Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
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.
|
Once again.... there is no imeditate need for a second tunnel to connect W / SE to the LRT network. As per below, it can be done cheaper, without a second tunnel, and as a bonus, doesn't take away any vehicles lanes into the core.
It also keeps it scalable, extending the tunnel along 104 av can still be done later without the same relative impact that the Jasper av tunel had.
Regarding your other comments, don't confuse my 'bus on rails' comment as a slag againt low floor tech, again it's the slow speeds, poor scalability and the robbing of vehicle lanes that earns valley line that moniker...
As for bulk buy power? well, we have low floor trains, so we're already comited to a growing fleet there. And as Calgary showed with the 7th Ave reboot, there's no reason why high floor trains can't have stations with great street integration. In theory don't think it really matters, but the tech choice was made long ago.
Maybe the price for 200 cars is the same, whether it's 200 high floor, or 100 of each? But there's a reason why WestJet flies a common plane, why IT admins prefer like equipment, even why most offices have the same phone on every desk. It provides consistency for users, cuts down maintenance training costs, and doesn't duplicate parts inventory.
Prev
Linear Mode
