HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2015, 11:57 PM
lineman's Avatar
lineman lineman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 864
Voters. Green Line North goes through the heart of Chu's ward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2015, 5:53 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 22,842
Once the provincial portion of funding is approved, this will be the single biggest transportation infrastructure investment in Alberta history, possibly the largest ever in Western Canada. It will be twice the cost of Metro Vancouver's Canada Line and over twice the length.


Carbon tax could pay for Green Line of Calgary's LRT, Rachel Notley suggests
Premier says revenue from levy on greenhouse gas emissions will flow to 'energy-efficiency investments'

CBC News | Dec 18, 2015 6:00 PM MT

Quote:
Premier Rachel Notley says Alberta's new carbon tax could provide the missing funding for the planned Green Line of Calgary's LRT system, a megaproject expected to cost $4.5 billion.

So far, there is a $1.5-billion pledge from the federal government toward the project and the city has devoted $1.5 billion of its own, but the provincial government has yet to specify how — or even if — it will pony up the remaining $1.5 billion.

In a year-end interview, Notley said she wants to make an "evidence-based decision" on how to spend $4.4 billion in uncommitted capital funds on infrastructure projects across Alberta, but noted that's not the only avenue for funding that may be available for the Green Line.

"There's also the potential for a case to be made for this through our climate-change plan," Notley said.

Alberta's planned tax on all carbon emissions — set to begin at $20 per tonne in January 2017 and increase to $30 per tonne in January 2018 — is expected to generate billions of dollars annually and Notley said much of that money will be used to make "make energy-efficiency investments."

...
Full story and video: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/notley-carbon-tax-could-pay-green-line-1.3372237
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2016, 8:33 PM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,147
Fortunate to have people like Druh Farrell planning out the greenline. Great breakdown of pros and cons of Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland's lrt systems. I'm excited to see low-floor lrt running along places like Centre ST. Seems like a big emphasize on integrating with the neighborhoods, accessibility, public art, aesthetics etc.


http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/ward-7...ents-on-LRT-in-an-Urban-Environment.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2016, 11:41 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,498
We are building a 40km commuter rail line. I'm not sure why Druh is so critical of the Skytrain when it is clearly the system that performs this function the best - capable of the highest frequency, capacity and reliability. She claims it was underbuilt and not built to last. That may be the case, but if it was built at grade as we are mostly doing in Calgary it would have been even more so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 12:04 AM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
We are building a 40km commuter rail line. I'm not sure why Druh is so critical of the Skytrain when it is clearly the system that performs this function the best - capable of the highest frequency, capacity and reliability. She claims it was underbuilt and not built to last. That may be the case, but if it was built at grade as we are mostly doing in Calgary it would have been even more so.
Not at all - I suggest you watch the last 15 min. This will be a huge urban catalyst project and I'm intrigued by the level of details being discussed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 12:12 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 22,842
A friend of mine that's fairly in the know on all things Calgary seems to think that the elevated option is the one that is going to be chosen, at this point at least. Upon reflection, I am not really against this, as it will ensure grade separation all the way from Highfield Station through to 20 Avenue, roughly 10 km. 2nd Street downtown isn't a good pedestrian realm as it is, so losing it under an elevated line isn't that big of a deal, hopefully the city could design it to look good somehow? That, and it is the most cost effective option in order for us to get the grade separation that this city needs, and it could be made to be flood proof, which is a bonus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 12:22 AM
McMurph McMurph is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
A friend of mine that's fairly in the know on all things Calgary seems to think that the elevated option is the one that is going to be chosen, at this point at least. Upon reflection, I am not really against this, as it will ensure grade separation all the way from Highfield Station through to 20 Avenue, roughly 10 km. 2nd Street downtown isn't a good pedestrian realm as it is, so losing it under an elevated line isn't that big of a deal, hopefully the city could design it to look good somehow? That, and it is the most cost effective option in order for us to get the grade separation that this city needs, and it could be made to be flood proof, which is a bonus
I'd support elevated only if they ran it through existing Plus 15's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 1:28 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring2008 View Post
Not at all - I suggest you watch the last 15 min. This will be a huge urban catalyst project and I'm intrigued by the level of details being discussed.
I watched it all. Doesn't change the fact that this will be transporting commuters from 20km north and south of downtown, the priorities should be frequency, capacity and speed. If we want stations integrated with the community down Centre St, then build a street car.

Although actually the very best way to integrate rail with the community is to not waste space on the surface by putting it underground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 4:24 AM
AaronMak AaronMak is offline
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 43
W're building the largest infrastructure project in Calgarys history during a an economic meltdown and all she's concerned over is how pretty it is? Vancouver's system is a model system for uninterrupted, high frequency service in an extremely dense city. Its seamless. Im sorry if it wasn't pretty enough for her but this trains primary objective is to move as many people as possible, as fast as possible, with limited disruption to other transportation modes. During times when we're this cash strapped, i don't care if it has a — granite water fountain. Get it built now, quickly and efficiently. We can paint it and throw art on it later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 4:30 AM
RicoLance21's Avatar
RicoLance21 RicoLance21 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by McMurph View Post
I'd support elevated only if they ran it through existing Plus 15's.
If I had my way, build it at +30 level with direct access from existing +15s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 6:34 AM
andasen andasen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMak View Post
W're building the largest infrastructure project in Calgarys history during a an economic meltdown and all she's concerned over is how pretty it is? Vancouver's system is a model system for uninterrupted, high frequency service in an extremely dense city. Its seamless. Im sorry if it wasn't pretty enough for her but this trains primary objective is to move as many people as possible, as fast as possible, with limited disruption to other transportation modes. During times when we're this cash strapped, i don't care if it has a — granite water fountain. Get it built now, quickly and efficiently. We can paint it and throw art on it later.
I was able to talk with her more about this after the talk and found out that they only did site visits along the Canada Line whose elevated portions operate along similar area as 36th St. They didn't go look at some of the successes well integrated elevated like at New West, Metrotown or Commercial Broadway
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 5:11 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMak View Post
W're building the largest infrastructure project in Calgarys history during a an economic meltdown and all she's concerned over is how pretty it is? Vancouver's system is a model system for uninterrupted, high frequency service in an extremely dense city. Its seamless. Im sorry if it wasn't pretty enough for her but this trains primary objective is to move as many people as possible, as fast as possible, with limited disruption to other transportation modes. During times when we're this cash strapped, i don't care if it has a — granite water fountain. Get it built now, quickly and efficiently. We can paint it and throw art on it later.
Being concerned about aesthetics is not synonymous with being concerned about frivolous design details. The local planning authority should be concerned with infrastructure that could create visual pollution that would be detrimental to future investment and neighbourhood health. A poor economy is not an excuse to make poor planning decisions and we should strive to do things the correct way at the first time of asking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 6:22 PM
McMurph McMurph is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMak View Post
W're building the largest infrastructure project in Calgarys history during a an economic meltdown and all she's concerned over is how pretty it is? Vancouver's system is a model system for uninterrupted, high frequency service in an extremely dense city. Its seamless. Im sorry if it wasn't pretty enough for her but this trains primary objective is to move as many people as possible, as fast as possible, with limited disruption to other transportation modes. During times when we're this cash strapped, i don't care if it has a — granite water fountain. Get it built now, quickly and efficiently. We can paint it and throw art on it later.
Although I can understand the need not to be frivolous with public money, there is an attitude that sometimes demands that things look overtly, and apparently reassuringly, cheap. Given the phenomenal cost of this thing it better be designed well and, yes, look good. That's not wasting money. Squandering the opportunity and sunk cost on something that we end up slapping paint on later is idiotic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 7:08 PM
PPAR's Avatar
PPAR PPAR is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMak View Post
W're building the largest infrastructure project in Calgarys history during a an economic meltdown and all she's concerned over is how pretty it is? Vancouver's system is a model system for uninterrupted, high frequency service in an extremely dense city. Its seamless. Im sorry if it wasn't pretty enough for her but this trains primary objective is to move as many people as possible, as fast as possible, with limited disruption to other transportation modes. During times when we're this cash strapped, i don't care if it has a — granite water fountain. Get it built now, quickly and efficiently. We can paint it and throw art on it later.
This is exactly the kind of wrongheaded thinking that exacerbates economic swings in Alberta. "When times are bad cut corners" even though the value proposition for high quality builds is much better. Not to mention that in bad times the economic multipliers become much more important when talking about public infrastructure spend.

Last edited by PPAR; Jan 10, 2016 at 1:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 7:31 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
A friend of mine that's fairly in the know on all things Calgary seems to think that the elevated option is the one that is going to be chosen, at this point at least. Upon reflection, I am not really against this, as it will ensure grade separation all the way from Highfield Station through to 20 Avenue, roughly 10 km. 2nd Street downtown isn't a good pedestrian realm as it is, so losing it under an elevated line isn't that big of a deal, hopefully the city could design it to look good somehow? That, and it is the most cost effective option in order for us to get the grade separation that this city needs, and it could be made to be flood proof, which is a bonus
This has been a front runner from the on-set. All things considered, was and remains my first option. Negative sentiments among a small vocal group within the thread is from the bunch that basically say the opposite of whatever I say.

I think the Vancouver touchstone is unfair as in Calgary it would only be for a smaller portion of the track, and also, Calgary has a relatively speaking massive +15 network, and this would allow integration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McMurph View Post
I'd support elevated only if they ran it through existing Plus 15's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicoLance21 View Post
If I had my way, build it at +30 level with direct access from existing +15s.
Will be combined IE station by the Devonian gardens will need to be over top, but will certainly be integrated with the +15 network. Calgary's implementation will not be a "follower" but rather a custom solution that will become a "leader".

Pretty excited about this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 10:26 PM
Ferreth Ferreth is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring2008 View Post
Fortunate to have people like Druh Farrell planning out the greenline. Great breakdown of pros and cons of Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland's lrt systems. I'm excited to see low-floor lrt running along places like Centre ST. Seems like a big emphasize on integrating with the neighborhoods, accessibility, public art, aesthetics etc.


http://www.calgary.ca/citycouncil/ward-7...ents-on-LRT-in-an-Urban-Environment.aspx
Interesting presentation, I can see looking at Seattle's and Vancouver's choices definitely gives Calgary some ideas of things to avoid, and ideas we may be able to adapt successfully to the Calgary situation.

Druh seems to be against elevated options specifically where the line parallels a road; options crossing roads are OK. Elevated stations are particularly problematic for the dark "underpass" effects created under them. I'm still skeptical about any +30 or +45 option through the core downtown area. The station at 7th Ave will be particularly dark underneath, similar effect to the core +15 on 3rd St . That being said, I think I'm bumping option C: New Bridge and elevated structure to my second choice. As presented here, the option stays ROW separated along 10th until 4th St. SE, solving all the problems of crossing MacLeod and the south LRT. Above ground works better on 10th IMO, being a more open corridor and not very pedestrian oriented to start with. Perhaps future development along 10th Ave can incorporate the green line development to better effect compared to trying to retrofit 2nd St to include an elevated structure.

2nd Street at 7th and 8th Avenue is going to require the most planning effort per unit area out of the whole project, especially for an elevated option. Trying to tie in 7th Ave. surface, future 8th Ave underground, +15 pedestrian walkway, street front, utilities, among others will make for an interesting 3-dimentional planning challenge.

I still prefer option B of a new bridge and underground downtown, with the proviso that we also plan for the 8th avenue red line station, possibly roughed in at the same time. I prefer this option as transfers between the lines will be easier having only ~10 meters vertical distance to transfer between the red and green lines, and ~20 meters to transfer between the blue and green lines.

Compare that to a vertical distance of ~40 meters between the green and red lines in an elevated situation. I don't think elevators are going to cut it for a major transfer hub as this would become. Escalators are possible, it's been done in St Petersburg at 68m elevation gain, but I think it's going to be a challenge. Really, the city needs to be making a 30 year development plan for just these 2 blocks, because I think it's going to take that long for all the mobilty projects to be built out along this stretch; I'm assuming the last thing to happen will be putting the blue line underground in 30 years or so - I'm hoping the red line will get it's underground section in 15 years!

As far as the look, man, I did not realize how ugly some of those Vancouver Skytrain stations look. I Streetview surfed around a few others, it would seem there are example of ugly and good in Vancouver we should take note of. 7th Ave station will be a situation of having a station with high density right up against it. How do we build an elevated version that doesn't create a tunnel underneath? Perhaps a +45 version being higher up won't be as bad? Perhaps we can throw lots of LED lighting down on it - even the +15Core's area looks a little better with the lights they have under it. The covered area might make a good BRT transfer area?

I am all for spending the full 2% extra art budget on this one (+?% for quality upgrades?) - both to make the stations look a little better, and to provide for some art to make the area more interesting. I also was impressed with Seattle's art installations - we would do well to copy some of their methods here. In addition to having to look at these stations ourselves, the extra effort to make things look a little bit nicer will pay off in the long term tourist dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2016, 11:07 PM
Fuzz's Avatar
Fuzz Fuzz is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,421
If we have to elevate through downtown, they should freemont streetify it. Make it an attraction rather than a blight. In the daytime, project sky scapes and clouds on it...Heck, with cameras above you could almost program it to be "transparent" by projecting whatever is above. How to pay for it? Well, we designate 1% to public arts for these projects, I'd imagine you could justify this as an art project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2016, 12:58 AM
PPAR's Avatar
PPAR PPAR is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferreth View Post

2nd Street at 7th and 8th Avenue is going to require the most planning effort per unit area out of the whole project, especially for an elevated option. Trying to tie in 7th Ave. surface, future 8th Ave underground, +15 pedestrian walkway, street front, utilities, among others will make for an interesting 3-dimentional planning challenge.
Totally agree. The other piece will be future proofing this area in the planning. I would predict that in 20 years the planning problem will be around a transit hub in central calgary. Regional rail and quite possibly high speed rail to Edmonton will be on the agenda, and this area will likely represent ground zero for all of these lines.

Last edited by PPAR; Jan 10, 2016 at 1:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2016, 1:41 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMak View Post
W're building the largest infrastructure project in Calgarys history during a an economic meltdown and all she's concerned over is how pretty it is? Vancouver's system is a model system for uninterrupted, high frequency service in an extremely dense city. Its seamless. Im sorry if it wasn't pretty enough for her but this trains primary objective is to move as many people as possible, as fast as possible, with limited disruption to other transportation modes. During times when we're this cash strapped, i don't care if it has a — granite water fountain. Get it built now, quickly and efficiently. We can paint it and throw art on it later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
Being concerned about aesthetics is not synonymous with being concerned about frivolous design details. The local planning authority should be concerned with infrastructure that could create visual pollution that would be detrimental to future investment and neighbourhood health. A poor economy is not an excuse to make poor planning decisions and we should strive to do things the correct way at the first time of asking.
I sort of agree with both. Let's not unnecessarily make it ugly, but at the same time, let's not make bad design choices that we pretty up with nice design.

I'd pick commie block style and perfectly designed, over problematic design which looks good, if I had to pick one of the two.

Let's put it another way, when I compare using the LRT with the Toronto subway, the fact that our stations are prettier doesn't really add many points to the LRT in that comparison.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2016, 7:51 PM
sim sim is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
A friend of mine that's fairly in the know on all things Calgary seems to think that the elevated option is the one that is going to be chosen, at this point at least. Upon reflection, I am not really against this, as it will ensure grade separation all the way from Highfield Station through to 20 Avenue, roughly 10 km. 2nd Street downtown isn't a good pedestrian realm as it is, so losing it under an elevated line isn't that big of a deal, hopefully the city could design it to look good somehow? That, and it is the most cost effective option in order for us to get the grade separation that this city needs, and it could be made to be flood proof, which is a bonus
Doubtful
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.