darwink
Senior Member
Cause rail freight can explode, so avoiding over pressure.
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Yet it is running through our downtown.
kora
Active Member
That's for sure. I think there could be interim measures like closing Centre Street, 3 Street, 7 Street, 10 Street to traffic across 7 Avenue. Some of these downtown north-south routes don't need to serve vehicles because they are essentially local roads .... In the same way that the railroad tracks don't have all the streets running to the Beltline. Has an analysis like this been conducted?
lemongrab
Active Member
I think the key thing is exactly where the ~13m clearance issue:
Underground: Have to be deep under for 8 ave, which means you're inherently under CPKC/9th and 7th-4th Aves anyways. Your 7 Ave station is quite deep, but the beltine and north DT stations could be at-grade if you want. (but there is another deep clearance issue if you want to use 10th or 11th you need to either be at-grade through Macleods Tr or go way under the red line tunnel there, too)
Elevated: Have to be way over CPKC tracks, and also the +30 between 7-8 Aves. Then the last +15 is between 2nd&3rd Aves, which is just a couple hundred meters from the Bow River so you just stay high across the river. The CPKC tracks mean you have to start elevating about 500m before (see blue line west), which puts you at 1st St SE. So of course you bump it another 300 meters to clear that and Macleod NB. But then you're just 1 block from the 4 Ave SE underpass that needs to be navigated since we're using 10th, so you bump it another 250 meters east. Which puts you at Grand Central Station, which the prelim design seemed to envision the GL already elevated...so bump the start of the ramp another few hundred meters east!
So there isn't much of an option to shorten the elevated section as there could be with underground. But that tight turn from 3rd onto Centre St likely presents a few challenges, too.
darwink
Senior Member
if you go slow enough the turn is fine.
But politically, through China town ... that was just a non starter. Council had already fought and lost for a bike lane on 3rd, and 1 or 2 redevelopment projects hat would have sailed through if outside the area.
lemongrab
Active Member
Yup; I kinda meant the challenge of doing those two blocks on 3rd Ave where you'd presumably have a station, too. It looks somewhat trivial compared to the streets around it, but of course they're still important DT blocks (despite the preponderance of surface parking).
I was also wondering if you'd want to run down the west side of Centre street (ie. current SB lanes) to minimize vehicle interactions until you go under 16th? Which makes the turn off 3rd especially tight. This probably messes too much with access to west Crescent Hts (though that's kind of the point) and limits opportunity for any kind of shared busway (not sure how well that would work in any configuration). It brings me back to the point that we're not really maximizing the opportunities that a low-floor tram presents...because it turns out it doesn't really make great transit? But it sure looks neat in Portland and Bilbao!
Attachments
outoftheice
Active Member
The area Councillor was also a main opponent to all of these projects and said Councillor just lost his seat so perhaps things might change in Chinatown over the next 4 years....
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Use the 1st Street SW underpass. Doing so would open you up to a shallow cut and cover option. A low floor cut and cover might be even more shallow than a high floor, I would think you would save a a couple metres.
In this scenario...
This is 1st Street at 10th Ave.
And the Blue Line where it crosses 6th Ave at 9th Street.
A 11th Ave and then 1st Steet cut and cover seems like the cheapest and best option to me. I'm probably missing something though. This is not even being considered so it won't happen.
In this scenario...
- Do not worry about accounting for a Stephen Ave subway (that is decades off and maybe a 6th Ave cut and cover of a north Calgary line blending NE Blue Line and NW Red Line would be better anyways)
- Not worrying about a Stephen Ave subway also allows you to cut and cover until you're past 7th Ave, then you can run it at the surface and take advantage of the fact you bought a low floor rolling stock.
- Do a cut and cover on 11th Ave leading up to 1st Street SW too. You've already moved all the utilities. And there is a parking lot at 11th Ave and 1st Street SW currently that would make the turn not as sharp as 10th Ave to 1st Street SW.
- There is also an opportunity to redo the underpass and still allow for two driving lanes.
This is 1st Street at 10th Ave.
And the Blue Line where it crosses 6th Ave at 9th Street.
A 11th Ave and then 1st Steet cut and cover seems like the cheapest and best option to me. I'm probably missing something though. This is not even being considered so it won't happen.
Last edited:
lemongrab
Active Member
I've always thought 1st was a great solution, but I don't think extended cut+cover is a realistic solution given the apparent influence of affected property owners. I bet construction duration is a bigger concern for most owners than the long-term aesthetic/noise/shadow issues (if they really stop and think rationally about it). The latter are just a lot more tangible and easy to get public outcry on. Also remember that you'd have to deep under the red line tunnel if you want to use 11th; on 12th you could go shallow if you wanted to, but we missed the boat on doing a few blocks fairly easily incl. a station concurrent with the arena.
IMO they need to do a better job of framing the options now that deep bored tunnel is off the table. For instance:
3 years major construction impacts to build cut+cover tunnel ($$$$$), or
2 years major construction impacts to build elevated ($$$), or
1 year more moderate construction impacts to build at-grade ($)
And with at-grade, there are options to mitigate the impact to each street even more by building single track couplets (use two of 10/11/12 aves). This is probably a bit more expensive and longer for the project overall, but quicker for each block (more likely you're just closing one lane and part of a sidewalk most of the time and don't have to reconfigure the whole street as much). These ideas lost out when we thought the tunnel cost $$, but I think they're worthy of a lot more consideration now that we know the tunnel costs $$$$$.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I wasn't descriptive enough when I said:
I meant go underground after the Red Line tunnel. Could mean a rail crossing of Macleod and cut and cover under 1st Street SE, I think you could mitigate this by making Macleod and 1st Street SE two-way roads. I think you'll want them to be two-way if you use 1st Street SW for a rail and single lane each way underpass. 11th Ave is not busy east of 1st Street SE so I don't think you would need to use single track couplets.
I also want 4th Street SE to be a surface station. It would be the cheapest and best for the Events Centre, the rolling stock chosen, adjacent development integration on the old Railtown lot, and any future Grand Central integration (leaving elevated for HSR and/or regional rail).
Last edited:
lemongrab
Active Member
Gotcha. I'm not sure how I feel about converting the Macleods to two-ways; I worry about unintended consequences and I think a simple road diet while keeping one-way might be the best. From a pedestrian or wheeling lane standpoint, one-way intersections are actually pretty nice as there are fewer conflict points. And rail crossings would be easy.
The couplets thing is just trying to see how running at-grade as much as possible might work. But it's really tough with all the driveways and cross-streets. You can close a lot of driveways that have alternate access and restrict a lot of left turns, but you can't do all of them. So it's totally understandable why the amount of grade separation crept up and up to include the entire beltline (and it's the best thing for efficient transit afterall)...But then I look at Centre Street and see that all of those issues are just as prevalent there, and in some ways even worse! I'd never thought too hard about 16th-64th, but I think it has a lot of potential to be pretty bad. Which is kinda nuts when you consider that in many ways the entire plan was contrived to facilitate this stretch!
I agree with this. If you wanted to use 12th then underground makes some sense instead of mixing with thousands of people at the arena doors.
outoftheice
Active Member
Shortlists for all the companies who will bid on the bulk of the Green Line work was announced today. I believe the tracks and signaling are the only major contracts that still need to go through the RFQ/RFP process. The announcement also included an interesting map of how the project is getting chopped up.
www.calgary.ca
A project for Calgarians, built by Calgarians
Following a competitive Request for Prequalification (RFPQ) process, we are pleased to announce the shortlist of companies selected for the 2026–2031 civil works construction packages for the Green Line LRT – SE Project.
www.calgary.ca
FCC1982
Senior Member
I believe the pressure is primarily coming from downtown building owners who are (understandably) concerned with the potential negative impacts an elevated line will have on their properties and property values.
Best case scenario from my perspective is Nenshi wins the Provincial election and agrees to fund the underground option.
Dārayavauš
Active Member
Are we going to be waiting until 2027 for a decision on the downtown though? I doubt the (elevated) Events Centre station plans wouldn’t be solidified by then.
lemongrab
Active Member
Public engagement is supposedly starting in Q1 2026 which should have a preliminary design (30%?). Then I presume they'd take that feedback to advance the design further and bring it back to council before the end of 2026. But that would imply any decision is unlikely until early 2027.
January 2025:
#6 seems poorly worded from a pure direction standpoint...if the GoA cost estimate is off or there is no broad project support do they simply not seek council direction to initiate construction? Of course they still need to bring it back to council in some form, but if those conditions are not met does that suggest admin could/should bring a recommendation other than initiating construction? It makes sense that they'd include those statements for the next council, and maybe it's not uncommon for council directions to include conditional directions like this? I don't think this will be particularly significant, but I feel like they normally try to use more precise wording (often at the behest of the clerk)