O-tac
Senior Member
Years ago I recall seeing a map at some showhomes in Quarry Park that listed the landfill as a "Future Park Space".
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
outoftheice
Active Member
'We're making great progress': Councillors receive Green Line update as southeast construction ramps up
Construction of the southeast segment of the Green Line is moving "full steam ahead," according to an update on the $6.2B transit project.
calgarysun.com
lemongrab
Active Member
Have the original $1.54B allocations been sitting in investment accounts for the last 10 years? I would think the prov/feds haven't handed the money over yet, but it's good to see that the contributions seem to have at least scaled with inflation
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Green Line southeast is full speed ahead; downtown portion is still in flux - LiveWire Calgary
Work on Calgary’s southeast leg of the Green Line is still on track, with companies already short-listed for main construction work, which is set to begin in 2026. The new Calgary city council got its first quarterly update on the $6.25 billion transit project during the Dec. 9, 2025, Executive...
livewirecalgary.com
Sarah Huber, director of project development, said that they’re currently advancing the Aecom elevated LRT concept to the 10 to 15 percent design stage. It was originally proposed as a more cost-effective option, though at only a five per cent design stage.
I thought it would be beyond a 10 to 15 percent design by the end of '26.
“For the technical criteria, our focus is on constructability, the identification, validation and mitigation of risk potential, plus-15 integration, urban integration beneath the guideway and ensuring reliable LRT operations.”
Looks like we might be getting some things we've hoped for with an elevated line.
Huber told council that two white papers are underway; one is on the alignment constraints and fundamentals, the other on lessons learned from other elevated systems.
Wonder if we'll get these white papers before the 10 to 15 percent plan by the end of '26?
“In all of our pre-engagement conversations, the initial sentiment was doubt that an elevated alignment could work in our downtown,” she said.
“However, as those conversations unfolded, we felt that the interest holders shared ideas for potential ways to address their concerns on an elevated alignment, and that was where we began to see things open up, if I may, and that started to foster a sense of cautious optimism that a made-in-Calgary solution might be possible.”
I assume if what's presented at the end of next year shows some cost savings compared to underground, and some of the things like +15 integration and urban integration are achieved, it will be an easy vote of approval.
In another Herald article, maybe the Sun one above...
Asked by Ward 4 Coun. DJ Kelly if an elevated alignment through the downtown is "locked in," Huber replied that the city is using the province's elevated concept as a "baseline" as it undergoes design work and consultation.
I read that as there will be some things that will be different. I wonder what?!
And also from the Herald/Sun...
Although the southeast segment is under construction, Huber noted design work between the stations in Ramsay and Scotia Place has been paused because that stretch is dependent on the downtown segment and the provincial government's own passenger rail strategy, as that will affect how the Green Line crosses the Elbow River.
I was wondering if they were bothering to do anything west of Ramsay, not the case, guess that can be done when everything else is figured out.
kora
Active Member
Has anyone looked at an elevated line without any ground level columns? Could it be supported horizontally by attaching it to buildings and Plus 15s rather than having intrusive columns on the sidewalk?
MichaelS
Senior Member
I can't imagine that any building was designed to have the live load of a train cantilivered off the side of it.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
If we were doing a Brasilia city build, then this could work. In this circumstance, we're going to need to work with and around columns. That isn't the end of the world either. The sidewalk for the route through downtown isn't exactly like running the line right over Stephen Ave. Even at the Stephen Ave crossing you could do a Fremont style LED board under that elevated section and do some place making. That is also where the line (if it is going up 2nd Street?) is closest to the most active part of downtown so I hope they think big about what they can for place making.
lemongrab
Active Member
My sense has always been that 10% would be what's presented for engagement in early 2026?Green Line southeast is full speed ahead; downtown portion is still in flux - LiveWire Calgary
Work on Calgary’s southeast leg of the Green Line is still on track, with companies already short-listed for main construction work, which is set to begin in 2026. The new Calgary city council got its first quarterly update on the $6.25 billion transit project during the Dec. 9, 2025, Executive...
Sarah Huber, director of project development, said that they’re currently advancing the Aecom elevated LRT concept to the 10 to 15 percent design stage. It was originally proposed as a more cost-effective option, though at only a five per cent design stage.
I thought it would be beyond a 10 to 15 percent design by the end of '26.
The big question is when/where/how costing comes into play...green line team already has direction to jump straight into engagement, but I would think they would present 10% to council first including cost estimates, which would give council the opportunity to provide new direction before jumping into engagement. I feel like admin may not be super motivated to highlight major savings from going elevated or fully 'validate' the province's estimates; if they bring a report showing only modest savings then the fun will all being again.
I think Kelly is asking if they still have offramps to explore options other than elevated (or maybe he just means which streets to use). I think Huber is saying it is their general plan, but changes are possible; I don't think she's indicating that they will be proposing significant changes, though...
Tormick
Active Member
... we should have a counter of how much money has been wasted on this line...
jhappy77
Active Member
Excellent proposal. Let's spin up a new organization to look into this, we will begin preparations in 2027. Before we publish our report, we will send it to the province for review, and if their opinion clashes with ours we will spend another 3 years to adjucate the differences. Expect to hear back in 6 years!
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
You're probably right, any changes would likely be insignificant but I'm just a guy on a forum that is glad to see they don't feel like they have to force a square peg into a round hole.
darwink
Senior Member
That isn’t how it was set up. To do that the city would have had to have the cash or taken on debt to create an account to draw down. The city years ago added extra to their contribution to account for financing costs.
The contribution was a tax allocation into a sinking fund, where expenses come out as they’re incurred and revenue is added.
Federal funds are reimbursement only post activity which helps the feds recognize the cost in the correct time period under accrual accounting. Provincial it really depends on the project agreement but for a project this large it would be a mix of advances based on projections and reimbursement based on expenses, sometimes you’d be ahead of your point in time budget sometime you’d be behind.
darwink
Senior Member
If the city wants to pay more it can pay more for an underground project. It will run into the same problem beyond the estimate: a tunnel is risky and a tunnel only project means the risk will appear to be extra expensive (since it can’t be spread among the entire project in a consortium as the price of getting the ‘easier’ work). The city does not have the appetite for a $1 billion project with a 75% chance of a $2 billion project and a 20% chance of a $3 billion project. Which would be a $1.95 billion fixed cost by a very simple risk model.
darwink
Senior Member
If they do without highlighting a show stopping fact on elevated, it would be readily dismissed.
lemongrab
Active Member
I'm just wondering where the extra $110M and $160M compared to the 2015 pledge have come from?
IIRC the federal funding is essentially conditional on provincial approval, so at this point wouldn't that mean taking on 100% of the costs?
Dismissed by whom? Councillors? I presume the costing will go through the city-prov joint committee before coming to a public session of council, so if the UCP is a) competent and b) wants the project to proceed more than they want it to be a lightning rod for the city, then they could tell the UCP shills on council exactly where/how to push back. But Farkas and McLean are the only ones with the project experience that would help them make a coherent argument; I'd add Chabot to that, but he seemed pretty strongly against the province's interference on this near the end of the last term. I believe the rest of council campaigned with more of an anti-elevated position and have probably spent less time thinking about this than any of us. So I'm not sure there's a straight line to "readily dismissed" (but perhaps I'm misinterpreting?).
If I'm confident about anything on the green line its that things will not go smoothly and reason is less than likely to prevail. I expect admin to thread a needle of promoting the project's viability while downplaying the "savings" (which isn't hard as the thing is still bloody expensive). But of course we're not going to see full financial details...the headlines will be statements from councillors which typically include some degree of spin.
I really don't know what to expect anymore. But I think conflict and messiness are more likely than smooth sailing...