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

Year after year it becomes clear this thing has been cursed from the get-go.

by the time this line gets full build-out Calgary will probably be 2.5 million people and the low-floor tram design will be way overcapacity

Should just throw in the towel and regroup to build a REM-like light metro instead, even if it can only go to like Inglewood under current funding.
 
John Wick said:
The more Green Line budget increases and the more political it becomes I'm starting to think the way forward is to split the line. Green Line south, Seton to Eau Claire (as planned; no changes) and then a Green Line north (with a new name obviously) straight down a transit only Centre Street Bridge with a terminus at Chinatown.
The biggest cost is the tunneling under the river/new bridge over the river and underground stations. Just remove that. I'd imagine that the cost of strengthening the Centre Street Bridge is a fraction of the current plan.
Ideally, yes one continuous line is better but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...
In 2020, the Green Line released a report on several possible alignments that could be selected after the original 2017 plan was no longer feasible. Despite its obvious bias towards the current plan (A2), I'd have to say that the plan closest to your idea (C2) was the better choice. For around 15% higher capital cost, you get a second usable LRT line that will more than double daily ridership compared to A2.

Green Line Committee - June 01, 2020

pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
1717412810762.png


1717412447376.png
 
John Wick said:
The more Green Line budget increases and the more political it becomes I'm starting to think the way forward is to split the line. Green Line south, Seton to Eau Claire (as planned; no changes) and then a Green Line north (with a new name obviously) straight down a transit only Centre Street Bridge with a terminus at Chinatown.
The biggest cost is the tunneling under the river/new bridge over the river and underground stations. Just remove that. I'd imagine that the cost of strengthening the Centre Street Bridge is a fraction of the current plan.
Ideally, yes one continuous line is better but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...
The tunnel by bankers hall is the risky expensive bit. The expensive add on of two underground Beltline stations including one needing to serve a surge capacity for an arena. The bridge is not the problem here.
 
accord1999 said:
In 2020, the Green Line released a report on several possible alignments that could be selected after the original 2017 plan was no longer feasible. Despite its obvious bias towards the current plan (A2), I'd have to say that the plan closest to your idea (C2) was the better choice. For around 15% higher capital cost, you get a second usable LRT line that will more than double daily ridership compared to A2.

Green Line Committee - June 01, 2020

pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
View attachment 569068

View attachment 569067
Click to expand...

Can anyone explain why the A option 'North' costs are only $6M while the other options are significantly higher?

My guess would be the for A that is simply the LRT OPEX north of 7 ave (ignoring bussing costs further north on Centre)? While the North BRT options probably aren't terribly different from current OPEX costs on those lines? Meanwhile the South LRT side presumably excludes the costs for feeder busses? It feels like a selectively narrow depiction of the options.
 
lemongrab said:
Can anyone explain why the A option 'North' costs are only $6M while the other options are significantly higher?

My guess would be the for A that is simply the LRT OPEX north of 7 ave (ignoring bussing costs further north on Centre)? While the North BRT options probably aren't terribly different from current OPEX costs on those lines? Meanwhile the South LRT side presumably excludes the costs for feeder busses? It feels like a selectively narrow depiction of the options.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that's exactly how they come up with those numbers. But in other tables they still count the North BRT for ridership and catchment areas for A2 despite not including their OpEx costs while C2's number appear to just be for 64th-Shepard. Hence why I mentioned the bias, they had to fiddle with the numbers to make A2 look good.
 
whatchyyc said:
Revamped Green Line website went live today

Green Line LRT | Home

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

001_4SS_Exterior_A%20copy.jpg

View attachment 570224
View attachment 570225
View attachment 570226
View attachment 570227
View attachment 570228
View attachment 570229
Click to expand...
Looks neat!

I know this isn't the main source of cost overruns on a project this scale, but the streak of making the roofs of all public buildings weird and curvy for no reason continues. I am starting to think our city's design community has lost the knowledge of how to even build a normal roof on a public building lol. It's like Roman concrete or Damascus steel in the middle ages - a mythical technology from a distant past :)
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
Year after year it becomes clear this thing has been cursed from the get-go.

by the time this line gets full build-out Calgary will probably be 2.5 million people and the low-floor tram design will be way overcapacity

Should just throw in the towel and regroup to build a REM-like light metro instead, even if it can only go to like Inglewood under current funding.
Click to expand...
The Red Line will likely need capacity upgrades far earlier than will the Green. It is a major miss not roughing in an underground Red Line interchange station while tunneling for the Green Line.
 
whatchyyc said:
Revamped Green Line website went live today

Green Line LRT | Home

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca
Click to expand...
Not sure if its been specified before. But they've now stated that the tunnel will be built cut and cover between 7th ave and Eau Claire, and from the 4th Street station to the elbow. Curious how much of a disruption that will be to downtown cutting most of the way across north-south wise. The rest of the tunnel will use TBMs.
 
CBBarnett said:
I know this isn't the main source of cost overruns on a project this scale, but the streak of making the roofs of all public buildings weird and curvy for no reason continues. I am starting to think our city's design community has lost the knowledge of how to even build a normal roof on a public building lol. It's like Roman concrete or Damascus steel in the middle ages - a mythical technology from a distant past :)
Click to expand...
You're not inspired by their distinctive flowing forms based on a chinook cloud arch?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top