West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Canada Line procurement strategy...

Do explain Sir H.Appleby, you have sparked my interest.

[MalcolmTucker]

Oh, #1, you don't define your technology. You define the capacity you want (both at start up and and full build out with max amount of trains), where you want it to go, and how much you want to spend, both in year to year payments for operations and a lump sum upfront in capital costs.

Then you let the proposals come in. Someone could bid with a completely automated skytrain type system, or the system that CT has already thought out. Or really anything that would meet the technical requirement.

Bascially, instead of front loading the decisions based on a pyramid until you make the decision, you go backwards and move from a few facts to a wide set of options. Who knows, everyone might come back with about the same plan, but you never know. Bombardier might want the coup of converting an LRT operator to ART, setting an example for all the LRT builders to follow when they decide to build light metros, and present a competitive bid because of it. Perhaps shorter stations underground for automated trains would save enough money to have exclusive ROW everywhere.

The key is we don't have to make the decision first, we let all the bidders present options and then choose. We have done this a bit with the 45th St option, but we can do more in the future.

[srperrycgy]

Lower than expected construction costs for the new leg of Calgary's west LRT route has convinced city council to add a trench at a busy southwest intersection, appeasing many area residents.

Council voted 12-3 on Monday to spend $61 million on digging a trench for the line at 17th Avenue and 45th Street S.W. and building a short bridge for traffic over the tracks.

Bids for the $700-million project have come in lower than anticipated, Mayor Dave Bronconnier said Monday morning, opening the door for the change.

Many people worried that C-Trains running at ground level would snarl traffic or block emergency crews exiting police and fire stations near the intersection.

The trench/bridge scenario is cheaper than digging a tunnel, an $85-million proposal originally supported by some aldermen and residents. Money for the trench will come out of a transportation reserve fund.

Residents in the area have been lobbying for the change by distributing flyers and continuing to pressure city council with emails. More than 1,000 people signed a petition in support of the trench.

Aldermen Joe Connelly and John Mar took up the campaign on behalf of constituents, calling it a safety issue.

The route ratified by council in June will have the C-Train chug up the middle of Bow Trail at street level, head underground as it swings south onto 17th Avenue at 33rd Street and then rumble back to ground level at 41st Street.

Construction of the eight-kilometre line, which ends at 69th Street, is slated to start next spring and finish in late 2012. It is the city's first LRT line in 20 years, since the northwest line was built to the University of Calgary in 1987.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/10/05/calgary-west-lrt-trench-ctrain.html

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MalcolmTucker]

mhmm. Will be interesting to see how 'eyes on the street' issues are handled in the two trenched stations. This line will have 4 grade separated stations. I wonder if CT will end up with station attendants. At least 45th St is right next to a police station and since the Westgate station is attached to an office tower it will have a security guard on regular patrols.

[Mike Wilhelm]

That trenched station design is miles ahead of the original at grade design - much better in context with the neighbourhood.

Agree with "eyes on the street" concerns. However, you can see into a trench. Just move the police station into the trench, maybe.

[Dado]

While this case doesn't seem too bad (since much of the station actually is at grade, due to the sloping grade along the length of the station), in general trenched stations should be avoided and seldom are they going to be in context with a neighbourhood.

The 69th Street Station, to me, looks to be on course to repeating mistakes we made in Ottawa a generation ago.

Here is what a transitway trench looks like in Ottawa, at Westboro Station. Yours, since it'll be LRT, likely won't be quite as bad, but it's not exactly something that a community ought to be proud of:



The above shot, btw, was taken through a chain-link fence like that seen along the top of the cutting.

This is what the below-grade transitway portion of the station looks like. The photo is taken from the upper level at a place that people would not normally be standing - there are few, if any, "eyes on the street":



Finally, here is the at-grade local portion of the station. It looks like a bunker. Hopefully Calgary will do better, but the fact of being a hole in the ground requiring stairs and elevators with above-ground buildings to protect them means that a certain degree of ugliness is almost unavoidable.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Yep - those are ugly. Bad architecture is just bad architecture. Nothing to do with the trench.

A bit different approach in Vancouver. My favorite Skytrain Station uses a modified trenched entrance:

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Yep - those are ugly. Bad architecture is just bad architecture. Nothing to do with the trench.

That's right...the ugly in those Ottawa photos isn't because of the trench, but because of the sterile, ugly concrete architecture. If designed properly, I don't see any problem with a trenched station.

As for 'eyes on the street', I don't think these stations are any less in view than station like Southland or Anderson.

[craner]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

^More good in this decision (trench) than bad, I think.

I agree - I think it's a good decision. As the previous few posts illustrate - I hope it is done right.

Any listing of how council voted on this ?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by craner

I agree - I think it's a good decision. As the previous few posts illustrate - I hope it is done right.

Any listing of how council voted on this ?

Everyone was for except Farrell, Ceci and Hawkesworth I think.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Oh, #1, you don't define your technology. You define the capacity you want (both at start up and and full build out with max amount of trains), where you want it to go, and how much you want to spend, both in year to year payments for operations and a lump sum upfront in capital costs...

Hmmmm, very interesting. Is there an academic name for this model yet, or is it just referred to as the Canada Line Model?

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Lower than expected construction costs for the new leg of Calgary's west LRT route has convinced city council to add a trench at a busy southwest intersection, appeasing many area residents...

I'm a bit torn on this issue. I do like the trenching of LRT lines and think it holds a lot of potential for future extensions and expansions, but is it really the right thing to do? With the bids coming in lower than expected, won't the trenching dig into the savings the City would have seen? Also, what ever happened to compromise? Some residents along the line have openly stated that planners are pushing things on them but the residents won't stop until all their demands are met. A trench versus subway might be a bit of a compromise but will it best serve citywide interests? Finally, a minor issue would be that Ald. Connelly is a major 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and everything should be done to antagonize him.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by Riise

Finally, a minor issue would be that Ald. Connelly is a major 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and everything should be done to antagonize him.

It doesn't take much to do that. Every time he speaks in council, he's always angry no matter the subject, at least when I've watched him.

[Wooster]

There are a few trenched subway stations in Toronto, they're fine.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Wooster

There are a few trenched subway stations in Toronto, they're fine.

Yeah, but all the TTC stations are manned in my experience (but I don't get north of Bloor that often).

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Riise

I'm a bit torn on this issue. I do like the trenching of LRT lines and think it holds a lot of potential for future extensions and expansions, but is it really the right thing to do? With the bids coming in lower than expected, won't the trenching dig into the savings the City would have seen? Also, what ever happened to compromise? Some residents along the line have openly stated that planners are pushing things on them but the residents won't stop until all their demands are met. A trench versus subway might be a bit of a compromise but will it best serve citywide interests? Finally, a minor issue would be that Ald. Connelly is a major 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and everything should be done to antagonize him.

But if you can get a better product for the same amount of money, why not do it? I can see what you are saying, but to take it to an extreme view, think of the savings if we just made the WLRT a BRT route instead. It wouldn't be as good, but we could save the city a lot of money.

In reality, it isn't costing anything extra to get this. The budget hasn't increased, and the City was committed only a month ago to spending this amount of money. Whether it is good for the whole city, well, that can be debated. But what project would be good for the entire city?

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MichaelS]

How would that be good for the entire city, but not the trenching of the WLRT line? Don't get me wrong, I agree that the 8th Ave subway would have huge benefits for a lot of people. But, if you live in the west end, and work in Crowfoot for instance, it really wouldn't benefit you. Sorry for playing devil's advocate here, just trying to make a point. Sometimes spending money on a project that doesn't benefit every single person is okay.

[srperrycgy]

Upgrading 22 stations (outside the core) to accomodate 4 LRV trains wouldn't hurt either.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

In reality, it isn't costing anything extra to get this. The budget hasn't increased, and the City was committed only a month ago to spending this amount of money. Whether it is good for the whole city, well, that can be debated. But what project would be good for the entire city?

There is a budget shortfall this year, the savings could help chip away at that. Don't get me wrong, I love getting the best for transit but this move is looking a wee bit hypocritical by some members of Council. Also, to provide an analogy of my own. Just because we go to the new LV store intending to buy two pairs of jeans and find out it is two for one day doesn't mean we need to spend the entire pre-determined budget at LV on a belt and wallet because it won't cost us anything extra. That money could go into the kitchen reno fund or put towards a student loan payment.