HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1781  
Old Posted May 18, 2017, 9:47 PM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,606
USA has Buy America rules that are patently illegal as per trade deals, but not enough of an irritant to complain about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1782  
Old Posted May 18, 2017, 10:00 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 300
yeah.. I suppose with the MAGA wave and NAFTA uncertainty, it's not the best time to try and lure US business north.. but I still think a smaller seimens facility in AB could be viable if Calgary and Edmonton kept the high floor standard. and if they do a better job than bombardier, there could be other Canadian business to win elsewhere
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1783  
Old Posted May 18, 2017, 10:07 PM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,606
Siemens undercut Bombardier by like 20% on the new vehicles iirc. They can do that because of scale (175 S200s were ordered by the Muni Metro after Calgary led off the class).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1784  
Old Posted May 18, 2017, 10:17 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 300
are you referring to the last Ctrain buy, or another project? Looks like Calgary's S200s were bought before the currency crash, so their numbers might not be as good on a green line bid
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1785  
Old Posted May 18, 2017, 10:20 PM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
are you referring to the last Ctrain buy, or another project? Looks like Calgary's S200s were bought before the currency crash, so their numbers might not be as good on a green line bid
Well, they would be rolled into a consortium, so it is less likely that they are selected for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1786  
Old Posted May 18, 2017, 10:34 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 300
so about that P3 consortium thing.. if going that route incurs an enormous financing overhead, I don't see the point, especially if we'll get the lowest bidder trains and just big enough stations (glares northward at valley line)

unless I've made some huge error in the gas tax math I did earlier, I can't see why we wouldn't go for the debt-free tax/save/build route instead
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley

Last edited by technomad; May 18, 2017 at 10:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1787  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 1:03 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,491
So I'd like to articulate why I don't think surface running on Centre is going to work, and the city hasn't really thought this through, or been honest in their presenting. This is just one section.

Here is the station the city is envisioning, between 28th and 29th Ave:




And this is a normal LRT station (no traffic lanes):




Here's how wide that ROW is:




And here is how wide Centre St is at that station location:




I think there is going to be more expropriation neccesary than might have been anticipated, all to end up with a substandard product. Does anyone really think putting a station like the first image quoted, plus two congested vehicle lanes either side is going to be anything other than a claustrophobic, unpleasant place to be?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1788  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 1:52 AM
CrossedTheTracks CrossedTheTracks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
bombardier... say no more. interesting decision for them to build in thunder bay
There's a long history of rail vehicle manufacturing there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Car_and_Foundry
__________________
"Skyscraper, skyscraper, scrape me some sky..." - Dennis Lee
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1789  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 2:18 AM
MalcolmTucker's Avatar
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
So I'd like to articulate why I don't think surface running on Centre is going to work, and the city hasn't really thought this through, or been honest in their presenting. This is just one section.

Here is the station the city is envisioning, between 28th and 29th Ave:


And this is a normal LRT station (no traffic lanes):


Here's how wide that ROW is:


And here is how wide Centre St is at that station location:


I think there is going to be more expropriation neccesary than might have been anticipated, all to end up with a substandard product. Does anyone really think putting a station like the first image quoted, plus two congested vehicle lanes either side is going to be anything other than a claustrophobic, unpleasant place to be?
There is going to be expropriation. That is why the section north of 16th has a pretty high price tag compared to getting to McKenzie Towne - it is hard to expropriate a slice of a property iirc - people, businesses, churches can force the city into buying a full parcel. and the city has to pay for way more than the property is worth (market value wise) if the current use is nonconforming (like has way too few parking spots for example). Of course the city can flip it all later, but still gotta have the money up front. Plus a few tunnels and whatnot.

Even just finding the land for substations is going to be a pain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1790  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 2:31 PM
UofC.engineer's Avatar
UofC.engineer UofC.engineer is offline
Laura Palmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Peaks, Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
There is going to be expropriation. That is why the section north of 16th has a pretty high price tag compared to getting to McKenzie Towne - it is hard to expropriate a slice of a property iirc - people, businesses, churches can force the city into buying a full parcel. and the city has to pay for way more than the property is worth (market value wise) if the current use is nonconforming (like has way too few parking spots for example). Of course the city can flip it all later, but still gotta have the money up front. Plus a few tunnels and whatnot.

Even just finding the land for substations is going to be a pain.
They still haven't flipped the land on 16th ave.
__________________
I've got good news! That gum you like is going to come back in style!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1791  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 2:35 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 300
how much of that expropriation can be avoided if the line stays tunneled?

only need to acquire lots near stations then, and that's where we'd expect higher density development anyways. easier if the city essentially does the land assembly for the LRT build, and larger development lots around stations can be sold later

the added capacity and automation potential of full grade separation is well worth the extra cost. having a solid freeway network, and true rapid transit lines are vital to keeping a small footprint city. so far Calgary is doing a pretty great job of both, would hate to see this project go the other way..
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1792  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 3:02 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 300
the other I thought I had re: keeping a common LRT fleet, is being able to connect green line with blue and red. while it would be crazy to try and do downtown, I think there's great potential to improve the network, especially for inter-TOD trips, by connecting them at the far ends.

I don't see either green or red going much further south anyways, and it could be a good way of tying in LRT to providence area, by linking green and red south of stoney, interlining on a bit of red track, then heading west at 162av to extend green line there. commuters heading DT can transfer to red or CR at somerset, or carry on with green to TODs at seton or quary park

up in the north, I can see green line going further than keystone eventually, while blue line could take a turn west at balzac, and provide greater LRT coverage for new neighborhoods there. green and blue could intersect at a superstation, and blue could also tie into an eventual CR station in the CP corridor for faster DT access from the far north
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1793  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 3:08 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
How would it cripple our transit service? Please do expand on this.
Transit in Calgary is already in trouble with declining ridership and increased costs, putting pressure on CT to reduce costs, cut staff or increase fares.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/traffi...portation-boss

Adding an expensive to build and operate tunnel system with a truncated line(s) ala Edmonton's decision 40 years ago will guarantee decades of high cost/low ridership that will effect the cost structure of the entire system. Would be smarter to build the south line fully out to maximize ridership and scrap the north line until it can be fully funded. With smart car technology coming in the next decade transit has to be even more cost efficient to compete, the current green line plan is taking us in the wrong direction literally and figuratively.
__________________
The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound. That's why Darwin will always be right and Malthus will always be wrong - K.R.Sridhar

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. - M.Tyson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1794  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 3:30 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 300
making compromises and cutting corners eventually leads to a system that simply isn't worth building because it's no better than a bus. I'd like to see green go further north than 16av sooner too, but cutting out tunnels isn't the way to go..

we just need to figure out how to pay for the best value system
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1795  
Old Posted May 19, 2017, 5:46 PM
CrossedTheTracks CrossedTheTracks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
how much of that expropriation can be avoided if the line stays tunneled?

only need to acquire lots near stations then, and that's where we'd expect higher density development anyways. easier if the city essentially does the land assembly for the LRT build, and larger development lots around stations can be sold later
Not sure how much expropriation is required in places that are NOT the stations. Take out a lane in each direction for the trains, and the ROW doesn't change.

Also, "if the line stays tunneled" -- depends on bored vs. cut-and-cover. Cut and cover probably requires even MORE (temporary) purchases/expropriation than surface running. Bored wouldn't, but it's not like you can buy one TBM and use it for "unlimited" distance without extra cost. Not sure what the marginal cost/km would be on that.
__________________
"Skyscraper, skyscraper, scrape me some sky..." - Dennis Lee
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:30 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.