[Geo_Jedi]

All the elevated systems I've been on (Chicago, KL, Vancouver, Miami, Parts of London, NY and Paris) are generally a nice experience as a rider. Nice than underground, which is not a really a nice experience IMO.

The street level vibrancy would take a hit compared to underground, but I guess it would be part of the trade off. At least the sections where the elevated would go aren't vibrant at the moment, so it's not a huge loss.

In my own experience I have found when I have been in cities with the elevated lines, as I pass overhead (or at grade for that matter) I see businesses that grab my attention from the train that I then in turn seek out and ultimately become a customer of. Which I can't say has ever been the experience in a subway or underground system.

 

[Golfing guy]

The elevated systems I've been on (Chicago, KL, Vancouver, Miami, sections of Philadelphia, London, NY and Paris) are generally a nice experience as a rider. Nicer than underground, which is not a really a nice experience IMO.

The tradeoff of course is street vibrancy, and the street level vibrancy would take a hit compared to underground, but I guess that's part of the trade off. At least the sections where the elevated would go aren't vibrant at the moment, so it's not a huge loss.

Vancouver, London aren’t elevated thru downtown (core). Elevated is fine with me outside city core. Reason cities have started removing freeway structure through city centres as well (Seattle, Boston, NYC etc). They make once bright corridors dark and lifeless

 

[Surrealplaces]

Chicago is elevated outside the true core. The Loop is underground. The point I was making is a very high percentage of mass transit through major cities are underground. Just because an incompetent partner decides late in the game to change their mind doesn’t make it the right decision. City spent years studying all choices. Province hires a 3rd party too rough out a route with very little details, technicalities or dollar figures and takes zero risk in any of it. And the people of Calgary are supposed to just jump at it.
Anyways this conversation should be over at the Greenline thread

Are you sure about Chicago? There are sections in the loop that are elevated. Anyhow it doesn't matter, other aforementioned cities like NY, Paris, etc.. are underground in the core and elevated outside of the core if that's what you meant.

I agree with you on the principal that we shouldn't take a decision because an incompetent partner changes their mind at the last minute, but I don't know that elevated is the wrong decision all things are considered, and maybe was the right one from the beginning? Aside from cost, there are plusses to having it elevated. I'm also not against having it underground, all things equal cost-wise that's the path I would pick. In the end this is just a system to transport people.

 

[Dārayavauš]

Elevated out of downtown is fine. Through the core is very rare. Only city I can remember having it right downtown is Miami and it’s not ideal there.

I dunno it works fine in Tokyo, Taipei, Bangkok etc.

Plus Chicago, and we’d have a much more modern and quiet system.

 

[Dārayavauš]

Chicago is elevated outside the true core. The Loop is underground. The point I was making is a very high percentage of mass transit through major cities are underground. Just because an incompetent partner decides late in the game to change their mind doesn’t make it the right decision. City spent years studying all choices. Province hires a 3rd party too rough out a route with very little details, technicalities or dollar figures and takes zero risk in any of it. And the people of Calgary are supposed to just jump at it.
Anyways this conversation should be over at the Greenline thread

Chicago is elevated downtown. It was nice living there. Sure it’s rickety and old, but that’s not a problem Calgary will face

Calgary has too many negative Nancies. Just support mass rapid transit cmon. It’ll invigorate 10th Ave (just ignore naysayers who can’t their dream).

 

[Gazyyc]

Exactly how would an elevated line, invigorate 10th? Removal of parking, shadowing,noise, vibrations (all the things left out of the AECOM report). Call me a negative nancy however I don't see how these benefits will invigorate the street.

 

[Dārayavauš]

Exactly how would an elevated line, invigorate 10th? Removal of parking, shadowing,noise, vibrations (all the things left out of the AECOM report). Call me a negative nancy however I don't see how these benefits will invigorate the street.

I am not sure if you’re being facetious or not but I’ll bite.

It will drive more people to the area. More businesses can support the increased people arriving by transit, it makes it more walkable.

There are high rises all around, there are ALREADY shadows. You live in a city, and it’s the downtown core where density is already naturally concentrated with high buildings.

The noise is less than cars. The roads there are very noisy as existing, and new technology for transit is far quieter than cars.

Vibrations? Not really an issue, it’s not 100 years ago like Chicago.

There’s so many upsides, and the only downside is it’s too affect traffic by taking away lanes for cars(a good thing as it makes it better for pedestrians with wider sidewalks. It’s much better for business.

 

[Beltline_B]

The UCP usually accompanied that pronouncement with ‘and connecting with the red and blue lines’.

I think in the case of the AECOM report the province was legitimately surprised that elevated to around city hall was such a bad idea when their friends had said it was a good idea for years. Plus the incremental cost for some guideway and an extra elevated station isn’t very high but the system is so much better. It lays if there was a temptation to end at 4th, how much doing so undermines ridership and travel time savings.

I am confident that the city and province will reconcile. That the city’s position on evaluation will end up far more conciliatory, after they realize 90% of the $1.3 billion in extra costs they asserted exist don’t really.

You’ll know better than I will on the likelihood of the city and province reconciling and I hope you’re right. I’d hate to see this project fall by the wayside due to politics and stubbornness.
If you were to speculate on the outcome, is AECOM’s elevated option down 10th and 2nd street the likely option?

 

[Beltline_B]

It actually creates opportunity: Eau Claire can be developed without relying on leaving room for the Green Line.

An elevated station built into a new Eau Claire development could work. I’d prefer that option to an underground option where it comes out of the ground at Eau Claire and barely clearing the river pathway.

 

[Dārayavauš]

The UCP usually accompanied that pronouncement with ‘and connecting with the red and blue lines’.

I think in the case of the AECOM report the province was legitimately surprised that elevated to around city hall was such a bad idea when their friends had said it was a good idea for years. Plus the incremental cost for some guideway and an extra elevated station isn’t very high but the system is so much better. It lays if there was a temptation to end at 4th, how much doing so undermines ridership and travel time savings.

I am confident that the city and province will reconcile. That the city’s position on evaluation will end up far more conciliatory, after they realize 90% of the $1.3 billion in extra costs they asserted exist don’t really.

Hope so. I see Calgary politicians rallying against the province as Smith is a demagogue. It’s easy political posturing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it costs us the Green Line.

 

[jhappy77]

The SkyTrain is elevated in Metrotown, Brentwood, New Westminster, Surrey, Richmond, etc... doesn't kill development or property values there. Is it the perfect solution? No. But we need good transit more than we need perfection.

 

[Dārayavauš]

The SkyTrain is elevated in Metrotown, Brentwood, New Westminster, Surrey, Richmond, etc... doesn't kill development or property values there. Is it the perfect solution? No. But we need good transit more than we need perfection.

The way to ensure that transit will never get built in Calgary is to over engineer it to perfection.

Build what you can, not what you dream of.

 

[O-tac]

I sadly agree the city should take the money, however imperfect the deal. The UCP can eat shit for any future complications.

 

[Joborule]

The SkyTrain is elevated in Metrotown, Brentwood, New Westminster, Surrey, Richmond, etc... doesn't kill development or property values there. Is it the perfect solution? No. But we need good transit more than we need perfection.

That part. Calgary LRT has been as successful as it's been because they made a choice in the 80s to build transit out faster by making the choices that gets the train out to the quadrants. As good a downtown tunnel would be, the system wouldn't be as built out as it is today if they didn't audible from building that out. This Green Line is in a similar spot. Do they want a low floor line that goes underground downtown, or do they want a line that goes far enough SE that it's in range to serve the intended customers of that line? While we're alive?

 

[Surrealplaces]

From my simplistic point but view it seems like we have mainly two choices. Work with the province for an elevated solution or hope for an NDP government and take another run at an underground option.
My own preference, all things equal is an u/g solution, but from a realistic all things considered perspective I’m leaning to the elevated option. Mainly because I don't dislike an elevated solution. If I thought it sucked, like an at grade solution, I’d roll the dice and wait for the UCP to get the boot.