Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Here we go again!

Green Line poll commissioned by group calling to 'de-risk' LRT tests support for 'alternative plan'
Author of the article:Madeline Smith
Publishing date:1 hour ago

A majority of Calgarians who answered a poll commissioned by a group calling to “de-risk” the Green Line LRT project expressed support for a “scaled back plan” when given information about how that would save money.

About half the people polled said the city should go with the plan pitched by a group of business figures that dubbed themselves an “ad hoc committee of Calgary citizens.” Nearly one-third of the respondents said Calgary should proceed with the Green Line as it’s proposed now, and 12 per cent said the project should be abandoned completely....

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-72837d3b6992/

I wonder if those yahoos behind this actually ride the current LRT! Do they know how ugly and inconvenient those stations are? Do they realize that replicating that on the Green Line will completely ruin the streetscape of downtown, the Beltline and Inglewood? I’m not impressed with their tactics!

I could ask the question, do you know where the station in Inglewood is located to make the claim of a ruined streetscape? It’s south of the CPR tracks in the middle of a light industrial area, there’s nothing to ruin. What do you think center street will look like with LRT tracks and BRT taking over the road? What will cut and cover tunnelling do to the city? Do you think underground stations will be “Less Inconvenient” than current stations? The remaining Green line supporters are like the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling beaker of water, no matter how f*cked up the green line design becomes the supporters still want to build a f*cked up design. Expect more changes because the City doesn’t know how it’s going to construct the “revised” green line through downtown, it’s doesn’t know how much it will cost, it’s all up to the contractors and that’s always a recipe for cost overruns and changes we won’t like. Building one good line, makes far more sense than building two incomplete compromised lines.

CBC: How do you construct a cut-and-cover tunnel along 2nd Street S.W. that crosses every major east-west road downtown? All at once or in phases?
Thompson: The means and methods of the construction would be determined by the contractor.


CBC: Is boring a tunnel out of the question?
Thompson: They may come back and have small segments where they would want to bore a tunnel. That would be a question for those contractors once we get into that piece.


CBC: But I presume you wouldn't be cutting 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Avenues all at once (to build the tunnel)?
Thompson: No, we would have clauses in our contracts about road impacts, durations for impacts and obviously ensuring that we're not closing all our roads at one time.

CBC: How do you put a tunnel under the existing LRT line on 7th Avenue without shutting it down for an extended period?
Thompson: Again, there's different means that they have. So they can use a tunnelling method. If they were using a cut and cover, they could switch to a different type of tunneling method like a sequential excavation method.


CBC: Why extend the tunnel all the way through the Beltline as far as the Victoria Park bus barn?
Thompson: Yeah. So we're trading off our costs through the area and we've used lower cost construction for the plan that we have now versus the plan we had before. And so you remember the plan we had before — we had an "S" curve which ran across from the 10th of alignment over to 12th Avenue. We actually had to buy a number of existing buildings, take those buildings down and use a different type of construction.


CBC: So even though the tunnel is longer there, you're able to save money?
Thompson:That's right. And we're still looking at details in those areas. And so, if we can, if there is something we can find that we go back to the previous alignment, and we can save more money, we're always looking for those cost savings in the area.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nsit-1.5446991


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...nsit-1.5446991

https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...od-Station.pdf

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yes. Debt is low, and the revenue (from the city) is there already for the greenline (allocated maybe a decade ago).

Does the city still have sufficient revenues to fund all Greenline operating costs, capital expenditures and debt financing? Plus a new arena and conference centre? City finances were a lot different a decade ago . . . we are in a very different time now. The city, province and country are swimming debt.

An analogy. I've had my working hours cut and my income has been substantially reduced. There is a fair chance my income will never be restored and I might loose my job entirely. However, I really need a new car, a larger house and some fancy furniture. So let's borrow and get on with it (that was my goal ten years ago).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I wonder if those yahoos behind this actually ride the current LRT! Do they know how ugly and inconvenient those stations are? Do they realize that replicating that on the Green Line will completely ruin the streetscape of downtown, the Beltline and Inglewood? I’m not impressed with their tactics!

But we're ok with completely ruining the streetscape of Centre St?

Otherwise I agree with the spirit of your post and telling these yahoos to go away. They only have a few years to live, let those of us who are actually going to be living here for decades make the decision.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Does the city still have sufficient revenues to fund all Greenline operating costs, capital expenditures and debt financing?

The GL capital and financing costs are allocated in the City's budget till 2044; if revenues fall then the cuts would have to come from elsewhere in the City's budget. But the operating costs are not yet funded.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But we're ok with completely ruining the streetscape of Centre St?

Otherwise I agree with the spirit of your post and telling these yahoos to go away. They only have a few years to live, let those of us who are actually going to be living here for decades make the decision.

No I have never been a fan of the centre street ground level plan.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Does the city still have sufficient revenues to fund all Greenline operating costs, capital expenditures and debt financing? Plus a new arena and conference centre?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Pegasus

City finances were a lot different a decade ago . . . we are in a very different time now.

The economy doesn't effect city taxes. The economy only effects individuals perceptions of city taxes.

Originally Posted by Pegasus

The city, province and country are swimming debt.

The country has less relative debt today than it had a decade ago. The province has the least amount of debt compared to all other provinces.

Originally Posted by Pegasus

An analogy. I've had my working hours cut and my income has been substantially reduced. There is a fair chance my income will never be restored and I might loose my job entirely. However, I really need a new car, a larger house and some fancy furniture. So let's borrow and get on with it (that was my goal ten years ago).

The city's income to support this project has not been reduced. Our taxes are low. The greenline is more like a house (a durable asset) rather than furniture or a new car.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

The city, province and country are swimming debt.

You incorrectly stated this before, with nothing to back it up, were corrected, and now are saying it again. Why?

[lucx]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

He also spoke about the importance of building the most expensive section through downtown and across the river now, and expanding north and south later. There are many examples around the world of "bridges to nowhere"!

It's a bridge to north Calgary, hardly nowhere. This isn't a particularly winning argument

Originally Posted by jawagord

The remaining Green line supporters are like the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling beaker of water, no matter how f*cked up the green line design becomes the supporters still want to build a f*cked up design. ... Building one good line, makes far more sense than building two incomplete compromised lines.

While building 1 good line is a valid point, the idea of elevated through Downtown that no one wants, or a separate North line, which is objectively worse and more expensive, is even more f***ed up.

Some of the arguments against have been as all over the map as the route for Segment 2.

[PPAR]

I have been in the US throughout the Covid crisis, so I am watching the Greenline debate from afar. I have to say it really seems Calgary has lost its mojo on this one.

This is a project with the financing from all three levels of Government lined up. It has gone through a 7 year process of community engagement. It is mass transit in a city with a proven record of success in the modality.

But suddenly it is “too risky”. Guess what, every mega project has unknowns. To fall into the trap of looking like you are reckless because you don’t know what grade of rebar the contractor is going to use is just foolhardy. It speaks very poorly of the leadership and vision of Calgary, but then maybe that is the real goal of the projects opponents, to make council look bad.

[milomilo]

People have criticism of the Green Line for different reasons. Those old, entitled twats don't speak for me and their agenda is obvious. I'm principally concerned that everything north of the river until about 64 Ave (if it ever makes it that far) will be hot garbage that will not only permanently ruin Centre St, but will also permanently ruin any chance the north will be served by quality transit.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PPAR

This is a project with the financing from all three levels of Government lined up. It has gone through a 7 year process of community engagement. It is mass transit in a city with a proven record of success in the modality.

The main problem is that they oversold it in the beginning, allowing expectations to run too high. The funding that was obtained was supposed to be enough to build the entire 40 km line, so when it was cut down in 2017, it lost a lot of enthusiasm. But even after that, there was still support for it. But it suffered another setback last year when it was revealed that the original downtown deep tunnel alignment was too expensive, resulting in more corner-cutting. There's been a significant loss of confidence in the project, even before the gut punches of the oil price downturn and COVID.

But suddenly it is “too risky”. Guess what, every mega project has unknowns.

$5B in capital cost and $40M/year operating cost for just 55-65K riders/day is risky, especially if there's no guarantee of more funding to get the line to the areas of high ridership.

Jyoti Gondek, the councilor for the communities north of Beddington Trail and with a large number of bus riders, recently turned against the current Stage 1. It seems like she's less than confident that the NC segment would be built incrementally in a reasonable time frame after Stage 1 opens.

[milomilo]

The cost will go up further, no doubt, and there will be more surprises, and still the reaction will be predictable. "This was always the plan, we always knew this would happen". "This is still exactly as good a transit line as it was in 2015, the best deal ever".

[MalcolmTucker]

Important to remember that cost escalations look very different under design build contracts: the cost escalations are almost always on the front end as the scope is defined, the project is derisked and such. The non government created risk then transfers to the contractors.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Important to remember that cost escalations look very different under design build contracts: the cost escalations are almost always on the front end as the scope is defined, the project is derisked and such. The non government created risk then transfers to the contractors.

What happens if/when no contracts come in within the current budget?

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What happens if/when no contracts come in within the current budget?

That's what the $700M in cost contingency that is being carried is for.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What happens if/when no contracts come in within the current budget?

Then we don't have to sign them. I don't expect this to happen, that is not saying it won't. The contracting strategy has lots of potential to blow up, but it still isn't a reason to pull the plug. Mostly since I think we will never get the province's commitment over the near term for a new iteration.

The city's contracting strategy makes little sense to me. It isn't as bad as how the TTC does projects, but I don't think it is anywhere close to best practice. It all comes back to city council: they insist too much on absolute certainty rather than using well defined goals and scope definition. Council also has ideas on how to deliver projects that aren't best practice, and administration didn't push back enough when it was important.

For the contracting strategy: The tunnel segment will be the most difficult and it is entirely possible that it will blow up in the city's face, because their contracting strategy took a roundabout way of addressing risk. The city was like 'the tunnel has a 25-50% risk premium, but the rest of the project has a 10% risk premium, and vehicles has a 0% risk premium, so therefor, if we divide up the project we can minimize risk'. But that misunderstands the sophistication of bidders. By doing a single contract, the risk can be spread amongst the entire project, and be less risky overall, since it is less likely that everything will go wrong. By keeping it as a single project, risk can also be made up in the maintenance and operation phase, which reduces risk premium too. Instead the city since it is also asking for financing which has added more risk, especially since the risk isn't offset by operations and maintenance contracts.

[jawagord]

New Op-Ed from Neil McKendrick on Green Line, just makes so much sense. One of the real dangers of the current green line plan is technology could make LRT outdated in 20 years and then we are stuck with 2 partially built lines. Build one good line now!

First, having the downtown section of the line located within a deep tunnel — in addition to being expensive and risky to build — will make these stations difficult to access since they will be several stories underground.

Second, the north section, planned to run on the surface up Centre Street, will be subject to conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. To minimize risk, most intersecting streets and pedestrian crossings will have to be closed. Stations in the middle of the road will create safety issues. Vehicle and bus traffic operating on the remaining lanes will be congested. Access to businesses and adjacent communities will be restricted. And this costly segment will not attract enough new transit users to justify the cost, risk and disruption.

Third, the southeast line is too short. By stopping at 126 Avenue S.E. (Shepard Station), most existing transit users will need to make a new transfer at a station that is not intended to handle the kind of bus and auto traffic it will generate. It will be too short to offer the travel time savings that southeast residents are expecting. It, too, will not attract enough new ridership.

A more responsible use of funds would be to build the entire southeast line to the planned terminus just beyond the South Health Campus — a major city destination. This would mean the majority of the southeast population will be within a short bus ride or walking distance.

....BRT services in North Calgary will continue to provide reliable transit service for many decades to come. When the funds are in place down the road, LRT can be considered. By that time, other innovations in urban transit may be available.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...-ffce5b34d42a/

[MalcolmTucker]

Except stopping the greenline in eauclaire doesn't save enough money to get to the South Health Campus and Seton. To free up cash to go to Seton you have to not go to the centre of downtown. If you don't cross MacLeod Trail and you don't cross the CPR you can save a lot of money. But it destroys ridership.

[CTrainDude]

Not to mention the fact that McKendrick is saying what a bad idea deep tunnels are - when the deep tunnels were scrapped three years ago. It’s great that he had 35 years experience as a planner with CT - but that also means he started work in the late 1970’s (he’s been retired about 5 years) - technology and planning has changed since then. He just strikes me now as an old guy frozen in time.

[YYCguys]

McKendrick mentions that the underground stations will be difficult to access. Hmm, are underground stations in London or NYC difficult to access? No, because they have escalators and lifts!

Then he goes on to chastise the decision to leave the Center Street portion on the surface saying that it will be inconvenient and restrictive. So what would he suggest there? Tunnels/underground stations? So he kind of contradicts himself.