Calgary Public Transit II

[lineman]

Just to put things into perspective, London opened a tube station that is 58m deep over 100 years ago, yet a station roughly the same depth here is being discussed as seemingly next to impossible. With three large high speed lifts, a deep station is more than adequately accessible.

Oh and for the record, I like suburbia. 94.3% of the time.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lineman

Just to put things into perspective, London opened a tube station that is 58m deep over 100 years ago, yet a station roughly the same depth here is being discussed as seemingly next to impossible. With three large high speed lifts, a deep station is more than adequately accessible.

Oh and for the record, I like suburbia. 94.3% of the time.

The London Underground is a fantastic system with many incredible engineering feats, but it also has many flaws, like extremely deep stations with meandering access tunnels.

It's definitely possible to build a station that deep, but it's far less desirable than a station close to the surface on top of being way more expensive. I'm starting to think this will be the option we ultimately go for though, with or without the deep station. It could be politically easier to find a little more money than build a bridge through Prince's Island.

[PPAR]

To think that this project has a "15 to 20 year timeline", is to misunderstand Alberta politics. Capital projects like this one are off entirely until a boom comes- then they quickly become a go. This project could be three or thirty years from launch... It all depends on the economy.
Let's not think this project is being unfairly prioritized relative to anything else.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by PPAR

To think that this project has a "15 to 20 year timeline", is to misunderstand Alberta politics. Capital projects like this one are off entirely until a boom comes- then they quickly become a go. This project could be three or thirty years from launch... It all depends on the economy.
Let's not think this project is being unfairly prioritized relative to anything else.

So true. Sad but true.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by lineman

Just to put things into perspective, London opened a tube station that is 58m deep over 100 years ago, yet a station roughly the same depth here is being discussed as seemingly next to impossible. With three large high speed lifts, a deep station is more than adequately accessible.

Not to mention that that particular station we're talking about isn't exactly going to be a massive high traffic station. Its 9th Avenue NW in freaking Crescent Heights. Not exactly Grand Central Station (or even Brentwood or Anderson) type of usage. I'd expect it would be more akin to Sunnyside in terms of traffic.

I recall one station in Rome that was probably a similar depth, a couple good escalators and elevators and it served thousands of people an hour without issue.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by lineman

Just to put things into perspective, London opened a tube station that is 58m deep over 100 years ago, yet a station roughly the same depth here is being discussed as seemingly next to impossible. With three large high speed lifts, a deep station is more than adequately accessible.

Oh and for the record, I like suburbia. 94.3% of the time.

To be fair, London had a population of over 6 million when it was built. I think it's all just dollars.

[speedog]

Personally, I would like to see it underground to at least 64th Avenue as any other design before that point is just going to create other issues due to the limited space Calgary Transit has to work with. Elevated should not even be considered and anything street level just takes away from the limited space that Centre Street offers south of 64th Avenue and I can't see the city buying up a whole bunch of properties on one side or the other of Centre Street like they did along 17th Avenue in the southwest. Underground to me is the most logical choice even if it just to some point between 40th and McKnight - south of 40th, underground for sure.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

To be fair, London had a population of over 6 million when it was built. I think it's all just dollars.

It seems that some out there are emphasizing the depth like its a roadblock and some modern miracle of engineering would be required to build it.

But you're right. It's dollars and the lack thereof.

[Policy Wonk]

There are lots of historical public works that wouldn't be built today not for any particular engineering reason (maybe environmental ones) but for economic ones.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Does anybody here actually like you here?

Nice.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

There are lots of historical public works that wouldn't be built today not for any particular engineering reason (maybe environmental ones) but for economic ones.

Mac Logan, transportation chief, said something interesting during the discussion this week. Him and his team know how important it is to get this decision right, but they have no favourites and couldn't reach a consensus internally on the best choice.

One thing he said struct a particularly strong chord: Centre Street LRT has a good parallel for the Younge Street subway in Toronto in the 1950s. Both had booming downtown workforce, high population growth and around 1 million people in the city.

Obviously, digging a little deeper and a few crack appear in the comparison. For example, Toronto didn't exactly have other choices for transit. LRT was barely conceivable at the time. Subways were largely the only game in town, apart from rapid highway expansion (which they accommodated as well). Suburban expansion was just beginning to take off. No one assumed the city would eventually multiply 6x in 50-60 years to over 6 million people.

He even mentioned that Toronto cut corners (compared to what they would do now if they knew that this line would be the backbone of a mega-city). The downtown stations were downsized to save money, the turn-radius of the tunnel was tight, forcing trains to slow down. Not even close to an issue for a while, but add a few more million people and dozens of more trains, the curve radius acts as a bottleneck during peak periods on occasion.

There is that common expression that no plan will stand up with first contact with reality. Something similar here is true too. If boom times go forever and Calgary keeps growing until 2, 3 or 4 million people, the SSP nerds of 2075 will look back and commend the city for putting the effort to "get it right" the first time with an expensive, high capacity underground line.

If less growth or stagnation occurs, this could be the last significant project in Calgary's transit history. It is impossible to predict either way on such time-scales.

With that said, high-quality transportation infrastructure has the added benefit of potentially changing the future as well making Calgary more attractive for people, investment and businesses. The growth, development and economic resiliency of Calgary will be maintained and enhanced by competing with other cities for great transit.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by MasterG

One thing he said struct a particularly strong chord: Centre Street LRT has a good parallel for the Younge Street subway in Toronto in the 1950s. Both had booming downtown workforce, high population growth and around 1 million people in the city.

PW's comment was the cost of doing these things in the past compared to now has diverted from inflation, and so simplistic comparisons are rather useless.

[ByeByeBaby]

.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by suburbia

PW's comment was the cost of doing these things in the past compared to now has diverted from inflation, and so simplistic comparisons are rather useless.

Did you read my next sentence? That was my point.

[lrt's friend]

I am from Ottawa and we are upgrading our current rail system. Upgraded service was to start yesterday but has been suspended because of signal and switch failures. There have been all kinds of delays trying to get the upgrade going.

I would like to know what Calgary's experience is with switch and signal failures. How often is service suspended or partially suspended because of this? I just want to get a feel of the significance of this kind of issue. Does this happen more often due to cold weather?

Thanks.

[MalcolmTucker]

There are heaters by some of the switches just like you see on mainline railways.

http://goo.gl/maps/FJ97d

And four here: http://goo.gl/maps/kO91j

Here is a story that mentions Go Transit's heaters: http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1295781/go-heats-up-switch-maintenance-in-torontos-bitter-cold/

There are only a couple stories in the newspaper records about delays due to signal and switching issues.

Here is one from 2008:

Calgarians can expect the deep freeze to continue with a forecast high of -26 C today. The temperature is expected to hit -46 C with the wind chill in the morning.

The extreme cold hit a low of -33 C and reached -49 C with the wind chill early Monday, causing morning delays of up to 45 minutes on C-train lines.

Three trains broke down at Dalhousie Station and the cold caused doors to freeze, disc brakes to stick and problems with electronic systems on the cars.

The track switch at 7th Avenue and 9th Street S.W. also froze.

And one from 1989:

Environment Canada is forecasting a high today of -31C and an overnight low of -39C. With a north wind blowing at the same time, the wind chill will be bad enough to freeze exposed skin in less than a minute. And there's no end in sight for the painful weather.
...
Calgary Transit reported 10- minute delays in C-Train operations, due mainly to frozen switches.

Don't see any records of signal problems but know they exist. Usually they can keep running with staff clearing the sections for 10 minute frequencies. With interlining in the plans from day 1, this has likely been a focus of more maintenance and upgrade attention than in other cities.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

There are heaters by some of the switches just like you see on mainline railways.

http://goo.gl/maps/FJ97d

And four here: http://goo.gl/maps/kO91j

Here is a story that mentions Go Transit's heaters: http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1295781/go-heats-up-switch-maintenance-in-torontos-bitter-cold/

There are only a couple stories in the newspaper records about delays due to signal and switching issues.

Here is one from 2008:


And one from 1989:


Don't see any records of signal problems but know they exist. Usually they can keep running with staff clearing the sections for 10 minute frequencies. With interlining in the plans from day 1, this has likely been a focus of more maintenance and upgrade attention than in other cities.

In other words, this sort of thing is rare. And likely, what we are experiencing are start-up tuning issues that likely will go away. Hopefully.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am from Ottawa and we are upgrading our current rail system. Upgraded service was to start yesterday but has been suspended because of signal and switch failures. There have been all kinds of delays trying to get the upgrade going.

I would like to know what Calgary's experience is with switch and signal failures. How often is service suspended or partially suspended because of this? I just want to get a feel of the significance of this kind of issue. Does this happen more often due to cold weather?

Thanks.

Cold weather does have some impact, but it's not usually the 'signals', but rather the track it's attached to (like at switches that get jammed with snow).

When it comes to signals themselves, it's very unusual to see a real 'disruption' to service - only delays. The good thing about signals is that typically they can be bypassed or used in manual mode - things move slower, but can still move, it just takes time to get the personnel in place. When you're talking about things like traction power or track, these are things that trains can't still use if they're not working right.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

Cold weather does have some impact, but it's not usually the 'signals', but rather the track it's attached to (like at switches that get jammed with snow).

When it comes to signals themselves, it's very unusual to see a real 'disruption' to service - only delays. The good thing about signals is that typically they can be bypassed or used in manual mode - things move slower, but can still move, it just takes time to get the personnel in place. When you're talking about things like traction power or track, these are things that trains can't still use if they're not working right.

The challenge Ottawa is having is that we can't switch to manual mode because it is a single track line with passing tracks and it crosses a busy VIA rail line.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The challenge Ottawa is having is that we can't switch to manual mode because it is a single track line with passing tracks and it crosses a busy VIA rail line.

Well, they probably could. It would just take a boat load of staff that were trained for it.