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: 41 59.4%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 31.9%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 6 8.7%
  • Total voters
    69
In Q2 of 2017, they thought they were at a Class "D" estimate. They had top of rail and alignment for the entire project. Council started fooling around with the alignment immediately, a recommendation for further investigation and the project team didn't push back! On top of it all, their procurement strategy was leisurely at best. With the benefit of hindsight the signs of an out of control project were there even then.

1723496651806.png
 
Well put me down for a rethink vote. Three fairly major problems with the current vision come to mind.

1. The surface on center st choice was the biggest fault. A crosstown line of this magnitude should have been designed to at least be ALRT capable, even if not automated right away.
2. Without a forced unneeded streetcar type portion, there's no need for low floor. That doesn't mean every station has to be a huge expensive crowfoot style monster, I suspect a Sunnyside scale station would work fine in many cases.
3. I also suspect commuting patterns weren't reexamined after covid to see what leg was most needed. Even before, iirc the north leg had more expected users, but the maintenance yard 'needed' the SE leg to be done first or simultaneously. Lack of creative thinking there.

It's clear that Calgary isn't equipped to do any major tunnel work, even the planning and alignment seems to be a stretch.. I think it would be worth putting out an international RFI for Both a green line and red line tunnel megaproject.

A savvy provincial gov might even be able to broker an energy for construction deal with an Asian partner with a lot of metro construction experience...

Hoping to get a look at what Japan has been building in Saigon soon, maybe council should take a fact/pho finding trip!
 
What, seriously? They bought trains before they even had track laid??

Council must have gotten one hell of a steak diner from the bombardier people...

Well, I suppose they could always sell them to Edmonton? It's only a matter of time before they lose a few to collisions at their grade crossings.
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
What, seriously? They bought trains before they even had track laid??

Council must have gotten one hell of a steak diner from the bombardier people...

Well, I suppose they could always sell them to Edmonton? It's only a matter of time before they lose a few to collisions at their grade crossings.
Click to expand...
Trains take a long time to procure, just like building the tracks. Also it wasn't Bombardier (who no longer build trains, only business jets since about 10 years ago) it was CAF, a large spanish train manufacturer. Like any contract, I am sure there's a cancellation clause if you decide to not want the trains anymore.

We had years of the low-floor/high-floor debate, and now it almost seems like a red herring - either could work just fine, but wasting a bunch of time debating the pros/cons cost so much more than the difference between either option.
 
badc0ffee said:
Bad news: they already bought a bunch of low floor trains.
Click to expand...
It's not just the green line, the entire Max purple BRT was built into a right-of-way that's designed to be converted to LRT in the future, with low floor being the only option there too.

Because low floor LRT is genuinely better at providing service in urban areas. You only have to look at the current LRT vehicles on the red and blue line to understand how much the vehicle design influences the right of way and station design and therefore f***s up the streetscape everywhere it touches.
 
zenkz said:
I see two more quite reasonable options:

1. Go at-ground in Downtown with transit-priority signals (most likely with slightly altered route - for example 3rd ave SW instead of the 2nd and a short tunnel or overpass between CP mainline and 6th ave SW). Later can be replaced with a tunnel with reusing the at-ground line for a different LRT project.

2. Build a line from Seton - Shepard and then along Deerfoot and Anderson road to Anderson station of the red line. Then build the extension to downtown and convert the spur between Shepard and Anderson to a separate connector line with a possible extension further west. (This options adds LRT where it is needed most)
Click to expand...

I haven’t taken the lrt from Anderson in many years but when I did trains were full by the time they arrived at Canyon Meadows. Doesn’t seem feasible to connect to an already congested line.
 
Ramsayite said:
It's not just the green line, the entire Max purple BRT was built into a right-of-way that's designed to be converted to LRT in the future, with low floor being the only option there too.

Because low floor LRT is genuinely better at providing service in urban areas. You only have to look at the current LRT vehicles on the red and blue line to understand how much the vehicle design influences the right of way and station design and therefore f***s up the streetscape everywhere it touches.
Click to expand...
I think the North-Central line is perfect for Low-floor LRT vehicles.

The SE LRT could get away with using the traditional high-floor LRTs since much of it utilizes a CPR train corridor as it's right of way.
 
Red Star said:
The SE LRT could get away with using the traditional high-floor LRTs since much of it utilizes a CPR train corridor as it's right of way.
Click to expand...
Or a private ROW along streets like 52 St SE, just like we have near Martindale and Saddletowne.
 
O-tac said:
I haven’t taken the lrt from Anderson in many years but when I did trains were full by the time they arrived at Canyon Meadows. Doesn’t seem feasible to connect to an already congested line.
Click to expand...
However, for the time being the Ctrain is limited to 3-cars due to upgrades at Haysboro and it doesn't appear that even during rush hour that the trains are overloaded despite record monthly ridership numbers. I think usage is now less concentrated going to DT, more spread out through the day and higher on weekends so that when 4-cars are available again, there should be at least several thousand passengers/hour of capacity that could be used for a SE line.
 
CBBarnett said:
Trains take a long time to procure, just like building the tracks. Also it wasn't Bombardier (who no longer build trains, only business jets since about 10 years ago) it was CAF, a large spanish train manufacturer. Like any contract, I am sure there's a cancellation clause if you decide to not want the trains anymore.

We had years of the low-floor/high-floor debate, and now it almost seems like a red herring - either could work just fine, but wasting a bunch of time debating the pros/cons cost so much more than the difference between either option.
Click to expand...
Oh OK, didn't realize a different manufacturer was involved, I haven't followed the green line project too closely since I moved. Turns out CAF made the trains used on the Kaohsiung LRT which I've used a few times recently. They're nice units, but they are smaller and sort of awkward inside with the covered wheel humps.

Their LRT line is also not a crosstown commuter line, but a circular one that is more focused on connecting the more tourist/traveler oriented sites.

For Calgary green line, I'm not so hung up on high vs low floor as much as automatable or not.
Underground stations will be expensive no mater what style of train car is used, and suburban stations won't be much different whether they have a one foot curb or a two foot one.

But a fully grade separated automatable LRT can provide much better service levels than a mixed traffic streetcar can, and if your plan involves running the train underground due to the expected usage, then IMO it isn't a streetcar...

Now, if there was a simple way to bridge the gap between Purple BRT 17av SE and Beltline 17av, that might be a compelling use case for a streetcar!
 
darwink said:
Or not buying enough cars, LOL.
Click to expand...
And this is where even ALRT is no guarantee of good service. The Bangkok skytrain has gotten worse and worse over the years as they've expanded the lines, but doesn't seem like they've added more trainsets! 10 minute waits are pretty bad on a system that should be capable of a 2 minute frequency. So much transit investment there, but the results are still frustrating and dysfunctional..
 
If covid has changed transit patterns. What would be better?

Phase 1a. Build Seton to a underground station at the new arena while it’s under construction (ie cheaper) then some sort of temp connection on 4th SE to a new station inbetween city hall and Bridgeland?

Or build this stubway?

Phase 1b. I think Calgary should cut its downtown tunneling teeth on the much shallower and widely used Red Line 8th Ave tunnel which frees up capacity on 7th for the Green Line. Connect Blue Line to Airport (no system change, still high floor)

Phase 2a. Complete Underground section from new arena to 64th Avenue where the roads were planned for LRT, Create Calgary’s new urban densification area.

Phase 2b. Connect the airport leg of the Blue Line at 96th station and future high speed rail to the green line which is then built fully out north to Stoney.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top