darwink
Senior Member
Gotta imagine it is securing underground rights thru this $%!#
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
ahuch
Active Member
Green Line releases RFP for 78th Avenue Project
www.calgary.ca
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Interesting little project...
'78 Avenue S.E. Grade Separation and Ogden Pedestrian Tunnel Project (“78th Avenue Project”)
In cooperation with Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), the 78th Avenue Project will enhance transportation safety in the vicinity of the future Green Line Ogden Station. The contract for the 78th Avenue Project is anticipated to be awarded in Q2 2023 with work starting in Summer 2023.'
78th Ave is a bit further south than the planned station at 72nd Ave. I assume this is to help get people from the Foothills Industrial Park to the station.
'78 Avenue S.E. Grade Separation and Ogden Pedestrian Tunnel Project (“78th Avenue Project”)
In cooperation with Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), the 78th Avenue Project will enhance transportation safety in the vicinity of the future Green Line Ogden Station. The contract for the 78th Avenue Project is anticipated to be awarded in Q2 2023 with work starting in Summer 2023.'
78th Ave is a bit further south than the planned station at 72nd Ave. I assume this is to help get people from the Foothills Industrial Park to the station.
ahuch
Active Member
Ultimately it will close the current at-grade crossing at 69 Ave, which is where the safety benefits come into play. I believe they held some community sessions before the green line was paused a few years ago and as you can probably imagine, many of the residents who live near 78 aren't very happy about this one.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Why? It's a pedestrian tunnel?
Closing off access to the CP land east of track, makes sense. Especially if you're giving people access to Foothills through this tunnel. I imagine the tunnel will lead to some kind of access to the bridge over the canal as well.
ahuch
Active Member
Unless something changed it's a road and pedestrian tunnel, no truck traffic but other vehicles are permitted.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I would assume the fact that the RFP is for a pedestrian tunnel that it has changed. Maybe 69th Ave is staying open too. I think this will be something like the pathway tunnel they put in here.
ahuch
Active Member
According to the RFP its for vehicles... apparently there's ALSO a tunnel closer to the station, weird wording used I guess.I would assume the fact that the RFP is for a pedestrian tunnel that it has changed. Maybe 69th Ave is staying open too. I think this will be something like the pathway tunnel they put in here.
Alberta Purchasing Connection
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Damn, then why would they specifically call it a pedestrian underpass in the press release?!According to the RFP its for vehicles... apparently there's ALSO a tunnel closer to the station, weird wording used I guess.
Alberta Purchasing Connection
vendor.purchasingconnection.ca
lemongrab
Active Member
This is Calgary. Any development should be assumed to be exclusively designed for cars only unless specifically stated otherwise.
whatchyyc
Active Member
"78 Avenue Grade Separation" includes the vehicle underpass, "and Ogden Pedestrian Tunnel" is the separate ped tunnel at the Green Line station.
The ped tunnel is new, but I assume that's just taking advantage of disruptions to the CP line to get both things done at the same time.
superelevation
Active Member
Ultimately why using a different train technology doesn't necessarily make a ton of sense. Stations are slightly easier to build yes (most on SE are not going to be in the middle of the road and even if they were a lot of the cost is electrification, trackbed, utilities anyways).
I remember the claim that high floor wasn't being supported anymore which clearly isn't true - there are lots of high floor systems around the world *including Calgary's existing system*! Lots of trains and equipment still needed.
A low-floor LRT would definitely work better on street sections like Centre St and (IIRC) Seton. No need for high platforms, and outside of that the vehicles just fit better on the street.
Even if they did use the existing high-floor vehicles, they'd still need to buy more and would need more rail yard space. The only difference would be that they would have the option of locating that yard on the existing red or blue lines, assuming space could be found.
Even if they did use the existing high-floor vehicles, they'd still need to buy more and would need more rail yard space. The only difference would be that they would have the option of locating that yard on the existing red or blue lines, assuming space could be found.
Last edited:
accord1999
Active Member
Another thing you would have is flexibility on where you built the track and when you could start service. By deciding that a giant new yard must be built at Shepard, you're forced to build 18 km of track between DT and the SE (basically the same length as the southern portion of the Red Line is today after several extensions) before you can even start service. It also means there's no money left over to go to north where more ridership and cost-savings from bus replacement are located.
If you could use existing facilities and trains, then you could have started with a 64th-Ave N to DT segment, open it and replace a bunch of buses right away. Then if more money is available, expand further SE to Shepard, and then finally expand both ends to their desired terminus and build that dream oversized maintenance/storage facility at Shepard. You have a line that doesn't take as long to start operation, is much more useful to begin with and can be incrementally extended easier.
darwink
Senior Member
The yards don’t have any room, expansions/new yards are already in the plans for the red and blue lines. There ain’t no free lunch.