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

UrbanWarrior said:
I like option 3 best.
Click to expand...

I would assume that Phase 2 will go North - either option 1 or a shorter North-only extension for political reasons, regardless of the relative merits of the options.

Shepard was an awkward choice for an initial southern terminus ridership-wise, but it had to be done to access the maintenance yard. The McKenzie Towne and Auburn Bay segments are really good value for money because of that — most of the low ridership high cost southern segments are already in Phase 1. But I still would guess that the North councilors will have a better argument that they got the short end of the stick in phase 1 and deserve more in phase 2.
 
Some maps I've found that might show one of the reasons for the north segment's costs going up, as it is normal practice to not run utilities under rail, except for perpendicular crossings. The freshwater pipe under centre street is more than a meter wide under the street. :
178624
:
178625


A major (AER regulated) natural gas line at Centre just south of the bus trap complicates things in a pinch point (I suspect the shape file doesn't show the exact location, just the general one:
178632


Add in sewer and storm water on top of that...

For storm water, there is an outfall into the creek between the Centre St Bridges, that I suspect comes from a line running Centre Street:
178633


Which if it drains things in the watershed that flow towards it, and the storm sewers parallel that huge main are indicative of the outflaws watershed, may mean that outfall drains a fair portion of the NE Nosehill runoff, let alone the neighbourhoods (the blue line in this map is the division between watersheds)
178638

With a split roughly here, with land south/east of roughly the red line draining to that outfall (I don't see any evidence of another outfall sharing the work in the area):
178639


Adds up to Big $$$
 
Last edited:
I think that is the part of the Green Line that already has its right of way reserved... is it not?


Just checked, yes it is. North of Beddington Trail, there is a large ROW in the centre of Centre Street, and between 4 Street and Beddington, there are large boulevards that can be used to expand the road to allow for the laying of tracks. Won't be a big deal cause of the watermain I don't think.
 
North of 64th and south of Beddington Trail there is a significant pinch point, where the roads goes down to two lanes. They will have to take out a full row of houses, and rejig all the utilities in the area.
 
darwink said:
North of 64th and south of Beddington Trail there is a significant pinch point, where the roads goes down to two lanes. They will have to take out a full row of houses, and rejig all the utilities in the area.
Click to expand...

Ohh right, the area between Beddington Drive and Beddington Trail. Well thankfully that stretch is only 300 meters long, and the acquisition of that land could be a good opportunity for some TOD, especially since it is adjacent to a relatively significant retail node already, which will also likely be redeveloped into a mixed use highrise area in the coming decades.
 
Well, you have that, and everything else, it is just knock on effects. Drawing where the line should be without consideration. Pricing things out as designed, instead of having the authority to modify the plan. Putting it not in the median (according to policy since at least 2006) when the city has been protecting the median (presumably by also not putting utilities under it, and instead putting them under the roads). Would the costs be appreciably different in the median, or on the west side of the road instead of the east? Who knows.

What we do know is the north section's costs have rising appreciably, above where they should be for build rail in a corridor without utilities issues. Beyond the sheer scale issues and needing a second maintenance centre, it is the only explanation, unless they've found totally awful ground conditions.
 
Will the Greenline still be on 10th Ave at that location? I thought it was shifting down to 12th Ave by then.
 
Last edited:
I just found out that Ric McIver is the new cabinet minister for Trans & Infrastructure. I seem to recall him being a proponent of the Green Line when he was on council. But the he was in cabinet for the SWRR. Does this appointment bode well for getting additional Green Line funding? Or am I reading too much into it
 
Social Justice said:
I think it'd be political suicide for the UCP to pull funding for the Green line at this point.
Click to expand...

After the last election it has become abundantly clear that Calgary is the swing constituency in Alberta. 13 of 20 cabinet ministers are from Calgary. The most likely outcome is the UCP follows the same funding approach as the NDP on the Green Line. If there is a change I think we are more likely to see further commitments rather than cutbacks to Green Line funding over the next 4 years, especially in the 2022 pre-election announcements.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top