Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[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.

You must have a value for the cost of the drivers currently then? That's interesting, as I was looking for it recently and couldn't find it. I'd be interested what it is - can you share?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by jawagord

As I've already annoyed the Nenshiati today I may as well restate my concern the green line will become Calgary's biggest white elephant/financial mistake before it even opens. Self driving ride share vehicles are going to suck ridership away from transit and adding this expensive green line tunnel system will be le coup de grace to the 55% R/C ratio that will no longer be sustainable from ridership fees. The 2020's will be a viscous cycle of transit cuts and falling ridership burdened by the operating costs of the truncated green line.

General Motors is seeking U.S. government approval for a fully autonomous car – one without a steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal – to enter the automaker's first commercial ride-sharing fleet in 2019, executives said.

GM wants to control its own self-driving fleet partly because of the tremendous revenue potential it sees in selling related services, from e-commerce to infotainment, to consumers riding in those vehicles.

At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM's Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be "several hundred thousands of dollars." That compares with the $30,000 (22,141.86 pounds) on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.

GM's Cruise AV is equipped with the automaker's fourth-generation self-driving software and hardware, including 21 radars, 16 cameras and five lidars – sensing devices that use laser light to help autonomous cars "see" nearby objects and obstacles.

The Cruise AV will be able to operate in hands-free mode only in premapped urban areas.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ticle37588912/

Will this really negate the need for lrt though? Best case scenario these automated vehicles operate in a way to make their use of the roadways as efficient as is possible, but that may still lead to congestion eventually. Worst case is they're used as automated uber, with a sizeable portion of the traffic empty cars on their way to retrieve their owner or client.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by jawagord

As I've already annoyed the Nenshiati today I may as well restate my concern the green line will become Calgary's biggest white elephant/financial mistake before it even opens. Self driving ride share vehicles are going to suck ridership away from transit and adding this expensive green line tunnel system will be le coup de grace to the 55% R/C ratio that will no longer be sustainable from ridership fees. The 2020's will be a viscous cycle of transit cuts and falling ridership burdened by the operating costs of the truncated green line.

General Motors is seeking U.S. government approval for a fully autonomous car – one without a steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal – to enter the automaker's first commercial ride-sharing fleet in 2019, executives said.

GM wants to control its own self-driving fleet partly because of the tremendous revenue potential it sees in selling related services, from e-commerce to infotainment, to consumers riding in those vehicles.

At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM's Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be "several hundred thousands of dollars." That compares with the $30,000 (22,141.86 pounds) on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.

GM's Cruise AV is equipped with the automaker's fourth-generation self-driving software and hardware, including 21 radars, 16 cameras and five lidars – sensing devices that use laser light to help autonomous cars "see" nearby objects and obstacles.

The Cruise AV will be able to operate in hands-free mode only in premapped urban areas.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ticle37588912/

This comment could so easily have been written in 1955 if "autonomous car" was replaced with "flying car".

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by jawagord

As I've already annoyed the Nenshiati today I may as well restate my concern the green line will become Calgary's biggest white elephant/financial mistake before it even opens. Self driving ride share vehicles are going to suck ridership away from transit and adding this expensive green line tunnel system will be le coup de grace to the 55% R/C ratio that will no longer be sustainable from ridership fees. The 2020's will be a viscous cycle of transit cuts and falling ridership burdened by the operating costs of the truncated green line.

General Motors is seeking U.S. government approval for a fully autonomous car – one without a steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal – to enter the automaker's first commercial ride-sharing fleet in 2019, executives said.

GM wants to control its own self-driving fleet partly because of the tremendous revenue potential it sees in selling related services, from e-commerce to infotainment, to consumers riding in those vehicles.

At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM's Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be "several hundred thousands of dollars." That compares with the $30,000 (22,141.86 pounds) on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.

GM's Cruise AV is equipped with the automaker's fourth-generation self-driving software and hardware, including 21 radars, 16 cameras and five lidars – sensing devices that use laser light to help autonomous cars "see" nearby objects and obstacles.

The Cruise AV will be able to operate in hands-free mode only in premapped urban areas.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ticle37588912/

Yep, we should just stop building underground rail transit because autonomous cars are coming. That sounds like a great idea.

[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.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You must have a value for the cost of the drivers currently then? That's interesting, as I was looking for it recently and couldn't find it. I'd be interested what it is - can you share?

Really Milo, you searched?

https://globalnews.ca/news/2073353/c...ensation-list/

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Pages/C...isclosure.aspx

And capacity is 800 persons per 4 car train

https://www.calgarytransit.com/news/...-service-early

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Will this really negate the need for lrt though? Best case scenario these automated vehicles operate in a way to make their use of the roadways as efficient as is possible, but that may still lead to congestion eventually. Worst case is they're used as automated uber, with a sizeable portion of the traffic empty cars on their way to retrieve their owner or client.

No we still need LRT, but what we don't need is an expensive to operate underground system that only goes from downtown to 16th ave. What we do need is a train that goes to the south hospital. Calgary's Ctrain system was built on the principal of maximizing track and ridership and minimizing operating cost. That philosophy made it one of the most successful LRT systems in North America. The Green line first stage build doesn't do that, it's high cost tunnelling is taking away from track to the south, less track means less ridership, less revenue, same mistake Edmonton made 40 years ago. And just as "car to go" and Uber have taken riders away from transit, so will the autonomous car and shuttle buses. Saddling the existing transit system with an expensive to operate Green line will drive the price up for all transit in Calgary as the city wants to maintain its 55% revenue/cost ratio.

FYI Nashville is having this dialogue right now and how autonomous vehicles will affect transit is something that needs to be included in Calgary's planning.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...lan/902568001/

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jawagord

No we still need LRT, but what we don't need is an expensive to operate underground system that only goes from downtown to 16th ave.

I get that people want a 46km line in phase one, but I do not think it is helpful to continuously wrongly imply the downtown is an end of line terminal.

I also do not understand the comment about expensive to operate. Given the number of car/train accidents on 7th, I'm pleased the line is completely separated through the core.

And yeah, I'm also waiting for when the line gets past 16th ave, for which construction I believe is hoped to start virtually seamlessly as phase one completes.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by PPAR

This comment could so easily have been written in 1955 if "autonomous car" was replaced with "flying car".

LOL!!!

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I get that people want a 46km line in phase one, but I do not think it is helpful to continuously wrongly imply the downtown is an end of line terminal.

I also do not understand the comment about expensive to operate. Given the number of car/train accidents on 7th, I'm pleased the line is completely separated through the core.

And yeah, I'm also waiting for when the line gets past 16th ave, for which construction I believe is hoped to start virtually seamlessly as phase one completes.

In Calgary we have described and built our LRT as South leg, NW leg, NE leg, West leg, not because the LRT leg ends at downtown (they are connected) it's because downtown is the primary destination for riders. The Green line is a two leg system, a ridiculously short North leg and a truncated south leg. How many people do you think will ride the green line from 16th ave to Shepard or the other way around? Quarry Park is probably the only destination the would draw some ridership south of downtown and most of those riders will come from transfers off the other LRT legs, not from 16th ave.

Tunnels are expensive to operate. As I recall from reading an Edmonton summary the electrical expensive of running large ventilation systems was the biggest cost, add in lighting, sump pumps, fire systems, security, janitorial, etc and the operating costs are substantially more.

It would be nice if they could keep on building phase 2, but when has that happened in the past? Money for the next phase will be in short supply between now and 2026, so unless the city comes up with billions more dollars in 2023 there won't be a seemless continuation.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Really Milo, you searched?

https://globalnews.ca/news/2073353/c...ensation-list/

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/cmo/Pages/C...isclosure.aspx

And capacity is 800 persons per 4 car train

https://www.calgarytransit.com/news/...-service-early

Those links don't say what the cost is, only the salaries. How many train drivers do we have? 200 maybe? Say their total cost is $80,000 each (there's more cost than just the salary, that number is probably low), that's $16M/year, hardly pocket change.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I also do not understand the comment about expensive to operate. Given the number of car/train accidents on 7th, I'm pleased the line is completely separated through the core.

The May 2017 presentation on Phase 1 reported a net operating cost of $40M/year when construction is complete. I take that to mean (operating cost - revenue - savings on no longer needed bus routes/frequency). Which is pretty significant considering the total net support the city currently gives to CT is in the range of $225M, and where the modest decline in LRT ridership and significant drop in bus ridership has CT already scrambling to cut costs today.

https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....cumentId=13869 (page 40)

This of course presents additional obstacles to building the NC line, as less city money will be available, and the desire to stem the bleeding by building to Seton first.

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The May 2017 presentation on Phase 1 reported a net operating cost of $40M/year when construction is complete. I take that to mean (operating cost - revenue - savings on no longer needed bus routes/frequency).

Looking at the document, there is no definition of what they meant by "net operating cost". I doubt the number presented is net of rider revenue though. I suspect it is operating cost of line - savings on no longer needed bus routes/frequency.
Your definition would more likely be called an "expected annual operational deficit".

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by PPAR

Looking at the document, there is no definition of what they meant by "net operating cost". I doubt the number presented is net of rider revenue though. I suspect it is operating cost of line - savings on no longer needed bus routes/frequency.
Your definition would more likely be called an "expected annual operational deficit".

Wouldn't the net operating costs simply just be the total of all expenses needed to run the line on a day-to-day basis? This would include salaries, utility costs, maintenance, etc. but not capital related costs nor financing costs. Savings on not having to operate certain bus routes wouldn't factor into the equation. Those costs have more to do with analyzing whether or not building the line will save money, increase revenues, etc.

I think it would be easy for them to manipulate that $40 million/year figure. For example, net operating costs should include things such as office expenses but how do you allocate something like that to a specific line? It's not like they're going to operate this line separately from the other ones or bus routes for that matter.

[accord1999]

Assuming that "Net Operating Costs" = "Operating Net Costs", then being inclusive of revenue and bus route savings would be consistent with how it was used in the TT2015-0881 document. Not only does revenue increase as the line length increases, its operating costs declines as feeder bus routes get shorter:





https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....ocumentId=9083

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Those links don't say what the cost is, only the salaries. How many train drivers do we have? 200 maybe? Say their total cost is $80,000 each (there's more cost than just the salary, that number is probably low), that's $16M/year, hardly pocket change.

Not sure if it's helpful for your research but the TT2015-0881 document mentioned that operating costs in 2015 were $394/hour for LRT and $110/hour for buses.

[Deepstar]

I can’t believe anybody believes driverless cars are going to solve traffic issues. Understand that they won’t any difference whatsoever, only make things worse.

Message to those preducting driverless cars are a solution: Get a friggin clue.

Originally Posted by jawagord

As I've already annoyed the Nenshiati today I may as well restate my concern the green line will become Calgary's biggest white elephant/financial mistake before it even opens. Self driving ride share vehicles are going to suck ridership away from transit and adding this expensive green line tunnel system will be le coup de grace to the 55% R/C ratio that will no longer be sustainable from ridership fees. The 2020's will be a viscous cycle of transit cuts and falling ridership burdened by the operating costs of the truncated green line.

General Motors is seeking U.S. government approval for a fully autonomous car – one without a steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal – to enter the automaker's first commercial ride-sharing fleet in 2019, executives said.

GM wants to control its own self-driving fleet partly because of the tremendous revenue potential it sees in selling related services, from e-commerce to infotainment, to consumers riding in those vehicles.

At a Nov. 30 briefing in San Francisco, GM's Ammann told investors the lifetime revenue generation of one of its self-driving cars could eventually be "several hundred thousands of dollars." That compares with the $30,000 (22,141.86 pounds) on average that GM collects today for one of its vehicles, mostly derived from the initial sale.

GM's Cruise AV is equipped with the automaker's fourth-generation self-driving software and hardware, including 21 radars, 16 cameras and five lidars – sensing devices that use laser light to help autonomous cars "see" nearby objects and obstacles.

The Cruise AV will be able to operate in hands-free mode only in premapped urban areas.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ticle37588912/

[Deepstar]

Calgary does not need to take ideas from southern U.S. cities. They’ve already shown they don’t have a clue when it comes to public transit.

Originally Posted by jawagord

No we still need LRT, but what we don't need is an expensive to operate underground system that only goes from downtown to 16th ave. What we do need is a train that goes to the south hospital. Calgary's Ctrain system was built on the principal of maximizing track and ridership and minimizing operating cost. That philosophy made it one of the most successful LRT systems in North America. The Green line first stage build doesn't do that, it's high cost tunnelling is taking away from track to the south, less track means less ridership, less revenue, same mistake Edmonton made 40 years ago. And just as "car to go" and Uber have taken riders away from transit, so will the autonomous car and shuttle buses. Saddling the existing transit system with an expensive to operate Green line will drive the price up for all transit in Calgary as the city wants to maintain its 55% revenue/cost ratio.

FYI Nashville is having this dialogue right now and how autonomous vehicles will affect transit is something that needs to be included in Calgary's planning.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...lan/902568001/

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

I can’t believe anybody believes driverless cars are going to solve traffic issues. Understand that they won’t any difference whatsoever, only make things worse.

Message to those preducting driverless cars are a solution: Get a friggin clue.

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.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Those links don't say what the cost is, only the salaries. How many train drivers do we have? 200 maybe? Say their total cost is $80,000 each (there's more cost than just the salary, that number is probably low), that's $16M/year, hardly pocket change.

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.