Page 63 of 70 FirstFirst ... 1353596061626364656667 ... LastLast
Results 6,201 to 6,300 of 6958

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

  1. #6201
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    What I am feeling from all of this is that our large small city becoming a small larger city with push and pulls as we make our way through puberty.

    People may not be against transit, but not at the expense of 5mins more (assuming no cluster F like the Metro) to their personal vehicle commute.

    People are also not against vehicular travel, but are willing to add pressures to that choice by prioritizing LRT and bus travel along with other modal options such as our bike network.

    We certainly want to have an efficient system for all and not at the real expense of the other, but I would also argue not at the significant costs of raised track for a low-floor system.
    To be fair Ian, their concerns are warranted. What I'm hearing is that most people think the city should put less priority on TOD's and more priority with engineering a system that carries people more efficiently from one important stop to the next as most systems are designed. It's less to do with the 'want' for mass transit.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  2. #6202

    Default

    ^What does low "low floor system" have to do with it? LRT is LRT and people have the same expectation either way.

    Smaller city becoming a larger city is all about making those decisions for the long term, not short term costs. I see the "urban LRT" fixation of the last decade as a perfect example of small-city thinking.

    Although large cities are not immune.
    There can only be one.

  3. #6203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    To be fair Ian, their concerns are warranted. What I'm hearing is that most people think the city should put less priority on TOD's and more priority with engineering a system that carries people more efficiently from one important stop to the next as most systems are designed. It's less to do with the 'want' for mass transit.
    Less TODs, more efficient routing that's cognizant of Edmonton's thoroughly distributed employment & population. Less focusing on what transit can do to change the face of the city years after construction & more on providing effective transportation to Edmontonians from day 1.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  4. #6204
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,122

    Default

    ^ You can have a more efficient system while still having a focus on TOD. Going back to the skytrain example again, TOD has been successful at many of those stations, while being underground or above ground.

  5. #6205
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    What I am feeling from all of this is that our large small city becoming a small larger city with push and pulls as we make our way through puberty.

    People may not be against transit, but not at the expense of 5mins more (assuming no cluster F like the Metro) to their personal vehicle commute.

    People are also not against vehicular travel, but are willing to add pressures to that choice by prioritizing LRT and bus travel along with other modal options such as our bike network.

    We certainly want to have an efficient system for all and not at the real expense of the other, but I would also argue not at the significant costs of raised track for a low-floor system.
    No kidding. If you're going that route, just adopt what Vancouver has with an automated line and be done with it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel for double the price.

  6. #6206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^ You can have a more efficient system while still having a focus on TOD. Going back to the skytrain example again, TOD has been successful at many of those stations, while being underground or above ground.
    You can't get people from where they are to where they want to be as efficiently if you're going to places where they could be in the middle. By all means, take advantage of development opportunities along the efficient routing, but don't trade efficacy for them.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  7. #6207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Light Rapid Transit
    Actually, it stood for Light Rail Transit.

    Im going to go with both are actually correct. If you refer to some of the planning documents for the original lrt line from the late 60s through 80s and perhaps later, LRT was referred to as light rapid transit and newer sources it says light rail
    It doesn't really matter what the acronym was, it matters what meaning we put on the word.

    And in Edmonton, LRT meant what our first LRT line was - rapid, high capacity, no stops for traffic. When people in Edmonton say they support LRT that's what they want. So when consultants and city staff work hard selling "urban-style" LRT Edmontonians have been picturing something with the same capacity and service as the original line, but with the extra benefits imagined by the proponents.

    It's like all we had for a freeway was the whitemud, and we called it an expressway. and then the city came and sold a vision of an urban style expressway, which was pretty much like the yellowhead but with even more lights, and with no sound walls or fences.

    But while that may technically be an expressway, it's sure as heck not what edmontonians would be picturing when they voted for it.
    There can only be one.

  8. #6208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    To be fair Ian, their concerns are warranted. What I'm hearing is that most people think the city should put less priority on TOD's and more priority with engineering a system that carries people more efficiently from one important stop to the next as most systems are designed. It's less to do with the 'want' for mass transit.
    Less TODs, more efficient routing that's cognizant of Edmonton's thoroughly distributed employment & population. Less focusing on what transit can do to change the face of the city years after construction & more on providing effective transportation to Edmontonians from day 1.
    Nothing wrong with TODs. I love TODs, assuming they actually get built and are actually oriented to transit, and not merely adjacent.
    But I suspect more TOD will be built with actual efficient and convenient transit than with a meandering slow line.
    There can only be one.

  9. #6209

    Default

    Maybe I should have phrased it "Less TODs for TODs sake at the expense of effective transportation as a transit priority".

    No issues with TODs, only with the potential development possibilities being weighted higher than efficient movement when designing lines & choosing routes.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  10. #6210

  11. #6211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    What I am feeling from all of this is that our large small city becoming a small larger city with push and pulls as we make our way through puberty.

    People may not be against transit, but not at the expense of 5mins more (assuming no cluster F like the Metro) to their personal vehicle commute.

    People are also not against vehicular travel, but are willing to add pressures to that choice by prioritizing LRT and bus travel along with other modal options such as our bike network.

    We certainly want to have an efficient system for all and not at the real expense of the other, but I would also argue not at the significant costs of raised track for a low-floor system.
    It's not only about the personal vehicle commute, and the effect on their time, but its about building an LRT system that actually provides a reasonable alternative to driving. It's about building an LRT system that compliments and adds to our transportation system, not one that pits modes against each other, and creates points of potential conflict.
    It's about using the right tools for the right job, and not trying to create some hybrid monster that's neither street car, nor LRT, but some hybrid of both, that doesn't accomplish the goals for either typical system. The now under construction Valley line will be no quicker than the existing bus service (route 15) from millwoods to downtown.
    We are putting a street car level service in the suburbs... A streetcar makes sense in our built up urban areas, but not in the suburbs. LRRT - like our original line, is what should be used to connect the burbs to downtown, and should have proper spacing between stations, and provide quick services between suburb to downtown node. A backbone of our transit service. A streetcar is great for local service - in the built up areas, like downtown, strathcona and the Post WWII suburbs where there was already a street car line in the past.

  12. #6212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    What I am feeling from all of this is that our large small city becoming a small larger city with push and pulls as we make our way through puberty.

    People may not be against transit, but not at the expense of 5mins more (assuming no cluster F like the Metro) to their personal vehicle commute.

    People are also not against vehicular travel, but are willing to add pressures to that choice by prioritizing LRT and bus travel along with other modal options such as our bike network.

    We certainly want to have an efficient system for all and not at the real expense of the other, but I would also argue not at the significant costs of raised track for a low-floor system.
    No kidding. If you're going that route, just adopt what Vancouver has with an automated line and be done with it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel for double the price.
    Low floor vs. high floor isn't relevant at all. Reality is that it's those first few important grade separations that get the most benefit to both riders and to neighbours. there's way more benefit to grade separating at whyte ave than at, say 78ave. At some point when all the crossing streets are little side streets pretty much the only real benefit to grade separation is the lower cost of automated operations.
    There can only be one.

  13. #6213
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,563

    Default

    Let's also keep in mind that TODs are 10-20-50yr plans.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  14. #6214

    Default

    So I should swallow inferior transit for my lifetime so people can get relatively cheap brownfield condos adjacent to the line in 20 years?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  15. #6215
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,563

    Default

    Of course not, but transit is much more than A-B in the long-term. It is A-B-C-A.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  16. #6216

    Default

    let's keep in mind that transit should be about moving people first, in an efficient and quick manner.

  17. #6217
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,563

    Default

    Agreed, but that it is also there to serve as an option to not require a vehicle for trips within your community.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #6218

    Default

    That would be a job for a small bus or a streetcar/tram.

    We need to stop with the hybridization of transport modes in this city. We try to get the best of both worlds and end up with the worst.

  19. #6219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Of course not, but transit is much more than A-B in the long-term. It is A-B-C-A.
    TOD s don't change the pattern from A-B To ABCA when they're 99% residential with maybe a convenience store and a daycare. Other than the downtown portion of the valley line it's not that kind of line.

    Whyte ave will need a different kind of transit for the multitudes of shorter trips, but that's a reason why it shouldn't be "LRT" at all, not an argument for low-floor.
    There can only be one.

  20. #6220

    Default

    ^^
    Bingo
    There can only be one.

  21. #6221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Light Rapid Transit
    Actually, it stood for Light Rail Transit.

    Im going to go with both are actually correct. If you refer to some of the planning documents for the original lrt line from the late 60s through 80s and perhaps later, LRT was referred to as light rapid transit and newer sources it says light rail
    It doesn't really matter what the acronym was, it matters what meaning we put on the word.

    And in Edmonton, LRT meant what our first LRT line was - rapid, high capacity, no stops for traffic. When people in Edmonton say they support LRT that's what they want. So when consultants and city staff work hard selling "urban-style" LRT Edmontonians have been picturing something with the same capacity and service as the original line, but with the extra benefits imagined by the proponents.

    It's like all we had for a freeway was the whitemud, and we called it an expressway. and then the city came and sold a vision of an urban style expressway, which was pretty much like the yellowhead but with even more lights, and with no sound walls or fences.

    But while that may technically be an expressway, it's sure as heck not what edmontonians would be picturing when they voted for it.
    Well certainly it matters. Rapid transit infers the same and has in writing a clear, and non confusing component of delivering passengers to and from said destinations rapidly. That be for the public good and the reason for implementing such systems world wide and for the benefit of the expeditious delivery of the public.

    What has changed is "Light Rail Transit" implies no same thing, and can be much more easily warped to milk run and servicing streets and TOD's all along with frequent stops and far less conception of rapid. But with the latter sense being arguably in favor of developers, movers and shakers and not necessarily designed or run to serve the public first and foremost and for the public to benefit most from the *service*. It could even be stated that a latter interpretation is much more subject to developer needs and wants rather than the publics.

    So of course one would rail (excuse pun) at how LRT initiatives have changed, and been re labelled since their invocation. Its classic bait and switch. Public service be damned.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-08-2017 at 10:02 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  22. #6222
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,563

    Default

    Minor Lane Closure on 102 Street at 102 Avenue
    DISRUPTIONNEWSNOISENOTICESIDEWALKVEHICLEAREA 1AREA 2
    EDMONTON, AB – August 21, 2017 – Starting on or around August 28, there will be a partial lane closure going southbound on 102 Street and 102 Avenue for EPCOR to install a new fire hydrant. The road will remain partially closed until overall construction is completed in this area.

    We ask for your understanding and patience as construction progresses. For the most current, up-to-date information in your area, please visit http://transedlrt.ca/advisories/.

    To accommodate this work, the public will be impacted in the following areas:

    Partial road closure southbound on 102 Street at 102 Avenue.
    Pedestrian access will be maintained.
    Alternate Routes:

    To avoid any potential delays, motorists can use 101 Street, or 103 Street as alternate routes.
    There will be noise associated with the work. TransEd is committed to following all City of Edmonton bylaws and regulations, and has obtained an overnight roadwork permit so that work can take place during nighttime hours in order to minimize major daytime traffic disruptions. *City of Edmonton Bylaw C14600.

    Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic disruptions will vary by location. During this time please watch for, and observe, all traffic detours and direction of construction personnel.

    Please refer to the attached map for more details. For more information, visit our website http://transedlrt.ca or contact us via email at [email protected] or by phone 780-224-0964.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  23. #6223

    Default

    "Roughly", "about", "systems are not the same"... I'm saying we have this (low floor) system, because we're (The City) is designing it for a different set of criteria, what is "acceptable" depends on your criteria. Vancouver's Canada Line was an emphasis on speed, and they cheaped out on station design, number of stations, station platform length, and exiting design. For the amount of development at happen at Oakridge alone... it's nothing to emulate.


    Just stating these are different systems with different criteria and design principles in mind, and at both quite fast options to travel the distance they travel along. They are not the same. They do a good job of traveling a distance over 10 kilometres around a half-hour.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  24. #6224

    Default

    "nothing to emulate"

    huh?

    Vancouver Skytrain system is the best model in Canada to learn from. Limiting stations is not "cheaping out' its having the eyes on the line being as efficient as it can be. Which given commuting distances is integral to providing people with a reasonable alternative to automobile commuting.

    Next, and perhaps due to having finite stops Vancouver skytrain stops have invariably become model TOD communities and with that able to be emphasized around those station nodes. Limiting the amount of stops INCREASES the impetus of development at each of those stops.

    Finally, station design is not my first thought upon using these systems. Its efficiency. It is for most people about efficiency. Nor do I find Skytrain at all unappealing. The raised rail network is perfect for providing a view of the resplendent Lower mainland environment.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-08-2017 at 11:40 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  25. #6225

    Default

    Replacement you're missing the crux of the argument, which is the Canada Line is only to be used as a point of comparison to the Valley Line where it supports GenWhy?'s argument & conveniently ignored when it contradicts it.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #6226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    "nothing to emulate"

    huh?

    Vancouver Skytrain system is the best model in Canada to learn from. Limiting stations is not "cheaping out' its having the eyes on the line being as efficient as it can be. Which given commuting distances is integral to providing people with a reasonable alternative to automobile commuting.

    Next, and perhaps due to having finite stops Vancouver skytrain stops have invariably become model TOD communities and with that able to be emphasized around those station nodes. Limiting the amount of stops INCREASES the impetus of development at each of those stops.

    Finally, station design is not my first thought upon using these systems. Its efficiency. It is for most people about efficiency. Nor do I find Skytrain at all unappealing. The raised rail network is perfect for providing a view of the resplendent Lower mainland environment.
    The Canada Line, not the Skytrain system.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  27. #6227
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,563

    Default

    Our Mayor's comments on the Valley-Line.

    https://doniveson.ca/2017/08/23/buil...ay-congestion/
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  28. #6228

    Default

    And well as the Skytrain system as a whole, in reference to TOD, is great, due to good planning and zoning, which is what I've been arguing for on this thread. I'm saying get beyond the under construction Valley Line in its form (low floor, or grade separations) and focus now (citizens, communities, the City, council) on neighbourhood plans, zoning, and new urban design of mature neighbourhoods in its path, higher density corridor strategies, and new zoning and neighbourhood design in Mill Woods that compliments LRT on 66st.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  29. #6229

    Default

    He repeat the lie that subway costs 10x as much, makes excuses for poor decisions, and uses the word "learnings" when he means lessons.

    What a bold leader.
    There can only be one.

  30. #6230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    "nothing to emulate"

    huh?

    Vancouver Skytrain system is the best model in Canada to learn from. Limiting stations is not "cheaping out' its having the eyes on the line being as efficient as it can be. Which given commuting distances is integral to providing people with a reasonable alternative to automobile commuting.

    Next, and perhaps due to having finite stops Vancouver skytrain stops have invariably become model TOD communities and with that able to be emphasized around those station nodes. Limiting the amount of stops INCREASES the impetus of development at each of those stops.

    Finally, station design is not my first thought upon using these systems. Its efficiency. It is for most people about efficiency. Nor do I find Skytrain at all unappealing. The raised rail network is perfect for providing a view of the resplendent Lower mainland environment.
    The Canada Line, not the Skytrain system.
    I've been on the Canada Line countless times. It is my least favorite of the skytrain lines because of the underground portions but its still fast, still efficient, and still delivering ideal commute service as well as servicing the Airport. Its still been a dedicated line that does not impede other modes of transportation.

    I'm less familiar with your need to critique the Canada line but as per the thread you are not even familiar with the speed or distance served by the line.

    In anycase you are not communicating your point very well and statements like "nothing to emulate" are otherwise entirely misguided. I would emulate any of the Lower Mainland lines and prefer it to any of the lines built here.
    Last edited by Replacement; 24-08-2017 at 12:00 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #6231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Our Mayor's comments on the Valley-Line.

    https://doniveson.ca/2017/08/23/buil...ay-congestion/
    One full Valley line train will not carry 700 passengers. Where did Don get that number from?

    And I love the picture with the elevated train at Davies Station, with the headline underneath.

    Yes, that's how we smartly build our way out of congestion.

    Now show a rendering of the mess that's going to happen at Bonnie Doon.
    Last edited by Cumberland; 24-08-2017 at 12:11 PM. Reason: added comments

  32. #6232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    "nothing to emulate"

    huh?

    Vancouver Skytrain system is the best model in Canada to learn from. Limiting stations is not "cheaping out' its having the eyes on the line being as efficient as it can be. Which given commuting distances is integral to providing people with a reasonable alternative to automobile commuting.

    Next, and perhaps due to having finite stops Vancouver skytrain stops have invariably become model TOD communities and with that able to be emphasized around those station nodes. Limiting the amount of stops INCREASES the impetus of development at each of those stops.

    Finally, station design is not my first thought upon using these systems. Its efficiency. It is for most people about efficiency. Nor do I find Skytrain at all unappealing. The raised rail network is perfect for providing a view of the resplendent Lower mainland environment.
    The Canada Line, not the Skytrain system.
    I've been on the Canada Line countless times. It is my least favorite of the skytrain lines because of the underground portions but its still fast, still efficient, and still delivering ideal commute service as well as servicing the Airport. Its still been a dedicated line that does not impede other modes of transportation.

    I'm less familiar with your need to critique the Canada line but as per the thread you are not even familiar with the speed or distance served by the line.

    In anycase you are not communicating your point very well and statements like "nothing to emulate" are otherwise entirely misguided. I would emulate any of the Lower Mainland lines and prefer it to any of the lines built here.
    I think we're coming at this portion of the Valley Line with a different set of criteria, which I see as our point of disagreement, which I respect. If speed were to be a primary factor in the Valley Line, then yes it fails. I'm just at the point where we have the system we do, and we need to get onto Neighbourhood Plans, rezoning, and new community orientations to LRT stops / stations.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  33. #6233

    Default

    So it's all crap so now we need to make the best of it?
    There can only be one.

  34. #6234

    Default

    ^Make the best of it, no matter what. Even if it was elevated in some areas, I'd claim to do these moves none-the-less, because Edmonton effs up TOD's and neighbourhood plans and area up-zonings, and street design, IMO (or at least has to an extent I am worried, and make regular cases to the City about it).
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  35. #6235
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Nice that they'll consider grade separating at 178 and 142. Guess having your choo choo T-boned at 109 Street will be perfectly okay though.

    Sheesh. I like Don, but man, he's making it tough.
    ... gobsmacked

  36. #6236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Never liked him and he is making it easy.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  37. #6237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    Yes, that's how we smartly build our way out of congestion.

    Now show a rendering of the mess that's going to happen at Bonnie Doon.
    Or any picture of University at 114 St, or the mess at Kingsway. We have real-world examples right now of how this city has no ability to plan, and even more importantly in this context, fix mistakes. Telling us they'll solve issues is a slap in the face when they haven't been able to solve any of the issues from prior lines.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  38. #6238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Sheesh. I like Don, but man, he's making it tough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Never liked him and he is making it easy.
    I want to like him but for some reason I always feel like I also want to punch him in the face for being brutally patronizing towards valid concerns.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  39. #6239

    Default

    That's the sort of talk that'll get you mocked at the next charity event.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #6240

    Default

    I honestly never found University / 114 Street that bad due to the LRT, but found it bad due to large amounts of vehicular traffic trying to reach Fox Drive via 114 Street.

    In tandem with LRT construction, I've been demanding an answer on bus routes and design traveling via Whyte Avenue around Bonnie Doon, and all I've gotten has, "we're working on a overall Transit Strategy". To me, that wasn't really a optimistic answer, but in getting other answers around LRT solved the issue of the congestion will be deflated/lessened. If it means a portion of Whyte around 85 Street - 75 Street have more bus priority, then I want that to be answered before 2020.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #6241

    Default

    i drive 114 street north and turn west onto university ave every day, and i can tell you its a gong show. traffic going east on university ave and trying to turn south onto 114 street has it even worse, with cars lined up for at least a 15-20min wait. I have seen the arm down for over a minute before a train even crosses.

  42. #6242

    Default

    In the mid-90s I sat in my (transportation engineer) boss's office while he called Transpo folks at the CoE to tell them his staff's models were showing the 82 Ave/114 St intersection was at 97% peak-hour capacity. This was before the LRT was in. Their response was "public transit will fix that".
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  43. #6243
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I'd like to see an electronic sign at Groat Road indicating the level of congestion at University Ave/114 Street. Perhaps another along 114 Street indicating indicating traffic congestion on 111 Street.

    For the left turn at Whyte onto 83 Street, I think it would be great to extend the road west of the new intersection around 83 Street/87 Avenue to connect with 85 Street. That way, left-turning traffic at Whyte/85 Street could connect with the new road and 83 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  44. #6244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    i drive 114 street north and turn west onto university ave every day, and i can tell you its a gong show. traffic going east on university ave and trying to turn south onto 114 street has it even worse, with cars lined up for at least a 15-20min wait. I have seen the arm down for over a minute before a train even crosses.
    I usually keep going north and turn at 87 Ave which is an adjustment I've made, and find better than trying to turn left at an LRT crossing. Maybe the point is that some people refuse to make adjustments.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  45. #6245
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think the removal of the Bonnie Doon traffic circle will be a change for the better.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  46. #6246
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Bold is mine

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think the removal of the Bonnie Doon traffic circle will be a change for the better.
    I haven't heard anything this but is that official?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  47. #6247

  48. #6248
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    A lot of these transit projects were approved under former Mayor Stephen Mandel. I'm sure that he had to "value-engineer" the project to get any kind of funding from the province and federal government. Look at all the times the province tried to pull funding for the LRT. Edmonton is paying about 45%, and $200 million from the province is a loan. The whole valley line will be cheaper than Calgary's Green Line, which they seem to have no problem getting funding.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 26-08-2017 at 11:53 AM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  49. #6249
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cumberland View Post
    Thanks
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  50. #6250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think the removal of the Bonnie Doon traffic circle will be a change for the better.
    Indeed its one of the best aspects of this whole project. That traffic circle needed to go. With 5 spurs it was always an odd one and I can't put my foot on it but I never liked driving through it. The only other traffic circle that had that odd effect on me was the traffic light traffic circle.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  51. #6251
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Does anyone know how much of the Green line Calgary receives is part of that $20B fund the feds mentioned?

    Shouldn't some of that $20B get to phase 2 of Valley?

    http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...-west-lrt.html
    Last edited by envaneo; 26-08-2017 at 01:36 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  52. #6252

    Default

    About 1.5 billion. 1.5 from the city, and 1.5 from the province.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ture-1.4192673

    Yes, Edmonton should see of that money too for Valley Phase 2. Be nice to see it split 3 ways like Calgary's deal.

  53. #6253
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    ^ We should but will we?

    There are other cities that want a share of that $20B, Vancouver/Toronto/Ottawa etc. Hopefully we'll have funding for phase 2 of Valley in place before Valley comes online in ~2020.

    The thing that troubles me is, we get a $200m loan from the Province for Valley but Calgary gets $1.5B for the Green line?

    Thanks for the link but that mostly had to do with Calgary's Green line. I think they have most of the $5.5B they need for the 54km line.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  54. #6254

    Default

    Federal funding for the Valley Line was under Harper, who made it contingent on being a P3. The Calgary Green Line is under Trudeau and don't require a P3 but allows it if the city decides to take that route.

  55. #6255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    i drive 114 street north and turn west onto university ave every day, and i can tell you its a gong show. traffic going east on university ave and trying to turn south onto 114 street has it even worse, with cars lined up for at least a 15-20min wait. I have seen the arm down for over a minute before a train even crosses.
    I usually keep going north and turn at 87 Ave which is an adjustment I've made, and find better than trying to turn left at an LRT crossing. Maybe the point is that some people refuse to make adjustments.
    ive done that, and so do many others. its backed up worse there now then turning left onto uni ave

  56. #6256

  57. #6257

    Default

    I don't think that running an L.R.T. line across any busy junction will be a change for the better. This is part of the short sighted vision that Edmonton is undergoing. Seems like this Valley line was designed by the same folks who did the N.A.I.T. line. We should do so much better if we incorporated more Tunnels and/or Overpasses. Yes, it would cost a lot more but at least it would be done right at the first attempt with no perpetual problems like we have with the N.A.I.T. line which still does not run right.

    In response to Posting # 6245 (The Cat)
    Last edited by Komorosky; 26-08-2017 at 08:51 PM. Reason: Wrong Heading?

  58. #6258
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  59. #6259

    Default

    River bridge construction from the north bank - 2017.08.27.


  60. #6260
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    I reviewed the City's debt papers we only have ~$2 billion in debt capacity available at the moment for *everything* as mandated by the MGA. It's nice to say "bury/elevate the whole thing!" - but we literally cannot afford to. We *can* however, tackle key intersections, but not too many of them. The debt capacity has to be able to finance more than just the LRT.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  61. #6261

    Default

    Assuming that we can afford all the LRT that the city has plans for we absolutely could afford to do it right with high quality grade separations and 100% priority. We would just have to sacrifice the parts of the plan that don't make sense anyway.

    like LRT on white ave where the city can't be bothered to spend a dime or dedicate a square foot for bus service. Or the West LRT tail past WEM.

    or elevate the west line with the savings from cutting the route length in half and using the old 87ave plan.
    There can only be one.

  62. #6262
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Just for comparison sake here is a ride on Birmingham's Tram system.
    https://youtu.be/qUg71pczdnY

    Discuss.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  63. #6263
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    Here's Portland's Low Floor LRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwDWYvL0aU
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  64. #6264
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    And here is Edinburgh's tram : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KwA2TApICw

    Just for comparison sake

  65. #6265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Just for comparison sake here is a ride on Birmingham's Tram system.
    https://youtu.be/qUg71pczdnY

    Discuss.

    thanks for this. the only reason trams can work in some cities, is that those cities are relatively dense.
    what edm planners/ politicians have their heads in the sand over is they think this city has that kind of density, but they don't want to acknowledge the decades of single family built form. while some densification will happen, it won't be like europe anytime soon.

    and in big cities with tram like lrt's, the trams serve as a supplement to the fast-moving metro style systems, not as the backbone.
    hindsight may be 20/20, but a low floor lrt would be perfect for an area like 23rd avenue, running east west, connecting the various neighbourhoods/ retail corridors (imagine, if those retail areas where not designed as now, with parking in the front/ non pedestrian friendly . and, if everything was designed right, the tram line would interchange with major higher speed services at century park and mill woods.
    but that's just me, i'm a commoner with no planning insight.

  66. #6266
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think the trouble with Edmonton's layout is that its growth was largely low density, with little planning for mass transit. Edmonton was supposed to develop its LRT along the railway lines, but planning went awry. Edmonton has had to build its LRT along lower traffic corridors while still reaching key destinations.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  67. #6267
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    ^ Not to mention absorbing Jasper Place when it went bankrupt as well etc, kind of as they, say upset the applecart.
    Last edited by envaneo; 04-09-2017 at 02:57 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  68. #6268
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    A tram is okay downtown, but it should be designed to get you from the suburbs to downtown, faster and cheaper then a car. If you do this then people will want to take the train. Some high volume places should be either tunneled or elevated, other places surface is just fine. Unfortunately the city thinks we want to stop frequently and have slow service that not only takes longer than a car but slows cars down too.
    Last edited by sundance; 03-09-2017 at 12:17 PM.

  69. #6269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    A tram is okay downtown, but it should be designed to get you from the suburbs to downtown, faster and cheaper then a car. If you do this then people will want to take the train. Some high volume places should be either tunneled or elevated, other places surface is just fine. Unfortunately the city thinks we want to stop frequently and have slow service that not only takes longer than a car but slows cars down toon.
    so true. and little do planners realize if they make it too difficult to get downtown for the vehicle crowd, the vehicle crowd will move their business out of dt into the suburban office parks. (with easy access, free parking, and no waiting for trains) and all the efforts to 'revitalize' downtown will be wasted. i'm a big downtown booster, but if accessibility is not a priority, then why should i frequent it. the skytrain in vancouver is THE example of how it should work.

  70. #6270
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I wonder if the land around Davies Station will change drastically. A lot of it's industrial, east of 75 Street. On the west side, there's W. P. Wagner school, along with small businesses.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  71. #6271
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Err. Wrong thread.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  72. #6272
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I wonder if the land around Davies Station will change drastically. A lot of it's industrial, east of 75 Street. On the west side, there's W. P. Wagner school, along with small businesses.
    As you prob know, most of the track in that area will be elevated so it should not have any impact on the land at all after its built. There might be marginal impact during construction but afterwards prob not much impact.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  73. #6273
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    What I'm talking about is the kind of development Davies Station will attract once it opens. There would have to be zoning changes.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  74. #6274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    What I'm talking about is the kind of development Davies Station will attract once it opens. There would have to be zoning changes.
    Not sure. I think ground level stations integrated into communities work very well at spurring development (good example is McKernan/Belgravia, which I think has given an infill boost). In Vancouver elevated stations seem to work well and produce development, but I don 't think that's the experience in Alberta - all I can think of is Sunalta in Calgary, and perhaps even Northlands (which is like an elevated as equally tricky to get to acess). It probably won't do much, would be my bet - I think the comparable is Sunalta which is an industrial type area with some residential. Maybe it will spur on some parking lots.

  75. #6275
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Ahh I see now

    Outside of a store like at Clareview or Southgate in Davis station I don't know, is there much room for development there?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  76. #6276

    Default

    Davies should remain industrial as access to employment. Zoning has helped Vancouver station TOD, but it is also not the magic example we all see. Metrotown and Brentwood are dense, but not exactly walkable. Joyce Station and Commercial-Broadway are being re-zoned... only now... with a plan. Edmonton needs to pre-zone the LRT line to make changes. Which they are slow to do. It's affecting Vancouver still and NIMBYism is rampant for affordability there. There is plenty of room to develop around Southgate and Bonnie Doon. Except bureaucracy.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  77. #6277
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,897

    Default

    There might be some changes in there area. With a park n ride there some businesses might want to take advantage of all the vehicles and people using that area.

  78. #6278
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,012

    Default

    Taken this morning - Valley Line LRT Bridge over the river continuing over 98 Ave



    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  79. #6279
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Here's Portland's Low Floor LRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwDWYvL0aU
    We were in Portland last week and took their LRT. Great system, and only $5 for a day pass.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  80. #6280
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Davies should remain industrial as access to employment. Zoning has helped Vancouver station TOD, but it is also not the magic example we all see. Metrotown and Brentwood are dense, but not exactly walkable. Joyce Station and Commercial-Broadway are being re-zoned... only now... with a plan. Edmonton needs to pre-zone the LRT line to make changes. Which they are slow to do. It's affecting Vancouver still and NIMBYism is rampant for affordability there. There is plenty of room to develop around Southgate and Bonnie Doon. Except bureaucracy.
    That's because Broadway is getting a lrt extension I believe. I used to visit the kits area a lot in the mid 1970's to shop at Grand Prix hobbies West Broadway.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  81. #6281
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Here's Portland's Low Floor LRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwDWYvL0aU
    We were in Portland last week and took their LRT. Great system, and only $5 for a day pass.
    I've seen you tube video's on Portland's lrt and it looks sharp.

    Wow Gord you really get around. Was Portland and Elk Island on your bucket list ?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  82. #6282
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Great Photos. I'm looking forward to ride the Valley line opening day.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  83. #6283
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    We were in Portland last week and took their LRT. Great system, and only $5 for a day pass.
    Love it. Will be there in three short weeks. (Pssst, feel free to make recommendations)
    ... gobsmacked

  84. #6284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    There might be some changes in there area. With a park n ride there some businesses might want to take advantage of all the vehicles and people using that area.
    Panhandlers often hang out on LRT, I wonder if it would be worth the trek for them? Do they qualify as a business? Davies station is almost an exact copy of Sunalta I think - so it should turn out fine for the location, but won't do much.

  85. #6285

    Default

    moahunter - don't you mean 'slumtrain' ??

  86. #6286

    Default

    Davies needs to stay as-is. The biggest problem with our LRT is it doesn't take enough people to where they work other than downtown and our big schools. And it barely picks any people up. Basically you either ride it from school to school or you drive to a parking lot to take it to downtown or a school.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  87. #6287
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    ^ How true. In my case on my commute, I take a bus a train and another bus, Both ways.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  88. #6288

    Default

    It's fooking embarrassing that this city can't plan to put LRT stops where they need to go. It won't stop in the middle of the Manning power centre. It'll never to into SEC. It won't stop in Windermere. Edmonton talks so much about TOD, but every single development in this city, past, current, and future, is designed for cars and then we hack the LRT on where we can, not where we should, at some later date to middling effectiveness and horrendous cost.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  89. #6289

    Default

    Edmonton doesn't know how to do TOD, or LRT.

  90. #6290

    Default

    Oddly enough, we're well suited to BRT given our built form & distributed nodes but BRT ain't sexy enough so we get cut-rate transit at boutique pricing.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  91. #6291
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    I agree we need more BRT's but not at the expense of LRT. As far as I know we have only 1 express bus in the City and that's the #100 from WEM. Maybe we ought to have a BRT where the road has 4 lanes. This way we can have say for example a BRT for riders that want to get from Coliseum station to Westmount with minimum stops on the outside lane and the same bus with the status quo. This way if I want to get to Westmont from Coliseum station it wont take me an hour to get out there.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  92. #6292

    Default

    For the $1.8B to build Valley Line we could have white-glove valet bus service that will pick you up from where you are and take you where you actually want to go on heated/cooled buses with free wifi.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  93. #6293
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Here's Portland's Low Floor LRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwDWYvL0aU
    We were in Portland last week and took their LRT. Great system, and only $5 for a day pass.
    For tourists such as yourself perhaps. Too bad so few of the locals bother to ride it.

  94. #6294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Here's Portland's Low Floor LRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwDWYvL0aU
    We were in Portland last week and took their LRT. Great system, and only $5 for a day pass.
    The Houston LRT system is really good as well - I think it will be close to what the Calgary and Edmonton low floor lines will look like, albeit public transport is much more popular in Canada.

  95. #6295

    Default

    Portland comes in at #7 in North America. Edmonton is 10th.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

  96. #6296

    Default

    For whatever reason Edmonton is in 10th place but has higher ridership than 9th place Dallas.

    But look at the table again, and sort according to boardings per mile. That will tell you at least as much about how useful a system is - And we're behind only Mexican Cities with much lower car ownership, and Boston. 4x as high as Portland.

    Managing 10% higher ridership really isn't that impressive when you have 4x the mileage and twice the local population.
    There can only be one.

  97. #6297

    Default

    better to look at those stats as per km, rather than as a whole system. Edmonton kills portland in the passenger per km.

    Well, highlander beat me too it.

    Stats are misleading, when you just look at raw numbers without analysis

  98. #6298

    Default

    ^and the Millwoods line is going to be extremely successful also - I expect passengers per KM will be very comparable to Century Park - probably better, Millwoods is a huge catchment for public transit.

  99. #6299
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    The nice thing is that you won't need to wait at six long lights and a train. Going to a Park-and-Ride for a football game form Mill Woods easily takes an hour.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  100. #6300
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,861

    Default

    Millwoods Eskimo fans would still need to take the train from Churchill anyway. Better off taking a BP's shuttle to the game in that case, if they still have em.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

Page 63 of 70 FirstFirst ... 1353596061626364656667 ... 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
  •