Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 42 60.0%
  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 31.4%
  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 6 8.6%

  • Total voters
    70
Some good points raised above. I do want to see GL built, but I am at a loss to understand how it is going to cost so much for so relatively little.

One thing I have noticed, generally speaking, is that infrastructure projects - and transit projects in particular - seem to almost always go vastly overbudget in Canada nowadays. The Toronto and Ottawa LRT lines are going through a lot of the same cost challenges. Meanwhile, in European cities of comparable size to Calgary (places like Prague, Oslo, Helsinki, Vienna etc) large rail projects, including subways, LRT and commuter rail systems, are built without these cost overruns. What are we doing wrong here in Canada?
Some of it is obvious errors in project controls (scope control), some of it is contracting differences (a preference for fixed cost contracts and very large contracts), some of it is we hire workers who can speak english and are easily certifiable in the USA, some of it is we count different elements towards a project budget, versus others not doing that, a big part is we design projects to minimize impacts (especially land impacts), instead of spending less money to relocate or compensate those being impacted.

We also forget that we are rich and isolated, so we have people based on local wages, and can't draw on nearly as large (or relatively low wage) of a population to do fly in fly out.

We can also add that we have very very transparent budget systems in Canada, so we see more of the process in public. Germany has had similar cost overruns with Stuttgart Station. There as here, the main driver was time (decades long projects) and scope changes.
 
I don't think this is the case. They are rightly concerned about costs and scope creep however.
Yeah, not realizing the scope creep was mostly in service of not disrupting auto traffic which I am sure they would have also complained about.

Not that the city has been good at communicating that.
 
In a couple years time when YUL airport is finally linked up with rail to their city, Calgary will still be without a rail link to its airport. And it seems like it will be years, decades, or perhaps never, that this will become reality. I know that Smith has indicated interest in making such a link reality, but doesn’t seem keen to offer the money to do so. For a major city in Canada with tons of tourism and business, why hasn’t more effort been made to make this happen (rhetorical question only, rant over!)….
 
Some good points raised above. I do want to see GL built, but I am at a loss to understand how it is going to cost so much for so relatively little.

One thing I have noticed, generally speaking, is that infrastructure projects - and transit projects in particular - seem to almost always go vastly overbudget in Canada nowadays. The Toronto and Ottawa LRT lines are going through a lot of the same cost challenges. Meanwhile, in European cities of comparable size to Calgary (places like Prague, Oslo, Helsinki, Vienna etc) large rail projects, including subways, LRT and commuter rail systems, are built without these cost overruns. What are we doing wrong here in Canada?
Not a direct study on Calgary but many of these points apply across North America. The summary starting from page 9 gives a really good overview. This site/study comes from a group of NYU researchers https://transitcosts.com/executive_summary/

The main drivers are:
Stations and construction: We overbuild our stations (those renders for Eau Claire..) and use more complicated techniques to avoid disruption to cars/freight/etc. We also don't standardize our station designs, which isn't possible at a local level due to limited number of projects but if there was a national station design guide, then a lot of that work and money can be saved.

Labour: labour cots are higher, although not primarily due to wages but inefficiency and redundancy in blue and white collar jobs; Sweden is one of the lowest cost countries despite having relatively high wages.

Procurement and soft costs: We don't build a lot of transit, so most of the expertise is contracted out, which is more expensive. It also affects the agencies ability to monitor contractors. One of the major issues in Toronto with the Eglinton LRT was a lot of work was done outside of specifications (tracks too wide, waterproofing not done properly, etc.) but the agency was slow to catch these until the project was almost at completion, likely because they had no idea what they were doing since they never built an LRT before and general incompetence. Calgary had a lot of success with extending Red/Blue lines but tunneling and building the downtown portion of the GL is going to be completely different and there will most likely be cost overruns above the estimates they will release.
 
What a stupid comparison to make. Public transit is a public service. It’s not intended to be dependent on GDP.

But hey, providing mobility to the workforce clearly provides a financial case as well. Particularly if you want to attract young talent that doesn’t necessarily want a car dependent lifestyle,
I'm pretty darn anti-car, but I can acknowledge that roads are effectively a public service, too.

I'm anti-car and think the Ring Road was a reasonable project. I'm pro-transit, but do not think the Green Line is terribly sensible in its current form.


How much is too much? I would say it becomes too much when the three orders of government no longer have the fiscal capacity to pay for it. The weakest part of that equation is the City of Calgary but that is only because we adopted a 33/33/33 cost sharing model for Green Line. There are other transit projects in Canada that are funded 50/50 between the province and the Feds and both of those entities easily have the fiscal capacity to fund what is on the drawing board for Green Line.

We seem to have this bizarre problem in Calgary where we think we are living in some small 1980s prairie town and expect infrastructure spending to reflect that. In reality, we are on a rapid trajectory to become a city of 2 million people and many other cities of 2 million people are happily spending billions on building out their rail networks. Calgary is one of the few cities that seems to think we should only have to spend a few hundred million on rail because that's what we spent in the 80s and that we can use a high price tag as an excuse not to spend the money because we have hope that the hundreds of thousands of people who will soon be living in the south east and north central corridors can magically find another way to move about a city of 2 million people that doesn’t involve LRT.

I'm good with spending tens of billions...I'd just like it to be for 'homerun' projects. Like North LRT. I'm also good with spending tens or hundreds of millions on 'hopefully pretty good' projects like the 14th St BRT. But SE LRT feels very very far from a homerun to me, though I'd love to be wrong.
 
I'm pretty darn anti-car, but I can acknowledge that roads are effectively a public service, too.

I'm anti-car and think the Ring Road was a reasonable project. I'm pro-transit, but do not think the Green Line is terribly sensible in its current form.




I'm good with spending tens of billions...I'd just like it to be for 'homerun' projects. Like North LRT. I'm also good with spending tens or hundreds of millions on 'hopefully pretty good' projects like the 14th St BRT. But SE LRT feels very very far from a homerun to me, though I'd love to be wrong.
The home run north LRT requires the expensive part of the SE LRT. I think that is what is missed in the discussion. It isn't the SE LRT that is expensive.
 
The home run north LRT requires the expensive part of the SE LRT. I think that is what is missed in the discussion. It isn't the SE LRT that is expensive.
Only because they decided on Shephard instead of Aurora (or a few other options). And everything scales to length of line (train cars required and size of maintenance facility). The full scope build out of the North is shorter than this first phase to SE.
 
Only because they decided on Shephard instead of Aurora (or a few other options). And everything scales to length of line (train cars required and size of maintenance facility). The full scope build out of the North is shorter than this first phase to SE.
The North segment doesn't have reliable costing yet, but you can look on DMap and see the potential difficulties south of Beddington Trail. It is pretty rare for Centre Street to have fewer than 2 water pipes. Somewhat typical to have three. Some stretches, 4. When had access to the gas pipeline map, there are obvious challenges there too.

Frankly, the SE LRT went into functional planning more than a decade before the North Central LRT did.
 
I think we need to remember the three biggest obstacles to building Green Line in the first place%

1. There is a long distance that needs to be covered to get from downtown to the population in south east Calgary in order to actually reach a population that will generate ridership. Building to anywhere less than Douglasdale is essentially not worth it.

2. There is a large technical complexity to bring a new LRT line into downtown so that stations can be located where people want to go and not just on the periphery of downtown which would fail to generate ridership. This complexity is amplified when wanting to make a continuous connection between a north and south east segment. Building either north or south east segment so that they stop short of downtown to avoid the expense of tunneling is essentially not worth it as that becomes 'a train to nowhere'

3. There is another large technical complexity to get the train up, over the Bow River and on to the bluff so that it can start heading north.

We are used to building our LRT lines incrementally but these 3 complexities always meant that building Green Line in small increments would always be difficult initially. The stage 1 plan we have now was designed to remove all 3 of these complexities in one go which would set Green Line up for future incremental expansions. We now budget is now even more of an issue so it is unlikely we will tackle the Bow Bluff in this stage but the Eau Claire station is still designed to launch the Line over the river, which is a plus.

Somewhere along the way, people started to treat Stage 1 as if it needed to be a complete line in and of itself with no future expansion when in reality the entire point of it was to solve the 3 biggest technical complexities that have been a barrier to Green Line construction for the last 30 years. With these complexities solved, we can get back to more affordable, bite sized expansion of the network. Stage 1 was always going to be the most expensive part of Green Line. Despite the fact that that has been proven accurate in spades, moving forward with Stage 1 still makes a lot of sense.
 
I think we need to remember the three biggest obstacles to building Green Line in the first place%

1. There is a long distance that needs to be covered to get from downtown to the population in south east Calgary in order to actually reach a population that will generate ridership. Building to anywhere less than Douglasdale is essentially not worth it.

Yes, this is a very big challenge for the SE. It is not a challenge at all for the North.

2. There is a large technical complexity to bring a new LRT line into downtown so that stations can be located where people want to go and not just on the periphery of downtown which would fail to generate ridership. This complexity is amplified when wanting to make a continuous connection between a north and south east segment. Building either north or south east segment so that they stop short of downtown to avoid the expense of tunneling is essentially not worth it as that becomes 'a train to nowhere'
Again, these are primarily challenges for the SE moreso than the North. If we've accepted that running on the surface down Centre St is fine (I'm ambivalent), then it could simply* run all the way down the bridge to 7 Ave (under 4/5/6 Aves if necessary).

Which means losing the line connection...which is certainly a nice to have, but exactly how valuable is it really? If the North line existed as I describe it, would we be willing to pay to build the new proposed bridge just to achieve line connectivity? Or might we even look at the SE line and question if/how it needed to get to the heart of downtown. It probably should, but it wouldn't necessarily need to cross under 7 ave anymore.

Or hell, is 3 short blocks close enough if we kept it on the south side of the tracks and used it to serve the Beltline? Perhaps even up to MRU? Probably a dumb idea for the Calgary we know...but maybe not that dumb for a 2-2.5M city?

3. There is another large technical complexity to get the train up, over the Bow River and on to the bluff so that it can start heading north.
Only if we insist on connecting the lines. A question which was settled fairly enough back when the napkin estimates weren't known to be absurd.

darwink raises fair points about some of the challenges to the North. I'd argue those pale compared to crossing red line, CP line, Elbow River, Bow River, etc. I'd add that the CP tracks and canal pose an access challenge for a number of stations - some places requiring expensive mitigation, others simply limiting potential ridership.

We are used to building our LRT lines incrementally but these 3 complexities always meant that building Green Line in small increments would always be difficult initially. The stage 1 plan we have now was designed to remove all 3 of these complexities in one go which would set Green Line up for future incremental expansions. We now budget is now even more of an issue so it is unlikely we will tackle the Bow Bluff in this stage but the Eau Claire station is still designed to launch the Line over the river, which is a plus.

Somewhere along the way, people started to treat Stage 1 as if it needed to be a complete line in and of itself with no future expansion when in reality the entire point of it was to solve the 3 biggest technical complexities that have been a barrier to Green Line construction for the last 30 years. With these complexities solved, we can get back to more affordable, bite sized expansion of the network. Stage 1 was always going to be the most expensive part of Green Line. Despite the fact that that has been proven accurate in spades, moving forward with Stage 1 still makes a lot of sense.

It actually just struck me that the complexity they are avoiding by going SE is dealing with existing roads and residents. Centre Street is quite simple...but not necessarily easy or painless, especially with such little pre-planning. The SE just has to deal with the rail companies, but it's mostly out of public view.
 
darwink raises fair points about some of the challenges to the North. I'd argue those pale compared to crossing red line, CP line, Elbow River, Bow River, etc. I'd add that the CP tracks and canal pose an access challenge for a number of stations - some places requiring expensive mitigation, others simply limiting potential ridership.
The cost, including risk) of working around above ground knowns is far more predictable than working around under ground uncertainties.

Those difficulties you state were worked around in a functional study in 2003. The difficulties in north central remain to be found, and cannot be reliably ameliorated until they're daylighted.
 
We’re talking about a quarter of the city (geography-wise) having no lrt access.

The realistic catchment sizes are very similar, despite the SE being much longer. Hell, the north line will have a station about 1.25 kms from Deerfoot City...but apparently that's too far to be part of the catchment. I'm sure there will be plenty of warehouse workers elated to solve the last 4km problem before their 7am shift, though. No wonder the job numbers are so drastically different!

Green-Line-Long-Term-Need-768x638.jpeg




The cost, including risk) of working around above ground knowns is far more predictable than working around under ground uncertainties.

Those difficulties you state were worked around in a functional study in 2003. The difficulties in north central remain to be found, and cannot be reliably ameliorated until they're daylighted.

Totally fair. Running down a street that is actually near people is a completely new concept for LRT in this city, so I can understand how scary it must seem compared to all of the other lines we've built. It's simply bad timing - the sensible north alignment came to light a few years too late and the Harper money fairy came a few years too early.

I am still skeptical of exactly how much longer it would've taken if the focus was to go North instead of our current timeline. Is say 2034 really that crazy at this point compared to 2031?
 
I am still skeptical of exactly how much longer it would've taken if the focus was to go North instead of our current timeline. Is say 2034 really that crazy at this point compared to 2031?
There is no reason to wait on the SE, because by the time the NC is ready there will BE MORE MONEY.

Then, we can spend both monies and get both.
 

Back
Top