Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 487

Thread: West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Discussion about other possible routes

  1. #101
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,645

    Default

    As I recall Calgary also got some extra federal and provincial money (beyond what Edmonton got) to get 3 legs built prior to the 1988 Olympics. The Calgary mayor at the time successfully argued the extra money was needed to move crowds between the major venues and Olympic Plaza downtown.

  2. #102

    Default

    Did Edmonton get some LRT money for Commonwealth games? I don't know the history of who got how much, my understanding though is that they are similar amounts, but Edmonton's system got bogged down underground. I think the less tunneling we do, the better, as like it or not, tunneling seems to cost a fortune (like that little NAIT line now, it would waste another billion or so to have to tunnel Millwoods in as well).

  3. #103

    Default

    Another billion? How much did tunnel portion of the NAIT Line cost? I thought for the EPCOR portion it was 45 M.

    When your in a denser urban core area, the costs between relocating roads, buildings and utilities is not much less than tunneling.

  4. #104

    Default

    ^the NAIT line, from memory, is around 600m (or was it 800m?) for only a few kilometers. A Millwoods line that linked to the existing downtown tunnels, or tunneled under them, would be significantly more expensive than that.

  5. #105

    Default

    ^ that cost of 600 m includes 3 stations, land and building purchases for the ROW, and ground level track. the 600 M cost was for the full line to NAIT, not just the tunnel portions, and only a small portion of it was tunnel.
    The millwoods line is going to have to tunnel anyways to get up the north bank, it wouldn't be hard to take a tunnel machine right into the existing tunnel.
    Last edited by Medwards; 23-09-2010 at 07:06 PM.

  6. #106
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Cured the Report Post button can be used for this purpose, more an annoyance than a ban the person for offensive or obscene posts.

    It might be best posted in this thread
    Downtown LRT Tunnel - Max Capacity/Possible lines Discussion
    Sundance, My post was only tongue in cheek as i tried to indicate by punctuating it with a smiley.

    ...I will not be quitting my day job.

  7. #107
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    In the approved wLRT route thread, Leendert wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Leendert View Post
    I really don't like the long elevated section along 87 near the WEM. I think it is unnecessary to elevate the track for such a long distance. Doing so will add significant cost and creates a big unwelcoming space underneath it. What happened to the new style of LRT construction approved by council? The 1.5 km section between 177 street and 164 street looks more infrastructure-heavy than anything we've seen before in Edmonton.

    If the problem area is the 170 Street intersection, elevate or tunnel that section and be done with it. Keep the stations at grade.
    One of the problems there is Ambulance access to the hspital.

    I would like to use this as a jumping point to renew my slight objections to the approved route. I like the SPR and everything from Downtown to Jasper Place (well, I would have preferred underground under Jasper and 102, but I accept the money argument).

    From Jasper Place, however, I really think they should make their way to 95 ave and go down 95 to 170 and head south. Such a route would still be accessible to all the higher density developments that are all north of 87 ave, also the higher density areas along 95th, not far from Stoney Plain and multi-family units there, and provide LRT option to all those developments at 170th street/ 95 ave.

    Specifically at WEM and Misericordia (and Meadowlark Village) a single stop can be used to service both. Put the stop ground level on the west side of 170th or in the middle (and reconfigure that overpass access to WEM. Move Transit center to the South-East WEM lot. There is even an existing pedestrian overpass to WEM from Misericordia that can be upgraded a little bit.

    Save money by not building elevated track and having only one stop and give access to more higher-density dwellings all around that area.

  8. #108

    Default

    Your suggestion excludes the meadowlark mall area which has some of the densest area in the west. 170st has no redevelopment potential either.

  9. #109
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Just to expand my thought on the alternative routing...

    My proposal would miss:
    *Lynnwood (pop 3,197 on 0.89 km˛ –of which a significant number of people live in Whitehall Square at 87 ave and 156 street–served by a stop at Meadowlark Mall)
    ** Elmwood (pop 2,637 on 1.02 km˛ served by a stop at Meadwolark Mall and Misericordia)

    *Whitehall Square of Lynnwood would be approximately 8-10 blocks from the nearest stop

    **The part of Elmwood that is at 170th street and 87 ave is still served by my proposed shared stop at Misericordia and WEM including the sparsely populated rental townhomes that are a potential high density redevelopment and rental walk-ups along 83 ave which remain approximately 5 to 7 block distance from that stop.

    However, the line along 95 ave would serve additional neighbourhoods:

    *** Glenwood (pop 4,921 on 1.77 km˛)
    Terra Lossa (pop 2,147 on 0.76 km˛)
    Sumerlea (pop 2,072 on 1.1 km˛)

    **** Under the current proposal, only the North East corner of Glenwood will have LRT service at Jasper Place, while my suggestion will service all of it.

    Counting Glenwood towards a “gain” offsets counting Elmwood towards a loss particularly when one considers the geography of each and the location of medium density developments in each neighbourhood.

    In addition, my proposal would service all of West Meadowlark Park (pop 3,486 on 1.12km˛), not just Meadowlark Village. On the other hand, south portion of Meadowlark Park (pop 2,691 on 1.11km˛) south of 92 ave including Meadowlark Mall is not serviced, while the north portion between 92 and 95 ave is.

    I am excluding Britania (area north of 100 ave from this post, although SPR, which is essentially 101 or 102 ave has several medium density developments and significant potential for more).

    In total, under my proposal, the population lost to service is 5,834 while population gained is 9,140 for a difference of 3,306.

    Other benefits include the cost of traffic management along 95 ave which includes large service road areas and the elevated track at Misericordia and WEM. These costs should more then off-set the cost of extra turns (one onto onto 170th and onto 87th).


    CREDIT: All population values are from www.ShareEdmonton.ca

  10. #110

    Default

    your numbers are insignificant as they only look at the adjacent neighbourhood populations, and don't really count how many people would be within a 800 to 1600 M radius of proposed stations. Much of the numbers you derive would require a bus or car to get to the LRT station as these neighbourhood sizes are fairly large. Your population counts also fail to look at population demographics. This should be considered before playing simcityedmonton.
    Your theory also fails to look at redevelopment opportunities, which are significant around the meadowlark mall.

    I also wonder how much slower and how much more the cost would be to have these additions. The LRT now has to make several more turns, and from the sounds of it (trying to avoid as much property appropriation) make many 90 degree turns, making the route even slower. There would be a large cost to realign 170th Street and a major disruption to traffic on our inner ring road.

    Remember - we are not building a bus route here.

    http://www.statisticsedmonton.com/
    Last edited by Medwards; 28-11-2010 at 12:24 PM.

  11. #111
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ok, so you've been responding to me religiously and I guess I'll have a read...

    You claim that there needs to be a population count within 800 to 1600 meters. I have checked out the distances and the neighbourhoods. If you take 95 ave:
    1. The stop at 170th and 87 ave between WEM and Misericordia give access to within 800 is roughly bordered by
    a) 175th street and Erin Place townhomes to the SW,
    b) 170th street and whitmud to the S,
    c) 163 street and 83 Ave to the SE,
    d) 164 street and 87 Ave to the East,
    e) 88 Ave and 165 street to the NE,
    f) 92 Ave and 170 street to the North,
    g) North Side of WEM to the NW.

    This includes lands suitted for development at the SE parking lot of WEM (as has already been proposed by WEM and approved by the city), the SouthEast corner of 87 ave and 170 street, and also in the area of Elmwood community at 83 ave for example where there is already medium density housing presence.

    The 1.6 km radius covers area that is surprisingly large going as far as nearly Whitemud and 159th for example. I'll stick with 800 m for now. It would be sufficient for making my point.

    2. Stop at 95th and 170th. 800m radius includes the following
    a) 176 street and 95 ave to the W
    b) 175 street and 92 ave to SW
    c) 170 street and 90 Ave to S
    d) 168 street and 93 ave to SE
    e) 163 street and 95 ave to E
    f) 167 street and 98 ave to NE
    g) 170 street and 100 ave to N

    Development potential exists along 100 ave and 170 street, also along 170 street shopping mall.

    800 m radius around the stop at 156 street and 95 ave:
    a) 100 ave and 156 st to the N
    b) 157 street and 98 ave to NW
    c) 153 street and 98 Ave to NE
    d) 149 street and 95 ave to E (Didn't realize it, but there are a lot of medium density, multi family dwellings in that location.)
    e) 153 street and 92 ave to SE
    f) Meadowlark Rd and 91 ave to S (the north edge of Meadowlark Mall development)
    g) 160 street and 92 ave to SW

    A stop at 163 street (if needed) would continue to support all the afore-mentioned points in addition to strong support for the two High Schools–Public and Catholic–and continue to provide walking distance to developments along 100 ave and SPR to the north.

    87 ave is 1400 m from 95 avenue. 1600m radius conatins Whitehall Square and all of Meadowlark to name a few.

    So, walking distance? Check.

    Demographics–all and I mean ALL of the neighbourhoods have roughly the same demographics with younger and older people in slight advantage in areas such as Terra Losa. I.e. Demographics? Check.

    Redevelopment at Meadowlark? Check. 800 m to 1400 m walking distance to nearest stop.

    New redevelopment possibilities? Check, Check, Check, Check....

    Keep the speed of the line the same? Check.

    Reduce the cost and impact on traffic thereby speeding up construction? Check.

    Playing simcity is suggesting tunnelling through the parkland and spending billions on a line through the part of the city where people don't live.

    ps I was hoping your tone and rhetoric would subside. Nope. Still same old, same old. Not reading your posts for a while was nice. Back to it I go. Bye.
    Last edited by grish; 29-11-2010 at 10:09 AM.

  12. #112
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Thanks to this map, I think my job explaining the walkability and potential for redevelopment is made easier:


    Quote Originally Posted by banisheddragon View Post
    I was a little bored so I did up this map showing the walkablility of the proposed and existing LRT each circle represents 10 min of walking time.

    Looking at approved wLRT, the only difference that 95 ave option that I propose would make is the circle that's centered on Meadowlark mall will be centered on the intersection of 95th and 170th. North Edge of Meadowlark mall is still a 10 min walk from the 95th and 156th street stop. Whitehall square is a 15 min walk to the nearest stop or a short ride to the nearest stop.

    The benefit of this shift is, as I have previously indicated, a total reduction in cost and greater support for the redevelopment at around SPR which has several large parcels of land ready to be developed (the abandoned car rental lot for example). 170th street strip malls can, in the long term, also redevelop into a mix of residential/ hotel/ motel (similar to what potentially will take palce along 104th ave downtown) and still retain the business presence. However, 87 ave, aside from the Meadowlark and the corner at 170th, isn't as ready for redevelopment.

    The cost issue... I have already indicated that my option would eliminated the need for the elevated track at the Misericordia. It will also remove the need for property acquisition along 87th ave and significant trafic mediation at 159/ Meadowlark Rd and 156th in particular.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by grish; 30-11-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  13. #113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    Actually Grish the Misericordia might be elevated anyways, the reason isn't the hospital itself but 170th Street. The traffic in morning and afternoon rush hours is jammed solid, add in delays for the LRT on top of it will make a bad problem worse. Yes I realize the LRT will take people out of their cars but as the direction of the LRT is east west it really won't do much for the north south traffic.

    So like University Boulevard/82nd Avenue you really need a bridge or tunnel there to me either solution works, and if you get the mall and hospital on board you might get a very creative solution, for example if the hospital has a building project in the very near future you could could incorporate it into the design. The mall is getting a bit long in the tooth and sure could use some improvements.

  14. #114

    Default

    ^ YEp Yep.. 170 cannot be level crossing... So it's over or under and over seems to be the cheapest.
    "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

  15. #115

    Default

    Is grish posting rubbish? Thoughtful posters required.... The thought gestapo hasn't really thought this one out before making the humble claims above....Is there realistic room to run LRT down 170th street, while maintaining business access and 6 lanes of traffic? Where would there be room for stations along 170th street? Doesn't adding multiple 90 degree (Right angle turns) significantly slow a trains travel?
    How much further are people who live along 87th avenue (the densest corrdior in the west end) expected to walk to get to LRT?
    How can grish even claim his 95th avenue swing will be cheaper? Or is he just making stuff up as she goes along? Wouldn't there be property acquistions along 95th avenue and 170th street? How much would it cost to rebuild the WEM accesses along 170th street?
    To me, it doesn't sound like a very feasible idea. The costs would be very similar, if not more. It also avoids areas where the most redevelopment would occur.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Medwards; 09-12-2010 at 04:53 PM.

  16. #116
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Actually Grish the Misericordia might be elevated anyways, the reason isn't the hospital itself but 170th Street. The traffic in morning and afternoon rush hours is jammed solid, add in delays for the LRT on top of it will make a bad problem worse. Yes I realize the LRT will take people out of their cars but as the direction of the LRT is east west it really won't do much for the north south traffic.

    So like University Boulevard/82nd Avenue you really need a bridge or tunnel there to me either solution works, and if you get the mall and hospital on board you might get a very creative solution, for example if the hospital has a building project in the very near future you could could incorporate it into the design. The mall is getting a bit long in the tooth and sure could use some improvements.
    I just want to calrify your point. Are you talking about crossing 170th at any point? such as at 95th versus 87th? I propose to cross 170th at 95th.

    If you're concerned with crossing of 170th anywhere, there are other options available.

    The turn from 95th to 170th could be elevated (think simething similar to the bus bridge from South Campus onto Fox Dr, but "lighter" in design. The length of that section would be shorter than the current proposal (169th to past 175th). LRT would then go along the West side of 170th and cut through WEM's SE parking lot.

    Another option (and my favourite as I think LRT should really service current high density neighbourhoods) is for LRT to go from 95th in the middle of 170th all the way down to 69th avenue and then terminate at Callingwood. There might be a need for a short elevated track or a short tunnel to get from 95th to 170th. Again, much shorter than accomodating Misericordia.

    Another thing you've touched on that I like. WEM wanted to develop the SE lot into some sort of office/ residential. Perhaps a synnergy or a P3 type arrangement with the hospital to expand some of their facilities. WEM builds and services some medical facilities such as medical offices, long term care beds, etc..

  17. #117

    Default

    Did you really just use 'synergy' seriously?
    The year 2000 called, they want their marketing cliche back.

    If you want to run an extention track, why don't you just use my plan and go down whitemud to the university?

    The west end is too big. I just walked from 95th to 87th and damn near froze. If you expect me to do that daily to get to a train, you're nuts.

    Instead, use the micro buses to shuttle people around the neighborhood, so we don't have to drive. This means we don't have to rely on the big stinky diesel buses as much.

    Go from Lewis Estates, to WEM, To Whitemud. Have a major stop in the middle of whitemud at 170th. Have shuttles running from Callingwood to the new hub, to a fast running train that doesn't intersect the more dense neighborhoods. One at 159th, and another closer to 142. This allows new access to the zoo and Laurier Park, Ft Edmonton, and the nature centre.

    As for the hospital area, if you went my way, you can go down 170th, bypassing 87th altogether. 170th at 87th needs an underpass for traffic going north or east, which would make 87th freeflow for drivers and pedestrians, which would reduce serious congestion during peak hours.

  18. #118
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sask. Drive 101st
    Posts
    94

    Default ^you're crazy!

    listen. the LRT will NEVER run down the Whitemud. The city has looked at Calgary, saw all the problems and said "we will never do that". end of story.
    I hope you realize this whole thread was just to keep people like you from posting ludicrous ideas on the thread for the ALREADY APPROVED ROUTE.

    Hey moderators can we just delete this thread already?

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHaggis View Post
    listen. the LRT will NEVER run down the Whitemud. The city has looked at Calgary, saw all the problems and said "we will never do that". end of story.
    I hope you realize this whole thread was just to keep people like you from posting ludicrous ideas on the thread for the ALREADY APPROVED ROUTE.

    Hey moderators can we just delete this thread already?
    Oh, so only Grish can change the route at her discretion and no one else is allowed to say anything?
    Fascist.

  20. #120
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sask. Drive 101st
    Posts
    94

    Default haha

    thats not it at all.
    pretty much every alternative route to the approved one is off the table for one reason or another including all the posts on this forum.
    Either it doesn't achieve the cities aims, or it is wildly narrowminded in its ability to revitalize parts of the city and allows for no future development. however armin it is your desire to see that the LRT runs down a FREEWAY that accomplishes the astounding. it allows for both no future development of any neighbourhood and it is so narrowminded as to seal off any potential to develop anything from it in the future. it would actually be WORSE than running it down 87th ave. it is stupid in the extreme.
    realism is not fascism.

  21. #121

    Default

    Let's not forget that at one point in time the approved route was off the table too

    I see grish is still ignoring reality

  22. #122
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sask. Drive 101st
    Posts
    94

    Default ^ true but

    the only reason why the now approved route was ever "off the table" was NIBMY's pure and simple.
    the city did the studies and their homework and thanks be to god didn't listen to the uninformed shortsighted fear mongering looney bins that opposed the only feasible (both financially and aesthetically) constructive route.

    any other reasons for a different route have already been studied and discounted. the debate is over.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHaggis View Post
    thats not it at all.
    pretty much every alternative route to the approved one is off the table for one reason or another including all the posts on this forum.
    Either it doesn't achieve the cities aims, or it is wildly narrowminded in its ability to revitalize parts of the city and allows for no future development. however armin it is your desire to see that the LRT runs down a FREEWAY that accomplishes the astounding. it allows for both no future development of any neighbourhood and it is so narrowminded as to seal off any potential to develop anything from it in the future. it would actually be WORSE than running it down 87th ave. it is stupid in the extreme.
    realism is not fascism.
    By taking overpasses with plenty of space and turning them into access points for people to move around faster in the west end makes much more sense than running a train through narrow streets that only serves people living within 2 blocks of the track.

    We are the river city. Why not utilize that with the best technology we can get and make it an immersive part of our city's growth? If I was driving down whitemud and see a cool looking train cruise past and above me, i'd be impressed.

    I live in the west end. I would ride the train if I knew it wasn't going to make me cringe everytime by crawling through the slowest route downtown thats already accessable by all sorts of bus routes. I know this from years of experience.

    I won't shut up about this because their route sucks and everyone aside from Mandel's booster nazis knows this.

  24. #124
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,290

    Default

    ^All substantive points of the above aside, your use of the term "nazis" to describe those in favor of the approved route is totally and completely uncool.

  25. #125
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sask. Drive 101st
    Posts
    94

    Default dude give it up!

    By taking overpasses with plenty of space and turning them into access points for people to move around faster in the west end makes much more sense than running a train through narrow streets that only serves people living within 2 blocks of the track.
    First of all people walk more than two blocks, even in winter. And secondly where are people more likely to walk? Among narrow streets or to and from stations in the middle of a freeway miles away from single family homes designed to be insular facing from those very same freeway corridors?

    We are the river city. Why not utilize that with the best technology we can get and make it an immersive part of our city's growth? If I was driving down whitemud and see a cool looking train cruise past and above me, i'd be impressed.
    Building a train so that drivers can see it and think its cool is moronic. And i think even that cant escape you. The river valley is parkland not a scar to pave over with rails or freeways. Just look at Toronto's Don Valley Parkway and you'll realize why this debate has ALREADY HAPPENED in edmonton and been defeated.

    I live in the west end. I would ride the train if I knew it wasn't going to make me cringe everytime by crawling through the slowest route downtown thats already accessable by all sorts of bus routes. I know this from years of experience.
    The low floor LRT will operate separate from traffic. This has been stated time and time again. it will not CRAWL. go to Dublin, Avingnon, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Koln, Copenhagen, Toronto, Melbourne, Marseille, Barcelona. all places i have been and you can see for yourself how it ACTUALLY WORKS!

    I won't shut up about this because their route sucks and everyone aside from Mandel's booster nazis knows this.[/QUOTE]
    Having an argument with you is like arguing with a kitchen table. so go ahead have a tantrum, stomp your feet like a child. I for one am thankful that those "booster nazis" are the ones with urban planning degrees and are employed to construct this much needed and well planned piece of infrastructure, And that you and people like you are screaming like howler monkeys from the fringes. And that nobody is listening to you.
    Last edited by IHaggis; 09-12-2010 at 10:15 PM. Reason: font changes

  26. #126
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,962

    Default

    ^ X 1000 for emphasis.

  27. #127

    Default

    I guess armin isn't a fan of mandels? Too bad he's on the outside looking in. Everyone aside from Mandels booster club? Didn't Mandel just capture close to 60% of the vote? Seems him and his booster club form a large majority.

    Way to godwin this thread armin.

  28. #128
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    I believe it was Mandel's NIMBYism that took the 87th ave route off the table. Claimed there was no point in fighting the rich doctors and lawyers in Valleyview and it would be easier to push this through the SPR business district. After all, it is only small time independent shop owners with years invested in the area and don't know what they are talking about. The City's got nothing at stake if the promised TODs never materialize around SPR. The small 3 car trolleys will likely be overloaded by the time they reach meadowlark mall, with most riders going downtown and completely bypassing the SPR business district. Where's the net gain for these businesses?

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    I believe it was Mandel's NIMBYism that took the 87th ave route off the table. Claimed there was no point in fighting the rich doctors and lawyers in Valleyview and it would be easier to push this through the SPR business district. After all, it is only small time independent shop owners with years invested in the area and don't know what they are talking about. The City's got nothing at stake if the promised TODs never materialize around SPR. The small 3 car trolleys will likely be overloaded by the time they reach meadowlark mall, with most riders going downtown and completely bypassing the SPR business district. Where's the net gain for these businesses?
    Bingo. The people who work downtown are the ones in the suburbs and they fill up the morning express trains, especially the 100 which goes through the 'nice' part of the west end.

    Those people avoid JP or they drive because it's a pointless stop when there's alternative routes that go faster.

    I had to look up to see if Mandel did indeed push the route through and yeah, he really did.

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-44588d931638

    So, he nixed a consultant's study and basically called them idiots then pushed it through STP. Swell guy. I'll take back my nazi comment when you all get your head's out of Mandel's butt.

  30. #130

    Default

    ^ GEt a grip.. the 87 ave route was nixed because the design focus of what LRT is was changed. YOu also have to look at money spent and return on investment. I love how you think one man has king like rule over the city.

    a) LRT is not for the suburbs at least it should not be it's primary focus. Its primary focus should be the people who will integrate the LRT into their daily life, making it there primary mode of transport. People like me in Oliver.

    b) Unless the deer in the river valley are going to start paying taxes and buying buss passes. A rouute that services ALL of the west end (current Low floor design, is 100X better than the suburb express that is 87 ave. which services.. the river valley.

    c) DT Must be our transport nexus, not University.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 10-12-2010 at 04:12 PM.
    "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

  31. #131

    Default

    Many cities have multiple nexuses. I bet more people take the LRT to the university than any combined destination downtown.

  32. #132
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    people, the nature of the thread is to second guess the planning department and to suggest other routes. It is kind of a "wishful thinking" thread. So, any of you taking it too seriously and calling other posters names are being a little too uptight and childish. As with all other threads, posting I believe is voluntary. I don't for a second believe route modifications will happen, but if they do, I want them to reflect current vision for LRT as one that is integrated into community while respecting the desire to lower the costs. I definitely don't want an LRT through parkland since there are no people there and the cost to bridge and tunnel does not justify it in my mind.

    That is why I wanted to propose we look at 95 ave option. This option is about bringing LRT into the heart of the west end community that has already embarced multi-family units. All along 95 ave there are many 3-4 storey multi family homes. There are many more sprouting along 100 ave, and there is room for more along SPR. In addition, the line will be within 800m walking distance from Terra Lossa community that collectively has more people than Whitehall Square. The line continue to be accessible from Meadowlark and even as far as 149 street (stop at 95th and 156th).

    This 95 ave is wide enough to handle two LRT tracks. It can be done by taking away service roads barriers. LRT can be landscaped with trees on both sides and biking/ jogging paths similar to SLRT and actually improving the corridor by making it quieter and better for the people living there. 95 ave does not have volume of cars like 87 ave, so there will be no need to add additional lanes by taking away housing.

    Building there will therefore be cheaper and faster. It will be cheaper because there will be less property needed to be taken over (gas station at 95 ave and 156th is likely the only one), there will not be above grade stops, and beacuse the elevated portion if any will be shorter. The speed of the line will be the same since it adds two turns but takes away one stop (Single WEM/ Mis stop instead of two).


    Once you get to WEM, there are options. Some are more expensive than others.

    Option 1 is to turn west along 87th and continue to LE as planned. That will be the cheaper option. LRT will travel on the west side of 170th where there is room for additional lanes.

    Option 2 (my preference): Go down the middle of 170th from 95th to 69th ave, turn west and terminates at Callingwood. Going down the middle would require some additional lane changes all along 170th to add a lane on the east and the west side of it, and also there will be a need to take out the overpass access to WEM north of 87 and build station access at WEM/ MIS similar to Southgate stop. Elevated overpass over 87th might be needed, although traffic on 87th is not as much of a concern as along 170th. If elevated section is needed, it will take some of the cost advantage out. There will need to be a bridge over whitemud, but the cost of that is the same as the cost of the bridge over AHD at 87 ave–or a net zero difference.

    In addition to the stop at WEM and Callingwood, there could be a stop at 170th and Whitemud with park and ride/ terminal on the land between N and S lanes of 170th street. This is very accessible by cars and busses and will address some of the desire to provide for out of town commutters/ people living in the rest of S/W including the Grange.

    There could be one more stop at 69th and 170thfor people living in the neighbourhood there. I wonder if someone who is technically better than me could map out Callingwood, 69/ 170, 95/ 170, 95/ 156, and Jasper Place route on google maps. That visual will help out in talking about it.
    Last edited by grish; 10-12-2010 at 09:29 AM.

  33. #133

    Default

    Grish idea ignores that fact that theres higher density development already existing along the proposed route on the portion that he wishes to alter. I checked 95th avenue - Its all single family homes. There is no 3-4 storey multi family homes. This "wishful thinking" also doesn't have any redevelopment potential and the added extra multiple turns make trains go slower. It also fails to ignore significant cost to re-align 170th street.

    I also don't buy that this suggested route alteration would be faster, or cheaper to build. In fact, I would argue that re-aligning 170th street would cost a lot of money, not to mention screwing with the ingress/egress from WEM and other places along 170th street.

    Please stick with the route as planned. 156 st to meadowlark mall and west along 87th avenue to WEM and LE or Callingwood.

    This alternation proposed by the previous poster also makes people who are coming from areas south and to the east of where the approved route will go have to travel even further. 149th street between 87 and 95th avenue has a lot more multiple family homes (of the 3-4 storey walkup variety). Pushing this route further west makes it inaccessible to these people as well.

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
    Last edited by Medwards; 10-12-2010 at 10:47 AM.

  34. #134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    I do concur with the assessment of Mandel's role and NIMBYism in route selection, this being said the Stony Plain route is probably the better route. However by limiting train length to transport the same number of people you need to increase the frequency and this increases the expense (somewhat) as you need to pay more drivers and possibly pay more security. Also a longer train is slightly more efficient because of reduced wind resistance.

    So in short, route is reasonable (to me), stations should have provisions to expand up to 5 car trains in the future. The stations might be spaced a bit too close for my liking.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IHaggis View Post
    thats not it at all.
    pretty much every alternative route to the approved one is off the table for one reason or another including all the posts on this forum.
    Either it doesn't achieve the cities aims, or it is wildly narrowminded in its ability to revitalize parts of the city and allows for no future development. however armin it is your desire to see that the LRT runs down a FREEWAY that accomplishes the astounding. it allows for both no future development of any neighbourhood and it is so narrowminded as to seal off any potential to develop anything from it in the future. it would actually be WORSE than running it down 87th ave. it is stupid in the extreme.
    realism is not fascism.
    By taking overpasses with plenty of space and turning them into access points for people to move around faster in the west end makes much more sense than running a train through narrow streets that only serves people living within 2 blocks of the track.

    We are the river city. Why not utilize that with the best technology we can get and make it an immersive part of our city's growth? If I was driving down whitemud and see a cool looking train cruise past and above me, i'd be impressed.

    I live in the west end. I would ride the train if I knew it wasn't going to make me cringe everytime by crawling through the slowest route downtown thats already accessable by all sorts of bus routes. I know this from years of experience.

    I won't shut up about this because their route sucks and everyone aside from Mandel's booster nazis knows this.
    Running along the Whitemud would be a mistake. The trains will be slower than the traffic as the trains top speed is 80km/h, plus it needs to slow to stop at stations. sO there will be no visual advantage. Further, access to station would be on bridges over the highway, certainly not conducive to pedestrian use and does nothing to increase density. Finally, the stations would be poorly placed as there would not be sufficient density within 400m of the station (and the highway would kill any chance of increasing the density).

    Believe me, you would not want to run an LRT down a highway. It makes much more sense to run it where people want to go, along existing roads in its own right of way, where it will run faster than the adjacent traffic. All intersections will be traffic light controlled, and most likely deisgned so the LRT trains will trigger the light as it approach so the trains do not have to stop. This is used in many European light rail and busway systems very effectively.

    As the train approaches an intersection, it trips a wire and a pre-signal tells the LRT driver that the next signal has triggered. LRT Driver keeps the posted speed, and just before requiring to brake, the light clears for the train. This shortens the light for traffic and ensures the train has priority.

    I'm really excited to see this approach to LRT - it will do a lot for the city.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  36. #136

    Default

    I like Grish's idea better than the city's plan. At least it tries to cover the west end.

    Lightrail, you have good points but there's still problems with the way they think about the LRT.

    Is it a subway or a streetcar?
    Subways are fast. Streetcars aren't. The plan down STP won't revitalize anything. There's no stops along the area where they want to redevelop so in effect, you're just stealing their parking spots while the train rushes past. Making it 1 lane each way is nuts too. One accident, one fenderbender, and you've got a lot of problems.

    None of the west end stops past JP promote densification. Not a single one. There's no where to build without taking away people's homes and that would be up to private developers. Nothing along 87th aside from the pink ghettos by the Mis, nothing by west ed, nothing in Aldergrove or Lewis Estates.

  37. #137
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ thank you

  38. #138

    Default

    Its not (supposed to be) a streetcar, its not a subway, its LRT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

  39. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Many cities have multiple nexuses. I bet more people take the LRT to the university than any combined destination downtown.
    They may have multiple nexus. but the main are DT.

    Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Vancover, Calgary.

    All lines Meet DT
    "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

  40. #140
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Let me try to get an image up:



    The little yellow houses represent multi-family units (I've tried to locate all of them in the general area that's affected by current and my plans. Bus icon next to a train icon represents a bus transit center. I have them at Jasper Place, WEM, Whitemud and 170th and Callingwood. Whitemud and 170th also has a P icon for park and ride.

    The line is basically designed to be accessible by walking to most of the multi-family units in the general area. There are also a couple of community stops. Bus transit centers are to deliver passengers from other areas in the west end. The park and ride is located off of whitemud making it easily accessible from AHD, and the greater South West.

    What do you all think? Well, not all. What do some of you think

    ps Forgot to add that the whoe length is 6.8km from JP to Callingwood. That is about 13 min at average 30km/hr speed and 10 min at average 40km/hr speed. I believe that makes it 30 min downtown from Callingwood.
    Last edited by grish; 10-12-2010 at 04:28 PM.

  41. #141

    Default

    It misses the highest density areas in the west end (besides Callingwood). But hey, what do you care? You've got reality on ignore. A Park n Ride on the whitemud? Where Exactly? $$$ to buy property.

  42. #142
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    My image above should also be viewed together with this info about the populations in each neighbourhood and the walkability (within 800 m radius) from each of my proposed stops.

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    <snip> see above. This one shows the total populations and population densities of my proposal greater than that of current route.


    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    <snip> see above. This one outline the 800 m walkable radius at each stop from JP to WEM.
    Last edited by grish; 10-12-2010 at 04:36 PM.

  43. #143

    Default

    Grish, I am 100% behind you on your point. Lewis Estates is a golf community, low density, high end homes. Callingwood is higher density, average income households. The only reason LE is the terminis is that they can build a huge parking lot there. Evey plan for WLRT was anchored at LE for all the wrong reasons. The WLRT is not a transit system designed for transit users but rather a top down design, commuter rail system with poor community integration, (especially past WEM) for serviciing out of town commuters. The same goes for the St. Albert LRT leg and the long term HST plans to Sherwood Park, and Beaumont. It is designed to increase urban sprawl and benefit developers with land holdings not increase the density of mature neighbourhoods and service existing ETS customers.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #144

    Default

    Callingwood is fine - I think most people are in agreement here that its better than LE terminus.
    It's the 95th avenue re-routing that is bothersome. It avoids large amounts of high density residential for no benefit. It slows the train down as well.

  45. #145
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I like Grish's idea better than the city's plan. At least it tries to cover the west end.
    There's the problem.
    LRT will be a line, one dimensional, an unless we're prepared to spend $10B to build 10 lines in the west end alone LRT will never, ever "cover" the west end.

    Buses cover the west end already, and if those buses connect conveniently to LRT, even LRT in a freeway median or in a freight rail corridor in an industrial area, then public transit can cover the city in a cost effective and convenient way.

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Let me try to get an image up:



    The little yellow houses represent multi-family units (I've tried to locate all of them in the general area that's affected by current and my plans. Bus icon next to a train icon represents a bus transit center. I have them at Jasper Place, WEM, Whitemud and 170th and Callingwood. Whitemud and 170th also has a P icon for park and ride.

    The line is basically designed to be accessible by walking to most of the multi-family units in the general area. There are also a couple of community stops. Bus transit centers are to deliver passengers from other areas in the west end. The park and ride is located off of whitemud making it easily accessible from AHD, and the greater South West.

    What do you all think? Well, not all. What do some of you think

    ps Forgot to add that the whoe length is 6.8km from JP to Callingwood. That is about 13 min at average 30km/hr speed and 10 min at average 40km/hr speed. I believe that makes it 30 min downtown from Callingwood.
    I'm sorry but your missing the whole point of the urban people scale system. Stations along 170st will be hard to access, Large and expensive..

    we want to be able to do this...
    "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

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    we want to be able to do this...
    EDP, do you know if that is a real photo of an existing TTC tram or is it doctored? I see no wires overhead and the reflection in the window is of a busy street with a leafless tree but in the background all the trees are green.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  48. #148

    Default

    NO this was taken from the mock ups on the new TTC transportation plan. I suspect the station is in europe somewhere.. I have seen the shelters in other photos.
    "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

  49. #149
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,290

    Default

    ^More proof that low-floor urban-style LRT is a MYTH!

  50. #150

    Default

    ^ the station is real ya knob.. they just imposed a TTC train into it LOL



    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 10-12-2010 at 06:08 PM.
    "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

  51. #151

    Default

    This stop is my fav... now tell me this isn't cheap to build!

    "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

  52. #152
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I'm sorry but your missing the whole point of the urban people scale system. Stations along 170st will be hard to access, Large and expensive..
    oh I agree with that. 95 avenue will give you just that feel. so will the section along 69th to callingwood and the part towards downtown. 170th is a slightly different story. But there would be only two stops that aren't the urban style ones. One is at WEM/Mis and one at Whitemud PnR. Given what my proposal is in competition with a line down 87th to LE and a terminal PnR, I wanted to include that option just to address the inevitable worry "what about the people who need to drive to get on".
    Last edited by grish; 10-12-2010 at 07:28 PM.

  53. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    we want to be able to do this...
    EDP, do you know if that is a real photo of an existing TTC tram or is it doctored? I see no wires overhead and the reflection in the window is of a busy street with a leafless tree but in the background all the trees are green.

    If that was a mockup, I think it's disingenuous, same with that picture they had coming through the chinese gates downtown. Make it no wires with a nice backdrop and no cars and it's an easy photo op. Unfortunately, the reality is that with our system, it cuts through communities like a machete. We have snow and drifts and curbs and a shortage of room.

    The west end is too big to cover in one route. Beyond 107th, you're safe because there's minimal housing but callingwood is probably the busiest area in the west end. There's a ton of townhomes, condos and apartments and many of them are perspective transit riders.

    My idea of going down whitemud benefits people in callingwood, same as Grish's. Most people have to go down 178th to 87th or 95th or 100th ave to get downtown. My way tries to get to those people before they have to bother with the mall station by having a station on 170th. There's tons of space and if you used shuttles, you can get people home alot faster.

    The main thing about the west end routes is that all of them are around places with fairly low density. LE is a parking lot, 189th is a strip mall and houses, 182nd is houses, some apartments, and a giant schoolyard. The #14 goes down 182nd which is a pretty long road. It's not a short walk, which is the big problem with all these stops. Sure, you might get to your neighborhood, but it'll take you another 1/2 hour to get to house.

    Go ahead, walk from 95th to whitemud and see how long it takes. The west end is just too big for a single route.

  54. #154

    Default

    The LRT isn't going down 170 nor is it going down the whitemud..
    "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

  55. #155

    Default

    ^
    You did happen to read the thread title didn't you?

  56. #156

    Default

    YOu can discuss all ya want..

    It won't.. and i am willing to put money on it....

    My fear is it will be pushed to 107 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

  57. #157
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    YOu can discuss all ya want..

    It won't.. and i am willing to put money on it....

    My fear is it will be pushed to 107 ave.
    I know nothing will change. This thread is like discussing the best route for santa to get to all the houses in the world. Still, it is a discussion I don't mind having. The current route isn't wrong. It's just not as good as it could be in my opinion.

  58. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post


    The west end is too big to cover in one route. Beyond 107th, you're safe because there's minimal housing but callingwood is probably the busiest area in the west end. There's a ton of townhomes, condos and apartments and many of them are perspective transit riders.

    My idea of going down whitemud benefits people in callingwood, same as Grish's. Most people have to go down 178th to 87th or 95th or 100th ave to get downtown. My way tries to get to those people before they have to bother with the mall station by having a station on 170th. There's tons of space and if you used shuttles, you can get people home alot faster.

    The main thing about the west end routes is that all of them are around places with fairly low density. LE is a parking lot, 189th is a strip mall and houses, 182nd is houses, some apartments, and a giant schoolyard. The #14 goes down 182nd which is a pretty long road. It's not a short walk, which is the big problem with all these stops. Sure, you might get to your neighborhood, but it'll take you another 1/2 hour to get to house.

    Go ahead, walk from 95th to whitemud and see how long it takes. The west end is just too big for a single route.
    Density Map.


    Another density map


    As you can see, Lewis Estates is on the extreme edge of the city unless the next station is a Casino. What is the city going to do, annex more land westward? We should not even offer bus service beyond AHD.

    Grish's route far better than the WLRT plans because it follows the density. I would make one suggestion. Continue westward on 95 past 170th to 178 and then turn south to Callingwood with a station on the west side of WEM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    we want to be able to do this...
    EDP, do you know if that is a real photo of an existing TTC tram or is it doctored? I see no wires overhead and the reflection in the window is of a busy street with a leafless tree but in the background all the trees are green.

    If that was a mockup, I think it's disingenuous, same with that picture they had coming through the chinese gates downtown. Make it no wires with a nice backdrop and no cars and it's an easy photo op. Unfortunately, the reality is that with our system, it cuts through communities like a machete. We have snow and drifts and curbs and a shortage of room.
    Here is probably what the LRT line would look like (Charlotte NC)


    The real Toronto TTC. Shiny happy people?


    We will come full circle...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #160
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    E-PRT, I had considered continuing west along 95th to 178th. The problem is then it misses Misericordia, Meadowlark Village and that South East corner of 170th and 87th where I hope to see a massive Century Park-type development potential. Also, having a PnR at whitemud might not be a bad idea for all those commuters in the SW who aren't connected by bus. That area is very thin on density and collecting people by bus may not be feasible.

  61. #161

    Default

    [QUOTE=Edmonton PRT;337299][QUOTE=armin;337282]
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    we want to be able to do this...
    [
    EDP, do you know if that is a real photo of an existing TTC tram or is it doctored? I see no wires overhead and the reflection in the window is of a busy street with a leafless tree but in the background all the trees are green.

    If that was a mockup, I think it's disingenuous, same with that picture they had coming through the chinese gates downtown. Make it no wires with a nice backdrop and no cars and it's an easy photo op. Unfortunately, the reality is that with our system, it cuts through communities like a machete. We have snow and drifts and curbs and a shortage of room.
    Here is probably what the LRT line would look like (Charlotte NC)
    [
    The real Toronto TTC. Shiny happy people?


    We will come full circle...
    PRT......

    Not SNOW!!! come on!... it's not like PRT would magically stop the snow from falling.
    I think we are all aware that it snows here...
    "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

  62. #162
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    thanks for the density map, E-PRT. Basically, it reinforces my suggestion as 95th and 170th comes closest to the west end's north area of high density and the end stop at Callingwood is the heart of the west end's south area of high density. Going past WEM , misericordia and Meadowlark village makes perfect sense and is, in my view, necessary.

  63. #163

    Default

    You blindly miss the south eastern part of the west end. The densest part. But... ignorance is bliss.

  64. #164
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Just to add some walkability perspective:
    800m radius is represented with the yellow circles...


    The three stops post WEM (Whitemud, 69 ave, and Callingwood) have quite a bit of overlap and could perhaps be reduced to a single stop at Callingwood (see below) or with a stop between Whitemud and 69th (still containing a Park n Ride) and the Callingwood stop as planned.

    This is the modified plan of mine where there is only a single stop at Callingwood after WEM

  65. #165

    Default

    Sorry - thats A LOT more than 800 M. Nice try, thanks for playing, but this is just more rubbish. Also, there's a lot more TOD potential surrounding and including meadowlark mall, and further east on 87th.

  66. #166

    Default

    If you want to follow the existing density, then you'd continue west on 95 Avenue and then south of 178 Street - it can still serve WEM, just in a different location.

    What you are missing is that the proposed route by the City serves areas where there is potential to create new density. Lewis Estates is really a park and ride and set for further extension west should the city expand. Also to be really successful, you want a mix of residential, commercial, institutional and business densities along the route. If all the density is residential, it is not going to generate a lot of ridership.

    I'm not bothered if the LRT uses 107st over SPR, travel times won't be much different. Glenora is a lost cause for running LRT through anyway. But, I still think SPR is the best route for directness.

    Generally, Grish's plan is pretty decent. Only, I'd work to minimise the 90 degree turns. LRTs will have to slow to 15km/h to navigate those turns, so will slow service and add wear and tear to the LRT cars and rails.
    Last edited by lightrail; 11-12-2010 at 06:50 PM.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    I'm not bothered if the LRT uses 107st over SPR, travel times won't be much different. Glenora is a lost cause for running LRT through anyway. But, I still think SPR is the best route for directness.
    How so? Don't you think people in VFC and Crescent Place will benefit from the SPR route?

  68. #168
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Lightrail, for all your reasons (service a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional) it shoud go down 170th to have the stop at Misericordia and WEM rather than WEM alone on 178th. Personally, I would have loved for the LRT to go on 178th or one 87 ave west as my parents live in Belmead, but I have deliberately selected for the line to go past the Hospital.

    The current plan works to create new density at L.E., the corner at 87 and 170th and Meadowlark. My proposal is within walking distance from the north edge of meadowlark, withing walking distance from 100 ave and SPR, at the corner of 87 ave and 170th street, within walking distance of the strip mall row on 170th–something that could in the long term become home to hotels, low to mid rise business and residential mix. As far as potential for redevelopment and densification, I think the 170th corridor has quite a potential and it could be that residential, institutional, commercial mix that you have mentioned.

    The 90 degree turn thing... my route adds two turns and all turns have a proposed station next to them. Looking at the 800 m walkability map, I perhaps have overdone it with stops at Whitemud and the 69th. Maybe those two should be eliminated completely or replaced with a single stop South of Whitemud that accomodates a park and ride. So, maybe out of the turns, only one is without a stop attached to it. While the slowdown is to 15km/hr, the trains will be gaining speed after a stop or slowing down towards a stop making the overall effect on time less significant. I doubt if it will be more than 2min of added time. That is offset by one stop less–Misericordia and WEM are one stop under my proposal.

  69. #169

    Default

    What about down 100th ave?
    You can get from 142st all the way to 170th and run the line down the backside of the sound barrier to 87th ave. It's one road that already has issues. There's a ton of apartments around there and major room for development.

  70. #170
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    perhaps you're right with that. In reality, Meadowlark has found as much success as it could have with a mix of senior residences and medical facilities and is unlikley to become the next Heritage Mall meaning a similar redevelopment is not as likely.

    On the other hand, land such as the lot at SPR and 160th is land ripe for a high density development; so are the parts of Mayfield common that continue to have high business and vacancy turn over as well as the string of shopping along 170th from 100 ave to WEM. With an LRT there, I can see some of those being redeveloped into Hotels/ Business/ Residential mix with street-front retail. LRT will support that.

    Something of this size and a mix of finish and use lining 170th:



    Keep parking to the back or under. Definitely no street parking on 170th.

    Or, perhaps, this:



    Such redevelopment will not contradict transportation corridor that is 170th street. In fact, it will benefit from it.
    Last edited by grish; 12-12-2010 at 08:31 AM.

  71. #171

    Default

    Your walking distance is a lot further than most people will walk, and well over 800 M. Reality, ignored, again, par for the grish course

  72. #172
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I was just reviewing the plans for 87 ave from the city's website. One of the costly items on that menue is the relocation of the Fire station north of Meadowlark. Under 95 ave suggestion, that plan is off. Another "+" for the cost of 95 ave proposal.

  73. #173
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,962

    Default

    Another +? That would insinuate there were others lol.

  74. #174
    grish
    Guest

    Default



    there were!

    To review:
    More population reached within 10 min/ 800 m walking distance (see diagrams above. distances measured using google maps)
    Shorter (or no) elevated track along 87 ave.
    Less property affected.
    More redevelopment potential along 100 ave/ SPR and 170 street.
    If alignment on the 170th is along the east side, no 170th traffic affected and construction times are reduced compared to middle track options along 87 ave. Also, from 95th ave along 170th there are only two intersections to mediate (87 ave and WHitemud) leaving traffic patterns unchanged during and post construction. The 87 ave could be at grade to reduce the costs or above grade to keep cars moving. If 170th is in the middle or on the west, there would need to be possibly an over or under grade options from 95th and extensive 170th reconstruction.
    The line terminates in Callingwood where there is current density, not a projected one at LE.

    ps and now the cost of not rellocating the fire station.
    Last edited by grish; 12-12-2010 at 02:01 PM.

  75. #175

    Default

    ignores reality, and ignores the future as well. Edmonton is going to grow, and further expansion in the west will occur. We need our transit systems and roadway infrastructure with tomorrow in mind. There's a reason the city has choosen to have the terminus at Lewis Estates and not Callingwood. IR.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ignores reality, and ignores the future as well. Edmonton is going to grow, and further expansion in the west will occur. We need our transit systems and roadway infrastructure with tomorrow in mind. There's a reason the city has choosen to have the terminus at Lewis Estates and not Callingwood. IR.
    The only reason they chose LE was the easy access from the mall.
    They've already built the station which is why they want to fast track their plan, or else get called out on wasteful spending.

    The 800m thing wouldn't be an issue if there was appropriate micro buses to take people to the farther reaches of each neighborhood.

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post


    there were!

    To review:
    More population reached within 10 min/ 800 m walking distance (see diagrams above. distances measured using google maps)
    Shorter (or no) elevated track along 87 ave.
    Less property affected.
    More redevelopment potential along 100 ave/ SPR and 170 street.
    If alignment on the 170th is along the east side, no 170th traffic affected and construction times are reduced compared to middle track options along 87 ave. Also, from 95th ave along 170th there are only two intersections to mediate (87 ave and WHitemud) leaving traffic patterns unchanged during and post construction. The 87 ave could be at grade to reduce the costs or above grade to keep cars moving. If 170th is in the middle or on the west, there would need to be possibly an over or under grade options from 95th and extensive 170th reconstruction.
    The line terminates in Callingwood where there is current density, not a projected one at LE.

    ps and now the cost of not rellocating the fire station.
    I like your idea but the people in Wolf Willow will fight you tooth and nail.

  78. #178
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    The only reason they chose LE was the easy access from the mall.
    They've already built the station which is why they want to fast track their plan, or else get called out on wasteful spending.

    The 800m thing wouldn't be an issue if there was appropriate micro buses to take people to the farther reaches of each neighborhood.

    What 800m thing? 800m is basically equivalent to 10 min walk which is what is typically thought of a walkable distance to get to a stop or a destination. Definitely equivalent to taking the snow off a car and warming/ de-fogging the windows to ensure safe driving!

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I like your idea but the people in Wolf Willow will fight you tooth and nail.
    why? I am not sure where you're going with this. Current trafic on 69th isn't that bad. My suggestion to use 170th isn't going to affect them much either. If anything, they might get an LRT station within walking distance. Not sure what onjections they might have.
    Last edited by grish; 12-12-2010 at 08:19 PM.

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    The only reason they chose LE was the easy access from the mall.
    They've already built the station which is why they want to fast track their plan, or else get called out on wasteful spending.

    The 800m thing wouldn't be an issue if there was appropriate micro buses to take people to the farther reaches of each neighborhood.

    What 800m thing? 800m is basically equivalent to 10 min walk which is what is typically thought of a walkable distance to get to a stop or a destination. Definitely equivalent to taking the snow off a car and warming/ de-fogging the windows to ensure safe driving!

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I like your idea but the people in Wolf Willow will fight you tooth and nail.
    why? I am not sure where you're going with this. Current trafic on 69th isn't that bad. My suggestion to use 170th isn't going to affect them much either. If anything, they might get an LRT station within walking distance. Not sure what onjections they might have.
    It's a gated community. They don't want anything to do with anyone outside of their area.

  80. #180
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I see. Well, they will say inside their fence.

  81. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    I'm not bothered if the LRT uses 107st over SPR, travel times won't be much different. Glenora is a lost cause for running LRT through anyway. But, I still think SPR is the best route for directness.
    How so? Don't you think people in VFC and Crescent Place will benefit from the SPR route?
    Yes they will. But the density is low, the incomes highish, so the station is not likely to generate much traffic.

    800m is considered the outside distance a person will walk to a high quality transit station (ie LRT, metro). 400m is considered maximum distance to a bus stop. Remember, people are largely lazy and not inclined to walk more than 5 minutes. But given Edmonton's weather, it's likely to be less. 800m is the actual walk distance, so a circle of 800m will not work if people cannot walk a direct line to the station. A diamond is more likely the shape.

    Jarrett Walker has a great article on this: http://www.humantransit.org/stop-spacing/

    For all of you, me included, wannabe transit planners, I'd recommend you bookmark Jarrett's blog - it is full of great ideas and common sense for planning transit networks.
    Last edited by lightrail; 13-12-2010 at 01:38 PM.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  82. #182
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ well, on a city block grid, an 800m "circle" is actually in a shape of a square (it's a diamond if you look at it at an angle), but I think a circle is still a reasonable visual. Thank's for the link to Jarrett's blong. I'll have a read.

    I think there is something psychological about the rails with people (me included) willing to walk longer to get on.

  83. #183

    Default

    Good link.
    I've been reading a bunch of stuff on it and there's some great information for the amateur planner.

    http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/...your-city.html

    I like that link.
    It's interesting to me really, that all of us who use the services or want to make better maps all have different motives and desires based mostly on our own neccessity or selfishness.

    Me being out in the suburbs, I want a faster route with less stops. Grish being more centrally located, wants a short stop plan. Both are fundamentally different in that they both have opposing goals. Go fast, or go everywhere. Coming up with a balance that appeases everyone is the hard part.

  84. #184
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There may be something psychological, but there's also a willingness to walk further for transit that's more frequent and gets you where you're going faster. It may be that to directly compare walking distance potential riders between two routes, you would need to compensate for speed. Since the 87 ave route is 5-10 minutes faster to downtown than she SPR route, a proper comparison would have a 800m walk for 87ave and a 500m walk for the SPR route at the common stations.

    It would be great if we could model the alternative routes like this
    post.

    The coverage maps would look very different.

  85. #185

    Default

    ^ I agree.

    I live a block off Jasper ave so apx 2 blocks to the closest bus stop. But I will gladly walk 4 block to take the LRT over the bus.

    It will save me so much time!

    Its also interesting to note that I can walk to and from work 2 km, during rushour in almost the same time (give or take 5 min) as it does to get to my car, brush off the snow, drive DT in traffic, find parking and then get to work.

    My commute 120 st to 101 st. Please note I am an avid J walker and the only place I wate for a light is 109 st, 105 st and 102 st.
    "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

  86. #186
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Me being out in the suburbs, I want a faster route with less stops. Grish being more centrally located, wants a short stop plan.
    well, not exactly. Even the proposal that I am pushing through (while understanding the never-gonna happen nature of the thread–not this nor other changes are going to happen) I have updated after I posted the 800m walkable circles to have one stop at WEM, one south of Whitemud, and the next one at Callingwood. I guess, I am proposing stops that are essentially about 1km to 1.6km from each other. This isn't exactly a "short stop" plan. It is more like a medium stop plan. I have been hesitant to suggest a stop at 163 street and 95 avenue for that reason.While there are two, large high schools, a rec center and an arena to the south and some apartment buildings to the north (also the little mall with Value Village that could potentially become another redevelopment area a-la Meadowlark, I have only suggested a stop at 156 street and one at 170 street.


    Speaking of the Value Village lot... Would be nice to see something like this there:


    Sort of a suburban apartment building, but with retail in the podium to house the same VV and, perhaps, a Sobeys, a dollar store, a day care, a dentist, a SAAN store... To have a village feel.
    Last edited by grish; 15-12-2010 at 04:04 PM. Reason: additional info

  87. #187

    Default

    This article is on the arena, but this statement about the WLRT made me a bit upset:

    Mandel wants to take a second look at moving several blocks north to 107th Avenue, which is closer to several schools and might allow more development.

    “We’ve got no money to build it now anyway, so there’s no hurry … I’m not necessarily going to support changing it, but I don’t really believe at the time we gave a fair airing to the 107th Avenue option.”

    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...#ixzz18IIwaEzK


    I feel like WLRT will never happen.

  88. #188
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    wow! didn't see that coming. Didn't Mandel learn anything from Tony "I Want More Airport" Caterina?

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Calgary is now looking at building their next major line in a tunnel downtown. It'll probably be much more expensive than Edmonton's due to the higher water table. By the time the two cities systems are built out the costs will probably be much closer than they are now.
    Toronto is looking at building there major LRT expansion at grade.

    It's not our fault that Calgary planned there at grade LRT system poorly. Calgarys expansion won't be tunneled, and if they do it will end up uncompleted for years and years.... like ours was.

    The [plus side is that if they do try and go for this. we will get equal funding.. so that means we can build twice they stem on the same amount of money.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-12-2010 at 11:15 AM.
    "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

  90. #190
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ Toronto is a complicated mess with Ford wanting to cancel all current at grade projects and only do sub grade. I would not use TO as an example of anything good.

  91. #191

    Default

    Ford is one person..... who didn't run on much of anything other than being against everything.

    Toronto is a FINE example. It also has the best public transport system in Canada. IMO and the opinion of many others.
    "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. #192
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ not a fine example of planning, however. The eglinton subway had previously been dug for some length and then filled. Transit city on, transit city off. currently they exemplify what indecision can cause. the only reason they still have some success is they are canada's largest city and if they need something, the feds and the province trip over each other to deliver.

  93. #193

    Default

    Maybe we can revisit 87th avenue as well. I don't think we gave it a fair shot last go round either.

  94. #194

    Default

    I think the Mayor's office is trying to give me an aneurism.

  95. #195
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I think the Mayor's office is trying to give me an aneurism.
    look on the bright side:

    we can have some fun talking about whitemud, 87 ave, 95 ave, SPR, 107 ave, 111 ave that end at Callingwood, River cree, Lewis Estates wLRT options! That is 15 different permutations!

  96. #196
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    This article is on the arena, but this statement about the WLRT made me a bit upset:

    Mandel wants to take a second look at moving several blocks north to 107th Avenue, which is closer to several schools and might allow more development.

    “We’ve got no money to build it now anyway, so there’s no hurry … I’m not necessarily going to support changing it, but I don’t really believe at the time we gave a fair airing to the 107th Avenue option.”

    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...#ixzz18IIwaEzK


    I feel like WLRT will never happen.
    You can't really be mad at the mayor for this. The city can't build anything if the money isnt there. May as well look at other options as time isn't an issue.

  97. #197

    Cool

    at first, i was in support of the 87th avenue route. but let's face it, university avenue can't support an at grade train. it would have to go underground. and the way the edmonton clinic has been built, that can't happen any more because there is no space. also, even if the line went ahead, the lrt would travel through a "dead zone" for dozens of blocks. not very efficient.

    the spr route is the best after studying things. 107th is wider, but for the most part, residential homes back onto it. spr has homes AND businesses. and the lrt will bring renewal. i'm sorry to all those who are working on redeveloping spr now, but your efforts have not worked. it's still a place i will no venture out to. add the train, it brings more eyes to the street level. it brings low floor style stops, and if businesses market themselves properly, it gives a reason for people to get off. (because they know they can also get back on a train that is 5 minutes away) going down 107 will mean spr is voided by tens of thousand of potential customers. and the gentrification people there want won't happen.

    the biggest hurdle here is fear of change. fear 2 lanes of traffic will be eliminated. fear of low floor technology. rapid transit has proven time and time again of reducing congestion. low floor lrt will be less invasive than current high floor. the stops will be integrated into the sidewalk. the track, embedded in the road. the trains do travel fast. and new technology (wheel axles that rotate a little) will mean less noise/ rail grinding at turns.

    low floor lrt has been successfully used in many european cities. it goes by in front of homes/ businesses. it travels fast. and it goes through snowy conditions (see helsinki, finland) it's all at surface level.

    this is something edmontonians will use. imagine the "big city" feel churchill station will have when it becomes the centre of the lrt network.

    deal with the legitimate concerns about emergency vehicle/ industrial business access, etc. but let's move this project forward on the recommended route from transportation planners.
    Last edited by thatguy; 16-12-2010 at 01:33 PM.

  98. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    May as well look at other options as time isn't an issue.
    Yeah, but we did that already. For YEARS.

  99. #199

    Default

    http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/10...the-world.html

    So many of these have much more potential for a better system personally.
    I love the Tubo station but I also love the look of the Randstad overhead system.
    The functionality and cost effectiveness of the O-Bahn versus the sneakiness of the Bordeaux line.

    I HATE overhead powerlines. They're visual clutter and an eyesore. We spent so much time and money removing them but the best suggestion they've come up with is to put even bigger ones up. It has the aesthetic quality of hanging your laundry out to dry.

  100. #200

    Default

    ^re Bordeaux; What the page fails to mention is the underground electrical supply exists only on a small portion of the line. The rest of the system is overhead lines.
    "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

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •