News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.7K     0 
The reason they didn’t do subway initially was to get more line built. I believe it’s one of the reasons are lines are so successful is because the built out so far in The early days. Didn’t Edmonton build subway like through downtown and didn’t get that far out initially?
Edmonton also was much more fiscally conservative in the 80s and 90s than Calgary, and ended up with much less stuff as a result. Pools, what eventually became the Arts Commons, City Hall (with office component), and LRT expansion all happened in Calgary and not in Edmonton because Calgary borrowed money and Edmonton didn't.
 
Edmonton also was much more fiscally conservative in the 80s and 90s than Calgary, and ended up with much less stuff as a result. Pools, what eventually became the Arts Commons, City Hall (with office component), and LRT expansion all happened in Calgary and not in Edmonton because Calgary borrowed money and Edmonton didn't.
yeah.. that's why Edmonton looks depression
 
To be fair, when Calgary and Edmonton built their LRT systems in the early '80s, the population of both cities was some 500-600,000. That's smaller than any North American city that currently has LRT, including Kitchener-Waterloo which recently completed a small line (and theirs is more "Streetcar" than "light metro"). I can see how going "subway" might have seemed like an unnecessary expense for what were then small cities.

The cities have literally tripled, give or take, in population since that time. Even if the systems aren't perfect, we are fortunate that we got LRT when both cities were relatively small, because I wonder if we'd ever be able to get systems properly funded and started today. A lot of comparably sized US metros (KC, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Columbus, Vegas, etc) still don't have proper mass transit systems.
 
The reason they didn’t do subway initially was to get more line built. I believe it’s one of the reasons are lines are so successful is because the built out so far in The early days. Didn’t Edmonton build subway like through downtown and didn’t get that far out initially?
Years after, the main planner of the Edmonton LRT project said he wished they had have gone the Calgary route instead of the tunnel. That was a few years back, and who knows he may change his mind now that the systems are built out more.
Personally I'm happy with the route Calgary took as it got an extensive system built and usage ramping up quickly. An underground section would have been sexy, but in the end it's all about moving people from A to Z.
 
Years after, the main planner of the Edmonton LRT project said he wished they had have gone the Calgary route instead of the tunnel. That was a few years back, and who knows he may change his mind now that the systems are built out more.
Personally I'm happy with the route Calgary took as it got an extensive system built and usage ramping up quickly. An underground section would have been sexy, but in the end it's all about moving people from A to Z.
Wonder how much of the green line’s ultimate buildout could get done if the same street level design was down today?
 
One of the best things about Calgary building out its surface network rather than spending on burying the downtown section, is because the system was so extensive for a city Calgary's size, it was actually very useful for a large portion of the population and so really helped Calgary build a very strong transit culture early on. With such high ridership, it has been easier to justify the expense of extending lines (and now building a new one).
 
Underground on 8th Ave would be expensive AF, water table is high tons of possible cost over runs. Just re route the blue line at-grade to connect with itself on 6 Ave and leave 7 Ave for the Red Line. Leave 8 Ave as currently designed. Just an opinion
How difficult is it to make one of the lines low floor? I'm curious if they'd lower the platforms or raise the tracks. Curious if any cities have done such a retrofit. If we were to build another surface line downtown, it should be low floor, so we don't have the massive station area which makes the street a surface subway station rather than a mixed use area.
 
How difficult is it to make one of the lines low floor? I'm curious if they'd lower the platforms or raise the tracks. Curious if any cities have done such a retrofit. If we were to build another surface line downtown, it should be low floor, so we don't have the massive station area which makes the street a surface subway station rather than a mixed use area.
Lots of stations are close to road crossings, so platform modification it is. Replace all the platforms, and for others, replace platforms, elevators, and escalators. It would take a long time, and any savings over the very long term when the platforms came up for renewal, would be taken up having to buy more, more expensive, vehicles for similar capacity.

It is possible that loading gauge would be an issue, necessitating quasi bespoke vehicles with even lower capacity (like Brussels) to not need modifications in the tunnels/track works.
 
Isn't the "it's too expensive" the kind of thinking that gets us into these kind of situations to begin with. Imagine how cheap it would have been to subway the red line when it was first run through. Expensive AF then, but shoulda done it.
I just don’t think we need 4 oversized one way freeways through the downtown (4th, 5th, 6th and 9th). Repurposing most of the 6 Ave ROW to serve LRT and bus lines seems reasonable to me and I would imagine it would reduce a lot of the bottle necks we see with capacity on 7 Ave currently. We have so much space at grade downtown in the ROWs I think we don’t necessarily need to go underground.
 
I just don’t think we need 4 oversized one way freeways through the downtown (4th, 5th, 6th and 9th).
If we figured out how to complete the vision of the Bow Trail Connector (connect 4 Ave east to Bow Trail west, and connect 5th Ave east with Bow Trail east), it would be much easier to do.
 
Wonder how much of the green line’s ultimate buildout could get done if the same street level design was down today?
Back in 2020, they released a document that looked at various options. If you didn't have to cross the CPR tracks and connect North and SE you could save a lot of money. For about 15% more than $4.9B estimate of the selected 2020 plan, you could have a NC line from 64th run down Centre Street to 6th Av S (at-grade) and a SE line go from Shepard into the core then elevated on 10th Av S to 2 St SW.

 
I just don’t think we need 4 oversized one way freeways through the downtown (4th, 5th, 6th and 9th).
I'm sorry, but I'm going to keep saying this. You need to learn what a freeway is. These are one-way avenues with wide sidewalks, bus routes, street parking, traffic lights every 160 metres, buildings fronting them. Traffic moves 50 km/h when it's not stopped at a light. You can walk or bike down them, they're fine. Literally nothing could be further from a freeway.

Is 5th Avenue in Manhattan a freeway in your world? How about the Champs-Elysees? That's pretty wide too.

Getting back on topic, these one way couplets are matched up with Bow Trail on the west end and the ramps to Memorial on the east end. Maybe we have excess road capacity, especially after oil post 2014 and WFH post 2020, but I don't know if the office core of downtown would be more pleasant if we changed them.
 
I think a good compromise for 8 Ave would be to tunnel until 5th S, come to grade for a station at Century Gardens (or a block east of there so you avoid a level crossing of 8th St), and then go elevated for the turn north and to connect to the bridge over the Bow. Reduces it to 1200 meters of tunnel and 2 UG stations.
 

Back
Top