News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.8K     0 
blowback from commuters
You can sell this to them though. I've seen many times on 5th where busses needing to go north cut across traffic and slow down everyone. Bus lanes with priority signals and you've got yourself a rapid bus system downtown. Also, the lanes could only be active during rush hours, opposite to the parking. Would be easy for people to understand and adapt to.
 
Last edited:
I know there would be blowback from commuters, but if the city could ever take 2 lanes from the 5 lanes on 5th and 6th and dedicate them to bus lanes (one park lane and one bypass lane) I imagine the busses would move nicely through downtown.
And even if they don't take that bus, if the person next to them who was driving is now on that bus, there's less traffic for them. It's always the sell for transit priority projects but two lanes is a pretty small price.
 
Image from Page 30 City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan Retrieved from Archive.org

"Developments in the City Hall area must provide for the protection of rights-of-way for future below grade L.R.T. facilities as shown in the accompanying L.R.T. Plan. The purpose of protecting these rights-of-way is to protect the option of developing a Central Station for the City’s L.R.T. system in the City Hall area at some point in the future. Entrances to the Central Station, processing areas and transfer connections will be developed on the east side of MacLeod Trail as part of the Municipal Building and Civic Plaza development, and west of MacLeod Trail as part of the development of the block west of City Hall."
View attachment 666337


The report drew from:


Approximation:
View attachment 666339

I still think it would be wise for the city to find a way to pay for the 8av subway to be done in conjunction with the green line work downtown. Get the biggest construction disruptions over and done with, and it throws a tunnel bone to those disappointed with the elevated GL plan.

It may even cost less to add the red line subway than tunneling GL DT would have added up to..
 
Image from Page 30 City Hall Area Redevelopment Plan Retrieved from Archive.org

"Developments in the City Hall area must provide for the protection of rights-of-way for future below grade L.R.T. facilities as shown in the accompanying L.R.T. Plan. The purpose of protecting these rights-of-way is to protect the option of developing a Central Station for the City’s L.R.T. system in the City Hall area at some point in the future. Entrances to the Central Station, processing areas and transfer connections will be developed on the east side of MacLeod Trail as part of the Municipal Building and Civic Plaza development, and west of MacLeod Trail as part of the development of the block west of City Hall."
View attachment 666337


The report drew from:


Approximation:
View attachment 666339
The Arts Common Expansion probably doesn't conform
 
The Arts Common Expansion probably doesn't conform
Is below what they were imagining? I am struggling to understand exactly what they were thinking back in the 1980s, I don't think the Blue Line existed at the time they planned this?

I would imagine the ship sailed on the Blue line component with the Central Library building over the Red Line to 7th Avenue connection?

1752610008955.png
 
Is below what they were imagining? I am struggling to understand exactly what they were thinking back in the 1980s, I don't think the Blue Line existed at the time they planned this?

I would imagine the ship sailed on the Blue line component with the Central Library building over the Red Line to 7th Avenue connection?

View attachment 666352
Exactly in the ultimate stage. so they could build a tunnel on 7th without interupting service, and run it without an OMC or delivery site on the Blue Line, and continue to run the rush hour NW to NE trains.
 
Underground on 8th Ave would be expensive AF, water table is high tons of possible cost over runs. Just re route the blue line at-grade to connect with itself on 6 Ave and leave 7 Ave for the Red Line. Leave 8 Ave as currently designed. Just an opinion
 
Underground on 8th Ave would be expensive AF, water table is high tons of possible cost over runs. Just re route the blue line at-grade to connect with itself on 6 Ave and leave 7 Ave for the Red Line. Leave 8 Ave as currently designed. Just an opinion
Actually, I agree with this is as the ultimate project - save billions by avoiding tunnels and makes transit more reliable: just create another 7th Avenue. It would improve the capacity of 6th Ave by 3 to 5 times easily.
 
I don't know if you can do 6th Ave. that would take 8th, 7th and 6th out of commission to cars. Would be quite something to see how that would affect the core, could be a positive? You would need to probably make 9th Ave reversible as 4th Ave wouldn't be able to handle all westbound traffic. I would move the Red Line to 6th instead of the Blue Line. The Blue Line needs to be on 7th to meet up with its track to go west. I think all it would take are some slow tight turns. The Red Line would need to go right from the Central Library Tunnel to partially travel up 3rd St. Then keep turning right where the parking structure is today and then make a hard left to get on to 6th Ave. It is tight but at slow speed, which it does anyways it could be done. This would also allow for Red and Blue lines to use 6th or 7th if one is under maintenance.

1752676905223.png


However... To avoid the tight turns the solution could actually be much simpler. The Blue line should be "the North Calgary line" and the Red line "the South Calgary line". The Blue line could use 6th Ave, turning right on to it as soon as it reaches East Village and then turn right to go over to Kensington. The Red line is more suited to use 7th Ave. from the Central Library Tunnel and continue on 7th to go west.
 
Underground on 8th Ave would be expensive AF, water table is high tons of possible cost over runs. Just re route the blue line at-grade to connect with itself on 6 Ave and leave 7 Ave for the Red Line. Leave 8 Ave as currently designed. Just an opinion
Isn't the "it's too expensive" the kind of thinking that gets us into these kind of situations to begin with. Imagine how cheap it would have been to subway the red line when it was first run through. Expensive AF then, but shoulda done it.
 
I sympathize with "it's too expensive" after seeing the proposal for the $6 billion Eau Claire-to-Lynnwood line.
There are many things at play which drove that. It is entirely viable to build on 8th, but the businesses aren't going to like the tradeoffs that enable that, and if council starts imposing criteria on the project without understanding the cost of those requirements, the project would descend into Greenline style madness.
 
Isn't the "it's too expensive" the kind of thinking that gets us into these kind of situations to begin with. Imagine how cheap it would have been to subway the red line when it was first run through. Expensive AF then, but shoulda done it.
The reason they didn’t do subway initially was to get more line built. I believe it’s one of the reasons are lines are so successful is because the built out so far in The early days. Didn’t Edmonton build subway like through downtown and didn’t get that far out initially?
 
The reason they didn’t do subway initially was to get more line built. I believe it’s one of the reasons are lines are so successful is because the built out so far in The early days. Didn’t Edmonton build subway like through downtown and didn’t get that far out initially?
Edmonton also was much more fiscally conservative in the 80s and 90s than Calgary, and ended up with much less stuff as a result. Pools, what eventually became the Arts Commons, City Hall (with office component), and LRT expansion all happened in Calgary and not in Edmonton because Calgary borrowed money and Edmonton didn't.
 

Back
Top