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

Maybe it is just the cynic in me but I don't foresee any level of ridership on the LRT in Calgary that could possibly justify underground stations in the downtown. ... certainly not to the tune of $100 million per station. The demand for public transit in and out of downtown really has to be studied as part of a new reality check. The question has to be asked ... Will downtown Calgary be the same 'mecca' for jobs that it has been pre-recession and pre-pandemic?
The Green line plan is based on increasing ridership in and out of downtown well into the future, not on what ridership levels are or were. It could take 5-10 years to fill the vacant office space that we have today. Vacant office space = job loss = fewer people taking the LRT. Filling existing office space would only get the number people working downtown to where it was at peak ... when was that.. maybe 2013-4?
I know, some people will say there are other reasons to take the LRT into downtown .. hockey games, concerts, theater, festivals etc. ... but to me you don't fork out the $ billion or so, for social or leisure activity needs. That decision has to be made on the strength of a high volume of business traffic Mon-Fri. If you don't have that, then how can you justify spending that kind of money. IMHO it should not include the cost of expensive underground stations or tunnels.
 
Last edited:
darwink said:
It makes the green line a bit faster, but the main reason is protecting traffic from impact.
Click to expand...
I get that, but with these low floor LRV's that are going to be integrated with the street moreso than the high floors, will it really need that level of protection? The proposed alignment is committed to the northern leg to essentially be just a transit only lane all the way along Centre Street/Harvest Hills BV for many km's. So what's there to be gained by making it underground in the beltline area when it's likely well suited to perform at-grade within that area?

We already have high-floor trains go through the busier downtown core, and have no intention of changing that even with the red line being buried. And although those one's do run into issues of traffic/pedestrians incidents as a result, it's possible the low floor trains may lead to less incidents because it's more immersive with the road design itself? It's basically a glorified streetcar, and they're intended to be used in these compact urban areas I believe.

I feel that if they're looking to be as budget conscious as possible, rethinking the beltline segment to be at grade could have enough savings that they can get more out of the line as a result then for the first phase.
 
Not crossing Macleod at grade is entirely about traffic capacity. Sorry should have been more clear. If you prioritize the green line with at grade crossings capacity would be degraded greatly. The interference is very different when LRT is traveling the same direction as most traffic flow instead of crossing it.

One of the difficulties if you’re targeting ridership is going at grade in the Beltline does hurt ridership if you don’t prioritize LRT, and in general it will make the system slow forever.

The math does work to be elevated in the Beltline to transition to a tunnel for going under the CPR though.
 
With today's announcement of $15 billion in new transit funding across the country, I expect within the next year or two we will hear something about the second phase of the Green Line. I'd imagine that will be the entire SE segment and the NC up to McKnight. Who knows though.
 
Great news. I remember from the report last June that it seems admin was thinking that in lieu of the possibly of new funding from feds (which I guess this is), that should be put into pushing the Green Line further north while phase I is under construction. So if they could get it up to 64th at least within this decade, that would be a big win.
 
I agree. I also think getting it south to at least Mahogany is also really important.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
With today's announcement of $15 billion in new transit funding across the country, I expect within the next year or two we will hear something about the second phase of the Green Line. I'd imagine that will be the entire SE segment and the NC up to McKnight. Who knows though.
Click to expand...
The caveat is that the fed funding does not kick in until 2026. It will be $3 billion per year for five years.
 
Perfect, since phase 1 isn't finishing til 2027.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
The caveat is that the fed funding does not kick in until 2026. It will be $3 billion per year for five years.
Click to expand...
..and will likely be steered towards swing ridings (aka never Calgary). Federal funding for transit is stupid. Urban transit confers mostly local benefits and should be locally funded. Entrusting tax dollars to government that is distant in every aspect, including geography, means the decision makers have too many other considerations beyond providing transit that moves people efficiently.
 

DougB said:
will likely be steered towards swing ridings (aka never Calgary)
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. That isn’t how federal infrastructure funding works. It is divided by a formula where population is the most important component to divide it between the provinces. Aka: if it doesn’t come to Calgary in some way shape or form it is because of the provincial government (making a pure political choice) or the city not having enough eligible projects.
 
Just came across these updated bridge concepts on the city's website:

Viaduct_West_with_watermark_rev01.jpg

Viaduct_Bluff_View.jpg





Below-Deck_Arch_West__with_watermark_rev01.jpg

Below-Deck_Arch_Bluff_View.jpg




Tied_Arch_West_with_watermark_rev01.jpg

Tied-Arch_Bluff_View.jpg


https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/bowbridge

So other interesting renderings with view points and landscaping of the area as well.

I think the second / under deck arch concept is my favourite of these. Would be ok with the third / over deck arch as well. Those both best complement the Centre Street Bridge yet have a modern feel, but option 2 is a bit more sophisticated.
 
I wonder what the gradient is. Been thinking a lot about whether could get it to 5.5 m above the road surface.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top