[lemongrab]

And the virus spreads...

You're very observant: the sacred and the propane.

Certain incidents have expired. We're at a precipice of an enormous crossroads. what with the cancelling of the green line and all that entrails.

The GreenLine is an albacore around Calgary's neck. It's a stagmire. There is a little dysentery in the ranks of the UCP. For reasons which I will discern in the future.

Very allegorical.

 

[JWhite]

I’ve read through the past dozen pages and varying news articles, but haven’t been able to clarify if the UCP when they say above ground do they mean at grade or elevated?

 

[kempes_78]

As you alluded in your prior post, there's nothing wrong with trying to future proof infrastructure.

Few could have foreseen the impact of something like Covid on the CRE market, but given time there will be enough growth for red and blue lines to need their separate ROWs.

Too bad the planers of the day didn't have something in place for green line, but as I understand it, the SE growth wasn't really anticipated back then either.

CV 19 was a red-herring (exploited by most industries) and used to promote false flags.
I was aware of the south-east communities' proposals back in the late 1990's and worked on the construction of the schools project.
Various LRT routes were mooted with likely routes around about 2000.

I’ve read through the past dozen pages and varying news articles, but haven’t been able to clarify if the UCP when they say above ground do they mean at grade or elevated?

Easier to keep quiet about it until they do their cost modeling: key factors - foundation types, depths, piling, superstructure and sizing, escalator requirements etc. Then they will compare costs and make relative decisions. How bitter will the onion taste be? Puts the black, grey and gold lines in perspective.

 

[outoftheice]

Just wanted to repost this paragraph by @Ramsayite because it is the absolute truth. We are chucking out decade of city planning work and replacing it with a half-assed plan drawn up in the span of 3 months that reflect the musings of a provincial government that is just thinking about the project for the first time. How anyone can think this is how business should be done is insane to me.

I think the average person has no idea how much work has gone into this right-of-way; how many ARPs, TOD sites, road alignments, streetscape upgrades, bike paths, public amenities, utility upgrades etc are hinged upon it and have been designed alongside. The risk of invalidating all of this associated work needs to be considered as part of the package of opportunity costs here. We are at serious risk of butchering a ton of associated planning work.

 

[kempes_78]

Just wanted to repost this paragraph by @Ramsayite because it is the absolute truth. We are chucking out decade of city planning work and replacing it with a half-assed plan drawn up in the span of 3 months that reflect the musings of a provincial government that is just thinking about the project for the first time. How anyone can think this is how business should be done is insane to me.

I think the average person has no idea how much work has gone into this right-of-way; how many ARPs, TOD sites, road alignments, streetscape upgrades, bike paths, public amenities, utility upgrades etc are hinged upon it and have been designed alongside. The risk of invalidating all of this associated work needs to be considered as part of the package of opportunity costs here. We are at serious risk of butchering a ton of associated planning work.

You are correct. A megaproject involves a great deal of brain power, lateral thinking, blood, sweat and tears. The principal problems manifest with who should be the client, their instructions and desires, consultants, contractors and partnering groups, specific restrictions, geotechnical, surveys, definite no-no's, financial limitations, financing requirements and the contract agreement. Those alone stress the team. It is easy to give a C$ rate per lineal metre of track for a fully all-inclusive project but what does that unit rate cover in terms of basic construction, planning, resourcing, permitting, shareholders etc. Equally, will it be seen as a cash cow or a white elephant for the next administration and the one after that. This is what Ramseyite is referencing with regard to the volume of work that will be wasted. Smith's new Consultant(s) will be in the same boat and cometh the day when they make their findings always remember that you cannot make honey out of shit!

 

[ssiguy2]

I know I am going to get roasted for this but..................I'm glad Smith pulled the funding.

This line has been a mess from start to finish and it is 100% the fault of the City. It was NOT the province that broke the contract but rather Calgary. The deal they had with the province is that you get a certain amount of money to build a particular line {or length thereof}. It not a blank cheque to do with however you please. When Calgary shrank the agreed upon length and stations of the project, Calgary that broke the agreement, not the province. The province pulled the funding because Calgary wasn't living up to it's part of the bargain, not the other way around.

Calgary should keep the current route from Inglewood south but it should then continue north with a station roughly near City Hall. It can then interline with the Blue Line eastbound over DF and take the Deerfoot Valley north to the airport with stops in the middle such as the huge industrial areas and the hotel districts. Remember, effective transit not only has to be close to where people live but also close to where they are going and the area has a huge employment base. After the airport it can eventually head north and connect up to the existing freight line to serve Airdrie. This short interlining with the Blue Line would save a LOT of time & money and make for easy transfers between the 2. This would require the Greenline to use standard CTrain high-floor LRTs which is a good thing. High floor trains have higher capacity, lower operational costs per-passenger travel, require less maintenance, have a higher top speed which will be important for an eventual extension to Airdrie, last longer, and would not require a completely new operation/maintenance centre. Low level trains are ideal for local streetcar like service but are a very poor choice for a CTrain type system but don't take my word for it, just go ask Ottawa.

Yes, it would require some on the furthest western parts of the downtown to transfer but the trains on the transit mall are very frequent. This proposal {which is basically what Smith is proposing} serves downtown and the airport while still serving the southern areas it was originally designed for but at a vastly cheaper cost and much faster to build. Calgary has blown this project and, in my opinion, due to Calgary's complete incompetence, the province might be the best apparatus to get this project moving again.

 

[kempes_78]

I know I am going to get roasted for this but..................I'm glad Smith pulled the funding.

This line has been a mess from start to finish and it is 100% the fault of the City. It was NOT the province that broke the contract but rather Calgary. The deal they had with the province is that you get a certain amount of money to build a particular line {or length thereof}. It not a blank cheque to do with however you please. When Calgary shrank the agreed upon length and stations of the project, Calgary that broke the agreement, not the province. The province pulled the funding because Calgary wasn't living up to it's part of the bargain, not the other way around.

Calgary should keep the current route from Inglewood south but it should then continue north with a station roughly near City Hall. It can then interline with the Blue Line eastbound over DF and take the Deerfoot Valley north to the airport with stops in the middle such as the huge industrial areas and the hotel districts. Remember, effective transit not only has to be close to where people live but also close to where they are going and the area has a huge employment base. After the airport it can eventually head north and connect up to the existing freight line to serve Airdrie. This short interlining with the Blue Line would save a LOT of time & money and make for easy transfers between the 2. This would require the Greenline to use standard CTrain high-floor LRTs which is a good thing. High floor trains have higher capacity, lower operational costs per-passenger travel, require less maintenance, have a higher top speed which will be important for an eventual extension to Airdrie, last longer, and would not require a completely new operation/maintenance centre. Low level trains are ideal for local streetcar like service but are a very poor choice for a CTrain type system but don't take my word for it, just go ask Ottawa.

Yes, it would require some on the furthest western parts of the downtown to transfer but the trains on the transit mall are very frequent. This proposal {which is basically what Smith is proposing} serves downtown and the airport while still serving the southern areas it was originally designed for but at a vastly cheaper cost and much faster to build. Calgary has blown this project and, in my opinion, due to Calgary's complete incompetence, the province might be the best apparatus to get this project moving again.

I understand your sentiment. The terms of the agreement between the Province and Calgary are not known yet there would probably be restrictions as to what they could/ couldn't do.
There are future plans for the LRT to cross Deerfoot and service the industrial/ hotel area: yet the original green line still follows the original planned route.
Let's wait and see!

 

[accord1999]

We are chucking out decade of city planning work and replacing it with a half-assed plan drawn up in the span of 3 months that reflect the musings of a provincial government that is just thinking about the project for the first time. How anyone can think this is how business should be done is insane to me.

But the reason why we are at 10 years of planning work, is that lots of work done 8-10 years ago have been chucked out by the Green Line team and/or no longer valid due to the steep rise in costs.

We've discussed the Bow River crossing before, didn't the Green Line effectively replaced years of planning work with a half-assed plan too? The full tunnel was the highest ranked, but when it was no longer was affordable they replaced it with a plan that technically wasn't even studied before (the 16th Ave station was at-grade, every option studied before had it underground). The comment from Paul Demong was pretty prescient about the situation we face today:

"The underground option is, more than likely and from everything I've read, the best option," he said.

"But just because it's the best option, if we can't afford it, when we look at the entire line or at least a good portion of line in its entirety, what's the point of making something, if you can't make it a usable option?"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-green-line-tunnel-approved-in-principle-1.3791357

The beltline tunnel has also changed, the CBC article noted that it was originally recommended to be surface on 12th Avenue but public engagement turned it into a tunnel. And then the 2020 revision changed it to a tunnel on 11th Avenue even though the 2016 studies focused on 10th and 12th Avenue. And I'm curious about the planning for the Highfield maintenance and storage facility and how much work has gone into that considering that Shepard was the only choice for 10 years.

 

[kempes_78]

But the reason why we are at 10 years of planning work, is that lots of work done 8-10 years ago have been chucked out by the Green Line team and/or no longer valid due to the steep rise in costs.

We've discussed the Bow River crossing before, didn't the Green Line effectively replaced years of planning work with a half-assed plan too? The full tunnel was the highest ranked, but when it was no longer was affordable they replaced it with a plan that technically wasn't even studied before (the 16th Ave station was at-grade, every option studied before had it underground). The comment from Paul Demong was pretty prescient about the situation we face today:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-green-line-tunnel-approved-in-principle-1.3791357

The beltline tunnel has also changed, the CBC article noted that it was originally recommended to be surface on 12th Avenue but public engagement turned it into a tunnel. And then the 2020 revision changed it to a tunnel on 11th Avenue even though the 2016 studies focused on 10th and 12th Avenue. And I'm curious about the planning for the Highfield maintenance and storage facility and how much work has gone into that considering that Shepard was the only choice for 10 years.

Highfield maintenance depot is a complicated building whose design has caused several practical problems during the 30% and 60% stages.

 

[MichaelS]

Was it even being contemplated at 30%? If so, was the public informed or has it been known the "plan" wasn't feasible for much longer than this latest media storm?

 

[ahuch]

Was it even being contemplated at 30%? If so, was the public informed or has it been known the "plan" wasn't feasible for much longer than this latest media storm?

I think they mean 30% design for the Highfield Depot specifically. You could have had the rest of the project at 60% or whenever the change to require Highfield came about, and they had to rush to design that facility. Though it's also possible it's been known for a long time as well, which would make the provinces reaction seem worse since they'd have known then too.

 

[accord1999]

A possible clue about when the decision to switch maintenance facility comes from the submitted development plans for the Shepard facility.

The most recent submission was on May 23, with plans (that significantly shrunk the facility) dated to May 2. So that would suggest the decision was probably made in June or July because they were still trying to cut costs and reach Shepard before then.

DMap

DMap

dmap.calgary.ca

 

[outoftheice]

I genuinely don't understand people's obsession with the need for high floor cars... 2 Urbos LRVs hold more people than 3.5 traditional Siemen's cars. Do people just think that because the interior of something looks like a subway car it must have the capacity of a subway car? The whole fleet commonality thing is a head scratcher too because Calgary Transit doesn't operate a common fleet now. There is literally nothing in common between a S-200, a S-160 and a U-2. It is three very different types of trains so adding 1 low floor LRV to the fleet has zero impact on any sort of imagined operation savings. The fact the premier has seized on this vehicle argument shows she has spent less than 1 minute actually learning about the issue which should concern all of us.

 

[MichaelS]

Well, given that the Greenline is on indefinite hold, we could have used the cars we already ordered on our other 2 lines if they were high floor, maybe allowing us to get back to 4-car trains. But, because they aren't compatible with the other lines, we may have to pay a cancellation penalty (as part of the sunk costs in this project).

 

[ByeByeBaby]

I genuinely don't understand people's obsession with the need for high floor cars... 2 Urbos LRVs hold more people than 3.5 traditional Siemen's cars. Do people just think that because the interior of something looks like a subway car it must have the capacity of a subway car? The whole fleet commonality thing is a head scratcher too because Calgary Transit doesn't operate a common fleet now. There is literally nothing in common between a S-200, a S-160 and a U-2. It is three very different types of trains so adding 1 low floor LRV to the fleet has zero impact on any sort of imagined operation savings. The fact the premier has seized on this vehicle argument shows she has spent less than 1 minute actually learning about the issue which should concern all of us.

It's a really good metric for identifying people who haven't thought seriously about rail transit, or who haven't done so for decades. It's perfectly fine for people who are thinking about something for the first time to make silly beginner mistakes and focus on the wrong thing; people can and should learn! It's less great if they are the person who is making decisions on the project.

Well, given that the Greenline is on indefinite hold, we could have used the cars we already ordered on our other 2 lines if they were high floor, maybe allowing us to get back to 4-car trains. But, because they aren't compatible with the other lines, we may have to pay a cancellation penalty (as part of the sunk costs in this project).

If we were planning on cancelling the green line, we shouldn't have ordered trains at all, or more to the point, we shouldn't have ordered trains before construction began, which was a very unusual contracting move.

It makes as much sense as specifying all new roads should be built out of crushed shale and sand instead of asphalt, so that if we decide to cancel the road after ordering the material, we could re-use it in ball diamonds and sandpits.