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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 27 75.0%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Total voters
    36
ahuch said:
What if we integrated green line into the +15 network? Isn't that more akin to what you see in places like Asia where you go seamlessly from transit to businesses? Then you get businesses operating past 5pm due to normalized foot traffic. Although admittedly, one station probably isn't enough to spearhead that alone.
Click to expand...
Not just Asia, in Canada too. I just got back from Toronto and feel like they could easily do a Union Station type of thing here. Trains run above, staircases go up to the platform, ties in seamlessly. They'd need a space and set of stairs/elevators within the building to remain open beyond +15 hours, but could otherwise still easily lock the rest of the network after 5pm with nothing more than a few auto-locking doors.

Tearing the +15's down isn't the answer. You're just making walking in general less favorable and practical. Just because this forum is passionate about street level activation and whatnot doesn't mean the general public cares all that much whether their lunch spot is on the ground or second floor. If you want more foot traffic, an accessible, properly integrated, and efficient system that gets them there is what you need.
 
Joborule said:
Lololol. Let the fearmongering begin. (I get why they do it, but still funny)

Click to expand...
Haha, love the shops. A bit blunt sure, but they present a valid concern. Especially on a project where the budget will be highly scrutinized, the temptation to VE the elevated guideway will be strong.

I'll suggest another route though. If large projects still have the 1% budget requirement for a public art project, why not make the elevated guideway the artwork?

Some people will always complain, but a lot fewer will if the guideway looked more like the peace bridge than a plain concrete beam..
 
A positive side of the story is that the UCP did choose to maintain the 2nd Street alignment, which suggests the Centre Street North alignment will also be preserved. I know there was fear that the UCP would reintroduce the Nose Creek alignment, which Jim Gray and his group has still been pushing, but if they UCP really was going to do that, then the line would have just terminated at the "Grand Central Station".
 
It is interesting that this is AECOM document is so secret. The City seems confused as to what is so secret about it. They want to be able to talk about it out in the open but the need for secrecy is preventing that.
 
I think under the circumstances, having a longer but fully at or above grade GL isn't the worst thing we could have ended up with. Assuming this goes ahead, my only worry is what that means for Eau Claire after all the expropriation and impending demolition. Knowing that transit isn't exactly a priority for our Provincial government, I'm just relieved they didn't pull the plug on the whole project. .
 
I did some back of napkin math - the line should be able to drop from a +45 over the CP tracks to a +30 level by the 7th Ave station. I'd rather have the line at a lower level for cost and ease of access. You'd have a one story drop into the +15 to take you to your office/shopping. The +30 level would break at the station, but I that would be an improvement for The Bay as they would now have a terminus station that can feed directly into their store rather than the dead mall that exists on the +30 level there now. If this is the south end of the station, the north end should be planned to be able to integrate with Brookfield if that ever gets built. The devil is in the details, which are sorely lacking. I hope the city doesn't get shafted with a cost overrun project thanks to a take it or leave it high level vague proposal being pushed by the Province.
 
Nimbus said:
"with the only exception being the Core"

That's the thing though, the single busiest +15/30 in the entire system is the one from the Core across 2nd street. No way the mall owners go for that +15 coming down.
Click to expand...
The big wide +15/30 from the Core runs over 3rd Street (not 2nd).
 
Joborule said:
Lololol. Let the fearmongering begin. (I get why they do it, but still funny)

Click to expand...
1734420842264.png


Yeah, it doesn't look great. And the heights of the track are probably too high. (which actually reduces the visual impact of the tracks.) But what do you think it would look like? Obviously, for a mere $2.5M we can't expect AECOM to do renderings, but I think there is some onus on the proponent to provide some indication of what the plan is or might look like, especially in a complicated, constrained urban environment.

But the existing elevated LRT track in Calgary is on a viaduct 35 feet wide, and 10th Street is only 45 feet wide curb to curb; what do you think it could look like? Where should the supports go? There';s not enough room on the sidewalks and the City has a commitment to prioritize the pedestrian. There could be columns on either side in the parking lanes, which would take up a substantial portion of the parking and be a real hazard at intersections, or they could go in the median, which would work if we dropped one parking lane entirely.

The Sunalta LRT station is 85 feet wide at the access point; it's only 75 feet across 10th St from building to building. I think that fitting 85 feet of station into a 75 foot wide space probably requires more than handwaving, and a "surely it can't be that bad".
 
ByeByeBaby said:
go in the median, which would work if we dropped one parking lane entirely.
Click to expand...
@ByeByeBaby is right about the taller guideway being much better than a lower one from the street.

The median is what they should do. Could do a green boulevard between the columns (they won't it'll just be concrete) that allows you to have a left turn lane in the middle too.

There is plenty of parking so losing one lane of parking isn't a big loss. I don't see how you could do this style and put columns on a tight sidewalk.
1734450703370.png


Maybe if you have the Beltline Station straddling 1 Street (as depicted) you don't have a choice. I was expecting that station to be pushing into the parking lot but that means expropriating more land... I mean you have a low floor LRT, why not keep it at grade as long as possible. West LRT takes about 500m to get to the CPKC required height.
1734451069091.png


Using that you could only have to start climbing just after Palliser South and get to the required height. You lose all the street parking on 10th because the surface line would take the two driving lanes for those blocks leaving you with the parking lane as driving lanes but at least for a couple blocks you don't have an elevated line. Wouldn't it also save money?
1734451319546.png


Also this is just one of out to three alignments AECOM presented. The scope of work says develop two to three alignments. Maybe the City decides another alignment in the report is better? Perhaps the province would still back that? Or is it this or nothing?
Image.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top