DougB
Active Member
Rightfully so. The Province doesn't want to be on the hook for overruns. The City has no credibility as every one of its cost estimates has been wrong.
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
^ The province isn't. And also, the city isn't.
The city also was in a very high pressure comms environment with the water challenges. With the schedule for meetings, I don't think anything should be Kreminology'd into this.
I don't think there is a lot of understanding of what challenges today mean, versus challenges 36 months ago. A decision to change the route 36 months ago adds to analysis paralysis. A decision today is near decisive -- it is made by the proponent and the greenline office and then ratified by the board unless the board thinks the methodology behind the change is wrong.
The city also was in a very high pressure comms environment with the water challenges. With the schedule for meetings, I don't think anything should be Kreminology'd into this.
I don't think there is a lot of understanding of what challenges today mean, versus challenges 36 months ago. A decision to change the route 36 months ago adds to analysis paralysis. A decision today is near decisive -- it is made by the proponent and the greenline office and then ratified by the board unless the board thinks the methodology behind the change is wrong.
DougB
Active Member
I'm assuming there will be minimal interest in a fixed bid RFP given the issues with the Valley Line in Edmonton, O-Train in Ottawa and Eglinton West in Toronto.
darwink
Senior Member
Goes back further. Turns out fixed costs has been a horrendously bad idea when there are known unknowns (how hard will it be to manage the geotechnical risk) and unknown unknowns (until we have a hole in the ground, do we ever truly know what is in it?). On top of that, it works a lot better when interest rates and inflation were in the basement. The risk premium required does accurately cost the projects for government, but it inflates project costs so much it would be better to not do it and just hold a risk premium over an entire project portfolio.
LostinSpace
New Member
Would the Green Line be better off by still building the events centre station then have it go up on surface/elevated on 4th and end at 7th Ave as a temporary downtown solution. (Most likely 2 decades)?
Still dig the tunnel for events centre and build that station underground while the arena is under construction. (Airport Tunnel Logic)
Estimated Savings is $1.5 - 1.8 billion. Honestly could be more the beltline and DT Tunnel section is probably the main culprit for the budget inflation.
Use the remaining money to get the train to Seton and get to the real ridership areas.
Still dig the tunnel for events centre and build that station underground while the arena is under construction. (Airport Tunnel Logic)
Estimated Savings is $1.5 - 1.8 billion. Honestly could be more the beltline and DT Tunnel section is probably the main culprit for the budget inflation.
Use the remaining money to get the train to Seton and get to the real ridership areas.
LostinSpace
New Member
But Being the Devil’s Advocate.
Scenario 2 - Scrap the Green Line. Most of the money sunk was for utility, land acquisitions and design which can be used in the future.
Does Calgary benefit more from building the following below instead of the Green Line to get more ridership.
1. Blue Line Extension to 128th Ave.(1 billion)
2. Blue Line Extension to Airport , Airport Hotel & Casino Area or regional rail hub. (600-800 million)
3. Blue Line Extension to 85th St (125 million)
4 Red Line South LRT Extension to 210th Ave with new LRT Maintenance Facility. (1 billion)
5. 8th Avenue Subway. Allows the City to get their feet wet with a tunnel to get better cost estimates and a tunnel that will get far more use than the current Green Line. Also with the aforementioned extensions 7th Ave will be over capacity.
Other ideas.
MRU Extension (Chinook to Westbrook) which would create the first leg of an orbital line.
Removal of at grade crossing for Red Line to increase speed , safety and allow more ATC in the future. (Heritage Ave, James McKevitt, etc).
Retrofitting stations with proof of fare.
By having more smaller projects shovel ready the better ability we will be able to raise provincial and federal funds.
It also lowers costs by having less project risks.
Scenario 2 - Scrap the Green Line. Most of the money sunk was for utility, land acquisitions and design which can be used in the future.
Does Calgary benefit more from building the following below instead of the Green Line to get more ridership.
1. Blue Line Extension to 128th Ave.(1 billion)
2. Blue Line Extension to Airport , Airport Hotel & Casino Area or regional rail hub. (600-800 million)
3. Blue Line Extension to 85th St (125 million)
4 Red Line South LRT Extension to 210th Ave with new LRT Maintenance Facility. (1 billion)
5. 8th Avenue Subway. Allows the City to get their feet wet with a tunnel to get better cost estimates and a tunnel that will get far more use than the current Green Line. Also with the aforementioned extensions 7th Ave will be over capacity.
Other ideas.
MRU Extension (Chinook to Westbrook) which would create the first leg of an orbital line.
Removal of at grade crossing for Red Line to increase speed , safety and allow more ATC in the future. (Heritage Ave, James McKevitt, etc).
Retrofitting stations with proof of fare.
By having more smaller projects shovel ready the better ability we will be able to raise provincial and federal funds.
It also lowers costs by having less project risks.
DougB
Active Member
Probably
Nawads
New Member
At the end of the day, the Green Line will be needed one day if the city keeps growing and costs are not going to get any better. Does it make sense to cancel it now, and then in ten years spend 10 billion, or spend 6 billion now and have it ready for the new growth rather than building retroactively?
I think its way smarter to get ahead and start building now. Especially when we've already spent a billion dollars on the project. I don't see how cancelling and losing that investment is a smart idea.
I think its way smarter to get ahead and start building now. Especially when we've already spent a billion dollars on the project. I don't see how cancelling and losing that investment is a smart idea.
Golfing guy
Active Member
To me if the UCP cut funding for the green line it would be suicidal for them. Calgary is the reason they hold power. You start meddling in every commitment you’ve made down here it could swing the election in those 6+ needed ridings.
darwink
Senior Member
The problem is that then necessitates the red line tunnel/capacity improvements decades earlier, which is likely in the $2-3 billion range now, as you identify.
There is no world where the red line tunnel does not suffer from the same contractibility problem as the green line tunnel.
An underground station is not necessary there, unless one wants to pass the red line underground.
Elevated in the belt line would save a lot of money.
This would be a huge waste of money.
Heritage has been identified as the capacity point - the intersection fails pretty soon after you implement either 5 car trains or shorter headways. I'd say there are only minimal benefits for ATC on the existing system, since a big benefit is being able to build smaller stations and use lighter rolling stock. With the Green Line, when cost drivers became apparent, should have seriously examined a fully grade separated system to shrink station box volumes.
Pretty much. The trains are already ordered, (though perhaps with a development cost plus cancellation clause) we're path dependent on this one with lots of money spent. The development phase (design, optimization, and negotiation) would have to go entirely bonkers to pull the plug. When the RFP was successful enough to select a development partner, it is now mostly set.
I know it might not feel that way with how the contract is set up, as contracting with uncertainty isn't what most people are used to.
What was in the March Green Line Board progress report:
...
| While the design is being advanced, all options are being considered as risk allocations, price, and project schedule are negotiated with the Development Partners. |
MichaelS
Senior Member
I don't think they will cut funding, but they have clearly stated they won't shovel more money into this. Would that be perceived as negative? Who knows, but just cutting a bigger and bigger check for what is shaping up to be a white elephant (to some) may not be as unpopular as you hint at.
DougB
Active Member
The $1B is an irrelevant sunk cost. The challenge with the Green Line is that its ridership projections aren't that great relative to the cost. Would other LRT investment deliver better cost-benefit? The current Green Line plan seems purposely designed to build a white elephant to force future governments to fund extensions. The City mismanaged it from inception by quoting optimistic cost numbers either through incompetence or deception and too long chasing the dream of a bored tunnel. Much of the Green Line right of way is easy: paralleling freight rail tracks, through industrial corridors and through a reserved corridor along 52nd St SE. This should have been a low risk project.
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
accord1999
Active Member
But does the full Green Line, from Panorma Hills to Seton even justify $10B (which is already the likely pricetag) in spending for maybe 100K-140K ridership/day? Or is it even justified to spend over $5B on initial portions of the Green Line that deliberately ignores the area of the most immediate need. The supposed rationale for the Green Line jumping directly to LRT was that future BRT capacity was inadequate on Centre Street N.
I think that this argument about we need to build now because more money will be available in the future was a great mistake starting from 2017 as it never forced the GL team to make hard choices. So they were able to keep the expensive DT tunnel and the giant maintenance and storage yard at Shepard even as further cost overruns and reduced expected ridership eroded their actual benefits.
ahuch
Active Member
I would argue that the SE is one of the most underserved areas of the city for transit so I'm not sure how that's not the most immediate need. Ridership is low in these areas because there's no good alternative to driving today, it's a really difficult thing to quantify and articulate but in the interest of converting drivers to riders and avoiding expensive roadwork improvements, there's a lot of stuff at play here.