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

[Beltline_B]

There’s no question the city and Green Line team screwed up when they initially budgeted, but at this point even with inflated costs, we need to build it.
We’re a wealthy city of 1.5 million that’s growing rapidly, and densifying heavily in the areas that this line would serve.
For me, I’m not worried about an inflated cost, give me the realistic cost and get the thing built at least to Eau Claire. I’m confident that after we’ll finish the NCLRT later.

 

[outoftheice]

A good review on how we got to where we. The unresolved question, of course, is where do we go from here?

Few concrete details when Calgary locked in $4.5 billion Green Line deal back in 2015 - LiveWire Calgary

Back in 2015, nine years ago today, then-federal Minister of Defence and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, glowed during the announcement of $1.53 billion in Government of Canada cash from the Public Transit Fund to a $4.5 billion Green Line project. Kenney, who was a Conservative Member of...

livewirecalgary.com

 

[trtcttc]

A good review on how we got to where we. The unresolved question, of course, is where do we go from here?

Few concrete details when Calgary locked in $4.5 billion Green Line deal back in 2015 - LiveWire Calgary

Back in 2015, nine years ago today, then-federal Minister of Defence and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, glowed during the announcement of $1.53 billion in Government of Canada cash from the Public Transit Fund to a $4.5 billion Green Line project. Kenney, who was a Conservative Member of...

livewirecalgary.com

The decisions on this project seems so misaligned. They made it low-floor, which should lower infrastructure cost and make the stations smaller/more integrated with the street. Then they decide to tunnel the downtown? Cities are not building overground subways, but this isn't a subway, it's a low floor LRT. If cities like Toronto and London can run at-grade streetcar/LRT networks, I fail to see why we must tunnel it. If anything, I'd prefer they build the street level, barebones Green Line, then spend the money to tunnel 7th Ave if congestion is really becoming a problem (I suspect it won't be, our streets are wide enough that losing a couple lanes for an LRT won't make a difference).

 

[darwink]

The decisions on this project seems so misaligned. They made it low-floor, which should lower infrastructure cost and make the stations smaller/more integrated with the street. Then they decide to tunnel the downtown? Cities are not building overground subways, but this isn't a subway, it's a low floor LRT. If cities like Toronto and London can run at-grade streetcar/LRT networks, I fail to see why we must tunnel it. If anything, I'd prefer they build the street level, barebones Green Line, then spend the money to tunnel 7th Ave if congestion is really becoming a problem (I suspect it won't be, our streets are wide enough that losing a couple lanes for an LRT won't make a difference).

The team of councillors that went to seattle liked the urban section there. Now seattle is studying removing the urban section to increase speeds and reduce conflicts.

Aesthetics over performance, north amercian transit was ever thus.

 

[Red Star]

The decisions on this project seems so misaligned. They made it low-floor, which should lower infrastructure cost and make the stations smaller/more integrated with the street. Then they decide to tunnel the downtown? Cities are not building overground subways, but this isn't a subway, it's a low floor LRT. If cities like Toronto and London can run at-grade streetcar/LRT networks, I fail to see why we must tunnel it. If anything, I'd prefer they build the street level, barebones Green Line, then spend the money to tunnel 7th Ave if congestion is really becoming a problem (I suspect it won't be, our streets are wide enough that losing a couple lanes for an LRT won't make a difference).

Ideally yes. But it's advantageous to future proof our transit system for the next 100 years. I think a surface station at Eau Claire and a surface station at 4th street S.E. would be a decent compromise.

Construction should have commenced in 2018. It's very disappointing that it's taken this long. Build phase 1 from Shepard -> 4th street it's the easiest and cheapest section to build.

 

[darwink]

Ideally yes. But it's advantageous to future proof our transit system for the next 100 years. I think a surface station at Eau Claire and a surface station at 4th street S.E. would be a decent compromise.

Construction should have commenced in 2018. It's very disappointing that it's taken this long. Build phase 1 from Shepard -> 4th street it's the easiest and cheapest section to build.

4th St SE is more than a kilometre from the office core. More than half a km to other LRT. Even the minimal ridership this would generate would overburden the free fare zone, making service much worse for all three lines.

There is a reason this was rejected time and time again. It is only ‘close’ in a car.

 

[trtcttc]

Ideally yes. But it's advantageous to future proof our transit system for the next 100 years. I think a surface station at Eau Claire and a surface station at 4th street S.E. would be a decent compromise.

Construction should have commenced in 2018. It's very disappointing that it's taken this long. Build phase 1 from Shepard -> 4th street it's the easiest and cheapest section to build.

I hear this future proofing argument a lot and I think it partially comes from 7th ave not being tunneled. Edmonton chose to tunnel the central city portion, and sure they future proofed, but it cost them significant transit expansion and arguably the tunneling wasn't even necessary.

This is also a low floor LRT, and one of its core advantages is street level boarding that doesn't require significant station infrastructure, with the downside being lower passenger limits which in reality it does not come close to the capacity limits because people congregate by the doors since they don't want to be stuck in that narrow walkway between wheel wells. They just rebuilt Victoria Park station because they wanted the integrated street level experience instead of a disconnected station. Now, to save 2 lanes of traffic, we're building a disconnected underground station for the Green Line Stampede Park/Event Centre station and risking the entire viability of the project for these two lanes of roadway.

 

[darwink]

Now, to save 2 lanes of traffic, we're building a disconnected underground station for the Green Line Stampede Park/Event Centre station and risking the entire viability of the project for these two lanes of roadway.

To save the crossing of the Macleod couplet.

 

[ahuch]

To save the crossing of the Macleod couplet.

I think there's also the piece of making transit SAVE people time to encourage use. There are countless vehicle/train accidents a year on 7th ave and delays due to vehicle interactions/blocked intersections/etc.

 

[FCC1982]

^Exactly - it needs to be tunnelled downtown.

 

[Red Star]

I hear this future proofing argument a lot and I think it partially comes from 7th ave not being tunneled. Edmonton chose to tunnel the central city portion, and sure they future proofed, but it cost them significant transit expansion and arguably the tunneling wasn't even necessary.

This is also a low floor LRT, and one of its core advantages is street level boarding that doesn't require significant station infrastructure, with the downside being lower passenger limits which in reality it does not come close to the capacity limits because people congregate by the doors since they don't want to be stuck in that narrow walkway between wheel wells. They just rebuilt Victoria Park station because they wanted the integrated street level experience instead of a disconnected station. Now, to save 2 lanes of traffic, we're building a disconnected underground station for the Green Line Stampede Park/Event Centre station and risking the entire viability of the project for these two lanes of roadway.

Good points. I'm partially sold on the idea. However, I have a few questions to ask you regarding a surface run train through downtown:

1. How do you propose the Greenline crosses the CP tracks?
2. Do you think there would be excess congestion and increased travel times having three train lines intersect at 7th Ave and 2nd street?
3. N-S city blocks are shorter than E-W blocks. They are about 80m in length. Do you think this length limits the Greenline capacity?
4. Do you think the Greenline crossing all those intersections would increase travel time?

 

[darwink]

Elevated saves most of the money while not introducing new problems.

Anyways, we will see if there is even any need really soon!

 

[MichaelS]

Take it for what it is worth...:

Nelson: Continuous chaos consumes city council

Little by little Calgary is being consumed by chaos. It was simply irritating at first but now it has become a threat to the city's future

calgaryherald.com

From the column:
The original plan for this transit line was to run it from the far north to the deep south — 44 kilometres of track with 24 stations for $4.6 billion, to be shared equally by three levels of government. That pipedream was kyboshed long ago. Subsequently, we were told to welcome a slimmed-down Phase 1, costing $5.5 billion and covering a 20-kilometre route from Eau Claire to Shepard with 13 stations.

But don’t get too excited at the prospect of jumping aboard one of those trains any time soon. Rumours are now flying that the line will be slimmed down yet again, running only from Eau Claire to Ogden at a head-shaking cost of $8 billion. We should find out within weeks.
.

 

[Albertasaurus]

We definitely need the line to be either buried or elevated downtown. The level of congestion with all 3 lines running along the surface through downtown would be untenable. As it is I wonder how long it will be before there's pressure to bury the red and green line ROW as well.

 

[Albertasaurus]

Take it for what it is worth...:

Nelson: Continuous chaos consumes city council

Little by little Calgary is being consumed by chaos. It was simply irritating at first but now it has become a threat to the city's future

calgaryherald.com

From the column:
The original plan for this transit line was to run it from the far north to the deep south — 44 kilometres of track with 24 stations for $4.6 billion, to be shared equally by three levels of government. That pipedream was kyboshed long ago. Subsequently, we were told to welcome a slimmed-down Phase 1, costing $5.5 billion and covering a 20-kilometre route from Eau Claire to Shepard with 13 stations.

But don’t get too excited at the prospect of jumping aboard one of those trains any time soon. Rumours are now flying that the line will be slimmed down yet again, running only from Eau Claire to Ogden at a head-shaking cost of $8 billion. We should find out within weeks.
.

Well, Nelson has been around for a long time and he has to have gotten the $8 billion figure from somewhere, I wonder if someone on Council leaked it to him? I must admit, if the above is true is it really worth $8 billion for a line that only goes to Ogden? That's a huge cost to only serve a few neighbourhoods. Wasn't the main point of Ph 1 to get people from the populous and growing SE suburbs to downtown quickly?

I'm very pro transit but at some point would abandoning this mess and refocusing on an airport rail link make more sense?