Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 44 58.7%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 24 32.0%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 7 9.3%
  • Total voters
    75
DougB said:
There is already a much more pleasant pathway along the river. The 18th St pilot was a pathetic attempt by neighbourhood Karens to reduce traffic passing through the area to QP.

A much better plan would be a pathway along the green line with connections through the communities to the Bow River pathway.
Click to expand...
That is an absurdly good idea.

I've thought before that there should be a MUP running along the red line in the south, but it would also be great here.
 
ahuch said:
Unless something changed it's a road and pedestrian tunnel, no truck traffic but other vehicles are permitted.

78Ave_AreaMap_lowRes.jpg
Click to expand...
I assume this was offered as some type of incentive to CP for them to play ball with the City for the rest of this project - but this type of thing is a good example of the scope creep that is continually driving up costs on transit project projects. The existing mainline level crossing on 69th has worked fine for years - even when there thousands of employees working in the Ogden Shops.
 
One step closer again I suppose...

newsroom.calgary.ca

Green Line moves to final negotiations for the Development Partner Agreement

Following evaluation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for construction of Phase 1, from Shepard to Eau Claire, the Green Line Board has confirmed the proponent team with the highest evaluation score and directed administration to proceed to final negotiations for the Development Phase...
newsroom.calgary.ca newsroom.calgary.ca
 
badc0ffee said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be nicer for on street, no doubt. But, you can do on street with high platforms - just need to be more creative with the design.
You would need to buy more of course, but less than low floor, since you can pool your spare trains with the existing fleet. You cannot do that if the trains cannot all run on the entire network.

There is a LOT of extra room at Oliver Bowen where you could put storage tracks and expand the building, at least for a phased fleet expansion.

1680744326294.png

1680744547138.png

You can see how much more efficiently the land is used for the massive LRT line in West Toronto for the Eglinton Line, which is going to need well over 100 30 meter LRVs once it has been extended west.

ByeByeBaby said:
Furthermore, the lines don't connect, and the only place they pass they are at different elevations and in the middle of the downtown. Not great value to spend a billion dollars on a line connection to... not actually save any money on a rail yard, since you need to expand the existing facilities.

Also, what do people mean by the new line not using different train technology? Different from U2? From SD-160? From S200? We've already deployed three different train technologies on the existing high-floor lines. World hasn't ended.

The primary way to get more transit for less money is to disrupt road traffic, which has mostly been ruled out entirely, largely without discussion.
Click to expand...
A new track connection should *not* cost 1 billion dollars? It doesn't even need to be double track. You also do save money because as pointed out above CT has a substantial amount of land already. Maybe you still need to build a yard, but it could be far smaller.

What is meant by different technologies is just that, you listed three high floor LRVs (the same technology), a different technology has different technical standards etc.
 
superelevation said:
It would be nicer for on street, no doubt. But, you can do on street with high platforms - just need to be more creative with the design.
You would need to buy more of course, but less than low floor, since you can pool your spare trains with the existing fleet. You cannot do that if the trains cannot all run on the entire network.

There is a LOT of extra room at Oliver Bowen where you could put storage tracks and expand the building, at least for a phased fleet expansion.

View attachment 466780
View attachment 466782
You can see how much more efficiently the land is used for the massive LRT line in West Toronto for the Eglinton Line, which is going to need well over 100 30 meter LRVs once it has been extended west.


A new track connection should *not* cost 1 billion dollars? It doesn't even need to be double track. You also do save money because as pointed out above CT has a substantial amount of land already. Maybe you still need to build a yard, but it could be far smaller.

What is meant by different technologies is just that, you listed three high floor LRVs (the same technology), a different technology has different technical standards etc.
Click to expand...
Thing is where would you even connect the lines? This has already been discussed ad nauseum on SSP as well. You have to somehow cross the CP tracks (IMO grade sep would be essential because you don't want trains to be held up by 4 freight tracks and maybe even regional rail) and run along the street along with catenary wires for a track that would only used for equipment moves. The only solution to the interoperability problem is to go back to putting the SE line onto 7th Ave, and the north would still need a new tunnel and OMF anyways.

Eglinton is not too dissimilar in size to OBMF, CT just has an entirely indoor storage barn and some other work is done at Anderson. The Shepard OMF is similarly huge anyways, not gonna save much by building a connection and expanding OBMF just to have an inferior product on Centre Street.
1680752789141.png
 
Last edited:
superelevation said:
A new track connection should *not* cost 1 billion dollars? It doesn't even need to be double track. You also do save money because as pointed out above CT has a substantial amount of land already. Maybe you still need to build a yard, but it could be far smaller.

What is meant by different technologies is just that, you listed three high floor LRVs (the same technology), a different technology has different technical standards etc.
Click to expand...

If you're running the same trains on the red, blue and green lines to save money by sharing garages, then you need some way that trains can drive between the lines to get to the garages. That's the connection that is required. It doesn't matter how much land CT does or doesn't have next to Metis Trail, they would either need to build a connection that connects red/blue above grade and green below grade track in the absolute middle of the downtown, or build some out-of-downtown connection, and at a minimum that **will** cost a billion dollars, whether there's one track or two.

Here's a question for you. Let's say I own a Toyota Prius sedan, a Toyota Highlander Hybrid SUV, and a gas-powered Volkswagen Jetta sedan. Do I take the Highlander to a garage for the SUV technology and the other two to the same sedan-technology mechanic? If not, why not?

There are a hundred technical systems inside a rail car; the height of the floor is only one of them. Actually, it's none of them; it's the result of a design that combines motors, brakes, bogies, controls, panels, etc.

There is a grain of truth in that there is an efficiency in operating a fleet of identical vehicles rather than a mix.That efficiency only goes so far; if we had two trains of one type and one of another and two of a third, there would be a benefit to ensuring we have five trains of the same model instead. But Calgary operates fleets of 50 to 80 vehicles of a given model; that's plenty large enough to get that increase in efficiency.
 
newsroom.calgary.ca

Calgary’s Light Rail Transit system: Past, Present and Future

A new display in the Calgary Municipal Building is bringing life to the history and future of Calgary’s CTrain system. The display, located on the west side of Council Chambers, showcases historical artifacts, photos, and maps of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system since its inception in...
newsroom.calgary.ca newsroom.calgary.ca
1920_lrv-exterior14x8.5.jpg
 
Does the Green Line design consider an eventual 8th subway for the Red Line:
  • one underground line would need to pass underneath the other. Given that the Red Line will always be busier, it would make sense to have it more conveniently located closer to the surface, although geological factors could dictate otherwise. I hope that Green Line excavation would rough in whatever tunnel or station box would be required, as adding one later would be astronomically disruptive and expensive
  • the 7th Ave SW Green line station could become the hub of the entire network, joining the 8th Ave Red Line and 7th Ave Blue line. Again, I hope its design provisions that optionality: i.e. walkway connections, platform widths, entrances etc.
The Green Line has already been scope creeped to death, but this is perhaps the most important consideration
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top