Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 42 79.2%
  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 7 13.2%
  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • Total voters
    53
Could this be the plan forward?
Sept 2024 The city hands to project over to the UCP, they foot the bill for the section from SE suburbia to the Grand Central station so folks can get to the Flames games.
2026 The city has worked out the kinks for DT and up to at least 16th ave.
2027 The Suburbia-Event centre express opens, just in time for the UCP to get voted out.
2028 Construction starts on the section from Grand Central station to 16th ave.

It's not my preferred course and I'm half joking, but I'm also wondering if this is how it’s going to end up with the UCP still having 3 more years in power.
 
Could this be the plan forward?
Sept 2024 The city hands to project over to the UCP, they foot the bill for the section from SE suburbia to the Grand Central station so folks can get to the Flames games.
2026 The city has worked out the kinks for DT and up to at least 16th ave.
2027 The Suburbia-Event centre express opens, just in time for the UCP to get voted out.
2028 Construction starts on the section from Grand Central station to 16th ave.

It's not my preferred course and I'm half joking, but I'm also wondering if this is how it’s going to end up with the UCP still having 3 more years in power.
Seems like a lose-lose for the city at this point.
 
Could this be the plan forward?
Sept 2024 The city hands to project over to the UCP, they foot the bill for the section from SE suburbia to the Grand Central station so folks can get to the Flames games.
2026 The city has worked out the kinks for DT and up to at least 16th ave.
2027 The Suburbia-Event centre express opens, just in time for the UCP to get voted out.
2028 Construction starts on the section from Grand Central station to 16th ave.

It's not my preferred course and I'm half joking, but I'm also wondering if this is how it’s going to end up with the UCP still having 3 more years in power.
It’s not the worst plan I’ve heard.lol

In Adam McVicar’s tweet he says council is voting next week on whether transfer the project over to the province? What does that mean exactly?
 
1) The cost of tunneling isn't economical, it's really that simple. So you need to decide whether you want an elevated track going through the beltline....the answer will be a resounding no.
Do we know that for sure? If it's an elevated track on 10th Ave from 4 ST SE to 2 ST SW, that's very minimal impact to the Beltline. I don't think much people have really thought about the elevated track through there since it was never taken seriously by the city, but now is the time to give that an honest assessment to see if that is the best alternative option, and if the province would be okay with it. I'm also of the opinion that a Beltline stop isn't necessary at all, but this would bring that option back on the table if it's economically viable.
 
Last edited:
I dont think his view of planning is outdated, it's a reasonable analysis of what something costs, to what the benefits are. Spending $6B on the present plan would be completely ideological, doing it to do it.

1) The cost of tunneling isn't economical, it's really that simple. So you need to decide whether you want an elevated track going through the beltline....the answer will be a resounding no.
2) The number of workers at Quarry Park is probably equal to 1-2 towers downtown. South Health Campus the same. The ridership from downtown going that direction for work, would highly underwhelm you. There will also be a 4-5 block walk to those LRT stops, most beltline residents are 5-7 blocks from LRT presently, so are we really further ahead, if the the green line stop is elsewhere downtown

Bottom line folks, these are very real dollars for a practical project that are wildly out of whack for the number of users presently described. It has to be completely rethought, with more economical plans, or it simply wont happen. It's either no green line, or a green line with a few less than ideal pieces and possibly some reworking of red/blue stops to accommodate it

Why is spending $6 billion ideological? I would argue that those saying $6 billion is somehow some magic number of doom arr the ones being ideological and clinging to some old timey, small city, prairie conservatism.

Is it a big cost number? Yes. Is it a big, complex project? Also yes. It should shock no one that big, complex projects come with big cost numbers. I think the problem is two-fold.

First, the City over promised and under delivered so people locked in to the idea that $5 billion buys 40 km of track and anything less is deserving of outrage. Second this is the first time Calgarians are seeing a project built with that kind of cost number attached to it in our city's history so they are freaking out about.

Meanwhile Toronto is building $20 billion of rapid transit projects simultaneously and cities like Montreal and Vancouver are building projects more expensive than Green Line Stage 1.

Calgary is no longer a sleepy little city on the prairies, our provincial government is one of the wealthiest ones in the country and we have a federal government that's more than happy to splash cash on transit projects. If we wanted to build a $20 billion Green Line, we could. But until people shed the old time attitudes about what is possible in this province, I don't think we ever would.
 
Why is spending $6 billion ideological? I would argue that those saying $6 billion is somehow some magic number of doom arr the ones being ideological and clinging to some old timey, small city, prairie conservatism.

Is it a big cost number? Yes. Is it a big, complex project? Also yes. It should shock no one that big, complex projects come with big cost numbers. I think the problem is two-fold.

First, the City over promised and under delivered so people locked in to the idea that $5 billion buys 40 km of track and anything less is deserving of outrage. Second this is the first time Calgarians are seeing a project built with that kind of cost number attached to it in our city's history so they are freaking out about.

Meanwhile Toronto is building $20 billion of rapid transit projects simultaneously and cities like Montreal and Vancouver are building projects more expensive than Green Line Stage 1.

Calgary is no longer a sleepy little city on the prairies, our provincial government is one of the wealthiest ones in the country and we have a federal government that's more than happy to splash cash on transit projects. If we wanted to build a $20 billion Green Line, we could. But until people shed the old time attitudes about what is possible in this province, I don't think we ever would.
Literally nobody is saying dont build the green line ever, what many are saying, including the province, is dont spend $6B on a train to nowhere, bc as presently described thats what this is. It simply needs more economical solutions that a scaled for a city of 1.4M. We are not vancouver/toronto.

For a city that u say “overpromised and underdelivered” on something of this scale, where our bang for the bang is dramatically dramatically lower than originally presented, it’s a little rich to call those who see that as “outdated thinking”
 
Do we know that for sure? If it's an elevated track on 10th Ave from 4 ST SE to 2 ST SW, that's very minimal impact to the Beltline. I don't think much people have really thought about the elevated track through there since it was never taken seriously by the city, but now is the time to give that an honest assessment to see if that is the best alternative option, and if the province would be okay with it. I'm also of the opinion that a Beltline stop isn't necessary at all, but this would bring that option back on the table if it's economically viable.
The green line wont be going through the beltline, that much is clear and obvious. I was referring to an early comment made about keeping the beltline stop at Central and making it elevated. I personally feel the elevated track on 10th as described in the Jim Gray report seems very reasonable.
 
The green line wont be going through the beltline, that much is clear and obvious. I was referring to an early comment made about keeping the beltline stop at Central and making it elevated. I personally feel the elevated track on 10th as described in the Jim Gray report seems very reasonable.
I counter that it's not clear cut that beltline is completely off the table. The province is going to do their own assessment, and come back to the city with their proposal. But until the province says that beltline is a no-go, can't cut that option off completely, since it's the alignment that I feel makes the most sense in servicing downtown, which shouldn't be disregarded.

Now to be clear, the Jim Gray concept isn't the worst idea, and if it's the chosen one, it's okay. But that proposal has significant drawbacks in forcing high transfer demand on City Hall station from the jump. We can't be thinking of what the best option is today, we should be forward thinking in what the best option is for tomorrow, when the ultimate build out of the green line is completed. If we're just exclusively thinking about this from the SR LRT point of view, then the terminus of the line at City Hall makes a lot of logical sense. But if this line is going to to extend to North Central, then there are significant compromises on the customer service experience for everyone involved, including Red Line and Blue Line users. If you're coming from the North, and your destination is in the core of downtown, instead of getting dropped off in the middle of downtown like you currently are with the high ridership routes that go down Centre Street currently, you're now being dropped off at City Hall, and forced to transfer to get closer to your destination. If customers have to do that, it actually would discourage the use of the train, as many would prefer to just use the more straight forward bus routes to get nearby where they're going.

But aside from that and going back to @darwink post earlier today, the capacity of trains on 7 Ave would likely be reached earlier due to the induced demand of this transfer point, resulting in having to accelerate the timeline on the 8 Ave Subway. And if we go down that route of having to build it in say less than 15 years - rather than 50 or so - then how much total money is being spent when you combine the green line and 8 Avenue Subway? And there are other extensions throughout the city that would demand attention also. All that math added up could lead to the outcome that maybe we should've just tunneled the green line in the first place...

If you want the cheapest, easiest option that suitable for today, I say Jim Gray fits that criteria. If you want the option that takes the future network into consideration, and in my opinion provides the better customer experience, then elevated on 10 Ave and 2 ST SW should be the preferred choice.
 
Calgary is no longer a sleepy little city on the prairies, our provincial government is one of the wealthiest ones in the country and we have a federal government that's more than happy to splash cash on transit projects. If we wanted to build a $20 billion Green Line, we could. But until people shed the old time attitudes about what is possible in this province, I don't think we ever would.
But there is a significant difference between:

1) A planned $20B project, where every stakeholder from governments, areas affected and the public beforehand understand the true cost, why certain decisions were made, what are the priorities and that there are viable construction and funding schedules to build and pay for it
2) A $20B project that came about only because a $10B project was poorly managed leading to frequent cost over-runs, and decisions that are made quickly and without consulting those affected, and uncertainty on when future funding will be available to get the project back on track

Look at the Green Line; it's under-estimation of costs meant it could promise everyone what they wanted, a true city-wide line stretching from the Far North to the Deep South that was completely underground through the City Core and 3-car long trains that would have enough capacity for 100 years of growth.

But then the first period of cost over-runs meant that virtually the entire NC LRT got cut without asking a single NC transit user if they were ok with that. A monumental decision made by a small group of people based on very arbitrary criteria and meekly rubber stamped by Council. Every other cost over-run afterwards has been the same way.

And as Stage 1 gets increasingly smaller, the parts that were cut long ago are no longer even a factor. The July revision had a visible cut to the SE, so they quickly promised that the next available funding would pay building further SE. But wasn't that next available funding originally expected to go North? It's easy to say to we should spend the money to build the DT core right, when the Green Line doesn't have to show how it impacts and delays LRT service being available at 64th Ave and Panorama. They've been cut so long that many people have probably forgotten they were originally in the Green Line.
 
If it's an elevated track on 10th Ave from 4 ST SE to 2 ST SW, that's very minimal impact to the Beltline.
If the line has to go west and can't stop directly at City Hall, and must be elevated, I agree that 10 Ave is a good option. It is relatively low traffic, and the streetscape is already largely a mix of parkades, empty lots, and utilities (and two apartment buildings, although fortunately one is on top of a very tall parkade). And the curve north to 2nd St SW could be done on what is currently a parking lot.

There's also some precedent for it - the West LRT is elevated just north of 10th Ave between 15 and 19 St SW. (Of course it's not elevated ON 10 Ave like this green line option would be).
 

Not only is it crazy that the premier doesn't mention downtown once in this clip, she also prioritizes the new event centre over her very own grand central station idea when she gives her answer. Is this entire thing really just about building a train from the 'burbs to the Flames games because it is kind of starting to seem that way and I am sure Jim Gray runs in the same circles as the people who own the Flames.
Oh boy - she’s even suggesting the resurrection of the Deerfoot valley for NC LRT - wasn’t that dismissed decades ago ?
But of course it ties into rail to YYC and the high speed rail corridor.
 
This is how most urban rail systems work, you come in on one line, and may have to walk a block and then up or down to get to the other line. It does save a SIGNIFICANT amount of money, which is literally the entire goal. The intent is to get the maximum number of people into the downtown core, does it mean those people may have to connect onto another line, or grab a bus, YES, 100%. But we'd be achieving significant extra distance on the line, in exchange for an elevated component down a non-residential street, bordered by civic/education facilities. Ideal, maybe not, but a valuable tradeoff. Nobody is going to go for an elevated line in the beltline, servicing a neighborhood with minimal extended ridership, i would contend.
The maximum number of people will take transit into the downtown core if the whole trip to the place they want to go to is convenient, and the vast majority of places people want to go to are not east of City Hall. Nobody working at Eighth Avenue Place or Centennial Place will say "Hooray! I'm in the downtown core!" getting off their train east of City Hall; they'll say "Now how the heck do I get to my office?"

If you work somewhere in the middle of the downtown, say Banker's Hall and the train stops east of City Hall, you have the following options:
1). Walk all the way to work, 1 km -- about 15 minutes.
2). Take escalator or stairs to street level - 1 minute. Wait for the light at 7th Ave - 1-2 minutes. Wait for the next train - 1-2 minutes (in rush hour). Ride it one stop - 2-3 minutes. Walk 300m - about 5 minutes. Total: 10-13 minutes.

Adding in 10-15 minutes to someone's commute will reduce how attractive the transit alternative is. And yes, there's absolutely an argument that the cost savings is worth adding time to people's commutes (and reducing ridership).

But guess what? It doesn't matter where you add the 10-15 minutes to people's commute. The SETWAY busway plan that preceded the Green Line LRT idea envisioned a dedicated transitway to the southeast along the same route as the Green Line. The travel times for a trip all the way from Seton to downtown was 43 minutes by transitway, and 35 minutes by LRT. 8 minutes difference.

If the argument is that adding 10 minutes to the commute is worth the cost savings of the previous Gray proposal, there's an even stronger argument to not build LRT to the southeast but instead build the SETWAY, which adds 8 minutes to the commute, and would be a fraction of the cost of the Gray proposal.
 
Oh boy - she’s even suggesting the resurrection of the Deerfoot valley for NC LRT - wasn’t that dismissed decades ago ?
But of course it ties into rail to YYC and the high speed rail corridor.

No, it was dismissed with the election of Naheed Nenshi with the thorough analysis behind moving it to Centre Street of "because that is where the people are" with no consideration of what that move would cost. The 2009 Calgary Transportation Plan (sister document to the MDP) showed the future North Central LRT up the Nose Creek Valley.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top