darwink
Senior Member
Part of it is political too - make the cost of tunnelling visible and make clear the benefit of tunnelling up to 16th Ave is a roads benefit not a transit benefit.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Social Justice
Active Member
That's a good point...it'll be a big political fight, but one that's worth having. I think with running the LRT on the surface you save a ton of money and get a station on 9th avenue. Some posters say that the 9th ave station only panders to the rich SFH's in Crescent Heights, but I disagree. Centre has potential to increase the number of mixed use developments already on the street. Plus, on the east side of Crescent Heights there are a number of condos which produces a significant medium population density. Also, I could see a lot of people using the 9th ave station that want to go to the commercial area on Edmonton Trail.
Chad's right though...the city should take their time and plan this out properly. Also, the 16th ave crossing must be grade separated. It'd be bonkers if it wasn't.
Social Justice
Active Member
If the LRT were to run on street, I'd like to see the following crossings:
7th Ave: Pedestrian
8th Ave: Pedestrian/Cyling
9th Ave: Station with pedestrian and cycling
10th Ave: Auto/Pedestrian
12th Ave: Auto/Pedestrian/Cycling
14th Ave: Pedestrian
16th Ave: Grade Separated with station below. (Similar to 69th Street)
7th Ave: Pedestrian
8th Ave: Pedestrian/Cyling
9th Ave: Station with pedestrian and cycling
10th Ave: Auto/Pedestrian
12th Ave: Auto/Pedestrian/Cycling
14th Ave: Pedestrian
16th Ave: Grade Separated with station below. (Similar to 69th Street)
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
In a heroic act of procrastination, I decided to calculate the per capita number of rapid transit stations for every CMA in Canada that has a rapid transit system.
I thought Calgary might actually be first, but it turns out that Montreal has the most stations based on its population. This lead will increase once it completes the RER line that is currently under construction. However, if Calgary were to build the first phase of the Green Line, it would have the most stations per capita. This, of course, assumes that population differences don't radically change and that other cities don't also build more stations per capita in the time it takes us to build the Green Line. That may actually be a pretty good bet given how far behind Ottawa and Edmonton are, and that Toronto and Montreal would need to build many more stations to account for their much larger populations. Montreal, for example, would have to build an additional 25 stations beyond what is already under construction to get below 24,648 people per station. However, if K-W completes the second stage of their LRT line, they would have the most stations per capita, but I'm not sure if there is actually any funding for that line at this point.
Some notes:
- Only rail stations are included (no buses!)
- One-way stations only count for half (sorry Calgary and Kitchener)
- Planned stations are not included because it is hard to figure out how likely they are to be built.
- I tried to avoid double-counting stations that serve more than one line with some exceptions. E.g. I figured Union Station in Toronto should be considered to house one commuter rail station (that serves multiple lines) and one subway station (so it's counted twice).
I thought Calgary might actually be first, but it turns out that Montreal has the most stations based on its population. This lead will increase once it completes the RER line that is currently under construction. However, if Calgary were to build the first phase of the Green Line, it would have the most stations per capita. This, of course, assumes that population differences don't radically change and that other cities don't also build more stations per capita in the time it takes us to build the Green Line. That may actually be a pretty good bet given how far behind Ottawa and Edmonton are, and that Toronto and Montreal would need to build many more stations to account for their much larger populations. Montreal, for example, would have to build an additional 25 stations beyond what is already under construction to get below 24,648 people per station. However, if K-W completes the second stage of their LRT line, they would have the most stations per capita, but I'm not sure if there is actually any funding for that line at this point.
Some notes:
- Only rail stations are included (no buses!)
- One-way stations only count for half (sorry Calgary and Kitchener)
- Planned stations are not included because it is hard to figure out how likely they are to be built.
- I tried to avoid double-counting stations that serve more than one line with some exceptions. E.g. I figured Union Station in Toronto should be considered to house one commuter rail station (that serves multiple lines) and one subway station (so it's counted twice).
Last edited:
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Group that wants pause on Green Line hosted private event with top city officials
The level of corruption here is really quite staggering. A small group of Calgary's wealthiest men (who have probably never taken transit in their lives) get a private Greenline engagement session with top city staff, the mayor's office, and two sitting councillors.
I continue to believe that Jim Grey, Steve Allen, and their cronies are basically trying to kill the Greenline for the UCP so that the UCP doesn't look like it broke one of its promises. At this point, the amount of quid pro quos being trade back and forth between Steve Allen and Doug Schweitzer has been well documented.
The level of corruption here is really quite staggering. A small group of Calgary's wealthiest men (who have probably never taken transit in their lives) get a private Greenline engagement session with top city staff, the mayor's office, and two sitting councillors.
I continue to believe that Jim Grey, Steve Allen, and their cronies are basically trying to kill the Greenline for the UCP so that the UCP doesn't look like it broke one of its promises. At this point, the amount of quid pro quos being trade back and forth between Steve Allen and Doug Schweitzer has been well documented.
O-tac
Active Member
Wow no surprise there at all. The UCP is making the old PC’s look like the picture of transparency and good governance.
O-tac
Active Member
It kind of surprises me that Nenshi had an assistant there at all. Was this just to keep tabs on his opponents or is he walking a fine line? Was that person the one who leaked this to the media? Also, why in the hell do these rich old bastards need donations to support their 'work'? Is that just entry into the influence club? Or is it leverage to use as blackmail against any city staff who pay it?
O-tac
Active Member
We need to push back against these UCP lackeys. I think the next time they decide to hijack a council meeting we should have a contingent there to call them out. They need to be identified for what they truly are and the media needs to stop calling them "Respected businessmen" or "concerned citizens". They are UCP operatives in yet another Kenney backed attack on democracy.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
If there aren't shovels in the ground by 2023, the NDP can and should blame the UCP and use the Greenline as a major wedge issue in the next election - similar to how they used the Cancer Centre in 2015. Unambiguous support for "getting it done" is a winning issue in this city.
zagox
Active Member
I think it was smart on Nenshi's part. Send a junior staffer so you don't give them too much respect, and then leak the contents of the meeting to make them look bad.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
This is Quebecois levels of corruption. Jesus christ, I'm getting really sick of this government and their constant bungling of the economy and integral infrastructure projects and subsequent nullification of tens of thousands of possible jobs.
accord1999
Active Member
If the Green Line does get delayed, or stopped, it won't be because of people like Jim Gray or the UCP Government, it'll be because of the continuing terrible management of the Green Line project. The Green Line Technical and Risk Committee just reported the following:
The Green Line is only so vulnerable because it's gone massively over-budget and where even the more supposedly more "manageable" Stage 1 has pretty much used up all contingencies. Without the group led by Gray calling out the downtown issues last summer, would the Green Line team even admitted the problems then and provided some public engagement? Or would they have just hid the bad news until they had unilaterally decided on a solution, just like they unilaterally decided to cut the North Central LRT in 2017 when they realized the full Green Line would cost $3+B more than the 2015 estimates.
The Green Line is only so vulnerable because it's gone massively over-budget and where even the more supposedly more "manageable" Stage 1 has pretty much used up all contingencies. Without the group led by Gray calling out the downtown issues last summer, would the Green Line team even admitted the problems then and provided some public engagement? Or would they have just hid the bad news until they had unilaterally decided on a solution, just like they unilaterally decided to cut the North Central LRT in 2017 when they realized the full Green Line would cost $3+B more than the 2015 estimates.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Show me a transit line in North America that hasn't gone wildly over budget. If the Green Line doesn't get built, it will be because Conservative establishment in this city set it up for failure. The only way a transit line gets built is if the political leadership makes it a priority and puts up the money to get it done. The UCP and their ultra-rich cronies really don't give a sh*t about public transit and they are actively working to kill the line in a way where they can pin the blame on city staff (because the line itself is wildly popular). Where was the concern with financial risk when this same group of oligarchs were pushing Calgary to host the Olympics?
accord1999
Active Member
And common consequences of these projects going over-budget has been cutting back on the usefulness of route, and/or the reduction of other transit services to pay for them. You can see that in the numerous projects in the US where LRT is built but overall ridership declines (as bus service is sacrificed to pay for the shiny new train) and farebox recovery is a tiny fraction of the operating costs. Or for that matter, the truncation of the Green Line to point where it doesn't really solve any of the transportation problems it was originally designed for and will have a large $40M net operating cost that the City will need to find in future budgets.
Even for the latest crisis with the downtown tunnel, that occurred barely two months after the UCP won the 2019 election. And they certainly had nothing to do with the explosion in cost from the 2015 estimate of $4.5-$5B to $8+B by May 2017.
If anything, the city and provincial levels of government had too little oversight and gave far too much leeway to the Green Line team.
Which they did, given the Green Line is by far the most expensive project in the City of Calgary's history.
The City should take the opportunity to reboot the Green Line and use the UCP Government as cover. It's clear that the $8-$9B Green Line version 1 is far too expensive to build and they should go back and see what the most useful line is possible for the $4.5-$5B they do have.
O-tac
Active Member
You have clearly never driven Deerfoot in the far SE before in rush hour. What exactly is your idea of a better value line? An entire quadrant of the city has been built with the promise of future lrt service. Quarry Park and Seton have been planned as essentially greenfield TOD's. The North Central line is also of great importance. Unfortunately the SE is by far the most isolated quadrant of the city and requires better transit connectivity.
Last edited: