MichaelS
Senior Member
Then why cut it, as it seems like it would be relatively little cost savings..... I am not so sure what you state was the actual latest plan.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
accord1999
Active Member
It was reported that not fitting out the Centre Street Station was enough to save $400M.
Despite the high nearby population, its low estimated ridership makes it tempting to cut the station box as well (especially if you're a transit user that would not be served by Stage 1). Combined you're talking about the same magnitude of money as the arena.
(From 2017)
(From 2024)
Despite the high nearby population, its low estimated ridership makes it tempting to cut the station box as well (especially if you're a transit user that would not be served by Stage 1). Combined you're talking about the same magnitude of money as the arena.
(From 2017)
(From 2024)
outoftheice
Active Member
This is the same problem I have with the Jim Gray approach to planning... it is a very simplistic, black and white view of what Calgary was 20 years ago. Do a lot of people in the Beltline live there because they work downtown and want to walk to work? Yes. But many also live there now because they want to live in a vibrant, urban setting and have jobs elsewhere in the city or they work downtown but they have a partner that works elsewhere.
Green Line was meant to service employment hubs like Quarry Park (home to large companies like Imperial Oil), South Hospital, and Aurora Businss Park. There are 30,000 people living in Beltline. The fact that people can't contemplate that many of them may need to commute out of downtown to jobs in the burbs shows a lack of imagination and recognition of what our city is becoming. These trends will only continue to accelerate as our population continues to grow
outoftheice
Active Member
Not only is it crazy that the premier doesn't mention downtown once in this clip, she also prioritizes the new event centre over her very own grand central station idea when she gives her answer. Is this entire thing really just about building a train from the 'burbs to the Flames games because it is kind of starting to seem that way and I am sure Jim Gray runs in the same circles as the people who own the Flames.
Tothewest
Active Member
I dont think his view of planning is outdated, it's a reasonable analysis of what something costs, to what the benefits are. Spending $6B on the present plan would be completely ideological, doing it to do it.
1) The cost of tunneling isn't economical, it's really that simple. So you need to decide whether you want an elevated track going through the beltline....the answer will be a resounding no.
2) The number of workers at Quarry Park is probably equal to 1-2 towers downtown. South Health Campus the same. The ridership from downtown going that direction for work, would highly underwhelm you. There will also be a 4-5 block walk to those LRT stops, most beltline residents are 5-7 blocks from LRT presently, so are we really further ahead, if the the green line stop is elsewhere downtown
Bottom line folks, these are very real dollars for a practical project that are wildly out of whack for the number of users presently described. It has to be completely rethought, with more economical plans, or it simply wont happen. It's either no green line, or a green line with a few less than ideal pieces and possibly some reworking of red/blue stops to accommodate it
Could this be the plan forward?
Sept 2024 The city hands to project over to the UCP, they foot the bill for the section from SE suburbia to the Grand Central station so folks can get to the Flames games.
2026 The city has worked out the kinks for DT and up to at least 16th ave.
2027 The Suburbia-Event centre express opens, just in time for the UCP to get voted out.
2028 Construction starts on the section from Grand Central station to 16th ave.
It's not my preferred course and I'm half joking, but I'm also wondering if this is how it’s going to end up with the UCP still having 3 more years in power.
Sept 2024 The city hands to project over to the UCP, they foot the bill for the section from SE suburbia to the Grand Central station so folks can get to the Flames games.
2026 The city has worked out the kinks for DT and up to at least 16th ave.
2027 The Suburbia-Event centre express opens, just in time for the UCP to get voted out.
2028 Construction starts on the section from Grand Central station to 16th ave.
It's not my preferred course and I'm half joking, but I'm also wondering if this is how it’s going to end up with the UCP still having 3 more years in power.
ahuch
Active Member
Seems like a lose-lose for the city at this point.
Tarsus
Active Member
It’s not the worst plan I’ve heard.lol
In Adam McVicar’s tweet he says council is voting next week on whether transfer the project over to the province? What does that mean exactly?
Joborule
Active Member
Do we know that for sure? If it's an elevated track on 10th Ave from 4 ST SE to 2 ST SW, that's very minimal impact to the Beltline. I don't think much people have really thought about the elevated track through there since it was never taken seriously by the city, but now is the time to give that an honest assessment to see if that is the best alternative option, and if the province would be okay with it. I'm also of the opinion that a Beltline stop isn't necessary at all, but this would bring that option back on the table if it's economically viable.
Last edited:
outoftheice
Active Member
Why is spending $6 billion ideological? I would argue that those saying $6 billion is somehow some magic number of doom arr the ones being ideological and clinging to some old timey, small city, prairie conservatism.
Is it a big cost number? Yes. Is it a big, complex project? Also yes. It should shock no one that big, complex projects come with big cost numbers. I think the problem is two-fold.
First, the City over promised and under delivered so people locked in to the idea that $5 billion buys 40 km of track and anything less is deserving of outrage. Second this is the first time Calgarians are seeing a project built with that kind of cost number attached to it in our city's history so they are freaking out about.
Meanwhile Toronto is building $20 billion of rapid transit projects simultaneously and cities like Montreal and Vancouver are building projects more expensive than Green Line Stage 1.
Calgary is no longer a sleepy little city on the prairies, our provincial government is one of the wealthiest ones in the country and we have a federal government that's more than happy to splash cash on transit projects. If we wanted to build a $20 billion Green Line, we could. But until people shed the old time attitudes about what is possible in this province, I don't think we ever would.
Tothewest
Active Member
Literally nobody is saying dont build the green line ever, what many are saying, including the province, is dont spend $6B on a train to nowhere, bc as presently described thats what this is. It simply needs more economical solutions that a scaled for a city of 1.4M. We are not vancouver/toronto.
For a city that u say “overpromised and underdelivered” on something of this scale, where our bang for the bang is dramatically dramatically lower than originally presented, it’s a little rich to call those who see that as “outdated thinking”
Tothewest
Active Member
The green line wont be going through the beltline, that much is clear and obvious. I was referring to an early comment made about keeping the beltline stop at Central and making it elevated. I personally feel the elevated track on 10th as described in the Jim Gray report seems very reasonable.
Joborule
Active Member
I counter that it's not clear cut that beltline is completely off the table. The province is going to do their own assessment, and come back to the city with their proposal. But until the province says that beltline is a no-go, can't cut that option off completely, since it's the alignment that I feel makes the most sense in servicing downtown, which shouldn't be disregarded.
Now to be clear, the Jim Gray concept isn't the worst idea, and if it's the chosen one, it's okay. But that proposal has significant drawbacks in forcing high transfer demand on City Hall station from the jump. We can't be thinking of what the best option is today, we should be forward thinking in what the best option is for tomorrow, when the ultimate build out of the green line is completed. If we're just exclusively thinking about this from the SR LRT point of view, then the terminus of the line at City Hall makes a lot of logical sense. But if this line is going to to extend to North Central, then there are significant compromises on the customer service experience for everyone involved, including Red Line and Blue Line users. If you're coming from the North, and your destination is in the core of downtown, instead of getting dropped off in the middle of downtown like you currently are with the high ridership routes that go down Centre Street currently, you're now being dropped off at City Hall, and forced to transfer to get closer to your destination. If customers have to do that, it actually would discourage the use of the train, as many would prefer to just use the more straight forward bus routes to get nearby where they're going.
But aside from that and going back to @darwink post earlier today, the capacity of trains on 7 Ave would likely be reached earlier due to the induced demand of this transfer point, resulting in having to accelerate the timeline on the 8 Ave Subway. And if we go down that route of having to build it in say less than 15 years - rather than 50 or so - then how much total money is being spent when you combine the green line and 8 Avenue Subway? And there are other extensions throughout the city that would demand attention also. All that math added up could lead to the outcome that maybe we should've just tunneled the green line in the first place...
If you want the cheapest, easiest option that suitable for today, I say Jim Gray fits that criteria. If you want the option that takes the future network into consideration, and in my opinion provides the better customer experience, then elevated on 10 Ave and 2 ST SW should be the preferred choice.
accord1999
Active Member
But there is a significant difference between:
1) A planned $20B project, where every stakeholder from governments, areas affected and the public beforehand understand the true cost, why certain decisions were made, what are the priorities and that there are viable construction and funding schedules to build and pay for it
2) A $20B project that came about only because a $10B project was poorly managed leading to frequent cost over-runs, and decisions that are made quickly and without consulting those affected, and uncertainty on when future funding will be available to get the project back on track
Look at the Green Line; it's under-estimation of costs meant it could promise everyone what they wanted, a true city-wide line stretching from the Far North to the Deep South that was completely underground through the City Core and 3-car long trains that would have enough capacity for 100 years of growth.
But then the first period of cost over-runs meant that virtually the entire NC LRT got cut without asking a single NC transit user if they were ok with that. A monumental decision made by a small group of people based on very arbitrary criteria and meekly rubber stamped by Council. Every other cost over-run afterwards has been the same way.
And as Stage 1 gets increasingly smaller, the parts that were cut long ago are no longer even a factor. The July revision had a visible cut to the SE, so they quickly promised that the next available funding would pay building further SE. But wasn't that next available funding originally expected to go North? It's easy to say to we should spend the money to build the DT core right, when the Green Line doesn't have to show how it impacts and delays LRT service being available at 64th Ave and Panorama. They've been cut so long that many people have probably forgotten they were originally in the Green Line.
If the line has to go west and can't stop directly at City Hall, and must be elevated, I agree that 10 Ave is a good option. It is relatively low traffic, and the streetscape is already largely a mix of parkades, empty lots, and utilities (and two apartment buildings, although fortunately one is on top of a very tall parkade). And the curve north to 2nd St SW could be done on what is currently a parking lot.
There's also some precedent for it - the West LRT is elevated just north of 10th Ave between 15 and 19 St SW. (Of course it's not elevated ON 10 Ave like this green line option would be).