Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 12 66.7%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Total voters
    18
haltcatchfire said:
By the time it’s completed in 2127 it will.
Click to expand...
Haha 'completed', so you think in 105 years the battle to stop greenfield development would finally be settled? I agree with that timeline, until then and even after that this city won't be completed. There will always be new line extensions to build, stations to add where there's been density added, and maybe even a new line all together.
 
maestro said:
Higher order transit is expensive. On what else would you use the money for?

I don't know how you get to $20 billion if the first phase is $6 billion. To complete the other half of the 45 kilometre line will cost $14 billion?
Click to expand...
The $20 billion was just a pure guess to be honest. But, based on the track record of the project, I would (half jokingly) say it is just as accurate as the "official" estimates have been so far. I would love to be proven wrong, I guess we will have to wait and see the results of the RFP.

In terms of what else to spend the money on, there is an endless list of libraries, rec centres, fire halls, road projects (yes, car oriented, but movements per $ may come in as better value). Or, maybe, and I know this sounds crazy, but we could lower taxes? Keep in mind, we are just talking about the upfront capital costs of the line. Has the official estimate of a $40 million a year operating loss for the train been updated/improved, or is that a future cost we can look forward to with the opening of phase 1 still?

I suppose my point is, transit is good, sure, and vital to a city. But not at any cost.
 
MichaelS said:
But not at any cost.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm biased but I don't think of the Green Line as sunk-cost fallacy. I'm happy they didn't get cold feet and do the easy thing of having another surface train through downtown. The timeline has sucked but I think it will be built to last.

Granted its not the whole story but look at Edmonton and what happened with them rushing the process on their new transit lines. Short term pain, long term gain.
 
Last edited:
I'm not entirely sure I understand why the Green Line needs to go all the way to Shepard in it's first iteration. If it were me, I'd say focus on the low hanging fruit first: Centre Street to 26th Ave, build the O&M there, and then incrementally add the extensions as funding comes available. The people who moved 25km+ outside of downtown obviously don't care about rapid public transit, I should know, that's where I grew up.

The idea that whenever we provide a service, that it must reach all corners of the city equally is extremely flawed IMO, and it's holding us back from achieving really great things.

We probably could have the Green Line meaningfully under construction by this point, with the Eau Claire Redevelopment under construction, and have planned a Beltline streetcar circuit with the extra money. But sure, lets focus on providing transit to people who don't want it, and get nothing done as a result...
 
MissingMiddle said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand why the Green Line needs to go all the way to Shepard in it's first iteration. If it were me, I'd say focus on the low hanging fruit first: Centre Street to 26th Ave, build the O&M there, and then incrementally add the extensions as funding comes available. The people who moved 25km+ outside of downtown obviously don't care about rapid public transit, I should know, that's where I grew up.

The idea that whenever we provide a service, that it must reach all corners of the city equally is extremely flawed IMO, and it's holding us back from achieving really great things.

We probably could have the Green Line meaningfully under construction by this point, with the Eau Claire Redevelopment under construction, and have planned a Beltline streetcar circuit with the extra money. But sure, lets focus on providing transit to people who don't want it, and get nothing done as a result...
Click to expand...

It needs to reach the maintenance/storage facility.
 
BKha said:
Here’s a question I’m throwing out there. Would you rather see the money go to the green line or to putting the blue and red lines underground?
I don’t know what the cost is to bury the blue and red lines but I’m guessing it would be less expensive than the green line.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see both if possible. I'd prefer the Green line get built, but it sure would be nice to have the Red Line or even both Red and Blue lines buried under downtown.
 
MissingMiddle said:
I'm not entirely sure I understand why the Green Line needs to go all the way to Shepard in it's first iteration. If it were me, I'd say focus on the low hanging fruit first: Centre Street to 26th Ave, build the O&M there, and then incrementally add the extensions as funding comes available. The people who moved 25km+ outside of downtown obviously don't care about rapid public transit, I should know, that's where I grew up.

The idea that whenever we provide a service, that it must reach all corners of the city equally is extremely flawed IMO, and it's holding us back from achieving really great things.

We probably could have the Green Line meaningfully under construction by this point, with the Eau Claire Redevelopment under construction, and have planned a Beltline streetcar circuit with the extra money. But sure, lets focus on providing transit to people who don't want it, and get nothing done as a result...
Click to expand...
Yeah it needs to hit Shepard as that is the only place the maintenance and LRV storage facility can be located along the route. I would say I'd prefer if it went past Shepard. If the river crossing is causing a bunch of problems I can't understand, cut it to phase 2 and instead, extend the line into the residential areas of the southeast. At least connect some bloody population to the thing in the first go. Though my first choice as well would be putting it at least two stations farther north on centre past 16th.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
Yeah it needs to hit Shepard as that is the only place the maintenance and LRV storage facility can be located along the route. I would say I'd prefer if it went past Shepard. If the river crossing is causing a bunch of problems I can't understand, cut it to phase 2 and instead, extend the line into the residential areas of the southeast. At least connect some bloody population to the thing in the first go. Though my first choice as well would be putting it at least two stations farther north on centre past 16th.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A couple extra north stations would do wonders, both for ridership but also for redevelopment of the region in the inner north, and Centre St commercial.

Also might as well sort out crossing 16th Ave in the first go and get it done with. That will be disruptive.
 
Last edited:
For sure, it'll be disruptive either way (at grade or below). Sounds like they're gonna go with at grade, which is stupid but it is what it is. Since that is the case, I don't know why they wouldn't put in another hundred million to extend it 2 or 3 km up Centre (2.5 km gets you to 40 Avenue Station). Considering how enormous the budget is, it's a drop in the bucket for a pretty significant impact, adding 15 - 20,000 people (Tuxedo, Mount Pleasant, Highland Park, Greenview, and half of Highwood) within a ~kilometre walk of the extra 2 stations, as well as Greenview Industrial and the significant bus interchange at 40 Ave. Similar situation for the south portion too, but at least with Centre there are no bridges or other major infrastructure other than track and stations.
 
Last edited:
For a line which extended north of 16th to 40th is estimated at 7900 incremental riders and $550 million. It will be more because the revised route ends at grade south of 16th, and I think that was ~2017.

Lots of utilities underneath and a constrained corridor. Expect it to be more expensive.

The significant bus exchange is at 64th.
 
Last edited:
Dang :confused:
 
That’s true. Would be good to use a derelict industrial site already close to loud train noise rather than a brownfield site near primary arteries that could be put to better use (retail maybe?). Also makes sense to have it closer to the central area of the line for scheduling purposes. Always hated that the last outbound train from downtown to NW was like a half hour earlier than outbound to the south (cause of the Anderson depot being so far out).

Though, demolition to make room for the yard might make the cost more prohibitive.
 
MichaelS said:
The $20 billion was just a pure guess to be honest. But, based on the track record of the project, I would (half jokingly) say it is just as accurate as the "official" estimates have been so far. I would love to be proven wrong, I guess we will have to wait and see the results of the RFP.

In terms of what else to spend the money on, there is an endless list of libraries, rec centres, fire halls, road projects (yes, car oriented, but movements per $ may come in as better value). Or, maybe, and I know this sounds crazy, but we could lower taxes? Keep in mind, we are just talking about the upfront capital costs of the line. Has the official estimate of a $40 million a year operating loss for the train been updated/improved, or is that a future cost we can look forward to with the opening of phase 1 still?

I suppose my point is, transit is good, sure, and vital to a city. But not at any cost.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. Let's abandon mass transit development and just embrace a completely car-oriented city with ever worsening gridlock because... gotta keep our already low taxes even lower.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top