News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 29K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.8K     0 

Which concept would you prefer?

  • Concept A

    Votes: 21 56.8%
  • Concept B

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Concept C

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Leave as is

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Put underground

    Votes: 5 13.5%

  • Total voters
    37

Patrick.1980

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
507
Reaction score
909
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
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
20,523
City:
Calgary
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.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
7,598
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.
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.
1545072307808.png
 

RyLucky

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
288
Reaction score
387
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.
 

1875

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
20,523
City:
Calgary
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.
 

RyLucky

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
288
Reaction score
387
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.
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
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Messages
481
Reaction score
815
City:
Calgary
Would it be any costlier than the Westbrook Station or any of the Greenline stations?

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.
View attachment 167869
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
7,598
Would it be any costlier than the Westbrook Station or any of the Greenline stations?
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:

Top