Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 487

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

  1. #201
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    I don't like any of them other than maybe the Bordeaux.

  2. #202

    Default

    Holy cow.

    "The fastest and cheapest way to electrify transit is to install electric trolleybuses, such as the 224 state-of-the-art, made-in-Canada vehicles recently purchased for Vancouver. Trolleybuses on their own rights-of-way can provide the same capacity as LRT at a tenth of the capital cost."

    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...et-for-toronto

    Personally, electric trains would be the best. With new tech coming out all the time, the overhead lines are passe' if you want to do something exceptional. Battery systems are getting more powerful while reducing size, over-capacitors, brake-generators, and they're whisper quiet.

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^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.
    The Vancouver one is pure battery. So simple. It's a chasis, a motor, seats and batteries.

  4. #204

    Default

    Our Future. I love the clang of the bells.

    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-12-2010 at 04:35 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

  5. #205

    Default

    here you can see the contact arms lying down on top of the LRVs

    "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

  6. #206

    Default

    compared to this design...

    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-12-2010 at 04:36 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

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    compared to this design...

    Oh that is just brutal. Seriously, I couldn't imagine, a more bland, yet highly obtrusive system. With those stupid chain link fences everywhere, it looks just...wow. Terrible. I look at that railing along there and it reminds me of a small rural campground. Nasty.

  8. #208
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Wow, overreact much?

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    Wow, overreact much?
    Low standards much?

  10. #210

    Default

    It's an LRT system, not a fancy nightclub or restaurant.

    Maybe it should all be built out of slate and jade.

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It's an LRT system, not a fancy nightclub or restaurant.

    Maybe it should all be built out of slate and jade.
    It's a dated style of LRT. They'd be better off making it low floor and better signal crossings. Putting up fences everywhere blocks pedestrian traffic, cuts communities in half, and isn't very attractive.
    We have the chance to do better, may as well do it.
    What have you got against progress?

    Having each station look the same is lazy design btw.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It's an LRT system, not a fancy nightclub or restaurant.

    Maybe it should all be built out of slate and jade.
    It's a dated style of LRT. They'd be better off making it low floor and better signal crossings. Putting up fences everywhere blocks pedestrian traffic, cuts communities in half, and isn't very attractive.
    We have the chance to do better, may as well do it.
    What have you got against progress?

    Having each station look the same is lazy design btw.
    The did work in some good design to the new line, but its still over engineered. This will be the last of the old design.. Everything beyond here will be built using the new low floor design standards
    "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

  13. #213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our Future. I love the clang of the bells.

    Yes Medwards... because the streets of Bordeaux are paved in Jade and slate...

    Don't be a drama queen
    "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

  14. #214

    Default

    these high floor lines also have more capacity and much more capacity potential than the proposed low floor lrt system. If you want to call someone a drama queen, look at armin. If anything, its not too low of standards, its too many standards.

    Low floor LRT is better suited towards an urban environment. Edmonton lacks this urban environment save for the city center/oliver and strathcona/garneau. Outside of that, its one big sprawl from Fort Saskatchewan to Devon, St Albert to Beaumont
    Last edited by Medwards; 16-12-2010 at 10:05 PM.

  15. #215

    Default

    The funny thing about potential.... It's only valuable if its used.

    PErsonally.. I would rather have shorter trains more often than longer trains less...

    And your correct re the armin comment.
    "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

  16. #216

    Default

    You know what happens when we don't build things with the future in mind? We end up like Fox Drive/Whitemud/Terwilligar. Henday built without required interchanges. University avenue/114th street LRT crossing.

    I prefer a more intense system that will stand to future demands, rather than a system that will soon be lacking, and having to be re-thought/re-built. Penny pinching always ends up with a less than desirable outcome.

  17. #217

    Default

    Your assuming that the new design can't meet future demand.... however.
    "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

  18. #218

    Default

    I don't think its well suited for that, and I think we are really being sold a glorified street car.

  19. #219

    Default

    ^a glorified street car is what LRT is supposed to be (it is "light" rail transit, not "mass" rail transit), this approach has worked well in Calgary for example. It doesn't have to be over engineered and prohibitively expensive, such that we can never afford in our lifetimes a full city system.

  20. #220
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I think low-floor LRT will be great for neighbourhoods like Strathearn and Jasper Place. The grid pattern of these neighbourhoods will facilitate the low-floor system.

    I hope that city council does not move the west route to 107 Avenue.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't think its well suited for that, and I think we are really being sold a glorified street car.
    Try a street car on steroids..

    But hey lets not let the success of other systems around the world stand for anything..

    No sir re bob.. the best way to build a system is the way they did it in the 70's.. Nope we haven't learned anything in 40 years.
    "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

  22. #222
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    So you think the best idea is to do it the way we did 100 years ago?

  23. #223
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Some snippets about WLRT from the Mayor interview with Gordon Kent and David Staples.


    Mayor's can-do style has made him enemies
    By David Staples, edmontonjournal.com December 17, 2010

    It was a mistake to have the LRT not go under or over the road traffic on University Avenue and 51st Avenue on the south side, and it would be a mistake to build the west line without going either under or over 142nd and 149th streets, even though it costs more, Mandel says. "To say we're not going to worry about it and we're going to stop traffic everywhere isn't really a good solution. ... Why would we continue with a bad decision?"

    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...#ixzz18OXZVK19

  24. #224
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^a glorified street car is what LRT is supposed to be (it is "light" rail transit, not "mass" rail transit), this approach has worked well in Calgary for example. It doesn't have to be over engineered and prohibitively expensive, such that we can never afford in our lifetimes a full city system.
    Calgary has what now? Seriously, the C-train through downtown Calgary is not something we should be trying to emulate.

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    So you think the best idea is to do it the way we did 100 years ago?
    It's not the same way...

    and yes I do believe it is, and thats why systems like this and true in traffic street car systems are finding there way back into the urban landscapes...

    And why do you think looking 100 years back is helpful.. Because there were no massed produced Autos at the turn of the century....
    "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

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^a glorified street car is what LRT is supposed to be (it is "light" rail transit, not "mass" rail transit), this approach has worked well in Calgary for example. It doesn't have to be over engineered and prohibitively expensive, such that we can never afford in our lifetimes a full city system.
    Calgary has what now? Seriously, the C-train through downtown Calgary is not something we should be trying to emulate.
    And we aren't.. The C train was poorly designed... and is slow and should not be waiting at traffic lights.

    BUT that being said... The C train at street level has created what.. Amazing foot traffic DT, Street level shopping, places like stephen ave... Na we don't want that.. We need more people in Hamster tunnels under the city!
    "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

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Some snippets about WLRT from the Mayor interview with Gordon Kent and David Staples.


    Mayor's can-do style has made him enemies
    By David Staples, edmontonjournal.com December 17, 2010

    It was a mistake to have the LRT not go under or over the road traffic on University Avenue and 51st Avenue on the south side, and it would be a mistake to build the west line without going either under or over 142nd and 149th streets, even though it costs more, Mandel says. "To say we're not going to worry about it and we're going to stop traffic everywhere isn't really a good solution. ... Why would we continue with a bad decision?"

    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...#ixzz18OXZVK19
    Some more snippets..

    But he's an arm-twister and a doer, a force who has won mass support by pushing the city forward on key issues, such as LRT expansion, even as his enemies complain they've been steamrollered, as any downtown airport supporter will attest.

    All this made for a nasty election fight in October 2010, but Mandel handily won his third term as mayor. The majority endorsed his vision of an Edmonton hooked up by numerous LRT routes, with higher skyscrapers and more residents downtown, a new neighbourhood on the airport lands, and a new downtown arena district to revitalize the city's blighted northern edge and to secure the Edmonton Oilers franchise here.

    - end quote -


    He may have made enemies, but he has far more supporters.


    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...#ixzz18OdmTzHy
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-12-2010 at 12:29 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

  28. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't think its well suited for that, and I think we are really being sold a glorified street car.
    Try a street car on steroids..

    But hey lets not let the success of other systems around the world stand for anything..

    No sir re bob.. the best way to build a system is the way they did it in the 70's.. Nope we haven't learned anything in 40 years.
    Your assuming we have the environment that made those other systems successful. Your assuming we are applying it in the same method...

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't think its well suited for that, and I think we are really being sold a glorified street car.
    Try a street car on steroids..

    But hey lets not let the success of other systems around the world stand for anything..

    No sir re bob.. the best way to build a system is the way they did it in the 70's.. Nope we haven't learned anything in 40 years.
    Your assuming we have the environment that made those other systems successful. Your assuming we are applying it in the same method...
    I'm not assuming anything beyond that the experts in the field have some working knowledge of whats feasible and obtainable in out Physical as well as political climate.


    You are assuming... assuming that the planers and designers arn't aware of of our environment and needs, that they know nothing about ridership and usage, density and sustainable city design. Your also assuming that this system is a street car thusly linking it to start stop traffic. It's not.. It's an at grade ROW LRT, which is realistically fundable, Community friendlier and designer with more at mind then just moving people from the suburbs to DT quickly.

    so laugh away.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-12-2010 at 12:37 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

  30. #230

    Default

    I laugh at so called experts. They have no knowledge of Edmonton. The planners that are planning our system are pointing to Dublin as our lead examples of what our Low floor LRT system should look like.One of the experts many of us have bought into with hook line and sinker, tried to convince me that Edmonton already has similar density around its proposed LRT lines (SELRT/WLRT) as Dublin, and we should model after their system. Their system they want to mimick her, a low floor urban style system = doesn't reach out to sprawl low density neighbourhoods (which make up 90% of Edmonton) It sticks to the built up Urban Areas (areas similar to downtown/oliver and garneau/strathcona). Their low floor LRT is also complemented with Heavy Commuter Rail, and a much larger "high floor" *gasp* LRT system, not to mention effective Bus rapid transit.

  31. #231
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You are assuming... assuming that the planers and designers arn't aware of of our environment and needs, that they know nothing about ridership and usage, density and sustainable city design. Your also assuming that this system is a street car thusly linking it to start stop traffic. It's not.. It's an at grade ROW LRT, which is realistically fundable, Community friendlier and designer with more at mind then just moving people from the suburbs to DT quickly.
    Anyone who thinks politics was not involved in the decision to put street level LRT down Stony Plain Road has definitely NOT been paying attention. This included several very public dressing downs of the Transportation GM by the Mayor when the Transportation Department wanted to stick with 87 Avenue as the best route for West LRT.

    From the May 6, 2008 Journal:
    "Mandel favours a route along Stony Plain Road, and has recently criticized the "intransigence" of transportation planners who haven't changed their view that 87th Avenue is the best route.
    The committee voted today to postpone its hearing into the west-end LRT route from May 20 to Sept. 9.
    The transportation manager, Bob Boutilier, warned councillors that his department's recommendation — in favour of the 87th Avenue route — will be the same in September as in May.
    The mayor backed the community leagues' call for a delay. Several other councillors, however, said they see no need for delay, except the fact that the mayor says he's busy on May 20."
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...8-d760ac2ef065

    Well Transportation finally relented and went along with the Mayor's preferred route. And now the Mayor turns around and starts saying maybe SPR isn't the best route after all.

  32. #232

    Default

    ^ but the lrt isn't supposed to be designed for the suburbs...not at the expense of the communities and people who want to use it for more than just a trip to and from work.

    The people who live DT that will make the LRT the back bone of their transportation needs, NEED to be able to get places other than, commonwealth, Stadium and Park 'n Rides. They need access to places like southgate, the river valley, cultural attractions and neighborhoods.

    LOOK at Dublins Rail and LRT system. and look at there suburbs..

    http://www.dublintourist.com/maps/du..._version.shtml

    The LRT does not tie in or work with the Heavy rail line what so ever... it serves teh core as well as suburban areas that don't have heavy rail. Don't be so obtuse.. What credentials to you have that allows your dictate who has knowledge and who does not. Modern day Urban planers require a huge depth and breath ok knowledge Intense competitive schooling and further testing and education to become accredited. Your knowledge base is what exactly?

    Get some perspective. LEARN..

    And yes you can throw up some pictures of how LAUS was shut down for two days during the recent storm that hit Dublin..... so the system was down for two days out of how many years of operation due to a freak storm. A storm that disabled most of the coastal communities in that country and others. Thats no better than PRT posting an article about the big bad red rocket hurting a bus load of kids.

    Here is Metro Dublin in a nut shell


    population numbers

    Total 1,045,769
    City 506,211
    Suburbs 150,000
    – in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 188,761
    – in Fingal 114,623
    – in South Dublin 236,174

    The LAus system has 34 km of track... ours 20km.. The Laus is not some little urban system.

    It services the Suburbs and is well used. Better used than ours...
    By November 2006, over 50 million journeys had been made on the system.[9] Around 90,000 Luas trips are made each day. 28.4 million journeys were made in 2007.[10] 27.4 million journeys were made in 2008.[11] 25.4 million journeys were made in 2009.[12] To date, the busiest day on the Luas system was Friday, 21 December 2007 when 145,000 passenger journeys were recorded.[10]

    Not only that the system is run as a PPP... and it makes money.
    Luas operates without a State subvention. The service recorded a surplus of €985,000 (€680,000 in 2004) - an achievement well ahead of an anticipated deficit of €2.5 million.[13]

    Not only does it make money, not only does have great ridership and usage... It can also handle demand..

    Hours of operation and frequency
    Trams operate from 05:30 to 00:30 Monday to Friday. On Saturday the Green Line begins operating at 06:15, while the Red Line begins at 06:30. Both lines close at 00:30 on Saturday nights. On Sundays the Green Line runs from 06:45 to 23:30, while the Red Line runs from 07:00 to 23:30. Bank holidays are the same as Sundays, except trams run until 00:30. Services run at regular intervals, from every 4–5 minutes during peak times to every 15 minutes late at night.

    and finally the future of the system

    Under construction
    Line A1 – Tallaght to Saggart link. This will be a 4 km (2.5 mi) extension, funded by a Public Private Partnership with property developers. Originally intended to be a spur off the existing Red Line to Fortunestown, it was later decided to bring the line to Saggart.[36] Construction started on 9 February 2009, with the line scheduled to be complete by late 2010 and operating in early 2011. Transport Minister Noel Dempsey was in Citywest on 23 September to mark the start of track-laying through the Citywest Business Campus.[37]
    [edit]Planned under Transport 21
    It has emerged that the planned lines BX and D will be built together as line BXD.
    Line D – City Centre to Liffey Junction. This will serve Grangegorman, the site of the new DIT campus. This line will link with the Maynooth line. Construction has not yet started. The completion date is 2012. The RPA intends to apply for a Railway Order application to An Bord Pleanαla in 2009 for a combined Line D / Line BX Luas Line that will run from St. Stephen’s Green to Broombridge via the city centre and Broadstone / Grangegorman.
    Line BX – City Centre link for Red and Green Lines. The RPA started public consultation on the route in December 2005. In March 2007 the preferred route was announced.[38] This will see run from St. Stephens Green to College Green where the line changes from a double track to single track. From here it runs north through Westmoreland St., over O’Connell Bridge and along the west side of O’Connell St. to Cathal Brugha St. It then turns east into Cathal Brugha St. and turns south to run along Marlborough St., across the River Liffey on a new bridge, continues along Hawkins St. and College St. and joins up with the double track section of the line at College Green. Construction has not yet started. 2012 is the completion date given in the Transport 21 plans. The RPA intends to apply for a Railway Order application to An Bord Pleanαla soon for a combined Line D / Line BX Luas Line that will run from St. Stephen’s Green to Broombridge via the city centre and Broadstone / Grangegorman.[39]
    Line F1/2 – City Centre to Lucan. On 27 September 2007, Noel Dempsey (Minister for Transport) launched the public consultation process for the planned Luas line to Lucan. Two main route options have been identified, with a number of sub-options also identified. It is expected that it will link with Metro West. The preferred route was announced in November 2008 and the RPA are now planning the precise alignment and station and depot locations. Construction has not yet started. 2013 is the completion date given in the Transport 21 plan. The planning for the two lines has now been split in two. Line F1 will be the line from Lucan to where it will connect with the existing red line at Blackhorse and Line F2 will be where the line will leave the existing red line at James and continue on to College Green.
    Line B2 – Cherrywood to Bray environs extension (Green Line). This is an extension of 6.8 km (4.2 mi). On 6 June 2007, the route of this Luas extension was announced. It will run from Cherrywood to Fassaroe and Bray (adjacent to Daly station), and will run very close to the M11 motorway, eventually crossing it near the Wilford interchange. Construction has not yet started. It is predicted to open in 2015.
    [edit]Other projects
    In May 2008, the feasibility study for a possible Luas line E, to run from Dundrum to the City Centre via Rathfarnham, Terenure and Harold's Cross, was completed. The line was found to be feasible and it has been submitted to the Minister for Transport and awaits confirmation.
    With the success of the Luas system in Dublin, there is very strong support for bringing light rail to other Irish cities. During the 2007 election campaign Fianna Fαil and the Green Party both announced plans for light rail systems in Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Bray. The 2007 Programme for Government between these two parties and the Progressive Democrats included a section which ensured feasibility studies would be carried out on these projects within the first two years of the government.[40] Cork and Limerick were expected to complete their studies by "mid 2009".[41]
    "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

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You are assuming... assuming that the planers and designers arn't aware of of our environment and needs, that they know nothing about ridership and usage, density and sustainable city design. Your also assuming that this system is a street car thusly linking it to start stop traffic. It's not.. It's an at grade ROW LRT, which is realistically fundable, Community friendlier and designer with more at mind then just moving people from the suburbs to DT quickly.
    Anyone who thinks politics was not involved in the decision to put street level LRT down Stony Plain Road has definitely NOT been paying attention. This included several very public dressing downs of the Transportation GM by the Mayor when the Transportation Department wanted to stick with 87 Avenue as the best route for West LRT.

    From the May 6, 2008 Journal:
    "Mandel favours a route along Stony Plain Road, and has recently criticized the "intransigence" of transportation planners who haven't changed their view that 87th Avenue is the best route.
    The committee voted today to postpone its hearing into the west-end LRT route from May 20 to Sept. 9.
    The transportation manager, Bob Boutilier, warned councillors that his department's recommendation — in favour of the 87th Avenue route — will be the same in September as in May.
    The mayor backed the community leagues' call for a delay. Several other councillors, however, said they see no need for delay, except the fact that the mayor says he's busy on May 20."
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...8-d760ac2ef065

    Well Transportation finally relented and went along with the Mayor's preferred route. And now the Mayor turns around and starts saying maybe SPR isn't the best route after all.
    Thats right.. the routing changed because we and city council adopted a new vision for LRT, how it should be constructed and what it's purpose is..

    The overall design was voted in by council a council on which Mandel only has one vote. It was this decision that brought out design criteria and land usage strategies out of the 70's and into modern day.

    I am a strong supporter of SPR as are many...
    "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

  34. #234
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    So you think the best idea is to do it the way we did 100 years ago?
    It's not the same way...

    and yes I do believe it is, and thats why systems like this and true in traffic street car systems are finding there way back into the urban landscapes...

    And why do you think looking 100 years back is helpful.. Because there were no massed produced Autos at the turn of the century....
    Building a streetcar isn't going to turn back the clock and make the suburbs and the cars disappear. The suburbs have been there for generations now and are home to hundreds of thousands of citizens. It would make more sense to build an efficient mass transit system that serves the existing population and get more people out of their cars.

  35. #235
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    BUT that being said... The C train at street level has created what.. Amazing foot traffic DT, Street level shopping, places like stephen ave... Na we don't want that.. We need more people in Hamster tunnels under the city!
    You're mistaken if you think the C-Train is what creates the vibrant foot traffic in downtown Calgary. All those people are there because of the huge workforce present in downtown Calgary. The streets of downtown Calgary would be just as busy if the C-train travelled in your so called hamster tunnels. Edmonton needs to roll up its sleeves and really intensify the density of our downtown. Surface LRT does NOTHING to increase density. Sure, it will cause more traffic on other roads but it will not cause more residences to be built, restaurants to open, more retail, more HQ offices, etc etc etc... There's a long road we need to go down to make all these things happen.

  36. #236
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Some more snippets..

    But he's an arm-twister and a doer, a force who has won mass support by pushing the city forward on key issues, such as LRT expansion, even as his enemies complain they've been steamrollered, as any downtown airport supporter will attest.

    All this made for a nasty election fight in October 2010, but Mandel handily won his third term as mayor. The majority endorsed his vision of an Edmonton hooked up by numerous LRT routes, with higher skyscrapers and more residents downtown, a new neighbourhood on the airport lands, and a new downtown arena district to revitalize the city's blighted northern edge and to secure the Edmonton Oilers franchise here.

    - end quote -


    He may have made enemies, but he has far more supporters.


    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...#ixzz18OdmTzHy
    For the record - I am a Mandel supporter. However, that doesn't have to mean i agree with everything he has stood for.

    If anything, the comments we have heard from him over the last few days regarding the WLRT make it clear to me that he is seriously considering a rethink of the overall plan. Part of his initial attraction to the low floor system was purely based on the potential for low cost delivery. To this point in time there doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in that area. I mean, for $3B we could expand the existing network with a SE leg to Millwoods, a 87ave WLRT, and a 107th ave/SPR leg that splits off from the NLRT.

  37. #237
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    LOOK at Dublins Rail and LRT system. and look at there suburbs..

    http://www.dublintourist.com/maps/du..._version.shtml


    population numbers

    Total 1,045,769
    City 506,211
    Suburbs 150,000
    – in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 188,761
    – in Fingal 114,623
    – in South Dublin 236,174

    The LAus system has 34 km of track... ours 20km.. The Laus is not some little urban system.

    It services the Suburbs and is well used. Better used than ours...

    By November 2006, over 50 million journeys had been made on the system.[9] Around 90,000 Luas trips are made each day. 28.4 million journeys were made in 2007.[10] 27.4 million journeys were made in 2008.[11] 25.4 million journeys were made in 2009.[12] To date, the busiest day on the Luas system was Friday, 21 December 2007 when 145,000 passenger journeys were recorded.[10]

    Not only that the system is run as a PPP... and it makes money.
    Luas operates without a State subvention. The service recorded a surplus of €985,000 (€680,000 in 2004) - an achievement well ahead of an anticipated deficit of €2.5 million.[13]

    Those 90,000 trips on the LUAS are split between two separate lines. Our current single line LRT does 75,000 daily so i would say ours is more heavily used. Despite our city having less than half the density of Dublin.

    According to Wikipedia, ridership on the LUAS has been dropping over the last 3 years.

  38. #238
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Our system is around 100,000 trips/day with the SLRT now running.

  39. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    I mean, for $3B we could expand the existing network with a SE leg to Millwoods, a 87ave WLRT, and a 107th ave/SPR leg that splits off from the NLRT.
    Do you have some evidence to support that? The 87 Ave leg alone had a similar cost to SPR low floor (i.,e. a considerably higher cost per kilometer). The SE leg to Millwoods has been said repeatedly by the city that it would have been prohibitively expensive if it had needed to tunnel into the existing tunnels, those two legs alone would have been more than $3billion, without even adding in NAIT and your SPR line.

    Our LRT gets good ridership, but it depends what you compare it to, Calgary C-Train has much higher ridership, for a very similar build cost. So who got the better deal? Edmonton, with a slightly faster system that only goes to a couple of locations, or Calgary who built out much of the City already? Low floor allows us to emulate Calgary, only better.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-12-2010 at 07:25 AM.

  40. #240

    Default

    Funny thing about those costs... The 87 avenue was costed at the height of the construction boom. Spr has been done recently when prices are lower. Worth noting as well... The shorter 87avenue route had higher ridership predictions.

  41. #241

    Default

    Edmontons lrt actually has higher passenger per km than Calgary! We don't have total passenger numbers -- but we don't have the length pf system Calgary does. Calgary had Olympics pay for a large portion ofthe system. We have expo 2017... Oh wait...

  42. #242

    Default

    It's row design not low floor vs high floor.

  43. #243

    Default

    I prefer the lrt in downtown Edmonton to the one downtown Calgary. Cheaping out is not the way to go here. In the long run we are thankful for the tunnel downtown. I hear calgarians wishing they built a tunnel instead

  44. #244

    Default

    i think many people are worried low floor lrt will be slow. it can be, but those vehicles are designed to run up to 80 km per hour as well. we see them running slowly in european cities because they don't have purlely dedicated rights-of-ways everywhere. in edmonton, they are designing it so the low floor lrt will have a dedicated right-of-way everywhere. this will ensure travel speeds at minimum of 50 kph. it will be slower in the dt.

    as for spr vs 107, again it comes down to the question do you want the lrt to serve just the dt or have it serve the dt and area business districts. going down spr will serve spr. i don't know why people don't comprehend that. yes, cars will be displaced, but you forget, many of those car drivers will take the lrt. and 107 can be used as the alternative for the drivers.

  45. #245

    Default

    A dedicate right of way with cross traffic on it every few blocks will negate and rapidiness to it due to safety requirements. 50 km/h with stops every couple of blocks will be no different than a speed of a bus. Might as well just build better bus lanes. Would be hell of a lot more cheaper.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Edmontons lrt actually has higher passenger per km than Calgary!
    That's pretty easy to acheive when you build a short "Cadilac" system, instead of a much larger system for the same money. On a ridership per price basis, there is no comparison, Calgary has served far more neighborhoods and has far more people riding LRT for roughly the same total spend.

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    i think many people are worried low floor lrt will be slow. it can be, but those vehicles are designed to run up to 80 km per hour as well. we see them running slowly in european cities because they don't have purlely dedicated rights-of-ways everywhere. in edmonton, they are designing it so the low floor lrt will have a dedicated right-of-way everywhere. this will ensure travel speeds at minimum of 50 kph. it will be slower in the dt.

    as for spr vs 107, again it comes down to the question do you want the lrt to serve just the dt or have it serve the dt and area business districts. going down spr will serve spr. i don't know why people don't comprehend that. yes, cars will be displaced, but you forget, many of those car drivers will take the lrt. and 107 can be used as the alternative for the drivers.
    It doesn't serve the people on SPR because there's only 2 stops at the beginning and end of the strip. It does nothing for people who live along there because they'll be forced to walk a longer distance to a station, as opposed to the number of buses that currently stop on every block.

    That's 7 blocks in between that won't be served by the big machine cutting straight down their street. Easy fix is putting in more stops, but then you lose trip time. You have a choice. Fast or practical. You can't have both.

  48. #248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Edmontons lrt actually has higher passenger per km than Calgary!
    That's pretty easy to acheive when you build a short "Cadilac" system, instead of a much larger system for the same money. On a ridership per price basis, there is no comparison, Calgary has served far more neighborhoods and has far more people riding LRT for roughly the same total spend.
    Can you please provide a source for your construction costs? How much more is Calgary going to have to spend now that they actually want a downtown LRT tunnel?

    Calgary was able to continue LRT construction between 92-05 while Edmonton stopped its, and it stopping had little to do with the price of the tunnel. A big reason why Calgary's system is larger, is that they've had more continuous investment into it, while we stopped building for 15 years.

  49. #249
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    I mean, for $3B we could expand the existing network with a SE leg to Millwoods, a 87ave WLRT, and a 107th ave/SPR leg that splits off from the NLRT.
    Do you have some evidence to support that? The 87 Ave leg alone had a similar cost to SPR low floor (i.,e. a considerably higher cost per kilometer). The SE leg to Millwoods has been said repeatedly by the city that it would have been prohibitively expensive if it had needed to tunnel into the existing tunnels, those two legs alone would have been more than $3billion, without even adding in NAIT and your SPR line.
    An analysis should be done of how much extra it would cost to keep the SE line underground using cut and cover for 3 more blocks and have it terminate south of the Winspear. I suspect it would be minimal relative to the overall line cost.

    The City would also be well-served to have an analysis done (by a disinterested third party expert) on WLRT comparing;
    *the all-in property acquisition, capital and operating costs of 87 Avenue (using high floor), and SPR or 107 Avenue (using low floor) from Lewis Estates to Churchill Station
    *forecast ridership on the 3 routes on opening day and in 30 years
    *travel times on the 3 routes from Lewis Estates to Churchill Station.

    I'd be prepared to bet dollars to donuts that 87 Avenue would come in at the lowest overall cost, with the highest ridership, and the fastest travel times.

  50. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    I'd be prepared to bet dollars to donuts that 87 Avenue would come in at the lowest overall cost, with the highest ridership, and the fastest travel times.
    I'd be prepared to bet that it would have a much higher cost per kilometer, serve fewer neighborhoods, and do less for promoting a denser city (but do more for making sprawl more attractive).

    So? No amount of analysis is going to change that the "best" route depends on what the "best" goals are, and like it or not, people have different views on that. Our current Council has different views than past Councils who preferred sprawl over revitalization, the change in WLRT plan from suburban/regional to urban reflects that.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-12-2010 at 09:09 PM.

  51. #251
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    ^I agree it shouldn't be about speed from the suburbs to downtown.

  52. #252
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    I mean, for $3B we could expand the existing network with a SE leg to Millwoods, a 87ave WLRT, and a 107th ave/SPR leg that splits off from the NLRT.
    Do you have some evidence to support that? The 87 Ave leg alone had a similar cost to SPR low floor (i.,e. a considerably higher cost per kilometer). The SE leg to Millwoods has been said repeatedly by the city that it would have been prohibitively expensive if it had needed to tunnel into the existing tunnels, those two legs alone would have been more than $3billion, without even adding in NAIT and your SPR line.
    Funny. In one sentence you accuse me of not supporting my figures and in the next sentence you make up one of your own.

    My number is based on existing estimates that have been bandied about over the last couple of years.

    The 87th ave route was pegged at $1.1B at the same time the SPR route was pegged at $1.2B.

    The 107th ave route was also pegged at $1.2B if it went all the way to WEM and Lewis Estates. I believe that number also included tunneling into Churchill station. As the tunnel is already being done as part of NLRT then this route could split off from the 105th ave MU station. Also, this line would only have to terminate at Jasper Place as the 87th ave route already goes to WEM and Lewis Estates. I would guess that this could be done at less than half the original estimate. So say $600M.

    The SELRT would be exactly the same except that the tunnel would not surface. Instead it would join up with Churchill Station(heading north) or Central Station(heading west). This extra tunneling is similar in length to the one currently being built for NLRT. I believe the cost estimate for that was in the neighbourhood of $150M. So let's say $1.15B.

    All in, that is less than $3B. And yes, that is a guestimate. But it is based on real figures that the city seems comfortable using for the last several years.

  53. #253
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The SE leg to Millwoods has been said repeatedly by the city that it would have been prohibitively expensive if it had needed to tunnel into the existing tunnels,
    Said where? It was never studied in detail to start with.

  54. #254
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I wonder what the cost of an LRT tunnel between 142 and 149 Street would be. I agree, it wouldn't be cheap, but it might be worth consideration given the volume of traffic on this leg.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  55. #255
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    I mean, for $3B we could expand the existing network with a SE leg to Millwoods, a 87ave WLRT, and a 107th ave/SPR leg that splits off from the NLRT.
    Do you have some evidence to support that? The 87 Ave leg alone had a similar cost to SPR low floor (i.,e. a considerably higher cost per kilometer). The SE leg to Millwoods has been said repeatedly by the city that it would have been prohibitively expensive if it had needed to tunnel into the existing tunnels, those two legs alone would have been more than $3billion, without even adding in NAIT and your SPR line.
    An analysis should be done of how much extra it would cost to keep the SE line underground using cut and cover for 3 more blocks and have it terminate south of the Winspear. I suspect it would be minimal relative to the overall line cost.

    The City would also be well-served to have an analysis done (by a disinterested third party expert) on WLRT comparing;
    *the all-in property acquisition, capital and operating costs of 87 Avenue (using high floor), and SPR or 107 Avenue (using low floor) from Lewis Estates to Churchill Station
    *forecast ridership on the 3 routes on opening day and in 30 years
    *travel times on the 3 routes from Lewis Estates to Churchill Station.

    I'd be prepared to bet dollars to donuts that 87 Avenue would come in at the lowest overall cost, with the highest ridership, and the fastest travel times.
    Hmmm, don't you think the city has done the studies? I highly doubt the LRT planners just sat in a room talking to each other saying, "do that, and that and that for no apparent reason."
    All those questions and a whole lot more were asked and considered when planning the routes. What makes you think that non of those questions were asked? I will concede that maybe a few questions that the planners didn't think of, like how the LRT will affect the Feng Shui of the city didn't get addressed but I don't think that should be worried about too much.

    Yeah, you know having the LRT underground for an extra 2 blocks, 3 blocks would be minimal in comparison to the overall cost but that really it spinning the info to your own favor. On a 2 billion dollar project sure 100 000 or 400 000 is not much compared to the overall cost, but do you have an additional 100 000 to give the city, because using your logic that isn't much in comparison, so it should be easy to add it in. Even an extra 5 million dollars doesn't really even seem like much compared to the whole cost, but let's really look at that. If the planning has to be altered for every area that someone wants something different, eventually we will have another billion dollars added up for all the accomodations.

    Away from the dollar issue, I love the attitudes of nimby's, it is so narrow minded and clear of thought, it's sickining. I was listening to this one nimby at one of the info sessions and she basicly said that, no the LRT shouldn't go up connors hill because of noise and whetever other excuse she could think of, but if the LRT went up the hill along 98ave past other houses it would be fine over there. Or another guy saying that it's not fair to have the tracks run up connors closer to the ski hill instead of closer to the houses along the top of connors. He was sugesting that those residents are being treated with preference because of where their houses are. Really what he was saying was that he wanted the LRT further away from him and have it as someone else's problem. It is so damn tiring to hear complaint after complaint about how inconvinienced people will be and how cut throat these people are in that some are willing to see the LRT goes right through someones property just as long as it isn't near them. Nimby's should all go to hell or Calgary (which is the same thing)

    Anyways, back to my previous rant, the last thing I want to see is another stupid study researching the merits of things that have already been decided upon. This city has studied things to death and never gets anything done. I've been so happy that the city lately has finally decided to forge ahead with LRT and through as much public consultation as would be considered reasonable have come up with plans. There is no longer time for more consultations and studies and revision and changes and... While Edmonton is being held back, our ugly sisters from the south of cowtown have been expanding their current LRT lines and are going to be opening a brand new line before the NAIT line will even be completed.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  56. #256
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I wonder what the cost of an LRT tunnel between 142 and 149 Street would be. I agree, it wouldn't be cheap, but it might be worth consideration given the volume of traffic on this leg.
    Enough with tunnels already!
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  57. #257
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Dear Mr. Mandel,

    please do not feed the beast. Opening the wLRT route for changes is edmonton's equivalent to Pandora's box. Please see the above posts for proof,

    grish

  58. #258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Dear Mr. Mandel,

    please do not feed the beast. Opening the wLRT route for changes is edmonton's equivalent to Pandora's box. Please see the above posts for proof,

    grish
    I see you are finally coming to your senses about your above posts about re-routing the LRT along 95 avenue and 170 street.

  59. #259

    Default

    I had to travel several times down Stoney Plain Road this weekend. I don't know how they will ever fit an LRT train down it. SPR is narrowed down to a single lane because they have left a 6ft wide and 4 ft high windrow down a busy arterial route.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #260

    Default

    I think they will clear the snow completely from this section when its built...

  61. #261
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I had to travel several times down Stoney Plain Road this weekend. I don't know how they will ever fit an LRT train down it. SPR is narrowed down to a single lane because they have left a 6ft wide and 4 ft high windrow down a busy arterial route.
    I think this is proof that the road can function with reduced lanes of traffic. If it can still work with one lane in each direction being taken up by windrow, it can work with one lane in each direction being taken up by an LRT. I am sure they will make complete removal of snow a priority once this LRT is built.

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    LOOK at Dublins Rail and LRT system. and look at there suburbs..

    http://www.dublintourist.com/maps/du..._version.shtml


    population numbers

    Total 1,045,769
    City 506,211
    Suburbs 150,000
    – in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 188,761
    – in Fingal 114,623
    – in South Dublin 236,174

    The LAus system has 34 km of track... ours 20km.. The Laus is not some little urban system.

    It services the Suburbs and is well used. Better used than ours...

    By November 2006, over 50 million journeys had been made on the system.[9] Around 90,000 Luas trips are made each day. 28.4 million journeys were made in 2007.[10] 27.4 million journeys were made in 2008.[11] 25.4 million journeys were made in 2009.[12] To date, the busiest day on the Luas system was Friday, 21 December 2007 when 145,000 passenger journeys were recorded.[10]

    Not only that the system is run as a PPP... and it makes money.
    Luas operates without a State subvention. The service recorded a surplus of €985,000 (€680,000 in 2004) - an achievement well ahead of an anticipated deficit of €2.5 million.[13]

    Those 90,000 trips on the LUAS are split between two separate lines. Our current single line LRT does 75,000 daily so i would say ours is more heavily used. Despite our city having less than half the density of Dublin.

    According to Wikipedia, ridership on the LUAS has been dropping over the last 3 years.
    Yep and our system is .. 40 years old... and Laus is ....5.

    Laus is profitable... ours is subsidized...

    And as other have pointed out Dublin also has commuter rail, which may or may not affect ridership level... I'm just throwing out that last point for fun it's totally hypothetical.
    "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

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    LOOK at Dublins Rail and LRT system. and look at there suburbs..

    http://www.dublintourist.com/maps/du..._version.shtml


    population numbers

    Total 1,045,769
    City 506,211
    Suburbs 150,000
    – in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 188,761
    – in Fingal 114,623
    – in South Dublin 236,174

    The LAus system has 34 km of track... ours 20km.. The Laus is not some little urban system.

    It services the Suburbs and is well used. Better used than ours...

    By November 2006, over 50 million journeys had been made on the system.[9] Around 90,000 Luas trips are made each day. 28.4 million journeys were made in 2007.[10] 27.4 million journeys were made in 2008.[11] 25.4 million journeys were made in 2009.[12] To date, the busiest day on the Luas system was Friday, 21 December 2007 when 145,000 passenger journeys were recorded.[10]

    Not only that the system is run as a PPP... and it makes money.
    Luas operates without a State subvention. The service recorded a surplus of €985,000 (€680,000 in 2004) - an achievement well ahead of an anticipated deficit of €2.5 million.[13]

    Those 90,000 trips on the LUAS are split between two separate lines. Our current single line LRT does 75,000 daily so i would say ours is more heavily used. Despite our city having less than half the density of Dublin.

    According to Wikipedia, ridership on the LUAS has been dropping over the last 3 years.

    Ridership dropped for the first time in 2009.. Wiki has nothing on 2010 or 2011...

    And do ya think that just might have something to do with a global economic crash.. from which Ireland is still struggling strongly with.. and an unemployment rate that went from below 5% to above 11%...

    Just maybe... but who am I to know?
    "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

  64. #264
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I'd be prepared to bet that it would have a much higher cost per kilometer,
    Cost per km is irrelevant if the few km have a lot of utility. Cost per rider is much more useful.

    serve fewer neighborhoods,
    Why do we assume that a neighbourhood is only served if it's within walking distance of a station. I have great LRT service, It's just a short, direct, bus ride away. It's very possible that the line with fewer stations and fewer people within walking distance could provide far more people with improved transit service. Since we all know that we'll never have enough LRT to be within waking distance of a station we need to recognize that we're not talking about an LRT system only, We're talking about a LRT and bus system.

    and do less for promoting a denser city (but do more for making sprawl more attractive).
    I cant' argue that, but as long as park&ride is limited and charged for, it shouldn't be a disaster. Planning is the bigger issue wither sprawl.

  65. #265
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    LOOK at Dublins Rail and LRT system. and look at there suburbs..

    http://www.dublintourist.com/maps/du..._version.shtml


    population numbers

    Total 1,045,769
    City 506,211
    Suburbs 150,000
    – in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown 188,761
    – in Fingal 114,623
    – in South Dublin 236,174

    The LAus system has 34 km of track... ours 20km.. The Laus is not some little urban system.

    It services the Suburbs and is well used. Better used than ours...

    By November 2006, over 50 million journeys had been made on the system.[9] Around 90,000 Luas trips are made each day. 28.4 million journeys were made in 2007.[10] 27.4 million journeys were made in 2008.[11] 25.4 million journeys were made in 2009.[12] To date, the busiest day on the Luas system was Friday, 21 December 2007 when 145,000 passenger journeys were recorded.[10]

    Not only that the system is run as a PPP... and it makes money.
    Luas operates without a State subvention. The service recorded a surplus of €985,000 (€680,000 in 2004) - an achievement well ahead of an anticipated deficit of €2.5 million.[13]

    Those 90,000 trips on the LUAS are split between two separate lines. Our current single line LRT does 75,000 daily so i would say ours is more heavily used. Despite our city having less than half the density of Dublin.

    According to Wikipedia, ridership on the LUAS has been dropping over the last 3 years.

    Ridership dropped for the first time in 2009.. Wiki has nothing on 2010 or 2011...

    And do ya think that just might have something to do with a global economic crash.. from which Ireland is still struggling strongly with.. and an unemployment rate that went from below 5% to above 11%...

    Just maybe... but who am I to know?
    If you're willing to blame the decline on the global economy, then you must be willing to credit their impressive redevelopment values to the unprecedented real estate boom that Ireland experienced in the run-up to the crash, and a big reason that Ireland has been so hard hit.

  66. #266

    Default

    Okay that explains why the crash happened, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
    "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

  67. #267

    Default

    Why don't we just go down Mackinnon and straight down 100th ave?
    You could run the entire thing down the side of the hill to Grandin and have it meet up with the existing system. Go underground on the west side of 149th right by the church. That is the most narrow corridor of housing in the entire area as opposed to the STP route which runs on flat ground through a very dense and mature neighborhood.

    Everyone wants the convenience but no one want the problems.
    The west end's biggest problem is the rich guys who live right by the museum. They have enough clout to stop an LRT from ripping up their kid's tobaggan hill.
    However, that can be mostly solved by building bunkerstyle along the side of the ravine and terraforming over the tracks.

    It's not perfect, but it's cheap and utilizes the most unused space in the area and would be perfect for camo-netting most of the problems. You can put it in the treeline and use the roof as a secondary greenscaped path with nicely lit walkways and bikepaths.

    It would be pretty zen actually since there'd still be trees on both sides which would be a natural noise barrier. People who live there would not even notice the trains.
    It would also give another tier to the river valley, which would rule for Canada Day fireworks viewers and save people from having to fight climbing up and down the hill.
    Plus, if you're at the driving range, you can try and hit the train.

  68. #268
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Okay that explains why the crash happened, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
    Because the developments around LUAS have been cited as a proof that low-floor LRT drives development. The development attraction factor was arguably the biggest factor in choosing Stony plain road over 87 avenue, at least officially, but in reality you could probably find several corridors in Dublin that have had similarly impressive development records over that time.

  69. #269
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Because the developments around LUAS have been cited as a proof that low-floor LRT drives development. The development attraction factor was arguably the biggest factor in choosing Stony plain road over 87 avenue, at least officially, but in reality you could probably find several corridors in Dublin that have had similarly impressive development records over that time.
    Dublin's development has probably been distorted somewhat by Ireland's over heated real estate market.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Okay that explains why the crash happened, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
    Because the developments around LUAS have been cited as a proof that low-floor LRT drives development. The development attraction factor was arguably the biggest factor in choosing Stony plain road over 87 avenue, at least officially, but in reality you could probably find several corridors in Dublin that have had similarly impressive development records over that time.
    Go down 100th. Why would you put a train down a main street and not have any stops along it? Put too many stops and it'll be too slow for long trip riders. Easiest way is to use the wider space that's only a block away and make the new LRT stop where the Dairy Queen is. All of those apartments in between there could be redone through redevelopment.

    You could fill those blocks with new urban low/mid/high range housing easily. The Safeway is nice. With quick access downtown, that would be a great place to live. With more money there, you need more businesses to service the needs. That being only a really short walk, you could have a nice starting point.

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Okay that explains why the crash happened, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
    Because the developments around LUAS have been cited as a proof that low-floor LRT drives development. The development attraction factor was arguably the biggest factor in choosing Stony plain road over 87 avenue, at least officially, but in reality you could probably find several corridors in Dublin that have had similarly impressive development records over that time.
    So now Development and infill is bad... and the small percentage of development along an LRT corridor is the sole reason why Ireland's economy crashed.

    Or was this smart development that has better held it value through tough economic times? .. you do the research and get back to us on that ok.

    Your reaching to too far to try to connect two obscure dots.
    "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

  72. #272
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Dear Mr. Mandel,

    please do not feed the beast. Opening the wLRT route for changes is edmonton's equivalent to Pandora's box. Please see the above posts for proof,

    grish
    It is certainly not too late to ensure that the route chosen for WLRT is based on the best possible facts.

    The 87 Avenue and 107 Avenue routes have already been studied in detail during the 2004 to 2008 period by Stantec and ISL. The SPR route has been studied in detail by the City's new UK based consultants since the Transportation Department flip-flop.

    Prior to proceeding further with WLRT, the City would be well-advised to bring in an impartial third party transportation expert to review all of the available information of the above 3 route options. The objective would be to examine the 3 route options from a total cost, ridership and travel time point of view.

  73. #273
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    well, in that case, I would like to revisit the Jasper Avenue option, the ravine option, the 95 avenue option, the Fox Drive option and consider changing the end of the line from Lewis Estates to Callingwood.

    Let's go!

  74. #274

    Default

    I think the only redesign is going to be how the system interacts with a few key intersections.

    IMO
    "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

  75. #275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I had to travel several times down Stoney Plain Road this weekend. I don't know how they will ever fit an LRT train down it. SPR is narrowed down to a single lane because they have left a 6ft wide and 4 ft high windrow down a busy arterial route.
    I think this is proof that the road can function with reduced lanes of traffic. If it can still work with one lane in each direction being taken up by windrow, it can work with one lane in each direction being taken up by an LRT. I am sure they will make complete removal of snow a priority once this LRT is built.
    So a weekend level of traffic (likely a sunday - due to the day of the posting) you figure this would be comparable to rush hour traffic along this route? I don't think this is proof at all. This road is strangled with traffic during a summer rush hour commute with all lanes available...

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    well, in that case, I would like to revisit the Jasper Avenue option, the ravine option, the 95 avenue option, the Fox Drive option and consider changing the end of the line from Lewis Estates to Callingwood.

    Let's go!
    Don't forget about the 87th avenue (faster/cheaper/has more immediate riders, and higher ridership potential than the current approved routing)

  77. #277
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Okay that explains why the crash happened, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
    Because the developments around LUAS have been cited as a proof that low-floor LRT drives development. The development attraction factor was arguably the biggest factor in choosing Stony plain road over 87 avenue, at least officially, but in reality you could probably find several corridors in Dublin that have had similarly impressive development records over that time.
    So now Development and infill is bad... and the small percentage of development along an LRT corridor is the sole reason why Ireland's economy crashed.

    Or was this smart development that has better held it value through tough economic times? .. you do the research and get back to us on that ok.

    Your reaching to too far to try to connect two obscure dots.
    I don't know how you could possibly misunderstand me so much.

    My point is that low floor LRT is not the magic development incentive as has sometimes been claimed. That is all.

  78. #278
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Yep and our system is .. 40 years old... and Laus is ....5.

    Laus is profitable... ours is subsidized...

    And as other have pointed out Dublin also has commuter rail, which may or may not affect ridership level... I'm just throwing out that last point for fun it's totally hypothetical.
    Profitable is a subjective term sometimes.
    http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/...story15268.asp

    The operator of Luas is not required to pay back all construction costs, otherwise it would be operating at a significant loss.

    Also, if you separated Edmonton's LRT network into a separate entity from ETS like the Luas then you might be able to compare them more fairly. You pay twice in dublin if you want to transfer from a bus on to the Luas. In Edmonton it is one integrated system that lets you transfer freely between the different modes.

  79. #279
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Ridership dropped for the first time in 2009.. Wiki has nothing on 2010 or 2011...

    And do ya think that just might have something to do with a global economic crash.. from which Ireland is still struggling strongly with.. and an unemployment rate that went from below 5% to above 11%...

    Just maybe... but who am I to know?

    From the same article....
    Around 90,000 Luas trips are made each day. 28.4 million journeys were made in 2007. 27.4 million journeys were made in 2008. 25.4 million journeys were made in 2009.

    According to this, it dropped in 2008 and again in 2009. So we were both wrong. 2010 numbers will not be available until early 2011.

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Okay that explains why the crash happened, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
    Because the developments around LUAS have been cited as a proof that low-floor LRT drives development. The development attraction factor was arguably the biggest factor in choosing Stony plain road over 87 avenue, at least officially, but in reality you could probably find several corridors in Dublin that have had similarly impressive development records over that time.
    So now Development and infill is bad... and the small percentage of development along an LRT corridor is the sole reason why Ireland's economy crashed.

    Or was this smart development that has better held it value through tough economic times? .. you do the research and get back to us on that ok.

    Your reaching to too far to try to connect two obscure dots.
    I don't know how you could possibly misunderstand me so much.

    My point is that low floor LRT is not the magic development incentive as has sometimes been claimed. That is all.
    Sorry I was not on the same "track" as you..

    Could not resist. Lrt does spur development however.. We just need to look at our current system to see that. The mess that is clairview.. Enterprise Square.. Century Park..
    "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

  81. #281
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Sorry I was not on the same "track" as you..

    Could not resist. Lrt does spur development however.. We just need to look at our current system to see that. The mess that is clairview.. Enterprise Square.. Century Park..
    I'm not sure that those are examples of LRT spurring development, after all, there are similar to those at clairview at all kinds of transit-remote locations around the city.

    There have been numbers from Dublin, and Pheonix, and others claiming that X billion in developments were built along the LRT corridor, but there is never any attempt to prove that the development is actually boosted by LRT.

    You could show that some obscenely hugh sum has been spend around Health sciences station, but it's clear to me anyway that with or without LRT the Mazankowski Heart Hospital and the Edmonton clinic would have been built there.

  82. #282

    Default

    Doesn't it go without saying though that being near an LRT station makes it a more desirable location.. we can see that reflected in increased property values and quicker property sales.

    the 3 key words.. location location location.

    No one factor makes development happen.. I think it's many key things coming together which allow for certain TYPES of development to happen. For Example it's had to have TOD development without a strong transit link. Thusly we tend to find more high density development in mixed use areas.. do we see high rises in the middle of suburbia? No.. so the next question becomes why don't we. I would assume thats because people collusive to that style of living expect certain types of amenities and a certain lifestyle which the suburbs don't offer. (Like easy access to LRT)

    Thusly because being close to the LRT allows you to charge more of your unit (in theory and in general) A developer can make more money on said development than he would if the development was located elsewhere that lacked the same connectivity.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 21-12-2010 at 03:34 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

  83. #283

    Default

    There's a ton of different factors into what makes a development successful.
    Location is a broad term.
    Location to what?
    To work? to LRT? To good amenities?
    Maybe it's a great location but it backs onto a dump.

    Solutions have to be tailor made to make developments successful. You can't just live off the 'Field of Dreams' cliche' If you build it they will come. It doesn't work that way. That's why realtors have to give incentives for buyers. If it was such a great place, they can sell it on it's own merit. We always 'sell up' though.

    The current trends being pushed by the urban dev thinktanks is tight neighborhoods where people can live without really needing to leave. The idea of commuting is becoming less relevant when companies can build their offices in industrial parks close to housing developments. Strip malls are being redeveloped into liveable, affordable residences with shops underneath that take care of the essentials.

    Those kinds of locations are great for LRT hubs but you still don't get the ridership unless the route/ trip experience is tolerable for the end user. You have to make communities walkable if you expect them to leave their cars at home. This means providing good transport and easy access.

  84. #284

    Default

    [QUOTE=highlander;338992]
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post


    There have been numbers from Dublin, and Pheonix, and others claiming that X billion in developments were built along the LRT corridor, but there is never any attempt to prove that the development is actually boosted by LRT.
    I'm pretty sure that if you care to dig into the urban planning literature (a google scholar search is a cheap and dirty way to get started), you'll find several peer reviewed studies attempting to quantify the development effect associated with varying forms of transit. I recall reading something about the street car line in Portland and the development it helped spur in the Pearl District - I don't recall whether it was journalistic or peer reviewed.

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure that owning the property rights around their stations is one reason the transit authority in Hong Kong is one of the few profit producing transit agencies in the world
    Last edited by mick; 21-12-2010 at 07:52 PM.

  85. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Not ME


    There have been numbers from Dublin, and Pheonix, and others claiming that X billion in developments were built along the LRT corridor, but there is never any attempt to prove that the development is actually boosted by LRT.
    I'm pretty sure that if you care to dig into the urban planning literature (a google scholar search is a cheap and dirty way to get started), you'll find several peer reviewed studies attempting to quantify the development effect associated with varying forms of transit. I recall reading something about the street car line in Portland and the development it helped spur in the Pearl District - I don't recall whether it was journalistic or peer reviewed.

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure that owning the property rights around their stations is one reason the transit authority in Hong Kong is one of the few profit producing transit agencies in the world
    Just going to fix that...
    "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. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    There's a ton of different factors into what makes a development successful.
    Location is a broad term.
    Location to what?
    To work? to LRT? To good amenities?
    Maybe it's a great location but it backs onto a dump.

    Solutions have to be tailor made to make developments successful. You can't just live off the 'Field of Dreams' cliche' If you build it they will come. It doesn't work that way. That's why realtors have to give incentives for buyers. If it was such a great place, they can sell it on it's own merit. We always 'sell up' though.

    The current trends being pushed by the urban dev thinktanks is tight neighborhoods where people can live without really needing to leave. The idea of commuting is becoming less relevant when companies can build their offices in industrial parks close to housing developments. Strip malls are being redeveloped into liveable, affordable residences with shops underneath that take care of the essentials.

    Those kinds of locations are great for LRT hubs but you still don't get the ridership unless the route/ trip experience is tolerable for the end user. You have to make communities walkable if you expect them to leave their cars at home. This means providing good transport and easy access.
    If it backs onto a dump i don't think it's a great or even good location.. do you?

    I understand what your getting at.
    "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

  87. #287

    Default

    ^
    Point is, we can't always control the surroundings. Using a static approach for a dynamic situation sometimes calls for bespoke planning.

  88. #288
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    [QUOTE=mick;339034]
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post


    There have been numbers from Dublin, and Pheonix, and others claiming that X billion in developments were built along the LRT corridor, but there is never any attempt to prove that the development is actually boosted by LRT.
    I'm pretty sure that if you care to dig into the urban planning literature (a google scholar search is a cheap and dirty way to get started), you'll find several peer reviewed studies attempting to quantify the development effect associated with varying forms of transit. I recall reading something about the street car line in Portland and the development it helped spur in the Pearl District - I don't recall whether it was journalistic or peer reviewed.

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure that owning the property rights around their stations is one reason the transit authority in Hong Kong is one of the few profit producing transit agencies in the world
    A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to take the new Canada Line from the Vancouver airport to Waterfront Station in downtown Vancouver, a trip that takes 20 minutes. On previous occasions when I took the airport bus this same trip would take an hour or more.

    The Canada Line (and Vancouver's other Skytrain lines) is the type of high speed system that attracts ridership and gets people out of their cars, not Portland's clunky and slow street car system.

  89. #289
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Doesn't it go without saying though that being near an LRT station makes it a more desirable location.. we can see that reflected in increased property values and quicker property sales.

    the 3 key words.. location location location.

    No one factor makes development happen.. I think it's many key things coming together which allow for certain TYPES of development to happen. For Example it's had to have TOD development without a strong transit link. Thusly we tend to find more high density development in mixed use areas.. do we see high rises in the middle of suburbia? No.. so the next question becomes why don't we. I would assume thats because people collusive to that style of living expect certain types of amenities and a certain lifestyle which the suburbs don't offer. (Like easy access to LRT)

    Thusly because being close to the LRT allows you to charge more of your unit (in theory and in general) A developer can make more money on said development than he would if the development was located elsewhere that lacked the same connectivity.
    LRT is absolutely a public amenity that lots of people will pay to be close to, but how big is that market in Edmonton? does every new LRT station simply move apartment dwellers from oliver, or from the existing suburban condo market? I don't know. I do know that it's not simply being near LRT that's valuable. It's being a short(time) trip from where you want to go, so if the LRT trip to downtown or crosstown isn't any faster than the bus it replaces then the benefit is reduced.

    And we do see highrises in the middle of suburbia.

  90. #290

    Default

    ^ the city is growing.. and using the citys own targets it hopes to get 25% of the growth into infill development soooo... Lets just creates some numbers.. 25% of the city wants to live in In fill, TOD and 75% does not.. so in the nect 10 years we are expected to go from 800,000 people in edm proper to 1 million people... So that means in ten years we need to create 50,000 new dense infill style units. Those are all made up numbers used just to prove a point.

    This isn't about Edmonton here and now.. this is about Edmonton starting tomorrow and 50-100 years down the road
    "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. #291

    Default

    EM - I fail to see why you're comparing the speed of the Canada Line to Portland's street car system. I was speaking to development along transit line, regardless of the form the transit takes. Highlander indicated that there wasn't much evidence out there on it, and I indicated he was likely wrong, and used Portland's street car system, which I recalled reading about, as a possible example. For you to then compare Portland's limited, mixed traffic Toronto-like street car, which is a distinct system from Portlands low floor LRT system, with sky-train is baffling. I can only assume you're trying to say Portland's street car system is akin to the proposed wLRT. That's simply fallacious and demonstrative of an interest not in constructive discussion about the pros and cons of wLRT, as proposed, but of distorting comments to support your view, which of course, to you, is the only right option.

  92. #292

    Default

    ^ Second that.
    "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

  93. #293
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    EM - I fail to see why you're comparing the speed of the Canada Line to Portland's street car system. I was speaking to development along transit line, regardless of the form the transit takes. Highlander indicated that there wasn't much evidence out there on it, and I indicated he was likely wrong, and used Portland's street car system, which I recalled reading about, as a possible example. For you to then compare Portland's limited, mixed traffic Toronto-like street car, which is a distinct system from Portlands low floor LRT system, with sky-train is baffling. I can only assume you're trying to say Portland's street car system is akin to the proposed wLRT. That's simply fallacious and demonstrative of an interest not in constructive discussion about the pros and cons of wLRT, as proposed, but of distorting comments to support your view, which of course, to you, is the only right option.
    Actually this thread is about other possible routes for West LRT not the one currently approved.

    I think both the old Portland street car and the newer MAX light rail system are clunky and slow, and the latter has ridership that reflects this. MAX light rail has 85 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 127,900. Pathetic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ridership

    Vancouver's Skytrain has 69 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 345,000.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_SkyTrain

  94. #294
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Mick, the reason I didn't address the point about increased density along LRT lines is that the evidence to support it is very weak certainly in the Edmonton context. The Callingwood and Millwoods Town Centres achieved as much density without LRT as Clareview Town Centre did with LRT.

    I'm not suggesting increased density should not carry any weight in routing LRT, but it should be a secondary consideration compared to maximizing ridership and the rapid movement of people.

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    EM - I fail to see why you're comparing the speed of the Canada Line to Portland's street car system. I was speaking to development along transit line, regardless of the form the transit takes. Highlander indicated that there wasn't much evidence out there on it, and I indicated he was likely wrong, and used Portland's street car system, which I recalled reading about, as a possible example. For you to then compare Portland's limited, mixed traffic Toronto-like street car, which is a distinct system from Portlands low floor LRT system, with sky-train is baffling. I can only assume you're trying to say Portland's street car system is akin to the proposed wLRT. That's simply fallacious and demonstrative of an interest not in constructive discussion about the pros and cons of wLRT, as proposed, but of distorting comments to support your view, which of course, to you, is the only right option.
    Actually this thread is about other possible routes for West LRT not the one currently approved.

    I think both the old Portland street car and the newer MAX light rail system are clunky and slow, and the latter has ridership that reflects this. MAX light rail has 85 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 127,900. Pathetic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ridership

    Vancouver's Skytrain has 69 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 345,000.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_SkyTrain
    Rider numbers are great, but if 75 Percent of those trips are people going from the core to the immediate area surrounding the core and only 25% of the trips are created by suburbanites going to the far flung centers then it makes sence to provide better service for the 75% while reducing service quality for the 25%.

    It's proven the the farther out one goes with a line the less it is used. Hence the big uproar when the Gorman extension was going to move forward...
    "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

  96. #296
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post

    Actually this thread is about other possible routes for West LRT not the one currently approved.

    I think both the old Portland street car and the newer MAX light rail system are clunky and slow, and the latter has ridership that reflects this. MAX light rail has 85 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 127,900. Pathetic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ridership

    Vancouver's Skytrain has 69 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 345,000.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_SkyTrain
    Rider numbers are great, but if 75 Percent of those trips are people going from the core to the immediate area surrounding the core and only 25% of the trips are created by suburbanites going to the far flung centers then it makes sence to provide better service for the 75% while reducing service quality for the 25%.

    It's proven the the farther out one goes with a line the less it is used. Hence the big uproar when the Gorman extension was going to move forward...
    That's not the correct way to assess LRT ridership. If you look at the LRT ridership flow map you will see that the Clareview LRT station is the busiest on the NE line.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...p-reports.aspx

    Except during hockey and football games, most of Clareview passengers stay on the train until at least Churchill Station and others board at other stations along the way but in lesser numbers. That's exactly how LRT should function.

    The uproar against the Gorman extension is misinformed but what else is new. For relatively little additional cost, Gorman will add badly needed park and ride capacity to the NE line (the Clareview lot is often full by 7:30 am) plus help spur residential development in this area.

  97. #297
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Well said EM.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post

    Actually this thread is about other possible routes for West LRT not the one currently approved.

    I think both the old Portland street car and the newer MAX light rail system are clunky and slow, and the latter has ridership that reflects this. MAX light rail has 85 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 127,900. Pathetic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_ridership

    Vancouver's Skytrain has 69 kilometers of track and daily ridership of 345,000.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_SkyTrain
    Rider numbers are great, but if 75 Percent of those trips are people going from the core to the immediate area surrounding the core and only 25% of the trips are created by suburbanites going to the far flung centers then it makes sence to provide better service for the 75% while reducing service quality for the 25%.

    It's proven the the farther out one goes with a line the less it is used. Hence the big uproar when the Gorman extension was going to move forward...
    That's not the correct way to assess LRT ridership. If you look at the LRT ridership flow map you will see that the Clareview LRT station is the busiest on the NE line.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...p-reports.aspx

    But the results you see are because we have built a suburban system... Only now this year, can someone living dt get to some of interest other than University. For the first time people living along the line can get to a mall. For the first time I encountered one of my friends heading down to Churchill station so they could take the LRT to do their Christmas shopping.

    We have built a suburban, get to/from work LRT system. Our current LRT system does not even go though the cities densest and most transit orientated neighborhood (oliver). These are the people who not only use the LRT to get to and from work, but we will use it to play and make it the backbone of our transportation needs.. Not just a way to get to and from work. How will ridership changed when we double or triple the population living DT. and connect those people with places like hospitals, shopping centers, cultural centers, the river valley and interesting shopping districts like whyte and 124st?

    Your just focusing on what we currently have and have blinders on as to what the system could be and ways of making the system so much more than just a way to get to and from work.

    So don't look at the ride flows of our city.. Look at Toronto, Dublin, Montreal etc look at how the systems are built out and look at how they are used..
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 23-12-2010 at 02:45 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

  99. #299

    Default

    I don't know the literature well enough to say whether the evidence to support development along transit lines is strong or weak. I can tell you that London's suburbs were some of the first transit oriented developments. Railway companies would build stations in fields and develop houses around them, much as suburban development congregates around highway off ramps today, especially in Canada and the States (see Henday for example). Toronto has significant highrise development near many of subway stops. Logically, I don't see why LRT in Edmonton would be any different, especially when supported by appropriate zoning changes, as you seem to acknowledge when you suggest Gorman station will help spur residential development. It certainly appears that claireview has developed, Fort Road is slowly getting there, as is Century Park. However, if someone has the time, I'm pretty sure there'll be a large body of literature on the topic.

    EM - I know this thread is about other possible routes. I still fail to see why you'd compare ridership and a tiny street car system in Portland, one that was specifically designed to spur development in small part of town, to Vancouver's mass transit line, especially when I wasn't raising it to suggest that was the form wLRT should take.

    I think the chances of elevated LRT all the way to the river crossing, or in any way grade separated for the entire route are zero. There's no way we're paying to tunnel all that way, and the uproar about elevated LRT would be crazy.

  100. #300
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick View Post
    EM - I know this thread is about other possible routes. I still fail to see why you'd compare ridership and a tiny street car system in Portland, one that was specifically designed to spur development in small part of town, to Vancouver's mass transit line, especially when I wasn't raising it to suggest that was the form wLRT should take.
    I made clear in my previous answer that the description of clunky and slow also applies to Portland's MAX light rail network which is more extensive than Vancouver's Skytrain (as measured by track length) but with barely one-third the ridership.

Page 3 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
  •