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

[darwink]

No more dithering. Just build it already. How many tax dollars already wasted from all the grifters on this project with endless studies and committees etc. We're starting to look like California (the ugly part of California).

reminds me of

 

[ahuch]

reminds me of
View attachment 628841

Project history

www.calgary.ca

The Green Line was first envisioned in 1983, two years after Calgary's first LRT line opened.[41] As early as 1986, the communities of McKenzie Towne, New Brighton and Copperfield had set aside land along 52 Street SE for the future line. In 1987, the city then conducted the Southeast Mass Transit Corridor Study and concluded that southeast Calgary would one day require a dedicated light rail line.[42]

 

[darwink]

Project history

www.calgary.ca

It sounds worse than it actually is for not acting, and in this case is proactive planning. in 1995 52nd St still was farm land. By 2001 it was being graded, by 2005 it was a 2 lane road, and 4 lanes by 2009. Until the late 90s or very early 2000s, the Greenline was a spur from the Red Line at Anderson in the city wide plans.

 

[badc0ffee]

Yeah, that's a weird way of describing it. None of those communities actually existed in 1986. McKenzie is more like 1996 and Copperfield more like 2004.

 

[Red Star]

Yes. They said it involved an extra billion dollars, and a 50% chance of an extra billion on top of that, compared to an elevated case.

I have a hard time fathoming 2 billions dollars.

In my opinion, the only section that requires tunneling is from the CP tracks to 4th Ave. That's a 700m tunnel.

 

[darwink]

I have a hard time fathoming 2 billions dollars.

In my opinion, the only section that requires tunneling tunneled is from the CP tracks to 4th Ave. That's a 700m tunnel.

View attachment 628996

The city put underground stations at north of $400 million each, as deferring the beltline station was saving $300 million and moving 4th St SE to ground level was stated as saving $400 million (both no underground station and a somewhat shorter tunnel).

I get why you wouldn't think the number is credible, because it is an INCREDIBLE number. but that is where we are. Even the single station, with a tail track, could alone be $600 million.

The numbers are ridiculous, and if we're being generous to the province, the main reason why they ordered a reset.

 

[Red Star]

There's no reason the LRT line can't run at-grade north of 4th ave with a surface station at Eau Claire and then go elevated and then over the river. The city could even close the entirety of 2nd street (North of 4th Ave.) to cars, including this useless Cul-De-Sac:

Turn it into a plaza or a park or something.

 

[darwink]

The city could even close the entirety of 2nd street north of 4th ave to cars, including this useless Cul-De-Sac:

That blocks the parkade for a condo development, and one office parkade. Not saying that this isn't possible, just there are tradeoffs. And unlike an elevated line, blocking off road access to a parkade is grounds for expropriation.

 

[Red Star]

That blocks the parkade for a condo development, and one office parkade. Not saying that this isn't possible, just there are tradeoffs. And unlike an elevated line, blocking off road access to a parkade is grounds for expropriation.

We can keep one northbound lane open. Or remove parking and have two narrow lanes.

 

[lemongrab]

I've always been fairly neutral on Gondek, but I've been happy to defend her against an absurd campaign of bad faith criticism. But she has finally lost me.

https://livewirecalgary.com/2025/01...carry-the-burden-of-green-line-cost-overruns/

Mayor Gondek said she hopes that Minister Dreeshen understands that possible litigation, due to a train “hammering past their businesses and homes” is definitely a part of the Green Line alignment the province is forcing on the City of Calgary.

Now my legal expertise is limited mostly to bird law, but when you face possible litigation, I'm not sure it's wise to make the plaintiffs case for them...

“(The province) will not take on any more risk, and it must be elevated. So, it is quite interesting that as the partner who is funding almost half of this project, that’s us, the municipality, we have zero say in anything, because, as I’ve said before, our overlords have decided what the design will be, and we must fall in line and do what they wish.”

“That leaves us on the hook. It leaves you and me as Calgarians and taxpayers on the hook for a dream that’s only five per cent thought through,” she said.

“If that budget blows up, because this provincial government is not a good faith partner in sharing the cost of a downtown vision that they’re creating, then, yes, Calgarians, you will be facing increases, probably to your property taxes, because we’re on the hook for a dream that is not ours,” the mayor said.

I'm sorry, but the budget has already blown up ridiculously - most significantly in the scope change last summer - and taxpayers are already on the hook for that. Adding another $700M to the budget was yet another cost overrun. Amputating the line to Lynnwood was another cost overrun of $1B. Hell, one can argue that the $700M worth of VE to the underground beltline stations is akin to a cost overrun (though IMO that was insane value for dubious benefit in each case).

So this just seems like a hell of a time to draw the line on cost overruns...while continuing to advocate for the inherently more expensive option.

 

[MichaelS]

She should also be careful how she frames the comments about impact on property values. How often have you seen residents appear at a public hearing opposing a new development, claiming impacts on property values, only to be dismissed by Council as not being a valid concern? Well, can't have it both ways I think.

 

[Joborule]

Her and the council as a whole I feel have really lost the plot, and my opinion of those who voted against the province alignment because "they're being forced and they can't stand for that" have shown that they can't see the forest for the trees. It comes off as incredibly petty, and they're responding to how this unfolded emotionally rather than rationally. I just can't rationalize why they would prefer a shorter alignment to nowhere, just so they can have a tunnel that isn't absolutely necessary, and likely to be more expensive due to inevitable cost overruns. They would have a case if elevated is not feasible, but that's not so.

 

[CallmeCatbread]

I wish politicians would try to frame the issue differently, acknowledging that this isn’t the optimal outcome and it’s the provinces fault, but now that this is what’s happening we should try to achieve the best possible outcome. Elevated doesn’t HAVE to depress property values and totally destroy downtown. It can be done really well and even potentially boost property values. It’s a design problem at its core and one that is definitely solvable. We just have to work for it.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Her and the council as a whole I feel have really lost the plot

They're way off of it. All of them. The bootlickers who want a pat on the heard from Danielle, the fearmongers who think they just turned Calgary into Gotham. Thankful this is an election year.

the best possible outcome.

We're really lacking leadership, it has shown time and time again. Someone to standup, be a champion of the facts and someone with some optimism. This is an opportunity. They're so naive to think the tunnel was a sure thing, it could've doubled in price easily and the city still would've been on the hook.

It’s a design problem

A design opportunity. I hope the professionals on the City's Green Line team see it as a way to do the best they can. I actually trust the bureaucracy a lot more than the elected officials, in this case the institution isn't the issue. And they actually have the previous, narrow, mandate out of the way.

 

[lemongrab]

They're way off of it. All of them. The bootlickers who want a pat on the heard from Danielle, the fearmongers who think they just turned Calgary into Gotham. Thankful this is an election year.

We're really lacking leadership, it has shown time and time again. Someone to standup, be a champion of the facts and someone with some optimism. This is an opportunity. They're so naive to think the tunnel was a sure thing, it could've doubled in price easily and the city still would've been on the hook.

A design opportunity. I hope the professionals on the City's Green Line team see it as a way to do the best they can. I actually trust the bureaucracy a lot more than the elected officials, in this case the institution isn't the issue. And they actually have the previous, narrow, mandate out of the way.

I gotta disagree with the bolded - admin is the only constant through this whole saga, including several of the most senior folks.

Carra, Demong, and noted rapist Sean Chu are the only councillors who did all three terms (and all three voted in favour of these latest motions) . A bunch of councillors did 2/3, including Pootmans and Chabot who skipped the middle term. Nine of the current councillors are in their first term.

Let's remember what a small sliver of their job the GL actually is. I count 31 items on the agenda for that Jan 28, 2025 council meeting (excluding the regular formalities). All of us here spend more time thinking about this than they do. The GL should probably be the largest single sliver of them all given the expense, but it's still gotta be less than 1% of their time. And even if some of them are transit nerds who like to dig in like we do, the outcome of that is to ask admin questions and maybe offer some informal/generalized guidance, apart from the actual motions (which require majority support).

Woolley made at least one attempt for a major re-evaluation, but he couldn't get support for his motion (which is a failure of council to be sure, but I'd argue that is essentially council putting their faith in administration)...a lot of quotes in there that have aged poorly:

His proposal comes one week after the Green Line team said they arrived at a “key pivot point” and that they were no longer interested in a “really deep” four-kilometre underground tunnel traversing the downtown.

Woolley wants city administration to review the Green Line’s effect on Calgary’s economic recovery, the location of the 4th Street S.E. station, a more cost-effective maintenance facility at Shepard or Aurora, and reducing station costs, among other considerations.

He also wants an independent third party to review and make recommendations, if needed, on the operating costs associated with current and future ridership and the strategy of splitting Stage 1 into two contracts.

However, Woolley’s proposal has been met with criticism.

Coun. Shane Keating said pausing the project will cost the city money and prevent jobless Calgarians from getting to work.

“Being able to move with (the first) contract allows local companies to put together a consortium to bid on the contract . . . it allows them to put their bids in immediately and put people to work in less than a year,” said Keating.

“Now, that makes more sense to me than saying we can’t do a thing until we figure out exactly what is going to happen in the core.”

5.5 years later, it turns out that we can’t in fact do a thing until we figure out exactly what is going to happen in the core.

Similarly, Mayor Naheed Nenshi said while Woolley’s motion is well-intentioned, it is ultimately misguided.

“Pausing for the sake of pausing means inflation, it means the cost goes up and it implies that these very important questions are not already being dealt with,” said Nenshi.

“We’re not spending four and half billion dollars without dealing with these questions, and certainly they are questions that council and administration have been grappling with for a long time.”

Apparently we got up to $6.2B without really dealing with theoe questions...

Interestingly, it actually looks like Woolley never brought forward his [apparently futile], but instead worked with Keating and the rest of the transpo committee to incorporate what he wanted into motions that could actually pass at the July 29, 2019 general meeting of council. A few notable council directions:

2. Direct Administration not to proceed with construction of the Green Line Light
Rail Transit Project – Contract #1 (4th Street SE to Shepard SE) until the
alignment review from 16th Ave North to 4th Street SE has been completed and
any potential changes have been approved by Council

a bunch of other points directing admin to thoroughly review things and try not to suck

7. Direct Administration to work with our funding partners to obtain agreement
that any capital cost savings from the Green Line Stage 1 (16 Ave N to 126 Ave
SE) project will be applied to the required land assembly, corridor preparation,
and design and construction of extensions north and south (outside the Stage 1
project), with sequencing of the extensions to be determined utilizing the
RouteAhead Project Prioritization Framework;

I'd need to dig deeper here, but this indicates to me that council still thought stage 1 could come in under budget. This was all initiated when admin ditched the deep tunnel under river and instead do a bridge across the Bow into another tunnel through the bluff. And it seems they gave council the impression that this could leave them with money left over!

8. Direct Administration to initiate land assembly on an opportunity basis north of
16 Ave North, for Green Line future stages utilizing the Transportation Future
Land Fund or the Revolving Fund for General Land Purchases, as a funding
source; and
9. Direct Administration to develop a scoping study to examine opportunities for
improvements to interim rapid transit services from North Pointe south along the
Centre Street corridor and report back to the SPC on Transportation and Transit
by Q1 2020. The scoping study will identify the next steps required to deliver
functional planning, preliminary and detailed designs;

I believe all of the above passed unanimously, but this one passed 7-6:

3. Direct Administration to conduct a feasibility review of potentially including the
North Pointe to 16th Ave corridor along Centre Street in Stage 1 if the 16th Ave to
4th Street corridor is not resolved by January 2020, to be included only once
confirmed with our funding partners;

So council was at least [barely] willing to dip a toe into the waters of pivoting to the north (which was understandably a long shot for a variety of reasons). Admin (and subsequently the GLB) like to play the 'council would need to direct us to explore other ideas' card, but their hands haven't always been as tied as they claim.

It's administration who spend months dedicated to the project between every report and recommendation to council. Of course there is some back/forth in developing the mandates, but admin is generally steering the ship. Council moves on to other matters, and admin has the opportunity to shape the narrative a few months down the road when they report back.

That's a long meandering post and I'm not exactly sure of my point (I just find it interesting to look back at some of these "key pivot points" now with the benefit of hindsight), but I think it's that even when council exercises prudent governance, they are reliant on admin to follow through.