Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[lucx]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I'm not sure there will be much savings once you get past 64th as Centre Street becomes much wider with median space and also flanked by wide grass and tree-lined shoulders (land I assume already owned by the City). The only trouble spot is the stretch between Beddington Drive and Beddington Trail.

The only savings might be to cut Centre Street to 2 lanes all the way to Beddington Trail, minimizing extra road rework but that will likely pit Ward 4 vs Ward 3 as Ward 4 would see traffic disruption in order to benefit Ward 3 by getting the train farther north.

Correct, there's complicated tunnels, ramps, and property acquisition in the far north that would be more expensive. Centre Street was always envisioned with single car lanes so getting to Beddington inexpensively would quell some of the criticism of the line.

The route with single lanes appears straightforward and cost effective if they cross 16 Ave at grade. I speculate they could eventually have a split station at 16 Ave (like Shawnessey & Martindale) so passengers get on/off while the signals transition. A BRT lane can allow them to test an at-grade crossing before committing.

[YYCguys]

I thought the vote was scheduled for today. It was on the agenda. Seems to be dragging on and on.

[accord1999]

I think they probably delayed it due to the new recommendations put out by Administration (which seems to have swayed Gondek), to give everyone a day to study them.

https://twitter.com/JyotiGondek/stat...33614786637824

[milomilo]

Sounds like they are kicking the can down the road a bit on the "segment 2b" (north of the river) portion. Perhaps could be looked at optimistically in that segment 2a could go ahead while 2b gets mired in opposition.

Quite amazing how little we have progressed in 3-5 years.

[craner]

Originally Posted by lucx

Counsillor Gondek is a firm yes so it looks like Stage 1 to 16 Ave will be approved with solid support.

From her June 1 Tweet:

Council is committing to single vehicle lanes on the busiest portion of Centre Street in Crescent Heights. Public engagement has assumed single lanes north of 16 Ave so I think there will be political and public acceptance, albiet not enthusiasm. Without property acquisition, expansion north could be considerably less than $100 million/km.

Oh joy - sounds wonderful

[craner]

Originally Posted by lucx

Correct, there's complicated tunnels, ramps, and property acquisition in the far north that would be more expensive. Centre Street was always envisioned with single car lanes so getting to Beddington inexpensively would quell some of the criticism of the line.

The route with single lanes appears straightforward and cost effective if they cross 16 Ave at grade. I speculate they could eventually have a split station at 16 Ave (like Shawnessey & Martindale) so passengers get on/off while the signals transition. A BRT lane can allow them to test an at-grade crossing before committing.

As does this.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Quite amazing how little we have progressed in 3-5 years.

Indeed, Almost a glacial pace like that of the UP Line in Toronto!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I thought the vote was scheduled for today. It was on the agenda. Seems to be dragging on and on.

Heard on the news today that the vote is tomorrow.

[Pegasus]

Sounds like the plan for this afternoon's vote (based on what I thought I heard a couple of Councillors say on TV this morning) is to:

- Split the project into 3 segments:

• Shepard to the Elbow River
• Elbow River to Eau Claire
• Eau Claire to 16th Avenue NW

- Seek approval to issue RFP for Shepard to Elbow River by July 29, 2020 (the easy and least (cost) risk section)
- Do more work on the Elbow to Eau Claire section to address a myriad of uncertainties

If my understanding of proceedings is correct it sounds as if the plan is to get started on construction on one section asap (i.e. commit the City to this project) before the design has been finalized and all the costs, risks and uncertainties have been addresses on the other sections. Sneaky!

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Sounds like the plan for this afternoon's vote (based on what I thought I heard a couple of Councillors say on TV this morning) is to:

- Split the project into 3 segments:

• Shepard to the Elbow River
• Elbow River to Eau Claire
• Eau Claire to 16th Avenue NW

- Seek approval to issue RFP for Shepard to Elbow River by July 29, 2020 (the easy and least (cost) risk section)
- Do more work on the Elbow to Eau Claire section to address a myriad of uncertainties

If my understanding of proceedings is correct it sounds as if the plan is to get started on construction on one section asap (i.e. commit the City to this project) before the design has been finalized and all the costs, risks and uncertainties have been addresses on the other sections. Sneaky!

In addition to all that, according to the recommendations, the first downtown section has to be complete enough that they know the costs before moving ahead with the North section.

To me, it's all more ways to cancel the North section LRT, just sugar coated in terms and conditions that make it less clear to the average person.

[Policy Wonk]

I don't see any downside to getting on with the SELRT segment, it isn't going to change even if the line is cut in two.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't see any downside to getting on with the SELRT segment, it isn't going to change even if the line is cut in two.

. . . unless the other two sections end up being a lot more expensive (or otherwise unacceptable) than currently envisioned!

ps I'm not a housewife - but what if I was?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

. . . unless the other two sections end up being a lot more expensive (or otherwise unacceptable) than currently envisioned!

ps I'm not a housewife - but what if I was?

If that turned out to be the case that would be an existential danger to the Green Line concept which would make having laid track for the SELRT instrumental in retaining funding.

And if you were a housewife and you were screaming paranoid nonsense at me I would just politely repeat "thank you for your feedback".

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah I am fine with this as a risk plan. Would it be what I would choose if I could wind back the clock to 2017 and develop a different strategy, no (a single contract with a cap of 4.2-4.5 billion but with risk sharing on the tunnel based on geotechnical factors with joint technical oversight would be the alternative). But given the decisions made by council which have put us on the path to dividing up the project, it is fine.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't see any downside to getting on with the SELRT segment, it isn't going to change even if the line is cut in two.

Biggest downside I see is the Province views this as a major change to the project and pulls their portion of the funding entirely. Which they have stated is a possibility. Then the project pretty much dies entirely.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Biggest downside I see is the Province views this as a major change to the project and pulls their portion of the funding entirely. Which they have stated is a possibility. Then the project pretty much dies entirely.

If the province wants to do that I don't see anything qualitatively different in changing the line today vs the changes that have already been made. The project now is different than when it was approved by the province, it's fairly arbitrary whether the changes made already would not be major vs future changes.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Biggest downside I see is the Province views this as a major change to the project and pulls their portion of the funding entirely. Which they have stated is a possibility. Then the project pretty much dies entirely.

I think the province would be nothing but relieved if the city prioritized the lower cost and lower risk part of the project over a tunnel that has no inherent reason to exist.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sounds like they are kicking the can down the road a bit on the "segment 2b" (north of the river) portion. Perhaps could be looked at optimistically in that segment 2a could go ahead while 2b gets mired in opposition.

That seems to be the story of the Green Line so far; be confident beforehand then run into problems and split things up and hope for the best for the problematic section in the future. I wonder if in a year's time, we'll be debating further splitting Segments 2A and 2B as new problems are found.

Quite amazing how little we have progressed in 3-5 years.

Agreed.

[excel]

So is the vote today or not?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by excel

So is the vote today or not?

Most likely, Council is discussing it now. They just voted down Farkas's request for a plebiscite.