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

[DougB]

Some old math did for a client based on 2021 cost estimates including operating costs and projected ridership to see which projects were/are efficient:
View attachment 577332
Projects I recommended beyond the greenline as presented in 2021
View attachment 577331

The message is that all of these are poor investments.

 

[DougB]

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.

Agreed. The transit investments need to be compared to incremental road capacity investments.

The Deep SE is also experiencing enormous growth so congestion is likely to worsen significantly.

 

[accord1999]

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.

The SE has low service/capita and is the rationale for the Green Line to the SE, but is that under-served relative to demand, or are SE residents simply less interested in using transit?

The immediate need argument comes from early Green Line related documents.

The 2016 Green Line Business Case document also expected that ridership will be higher in the North; off-peak frequencies would be twice that of the SE.

Now compare that to the 2020 Business Plan and current LRV order. With only 28 LRVs on order, it looks Green Line SE will just have 8 minute peak headways and peak hour capacity will be less than half of the 2016 plan.

Converting drivers to transit users is always a challenge, and using very expensive rail to try do so often results in disastrous results (as seen in the US). A great quote I saw on another forum regarding LRT is that "LRT is the solution for heavy bus usage, not low bus usage". There's a big spectrum of improvements that can still be done in the SE between what it has now and going directly LRT.

 

[darwink]

There's a big spectrum of improvements that can still be done in the SE between what it has now and going directly LRT.

Further study showed the travel time savings for a SE BRT busway was pretty small for the cost and wouldn't drive ridership, while much larger benefits came from much more rapid access downtown via exclusive ROW, which necessitated expensive grade separation whether LRT or BRT (option not explored).

 

[O-tac]

Agreed. The transit investments need to be compared to incremental road capacity investments.

The Deep SE is also experiencing enormous growth so congestion is likely to worsen significantly.

I live across from the South Health campus. With the ring road and Deerfoot improvements on the way the road network has gotten enough attention. The lrt is the most desperately needed infrastructure for the SE.

 

[LostinSpace]

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.

I would argue the scope of work with the 8th Ave Subway is just underground work vs the whole starter phase of Green Line.

That the overall project risk would be lower with 8th Ave Subway so it would be cheaper per Km than the Green Beltline/DT Tunnel.

Doesn’t include the various station rough in’s that were planned and built on 8th which would further lower costs.

Red Line Tunnel would see 4x more users go through it than the Green Line Tunnel would opening day.

This would only be matched once we drop another $8 billion to extend Green Line fully.

 

[darwink]

That the overall project risk would be lower with 8th Ave Subway so it would be cheaper per Km than the Green Beltline/DT Tunnel.

That misunderstands the nature of the greenline risk, which is concentrated in the tunnel. The red line tunnel is meant to pass through the same geology at 8th and 2nd.

 

[trtcttc]

The SE has low service/capita and is the rationale for the Green Line to the SE, but is that under-served relative to demand, or are SE residents simply less interested in using transit?

The immediate need argument comes from early Green Line related documents.

View attachment 577376

The 2016 Green Line Business Case document also expected that ridership will be higher in the North; off-peak frequencies would be twice that of the SE.

View attachment 577378

Now compare that to the 2020 Business Plan and current LRV order. With only 28 LRVs on order, it looks Green Line SE will just have 8 minute peak headways and peak hour capacity will be less than half of the 2016 plan.

View attachment 577381

Converting drivers to transit users is always a challenge, and using very expensive rail to try do so often results in disastrous results (as seen in the US). A great quote I saw on another forum regarding LRT is that "LRT is the solution for heavy bus usage, not low bus usage". There's a big spectrum of improvements that can still be done in the SE between what it has now and going directly LRT.

The challenge with relying on 2016 analysis is that Calgary was just hit with an oil price crisis. Population growth was fairly muted from 2016-2021, which has skyrocketed in the last few years and the SE area has pretty high suburban density, with stacked townhomes and condos. The deep SE areas are designed with cars in mind (large roads, many stores inaccessible by walking) and it's probably not going to have great all day ridership, but improved transit connections will take cars off the road during rush hour, events, etc. and allow more people affordable access to employment centres.

 

[DougB]

The challenge with relying on 2016 analysis is that Calgary was just hit with an oil price crisis. Population growth was fairly muted from 2016-2021, which has skyrocketed in the last few years and the SE area has pretty high suburban density, with stacked townhomes and condos. The deep SE areas are designed with cars in mind (large roads, many stores inaccessible by walking) and it's probably not going to have great all day ridership, but improved transit connections will take cars off the road during rush hour, events, etc. and allow more people affordable access to employment centres.

Despite the growth, transit congestion still seems less than before the 2015 crash. It felt worst around 2007, just before the GFC and major sections of Stoney opened

 

[darwink]

Deerfoot volumes:

	between Southland and Anderson	between Anderson and 24th St	between McKenzie Lake/Towne Blvd and Stoney
2012	151,000	127,000	84,000
2014	153,000	146,000	91,000
2015	153,000	150,000	94,000
2017	147,000	147,000	86,000
2019	158,000	146,000	93,000
2022	54,000	106,000	80,000

you can really see how Deerfoot dependent the communities are, with far more minimal pandemic related drops.

 

[FCC1982]

I think underground is the only real option for the Green Line downtown. Surface or elevated just aren’t feasible. If it can’t be underground I say don’t do it at all.

 

[trtcttc]

I think underground is the only real option for the Green Line downtown. Surface or elevated just aren’t feasible. If it can’t be underground I say don’t do it at all.

But if they spend so much money doing underground and have nothing left for the Centre N and Seton extensions for 20 years, is it even worth doing the line?

 

[accord1999]

Anyone else worried they never released the June budget update?

I was wondering about that also. There is a Greenline Board meeting on July 4th. Verbal progress reports will be given, then confidential ones as well that will likely contain more details (not that we will know):

Anyone think it is a good sign for the project?...

It sounds like July 30 is the day of reckoning now:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808954191315976680

 

[darwink]

But if they spend so much money doing underground and have nothing left for the Centre N and Seton extensions for 20 years, is it even worth doing the line?

Yes. Because, well, financing doesn't work like that.

I'm sure in 1990 it felt like the sprint to finish lines and expansions for the 88 Olympics left the city in a similar situation, yet Canyon Meadows opened in 2001.

 

[DougB]

Yes. Because, well, financing doesn't work like that.

I'm sure in 1990 it felt like the sprint to finish lines and expansions for the 88 Olympics left the city in a similar situation, yet Canyon Meadows opened in 2001.

Costs have escalated far faster than inflation, so the situation is miuch different.