CH Res
New Member
I love it. Centre Street is going to be a slalom course.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CH Res
New Member
The property at 10th ave and Centre Street, SE corner, was recently purchased. Any thoughts on whether the City purchased the property. The open area seems to have become a dumping ground for traffic and construction items, like barricades.
zagox
Active Member
I think the whole plan is great. It looks and feels like the rest of the C-Train system - functional and useful at a reasonable capex. We cannot afford to run underground or aerial on Centre St all the way North, so we might as well do it from 5th St. It will make Crescent Heights better as long as there is a station at 9th St.
I don't get the hate for the bridge, it is a normal thing to have bridges every few blocks in the downtown of a major city. I have no opinion on the type of bridge, whatever allows for bike/ped traffic too gets my vote.
The complaints about Eau Claire mostly seem to be motivated by people who own condos in Waterfront or River Run. So sad too bad, but the city needs this and there is no other technically sound way to do it.
I don't get the hate for the bridge, it is a normal thing to have bridges every few blocks in the downtown of a major city. I have no opinion on the type of bridge, whatever allows for bike/ped traffic too gets my vote.
The complaints about Eau Claire mostly seem to be motivated by people who own condos in Waterfront or River Run. So sad too bad, but the city needs this and there is no other technically sound way to do it.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Thanks for the great summary, but I am confused about something. If the decision is to terminate the train at Eau Claire, why would we build the bridge? Or, do you mean the bridge will be planned, just constructed whenever the train goes to 16th Avenue?
Social Justice
Active Member
Terminating at Eau Claire would be a massive cost savings for the project. Save money on a bridge and postpone a political battle by running LRTs up Centre Street.
I think it's crucial that we get shovels in the ground ASAP.
darwink
Senior Member
This makes too much sense for it to not be the result in the interim.
I would be happy if they demoed those river Run condos, and re-did the space. They were okay at the time they built them, but the whole river front areas has evolved into something different, and the land those condos are on is totally underutilized.
outoftheice
Active Member
Correct. There were a bunch of people at the open house who seemed to be under the impression that if the train terminated at Eau Claire in Stage 1 a tunnel underneath the river up to 16th Ave could be built in a future stage 'when there's more money'. Whether the bridge is built now as part of Stage 1 or 20 years from now as part of a future stage the city wanted to make it pretty clear that building any track north of Eau Claire was going to involve a bridge and that the tunnel under the river was killed for reasons other than a lack of money.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
I begrudgingly accept these conclusions. I'm just butthurt about losing the tunnel under the river. I understand the financial and geotechnical constraints. I just really really reeeeally hate how the line will swoop on to Centre Street like that. It should punch into the bluffs and come above ground at 8 or 9 ave. Other than that, I love that 4 SE is underground now, makes more sense. I wish they had kept the 12 Ave alignment so that 4 SE could be fully integrated into the new arena, but whatever 11 is still fine. I'm just happy that decisions are finally being made and we might actually see the clusterfuck under construction relatively close to on time. If 16 Avenue Station isn't underground I may have an aneurysm.
googspecial
Active Member
Just for fun - I combined what I liked about the trestle and tied arch options. The "Rocky Mountain Bridge"
Calgcouver
Active Member
I am not sure curb-loaded or dual loaded stations make sense on Centre Street North (per the renderings in front of Tigerstedt). Use the ROW more efficiently, and centre-load on a singular platform like further up the line in that Waterloo example.
I also think it is important to keep some room for on-street parking and turn lanes, where possible. I measured the ROW and it is around 30m, and usually 16m curb to curb at the tightest spots in this section of Centre Street.
Wouldn't it be more cost effective and would be a better use of the ROW to have this be the approx condition where stations are:
And approximately this where stations are not:
Landscape areas could accommodate the streetlights as well.
I just don't want to see all the businesses fronting Centre Street have no on-street parking off peak hours. Not a transportation planner mind you, just think it makes more sense for this stretch up to about Mcknight.
Would be similar to this:
I also think it is important to keep some room for on-street parking and turn lanes, where possible. I measured the ROW and it is around 30m, and usually 16m curb to curb at the tightest spots in this section of Centre Street.
Wouldn't it be more cost effective and would be a better use of the ROW to have this be the approx condition where stations are:
And approximately this where stations are not:
Landscape areas could accommodate the streetlights as well.
I just don't want to see all the businesses fronting Centre Street have no on-street parking off peak hours. Not a transportation planner mind you, just think it makes more sense for this stretch up to about Mcknight.
Would be similar to this:
Last edited:
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
9th Ave station continues to baffle me. I don't know why Crescent Heights needs closer stop spacing than the downtown core does. Even if stations are named for a single point, they are larger than that. If the possibility of crossing 16th not at grade is to remain, then there needs to be space for a transition to be built; which is a minimum of 150m. There's juust enough room to fit that transition plus a 100m four-car platform between 16th Ave and 13th Ave. (Conveniently, the east side of Centre is one long block here, so a station and portal would not block any cross traffic.) So the "16th Ave" station only really makes sense if it's actually built between 13th and 14th Avenues, and would have access from 13th Ave.
Meanwhile a 9th Ave station would require closing cross traffic -- the blocks are 80m north-south here, so you can't fit a four car platform without closing one block or another. The north end of the "9th Ave" stop could be anywhere between just south of 10th Ave or just north of 9th Ave, which would be somewhere between 330 and 410m from the near end of the "16th Ave" stop. The gap between westbound stops on 7th Ave is longer than that - 1st St is 375m from City Hall and 455m from 4th St, and it serves the four tallest office buildings in the city. Once Crescent Heights gets even one 50+ storey tower, I'll get behind the 9th Ave stop.
In terms of staging, I still think getting a beachhead on Centre Street is worth it; there's great public demand for getting this started already and the political battle can be won today; a decade (more likely two) from now, who knows?
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
outoftheice
Active Member
If you have Twitter I suggest you tweet this image to Druh Farrel and ask her her thoughts about the aesthetics and whether or not this design may work. I quite like it and she is the Councillor who has been pushing the hardest to cement a high quality bridge design. If she likes it she might pass it along directly to the Green Line team.
googspecial
Active Member
I don't usually get much traction on twitter, but I could try aha