Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by accord1999

One section that I found notable suggests to me that Stage 2 will be Shepard to Seton based on cost and how little planning the city has actually done for the NC section.

This is what I was looking to explore.

I did some reading to see how they built out the Red Line when they constructed it in the 80s, hoping to learn if they 'skipped' any stations and infilled them after the line was in service. It appears they did not.

Has there been any discussion of 'skipping' any stations for Stage 1, to extend the length of the Green Line? Are there any obvious drawbacks to installing stations after the line is built? I raise this as they just extended the stations to accommodate 4 car trains with the line in service. Appreciate it is less efficient and may cost more, but it's one way to stretch the line for the first day.

This all is based on the principle that the main goal of this line is to get people from the suburbs to downtown.

Apologies if this was brought up before, I searched the thread and didn't have any hits on 'staging', if it's the wrong term, please correct me!!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is what I was looking to explore.

I did some reading to see how they built out the Red Line when they constructed it in the 80s, hoping to learn if they 'skipped' any stations and infilled them after the line was in service. It appears they did not.

Has there been any discussion of 'skipping' any stations for Stage 1, to extend the length of the Green Line? Are there any obvious drawbacks to installing stations after the line is built? I raise this as they just extended the stations to accommodate 4 car trains with the line in service. Appreciate it is less efficient and may cost more, but it's one way to stretch the line for the first day.

This all is based on the principle that the main goal of this line is to get people from the suburbs to downtown.

Apologies if this was brought up before, I searched the thread and didn't have any hits on 'staging', if it's the wrong term, please correct me!!

The cost savings from skipping a few stations for the time being doesn't get the line very much additional length. The smaller stations, and not having them in the middle of a freeway means that they don't cost a huge amount. You could save $100 million or so, but that maybe gets you enough track to get 1 addition station at one end, where you would then have to build a station.

Realistically, it doesn't make much sense.

That being said, there are 1-2 stations that were never built along the NW section that they intentionally left room for so that they could potentially be built in the future, without major shutdowns on the operating line.

[YYCguys]

I believe that Northland was one of the said skipped stations. I imagine that it won’t be built until the adjacent mall and car dealership lands are redeveloped.

[craner]

Would the other one be between Chinook & 39th Ave. S ?
Always seems like a long run between those two stations.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by craner

Would the other one be between Chinook & 39th Ave. S ?
Always seems like a long run between those two stations.

It's currently being talked about as a possibility, but I don't think it was ever designed from the start to accommodate it -- whereas at Northland there's an obvious widening of the tracks where one might hypothetically put a station.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

Would the other one be between Chinook & 39th Ave. S ?
Always seems like a long run between those two stations.

What's between them that would warrant a station?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Has there been any discussion of 'skipping' any stations for Stage 1, to extend the length of the Green Line? Are there any obvious drawbacks to installing stations after the line is built? I raise this as they just extended the stations to accommodate 4 car trains with the line in service. Appreciate it is less efficient and may cost more, but it's one way to stretch the line for the first day.

In the "Green Line LRT Business Case" report from November 2016, the 72 Ave N (now deleted), 64th Ave N, 2 Ave SW and Centre Street S stations were considered for deferral (section 7.7).

https://www.scribd.com/document/3392...-November-2016

But then that was when Stage 1 (if needed) was going to be Beddington to Shepard.

[CTrainDude]

The two stations I recall for infills in previous council reports were Northland and Fisher Park (south of Chinook). Also talk about moving 39th Avenue Station north for easier access to Mission.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

The two stations I recall for infills in previous council reports were Northland and Fisher Park (south of Chinook). Also talk about moving 39th Avenue Station north for easier access to Mission.

There was also discussion of 50th Ave -- the alleged justification being Enmax being right there and future developments... if I remember correctly. (The city report's words, not mine.)

[ggopher]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Has there been any discussion of 'skipping' any stations for Stage 1, to extend the length of the Green Line? Are there any obvious drawbacks to installing stations after the line is built? I raise this as they just extended the stations to accommodate 4 car trains with the line in service. Appreciate it is less efficient and may cost more, but it's one way to stretch the line for the first day.

On the north section they eliminated the 9th avenue station by combining it with the 16th avenue station. That station would have been very expensive because of the depth with very limited ridership in the area. Excellent decision.

[ggopher]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

None of the early works seem to me like they would be very exciting to photograph. Utility work, landfill rehabilitation, etc.

Here is an interesting summary of all the work currently underway: http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...struction.aspx

[ggopher]

Hopefully this is a huge lesson for TOD. There should be a ranked list of the cost/benefits of each potential site. If this site can't make it work then I don't know which site can.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4071905/p...pment-calgary/

Counc. Evan Wooley said the community hadn’t been expecting such a large surface parking lot to go along with the dome at 17 Ave. S.W. and 33 St. S.W.

“We spent an immense amount of money – well over $100 million – on that station, for transit-oriented development,” he said.

The development permit application is for two indoor soccer fields and parking for up to 415 cars on the 12-acre site. Under zoning rules that land use is permitted.

The application also says it would be temporary for 10 years.

I guess something is better than nothing. As long as it is temporary. We definitely need more sports facilities (the same can't be said for offices or condos).

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by ggopher

Hopefully this is a huge lesson for TOD. There should be a ranked list of the cost/benefits of each potential site. If this site can't make it work then I don't know which site can.


I guess something is better than nothing. As long as it is temporary. We definitely need more sports facilities (the same can't be said for offices or condos).

What a weird location for soccer domes. Temporary for 10 years? Is this what the city is saying? How stupid do they think we are? There's no way they would ever take away such a facility from kids and families unless there was something better to replace it as soon as they closed it down.

I remember 10+ years ago going to open houses about TOD development in that location. I can guarantee you that sports facilities were never mentioned. It was nothing but condos, retail and office space IIRC. Is this another TOD planning failure?

[Calgarian]

Soccer Domes at the Westbrook LRT? now that is the type of development we should be appealing. There is no way they will be temporary either, with the demand for that type of facility, that will become a permanent eyesore. Definitely a failure for TOD development.

[Corndogger]

North or south? Council debates costs, merits of Green Line extensions

Extending the northern leg of the Green Line transit project could cost up to three times more than pushing the line south, raising debate among councillors about which direction transit should prioritize next.

In a report presented Thursday, the administration notes that 350 land acquisitions will be required to extend the line north from 16th Avenue N. to Keystone, compared to just 12 parcels along the southeast leg between 126th Avenue S.E. to Seton. Though, notably, many of the northern parcels would be very small: in some cases, just a few metres required from the edge of a property line.

Still, estimates peg land costs in the north at five times that of the south.

North-end councillors pushed back against the data, arguing that ridership and benefits to the surrounding community must be considered alongside cost in evaluating the northern leg.

“When we only talk about dollars, I think it’s really, really important to stress things like ridership, age of community and how long those communities have been waiting for the promise of (transit and pathway) progression,” said Coun. Jyoti Gondek.

The Green Line project team told councillors that one of the strengths of the northern leg is the existing ridership, pointing out that 35,000 riders currently cross the Centre Street Bridge each day.

Coun. Sean Chu offered a more blunt argument on Green Line priorities. “The north should go first if we have extra money,” said the Ward 4 councillor.

But several councillors, including Coun. George Chahal and Coun. Jeromy Farkas, called for an evaluation of the city’s other transit projects, including extensions to the Blue Line, Red Line and a spur line to the airport.

Farkas said he’d like to see the business case for extending the Blue Line and running an LRT to the airport, rather than “spending that money on the very cost-intensive portion (of the Green Line) with the land acquisitions.”

“I’d like to be able to look at various scenarios, (to) look at present ridership and value-for-money for any extension of the Red, Green or Blue lines,” Farkas said.

The city said it hopes to have a preliminary design completed on the northern leg of the Green Line by next year. It could take a further three years after that to assemble the necessary land, administration told the committee.

A full debate on transit priorities is expected later this year after an analysis of the costs and benefits of various projects.

Full article at http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ime=1520568386

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Soccer Domes at the Westbrook LRT? now that is the type of development we should be appealing. There is no way they will be temporary either, with the demand for that type of facility, that will become a permanent eyesore. Definitely a failure for TOD development.

I live within walking distance of that station and this is the first I've heard about this proposal. You'd think something this major would be brought to the attention of those who live in the area. As far as I'm concerned this will kill any chance of development in the area.

[technomad]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I live within walking distance of that station and this is the first I've heard about this proposal. You'd think something this major would be brought to the attention of those who live in the area. As far as I'm concerned this will kill any chance of development in the area.

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Soccer Domes at the Westbrook LRT? now that is the type of development we should be appealing. There is no way they will be temporary either, with the demand for that type of facility, that will become a permanent eyesore. Definitely a failure for TOD development.

If there's a demand for that sort of facility, and perhaps more parking on site, why not just go vertical with it?

take something like the city's parkade planed for 9av, designed with ease of future conversion to non vehicle use in mind, fill ground level with CRUs, and add some soccer domes on top!

[technomad]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

North or south? Council debates costs, merits of Green Line extensions

Extending the northern leg of the Green Line transit project could cost up to three times more than pushing the line south, raising debate among councillors about which direction transit should prioritize next.

...

Full article at http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ime=1520568386

I'm guessing the real mid-term funding battle will be Green SE ph2 vs. Blue NE expansions..

doing Green NC right is clearly going to take some time

speaking of doing it right, still wish phase 1 was fully grade separated / ALRT capable

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by technomad

I'm guessing the real mid-term funding battle will be Green SE ph2 vs. Blue NE expansions..

Or a third option, of doing nothing and save money. Having been mollified in 2017 by the hope that NC construction would begin not too long after the SE, I'd expect significant push-back from NC communities and their politicians if the City Admin again recommends something else ahead of the NC segment.

doing Green NC right is clearly going to take some time

Made worse by the City seemingly doing little work on it since its update from late 2015.

[RyLucky]

Other than Chu suddenly advocating for transit, I'm not sure much has changed in this decade+ old debate. Even though it will be less used, we've got to go south first - at least to where a facility can be built. In the long term, I think this will get us the full line soonest and cheapest.