Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425
Results 2,401 to 2,431 of 2431

Thread: West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Conceptual Discussion About Approved Route

  1. #2401
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,710

    Default

    I should amend that to read "I'm a driver, but I'm also a pedestrian and take public transit to commute"

  2. #2402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Unbelievable that the top 4-5 considerations listed under each option are all driver/vehicle focused.
    "more complex intersection for vehicles"
    "no access to ____"
    "no left turn"

    I'm a driver and I completely understand that it's going to remove some access, but just once I'd like to see at least one 'consideration' section discuss ease of pedestrian access, or something similar before reverting back to "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!?!"
    Considering that drivers are the people most affected by the proposed changes this is not inappropriate at all. Feedback on other issues such as pedestrian access and passenger experience has been gathered through other means.

  3. #2403
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Unbelievable that the top 4-5 considerations listed under each option are all driver/vehicle focused.
    "more complex intersection for vehicles"
    "no access to ____"
    "no left turn"

    I'm a driver and I completely understand that it's going to remove some access, but just once I'd like to see at least one 'consideration' section discuss ease of pedestrian access, or something similar before reverting back to "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!?!"
    Considering that drivers are the people most affected by the proposed changes this is not inappropriate at all. Feedback on other issues such as pedestrian access and passenger experience has been gathered through other means.
    I don't think it's inappropriate, but I do think it's narrow and leading. The people most affected by the proposed changes are the users of the system who will be entering and exiting the stops along this strip. If you consider time, the 30 extra seconds in traffic or waiting to turn left at the next intersection is a drop in the bucket vs the time the pedestrians will wait to cross the street if a driver-focused option is chosen. Not to mention the pedestrian safety element.

    Reminds me of Century Park. We couldn't possibly have slid the station over to the side of the 111th where the bus loop is. No no, can't inconvenience the drivers. We'll just make the thousands of commuters climb a staircase too small to accommodate the crowd, cross on a pedestrian bridge, and climb back down another far too narrow staircase. Also, if you have mobility issues, the elevators will be working from 1-1:15pm every other Tuesday. Please plan accordingly. All of this could have been avoided with a crosswalk with a long pedestrian cycle. Instead we'll drop hundreds of thousands on a monolith BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE DRIVERS?!

  4. #2404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I don't think it's inappropriate, but I do think it's narrow and leading. The people most affected by the proposed changes are the users of the system who will be entering and exiting the stops along this strip. If you consider time, the 30 extra seconds in traffic or waiting to turn left at the next intersection is a drop in the bucket vs the time the pedestrians will wait to cross the street if a driver-focused option is chosen. Not to mention the pedestrian safety element.

    Reminds me of Century Park. We couldn't possibly have slid the station over to the side of the 111th where the bus loop is. No no, can't inconvenience the drivers. We'll just make the thousands of commuters climb a staircase too small to accommodate the crowd, cross on a pedestrian bridge, and climb back down another far too narrow staircase. Also, if you have mobility issues, the elevators will be working from 1-1:15pm every other Tuesday. Please plan accordingly. All of this could have been avoided with a crosswalk with a long pedestrian cycle. Instead we'll drop hundreds of thousands on a monolith BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE DRIVERS?!
    Surely the people most affected by the changes are those people who currently have a two-way street with four lanes (including parking) that's about the be reduced to one or two lanes one-way without parking? I.e., drivers.

    Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing. The changes if done properly should make SPR more usable for transit passengers and pedestrians; this hopefully will lead to other improvements in the area once the initial shock is recovered from. However, given that 90%+ of the current users of the road are in private passenger vehicles they do indeed form the largest constituent of people to be affected.

  5. #2405
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,710

    Default

    The people most affected for the first 6 months maybe. After that drivers will adjust and adapt to the new normal. The people who will be most affected long-term will be the ones who actually use the system and will have to deal with whatever configuration is chosen for its lifespan.

  6. #2406

    Default

    The decision to go from 4 car lanes to 2 has already been made, unless this consultation also has a "No LRT" option, or the 87ave route is back on the table....

    so the decision is parking and one way vs two way, and that has huge impacts on people not in cars. Like, 3 lanes of traffic (including LRT) to cross or 4. LRT next to the curb, or general traffic, or parking? That has a huge impact on how the sidewalk is used and how safe it is. One way means fewer drivers turning across people walking, fewer directions to look when trying to cross SPR or a side street.

    Wasn't the whole point of so called "urban style" LRT that it makes a better walkable street? if so the walkability of the street had better be a more significant consideration than just whether you can get a car to your destination without going around the block.
    There can only be one.

  7. #2407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The decision to go from 4 car lanes to 2 has already been made, unless this consultation also has a "No LRT" option, or the 87ave route is back on the table....

    so the decision is parking and one way vs two way, and that has huge impacts on people not in cars. Like, 3 lanes of traffic (including LRT) to cross or 4. LRT next to the curb, or general traffic, or parking? That has a huge impact on how the sidewalk is used and how safe it is. One way means fewer drivers turning across people walking, fewer directions to look when trying to cross SPR or a side street.

    Wasn't the whole point of so called "urban style" LRT that it makes a better walkable street? if so the walkability of the street had better be a more significant consideration than just whether you can get a car to your destination without going around the block.
    I think you're reading too much into this presentation. The point of this presentation is primarily to assess traffic impacts; feedback gathered from this process will inform but not determine the final design. The final design will also take into account the other issues you raise.

    Or at least that's they way it's supposed to work.

  8. #2408
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,535

    Default

    Mitigating traffic woes to an extent will be those drivers who, employing the same strategy they do with downtown, will just avoid the area altogether.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  9. #2409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Mitigating traffic woes to an extent will be those drivers who, employing the same strategy they do with downtown, will just avoid the area altogether.
    It could be great for the suburbs. Some businesses maybe really-locating outside the downtown core or never considering locating downtown.

  10. #2410
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Mitigating traffic woes to an extent will be those drivers who, employing the same strategy they do with downtown, will just avoid the area altogether.
    It could be great for the suburbs. Some businesses maybe really-locating outside the downtown core or never considering locating downtown.
    Yeah the #1 thing small business owners hate is thousands of potential customers being exposed to their signage every 5 minutes. I can understand relocating because they don't want to deal with 2 years of construction, but nobody's moving because a few on-street parking spaces are lost.

  11. #2411
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    I actually donít think parking is going to impact the businesses along SPR. I have my objections to the West LRT, but honestly, this opens those businesses up to thousands of new customers when right now, he stretch is mostly only used by the local residents within walking distance.

    - At least thats how it was when I was dancing in the 25 cent peep show and turning tricks behind the Jasper Hotel.

  12. #2412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    I actually don’t think parking is going to impact the businesses along SPR. I have my objections to the West LRT, but honestly, this opens those businesses up to thousands of new customers when right now, he stretch is mostly only used by the local residents within walking distance.
    Thousands of new customers? Are you sure about that?

  13. #2413
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    I actually don’t think parking is going to impact the businesses along SPR. I have my objections to the West LRT, but honestly, this opens those businesses up to thousands of new customers when right now, he stretch is mostly only used by the local residents within walking distance.
    Thousands of new customers? Are you sure about that?
    Potentially yes. That is one benefit of this line. Again, I have some serious objections about cost cutting on arterial crossings, but one thing this line will do it bring 500 people every 5 minutes to the area. And itís easy to get on and off because you can stop for a few minutes and just hop on the train again.

    I wouldnít be surprised if you see the kinds of businesses change due to this in the long run. More restaurants, retail, and bars.

    But we will see.

  14. #2414

    Default

    If '500' people per 5 minutes was correct, how many of those people are just passing through the area? And how many of those are actually 'new' customers? LRT lines, particularly those that really aren't much faster than the existing bus service (if at all) don't do much to draw that many new transit riders, it just shifts existing riders from certain bus routes on to the LRT...
    Until there is a big shift in demographics in this area, don't expect too much changes in businesses.

  15. #2415
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think the Stony Plain Road area at 149-156 Street needs more people, and LRT will help.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  16. #2416
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    324

    Default

    ^^^ I don't believe it will bring 500 people to the area, it will bring 500 people through the area. I really can't see, as you put it, people hopping off the LRT to window shop the conglomeration of pawn shops, check cashing shops, tattoo, porn and cheap liquor boutiques; "look honey, let's go check out the "Doggy Style" deli"... Speaking of 500 people, for 37 years Macewan had those numbers every day and those students/staff/faculty didn't/couldn't make a dent in the make up of that tawdry strip.
    Last edited by buildings; 05-08-2018 at 10:21 AM.

  17. #2417

    Default

    Good point about MacEwan.

  18. #2418
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,859

    Default

    No doubt it'd be horrendously expensive today, but it would be great if the WLRT could use a cut and cover approach, like what was done when the Capital line was being built in the early 1980's. Anyone on this thread remember those days?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #2419

    Default

    Capital Line used boring machine. The only cut and cover was for the stations.

  20. #2420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    The area south of 107 on the west side of 149 was expropriated for a major road expansion. Then they changed their minds.
    https://issuu.com/aesdl/docs/prepare...76ee07d9101dc4

    https://issuu.com/aesdl/docs/edmonto...0c0f7615b8e1f6

    https://issuu.com/aesdl/docs/edmonto...44312041582f05
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-08-2018 at 03:54 PM.

  21. #2421
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Capital Line used boring machine. The only cut and cover was for the stations.
    The City of Edmonton did a cut and cover from Bay/Enterprise square station to 104th Street. There's a underground pedway that cuts right underneath that stretch of Jasper Ave.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  22. #2422

    Default

    I am quite confident that the WLRT will drive property values up on SPR. Time will tell of course but most growing cities around the world see increases in property values around mass transit stations and corridors when built. This will drive investment into the area and I suspect the land use and business mix in the area will change.

    Newer transit stations on LRT lines in Edmonton such as Belgravia/McKernan were certainly a factor in increased land values.

  23. #2423
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,859

    Default

    Keep in mind the WLRT is a urban style system. Its low floor. Since the WLRT is low floor it will be essentially "cutting neighborhoods" in half. I suspect if anything property values will drop especially people living along my old alma matter neighborhood 156th street where its mostly apartments along 99th to 95th Ave. More people will end up being frustrated realizing they can't (apparently) cut across East/West on 96th/156th street. Will residents be able to cross 95th Ave? I don't know. Its early days. Again low floor (Valley) is different then Capital line. We're still in the design phase of WLRT.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  24. #2424

    Default

    I doubt not being able to cut across a busy road at one particular point will decrease housing values. The SE Valley Line "cuts" across the neighbourhoods just as the older roadway did and has the same crossing sections and in some places more. Most Valley Line roadway and pedestrian crossings have not been altered.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  25. #2425

  26. #2426
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,859

    Default

    Valley line has yet to be commisioned. Its still under construction. Consider King Edward Park where I live for a year. That's mostly residential housing along 83rd street. I'm not sure if that's going to bordered off along that stretch or what?

    Thanks for the link, I've skimmed over that before. Things can change.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  27. #2427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Keep in mind the WLRT is a urban style system. Its low floor. Since the WLRT is low floor it will be essentially "cutting neighborhoods" in half. I suspect if anything property values will drop especially people living along my old alma matter neighborhood 156th street where its mostly apartments along 99th to 95th Ave. More people will end up being frustrated realizing they can't (apparently) cut across East/West on 96th/156th street. Will residents be able to cross 95th Ave? I don't know. Its early days. Again low floor (Valley) is different then Capital line. We're still in the design phase of WLRT.
    I would be very surprised if property values dropped. Most evidence throughout the world show property values rising after mass transit lines are constructed; particularly around stations. Perhaps Edmonton will be an exception to this trend but I very much doubt it. Developers are already proposing, and have spent significant money designing, major redevelopments on SELRT. I don't foresee the trend being any different for SPR with WLRT.

  28. #2428
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    About the only people who complain are those who cross in the middle of the block.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  29. #2429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Valley line has yet to be commisioned. Its still under construction. Consider King Edward Park where I live for a year. That's mostly residential housing along 83rd street. I'm not sure if that's going to bordered off along that stretch or what?

    Thanks for the link, I've skimmed over that before. Things can change.
    Presently, in King Ed, where I grew up and live adjacent, you can only cross at Whyte and 76th Ave at full traffic lights and then at 78th with pedestrian activated lights... and this is to be duplicated in the LRT scheme. Unless you're jaywalking there is no change.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  30. #2430

    Default

    I'm very excited for the Lewis Estates end to get started. I wish they would work on both ends at the same time... It will definitely be nice for heading downtown for dinner and drinks, or the Jubilee (we frequent it regularly). Half the time I'm the designated driver, otherwise it's an expensive Uber ride. This will be a nice option for a night out. I just hope there aren't too many stops in that really nice part of Stoney :P

  31. #2431

    Default

    Tonight I was just looking at the concept design book for W LRT and am a little concerned with the lack of multi use trails along the LRT corridor. West of West Ed is great, and they have one all the way to Lewis Farms, but once it hits 178 street there is virtually nothing until the route gets to downtown. There also doesn't seem to be much bike infrastructure in the surrounding area as it is, so I hope that with the more detailed design work being done there will be more multi use trails along the corridor. Has anyone heard anything about how the city is planning on integrating the bike network with the Valley Line LRT.

    P.S. apologies if this is the wrong thread, but my concern was specific to the valley line so I though this would be the most suited place to bring it up! Cheers

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425

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
  •