Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 8 72.7%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Total voters
    11
I completely agree Ramsayite. Not even the fact that the Greenline is going to solidly conservative ridings appears to help. Hopefully by the time the Federal election dust settles the money will already be banked. As for Smith and Poilievre, they will likely have a chummy relationship so there wouldn’t be a clash.

Unless she’s pretending to support it, only for PP to take over, scrap the carbon tax then proclaim it was fake Trudeau money so the Feds can’t honour the deal anymore.
 
HudsonA08 said:
Do we have an idea where they can make the turn into downtown though. 2nd? That is an issue with elevated. You can’t turn that thing on a dime between 2 towers.
Click to expand...
There is room on 10th. Barely room on others but you need air easements. To make the curves you need to start the curve southwards before completing the curve northwards. Lets the turn start earlier.
 
This page from the 2008 Downtown LRT study says the minimum turning radius for a low floor LRV can be less than 20 metres and if you think of the low floor LRVs used in tram and streetcar systems, they frequently conduct 90⁰ turns at roadway intersections. With that in mind, I'm sure a low-speed turn from either 11th Ave or 10th Ave onto 2nd St could be conducted within an elevated guideway. Of course it would impact travel times but would still be better than the traffic lights on 7th Ave the Red/Blue lines deal with.

1000021990.jpg
 
This is weird to think about it just came to me, Seton is the end of the line. You cannot go further south than that, ever, it seems. The north almost has endless expansion potential.

Also, had 4th to Shep eaten the whole budget or is 4th into downtown still within budget and just requires a new route?

My understanding is into downtown is still within budget if elevated. So then shouldn’t the next funding round go towards something north versus add on to the south. Shep should be a good new transit hub for the SE.
 
Last edited:
Ramsayite said:
I'd love to believe that a future federal conservative government would maintain a consistent position vis-a-vis the Harper conservatives, but I'm not convinced. PP seems to be a fan of TOD and densification but his base sure isn't.

The "conservative" ideology has become increasingly inconsistent. It's unpredictable, reactionary populism at its worst. Absolutely chock-full of contradictions and hypocrisy.

It makes it very difficult to predict where a project like the green line will go. Any attempts at understanding it through a coherent a policy framework are wasted. It will be the whims of lobbyists and special interest groups that will determine the future of this and other rail projects. Gone are the days of stable, predictable worldview.

From an ideology of sensible investment and neoliberal pragmatism, conservatives have instead become the overly sensitive, identity-obsessed, pandering, big-government, ideologues that they once pretended to criticize.
Free speech "absolutists" that sure can't handle speech that offends them personally.

I won't attempt to provide any localized examples, lest my post be deleted again.
Click to expand...

Ramsayite said:
I'd love to believe that a future federal conservative government would maintain a consistent position vis-a-vis the Harper conservatives, but I'm not convinced. PP seems to be a fan of TOD and densification but his base sure isn't.

The "conservative" ideology has become increasingly inconsistent. It's unpredictable, reactionary populism at its worst. Absolutely chock-full of contradictions and hypocrisy.

It makes it very difficult to predict where a project like the green line will go. Any attempts at understanding it through a coherent a policy framework are wasted. It will be the whims of lobbyists and special interest groups that will determine the future of this and other rail projects. Gone are the days of stable, predictable worldview.

From an ideology of sensible investment and neoliberal pragmatism, conservatives have instead become the overly sensitive, identity-obsessed, pandering, big-government, ideologues that they once pretended to criticize.
Free speech "absolutists" that sure can't handle speech that offends them personally.

I won't attempt to provide any localized examples, lest my post be deleted again.
Click to expand...
The crazies are in control on both sides of the political spectrum. This fear mongering is no longer valid.

Transit is highly lucrative through upzoning around stations to the most powerful players in the nation. I wouldn't be worried over conservative lobbying at the federal level cancelling transit investment. See Ontario.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
This is weird to think about just it just came to me, Seton is the end of the line. You cannot go further south than that, ever, it seems. The north almost has endless expansion potential.

Also, had 4th to Shep eaten the whole budget or is 4th into downtown still within budget and just requires a new route?

My understanding is into downtown is still within budget if elevated. So then shouldn’t the next funding round go towards something north versus add on to the south. Shep should be a good new transit hub for the SE.
Click to expand...

More or less true, but if you think about it in a different lens... Seton is already starting to extend south beyond 212 Ave SE until it bumps into the river and acreages. The north side houses are pushing north past 144 Ave, so maybe 160 Ave? With more room to grow towards Airdrie. Either way I think the North needs the next chunk of funding if we're even able to build to Shepard.
 
Sounds like some of the downtown stakeholders are getting a bit worried the UCP will hand them a Green Line plan that resembles something they've already tried to stop back when they had a seat at the engagement table and pushed for tunnels. Also the costing math Smith references reminds me of the type of math that was used back in 2015 when they said the entire line could be built for $4.6 billion. Are we going to end up with another poorly costed plan and a failed procurement?

calgaryherald.com

Downtown stakeholders 'want to be in the room' for Green Line realignment talks

A study into an alternate Green Line alignment for downtown Calgary has led some organizations to hope they will be heard at planning talks.
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
 
outoftheice said:
Sounds like some of the downtown stakeholders are getting a bit worried the UCP will hand them a Green Line plan that resembles something they've already tried to stop back when they had a seat at the engagement table and pushed for tunnels. Also the costing math Smith references reminds me of the type of math that was used back in 2015 when they said the entire line could be built for $4.6 billion. Are we going to end up with another poorly costed plan and a failed procurement?

calgaryherald.com

Downtown stakeholders 'want to be in the room' for Green Line realignment talks

A study into an alternate Green Line alignment for downtown Calgary has led some organizations to hope they will be heard at planning talks.
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
Click to expand...
I recall the downtown stakeholder being the ones really pushing for tunnels. Personally, I just don't see elevated affecting property values all that much but they're definitely worried about it. Couldn't you integrate your building into an elevated line via +15 and have that increase your property value? Should they provide input into the best way to go through downtown, sure. I mean, what would they say that hasn't already been said? Any of the streets that would work are not retail streets like Stephen Ave.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top