Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[nick.flood]

delete

[MalcolmTucker]

The underground station would conservatively be in the 100m range. You could build a station box, but I doubt that would save much money compared to building the required multiple access routes and air shafts since it isn't in stable rock. Also, with a 20-30 year payment period, it isn't that big of a cost change in an NPV sense if the station is needed within 30 years.

[milomilo]

Seems to me the bridge+tunnel is a no-brainer. It's cheaper, makes a station at 9th Ave feasible and, most importantly, gives us a super-cool looking piece of infrastructure. Not having a station at 9th would be like skipping Sunnyside.

[Chadillaccc]

For me, with the bridge+tunnel option I am worried about the impact it will have on the east end of Prince's Island Park, namely the lagoon, and the the area around the tunnel portal in Eau Claire and the detriment to the future urban environment that will be, including (knowing Calgary) the possibility of an at-grade road or pedestrian intersection with the tracks. Not to mention the potential for the flooding of an entire downtown subway line in the event of another 2013-like flood, though I guess with the shortsightedness of the planning for the 201 Subway that line is in danger of this as well.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

For me, with the bridge+tunnel option I am worried about the impact it will have on the east end of Prince's Island Park, namely the lagoon.

I completely agree with this. If they go that route it better be a beautiful bridge that improves the river and pathway (and bluff) experience for all users. It's a tight spot and the chances of it ending up feeling like a freeway overpass is high. I'm also not fond of losing that part of the river for a couple of years while they build the thing.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

... Not to mention the potential for the flooding of an entire downtown subway line in the event of another 2013-like flood, though I guess with the shortsightedness of the planning for the 201 Subway that line is in danger of this as well.

I think the best way to proceed would be by engineering the tunnels that tolerate being flooded by a once-in-one-hundred year flood.

Since these events happen so infrequently, it would seem best to just waterproof the electrical and have space to bring in giant pumps so the city can restore operation ASAP once the waters recede. If we lose use of the downtown portion of the line for a few days every century, or even every decade, that's not too big a deal. Likely far preferable than trying to engineer a tunnel that never floods or going with a non-tunnel option because it avoids the flood danger all together.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Socguy

I think the best way to proceed would be by engineering the tunnels that tolerate being flooded by a once-in-one-hundred year flood.

Since these events happen so infrequently, it would seem best to just waterproof the electrical and have space to bring in giant pumps so the city can restore operation ASAP once the waters recede. If we lose use of the downtown portion of the line for a few days every century, or even every decade, that's not too big a deal. Likely far preferable than trying to engineer a tunnel that never floods or going with a non-tunnel option because it avoids the flood danger all together.

Inherently this type of thinking adds risk, particularly because these things happen infrequently and we can't test the systems in anything close to what would happen in a real flood scenario. Nothing like adding risk to a $5B project. Someone else's money, right?

[nick.flood]

delete

[Fuzz]

Hopefully if they go with a bridge they add a pedestrian/bike bridge as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

At least two of the stations in the CBD will need flood doors, or hardening anyways. Flood proofing would be an undertaking considering all the alternate entrances for safety and utilities.

[Govertical]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

For me, with the bridge+tunnel option I am worried about the impact it will have on the east end of Prince's Island Park, namely the lagoon, and the the area around the tunnel portal in Eau Claire and the detriment to the future urban environment that will be, including (knowing Calgary) the possibility of an at-grade road or pedestrian intersection with the tracks. Not to mention the potential for the flooding of an entire downtown subway line in the event of another 2013-like flood, though I guess with the shortsightedness of the planning for the 201 Subway that line is in danger of this as well.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Spring2008]

Druh Farrell ‏@DruhFarrell
It's confirmed! City of Calgary plans to make the #greenlineyyc 100% wind and solar powered.

https://twitter.com/DruhFarrell?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Druh Farrell ‏@DruhFarrell
It's confirmed! City of Calgary plans to make the #greenlineyyc 100% wind and solar powered.

I would have fallen out of my chair if green line wasn't "powered" the same way, given how long existing lines have had their power paid for through wind-power contracts...

[outoftheice]

Monday's Council meeting could lead to the City committing an extra $1 billion in funding towards the Green Line. Great news

Calgary councillors plan on backing long-term funding plan for Green Line LRT
A notice of motion has been drafted and will be discussed at the next council meeting

Published on Dec 09 2015
Helen Pike
METRO

As many as 10 city councillors will endorse a Green Line funding strategy as part of a notice of motion coming to council next week.

Long talked about, the idea was originally brought forward by LRT On The Green (LRTOTG) foundation back in May. They proposed earmarking $52 million annually for 30 years from cash leftover from the education portion of property tax. Previously the plan was to do it for 10 years.

If extended for 30 years, the budgeting of tax dollars would earmark $1.5 billion to help Green Line construction at no extra cost to the taxpayer...

Full article:
http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/news/cal...erm-funding-plan-for-green-line-lrt.html

[MalcolmTucker]

Awesome news Jeff!

[Surrealplaces]

One hurdle down, a few more to go

From CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/green-line-triple-funding-1.3364080


and twitter

LRTontheGreen ‏@LRTontheGreen 56m56 minutes ago
Well with a 10-4 vote (&1 absent) #yyccc adds another $1B in #greenlineyyc funding. @MichelleRempel get ready for a train coming your way!

LRTontheGreen ‏@LRTontheGreen 1h1 hour ago
A great day for the #greenlineyyc as #yyccc approves an additional $1B in funding. New total=$1.53B & equals 1/3 of the total project cost.

[Pavlov]

^ Any sense what this means for construction timelines? Any chance we see shovels in the ground in the next few years?

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

^ Any sense what this means for construction timelines? Any chance we see shovels in the ground in the next few years?

I guess it depends on how quickly the province reacts. The NDP's in power should help quicken the response I would think.

[Wooster]

So we have $3.0 billion of the $4.5 billion now funded. I assume the Province will commit its share in the spring. Then another 2 years of design and engineering, and about 5 years of total construction. So I'd say a 2023 opening.

All very exciting. Way back in 2010 during the campaign when we pitched the idea of a new coherent transit capital plan (which became RouteAhead - Greenline being the marquee project) the rationale was largely the ability to be able to attract big dollars for LRT expansion.

This is an excerpt from the email I sent Nenshi about his platform development from June 10, 2010

A focused plan for LRT expansion

Because transportation and transit are very high on the list of issues for people, I think making a coherent and tangible plan for LRT expansion would be a really effective campaign plank. I think a big issue with our "plans" for LRT expansion is the actual lack of a coherent plan. Speaking from my experience watching the goings on in Toronto, watching Mayor David Miller's "Transit City" Plan www.transitcity.ca opened my eyes to this issue. It very clearly identifies LRT lines that are to be built, costing, sequencing and other details. What it really did though was gave politicians at senior levels of government something tangible to grasp on to and support. Soon after the plan was launched provincial and federal dollars flowed. Since, Ontario's bleak financial situation has meant that about $4billion in funding for that project has been delayed unfortunately. Try and find a capital expansion plan for the C-Train that is clear, logical, accessible and easily understood by the public for Calgary. With no plan, there will be no money, and things will be built much more slowly. Calgary needs to create a greater sense of urgency in pushing these big pieces of transit infrastructure forward.

I would suggest coming out with a C-Train expansion plan with a similarly memorable name that can provide the basis for capital investment priorities. Right now, things are done on an ad-hoc basis with SELRT being moved up the priority list through notice of motions and other such shortsighted planning.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

One hurdle down, a few more to go

From CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/green-line-triple-funding-1.3364080


and twitter

Given how much I've heard that Councillor Chu hates transit, I'm surprised he voted yes. Why am I not surprised to see Colley-Urqhart and Chabot votinig no?