Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1277

Thread: Transit Service to EIA | Planning/Discussion

  1. #201
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    it would be a bigger accomplishment of actually providing edmontonians witha good transportation system, and complete major line works in the city. council just wants to accomplish something.... the thing is, the airport lrt doesnt require the study any other line would because there's a lesser factor for local traffic, and housing and business effects. it's actually easier to plan and build this than let's say the wlrt or nlrt, that's why it's favoured to get done.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    personally, i believe that the airport lrt concept can be shelved until the other lines are in some stage of final planning, early construction.
    Long term vision with some degree of planning is important.

    The RDA (restricted development area) and TUC (transportation utility corridor) around Edmonton and Calgary were set aside decades ago and have only recently been developed.

    Alberta Transportation is now looking at setting aside land for a future regional ring road for development decades from now.

    Having a corridor reserved for a future LRT line to the airport should be no different.

  3. #203
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deedub35 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    I disagree. Mandel is the first mayor to dig the train out of the ground and actually begin expansion.
    Are you sure about this? The approval for bring the LRT to the surface happened before Mandel took office. I believe it was during Bill Smith's reign.
    but didn't Bill Smith say Edmonton is a city for drivers? that, aside, Bill Smith didn't have the vision we now have for the other lines

  4. #204
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Mandel didn't dig the train out. plans and money were in place under Bill Smith.

    In light of the SUN poll I am starting to think that Mandel has a significant portion of the city of edmonton figured out (the one which reads and write for the sun). He knows they automatically disagree with everything he does, so he takes stupid positions in order for the sun readers to react and vote for what he actually wants. that way, the people start thinking that they are the ones making decisions.

  5. #205
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    i understand the importance of planning decades in advance - just trying to remind some that we're in a difficult financial time and if it came down to it, i would rather have money go to current and local projects.

  6. #206
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    i dont care about smith. mandel is the now, and the current council is responsible for all new line development so..... weigh in, you want nlrt and wlrt, or airport lrt?

  7. #207
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Mayor urges halt to airport LRT line planning
    Report estimates Mill Woods route may carry $1B to $2B price tag
    This is a lot of dollars. However, Edmonton should look at more than just the cost. There must be some study somewhere that shows the correlation between light-rail transit investment and economic benefits to a community. Has anyone seen anything like that?

    And let's not forget what can happen if you delay a project for a few years that could have been done cheaper if completed the first time it was planned (ie: 23 Ave & Calgary Trail).
    Where there's a will, there are a hundred ways!

  8. #208
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    interesting read

    http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=2145

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/10...ml#skip300x250

    everyone has to go against the current once in a while. but yes, he did bring it out of the ground if anyone still cares
    Last edited by DTrobotnik; 05-12-2008 at 01:36 PM.

  9. #209

    Default

    Well, I owe the Mayor an apology - I thought his goal was to push LRT to the airport ahead of LRT to suburbs that need it more urgently (like Millwoods, NAIT and WEM). I agree with him, its pointless doing airport planning now, its like looking at 30 year old plans of Edmonton. One step at a time. For all we know, by that time the Province may already have build HRT (like it or not).

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    i dont care about smith. mandel is the now, and the current council is responsible for all new line development so..... weigh in, you want nlrt and wlrt, or airport lrt?
    Honestly from a cost/benefit perspective?

    Assuming it costs exponentially less to build track over open prairie than crossing the river or buldozing through houses/businesses, and...

    ...Believing YEG LRT would
    • Enable the drastic reduction of YXD threat
    • Enable the enticement of a hub to evolve at YEG (Better transport for crew, maintenance and construction workers, less threat from YXD, more attractive to passengers (especially incoming passengers).
    • Help enable Port Alberta
    • Assist the Nisku Business Park.
    • Deflect the threat of HSR skipping YEG.


    I'm like, duh, uh perhaps we should maybe not stop planning it.

    A healthy airport multiplies every other part of the local economy.
    Last edited by JayBee; 05-12-2008 at 02:25 PM. Reason: format
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  11. #211
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    edmonton, alberta
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    I was a big supporter of Mandel up until the last week. He has shown that he lacks vision and the backbone to follow through with his ideas. No more than a 3.7% tax hike, is he joking? This city needs to continue to move foward and not take a step back. For the last several years we have brought forward many ideas that will move us forward however he has certainly changed his tune. We should be planning for the future when it comes to our transportation and the future LRT lines is vitally important to the growth of this city. Mandel has been a big disappointment in the last several days. It looks like its back to the Bill Smith era of all talk and no action. We need long term planning to become the city we strive to be.

  12. #212
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    i dont care about smith. mandel is the now, and the current council is responsible for all new line development so..... weigh in, you want nlrt and wlrt, or airport lrt?
    Honestly from a cost/benefit perspective?
    considering that slrt, nlrt in the works, and considerable planning of wlrt,
    we should keep going with what we have. i was only arguing that it makes sense to be tight with money at this time, and focus on the tasks at hand. i know of the economic benefits of the airport line, dont worry, but those business assurances might not be there next week.
    alas, if we have the ability to go ahead with all current projects AND continue the airport plan, we most definitely should. but why is mandel fearful in the end? money and current canadian economy. there's a time to be bold, but im not going to diss mandel completely just because he's showing caution. it's just good business sense in turbulent times.
    also, council just shot him down on borrowing $350mil for repairs anyway, so we still need some money for that.

  13. #213

    Default

    I really feel strongly that long term diversified economic infrastructure should not be placed behind suburban commuting wants. We can afford to densify (we should anyways) to defer suburban commuting growth, but we all need YEG and Port Alberta to entrench ASAP.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  14. #214
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    Actually another thing to consider when the economy is in the tank you can build infrastructure for cheaper then when it's booming. A year ago the city was in some cases only getting 1 bid for a project that was enormously high, now in some projects they are getting 9 bids that are more reasonably priced.

    Plus when the economy is in the tank is when you need to employ people to help level off the situation.

  15. #215

    Default

    ^ Very good points.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  16. #216
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    suburban commuting wants? wtf? we can agree to disagree, but aren't the lrt plans part of the "vision" to bring more people downtown/make downtown more public friendly? i think these are two very valid visions clashing, but im sticking with core public needs vs. business expansion wants.

  17. #217
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    and yes we all agree on building infrastructure.... but the argument is, which will pay off better in the future as we can't seem to finance everything at once.

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik
    i think these are two very valid visions clashing, but im sticking with core public needs vs. business expansion wants
    No, you're going beyond that and saying we stop planning one of them entirely.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  19. #219
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Right, that's what this whole this is all about. that's my stance, i agree with mandel. we can put it on hold, there are other things to think about, we only have so much cash.
    i'm still choked that you belittle the lrt expansion as suburban commuting wants. low blow. plus i never said i was against it, keep that in mind.
    "alas, if we have the ability to go ahead with all current projects AND continue the airport plan, we most definitely should."

  20. #220

    Default

    I have always felt that SLRT expansion south to YEG is more about creating new sprawl suburbs than it is about serving an existing or even growing need. If we put in place a good non-stop express bus to YEG and it proves itself viable and popular, then sure, maybe. But right now, there will be more riders on Millwoods and WEM (as there is already proven comuter ridership) - those are bigger priorities, and should be finished first. By the time that's done, we will know more about whether or not HSR is going to happen too.

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    Right, that's what this whole this is all about. that's my stance, i agree with mandel. we can put it on hold, there are other things to think about, we only have so much cash.
    I'll only maintain that that's short sighted when we have a strategic option that very likely will cost much less.

    i'm still choked that you belittle the lrt expansion as suburban commuting wants. low blow. plus i never said i was against it, keep that in mind.


    You can take it however you want, but I assure you, even if your name is Stephen Mandel, it wasn't intended as personal.

    But regardless, the fact is building it out to the suburbs is more facillitating suburban growth than downtown growth, and does nothing for the city strategically. If we instead focus on building more highrise condos downtown and around NELRT and SLRT lines we can have a much more sustainable effect on traffic problems on major arteries.

    "alas, if we have the ability to go ahead with all current projects AND continue the airport plan, we most definitely should."
    If we cut one of YEGLRT, NLRT, MLRT, or WLRT, I maintain that due to the much lower cost and the massive strategic value, we're nuts to axe YEGLRT. Enabling both Port Alberta and a YEG hub while disabling both the threats of CANNA at YXD and HSR are anything but small potatoes.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  22. #222
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    all this time i thought our problem was too much planning and not enough action. how many plans do you guys think will be made and remade over the years before the line starts getting built?

  23. #223

    Default

    Actually I've said before somewhere or other that I'd favour taking LRT down to YEG concurrent with the Century Park extension and only paying Laidlaw or Greyhound to operate the airport shuttle for ETS in the meantime. Besides as said above, planning implies leaving rights of way for the future. That's why it's so easy for us to get from Whitemud Freeway down to Century Park. The LRT was always in the plan there.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  24. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Mayor urges halt to airport LRT line planning
    Report estimates Mill Woods route may carry $1B to $2B price tag
    By Gordon KentDecember 5, 2008

    EDMONTON - Planning underway for an LRT line to the Edmonton International Airport is "ludicrous" because construction isn't likely to happen for decades, Mayor Stephen Mandel said Thursday.

    The transportation department is working with Edmonton Airports and Leduc County to recommend a route south by next spring, but Mandel said they're focusing on the issue far too early.

    "Ludicrous, isn't it? Why don't we plan when we have got close to doing work rather than putting it on the shelf until it's no longer relevant?" he asked.

    "Our administration, for the most part, doesn't know how to say stop, and neither do many councillors. We spend money on this planning stuff and 20 years later it comes back and people say, 'That doesn't make sense, let's do it again.' "

    Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...173/story.html
    Mr. Mandel, definiiton of "Planning" is to look at options and begin preparing for the best option. SO what if it's decades away, at least it's in the plans and a right-of-way and future devepment can be designed to support it.

    What does he want, wait until it's all built up so we can buy expensive land, aka NAIT line.

    Not much of a visionary is our Mr. Mandel.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  25. #225
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ In all fairness, the areas between downtown and NAIT were developed neighborhoods before LRT was even imagined for Edmonton.

    But I agree, continue planning to ensure ROWs are there when they are needed. Worry about the details later.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have always felt that SLRT expansion south to YEG is more about creating new sprawl suburbs than it is about serving an existing or even growing need. If we put in place a good non-stop express bus to YEG and it proves itself viable and popular, then sure, maybe. But right now, there will be more riders on Millwoods and WEM (as there is already proven comuter ridership) - those are bigger priorities, and should be finished first. By the time that's done, we will know more about whether or not HSR is going to happen too.
    I agree with moahunter on this one. Test the demand before you build. I have said that about all the proposed LRT routes. BUT they do not want to do the test because it would be poorly utilized and would demonstrate that there really isn't a huge demand for YEGLRT.

    What I want to know is how would YEGLRT work?

    With flights leaving at all hours are you going to run YEGLRT 24/7? And if you run YEGLRT around the clock, wouldn't you need to run all the other LRT routes as well? Then do you provide bus service for the whole city 24 hours a day? That gets real expensive to run trains and buses at 2am.

    Lets look at a typical flight for a young couple off to Florida for two weeks. Their flight leaves Monday morning at 7am They have to be at the airport at 5am and therefore go in their SUV to the Belvedere LRT station and park it there at 4am to catch the LRT. They leave the SUV for 2 weeks, parking for free and avoiding airport parking costs. Commuters cannot use that parking space for the entire time. That young couple returns at 1am on a Sunday night and after clearing Customs they board the 2am YEGLRT to Belvedere.

    Is this what the YEGLRT is for?

  27. #227

    Default

    One of the best examples of transit to an airport that I've witnessed is in San Francisco. Where a single car train awaits passengers, inside there are no seats just standing room, this single car does not go through the same route as the main transit sytems, it only goes back and forth picking up travelors. There are a couple of stops along the way, so there's a stop for international and domestic flights. The final stop of this single car is connected to the bay area's transit sytem,
    so most travelors heading downtown simply get off here and connect on the main transit sytem.
    The ride from the airport to the main transit is free, but once on the bay area transit sytem you must pay. Perhaps it's something that might work here?

  28. #228

    Default

    Esoko: I wouldn't say no, and it would certainly boost ridership heavily, thus remove a lot of strain on roads.

    PRT:

    Although airport passengers are only some of the users I'd expect, you know, they can just stop running at 1:00 A.M. and let people get taxis after hours. Lots of cities operate that way. They don't need to rejig any of ETS's hours if demand doesn't justify it.

    I still say look at it though because it's clearly not going to cost the 2 billion that the other lines would cost. If we justify that kind of outlay with ridership numbers, we might only need a tenth of them to justify this. I'd guess it would be maybe 10,000 riders per day if they started tomorrow, but again, the reasons for doing this are more for future growth not of residential, but industrial and transport.

    If it costs 250 million, I say go now. If it costs 500 or more, I say reserve the right of way and move on. But killing it without even looking? Isn't the reason we now have to jog around MacEwan because we gave up hope of ever getting there?
    Last edited by JayBee; 06-12-2008 at 01:44 AM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  29. #229
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    I think that the city and Leduc County could decide a right-of-way for the airport and work on land acquisition, but I think that Mill Woods and West LRT routes should be higher priority.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  30. #230

    Default

    ^^ Jaybee, I just wonder how much money these studies are costing us? We don't know what Mandel knows and I hazard to guess that millions are being spent in time, money and consultants to look at the NE extension, WLRT, NLRT to NAIT, to St. Albert, SLRT Heritage Valley & YEG and SELRT. That is 3 new LRT lines and 4 extensions and do cost estimates. That is a whole heap of complex and expensive work especially if they are looking at several alternative routes such as four SE bridge crossing scenarios plus still haven't figured out the WLT alignment.

    Those who suggest that we just should start building are looking at LRT construction in a overly simplistic manner and do not understand the long term cost implications.

  31. #231

    Default

    Studies aren't just a financial cost either - they are a time cost. There are only so many people at City hall. I'd rather they get working at completing NAIT LRT, WLRT and Millwoods LRT. There is more than enough work there - no need to delay those lines even longer by puting resources into YEG or elsewhere.

  32. #232
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Relax, the new Capital Region Plan includes provisions for future the extensions of transit (LRT) lines from Edmonton to YEG and other surrounding municipalities. No, the lines aren'ty drawn in the sand, but once the new Capital Region Plan is approved by the Province (2009), any future ASP's or land use plans will have to respect this. So in essence, the planning is already underway to a certain degree.

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have always felt that SLRT expansion south to YEG is more about creating new sprawl suburbs than it is about serving an existing or even growing need. If we put in place a good non-stop express bus to YEG and it proves itself viable and popular, then sure, maybe. But right now, there will be more riders on Millwoods and WEM (as there is already proven comuter ridership) - those are bigger priorities, and should be finished first. By the time that's done, we will know more about whether or not HSR is going to happen too.
    I agree with moahunter on this one. Test the demand before you build. I have said that about all the proposed LRT routes. BUT they do not want to do the test because it would be poorly utilized and would demonstrate that there really isn't a huge demand for YEGLRT.

    What I want to know is how would YEGLRT work?

    With flights leaving at all hours are you going to run YEGLRT 24/7? And if you run YEGLRT around the clock, wouldn't you need to run all the other LRT routes as well? Then do you provide bus service for the whole city 24 hours a day? That gets real expensive to run trains and buses at 2am.

    Lets look at a typical flight for a young couple off to Florida for two weeks. Their flight leaves Monday morning at 7am They have to be at the airport at 5am and therefore go in their SUV to the Belvedere LRT station and park it there at 4am to catch the LRT. They leave the SUV for 2 weeks, parking for free and avoiding airport parking costs. Commuters cannot use that parking space for the entire time. That young couple returns at 1am on a Sunday night and after clearing Customs they board the 2am YEGLRT to Belvedere.

    Is this what the YEGLRT is for?
    Not 24/7, but the trains would have to leave early enough to arrive at YEG in time for the early morning US departures.

    In Vancouver the Skytrain to the airport will run from an early arrival at the airport around 5:00am, with the last departure from the airport around 1:00am. Later service is provided by the night buses with the last departure from the airport to Vancouver at 2:30am and the last bus to Richmond at 3:40am and the last bus from Vancouver to the airport at 3:10am.

    YVR will operate a downtown check-in so people can check-in then take the train to the airport.

    For the Edmonton LRT to YEG to work for air travellers, it will need to be supported by a bus service at times when it makes no sense to run the trains and by downtown check-in facilities to encourage use of the trains.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  34. #234

    Default

    How many people would actually use an extention going out there?
    Mandel is right that we need to set this silly idea on the backburner. I'm still embarrassed by the fact we have no LRT to WEM and can't find a decent route to go through. Priorities. Set a corridor aside for future development and get back on the projects that deserve to be made. Making a trainrail out to Nisku is costly and dumb. Besides, a HRT to Calgary would be much smarter and riders to the airport can just get off there.

  35. #235

    Default

    I repeat, YEGLRT is in all likelihood not an equal cost proposition. You couldn't delay it and therefore pay for WLRT. Not even close.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  36. #236

    Default

    Anybody gonna address the hundreds of cars that may plug the free park'n'ride locations while people are away on holiday.

    If you begin charging them for staying overnight they will just decide to avoid the YEG LRT all together and drive to the airport.

  37. #237

    Default

    This is beyond me. Why is the council even entertaining on the thought of extending LRT to airport?

    How is that even CLOSE to the importance of extending LRT to WEM and Millwods???

    Like I said before, DO NOT TRY TO CREATE A DEMAND! How many people would be using LRT all the way to the airport on the regular basis? LRT will be so much more profitable when regular Edmontonians use LRT Monday to Friday. The city will generate much more income from fares and advertising.

    I can't believe they are planning the airport extension before west and Millwood extensions. Ridiculous.

  38. #238

    Default Train to Nowhere = YEG

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    I repeat, YEGLRT is in all likelihood not an equal cost proposition. You couldn't delay it and therefore pay for WLRT. Not even close.
    Jaybee, I have to disagree with you there. If we are going to support electric public transit then it should maximize the ridership and benefit urban dwellers who choose to live and work in denser neighbourhoods and use public transit often. Running a relative few vacationers and business people to the airport and encouraging sprawling developments on the outreaches of the city like in SE Edmonton, Lewis Estates or St. Albert are just benefiting real estate developers.

    Electric transit of all forms including electric trolleys, LRT, Streetcars and even PRT have higher ridership and create better more walkable cities when they are applied to denser established neighbourhoods and revitalized brownfield sites than in greenfield developments.







    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 07-12-2008 at 01:06 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #239

    Default

    I'm not arguing against suburban LRT at all, but I do believe YEGLRT will cost less per rider straight up, and far less per ridden kilometer, and thus if you will, reduce more CO2 per dollar as well. Even in absolute terms, 10,000 people daily substituting 25 kilometers of electric rail for private motor vehicle versus 40,000 people going only 7 km. would be competitive.

    As for suburban growth in Leduc County, I still say we simply create regional, provincial and national strategies against sprawl. I don't mind however, industrial growth away from the city (as opposed to near the city) and this would be a way to enable that..
    Last edited by JayBee; 07-12-2008 at 04:24 AM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  40. #240

    Default

    I think the 7km / 25km argument is very simplistic, because QEII to YEG is freeflow, and even Gateway flows quite well. There are very few stops, so I expect very little CO2 compared to being stuck on a traffic jam on SPR or similar. LRT isn't just about CO2 reduction though, its about providing transit to people who need it, and right now, people near Millwoods and WEM have been waiting long enough. It is just not right to instead prioritise "future" residents who will live in sprawl suburbs between Leduc and Edmonton, and I'm very pleased Mandel recognizes that.

    A non stop express bus from YEG to downtown is well overdue though - its an embarrassment and failure of leadership that it didn't happen long ago. An interesting alternative might be a non-stop bus from YEG to Century place - a little more complex / inconvenient for tourists though.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-12-2008 at 10:11 AM.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    (snip) It is just not right to instead prioritise "future" residents who will live in sprawl suburbs between Leduc and Edmonton, and I'm very pleased Mandel recognizes that.
    Especially since our economic boom has fizzled since March as now housing starts are at a ten year low.

  42. #242

    Default

    PRT: By the by, am I correct to understand the issue you have is with enabling sprawl further South, and you don't necessarily disagree with getting the 6000 Nisku workers, 1500 airport and airline workers, 3,000 odd incoming airport passengers and existing Leduc commuters off the roads? I can see the legitimacy of that kind of concern, and I don't mind if we discuss within that framework, but I hope you see my point that this could do other things that could really help diversify the economy away from energy for a relatively minor outlay of cash. (Compared to the costs of WLRT, MLRT or even a full 7km of NLRT.)

    moahunter: I understand you're against this, but you have a long way to go in convincing me that the reasons you post are in fact key in any way to your opposition, and not just support for whatever your chief motivation may happen to be. I say this due to obvious incompatibility with other things you've posted in other threads. You needn't bother posting here if you think I'm taking any of it seriously.
    Last edited by JayBee; 07-12-2008 at 05:01 PM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    PRT: By the by, am I correct to understand the issue you have is with enabling sprawl further South, and you don't necessarily disagree with getting the 6000 Nisku workers, 1500 airport and airline workers, 3,000 odd incoming airport passengers and existing Leduc commuters off the roads? I can see the legitimacy of that kind of concern, and I don't mind if we discuss within that framework, but I hope you see my point that this could do other things that could really help diversify the economy away from energy for a relatively minor outlay of cash. (Compared to the costs of WLRT, MLRT or even a full 7km of NLRT.)
    Building a LRT line just because it can be built cheaply is not a reason to construct it. Most plans I have seen for YEGLRT go nowhere near Nisku. Nisku is very low density compared to other industrial parks elsewhere. There are no sidewalks to facilitate walking to work and the late shifts and travel habits of your target group are not a good match for LRT. Many workers in Nisku come from Devon, Leduc, Beaumont, Millwoods, even as far away as Fort Saskatchewan (via hwy 21) so you would be lucky to get 5% of the 6,000 workers. Of those 3,000 airport travellers and 1,500 workers, what percentage are actually from Edmonton. I know several people who work at the airport and many are again from Devon, Leduc, Beaumont, Millwoods and the airport services travellers from Ponoka, Red Deer, Fort Mac, Edson and dozens of towns in Northern Alberta who drive to the airport. About 70% of people do not use public transit who only go to the airport a few times a year will only be confused with the prospect of using LRT to get to the airport in the rush to get to their plane and will opt out and use their car. This was demonstrated to me at the Las Vegas monorail which had several people at each station to show people how to use the ticket machines. Management told the staff this would be a temporary measure for the first few weeks. When I talked to the staff they thought that management was crazy as every day new tourists arrive to Vegas and they would have to teach everyone forever. It is not like they were dealing with daily commuters who would learn by repetition. Same goes with the YEGLRT.

    A place like WEM has far greater density of workers, more staff that work there who live in Edmonton, multiple usage of shopping, entertainment, work, tourists, a transit hub for students and commuters. I still think that $1.6 Billion for WLRT is way too much for a maximum of 1,250 passengers per hour. Lets improve our express bus service first.

  44. #244

    Default

    Er, so is that a yes that your main concern is facillitating sprawl Southward? I can flesh out my guestimates but I want to know what we're discussing first.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  45. #245

    Default

    Sprawl is secondary because it will continue with or without LRT. The high cost of LRT construction and the poor ridership due to Edmonton's low density are my chief concerns. We are talking about billions of dollars here like it was available as easy as putting it on the City of Edmonton's Master Card.

    I do not think that YEGLRT should even be on the table except allotting a zoning restriction as we did with the outer ring road decades ago. Planning a LRT line to EIA to a place we don't even have bus service; including doing cost estimates at this time are a waste of taxpayers money when they should spend time correcting our issues that affect us today like improving bus transit service and routes.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    moahunter: I understand you're against this, but you have a long way to go in convincing me that the reasons you post are in fact key in any way to your opposition, and not just support for whatever your chief motivation may happen to be. I say this due to obvious incompatibility with other things you've posted in other threads. You needn't bother posting here if you think I'm taking any of it seriously.
    Do you want to elaborate Jaybe? We all have different opinions on different things, and I have been opposed to LRT to YEG from the outset. I stated another thread that IMO the city should stop expanding the borders, that would be my primary objection - this would feed sprawl. I'm also opposed to the NELRT expansion beyond Clareview - we need to build LRT for Edmonton residents first. I do think LRT is best when it is straight and fast, but we need to link the places people commute to every day first. Once that is done, YEG is on the table, but it is a long way off - WLRT, Millwoods LRT and NAIT LRT by whatever routes (even ones I don't like) are greater priorities.

  47. #247

    Default

    I think the YEG would be better served by a HSR straight from Downtown and Red Deer, not a LRT.

    HSR would not be constrained with the time restrictions put on by ETS.

  48. #248
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ ETS would provide a 30 min interval service or similar while HSR when and if it is built and if it serves the airport will be only about 4-5 times a day at most.

    I like the point of getting red deer connected to the airport better, but I don't think this is a conversation starter.

  49. #249

    Default

    [quote=moahunter;150915]
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post

    Do you want to elaborate Jaybe? We all have different opinions on different things, and I have been opposed to LRT to YEG from the outset. I stated another thread that IMO the city should stop expanding the borders, that would be my primary objection - this would feed sprawl. I'm also opposed to the NELRT expansion beyond Clareview - we need to build LRT for Edmonton residents first. I do think LRT is best when it is straight and fast, but we need to link the places people commute to every day first. Once that is done, YEG is on the table, but it is a long way off - WLRT, Millwoods LRT and NAIT LRT by whatever routes (even ones I don't like) are greater priorities.
    I couldn't agree more with Moahunter. NELRT expansion beyond Clareview is not a priority right now, so is YEGLRT. The priority is to figure out how to increase everyday use by serving the existing neighbourhoods where population DENSITY is much higher. ie. West End, Millwoods.. etc. Once the everyday folks can access the LRT, then expanding further to the suburbs will make sense. More everyday people use LRT means more income generated from fares and advertising.. and other source of revenue. Then we are not just talking about 'cost', but also "opportunity".
    Last edited by kubchaser; 08-12-2008 at 11:39 AM.

  50. #250
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i think it is all a part of building one complete system. the issue here is planning and the plan should be to have all--service to mature neighbourhoods with high density as well as giving people access to places such as the airport. It all becomes one issue--overall usability and convenience.

    Politically, this isn't as straight forward. If the city is well connected by LRT, then it is easier to make a case for provincial and city funding to build access to the airport. On the other hand, given the way the province treats edmonton and the surrounding communities, it may be more advantageous to push for YEG line now to force the province to deal with regional (mis)planning.

    Lets not forget that we are talking about political as well as practical choices. They don't have to have the same logic or common sense as decisions one would make, say, in their home.

  51. #251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kubchaser View Post
    I couldn't agree more with Moahunter. NELRT expansion beyond Clareview is not a priority right now, so is YEGLRT.
    Actually I would disagree. It may not be a top priority but its one of the best/cheapest ways to add more riders to the current line. Another station should and will be contructions further northeast of Clareview as Clareview is currently near full capacity, same with Belevedere. Not to mention, most of the Clareview area is now built up, a new station to build medium density around makes sense.

    It doesn't make sense for the LRT to go out to YEG yet, but it will someday. nothing wrong with planning ahead, so that you can develop the ASP and MDP and TMP etc, these things aren't just decided upon 6 months before they go through. We are talking 10-20 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by kubchaser View Post
    The priority is to figure out how to increase everyday use by serving the existing neighbourhoods where population DENSITY is much higher. ie. West End, Millwoods.. etc. Once the everyday folks can access the LRT, then expanding further to the suburbs will make sense. More everyday people use LRT means more income generated from fares and advertising.. and other source of revenue. Then we are not just talking about 'cost', but also "opportunity".
    I agree that new lines should be started, but we don't need to ignore other demands either, and currently Clareview station is at complete capacity

  52. #252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I agree that new lines should be started, but we don't need to ignore other demands either, and currently Clareview station is at complete capacity
    Are you talking about parking capacity, LRT line capacity or station boarding capacity?

  53. #253

    Default

    parking capacity for one. The station boarding is also quite busy in the mornings too, but not at capacity.

  54. #254
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Seriously folks...how hard is it to plan LRT to YEG? Once across the Henday, it is pretty much smooth sailing.

    This should be simple. WEM, that one was challenging. This one could get by with onion paper over a map...no river valley to bridge, no tunnels to dig, no $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ homes in the way...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  55. #255

    Default

    Agree with RichardS.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Do you want to elaborate Jaybe?
    Of course not.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  56. #256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Seriously folks...how hard is it to plan LRT to YEG? Once across the Henday, it is pretty much smooth sailing.

    This should be simple. WEM, that one was challenging. This one could get by with onion paper over a map...no river valley to bridge, no tunnels to dig, no $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ homes in the way...
    no tunnels to dig eh? I think most of agreed that 107 ave option is not really an option... (even if we agreed that the solution is still not 87ave to Health Science) this simple solution... is not so simple...

  57. #257

    Default

    ^ 107 Ave. = wrong airport.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  58. #258

    Default

    ^ I was referring to his comment about LRT to WEM, but see now that I misread his comment. I thought he said LRT to WEM was simple.

  59. #259

    Default

    Got it.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  60. #260
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    My God no, I don't want this to degrade into another wLRT thread...

    The plans for the EGLRT are pretty simple. You have a small creek (read gravel and a 6' culvert), flat farmland, no planned construction on the outer outer ring road that seems to be rumored, and a simple overpass/cut and cover to get by Hwy 19.

    The rest on the airport land is at grade no brainer planning. Parallel the Airport service road and have the station on the lower level now being used to stage cabs etc. Not that darn hard.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  61. #261

    Default

    Remember that 23rd Avenue @ SEC was going to cost $75M

    YEGLRT = Nothing that $100M/km can't solve...

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by some random poster
    hi there,

    I'm going to take the worst possible example, and pretend it is going to be the exact same thing for all the upcoming infrastructure funding requests, unless it suits my bias.
    Remember, Whitemud/34ave was built for what? 34 million if I remember correctly

    Carrying on...
    Last edited by Medwards; 08-12-2008 at 07:03 PM.

  63. #263

    Default

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
    George Santayana

    “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”
    George Bernard Shaw

    “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
    Winston Churchill

  64. #264
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Is there a cliche for "insert cliche here?"
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  65. #265
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Tony "Just say NO" Caterina weighs in on LRT planning:

    Let's be realistic about LRT dreams, says councillor
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...92736-sun.html

    ps I got the link to this Edmonton SUN story from Edmonton Journal page. interesting...

  66. #266

    Default

    Even Coun. Amarjeet Sohi appears to have reservations on the proposal.

  67. #267
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    he is in favour of intra-city expansion. he has reservations about going outside the city at the moment (at least this is how I read the article). Airport issue is a bit of an anomaly, though. A lot of people see the airport as part of edmonton. So, we would have to get Sohi to comment specifically on his views on the airport LRT to be sure of his views.

  68. #268
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Not spending a few million dollars on at least planning for future lines is short sighted, if in the end it costs us tens or hundreds of millions at a later date because we didn't secure rights of way or design other infrastructure with LRT in mind.

    That said, I think it's ridiculous that the city is even contemplating running the LRT to suburbs. Once we have half a dozen LRT lines to all corners of the city in say, 30-50 years, then we can talk about extending it to suburbs.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469 View Post
    Not spending a few million dollars on at least planning for future lines is short sighted, if in the end it costs us tens or hundreds of millions at a later date because we didn't secure rights of way or design other infrastructure with LRT in mind.
    I think it is more a matter of wasted effort / time than cost. Every hour spent planning an airport expansion, that as you note, probably shouldn't occur for 30 years or so, is an hour that could be spent planning an expansion to one of the corners. As to the cost going up, I'm not overly concerned about that - for all we know the HST will be built by then anyway, and if the city decides not to expand its border South, this land isn't going to go up much in value. I expect part of the problem right now is that prices are skyrocketing on the "hope" that LRT will come along and support a new residential sprawl neighborhood. Part of the reason for the Mayors comments may simply be to stop the lobying that is going on for that. Once YEG LRT drops out of the picture as a "natural continuation" of the current south line building then the land can be quietly obtained at a later date when the price has collapsed back to normal.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-12-2008 at 11:04 AM.

  70. #270
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Montreal is having the same discussion.

    Rail link to airport a no-brainer

    a New rail line that would link Trudeau airport, the West Island and downtown is needed

    Peter Hadekel
    The Gazette
    Friday, October 24, 2008


    http://westislandgazette.com/news/news/4304
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  71. #271
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    Actually what would have made more sense would have been them building a fast train to Mirabel, Dorval is getting pretty full with limited room for future expansion. And Autoroute 20's traffic can be a nightmare. There is minibus service between the nearby train station and the terminal though. $12 fare from Montreal Central to Dorval
    http://www.viarail.ca/business/en_affa_airc.html

    Right now buses and taxis do this function in Edmonton, but I think once they get the LRT to South Campus they should run a bus from there to the airport (2009 sometime)

  72. #272

    Default

    Montreal already have a really good express bus service, so at least they have an idea on ridership. You have to walk before you can run, I agree an express bus from the southern tip of LRT to the airport could be a good option.

    Whoops, Sundance beat me to it! Having used this bus, it makes you realize how pathetic it is that there is not something equivalent in Edmonton already.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-12-2008 at 11:57 AM.

  73. #273
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469;151701
    [B
    That said, I think it's ridiculous that the city is even contemplating running the LRT to suburbs. Once we have half a dozen LRT lines to all corners of the city in say, 30-50 years, then we can talk about extending it to suburbs.[/B]
    This FTW! If i lived in Millwoods i would be so angry right now. if there is any part of the city that would boost ridership levels sky high, it would be a station at Millwoods TC.

  74. #274

    Default

    richardW, IMHO that is because LRT is not just a public transportation project in Edmonton or any other city. If it was it would be simple to analyze the most heavily travelled transit routes, areas with the greatest auto traffic, the largest employment and shopping nodes and let engineers and planners design the best route.

    But that is not what LRT has become.

    It is a political machine that is used as a lever for a variety of reasons:

    It is a tool to garner votes on all levels by Federal, Provincial and Municipal leaders. To wit nobody wanting to get elected has an anti-LRT platform, it has become a motherhood issue. Even within a city, a route may be selected to balance another project in an area elsewhere.

    LRT is often linked to a new major business or high density residential project in a effort to appease residents faced with increased density and traffic. The fiscal hawks will use long term tax revenue projections to attempt to balance the extreme high cost of such projects. It is rare indeed that such projects are analyzed and audited to determine if such fiscal projections actually pan out. Read what happened in Portland
    Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work by Randal O'Toole
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8463

    It is fraught with NIMBY issues as seen in the WLRT route selection. Mandel has fought specific routes namely on the behalf of certain neighbourhoods.

    It is a public works project that has numerous high value contracts that are very lucrative for those who lobby and bid successfully. Have you ever heard of a contractor going broke while constructing a LRT line?

    LRT is often designed to run trough adjoining municipal jurisdictions to maximize the number of voting regions affected as a "regional system" to attract the largest percentage of provincial and federal monies. This is often under a banner of regional improvement and sound planning when actually it is designed to improve the image of a "caring central city administration" and benefit land developers with interests in low cost rural land holdings.

    I will repeat that this is IMHO and therefore is copyrighted.

  75. #275

    Default

    City Shows Off Light Rail 120 Years Ago

    Excerpt
    The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis have lagged behind other cities as far as light rail construction. Although one link has been built connecting downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America via the airport, there has been no construction of a link between the two cities via the University of Minnesota even though the prevailing thought by our lawmakers is that it will happen within the next five years or so.

    One of the hang-ups has been the disruption it would cause those who use University Avenue, the historical link between St. Paul and Minneapolis, and the businesses that would be hung out to dry as the parking and foot traffic evaporates as the train goes chugging by. Whether new businesses and restaurants and such will replace those who are already in place is a hot button political football and has been for, say, 121 years. Charles Clark built his idea in 1888 and we're still arguing about it.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-753-South-...-120-Years-Ago

  76. #276
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    richardW, IMHO that is because LRT is not just a public transportation project in Edmonton or any other city. If it was it would be simple to analyze the most heavily travelled transit routes, areas with the greatest auto traffic, the largest employment and shopping nodes and let engineers and planners design the best route.

    But that is not what LRT has become.

    It is a political machine that is used as a lever for a variety of reasons:

    It is a tool to garner votes on all levels by Federal, Provincial and Municipal leaders. To wit nobody wanting to get elected has an anti-LRT platform, it has become a motherhood issue. Even within a city, a route may be selected to balance another project in an area elsewhere.

    LRT is often linked to a new major business or high density residential project in a effort to appease residents faced with increased density and traffic. The fiscal hawks will use long term tax revenue projections to attempt to balance the extreme high cost of such projects. It is rare indeed that such projects are analyzed and audited to determine if such fiscal projections actually pan out. Read what happened in Portland
    Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work by Randal O'Toole
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8463

    It is fraught with NIMBY issues as seen in the WLRT route selection. Mandel has fought specific routes namely on the behalf of certain neighbourhoods.

    It is a public works project that has numerous high value contracts that are very lucrative for those who lobby and bid successfully. Have you ever heard of a contractor going broke while constructing a LRT line?

    LRT is often designed to run trough adjoining municipal jurisdictions to maximize the number of voting regions affected as a "regional system" to attract the largest percentage of provincial and federal monies. This is often under a banner of regional improvement and sound planning when actually it is designed to improve the image of a "caring central city administration" and benefit land developers with interests in low cost rural land holdings.

    I will repeat that this is IMHO and therefore is copyrighted.
    First off you linked an article by Randall O'Toole, one of the most pro low density suburban land development lobbyist in America.

    Secondly, while there are many examples of business-politically influenced decisions on large infrastructure projects, it is not as 'prevalent' as you make it out to be.

  77. #277

    Default

    First off, did you actually read his article in its entirety?

    It actually states that "Far from curbing sprawl, high housing prices led tens of thousands of families to move to Vancouver, Washington, and other cities outside the region's authority. Far from reducing driving, rail transit has actually reduced the share of travel using transit from what it was in 1980. And developers have found that so–called transit–oriented developments only work when they include plenty of parking."

    "Congress passed a law allowing cities to cancel planned interstate highway projects and to spend the money on mass transit capital improvements instead. Under Mayor Neil Goldschmidt, Portland became one of the first cities to take advantage of the law, cancelling a road known as the Mt. Hood Freeway in 1974. But that created a dilemma for the city. The federal share of the freeway cost would be enough to buy hundreds of new buses. But Portland’s transit agency did not have the funds to operate that many new buses. Moreover, simply buying buses did not create the local construction jobs and profits that would have been gained from freeway construction."

    O'Toole also details the 2004 scandal, an insider network known as the “light-rail mafia” had manipulated the planning process to direct rail construction contracts and urban-renewal subsidies to themselves. In the 1970s, Mayor Neil Goldschmidt selected light-rail technology precisely because its high cost would allow him to spend lots of federal dollars creating construction jobs and profits for local contractors.

    Secondly, if as you state, there are "many examples of business-politically influenced decisions on large infrastructure projects," then you are admitting that it is 'prevalent' and relevant.

    Maybe our Mayor Mandel is coming to realize that the exorbitant cost escalation of LRT has become politically impalpable.

  78. #278

    Default

    I agree we should plan. All that should be planned is the route, and establishing the ROW.

    That's it. Deciding park n ride lots, stations, and even current and future roadway and terrain crossings should be put off until the WEST, NORTHWEST, SOUTHEAST, ST ALBERT, and SHERWOOD park lrt extensions have been proposed, planned, designed, built and fully utilized.

    Those routes will benefit the greater Edmonton area far more than a line run to just serve the airport and nisku. Continuing the line to Leduc is an option, but expansion to DEVON and SPRUCE GROVE and FORT SASKATCHEWAN would have to be considered by that point...



    Lets focus on trying to get an ETS run public bus run to the airport before we even think about planning an LRT line. That would give us some indication of the potential ridership we can base the plans on.
    Last edited by blainehamilton; 11-12-2008 at 11:04 AM.

  79. #279
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    First off, did you actually read his article in its entirety?

    It actually states that "Far from curbing sprawl, high housing prices led tens of thousands of families to move to Vancouver, Washington, and other cities outside the region's authority. Far from reducing driving, rail transit has actually reduced the share of travel using transit from what it was in 1980. And developers have found that so–called transit–oriented developments only work when they include plenty of parking."

    "Congress passed a law allowing cities to cancel planned interstate highway projects and to spend the money on mass transit capital improvements instead. Under Mayor Neil Goldschmidt, Portland became one of the first cities to take advantage of the law, cancelling a road known as the Mt. Hood Freeway in 1974. But that created a dilemma for the city. The federal share of the freeway cost would be enough to buy hundreds of new buses. But Portland’s transit agency did not have the funds to operate that many new buses. Moreover, simply buying buses did not create the local construction jobs and profits that would have been gained from freeway construction."

    O'Toole also details the 2004 scandal, an insider network known as the “light-rail mafia” had manipulated the planning process to direct rail construction contracts and urban-renewal subsidies to themselves. In the 1970s, Mayor Neil Goldschmidt selected light-rail technology precisely because its high cost would allow him to spend lots of federal dollars creating construction jobs and profits for local contractors.

    Secondly, if as you state, there are "many examples of business-politically influenced decisions on large infrastructure projects," then you are admitting that it is 'prevalent' and relevant.

    Maybe our Mayor Mandel is coming to realize that the exorbitant cost escalation of LRT has become politically impalpable.
    I never claimed that there wasn't some type of back door politicking behind the decisions on large infrastructure investments. It's just that I don't believe there is a major conspiracy behind each one. Nor does this mean that it is prevalent.

    That still doesn't excuse you from using a Randall O'Toole article.

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    That still doesn't excuse you from using a Randall O'Toole article.
    Excuse me???? Just because Randall O'Toole (who is a noted economist, public policy analyst and author from the CATO Institute) and me for that matter may have a different opinion than you is the whole point of this discussion forum. I wish we had more economists analyzing Edmonton's long term transit plans.

    I will quote whoever I like thank you very much.

  81. #281

    Default

    Edmonton PRT

    One of the problems with Portland is that it borders right on Washington. So they have no jurisdiction over Vancouver, WA. In a nutshell they are in a worse boat than Edmonton when it comes to regional planning. They don't even have the option of keeping the roads to Vancouver low traffic roads so people would be discouraged to live out in Vancouver, because the two road are interstate highways.

    As for people moving to the other cities/towns/villages outside the region's authority, well that is unfortunate and maybe with a little better planning it could have been avoided. Portland should change and adapt to ease the high cost of housing and possibly the high cost of living if it wants its residents to stay. I am assuming the city does not want suburbia as a relief to high housing costs and cost of living, hopefully they tried to account for everything in their planning methods. Nevertheless, in the long run, I believe this will benefit the future citizens more than the current; and in the future, Vancouver will be hurting as the economy takes a dive. But time will tell and I for one am willing to bet Edmonton's future on it (of course, pending how the regional superboard goes).

    What happened in Portland, with mayor Goldschmidt and 'the light rail mafia' is unfortunate and gives good regional planning in the Portland area a black eye. But you cannot use that as an arguement against Edmonton LRT. What happened there was an isolated incident that at the very least should open your eyes and keep your politicians in check; not only for LRT construction, but Road Construction, Building Construction, and even PRT Construction. Who is to say that one day there might not be a PRT Mafia.

  82. #282
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    The title of this thread is LRT to the Airport. We can argue the LRT Mafia elsewhere.

  83. #283

    Default

    JBear
    Some people will always move even further out to avoid taxes and city bylaws. It even happened in Whitehorse YT when they expanded their town boundaries to control development and people still moved beyond the town's reach.

    I am not implying that there is a LRT Mxxxa here but many of the same driving forces of developers, contractors, land speculators, municipalities looking for federal funds and politicians looking to garner votes are the same issues for LRT to the airport, Beaumont and St. Albert. When I read the LRT $5B expansion plans included Beaumont where I once lived, I knew that these plans were designed for political/corporate vested interests and did not reflect what transit users want or need. (example: Alaska's bridge to nowhere)

    Heck we don't even have one ETS bus route to YEG and the Beaumont bus to Edmonton failed after only a few months.

    Our transit services should focus on maximizing ridership in established communities and more direct point-to-point service. We should not be building an LRT to nowhere.

  84. #284
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    That still doesn't excuse you from using a Randall O'Toole article.
    Excuse me???? Just because Randall O'Toole (who is a noted economist, public policy analyst and author from the CATO Institute) and me for that matter may have a different opinion than you is the whole point of this discussion forum. I wish we had more economists analyzing Edmonton's long term transit plans.

    I will quote whoever I like thank you very much.
    I have no problem with you posting articles, I am just commenting on the 'author', who is notorious for being a lobbyist on behalf of home builders in the U.S. and anti-transit advocate. Just saying that it is a 'weak' choice / source.

  85. #285
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    When I read the LRT $5B expansion plans included Beaumont where I once lived, I knew that these plans were designed for political/corporate vested interests and did not reflect what transit users want or need. (example: Alaska's bridge to nowhere)

    Heck we don't even have one ETS bus route to YEG and the Beaumont bus to Edmonton failed after only a few months.

    Our transit services should focus on maximizing ridership in established communities and more direct point-to-point service. We should not be building an LRT to nowhere.
    I doubt the LRT would actually be built to Beaumont or St. Albert anytime soon (I would be surprised to see such extensions beyond our borders built in even 20 years). However, Edmonton and it's surrounding communities will continue to grow and LRT service will become viable someday, so why not plan for it today so that we're not incurring added expenses to plan for it around additional development in the future?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  86. #286

    Default

    ^ How about spending money on bus shelters instead?

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

  87. #287
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Or we could do both.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  88. #288

    Default

    There is a finite amount of money we can spend. We have to make choices based upon reality.

  89. #289
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ We also should not sacrifice the future to serve just the present.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  90. #290

    Default

    Try explaining that to that thousands of people freezing their a## off at a windy bus stop.

  91. #291
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    Maybe those people freezing at a bus stop should try wearing appropriate winter clothing. Even in this kind of ice cold weather, I continue to see random people with no gloves, tuques, and wearing light jackets. I have very little sympathy for people like that.

  92. #292
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Try explaining that to that thousands of people freezing their a## off at a windy bus stop.
    Why is this winter suddenly worse than the last one? I didn't hear these kinds of complaints about a lack of bus shelters last year...what changed?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  93. #293
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ agree.

    why do people continue to be surprised of cold weather in winter? It will be cold in winter. Then it will warm up. It will be warm in summer with a few really hot days. Then it will get cooler in Sept, Oct with a few snowy and hot days mixed in. Come November and December it will be cold again until about March. Those are the seasons in Edmonton and have been for a while.

  94. #294
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Those are the seasons in Edmonton and have been for a while.
    Yep... like the last few thousand years or so.

  95. #295

    Default

    I am not defending people who do not dress for Edmonton's winters. What I am saying is that we should protect the ROW to YEG. FULL STOP. Stop costing out, planning for a LRT alignment and do other detailed planning.

    Protect the YEG ROW, place it on a shelf and get on with running a better transit system with better routes, better schedules and make our existing system more user friendly.

  96. #296
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ So we DO agree, then.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  97. #297
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    The problem with just determining and setting aside the ROW is development will most likely occur along it before the lrt is ever built and the location of stops need to be decided to allow for appropriate zoning and densities. Same with roadway access into subdivisions.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT View Post
    The problem with just determining and setting aside the ROW is development will most likely occur along it before the lrt is ever built...
    Why? Much of the land is farmland at the moment. Unless someone wins the jackpot and manages to convince Council to approve it for sprawl zoning, there will be no development. Rather than desgning lines where we "think" there "may" be development in the future - why don't we first prioritise finsihing off desgning the lines where we "know" that there is "already" development now? One step at a time.

  99. #299

    Default

    Well said moahunter!

  100. #300
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Why? Much of the land is farmland at the moment. Unless someone wins the jackpot and manages to convince Council to approve it for sprawl zoning, there will be no development. Rather than desgning lines where we "think" there "may" be development in the future - why don't we first prioritise finsihing off desgning the lines where we "know" that there is "already" development now? One step at a time.
    Because it's all a part of the big picture, which you will lose focus of if you're only looking at the bits and pieces.
    Strathcona City Separatist

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •