Calgary Officially One Million??

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Why don't we just get one them fancy new monorails?

Hey, if it worked for Spingfield................

I heard once that the 36 street leg was supposed to be elevated, but it was going to cost too much, and the number was something ridiculously low by today's standards; something like $20 million or something.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I heard once that the 36 street leg was supposed to be elevated, but it was going to cost too much, and the number was something ridiculously low by today's standards; something like $20 million or something.

I suspect the 36th St. leg is the way it is because it was the cheapest to build, and there were no (or not enough) "influential" people in the affected neighbourhoods for city council to worry about .

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Why don't we just get one them fancy new monorails?

I heard it put Ogdenville and North Haberbrook on the map!

[V]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Nope, if I leave at 8:40 and I'm at the office by 9:00 at the absolute latest every day. If I leave at 9:30, I'm there by 9:45.

Ahhh, well, that makes a little more sense. All the cars are gone by then.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I heard it put Ogdenville and North Haberbrook on the map!

I call the big one "Bitey"

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't think people in Signal Hill are going to park their fancy SUVs and hot sports cars in the garage, to take the train downtown.

that part of Calgary has the highest proportion of downtown office workers. so...

Anyway, the C-Train is something we should be proud of as a city, even though it needs to be expanded further. Having 235 000 daily riders makes it one of the most successful systems in North America and rivals cities with simlar systems that have 3-4 times the population. Once the other three lines are built out it will have well over 500 000 daily boardings. Very substantial.

The reason transit expansion will be so important is that while the vast majority of our employment is projected to remain downtown, the amount of parking will only go up marginally. Also, the road capacity is pretty much finite downtown and in the inner city. We simly cannot carry that many more people into downtown via car. Emplyment centres outside the core have largely failed because oil and gas like to be clustered. Any employment outside downtown should be directed to employment and mixed use high density nodes right around transit stations.

Developing the land around transit stations for massive amounts of housing (for easy access to the core) and employment nodes is a key strategy that the City needs to take advantage of. This is my Masters of Planning Report topic right now.

Beyond that, I am surprised all anyone can talk about in regards to our population is the traffic/transportation. What about culturally in terms of what our size means for us. Streetlife, nightlife, arts, urban development etc. These are also important to our city.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I heard from a guy that works at city transit that there was a flaw in building the underground sections of the LRT downtown and that's why they don't use it. The water table is really high there and whenever a big flood of rain comes they fill up with water. There are pumps and all that installed to pump out the water but they abandoned the project because it was just becoming too much of an engineering burden. I guess they didn't get a proper geological assessment done, or it was done wrong (go figure, it's not like there aren't a few geologists in town). Underground systems might be more efficient in some ways but they are also more depressing and more of a haven for vagrants to congregate. Security is a lot better with our above ground system.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. You know how many cities currently have underground systems that not only go below the water table, but below rivers? I mean, NY, Paris, London, Berlin, Munich, Prague, just to name a few....

[MrMastodonFarm]

SidneysHat, I'm wondering if you ride a rickshaw instead of an automobile. I've heard you say some nutty things about traffic the last little while. Saying Edmonton traffic is good compared to Calgary, not understanding why highway 63 north to Fort McMurray was so dangerous etc.

Anyone driven in Kelowna though?

Worst planning ever when it comes to traffic.

[Resolute 14]

I have two words to say regarding Edmonton traffic: Yellowhead Trail.

Worst road in the province, by far. If you also want an experience, try to get into, and out of South Edmonton Common at about 5:00. Edmonton has traffic every bit as bad as Calgary, its just in different locations. Edmontonians are fortunate if the traffic into their downtown isnt as bad, however.

As far as Calgary's planning goes, That Future LRT map must be the "1000 year plan", because iirc, the SE leg isnt supposed to be complete for 30 years, nevermind the west and north legs. Not to mention that by the time that comes to pass, the routes will have to be extended into Cochrane, Airdrie, Strathmore and Okotoks, since the city will have expanded into those communities.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

As far as Calgary's planning goes, That Future LRT map must be the "1000 year plan", because iirc, the SE leg isnt supposed to be complete for 30 years, nevermind the west and north legs.

The funniest thing is I've seen house listings in Copperfield and McKenzie Towne advertising the house as being "walking distance from the LRT station soon to be completed."

I know the track right of way and the stations are marked, but it's more of a way of saying "we don't want to see any crying when this soccer field becomes a C Train station in 20 years."

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

That makes absolutely no sense to me. You know how many cities currently have underground systems that not only go below the water table, but below rivers? I mean, NY, Paris, London, Berlin, Munich, Prague, just to name a few....

I think the thing is that they built it not knowing that the water table rose that high. If it was done properly it would have been fine I think, they just didn't build it according to the geologic/water table conditions that exist underground downtown, and it would be too expensive to fix it.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I think the thing is that they built it not knowing that the water table rose that high. If it was done properly it would have been fine I think, they just didn't build it according to the geologic/water table conditions that exist underground downtown, and it would be too expensive to fix it.

When I was working on construction, it was explained to me that downtown Calgary is an underground river. This creates foundation problems for any large towers being built and makes an underground LRT pretty iffy.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When I was working on construction, it was explained to me that downtown Calgary is an underground river. This creates foundation problems for any large towers being built and makes an underground LRT pretty iffy.

I heard it described as a stream....but the 'tower foundation' thing is true. From what I understand, there is a residential tower on 6th that is currently having problem with just this issue.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

SidneysHat, I'm wondering if you ride a rickshaw instead of an automobile. I've heard you say some nutty things about traffic the last little while. Saying Edmonton traffic is good compared to Calgary, not understanding why highway 63 north to Fort McMurray was so dangerous etc.

Anyone driven in Kelowna though?

Worst planning ever when it comes to traffic.

Well, my only experience on Highway 63 was in the summer of 2000 and the traffic was very light. Cars must just avoid me as soon as I cross into the 780 area code.

I have talked to other people who reassure me that the highway needs to be twinned, and fast!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

Nope, if I leave at 8:40 and I'm at the office by 9:00 at the absolute latest every day. If I leave at 9:30, I'm there by 9:45.

I've never had any problems with the traffic circle, maybe they've changed the timing of the lights since you lived here?

EDIT: I should add, I haven't experienced Edmonton rush hour between 7 and 8, maybe it's much worse at that time. I HAVE experienced trying to get from Sundance to Deerfoot Mall at 7:30 a.m. many times. That was not a very fun trip to make and that was eight years ago!

Traffic at 7:30 is infinitely worse than traffic at 8:40, just as it is in Calgary. If I leave at 7:30 I could be looking at a 45 minute drive. If I leave at 8:40 I'm looking at about 20 minutes.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

When it's all said and done here, though, I really do like Tokyo. It's insane what people will get used to, really.

i hated the place when i was there ...

you want to talk about crowds of people, give Hong Kong a try. holy crazy amounts of people!

its like 7million people in a place half the size of Calgary ... not sure the exact ratio, but its NUTS.

[oilboy2]

[quote=Sidney Crosby's Hat]Well, my only experience on Highway 63 was in the summer of 2000 and the traffic was very light. Cars must just avoid me as soon as I cross into the 780 area code.

I have talked to other people who reassure me that the highway needs to be twinned, and fast! [/quote

with the exception of 2 days a week hiway 63 is a very quiet hiway. Yes it does need to be twinned but it is only because of large loads and idiot drivers. Hwy 881 that runs through lac la biche is being finished and that will take all trucks off 63. Bottom line is that every accident on 63 is caused by poor driving choices not the hiway itself

[FlamesAddiction]

Calgary is not nearly as bad as Vancouver as far as traffic goes. Mainly due to the city being built in a delta which causes a lot of bottlenecks at bridges.

I think the problem in Calgary is not so much traffic, but the fact that new communities keep being built further away from where people work. City planners really need to rethink things considering the growth rate of the city.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Just skimmed this thread a bit. Here's some random rumours I have about the C-trains. To my knowledge, there are talks of adding another C-Train line south of the existing line through downtown.

There were plans a long time ago about putting a train underground. In fact I believe the old City Hall had a system of underground tunnels that would house the trains. However the City eventually sold those tunnels for utility useage. I think if you go under the overpass on 8th ave at 3rd Street (I think? It's just under Christian Publications downtown), you can spot an access to the tunnels.

The plan for the line on the green is to use the existing CPR right-of-way up to Beddington Trail, but this is something I think the City is just batting around. No formal talks have occurred between the City an CPR yet. The long long term plan is to feed that green line to Airdrie. Also there is currently a functional planning study regarding the expansion of the SE leg (possibly connected to the plans of adding another line through downtown?).

As for City roads, that new East Freeway isn't coming in quickly enough!

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Actually, the reason for having the C Train above ground was a cost issue. The enormous cost associated with making the C train line completely subterranean was the breaking point. Take Edmonton's LRT line as an example of the cost. The C train line from Lions' Park through downtown and then south to Anderson station was built for the same cost of the entire underground section of the Edmonton LRT. That's roughly 4 stops on Edmonton's LRT vs. 14 stops (one way) on the C Train Line. The cost differential is staggering when you compare the two.

It makes sense, but I honestly believe they also had another good reason in building it above ground: To show it off.