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: 42 60.0%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 31.4%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • Total voters
    70
CalgaryTiger said:
Damn, then why would they specifically call it a pedestrian underpass in the press release?!
Click to expand...
"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.
 
lemongrab said:
Did the railyard HAVE to be in the SE though? I've forgotten the exact rationale for not using Aurora business park, but I think it was something about that area having too much other development, which has not panned out at all...(I've always speculated that some key influencers have personal interest with Shepard).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
badc0ffee said:
Even if they did use the existing high-floor vehicles, they'd still 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...
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.
 
accord1999 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Drive around Stampede Park lately? ... 11 Ave, 12 Ave, 4 St ... what a mess with all the underground utility work going on and the resulting detours. It started about a year ago and will continue for awhile longer. All of this in preparation for the Green line. It is just as well that there has been no further development of those parking lots east of 4 St.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
Drive around Stampede Park lately? ... 11 Ave, 12 Ave, 4 St ... what a mess with all the underground utility work going on and the resulting detours. It started about a year ago and will continue for awhile longer. All of this in preparation for the Green line. It is just as well that there has been no further development of those parking lots east of 4 St.
Click to expand...
Given the lack of development in vicinty, I wouldn't have expected much in the way of existing utilities.
 
JonnyCanuck said:
Drive around Stampede Park lately? ... 11 Ave, 12 Ave, 4 St ... what a mess with all the underground utility work going on and the resulting detours. It started about a year ago and will continue for awhile longer. All of this in preparation for the Green line. It is just as well that there has been no further development of those parking lots east of 4 St.
Click to expand...
Drive? It's even worse on a bicycle or as a pedestrian. They couldn't even create a usable detour to get from Macdonald Avenue to the existing 12th ave cycle track. The one they've signed dead ends on Olympic Ave near Village ice cream.
 
Last edited:
They have given a few million dollars to do the study on extending the blue line, so just engineering and design at this stage. They have already committed $1.5 billion to the green line (arguably more than that since the city's share is vacated provincial room from the school portion of the property tax). Perhaps they are waiting to see something come of that investment before throwing more at it?
 
O-tac said:
Heard an add from the UCP on the radio today announcing an lrt extension to the airport as a line item of the budget but zero about the Greenline.
Click to expand...

Ya, that ad is a stretch if I've ever heard one... to the casual listener it makes it sound like the UCP ponied up a bunch of money to build LRT to the airport. In reality they put $5 million in the last budget to fund a study. Our tax dollars are now going towards radio ads which are nothing but political spin to try and help them win votes in Calgary and chances are they won't ever get called out on it by the media. It drives me bonkers.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top