[O-tac]

Is there a vote this week on this? I read some of Evan Woolley's comments and his motion to stop the whole thing and I am seething. His dismissal of the SE portion as only servicing a maintenance shed is ridiculous. By that logic Anderson station was a useless line that only serviced a maintenance facility for 25 years. He completely leaves out Quarry Park and all the SE communities that would funnel into the line.

How is it responsible government to say "I would rather no lrt than an imperfect one". Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about cost cutting measures, but to throw a tantrum like this in the 11th hour after a decade of study and deliberation is irresponsible and jeopardizes the entire project. His approach is a big FU to the rest of the city.

 

[MichaelS]

They will be debating Councillor Wooley's motion at Council today (or might not get to it until tomorrow).

 

[accord1999]

They will be debating Councillor Wooley's motion at Council today (or might not get to it until tomorrow).

It's looks like its been moved to the 29th:

Green Line news and resources

www.calgary.ca

 

[accord1999]

By that logic Anderson station was a useless line that only serviced a maintenance facility for 25 years.

But the South line had high ridership to begin with. It would be more comparable if 40 years ago, the NE line was built first, all the way to Oliver Bowen while the South waited. And what kind of ridership do you think a SE line that starts at Shepard and ends at 4 Street SE with no downtown connection will have.

How is it responsible government to say "I would rather no lrt than an imperfect one".

If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now.

Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about cost cutting measures, but to throw a tantrum like this in the 11th hour after a decade of study and deliberation

Given how much the Green Line has now gone over budget, perhaps those years of study and deliberation weren't worth very much. And if you go back to 2015, important reasons for building the Green Line now (high ridership from NC commuters) and for skipping BRT transit way (waste of money since NC ridership will soon exceed capacity of BRT) have been completely forgotten.

is irresponsible and jeopardizes the entire project.

The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.

 

[O-tac]

But the South line had high ridership to begin with. It would be more comparable if 40 years ago, the NE line was built first, all the way to Oliver Bowen while the South waited. And what kind of ridership do you think a SE line that starts at Shepard and ends at 4 Street SE with no downtown connection will have.


If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now.


Given how much the Green Line has now gone over budget, perhaps those years of study and deliberation weren't worth very much. And if you go back to 2015, important reasons for building the Green Line now (high ridership from NC commuters) and for skipping BRT transit way (waste of money since NC ridership will soon exceed capacity of BRT) have been completely forgotten.


The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.

The point is to get shovels in the ground on the decided SE portion, figure out DT and build the DT section concurrently with the SE section. At least in the meantime you would get it started on the easiest portion. And yes you would get lots of ridership at Shepard. New Brighton and Copperfield are nearby and feeder buses would connect everything south to Seton.

Also let’s not ignore the fact that the SE industrial parks employ more people than DT.

I can’t help but notice you are a new member. Is this Evan?

 

[Cowtown]

Maybe better to have BRT right now, but to me the Green Line seems like a better to option for the long term. It probably will be less efficient and more costly upfront, but 30 years from now will be glad that we did it now. My two cents.

If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now


The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.

 

[accord1999]

The point is to get shovels in the ground on the decided SE portion, figure out DT and build the DT section concurrently with the SE section. At least in the meantime you would get it started on the easiest portion.

That plan didn't work out very well for Honolulu:

A series of “prematurely” awarded rail contracts doled out to construction companies as early as 2009 prompted delay claims and change orders that increased the cost of the Honolulu rail project by more than $354 million, according to a new report by the Hawaii State Auditor released today.

The report also noted some delay claims and change orders are unresolved, which means the cost of those claims will continue to rise.

...

“Over-promise, under-deliver. It has been the hallmark of the Honolulu Rail Transit Project’s near decade-long stop-and-go journey,” the report concluded. “We also found that from the beginning these unrealistic projections resulted from a desire to demonstrate that the project was progressing satisfactorily and to minimize public criticism, which could have eroded public support.”

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/01/10/breaking-news/prematurely-awarded-contracts-increased-rail-cost-by-354-million-auditor-says/

And yes you would get lots of ridership at Shepard. New Brighton and Copperfield are nearby and feeder buses would connect everything south to Seton.

Enough to justify $2B of rail? Doubtful, given how little transit ridership there is currently in the SE and how even connected to downtown, the Green Line Stage 1 was projected to have high operating losses ($40M/year).

Also let’s not ignore the fact that the SE industrial parks employ more people than DT.

Those parks are not located that close to the SE stations for the most part, its questionable just how many people working in those industrial parks would be regular, or even occasional transit riders.

I can’t help but notice you are a new member. Is this Evan?

No, just somebody interested in infrastructure projects.

 

[accord1999]

Maybe better to have BRT right now, but to me the Green Line seems like a better to option for the long term. It probably will be less efficient and more costly upfront, but 30 years from now will be glad that we did it now. My two cents.

That was a major argument for skipping BRT and going to LRT directly.... But it was made on behalf of the NC. But with the massive cost overruns and the trouble in the DT, 15 years from now North of Beddington Trail communities probably won't have any LRT, or even significant transit service improvements of any kind.

 

[Social Justice]

That plan didn't work out very well for Honolulu:

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/01/10/breaking-news/prematurely-awarded-contracts-increased-rail-cost-by-354-million-auditor-says/

Enough to justify $2B of rail? Doubtful, given how little transit ridership there is currently in the SE and how even connected to downtown, the Green Line Stage 1 was projected to have high operating losses ($40M/year).

Those parks are not located that close to the SE stations for the most part, its questionable just how many people working in those industrial parks would be regular, or even occasional transit riders.

No, just somebody interested in infrastructure projects.

Transit ridership in the S.E. is low because the catchment area is severely underserved by transit. The current BRT is joke and does a winding milk-run route through low populated areas and takes about 45mins from downtown to Mckenzie.

The greenline will convert drivers to LRT riders.

 

[O-tac]

Transit ridership in the S.E. is low because the catchment area is severely underserved by transit. The current BRT is joke and does a winding milk-run route through low populated areas and takes about 45mins from downtown to Mckenzie.

The greenline will convert drivers to LRT riders.

This. Plus it is the fastest growing quadrant in the city. The population is there contrary to all the arguments that it’s just tumbleweeds and maintenance sheds. Currently there are no viable options other than driving a car for most people.

 

[accord1999]

The greenline will convert drivers to LRT riders.

Estimated at the equivalent of 6000 cars:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=13866

But should LRT even try to compete with cars, or should it replace overcrowded buses? Hoping to gain ridership using expensive LRT in areas where there aren't any significant ridership is a great way to flush money down the drain, as seen in numerous examples of unsuccessful LRT lines in the US.

This. Plus it is the fastest growing quadrant in the city. The population is there contrary to all the arguments that it’s just tumbleweeds and maintenance sheds. Currently there are no viable options other than driving a car for most people.

But Stage 1 doesn't reach walking distance of any of those population centers in the SE:

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=13868

 

[O-tac]

But Stage 1 doesn't reach walking distance of any of those population centers in the SE:

Since when does it have to be walking distance to attract riders? Every other line in the city has people that take a bus to get to a station or park and ride. The SE population is ballooning and making a short trip to Shepard is a lot better than driving to Somerset or taking the 45 min BRT ride to DT.

 

[Cowtown]

Would you support the Green Line if it was doing NC first, and through downtown to say Quarry Park?

That was a major argument for skipping BRT and going to LRT directly.... But it was made on behalf of the NC. But with the massive cost overruns and the trouble in the DT, 15 years from now North of Beddington Trail communities probably won't have any LRT, or even significant transit service improvements of any kind.

 

[CBBarnett]

Since when does it have to be walking distance to attract riders? Every other line in the city has people that take a bus to get to a station or park and ride. The SE population is ballooning and making a short trip to Shepard is a lot better than driving to Somerset or taking the 45 min BRT ride to DT.

This is true. After Stage 1, any extension of the Greenline should be quite productive and easier and replace some of that feeder bus ridership. Mackenzie Town, Auburn Bay and Seton are three fairly well thought-out nodes (by suburban standards) to support LRT stations and ridership. Centre Street is even better, with real density, existing and potential. It's easy to criticize Stage 1 though as it certainly has the vibes of being awfully expensive for what you get, with the exception of the downtown and Inglewood sections. Particularly rough is the Highfield and South Hill stretches of low job density, poor/zero sidewalks and more scrapyards, landfills and school bus storage within walking distance of rapid transit than probably any other LRT project in history. All these will change in time though with eventual redevelopment and intensification.

Knowing what we know now, If ridership and redevelopment potential was more heavily weighted (for the short-term), I would have preferred:
Stage 1: Country Hills Village to Highfield (with a maintenance facility on acquired scrapyards and school bus storage) ~19km
Stage 2: Highfield to Quarry Park ~7km
Stage 3: Quarry Park to South Calgary Hospital ~12km

All in all the alignment is a good one I think, giving the sprawling mess we have made sections of our city. I would just shuffle the sequence to maximize ridership and TOD potential from Day 1 would be my only concerns. I recall the North central property acquisition being a big sticking point - but if the project's delayed anyways - some of those intial assumptions on what stretch is easier/quicker/highest value has shifted as well.

 

[accord1999]

Would you support the Green Line if it was doing NC first, and through downtown to say Quarry Park?

Yes, I think based on the arguments for presented for doing the Green Line that it makes more sense and follows the previous successful LRT practices to go North first. The SE IMO is also easier to build out in smaller extensions (if you don't need to reach the Shepard for the maintenance facility right away); while to reach a useful initial terminus point in the NC (like Beddington) still requires a "mega-project:"