HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


View Poll Results: Should the Calgary greenling go under the Bow river or over
Under in a tunnel 45 78.95%
Over on a new bridge 12 21.05%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 3:14 AM
People.talking's Avatar
People.talking People.talking is offline
YYC
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Rocky Ridge, Calgary
Posts: 236
Greenline over the Bow

Should the new Calgary Greenline go over the bow or under the bow?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 5:00 AM
artvandelay's Avatar
artvandelay artvandelay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The City of Cows
Posts: 1,670
If a bridge results in $500 million in savings over the tunnel option, it's the obvious choice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 5:06 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Big if, IMO. It's going to be tunneling for a while north and south of there, so I don't fully believe that surfacing and building a high quality (expensive) bridge then diving into a tunnel again through the unstable bluffs will be cheaper. Sounds a lot more complicated to me, and complexity means cost.

And I say that as someone who has always thought the bridge would be a great option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 5:54 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
I think one of the major challenges with the bridge is how it tunnels once in downtown. Could be a big disruption to a street and neighbouring properties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 12:12 PM
Fuzz's Avatar
Fuzz Fuzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,421
The biggest benefit I would see for a bridge is another pedestrian/bike access built with it. Other than that, I think the tunnel is probably overall a better choice. But I'm not an engineer. Both come with significant potentials for cost overruns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 12:35 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is online now
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by artvandelay View Post
If a bridge results in $500 million in savings over the tunnel option, it's the obvious choice.
Are you serious?!? I can't imagine a tunnel under the Bow costing more than half that much; maybe even half of that. It's definitely not the cost of a bridge, the two tunnel egresses and, 500 million!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 1:47 PM
lineman's Avatar
lineman lineman is offline
power to the people!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Crescent Heights, Calgary
Posts: 864
Definitely. The half billion is for the full tunnel option, not just the river crossing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 1:49 PM
CorporateWhore's Avatar
CorporateWhore CorporateWhore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 4,685
I would like to see it go over The Bow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:32 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
Near Generational
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,447
Over for me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 3:00 PM
People.talking's Avatar
People.talking People.talking is offline
YYC
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Rocky Ridge, Calgary
Posts: 236
rather see it go under
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 3:53 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
I could only answer if I could see how much one would save over the other, and what extra transit we could get for that money.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 6:32 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by artvandelay View Post
If a bridge results in $500 million in savings over the tunnel option, it's the obvious choice.
Fully agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
I think one of the major challenges with the bridge is how it tunnels once in downtown. Could be a big disruption to a street and neighbouring properties.
True, but if it is going to be a bridge, it should be a more efficient elevated line, so the point is moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
Are you serious?!? I can't imagine a tunnel under the Bow costing more than half that much; maybe even half of that. It's definitely not the cost of a bridge, the two tunnel egresses and, 500 million!!!
Yes it would cost that much, especially when you consider how much extra length of tunneling it would require on the north side of the river if you sunk the train so deep. That means the incremental cost of tunneling below the Bow River is not just limited to the tunnels under the river. This has been extremely well documented. Surprised you are surprised.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 12:20 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Big if, IMO. It's going to be tunneling for a while north and south of there, so I don't fully believe that surfacing and building a high quality (expensive) bridge then diving into a tunnel again through the unstable bluffs will be cheaper. Sounds a lot more complicated to me, and complexity means cost.

And I say that as someone who has always thought the bridge would be a great option.
This exactly for me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 4:25 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Regardless of what happens, I am very excited for this amazing piece of people-connecting infrastructure!
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 4:37 PM
kw5150's Avatar
kw5150 kw5150 is offline
Here and There
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,807
Could it hover over a few blocks and then duck under? I see huge problems with that because of density, but who knows? You could combine it with the Sien Lok Park Redevelopment......or just do what Vancouver did and have the train go right through a newly constructed building......yeah right.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/176/40...acd_z.jpg?zz=1


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
I think one of the major challenges with the bridge is how it tunnels once in downtown. Could be a big disruption to a street and neighbouring properties.
__________________
Renfrew, Calgary, Alberta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 5:15 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is online now
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Fully agreed.



True, but if it is going to be a bridge, it should be a more efficient elevated line, so the point is moot.



Yes it would cost that much, especially when you consider how much extra length of tunneling it would require on the north side of the river if you sunk the train so deep. That means the incremental cost of tunneling below the Bow River is not just limited to the tunnels under the river. This has been extremely well documented. Surprised you are surprised.
No offense but, I don't believe a word you say. It makes no sense that the difference in cost would be $500 million for less than a kilometre of tunnels even in Calgary's fractured shale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 5:43 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
It also hasn't been 'extremely well documented'. All the cost estimates so far are just that, rough estimates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 6:08 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
No offense but, I don't believe a word you say. It makes no sense that the difference in cost would be $500 million for less than a kilometre of tunnels even in Calgary's fractured shale.
No offense taken, but if you "don't believe a word [I] say", why do you respond?

The increase in length of tunnels between options C and D are significantly more than a kilometer. Additionally, the increase in cost is not just all of the increased tunneling and related utilities for the tunnels, but also the way more expensive costs of the stations that would then be buried way further with option D. Virtually each and every piece increase in price substantially with the burial option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 6:39 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Irrelevant though, because the only two options worth comparing are B and D. C will never be built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 6, 2016, 7:15 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is online now
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
No offense taken, but if you "don't believe a word [I] say", why do you respond?

The increase in length of tunnels between options C and D are significantly more than a kilometer. Additionally, the increase in cost is not just all of the increased tunneling and related utilities for the tunnels, but also the way more expensive costs of the stations that would then be buried way further with option D. Virtually each and every piece increase in price substantially with the burial option.
Thanks. Now I understand. You once again decided to change the game to fit your agenda by introducing C when the discussion is about B and D. And, yeah, I felt it necessary to once again remind you that I don't believe a word you say.

$500 million + the cost of the bridge option for let's say ... a kilometre of tunnel is plain stupid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Buildings & Architecture, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:52 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.