The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 606

lubicon · #**12101** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Considering that we paid for CN and CP lines, it really is a horrible situation we created.

Can you expand on that? Because to my knowledge this is not true.

headhorse · #**12102** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

Can you expand on that? Because to my knowledge this is not true.

^ they were given the land for free, which is why there should be expropriation without compensation

milomilo · #**12103** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 8:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

Can you expand on that? Because to my knowledge this is not true.

Of course it is true. CP, along with other things, was granted a shit ton of valuable Canadian land, and CN is the product of the government bailing out other railroads, themselves products of government subsidy. The idea that CP and CN are operating in a perfect free market with no government aid is a fantasy. They owe us, not the other way around.

Chadillaccc · #**12104** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 8:59 PM**

The Green Line Phase 2 Proposal study is going to Calgary City Council tomorrow, to see movement on this, but I'd prefer the budget being 1 - 1.3 bn instead of 700 mil - 1 bn.

Here are the proposed options...

I personally prefer option three, but with an extension one station north to McKnight Station so that the north segment would have its first Park n Ride.

Full story: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-new...64-avenue-leaving-advocates-disappointed

lubicon · #**12105** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

The Green Line Phase 2 Proposal study is going to Calgary City Council tomorrow, to see movement on this, but I'd prefer the budget being 1 - 1.3 bn instead of 700 mil - 1 bn.

Here are the proposed options...

I personally prefer option three, but with an extension one station north to McKnight Station so that the north segment would have its first Park n Ride.

Full story: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-new...64-avenue-leaving-advocates-disappointed

Option 1 is my preference (actually a combined Opt 1 and 2 would be ideal) however I would be willing to bet Option 2 is recommended as it is easier to build I think. Normally I might say Option 3 makes the most sense (continue to build out both directions) but I'm not sure what the point of stopping at 40th Avenue would be, or how it would make any difference to where it will be stopping now.

Chadillaccc · #**12106** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 10:28 PM**

Having it go up to 40 Avenue would an another 15 000 ish people within walking distance of the line.

WhipperSnapper · #**12107** Posted **Mar 19, 2019, 11:52 PM**

I agree. Option 2 makes the most political sense. Extending the line at both ends feels like the least cost effective approach to expansion.

accord1999 · #**12108** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I agree. Option 2 makes the most political sense. Extending the line at both ends feels like the least cost effective approach to expansion.

Politically, it would probably be the hardest sell given that it would finish the SE segment first before anything meaningful had been done in the NC. And where NC politicians had remain relatively supportive of the project on the assumption that Stage 2 would build substantial portions of the NC segment.

Chadillaccc · #**12109** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

Politically, it would probably be the hardest sell given that it would finish the SE segment first before anything meaningful had been done in the NC. And where NC politicians had remain relatively supportive of the project on the assumption that Stage 2 would build substantial portions of the NC segment.

Exactly. In fact, I feel like option 2 is literally the least politically feasible option. Option 1 would garner the most political clout, given that there are 5 provincial ridings, and 4 federal ridings along the route (compared to 2 and 1 that would be effected by option 2). However, option 3 gives a little something to everyone. If they can stretch the funding by 200 million, they could bring option 3 up to McKnight which would be worth it. Really the SE section just needs to get to McKenzie Town for now, while option 3 already has it down to Auburn Bay. The north is the more important section anyways, as that is the part with... you know... people living along it

The Chemist · #**12110** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 3:55 AM**

Given the projected costs I'm assuming they're not planning to have the Green Line run on the surface along Centre Street from 16th to 64th. Those costs appear to be much more in line with tunnelling or elevating the line.

milomilo · #**12111** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 4:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Given the projected costs I'm assuming they're not planning to have the Green Line run on the surface along Centre Street from 16th to 64th. Those costs appear to be much more in line with tunnelling or elevating the line.

I don't know, those costs look too low to me for tunneling. The city hasn't given any sign that they have given up the (idiotic) dream of running a tram down centre street so I imagine they will stick with it until they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality.

That map shows an imaginary version of the situation. There is only one realistic option, number 2. It's going to be too expensive to go north in both capital costs and (ridiculously) operating costs also. They've somehow managed to make this line such that extending it further north along a well used bus route actually increases net operating costs. Whereas the line to the SE will end up with net positive operating costs. So from a financial perspective, assuming the numbers are reliable it is a no brainer to extend only to the SE.

Chadillaccc · #**12112** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 6:06 PM**

This is why the North section is far more important...

lubicon · #**12113** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Given the projected costs I'm assuming they're not planning to have the Green Line run on the surface along Centre Street from 16th to 64th. Those costs appear to be much more in line with tunnelling or elevating the line.

Please let this be true, but I have my doubts.

accord1999 · #**12114** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

Please let this be true, but I have my doubts.

I don't think so either, the estimates for the various segments have always been expensive for a mostly non-grade separated track. In 2017 Council meetings, the Green Line team estimated $1.3B to reach Beddington, almost $2B to reach 96th (though that might include a storage facility and replacement interchange) and almost $2.4B to reach North Pointe.

Chadillaccc · #**12115** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

I don't think so either, the estimates for the various segments have always been expensive for a mostly non-grade separated track. In 2017 Council meetings, the Green Line team estimated $1.3B to reach Beddington, almost $2B to reach 96th (though that might include a storage facility and replacement interchange) and almost $2.4B to reach North Pointe.

That's for tunnelling all the way to 96 Avenue? That's not too bad, considering the city's plans for transit oriented development along that route. But I've always been of the mindset that you gotta spend money to make money.

MalcolmTucker · #**12116** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 6:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This is why the North section is far more important...

That is why it is important to model what those overloads would look like in the various scenarios. It is very possible that it is not "go to 64th or the overloads will still be bad" scenario. Removing the bottleneck of downtown to 16th could remove enough use that the overloads are reduced by quite a bit.

As for costs, I imagine a big boatload is the realization of all the utilities that are under centre street, or cross centre street in areas where they were planning to be below grade, or don't cross centre street low enough.

accord1999 · #**12117** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That's for tunnelling all the way to 96 Avenue? That's not too bad, considering the city's plans for transit oriented development along that route. But I've always been of the mindset that you gotta spend money to make money.

Sadly, that's the current costs for just above-ground, usually not grade separated. It's a big reason why the Green Line had to shrink so much.

There was a question asked last year in a council meeting about extending the tunnel further up to McKnight and the Green Line head at that time, Paul Giannelia, commented that it would be the cheapest tunnel you would ever buy. But he didn't give a dollar figure at time, and left the position a few months later.

Chadillaccc · #**12118** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

Sadly, that's the current costs for just above-ground, usually not grade separated. It's a big reason why the Green Line had to shrink so much.

Holy christ. 2.4 billion just for a 18 ish km streetcar? That's completely insane.

accord1999 · #**12119** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Holy christ. 2.4 billion just for a 18 ish km streetcar? That's completely insane.

That's my thought as well. The Stantec study done in 2013/2014 had estimated <$500M:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=8373889&postcount=2449

and less than $1.9B for a fully tunneled option to 96th Ave!

The one reason why I kinda wished Bill Smith won the mayor race was to have a review of the Green Line to see why its costs had gone up so much.

milomilo · #**12120** Posted **Mar 20, 2019, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

That's my thought as well. The Stantec study done in 2013/2014 had estimated <$500M:

The one reason why I kinda wished Bill Smith won the mayor race was to have a review of the Green Line to see why its costs had gone up so much.

While I understand why you would say that, that guy was a genuine moron and a liar. I highly doubt he would have improved the situation, although perhaps he would have screwed it up enough that it got cancelled and rethought in 5 years time.