HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3801  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2020, 7:50 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK View Post
So much this. I'm in Renfrew and would much prefer they'd take the funding for 2B and build as far south as that money will allow.
That is one of the issues for the trade off - 2B's costs are low enough that the tradeoff isn't a great one. It isn't $1B, it is $300-400 M. And for that amount, the biggest ridership bang for the buck is to 16th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3802  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2020, 8:02 PM
PPAR's Avatar
PPAR PPAR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucx View Post
Stakeholders in the Beltline prefer the original route on 10 and 12 Ave. They think there are ways to optimize cost and risk. During detailed design, if they find 10 and 12 Ave is cheaper than 11 Ave (doubtful), they would bring a revised route back for approval. Nenshi thought this was pointless and voted to remove this recommendation while everyone else went meh and left it in.
Just a hypothetical here:
Lets say I am a developer with a large lot on 12th, and the city gets the cost differential down to say $20M. Could I come in and say "build the line on 12th, with a station in my building, and I will deliver the line for $1 less than the 11th Ave alignment"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3803  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2020, 8:41 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 4,966
Glad to see the project (finally) approved, it's dragged on way to long already. But my fear now is they will find an excuse to not proceed with phase 2b and it the line doesn't cross the river now I doubt I will every see that happen in my lifetime. I'm afraid we are sacrificing the better line for a cheaper line.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3804  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2020, 10:53 PM
lucx lucx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by PPAR View Post
Just a hypothetical here:
Lets say I am a developer with a large lot on 12th, and the city gets the cost differential down to say $20M. Could I come in and say "build the line on 12th, with a station in my building, and I will deliver the line for $1 less than the 11th Ave alignment"?
All indications point to yes if possible. The city has been talking to property owners and actively looking for ways to integrate stations into developments. This cooperation was how they got Eau Claire station from street level to underground below the property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
Glad to see the project (finally) approved, it's dragged on way to long already. But my fear now is they will find an excuse to not proceed with phase 2b and it the line doesn't cross the river now I doubt I will every see that happen in my lifetime. I'm afraid we are sacrificing the better line for a cheaper line.
The city is confident they can build to 16 Ave (there's a ~$700 million contingency). They will build the bridge unless something catastrophic like a 2013 flood happens. In this event they can manage the situation without being locked into a signed contract for 2B.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3805  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 12:03 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
Glad to see the project (finally) approved, it's dragged on way to long already. But my fear now is they will find an excuse to not proceed with phase 2b and it the line doesn't cross the river now I doubt I will every see that happen in my lifetime. I'm afraid we are sacrificing the better line for a cheaper line.
This has been a regular talking point and it doesn't make sense. If in the future the case for going north of the river is so poor that we can't justify building it, why is that a good reason to build it today?

Shoehorning a substandard stub onto the Green Line will do more harm than good and I predict will make the actual north less likely to get rail transit sooner. The construction of the line will inflict misery on the local population of Centre St, yet when built it won't even be a high quality LRT, it's a streetcar. And since there is little reason for most people to use it (most existing users will continue on the bus), the willingness to inflict misery on the rest of Centre St only to result in a longer bus on rails will not be strong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3806  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 1:30 AM
foolworm foolworm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 94
Ric McIver responded very quickly and not very enthusiastically...

I'm guessing there are going to be more closed door meetings at the Petroleum Club.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3807  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 2:53 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm View Post
Ric McIver responded very quickly and not very enthusiastically...

I'm guessing there are going to be more closed door meetings at the Petroleum Club.
Were you expecting the province to rubberstamp a plan they haven't seen? Keating said changes were made as late as midnight Sunday. No one should be okay with this plan proceeding before a complete analysis is done of the implications of the changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3808  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 1:20 PM
Socguy Socguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 493
Glad to see the city finally got something through. As per the CBC, sounds like the citizens finally got upset enough at the lack of progress that they bombarded city council with support which changed the political calculus in the minds of the foot draggers who realized that it was a major political mistake to continue trying to stall the green line. Now we only have to worry about the Provence...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3809  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 1:55 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
That is one of the issues for the trade off - 2B's costs are low enough that the tradeoff isn't a great one. It isn't $1B, it is $300-400 M. And for that amount, the biggest ridership bang for the buck is to 16th.
Segment 1 of the Green line has a budget of $1.567 billion dollars. That builds 9 stations. Segment 2 has a budget of $1.918 billion. Stopping segment 2 at 7th Ave (It doesn’t need to go to Eau Claire) and you save what $600 million? That would be a 40% increase in SE budget, more than enough money to get out to the new hospital, where the big population numbers are, to me that’s more ridership bang for your bucks than a stub line to 16th or putting a station at the Barley Mill.

Of course if the costs of segment 2a go over budget I expect the city will steal from 2b to fund 2a rather than put more money into segment 1.

Refer to budget expenditure page 16 of

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=131767
__________________
The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound. That's why Darwin will always be right and Malthus will always be wrong - K.R.Sridhar

“We don’t want to “save the planet” from human beings; we want to improve the planet for human beings.” ― Alex J. Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3810  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 4:22 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,901
You need to do at least property acquisition at Eau Claire or you never can go north, since the station at 7th won't be deep enough to go under the river.


Going south of 22x includes a big bridge structure and a tunnel iirc - not just regular surface running. And length means many incremental LRVs are required which are reflected in a different budget.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3811  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 4:34 PM
foolworm foolworm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Were you expecting the province to rubberstamp a plan they haven't seen? Keating said changes were made as late as midnight Sunday. No one should be okay with this plan proceeding before a complete analysis is done of the implications of the changes.
No, I expect Gray and his bunch of merry men to start haranguing the provincial government to invoke the guillotine clause since they didn't get their way at City Hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3812  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2020, 9:23 PM
PPAR's Avatar
PPAR PPAR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Were you expecting the province to rubberstamp a plan they haven't seen? Keating said changes were made as late as midnight Sunday. No one should be okay with this plan proceeding before a complete analysis is done of the implications of the changes.
The Province's position is pretty clear to me. The Greenline will be built (politics), slowly (budget).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3813  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2020, 12:10 AM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
I really hope this is true.
Well it isn't as though a Centre Street subway appears more attainable today than it did a decade ago.

It is just incredibly puzzling to me, the city appears to be prepared to build a Centre Street that will be a poor transit corridor, a horrendous road for other vehicles, incredibly hostile to pedestrians and where there will simply be no place for cyclists. Basically every shortcoming ever raised about a Centre Street alignment was just shrugged off with a meh.

Building this alignment entirely at grade on Centre Street wouldn't be a mega-project and the city has long insisted that the need to grow capacity is already a near emergency, yet even after making innumerable sacrifices they can't seem to make the one that could bring a street car to Centre Street fairly rapidly.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that they don't want to build at grade on Centre Street in the first place but they also don't want to over-promise again.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3814  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2020, 1:02 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
Well it isn't as though a Centre Street subway appears more attainable today than it did a decade ago.

It is just incredibly puzzling to me, the city appears to be prepared to build a Centre Street that will be a poor transit corridor, a horrendous road for other vehicles, incredibly hostile to pedestrians and where there will simply be no place for cyclists. Basically every shortcoming ever raised about a Centre Street alignment was just shrugged off with a meh.

Building this alignment entirely at grade on Centre Street wouldn't be a mega-project and the city has long insisted that the need to grow capacity is already a near emergency, yet even after making innumerable sacrifices they can't seem to make the one that could bring a street car to Centre Street fairly rapidly.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that they don't want to build at grade on Centre Street in the first place but they also don't want to over-promise again.
+10000. I remember thinking you were wrong years ago but you were right on this all along.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3815  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2020, 5:12 AM
lucx lucx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 52
Ric McIver's June 18 statement:

Quote:
We're consistent in saying that we've put money through legislation aside to build the Green Line ... that's always been contingent upon the city building essentially what they promised to build when the money was promised
https://twitter.com/RicMcIver/status...79752583618560

The NDP government pledged $1.5 billion for Shepard to 16 Ave. The UCP can't use the excuse the money was meant for the full 46 km. They're going to fund it. They just need time to find the money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3816  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2020, 7:17 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
Well it isn't as though a Centre Street subway appears more attainable today than it did a decade ago.

It is just incredibly puzzling to me, the city appears to be prepared to build a Centre Street that will be a poor transit corridor, a horrendous road for other vehicles, incredibly hostile to pedestrians and where there will simply be no place for cyclists. Basically every shortcoming ever raised about a Centre Street alignment was just shrugged off with a meh.

Building this alignment entirely at grade on Centre Street wouldn't be a mega-project and the city has long insisted that the need to grow capacity is already a near emergency, yet even after making innumerable sacrifices they can't seem to make the one that could bring a street car to Centre Street fairly rapidly.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me is that they don't want to build at grade on Centre Street in the first place but they also don't want to over-promise again.
Again ... I really, really hope this is true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3817  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2020, 7:27 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,901
A future council can capture the contingency further on (if the tunnel goes well), and while a bridge will still be needed over Prince's Island, a bit of work and $200 million bucks and the 9th Ave station goes away and an underground station goes in at 16th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3818  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2020, 7:42 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,312
^That would be perfect!
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.