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

[lemongrab]

What a stupid comparison to make. Public transit is a public service. It’s not intended to be dependent on GDP.

But hey, providing mobility to the workforce clearly provides a financial case as well. Particularly if you want to attract young talent that doesn’t necessarily want a car dependent lifestyle,

I'm pretty darn anti-car, but I can acknowledge that roads are effectively a public service, too.

I'm anti-car and think the Ring Road was a reasonable project. I'm pro-transit, but do not think the Green Line is terribly sensible in its current form.

How much is too much? I would say it becomes too much when the three orders of government no longer have the fiscal capacity to pay for it. The weakest part of that equation is the City of Calgary but that is only because we adopted a 33/33/33 cost sharing model for Green Line. There are other transit projects in Canada that are funded 50/50 between the province and the Feds and both of those entities easily have the fiscal capacity to fund what is on the drawing board for Green Line.

We seem to have this bizarre problem in Calgary where we think we are living in some small 1980s prairie town and expect infrastructure spending to reflect that. In reality, we are on a rapid trajectory to become a city of 2 million people and many other cities of 2 million people are happily spending billions on building out their rail networks. Calgary is one of the few cities that seems to think we should only have to spend a few hundred million on rail because that's what we spent in the 80s and that we can use a high price tag as an excuse not to spend the money because we have hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who will soon be living in the south east and north central corridors can magically find another way to move about a city of 2 million people that doesn’t involve LRT.

I'm good with spending tens of billions...I'd just like it to be for 'homerun' projects. Like North LRT. I'm also good with spending tens or hundreds of millions on 'hopefully pretty good' projects like the 14th St BRT. But SE LRT feels very very far from a homerun to me, though I'd love to be wrong.

 

[darwink]

I'm pretty darn anti-car, but I can acknowledge that roads are effectively a public service, too.

I'm anti-car and think the Ring Road was a reasonable project. I'm pro-transit, but do not think the Green Line is terribly sensible in its current form.




I'm good with spending tens of billions...I'd just like it to be for 'homerun' projects. Like North LRT. I'm also good with spending tens or hundreds of millions on 'hopefully pretty good' projects like the 14th St BRT. But SE LRT feels very very far from a homerun to me, though I'd love to be wrong.

The home run north LRT requires the expensive part of the SE LRT. I think that is what is missed in the discussion. It isn't the SE LRT that is expensive.

 

[lemongrab]

The home run north LRT requires the expensive part of the SE LRT. I think that is what is missed in the discussion. It isn't the SE LRT that is expensive.

Only because they decided on Shephard instead of Aurora (or a few other options). And everything scales to length of line (train cars required and size of maintenance facility). The full scope build out of the North is shorter than this first phase to SE.

 

[darwink]

Only because they decided on Shephard instead of Aurora (or a few other options). And everything scales to length of line (train cars required and size of maintenance facility). The full scope build out of the North is shorter than this first phase to SE.

The North segment doesn't have reliable costing yet, but you can look on DMap and see the potential difficulties south of Beddington Trail. It is pretty rare for Centre Street to have fewer than 2 water pipes. Somewhat typical to have three. Some stretches, 4. When had access to the gas pipeline map, there are obvious challenges there too.

Frankly, the SE LRT went into functional planning more than a decade before the North Central LRT did.

 

[outoftheice]

I think we need to remember the three biggest obstacles to building Green Line in the first place%

1. There is a long distance that needs to be covered to get from downtown to the population in south east Calgary in order to actually reach a population that will generate ridership. Building to anywhere less than Douglasdale is essentially not worth it.

2. There is a large technical complexity to bring a new LRT line into downtown so that stations can be located where people want to go and not just on the periphery of downtown which would fail to generate ridership. This complexity is amplified when wanting to make a continuous connection between a north and south east segment. Building either north or south east segment so that they stop short of downtown to avoid the expense of tunneling is essentially not worth it as that becomes 'a train to nowhere'

3. There is another large technical complexity to get the train up, over the Bow River and on to the bluff so that it can start heading north.

We are used to building our LRT lines incrementally but these 3 complexities always meant that building Green Line in small increments would always be difficult initially. The stage 1 plan we have now was designed to remove all 3 of these complexities in one go which would set Green Line up for future incremental expansions. We now budget is now even more of an issue so it is unlikely we will tackle the Bow Bluff in this stage but the Eau Claire station is still designed to launch the Line over the river, which is a plus.

Somewhere along the way, people started to treat Stage 1 as if it needed to be a complete line in and of itself with no future expansion when in reality the entire point of it was to solve the 3 biggest technical complexities that have been a barrier to Green Line construction for the last 30 years. With these complexities solved, we can get back to more affordable, bite sized expansion of the network. Stage 1 was always going to be the most expensive part of Green Line. Despite the fact that that has been proven accurate in spades, moving forward with Stage 1 still makes a lot of sense.

 

[lemongrab]

I think we need to remember the three biggest obstacles to building Green Line in the first place%

1. There is a long distance that needs to be covered to get from downtown to the population in south east Calgary in order to actually reach a population that will generate ridership. Building to anywhere less than Douglasdale is essentially not worth it.

Yes, this is a very big challenge for the SE. It is not a challenge at all for the North.

2. There is a large technical complexity to bring a new LRT line into downtown so that stations can be located where people want to go and not just on the periphery of downtown which would fail to generate ridership. This complexity is amplified when wanting to make a continuous connection between a north and south east segment. Building either north or south east segment so that they stop short of downtown to avoid the expense of tunneling is essentially not worth it as that becomes 'a train to nowhere'

Again, these are primarily challenges for the SE moreso than the North. If we've accepted that running on the surface down Centre St is fine (I'm ambivalent), then it could simply* run all the way down the bridge to 7 Ave (under 4/5/6 Aves if necessary).

Which means losing the line connection...which is certainly a nice to have, but exactly how valuable is it really? If the North line existed as I describe it, would we be willing to pay to build the new proposed bridge just to achieve line connectivity? Or might we even look at the SE line and question if/how it needed to get to the heart of downtown. It probably should, but it wouldn't necessarily need to cross under 7 ave anymore.

Or hell, is 3 short blocks close enough if we kept it on the south side of the tracks and used it to serve the Beltline? Perhaps even up to MRU? Probably a dumb idea for the Calgary we know...but maybe not that dumb for a 2-2.5M city?

3. There is another large technical complexity to get the train up, over the Bow River and on to the bluff so that it can start heading north.

Only if we insist on connecting the lines. A question which was settled fairly enough back when the napkin estimates weren't known to be absurd.

darwink raises fair points about some of the challenges to the North. I'd argue those pale compared to crossing red line, CP line, Elbow River, Bow River, etc. I'd add that the CP tracks and canal pose an access challenge for a number of stations - some places requiring expensive mitigation, others simply limiting potential ridership.

We are used to building our LRT lines incrementally but these 3 complexities always meant that building Green Line in small increments would always be difficult initially. The stage 1 plan we have now was designed to remove all 3 of these complexities in one go which would set Green Line up for future incremental expansions. We now budget is now even more of an issue so it is unlikely we will tackle the Bow Bluff in this stage but the Eau Claire station is still designed to launch the Line over the river, which is a plus.

Somewhere along the way, people started to treat Stage 1 as if it needed to be a complete line in and of itself with no future expansion when in reality the entire point of it was to solve the 3 biggest technical complexities that have been a barrier to Green Line construction for the last 30 years. With these complexities solved, we can get back to more affordable, bite sized expansion of the network. Stage 1 was always going to be the most expensive part of Green Line. Despite the fact that that has been proven accurate in spades, moving forward with Stage 1 still makes a lot of sense.

It actually just struck me that the complexity they are avoiding by going SE is dealing with existing roads and residents. Centre Street is quite simple...but not necessarily easy or painless, especially with such little pre-planning. The SE just has to deal with the rail companies, but it's mostly out of public view.

 

[O-tac]

We’re talking about a quarter of the city (geography-wise) having no lrt access.

 

[darwink]

darwink raises fair points about some of the challenges to the North. I'd argue those pale compared to crossing red line, CP line, Elbow River, Bow River, etc. I'd add that the CP tracks and canal pose an access challenge for a number of stations - some places requiring expensive mitigation, others simply limiting potential ridership.

The cost, including risk) of working around above ground knowns is far more predictable than working around under ground uncertainties.

Those difficulties you state were worked around in a functional study in 2003. The difficulties in north central remain to be found, and cannot be reliably ameliorated until they're daylighted.

 

[lemongrab]

We’re talking about a quarter of the city (geography-wise) having no lrt access.

The realistic catchment sizes are very similar, despite the SE being much longer. Hell, the north line will have a station about 1.25 kms from Deerfoot City...but apparently that's too far to be part of the catchment. I'm sure there will be plenty of warehouse workers elated to solve the last 4km problem before their 7am shift, though. No wonder the job numbers are so drastically different!

The cost, including risk) of working around above ground knowns is far more predictable than working around under ground uncertainties.

Those difficulties you state were worked around in a functional study in 2003. The difficulties in north central remain to be found, and cannot be reliably ameliorated until they're daylighted.

Totally fair. Running down a street that is actually near people is a completely new concept for LRT in this city, so I can understand how scary it must seem compared to all of the other lines we've built. It's simply bad timing - the sensible north alignment came to light a few years too late and the Harper money fairy came a few years too early.

I am still skeptical of exactly how much longer it would've taken if the focus was to go North instead of our current timeline. Is say 2034 really that crazy at this point compared to 2031?

 

[darwink]

I am still skeptical of exactly how much longer it would've taken if the focus was to go North instead of our current timeline. Is say 2034 really that crazy at this point compared to 2031?

There is no reason to wait on the SE, because by the time the NC is ready there will BE MORE MONEY.

Then, we can spend both monies and get both.

 

[accord1999]

There is no reason to wait on the SE, because by the time the NC is ready there will BE MORE MONEY.

There will be more money, but will there be political will to direct most (and possibly all of it) again back to the Green Line in 2032, 2033 when nearly an entire generation of attention and transit funding (and bad news consuming political capital) has already been spent on it? I'd expect the other areas of the city will be demanding funding for CTrain extensions and BRTs, plus the desire for a train to YYC.

And that assumes the planners will actually do any work on the North alignment and acquire properties this time. The #1 enemy of the NC LRT has always been the Green Line team, who have time and again promised to deliver the functional and detailed design for it and proceed to do nothing, and delaying the plans long enough they no longer even have to provide updates because most people have forgotten about it. The NC alignment was supposed to be maybe 1.5-2.5 years behind the SE in development work, not decades. At this rate, it probably won't be ready in 2032 either.

 

[accord1999]

Somewhere along the way, people started to treat Stage 1 as if it needed to be a complete line in and of itself with no future expansion when in reality the entire point of it was to solve the 3 biggest technical complexities that have been a barrier to Green Line construction for the last 30 years. With these complexities solved, we can get back to more affordable, bite sized expansion of the network. Stage 1 was always going to be the most expensive part of Green Line. Despite the fact that that has been proven accurate in spades, moving forward with Stage 1 still makes a lot of sense.

But IMO that blame lies directly on the Green Line and City because of their initial optimistic promises and their poor management of expectations over time. With full funding of $4.6B the Green Line was supposed to be constructed essentially in one stage and even when troubles mounted they were still making optimistic comments about finding cost savings and new funding to build more than the 2017 Stage 1 plan.

The previous lines were constructed more piece-meal, but they also had far less funding. The core of the Red and NE lines were built for around $1B inflation adjusted. Given the Green Line is consistently cited as the single most expensive public project in Calgary's history, it's hard for Calgarians to wrap their head around how there is so much money being spent for only half of a line, there's nothing to compare it to. And if the river crossing is cut, bite sized expansions are no longer enough to get the Green Line back to even just the minimal "core" (Beddington-Shepard) that was supposedly needed for a successful Green Line.

 

[lemongrab]

There is no reason to wait on the SE, because by the time the NC is ready there will BE MORE MONEY.

Then, we can spend both monies and get both.

Hopefully this works. But as others have mentioned there is still plenty of risk here. At this point it's kinda hard to imagine extra funding coming towards this perceived white elephant before it is up and running. And even then, will it be there if its anything short of a smashing success? If the consensus among NextDoor and Facebook groups of politically engaged boomers (Gen X by the time it opens!) becomes 'most of the trains are empty', will the political will be there?

Ooph...what does that do to the timeline for making this thing really useful? It's unprecedented for Calgary to have a project go this over schedule and presumably over budget...do you have examples from elsewhere in the world where a controversial project has gotten additional funding before it proved itself?

We can all acknowledge that the SE is served poorly by transit...but lots of people still choose to live there! It seems likely that they may be more difficult to convert than the average Calgarian. I'd venture there is probably a lower proportion of downtown workers living there, too. This latest batch of Deerfoot "upgrades" should be done by the end of 2025...which probably won't be a sustainable improvement, but who knows? The best thing they could do is to schedule a full repaving of Deerfoot South for the months after the GL opens.

There are reasonable explanations for how and why we got here, but that doesn't mean it can't be a boondoggle.

 

[darwink]

At this point it's kinda hard to imagine extra funding coming towards this perceived white elephant before it is up and running.

That is up to us really. Money will flow. Do we build political will by successfully getting into implementation or do we destroy what is left by pulling a plug.

If we hear the project is massively over budget at the end of the month there are relatively easy solutions. How much needs to be done changes on how much money needs to be trimmed. Changing the stations in the Beltline and possibly downtown will be the name of the game. Whether this would become a design sprint after the meeting, or it will be presented as a fait accompli for council to approve, I am not sure

 

[darwink]

The core of the Red and NE lines were built for around $1B inflation adjusted

IIRC the West LRT was close to $1.5 billion when all the ink dried, without accounting for LRVs, incremental maintenance capacity, and the like. A cool $195 million per km.

Run that through the construction cost index from 2009 to today, and you have $258 million per km.

It doesn't really make sense that parts of the city were confident for the Green Line that they could deliver 44 km for around $100 million a km a decade later.

And yet here it is, in a report from 2015: