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

[lemongrab]

From the article, is there any further information on the source of this table, and details about each of the criteria and how it is scored?
View attachment 595905

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any breakdown, and the 4 page Council report linked in the article didn't seem to expand on it either. Perhaps if I went to City archives and looked for the attachments. But, if I am reading it right, I see that actual deliverablity of the project (I assume that means ability to actually construct it) seems to be given the same weight as "Prosperous Economy" and "Community Well being", whatever that means. So based on this chart, even though the Centre Street options all scored a 3 for deliverability (which again, I am not sure exactly what it means, and am surprised to see at-grade score the same as underground), compared to the better scored 4 for Nose Creek, Centre Street is given scores of between 4 and 5 for Community Well Being, against the 1 of Nose Creek.

Are we sure this decision to say that Nose Creek is inferior is based on the most sound, objective analysis?

It's curious how at-grade (and elevated for that matter) is better for 'community well-being' while underground is better for urban development.

But apparently at-grade will cost the same for any of the options.

Somehow at-grade scores equal or higher for 'transportation'. Accessibility must be doing a lot of work within that.

 

[Tarsus]

I'm not slamming TOD, i think it's a great idea. But I think we forget what a true TOD is...and the primary element of that is land/parking lots. Centre St is a VERY tight corridor, which is already lined with 3-4-5 story residential/commercial. So you arent going to see a large meaningful influx that "changes" the degree to which the transit itself is encouraging development, or increasing ridership. I think tunneling is the only LRT option that would physically work in that space, and I see that being a highly, highly unlikely endeavour due to cost. Would a BRT enhancement work? possibly

The fact that Centre street already has those apartment buildings and dense areas is the reason we need to build there. It’s where the people are.
The common TOD of high rises built on empty lots won’t happen on Centre, but we’ll get a higher number of smaller multi-family developments within walking distance of the stations.
There’s potential for just as many new units built within walking distance of the stations as there would be for the Nose Creek run. These new units would be in addition to existing units and would be much better integrated into the urban fabric.

 

[accord1999]

From the article, is there any further information on the source of this table, and details about each of the criteria and how it is scored?

The source for that table comes from this 100 page report on the North Central LRT corridor from December 2014:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10325

As part of the Transportation and Transit committee meeting which focused heavily on the North Central LRT and Green Line in general:

SPC on Transportation and Transit - December 17, 2014

pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com

Unfortunately that report is missing very useful appendices. I managed to download them from the Calgary Transit website long ago but after a reorganization of their site, I haven't been able to find them anywhere on the Internet. If you're interested, I can zip them and put them a site for you to download.

In Appendix D, it provides a table with the actual dollar figures for the different alignment options. The estimated cost for the at-grade options are so low that the differences are almost irrelevant.

 

[Tothewest]

Centre doesn’t have to be a pipe dream. We’re a big city now, so time to put the big boy pants on, and just do it.
Building it through Nose Creek is 1980’s type thinking where the cheapest way was the best way.

"just do it", lol. Wild the hills people will die on...$700M for the event center BAAAAD (which actually has set annual payments to cover it all)...$4B+, probably, for a 4km subway up center street BIG CITY DECISONS LETS GOOOO.

literally, where is this money coming from

 

[ByeByeBaby]

A good transit project is not good at any cost, and at some point, the costs are too high to justify.

Part of the problem is a bad procurement strategy, lack of civil service capacity, as well as high risk and inflation from (almost entirely conservative) political actors. Some of these could in theory be fixed sooner than others, but that's a discussion for another time.

The other part of the problem is the assumption that road space is sacrosanct in the centre city. That's the fundamental assumption that leads to lengthy tunnelling in uncertain conditions, which then leads (via the procurement strategy) to preposterous cost blowouts because the private sector is being used to price in risk. And that's why there are these arguments over a wildly expensive tunnel, or an expensive and low-quality elevated stub.

But we have plenty of road space in the downtown! Traffic volumes are down from 15 years ago; there's more road space than ever! There is no need to spend a billion dollars tunnelling in the east Beltline to avoid an at-grade crossing of Macleod to maintain road capacity. Macleod has been down one lane (and frequently two lanes) for the past few years due to the Vic Park LRT reconstruction, and the world hasn't ended.

The approach I would take if I didn't think the tunnel could be constructed for a reasonable cost is straight forward - the north line comes down the Centre Street Bridge, turns on 3rd Ave with a stop in Chinatown, then goes down 1st St W to 7th Ave. The southeast leg comes down 11th Ave (or one direction on 11th, one on 12th), then goes under the CPR using the existing structure at 1st St W. All of these roads lose two lanes of car space and gain a two-way LRT track, which results in a rough 5x increase in person moving capacity.

If we don't want to cross the LRT at grade right now because of operational reasons, then the two legs can just end either side of 7th Ave, and the few people making the southeast-to-north central trip have a short walk to transfer, but everybody who is going to the downtown has a train to the centre, and everybody connecting to the blue or red lines has the same short walk to transfer they would normally -- in fact, shorter in many cases since they don't have to go up three floors or down two. When the 8th Ave subway is built and the red line moves off of 7th Ave, we can reconsider connecting the Green Line, since 7th will have a lot fewer constraints.

This is the actual, obvious, cost-controlled way to build the centre segment. It removes the risk of tunnels and the risk of elevated construction (ask Edmonton about that). The simplicity also means it can be built faster, which is also cheaper.

I get why the build-it-best crowd is behind a tunnel. But the build-it-cheap crowd should be 100% behind at-grade construction. If they are not, that to me suggests that they are not actually the build-it-cheap crowd.

 

[MichaelS]

The source for that table comes from this 100 page report on the North Central LRT corridor from December 2014:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=10325

As part of the Transportation and Transit committee meeting which focused heavily on the North Central LRT and Green Line in general:

SPC on Transportation and Transit - December 17, 2014

pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com

Unfortunately that report is missing very useful appendices. I managed to download them from the Calgary Transit website long ago but after a reorganization of their site, I haven't been able to find them anywhere on the Internet. If you're interested, I can zip them and put them a site for you to download.

In Appendix D, it provides a table with the actual dollar figures for the different alignment options. The estimated cost for the at-grade options are so low that the differences are almost irrelevant.

View attachment 595906

Thanks for bringing the actual receipts on all of this (as you always do). No need to deliver it to me (it is nothing more than a passing curiosity, and I, like everyone who is spending probably too much time on this thread, have zero influence on what will actually happen with this project). I just wanted to highlight how when bold claims of "this was analyzed and it was definitively chosen as the superior route!!", they may not have the most solid foundation to stand on.

 

[MichaelS]

"just do it", lol. Wild the hills people will die on...$700M for the event center BAAAAD (which actually has set annual payments to cover it all)...$4B+, probably, for a 4km subway up center street BIG CITY DECISONS LETS GOOOO.

literally, where is this money coming from

One thing I have been finding amusing in this thread is the exact opposite side of that argument. People who are rightfully critical of the Greenline plans for proper cost/benefit analysis can also be vehemently pro arena, because "big city!! Rah rah rah.."

 

[Surrealplaces]

I want to add my two cents to conversation regarding TODs, and why I prefer Centre Street, at least from a TOD perspective

The fact that Centre street already has those apartment buildings and dense areas is the reason we need to build there. It’s where the people are.
The common TOD of high rises built on empty lots won’t happen on Centre, but we’ll get a higher number of smaller multi-family developments within walking distance of the stations.
There’s potential for just as many new units built within walking distance of the stations as there would be for the Nose Creek run. These new units would be in addition to existing units and would be much better integrated into the urban fabric.

It's hard to visualize that there would be an opportunity for just as many new TOD units along Centre Street, but it could very well be the case. With the recent zoning changes across the city, neighborhoods along Centre street up to 40th ave are on grid layouts and there is an endless amount of opportunity to build multi-family developments within 4 blocks (or roughly 600 meters) of the stations. This isn't your classic TOD of developing a lot with 4 or 5 highrises, but a collection of smaller development could render the same result.

From the Center Street line you could have corridor developments like Trail 19 (78 units), or Trail 31 (below) ,a seemingly small development, but has 50 units. There are also be developments like this (16 units) which are already sprouting up everywhere and are within walking distance of the stations. My own opinion is we don't need big developments to leverage the system and increase ridership. Residents who will live in one of these new units already have lots of amenities, there is plenty of existing retail, plenty of parks and plenty of schools, and because these units are continually getting built the number of riders is going to keep increasing.

Once you get past 40th ave the grid layouts start to disappear, but still decent potential for multi family development within 600-800 meters. The big advantage Centre Street has for TOD is having grid layouts and a corridor to the east and a corridor to the west that is only 4 blocks away. The TOD development doesn't have to be right on Centre Street.

 

[Tothewest]

One thing I have been finding amusing in this thread is the exact opposite side of that argument. People who are rightfully critical of the Greenline plans for proper cost/benefit analysis can also be vehemently pro arena, because "big city!! Rah rah rah.."

God love message boards lol. We atleast have the money for arts common, event centre, bmo…but not the fieldhouse at $200M…..yet, lets find billions for the NC Line

 

[Joborule]

I want to add my two cents to conversation regarding TODs, and why I prefer Centre Street, at least from a TOD perspective

It's hard to visualize that there would be an opportunity for just as many new TOD units along Centre Street, but it could very well be the case. With the recent zoning changes across the city, neighborhoods along Centre street up to 40th ave are on grid layouts and there is an endless amount of opportunity to build multi-family developments within 4 blocks (or roughly 600 meters) of the stations. This isn't your classic TOD of developing a lot with 4 or 5 highrises, but a collection of smaller development could render the same result.

From the Center Street line you could have corridor developments like Trail 19 (78 units), or Trail 31 (below) ,a seemingly small development, but has 50 units. There are also be developments like this (16 units) which are already sprouting up everywhere and are within walking distance of the stations. My own opinion is we don't need big developments to leverage the system and increase ridership. Residents who will live in one of these new units already have lots of amenities, there is plenty of existing retail, plenty of parks and plenty of schools, and because these units are continually getting built the number of riders is going to keep increasing.
View attachment 595964

Once you get past 40th ave the grid layouts start to disappear, but still decent potential for multi family development within 600-800 meters. The big advantage Centre Street has for TOD is having grid layouts and a corridor to the east and a corridor to the west that is only 4 blocks away. The TOD development doesn't have to be right on Centre Street.

Thanks for this. That's a large reason of why I would have preference for an at-grade Centre Street route. It may not bring about about a large number of +12 story buildings along the way, but it would make a very strong case for there to be a cluster of 3-8 story residential buildings built on and in-between the blocks of Edmonton Trail to 4 ST NW for most of the area from the river to 40ish Ave. And then north of that the cluster would primarily be on the blocks along Centre Street up to the Beddington area.

My opinion is that Centre Street LRT would be a community building project just as much as a transportation project.

 

[Unknown User]

"just do it", lol. Wild the hills people will die on...$700M for the event center BAAAAD (which actually has set annual payments to cover it all)...$4B+, probably, for a 4km subway up center street BIG CITY DECISONS LETS GOOOO.

literally, where is this money coming from

How much will a ticket cost for a Flames game at the new event center? How much will a ticket to ride the Greenline cost? The issue with the funding the event center vs the Greenline is who benefits.

 

[CBBarnett]

If we want to avoid continue slipping towards an future of congestion, long trips and car-only lifestyles for the majority in a city of 2.5 or 3 million, we really should have all these options - regional rail and an LRT/metro system. After all, we have Stoney, Crowchild, Deerfoot, Glenmore, Anderson, Blackfoot and a hundred other freeways and arterials in every corner of the city - we need transit on the similar scale and tiers to accommodate the future size of the city.

To @ByeByeBaby point above, transit systems should be as about maximizing convenience, speed, system capacity and trip-time improvements in a way that is as cost-effective as possible. The cheapest way to do this isn't about choosing between tunnels or bridges, it's about giving transit alignments actual and absolute priority. You can build cheaper, amazing and fast transit at-grade - but you have to give up both space and priority to vehicles for an entire corridor and it's crossings, no exceptions.

Of course, drivers won't be happy. But driver happiness is secondary to transit needs in this scenario so they can stay unhappy, while the the transit system and overall mobility system's capacity is prioritized.

7th Avenue is actually a pretty good example of this - in order for it to work at the capacity it does, it has required complete signal priority not just on the corridor, but also on a systematic restructuring of all downtown traffic flows to prioritize the train so it can get in an out as easily as they do despite being mostly at-grade. 7th Ave isn't perfect and there's some upper capacity and speed limits to the concept that we have discussed, but it's a powerhouse of pro-transit design on the cheap that worked reasonably effectively for 40+ years.

Does that mean that all transit should be at-grade? Probably not, but lots more of it could be if it was truly prioritized. For example, the current capacity and efficiency of Centre Street bus corridors is limited mostly not by the corridor, but by downtown failing to provide bus priority like it did for the LRT on 7th Avenue. Even without a train we should convert 2 lanes on Centre Street to permanent bus-only lanes from 40th Avenue to the core, convert every downtown one-way to have 2 lanes of bus-only lanes to allow for no car-congestion based delays in the core, and give total signal priority to buses. Do all that (plus some transit-specific stuff to consolidate and reduce the number of stops) and you've vastly improved transit quality and speed with no new systems, bridges or trains.

But none of this is possible if you don't truly prioritize transit. The result is grade-separation becomes attractive because it's now the only solution that solves driver concerns and improves transit - but at far greater cost, therefore far less likely to happen. Meanwhile Route 3, 301 and a dozen other buses have been stuck for decades trying to circulate around the core with combined 100+ busses an hour during rush hour in mixed traffic.

 

[Unknown User]

One thing I have been finding amusing in this thread is the exact opposite side of that argument. People who are rightfully critical of the Greenline plans for proper cost/benefit analysis can also be vehemently pro arena, because "big city!! Rah rah rah.."

Except that when provided with the analysis that was completed you don't like the outcome. I'd argue you want to overweight deliverability, considering financial capacity is also already included. The work was done, it just doesn't fit with your perceived best outcome. Take out community well being, prosperous economy, urban development and environment if you want, Nose Creek still doesn't come out on top.

 

[Tothewest]

How much will a ticket cost for a Flames game at the new event center? How much will a ticket to ride the Greenline cost? The issue with the funding the event center vs the Greenline is who benefits.

Literally 2 completely different types of community amenities, both of which you need as a city. We're not turning this thread into an arena debate, but i'll maintain my point that some seem 100% ok spending literally any amount of money on a transit project, whatever it takes, even though there's 0 direct repayment of that capital investment....but freak out on an entertainment venue where the civic dollars are paid back on a legal schedule. Cities need transit, cities need entertainment venues...why shouldn't both have some financial due diligence

 

[lemongrab]

A good transit project is not good at any cost, and at some point, the costs are too high to justify.

Part of the problem is a bad procurement strategy, lack of civil service capacity, as well as high risk and inflation from (almost entirely conservative) political actors. Some of these could in theory be fixed sooner than others, but that's a discussion for another time.

The other part of the problem is the assumption that road space is sacrosanct in the centre city. That's the fundamental assumption that leads to lengthy tunnelling in uncertain conditions, which then leads (via the procurement strategy) to preposterous cost blowouts because the private sector is being used to price in risk. And that's why there are these arguments over a wildly expensive tunnel, or an expensive and low-quality elevated stub.

But we have plenty of road space in the downtown! Traffic volumes are down from 15 years ago; there's more road space than ever! There is no need to spend a billion dollars tunnelling in the east Beltline to avoid an at-grade crossing of Macleod to maintain road capacity. Macleod has been down one lane (and frequently two lanes) for the past few years due to the Vic Park LRT reconstruction, and the world hasn't ended.

Spot on. And Macleods shouldn't really be that much different than present timing - a 1-way vs 1-way should be pretty easy. It's intersections with tons of motions that get thrown off by train signals. And even if it ends up being a problem, there are roads-based solutions (and roads budgets!) that can mitigate it - like extending the CPKC underpasses south another 1.5 blocks...though given the chokepoints of 9th and 7th to the north that might only make sense on 1st St SE.

Except that when provided with the analysis that was completed you don't like the outcome. I'd argue you want to overweight deliverability, considering financial capacity is also already included. The work was done, it just doesn't fit with your perceived best outcome. Take out community well being, prosperous economy, urban development and environment if you want, Nose Creek still doesn't come out on top.

I'm not sure if Michael was talking about only this one particular decision; though I think it's fair to question the $355M vs $415M figures for Nose Creek vs the road based alignments - obviously the figures are way out of whack now, but would Centre St really be only 17% more expensive than Nose Creek? Before even considering the unprecedented inflation issues I think it's fair to say that most of the costing assumptions in a lot of these decisions have been highly flawed.

But I suspect he was talking more broadly about the GL as a whole. There have been a lot of 51/49 decisions along the way which were justified at the time based on X, Y, and Z. But years later X turned out to be false, Y 50% off, and only Z is still true. But these decisions have remained considered sacrosanct, and adjustments have had to come within their parameters. The most important decisions weren't studied to death, but rather figuring out how to implement them is where the analysis paralysis has come in.