HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2101  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:32 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollerstud98 View Post
In that video houses all still there but road about 3 times as wide lol. I wish that this would have been finished in time for me to use the train during my apprenticeship. So much easier to jump on the train 15 minutes from my house and not have to worry about parking or anything like that.
I currently live near Tuxedo Park and work in Inglewood so it would be perfect for me, but I doubt that will be the case once it's done.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Development Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2102  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 10:00 PM
MrBigStuff MrBigStuff is offline
Urbanite by Choice
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
That'll create quite a mess on 4th Street NW and Edmonton Trail too. Underground to just past 64th would be best.
That sounds like the best idea - but maybe the costliest. What kind of materials - such as clay - rock - or sand would have to be tunnelled through to achieve this - once they start to tunnel north of 16 Ave.??? Is there a geologist in the house that could shed some light on this???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2103  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 4:36 PM
Chinook Arch's Avatar
Chinook Arch Chinook Arch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBigStuff View Post
That sounds like the best idea - but maybe the costliest. What kind of materials - such as clay - rock - or sand would have to be tunnelled through to achieve this - once they start to tunnel north of 16 Ave.??? Is there a geologist in the house that could shed some light on this???
But maybe the costliest? Ummm no shit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2104  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 8:52 PM
googspecial googspecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: YYC
Posts: 233
Not a geologist, more of a geo-enthusiast. Most of Calgary is gravel based due to the last ice age pushing up against the rockies and glacial deposit of sand and gravel creating our foothills. To build a tunnel under Centre, the easiest/cheapest way would be cut and cover. Keeps the line and stations shallow too. Likely the worst thing to come across while digging would be an erratic. Large, harder, heavier rock material that was brought back from the rockies with glacial retreat (eg Okotoks Big Rock). Excavators wouldn't be able to dig it up. This happened at a condo project in Mission a few years ago. They were excavating the underground parking and came across an erratic and had to blow it up, then dig it out because the jack-hammer equipment couldn't break the hard granite (I believe it was). Cool enough, they then planned to keep the rock for interior tiling in the lobby. Don't remember which project, or if that ended up still happening.

I agree that NC needs to be underground further than just 20/24 Ave. I think it could underground to just north of 44 Ave where there's that low point - surface and have a semi-surface station under McKnight à la 69 ST Station - then continue on the surface north of McKnight. This would bring the McKnight Station actually to McKnight instead of much further North at Northmount/58 Ave. Doesn't necessarily grade separate it under 64 Ave, however I don't know that it is needed there. Not saying it isn't, just saying I don't know. I'm about to move to that area, so I guess I will soon find out.

Last edited by googspecial; Jan 11, 2018 at 9:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2105  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 8:03 PM
ClaytonA ClaytonA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 454
Public Service message:

Link listing upcoming engagement Green Line LRT events:

https://engage.calgary.ca/greenline1/getinvolved
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2106  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 8:06 PM
ClaytonA ClaytonA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 454
Re above;

If tunnel bored, keep in mind that generally stations are cut and cover and remain open air during construction. Cut and cover can speed the entire project up by allowing a contractor to hit more of the project at once (as well as generally being cheaper to construct, operate/maintain). Cut and cover, while disruptive, if communicated to property owners and businesses early (i.e. in 4 years this will happen for x years) can be negotiated into leases, property values for sale, etc. Cut and cover is politically harder, and under-rated/used as a result. TBMs keep getting better and better though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2107  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 9:40 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 724
GM ride share to debut in 2019

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/
__________________
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
     
     
  #2108  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 10:51 PM
googspecial googspecial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: YYC
Posts: 233
That's actually a great argument for driverless trains on the greenline. The greatest & most affordable "ride share" is still and will still be mass transit. Again, like many here are saying, it just needs to be done right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2109  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 10:58 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by googspecial View Post
That's actually a great argument for driverless trains on the greenline. The greatest & most affordable "ride share" is still and will still be mass transit. Again, like many here are saying, it just needs to be done right.
Definitely. This is another contemporary lie that driverless vehicles will reduce congestion, which is nonsense - they will increase it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2110  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 11:29 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by googspecial View Post
That's actually a great argument for driverless trains on the greenline. The greatest & most affordable "ride share" is still and will still be mass transit. Again, like many here are saying, it just needs to be done right.
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2111  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 11:47 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,414
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.
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2112  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 11:55 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,962
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/
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.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Development Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2113  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 12:02 AM
PPAR's Avatar
PPAR PPAR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 523
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/
This comment could so easily have been written in 1955 if "autonomous car" was replaced with "flying car".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2114  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 1:00 AM
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: 8,293
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/
Yep, we should just stop building underground rail transit because autonomous cars are coming. That sounds like a great idea.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2115  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 1:27 AM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,877
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
     
     
  #2116  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 5:38 AM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
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
__________________
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
     
     
  #2117  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 6:12 AM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
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/
__________________
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
     
     
  #2118  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 8:53 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,711
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2119  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 9:27 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by PPAR View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
Self driving ride share vehicles [autonomous cars] 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.
This comment could so easily have been written in 1955 if "autonomous car" was replaced with "flying car".
LOL!!!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2120  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 3:23 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
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.
__________________
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
     
     
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 2:54 PM.

     

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