Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhorse
So it sounds to me like the city painted themselves into a bit of a corner with these LF trains because of a misguided / obsolete vision, and now is now too stubborn or embarrassed to cut bait and change to a system that has more integration possibilities with the other lines.
|
How is lower station-related DBOM costs and better street-level integration misguided and obsolete?
Especially with respect to street-level integration, unless it's a fully grade-separated medium rail system like a "proper" subway or metro, using low floor light rail follows recommended urban design principles for large cities. People being able to get off on the street in close proximity to the all of the action (i.e. business activity, social events, etc.) is desirable for community building and place-making because it makes engagement between people, places, and things easier - e.g. you're a few feet away from things instead of a couple blocks and/or multiple vertical floors. This is the way it's done all over the world and this was the vision for Calgary because the line would be running through dense corridors such as Downtown, Center Street, and the (future) Ramsay/Victoria Park areas.
Also, LRVs are long lead items. These are custom-built vehicles that are not interchangeable with light rail transit systems in other cities (except for rare exceptions like the Calgary and Edmonton Siemens U2). Everything about an LRV is highly specialized based on the local infrastructure of the city...the pantographs, traction power systems, electrical system requirements, etc. The construction, delivery (from overseas because LRVs typically aren't manufactured in North America due to low demand), and local commissioning takes time.
The Green Line project needed 100 LRVs and had committed funding from three levels of government, which was ordered all at once to increase economies of scale and save costs. If anything, ordering high-floor LRVs that need to be compatible with both a new Green Line and with the older LRV infrastructure supporting the current Siemens SD 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 trains would be more costly for the City in all aspects.
Not to mention, imagine the backlash on the City if the LRVs were ordered late (without 3-5 years of lead time), but the actual first phase of the line was constructed for 2027-28 per the last plans (assuming minimal UCP interference) and LRVs weren't ready in time for line opening...