View Poll Results: !

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1

    0 0%
  • ?

    0 0%
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 499

Thread: Post your ideal LRT system

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default My new LRT wish

    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  2. #2
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,212

    Default

    Makes too much sense to be considered.

  3. #3
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i think it has too many splits. I would connect NAIT to VIA/ greyuhound etc and on North.

    To connect Commonwealth, Kingsway, 124str 111ave, Westmount etc I would use a rind line that I proposed that would circle through WEM, University, Bonnie Doon (EDIT: AND OLD STrathcona of course), Kings College (EDIT: AND NEW TOD at old shopping mall cite), Concordia and Back to Commonwealth.

    As for serving 124st/ Jasper Ave--that should be the line going to WEM via Stoney Plain.

  4. #4
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That's a great network where unexpensive ROW is concerned, but you couldn't have all those trains heading downtown, at least not with frequent service.

    How about splitting the VIA leg off the the westmount leg at 110th st to head down that old CP ROW/park to grandin station, with a station at the Save-on north of jasper. Then across the high level to old strathcona and millwoods. With two transfer points to the Main LRT line, it could work. I like it.

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'd say the "leg" to VIA would be better served by a smaller trolley line as the amount of passengers who would take advantage would be small, otherwise, the Westmount line is exactly what was proposed years ago - before this straight line across the river to WEM neverbuilt idea came to be.

    NAIT would have to extend further to at least Northgate...

    Westmount would be a great place for a BRT line from St Albert. BRT there because St Albert is not the major destination that places like, I don't know, the 22+ million visit WEM is...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    I'd say the "leg" to VIA would be better served by a smaller trolley line as the amount of passengers who would take advantage would be small, otherwise, the Westmount line is exactly what was proposed years ago - before this straight line across the river to WEM neverbuilt idea came to be.

    NAIT would have to extend further to at least Northgate...

    Westmount would be a great place for a BRT line from St Albert. BRT there because St Albert is not the major destination that places like, I don't know, the 22+ million visit WEM is...
    As much as I love via, Greyhound, I agree that this location will not support , and is not at all a priority for an LRT line. The Kingsway/nait line DOES make huge sense and as part of a line continuing straight north.

    As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement

    As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.
    That Westmount 'spur' would go out to WEM.... And is the best route for it, as it goes through areas that would actually use transit...

  8. #8
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Correct, the 107 spur was the original plan to Jasper Place....the ROW is STILL there.

    So, we would just head down to 87th well west and past the Laurier Heights LRT killers, and hang a right to WEM.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  9. #9
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.
    The plan ould be for this to be run under a UNIFIED transit system, ETS or a "BC Transit" style set up province wide...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  10. #10
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,307

    Default

    Wish? More like woulda-coulda-shoulda since it all would have been doable had the rail ROWs still been intact. Now that all those strip malls and condos have been built on them, it's rather too late for this to happen, don't ya think?

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement

    As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.
    That Westmount 'spur' would go out to WEM.... And is the best route for it, as it goes through areas that would actually use transit...
    Honestly how is this the best spur to WEM for the half the city that lives on the southside?!?

    Its about the most indirect line to WEM imaginable.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Honestly how is this the best spur to WEM for the half the city that lives on the southside?!?

    Its about the most indirect line to WEM imaginable.

    The southside already has LRT. Part of the goal is to make the LRT as useful as possible to the maximum number of people. Running LRT down 107th Ave to Mayfield, and down Mayfield, then down 170 St brings LRT close to the maximum number of commuters. Taking it straight down 87th misses most transit using neighbourhoods, and misses all the neighbourhoods in the northwest that are likely to be commuter. Push it down to Callingwood and you've created a really nice line to run short bus routes to for pretty much the entire population of the west end that's likely to take public transit.

    WEM is a destination, and putting it on the LRT system is important, but the primary goal is to make the LRT convenient as a commuter system for the maximum number of people.

    The other thing this route would do is make the employment areas in the northwest easy to get to from the LRT.

    There's no point in going in a straight line if the points on that line aren't where you need to go.

  13. #13
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    sort of. there are some significant density along 87 avenue:
    1 several apartment buildings at 149street
    2. massive apartment complex--Whitehall Square at 156 street that is also next to Meadowlark mall and adult living complexes just north of it
    3. Misericordia and the large apartment complex east of it.

    I think if LRT goes down that way it would serve a lot of people. 170th has a stretch south of 95ave that has high density, but it is nowhere near what already exists along 87th from 149 to WEM.

    I think ideal route for WLRT is down Jasper to Stoney Plain to 149 street (a lot of apartment buildings there) to 87 Ave to WEM.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Honestly how is this the best spur to WEM for the half the city that lives on the southside?!?

    Its about the most indirect line to WEM imaginable.

    The southside already has LRT. Part of the goal is to make the LRT as useful as possible to the maximum number of people. Running LRT down 107th Ave to Mayfield, and down Mayfield, then down 170 St brings LRT close to the maximum number of commuters. Taking it straight down 87th misses most transit using neighbourhoods, and misses all the neighbourhoods in the northwest that are likely to be commuter. Push it down to Callingwood and you've created a really nice line to run short bus routes to for pretty much the entire population of the west end that's likely to take public transit.

    WEM is a destination, and putting it on the LRT system is important, but the primary goal is to make the LRT convenient as a commuter system for the maximum number of people.

    The other thing this route would do is make the employment areas in the northwest easy to get to from the LRT.

    There's no point in going in a straight line if the points on that line aren't where you need to go.
    Theres also no point putting the WEM access at a point so far north that the south won't make any use of it. Some consideration of equitable or fair compromise I'd say should enter into it. The southside of the city is expanding rapidly and now stretches all the way to 20A SW!! Thats now way past zero meridian. Conversely Edmonton stretches to 180A at it northernmost point. Is 111AVE as the OP diagrammed as the starting point a fair meeting of halfway? Thats 69 blocks away from the northernmost extremity of the city and 131blocks(twice as many) from the southernmost to put it into perspective and lets not forget, to end up at a location that is arguably more south as in 87AVE. So south residents esentially go WAY north only to go south again..

  15. #15
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    LRT to WEM SHOULD BE down 87ave but WONT BE imo for political reasons
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish

    I think ideal route for WLRT is down Jasper to Stoney Plain to 149 street (a lot of apartment buildings there) to 87 Ave to WEM.
    That would be the absolute ideal, but also very costly as you would have to tunnel along Jasper, and then drop to go UNDER Groat, come up a bit and tunnel along 102, coming up probably near 149/Jasper Gates. But yes, that is the "onion paper on a map" best route.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  17. #17
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    LRT to WEM SHOULD BE down 87ave but WONT BE imo for political reasons
    Yep...the line doomed to Phase Never...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  18. #18
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by grish

    I think ideal route for WLRT is down Jasper to Stoney Plain to 149 street (a lot of apartment buildings there) to 87 Ave to WEM.
    That would be the absolute ideal, but also very costly as you would have to tunnel along Jasper, and then drop to go UNDER Groat, come up a bit and tunnel along 102, coming up probably near 149/Jasper Gates. But yes, that is the "onion paper on a map" best route.
    I was thinking above ground actually. Turn 102 into a one-way 3 lane road and convert the other lane/sidewalk to rail tracks. At the same time convert Stoney plain rd to one way for returning traffic.
    tunnelling would definitely make it prohibitive (unless, of course, we get some sort of LRT building dictatorship)

  19. #19
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Lets see if this works:



    Green Lines are the NAIT, WEM and Millwoods lines. Red is the
    proposed (by me) ring line. Black is the existing line. when two lines run side-by-side they share the track on that segment.

    Note that Millwoods is a simple add-on line. It only needs to make one stop at Millwoods Towne Center. I see two alternating trains--one going downtown through NE portion of ring road (I.e. will make a turn at stadium) and one is downtown through University portion of the ring road.

    I wanted the ring to share track between UofA south campus and Health Sciences for two reasons. It will allow more choices for student commute between the two campuses and will send LRT through Fox Drive over Quesnel. Then we make a stop top of Quesnel with East end serving Ft. Edmonton and West end of the station serving Valley zoo. Coordinate this with both facilities and Ft. Edmonton might actually choose to move their entrance and steam train closer to LRT (while the Zoo may do similar work with their wheeled cho-cho train).

    Like the millwoods line, if there is ever a development near the ring road that warrants LRT, a one or two-stop extension is built to connect and tie that new development into the LRT network.
    For example, another spurt line (like the one to Millwoods) may be built to Riverbend and the communities further South from Fox Dr./Whitemud.

    With the ring road we will place LRT near the majority of Edmontonians.

  20. #20
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    I was thinking above ground actually. Turn 102 into a one-way 3 lane road and convert the other lane/sidewalk to rail tracks. At the same time convert Stoney plain rd to one way for returning traffic.
    tunnelling would definitely make it prohibitive (unless, of course, we get some sort of LRT building dictatorship)
    But they would need a double track, for trains going both
    directions. So they would need 2 lanes of roadway at least,
    which would leave a 2 lane one-way road.

  21. #21
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ I just drove there today and you are right, there isn't enough room for three lanes and rail. I was actually planning to make that correction.

  22. #22
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Would it be worthwhile at all having a line run down part of the soon to be vacated train yards along 103rd? Maybe not going all the the way south but maybe take a line to branch from Health Sciences somehow to the tracks where the street car now runs all the way to whyte and 103. From there travel south to somewhere like argyll and continue south east to millwoods via 91 st. until whitemud. Travel along whitemud (with a stop next to the lakewood terminal and then to 75 st or 50st and then right into millwoods.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  23. #23
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    other than old strathcona and then Millwoods there is a really long stretch of emptyness (ie low density) on the route your propose. If the line is going to go along whyte, it might as well continue to Bonnie Doon and then on to millwoods making the existing rail not usable. I would rather they retain the rail ROW for a new road that connects south (replacing calgary trail and running side-by-side with gateway) and also leaving an allowance for HSR along there.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Lets see if this works:

    I dont know whos going to ride your red line to no where - It barely connects any employment areas with living areas.

    All lines should connect to downtown. Downtown should the central hub for the whole system, and spokes should come off it.

    Ring lines would only make sense if you were connecting employment zones with resdential zones... these red lines just seem to go random.

    The current proposed plan by the city makes sense... I'll repost it for you to re-look at .


    You may want to consider the areas you are going through and to:
    http://www.edmonton.ca/infraplan/Lan...Map%202006.pdf

  25. #25
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    view the "red" or ring line as more of a round about on the road. In my plan, the black line and the green line to WEM anf to NAIT are the main load carriers. Ring line is simply to connect Millwoods and Riverbend and Bonnie Doon.

    Take, as an example Groat road and 111 ave (or Westmount stop). From there a rider will have two choices:

    1. Westmount-Kingsway-Downtown-University-West End-Westmount Loop
    2. same as above in the opposite direction

    Take for example Bonnie Doon stop. The line that passes there would make
    B/D-Strathcona-University-Downtown-Stadium-Capilano-Bonnie Doon loop.

    So, my vision is that the ring road will serve every region of the city with an LRT connection downtown and University.

    If a person needs to go elsewhere, they would have to connect.

    I wouldn't want to see trains do a full circle at 15 min intervals.

    Another option is for trains to make figure 8 or a bow-tie loop.

    Together with the regular operation of the black (or back-bone line) a bow-tie line will follow the following:

    Downtown (Say Corona)-Univercity-Strathcona-Bonnie-Doon-Capilano-Concordia or Stadium-Downtown (corona)-University-Meadowlark-Westmount-Kingsway/NAIT-Stadium-Downtwon (Corona) and the loop is complete.

    But the bottom line is, just because there is track that goes all the way around doesn't mean there will be trains simply circling. We want people get downtown and University area--that is where we will direct the trains.

  26. #26
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    You may want to consider the areas you are going through and to:
    with the loop that I envision, the line will be close to most of the population of edmonton. when people know that an LRT line is only a few blocks away--their support for the line will be stronger and more relevant.

    The current construction of the south line is not very relevant to people in the east or west or north ends of the city. Thus we get comments in the SUN about our "wasteful" city council--they don't see direct benefit.

    After the ring is built, every community ends being close to the line. If there is a need to build LRT to, say, Mayfield, all it would take is a short one-or two stop connector to the ring road and on to downtown.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    view the "red" or ring line as more of a round about on the road. In my plan, the black line and the green line to WEM anf to NAIT are the main load carriers. Ring line is simply to connect Millwoods and Riverbend and Bonnie Doon.

    Take, as an example Groat road and 111 ave (or Westmount stop). From there a rider will have two choices:

    1. Westmount-Kingsway-Downtown-University-West End-Westmount Loop
    2. same as above in the opposite direction

    Take for example Bonnie Doon stop. The line that passes there would make
    B/D-Strathcona-University-Downtown-Stadium-Capilano-Bonnie Doon loop.

    So, my vision is that the ring road will serve every region of the city with an LRT connection downtown and University.

    If a person needs to go elsewhere, they would have to connect.

    I wouldn't want to see trains do a full circle at 15 min intervals.

    Another option is for trains to make figure 8 or a bow-tie loop.

    Together with the regular operation of the black (or back-bone line) a bow-tie line will follow the following:

    Downtown (Say Corona)-Univercity-Strathcona-Bonnie-Doon-Capilano-Concordia or Stadium-Downtown (corona)-University-Meadowlark-Westmount-Kingsway/NAIT-Stadium-Downtwon (Corona) and the loop is complete.

    But the bottom line is, just because there is track that goes all the way around doesn't mean there will be trains simply circling. We want people get downtown and University area--that is where we will direct the trains.
    I'm just glad this will never come about. Sure it picks people up, but really, where is it taking them to?

    A hub (downtown/uofa) and a spoke system is what will be built, and is being built here.

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    I think an LRT ring route is a good idea, just not the one grish proposed. How about this one:
    - Start at 76 Av and 114 St, follow Belgravia/Fox to a stop at Fort Edmonton.
    - Continue along whitemud to a stop at 156 St, then along 170 St to stops at WEM and Mayfield common (move the Jasper Place TC there).
    - Continue along Mayfield Rd and 111 Av to a stop at Westmount
    - Continue east and meet the north LRT at either Kingsway/RAH (via 111 Av) or GMCC (via old rail ROW).
    - Complete the loop via downtown and U of A

  29. #29
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    sort of half of what I proposed.

    It would be a good start.

    I wanted LRT to somehow connect all major post secondary institutions in edmonton--UofA,NAIT, MacEwan, Concordia, and Kings as well as connect strathcona and give hope for a Century-type development at Capilano site. That is why I think the east part of my proposal is important.

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    I'd like to see LRT to Capilano start from the "downtown transport hub" (aka churchill station), cross the river to a stop at the Muttart and follow 98 Av east. That would set up 3 train routes: A northeast to southwest line, a west end circle route and a north to east route.

    Later, lines running along 50th street and 23 Av could connect Millwoods to Capilano and Century Park, setting up another circle route.

  31. #31
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Well I like the idea of an LRT loop, mind you what I had in mind was of a smaller scale.

    What I was thinking of was an automated, elevated LRT loop with reasonably spaced stations. Below the LRT would be a bus lane that would help feed people to/from the LRT stations.
    Should the LRT loop be a single mono-directional track a special bus route could act as the LRT traveling in the opposite direction.

    The idea being to add an LRT that would not interfere with local traffic, would have a lower annual operating cost then a standard LRT line, run at high speeds (for an LRT), and would require less land then a ground or below ground line.
    Of course adding a bus lane below it would help the buses in general as well as allow fewer LRT stops since a special bus route could help shuttle people to/from stations to their destinations.


    Specifically I was thinking of a downtown loop, as well as a wLRT like loop. As for the west I was thinking of a small loop on 170 St (maybe combined with Mayfield Rd), 114 (or 111/11 Ave, 142 St, and 87 Ave.
    Adding a special express bus (or extra/expanded LRT track) along 111ave to connect this loop to Westmount, Kingsway, and Stadium Station. With another one by 87ave to connect to an LRT station south of the river.

    But that's just my idea on it.
    I may not be too familiar with other parts of the city but something similar could work for those areas as well. Local ring LRTs that connect to some LRT backbone to allow people to transfer from one ring to another or downtown.
    Perhaps it could be a large city-wide loop that connects to multiple sub-loops.
    Yeah, I'm a little loopy today.

  32. #32
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    I realize that the 'R' in LRT stands for 'rail' and not 'rapid,' but it galls me think that we are talking of spending in the neighbourhood of $40 million per kilometre to basically provide service that is similar to that provided by bus.

    I can understand the civic pride and desire to provide service to Fort Edmonton and to the Zoo, but every stop adds to the duration of the run and if I understand the control system and timing requirements, LRT stops are not 'on demand.'

    Please decide if you want to stop the train for a couple of minutes every few hundred metres OR if you want to provide a speedy transport to your destination. The two appear to be mutually exclusive.

    I like the ring route suggestion, especially if it only has to stop at transit hubs three to eight kilometres apart. Several hubs could act as transfer points to radial routes that end or pass through downtown. To deny the value of a ring route shows a very narrow, core-centric mindset and is similar to dissing AHD because it doesn't go downtown.

  33. #33
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Well if you're talking stations 3-8km apart that better be a fairly large ring. I agree with the idea of fewer stops, faster service. Let buses handle the in-between destinations.

    Heh, maybe they should build a LRT loop on the TUC.
    With feeder routes to/from the various municipalities and key destinations (WEM, Airport, SEC) that would really help people move around the region in a flash.
    Not to mention the land is already designated for transit/utility purposes and currently under construction.
    I think it could work if there were very few stops and the LRT was very fast; like 60km/h or faster (average speed) fast.
    Automate it, make sure it doesn't affect traffic (below or above ground) and it'll be good for decades with some maintenance.

    I think it would be a really great project for the future.

  34. #34
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    St Albert, Alberta
    Posts
    192

    Default

    So it would pretty much TRIPLE the taxes but the city would reduce SO much congestion and save on energy emissions and in the long run would be ENTIRELY worth it since Canada is kicking our asses into following more environmental policies to build an LRT line to St Albert and Sherwood Park

    just imagine how that would change everything.

    its not like we dont have the room. stupid money....stupid stupid money.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Well, the Via spur on it's own wouldn't really make sense. It would have to radiate off somewhere, maybe to the NE and St. Albert? It's too close to the future North line running from NAIT and all that.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  36. #36
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topher
    So it would pretty much TRIPLE the taxes but the city would reduce SO much congestion and save on energy emissions and in the long run would be ENTIRELY worth it since Canada is kicking our asses into following more environmental policies to build an LRT line to St Albert and Sherwood Park

    just imagine how that would change everything.

    its not like we dont have the room. stupid money....stupid stupid money.
    Do we HAVE TO imagine and guess at the figures? Don't we have counts that show how much traffic would be reduced if we were to run the LRT spokes to our neighbours?

    Less traffic load translates into less road wear, less roadway construction, less pollution, fewer collisions, etc - all of which just keep sucking at the infrastructure budget.

    Trumpet to the commuters their savings in car maintenance, fuel, insurance, parking, stress and time as a trade-off for the cost of a bus pass and you'll be assured of riders.

    So here we sit arguing about running spokes to malls and schools while we lose millions of dollars every day in potential fares and at the same time continue to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure.

    Ex-urban commuters are an untapped profit center for transit. However we continue to keep them a drain on infrastructure instead.

    We shouldn't run a line to NAIT, it should run to Namao or even Bon Accord and Gibbons with plans for Redwater and the upgraders site. NAIT is only one stop along the way, not the entire spoke.

    NE should already be in Fort Saskatchewan, Bruderheim and Lamont, while other spokes should be to Sherwood Park, Beaumont, Leduc, Devon, Calmar, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, St. Albert, Morinville, etc.

    Let's build the lines through farmland and not wait until we have to demolish homes or tear up roads. Along the way we might even get transit oriented communities that develop because of transit, communities where transit doesn't have try to displace the car.

    Do we have a regional plan to present to the province for cost sharing or are we still trying to get the province and the feds to pay for a track to school.

  37. #37
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    This is a letter that has been drafted for submission to local media and to relevant government ministries and departments at the local and provincial level.

    It was originally created with the angle of a novel idea for the new arena.

    Please provide only positive constructive criticism. There's not a lot of room for major changes to this proposal that we're advocating, but there's certainly room for minor tweaks or additional elements that compliment the end-state of the project.

    Thanks for your time and feedback,
    Jordan Schroder

    Alberta 2020

    ###

    Along with projected growth in the region, the WHL Oil Kings return this fall and Rush lacrosse, an arena that the Oilers need by 2013 is justifiable. A recent study concluded that the existing Rexall Place could be retrofitted to the tune of $250 million, but it falls short as it doesn't increase total capacity over 20 thousand. It seems another building is preferable and though the lease with Northlands doesn't expire for six years, a site needs to be chosen soon as it'll take years to complete.

    In other cities where arenas have been built along with various cultural and entertainment amenities, these complexes have spurred further progress. There is a growing consensus that the Oilers new home should be in the heart of downtown, and that the move would surely improve the vitality of surrounding neighborhoods. Mayor Mandel has even said he would "look seriously at building a new downtown rink that would be part of a $1-billion complex of shops, businesses and a hotel". That makes good economic sense too, looking at Rexall Place today, we see rinks don't improve neighborhoods on their own. The only location being considered now, is occupied by the post office depot on 97th street and 104th Avenue, sandwiched between City Hall and the Station Lands. While there is room for a rink on that corner, it's unclear where the rest of the complex will go and who'll pay for it. Generally, I have supported the growing initiative to build a rink downtown along with re-development of the area around it. However, I think that putting a new rink this close to the downtown core will be a mistake in the long run.

    The closest LRT station would be Churchill, which is a further walk from the Coliseum station to the current Rexall Place. Once you begin to look at the ramifications of putting a new rink downtown, it's clear that it would be difficult to implement at best. Setting aside the monumental task of buying up all the buildings and parcels of land needed for the downtown location, look at the traffic congestion before and after games along the Yellowhead, Wayne Gretzky Drive, 118th Avenue and all the way down 75th Street. Even with convenient LRT access at Northlands, all those roads are packed with thousands of fans, crawling along in their vehicles for quite some time. Now imagine all that traffic clogging the downtown core in rush hour on a game day. Not going to happen. Mandel's plan to improve the viability of downtown east of 97th should be implemented regardless, and not tied to the location of any new arena.

    I think our best bet is to be brave and bold in where we choose the location of the new arena, which the Oilers will need by the time their current lease expires with Northlands in 2013. If we're going to develop a new investment of that magnitude, it only makes sense to integrate it within a larger framework that benefits the wider community. The following alternative requires careful coordination, and political will.

    Consider that the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA), is contracted to host the Grand Prix (GP) until 2010. Since the bulk of regularly scheduled commercial flights were moved to the international, the ECCA has been home to small charters, private and corporate aircraft, training, military, industrial and medevac flights. While the ECCA generates about a thousand direct jobs, and about $20 million dollars in tax revenue for the city, the fact is, the municipal airport is not as much of an economic force as it used to be. While keeping the STARS base and the Alberta Aviation Museum intact, demolition of airport buildings and tarmac could begin when the GP contract expires in 2010. Air traffic, jobs and economic output could be consolidated to other regional airports, like the international which is looking to expand capacity anyhow.

    The corner stone Municipal Lands development could be the new Rexall Place with room for 21,000 fans on the southern-most edge of the land where Kingsway and Princess Elizabeth Avenues meet. Along the same model as Century Park, the city and developers could also build a massive urban village on the former Municipal Airport. In Century Park an estimated 5,000 residents will live on 43 acres of land formerly occupied by Heritage Mall. Well over ten times this area, the Municipal Lands development could potentially be home to 50 to 70 thousand Edmontonians in mixed medium density residential. There is ample room for parks, schools, shopping areas and a dedicated entertainment district buffering the communities and a new Rexall Place.

    But Lord Stanley knows you can't have all that without the LRT access that is enjoyed at Northlands. The Alberta paradox, as I call it, is that gasoline costs us about as much as almost anywhere else on the continent. Make no mistake, as this city continues to boom because of the Oil industry and the cost per barrel continues to rise year over year, more and more Edmontonians will use public transit if it's a convenient and efficient choice for them. Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.

    We were the first in North America to build LRT in 1978, but in 2009, after it's extended to Century Park, Calgary's system will still be 3 times bigger, having saved money above ground. Though we are behind, their level crossings are now at capacity downtown and our investment under Jasper will pay dividends in the future. As we review the transit plan from 1999, the time to build consensus on the next phase of LRT is now. Our provincial surplus should help fund an aggressive expansion of Edmonton's system to match Calgary's starting in 2010.

    Following 97th street south after Northgate and NAIT, a Kingsway LRT station shared by the Mall, entertainment district and arena is a no-brainer. Then past Grant MacEwan and Jasper Avenue on 109th street, joining the existing line at an expanded Grandin station. The new LRT line could continue south to the international airport next to the high speed rail line via a new bridge before hitting stations along the rail corridor at Strathcona, Argyle, Whitemud, South Common, Ellerslie and Nisku. A third line could connect Stony Plain, West Edmonton Mall, Hawrelak Park, the University, then either Bonnie Doon and/or Capilano malls on the way to Sherwood Park. It could run underneath Whyte Avenue, with a transit centre built on that useless empty lot on 105th street.

    The fourth line could connect St.Albert following the rail corridor south-east to Oliver Square, MacEwan and then the Station Lands downtown via either 104th or 105th Avenues. Connecting with the existing LRT line at Churchill, the line would come out of downtown by the Shaw conference center, and cross the river to stop at Connors road. It could then sneak along Mill Creek ravine south to 91st street and head to Lakewood and Mill Woods Town Centre from 28th Ave.

    Phasing in the second, third and fourth LRT lines, new arena, new bridge, and 'Blue-Sky Bullet' high-speed rail link with Calgary, will cost less than $2 billion per annum from 2010 to 2020 - well within the surpluses of this province. Even with an extension to Fort Saskatchewan from Clareview, there would still be enough money left over for infrastructure and legacy projects such as a world class Energy & Water Innovation Institute on the U of A South Campus to meet the challenges of the decades ahead.

    In closing, we need to invest now to secure the future. Not just for the sake of the Oilers, but for the health and prosperity of the whole Edmonton region. Let's get everyone on board and put this on the civic agenda in 2008. It'll be a political challenge, but where there's a will - and enough cash - there's a way.

    Thanks for your feedback,
    Jordan Schroder

    http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/Future.LRT.gif

    *note this second image is a little older, and I've changed the hypo' name of the St. Joseph's station to McDougall. I also want to apologize in advance for my ****-poor rendition of what an medium density 'in-fill' urban village looks like.

    http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/muni.lands.jpg

    ps: check out my weekly music and current cultural and political events podcast at http://www.jamunion.net !

  38. #38

    Default

    Build it downtown.

    I see you've recycled your idea again abit here?

  39. #39
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    What an intelligent and thoughtful reply.



    I've been trying to tighten this up. It helps when people actually provide some kind of point by point analysis or comment... that's what makes ideas better.

    If an aspect of this doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then we'll change it.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    What an intelligent and thoughtful reply.



    I've been trying to tighten this up. It helps when people actually provide some kind of point by point analysis or comment... that's what makes ideas better.

    If an aspect of this doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then we'll change it.
    We dont need a second "downtown" area in this city (yet) or in 2020. Lets get our current downtown done correct first.
    Build the arena downtown, with all the other arts and entertainment facilities.
    Thank you for your compliment.

  41. #41
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    I'm not advocating that the municipal lands be built into a new 'downtown'. My understanding of 'urban village' and 'medium density' is smart, cost-effective urban planning...

    ... which is what we will need as this city continues to grow.


  42. #42
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    199

    Default

    The closest LRT station would be Churchill, which is a further walk from the Coliseum station to the current Rexall Place.
    I must ask, are you aware that their is a LRT station already roughed in almost directly below the proposed location. This was roughed in when the LRT line was orginally built to "shuttle" the inmates from the Remand Centre to the Edmonton Max. I think a downtown arena may prove more efficient than what is presently.

    FYI: CTV Edmonton is running a part 2 documentary on the two new arenas, in the states ; that are downtown. The one in Kanas City ( I believe) is in very similar location to where the new arena would be located. From last night's Part 1... looked very good.

  43. #43
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I'm assuming the crux of your post is intended to be the LRT expansion, if so, could you do up a map of your LRT lines on top of an actual city map? (preferably something like the Google Maps hybrid view) Diagrams are great if you're using the transit system, but they're horrible for discussing the planning stages. I'm having a really hard time figuring out where most of this stuff would go, you have E/W avenues going on, etc. I also have the feeling that there are a lot of widely spaced stations on the suburban lines that just won't be viable.

    On the muni lands side of things, I guess that's a pretty reasonable location for the arena (within that plot of land, I'm not going to get into the whole arena location debate when it's so heated with only two possiblities). I do, however, need to say that if you're developing a large, dense, walkable area, the transit stations have to be in the middle, not in the corners and perimiter, and certainly not walled off by a big arena. And I don't even know what's supposed to be going on with your aerial photo overlay.

  44. #44
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    I must ask, are you aware that their is a LRT station already roughed in almost directly below the proposed location. This was roughed in when the LRT line was orginally built to "shuttle" the inmates from the Remand Centre to the Edmonton Max. I think a downtown arena may prove more efficient than what is presently.
    Thanks for bringing this up howyadoin'.

    I am aware of it, but it doesn't really affect my position for two reasons.

    First of all, there's a big difference between "roughed in" and a completed station. Granted, all I've seen from riding past on the LRT south is what looks like an excavated space, with no real built in infrastructure beyond a space for building a station in. If anyone knows if it's been more developed than that, I'd be interested to find out, but at the end of the day it won't make me change my mind.

    That's because as mentioned previously, even with convenient LRT access enjoyed at the Coliseum, there are still thousands of people who take their vehicles and clog up the arteries in and around heading out from the arena.

    Second of all, even if the city or a PPP group helped to build an LRT station there as part of the new arena, the only way the city will consider, (as the mayor has pointed out), or should even consider a downtown arena is if it comes as part of a larger community plan to build a large hotel and other businesses and shops.

    My biggest concern with the downtown proposal is that the arena won't 'fix' the problems downtown's eastside has. The proposed location at the mail depot is already within a short distance of the cities premiere cultural and civic institutions. City Hall, Churchill Square, the Citadel, Winspeare, the new Gallery and Stanley Milner library have already improved the area as much as it's going to be improved, in lieu of serious social and economic programs and developments east of 97th street.

    Those should happen regardless of whether or not an arena gets built.

    The municipal lands recognizes that if we are going to be building an arena complex and/or entertainment district and the infrastructure that supports them, it should be in an area that will most benefit the city in the long term.

    My idea to put the new arena on the southern edge of the Municipal Lands notwithstanding, you have to appreciate the common sense and desirability of the main elements of the concept;

    - Expanded LRT lines to connect the region and existing/future institutions... (i.e. NAIT with NAIT South)
    - Smart, sustainable urban planning to curb expensive sprawl.
    - An integrated provincial transportation strategy connecting LRT, BRT, and air links with the bullet train.
    - et cetera.

  45. #45
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    283

    Default

    While I don't agree with some of the details from your future LRT plan I do like the overall concept. If you put it on a larger scale map it would alleviate some of my concerns.

    As for the idea to redevelop the muni area I'd be willing to consider that option. However my opinion on the arena bit is I want to see a plan with what we'd do with Rexall first.

  46. #46
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    the area should go downtown. there is already many roads and transportation links to downtown. downtown is roughly equal distance from the rest of the region. the arena built and designed right will not be a life-less concrete block surrounded by parking lots. the arena isn't just the "future of oil country". While the oilers do play there, this is just one of many proposed uses. others include concerts, other sporting events, trade shows, community events. building it anywhere else is pointless. the arena belongs downtown.

  47. #47
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    could you do up a map of your LRT lines on top of an actual city map?
    Yup, I'm already working on them. Rest assured that 90% of the track lengths I'm advocating would be built along existing rail or natural corridors. For example, the Leduc line would follow 91st south from Argyll to 28th avenue. From what I can gather, this is the cheapest and most cost effective way to get LRT from Mill Woods into the core.

    Ideally there would be a route with station that comes in from the north or north-west to provide access to the Meadows areas and developments east of 17th street. However, if we do go down 91st, bus route re-configuration would likely make it easy and efficient to bus from the north and east sides of Mill Woods to transfer onto one of the three LRT transit centres in the south west.

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    I also have the feeling that there are a lot of widely spaced stations on the suburban lines that just won't be viable.
    I realize I've gone off on a tangent here, but in the end I think it makes more sense to design the Mill Woods (or St.Albert Line) LRT to be extended south and east to allow for TOD's enroute to Beamont over the next couple decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    I do, however, need to say that if you're developing a large, dense, walkable area, the transit stations have to be in the middle, not in the corners and perimiter, and certainly not walled off by a big arena. And I don't even know what's supposed to be going on with your aerial photo overlay.
    Given the scale of the area, I'm sure what would probably happen is there would be one or two bus routes dedicated to milk running through every 10 or 15 minutes to gather people and bring them to one of the perimeter stations. (i.e. the VIA terminal, Municipal Lands, NAIT or Kingsway stations.)

    Lol, yeah the photo overlay is supposed to give an idea of how the LRt lines would craddle the area, but certainly the Municipal Lands station could be built more to the west, in the middle of the development, before turning back east through or over the rail yard into the northern 97th street corridor.

    Thoughts?

  48. #48
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,045

    Default Re: The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    ...Make no mistake, as this city continues to boom because of the Oil industry and the cost per barrel continues to rise year over year, more and more Edmontonians will use public transit if it's a convenient and efficient choice for them. Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.
    I'd rather not comment on a point by point basis for your entire piece. I'll let the forum do that, but I did want to comment on the above point.

    While I understand and could potentially support a facility that gives greater choice to commuters instead of those who choose public transit, it is exactly because of the issues you are so willing to toss aside (climate change/global warming) that I'm not sold on making it more "convenient" and "efficient" for commuters. This is a tough sell to Edmontonians I know, but I can't honestly say that I think it's "good planning" to plan anything without at least considering what may be on the horizon for us given potentially massive future changes in economic policy (Federal or otherwise). I don't say this lightly.

    This is a problem of prioritization. Your comments are framed within the context of "Alberta 2020" and there are a couple other recent initiatives that are asking Albertans/Edmontonians to be a part of deciphering what the plan should be for 2040 and 2050, so it's a good thing to be looking this far into the future. I guess where I'm going with this comment is to say that I'd heavily wager that the economic or market signals into the near and mid-range future will strongly be towards making decisions in a more environmentally sustainable way, not the other way around. I realize that with your suggestions, there could be an increase in the use of public transit, however I feel we should be seeking to maximize the use of public transit instead of catering to commuters. Sincerely, I feel that the commuter paradigm for this city is quickly becoming antiquated and to promote an idea that would again cater to this "antiquated" paradigm is, frankly, foolish.

    *** Clarification ***
    Please don't think that I'm saying that your ideas as a whole are "foolish". I happen to think there are a lot of good ideas in there, but the only one that has skewed me in this moment is the tossing aside of climate change. Doing this is, in my view, not fitting within the context of what will be the sorts of changes I expect we will encounter over the lifespan of a new arena.

    I actually kind of like the idea of a new arena around the Kingsway area, but the caveat I would hold is that wherever the finalized location is, there should run in conjuncation a finalized plan for public transit. As of right now, without a longer term plan for public transit I think we should likely err on the side of caution and construct on or near existing laid track whether or not the walk may be slightly longer than it currently is given Rexall's location now.

    impressed with your LRT layout am I...

  49. #49
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    the area should go downtown... building it anywhere else is pointless. the arena belongs downtown.
    I appreciate your (bias?) passion for building it downtown, but you haven't really addressed any of the ideas I've brought up in the concept for Municipal Lands.

  50. #50
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I agree with sweetcrude 100%, so I'm going to mentally truncate your LRT lines as soon as they get anywhere near the city limits (with the possible exceptions of St. Albert and Sherwood Park).

    I'm very interested to see where these ROW are, especially where you're looking at through Strathcona (Whyte Ave/Mill Creek).

    Being raised in Beaumont and watching two tries at getting bus service going fail miserably, any LRT plan that has Beau on it will make me laugh uncontrollably. Sorry about that.

    Back to the muni: there is a large difference between waiting five minutes for a bus that takes another ten to get you to a station and walking out your door and onto a train. For this many potential passengers it is worth it - required, even - to bend the lines to serve them better.

    Oh, and not only is the 109 Street alignment better for north to south and Grant MacEwan, but it also fills the huge void in the transit network created in that area by the High Level Bridge being one way. This screws up transit west of downtown like nothing else, and having an efficient bi-directional LRT connection would be huge. Unfortunately, the route is been planned to save money and hit all the downtown stations.

  51. #51
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default Re: The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude
    I happen to think there are a lot of good ideas in there, but the only one that has skewed me in this moment is the tossing aside of climate change.
    Oh no! I think you've misunderstood what I meant here:

    Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.
    I meant that even if climate change wasn't a factor, which it is, there are going to be economic changes over the next couple decades, that will be enough of a justification to drastically expand the LRT. If you have heard about peak oil, then you know what I'm talking about.

    My point there was that when you take those economic aspects into consideration with the environmental and social, it's a no-brainer.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude
    As of right now, without a longer term plan for public transit I think we should likely err on the side of caution and construct on or near existing laid track whether or not the walk may be slightly longer than it currently is given Rexall's location now.
    If we can't lobby/inspire the provincial and municipal government to include the LRT plan I've got here, (or something similar), we've got no business in re-developing the Municipal Lands or putting the new arena anywhere else besides the mail depot location downtown.

    Agreed?

  52. #52
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    I agree with sweetcrude 100%, so I'm going to mentally truncate your LRT lines as soon as they get anywhere near the city limits (with the possible exceptions of St. Albert and Sherwood Park).

    I'm very interested to see where these ROW are, especially where you're looking at through Strathcona (Whyte Ave/Mill Creek).

    Being raised in Beaumont and watching two tries at getting bus service going fail miserably, any LRT plan that has Beau on it will make me laugh uncontrollably. Sorry about that.
    Lol, that's okay. My opa's farm is across from coloniale and I know the town fairly well, having seen it evolve over the last couple decades.

    To be clear, I'm not advocating that by 2020 we should have these LRT lines out to all the terminus stations I've drawn. I'd expect, as you mentioned that if this kind of master plan is adopted and developed, we should expect to see each line out to the city limits, except for Sherwood Park, St. Albert, and Leduc. This is going to be impossible without a new regional partnership/organization to bring all the municipalities together on transportation and land use planning.

    Can't wait to show you guys the ROW's and begin to debate the alignments...

    :P

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    I agree with sweetcrude 100%, so I'm going to mentally truncate your LRT lines as soon as they get anywhere near the city limits (with the possible exceptions of St. Albert and Sherwood Park).

    I'm very interested to see where these ROW are, especially where you're looking at through Strathcona (Whyte Ave/Mill Creek).

    Being raised in Beaumont and watching two tries at getting bus service going fail miserably, any LRT plan that has Beau on it will make me laugh uncontrollably. Sorry about that.
    Lol, that's okay. My opa's farm is across from coloniale and I know the town fairly well, having seen it evolve over the last couple decades.

    To be clear, I'm not advocating that by 2020 we should have these LRT lines out to all the terminus stations I've drawn. I'd expect, as you mentioned that if this kind of master plan is adopted and developed, we should expect to see each line out to the city limits, except for Sherwood Park, St. Albert, and Leduc. This is going to be impossible without a new regional partnership/organization to bring all the municipalities together on transportation and land use planning.

    Can't wait to show you guys the ROW's and begin to debate the alignments...

    :P
    I don't know why your LRT plan has to evolve around having the arena built off some branch of the line. It should be downtown. In the centre of it all.

    The ROWS you present have all been discussed to almost ad-naseum around here - Why dont you join in on any of those other debates? You seem like a very one - agenda poster, with little care for any of the other debates that have occured here. (Not saying its a bad thing... but you shouldn't just dismiss/ignore the multiple pages of nearly the same discussion on LRT ROWS we have had here)

  54. #54
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    ^I think what sweetcrude is trying to get at is that extending the LRT out that far will not solve climate change/peak oil. One way is to increase the efficiency of the transportation we will be using, but the other, equally important, way is to just move around less. Firing the LRT out to the ex-urbs will only solve the first one.

    That's why I agree with him that we should concentrate on the central alignments. That's not to say that we shouldn't plan new, outlying developments to be transit friendly, just that serving the more central areas should be our main goal.

  55. #55

    Default

    Background on this discussion:

    http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20906
    "Political will, and the future of Oil Country"
    What do you think about this plan?
    Strongly support.
    5% [ 1 ]
    Somewhat support.
    11% [ 2 ]
    Neutral/Don't know.
    16% [ 3 ]
    Somewhat against.
    38% [ 7 ]
    Strongly against.
    27% [ 5 ]

    http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26293
    "The Future of Oil Country"
    What do you think about this concept?
    Strongly support
    11% [ 2 ]
    Somewhat support
    5% [ 1 ]
    Somewhat against
    11% [ 2 ]
    Strongly against
    70% [ 12 ]

  56. #56
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    I don't know why your LRT plan has to evolve around having the arena built off some branch of the line.
    It doesn't. If it evolves around anything I'd say it would be the Municipal Lands in-fill development concept, and connecting the other cities into a regional LRT strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    You seem like a very one - agenda poster, with little care for any of the other debates that have occured here.
    I'm sorry it seems like I'm ignoring or dismissing those other threads. I'm sure when I have time in the coming days and weeks I'll peruse and comment with some ideas that are contained in this proposal. I don't have any other agenda aside from finding the best possible solution here.

    In the end though, I'm not interested in debating, for example, whether or not the west LRT should go direct to downtown or to the university. This is because in the context of the regional plan, I've already come to the conclusion that the benefit of having direct access to downtown from the west end along stony plain road, is outweighed by the advantages of serving old strathcona and following that same line out to Sherwood park via the whyte avenue Sherwood Park Freeway ROW's.

    In that specific case, and again, in the context of the system I've laid out, I imagine there would be an express BRT loop route in both directions between Strathcona, South Campus, WEM, MacEwan, Churchill, and back to Strathcona to abridge the lines and provide better access between them.

    There is always going to be some push, pull and compromise when the city plans these alignments, of course, but for the purpose of THIS thread, and as mentioned off the top, there's not a lot of room for major changes.

    This is going to become an official proposal, as mentioned, and therefore I'm posting this draft to illicit improvements and ideas from the community members who want to buy into it and support it as their own.

    If you're not down with that, then I'm sorry to have ruffled your feathers.

    J.

  57. #57
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    the area should go downtown... building it anywhere else is pointless. the arena belongs downtown.
    I appreciate your (bias?) passion for building it downtown, but you haven't really addressed any of the ideas I've brought up in the concept for Municipal Lands.
    well, lets get the bias out in the open. I live in Old Strathcona. I am a grad student and I work at NAIT. I have no business ties to anything remotely connected to the oilers, northlands, downtown airport, restaurants, bars, casinos, etc, etc, etc.

    So, here is my bias. What is your bias to pushing for the project?


    I have read your proposal again, and I have no idea what is the role of the arena built at the "Municipal Lands". I am not sure what you are proposing. If you are talking about building a new arena, then the ideal location for it is downtown as it is already equipped to handle all the traffic, the parking, the hotel space required etc. So, the new development downtown has fewer things than at any other location to worry about.

    If your proposal is LRT expansion, then why focus just off center of the city? Why not focus on downtown as that is where all the lines should meet?

    I would suggest you leave the arena alone and focus on LRT system expansion. The OIL COUNTRY topic is only tangential to your proposal.

  58. #58
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I'm mainly interested in debating any time a LRT proposal crops up. I have no real interest in going in depth on where an arena would go. If it's downtown, add a station. If it's on the muni lands put one nearby. The arena is one of those arguments I'm not going to touch.

    I should say that I've basically just skimmed everything that isn't transit related, though I don't support tearing down the High Level.

    I'd like to talk LRT, but if everyone else is going to debate the other aspects of this, maybe it would be better to fork.

  59. #59
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    So, here is my bias. What is your bias to pushing for the project?
    I have none, but in the interest of disclosure...I live near southgate, work on whyte avenue, and frequently travel to both Mill Woods and the North Side to visit family.

    I am not sure what you are proposing. If you are talking about building a new arena, then the ideal location for it is downtown as it is already equipped to handle all the traffic, the parking....
    I'm proposing that the city close the airport to build a massive urban village ala`Century Park which I've coined, the Municipal Lands. For all the reasons mentioned earlier, it makes sense in it's own right, but if we are going to consider that, we should look at the pro's and cons of building a new arena there as well. The whole arena thing is kind of a gateway issue I've used to bring people into this debate who may not normally be interested in transit and urban planning issues.

    Why not focus on downtown as that is where all the lines should meet?
    Looking at my system map again, I count 4 LRT Line interchanges in the downtown core area. Namely, Grandin, Corona, MacEwan and Churchill. I imagine those station upgrades would all be bigger than the other 3 interchanges, University, Strathcona and St-Jean - which are also in the relative city centre (albeit on the south side of the river).

    I would suggest you leave the arena alone and focus on LRT system expansion. The OIL COUNTRY topic is only tangential to your proposal.
    You are right, but at the same time I think it's also beneficial to go for the balls and get as many birds as we can with one stone.

    Our next transportation and urban development plans need to address the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders. That includes the airport authority, regional municipalities, and community stakeholders and businesses.

    I think this plan achieves that reasonably well.

    http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/Future.LRT.gif

  60. #60

    Default

    ^^ If you're so interested in being involved in change - I'm sure you'll be at the focus edmonton meetings, and later on in the transportation master plan meetings/consultations that will be coming in the next few months/year?

    www.focusedmonton.ca
    www.movingedmonton.ca

  61. #61
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Thanks for those links, and yes I have registered to be involved.

    edit: I've also attended the ETS community conferences for the last few years, and my neighbour for a number of years was the gentleman who was the project manager on the original master plan.

  62. #62

    Default Re: The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    This is a letter that has been drafted for submission to local media and to relevant government ministries and departments at the local and provincial level.

    It was originally created with the angle of a novel idea for the new arena.

    Please provide only positive constructive criticism. There's not a lot of room for major changes to this proposal that we're advocating, but there's certainly room for minor tweaks or additional elements that compliment the end-state of the project.

    Thanks for your time and feedback,
    Jordan Schroder
    uhhh, is that a Royal We advocation?

    Just when the downtown core is finally beginning to wrestle back from the devastation wrought by WEM, the last thing needed is another major countering initiative to detract development away, again, from the core. It's all been stated previously...

  63. #63

    Default Re: The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff

    Just when the downtown core is finally beginning to wrestle back from the devastation wrought by WEM, the last thing needed is another major countering initiative to detract development away, again, from the core. It's all been stated previously...
    Couldn't have really said it better.

    Will someone please think of downtown?

  64. #64
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default Re: The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    uhhh, is that a Royal We advocation?

    Just when the downtown core is finally beginning to wrestle back from the devastation wrought by WEM, the last thing needed is another major countering initiative to detract development away, again, from the core. It's all been stated previously...
    Lol, funny.

    Yes and no. I have formed a group, and there are a number of people who've expressed support for this proposal, and I'm not going to name names now, but they include several prominent bloggers and a newly elected city councillor. The gentleman (my neighbour) who essentially spearheaded the first transportation master plan is also providing feedback on this, and may actually sign on as an endorsement.

    I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

    The focus of the (long term) development plan for the Municipal Lands should be residential. I.e. 50-75k plus Edmontonians living within the inner ring, and not beyond the outer ring (ring road) in the suburbs.

    That wouldn't take anything away from the downtown core. In fact, having such a large community of people living so close to the core would only increase traffic and business there.


  65. #65
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    252

    Default

    My opinions mirror some of the comments already presented here. In reading your proposal, it certainly comes across (to me, anyway) as a proposal for expanded LRT, and has little to do with the location of the new arena. It seems that you are using the new arena as a reason to further promote the LRT expansion.

    I find it somewhat amusing that you comment on the dt arena site and its location relative to the existing LRT line as an example of why the location is not good: "The closest LRT station would be Churchill, which is a further walk from the Coliseum station to the current Rexall Place."

    Yet the location you are proposing has NO lrt access, at all, currently. If we need to expand the LRT to get out to the muni, we could, with MUCH more ease, build the "roughed in" station which is directly under the dt site.

    I would suggest that if you are going to put this proposal forward, put it forward as a proposal for expanded LRT, not a new arena location. Few people can argue with expanded LRT, but for any reason you can put forward as to why the arena is better off out of the downtown core, I am sure a lot of people on here can come up with a counter arguement as to why it should be!

  66. #66
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman9669
    Few people can argue with expanded LRT, but for any reason you can put forward as to why the arena is better off out of the downtown core, I am sure a lot of people on here can come up with a counter arguement as to why it should be!
    Well I'm glad that you understood my objective with the proposal! :P

    I can see where you're coming from about focusing on the LRT, perhaps I could rewrite this to flow from LRT, to Municipal Lands to a new arena, instead of the inverse which is how I've got it now.

    In the end though I hope I've made a strong case as to why the city should consider the Municipal Lands location for the arena equally to the mail depot. Granted, my proposal isn't predicated by the new arena being built across from Kingsway, but it fits really nicely into the grand scheme.

    No one has actually addressed my two main criticisms of the dt location.

    Firstly, even with a convenient LRT station (right next to, or underneath) RExall, you still have thousands of cars streaming to and from the game. The road configuration of the intersection of kingsway, 109th street and the Yellowhead is phenomenally better at the Municipal Lands, than 104th ave, 97th street and Jasper Avenue in the dt core.

    Secondly, where are they going to build all those connected businesses, and hotels that the city has mandated as a requirement for this to go forward? Are they going to bulldoze the area east of 97th street or north of the station lands?

    As previously mentioned by another poster, downtown is well on it's way to a full recovery, with the last remaining challenge on the east side, which a dt arena will NOT address.

    /rest case

  67. #67
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    No one has actually addressed my two main criticisms of the dt location.

    Firstly, even with a convenient LRT station (right next to, or underneath) RExall, you still have thousands of cars streaming to and from the game. The road configuration of the intersection of kingsway, 109th street and the Yellowhead is phenomenally better at the Municipal Lands, than 104th ave, 97th street and Jasper Avenue in the dt core.

    Secondly, where are they going to build all those connected businesses, and hotels that the city has mandated as a requirement for this to go forward? Are they going to bulldoze the area east of 97th street or north of the station lands?
    Actually, that's exactly what's been addressed in your previous threads, as far as I can tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    As previously mentioned by another poster, downtown is well on it's way to a full recovery, with the last remaining challenge on the east side, which a dt arena will NOT address.

    /rest case
    But would it hurt?

  68. #68
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    yes, that is similar to the point I was trying to make. I looked at your LRT map and I like it. Elsewhere I had proposed something kind of similar. I will try to find it, but in essense it was a plan for an expanded LRT with an LRT ring road connecting University, Whyte ave, wayne gretzky dr, 118 ave to NAIT/ Kingsway, 111 ave, 149street, 87 ave and back to whyte/ University

    connected to the main ring are lines that are extended into the downtown with the ring serving the purpose of the collector for downtown lines.

    Your plan is very comprehensive and it serves the downtown and the whole region quite well. You would have my support if you take the arena out.

    as for the downtown arena, the currently proposed site actually goes either adjacent to or overtop of the current LRT line and that beats any other proposal for too many reasons to mention.

  69. #69
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Actually, that's exactly what's been addressed in your previous threads, as far as I can tell.
    Unless there's been some major activity in them since I last posted, I don't recall anyone convincing me that it wouldn't be a problem. The closest someone got from what I remember is that games are always in the evening, and therefore would miss rush hour.

    Obviously an 8pm start wouldn't be that bad, but many are at 7'ish too. With people arriving on average around 20 minutes before puck drop, I'm certain it would be a little bit of a nightmare. How would you drive there from the southside? 104th ave would be clogged and so would 97th street.

    Would a downtown arena hurt? Obviously not, but the pros at a location just outside of downtown with more room for infrastructure and connecting buildings seem to outweigh the current plan.

    The station lands development is going ahead anyways and I'm sure the city can build a nice affordable housing complex and community centre on the dt mail depot site instead.

  70. #70
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Your plan is very comprehensive and it serves the downtown and the whole region quite well. You would have my support if you take the arena out.
    Again, the arena aspect is ancillary. At the very least I would expect our city planners to do a serious cost-benefit analysis of multiple locations, including both the dt mail depot and Municipal Lands.

    I like your idea about having LRT loops.

    Originally, I had something similar, with two city loops north and south side, bridging the Lines that I've got in this current proposal.

    The problem with loops I think is that you're talking about a large circumference of track kms, which I think could be effectively serviced by BRT connecting terminal and interchange station on the main LRT lines.

    2 cents.

    (and thanks)


  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    No one has actually addressed my two main criticisms of the dt location.

    Firstly, even with a convenient LRT station (right next to, or underneath) RExall, you still have thousands of cars streaming to and from the game. The road configuration of the intersection of kingsway, 109th street and the Yellowhead is phenomenally better at the Municipal Lands, than 104th ave, 97th street and Jasper Avenue in the dt core.
    Your missing also that it will be the central point for the LRT (under current plans), your also including many streets 105/101/109st. There many more ways to get in and out of Downtown then what we've just stated here too. Its also in the centre of the the city - its also near major hotels, and other entertainment facilities. Why separate all that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    Secondly, where are they going to build all those connected businesses, and hotels that the city has mandated as a requirement for this to go forward? Are they going to bulldoze the area east of 97th street or north of the station lands?
    Review the Downtown east plan, or now known as the Quarters project.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    As previously mentioned by another poster, downtown is well on it's way to a full recovery, with the last remaining challenge on the east side, which a dt arena will NOT address.

    /rest case
    Says you! It's just another key piece. Keeping the entertainment district together makes sense. Hotels, Facilities, restaurants, Downtown, North Edge, The Quarters project... etc etc etc.

    /case dismissed.

  72. #72
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    the reason for ring proposal is our geography and our roadways etc. looking at your map, Parkview to Windsor is a river crossing, Churchill to Connors hill to Mill Creek is rivers, hills, and ravines. All of that is difficult from engineering point of view and very costly. Most other lines go through mature neighbourhoods and will require either tunneling or land/ property expropriation. Much of that should be done, but is difficult. So, instead of 4 lines going into downtown, if you build two cross-town lines, a ring line, and several feeder lines to the ring road, you avoid crossing the river extra number of times and reduce other issues. So, that is what I was thinking what I was drawing my map. It is posted somewhere. I'll look.

  73. #73
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    the reason for ring proposal is our geography and our roadways etc. looking at your map, Parkview to Windsor is a river crossing, Churchill to Connors hill to Mill Creek is rivers, hills, and ravines. All of that is difficult from engineering point of view and very costly. Most other lines go through mature neighbourhoods and will require either tunneling or land/ property expropriation. Much of that should be done, but is difficult. So, instead of 4 lines going into downtown, if you build two cross-town lines, a ring line, and several feeder lines to the ring road, you avoid crossing the river extra number of times and reduce other issues. So, that is what I was thinking what I was drawing my map. It is posted somewhere. I'll look.
    Ahh interesting. I'd love to see it. I think I might alleviate some of your concerns once you get a chance to see the geographical map I'm working on. but yeah, post yours and maybe we can blend them where it makes sense...

  74. #74
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    QUOTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD. Posted by me.



    Green Lines are the NAIT, WEM and Millwoods lines. Red is the
    proposed (by me) ring line. Black is the existing line. when two lines run side-by-side they share the track on that segment.

    Note that Millwoods is a simple add-on line. It only needs to make one stop at Millwoods Towne Center. I see two alternating trains--one going downtown through NE portion of ring road (I.e. will make a turn at stadium) and one is downtown through University portion of the ring road.

    I wanted the ring to share track between UofA south campus and Health Sciences for two reasons. It will allow more choices for student commute between the two campuses and will send LRT through Fox Drive over Quesnel. Then we make a stop top of Quesnel with East end serving Ft. Edmonton and West end of the station serving Valley zoo. Coordinate this with both facilities and Ft. Edmonton might actually choose to move their entrance and steam train closer to LRT (while the Zoo may do similar work with their wheeled cho-cho train).

    Like the millwoods line, if there is ever a development near the ring road that warrants LRT, a one or two-stop extension is built to connect and tie that new development into the LRT network.
    For example, another line (like the one to Millwoods) may be built to Riverbend and the communities further South from Fox Dr./Whitemud.

    With the ring road we will place LRT near the majority of Edmontonians.

  75. #75
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    the reason for ring proposal is our geography and our roadways etc. looking at your map, Parkview to Windsor is a river crossing, Churchill to Connors hill to Mill Creek is rivers, hills, and ravines.
    And I suppose your 102 Avenue will be child's play?

    You can say that the river crossings make it too expensive, but they're exactly what makes LRT time competitive with cars on other routes. It's too expensive to build a road there that would meet demand, but LRT would be much cheaper than a freeway.

  76. #76
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    no, 102nd is going to be difficult for sure. i was trying to go along existing roads and bridges because it would be an easier sell.

    other reasons for placing the ring line is to connect Ft. Edm at Quesnel, University, Whyte ave and Bonnie Doon, Kings, college, Capilano Mall, Concordia, Northlands, Stadium, NAIT.

    Finally, once people get used to having an LRT near them, going from Capilano into downtown to connect with the west line would be an easier political sell not to mention the demand when you consider Millwoods-Capilano-Downtown line for example.

  77. #77
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,045

    Default Re: The Future Of Oil Country: Edmonton 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude
    I happen to think there are a lot of good ideas in there, but the only one that has skewed me in this moment is the tossing aside of climate change.
    Oh no! I think you've misunderstood what I meant here:

    Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.
    I meant that even if climate change wasn't a factor, which it is, there are going to be economic changes over the next couple decades, that will be enough of a justification to drastically expand the LRT. If you have heard about peak oil, then you know what I'm talking about.

    My point there was that when you take those economic aspects into consideration with the environmental and social, it's a no-brainer.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude
    As of right now, without a longer term plan for public transit I think we should likely err on the side of caution and construct on or near existing laid track whether or not the walk may be slightly longer than it currently is given Rexall's location now.
    If we can't lobby/inspire the provincial and municipal government to include the LRT plan I've got here, (or something similar), we've got no business in re-developing the Municipal Lands or putting the new arena anywhere else besides the mail depot location downtown.

    Agreed?
    Yes, we're in agreement.

    There was a valiant attempt to describe what I'm meaning to say by bagould, but he doesn't quite describe it the way I would. I am not by any means saying that the development of our LRT will have any significant effect on providing a solution for climate change or peak oil. What I'm saying is that given that these are factors we must work around, it's in the best interests of this city and province to develop in such a way that is much more efficient than ever before. I say this fully realizing the practicalities and the necessity of getting everyone in the region involved.

    For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse additional LRT development in Edmonton. If I had my way, we would wait to extend LRT service to surrounding municipalities or even the outer reaches of the city until it was considered absolutely necessary. How "absolutely necessary" is defined is certainly debatable, but in the interests of long term mass transit sustainability in this city and region, expenditures to lay track to outlying areas should probably should likely be a lower priority than providing a much enhanced LRT system in the central core. Here's where bagould was bang on correct.

    OK, so this will be very general in nature but I did want to describe what I was thinking about how the LRT should be developed in the city. If implemented in this manner, I believe very strongly that market forces would do much of the heavy lifting instead of having to rely on huge amounts of tax dollars. Pardon the lack of original artwork. This is only a general description anyway.


    So, it's rather obvious what we're looking at here. A spider web, but what are we really looking at? A series of progressively larger rings connected by lines that extend to their outer edges. I've thought for a while now that the best way to move forward on our LRT development is to follow a similar approach.
    - Where desired and feasible construct lines to areas currently not serviced.
    - Over time, the plan should then be to look for possible routes to enclose laid track with circuits that would provide significantly increased ridership
    - Eventually, once there are enough routes from which to choose from, there will be a significant increase in interest from people willing to switch their primary mode of transportation to mass transit

    I think the plan that's been proposed by Cleisthenis is a very good start. There will always be debate as to which way is the best to go and the details within the plan, but for the sake of...
    1) Increased regional ridership, and
    2) More environmentally sustainable development
    ...we should start planning to service the core much more thoroughly and then slowly extend that service outward.

    The parallel I'd like to make here is to that of Calgary. I've heard all the stories that their CTrain is much better than our LRT... Well, I happened to live there for a short while and have a different view. I know many Calgarians would agree with me that a) trying to get into the city in the morning, or b) out of the city after work, or c) anywhere in the city before or after the Calgary Flames are playing can be a little difficult and time-consuming. Yes it's true that when it's not busy, you can go from the NW to the far south side of Calgary very quickly, but if you approach any one of the other times, you could be delayed and/or very uncomfortable on your ride. I'd like to find ways for Edmonton to avoid making what I'd consider to be those same mistakes. In my view, the first step is to start linking some of these main lines to other ones and create circuits of track rather than a track network that looks like the following...

  78. #78
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    216

    Default

    [quote="Cleisthenis"]


    That's because as mentioned previously, even with convenient LRT access enjoyed at the Coliseum, there are still thousands of people who take their vehicles and clog up the arteries in and around heading out from the arena.
    The Coliseum has terrible LRT access. Sure, once you are on the LRT it is easy to get there but most people who go to Oiler games live in the West, NW, SW, SE, Sherwood Park and St. Albert. None of these area's have easy access to the LRT and hence drive to the games. With everyone having to end up on Gretz Drive the vehicle access is very limited as well.

    Compare this to downtown where over 100k people get in and out every day for work. Getting 20k people in for a hockey game will be much easier as people will be coming in on over a dozen different roads instead of one. Not to mention an abundance of underground heated parking that is deserted at night.

    Building a new arena downtown makes the most sense. I like your Muni concept minus the arena, I would incorporate the grande prix track into the community development plan as I think we should try and make this a permanent event.

  79. #79
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponza
    The Coliseum has terrible LRT access. Sure, once you are on the LRT it is easy to get there...
    That's what I mean. The LRT station is really close - right next door. My point is that even if there is convenient access built underneath a dt arena, there will still be an impact of vehicular traffic on downtown.

  80. #80
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Isn't the downtown already capable of handling 40,000-50,000 cars on a daily basis?

  81. #81
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    I don't know exactly. I'm sure downtown itself isn't bad. I'm worried about a lot of the roads leading in and out...

    ... how are you by the way Xelebes? Long time...

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    I don't know exactly. I'm sure downtown itself isn't bad. I'm worried about a lot of the roads leading in and out...

    ... how are you by the way Xelebes? Long time...
    ... The roads leading out of downtown handle the traffic very well, a certainly alot better then the current situation at rexall.

  83. #83
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Can't someone just do a simple traffic survey at Rexall?

    Most of rush hour will dissapate by the time people start flowing back in (in the opposite direction to rush hour, I should add), and I'm sure a lot of people work downtown and would leave their car where it is (ergo the survey).

  84. #84
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    I don't know exactly. I'm sure downtown itself isn't bad. I'm worried about a lot of the roads leading in and out...

    ... how are you by the way Xelebes? Long time...
    Look at how many roads lead into downtown: 109th Street, 105th Street, 101st Street, 97th Street, Jasper Avenue and 104th Avenue. Now look at how many roads lead into Muni. 118th Avenue, Kingsway, Princess Alexandra and Yellowhead. Please consider that each road has similar capacity so Downtown has twice the capacity as Northlands or Muni. Also consider Canada Day - where we can potentially have as much as 150 000 (two Commonwealths) in the river valley and not sneeze when everybody is moving out.

    It's also more convenient if we can place it at a nexus of the LRT than on an arm.

    Edit- I've also been doing great, thank you.

  85. #85
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I'm not really interested in a Muni lands arena, and Im sure it won't happen, so I'll keeep my comments to the LRT side, except to note that right now there's more than enough land in the north edge, the quarters and downtown to satisfy all demand for urban living for the next 10 years or so. We're not at the point where this discussion makes sense, except considering how airport redevelopment could affect the Currently in planning North LRT line.

    First, you have 3 routes southbound on 111, CP and 91, so every 10 blocks. I'd like you to note that this area is not manhattan, which is the only place that I know of where there are such closely space parallel mass transit lines.

    Second, unlike most LRT plans, you don't interline in the existing tunnel. I think that that could be a mistake, especially with the single connection point between the NE-SLRT line and the your proposed N-S line, as that connection point is outside of the major demand areas and could cause serious congestion on the existing line.

    Third, you note that we are behind because we went underground, and then you propose we tunnel under whyte, and add a N-S river crossing for the St- Albert-millwoods line, I'm not so sure that would work.

    4th, You also seem to be proposing all LRT substanially as it exists in Edmonton, and especially at the ends in the fringes of the metropolitan area that is severe overkill. In some other areas high speed transit might not be what we need. For instance, Fort Sask extention should instead be more like a regional/commuter rail mode. A little faster, and less frequent. Likewise, Leduc/airport/Nisku. And Stony plain and spuce grove and atcheson could be served by regioinal rail on the existing CN Line, connecting to all 3 North LRT lines and going to the north edge of sherwood park, especially if they build their next node as planned.

    I'm also interested in how your transfer points would work. The closest part of corona station to 109 is at 108, and grandin is under 110. It's not that far, just 100m or so, but would it work? I'm sure that the University-strathcona interchange wouldn't work at university, although healthsciences might work. I do like the networkiness of the plan, though. I agree with what's been said, not everything can interchange at one point.

  86. #86
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    After taking everyone's feedback and suggestions into consideration here, I've decided to re-write the proposal to focus on the longterm LRT and TOD strategy for the Edmonton area.

    I will be de-emphasizing my argument against a downtown arena, although I will make mention of the potential location at Kingsway/Princess Elizabeth Avenues as an additional component of the Municipal Lands project - which will remain an important component of the TOD aspect of this proposal.

    Thanks for your in-depth response highlander. I'm busy with my show tonight but I hope to address your concerns with my detailed ROW map sometime later tonight or tomorrow.

    Good night all and thanks for all your feedback!


  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    After taking everyone's feedback and suggestions into consideration here, I've decided to re-write the proposal to focus on the longterm LRT and TOD strategy for the Edmonton area.

    I sincerely look forward to this.

  88. #88
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Here we go. A teaser. ROW and new letter to follow tomorrow evening. thanks again everyone...


  89. #89

    Default

    I like the map, but your timelines are a little sketchy.

    Out to Leduc Fort Saskatchewan Stony Plain, Beaumont and Devon by 2020? Lots of track required for that? For How many people? Those 6 communities dont even reach 100,000 people, but that would be a huge amount of track to lay down

    How exactly is the LRT going to stop at hawrelak?

    I like the lines - just not the time lines - and would probably find more to nit pick about

    Maybe 2040 would be better for end of the line(s)? Consider how far LRT has gone in 30 years. How far do you think we are going to make by 2020?

  90. #90

    Default

    I'd like to see this on an actual map so I can comment on the paths... look forward to more tomorrow I guess.

  91. #91

    Default Possible LRT ROW

    Just wanted to discuss (preferably in picture format) various possible LRT cooridors and possible route that could be used in Edmonton. I've added some of mine in, and some others I've read about here and other places...

    I've tried to start it off below with something I was working on earlier, but haven't really finished...

    Hopefully you can tell where a tunnel section would start by the simple little line Ive draw across the line, though I've missed a few...

    Please feel free to add your own in... or talk about which lines are better....

    (I'm trying to focus on lines that actually might be built in the next 20-30 years. Nothing out to beaumont or gibbons please )


















  92. #92

    Default

    just for reference heres the 2020 plan for Toronto and its LRT/Subway


  93. #93
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default Re: Possible LRT ROW

    It's great work feepa, and I think that having the variety of lines will be a great tool for debate.

    As for LRT lines, I think the magenta line makes the most sense, even if it's going through MacKinnon Ravine. The LRT interferes minimally with the south side of the river valley going to University.

    Also the brown line from the South Campus Station to West Edmonton works well. One thing, if the residents along 87 Avenue don't want the line, run it along the Whitemud to West Edmonton Mall.

    Perhaps another line to be considered may be one to Mill Woods. Run it through the Mill Creek Ravine, then up the old railroad line to about 86 Street. Then run it south to Mill Woods.

  94. #94
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Thanks for posting that feepa!

    Just goes to show that when there's enough capital and political will, you can build anything. That's a lot of subway construction over the next 13 years for toronto - population notwithstanding.

    Here is the final system map with updated construction projections.

    I still haven't decided where the bullet train would connect to the LRT system. Obviously somewhere along the leduc line. Any thoughts?


  95. #95

    Default

    you're welcome - but the reason I was posting that was to show you that in a city 5 times our size, they have about the same amount of LRT proposed as you do here -

    Exactly why do we need the LRT going to all these small communities of under 10,000 people. The cost to benefit or cost per rider ratio is just absurb. Can you work on a map that doesn't quite have so much lofty goals? I mean - maybe if Villeneuve was 100,000 people or Devon the same - it might make a little more sense.

    Also, your sherwood park extension would better follow along baseline road, and then track north east to the new proposed high density node of Strathcona county (I know your trying to look in to the future - so this would probably be the best for the future). In fact, I would probably have your red line end at Bonnie Doon, and have the sherwood park line instead come in along baseline, and join in at churchill... which is supposed to be the hub station for the LRT...

  96. #96
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i find this map too south of the river focused. the red line (Strathcona) should in my opinion go through downtown instead:

    WEM--MEADOWLARK--STONEY PLAIN ROAD--ROYAL ALBERTA MUSEUM--JASPER AVENUE--CORONA-etc-CHURCHILL. From Churchill it can go NE along existing rail or cross the river somehow (maybe after Conference Centre/ Canada Place to Capilano area to Sherwood Park eventually.)

  97. #97
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    If you want to run the wLRT through McKinnon Ravine, why not have it branch off on the north side of the river just before the bridge and follow River Valley Road? There could then be a Claireview-WEM line and a Northgate-Century Park line.

    As for running the LRT though the ravine, it would need to be underground, although the top of the "tunnel" could double as the multi-use trail. It might not be that much more expensive than a surface line as it would only require a ~3m trench and the "tunnel" wouldn't have to support anything heavier than the occasional park maintenance vehicle.

  98. #98

    Default

    Erm, we have plenty of roads where we can easily lay track w/o running LRT down one of our ravines.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    Erm, we have plenty of roads where we can easily lay track w/o running LRT down one of our ravines.
    I was just mapping them all as they've been suggested before. Not all these routes will be built. I was just trying to create a master map of all possible routes to be considered... and discussed. And I agree, LRT doesn't need to run down a ravine. Theres other better options for sure.

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    I don't think the ravine route would be that bad if it was done right. I certainly wouldn't want to see surface level tracks west of Groat Road, but putting them underground here might be easier than building the bridge and tunnels needed for the 87 Av to 87 Av route or the roadwork required for a surface line from downtown. After completion the area would look much the same as it did before except the trail would be a little wider.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •