Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by jawagord

You just read whatever you wanted into this, didn't you Shallowstar? I never wrote it would solve traffic issues, I wrote it would take riders away from transit. Common sense, give people an alternate choice and some will use it, if it is more convenient or less costly than transit a lot more will use it.

FYI Calgary doesn't have near the traffic issues of the world's big cities and isn't anywhere close to its vehicle capacity. Live somewhere with 10 million people and spend 2hrs in your car to go 5km and you'll know what traffic congestion is.
Calgary's congestion problem is on the LRT, good luck trying getting a seat or even onto the train at rush hour!

LRT ridership in Calgary is artificially supported by City policy to limit parking downtown and by making it the most expensive parking in NA. If people were offered free available parking downtown LRT ridership would drop dramatically, the self driving vehicle/service essentially does that. So ya this won't solve traffic issues, it will increase vehicular traffic and maybe we will get closer to big city congestion but for many more people it will be faster and preferable to transit.

You think driverless cars will be cheaper than transit? That seems very unlikely.

You're right that Calgary's traffic congestion pales compared to big cities (see Jakarta for an example of a city with ridiculous congestion, but also for an example of how bad things get when you DON'T have decent public transit options) but as the city grows it's very important to have decent public transit options. Building an entirely surface Green Line would be just repeating the mistakes of the past (particularly 36 Ave NE).

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

You think driverless cars will be cheaper than transit? That seems very unlikely.

You're right that Calgary's traffic congestion pales compared to big cities (see Jakarta for an example of a city with ridiculous congestion, but also for an example of how bad things get when you DON'T have decent public transit options) but as the city grows it's very important to have decent public transit options. Building an entirely surface Green Line would be just repeating the mistakes of the past (particularly 36 Ave NE).

I think driverless vehicle service will be more convenient than transit and get you where you want to go faster, it will probably be cheaper than driving your own car. Now for a family of 4 going somewhere it's likely both more convenient and cheaper than transit. The point is it will take away from transit ridership and the green line should be built out all the way south first to maximize ridership potential before going underground and spending $1 -1.5 billion to only get to 16ave.

PS I lived in Jakarta for 7 years, their transit is heavy rail and 10,000 buses and totally inadequate for the population. But where things get done in China's one party state because of corruption, things don't get done in Indonesia's pluralism because of corruption.

[Chinook Arch]

What is with you guys and the thinking that autonomous vehicles can only be single cars. Ever heard of autonomous buses? Autonomous buses have the potential to make rail transit become a huge waste of money. Which is what I fear might be the case with the green line.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Again, autonomous vehicles CANNOT replace the transportation CAPACITY of mass transit.

If you take everyone off of existing trains, and put everyone (including existing drivers) in autonomous vehicles, you have gridlock, simply because there isn’t enough space for all those vehicles.

Yes, transportation options etc will change, but we know that we will still require mass transit.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

What is with you guys and the thinking that autonomous vehicles can only be single cars. Ever heard of autonomous buses? Autonomous buses have the potential to make rail transit become a huge waste of money. Which is what I fear might be the case with the green line.

What would autonomous buses do that buses on Centre St can't do right now? Other than operate more cheaply? That is a big benefit, but capacity, speed, reliability will remain the same.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

There is very little to be gained by making the Ctrain driverless, the driver to revenue(cost) ratio is already miniscule. And the train is only efficient at morning and evening rush hour. Today one of the big reasons for not taking a car downtown is where to park, that goes away with driverless vehicles. I don't see the C-train coming out a winner in this future. But making a bus driverless and smaller could be a real big win for transit.

Originally Posted by jawagord

You can try asking the City through their website. It does say there are 2100+ transit drivers in the City. If the buses and train went driverless over a long period of time (don't expect the transit workers union to go along with this without protecting their members jobs to retirement) it would be a big savings, say 2000 x $60,000 x benefits @ 1.5 = $180 million/yr ballpark operating savings.

OK, so now you do agree that making the Green Line driverless would have a big cost saving? I agree, unions are a big roadblock, and that's another reason to push for driverless right now. The Green Line is a completely new line, if we start with no drivers then we never have to deal with the problem of getting rid of them later, and all the BS that unions cause.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

OK, so now you do agree that making the Green Line driverless would have a big cost saving? I agree, unions are a big roadblock, and that's another reason to push for driverless right now. The Green Line is a completely new line, if we start with no drivers then we never have to deal with the problem of getting rid of them later, and all the BS that unions cause.

Not really, I expect most of the city's 2100 drivers are driving bus and not C-trains. The savings of removing 1 bus driver for 60 passengers is where the big money will be vs removing 1 train driver for 800 passengers. Let me know when you find out how many C-train drivers there are and then we can estimate.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Not really, I expect most of the city's 2100 drivers are driving bus and not C-trains. The savings of removing 1 bus driver for 60 passengers is where the big money will be vs removing 1 train driver for 800 passengers. Let me know when you find out how many C-train drivers there are and then we can estimate.

I will if I do. It might be possible to estimate from the amount of trains in service but I'd rather be more accurate than that. Still though, most trains aren't running with 800 passengers, and are often almost empty. Getting rid of the driver makes running those less well used trains much more cost effective and will allow us to improve something our current system is awful at - off peak frequency. I used to have to take the train after an evening shift and having to wait fifteen minutes in the cold (or more if something held up the train) was pretty annoying.

[outoftheice]

I have one question in terms of the the debate between driver or driverless LRT. So far people have been focused exclusively on the savings gained by eliminating the driver. I would imagine that the introduction of the systems required to permit driverless trains also bring with them a higher cost than traditional LRT (higher precision signaling and tracking equipment, increased inspection and maintenance intervals etc...).

Does anyone have any information that looks into how these types of items may increase the cost of operating driverless trains? I'm curious because I think that when you add in these types of costs plus higher acquisition prices of driverless LRVs plus the cost of grade separating the entire Green Line to accommodate them the cost difference between driver vs driverless might be marginal at best.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I have one question in terms of the the debate between driver or driverless LRT. So far people have been focused exclusively on the savings gained by eliminating the driver. I would imagine that the introduction of the systems required to permit driverless trains also bring with them a higher cost than traditional LRT (higher precision signaling and tracking equipment, increased inspection and maintenance intervals etc...).

Does anyone have any information that looks into how these types of items may increase the cost of operating driverless trains? I'm curious because I think that when you add in these types of costs plus higher acquisition prices of driverless LRVs plus the cost of grade separating the entire Green Line to accommodate them the cost difference between driver vs driverless might be marginal at best.

The cost of grade separating the entire Green Line (but not the first phase as it's almost there already) would of course be substantial, but the technology for automated trains has existed for decades so would not be a significant cost. But I don't have any figures.

I'm really just frustrated the conversation never took place. It was just decided almost arbitrarily from the beginning that the only choice possible was low floor LRT. Vancouver built its first automated line in 1985, when their metro population was 1.35m, lower than ours now and lower still than what ours will be in 2026 and I bet no-one is wishing they had saved some pennies and built a less reliable system with far worse frequencies like the one we will get. It's disappointing that we can't have a future proofed line built and instead will have a line permanently handicapped.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

What is with you guys and the thinking that autonomous vehicles can only be single cars. Ever heard of autonomous buses? Autonomous buses have the potential to make rail transit become a huge waste of money. Which is what I fear might be the case with the green line.

Autonomous buses still need the same road space that cars need, so they'll get stuck in traffic just like any other road vehicle.

Big cities aren't going to stop building rail transit just because road vehicles can drive themselves.

[Chinook Arch]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Autonomous buses still need the same road space that cars need, so they'll get stuck in traffic just like any other road vehicle.

Big cities aren't going to stop building rail transit just because road vehicles can drive themselves.

There's a difference between cars and busses in case you haven't noticed. Busses also have the advantage of being able to use any street and change routes dynamically.
People that think rail transit is the only way to go, need to get their head out of the clouds.

[Socguy]

CBC has an article on the design of the new green line stations. The idea of the public plaza's are promising. Also touches on some of the benefits of going low floor. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ings-1.4490755

[Western Spaghetti]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

There's a difference between cars and busses in case you haven't noticed. Busses also have the advantage of being able to use any street and change routes dynamically.
People that think rail transit is the only way to go, need to get their head out of the clouds.

That's exactly it. Everyone has a hard on for rail transit because it's cool but people haven't been looking at all sides of things. Busses do a good job of moving people for less. People....especially people on this forum aren't used to thinking outside the box, only the box drawn by Dru Farrell.

[dg66]

Originally Posted by Western Spaghetti

That's exactly it. Everyone has a hard on for rail transit because it's cool but people haven't been looking at all sides of things. Busses do a good job of moving people for less. People....especially people on this forum aren't used to thinking outside the box, only the box drawn by Dru Farrell.

Even buses or kind of a waste, and I can attest that they are a pain in the ass to use. In 20 years everyone is going to be driving electric cars and it won’t matter.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Western Spaghetti

That's exactly it. Everyone has a hard on for rail transit because it's cool but people haven't been looking at all sides of things. Busses do a good job of moving people for less. People....especially people on this forum aren't used to thinking outside the box, only the box drawn by Dru Farrell.

That feels off the mark. There's a history within these forums (perhaps more in the "Calgary Public Transit II" forum) of quoting/discussing Jarrett Walker, who (a) has a history of advocating for true BRT when appropriate, and (b) criticizing urbanists who want to make transit slow.

Edit: I think there's a good variety of opinions in here, let's keep it going and focus on the issues instead of personalities!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

There's a difference between cars and busses in case you haven't noticed. Busses also have the advantage of being able to use any street and change routes dynamically.
People that think rail transit is the only way to go, need to get their head out of the clouds.

I'll quote myself:

Originally Posted by milomilo

What would autonomous buses do that buses on Centre St can't do right now? Other than operate more cheaply? That is a big benefit, but capacity, speed, reliability will remain the same.

I think you need to get your head out the clouds, autonomous vehicles are not a panacea. We already have buses on Centre St, they're insufficient and that's why we're building the Green Line. Automating those buses will offer very little improvement on the situation, whereas rail will give big upgrades of capacity, speed and reliability.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Chinook Arch

There's a difference between cars and busses in case you haven't noticed. Busses also have the advantage of being able to use any street and change routes dynamically.
People that think rail transit is the only way to go, need to get their head out of the clouds.

Somebody better tell all those Chinese cities they didn't need to spend all that money on Metro systems. Buses could have solved their problem!

Or not. Simply compare a city like Jakarta (very little rail and absolutely horrendous traffic) to a city like Shanghai (world's largest Metro system and comparably far better traffic) to see the effect that good rail transit has. Shanghai's Metro carries over 10 million people per day - exactly how do you think that buses will be able to do anything close to that?

Even at a size more similar to Calgary, look at how horrible Dublin's traffic is (public transport system relies heavily on buses) to other cities of comparable size (for example, Copenhagen) on the European mainland that actually have decent rail networks.

Buses can NEVER match the capacity of rail - period. When a heavy rail line can have a capacity of over 30 000 people per hour in each direction (even a light rail line can do 10 000pph), there is absolutely no way buses can come even close to that.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by dg66

Even buses or kind of a waste, and I can attest that they are a pain in the ass to use. In 20 years everyone is going to be driving electric cars and it won’t matter.

Will they though? If each bus on Centre street was today replaced 60-100 car2go sized automated vehicles would that actually be better?

[accord1999]

And yet the section of the Green Line route where bus capacity is a major issue isn't even going to get built in the first phase, nor has the city definitely stated that the second phase will be that section and there's no funding for it.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by accord1999

And yet the section of the Green Line route where bus capacity is a major issue isn't even going to get built in the first phase, nor has the city definitely stated that the second phase will be that section and there's no funding for it.

We've been down this strawman ...

Maintenance facility was the big issue. Regarding funding for the second phase, yeah not locked in yet, but that is not abnormal at all.

As a touchstone, someone may be considering purchasing a home with a 15 year mortgage. Do you say that you will not buy if you cannot guarantee you have a job in five years? No, you go ahead and purchase, with the understanding that prospects are reasonable for five years down even if not guaranteed.

These are potentially multi-decade projects, and no, we do not know where the funds will come from for X years down when phase two starts, but that is okay.