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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 9 75.0%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
I still think connecting via the blue line is fine IMO. Going from the YVR to Waterfront is ~30min. Copenhagen airport is like ~17min with the new line, but used to be like 25-30min to Kongens Nytorv (what i'd consider central). If we could get blue line service from YYC to downtown inside of ~35min, i think that is a pretty reasonable proposition considering the distance travelled and keeping the costs low for the project.

I don't imagine we would have the kind of ridership to have a YYZ UP Express style service here. Also lots of the people that work at the airport live in the NE and it would be a useful commuter link for workers going to and from YYC, regularly.

However you're not wrong about the frequency constraints.
 
Last edited:
Calgcouver said:
keeping the costs low for the project
Click to expand...
I don't think it keeps the cost low either. It is still 6km of track (closing in on comparable to the entire west LRT), with two big flyovers, one maybe two elevated stations, a lot of grade separation (likely finishing the Airport trail interchanges). 6km also requires a good number of vehicles to service unless you introduce the complication of short-turning.

I get how it might feel more economical in the gut. It looks so close on a map!
 
Kinda crazy that it would actually be closer to connect to the Green Line at just over 5kms. Not necessarily easier or cheaper of course.
 
Id still prefer the valley route, instead of connecting to the blue, which as @darwink mentioned wont be much, if at all cheaper. Valley is a bit more "line ready", and you could add a beddington and mcknight stop along the way...NO this isn't a green line this or that discussion, but it does unlock more of the city from an LRT perspective than going under the runway. It really isn't that much diff than Heritage/Anderson/Southland, most of the riders would park/ride or bus there
 
Tothewest said:
you could add a beddington and mcknight stop along the way
Click to expand...
Maybe for a regional service but not the airport. IMO that needs to go right downtown or have one stop between the airport and downtown. If you can get downtown in 10-15 minutes that is honestly more convenient than a cab or organizing a ride. Plus I like the idea of a single seat to Banff.
 
Calgcouver said:
I still think connecting via the blue line is fine IMO. Going from the YVR to Waterfront is ~30min. Copenhagen airport is like ~17min with the new line, but used to be like 25-30min to Kongens Nytorv (what i'd consider central). If we could get blue line service from YYC to downtown inside of ~35min, i think that is a pretty reasonable proposition considering the distance travelled and keeping the costs low for the project.

I don't imagine we would have the kind of ridership to have a YYZ UP Express style service here. Also lots of the people that work at the airport live in the NE and it would be a useful commuter link for workers going to and from YYC, regularly.

However you're not wrong about the frequency constraints.
Click to expand...

Spending a lot of money to provide service that's on par with an existing option isn't a great deal in my opinion.

I do get the argument about providing access for employees though, and that why ultimately I think it would be best to have both LRT and HSR access to YYC.

HSR to provide a frequent high speed nonstop link to DT, and LRT to provide access for workers and airport users in the north side. When it does come time for the second link, might as well use LRT to bridge from blue line all the way to green and really maximize the network effect.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Maybe for a regional service but not the airport. IMO that needs to go right downtown or have one stop between the airport and downtown. If you can get downtown in 10-15 minutes that is honestly more convenient than a cab or organizing a ride. Plus I like the idea of a single seat to Banff.
Click to expand...

It might not be feasible with the initial Banff route, but ultimately with a HSR link it would be great to have a smaller DT/YYC train running every 15 minutes. That would really nail the cab coffin closed!

But for the initial proposal, agree that the single seat from YYC to Banff is huge, not just for tourist convenience, but for restarting rail culture locally.

I imagine there are many Albertans who have never been on a non-LRT train in their lives, so having the convenience factor maximized would go a long way to justifying the expense of the project in peoples minds, and help make them more supportive of future rail projects
 
This happened about 1100 meters by foot from the Millican station (750m as the crow flies):
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2024/10/05/calgary-police-woman-crossing-street-killed/

Tragic. It illustrates the chicken/egg problem with transit in these kind of areas. This intersection sucks. It's had an MUP since at least 2009, but never been linked with a painted crosswalk (and the next ~8 crosswalks along this MUP to the east are moderately-heavily faded). The N-S crosswalk to grass where I suspect this happened had paint that looked a little worn on the 2009 streetview (kinda surprised its visible at all today)

Screenshot 2024-10-05 at 2.04.28 PM.png


An abundance of these examples is inevitable in any scenario (LRT or BRT or no Green Line) and its going to take decades to make meaningful progress. Successful outcomes with new transit means dumping hundreds of additional active users into these situations (though I'm skeptical these challenges were sufficiently considered in ridership projections).

I'd suggest it's a strong argument in favour of mode progression, where all infrastructure would evolve naturally in relation to each other. Maybe an LRT would mean an unprecedented blitz to improve things within the catchment areas, but that comes with opportunity cost to mobility improvements in the rest of the city.

No easy answers here and I'm not sure if we have prioritization for mobility upgrades right or wrong, but there is a helluva lot needed
 
lemongrab said:
This happened about 1100 meters by foot from the Millican station (750m as the crow flies):
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2024/10/05/calgary-police-woman-crossing-street-killed/

Tragic. It illustrates the chicken/egg problem with transit in these kind of areas. This intersection sucks. It's had an MUP since at least 2009, but never been linked with a painted crosswalk (and the next ~8 crosswalks along this MUP to the east are moderately-heavily faded). The N-S crosswalk to grass where I suspect this happened had paint that looked a little worn on the 2009 streetview (kinda surprised its visible at all today)

View attachment 601842

An abundance of these examples is inevitable in any scenario (LRT or BRT or no Green Line) and its going to take decades to make meaningful progress. Successful outcomes with new transit means dumping hundreds of additional active users into these situations (though I'm skeptical these challenges were sufficiently considered in ridership projections).

I'd suggest it's a strong argument in favour of mode progression, where all infrastructure would evolve naturally in relation to each other. Maybe an LRT would mean an unprecedented blitz to improve things within the catchment areas, but that comes with opportunity cost to mobility improvements in the rest of the city.

No easy answers here and I'm not sure if we have prioritization for mobility upgrades right or wrong, but there is a helluva lot needed
Click to expand...
I don't mean to sound insensitive, a tragedy for sure....but how does it have anything to do with transit? The person crossed an uncontrolled intersection in an industrial park, in the dark, where a controlled access exists 1 block to the east....
 
Tothewest said:
I don't mean to sound insensitive, a tragedy for sure....but how does it have anything to do with transit? The person crossed an uncontrolled intersection in an industrial park, in the dark, where a controlled access exists 1 block to the east....
Click to expand...
I think it's because we use mega transit projects to justify every day upgrades to places that are lacking. But we leave them lacking otherwise. So not directly related but I get the link.
 
Tothewest said:
I don't mean to sound insensitive, a tragedy for sure....but how does it have anything to do with transit? The person crossed an uncontrolled intersection in an industrial park, in the dark, where a controlled access exists 1 block to the east....
Click to expand...
Firstly, you're suggesting a 270 meter detour, half of which is poorly lit with no sidewalk at all and requires you to walk right beside the curb if you want it to be remotely flat. And then you have to hope that the beg button actually works and that drivers still see you.

It's relevant because transit creates a lot of pedestrians who have to walk to/from stations...Let's look at walking from Highfield Station:

East-north = 200 meters before sidewalks disappear entirely
East-east = 150 meters
East-south = sidewalk is contiguous after you cross twice at a signalled intersection, where the fairly new ramps don't actually align with the crosswalks

Screenshot 2024-10-06 at 9.38.12 AM.png



The other option is to head southwest with a decent MUP up a steep hill, that also branches onto 12th St. But off the main drags you're very likely to run out of infrastructure:

First opportunity to turn north has a 100m gap with no sidewalk. First chance to turn south has no sidewalks at all. No sidewalks or crosswalks if you want to head east off 12th St to any of the 25+ employers in a big crescent there.


There is risk every time active modes interact with vehicles, even with the best possible infrastructure design. We know the risk is way higher in these industrial areas. GL means more spins of the roulette wheel. It's not a reason to not build it, but its worthy of discussion.

A question I have is: would the increase in pedestrians in these areas legitimately bump it higher in the priorities queue for mobility upgrades? Depends on the criteria. It should definitely be a priority to add ~270 meters of sidewalk (crossing 5 driveways and needing 2 ramps at 34 Ave) to connect the existing sidewalks on Ogden Rd between Highfield and 34 Ave. But there are also still hundreds of straight curbs at intersections/amenity access points in post-war neighbourhoods that are being gradually chipped away at. Could we do a dozen more for the same cost as the Ogden Rd project? Which offers better value? I'm probably an enigmatic anecdote, but the state of sidewalks was a major factor for me to purchase a house on the low density west side of Sarcee Tr instead of a higher density infill to the east.
 
And the Province gets to ride in as the white knight, saving the Green Line.....although they cancelled their funding with zero thought to ongoing contracts/works or future impacts their 'review' would result in.
They should get zero praise for this continuing.
Good work on the city side for pressuring the Prov to see what a cluster they had created and getting them to the table to continue this section.

Just shambolic that any of this needed to happen. The city and Prov could have completed all this behind closed doors without the circus of the last month and made the same damned announcement.
Just another example of the Prov making decisions depending on what side of the bed they woke up on and then seeing the trouble it's going to cause, immediately flip flopping ...just an utter travesty.

If I'm a contractor on the 4th to Sheppard section, money up front please..in full.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top