Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I'd like to know how much the city is going to end up paying in financing costs.

The best information I've found is from a Nov 2017 Council presentation:



https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....ang=English#11

The accelerated payments from the Province and Federal Government help a lot. But it'll still consume all of the $23M/year outoftheice mentioned. And the City will still need to find $40M/year to pay for the Green Line's operating losses.


....Assuming that Phase 1 stays on budget.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The best information I've found is from a Nov 2017 Council presentation:

The accelerated payments from the Province and Federal Government help a lot. But it'll still consume all of the $23M/year outoftheice mentioned. And the City will still need to find $40M/year to pay for the Green Line's operating losses.


....Assuming that Phase 1 stays on budget.

Thanks for the ino. $40 million/year in operating losses? Yikes!

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Thanks for the ino. $40 million/year in operating losses? Yikes!

I think it is quite well known that transit is a subsidized affair. Trips do not actually cost $3.40 per ride, but substantially more than that. On the flip side, however, people using transit averts higher costs of the alternative, be that more roads or reduced economic output due to traffic breakdown. I would hope that for the greenline that the efficiency would grow over time with building up of ridership.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I think it is quite well known that transit is a subsidized affair. Trips do not actually cost $3.40 per ride, but substantially more than that. On the flip side, however, people using transit averts higher costs of the alternative, be that more roads or reduced economic output due to traffic breakdown. I would hope that for the greenline that the efficiency would grow over time with building up of ridership.

We all know that transit is heavily subsidized but you'd think a high demand light rail line wouldn't need to be subsidized as much. Once the line is built what are the operating costs other than drivers and maintenance? I have a feeling that $40 million figure is covering stuff unrelated to the line itself. Maybe now's the time to look into driverless cars as well.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

We all know that transit is heavily subsidized but you'd think a high demand light rail line wouldn't need to be subsidized as much. Once the line is built what are the operating costs other than drivers and maintenance? I have a feeling that $40 million figure is covering stuff unrelated to the line itself. Maybe now's the time to look into driverless cars as well.

LRT trips now are much better when looking at cost per passenger trip, when compared with buses. More people are carried in one 4-car train with one operator than 9 articulated buses with 9 drivers - that alone is probably $400 per hour savings, and diesel fuel continues to increase in price.

The $40 million is likely all the new operators, electromechanics, supervisory and field staff, controllers, maintenance of way staff, cleaners, and general upkeep costs for all the new facilities and vehicles.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

LRT trips now are much better when looking at cost per passenger trip, when compared with buses. More people are carried in one 4-car train with one operator than 9 articulated buses with 9 drivers - that alone is probably $400 per hour savings, and diesel fuel continues to increase in price.

The big Dec 2015 Green Line presentation said that LRT operating costs were $394/hour while Buses were $110/hour. But the problem is Phase 1 Green Line replaces very few buses. Compared to the existing SE bus service along the route, you're probably have more LRT trains than buses now.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Maybe now's the time to look into driverless cars as well.

The under-construction Honolulu Rail Transit (32 km mostly elevated) is driverless but its projected operating costs are still immense when it fully opens (2026).



http://www4.honolulu.gov/docushare/d...DOC%20(30).PDF

Edit: Apologies if you meant driverless passenger cars, not driverless trains.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The under-construction Honolulu Rail Transit (32 km mostly elevated) is driverless but its projected operating costs are still immense when it fully opens (2026).

Edit: Apologies if you meant driverless passenger cars, not driverless trains.

Thanks for the info. I meant driverless trains.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The under-construction Honolulu Rail Transit (32 km mostly elevated) is driverless but its projected operating costs are still immense when it fully opens (2026).

I guess the question would be, how much more would it cost if it was manned? And how much worse would the service (and hence ridership) be, as it becomes much less cost effective to run off peak.

As I've said before, I don't understand the point of building this if it increases operating costs per rider. Everything we are told about why we build public transit is that it is more efficient. But then when it's put into practise, it turns out we actually have to spend more money than before to operate our new high efficiency line, even disregarding the massive capital cost.

I guess you could argue that by spending the money on the Green Line we won't have to upgrade Deerfoot, except the Green Line doesn't even go far enough to service the commuters using Deerfoot! And that's a provincial road, for now at least.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Thanks for the info. I meant driverless trains.

The ship has sailed, the line would need a redesign. I'd argue that they should still do that even if it adds a few years to the completion date, but that's never going to happen. Especially as the powers that be deem highly successful Skytrain style systems as oppressive, but less successful tram like systems like Portland's as walkable and urban.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As I've said before, I don't understand the point of building this if it increases operating costs per rider. Everything we are told about why we build public transit is that it is more efficient. But then when it's put into practise, it turns out we actually have to spend more money than before to operate our new high efficiency line, even disregarding the massive capital cost.

I don't think it will increase operating costs per rider when the ridership is developed. Certainly transit is always a subsidized endeavor, so at that level it should not be a surprise.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I guess you could argue that by spending the money on the Green Line we won't have to upgrade Deerfoot, except the Green Line doesn't even go far enough to service the commuters using Deerfoot! And that's a provincial road, for now at least.

Managing movement of people is the overall objective, and indeed assessing costs for managing movements without public transit is critical to the overall formula.

The suggestion that the green line is only about reducing development of one road and the premise that feeder routes and park and ride does not get utilized are both false. Indeed, the green line capture will absolutely bring in people from a wide radius around the nodes and particularly from the last station. That is the case for every other successful line we have, and also in other cities. The LRT gets utilized even by people from Cochrane, so no reason it would not get utilized by people in Seton.

As an aside, the green line is not just for "today" but for many decades, so consider that it will be absorbing much of the added density in the extremities over time, so don't expect deerfoot to become a ghost town street anytime soon, but understand that it will have prevented an absolute gong show once the SE commuter communities add another 50,000 people and more over time.

Yes, I would have like the green line to come up to NC Calgary, and yes, it would have been nice to have it reach Okatokes and Airdrie, BUT, what they have done as a first phase does make full sense. While I advocated for more modest central infrastructure while it was in the design stages, I can't argue that having it the way it is being built is pretty solid.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't think it will increase operating costs per rider when the ridership is developed. Certainly transit is always a subsidized endeavor, so at that level it should not be a surprise.

Net operating costs increase by $40M, so yeah that should be a surprise. Perhaps the increase in ridership will mean the subsidy per rider decreases, but the fact is building the line makes the city's public transit more expensive to run rather than less.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Net operating costs increase by $40M, so yeah that should be a surprise. Perhaps the increase in ridership will mean the subsidy per rider decreases, but the fact is building the line makes the city's public transit more expensive to run rather than less.

Were you expecting otherwise? Without looking at positive impact outside of transit, public transit is always going to be a subsidized endeavour. If you increase ridership by extending service, it increases the net subsidy. What it does, however, is decrease other infrastructure and efficiency costs elsewhere in a municipal budget.

I explained some of this in the parts of my post you chose not to quote, including how it will service the folks in the commuter communities further south than the phase one terminus.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Were you expecting otherwise?

The typical practice before was to have LRT replace lots of buses. While the West LRT went way over-budget, at least it didn't affect the operating costs:

"When we built the West LRT, it actually had very little impact on our operating budget because we replaced buses that were more expensive on a per-rider basis," said Nenshi. "The BRTs, we'll be able to absorb, it's not a problem ... council is going to have to find significant money between now and 2026 to operate the Green Line."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180313...sh-nenshi.html

Without looking at positive impact outside of transit, public transit is always going to be a subsidized endeavour. If you increase ridership by extending service, it increases the net subsidy. What it does, however, is decrease other infrastructure and efficiency costs elsewhere in a municipal budget.

But you still need to look at the economics of it. Does it make sense to spend $4.6B just to carry 60-65K riders/day and lose $40M a year? For that operating expenditure, you could add hundreds of thousands of hours of bus service to the SE at a fraction of the capital costs.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As I've said before, I don't understand the point of building this if it increases operating costs per rider. Everything we are told about why we build public transit is that it is more efficient. But then when it's put into practise, it turns out we actually have to spend more money than before to operate our new high efficiency line, even disregarding the massive capital cost.

I agree with this. I think the City has gotten to enamored with building a new giant transit project (along with the city-shaping aspects) rather than the goal of moving lots of people efficiently.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by accord1999

But you still need to look at the economics of it. Does it make sense to spend $4.6B just to carry 60-65K riders/day and lose $40M a year? For that operating expenditure, you could add hundreds of thousands of hours of bus service to the SE at a fraction of the capital costs.

Flawed at so many levels:

• Firstly, this is only phase one, and includes the central elements that are critical to subsequent phases. The central portions are not just for day one's SE users, and you cannot pin that most expensive portion on those 65k
• Secondly, infrastructure is not built for today, but rather for the longterm, including city growth
• Thirdly, creating such infrastructure saves on other infrastructre that would otherwise be required. For example, for more buses to achieve the parallel impact of a train, you'd need a full bus ROW, let alone major roadworks that would create gridlock 10, 20, 40 years on.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Were you expecting otherwise? Without looking at positive impact outside of transit, public transit is always going to be a subsidized endeavour. If you increase ridership by extending service, it increases the net subsidy. What it does, however, is decrease other infrastructure and efficiency costs elsewhere in a municipal budget.

I would at least expect the per rider subsidy to go down - I haven't seen the numbers yet to determine if that is the case. The fact still is though that an extra $40M has to be found from somewhere, on top of the $52M we have already dedicated to the Green Line. Other than increasing taxes, where will that $40M come from? Roads? That's the only relevant place I could think that the Green Line might allow cuts to be made.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I explained some of this in the parts of my post you chose not to quote, including how it will service the folks in the commuter communities further south than the phase one terminus.

Lol, thanks for the education suburbia but I understand just fine - if you could make more of an effort to read and understand posts countering yours that would be appreciated.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I would at least expect the per rider subsidy to go down - I haven't seen the numbers yet to determine if that is the case.

That's counter-intuitive when you consider that the line is infrastructure built for a period of 50 years, including being able to service all of the additional people from on-going intensification and new development. The first phase of such a line would inherently be less efficient financially speaking, because it would not be being used to its greatest potential right off the bat.

That being said, as I reflect on the general spirit of what you're saying, it should be noted that there will be more people required for this line than current lines, precisely because of all the underground stations. Implications on service workers, security, police officers, custodial staff and so on. An underground station in the Beltline would need much more than a surface station on 7th avenue!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's counter-intuitive when you consider that the line is infrastructure built for a period of 50 years, including being able to service all of the additional people from on-going intensification and new development. The first phase of such a line would inherently be less efficient financially speaking, because it would not be being used to its greatest potential right off the bat.

No, it's counterintuitive to spend vast amounts of capital spending to make a public transit system less efficient. We're on the 'Transportation and Infrastructure' sub forum of a skyscraper website, I'm pretty sure everyone here is somewhat onboard with investing money in infrastructure, but that comes with the understanding that we will be better off for building it. By all accounts, including your boy Nenshi, the Green Line is not going to improve the finances of Calgary Transit. If the only justification for the Green Line is that it will be financially sustainable once we build it out to the SE (since it will be decades until we build it to where it is actually needed, the north), then how do we get there? We are committing $92 million per year to the Green Line after 2026, and then we have to find, what, another billion dollars maybe to get it to the suburban commuters who will make it worthwhile?

Honestly, you won't find many people more pro infrastructure spending than myself, but if this line truly is financially sound, then the city has done an awful job of communicating it.

Originally Posted by suburbia

That being said, as I reflect on the general spirit of what you're saying, it should be noted that there will be more people required for this line than current lines, precisely because of all the underground stations. Implications on service workers, security, police officers, custodial staff and so on. An underground station in the Beltline would need much more than a surface station on 7th avenue!

Rubbish. Have you ever ventured outside of this city? Go visit somewhere with a real rapid transit network and note how many (zero) workers there are on the stations. I know you think the Beltline is some dystopian nightmare, but in the real world Calgary is a lame, tame low crime city compared to other places.

But even so, it was completely obvious from the beginning that an underground option was the only choice, and why it took us years of consultation to convince city council of this is frustrating. If you are trying to use that comment to convince us that your fantasy choice of an elevated line could have happened, I'll remind you that it was just that, a fantasy.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Flawed at so many levels:

• Firstly, this is only phase one, and includes the central elements that are critical to subsequent phases. The central portions are not just for day one's SE users, and you cannot pin that most expensive portion on those 65k
• Secondly, infrastructure is not built for today, but rather for the longterm, including city growth

But it's so expensive and consumes so much of the City's funding capacity ($52M/year for capital, $25M/year for financing and $40M for operations) that there might not be a next phase for decades. And the longer you wait, the more expensive it surely will get to build through Centre Street up to 96th Avenue.