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

[UrbanWarrior]

Looks great, and also massive for just one LRV. That’ll be fine for sure. Keep in mind, going up Centre, the blocks are only like 100 meters long north south (maybe less?). So two LRVs might be the maximum capacity without blocking off streets that intersect stations.

I suppose that’s a good argument for why 16 Avenue, McKnight, and Beddington stations should all be underground or elevated.

 

[Alex_YYC]

The LRVs look a lot like the renderings

 

[outoftheice]

Here's a pic I took of an Urbos 3 in Sevilla a few years ago: (one bonus internet point for the first person to notice what isn't in this photo that you'd normally see):

Overhead wires?

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Overhead wires?

Ding ding ding! The model in Sevilla (and a few other cities) draws catenary power but also has a battery so that it can run without any external power source in the central historic part of the city - so no overhead wires are needed there. It runs past two UNESCO World Heritage Sites, the Archivo de Indias (the principal recordhouse of Spain's dealings with the New World) and the Cathedral (the fourth-largest church and largest Gothic building in the world -- the legend is that the architectural brief was "Let us build a church so beautiful and so grand that those who see it finished will take us for mad", i.e. think we've gone crazy).

Looking at the rendering of the Calgary model, it's interesting to see that it's comprised of seven modules; this is the same as the Luxembourg version of this tram, which is 45 metres long. Our existing high-floor LRV fleet is 25 m long, so a pair of these could be 90% as long as what we currently think of as a four car train. Perhaps a little less; most of the short blocks on Centre St N are around 85 metres. However, each train car - old and new alike - has a driver's cabin at each end, which are not usable passenger space; further, there is a gap where the train coupling is. A four car train has three sets of these in the middle, not providing any passenger space. A two car train only has one of these sets. I put this together to approximate the lengths: It looks to me like there's potentially roughly 93% as much capacity (passenger space) in these new trains as in a four-car existing train.

I crap on Calgary Transit often enough that I feel it's important to note when they do something right, and for my money, longer paired cars like this design are the best balance of flexibility and capacity rather than the existing 25m stock we've been using.

 

[accord1999]

Looks great, and also massive for just one LRV. That’ll be fine for sure. Keep in mind, going up Centre, the blocks are only like 100 meters long north south (maybe less?). So two LRVs might be the maximum capacity without blocking off streets that intersect stations.

If you look at the example overhead view of the future Centre Street/16th Ave intersection at post #999 and Attachment 4 from GC2020-0583 (https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=131771), they are planning to block off intersections from the start.

Only 7th, 9th, 10th and 12th Avenues will allow through and left turns.

I suppose that’s a good argument for why 16 Avenue, McKnight, and Beddington stations should all be underground or elevated.

The decision to go to an above ground station at 16th Avenue highlights just how little financial room they have left. All of the previous options had always had it underground.

 

[Surrealplaces]

The decision to go to an above ground station at 16th Avenue highlights just how little financial room they have left. All of the previous options had always had it underground.

I'm not paying attention enough these days. I missed the part where they decided to make 16th Ave above ground. I know it's costly to have it underground, but it seems like a recipe for disaster traffic-wise.

On the other hand this might help kill 16th ave as a major thoroughfare through the city, and the city can look at trying to re-invent 16th ave into something nice.

 

[Duck Lightning]

The 16th Ave station can always be re-aligned underground whenever the north leg is extended. There's plenty of time for the line to be moved with future funding sources and we're talking about something that likely won't happen until the early 2030s

 

[darwink]

I'm not paying attention enough these days. I missed the part where they decided to make 16th Ave above ground. I know it's costly to have it underground, but it seems like a recipe for disaster traffic-wise.

On the other hand this might help kill 16th ave as a major thoroughfare through the city, and the city can look at trying to re-invent 16th ave into something nice.

A certain Mayoral candidate tried to make it an issue. But the press didn't care about issues this election.

The 16th Ave station can always be re-aligned underground whenever the north leg is extended. There's plenty of time for the line to be moved with future funding sources and we're talking about something that likely won't happen until the early 2030s

The city will have enough money to do this sooner rather than later. Can go north to 64th and south to McKenzie within reasonably known grant amounts by 2030, 2032.

Getting the contract done for phase 1 most important though. I bet Phase 2 gets bundled with north to 64th and south to McKenzie (what I would call phase 3a and 3b) in the end.

 

[accord1999]

At today's Green Line Board meeting presentation, they presented a timeline of future work, with real construction not starting until 2024.

 

[zagox]

At today's Green Line Board meeting presentation, they presented a timeline of future work, with real construction not starting until 2024.

View attachment 366878

6 months for the RFQ and 18 months for the RFP seems like a very long time to award, especially given they already ran one RFQ on the previous scope. WTF?

 

[ByeByeBaby]

The longer a mega infrastructure project takes to complete, the more it inevitably costs. The Green Line South is a good project, but it would be a better project at half the cost and there is an upper cost where it stops being a good project.

 

[darwink]

P3s with longer processes, with competitive dialog procedures deliver better projects—last thing we want is bidders thinking they are tied to the functional plan, or in effect tying them by not giving them time to optimize and negotiate.

Given this project (for bidders) is all about being able to deliver the SE and maintenance facility below the city's estimated cost to make up for the risk of the downtown section, that is wise.

 

[outoftheice]

It may even prove to be beneficial. Inflationary pressures on the cost of construction are supposed to be a temporary one to two year blip. By starting in 2024 we should be seeing bidders factoring lower material costs into their bid compared with where we would be if shovels were going into the ground over the next year.

 

[Joborule]

I wonder too that if the future northern section can get it's chickens in a row, that it'll align nicely to have the second phase of the green line funded/under construction while the first phase is ongoing.

 

[superelevation]

I crap on Calgary Transit often enough that I feel it's important to note when they do something right, and for my money, longer paired cars like this design are the best balance of flexibility and capacity rather than the existing 25m stock we've been using.

Idk, little appreciated but theres actually a compatible model from Frankfurt - the origin of the Edmonton and Calgary stock referenced by RMTransit in one of his videos that combines two 25m cars into one, even longer than those for the Green Line - called the U5-50