Alex_YYC
Senior Member
I missed this thread altogether, so I'm a late voter. I chose option 1.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Mull
Active Member
You got me excited - I thought there was news!
Patrick.1980
Active Member
I'd love to see it go underground, but doubtful it will happen in my lifetime. Option 1 is good. Does anyone know the time-line for this project?
1875
Senior Member
cut and cover on the east side of the tracks fm cemetary hill to 11th ave doesnt strike me as something that would break the bank, if there was a bank.
not doing it now makes doing later seem all the more difficult/impossible.
not doing it now makes doing later seem all the more difficult/impossible.
darwink
Senior Member
What would break the bank isn't the tunnel, it would be a station that can support game day crowds. Underground stations for even small numbers of people are an order of magnitude more expensive than at grade.
A station that might work with a tunnel would be it popping up for just the station to ground level. Northbound has level access, and southbound has large ramps (blue) over the tracks then to the platform.
Spring2008
Active Member
This link may get started soonish. Looks like Crosstown by Anthem may be a go according to the Conference Board of Canada Cgy Metropolitan Autumn 2018 report.
Mull
Active Member
You're going to make me drool on my keyboard
RyLucky
Active Member
A or C.
Between these two, A seems costlier but with more efficient through traffic; but C has the interesting advantages of potentially decreasing the distance to the 25th ave crossing (to Erlton and Mission) AND the 3rd st access to the Stampede, which will probably be the major source/destinations of future riders.
Between these two, A seems costlier but with more efficient through traffic; but C has the interesting advantages of potentially decreasing the distance to the 25th ave crossing (to Erlton and Mission) AND the 3rd st access to the Stampede, which will probably be the major source/destinations of future riders.
RyLucky
Active Member
Also, B is terrible.
RyLucky
Active Member
Also, is there no way to maintain 25th ave as a throughway?
1875
Senior Member
i use 25th quite a bit, none of the options address the east-west flow which is considerable.
aside from that, if there were to be development on both sides it would be cool to have a boulevard width ped/cycle bridge over macleod, linking to a mezzanine level on either side.
aside from that, if there were to be development on both sides it would be cool to have a boulevard width ped/cycle bridge over macleod, linking to a mezzanine level on either side.
RyLucky
Active Member
I think that's a great idea. Raise the street wall a level on both sides of MacLeod. Have the train and MacLeod at grade. "Flood proofing". You could add MacLeod car access at 24th ave and keep 25th ave as a boulevard connection Mission, Elrton, Stampede, Ramsay, Manchester, and Blackfoot. It could be great for the "Barley Belt" and the future of those neighbourhoods.
Habanero
Active Member
darwink
Senior Member
No, but one of the many reasons the Greenline is truncated is the switch to underground stations - they cost a lot. Just a tunnel isn't so bad - all the associated infrastructure increases costs. Hence on the West LRT where a trench was way more affordable than a tunnel, when the tunnel wouldn't have had a much higher cost at first glance, just putting on a roof. But after a certain distance of tunnel, you need emergency exists, refuges, ventilation etc. Hence the Barcelona method of shaft and in-tunnel stations as an innovation to keep costs lower being explored.
A station that needs surge capacity will cost more. And your costs for underground infrastructure increase at a much higher rate, because you are working in 3 dimensions for all your costs. Double the length or width of an above ground station, you double the cost. Double the length or width of an underground station you square your cost at minimum (not even accounting for things like roof trusses also increasing in cost by the square law, because a beam to cover 10m carries way more weight over a longer distance that a beam covering 5 m).
Last edited:
Mull
Active Member
Random bump sorry - was there any discussion regarding this project in the recent (ish) City budget?