DougB
Active Member
The message is that all of these are poor investments.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
DougB
Active Member
Agreed. The transit investments need to be compared to incremental road capacity investments.
The Deep SE is also experiencing enormous growth so congestion is likely to worsen significantly.
accord1999
Active Member
The SE has low service/capita and is the rationale for the Green Line to the SE, but is that under-served relative to demand, or are SE residents simply less interested in using transit?
The immediate need argument comes from early Green Line related documents.
The 2016 Green Line Business Case document also expected that ridership will be higher in the North; off-peak frequencies would be twice that of the SE.
Now compare that to the 2020 Business Plan and current LRV order. With only 28 LRVs on order, it looks Green Line SE will just have 8 minute peak headways and peak hour capacity will be less than half of the 2016 plan.
Converting drivers to transit users is always a challenge, and using very expensive rail to try do so often results in disastrous results (as seen in the US). A great quote I saw on another forum regarding LRT is that "LRT is the solution for heavy bus usage, not low bus usage". There's a big spectrum of improvements that can still be done in the SE between what it has now and going directly LRT.
darwink
Senior Member
Further study showed the travel time savings for a SE BRT busway was pretty small for the cost and wouldn't drive ridership, while much larger benefits came from much more rapid access downtown via exclusive ROW, which necessitated expensive grade separation whether LRT or BRT (option not explored).
O-tac
Active Member
I live across from the South Health campus. With the ring road and Deerfoot improvements on the way the road network has gotten enough attention. The lrt is the most desperately needed infrastructure for the SE.
LostinSpace
New Member
I would argue the scope of work with the 8th Ave Subway is just underground work vs the whole starter phase of Green Line.
That the overall project risk would be lower with 8th Ave Subway so it would be cheaper per Km than the Green Beltline/DT Tunnel.
Doesn’t include the various station rough in’s that were planned and built on 8th which would further lower costs.
Red Line Tunnel would see 4x more users go through it than the Green Line Tunnel would opening day.
This would only be matched once we drop another $8 billion to extend Green Line fully.
darwink
Senior Member
That misunderstands the nature of the greenline risk, which is concentrated in the tunnel. The red line tunnel is meant to pass through the same geology at 8th and 2nd.
trtcttc
Active Member
The challenge with relying on 2016 analysis is that Calgary was just hit with an oil price crisis. Population growth was fairly muted from 2016-2021, which has skyrocketed in the last few years and the SE area has pretty high suburban density, with stacked townhomes and condos. The deep SE areas are designed with cars in mind (large roads, many stores inaccessible by walking) and it's probably not going to have great all day ridership, but improved transit connections will take cars off the road during rush hour, events, etc. and allow more people affordable access to employment centres.
DougB
Active Member
Despite the growth, transit congestion still seems less than before the 2015 crash. It felt worst around 2007, just before the GFC and major sections of Stoney opened
darwink
Senior Member
Deerfoot volumes:
you can really see how Deerfoot dependent the communities are, with far more minimal pandemic related drops.
| between Southland and Anderson | between Anderson and 24th St | between McKenzie Lake/Towne Blvd and Stoney | |
| 2012 | 151,000 | 127,000 | 84,000 |
| 2014 | 153,000 | 146,000 | 91,000 |
| 2015 | 153,000 | 150,000 | 94,000 |
| 2017 | 147,000 | 147,000 | 86,000 |
| 2019 | 158,000 | 146,000 | 93,000 |
| 2022 | 54,000 | 106,000 | 80,000 |
FCC1982
Active Member
I think underground is the only real option for the Green Line downtown. Surface or elevated just aren’t feasible. If it can’t be underground I say don’t do it at all.
trtcttc
Active Member
But if they spend so much money doing underground and have nothing left for the Centre N and Seton extensions for 20 years, is it even worth doing the line?
accord1999
Active Member
darwink
Senior Member
Yes. Because, well, financing doesn't work like that.
I'm sure in 1990 it felt like the sprint to finish lines and expansions for the 88 Olympics left the city in a similar situation, yet Canyon Meadows opened in 2001.
DougB
Active Member
Costs have escalated far faster than inflation, so the situation is miuch different.