Calgary Openings, Closings, and Developments

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the plan is to tunnel under 16th still. Just a short section, like the red line at 16th(but straight, of course).

With the way they're envisioning how the surface 16th Ave Station will look like and its location so close to the intersection, I don't think there's a tunnel anymore.





Though given the progress of the Green Line since 2015, I wouldn't be surprised if they run out of money and can't cross the Bow in Stage 1 and will have more time to think about it.

[Fuzz]

Good lord, it gets dumber with every revision. 16th ave and Centre is going to be an utter cluster#### if they go ahead with this plan. Expect an unending number of pedestrians being hit by trains and vehicles.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Good lord, it gets dumber with every revision. 16th ave and Centre is going to be an utter cluster#### if they go ahead with this plan.

36th Street NE part deux: the continuing War on Cars.

[Fuzz]

Also, once they ruin traffic on centre, it's going to push vehicles to 4th st, and where it turns east on 12th ave, then back to centre it can back up all the way to 16th(and the other direction). That whole road gets bad enoguh some days as it is, this will force it to failure pretty quickly. Does anyone planning this posses a brain?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Does anyone planning this posses a brain?

I think we're at the point where they grasping at anything that gives them a station at 16th Avenue, even if wrecks traffic capacity and ease of access to DT Calgary from North Calgary (instead of helping it like LRT was supposed to do).

The only tiny light is that RouteAhead recognizes 16th Ave to 64th as the highest rated Green Line extension so the hope is Alberta and Ottawa will give the $1B needed to reach 64th, they continue northwards even after finishing the 16th Ave Station, and buses can be finally be replaced by trains.

[Fuzz]

had heard at some point that a lot of buses will still run on centre. It will of course replace the 3 and 301, but they do plan on running others. Or did, anyway.

[Joborule]

I think as the green line progress northward to certain hubs, you'll see less buses on Centre Street. In the ultimate build, only the 3 would likely run the whole length down to downtown.

In regards to it being at grade vs. tunneling, these low floor LRV are intended to be integrated with the road. It doesn't require as much ROW space as the high floor trains do, and it complements the urban realm better. So saving costs by not tunneling at all up to north of 16th ave shouldn't be a bad trade off. The intention is to turn Centre street into a transit oriented, high density street rather than a convoy for vehicles that it is today. Traffic that's likely to be displaced from this would have viable alternatives in driving into downtown with Edmonton Trail and 14th Street/10 Street. If the commuter is far north enough, then pushing them onto heavy vehicle roads like Deerfoot and Crowchild is more appropriate.

Centre Street needs to be reimaged between downtown to McKnight, and the Green Line can help in making that happen.

[Fuzz]

Ya, I've heard all that hooie. We need to be honest in that it is mostly a commuter line intended to move people rapidly from far flung destinations to downtown so they don't use their cars. It needs to be fast and efficient. Mixing with traffic and pedestrians is the opposite of that. Centre is what it is, a commuting corridor.

Adding an at grade LRT with one stop isn't going to create a TOD, it's going to make it harder for pedestrians to move through. It's a barrier, and if you've seen the drawings of all the turn lanes and how everything has to squeeze and shuffle about to make it work, it becomes obvious the area will be turned into a parking lot until they maybe decide it is only wide enoguh for buses and the LRT, forcing vehicles to side streets to access all these great businesses that will surly proliferate. Meanwhile, 10th st and Edmonton trial suck up all the extra traffic and make their situations worse. If anyone recalls the years of bridge repair, they'll remember how well that went.

Centre st doesn't need to be re-imagined, it needs to be not mangled with a big moving barrier. Elevate the thing, or put it underground, but please stop pretending the cheapest solution won't be a travesty.

[Joborule]

Are you wanting it to be underground/tunnel all the way, or just up to 24th Ave?

I'm a bit more optimistic that if the street and surrounding area can be developed right, that there will be considerable improvement to the Centre Street corridor. Optics matter, and with low-floor LRVs as well narrow streets compared to 36 Street, it won't seem as decisive as the NE does.

I do agree with you that it will function as a commuter line. But it could contribute in making Centre Street a destination like Kensington and Mission.

[getbak]

The whole 16th & Centre intersection needs to be reworked. Since it's the Trans-Canada, hopefully they can get some federal money to build a full interchange there.

Of course, by the time it gets to having the Green Line cross 16th, we'll all be in flying cars anyway.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Joborule

In regards to it being at grade vs. tunneling, these low floor LRV are intended to be integrated with the road. It doesn't require as much ROW space as the high floor trains do, and it complements the urban realm better.

The low-floor LRVs need just as much ROW space; anyone who says otherwise is dreaming. The only difference is that a station platform for a low-floor LRV only needs to be about a foot above grade, instead of a metre. In that respect the actual line will be "better integrated with the road" and more "pedestrian-friendly". But don't be mistaken: the overall size of the new LRVs (CAF Urbos 100) themselves will be very similar to the Siemens trains (SD-160, SD-200) we have now. The new ones may be marginally shorter in height, but we're still talking well over 10 ft/3 m. They won't look all that different than Siemens LRVs running up 7th Ave.

What will make all the difference is the signals along the line. Design isn't finalized obviously, but based on the plan at hand the result will be a fustercluck. The LRT line will join traffic on Centre Street halfway up the hill on the north side of the river; it'll have to be signalized to stop all other traffic. It's likely that every single intersection from 7th Ave to 16th will have a full set of traffic signals. Either that, or the cross-streets will simply dead-end or right-in, right-out with no crossing. It'll suck for all other users of Centre Street.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Are you wanting it to be underground/tunnel all the way, or just up to 24th Ave?

I'm a bit more optimistic that if the street and surrounding area can be developed right, that there will be considerable improvement to the Centre Street corridor. Optics matter, and with low-floor LRVs as well narrow streets compared to 36 Street, it won't seem as decisive as the NE does.

I do agree with you that it will function as a commuter line. But it could contribute in making Centre Street a destination like Kensington and Mission.

Elevated. It will cross the river on it's own bridge. As it curves towards centre, you continue the upward grade until it is high enough to cross to the east side. Then you just use pillars all the way north until 20ath ave, then drop to street level. It's about 1.7km, the same length of the elevated west line. This entire line was built with stations for $1.4 billion, so the elevated portion can't be that expensive.

And before anyone worries about the buildings on the east side of centre, most are dumps anyway, or have big parking lots. You would still build the pillars on the sidewalk, so wouldn't expropriate much, if any. Other decisions can be made, such as reducing a lane. Alternatively you could build it up the centre of the road, but I think that leads to more wasted space.

As to your last paragraph, the problem with that is you direct so much traffic onto 10th that you damage that space, which is already a better shopping area. I just don't see how putting an LRT stop transforms a community, and we have a lot of evidence(LRT stations) that it does not.

The other issue with a mixed use corridor with a train running through it is people will drive all over it, and the train will be forever dealing with people shortcutting across tracks as they get frustrated with congestion, until they have to put barriers in, making snow clearing suck and the pedestrian experience worse. I beleive the other part of the plan is that buses can use the train ROW, which means slow trains. People might see this as good, but it impedes the commuter aspect of it, and then people get back in their cars.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by timun

The low-floor LRVs need just as much ROW space; anyone who says otherwise is dreaming. The only difference is that a station platform for a low-floor LRV only needs to be about a foot above grade, instead of a metre. In that respect the actual line will be "better integrated with the road" and more "pedestrian-friendly". But don't be mistaken: the overall size of the new LRVs (CAF Urbos 100) themselves will be very similar to the Siemens trains (SD-160, SD-200) we have now. The new ones may be marginally shorter in height, but we're still talking well over 10 ft/3 m. They won't look all that different than Siemens LRVs running up 7th Ave.

What will make all the difference is the signals along the line. Design isn't finalized obviously, but based on the plan at hand the result will be a fustercluck. The LRT line will join traffic on Centre Street halfway up the hill on the north side of the river; it'll have to be signalized to stop all other traffic. It's likely that every single intersection from 7th Ave to 16th will have a full set of traffic signals. Either that, or the cross-streets will simply dead-end or right-in, right-out with no crossing. It'll suck for all other users of Centre Street.

Most of the cross street swill be closed, same with those north of 16th. That's why I'm saying it's really a commuter train and stop pretending it isn't, because the priority is given to it, not local communities.

[#-3]

I understand the tunneling under Country Hills Blvd. But the tunneling under 96th seems excessive

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by #-3

I understand the tunneling under Country Hills Blvd. But the tunneling under 96th seems excessive

Don't worry those tunnels will all get cut for budget reasons.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by timun

The low-floor LRVs need just as much ROW space; anyone who says otherwise is dreaming. The only difference is that a station platform for a low-floor LRV only needs to be about a foot above grade, instead of a metre. In that respect the actual line will be "better integrated with the road" and more "pedestrian-friendly". But don't be mistaken: the overall size of the new LRVs (CAF Urbos 100) themselves will be very similar to the Siemens trains (SD-160, SD-200) we have now. The new ones may be marginally shorter in height, but we're still talking well over 10 ft/3 m. They won't look all that different than Siemens LRVs running up 7th Ave.

...

The ROW should be similar to 7th Ave, but shouldn't it be skinnier than along 36 Street and Crowchild? Looking at Google Maps, those lines have wider than tracks width in between stations for utility boxes, whereas the conceptual video posted in this thread a page back shows the train should run along traffic as if it's own lanes.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Elevated. It will cross the river on it's own bridge. As it curves towards centre, you continue the upward grade until it is high enough to cross to the east side. Then you just use pillars all the way north until 20ath ave, then drop to street level. It's about 1.7km, the same length of the elevated west line. This entire line was built with stations for $1.4 billion, so the elevated portion can't be that expensive.

And before anyone worries about the buildings on the east side of centre, most are dumps anyway, or have big parking lots. You would still build the pillars on the sidewalk, so wouldn't expropriate much, if any. Other decisions can be made, such as reducing a lane. Alternatively you could build it up the centre of the road, but I think that leads to more wasted space.

I could see if you don't figure there's much of a potential to revitalize that portion of Crescent Heights that the elevated portion is viable. But I think there's potential that it could be a good corridor just like 10th Street in Kensington is; there's already some nice restaurants and bars that have appeared in the past few years along there. So don't want to kill it with shadowing and monolithic concrete along the road. Underground would be the preferred choice here, but if it's at grade or nothing, I would rather have at grade since I don't think it'll truly be a hindrance.

If it was my choice though and the NDP get elected this spring, I would go back to the federal and provincial government and push for more funding on the northern phase. Instead of getting to 16th, push to get up to 64th Ave, and have centre street be underground from the bridge over the Bow to north of 16th ave.

As to your last paragraph, the problem with that is you direct so much traffic onto 10th that you damage that space, which is already a better shopping area. I just don't see how putting an LRT stop transforms a community, and we have a lot of evidence(LRT stations) that it does not.

I agree with you that 10th shouldn't have an increase in traffic, and with it far enough away from Centre, it probably wouldn't anyway. Any traffic that would be coming from around North Haven and such would most likely use 14th Street instead since 10th doesn't go that far north.

As for lack of TOD development. Majority of them are definitely cases of not working at least up to this point. There's many factors in why that's probably the case, but again using Kensington as an example, they can work if the environment is set right for them. Sunnyside has a good amount of density buildings that are going up within the LRT vincity, and shows what TOD can amount to around here. Crescent Heights is similar with regards to its proximity to downtown, and the station being very accessible like Sunnyside. Actually if the station is underground or elevated, it would have a detrimental effect on accessibility due to dealing with stairs or having to use elevators if you have mobility constraints.

The other issue with a mixed use corridor with a train running through it is people will drive all over it, and the train will be forever dealing with people shortcutting across tracks as they get frustrated with congestion, until they have to put barriers in, making snow clearing suck and the pedestrian experience worse. I beleive the other part of the plan is that buses can use the train ROW, which means slow trains. People might see this as good, but it impedes the commuter aspect of it, and then people get back in their cars.

It'll depend what the design actually amounts to. There are factors that could slow down the train which isn't ideal. I would hope that it's ROW is protected to reduce the risk of vehicle train conflict. Calgary is certainly not the first city to do this type of train; I think there's some place in Europe that got it. Also I believe Ottawa does too? Though that one seems to have encountered a lot of issues during and after construction.

If buses can be on the transitway and not slow down train schedule, then it could be explored. The 301/300 currently stop where planned stations are, so that can continue until the green line is north enough that it makes more sense to transfer customers onto the train at the termus. The regular routes still need to make stop in between the stations, so then shouldn't be using the transitway.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by #-3

I understand the tunneling under Country Hills Blvd. But the tunneling under 96th seems excessive

I think the tunnel there is needed because of the planned location of the northern storage and light maintenance facility at Aurora Business Park (which isn't shown in the video). To reach it, the train tracks have to be on the eastern side of the Harvest Hills Blvd where buildings already exist.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Elevated. It will cross the river on it's own bridge. As it curves towards centre, you continue the upward grade until it is high enough to cross to the east side. Then you just use pillars all the way north until 20ath ave, then drop to street level. It's about 1.7km, the same length of the elevated west line. This entire line was built with stations for $1.4 billion, so the elevated portion can't be that expensive.

And before anyone worries about the buildings on the east side of centre, most are dumps anyway, or have big parking lots. You would still build the pillars on the sidewalk, so wouldn't expropriate much, if any. Other decisions can be made, such as reducing a lane. Alternatively you could build it up the centre of the road, but I think that leads to more wasted space.

As to your last paragraph, the problem with that is you direct so much traffic onto 10th that you damage that space, which is already a better shopping area. I just don't see how putting an LRT stop transforms a community, and we have a lot of evidence(LRT stations) that it does not.

The other issue with a mixed use corridor with a train running through it is people will drive all over it, and the train will be forever dealing with people shortcutting across tracks as they get frustrated with congestion, until they have to put barriers in, making snow clearing suck and the pedestrian experience worse. I beleive the other part of the plan is that buses can use the train ROW, which means slow trains. People might see this as good, but it impedes the commuter aspect of it, and then people get back in their cars.

I look forward to taking train rides north and peeking down to my left, into the intimate lives of the Shaw family home. They're gonna be ecstatic to have us plebs being able to do so.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I look forward to taking train rides north and peeking down to my left, into the intimate lives of the Shaw family home. They're gonna be ecstatic to have us plebs being able to do so.

OT - but didn't that house sell at auction a few years ago (for like half of its previously listed price)?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by getbak

The whole 16th & Centre intersection needs to be reworked. Since it's the Trans-Canada, hopefully they can get some federal money to build a full interchange there.

Of course, by the time it gets to having the Green Line cross 16th, we'll all be in flying cars anyway.

Oh god no. That would be horrible.