YYCguy said:
Also I note that Smith says “there’s no more money for Phase 1”, so does that mean when Phase 2 (crossing the river and getting up North) comes into play, she might be convinced to offer more funding for Phase 2?
Click to expand...
The future phases would definitely need provincial money as going north is expensive. If the river crossing is killed now a future phase from Eau Claire to 64th Avenue is probably going to cost more than $2B. And the City is pretty tapped out paying off its share of the capital and financing costs for Stage 1 for the next 30+ years as well as needing new money to pay for its net operating costs.

I could see Alberta (regardless of who's premier) and Canada getting together to fund major LRT projects in the late 2020s, when Edmonton's Valley Line West is nearing completion and (if) GL Stage 1 looks on track. Though for Calgary, there'll probably still be battles over whether that money goes to the GL, for other LRT extensions or the airport connector.
 
accord1999 said:
I could see Alberta (regardless of who's premier) and Canada getting together to fund major LRT projects in the late 2020s
Click to expand...
This will happen. The infrastructure fund post 2027, we won't have the slimmest of details until at least the fall, more likely the spring.
 
Updated MSF design. Mostly the same except with chunks chopped off and put to future expansion
1717195175361.png
 
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.
 
John Wick said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
John Wick said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
YYCguy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Couldn't it simply run down the middle with one car lane on each side like it will to the north?
 
lemongrab said:
Couldn't it simply run down the middle with one car lane on each side like it will to the north?
Click to expand...
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)
 
YYCguy said:
John Wick suggested a transit only bridge so I was curious on his thoughts about vehicle traffic.
Click to expand...
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.
 
badc0ffee said:
At that point, why not just have a bus? Save even more money
Click to expand...
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!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top