Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

So? Presuming everyone is effected relatively the same, a better position going in means a better position on the way out.

Between "going in" and "the way out" (whenever that happens - Edmonton appears to be entering a "second wave") a lot of decisions, choices and sacrifices have to made. These can and will have a very significant impact on the outcome (look at the USA, UK, Sweden, Brazil, etc).

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by 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.

The concept of “one good line’ to the SE does not include a station at Eau Claire. It’s one line that will be connected into or terminated close by the existing downtown stations. And it won’t connect to a future North Line. With that understanding there’s plenty of money to build from South Campus to Inglewood and into downtown using a more direct route, you don’t go the long circuitous path of west along 12th and then north to get to a 7th ave. crossover.

Still I expect City council will choose the path of pain and vote to continue with the green line. Then 9 months from now there will be another budget crises when the downtown section Class 5 cost estimate balloons during detailed design.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by jawagord

With that understanding there’s plenty of money to build from South Campus to Inglewood and into downtown using a more direct route, you don’t go the long circuitous path of west along 12th and then north to get to a 7th ave. crossover.

What more direct route and station locations would you suggest? Where would it terminate?

And you don’t think that the future event centre and the Beltline should have a route/stations by there?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

The concept of “one good line’ to the SE does not include a station at Eau Claire. It’s one line that will be connected into or terminated close by the existing downtown stations. And it won’t connect to a future North Line. With that understanding there’s plenty of money to build from South Campus to Inglewood and into downtown using a more direct route, you don’t go the long circuitous path of west along 12th and then north to get to a 7th ave. crossover.

Still I expect City council will choose the path of pain and vote to continue with the green line. Then 9 months from now there will be another budget crises when the downtown section Class 5 cost estimate balloons during detailed design.

From what I saw, the "one good line" proposed by Gondek and the other councilors in good faith (I agree with them) did include Eau Claire. The El Cheapo nonsense line suggested in bad faith by Jim Gray et al is what you are describing, and hasn't been laid out in any detail whatsoever.

But yes, further surprises to come.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

From what I saw, the "one good line" proposed by Gondek and the other councilors in good faith (I agree with them) did include Eau Claire. The El Cheapo nonsense line suggested in bad faith by Jim Gray et al is what you are describing, and hasn't been laid out in any detail whatsoever.

But yes, further surprises to come.

I suppose “one good line” means something different to the various groups making the proposal, so could include an Eau Claire station but as no one at the City has costed these options we can’t really say. Other than $4.5 billion will build a fully functioning line from some downtown location(s) out to the new hospital.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Then 9 months from now there will be another budget crises when the downtown section Class 5 cost estimate balloons during detailed design.

Surely council are not making a final decision to build based on a class 5 estimate? (Class 5: Used for concept screening; -50% to +100% accuracy; a "ball park" or "rule of thumb" estimate for comparison of alternatives). The presentation on the city website gives August 2021 as the date when the design is finalized and the technical input to the RFP (request for proposals) is complete. This would then allow a class 3 estimate to be finalized (Class 3: used for Budget, Authorization, or Control; -20% to +30%). Only once the construction and material/equipment bids are in can you proceed to a class 2 estimate (-15% to +20% estimate). As jawagord writes, expect costs to balloon!

So in my opinion the City will only be making a decision to go to the next step this week - undertake detailed design so that a construction RFP can be prepared. Further go/no go decision points will come in August 2021 when the detailed design is completed, and then again once all the bids are in and have been evaluated (year end, 2021?).

I think a 2021 construction start is optimistic, even if it does stay within the $4.9 billion capital (+$640 million financing cost) budget!

[lucx]

Originally Posted by jawagord

The concept of “one good line’ to the SE does not include a station at Eau Claire. It’s one line that will be connected into or terminated close by the existing downtown stations. And it won’t connect to a future North Line.

Your idea of one good line also includes a future crappy North alignment on Centre Street Bridge crossing 4, 5 and 6 Ave. You forgot to advocate for that part.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

What more direct route and station locations would you suggest? Where would it terminate?

And you don’t think that the future event center and the Beltline should have a route/stations by there?

OK, I'll play along, here are a couple of scenarios. We cross the Elbow river from Inglewood and go underground as planned to the 4th street station near the new event centre. Instead of going down 11th ave to 2nd street SW, turn the line north at 3rd street SE and continue underground and join the Red Line underground and share the track under the new library onto 7ave. Now you've connected the SE Green Line to the NW University line and connected 7th Ave "free Zone" to the new event centre. I know the big brains on the forum say we can't have more trains on 7th Ave but that is contrary to the 2006 Engineering study which says we can accommodate one more line from the East.

But say the big brains are right, don't connect underground, come above ground and go elevated over the CPR tracks and above 3rd street and terminate the line with an elevated station behind City Hall, next to the new library. An easy crossover to 7th Ave City Hall station. When you have $1-1.5 billion dollars to spend there are many possibilities that the City could look at to make a "good line" and stay within budget.

If in the future 15-20 years from now 6 billion dollars lands in Calgary's lap, build the North section of the Greenline underground as previously planned and connect to the south line along 11th Ave if that's still desirable.

[lucx]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I know the big brains on the forum say we can't have more trains on 7th Ave but that is contrary to the 2006 Engineering study which says we can accommodate one more line from the East.

My big brains asks why the foundation of this suggestion rests on a 2006 study with ~40% less ridership. But I commend the confidence it takes to advocate for this.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

OK, I'll play along, here are a couple of scenarios. We cross the Elbow river from Inglewood and go underground as planned to the 4th street station near the new event centre. Instead of going down 11th ave to 2nd street SW, turn the line north at 3rd street SE and continue underground and join the Red Line underground and share the track under the new library onto 7ave. Now you've connected the SE Green Line to the NW University line and connected 7th Ave "free Zone" to the new event centre. I know the big brains on the forum say we can't have more trains on 7th Ave but that is contrary to the 2006 Engineering study which says we can accommodate one more line from the East.

But say the big brains are right, don't connect underground, come above ground and go elevated over the CPR tracks and above 3rd street and terminate the line with an elevated station behind City Hall, next to the new library. An easy crossover to 7th Ave City Hall station. When you have $1-1.5 billion dollars to spend there are many possibilities that the City could look at to make a "good line" and stay within budget.

If in the future 15-20 years from now 6 billion dollars lands in Calgary's lap, build the North section of the Greenline underground as previously planned and connect to the south line along 11th Ave if that's still desirable.

Your second option there isn't actually bad, it does service substantially less of downtown though and I would question how much is actually saved vs the current alignment to Eau Claire. Probably only a small number of millions, and I think cheaping out on the most important part of the line is the last place we should look for cost savings.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Your second option there isn't actually bad, it does service substantially less of downtown though and I would question how much is actually saved vs the current alignment to Eau Claire. Probably only a small number of millions, and I think cheaping out on the most important part of the line is the last place we should look for cost savings.

Having a longer line doesn't make up for the ridership lost by ending the line before it gets to where people want to go. Full stop.

[lucx]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Your second option there isn't actually bad, it does service substantially less of downtown though and I would question how much is actually saved vs the current alignment to Eau Claire. Probably only a small number of millions, and I think cheaping out on the most important part of the line is the last place we should look for cost savings.

If you're stopping at City Hall, why bother building LRT? Just build the original SETWAY which at lease gets you into Downtown. Bet you can save a few billion too. But that's too logical. After all what does my big brain know?

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Then 9 months from now there will be another budget crises when the downtown section Class 5 cost estimate balloons during detailed design.

Before everyone nods knowingly at this statement, keep in mind that we are currently in the most benign costing environment of our lifetimes. Both at the local and global levels.

It is not out of the question for bids to come in lower than expected.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lucx

If you're stopping at City Hall, why bother building LRT? Just build the original SETWAY which at lease gets you into Downtown. Bet you can save a few billion too. But that's too logical. After all what does my big brain know?

Well I agree, this project was doomed from the start, the moment they combined north and south. The north deserves rail, the south does not and can be served with improved buses. Instead we are getting the opposite for extremely poor and dishonest reasons. However since we can't go back in time building LRT to the south is better than nothing, I just rather we didn't permanently ruin it with the proposed solution for centre St.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well I agree, this project was doomed from the start, the moment they combined north and south. The north deserves rail, the south does not and can be served with improved buses. Instead we are getting the opposite for extremely poor and dishonest reasons. However since we can't go back in time building LRT to the south is better than nothing, I just rather we didn't permanently ruin it with the proposed solution for centre St.

Project was doomed from the start because three councilors back in 2015 had no idea what this line would really cost and gave the feds a ridiculously low number. When Remple and Jason talked to them about this line the councilors should have taken advantage of the fact that it was an election year and asked for a realistic amount such as $7 billion or more or told the feds that if funding was limited that it would be best if only one segment of the line was built now as long as it was done right. Instead they drank their own Kool-Aid and tried to convince everyone that we were going to get this epic 46km long LRT line. It's too bad that all of the excellent changes that communities along the line wanted and the City agreed to in 2017 are now being thrown out. I don't believe for a second that the current version of the line has anywhere near popular support. If a final decision on the design isn't coming until August 2021 then put it to a vote a few months later and lets see if its supporters actually have any support.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The north deserves rail, the south does not . . .

Last time I checked there was one line to the South and two to the North (plus one to the west).

Demographics (quadrant of residence, City of Calgary presentation June 3, 2020):

• WN 30%
• NE 19%
• SW 29%
• SE 22%

So the south has 51% of the population and 1 out of 4 transit lines (Or 1½ if you include half the West line)

[MalcolmTucker]

We all know the cost drivers (even if we don't remember them all individually all the time and they aren't always top of mind):

• reducing inconvenience for drivers on the south section (no level crossings of N/S corridors into downtown and in various tweaks elsewhere)
• adding an additional station in the Beltline, making both Beltline Stations underground, and needing one of those stations to have the capacity to handle surges from the arena (a lack of understanding at/information provided to the political level of what drives costs of going underground re:stations, station capacity, tunnel length)
• Remediating brownfield sites (landfills) rather than working around them (if the city owned those brownfield sites, internal motivations to reduce environmental liability at costs covered by other levels of government, and by other city departments probably paid a factor)
• The passage of time (inevitable inflation)
• Finance costs due to how all levels chose to structure funding (which doesn't make sense due to how accrual accounting works, but alas)
• Making decisions on how to cross under the Bow River (initially) with little understanding explained at the political level of cost implications caused outside of the immediate section (deeper stations in the core)
• Lack of project team understanding of cost drivers and cost savers in P3 projects that can be created or mitigated by government
• Lack of explanation to the political level of what needs to be decided before a contract is signed versus what can be decided later
• Lack of explanation to council as to which requests they were making would drive costs significantly versus insignificantly
  • Further, administration attempting to meet all of councils advice without an overarching goal in mind
  • Council not expressing an overall goal of maximizing the length of the line for the allocated budget, even when the cost containment goal meant that a councillor's request could not be fulfilled
  • Lack of political will to state that construction will mean inconvenience and disruption, and direction to reduce disruption and inconvenience without an accounting of the potential costs of reducing disruption and inconvenience so decisions could be made of the trade-offs

So yeah. Pretty much all the cost drivers besides the worse than expected (and they expected pretty bad) soil conditions on 2nd Street are choices that were made without enough information (at least in public) on the trade-offs.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Last time I checked there was one line to the South and two to the North (plus one to the west).

IMO, Calgary is better divided into hextants, the North is very broad and divided by obstacles like Nose Hill and Deerfoot Trail, creating three separate areas.

So the south has 51% of the population and 1 out of 4 transit lines (Or 1½ if you include half the West line)

The argument for North Central First comes from existing ridership and overcrowded buses. The City even cited Centre Street N capacity issues as a major (if not THE) reason for the Green Line to skip BRT and go directly to LRT, then prioritized the SE and basically ignored the NC which was supposedly to run into a bus capacity wall in a decade or so. I guess the "silver lining" for the Green Line planners is that the oil price crash has led to reduced bus ridership that has yet to recover back to 2014 levels.

[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:

Additionally, getting a north central LRT involves land acquisitions that have no dedicated funds. Could we provide a less expensive solution by removing two private vehicle lanes for the LRT? Yes. Does Council have the political will to do that? We need to ask. Also keep in mind that we still need to find an additional $2.5 bill to get north from the 16th Ave station. Could that cost go down by dedicating private vehicle lanes to future LRT, instead of acquiring land? The proposed dedicated BRT lanes allow us to test that.

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.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by lucx

Without property acquisition, expansion north could be considerably less than $100 million/km.

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.