Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[MalcolmTucker]

Instead of just repeating the same and the same over and over I have a question:

What would people do with approximately $4 billion bucks instead if we tossed the current line? Only rule is that if the ROW is longer than the greenline (if what you propose is a mass transit line), that you explain at least briefly why you think it is possible within the budget.

[milomilo]

True BRT to the south, and upgrades to all the other planned BRTs to make them deserving of the terminology.

Then down the road, when more funds are available, a proper rapid transit line up centre street, if demand justifies it. And wherever else is filling up the bus routes they have.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Instead of just repeating the same and the same over and over I have a question:

What would people do with approximately $4 billion bucks instead if we tossed the current line? Only rule is that if the ROW is longer than the greenline (if what you propose is a mass transit line), that you explain at least briefly why you think it is possible within the budget.

Build the Southeast LRT running from 11st Street and 9th Ave to Seton (or as far south as possible) through the station grounds until the Elbow.

CP Rail doesn't need quadruple tracks through the downtown core when a passenger train hasn't stopped there since the Rocky Mountaineer began terminating in Banff and they moved to Royal Canadian Pacific terminal to Ogden.

Follow 9th Ave until reconnecting the the existing plan at the Elbow River.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The project won't go bad that fast. Mid next mandate at best

Go Bad? That ship sailed years ago.

They aren't going to run out of money and just stop digging at some random point under downtown Calgary.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Instead of just repeating the same and the same over and over I have a question:

What would people do with approximately $4 billion bucks instead if we tossed the current line? Only rule is that if the ROW is longer than the Greenline (if what you propose is a mass transit line), that you explain at least briefly why you think it is possible within the budget.

Proceed with building the Greenline stage 1 and 2A. Northern terminus at the Eau Claire station.

Develop and implement a comprehensive legal strategy for land acquisition from 16th Ave to 64th Ave to purchase a portion of 350+ land parcels. Legal strategy to take the decision process out of council's hand and over to administration. Legal strategy to use expropriation and eminent domain concepts to achieve the goal of land acquisition of only a portion of the land parcel.

Implement true BRT for the center street corridor.

[jawagord]

No leaks about what the City council heard on Monday?

I’m surprised they would consider letting a $100 million contract for phase 2a without detailed design done. So maybe it’s done

Calgary city council will get a confidential update on the Green Line LRT project Monday morning at a special meeting.

It’s the largest infrastructure project in the city’s history, with $4.9 billion in commitments from all three levels of government.
“I think what we’re going to see is the contract going forward for the utility relocation in the core for segment 2A,” said Ward 12 Coun. Shane Keating.
“That’s in excess of a $100-million contract, so that will be going forward, I’m guessing, with an announcement in the next couple of weeks.”


https://globalnews.ca/news/7828403/calgary-city-council-green-line-lrt-update/

[outoftheice]

Looks like cost escalations means Eau Claire to Shepard might be all we get from Stage 1. That being said it also looks like Councillor Gondek brought forward a Notice of Motion to dedicate 50% of all future provincial/federal transit funding to complete the entire line so if that passes this would be, at most, a temporary setback in crossing the river.

https://livewirecalgary.com/2021/05/03/g...rdy-as-calgary-deals-with-cost-concerns/

[craner]

The news on the Green Line just gets more depressing (i.e. cost increases) the longer they wait.
However, I’m hopeful the line will be terminated at Eau Claire instead of proceeding with the current plan for a street car up Centre St.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by craner

The news on the Green Line just gets more depressing (i.e. cost increases) the longer they wait.
However, I’m hopeful the line will be terminated at Eau Claire instead of proceeding with the current plan for a street car up Centre St.

I'm bettting that we won't see the Green Line LRT as far as 40th Avenue north in my lifetime.

[MalcolmTucker]

It will be mid next decade I'd bet, so all depends on when you plan on dying!

[milomilo]

If the Green line first stage gets built at all, probably (hopefully) minus north of Eau Claire, we're looking at stage 1 completion by a minimum of 2028, I think, as we are now two years behind schedule? Assuming nothing else goes wrong, which it will, so probably more like 2030. So if we get funds and start building to the north immediately after that then mid 2030s is the earliest realistically we'd get any reasonable distance north of the river.

Future stages will be discussed in isolation though, and the awfulness of running on Centre Street will be in full view. By then we might actually know which properties will need to be expropriated and/or demolished and how much that will cost as well. Spending money to extend the line to the uncontroversial south will be the easier option.

[PPAR]

Terminus at Eau Claire for the foreseeable future? Well we have really come full circle haven't we. The SE LRT morphed into the Green Line, but now the Green Line is morphing back into the SE LRT with "future considerations" all that is left of the plan for North of the Bow River.

This was McIver's vision all along.

[milomilo]

Yeah it's ironic how this turned out. Assuming north of Eau Claire doesn't get built any time soon, the push to unify the north and south LRT projects is what ended up killing any chance of the north getting good transit.

[jules_landlocked]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Instead of just repeating the same and the same over and over I have a question:

What would people do with approximately $4 billion bucks instead if we tossed the current line? Only rule is that if the ROW is longer than the greenline (if what you propose is a mass transit line), that you explain at least briefly why you think it is possible within the budget.

I honestly don't know why we haven't (re)considered the possibility of a modern European or Melbourne style street car network. If 1.5 billion provided a BRT version of the Greenline, for 4 billion we could probably afford to run a line from Beddington, possibly even with a spur to the airport, to downtown running down Centre Street over the Centre Street Bridge. And then either swinging west down 6th avenue or even better yet on 8th Avenue (Stephen). With the lower cost of street car line, the SE portion of line could now be extended from Shepherd further south to Seton and the South Hospital. We can use the existing planned route to the core or now leverage existing streets, so it could go swing through the East Village and then connect up downtown on one of the avenues identified above. This also meet's the City Transit requirement to be able to leverage their planned Shepherd Maintenance Shop.

Yes - You lose 50% of your car capacity on Centre Street and potentially 2 lanes of 6th Avenue (less if you use 8th/Stephen Avenue), but you actually get a fully functional transport network from downtown into the North and SE suburbs that attract real volumes of passengers on Day 1 and not a decade from now. Moreover, it will break even over the longer term. Downtown can clearly survive the reduced car capacity with the amount of users that will be utilizing the street car system. And if you give the street cars dedicated lanes like a BRT, there is no significant differences in the transport times for users vs a LRT.

I'd love an automated driverless Canada Line type system in YYC or Montreal style metro/subway system, but given the cost/development constraints and lack of planning at City Hall, I think a street car transport is the best and most affordable option.

It actually would facilitate stations where they need to be include more than 2 downtown stops and would support easy transfers to the LRT system (if needed). It also provides the foundation for line expansion in the future that isn't solely dependent on the whims of provincial/federal funding. And most importantly doesn't require the expensive investment in new tunnels and/or bridges.

[YYCguys]

[QUOTE=jules_landlocked;9281758. It actually would facilitate stations where they need to be include more than 2 downtown stops and would support easy transfers to the LRT system (if needed).[/QUOTE]

Transfer points definitely needed!

[LOU]

Why was it decided to run the Green Line through industrial wasteland (Highfield area)? Along neighborhoods that likely will never experience full TOD (Ogden)? Along an expansive garbage dump (24 St SE)? Along stretches where 'almost' no one will take transit to work (114th)?
Seems like a *lot* of dead space (=$$$$) to reach population centers in the SE (where the line will never reach in the foreseeable future).
What's the point of the Green Line now? Are the initial ridership numbers still valid with the new truncated route? I would doubt it. I live in Mahogany and i see the ridership on the 302 and buses are likely 10% full (even before COVID).
Question: Would there have been a more optimal route? Would it have made sense to run a route along 22x from 52nd St/ or Seton and link up with the Sommerset Station, and when money is available close the loop to CT?

[MalcolmTucker]

The SE LRT started as a two prong spur line from the south LRT as you propose, but from Anderson. When the planning got further along, it was realized that the south LRT didn't have enough spare capacity to serve the service area, so a route needed to be laid out to connect the service area into downtown. CN was more willing to part with ROW since it isn't the main line compare to CP.

Here were the considered routes in the 2003 study:



The other questions:
I'd be very concerned if the buses were anywhere close to full in Mahogany.

One of the reasons to go LRT with a tunnel first is to get travel time savings, and travel time savings equal ridership.

The ridership estimate for the West LRT was bang on (within the confidence intervals). The city has a pretty good model.

Why would Ogden not TOD? In West Calgary the organic 25th Street strip has turned into a way better TOD than the attempt at a master planned TOD at westbrook.
There isn't a route to the deep SE that doesn't go past the dump. Thank Peter Lougheed for that.



In the end, the questions you ask are: can't we build this for the city we wished we built over the past 70 years, instead of the one we built. The deep SE was really cheap for developers to build on, but it is really expensive for the city to service. If we were to turn the clock back 40 years, we probably would have tried something entirely different, because the city sorta shifted on the fly after it was told Bow Bottom Trail couldn't cross Fish Creek except for the old old old bridge to get to Sikome Lake.

[milomilo]

One has to ask why we are building LRT to the SE at all. If it isn't built, what are the negative consequences? Sounds like we are going to upgrade Deerfoot eventually regardless, probably for less money. Meanwhile, if the economy ever picks up again, the north is stuck with packed shitty on street buses forever on a corridor that actually could be densified, compared to the industrial wasteland and suburban dross in the SE.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by jawagord

OK, I'll play along, here are a couple of scenarios. We cross the Elbow river from Inglewood and go underground as planned to the 4th street station near the new event centre. Instead of going down 11th ave to 2nd street SW, turn the line north at 3rd street SE and continue underground and join the Red Line underground and share the track under the new library onto 7ave. Now you've connected the SE Green Line to the NW University line and connected 7th Ave "free Zone" to the new event centre. I know the big brains on the forum say we can't have more trains on 7th Ave but that is contrary to the 2006 Engineering study which says we can accommodate one more line from the East.

But say the big brains are right, don't connect underground, come above ground and go elevated over the CPR tracks and above 3rd street and terminate the line with an elevated station behind City Hall, next to the new library. An easy crossover to 7th Ave City Hall station. When you have $1-1.5 billion dollars to spend there are many possibilities that the City could look at to make a "good line" and stay within budget.

If in the future 15-20 years from now 6 billion dollars lands in Calgary's lap, build the North section of the Greenline underground as previously planned and connect to the south line along 11th Ave if that's still desirable.

I see my alternate green line suggestion from last year has been taken up for real by Gray&Lester in an e-mail sent to the mayor and green line committee a couple weeks ago. Not expecting the current regime to make a change at this stage but if the province continues to rag the puck on funding, who knows what might happen come October?

The Alternative Plan would see the creation of a City Hall Central Transit Hub (Attachment “A”) with the Green Line entering downtown on an elevated track from the new Event Centre (4th Street SE), over the CP tracks and into downtown, immediately adjacent to the new Platform Innovation Centre and 9th Avenue Parkade. This same elevated track could accommodate a pedestrian walkway that links downtown to the Event Centre and surrounding development. Attachment “B” (Green Line LRT Options North from City Hall Central Transit Hub) shows the efficiency of building north, across the Bow River and using Edmonton Trail (or Centre Street North) as the conduit for trains to and from the north, when the time comes to proceed with this extension. Attachment “C” shows the south extension to Seton.

The entire south leg of the Green Line (City Hall Central Transit Hub to Seton) can be built within the existing budget. Given the cost savings and risk reductions described above, the City would be able to confidently build the Green Line well within its existing $5.5 Billion capital budget.


https://everydaytourist.ca/city-planning...se-new-green-line-alignment-for-downtown

[milomilo]

Or just don't build it. The current Green Line with a tunnel maybe to 16 Ave, probably only to Eau Claire is already so hacked back that it is barely worth the investment, but at least provides something to build on. Making it even worse with the back of the napkin plan proposed by those old oxygen thieves would tip it further into the realm of pointlessness.

I was enthusiastic about the Green Line way back when. But the city should have stuck to its own plan - Route Ahead - and built the SE leg as BRT. It could have been running for a few years by now and we'd have data to see if there is enough demand for a train every six minutes. And they could have focused on the portion of the line that actually justified rail all along.

[Pegasus]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7878557/calgary-green-line-lrt-2nd-segment/

If the plan is to run the line up (or ruin) Centre Street, why not go the whole hog and also use the Centre Street bridge. Money would be saved on not having to build a new bridge over Princess Island, and even more saved by not running a third line through downtown to Eau Claire. No more balmy than all the other proposals, but a lot less expensive . . .