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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 25 71.4%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Total voters
    35
Last edited:
Last edited:
I've been to Japan too, this will suck for our current built environment in that area. We don't have the population density and existing amenities to flourish with that hanging around. Investment will go to other areas of Beltline and the CBD.
 
Random question: who "owns" a +15? The answer seems to be the City of Calgary (here is the policy document) , but I'm sure some of you folks have interesting insights into how this could all play out. My sense from a very quick skim of this document is that the city should have authority to do whatever it wants, but I'm sure it's not quite so simple
 
Biggest problem with all of this is that the City of Calgary is still on the hook for all cost over-runs and the UCP just handed them a map with a new alignment drawn on it and the most basic of costings included. Councillors have a fiduciary responsibility to both the corporation and taxpayers so what decision should they make?

Let's say they accept the UCP alignment and over the next year the detailed design and procurement proceeds and we learn that this is going to cost an extra $500 million to deliver. Calgary taxpayers are on the hook for 100% of that cost. So what happens then? The City either digs deep into taxpayers pockets or starts chopping.

On the flip side, if Council rejects the UCP plan, the whole thing falls apart and Calgary loses out on $1.5 billion in federal money. That federal money disappears if the Green Line doesn't get the green light by the end of March 2025. Not really a lot of time for Council to get better costing estimates.

If the UCP really believes in what they're selling, they should put some money where their mouths are and agree to share in the risk and any cost over-runs associated with Council building the UCP alignment. They won't of course, but the UCP putting the bare minimum into design and costing for their recommended alignment as well as their refusal to cover over-runs puts Council in an impossible position.... one that makes me feel this project has, at best, a 50/50 chance of seeing the light of day.
 
outoftheice said:
Biggest problem with all of this is that the City of Calgary is still on the hook for all cost over-runs and the UCP just handed them a map with a new alignment drawn on it and the most basic of costings included. Councillors have a fiduciary responsibility to both the corporation and taxpayers so what decision should they make?

Let's say they accept the UCP alignment and over the next year the detailed design and procurement proceeds and we learn that this is going to cost an extra $500 million to deliver. Calgary taxpayers are on the hook for 100% of that cost. So what happens then? The City either digs deep into taxpayers pockets or starts chopping.

On the flip side, if Council rejects the UCP plan, the whole thing falls apart and Calgary loses out on $1.5 billion in federal money. That federal money disappears if the Green Line doesn't get the green light by the end of March 2025. Not really a lot of time for Council to get better costing estimates.

If the UCP really believes in what they're selling, they should put some money where their mouths are and agree to share in the risk and any cost over-runs associated with Council building the UCP alignment. They won't of course, but the UCP putting the bare minimum into design and costing for their recommended alignment as well as their refusal to cover over-runs puts Council in an impossible position.... one that makes me feel this project has, at best, a 50/50 chance of seeing the light of day.
Click to expand...
Without the underground component near 100% risk transfer is possible to contract with the private sector delivery partner. The contingency can probably be reduced too. Enough to get it to McKenzie Towne? I wouldn’t count it out.
 
outoftheice said:
Biggest problem with all of this is that the City of Calgary is still on the hook for all cost over-runs and the UCP just handed them a map with a new alignment drawn on it and the most basic of costings included. Councillors have a fiduciary responsibility to both the corporation and taxpayers so what decision should they make?

Let's say they accept the UCP alignment and over the next year the detailed design and procurement proceeds and we learn that this is going to cost an extra $500 million to deliver. Calgary taxpayers are on the hook for 100% of that cost. So what happens then? The City either digs deep into taxpayers pockets or starts chopping.

On the flip side, if Council rejects the UCP plan, the whole thing falls apart and Calgary loses out on $1.5 billion in federal money. That federal money disappears if the Green Line doesn't get the green light by the end of March 2025. Not really a lot of time for Council to get better costing estimates.

If the UCP really believes in what they're selling, they should put some money where their mouths are and agree to share in the risk and any cost over-runs associated with Council building the UCP alignment. They won't of course, but the UCP putting the bare minimum into design and costing for their recommended alignment as well as their refusal to cover over-runs puts Council in an impossible position.... one that makes me feel this project has, at best, a 50/50 chance of seeing the light of day.
Click to expand...
100% agree. We are in a position of choosing between two shitty options. Although I feel like this whole process has been a years-long comedy of errors by both the city and province. It's remarkable that the Feds actually come out of this looking comparatively competent for once.
 
Keep in mind we are only talking about a handful of blocks, most of which are lined by oppressive above ground parkades or an enmax substation along 10th Ave, or blank, corporate lobby walls along 2nd Street. It is not like there was going to be some flourishing vibrancy here....

The only areas that could really suffer is bottle screw bills patio and Barberella's patio I think. Hopefully some creative design/lighting of the guideway minimizes the impact, but for the literal billions in cost savings, I think it is an easy trade off
 
I'd rather not see an elevated line in my view whether it's the modern Skytrain or early 20th century elevated track in Chicago or Brooklyn. The impact on having these structures overhead has impacted the evolution of the street below. Underground is a massive capital expenditure that is one time and should be operational in a century or two. For these reasons, the longevity of ugliness from cheapening out is not such an easy trade off. It's different if you don't mind all the Plus 15 connectors in the city.

There's also a matter of maintenance and service. Climate, freezes and thaws will have greater effect on an above ground structure maintenance schedule and the service schedule.

Transit capital projects either have to fight for cent or have become massive real estate schemes. It will continue to fail Canadians as long as we continue that way.
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
I feel ok about this plan.

But an elevated low floor tram through a North American downtown core is going to be one of the funniest things to happen in transit infrastructure history. This thing is going to attract transit nerds from all over the world purely because of how bizarre it is.
Click to expand...
No more bizarre than a completely grade separated low floor system like Ottawa
 
Is the rest of the line still the same? Elevated through Inglewood, some grade-separations over major roads etc.

I don't mind the elevated approach downtown. Obviously elevated is cheaper than tunnels, but I am curious how this all shakes out in actual costs and who exactly will pay for what. I assume the 3 month turnaround to produce this did no detailed engineering or design estimates. Part of the problem of transit projects in Canada is how uncertain and difficult it is to line up all the funding between competing layers of government on agreements on over-runs - partially why we get all this money-wasting churn with back-and-forth on alignments, costs and delivery methods for a decade. Is that all resolved now through this announcement?

Has any actual detail been released on the consultant report, their assumptions, their cost confidence intervals etc. ? From the outside, seems total amateurish politicking to announce this through a Rick Bell opinion article, but I assume the Province's actual work is available somewhere too?
 
maestro said:
I'd rather not see an elevated line in my view whether it's the modern Skytrain or early 20th century elevated track in Chicago or Brooklyn. The impact on having these structures overhead has impacted the evolution of the street below. Underground is a massive capital expenditure that is one time and should be operational in a century or two. For these reasons, the longevity of ugliness from cheapening out is not such an easy trade off. It's different if you don't mind all the Plus 15 connectors in the city.
Click to expand...
Underground would be the preferred choice if cost was no object, but for a city of 1.5 million with 2 existing lines to support, cost is a factor.
We have 2 choices.
1) Go with elevated, which imo is a decent option and get it built.
2) Wait until the election, hope the NDP wins and hope they fund the cost.
If option 2 doesn’t happen, we’re back to option 1, but at an even more inflated cost and another 5 years gone by, plus having to start the funding process all over again.

I like the elevated option enough not to go through the risk of option 2.
 
lemongrab said:
Random question: who "owns" a +15? The answer seems to be the City of Calgary (here is the policy document) , but I'm sure some of you folks have interesting insights into how this could all play out. My sense from a very quick skim of this document is that the city should have authority to do whatever it wants, but I'm sure it's not quite so simple
Click to expand...
my understanding is its a bit of a weird relationship in which the city technically owns/operates them but adjacent buildings are responsible for repairs and security, as well as initial construction. from what i've seen it often comes down to a case-by-case basis though, based on what building went up first and things like that. long story short, its a bit of a mess.

Maybe I missed it, but did the plan outline anything about how stations will work along the 2nd street corridor? If it's running 45' up to avoid impacting the +15's, how do passengers get to the station? Cannibalize some 1st-4th storey office space in adjacent buildings to build elevators/stairwells within? Or build them outside? I know it's not part of the first phase but I'm hoping some preplanning has taken place.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top