Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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.

That's a pretty common benefit to quantify and I would guess one of/the biggest benefits of any transportation project. If it wasn't, then there would be no way to justify any road expansion project. I don't see how either one of us can question that time saved value just by looking at it in isolation.

Originally Posted by foolworm

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.

Agreed, though I'm not sure that much benefit can be assumed for a rise in property values except for additional value that the entire city gains. 30 years might be too short a time frame too - are the existing LRTs built before 1990 now scrap providing no value?

That whole steer consultation document is shockingly amateur. If you bring in external people to review a project you'd assume it would come with criticism but instead it's page after page of gushing about how great the project is. That is beyond credulity, there is no way this project is literally perfect. And their own figures say it is as good an investment as throwing $2 billion in the trash! Either that number is to be believed, and the Green Line should be scrapped or reconsidered, or the number is bogus and the whole report is not worth the paper it was written on.

I want to support this project, but god this city makes it hard to do so. Now we have this propaganda piece it's seen as "evidence" by the unquestioning supporters of how great the Green Line is, despite the actual numbers it gives saying the opposite.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by foolworm

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.

One other thing - it also misses some of the cost. For one, it will have significant impact during construction. The businesses on Centre St especially will suffer significant economic cost, and some will go under. That may be worth it, but it is still a fact that needs to be accounted for.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

One other thing - it also misses some of the cost. For one, it will have significant impact during construction. The businesses on Centre St especially will suffer significant economic cost, and some will go under. That may be worth it, but it is still a fact that needs to be accounted for.

Not including the negative costs due to the disruptions that come during construction is a serious omission. Especially given the tunnel boring machine was being justified because it avoided street level disruptions that have now been added back in. I would like to see a similar study of BRT to the North and LRT to South Hospital for comparison.

But let’s keep in mind this is not an economic case, it’s a SOCIO-ECONOMIC CASE i.e a fudge it justification, take some hard building costs and then marry then up to an array of nebulous benefits numbers and divide A by B and voila, look see our proposal is the best! Still lots of hidden gems if you can wade through the 176 pages and the brochure style text boxes. Up to each of us to decide how much we want to believe in this kind of hopium.

Some things that caught my interest:

Given the varying level of design certainty across the Program – generally with greater level of detail known in the southern portion of the Program – the cost is currently a mix of Class 3 and Class 5 estimates.

A Class 5 estimate ranges from -50 to + 100%, although it could be as tight as -20 to + 30%, still ludicrous for making decisions on a project at this stage, no wonder the North section is considered financially risky. Where is the full build out cost estimate, before committing to stage 1 we should know what to expect in future stages, anyone seen it?

The socio-economic benefits of transit investment are divided into two categories: user impacts (direct benefits to travellers) and external impacts (reductions to the transportation network’s negative impacts to society).

On the plus side, they are using a social discount rate of 4%, 30 year evaluation period, hourly value of time of $23.10, to calculate present value. its always good to use some real numbers when calculating the fudge it numbers, still GIGO is GIGO. With the downturn in Calgary’s economy we can expect the TOD and other commercial benefits to be far less as these hoped for developments are going to be pushed farther into the future and further discounted.

With a peak frequency of 5 minutes and an end-to-end runtime of nearly 37 minutes, the Green Line will require 18 two car trains in service (assuming a 5 minute layover/recovery at each terminus). Assuming these will be run as two-car trains, 36 will be needed to operate the system plus a further six trains as spares – for a total fleet requirement of 42 LRVs. If an 8-minute headway is used then 28 LRVs (including spares) will be required with 11 two-car trains in service in the peak.

Drivers using Deerfoot Trail or other major roads could save up to 4 minutes (10% of a typical 40 minute commute) due to decongestion.

4 minutes in improved door to door time of travel by car versus taking the new train? Does anyone else think putting LRT at grade on center street in Phase 1 is going to decrease travel times? Apparently LRT is 50% faster than BRT (faster for 0.8 km except for the time getting on and getting off the feeder bus and transfer at 16 ave station). And the study says car drivers will benefit from 10% less traffic, except they forgot to mention on center street it will be on 50% less road!

We’re going to run 2 car trains!

1.8 km of elevated track, hope they got public approval for that, we don’t like elevated track!

Cost estimates for this concept are:
• $30 to $35 million per year for Green Line LRT Stage 1 operating costs ($32.1 is used as the basis for evaluation)
• -$5.2 million per year for bus optimization (operating cost savings)

Does this include running the center street BRT for the foreseeable future?

The Green Line will lead to nearly 2,300 fewer auto collisions resulting in property damage, injury, or death over the next 30 years.

Did they add in LRT collisions and pedestrian hits?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

The benefits are avoiding costs imposed by the project. It is hard to call them benefits from the status quo.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by 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?

Not many public projects have a positive rate of return - if they do, they've probably inflated the benefits, like counting the spending itself as a benefit.

[LOU]

Originally Posted by accord1999

South of 16th:

So most likely the express buses going DT (or reverse) will pass right by the station since there won't be a terminus North of the Bow for them to offload their fares and turn back around?

Nenshi says he expects 16th Ave LRT station to be the busiest. I would tend to disagree.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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.

If they do I hope the answer from both is 'no'.

The Provincial government is on record as saying a change in scope for the project will mean a review of the funding commitment.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by LOU

So most likely the express buses going DT (or reverse) will pass right by the station since there won't be a terminus North of the Bow for them to offload their fares and turn back around?

Nenshi says he expects 16th Ave LRT station to be the busiest. I would tend to disagree.

What about the big city owned empty lot right on the corner of 16th? Although doesn’t show it on this map probably could make it happen there. Drop off right at entrance to station?

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Given the varying level of design certainty across the Program – generally with greater level of detail known in the southern portion of the Program – the cost is currently a mix of Class 3 and Class 5 estimates.

A class 5 estimate is used for screening and should be followed by a class 3 estimate before a final decision to proceed is made. Surely the City isn't going to make a final decision on this basis?? I hope a better quality (class 3) estimate exists for ALL portions the city is planning to go ahead with.

https://www.costengineering.eu/Downl...ION_SYSTEM.pdf

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

What about the big city owned empty lot right on the corner of 16th? Although doesn’t show it on this map probably could make it happen there. Drop off right at entrance to station?

I've thought the same thing. Do a small scale terminal for busses to utilize similar to what there is on Centre Street North at 78 Ave or on Crowchild just south of 50th (links below).

Downside is not sure how much people would like a forced transfer on an express bus but I would think it would work from a technical standpoint. And it ties into the MAX Orange too.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.12278.../data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.00524.../data=!3m1!1e3

[craner]

Originally Posted by accord1999

South of 16th:

^Thanks. I looked for that on the website last night but couldn’t find (admittedly I didn’t search very hard).

At least the intersection of 16th Ave. & Center St. won’t be totally screwed after Phase 1 ... but Center St. south of there sure will be.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

What about the big city owned empty lot right on the corner of 16th? Although doesn’t show it on this map probably could make it happen there. Drop off right at entrance to station?

There isn't a forced transfer for people going to downtown from points north at 16th Ave, no iteration has had that. And there is no station entrance anymore. It is at grade. Accessible via the cross walk.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by LOU

So most likely the express buses going DT (or reverse) will pass right by the station since there won't be a terminus North of the Bow for them to offload their fares and turn back around?

Right, all the main routes like 301 and 3 are expected to continue running into downtown even after the line opens.

Nenshi says he expects 16th Ave LRT station to be the busiest. I would tend to disagree.

I believe it would be the third highest, after a downtown station and Shepard with 11,000 trips. But even to get that, they're really counting on the Max Orange connection and locals to really drive ridership.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Some things that caught my interest:

With a peak frequency of 5 minutes and an end-to-end runtime of nearly 37 minutes, the Green Line will require 18 two car trains in service (assuming a 5 minute layover/recovery at each terminus). Assuming these will be run as two-car trains, 36 will be needed to operate the system plus a further six trains as spares – for a total fleet requirement of 42 LRVs. If an 8-minute headway is used then 28 LRVs (including spares) will be required with 11 two-car trains in service in the peak.

Drivers using Deerfoot Trail or other major roads could save up to 4 minutes (10% of a typical 40 minute commute) due to decongestion.

4 minutes in improved door to door time of travel by car versus taking the new train? Does anyone else think putting LRT at grade on center street in Phase 1 is going to decrease travel times? Apparently LRT is 50% faster than BRT (faster for 0.8 km except for the time getting on and getting off the feeder bus and transfer at 16 ave station). And the study says car drivers will benefit from 10% less traffic, except they forgot to mention on center street it will be on 50% less road!

We’re going to run 2 car trains!

This is completely new to me. If this line is so badly needed why run only two car trains when there's been a huge push to expand stations on existing lines so they can handle four car trains? Do we know the capacity of these cars?

The Green Line will lead to nearly 2,300 fewer auto collisions resulting in property damage, injury, or death over the next 30 years.

Did they add in LRT collisions and pedestrian hits?

Maybe the south leg will have fewer accidents but the north leg will see a huge spike.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

This is completely new to me. If this line is so badly needed why run only two car trains when there's been a huge push to expand stations on existing lines so they can handle four car trains? Do we know the capacity of these cars?



Maybe the south leg will have fewer accidents but the north leg will see a huge spike.

The LRVs being contemplated are much longer than the current high floor LRVs. 2 LRVs are likely to be in the ballpark of between the capacity of 3 current LRVs and 4.


In the north section, traffic will adapt, and fewer people will drive on centre street, just as they did when the bridge was entirely closed.

[outoftheice]

I find it funny that everyone is losing their minds over the benefit to cost analysis in the Steer Report. Building public transit is done as a public good. If the economic case for it was great, private corporations would be building transit and it would not have to be left to government. Calgary Transit only recovers 55% of operating costs. Should we stop all public transit because it's not revenue positive?

The Steer Report evaluated all major transit projects across Canada and found that only a single project had an economic benefit to cost ratio over 1 and that was the Hurontario LRT project in the GTA which is replacing one of the busiest bus corridors in the county. The Green Line Stage 1 benefit to cost ratio was found to be middle of the pack which is a position Calgarians should be comfortable with.

Speaking of context, the report found that the Green Line Stage 1 plan will generate benefits of $2.2 Billion. The City of Calgary will contribute $2.2 Billion total towards construction and financing so as a Calgary taxpayer or a City Councillor the economic benefit to cost ratio is 1.0, an excellent return on investment. The whole point of putting up municipal funds is to leverage them to get funding from other orders of government that would otherwise never appear in Calgary. This should be all about what Calgarians are putting into the pot and what we're getting back and in the case of Green Line that equals out.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The LRVs being contemplated are much longer than the current high floor LRVs. 2 LRVs are likely to be in the ballpark of between the capacity of 3 current LRVs and 4.

Based on the numbers in the Business Case report, their example LRV is 40 meters long with a capacity of 275 people which matches the specs of Edmonton's version of the Bombardier Flexity Freedom.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

The Steer Report evaluated all major transit projects across Canada and found that only a single project had an economic benefit to cost ratio over 1 and that was the Hurontario LRT project in the GTA which is replacing one of the busiest bus corridors in the county. The Green Line Stage 1 benefit to cost ratio was found to be middle of the pack which is a position Calgarians should be comfortable with.

Isn't Hurontario 100% street running on existing ROW, and doesn't involve building new bridges but running on existing bridges? If we wanted to give up way more road capacity could certainly drive the Greenline CBA upwards.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I find it funny that everyone is losing their minds over the benefit to cost analysis in the Steer Report. Building public transit is done as a public good. If the economic case for it was great, private corporations would be building transit and it would not have to be left to government. Calgary Transit only recovers 55% of operating costs. Should we stop all public transit because it's not revenue positive?

No. Government invests in projects that do not have direct profitability, but have wider benefits to society that the private sector could not make money off. Schools and hospitals do not make a profit and thus would generally not work for the private sector, but it is beyond question that education and healthcare have massive economic benefits. Just because these wider benefits of a project are harder to measure does not mean they are not there and should not be measured, and if the consultants who created that report do not have the competence to measure all the costs and benefits, then they should have left the table out as it is bad data that is now being treated as fact, misunderstood and misused. Better yet, they should not have been paid god knows how much money to make a flashy brochure to "prove" what the city told them to.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

The Steer Report evaluated all major transit projects across Canada and found that only a single project had an economic benefit to cost ratio over 1 and that was the Hurontario LRT project in the GTA which is replacing one of the busiest bus corridors in the county. The Green Line Stage 1 benefit to cost ratio was found to be middle of the pack which is a position Calgarians should be comfortable with.

Except the numbers are obviously all wrong as they haven't accounted for all the costs and benefits, thus any comparisons to other transit systems using inaccurate data are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Speaking of context, the report found that the Green Line Stage 1 plan will generate benefits of $2.2 Billion. The City of Calgary will contribute $2.2 Billion total towards construction and financing so as a Calgary taxpayer or a City Councillor the economic benefit to cost ratio is 1.0, an excellent return on investment. The whole point of putting up municipal funds is to leverage them to get funding from other orders of government that would otherwise never appear in Calgary. This should be all about what Calgarians are putting into the pot and what we're getting back and in the case of Green Line that equals out.

Well, OK, but we'd be even better off with a project that actually has a positive return on investment. Which I would be confident the Green Line would have, if it was accounted properly. And if we are saying it's OK for Calgary to scam the system to get money for a bad project, that means it's acceptable that every other city does that also with poor projects. That would be no way to run a country, we'd run out of money as every project you build makes the country poorer.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The benefits are avoiding costs imposed by the project. It is hard to call them benefits from the status quo.

I don't understand what you mean hear, could you clarify?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not many public projects have a positive rate of return - if they do, they've probably inflated the benefits, like counting the spending itself as a benefit.

So what, they just guess if a project is a good investment?

Why shouldn't the spending be counted as a benefit? If the government taxes someone $1, then gives them back $1, that is a project with a CBR of 1 (minus admin). If substantial amount of the costs of the Green Line get spent in Calgary and Canada, then again that money should count as production, and be added to the benefit of the project, right? Obviously we shouldn't build make work projects and the project wouldn't be good if the spending was the only benefit, but once added to the other benefits, it may change the picture.