Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[lucx]

I'm bewildered how people seriously think connecting the Green Line is "simple" because it's most definitely is not. Let's recap: the only place the Green Line and existing system cross is underground. They intersect perpendicularly. This means tunneling a 90 degree turn between the 2 lines. This isn't a good return on investment. Neither will there be a giant overpass out of Inglewood and over the CPR line connecting to 7 Ave. That's absurd. People can put the interoperable fantasy to rest. The approved plans certainly have.

[Pegasus]

“The (provincial) review has outlined a number of concerns related to risk and certainty with the project as it is currently designed, including estimated costs, contingencies, governance structure, and the overall procurement strategy,” Transportation Minister Ric McIver wrote in a letter to Mayor Naheed Nenshi that was released on Twitter.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7390365/alberta-government-calgary-green-line-concerns/

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by lucx

I'm bewildered how people seriously think connecting the Green Line is "simple" because it's most definitely is not. Let's recap: the only place the Green Line and existing system cross is underground. They intersect perpendicularly. This means tunneling a 90 degree turn between the 2 lines. This isn't a good return on investment. Neither will there be a giant overpass out of Inglewood and over the CPR line connecting to 7 Ave. That's absurd. People can put the interoperable fantasy to rest. The approved plans certainly have.

Perhaps designing a completely different unattached system using incompatible rolling stock is what is absurd?

Having got that off my chest, the "crossover" wouldn't be for scheduled services but just for occasional use to provide rolling stock flexibility. So why couldn't a controlled at-grade crossing be used to cross the CPR tracks?

[N McCity]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Perhaps designing a completely different unattached system using incompatible rolling stock is what is absurd?

Having got that off my chest, the "crossover" wouldn't be for scheduled services but just for occasional use to provide rolling stock flexibility. So why couldn't a controlled at-grade crossing be used to cross the CPR tracks?

Is it absurd or would it be more absurd to have another line compete for the limited capacity and headway on 7th Ave that is already a pretty slow obstacle for anyone traversing downtown?

Otherwise there's little opportunity to connect the green line without acquiring loads of property or somehow utilizing the 8th Ave tunnel to hook up to the red line. It would've been nice to have, but I don't see exactly where it could go at grade.

Having said that, I still think "low floor" trains are a bad idea for a busy, long rapid transit line for a few reasons such as giving them the option of skimping out and making part of the rapid transit line a disastrously slow street car that holds little advantage over busses. I believe, however, this is exactly why cheap cities like ours chose "low floor".

It makes me wonder how it works on the DC Metro where their red line never uses the same track as all the other lines that share in one place or another. My limited experience on it couldn't tell me if they share the same exact units of rolling stock and there's a crossover somewhere or just use the same spec of rolling stock.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[lucx]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It can, but not with a crossover, would need an instreet section, could be single track does not need to be pricey, clearly also not "fantasy" more "wishful thinking".

The city is not bulldozing an entire block to tunnel a 90 degree crossing into the Red Line tunnel northbound. That's incredibly wasteful and absurd.

They're not going to tunnel 90 degrees over the parking lot to the Red Line southbound. That's a waste of money. This won't be a short 25 metre radius tunnel because it needs to be lower than 6% gradient between the 2 levels.

So you have a 1 kilometre "crossover" in East Village. Let's be generous and say its $25mill/km for this single-track section.
- Will there be $25M in efficiencies vs just spending $25M to buy more cars to fill the gap?
- Will the public accept this?
- Will the overhead wires meet minimum CPR clearance or will trains have to be towed across like the Haysboro crossover?

Doesn't seem so simple. If people are passionate about this scenario, please submit it to the planners for their feedback.

[lucx]

So you avoid crossing the CPR tracks by using a single track down 11 Ave at street level. Sounds easy? Except 11 Ave is a one-way street. The same problem exists for single tracks on any road: cars goes one direction, the train goes the opposite. Do you implement surprise lane closures for several blocks when you decide to shuttle a train around? Sounds confusing and complicated.

Bullseye, right?

[MalcolmTucker]

Why is this needed? What does the system gain in your mind?

[N McCity]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The Canada Line really is fine, people do not really lament it much that it is not compatible. The winter issues have been sorted out.

Well the commonality problem may become more apparent in the years to come if SNC no longer operates it.

And it has a major expansion problem in that they can't really expand its capacity without spending exorbitant amounts of money.

That's the case for common equipment; in the long run it's cheaper. That in mind, their difference there is still better IMO than opting for low floor, non grade separated.

[N McCity]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Why is this needed? What does the system gain in your mind?

The idea is to create an incentive to not have the green line be low floor by saying it can be connected to the rest of the network. Ideally, this would be better, but most of us don't see how this could be done.

I agree with the sentiment that low floor trains are dumb for rapid transit because they allow the city to be too cheap and easily turn a portion of it into basically a painfully slow (for rapid transit) streetcar such as the plan for Centre Street.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by N McCity

The idea is to create an incentive to not have the green line be low floor by saying it can be connected to the rest of the network. Ideally, this would be better, but most of us don't see how this could be done.

I agree with the sentiment that low floor trains are dumb for rapid transit because they allow the city to be too cheap and easily turn a portion of it into basically a painfully slow (for rapid transit) streetcar such as the plan for Centre Street.

I was hoping the province would seriously question the low floor stupid and force the city to nix the idea. When the public realizes they're getting a glorified street car and not a true LRT line people are going to be livid. This going to be one the "legacies" Dru leaves this city with.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by N McCity

And it has a major expansion problem in that they can't really expand its capacity without spending exorbitant amounts of money.

My understanding is that the Canada line was built to support an ultimate capacity of 16,000 ppdph or so. Currently it has capacity of around 7,000 ppdph.

Lots of expansion capacity left.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I was hoping the province would seriously question the low floor stupid and force the city to nix the idea. When the public realizes they're getting a glorified street car and not a true LRT line people are going to be livid. This going to be one the "legacies" Dru leaves this city with.

Edmonton's about to live that dream for real, when its newest line opens. Construction of it also opened a massive scar through downtown because the zealots wanted a street car feel through downtown. That scar is a hefty reason why Edmonton's downtown has declined precipitously during its construction period.

Just say no to low floor!

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by s211

Edmonton's about to live that dream for real, when its newest line opens. Construction of it also opened a massive scar through downtown because the zealots wanted a street car feel through downtown. That scar is a hefty reason why Edmonton's downtown has declined precipitously during its construction period.

Just say no to low floor!

I think the City (of Calgary) is so desperate to get their hands on the provincial handout they'll press ahead with the "current" design regardless of need or common sense. The design has been changed and compromised from day 1.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by s211

Edmonton's about to live that dream for real, when its newest line opens. Construction of it also opened a massive scar through downtown because the zealots wanted a street car feel through downtown. That scar is a hefty reason why Edmonton's downtown has declined precipitously during its construction period.

Just say no to low floor!

When Edmonton approved their low floor line I remember seeing a lot of people vehemently opposed to it online. My reaction was WTF are they thinking?! Calgary's case seems a lot worse given how much money is being allocated to the line. Are the people who approved these lines implying that the current lines are subpar?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

I think the City (of Calgary) is so desperate to get their hands on the provincial handout they'll press ahead with the "current" design regardless of need or common sense. The design has been changed and compromised from day 1.

The province could easily force them to change the design.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The province could easily force them to change the design.

I don't think the Province want to get involved in the technical aspects - all they seem concerned about is "estimated costs, contingencies, governance structure, and the overall procurement strategy,” as Transportation Minister Ric McIver wrote in a letter to Mayor Naheed Nenshi last week.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7390365/a...line-concerns/

It is up to the City to decide on type of car, routing, above ground or underground, and whether they want to cut through a downtown riverside park.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

It is up to the City to decide...whether they want to cut through a downtown riverside park.

I’m so sad that they want to wreck the park like that. Riverside green space is a gem here. I’m not against the Green Line but I wish there would be an affordable alternative.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I’m not against the Green Line but I wish there would be an affordable alternative.

There isn't though. If anything, we're not spending the required amount to get the minimum acceptable end product. If we are just going to get something comparable in quality to BRT, we should just build BRT. Bus lanes on Centre St and some bridges and overpasses in the SE would give more benefit than Green Line phase 1 to more people, and be cheaper.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by s211

Edmonton's about to live that dream for real, when its newest line opens. Construction of it also opened a massive scar through downtown because the zealots wanted a street car feel through downtown. That scar is a hefty reason why Edmonton's downtown has declined precipitously during its construction period.

Just say no to low floor!

You think Edmonton’s downtown is declining? I guess if you measure that in department stores few have went to for decades, that is true. I’d say the Edmonton’s downtown was at its best state since the Jasper LRT was dug in the 80s prepandemic.