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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 57 69.5%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 22 26.8%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Total voters
    82
Golfing guy said:
Can’t they cut’n cover through downtown? Has to be cheaper than a boring machine
Click to expand...
They can, but you'd need to close roads, and I think the property owners would hate that even more. The station boxes would be hard enough. The ground under 2nd street is worse than most of Calgary's downtown pretty bad soil conditions. Wetter, not continuous layers. The Bankers Hall pit collapsed due to the bad conditions, and it only skirted the worst of it.
 
trtcttc said:
Even if the "expensive" downtown part is built, it would've remained a line to no where for at least a decade without the funds to extend it North or South.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a line to nowhere. It serves Inglewood, Quarry Park, and some extensive future TOD at South Hill. Highfield has jobs nearby, and Douglas Glen is in an established residential area. Ogden may well redevelop because of the green line.

Not every station is Lynnwood.

Golfing guy said:
Can’t they cut’n cover through downtown? Has to be cheaper than a boring machine
Click to expand...

You have to get under the CPKC tracks, and several existing underpasses under those tracks.
 
badc0ffee said:
I don't think it's a line to nowhere. It serves Inglewood, Quarry Park, and some extensive future TOD at South Hill. Highfield has jobs nearby, and Douglas Glen is in an established residential area. Ogden may well redevelop because of the green line.

Not every station is Lynnwood.



You have to get under the CPKC tracks, and several existing underpasses under those tracks.
Click to expand...
Maybe line to nowhere was a little harsh, but it's far from the benefits and promise of the Greenline if it only served those areas. Between building that and the SE portion, the SE line would serve many more people.
 
darwink said:
It was at capacity with 4 car trains before the pandemic.
Click to expand...

You can runs trains more often. More than 10 years ago there was talk about building all the stations to a 5-car capacity. That's no longer on the table at the moment but buying more trains can be.
 
kora said:
You can runs trains more often. More than 10 years ago there was talk about building all the stations to a 5-car capacity. That's no longer on the table at the moment but buying more trains can be.
Click to expand...
You could run them much much faster with an 8 Ave subway. It would be shame to spend a few years tearing up Stephen Ave to do it though...(wait a minute - we're doing that anyway!)
 
kora said:
You can runs trains more often. More than 10 years ago there was talk about building all the stations to a 5-car capacity. That's no longer on the table at the moment but buying more trains can be.
Click to expand...
7th is at capacity at rush, you can't run more trains.

Earlier technical analysis was that with 5 car trains, the surface crossing at heritage starts to fail in a major way. Let alone downtown (would have to get our some measurements to see which blocks can support a 5 car station)
 
I really feel that we need to look at a downtown tunnel for the blue and red lines sooner rather than later. Our LRT system has ridership levels that are 10X that of many US systems, and exceeds that of some subway systems (like Atlanta's). I take the train through downtown most days, and it's slow going at rush hour...
 
Albertasaurus said:
I really feel that we need to look at a downtown tunnel for the blue and red lines sooner rather than later. Our LRT system has ridership levels that are 10X that of many US systems, and exceeds that of some subway systems (like Atlanta's). I take the train through downtown most days, and it's slow going at rush hour...
Click to expand...
When the greenline was prioritized, it enabled the red line tunnel to be pushed back. The green line tunnel was seen as a cheaper proposition than the red line tunnel (much shorter length, fewer stations), and if you need grade separation for the greenline to run on the recommended alignment to serve the centre of office developments anyways, it makes sense to do.
 
darwink said:
When the greenline was prioritized, it enabled the red line tunnel to be pushed back. The green line tunnel was seen as a cheaper proposition than the red line tunnel (much shorter length, fewer stations), and if you need grade separation for the greenline to run on the recommended alignment to serve the centre of office developments anyways, it makes sense to do.
Click to expand...
The fact that a GL tunnel is seen to be cheaper than red/blue tunnel is rather scary considering its cost would have been well into the billions...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top