Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 2963

Thread: South LRT | Health Sciences to Century Park | Completed

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default South LRT | Health Sciences to Century Park | Completed

    Demolition clears way for south LRT expansion
    $595-million project will make system two-thirds longer in four years

    Gordon Kent
    The Edmonton Journal


    Thursday, March 09, 2006



    CREDIT: Bruce Edwards, The Journal
    Demolition crews remove houses beside 114th Street to prepare for LRT construction south of University Avenue.

    EDMONTON - As houses along 114th Street are demolished for LRT expansion, plans are moving ahead quickly for the final stage of a project that will make the system almost two-thirds longer within four years.

    Trains will cross Whitemud Drive on a new LRT bridge and travel south along the 111th Street median to the end of the line at Century Park, according to proposals being outlined today at an open house.

    There won't be a station between Southgate Centre and Century Park, a condominium and commercial development at the old Heritage Mall site, says Gordon Menzies, director of planning major transportation projects.

    "We try to locate stations at major activity centres, where there obviously are high levels of employment, high-density residential developments and ... major transit centres."

    He expects there will be LRT construction along the 7.5-kilometre route between the Health Sciences Station and Century Park starting next year and lasting until 2008, before the project is finished at the end of 2009.

    When completed, Edmonton's LRT system will have grown to 20.4 kilometres from 12.3 kilometres.

    The total budget for the south LRT is $595 million, although Menzies says bids on recent contracts will show whether this figure remains accurate.

    Rick Molstad, a board member with the Ermineskin community league, says it makes sense to build the rail line in the middle of 111th Street rather than putting trains near the homes on either side.

    People in south Edmonton are happy the LRT is coming, especially with thousands of new residents expected at Century Park, he says.

    "We're very much in favour of getting it down there, the sooner the better. Anybody who lives in the area knows what congestion we're faced with now," he says.

    "I don't think there's any question it will be used."

    [email protected]

    TWO POTENTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE LRT EXTENSION:

    - Loss of green space. Although mature trees and shrubs will need to be removed, Menzies says they will be transplanted or replaced.

    - Noise. Bylaws limit construction noise between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. to an average of 65 decibels in residential areas, or roughly the sound of a dishwasher.

    Once the system is operating, tests indicate there will be a "slight" rise in average noise levels of two or three decibels, partly because the LRT will eliminate several bus routes that use 111th Street, Menzies says.

    - - -

    The city is holding an open house today from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. to outline the plans for LRT expansion from Whitemud Drive to Century Park (Heritage Mall).

    The meeting will be held at St. Augustine Elementary School, 3808 106th St., with presentations at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.

    Ran with fact box "Two Potential Concerns About the LRT Extension:", which has been appended to this story.

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006

  2. #2
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I can't wait for this to be done. Combined with the wLRT/nLRT or BRT expansions, this can only mean more efficient ways to move people throughout the city and possibly a lower reliance on single occupant vehicles. This should allow our existing roads to work within their design limits for years to come.

    While I LOVE my car, I would gladly take transit if it was fast and efficient. The ETS bus stop every 30 feet (so it feels like), is so annoying and I can beat the bus routes by several minutes by driving myself. LRT/BRT, I would so ride!
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  3. #3
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This was forwarded from a collegue today...

    Below is the 'press release' for the open house regarding the South LRT expansion. I encourage everyone who is interested in the future of their City, urban planning in Edmonton and the availability of public transportation to attend! (Sorry for the late notice - This coming Monday mark your calendar!)

    LRT Concept Plan: 54 Avenue to Southgate/Whitemud Drive
    The City of Edmonton is planning the LRT extension from 54 Avenue to Southgate/Whitemud Drive.

    The LRT will be located in the median of 111 Street, and construction will include a bridge over Whitemud Drive, an LRT station across the street from the Southgate bus terminal, a possible park n'ride facility, and a new multi-use trail.

    Visit the open house to learn more and share your input on the plans.

    Monday, April 3, 2006
    4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
    St. Martin Elementary School
    11310 51 Avenue
    *Note: presentations will be made at 5 p.m., 6 p.m., and 7 p.m.
    The concept plan will be completed this spring with construction set to begin in 2007.
    For more information, call 496-5505, or e-mail [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    Services for deaf and hard of hearing persons are provided upon request. Call the Citizen Action Centre at TTY/NexTalk (780) 944-5555 Press 0, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or (780) 496-8200.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  4. #4

    Default

    I'm glad they aren't putting in any more stations than needed. Having used Vancouver's Skytrain to go from downtown to the end of the line more than once I can say first hand that rapid transit is not rapid when it stops at every block. 1h30m or more to get from king george to dwntown!

    ( Officially, according to the Translink Web site it's only 36 minutes from Granville to King George! I guess I must've been in some sort of strange time warp for an hour each time I rode )

  5. #5
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,307

    Default What to do about Park & Ride on the sLRT?

    Article in the Journal

    Park-and-ride dilemma has council in a jam
    'No easy answers' to Southgate LRT stop's needs


    Susan Ruttan, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Sunday, September 17, 2006

    EDMONTON - A busy shopping centre is on one side. A neighbourhood wary of encroachment is on the other. Caught in the middle is city council, trying to squeeze in a major LRT station and park-and-ride stalls for about 1,000 cars.

    The Southgate LRT station, council has decided, will be built in the middle of 111th Street, between Southgate Centre and the Malmo Plains neighbourhood. Finding a nearby park-and-ride site, however, is proving to be a major head-ache.

    A parkade on the Southgate Centre parking lot would be the logical spot, but that possibility has fallen through.

    Southgate offered to build the city two levels of park-and-ride, totalling 1,000 stalls, on top of an expansion it wants to build. The new west wing of Southgate would have about 45 stores on the main level, a level of mall parking above that, and then the commuter parking on top.

    Southgate's price, however, was too steep for city council. No one's saying what the price was, except that it's outside the city's $30-million budget for the park-and-ride.

    According to Coun. Bryan Anderson, who represents the area, the Southgate proposal isn't quite dead, but it's on life support.

    Expropriating homes in Malmo for a parkade is an obvious alternative, but it's one council has said it will try to minimize or avoid.

    "That's the worst possible situation for us, to expropriate residences and create a parking lot in Malmo," says Alex Khan, a Malmo resident who heads the LRT watch committee for the Malmo, Lendrum and Pleasantview communities.

    It's bad enough, says Khan, that putting the LRT in the median of 111th Street is going to push the already busy street closer to Malmo.

    Anderson is confident the city can find a way to create about 2,500 park-and-ride stalls on its south LRT line, including some at Southgate, without major disruption to the residents of Malmo.

    Some possible park-and-ride solutions:

    - Boost the number of park-and-ride stalls from 1,200 to 1,800 at the last station in the line, Century Park. Century Park is the new development being created at the old Heritage Mall site, and it's happy to have an LRT stop next to it. It can also live with expanded park-and-ride, says spokesman Bob Pierce.

    - Add an extra LRT station, perhaps at 57th Avenue, and put a few hundred park-and-ride stalls there.

    - Put an underground park-and-ride structure on the grounds of Harry Ainlay High School, south of Whitemud Drive.

    - Acquire land through a land swap or, if necessary, expropriation, near the Southgate LRT station.

    Transit planners will likely bring a couple of options to council, and then local residents, by November.

    "Not having park-and-ride at all would cost us $800,000 to $1 million a year in lost ridership revenue," Anderson says.

    Vancouver doesn't bother putting any park-and-ride sites around its transit stops, says Wayne Mandryk, the city's head of transit projects. Calgary, by contrast, has lured commuters onto the LRT by providing 13,000 park-and-ride stalls at its stations.

    Calgary had lots of land for LRT parking lots, he says; Vancouver had none. Edmonton won't have land problems for park-and-ride when the LRT extends south of Century Park; its only bottleneck is Southgate, says Mandryk.

    Without any park-and-ride at Southgate, Mandryk warns, commuters may take matters into their own hands and start parking on residential streets or on the Southgate lot.

    Southgate general manager Paul Fairbridge is aware of that risk. His busy parking lot already sees a few illegal park-and-riders every day.

    "It's not an easy thing for us to deal with," he says. "We try to deal with it with courtesy tickets and that sort of thing."

    The Southgate transit centre is already the busiest bus stop in south Edmonton, with nearly 11,000 commuters using it daily. The LRT station there could add another 4,500 commuters, about one-fifth of whom would be park-and-riders.

    When it comes to providing parking for that station, Mandryk says, "there are no easy answers."
    I would consider a P3 solution with Southgate Mall to get the Park & Ride going.

    And why isn't there a Park & Ride being built at the South Campus station?

  6. #6

    Default

    No need for park & ride, there is already a bus terminal that will draw residents from around the area to the LRT station. Bus routes to downtown from the Southgate bus terminal will no longer be needed once LRT is up and running.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  7. #7
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,307

    Default

    True, but I know many commuters from Millwoods and Terwilligar who will prefer to use Park & Ride once the sLRT is finished.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Not building park and ride facilities will do nothing to accomodate the thousands of people who are willing to use the LRT but do not want to take a bus.

    People are going to do what takes the least amount of time. Waiting for a bus in who knows what kind of weather and then riding on the bus as it slowly weaves its way to Heritage or Southgate then finaly getting on the LRT is simply not going to do. It's going to take decades of growth to cause traffic to get to the point where that scenerio would be the most efficient.

    Building the LRT is just a third of the solution to get people to rely less on thier cars. If we are not going to build park and ride facilities and increase densities around stations whats the point?

  9. #9

    Default

    The city already owns land there, don't they, that they have allowed Southgate to build parking on. I think they should expropriate if need be. The "mixed mode" is one of the best transit options.

    There are lots of people who don't want to ride a bus but they will drive to the LRT if it is an option. The article is right about how useful that service is in Calgary.

    If I were the City I would be tempted to just run the train past Southgate without stopping and leave them high and dry. How stupid are they that they don't want to make it easy to park and ride there? They are trying to milk the City for some cash now when they should just be delighted about the prospect of all those new customers on the train.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Expropriate whatever land they need from Southgate. They want to play hardball, then play hardball. They have nothing but to gain from the extension an dare now trying to extort money from a public service. Hey Southgate...get bent.

  11. #11
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    Hey Southgate...get bent.
    Couldn't have said it better. Southgate stands to do nothing but gain traffic EXPONENTIALLY with this LRT service. They should be kissing the sLRT's a.....
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    Hey Southgate...get bent.
    Couldn't have said it better. Southgate stands to do nothing but gain traffic EXPONENTIALLY with this LRT service. They should be kissing the sLRT's a.....
    Umm, no they shouldn't.

    Like I said before, the issue is not as transparent as the news article made it seem. There is plenty of complex issues to figure out on this one.

    So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    You can't just tell everyone to calm their critiscm and roll your eyes at people who are getting one side of the story. Give us some insight...because going off of what we know, our opinions are about spot on. It seems that the City has gotten screwed, ohhhh maybe just a couple of times on infrastructure by large scale commercial developments. I won't calm my critical stance on this, because I don't want to see a South Common situation happen again.

  14. #14
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    You can't just tell everyone to calm their critiscm and roll your eyes at people who are getting one side of the story. Give us some insight...because going off of what we know, our opinions are about spot on. It seems that the City has gotten screwed, ohhhh maybe just a couple of times on infrastructure by large scale commercial developments. I won't calm my critical stance on this, because I don't want to see a South Common situation happen again.
    Exactly. You can't just tell people there is another side to the story but not elaborate further and expect them to believe you. Either Southgate management comes out and convinces us they are playing fair or they will continue to be thought of as the bad guys.

  15. #15
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    plus there are provisions for park and rides at both century park and southgate...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Umm, no they shouldn't.
    Why not? Give me one good reason why they shouldn't be revelling in this development and doing everything they can to make THEIR stop the most important and valuable one on the route? Southgate has the potential to make themselves the premier transit focused shopping center in the city - giving DT residents access to stores they may or may not be able to get DT. Folks along the line now get a full Sears, not just a DT Bay. They have the ability now to expand the mall and be even bigger and better. All for the cost of a park and ride....

    Short term bickering avoids the potential for long term gain for the mall's owners. Don't you think Kingsway and WEM are salavating at an LRT link? WEM was even going to kick in for the station and a P&R in the 80's.

    If there is another side of the story, then Southgate's managment now has the opportunity to make it so. So far, no letters to the editor or nothing to dispute the article's claim. If you know something, then invite them to speak their mind here on C2E - it is what we are here for.

    C'mon, the budget is 30 million...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Umm, no they shouldn't.
    Why not? Give me one good reason why they shouldn't be revelling in this development and doing everything they can to make THEIR stop the most important and valuable one on the route? Southgate has the potential to make themselves the premier transit focused shopping center in the city - giving DT residents access to stores they may or may not be able to get DT. Folks along the line now get a full Sears, not just a DT Bay. They have the ability now to expand the mall and be even bigger and better. All for the cost of a park and ride....

    Short term bickering avoids the potential for long term gain for the mall's owners. Don't you think Kingsway and WEM are salavating at an LRT link? WEM was even going to kick in for the station and a P&R in the 80's.

    If there is another side of the story, then Southgate's managment now has the opportunity to make it so. So far, no letters to the editor or nothing to dispute the article's claim. If you know something, then invite them to speak their mind here on C2E - it is what we are here for.

    C'mon, the budget is 30 million...
    First off, who said that Southgate isn't revelling over the LRT? Anyone who believes that Southgate doesn't know how much they'll benefit from the LRT is just plain ignorant. They are a business and know where their customers come from and how they get there.

    Why shouldn't they pay, well first off they pay property taxes. These taxes are collected by the City and portions are allocated towards capital projects. Unless mandated by a statutory act or bylaw, a business owner should not have to fork out extra money for public infrastructure.

    I know the other side of the story. However, its the forumers who are making assumptions based on information disclosed in a newspaper article, which really doesn't tell the whole story. Trust me when I say that the City is also digging their heels in the dirt.

  18. #18

    Default

    ^ Everyone wants to see the whole story, we're not foolish enough to blindly trust anybody.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    Hey Southgate...get bent.
    Couldn't have said it better. Southgate stands to do nothing but gain traffic EXPONENTIALLY with this LRT service. They should be kissing the sLRT's a.....
    Umm, no they shouldn't.

    Like I said before, the issue is not as transparent as the news article made it seem. There is plenty of complex issues to figure out on this one.

    So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate
    Sorry, but no.

    Southgate is not more important than city transportation, and who on earth believes that being located right beside a huge transit hub would be bad for business?

    I agree with everyone else who says Southgate can afford to give a little parking space.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    Hey Southgate...get bent.
    Couldn't have said it better. Southgate stands to do nothing but gain traffic EXPONENTIALLY with this LRT service. They should be kissing the sLRT's a.....
    Umm, no they shouldn't.

    Like I said before, the issue is not as transparent as the news article made it seem. There is plenty of complex issues to figure out on this one.

    So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate
    Sorry, but no.

    Southgate is not more important than city transportation, and who on earth believes that being located right beside a huge transit hub would be bad for business?

    I agree with everyone else who says Southgate can afford to give a little parking space.
    Who claimed that Southgate was more important than City transportation??? I know I didn't.

    Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.

    Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    ...So quit point fingers at big bad Southgate
    Sorry, but no.

    Southgate is not more important than city transportation, and who on earth believes that being located right beside a huge transit hub would be bad for business?

    I agree with everyone else who says Southgate can afford to give a little parking space.
    Who claimed that Southgate was more important than City transportation??? I know I didn't.
    Not to sound flippant or anything, but I didn't say you did. I just thought a tad of perspective was in order. And besides, don't you think Southgate would be capable of taking advantage of the greater reach of LRT users who could suddenly pop down from the University or downtown to take advantage of a unique shop or atmosphere at Southgate? Give Southgate some credit, they would have to be really incompetent if they couldn't find a greater positive in having an LRT station on their doorstep. Imagine 1800 extra commuters a day going right past your business every single evening. Would it really be that hard to get a couple percent of them to stop in for supper or to pick something up? Cater to them, and they might even make it a regular trip.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.
    Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
    Airport users "forfeit" $15 dollars per flight for the right to use a nice airport. Swimers "forfeit" $5 per session for the right to use the excellent Kinsmen pool. Southgate's "compensation" in having an LRT station connected to them is blatently obvious, so why shouldn't they chip in?
    I am reminded of CP Rail trying to sell the High Level Bridge to the city for millions and millions. They must have thought the city had no choice for putting the LRT over the river. After the city built the Menzies Bridge directly to the University (for better and worse) CP ended up basically giving the High Level to the city for "free" so they wouldn't have to pay for renovations on it (which the city then paid for anyway.) Then it became fair to ask how much it was really worth in the first place.
    I get the impression we're being offered another bridge here.

    Who was it that suggested we go right past Southgate and build the station at Harry Ainly or wherever? That might not be the best solution, but there's somewhat of a precedent, and you could guarantee that Southgate would be kicking themselves if the city did it. I just think Southgate would be crazy not to try integrating as closely as possible with the LRT rather than playing chicken for some extra cash.

  22. #22
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Could you imagine if the city of Edmonton announced that because a great deal with Harry Ainley school they decided to move the LRT station there. How quick do you think that Southgate would backtrack to change that and bring the LRT to the mall and fix all parking issues??
    Because if the LRT station was at Harry Ainley the most sensible thing would be to also move the bus terminal to Harry Ainley work along side the LRT station.

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.
    Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
    What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
    Airport users "forfeit" $15 dollars per flight for the right to use a nice airport. Swimers "forfeit" $5 per session for the right to use the excellent Kinsmen pool. Southgate's "compensation" in having an LRT station connected to them is blatently obvious, so why shouldn't they chip in?
    Once again, the ERAA have been granted the powers to establish these types of charges. Policies are in place to support this charge. Municipalities can also establish bylaws that can require developers to pay for certain infrastructure. The City has these bylaws in place and they apply to all new developments. However, there are no current policies or bylaws that apply to this situation.

    I am reminded of CP Rail trying to sell the High Level Bridge to the city for millions and millions. They must have thought the city had no choice for putting the LRT over the river. After the city built the Menzies Bridge directly to the University (for better and worse) CP ended up basically giving the High Level to the city for "free" so they wouldn't have to pay for renovations on it (which the city then paid for anyway.) Then it became fair to ask how much it was really worth in the first place.
    I get the impression we're being offered another bridge here.
    Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.
    Isn't the CPR a private corporation as well? The bridge fiasco cost the CPR a million or two and the city tens of millions. Nobody wants to see that lose-lose situation repeated. Some compromise on both sides is probably in order but from the information we have it looks like most of it needs to come from the mall side.

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.
    Isn't the CPR a private corporation as well? The bridge fiasco cost the CPR a million or two and the city tens of millions. Nobody wants to see that lose-lose situation repeated. Some compromise on both sides is probably in order but from the information we have it looks like most of it needs to come from the mall side.
    Back then CP was a crown corporation. Although CN and CP are private corporations, they are regulated under Federal statute and do not have to adhere to Municipal bylaws in certain cases.

  26. #26
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

    I'm stunned that you are going so easy on Southgate. Did we not have a discussion a couple weeks ago at starbucks where you ripped up 555 for not increasing the value of their mall including better integration with the transit stop? Whats the difference between investing in a parkade or renovating the outside? Neither is mandated and both increase the value and increase traffic benefiting them in the long run.

  27. #27
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Lindsay, I have actually noticed that a lot more people are willing to bash WEM and 555 than many other malls. The bigger the size--the bigger the bashing? wonder what's the reason

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
    I would be celebrating if the city wanted to take away a piece of my backyard to build a park with a creek running though it.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Look, there are no special concessions for anybody unless mandated by policy or law. Simple as that.
    Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
    What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Would you forfeit your lands to the City without asking for proper compensation? Probably not, so why should business owners?
    Airport users "forfeit" $15 dollars per flight for the right to use a nice airport. Swimers "forfeit" $5 per session for the right to use the excellent Kinsmen pool. Southgate's "compensation" in having an LRT station connected to them is blatently obvious, so why shouldn't they chip in?
    Once again, the ERAA have been granted the powers to establish these types of charges. Policies are in place to support this charge. Municipalities can also establish bylaws that can require developers to pay for certain infrastructure. The City has these bylaws in place and they apply to all new developments. However, there are no current policies or bylaws that apply to this situation.
    Alright then, I agree, if the city is forced to mandate that Southgate allow park and ride on a portion of their precious lot, then I support mandating it. It's still a better solution than going to Ainly, but why should it have to come to that? Southgate should be welcoming this with open arms and doors and everything else. They should extend the mall or at least a heated walkway right up to the Park 'n' Ride before the station is even completed. This isn't a case of government being unfriendly to business, this is a case of business being unfriendly to itself!

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    I am reminded of CP Rail trying to sell the High Level Bridge to the city for millions and millions. They must have thought the city had no choice for putting the LRT over the river. After the city built the Menzies Bridge directly to the University (for better and worse) CP ended up basically giving the High Level to the city for "free" so they wouldn't have to pay for renovations on it (which the city then paid for anyway.) Then it became fair to ask how much it was really worth in the first place.
    I get the impression we're being offered another bridge here.
    Different situation and poor comparison. That was a matter between the federal government and municipality. This is a matter between the municipality and private land owner.
    CP has been a 100% private entity since 1880 (that is not a typo.) In exchange for building the railway across Canada, they were given a credit of $25 million plus a tidy 25 million acres of land which they've been slowly divesting ever since (that's about half the size of Great Britain.)

    You may have been thinking about CN. It was privatised recently. Also you may be thinking about the CP conglomerate's recent breakup. CP Rail is now unrelated to CP Hotels(i.e. Fairmont), for example. But no part of what is/was CP has ever been a crown corporation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_Rail

    Anyway, the comparison is perfectly valid. CP had a bridge, Southgate has a parking lot, both adaptable to city transportation needs. Both the city and the private entities had/have a chance for mutual benefit, yet both private entities seemed/seem unwilling to persue said benefit.

    Others here have brought up another excellent comparison between WEM and Southgate. WEM has always been very vocally supportive (this is huge understatement) of the West LRT concept. They have for years been offering the space for a station and park and ride. They have almost literally been begging to give away their land to get a station. And I support them 100% in that endevour as well. I think it could spark much greater investment in the mall in renovations and additions, which will in turn benefit the city again. As should be the case with Southgate.

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

    I'm stunned that you are going so easy on Southgate. Did we not have a discussion a couple weeks ago at starbucks where you ripped up 555 for not increasing the value of their mall including better integration with the transit stop? Whats the difference between investing in a parkade or renovating the outside? Neither is mandated and both increase the value and increase traffic benefiting them in the long run.
    Whoooooa, biiig difference here. Southgate are the ones who are pushing for the park n' ride to be integrated with their expansion. If they were telling the City to take their parkade idea away from the mall then it would be a different story.

    It's not like Southgate doesn't want the park n' ride, both the City and Southgate have itineraries and have been unable to come to an agreement with how to deal with the situation. That's it.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Alright then, I agree, if the city is forced to mandate that Southgate allow park and ride on a portion of their precious lot, then I support mandating it. It's still a better solution than going to Ainly, but why should it have to come to that? Southgate should be welcoming this with open arms and doors and everything else. They should extend the mall or at least a heated walkway right up to the Park 'n' Ride before the station is even completed. This isn't a case of government being unfriendly to business, this is a case of business being unfriendly to itself!
    Like I already stated, it was Southgates' idea to integrate the parkade with their expansion. In fact, their idea is the best use of space versus having a separate parkade structure. If Southgate didn't want the park n' ride, then why would they propose that option with their expansion?

    You may have been thinking about CN. It was privatised recently. Also you may be thinking about the CP conglomerate's recent breakup. CP Rail is now unrelated to CP Hotels(i.e. Fairmont), for example. But no part of what is/was CP has ever been a crown corporation.

    Anyway, the comparison is perfectly valid. CP had a bridge, Southgate has a parking lot, both adaptable to city transportation needs. Both the city and the private entities had/have a chance for mutual benefit, yet both private entities seemed/seem unwilling to persue said benefit.
    Sorry, I was thinking of CN. However, if I am not mistaken they (CN and CP) are both regulated under federal statutes and do not have to adhere to municipal bylaws. Same with seaports and airports.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Alright then, I agree, if the city is forced to mandate that Southgate allow park and ride on a portion of their precious lot, then I support mandating it. It's still a better solution than going to Ainly, but why should it have to come to that? Southgate should be welcoming this with open arms and doors and everything else. They should extend the mall or at least a heated walkway right up to the Park 'n' Ride before the station is even completed. This isn't a case of government being unfriendly to business, this is a case of business being unfriendly to itself!
    Like I already stated, it was Southgates' idea to integrate the parkade with their expansion. In fact, their idea is the best use of space versus having a separate parkade structure. If Southgate didn't want the park n' ride, then why would they propose that option with their expansion?
    Starting at the most basic concept, with no structural change to Southgate's properties, they should just agree not to ticket 1000 cars a day, and be overjoyed. The mall manager himself should buy a unit in the Icon and use the LRT everyday, to free-up one space. But then for use of space considerations, the City, very generously, has up to $30 million to pitch in and could build something more than adequate. At this point the mall should approximately be in endorphine arrest. If the mall wants it to be even better, which by all means they should, that's very clearly their financial responsibility. It's the least they should do. They're asking for their cake, chewn for them, to be fed intravenously. They've already won the lottery and they want to be given a private jet to pick up the check. I admit I'm jealous, but I'm not sympathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    You may have been thinking about CN. It was privatised recently. Also you may be thinking about the CP conglomerate's recent breakup. CP Rail is now unrelated to CP Hotels(i.e. Fairmont), for example. But no part of what is/was CP has ever been a crown corporation.

    Anyway, the comparison is perfectly valid. CP had a bridge, Southgate has a parking lot, both adaptable to city transportation needs. Both the city and the private entities had/have a chance for mutual benefit, yet both private entities seemed/seem unwilling to persue said benefit.
    Sorry, I was thinking of CN. However, if I am not mistaken they (CN and CP) are both regulated under federal statutes and do not have to adhere to municipal bylaws. Same with seaports and airports.
    You're probably right, especially with regards to transportation structures such as rails and bridges, but they can still negotiate a selling/giving away price.

  33. #33

    Default

    Why not expropriate land from mall?

    The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Wednesday, September 20, 2006

    Re: "Park-and-ride dilemma has council in a jam: No easy answers to Southgate LRT stop's needs," The Journal, Sept. 17.
    I was disappointed to read that city council would consider expropriating homes in Malmo for Park-and-Ride at the new Southgate LRT stop.
    Apparently Southgate Mall has the capacity for a park-and-ride lot, but the asking price is too high.
    It may be that the path of least resistance in the short term is to displace 50 or 100 families in Malmo rather than take on a commercial developer with deep pockets, but let's get real.
    The new LRT station will bring thousands of shoppers to Southgate's doorstep every day, even without the park-and-ride lot. One thousand designated park-and-ride stalls means 1,000 more commuters stepping into the mall for groceries or supper or clothes on the way back to their cars at the end of the day.
    The LRT stop is going to be such a boost to Southgate that the mall should be subsidizing the park-and-ride.
    If the mall won't co-operate with council, why doesn't council expropriate 1,000 parking spots from the mall?
    Ultimately council, the mall and Malmo residents will all win.
    Marie Weir, Edmonton
    © The Edmonton Journal 2006
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  34. #34
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    What I am getting at is that everyone is claiming that Southgate should 'give' up the land because they will benefit. I am saying that they shouldn't have to give up anything unless mandated.

    I'm stunned that you are going so easy on Southgate. Did we not have a discussion a couple weeks ago at starbucks where you ripped up 555 for not increasing the value of their mall including better integration with the transit stop? Whats the difference between investing in a parkade or renovating the outside? Neither is mandated and both increase the value and increase traffic benefiting them in the long run.
    Whoooooa, biiig difference here. Southgate are the ones who are pushing for the park n' ride to be integrated with their expansion. If they were telling the City to take their parkade idea away from the mall then it would be a different story.

    It's not like Southgate doesn't want the park n' ride, both the City and Southgate have itineraries and have been unable to come to an agreement with how to deal with the situation. That's it.
    Well, it's good that Southgate wants the parkade integrated with its future plans.

    But, this is where the details get a little sketchy. The $30 million dollars, is that the estimated cost of the parkade, because thats the way I'm reading it?

    If thats the case, I still don't see why it would be that difficult to come up with a solution. There has to be some sort of formula that malls use to judge rents by depending on the traffic through the mall. Lets say the two sides come up with an estimated figure of what the increase in foot traffic will be as a result of the LRT station, not including a general traffic increase based on figures from the last X number of years. From that pick a suitable deadline, something like 10 or 20 years from now and use the estimated foot traffic figure and the projected rent increase. What ever that sum of money is, Southgate would be responsible for. You could even audit these numbers annually and one group would owe the other if the actual figures were not meeting projected figures.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    Well, it's good that Southgate wants the parkade integrated with its future plans.

    But, this is where the details get a little sketchy. The $30 million dollars, is that the estimated cost of the parkade, because thats the way I'm reading it?

    If thats the case, I still don't see why it would be that difficult to come up with a solution. There has to be some sort of formula that malls use to judge rents by depending on the traffic through the mall. Lets say the two sides come up with an estimated figure of what the increase in foot traffic will be as a result of the LRT station, not including a general traffic increase based on figures from the last X number of years. From that pick a suitable deadline, something like 10 or 20 years from now and use the estimated foot traffic figure and the projected rent increase. What ever that sum of money is, Southgate would be responsible for. You could even audit these numbers annually and one group would owe the other if the actual figures were not meeting projected figures.
    But rents aren't the issue. As it stands, Southgate is one of the better performing malls and commands healthy lease rates as is.

    There is a number of other issues related beyond just picking a site for the park n' ride. These issues are related to liability, ownership, maintenance, legal obligations, access agreements, etc.

  36. #36
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    someone had a thought earlier to have the train station serve Harry Ainley school as well as Loius St. Laurent Catholic school right behind there on the other side of whitemud. perhaps the station itself could be placed on the bridge with exits going south and north to Southgate and to the schools respectively.

    now the issue with park and rides--the city owns the bus stop land does it not? perhaps the city should say to southgate: we are going to put up a parkade there. if you want the people to access the mall easier--you help us with the project and pick up the ensuing cost. As far as the city is concerned--they have to provide access to their customers getting on and off the transport.

  37. #37
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    Well, it's good that Southgate wants the parkade integrated with its future plans.

    But, this is where the details get a little sketchy. The $30 million dollars, is that the estimated cost of the parkade, because thats the way I'm reading it?

    If thats the case, I still don't see why it would be that difficult to come up with a solution. There has to be some sort of formula that malls use to judge rents by depending on the traffic through the mall. Lets say the two sides come up with an estimated figure of what the increase in foot traffic will be as a result of the LRT station, not including a general traffic increase based on figures from the last X number of years. From that pick a suitable deadline, something like 10 or 20 years from now and use the estimated foot traffic figure and the projected rent increase. What ever that sum of money is, Southgate would be responsible for. You could even audit these numbers annually and one group would owe the other if the actual figures were not meeting projected figures.
    But rents aren't the issue. As it stands, Southgate is one of the better performing malls and commands healthy lease rates as is.

    There is a number of other issues related beyond just picking a site for the park n' ride. These issues are related to liability, ownership, maintenance, legal obligations, access agreements, etc.
    Is there not a precident set for these types of issues?

  38. #38

    Default

    To be clear, I understood that the City owned not only the existing bus loop but also more land there that was currently either undeveloped or used by Southgate. I'm sorry I can't find a source for that. Does it ring a bell with anyone else?

    If my memory is correct, my problem is that the City appears to be negotiating for the use of its own property.

    And as much as I do not want governments to be running rampant and expropriating property that has legitimate commercial value to its owner, I also know that governments can cave in to private interests from an overwhelming fear of anything that remotely involves "political risk" or "controversy" in ways that just totally do a disservice to the public interest.

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    now the issue with park and rides--the city owns the bus stop land does it not?
    Yes, the City owns the land.

    perhaps the city should say to southgate: we are going to put up a parkade there. if you want the people to access the mall easier--you help us with the project and pick up the ensuing cost. As far as the city is concerned--they have to provide access to their customers getting on and off the transport.
    But once again, why pick up the ensuing costs? That just doesn't make sense. Can you imagine if the City went around opeating in this manner?!?

    'Oh, we'd like to build a bridge, but are short 10 million, so you developers can pick up the costs.'

    That is just a negligent way of operating.

  40. #40
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    'Oh, we'd like to build a bridge, but are short 10 million, so you developers can pick up the costs.'

    That is just a negligent way of operating.
    That's a little extreme Chris. If the city needs to build a bridge to downtown, they won't ask TELUS to pay for it, we know that.

    Then I guess the 184 th street "oh we would like to build a bridge" project is not an good expamle of industry/business helping the city and province out with infrastructure - especially since it ENSURED that CN got the logistics it needed to make the new intermodal terminal a success? This bridge was going to be built anyway, but I think CN pitched into the costs of that infrastructure project to speed it up and get what they needed - why can't Southgate pitch into something more noble like mass transit? Like I said before, Southgate has everything to gain from this LRT project. It is one of the most popular and highest rent malls in the city - and one of the highest in traffic. The LRT will make it even more popular than Kingsway for malls in Edmonton outside WEM. 30 million budgeted by the city for park and rides is a lot, and Southgate being in retail should understand the concept of a loss leader. I am not saying they need to absorb things financially not carry the bulk or a significant portion of the costs, but they SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE CITY AND THIS ISSUE SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN COME UP!!!! This thread bugs me because its very existence should never be. Southgate and the sLRT project should have been walking in lockstep years ago.

    Southgate has known for years that the sLRT was coming their way. The lack of a definitive plan here shows not only incompetence on the city, but also on Southgate. This is a goldmine for the Southgate - there is no question about it. ...or maybe they just sat back and waited to see how much they can milk this project for and not pay a dime?

    HOWEVER, when a developer comes in fresh and makes something that drastically alters the transportation plan, they should absorb some of those costs, or do we allow more South Edmonton Common's to show up and not pay for the infrastructure costs that make the next 23rd avenue Charlie Foxtrot? Developers are not responsible for the additional stresses they put on the city's infrastructure? We can simply let developers off the hook by saying, "golly shucks gee dear city, I'z never tot dat a Wally Mart combined wid a cinema and big box stores wud generate dis much traffic and udder stores, yuck yuck yuck." …or the better one, “The developer never knew that this would be THIS successful, with a Wal-Mart, in a retail mad city…” Yeah, like developers plan to fail, or don't do some research to judge success.

    Letting every single project and development off the hook for any civic responsibility is also a poor way of managing your city - hello 23rd avenue! Go ahead and build that traffic clogging project on an already slammed intersection, we'll let the taxpayers in a completely different quadrant of the city that will NOT use this infrastructure pick up the tab. Nope, let's allow the son, daughter, and grandson of SEC appear because we don't have enough other projects to spend our infrastructure dimes on.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Then I guess the 184 th street "oh we would like to build a bridge" project is not an good expamle of industry/business helping the city and province out with infrastructure - especially since it ENSURED that CN got the logistics it needed to make the new intermodal terminal a success? This bridge was going to be built anyway, but I think CN pitched into the costs of that infrastructure project to speed it up and get what they needed
    CN being a good coorporate citizen

    As jaded as I am when it comes to those guys, good on them.

  42. #42
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Letters time!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    If Southgate won't settle, just move the station
    Article Tools
    Printer friendly
    E-mail
    Font: * * * * The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Monday, October 02, 2006
    After reading several articles on the south LRT extension over the last few weeks, it seems to me that Southgate is not being a very good community citizen nor is it making a sound business decision.

    I cannot see why expanding the existing major transit hub at Southgate with an LRT station and park-and-ride is not a big win for the mall.

    Many commuters will likely patronize Southgate stores for groceries and other impulse/convenience purchases since they are already there. Additionally, Southgate would get a heavily subsidized parkade that will still be usable by consumers on evenings and weekends -- prime shopping times.

    With the new traffic this will bring to Southgate, it should build the parkade on its own, never mind being offered $30 million tax dollars to do it.

    When the CPR didn't like the land speculation going on around prospective stations, it just moved them some miles up or down the line.

    Let's see what happens to traffic volumes at the mall if the entire transit hub -- buses and LRT -- were moved north to 61st Avenue. That's going to hurt when all the shoppers who live at Century Place ride the LRT downtown and Southgate has only one lonely bus stop.

    Doyle Gilroy, Edmonton
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  43. #43
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    Go north
    Article Tools
    Printer friendly
    E-mail
    Font: * * * * The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Monday, October 02, 2006
    With all the debate about the park-and-ride at Southgate, I'd like to know why the station can't be built farther north to the empty land that runs along 111th Street, just south of 63rd Avenue? That land has been vacant for years and I assume it is owned by the city.

    Wouldn't this be a logical place for a park-and-ride?

    Lyn Palindat, Edmonton

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    The trouble with 61 Av as a credible threat is that there is nothing there. Moving the stop south to the high schools in the event Southgate cannot be convinced to be reasonable would make more sense.

  45. #45
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,307

    Default

    The main trouble with 61 Ave is that it already close to the South Campus station, and then after that it skips by Southgate in favor of a really long ride to Century Park. Doesn't make a whit of sense to me.

    Looking at Google Earth, maybe they should consider putting the park&ride immediately north of the Whitemud where the NB and SB lanes of 111 St spread wide apart. Even better, an LRT station right over the Whitemud would allow for equal access to both the mall and the school.

    Overall, an LRT station and park&ride at Southgate Mall is absolutely the best scenario. Any attempts by the mall to hinder the sLRT won't be good publicity for them.

  46. #46
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Hopefully southgate will be smart and make sure there is park and ride there if not the station will still go where it's planned to go and then the mall will have to deal with people still insisting on using southgate as a park and ride, even if there aren't any park and ride stalls. It would cost the mall lots of money to police their parking lot and if they tow people then they are just going to guarentee that those people will not want to return to the mall for shopping.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  47. #47
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Has anyone heard any news about the Park & Ride situation. I saw a clip on the news a couple days ago saying that the park & ride in the south will have to be changed but I didn't get to see the actual news report. Did anyone see it???
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  48. #48
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Yep, and all it said was that either the P&R will go with the mall, or residents will be moved. I am SO not for expropriation in this case with the mall next door and a MAJOR benefactor of this service.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  49. #49
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    if the city is talking about expropriation, why not take over Southgate mall parking?

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    if the city is talking about expropriation, why not take over Southgate mall parking?
    I agree. A negotiated settlement would be best, but if there's no alternative to expropriation it shouldn't happen to the adjacent residents.

  51. #51
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    From Hicks on Six

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Sun

    * Looks like a turf war between Southgate mall management and the city. This column reported, months ago, that the mall and the city were at an impasse over cost-sharing for a mega parkade to accommodate an LRT "park 'n' ride" when the LRT reaches Southgate.

    Now signs are sprouting all over Southgate's spacious parking lot, prohibiting current city transit users from any form of "park 'n' ride" at the current Southgate bus transit centre.

    I'm told security guards are patrolling near the bus transit hub, telling vehicle drivers picking up or dropping off transit riders to get a move on.
    Some people here said that there was more to this story than we "knew" or than what was being reported. So then, cough it up, because right now it looks like Southgate is getting too growly for its britches, and this is really really bad publicity.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  52. #52
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    From Hicks on Six

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Sun

    * Looks like a turf war between Southgate mall management and the city. This column reported, months ago, that the mall and the city were at an impasse over cost-sharing for a mega parkade to accommodate an LRT "park 'n' ride" when the LRT reaches Southgate.

    Now signs are sprouting all over Southgate's spacious parking lot, prohibiting current city transit users from any form of "park 'n' ride" at the current Southgate bus transit centre.

    I'm told security guards are patrolling near the bus transit hub, telling vehicle drivers picking up or dropping off transit riders to get a move on.
    Some people here said that there was more to this story than we "knew" or than what was being reported. So then, cough it up, because right now it looks like Southgate is getting too growly for its britches, and this is really really bad publicity.

    i understand southgate's perspective as well, but jesus are they potentially shooting themselves in the foot...not to mention hurting this city.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  53. #53
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i would like the city and southgate make public the negotiating sticking points. i want to know what expenses they are talking about and if one of the sides being totally unreasonable. it would be unfair for one of them to pick up the full cost of development. So, what exactly is the problem? Any insider info on that? C'mon, Ms. and Mr. Joe Lurker--spill it!

  54. #54
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Time for ETS's to spread out the Southgates bus terminal to the U of A and Century Park.

  55. #55
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I say forget about Southgate. Have one or two busses running past the shoppuing centre--that is it.

    What if the terminal is moved closer to the Alberta School for the Deaf and the UofA sports complex? There is lots of potential land for a bus terminal with park and rides and also a need to connect with potential expansion of UofA campus there.

    Make a train stop a little bit north of southgate at that complex with a few high rises north of 51 ave (there is some pretty high density housing at that location) and put the next train stop at Harry Ainley/ Louis St. Laurent/ A Sport complex.

  56. #56
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    I say forget about Southgate. Have one or two busses running past the shoppuing centre--that is it.

    What if the terminal is moved closer to the Alberta School for the Deaf and the UofA sports complex? There is lots of potential land for a bus terminal with park and rides and also a need to connect with potential expansion of UofA campus there.

    Make a train stop a little bit north of southgate at that complex with a few high rises north of 51 ave (there is some pretty high density housing at that location) and put the next train stop at Harry Ainley/ Louis St. Laurent/ A Sport complex.

    wrong move...SOUTHGATE is an ideal location for many reasons...and it will be here...simple as that, but this game of call your bluff is complete BS.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,307

    Default

    If worse comes to worse, then I'll reiterate this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    maybe they should consider putting the park&ride immediately north of the Whitemud where the NB and SB lanes of 111 St spread wide apart. Even better, an LRT station right over the Whitemud would allow for equal access to both the mall and the school.

  58. #58
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    If worse comes to worse, then I'll reiterate this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    maybe they should consider putting the park&ride immediately north of the Whitemud where the NB and SB lanes of 111 St spread wide apart. Even better, an LRT station right over the Whitemud would allow for equal access to both the mall and the school.
    I think this will be vastly more expensive. the current impasse is over cost sharing (correct me if I am wrong). if costs were not a problem--there wouldn't be an impasse.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    From my inside sources, it kind of went like this.

    Months back, Southgate proposed to accommodate the 2000-stall park n' ride facility within their expansio,. However, the City thought that the costs were too high and that they were weary of ownership issues. I guess they don't understand what a strata title is.

    Well, $30 million is a tad shy in today's market to build a 2000 stall parking facility.

    $15,000/stall x 2000 = $30m (2003 prices)
    $20,000 x 2000 = $40m (2006 prices)

    The City hesitated and Southgate has continued on with their expansion plans sans park n' ride option.

  60. #60
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    So then what is to say that they both don't just start talking again? Southgate has a lot to lose here too, like extra traffic compliments of joe/jane commuter...

    As Ian said, calling your bluff is BS and this will hurt the city overall. Many people will not forget...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  61. #61
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I first proposed to put a transit hub between Alberta School for the Deaf, UofA Sports facilities and that Alberta Government site to spite Southgate, but now that I think about it--I think this option is better than Southgate.

    With the imminent development of South Campus, an LRT stop and land availability i think this option is good for all concerned. Southgate is still served by ETS with LRT (North-South) and a few East-West Busses along 51 Ave and Whitemud. However, it is the campus that, in the long run, will need to be supported with transit (including transit from outlying communities) more so than the shopping mall.

    This option isn't good or bad for southgate. They don't loose transit connection--on the contrary, they get an LRT stop and gain in parking spaces from people parking and riding from UofA south campus.

  62. #62

    Default

    There is already a station planned at the south campus.

  63. #63
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    yes, but I am talking about a transportation hub with park and ride lots and a large bus shelter with route maps and, maybe, a few vending machines. Something that busses would pull into and leave at designated times.

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    So then what is to say that they both don't just start talking again? Southgate has a lot to lose here too, like extra traffic compliments of joe/jane commuter...

    As Ian said, calling your bluff is BS and this will hurt the city overall. Many people will not forget...
    B/c Southgate has committments to its shareholders, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, to move forward with its expansion plans.

    Southgate knows the benefit of the transit station, but let's be honest, Southgates location, population and household incomes catchment have a larger influence on the success of the mall.

  65. #65
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Yes, they do owe it to shareholders to continue with expansion, but you can't tell me for a second that this parkade cannot be a continued discussion.

    This just confirms my belief that if there is a majority of blame, I look at Southgate's management as their excuses border on lame to lazy.

    Saying they have the catchment area is akin to saying they have me over a barrel, and I won't buy into that selfish argument for a second. Belly up to the bar Southgate...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Yes, they do owe it to shareholders to continue with expansion, but you can't tell me for a second that this parkade cannot be a continued discussion.

    This just confirms my belief that if there is a majority of blame, I look at Southgate's management as their excuses border on lame to lazy.

    Saying they have the catchment area is akin to saying they have me over a barrel, and I won't buy into that selfish argument for a second. Belly up to the bar Southgate...
    It can be a discussion, however, when your architects are designing the expansion and preparing to submit the DC2 rezoning, you don't have much time wait for the city to make a decision.

    I don't blame Southgate at all, if the city had realized their parkade budget was too slim and that they should have had these decisions made pronto, we wouldn't be in this situation.

    Southgate is a successful mall NOT because of the transit center, but because of its location my friend. Believe what you wish, but market indicators weigh more than subjective opinions.

    Perhaps if the City thinks expropriating homes in Malmo will be easier and cheaper, then good luck.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    If they are going to the City with a DC2, don't you think they are going to be feeling a little backlash...

  68. #68
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Exactly. Tit for tat here...and that is unfortunate.

    Chris, yes Southgate is successful WAY above and beyond the CURRENT transit center, no doubt. Their location on the Whitemud and 111th is excellent, giving them a car-bound draw area of at least a 1/4 of the city. Yes, expropriation of land is not where they want to go. They have key retailers not found in many other malls in the catchment area, and this location also is what made Heritage a stupid investment. Blah blah blah. I know the market indicators and my opinion is far from subjective.

    But you CANNOT convince me that the LRT will not increase this potential exponentially. Saying it won’t is subjective, and Southgate knows full well that this center is a goldmine of extra customers. Not admitting to this says the city should look elsewhere. Guaranteed they will advertise this without shame in blinking lights – shop at Southgate, *blink*NOW WITH LRT ACCESS.*blink*

    Letting Southgate's management off the hook that easily is not telling the whole story, and “blame the city” is too easy although there is definite egg on their faces too. You don't think the city can play the delay game too? Saying that the architects don’t have much time when someone with half a brain knows that upsetting the city could lead to delays elsewhere (litigation or otherwise) is myopic. That’s like me trying to do an enterprise software installation and saying we have no time while running over a key business owner. 99.9999 times out of a hundred that business owner will stall, rant, avoid, and simply not sign off on the project. Nope, I spend way too much time placating Mr/Miss/Mrs Poopypants in the name of getting the best project done in the best timeline, and yes I do give some of my own time to this, and the company has to give up some short term profit in order to get the longer term reference and larger contract.

    So, are you telling me that Southgate’s management position is one of “we’ve got you by the short and curlies”? That is how this is playing in the public no matter how the “inside scoop” is playing out. Perception is reality, and as the expropriation talks begin, the ire towards SG will grow city wide. Again, this “rush” on design is myopic to yet another potential delay.

    This will get even more stupid before it gets better I think.

    I also find it funny that in an LRT project under suspicion for greatly exaggerating costs is now being blamed for underestimating.

    *EDIT*

    ...and yes I am crabby on this one, but things like this give the anti-development crowd even more ammunition for saying that developers and business don't care about the city, only their bottom line. Strathern residents are saying, "Look, I told you so. Greed rules."

    It is hard enough to get the good projects going...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Exactly. Tit for tat here...and that is unfortunate.

    Chris, yes Southgate is successful WAY above and beyond the CURRENT transit center, no doubt. Their location on the Whitemud and 111th is excellent, giving them a car-bound draw area of at least a 1/4 of the city. Yes, expropriation of land is not where they want to go. They have key retailers not found in many other malls in the catchment area, and this location also is what made Heritage a stupid investment. Blah blah blah. I know the market indicators and my opinion is far from subjective.

    But you CANNOT convince me that the LRT will not increase this potential exponentially. Saying it won’t is subjective, and Southgate knows full well that this center is a goldmine of extra customers. Not admitting to this says the city should look elsewhere. Guaranteed they will advertise this without shame in blinking lights – shop at Southgate, *blink*NOW WITH LRT ACCESS.*blink*

    Letting Southgate's management off the hook that easily is not telling the whole story, and “blame the city” is too easy although there is definite egg on their faces too. You don't think the city can play the delay game too? Saying that the architects don’t have much time when someone with half a brain knows that upsetting the city could lead to delays elsewhere (litigation or otherwise) is myopic. That’s like me trying to do an enterprise software installation and saying we have no time while running over a key business owner. 99.9999 times out of a hundred that business owner will stall, rant, avoid, and simply not sign off on the project. Nope, I spend way too much time placating Mr/Miss/Mrs Poopypants in the name of getting the best project done in the best timeline, and yes I do give some of my own time to this, and the company has to give up some short term profit in order to get the longer term reference and larger contract.

    So, are you telling me that Southgate’s management position is one of “we’ve got you by the short and curlies”? That is how this is playing in the public no matter how the “inside scoop” is playing out. Perception is reality, and as the expropriation talks begin, the ire towards SG will grow city wide. Again, this “rush” on design is myopic to yet another potential delay.

    This will get even more stupid before it gets better I think.

    I also find it funny that in an LRT project under suspicion for greatly exaggerating costs is now being blamed for underestimating.

    *EDIT*

    ...and yes I am crabby on this one, but things like this give the anti-development crowd even more ammunition for saying that developers and business don't care about the city, only their bottom line. Strathern residents are saying, "Look, I told you so. Greed rules."

    It is hard enough to get the good projects going...
    For anyone to ever claim that Southgate or should I say, Ivanhoe Cambridge doesn't understand the benefit of the future LRT is pure stupidity. Of course they know that it would be nice to have an LRT station right at their front door (see other malls they own accross this country ~ Metrotown).

    But they also have an obligation to carry on with their plans. To sit and wait for the city to make up their minds just doesn't work in the development world. And you know I know this first hand. Sometimes you have no choice but to force a decision. This is what Southgate seems to be doing or should be doing. It's unfair to wait. The City is aware of this and they too realize that if they don't come up with a plan that they will be in a situation.

    Time is ticking more on the City's side versus Southgates.

  70. #70
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    135

    Default

    This is a real dilly of a pickle. Anyway, I believe that the Park and Ride must be built at Southgate and the city needs to take diciplined hardline stance not against the mall, but that we will work with you to build it whether you like it or not, lol.

    Obviously the mall is looking out for its best interests and is trying to hold the city hostage with its plan, much like CP did with the High Level Bridge, which is why trains run down a separate bridge rather than the top or lower deck of our cities transportation landmark.

    If I were in the mayor's seat I would make a big public stink and ask citizens to voice their opinion on the matter to the mall's owners. I think if you had 10 000 upset Edmonton residents talking boycott of Southgate the mall would change it's tune pretty quick. Obviously there are people who are passionate about not only transit planning but the city as a whole and if they used their voice to protest, the outcome would be a lot different.

  71. #71
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by canucklehead
    Obviously the mall is looking out for its best interests and is trying to hold the city hostage with its plan, much like CP did with the High Level Bridge, which is why trains run down a separate bridge rather than the top or lower deck of our cities transportation landmark.
    The LRT could have potentialy been run on either level of the high level bridge? The lower level would have been good. Then the upper level could possibly be expanded to 3 traffic lanes of a decent width, with one heading north. Rather than the 2 narrow substandard lanes there now. What did CP get in ransom?

  72. #72
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Nothing really.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  73. #73
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Yeah, it ended up being a total waste. CP wanted $25 million dollars, snd soon thereafter of course rail was abandoned to downtown Edmonton (mysteriously after the LRT bridge was under construction, how 'bout that? lol)

    All the old LRT planning maps had the trains running on the High Level, along the current location of the High Level/Strathcona trolley line and then along side the CP down to 28 Avenue and into Mill Woods.

    I have alot of the older maps stored on photobucket account available at...
    http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d51/canucklehead2/

    There are a few others I still have to scan, including the 1974 LRT plan to run trains from CN Plaza to Jasper Place transit centre via existing roads and part of Stony Plain Road.

  74. #74
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    Wednesday » December 6 » 2006

    LRT extension pedestrian unfriendly, city planners told

    Keith Gerein
    The Edmonton Journal


    Wednesday, December 06, 2006


    EDMONTON - Onrushing trains and "daredevil" teenagers will have too many close encounters unless the city improves its pedestrian safety plans for the south LRT extension, some parents and community leaders say.

    The concerned residents say they are unhappy with a proposed path across 111th Street at 43rd Avenue, an intersection traversed by students attending nearby Harry Ainlay and Louis St. Laurent high schools.

    City plans call for the tracks to be built on the median of 111th Street, between the north and south lanes. There will be no pedestrian underpass or overpass, meaning students will have to walk at street level across the traffic lanes and the train tracks.

    "You should sit and watch how high-school students walk," said Ted Gooding, father to a Grade 10 Ainlay student.

    "It's the horde mentality. They just put their heads down and plow across the street."

    "There will be an accident for sure," said his wife Sarah. "Many of them are daredevils at that age."

    The Goodings were among 200 people at an open house Tuesday night on the city's design for the south LRT extension between 61st Avenue and 23rd Avenue.

    City planners told the residents the $4-million cost to build a pedestrian overpass or underpass is difficult to justify because it would not necessarily improve safety.

    "Our experience has been that most people refuse to use it," said transit projects manager Wayne Mandryk. "If people have a street-level option to cross, they will use that."

    About 600 pedestrians cross the intersection during the morning rush hour, mostly students or people going to the nearby Confederation Leisure Centre.

    Mandryk said students should be old enough to know how to cross properly. Safety features will include lights and bells to warn walkers when a train is approaching, and gates that will come down to prevent access to the tracks. There will also be "refuge areas" to the north and south of the tracks that will give walkers a safe spot to wait, he said.

    Mandryk said a long underpass can actually become a hot spot for assaults at night because it would provide limited sightlines and no escape routes.

    Some residents noted that a station planned for 76th Avenue and 114th Street will have an underpass, but Mandryk said the schools in that area serve younger children who may have more trouble crossing safely.

    Others in attendance at the open house said the city should consider building a station at Harry Ainlay, which would also serve residents in surrounding communities.

    To date, the city has said there aren't enough riders to justify an extra station, which would cost about $8.5 million. The entire south extension project is expected to cost about $600 million.

    Alex Khan, of the Southwest Area Council, said the city should look at increasing the budget to improve the esthetics of the project. Better barriers, light poles, fencing, and landscaping would go a long way to making the line more attractive.

    [email protected]

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006








    Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  75. #75
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    Wednesday » December 6 » 2006

    Ainlay needs LRT overpass


    The Edmonton Journal


    Wednesday, December 06, 2006


    Future students of Harry Ainlay high school and Louis St. Laurent need to know that the city plans for the South LRT Extension miss the importance of road safety at 111th Street and 43rd Avenue.

    The city has determined that a surface crosswalk on 111th Street is sufficient. Should this solution prove unviable after some years of use, the city may consider going to an overpass or underpass after appropriate study and budget planning.

    Parents at Harry Ainlay have challenged this logic.

    Car, bus and foot traffic is already congested at this location at peak commuter hours. Add in the trains that will come and go in the median every three minutes in each direction, and this site is a disaster waiting to happen.

    The co-ordination of bus schedules, traffic lights, turning vehicles, crosswalk timing, train schedules and clanging railroad barriers in the middle of the street is a logistical nightmare.

    An overpass or underpass is estimated to cost $3 million. McKernan has been approved for an underpass under 114th Street. That school has one-quarter of the student population of Harry Ainlay. Surely our city can be proactive and respond now, instead of reactive when a child is injured.

    Please be informed and voice your concerns. Come to the open house on the SLRT extension tonight at Harry Ainlay school. Presentations from the city will be made at 5, 6 and 7 p.m.

    Linda Grisley, secretary, Harry Ainlay School Council, Edmonton

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006








    Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  76. #76
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    An overpass would be probably the best in regards to safety and sightlines as one of the articles mentions.

    One question I have, would it at all be possible to have a park and ride on the corner of the Harry Ainlay school yard next to whitemud? Then an overpass or underpass would be even more justified. I know it's a bit far from the station but it could be an option to the no park and ride in the area.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  77. #77
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Hey there,

    If you head over to the Edmonton SLRT site (http://www.edmontonslrt.com/) and click on the "Guide to completing the online survey" under the Site Updates section, there is a bunch of information including "Section 2: Park and Ride." There is some pretty interesting alternatives explored in the first PDF report. I never would have even dreamed of some of the options the looked at. None the less, this document shows that they considered a Park and Ride lot on school property. Reasons for NOT doing it are also listed in this document.

    Happy Reading!

  78. #78
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Note the author...

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    Ainlay overpass unnecessary
    The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Thursday, December 07, 2006
    Re: "Ainlay needs LRT overpass," by Linda Grisley, Letters, Dec. 6.

    An overpass at 43rd Avenue and 111th Street is unneccessary and the $3-million cost could be used better on other transportation projects.

    A simpler and inexpensive solution would be to enforce the law so that students cross 111th Street only when the pedestrian lights are green. Currently, there is no regard among Ainlay and Louis St. Laurent students for "don't walk" signs and red lights at this intersection. Traffic is forced to stop for pedestrians walking against the light. This creates major traffic jams throughout the corridor.


    The cost of an overpass for the 20 minutes of congestion in the morning and again in mid-afternoon is not justifiable.

    Al Parsons, Edmonton
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  79. #79
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...and the contrary....

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Journal
    Thursday » December 7 » 2006

    What's a life worth?


    The Edmonton Journal


    Thursday, December 07, 2006


    Re: "LRT extension pedestrian unfriendly, city planners told," by Keith Gerein, The Journal, Dec. 6.

    I attended the meeting and your reporter's representation of the 43rd Avenue crossing issue was accurate: parents of children who will use the crossing are concerned and the city's consultants are confident that the crossing is safe.

    Parents feel that a separate pedestrian access is the only safe approach. The consultants and the city suggest that an overpass or an underpass will not be used. Ironically, the same consultants and city staff have included an underpass at the McKernan school crossing on 114th Street, where pedestrian volumes will be less than a quarter of that at 43rd Avenue. If it won't be used in McKernan either, why build it?

    I hope the city does not consider the lives of Ainlay and St. Laurent students to be of lesser value than those of McKernan students.

    City council should direct staff to start planning for an overpass or underpass at 43rd Avenue.

    Michael Pankiw, Edmonton

    © The Edmonton Journal 2006








    Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
    You know, I think I am on the city's side on this. It is a train vs a fleshy lifeform...I've lived near tracks all my life and no one has jumped in front of a train...and there are ways to ensure that they can't cross when a train is on its way...

    ...but when exactly did we forget to keep telling the youth to use common sense?
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  80. #80

    Default

    Well, how many people have been run over by the C-train in downtown calgary?

    People will get themselves killed.

    But they can get run over by cars there now ... you can only do so much to protect people from their own stupidity.

    Now I have to ask, why is it going to cost 3 million for an overpass?

  81. #81
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    ^Because the more expensive it is, the less chance it will be that they have to build it. At least that is what I think. It seems more often you find people giving you reasons not to do something or instead of doing something the sensible way they'll come up with a crazy, totally stupid project that is overpriced and start saying that "see, here is the solution and it's too expensive!"
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  82. #82

    Default

    but is it 'sensible'? A bridge only used primarily during the two major pedestrian commutes of a school day?

    Look to the pedestrian bridge built over 97 St. at about 115th St. HARDLY EVER USED! Because who wants to climb the stairs when you could just cut accross the street? Teens are the same. 95% would still cut across.
    Shameless Urbanophile

  83. #83
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    to change direction.....


    GOOD GOD ARE THEY SLOW WITH THE SLRT........i cannot understand why this line is going so SLOWLY.....the RAV line in van, which i see updated every 2-4 weeks when i go, has done SO MUCH MORE work in the past 6 months and it is a raised track....our is at grade.....


    >?????????????????
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  84. #84
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Probably becasue VAN has a greater sense of urgency...called 2010...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  85. #85
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Probably becasue VAN has a greater sense of urgency...called 2010...
    Yep, add in lack of warm bodies and you get s-l-o-w-e-r construction.

    You also have to remember that a large portion of the work is focused on the tunnel at Belgravia at this point. Not much surface work can continue through the winter. Plus, I am sure there are penalties for everyday the road is closed over the date that was agreed to in the contract.

  86. #86
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Probably becasue VAN has a greater sense of urgency...called 2010...
    Yep, add in lack of warm bodies and you get s-l-o-w-e-r construction.

    You also have to remember that a large portion of the work is focused on the tunnel at Belgravia at this point. Not much surface work can continue through the winter. Plus, I am sure there are penalties for everyday the road is closed over the date that was agreed to in the contract.
    yah yah yah...i know...but still.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSR
    Well, how many people have been run over by the C-train in downtown calgary?

    People will get themselves killed.

    But they can get run over by cars there now ... you can only do so much to protect people from their own stupidity.

    Now I have to ask, why is it going to cost 3 million for an overpass?
    Is this downtown Calgary? No. Will there be a proper intersection to cross at? Yes. I dont get this. People get hit by cars everyday, but we dont seem to be building them overpasses at every location where someone gets hit, or has the potential to get hit
    A car hits people more frequently then any LRT ever will or has, even in Downtown Calgary. Like someone posted before, if your stupid enough to get hit by a train...maybe you deserve to get hit by a train.

    As for cost? Not that high I think, it cost a lot to design and build an overpass, and the wheelchair accessible ramps up the overpass. You also would have add in the cost of forming the hills, and re-arranging the sidewalks to suit this ped overpass. How much did the overpass at 34st/whitemud cost? 35 Million (I realize that this is much bigger, but compare size to cost on each project)

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    to change direction.....


    GOOD GOD ARE THEY SLOW WITH THE SLRT........i cannot understand why this line is going so SLOWLY.....the RAV line in van, which i see updated every 2-4 weeks when i go, has done SO MUCH MORE work in the past 6 months and it is a raised track....our is at grade.....


    >?????????????????
    While it would be nice to get it done 2 years earlier I don't have a huge issue with the pace of construction.

    I just think it should be continuous rather than this idiotic build for 4 years then stop for 8 - 12 years.

    We should be looking at around $100 million and 2km of track every year ... give or take. If we had been doing that since '76 we would have spent 3 billion but also have 60km ( vs 12.5km ) of line by now.

  89. #89

    Default

    I don't get the slow pace either. Vancouver may have a greater sense of urgency with the 2010 games but they also have a shortage of labour and labour problems (due to those same 2010 games) with the crews they do have yet they are getting it done. Vancouver is actually managing to do a tunnel (cut and cover + bored), build overhead and throw-up two rather large span crossings all at the sametime. Why would we have to focus on one hundred meter span of tunnel? Seems to me if we wanted to save on inflating construction costs getting it done faster would be the way to go.

    Chris - who would have to pay who penalties and what road is closed?

  90. #90
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,849
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The current re-alignment of Belgravia is what he is talking about....and the general contractor or whomever is the primary signature is responsible. They can pass the penalites down to the subs, and they probably have this in the sub's contracts with the prime.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    I don't get the slow pace either. Vancouver may have a greater sense of urgency with the 2010 games but they also have a shortage of labour and labour problems (due to those same 2010 games) with the crews they do have yet they are getting it done. Vancouver is actually managing to do a tunnel (cut and cover + bored), build overhead and throw-up two rather large span crossings all at the sametime. Why would we have to focus on one hundred meter span of tunnel? Seems to me if we wanted to save on inflating construction costs getting it done faster would be the way to go.

    Chris - who would have to pay who penalties and what road is closed?
    The contractor would be responsible for paying a fine for every day that is overdue.

    Construction staging and schedules can seem strange or out of line from Joe Citizens perspective, but there is logic to them.

  92. #92
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    What are the odds that we'll see demand for an Ellerslie Extention on SLRT soon after Century Park is done? For that matter, extentions of NE past clairview could be good too.

  93. #93
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    What are the odds that we'll see demand for an Ellerslie Extention on SLRT soon after Century Park is done? For that matter, extentions of NE past clairview could be good too.
    LRT is planned to go south to the heritage valley mass transit centre.....think a little SW if i recall.....then logically to YEG:>
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  94. #94
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    The likelyhood that we will see work continue immediatly on further LRT once Century Park is built is very small in my opinion. I still think that the city needs to smarten up and look at the LRT system as a long continuous 20 to 30 year project that never takes a break.

    The idea situation for the LRT extentions could be as follows. In the final year of construction as they are finishing the Century Park station they should already be accuiring the land and clearing space for the line that has already been discussed to go towards Nait. Once century park station construction is complete begin the work on laying track and station construction to MacEwan station downtown and continue the same pace they currently have for the SLRT line until they get to Nait. By that time they should already have plans worked out for whatever other line they want to do next. Weather it is a WLRT, NWLRT, SLRT expansion, NLRT expansion it doesn't matter at that point, just as long as they continue construction somewhere.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  95. #95
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    The likelyhood that we will see work continue immediatly on further LRT once Century Park is built is very small in my opinion. I still think that the city needs to smarten up and look at the LRT system as a long continuous 20 to 30 year project that never takes a break.

    The idea situation for the LRT extentions could be as follows. In the final year of construction as they are finishing the Century Park station they should already be accuiring the land and clearing space for the line that has already been discussed to go towards Nait. Once century park station construction is complete begin the work on laying track and station construction to MacEwan station downtown and continue the same pace they currently have for the SLRT line until they get to Nait. By that time they should already have plans worked out for whatever other line they want to do next. Weather it is a WLRT, NWLRT, SLRT expansion, NLRT expansion it doesn't matter at that point, just as long as they continue construction somewhere.
    i bet we see NLRT to NAIT start before SLRT is complete and the WLRT really pushed hard by mandel with new prov/fed infra $.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    The likelyhood that we will see work continue immediatly on further LRT once Century Park is built is very small in my opinion. I still think that the city needs to smarten up and look at the LRT system as a long continuous 20 to 30 year project that never takes a break.

    The idea situation for the LRT extentions could be as follows. In the final year of construction as they are finishing the Century Park station they should already be accuiring the land and clearing space for the line that has already been discussed to go towards Nait. Once century park station construction is complete begin the work on laying track and station construction to MacEwan station downtown and continue the same pace they currently have for the SLRT line until they get to Nait. By that time they should already have plans worked out for whatever other line they want to do next. Weather it is a WLRT, NWLRT, SLRT expansion, NLRT expansion it doesn't matter at that point, just as long as they continue construction somewhere.
    i bet we see NLRT to NAIT start before SLRT is complete and the WLRT really pushed hard by mandel with new prov/fed infra $.
    NLRT rumoured to start around 2009, and WLRT should be built at the same time. Both are needed, and I certainly couldn't put a priority on either of these over each other. Both are highly needed, and now!

  97. #97
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Rumoured by whom?

    I like the Sound of that.

  98. #98
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Summerside
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    I think this new transportation guy will be pushing for my LRT. Sounds like he wants to make Edmonton more walker friendly...maybe he'll do something to ensure cleaner sideways and streets...better street clearing/cleaning equipment!!!

  99. #99
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    373

    Default

    The new Transportation GM came here from TTC. He has that bias and I fully expect him to be supportie of all things transit.

    Mind you, he didn't seem too impressed with how the recent snow clearing debacle was handled, so there could be changes there

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

    Default

    Well hopefully things will be taken care of for the LRT sooner than later. I'm just a bit hesitant to believe anything until I hear it from the city "The contracts have been tendered, approved by council and construction will begin on ....." When I hear it is rumored, that usually has the same weight as "it is rumored that Elvis was seen at West Edmonton Mall" No offence but I like cold hard facts.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •