[jhappy77]

I think that doesn't work - it would prevent turns on to 16th from Centre and vice versa. It would also make that intersection even more horrible in a number of ways.

I don't think we can avoid the 16th station being underground (or elevated), unless it's not actually at 16th, but at like 18th or 14th.

If we made 16th Avenue go under Center St like I proposed, you could arrange the turn movements as follows:

It would be a pseudo-interchange, working similarly to how WB Memorial turns onto SB Crowchild right now. You would need to sign it well (and expropriate some parking lots to make the yellow path work and be wide enough) but it would come with some significant advantages:

• No lights at 16th & Centre St. Period. Through traffic going N/S on Centre St, or E/W on 16th, never has to stop. This removes a major bottleneck in both roads. It might even improve the flow of traffic so much that removing that lane of traffic on Centre St for the train hurts way less.
• All previous left turns replaced with a series of rights. So left turning traffic never has to wait at a stop light. Even though a little extra driving is required, it still saves significant time versus waiting in an intersection for a couple minutes for the light cycle to go your way.
• Great for pedestrians and cyclists too (could have pathways along both roads, no waiting at lights, only traffic they need to contend with is right turning traffic which must yield to them)
• Green line doesn’t get delayed by any stop lights
• Green line station can be built above ground (significant savings) on either side of 16th.
• Left turning traffic never crosses the green line tracks

 

[darwink]

If we made 16th Avenue go under Center St like I proposed, you could arrange the turn movements as follows:

View attachment 499630

It would be a pseudo-interchange, working similarly to how WB Memorial turns onto SB Crowchild right now. You would need to sign it well (and expropriate some parking lots to make the yellow path work and be wide enough) but it would come with some significant advantages:

• No lights at 16th & Centre St. Period. Through traffic going N/S on Centre St, or E/W on 16th, never has to stop. This removes a major bottleneck in both roads. It might even improve the flow of traffic so much that removing that lane of traffic on Centre St for the train hurts way less.
• All previous left turns replaced with a series of rights. So left turning traffic never has to wait at a stop light. Even though a little extra driving is required, it still saves significant time versus waiting in an intersection for a couple minutes for the light cycle to go your way.
• Great for pedestrians and cyclists too (could have pathways along both roads, no waiting at lights, only traffic they need to contend with is right turning traffic which must yield to them)
• Green line doesn’t get delayed by any stop lights
• Green line station can be built above ground (significant savings) on either side of 16th.
• Left turning traffic never crosses the green line tracks

Way cheaper to just put the green line underground.

 

[jhappy77]

Way cheaper to just put the green line underground.

I really doubt that, what are you basing that on? An underpass like I proposed would probably clock in somewhere around $150M based on comparable projects in Calgary. The cost of tunneling (plus stations!) is far more than that.

 

[YYCguy]

If we made 16th Avenue go under Center St like I proposed, you could arrange the turn movements as follows:

View attachment 499630

It would be a pseudo-interchange, working similarly to how WB Memorial turns onto SB Crowchild right now. You would need to sign it well (and expropriate some parking lots to make the yellow path work and be wide enough) but it would come with some significant advantages:

• No lights at 16th & Centre St. Period. Through traffic going N/S on Centre St, or E/W on 16th, never has to stop. This removes a major bottleneck in both roads. It might even improve the flow of traffic so much that removing that lane of traffic on Centre St for the train hurts way less.
• All previous left turns replaced with a series of rights. So left turning traffic never has to wait at a stop light. Even though a little extra driving is required, it still saves significant time versus waiting in an intersection for a couple minutes for the light cycle to go your way.
• Great for pedestrians and cyclists too (could have pathways along both roads, no waiting at lights, only traffic they need to contend with is right turning traffic which must yield to them)
• Green line doesn’t get delayed by any stop lights
• Green line station can be built above ground (significant savings) on either side of 16th.
• Left turning traffic never crosses the green line tracks

I appreciate you thinking out of the box to find a way to keep traffic moving at this intersection, but I’m not sure those side streets adjacent to the intersection are built for the increased traffic proposed and I’m not sure people who live along those side streets would be too pleased with the increased traffic either!

 

[CBBarnett]

If we made 16th Avenue go under Center St like I proposed, you could arrange the turn movements as follows:

View attachment 499630

It would be a pseudo-interchange, working similarly to how WB Memorial turns onto SB Crowchild right now. You would need to sign it well (and expropriate some parking lots to make the yellow path work and be wide enough) but it would come with some significant advantages:

• No lights at 16th & Centre St. Period. Through traffic going N/S on Centre St, or E/W on 16th, never has to stop. This removes a major bottleneck in both roads. It might even improve the flow of traffic so much that removing that lane of traffic on Centre St for the train hurts way less.
• All previous left turns replaced with a series of rights. So left turning traffic never has to wait at a stop light. Even though a little extra driving is required, it still saves significant time versus waiting in an intersection for a couple minutes for the light cycle to go your way.
• Great for pedestrians and cyclists too (could have pathways along both roads, no waiting at lights, only traffic they need to contend with is right turning traffic which must yield to them)
• Green line doesn’t get delayed by any stop lights
• Green line station can be built above ground (significant savings) on either side of 16th.
• Left turning traffic never crosses the green line tracks

This is creative but it's the type of project that would undercut everything that the a major rapid transit project needs to do.

You don't "need" to preserve all these turn movements and create a weird in-neighbourhood cloverleaf interchange, that would require all sorts of strange land acquisitions and create traffic, speed and safety issues into the neighbourhood - the same place you are trying to increase land use intensity and walkability. You are working against yourself in the name of "balancing needs" when the output cannot be balanced because improving car capacity and transit/walking quality/land use intensity require the opposite things to be successful. It's a lot of extra effort and long-term downsides that counteract the primary investment of a rapid transit station about 5 minutes from the City Centre.

To adapt this idea for a future Green Line phase I would restrict and reduce the level of service for all turn movements at Centre and 16th Avenue. To compensate, create a cut-and-cover station at the intersection would provide several multiples of capacity increase in the N-S direction, meaning you can reduce Centre to a 2 lane road and still see the corridor's capacity grow several multiples. 16th is primarily E-W movements, so a reduce need for N-S cycles will allow for greater throughput here and removing the redundant turn infrastructure means less intersection complexity, accidents and congestion.

 

[darwink]

I really doubt that, what are you basing that on? An underpass like I proposed would probably clock in somewhere around $150M based on comparable projects in Calgary. The cost of tunneling (plus stations!) is far more than that.

lower volume of dirt excavated and retained, lower width and height requirement on the right of way, lower weight requirement, lower storm water management requirement due to the smaller area of the approaches. lower to no additional land acquisition.

Below grade is a volume game. Anything that reduces the volume is cost by cube.

My personal preference is to elevate the greenline across the intersection, extreme cost avoidance while not compromising the truck route.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

One place of saving money -- both on construction and rolling stock -- is dropping the 9th avenue station. It's always been silly (slow down as many people taking the train from the north to benefit the fewest people possible), but the recent Local Area Plan has made it a complete white elephant.

Here's the area around the 9th and 16th avenue proposed stations:

The vertical blue lines are the stations, and the horizontal line is the point at which you're closer to 9th Ave station than 16th Ave. Which is two and a half blocks! These stations are crazy close! It's closer than the distance from Kerby to 7th St, and that's in the densest part of the city... this is not.

The green areas can't be built upon, because they're parks.
The yellow areas can't be built upon, because they're institutional land.
The red areas allow reconstruction -- but not any real intensification -- because (as of the start of this year) they are Heritage Guideline Areas, areas of low-density single family housing that are to be preserved with this built form.

There is an argument that preserving in place low-density historical residential housing provides a benefit to the city by preserving heritage. I'm not here to agree or disagree with that. We just shouldn't waste our money building a station somewhere that is almost entirely low-density housing and can never intensify in the future; what's the point. Fish Creek Park provides a benefit to the city by preserving natural space; we didn't feel the need to build a station in the middle of it.

The best argument for a 9th Ave station was that the area had 'good bones' and could intensify in the future; that argument has been erased. Leaving space for a potential infill station if plans change and the area intensifies might make sense, but let's not waste any more.

 

[badc0ffee]

I appreciate the effort here, and this is a useful map. But why not include areas east of Edmonton Trail? A lot of it is closer to a 9 Ave station than southern Crescent Heights. 9 Ave & 6 St NE would be less than a 15 minute walk. I do understand not going further west, as that's Rosedale which will probably never densify.

Also the big yellow blob is a high school with 2,000 students.

 

[accord1999]

One place of saving money -- both on construction and rolling stock -- is dropping the 9th avenue station. It's always been silly (slow down as many people taking the train from the north to benefit the fewest people possible), but the recent Local Area Plan has made it a complete white elephant.

I'd imagine it was only thrown in to show a single positive to make up for all the negative changes that were made to Eau Claire to 16th Avenue to save costs.

I wouldn't be surprised if/when they ever get to building the segment, that station gets eliminated.

 

[Transit Apologist]

I appreciate the effort here, and this is a useful map. But why not include areas east of Edmonton Trail? A lot of it is closer to a 9 Ave station than southern Crescent Heights. 9 Ave & 6 St NE would be less than a 15 minute walk. I do understand not going further west, as that's Rosedale which will probably never densify.

Also the big yellow blob is a high school with 2,000 students.

As a recent grad from that school, it and the possible transfers are the only redeeming features of that station. I have personally witnessed southbound trips of routes 3 and 17 crush-loaded by students from the Eau Claire-Chinatown area heading home post-dismissal. Furthermore, 10th Ave is the northernmost intersection on Centre Street where one can catch the 2, 3 and 17 all from a single stop (12th Ave is where they split up, as the 17 goes east to Renfrew and the 2 goes west to get onto 4 Street). So while development opportunity is limited in the area, I feel 9 Avenue would hardly be the deadest station on the line.

 

[googspecial]

I've always hoped that 16 AVE in Phase 1 would be deemed a "temporary" station. With the extension north, they build a new 16 AVE Station below grade that either straddles the Ave or is mostly north of it. That would make 9 AVE Station make the most sense long term. I'd be fine if they skipped 9 AVE now, and built it prior to starting the next phase as it could then be the new temporary terminus until the extension is built out.

 

[googspecial]

Also I think 4 ST and Edmonton TR should be able to handle any increase in traffic if we were to reduce or eliminate turning movements at Centre ST and 16 AVE.

 

[darwink]

Also I think 4 ST and Edmonton TR should be able to handle any increase in traffic if we were to reduce or eliminate turning movements at Centre ST and 16 AVE.

Yeah. Centre Street will be a slow street. No turning movements wouldn't be great, but not like it needs to accommodate a multitude of long-haul trucks.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

I appreciate the effort here, and this is a useful map. But why not include areas east of Edmonton Trail? A lot of it is closer to a 9 Ave station than southern Crescent Heights. 9 Ave & 6 St NE would be less than a 15 minute walk. I do understand not going further west, as that's Rosedale which will probably never densify.

Also the big yellow blob is a high school with 2,000 students.

Edmonton Trail is a Primary Transit Network corridor, that is -- according to the plans -- slated to have 10 minute or lower frequency service. At 9th Avenue (the closest point to the station), it's over 500m between Edmonton Trail and Centre St, which is around an 8 minute walk. It doesn't make a lot of sense to walk 8 extra minutes so you wait on average 2-3 minutes instead of 5 minutes.

The high school does have a lot of students; the vast majority are in the walk zone:

Those who aren't are largely served with a direct bus (or the #19) from Vista/Mayland Heights and east Renfrew; the LRT isn't a very useful service for them. There is also a population served by bus from the greenfield north of Evanston, when it gets developed. (Historically, there were a lot of students brought in from the Hidden Valley / Country Hills area, but with the opening of the (uninspiringly-named) North Trail High School, that'll stop this fall, go Nighthawks.)

I'm sure there are enough students leaving right at the bell to fill up a bus to downtown -- per the last Census, there are around 70 people aged 15-19 in the Eau Claire / Chinatown area, and I bet there's more going for bubble tea and rolled ice cream, but one or two buses getting filled up at 3:30 is not a strong justification for an entire light rail station.

 

[coaxial]

As someone who went to Crescent Heights, I can assure you there is a greater need for transit access than "one or two buses filled up at 3:30" — far greater than 2 city busloads (not counting the school buses) come in the morning, head downtown for lunch, and then head home after.

Which doesn't justify a station in itself, sure, but there are also plenty of other businesses and homes in the area that would be well served with a local station, without adding an additional 7-15 minute walk.

It also creates better access to the walking path along McHugh Bluff / Crescent Heights lookout, which is one of the premier geographical features of the city, if you ask me.