Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit

Less traffic than 20 years ago sure. The question is how much of this is just a change is due to surrounding road improvements creating a drastic change in traffic patterns. I'm not sure about Centre St. bridge, but MacLeod used to be the way to go if I were to drive to the Beltline/Mission/17th, now TTN Trail, Glenmore, and Crowchild are much more viable when they weren't before when the same route started as Macleod, pre ring road congested 14th, more congested segment of Glenmore, and the rest then the same.

As well a change in demographics and economics in these areas of the city will affect traffic patterns. What I realistically do not see in the next 20 years is traffic on these streets reducing any more than it has unless it is forced to and that only makes it worse somewhere else, especially if the transit that displaces it has a terrible average speed and a slightly raised sidewalk, completely exposed to the elements, for a "station".

Consider as well, even if Centre St is not that busy to warrant all 4 lanes, when reducing to 2 lanes, when you reach 16th and have cars, busses, and whatever else all trying to go left, straight, and right from the same lane you have more than halved the capacity of the road and considering it is crossing train tracks as well have created a monstrosity for traffic and pedestrian safety.

You have to realize that sometimes what works best for vehicle traffic just happens to go hand-in-hand with the effectiveness and safety of the public transit. I really don't give a crap about the traffic itself that much because I hardly ever drive on those stretches of road, but I care about our tax dollars being used for something that is worth it even if it costs more vs something that simply is not.

And yeah 4 car service we hardly ever see and very poor frequency outside of peak times...

It is really sad to see all these other cities, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Seattle, and many others of varying sizes opting to go for safer and more effective/efficient grade separation when needed to build a system that actually can support the city well into it's future while we, in Western Canada (Alberta) just settle for underbuilt transit that runs slowly on a street that is good for maybe next week but then that's it (and we're out of luck at that point because the mistake is made and its done and over with). This may be emotional and VERY far fetched of me to say this but I'm already in a bad/satirical mood today; on the one hand here we struggle with the conservative mind set that either does not want to build it or thinks it simply will not be worth the price tag and needs to be done for cheaper or think that we are just a small simple town that doesn't need fancy big city things cause we won't ever become one OR the extreme variety of urbanists that claim that at grade is necessary for a magical utopian neighborhood where bad weather doesn't exist and people on crutches or in wheelchairs have to risk getting pancaked by fast moving heavy objects because making them use an elevator is too much to ask of them and also because again grade separation is too expensive and only benefits cars (nonsense) and would rather have substandard transit covering more of the city that won't be heavily used and that they will never use rather than very good core transit to build off of overtime that will be successful like in other cities (while secretly just wanting it to slow down traffic above all as a big middle finger on rails to cars).

While far fetched the point is something like this causes everyone to lose. Build it right the first time or just don't. We know don't is not a good option so yeah, build it right the first time.


All very good points. It really comes down to the endgame goal. If the goal is to allow for a lot of growth in ridership, this design will not cut it. This design will not allow for a station that services a large volume of people efficiently and allows for many efficient transfers. I guarantee a not too many years after built as the neighborhood around it begins to adapt and redevelop the city would badly regret wasting their money on something so underbuilt when it would costs so much more in that inevitable future to fix (which will then not be done) than it would have now.


See and this is my problem with north of the river GL. They say this is a rapid transit project; this is not what I would ever call an appropriate terminus station for a rapid transit rail project even if only temporary (for the foreseeable future). Call it what it is, a street car. What it is is a bunch of pedestrians waiting to be hit on a chaotic 2 lane road or hit by the train, that despite crawling at 30km/h, is still deadly. And if the weather is bad, yeah forget it.

Instead of this garbage, put it under ground 9th Ave station or not, and make this stretch of Centre St a even nicer main street with consistently nice wide sidewalks and better walkability without a very long street car stop separating the community.

The ROW fully exists from Sheppard to Seton and can be seen on Google Maps visible all the way to the end of line with the only real obstacle being the Seton YMCA parking lot.

Such a long rambling post that somehow seems to be a perfectly concise synopsis of so many issues. It's a really great point about not overreacting to the perception of things like grade separation being of benefit to cars.

It's such a weird thing here where the only way to mitigate horrific car sewers is through other kinds of infrastructure projects like bike lanes and transit, and somehow both the intention to remedy road designs AND the need to not impact traffic too much manage to both take precedence over designing transit or a bike lane to actually be most effective in itself.
 
Hurontario, Ontario line, and Finch have at-grade crossings btw
Ontario line does not. The Eglinton Line central section, before Science Centre, has one. The people per direction per hour, those lines are not meant to be backbones to the same extent. The Eglinton Stations being built to 60 meters (less than half of the Greenline's) with frequency constrained by the one level crossing is direct evidence of that. Leslie at that point is not a major road - 2 lanes with a traffic count around 11000 cars per day. The intersection being a t-intersection has fewer phases as well, increasing its capacity.

Hurontario is designed for up to 7,200 passengers per hour per direction. The Green Line, has an initial operating capacity of 16,560 passengers per hour per direction. And a theoretical limit of 20,000 with a train set and platforms expanded to the size of the underground stations of 140m. They're very different beasts.

Finch West is 5200 pphpd capacity.
 
Last edited:
Hurontario, Ontario line, and Finch have at-grade crossings btw

Whats interesting is that Macleod Trail is seeing unintentional 'road diet' due to the Vic Park/17 Ave redevelopment, as northbound Macleod has lost at least 1 lane for the past 2-3 years. With more during long weekend shutdowns.
Regarding green line platform's, they will not be 120-140m anymore. But I will avoid going too much into detail.
What's interesting about the unintentional road diet? That it has had very little affect on the function of Macleod?

(Puts on a tinfoil hat)

I know from your previous posts that you're somehow involved in this project... I know you can't say anything that isn't public knowledge and I wouldn't ask you to, as it would be a waste of time. However allow me to speculate with the others in this forum about what you said: If i read these two comments together and apply it to the current conversation about the affect of Centre and 16th getting a 'road diet' because of a train one could think that the Greenline has found cost efficiencies with shorter platforms (and other things) that could lead to a cost efficient extension north to 16th.

(Removes tinfoil hat)

Would I accept the trade-off of another phase being built for VE'd initial phase? No, it just doesn't seem worth it in the long run.

Would I accept a VE'd initial phase that allows it to be built under the current budget? Don't really have a choice do I?

I assume the latter is the case, so I guess I just have to accept whatever VE and take my train with a smile on my face.
 
Gotcha.

Regarding green line platform's, they will not be 120-140m anymore. But I will avoid going too much into detail.
Good! Shrink those station boxes. Too bad this is happening after the vehicles were purchased (alas, the 'price' of not one big contract).
 
Extending low floor platforms is at least not as expensive an undertaking as extending high floor platforms. I cant imagine there will be demand for anything over 2 trains for a while anyway with the line mostly serving downtown and industrial. Also this could be a definitive sign that stage 2 is being shelved due to cost.
 
I think it'll be fine as the LRVs themselves are only 42m long
Edmontons Valley Line that just opened only has 90m platforms, I would have assumed the same-ish for Greenline - I am actually surprised to hear they were ever envisioned up to 120 or 140m

100m+ platforms aren’t as common in these new systems. Only when you get into the next tier of design for a higher capacity metro do they seem to get longer again.

If demand is so high that a 90m platform is at capacity, add more frequency. Or upgrade them at a future date - more costly, sure, but it might be decades away (if ever) there’s an advantage of the longer platforms.
 
Last edited:
Edmontons Valley Line that just opened only has 90m platforms, I would have assumed the same-ish for Greenline - I am actually surprised to hear they were ever envisioned up to 120 or 140m

100m+ platforms aren’t as common in these new systems. Only when you get into the next tier of design for a higher capacity metro do they seem to get longer again.

If demand is so high that a 90m platform is at capacity, add more frequency. Or upgrade them at a future date - more costly, sure, but it might be decades away (if ever) there’s an advantage of the longer platforms.
When the studies started pushing platform length up, it should have been a message to change train technology/form. Alas, too late now.

Edit: Calgary's study had max frequency at 3 minutes with the level crossings that exist for the Greenline. I believe Edmonton's had max frequency at 5 minutes due to the plethora of level crossings.
 
Last edited:
Three-cars are probably a design remnant from when Green Line was supposed to be built out all at once and were needed for the predicted opening day ridership from the NC.

Prior to the economic problems of the 2014 oil crash and COVID, NC bus capacity on the Centre Street corridor was already comparable to GL two-car train capacity (of around 6.5 minutes frequency) and NC transit ridership was expected to grow to 7000 trips peak hour at Calgary's current population level and upwards of 10K at 1.5M. 3 minute frequencies with short stations would just be enough but I really wonder if they can maintain it . Did Ottawa's Confederation Line ever use three minute frequencies when it was operating normally?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top