Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

My take is that the expert was telling them that they do have to plan ahead on certain things like plazas and even Phase 2 depending on the construction techniques employed. Druh and Gondek seem to think that all of this stuff can be done in isolation which is not true. One doesn't need to be an expert to know that. I wish they would also go back and rethink using cars that are incompatible with what they have now. This project was never sold to us as a glorified streetcar system.

No, re isolation. One wants to expand the scope. Farrel wants the missing connections (Layer 2) included as well as TOD facilitation (Layer 3) and timelines or metrics (i.e. a line of sight like x new residents/jobs/FAR) for new construction of multi-service buildings (Layer 4 City Shaping). Multi-service buildings are rec centres, libraries, etc. that are planned to be integrated into station such as the 64 Ave N one. All this was taken out by the last council. The new council is more libertarian than the last one and more likely to lower taxes instead of planning for the future. I mean tomorrow, is tomorrow, right?

Gondek's first point before the tone comment was the best one. She has a background in real estate and urban planning. She gets it. In many ways this meeting looked like a waste of the Green Line project team's time. What decisions were made? Zero. What deadlines for decisions were communicated? Zero. This project is in construction mode. This entire meeting (the presentation) could have been a blog post on www.calgarycitynews.com The tone and cost thing are all about phase 2, she and the project lead were talking past each other and not to each other. They need to set up venue for stage 2/phase 2 discussion that's not Green Line Stage 1 construction.

The meeting chair was too permissive in letting talk wander to phase 2 politicing. The GM Transpo is also responsible for this by not giving ongoing updates and giving council an opportunity for political wish lists. It's not a firewall/running interference, it's designating someone as a councillor gopher for engagement. Use the councillors (and CA's) to keep the engaged people happy. Council in construction mode should operate like a corporate board giving approvals and advice as a resource to operations/city administration (hard because what are the councillor qualifications/skills/training/experience, but "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"). Keep all the phase 2 stuff in another meeting or at least another agenda item.

Other councillors aren't helping either. Won't rant.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

This project was never sold to us as a glorified streetcar system.

? That was, and is exactly what it is being sold as, they're promoting the negatives of LRT (bus shelter style stations) as positives. But the reality of this now is that the line is as expensive as a true rapid transit line, and has become so expensive it can't be extended north. Yet north is where the line should be going, the SE could have made do with BRT fine and indeed that would have been better as now many in the SE will get nothing.

I think you are underestimating the cost of tunneling further north, as council has likely underestimated how much it will cost on surface. As has been said, the TBM doesn't matter much and there was never anything to say they weren't going to use one. If they do find a few spare billion to extend this all the way 64th, then great, but then I'd continue to ask why we are using streetcar trains on an 8km subway?

The councillors can whine all they want, but the line can only go SE due to the decisions that (some of them) made. They should have realised this sooner and changed course. But I can see how they got here, each incremental change was minor so it was easy to go along with.

[ClaytonA]

LRTotG could also be advocating to councillors for One Calgary this November to fund phase 2/RouteAhead 60+% design and land acquisition ideally all four years, but at least in the last two years.

[ClaytonA]

You are right milo.

And this project is what it is. We can't let the perfect is the enemy of good.
Second guessing (I'm guilty here) and discord hurts us all. We're not getting $4.5 billion worth of BRT and probably wouldn't have gotten federal Conservatives to do that 2015 photo op for BRT, so it's probably not even a politically fair comparison.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

You are right milo.

And this project is what it is. We can't let the perfect is the enemy of good.
Second guessing (I'm guilty here) and discord hurts us all. We're not getting $4.5 billion worth of BRT and probably wouldn't have gotten federal Conservatives to do that 2015 photo op for BRT, so it's probably not even a politically fair comparison.

That's true, but it doesn't justify wasting money. As I said, I can see how we got here, and I was happy back then that the Green Line got approved. But now with sober second thought, I think we may have a white elephant. Perhaps the SETWAY and NCLRT should never have been combined? If we had a good idea of the cost of the more important north line on it's own, maybe better decisions could have been made? They evidently still don't know how expensive that north line will be, and I suspect we have used up all the budget on this line for the next few decades, so the north will get nothing.

I'm definitely not an accountant though, and I look forward to this Q1 2019 Route Ahead update.

[ClaytonA]

Q1 2019 RouteAhead is going to be fascinating.

I'm thinking of this as essentially a N-S LRT line with a tunnel from 16 Ave to the Elbow River. That will benefit NCLRT. Big steps in the right direction. SE LRT was planned to be the next LRT during West LRT planning/construction. Advocacy for NCLRT and all that work gets the north that tunnel up to 16 Ave which wasn't even on the radar. That is huge. Definitely a lot more than nothing.

As long as operating costs don't lead to impeding expansion or lead to even more transit service cut backs creating a downward service spiral, Calgary's good. As much as I like the idea of tunneling, escalators and elevators for underground stations add significant operating costs too. Then there's also the fact as Mtrucker said, I don't think the north centre is willing to pay the density price for underground either. Could be wrong, but we haven't seen Ward 9 level TOD planning for 40, 28, and 16 Ave's yet.

[milomilo]

Tunneling of course will be too expensive. But what of the surface option? I know I'm beating a dead horse here, so apologies. But we have not yet seen how the city plans on building the surface line from 16th to 64th. It would be fine if there was a widish boulevard to run down, but there isn't and I am incredibly skeptical there is room to fit an LRT in there even if you take away a lane of traffic. While it might be enough room just to squeeze the tracks in, the city will surely want to rebuild and upgrade the urban experience on the street too (wider sidewalks), and that's before you factor in stations and turning lanes.

The city mentioned something like 300+ full or partial expropriations. From what it looks like to me, you're going to have go well into the front yards of many houses as well as some full tear downs, all to end up with what is still a poor end product. Will that be cheaper than tunneling? And even if it is, will the savings be worth it? I am very doubtful.

Which is why I predict we won't be seeing a northern extension for many, many years. But this is something I'll happily be proved wrong on and eat my words.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Tunneling of course will be too expensive. But what of the surface option? I know I'm beating a dead horse here, so apologies. But we have not yet seen how the city plans on building the surface line from 16th to 64th. It would be fine if there was a widish boulevard to run down, but there isn't and I am incredibly skeptical there is room to fit an LRT in there even if you take away a lane of traffic. While it might be enough room just to squeeze the tracks in, the city will surely want to rebuild and upgrade the urban experience on the street too (wider sidewalks), and that's before you factor in stations and turning lanes.

The city mentioned something like 300+ full or partial expropriations. From what it looks like to me, you're going to have go well into the front yards of many houses as well as some full tear downs, all to end up with what is still a poor end product. Will that be cheaper than tunneling? And even if it is, will the savings be worth it? I am very doubtful.

Which is why I predict we won't be seeing a northern extension for many, many years. But this is something I'll happily be proved wrong on and eat my words.

If the committee would have let the expert expand on his points the case for tunneling would have been hard to ignore. He said it would be the cheapest tunnel and there wouldn't be any expropriation. There would be way more benefits to having this underground than at street level. If waiting means doing this right that's what they should be doing. It sucks that Druh's version of right is not what 90%+ of citizens want. We need a plebiscite on this to show her that the current plan has no support outside of SIGs.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

? That was, and is exactly what it is being sold as, they're promoting the negatives of LRT (bus shelter style stations) as positives. But the reality of this now is that the line is as expensive as a true rapid transit line, and has become so expensive it can't be extended north. Yet north is where the line should be going, the SE could have made do with BRT fine and indeed that would have been better as now many in the SE will get nothing.

I think you are underestimating the cost of tunneling further north, as council has likely underestimated how much it will cost on surface. As has been said, the TBM doesn't matter much and there was never anything to say they weren't going to use one. If they do find a few spare billion to extend this all the way 64th, then great, but then I'd continue to ask why we are using streetcar trains on an 8km subway?

The councillors can whine all they want, but the line can only go SE due to the decisions that (some of them) made. They should have realised this sooner and changed course. But I can see how they got here, each incremental change was minor so it was easy to go along with.

Only transit geeks have seen the info on the website. What the general public is being told is that this is a major LRT line that is costing a huge amount of money. They are expecting the line to be the same if not better than the existing lines not a throwback to the 1890s.

I don't think anyone including Chahal is advocating for the north part of the line to built now. The focus is avoiding a major planning and transportation disaster.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If the committee would have let the expert expand on his points the case for tunneling would have been hard to ignore. He said it would be the cheapest tunnel and there wouldn't be any expropriation. There would be way more benefits to having this underground than at street level. If waiting means doing this right that's what they should be doing. It sucks that Druh's version of right is not what 90%+ of citizens want. We need a plebiscite on this to show her that the current plan has no support outside of SIGs.

He only said it would be (something like) the cheapest tunnel you could get, an offhand comment that shouldn't be taken with too much weight. What that likely means is the cheapest way of getting a tunnel under Centre St at that moment in time is to continue using the TBM. It doesn't necessarily mean it will be a cheap tunnel either absolutely or relative to other projects - from my completely rudimentary knowledge of tunnel boring though, I don't think boring through loose rubble under a river is the easiest.

That's not to say I wouldn't support keeping the tunnel going, but I have no illusions of it being cheap, and therefore I don't disagree that waiting to do it right might have been a better strategy, with hindsight. However.. the best route forward now I would reluctantly say is to build it anyway, but I really wish they'd look at the technology form again. We are wasting good infrastructure on a tram line.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't think anyone including Chahal is advocating for the north part of the line to built now. The focus is avoiding a major planning and transportation disaster.

What planning and transportation disaster? While I have criticisms, I in no way think the Green Line is a disaster in those ways, although, perhaps it might be a financial mistake.

[ClaytonA]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Oh, also per the March reports, didn't the federal and provincial money come with the string attached that 5,000 new residents within 400m and 13,000 within 1000m by 2026 when the Green Line opens were required?

City pushing back the TOD planning to Q2 2020, now four years delay is making that harder and harder. Hopefully this doesn't hold up the recipient agreement as that can't be looked on favourably by Edmonton and Ottawa.

Anyone know/have experience with what Envision is? Looks like the infrastructure version of LEED. Another funding requirement.

From this which is publicly available; https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/pro...-ab-eng.html#3

Pretty much no requirements except meeting building efficiency standards and a GHG audit (i.e. have a GHG reduction number). Nothing on TOD or Envision there.

What are the building efficiency standards? Implied is that it has to meet the Building Smart policy? Depending on timing, this may or may not need to meet the "more stringent model codes for building" that are supposed to get us to Net Zero Ready by 2022. Ambiguity. Wonder how much Net Zero ready OMF and stations would cost over a lifecycle?

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/effic...uildings/20535

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What planning and transportation disaster? While I have criticisms, I in no way think the Green Line is a disaster in those ways, although, perhaps it might be a financial mistake.

You think taking a lane or two away to run this down the middle of the road isn't going to snarl traffic? I also fail to see how this is going to improve anyone's experience. Also, I see this hurting businesses in the area more than helping. How many people jump on the train to go shopping? Probably very little. This is a great case of ideology trumping common sense and if they go ahead with the current plan it will be a huge financial mistake.

[milomilo]

Oh yeah, I think if they build on surface on Centre Street it will be disaster, sure. Not just for car users which is the least problem, but for transit users and everyone else as well as the horrendous built form it will cause. Every time someone says that train tracks in the road make it walkable, they need to be called a liar.

But that plan is not in phase 1, and I really believe it won't come to pass. That's why they haven't released the plans for it yet, because the road isn't wide enough to do what they thought they could in an acceptable way.

[MalcolmTucker]

Net zero requirements for projects I am tangentially involved with have at a 15-20% cost boost, with just shy of a 10 year payoff period. Afterward you are saving money. Since others are funding much of the capital, and the city is the operator, this is a good thing for the city.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Oh yeah, I think if they build on surface on Centre Street it will be disaster, sure. Not just for car users which is the least problem, but for transit users and everyone else as well as the horrendous built form it will cause. Every time someone says that train tracks in the road make it walkable, they need to be called a liar.

But that plan is not in phase 1, and I really believe it won't come to pass. That's why they haven't released the plans for it yet, because the road isn't wide enough to do what they thought they could in an acceptable way.

But the video they released showing the entire line clearly has the north end of the line going down the middle of the street. I take it the video was based on the plans since it was an "official" video.

[accord1999]

There's a document that has pretty detailed plans of the line routing here:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=13291

Page 23 has 18th Ave and goes north in next set of pages.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

But the video they released showing the entire line clearly has the north end of the line going down the middle of the street. I take it the video was based on the plans since it was an "official" video.

Yeah I know that's what they say they officially have planned. But once they get into detailed analysis, I'm 90% sure they are going to figure it is effectively unfeasible - the plan in the last post is more detailed than I thought they had released to be fair, but look at just how much expropriation is required just to end up with something that is crappy. It's a terrible plan, and I still bet it won't fit, there will be scope creep adding MUPs etc too. Regardless, they'll have to demolish houses all the way along that road - that just won't be allowed to happen, what would be the point of building an LRT line if it runs through wasteland?

I know this might sound ridiculous, we should be able to trust our governments are competent enough to see this, but this kind of incompetence has happened before. See the SW ring road, where we built a road for 16 lanes knowing full well that the inner lanes were never going to be used, useless and a complete waste.

[MalcolmTucker]

The number of properties they need would pay for very little incremental tunnel, unless trying to maintain 4 lanes everywhere. The traffic volumes on centre are low enough for it not to matter much.

Personally I am 100% for spending more to have it in a tunnel, but until the politicians tell them not to build the cheapest line they can, administration has to follow their previous direction to plan the cheapest line they can.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The number of properties they need would pay for very little incremental tunnel, unless trying to maintain 4 lanes everywhere. The traffic volumes on centre are low enough for it not to matter much.

Personally I am 100% for spending more to have it in a tunnel, but until the politicians tell them not to build the cheapest line they can, administration has to follow their previous direction to plan the cheapest line they can.

That looks like a lot of expropriations though. A hell of a lot.

In a lot of cases it's lopping off some of the front yard, but there's quite a few places where buildings will need to go, or it's the entire of a yard that is gone. Even if they can just take someone's yard and it is feasible to build a sidewalk immediately adjacent to peoples windows, what are the owners' right here? How much compensation will they get? Even if this is a financially feasible plan, is it politically feasible to expropriate that much?

The plan accord1999 posted shows vast lengths where houses are going to need to go. What are they going to do with all that demolished wasteland?

The only precedent I can think of in Calgary is the 16th Ave widening, but that was taking off an entire strip of properties, effectively moving the road boundary one unit south. Since the Green Line plan takes a sliver off each side, we're going to be left with a huge amount of empty lots. And this line is supposed to revitalize the area? Look how 16th turned out, utter dross years later.