extent, although they costs compared to tunneling, a study of the feasibility was carried Downtown; operating above most of the “+15” Network. create additional visual impacts. out. This feasibility study considered existing infrastructure, roadway geometry, shadows, noise/vibration, stations, safety/security, Roadway Geometry Stations maintenance, Green Line continuity, transfers, costs, and public acceptance. The analysis indicated that presence of the +15 and The question of geometry pertains to the question of how an aerial In aerial alignments, stations are typically large and visible, as the +30 networks would likely require very high structures to facilitate structure would fit into the available space above roadways and required platforms, elevators, escalators, and stairs are all within elevated LRT, and that this would create additional costs and intersections, and how the supporting piers would fit into the plain sight. However, there are possible opportunities for integrating roadways at street level. For this discussion, it is assumed that the Page noise/vibration issues. Some mitigating strategies were aerial stations into new buildings and into the existing overhead 23 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 4.2
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
/Downtown Review
North December 1, 2014
walkway network. Stations on aerial structures also have passenger extensive escalators and elevators may be required, increasing the Overall the analysis for the elevated LRT in the downtown indicated
Central comfort impacts; wind speeds tend to increase with elevation, so cost and footprint of the station. that presence of the +15 and +30 networks would likely require very passengers waiting on an elevated platform tend to be colder high structures to facilitate elevated LRT, and that this would create than ones waiting on a street level platform. Costs additional costs and noise/vibration issues. The analysis also included a high level review of other existing elevated LRT systems LRT Safety / Security An elevated structure will likely be less costly than a tunnel through including the Vancouver Canada Line, Chicago Loop, Seattle Downtown. As indicated in the RouteAhead document, an above Monorail, Bangkok SkyTrain, and Calgary’s West LRT at Sunalta. Route The safety offered by an aerial system in Downtown would be an ground LRT would be expected to cost between $50 and $100 Some mitigating strategies were recommended from other cities improvement compared to that of an at-grade system due to the million per km, while an underground LRT would typically cost with elevated rail lines in their downtowns in the event elevated LRT separation of rail operation from roadway traffic. However, there between $200 and $250 million per km. Pursuing a less expensive becomes a feature of the Green Line. Planning
are additional safety concerns with the stations being located elevated structure in the Centre City would potentially allow for the North away from the street with less “eyes on the street” than in an at- earlier construction of a rail line. Refer to Appendix E for a summary of the analysis on elevated grade option. Also, due to the need for a sufficiently wide and safe options in the downtown. evacuation route, the cross section of an elevated alignment may There are various indications, however, than an aerial structure
Study would more expensive than typical in the Centre City. It is
have to be wider than the at-grade or underground alignment Central The +15 and +30 network, and clearance requirements over which will increase the impacts of shadows in the Downtown. expected that for every increase in five meters (the height of a building story), there would be a 25% increase in structure cost. the CPR corridor create significant height restrictions on
Recommendations Maintenance Furthermore, the additional height of the stations would likely elevated options in the downtown. Dramatic changes in the require more elevators and station-related costs than a typical character of the downtown and Prince’s Island Park are key Aerial structures create various maintenance challenges that are station. The pier foundations are another cost driver that would considerations for any elevated LRT line in the downtown. different than at-grade or underground structures. Access for need to be estimated with more detailed information on the LRT maintenance crews is more challenging and requires special foundations in the downtown and utility elevations. equipment. In addition, for safety reasons, regular traffic may have
to be stopped if overhead maintenance is taking place. Storm Resistance Corridor
Green Line Continuity The flooding that occurred in the City of Calgary in 2013 has made Att City staff and residents more aware of the risks that are inherent to
5.pdf Green Line continuity is a consideration for an aerial alignment in The City’s transportation systems. While an elevated LRT line might the Downtown. An aerial structure is likely compatible with at- recover faster from flooding than a tunnel, it is still exposed to
grade operation across the Centre Street Bridge, but a connection certain risks, such as damage to its structures from floating debris Study to a tunnel under the Bow River is likely infeasible and and to its elevators, escalators, and substations from street level uneconomical. While connecting an aerial LRT structure in water. There are means for mitigating the risks of tunnel flooding Downtown to an at-grade structure that is currently planned for 10 through the design of flood break vent shafts and the use of gates Avenue SE in the Beltline area is feasible, it will require the “Second and pumps. Street Station” of the approved SELRT to be elevated as well. Public Acceptance Transfers From the previous analysis and public engagement that was done An aerial structure will change the transfer experience as throughout the project the community was not in support of compared to a tunnel. With an aerial station, transfers between the elevated LRT options for the NCLRT. There is also evidence from 7 Avenue LRT and Green Line will take place largely outdoors. The past studies that the public has various concerns about elevated transfers between the Green Line and a future 8 Avenue tunnel will structures for rail transit, notably that they will decrease property require a significant elevation change that will likely not be values and negatively impact views. comfortably completed by most people on foot. As a result, Page 24 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 4.3
of 104 North Central LRT Corridor Study ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Edmonton Trail vs Centre Street
North December 1, 2014
5.0 EDMONTON TRAIL VS CENTRE STREET A review was conducted of both corridors based on a number of of those who responded at the open house and online for the use Central key factors in LRT success including the impact of the high level of Centre Street for an LRT line as shown in Figure 5.1. There were a MAE. The other factors included: number of residents of Edmonton Trail that commented verbally to staff that they understood that traffic would likely divert to their The high level MAE resulted in the reduction of candidate corridors Public preference to only two as highlighted in Table 5.1. area if Centre Street was used but still maintained a preference for LRT Width of the right-of-way (ROW) and the constraints that Centre Street. Table 5.1: Summary of High Level MAE exist in different sections of each corridor. Route The directness of the Centre Street routing, the greater proxmity of Potential walksheds for each corridor which helps define Centre Edmonton residences near Centre Street (as opposed to the existing light Accounts potential ridership Street Trail industrial character of the northern half of Edmonton Trail) and the Planning FINANCIAL CAPACITY (capital cost) 5 5 Estimated ridership value placed on the Nose Creek green space were prime factors North cited for the preference. COMMUNITY WELL BEING (linkage to Ability to access downtown easily 54 destinations) Potential for development opportunities Right of Way Width PROSPEROUS ECONOMY (population
Study 2.8 3.8 served, jobs served, access to YYC) Impact on the natural environment The review of the existing right of way (ROW) from the Bow River to Central TRANSPORTATION (ridership, efficiency, Beddington Trail shows that both corridors vary considerably in 44 Details on each of the factors are provided below. journey time, compatibility) width through the segments and intersections. Both have Recommendations URBAN DEVELOPMENT (TOD 44 constricted areas; however Edmonton Trail has a greater opportunity, development potential) Public Preference percentage that is 20 metres wide that is primarily situated south of SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT (Impact The public engagement for the NCLRT was ongoing since the
53 16 Avenue NE where there are also several new developments LRT on the natural environment) summer of 2013 with a detailed set of workshops and open houses adjacent to the ROW. Centre Streets has more than 70% of its DELIVERABILITY (technical in April 2014 aimed at seeking public input on the two alignments. 32 length with ROW greater than 26m in width providing opportunity considerations) Attendees to the open houses were shown the alignment at a for left turn bays at key intersections north of 24 Avenue NE. TOTAL 28.8 25.8 scale of 1:700 so that individual houses were identifiable. The Corridor Edmonton Trail has a more constrained ROW than Centre Street alignments were placed on the floor in order to allow attendees to but does have more than 40% of its route in undeveloped Though the scoring was specifically for the at-grade options, these ‘walk’ the alignment with stations shown. Information boards along Att greenfield areas. considerations were set aside once a corridor was chosen. This the alignment showed the available right of way and a number of
5.pdf preliminary review showed that Centre Street had an overall optional designs with different width requirements. The intent was advantage to the city over the Edmonton Trail option due to to solicit feedback on a challenges of building in the Nose Creek corridor at the north end preference for corridors along Study of Edmonton Trail. with the character of the corridor (i.e. LRT with one travel CENTRE STREET was selected as the PREFERRED lane, two travel lanes, parking CORRIDOR based on performance on the high level MAE in etc). additional to more detailed analysis done on ROW width, walk sheds, ridership, geometrics speed restrictions, access Several hundred residents to downtown, TOD potential, environmental issues, and public attended the two open houses preference. and provided significant verbal and written feedback. A preferential survey conducted for the entire corridors (as opposed to the previous review Figure 5.1 Public Preference from 16 Avenue NE northwards) Figure 5.2 Right of Way Width Comparison (Open House showed overwhelming support Page and Online Respondents) 26 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 5.5
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Edmonton Trail vs Centre Street
North December 1, 2014
The basic cross section for running an LRT in both directions is
Central approximately 7 metres with an additional 3.5 meters for a side loading station adjacent to a sidewalk or up to 7+ metres for a centre loading station. The two options for the central portion of each alignment are a narrow option and a wide option as shown LRT in Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4.
Route Walksheds Based on the City of Calgary’s walkshed assessment for the North Central LRT Regional Context Study and HR&A’s short term TOD Planning
assessment, Centre Street provides for a larger population (43,000 North to 35,000) while Edmonton Trail effectively misses the residential area between Beddington Trail and 64 Avenue NW. Study
Boardings Central An analysis of peak hour boardings on each alignment between 16 Avenue NE and Stoney Trail was based on the use of the 2076 LUN Recommendations model travel demand forecast. This analysis estimates that the Figure 5.3 Narrow Option (LRT plus one travel lane in each direction) Centre Street alignment option would potentially generate 14-19%
higher boardings per hour or per peak direction than the LRT Edmonton Trail Option
Table 5.2 – Boardings Comparison North of 16th Avenue Corridor A B C Att Centre Edmonton Difference
5.pdf Street Trail (C=(A-B)/A) AM Peak Hour 6,500 5,600 14%
PM Peak Hour 6,100 5,000 18% Study AM Peak Hour 8,400 6,800 19% Peak Direction PM Peak Hour 2,900 2,500 14% Peak Direction North
Page Figure 5.4: Wide Option (LRT plus two travel lanes in each direction) 27 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 5.6
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Edmonton Trail vs Centre Street
North December 1, 2014
Central LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Area missed Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page Figure 5.5 Centre Street LRT Walksheds Figure 5.6 Edmonton Trail LRT Walksheds 28 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 5.7
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Edmonton Trail vs Centre Street
North December 1, 2014
Speed Restrictions Overall, the Centre Street corridor
Central An initial review of the corridors for potential running speeds has had a greater potential for TOD style development in the near indicated that the curvature of Edmonton Trail in two areas term, particularly from 24th Avenue potentially create speed restrictions in order to maintain a minimal North south while Edmonton Trail ROW width. These two areas are at 33 Avenue NE and 5 Avenue LRT had longer term advantages due NE as shown in Figure 5.9. There are no similar restricted areas on to the potential to redevelop light the Centre Street corridor. Speed restrictions can correlate to industrial land. Edmonton Trail has Route reduced travel times and are in place to reduce the potential shown development potential noise issues from wheels on an LRT. between approximately 6 Avenue NE south to Memorial Drive but was
Planning not perceived to have the same North overall potential north of 56 Street NE as did Centre Street.
Environment Issues Study Figure 5.7: Access challenges into Downtown Central More than 40% of the total TOD and Development Potential Edmonton Trail alignment runs Recommendations through ‘greenfield’ areas where A review by HR &A on the relative development potential of each there is no existing development. alignment determined that development potential could be A portion of this includes the categorized into a number of categories: LRT development of the Aurora Business Park north of Beddington Downtown and adjacent communities (eg. Beltline, Eau Trail while a large segment is within
Claire, Stampede, Railtown) Corridor Business or Industrial Parks (Aurora and Greenview)Station the Nose Creek Corridor adjacent Areas to the creek bed. This has not Att Vacant Sites been examined in detailed, but a Active but underutilized sites cursory review shows that there are 5.pdf Figure 5.9: Areas with potential speed restriction pockets of environmentally The main challenge to creating TOD sites is the ability to
challenged areas along Centre Study Access to Downtown agglomerate parcels into a usable bundle, the rezoning Street from old businesses but a opportunities, and access to LRT. The review examined the greater concern on Edmonton Trail The entry of an LRT into the downtown area at-grade presents potential of each corridor with respect to the TOD potential in the some challenges with respect to impacts on existing traffic and through Nose Creek. future (See Figure 5.8). These sites and neighbourhoods were transportation systems. The Centre Street alignment, if it uses reviewed as potential catalytic sites with concrete construction Centre Street in the downtown would likely reduce traffic access which was identified as a minimum in order to support the into the downtown across the bridge and into the Chinatown area. economics of redevelopment. Neighbourhoods closer to the Edmonton Trail has two potential options, both of which have an downtown core fared better than isolated lots, and Centre Street impact upon existing access into the downtown. Using Memorial had a larger proportion of publicly owned land in large lots than Figure 5.8: Sites with Drive and onto Centre Street or the 5 Avenue SE option have Edmonton Trail. Edmonton Trail has the Greenview Industrial Park TOD Potential similar ramifications to the Centre Street option. Bringing LRT nearby and both alignments are accessible to the Aurora Business through Edmonton Trail and onto 4 Avenue SE or 5 Avenue SE will Park. The Beddington Boulevard/Centre Street area has the largest exacerbate existing entry and exit congestion into the downtown. pool of private and public land in large parcels that could facilitate TOD outside of the downtown.
Page 29 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 5.8
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Edmonton Trail vs Centre Street
North December 1, 2014
Summary of Corridor Comparison Table 5.3: MAE summary Central The technical analysis considered the ROW widths available versus Assessment Centre Street Edmonton Trail the needs for a number of segments along each line as well as potential property requirements, station locations and ability to 1 – 16 Avenue N LRT access downtown as part of a preliminary design discovery phase High Level MAE of the project. The intent was to provide sufficient detail in order to Route allow a comparison of the corridors and ultimately begin the 2 – Public process of selecting a final corridor to bring forward to the public Preference and council in the fall of 2014. Planning 3 – ROW Width North From a development perspective, the Centre Street corridor appears to have a greater potential for short term TOD, particularly 4 – Walksheds from 24 Avenue south while Edmonton Trail had long term TOD
Study 5 – Boardings
advantages due to the potential to redevelop light industrial land Central at Greenview Industrial Park and a more direct connection to the Aurora Business Park but also through the miscellaneous light 6 – Speed Recommendations industrial area between 32nd Ave and McKnight Boulevard. Restrictions
Generally, Centre Street was found to better meet the assessment 7 – Access to criteria in most categories of the high level MAE except for access Downtown LRT into downtown and the development potential. Edmonton Trail offered some basic challenges in terms of speed reductions, 8 – TOD Potential
access to downtown, and environmental impacts. Overall, Centre Corridor 9 – Environment Street was demonstrated to be the preferred alignment based on Issues all categories considered in the analysis. More information on how Att Centre Street was identified as the preferred alignment for the
5.pdf NCLRT Concept Study can be found in Appendix F. - Indicates a clear benefit over the other corridor Study
- Indicates that the corridors are equal
Page 30 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 5.9
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Edmonton Trail vs Centre Street
North December 1, 2014
Central THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page 31 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 5.10
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Developing Centre Street Options
North December 1, 2014
6.0 DEVELOPING CENTRE STREET OPTIONS intersections for pedestrian crossings In general several options existed within areas #1 - #4, and #7. Central • Special track work, OCS, and TPSS are included in the These areas were focused on in order to develop options that were proposed LRT ROW width context sensitive to the surrounding environment. For the MAE 6.1 PRINCIPLES • Strategic partial land acquisition will be required at the character area #1 was focused on due to the Bow River crossing and the downtown connection for the corridor. For Segment #2 it LRT majority of station and left turn locations was determined that the solution developed for Segment #1 would With the selection of Centre Street as the preferred corridor, several • Provision of a maintenance facility will be on the GL-SE options were developed for the proposed alignments based on dictate the options for Segment #2. Segments #3 and #4 were Route due to land availability principles that formed the basis of conceptual design assumptions combined for the MAE analysis as they both had similar • Direct connection between the GL-SE and the GL-NC that were made. The assumptions are listed below: characteristics. Segments #5 and #6 were not assessed as it was determined that the LRT could fit with minimal constraints. Segment Planning • Future LRVs were assumed to be low-floor technology 6.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRE STREET #7 was assessed independently as it faced more unique North and up to four-cars in length (approximately 100m in challenges with parking for the adjacent residential properties. length for four cars) Centre Street does not have a homogenous character or ROW, Lastly, Segment #8 was also not assessed as there were no but rather it has a mix of residential and commercial properties in • Station dimensions used were approximately 120m to anticipated challenges with dedicated space for the LRT.
Study addition to varying ROW widths. The land uses combined with ROW
150m to account for 0% slopes along station lengths Central widths were used to determine the character areas in order to help • Due to headways, grade separation would be required identify the different constraints that are faced within each between other rail lines including the existing 7 Avenue Recommendations segment. This division helped to develop different context sensitive tracks, the future 8 Avenue tunnel, and freight lines of solutions for each segment. The characteristics of the different CPR segments are summarized in Table 6.1.
• Integrated in-street LRT would run with full signal LRT preemption but would still encounter some delay at Table 6.1: Characteristics of Centre Street
Land Use: Mixed use with commercial, multi- Land Use: Largely single-family residential Corridor Land Use: Typically higher density mixed uses Land Use: Typically single-family residential family, and single-family residential properties properties with some mixed use parcels Area #1 of residential and commercial properties Area #3 Area #5 Area #7 properties fronting onto Centre Street fronting onto Centre Street including Thorncliffe Community Centre Downtown to 24 Avenue N to McKnight Blvd. Beddington Blvd.
Att 9 Avenue N 40 Avenue N to 64 Avenue N. to Beddington Tr. ROW Range: Average 20m to 24m available ROW Range: Average 20m to 26m available ROW Range: Average 30m available ROW Range: Average 22m available 5.pdf
Challenges: Narrow ROW requires tight turns for the LRT at- Challenges: With the narrow ROW and the proximity of the
grade in the downtown and may also have conflicts with residential properties strategic land acquisition would be a Study Challenges: Narrow ROW will require some strategic land below-grade structures. The Bow River crossing also presents consideration in this segment. The crossing of Beddington Trail is acquisition along this segment. Typically properties in this area Challenges: Wider ROW has few constraints and minimal challenges for the LRT to connect North Central communities to also a challenge for this segment with redesign of the have more setback distance to avoid conflicts with private impacts to adjacent properties. the downtown. Based on the CTP, any new river crossing for interchange likely required in order for the RLT to cross below buildings on the property. primary transit requires strong justification and optimization of Begginton Trail at-grade along Centre Street / Harvest Hills other options before considering new river crossings. Boulevard.
Land Use: Largely single-family residential with Land Use: Typically single-family residential Land Use: Typically commercial properties Land Use: Largely single-family residential some multi-family residential and a large big Area #8 properties separated from Harvest Hills Area #2 front onto Centre Street on both sides Area #4 properties fronting onto Centre Street Area #6 box commercial property Beddington Tr. to Boulevard, in addition to some isolated 9 Avenue N to 40 Avenue N to 64 Avenue N to Country Hills 24 Avenue N McKnight Blvd. Beddington Blvd. ROW Range: Average 22m available ROW Range: Average 24m to 27m available Average 36m available Blvd. ROW Range: Average 45m available
Challenges: Narrow ROW will require some strategic land acquisition along this segment for left turns and stations. Due to Challenges: With the slightly wider ROW there is more space Challenges: The wide ROW has few constraints. The character Challenges: This area would have almost no challenges as the the age of the buildings some properties do not meet the with fewer constraints. The character of this area is largely of this area changes with the center island median dividing LRT was pre-determined to fit within the 15m dedicated center required setback bylaws for Centre Street. These properties may uniform. Centre Street into two seemingly separate areas. island. be in conflict with partial land acquisitions and may require full parcel acquisition. Page 32 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 6.1
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Developing Centre Street Options
North December 1, 2014
6.3 IDENTIFYING ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 6.4 BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) Central Based on the character areas along Centre Street, a detailed One of the keys to conducting a MAE is to compare the For the BAU it was assumed that there would be modifications to review of the corridor was done in order to establish the type of alternatives to a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. The BAU refers to traffic signals to increase speeds of bus service and that additional alignments possible based on location specific issues that impact the facilities and operating conditions that are expected to be in restrictions on general traffic would be implemented in the form of LRT alignment choices on either side of the segment. Key segments place right before any LRT project is implemented in the corridor. left turn restrictions. The BAU is not assumed to have any right turn that were focused on are shown in Figure 6.1. Typically the BAU is assumed to be similar to narrow cross section restrictions. However, when the LRT is in place it is expected that Route options with the proposed LRT in place. The purpose of developing lane widths would be reduced and would result in private vehicles this scenario is to provide a common point of reference for the and trucks potentially encroaching on the LRT guideway for right options that are developed and compared through the multiple turns from driveways and side streets. Some land acquisitions may Planning
account evaluation process. The BAU scenario is different than also be needed to accommodate exclusive left turn lanes in the North existing conditions; it is based on an approved plan to introduce BAU but these have not been accounted for as the details for the bus lanes for the benefit of transit customers in the near term Centre Street Transitway remain unknown. It is assumed that no through the Centre Street Transitway project. structures would be built in this scenario to provide grade Study
separation for the busways. As for the rest of the bus network, it is Central The BAU scenario was defined assumed that there would not as the designation of existing be changes required as a Recommendations curb lanes between the Bow The Business as Usual (BAU) scenario outlines the Base Point or result of the development of River and Beddington Trail as the detailed MAE analysis that was done for the alignment options these bus lanes.
bus lanes. Buses would have along Centre Street. LRT access to the bus-only gate It is important to highlight that that connects Centre Street to one of the major implications Harvest Hills Boulevard in the of the use of the BAU scenario Corridor area around Beddington Trail. It is possible that the bus lanes will be described above is that when LRT is implemented in the corridor, it open to high-occupancy vehicles or to vehicles turning right. For has been assumed that capacity for general traffic in the corridor
Att the purpose of creating the BAU, it was assumed that station will already have been reduced from two to one lane in each locations would coincide with current BRT stations located on direction. Therefore, by the time the LRT is implemented, the 5.pdf Centre Street, which include facilities at 16 Avenue N, 40 Avenue general traffic will already have adjusted in response to the reduced capacity along Centre Street. It is expected that, to the
N, 56 Avenue N, 64 Avenue N, 78 Avenue N, and north of Study Beddington Boulevard. There are also seven BRT stations located degree possible, the bus lanes will remain in place for as long as north of Beddington Trail in the Harvest Hills alignment. Given that possible during the construction of the LRT system. buses would be operating in the curb lanes, it was assumed that
bus stops would be integrated into the sidewalks.
Figure 6.1: Centre Street Segments
Page 33 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 6.2
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Developing Centre Street Options
North December 1, 2014
6.5 MAE 1: DOWNTOWN TO 9 AVENUE N the station at 10 Avenue and Centre Street. The depth of this MAE 1: 3 OPTIONS that all include some level of Central station in Crescent Height is expected to be 18 metres. The tunnel TUNNELING. These options were developed based on As previously outlined in section 6.2, MAE 1 is focused on character will extend north and daylight at 18 Avenue N in order to avoid an different methods of CROSSING THE BOW RIVER and Area #1 of the alignment. This first segment of the final MAE has at-grade crossing of 16 Avenue N. A third underground station providing LRT service to CRESCENT HEIGHTS. various physical constraints including: would be proposed at 16 Avenue N. The anticipated length of the LRT tunnel north of the Bow River would be 0.9 kilometres. Connecting the NCLRT to the SELRT ALL of the options would be BELOW-GRADE at 16 AVENUE N. Route Grade separating the existing 7 Avenue LRT service to 6.5.2 Option 2: Existing Centre Street Bridge River optimize LRT operations Crossing LRT
Planning Requirement to avoid the future 8 Avenue LRT subway would daylight at approximately 24 Avenue N. This was determined
This option was developed to minimize construction costs. The LRT North using a more conservative vertical grade of 4% rather than the Crossing the Bow River would still require a tunnel in the downtown from 10 Avenue S and maximum 6% grade. Due to the height of the escarpment and the Centre Street to travel below the CPR tracks, the future 8 Avenue Traversing the escarpment north of the Bow River grade used, the station at 9 Avenue N would be approximately 45 LRT tunnel, and the existing 7 Avenue tracks. Similar to option 1, a metres deep. This depth may pose cost and design challenges Study The options were developed to meet these basic requirements 15 metre deep underground station at 7 Avenue would be which will require further study and assessment compared to the Central and best meet the vision and goals for the NCLRT. It is assumed provided. The LRT would daylight at 2 Avenue SW and 1 Street SW. anticipated ridership at this station. A station at 16 Avenue N would that the alignment selected for this segment will heavily influence The expected tunnel length for this option would be 1.2 kilometres. also be provided at approximately 29 metres deep. The total Recommendations the nature of the alignment between 9 Avenue N to 24 Avenue N, East of the tunnel portal, a station would be provided between the tunnel length of this option is expected to be 3.9 kilometres. This option is shown in Figure 6.4. including the width of the ROW. In addition, although it is outside of Eau Claire area and Chinatown at 2 Avenue SW and 1 Street SW.
the limits of the MAE 1 area, it has been assumed for costing The LRT would travel along 2 Avenue SW and turn on Centre Street LRT purposes that the LRT will be grade separated at 16 Avenue for all to continue at-grade along the existing Centre Street Bridge to 9 alternatives. Avenue N. An at-grade station would be provided at 9 Avenue N at the community of Crescent Heights. At 16 Avenue the LRT will 6.5.1 Option 1: New Bridge River Crossing likely grade separate below the intersection and provide a grade Corridor separated station. This option is shown in Figure 6.3. Option 1 was developed to avoid modifications to the Centre Att Street Bridge and to provide more accessible stations that connect 6.5.3 Option 3: Tunnel River Crossing
5.pdf directly to the SELRT and to the community of Crescent Heights, as shown in Figure 6.2. This option ties the north central and southeast Another option for crossing the Bow River was to use a Tunnel portions of the Green Line in a tunnel at 10 Avenue S and Centre Boring Machine (TBM) to tunnel below the river and connect the Study Street. The profile goes below the potential future 8 Avenue LRT LRT from the downtown to Crescent Heights in one tunnel. This tunnel to avoid future construction conflicts. In this tunnel segment option would require a depth of 21 metres below the bottom of the river.1 For this option the top of the tunnel would be 7 metres an underground station at 7 Avenue S is proposed at 15 metres below the CPR tracks at 10 Avenue and 1 Street SW. The tunnel deep. This station will serve as a main transfer point from the Green would follow the approved SELRT alignment along 2 Street SW with Line to the existing red and blue LRT lines. The tunnel would daylight an underground station at 7 Avenue S at a depth of 15 metres. A at 2 Avenue S to minimize vehicular impacts on 4, 5, and 6 Avenues station would also be provided at Eau Claire at a depth of 22 in the downtown. The expected length of this tunnel would be 1.2 metres. Due to the grade of the hill along Centre Street and the kilometres. North of the northern tunnel portal, an at-grade station required 150-metre tangent length required for each station, the is proposed at Eau Claire in order to tie into future redevelopment
of the area. North of Eau Claire station the LRT will transition into a 1 It is assumed that the depth of river would be 3 metres based on bridge for 470 metres over Prince’s Island Park. The bridge would tie data received following the June floods. into the McHugh Bluffs on the north side of the Bow River into a (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/interactive-water-level- tunnel below the community of Crescent Heights. The second in-calgary-river-more-than-doubled-in-24-hours/article12749501/) tunnel segment north of the Bow River would begin turning towards The tunnel would be a total of 24 metres from the top of the river to Page the bottom of the tunnel. 34 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 6.3
of 104 North Central LRT Corridor Study North Central LRT Corridor Study North Central LRT Corridor Study ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Developing Centre Street Options
North December 1, 2014
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Central LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page 38 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 6.7
of 104 North Central LRT Corridor Study
TT2014-0916 North Central LRT Route Planning Study Recommendations Att 5.pdf Page 39 of 104
ISC: Unrestricted ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Developing Centre Street Options
North December 1, 2014
6.6 MAE 2: 24 AVENUE N TO MCKNIGHT 6.6.2 Option 2: Wide Cross-Section Central BOULEVARD Since the minimum spaces proposed above were considered as compromises for all road users, a wider cross section was As previously outlined in section 6.2, MAE 2 has combined developed if it was warranted to maintain two travel lanes for
LRT character Areas #3 and #4 for the analysis as the options motor vehicles in addition to the space required for the LRT. developed for these segments are fairly similar. The main physical Although wider, this option still maintained minimum widths where
Route constraints of these segments are the narrow ROW width available possible in order to mitigate the amount of anticipated land and the crossing of the intersection at McKnight Boulevard. acquisition. The proposed wide cross-section included the following: Planning Minimum 1.3 metre clearance between LRVs (minimum North 6.6.1 Option 1: Narrow Cross-Section distance to include a pole or delineation to prevent pedestrians from standing between two LRVs) Due to the constraints along this segment a narrow cross-section
Study was developed that included compromises for all road users to the Minimum 0.15 metre clearance from the edge of the LRV to Central minimum widths possible including replacing one travel lane for the end of the rolled curb motor vehicles with the LRT. It was developed based on fitting the Recommendations Total space for the LRT at 7.0 metres minimum LRT into the narrowest segment of the corridor at 20.12 metres to avoid land acquisition impacts. The proposed narrow cross-section Two travel lanes with minimum widths at 3.3 metres to enhance right turn movements onto Centre Street
included the following: LRT Minimum 1.3 metre clearance between LRVs (minimum Minimum 1.0m clearance from the back of curb to the distance to include a pole or delineation to prevent center of the OCS pole in the boulevard space on each side pedestrians from standing between two LRVs) Corridor Minimum 0.15 metre clearance from the edge of the LRV to Minimum 0.6 metre space for the base of the OCS poles
Att the end of the rolled curb Minimum sidewalk space of 2.0 metres on each side to provide some enhanced sidewalk space compared to the 5.pdf Total space for the LRT at 7.0 metres minimum existing Minimum travel lanes at 3.3 metres to provide some Study flexibility if transit will operate buses to access portions of At station locations and left turn locations the cross-section would the corridor widen by an additional 3.5 metres on each side. This would provide Minimum 1.0m clearance from the back of curb to the space for split center loading stations offset from dedicated left center of the OCS pole in the boulevard space on each turn lanes. side Figure 6.5 shows the typical cross sections for both options 1 and 2 Minimum 0.6 metre space for the base of the OCS poles as they apply to this segment of Centre Street. Minimum sidewalk space of 1.56 metres on each side to MAE 2 includes that are both of provide similar sidewalk space as the existing TWO OPTIONS AT-GRADE. These options were developed based on the Although this section is narrow, at station locations and left turn impact to traffic and the narrow ROW. Both of these options locations the cross-section would widen by an additional 3.5 include some level of LAND ACQUISITION. metres on each side. This would provide space for split center loading stations offset from dedicated left turn lanes. ALL of the options would be BELOW-GRADE at MCKNIGHT BOULEVARD. Page 40 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 6.9
of 104 North Central LRT Corridor Study
TT2014-0916 North Central LRT Route Planning Study Recommendations Att 5.pdf Page 41 of 104
ISC: Unrestricted ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Developing Centre Street Options
North December 1, 2014
6.7 MAE 3: BEDDINGTON BOULEVARD TO 6.7.2 Option 2: Parking in Right of Way 6.7.3 General Consideration: Crossing Beddington Trail Central BEDDINGTON TRAIL Since the main tradeoff for this segment is the residential on-street North of the bus trap, the LRT is expected to remain at-grade parking in front of the adjacent properties, a second option was below Bedlington Trail. This would require some reconstruction of As previously outlined in section 6.2, MAE 3 focuses solely on created to restore the on-street parking. Since the existing road has the abutments for the Beddington Trail bridge in order to create
LRT character area #7. The main physical constraint of this segment is one travel lane for motor vehicles, and since there will be no more room for the LRT. The LRT could have various configurations the narrow ROW width available in addition to the on-street access to or from the north via Beddington Trail for private vehicles with the north bound and southbound split or to have both tracks
Route residential parking on both sides of Centre Street. (location of the existing bus trap) the number of travel lanes will on one side below the bridge. North of this the LRT would require a remain as one travel lane in each direction. The proposed wide bridge over the creek and would then have to transition back to cross-section included the following: center running to travel in the median along Harvest Hills Planning
Boulevard. North Minimum 1.3 metre clearance between LRVs (minimum MAE 3 includes TWO OPTIONS that are both of distance to include a pole or delineation to prevent AT-GRADE. These options were developed based on the If tunneling were explored in this segment the tunnel extents would pedestrians from standing between two LRVs) impact to traffic and the narrow ROW. Both of these options extend from Bergen Drive to 100 metres north of Beddington Trail.
Study include some level of LAND ACQUISITION. Minimum 0.15 metre clearance from the edge of the LRV to The total length of a tunnel below Beddington Trail would be Central the end of the rolled curb approximately 900 metres based on the LRT clearance For ALL of the options the LRT would travel BELOW requirements and the steep grade south of Beddington Trail. It is Recommendations Total space for the LRT at 7.0 metres minimum BEDDINGTON TRAIL. recommended that tunneling below Beddington Trail be a last One parking lane at 2.1 metres wide and one travel lane resort option if the interchange at Beddington Trail cannot be at 3.3 metres wide modified. LRT Minimum 1.0m clearance from the back of curb to the
center of the OCS pole in the boulevard space on each side Corridor Minimum 0.6 metre space for the base of the OCS poles 6.7.1 Option 1: No Parking in Right of Way
Att Minimum sidewalk space of 1.5 metres on each side since Similar to MAE 2 Option 1, due to the constraint in this segment a the potential pedestrian demand in this segment is lower 5.pdf narrow cross-section was developed that included compromises than segments south of McKnight Boulevard
for all road users to the minimum widths possible including Study replacing one travel lane for motor vehicles with the LRT. This would A station would be provided at Beddington Boulevard, however no result in the center running LRT taking the space of the existing stations and no left turn lanes would be provided between travel lanes, and the travel lanes being pushing to the curb lane Beddington Boulevard to Beddington Trail. where the existing parking is currently located. Although this segment is 21.95 metres (slightly wider than 20.12 metres), the cross- Figure 6.6 shows the typical cross sections for both options 1 and 2 section developed was based on the same concepts to maintain as they apply to this segment of Centre Street. consistency in the assumptions used throughout the corridor.
A station would be provided at Beddington Boulevard, however no stations and no left turn lanes would be provided between Beddington Boulevard to Beddington Trail. Page 42 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 6.11
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Framework
North December 1, 2014
7.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK originally proposed were reviewed and any criteria that may be Central considered to ‘double-count’ were removed.
The detailed MAE criteria were revised to develop a set of It was also important to ensure that across the multiple accounts criteria that would help DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OPTIONS that the overall number of criteria remained fairly consistent so that LRT along Centre Street rather than different corridors. no single account had an undue influence on the outcome of the evaluation. To ensure this would remain the case, an average was Route In the early stages of the development of the evaluation process calculated for each of the accounts. Finally, in order to there were a number of criteria proposed for the detailed stage of demonstrate the impact that the Opinion of Probable Capital Cost the evaluation, but it was recognised that as the project (OPCCs) has on the evaluation, the summary of the evaluation of Planning
progressed it was possible these criteria would be revised. The full each of the alternatives is presented both with and without capital North lists of these criteria are shown in the High Level MAE Report in costs scoring. Appendix D.
Study
It is key that the criteria selected are used to assess and compare Central options against each other to support a decision on a preferred package of measures to address the identified problem. The focus Recommendations of the assessment is on those criteria that will highlight the key differences between options to support decision making. The MAE
framework developed, was used to: LRT
Consider the broader impacts of projects beyond financial/cost to include qualitative impacts/benefits; Corridor Show the trade-off among often conflicting objectives; and
Assess the alternatives against the project objectives Att examining the direct and broader public policy impacts.
5.pdf In the early phases of the work it was considered that the criteria would need to differentiate between a number of route Study alternatives e.g. Centre Street or Edmonton Trail. It was also considered that there may be multiple different stop locations between the options even if they were on a single alignment.
Based on these assumptions, the preliminary proposals for the criteria for the detailed MAE included a number of geographic based criteria, which would distinguish between the options had they each been on different alignments or with different station locations or spacing. As the detailed evaluation Centre Street alignment has fixed station locations across the options, a number of the criteria became non-differentiating and were therefore dropped following a review of the criteria. This change in focus from evaluating a number of different alignments to instead evaluating options along a single alignment also led to the potential for duplication of some criteria, so again the criteria Page 43 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 7.1
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Framework
North December 1, 2014
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Central LRT Route Planning North Study Central Recommendations LRT Corridor Att 5.pdf Study Page 44 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 7.1
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.0 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MAE 1: Claire. The bridge over the Prince’s Island is assumed to be 10 Table 8.1: MAE 1 – Opinions of Probable Capital Cost to 24 Central meters wide and approximately 410 meters in length. The transition AVE DOWNTOWN TO 9 AVENUE from a bridge to a tunnel into the McHugh Bluffs would need to be Option Opinion of Probable Assessment assessed further to determine additional costs that may result from Construction & Land Score this transition. As noted, the tunnel north of the river may continue
LRT Acquisition Costs 8.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE CAPITAL COST with the SEM tunnel (shield tunneling may also be investigated for 1 – New Bridge Crossing $760 million 3 further study if geological conditions are unfavorable). For this Route The OPCCs for each segment include requirements for of Bow River segment the assumed costs for the 9 Avenue and 16 Avenue construction and potential land acquisitions. The construction costs 2 – Existing Centre Street $660 million 4 station have been assumed at $10 million due to the shallower were calculated based on representative per kilometre costs for Bridge Crossing of Bow depth of the station. Although the northern tunnel can be shorter, it Planning LRT construction and included the following elements: River has been extended in order to provide grade separation of the LRT North 3 – Tunneled Crossing of $1,300 million 1 Roadworks to enhance LRT operations and mitigate traffic impacts. The overall Bow River OPCC for this option from downtown to 24 Avenue is estimated at LRT track and civil work $700 million. Study A detailed breakdown of the OPCC for each option is provided in LRT systems including power, OCS, signals, communications Central For OPTION 2, the costs have assumed an SEM tunnel in the Appendix G. Structures including tunnels and bridge work (both for the downtown with a similar station cost for 7 Avenue station at $30
Recommendations existing Centre Street bridge and a new bridge crossing million. Due to the tunneling geometry a cut and cover tunnel over the Bow River) would be required to tie the SEM tunnel to 3 Avenue SW in order to Deep and shallow utility relocation achieve tighter turning radii to avoid conflicts between buildings in LRT Stations and facilities including TPSS the downtown. Additional cut and cover costs have been included to account for tunneling tie ins. Additional costs have also For the purpose of this study only, land acquisition impacts were been provided for potential upgrades of the Centre Street Bridge Corridor estimated assuming a centre-running LRT configuration, where as there is some uncertainty on the southern span’s capacity to partial acquisition of adjacent land parcels on both the east side carry additional LRT loads. Further north along this alignment some
Att and west side of Centre Street may be required. Due to a high additional cut and cover tunneling has been included to grade level of uncertainty surrounding the timing of land acquisitions, it separate 16 Avenue N station. This station may be constructed 5.pdf was recommended that a factor of four to eight times the assessed using a bridge for 16 Avenue and an underpass with retaining walls for the LRT. However, to be conservative the costs have assumed market values be used. To be conservative, a factor of eight was Study applied to costs associated with all potential land purchases along that cut and cover may be a requirement to grade separate 16 the corridor. Avenue N. The overall OPCC for this option from downtown to 24 Avenue is estimated at $600 million. For OPTION 1, the costs include two ‘relatively’ short tunnels and a new bridge crossing over the Bow River over Prince’s Island Park. For OPTION 3, the full costs have assumed TBM technology in Due to the length of the tunnels it was assumed that a Sequential ‘good’ geological conditions. TBM tunneling presents the most cost Excavation Method (SEM) would be used as it provides more savings in tunneling technology when the length of the tunnel is flexibility to deal with locally unexpected ground conditions. greater than one mile (1.6 kilometers). For this segment increased However, a tunnel boring machine (TBM) could be used if station depths result from the required clearance below the river at available as some cost savings may be present depending on the 21 meters below the river bottom. This depth results in the deepest geological conditions found. To be conservative, SEM tunneling station at 45 meters at 9 Avenue N. The assumed cost for a deep was assumed for the downtown tunnel and for the tunnel north of TBM stations was $140 million. Station costs for this option varied the river to 18 Avenue N. The tunnel in the downtown assumes one based on depth with a cost of $100 million assumed for stations underground station at 7 Avenue SW at $30 million. The tunnel between 30 to 40 metres deep. The overall OPCC for this option from downtown to 24 Avenue is estimated at $1,300 million.
Page would daylight at 2 Avenue SW to an at-grade station at Eau 45 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.2
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.2 FINANCIAL CAPACITY Impacts on Existing City Assets (e.g. Land) Central Within Segment 1, there were multiple alignment opportunities NC LRT Project Objective: “An affordable and cost-effective identified for the downtown approach and entry, with each service” one presenting different impacts on existing City assets or
LRT facilities. Alignments which demonstrated a reliance on existing Phasing Possibilities city assets were assigned a positive score. However, since the availability of publicly owned land along Centre Street south of Route Phasing possibilities refer to the potential opportunities an option 9 Avenue is minimal, the scoring for this criterion was focused presents to be constructed in a phased approach. This is an on impacts to areas of historic importance. Heritage sites important attribute because it represents a flexibility to deliver the
Planning located within the bounds of Segment 1 include: GL-NC in a progressive way that is responsive to the available North funding. All of the options presented for Segment 1 include a McHugh Bluffs tunnel section traversing the existing 7 Avenue S LRT tracks, the Sunnyside Bank future 8 Avenue S tunnel, and the CPR tracks. The opportunities to
Study stage the construction of this tunnel are limited due to the high Crescent Heights Park Central costs associated with tunnel construction. Conversely, the portions Crescent Heights High School of at-grade profile featured in options 1 and 2 are more conducive
Recommendations to being delivered in a staged approach because construction Tigerstedt Block costs are relatively smaller and more amenable to incremental The Alberta Wheat Pool Building funding access. 7 Avenue and 8 Avenue boulevards LRT Table 8.2: MAE 1 – Financial Capacity: Phasing Possibilities These sites are identified in Figure 8.1. Option Impact Assessment Table 8.3: MAE 1 – Financial Capacity: Impact on Existing Corridor Score City Assets (e.g. Land) 1 – New Bridge Crossing The downtown portion 3 Option Assessment Score
Att of Bow River of the Green Line could 1 – New Bridge Crossing of 1 be built independently 5.pdf Bow River of the bridge over the Bow River and the 2 – Existing Centre Street 1 Study shallow tunnel north of Bridge Crossing of Bow River the bridge. 3 – Tunneled Crossing of Bow 4 2 – Existing Centre The downtown portion 3 River Street Bridge Crossing of the Green Line could of Bow River be built independently of the alignment north of the Bow River. 3 – Tunneled Crossing of The entire tunnel from 1 Bow River south of the Bow River to Figure 8.1: Heritage Resources the daylight at 24 Avenue N would have to be built in a single phase.
Page 46 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.3
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.3 COMMUNITY WELL-BEING would intrude minimally on neighboring properties as compared Safety Central with an at-grade running LRT through the community. In This criterion was used to assess the safety concerns associated NC LRT Project Objective: “A safe, secure and socially inclusive consideration of new low floor LRVs, there is some subjectivity with with each LRT configuration, particularly in relation to LRT operation service that improves access to key community destinations and respect to just how intrusive an at-grade system would be, with (i.e. collisions) and potential road user conflicts with the LRT some stakeholders preferring the aesthetics of an at-grade system. LRT encourages active travel” including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
Impact on Community Cohesion: Severance In Segment 1, portions of the LRT system with a grade separated Route The “community cohesion” criterion was divided into two The second element of community cohesion is severance. configuration were considered to have a minimal potential for categories covering different aspects of community well-being: Severance represents the separation of communities along the conflicts to occur between the LRT and road users and for visual intrusion and severance. corridor resulting from barriers such as restricted pedestrian collisions. Planning Impact on Community Cohesion: Visual Intrusion crossings and restrictions to east-west movement of pedestrians, North cyclists, and vehicles. A tunneled system would result in minimal to Table 8.6: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Safety Visual intrusion refers to the aesthetic influence of the LRT on no severance of neighboring communities, while an at-grade Option Impact Assessment neighboring properties. For instance, in areas where partial land system with its multiple signalized pedestrian crossings could be Score Study acquisitions may be required, there is a risk that the remaining land seen as a negative compared to BAU, where east-west Central parcel may not be conducive to development due to size, 1 – New Bridge Minimal conflict points 4 movements are unrestricted. resulting in potentially unsightly swaths of seemingly abandoned Crossing of Bow with the LRT in a tunnel
Recommendations River below Crescent Heights. land. As another example, an at-grade LRT system would present Table 8.5: MAE 1 - Community Well-Being: Impact on At-grade operation different levels of visual intrusion than a tunneled system would. Community Cohesion - Severance Each of the Segment 1 options has a tunneled portion, albeit downtown would present
Option Impact Assessment LRT featuring varying lengths. A tunnel running beneath the community safety issues at the Score crossings of 3 Avenue and Table 8.4: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Impact on 1 – New Bridge Neither the new bridge 4 2 Avenue.
Community Cohesion – Visual Intrusion Crossing of Bow over the Bow River nor the 2 – Existing Centre Being a new ‘barrier-free’ 2 Corridor River shallow tunnel at the north Option Impact Assessment Street Bridge system, at-grade LRT end of the bridge would Crossing of Bow operation will have higher
Att Score sever the community. River associated safety 1 – New Bridge Bridge over the Bow River 2 5.pdf 2 – Existing Centre The LRT in this configuration 3 concerns at the outset, Crossing of Bow may be visually intrusive, Street Bridge would act as a barrier to particularly with respect to
River as it may change or Study Crossing of Bow crossing from one side of the narrow width of the diminish heritage views of River the street to the other, Centre Street Bridge. the Centre Street bridge. every five minutes, 3 – Tunneled Deemed the safest option 5 Will also result in changed depending on LRT Crossing of Bow since it minimizes any views from Prince's Island headways. River potential collisions or Park. 3 – Tunneled This LRT configuration 5 conflicts with road users. 2 – Existing Centre May be visually intrusive to 3 Crossing of Bow would not divide the Street Bridge some but highly River community and would Crossing of Bow subjective, as some actually present an River people may prefer to see improvement to the BAU the LRT in operation while
others may not.
3 – Tunneled Least intrusive, as the 5 Crossing of Bow streetscape remains River largely unchanged.
Page 47 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.4
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
Security Emergency Access User Centered Design / Accessibility
Central Emergency access was evaluated based on the number of barriers User centered design and accessibility is a key factor to ensuring Personal security with regards to transit was highlighted as an to emergency access and implemented mitigation. For Segment 1, that the system is socially inclusive and promotes active travel. important criterion for ensuring a strong sense of community well- emergency access to tunneled portions of the line will have to be Grade separation of a station poses challenges for accessibility. being. Perceptions of personal security are highly subjective, but
LRT made via stations, which would require the LRT operator to take Although all stations would be equipped with elevators and / or can be assessed using Crime Prevention Through Environmental the train to the nearest station. Maximum distances to stations were escalators, underground stations are inherently less accessible than Design (CPTED) principles as well as Gehl architect’s measure of calculated in order to determine the maximum time that the LRT at-grade stations. Route activity of ‘people seen per minute’. The principle follows the operator would need to travel to the nearest station. For the at- rationale that with more activity on the street, more people would grade configured option, there will be no change to BAU, as In Segment 1, all three options have some degree of grade be seen per minute, resulting in an increase in one’s sense of separation. Option 2 features the shortest distance of grade
Planning emergency access vehicles will be able to drive on the LRT
personal security. North guideway. separated track, compared to Option 1 which features a shallow tunnel below Crescent Heights, and Option 3 which features a In Segment 1, tunneled segments were considered to have the Table 8.8: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Emergency deep tunnel beneath the community of Crescent Heights. lowest offerings for personal security since there are likely to be Access Study
fewer “eyes on the street” with the only activity being generated Table 8.9: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: User Centered Central Option Impact Assessment by transit customers. Generally, having more people and “eyes on Design / Accessibility Score the street”, whether they are transit customers, pedestrians,
Recommendations Option Impact Assessment motorists, etc., will tend to increase one’s sense of personal security 1 – New Bridge Emergency services will access 2 Score in a given area. Crossing of Bow the LRT via stations. In the event River that an immediate stop is 1 – New Bridge With two tunnels and a 2 Table 8.7: MAE 1 – Community Well-Being: Security warranted, the LRT operator will Crossing of Bow bridge segment this option LRT River presents some accessibility Option Impact Assessment need to drive to the nearest station (farthest distance to the challenges although the Score nearest station is 250m, which grade separation is not as Corridor 1 – New Bridge Perceived decrease in sense 2 would take 15 seconds). deep as Option 3. Crossing of Bow of personal security in tunneled 2 – Existing Centre With a shorter tunnel 3 Att River sections, particularly during off 2 – Existing Centre Emergency vehicles will be able 3 Street Bridge section only in the peak periods, with fewer “eyes Street Bridge to drive along the LRT tracks as 5.pdf Crossing of Bow downtown and the on the street”. Crossing of Bow the rail will be embedded in- River street and separated by a River remainder at-grade there
2 – Existing Centre Perceptions of a higher level of 4 Study mountable-rolled curb. The is less of an accessibility Street Bridge personal security to more "eyes tunnel will be accessible via the barrier. Crossing of Bow on the street" based on CPTED station (farthest distance to the 3 – Tunneled Due to the required depth 1 River principles and greater street nearest station is 250m, which Crossing of Bow below the river, stations for activity. would take 15 seconds). River this option introduce that 3 – Tunneled Perceived decrease in sense 2 most challenges for 3 – Tunneled Emergency services will access 1 Crossing of Bow of personal security in tunnel accessibility with the Crossing of Bow the LRT via stations. In the event River due to high level of isolation deepest station at 45 River that an immediate stop is from street level activity with metres. few “eyes on the street”. warranted, the LRT operator will need to drive to the nearest
station (farthest distance is
500m to the nearest station, which would take 30 seconds). Page 48 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.5
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.4 PROSPEROUS ECONOMY Table 8.10: MAE 1 – Prosperous Economy: Value Capture Table 8.11: MAE 1 – Prosperous Economy: Impact on Goods Central Option Impact Assessment Movement NC LRT Project Objective: “A service that promotes economic Score Option Impact Assessment development by improving access to employment, without 1 – New Bridge New LRT station in Eau 4 Score
LRT adversely impacting goods movement” Crossing of Bow Claire community in 1 – New Bridge A general travel lane in 4 River Centre City has high Crossing of Bow both directions will be
Route Value Capture likelihood of generating River restored to Centre Street The value capture criterion refers to the ability of an option to land-based value Bridge once the LRT is create a favourable financial situation for The City via land sales, Negative association with introduced (bus-only lane
Planning higher tax revenues, or developer fees. Such revenues could be the bridge over Prince’s restored to all traffic). North used to offset the costs of constructing, operating, and/or Island park due to 2 – Existing Centre Median running LRT will 2 maintaining the Green Line, but benefits such as these cannot be economic impacts to the Street Bridge restrict the ability of trucks realized unless there is a sufficient demand for land selling at park use Crossing of Bow to turn in and out of
Study relatively high residential and commercial prices with incentives in 2 – Existing Centre New LRT station in Eau 5 River business parking lots. Central place for developers to carry out their projects at higher costs than Street Bridge Claire community in 3 – Tunneled A general travel lane in 4 are typical. Crossing of Bow Centre City has high Crossing of Bow both directions will be
Recommendations River likelihood of generating River restored to Centre Street Even though TOD can be achieved with four or five story land-based value Bridge once the LRT is developments, high-rise concrete construction is the benchmark 3 – Tunneled New LRT station in Eau 5 introduced (bus-only lane for making an impact on density around stations. For this purpose Crossing of Bow Claire community in restored to all traffic). LRT of assessing value capture, it is also assumed that high-rise River Centre City has high construction is the scale of development needed to generate likelihood of generating
sufficient funding to make an impact on the net cost of land-based value Corridor construction, operation, and maintenance to The City. A market analysis carried out in January 2014 indicated that at current Impact on Goods Movement Att property prices, the high-rise concrete construction was only The goods movement criterion refers to the ability of an option to 5.pdf financially viable in the Centre City and adjacent communities create a favorable situation for the movement of goods via trucks (e.g. Bridgeland, Beltline). This means that even if there was a along Centre Street and in the downtown. Centre Street is Study sufficiently sized, vacant parcel in a community such as Tuxedo classified as an urban boulevard from the Bow River to McKnight Park or Highland Park for high-rise concrete construction, the Boulevard and as an Arterial between McKnight Boulevard and financial incentives would not be in place except under special Beddington Drive. As such, it needs to provide truck access to the circumstances such as strong population growth combined with a many businesses along Centre Street. Truck access is also required lack of development elsewhere. Under typical conditions, it is for certain types of businesses in the downtown. actually likely that The City would have to subsidize developers to create high-density development around stations in outlying Trucks require loading/unloading zones on the street or places neighbourhoods. where they can pull off of the street. Trucks can often be slower than regular traffic and generally do not mix well with bicyclists and For Segment 1, there is no difference in the assessment outcome pedestrians. Some cities restrict truck access to non-peak hours. As for each of the options. This is because they all feature a station larger vehicles, they require more space for turning than regular that could support development in Eau Claire where there are vehicles, and this may pose a problem if the introduction of LRT into large parcels of land with market demand for high-rise concrete the roadway reduces the available space for turning. construction. Page 49 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.6
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.5 TRANSPORTATION The new bridge crossing in Option 1 offers pedestrians and cyclists For Option 2, the LRT transit travel time may not be less than existing
Central an additional means by which to cross the Bow River over Prince’s bus / BRT surface transit travel time, although it is assumed that NC LRT Project Objective: “A high priority transit service that attracts Island Park. Also, there is some potential to connect the river transit signal priority will be provided. Generally, due to the
transit use, walking and cycling as preferred mobility choices for pathway to the 2 Avenue station on the south side of the Bow constrained nature of the existing Centre Street Bridge, there is a River. In the areas of the tunneled sections, there would be no significant likelihood of regular delay for the LRT. LRT Calgarians and that integrates with, improves customer experience of, and strengthens the regional transit network” change to the existing at-grade pedestrian and cyclist network. For Option 3, the LRT transit travel time should be less than that of Route In Option 2, with the alignment at-grade north of the river, there the existing bus / BRT surface transit service, as the tunnel provides Improvements for Walking and Cycling would be no room for added improvements for pedestrians or a completely segregated forum where trains can travel at a faster In order to ensure the LRT is integrated with pedestrian and cyclist cyclists. The constrained ROW would result in a maximum maximum travel speed. Planning movements, each option was reviewed in conjunction with the boulevard width of 2.5 metres, which would result in a maximum North cycling network to determine how connections could be made to sidewalk width of 1.5 metres which is no better than what is Changes in Journey Time – Auto the LRT. currently in place. On the existing Centre Street bridge, a narrow In Option 1, provision of a new bridge and partially tunnelled space will be provided for pedestrians, which would be similar to section for the LRT for this section of the route would provide total
Study Table 8.12: MAE 1 – Transportation: Improvements for Walking
BAU when crossing over the river into the downtown. Central and Cycling segregation from the surface operating vehicles. Therefore, the impact on auto travel time will be negligible. There may even be Option Impact Assessment In Option 3, the full tunnel would not impact the existing street very minor positive changes in auto travel time as compared to the Recommendations Score network. With the LRT running underground, however, there may BAU scenario, as it is assumed that some existing transit services 1 – New Bridge Design considerations can be 4 be some potential for the vehicle lanes to be narrowed in order to (bus or BRT) may be replaced by the LRT service. This would Crossing of Bow given to providing walking and improve the pedestrian infrastructure or add room for cyclists along
potentially free up some road space and reduce congestion for LRT River cycling space along the new Centre Street. auto vehicles and hence, improve journey time. bridge over the Bow River, which would improve the pedestrian and Changes in Journey Time – LRT In Option 2, running the LRT at-grade across the existing Centre Corridor cycling network. For Option 1, the LRT transit travel time should be on par or less than Street Bridge is likely to have significant impacts on auto vehicles In areas of tunneled section, there the existing bus / BRT surface transit operating in a dedicated lane and other surface transit routes. The impact on auto travel time will
Att would be no impacts to the existing in the BAU scenario. The routing is direct, and signal pre-emption is be moderate to severe and will be partially dependent on how road network, and therefore, the assumed. In addition, faster boarding is expected through the many other existing surface transit routes (bus and BRT) in the BAU 5.pdf existing walking and cycling provision of multiple doors and level boarding at the stations. scenario are removed from service following the introduction of network would remain the same. the LRT. Significant consideration will need to be given for Study 2 – Existing This option would assume a narrow 3 Table 8.13: MAE 1 – Transportation: Changes in Journey Time determining how best to minimize the negative impacts to auto Centre Street ROW with no room for enhanced – LRT vehicle flow caused by the routing of LRT through the intersections Bridge Crossing sidewalks. Cyclists would be Option Impact Assessment from/to the bridge structure. of Bow River pushed to 2 Street or to Edmonton Score Table 8.14: MAE 1 – Transportation – Changes in Journey Time Trail as part of the primary cycling 1 – New Bridge Anticipated improvements 4 - Auto network. Crossing of Bow compared to BAU. Option Impact Assessment 3 – Tunneled Considering this fully tunneled 3 River Score Crossing of Bow option, there would be no impacts 2 – Existing Centre Potential for delay. 2 1 – New Bridge Crossing Negligible impacts to 3 River to the existing road network, and Street Bridge of Bow River automobiles anticipated. similarly, the walking and cycling Crossing of Bow 2 – Existing Centre Street Moderate to severe 1 network would remain the same at- River Bridge Crossing of Bow impacts to automobiles grade. 3 – Tunneled Anticipated improvements 4 River anticipated. Crossing of Bow compared to BAU. 3 – Tunneled Crossing of Negligible impacts to 3 River Bow River automobiles anticipated. Page 50 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.7
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
The fully tunneled section featured in Option 3 provides the LRT with intersections and block an LRT vehicle. In addition, the narrow reverted to general traffic, thereby potentially reducing congestion
Central a dedicated ROW that will have negligible impacts to surface option would require a change in operating conditions due to the on the alignment. running traffic. There may be the potential for enhancements to design constraint of right turn passenger & delivery vehicles auto travel time as compared to the BAU scenario, since it is overlapping over the LRT guideway. This is on par with the BAU. Impact on Parking assumed that some surface running transit services (bus or BRT) Parking impacts were quantified based on the potential loss of on- LRT may be replaced by the underground service, thereby potentially The fully tunneled scenario of Option 3 would provide full street parking along the corridor. resulting in reduced congestion on the road network. segregation for LRT operations, where interactions with other Route vehicles can be avoided. This attribute should ensure the reliability Along segment 1 there is minimal on-street parking between Reliability of the system in terms of journey time certainty and would provide downtown and 9 Avenue N. In Option 1, parking in the downtown Reliability is assumed as the interaction between the LRT & vehicles a good overall perception of the system’s reliability. would remain unchanged as only a minor segment is at-grade at Planning
into the trackway. (Not about pedestrian delays – intended to the Eau Claire station. In the tunneled section north of the river, North Impact of Displaced Traffic and Demand on Parallel Routes highlight the challenges in the design itself) there would be no change to existing on-street parking conditions. With Option 1, minimal traffic displacement would be expected. In Option 2, with the LRT running at –grade north of the river, the 2 In Option 1, the segregation from general traffic offered by the Depending on the access and priority required at signals to route hour on-street parking currently provided on the east side of Centre Study
dedicated LRT bridge over the Bow River would likely increase the the LRT to the new bridge, there may be some minor disruptions to Street between 8 Avenue and 9 Avenue would be removed. Due Central reliability of transit service, as the LRT would no longer be mixed traffic patterns, however, optimizing signal timings should minimize to the existing lane reversal there is minimal parking on Centre with and delayed by general traffic on the existing Centre Street these issues. Street N south of 9 Avenue. In the downtown portion of this option, Recommendations Bridge. Similarly, the short section of tunnel in this option would likely on-street parking along 3 Avenue S between Centre Street and 2 provide improvements to reliability because the LRT would again In Option 2, with the Centre Street Bridge already established as a Street W would be removed. Since these blocks are relatively small, pinch point on the LRT route, there is a strong probability that traffic
be separated from general traffic. these parking spaces would likely be removed for the BAU LRT will be displaced, thereby significantly increasing demand on the scenario. As a result, Option 2 would present no change to on- In Option 2, the lack of segregation from general traffic at limited available parallel route options. The use of this option may street parking as compared to BAU. In Option 3, there would be intersections in downtown and along the southern end of Centre also lead to increased congestion in and out of the Downtown slight impacts to existing parking conditions near the intersection of Corridor Street may lead to lower levels of reliability for LRT. Considering that network. Centre Street and 9 Avenue N as well as Centre Street and 8 the Centre Street Bridge is already a constraint on the road Avenue N if a station is introduced at 9 Avenue, however, the
Att network, it is likely that cars would occasionally get stuck in the In Option 3, there will be a reduced impact on traffic demand, as it remainder of on-street parking locations along Centre Street would is assumed that the dedicated BRT lane in the BAU scenario will be remain unchanged compared to the BAU scenario. 5.pdf Table 8.15: MAE 1 – Transportation: Reliability Table 8.16: MAE 1 – Transportation: Impact of Displaced Table 8.17: MAE 1 – Transportation: Impact on Parking Option Impact Assessment Traffic and Demand on Parallel Routes Study Score Option Impact Assessment 1 – New Bridge Minor impacts to 4 Option Impact Assessment Score Score Crossing of Bow River automobiles anticipated; 1 – New Bridge No impacts to parking on 3 high LRT travel time 1 – New Bridge Minimal traffic displacement 4 Crossing of Bow Centre Street south of 9 reliability expected. Crossing of Bow expected. River Avenue. River 2 – Existing Centre Moderate to severe 3 2 – Existing Centre Will result in loss of 2 hour street 3 Street Bridge Crossing impacts to auto traffic 2 – Existing Centre Additional traffic displacement 2 Street Bridge parking on the east side of of Bow River anticipated; LRT travel time Street Bridge expected as compared to the Crossing of Bow Centre Street from 9 Ave to 8 reliability expected to be Crossing of Bow BAU scenario. River Ave. River similar to BAU. 3 – Tunneled Will have some impact to 3 3 – Tunneled Crossing No impacts to auto travel 4 3 – Tunneled Minimal traffic displacement 4 Crossing of Bow parking at 9 Ave due to of Bow River time reliability anticipated; Crossing of Bow expected. River station location. high LRT travel time River reliability expected. Page 51 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.8
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT Avenue N station, it is expected that land acquisitions will also be In Option 2, the at-grade running LRT would likely contribute the
Central required to construct the station access points. most to an improved streetscape. Although the majority of the NC LRT Project Objective: “A service that support current and future activity will remain focused at stations, having an LRT visibly run Table 8.18: MAE 1 – Urban Development: Land Acquisition land use and intensification of development along the corridor” along the street will create the perception of more activity and Impacts people seen per minute at the street level. This option would also LRT be considered to offer an improvement to the BAU scenario, Land Acquisition Impacts Option Impact Assessment Score because the LRT is anticipated to generate more ridership than the Route To simplify the land acquisition considerations, one might assume 1 – New Bridge Will require some land 3 BRT is likely to see. that land will only need to be acquired on a single side of Centre Crossing of Bow acquisition at the tunnel portals Street. However, with the LRT assumed to operate on a centre- In Option 3, similar to Option 1, while a grade separated LRT will still Planning running alignment, our study accounted for the acquisition of a River for the tunnel north of the Bow promote activity at station locations, there will be fewer people North River. strip of land on both sides of Centre Street, which means land observed at street level along the corridor, which will result in the It is assumed that no land would be impacted on both sides of the corridor. Due to the perceptions of a decreased streetscape quality as compared to acquisition will be required in existing sizes of parcels along Centre Street, additional land the BAU scenario. the downtown core. Study acquistions may have negative impacts on the future Central development potential of certain lots. In general, buying more land 2 – Existing Centre Will require on average, 4 Table 8.19: MAE 1 – Urban Development: Contribution to from adjacent properties may result in lot sizes that may be too Street Bridge approximately less than 2 Improved Streetscape and Public Realm
Recommendations Crossing of Bow metres of land acquisition from small to warrant future development. Option Impact Assessment River commercial properties on both Score In Option 1, the tunnel north of the river would require some land sides of Centre Street, south of acquisition in the area of the north tunnel portal in order to 9 Avenue N. 1 – New Bridge Would not encourage an 2 LRT Crossing of Bow enhancement of the street scape accommodate construction activities. Land measuring 3 – Tunneled Will require full parcel 2 approximately 150 metres in length and 2.5 metres in width on Crossing of Bow acquisition at the 9 Avenue N River as compared to the BAU scenario. either side of the portal will likely be required. Surrounding the 9 River station are and at the tunnel Corridor Avenue N station, it is expected that given the ROW of 26.67 portals. 2 – Existing Likely to promote more activity at 4 metres, only small areas of land acquisition would be required, if Downtown stations will require Centre Street the street level compared to the Att any. further investigation, but have Bridge Crossing BAU scenario.
5.pdf been assumed to fit within the of Bow River In Option 2, with the LRT running at-grade between one vehicle existing ROW. 3 – Tunneled Would not encourage an 2
lane on either side with travel running in each direction, it is Crossing of Bow enhancement of the street scape Study anticipated that land acquisitions will be required in areas with left Contribution to Improved Streetscape and Public Realm River as compared to the BAU turns and at station locations. In the area surrounding the at-grade Several elements that contribute to the improved streetscape scenario. 9 Avenue N station, there are left turn lanes as well. Based on this, it have been included under other accounts. This particular account is anticipated that less than 2 metres of land will be required, which was gauged in terms of an increased degree of activity at the will impact the commercial properties on both sides of Centre street level, which could be perceived as the number of people Street. observed per min at street level based on Gehl architect’s measure for activity. In Option 3, the full tunnel would require land acquisition in the areas of both tunnel portals. At the northern portal, the LRT would In Option 1, the bridge over the Bow River and the partial tunnel to daylight at approximately 24 Avenue N where the ROW is 22.86 16 Avenue N provide the LRT with grade separation for the length metres. Pending confirmation of further detailed analysis for the of Segment 1. This means that while the LRT will generate and TBM, it is expected that the minimum space required would be 22 promote activity at the station locations themselves, there will be a metres. However, it is anticipated that additional space will likely perception of decreased quality of streetscape with respect to the be required for construction staging. Also, given the depth of the 9 BAU scenario, because there will be fewer people seen at street
Page level along the corridor as a whole. 52 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.9
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.7 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT Table 8.20: MAE 1 – Sustainable Environment: Impact on Table 8.21: MAE 1 – Sustainable Environment: Noise Impacts
Central Existing Natural Environment Option Impact Assessment NC LRT Project Objective: A service that facilitates a reduction in Option Impact Assessment Score GHG emissions while not impacting the City’s current biodiversity Score 1 – New Bridge May have some impact but will 2 LRT Crossing of Bow have some improvement with Impact on Existing Natural Environment 1 – New Bridge Highest environmental impact 1 Crossing of Bow due to new constitution of a River part of the alignment tunneled Route The Bow River crossing in this segment presents some significant River bridge over the Bow River in north of the Bow River. New environmental concerns. In general, any crossing of the Bow River addition to construction over bridge will have added impacts will require notification under the Code of Practice for Watercourse natural lands in Prince’s Island on Prince’s Island park setting Planning Crossings provided that the conditions of the code can all be met; Park. 2 – Existing May result in more noise and 2 North otherwise approval under the Water Act will be required. 2 – Existing Centre Fewer environmental risks if the 3 Centre Street vibration impacts with more of Bridge Crossing the alignment at-grade For Option 1, with or without piers the bridge would require reviews Street Bridge proposed alignment remains Crossing of Bow along the existing Centre Street of Bow River Study of the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings or approval 3 – Tunneled Minimal noise and vibration 5 Central under the Water Act as outline above. Since the alignment crosses River Bridge alignment. Crossing of Bow impacts expected due to the over existing natural lands in Prince’s Island Park a Biophysical 3 – Tunneled Fewer environmental risks due 3 River tunnel depth Recommendations Impact Assessment (BIA) and a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) would be Crossing of Bow to the tunnel depth. required. River
For Option 2, assuming that the construction could be confined to Noise Impacts LRT the existing alignment of the Centre Street Bridge, a TPP would not In Option 1, a noise and vibration impact assessment may be be required. Additional coordination would be required with the required to evaluate the potential effects on receptors with the
City of Calgary Parks department on the potential impacts to construction of a new bridge. There may be some impacts but Corridor Rotary Park and the Sunnyside Bank Parks. there will be partial improvements to the BAU scenario with part of the alignment tunneled north of the Bow River to 18 Avenue. The Att For Option 3, due to the depth of the tunnel there would be new bridge over Prince’s Island park will have some impacts on the
5.pdf minimal environmental impacts to the Bow River since there would park setting. be no in-stream work. Also, no BIA or TPP would be required since
the tunnel would not be in close to any parks. In Option 2, a noise and vibration impact assessment may be Study required to evaluate the potential effects on receptors along the existing bridge. There may be some noise and vibration impacts as the majority of the alignment is at-grade north of 3 Avenue SW in the downtown.
In Option 3, a noise and vibration impact assessment would be required to evaluate the potential effects on receptors along the proposed alignment. This would likely have the least impact due to the tunnel depth. Page 53 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.10
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
8.8 DELIVERABILITY Table 8.22: MAE1 – Deliverability: Constructability (technical assumed that the BAU would be able to maintain one lanes in
Central constraints) each directionThis option would have more noise impacts during NC LRT Project Objective: “A service that is constructible and Option Impact Assessment construction with the alignment at-grade. operable” Score In Option 3, there would be fewer construction impacts, except at
LRT 1 – New Bridge Slope stability of the Sunnyside 1 tunnel portals and at station locations, compared to the other Constructability – Technical Constraints Crossing of Bow Banks and geometry of the options since the LRT is fully grade-separated. Material hauling
Route River bridge are key constraints in this In this segment of the MAE there are some general construction operations would be conducted via the portal at 10 Avenue in option which require further constraints that existing for all these options in the downtown: order to minimize impacts to residential communities along Centre analysis. Street. This would result in some traffic disruptions at 10 Avenue.
Planning Anticipated geotechnical constraints for tunneling in the North downtown (deep bedrock expected) 2 – Existing Centre It is anticipated that the Centre 3 Table 8.23: MAE 1 – Deliverability: Construction Impacts Street Bridge Street bridge will likely be able Option Impact Assessment CPR construction protection requires 30m space from CPR Crossing of Bow to withstand the load of the LRT ROW, which will not be feasible for the tunnel portal at 10 Score Study River with some rehabilitation for the Central Avenue SW and Centre Street in the downtown. Additional southernmost span. 1 – New Bridge Closure of the river pathway 1 protection measures may be required and would likely Crossing of Bow would be a significant impact
Recommendations River during construction. need to be coordinated with CPR. 3 – Tunneled Consistent geology is key for this 1 Crossing of Bow option. It is anticipated that the 2 – Existing At-grade construction will result in 2 Specifically for Option 1, there are some slope stability issues along River potential 9 Avenue N station will Centre Street traffic disruptions along Centre
the McHugh Bluffs. The construction of a bridge-to-tunnel transition LRT have more technical Bridge Crossing Street. into the escarpment is expected to require additional design and constraints due to its depth of of Bow River slope stabilization measures. Also, for this option to reach an at- 45 metres. 3 – Tunneled Material hauling operations 2
grade station at 2 Avenue a 150 metre tangent would be required. Crossing of Bow would impact traffic at 10 Corridor In order to have enough space for the 2 Avenue station the LRT will Construction Impacts River Avenue for an extended period cross the bow river pathway at-grade before transitioning to the of time during the construction of
Att In general lane closures will result in more challenging access in bridge. the tunnel. addition to restricted parking for businesses along Centre Street, 5.pdf road closures may be required at all station locations. For Option 2, with the LRT at-grade and on the existing Centre Conformance to CTP & MDP
Street bridge some rehabilitation may be required for the southern Study In Option 1, the construction of the bridge will require the This criterion was added to review the options based on how they span of the Centre Street Bridge. This span was not part of the 2007 temporary closure of the bow river pathway. This would be a major fit with existing public policies and how they may help in achieving rehabilitation done on the Centre Street Bridge. Preliminary impact on the pathway users as this section of the pathway has a the goals and targets set by the CTP and MDP outlined in section 0. structural analysis of the remaining bridge spans suggests that they high number of pedestrian and cycling commuters. During should be able to withstand the load of the LRT although additional construction it is anticipated that the pathway would need to be In general, options that reduce auto capacity and support an review may be required. closed or diverted resulting in a lower score. For the tunnel segment increased mode shift to transit, cycling, and walking would have higher conformance to the CTP and MDP. Additionally, avoiding For Option 3, access to adequate geotechnical information is the in the downtown 10 Avenue may be closed to construct the tunnel as it is also proposed that material hauling be done from this point. land acquisition was also considered to conform to the CTP and primary constraint. In addition, it is anticipated that some soil MDP goals to promote “good urban design”. Based on these stability may be required when constructing the 9 Avenue station. Lower noise impacts would be anticipated during construction concepts the options were assessed as shown in the below table. Due to the proximity to the McHugh Bluffs and Sunnyside Banks, it is since the majority of the alignment is grade separated. expected that unfavorable soils may be found in this area. In Option 2, the at-grade construction of the LRT will need to be staged in blocks. During construction the road would need to be reduced to one lane in peak hour direction only. This will result in higher traffic impacts during construction than the BAU as it is Page 54 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.11
of 104 ISC: TT2014-0916 Unrestricted
NORTH CENTRAL LRT CORRIDOR STUDY
Evaluation Results for MAE 1: Downtown To 9 Avenue
North December 1, 2014
Table 8.24: MAE 1 – Deliverability: Conformance to CTP & Narrow ROW from 9 Avenue to 24 Avenue is less publicly • No impact to properties as well as reduced disruption in the
Central MDP acceptable, but not to the Community Advisory Group downtown Option Impact Assessment (CAG). Table 8.25: MAE 1 – Deliverability: Acceptability Score For Option 2, it is likely to be controversial to the public with the Option Impact Assessment LRT 1 – New Bridge With a new river crossing and 2 lane reduction and reduced capacity on Centre Street. However, Crossing of Bow maintaining vehicle access to Score if not underground in this area, the second preference was to have
Route River the downtown this option does 1 – New Bridge Lower acceptability since this 1 one driving lane and no parking (44%). Positive opinions for this not push for a mode split. Crossing of Bow option was not included in option were: 2 – Existing Centre This option would be in 3 River previous engagement and due
Planning Street Bridge conformance with the CTP & to impacts to the park.
Safer pedestrian environment North Crossing of Bow MDP but would not be a 2 – Existing This would have lower 3 River change compared to the BAU Nice landscaping and street design Centre Street acceptability due to the scenario. Less effects on businesses and residents Bridge Crossing compromises for vehicle
Study 3 – Tunneled Similar to Option 1, this option 2 of Bow River capacity but it would be the No land acquisition required Central Crossing of Bow does not force a mode split as same as the BAU scenario. River it maintains capacity for May result in less traffic 3 – Tunneled This would have the highest 5
Recommendations vehicles into the downtown. Crossing of Bow acceptability and would be an Negative opinions on this option were: River improvement to the BAU scenario Acceptability Lack of parking options may have negative impact on as travel lanes on Centre Street LRT The acceptability of the different options was gauged based on businesses would be restored. the consultation process that was done throughout the project. Possible congestion issues due to constrained capacity See Appendix A. Perception that LRT at surface travels slower Corridor For Option 1, since the bridge concept was not considered in the At grade impact through China Town consultation process it is deemed to be less acceptable. However, Att using the information gathered throughout the consolation process May be mitigated by advanced education given longer
5.pdf the following options would be expected: term implementation Congestion planning will need to be addressed Negative impact to park users at the east end of Study Princess Island If a BRT dedicated lane is introduced, concern may be Negative visual impact on the park mitigated Negative impact on water feature and existing For Option 3 there is a high level of public acceptability based on pedestrian bridge/walkway the various workshops and open houses held. 54% of the public feel Negative impact to Sunnyside Bank Park and curling the LRT is underground would allow the LRT to travel at higher club parking lot speed and result in less impact at street level. The general public preference was in line with this as the LRT “out of sight” would be Likely strong opposition from condo development and perceived to be less intrusive to the status quo. Oher reasons in sports bar on 2 Avenue due to elevated structure, noise support of this option included: etc… • Minimizes impact to communities in the 9 Avenue N to 24 At grade in the downtown area would be acceptable Avenue N At grade from 9 Avenue N to 24 Avenue N not • Allows BRT to operate simultaneously in this corridor acceptable Page 55 t c:\users\toshiba\downloads\rpt_northcentrallrtstudy_draft_20141201_dgg.docx 8.12
of 104