HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 5:04 PM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
I'm curious about the Nimby strength though if it comes out that you're going to demolish 200+ houses plus a bunch of businesses.

(looks like it's more like 200 houses/semi-attached/apartments + about 20 blocks of businesses.)

This is assuming only needed to demolish on one side of Centre.
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 7:52 PM
twsnagel twsnagel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The province HUFF HALBERTA
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
I couldn't help but laugh at how they chose the worse examples for elevated guideways, and including grafitti artists on them....like, wow. Who in the right mind would also use the Chicago El-Train as an example? Aren't their steel guideways like 100 years old and outdated (nobody builds them like that anymore!)?
I actually think the Chicago EL looks pretty freaking awesome...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 13, 2009, 10:14 PM
srperrycgy's Avatar
srperrycgy srperrycgy is offline
I'm the bear on the right
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Calgary (Killarney)
Posts: 1,665
I've always believed that a North-Central LRT route must use Centre Street for the majority of its route. Ending the SE Line at Eau Claire makes a connection to a N-C LRT a no-brainer. I don't believe that 200 homes/businesses would be required for a cut-and-cover/TBM route though. A "Canada Line"-type of construction could be better suited than our conventional at-grade LRT construction that does consume a lot of property. I've also dumped a formal connection to the Airport. As much as you guys and myself would love an Airport LRT connection, I don't see it happening, even in the 15-20 year future. I've left it open though.

OK folks there are some large maps, so here it goes:

Line starts at the proposed end of the SE Line at Eau Claire. Running from there under the Bow River and beneath the ridge. I believe this run would be completed by a TBM. Soil conditions would probably be less than ideal, but Edmonton did it, why can't we? I placed a station (Crescent Heights) between 10th and 11th Avenues in proximity to Crescent Heights HS. If more depth for the tunnel is required, this station could be eliminated. The TBM run would continue to approximately 18th Avenue. A station (16th Avenue North) would be built between 16th and 18th Avenue. From this point, the line would be constructed by the cut-and-cover method.



28th Avenue North : Between 26th and 28th Avenues.



40th Avenue North : Between 38th and 40th Avenues.



McKnight West: Between McKnight Blvd and Thorncrest Rd NE.



64th Avenue North : South of 64th Avenue.



Beddington: South of Beddington Blvd.



Line emerges from tunnel north of Beddington Trail at Harvest Hills Blvd. Continues at-grade. An underground "Wye" could be constructed where the current alignment exists in the Aurora Business Park to connect to the Airport and HSR station.



Harvest Hills (Station Location Approved): North of 96th Avenue NE.

-Tunnel under Country Hills Blvd.



Coventry (Station Location Approved): Between Country Village Way and Country Village Rd NE.



Line continues northward over Stoney Trail to terminate at 150th Avenue North.

Let the discussion continue.
__________________
Stevinder.
* * * * * *
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 13, 2009, 10:20 PM
Beltliner's Avatar
Beltliner Beltliner is offline
Unsafe at Any Speed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 949
^^^ Aside from moving the McKnight and 64 Avenue stations a half-mile south each, it's nice to see great minds thinking alike, tovarishch.
__________________
Now waste even more time! @Beltliner403 on Twitter!

Always pleased to serve my growing clientele.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 13, 2009, 10:50 PM
You Need A Thneed's Avatar
You Need A Thneed You Need A Thneed is offline
Construction Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Castleridge, NE Calgary
Posts: 5,892
^^ Looks pretty good to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 13, 2009, 10:58 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Nice maps srperrycgy. One small negative about the Centre Street alignment is that it wouldn't utilize the reserved ROW along Beddington Trail, so it's good that you mention it being used in the future between the LRT and the Airport/HSR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 2:25 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
I love it. That's pretty much what I've always had in my mind with NCLRT. I really think this is worth pushing forward. It's never too early to organize, put up a website outlining the preferred route, costing, numerous benefits vs. the Nose Creek alignment, TOD potential and start selling it.

Further to that, I really think it's worth advocating a TransitCity type plan that foresees a much more comprehensive and long term LRT network to serve the whole city - along the lines of Beltliner's plan. Politicians at higher levels of government are much more inclined to fund large scale projects when they can latch on to high profile and visionary plans like TransitCity. How does Calgary express it's long term network? It only has a number of flimsy and nebulous documents burried somewhere on Calgary Transit's site talking about the 6 radial, lines and mentioned here and there in passing in other city wide planning documents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 7:51 AM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
Guess something had to make me delurk, and this is it. I've been thinking about this off and on in the past.

Very nice alignment, sperrycgy; more or less what I would suggest. Some random ideas:

I would rename a couple of the stations after the communities rather than the streets, particularly since they would serve multiple streets. Especially McKnight West; we don't need two stations with such similar names -- I'd call it Thorncliffe instead.

Re the Crescent Heights station, I don't think that depth would be a problem here; there are some stations in Portland and DC that are a lot deeper than this would be.

I'm not a geotechnical engineer (and I don't think I know any to ask), so I don't know the cost comparison, but I'd think that a bored tunnel would work a lot better politically; the Canada line cut and cover seems to have raised a lot of stink, from my observations. There are several green spaces along the route that could be used for staging a tunnel boring machine, I think.

I also have a couple of ideas for alternative alignment options.

The one that makes the most sense to me is to bring the tunnel to the surface at 64th Ave; there seems like there could be enough right of way north of there to construct a simpler median line. The 64th Ave station could be a trenched style sort of like the 69th St station, and then rise to the surface north of there. One thing that's nice about this option is that the section south of there could be bored for probably around the same cost as cut and cover all the way to Beddington Trail. So you could leave both as options, and have a NIMBY-off.

An alternate idea I had at the river would be for the SE line to rise to surface level at Eau Claire, then cross the river on a bridge, going into a tunnel into the side of the hill (McHugh Bluff, right?). It would cross the edge of Prince's Island Park around the boundary between the constructed wetland and the rest of the park, and would probably clear the pathway in a similar fashion to the NW bridge near 10 St. Not ideal, but not unlivable. And I reckon one could build a very nice bridge (i.e. much nicer than the other LRT bridges) for less than a tunnel for the same distance, under the river.

It might look something like this...





Personally, I'm not sure that it's a great time to be doing anything in terms of public pressure, since PlanIt is going to be defending itself from a lot of corners, and this is a long way off from happening. On the other hand, the downtown subway study should include this as an option, and the plan probably should include this as an alternative at least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 12:48 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
^Good ideas and visuals BBB. Welcome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 1:19 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
As far as this group goes, here are my thoughts:

1. As a few others have said, the context is much different for this issue than it is for the Vancouver Broadway corridor, or even that of the WLRT which saw the BestWLRT group spring up. Therefore the objectives, tactics, and goals should be different. There's no group or solid plan that we would be countering really. No urgency to win a media war. More just being concerned about the City's current thinking on the routing of the NCLRT and trying to convince them and work with them to take a different direction or giving an option to consider.

2. I think we should come up with some sort of formal document, be it a report or proposal. Obviously a web presence is needed as well. I don't know if we need to go as far as having a domain name at this time, but a blogspot or wordpress account would probably be in order.

3. Scope. Do we limit ourselves to producing a concept plan with alternatives and costing of one line? Do we tackle a longer-term network, and if so, do we do it all from the start, or just focus on the one line and move on from there? I don't think we have the funding nor expertise to get into the business of preliminary designs and soil studies, so we can only do so much. I think it's best to keep the scope to something we can manage, while still being able to produce well thought out and presentable material that will be looked at and listened to.

4. Organization. We clearly have enough ideas and the skills to investigate them further and come up with something to show the City. How do we get it done though? A lot of stuff could be done via e-mail, etc., but should we organize meetings every now and again?

Anyway... just some thoughts.

Maybe a show of hands in who would be willing to be involved in a group? Involved doesn't have to mean writing and editing half a report or even coming to meetings. It could simply mean being in the loop and voicing your opinion on a station location.

I, of course, would be interested.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 3:07 PM
Bassic Lab Bassic Lab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
As far as this group goes, here are my thoughts:

1. As a few others have said, the context is much different for this issue than it is for the Vancouver Broadway corridor, or even that of the WLRT which saw the BestWLRT group spring up. Therefore the objectives, tactics, and goals should be different. There's no group or solid plan that we would be countering really. No urgency to win a media war. More just being concerned about the City's current thinking on the routing of the NCLRT and trying to convince them and work with them to take a different direction or giving an option to consider.

2. I think we should come up with some sort of formal document, be it a report or proposal. Obviously a web presence is needed as well. I don't know if we need to go as far as having a domain name at this time, but a blogspot or wordpress account would probably be in order.

3. Scope. Do we limit ourselves to producing a concept plan with alternatives and costing of one line? Do we tackle a longer-term network, and if so, do we do it all from the start, or just focus on the one line and move on from there? I don't think we have the funding nor expertise to get into the business of preliminary designs and soil studies, so we can only do so much. I think it's best to keep the scope to something we can manage, while still being able to produce well thought out and presentable material that will be looked at and listened to.

4. Organization. We clearly have enough ideas and the skills to investigate them further and come up with something to show the City. How do we get it done though? A lot of stuff could be done via e-mail, etc., but should we organize meetings every now and again?

Anyway... just some thoughts.

Maybe a show of hands in who would be willing to be involved in a group? Involved doesn't have to mean writing and editing half a report or even coming to meetings. It could simply mean being in the loop and voicing your opinion on a station location.

I, of course, would be interested.
I think one of the more important requirements for any such group would involve developing a strong argument for what a Centre Street Subway would hope to achieve.

The plan would only make sense if significant rezoning was made mandatory. Attacking the obvious faults inherent in the Nose Creek alignment and pointing to the current population base along Centre Street will not justify the extra billion dollars. What this instead becomes is a debate over the future of North Central Calgary. The argument is between two visions. The first involves an LRT system primarily serving suburban commuters from new communities and a city whose built form remains generally unchanged. The second, the one this group would need to promote, involves a radically different area from the one that currently exists. Allowable density would need to be substantially increased. Can area residents be convinced that houses need to be replaced by three to five story apartments? That is where I see this ultimately leading to. If the area can be rezoned then the Centre Street alignment makes sense and it would not be difficult to convince others that it should be the NCLRT route. If not there really isn't a point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 3:15 PM
YYCguys YYCguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,520
I have to admit that I'm a bit of a map geek and I was envisioning the NC line much as you have proposed, though I thought that the "Beddington" station should a bit farther south, perhaps by the new Superstore at the crossroads of Centre and 4th. Is the hill that the subway would pass through after it crosses the river stable enough for the tunnel?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 4:12 PM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
I'm not convinced that the density of the surrounding neighbourhoods would have to increase that dramatically. Buildings fronting Centre Street itself could handle quite a high capacity of development potential with buildings of about 4-8 floors with the odd taller tower in certain locations like at Centre and 16th ave.

I do think there's logic to rezoning neighbourhood streets say a block or two back from Centre Street for a 3-5 storey kind of low-rise form. So you'd see projects similar to Providence Kensington pop up organically over time. I think the designation is MC-2 in 1P2007 for a maximum 2.5 FAR and 16 metres in height. This rezoning was done a block back from 16th ave north as part of that initiative, and there are already a couple of applications for about 4-5 storey buildings on 17th.

There are lots of areas along Toronto's subways that are very low rise, but have a decent pre-war residential density - not that dissimilar to north central Calgary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 14, 2009, 9:55 PM
Koolfire Koolfire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 374
Here are my thoughts on srperrycgy route.

There is a valley between McKnight and 40th which has the golf course on one side and green space on the other. There probably be significant cost savings if you bring the tunnel up to the surface level or trench level at that location . However, if you put the station there you have to give up McKnight and 40th station.



I agree that a trench along Centre Ave north of 64th would be more practical compared to a tunnel.




It probably be not the greatest idea to tunnel under the bridge supports and then you would have to still have to under the creek which would mean you would have go quite deep right before having to go up the hill. I would suggest that the tunnel end prior to Beddington Trail and travel under the bridge on the west side and traffic travel under the east side. The bridge was built 4 lanes wide so there is enough space. Also I would leave the LRT on the west side until the tunnel under Country Hills as there are fewer intersections that it would conflict with and we want to avoid the 36th St disaster caused by going up the median.

Now something that might be worth considering is that instead of tunneling under Centre north of Beddington Blvd. You could trench to the east along Beddington Blvd and then tunnel/bridge across Beddingtn trail and then you can bring it back to the Harvest Hills alignment through Aurora Business Park. Not worth doing today but it should have a cost/benefit analysis done closer to build time.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 15, 2009, 3:11 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by srperrycgy View Post
I've always believed that a North-Central LRT route must use Centre Street for the majority of its route. Ending the SE Line at Eau Claire makes a connection to a N-C LRT a no-brainer. I don't believe that 200 homes/businesses would be required for a cut-and-cover/TBM route though. A "Canada Line"-type of construction could be better suited than our conventional at-grade LRT construction that does consume a lot of property. I've also dumped a formal connection to the Airport. As much as you guys and myself would love an Airport LRT connection, I don't see it happening, even in the 15-20 year future. I've left it open though.
Would an airport LRT connection off the end of such an alignment be appropriate anyway? I can't help but think that a Nose Creek alignment off the NE Line would be better for an airport connection for precisely the same reasons that moving to the Centre Street alignment is better for heading north - few other traffic generators in Nose Creek. The current West LRT could itself have a spur down to Mount Royal College to balance the corridors.


Looking at a map trying to figure out how to serve it with transit, it becomes clear that Calgary's airport terminal sure is badly placed. It's on the "wrong" side of the runways away from downtown and even from the Deerfoot it's a long way around to get there. Who's responsible for this state of affairs? Let me guess... the federal government?
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 15, 2009, 3:57 AM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,083
I actually think that a lot of us agree that a full LRT connection to the airport is actually a waste of resources. A more minimal, fully automated, people mover though running from an LRT station on the west side of Deerfoot to the terminal would be a better choice, plus it would belong soley to the airport authority meaning they would be paying for it and operating it, which removes any issues of funding it and running it.

As for who's fault it is for the terminals location, its mostly the feds but the city in a way initiated it since they decided to sell it to the federal government as they couldn't raise the funds to build the new terminal themselves in the mid 60's. So the federal government built it up in the NE corner, and tore down the old one in the SW corner of the property
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 15, 2009, 4:02 AM
Me&You Me&You is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mersar View Post
I actually think that a lot of us agree that a full LRT connection to the airport is actually a waste of resources. A more minimal, fully automated, people mover though running from an LRT station on the west side of Deerfoot to the terminal would be a better choice, plus it would belong soley to the airport authority meaning they would be paying for it and operating it, which removes any issues of that sort.

As for who's fault it is for the terminals location, its mostly the feds but the city in a way initiated it since they decided to sell it to the federal government as they couldn't raise the funds to build the new terminal themselves in the mid 60's. So the federal government built it up in the NE corner, and tore down the old one in the SW corner of the property
Agree with the people carrier idea.

If there's going to be a spur line anywhere, it should be to Mount Royal from the future Westbrook LRT station
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 19, 2009, 4:57 AM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
Northern Hills Transit Service


Come find out what short and long-term improvements Calgary Transit is considering for the Northern Hills community.

It's an opportunity to see what's being proposed and to provide feedback early on. It's also a chance to view the alignment for the future North Central LRT along Harvest Hills Boulevard.


Tuesday, May 26: 5:00 - 8:00pm
Cardel Place (Lobby) 11950 Country Village Link NE


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

Good opportunity to bug some City representatives about our thoughts on the alignment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 23, 2009, 1:15 AM
outoftheice outoftheice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
Northern Hills Transit Service


Come find out what short and long-term improvements Calgary Transit is considering for the Northern Hills community.

It's an opportunity to see what's being proposed and to provide feedback early on. It's also a chance to view the alignment for the future North Central LRT along Harvest Hills Boulevard.


Tuesday, May 26: 5:00 - 8:00pm
Cardel Place (Lobby) 11950 Country Village Link NE


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

Good opportunity to bug some City representatives about our thoughts on the alignment.
Definately a good opportunity to bug some City representatives. I've been reading with interest some of the ideas that have come out in this discussion. I think the proposals by both srperrycgy and beltliner are detailed enough to form the base of an organized campaign. I think Plan It Calgary offers us the best chance to move our vision forward. If all goes well, the Plan It document will be adopted by city council and will direct the future growth of the city. Plan It has already labelled Centre Street as an urban growth corridor. What we need to do is to link our preferred NC LRT route with the urban growth corridor outlined in the Plan It document. I believe our stance should be that without one, the other will fail. The next step would be to start lobbying city officials so that they begin to start associating the two in their minds as well.

As frink mentioned, this open house is our first chance to try and make an impression on the powers that be. Is anybody actually able to attend this meeting? If so, perhaps some of more talented forumers would be willing to try and create a 2 page hand-out that somebody could print out and distribute at the meeting. The first page could simply be a mission statement saying "In order to facilitate and accelerate the in-fill growth envisioned by the Plan It Calgary document, we propose the routing of the NC LRT be changed to follow the Centre Street urban growth corridor as outlined below". We could then include a proposed map such as the ones created by srperrycgy and beltliner. The second page could be used to briefly discuss the points that have been mentioned in this forum regarding how small changes in density for a few blocks on either side of Centre Street could easily support the ridership needed for an LRT line versus the complete lack of ridership that the current proposed routing would bring. So what do you think? Is this something that we as a group could present to city officials by Tuesday?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 6:09 PM
DarkKeyo DarkKeyo is offline
Transit/Cartography Geek
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 332
Well, the open house is today. I'm planning on going, and I'll ask whether they've considered a Centre St subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.