Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

... Screwing over drivers using the excuse we could possibly save ~$400m while conveniently not factoring in costs for wasted time, lost business, etc. is not going to wash with the majority of Calgarians.

The truth is likely somewhere in between, as the line will reduce traffic. If people live on that stretch and are heading either south or north, it would be moronic to not use the LRT. The parallel betwee LRT and Trump choosing to live in the middle of NYC effectively closing down 5th Avenue, thus completely screwing retail and residential alike is a bit of a stretch.

The part about "is not going to wash with the majority of Calgarians" is laughable.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The truth is likely somewhere in between, as the line will reduce traffic. If people live on that stretch and are heading either south or north, it would be moronic to not use the LRT. The parallel betwee LRT and Trump choosing to live in the middle of NYC effectively closing down 5th Avenue, thus completely screwing retail and residential alike is a bit of a stretch.

The part about "is not going to wash with the majority of Calgarians" is laughable.

Unless the city stops growing there's zero evidence the line will reduce traffic in that area. The percentage of all trips done via private vehicle would have to drop below 50% and it's currently about 75% to 80%. That's not going to happen and even the city in their craziest anti-car projections doesn't expect it drop all that much. I doubt the businesses in the area want this either.

Where is this Trump analogy coming from? I never made it and didn't see anyone else make it.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Your point about traffic gridlock has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

As for how much 1km of subway would cost on Center Street that would depend on a lot of factors. I see what you're getting at but like the majority of people I'd rather the project be done properly so we gain the most benefit from it. Screwing over drivers using the excuse we could possibly save ~$400m while conveniently not factoring in costs for wasted time, lost business, etc. is not going to wash with the majority of Calgarians. Too many of us have been here a lot longer than those proposing these ruinous policies and have seen too many projects done on the cheap to the benefit of no one. If this project has to wait a bit longer that will be for the best. It was never intended to be built this soon anyway.

You raise a valid point. It is important to build a project right the first time as opposed with being stuck with a sub-par design for 50 years or so. I think of the Memorial/Deerfoot interchange when I think of cases like this. However, it is important that the city not over build infrastructure as well. This is especially true when it comes to building road couplets. I think of pernicious cases like the bottom of Edmonton trail, the Macleod trail couplets, 11th ave, 12th ave, 5th and 6th ave which are only ever busy during 2 hours of rush hour per weekday.

Looking at the stats, Centre street south of 16th ave moves 24,000 vehicles per day.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/...e%20flow%20maps/traffic-flow-DT-2015.pdf

Let's say if the the greenline was built to Country Hills, it is able to take 2000 vehicles off Centre street. If Centre street still moves 22,000 and it was converted to a neighborhood boulevard as classified by the complete streets guide it will still be to capacity.


Refer to page 121 of the document. Imagine a low floor LRT running down the middle of the street. Take away the bike lanes and bike buffers and make the green boulevard narrower and you have centre street.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Doc...ibrary/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf

If the city can only afford to build the first stage from Shepard to Downtown and then we have to wait 20+ years to afford a subway from downtown to 24th ave and beyond in order to accommodate cars so we don't have to(and I'm quoting you here) "Screw over drivers" then we can have a conversation about "factoring in costs for wasted time, lost business, etc."

Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me but I don't think the cost difference for a 1km section of subway with a subway station vs. On street LRT is going to be $400 million. Maybe someone here knows this?

[GreaterMontréal]

Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me but I don't think the cost difference for a 1km section of subway with a subway station vs. On street LRT is going to be $400 million. Maybe someone here knows this?

in North America

Subway $300M-$400M / km , maybe more
LRT $80M-$100M / km. , maybe more

a subway station will cost a lot more. It is acceptable to justify the high costs of an underground subway if the ridership is high.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

in North America

Subway $300M-$400M / km , maybe more
LRT $80M-$100M / km. , maybe more

a subway station will cost a lot more. It is acceptable to justify the high costs of an underground subway if the ridership is high.

Thanks for the info!

Can you cite your source?

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Thanks for the info!

Can you cite your source?

Laval Métro extension : $ 745 million for 3 new stations and a tunnel under the Thousand Islands River. 5.2km . Inaugurated in 2007, the construction is now considered a bargin.

My 1st source is urbantoronto.ca
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/07/rising-cost-rapid-transit-construction

costs have exploded in the last few years. in Toronto, everything is above $300M/km

in Montréal, the Blue Line extension , $3B , 5-6km , 5 stations.

the difference between a full blown Subway-Métro and a LRT is pretty big. That's why the Blue Line extension could possibly be turned into a future REM Line. The ridership projected for the Blue Line is 80k/day

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

You raise a valid point. It is important to build a project right the first time as opposed with being stuck with a sub-par design for 50 years or so. I think of the Memorial/Deerfoot interchange when I think of cases like this. However, it is important that the city not over build infrastructure as well. This is especially true when it comes to building road couplets. I think of pernicious cases like the bottom of Edmonton trail, the Macleod trail couplets, 11th ave, 12th ave, 5th and 6th ave which are only ever busy during 2 hours of rush hour per weekday.

Looking at the stats, Centre street south of 16th ave moves 24,000 vehicles per day.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/...e%20flow%20maps/traffic-flow-DT-2015.pdf

Let's say if the the greenline was built to Country Hills, it is able to take 2000 vehicles off Centre street. If Centre street still moves 22,000 and it was converted to a neighborhood boulevard as classified by the complete streets guide it will still be to capacity.


Refer to page 121 of the document. Imagine a low floor LRT running down the middle of the street. Take away the bike lanes and bike buffers and make the green boulevard narrower and you have centre street.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Doc...ibrary/TP021-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf

If the city can only afford to build the first stage from Shepard to Downtown and then we have to wait 20+ years to afford a subway from downtown to 24th ave and beyond in order to accommodate cars so we don't have to(and I'm quoting you here) "Screw over drivers" then we can have a conversation about "factoring in costs for wasted time, lost business, etc."

Also, I don't have the numbers in front of me but I don't think the cost difference for a 1km section of subway with a subway station vs. On street LRT is going to be $400 million. Maybe someone here knows this?

I'll ignore your comments about certain roads being overbuilt for now because I don't have time to write a book on why you're wrong.

As for Center Street, you're ignoring that things don't stay static. Back when Deerfoot was extended in the south to Okotoks the city claimed that meant there was no need to expand 22X. About two years after that they realized that traffic volumes did not go down and that they would have to do something. The same will happen with Center Street especially if the city successfully grows the area. Transit use might go up but auto use will go up even more. It's a reality that won't change. By putting the train underground it will allow all modes of transportation to benefit. Putting it at street level screws over everyone not just drivers. If we're going to spend $5B+ lets do it right. We should also seriously consider putting everything downtown underground right now to take advantage of cheap money and the downturn in the economy. Freeing up 7th avenue would have so much potential that in the long run it could pay for the cost of burying the LRT down that stretch.

My cost difference estimate of ~$400m for this project comes from the city itself. If I remember correctly the estimate for running it all the way down Center Street into downtown was $800m and the buried option was something like $1.2 or $1.3 billion. I'm sure those latter numbers would vary a lot depending on how they got up the hill and the depth of the station(s).

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Thanks for the info!

Can you cite your source?

For the west LRT, so a decade ago, switching the Westbrook section from elevated (already more $) to underground was just south of $100 million iirc, during the update from the ~2005 report to the ~2007 report.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

For the west LRT, so a decade ago, switching the Westbrook section from elevated (already more $) to underground was just south of $100 million iirc, during the update from the ~2005 report to the ~2007 report.

That piece of underground infrastructure is about as simple and easy (cheap) as it gets as well. Digging under Centre St will be much more complicated.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I doubt the businesses in the area want this either.

I don't hear all of the businesses complaining, unless you are a closet business that hasn't yet come out of the closet. It more sounds like you have a personal issue. Can you point to the masses of people and businesses against the LRT line?

No matter how you cut it, there will be less cars with the line than without the line. If you bring in future predictions, the same applies. If there is no LRT, the growth in cars would be even greater.

[MalcolmTucker]

Compared to Centre St south of McKnight, Richmond Road where it pinches down to two lanes handles more traffic.

[ClaytonA]

For the record, there are a lot of talented, dedicated and proficient, never mind competent, people working at the City of Calgary.

Also, I'm relatively ambivalent about the motorists; it's the impact on pedestrians and a E-W barrier (and SFD within 200m of stations) I'm primarily concerned with.

The city is also considering operating costs (if they can't roll them into a P3), and to me increasing density increases ridership thereby increasing fare box recovery. It's like the communities are getting a free lunch by getting the LRT moved from Nose Creek and then not having to accept much zoned new density.

Also the transit reduces congestion idea is bogus; transit provides choice. Any motorists pulled onto transit by LRT will just be replaced with other motorists in the medium term. If you lived in Seton with LRT, then you'd have a cheaper and, during the rush, more reliable option to Deerfoot to get downtown/elsewhere without Deerfoot's traffic congestion.

[ClaytonA]

And Richmond Rd always seemed like a natural candidate for LRT too the way it connects the 17Ave/old Children's Hospital with Signal Hill? Shopping Centre and that entire part of the SW...

[Doug]

Doesn't the North Hill have all sorts of slumpage problems? I remember the cut for the approach to the Center Street being a source of worry. If you look at old pictures, that hill has been substantially modified. It naturally had sandstone cliffs similar to those on Scotsmans Hill. I wouldn't be surprised if geotechnical studies reveal difficult conditions that drive tunnelling costs way up.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

And Richmond Rd always seemed like a natural candidate for LRT too the way it connects the 17Ave/old Children's Hospital with Signal Hill? Shopping Centre and that entire part of the SW...

The original original heavy rail plan terminus was 26th Ave and 37th St iirc. 17th is too far north before 37th St, and Richmond too far south west of 37th.

Edit:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=rNG7GNT...0calgary%20transportation%20study&f=true

[sim]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I'll ignore your comments about certain roads being overbuilt for now because I don't have time to write a book on why you're wrong.

As for Center Street, you're ignoring that things don't stay static. Back when Deerfoot was extended in the south to Okotoks the city claimed that meant there was no need to expand 22X. About two years after that they realized that traffic volumes did not go down and that they would have to do something. The same will happen with Center Street especially if the city successfully grows the area. Transit use might go up but auto use will go up even more. It's a reality that won't change. By putting the train underground it will allow all modes of transportation to benefit. Putting it at street level screws over everyone not just drivers. If we're going to spend $5B+ lets do it right. We should also seriously consider putting everything downtown underground right now to take advantage of cheap money and the downturn in the economy. Freeing up 7th avenue would have so much potential that in the long run it could pay for the cost of burying the LRT down that stretch.

My cost difference estimate of ~$400m for this project comes from the city itself. If I remember correctly the estimate for running it all the way down Center Street into downtown was $800m and the buried option was something like $1.2 or $1.3 billion. I'm sure those latter numbers would vary a lot depending on how they got up the hill and the depth of the station(s).

I'd love to be enlightened here.

The first half of your post shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of transportation demand, the interaction of land use and transportation and empirical evidence. I said it before and I'll do it again here, quit making these statements as though they have relevancy and are based in fact.

For simplicity's sake, and to concisely prove your premise completely false, how much would the volume of vehicles on Centre Street go down if the City closed Centre Street to vehicles? Let's start with some first principles and basic truths here, before ranting on subjects it's clear you have limited knowledge on. Yes, I'm on the offensive here, because this is just getting so tiring. This idea that your feeling or opinion (people's generally, but yours in this case) should be entertained or taken seriously simply because you have one.

If you can quote even one piece of literature or direct evidence that reducing vehicular capacity - or more generally, raising the generalized cost of vehicular travel, does not influence car drivers' behaviour and reduce vehicle kilometers driven, I'll at least start taking your posts seriously. You better get on writing that book.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by craner

Your assumption is correct. I don't mind the existing C-Train setup other than downtown (but that is another discussion alltogether).
I don't like the "mixed traffic" idea. It's supposed to be a rapid transit line is it not ?

It won't be running in mixed traffic. There will never be cars in the LRT right of way. They will cross at intersections (as they do on 7th avenue and dozens of other locations throughout the city), but they are not operating as a mixed-traffic streetcar.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Compared to Centre St south of McKnight, Richmond Road where it pinches down to two lanes handles more traffic.

Probably not a fair comparison given the massive number of buses on Centre street. Calgary Transit has said that it is at capacity for the 301 and physically cannot add any more buses for that stretch.

Anyway, I'm okay in spirit with what you're saying.

[ClaytonA]

To borrow from the general thread; this is why the zoning should be denser because currently the transition isn't organic and relatively ordered it's acrimonious, uncertain, and drawn out-resulting in developers not investing their money in redevelopment, but at the edges of the city far away from large city investments like LRT. The plans may be too short term. A fair argument may be well, as planners, should we really plan with that long a time frame? There's too much uncertainty that far out. Hey, you might say, the province/fed's are building us a 16-lane-ready freeway though without much drama...

Originally Posted by fusili

I think the fundamental problem is that because we make the evolutionary change difficult, whether it is a street slowly evolving from residential to commercial, or from low density to high density, we make revolutionary change necessary. Just take residential for example. Inner ring suburbs (Triwood, Glamorgan, NorthHaven, etc) have been R-1 for decades. "Inner city" neighbourhoods have been similarly R-2 for decades. But there are no policies or plans to say "this is how these neighborhoods will transition over the next several decades", so we end up with a land use pattern and approach to growth that is seriously ad hoc and seemingly random (even though all the changes make sense, they are always done in isolation). Just my two cents.

[emphasis added]

[ClaytonA]

Also what the community should be lobbying for with at grade LRT is a separated right of way, but pedestrian etc. crossings at every intersection. Not no crossings for 1.6km or whatever the distance is planned. Go completely grade separated, or actually fit it into the community (in its own ROW).