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

[darwink]

Enough to pay for the entirety of a subway through downtown.

Hindsight is everything, but if the province had 'interfered' earlier, warning against the not best practice contract model (the split in two) and the governance structure (no greenline board), when the city was making those decisions, everything would have turned out better.

 

[darwink]

I think it's time to skip the downtown portion entirely for the moment. Time to press pause. Perhaps build into the Beltline and use the money saved from the downtown portion to extend to Seton. Focus on hooking up to the Red Line in the Beltline by building a Green Line station as close as possible to a Red Line station. Personally I would build a Green Line station at Macleod Trail. That would mean a 2 or 3 block walk to the 17 Avenue Red Line station with a dedicated protected pedestrian corridor connecting the 2 stations.

But the part of the project that makes it worthwhile and importantly, not make transit worse for everyone, is the delivery of people to the centre of the office tower cluster.

 

[haltcatchfire]

I went to AI... Stretch your imagination and you can see what I was thinking.

View attachment 620249

View attachment 620251

There's no funding for frills.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

There's no funding for frills.

1% has to go to "art"

Calgary to mull province's latest Green Line alignment - LiveWire Calgary

Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek said that the province’s recent handling of the Green Line project announcement has put them in a tight spot in terms of transparency and concern over risk sharing. The mayor, along with Green Line working group members and Couns. Andre Chabot and Peter Demong, said it...

livewirecalgary.com

Back in September, Calgary city council drafted a set of guidelines the new plan would have to meet before it would sign off on a new deal.

That included the feds still helping fund, a commitment to a north-south spine from 160 Avenue N to Seton (nope), a station immediately south of the Bow River to accommodate the spine (nope), a bridge design (nope), connections in the Beltline (yes), use of low-floor cars (yes) and responsibility for delivery and risk for the province (nope).

Mayor Gondek said they would rely heavily on those guidelines as they decide on this new path.

“Just as we were patient for three months with the provincial government while they took their time to come back to the table, and they took over the new alignment for the replacement of the green line, we need them to give us time to understand the costs, the risks and the proposed alignment,” she said.

The city got very little of what it asked for. And even Chabot is throwing his hands up.

Jakob Fushtey, chair of the Calgary Transit Riders Association, said that they’ve reviewed the plan and said are encouraged to see that it resembles what would have been achieved with tunneling. Eliminating tunneling hopefully reduces constructions timelines and risk, he said.

“Regarding the projected $1B+ cost savings, we share others’ skepticism,” wrote Fushtey, in a direct message response.

“Once we factor in delays, additional utility work, and potential Plus 15 integration costs (beyond simply going over them), the actual savings may be less substantial.”

Since this is the option that’s been presented, Fushtey hopes that Calgary city council will unite to support the alignment.

“We can’t let perfect be the enemy of progress – Calgary has already waited too long for the Green Line,” Fushtey said.

Fushtey makes the point I think we're all at, if this is as good as the funding will get us, this is what we need to do.

I'm still confused about the next steps, I guess the city is waiting for the province to answer their questions about cost overuns: Gondek said, "we’re still waiting on the provincial government to state that they will take on the financial risk for this new project." I'm pretty sure Danielle has said they are not taking on any of the financial risk, I guess Gondek wants it on letterhead. So, the question to council seems to be, does council adopt the province's alignment and accept the financial risk of the alignment? Maybe council accepts the study as information and will want to take the break to figure out next steps.

To @darwink's point the council feel like they have impostor syndrome because they can't do what they normally do and act as a open body. They want to go out to the public, hold hearings but honestly what is it worth, they cannot satisfy everyone.

 

[Urb]

If we are moving forward with the A/G option, 10th Ave is the least impactful, as noted by others. I would've liked to see the alignment run deeper south to 12th Avenue, to capture a larger portion of the Beltline population. Certainly not the end of the world. Let's build it!

 

[Surrealplaces]

I'm kind of in that same mode right now. U/G would still be my preferred choice, but I'm okay with elevated. The portions of street that'll be used 10th ave (4th st SE to 2nd st) and 2nd street (10th ave to Eau Claire) have been mostly dead zones, it could be worse.
From a rider's perspective, I've always preferred elevated by having natural light and air, as well as some scenery. If they can fond a way to tie this into the +15 it could be an added bonus.

Getting into even more bonus territory, it would kinda cool if a bike track running all the way from Inglewood to Eau Claire could be run about halfway between the ground and the track.

 

[HudsonA08]

You are replacing the view of a parking lot and train yard with a raised train and getting a stop right outside your door. I don't think the developer here will have any issues with the elevated line here. I would prefer the train to what is there currently.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I went to AI... Stretch your imagination and you can see what I was thinking.

View attachment 620249

View attachment 620251

Yeah this is the sort of thing I had in mind.
I do like your vine idea too but I'm not sure enough sunlight would get down there.
If the line is going to go elevated to save money, the pedestrian realm needs to get some sort of win out of the deal, even if it costs a bit to do right.

 

[Nimbus]

UCP doesn't give a frak about pedestrians. If you're not in a gas guzzling truck you are doing life wrong.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I think it's time to skip the downtown portion entirely for the moment. Time to press pause. Perhaps build into the Beltline and use the money saved from the downtown portion to extend to Seton. Focus on hooking up to the Red Line in the Beltline by building a Green Line station as close as possible to a Red Line station. Personally I would build a Green Line station at Macleod Trail. That would mean a 2 or 3 block walk to the 17 Avenue Red Line station with a dedicated protected pedestrian corridor connecting the 2 stations.

I'm starting to agree, as much as I like the idea of elevated, it really is a tough sell downtown.

The SEtway plan is still viable IMO, keep using the GL row, but run the busses down 10av all the way to sunalta stations with limited stops, and use some of the cost saving to build the ROW all the way to Seton as you suggested.

But the part of the project that makes it worthwhile and importantly, not make transit worse for everyone, is the delivery of people to the centre of the office tower cluster.

Using 10av is not perfect, but I think there are some advantages to adding some stops on the way to sunalta, rather than have those users change to a red or blue train to get to west downtown.

There's also a decent amount of employment in the beltline, and for DT commuters the additional 3 block walk from a 10av stop vs 7av isn't going to break anyone... Just market it as supporting a healthy lifestyle!

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

UCP doesn't give a frak about pedestrians. If you're not in a gas guzzling truck you are doing life wrong.

Perhaps not, but they do seem to care about marketing Calgary as a world class city..

If this isn't going to get done right, it really is better to put it on hold imo

 

[Nimbus]

If they want to market us as a world class city then they should build infrastructure in a world class way, underground.

They are not a serious government.

 

[HudsonA08]

Since the RFP for phase one included the underground to Eau Claire already, it is going to face major scope changes. So, I say they accept the UCP alignment and then start re-design. Send back a crayon drawing to secure funding grants and build it to the Event Centre. You can deal with any cost changes, or adjustments in the future. Just get that money in the bank and start.

They want to discuss risks, and how these will probably make it cost as much as the underground, which I agree with, but don't forget the risks the underground would have seen raising the costs 1-2 billion more than they said it would.

 

[badc0ffee]

I'd rather save tunneling for the red line (shallow tunnel under 8 Ave), and the green line north (into the escarpment and emerging just north of 20 Ave N).

 

[CalgaryTiger]

to sunalta stations with limited stops

the additional 3 block walk from a 10av stop vs 7av isn't going to break anyone

I don't see much point in taking people from east beltline to west beltline and vice versa. I do think that walk will be a deal breaker for many. It seems outrageous to say that but in practice people will not do it.

Since the RFP for phase one included the underground to Eau Claire already, it is going to face major scope changes. So, I say they accept the UCP alignment and then start re-design. Send back a crayon drawing to secure funding grants and build it to the Event Centre. You can deal with any cost changes, or adjustments in the future. Just get that money in the bank and start.

They want to discuss risks, and how these will probably make it cost as much as the underground, which I agree with, but don't forget the risks the underground would have seen raising the costs 1-2 billion more than they said it would.

Scope change is a lot easier than a whole new RFP. I agree, take the money and start 4th to Shepard. Downtown isn't shovel ready so the city can go back to their private partner and turn the crayon drawing into a 60% design. That's 2, maybe 3 years away and 60% gets you to a much more certain funding number that you can take to your public partners. Two years of 4th to Shepard work and you can also let the 60% underground and 60% elevated designs compete on their merits.

When I step back I see this as anything but certain. We've had so many false starts on the Green Line where it was a sure thing until it wasn't. This is just another one of those. Adopt the alignment and then when you have the real numbers give a go or no go.

I'd rather save tunneling for the red line (shallow tunnel under 8 Ave), and the green line north (into the escarpment and emerging just north of 20 Ave N).

With the city redoing Stephen Ave the shallow 8th Ave tunnel is decades away if it every happens. With coming blue and red line extensions, I do wonder what other options exist. Maybe you do tear up 8th, maybe you go deeper than cut and over under 8th. Or may once we're all use to elevated trains downtown the grade separation required for red/blue may come in the form of a elevated blueline down 7th (red line/library tunnel means its easier to grade separate blue at 4th Street SE to 9th Street SW).