HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1101  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 2:33 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
So I've checked the route of the Green Line, cross referencing with the map of the former SE Transitway, and I've realized that the grade separated portion of the Green Line should stretch from the portal on 16 Avenue North (24 Ave?) all the way to after Lynnwood Station, possibly as far as Ogden Station, if the underground Beltline option is approved. That is a distance roughly equivalent to the length of Ottawa's Confederation Line. Does this determination sound correct? Does anyone have insight into where the grade crossings will be?
As the last poster says, CP is closing 8th Street anyway.

But why does it even matter? Just so we have a longer grade separated portion than Ottawa? We already have a far more expansive LRT system than Ottawa will have soon, and the difference will only become larger after the Green Line is built. Who cares if it is grade separated? Ottawa will probably put in some crossings in the future expansions anyway.

Besides, we already have 16+km grade separated from Tuscany to Lions Park. So we will be beating them on that obscure metric for some time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1102  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 9:25 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
As the last poster says, CP is closing 8th Street anyway.

But why does it even matter? Just so we have a longer grade separated portion than Ottawa? We already have a far more expansive LRT system than Ottawa will have soon, and the difference will only become larger after the Green Line is built. Who cares if it is grade separated? Ottawa will probably put in some crossings in the future expansions anyway.

Besides, we already have 16+km grade separated from Tuscany to Lions Park. So we will be beating them on that obscure metric for some time.
Re the bolded part above:

People who care about safety and making sure all forms of transportation can move efficiently. I'm sure CP loves hearing such comments because it gives them justification for never working with the city, etc. to get rid of level crossings in areas where they should not be.

As for which city has the most grade separated track you're reading too much into one comment. The vast majority of people don't care as they know there are lots of other places that have systems with way longer stretches. What we should be caring about is a properly designed system which unfortunately we'll never get with the people running the city now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1103  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 10:20 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
GEOTUS - MFWW
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 522
Overall I still think the c-train is a very solid system, B+ as it stands with A grade potential

But it is frustrating to see some of the recent plans and projects go 90% of the way to full grade separation

You have to figure the ops savings from being able to go automated would pay for upgrading the additional intersections..
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1104  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 10:51 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
Overall I still think the c-train is a very solid system, B+ as it stands with A grade potential

But it is frustrating to see some of the recent plans and projects go 90% of the way to full grade separation

You have to figure the ops savings from being able to go automated would pay for upgrading the additional intersections..
Not if one wants to build 40+km at once!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1105  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:05 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
GEOTUS - MFWW
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Not if one wants to build 40+km at once!
no, definitely not!

but I think it'd still be better to limit initial scope of green line and get full separation, than have the full line open a once. aurora park to quarry park is only ~20 km, and still a great start to the line

beyond ops savings from automation, being able to offer 90 second frequencies is well worth the cost of separation alone IMO

besides, all the other lines have opened in stages.. does green line have to be any different?
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1106  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:09 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
^ If we are paying for it over 20-30 years, we should go as far as possible to start with, as with a P3 much harder to phase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1107  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:13 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
^ If we are paying for it over 20-30 years, we should go as far as possible to start with, as with a P3 much harder to phase.
Has there ever been any estimates done on how much it would cost to make our system fully automated and what the resultant savings would be? Is it the cost of getting rid of all of the at grade intersections or is there more to it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1108  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:17 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
GEOTUS - MFWW
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
^ If we are paying for it over 20-30 years, we should go as far as possible to start with, as with a P3 much harder to phase.
would it? if the ring road P3 contracts can have lane expansion built in, don't see why an LRT P3 couldn't do the same with extensions of the line?

I suppose it'll come down to the spec set by the city.. but here's hoping someone submits an aLRT bid
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1109  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:19 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
GEOTUS - MFWW
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Has there ever been any estimates done on how much it would cost to make our system fully automated and what the resultant savings would be? Is it the cost of getting rid of all of the at grade intersections or is there more to it?
I'd imagine the signaling and train control systems would have to be upgraded too, but so long as they don't use the same contractor as Edmonton's metro line, it shouldn't cost more than the separated intersections
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1110  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:22 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
would it? if the ring road P3 contacts can have lane expansion built in, don't see why an LRT P3 couldn't do the same with extensions of the line?

I suppose it'll come down to the spec set by the city.. but here's hoping someone submits an aLRT bid
You don't have integrated operations, potentials for economy of scale. If the second phase is a different company, do you build a second maintenance facility and have half the operators work for a different company? Have incentives for the different companies to only follow low maintenance operations procedures only in their sectors?

It is possible, to be sure, it is just annoying and hard to administer, which is what you are trying to avoid in the first place. A fair amount of the profit comes from operational efficiency enable by better initial design. How do you design that in where the initial company would be the beneficiary, not the second phase company.

Otherwise you are just in a plain jane P3, dbfm. From that point may as well do the pretty traditional for Alberta design build, since the spread for profit isn't huge when the cities can borrow on the province's credit card.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1111  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:28 PM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
GEOTUS - MFWW
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 522
oh yeah, not suggesting separating the north and SE legs into different contracts or anything, was thinking more a phased opening of the full line. core first, extension every few years after

if P3 doesn't offer any financial advantages for that, then sure, do it with the same funding methods as the other lines
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1112  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 11:30 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Re the bolded part above:

People who care about safety and making sure all forms of transportation can move efficiently. I'm sure CP loves hearing such comments because it gives them justification for never working with the city, etc. to get rid of level crossings in areas where they should not be.

As for which city has the most grade separated track you're reading too much into one comment. The vast majority of people don't care as they know there are lots of other places that have systems with way longer stretches. What we should be caring about is a properly designed system which unfortunately we'll never get with the people running the city now.
I agree that there are good reasons not to have many grade crossings and I've been fairly vocal about my opinions on that. But being annoyed by a single crossing just because it will nullify an obscure stat of our system vs Ottawa's is not a good reason! I have however become more open to grade crossings when considering cost, in places where there is minimal impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Has there ever been any estimates done on how much it would cost to make our system fully automated and what the resultant savings would be? Is it the cost of getting rid of all of the at grade intersections or is there more to it?
As far as I can tell, all the technology is there now to have automated LRTs, even with uncontrolled road and pedestrian crossings. A driverless train is a far easier thing to make than a driverless car, just put some cameras and obstacle detection software in - what more do you need? Hopefully we just need one system to be the guinea pig and then the cost savings of not having to pay expensive, less competent (than machine) drivers will be obvious. The biggest obstacle will be unions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1113  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2016, 12:00 AM
CrossedTheTracks CrossedTheTracks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
besides, all the other lines have opened in stages.. does green line have to be any different?
Mmm, yes & no. When the South and NE lines were opened, they were pretty close to their respective edges of city. They were expanded as the city expanded.

More true for the NW line, it was definitely much shorter than the NW edge of the city in 1987.

(Edit: yes I know that Midnapore was there in 1980 and quite far away from Anderson... but it was pretty lonely out there...)
__________________
"Skyscraper, skyscraper, scrape me some sky..." - Dennis Lee

Last edited by CrossedTheTracks; Nov 11, 2016 at 1:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1114  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2016, 2:08 AM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
GEOTUS - MFWW
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Everywhere/Nowhere
Posts: 522
fair points, but I still think the best long term value will be going for quality of line vs. quantity/length

that said, if as Milo suggests aLRT can now be done with some low use grade crossings, then lets go for it

not sure if we could still get those awesome 90 second skytrain frequencies in that aLRT scenario though..

unions would likely present a roadblock to automation at first, but I look at is this way.. less drivers needed for trains, more drivers available to improve bus service
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure" - Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1115  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2016, 2:20 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
fair points, but I still think the best long term value will be going for quality of line vs. quantity/length

that said, if as Milo suggests aLRT can now be done with some low use grade crossings, then lets go for it

not sure if we could still get those awesome 90 second skytrain frequencies in that aLRT scenario though..

unions would likely present a roadblock to automation at first, but I look at is this way.. less drivers needed for trains, more drivers available to improve bus service
To be clear; I think the technology is there in different forms but it hasn't been tried in practice in an LRT (or maybe it has?) yet. The only additional feature needed above other automated transit systems is simply a way of detecting an obstacle in front of the train, especially a person, and if it sees, that, apply the brakes. Teslas etc can do this in a much more unpredictable environment, so a vehicle on rails should be easy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1116  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2016, 3:55 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad View Post
fair points, but I still think the best long term value will be going for quality of line vs. quantity/length

that said, if as Milo suggests aLRT can now be done with some low use grade crossings, then lets go for it

not sure if we could still get those awesome 90 second skytrain frequencies in that aLRT scenario though..

unions would likely present a roadblock to automation at first, but I look at is this way.. less drivers needed for trains, more drivers available to improve bus service
I totally agree that we should be going for a quality line over one that is long just for the sake of being long. When the masses wake up and realize what is proposed in the north they will be pissed. I'm hoping the NDP restricts or delays enough of the funding needed for this project until saner and smarter people take over the decision making.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1117  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2016, 11:55 PM
ClaytonA ClaytonA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
You don't have integrated operations, potentials for economy of scale. If the second phase is a different company, do you build a second maintenance facility and have half the operators work for a different company? Have incentives for the different companies to only follow low maintenance operations procedures only in their sectors?

It is possible, to be sure, it is just annoying and hard to administer, which is what you are trying to avoid in the first place. A fair amount of the profit comes from operational efficiency enable by better initial design. How do you design that in where the initial company would be the beneficiary, not the second phase company.

Otherwise you are just in a plain jane P3, dbfm. From that point may as well do the pretty traditional for Alberta design build, since the spread for profit isn't huge when the cities can borrow on the province's credit card.
What's the advantage of having the builder own the assets? Couldn't the City write a concessionaire type contract for the O part, and pay the contractor to meet service quality, maintenance, etc. standards? New phases' operation, even if constructed by others, could just be added to the concessionaire agreement. The builder still has the maintenance, construction quality incentive since they'd be maintaining what they build whether they own it or not.

If the city owns the assets, then for the new phases they'd just purchase the new LRVs themselves to match existing, and add them to the builder's fleet under the concessionaire contract. You could even have a clause where the builder accepts as a third party another builder's work in a new phase if their paying to maintain it etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1118  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2016, 2:59 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,016
oh yeah you can. But the whole objective is to simplify to reduce costs. And except for in Montreal there hasn't been any proposals for companies to retain ownership since the Nova Scotia school deal years ago (the province rightly thought they wouldn't need the schools after a certain number of years iirc).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1119  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2016, 2:22 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,581
If what you say is true about the inflexibility of P3s, then I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather the future choices we make on the building of new transit infrastructure be based on the needs of the city, rather than a contract we signed with a private company. There's been chatter about a future hypothetical 17th Ave SE LRT linking to the Green Line - would that be feasible with a P3 setup?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1120  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2016, 6:17 PM
UofC.engineer's Avatar
UofC.engineer UofC.engineer is offline
Laura Palmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Peaks, Calgary, AB
Posts: 1,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I totally agree that we should be going for a quality line over one that is long just for the sake of being long. When the masses wake up and realize what is proposed in the north they will be pissed. I'm hoping the NDP restricts or delays enough of the funding needed for this project until saner and smarter people take over the decision making.
What exactly is wrong with what is being proposed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 12:28 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.