[lemongrab]

We already have unbalanced demand in the existing LRT lines, especially the northeast vs the west parts of the Blue Line, which some years ago were 2:1 in terms of ridership (the red line was 1.6:1 for the south vs the northwest). The answer is to run better service for some segments than they theoretically deserve. This is particularly less of an issue with the Green Line being a separate right of way, so it's not having to take away space from other lines. Even a low ridership LRT trip is still a ton of people to be transported by one driver. Part of the point of LRT is that the capital costs are high, but you get really cheap per-rider operating costs. Even the equivalent of 10 people rattling around on an existing LRT car is still 30 people per train, which is full seated capacity for a bus.

It is operationally possible (depending on very specific details of the line) to short turn some trains, every second southbound train could in theory turn back at say Ramsay (if the trains are at say 5+ minutes headway). But it's really not that useful; you don't save that much by not running a train for an extra 15 minutes to the end of the line, and it makes everything more complex.

In both of those cases the overserved segments were relatively short. It's a fair point that even nearly empty trains are still delivering some value, but I'd argue there is still a big opportunity cost. Ever dollar spent on overkill OPEX (likely generating very few additional customers) is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere more effectively.

Regardless of LF vs HF I think tunnel-vision on keeping the lines connected may have precluded some more sensible VE on this project than what we've seen

As an aside, it's so bloody annoying that it's impossible to find current boardings info by station - I'm quite curious about the current state of the four current legs!

 

[ssiguy2]

Using HF would allow the Green Line to interline with the Blue line to Mem/Zoo and over the Deerfoot and literally cost nothing.

LF trains are best for more local service but HF are ideal for more rapid transit like CTrain. They have more seating capacity and are hollow under the seats, have high travel speeds, require less maintenance, could use the existing maintenance/operational centres or just require expanding the current ones as opposed to having to build an entire new one which would be much more expensive. HF also last longer and and are much less likely to derail than LF. The rails themselves don't last as long as rails for HF.

 

[lemongrab]

Not much new info, but interesting to hear some rumours somewhat confirmed:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1835686786741461334.html

5/Red Line moving to 8th/Stephen Ave can’t be at grade - too many businesses would be impacted. Can’t elevate it - Plus 15 network is in the way. You’d have to tunnel, which is exactly what the Province says they don’t want to do. So how is the GoA going to manage this?

I wouldn't read too much into this, but it pours a tiny bit of cold water on elevated through 2nd or 1st SW

6/Next, the solution for the north is one of two bad ideas. Idea 1: don’t connect north-south. Idea 2: use the Nose Creek corridor beside Deerfoot to run commuter rail beside CPKC tracks. So, either forget the north or offer a train where no one lives. Studied before & rejected.

I'm sure the north felt warm and fuzzy the last 7 years on this (FWIW I do not live in the north)

 

[kempes_78]

In both of those cases the overserved segments were relatively short. It's a fair point that even nearly empty trains are still delivering some value, but I'd argue there is still a big opportunity cost. Ever dollar spent on overkill OPEX (likely generating very few additional customers) is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere more effectively.

Regardless of LF vs HF I think tunnel-vision on keeping the lines connected may have precluded some more sensible VE on this project than what we've seen

As an aside, it's so bloody annoying that it's impossible to find current boardings info by station - I'm quite curious about the current state of the four current legs!

Value Engineering was completed last year.

 

[Dkeirle]

I apologize in advance if this question has been asked recently, but I didn’t see it in one of the previous posts and I didn’t want to go back and read 100 pages of posts over the past year.
My question is whether the Green Line planners looked at having a spur coming off of the red line south? For example, a spur down Anderson Road into Quarry Park and then turning south east over to McKenzie town, etc.
I’m under the assumption they would’ve but I can’t find any mention of it.
Thanks, D

 

[thecivilengineer]

Rally held outside Calgary City Hall in support of Green Line LRT - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

Those who organized the rally said the Green Line is an essential project, and political leaders need to find a solution in order to get the line built.

globalnews.ca

 

[lemongrab]

Gondek:

2/After many meetings with Minister Dreeshen & Premier’s Office in July, Minister sent a support letter for the amended Green Line alignment on July 29. He stated his support on air after Council’s July 30 decision. Then his tune changed, while nothing about the project changed.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the letter, which simply laid out a few conditions for continued funding. (July 29 Letter is in here: https://livewirecalgary.com/2024/09/03/minister-dreeshen-letter-fund-calgary-new-green-line/)

Now there isn't really a good faith argument that the revised alignment failed the letter's conditions, but it's interesting to speculate about how the back channel communications played out here. Exactly how much information did the city share in those "many meetings"? I'd expect there was a dialogue/process for the city/GLB to feel out any landmines in the alignment revision before selecting the option to present. So one big question is whether the Prov. was advising in good faith during this stage, or not?

Council needed that letter (and the one from the Feds) to inform their vote on July 30. It's possible that the province had full knowledge of the change details and that the letter was simply signalling the prov's tacit approval. It's all a bit hard to square. Could that province have intentionally guided the city towards such a laughable result, where council either approved it leading to current status (or council voting down/ordering alternative direction would also make them look bad...)

It doesn't really feel like that well orchestrated a plan, but who knows. Some of the Silly Six were parroting some of the current messaging in that council meeting, but those are pretty natural criticisms from their side. Most likely it was just some messy communication all around (as is inevitable when dealing with the loathesome and untrustworthy morons in the UCP) and the UCP concocted their latest plan after the fact despite tripping over their own shoes in the days following the July 30 vote. Gondek's tweet at least indicates there wasn't a shortage of communication in the leadup.

 

[kempes_78]

Rally held outside Calgary City Hall in support of Green Line LRT - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

Those who organized the rally said the Green Line is an essential project, and political leaders need to find a solution in order to get the line built.

globalnews.ca

The blind leading the blind

 

[darwink]

N vs SE have significantly unbalanced ridership. Personally, I'm very bullish on the north and bearish on the SE.

Thats already the case for NW vs S and W vs NE. If it gets particularly bad, you can short turn some I guess?

 

[Tothewest]

Leong: Want to run Green Line trains on 7th Avenue? Forget it — there's no more room

In rejecting the latest plan for Calgary's Green Line, the province said it would look at how the project could integrate with existing LRT.

calgarysun.com

tunneling under stephen avenue lolol, can you imagine what that cost would clock in at, let alone the permanent damage to the hospitality industry there. $6.3B got us 4km of a track with only 2 stations in the downtown...this would be an entirely new project with 4-5 downtown stations, and we still haven't crossed the river to the NC. Who is paying for all this????

 

[kempes_78]

Leong: Want to run Green Line trains on 7th Avenue? Forget it — there's no more room

In rejecting the latest plan for Calgary's Green Line, the province said it would look at how the project could integrate with existing LRT.

calgarysun.com

tunneling under stephen avenue lolol, can you imagine what that cost would clock in at, let alone the permanent damage to the hospitality industry there. $6.3B got us 4km of a track with only 2 stations in the downtown...this would be an entirely new project with 4-5 downtown stations, and we still haven't crossed the river to the NC. Who is paying for all this????

There are several ways of mining from cut and cover to TBM: the cost reflects the specific method of working. Don't look at grouped costs in isolation as none of know what specific costs are involved in C$ 6.3 B e.g. flying people in, hotel costs, vehicles etc. 8 Ave construction would hardly hinder the 'hospital industry' as there are ongoing pedestrian access plans etc. The stations could be either boxes or cut and cover. The Client pays for these costs: thank you for enriching the developer, much appreciated!

 

[darwink]

Not much new info, but interesting to hear some rumours somewhat confirmed:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1835686786741461334.html


I wouldn't read too much into this, but it pours a tiny bit of cold water on elevated through 2nd or 1st SW


I'm sure the north felt warm and fuzzy the last 7 years on this (FWIW I do not live in the north)

Gondek is wrong on that front. The last report that seriously considered it was before she was on council though.

 

[Roaring Flames]

If they want to put any tunnels under Stephen Ave then now would be a good time. Coincide the project with the redevelopment of the Ave. There's already a tunnel leading that way anyway that was built along with the municipal building and Olympic Plaza back in the mid 80s. I think it would be a serious mistake though to run a line along the Nose Creek. Where I live in Beddington makes it infeasible to use without driving to it, and I seriously doubt the TOD potential of placing the line in effectively what should be a park. Build it where the people are! As Nenshi once said.

 

[lemongrab]

Gondek is wrong on that front. The last report that seriously considered it was before she was on council though.

Ya I'm just trying to read the tea leaves on what has and hasn't been seriously considered. That whole point is a bit weird, but it indicates to me that they never really considered an elevated option on their desired alignment (2nd Street has six +15s including a double decker; 1st St SW has just two simple ones) or else she'd know that +15s aren't some impossible obstacle. It's also interesting that she mentions at-grade or elevated for 8th Ave at all, as it seems widely accepted that it's a someday tunnel.


Further to over-analyzing little statements, I go back to Dreeshen's letter

Kinda odd to have just those two points. Perhaps they just wanted to mention Grand Central Station and it would be weird to have that as the only point so they added the next most obvious requirement. Or...did the city contemplate and share some possible alignments that didn't satisfy both of those conditions? That doesn't really jive with everything we've heard from the city...only thing I can think of is a 10th Ave alignment that terminates around 1st/2nd St, leaving the door open for a future 2nd St tunnel and getting reasonably close (~350 meters) to 7th Ave. I actually don't totally hate this idea (which leaves me especially skeptical the city would have actually considered it!). Not sure it gives enough room to get as deep as they want to go, though.

 

[outoftheice]

Some fun food for thought...

All the UCP's messaging is having this new SE LRT plan connect to their new Grand Central Station that everyone is assuming will be in East Village because that is where the UCP wants it to be. But they are also paying consultants to develop a regional rail plan that, one would hope, is not designed around a politically predetermined outcome and will actually provide recommendations from evidence based decision making. So what if this report comes back and recommends the Grand Central Station actually be located elsewhere downtown? The UCP's entire Green Line plan goes out the window. Will that happen? Odds are slim but it does demonstrate how the UCP are making the same mistakes the City made in the past about Green Line by promising plans, outcomes and costing before some of the most basic factors are decided.