Page 1 of 25 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 2476

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

  1. #1

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

    Please use this thread to discuss the currently approved route for WLRT -
    this is the old thread: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...read.php?t=105

    This is a thread to discuss other unapproved alternatives to the approved wLRT routing : http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=17903
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio.../west-lrt.aspx

    West LRT to Lewis Estates

    About The Project

    The future West LRT line from Lewis Estates to Downtown works towards the Transportation Master Plan's vision to expand LRT service to all sectors of the City by 2040.
    The new low-floor LRT system will connect the West LRT line with the future Southeast LRT line and provide opportunities for transfers to the existing LRT system in the downtown core. Low-floor technology will operate mainly at street-level and separate from traffic.
    What's New

    Following the approval of the West LRT corridor, City Council requested Transportation to assess traffic impacts associated with the LRT plan.
    On June 9, 2010, Transportation presented the options and associated concerns raised by stakeholders to City Council. Council directed Transportation to only examine two lane options. As a result, the three and four lane cross section is no longer being considered as an alternative for Grovenor (Stony Plain Rd from 124 St to 149 St).
    Where We Are Today


    Now that the West LRT recommended route has been approved by City Council, work has begun to determine how the LRT will fit into this corridor, including:

    • Where will the LRT run within this corridor?
    • Where will any bridges or underpasses be located?
    • Where will stations be located? How will they be configured?
    • How will vehicle access in and out of communities be impacted?
    • What plans are needed to address pedestrian and cyclist impacts?

    We need public and stakeholder input to answer these questions and build an LRT Concept Plan to meet Edmonton's needs for generations to come.Get Involved

    For more information about past workshops, information sessions and City Council decisions, visit West LRT Project History.
    Public Workshops

    Four West LRT Workshops have been held to get public perspectives on how decisions that will be made impact the people that live, work and visit the areas where the LRT will be located.
    Comments and presentation materials from the workshops are available. If you have further comments, please send to [email protected]
    Lewis Estates to 156 St/92 Ave
    Tuesday, May 4, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    163 St/87 Ave to Stony Plain Rd/142 St
    Thursday, May 6, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    Stony Plain Rd/149 St to Stony Plain Rd/124 St
    Wednesday, May 12, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    Stony Plain Rd (Groat Rd Bridge) to Downtown
    Thursday, May 13, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    What's Next


    Check BackOpen houses with questionnaire
    Meetings with stakeholder groups
    September 2010
    Info Sessions with Recommended Plan
    November 2010
    Public Hearing/Council Review
    December 2010
    Last edited by Medwards; 22-07-2010 at 02:20 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    I prefer the centre running alignments to the north running alignments. I think the north is too disruptive, it means more roads have to be converted in cul-de-sacs, which ultimately limits community access.

    I think the City should seriously consider turning SPR from 124 all the way up to 156 into a pedestrian mall. This would significantly increase the value of properties on SPR, which would give rise to more development and higher property taxes. Divert traffic north to 107, 111, 118, etc, i.e. the arterioles that run between communities.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-07-2010 at 05:14 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    I agree moahunter... with both parts, but the second part of your statement, I can only agree with a ped mall between 142st - 156st. From 142 on (east to 124st), a pedestrian mall wont really work, imho

    Traffic can easily be re-routed using 107 ave or 100 ave in these parts...

  4. #4
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Because of all the roads that affect the residential and commercial area, I too agree that center loading platform in the middle of the road would be best.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  5. #5

    Default

    Does placement affect the accident rate? A while back I saw a Youtube video of a huge number of collisions with one city's LRT travelling down the centre of a roadway. Loads of minor and major accidents as people turned across the tracks with trains coming up behind them (in their blind spot I suppose). Most of the commentary blamed it on ***** drivers but I'd say may have been plain old bad design.

    Besides the obvious safety issues, these accidents must create repeated service disruption and raise the cost of service as insurance costs rise. Service disruptions would quickly kill the system's reliability and credibility and cause people to go back to their cars.


    Instead of pairing the lines, would it make sense to split the line onto either side of the road - northbound on the northbound side, southbound on the southbound side, etc.?
    Last edited by KC; 25-07-2010 at 07:51 AM.

  6. #6

    Default

    On another issue, will the infrastructure hold up and look presentable in 10 - 20 yrs time? I note that the 114th street infrastructure has a concrete wall with steel or aluminum posts embedded into the concrete. I'm no expert but doesn't that soon lead to hairline cracks and concrete breaking away - plus a REALLY crappy looking fence in a few years?

  7. #7

    Default

    ^I understand aesthetics will be the next phase. However, the plan is to not have barriers /fences like SLRT. Provided LRT does not travel faster than the current roadway (i.e. 50 to 60 km/hr on SPR), this isn't needed. If you think about it, SLRT only has a maximum of 70km/hr anyway and only for very short sections so the difference in speed is minimal, but it results in a much cheaper and less intrusive build cost. It will be the same with the St Albert high floor line which will also be "urban" style.

    On accidents, that has been addressed for both options by only allowing auto crossing at set lighted locations. Left turns will not typically be allowed (requiring some jug handle type maneuvering), or only at set spots.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-07-2010 at 09:44 AM.

  8. #8

    Default

    I think you'll find a mix of styles. There will be places where barriers are still required on the wLRT for safety concerns, and to mitigate potential problems between cars, pedestrians and trains. The SLRT does also travel 70km/h for quite a stretch, between South Campus and Southgate and between Southgate and Century Park. It's great to be a on a train travelling quicker than cars on the same stretch of road. Adding in more stops and less barriers would significantly reduce the speed of this route, making it less attractive to potential riders. Just about any modern transit vehicle can 'rapidly stop' so I'm not to sure what moahunter is getting at. LRT is meant to travel rapidly between nodes, and without frequent stops like a bus route, in a designated higher speed ROW.

  9. #9

    Default

    Medwards: electric vehicles do have faster acceleration/deceleration than regular buses, and of course with multiple doors they also have faster boarding. Both those things make light rail a better choice than a bus for a route making frequent stops, especially when travelling in its own ROW. That's why LRT on Stony Plain Road is competitive on time with non-stop bus service, even making a bunch of stops.
    Since buses easily reach higher speeds, but have slower acceleration, they're actually better suited to commuter-style express service on a freeway-like ROW, connecting multiple origins to a single destination along a fixed corridor with few stops en route. Capacity is lower for buses, of course, so they're also best for moderately busy routes. Something like the proposed premium bus from the West End to South Campus, for example.

  10. #10
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Diesel buses can accelerate fast enough. I've noticed that LRT acceleration is usually less aggressive than a bus with a lead foot driver. Both modes are able to accelerate beyond what is comfortable for a lot of people. I'm sure I've read that LRV's are often limited to 1.1m/s/s for passenger comfort reasons.
    This report shows Diesel bus acceleration to be better than trolley bus, and both better than 1.1 M/s/s, although that's empty. A quick search found references to basic bus standards from other countries that require better acceleration than 1.1m/s/s loaded.

    The mode where acceleration is limited severely by the technology is Locomotive-hauled diesel rail.

    The reason that LRT on Stoney Plain Road is competitive with express buses is either because of the traffic priority measures that could be implemented for any transit vehicle, or because the LRT time is an optimistic estimate designed to influence a decision.

  11. #11

    Default

    ^so do you prefer a centre or north aligment in the lanes Highlander (note, this isn't the route discussion thread)?

  12. #12
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so do you prefer a centre or north aligment in the lanes Highlander (note, this isn't the route discussion thread)?
    Sorry about that, it should be in the other thread.

    I prefer the northern alignment. It's the one that best takes advantage of the accessible characteristics. With a side alignment, you get:
    - Access to stations with no street crossing, for 50% of riders ( in this case more than 50%, thanks to larger, higher density, less affluent neighbourhoods on the north)

    - A road that is acts as a 2lane road next to a ROW. Centre ROW makes the street feel like a 4 lane road, but without passing opportunities. 2 lane roads drivers go more slowly, and are usually more aware of pedestrians.

    - Actual curbside stations.

    - If the new created cul-de-sacs have pedestrian/cyclist access, there is better pedestrian circulation.

    - Better traffic movement at 142st, where the most important movements will be NB>EB and WB>SB, neither if which will be impacted by the train.

    -Opportunity to easily branch north on the 121ROW, which would be a great, inexpensive route. I actually prefer it as a route to St. Albert.

    -It's easier to add stations/stops, at least in one direction.

    -In the Oliver section, almost all accesses are already signallized, at those intersections there is no need to eliminate any movements, as long as turns across the tracks (from 104) have separate signals, and a no left turn on red rule is adopted for SB>WB turns. There are only 5 unsignallized access to the north between 109 and 121, two if which are mere curb cuts at crosstown.

    -A simple refuge between the LRT and the Roadway makes it very easy to cross the street as a cyclist or as a pedestrian.

    -If there's an accident or construction in on of the auto lanes it's a lot easier to share the open lane, although both options require flagmen/signgirls to work.

    -Where bus lines intersect the LRT, the connecting stop can actually be adjacent the station, without making riders cross a lane of 104st (two lanes east of 116 or so)

    -No crossing two lanes of 104ave at 109st. This is only assuming that North side happens at MacEwan. It's really odd to be on the north for only 2 blocks, for one station.

    - I suspect that the ROW will be more respected by motorists if it isn't where traffic lanes usually are, so it will work better with less physical separation.


    The main disadvantage of side running is slightly lower safe speeds, as the train would not be buffered from pedestrians by 2 lanes of cars. I think that this is a small sacrifice for a more neighbourhood friendly LRT.

  13. #13

    Default

    ^overhead wires look more attractive with a north alignment, which may be an important advantage in areas like Glenora.

  14. #14
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^overhead wires look more attractive with a north alignment, which may be an important advantage in areas like Glenora.
    Of all the attractive pictures of on-street LRT that I have seen, the ones that most closely resemble SPR are side running ones. I think that centre-running can also be attractive if the street is a boulevard and well landscaped, but I don't think that SPR has space for it where it matters.

  15. #15

    Default

    Open houses announced - September 7 and 8 for the proposed alignment:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio.../west-lrt.aspx

    What's New
    The City is ready to present a potential LRT alignment, stations locations, and an access plan for review and feedback from the public.

  16. #16
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    I noticed two differences between the corridor map posted on the City website and the advertisment appearing in this morning's Journal.

    One is the addition of a Glenora Station between 124 and 142 Streets. The second is a change in the route. According to the ad, instead of leaving 87 Avenue and going up Meadowlark Road at an angle to 156 Street, the route will continue east to 156 Street and then north on 156 Street.

  17. #17

    Default

    The glenora station was added at the request of the community (this was the longest stretch without a station on the line). There is already some land the City owns that will be used for it (two narrow green strips on opposite sides or road), and near Vies for Pies and walking distance to Westminster Junior high (which attracts a lot of students from outside Glenora) - it will be a very attractive stop.

    I'm sure the other change is related to community consultation and detailed traffic planning as well.

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Moahunter, there's a wedge shaped green space on the NE corner of 134 Street and SPR. Would some of this green space be taken to accommodate a Glenora Station?

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I noticed two differences between the corridor map posted on the City website and the advertisment appearing in this morning's Journal.

    One is the addition of a Glenora Station between 124 and 142 Streets. The second is a change in the route. According to the ad, instead of leaving 87 Avenue and going up Meadowlark Road at an angle to 156 Street, the route will continue east to 156 Street and then north on 156 Street.
    It's nice to see a neighborhood that's actively pursuing a station. YIMBY as opposed to NIMBY.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Moahunter, there's a wedge shaped green space on the NE corner of 134 Street and SPR. Would some of this green space be taken to accommodate a Glenora Station?
    Yes, there are two grass spaces, one on each side of the road, there is always a speed camera at one of them. The plan is a split station (not sure how that ties in if north alignment, but we will see soon). I understand the city has already made some "opportunistic" property aquisitions in the area, linked to this.

  21. #21

    Default

    I'm liking this route more and more. More yimbys and less nimbys it seems lately. Everyone wants to be close to lrt

  22. #22
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm liking this route more and more. More yimbys and less nimbys it seems lately. Everyone wants to be close to lrt
    Me too.

    I'm still skeptical about it's ability to attract park&ride and bus transfer ridership due to slower speed, but It's starting to look like the part from meadowlark in will be reasonably well designed as a tram route. I still like 87 in the long term, but it's looking less and less like they are trying to shove rapid transit through a corridor where it doesn't fit, and that is a very, very good thing.

    I haven't seen the map, but the additional station and the swtch to the wast side of meadowlark are both good things. Why not try to serve the existing density better?

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Diverting the route to serve Whitehall Square and adding a Glenora Station does nothing to change my position that this route is clearly inferior to 87 Avenue. These changes will make the trip from the West End to the downtown even slower.

    Building a European-style tram without European-style density is not a good use of the massive investment rail-based infrastructure requires. Especially when the selected route completely bypasses the City's second largest transit destination (the University/Health Sciences area) and takes longer to get downtown than going through the existing tunnel.

  24. #24

    Default

    east mccauley: i have to say, you are thinking a very north american approach to light rail. the proposed line to west ed is a game changer to edmonton and should go ahead. just youtube the copenhagen tram, and you'll see how a low floor tram and traffic can work.

    the north american model for mass transit encourages suburban sprawl because it makes it easy to get to and from the core. that does nothing for urban renewal.

    a tram style system that's proposed by the city will have the opposite effect. it will make downtown the centre. imagine all the people cross connecting at churchhill station once these lines are built. it will have a "big city" rush that feels kinda cool.

  25. #25
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    With the massive amount of traffic that Churchill station is bound to see, I hope that they do some renovations to the station, the most significant thing I would like to see is a complete replacement of the elevator to a much bigger and more inviting elevator to get from track level to pedway level. Also too I think ETS should consider installing another elevator at the end near city hall.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  26. #26
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    east mccauley: i have to say, you are thinking a very north american approach to light rail. the proposed line to west ed is a game changer to edmonton and should go ahead. just youtube the copenhagen tram, and you'll see how a low floor tram and traffic can work.

    the north american model for mass transit encourages suburban sprawl because it makes it easy to get to and from the core. that does nothing for urban renewal.

    a tram style system that's proposed by the city will have the opposite effect. it will make downtown the centre. imagine all the people cross connecting at churchhill station once these lines are built. it will have a "big city" rush that feels kinda cool.
    Actually, the converse is true. I know of very few if any European cities that see street running trams as a substitute for a proper high speed rail system. Most European cities have both. Street running trams to serve the dense central areas where buses alone have insufficient capacity to move the volume of people using transit, and grade separated light or heavy rail to move people rapidly throughout the entire built up area.

    Amsterdam, which I visited a few months ago, is a good example. While trams are used extensively, they are also building another subway line. Prague, which I also visited, is putting an existing street running line into a cut and cover tunnel.

  27. #27
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    Nobody from the Southside is going to take LRT to the Westend with this route. Why? Because driving will always be more convenient, faster, and require less backtracking than the 87 Avenue route.

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Youre probably right for the most part, few would go all the way downtown to go to the west, but how many people travel from north east or south to downtown right now, quite a few. For Edmonton's population spokes will work for right now, in the future we may need to connect the spokes but Edmonton would have to be around 5 million people + or so.

  29. #29

    Default

    People in Millwoods will use this to get to WEM. I can't imagine there is going to be a lot of people changing trains though, except perhaps say, Millwoods to UofA or NAIT ((Although bus to Southgate might be better).

  30. #30
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Nobody from the Southside is going to take LRT to the Westend with this route. Why? Because driving will always be more convenient, faster, and require less backtracking than the 87 Avenue route.
    except driving requires a car, a driver's licence, etc.. saying "nobody" isn't exactly true. You probably meant to say "people who own cars may not use the LRT to go all the way from south side to the west using the current route."

    that may be true. although it does depend on the ultimate destination and reasons for going. even if other routes had been chosen, that last bit–final destination and reasons for going–may still not be enough to convince these car-bound people to take the LRT.

    so, I think what you actually meant to say is: "people who own cars may still not use public transit of any kind and along any route to go from the south side to the west end".

  31. #31
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    We might be able to agree on your first change to my post:

    "people who own cars may not use the LRT to go all the way from south side to the west using the current route."
    But definitely not the rest of your changes. As shown from the Century Park Park'n'Ride, people who drive want to take LRT... but you have to make it convenient. This route to WEM is anything but convenient. Living at Century Park, I'll likely take AHD or the Whitemud to get to WEM rather than taking the LRT (even though I would much prefer convenient LRT access instead).

  32. #32
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    399

    Default

    The main focal point of the LRT is downtown - you're never going to connect all points of interest directly with only 5/(6) legs. Most* people aren't going to be making the trek from Millwoods to WEM 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. There should still be better bus service between POI agreed - but you're not going to see a direct LRT connection in this lifetime.

  33. #33
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    The thing is, had the 87 Avenue route been approved, anyone on any current LRT line would've had a pretty direct route to WEM without any slow winding/turning/backtracking.

  34. #34
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    The thing is, had the 87 Avenue route been approved, anyone on any current LRT line would've had a pretty direct route to WEM without any slow winding/turning/backtracking.
    the point is to give as much direct access to as many people as possible, not giving direct access to as many destinations to people who are currently connected to the LRT.

    While century park is a wonderful place to focus all of our attentions on, having, for example, parts of Oliver connected to the LRT with direct access to downtown/ MacEwan and WEM beats marginal convenience for Century Park people. Century Park isn't the heart of the city. Why worry about connecting it to as many places as possible?

  35. #35

    Default

    There is other ways to connect Oliver to lrt but let's save discussion about other routes for the right thread. This thread is dedicated to the approved route

  36. #36
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Meanwhile if you board the train at millwoods town centre, you will be able to take that train to WEM, One trip, no transfers.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  37. #37
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    The city will have to look seriously at using lane control on the two center lanes of 102 ave between 142 and 124 to prevent congestion during rush hours. Theoretically this would maintain the vehicle traffic at present levels from the west end. It isn't realistic to tee off the electorate (majority car users) and expect LRT to expand rapidly. Use 107 ave for traffic entering the city via SPR but optimize traffic from the west end via 102 or there will be a backlash no matter what the "greener" crowd wants.

  38. #38

    Default

    It'd be close to an hour though, so odds are it'd be quicker to hop on the Whitemud & drive to WEM, what with all that free parking...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krokwalk View Post
    The city will have to look seriously at using lane control on the two center lanes of 102 ave between 142 and 124 to prevent congestion during rush hours. Theoretically this would maintain the vehicle traffic at present levels from the west end. It isn't realistic to tee off the electorate (majority car users) and expect LRT to expand rapidly. Use 107 ave for traffic entering the city via SPR but optimize traffic from the west end via 102 or there will be a backlash no matter what the "greener" crowd wants.
    111th would be a better bet for traffic entering the city as it will connect to AHD and 107th will not. 107th is better suited to handle extra traffic from within the city.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Right now the 111 Avenue connection to AHD is at grade. There is no funding to replace this with an interchange that I'm aware of.

    111 Avenue between AHD and 163 Street is mostly a narrow two lane road. Widening would be required if it's to be a realistic alternative to SPR for west end commuters.

    Finally, the odd angle intersection where 111 Avenue comes together with 163 Street and Mayfield Road would need a major upgrade.

    To get a true picture of the cost of West LRT using SPR the costs of these (and other) roadway upgrades needed to handle the displaced traffic should be included.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    To get a true picture of the cost of West LRT using SPR the costs of these (and other) roadway upgrades needed to handle the displaced traffic should be included.
    Which also needs to be factored against the roadway costs of not having LRT to the west end. SPR and 102 for example, are already close to capacity at key intersections like 142 street. They can't just keep having more traffic added to them as the city continues to sprawl, at some point regardless of whether LRT was to be built, there would be expensive roadway upgrades needed. At least with LRT, far more people will travel down SPR than is currently the case, and traffic volumes should reduce as people switch to LRT / choose LRT over being stuck in traffic.

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Moahunter, except that none of this traffic displacement would need to take place had 87 Avenue been used for West LRT. Heck, four lanes of traffic could have been maintained along 87 Avenue itself.

    An additional problem with using SPR for West LRT is basic geography. The North Saskatchewan River forces most West End traffic headed downtown north before it can head east. That's the reason that major West End roadways are already the most congested in the city. If the SPR route goes through, at least two additional lanes of traffic will be removed from the shortest route from the bulk of the West End to Downtown. Traffic will be diverted even further north onto 107 and 111 Avenues, then go east, and then south again on already congested 109 and 101 Streets only to be blocked again by the downtown LRT connector. And all of this is by some dizzying leap of logic supposed to make downtown more vibrant?

    LRT down 87 Avenue would develop a brand new corridor directly across the river to the university and downtown. West End commuters would leave their cars in even greater numbers than the SPR route because of 87 Avenue's speed, convenience and direct connection to Edmonton's two busiest transit destinations (the university area and the downtown core).

  43. #43
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    ^Ok, now back to the approved route. Any discussion of 87 ave is for another thread.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  44. #44
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    ^Ok, now back to the approved route. Any discussion of 87 ave is for another thread.
    It is difficult to discuss traffic impacts on the West End and Downtown caused by the approved route, without talking about how those impacts could be avoided by an alternate route.

  45. #45

    Default

    ^why? The route is decided. If you think another route is better because of traffic impacts being less, then we have the other thread to discuss that. It remains my view that LRT to the west end will in the long term make traffic better than the alternative status quo of doing nothing, no matter what route LRT goes down.

    The traffic impacts on this route have been considered at a macro level, and I understand we might get a better idea of local impacts when we see what is proposed at the workshops in a few days.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-09-2010 at 09:12 AM.

  46. #46
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Within the current route, it is possible to discuss options for traffic management.

    One option is to leave things as is and see where the chips fall. One is to expand alternative roadways such as 107 ave and 111 ave.

    A long, long time ago I proposed this:
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=6441

    perhaps it or something similar should be revisited.

  47. #47

    Default

    @ east mccauley: get over it, the route has been approved, the planning is being done, there's no stopping it.

    when it comes to the west end route, what i think the city should do is to see if a three lane configuration is possible. the trains on one side, with three lanes on the other. then use lane control to deal with the morning/ afternoon rushes (like lane control is used on 97 street)

    looking at the plans for the dt connector, i see consideration is being given to bike lanes. i say drop this. while noble, edmonton is a winter city. we can't eliminate roads all together.

  48. #48
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I think, for the residents of Glenora, that the Glenora stop will be great.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  49. #49
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    @ east mccauley: get over it, the route has been approved, the planning is being done, there's no stopping it.
    There's nothing to get over. With no money in place and the start of construction likely years away, there's plenty of time for sober second thought. It wouldn't be the first time the route for West LRT was changed after a lot of planning had been done.

  50. #50
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    @ east mccauley: get over it, the route has been approved, the planning is being done, there's no stopping it.
    There's nothing to get over. With no money in place and the start of construction likely years away, there's plenty of time for sober second thought. It wouldn't be the first time the route for West LRT was changed after a lot of planning had been done.
    Well I guess we have to have someone who is negative about the LRT since Tony Caterina isn't here posting his opinions.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  51. #51
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    @ east mccauley: get over it, the route has been approved, the planning is being done, there's no stopping it.
    There's nothing to get over. With no money in place and the start of construction likely years away, there's plenty of time for sober second thought. It wouldn't be the first time the route for West LRT was changed after a lot of planning had been done.
    Well I guess we have to have someone who is negative about the LRT since Tony Caterina isn't here posting his opinions.
    The two responses above are a good example of behavior that is all too common on discussion boards (C2E included). Instead of debating the merits of an issue or responding intelligently to another point of view, attempts are made to shut down further debate or false claims are made about another member.

    The decision on the routing of West LRT which necessitated the construction of surface LRT line through the downtown core will have consequences for Edmontonians for decades to come. It is better to debate the wisdom of these decisions before shovels are put into the ground than after.

  52. #52
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    East McCauley,
    You misunderstand the issue. It isn't that other potential routes don't deserve to be discussed. It is that this community has decided a short time ago (short is a relative term–shroter than the discussion about west LRT has been) to move the debate about other routings to its own thread thus giving that topic its due importance of being te topic in itself rather than making it part of the same discussion that includes potted plants, lights and signage on the LRT stops.

  53. #53
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Thank you grish.

    The simple point is, if you feel that the 87 ave route needs to be debated the go right ahead, but not on this thread. Personally I think they made a mistake on the route for SELRT entering millwoods but I'm not going to keep bringing it up on the SELRT thread. If your feelings have been hurt, I'm sorry, but now please debate you argument on the proper thread.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  54. #54
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Edmcowboy11, you made a false claim that I was "negative about the LRT" and then implied that my opinions were in line with those of Tony Caterina, another false statement. I hesitated to call you on it because I'd much rather stick to debating the issues. However, I was at a loss as to how to better respond to such falsehoods.

    As far as posting in the correct thread, my assumption is that both positive and negative aspects of the SPR route can be discussed in this thread. As you can see, I am participating as well in the thread about other possible routes for West LRT.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Edmcowboy11, you made a false claim that I was "negative about the LRT"
    Saying the line is years away, and that there is no money in place, is overly negative. We all know that the funding model is priority for next year, and that this line is supposed to be complete by the time of Expo if not before. This line is also agreed by Council to be the next line after NAIT. Progress is moving quite rapidly now, I've been impressed, and I'm sure most residents in Millwoods and the west end are starting to get a little excited, both groups have been waiting long enough.

    I've never been a huge fan of the NAIT line, I think its overly expensive for the distance (in large part due to the tunneling). I'm glad its being built though, no route is perfect. The important thing is to get momentum growing, IMO there is a huge groundswell of support for LRT in the city right now. For the city to dither around on detailed plans because somebody is still crying over a decision that has been made, would be the worst thing possible right now. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening per the progress we are seeing, I'm looking forward to the upcoming workshop.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2010 at 02:24 PM.

  56. #56

    Default

    It's not going to get any cheaper to get it out of the ground. Get it to NAIT then finish it off once the Mill Woods and West lines are done. Tying in NAIT, MacEwan and the new arena will be huge for LRT. It may be a short line but it's going to be an important one. Just wait for St. Albert to start clamoring for LRT.

  57. #57
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    If money is a chief concern, I think that the priorities should be realigning utilities and property acquisition. The next goal would be finishing the line to MacEwan. Building the line above ground would not be as costly.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  58. #58

    Default

    From todays workshop:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...2010_Sept7.pdf

    WEM is elevated LRT.

    I'm really pleased Glenora will be centre running. Glenora residents were split on this, I think centre running is fairer, as north running cut off a lot of access for residents north of SPR. It is also preferable I think, as it reduces the possibility of roads being expanded in the future. It looks like a small section north running at the key intersection of 142 street and SPR, but we will see tomorrow.

  59. #59

    Default

    Hopefully 142-149 st will be transit only.

  60. #60

    Default

    I wonder how many cars will they be able to run per train along this route?

    We're running into all kinds of capacity issues with the current 3 & 4 car LRT until they can start running 5 car trains regularly.

    And I have a hunch that this West end LRT is going to be busier than the South LRT.

  61. #61

    Default

    ^I think the plan on this route, will be to increase capacity in future, with more frequency rather than bigger trains.

  62. #62

    Default

    Station size will be the limiting factor.

  63. #63
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    I like the idea from tonights session showing a lot of areas that have been reduced to one lane of traffic in each direction. I think if they want to dissuade lots of traffic, I suggest reducing the speed limit to 40KM for car traffic along the route. That and the one lane would make most commuters who insist on driving go to another road and leave that roadway to local residents.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  64. #64
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default West LRT line proposal sparks concerns

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...-concerns.html

    "Bury the whole...thing"...yeah, that will be cheap huh?

  65. #65

    Default

    ^that's the annoying thing with these sessions. I have sat next to people who yell "burry it" and others who yell "elevate it". These whackos (normally overweight white men in their 60's who won't use LRT anyway) who don't understand that the costs of what they are suggesting will result in next to no LRT throughout the city anytime soon (something I suspect they want) are always the loudest voices, no matter what the proposed route is.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-09-2010 at 10:55 AM.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasshead View Post
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...-concerns.html

    "Bury the whole...thing"...yeah, that will be cheap huh?
    And ever so simple to be done in 6 years...

    It's the Agnes Skinner crowd: "I want all my groceries in one bag, but I don't want that bag to be heavy."

    That being said, elevating might be a solution to the 142-149 dilemma, especially since it's being implemented for Miseracordia-WEM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  67. #67
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    I so much wish that the LRT planners could yell right back to them things like "Ok fine, are you going to pay for it?" or "Do you actually realize how expensive and stupid your suggestion is" or maybe more to the point "Why don't you shut up and quit wasting everyone's time with your dumb and uninformed opinion."
    It was interesting listening to individuals talk about business access on SPR. The still are calling for doom and gloom when the LRT is built that way.
    I wonder why people don't realise that when SPR in the residential becomes one lane in each direction that traffic will naturally diminish because a lot of commuters will not be interested in travelling down a road that will have higher chance of getting jammed up. I still think one further solution to stop commuters going down this road is to lower the speed limit. Also though one definite way that the road will only be used by local residents is to create a dead end section that doesn't allow for people to travel the full distance through the area without having to detour. These are just a couple examples, there are many ways to make this work very well for resident of that community.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  68. #68
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    ^^ that's a resident of Glenora complaining about the commuting nightmare. So 142-149 probably isn't what they're concerned about.

  69. #69
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    ^^ that's a resident of Glenora complaining about the commuting nightmare. So 142-149 probably isn't what they're concerned about.
    exactly, it's NIMBY'ism through and through...or out of sight, out of mind

  70. #70
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasshead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by newfangled View Post
    ^^ that's a resident of Glenora complaining about the commuting nightmare. So 142-149 probably isn't what they're concerned about.
    exactly, it's NIMBY'ism through and through...or out of sight, out of mind
    At the session I attended last night the presentations by City staff and consultants went on for over one hour and fifteen minutes, despite the same information being available on display tables. The question and answer period that followed was restricted to less than twenty minutes. Many people who wished to never even got a chance to ask a question.

    I really question whether the City is the least bit interested in knowing what Edmontonians honestly think about their LRT plans. They seem to see it more as a public relations challenge.

  71. #71
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    370

    Default

    McCauley - the session ran from 4PM to 9:30 PM (5.5 hours). There were over 10 staff from the city and consulting team readily available for 1-1 discussions and question/answer. There were opportunities to place post-it notes on the maps, have informal dialog with neighbours around the individual tables and formal comment sheets to leave or send in later. Seems like lots of opportunity for input to me.

    I think what you saw as a "deficiency" was a lack of time to raise questions in an open forum. Honestly, I find these as nothing more than grand standing opportunities and they have minimal value.

    I guess you must like the soap box type forum.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I really question whether the City is the least bit interested in knowing what Edmontonians honestly think about their LRT plans. They seem to see it more as a public relations challenge.
    I think they are just tired of people who want to get up, turn red faced and angry, and jump into monologues about how terrible and stupid this route is, and how it should have gone down 87 or should be in a tunnel, or should be built at all or,.. No matter what the route was, or the design, this would have happened, there are always people who think they know better, when in reality most of us realize there is no ideal line, just different pros and cons, which Council has already wieghed up.

    The time for that type of monologue was in Council chamber when they decided on the route. Now we are onto detailed design, and the best way to get input and discussion on that is to gather comments and input in smaller groups where the ideas can be explained more accuratley.

  73. #73
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    The limited number of questions in the open forum I attended were respectful and exposed many of the weaknesses of the proposed route. And in terms of people asking that the line be elevated or put below ground, what do you expect when people are explicitly told by the moderator that they were only allowed to ask questions about the proposed route, not alternative routes?

    City Council occasionally makes bad decisions which are sometimes subsequently reversed much later in the process than the concept planning stage that West LRT is now in. The best example I can think of involves another West End transportation planning boondoggle - the McKinnon Ravine Freeway. Not only had the engineering been completed but construction had started when Council reversed the earlier approval of the freeway. The ravine still bears some of the scars to this day.

  74. #74
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Edmonton since 2009
    Posts
    533

    Default

    There is an online survey at the C of E website for the West LRT extension:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio.../west-lrt.aspx

    Hopefully people using this forum can add some sanity to the nimby-ism

  75. #75
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CFB Edmonton
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I think this might be my first post...? Being new-ish to Edmonton (moved here in May but then left for three months) I thought I would head down to the LRT session for this route held at WEM this past week.

    When I was a Vancouverite I was involved with some aspects of transit planning (volunteer committee work for the District of North Vancouver and public engagement with Translink, the ETS of Metro Vancouver) so thought it would be interesting to see what's going on here, and maybe try and get involved in a few years when my new job settles down a bit with training and the such.

    First the meeting was one of a calmest transit planning sessions I had ever been too - wow! It was the evening session on Tuesday. Sounds like, from this thread and others, that maybe they are not all that way but there were a few valid points brought up from the crowd and people were for the most part very respectful. Having been involved with the Canada Line project (on the sidelines a bit, though) in Vancouver we sort of figured anyone involved now has a bounty on their life . The only really strange moment was when some guy answered his cell phone and had a conversation, but I think that maybe he had some perception limitations; didn't seem like it was done to be rude. And like 15 cell phones went off. What the heck people??

    The route display tables were sort of interesting, but lacked some depth on the overall project and scope, I thought. Walking in with minimal project knoweldge some of it flew over my head until I walked over to the Apple store, grabbed an iPad, and caught myself up with the ETS website and Wikipedia very quickly. Sadly, in my opinion, one of the more valid questions was asked by someone who delivered it with far too much hostility. Are Edmontonians prepared for a near boundary free RT system? Obviously it will be adapted to quickly but there is going to need to be a lot of supervision in place.

    Hopefully this project moves quickly!

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Welcome Dane to this forum. You made some astute observations in your post.

    I really like what the City is proposing for the section from Lewis Estates to 156 Street with one exception. The LRT track should be elevated over 178 Street instead of crossing this major six-lane north-south arterial (and WEM access point) at street level.

    The track starts to elevate just east of 178 St so why not begin the elevated section just west of 178 St instead?

  77. #77
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    I'm bothered that the City is using MacEwan's Centre for the Arts as one of the pitching points for this WLRT route. By the time the LRT is there, the new Arts building will be downtown.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  78. #78
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    there is a hotel across the street and Jasper Place transit stop on the other side. Why not?

  79. #79
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Don't hold your breath about seeing the Arts campus closed anytime soon.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  80. #80

    Default Meeting

    If anyone has a bone to pick with the consultation process / recomendations, this is the meeting to attend:

    http://glenoracommunity.com/index.ph...s/article/453/

    I understand a group has formed to oppose the current plan.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-11-2010 at 04:08 PM.

  81. #81

    Default

    ^ Wow, didn't see that coming. (a group opposing this routing) I thought everyone loved this route selection /sarcasm...

    Not sure how much power this group will have, they seem a bit late to the game. I've never been a big fan of this route, but it sure beats not having a LRT route in the west end, or sending LRT back to the drawing boards for the 20 billionth time. Any route chosen in any area will always have its benefits and detractors.

  82. #82
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Gotta love Glenora for opposing everything.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  83. #83
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Appreciate the effort and involvement of citizens, but it is pretty late in the game. As I understand it, council has already decided on the route and is pretty unlikely to change it at this point (and if they did, you can pretty much bet that WLRT will never happen, which to me is less acceptable).

    The best thing this group can do is get involved in the current phase and pour over the detailed plan with a fine tooth comb and make sure their concerns are mitigated as much as possible wherever possible.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  84. #84
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I think Glenora has had their chance to voice their concerns during the various LRT sessions, just like the other communities. I think the city should dismiss these eleventh hour stunts by communities like Glenora, especially after the route has been approved.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  85. #85

    Default No limit set for projects near LRT stations and major transit routes

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    The best thing this group can do is get involved in the current phase and pour over the detailed plan with a fine tooth comb and make sure their concerns are mitigated as much as possible wherever possible.
    I wonder as to whether the people in the "coalition" will really be sharing the same concerns, i.e. is this a concern over the route, or the details? I think what might have "upset" Glenora community league is the recent zoning / TOD stuff with respect to LRT:

    http://glenoracommunity.com/index.php/news/article/439/

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    The next public sessions have been scheduled:

    Lewis Estates to Stony Plain Road Business District
    Monday, November 29
    4:00pm - 9:00pm
    West Edmonton Mall, Fantasyland Hotel - 17700 87 Ave.

    Stony Plain Road Business District to Downtown
    Tuesday, November 30
    4:00pm - 9:00pm
    MacEwan City Centre Campus, 105 Street Building - 10700 104 Avenue

    The same presentation will be offered at 4:30 and 7pm, followed by Q&A. On November 24, information on the Downtown LRT Connector will also be available.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio.../west-lrt.aspx
    Strathcona City Separatist

  87. #87
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ Wow, didn't see that coming. (a group opposing this routing) I thought everyone loved this route selection /sarcasm...

    Not sure how much power this group will have, they seem a bit late to the game. I've never been a big fan of this route, but it sure beats not having a LRT route in the west end, or sending LRT back to the drawing boards for the 20 billionth time. Any route chosen in any area will always have its benefits and detractors.
    Actually quite a few Glenora residents expressed opposition to the SPR route during the Council route selection hearings last fall, and have continued to oppose it at the later open houses. So this opposition should not come as a surprise to anyone.

    As I understood it from talking and emails with these residents, the Glenora Community League decided not to take a position on the route (maybe because their members were divided, I'm not sure why). If memory serves, a couple of West End leagues (Glenwood, Canora) opposed the SPR route, while a couple of others (Laurier Heights, Grosvenor) supported SPR.

    Until funding has been secured and shovels are in the ground, it's not too late to reverse a bad decision and go back to the route (87Avenue) that has already been studied in at least as much detail.

  88. #88
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Starting to think that the 102 ave glenora route might be a good one for limiting commuter traffic and the adjacency to the PMA
    Where will the usuall loads migrate to ?
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  89. #89
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Certainly has a lot more merit than the SPR route.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think Glenora has had their chance to voice their concerns during the various LRT sessions, just like the other communities. I think the city should dismiss these eleventh hour stunts by communities like Glenora, especially after the route has been approved.
    I don't know... Glenora was sold on this by advising that there would be road dieting... that didn't come to pass when they released more detailed specifics on the route. they have a right to be upset.

    I still like the 102 ave option more.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ Wow, didn't see that coming. (a group opposing this routing) I thought everyone loved this route selection /sarcasm...

    Not sure how much power this group will have, they seem a bit late to the game. I've never been a big fan of this route, but it sure beats not having a LRT route in the west end, or sending LRT back to the drawing boards for the 20 billionth time. Any route chosen in any area will always have its benefits and detractors.
    Actually quite a few Glenora residents expressed opposition to the SPR route during the Council route selection hearings last fall, and have continued to oppose it at the later open houses. So this opposition should not come as a surprise to anyone.

    As I understood it from talking and emails with these residents, the Glenora Community League decided not to take a position on the route (maybe because their members were divided, I'm not sure why). If memory serves, a couple of West End leagues (Glenwood, Canora) opposed the SPR route, while a couple of others (Laurier Heights, Grosvenor) supported SPR.

    Until funding has been secured and shovels are in the ground, it's not too late to reverse a bad decision and go back to the route (87Avenue) that has already been studied in at least as much detail.
    87 ave is dead... stop kicking the poor deceased horse.

    its SPR or 102 ave.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  92. #92
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    No need for thought police.

    At this point, a 102 ave route is just as likely as the 87th ave route - ie not very. So why can we discuss one and not the other?

  93. #93

    Default

    Please, continue to discuss 87 ave to your heart's content, but do it in the appropriate thread. We split the wLRT threads so that those of us who wanted to read/discuss what is going on with the approved route can do so without having read through pages of regurgitated 87ave vs. whitemud vs. northern route debate from those who are convinced that their preferred route is invariably, and absolutely, the correct one (and anyone who disagrees with that route is (a) deluded, or (b) on the take from a special interest).

  94. #94
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    Please, continue to discuss 87 ave to your heart's content, but do it in the appropriate thread. We split the wLRT threads so that those of us who wanted to read/discuss what is going on with the approved route can do so without having read through pages of regurgitated 87ave vs. whitemud vs. northern route debate from those who are convinced that their preferred route is invariably, and absolutely, the correct one (and anyone who disagrees with that route is (a) deluded, or (b) on the take from a special interest).
    my post, which said "we have a thread for that", has disappered. yes, there is a thread specifically for discussing options that are not approved by the city. Here is the link to that thread: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=17903

    if this post gets taken down, would whoever is taking it down please communicate with me about the reasons for its removal.

    cheers,
    grish
    Last edited by grish; 22-11-2010 at 11:17 AM.

  95. #95
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    If we're talking about what's wrong with the approved route, then we're still talking about the approved route. It just so happens that it inevitably gets compared to other routes that are not approved.

    And really... the attitudes that show up here are embarrassing. Is it not possible to have intelligent debates on this forum?

  96. #96
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    here is my take on the intelligent discussion about wLRT and the two threads we have currently going.

    I think the deficiencies of current route can be debated on two levels.

    Level one is fundamental–i.e. the selected route is plain and simple wrong. It maybe completely wrong or partially wrong. Things like this should be debated in the other thread.

    Level two is route detail and finish–i.e. how to landscape it, number of stops and their locations, security measures, scheduling, etc.. That can be discussed in this thread.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    And really... the attitudes that show up here are embarrassing. Is it not possible to have intelligent debates on this forum?
    Yes, the insertion of The Beating of The Dead Horse into threads not about said Equu-whipping is embarrassing. It keeps derailing previously focused discussions.
    Last edited by Dialog; 22-11-2010 at 04:07 PM. Reason: typo
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  98. #98
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    If you were to apply these rules to the linked thread then half the posts that are there would belong here - or on the downtown connector thread.

    I think what has really happened is that the approved SPR route and downtown connector plan don't stand up well to thoughtful and open debate. Anytime someone wants to discuss a shortcoming of the approved route they are quickly silenced by being referred to a different thread.

  99. #99
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    I think what has really happened is that the approved SPR route and downtown connector plan don't stand up well to thoughtful and open debate.
    That's one hell of a fallacious conclusion.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  100. #100
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    The fact is that there are some people that wish to debate this stuff to death, and again that is what the other thread is for. I personally wish to not debate issues in this thread but simply discuss what is happening currently in the planning and development.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

Page 1 of 25 1234511 ... 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
  •