Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by suburbia

We've been down this strawman ...

Maintenance facility was the big issue. Regarding funding for the second phase, yeah not locked in yet, but that is not abnormal at all.

Regardless of the maintenance facility, I'm just responding to the point of how rail is better than bus because of higher maximum capacity; but this advantage isn't being used in the Green Line as it stands today.

As a touchstone, someone may be considering purchasing a home with a 15 year mortgage. Do you say that you will not buy if you cannot guarantee you have a job in five years? No, you go ahead and purchase, with the understanding that prospects are reasonable for five years down even if not guaranteed.

These are potentially multi-decade projects, and no, we do not know where the funds will come from for X years down when phase two starts, but that is okay.

But that's another failure from the city; we were supposed to know where the funding was coming from as the project was supposed to be nearly or completely funded. If the city had better estimates from the start, maybe instead of asking for $3B from the Federal and Provincial Government, it could have asked for $5B.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Regardless of the maintenance facility, I'm just responding to the point of how rail is better than bus because of higher maximum capacity; but this advantage isn't being used in the Green Line as it stands today.

How is it not being used by the green line as it stands today? The green line being planned has every bit as much capacity as the existing lines do - likely even more, since the 7th Ave portion is the bottleneck on the current lines - but there is no such bottleneck proposed for the green line.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

How is it not being used by the green line as it stands today? The green line being planned has every bit as much capacity as the existing lines do - likely even more, since the 7th Ave portion is the bottleneck on the current lines - but there is no such bottleneck proposed for the green line.

I'm referring to the Green Line that is funded. It may have the capacity, but it's not being to used to great effect because Calgary Transit will still need to run the same 80+ buses/hour during peak hours down Centre Street. The same section of road always highlighted by the city as most in need of LRT capacity because it can't fit many more buses on it.

Sure, some people may be optimistic that the city will be able to get things in place to build the Centre Street section concurrently and have it ready by 2029, but I have to think that a lot of things have to go perfectly for that happen, including the city finding another $2-$3B, phase 1 staying on budget, Gondek getting the council to commit to the North ahead of Seton, and the city not seeing the issues the at-grade alignment has that this board has pointed out and then going back to the drawing board.

[DoubleK]

Am I correct in thinking that the Center street surface portion of the line is going to look/feel similar to the Valley Metro Rail in Phoenix?

I keep finding myself struggling with the fact that the low floor decision is being based on such a small part of phase 1.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Am I correct in thinking that the Center street surface portion of the line is going to look/feel similar to the Valley Metro Rail in Phoenix?

I keep finding myself struggling with the fact that the low floor decision is being based on such a small part of phase 1.

Similar but worse. Most of that Phoenix line is in a wider ROW with space for 2 vehicle lanes in each direction. The only part of the Phoenix system that is equivalent is the section on South Terrace Road.

FWIW, their LRT has 49,000 daily passengers on 42km of line. Ours has 306,000 on 60km.

[O-tacular]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but will the chosen green line route utilize the roughed in station at city hall of not?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but will the chosen green line route utilize the roughed in station at city hall of not?

No, because:
1. it doesn't go close enough to city hall that this would have even made sense
2. there isn't really a roughed-in station as I understand it, but just tunnel extensions from current red line, including a large cavern for a hypothetical red line/blue line track crossover.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

No, because:
1. it doesn't go close enough to city hall that this would have even made sense
2. there isn't really a roughed-in station as I understand it, but just tunnel extensions from current red line, including a large cavern for a hypothetical red line/blue line track crossover.

Thanks. Is it true that Banker's Hall roughed one in also?

[milomilo]

One thing I did notice that got lost in discussion - the station at 7th on the green line is actually situated north of 7th, between 6th-7th, rather than between 8th and 7th. Which is surprising and disappointing. It means any connection between the Green Line and future tunneled 8th Ave station will be longer/less good. Makes me suspicious that the City has no plans to ever tunnel the red line.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Thanks. Is it true that Banker's Hall roughed one in also?

No idea. The rumour mill puts it somewhere between "a roughed-in station" and "roughed-in access to a hypothetical station".

[craner]

I believe there is some sort of station roughed-in at Western Canadian Place as well.

[craner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

One thing I did notice that got lost in discussion - the station at 7th on the green line is actually situated north of 7th, between 6th-7th, rather than between 8th and 7th. Which is surprising and disappointing. It means any connection between the Green Line and future tunneled 8th Ave station will be longer/less good. Makes me suspicious that the City has no plans to ever tunnel the red line.

I would think the City would allow for future tunnelling to keep their options open.
But you're right - the 8th Ave. subway is overdue IMO.

[ImmortalHawk]

Is it just me or do the fact that the City use Avenues or Streets in their Station names too much? It kinda bugs me a lot, since most metro stations like Toronto don't have odonyms (Street, Avenue, Road, etc.) in their stations (except for Main Street in Toronto).

For example, 39 Avenue Station could be changed to Manchester (for the Manchester Industrial Area which the station is in), or 45th Street SW Station could be changed to Glendale/Westgate (For the communities surrounding the station).

AND THEN there's the downtown area which I am NOT going to talk much about ('Cuz it's a challenge to rename them)
If the downtown area was to change some of their station names, it would interesting to use the old road names as a part of it, e.g. Centre Street/McTavish Station, or 1st Street/Scarth, or 4th Street/Ross, etc.

In the overview plan (https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=13290), it seems as though the station names could be renamed to reflect the community or area the station is situated in, and avoid the generic streets and avenues name.

Here are a few examples:

McKnight Blvd Station should be renamed to Thorncliffe/Greenview, because it's within the communities and not even that close to McKnight Boulevard (In addition to the fact that the station could be mixed up with McKnight-Westwinds).

64 Avenue N Station could be renamed to Huntington Hills

28 Avenue N could be renamed to Tuxedo Park

2 Avenue SW could be renamed as Eau Claire/Chinatown

4 Street SE could be renamed to East Village (As there are a lot of apartments popping up there, this might give the area a boost)

26 Avenue SE could be renamed as Crossroads/Blackfoot (considering the proximity of the station with Crossroads Market).

BTW these are all suggestions. I don't care if they keep with the names that the City has set, but I would want something to change with the names. What do you think?

[ClaytonA]

Pretty sure station names haven't been decided for the Green Line; what's being used is solely to communicate approximate location.

Personally I liked the numbered layout because it made navigating the city so easy for whatever mode you were using. Need to get to Smugglers on 69 Ave SE? It'd be easier to conceptualize using LRT if Chinook Station was called 61 Ave. Just 7 blocks south.

[ImmortalHawk]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Pretty sure station names haven't been decided for the Green Line; what's being used is solely to communicate approximate location.

Personally I liked the numbered layout because it made navigating the city so easy for whatever mode you were using. Need to get to Smugglers on 69 Ave SE? It'd be easier to conceptualize using LRT if Chinook Station was called 61 Ave. Just 7 blocks south.

Yeah I guess so. But I mean if you use the name of the community, you would know instantly where you are. Dalhousie, Marlborough, Sunalta, and Shawnessy stations are clear, and people know where they are on the train. If you mentioned Chinook, I would know where it is, since it is few blocks from Chinook Mall, but 61 Avenue? I can't really picture where I am, and it would just be confusing to use the street name. (Also, 61 Avenue isn't that well known. If it was 16 Avenue Station, named after an important arterial road, then people would probably know it)

I guess the rule is to name the stations by their community, but also consider if there are any arterial roads close to the station.

[CrossedTheTracks]

I think: any station name that is both short and precise is a winner, so using the name of the cross street is a good idea. "McKnight" is not sufficiently precise, as you point out, though most (all?) of the others fare well.

Yes, Toronto doesn't use Ave, St, Rd in its subway station names, but it doesn't need to. There's only one Pape <whatever> that matters, in the context of the subway. Can you imagine "39" instead of "39 Street"? Or in Manhattan, could you imagine "14 station" instead of "14 Street station"?

Crossroads -- I wouldn't mind this suggestion, if it weren't for the facts that:
- Crossroads refers to the once-intersection of highways 1 and 2 at 16th and Barlow
- Crossroads community already exists near that location
- the Crossroads market was originally at that location

[ImmortalHawk]

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I think: any station name that is both short and precise is a winner, so using the name of the cross street is a good idea. "McKnight" is not sufficiently precise, as you point out, though most (all?) of the others fare well.

Yes, Toronto doesn't use Ave, St, Rd in its subway station names, but it doesn't need to. There's only one Pape <whatever> that matters, in the context of the subway. Can you imagine "39" instead of "39 Street"? Or in Manhattan, could you imagine "14 station" instead of "14 Street station"?

Crossroads -- I wouldn't mind this suggestion, if it weren't for the facts that:
- Crossroads refers to the once-intersection of highways 1 and 2 at 16th and Barlow
- Crossroads community already exists near that location
- the Crossroads market was originally at that location

About the Crossroads,

I actually didn't know about that! Well, the more you know....

Also, by any chance, do you know the name of the area where the station is situated? Since one could use that as the station name instead, which would be a lot nicer and reflect the area/community.

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by ImmortalHawk

Yeah I guess so. But I mean if you use the name of the community, you would know instantly where you are. Dalhousie, Marlborough, Sunalta, and Shawnessy stations are clear, and people know where they are on the train. If you mentioned Chinook, I would know where it is, since it is few blocks from Chinook Mall, but 61 Avenue? I can't really picture where I am, and it would just be confusing to use the street name. (Also, 61 Avenue isn't that well known. If it was 16 Avenue Station, named after an important arterial road, then people would probably know it)

I guess the rule is to name the stations by their community, but also consider if there are any arterial roads close to the station.

Chicago uses cross streets all the time. So does London, New York, Vancouver and countless other cities. I don't understand why you think it's a Calgary thing. What happens if you have 2 stations in the same neighbourhood like 16th Ave and 28th Ave are both in Mount Pleasant. Like I could see using area or neighbourhoods get especially confusing as soon as you start having lines crossing also, Paris as an exception because they have enough monuments and places across the whole city.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by ImmortalHawk

Yeah I guess so. But I mean if you use the name of the community, you would know instantly where you are. Dalhousie, Marlborough, Sunalta, and Shawnessy stations are clear, and people know where they are on the train. If you mentioned Chinook, I would know where it is, since it is few blocks from Chinook Mall, but 61 Avenue? I can't really picture where I am, and it would just be confusing to use the street name. (Also, 61 Avenue isn't that well known. If it was 16 Avenue Station, named after an important arterial road, then people would probably know it)

I guess the rule is to name the stations by their community, but also consider if there are any arterial roads close to the station.

Most of Shanghai's Metro stations are named after cross streets, and I've never had any issues with that. There are also stations named after famous districts, parks, museums, etc, but the stations named after cross streets predominate.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]