Maintenance and Storage Facility
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
John Wick
New Member
The more Green Line budget increases and the more political it becomes I'm starting to think the way forward is to split the line. Green Line south, Seton to Eau Claire (as planned; no changes) and then a Green Line north (with a new name obviously) straight down a transit only Centre Street Bridge with a terminus at Chinatown.
The biggest cost is the tunneling under the river/new bridge over the river and underground stations. Just remove that. I'd imagine that the cost of strengthening the Centre Street Bridge is a fraction of the current plan.
Ideally, yes one continuous line is better but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
The biggest cost is the tunneling under the river/new bridge over the river and underground stations. Just remove that. I'd imagine that the cost of strengthening the Centre Street Bridge is a fraction of the current plan.
Ideally, yes one continuous line is better but let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
I hear you and I feel that way at times also, other times, I think we're a city of 1.5 million, in a province that has some money. We should spend the money and get this done properly, even if it costs extra. We aren't going to build another separate rail line for a long time - only extensions and additions. My thinking is do it now, do it the best way not the cheapest and be done with it.
YYCguy
Active Member
How would you propose vehicle traffic be diverted away from the Centre Street bridge if it becomes a transit only bridge?
Why terminate particularly at Chinatown? Why not at the 7th avenue transit corridor (to make easier connections to existing Blue and Red lines) or Calgary Tower?
lemongrab
Active Member
Couldn't it simply run down the middle with one car lane on each side like it will to the north?
YYCguy
Active Member
John Wick suggested a transit only bridge so I was curious on his thoughts about vehicle traffic.
This is what planners originally wanted, because the plan is to have the tracks take two lanes of Centre St immediately north of the bridge anyway. But, there is some engineering issue preventing this, like the existing 110 year old bridge is unable to support the required weight or track bed.
(Which is weird to me because the bridge had streetcar tracks from day 1)
lemongrab
Active Member
Ahh, I missed those two little words.
I've ranted about this before, but if you want to keep the lines connected, save a chunk of tunnelling, and use Centre St across the river, you could go up 1st St SW (using the existing CP underpass) instead of 2nd. Then at 3rd Ave there is a surface lot path that would take you diagonally across the block right to the Centre St bridge. https://maps.app.goo.gl/wbuNpxb8frC4XuU87
Interestingly in the historical street view you see a proposed development sign in 2019, and then a land use change sign in 2021 and 2022. I haven't bothered to check the current status of that block though.
I'd rather expropriate some surface lots that may or may not be developed some day instead of 23 homes and tearing up a bunch of beautiful park space, but maybe that's just me.
At that point, why not just have a bus? Save even more money
lemongrab
Active Member
Sign me up! I've always been on team SEBRT + NLRT. One of the biggest arguments against this was how much land acquisition and design work was needed for the north and that it wouldn't be able to begin construction until the mid 2020s...which happened anyways. Of course there are also some political issues to deal with in terms of changing scope/timelines, but they've had to do plenty of tapdancing anyways.
OTOH BRT segments can open piecemeal as they are ready. Personally I'm just concerned that the SE is not going to have the ridership to justify the OPEX, let alone the addtional CAPEX.
Tinfoil hat tells me it's powerful lobbying (if not outright conflict of interest) behind the tunnel vision for Shepherd Crossing, but I'm sure that's crazy talk as shirley it's impossible to think an elected official would enrich themselves through a new LRT line in Calgary of all places!
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
Year after year it becomes clear this thing has been cursed from the get-go.
by the time this line gets full build-out Calgary will probably be 2.5 million people and the low-floor tram design will be way overcapacity
Should just throw in the towel and regroup to build a REM-like light metro instead, even if it can only go to like Inglewood under current funding.
by the time this line gets full build-out Calgary will probably be 2.5 million people and the low-floor tram design will be way overcapacity
Should just throw in the towel and regroup to build a REM-like light metro instead, even if it can only go to like Inglewood under current funding.
accord1999
Active Member
In 2020, the Green Line released a report on several possible alignments that could be selected after the original 2017 plan was no longer feasible. Despite its obvious bias towards the current plan (A2), I'd have to say that the plan closest to your idea (C2) was the better choice. For around 15% higher capital cost, you get a second usable LRT line that will more than double daily ridership compared to A2.
Green Line Committee - June 01, 2020
darwink
Senior Member
The tunnel by bankers hall is the risky expensive bit. The expensive add on of two underground Beltline stations including one needing to serve a surge capacity for an arena. The bridge is not the problem here.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Don't we get a proper update on this thing soon? Early July?
lemongrab
Active Member
In 2020, the Green Line released a report on several possible alignments that could be selected after the original 2017 plan was no longer feasible. Despite its obvious bias towards the current plan (A2), I'd have to say that the plan closest to your idea (C2) was the better choice. For around 15% higher capital cost, you get a second usable LRT line that will more than double daily ridership compared to A2.
View attachment 569068Green Line Committee - June 01, 2020
pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
View attachment 569067
Can anyone explain why the A option 'North' costs are only $6M while the other options are significantly higher?
My guess would be the for A that is simply the LRT OPEX north of 7 ave (ignoring bussing costs further north on Centre)? While the North BRT options probably aren't terribly different from current OPEX costs on those lines? Meanwhile the South LRT side presumably excludes the costs for feeder busses? It feels like a selectively narrow depiction of the options.