HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2121  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 12:42 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2122  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 1:39 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2123  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 2:11 AM
PPAR's Avatar
PPAR PPAR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2124  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 3:13 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by PPAR View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2125  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 6:47 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 104
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

Last edited by accord1999; Jan 14, 2018 at 7:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2126  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 7:01 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2127  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 5:27 PM
Deepstar's Avatar
Deepstar Deepstar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,168
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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/
__________________
City Centre Webcam
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2128  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 5:33 PM
Deepstar's Avatar
Deepstar Deepstar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,168
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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/
__________________
City Centre Webcam
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2129  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 6:16 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepstar View Post
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2130  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 6:26 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2131  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 10:59 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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).
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2132  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 12:24 AM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chemist View Post
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2133  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 3:32 AM
Chinook Arch's Avatar
Chinook Arch Chinook Arch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,458
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2134  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 4:03 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook Arch View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2135  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 4:23 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2136  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 6:34 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2137  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 7:08 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2138  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 7:28 PM
outoftheice outoftheice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 830
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2139  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 7:48 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by outoftheice View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2140  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2018, 11:12 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook Arch View Post
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.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
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 3:28 AM.

     

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