Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Muta]

I'm of the opinion you do this properly from day one. You have one chance to do this, so make sure you pick the option that considers the future of Calgary transit, the convenience for future generations and the traffic infrastructure limitations that currently exist.

Underground is the option for me, no matter what the cost. This city is now too big, too populated and too busy now to use valuable at-grade property for transportation infrastructure. Minimize the impact to current at-grade traffic flows and by putting the train underground.

It may cost more, but in the end, it will be the best option. All major cities of our size (and larger ones) are doing this.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by SebC

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?

They should equip the pedestrian tunnel with a moving sidewalk (conveyor belt) type of system.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

They should equip the pedestrian tunnel with a moving sidewalk (conveyor belt) type of system.

The idea was to make walking an option for people who want to walk but have difficulty with the stairs. A conveyor belt defeats the purpose.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm of the opinion you do this properly from day one. You have one chance to do this, so make sure you pick the option that considers the future of Calgary transit, the convenience for future generations and the traffic infrastructure limitations that currently exist.

Underground is the option for me, no matter what the cost. This city is now too big, too populated and too busy now to use valuable at-grade property for transportation infrastructure. Minimize the impact to current at-grade traffic flows and by putting the train underground.

It may cost more, but in the end, it will be the best option. All major cities of our size (and larger ones) are doing this.

Calgary has a fairly unique set of challenges related to subsurface conditions which a lot of other cities do not have to deal with. We have a very soft and unstable subsurface which makes it difficult to maintain stability for tunnels and which is why deep foundations are necessary for our taller buildings. We also have a pretty shallow water table with above average hydraulic head (pressure.)

[getbak]

Originally Posted by 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.

I try to avoid that area during rush hour, but based on my own observation during non-peak times, traffic is significantly lighter north of 16th Ave than it is south of 16th, and lighter still north of 20th Ave. The fact that the lane reversals are only in effect south of 20th would also seem to bear that out.

Right now, during peak times, there are three lanes of traffic going in the heavy direction south of 20th Ave. If they run the Train across the Centre Street Bridge, there would only be able to be one narrow lane of traffic in each direction between 3rd Ave S and 9th Ave N.


Also, Centre Street is a bit wider north of 20th Ave. The buildings are usually a little further back from the street; most of the businesses have their own off-street parking; and there's usually a decent boulevard to buffer between the sidewalk and the street. If they need to widen the street a bit to better accommodate the train and vehicles, they have more options north of 20th.

[OutOfTheCube]

Ah yes, Prince's Island Park, that untouched wilderness by the core full of man-made fountains, paths, bridges, theatre stages, and restaurants. We must not defile this land with a C-train bridge.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Calgary has a fairly unique set of challenges related to subsurface conditions which a lot of other cities do not have to deal with. We have a very soft and unstable subsurface which makes it difficult to maintain stability for tunnels and which is why deep foundations are necessary for our taller buildings. We also have a pretty shallow water table with above average hydraulic head (pressure.)

But it's still possible, right? I mean, why would it be an option if the city's civil engineers didn't think it was a viable solution?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

This is something that I dislike about discussions involving Calgary's transit - the assumption that all trips are going Downtown, and that transit should only deal with downtown travel.

What if these people living in this neighbourhood want to go to the theater in Chinook, or shop in Inglewood, or Sunnyside, or if they want to take the train to go to the airport, what about that? I'm not suggesting build big, expensive lines just to satisfy those trips, but people using the 9th st station will certainly be going more places than just "downtown", and if it is not built, you may see less use of the train system as a whole outside of rush hour times.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Muta

But it's still possible, right? I mean, why would it be an option if the city's civil engineers didn't think it was a viable solution?

Of course it is possible and a viable option. Unit cost is likely considerable more than a similar project in a place like Toronto or New York which has a hard rock, stable substrate to tunnel through.

[Gaskal]

Today on the 20 South from Brentwood, the shocks were so bad that it was up & down constantly, and at one point the guy hit a speed bump going 40. Everyone caught some awesome air time.

I was amused. No one else was.

[#-3]

I think option D is an example of our city currently having a hard time telling the difference between nice to have and must have.

There is no way you should pay up to 100%. How about using that same money to invest in street cars connecting the beltline, servicing more people and getting more cars off the road.. or just spending an extra 500k better blending the bridge with the park/buildings around it so it does not become an eyesore.

Going under 16th is a must have, there is no way that digging a tunnel instead of building a bridge is a must have.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Knalus

This is something that I dislike about discussions involving Calgary's transit - the assumption that all trips are going Downtown, and that transit should only deal with downtown travel.

What if these people living in this neighbourhood want to go to the theater in Chinook, or shop in Inglewood, or Sunnyside, or if they want to take the train to go to the airport, what about that? I'm not suggesting build big, expensive lines just to satisfy those trips, but people using the 9th st station will certainly be going more places than just "downtown", and if it is not built, you may see less use of the train system as a whole outside of rush hour times.

It's not all trips that go downtown, but the largest number do. It does not behoove us to ignore that reality. Also, the arguments I'm making pertain specifically to short trips (which for 9th Ave means downtown most of the time), as if you're going to Chinook, the 7 block walk to 16th will not deter you from using transit. 9th Ave is basically equivalent to Sunnyside though, with a hill thrown in (where Sait = 16th Ave). I don't think Sunnyside is a superfluous station, so 9th Ave seems pretty sound.

============================

Originally Posted by #-3

I think option D is an example of our city currently having a hard time telling the difference between nice to have and must have.

There is no way you should pay up to 100%. How about using that same money to invest in street cars connecting the beltline, servicing more people and getting more cars off the road.. or just spending an extra 500k better blending the bridge with the park/buildings around it so it does not become an eyesore.

Going under 16th is a must have, there is no way that digging a tunnel instead of building a bridge is a must have.

And that may be the conclusion that's reached. But if you don't know what the options are, you can't know that. Including it in the study is how you find out what the extra cost above option B/C so you can decide whether or not it's worth it. That decision has not been made yet.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's not all trips that go downtown, but the largest number do. It does not behoove us to ignore that reality. Also, the arguments I'm making pertain specifically to short trips (which for 9th Ave means downtown most of the time), as if you're going to Chinook, the 7 block walk to 16th will not deter you from using transit. 9th Ave is basically equivalent to Sunnyside though, with a hill thrown in (where Sait = 16th Ave). I don't think Sunnyside is a superfluous station, so 9th Ave seems pretty sound.

============================

And that may be the conclusion that's reached. But if you don't know what the options are, you can't know that. Including it in the study is how you find out what the extra cost above option B/C so you can decide whether or not it's worth it. That decision has not been made yet.

I just hear people talking about how the deep tunnel is the only future proof option. And I disagree. There is nothing to say that the road network will function in the same way 50 years from now.

Deep Tunnel Stations can scar communities just as much as raise railway lines. Neither have to be a scar on the community if they are built properly and maintained.

The long term Maintenance cost of a deep tunnel will be much higher. Both Tunnels and Bridges require ongoing structural maintenance. But Tunnels are also a flood risk and need large vent systems.

I'm fine with the fact that they wanted to explore different ideas, but when the look at literally double the cost for limited benefit, it is time to consider what other good things could be done with that kind of extra money.

As I pointed out, if our options are getting the green line 20 years from now with Option D. Or getting the green line 15 years from now with one of the other options, then getting the 8th Ave Tunnel or inner city street cars connecting to the LRT network 20 years from now. I would take the latter.

[Wormius]

Keep the train away from traffic and pedestrians. If that's option D and it costs more, so be it. I don't see how an above ground solution doesn't affect traffic, since it would mean losing a lane for the supports, right?

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by SebC

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.

They are pretty well serviced (frequent articulated buses) as it's one of the busier routes IIRC.

I think there is a reason why the 301 just makes the one stop at 16th before going into downtown, no?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

They are pretty well serviced (frequent articulated buses) as it's one of the busier routes IIRC.

I think there is a reason why the 301 just makes the one stop at 16th before going into downtown, no?

Sure, but the context changes when we're talking about bus vs. train instead of bus vs. bus. The difference between the 3 and 301 is not much. The difference between the 3 and a train that connects to a transfer station downtown and then heads south to Quarry Park / Hospital etc. is far greater.

[Bigtime]

I'm also pushing for option D because in the event of some apocalyptic scenario the 9th avenue station will serve as a refuge for all us inner-city latte sippers that can get to it quickly while the rest of you on your 10 minute commutes to Airdrie are sacrificed in the hellfire/explosion/wrath of god etc.

I was looking over the reports yesterday that were before the committee, particularly the report from Stantec that described and showed the elevated system option. What I saw did not thrill me, you would end up with the equivalent of a concrete ceiling above the street 3-4 storeys up. That is a complete non-starter for me, sure you can argue that a lot of those sidewalks are already in shadow due to the skyscrapers, but that is not justification enough to putting up a barrier like that over your head.

So I am still pushing for option D for the project, but if that was to be a no go I'd have to pick B and have the tunnel through the core section before the bridge.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Keep the train away from traffic and pedestrians. If that's option D and it costs more, so be it. I don't see how an above ground solution doesn't affect traffic, since it would mean losing a lane for the supports, right?

Option B also keeps the train away from pedestrians and traffic. For $500M less.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Option B also keeps the train away from pedestrians and traffic. For $500M less.

What's the cost of disrupting traffic along the above ground route during construction. I can't imagine that Memorial Drive won't be affected during construction.

[ken0042]

Would it be any less disruptive than digging a tunnel underneath? I can see that being a bigger deal, having to get truck after truck there to haul away the dirt they pull out of the ground, having to get concrete trucks and staging built for the tunnel walls. Possible weight restrictions on the road while the tunnel is being dug.

With a bridge you have piers being built, and then beams put into place at night. Having seen SE Stoney being built, one single bridge wouldn't be that bad. Plus it would only be for a year or two.