darwink
Senior Member
It’s always possible we end up with a failed procurement and have to pivot to a different downtown design. I’d put it at less than 20%.
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
YYCguy
Active Member
If that happens, and I truly wish it doesn’t, then no elevated or ground level tracks through downtown a la Jim Gray please!
darwink
Senior Member
Glancing downtown à la Jim Gray is no good. We shall know about procurement within a few months.
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.
* 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.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
The question in piece was about what do you get for 700M and what else it could've bought. That's spilt milk, you can't recover that money and do those other things. So my point is more imagine getting nothing, no green line and none of what they mention. As you point out, maybe we should imagine how that feels if this thing is that far gone.
But as CB explores, it's hard to square the vehement Green Line opposition against a background of other large transportation projects.
I never asked for Lisbon, I'd love it, but my problem is the fact I live in a 10 minute drive from downtown or a 40 minutes ride. I wouldn't give McKendrick that much credit so say he would've been the one to save the green line.
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 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
Active Member
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
Active Member
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
Active Member
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.
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.
I take your point, but the south LRT did go to Anderson garage (the original LRT facility) first.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
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.
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
Active Member
Amen to that - Do Not run surface tracks downtown. We already have one set to bury so it can become “Rapid” transit.
FCC1982
Active Member
The north central portion as currently envisioned is a disaster.
jhappy77
Active Member
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.
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.