Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project - Page 80

milomilo · #**1581** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I'll confirm that there isn't enough money to do it right. As they always do with big transit projects, the administration lied about the true cost to get buy-in from council. Even the original scope couldn't have been done for $4.5 billion without a lot of cutting of corners. Now with people demanding this be done right the cost will be higher. Yes, it will be a lot lower than if these "additions" had been added on in two or three years ago but I don't think costs have come down that far. Hopefully enough on council resist the urge to build this just for the sake of building it and push for it to be done in stages.

How can you confirm that? We won't know until the province tells us.

Corndogger · #**1582** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 12:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

How can you confirm that? We won't know until the province tells us.

Do you think the province will give more than their 1/3 share?

Fuzz · #**1583** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 12:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

How does it not make sense? You don't spend billions of dollars on a project that could easily make things worse. What does that West line have to do with this? It was purely a political decision that the vast majority of people knew would never have much ridership for a number of reasons. Is the SE leg the same as the West leg? I don't think it is but I could easily be convinced that it's not needed right now. But neither is the NC part of the Green Line. We have time to do this right and we should take advantage of that. If it was up to me I'd rather build ALL of the tunnels downtown first and then go from there.

I'm suggesting that the North section is needed, and their is an un-served transit population that won't uses overcrowded buses, and their is no room in the corridor for more bus capacity.

milomilo · #**1584** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Do you think the province will give more than their 1/3 share?

I don't know, but I don't think that's a hard rule always. We can't say for sure until they say, and we don't even know what the cost for the whole thing is yet. There may be more federal money available as well, but there are other people on these boards more qualified to speak on these matters.

Wooster · #**1585** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 2:54 AM**

The maintenance, storage yard is in the SE, and I don't think there's a spot to do it in the North, so can't do just the North if I'm not mistaken.

Boris2k7 · #**1586** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

The maintenance, storage yard is in the SE, and I don't think there's a spot to do it in the North, so can't do just the North if I'm not mistaken.

Maybe the City could explore purchasing one of the salvage yards in the Alyth area? It's still fairly central and there's a number of other City facilities in the general vicinity.

UofC.engineer · #**1587** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Maybe the City could explore purchasing one of the salvage yards in the Alyth area? It's still fairly central and there's a number of other City facilities in the general vicinity.

Why? The city already owns the land in Shepard.

If the system is not build to at least 96th ave or Shepard station it will be relatively useless due to low ridership.

Boris2k7 · #**1588** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Why? The city already owns the land in Shepard.

If the system is not build to at least 96th ave or Shepard station it will be relatively useless due to low ridership.

The reason being that the City seems to want to have a facility relatively close to the core and those particular parcels seem to be large enough for such a facility. Of course if the central location is no issue then using the land the city already owns is better.

CrossedTheTracks · #**1589** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

The maintenance, storage yard is in the SE, and I don't think there's a spot to do it in the North, so can't do just the North if I'm not mistaken.

I read something... somewhere... (I think in one of the reports that was presented to T&T last week) about an LRV facility at 96th/Aurora. But I got the impression from the terminology used that this was simply storage (e.g., like Haysboro) and not heavy maintenance.

UofC.engineer · #**1590** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

Relatively speaking, ridership on the 302 is a complete disaster -> a clear indicator that the population of the deep SE commuter communities has very limited transit appetite.

Relatively speaking, the 302 is a substandard transit service.

The 302 doesn't deserve the title of BRT. Articulating buses and stations painted red doesn't qualify as a BRT system. Not to mention a 50 minute milk-run route.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

The whole concept of "doing it right" is problematic. There is *always* a better more expensive way, so the reality is, you have to do the best you can with what is available while keeping things above of functional threshold. When you can't meet the functional threshold, you defer the portion of the project where there is less demand based on real metrics (see point #1 above).

True to a degree. If the NE line had complete grade separation at the intersections of Memorial, 28th street and 32nd ave it would be light-years better than what is there now. Upgrading those intersections today would be a pain in the dick hole.

CTrainDude · #**1591** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I read something... somewhere... (I think in one of the reports that was presented to T&T last week) about an LRV facility at 96th/Aurora. But I got the impression from the terminology used that this was simply storage (e.g., like Haysboro) and not heavy maintenance.

I believe you are correct. Could also serve as potential storage for Airport line/spur vehicles.

suburbia · #**1592** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The 302 doesn't deserve the title of BRT. Articulating buses and stations painted red doesn't qualify as a BRT system.

You are not incorrect, however, we're still comparing apples to apples as that is exactly the same as what the 301 BRT is. The 301 is at the max and they can't even add more buses to meet the demand. This while the 302 languishes trying to service commuter areas filled with people who do not like transit, or at a minimum, have demonstrated that they will not use it.

suburbia · #**1593** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Upgrading those intersections today would be a pain in the dick hole.

Which is that exactly?

suburbia · #**1594** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

I read something... somewhere... (I think in one of the reports that was presented to T&T last week) about an LRV facility at 96th/Aurora. But I got the impression from the terminology used that this was simply storage (e.g., like Haysboro) and not heavy maintenance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

I believe you are correct. Could also serve as storage for potential storage for Airport line/spur vehicles.

Yes - and all land already owned by the city.

CalgaryAlex · #**1595** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

You are not incorrect, however, we're still comparing apples to apples as that is exactly the same as what the 301 BRT is. The 301 is at the max and they can't even add more buses to meet the demand. This while the 302 languishes trying to service commuter areas filled with people who do not like transit, or at a minimum, have demonstrated that they will not use it.

Route 301 takes longer than 302 by about 15 minutes. 302 also passes through very large stretches of industrial parks, or land which is just plain empty (severely impacting ridership) while the 301's route is entirely through built-up areas. So not exactly apples to apples. It would be hard to not reject transit if you live in the far SE, precisely because high quality transit does not exist. Riding a train on a straight-shot to downtown will be a lot more tolerable than winding around roads in industrial parks.

If you want to argue in favour of a phased build-out of the Green Line, use some other justification. Alleviating the current transit crisis along the north leg of the line... well, ok. But arguing that the south leg is worthless because people "will not use it" is ignorant.

suburbia · #**1596** Posted **Mar 21, 2017, 11:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

It would be hard to not reject transit if you live in the far SE, precisely because high quality transit does not exist.<>
If you want to argue in favour of a phased build-out of the Green Line, use some other justification. Alleviating the current transit crisis along the north leg of the line... well, ok. But arguing that the south leg is worthless because people "will not use it" is ignorant.

Firstly, there is not high quality transit precisely because people have chosen to live in virtual commuter communities (and that is particularly the case outside of the ring-road).

Secondly, to say that the south leg is not as viable for LRT currently based on the anemic update of the 302 is evidence based fact. If the 302 takes longer than the 301, that is because you are 50% further out of downtown - that is the reason, and people who live there, chose their location. Every other LRT line we put in the city was preceded by buses that were servicing the areas. When the buses were overflowing and couldn't handle the numbers, that's when the LRT lines went in. The deep south is very far from meeting that measure. Denial of this fact is ignorant.

No one is saying "the south leg is worthless because people will not use it". What people are saying is that the south east leg is far from being needed right now, and that the number of people who will use transit can be well managed by the existing transit bandwidth. We need to see buses at 80% capacity at least. Not 20%.

craner · #**1597** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 5:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

. . . When the buses were overflowing and couldn't handle the numbers, that's when the LRT lines went in.

I don't think that's true at all. When and where the lines were built was largely just a political decision. I certainly don't remember the NW busses being "overflowing" before the NW LRT was built.
Just sayin'

suburbia · #**1598** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craner

I certainly don't remember the NW busses being "overflowing" before the NW LRT was built.

There has to be "some" threshold that has to be met, most certainly. The West LRT was the most recent addition, and the best practice process of inserting a (psuedo) BRT was implemented, increasing drastically the passenger count (because people wanted to use transit) and then the line went in.

O-tacular · #**1599** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 3:47 PM**

They have created a BRT only lane at the intersection of Barlow and 114th street. I must say though that it doesn't really seem to do much to speed things up. I thought they would have priority lights or something but so far I haven't seen it. Maybe that's the next phase? So far it seems like a really useless and expensive band-aid with little actual benefit. I've even seen trucks using the BRT lane going east next to the Casino. There's a median dividing it but nothing explicitly stopping people from using it. And it is a bit confusing.

MalcolmTucker · #**1600** Posted **Mar 22, 2017, 4:21 PM**

I just found the map I was looking for a few pages back:

https://www.calgarytransit.com/sites...ent_update.pdf