FCC1982
Active Member
Exactly - the pedestrian experience will suffer as well with street running LRT on Centre St.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Other cities aren't nearly as lucky or successful at future-proofing corridors / land hoarding as Calgary. Almost every project they have done is like the Green Line's Centre Street alignment.
How do they manage the land issues when developing transit corridors? here's two North American examples from the past:
Toronto
It may surprise some people that Toronto's Line 2 Bloor Subway, doesn't go down Bloor street much at all for any of it's 25km length. Instead, it often is routed through the alley or nearest residential street off to the north of the main road. Why?
That routing reflects the politics and cost conditions of the time - in the 1960s, the business main street was prioritized over the community around. Utilities and pipes were going to be a mess to move under Bloor, so why bother trying to move them at high costs?
Toronto instead ripped up a row of businesses, homes and alleys just to the north. I would speculate that even when it built acquiring a row of houses is far cheaper than a row of main street shops.
Chicago
Chicago's Blue Line was built even earlier but came to the same conclusion. Rather than painfully and at high cost rip up the existing main street, they decided to just elevate the line in the nearest alley. The result is far fewer construction impacts, less expensive acquisitions than widening the main corridor.
Lessons for the Green Line
Both Toronto and Chicago's prioritized transit first with a clear, direct grade-separated right-of-way, but also recognized the trade-off on utilities impacts to the businesses on the main streets.
But they did something else too. Across the whole neighbourhood every lane is narrow, there's zero turning queue lanes, every corner is tight for cars. There's little parking anywhere to be seen. This lack of right-of-way to cars is product of the way we built communities back in the early and mid 1900s. But from a upcoming transit project perspective there's a lesson here.
The right-of-way challenges of Green Line on Centre is not due to the LRT, it's due to all these road infrastructure designs we are baking in. Wide lanes, preserving turns including many turning queue lanes into and out of the low density communities on nearly every block at the expense of wider sidewalks, future conflicts between trains and cars, and more complex signaling everywhere).
The LRT doesn't need to preserve any of those car movements, it actually is penalized by preserving them. The project is more complex and costly to acquire and plan all those odds and ends.
My critique about Green Line and all our transit projects seems is that on the spectrum between pure transit and pure car benefit, they seem to spend a ton of time catering to cars for all this small stuff.
The world won't end if drivers can't turn left on Centre Street on 10, 12, 16 Avenue - there areas will have an enormous transit capacity increase that is far greater in magnitude to any perceived loss that will improve local and regional mobility.
How do they manage the land issues when developing transit corridors? here's two North American examples from the past:
Toronto
It may surprise some people that Toronto's Line 2 Bloor Subway, doesn't go down Bloor street much at all for any of it's 25km length. Instead, it often is routed through the alley or nearest residential street off to the north of the main road. Why?
That routing reflects the politics and cost conditions of the time - in the 1960s, the business main street was prioritized over the community around. Utilities and pipes were going to be a mess to move under Bloor, so why bother trying to move them at high costs?
Toronto instead ripped up a row of businesses, homes and alleys just to the north. I would speculate that even when it built acquiring a row of houses is far cheaper than a row of main street shops.
Chicago
Chicago's Blue Line was built even earlier but came to the same conclusion. Rather than painfully and at high cost rip up the existing main street, they decided to just elevate the line in the nearest alley. The result is far fewer construction impacts, less expensive acquisitions than widening the main corridor.
Lessons for the Green Line
Both Toronto and Chicago's prioritized transit first with a clear, direct grade-separated right-of-way, but also recognized the trade-off on utilities impacts to the businesses on the main streets.
But they did something else too. Across the whole neighbourhood every lane is narrow, there's zero turning queue lanes, every corner is tight for cars. There's little parking anywhere to be seen. This lack of right-of-way to cars is product of the way we built communities back in the early and mid 1900s. But from a upcoming transit project perspective there's a lesson here.
The right-of-way challenges of Green Line on Centre is not due to the LRT, it's due to all these road infrastructure designs we are baking in. Wide lanes, preserving turns including many turning queue lanes into and out of the low density communities on nearly every block at the expense of wider sidewalks, future conflicts between trains and cars, and more complex signaling everywhere).
The LRT doesn't need to preserve any of those car movements, it actually is penalized by preserving them. The project is more complex and costly to acquire and plan all those odds and ends.
My critique about Green Line and all our transit projects seems is that on the spectrum between pure transit and pure car benefit, they seem to spend a ton of time catering to cars for all this small stuff.
The world won't end if drivers can't turn left on Centre Street on 10, 12, 16 Avenue - there areas will have an enormous transit capacity increase that is far greater in magnitude to any perceived loss that will improve local and regional mobility.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Why not just have people do three right turns if they're so desperate to cross Centre there. In general, there is almost nothing more dangerous than a left turn for everyone involved (driver, cyclist, pedestrian).
lemongrab
Active Member
But that's the beauty of it...you don't have to build the centre city segment...at least not yet, or maybe ever as it is currently conceived.
Rant alert.
North LRT + SE BRT (Option B4) came in at $3.8B, compared to $4.9B for the option selected (A2).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqztbPzqX9AhVQIzQIHVweAJIQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=133237&usg=AOvVaw0FCgo-8Y6pDcedLTfBuTVr
There are a million things in that report that I question (because I'm just a dude who likes to play Sim-City), but I'll limit my rant to their concluding paragraphs comparing the options:
This is fair enough, though it's rooted in the assumption that the north line would need to terminate around Centre St and 6th Ave. We'd have a spare $1.1B to change that if we really want to. As for the delays, it sure seems the SE wasn't exactly shovel-ready, either.
This may have been true at one time, but downtown's centre of gravity certainly seems to have shifted a block or two east. Or, as I said above, change it.
This line cracks me up. The document does briefly reference the bus resources required beyond the south terminus in option A2, but the scale is vastly different. And yet again, you could simply use the $1.1B to extend 1 station further to North Pointe and you'll capture everything south of Stoney.
Right...but what about the immediate viability of a BRT service in the north? This sentence acknowledges that the SE doesn't even exceed BRT capacity at the present.
This is really what it boils down to. We made a bunch of bad promises and we're afraid to break one of them, even though it makes common sense and we've already broken several other promises (deep underground tunnel, underground Centre St, stage 1 length, etc) and the world hasn't ended. As far as project readiness, going SE BRT would actually give us something tangible much much sooner.
It would take another long rant to break down how they compare these 6 themes, but the obvious one is Cost+value. They score A2 ($4.9) a 3/4. B4 ($3.8B, that effectively serves a ~40km corridor) scores 2/4.
That billion bucks could go a long way to fixing the few nitpicks they have on B4, or to serving other transit priorities. I just think we're getting awful value here, and it's really going to hinder us from developing other projects.
darwink
Senior Member
I don't disagree that the fixation on the downtown tunnel as concieved has hurt the value proposition.
What I do disagree with is the assumption that the North Central LRT is an obvious slam dunk over and above other investments. I think it fits many peoples vision of what transit should be more, so it generates more support.
As for the option costs less: removing 4 underground stations sure would reduce costs to build. It also locks the project into being a one way line for a very long time.
What I do disagree with is the assumption that the North Central LRT is an obvious slam dunk over and above other investments. I think it fits many peoples vision of what transit should be more, so it generates more support.
As for the option costs less: removing 4 underground stations sure would reduce costs to build. It also locks the project into being a one way line for a very long time.
Colinfill
Active Member
That's not true. I remember the reversible lanes on Centre Street as a kid, which pre-dated the Bridge closure in 2001.
Google tells me that the bridge closed from 1999-2000, and the HOV lane was put in September 2000 (see page 16), under Transit Ridership.
This fits my memory having worked various places downtown since the late 90s. But I suppose I could be off by a year or two.
This fits my memory having worked various places downtown since the late 90s. But I suppose I could be off by a year or two.
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
The HOV lane is a different thing than the lane reversal. The lane reversal shows up in aerial photos in the 1970s. Herald says 1976:
The automatic system replaced a manual system that extended from downtown to the north end of the bridge, starting in 1969.
Cool, I had no idea.
lemongrab
Active Member
What investments do you think would be better? (genuinely curious)
darwink
Senior Member
The core of the Greenline and as much as can be concurrently contracted.
A couple years old now, but did a bit of an analysis for a client. The greenline north has pretty uncertain costs. We don’t really have necessary costing north of 64th. What I recommended for the client at the time for an incremental transit spend:
Trenched or underground station for 16th.
Extension up to 64th to make the NC Line useful.
Extension to McKenzie Towne as the political price to ‘complete’ the greenline
A bunch of BRT
Trying to prioritize the NC LRT now is zero sun thinking. Every year that passes there is more money to spend. Post 2026 there will be new federal funding. Provincial funding rolls on. City funding accrues at least $70 million a year.
There are lots of opportunities to go NC. But it should be connected into a project that hits the centre of the CBD.
The goal is speed. Dumping people to walk much further on average (the centre street surface runner) creates an illusion of speed. It is not better than when SE LRT advocates in 2010 were pushing for a SE LRT which ended south of the CPR. Missing the objective, just focused on the tool. If the tool exists the objective must be met right?
Anyways. We will see whether procurement succeeds or not soon — hopefully it doesn’t succeed now then fail 10 months from now but that risk is much lower.
Resetting the project now creates a huge funding hole. Getting a grant from the feds—it isn’t sitting in a bank account for the city to use. The feds expect the money to be spent before the end of fiscal 2026, maybe being ok with spending a little in fiscal 2027.
If there isn’t a plan to spend it on an eligible project within that window Calgary just misses out. It either gets spent elsewhere in the province or elsewhere in the country.
Imagine applying for funds for the next program: we’re totally going to deliver this time on a totally different project after accomplishing only enabling works after more than a decade is super weak. Don’t expect any bending over backwards to find interesting ways to fund more than the basic envelope.
DougB
Senior Member
I don't get that table. For example, why is the capital cost for Beddington to North Pointe zero? Why are capital costs identical for 16 Ave to 64, 16th Ave to North Pointe and 16th Ave to Beddington? Does capital include land acquistion (I would expect so)? Why are the capital costs south of Shepard so high given that the right of way is already in place?
DougB
Senior Member
I like the idea of moving moving the sports fields at Pop Davis to some combo of Refinery Park and Lynwood Ridge and developing Pop David into residential. I have no idea if the land underneath Pop Davis is contaminated.
Even better would be to remove the CN embankment that divides Pop Davis from Refinery Park that also continues over Deerfoot. I have never seen a train on that line.
DougB
Senior Member
The Green Line as envisioned seems to be more of a ploy to gain future funding than actually deliver useful transit. Neil McKendrick's point about few bus riders wanting to transfer at Shepard or 16th Ave is valid. Seems like the plan is to deliver a white elephant and hope that the Province forgets sunk costs and funds extenstions either north or south to deliver a minimium operable segment. A better plan would have cut the tunnel off at 7th ave and built as far south as possible.
Last edited:
whatchyyc
Active Member
It serves some businesses in the Highfield industrial area and a few things like scrap metal recyclers along Ogden Road. It doesn't see mainline traffic but I think it would be a shame to close it and move that stuff to trucks, especially since they already built a tunnel for the green line to pass underneath the freight track.