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

[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.

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.

My concern on your first point is that if they don't cross the river now, they may never. It's a bit of a political struggle - and I am suspicious that they left the 2nd Ave to 16th Ave N stretch on and added the MAX upgrade to Centre's BRTs as a bargaining chip if they get into another round of scope-creep/budget cut. Would be fairly easy to cut the LRT portion and keep the MAX to your points (its a lot of pain and political fight for limited short-term benefit, although a long-term positive).

As for underutilized infrastructure - having way more road capacity than required hasn't stopped us before - many of the one-ways and several underpasses into the core are all overbuilt based on the total lanes in < total lanes out and actual traffic demand from vehicles. 4th Street SW is a prime example where 4 lane NB capacity can't possibly be filled based on input roads.

I agree 16th will likely be grade-separated in future phases.

 

[Social Justice]

Not if you want a massive political fight. Stopping there all but guarantees that any future money will go to the SE (and other lines) and NC LRT will never be built.

My concern on your first point is that if they don't cross the river now, they may never. It's a bit of a political struggle - and I am suspicious that they left the 2nd Ave to 16th Ave N stretch on and added the MAX upgrade to Centre's BRTs as a bargaining chip if they get into another round of scope-creep/budget cut. Would be fairly easy to cut the LRT portion and keep the MAX to your points (its a lot of pain and political fight for limited short-term benefit, although a long-term positive).

As for underutilized infrastructure - having way more road capacity than required hasn't stopped us before - many of the one-ways and several underpasses into the core are all overbuilt based on the total lanes in < total lanes out and actual traffic demand from vehicles. 4th Street SW is a prime example where 4 lane NB capacity can't possibly be filled based on input roads.

I agree 16th will likely be grade-separated in future phases.

You both raise good points. I'll concede that it will be a struggle to build the NC LRT...but it'll be a struggle worth having, and it will pay off in the long term. I hate to say it, but the NC won't generate large ridership until it passes Beddington Trail in the north. Similar to how the SE LRT won't generate much ridership until it reaches Shepard.

Here are the reasons why I think the terminus should be at Eau Claire

1. I think we need to get shovels in the ground as soon as possible. I get the feeling the UCP is looking for any excuse to cancel this project. If the project gets delayed and bogged down due to the Centre Street alignment, then the entire project is at jeopardy.
2. I hate to say it...but the 16th ave to downtown segment is fairly useless in terms of ridership. Yes, lots of people in Crescent Heights will use it. Yes, the North cross town will unload riders at 16th. However, I still don't think it'll generate large numbers.
3. Give the city and engineers time to land a solid final design. Add a station at 9th Ave. Grade separate 16th Ave, 40th ave, Mcknight and 64th. Once the final design is solidified, then the fight against the auto-crowd will begin. It'll be a long struggle, but if it goes to the mats, I think the NC LRT will win out.

 

[Silence&Motion]

This plan does seem like it was designed to produce a "compromise" in which Eau Clair is designed to be a temporary terminus that can later be connected to a bridge across the Bow. The BRT, meanwhile, provides a short term transit solution for the NC suburbs, which can eventually be converted to LRT.

The nice thing about this "compromise" option is that it provides the city with flexibility, especially when it comes to figuring out how to integrate transit with Centre St N. The city could choose to temporarily reduce Centre St to a single car lane and a single bus lane as a trial. If that doesn't work, they could run the BRT in mixed traffic. They could also do some kind of hybrid with reversible lanes (e.g. B+C+C southbound, mixed northbound during morning rush hour; mixed southbound, C+C+B northbound during afternoon rush hour; B+C southbound, C+B northbound all other times).

However, if the full-time dedicated bus lanes ended up working, the city could be more confident in eventually running a surface-level LRT along Centre ST N. However, if reducing car lanes ended up becoming a "gong show" as many speculate, then they city would still be in a position of redesigning the bridge to enter a tunnel somewhere in Sunnyside Bank Park that could run north of 16 Ave. In fact, the shorter, shallower tunnel would be a lot cheaper than what was originally proposed and would presumably have a lot of political support if the BRT wasn't working out.

 

[accord1999]

You both raise good points. I'll concede that it will be a struggle to build the NC LRT...but it'll be a struggle worth having, and it will pay off in the long term. I hate to say it, but the NC won't generate large ridership until it passes Beddington Trail in the north. Similar to how the SE LRT won't generate much ridership until it reaches Shepard.
...
2. I hate to say it...but the 16th ave to downtown segment is fairly useless in terms of ridership. Yes, lots of people in Crescent Heights will use it. Yes, the North cross town will unload riders at 16th. However, I still don't think it'll generate large numbers.

I've read that 16th Ave is expected to have 11K riders/day which is a pretty substantial portion considering the whole of Phase 1 is only expecting 65K/day at most. And why is the NC LRT a struggle; it has by far the highest bus ridership corridor left in the City, has the most overcrowded/overloaded bus routes and the City even claimed BRT would be insufficient.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-council-green-line-lrt-1.4178768

Here are the reasons why I think the terminus should be at Eau Claire

They are good reasons looking purely at the issue. But you also have to consider the history of the NC for transit and the Green Line. The Green Line was sold as a city-wide project, and which needed to be built (and skipping BRT) because:

Cancelling the river crossing would effectively be a betrayal and make the Green Line a bait-and-switch. I'm sure Gondek and other NC politicians would fight it tooth-and-nail.

3. Give the city and engineers time to land a solid final design. Add a station at 9th Ave. Grade separate 16th Ave, 40th ave, Mcknight and 64th. Once the final design is solidified, then the fight against the auto-crowd will begin. It'll be a long struggle, but if it goes to the mats, I think the NC LRT will win out.

Why don't they have one now? The Green Line was given the go ahead in late 2015, there's been plenty of time for them to make it. In fact, the preliminary plan was supposed to have been finished by now:

But the planners haven't even decided on Phase 2, even when the initial core of the Green Line was supposed to be Beddington-Shepard. They have done little work on advancing the design or acquiring land. If you stop below the river, the engineers won't do a solid design on Centre Street N, they'll be finishing the design for the rest of the SE LRT.

Besides the fight isn't against the auto-crowd, it's against other infrastructure demands, including extensions to other lines. It's trying to find several billion dollars in a period of austerity, and when the City's increasingly limited financial resources is already committed to paying for Phase 1 for decades to come ($52M/year for capital, $23.7M/year for financing, $40M/year for operations).

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Overall, not bad. Close to the compromise I would have designed.

Not sure why there's added tunnel and a new underground station in the Beltline; if I was cutting costs, it seems like an obvious place to cut.

1. I think we need to get shovels in the ground as soon as possible. I get the feeling the UCP is looking for any excuse to cancel this project. If the project gets delayed and bogged down due to the Centre Street alignment, then the entire project is at jeopardy.
2. I hate to say it...but the 16th ave to downtown segment is fairly useless in terms of ridership. Yes, lots of people in Crescent Heights will use it. Yes, the North cross town will unload riders at 16th. However, I still don't think it'll generate large numbers.
3. Give the city and engineers time to land a solid final design. Add a station at 9th Ave. Grade separate 16th Ave, 40th ave, Mcknight and 64th. Once the final design is solidified, then the fight against the auto-crowd will begin. It'll be a long struggle, but if it goes to the mats, I think the NC LRT will win out.

A 9th Ave station is a huge waste. It's spending money and wasting every rider's time so that a handful of fancy houses are 300m from a station instead of 800m.
16th shouldn't be crossed at grade, and the plan needs to have a station so that can happen in the future. It could be an elevated station (doesn't need to be as high as Sunalta) or a trenched station like 45th or 69th.
As far as crossing the other roads at grade: 40th no, McKnight yes, 64th maybe.
I think it's important to get the river crossed and the track in the middle of Centre Street now, when there's momentum. If the river's not crossed, then there will be budget and cost/benefit and environmental excuses to cancel the project in the future. If the train's already in the middle of Centre St south of 16th Ave, then it's positioned to go down the middle the rest of the way and it's disruptive to move it out.

Why don't they have one now? The Green Line was given the go ahead in late 2015, there's been plenty of time for them to make it. In fact, the preliminary plan was supposed to have been finished by now:

But the planners haven't even decided on Phase 2, even when the initial core of the Green Line was supposed to be Beddington-Shepard. They have done little work on advancing the design or acquiring land. If you stop below the river, the engineers won't do a solid design on Centre Street N, they'll be finishing the design for the rest of the SE LRT.

I suspect because they've been planning and re-planning and re-re-planning the centre city portion of Phase 1 every time a government decides to move the goalposts. Good news, they've already finished the design for the rest of the SE LRT, so you don't need to worry about that.

 

[darwink]

Great potential 'news' on the Eau Claire station:

 

[Silence&Motion]

Biggest issues:

1. The bridge.

a) Impact on Prince's Island: Eau Claire residents are already complaining about the "loss" of the wetlands. It will be a bit of a challenge, but LRT bridges are generally narrow and not very disruptive. Worse case scenario is that we get something that looks like the Blue Line bridge in the East Village. Best case scenario is we get something iconic that adds new pedestrian and cycling connections across the river. Either way, the east side of Prince's Island is the least used and most easily redesigned to accommodate a bridge.

b) Configuration of Eau Claire: Is there actually enough room to land the LRT onto 2nd street without having to demolish any buildings? Eau Claire Market is slated to be demolished anyway, so it provides an excellent opportunity to free up some space for a surface-level station and the entrance of a tunnel (assuming the developers and the city can come to an agreement). But what about the two condos on either side of 2nd street, just to the north of Eau Clair Market? It's an incredibly tight squeeze to get the LRT through there while still accommodating a parking garage entrance and pedestrian access to the pathway. Perhaps the LRT remains elevated until it gets south of Barclay Parade SW, then lands where Eau Clair Market currently sits? That would free up the land underneath the bridge for cars and pedestrians. Or, does that low-rise condo needs to be demolished? Personally, I'd love to see it gone. The riverfront is no place for suburban-style, gated communities. This might be a good excuse to get rid of it. (but at what financial and political cost?)

2. Centre Street North

a) Interface between the bridge and Centre Street: Based on the diagram, I assume that the LRT will be running in the western two lanes of Centre Street and turn onto the bridge roughly where the bus stop currently sits just north of 2nd AVE NE). Presumably the BRT is also driving along the LRT tracks in the western lanes, and the turnoff could be designed so that the BRT could keep going straight along Centre Street, perhaps with the northbound lane eventually crossing over to the easternmost lane at a lighted intersection (e.g. 2nd Ave NE).

b) 16 Ave station: Will the platforms be on the outside, connected to the sidewalk? Or will there be an island in the middle of Centre street? If having the LRT cross 16 Ave is going to be a gong show, would it make sense to do an underground station, which would also allow the BRT to run under 16 AVE?

 

[Mountain Man]

Any timeline on more advanced drawings for the revised downtown to 16Ave section? I'm super curious how they will handle all these tough areas...

 

[accord1999]

b) If having the LRT cross 16 Ave is going to be a gong show, would it make sense to do an underground station, which would also allow the BRT to run under 16 AVE?

That was the idea of Option E back when they were deciding on how to get into Downtown. But if you go to https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline, it states for Centre Street N:

"The key change for Centre Street N include a surface alignment up the middle of Centre Street with a surface station south of 16 Avenue N. "

May be they're trying to make 16th Ave/Centre Street N so terrible they force the City to cancel this stretch.

 

[Nimbus]

2. Centre Street North

a) Interface between the bridge and Centre Street: Based on the diagram, I assume that the LRT will be running in the western two lanes of Centre Street and turn onto the bridge roughly where the bus stop currently sits just north of 2nd AVE NE). Presumably the BRT is also driving along the LRT tracks in the western lanes, and the turnoff could be designed so that the BRT could keep going straight along Centre Street, perhaps with the northbound lane eventually crossing over to the easternmost lane at a lighted intersection (e.g. 2nd Ave NE).

I saw the alignment for the route yesterday that is not that, in fact it goes through the houses just to the west of the Shaw house. Attaching a crappy MSPaint to show what I saw.

 

[O-tac]

Are they going to expropriate the land? I really have to wonder about some of the decisions being made about the northern alignment. I guess this is what you get when the new provincial government reneges on promised funds and threatens to eliminate the project altogether.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I saw the alignment for the route yesterday that is not that, in fact it goes through the houses just to the west of the Shaw house. Attaching a crappy MSPaint to show what I saw.

I saw that image circulating around Twitter. I wasn't sure whether it was the actual alignment of the new plan, or the alignment for the tunnel in the older plan. Just looking at the elevations, that alignment doesn't make sense to me at all for a surface route. If you turned off Centre street at that point, you'd run straight into the side of a cliff. And then, of course, you have the whole issue of expropriation.

If that is the actual alignment being proposed, then it's more evidence that this plan is designed to produce a compromise where Phase 1 of the Greenline ends at Eau Claire, and the northern suburbs get a "temporary" BRT to keep them happy. And Crescent Heights accepts BRT lanes along Centre Street in exchange for the promise that Phase 2 of the Greenline will be underground and have a station at 9 Ave.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I saw the alignment for the route yesterday that is not that, in fact it goes through the houses just to the west of the Shaw house. Attaching a crappy MSPaint to show what I saw.View attachment 228338

Actually, looking at these images more closely, I think the alignment you are referring to is the original tunnel alignment. The new bridge alignment does seem to go further south on Centre and turn off around 2 Ave NE.

This is being reported as the new proposed downtown alignment

View attachment 227950

 

[haltcatchfire]

Is someone pulling your leg?

I saw the alignment for the route yesterday that is not that, in fact it goes through the houses just to the west of the Shaw house. Attaching a crappy MSPaint to show what I saw.View attachment 228338

 

[Nimbus]

Is someone pulling your leg?

Knowing the person that showed it to me, no. However I'd be happy if they and what they showed me were wrong.