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

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's a cunning plan. Make something so miserable only the incredibly desperate will resort to it. Now that's the government planning I've come to expect.

Council is already trying to mandate 30 kmph in residential vs 50 kmph. There's roads nearby those areas that are 40 kmph vs 50 as well.

Personally, I get why it's on Centre street, but I've often wondered what would happen if it was on Edmonton Trail instead of Centre Street.

[Fuzz]

I think Edmonton trial itself is to steep a grade, so you would have to have some of it grade separated to have a more gradual rise. The other problem is you bypass most of downtown with the green line.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think Edmonton trial itself is to steep a grade, so you would have to have some of it grade separated to have a more gradual rise. The other problem is you bypass most of downtown with the green line.

That's what tunnels are for! I was actually thinking that the line would cross the river under Centre Street, go East along Memorial or something before going North on Edmonton trail.

It wasn't a deeply well hashed out idea. It was just mere musing about how Edmonton trail was used, with the type of traffic there and the businesses nearby, it seemed like it would have less disruptions to regular overall traffic while also alleviating traffic on Centre street somewhat. It could also be designed to promote more pedestrian traffic to local businesses kind of thing a la 4th Street.

Again, just musing. I bet someone already considered the idea and plastered the whole Edmonton Trail concept with responses with reasons why it's problematic and doesn't work. If that information was out there though, I'd definitely be curious to see the analysis. Just nerdy reasons, not for argumentative purposes to push Edmonton Trail as a viable idea.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

That's what tunnels are for! I was actually thinking that the line would cross the river under Centre Street, go East along Memorial or something before going North on Edmonton trail.

It wasn't a deeply well hashed out idea. It was just mere musing about how Edmonton trail was used, with the type of traffic there and the businesses nearby, it seemed like it would have less disruptions to regular overall traffic while also alleviating traffic on Centre street somewhat. It could also be designed to promote more pedestrian traffic to local businesses kind of thing a la 4th Street.

Again, just musing. I bet someone already considered the idea and plastered the whole Edmonton Trail concept with responses with reasons why it's problematic and doesn't work. If that information was out there though, I'd definitely be curious to see the analysis. Just nerdy reasons, not for argumentative purposes to push Edmonton Trail as a viable idea.

Original plan was Nose Creek (ie. a bit west of Deerfoot, parallel to the CP tracks)...it was then re-evaluated with Centre St or Ed Trail as alternatives, and they landed on Centre St for various reasons. So it has been considered fairly extensively.



Since money being tagged specifically to LRT seems to be an issue (though I'm not sure it has to be an issue that negotation couldn't figure out), here's my half-baked idea:
- use LRT tagged funds to build LRT (or better yet VLRT/roadway hybrid) bridge across river and tunnel from McHugh Bluff to north side 16 Ave. Then regular BRT (or VLRT hybrid) ROW for SE. Worry about connecting them later, which seems like it may be less and less necessary all the time.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The Green Line doesn't become a commute option for the NC until it reaches at least 64th Avenue.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=86498

As it is, Centre Street N is already the busiest bus corridor left in Calgary, where the two main routes on it (3 and 301) accounted for nearly half of all incidents of overcrowding and overloading for 2012-2014. During a good economy, bus service is nearly maxed out.

Thanks for this. So if you can't build it all the way into the Northern Hills communities (Country Hills, Panorama, etc), I agree that a hub at 64 Ave makes more sense (in terms of taking cars off the road and utilizing feeder buses to funnel people onto the train). Meanwhile, there seems to be little upside in terminating at 16 Ave -- it seems unlikely that people living in the North would ever use the LRT to get into downtown. (i.e. no park and ride, and if you're already on the bus you're going to stay on until you reach downtown). That was fine when it was all going to be underground up to that point, but is going to cause a bunch of new problems with the new alignment.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Again, just musing. I bet someone already considered the idea and plastered the whole Edmonton Trail concept with responses with reasons why it's problematic and doesn't work. If that information was out there though, I'd definitely be curious to see the analysis. Just nerdy reasons, not for argumentative purposes to push Edmonton Trail as a viable idea.

Stantec did a review of potential LRT routes for NC in 2014 and Centre Street outscored Edmonton Trail, mainly on the basis of better links to destinations and less disruption to the environment.





You can find more information from the Transportation and Transit meeting from December 2014, specifically section 4.10


https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....=English#31419

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

That was fine when it was all going to be underground up to that point, but is going to cause a bunch of new problems with the new alignment.

Agreed, with the new surface route and station there's going to be pain right from the beginning, and no timetable as to when the pain will go away as we still have no idea when the NC can progress further north. I'm still annoyed that despite repeated Council requests for recommendations for Stage 2, the Green Line team still has yet to say anything when the most obvious choice would be to go to 64th or Beddington.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Stantec did a review of potential LRT routes for NC in 2014 and Centre Street outscored Edmonton Trail, mainly on the basis of better links to destinations and less disruption to the environment.





You can find more information from the Transportation and Transit meeting from December 2014, specifically section 4.10


https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....=English#31419

Neat! It's surprising how even Centre Street and Edmonton Trail are up until the last two categories. I was poking around the info but didn't see an explanation, but what exactly does environmental and deliver-ability mean? Like extra work to prep the land or something? (ie: grade separation, tunneling etc.)

EDIT: I think I found it. Something about contamination risks in Nose Creek Valley if dug up that would require remediation. I wonder if it's also that industrial area north of G.P Vanier. Is that it? Also surprised but not surprised that it noted that 40% of that corridor is green space and undeveloped space. I knew there was a lot there, just not 40%.

This seems to make sense, but I was also surprised to see how closely Edmonton Trail fought toe to toe with Centre Street based on that chart until what seemed like technological or logistical challenges that put Centre Street in as the clear favourite for final decision.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

EDIT: I think I found it. Something about contamination risks in Nose Creek Valley if dug up that would require remediation. I wonder if it's also that industrial area north of G.P Vanier. Is that it? Also surprised but not surprised that it noted that 40% of that corridor is green space and undeveloped space. I knew there was a lot there, just not 40%.

Right, though I think most of that greenfield is really just the segment going through Aurora Business Park near 96 Ave.

As for deliverability, yeah it's the technical aspect of how easy (hard) it'll be to build.



So Edmonton Trail does have more issues with gradient as noted before, but surprisingly (to me) there are more narrow sections of Edmonton Trail then on Centre Street.

This seems to make sense, but I was also surprised to see how closely Edmonton Trail fought toe to toe with Centre Street based on that chart until what seemed like technological or logistical challenges that put Centre Street in as the clear favourite for final decision.

Same here, it's surprisingly close but I'd expect even if they were tied, Centre Street would get the nod because of its better transit development potential.

[Muta]

Love the addition of the 9th Avenue station. Love the public integration.

Still think they should do this properly, though - spend the damn money, and tunnel the thing to 16th Avenue. 1) We're a big (and growing) cold climate city, so underground stations make sense for consistent year-round ridership (see Sapporo, Japan). 2) Keep Centre Street open for redevelopment that involves full potential for all modes of transportation that can effectively respond to density and urbanization.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Muta

Love the addition of the 9th Avenue station. Love the public integration.

Still think they should do this properly, though - spend the damn money, and tunnel the thing to 16th Avenue. 1) We're a big (and growing) cold climate city, so underground stations make sense for consistent year-round ridership (see Sapporo, Japan). 2) Keep Centre Street open for redevelopment that involves full potential for all modes of transportation that can effectively respond to density and urbanization.

I understand the desire for going underground for 16th ave since when the updated plan originally came out, I was of the the opinion that it's a terrible compromise to not have it below ground. But as time went by, I've come around to the idea of keeping it above ground permanently.

Reason being that since it's a low floor LRV, it's suppose to be integrated with the street level in the first place. My primary concern was that it would screw up 16th ave even more so that it has been (which is an impressive feat), but I think with less vehicles traveling on centre street in general, the traffic light signals can be more favourable to 16th ave during rush hour.

Also, with no tunnelling there, it saves money that can make the much needed expansion north occur much faster as a result since it would cost less to do so. After 16th ave, it was gonna be above ground by default anyway. So if keeping it above ground brings back 9th Ave on the table, and make extension occur quicker, above ground is the way to go since the train cars are made for this, rather than the current high floor LRVs.

A tunnel obviously would be the best option, but due to costs, it's alright to scrap in my mind since the tradeoffs aren't too costly. I feel in this case, tunneling for a tiny segment of Centre Street there is moreso to be cooler and make it look more urban, rather than it being about more functional.

[corporatejay]

this is a disaster.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I understand the desire for going underground for 16th ave since when the updated plan originally came out, I was of the the opinion that it's a terrible compromise to not have it below ground. But as time went by, I've come around to the idea of keeping it above ground permanently.

Reason being that since it's a low floor LRV, it's suppose to be integrated with the street level in the first place. My primary concern was that it would screw up 16th ave even more so that it has been (which is an impressive feat), but I think with less vehicles traveling on centre street in general, the traffic light signals can be more favourable to 16th ave during rush hour.

Also, with no tunnelling there, it saves money that can make the much needed expansion north occur much faster as a result since it would cost less to do so. After 16th ave, it was gonna be above ground by default anyway. So if keeping it above ground brings back 9th Ave on the table, and make extension occur quicker, above ground is the way to go since the train cars are made for this, rather than the current high floor LRVs.

A tunnel obviously would be the best option, but due to costs, it's alright to scrap in my mind since the tradeoffs aren't too costly. I feel in this case, tunneling for a tiny segment of Centre Street there is moreso to be cooler and make it look more urban, rather than it being about more functional.

I doubt that. You are going to have trains, probably with signal priority, coming from each direction every few minutes. Add in dedicated turn phases(you will need them with the limited traffic lanes N/S to avoid disaster) and 16th ave may get even less green priority. At least during rush hour. If that is at grade it's going to be really ugly.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I doubt that. You are going to have trains, probably with signal priority, coming from each direction every few minutes. Add in dedicated turn phases(you will need them with the limited traffic lanes N/S to avoid disaster) and 16th ave may get even less green priority. At least during rush hour. If that is at grade it's going to be really ugly.

I could see them having the light signals during rush hour to be aligned for 16th to be primarily green aside from when trains are going down centre, and there's been a long enough wait for cars that need to make left turns off of centre.

With centre street going down from 3 lanes in one direction during rush hour, to 1 lanes at all times, I don't think commuters would be using Centre at all to get to the more northern communities, and use alternative routes like Edmonton Trail and 10th/14th Street. And even if the subway was gonna be built, traffic was gonna be down to 1 lane of traffic in each direction north of 16th ave anyway. So no matter what, Centre Street is going to be primarily a local traffic road.

[BlackArcher101]

How is this project funding still even being entertained? I really wanted this line as I live in the SE, but now I don't see how this line can be viable. We need to revisit if we need another downtown feeder during the next 10 years, and with massive government debts coming up, is this the best use of money? Are costs expected to decrease at all in the new economy we'll be heading into?

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

How is this project funding still even being entertained? I really wanted this line as I live in the SE, but now I don't see how this line can be viable. We need to revisit if we need another downtown feeder during the next 10 years, and with massive government debts coming up, is this the best use of money? Are costs expected to decrease at all in the new economy we'll be heading into?

In tough times there is always a big push for projects to stimulate the economy by creating jobs, etc. Province is looking for shovel ready projects to accomplish this.

But I agree that a big people mover into downtown should be revisited, even before Covid but especially now with Covid potentially changing how business operates.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Also, with no tunnelling there, it saves money that can make the much needed expansion north occur much faster as a result since it would cost less to do so. After 16th ave, it was gonna be above ground by default anyway. So if keeping it above ground brings back 9th Ave on the table, and make extension occur quicker, above ground is the way to go since the train cars are made for this, rather than the current high floor LRVs.

It doesn't seem like money is the main holdup for the north extension, but rather land acquisition. I can't say I know very much about the process, but I don't see how getting shovels in the ground does anything to improve the process of land acquisition - if I owned a needed plot on the C St corridor, my price to sell is only going higher and higher.

Perhaps someone in the know can speak to if/how the city can force a party to sell at a price above market value, but if it's as easy as that, why haven't they already done it?

My tinfoil hat says councillor(s) have a vested interest in the Shepherd Crossing development.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I doubt that. You are going to have trains, probably with signal priority, coming from each direction every few minutes. Add in dedicated turn phases(you will need them with the limited traffic lanes N/S to avoid disaster) and 16th ave may get even less green priority. At least during rush hour. If that is at grade it's going to be really ugly.

If this goes ahead I think you have to consider killing left turns off 16th (probably off Centre, too). How the residents around the nearly perfect square ofL 4 St NW, 20 Ave, Ed Trail, and 12 Ave feel about that is another question.

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

How is this project funding still even being entertained? I really wanted this line as I live in the SE, but now I don't see how this line can be viable. We need to revisit if we need another downtown feeder during the next 10 years, and with massive government debts coming up, is this the best use of money? Are costs expected to decrease at all in the new economy we'll be heading into?

Infrastructure spending may be a great mechanism to ride out this storm, but it also shouldn't mean a blank cheque to build things that don't make sense. Projects that keep money circulating locally are obviously better than hiring outside firms. My gut says a higher proportion of building a SE BRT would stay local.

Articulated buses (125 passenger) cost $0.8-1M; each LRT train car (160 passenger) is $3-4M. Tracks and signalling devices - I'm guessing not local.

OPEX efficiencies are achieved if ridership is sufficient to justify 3 train cars. I'm skeptical it will even justify it during each peak rush hour (intentionally singular), let alone the other 22 hours of the day.

Two (or more) articulated buses in the place of each 3 car train may well be sufficient, with far more flexibility. Additional OPEX is mostly for drivers (local), maintenance (local), additional fuel/energy compared to train (somewhat local).

[BlackArcher101]

If the justification for a project like this switches from a need, to a economy stimulus, then I agree we should focus on having those $$$ try to stay local. Switching this back to the original idea of a dedicated bus system would put a larger ratio of the cost into construction which is what really matters for stimulus/jobs. Lets prepare the route with that in mind, and should the dollars and needs for downtown be there in the future, switch it over to tracked and order the cars.

[Resolute 14]

It doesn't switch at all. It's still a need, but now it also carries a benefit of much needed stimulus to the local economy for construction.

FWIW, the original C-Train lines were also built during a major recession. If we applied that thinking then, It is quite possible we'd have NO LRT system at all today rather than one of the busiest in North America.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It doesn't seem like money is the main holdup for the north extension, but rather land acquisition. I can't say I know very much about the process, but I don't see how getting shovels in the ground does anything to improve the process of land acquisition - if I owned a needed plot on the C St corridor, my price to sell is only going higher and higher.

Perhaps someone in the know can speak to if/how the city can force a party to sell at a price above market value, but if it's as easy as that, why haven't they already done it?

The City will negotiate with property owners, but in a worst case scenario they can legally expropriate the land.

That doesn’t happen overnight though, and in the end the property owner is compensated for the market value of the portion of land that is taken, amongst other things.

https://expropriation.ca/articles/ar...s/art05601.pdf