Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Hack&Lube]

What do you think would be the time-frame for the C-Train project? I would have to guess around 10 years or so.

By this time, the massive Eau Claire Market redevelopment would have also been built.

Having a station at that location would be the saving grace of the area and save it from the desolation that happened to the mall back in the 90s because people just couldn't get there conveniently.

I'm pretty damn excited by options B, C, and D because I have a huge stake in the area. Those plans also make the most sense because it puts a station the closest to the park.

[Robbob]

I am in the boat that it should be done right now so there isn't a issue 20 years down the road. The biggest mistake they made was not having the original line underground. Probably would be better for wear and tear and anytime you can limit the amount of potential car/c-train impact zones is a huge bonus. You would think that over the history of the LRT the amount they have paid because of c-train incidents/accidents (additional salary costs for managing and investigating said accidents, repairs, wear and tear from winter etc) that they might be getting close to that original sticker price that scared them away.

[temple5]

I wonder how many km's 500M builds. Everyone on here complains about 7th ave but 7th ave above ground is why we have the system we have. Look at Edmonton's system that went from the UofA to commonwealth for 30 years before it expanded because they decided to go underground first. Yes there are challenges with 7th ave now but thats only due to its high ridership numbers.

The construction required to burrow from 24th ave nw to go under the river and then emerge given the earlier maps of what is actually beneath downtown seems like it would be quite the engineering feat and would seem like that cost could easily increase given further study.

I like option B depending on where it crosses the bow and PI park. If it comes so far west at the Curling rink then I dont know. If it were to emerge from the North more east more inline or to the east of 2nd street then I think its probably the option that will win (depending on how loud the opposition is against a new bridge crossing).

Given the geography and the likely hood that 500M+ in savings means you could probably extend the train by close to 8km I think B is probably what works.

[Knalus]

Option B looks best to me.

My big issue - that station at 9th st looks to be functionally useless at 13 stories deep, and the station at 16 isn't much better at 9 stories deep. All the stations are too deep for ease of use. I've been to super deep stations in Paris, and New York, and they are really difficult to properly use. If it weren't for this reason, I would agree with many of you that the Option D looks best, but man, climbing 13 stories, or waiting for a packed, nasty public elevator just to use a station, that just doesn't seem compelling enough to avoid the "sanctity" of Princes' Island. Especially if you work it in, I could even see a station south of Prince's Island enhancing the use of the park.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Putting a ctrain bridge on Prince Island Park should be unacceptable, a non starter.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Putting a ctrain bridge on Prince Island Park should be unacceptable, a non starter.

I love Prince's Island, but a bridge cutting over the Eastern edge might be a reasonable compromise compared with options A and D. It is the least-used corner of the island, and I don't think that it is possible to build a bridge that both avoids the island and lines up with 2nd Street.

While option D does seem sexy, both the cost and the depth are kind of off-putting. Knalus brings up a good point - those stations North of the river would be insanely deep with option D. Stairs would be tricky for even the most ambitious commuter, so there would have to be a bunch long escalators. Not impossible, but impractical.

Does anyone know how many stories down Westbrook Station is, for comparison sake?

[Joborule]

Well it's either putting the train on street level at centre street which would be a disaster from day one, or paying double the total construction cost to get it underground, where the depth of the stations as Knalus mentioned doesn't make it all that ideal either.

I think option B is the best in both efficiency, as well cost. Prince's Island won't suffer because of C-Train passing over it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I love Prince's Island, but a bridge cutting over the Eastern edge might be a reasonable compromise compared with options A and D. It is the least-used corner of the island, and I don't think that it is possible to build a bridge that both avoids the island and lines up with 2nd Street.

While option D does seem sexy, both the cost and the depth are kind of off-putting. Knalus brings up a good point - those stations North of the river would be insanely deep with option D. Stairs would be tricky for even the most ambitious commuter, so there would have to be a bunch long escalators. Not impossible, but impractical.

Does anyone know how many stories down Westbrook Station is, for comparison sake?

This has probably been mentioned before but why does the plan include 2nd Street SW to 10th Ave? What about something east of the Centre street bridge like 1st Street or potentially build a bridge over the Bow, run the train at street level along Riverfront Ave and tunnel under East Village or something?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This has probably been mentioned before but why does the plan include 2nd Street SW to 10th Ave? What about something east of the Centre street bridge like 1st Street or potentially build a bridge over the Bow, run the train at street level along Riverfront Ave and tunnel under East Village or something?

What you are talking about is the Edmonton Trail plan, in essence. Honestly, I would prefer Edmonton Trail, but most people don't.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This has probably been mentioned before but why does the plan include 2nd Street SW to 10th Ave? What about something east of the Centre street bridge like 1st Street or potentially build a bridge over the Bow, run the train at street level along Riverfront Ave and tunnel under East Village or something?

Good question - I'd be curious to know why 2nd Street SW is the only one being considered. Even 1st Street SW could possibly work. That would solve the Prince's Island alignment issue if they were to go with a bridge option.

I can only imagine that "they" want to avoid putting it too far to the East because the majority of downtown is to the West of Centre, which would limit the need for connections onto an E/W line once downtown.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Knalus

What you are talking about is the Edmonton Trail plan, in essence. Honestly, I would prefer Edmonton Trail, but most people don't.

I preferred Edmonton Trail from the beginning and jumping over to Centre Street around 32 Ave or so.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I love Prince's Island, but a bridge cutting over the Eastern edge might be a reasonable compromise compared with options A and D. It is the least-used corner of the island, and I don't think that it is possible to build a bridge that both avoids the island and lines up with 2nd Street.

It might be the least-used by people, but it's also a wetlands habitat, which would be completely ruined (no hyperbole in that statement) by having a c-train bridge directly overtop of it. Sure, most of PIP would be largely unaffected, but it would ruin what is one of the single most unique things about the park.

[Knalus]

looking at google maps, there appears to be a gap in the buildings between 1st and 2nd, which could accommodate a train passing through it, to allow for plan "B", AND the vast majority of Princes Island Park, to be maintained - even the wetlands. If the train passes to the East of the apartments that is east of 2nd and Eau Claire, then angles across two parking lots to 2nd ave, it is possible to build a bridge that doesn't even need to have a pillar on Princes Island, and can pass between Princes Island and Center Street.

[tvp2003]

I'm curious about the proposed station at 9th Ave. Who is this intended to serve? There are no major transit connections here. The 16th Ave station is a mere 7 blocks away. Is there some sort of proposed development intended to make 9th Ave a new hub? Or is it just for the people that are too lazy to walk up the hill from downtown?

[SebC]

I'd like to see a traffic study for this. The question in my mind is: "How much more traffic is on Centre Street going accross the bridge compared to at 24th Ave?" Because if most of the traffic is going to be bottlenecked by lane reductions north of 16th anyways, then without doing a full cut-and-cover on C St there may not be much difference in terms of traffic impacts between option A and option D.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I'm curious about the proposed station at 9th Ave. Who is this intended to serve? There are no major transit connections here. The 16th Ave station is a mere 7 blocks away. Is there some sort of proposed development intended to make 9th Ave a new hub? Or is it just for the people that are too lazy to walk up the hill from downtown?

I'm assuming 9th Ave will primarily serve the students at Crescent Heights High School.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I'm curious about the proposed station at 9th Ave. Who is this intended to serve? There are no major transit connections here. The 16th Ave station is a mere 7 blocks away. Is there some sort of proposed development intended to make 9th Ave a new hub? Or is it just for the people that are too lazy to walk up the hill from downtown?

Many residents north of the river have a lifestyle that reduces the use of vehicles in the first place, my guess is that it would be primarily residents.

And as calgarygeologist says, the High school.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I'm curious about the proposed station at 9th Ave. Who is this intended to serve? There are no major transit connections here. The 16th Ave station is a mere 7 blocks away. Is there some sort of proposed development intended to make 9th Ave a new hub? Or is it just for the people that are too lazy to walk up the hill from downtown?

Lazy, or perhaps just tired, old, or unfit. It's well established that station spacing needs to be tighter around hills to make transit appealing. It's also quite well established that station spacing should get tighter closer to the core - because the perceived impact of a 10 minute walk to a station is far more when your destination is closer. Given both those factors, 9th Ave makes a ton of sense (though I'd rather see at a block south, at 8th).

Another thing that's occured to me is that if the station is going to be deep, i.e. option D, perhaps we could have it double as a means for people to get up and down the hill even if they're not taking transit. Could a pedestrian tunnel connect the bottom of the station with the bottom of the hill at a relatively low angle, and low marginal cost?

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Many residents north of the river have a lifestyle that reduces the use of vehicles in the first place, my guess is that it would be primarily residents.

And as calgarygeologist says, the High school.

I know the high school is nearby (I went there), but I can't see there being much demand for that outside of 8:30 am and 3:30 pm.

As for the people living in the area (i.e. prime residential land in Crescent Heights), I'm going to guess that the majority who either drive, walk, or bike downtown will continue to do so. Although a train would be faster, there is a reason why they're not taking the #3 bus down Centre Street.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Although a train would be faster, there is a reason why they're not taking the #3 bus down Centre Street.

I'd suspect that those busses may be full one stop away from downtown. Or perhaps they are taking them, but would be better served by a train.