Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project - Page 207

milomilo · #**4121** Posted **Sep 12, 2021, 4:36 AM**

Toronto's most recent subway extensions seem pretty low value, considering their cost, also.

The confederation line being low floor also is dumb, similarly to our green line. If it's not a streetcar, then there is no benefit to designing the vehicles to run on street.

Northern Light · #**4122** Posted **Sep 20, 2021, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The TTC has. Sheppard.

Sheppard was arguably that in its first few years.......but pre-pandemic was running at capacity in rush hour (service every 5m); yes, its possible to run more trains, but the TTC lacks any more trains in the 4-car configuration required for Sheppard.

The problems at Sheppard are are really the result of some budget cuts (truncated the line to Don Mills from the original Victoria Park) and cutting Willowdale station.

They also shortened the stations from six-car to 4-car (the full station is built, but hoarded off at the 4-car mark and with no finishes beyond that (tile, fixtures etc.).

All that and Sheppard was built before the new intensified development was in place.....(but that's not exactly a bad thing; the alternative being that the development is up w/o the supporting transit).

*****

Worth noting, the TTC is looking at fully extending the Sheppard platforms to six-car to handle passenger loads, and to standardize for the next round of expansion.

*****

Will add here, people tend to forget that the University Line in Toronto was so empty when they opened it, they literally shut it on weekends.

I'm also old enough to remember when the TTC shortened all six-car trains to 4 during off-peak hours.

DoubleK · #**4123** Posted **Oct 5, 2021, 3:42 PM**

I have a dumb question.

Does this necessarily have to be one contiguous line between Shepard and Panorama Hills?

Could they not deliver a 'normal' suburban LRT to Seton and whatever abomination of low floor glorified tram up Center St? Figure out what would be an appropriate terminus downtown, City Hall or whatever makes sense and build out to Seton from day 1.

I'm not saying that Seton warrants LRT service first, but it seems like it's a better way to de-risk the project.

MalcolmTucker · #**4124** Posted **Oct 5, 2021, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I have a dumb question.

Does this necessarily have to be one contiguous line between Shepard and Panorama Hills?

Could they not deliver a 'normal' suburban LRT to Seton and whatever abomination of low floor glorified tram up Center St? Figure out what would be an appropriate terminus downtown, City Hall or whatever makes sense and build out to Seton from day 1.

I'm not saying that Seton warrants LRT service first, but it seems like it's a better way to de-risk the project.

yes ... the problem has always been getting it to the centre of downtown, because it is a lot less effective skirting. Heck, even during the 2010 election there was a bit of a fight about having it skirt downtown!

And getting it to the centre of downtown in a way that supports reduced trip times.

If you're getting both to the centre of downtown, you end up only saving a tiny amount by not connecting it, and you pay for it by needing the north line to go up to 96th from day 1 to support a second maintenance depot.

For the same price, it doesn't make sense to go to Seton first. It makes sense to go to 64th Ave N. Generates way more ridership.

DoubleK · #**4125** Posted **Oct 5, 2021, 10:06 PM**

Thanks, I forgot about the requirement for the depot.

jules_landlocked · #**4126** Posted **Oct 10, 2021, 4:42 PM**

The Depot at Shepherd has been used as the underlying rationale for the decision to head SE, but honestly I have to wonder if other options weren't available.

There is the existing Victoria Park transit garage that probably could have been converted into a street car depot, but the City has been completely unwilling to look at - presumably because of some future development plans.

Likewise, I refuse to believe you couldn't install a depot somewhere along the Centre Street line itself in the North. The Thornhill Community Centre lot is huge. Could they have not offered Greenview and Thornhill a spanking brand new facility in exchange for the land? Just shift it eastwards? There is open land nearby. Or why not appropriate a portion of the Beddington Town Centre or the nearby park?

There were other options on the table that didn't require sticking a depot in the Deep South for the Centre Street line and the associated costs of integrating the line with a SE LRT. They just didn't have the political will or desire to argue for it.

accord1999 · #**4127** Posted **Oct 10, 2021, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules_landlocked

The Depot at Shepherd has been used as the underlying rationale for the decision to head SE, but honestly I have to wonder if other options weren't available.

A cynical person would say that the planners wanted to go SE so they looked only at areas in the SE, and then made sure to pick the farthest possible spot so that no matter what happened to the budget, the Green Line would need to go 18km to the SE first.

The major 2015 Green Line document had a couple pages in regards to the maintenance yard:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....ocumentId=9083

For the Green Line's yard they wanted something massive, even bigger than the Oliver Bowen facility. The other potential SE sites closer to DT were probably culled due to cost reasons, and the distance to Shepard wasn't a factor then because nobody in their worst nightmare could have thought that the Green Line couldn't at least reach Beddington for $4.6B back in 2015.

The only location in the NC that would have been able to handle that is the Aurora Business Park. Plus they had big TOD plans for that Thornhill land:

I do find it funny and emblematic of the Green Line troubles that the area that was one of the poster child of the transformative benefits of LRT probably won't be reached by LRT for decades, if ever.

speedog · #**4128** Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 1:36 AM**

North side Green line? Chances are good that I might be dead by the time it comes to be.

jules_landlocked · #**4129** Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

A cynical person would say that the planners wanted to go SE so they looked only at areas in the SE, and then made sure to pick the farthest possible spot so that no matter what happened to the budget, the Green Line would need to go 18km to the SE first.

The major 2015 Green Line document had a couple pages in regards to the maintenance yard:

For the Green Line's yard they wanted something massive, even bigger than the Oliver Bowen facility. The other potential SE sites closer to DT were probably culled due to cost reasons, and the distance to Shepard wasn't a factor then because nobody in their worst nightmare could have thought that the Green Line couldn't at least reach Beddington for $4.6B back in 2015.

The only location in the NC that would have been able to handle that is the Aurora Business Park. Plus they had big TOD plans for that Thornhill land:

I do find it funny and emblematic of the Green Line troubles that the area that was one of the poster child of the transformative benefits of LRT probably won't be reached by LRT for decades, if ever.

Thank for providing those pics and links regarding the Thornhill TOD. I had never seen those before. It seems to me that would have been viable location for a North depot/small maintenance yard and we could parked the requirement for the expensive underground integration of the North and SE lines downtown and actually focused on getting the lines to the actual communities that need the service.

Sigh, the cities depot strategy is doubly frustrating when you realize Edmonton has realized the folly of plotting a single maintenance yard/depot on just one end of their city and is already planning on two maintenance yards on either side of the city for the Valley Line.

MalcolmTucker · #**4130** Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 4:47 PM**

Once again, the expense isn’t integrating the lines, it is getting the lines to the centre of downtown and serving more peoples. Solutions which save money by serving far fewer people aren’t real solutions at all.

jules_landlocked · #**4131** Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 2:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Once again, the expense isn’t integrating the lines, it is getting the lines to the centre of downtown and serving more peoples. Solutions which save money by serving far fewer people aren’t real solutions at all.

But that's my point.

Integration became a requirement with the underlying assumption that Shepherd was the only viable location for a depot. Now we can debate whether the 1.8-2.0 billion tunnel downtown is worth the investment, but it's hard not to scratch your head at the decision to weight your investment so heavily in the SE leg even though it effectively only reaches one deep suburban community over going North.

If a North depot would have been on the table, even just for the North portion of the line, wouldn't going North to Beddington been the far more preferable for phase 1? By all accounts, it would have serviced far more people than SE leg could possibly hope to in the first or even latter phases.

MalcolmTucker · #**4132** Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 2:14 PM**

^ To get to 64th, the line instead would look something like 64th --> Cross Roads. You'd probably build a 'temporary' barn in the new entertainment district.

CrossedTheTracks · #**4133** Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 2:26 PM**

I think you're unnecessarily tying together "big expensive tunnel" and "line integration".

Integration only requires a short(ish) tunnel under the CPR or an overpass on top. Having a much longer tunnel is the result of decisions around the quality of transit desired. If you think a long tunnel is a waste of money and it should be (more) surface-running instead, sure...

Unless you really mean, "I don't want to integrate, so I don't even want the SE line to cross the CPR -- no tunnel needed!" (do you?). But then the SE is even less useful.

Myself, I start with the premise that the SE line should cross the CPR, at which point integrating the lines is a natural conclusion. I struggle with the "north first" vs. "SE first" decision, but I'm not here to debate that

MalcolmTucker · #**4134** Posted **Oct 12, 2021, 6:55 PM**

If procurement fails (I think we have an even chance of it failing) I think we could end up with elevated in the core, still on 2nd St. Or at least elevated in the Beltline.

accord1999 · #**4135** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 3:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If procurement fails (I think we have an even chance of it failing) I think we could end up with elevated in the core, still on 2nd St. Or at least elevated in the Beltline.

The discussions at council will be pretty "interesting" if the Green Line comes back and say that can no longer afford to tunnel the entire downtown section, especially after being so against elevated options before.

Policy Wonk · #**4136** Posted **Oct 19, 2021, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

The discussions at council will be pretty "interesting" if the Green Line comes back and say that can no longer afford to tunnel the entire downtown section, especially after being so against elevated options before.

I'm not sure who is left other than Carra who is deeply invested in the plan as approved.

I'm not sure many of the people elected yesterday could give an elevator pitch for the Green Line. The candidate my father talked to on the doorstep and was elected yesterday didn't appear to understand how the Green Line was funded.

MalcolmTucker · #**4137** Posted **Oct 19, 2021, 8:18 PM**

If it has a troubled procurement, the project could be reconceptualized again.

outoftheice · #**4138** Posted **Nov 17, 2021, 8:21 PM**

CAF has been selected to provide the LRVs for Green Line. Opening day of Stage 1 will see 2 car trains with 8 minute headways during peak times.

https://www.calgary.ca/green-line/gr...-supplier.html

jules_landlocked · #**4139** Posted **Nov 18, 2021, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by outoftheice

CAF has been selected to provide the LRVs for Green Line. Opening day of Stage 1 will see 2 car trains with 8 minute headways during peak times.

https://www.calgary.ca/green-line/gr...-supplier.html

I have to admit, I thought it was a lock we would end up with Bombardier like Edmonton. I'm curious what factors had them select CAF instead.

On purely aesthetic grounds, I like the look of the new Alstom Citadis running on T9 and T10 lines in Paris more (those light stripes are fantastic), but these aren't bad. Hopefully, they will have resolved the design flaws that plagued this model all over Europe and Australia in the last few years.

DKaz · #**4140** Posted **Nov 18, 2021, 8:09 PM**

Edmonton is getting Hyundai-Rotem LRVs for phase 2 of the Valley Line. So two sets of rolling stock and the line isn't even open yet.