SkyscraperCity banner

21 - 40 of 260 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
Could be a very positive development, on a sour note though, I always shudder when politicians use the term "world class".

C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
Could be a very positive development, on a sour note though, I always shudder when politicians use the term "world class".

C
The bit that's shaded and says "future development" is the disappointing aspect for me. I thought they'd talked about offices etc to give it a commercial aspect. What odds on it being a surface carpark for the next 20 years?!!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,105 Posts
The bit that's shaded and says "future development" is the disappointing aspect for me. I thought they'd talked about offices etc to give it a commercial aspect. What odds on it being a surface carpark for the next 20 years?!!
The extra land will be developed as and when it's commercially required. Although talk of the BBC relocating to the proposed new hub could hasten that development much further. The consultation process also asks for you would like to see happen or be achieved with the non-transport related development.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,105 Posts
Belfast Transport Hub

At Belfast City Council's 3rd December 2015 City Growth & Regeneration Committee meeting a presentation from Translink representatives confirmed that the new Hub would double the number of rail platforms, increase the number of bus stands, allow for the relocation of the Enterprise service from Belfast Central, integrate with Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT), and involve a wider mixed use regeneration scheme. The presentation also outlined a number of layout and design options based on the project brief and site constraints and opportunities. An indicative project timeline suggests an initial planning application could be submitted during 2016 and subject to funding, planning and other necessary approvals, construction could commence by 2018.

Translink is preparing a Strategic Business Case for the whole programme and working with Strategic Investment Board to identify programme finance options.

Option 1










Option 2







Option 3






 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,105 Posts
I like options 1 and 3

Although I don't like the bus access arrangements in Option 1 nor the proposed bridge supports on the second ground level perspective for Option 3. I'd rather they go with the more open structure seen above it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I like options 1 and 3

Although I don't like the bus access arrangements in Option 1 nor the proposed bridge supports on the second ground level perspective for Option 3. I'd rather they go with the more open structure seen above it.
I like option 2 best as it allows the rail network to go closer to the city centre and it allows the greatest potential for expansion in the number and length of platforms later on if passenger numbers keep rising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,884 Posts
^^

Would further expansion of option 2 not be constrained by the road bridge cutting through the station? I dislike option 2 for that reason- it's just a bigger version of what we have now. Options 1 and 3 at least look like a proper enclosed terminus.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,105 Posts
^^

Would further expansion of option 2 not be constrained by the road bridge cutting through the station? I dislike option 2 for that reason- it's just a bigger version of what we have now. Options 1 and 3 at least look like a proper enclosed terminus.
I agree, that's why I dislike Option 2 as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Pity they cant get ride of the bridge/flyover - its only there to go over the existing tracks anyway - possible tunnel the road underneath then the terminals building can be brought closer to GT Northern tower. A raised road over the open area and in front of the proposed terminal building in option 3 will look terrible.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,105 Posts
Pity they cant get ride of the bridge/flyover - its only there to go over the existing tracks anyway - possible tunnel the road underneath then the terminals building can be brought closer to GT Northern tower. A raised road over the open area and in front of the proposed terminal building in option 3 will look terrible.

A simple cut and cover tunnel would even suffice. Doesn't need to be an extravagant piece of infrastructure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,884 Posts
Or, just level the road like in Option 1. Seeing as Options 1 and 3 are essentially the same (with the train station located further away in 1), i don't see why Option 1 can have the road levelled, but Option 3 needs that wacky flyover out the front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Unless the flyover in Option 3 is supposed to be akin to an airport departures / arrivals drop-off. Still Option 3 minus the flyover would be best, and transformative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Pity they cant get ride of the bridge/flyover - its only there to go over the existing tracks anyway - possible tunnel the road underneath then the terminals building can be brought closer to GT Northern tower. A raised road over the open area and in front of the proposed terminal building in option 3 will look terrible.
I agree.

I think that option 2 with the bridge tunneled under would be the best option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Option 2 only has 4 tracks though while the others have 5.

We need to build future capacity into the design or the entire thing is pointless.
Are you sure, I think they all have 5. I agree about capacity. Train capacity should be kept in mind so its future proofed. I'd like to see that kept in mind for platform length as well as number of platforms.

(I may be too focussed on Option 2's feature of getting the platforms extending closer to Great Victoria Street, but its just that I think its always a pity when track is shortened and people have to walk further to the city centre.)

I think I prefer 3 to 1 because it places trains "front and centre".
 
21 - 40 of 260 Posts
Top