To view this letter as a PDF file, click here.
September 20, 2024
Premier Danielle Smith
Hon. Ric McIver, Minister of Municipal Affairs
Hon. Devon Dreeshen, Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors
Mayor Jyoti Gondek and Calgary City Council
Honorable Premier, Honorable Ministers, Mayor Gondek and Councilors,
RE: Calgary Green Line Controversy
With respect to the recent cancellation in funding for the Green Line, we would like to bring three new reports to your attention, to help you to evaluate such projects as you go forward.
All three have been prepared by Robert Lyman, retired energy economist and former federal public servant of 27 years, 10 years a diplomat. Mr. Lyman served under every form of government. He is factual and non-partisan in his approach to these policy matters.
Bottomless Money Pit: Public Transit in Canada https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2024/09/15/bottomless-money-pit-public-transit-in-canada/
Trends in Canadian Transit Ridership https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2024/09/16/trends-in-canadian-transit-ridership/
Money for Nothing – The Minimal Climate Benefits of Transit Spending https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2024/09/18/money-for-nothing-the-minimal-climate-benefits-of-transit-spending/
Though public transit is important for citizens, focussing on LRT over buses and Bus Rapid Transit, may not be the best use of public funds. The results over years of implementation of mass transit LRT lines in Canada do not show a significant level of use, or a decline.
Many cities are finding it difficult to pay for operation of existing lines; how will they pay for additional lines?
The Green Line
has been touted as part of the climate mitigation action for Calgary.
- Each year the Green Line will reduce greenhouse gases by 15,000 tonnes.
- Light Rail Transit (LRT) is energy efficient. At maximum passenger capacity, the LRT is 58 times more energy efficient that driving.
- 18 passengers riding on a light rail vehicle is the “break even” point for LRT to save energy compared with 18 automobiles.
https://www.calgary.ca/green-line/about/benefits.html
What is never discussed in relation to mass transit as a means to allegedly cut urban emissions is that the embodied emissions of LRT are enormous; far greater than that of conventional car/light truck use in the city. Example:
It seems that “Transit Oriented Development” (TOD) has been an integral part of Calgary’s Municipal Development Plan, attempting to orchestrate a “Building Up” form of Urban Planning, as per former Mayor Nenshi’s paper for Canada25 “Building Up: Making Canada’s cities magnets for talent and engines of development,” versus a “Build Out” form (i.e. suburbs). Again, the intention of TOD is allegedly to cut greenhouse gases from car travel, by limiting citizen mobility to transit, something environmental groups and climate activists are quite adamant about, over the other option of expanding the free choice of taxpaying citizens and residents as to where to live, whether or not they choose to use a car, and how convenient city services will be for them.
This begs the question as to whether the C-Train/Green Line of today has been focussed on creating developed properties near it, rather than being focussed on providing maximum mass transit access from end to end of the city. It seems that the original LRT lines were not ideologically aligned with climate objectives and were more aligned with serving the maximum number of users, and they have served Calgarians well.
Are you aware that in order for a city to apply for federal funding, the city must use Infrastructure Canada’s “climate lens” which employs the implausible climate scenario known as RCP 8.5 as if the ‘business-as-usual’ case? This may be a reason why some aspects of municipal operations or future plans are wildly budgeted; cities do not have a choice in this matter if they want federal funding, but by using this scenario, it skews common sense solutions.
We have written to Mayor Gondek about this in the past. At that time, we suggested that:
Consequently, we hope that the City of Calgary will point out to its partners in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and to the federal and provincial governments that it is being forced to comply with a fraudulent representation of our climate future by being coerced into using RCP 8.5 as the ‘business-as-usual’ case, when it is far from it.
In short, RCP 8.5 includes wildly impossible parameters by 2100 such as these: (plain language)
- The burning of more coal than exists on earth.
- The burning of more oil than is presently deemed to be recoverable.
- A global population that is 3 to 6 billion more than the 9 billion the UN projects.
These comments are meant as food for thought.
Population density is a factor related both to maximized use and tax base to underwrite the costs of mass transit.
Many of the world’s best loved cities are often cited as examples of mass transit benefits but let us look at the population density factors.
We hope you find this information useful. Feel free to ask any questions.
Sincerely,
Ron Davison, P. Eng.
President
Friends of Science Society
[email protected]
Thank you so much for forwarding this well researched and documented information for our Premier.
This is very important information the underpinnings have implications well beyond transit systems spending or operations.