Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

outoftheice · #1 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 6:37 PM**

Hello everyone,

As has been suggested in the Southeast Transitway Thread, the latest federal funding announcement means that it is extremely likely the Green Line will proceed as LRT and not a transitway and will also be built in both north and south east regions of Calgary simultaneously. This thread has been created to discuss the project as it moves through the funding/planning and construction phases. With any luck we'll be using this thread to view opening day photos at some point in the early 2020s!!

Project Summary:

Green Line Map:

Green Line Flyover:

• Video Link

Green Line Stats:

- Will add 40 km of track to Calgary's existing 53 km LRT network
- 27 proposed stations
- 4 interchange stations with the proposed RouteAhead Rapid Transit Network (96th Ave N, 16th Ave N, 7th Ave S, Quarry Park)
- Low floor LRVs have been proposed as the preferred technology
- It is estimated almost 300,000k Calgarians live along the proposed route
- The route will serve 8 major employment centres in the city.
- Totally project cost estimated at $4.6 Billion
- Depending on additional funding, construction may begin as early as summer 2017

Green Line Advocacy:

Community advocacy has been a big factor in trying to secure funding for the Green Line. The LRT on the Green Foundation has played an instrumental role in this advocacy and is a good place to start for people who are interested in helping out to try and get this project built in its entirety. Their website can be found here:

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca

Current Green Line Funding Status: (As of July 30, 2015)

Municipal: $52 million x 10 years for a total of $520 million
Provincial: None announced
Federal: Up to $1.53 billion from the newly created Public Transit Fund

Total Funding: $2.05 billion

suburbia · #2 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 7:08 PM**

Thanks!

The mayor spoke of this likely starting to builde from the centre and working outwards. With that in mind, what would the first phase likely include, and when would that first phase open (with 2024 being the full green line completion)?

Luk_o · #3 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 7:13 PM**

So pumped about this project! Massive undertaking, huge benefit.

*Stardust* · #4 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 7:37 PM**

I'm glad that they are starting centre. I'm hoping for a station at Eau Claire, then head down to 7th avenue, where it will intersect with the current line underground, then go to 10th avenue and 1st street, perhaps at the parking lot west of bottle screw bills, then to Olympic way.

outoftheice · #5 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 8:46 PM**

One of the most important pieces of the Green Line LRT has still yet to be determined.... the route and station locations for the line between 16th Ave N and 4th Street SE. There are 4 main options that are under consideration for this portion of the line. Calgary Transit will begin public consultations early this Fall to get feedback on the four options. The final selection of the preferred alignment will be made to Calgary City Council's Transit and Transportation Committee in December, 2015. There are pros and cons to each and every option... here are the ones under consideration:

Option A
Cost of Centre City Segment: $600 million
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.1 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 33-35 minutes

Option B

Cost of Centre City Segment: $800 million
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.3 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 30-32 minutes

Option C

Cost of Centre City Segment: $800 million
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.3 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 30-32 minutes

Option D

Cost of Centre City Segment: $1.3 Billion
Cost of Green Line North Using this Option (10 Ave S to North Pointe): $1.8 Billion
Travel Time Estimate (10 Ave S to North Pointe): 28-30 minutes

All images sourced from: http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/about-the-green-line/

CorporateWhore · #6 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:22 PM**

My thoughts on those options:

1. Tunnel that shit. Do it right from the start...Option D, with a caveat.

2. There are not enough stations. Having only 1 station between Eau Claire and 16th is way too sparse. We are trying to create communities here that are easy to access…spreading them this far apart makes it seem like it being a “rocket to the suburbs” is still much of a prevailing thought amongst city planners. You're already buying the land and building the track...don't cheap out with stations (make them simpler if need be).

I would also consider adding one more station downtown, probably somewhere around the corner of 10th and 2nd on these maps. There seems like quite a bit of walking distance from station to station here. I think its more important to give more people access, than it is to get out of the inner city 2 minutes earlier.

*Stardust* · #7 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:24 PM**

option D all the way. If you're going to do, at least do it right the first time around. I'm actually dissappointed that the stations in Beltline will not be underground. It shou stay underground until after Stampede park going onto Ramsay and Inglewood.

Boris2k7 · #8 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:28 PM**

Option D with a caveat: they shouldn't daylight the line until it is east of Macleod Trail. If they want it to run above ground after that, fine (I assume that one of the big complications is the underpass at 4th St SE).

fusili · #9 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:30 PM**

Option B all the way. Not only is it cheaper than option D, the stations are much closer to grade. 50m deep? That is insane.

fusili · #10 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Option D with a caveat: they shouldn't daylight the line until it is east of Macleod Trail. If they want it to run above ground after that, fine (I assume that one of the big complications is the underpass at 4th St SE).

The big complication is the red line tunnel that starts at 12th avenue and goes to the library. You would have to go under that.

Boris2k7 · #11 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

The big complication is the red line tunnel that starts at 12th avenue and goes to the library. You would have to go under that.

Right. That slipped my mind.

suburbia · #12 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Option B all the way. Not only is it cheaper than option D, the stations are much closer to grade. 50m deep? That is insane.

I like option B and C. Option D is a waste of money and takes the train very far from where the people are at. Option A will create other challenges and problems, and the premium for upgrading to B or C is modest.

If made to rank, I'd take C first, then B, and don't think A or D make the grade to even be ranked.

Know that no matter how you cut it, there is still an opportunity cost with going for D. Either the full build-out doesn't happen as fast or something else the city needs to do doesn't happen. That's reality.

CalgaryAlex · #13 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:42 PM**

I really don't like options A and C. Raised tracks downtown just seem awkward and claustrophobic to me. Personal opinion there.

I like option B most as long as the bridge isn't an abysmally ugly structure, and the integration with 2nd St in Eau Claire is well thought out. I like the idea of coming out of the bluff north of the river and getting a good view before going back underground.

Obviously everyone is going to go apeshit over option D because

SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY

... but really, doing option B with most of it underground but still saving $500 million is just as good, with the added bonus of a bit of sunlight. There might be a couple intersection changes when it comes into downtown but absolutely nothing major.

In any case, I'm looking forward to the planning process and community outreach starting in earnest over the next year.

floobie · #14 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:47 PM**

Hm. Option D looks pretty crazy... those are some deep tunnels. I don't see it happening. Option A would just be another example of us cheaping out and not doing it right the first time. B and C seem like the most logical choices. My preference would be C, really just because I like elevated train lines

. And that's your cue to tell me why I'm wrong.

Boris2k7 · #15 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 9:52 PM**

I'd reconsider and choose option B if:

a) some real thought and design goes into the bridge, and it's not just a McBridge

b) some of the freed-up money goes into improving the Beltline portion. Whether it's for a deep tunnel or an elevation section, I think full grade separation is worth paying for

CalgaryAlex · #16 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

I'd reconsider and choose option B if:

a) some real thought and design goes into the bridge, and it's not just a McBridge

b) some of the freed-up money goes into improving the Beltline portion. Whether it's for a deep tunnel or an elevation section, I think full grade separation is worth paying for

a) Yeah, anything that resembles the Red Line bridge over the Bow between Sunnyside and downtown should be thrown back on the drawing board. They have an opportunity here to do something iconic. Some light features would go a long way.

b) Definitely. I am picturing at-grade crossings at both Macleod intersections on 10th Ave... the image in my head is one of utter failure.

Wooster · #17 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Option D with a caveat: they shouldn't daylight the line until it is east of Macleod Trail. If they want it to run above ground after that, fine (I assume that one of the big complications is the underpass at 4th St SE).

This will be the case. We caught this oversight at the time it was presented at Council. It was actually just a function of a fuzzy line between where the scope of work of the NCLRT functional plan started an the SELRT functional plan ended. Of course, we know now it will be one project. It will daylight east of Macleod.

Wooster · #18 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

My thoughts on those options:

1. Tunnel that shit. Do it right from the start...Option D, with a caveat.

2. There are not enough stations. Having only 1 station between Eau Claire and 16th is way too sparse. We are trying to create communities here that are easy to access…spreading them this far apart makes it seem like it being a “rocket to the suburbs” is still much of a prevailing thought amongst city planners. You're already buying the land and building the track...don't cheap out with stations (make them simpler if need be).

I would also consider adding one more station downtown, probably somewhere around the corner of 10th and 2nd on these maps. There seems like quite a bit of walking distance from station to station here. I think its more important to give more people access, than it is to get out of the inner city 2 minutes earlier.

I imagine there will be two Downtown stations (Eau Claire and 7th Avenue) and two Beltline stations (10th Ave near 1st street SW and in Railtown near 4th Street SE).

Wooster · #19 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 10:18 PM**

I don't mind option B as long as they do a good job of the bridge and the interface of the tunnel in Eau Claire. It means that a station at Crescent Heights is likely as the tunnel depth won't be too bad (unlike the full tunnel option).

rkarsk · #20 Posted **Jul 30, 2015, 10:31 PM**

Even as a Sunnyside resident myself who isn't crazy about the idea of a new bridge over Prince's Island Park, Option B does really seem like the logical option given the other choices. They can expect a lot of opposition to it from locals if it's just a concrete bar, though. The bridge needs to look good. They can probably expect a lot of opposition even if it does...