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

[badc0ffee]

Incidentally I think the plan for the inner north central part (Eau Claire to 16th) is terrible. Centre street was congested enough that we had to add a reversible lane and HOV lanes from downtown to 20th, in no small part to keep the buses moving. But now we to turn that into 1 lane in each direction, north of about 7 Ave N. I foresee cars backing up into downtown and misery on the route 2, 3 and 301.

The plan also has the LRT meeting 16 Ave at grade. This road is busy enough that the train goes under it on the other two lines.

There is also no real clarity on how the tracks will cross the southbound lane of Centre street where they meet around 7 Ave N. Are they adding a light there?

Finally, I don't love the new bridge over Prince's Island, although I could live with it. If we must go up Centre street, that's probably the best option. But if we do that I think we really need the train to be in a (hopefully shallow) tunnel between 7 and 16th Aves N. This 9-block stretch connects a major bridge to downtown with a major crosstown road, and already has some decent existing and upcoming development, so I think it's justified there.

But what I would prefer is if the LRT went at-grade on a completely different street, like Edmonton Trail. You would still need to cross above or below 16 Ave N, but I think this would avoid all of these other issues, and breathe life into a neglected streetscape. Alas I think it's too late for that.

 

[ahuch]

Incidentally I think the plan for the inner north central part (Eau Claire to 16th) is terrible. Centre street was congested enough that we had to add a reversible lane and HOV lanes from downtown to 20th, in no small part to keep the buses moving. But now we to turn that into 1 lane in each direction, north of about 7 Ave N. I foresee cars backing up into downtown and misery on the route 2, 3 and 301.

The plan also has the LRT meeting 16 Ave at grade. This road is busy enough that the train goes under it on the other two lines.

There is also no real clarity on how the tracks will cross the southbound lane of Centre street where they meet around 7 Ave N. Are they adding a light there?

Finally, I don't love the new bridge over Prince's Island, although I could live with it. If we must go up Centre street, that's probably the best option. But if we do that I think we really need the train to be in a (hopefully shallow) tunnel between 7 and 16th Aves N. This 9-block stretch connects a major bridge to downtown with a major crosstown road, and already has some decent existing and upcoming development, so I think it's justified there.

But what I would prefer is if the LRT went at-grade on a completely different street, like Edmonton Trail. You would still need to cross above or below 16 Ave N, but I think this would avoid all of these other issues, and breathe life into a neglected streetscape. Alas I think it's too late for that.

I'm a little back and forth on this one in my head. I really dislike the bridge over Prince's Island, but I understand how they've arrived there. I don't think Center St will be a soul crushing hellscape like 36 St NE with the low floor LRVs, but I suppose time will tell. There is also something to be said about the convenience of just hopping on and off at street level, versus several levels of escalators to get down to subway track grade. Keeping in mind that's from a visitor perspective, if I lived near it on the north end I'd probably want it buried... lol.

 

[lemongrab]

One of the problems with this project is the competing priorities -
* The ridership demand is in the north-central part, but
* The railway yard is in the inner SE part, so you have to do that first, even though it's the lowest-ridership part, but
* The political priority is the outer SE, like MacKenzie, where for 20 years the residents have been looking at a sign on the empty right-of-way telling them the train is coming.

Of course phase 1 isn't going to make anyone happy. We've always known this. But I still think it's a good project because it's relatively cheap to finish the SE after that core section is done.

Did the railyard HAVE to be in the SE though? I've forgotten the exact rationale for not using Aurora business park, but I think it was something about that area having too much other development, which has not panned out at all...(I've always speculated that some key influencers have personal interest with Shepard).

 

[accord1999]

Did the railyard HAVE to be in the SE though? I've forgotten the exact rationale for not using Aurora business park, but I think it was something about that area having too much other development, which has not panned out at all...(I've always speculated that some key influencers have personal interest with Shepard).

Yeah, that was the answer given by Fabiola MacIntyre in the 2017 meetings, to save it for development purposes. But as you point out, there hasn't been much at all.

.(I've always speculated that some key influencers have personal interest with Shepard).

It's always been questionable to me on how they only bothered to look in the SE and when hard decisions had to be made, prioritized it over ridership and ability to replace buses. It would be like building the NE LRT all the way to the Oliver Bowen site first, before building the S LRT.

 

[badc0ffee]

I take your point, but the south LRT did go to Anderson garage (the original LRT facility) first.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

I see your point, but Anderson also had at least a bit of a residential population within walkable range of the station, and was on a major thoroughfare for park & ride people. Shepard is a different story.

I’ve said it many times and I’ll bloody say it again, if they’re not jumping the Bow in the first phase, it should be extended south to at least Auburn Bay Station. If not all the way to Seton.

 

[FCC1982]

If that happens, and I truly wish it doesn’t, then no elevated or ground level tracks through downtown a la Jim Gray please!

Amen to that - Do Not run surface tracks downtown. We already have one set to bury so it can become “Rapid” transit.

 

[FCC1982]

Incidentally I think the plan for the inner north central part (Eau Claire to 16th) is terrible. Centre street was congested enough that we had to add a reversible lane and HOV lanes from downtown to 20th, in no small part to keep the buses moving. But now we to turn that into 1 lane in each direction, north of about 7 Ave N. I foresee cars backing up into downtown and misery on the route 2, 3 and 301.

The plan also has the LRT meeting 16 Ave at grade. This road is busy enough that the train goes under it on the other two lines.

There is also no real clarity on how the tracks will cross the southbound lane of Centre street where they meet around 7 Ave N. Are they adding a light there?

Finally, I don't love the new bridge over Prince's Island, although I could live with it. If we must go up Centre street, that's probably the best option. But if we do that I think we really need the train to be in a (hopefully shallow) tunnel between 7 and 16th Aves N. This 9-block stretch connects a major bridge to downtown with a major crosstown road, and already has some decent existing and upcoming development, so I think it's justified there.

But what I would prefer is if the LRT went at-grade on a completely different street, like Edmonton Trail. You would still need to cross above or below 16 Ave N, but I think this would avoid all of these other issues, and breathe life into a neglected streetscape. Alas I think it's too late for that.

The north central portion as currently envisioned is a disaster.

 

[jhappy77]

I wonder if it would be possible to have the railyard in Lynnwood on that contaminated land, or if we could move the Pop Davies athletic park to the contaminated land and put the railyard in its place.

 

[badc0ffee]

What is the advantage of Lynnwood over Shepard? I think the bare minimum if we're doing any portion of the SE at all is to go to Quarry Park, and once you're there you're only two stops from Shepard.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

It may not be the romanticized European tram system that urbanists fantasize about, but in terms of ridership/capital costs it's the best LRT system in North America. It's too bad McKendrick wasn't in charge during the initial days of the Green Line, we likely have had reasonable estimates of costs from the beginning and therefore made informed choices on where the Green Line should go, rather than scrambling for the last 6 years trying to build anything.

McKendrick was the main guy trying to run the Green Line in the empty land along the Deerfoot at the cost of halving the Blue Line frequency; it was only once he finally aged out that the north central alignment was designed to go somewhere, anywhere near where people live and work, and from his public comments I assume he's been bitter ever since.

 

[accord1999]

The SE segment goes through long stretches of transit ridership wilderness and nobody ever complains about that. McKendrick dealt with the funding circumstances of his era where billions of dollars weren't available all at once and therefore had to say no to some things, unlike the original Green Line which said yes to everything and everybody because surely $4.6B would be enough.

It would be ideal if the NC LRT could have main street-ed Centre Street N and also served as a higher speed, high capacity commuter line for the north of Beddington Trail communities but as corners keep getting cut and it is no longer grade-separated from 20th Ave southwards, I think it's no longer able do either function well.

 

[lemongrab]

McKendrick was the main guy trying to run the Green Line in the empty land along the Deerfoot at the cost of halving the Blue Line frequency; it was only once he finally aged out that the north central alignment was designed to go somewhere, anywhere near where people live and work, and from his public comments I assume he's been bitter ever since.

Okay, but what constraints/assumptions did he have to work within at the time? Both budgetary and in terms of political appetite for deleting vehicle lanes, etc.

Perhaps he could/should have been more at the forefront of time-travelling the public conversation closer to present ideas (many of which are still in their infancy in terms of North American implementation) , but he's just a transit planner (not a time traveller nor a PR wizard) in a fairly conservative city

As far as blue line frequency, wouldn't that pretty close to irrelevant until the red line goes underground? Blue line is already frequency limited; sharing another km or two of track/stations wouldn't be ideal and would probably result in an occasional delay off-peak.

There are a bunch of better arguments against that alignment, but the big question may be:
- bad Nose Creek alignment that might actually have been built by the end of this decade
vs
- better NC alignment (that may still have several less than ideal compromises) that may not be built until ___???

I'd still lean to the latter and hope for the best, but it's possible our kids will be arguing on some similar forum about how dumb we were in the 20s and 30s.

 

[darwink]

Did the railyard HAVE to be in the SE though? I've forgotten the exact rationale for not using Aurora business park, but I think it was something about that area having too much other development, which has not panned out at all...(I've always speculated that some key influencers have personal interest with Shepard).

It is a couple billion bucks north of 16th.

 

[lemongrab]

It is a couple billion bucks north of 16th.

Doesn't that just go back to stage prioritization? Which is kinda the whole point...it's only like 11km from the Bow River to Country Hills Blvd, and every inch of track is high yield for ridership.

My impression is that the 2 big factors against going north sooner were:
1. Weak advocacy from those wards' councillors
2. Not all of the land had been acquired yet

I never really questioned #2...until now. Can anyone explain what land is actually needed? Is it just a bit more space around some of the stations? Shirley I'm missing something here?