Calgary could be on the hook for millions in potential collateral costs related to the province’s proposed elevated LRT option in the downtown, due to the impacts on adjacent buildings.

Calgary city councillors discussed some of these concerns during the public portion of a Green Line update item at the Dec. 17 Regular Meeting of Calgary city council.

Councillors heard that they would need to consider the impacts of Section 534 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), pertaining to public works affecting land. It refers to ‘injurious affection,’ which considers the permanent reduction in the appraised value of land as a result of the public works’ existence.

The owners of the land, if impacted, can apply for compensation based on the reduction in value due to the public works.

“The way that legislation is written is that it would be a claim against the city. We do have a statutory obligation to notify all adjacent landowners of the completion of the project,” said City Solicitor Jill Floen.

“Then there’s a process and time period within which claims can be filed. So, without legislative change, I anticipate that’s what the scenario would be. These are some of the very deep issues that we need to discuss with the province.”

The Alberta government’s proposed plan would see an elevated line going west along 10 Avenue S out of a Grand Central Station, then turning north to connect with 7 Avenue and the Red and Blue LRT lines near 2 Street SW.

Back in 2019, when an elevated Green Line was first ruled out, NAOIP and BOMA, two major commercial and residential building operators and developers in downtown Calgary, wrote a letter expressing opposition to elevated structures.

“These should be avoided, if possible, due to the potential for increase in crime/decrease in public safety, and the deleterious impact to street level commercial/retail activity, reduced sunlight at grade in these areas, loss of public realm potential and impact on surrounding real estate values,” their comments read.

They went on to note that other cities are tearing out elevated lines because of these reasons.

Before that, in 2016, Calgary city council heard that the elevated line would impact land values to the tune of $5 million annually in property taxes, according to a CBC Calgary story.

Elevated line impact on safety, public realm

Peter Oliver with the Beltline Neighbourhoods Association (BNA) said there are significant issues with an elevated line in the area. The BNA published an online post Monday that included their rendition of what elevated lines might look like through the area.

Oliver said they believe, given the obstructions present (CPKC line) along the proposed route, the elevated line would have to be between 40 and 50 feet in the air.

“When you get into that, something similar at the West LRT, you introduce a lot of public safety challenges, public realm challenges that would require, probably a lot of extra investment to mitigate,” he said.

“There’s a lot of risk, as we’ve seen in a lot of other instances around the city. Historically, with the CTrain, you can create a lot of dead zones that are not places where people naturally want to gather or gravitate to, which turn into public safety issues.”

Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek said that the number one issue for Calgary city council is clarifying with the province who carries the financial risk for these such issues – as it pertains to the impact on potential landowners.

“We are not interested in carrying the legal risk on a project we didn’t even design,” Mayor Gondek said.

“So, we keep going back to them and saying, ‘if this was a province that had a provincial transit authority, you would be taking on the risk profile. You have not created that type of authority. You’re going to need to do it on this project. It is too big. It’s gone on for too long. It is too expensive. We cannot be the funder of last resort, as the municipality.”

Costs related to Eau Claire

One of the questions that keeps popping up is the future of the Eau Claire station site. The City of Calgary expropriated land to make way for a new station, displacing dozens of residents. Harvard Developments also had a planned mixed-use building for the area.

LWC has twice attempted to contact Harvard Developments with questions on how they plan to manage the Green Line station change, if at all. No response has been provided.

Any potential costs related to the “cancellation or deferral of Eau Claire Station and potential litigation,” were not a part of the scope of AECOM’s report to the province, LWC has learned.

Nor was the cost of terminating contracts with the development partner or subcontractors, or already sunk costs (LRVs).

“The intent and scope of the AECOM report was to provide a new above ground or elevated alignment through downtown,” read an emailed response from Transportation Minister Devin Dreeshen.

“Pre-existing or already spent costs were not part of the review.”

Minister Dreeshen said that when they compared the ridership and relative benefits of extending to Eau Claire or south to Shepard, it was better to go further south.

Mayor Gondek said one of the things they expected to see was a tie into Eau Claire.

“We told you that you needed to reach Eau Claire so we could build that bridge to get across the river to continue to the north, and they have chosen not to do that,” Mayor Gondek said.  

“There are many questions that remain, many answers that we still need to hear.”