Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 01-25-2022, 06:01 PM   #461
Ahuch
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArcher101 View Post
There has been a lot of work done, especially near Highfield Blvd & Ogden Rd to build a tunnel under the CP tracks. Lots of earthwork near 24st as well. I believe that includes some land purchases too.

With that in mind, those projects are done, so WHY is construction not even starting this year, or next, but 2024? Of course your budget is out the window....
Because the province was stringing along their part of the deal and made the city re-structure the RFQ/RFP process.
Ahuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2022, 06:03 PM   #462
sleepingmoose
Scoring Winger
 
sleepingmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
Pretty sure they've built the bridge over Elbow River, too.
There’s a couple of new bridges over the Elbow, but none are for the Green Line yet.
sleepingmoose is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sleepingmoose For This Useful Post:
Old 01-25-2022, 06:03 PM   #463
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahuch View Post
Because the province was stringing along their part of the deal and made the city re-structure the RFQ/RFP process.
Kenney confused "green line" with "pipeline" and accidentally gave all the transit funding to TC Energy for Keystone XL. Whoops! Sorry guys!
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 01-25-2022, 07:19 PM   #464
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepingmoose View Post
There’s a couple of new bridges over the Elbow, but none are for the Green Line yet.
From N to S:

New 9 Ave bridge
Temp 9 ave bridge

Existing CP rail bridge
Mystery bridge immediately south of that - are they adding/replacing the CP rail bridge?

It would be a real shame if they've built three bridges over the same stretch of water and couldn't find a way to build the fourth at the same time...
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2022, 07:37 PM   #465
sleepingmoose
Scoring Winger
 
sleepingmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
From N to S:

New 9 Ave bridge
Temp 9 ave bridge

Existing CP rail bridge
Mystery bridge immediately south of that - are they adding/replacing the CP rail bridge?

It would be a real shame if they've built three bridges over the same stretch of water and couldn't find a way to build the fourth at the same time...
CP Rail built a new bridge right next to their old one (two more tracks) - the Green Line bridge will be south of that one.

Last edited by sleepingmoose; 01-25-2022 at 07:39 PM.
sleepingmoose is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sleepingmoose For This Useful Post:
Old 01-25-2022, 10:04 PM   #466
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

We've gone from a 4.5B estimate for the ENTIRE line (Seton to 160 Ave) including underground tunnel through downtown and to 16 Ave N. 46km, 28 stations.

Today we are looking at 5.5B+ for:

- 18-20km; 13-15 stations (depending on if they actually build across the Bow)
- Surface level north of downtown
- cut and cover through downtown with less total underground (more disruption)
- to essentially serve the least populated segments (ie. of the 46km line, we are initially building the 15km least populated - hence why the ROW is actually available and ready to go)


I understand the original estimate was obviously low, and things got accelerated quickly from a mid/long-term idea to quicker reality when Harper dangled the pre-election spend. Reducing scope was inevitable...what I can't understand is why every single other thing has been on the table to get cut/reconsidered except for the actual mode of travel (ie. train vs. bus)???


The Elbow River to Shephard is roughly 15km. Ramsay, Inglewood, Ogden, Riverbend, Quarry Park, Douglasdale/glen = 36k residents (give or take a bunch).

Blue Line from old science centre to 69 street is about 7.5km. Much maligned that we should have built the north central line first (I agree). The following communities = 70k (+/-)
Spoiler!


A bunch more communities could be included or not in each list, but I think it's pretty apples to apples in terms of proximity to stations. Of course Mckenzie/Auburn Bay/Cranston/etc add massive populations if we expand beyond the Shephard terminus (though it's about 2.5km from there to 130 Ave where those communities even begin), but there is a lot of population in Aspen/Springbank Hill/West Springs etc. that is much closer and I didn't include for the blue line.

More jobs near the green line, but the vast majority are on the other side of the canal.


I feel like I could rant forever here...what am I missing? This seems like such an obvious boondoggle at this point. Please convince me I'm wrong.

FWIW I am in favour of spending lots of money on transit...but the cost vs. benefit of the current plan makes no sense at all to me.
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Old 01-25-2022, 10:20 PM   #467
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Having ridden the bus ways with dedicated row they are awesome. I don’t understand the Opex vs Capex decision around bus vs train and how it makes sense over the long term. Build a bus way, the whole way, go North first as you don’t need the service depot to be attached to the line.

Now there might be reasons this isn’t feasible but it always seems like the answer is buses are for poor people.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2022, 12:30 PM   #468
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

BRT is more expensive to operate, so if it's going to be LRT ever, it's ideal to skip BRT and start realizing the Opex savings as quickly as possible.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2022, 12:42 PM   #469
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Buses don't fit into the climate change emergency initiative unless they move away from conventional buses to some sort of electrified solutions or maybe hydrogen. Maybe natural gas although that is still a fossil fuel and as such evil.
calgarygeologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2022, 12:43 PM   #470
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist View Post
Buses don't fit into the climate change emergency initiative unless they move away from conventional buses to some sort of electrified solutions or maybe hydrogen. Maybe natural gas although that is still a fossil fuel and as such evil.
They can call it the "aspirational green line".
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2022, 12:51 PM   #471
Hack&Lube
Atomic Nerd
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
We've gone from a 4.5B estimate for the ENTIRE line (Seton to 160 Ave) including underground tunnel through downtown and to 16 Ave N. 46km, 28 stations.

Today we are looking at 5.5B+ for:

- 18-20km; 13-15 stations (depending on if they actually build across the Bow)
- Surface level north of downtown
- cut and cover through downtown with less total underground (more disruption)
- to essentially serve the least populated segments (ie. of the 46km line, we are initially building the 15km least populated - hence why the ROW is actually available and ready to go)
I suspect the same reasons for why the arena deal fell through for cost issues is the same as this situation. Covid and global supply chain has dramatically increased prices for labor and materials. Supply shortages have skyrocketed the cost of raw materials, equipment, technology, etc. and this will continue until the global supply chain returns to normal (if that is possible).

I wonder if postponement of certain section or features until costs come down is a viable thing or if putting the whole thing on hold will make it even more costly in the long run.
Hack&Lube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2022, 01:50 PM   #472
curves2000
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, Canada
Exp:
Default

You sometimes really have to wonder if biases for projects like this really go and do harm to the taxpayer overall. I was and still am in favor of the project but now I really have to question where all the experts who vilified the other side (against) are?

Plenty of people were absolutely confident this was going to be on time and on budget. There wasn't even pragmatic discussions to be had around legit concerns being proposed. Why do we get the feeling that this will end up costing a fortune and or become a train to almost nowhere or significantly reduced?

A lot of the issues now being raised regarding costs and supply chains, materials and more were raised a long time ago. These were completely ignored. I don't know what the answer is but perhaps we can get the feds to actual fund this thing to the max, we already know they pour transit money into Ontario and Quebec to the tune of billions, let us actually get a new funding announcement and nevermind the same announcement from 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021 election cycles.
curves2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2022, 01:50 PM   #473
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
I feel like I could rant forever here...what am I missing? This seems like such an obvious boondoggle at this point. Please convince me I'm wrong.
I don't think you're wrong at all (but I've felt this way ever since they decided to go SE instead of N when they realized they didn't have enough money to do both) but I think at this point the City having spent so much time and effort is "pot-committed" to building LRT even if financially it no longer makes much sense. I'd expect that in 3-4 years time, when the budget further increases and they'll still continue building it even if the Bow River crossing is canceled.

It seems to be a thing with rail and cities, just look at Honolulu. Their new rail line has gone from <$5B to >$12B but they're still plugging along even though they still need to find at least $3B to reach the downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
what I can't understand is why every single other thing has been on the table to get cut/reconsidered except for the actual mode of travel (ie. train vs. bus)???
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Having ridden the bus ways with dedicated row they are awesome. I don’t understand the Opex vs Capex decision around bus vs train and how it makes sense over the long term. Build a bus way, the whole way, go North first as you don’t need the service depot to be attached to the line.
Back in 2020 when the changes to the core were finalized, they did a release a report looking at "alternatives" including BRT only. But it really was half-hearted at best and (IMO) wasn't a bonafide attempt to see if there were better options. Instead it was where they started with the new alignment as the best option and worked their way backwards to justify it.





https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....umentId=131775

And the primary criticisms about the BRT option, how it would not be able to meet demand in the longer term and require so many buses are an even bigger issue for the current Stage 1 since it has no short-term, middle-term or long-term solution to Centre Street N since it has spent so much money going through downtown and going in the wrong direction to Shepard. The writer of the report doesn't appear to realize just how little North the Green Line goes and how expensive it is to go further.

I think they also cheat on the operating costs; they include the passenger trips from buses going on the Centre Street N corridor and the 302 into the ridership of Stage 1 but don't include their operating costs. The BRT option looks like it gets charged with every bus that runs on Centre Street N and massively expanded bus service in the SE

Quote:
Option B1 is the most affordable option and would have the longest length, but compared to Option A2, it is not forecast to meet the projected demand beyond the medium-term time horizon. Upgrading Option B1 to LRT in the future to resolve this demand issue is also challenging and costly and does not provide the best value.

While from an environmental perspective, B1 performs better, there is significant risk that due to the number of buses required to meet the required demand, it would present significant operational challenges and risk compared to Option A2.

Given the very frequent BRT headways that would be required to meet the forecast demand, this would have significant and potentially unresolvable operational challenges. These challenges would include significant
pressure on road space downtown, potentially to the detriment of private vehicle movements as well as the ability to maintain transit vehicle spacing, headways and reliability.

Last edited by accord1999; 01-26-2022 at 02:00 PM.
accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2022, 03:51 PM   #474
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
BRT is more expensive to operate, so if it's going to be LRT ever, it's ideal to skip BRT and start realizing the Opex savings as quickly as possible.
Only true per passenger if the ridership actually justifies LRT. The OPEX savings may only be $20M per year per that report (apparently without factoring feeder service required for LRT, and I wonder how 'right-sized' the BRT numbers actually are...

It seems to be well over $2B extra to go LRT instead of BRT in the south...which is an awful lot to save $20M/year
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
GGG
Old 01-26-2022, 03:55 PM   #475
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

^ A few other problems with that report:

1it briefly mentions the increased feeder service required for the LRT options, but it doesn't seem to include that in the actual calculations

2. Impossible to know without seeing the numbers they've used, but the 2028 daily ridership projections make little sense:
- B1 and B4 being an identical 50-70k despite B4 including a full north LRT...but somehow A1 (LRT from Shephard to 16 Ave = 60-65k
- then compare that to C1 and C2...apparently changing SE from BRT to LRT increases ridership, but changing the North from BRT to LRT has no effect...

If the B4 capital cost of 3.8B is remotely accurate (even if just relative to the other options) then it is an absolute no brainer (except for the idea of just running along Centre St the whole way). The main challenge becomes locating the maintenance facility (can't recall what the reason against Aurora was?)

My conspiracy theory is there are some very strong interests in the Shephard Crossing development...
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Old 01-26-2022, 03:57 PM   #476
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

when we bought our first home in prestwick (part of mckenzie towne) in 1998, the real estate guy made a point of telling us that there was an LRT right o way along 52nd.

at that time i commented to him that i would be lucky if i could take the lrt home on my last day of work before i retire.

it is going to be real close if i retire in 7 more years
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2022, 04:14 PM   #477
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
If the B4 capital cost of 3.8B is remotely accurate (even if just relative to the other options) then it is an absolute no brainer (except for the idea of just running along Centre St the whole way). The main challenge becomes locating the maintenance facility (can't recall what the reason against Aurora was?)
A major reason given for not using Aurora is that they want to keep the land for development. But I think this causes a chicken-or-egg problem; there hasn't been really any development since 2015 and won't have much until the Green Line gets to Aurora. But the only way the Green Line gets to Aurora in the next 20 years is if they switch the priority to the North and use it for a yard.

Quote:
My conspiracy theory is there are some very strong interests in the Shephard Crossing development...
It's hard not to think that way when you look at old documents where they claim LRT is needed because of high bus ridership on Centre Street N but then proceed to look only in the SE for potential yard sites thus ensuring that no matter what happened, the Green Line would need to go to Shepard first.
accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2022, 10:20 AM   #478
Mazrim
CP Gamemaster
 
Mazrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Gary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist View Post
Buses don't fit into the climate change emergency initiative unless they move away from conventional buses to some sort of electrified solutions or maybe hydrogen. Maybe natural gas although that is still a fossil fuel and as such evil.
What? If a well serviced BRT route pulls thousands of cars off the road on a daily basis, it's a huge win for overall emissions regardless of the bus being gas or electric/hydrogen.
Mazrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021