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

[darwink]

I like this - a few questions...

- how do you provide "a boat load of geotechnical" across a 500m wide corridor at all relevant depths? One of the issues that has come out earlier this year is that the chosen alignment had bigger geotechnical challenges than was imagined when the route was selected. If we couldn't figure out the geotechnical risks along one alignment, how would we figure out the geotechnical risks along all possible alignments? I suppose one answer is a smarter technical team, and another is a technical team more willing to speak the truth rather than waffle when they encounter problems. Still seems hard?
- how do you do discovery of community preferences/tradeoffs? Do all 3 design-build groups speak to community groups and affected landowners independently and try to weigh their interests? Or is the city sort of acting as an engagement subcontractor on behalf of the designers to feed this back? I will say, whatever the City is doing on engagement isn't working - they spend years determining that everyone would love a deep tunnel that disturbs no one's local interests, so no hard choices are made until it's clear it costs too much.

Through competitive dialog as your partners get closer on their corridors, you drill, you drill on all three. Since it isn’t about reducing risk to the city directly, it is about derisking for your partners, you can always ensure you have the right amount and the right locations to convince your partners they can manage risk. And yes! It is all about trust: to work well together you need to present everything, warts and all. The benefit is you don’t need the same level of technical people in house or as consultants to help you do this-the partners tell you what they need so you avoid the mismatch and you know early if there are problems.

The engagement the question is: what level is needed. Aesthetic engagement for station locations is a late stage thing that can be done directly by the contractor. Design engagement to bring in local knowledge I think can be left up totally to the contractors: if they think it is useful to show community support; do so—if they think they can save a bit by incorporating local knowledge (usually quite true!) they would do so . Most consultation led by the city should be spent on defining the not normal scope type thing, and explaining how this process is different and what to expect.

And you’ve hit the nail on the head. They ended up creating a path dependency where they were ignoring a primary constraint. A usual problem when you don’t have a good process designed by your policy people at first OR don’t have a leader who has a ‘natural’ vision of the check list to get to approval and contract signed (from experience). We were counting on the second and didn’t have it.

 

[Social Justice]

If the geometry works, a surface station in Eau Claire has the potential to save something like $100 million bucks alone, savings that can be plowed into the awful geology between 9th and 6th. I'd like it to be exclusive ROW from there to east of Macleod Trail. This is a 86 M curve, below mainline recommendation, but whatever way above the absolute minimum of 35m, and about the same as the S curve cross 16th Ave in the NW. It would allow 155m for elevation gain between the end of the tracks and 1st Street SW, which at 6% grade is enough for 9.3 m of top of rail elevation changes. Rail height of 5 m below ground (more than the absolute minimum to cross under the tracks) to 4.3 m above. 1st Street SW only has a clearance of 3.8m under the tracks, so still have 50 cm for structure and rail to play with under the top of rail.

View attachment 215790 View attachment 215791

This would be my preference for a 'cheap' option. Replace one underground station with at grade (Eau Claire), and one with elevated.

Sorry, I'm late to this conversation.

I have to respectively disagree with you. I think it would be better if we spent a bit more money and build the Green line properly the first time.

You're right in the sense that surface stations are better from an urban design perspective. However; I think it's more important to maintain a faster travel time from Mckenzie so that the LRT is a more competitive option for commuters living in the SE than driving to downtown.

The delay in funding is disappointing to say the least, however I think this would be a reasonable way to play the cards we've been handed:

Stage 1:
-4th street to Shepard
-Storage facity
-Build as per original plan

Stage 2: (Once provincial money comes in)
-4th street to Eau Claire
-Completely grade separated as per original plan

I'm probably in the minority here, but I always thought the inclusion of 16th Ave station in stage one was kind of silly. Yes, the north cross-town BRT would drop people off at the station, but ridership would remain ridiculously low until the north line reached 96th ave.

 

[CBBarnett]

Sorry, I'm late to this conversation.

I have to respectively disagree with you. I think it would be better if we spent a bit more money and build the Green line properly the first time.

You're right in the sense that surface stations are better from an urban design perspective. However; I think it's more important to maintain a faster travel time from Mckenzie so that the LRT is a more competitive option for commuters living in the SE than driving to downtown.

The delay in funding is disappointing to say the least, however I think this would be a reasonable way to play the cards we've been handed:

Stage 1:
-4th street to Shepard
-Storage facity
-Build as per original plan

Stage 2: (Once provincial money comes in)
-4th street to Eau Claire
-Completely grade separated as per original plan

I'm probably in the minority here, but I always thought the inclusion of 16th Ave station in stage one was kind of silly. Yes, the north cross-town BRT would drop people off at the station, but ridership would remain ridiculously low until the north line reached 96th ave.

I am very concerned that the split of the line, pressure to deliver a new alignment/tunnel options will result in a not well thought out centre section and a over-built SE section. Along the SE there are bridge sections that seem to be future-proofing for an imagined road expansion for the next 50+ years beneath them for example: https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/78ave . Surely a narrower grade separation span is cheaper?

Meanwhile the inner city alignment is being squeezed for every dollar and is taking all the political heat. Some possible changes are good (shallow cut-and-cover vs. 7 storey deep tunnels) but others a worrying - reduction in grade-separation in areas with huge conflicts now, not just in 50+ years. Other worries are the creation of more sterilized parcels due to not ideal tunnel portals locations. We can't build central libraries all the time to cover these undevelopedable areas up.

I have said this before, but cheapest option is to take road capacity away and give it to a dedicated LRT right of way and not replace it with road expansion. My equation for LRT projects:

Maximize LRT's share of right-of-way + minimize grade separation to critical points (e.g. the core) + hold total right-of-way constant everywhere possible

I have seen minimal discussion publicly that the project considers reallocating road space (without also expanding the road through a bunch of expensive property acquisitions) at the scale that actually makes a difference. Past history also has makes me worried. When push comes to shove (where the Green Line is right now) every LRT improvements over the years in this city has come with road expansions attached.

I like to think we are smarter - especially if we are trying to save money - but I don't see any signs that this project will be deviate from that path with all the potential cut backs in the core section on the transit side while the road side sees few sacrifices (or even has expansions).

 

[darwink]

Oh, I think you misunderstand and I wasn't the most clear. South the CPR the track and stations would be elevated. Eau Claire at grade.

 

[accord1999]

Sorry, I'm late to this conversation.

I have to respectively disagree with you. I think it would be better if we spent a bit more money and build the Green line properly the first time.

The problem is that it's not a bit more money, and where previous choices made to build the Green Line "properly" has already increase its construction costs to upwards of $9 billion. The City can no longer afford to build the Green Line properly, it probably can't even afford to build it improperly.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I always thought the inclusion of 16th Ave station in stage one was kind of silly. Yes, the north cross-town BRT would drop people off at the station, but ridership would remain ridiculously low until the north line reached 96th ave.

It was needed to maintain the fiction that the Green Line was still a City-wide project and to give hope to North Central communities and politicians that savings and new funding could be found to continue building up Centre Street after 2026. Especially when the primary reason for the Green Line skipping the BRT stage was that LRT was needed on Centre Street N soon.

But not surprisingly (given the incompetence shown by the Green Line team ), Stage 1 now needs more cost cutting and value engineering just to build something downtown. If 16th Avenue gets cut next, I'd expect Gondek to burn the whole Green Line house down.

 

[Disraeli]

This is being reported as the new proposed downtown alignment

 

[darwink]

Yeah, with that plan, you hack off crossing the Bow to 16th later, or perhaps with a low enough bid you make it a tunnel again, and you're done. BRT and LRT could share the ROW on centre I guess, but it is going to be a gong show of the highest order.

I could see a world where the surface LRT on Centre St south of 16th Ave is pitches as 'temporary' if the bridge/surface interface left enough room for a future tunnel tie in to get to a future station at 16th.

 

[Morshed]

How are you going to fit LRT tracks on centre street? What about the vehicles traffic? Are they going to be widening Edmonton trail instead?

 

[haltcatchfire]

Does anyone know why they added tunnel in Beltline? The underground 4th St station will be an asset for Events Center users on frigid winter game days for sure, but will reduce some pre & post event foot traffic at street level. The previous alignment would have had Events Center users walking between 12th ave and 10th ave which would have been good for restaurant/retail business in that stretch.

I like the idea of a surface station in Eau Claire anyways. Perhaps, if they're using low floor trains they could integrate it into the neighbourhood like Portland does at their Pioneer Square.

A comment on another site, with the Centre Street BRT continuing to 6th Ave, is wondering why bother bridge over the Bow and up to 16th now for little benefit. It'll get people to use the green line to and from the Events Centre. Otherwise they'd need to walk ten blocks over to Centre and 6th Ave to catch the BRT.

 

[Alex_YYC]

LRT traffic crossing 16th ave doesn't seem right to me. I think it'll be a gong show for traffic. On the flip side it might slow down traffic on 16th enough to make it into a half decent avenue.

 

[googspecial]

Ooofff, not sure I am happy about this. Might need to sleep on it lol.

The added tunnel length is especially weird in that they moved the 16 Ave N station to surface. Seems like a big mistake to me, though I do appreciate the extended underground length in the Beltline. I hope they can figure out to do both.

 

[haltcatchfire]

LRT traffic crossing 16th ave doesn't seem right to me. I think it'll be a gong show for traffic. On the flip side it might slow down traffic on 16th enough to make it into a half decent avenue.

I wonder what it would cost to do a depression for the line under 16th and back up again? Essentially a narrow underpass.

 

[Mountain Man]

I wonder if the 16Ave station will be semi dropped like they did for the WLRT...

I'm happy they are tunneling further in the Beltline, makes sense for the event centre and future development in the Rivers District.

 

[CBBarnett]

Ooofff, not sure I am happy about this. Might need to sleep on it lol.

The added tunnel length is especially weird in that they moved the 16 Ave N station to surface. Seems like a big mistake to me, though I do appreciate the extended underground length in the Beltline. I hope they can figure out to do both.

I am surprised I like the changes as much as I do, I was getting negative - probably due to the Greenline's powerful opponents having unfettered media for months while the options were worked out.

Quick thoughts:

• 11th Ave works as well as 12th, benefit in leaving a whole block between the new arena to drive traffic through a retail zone.
• Extra underground - but shallow - future-proofs Victoria Park for a high density, transit-oriented neighbourhood in future decades.
• Shallower LRT is far better to access and is the right call. The original plan had wild 7 storey deep platforms. That was my big red flag that the team got off-track as it's a crazy expensive solution to use a bored deep tunnel to avoid impacts in a city with as little traffic and pedestrian retail along the route as Calgary.
• River pathway and Prince's Island interaction are the biggest issues with the new plan, but if we put some smart designers on it and do it right I can live with it.
• Centre Street at grade is perfectly fine - again the problem is a political one not technical. The cheapest option was always to give dedicated surface right-of-way from drivers to transit WHILE not scope-creeping a transit project with road expansion.
• If Centre is local access, transit-only south of 16th we have a great corridor. If the Roads department and vocal car-aficionados demand road expansion to keep car capacity (at the expense of transit, walkability and redevelopment) we missed the mark on that stretch.
• Without more detail, I would guess the 16th Ave station might actually be like 14th Ave, to allow for an underpass at 16th Ave in a future phase.

Overall I think I like it as good or better than the original plan, with different trade-offs. Importantly, nothing stands out as a deal-breaker or a large development barrier - if anything this alignment helps transit access even more than the original on account of shallower tunnels. Will be interesting to see the response in public over the next while.

 

[Social Justice]

I am surprised I like the changes as much as I do, I was getting negative - probably due to the Greenline's powerful opponents having unfettered media for months while the options were worked out.

Quick thoughts:

• 11th Ave works as well as 12th, benefit in leaving a whole block between the new arena to drive traffic through a retail zone.
• Extra underground - but shallow - future-proofs Victoria Park for a high density, transit-oriented neighbourhood in future decades.
• Shallower LRT is far better to access and is the right call. The original plan had wild 7 storey deep platforms. That was my big red flag that the team got off-track as it's a crazy expensive solution to use a bored deep tunnel to avoid impacts in a city with as little traffic and pedestrian retail along the route as Calgary.
• River pathway and Prince's Island interaction are the biggest issues with the new plan, but if we put some smart designers on it and do it right I can live with it.
• Centre Street at grade is perfectly fine - again the problem is a political one not technical. The cheapest option was always to give dedicated surface right-of-way from drivers to transit WHILE not scope-creeping a transit project with road expansion.
• If Centre is local access, transit-only south of 16th we have a great corridor. If the Roads department and vocal car-aficionados demand road expansion to keep car capacity (at the expense of transit, walkability and redevelopment) we missed the mark on that stretch.
• Without more detail, I would guess the 16th Ave station might actually be like 14th Ave, to allow for an underpass at 16th Ave in a future phase.

Overall I think I like it as good or better than the original plan, with different trade-offs. Importantly, nothing stands out as a deal-breaker or a large development barrier - if anything this alignment helps transit access even more than the original on account of shallower tunnels. Will be interesting to see the response in public over the next while.

I agree with mostly everything you said. I think for now the terminus should be the Eau Claire station at 2nd Ave. Everything north of that can be hashed out at a later time.

I used to live the Crescent Heights, and unfortunately, I think the alignment of Centre street will result in a big political battle. I'd be happy if Centre is transit-only south of 16th or auto access is restricted...the city could add a station at 9th ave. However, I think the local businesses along Centre and the roads department would go bananas over the proposal. Also, what would be done with the existing centre street bridge? 4 lanes are going to be severely under utilized.

One last thing...I think the 16th ave crossing needs to be grade separated.