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

[outoftheice]

If Centre street is fine from a traffic standpoint as a two lane road, we should immediately remove the reversible HOV lanes and turn them into bus lanes until the green line comes.

> small inconveniences to users at a local level

16 Ave is not a local road, though. And Centre street is one of our few bridges over the Bow.

The situation on this stretch is generating so much discussion because it needs special consideration given its role in the road network. Ignoring that and dogmatically removing traffic lanes is just as bad as dogmatically wanting subways everywhere to preserve every single lane and turn movement. This stretch is difficult from a planning perspective, and I suspect the city knows this, which is why the detailed design stops at Eau Claire now.

We'll probably still be going back and forth about this when Eau Claire station opens in 2030 or whenever.

- Removing the reversible HOV lanes and turning 2 lanes into bus only lanes works for me. Why not? I feel like you're presenting the idea as if it would somehow be bad.

- 16th Ave is not a local road because we made the decision to widen it into a 6 lane cross-town route. That being said, we are just wrapping up spending several billion dollars to build a Trans-Canada bypass so all non-local traffic can avoid having to use 16th. If the concern is that 16th Ave gets backed up east-west due to the lights at Centre St, I would repeat my point that that is, in part, due to the fact the light timings must accommodate 3 lanes of lane-reversal north-south traffic on Centre St that includes busses timed every 90 seconds trying to get through that intersection. Eliminate 2 lanes of traffic off Centre and take into account the trains will be running every 7 minutes and I would argue that Green Line means the lights could be retimed to favour east-west flow on 16th far more than it does today which means traffic flow on 16th might actually get better.

- Centre St may be one of our few bridges over the Bow, but that bridge was completely closed to traffic for 2 years when it was being refurbished and the world didn't end. That was also at a time when more people were driving downtown than are today and when transit options were far worse than they are today. If Calgary survived just fine with a complete closure, we should be able to manage 2 lanes being removed.

- I don't think I am being dogmatic by pointing out it's a bit crazy to spend several hundred million dollars to preserve traffic movements exactly how they are today at an inner city intersection of two roads that will carry a multi-billion dollar LRT as well as a Max BRT and benefits from a several billion dollar ring-road to allow out of town traffic to bypass it. Perhaps we accept traffic movements may just have to change a bit and use that several hundred million dollars to build more transit elsewhere... which is essentially what Europe does.

- Agreed we will still be going back and forth on this in the 2030s.... Green Line debates are the gift that keep on giving

 

[outoftheice]

I don't think the idea of the segment from the Bow to 16th Avenue being underground is purely about about NIMBY or about not affecting traffic. Replacing vehicle traffic was supposed to improve the Centre Street urban landscape, such as:
View attachment 502317
The Green Line isn't going to be some quaint street car that's only 20 m long and puttering along at slow speeds, if it's successful it's going to be a 125 m long train with 150+ m stations. Two stations at-grade will prevent significant sections of Centre Street from even seeing across the street, and several intersections will be blocked off. And with the limited space in the area, transfers to/from buses are going to be a hassle.

And the final issue is that since no segment has been confirmed as the next stage, losing two lanes may in fact cause massive traffic delays that won't be resolved for another 10, 20 years. The irony is that car drivers will probably be able to adapt better than the many dozens of buses per hour that use it today.

- Correct, the communities had big concerns over tunnel portals and how they are several hundred metres long and divide the community. Keeping the train on the surface eliminates one, possibly two tunnel portals (assuming the train was just to be buried under 16th Ave) and actually does a better job keeping the communities connected.

- Several intersections being blocked off to accommodate the stations is a car problem for local traffic only, not a pedestrian problem. Given the low floor trains, the station platforms are essentially sidewalks and pedestrian crossings can easily be created between the station platforms and the sidewalks. The communities wanted a walkable main-street. Having several intersections blocked to vehicle traffic is actually an improvement over the busy 4 lane street that exists there today.

- Agreed that if Green Line never proceeds past 16th Ave, then the current design might cause issues but I would argue that the project is meant to be phased and each phase must be looked at in the context of the entire project. We shouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars over-building each phase because we are worried the next phase may never happen. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy at it makes each phase so expensive, the next one becomes harder to deliver.

For example, we could spend several hundred million dollars burying the train under 16th in case the next phase is never built or we could actually use that same money to build north to 28th Ave station. Now that we're building further north, the concerns we were over building 16th Ave for start to dissappear. But maybe we should overbuild those next few blocks and extend the tunnel a bit further in case the project stalls out at 28th Ave but the extra cost of doing that means we could probably extend the line to 40th Ave. That's essentially what the Twitter thread I quoted argued. Instead of increasing costs by over-engineering their rail projects, European cities are plowing those savings into extending their rail networks and the momentum builds on itself. In the UK and in North America, we plow the cash into over-engineering which limits what we can build, which limits the positive outcomes it generates which means the next phase is more expensive and the outcomes are also just as limited and so we end up killing project momentum. If I had to choose between a tunnel between Eau Claire and 20th Ave or building Green Line on the surface from Eau Claire to 64th Ave, I'll happily choose the option to build it to 64th Ave every time.

 

[badc0ffee]

That being said, we are just wrapping up spending several billion dollars to build a Trans-Canada bypass so all non-local traffic can avoid having to use 16th.

Not unless you only consider traffic originating from and destined to outside of Calgary to be "non-local". It's a crosstown route and most of the traffic is in-town. The ring road will displace some of those trips, but not most.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Took a read through a recent Green Line email. I see the city is using the Green Line to put some money into parks around future stations. As has been said, it's not just the tracks and stations that balloon the costs of these things. It's all the stuff that gets attached to them. They're like the Olympics in that way, why not try to get the long list of infrastructure projects done by tying it to this other, much bigger project.

In 2021, Council approved Parks Foundation Calgary to lead and manage the project, and Green Line provided $4M of seed funding to be leveraged by Parks Foundation to develop a minimum of six park projects along future Green Line stations.

First up:

George Moss Park Redevelopment​

George Moss Park, located in Ogden just 200 metres away from the future Ogden Station, was identified as the first project. The redevelopment of George Moss Park redevelopment will create a safe and fun gathering place for the community. It will feature basketball courts that incorporate a public art element, open seating area, a community plaza, tot lot playground and plenty of green space to connect with fellow community members.

Public Gardens Initiative | Green Line LRT

www.calgary.ca

 

[FCC1982]

- 16th Ave is not a local road because we made the decision to widen it into a 6 lane cross-town route.

I would argue that 16th Ave has always been a cross-town route, it didn’t “become” one when it was widened to 6 lanes. It’s been the TCH route through Calgary for decades. In fact the City had plans to develop a freeway for this route (on 24th Ave. alignment I believe). When 16th was widened the City admitted they were abandoning the expressway plans and instead tried to sell us on this “urban boulevard” idea.

Sorry, not really on topic for this thread but just wanted to respond to that comment.

 

[Socguy]

RM transit has a nice little video about trams that raises a number of good questions as to why Calgary is going with low floor when it would be better served with the original high floor...
Calgary specific starting at about the 10:50 mark.

RM transit on modern trams

 

[whatchyyc]

Well as long as the SELRT and the NCLRT are connected and the train will run at street level on Centre Street it will all be low floor. At least we're actually getting trains long enough with enough doors

 

[FCC1982]

RM transit has a nice little video about trams that raises a number of good questions as to why Calgary is going with low floor when it would be better served with the original high floor...
Calgary specific starting at about the 10:50 mark.

RM transit on modern trams

I wish CT had hired this guy in the early days of Green Line planning so we kept with the high floor “city trains” as he calls them, instead of the low floor street car “tram” we are getting.

 

[jhappy77]

I feel like his video doesn't really address the core argument why CT chose low floor for the Centre St corridor. Centre St is very space-constrained, and high floor platforms would extend the length of each platform significantly, raising station construction costs and causing more neighborhood disruption. I could be convinced that the benefits of high floor on design & maintenance outweigh the negatives, but I'd need to see a full picture comparison between the options.

 

[whatchyyc]

Come 2060 people will still be arguing why the green line should've been high floor

 

[trtcttc]

I feel like his video doesn't really address the core argument why CT chose low floor for the Centre St corridor. Centre St is very space-constrained, and high floor platforms would extend the length of each platform significantly, raising station construction costs and causing more neighborhood disruption. I could be convinced that the benefits of high floor on design & maintenance outweigh the negatives, but I'd need to see a full picture comparison between the options.

His video kind of ignores Centre street and that it’ll be more like a tramway/streetcar in that portion, unlike Calgary’s other lines running more like a metro system. But we see that with the high floor design, 7th ave is more of a transit corridor than a vibrant main street. Centre is also quite well positioned for this kind of development since there’s lots of TOD opportunities along the route vs stroads which are too wide to be pedestrian friendly.

Also not sure if I agree on the speed. Berlin runs an extensive tram network using low-floor trams (similar model as Toronto/EDM Valley) that are tramways in the city and grade separated/higher speed in the suburbs. Rode the system a couple years back and in the suburban areas it runs at speeds comparable to Calgary’s LRT. Many European cities have similar tramways that serve both functions with low floor LRVs

 

[accord1999]

His video kind of ignores Centre street and that it’ll be more like a tramway/streetcar in that portion, unlike Calgary’s other lines running more like a metro system. But we see that with the high floor design, 7th ave is more of a transit corridor than a vibrant main street. Centre is also quite well positioned for this kind of development since there’s lots of TOD opportunities along the route vs stroads which are too wide to be pedestrian friendly.

I think the designed length of the Green Line trains is too long for that happen. Most of the European trams use rolling stock of 30-40m length in total, while the Portland LRT that councillors went to visit only uses two car-sets that don't exceed 61m in length (and its streetcar is only 20m long).

If Green Line North ever gets built, then 3-unit 125m long trains running every 5-8 minutes stopping at 150m long stations will be a major detriment to making Centre Street a main street. It is at odds with needing the Green Line to be a major commuter line that replaces all of the buses that come down Centre Street N pre-COVID from the communities north of Beddington Trail.

 

[darwink]

I feel like his video doesn't really address the core argument why CT chose low floor for the Centre St corridor. Centre St is very space-constrained, and high floor platforms would extend the length of each platform significantly, raising station construction costs and causing more neighborhood disruption. I could be convinced that the benefits of high floor on design & maintenance outweigh the negatives, but I'd need to see a full picture comparison between the options.

The extra cost of high floor for street level stations (maybe 5 million a station) is more than made up in the hundreds of millions extra for longer underground stations for longer trains and for more train sets needed to handle the same capacity. Not even counting the cost of slower service due to longer dwell time And worse internal circulation.

That being said, the decision has been made and the decision isn’t going to make the project much worse. if the contractor and the project office and CAF decide during project development it will save money to shift entirely without costing time, especially if they encounter math which shows the project could see way more risk if they don’t shift, I would hope the project would change.

 

[trtcttc]

If Green Line North ever gets built, then 3-unit 125m long trains running every 5-8 minutes stopping at 150m long stations will be a major detriment to making Centre Street a main street.

I did not realize they were running 3 car trains for the green line. The LRT in Toronto will be max 90m and they’re starting at 60, Ottawa’s train is at about 100m, both low floor. Existing C-Train are just over 100m at 4 car operation. At 125m the green line will be close to the Toronto line 1 subway, which is 137m. You’re right at this length and size of station at street level, we’re getting another commuter rail.

 

[badc0ffee]

I looked up the Toronto platform lengths, which are 152 m (500 ft) for line 1 and 155 m for line 4. You are right that the line 1 trains are 137 m; line 4 are 92 m.

I'm also not sure they're running 3-car trains (of the 42-metre Urbos vehicles) for the green line. I don't think I've seen that confirmed? I would have guessed 2-car and 90 m platforms, so the platform can fit on a typical north-south block.