Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Usually the standard is naming after major landmarks and then cross-streets.

I'm surprised the Green Line isn't going to the Airport? Soon Montreal will be the third in Canada to have an air rail link.

No money, the line still needs billions of dollars to build to the original goal of North Pointe to Seton.

[ClaytonA]

Airport's much less important than providing options to Deerfoot Trail (think of a much smaller situation similar to Hwy 401) in the north. City can find $100's of millions for interchanges for future problems, while not mitigating daily stop and go traffic from Beddington to Glenmore. As they're saying in the roads thread, there aren't going to be new freeways into downtown. Transit is the biggest part of the answer.

Of course this project will probably be cancelled by an austerity UCP government. Much easier to cancel captial spending versus operating spending in health care and education. It needs to be tendered prior to the provincial election and any new government spending reviews. Even then Ottawa ended up paying PCL et al $36 million after backing out of a contract about 10 years ago.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Usually the standard is naming after major landmarks and then cross-streets.

I'm surprised the Green Line isn't going to the Airport? Soon Montreal will be the third in Canada to have an air rail link.

In order for Green Line to be successful, it needs to run where people live and already ride Transit - and that's north on Centre. Very few people ride transit to the airport now, so I can't see why we'd want to spend money on an airport rail link that no one will ride.

[googspecial]

I foresee any airport link being used primarily by airport workers. Secondly, by travelers. With that in mind, would a Green or Blue line spur to airport be more beneficial? Or would we "need" both?

That being said - I live along the Green Line corridor and would definitely use the link if built. I have taken the bus from the airport a few times, when travelling in the summer. I haven't taken it to the airport before however. Usually running low on time :p

[milomilo]

Spur line to Calgary airport a less costly option: councillor

Farkas supports this also. A good rule of thumb is that if he supports it, it probably isn't a good idea.

An airport link is definitely a nice to have and something to aspire to, but other projects should take priority. If it could be partially funded by the airport or an Olympics bid, then that would be the best way to get it.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[DizzyEdge]

Keep in mind Toronto only had bus service to the airport until 2015. I took it a bunch of times and it worked fine.
Yes a train is nice, and yes the experience at YVR is awesome, but I would prefer the 300 stay in place until it's at capacity, then convert to articulated buses, and then think about a spur. As long as the 300 is always using buses with luggage racks, it's fine.

Now, if we do end up hosting the Olympics then maybe a train is worthwhile for that load of people.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The Blue and Green Lines are both close so its pretty tantalizing plus this could be a potential Northern Interchange in the future between the two.

Another of the many reasons I wish the Green Line was going to be "high floor" like the existing LRT lines.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Keep in mind Toronto only had bus service to the airport until 2015. I took it a bunch of times and it worked fine.

And it still does work fine -- if you're going to a place in the city that's better served by that bus than the train does.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yes a train is nice, and yes the experience at YVR is awesome, .

And important to point out that the eventual rail experience at YYC won't even come close to YVR.

The Canada Line is pretty much a straight shot to Downtown Vancouver.

I think the Blue Line spur would connect at 60 St NE and Airport trail and take the tunnel to the terminal? And a green line spur wouldn't be much better with the glorified street cars down Center.

I'd still take the bus.

[DizzyEdge]

For me I'd want a spur to be something you take from within the terminal right to the platform of one of the two LRT lines. No exiting the spur then hauling your luggage across a snow covered parking lot or something bad like that. If the experience is that you take 'the airport tram' to a covered LRT station and then you're on your way after a 5 second (in distance) transfer, it would be acceptable.

[ClaytonA]

Well before the municipal election didn't YYC council approve the design for upgrading Airport Trail to a full freeway with interchanges and all. It might make sense to bundle (cost savings?) in LRT work with that. Long term an LRT from Airport Trail and 52 St NE through to Royal Oak via Country Hills makes sense as part of a grid of rapid transit. It'd be interesting to see what ridership would be like on a bus route. Right now with a Downtown centric network it looks like this: https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/51.14...2d51.13228!3e3

[ClaytonA]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...formation.aspx

... City of Calgary Administration has conducted an in-depth evaluation process to determine the best Delivery Model for Stage 1 of the Green Line LRT.

Various models were investigated, ranging from full Private-Public Partnerships (P3) to more traditional methods. The evaluation has now been completed, and Administration will present a recommendation to City Council at Priorities and Finance Committee (PFC) on March 6, 2018 and Council on March 19, 2018.

Both PFC and Council meetings are open to the public, and can be live streamed from the website. Please visit the Council and Committee Meetings page for the streaming link and access to meeting agendas and minutes.

The recommendation and outcome of the March 19 Council meeting will be formally communicated via the Green Line website and the industry email list. Members of industry are reminded to avoid lobbying with City of Calgary Administration and City Council members as this could result in being precluded from future bidding. ...

The overall contracting strategy is being finalized to determine the best method for delivering the Green Line which may include public-private-partnerships (P3) or more traditional methods like Design-Build.

After the recommendation on the delivery method to the Priorities and Finance Committee (PFC) on March 6 and City Council on March 19, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is expected to be released in Q3 2018, followed by a Request for Proposals (RFP) in Q1 2019. When information becomes available on bidding opportunities for the Green Line LRT, this will be posted to MERX and the Alberta Purchasing Connection ('APC') website. ...

Could a PPP result in additional funds and extending Stage 1? Given land assembly concerns if so then it'd be to the south?
I'd feel more comfortable with the RFP closing in Q1 2019 well before the election.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Long term an LRT from Airport Trail and 52 St NE through to Royal Oak via Country Hills makes sense as part of a grid of rapid transit. It'd be interesting to see what ridership would be like on a bus route.

There was a bus route -- 430? -- that used to go from the airport cross-town on Country Hills (roughly) and terminated at Crowfoot station. The segment from Crowfoot to North Pointe was removed a couple of years ago.

So I'm guessing the ridership was insufficient

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

LRT even low floor style isn't a streetcar, a streetcar is one car not 3 and also doesn't have dedicated lanes and priority at intersections. Nonetheless especially considering the system Calgary has building a new line Low Floor is pretty silly. With the red and blue lines you could hypothetically eventually go to using metro style rolling stock.

It seems low floor lines have pretty much taken over new Canadian LRT projects (theres what like 7+ projects in planning right now?). Meanwhile LA keeps extending their highfloor system.

the REM, Alstom Metropolis, high floor

[Rational Plan3]

If you experienced a low floor line in comparison to a high floor system then most people prefer a low floor system. From a design point the stations are barely more than raised sidewalks. They easily fit into urban streets and are easily accesible, plus cheap to build. No need for bridges or lifts. You can combine it with street running and have fast service as long as the lanes are blocked off from other vehicles.

After travelling on the 4/6 in Budapest it was like using a travelator, with frequent trams every 2 minutes you'd often see the next tram approach as you were walking upto the platform. The only reason a transit agency sticks to high floor, is legacy costs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

If you experienced a low floor line in comparison to a high floor system then most people prefer a low floor system. From a design point the stations are barely more than raised sidewalks. They easily fit into urban streets and are easily accesible, plus cheap to build. No need for bridges or lifts. You can combine it with street running and have fast service as long as the lanes are blocked off from other vehicles.

After travelling on the 4/6 in Budapest it was like using a travelator, with frequent trams every 2 minutes you'd often see the next tram approach as you were walking upto the platform. The only reason a transit agency sticks to high floor, is legacy costs.

You believe that? Personally, I'd rather wait in a proper heated waiting area for 2 minutes for a reliable automated train than 10 minutes in a crappy bus shelter on the side of the road for an unreliable, slow quasi-tram.

I know being low floor vs high floor shouldn't make much difference, but in reality Calgary having chose the low floor model has determined that we will forever have a crappier system than we could. Montreal has gone in the opposite direction, ignored the made up benefits of low floor and prioritised what matters. Montreal will get a better system with REM than we will with the Green Line.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You believe that? Personally, I'd rather wait in a proper heated waiting area for 2 minutes for a reliable automated train than 10 minutes in a crappy bus shelter on the side of the road for an unreliable, slow quasi-tram.

I know being low floor vs high floor shouldn't make much difference, but in reality Calgary having chose the low floor model has determined that we will forever have a crappier system than we could. Montreal has gone in the opposite direction, ignored the made up benefits of low floor and prioritised what matters. Montreal will get a better system with REM than we will with the Green Line.

There is nothing stopping heated waited areas in a low floor system and nothing stopping your automated system being run at ten minute frequencies (see Hawaii). FOr really high speed systems and really long trains then a high floor system may be best. A system with stret running and at mostly ground level, it might as well be low floor level.

Speed on a Metro system is a function of station spacing and then how segragated it is. Travel time is from building to building, so shorter station spacing and quick street times compensate for faster trains on more spaced out systems with fewer stations.

There is an argument to be had over the balance of each element. But it is not cut and dried.