darwink
Senior Member
Not having to cross both 16th and Centre as a pedestrian to make a transfer is a big transit benefit.
Also being able to raise the frequency and train length.
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Also being able to raise the frequency and train length.
badc0ffee
Active Member
It was also done in the NE. 36 St and the LRT are elevated over 16 Ave.
accord1999
Active Member
Even if traffic levels at the 16th Ave section is reduced when the full Green Line is complete, the at-grade stations IMO results in significant compromises in the desire to turn that section of Centre Street into a walkable, "cozy" main street versus stations that can handle high passenger counts and provide comfort in bad weather.
To minimize the footprint of the stations, the plan is to make them pretty spartan so they're not expected to have heated or enclosed shelters and only a partially covered platform. I'd expect them to be in the bottom 25, 20% of CTrain stations for comfort while waiting 10 minutes for a train in the winter or a heavy rainstorm. The below are side views of what the stations could look like (from GC2021-0736) and even if they are much more minimalistic than existing stations, their length will probably still be quite isolating between the two sides of the street
To minimize the footprint of the stations, the plan is to make them pretty spartan so they're not expected to have heated or enclosed shelters and only a partially covered platform. I'd expect them to be in the bottom 25, 20% of CTrain stations for comfort while waiting 10 minutes for a train in the winter or a heavy rainstorm. The below are side views of what the stations could look like (from GC2021-0736) and even if they are much more minimalistic than existing stations, their length will probably still be quite isolating between the two sides of the street
zagox
Active Member
There is no funding for Eau Claire to 16th ave. The project team have already admitted that it would basically take a miracle to fit that within the current budget.
From the Green Line website:
"Green Line is focused on Phase 1 of the project, from Shepard to Eau Claire. The Green Line Board is committed to managing costs and risks. Should costs of escalation and other risks not materialize during Phase 1, the Board will make a decision on timing and direction for Phase 2. The timeline for that decision has not been set."
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
I still find it a huge shame that they haven’t even considered, given the jump over the river is pushed back, extending the southern terminus into Mackenzie Towne. The cost/benefit seems absolutely crystal clear to me, having a station in an actually populated neighbourhood outside of the inner city, in an area where the right-of-way already exists. Like… duh!
badc0ffee
Active Member
Someone earlier in this thread said the final south section (Shepard to Seton) is still going to cost like $1 billion. That could be correct, but still sounds crazy to me, because as you said, the right of way is already there.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
I don’t know if the right-of-way is already there all the way to Shepard. I think it only begins at Quarry Park. Even still though, the 2 km to Mackenzie Towne is the only 3 station section (Shepard, Prestwick, Mackenzie) in phase one with no bridges or tunnels. It would be an absolute bargain by comparison to the rest of phase 1.
DougB
Active Member
The row is clearly visible along the west side of 52nd. The overpass at Stoney also seems wide enough to accommodate LRT. I suspect much of the cost is addtional LRVs required for the greater distance. I agree that $1B sounds high. This should be as easy to build as it gets.
darwink
Senior Member
$850 million in 2019 dollars if what I wrote down in 2021 was correct. Shepard to McKenzie Towne is $325 million.
Big thing is until the current procurement is done, Council has been loathe to do a full prioritization.
The best (dollars per incremental trip) Greenline project is getting to 64th Ave, probably for about a $1, 1.5 billion depending on the status of the river crossing. That would put both the north and south lines at equal 'state of play', with major transfer stations.
accord1999
Active Member
To refresh our memories about the costs and benefits of the future stages, the data from March 2019 can be viewed here:
pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
The RouteAhead update (Attachment 3) from December 2022 also provided cost data
pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
SPC on Transportation and Transit - March 20, 2019
The RouteAhead update (Attachment 3) from December 2022 also provided cost data
RouteAhead 10-Year Update, IP2022-1354 - Infrastructure and Planning Committee - December 08, 2022
badc0ffee
Active Member
I've seen that before, and it's kind of a confusing way to represent the data. Yes, 64 Ave-Beddington is in "DO FIRST" (P1), but that first requires 16-64 Ave, which is in the "CRITICAL TO SUCCESS", i.e. P3, quadrant.
And Eau Claire-16 Ave is not on there at all, because I guess it was previously underway as a part of the first phase of the green line?
Shepard-MacKenzie Towne isn't weighted that differently from 64 Ave-Beddington, it just happens to be on the wrong side of an arbitrary line. But it's a project that could be an actual "do first" because it doesn't depend on any other projects.
And Eau Claire-16 Ave is not on there at all, because I guess it was previously underway as a part of the first phase of the green line?
Shepard-MacKenzie Towne isn't weighted that differently from 64 Ave-Beddington, it just happens to be on the wrong side of an arbitrary line. But it's a project that could be an actual "do first" because it doesn't depend on any other projects.
FCC1982
Active Member
I totally agree with your humble opinions expressed here.
accord1999
Active Member
Yeah, it's a pretty cluttered and somewhat confusing way to display the projects and their costs. Unfortunately, despite the importance of the future extensions to the success of the Green Line, the amount of information released about them since 2017 has been limited and that's the only recently updated document with costs for GL extensions I've been able to find.
Yeah, I recall that RouteAhead was tasked with examining only future GL legs back in 2017 (and supposed to report in 2018) because Eau Claire-16th wasn't expected to become a problem.
Looking at purely bang for buck and risk, Shepard to McKenzie Towne is the easy choice to make. But I feel that the GL will never be a success or live up to its initial promotion as a city-wide project until it reaches 64th.
SlippinJimmy
New Member
Less traffic than 20 years ago sure. The question is how much of this is just a change is due to surrounding road improvements creating a drastic change in traffic patterns. I'm not sure about Centre St. bridge, but MacLeod used to be the way to go if I were to drive to the Beltline/Mission/17th, now TTN Trail, Glenmore, and Crowchild are much more viable when they weren't before when the same route started as Macleod, pre ring road congested 14th, more congested segment of Glenmore, and the rest then the same.
As well a change in demographics and economics in these areas of the city will affect traffic patterns. What I realistically do not see in the next 20 years is traffic on these streets reducing any more than it has unless it is forced to and that only makes it worse somewhere else, especially if the transit that displaces it has a terrible average speed and a slightly raised sidewalk, completely exposed to the elements, for a "station".
Consider as well, even if Centre St is not that busy to warrant all 4 lanes, when reducing to 2 lanes, when you reach 16th and have cars, busses, and whatever else all trying to go left, straight, and right from the same lane you have more than halved the capacity of the road and considering it is crossing train tracks as well have created a monstrosity for traffic and pedestrian safety.
You have to realize that sometimes what works best for vehicle traffic just happens to go hand-in-hand with the effectiveness and safety of the public transit. I really don't give a crap about the traffic itself that much because I hardly ever drive on those stretches of road, but I care about our tax dollars being used for something that is worth it even if it costs more vs something that simply is not.
And yeah 4 car service we hardly ever see and very poor frequency outside of peak times...
It is really sad to see all these other cities, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Seattle, and many others of varying sizes opting to go for safer and more effective/efficient grade separation when needed to build a system that actually can support the city well into it's future while we, in Western Canada (Alberta) just settle for underbuilt transit that runs slowly on a street that is good for maybe next week but then that's it (and we're out of luck at that point because the mistake is made and its done and over with). This may be emotional and VERY far fetched of me to say this but I'm already in a bad/satirical mood today; on the one hand here we struggle with the conservative mind set that either does not want to build it or thinks it simply will not be worth the price tag and needs to be done for cheaper or think that we are just a small simple town that doesn't need fancy big city things cause we won't ever become one OR the extreme variety of urbanists that claim that at grade is necessary for a magical utopian neighborhood where bad weather doesn't exist and people on crutches or in wheelchairs have to risk getting pancaked by fast moving heavy objects because making them use an elevator is too much to ask of them and also because again grade separation is too expensive and only benefits cars (nonsense) and would rather have substandard transit covering more of the city that won't be heavily used and that they will never use rather than very good core transit to build off of overtime that will be successful like in other cities (while secretly just wanting it to slow down traffic above all as a big middle finger on rails to cars).
While far fetched the point is something like this causes everyone to lose. Build it right the first time or just don't. We know don't is not a good option so yeah, build it right the first time.
All very good points. It really comes down to the endgame goal. If the goal is to allow for a lot of growth in ridership, this design will not cut it. This design will not allow for a station that services a large volume of people efficiently and allows for many efficient transfers. I guarantee a not too many years after built as the neighborhood around it begins to adapt and redevelop the city would badly regret wasting their money on something so underbuilt when it would costs so much more in that inevitable future to fix (which will then not be done) than it would have now.
See and this is my problem with north of the river GL. They say this is a rapid transit project; this is not what I would ever call an appropriate terminus station for a rapid transit rail project even if only temporary (for the foreseeable future). Call it what it is, a street car. What it is is a bunch of pedestrians waiting to be hit on a chaotic 2 lane road or hit by the train, that despite crawling at 30km/h, is still deadly. And if the weather is bad, yeah forget it.
Instead of this garbage, put it under ground 9th Ave station or not, and make this stretch of Centre St a even nicer main street with consistently nice wide sidewalks and better walkability without a very long street car stop separating the community.
The ROW fully exists from Sheppard to Seton and can be seen on Google Maps visible all the way to the end of line with the only real obstacle being the Seton YMCA parking lot.
FCC1982
Active Member
^I’m totally with ya SJ.