Calgary Public Transit Discussion Thread

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by speedog
Since when? 100 years ago they didn't compact anything - they just created a railroad bed by scraping up a bit of soil from the surrounding area to elevate the rail bed just a bit before putting down some aggregate, ties and rails. Certainly, the CPR did not waste their time compacting anything adjacent to the working rails because it was a waste of their time and money and if one looks hard enough, the south LRT follows along side of the CPR right of way, but certainly is not on top of any previously compacted rail bed as most of the original line going south out of Calgary was single track.

You're quoting the guy who thinks humans can't build underground tunnels for mass transit near water, we'd all ask for you to stop doing so.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by speedog
Since when? 100 years ago they didn't compact anything - they just created a railroad bed by scraping up a bit of soil from the surrounding area to elevate the rail bed just a bit before putting down some aggregate, ties and rails. Certainly, the CPR did not waste their time compacting anything adjacent to the working rails because it was a waste of their time and money and if one looks hard enough, the south LRT follows along side of the CPR right of way, but certainly is not on top of any previously compacted rail bed as most of the original line going south out of Calgary was single track.

I'm pretty sure, that they simply used a train-engine with roller wheels instead of thin rail wheels. They could be loaded with even more weight on top than a standard rail engine, as the roller can take much more weight and they are not towing any railcars.

When rail sections were finished, they re-fitted them with standard rail wheels, and of course took off the weights.

But they did supposedly do a very wide path with them, to make sure the surrounding soil would not collapse.

A standard railcar, might be 35 tons or so (up to 43 tons I think), and they are sometimes chained 100 long.

Ctrain is exact same weight per car:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/t...formation.html

But they chain only three, which does not put anywhere near as much stress as one that is 100 long. Light transit C-train lines can be built to much more lax specifications becase there is so little stress with only three cars. Still, its not cheap by any means.

Details are very sketchy from that era, But I would tend to believe a 150 ton modified solid roller engine would have compacted the area before the lines were laid.

And to add: I don't think the C-train lines were pre-compacted (too much underground infrastructure at time of construction). Thats probably why they are so wobbly, lol.

[Maxt]

Calgary transit seems to have a one track mind, no pun intended.
It never goes beyond providing just straight transit service, and why ridership is mainly only peak worker moving time period based.
In other major cities that I have used transit in, the stations are integrated into major department stores, or the stations themselves are underground shopping malls, owned and maintained by the transit system. In some the central station has so much shopping and restaurants, the station itself draws ridership, and the lines run at somewhat full ridership all the time, instead of just being packed for the worker transportation.
This would make sense to do in Calgary, giving our dismal climate for 6 months or so out of the year.
The minds at CT put the station always a good walk from the infrastructure, when really it should be intertwined right within it.. Like the stampede station, why doesn't it deliver people to within a conditioned concourse to the stampede/saddledome?. Another is Mcmahon, how about downtown, build the damn stations into the bases of the buildings.
I suppose the argument could be said if thats done, its hard to make adjustments to the train infrastructure down the road, but really, they should be building in 50 year mindsets, not 15-20-25.
Some stations in other cities I have used were built in the 50's and were constructed in size and manner to incorporate growth of not only that line, but lines over top of it. Calgary just seems to not anticipate its growth well, even when the economic writing is on the wall.

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by KrisYYC
frinkprof have you heard anything about the start up dates of the new bus routes to/from the airport?

Well the express bus to McKnight-Westwinds Station is supposed to start immediately after Barlow Trail to the airport closes, slated for April 3rd, 2011. The 310 route to/from downtown via Centre Street and 96th Avenue is slated to start in 2012, sometime after the 96th Avenue extension is done.

I actually have this on the first page information too, along with maps. Here's the 2012 airport service map:

[ZenOps]

Also of note: The C-train funds clean energy, wind power.

http://www.welwind.com/ir-news_releases_120908.php

Now normally I would say that $400 million for 200MW of power is on the expensive side, especially considering we are in the middle of coal country, and could probably simply plunk down another coal plant for 1/10th the cost...

But, diversification is never a bad thing. And I don't like sulphur rain.

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by flipstah
Is it still costly to use the undergound city tunnels?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but if you're referring to any existing underground LRT infrastructure, it is quite limited. All that currently exists is a partial station under City Hall. The bulk of the 8th Avenue Subway, and the entire SE LRT subway would have to be newly constructed. There have been some provisions made by moving some utilities over the years, but that's about it. We'll know more about costs when the (much delayed) subway study comes out with its findings.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maxt
Calgary transit seems to have a one track mind, no pun intended.
...

With a lot of those stations, particularly in Europe, they were build into existing train stations (in London with Victoria, Paddington, Waterloo etc.; Paris with the Est, Nord and such or Munich with the Hautbanhoff) which were essentially built like airports are today. If Calgary had a giant early 1900s train station downtown its a safe bet that it would be similar to things you see elsewhere. When you play catchup with a transit system, it becomes increasingly utilitarian, but back in the days when they were laying the first railways and subways mass transit was seen as much as a luxury as it was a way to transport as many people from point A to point B as possible.

While some have of course been built later in modern cities, its more the exception than the rule. As I recall Westbrook station was supposed to be part of something big (in addition to the mall). But Calgary is handicapped in the sense that the main line is above ground. Not only does that prevent you from building anything on top, you can't incorporate it into anything either. The fact the only areas where tracks can be used aren't in major attraction type settings also takes a large share of the blame.

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Waste of money to expand rail right now.

As opposed to when or to what?

Originally posted by ZenOps
The money is being spent on expanding the stations so that a 4th car can be used. This will potentially alleviate congestion maybe 15% (no not 25%, as logical as that might sound)

33% is the figure that might sound logical. The existing maximum train length is 3 LRVs. Extending that by 1 LRV is a theoretical increase of a third, or ~33%. I agree that the actual realized increase won't be a full third, but it will probably be pretty close to that in full 4 LRV operation.

Originally posted by ZenOps
For the future: The south leg is much cheaper to expand than the other legs because it parallels the railway tracks laid over a hundred years ago. The ground has already been compacted, surveyed, and working for traincars that are easily 20x the weight of the LRT (meaning little extra cost other than the actual laying of the track)

All of the future extensions of current lines (northeast, west, northwest, and south) have reserved right of way and reserved space for station locations. The only phase of construction that the supposedly packed right of way might help with is earthworks. If that's the case, and all other things being equal, it might end up being 5% cheaper.

Originally posted by ZenOps
$1.4 billion is a high number for one station and section of track

I agree. Where are you getting these numbers from though? There is no report of any project of this sort for this amount of money.

Originally posted by ZenOps
$600 million is a better number for the South. A north section might be more like $750 million.

I'm really not sure what exactly you're referring to here, especially with the lead-in with the questionable $1.4 Billion figure as a comparison. However, the south LRT extension to 210th Avenue, if that is what you are referring to won't cost anywhere near $600M in 2011 dollars. As a comparable, the northeast extension to Saddletown, which also includes 2 staitons, is budgeted at ~$84M.

I also don't know exactly what you're referring to as "a north section," but if you're referring to the north central line, the entire line all the way to Stoney Trail, even using the Nose Creek corridor, will likely be more than $750M in 2011 dollars.

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by shynepho
For anyone that cares, what do you guys think of the Westwinds LRT station?

I think thats got to be the worst station in the world. Design/construction everything about it. I'm guessing Martindale and Saddleridge will be even worse.

Not my favourite for sure. I don't think it functions particularly well as the terminus station, and I think Saddletown station will work better for that. Access to and from the platform is a little strange in my opinion with McKnight-Westwinds. The walk to/from the bus loop and park and ride area is unnecessarily long and I think it could have been better thought out. I wouldn't call it absolutely terrible though.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by kertejud2


With a lot of those stations, particularly in Europe, they were build into existing train stations (in London with Victoria, Paddington, Waterloo etc.; Paris with the Est, Nord and such or Munich with the Hautbanhoff) which were essentially built like airports are today. If Calgary had a giant early 1900s train station downtown its a safe bet that it would be similar to things you see elsewhere. When you play catchup with a transit system, it becomes increasingly utilitarian, but back in the days when they were laying the first railways and subways mass transit was seen as much as a luxury as it was a way to transport as many people from point A to point B as possible.

While some have of course been built later in modern cities, its more the exception than the rule. As I recall Westbrook station was supposed to be part of something big (in addition to the mall). But Calgary is handicapped in the sense that the main line is above ground. Not only does that prevent you from building anything on top, you can't incorporate it into anything either. The fact the only areas where tracks can be used aren't in major attraction type settings also takes a large share of the blame.

I agree with most of that. However lets look at the stampede station in particular, that is one where it would have made a lot more sense to integrate into as you call them, attractions. What makes little sense is why they didn't do everything possible to keep it underground for a few hundred meters more and totally avoid the level crossing at Mcleod and cemetery hill . That whole stretch is just a perfect example of poor/short term planning somewhat typical of Calgary it seems. One has to realize that being that our transit system is such a recent development, there is little excuse for not looking at older cities as a guide on how it should be done in the first place. I have observed some above ground integration in other systems, I cannot see CT pulling off that level of sophisticated engineering and making it last.
Many of the original lines in foreign cities, I have noted are very deep underground, like 80-100 feet, leaving room for many levels of trains overtop. Someone had their thinking caps on there 50 years ago, even with bullet train expansion, they still havent reached the surface at some stations.

Edit : BTW Calgary did have a major downtown train station for quite some time,it was last cut by VIA.

[J-D]

^ (to frinkprofs post a bit up)

Maximum PRACTICAL single direction capacity at design capacity of 162 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train (present) 14,580
4-car train (future) 19,440

Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720

These are both allotting for the 33% figure, I'm not sure how that will play out in actuality.

I'm curious if there will be any traffic hindrances with four-car trains. For example, are there any instances in which a train will be unable to cross an intersection while another train is waiting there because of the added length?

[l/l/rX]

Donno if this has been mentioned or not already, but what do you guys think of the new trains?! They're soo spacious i love them! reminds me of asia.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maxt

I agree with most of that. However lets look at the stampede station in particular, that is one where it would have made a lot more sense to integrate into as you call them, attractions. What makes little sense is why they didn't do everything possible to keep it underground for a few hundred meters more and totally avoid the level crossing at Mcleod and cemetery hill .

Yeah that is definitely a stupid intersection that didn't need to be that way. As I recall there are plans to have that whole stretch underground but there are so many factors, part of which was whether or not a new arena for the Flames would be there, in which case the Erlton and Vic Park Stations would be eliminated and a single 'Stampede' station at the bottom of the arena complex would exist. As far as I know the arena wont be there anymore but the plans for a full underground without it still exist.

A lot could be done with a Stampede Station, but the economics nor political (or social) will is there sadly.

That whole stretch is just a perfect example of poor/short term planning somewhat typical of Calgary it seems. One has to realize that being that our transit system is such a recent development, there is little excuse for not looking at older cities as a guide on how it should be done in the first place. I have observed some above ground integration in other systems, I cannot see CT pulling off that level of sophisticated engineering and making it last.

They were plagued by cost and time. I think if it was economically feasible Calgary would have a Paris-like system with stops all over the place. Instead the budget only allowed for a half-assing a plan that was already kind of shitty.

Many of the original lines in foreign cities, I have noted are very deep underground, like 80-100 feet, leaving room for many levels of trains overtop. Someone had their thinking caps on there 50 years ago, even with bullet train expansion, they still havent reached the surface at some stations.

Back then the costs allowed them to think "how can we do this right" instead of "how can we do this". They built deep to avoid the noise and realized later what it allowed them to do. Its easy to forget just how deep you're going in some of these stations, but sadly no city in North America will see anything like it.

Edit : BTW Calgary did have a major downtown train station for quite some time,it was last cut by VIA.

Well I'll be damned.

[frinkprof]

Sorry, had to break up your post into some paragraphs first for my own benefit.

Originally posted by Maxt
Calgary transit seems to have a one track mind, no pun intended.

It never goes beyond providing just straight transit service, and why ridership is mainly only peak worker moving time period based.

In other major cities that I have used transit in, the
stations are integrated into major department stores, or the stations themselves are underground shopping malls, owned and maintained by the transit system. In some the central station has so much shopping and restaurants, the station itself draws ridership, and the lines run at somewhat full ridership all the time, instead of just being packed for the worker transportation.

This would make sense to do in Calgary, giving our dismal climate for 6 months or so out of the year.

The minds at CT put the station always a good walk from the infrastructure, when really it should be intertwined right within it.. Like the stampede station, why doesn't it deliver people to within a conditioned concourse to the stampede/saddledome?. Another is Mcmahon, how about downtown, build the damn stations into the bases of the buildings.

I suppose the argument could be said if thats done, its hard to make adjustments to the train infrastructure down the road, but really, they should be building in 50 year mindsets, not 15-20-25.

Some stations in other cities I have used were built in the 50's and were constructed in size and manner to incorporate growth of not only that line, but lines over top of it. Calgary just seems to not anticipate its growth well, even when the economic writing is on the wall.

This isn't far off the mark in the sense that it highlights the necessary and oft-neglected (in North America at least) link between land use and transportation. Thus, the discrepancy is as much a fault of land use planning as transportation planning. The two need to be linked and consider the other much more than they have. This is of course in addition to the issues brought up above by kertejud2.

On the assumption that the "other cities" you are referring to may include London, New York, Chicago, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, and the like, it is important to mention a couple of things:

1. Calgary metro has just over 1 million people. Most cities that have well-developed rail transit systems are at least double or more the size of Calgary. Seoul is about 20 times the size. This is important because the higher populations necessitate an appropriately higher scale of infrastructure capacity and development. Further, the more populous cities have access to a higher scale of funding and resources than is available to Calgary.

2. Calgary's first rail infrastructure has been in place just shy of 30 years. The other cities I mention above, and those categorically similar, have been big cities for decades or even centuries longer than Calgary has, and also had the benefit of being large cities when constructing rail transit infrastructure cost a fraction of what it does now (even accounting for inflation). This was due to much cheaper labour, materials, and lower construction standards (little environmental considerations, quality assurance, etc.).

All that said, the sort of link between stations and amenities (what I assume you mean when you say "infrastructure") is a matter of time in some cases. There are plans for transit-oriented development nodes at many stations including Brentwood, Chinook and Westbrook (which kertejud2 refers to). The 8th Avenue Subway will do a better job of this when it is built, and even the 7th Avenue refurbishment has seen the integration of shops/amenities and stations, particularly with the Core shopping centre and the new 3rd Street West Station.

Since kertejud2 mentioned it, here is a rendering of the Westbrook Station, which will have its entrance built directly into a 4 storey mixed use building with retail and office.

Originally posted by Maxt
Calgary just seems to not anticipate its growth well, even when the economic writing is on the wall.

Absolutely. To be fair, this goes well beyond just transit though. Calgary's boom/bust economy and unprecedented growth is poorly anticipated when it comes to almost everything. People over-extend themselves and get financially ruined, companies make layoffs then hire the same people back a year later, look at all the stalled condo projects and half-built houses, etc.

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by J-D
^ (to frinkprofs post a bit up)

Maximum PRACTICAL single direction capacity at design capacity of 162 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train (present) 14,580
4-car train (future) 19,440

Maximum THEORETICAL single direction capacity (pass./hr/dir) at 256 pass./car and 2 min. headway:
3-car train 23,040
4-car train 30,720

These are both allotting for the 33% figure, I'm not sure how that will play out in actuality.

I'm curious if there will be any traffic hindrances with four-car trains. For example, are there any instances in which a train will be unable to cross an intersection while another train is waiting there because of the added length?

Not sure where you got those numbers from. I'd be interested in seeing the source.

Regarding traffic hinderances, the 7th Avenue refurbishment project has attempted to take these into account. Some stations were moved and rebuilt a block one direction or the other. For instance, both 8th and 7th Street West stations were moved a block to the east. This was done for one of two reasons:

1. The original station location was on a block that couldn't fit a 4 car platform (this was the case for 8th Street West)

2. To get a better configuration of stations relative to traffic lights, other stations, and the switches at either end of 7th Avenue to avoid potential train traffic backups as much as possible.

There will be a few hiccups every now and then to be sure, but the new configuration along 7th Avenue is supposed to be better for 4 LRV train operation.

Outside 7th Avenue, I can't envision where the 4th LRV will create additional issues.

[Canmorite]

The west LRT STILL has at-ground crossings? Come on

The crossing at Macleod/25th avenue is TERRIBLE. Why build more of these?

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by Canmorite
The west LRT STILL has at-ground crossings? Come on

The crossing at Macleod/25th avenue is TERRIBLE. Why build more of these?

All the at-grade crossings along the West LRT are of roads that were planned from the outset (when the roads were designed) to be crossed by a rapid transit line. An example is Costello Blvd.

26th and maybe 47th Streets might be the exceptions to that, but are both low-volume roads.

Calgary's brand of LRT will always have a few at-grade crossings. The Southeast LRT will have them too in certain areas.

[J-D]

Originally posted by frinkprof
Not sure where you got those numbers from. I'd be interested in seeing the source.

Regarding traffic hinderances, the 7th Avenue refurbishment project has attempted to take these into account. Some stations were moved and rebuilt a block one direction or the other. For instance, both 8th and 7th Street West stations were moved a block to the east. This was done for one of two reasons:

1. The original station location was on a block that couldn't fit a 4 car platform (this was the case for 8th Street West)

2. To get a better configuration of stations relative to traffic lights, other stations, and the switches at either end of 7th Avenue to avoid potential train traffic backups as much as possible.

There will be a few hiccups every now and then to be sure, but the new configuration along 7th Avenue is supposed to be better for 4 LRV train operation.

Outside 7th Avenue, I can't envision where the 4th LRV will create additional issues.

Straight from the CT website - they could very well be outdated?

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/t...formation.html

[desi112]

whats teh deal with theSE line?

[kenny]

Originally posted by Maxt
The minds at CT put the station always a good walk from the infrastructure, when really it should be intertwined right within it.. Like the stampede station, why doesn't it deliver people to within a conditioned concourse to the stampede/saddledome?. Another is Mcmahon, how about downtown, build the damn stations into the bases of the buildings.

I read that Calgary Transit originally wanted the University station to actually be on campus underground, but the powers that be (at UofC I assume) nixed that idea and it ran along Crowchild instead.

Useless fact: The big arch at U of C used to run across Crowchild as a pedestrian bridge, but they had to move it to make way for the LRT line.