Option B is the best simply because stations 9 and 13 storeys deep are not feasible. How many flights of stairs/sets of escalators would be needed to move people there? So long as the bridge over the park has minimal impact, it is a solid solution.
Edmonton trail is an interesting idea if they want to really promote people moving to the East village, as the first downtown stop could be in that area. Is there a reason why Centre street is being used as the corridor over Edmonton trail? They could always bury it under Edmonton trail and then bring it to Centre street around 20-24th street
I like saving $500 million, and going with option B vs option D, but I don't like eating up a huge chunk of the east end of Princes Island Park.
Especially when the transition to underground would have to be right in the flood plain, and thus would likely require flood walls. It would have to be a big monstrosity, in such a prominent location. $500 million savings could do a lot in terms of doing other things to beautify and improve the area around it, but we would still have lost something, worth more than we think. Almost undoubtedly, the narrow south portion of the Bow river in between the island and downtown, would cease to exist - at the very least at the east end ofthe island when the LRT comes down to the ground. The wetland at the East end of island would likely be destroyed too.
Deep stations have been used elsewhere, and cities have made them work.
Again, I don't think option A makes sense. Even with the train line, there still will be numerous busses crossing Centre Street Bridge. I don't think you can sacrifice two lanes of the bridge for LRT, becasue I think that may force some extra lanes to have to be built somewhere else, eating up a big chunk of the savings. I think to make that option work as described, will involve eating up good property up in crescent heights to make the transitions between the roadway and the tunnels under 16th ave. This will be prime land right along centre street, and will mostly ruin the possibility of turning Centre Street into a nice high street.
Option C is in some ways less disruptive to princes island park than Option B, since at least the park could continue underneath the guideway. The elevated guideway would be terrible for 2nd Street SW though.
If we can figure out a way to afford it (and I think if we can afford the whole project, we can afford the $500 million extra), I think the option to go with is option D.
Deep stations have been used elsewhere, and cities have made them work.
I was in Seoul not too long ago and they have an immense subway system which has a number of multi level subway stations (due to multiple lines crossing at some stations) and they have a number of stations which are 20m underground and a couple that are over 40m underground. It is quite cool what they have done. There system and infrastructure is quite different though because they typically build below ground and above ground. They have a pretty intricate network of below ground tunnels and shopping areas and such. Their stations are also considerably longer than most places. Their subway stations can span 3 or 4 blocks in length and I think their trains are about 3 or 4 times the length of what our 4 cars trains will be.
Last edited by calgarygeologist; 02-19-2015 at 10:03 AM.
57 of the 64 stations in the St Petersburg Metro system are at depth of at least 50m.
Here's the escalator ride at one of the deep stations on the Washington Metro line (the longest single escalator in the Western Hemisphere):
That station is only 35m deep. It's not the deepest on the Washington system, but the deeper one only has elevator access.
Going 50m deep wouldn't be ideal, but it also wouldn't be unheard of. As already mentioned, they could also potentially have an exit from the station to the south that comes out around Samis Road, just north of the bridge. This would not only allow people to bypass the climb up the hill, it could also serve as an emergency exit for the station if the elevators ever broke down.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
57 of the 64 stations in the St Petersburg Metro system are at depth of at least 50m.
Here's the escalator ride at one of the deep stations on the Washington Metro line (the longest single escalator in the Western Hemisphere):
That station is only 35m deep. It's not the deepest on the Washington system, but the deeper one only has elevator access.
Going 50m deep wouldn't be ideal, but it also wouldn't be unheard of. As already mentioned, they could also potentially have an exit from the station to the south that comes out around Samis Road, just north of the bridge. This would not only allow people to bypass the climb up the hill, it could also serve as an emergency exit for the station if the elevators ever broke down.
So, are you arguing that, because it isn't the deepest station ever built (those stations were built as bomb shelters by the crazy soviets, btw), and the escalator ride would only be 5 full minutes long (it would take longer to climb the escalator than it would to stay on the train and go to the next station), and that a handful of other stations around the world have been built deeper for larger, higher volume full subway systems, that this means that we should build a super deep station on our little LRT system to service a tiny section of our future system?
Sounds crazy to me.
IF we go the crazy deep route - and I do think it's crazy - then we should drop the 9th st station all together, increase the grade to 6% as soon as you are out from under the river, and raise the depth of the 16th st station - cause that one also has a super deep escalator ride. Build the 16th st station as far south as is feasable to capture that portion of the city. I mean, for goodness sakes, if you are correct getback, it would take less time to walk from the edge of the hill to 16th than it would take to ride the escalator down that far and then take the train (google says 12 minute walk), and there would be almost no one in that capture area, as the edge of the hill cuts it to a very narrow triangle.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
I was in Seoul not too long ago and they have an immense subway system which has a number of multi level subway stations (due to multiple lines crossing at some stations) and they have a number of stations which are 20m underground and a couple that are over 40m underground. It is quite cool what they have done. There system and infrastructure is quite different though because they typically build below ground and above ground. They have a pretty intricate network of below ground tunnels and shopping areas and such. Their stations are also considerably longer than most places. Their subway stations can span 3 or 4 blocks in length and I think their trains are about 3 or 4 times the length of what our 4 cars trains will be.
I also bet that these stations were servicing downtown and other high density areas, not places like crescent heights.
I keep hearing about these deep stations, and my immediate thought is what a desolate, cold hole Westbrook station is. That place needs some art on the walls down there, backlit ads, something to brighten it up a bit.
I keep hearing about these deep stations, and my immediate thought is what a desolate, cold hole Westbrook station is. That place needs some art on the walls down there, backlit ads, something to brighten it up a bit.
Not if Peter Demong gets his way.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
Likely would be only high speed elevators, IMO, because you need elevators anyway, even if you put in Escalators.
I don't think elevators have enough throughput.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr. Mints
I keep hearing about these deep stations, and my immediate thought is what a desolate, cold hole Westbrook station is. That place needs some art on the walls down there, backlit ads, something to brighten it up a bit.
I, for one, find it much nicer than desolate, cold winter! It could certainly be warmer though.
You need escalators/stairs too even if you put in elevators. Pesky power outages...
There are a few stations in London where there are only elevators and emergency stairs.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
There are a few stations in London where there are only elevators and emergency stairs.
If a deep station were ever to happen in Calgary, my guess is that that's what we'd get here.
Escalators are expensive to run and maintain. You have to have elevators anyway, for strollers/wheelchairs, etc. The costs for taller and taller escalators is much more linear as elevation change increases, relative to Elevators. The cost of installing an elevator doesn't change a huge amount if it's a two stop elevator travelling 5 metres, or 50 metres. For a rough guess, let's say the cost double to increase an elevator from 5 to 50 metres of elevation change. An Escalator System would be more in the range of 8-10 times as expensive.
Remember, Calgary's newest LRT station has no escalators.
