Page 62 of 62 FirstFirst ... 12525859606162
Results 6,101 to 6,155 of 6155

Thread: Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction

  1. #6101

    Default

    CoE to Millwoods: Take the train or else!
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  2. #6102
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    171

    Default

    This traffic study would be a great thing to do and share with the public for consultation before design and construction are underway. I know it couldn't be as detailed without an exact route but I'm sure they can get some rough numbers at key intersections to say if we go at grade average wait times will be appprox. "x" and if we elevate/dig wait times will be "y". Maybe i am simplifying too much?

    I think i am reading the reports correctly but it looks like at a great many number of the intersections by 2044 they are suggesting traffic volumes will be down by 2044? I am hopeful the uptake of lrt will be significant but with the growth in the region I find it hard to believe volumes will be down?

    The whole re routing thing is a funny concept because in theory that would slow things down overall on it's own as people currently would be using what is deemed the fastest route for their trip. Once you re-route and add more people onto those slower options they become slower. Not that i went to the school of traffic flow but that would stand to reason in my head anyways.

  3. #6103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Base View Post
    This traffic study would be a great thing to do and share with the public for consultation before design and construction are underway. I know it couldn't be as detailed without an exact route but I'm sure they can get some rough numbers at key intersections to say if we go at grade average wait times will be appprox. "x" and if we elevate/dig wait times will be "y". Maybe i am simplifying too much?
    Evidently they can't tell us how badly we're gonna get screwed because it interferes with the contract negotiations. It's more important to keep the electorate in the dark than to make things more difficult for the private companies to profiteer off of the P3.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  4. #6104
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Looks pretty bad. I have a hard time believing that the intersections through strathearn will be very congested though, the traffic volume on that road is extremely low.

  5. #6105

    Default

    Councillor Dave Loken was just quoted on CHED radio news, stating the results of the study were known back in Feburary, but only being presented to council now. He is not happy

  6. #6106

    Default

    Sure would have been nice to have all of this information out in the open back in April when Adminstration decided not to elevate the Bonnie Doon section, especially since it was already compiled at that time.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  7. #6107

    Default

    We had a one-time chance for millions but it had to be a P3. This is what we get.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  8. #6108

    Default

    Also traffic volumes are pretty low in central Edmonton / 66st areas and can be remedied by this line, and better transit configuration. Loss of roadway and some signaling due to at-grade LRT will not be the end of us.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  9. #6109
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Edmonton needs mass transit so badly, but man, have they ever built it right? The only line that seems decent is the original line. There are so many examples around the world of what does and doesn't work, but we keep making the same mistakes.

  10. #6110

    Default

    My impression is that they've done 2 lines, with a major expansion south on the "original" line that gets a bad rap for traffic issues... you only get so much money, and the way the structure and funding models are established I'm not surprised they way both expansions have worked out. As a transit user, the Century Park to Health Sciences extension is fantastic and packed to the gills at rush hour. As for 114st / University crossing arms, I turn at the traffic circle east, head towards the Butter Dome, and go south on 114st. There's just an issue with south-bound traffic in general going onto Fox Drive - Whitemud.

    Metro Line: not running at full operation.
    Valley Line: a different style of building LRT for integration, development, and yes... some cost savings. It's the system of funding (largely grants) that breed this. Biggest km for best / cost-effective bid.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  11. #6111

    Default

    ^The "cost effective" argument hasn't been proved, and there hasn't been any honest look at the trade-offs. When the only comparisons that admin can do are obviously incorrect statements like "elevated costs 3x more" then it's impossible to be properly informed to make that choice.

    There has been no cost effective bid.
    There can only be one.

  12. #6112

    Default

    The "we only get so much money" argument falls flat when you realize we seem to spend more money per km than many other superior systems.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  13. #6113

    Default

    ^^I was referring to the bid amoung the line's potential builders.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  14. #6114
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Isn't the reason our costs are so high is because they often include infrastructure and roadway improvements along with the LRT construction? So our costs end up being the LRT plus the roadwork, making our costs look a lot higher than they actually would be for just the LRT.

    No idea if this is actually true, haven't really looked into it, but I've heard it quite a few times.

  15. #6115

    Default

    Not making an argument in defence of anything. Just that, for some reason yes in compression our cost to build is higher, but due to those costs and the grants / funding we get, and because of the City relying heavily on property taxes, we get the product. The City made a decision on low floor. We get the product.

    Yes, I would have liked this to be a really well designed multi-billion dollar project for the future of Edmonton, but sell that as a planner to council, to councillors running on election platforms, to citizens. As a resident that in close to, and frequents the Bonnie Doon area, I think I'll prefer a this design for a variety of reasons through build form and urban design and building this community over the next 30 years after it's open in 2020. I'll take it over Brentwood/Metrotown/or Surrey Town Cetnre in Metro Vancouver, due to the fact that it's street and community-orientated. Development has to follow however, and new zoning has to be in place now to make the area great / more transit and walkable.

    Yes there are issues. It's time to look at bus lanes, new zoning, new "main streets" around stops, TOD, and complete street guidelines in older neighbourhoods.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  16. #6116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Isn't the reason our costs are so high is because they often include infrastructure and roadway improvements along with the LRT construction? So our costs end up being the LRT plus the roadwork, making our costs look a lot higher than they actually would be for just the LRT.

    No idea if this is actually true, haven't really looked into it, but I've heard it quite a few times.
    It is true to a degree, but in the Canadian context it's mostly just that our projects require way more roadway and utility work than Vancouver's because we insist on building it at ground level.

    So it makes complete sense to include it.
    There can only be one.

  17. #6117
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    ^^Yeah Brentwood is probably the least pedestrian friendly "urban" TOD ever, you feel like an ant scurrying between and around monstrosities of every form. Roadways, stations, buildings are all completely out of scale with people.

    ^So in any case, the 3x cost that everyone throws around is a little disingenuous, it wouldn't actually be that amount more to do a Skytrain type system..

  18. #6118
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    @ Noodle: Apparently ETS is still expecting 30 minutes from Mill Woods to City Centre despite the congestion. From the images you provided here from Edmonton Journal, the whole line is going to be congested. Maybe that's 30 minutes on paper but 40 minutes in the real world. City council needs to fix this now so we don't have another Metro mess on our hands.
    Last edited by envaneo; 18-08-2017 at 12:47 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #6119

    Default

    ^
    The thing is, with our supposedly community-oriented plan we'll have, in many locations, wider streets than before. whyte ave & 83st will gain extra lanes to make up for adding LRT-only phases to the cycle, plus you'll now have to cross the LRT tracks too.

    I suspect that 3X rule of thumb they keep repeating would be for track construction only, and only for the cheapest track construction method (tie & ballast). Once you have embedded rail like up 105st you've already eaten up most of the savings, and a station like southgate or Century park won't be significantly cheaper than full elevated like wagner.
    There can only be one.

  20. #6120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    In other words: Yikes!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...uld-impact-you

    Great breakdown in that story. I'll pilfer the maps, but the article itself is worth a gander.


    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  21. #6121
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^
    The thing is, with our supposedly community-oriented plan we'll have, in many locations, wider streets than before. whyte ave & 83st will gain extra lanes to make up for adding LRT-only phases to the cycle, plus you'll now have to cross the LRT tracks too.

    I suspect that 3X rule of thumb they keep repeating would be for track construction only, and only for the cheapest track construction method (tie & ballast). Once you have embedded rail like up 105st you've already eaten up most of the savings, and a station like southgate or Century park won't be significantly cheaper than full elevated like wagner.
    That gets me wondering, has the city ever done a detailed cost analysis for a system like the Skytrain, or have we always just assumed it would be too expensive?

  22. #6122

    Default

    ^^Being in the area, all those areas are already "congested". 83 ave is ridiculous in the winter during morning rush hour. I'd steady cars going a snails pace. The difference? An LRT moving people in a ROW in an efficient manner. I want to see what "congestion" means. Road at capacity? Over capacity?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  23. #6123

    Default

    “Intersection LOS” or “Intersection Level-of-Service” is a measure of demand related to capacity. It has a range of indications that are alphabetically coded from A to F. LOS A is a free flow condition whereby the overall speed controlling factor is the width, geometry, grade and environment of the roadway. As the LOS designations increase, the speed is increasingly controlled by vehicular interference or conflict and the density of traffic begins to rise strongly. A fully congested intersection where demand has reached or exceeds capacity is designated as LOS F. For signalized intersections, LOS is categorized as:


    Taken from my link on the previous page.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #6124
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Although if the study was simply looking at LOS, it really depends on how it was calculated. It's good for categorizing current service, but the methods for predicting future traffic flow are usually pretty inaccurate because they don't account for human behavior. If they just used the same traffic flow and input the new intersection conditions (which is what they usually do), it doesn't take into account the people who will change their driving patterns, or the fact that there is now another mode of transportation.

    Not that I think this intersection won't be terrible, but maybe not as terrible predicted.

  25. #6125

    Default

    From the report about the models (linked below)

    Production of VISSIM Models

    Production of the scenario models was undertaken based upon the following stages:

    1. Collection of Data for the development of the VISSIM models. This included traffic survey, CP Railway crossing survey, existing and proposed bus transit data, other CTP designs, projected traffic volumes for future design years and COE requirements data.
    2. Production of Existing-Conditions VISSIM models to provide a calibrated baseline model for the corridor.
    3. 2019 VISSIM model of the Valley Line that combines the Downtown and southeast sections. This includes an evaluation of traffic/LRT impacts for the Opening Day scenario.
    4. 2044 VISSIM model providing the design year traffic and operations for the Downtown and southeast sections. This includes an evaluation of projected corridor impacts.
    5. Integration reviews with the CTP Roads and LRT Operations teams throughout the production of the design year scenario models to assist with designs and thereby confirm the design approach.
    The 2019 VISSIM model MOE results for the Southeast Corridor intersections indicate that during the AM peak hour, 18 of the 38 intersections (47%) will be operating in a congested state with maximum queue lengths observed to be greater than 500 metres for six of the intersections. During the PM peak hour, 16 of the 38 intersections (42%) will be operating in a congested state with maximum queue lengths observed to be greater than 500 metres for five of the intersections.
    http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/c...1702383732.PDF

    (Posted without editorial comment, just for info relating to previous posts for those who can't/won't click through & read)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #6126

    Default

    And most were rated "F", so 80+ seconds at intersections, and through design many changes can yet occur with road configuration, signalling, and changes in behaviour. Congestion, a delay for a left hand turn. Congestion the same number of vehicles. I will conclude that what you provided states that a road, as it is designed and signaled will predict, in congested, a 1+ minute delay in travel time.

    Therefore alternative solutions need to be made in the neighbourhood to offer different solutions to that car demand and load on City roads. Transit.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  27. #6127

    Default

    Wiki page for the simulation software used:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTV_VISSIM

    And the developer's page:
    http://vision-traffic.ptvgroup.com/e...ts/ptv-vissim/

    Super neat stuff, even to a layman like myself.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  28. #6128

    Default

    Exactly. What I would like to see - months ago - as a City approach to utilize or upgrade existing infrastructure based on traffic impacts from this LRT leg. I believe the ETS routes are almost there, but if I was a citizen along the route and not seen plans to mitigate LRT disruptions I'd be ******. Where is traffic plan post LRT 2015?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  29. #6129
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    From the report about the models (linked below)

    Production of VISSIM Models

    Production of the scenario models was undertaken based upon the following stages:

    1. Collection of Data for the development of the VISSIM models. This included traffic survey, CP Railway crossing survey, existing and proposed bus transit data, other CTP designs, projected traffic volumes for future design years and COE requirements data.
    2. Production of Existing-Conditions VISSIM models to provide a calibrated baseline model for the corridor.
    3. 2019 VISSIM model of the Valley Line that combines the Downtown and southeast sections. This includes an evaluation of traffic/LRT impacts for the Opening Day scenario.
    4. 2044 VISSIM model providing the design year traffic and operations for the Downtown and southeast sections. This includes an evaluation of projected corridor impacts.
    5. Integration reviews with the CTP Roads and LRT Operations teams throughout the production of the design year scenario models to assist with designs and thereby confirm the design approach.
    The 2019 VISSIM model MOE results for the Southeast Corridor intersections indicate that during the AM peak hour, 18 of the 38 intersections (47%) will be operating in a congested state with maximum queue lengths observed to be greater than 500 metres for six of the intersections. During the PM peak hour, 16 of the 38 intersections (42%) will be operating in a congested state with maximum queue lengths observed to be greater than 500 metres for five of the intersections.
    http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/c...1702383732.PDF

    (Posted without editorial comment, just for info relating to previous posts for those who can't/won't click through & read)
    Thanks! I can be pretty lazy with that stuff sometimes.

  30. #6130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Thanks! I can be pretty lazy with that stuff sometimes.
    No problem! From a bit of reading it seems like the simulation goes to a significant amount of depth, since it models all the individual people, cars, trains, etc rather than higher-level abstractions with their inherent assumptions. Sounds like they built up the simulation so it was providing a model that was representative of the current state of affairs & then did their best to project the impact of all of the changes between now & 2019 (aka the train) along with the more nebulous changes between 2019 & 2044. I'm not very confident in the '44 stuff, given that there's projections based on projections, but the '19 forecast should be pretty solid.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #6131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's on the list of severe congestion intersections:

    This identified the following intersections as likely to have severe congestion being present when the LRT was operational.

    82 Avenue Whyte and 83rd Street
    102 Avenue and 100 Street
    EB Whitemud Drive Ramp and 75 Street
    Argyll Road and 75 Street
    75 Street and Wagner Road
    34 Avenue and 66 Street
    102 Avenue and 97 Street
    95 Avenue and 85 Street
    McIntyre and 75 Street
    36A Avenue and 66 Street
    From the Executive Summary http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/v...&fileid=663751

    All of the data can be found attached to the meeting notes here: http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/m...doctype=AGENDA, it's a bit on the dense side so I'm taking my time going through it.
    So basically, if you live east of the LRT then you are pretty much screwed cause every way you go you'll be stuck in traffic. Even if you head down to 23 ave, that one is already busy so you'll still be stuck in traffic. Morons. Instead of doing things right the first time, we can do it over again a couple years later. The City of Edmonton way.

  32. #6132
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,210

    Default

    I think the following would help traffic:

    (1) Don't allow left turns on 111 Street at the 54 Avenue and 57 Avenue intersections during peak hours.
    (2) No left turn at the light on 85 Street Southbound at the new Connors Road intersection.
    (3) No left turns allowed along 66 Street onto 34 Avenue eastbound during peak hours.
    (4) No left turn allowed at 83 Street northbound onto Whyte Avenue.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  33. #6133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    I really want Valley line to be a success, really. Have we learned anything from Metro? Or are we just repeating the same things in Valley?

    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  34. #6134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Councillor Dave Loken was just quoted on CHED radio news, stating the results of the study were known back in Feburary, but only being presented to council now. He is not happy
    Yup and let the mayor and your council member know, if they find out enough Edmontonians care to vote them out of office this October, they will adjust the P3 terms.
    You can contact them here;
    http://coewebapps.edmonton.ca/contac...l/default.aspx

  35. #6135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Hollywood View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's on the list of severe congestion intersections:

    This identified the following intersections as likely to have severe congestion being present when the LRT was operational.

    82 Avenue Whyte and 83rd Street
    102 Avenue and 100 Street
    EB Whitemud Drive Ramp and 75 Street
    Argyll Road and 75 Street
    75 Street and Wagner Road
    34 Avenue and 66 Street
    102 Avenue and 97 Street
    95 Avenue and 85 Street
    McIntyre and 75 Street
    36A Avenue and 66 Street
    From the Executive Summary http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/v...&fileid=663751

    All of the data can be found attached to the meeting notes here: http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/m...doctype=AGENDA, it's a bit on the dense side so I'm taking my time going through it.
    So basically, if you live east of the LRT then you are pretty much screwed cause every way you go you'll be stuck in traffic. Even if you head down to 23 ave, that one is already busy so you'll still be stuck in traffic. Morons. Instead of doing things right the first time, we can do it over again a couple years later. The City of Edmonton way.
    If you want to go east or west on the south side, just take ETS

    Problem solved...

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #6136
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,776

    Default

    You have serious mental problems. lol

  37. #6137

    Default

    Yeah, I know. I care more about a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit, than those who want to maintain their monopoly and their only tool to fix transit woes is a $100M/kilometer hammer.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  38. #6138
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,776

    Default

    It's like everything else. We must co-exist. Finding the best way to co-exist on many fronts would solve a lot of problems in this world. In this case transit trumping regular traffic is wrong and both parties need to be taken into consideration. If it costs a bit more but appeases the general populace, it makes sense. It has been pointed out on several occasions that the sky train system in Vancouver does not cost more. I think a mix of grade and above grade would work better for everyone. It's planning that is the whole problem here. Like anything else bad planning makes for big headaches.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 20-08-2017 at 09:51 AM.

  39. #6139
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,210

    Default

    I really wonder if the LRT bridge could have been built along 85 Street instead with a stop at Bonnie Doon (around Whyte Avenue west of 83 Street). Yes, it would have cost more, but there wouldn't have been the overhang at 83 Street splitting the neighbourhood.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  40. #6140
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,210

    Default

    For the West LRT, I wonder if it could be built overhead between 149 and 156 Street along 100 Avenue. I get the feeling that there's no real interest in LRT in that neighbourhood, even though other parts of West Edmonton would want it.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  41. #6141
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    It's planning that is the whole problem here. Like anything else bad planning makes for big headaches.
    A very sad truth.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  42. #6142
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    [
    If you want to go east or west on the south side, just take ETS

    Problem solved...

    As a Millwoods resident the problem the LRT creates is somewhat overstated. 66th has never been a good driving corridor in anycase and I'm not sure why so many take it. I've always found any of 34th, 50th, and even 91st to be better options North South. Even if I want to cross river I find 34th and 50th to be faster options to access either Capilano or Dawson bridge. Its somewhat sad that 66th actually takes longer to get to Capilano bridge. It just gets bogged down in endless lights and delays already. Its a poor route that SHOULD have been turned into a freeway as planned. As per East West that isn't really the mode travel aside from Henday, 23Ave, and Whitemud Freeway corridors but in anycase is covered.

    Those caught up by any traffic delay caused by LRT on 66/75street are essentially just taking poor routes in the first place. Those trying to cross on 34ave should cross elsewhere. Simple as that.

    That said my sympathies with those that live along the route, to some extent, but those people should seriously be considering a different mode of commute when the LRT is here.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #6143
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,210

    Default

    I imagine that the 83 Street/86 Street corridor will have less congestion, especially with buses. Would 50 and 91 Streets serve as alternate routes (they have less lights than 75 Street)?
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  44. #6144
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Just stated that above. Yes 34th and 50th streets have less lights. 91st is a faster way to get to Argyll but doesn't go further North. Nobody but people living near 66/75 should be using it as a commuter route anyway. Anybody trying the alternate South-North routes knows they are faster. 34th is only 2 lane road North of 53ave and it was faster and even rush hour times albeit the number of industries moving into the area north of Whitemud off 34th is changing that.
    People stubbornly using 66/75st all these years is a lemming case. People use it because its a thoroughfare and main route and that everybody else is cramming into it. Not because its ever been a good route.
    Last edited by Replacement; Yesterday at 07:27 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #6145
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    162

    Default

    People are going to have to learn to use alternative routes during this construction. In my experience from commuting, 66/75 is one of the worst streets during rush hour. I hope the city already has signs up advising drivers to get used to using alternative routes. Knowing Edmontonians though, taking the example from the Metro line, even more people are going to use that route because they are going to want to check out the progress of the LRT.

  46. #6146

    Default

    I made the mistake of taking 75/66 to get to the Grey Nuns hospital a couple days ago in the early evening and I'll be staying well clear of that stretch for a long long time. Maybe on a Sunday to see the progress, but not for any utilitarian driving.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  47. #6147

    Default

    Elevated track on the table again as council reacts to traffic data for Valley Line LRT

    City officials may get an earful Tuesday morning as city councillors get a chance to ask about the jams and backups predicted all along the Valley Line LRT tracks.

    Already, one councillor looked at the data and vowed to lobby hard for more elevated or sunken track on the south side.

    “To say this information was pleasing would be false,” said Coun. Michael Walters, filing his reaction in a blog post and assuring his constituents he’ll fight to have the south extension raised or tunnelled when it crosses 9 Avenue NW and 12 Avenue NW. Those are the only two exits for the 6,300 residents of the neighbourhood of Twin Brooks.

    The topic is third on the agenda for council’s executive committee Tuesday.

    Some council members already asked administration questions in a private briefing last Thursday. They saw the data for the first time last week, although more high-level estimates of the level of service for each intersection had been provided in November.

    This data — provided in response to an Edmonton Journal information request — paints a more visual picture, outlining estimated average and maximum queue length and the average wait times in sections for each direction and each turn at every major intersection.

    Officials say it’s too late to change the Valley Line, but they’ll likely debate associated road-widening projects and future LRT lines in the next four-year capital budget.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...alley-line-lrt

  48. #6148
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    I don't think I've ever been as confused with an article or link citation before.

    The Valley Line doesn't run anywhere close to Twin Brooks and it doesn't cross 9th or 12th Ave NW.

    I can't even find the cited part in the linked article.

    What is this about?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  49. #6149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,017

    Default

    I don't understand.
    The line was purposefully chosen to interact with traffic and sacrifice the efficiency of both the LRT and vehicles and to take the most "development friendly" route...in the hope of, I guess fostering redevelopment or making it, actually I am not sure.
    Now that it's past the 11th hour, the Council is balking at the concept.

    It's pretty clear Council members either don't get the full picture or don't care to find out until it's too late. Did you really need the reports to anticipate the traffic mess this was going to cause? It's pretty obvious.
    What dysfunction this is.

    I really don't want to see a raised LRT in Holyrood/Bonnie Doon. However, it would be better to bite (the very expensive bullet now) then think it can be fixed later.

  50. #6150
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    43,712

    Default

    ^bingo. You choose one type of LRT for a specific reason and now want a hybrid or dedicated ROW type of impact?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  51. #6151

    Default

    One if the reasons why I would never want to live in McKernan is the fact that the LRT blocks off one of the few entrance points into the neighbourhood. It can take a while to get in there.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  52. #6152

    Default

    Turns out people want transit & transportation that gets them from point A to point B as efficiently as possible for themselves & don't really care about some developer's bottom line or TOD plans or whatever else.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #6153

    Default

    The article title is misleading. Coun. Walters is talking about the future Capital Line extension. I don't think any Valley Line grade separation is up for any more debate, they had that debate a couple months ago.

    Walters is just talking about future plans. Election coming up in October, gotta make the right noises for the constituents in his ward.

    But we're gonna have Metro Line v2.0 with Valley. When it gets up and running they'll be looking at options for grade separation at Bonnie Doon, like the Kingsway options they're looking at for Metro (haven't heard anything about those for awhile now).

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  54. #6154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I don't think I've ever been as confused with an article or link citation before.

    The Valley Line doesn't run anywhere close to Twin Brooks and it doesn't cross 9th or 12th Ave NW.

    I can't even find the cited part in the linked article.

    What is this about?
    All the articles have focused on the Millwoods line, but the council session must have included further studies of other lines. The councillor must be referring to extension of the capital line south towards Ellerslie. If I recall correctly, the Twin Brooks crossings of the extension were planned to be at grade. Twin Brooks is bordered by Blackmud Creek to the north and west, and Anthony Henday Drive to the south. Their is a 119 st off/onramp to the Henday west, but it is planned to be closed in the future, leaving the only exits from the community being along the 111 avenue route of the future LRT, at 9th and 12 avenue NW. I'm guessing since there's two intersections to get out, the planners thought running the track at grade would be fine. The councillor, and probably others in that community disagree.

  55. #6155

    Default

    If we put the LRT underground it would satisfy everyone's desires... You can build around it, it doesn't get in the way, and it can operate fast. Someone, somewhere, has this idea that LRT is some sort of hop-on-hop-off transportation mode that it isn't. We call those buses. They stop a lot. LRT should get lots of people from one spot to another, quickly, and then use buses as last mile transport. But wait, we're getting rid of that too, right?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

Page 62 of 62 FirstFirst ... 12525859606162

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
  •