I think I remember this. Sean Chu wasn't supportive of this project which ran right through his own ward.
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
outoftheice
Active Member
The City of Calgary needs to acquire like 1 foot of right of way from pretty much every property along Centre St to make things work for the Green Line. It's one of the reasons costs for that stretch is so high. Property owners could get some easy cash and give the City the bit of their property that it needs or they could dig their heels in and demand the City expropriate their entire property to get that 1 ft. The cost and time associated with possibly expropriating hundreds of properties and then trying to sell them back on the market is a big complicating factor with Centre St.
That being said, even with all the added BS around the Centre St alignment, I am a firm believer that it is the only way to go. The original Nose Creek Valley alignment by-passed a huge chunk of population and will hopefully be one day served by commuter rail anyways. The biggest failure of our current LRT network is that it is essentially park and ride focused commuter rail which is great for 9-5 rush hour commuters but sucks for developing all day, 2 way traffic. Sunnyside station and 45th Avenue station are really the only two spots on the entire network that are in the heart of any community and are designed around walk-ability. The fact we have such limited examples of community stations on such a large LRT network should be seen as a planning failure in my mind and yet it is the same vision Grey and McKendrick's group have been pushing for the Green Line.
darwink
Senior Member
The expensive part of the current plan is the downtown tunnel.
It's always been wider north of McKnight, and I think the city widened the street as far south as 43rd for bus advance lanes. So we're really looking at something like 4.5 km, plus a narrow stretch north of the shopping centre at Beddington Blvd.
(North of where Centre St ends, the LRT enters a ROW the city has protected since the 80s)
lemongrab
Active Member
Of course, but what does that have to do with which direction to lay tracks out of downtown first?
Is this not a good reason to go underground between the river and 16th Ave? Or has that land already been acquired/it's less of an issue for this stretch?
outoftheice
Active Member
Less of an issue south of 16th. As Badc0ffee mentioned above, it is 16th Ave to McKnight that is the biggest issue with right of way although I do believe the issue is still present to a degree north of McKnight because the design plans use the larger available right of way to build Centre St back to 4 lanes, unlike the 2 lanes that will be constructed south of McKnight once the Green Line goes in.
FCC1982
Active Member
Yes, please yes.
darwink
Senior Member
Maybe, depends on how much path dependency the project feels bound by.
accord1999
Active Member
They've always wanted to tunnel under the river to past 20th Avenue, that option was rated much higher than anything else they looked at.
Option A - Street-level LRT from Chinatown to Crescent Heights on existing Centre Street Bridge, underground at 2 St SW
Option B - Tunnel under Centre Street from 20 Ave N to the river & a new LRT bridge to connect to the Centre City, underground at 2 St SW
Option C - Tunnel under Centre Street from 20 Ave N to the river & elevated guideway in Centre City
Option D - Tunnel under the river, underground in Centre City
Option E - Street-level in Crescent Heights with new LRT bridge to Centre City & street-level station in Eau Claire, underground at 2 St SW
But geotechnical and money issues means they can no longer afford it and are forced to use a version of Option E. Unless we get a miracle and the downtown tunnel comes in a billion dollars under-budget or the Province blank-checks the Green Line, it's hard to see how they do another 180 degree turn back to the original plan.
Option A - Street-level LRT from Chinatown to Crescent Heights on existing Centre Street Bridge, underground at 2 St SW
Option B - Tunnel under Centre Street from 20 Ave N to the river & a new LRT bridge to connect to the Centre City, underground at 2 St SW
Option C - Tunnel under Centre Street from 20 Ave N to the river & elevated guideway in Centre City
Option D - Tunnel under the river, underground in Centre City
Option E - Street-level in Crescent Heights with new LRT bridge to Centre City & street-level station in Eau Claire, underground at 2 St SW
But geotechnical and money issues means they can no longer afford it and are forced to use a version of Option E. Unless we get a miracle and the downtown tunnel comes in a billion dollars under-budget or the Province blank-checks the Green Line, it's hard to see how they do another 180 degree turn back to the original plan.
I think the key segment for traffic (including bus and truck) impacts is 16 Ave and points south. Centre street dumps a good portion of its northbound traffic onto 16 Ave, and correspondingly much of the traffic south of 16 Ave comes from 16 Ave.
I don't understand why we went from a full, deep-level tunnel under the Bow river all the way to 20~24 Ave ($$$$$), to a new bridge but let's enter Centre street at grade and take half the corridor, effectively turning Centre St bridge into two lanes of capacity, and crossing 16 Ave at grade ($$). There must be some middle ground, like shallow tunnelling into the escarpment north of where the new bridge ends. Also it's weird that there was seemingly no cost savings by changing to this option.
I don't understand why we went from a full, deep-level tunnel under the Bow river all the way to 20~24 Ave ($$$$$), to a new bridge but let's enter Centre street at grade and take half the corridor, effectively turning Centre St bridge into two lanes of capacity, and crossing 16 Ave at grade ($$). There must be some middle ground, like shallow tunnelling into the escarpment north of where the new bridge ends. Also it's weird that there was seemingly no cost savings by changing to this option.
darwink
Senior Member
I think it would be quite the challenge to get to 96th, and build the centre city segment within the existing budget.
darwink
Senior Member
Indeed.
A big thing for savings is having the 16th Ave station at grade which likely saves more than $100 million alone. That it creates a $250 million problem to solve later doesn't seem to matter.
outoftheice
Active Member
I find it interesting that back in the early 2000s, when Centre St carried more vehicle traffic than it does today, the City of Calgary was able to completely close the Centre St Bridge to traffic in order to refurbish it and yet the world didn't end. Now today, with fewer cars using Centre St and a much better public transit network, people insist that hundreds of millions of extra dollars must be spent burying the Green Line completely until north of 16th Ave. If Calgary survived the Centre St Bridge closure, I'm pretty sure Calgary will survive losing 2 lanes on Centre St. Even our most adamant public transit advocates can't seem to bring themselves to envision a world with fewer cars.
That doesn't square with the city implementing a reversible lane from 4 Ave S, over the bridge all the way to 20 Ave N, a couple of years later.
Like I said my understanding is the heavy traffic is concentrated between the bridge and 16th. So you are absolutely correct we won't miss the extra lanes, but only north of 16th. It seems a shame to spend so much money on a completely new bridge and still end up with a reduction in mobility, and a waste of our existing limited bridge lanes over the Bow. Maybe the city already knows this and that's one reason why the section north of Eau Claire is not proceeding right away.
I think the bridge was closed 1999-2000 but I don't remember if it was all lanes the whole time or not. There were certainly fewer buses on Centre St. then (compared to "today", as in 2019 pre-COVID).
Like I said my understanding is the heavy traffic is concentrated between the bridge and 16th. So you are absolutely correct we won't miss the extra lanes, but only north of 16th. It seems a shame to spend so much money on a completely new bridge and still end up with a reduction in mobility, and a waste of our existing limited bridge lanes over the Bow. Maybe the city already knows this and that's one reason why the section north of Eau Claire is not proceeding right away.
I think the bridge was closed 1999-2000 but I don't remember if it was all lanes the whole time or not. There were certainly fewer buses on Centre St. then (compared to "today", as in 2019 pre-COVID).
Last edited:
accord1999
Active Member
Option B was that middle-ground option, but the lack of any savings even using the cheap option probably means that project cost estimates continued to go up far beyond what people had expected in the beginning of the project.
There are benefits to the non-car experience as well, the grade-separation gives the train a consistent travel time through that stretch and avoid any possibility of accidents somehow interfering with the route. And it would maintain road capacity for the many buses that run along Centre Street N if the Green Line doesn't build past 16th Ave for awhile.
The local pedestrian experience also suffers without the tunnel, the length of the train and stations means several E-W intersections are closed off and the need to minimize N-S congestion will probably mean long waits before getting a walk light to cross E-W.
Last edited: