[HudsonA08]

Let’s be honest City of Calgary. If you think this will cost 7.5 billion then the tunnel will cost 9.5 billion. Anyone who says the tunnel is cheaper than elevated is dreaming.

This report looks well thought out and that they analyzed the options they were instructed to. And interesting they all go to Eau Claire.

 

[Meikkhaell]

Glad to see despite the governments' failure to communicate it well, AECOM did put together a thorough and insightful report. I know they're just renders, but I don't mind how the guideways look here and I LOVE the grand central station. If the city thinks this is $7.5 billion, I say do it. In all likelihood it won't get any cheaper.

 

[Gazyyc]

The Grand Central station being included as much as it has in this report, has to be a ploy to get anyone reading it, to be awestruck and gloss over the rest of the report or the requirements(read restrictions )that the Govt placed on AECOM to come up with this report ( I think I saw the leaked document on a earlier page outlying the scope and what AECOM couldn't touch with a 12ft pole, unless I'm going crazy).
We don't even have a regional rail plan in place so anything in this report is absolute pie in the sky,look over here, it's pretty, BS political smokescreen. Unless I missed the announcement that AECOM was not only doing the rail plan but designing a station that hasn't even been announced, let alone awarded to design.

At the reported 5% design that AECOM has presented, we are already at , depending who you believe, $6 or $7 billion. The city's plans increased in cost significantly between % design points, so why will this be any different as designs are finalized, land purchases are finalized, demolition costs are finalized, the potential legal ramifications from a multitude or parties all come in. That cost is only going one way.

The Province stated that the cities plans were back of a napkin crayon calculations....at least the city used a napkin and didn't draw all over the table, so they could throw the napkin away and redo aspects when applicable. Unlike the Province, who've drew all over the table with spilt milk and all it will leave is a festering bad smell.

I sincerely hope like alot of the other UCP policy/grand announcements, someone has a quiet word with Smith and points out the flaws with this proposal and gets a reversal. Give the city the billion to tunnel, milk the Feds for half of it, a likely election shortly, I'm sure both parties would agree to split 500/500. Then Smith gets to look the hero, builds a modern effective train line, saving the city from doom, all the while, getting those ever important Dollars back from Ottawa and sticking it to the Feds. Quietly shuffle rail away from Dreshen whose idea of modern rail is probably Heritage Parks line, give it back to Dr No who at least seemed willing to negotiate/talk and away we go.

Apologies for the long post.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

The first alternative seems to me to have been rejected on absolute bogus grounds.

The existing LRT routinely drops into tunnels with much less than 1km; the clearest is just west of Lion's Park station where 14 Ave is crossed completely at grade, and the train is under 16th Ave about 150m away:

Perhaps it would need to be a little longer than that because the railway needs a stronger deck to support heavier loads, but surely not much. The Red line travels about 300m from 7th Ave to under the exact same rail line a few blocks away.

It's hard to take a study all that seriously when their criteria would have said that the existing LRT in Calgary could not possibly be constructed.

 

[YYCguy]

Apologies for the long post.

Don’t apologize! I love reading all the different viewpoints being expressed here. Your post was well thought out and well written!

 

[FriendlyDrunks]

The first alternative seems to me to have been rejected on absolute bogus grounds.
View attachment 620639

The existing LRT routinely drops into tunnels with much less than 1km; the clearest is just west of Lion's Park station where 14 Ave is crossed completely at grade, and the train is under 16th Ave about 150m away:
View attachment 620638
Perhaps it would need to be a little longer than that because the railway needs a stronger deck to support heavier loads, but surely not much. The Red line travels about 300m from 7th Ave to under the exact same rail line a few blocks away.

It's hard to take a study all that seriously when their criteria would have said that the existing LRT in Calgary could not possibly be constructed.

Not an expert, but this portion of the red line is sooo slow. That underpass would probably be quicker at grade.

 

[whatchyyc]

The first alternative seems to me to have been rejected on absolute bogus grounds.
View attachment 620639

The existing LRT routinely drops into tunnels with much less than 1km; the clearest is just west of Lion's Park station where 14 Ave is crossed completely at grade, and the train is under 16th Ave about 150m away:
View attachment 620638
Perhaps it would need to be a little longer than that because the railway needs a stronger deck to support heavier loads, but surely not much. The Red line travels about 300m from 7th Ave to under the exact same rail line a few blocks away.

It's hard to take a study all that seriously when their criteria would have said that the existing LRT in Calgary could not possibly be constructed.

I think the key phrase here is "or affect cross streets". yes you can dip down sooner but you can't have roads going over that portal section
If closing intersections justifies throwing away an alignment option I can't say.

 

[whatchyyc]

The Grand Central station being included as much as it has in this report, has to be a ploy to get anyone reading it, to be awestruck and gloss over the rest of the report or the requirements(read restrictions )that the Govt placed on AECOM to come up with this report ( I think I saw the leaked document on a earlier page outlying the scope and what AECOM couldn't touch with a 12ft pole, unless I'm going crazy).
We don't even have a regional rail plan in place so anything in this report is absolute pie in the sky,look over here, it's pretty, BS political smokescreen. Unless I missed the announcement that AECOM was not only doing the rail plan but designing a station that hasn't even been announced, let alone awarded to design.

At the reported 5% design that AECOM has presented, we are already at , depending who you believe, $6 or $7 billion. The city's plans increased in cost significantly between % design points, so why will this be any different as designs are finalized, land purchases are finalized, demolition costs are finalized, the potential legal ramifications from a multitude or parties all come in. That cost is only going one way.

The Province stated that the cities plans were back of a napkin crayon calculations....at least the city used a napkin and didn't draw all over the table, so they could throw the napkin away and redo aspects when applicable. Unlike the Province, who've drew all over the table with spilt milk and all it will leave is a festering bad smell.

I sincerely hope like alot of the other UCP policy/grand announcements, someone has a quiet word with Smith and points out the flaws with this proposal and gets a reversal. Give the city the billion to tunnel, milk the Feds for half of it, a likely election shortly, I'm sure both parties would agree to split 500/500. Then Smith gets to look the hero, builds a modern effective train line, saving the city from doom, all the while, getting those ever important Dollars back from Ottawa and sticking it to the Feds. Quietly shuffle rail away from Dreshen whose idea of modern rail is probably Heritage Parks line, give it back to Dr No who at least seemed willing to negotiate/talk and away we go.

Apologies for the long post.

From my understanding, the concept Grand Central Station in this report was made by AECOM alongside Remington for the Prairie Link consortium in 2022/23 and adapted to the elevated Green Line

 

[CallmeCatbread]

Central station looks like absolute garbage in the renders. I'm aware it's a high level conceptual plan but there's enough detail there to indicate that serious design work has been undertaken and the final product will more or less resemble what's shown.

Ridiculous how allergic we are to design competitions in this country. Final design is going to be unbelievably mid.

 

[lemongrab]

I'm still trying to make sense of the city's cost comparisons.

City plan involved a smaller (temporary?) MSF in Millican. Does the $700M needed to get to Sheppard also include the full size MSF instead of the small one? Or is it just the extra stations, and the full size MSF would still be needed with future extensions? Did we get any clarity on how many trains the small MSF could do, and how many stations that could serve at intended frequenies?

Presumably the province's plan includes the full size MSF in Sheppard...

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Does the $700M needed to get to Sheppard also include the full size MSF instead of the small one?

I would say it includes the full size MSF.

The missing money is because of AECOM's scope versus what the city knows. I think the City is including sunk costs that cannot be recovered.

@darwink mentioned AECOM incorrectly placing the +30 between 6th and 7th Avenues. This image is also not correct. It is the 10th Ave Station between 1st St and 2nd St. You can see the Obsidian Energy building on the left. Minor stuff, but yeah.

 

[CBBarnett]

Not an expert, but this portion of the red line is sooo slow. That underpass would probably be quicker at grade.

It's a cheap tunnel. Only 30 km/h through there. Geometry and design was never setup to make the trains go fast. Grade separation has lots of benefits for reliability, even if it's not particularly fast in this case. Probably costs a minute or two travel time from a faster designed tunnel so not huge (or huge if you multiply it by 50,000 daily users, each day for 40 years).

I don't know my 1980s CTrain history but I am going to take a wild guess that this section is the way it is to avoid land impacts back when built to keep the line on public property as much as possible. It was a bit short-sighted and remain pretty much the only "awkward" part of an otherwise surprisingly rapid line, but probably saved a ton of money. If the Red Line had been a highway project we'd have designed the tunnel for 80km/h + 15% to allow for some expectations of speeding

 

[Red Star]

It's a cheap tunnel. Only 30 km/h through there. Geometry and design was never setup to make the trains go fast. Grade separation has lots of benefits for reliability, even if it's not particularly fast in this case. Probably costs a minute or two travel time from a faster designed tunnel so not huge (or huge if you multiply it by 50,000 daily users, each day for 40 years).

I don't know my 1980s CTrain history but I am going to take a wild guess that this section is the way it is to avoid land impacts back when built to keep the line on public property as much as possible. It was a bit short-sighted and remain pretty much the only "awkward" part of an otherwise surprisingly rapid line, but probably saved a ton of money. If the Red Line had been a highway project we'd have designed the tunnel for 80km/h + 15% to allow for some expectations of speeding

In my opinion, the 14th Ave at-grade crossing and sharp turn is the only blemish on an otherwise perfect LRT line. The rest of the NW Red line is grade separated or has low traffic at-grade crossings.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Only skimmed a bit so far, but I'm pretty impressed with how open and creative they were. Even the idea I've suggested before to interline the red line underpass tunnel (Option 7)


View attachment 620563

I think there was a way to utilize the work done on 11 in a 2C option that used 2nd Street instead of 6th Street. Dismissing it because of traffic impacts on 11th doesn't sit right with me.

11th is not busy until 4th Street SW so you could've had the line run at grade down 11th. So traffic impact, even for north-south traffic, would be minimal or no more of an issue than 7th Ave.

There could've been an at-grade stop on 11th between 5th and 4th Street SE. That would still bring people to Grand Central without the expensive doubly elevated platform for the Green Line. There could be another stop in the Beltline on 11th between 1st Street and 2nd Street. Then turn the line north up 2nd Street and have it immediately start climbing to get over the CPKC line. Then continue elevated down 2nd.

The money saved using a at-grade solution could easily get the line to Eau Claire. Or even further south.

Anyways... if I'm the city I'm not sure what I do, what they've been given is not exactly a plan, it is 5% of a plan and they have to take it onboard full stop. That's a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Gazyyc]

I'd be interested to see, if the city says no to the alignment and clearly communicates the why such as the low design % and major impacts that weren't addressed (pg48 of the report), how quickly the Province does an about face and claims they were only trying to do what's best and the city is a bully etc etc but will fund. It would be on par for their style of knee jerk 'governance'.

And speaking of pg 48, how can you 'design' a transit alignment without any analysis or study of its impact on traffic, transit, property access/egress and noise/ vibration impacts?
This literally was an exercise in can you draw me a line down a street. It's an insult not only to the city and anyone who worked on the GL but every single taxpayer across the Province.

AECOM are working on HSR, which explains how they were able to build out Grand Central so quickly and the why and how of the Province being able to find someone so quickly and single sourced, to draft their plan, AECOM were already at the trough.