As the province of Alberta prepares for the upcoming provincial election sometime on or before May 31st, 2019, politicians are already hurling accusations to win voters to each party. Now, the purpose of this article isn’t to tell you who to vote for, but we want to clarify a few things surrounding the recent spat over Green Line financing. We want you to understand that any funding from the province, carbon tax or not, will affect transit capital plans beyond the Green Line, and that the Green Line has been both mismarketed from the outset, and has shrunken for many reasons.

As you can see in the infographic above, different costs are associated with different types of infrastructure. Initially, the Green Line was forecast to be 46 kilometres long, spanning from North Pointe in… the north… and Seton, in the south. However, several decision were made by Calgarians through their councillors which contributed to the shrinking of the project.

Where did it shrink?

Originally, the project was 46 kilometres long, from Keystone to Seton. That has since shrunk to 20 kilometres in stage 1. Where has the line shrunk? Well, first of all, Calgary Transit had never promised to provide 46 kilometres of LRT at any point in time, from an organizational perspective. Even if individual politicians indicated the full 46 kilometres would be built at once, they were incorrect. Calgary Transit initially stated they would build the line from North Pointe to Seton, and would construct the LRT further north as growth continued. This is contained in RouteAhead. This reduced the initial line length to ~40 kilometres.

Many media outlets and politicians initially quoted this 46 kilometre statistic, despite the promised stations and line length not matching up. Here is, for example, a Herald article, pre-shortening, showing the discrepancy. The point is, Calgarians were never, at any point, actually promised the full line length from the outset. City officials knew that development on the north end of the line would not be ready for LRT introduction until several decades into the future.

The next shortening of the line came with the introduction of the tunnel and elevated portions of the line in the inner-city. These areas were initially planned to take up regular traffic lanes, likely with a “duck-under” (see image below, taken from the City of Calgary Green Line 2017 alignment video) at the crossing with the 7th Ave. LRT.

Calgarians and councillors quickly realized this would create a traffic nightmare downtown, creating a barrier, particularly during rush-hour, with at-grade LRT chopping the city-centre into 4 corners. In order to retain lanes on Centre. St, avoid collisions, save travel time, and save on transit time, the decision was made to tunnel under downtown and the Bow River. This tunnel is ~5 kilometres in length, spanning from 16th Avenue N to 9th Avenue S, with a deviation to service the Beltline. Further elevating costs was the decision to run an elevated line through the Inglewood-Ramsay area, and ultimately over Blackfoot Tr. This elevated portion is approximately ~2.2 kilometres long. Together, based on the highest cost estimates, the 5 kilometre tunnel and elevated guideway would end up costing 1.47 billion dollars. The initial estimate for at-grade LRT for the same length was 360 million dollars. The difference between the two costs, of 1.09 billion dollars.

The cost of the cut portion of the initial Green Line (2o kilometres) is 1 billion dollars, again assuming the highest cost per kilometre, as per the infographic. Thus, the numbers seem to suggest that the decision to tunnel underneath the Bow River, and the decision to construct an elevated guideway through Inglewood/Ramsay ultimately contributed to the dramatic shortening in length. Even within our calculations, we have no idea of the cost savings associated with the removal of the planned 9th Ave. N station, and the extra cost associatied with the multiple (and we are told massive) underground, downtown stations. We presume this would only elevate the cost associated with the decision to tunnel.

For Jason Kenney, Calgary was never promised 46 kilometres of LRT. Calgary was actually only promised 40 kilometres of LRT, with 6 more kilometres coming after 30 years. Calgary Transit even stated in RouteAhead, shown below, well before Green Line alignment discussions that LRT to Keystone would not be within 30 years.

What about the carbon tax?

While Notley has promised that future Green Line funding will come from the carbon tax, Jason Kenney has promised to abolish that tax as soon as he comes to office. What neither politician has mentioned, however, is how other, smaller transit projects will be funded. The new MAX system was funded in large part through the provincial GreenTRIP program. This 500 million dollar fund, distributed throughout Alberta, though mostly in Calgary and Edmonton was a major driver of capital projects in the two cities. The application for program funding closed at the end of 2016. In the absence of GreenTRIP, there is no provincial method for other Calgary Transit capital projects to continue. In the near-term, these projects may include the extension of the Blue Line to 128th Avenue, the Red Line to Silverado, the introduction of the 52nd St. East BRT, and crosstown connection from Westbrook to the NW HUB (Foothills Hospital, U of C, Children’s Hospital and Brentwood). For now, the city will be reliant on federal funding for these smaller projects unless the government identifies a new small-scale fund for public transit infrastructure. The carbon tax may have been a component in producing a new public transit infrastructure fund for the small-win projects. I would ask Jason Kenney not only if he has a funding plan for the Green Line in the absence of the carbon tax, but also if he has a plan for funding smaller infrastructure upgrades. I would also offer the same question to Rachel Notley, of whether a new public transit infrastructure fund is forthcoming, and where the money will come from.

Conclusion?

To conclude, neither politician, nor city officials appear to understand what Calgarians were initially promised. We were not promised 46 kilometres of LRT, we were promised 40 kilometres of LRT. Further, while Jason Kenney is partially correct that Calgary was initially promised a much longer LRT, he has ignored the reasons behind the substantial reduction in length. We personally believe that the decision to tunnel under downtown and to construct an elevated portion through Inglewood was ultimately the right decision, both for longevity, reliability, and for the sake of traffic. With the recent fatalities due to at-grade LRT across the city, it makes sense to have the Green Line go underground in the areas of Calgary with the highest foot traffic (not to mention the disruption to traffic even if nobody challenged the train).