Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit

[CBBarnett]

Are you sure about these ones? What makes you say the plan we have now is the best long term plan? Or, is it the plan we have now due to path dependency and inertia from a whole bunch of poor decisions made 8-10 years ago?

I mean, we can go back even further too. If the Province had built the South Hospital along the Red Line in Midnapore as originally proposed in the 1990s the Green Line business case would have been forever weakened and likely never emerged as a priority. Plus we'd all have rapid transit directly to a major hospital for the past 15 years. Can always rely on politically connected land owners to successfully lobby in this province.

Going back a step further, the general highway-fueled sprawl of the deep south that makes the Inglewood to Mackenzie Towne stretch of the Greenline mostly just cost and distance with little actual benefit doesn't help either. It's not the major cost driver, but made the BRT option weak and less beneficial - too far, too slow, too few riders generated in the middle stretch of the route.

Not saying these are fair things to line up for or against the project, just the project's business case has always been saddled by structural problems created due to poor planning for the past 50 years, with plenty of blame to go around.

Perhaps transit projects should try to take a page out of arterial and highway projects - always be phased and incremental and make the project a pre-requisite for growth. Incremental and phased approach hides the total cost, pre-requisite to growth aligns the land owners to lobby for funding. The Greenline catchment area has seen $5 - 10B in road and highway infrastructure built in the time someone first drew that SE BRT dotted line on the map. All of that was spent with no concerns raised about the cost, value or impact.

 

[YYCguy]

If the province wants to Metrolinx the rail system I guess why not….

What does this mean?

 

[outoftheice]

Are you sure about these ones? What makes you say the plan we have now is the best long term plan? Or, is it the plan we have now due to path dependency and inertia from a whole bunch of poor decisions made 8-10 years ago?

Personally I think we have a good long term plan. What I like:

- Tunneled in the Beltline
- Beltline alignment pushed south to 11th Ave as opposed to 10th as originally envisioned.
- Shallow tunnel downtown with easily accessible stations from street level as opposed to 10 story deep stations to allow for a tunnel under the Bow River
- Multi-use pathway link on the new bridge north to Crescent Heights
- Crescent Heights stations at 9th St to allow people to access the bluff
- Street running on Centre St as opposed to faux regional rail along Nose Creek.

Those are all personal opinions of course but I would also argue that the plan we have now has gone through years and years of public engagement sessions, committee meetings with public input, Council decisions and has been vetted multiple times by the city, by the province and by the Feds. It may not be the most utopian, perfect plan, but in terms of balancing all the costs, benefits, constraints, and public sentiment, it is the best long term plan.

My biggest concern out of this whole budget shortfall is a bunch of Councillors who have only been following the project for the last 2 years start slapping together a bunch of ideas on the floor of Council that have been considered and rejected years ago and then pat themselves on the back for creating some freak plan that gets things across the finish line and fails Calgarians long term.

 

[outoftheice]

What does this mean?

In Ontario the provincial government took over building and operating of most new rail projects in all cities around Toronto under a provincial agency called Metrolinks (formerly GO Transit). The UCP wants to create a similar agency in Alberta to build and operate the new regional rail routes the UCP are planning. They have also floated the idea that this new agency would build all future LRT projects in Calgary and Edmonton.

 

[O-tac]

In Ontario the provincial government took over building and operating of most new rail projects in all cities around Toronto under a provincial agency called Metrolinks (formerly GO Transit). The UCP wants to create a similar agency in Alberta to build and operate the new regional rail routes the UCP are planning. They have also floated the idea that this new agency would build all future LRT projects in Calgary and Edmonton.

So they can just build the cheapest, at grade option that fails Calgarians and Edmontonians, if they build anything at all. Fuck the UCP. I hate how they’ve politicized this project from the get go and how they’ve dragged their heels and delayed the project and are now complaining about the cost increase due to inflation. Garbage government led by garbage politicians. Isn’t Dreeshan the same loser who was booted from Kenney’s cabinet for being an alcoholic workplace harrasser? Then there’s Danielle Smith who has constantly attacked the Greenline and instead pushed for the airport extension.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Are you sure about these ones? What makes you say the plan we have now is the best long term plan? Or, is it the plan we have now due to path dependency and inertia from a whole bunch of poor decisions made 8-10 years ago?

A lot of the poor decisions of the past are either things that were built (ring road) or not done (delays leading to inflation) -- in which case it's just present reality, like it or not.

Many of the others are unquestioned assumptions (we should use a design-build megacontract; car traffic cannot be disrupted no matter the cost; it's important to do a lot of detailed engagement with local stakeholders) that are so fundamentally baked in that it's hard to imagine any process changing them, whether or not they would improve the outcome.

 

[lemongrab]

Going back a step further, the general highway-fueled sprawl of the deep south that makes the Inglewood to Mackenzie Towne stretch of the Greenline mostly just cost and distance with little actual benefit doesn't help either. It's not the major cost driver, but made the BRT option weak and less beneficial - too far, too slow, too few riders generated in the middle stretch of the route.

I don't understand how this is a BRT weakness? Hell, a bus wouldn't even have to stop if nobody wants to get on or off...is it really any slower (with a proper full ROW that could eventually be rail)?

We're only building downtown and that middle stretch. The active mode options to get to the initial terminus from the main populations down there are pretty awful, but hopefully they can be improved.

A lot of the poor decisions of the past are either things that were built (ring road) or not done (delays leading to inflation) -- in which case it's just present reality, like it or not.

Many of the others are unquestioned assumptions (we should use a design-build megacontract; car traffic cannot be disrupted no matter the cost; it's important to do a lot of detailed engagement with local stakeholders) that are so fundamentally baked in that it's hard to imagine any process changing them, whether or not they would improve the outcome.

I dunno, the biggest decision was whether to go north or go SE (and which mode for each)

1. NLRT would take a long time to build and be massive improvement once done + SEBRT would build pretty fast and be kinda okay.

vs.

2. N no substantial improvements + SELRT will take a long time to build and be kinda okay.

I just can't look at it and not think it's absurd.

 

[FCC1982]

A lot of the poor decisions of the past are either things that were built (ring road) or not done (delays leading to inflation) -- in which case it's just present reality, like it or not.

Many of the others are unquestioned assumptions (we should use a design-build megacontract; car traffic cannot be disrupted no matter the cost; it's important to do a lot of detailed engagement with local stakeholders) that are so fundamentally baked in that it's hard to imagine any process changing them, whether or not they would improve the outcome.

How is the ring road a bad decision ?

 

[ByeByeBaby]

How is the ring road a bad decision ?

It depends on the perspective.

From the perspective of providing high quality access for drivers to access suburban destinations, it's a great piece of infrastructure.
From the perspective of a city that had adopted goals of reduced suburban sprawl, reduced auto dominance, increased transit usage, reduced GHG emissions and so on -- which were the City of Calgary's stated policy goals at the time of construction -- it makes no sense whatsoever to spend billions on infrastructure that runs counter to every single major goal.
From the perspective of creating transit ridership in the SE and the potential success and value of the Green Line there, building very large, very fast roads connecting the SE with everywhere is incredibly counterproductive.

 

[FCC1982]

^The RR was built by the Province, not the City so I guess they have their own goals of providing efficient transport across the Province.

 

[artvandelay]

It depends on the perspective.

From the perspective of providing high quality access for drivers to access suburban destinations, it's a great piece of infrastructure.
From the perspective of a city that had adopted goals of reduced suburban sprawl, reduced auto dominance, increased transit usage, reduced GHG emissions and so on -- which were the City of Calgary's stated policy goals at the time of construction -- it makes no sense whatsoever to spend billions on infrastructure that runs counter to every single major goal.
From the perspective of creating transit ridership in the SE and the potential success and value of the Green Line there, building very large, very fast roads connecting the SE with everywhere is incredibly counterproductive.

The ring road is an excellent infrastructure investment as is the Green Line.

It's not just about providing access for drivers (which is nice), it's about having a functional transportation network for goods and services to move throughout the region.

 

[artvandelay]

So they can just build the cheapest, at grade option that fails Calgarians and Edmontonians, if they build anything at all. Fuck the UCP. I hate how they’ve politicized this project from the get go and how they’ve dragged their heels and delayed the project and are now complaining about the cost increase due to inflation. Garbage government led by garbage politicians. Isn’t Dreeshan the same loser who was booted from Kenney’s cabinet for being an alcoholic workplace harrasser? Then there’s Danielle Smith who has constantly attacked the Greenline and instead pushed for the airport extension.

Wasn't this announced in 2015 or something? This thing should have been under construction by the time the UCP took over government - with costs locked in prior to COVID / inflation etc. I think your anger is mis-directed as this failure in project management is almost entirely on the City.

 

[Sambo]

So they can just build the cheapest, at grade option that fails Calgarians and Edmontonians, if they build anything at all. Fuck the UCP. I hate how they’ve politicized this project from the get go and how they’ve dragged their heels and delayed the project and are now complaining about the cost increase due to inflation. Garbage government led by garbage politicians. Isn’t Dreeshan the same loser who was booted from Kenney’s cabinet for being an alcoholic workplace harrasser? Then there’s Danielle Smith who has constantly attacked the Greenline and instead pushed for the airport extension.

Your weekly or is it daily anti Conservative rant? Isn’t there a political forum on this website for you?

 

[lemongrab]

It depends on the perspective.

From the perspective of providing high quality access for drivers to access suburban destinations, it's a great piece of infrastructure.
From the perspective of a city that had adopted goals of reduced suburban sprawl, reduced auto dominance, increased transit usage, reduced GHG emissions and so on -- which were the City of Calgary's stated policy goals at the time of construction -- it makes no sense whatsoever to spend billions on infrastructure that runs counter to every single major goal.
From the perspective of creating transit ridership in the SE and the potential success and value of the Green Line there, building very large, very fast roads connecting the SE with everywhere is incredibly counterproductive.

I don't think the RR is necessarily antithetical to reducing auto dominance...it could/should be a justification for a whole bunch of road diets. We'll never be able to flip a switch overnight; I don't know what proportion of RR is induced demand, but I'd venture that the majority is simply reallocating vehicles that would otherwise be on other roads.

Of course we don't follow through very well on the road-diets and transit prioritization, but it would be even harder without the freeway alternatives. We should really be examining redundant arterials like Sarcee (south) and John Laurie to see if they could be better utilized for other modes, though the bigger yields can likely be found on main streets.

I'd say the worse thing by far is Deerfoot upgrades. Years of expensive disruption. I'm not convinced that the end "benefits" ever even offset those disruptions, but of course it doesn't happen in a vaccuum. I'd probably be tarred and feathered for suggesting this, but I think you'd solve a bunch of problems with a heavily enforced 80 or 90 kph limit.

 

[DougB]

It depends on the perspective.

From the perspective of providing high quality access for drivers to access suburban destinations, it's a great piece of infrastructure.
From the perspective of a city that had adopted goals of reduced suburban sprawl, reduced auto dominance, increased transit usage, reduced GHG emissions and so on -- which were the City of Calgary's stated policy goals at the time of construction -- it makes no sense whatsoever to spend billions on infrastructure that runs counter to every single major goal.
From the perspective of creating transit ridership in the SE and the potential success and value of the Green Line there, building very large, very fast roads connecting the SE with everywhere is incredibly counterproductive.

The Ring Road likley delivers a far higher GDP boost than would the entire Green Line from Seton to Stoney North.