Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[joe498]

Council approves $4.65 billion first phase of Green Line, debt servicing could reach $56 million annually

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...llion-annually

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

After a healthy debate, Green Line phase 1 (16th Ave to Shepard) passed by a 12-3 vote. Magliocca, Sutherland and Chabot opposed. Also one interesting tidbit was that Administration is looking at structuring the procurement contract to allow for project expansion during construction if savings or more money is found over the next ten years. One shocking figure was that the current cost estimate for 16th Ave to 96th Ave extension is just over $1.9 BILLION but apparently a lot of that cost has to do with budgeting for land acquisition.

What was clear from the discussion was the lobbying to get so much of the central section underground is what harpooned getting a longer track in phase I. Basically, all those "small things" added up in cost to only allow an amputated network.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by joe498

Council approves $4.65 billion first phase of Green Line, debt servicing could reach $56 million annually

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...llion-annually

So if the 4.56 billion price tag doesn't include the debt service, which the article says is going to be almost 1.7 billion, wouldn't it be more accurate to say this is a 6.35 billion dollar project?

[ggopher]

The group LRTontheGreen did an excellent job passing on a few of the tidbits discussed at council:
-$400 Million could be saved by removing the tunnel downtown
-$400 Million estimate to extend from Shepard to McKenzie towne.
-Aurora was a possible location for the maintenance facility, but administration didn't want to give up valuable TOD land
-$1.97 Billion estimate to extend from 16th Ave to 96th Ave NE

Another interesting note. The 2nd Ave station is included. I haven't seen any debate on including that at council.

It is tough to debate all these options without a full cost breakdown of each element and estimate of ridership.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Putting one line in the tender, allowing someone to propose an entirely different tech would be interesting and give us the answer without adding delay.

I think that's a great idea. I count around 6 additional grade separations in phase 1 that would be required to make a vastly superior technology choice possible. How much savings would we get from not having to pay a team of drivers for 30 years, and all the crashes that go along with that?

Originally Posted by suburbia

What was clear from the discussion was the lobbying to get so much of the central section underground is what harpooned getting a longer track in phase I. Basically, all those "small things" added up in cost to only allow an amputated network.

It's been obvious from the start that a tunnelled downtown section was the only real option, why the city needed a years long process to see this I don't know. If we were to go with the bargain basement option of on-street LRT down Centre Street and through downtown, we might as well not bother and just stick with buses.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

I am predicting the construction timeline will commence as follows:

McKnight Blvd stn. - 2024-2027
McKenzie Towne stn. - 2026-2028
Beddington stn. - 2027-2030
Seton - 2028-2030
Airport link (Green Line to Blue Line) - 2029 - 2033
Keystone stn. - 2032 - 2035

No doubt that the lines will be built similar to how the Red Line and Blue Line were built. I think the timeline looks realistic.

If construction is supposed to start in 2020 with an in service date of 2026, your schedule has them immediately building out before it's even open.

Wishful thinking?

[MasterG]

Why do they need so much land acquisition for the north leg? I get that there is a bit of space needed for prep and construction but the whole idea - north of 20th avenue at least - is a centre running, urban LRT. That shouldn't need 300 land acquisitions.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Why do they need so much land acquisition for the north leg? I get that there is a bit of space needed for prep and construction but the whole idea - north of 20th avenue at least - is a centre running, urban LRT. That shouldn't need 300 land acquisitions.

The land acquisition is not whole parcels of land, but could be as little a one or two meters of frontage to provide for utilities or other LRT requirements. That is why the city needs more time to flesh out the design of the north leg. They need to know How much of the parcel is required.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I think that's a great idea. I count around 6 additional grade separations in phase 1 that would be required to make a vastly superior technology choice possible. How much savings would we get from not having to pay a team of drivers for 30 years, and all the crashes that go along with that?

Well, the private operator would realize those savings. That would be one of the reasons to propose such a system. Also, allowing similar persons per direction per hour while having smaller stations, which would mean less stairs, smaller elevators, less escalators, smaller evac routes in the tunnels.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I think that's a great idea. I count around 6 additional grade separations in phase 1 that would be required to make a vastly superior technology choice possible. How much savings would we get from not having to pay a team of drivers for 30 years, and all the crashes that go along with that?



It's been obvious from the start that a tunnelled downtown section was the only real option, why the city needed a years long process to see this I don't know. If we were to go with the bargain basement option of on-street LRT down Centre Street and through downtown, we might as well not bother and just stick with buses.

6 additional grade separations in phase one, but it would double the price for the North leg, because you would have to elevate or tunnel everything.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

6 additional grade separations in phase one, but it would double the price for the North leg, because you would have to elevate or tunnel everything.

The on street section on the narrow section of Centre between 16th and 64th needs to be scrapped regardless, it will ruin the whole line if built as planned and we will regret it. The rest shouldn't be too bad to grade separate.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The on street section on the narrow section of Centre between 16th and 64th needs to be scrapped regardless, it will ruin the whole line if built as planned and we will regret it. The rest shouldn't be too bad to grade separate.

Can make that decision later.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Can make that decision later.

Along with the phase 1 rail transit, we also could build BRT down Centre and in the south for a fraction of the cost of building LRT in those sections, and much sooner.

[craner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The on street section on the narrow section of Centre between 16th and 64th needs to be scrapped regardless, it will ruin the whole line if built as planned and we will regret it. The rest shouldn't be too bad to grade separate.

Preach it brother!
Couldn't agree with you more here.

[speedog]

C'mon people, we need another 36th Street NE in the city but with more crossings.

On another note, if there are additional public monies to be spent - would we rather see them spent on a new arena or a better and/or expanded green line?

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The on street section on the narrow section of Centre between 16th and 64th needs to be scrapped regardless, it will ruin the whole line if built as planned and we will regret it. The rest shouldn't be too bad to grade separate.

I would rather have that extra money spent on burying the Red Line under Stephen Avenue instead. I think the 7th Avenue corridor will still be a bigger problem than the Centre Street section will ever be. At least that area has alternative routes like 4th Street and Edmonton Trail. It is not going to cause as colossal of a traffic nightmare as some here would imagine.

[MalcolmTucker]

The traffic on that section is already manageable with two lanes. Good ol traffic counts. Where it crosses high traffic roads I'd add the next one or two down in priority crossings.

[technomad]

It may be managable, but imo taking away surface lanes for LRT shoots density potential in the foot. only having 2 lanes removes any fault tolerance as well, a single vehicle incident can now disable the whole link, rather than just slowing it down.

phase 1 isn't what I'd hoped for.. but about what I expected. Lack of property acquisition in NC and Aurora making for better TOD space than Shepard sold me on SE first.

I'm still a bit surprised at the cost though.. 4.6 bil for 20 km is more in line with fully tunneled systems at 200+ mil/km, same with the 2 bil estimate for the 9 km from 16 av to 96 av. why so expensive here? especially with the SE, where there's plenty of well protected surface ROW

[MalcolmTucker]

Remember that as time goes on inflation eats at value, so comparing to projects of the mid 2000s like the Canada Line has to account for that. Also, there is at minimum a large foreign currency exposure that has to be taken into account. When all your vehicles and signals cost 40% more out of the gate it is going to suck.

When you look at the map, a good portion of the line is tunnelled or elevated. This isn't passing through easygoing territory. Not only that, but equally and perhaps even more so the proliferation of underground stations from 1 to 5.


Compared to the West LRT line costs are totally in line-and that didn't even have to internalize a maintenance facility.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by technomad

I'm still a bit surprised at the cost though.. 4.6 bil for 20 km is more in line with fully tunneled systems at 200+ mil/km, same with the 2 bil estimate for the 9 km from 16 av to 96 av. why so expensive here? especially with the SE, where there's plenty of well protected surface ROW

It could be that this total cost isn't just ROW construction - it also factors in cost of building the maintenance facility and 70 LRVs (which is roughly $420 mil on it's own). That wouldn't really explain the cost for the north portion, but may be a factor in the cost of the phase 1 build.