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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 8 72.7%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Total voters
    11
I would love to see a close to 1:1 copy of the Montgomery Bowness Road project. The area right in front of the station has potential, especially with the triangle lot that could have a cool flatiron style building. I hope when the time comes the city has a good vision of what to do with that area to make it nice to walk around.

1713593956085.png
 
Just wondering, but why was a tunnel chosen for the downtown corridor , and not an elevated track? The costs have ballooned because of it, and if they chose elevated track, then a lot more of the Green Line would have been able to built in phase 1.
 
Dārayavauš said:
Just wondering, but why was a tunnel chosen for the downtown corridor , and not an elevated track? The costs have ballooned because of it, and if they chose elevated track, then a lot more of the Green Line would have been able to built in phase 1.
Click to expand...
The option was dismissed entirely after the owners of towers downtown raised concerns. There are difficulties of course with elevated, the primary being the height needed to cross over the CPR (14 meters over top of rail is what the crossing at Sunalta is)
 
Hey everyone first time poster,

We are all awaiting for the June Green Line Budget Update.

I know cutting Eau Claire makes financial sense.

But is the City forced to play their hand because of the scheduled demolition?

Realistically the southeast will get extended to its real ridership bases before we see the North Central start.

I personally think the North Central line should be underground until 64th and allow for rezoning along the corridor to create our own high density north south corridor.
 
Is cutting Eau Claire Station even a possibility in this update? I haven’t heard that talked about anywhere at any point in this process. I would support it if it meant the first phase was extended clear through to Seton.

Agreed regarding the NC line.
 
I think they'll just cut the river crossing, that should free up enough money to get past McKenzie Towne (and be enough controversy for the time being). I don't think the Eau Claire station will be touched unless the tunneling costs goes disastrously over-budget.

Though the longer the NC section gets pushed back, the more likely I think it'll get cancelled altogether rather than get the significant funding increases needed to tunnel all the way to 64th. They already couldn't afford to tunnel to 16th.
 
Last edited:
accord1999 said:
Though the longer the NC section gets pushed back, the more likely I think it'll get cancelled altogether rather than get the significant funding increases needed to tunnel all the way to 64th. They already couldn't afford to tunnel to 16th.
Click to expand...
So, right back to where our long term LRT plans were prior to Naheed Nenshi being elected, just took over a decade and a billion dollars to get there.
 
You're right that the North Central leg of the Green Line is on ice for decade(s). Although, with a Nenshi government in Edmonton the situation could change quickly.
If it is not happening, then they should make Centre street high quality, segregated BRT right away. And make the bridge an exclusive BRT transit way.
 
ahuch said:
Apparently that's not entirely safe either.

globalnews.ca

Province threatens Green Line funding in letter to Calgary mayor - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

In a letter to Calgary's mayor, the province said its committed funding is contingent on the Green Line integrating with the future passenger rail master plan.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...
It's a good point by the mayor here - like duh, city and regional transit systems need to connect, but threatening to pull funding if the city's system doesn't connect to a master plan that the Province announced like 2 weeks ago on the back of a napkin and won't be completed until 2025 is obviously a bit tricky for a project as advanced in design as the Greenline. Seems like mostly political jockeying and posturing from the province here to set up some political scoring for when the funding gap is announced in June (?).

If it's more than just posturing and politics, changes to the design at this stage would trigger more delays and further scope/cost changes, which the province can then point to the city and say, "see told you it's overbudget" even if the delays and scope changes were caused by their multiple reviews and revisions they required.
 
ahuch said:
Apparently that's not entirely safe either.

globalnews.ca

Province threatens Green Line funding in letter to Calgary mayor - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

In a letter to Calgary's mayor, the province said its committed funding is contingent on the Green Line integrating with the future passenger rail master plan.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...
The provincial plan part is a nothing burger.

The cost problem, and the geology driving risk which drives the cost problem, is a known known.

So whatever.

The city knew the risk, that is why the phasing was changed to deliver the downtown tunnel with the main contract, instead of on its own, to de-risk while maintaining a mostly fixed cost contract.

If it blows up in the city's face after knowing the risks for 7+ years, that is on the various Councils and the various project heads who couldn't get off the path dependency set by decisions with no accounting for risk and costs in the 2015-17 period.
 
John Wick said:
You're right that the North Central leg of the Green Line is on ice for decade(s). Although, with a Nenshi government in Edmonton the situation could change quickly.
If it is not happening, then they should make Centre street high quality, segregated BRT right away. And make the bridge an exclusive BRT transit way.
Click to expand...
Could be the case for sure. When Notley was premier she had put forth the idea of using the carbon tax to pay for the Green Line, and the idea could come back again with the NDPs in office.
 
The Smith government has indicated that no more money from provincial coffers will be used for the Green Line, including cost overruns. So she indicated that changes to the scope may need to be made. But didn’t the province make their funding commitment years ago on the condition that the plan couldn’t be changed? And now that’s okay? This would make the proponents of the downtown elevated portion happy, but piss off all the people/businesses that rejected that option in the first place.

In addition, she wants to have the Green Line plan attached to the regional rail plan. What are the pros and cons of this directive?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top