MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Because its not our billions its Canada’s billions. Before someone says we pay tax so it our money, that money is going east unless we keep it in the West.

So we forfeit a lot of money to give over to places likeQuebec. It was dumb to pass up our few chances to get the Quebec treatment

I hate this attitude.

If you want to be critical of government spending money on bad choices you should be critical based on the spending choice not who gets it. It isn’t good spending just because it was here. Unless of course you are in favour of everyone getting the “Quebec” treatment. It’s something like the Categorical Imperative of government spending.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by accord1999

With 4-car trains back, capacity will still be higher that what it is now. Peak hourly ridership today is lower than it was 10 years which is how Transit can get away with running 3-car trains without that much problems.

That would be really short-sighted to presume no other usage shifts will happen in the long-term, but then again you're dead set on short-term gain. Calgary already got their "cheaper" start with the red and blue lines when they were built, and we can't keep pulling that card on the system at this point. It's about as short-sighted as assuming you can perfectly time and schedule 3 different LRT lines on 7th Avenue for anything more than the first few years.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That would be really short-sighted to presume no other usage shifts will happen in the long-term, but then again you're dead set on short-term gain. Calgary already got their "cheaper" start with the red and blue lines when they were built, and we can't keep pulling that card on the system at this point. It's about as short-sighted as assuming you can perfectly time and schedule 3 different LRT lines on 7th Avenue for anything more than the first few years.

Sure we can, because it's very successful. Unlike the Green Line which picked every expensive option possible upfront and has suffered for it.


And if the SE LRT ends up unexpectedly being much more successful than expected, you can still build a tunnel on 8th Av.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Sure we can, because it's very successful.

Wow. What a persuasive, convincing argument. What's been successful? What evidence do you have that Calgary is successfully running 7th Ave without headway delays due to mechanical, weather, or people incidents? Have you even taken the train through downtown before?

Originally Posted by accord1999

And if the SE LRT ends up unexpectedly being much more successful than expected, you can still build a tunnel on 8th Av.

How does that make any sense? Once you build the line, all the focus will be on expansion to the north. No one will want to spend money burying it afterwards at an even higher cost, and we'll stuck with the legacy of that short-sighted decision making. It's a poison pill decision that would probably impact the green line forever.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Wow. What a persuasive, convincing argument. What's been successful? What evidence do you have that Calgary is successfully running 7th Ave without headway delays due to mechanical, weather, or people incidents? Have you even taken the train through downtown before?

By ridership for population, Calgary is arguably the most successful LRT in North America.

How does that make any sense? Once you build the line, all the focus will be on expansion to the north. No one will want to spend money burying it afterwards at an even higher cost, and we'll stuck with the legacy of that short-sighted decision making. It's a poison pill decision that would probably impact the green line forever.

It's all about ROI. There's not enough funding to do everything so I do the things that maximize immediate benefit and ridership, which is to save money on the DT to improve Centre Street N. Trying to future-proof the Green Line is how you end up with a useless stub.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

I hate this attitude.

If you want to be critical of government spending money on bad choices you should be critical based on the spending choice not who gets it. It isn’t good spending just because it was here. Unless of course you are in favour of everyone getting the “Quebec” treatment. It’s something like the Categorical Imperative of government spending.

Do you think there's a chance of the political calculus in Canada ever changing so that Quebec no longer gets the Quebec treatment?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by accord1999

By ridership for population, Calgary is arguably the most successful LRT in North America.

That doesn't explain how a 3rd line will somehow fit on 7th Avenue without creating a litany of problems.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Do you think there's a chance of the political calculus in Canada ever changing so that Quebec no longer gets the Quebec treatment?

Do you mean as in us getting more equalization payments?

[powderjunkie]

It is pretty much moot at this point since the LRVs are ordered and stations [60%] designed to LF specs, but its a simple question of value and order of prioritization.

We have to follow the logic of how of we got here and consider it against the current plans and context. Beltline to 2nd alignment was first decided in 2006:

1. The only viable idea for the north at the time was Nose Creek alignment (no longer true), which would require the 7th ave easterly exit capacity

2. Beltline routes were presumed to be at-grade (no longer true); LF trains were necessary to achieve tight turns and grade changes (no longer true)

3. 2nd St tunnel would be cut+cover (no longer true).

4. Thinking seems to have anticipated bored tunnel for 8th, but it's not totally clear either then or now. Disrupting 2nd St with c+c would have seemed preferable; 11th+2nd vs 8th ave + 9th St*(could/should be elevated) is a harder question.


At many points it became evident that even one tunnel was going to be extremely expensive and challenging (duh), but continuing with a deep tunnel for GL merely defers the 8th ave inevitability a bit longer.


So a question I'd pose is: if you were going to build just one tunnel, which one delivers better value? IMO it's 8th Ave. But we've positioned our chess pieces such that a N-S tunnel is existential to the whole green line, while an 8th Ave tunnel remains inevitable.

I think we could have been just fine with one tunnel (and there are still a lot of ways we could get there) and spending the rest on track length

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That doesn't explain how a 3rd line will somehow fit on 7th Avenue without creating a litany of problems.

With 4-car trains and likely SE ridership, you would only need about the same number of trains during peak hours (24-26) as you do today with 3-car trains for just the South and NE. So the scheduling problem isn't harder.

Once the SE LRT has run for a period of time and actual demand has been measured, you can then make the decision whether to build the NC LRT or the 8th Av tunnel.

[Locke]

I think we need to get Smith and Co to run a public Rickshaw line from the south to downtown.

Get her up there pulling people around in rickety wicker conveyances through deep snow.

[para transit fellow]

so the rationale i hear is:

It is too expensive to build an LRT tunnel now... so we will build an LRT tunnel in the future to save money...

At transit conferences since 2013, I have been hearing how transit tunneling project costs keep rising. It is specialty engineering/ construction and there are many competing projects world-wide.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

so the rationale i hear is:

It is too expensive to build an LRT tunnel now... so we will build an LRT tunnel in the future to save money...

I think it's more: we have one of the most successful LRT systems on the continent, so we can afford to make it worse indefinitely in order to wait and see if another line is successful enough to improve the previously super successful part.



It's a weird decision making matrix. If the Green Line is 'much, much more successful than predicted' then we can build the tunnel instead of extending the line. But if the line isn't successful then you can extend it instead of the tunnel.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Wow. What a persuasive, convincing argument. What's been successful? What evidence do you have that Calgary is successfully running 7th Ave without headway delays due to mechanical, weather, or people incidents? Have you even taken the train through downtown before?


How does that make any sense? Once you build the line, all the focus will be on expansion to the north. No one will want to spend money burying it afterwards at an even higher cost, and we'll stuck with the legacy of that short-sighted decision making. It's a poison pill decision that would probably impact the green line forever.

The current plans ensure that the 7th Ave issues you list will persist for another half century.

Originally Posted by Mazrim

That doesn't explain how a 3rd line will somehow fit on 7th Avenue without creating a litany of problems.

It wouldn't for very long. That's why you build the 8th Ave subway ASAP.

8th Ave benefits:

- reduces red line from 4/5 DT stops to 3. much faster and more sensible for today's ridership patterns, particularly for the line with the highest through-ridership
- reduces all the conflicts you list making Calgary's busiest line even faster
- frees up 7th for most efficient use (maybe even frees up capacity to run busses again)


N-S tunnel benefits:
- connects the lines by giving you the privilege of spending even more money to build a bridge through your nicest DT park
- precludes running at-grade through the beltline even though this is really a separate choice to make the tunnel more expensive


underground stations have both pros/cons, but you're going underground one way or the other. A little drawback to moving the red line is that the free fare zone becomes less convenient, and line transfers aren't as easy from a mobility standpoint (which again will exist for either tunnel).


But running the SE on 7th is effectively dead (which is fine). But that doesn't mean you have to build a GL tunnel. You can still get the SE to the core of DT much cheaper than currently planned. Same for the North. it just makes it a little harder (but still not impossible) to connect them. Even though the current plan requires an expensive bridge and demolishing a bunch of condos in the midst of a housing crisis (you might have to expropriate a surface parking lot to make them connect, but even that isn't really necessary as the whole point of the LF trains is the tight turning radius!)

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

so the rationale i hear is:

It is too expensive to build an LRT now... so we will build an LRT tunnel in the future to save money...

No, I'm saying don't build a tunnel unless you are absolutely certain, with actual ridership numbers, that you need to build it. I don't want to spend money on something that might not be needed, when there are already things that are needed but unfunded.

And in North America, every part of rail transit construction has exploded in costs, so building the tunnel early and delaying the NC will also incur cost increases (as well as decades of guaranteed poor bus experiences for riders).

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It's a weird decision making matrix. If the Green Line is 'much, much more successful than predicted' then we can build the tunnel instead of extending the line. But if the line isn't successful then you can extend it instead of the tunnel.

If 7th or 8th Av is used, then almost certainly the SE and NC LRTs will no longer connect. So it's a matter of allocating funding between the SE and NC, and where the NC also has the higher transit ridership and immediate capacity needs.


And as powderjunkie notes, there are other cheaper options in between the bare-bones reuse of 7th Av to the now unaffordable deep tunnel. I've just been biased towards 7th Av because I believe the projected ridership numbers for the SE are high.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

so the rationale i hear is:

It is too expensive to build an LRT tunnel now... so we will build an LRT tunnel in the future to save money...

At transit conferences since 2013, I have been hearing how transit tunneling project costs keep rising. It is specialty engineering/ construction and there are many competing projects world-wide.

Its tradeoffs. We build an expensive tunnel now that delivers questionable value and then spend decades building out length, while still needing another tunnel sooner or later

or

We build length now and then a tunnel that delivers significant value sooner than later

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Its tradeoffs. We build an expensive tunnel now that delivers questionable value and then spend decades building out length, while still needing another tunnel sooner or later

or

We build length now and then a tunnel that delivers significant value sooner than later

That reasoning also suggests we should not have built the airport trail tunnel under the runway

[GGG]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

That reasoning also suggests we should not have built the airport trail tunnel under the runway

My understanding was that there would be no way to execute the airport tunnel with the runway in service in the future. So it was a now or never decision unlike these transit decisions which can be done later

I might be wrong about the tunnel but I thought that was a factor in the decision.

Edit:This article suggest 3x the cost later on
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.942429

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

That reasoning also suggests we should not have built the airport trail tunnel under the runway

The cost-benefit analysis for a $300M tunnel is quite different then a $2B+ tunnel (that also has a couple of feasible alternatives).


The 8th Avenue tunnel also has been talked about for decades and continually pushed back because it wasn't ever justified, even in 2014-2015 when peak hour demand was at its highest.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by accord1999

With 4-car trains and likely SE ridership, you would only need about the same number of trains during peak hours (24-26) as you do today with 3-car trains for just the South and NE. So the scheduling problem isn't harder.

You're assuming no growth on the other lines, and no planned improvements in frequency (a key driver to better transit usage). This doesn't sound realistic.