Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
Also, with no tunnelling there, it saves money that can make the much needed expansion north occur much faster as a result since it would cost less to do so. After 16th ave, it was gonna be above ground by default anyway. So if keeping it above ground brings back 9th Ave on the table, and make extension occur quicker, above ground is the way to go since the train cars are made for this, rather than the current high floor LRVs.
|
It doesn't seem like money is the main holdup for the north extension, but rather land acquisition. I can't say I know very much about the process, but I don't see how getting shovels in the ground does anything to improve the process of land acquisition - if I owned a needed plot on the C St corridor, my price to sell is only going higher and higher.
Perhaps someone in the know can speak to if/how the city can force a party to sell at a price above market value, but if it's as
easy as that, why haven't they already done it?
My tinfoil hat says councillor(s) have a vested interest in the Shepherd Crossing development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I doubt that. You are going to have trains, probably with signal priority, coming from each direction every few minutes. Add in dedicated turn phases(you will need them with the limited traffic lanes N/S to avoid disaster) and 16th ave may get even less green priority. At least during rush hour. If that is at grade it's going to be really ugly.
|
If this goes ahead I think you have to consider killing left turns off 16th (probably off Centre, too). How the residents around the nearly perfect square ofL 4 St NW, 20 Ave, Ed Trail, and 12 Ave feel about that is another question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArcher101
How is this project funding still even being entertained? I really wanted this line as I live in the SE, but now I don't see how this line can be viable. We need to revisit if we need another downtown feeder during the next 10 years, and with massive government debts coming up, is this the best use of money? Are costs expected to decrease at all in the new economy we'll be heading into?
|
Infrastructure spending may be a great mechanism to ride out this storm, but it also shouldn't mean a blank cheque to build things that don't make sense. Projects that keep money circulating locally are obviously better than hiring outside firms. My gut says a higher proportion of building a SE BRT would stay local.
Articulated buses (125 passenger) cost $0.8-1M; each LRT train car (160 passenger) is $3-4M. Tracks and signalling devices - I'm guessing not local.
OPEX efficiencies are achieved if ridership is sufficient to justify 3 train cars. I'm skeptical it will even justify it during each peak rush hour (intentionally singular), let alone the other 22 hours of the day.
Two (or more) articulated buses in the place of each 3 car train may well be sufficient, with far more flexibility. Additional OPEX is mostly for drivers (local), maintenance (local), additional fuel/energy compared to train (somewhat local).