MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[powderjunkie]

Just tuned into the council meeting...it sounds a bit wild. Not exactly sure what the motion is right now, but it sounds like the province doesn't want council to wind it down right away...which is probably sensible, but it all sounds messy and dramatic.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It wasn't a train for the entire city, it was the equivalent of two generations of transit funding for this area:

And both plans are going to the Deep SE, the only difference is the Alberta plan wants to spend no more than existing funding, the Green Line plan needs another $2B.

Should have mentioned this yesterday. We just lit $2B on fire today!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There IS NO at grade option for downtown, without removing 4th, 5th, 6th, or 9th as an automobile road.

Elevated is possible, but with the +15 network, that has to be TWO levels above ground, and that a BAD idea for many reasons. The city studied this thoroughly. There is NO other option than tunneling.

Just how bad would elevated be, and why would it be unfeasible even if it was still to go down the 2 ST corridor?

It would still terminate in the core of downtown which is a non-negotiable for me, and extension for NCLRT is applicable whether it's over Prince's Island or or Centre Street bridge.

I would sincerely hope the city has done it's due diligence, and strongly considered elevated but it just wasn't possible, or close to the same costs as underground would be. But I find that hard to believe that they couldn't find a way to make that work, and save a considerable amount of money that would allow for the 1st phase to get down to Sheppard. I don't think elevated on 10th Ave in Beltline and 2nd St downtown is a bad alternative at all. You're not taking anything away from those streets currently in regards of urban vibrancy. It can be built to fit the context of the area without it feel detrimental.

But it would be nice if both provincial (LOL) and federal governments acknowledge that the landscape of costs has changed considerably in the past few years, and the initial amount they contributed back in 2015 doesn't correlate with 2024 numbers. The city has chipped in more money, and the other levels of government could do the same. As a Hail Mary for the city, the feds could come in and say they'll cover the UCP's withheld portion to build the latest iteration of the line, as a #### you to Smith. Wishful thinking however.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What’s the running total in billions of UCP-caused taxpayer dollar waste?

- pipeline
- green line
- turkish tylenol

Any other big ticket items ranging from tens of millions to billions in waste? Is this what having “the adults in charge” looks like?

$1.5B for the pipeline. $30M/yr for the energy war room. $2.25M kickback to Preston Manning for a report he previously wrote for the COVID response. $1.6B in accounting errors. $4.7B on tax breaks for O&G companies that don't pay their taxes. $2B cancelling the railcar for oil transport because it was an NDP idea before TMX was built. $700K for Marlaina and her Saudi vacation. Moratorium on green energy projects in AB costing over $11B in investment. $900M gifted to oil companies to clean up orphaned oil wells they were legally required to clean up. $1.1B for the Sturgeon Lake refinery.

I can't even get a proper total cuz there are so many issues I've lost track. Some people have kept a list tho it might be a bit out of date
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...vz2M/htmlview#

[powderjunkie]

Sounds like council is probably going to walk right into the trap and hang themselves with the rope the province has given them.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The question still remains - what is the best solution for long term needs? Long term, the option they were going with was needed.

But there are also short to mid-term considerations too.

With Stage 1 reduced in area so much, there's no longer any understanding of how spending more money there affects the more distant areas. How does spending $2B more in the DT affect the timeline for service to reach 64th Av and Panorama Hills, two key stations for the North? Don't forget, the major business case for the Green Line to go directly to trains was that bus capacity growth was limited on Centre Street N.

Building the DT Green Line to have high capacity for 50+ years in the future means that the transit riders on Centre Street N have to suffer with overcrowded buses for several more decades. That needs to be acknowledged in the cost-benefit analysis.

Sure some surface system on 12th before it goes underground to get under CPKC could work. It would save some money, with some downsides. (level crossing on McLeod, reduced traffic capacity on main roads in the beltline). The city studied all of these options, and made the best decision.

Made the best decision based on known costs and challenges in 2015-2017, but with a very thin margin for error. In this CBC article from 2016, Pete Demong makes a very relevant observation:

"The underground option is, more than likely and from everything I've read, the best option," he said.

"But just because it's the best option, if we can't afford it, when we look at the entire line or at least a good portion of line in its entirety, what's the point of making something, if you can't make it a usable option?"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...iple-1.3791357

The margin has already been exceed, since the northern portion of the tunnel has already been downgraded to a bridge and at-grade track to the 16th Av Station.

May be in such a situation, where there is no easy answer and not everyone will be happy whatever is decided, instead of leaving it to engineers, technocrats or councillors, leave it to the voters in a plebiscite. Let them choose to build the best possible DT core at the cost of reach, build the cheapest possible line, build a good DT core to the SE, or build a good DT core to the NC.

[powderjunkie]

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahah

Cllr Chu just threw a grenade into the middle of the room. Kinda hard to explain. But hilarious

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

I don't think it's the arena that is requiring the tax hike. I think its the population of Medicine Hat that Calgary just absorbed last year and has to provide services for.

Won't they bring new tax revenue?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahah

Cllr Chu just threw a grenade into the middle of the room. Kinda hard to explain. But hilarious

Details? You make it sound like he just started flinging poo.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Details? You make it sound like he just started flinging poo.

It ended up not mattering, but it was some procedural stuff about whether to vote on some points individually or collectively. If only some passed it would have been a huge mess wrt to the most important motion previously passed. Everything ended up being defeated so it didn't matter. But it's all still a cluster####

[para transit fellow]

If I recall, an elevated route through downtown was a problematic option:
1) Plus 15 bridges required that the porposed elevated line to be at the "plus 30" height above street OR reconfigure the relevant Plus 15 connector bridges as "Plus 30" ( extensive building modifications
2) the turning radius of the 90 turn E/w To N/S) was difficult to achieve due to existing buildings

I do recall that the topic was beaten to death before deciding to be underground

My take: it is indeed big dollars to put it underground. On the other hand, this will be infrastructure we will use for the next 75-100 years to connect across this sprawling city - maybe we should build it for the long haul?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Details? You make it sound like he just started flinging poo.

Given who we're talking about, that's probably a reasonable guess.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

If I recall, an elevated route through downtown was a problematic option:
1) Plus 15 bridges required that the porposed elevated line to be at the "plus 30" height above street OR reconfigure the relevant Plus 15 connector bridges as "Plus 30" ( extensive building modifications
2) the turning radius of the 90 turn E/w To N/S) was difficult to achieve due to existing buildings

I do recall that the topic was beaten to death before deciding to be underground

My take: it is indeed big dollars to put it underground. On the other hand, this will be infrastructure we will use for the next 75-100 years to connect across this sprawling city - maybe we should build it for the long haul?

I’m the other way. Build the infrastructure “good enough”. More people get access earlier and success encourages future investment.

Calgary has 60k of track Edmonton has 38. Would you trade 20-30% of the system for underground downtown? I wouldn’t.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m the other way. Build the infrastructure “good enough”. More people get access earlier and success encourages future investment.



Calgary has 60k of track Edmonton has 38. Would you trade 20-30% of the system for underground downtown? I wouldn’t.

There is also the case of the London sewage system. Joseph Bazalgette, the man who designed London's sewers in the 1860's, said 'Well, we're only going to do this once and there's always the unforeseen' and doubled the pipe diameter. If he had not done this, it would have overflowed in the 1960's and required a complete overhaul (its still in use today with excess capacity).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette

[Torture]

Building the DT Green Line to have high capacity for 50+ years in the future means that the transit riders on Centre Street N have to suffer with overcrowded buses for several more decades. That needs to be acknowledged in the cost-benefit analysis

Sure, but the original at least built the core of the line with an eye to the future. Now the north will suffer for the next what...50 years? As a (inner) north resident right near Center Street I was okay with the previous trade off. Now we probably won't see a train in my neck of the woods until my toddler is approaching retirement age, if ever.

[topfiverecords]

We should always go for the cheaper option and regret it later because that's the Calgary way.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We should always go for the cheaper option and regret it later because that's the Calgary way.

If you can't do it right, do it twice!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m the other way. Build the infrastructure “good enough”. More people get access earlier and success encourages future investment.

Calgary has 60k of track Edmonton has 38. Would you trade 20-30% of the system for underground downtown? I wouldn’t.

I just looked it up today and I’m pretty sure this has lead to 235k weekday ridership in Calgary vs 89k in NoGoodistan

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

We should always go for the cheaper option and regret it later because that's the Calgary way.

I thinks it’s the world way. For every time I wish someone put larger line or twin in the ditch there are five times I’ve totally overbuilt or see over-built. I thinks just hard to imagine the future and time since our lifespans are small and inflation seems bizarre. I do think they should err on the side of way too much but perky investors and taxpayers and making ends meet in the present.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

There is also the case of the London sewage system. Joseph Bazalgette, the man who designed London's sewers in the 1860's, said 'Well, we're only going to do this once and there's always the unforeseen' and doubled the pipe diameter. If he had not done this, it would have overflowed in the 1960's and required a complete overhaul (its still in use today with excess capacity).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette

So what didn’t they build at that time and what were the consequences of that?

They also had put off upgrading the sewers for 100 years. Funnily enough the project only accidentally accomplished its goal of eliminating cholera. They thought it was the smell in the air and not the dirty water.

You also never hear about pre-investments that weren’t made that were the right decision. You only ever hear about deferred investments that were needed and investments that pay off. So it’s self-fulfilling that you can point to examples of where pre-investment worked out.

But let’s me clear the sized for today isn’t quite true either if you look at the Tidewater project they just completed.


In general the choice isn’t between a really good project and a mediocre project. It’s a choice between a mediocre project that spans much more area or a smaller service are but better project.