Posted Feb 26, 2014, 5:39 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 607
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by technomad
Because not only will we need new cars for new lines, more cars will also be needed for expansion on exisiting lines, and replacing older retired vehicles. And I think it would be ill advised for Calgary to mix fleets for the same reasons. This doesn't appear to address the question. Any new line will require new cars. You argued that switching to low floor would reduce bulk buying power. I questioned how that was the case if, as I would expect, we go with Siemens low floor vehicles, which would suggest we would still receive bulk discounts across our entire system.
I don't have a beef with low floor tech, I just don't think it matters when making cross town lines that should be speed and distance focused. And since we already have a high floor system... why change? Speed of transit is not the only consideration; you also have to serve the population. The city has clearly stated the goals of LRT, including speed, population served, and redevelopment opportunities. You can disagree with those goals, but choosing them was hardly irrational or unreasonable, and you could always vote against those that agreed with them.
Your previous statements indicated that low floor tech was somehow a/the problem on the new routes. As the Valley Line is not interacting with the current line, it allows a change of rolling stock if that makes sense. The city obviously felt that the lower infrastructure costs/reduced physical barriers associated with low floor stations was worth changing technologies. It seems Calgary agrees, and most, if not all, new LRT systems over the last two decades have went low floor. You clearly disagree with that consensus, but that doesn't make the city's choice irrational or unreasoned.
What really makes Valley line a streetcar/LRT/failure is the amount of road lanes the downtown and west end routes take away. There is already an access problem into the core, the very last thing any infrastructure project should do is make that worse. Not if you want the city centre to grow...
And it does so needlessly!! 87 Av doesn't have that impact at all, while being cheaper and leveraging value from our existing tunel investment. At last we get to the heart of your problems with the valley line: it connects into a wLRT route selection that you disagree with in principle. Rehashing the 87ave vs. spr route debate is pointless. C2E has flogged this horse death, buried the horse, dug it back up, reanimated it frankenstein style, and flogged it to death again. I would suggest heading over to C2E if you want to have at it again. I see merits/problems to 87 ave (integration, speed for WE to U/lack of service to dense west-central communites). I also see merits/problems to spr (service to dense west-central communites/slower service for WE to U). Both work, so lets move on the one chosen.
As for the second tunel and the 'we can bury it later plan', from what I recall cut and cover cost about half of what bored tunneling costs, add in construction inflation and it's doing it later that is cost prohibitive, not doing it now. Especialy not if we ensure we can get another 2 for 1 deal on the tunel  |
If the cost of tunnelling now is that we do not get a line funded for a decade or more, or it delays full buildout of the south and west lines, then I would argue that tunnelling now is cost prohibitive (i.e., you have to include the opportunity costs of tunnelling, not just the financial costs). To me, the additional delay that would come from demanding a tunnel, is not worth the cost of quicker LRT expansion across the City; it seems council agrees and many voters agree. I also think Calgary's experience on its initial line supports that view.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
