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: 41 60.3%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 32.4%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 5 7.4%
  • Total voters
    68
ahuch said:
Apparently that's not entirely safe either.

globalnews.ca

Province threatens Green Line funding in letter to Calgary mayor - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

In a letter to Calgary's mayor, the province said its committed funding is contingent on the Green Line integrating with the future passenger rail master plan.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...
It's a good point by the mayor here - like duh, city and regional transit systems need to connect, but threatening to pull funding if the city's system doesn't connect to a master plan that the Province announced like 2 weeks ago on the back of a napkin and won't be completed until 2025 is obviously a bit tricky for a project as advanced in design as the Greenline. Seems like mostly political jockeying and posturing from the province here to set up some political scoring for when the funding gap is announced in June (?).

If it's more than just posturing and politics, changes to the design at this stage would trigger more delays and further scope/cost changes, which the province can then point to the city and say, "see told you it's overbudget" even if the delays and scope changes were caused by their multiple reviews and revisions they required.
 
ahuch said:
Apparently that's not entirely safe either.

globalnews.ca

Province threatens Green Line funding in letter to Calgary mayor - Calgary | Globalnews.ca

In a letter to Calgary's mayor, the province said its committed funding is contingent on the Green Line integrating with the future passenger rail master plan.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...
The provincial plan part is a nothing burger.

The cost problem, and the geology driving risk which drives the cost problem, is a known known.

So whatever.

The city knew the risk, that is why the phasing was changed to deliver the downtown tunnel with the main contract, instead of on its own, to de-risk while maintaining a mostly fixed cost contract.

If it blows up in the city's face after knowing the risks for 7+ years, that is on the various Councils and the various project heads who couldn't get off the path dependency set by decisions with no accounting for risk and costs in the 2015-17 period.
 
John Wick said:
You're right that the North Central leg of the Green Line is on ice for decade(s). Although, with a Nenshi government in Edmonton the situation could change quickly.
If it is not happening, then they should make Centre street high quality, segregated BRT right away. And make the bridge an exclusive BRT transit way.
Click to expand...
Could be the case for sure. When Notley was premier she had put forth the idea of using the carbon tax to pay for the Green Line, and the idea could come back again with the NDPs in office.
 
The Smith government has indicated that no more money from provincial coffers will be used for the Green Line, including cost overruns. So she indicated that changes to the scope may need to be made. But didn’t the province make their funding commitment years ago on the condition that the plan couldn’t be changed? And now that’s okay? This would make the proponents of the downtown elevated portion happy, but piss off all the people/businesses that rejected that option in the first place.

In addition, she wants to have the Green Line plan attached to the regional rail plan. What are the pros and cons of this directive?
 
YYCguy said:
The Smith government has indicated that no more money from provincial coffers will be used for the Green Line, including cost overruns. So she indicated that changes to the scope may need to be made. But didn’t the province make their funding commitment years ago on the condition that the plan couldn’t be changed? And now that’s okay? This would make the proponents of the downtown elevated portion happy, but piss off all the people/businesses that rejected that option in the first place.

In addition, she wants to have the Green Line plan attached to the regional rail plan. What are the pros and cons of this directive?
Click to expand...
so you could weave things together and somehow think that this means the province would be fine with ending the line at 4th St SE.

There are other options, like going elevated in the beltline to save a boatload of money, since the arena station will need to be huge.

In the end, that is only a problem if the contract can't deliver.

In which case, why did the city sign the contract at all?

If they signed the contract knowing they had a failed procurement, my word, what incompetence.
 
Last edited:
I just wonder what we will do with the already ordered LRVs that aren't compatible with our current system if the greenline falls through....
 
ahuch said:
calgary.ctvnews.ca

Province won't pony up additional Green Line cash

Alberta's premier wants to see Calgary go back to the drawing board on its massive Green Line LRT project.
calgary.ctvnews.ca calgary.ctvnews.ca

Not looking good for north of Eau Claire.
Click to expand...
Wow... 'Back to the drawing board' and saying the committed money is contingent on the rail plan. This thing is underway and yet I am not 100% sure it will happen.

Smith says the tunnel is the mistake, but the reality is it would be a mistake to not do the tunnel. I hope they are willing to do what is right for the long term but as I said I really have my doubts. That Green Line update that's coming is going to be a doozy.
 
darwink said:
The option was dismissed entirely after the owners of towers downtown raised concerns. There are difficulties of course with elevated, the primary being the height needed to cross over the CPR (14 meters over top of rail is what the crossing at Sunalta is)
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Green Line might be at grade (or hopefully elevated), if the province gets its way.
 
Dārayavauš said:
Sounds like the Green Line might be at grade (or hopefully elevated), if the province gets its way.
Click to expand...
So there could be some trade offs to get this thing back on budget and operational. Is it worth it to ditch some or all of the tunnel in favour of track elevation to get the line from Eau Claire (versus the event centre) all the way to the South Health Campus (versus Shepard) as envisioned? I can’t say which is the more important outcome.

Also I note that Smith says “there’s no more money for Phase 1”, so does that mean when Phase 2 (crossing the river and getting up North) comes into play, she might be convinced to offer more funding for Phase 2?
 
Dārayavauš said:
Sounds like the Green Line might be at grade (or hopefully elevated), if the province gets its way.
Click to expand...
It is totally possible to be elevated in the beltline and then below grade for crossing under the CPR and downtown. That has been my preferred option for a long time though I kinda assumed things were locked with the proponent.

Perhaps they are truly dialoguing it to reduce cost with the proponent, which is a great thing tbh if the city hasn't structured the contract incredibly poorly.
 
I knew it! I knew that Invermectin guzzling crank would do this! I called it before. Integrate with the Province’s master rail plan? Let me guess a train to her riding in Medicine Hat and down to High River?

And wtf is Dreeshan doing as a minister again anyways? Alcoholic Maga frat boy lost his position under Kenney. Of course Smith promotes the most unqualified and incompetent, corrupt and shitty MLA’s.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top