Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[joe498]

Originally Posted by craner

Exactly.
God help us if Smith is elected, although I can't see him gathering enough support on council for this.

Sadly, there is a possibility he could get quite a bit of support for this. Many incumbents are in danger including: Druh, Carra, and Wooley. There are also other wards with no incumbents running where anti-transit candidates like Farkas are running and have a good chance of winning.

[craner]

^oh no.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well, the plan currently north of 16th Ave to 64th is to repeat those mistakes, only much worse. Hopefully the phasing allows people to look at that section with a clearer head and realise it will be a terrible result for all users, and plan something different.

This is my hope as well.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by joe498

Sadly, there is a possibility he could get quite a bit of support for this. Many incumbents are in danger including: Druh, Carra, and Wooley. There are also other wards with no incumbents running where anti-transit candidates like Farkas are running and have a good chance of winning.

This means that Nenshi will have a touch council to get anything done with.

[ggopher]

Shane Keating has posted a good summary of the Green Line history and funding.

http://www.shanekeating.ca/wp-conten...nd-DIGITAL.pdf

Starting in Fall of 2013 it will have been 5 years of consultation, design, RFP and contract award. Then 7 years of construction. The opening is set for 2026. The cities portion of funding is coming from the $52/million per year for 30 years.

This year (election year) city council choose to refund the $23 million in leftover taxes to the homeowners. This provides a savings of $7/homeowner. Imagine what this money could do if it was directed towards transit for 30 years. This should be the key question in the election.

[ClaytonA]

Which direction would the Green Line LRT go if the BS candidate picks only one direction? This thing is going SE, whether the N likes it or not. Risk is much higher for N than for SE.

-SE Operating Maintenance Facility is at Shepard because it was ~$400 million cheaper than other locations
-primarily because city already owns the large piece of property required
-OMF will have to go north of Keystone
-SE is ready to build, pre-construction underway, N is 3 years behind the SE primarily due to property acquisition
-SE pretty much has community plans/station land use plans done
-N hasn't had community plans/station land use plans done for McKnight, or Beddington and planning is 1 year plus behind on other stations
-N has greater projected ridership short term, current ridership ~35,000/day and SE has projected ridership ~35,000/day and ~10,000 current (think these are actually a wash)
4 to 1 SE

-SE alleviates crowding on S LRT and takes pressure off 8 Ave subway need
-SE could be stopped at 4 St SE/Stampede grounds like he says, but much less functional/ridership. They'll go to 7 Ave to shift only $1 billion for far SE. This really makes going further N hard.
-N really can't not tunnel downtown; much, much less functional than stopping at 4 St SE, so probably finish tunnel + 1.3billion plus N of 16 Ave. Going S easier.
-is N at grade cheaper than SE at grade/elevated? (Going as far north as Keystone for OMF space and as in 10 years projected ridership there is...)
wash

-SE politically has it 6 wards to 5 if one counts edges (SE = Wards 14, 12, 9, 11, 7, 8 while N is wards 3, 4, 7, 8, 9)
-N provincially has 6 vs 4 SE ridings (SE = Buffalo*, Fort*, Hays-UCP, Southeast-UCP while N = Mackay-Nose Hill-IND, Northern Hills, Klein, Mountain View-LIB, Buffalo*, Fort*)
-SE Jason Kenney's federal riding and presumably provincial riding is in the SE (UCP will run on personality like BS is versus policy, already see NDP villification)
-N federally has 4 vs 2 SE (SE has Centre and Shepard while N has Nose Hill, Skyview, Confederation, Centre)
-SE also reaches new Flames arena which BS candidate wants to fund, N should reach it too but for OMF north of Keystone not as sure
-this so-called real estate developer slate is at both far end new communities (wash?), but not in Green Line LRT mid-section.
-(interesting these developers were dead set against having LRT funded via the off site levy, yes there is still a sprawl subsidy...)
~wash maybe slight favor SE as municipal politics is more local and Kenney factor

This thing is going SE, whether the N likes it or not. Risk is much higher for N than for SE.

[ClaytonA]

Regardless which way:
-delay the project by min 1 year (it won't be anything less than 1 month to decide to review, 6 months redo alignment/phasing, 1-2 months federal/provincial OK's, restart new contract document work done since June is 4-5 months minus duplication)
-now instead of contract signed sometime in 2019/2020 for 2020 start this project is at much more risk of falling victim to a new provincial government's austerity.
-much more political risk of provincial cancellation; if Alberta gets new austerity government they will quickly realize (within 1 year) they can't really cut back on education and healthcare as much as they want to
-look at history, ran deficits under Aberhart and Getty, next government big cuts and much lower spending for about a decade until the good times returned (~1954 and ~2001)
-capital budget is much, much easier to cut and will get cut with an austerity government

Heck in BC they're cancelling, it looks like, Site C which is under construction without a so-called budget crisis.


Let's say they decide SE
-N to 16 Ave could be 35 years plus if not built under Bow River, min 10 to 2027 construction + 10 years austerity +10 years next mega-project +5 years construction.
-so 10 years in future whatever gets built,
-if not N of Bow River need $1 billion todays' $ plus to do just that section.
-These mega projects happen only about once every 10 years. It's hard to get big projects done. Stars aligned for $1 billion W LRT, and Green Line LRT ten years later. About the same experience as in Vancouver and Toronto.
-N of 16 Ave (North Hills) could not even see it in many voter's life times, total 50 years as let's say $1.3 billion takes another 10-15 years.

[count0]

Stopping it at 4th ST SE makes more sense when you look at it from the perspective of Bill Smith being in the pocket of the Flames ownership. Build it from the South to the Arena, make them walk through lands you plan to develop in order to transfer to Victoria Park.

[milomilo]

This is all, however, applying rational thought to a policy that was pulled out of BS's ass. I see two likely scenarios, either BS relents or cannot get support to review the Green Line, and it goes on as planned, or he does manage to do what he promised, and the Green Line gets delayed indefinitely.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Let's say they decide SE
-N to 16 Ave could be 35 years plus if not built under Bow River, min 10 to 2027 construction + 10 years austerity +10 years next mega-project +5 years construction.
-so 10 years in future whatever gets built,
-if not N of Bow River need $1 billion todays' $ plus to do just that section.
-These mega projects happen only about once every 10 years. It's hard to get big projects done. Stars aligned for $1 billion W LRT, and Green Line LRT ten years later. About the same experience as in Vancouver and Toronto.
-N of 16 Ave (North Hills) could not even see it in many voter's life times, total 50 years as let's say $1.3 billion takes another 10-15 years.

It's really not worse than the status quo. You have the river crossing, but undoubtedly the first billion $ (past the current funding) will go to complete the SE line to Seton before you go N of 16 Ave (North Hills), so given the same austerity regime, a Northern Hills voter still won't see NC LRT in their lifetime.

This thing is going SE, whether the N likes it or not. Risk is much higher for N than for SE.

So looking at it from a selfish perspective, the best path forward (assuming no chance of NC LRT being prioritized at the present) is that construction of the Green Line gets delayed, allowing enough time for preparatory work to be complete in the NC and result in a different decision in the future, with the city's financial resources not yet irrevocably committed.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by ggopher

Shane Keating has posted a good summary of the Green Line history and funding.

http://www.shanekeating.ca/wp-conten...nd-DIGITAL.pdf

Starting in Fall of 2013 it will have been 5 years of consultation, design, RFP and contract award. Then 7 years of construction. The opening is set for 2026. The cities portion of funding is coming from the $52/million per year for 30 years.

This year (election year) city council choose to refund the $23 million in leftover taxes to the homeowners. This provides a savings of $7/homeowner. Imagine what this money could do if it was directed towards transit for 30 years. This should be the key question in the election.

And yet if you ask the average Smith supporter why they won't vote for Nenshi, it is that council "stole" the original $52M to fund the Green Line.

[MrBigStuff]

Originally Posted by joe498

The current design of the Green Line is that it will be built in a way that construction can start earlier and does not have to stop assuming more funding is available.

Reviewing the project is not a great solution for reducing cost either. Delaying construction will result in higher costs in the long run especially if the economy picks up again.

Being that the proposed line is so long that they could start at opposite ends - simultaneously - and work towards the downtown and meet in the middle and that would take less time overall to get it built

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MrBigStuff

Being that the proposed line is so long that they could start at opposite ends - simultaneously - and work towards the downtown and meet in the middle and that would take less time overall to get it built

Construction on public transit rail lines usually happens at multiple locations in parallel, limited generally by the construction bandwidth and sometimes logistics around transportation line disruptions. They are not building a 46km tunnel, so this concept of starting 46 km apart and joining in the middle isn't as realistic as you may think. The current phased approach, with hope of new funding opportunities, will indeed target continuous build-out all the way, but will allow a strong usable portion that can be operating before continuing to phase 2/3.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Construction on public transit rail lines usually happens at multiple locations in parallel, limited generally by the construction bandwidth and sometimes logistics around transportation line disruptions. They are not building a 46km tunnel, so this concept of starting 46 km apart and joining in the middle isn't as realistic as you may think. The current phased approach, with hope of new funding opportunities, will indeed target continuous build-out all the way, but will allow a strong usable portion that can be operating before continuing to phase 2/3.

Yep. They're building a new 40+km subway line right past where I live in Shanghai, and it's very easy to follow the line's route just by looking at where the construction sites are located. Pretty much every station location has related above-ground construction, though the amount of surface construction really depends on the density of the surrounding area - areas with high density have less surface construction.

[MrBigStuff]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Construction on public transit rail lines usually happens at multiple locations in parallel, limited generally by the construction bandwidth and sometimes logistics around transportation line disruptions. They are not building a 46km tunnel, so this concept of starting 46 km apart and joining in the middle isn't as realistic as you may think. The current phased approach, with hope of new funding opportunities, will indeed target continuous build-out all the way, but will allow a strong usable portion that can be operating before continuing to phase 2/3.

Another thought - I haven't seen any discussion on underground sections being built in and around the downtown core ( in the flood plain ) as to whether there would be flooding of the underground sections - if another flood - compared to 2013 were to occur again. Is there someone who could shed a little light on this??

[craner]

No Bill Smith hopefully means no re-assessment of the Green Line. Phew!

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by MrBigStuff

Another thought - I haven't seen any discussion on underground sections being built in and around the downtown core ( in the flood plain ) as to whether there would be flooding of the underground sections - if another flood - compared to 2013 were to occur again. Is there someone who could shed a little light on this??

What will determine whether there is a flooded tunnel on the new line is the elevation of the mouth of the tunnel in the Beltline, if it's below the high water mark (should be designed for a 1:100 flood) then it will flood, if not, it wont.

[count0]

Should be added that while an underground tunnel flooding is not a good thing, it's not catastrophic. The NYC subway system flooded during Hurricane Sandy and they just pumped it out. Took a couple of weeks to get everything cleaned up and inspected, but then it was up and running again.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

No Bill Smith hopefully means no re-assessment of the Green Line. Phew!

At least of the alignment and the underground parts. One thing that needs to be reassessed is running the north section of the line down Center Street. I have a strong feeling most people in the north have no idea that the train will run at the same speed as traffic. If they did there would be an uproar as people further out are expecting fast trains to get them downtown. Also, the low floor trains make no sense financially as far as I'm concerned.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

At least of the alignment and the underground parts. One thing that needs to be reassessed is running the north section of the line down Center Street. I have a strong feeling most people in the north have no idea that the train will run at the same speed as traffic. If they did there would be an uproar as people further out are expecting fast trains to get them downtown. Also, the low floor trains make no sense financially as far as I'm concerned.

The determining factor I see is whether the train will have to stop at traffic lights, if it doesn't it will be far quicker than traffic. What I'm curious about in terms of the Centre Street alignment is how many cross streets will be closed.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

The determining factor I see is whether the train will have to stop at traffic lights, if it doesn't it will be far quicker than traffic. What I'm curious about in terms of the Centre Street alignment is how many cross streets will be closed.

This section of the line appears to be following the same logic that Edmonton is using for the line that they're currently building. This booklet on the Valley Line is a real eye opener. On p.6, para. 3 it says the following:

"Vehicles will also run at community traffic speeds,
meaning warning bells, signal gates and flashing
lights won't be necessary—allowing the new LRT
to integrate harmoniously with the communities it
serves."

Source: https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...rt_booklet.pdf