West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service - Page 16

mersar · #**301** Posted **Oct 6, 2009, 4:47 PM**

The big thing to take into account here is that the $700M isn't a one shot budget item. Its actually spread over several years, with the bulk of it being 2011/2012 from what I recall. So even if there was savings, it probably would have minimal impact on this year (or even next years) budget. Plus the money for this is earmarked for transportation projects, so all it could be used for is another project (granted with some creative accounting some savings could be realized, say by using it for the 37th Street interchange rather then using the surplus funds from the GE5 and other projects)

Govertical · #**302** Posted **Oct 6, 2009, 5:36 PM**

Hi, I'm new at the forums.

Just wondering if anyone knows wether or not the 11th st. station will be centre-loading or side-loading?

mersar · #**303** Posted **Oct 6, 2009, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govertical

Hi, I'm new at the forums.

Just wondering if anyone knows wether or not the 11th st. station will be centre-loading or side-loading?

The new station will be side loading, but it will be a dual platform similar to what will be built at City Hall

lubicon · #**304** Posted **Oct 6, 2009, 6:32 PM**

A good decision to go ahead with the trenching at 45 Street. The only downside I can see is that ironically the intersection will likely be closed entirely for a period of time while the trench is constructed (and the bridge built). Even if they can make a temporary bridge it will still take time to do and I can't see how the intersection will NOT be closed for a period of time. Short term pain for long term gain, but access into the area will still be severely restricted even if it's temporary.

mersar · #**305** Posted **Oct 6, 2009, 6:41 PM**

The only way it won't be fully closed is if the strip mall is going (I can't recall if it is or not, I think it is though). Then it would be possible to build a temporary intersection just east of the current one and use it while they excavate the trench just where the road is, and build the bridge. Would make traffic that wanted to go straight through (north or south) nearly impossible, but at least it would leave access

srperrycgy · #**306** Posted **Oct 6, 2009, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

The only way it won't be fully closed is if the strip mall is going (I can't recall if it is or not, I think it is though)

You know, I can't tell if that strip mall is going or not. Rogers moved down 17th a few blocks a while ago. My hunch is that it will be gone. Looking at the drawing on the WLRT website, it looks like it is gone and a operator washroom/substation is there.

Also, the two gas stations (Husky and Petro-Canada) were being demolished. Probably done by now. Any word on the two churches west of 37th?

SubwayRev · #**307** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

You know, I can't tell if that strip mall is going or not. Rogers moved down 17th a few blocks a while ago. My hunch is that it will be gone. Looking at the drawing on the WLRT website, it looks like it is gone and a operator washroom/substation is there.

Also, the two gas stations (Husky and Petro-Canada) were being demolished. Probably done by now. Any word on the two churches west of 37th?

The Petro is gone, the Husky is almost gone...Oriental Auto is gone, and the old Scotiabank has been gutted. The house at 40th St. and 17th Ave was also moved last weekend. The two churches are still there, as well as the strip mall at 45th, the Shopper's mall (Shopper's is opening their new location across the street on Jan 2, 2010.), and the strip mall at the corner of 37th and 17th.

Dado · #**308** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

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

Uhh... how exactly does this ugly trench not have anything to do with being a trench and is instead "just bad architecture"? I'm not talking about the station beyond - I'm talking about the trench itself between the bridge I was standing on and the station.

That's just plain ugly. They put in a hand about 15 years ago there and in a few other places, but it's just kind of comical ("lipstick on a ... etc.). Here we are looking in the opposite direction:

Where does architecture enter into this? Where they could get away with bare rock, they did, where not, they put in concrete. Neither looks all that appealing, especially up close: the rock is disintegrating from the exposure to sun, wind, rain, ice and salt - gradually the rock is being replaced with bits of concrete once it disintegrates too much. It's the reality of a trench - it's going to look ugly pretty much no matter what you do.

MalcolmTucker · #**309** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 2:55 AM**

It will help in Calgary that the trench will only need to be at most one half the width, likely about one third the width. With no need for margin of driver error or shoulder space they can built it much tighter so eventually it can be built over by developers more easily much like the trench north of Bloor on the Young Line in Toronto.

Even with bidder design I can't see anything too different from the standard interlocking octagonal (maybe hexagonal, never looked too close) blocks going straight up it will look pretty normal for a Calgary LRT trench/tunnel portal. The station will be more extensive of course, likely have stone or metal covering the concrete wall as that is the line's aesthetics, with a island platform.

From our fellow forumer's site LRT in Calgary:

mersar · #**310** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 3:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

IThe station will be more extensive of course, likely have stone or metal covering the concrete wall as that is the line's aesthetics, with a island platform.

Nope, side load platform is what has been proposed. The renders show a stone wall which doesn't look too bad

Dado · #**311** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 3:10 AM**

I'd forgot about that bit of trench, though it's on the shallow side as a comparison. Narrower helps, definitely. Maybe rail ballast just looks better than roads and gutters.

Perhaps Ottawa has a unique skill in making things really really ugly without trying. That said, the example you've given is relatively short, whereas in Ottawa they're trenched for miles. If you've only got a short stretch you can afford to tart it up a bit with things like interlock retaining wall but if your entire line is trenched you don't have the funds available to make aesthetic improvements.

MalcolmTucker · #**312** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 3:11 AM**

^ 4 elevators? 🞵🞵🞵

I guess it keeps the trench narrower but still. Never noticed that before. Have to wonder whether the station will change now that they actually have to build it, instead of it being a option that didn't seem all too likely (in 2007).

Doug · #**313** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riise

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.

The additional grade separation is a horrible idea. 45th Street is not busy. Not only could the money be put to work elsewhere, it sets a precedent for caving to NIMBY's. One only has to look to the Edmonton experience. It has spent almost as much on LRT as Calgary yet its system has evolved at a snail's pace, has far less coverage and attracts far fewer riders. One of the big reasons is endless debates with NIMBY's, especially over the SLRT alignment. The Calgary approach taken in the 80's was much better. When Kensington NIMBY's opposed a surface alignment along 10A Street the City walked away from the NW line and built the NE one instead.

Mike Wilhelm · #**314** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

The additional grade separation is a horrible idea. 45th Street is not busy. Not only could the money be put to work elsewhere, it sets a precedent for caving to NIMBY's. One only has to look to the Edmonton experience. It has spent almost as much on LRT as Calgary yet its system has evolved at a snail's pace, has far less coverage and attracts far fewer riders. One of the big reasons is endless debates with NIMBY's, especially over the SLRT alignment. The Calgary approach taken in the 80's was much better. When Kensington NIMBY's opposed a surface alignment along 10A Street the City walked away from the NW line and built the NE one instead.

Nothing you say here indicates why extending a 10-12 block tunnel four blocks by way of a trench is a bad idea. Numerous streets under the tunnel are not busy. It should have been in the original plan, and is one of many elements that got missed due to the rushed November 2007 alignment approval process. "NIMBYs" might have nothing to do with it. I'm thinking that if it was proposed by city adminstration first, you'd be all over it.

MalcolmTucker · #**315** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 8:18 PM**

^ The original revised plan, before it went to council the first time didn't have any tunnels. The Westgate mall section was to be elevated. But that is why we have politicians, to make these decisions when they see what the 'cheapest' option is, and all the negative impacts of that decision. (The original plan was to be ultra cheap since it was developed before MSI funding was there to help)

Mike Wilhelm · #**316** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 8:29 PM**

Agreed - just because a plan is out there doesn't mean we need to rally around it.

My point has always been that you don't always need a planning degree to have more common sense than a politician.

frinkprof · #**317** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 8:48 PM**

Nevermind.

Riise · #**318** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

But that is why we have politicians, to make these decisions when they see what the 'cheapest' option is, and all the negative impacts of that decision. (The original plan was to be ultra cheap since it was developed before MSI funding was there to help)

When I really break the situation down, I think my problem lies with how certain stakeholders in the WLRT catchment want everything done their way. I realize that the WLRT caught a break and is able to be improved at little or no cost, depending on how you look at it, but I would hate for this situation to be seen by NIMBYs and the like as the City bending over backwards for them when it is really just good luck/timing. As a planner I have to be able to accept that no plan is perfect and compromises will most likely be have to be made, but at the same time stakeholders need to realize that they will have to go both ways.

SubwayRev · #**319** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

The Calgary approach taken in the 80's was much better. When Kensington NIMBY's opposed a surface alignment along 10A Street the City walked away from the NW line and built the NE one instead.

I think the difference is that in the late 70's, when the LRT was first being built, Calgary was a small city of 400,000 with 0 train trips. Now, Calgary is a city of 1,100,000 and nearly 300,000 train trips per day. We can no longer plan and build our train system like that of a small town. That "cheaper" system was good for the initial construction of the LRT and the establishment of a ridership, but now that we've reached that point and the city is nearing a critical mass of people, we need to plan and build the train properly the first time, so that in 20 or 30 years we will not have more projects like the 8th Ave subway be necessary.

While agree with you about the Edmonton case, in the next twenty years, while Calgary is spending millions on burying the downtown lines, Edmonton will be able to spend that same money on massive expansion of their system.

Mike Wilhelm · #**320** Posted **Oct 7, 2009, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

The Calgary approach taken in the 80's was much better. When Kensington NIMBY's opposed a surface alignment along 10A Street the City walked away from the NW line and built the NE one instead.

A "stick it to the man" attitude - characteristic of some less enlightened political and administrative elements at city hall.

It might be responsible for some of the mistrust.