Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit

Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 41 59.4%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 31.9%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 6 8.7%
  • Total voters
    69
Found a fun little Easter-egg in the portal renders 😂
Screenshot_20210419-144304.png
Screenshot_20210419-144304~2.png


Can this please be a thing!
 
artvandelay said:
I'm not a fan of the way this cuts off the river walk. I understand the grade challenges but I think the path should be continuous under the bridge, even if the river channel has to be shifted slightly northwards. I believe that area is largely manmade anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is definitely an oversight, I'm sure the pathway will be continuous the entire way.
 
DougB said:
Thoughts on the portal:
Click to expand...
DougB said:
2) Why does the LRT bridge have not only another pedestrian crossing, but one on either side? Pedestrian crossings of the lagoon already exist to the immediate east and immediate west. Keeping the bridge narrower will lessen it visual impact. Creating a redududant north-south pedestrian flow only adds to congestion
Click to expand...

That pedestrian pathway will go all the way across the river with the bridge, so it isn't another connection to Prince's Island. Now should there be a pathway on each side or just make a wide enough one on one side of the bridge?
 
NGL that plaza/portal concept is awful in my opinion. Way too much going on, and completely messes with the connectivity of the river pathway. It is just a concept and need to remind myself that, but they should have at least tried to show the pathway continuing under the bridge.

That observation deck thing above that tracks makes me think that they should consider running the pedestrian part of the bridge up there for it's length instead of flanking each side and making it so wide. I do remember reading somewhere that they are justifying having 2 pathways (one each side of the tracks) on the bridge though.
 
There isn't an oversight in the render as pathway will not continue underneath the bridge as there is not enough clearance underneath the bridge unless the pathway is pushed well into the lagoon and into the flood zone. What you see is a (not quite finalized) version of what you'll get. Personally I like it. A slightly longer detour is a small price to pay for what could prove to be an extremely interesting outdoor gathering space along the river.
 
What I don't get is that there are hundreds of places that pedestrians and cyclists cross LRT tracks at grade in this city without a massive block-sized stair-ramp-and-bridge piece of infrastructure. Like, it's nice to put a plaza amenity here, and it's nice to have pedestrian thruways that cross over the tracks. But the entire history of Calgary's C-train is a history of learning that we don't need separated pedestrian overpasses at all costs to preferring at-grade crossings; the most significant revamp of a station -- at Chinook -- was to get away from pedestrian overpasses, and the same thing is happening at Victoria Park/Stampede right now.

Particularly for the cycle facility, it would be valuable to have a through option instead of a long, hilly detour. Just drop four quadrant crossing gates down for the ten seconds every few minutes a train is there.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
What I don't get is that there are hundreds of places that pedestrians and cyclists cross LRT tracks at grade in this city without a massive block-sized stair-ramp-and-bridge piece of infrastructure. Like, it's nice to put a plaza amenity here, and it's nice to have pedestrian thruways that cross over the tracks. But the entire history of Calgary's C-train is a history of learning that we don't need separated pedestrian overpasses at all costs to preferring at-grade crossings; the most significant revamp of a station -- at Chinook -- was to get away from pedestrian overpasses, and the same thing is happening at Victoria Park/Stampede right now.

Particularly for the cycle facility, it would be valuable to have a through option instead of a long, hilly detour. Just drop four quadrant crossing gates down for the ten seconds every few minutes a train is there.
Click to expand...
Or just do the easy thing - for cyclists a flood exposed quick route is fine. Sure, the CPTED is just awful, but whatever.

Thi sis just a design to show people it could be something. This isn't a what it is going to be. I expect actual landscape architects to be involved and design something befiting its prominence in both use, and place.
 
Last edited:
Big difference between building in protected corridors (railway ROW, and set aside ROW), and creating a exclusive corridor.

Plus some systems don't care when they build over parallel utilities, because they make the compromise that they'll just shut down the system if the utility needs work.

That being said, NC still seems to have gone awry.
 
Same as it ever was (since the UCP was elected really). The province explicitly told the city to change the contracting strategy: at least Shepard to Stephen Ave simultaneously, more later.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top