Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don’t think the north lines is compromised service wise. Now the line as designed may be politically untenable, taking away traffic lanes on a not as busy segment of centre street, but council has been along for the journey on that one.

Well north Calgarians are not getting any green line at all, at a minimum in the first phase and realistically not for a long, long time. So I'd say they are getting a raw deal being stuck on packed buses for the foreseeable future, while their friends in the south get a proper train even though they never used transit before.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

My two cents, I'd much rather have an actual rapid transit line that gets extended later than a modal hodgepodge that doesn't really increase quality of life or connectivity at all.

Nailed it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well north Calgarians are not getting any green line at all, at a minimum in the first phase and realistically not for a long, long time. So I'd say they are getting a raw deal being stuck on packed buses for the foreseeable future, while their friends in the south get a proper train even though they never used transit before.

The fact remains that before the changes of the Greenline to LRT there was basically no plan for improved transit south of Beddington Trail in the north.

The higher level of investment on the Greenline in the south end will reduce travel times by a heck of a lot. Like 20-25 minutes to downtown. The Greenline in north central will not improve travel times in the north, because the bus service is actually pretty good, with lots of BRT-lite assistance! It will improve reliability for sure, and perceived quality, be much better at schedule adherence, and have the capacity to carry a lot more people. But the fact is that the BRT in the north already operates at grade separated transit like speed. Council wanted the south of Beddington segment to be both as cheap as possible, and be the trendy community LRT type thing, and that is what they got.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The fact remains that before the changes of the Greenline to LRT there was basically no plan for improved transit south of Beddington Trail in the north.

The higher level of investment on the Greenline in the south end will reduce travel times by a heck of a lot. Like 20-25 minutes to downtown. The Greenline in north central will not improve travel times in the north, because the bus service is actually pretty good, with lots of BRT-lite assistance! It will improve reliability for sure, and perceived quality, be much better at schedule adherence, and have the capacity to carry a lot more people. But the fact is that the BRT in the north already operates at grade separated transit like speed. Council wanted the south of Beddington segment to be both as cheap as possible, and be the trendy community LRT type thing, and that is what they got.

While not having phase I go further north, Malcolm is very correct on this. The BRT from North Pointe is extremely efficient and relatively quick. This efficiency is largely why it has been so successful, a fact I don't think anyone will deny.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

My two cents, I'd much rather have an actual rapid transit line that gets extended later than a modal hodgepodge that doesn't really increase quality of life or connectivity at all.

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Nailed it.

Totally agree.

[accord1999]

The at-grade Green Line may not improve travel times much most of the time, but that's not its primary purpose for the North. Its goal there is to increase peak capacity, which was already becoming inadequate when the economy was stronger.



https://www.apta.com/mc/multimodal/p...20part%20I.pdf


https://www.scribd.com/document/3392...-November-2016

Using expensive light rail in the hopes of attracting large amounts of new ridership is a dangerous strategy that has seen many failures in the US. Meanwhile, I wonder how many potential Transit riders in the NC have given up on it because they can't reliably count on being able to get on a bus during rush hour.

[MalcolmTucker]

To 16th will help for a bit. To 64th will help a lot.

[accord1999]

There's a Green Line Project Governance Audit document that's been recently released. Perhaps it's the nature of audits to find something to complain about but the issues they've raised doesn't really instill confidence in the project so far.

Seven of nine Green Line managers interviewed identified a lack of clarity regarding Project roles and responsibilities, with a resulting impact on accountability and decision-making. Interviews with Green Line managers indicated specific challenges such as an individual hired into one role, but performing another role, and a lack of alignment of accountability and responsibility.

We interviewed all Green Line managers and asked what they viewed as key risks, which resulted in two consistent risks being identified:

•Lack of personnel experience on large/specialized project as a risk(4 of 9 responses); and
•Inadequate governance as a risk(4 of 9 responses).

We confirmed these two risks were documented in the playbook utilized to manage risk during Q1 2019.

Decision Making–the Project’s decision-making structure is not defined; for example the role of the Executive Steering Committee (decision making versus advisory) and associated terms of reference have not been finalized;

Risk Identification –a formalized Project risk management framework has not been established, so risk identification and prioritization is occurring on an informal ad-hoc basis rather than systematic basis, primarily through Green Line manager meetings.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=86133

And on a somewhat related note, Paul Gianellia has a new job, now as a contractor for the massive Honolulu Rail Transit project.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/03...ng-paid-month/

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

There's a Green Line Project Governance Audit document that's been recently released. Perhaps it's the nature of audits to find something to complain about but the issues they've raised doesn't really instill confidence in the project so far.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=86133

And on a somewhat related note, Paul Gianellia has a new job, now as a contractor for the massive Honolulu Rail Transit project.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/03...ng-paid-month/

The point about lack of personnel experience on large projects is most worrying and makes the move to push out Gianellia even more troubling. To me it sounds like the City is in over its head on this project. Is it to late to bring in private firms who have done such projects?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Is it to late to bring in private firms who have done such projects?

May be since they haven't even released the request for proposals, they can still get more support from private industry. It'll be interesting to see who they hire as the permanent Green Line Director.

Also with the rather unambitious Stage 2 recommendations and the audit report, Council might decide to force more outside oversight as well, rather than leaving the project alone other than the quarterly updates.

The point about lack of personnel experience on large projects is most worrying and makes the move to push out Gianellia even more troubling. To me it sounds like the City is in over its head on this project.

What I would like to know is what happened to the institutional knowledge and experience gained in the construction of the West LRT, which wasn't that long ago? Did every high level manager who worked on that leave the City workforce?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

What I would like to know is what happened to the institutional knowledge and experience gained in the construction of the West LRT, which wasn't that long ago? Did every high level manager who worked on that leave the City workforce?

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them have moved on or retired. What the city needs is people with extensive experience and knowledge in projects that involve major tunneling. Forcing Gianellia out was a really stupid move. We need someone with his experience unless we're willing to gamble that nothing major will go wrong. I fear that city admin will try to convince council that they can handle this project and we're going to end up with major cost overruns over and above what the project should actually cost.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them have moved on or retired. What the city needs is people with extensive experience and knowledge in projects that involve major tunneling. Forcing Gianellia out was a really stupid move. We need someone with his experience unless we're willing to gamble that nothing major will go wrong. I fear that city admin will try to convince council that they can handle this project and we're going to end up with major cost overruns over and above what the project should actually cost.

Especially if they demise the contract even further, to split design and build. Or even worse, building different parts under different contracts.

Design, build, operate, maintain, partially finance is a great way to reduce risks. I'm not sure why they decided to do away with that.

[DoubleK]

Is the City seriously self-performing this contract? They aren't hiring someone to be Owner's rep?

This has disaster written all over it.

[accord1999]

For those not watching the Transportation and Transit Committee meeting, the Green Line team provided ridership and operating cost estimates for 16th-Beddington, 96th Avenue and North Pointe. They're classified as mega-projects, $1 to over $2B to build.

Scott Dippel's tweet has Beddington and 96th:

https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/1108457439765114880

While LRTontheGreen has North Pointe:

https://twitter.com/LRTontheGreen/st...61864084606976

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by accord1999

For those not watching the Transportation and Transit Committee meeting, the Green Line team provided ridership and operating cost estimates for 16th-Beddington, 96th Avenue and North Pointe. They're classified as mega-projects, $1 to over $2B to build.

Scott Dippel's tweet has Beddington and 96th:

https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/1108457439765114880

While LRTontheGreen has North Pointe:

https://twitter.com/LRTontheGreen/st...61864084606976

Would be great to get all of the prior data and these three in one spreadsheet. 16th till North Pointe numbers:

• 42,300 daily transit trips (3.5 X Shepard-Seton)
• 48,575 population
• 14,800 jobs
• 17,700 tonnes GHG reduction (3 X Shepard-Seton)
• Adds 4 TOD areas
• Connects to 11,750 affordable housing units
• 125 existing community services (5 X Shepard-Seton)
• Net operating cost $6M

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Especially if they demise the contract even further, to split design and build. Or even worse, building different parts under different contracts.

Design, build, operate, maintain, partially finance is a great way to reduce risks. I'm not sure why they decided to do away with that.

Did council decide not to go that route or administration? This is a very messy project in terms of trying to keep track of what's going on and who's doing what. If the managers aren't clear on who's doing what, etc. then there's no way council can be or administration.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by accord1999

For those not watching the Transportation and Transit Committee meeting, the Green Line team provided ridership and operating cost estimates for 16th-Beddington, 96th Avenue and North Pointe. They're classified as mega-projects, $1 to over $2B to build.

Scott Dippel's tweet has Beddington and 96th:

https://twitter.com/CBCScott/status/1108457439765114880

While LRTontheGreen has North Pointe:

https://twitter.com/LRTontheGreen/st...61864084606976

Did they explain why the net operating cost drops $1 million going to 96 Avenue but goes back to $6 million when the line is extended to North Pointe? What's special about 96 Avenue that it's a million cheaper than going all the way to North Pointe or stopping at Beddington?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Did they explain why the net operating cost drops $1 million going to 96 Avenue but goes back to $6 million when the line is extended to North Pointe? What's special about 96 Avenue that it's a million cheaper than going all the way to North Pointe or stopping at Beddington?

All I can think of is that 96th would be the north maintenance facility so you’d eliminate a bunch of deadheading trains.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Did they explain why the net operating cost drops $1 million going to 96 Avenue but goes back to $6 million when the line is extended to North Pointe? What's special about 96 Avenue that it's a million cheaper than going all the way to North Pointe or stopping at Beddington?

In addition to MalcolmTucker's excellent point about deadheading, I was thinking that as the line gets closer to the populated edge of the City, each additional km of track displaces fewer buses so you don't get the same operational savings. You can see a similar effect when comparing Shepard-Auburn Bay vs Shepard-Seton.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by accord1999

In addition to MalcolmTucker's excellent point about deadheading, I was thinking that as the line gets closer to the populated edge of the City, each additional km of track displaces fewer buses so you don't get the same operational savings. You can see a similar effect when comparing Shepard-Auburn Bay vs Shepard-Seton.

That does make sense, but what does not make sense is when the city says the opposite will happen when extending from 16th to 64th, where they essentially justified the increase as 'operating costs will increase due to the increased operating costs'. Despite displacing the busiest bus lines in the city.