DougB
Senior Member
Where is that tunnel? I know of the tunnel for the bike bath
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
MichaelS
Senior Member
I imagine what is more likely to happen if she was opposed to this project is just make it clear there will be no additional funding from the Province. Then, if/when it comes in over budget, it will be up to the Feds to cover the difference, or the City to somehow do so.
YYCguy
Active Member
If she was opposed to it, why would she designate Ric McIvor as Green Line liaison and if she was opposed to it, wouldn’t she have indicated so already? Why wait till the election to drop that bombshell? No, I think it’s still a go, but as for north and south extensions, I’m not sure when or if they will happen under her watch.
O-tac
Active Member
Because the UCP is slimy and Smith has mused about funding lrt to the airport while questioning the route chosen for the Greenline. Also her rich donors recently posted an op-ed demanding the greenline be shelved.
whatchyyc
Active Member
accord1999
Active Member
I don't think that's fair to Gray or Mckendrick. They oppose what Stage 1 of the Green Line has become and are offering their own ideas. As they say, success has many fathers, failure is an orphan but also with many people saying that they can do better.
IMO basically it boils down to how fast Calgary can get another $2+B for the Green Line. If that money is available prior to the end of Stage 1 construction than building out Stage 1 as is (but with a better river crossing option) is the best option. But if that money won't be available for decades, than it will be a financially draining white elephant and it would be better to prioritize opening-day ridership by going further SE at the expense of the river crossing and other cost cutting in the core.
O-tac
Active Member
It's been over a decade of armchair quarterbacks questioning basic things that were covered in multiple studies. The UCP has played endless games with funding and time wasting exercises. The time has come to shit or get off the pot. There are 2 TOD's (QP and Seton) almost fully built out with no lrt.
DougB
Senior Member
$4K, the donation cap, does not buy much influence
DougB
Senior Member
The studies have proven unable to accurately model costs, so they haven't been all that useful. The "armchair quarterbacks" have actual experience in delivering large projects, unlike the all of the transit advocates.
If this turns into a boondoogle, Calgary taxpayers will be crippled for decades, along the line of what happened in Montreal with the Big Owe.
I thought the city already had the money set aside - $52 million/year provincial health refund, or whatever it was. And then the feds matched it, and the province was going to use the carbon tax to pay for it in the NDP days, but now I guess it's coming from an oil royalties windfall.
accord1999
Active Member
Even if the capital costs are funded, there's still significant operating costs. Earlier estimates were $40 million/year in net operating costs with ridership at 60k-65K/day. If ridership is only 30K/day then you're looking at $55-$60 million/year, a significant new cost considering the City already had to increasing funding to Transit due to the lingering impact of COVID on commuting. Will the City be able to find that money or will services elsewhere need to be cut?
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
Just north of $70 million a year from property taxes.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Does that include the cost of financing? The city's share of the capital was $50 million a year for 30 years, but then didn't the City also have to find almost an equivalent amount to finance the debt? Then, throw in the projected operating loss....
DougB
Senior Member
and if does include financing costs, what interest rate assumptions where used?
darwink
Senior Member
The cost of financing the city portion, yes.
And no, we won't know the exact rate. Given the long-time frames, it should be low. Here are indicative interest rates: https://acfa.gov.ab.ca/loan-form-script/rates.html