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

^ Lack of standardization is an issue. Not having a Canadian standard isn't the problem though, it is having systems built in a way which is totally custom.

In some cases the fault is seeking the lowest cost rather than a standard plan. Ottawa is the perfect example: the contractor mashed a bunch of systems together and assumed the best. Edmonton tried to implement the most modern signalling and train control tech while the contractors didn't anticipate a system which had analog quirks and was built to 1970s standards. Toronto insisted that it was better to redesign streetcars to work with their switch design rather than replace the switches with modern ones. Montreal immediately diverged from their parent VAL system, and continues to heavily customize. Toronto is also highly customized, where they have to operate with 3 different signalling systems.

Ironically, Vancouver's system is the most standardized given the SkyTrain was the textbook gadget-Bahn for a long time.

Calgary with high-floor LRT is in a good spot, they're not hard to build AND the fleet is large enough that there is no problem for customization within the general S-Bahn brief (car length, track geometries). Calgary's last custom order became the defacto North American standard when the other largest fleet operator bought cars which were largely the same. The design is even replacing heavy rail in Cleveland and non standard LRVs in St Louis.

I totally get the appeal, the simplistic YouTube analysis that some countries even standardized station depth so they could buy a single model of escalator. I don't think that is a huge driver of cost as long as the station depth aligns with off the shelf components.

What is a huge driver? Trying to decrease disruption as much as possible during construction by limiting site size, limiting land acquisition to the bare minimum without any analysis of the cost tradeoff, growing underground infrastructure due to aesthetic preference versus surface or elevated.
 
Last edited:
Reading about the problems on the new LRT line in Montreal, really hope CT is doing their due diligence and we don't end up with day 1 problems like Montreal, or systemic problems like Ottawa.
 
I would have thought the NC line north of Beddington Trail would have the least uncertainty and lowest cost because the corridor already exists. The land was set aside and never developed.
 
badc0ffee said:
I would have thought the NC line north of Beddington Trail would have the least uncertainty and lowest cost because the corridor already exists. The land was set aside and never developed.
Click to expand...
Similar situation for the SE leg, especially south of Shepard.
 
badc0ffee said:
I would have thought the NC line north of Beddington Trail would have the least uncertainty and lowest cost because the corridor already exists. The land was set aside and never developed.
Click to expand...
North of west Nose Creek is reasonably good. The Beddington Centre intersection has a lot of pipes underneath and south of that intersection is consistently bad. Next to 52nd is better, but not perfect. Different standards for different sections.
 
Surrealplaces said:
I don't believe it would have to go to Panorama to be considered done properly, at least not off the beginning.I'd be happy with it going to Beddington and Panorama as an added extension. This particular line is also funded by the feds and the province, whereas other RouteAhead initiatives aren't, so I'd like to see the city take advantage now and be done with it. The city is only going to get bigger, and we'll have to pay for transit in some way or another. Is the Green Line the most efficient way? It's debatable of course, but once it's built it would be easier for the city to leverage down the road. I look at the Red line and imagine how Calgary would be today if the city didn't it back when they did. It's taken a long time, but we're finally starting to reap some rewards from it.
Click to expand...
In my experience, the majority of ridership on the 301 (the most direct bus-route predecessor to the north Green Line) goes directly between downtown and North Pointe Terminal (Panorama) so to cut it short at Beddington is rather inconvenient. Sure they’re doing a similar thing currently by ending the southeast end at Shepard instead of McKenzie Towne Terminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way to maximize the usefulness of the line.
 
Transit Apologist said:
In my experience, the majority of ridership on the 301 (the most direct bus-route predecessor to the north Green Line) goes directly between downtown and North Pointe Terminal (Panorama) so to cut it short at Beddington is rather inconvenient. Sure they’re doing a similar thing currently by ending the southeast end at Shepard instead of McKenzie Towne Terminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way to maximize the usefulness of the line.
Click to expand...
If the green line was to stop at Beddington then route 3 would be the most direct predecessor at least for NC to downtown. If I’m not mistaken there are more buses on route 3 than the 301.
I think the green line to Beddington is fine. Like the NW line they can add extensions later.
There’s a better opportunity to increase ridership from Beddington to DT as density along the line increases, but the only way to increase ridership north of Beddington is by extensions and even then you’re only extending to many who are already travelling to the Beddington station.
 
Transit Apologist said:
In my experience, the majority of ridership on the 301 (the most direct bus-route predecessor to the north Green Line) goes directly between downtown and North Pointe Terminal (Panorama) so to cut it short at Beddington is rather inconvenient. Sure they’re doing a similar thing currently by ending the southeast end at Shepard instead of McKenzie Towne Terminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way to maximize the usefulness of the line.
Click to expand...
64th is the major north terminal, and delivers travel time savings for the people forced transferring there. It is the Goldielocks north expansion, unless there is a true windfall in transit funding over 2027-2036.
 
badc0ffee said:
Do you mean 78th?
Click to expand...
Nope. While the 2017 plans have Beddington Station having a large bus bay station, 64th is the first north station where there is land availability and the road network to support a large bus bay station. This is reflected in the LRT ridership projections that have expanding from 64th to Beddington to only generate 3900 incremental riders, while expanding from 40th to 64th generates 19,000 incremental riders.

1690989919183.png


1690989956823.png
 
I'm really hoping that the malls are redeveloped when the C-train does finally reach Beddington. It'd be nice if we got a specialist tower for all the lab services, clinics, and dentists that make up the majority of the tenants in both malls and redeveloped the malls so the businesses are all adjacent to centre street and all the parking is along Beddington Blvd.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top