Calgary

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

DougB

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
57
Location
On the Beach
The Deerfoot/Nose Creek option is a waste of time. Might as well just run a bunch of busses from Beddington Trail down the Deerfoot to downtown. It doesn't do anything but get people from the far north into the core, with no chance at any decent TODs.
Unless the Heather Glen and Winston golf courses and Spring Gardens City of Calgary sites could be redeveloped.
 

Patrick.1980

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
277
Reaction score
262
Unless the Heather Glen and Winston golf courses and Spring Gardens City of Calgary sites could be redeveloped.
You could develop them and it would be an improvement, but the locations limit any real TOD potential. They are cut off from being walkable anywhere. TODs built along a centre street route have much better potential, and would be far easier to develop.
 

MichaelS

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
768
Reaction score
1,511
You could develop them and it would be an improvement, but the locations limit any real TOD potential. They are cut off from being walkable anywhere. TODs built along a centre street route have much better potential, and would be far easier to develop.
Easy may be optimistic. Land assemblies, constant NIMBYism, will make it very challenging.
 

Patrick.1980

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
277
Reaction score
262
Easy may be optimistic. Land assemblies, constant NIMBYism, will make it very challenging.
For sure, I just mean in comparison to buying out those golf courses and developing a master plan for them, it would be easier to let individual projects happen on their own.
The areas around stations along Centre Street would be a slow organic growth with projects getting bigger as time goes on. We would have to be patient, but we'd be starting at a higher bar having established populations, with a grid street layout and every time a project is added, the bar only gets higher.
 

Cowtown

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
755
Reaction score
657
I'm not sure it would be far easier. The TOD's would be far better, but developing some large lots in areas where there is no population might actually be the easier route. That said, The TOD's in those location would suck, whereas the TOD's along Centre Street have potential to be textbook examples of how to do one.

You could develop them and it would be an improvement, but the locations limit any real TOD potential. They are cut off from being walkable anywhere. TODs built along a centre street route have much better potential, and would be far easier to develop.
 

O-tac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
105
Reaction score
131
Location
Laval's basement
Is there a vote this week on this? I read some of Evan Woolley's comments and his motion to stop the whole thing and I am seething. His dismissal of the SE portion as only servicing a maintenance shed is ridiculous. By that logic Anderson station was a useless line that only serviced a maintenance facility for 25 years. He completely leaves out Quarry Park and all the SE communities that would funnel into the line.

How is it responsible government to say "I would rather no lrt than an imperfect one". Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about cost cutting measures, but to throw a tantrum like this in the 11th hour after a decade of study and deliberation is irresponsible and jeopardizes the entire project. His approach is a big FU to the rest of the city.
 
Last edited:

MichaelS

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
Messages
768
Reaction score
1,511
They will be debating Councillor Wooley's motion at Council today (or might not get to it until tomorrow).
 

accord1999

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
7
By that logic Anderson station was a useless line that only serviced a maintenance facility for 25 years.
But the South line had high ridership to begin with. It would be more comparable if 40 years ago, the NE line was built first, all the way to Oliver Bowen while the South waited. And what kind of ridership do you think a SE line that starts at Shepard and ends at 4 Street SE with no downtown connection will have.

How is it responsible government to say "I would rather no lrt than an imperfect one".
If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now.

Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about cost cutting measures, but to throw a tantrum like this in the 11th hour after a decade of study and deliberation
Given how much the Green Line has now gone over budget, perhaps those years of study and deliberation weren't worth very much. And if you go back to 2015, important reasons for building the Green Line now (high ridership from NC commuters) and for skipping BRT transit way (waste of money since NC ridership will soon exceed capacity of BRT) have been completely forgotten.

is irresponsible and jeopardizes the entire project.
The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.
 

O-tac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
105
Reaction score
131
Location
Laval's basement
But the South line had high ridership to begin with. It would be more comparable if 40 years ago, the NE line was built first, all the way to Oliver Bowen while the South waited. And what kind of ridership do you think a SE line that starts at Shepard and ends at 4 Street SE with no downtown connection will have.


If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now.


Given how much the Green Line has now gone over budget, perhaps those years of study and deliberation weren't worth very much. And if you go back to 2015, important reasons for building the Green Line now (high ridership from NC commuters) and for skipping BRT transit way (waste of money since NC ridership will soon exceed capacity of BRT) have been completely forgotten.


The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.
The point is to get shovels in the ground on the decided SE portion, figure out DT and build the DT section concurrently with the SE section. At least in the meantime you would get it started on the easiest portion. And yes you would get lots of ridership at Shepard. New Brighton and Copperfield are nearby and feeder buses would connect everything south to Seton.

Also let’s not ignore the fact that the SE industrial parks employ more people than DT.

I can’t help but notice you are a new member. Is this Evan?
 

Cowtown

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
755
Reaction score
657
Maybe better to have BRT right now, but to me the Green Line seems like a better to option for the long term. It probably will be less efficient and more costly upfront, but 30 years from now will be glad that we did it now. My two cents.
If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now


The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.
 

accord1999

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
7
The point is to get shovels in the ground on the decided SE portion, figure out DT and build the DT section concurrently with the SE section. At least in the meantime you would get it started on the easiest portion.
That plan didn't work out very well for Honolulu:

A series of “prematurely” awarded rail contracts doled out to construction companies as early as 2009 prompted delay claims and change orders that increased the cost of the Honolulu rail project by more than $354 million, according to a new report by the Hawaii State Auditor released today.

The report also noted some delay claims and change orders are unresolved, which means the cost of those claims will continue to rise.

...

“Over-promise, under-deliver. It has been the hallmark of the Honolulu Rail Transit Project’s near decade-long stop-and-go journey,” the report concluded. “We also found that from the beginning these unrealistic projections resulted from a desire to demonstrate that the project was progressing satisfactorily and to minimize public criticism, which could have eroded public support.”

And yes you would get lots of ridership at Shepard. New Brighton and Copperfield are nearby and feeder buses would connect everything south to Seton.
Enough to justify $2B of rail? Doubtful, given how little transit ridership there is currently in the SE and how even connected to downtown, the Green Line Stage 1 was projected to have high operating losses ($40M/year).



Also let’s not ignore the fact that the SE industrial parks employ more people than DT.
Those parks are not located that close to the SE stations for the most part, its questionable just how many people working in those industrial parks would be regular, or even occasional transit riders.



I can’t help but notice you are a new member. Is this Evan?
No, just somebody interested in infrastructure projects.
 

accord1999

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10
Reaction score
7
Maybe better to have BRT right now, but to me the Green Line seems like a better to option for the long term. It probably will be less efficient and more costly upfront, but 30 years from now will be glad that we did it now. My two cents.
That was a major argument for skipping BRT and going to LRT directly.... But it was made on behalf of the NC. But with the massive cost overruns and the trouble in the DT, 15 years from now North of Beddington Trail communities probably won't have any LRT, or even significant transit service improvements of any kind.

 

Social Justice

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
402
Reaction score
468
That plan didn't work out very well for Honolulu:





Enough to justify $2B of rail? Doubtful, given how little transit ridership there is currently in the SE and how even connected to downtown, the Green Line Stage 1 was projected to have high operating losses ($40M/year).




Those parks are not located that close to the SE stations for the most part, its questionable just how many people working in those industrial parks would be regular, or even occasional transit riders.




No, just somebody interested in infrastructure projects.
Transit ridership in the S.E. is low because the catchment area is severely underserved by transit. The current BRT is joke and does a winding milk-run route through low populated areas and takes about 45mins from downtown to Mckenzie.

The greenline will convert drivers to LRT riders.
 

O-tac

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
105
Reaction score
131
Location
Laval's basement
Transit ridership in the S.E. is low because the catchment area is severely underserved by transit. The current BRT is joke and does a winding milk-run route through low populated areas and takes about 45mins from downtown to Mckenzie.

The greenline will convert drivers to LRT riders.
This. Plus it is the fastest growing quadrant in the city. The population is there contrary to all the arguments that it’s just tumbleweeds and maintenance sheds. Currently there are no viable options other than driving a car for most people.
 
Last edited:
Top