Roaring Flames
Senior Member
In parts of the world transit is run as a service instead of as a business. Here because it's a business if something (example: CRU's on platforms) doesn't make money it doesn't stick around
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
In parts of the world, transit is run as a business rather than a service. Here, because it's a service, there's no incentive to develop and intensify the land use and therefore potential customer base at station areas, since the land value goes to the private sector.
Washrooms and businesses seem like they are two sides of the same coin since they're both amenities to transit users, but they work very differently. The decision to provide washrooms (or other public amenities like bike parking, heated seating, etc.) is based on political will; partially this is the will to spend on transit stations. But partially we have a mentality of hostile architecture, making transit stations less desirable to spend time in because we don't want "undesirables" spending time there; addressing this is much tougher -- it requires working on the root causes of addiction, homelessness, etc. and also a commitment to making better places, which requires working with all levels of government.
Businesses on the other hand require customers to survive. I suppose we could pay Starbucks to sell coffee; they'd be happy to take our money, but that's not really a good use of money (especially compared to the above). I don't know what your favourite transit systems (and hubs) are; I've been to some pretty nice ones myself, but I've mostly seen three typologies of retail in transit:
1). Commuter / inter-city rail hubs. (e.g. GCT (NY), Victoria/Waterloo/King's Cross (London); Atocha (Madrid); Sants (Barcelona); a lot of Union Stations and Hbfs.). These can support businesses because not only is there a ton of traffic, but it's users of less frequent, and longer trains. If you have 45 minutes to transfer trains and then your next train is two hours to another city, going to a restaurant or buying a book makes more sense than if your next train is in 7 minutes and you'll be on it for 18 minutes.
2). Shops in transit concourses. (e.g Tsim Sha Tsui HK; People's Square Shanghai). True shops that are in station concourses and corridors. These work because of the very high volume of foot traffic; the HK transit organization has done a ton of work in using their stop locations to build densely (and dense by world standards), and there's enough foot traffic here that even if one in a thousand people stop, that could still be hundreds of customers a day. This is a very different proposition from what we have here where if one in a thousand people stop you'd be lucky to have twenty customers.
Our typical design of surrounding a station first with stairs and passageways and then with parking means that there's also no population in the immediate station area to shop there. If there was a Starbucks in the Bridgeland LRT station, and you lived at the SE corner of McDougall Road and 9 St, you wouldn't need to cross the street to get to the Starbucks in the station -- but it would be closer to go to the one on 1st Ave because of the lengthy ramp and street crossing. At Brentwood, the closest apartment building to the station is a 320m walk from the actual station head, once you go up the ramp and across Crowchild.
3). Transit / shopping interfaces. (e.g. Powell St / Westfield San Francisco; VCC and Granville / Pacific Centre Vancouver; Metrotown Burnaby; Dundas / Eaton Centre Toronto; 3rd St SW / The Core Calgary; Carlos Gardel / Abasto de Buenos Aires). Here there's a mall in a central location and the transit connects to the mall. The transit system helps the mall, but the mall would probably exist without the transit stop. Note that Calgary has this with the Core. Here, the solution isn't to build businesses in the station, it's to incentivize better connections to the malls. Unfortunately, Chinook and Anderson are both on the wrong side of Macleod to connect (although the Chinook connection has improved). Sunridge could have done better; they expanded in the 2000s but in a direction away from the station; ideally, they could have done the opposite and you could walk from the station head straight across a ped bridge into the mall.
If you have some other examples I'm unaware of, I'd love to hear them!
FCC1982
Active Member
I’m worried the Green Line could become a huge waste of money.
YYCguy
Active Member
The Red and Blue lines are successful in part because the routes have destinations to which people want to travel, whether it be work, home, or entertainment. The Green Line’s first phase may seem like a waste of money, because frankly I don’t think Shepard is a hugely popular destination. But once it gets to Seton and the Hospital, and then up Centre Street, then it will start to look and feel like a route that is worthwhile. These things take time, and because there is no Olympics or other major event planned to hurry along the construction, it will sadly be at least a decade before we see the true potential for the Green Line.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The term "worthwhile" is a bit troubling to me, as it doesn't seem to consider the cost side of the equation. Hyperbole, I know, but what if it cost $100 billion to achieve those extensions? Would it still be "worthwhile"? I know it won't be that much, so how about $50 billion? Probably still too exagerated.... $20 billion? I'd say might be on the high end, but now it is starting to enter the realm of possibility..... Still worthwhile? Think of what we could build as a city with $20 billion. Is the Greenline better than all of those other options?
For something that started out (with a class 5 estimate to be fair) at a cost of $4.5 billion for the segment you are talking about, and now sits at about $6 billion for a much smaller portion, "worthwhile" seems like less and less of an achievement. I just hope it is close to $6 billion, but we won't know until the RFP closes and the envelopes get opened, probably at least another year I bet.
maestro
Senior Member
Higher order transit is expensive. On what else would you use the money for?
I don't know how you get to $20 billion if the first phase is $6 billion. To complete the other half of the 45 kilometre line will cost $14 billion?
I don't know how you get to $20 billion if the first phase is $6 billion. To complete the other half of the 45 kilometre line will cost $14 billion?
BKha
Active Member
Here’s a question I’m throwing out there. Would you rather see the money go to the green line or to putting the blue and red lines underground?
I don’t know what the cost is to bury the blue and red lines but I’m guessing it would be less expensive than the green line.
I don’t know what the cost is to bury the blue and red lines but I’m guessing it would be less expensive than the green line.
maestro
Senior Member
We shouldn't need to ask which to prioritize and the reason we do is constituents questioning spending money on a line that may not deliver maximum ridership but does bring high order transit to areas of the city where there aren't any.. Do we think that everyone of the 20 odd spokes from downtown Munich to suburbia was built with maximum ridership in mind? I would guess some were built to provide everyone fast service within 5 kilometres.
I'd probably go with bringing high order transit to areas of the city over burying the downtown section. The downtown loop will have to upgraded at some point regardless of a future shift in attitude away from transit or other transit initiatives needing funding
I'd probably go with bringing high order transit to areas of the city over burying the downtown section. The downtown loop will have to upgraded at some point regardless of a future shift in attitude away from transit or other transit initiatives needing funding
Last edited:
CBBarnett
Senior Member
We should be thinking about transit more like we have previously road expansions. They should just happen with far less fanfare than they do. I get that Greenline is a big ticket item with a decade of public debate and $5B is a lot of money. But over those 10 years we spent over $5B on a variety of ring-road projects, expansions, interchanges all over the place with very minimal fanfare.
Apart from a few vocal critics on sites like this (me for example), all this road work practically "just happens" (relatively speaking) with minimal debate, oversight or hand-wringing compared to new transit - no debates on the ridership or traffic volumes (and only a shrug when they are completely wrong), no debates on the merits or future of car-oriented transportation - all this is just assumed to continue forever.
Traffic volumes collapsed during the pandemic for car traffic too - where's the push to rethink all road projects because we only have downtown peak rush-hour 3 days a week now? Transit is rebounding over a longer timeframe that the road network, yet is back to 80% of ridership to pre-pandemic - and this is more impressive considering how our existing system is sorely lacking the all-day, convenient, high frequency transit service in other cities that is the secret to their stronger rebound.
My point is that transit is assumed too. Major cities require transit; we are transitioning to a major city. No future will have less transit than today. All areas need higher-quality transit via new and better lines. Meanwhile the existing system needs to be invested in an upgraded for quality, capacity, frequency and reliability. It's not an either/or question about different options for Greenline or some other project; it's Greenline, and downtown metro tunnel, and BRT improvements, and frequency increases, and planning future extensions everywhere, all the time.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I don't know where this Green Line to nowhere thing comes from.
Sure, you might not see any need to take it, but I grew up in the deep SE. It took over an hour on the bus to get to a train at Anderson and then Somerset. When you're old enough to be independent but too young to drive, transit was the only option to go see my friends in Acadia, the community I went to school in from Elementary to High School. Fully understanding that's no longer the case as there are now schools in those SE communities. But my point being, a train is an efficient, safe, way for preteens and early-age teenagers, not to mention others who don't have the means or ability to drive to get around.
I've also worked in the SE industrial parks, this train would've gotten me a lot closer, much faster than taking the red line and the bus.
It's also not insignificant to want to take the train to Inglewood from SE or this Eau Claire Market redevelopment (to keep it on topic) and all that community has to offer, or even take the train to Cross Roads Market.
To me the train to nowhere is the Blue Line, I have never in my life taken the Blue Line and I've lived in Calgary since '97. But to others it isn't a train to nowhere, so its about perspective.
Sure, you might not see any need to take it, but I grew up in the deep SE. It took over an hour on the bus to get to a train at Anderson and then Somerset. When you're old enough to be independent but too young to drive, transit was the only option to go see my friends in Acadia, the community I went to school in from Elementary to High School. Fully understanding that's no longer the case as there are now schools in those SE communities. But my point being, a train is an efficient, safe, way for preteens and early-age teenagers, not to mention others who don't have the means or ability to drive to get around.
I've also worked in the SE industrial parks, this train would've gotten me a lot closer, much faster than taking the red line and the bus.
It's also not insignificant to want to take the train to Inglewood from SE or this Eau Claire Market redevelopment (to keep it on topic) and all that community has to offer, or even take the train to Cross Roads Market.
To me the train to nowhere is the Blue Line, I have never in my life taken the Blue Line and I've lived in Calgary since '97. But to others it isn't a train to nowhere, so its about perspective.
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
By the time it’s completed in 2127 it will.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Haha 'completed', so you think in 105 years the battle to stop greenfield development would finally be settled? I agree with that timeline, until then and even after that this city won't be completed. There will always be new line extensions to build, stations to add where there's been density added, and maybe even a new line all together.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The $20 billion was just a pure guess to be honest. But, based on the track record of the project, I would (half jokingly) say it is just as accurate as the "official" estimates have been so far. I would love to be proven wrong, I guess we will have to wait and see the results of the RFP.
In terms of what else to spend the money on, there is an endless list of libraries, rec centres, fire halls, road projects (yes, car oriented, but movements per $ may come in as better value). Or, maybe, and I know this sounds crazy, but we could lower taxes? Keep in mind, we are just talking about the upfront capital costs of the line. Has the official estimate of a $40 million a year operating loss for the train been updated/improved, or is that a future cost we can look forward to with the opening of phase 1 still?
I suppose my point is, transit is good, sure, and vital to a city. But not at any cost.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Maybe I'm biased but I don't think of the Green Line as sunk-cost fallacy. I'm happy they didn't get cold feet and do the easy thing of having another surface train through downtown. The timeline has sucked but I think it will be built to last.
Granted its not the whole story but look at Edmonton and what happened with them rushing the process on their new transit lines. Short term pain, long term gain.
Last edited:
MissingMiddle
Active Member
I'm not entirely sure I understand why the Green Line needs to go all the way to Shepard in it's first iteration. If it were me, I'd say focus on the low hanging fruit first: Centre Street to 26th Ave, build the O&M there, and then incrementally add the extensions as funding comes available. The people who moved 25km+ outside of downtown obviously don't care about rapid public transit, I should know, that's where I grew up.
The idea that whenever we provide a service, that it must reach all corners of the city equally is extremely flawed IMO, and it's holding us back from achieving really great things.
We probably could have the Green Line meaningfully under construction by this point, with the Eau Claire Redevelopment under construction, and have planned a Beltline streetcar circuit with the extra money. But sure, lets focus on providing transit to people who don't want it, and get nothing done as a result...
The idea that whenever we provide a service, that it must reach all corners of the city equally is extremely flawed IMO, and it's holding us back from achieving really great things.
We probably could have the Green Line meaningfully under construction by this point, with the Eau Claire Redevelopment under construction, and have planned a Beltline streetcar circuit with the extra money. But sure, lets focus on providing transit to people who don't want it, and get nothing done as a result...