[Update: Approved] First Leg of the Green Line LRT

[GGG]

Better than nothing.

I don’t believe that if you gave the transit authority 5 billion for capital and a blank canvas this is the design they would have come up with. Lots of political considerations here.

Now get working on funding the next phase to make this train useful.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by getbak

Farkas gonna fark.

Ideally with the new ward boundaries, there's a chance he gets booted out in the next election. But that's wishful thinking.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Torture

I live north of the river, but let's be fair, the SE portion is easier as the city owns more of the required land and they have the maintenance facility at Shepard. They still need to acquire a lot of the land to go up centre street.

Also, Keating has been advocating for the green line in the SE for years. The North hasn't really had that voice at city council (until Gondek, maybe)

When Chu first ran for councillor, his platform was specifically that the SE should get transit first.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Ideally with the new ward boundaries, there's a chance he gets booted out in the next election. But that's wishful thinking.

If progressives all rally behind one candidate, he easily could lose as well.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If progressives all rally behind one candidate, he easily could lose as well.

The only reason he won the last time is because the second and third place candidates split the rational human being vote and he snuck up the middle with the, "What do we need buses for? Just drive your Mercedes to work." crowd.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So the north segment is now dependent on cost overruns on the other 2? Why even pretend they are going to do it then? Of course there will be cost overruns on a tunnel through downtown. That's a guarantee. What a cluster####. It started as a train for the North, and now the North will get nothing. Sutherland has pretty mcuh stolen this project over the years.

I see nothing here for to be excited about either. The Greenline project that I was excited about is basically non-existent. Best case scenario for me is they don’t kill the morning / afternoon express routes to DT.

Not sure what is special about the BRT is either. What will make that different than the 301?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Not sure what is special about the BRT is either. What will make that different than the 301?

There would be some traffic signal priority, allowing buses the use the LRT line section on Centre Street and then dedicating two lanes of Centre Street into DT for bus use only.

And reading between the lines about making the corridor flexible enough to convert to LRT and some of Jyoti Gondek's comments, a possibility might be to remove two lanes from Centre Street all the way to Beddington Trail, dedicating them to BRT now and then LRT later on. But I think Ward 4 might have something say about that.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by accord1999

And reading between the lines about making the corridor flexible enough to convert to LRT and some of Jyoti Gondek's comments, a possibility might be to remove two lanes from Centre Street all the way to Beddington Trail, dedicating them to BRT now and then LRT later on. But I think Ward 4 might have something say about that.

Yeah, let’s not get crazy. Buses to and from the North are already at capacity during rush hour. Trying to further increase ridership by making it a complete clusterfata to drive is not a good strategy. Deerfoot/Memorial into downtown is busy enough as it is, no need to divert more cars that way either.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Yeah, let’s not get crazy. Buses to and from the North are already at capacity during rush hour. Trying to further increase ridership by making it a complete clusterfata to drive is not a good strategy. Deerfoot/Memorial into downtown is busy enough as it is, no need to divert more cars that way either.

But, between permanent O&G reductions, and the new realities of flexible work arrangements, don't you foresee a permanent 20-30% daily reduction into daily downtown commuters? I'm not saying everyone will work from home 100%, but you have to think there will be a lot of people only coming into the core offices sporadically. Not to mention the cascading effect on DT service businesses like coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. There must be nearly 1,000 food service outlets in the core. How many of those survive long term?


I actually think there will be an even more dramatic dip in ridership into the core, as driving will be a more attractive alternative. Less traffic, cheaper parking (under the Bow is $10 daily right now) and a non-daily commute? A lot of Calgarians will choose to drive.

The Green Line is still a good plan, and should proceed. I think the case for service need in the SE is currently stronger than the Centre St corridor, and the BRT lines fill the foreseeable corridor needs.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Voodooman

But, between permanent O&G reductions, and the new realities of flexible work arrangements, don't you foresee a permanent 20-30% daily reduction into daily downtown commuters? I'm not saying everyone will work from home 100%, but you have to think there will be a lot of people only coming into the core offices sporadically. Not to mention the cascading effect on DT service businesses like coffee shops, dry cleaners, etc. There must be nearly 1,000 food service outlets in the core. How many of those survive long term?

Some points:
- Downtown isn't the terminus. People will commute to high streets like Center Street and Inglewood, and beyond.
- Even sporadic attendance to downtown is still better if people are taking trains and not clogging up streets. Allows everyone to move faster.
- More outflow from downtown as downtown appears to be building more high-density residential. More reason to come back in to downtown as well.
- All cities are shifting to co-working work cultures and flexible work options. This is inevitable and shouldn't prevent people from going to physical spaces downtown, even if not a traditional office.
- Calgary is still a growing city with a growing population. Building capacity for the future is smart given current growth trends.
- Park-and-Rides for people from Airdrie and Okotoks would bump up ridership.

I wouldn't be worried.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Weitz

20,000 new jobs?!?!?

This morning's news showed Nenshi (from yesterday's press conference I presume) specifically state 20 000 person years of employment which is quite a different thing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Ideally with the new ward boundaries, there's a chance he gets booted out in the next election. But that's wishful thinking.

Unless all the old people in his ward (which is about 60 per cent of the voters) are kept away from polling stations, Farkas is a lock for re-election.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Unless all the old people in his ward (which is about 60 per cent of the voters) are kept away from polling stations, Farkas is a lock for re-election.

Again, worthy evidence as to why old people shouldn't have so much voting power.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Unless all the old people in his ward (which is about 60 per cent of the voters) are kept away from polling stations, Farkas is a lock for re-election.

He only won because there was one “conservative” and three progressives that split the vote.

One progressive vs Farkas, and farkas would likely lose.

[Torture]

Oh COME ON!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1273349963192262656

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

He only won because there was one “conservative” and three progressives that split the vote.

One progressive vs Farkas, and farkas would likely lose.

What I find infuriating about Farkas is that he’ll gladly take credit for everything that happens in the City, yet votes “no” on virtually everything, thus endearing him to the Save Calgary’s and Rick Bells of Calgary.

I wonder if after the Greenline is built he’ll say, “I tried to prevent this”.

[Lubicon]

I've commented on this on a few forums. There is a risk that the changes made to the province might be enough for the Province to review and potentially pull their funding. How likely is this to happen? I don't have any idea. But I do know the Province is on record saying their funding was contingent on what was proposed at the time and if the project no longer resembles that then they would review their commitment. I also know Alberta's finances are in horrible shape and I would not put it past them to see this as a way to get out of several billion in spending.

We knew this was a risk, Council knew this was a risk and rolled the dice by changing up the proposal anyway. I hope the provincial funding remains but you never know.

[InglewoodFan]

It would be really cynical of me to think that the fiscal hawks on council (Davison et al) got a heads up that this was coming from the UCP ahead of the vote, hence the 14-1. Gives them cover for the next municipal election - hey, not my fault.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

It would be really cynical of me to think that the fiscal hawks on council (Davison et al) got a heads up that this was coming from the UCP ahead of the vote, hence the 14-1. Gives them cover for the next municipal election - hey, not my fault.

The Province has been signalling this, and actually flat out stating it for some time now. I'm not sure any heads up was required, we all saw the headlines and press clippings.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

We knew this was a risk, Council knew this was a risk and rolled the dice by changing up the proposal anyway. I hope the provincial funding remains but you never know.

I think it makes sense for the Province to review it; this new staging plan for Stage 1 has only been publicly released for two days and the river crossing decision to go or no go may not even be made till 2024.