[whatchyyc]

I think there is too much focus now on building out green line a singular mega project, which will of course end up being mega expensive. And if the costs get too high then so will the calls to scrap the whole thing.

For the near term, it seems reasonable to separate the NC segment if people are looking for a quick win, especially if SE is going to proceed first for whatever reasons.

If the YYC to Banff rail project is expected to proceed soon, is having a transit route for centre north of Beddington that transfers to or shares track with that train a bad interim step? Certainly enables faster commutes for those users if the stops on centre from Beddington to downtown are eliminated. That would also take some load off centre st BRT for that segment which would allow for more usage growth while the properties needed to build LRT in that segment are acquired.

Later on, the two centre street segments can be joined, while the nose creek corridor continues north to establish commuter service to Airdrie and other communities.

I actually had a similar thought, I think this could be an interesting option considering that the cost to get a heavy rail train up to North Pointe from the track used for the Airport and Airdrie regional trains could be pretty low

 

[Tothewest]

With regards to TOD development, I think it's important to remember that Calgary is still a relatively young city, with few geographical constraints compared to a place like Vancouver, where TOD developments took quite a while to really get going.

Eventually though even without geographical constraints, sprawl will be limited by what people consider to be an acceptable commute time. Until then, prospective homeowners when given a choice of a property that has dedicated land which will appreciate long term, or a multifamily unit which has maintenance fees that will increase long term, will mostly chose the former if prices are similar.

But if Calgary continues to grow as it is, the sprawl / commute time limit will be hit before the transit lines need full scale upgrades or replacement. IMO its best to plan these networks with the idea that the ROW is going to have to last forever, thus my focus on full grade separation, or at least the possibility to easily upgrade to that.

I'm not slamming TOD, i think it's a great idea. But I think we forget what a true TOD is...and the primary element of that is land/parking lots. Centre St is a VERY tight corridor, which is already lined with 3-4-5 story residential/commercial. So you arent going to see a large meaningful influx that "changes" the degree to which the transit itself is encouraging development, or increasing ridership. I think tunneling is the only LRT option that would physically work in that space, and I see that being a highly, highly unlikely endeavour due to cost. Would a BRT enhancement work? possibly

I also reject the notion that by not proceeding at this point, we arent "bold" enough as a city, or are "scared" of big projects. Calgary is already a world class city, and many publications have backed that up. Spending recklessly on a project that serves a VERY small number of people, is not bold

 

[Cowtown]

Interesting read why the Nose Creek option was dropped.

Rewind: Why the Nose Creek transit alignment was kicked to the curb more than a decade ago - LiveWire Calgary

Premier Danielle Smith mused about resurrecting a north Green Line plan that would take it through the Nose Creek Valley – a plan thrown out after analysis by the City of Calgary more than a decade ago. The Premier made the comments Wednesday when asked about Calgary’s failed Green Line...

livewirecalgary.com

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

Or maybe it's just transit and transportation enthusiasts discussing how to fix a project with a $13B appetite but currently only a $6B budget?

Easy nowadays to get lost in the dollar amounts, and while it's definitely one way to measure a project cost, it's not the only one. Hundred dollar bills aren't going to be out there digging holes and pouring concrete, people and machines will be.

While there is a minimum portion required for a new line to be considered operational, a huge part of the green line as envisioned can also be built gradually. Whether NC or SE proceeds first, it only has to be built from DT to the maintenance facility to begin operations.

I'm assuming thus is still planned to be built with some sort of P3 arrangement, and while I was somewhat supportive of that in past, offloading risk for a fixed price, etc, I'm not sure its reply the best way to keep building a transit network long term.

Too many contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and so on, each who have their own profit margins factored in will definitely do a lot to increase overall costs. Doing a build in binge mode like that with no ongoing efforts also means that the design and construction experience and expertise gets lost when the project completes.

Maybe this is what the province has in mind with an agency similar to metrolinx or TransLink, and I think that idea has some merit.

It won't make the people at the far ends of the line happy, but I think a more gradual build approach where after the core is complete, a new station opens very year or two would be the better way to go long term. Basically trading huge up front costs for what may end up being a longer full build time.

Something about slow and steady wining the race

 

[Cowtown]

Myself, I’m against the idea of the Nose Creek alignment. It might be cheaper than the centre street alignment, but as a city we’re at a point where we need to do things the best way not the cheapest way.
The best way is putting the line where the people are.

 

[ahuch]

Myself, I’m against the idea of the Nose Creek alignment. It might be cheaper than the centre street alignment, but as a city we’re at a point where we need to do things the best way not the cheapest way.
The best way is putting the line where the people are.

Agreed, but the government above seems to have different ideas for the future of our cities.

 

[Tothewest]

Myself, I’m against the idea of the Nose Creek alignment. It might be cheaper than the centre street alignment, but as a city we’re at a point where we need to do things the best way not the cheapest way.
The best way is putting the line where the people are.

I guess I'll ask then, if the cost matters that little to some, then why does it matter whether the province does their share? The city should just do it on their own....

The answer is we cant. So when you need other peoples money, cost/benefit matters.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I'm not slamming TOD, i think it's a great idea. But I think we forget what a true TOD is...and the primary element of that is land/parking lots. Centre St is a VERY tight corridor, which is already lined with 3-4-5 story residential/commercial. So you arent going to see a large meaningful influx that "changes" the degree to which the transit itself is encouraging development, or increasing ridership. I think tunneling is the only LRT option that would physically work in that space, and I see that being a highly, highly unlikely endeavour due to cost. Would a BRT enhancement work? possibly

I also reject the notion that by not proceeding at this point, we arent "bold" enough as a city, or are "scared" of big projects. Calgary is already a world class city, and many publications have backed that up. Spending recklessly on a project that serves a VERY small number of people, is not bold

Oh I didn't think you were slamming TOD and I don't think anyone here is really. And I agree that tunnel up center to beddington would be the ideal solution, just throwing out an idea on how to get faster transit to the communities north of there sooner.

In the older neighborhoods the TOD will come in time, few if any of those homes or small apartments will outlive a well designed transit ROW.

 

[accord1999]

Austerity for the sake of it in a province with a surplus just doesn't scream "enthusiastic" about transit to me, and throwing out a good plan for a haphazard one It's not a win for transit, especially the context of this project being transformed into a weird political play.

It's not just about austerity. Even for a very wealthy region and where every taxpayer understand and agree that transit doesn't need to pay for itself (or even come close) we still should worry about ROI and opportunity costs. Spending so much on the Green Line also affects all of the other projects that in RouteAhead. And specifically, Stage 1 going over-budget means that it needs future money to fix its gaps (and it already took without asking anybody), money that long ago was promised to disappointed NC transit users to be used to go north and the Green Line being stuck at 16th Avenue Eau Claire would just be temporary thing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1818467128166826184

If one can fantasize about alternate alignments and future 7th ave tunnels then one can fantasize about a $13B green line that is done correctly

You need the priority and main-line projects to come in on budget to have money leftover for the fantasy and want projects.

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

I actually had a similar thought, I think this could be an interesting option considering that the cost to get a heavy rail train up to North Pointe from the track used for the Airport and Airdrie regional trains could be pretty low

View attachment 595895View attachment 595894View attachment 595896View attachment 595893View attachment 595897

Nice work, more or less what I had in mind, but I'm phone posting so diagramming ideas is a bit out of reach for me!

 

[whatchyyc]

I thought it could be a big boy version of the Discotrain pilot they ran from Anderson to Somerset back in the day

 

[MichaelS]

Interesting read why the Nose Creek option was dropped.

Rewind: Why the Nose Creek transit alignment was kicked to the curb more than a decade ago - LiveWire Calgary

Premier Danielle Smith mused about resurrecting a north Green Line plan that would take it through the Nose Creek Valley – a plan thrown out after analysis by the City of Calgary more than a decade ago. The Premier made the comments Wednesday when asked about Calgary’s failed Green Line...

livewirecalgary.com

From the article, is there any further information on the source of this table, and details about each of the criteria and how it is scored?

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any breakdown, and the 4 page Council report linked in the article didn't seem to expand on it either. Perhaps if I went to City archives and looked for the attachments. But, if I am reading it right, I see that actual deliverablity of the project (I assume that means ability to actually construct it) seems to be given the same weight as "Prosperous Economy" and "Community Well being", whatever that means. So based on this chart, even though the Centre Street options all scored a 3 for deliverability (which again, I am not sure exactly what it means, and am surprised to see at-grade score the same as underground), compared to the better scored 4 for Nose Creek, Centre Street is given scores of between 4 and 5 for Community Well Being, against the 1 of Nose Creek.

Are we sure this decision to say that Nose Creek is inferior is based on the most sound, objective analysis?

 

[Tarsus]

.LRT up Centre is a pipe dream. If the estimate to build 7 stations from Eau Claire to Lynwood, much of through easy to contruct freight rail corridors and industrial areas, is $7B what would a line up Centre cost? Probably $5B plus.

Centre doesn’t have to be a pipe dream. We’re a big city now, so time to put the big boy pants on, and just do it.
Building it through Nose Creek is 1980’s type thinking where the cheapest way was the best way.

 

[lemongrab]

Sure, your enthusiasm is noted and your post history speaks for itself.


Austerity for the sake of it in a province with a surplus just doesn't scream "enthusiastic" about transit to me, and throwing out a good plan for a haphazard one It's not a win for transit, especially the context of this project being transformed into a weird political play.

If one can fantasize about alternate alignments and future 7th ave tunnels then one can fantasize about a $13B green line that is done correctly, the claim that this needs "fixing" because we deserve a budget line instead is very obviously ideologically driven and valid to call out, IMO. And I did so as a general statement so you need not feel targeted unless you were planning to tell on yourself.

I guess we can agree to disagree that Lynnwood to Eau Claire for $6.3B constitutes a good plan. If you want to call it the least awful of only awful choices right now, that would be a lot more reasonable IMO (even though I disagree)

I generally hate any both sides argument, but both sides are absolutely guilty of politicizing this (albeit the right doing so actively from the Leg. while the left is mostly rhetoric online and in council meetings)

I'm not slamming TOD, i think it's a great idea. But I think we forget what a true TOD is...and the primary element of that is land/parking lots. Centre St is a VERY tight corridor, which is already lined with 3-4-5 story residential/commercial. So you arent going to see a large meaningful influx that "changes" the degree to which the transit itself is encouraging development, or increasing ridership. I think tunneling is the only LRT option that would physically work in that space, and I see that being a highly, highly unlikely endeavour due to cost. Would a BRT enhancement work? possibly

I also reject the notion that by not proceeding at this point, we arent "bold" enough as a city, or are "scared" of big projects. Calgary is already a world class city, and many publications have backed that up. Spending recklessly on a project that serves a VERY small number of people, is not bold

What if Centre St simply doesn't need any substantial TOD? We know the ridership is there...just deliver the transit! How many customers are on the sidelines right now after encountering too many overloaded buses? How much more operational efficiency could we achieve here, freeing up resources to deploy elsewhere?

Completely agree on your last statement though. Lots of people try to paint this as many alternatives being studied over and over again (and we've gotta respect that work!), but most of the biggest decisions were only looked at once in the 2015-17 range. Since then it's been reiteration after reiteration within a few unwavering assumptions: it's gotta be SE, gotta be trains, gotta be low floor trains at that, gotta be tunnels. The bold move is to realize that it's not actually analysis paralysis...it's just paralysis because it doesn't pass the common sense sniff test!

 

[Tarsus]

From the article, is there any further information on the source of this table, and details about each of the criteria and how it is scored?
View attachment 595905

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any breakdown, and the 4 page Council report linked in the article didn't seem to expand on it either. Perhaps if I went to City archives and looked for the attachments. But, if I am reading it right, I see that actual deliverablity of the project (I assume that means ability to actually construct it) seems to be given the same weight as "Prosperous Economy" and "Community Well being", whatever that means. So based on this chart, even though the Centre Street options all scored a 3 for deliverability (which again, I am not sure exactly what it means, and am surprised to see at-grade score the same as underground), compared to the better scored 4 for Nose Creek, Centre Street is given scores of between 4 and 5 for Community Well Being, against the 1 of Nose Creek.

Are we sure this decision to say that Nose Creek is inferior is based on the most sound, objective analysis?

I don’t know the definitions myself, but I would say deliverability scores higher due to it being cheaper and easier. I don’t argue it would be cheaper and easier, but often the better option is harder and costlier.
Community well being? Not sure what that is, but if I had to guess it’s related to being better integrated to the community. IDK.