Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by lucx

Yes, really. It has zero support.

Edit: it's not me you have to convince. It's council and property owners. Elevated has been rejected year after year. A solution with no buy-in is no solution at all.

If we call it an elevated guideway would that make it more palatable? I think the people proposing elevated guideway would also be proposing alternate routing. See op ed from Barry Lester, retired engineer from last month on derisking the project. Waiting to see if the gang of 4 will sway a majority of councillors to ditch the North section then they can sort out the rest of the downtown alignment.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...he-green-line/

[craner]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Really Lucx? An elevated line would have support if the alternative is an at grade line and it would be easier and cheaper to construct than a cut and cover subway.

How do you increase bus ridership on Center Street, well I imagine the City will dust off the old Green Line plans for BRT that were binned when the City thought it had a windfall of money enough to build 2 LRT lines. Why do you think Gondek has gone over to the "build one good line" side? She knows BRT to the North is doable and a better transit option than a 1 km above grade LRT to 16th Ave.

Seriously??
That surprises me about Gondek. I assumed she was the main (political) reason the City was pushing the green line north of the river (however short) - for the optics of it.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

Seriously??
That surprises me about Gondek. I assumed she was the main (political) reason the City was pushing the green line north of the river (however short) - for the optics of it.

I thought it was Druh. Her boy Dale Calkins is really pushing this on Twitter.

Has the City ever asked the feds and province if it's okay if they use their $3 billion commitment on just one leg of this line? If they haven't they should. The odds of getting more money sooner than later might not be as bad as they think as it looks like (at least to me) that the feds are going to be pumping a ton of funding into infrastructure after we get over the virus.

[MalcolmTucker]

Gondek has been all over the map on this one. Not sure whether it is being a junior councillor (not having the experience to know when the appropriate touch points to adjust things are), ego (not my idea means not a good idea), ward politics (doesn't touch my ward, I will vote against it no matter what) or what. But it sure is something.

The retired Calgary Transit people, and various retired or near the end of career consultants have a big problem with seeing how much construction costs these days, and viscerally reacting to it as a failure of planning, instead of the progress of time and inflation (damn construction cost inflation post 2003-4ish). They see something expensive and only see the cost, not a trade off with the benefits of paying that cost. The geology of downtown Calgary is never going to get better. The article above states a belief that current LRT cars are underused, something we know to be false. That should be enough to dismiss the argument entirely as not even remotely knowledgeable about transit in Calgary. Planning to end the LRT at 4th St SE shows they don't know how dependent transit is to catchment. It is like proposing that since Keystone XL's controversial part is going over the border, it should be built without that part! It still connects the border to the Gulf Coast, why wouldn't it work!

[milomilo]

Gondek has been over the map but I believe her motive is sound. She rightly thinks that since the north is the place that is most underserved in transit relative to how much they use it, it makes sense to give them better transit. As I see it, while she probably would prefer they prioritised LRT to the north, since it was arbitrarily decided to go in the wrong direction and nothing can change that, best to get some improvements sooner.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Dale Calkins is really pushing this on Twitter.

Never heard of him but looked at his twitter. This caught my eye:



WTF? This cannot be accurate as it says we are building something which has negative benefits. I don't believe that, so either the image is based on bad data or is missing something.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yes, it is. The tunnel, and the growth of it has pushed the project into the negative as the length of the project shrunk. Getting from McKenzie Towne to Beddington for the same price and the CBA is positive. If they had started the conceptualization of the project as it being ok to remove road capacity from Centre Street and not mitigate, and remove road capacity in the Beltline and not mitigate, the entire project might be positive and at a much lower price.

Since, of course, it is how you conceptualize much of the tunnel: is it for the benefit of cars travelling through the Beltline, commuting from much further away (not counted) or is it something that should be weighed against the costs of the transit project itself. Also, is having to build a massive station to handle event centre surge transit demand underground a cost that should be weighed against the benefits to the event centre and traffic (not counted), or against transit benefits.


CBAs like this are always limited. What they are good at is weighing different options. They are not good at saying whether something should go forward, unless you do a way more comprehensive job. And the only reason to do a way more comprehensive job is when a funding partner puts a requirement that CBAs find net positives.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yes, it is. The tunnel, and the growth of it has pushed the project into the negative as the length of the project shrunk. Getting from McKenzie Towne to Beddington for the same price and the CBA is positive.



Of course, it is how you conceptualize much of the tunnel: is it for the benefit of cars travelling through the Beltline, commuting from much further away (not counted) or is it something that should be weighed against the costs of the transit project itself. Also, is having to build a massive station to handle event centre surge transit demand underground a cost that should be weighed against the benefits to the event centre and traffic (not counted), or against transit benefits.

If there are additional benefits, they should be captured. It's hard to take a business case seriously if their own numbers say the money would be better left under a mattress. If it needs more money to get a positive business case, then it makes no sense to not fund it right away.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by milomilo

WTF? This cannot be accurate as it says we are building something which has negative benefits. I don't believe that, so either the image is based on bad data or is missing something.

Sadly it is accurate (and may be even reaching, for some of the "benefits"):



https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=131776

Going so badly over-budget (and missing important ridership areas) has really hurt the return on investment. Incredibly, the document actually says Stage 1's benefit:cost ratio is pretty good for LRT projects, so I'm wondering if transit planners have lost their way in recent years.

[milomilo]

I don't understand how the federal government (or others) can fund that. They would have a list of a million different things that would provide positive rate of return, how can they give money to something that makes us poorer?

[accord1999]

I'd have to think it's the political benefits outweighing other concerns, impressive new infrastructure and trains leave positive impressions for voters, while also creating short-lived benefits for the local economy. And it seems people just like trains more than buses, even if they probably won't use either regularly.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Sadly it is accurate (and may be even reaching, for some of the "benefits"):


Going so badly over-budget (and missing important ridership areas) has really hurt the return on investment. Incredibly, the document actually says Stage 1's benefit:cost ratio is pretty good for LRT projects, so I'm wondering if transit planners have lost their way in recent years.

I'd say they're doing a lot of reaching on the benefits. If this is their best case to proceed then we're in deep trouble.

[milomilo]

I can see that at the local level, but the bureaucracy at the top I would think is more clear headed than that. If the choice is some schools, hospitals, equipment etc that would definitely be good investments or a transit project that according to the city/hired consultants is an investment approximately equal to setting half of the money on fire, it is inconceivable they would fund it.

There must be more benefits they have not shown, or over a longer period or something.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I'd have to think it's the political benefits outweighing other concerns, impressive new infrastructure and trains leave positive impressions for voters, while also creating short-lived benefits for the local economy. And it seems people just like trains more than buses, even if they probably won't use either regularly.

I'm pretty sure 90% or more of people believe that this will be a "normal" LRT line. When they find out they're paying $5+ billion for a tram that will be stuck in traffic in the north they will be outraged.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I'd say they're doing a lot of reaching on the benefits. If this is their best case to proceed then we're in deep trouble.

The characterization of the benefits look fine, and I imagine there are more. If we didn't take into account wider societal benefits there's plenty of stuff we wouldn't fund, and would be poorer for it.

[craner]

Is the 16th Ave. Station planned to be north or south of 16th ?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The characterization of the benefits look fine, and I imagine there are more. If we didn't take into account wider societal benefits there's plenty of stuff we wouldn't fund, and would be poorer for it.

I'm not questioning the benefits listed just the values. $1.7 billion (?) for time saved? How did they determine that value? More than likely they overvalued what the average earns and how many people will use the system.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

Is the 16th Ave. Station planned to be north or south of 16th ?

I'd also like to know where all of the buses are going to go that feed into the line. I'm very familiar with the area and just don't see how this is going to work unless they plan on knocking down several properties.

[foolworm]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Sadly it is accurate (and may be even reaching, for some of the "benefits"):



https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=131776

Going so badly over-budget (and missing important ridership areas) has really hurt the return on investment. Incredibly, the document actually says Stage 1's benefit:cost ratio is pretty good for LRT projects, so I'm wondering if transit planners have lost their way in recent years.

This CBA grossly undersells the benefits of the Green line. For instance, what is the value of the stimulus generated by construction activities? What is the anticipated rise in property value and TOD? What is the valuation of the infrastructure at Year 30? No consideration is given to any of these factors, much less any attempt to quantify them.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by craner

Is the 16th Ave. Station planned to be north or south of 16th ?

South of 16th: