Developer: Calgary Transit
  
Address: Calgary
Category: Transit
Status: Pre-ConstructionCompletion: TBD
Height: ? ft / ? mStoreys: ? storeys
Project Forum 3.5K posts
Real Estate Forum
Follow 4 followingUpload 588 photos
Official WebsiteReport Error


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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 50 79.4%
  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 9 14.3%
  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • Total voters
    63
So the issue with elevated is the slope. I mean, I'm a Nenshi guy but you can always elevate it before getting to 4th Street SE station and go over the CP, isn't it already elevated in Inglewood Ramsay? And you could also just go under the CP tracks.

It's elevated over Blackfoot and 26 Ave station, but essentially comes to grade for Ramsay station (as 12 St already kinda trenches underneath).

It feels like there should be a grade advantage as it crosses the Elbow, but it does not relative to the CP tracks. I think the heavy tracks might even be a meter or so higher than what feels like flat street level running parallel on either 9 Ave or 11 Ave.

The cheapskate way to cross the tracks to EV is to piggyback the 5th/6th St underpass. I believe that was originally planned for 5th but changed to 6th...but the change was likely based on Green Line and/or arena assumptions at the time, which very well may have changed. Actually it's probably because the arena scope killed 5th St out to 5A St, so 6th makes more sense for the road and wouldn't really work for the train.

But I'd way rather an interim terminus in the beltline anyways, as it gets you pretty much as close to 7th Ave as any early crossing in the east would, while keeping your options open for a permanent solution.
 
I Didn’t realize there was an issue with height over the CP tracks. To me elevated seems like a no brainer if underground is too costly.
Also, I’m sure there a solution for getting the height needed. Start the elevation earlier in the Beltline?
 
You could be at the westend height between 4th Street SE and 1st Street SE, well before even 1st Street SW. So you could have an at-grade 4th Street Station, cross 4th Street SE, and be above traffic on Macleod. Sure you lose vehicle access to 3rd Street but honestly does that really matter?

Nenshi is not correct to be saying elevated is off the table.
 
I Didn’t realize there was an issue with height over the CP tracks. To me elevated seems like a no brainer if underground is too costly.
Also, I’m sure there a solution for getting the height needed. Start the elevation earlier in the Beltline?

Here's some interesting info from a 2006 study:
Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 2.26.27 PM.png


So if the CP crossing has to be 12-14 meters you have to roughly triple the above
 
Yeah, that part is confusing to me. Why couldn't the elevation climb start immediately by the Event Centre station? Quick Google Maps distance from 5 ST SE to 1 ST SW gives 1km. He said you would have to start from 17th Ave S to get the required clearance, which would be the distance of ~650m. And he said he preferred the elevated alignment. So what were the issues if that was considered and found to not be feasible? Because if that's still true today, then how in the world is the UCP gonna figure this out with shorter distance to get to Jim Gray's City Hall?
 
Elevated was taken off the table by adjacent land owners, who expressed that the 'tax shift' from downtown businesses to other businesses would be quite bad if their buildings were devalued further by adjacent elevated rail. This was in the 2016-17 context where that was a huge concern for the City. It is not a technical issue.
 
January 2004 Study realized DT was complicated and that a dedicated study was needed
Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 2.45.23 PM.png



but they still came up with a few neat ideas: (can anyone speculate what the different dashed lines might represent?)


Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 2.46.39 PM.png




Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 2.50.38 PM.png






Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 2.51.23 PM.png


The one-way loop on 5th/6th is kinda fun...it's unclear if they intended the DT parts to be underground or not. The idea is dead by the next report, but it's an interesting approach, particularly for crossing Macleods at grade.
Screenshot 2024-09-20 at 2.54.55 PM.png


So that's 2004. Gonna delve into the Feb 2006 report next. I know lots of this stuff has been posted before, but it's interesting to revisit again what "studied to death" actually looked like with the current context
 
Elevated was taken off the table by adjacent land owners, who expressed that the 'tax shift' from downtown businesses to other businesses would be quite bad if their buildings were devalued further by adjacent elevated rail. This was in the 2016-17 context where that was a huge concern for the City. It is not a technical issue.
I've seen estimates of property value declines of up to $160M.


But as this twitter poster notes, given the likely difference in cost today between tunnel and elevated, it would probably be much cheaper just to pay off the property owners for that "loss". And to make up for it, charge an extra Green Line improvement fee on those areas where the property values are supposed to go up.

 
^ You also don't have to pay for the loss. That would be a choice. Unless the property is injured by injurious affection. Which usually is lost of road access, or impacts on structural integrity (or lets say they have a current lease that requires no vibration and the train somehow causes vibration), injurious affection wouldn't apply.

Also if the province is doing the construction, the province isn't subject to the same rule.

Anyways, like you state, the cost is likely so low it would be worth paying it if there was a ruling against the city. Which the odds are low. Not zero. Case law, ingenious lawyers and what not could make it possible
 
Last edited:
I believe that was originally planned for 5th but changed to 6th...but the change was likely based on Green Line and/or arena assumptions at the time, which very well may have changed. Actually it's probably because the arena scope killed 5th St out to 5A St, so 6th makes more sense for the road and wouldn't really work for the train.
It was because the City doesn't own the land for 5th Street, Remington does, and they (Remington) were not willing to part with it.
 
This is all hypothetical too. Wouldn't proximity to a major transit line be a benefit? Especially if your building integrates with the line via a +15. Even loss in tax revenue kind of washes out with the money saved plus increased tax revenue from the properties that would benefit from the line... Underground is obviously better but not so much better that you cannot go elevated and save the money. Also, once over the CP tracks you only need to be high enough to clear 7th Ave and then you can be back at grade. In reality you need to be over 6th, 5th and 4th Aves too but no reason you can't cut off 3rd Ave. Whether you use 1st Street SE, Centre, 1st Street SW, 2nd Street SW.
 
Seems like a fair trade off. The alignment were it would be elevated would have very minimal impact to any established business. 2 Street SW is a dead zone with nothing at all except at Stephen Avenue. And even then, it's only Barbarella/National on one corner. For 10th Ave, only business that would be effected I'd say is Bottlescrew Bill's. But as a bar, and on a developing main street, I think they would be able to adapt. Especially if a train station is next door east of 1 Street.

Truman's soon to be constructed Gallery may not be to fond, but Sunalta Heights is even closer to the causeway, and in this housing market, people aren't going to care as much.
 

Back
Top