Calgary Public Transit II

[milomilo]

I expect things will be much the same, anybody expecting miracles will be disappointed. We all like to pride ourselves on such a successful LRT system, but it was all built under the former provincial government.

And if I'm wrong - great!

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, it isn't like there is a money tree, or in The Onion sense, a money hole.

[Socguy]

No, there's not a money tree but there is priorities in how the government spends money. Under the old regime untold millions were parceled out to Conservative voters and their pet projects in the rural areas of the Provence.

Considering that the NDP rode to power largely on the strength of the urban vote and considering that the priorities of that vote are changing in favor of things like transit (woefully underfunded by previous administrations), it would not surprise me to see a renewed commitment from the Provence to those priorities.

[shogged]

Originally Posted by Socguy

No, there's not a money tree but there is priorities in how the government spends money. Under the old regime untold millions were parceled out to Conservative voters and their pet projects in the rural areas of the Provence.

Considering that the NDP rode to power largely on the strength of the urban vote and considering that the priorities of that vote are changing in favor of things like transit (woefully underfunded by previous administrations), it would not surprise me to see a renewed commitment from the Provence to those priorities.

Great example of this is the hospital in Swan Hills. Town has a population of less than 2k and was built a MASSIVE hospital in exchange for the chemical dump site they put nearby. Today, the hospital barely has one doctor, the former operating room (lol!) is a bedroom for the makeshift EMS bay, and the vast majority of beds sit empty day after day. The busiest part of the hospital remains the private dental clinic that took over the space formerly used by the physio clinic. Best part, the road to the hospital named after Ken Kowalski who was the health minister and MLA for the area at the time of the deal

[MalcolmTucker]

I have been in the room when the NDP opposed cutting funding for rural roads (like the bridges and culvert program) and rural hospitals.

It isn't like the NDP will close the hospital and sell the building. Gotta find things with real savings to direct money elsewhere. They are already counting on about $250 million in redirected savings to pay for other things like Education and PSE.

[lubicon]

Will be interesting to see how the proposed federal infrastructure spending (based on P3 funding of projects) jives with the NDP's likely reluctance to go P3 for anything. Those two funding models do not seem compatable.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Will be interesting to see how the proposed federal infrastructure spending (based on P3 funding of projects) jives with the NDP's likely reluctance to go P3 for anything. Those two funding models do not seem compatable.

Forgive my ignorance, why would any government be against P3 funding for infrastructure programs? What are the usual pro's and con's of a P3 funding model? Seems legit to me.

http://www.p3canada.ca/about-p3s/frequently-asked-questions/

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, profit = bad, so it must cost more, because of either cutting corners, lower standards, or other bad reasons, not because of value engineering, more efficient all in one contracting avoiding change orders and scope creep, or making long term choices to optimize capital cost versus maintenance cost.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, profit = bad, so it must cost more, because of either cutting corners, lower standards, or other bad reasons, not because of value engineering, more efficient all in one contracting avoiding change orders and scope creep, or making long term choices to optimize capital cost versus maintenance cost.

There have been some very successful P3 projects, and some bad P3 projects. It's not a blanket success story.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Of course! The big dig was the model of bad!

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ Of course! The big dig was the model of bad!

Are you suggesting this to be the only one? I do notice that you seem to be a rather big proponent. I'll comment only in the realm of transportation. Here the success and economic efficiencies (especially if looking beyond project costs alone) of P3s is very mixed. I'd be hesitant to proclaim them as a mechanism that is cost effective and promoting them as something jurisdictions should always be considering...

[mwalker_mw]

Originally Posted by J-D

There have been some very successful P3 projects, and some bad P3 projects. It's not a blanket success story.

There have been some VERY, VERY bad P3 projects as well. Just complete, utter crap.

P3 only works if the initial specification and requirements are airtight, otherwise you end up with a slum-lord overseeing a poorly assembled cardboard box.

Not to mention the importance of having someone with a clue oversee deficiencies and final sign off - seems to be the current standard is 'if it looks like the building is there - check-mark - done!'.... aesthetics, finishes and functional building systems be damned.

[J-D]

Anyone in the know on the status of the new C-Trains that were ordered for 4 car trains? Wondering if the late 2015 - mid 2016 timeline is still considered accurate.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by J-D

Anyone in the know on the status of the new C-Trains that were ordered for 4 car trains? Wondering if the late 2015 - mid 2016 timeline is still considered accurate.

The first of the new LRVs arrive late October of early November. 4 car trains start running officially in late December.

[UofC.engineer]

Looks like the Lynwood/Millican station has moved to the bottom of the hill. The new alignment adds another grade crossing at Millican road. I prefer the old alignment better.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/...line/green-line-ogden-revised-routes.pdf

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Looks like the Lynwood/Millican station has moved to the bottom of the hill. The new alignment adds another grade crossing at Millican road. I prefer the old alignment better.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/...line/green-line-ogden-revised-routes.pdf

It was always at the bottom of the hill, the station just moved towards Millican Road.

I hope that whoever wrote that the proposed mass transit station "would provide access to the baseball diamonds at Pop Davies Park" is on suicide watch. Sure, there's billions of dollars being spent, but we are providing mass transit access to three rec league baseball diamonds now! All we need for this to truly be justified as a station is a change to the rules of baseball so that each team fields 2500 people.

[UofC.engineer]

Also noteworthy, the city has created a new page on their website dedicated to the SW BRT.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Transit-projects/Southwest-Transitway.aspx

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It was always at the bottom of the hill, the station just moved towards Millican Road.

I hope that whoever wrote that the proposed mass transit station "would provide access to the baseball diamonds at Pop Davies Park" is on suicide watch. Sure, there's billions of dollars being spent, but we are providing mass transit access to three rec league baseball diamonds now! All we need for this to truly be justified as a station is a change to the rules of baseball so that each team fields 2500 people.

Using the fields as part of the justification for that station, leaves me scratching my head.

What I really don't get is why is the station shown ~400ft long (assuming the bus shown is ~40ft long)? I get that we are building for upgradability, but it's likely that the concrete will need complete replacement before the demand necessitates LRT. This happened in a way to some of the current LRT platforms where significant lifecycle driven deck work had to be completed around the time the four car extensions were being done. If you do anything put in the foundations and conduit for underground utilities and leave them caped below grade, like they did with the foundations for the platform extensions.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Using the fields as part of the justification for that station, leaves me scratching my head.

What I really don't get is why is the station shown ~400ft long (assuming the bus shown is ~40ft long)? I get that we are building for upgradability, but it's likely that the concrete will need complete replacement before the demand necessitates LRT. This happened in a way to some of the current LRT platforms where significant lifecycle driven deck work had to be completed around the time the four car extensions were being done. If you do anything put in the foundations and conduit for underground utilities and leave them caped below grade, like they did with the foundations for the platform extensions.[/IMG]

Are they doing this so that if somehow they magically get a ton of money from the Provincial/Federal governments, they can get on with the LRT upgrade as soon as possible?

Also, I hope a whole bunch of the single detached homes around that station get gobbled up by a developer to introduce more density around the station.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Also noteworthy, the city has created a new page on their website dedicated to the SW BRT.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Transit-projects/Southwest-Transitway.aspx

So let me get this straight....a transitway, according to the above link, is " a road or lane system dedicated exclusively to transit service.", yet the only dedicated lanes envisioned, according to the map in the link, are from Crowchild/Glenmore to Southland/14th. Why mixed traffic along the rest of the route? That would be more BRT than transitway, no?