Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[milomilo]

I see the NC Green Line as similar to Broadway Skytrain in Vancouver - it's quite obviously the place where a transit should be going first - they deserve it and the line will definitely have good ridership. But actually getting it there, building it in the way it should be built, is going to be disproportionately expensive which means unfortunately they will have to wait the longest.

[milomilo]

So Chu wants a NC LRT, and Farkas wants other LRT extensions. It's 100% fact that both of them are incorrect on everything they believe, so logically the SE extension is the only correct way to go. Science.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

What a weird location for soccer domes. Temporary for 10 years? Is this what the city is saying? How stupid do they think we are? There's no way they would ever take away such a facility from kids and families unless there was something better to replace it as soon as they closed it down.

I remember 10+ years ago going to open houses about TOD development in that location. I can guarantee you that sports facilities were never mentioned. It was nothing but condos, retail and office space IIRC. Is this another TOD planning failure?

The developer is a private company, so the moment something better (read more profitable) comes along the soccer dome will be removed.

I too have been following this site for the past 10 years. I know of at least 3 proposals that were true TOD opportunities. However in each case the problem became the site would take too long to fully build out. With some significant up front costs the capital costs cannot be covered and the site would likely go banko 1/2 through build out. The Westbrook site requires very deep pockets to bring to profitable TOD conclusion.

The problem Calgary now faces is there is insufficient demand for the current supply of TOD. East Village, Victoria Park, stampede Station, West University District, central Auburn Bay and Seton and the potpourri of sites in the Beltline are soaking up available demand and still leaving a waterpark level amount of water unused. This is the root cause of the Calgary's TOD failure.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I live within walking distance of that station and this is the first I've heard about this proposal. You'd think something this major would be brought to the attention of those who live in the area. As far as I'm concerned this will kill any chance of development in the area.

The original land use for Westbrook area includes the option for commercial uses such as the proposed soccer dome. Listen into the wise discussions from Jyoti Gondek on the perils of relying on renders and built form descriptions at the land use or pre-development permit stages.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Other than Chu suddenly advocating for transit, I'm not sure much has changed in this decade+ old debate. Even though it will be less used, we've got to go south first - at least to where a facility can be built. In the long term, I think this will get us the full line soonest and cheapest.

I disagree, prioritizing the maintenance facility over ridership and operating efficiency improvements means that it has higher operating losses (estimated at $40M/year) which makes it much more difficult for future finances to be in place to build the NC segment, especially as it needs to get to at least Beddington to be useful.

[ClaytonA]

Accord,

Agree wrt the issue of trust you bring up (how I'll frame it). If there isn't trust, then projects become very vulnerable to change. Look at the Scarborough Subway Extension saga over the past year in Toronto as an example.

To the point that the logical most efficient and most cost effective extension is SE to Seton above by others, yes. Politically with some of the (perhaps) UCP-centric? municipal councillors talking about the NE first or something else, etc. council could re-build trust by commiting funding for property acquisition. The alignment is settled, they've sent out expropriation letters, etc. show your serious about getting it built.

Accord your May 14, 2017 post; http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...44#post7805144 is prescient.

To add to this; http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...28#post8109628 , are the UCP-centric? councillors helping provincial candidates in the north central by driving wedges to flip ridings (not that it will actually be necessary). Changing the conversation from Green Line NC right after the SE opens, to review everything isn't what councillors were saying last May. New councillors of course, a weak one in ward 4.


See the post

[ClaytonA]

Also with the city tendering the LRVs separately, did the city get an option for 100 additional LRVs when they purchased the S200's in 2014?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Accord,

Agree wrt the issue of trust you bring up (how I'll frame it). If there isn't trust, then projects become very vulnerable to change. Look at the Scarborough Subway Extension saga over the past year in Toronto as an example.

To the point that the logical most efficient and most cost effective extension is SE to Seton above by others, yes. Politically with some of the (perhaps) UCP-centric? municipal councillors talking about the NE first or something else, etc. council could re-build trust by commiting funding for property acquisition. The alignment is settled, they've sent out expropriation letters, etc. show your serious about getting it built.

Thanks for the word trust, it encapsulates my feelings very well about the Green Line as it started from a project that worked for both NC and SE, to one that barely does anything for the NC and where the planners show almost no progress in getting the NC segment ready for construction in the last two years. Even the biggest supporter of the line, LRTontheGreen expressed concern on its slow progress in the north.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...advocates.html

He also made a similar suggestion to you, to start acquiring properties in the NC segment using the ~$24M/year in tax room that the City has set aside for Green Line development.

To add to this; http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...28#post8109628 , are the UCP-centric? councillors helping provincial candidates in the north central by driving wedges to flip ridings (not that it will actually be necessary). Changing the conversation from Green Line NC right after the SE opens, to review everything isn't what councillors were saying last May.

That was a concern of mine; that the unity shown in getting the $4.6B would crack as time went on and other wards wanted spending as well. It was asking too much for the rest of the city to unquestionly commit to billions more without seeing any direct benefits to themselves.

I'm also thinking that if the UCP becomes the new government and plan to cut some or all funding to the Green Line (as you fear), this divisiveness works well for them. With people all over the city angry, this minimizes backlash.

New councillors of course, a weak one in ward 4.

The comments he made in the Transportation meeting last week suggests he's become more hardline in support of the NC segment, perhaps influenced by Gondek or from unhappy constituents during the election. I think Chu and Gondek won't rollover easily if the City Admin comes back later this year with a recommendation of Shepard-Seton.

[ClaytonA]

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....ang=English#21

Motions from SPC T&T

...
Direct Administration to report to Council through the SPC on Transportation and Transit in Q4 2018 with a staging recommendation and update on layers 1 (LRT infrastructure design), 2 (station connections), 3 (planning and development), and 4 (City Shaping) for the long-term Green Line vision;
Continue land acquisition outside of the Stage 1 project guided by a risk-based process until land requirements are updated with completion of the preliminary design for the North leg; and
Direct Administration to explore the ways and means that the existing right of ways (ROWs), north of 16th Avenue N and south of 126 Avenue S, can be activated for community purposes that may include, but are not limited to BRT, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, that can then convert to LRT infrastructure. Report back to Council through the SPC on Transportation & Transit by Q4 2018. ...

[ClaytonA]

The land acquisition is vague enough (risk based until updated as design finishes) that no land may actually purchased until after 2021.

In 2015 prior to the federal Conservative's funding announcement, a BRT transitway from 78 Ave to Downtown was order of magnitude $120 million. However, the bottleneck or limiting factor for frequency, etc is congestion downtown on 4 Ave or 6 Ave stacking buses up. Maybe they could do a transit-only lane as was suggested years ago for 4 St SW for Route 3 (Elbow Dr SW) that at that time was estimated to save the city $800,000 annually. Could they save some O&M costs with a downtown transit-only lane for Route 301?

First stage north will go up to 40 Ave where there's a busy E-W transit route, 72/73 unless funding falls out of an election platform.

[ClaytonA]

One other thought, there would automatically be some money for LRT extensions in the NE, Centre, SE, and W if the off site levy had included a number for LRT instead of excluding transit capital costs. It means roads automatically get built and upgraded, but all that development in Keystone, Ranchlands/Seton/Mahogany, Redstone, and Aspen Woods/West Springs could be partially funding all this.

Here's an example of how this was done for the Canada Line (infill station) in Vancouver: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/capst...-richmond-2017

[technomad]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....ang=English#21

Motions from SPC T&T

this could be an interesting angle for the north... get the NC corridor so urbanized that the cyclists will fight any attempt to turn their lanes into LRT and will demand subway instead!

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[msmariner]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

So from what I can see the Green Line is funded (at least phase 1). Is there a reason that procurement isn't moving forward?

Believe they are still in final design and engineering process

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

So from what I can see the Green Line is funded (at least phase 1). Is there a reason that procurement isn't moving forward?

Council just approved the procurement strategy - simply based on the size of the project, it needed to go through a P3 screening to see if it should be tendered as a full P3, something more traditional, or something in between. It’s moving ahead similar to West LRT with a Design Build, with Calgary Transit operating and maintaining once open. Vehicles also being procured separately.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Also not super in tune with the situation in Calgary, when do they plan to get something to the airport?

It’s in the early planning stages, definitely no funding. There was rumours it may get pushed along if the 2026 Olympic Bid is successful, but in reality it’s far down the LRT wish list, and for good reason. Considering the cost, the return on investment is low since the ridership just isn’t there.

[ggopher]

The federal government has announced more funding for transit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ding-1.4603545

Alberta communities will receive $3.3 billion in federal funding over the next decade for public transit, green infrastructure and other projects, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi announced Tuesday in Edmonton.

The federal funding for Alberta breaks down like this:
•$2.1 billion for new urban transit networks and service extensions. Edmonton will be allocated up to $878 million. Calgary will be able to claim a maximum of nearly $1.1 billion.

But I am sure this is just a repeat of previous announcement. It is very frustrating and hard to follow the shell game of announcements and budgets. The federal government should provide a steady stream of funding and give the cities the responsibility to spend it as they see fit.

Imagine what the city could do with $3 billion dollars over the next 30 years.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by ggopher

The federal government has announced more funding for transit.



But I am sure this is just a repeat of previous announcement. It is very frustrating and hard to follow the shell game of announcements and budgets. The federal government should provide a steady stream of funding and give the cities the responsibility to spend it as they see fit.

Imagine what the city could do with $3 billion dollars over the next 30 years.

You are correct that this funding is part of the previously announced $1.53billion in federal funding towards stage 1 of the Green Line. The good news from this announcement is that it will be distributed over ten years. The original commitment by the Harper government was going to be over twenty years so this means that the financing costs built into the city's cost estimates will be significantly reduced. It's still too early to see if the reduced financing costs might lead to more of the line being built but at least we're moving in the right direction. No word on where the missing $430 million will come from or over how many years it will be distributed though.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]