[Update: Approved] First Leg of the Green Line LRT

[Tyler]

Just extend the thing to Seton and let the NC people eat cake

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It doesn't help that Shane Keating is the head of the Transportation committee, and his ward is on the south line, which he has been pushing for years. I have my doubts he can act in an unbiased manner on these decisions. Once they get to 130th, they should fully prioritize the north line, there is no good reason to continue further south over going north, given the difference in ridership.

He’s supposed to be biased towards his ward. That’s the whole reason he got elected. His fellow councillors didn’t need to elect him to head up the committee.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Yes, which is one of the decisions that I feel was biased. Because they didn't seriously consider a location in the North, even though they admitted at one of the Council meetings in 2017 that Aurora Business Park had the space. And by choosing a site that's requires as much track as the entire NW segment along with the construction cost increases, you end up with no money left to build anything useful in the NC.

There’s room at Aurora for a storage facility, but not enough room for the size that’s needed to populate and fully maintain the entire line. They need at least one larger size facility for all the heavy repair needed. Aurora would only have room for limited storage, limited cleaning, and some light repair tasks. Not quite as limited as the current Haysboro storage, but still not enough to be the sole facility for an entire line.

[accord1999]

From the May 2017 council meeting, at approximately 8:46 into the video, Mayor Nenshi asks a question about Aurora and Fabiola MacIntyre states that the amount of land is sufficient, should the City choose to use it for that purpose instead of holding it for future commercial/residential development (but development that probably requires the Green Line to reach 96th to really kick-off).


https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....=English#49345

[frinkprof]

This is a good example of path dependence. One of the biggest culprits here is the 2006 North Central Calgary Transit Corridor Review study that put the alignment for the North Central line in Nose Creek Valley, connecting to the NE line east of the Zoo station, and interlining with it into downtown. No land was to be set aside for an Operations and Maintenance Centre, or for right of way south of Beddington Trail.

The SE line was planned in parallel as a separate line with its own downtown infrastructure and OMC, and land was set aside for this.

The north central line was re-studied in 2011-2012 and the Green Line concept (linking north central to southeast via common downtown infrastructure) was solidified. The vertical alignment wasn't decided until 2016.

Politically, Shane Keating and Naheed Nenshi were elected in 2010. Keating made SE transit his top priority, and Nenshi made re-aligning the north central line (and the Green Line concept) one of his top priorities. From 2010-2017, the various councilors for what are now Wards 2, 3 and 4 were very weak on transit, weak councilors overall and/or weak-minded in general. Joe Magliocca, in his 2013 election campaign argued that an LRT line should be built to Airdrie (of course, a separate municipality than the one in which he was running for office at the time and ahead of the already-recently-realigned planned transit line to the ward he was running in). Sean Chu, for at least his first year as Ward 4 councilor, argued that the SE LRT (not in Ward 4), ought to be built ahead of the North Central LRT (in Ward 4).

Meanwhile in higher orders of government, the provincial and (especially) federal governments wanted a cost estimate on the Green Line ahead of their respective 2015 elections. Council wanted an estimate right away too, so they could exercise some options. Based on this number ($4.6B), $1.5B was committed by council by putting 30 years worth of $52M annual "tax room" from the Province toward the Green Line. However, as noted above, the operation and construction methods hadn't been fully studied and approved yet, which would heavily impact costs. So, by the time these costs became clearer, funding from the City was in place, and the (changed) Provincial and Federal governments carried through the pre-election promises.

So, in a nutshell, I think the three biggest factors for the North Central LRT are the damaging effects of a 2006 corridor study, weak local municipal politicians, which both led to the problem of not getting ahead of the election cycles of higher orders of government (which may be repeated this year).

[J pold]

City shares possible Green Line designs, Bow River bridge options

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-shares-possible-green-line-designs-bow-river-bridge-options

Not sure what to think of the these redesigns. Tunneling under the Bow and along Centre Street has huge risk and I get why the City is backing away from that portion. Don't love the idea of a train over Prince's Island Park.

[TorqueDog]

Ugh, no. Do it properly the first time, tunnel or bust.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Ugh, no. Do it properly the first time, tunnel or bust.

Bust

[Muta]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Ugh, no. Do it properly the first time, tunnel or bust.

100% agreed. Do it properly and tunnel it. If there's not enough money, then keep saving for it.

All of downtown should have been tunneled from the start in the early 80's. Same from City Hall to Cemetery Hill. Same with the portion of the West LRT that's trenched, and has made that entire stretch of 17th Avenue dead space at grade. Yes it costs more, but pays off in spades from an urban development perspective in the long run. A similar sized and cold climate city, Sapporo, did this properly in the 70's and 80's.

[Fuzz]

I've got no problem with a bridge across the river, the engineering challenges of a tunnel are formidable(and expensive). But the bit up 16th needs to be tunneled or elevated. I don't understand the problem with a bridge. It's fine. it's a bridge. We have some, we can have another one.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've got no problem with a bridge across the river, the engineering challenges of a tunnel are formidable(and expensive). But the bit up 16th needs to be tunneled or elevated. I don't understand the problem with a bridge. It's fine. it's a bridge. We have some, we can have another one.

Agreed about the bridges comment. That river in the whole area is filled with them. Another bridge there is not going to make a negative impact at all. Beside, it's not a naturally sensitive area that's being disturbed since it was a gravel pit in the past. That whole park is manmade, so it can handle tweaks like this.

Going up 16th at grade I have no issue with since beside 16th it's going to be at grade anyway for majority of the line. And it does allow for 9th Ave station to be brought back on the table either now, or in the future. But the designs they're showing in the information board has 16th Ave station right up to the the intersection of the road itself. Makes me skeptical about their intentions of crossing 16th when it's extended past there. If it is going to be tunneled, are they just going to close 16th Ave station completely while construction is done, or spend money on building another temporary station a few blocks south to accommodate?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Muta

100% agreed. Do it properly and tunnel it. If there's not enough money, then keep saving for it.

All of downtown should have been tunneled from the start in the early 80's. Same from City Hall to Cemetery Hill. Same with the portion of the West LRT that's trenched, and has made that entire stretch of 17th Avenue dead space at grade. Yes it costs more, but pays off in spades from an urban development perspective in the long run. A similar sized and cold climate city, Sapporo, did this properly in the 70's and 80's.

Funding for subways in North America seem to be incredibly challenging compared to other places in the world. If the LRT was tunneled in the downtown area from the start as intended, we would have a lot less distance covered in the city right now. We probably would be similar to Edmonton in just finally getting stuff outside of the general centre area.

Who knows if the LRT would've been past University and Chinook, and we would have NE line if high costs stunted rapid development. And although for the West LRT would be better if it was fully tunneled from Westbrook to the end of the line, the costs would be so astronomical that it wouldn't exist still.

Compromises in design that at least accomplishes the goal of the project is acceptable if the results will come.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Ugh, no. Do it properly the first time, tunnel or bust.

Tunnel and no tracks.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've got no problem with a bridge across the river, the engineering challenges of a tunnel are formidable(and expensive). But the bit up 16th needs to be tunneled or elevated. I don't understand the problem with a bridge. It's fine. it's a bridge. We have some, we can have another one.

I think the bridge over the river is a reasonable compromise, though it will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the PIP/Riverwalk area. It can be mostly mitigated through design, though I think moving 1 block east would mitigate things entirely.

At-grade on Centre St south of 16 Ave is an absolute debacle. $5B+ to make things undeniably worse for decades. If/when they manage to build out the north line, it will still be a net negative (though more offset by a functional lrt line).

McHugh Bluff to ~18 Avenue would be a 1300 meter tunnel (fairly easy to do as far as tunnels go). To pay for it, align on 1 St SW instead of 2 St SW. Sien Lok Park - perfect place for a portal to transition to a bridge, and a far better location to disrupt for several years. Everything would be slightly shorter and straighter overall.

The trade off is that 1St SW is more important for vehicle traffic [than 2 st], but it's a far less critical than Centre north of the river, and most of the disruption here would be temporary (assuming cut and cover). The functional loss would be the 1st St Sw underpass of the CP tracks (perhaps still room for 1-2 lanes in final form), but this is also where to find the significant cost savings (compared to a whole new tunnel at 2nd). I'm sure the underpass would need to be sunk a little lower, but I'd have to think that is much cheaper than a whole new tunnel (but obviously not enough savings just here to pay for a 1300 meter tunnel).

There are essentially 4 ways to cross the Bow River north of downtown (between 14 St and 5 Ave Se), totalling 8-12 lanes (depending on rush hr reversals) so cutting 2 lanes out of Centre St is hugely significant.

There are 7 ways to cross the CP tracks (counting Macleods as one, and 4/5 streets as one) over that same width, totalling 15-16 lanes. Another underpass likely coming to 6 St SE. Giving up a few of these [least important] lanes for a few blocks seems like a far more reasonable tradeoff than 2 of the busiest lanes in the city (and messing with PIP more than necessary).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Who knows if the LRT would've been past University and Chinook, and we would have NE line if high costs stunted rapid development. And although for the West LRT would be better if it was fully tunneled from Westbrook to the end of the line, the costs would be so astronomical that it wouldn't exist still.

Compromises in design that at least accomplishes the goal of the project is acceptable if the results will come.

This may be true, but then again maybe this city wouldn't have sprawled into such a suburban nightmare?

To your last sentence, I'm not sure anyone involved in this can see the forest for the trees anymore. Woolley put it best: they want to spend $5B+ on a train "from nowhere to nowhere".

[Bigtime]

From another forum (Skyrisecities), notes from someone that attended one of the info sessions yesterday:

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...1#post-1537042

Attended the open house tonight and picked up some info that might answer some of the questions people have been asking here.

- Yes there will be a station at Eau Claire. The city is in discussion with Harvard about using the eastern portion of the Eau Claire market land for a portion of the Eau Claire station. This would be tied in with the redesign of Harvard's plans for Eau Claire and the demolition of the existing Eau Claire market building.

- It sounds like there is a good chance the River Run condos (the suburban looking condos with the green roofs) will be acquired and demolished as part of Green Line construction. This opens opportunities for further Eau Claire market development or public realm improvements along the river pathway.

- The tunnel portal will be located just north of 3 Ave SW. The open house had some pretty cool concepts for the south side of the tunnel portal that included a grand staircase into the existing +15, a commercial space or a pocket park.

- Regardless of whether or not construction of Stage 1 terminates downtown or at 16th Ave we will be getting a bridge over the river. There appeared to be some confusion at the open house as people believed it was solely a budget issue that caused the tunnel to be dropped from the plans when in reality a tunnel under the river requires a tunnel boring machine and an extremely deep station at Eau Claire and 7th Ave, with both issues having enough technical red flags as to have been completely rejected by the city.

- 9th Ave station at Crescent Heights is a strong maybe. In order to make 9th Ave station work without major property impacts the city would have to build a 'side running' design at that location. Side running essentially means that the station is incorporated into the sidewalk and vehicular traffic occupies the middle two lanes. There are a couple of issues with this they are working through. 1: a side running design requires traffic to turn right, across the tracks which introduces risk or requires right turn movements to be eliminated. 2: Since 16 Ave station will serve as a temporary terminus the optimal design is for a centre running design/platform which requires the train to switch between the two somewhere around 12th Ave. Apparently this is done quite successfully in Waterloo's new LRT system but adds some complexity.

- No decision has been made yet on whether or not 16th Ave will be grade separated as part of a future expansion. This decision may not be made by April.

[Ducay]

Christ - have we not learned our lesson about at-grade lines? What a terrible idea

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

This may be true, but then again maybe this city wouldn't have sprawled into such a suburban nightmare?

Probably? The city was already pretty far out before the LRT was already built for the areas it was built out to. The LRT lines where built in response to communities being built so far out. The North Central and SE have been developed so far away from downtown, despite not having the LRT in their areas yet; and they still continue to build out.

Originally Posted by Ducay

Christ - have we not learned our lesson about at-grade lines? What a terrible idea

Yes, the current LRT's at grade on urban streets is terrible, but low floor LRT's are designed to be integrated with the road itself. So it wouldn't be as obstructive, and require as much right-of-way as a result. It's more like a streetcar than a traditional train. So it's still possible to have a strong urban corridor, and crossing the LRT tracks won't be as intimidating/discouraging.

This is why I feel being at-grade level from the beginning on Centre Street isn't a big deal. Beyond 16th avenue, the whole +21km stretch is gonna be right in the middle of it anyway.

[Rando]

If done properly a bridge over the island could be pretty spectacular.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Rando

If done properly a bridge over the island could be pretty spectacular.

That's why we have to hire Calatrava again.