Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project - Page 105

DizzyEdge · #**2081** Posted **Jan 8, 2018, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I think tunneling would only have to go to 64th. After that there is a wider ROW, probably for this purpose, except inexplicably just before Beddington Trail where they have not left any room. And then it's plain sailing further north.

That's a weird one. Looking at the 1979 aerial photos the houses/businesses were in the process of being constructed north of Beddington, with no ROW even though the southern ROW was already in place. Very curious about that.

DizzyEdge · #**2082** Posted **Jan 8, 2018, 4:43 PM**

Can anyone point me to where I can find the detailed route map which shows closed roads and crosswalks, etc?

ST1 · #**2083** Posted **Jan 8, 2018, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but, the reality of the situation is that when the people who actually are experienced in this field looked at the best way to build the green line, they chose an almost entirely grade separated line. I imagine some on council were hoping that they would have proposed a 40km tram from north to south was the best option and signed off on it, but luckily our transit planners are more competent.

I think he's referring to your comment about having the whole system below grade, and how it's much better than above ground. It's not exactly news, but the fact is we can't afford to pay for a system like that, as nice as it might be.

ggopher · #**2084** Posted **Jan 8, 2018, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Can anyone point me to where I can find the detailed route map which shows closed roads and crosswalks, etc?

DizzyEdge · #**2085** Posted **Jan 8, 2018, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggopher

Sounds like a simple question, but it actually is surprisingly hard to find. The green line website just shows the high level map. Which doesn't have any of the details of tunnels vs bridges vs level crossings.

Thanks! I knew I had seen these before, but had no idea where. As you said the greenline site has just very general overview map.

DizzyEdge · #**2086** Posted **Jan 8, 2018, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

'Activating ground level' is BS. This LRT will close the majority of intersections (so that it even has a hope of being reliable), which is going to make Centre St. a much less walkable place. It's also going to force two lanes of traffic into one, which despite what some would like to believe is not going to reduce traffic, it's just going to cause a long line of gridlocked cars - not my idea of a pleasant pedestrian experience.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=13290

If the maps in this document are to be taken as accurate, it looks like Centre between 16th ave and 40th ave will go from 10 ped crossings to 8 (3 closed, one new). So for ped movement it won't change too much, but my bigger concern is the LRT potentially stopping 10 times in what might normally be a 9 minute 'drive'.

Although I share the idea that underground to 64th is best, at the least it should probably be underground until 32nd or 40th.

milomilo · #**2087** Posted **Jan 9, 2018, 1:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=13290

If the maps in this document are to be taken as accurate, it looks like Centre between 16th ave and 40th ave will go from 10 ped crossings to 8 (3 closed, one new). So for ped movement it won't change too much, but my bigger concern is the LRT potentially stopping 10 times in what might normally be a 9 minute 'drive'.

Although I share the idea that underground to 64th is best, at the least it should probably be underground until 32nd or 40th.

That's the thing. When building a street level LRT, the city must choose what its priorities are - either they promote speed, reliability and capacity (the important things) and close the majority of intersections and crossings, or they prioritise the pedestrian experience and keep all the current intersections and put in mid block crossings. For an in street LRT, just doing one of those two things is unrealistic, but it's impossible to do both. Yet that is the image the City is presenting us - it's dishonest. The worst thing though, is that some of our councillors really do appear to believe the lie.

milomilo · #**2088** Posted **Jan 9, 2018, 1:50 AM**

Thanks for posting that link, it has been hard to get the exact plans and that is exactly what I wanted.

One interesting thing I have just noticed - 7th ave station is placed between 5th and 7th, rather than where I would expect which would be between 8th and 7th, to allow interchange with the 'future' 8th ave tunnel. Makes me even less optimistic it'll ever get built.

You Need A Thneed · #**2089** Posted **Jan 9, 2018, 3:25 AM**

From watching the alignment video ( is the whole line alignment video still available on YouTube?), I believe the whole row of houses in that northern narrow section of beddington has to be demolished, as the line pretty much goes through their front yards, if not actually through the houses.

Edit: video link here
https://youtu.be/00aSjWkFRDw

Rollerstud98 · #**2090** Posted **Jan 9, 2018, 4:36 AM**

In that video houses all still there but road about 3 times as wide lol. I wish that this would have been finished in time for me to use the train during my apprenticeship. So much easier to jump on the train 15 minutes from my house and not have to worry about parking or anything like that.

DizzyEdge · #**2091** Posted **Jan 9, 2018, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

In that video houses all still there but road about 3 times as wide lol. I wish that this would have been finished in time for me to use the train during my apprenticeship. So much easier to jump on the train 15 minutes from my house and not have to worry about parking or anything like that.

I currently live near Tuxedo Park and work in Inglewood so it would be perfect for me, but I doubt that will be the case once it's done.

MrBigStuff · #**2092** Posted **Jan 9, 2018, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedog

That'll create quite a mess on 4th Street NW and Edmonton Trail too. Underground to just past 64th would be best.

That sounds like the best idea - but maybe the costliest. What kind of materials - such as clay - rock - or sand would have to be tunnelled through to achieve this - once they start to tunnel north of 16 Ave.??? Is there a geologist in the house that could shed some light on this???

Chinook Arch · #**2093** Posted **Jan 10, 2018, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigStuff

That sounds like the best idea - but maybe the costliest. What kind of materials - such as clay - rock - or sand would have to be tunnelled through to achieve this - once they start to tunnel north of 16 Ave.??? Is there a geologist in the house that could shed some light on this???

But maybe the costliest? Ummm no shit.

googspecial · #**2094** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 8:52 PM**

Not a geologist, more of a geo-enthusiast. Most of Calgary is gravel based due to the last ice age pushing up against the rockies and glacial deposit of sand and gravel creating our foothills. To build a tunnel under Centre, the easiest/cheapest way would be cut and cover. Keeps the line and stations shallow too. Likely the worst thing to come across while digging would be an erratic. Large, harder, heavier rock material that was brought back from the rockies with glacial retreat (eg Okotoks Big Rock). Excavators wouldn't be able to dig it up. This happened at a condo project in Mission a few years ago. They were excavating the underground parking and came across an erratic and had to blow it up, then dig it out because the jack-hammer equipment couldn't break the hard granite (I believe it was). Cool enough, they then planned to keep the rock for interior tiling in the lobby. Don't remember which project, or if that ended up still happening.

I agree that NC needs to be underground further than just 20/24 Ave. I think it could underground to just north of 44 Ave where there's that low point - surface and have a semi-surface station under McKnight à la 69 ST Station - then continue on the surface north of McKnight. This would bring the McKnight Station actually to McKnight instead of much further North at Northmount/58 Ave. Doesn't necessarily grade separate it under 64 Ave, however I don't know that it is needed there. Not saying it isn't, just saying I don't know. I'm about to move to that area, so I guess I will soon find out.

ClaytonA · #**2095** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 8:03 PM**

Public Service message:

Link listing upcoming engagement Green Line LRT events:

https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline1/getinvolved

ClaytonA · #**2096** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 8:06 PM**

Re above;

If tunnel bored, keep in mind that generally stations are cut and cover and remain open air during construction. Cut and cover can speed the entire project up by allowing a contractor to hit more of the project at once (as well as generally being cheaper to construct, operate/maintain). Cut and cover, while disruptive, if communicated to property owners and businesses early (i.e. in 4 years this will happen for x years) can be negotiated into leases, property values for sale, etc. Cut and cover is politically harder, and under-rated/used as a result. TBMs keep getting better and better though.

jawagord · #**2097** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 9:40 PM**

As I've already annoyed the Nenshiati today I may as well restate my concern the green line will become Calgary's biggest white elephant/financial mistake before it even opens. Self driving ride share vehicles are going to suck ridership away from transit and adding this expensive green line tunnel system will be le coup de grace to the 55% R/C ratio that will no longer be sustainable from ridership fees. The 2020's will be a viscous cycle of transit cuts and falling ridership burdened by the operating costs of the truncated green line.

General Motors is seeking U.S. government approval for a fully autonomous car – one without a steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal – to enter the automaker's first commercial ride-sharing fleet in 2019, executives said.

GM wants to control its own self-driving fleet partly because of the tremendous revenue potential it sees in selling related services, from e-commerce to infotainment, to consumers riding in those vehicles.

At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM's Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be "several hundred thousands of dollars." That compares with the $30,000 (22,141.86 pounds) on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.

GM's Cruise AV is equipped with the automaker's fourth-generation self-driving software and hardware, including 21 radars, 16 cameras and five lidars – sensing devices that use laser light to help autonomous cars "see" nearby objects and obstacles.

The Cruise AV will be able to operate in hands-free mode only in premapped urban areas.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ticle37588912/

googspecial · #**2098** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 10:51 PM**

That's actually a great argument for driverless trains on the greenline. The greatest & most affordable "ride share" is still and will still be mass transit. Again, like many here are saying, it just needs to be done right.

milomilo · #**2099** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 10:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

That's actually a great argument for driverless trains on the greenline. The greatest & most affordable "ride share" is still and will still be mass transit. Again, like many here are saying, it just needs to be done right.

Definitely. This is another contemporary lie that driverless vehicles will reduce congestion, which is nonsense - they will increase it.

jawagord · #**2100** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 11:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by googspecial

That's actually a great argument for driverless trains on the greenline. The greatest & most affordable "ride share" is still and will still be mass transit. Again, like many here are saying, it just needs to be done right.

There is very little to be gained by making the Ctrain driverless, the driver to revenue(cost) ratio is already miniscule. And the train is only efficient at morning and evening rush hour. Today one of the big reasons for not taking a car downtown is where to park, that goes away with driverless vehicles. I don't see the C-train coming out a winner in this future. But making a bus driverless and smaller could be a real big win for transit.