Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 856

Thread: North East LRT Extension | Clareview to Gorman | Planning/Discussion

  1. #101
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Sundance, exactly they are working on the existing TOD's. I doubt we'll fill up and be dense in a couple years. It's going to take 10+ years. If we keep giving developers the choice, existing infill or bran new development, which do you think will get built? (Hint, look at our downtown parking lots) If we needed the space, this would be a no brainer. We don't.

    As to the economic reasons, sure we get "free" $200 million, but if we don't waste OUR tax dollars on this, then they get spent somewhere else. This money isn't growing on trees, it comes from us.

    I personally don't think this is even a 'put it off to later' sort of discussion. Leave space for it (ROW, land for station, built the area as if you will have a future station), but then prove to me later we need it when there is demand. That demand and those taxpayers are going to pay for it.

    Our NLRT, WLRT, SELRT and even the SLRT are so expensive because the ROW's aren't there, or aren't designed for LRT. Yes it'll be more expensive in the future, but probably only due to the value of the dollar itself.

  2. #102

    Default

    2 words: Shovel. Ready.

  3. #103
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Just because you have a shovel ready project, doesn't mean it should be built.

    We're building our own version of the 'bridge to nowhere'.

    LRT to nowhere.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    As to the economic reasons, sure we get "free" $200 million, but if we don't waste OUR tax dollars on this, then they get spent somewhere else. This money isn't growing on trees, it comes from us.
    There is nothing "free" about any of the $200M. All of it comes from tax dollars. At least now all of it will be spent in our city and not somewhere else in the province or country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I personally don't think this is even a 'put it off to later' sort of discussion. Leave space for it (ROW, land for station, built the area as if you will have a future station), but then prove to me later we need it when there is demand. That demand and those taxpayers are going to pay for it.
    I personally think that it is a good decision. It is another link in the chain to have a complete LRT system that encompasses our city. Trying to prove this to you is obviously a waste of time. Thankfully you aren't on council. We already have Tony.

  5. #105
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i agree with channing that this station at this moment makes no sense. to me, this station serves even less purpose than future Lewis Estates in the west end stop would serve. I think a parkade to increase park and ride capacity would have been better. Dedicated bus lanes to aid people accessing clareview stop would have been better. when people say the stop at "clareview is full", does that mean that once a train leaves the stop, there is no more room for other passengers to board? If that is the case, we need to expand capacity of the LRT. building a new stop will not expand that capacity, but it will attempt to put more people on trains that, according to statements like "clarview is full", is at capacity already.

  6. #106
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deedub35 View Post
    Trying to prove this to you is obviously a waste of time.
    is this because you

    - do not have time to participate in a discussion?
    - not capable making better arguments to support your point of view?
    - do not believe in discussions?
    - suggesting that channing is lacking in intelligence to understand you?

    I think the first three options are fine. The last one is offensive and against the general C2E policy of "debating the issue, not the person". It also would negatively reflect on you and your future contributions in this wonderful C2E community.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    2 words: Shovel. Ready.
    Too bad NLRT and WLRT weren't shovel ready. But that's what happens when nimbys take to the streets like they did in the 60's. Nothing gets done.

  8. #108

    Default

    ^It's funny, but more and more I am starting to agree with Grish. This station is pointless, it seems little more than pandering to a developer or similar. If the goal is parkNride, then spend the money on above grade parkade at Clareview (I realize expensive, but cheaper than LRT). If the goal is a TOD, then spend the money on a TOD at Stadium or similar, where it doesn't promote more sprawl.

    The City is in effect building low value lines, because the valuable ones have proven too difficult for our City to design quick enough to get the money. That's a really sad indictment on our transport department (or is it Council for interfering?).
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-05-2009 at 12:29 PM.

  9. #109
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    You don't need to make this personal now. We can disagree without doing that.

    This doesn't encompass our city. It extends beyond it. We don't need that. If we can find a place to spend the money wisely, good. If not, then why should we deprive other's? Again, I point to the "LRT to nowhere" argument. Just because we can get money for something doesn't mean it's useful. All the reasons so far are because it'll be good IN THE FUTURE. And that's just guessing.

  10. #110

    Default NELRT Extension

    Well here we go..

    We have a thread for every other leg of the LRT except the NE.

    With the funding announcement made for this extension has come some concern

    (big Suprize)

    May4ths Edition of 24 Hour Daily News paper has an article quoting an upset Gorman Town resident. He say "IOf the LRT comes out here he will sell his house because with it will bring Crime, Traffic and Noise.

    Councillor Kim Krushell says she is against redirecting 88 million set aside by the city for the NAIT LRT Line to fund this project.

    Here are my issues.. A City Council has not even said they are going to redirect funds. Mr. Upset Gorman Resident is a fool, he is sitting on a gold mine. I weill happily buy his house RIGHT NOW!

    Yes Gorman Towne is a fiel, but so I Heritage and South University Campus. The only diffrence are these are feilds surrounded by city. Gorman is a field about to be surounded by city.

    I am so sicl of the short sightness of our local medial and our genreal population.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 05-05-2009 at 01:54 PM.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    - do not have time to participate in a discussion?
    I have time.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    - not capable making better arguments to support your point of view?
    There have been excellent arguments supporting both points of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    - do not believe in discussions?
    I believe in discussion. But it gets to a point where it is best to "agree to disagree". It is obvious that Channing has his viewpoint and supporting arguments and won't be persuaded. I have my viewpoint and supporting arguments and won't be persuaded.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    - suggesting that channing is lacking in intelligence to understand you?
    Absolutely not! If Channing has thought this then I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    The last one is offensive and against the general C2E policy of "debating the issue, not the person". It also would negatively reflect on you and your future contributions in this wonderful C2E community.
    I agree.

  12. #112
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    It's being discussed at length here:

    http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=12697

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    It's being discussed at length here:

    http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=12697
    Every other Leg gets it's own dedicated threat.. Why not the poor NE.

    Surley there are other things to discuss, such as cleaning up all the ugly buildings between DT and Commonwealth.

  14. #114
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^I agree but there hasn't been significant action on the NELRT line aside from Gorman, which is 1 station.
    ----

  15. #115

    Default

    Our Poor lost forgotten LRT line.

    It's going to become the black sheep of the familly if we don't look after it.

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    This doesn't encompass our city. It extends beyond it. We don't need that. If we can find a place to spend the money wisely, good. If not, then why should we deprive other's? Again, I point to the "LRT to nowhere" argument. Just because we can get money for something doesn't mean it's useful. All the reasons so far are because it'll be good IN THE FUTURE. And that's just guessing.
    I disagree and agree.

    Gorman station is within the ring road which is within the city.

    At the time of completion this station will be in a field with little around it - essentially a park and ride. I like the park and ride concept though. Although it does not take cars completely off the roads (left at home), it does take cars off city streets (they are not driving to their destination). There are approximately 1500 parking stalls at Clareview. There will be that many if not more at Gorman. That is potentially 1500 plus cars that are not using city streets. This means less congestion and less money needed to be spent to increase capacity of existing city streets.

    This station will be utilized by people that do not live in our city. I have no issue with that because this project is not fully funded by Edmonton. One third Edmonton/one third Alberta/one third Canada entitles any person to use this station. If a person from Fort Saskatchewan drives in to town, parks their car, and rides to their destination so be it.

    LRT to nowhere? For you perhaps. I agree that it is really in the middle of nowhere for the time being and nowhere that I need to go. But if it is being used so what? It'll be used by people that make that station a way point on their journey home.

  17. #117
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Even if you are right, and then this station get's utilized well, are you okay with the sprawl issue? Do we need to take up more city area, more farmland? Or should we be trying to densify the city?

  18. #118
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Well as it is it's very close to the city limits in terms of development. Gorman would be the edge so there isn't much point in it developing further NE until development occurs.
    ----

  19. #119

    Default

    We are densifing the city..

    The General public has to start understanding that Edmonton is Prepping itself for an imigration of 400,000 People into the capital region in less than 50 years.

    This is HUGE! somethng like 1/7 or 1/8 of alberta current population.

    Despite the recession people from Ontario Continue to move here. I have two people in my office who very recently relocated from Great Britian. Edmonton is not going to shrink.. it will only grow.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Even if you are right, and then this station get's utilized well, are you okay with the sprawl issue? Do we need to take up more city area, more farmland? Or should we be trying to densify the city?
    Truthfully I despise sprawl. I wished the city implemented a bylaw preventing development beyond the TUC, set density minimums for the areas remaining to be developed within the TUC, and gave incentives for redevelopment and infill developments.

    In terms of Gorman, I would be content if it was developed as a decent TOD with little or no single family. I wouldn't want to live there because I like downtown living. But not everyone wants to live downtown.

  21. #121
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,333

    Default

    Channing when Clareview was built it was pretty much a station in the middle of a field, it does seem to be the most TOD area of any station currently built. The density around the station has increased greatly, even now the area around Stadium Station in increasing although the economy does play into this. Gorman's advantage is also that it is very near AHD NE (2015) this had advantages in attracting motorists from along the AHD and the Yellowhead east of the city to park at Gorman take the LRT downtown

  22. #122

    Default

    There is also developing what we have...

    What is happening to that field with the smoke stack in it?

  23. #123
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    In regards to another 400,000 people.

    Edmonton has roughly 1,100 people/km2
    Vancouver has roughly 5,300 people/km2

    With a city area of 684 km, we could fit another 2.8 million people in our city and only then match the density of Vancouver. If we're only to match the density of Regina, or Calgary or Winnipeg, then we could easily fit another 300,000 people. Not including the metro area and surrounding communities. I'm not worried needing new area. We have plenty.

  24. #124

    Default

    ^ See the fort road TOD thread.

  25. #125

    Default

    Gorman to me is pretty much a no Brainer.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ See the fort road TOD thread.
    Thanks!

  27. #127
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Channing when Clareview was built it was pretty much a station in the middle of a field, it does seem to be the most TOD area of any station currently built. The density around the station has increased greatly, even now the area around Stadium Station in increasing although the economy does play into this. Gorman's advantage is also that it is very near AHD NE (2015) this had advantages in attracting motorists from along the AHD and the Yellowhead east of the city to park at Gorman take the LRT downtown
    Clareview is not a model we want to follow. It has a few apartments right next door. Then there's a major freeway which is a major pedestrian barrier. Then on the other side we have a huge box store retail development complex that's another major pedestrian barrier. To the SW is empty land (filling with commerical like car dealerships/hotel) and now to the NE we're building tracks. The NE does have some low density residential.

    In the whole, it's not a great TOD area, and was not planned as a walkable neighbourhood.

    The only good thing about Gorman is a chance to get it right.

  28. #128
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    In regards to another 400,000 people.

    Edmonton has roughly 1,100 people/km2
    Vancouver has roughly 5,300 people/km2

    With a city area of 684 km, we could fit another 2.8 million people in our city and only then match the density of Vancouver. If we're only to match the density of Regina, or Calgary or Winnipeg, then we could easily fit another 300,000 people. Not including the metro area and surrounding communities. I'm not worried needing new area. We have plenty.
    Is that a fair comparison though? Does that areas that are forbidden from development like the River Valley?

    I agree with you about density, don't get me wrong. But unfortunately it's not particularly realistic for the city to just declare "no new subdivisions" when instead of densifying our city, we'd just end up with half a dozen satellite communities of 100k people each, instead of 30-50k as it stands now.

  29. #129

    Default

    ^I disagree - it is totally realistic. No matter how big Edmonton city gets, there will always be a town somewhere on the outskirts, which provides an "excuse" to not say no to sprawl. Let the bedrooms pay the cost, I'm sick of subsidizing sprawl (including this proposed sprawl generation LRT expansion).

  30. #130

    Default

    I read that article in 24 today as well (that paper is garbage, but it's free...) and thought the exact same thing about the Gorman resident. Proximity to LRT is becoming the "must have" thing, now that our attention is on it and folks are trying to be more environmentally conscious.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  31. #131

    Default

    Pay what cost? The cost of the bedroom community is almost always absorbed by Edmonton proper.

    Read the Pilot Sound ASP. Pretty good plans. It makes sense to grow along the manning freeway corridor anyways, as there will be substantial job growth in the Alberta Industrial Heartland, and with the Henday going through this area in the next 10 years, It will be a convenient place to live for all the present industrial areas between Fort Saskatchewan and Millwoods. (The Eastern Fringe of the city)
    Last edited by Medwards; 04-05-2009 at 02:46 PM.

  32. #132

    Default

    I want to run through the community with a sign saying "the mugger mover is comming run in fear!"

  33. #133
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Your right, it's crazy to assume that we'll stop expanding. And you're also right, if you take out our parkland (about 111km^2) then we match density with other Canadian prairie cities. (Only if we don't take out their parkland too)

    But we don't have to encourage it. And it shouldn't be cheaper than infill developments anymore.
    Last edited by Channing; 04-05-2009 at 02:54 PM.

  34. #134

    Default

    ^^The cost of this LRT line, and the oppotunity cost of where the money could have been spent (for example, in providing some cash to get the Stadium or another TOD going instead of just being a pipe dream).

  35. #135

    Default

    Lets remeber that most Major Citites arn't truley 1 city, but a bunch of large urban centers that rub up against each other.

    Toronto,Etobico etc

    Vancover, New West, Richmond etc

    Montreal, Laval etc

    Edmonton also have very few thins from stopping it's sprawl, not like the above which all run up against natural bariers.

    A regional land use plan would have to be put in place highlighting that all capital region centers focus on density and hault sprawl.

    We are luck because my generation and the generagtion younger than me (29) Want to live in urban environments. We don't view as having a car the right of passage into adult hood that it once was. We want a very diffrent lifestyle, and we demand very diffrent services. Until this unusual way of life become the norm however, subburbs will continue to grow.

  36. #136

    Default

    Vancouver (Greater) is Canada's most sprawling (*Outside of Toronto). Outside of the Downtown Core of Vancouver, its sprawl to the american border, sprawl to the mountains to the north, and sprawl till Hope BC.

  37. #137
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    We have something that SHOULD be a natural barrier. Extremely fertile farmland. But we keep eating that up with city.

    Just because we have the land, doesn't make it a good thing to waste, because that's what we're doing with our sprawl. Wasting land. Farmland in a lot of cases.

  38. #138
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    Read the Pilot Sound ASP. Pretty good plans.
    Yes, great plans. The Gorman Town Center station will serve industrial land, with a cemetery, stormwater pond and an industrial service center.

    Of course they're being amended, but now we're going to hack together a plan for a community we don't need.
    Last edited by Channing; 04-05-2009 at 03:02 PM.

  39. #139
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Vancouver (Greater) is Canada's most sprawling (*Outside of Toronto). Outside of the Downtown Core of Vancouver, its sprawl to the american border, sprawl to the mountains to the north, and sprawl till Hope BC.
    Edmonton Metro Density = 109.9 people/km2
    Vancouver Metro Density = 789.0 people/km2

    So what if it's sprawl? It's still dense sprawl we could aspire too.

  40. #140

    Default

    Increasing density through allowing more secondary suites in homes, allowing for Secondary living quarters on the same plot of land...

    2 things this city has done in the last year that will help with that number more then anything.

    What does the density of Edmonton have to do with a second LRT station for Clareview?

  41. #141
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What does the density of Edmonton have to do with a second LRT station for Clareview?
    It has to do with sprawling out, building to areas that don't we don't need.

  42. #142

    Default

    Areas we don't need? This area is the next busy area for Edmonton.

    like I just said a few posts ago... and remember - Most of the jobs in Edmonton area are on the fringe of the city in the industrial areas.... Some of you office dwellers fail to realize this.

    It makes sense to grow along the manning freeway corridor anyways, as there will be substantial job growth in the Alberta Industrial Heartland, and with the Henday going through this area in the next 10 years, It will be a convenient place to live for all the present industrial areas between Fort Saskatchewan and Mill Woods. (The Eastern Fringe of the city)
    But I guess these people should all drive from downtown to the Alberta industrial heartland? Maybe from Oliver to Scotsford... Tewillegar to Dow Chemicals in Fort Sask...

  43. #143
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    What we need to do with the NE quadrant instead of sprawling it out is more of something urban, transit orientated. TODs, Urban Villages, and New Urbanism would do well there.

    I think Mayor Mandel said once he wanted to develop that area more urban. Now that would be effective use of land. I'd rather have a Burnaby or New Westminster than another Terwillegar or Mill Woods.
    ----

  44. #144

    Default

    ^^or, instead of building a line to where the City imagines people might live one day in its soviet era long term plan, it could spend the money now on building a line to where people actually are living. That would be novel - serving existing residents first rather than prioritising the needs of future ones...
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-05-2009 at 03:38 PM.

  45. #145

    Default

    HOLY SHEEP SHIZZZZ

    SHOVEL READY. What part dont you understand about this? NLRT, WLRT, Millwoods LRT is not this. Maybe we should just tell the feds to take the money they are offering and stick it where the sun don't shine? Hey! Calgary? Edmonton doesn't want its money. Here, expand your LRT with it!!!

    Come on. Read this thread, re-read my comments. No other project in Edmonton is shovel ready. We take 200 M, add in 100 M our own. Money that wouldn't be available. It fills a need. Yes. A need. Clareview is at capacity. Building an extensive parking structure is not really a good idea, when it could be done cheaper by extending the line to somewhere it will be needed. Gorman will be an denser area to serve all the jobs in the NE, Fort Sask, Alberta industrial heartland. Maybe we should just encourage Gibbons and Red Water that if we dont want to fill a need for housing in this area, that they should go gun-ho and build 20,000+ new SFH up there? Ya, this is smart...

    If some of you had your way, the line would terminate at Belvedere.

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^^or, instead of building a line to where the City imagines people might live one day in its soviet era long term plan, it could spend the money now on building a line to where people actually are living. That would be novel - serving existing residents first rather than prioritising the needs of future ones...
    You have to remeber the Fed gov't is throwing money at us for this instead of us having to beg for it..

    There is a diffrence and I will gladley take what I can get.

  47. #147

    Default

    I think the words Shovel Ready and the meaning behind it are hard for people to understand.

    Shovel Ready means no more planning required. We give you money, you put shovel in ground and go. Planning completed. Make work now (now meaning December 200, not 10 years from now....

  48. #148
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    You said it's a need, that it would be cheaper than expanding Clarview. How is that possible?

    Scenario A
    Cost X for Parking Stalls

    Scenario B
    Cost X for Parking Stalls
    Cost Y for Track + associated infrastructure
    Cost Z for Station

    Which is cheaper?
    Oh wait, would you consider all those parking stalls at Gorman to be surface stalls? Then maybe you have same cost, and there goes your TOD when you take up half the area with cars and the associated infrastructure to move those cars around.

    You say Shovel ready, but I doubt there are construction drawings for any Gorman station and track. I bet the only work done is preliminary engineering. And I bet you it does not include an sort of parking structure.

    So yeah, we're going to be given money, let's throw it as a poorly planned expansion and hope it turns out to be this wonderful TOD, or walkable urban area or help remove the capacity issues at Clarview. (Which is all parking it sounds like)

    Or, if we can't use the money wisely, we should let it go to someone who can. Ideally we find a GOOD idea for it. Like the 5 car platform extensions happening.

  49. #149

    Default

    Some would argue that he 5 car platform extensions arn't a good use, as we currently only run 4 car trains.

  50. #150
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    That's fine, get them on here and let's talk about it. Maybe they're right. I haven't heard anyone argue against it yet, and would like to hear that side if there is anyone.

  51. #151

    Default

    Channing, You forgot to add into your scenario the following
    1) Gorman station will be needed in the very-near future for residents of the area, as growth is planned in this area, and people will want to live in this area to be close to industrial jobs in the aforementioned areas. In the mean time, it will pick up the slack that Clareview isn't able to carry, without wasting 40k a parking spot.

    2) This money wont be available in the future. Its take it now, or forgetaboutit. Might as well build something that is needed in the very near future. (I know most Edmontonians only like to be reactive, not proactive)

    3) NELRT expansion is part of the Capital Region Board Transportation plan.

    4) Gorman will be developed. Transit or no transit. Anthony Henday will soon be connected right around the city, and this areas is very close to many thousands of industrial jobs, and in the future, many many thousands more. The dreams for it are a denser, urban-like setting. Might as well encourage transit early, rather then let people continue to think car-is-king.

    5) Build now while things are cheap - or wait till later (see after the station is long needed) and things are more expensive (23rd ave interchange?)

    There is fairly complex drawings available on the city website. Seek and ye shall find.
    Last edited by Medwards; 04-05-2009 at 04:17 PM.

  52. #152

  53. #153

    Default

    First step Goram.. Next Step the Fort!

  54. #154
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Medwards, we disagree that this is needed in the future, so that's why it's not in my scenarios. There is money there from the government, but let's spend it wisley. You glossed over the part about this not actually being shovel ready.

    I don't disagree that NELRT expansion is a good thing. But let's get it going somewhere. Send it to Fort Saskatchewan, don't plop down more FUTURE suburban stations where we currently have no people.

    edit: I saw those drawings. Preliminary engineering only. I was involved in the engineering of the SLRT and know what the construction drawings look like. They have similar drawings for additional SLRT expansion to AHD in the south. Doesn't mean it's shovel ready.
    Last edited by Channing; 04-05-2009 at 04:21 PM.

  55. #155

    Default

    ^ Station design is simple. A temp station can be setup until the over all design of the area is determined and a full fledged structure built.

    Or you just reuse the same design as say THe university or Century Park.

    No big whoop.

  56. #156
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Reusing design or even a 'temporary' station still requires actual design time because the land and utilities themselves are not exactly the same. Doesn't happen overnight.

    No quicker than designing a parkade structure at Clareview.

    Plus if we built a 'temporary station' we start to lose the economic reasons for doing this don't we?

  57. #157

    Default

    Getting the NE line to the Anthony Henday is a big step. I think Fort Saskatchewan is more like a 20 year goal.

    Gorman Station and Town Center will fill in very quickly when the Anthony Henday is put in by the provincial Government by 2015.

    See quick paint job



    These areas in pink/purple are going to be filling in over the next 10 years... and then after, the other side of the henday. It will happen. Might as well get LRT out there now while we have money from the government being handed to us. Gorman area will fill in. Thank the Henday for that.
    Last edited by Medwards; 04-05-2009 at 04:34 PM.

  58. #158
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,427

    Default

    Just as important and probably more important for the immediate future is the extension of 153 avenue. According to Ed Gibbons on CBC radio construction is to start this year.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Reusing design or even a 'temporary' station still requires actual design time because the land and utilities themselves are not exactly the same. Doesn't happen overnight.

    No quicker than designing a parkade structure at Clareview.

    Plus if we built a 'temporary station' we start to lose the economic reasons for doing this don't we?
    Npo because the temp structure will be resused along other developement points in the future

  60. #160

    Default

    While the extension to Gorman is not the IDEAL LRT project, I'm confused why some are arguing so passionately AGAINST a station/project that will no doubt be HEAVILY used. It seems like you have your priorities askew. If it contributes to the success of LRT overall, it's worth having. (I know there's the whole best use of funds argument, but the city has NO other LRT project that can be thrown up as quickly as the stimulus plan requires).

    It's not feasable to completely stop urban sprawl type development, so why withhold support for a station at Gorman that will AT THE VERY LEAST ensure that lots of cars will be taken off the road and that some apartment buildings will be built where there would otherwise be only single family homes.

  61. #161

  62. #162
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Well maybe Channing is right, we should turn down the $200M that we could get from the feds and the province because Gorman station wont be in a busy busy busy area of the city. The city can pay for the full cost of the station a few years from now when the station will cost us double or triple the price.

    Ok, I'm done being sarcastic and going to state again that the city is being given an opportunity to start a project right away that was on a lower priority. Yes it would have been great if we could get that money and use it for NLRT or any of the other lines. I've been harping about getting NLRT started this year or next at the latest almost on a daily basis on one thread or another here in C2E. The fact is though the way I see it, if LRT construction doesn't get a chance to stop then the city will be much further along than if we refuse the money. Channing, would you be more accepting if it was the Ellerslie station announced? I say if this is our choices that we've been given, move forward and get things done. It's no longer acceptable to continue to delay the overall LRT network because we can't get our ideal order of construction. One other question, hypothetically speaking, what if Stratcona county said that that it would put in 100M (not saying they can) for a line to Sherwood Park and the feds and province also said they would do the same, but Edm would have to put another 100M, should we turn that down cause that doesn't follow the plan that we want?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Well maybe Channing is right, we should turn down the $200M that we could get from the feds and the province because Gorman station wont be in a busy busy busy area of the city. The city can pay for the full cost of the station a few years from now when the station will cost us double or triple the price.

    Ok, I'm done being sarcastic and going to state again that the city is being given an opportunity to start a project right away that was on a lower priority. Yes it would have been great if we could get that money and use it for NLRT or any of the other lines. I've been harping about getting NLRT started this year or next at the latest almost on a daily basis on one thread or another here in C2E. The fact is though the way I see it, if LRT construction doesn't get a chance to stop then the city will be much further along than if we refuse the money. Channing, would you be more accepting if it was the Ellerslie station announced? I say if this is our choices that we've been given, move forward and get things done. It's no longer acceptable to continue to delay the overall LRT network because we can't get our ideal order of construction. One other question, hypothetically speaking, what if Stratcona county said that that it would put in 100M (not saying they can) for a line to Sherwood Park and the feds and province also said they would do the same, but Edm would have to put another 100M, should we turn that down cause that doesn't follow the plan that we want?
    Well said!

  64. #164
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    NELRT is important but not too much to talk about since everything except for Gorman station is already there. The alignment is very straight forward and the station location is as far as I know set. The only issue really is what is the exact timeframe for start and completion of the Gorman station?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  65. #165

    Default

    What about developement along the existing line.. The ROW is stupidly LARGE.

  66. #166

    Default

    ^^Amen Edmcowboy11!! Perfect thought, momentum is key and even small additions to the network increase its overall success and therefore hopefully its attractiveness to other areas/neighborhoods.
    Last edited by DrT; 04-05-2009 at 06:15 PM.

  67. #167
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,184

    Default

    not to mention that maybe this time we can have transit into a community before everyone that moves in to that community is forced to become car dependent while waiting for it and then having to try and convert them after?

    and maybe we'll get enough early density as that community develops to make it really work instead of having to push lrt through already developed areas that aren't set up for it and end up considering it an intrusion instead of an amenity?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  68. #168
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    First step Goram.. Next Step the Fort!
    I was going to say, NE of Gorman is Fort Saskatchewan and the so-called "Industrial Heartland". On a regional level, expanding LRT out there makes sense.

    But isn't NLRT shovel-ready? They're building the tunnel at EPCOR Tower, the route is set in stone, and the land is being acquired. Surely they could start building from Churchill to MacEwan?
    “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

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    First step Goram.. Next Step the Fort!
    I was going to say, NE of Gorman is Fort Saskatchewan and the so-called "Industrial Heartland". On a regional level, expanding LRT out there makes sense.

    But isn't NLRT shovel-ready? They're building the tunnel at EPCOR Tower, the route is set in stone, and the land is being acquired. Surely they could start building from Churchill to MacEwan?
    This branch is pegged at 800 Million.

    Funding from this is targeted through a seperate gov't program. The city currently has 88 million set aside and they are purchasing the required land as we speak. I am not sure ho shovel ready this project is though.

  70. #170

    Default

    I'd like to see the city use funds to entice developers to infill the hundreds (thousands?) of derelict and/or vacant sites IN the city, not encourage sprawl outside of the city... especially in an area that is considered prime local agriculture space that could be used to help Edmonton obtain some food security.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  71. #171

    Default

    I would like the gov't to get serious about affordable housing and start using some things like this..

    http://www.spacebox.nl/index.cfm?lng=nl&mi=1&pmi=41

    Just think what could be done with these affordable prefabs, Line them up along the NELRT right of way on one side.

  72. #172
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    I guess one question to ask is what is the governments definition of shovel ready. The one thing about the Gorman extension if I'm not mistaken is that there is no demolition required, little to no land needs to be expropriated, only 2 maybe 3 roadway crossings is needed, and other than purhaps engineering and the acquisition of the construction company they can start grading land and start construction of the station this year.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  73. #173
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    maybe the REAL question that should be asked is why is this lrt route the only route that is shovel ready?
    why do we have to keep (over)analyzing the WLRT and SELRT routes and debating them and examining them and re planning them and consulting on them, and then re analyzing them? there is something seriously wrong with the progress of all our other lines.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  74. #174

    Default

    there was no viable plan for the WLRT or SERoute..

    we need to make thr right decision.

  75. #175
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    753

    Default

    I'm interested in the plan for the actual park and ride @ the Gorman station..... How will they layout the parking? Is a parkade an option? Curious, because we have the opportunity and the room to do it right....
    i love lamp

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    not to mention that maybe this time we can have transit into a community before everyone that moves in to that community is forced to become car dependent while waiting for it and then having to try and convert them after?
    If Edmonton was a dense city, with LRT everywhere, and no space left for development, then yes, that idea might make sense. The sad reality is though that the City is spending a lot of money to provide an advantage to these land owners when:

    1. It is trying to get TOD's up and running closer in, but finding few takers. And why would there be takers? Why develop a "scary" community closer in, when you can develop a greenfield farm conversion one with lower land prices to boot? By building this line, the City is contradicting its own priorities closer in, this money could instead go a long way in meeting those priorities.

    2. Most of the City does not have LRT. Sure, preserve the right of way for future expansion, but why spend millions to build the track now, when we have neighborhoods crying out for LRT right now?

    That this line is such a high priority, is really a failing of leadership. Why is WLRT not shovel ready? Why is Millwoods LRT not shovel ready? People in these communities have been crying for LRT for decades now, but I guess its more important to convert some farmland to make our low density city even bigger before a bedroom community builds on the border... this is a perfect illustration of why we sprawl the way we do, and why its not going to change anytime soon.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-05-2009 at 11:06 PM.

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    not to mention that maybe this time we can have transit into a community before everyone that moves in to that community is forced to become car dependent while waiting for it and then having to try and convert them after?
    If Edmonton was a dense city, with LRT everywhere, and no space left for development, then yes, that idea might make sense. The sad reality is though that the City is spending a lot of money to provide an advantage to these land owners when:

    1. It is trying to get TOD's up and running closer in, but finding few takers. And why would there be takers? Why develop a "scary" community closer in, when you can develop a greenfield farm conversion one with lower land prices to boot? By building this line, the City is contradicting its own priorities closer in, this money could instead go a long way in meeting those priorities.

    2. Most of the City does not have LRT. Sure, preserve the right of way for future expansion, but why spend millions to build the track now, when we have neighborhoods crying out for LRT right now?

    That this line is such a high priority, is really a failing of leadership. Why is WLRT not shovel ready? Why is Millwoods LRT not shovel ready? People in these communities have been crying for LRT for decades now, but I guess its more important to convert some farmland to make our low density city even bigger before a bedroom community builds on the border... this is a perfect illustration of why we sprawl the way we do, and why its not going to change anytime soon.
    You do understand that in 35 years time the Edmonton Metro Population is supposed to increase by 700,000 people. 400,000 in edm city limits 300,000 outside.

    I still don't think people understand the SCOPE of the movement that is going on in this region

  78. #178

    Default Pigs in the trough

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    not to mention that maybe this time we can have transit into a community before everyone that moves in to that community is forced to become car dependent while waiting for it and then having to try and convert them after?
    If Edmonton was a dense city, with LRT everywhere, and no space left for development, then yes, that idea might make sense. The sad reality is though that the City is spending a lot of money to provide an advantage to these land owners when:

    1. It is trying to get TOD's up and running closer in, but finding few takers. And why would there be takers? Why develop a "scary" community closer in, when you can develop a greenfield farm conversion one with lower land prices to boot? By building this line, the City is contradicting its own priorities closer in, this money could instead go a long way in meeting those priorities.

    2. Most of the City does not have LRT. Sure, preserve the right of way for future expansion, but why spend millions to build the track now, when we have neighborhoods crying out for LRT right now?

    That this line is such a high priority, is really a failing of leadership. Why is WLRT not shovel ready? Why is Millwoods LRT not shovel ready? People in these communities have been crying for LRT for decades now, but I guess its more important to convert some farmland to make our low density city even bigger before a bedroom community builds on the border... this is a perfect illustration of why we sprawl the way we do, and why its not going to change anytime soon.
    I totally agree with you Moahunter. This is an LRT line to nowhere. $210M for 4.5 km of line and one measly above ground station. Our original NELRT line from Belvedere to downtown with two massive underground stations, three surface platforms and 6.9km of track only cost $64M in 1978 (this is equal to $210M in todays dollars) So we only get 64% of the track and only 20% of the stations with no estimated ridership increase? Now they want to spend the same amount on a station to nowhere that just encourages suburban sprawl located between a cemetery and a psychiatric hospital?

    "While the potential boost in ridership from opening Gorman station hasn't been studied, it's needed to help develop public transit, Boutilier said."

    Wait a second.... The head of transportation admits that he has no idea what improvement that the new station will have on ridership? How can anyone be in that important position, asking for money for something that has no recognizable improvement to ridership????

    Just because it is shovel ready does not make it right! The shovelling sound you hear is the huge piles of money being put into the pockets of contractors (read Stantec, PCL and the rest of the same boys club), the developers (who just saw their land portfolios double in value) and our single source for equipment, good old Siemens.

    For a similar $235M we got a "desperately needed", huge interchange at 23rd ave that everyone complained about the cost overruns and was much talked about. Judging by the amount of traffic on the AHD south of SEC, I bet that the 23rd ave interchange wasn`t so desperately needed anyhow as the AND took off the pressure and diverted thousands of cars each day to the east and west sides, away from Calgary Trail and 23rd Ave.

    If we had taken the $235M from 23rd/Gateway and $210 from Gorman, we could have put a LRT or Streetcar from Corona, thru Railtown, down 102nd Ave and Oliver to High Street and really built a train to somewhere. Somewhere where there are people who use transit and live in dense apartment blocks, where there is demand NOW! and existing infrastructure like roads, sidewalks, sewers, power, fire stations, ambulance, connecting bus routes, stores, offices and businesses. Gorman will take a decade or more to build (if we don't see further decline in our economy) and will cost the city huge additional sums of money to build the infrastructure to support it. If they wanted to build a TOD, they could have built two or three thousand housing units on the old Capital Packers site and built another station between Belvedere and Colosseum.

    Why are we letting the Feds and the dubious, intransigent transportation department plan how to use our tax dollars? Just because they could get money, does it mean we should spend it foolishly? I thought that public transit was there to serve the public? This is top down management, that tells us to trust them. They admit that they do not know if it will be a good idea but they just don't have a better one.

    Gorman is the most idiotic waste of taxpayers money and most of you are applauding it.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You do understand that in 35 years time the Edmonton Metro Population is supposed to increase by 700,000 people. 400,000 in edm city limits 300,000 outside.

    I still don't think people understand the SCOPE of the movement that is going on in this region
    65% growth in 35 years is about the same as it has between 1970 and 2005. We managed growth before so what is your point? Depending on the oil prices and how much supply & demand there will for oil from tarsands, the economy will dictate how big Edmonton will get. If the economy continues to faulter, those estimates may be unattainable nor sustainable.

    Are you suggesting that we should encourage more urban sprawl? Should we not build better transit in mature neighbourhoods and increase the density of our communities rather than build more satellite communities that we cannot afford to maintain? When will this donut effect stop? Older communities are paying taxes to build new suburbs while they cannot get their roads, sewers, swimming pools or community halls repaired.

    We have one of the least dense cities in North America. We need strong leadership that says enough is enough! Stop building out and start building up.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #180
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    It sounds to me that Edmonton's hand was forced if they had to pick projects that could be finished within 3 years. For LRT, the real bottlenecks are determining the routes in areas closer to the core. If there was an allowance for LRT, we could get more done.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  81. #181

    Default

    you have to remeber th AHD will be open in a matter of years, This is a station to the Henday

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I would like the gov't to get serious about affordable housing and start using some things like this..

    http://www.spacebox.nl/index.cfm?lng=nl&mi=1&pmi=41

    Just think what could be done with these affordable prefabs, Line them up along the NELRT right of way on one side.
    I agree on prefabs and affordable housing, the Netherlands are WAY ahead of us on that issue. Put them on the Old Capital Packers Site and add a station there rather than extending the line. $15M for a new platform leaves $195M for housing and that builds a lot of housing. You would probably get a great discount from the manufacturer and could build them here under licence.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  83. #183
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    I hope this is a lesson to our city council and planners. Stop dicking around and finalize the routes for the other lines and then when cash like this comes in we are good to go. no route is going to please everyone so just pick something( 87 ave, connors road hopefully), and get cracking!
    be offended! figure out why later...

  84. #184

  85. #185
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    I hope this is a lesson to our city council and planners. Stop dicking around and finalize the routes for the other lines and then when cash like this comes in we are good to go. no route is going to please everyone so just pick something( 87 ave, connors road hopefully), and get cracking!
    This is the one of the most important things. I hope the City finally learns some lessons here. This isn't the first time this sort of money has been available, and we still haven't got it right.

  86. #186
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    If we had taken the $235M from 23rd/Gateway and $210 from Gorman, we could have put a LRT or Streetcar from Corona, thru Railtown, down 102nd Ave and Oliver to High Street and really built a train to somewhere.
    Hmmmm, so where does the 235M come from and where does the 210M come from. The 200M isn't something that's been around for a long time and it's not something that the city is being given to bank and wait for a project. I'm assuming that the 235M is from the province and feds? If it was as simple as sitting around and continue to collect money from the feds and province and let it grow don't you think someone would have been doing that already.

    Also to say that it was cheaper back in the 70's to build all that LRT and now we're barely getting anything, well then I'll do one better, Edmonton should have started building LRT or some sort of train system back in the 40's where the cost was tiny compared to today. That mean's that today for the same dollar figure we'd get maybe one railroad tie for what a cost way back then would have been.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  87. #187
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,333

    Default

    Edmcowboy we HAD a system in the 1940s its just in the 50s and 60s people that ripping out the track and wires was a great idea because the car was the way to go and nobody would want to use streetcars. If you go watch "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" it sort of explains the madness of that decision, plus a funny movie to boot.

    Toronto was one of the very few cities that resisted this trend, New Orleans almost totally removed their streetcars as well.

    Now this was a streetcar system more like the trams with a stop every 2 blocks or so, our LRT is running almost like a subway with very separated right of ways and stations that are relatively far apart.

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Vancouver (Greater) is Canada's most sprawling (*Outside of Toronto). Outside of the Downtown Core of Vancouver, its sprawl to the american border, sprawl to the mountains to the north, and sprawl till Hope BC.
    Sprawl? Greater Vancouver is more dense than Edmonton, even in the suburbs. Edmonton is Canada's most car dependent sprawling city. Farm land in BC is protected under the Agricultural Land Reserve Act (ALR). Metro Vancouver is being builtup within a containment boundary imposed by the North Shore Mountains, the US Border, the Pacific Ocean and the ALR.

    The region as an overall growth plan centered in major town centres all connected (or will be connected) by SkyTrain.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  89. #189

    Default

    ^I think that's bang on. If Vancouver was easy to drive around like Edmonton is, and did not have the restrictions you mention, it's downtown and inner city would be every bit as empty as Edmonton's. It is always economically cheaper for a business to develop a piece of farm land, than an underused bit of inner city, when the City and Province are bending over backwards to promote and encourage it with trains and expressways (in this case, a $200 million sprawl subsidy).

  90. #190

    Default Train people to build a community not build a train through a community

    Damn straight...


    Lets diversify our economy and create new jobs that are smaller scale and improve our city. Habitat for Humanity is a great idea that we can expand upon. Build low cost housing, while you train the potential home owner how to build them and maintain their own house, which gives them pride of ownership, confidence and career skills in the construction, electrical, plumbing and related trades.


    If you give a person a fish, they eat for a day.

    If you teach them how to fish, you feed their entire family.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  91. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Vancouver (Greater) is Canada's most sprawling (*Outside of Toronto). Outside of the Downtown Core of Vancouver, its sprawl to the american border, sprawl to the mountains to the north, and sprawl till Hope BC.
    Edmonton Metro Density = 109.9 people/km2
    Vancouver Metro Density = 789.0 people/km2

    So what if it's sprawl? It's still dense sprawl we could aspire too.
    These density numbers are kind of misleading because they are based on our Census Metropolitan Area borders, as determined by Stats Canada. The Edmonton CMA is quite large, but also mostly rural in its composition.

    In terms of actual urban area, Edmonton is not that spread out. There really are only three areas to be considered urban in our CMA, the COE, St. Albert and Sherwood Park. When calculating density against our CMA area, don't forget that includes the likes of Morinville, Gibbons and Wabamun, hardly examples of urban "sprawl". The real story is how overarching our CMA area is. Morinville is hardly a suburb of Edmonton. It's a town close to 30 miles northwest of the city. Same thing with Wabamun to the west and Entwistle. That's right, Entwistle. Over 50 miles west and considered part of the CMA

    Anyone who tries to tell you Edmonton sprawls more than Vancouver or Toronto really needs to travel more...

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercucio View Post
    Anyone who tries to tell you Edmonton sprawls more than Vancouver or Toronto really needs to travel more...
    The difference though, is that Vancouver and Toronto have sprawled to the point, where it is so unpleasant to commute to work by car (Vancouver's due to lack of good road system - partly geographical, Tornoto due to getting stupidly big) , that many people have "overcome" their fears of the "scary" people that marketers play to with their "gated communities" and bucked the continuing flight to the edge. They have interesting inner cities and downtowns as a result. That's never going to happen in Edmonton at a rate fast enough to fill the empty land or natural inner city decline as residents age, if we continue to invest more heavily in suburban transport systems designed to convert farm land ahead of servicing the existing city and suburbs.

    Once Gorman is built, then the lobbyists will come out and say, for a little bit more - why not build the next Gorman.... it will be a cheaper line than WEM or Millwoods... the trend of the last 50 years never ends. We keep extending and extending leaving behind empty holes that never get filled.

  93. #193
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    A great exercise for a keener would be to calculate the population density of Edmonton, say bounded by the TUC limit.

  94. #194

    Default

    ^^ I"m certainly not advocating sprawl in my post. Just making sure we're comparng apples to apples. As a downtown resident, I'd like nothing more than to see another 20,000 or 30,000 people in the core.

    However, in terms of the Gorman extension, this is one of those things where 30 years from now, our civic leaders may actually be considered "visionary". For once, they're planning ahead and doing it right. The northest corrider towards Fort Saskatchewan is going to have more development in the next 30 years than pretty much anywhere else in the country. Having access to the the LRT just inside AHD also connects two very important (albeit different) transportation corridors in Edmonton.

  95. #195

    Default

    But instead of promoting this bit of empty land as the place for workers for these future projects, why not instead promote Stadium station and Belvedere station TOD more heavily? For $200 million, the city could even kick start the housing. Plan the line to the upgraders with no stops from the TOD's and downtown. Even South Campus lands open up then (I realize that won't happen due to UofA).

    Once the Quarters and downtown and the TOD's are filled, then build a station if needed, at Gorman. The need is to fill in first, then out, the other way is just more of the same old same old arse about face approach we have had to date. Better yet, if the Gorman developers get really desperate for this shot in the arm, they may even pay for the station then, no need for the City to subsidise it now when there are bigger priorities closer in that will be damaged by this line.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-05-2009 at 10:50 AM.

  96. #196

    Default

    ^ Probably because there are 200 million dollars available now for that project because it's shovel ready. That was the condition of the funding.

    Everything else you mention is not. It's also, quite frankly, years away from being so, particularly the Stadium TOD. Consultations have just started.

  97. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    For $200 million, the city could even kick start the housing.
    The city can't do whatever it wants with the government funding. It's an infrastructure grant for LRT with strings attached.

  98. #198

    Default

    ^I realize that, but just because the money is "there" is not a reason to blindly spend it, especially when the cost may be slowing the development of land closer in. It still comes out of all of our pockets at the end of the day. I accept though that the City has got itself into this hole by the incompetence shown to date in getting routes finalized / ready to go (or maybe that has always been the plan so that sprawl lines like this can be prioritized with minimal opposition?)

  99. #199
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,095

    Default

    ^I agree. This may be a misuse of 'our' money, and our isn't just Edmonton, but it's Alberta and it's Canada.

  100. #200

    Default

    The Feds just want to spend money and get votes by standing beside a gold plated shovel and cut a red ribbon. Pork barrel politics at it's finest. It has noting to do with building better transit, all it is being spent on is to get some smuck re-elected.

    Rona Ambrose was here last week to open LRT and she had nothing to do with building or financing the LRT but sure wants to get re-elected.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •