Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[jules_landlocked]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Here is an interesting video about why high floor LRT is probably a better choice for about 90% of lines in North America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6oi8x7HYc

I'm far more positive on low floor than a lot of folks on this board, but I think each technology is dependent on the use case.

The SE leg of the Greenline makes far more sense to be using high floor given 100% of the line will be dedicated right of way and that it will be ultimately acting as commuter rail for the vast majority of riders. In an ideal world, the SE Greenline probably should be a spur line of the existing Red line.

I think you can make a case for low floor - if for example, you want to replace the 16th Avenue North Max BRT or 17th Avenue SE BRT with a tramway down the road. It would be much cheaper to deploy onto the existing road network and far less disruptive to the surrounding communities. Low floor also makes sense if ridership or car/bus traffic is low enough on some portion of the line that you want to support shared use.

The more puzzling question for North American city transportation planners is why they are so resistant to not cannibalizing existing road capacity for shared use with tramways or transition to dedicated right-of-ways for BRT or Low/High floor LRTs.

European cities and towns have plenty examples of both shared use and dedicated right-of-ways.

[MalcolmTucker]

Long in the future the Purple Max is likely to be a spur of the Green Line. Grade separation of Purple Max to the Inglewood Ramsay LRT station is an in the books but low priority project-no functional plan.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by jules_landlocked

I'm far more positive on low floor than a lot of folks on this board, but I think each technology is dependent on the use case.

The SE leg of the Greenline makes far more sense to be using high floor given 100% of the line will be dedicated right of way and that it will be ultimately acting as commuter rail for the vast majority of riders. In an ideal world, the SE Greenline probably should be a spur line of the existing Red line.

I think you can make a case for low floor - if for example, you want to replace the 16th Avenue North Max BRT or 17th Avenue SE BRT with a tramway down the road. It would be much cheaper to deploy onto the existing road network and far less disruptive to the surrounding communities. Low floor also makes sense if ridership or car/bus traffic is low enough on some portion of the line that you want to support shared use.

The more puzzling question for North American city transportation planners is why they are so resistant to not cannibalizing existing road capacity for shared use with tramways or transition to dedicated right-of-ways for BRT or Low/High floor LRTs.

European cities and towns have plenty examples of both shared use and dedicated right-of-ways.

I think there is a difference between a LRT that act as a suburb feeder towards the downtown core and a LRT (tramway) that will be used by locals, like a Subway. A tramway should be low floor, a LRT that travels long distance at high speed (like the REM) should be high floor. But IMO, you can't have both system on the same network or the same line, it would defeat the purpose of the transit plan.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

I think there is a difference between a LRT that act as a suburb feeder towards the downtown core and a LRT (tramway) that will be used by locals, like a Subway. A tramway should be low floor, a LRT that travels long distance at high speed (like the REM) should be high floor. But IMO, you can't have both system on the same network or the same line, it would defeat the purpose of the transit plan.

This isn’t uncommon at all world wide. Even interlining subways and regional trains happens in Kyoto.

Calgary and Edmonton's systems were conceived from the start to be hybrids, much like the German systems they were modelled on.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

This isn’t uncommon at all world wide. Even interlining subways and regional trains happens in Kyoto.

Calgary and Edmonton's systems were conceived from the start to be hybrids, much like the German systems they were modelled on.

I think it has to do with the fact that Calgary won't build the Green Line stations near TOD, or the planning was not to build TODs near every station.

[jules_landlocked]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Long in the future the Purple Max is likely to be a spur of the Green Line. Grade separation of Purple Max to the Inglewood Ramsay LRT station is an in the books but low priority project-no functional plan.

Assuming the Green Line going North is going to be deferred for some time because of cost considerations, I wonder if this spur would be re-prioritized to better utilize those tunnels and two underground stations downtown? It seems a waste to not better utilize them.

[MalcolmTucker]

Extending the green line further north is likely by far the most capital efficient per incremental rider ~$35,000 by going to 64 Ave.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Here is an interesting video about why high floor LRT is probably a better choice for about 90% of lines in North America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6oi8x7HYc

Confirmation bias aside, he's raising a lot of the points raised by posters in this thread, myself included.

[craner]

Yeah, I feel like the only reason the City went low-floor is because it is the “trendy” thing to do. High floor makes a lot more sense for the Green Line IMO.

[Policy Wonk]

Can anybody explain to me just what the hell the Conservatives announced yesterday?

I interpreted it as a funding announcement for 16th Ave to North Pointe and a criticism of Trudeau leaving infrastructure funds unallocated.

But given Nenshi’s explosive reaction that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Now I almost read it as the Conservative position is the existing federal contribution is contingent on service to North Pointe.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Can anybody explain to me just what the hell the Conservatives announced yesterday?

I interpreted it as a funding announcement for 16th Ave to North Pointe and a criticism of Trudeau leaving infrastructure funds unallocated.

But given Nenshi’s explosive reaction that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Now I almost read it as the Conservative position is the existing federal contribution is contingent on service to North Pointe.

The Conservative "Secure Our Future" platform includes a funding commitment for all phases of the greenline if the following conditions are met:
- The full line to both the North and South.
- Completed in a reasonable amount of time.
- Is supported by the provincial government,

Nenshi, along with Sutherland, Davison, and Gondek; is openly campaigning for Chahal in Clagary-Skyview. The rumor has it that a Chahal comes with a key cabinet portfolio and significant dollars for Calgary. Nenshi is also campaigning for an appointed Senate seat.

https://www.conservative.ca/conserva...ructure-built/

https://cpcrempel.ca/news/f/statemen...the-green-line

Through Canada’s Recovery Plan, Canada’s Conservatives will come to the table with federal funding for the next Calgary city council if they can bring a plan on the Green Line that:

- Fulfills the original promise of the Green Line project to serve both north and south communities.
- Completes the Green Line in its entirety from North Pointe to Seton.
- Completes the full Green Line in a reasonable amount of time.
- Receives provincial approval on the completion of the project, including the alignment, prior to seeking further federal funding commitments. This will avoid unnecessary delays and cost increases as observed in Stage 1.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Honestly can't tell if they are being deliberately or accidentally ambiguous. It could be read as "this is what we'll do for the additional phase(s) not already approved", or read as "we're going to impose these conditions on ALL phases".

[milomilo]

Any explosive reaction from Nenshi is likely just a diversion to distract from where the real failings have come from - Calgary city council and administration. Why would a new conservative government threaten an already funded project in a city full of conservative politicians? The comments about wanting it built all the way north to south are fluff. The decision to go north will be years in the future (if ever), well after construction of the first phase has begun.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Honestly can't tell if they are being deliberately or accidentally ambiguous. It could be read as "this is what we'll do for the additional phase(s) not already approved", or read as "we're going to impose these conditions on ALL phases".

Using an optimistic interpretation, I am reading that the Gov of Canada would be open to giving the Green Line another $1.5B or so if the Gov of Alberta matches, and if Calgary can provide detailed (and reliable) plans and cost estimates for the next stages to show that they would be ready to go as soon as Stage 1 is built.

[YYCguys]

What would be considered “a reasonable amount of time” to get the job done? 2030? Sooner, later?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ With currently announced funding from both the feds and province, Green Line up to 64th and down to McKenzie Towne by 2030 is totally possible. Of course, still have to go through the motions, and hopefully get a way more reliable cost estimate for it.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Any explosive reaction from Nenshi is likely just a diversion to distract from where the real failings have come from - Calgary city council and administration. Why would a new conservative government threaten an already funded project in a city full of conservative politicians? The comments about wanting it built all the way north to south are fluff. The decision to go north will be years in the future (if ever), well after construction of the first phase has begun.

My view of yesterday was that Erin O'Toole was blaming the federal Liberals for the Green Line delays and in response Mayor Nenshi leaping to Tudeau's defense by laying all the blame on the Alberta UCP. I agree with milomilo that much of the blame lies with Calgary City Council. A hybrid plan that has morphed (or rather mutated) over time into un-fundable nonsense.

[Policy Wonk]

From where the polls sit today I wouldn’t bet against another Liberal minority government, but if the Conservatives do prevail I hope the next mayor and council can put together an effective Green Line team to leverage this funding and I hope the new council as well as the federal and provincial governments provide assertive oversight of that team.

If we’re going to say the Green Line project began when the 2006 NCLRT corridor review was thrown out it is actually incredible how little has been accomplished in the last ten years. To come up with a substantially different proposal that will meet the expectations of a potential Conservative government will be quite the undertaking for a project that has moved at a glacial pace since it's inception.

[PPAR]

I see all this Conservative posturing on the Green Line, but honestly, has Canada ever built a white elephant rail transit project? Seems to me like all Subway and LRT in Canada is generally done pretty well, and received positively in the communities in the end.

[MalcolmTucker]

The TTC has. Sheppard.