Page 2 of 86 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 8537

Thread: Metro Line - North LRT | Churchill to NAIT | Under Construction

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    MacEwan is to be above ground. nLRT is supposed to surface at or after Stationlands.

    That is why knocking down the CN rail bridge across 101 Street was such a short-sighted move of Booster Bill, that would have been perfect for LRT.
    That bridge had to go. NLRT will pop up on the west side on 101 st anyways. That bridge would have been little to no use, besides acting as a wall between downtown and the northside.
    I couldn't agree with you more feepa. I don't know that there would be room for the LRT to pop up before the old bridge after clearing the foundations of current and future buildings.

  2. #102

    Default

    SDM, others...

    the LRT in Edmonton does not run "above ground"
    LRT runs at GROUND LEVEL, or BELOW Ground.

    Examples of Above Ground = Skytrain in Vancouver, the EL (elevated rail) in Chicago, and parts of NYC....etc
    Examples of Ground level. LRT in Edmonton, Calgary...etc
    Examples of below ground. LRT in downtown Edmonton, subways in NYC, Montreal, Toronto, etc

    Lets all please start using the "right" definitions

    Thank you

    feepa

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    That bridge would have been little to no use, besides acting as a wall between downtown and the northside.
    Kind of like a certain proposed development that I'll never tire of slagging.

  4. #104
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    That bridge would have been little to no use, besides acting as a wall between downtown and the northside.
    Kind of like a certain proposed development that I'll never tire of slagging.
    We could go here until we end up here so I'll just go at least for now...

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    That bridge would have been little to no use, besides acting as a wall between downtown and the northside.
    Kind of like a certain proposed development that I'll never tire of slagging.
    We could go here until we end up here so I'll just go at least for now...
    Keep it to the Stationlands/arena thread...

  6. #106
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Is the going to be another line altogether, or a branch line, that connects directly to the one we have now?

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ike9126
    Is the going to be another line altogether, or a branch line, that connects directly to the one we have now?
    It will connect in / branch off the current line north of Churchill station.

  8. #108
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    MacEwan is to be above ground. nLRT is supposed to surface at or after Stationlands.

    That is why knocking down the CN rail bridge across 101 Street was such a short-sighted move of Booster Bill, that would have been perfect for LRT.
    That bridge had to go. NLRT will pop up on the west side on 101 st anyways. That bridge would have been little to no use, besides acting as a wall between downtown and the northside.
    bingo...removing it was very important and the LRT portal will be west of 101 just south of 105
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #109
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    OK fine. It still would have had other uses though (ped, bike path, etc).

    But any of you even think about advocating the destruction of the bridge going across 97 St, I will slap you at the next C2E meet.

  10. #110
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    OK fine. It still would have had other uses though (ped, bike path, etc).

    But any of you even think about advocating the destruction of the bridge going across 97 St, I will slap you at the next C2E meet.
    that one is fine...but rathole, 105st, 101st all are far far better off now for development ops, views, and connection.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #111
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    OK fine. It still would have had other uses though (ped, bike path, etc).

    But any of you even think about advocating the destruction of the bridge going across 97 St, I will slap you at the next C2E meet.
    StationLands does not include the parking lots on either side of the CN Tower or the Post Office site but does include the bridge.

    Plans at the time called for the bridge to be replaced with a "plus 15" link until the city acknowledged that an 80' wide bridge made a much more pedestrian and bike friendly connection so it's ongoing existence is allowed for under the existing development permit.

    That permit also allows for a small "signature/jewelbox" structure on the bridge itself. It will be a pretty neat place to showcase something or to have a coffee at a location where the people crossing the roadway take precedent over the road instead of the other way round. It could also provide a pedestrian/bike link to any redevelopment of the post office site that would not be restricted by having to cross a street.

  12. #112
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I'm really looking forward to that bridge being opened so I can make that part of my commute.

    Ken, who owns the rest of the block, flanking CN tower, and up to 104ave? If the post office(arena) were to be coordinated with stationlands, then I would make sense for that land to be coordinated too.

    Knowing that you don't control that extra land I understand why this might not be practical, but I'd love to see a direct open air route from that bridge across the site to connect to the planned 105th Ave Bike route.

  13. #113
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    I'm really looking forward to that bridge being opened so I can make that part of my commute.

    Ken, who owns the rest of the block, flanking CN tower, and up to 104ave? If the post office(arena) were to be coordinated with stationlands, then I would make sense for that land to be coordinated too.

    Knowing that you don't control that extra land I understand why this might not be practical, but I'd love to see a direct open air route from that bridge across the site to connect to the planned 105th Ave Bike route.
    The bike route comes across the bridge and ramps down along the east side of StationLands between landscaping, water features and pedestrian access and stairs. It continues along 105th Ave. north of StationLands to 100th St. where the avenue stops. The lane between StationLands and the old Immigration Building and Spady will be closed to vehicular traffic and redeveloped and landscaped to include the bike path and pedestrian traffic only. The bike route will then continue across 101st St. at 105th Ave. - which will be a four way stop light controlled intersection - past the casino site and down to MacEwen. It won't happen overnight but it will be neat when it's done. If the city were to approach us about opening that link now on a temporary basis, I'm sure something could be worked out but construction at that end of the site will need two plus years of no access so I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be.

    StationLands has secured long-term easement rights and access to 103A Ave. through both the upper and lower lobby levels of the CN Tower and has pedestrian access rights over the parcel to the east of the tower. Any potential development on either flanking piece can be readily coordinated as with any development of the post office site. As to who owns the flanking parcels, I don't think it is my place to divulge.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    I'm really looking forward to that bridge being opened so I can make that part of my commute.

    Ken, who owns the rest of the block, flanking CN tower, and up to 104ave? If the post office(arena) were to be coordinated with stationlands, then I would make sense for that land to be coordinated too.

    Knowing that you don't control that extra land I understand why this might not be practical, but I'd love to see a direct open air route from that bridge across the site to connect to the planned 105th Ave Bike route.
    The bike route comes across the bridge and ramps down along the east side of StationLands between landscaping, water features and pedestrian access and stairs. It continues along 105th Ave. north of StationLands to 100th St. where the avenue stops. The lane between StationLands and the old Immigration Building and Spady will be closed to vehicular traffic and redeveloped and landscaped to include the bike path and pedestrian traffic only. The bike route will then continue across 101st St. at 105th Ave. - which will be a four way stop light controlled intersection - past the casino site and down to MacEwen. It won't happen overnight but it will be neat when it's done. If the city were to approach us about opening that link now on a temporary basis, I'm sure something could be worked out but construction at that end of the site will need two plus years of no access so I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be.

    StationLands has secured long-term easement rights and access to 103A Ave. through both the upper and lower lobby levels of the CN Tower and has pedestrian access rights over the parcel to the east of the tower. Any potential development on either flanking piece can be readily coordinated as with any development of the post office site. As to who owns the flanking parcels, I don't think it is my place to divulge.
    If anyone really wants to know who owns this land, it is public information that you may or may not have to pay for
    I believe a good place to start would be the land registries office.

    All you may come up with is a Numbered company with no phone number or you may find more


    Ken,

    Has Qualico, or is Qualico at all interested in purchasing/developing said lands? Has there been any discussions in your group as to the possible potential to acquire these lands? Has there been any attempt to talk with the people that own this land?

    This corner of 101st and 104ave(103a Ave) is a critical corner to downtown, and I would hate to see it remain a parking lot for long

  15. #115
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Ken,

    Has Qualico, or is Qualico at all interested in purchasing/developing said lands? Has there been any discussions in your group as to the possible potential to acquire these lands? Has there been any attempt to talk with the people that own this land?

    This corner of 101st and 104ave(103a Ave) is a critical corner to downtown, and I would hate to see it remain a parking lot for long
    feepa,
    I've tried to be pretty open here - and elswhere - about what we're up to and why but some things - like private conversations - don't fall into that category.
    ken

  16. #116
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default

    get the municipal or legal and go to any registry, get a title search, then a company search.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Ken,

    Has Qualico, or is Qualico at all interested in purchasing/developing said lands? Has there been any discussions in your group as to the possible potential to acquire these lands? Has there been any attempt to talk with the people that own this land?

    This corner of 101st and 104ave(103a Ave) is a critical corner to downtown, and I would hate to see it remain a parking lot for long
    feepa,
    I've tried to be pretty open here - and elswhere - about what we're up to and why but some things - like private conversations - don't fall into that category.
    ken
    I understand - I was just seeing if there was any angle you could give us on that. I respect and thank you for sharing the information you have shared with c2e already.

  18. #118

    Default

    Back to talking about NLRT...

    Does anyone know if Fort Saskatchewan ever expressed an intrest in having the LRT go to Fort Saskatchewan? Have they ever offered to help pay for it?

  19. #119
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I think they're testing the potential ridership with that
    bus route they're running right now. Peak hours only,
    looping around Fort Sask then to Clareview Station.
    I've heard that it seems to be doing well, but that's
    not from the people who make the decisions.

  20. #120
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Has anyone heard any new news on planning for NLRT line towards NAIT.

    I don't expect to see any construction before the SLRT line is done but I do hope, as I may have mentioned earlier in this thread, that as soon as Century park opens that construction already is underway for either the NLRT line or another LRT station on the current NELRT line past Clareview or maybe even another station on the SLRT line past Century Park.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  21. #121
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    Has anyone heard any new news on planning for NLRT line towards NAIT.

    I don't expect to see any construction before the SLRT line is done but I do hope, as I may have mentioned earlier in this thread, that as soon as Century park opens that construction already is underway for either the NLRT line or another LRT station on the current NELRT line past Clareview or maybe even another station on the SLRT line past Century Park.
    Its happening.

  22. #122
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    The nLRT study is being completed so that when (read: if) funding is secured it can be built.

    I think the ne/s LRT study is similar, but I may be wrong.

    As much as I'd love continuous LRT construction, I don't think it's in the cards.

  23. #123
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    ^Which if that is the case then it is a sad thing for LRT in Edmonton. Considering how long Edmonton has had rail service and how little there has been for expansion in all these years you would think that it would be a priority to continue expansion to a greater degree.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  24. #124

    Default Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor
    Tells forum it should be a priority for the city


    Mike Sadava, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: October 03, 2007 10:34 pm


    Extension of the LRT to NAIT must be a priority for the city, Mayor Stephen Mandel said tonight.

    Speaking to about 150 people at a forum at the Shaw Theatre on the NAIT campus, Mandel said that linking the college to the LRT means that many of the major focal points of the city will be connected, which will help the city face major traffic challenges in the north side.

    Only seven of the nine candidates attended the final mayoral forum of the campaign in the half-empty theatre. George Lam was represented by his campaign agent and Khaled Kheireddine failed to show.

    Mandel said the city needs faster planning and construction management and proposed setting up a new office to deal with project financing and to use technology to speed up the planning process.

    Mandel said he would continue to pressure the province for a better deal on the infrastructure funding formula, which gives Calgary and the County of Strathcona more money per capita than Edmonton.

    In an interview before the forum, Mandel said he has no reason to play hardball with the province the way Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier has for most of the past year. "I was reassured Edmonton would be treated fairly and I was surprised we weren't. If I knew then what I know now, it would have been different."

    But candidate Don Koziak blamed Mandel for many of the city's funding woes, saying the mayor should have used a co-operative approach with the province and the rest of the region.

    "The mayor chose to fight with the premier in the early days of this campaign.

    "While it is good politics, it is poor governance," Koziak said, adding that regional government will probably be forced on the city in the end.

    Some of the candidates such as Peter Lefaivre went after Mandel over his handling of the housing shortage.

    Dave Dowling said he was proud to be a fringe candidate if that refers to someone who is on social assistance and is disabled and has no powerful business connections. Leadership should not confined to those with money, he said.

    Bob White, the agent for Lam, caught one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night when he attacked the $88 million being spent on a new art gallery.

    The forum drew a few more people than the last forum in September but it was nothing like the standing-room-only situation in the same theatre during the tightly contested 2004 mayoral election.

    Ron Lamarre, a supporter of Bob Ligertwood, said it's shameful a city of one million people gets such poor turnouts because it's still important to get the ideas across.

    Cody Hollis-Perdue, a NAIT student, said he wanted to learn more about the issues and see the candidates first-hand, and he believes it's time for change.

    Anna Kuranicheva, who is eligible to vote for the first time since becoming a Canadian citizen several months ago, said she felt she was doing her civic duty by attending the forum.

    [email protected]

    © Edmonton Journal 2007

    -30-

  25. #125
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Bob White, the agent for Lam, caught one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night when he attacked the $88 million being spent on a new art gallery.
    Hopeless, Edmonton. Completely hopeless.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  26. #126
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Bob White, the agent for Lam, caught one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night when he attacked the $88 million being spent on a new art gallery.
    Hopeless, Edmonton. Completely hopeless.
    I despise the attitude of some Edmontonians when it comes to investing money to improve our downtown. Look at Churchill Square - some people complained about improving that, but now it's able to host more events. Money well spent.

    Stephen Mandel is looking towards Edmonton's future with the LRT, and it's great to see that he's serious about building the LRT to NAIT.

    I wish more people in Edmonton could look beyond their own neighbourhood.

  27. #127

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I wish more people in Edmonton could look beyond their own neighbourhood.
    ^ Me too!

  28. #128
    grish
    Guest

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I wish more people in Edmonton could look beyond their own neighbourhood.
    ^ Me too!
    Amend that to: "I wish more people in the Edmonton Region could look beyond their own neighbourhood."

  29. #129

    Default

    bob white is a ______ (choose your own curse word)
    Bob White, the agent for Lam, caught one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night when he attacked the $88 million being spent on a new art gallery.
    I wish people would realize that the city did not put 88 million into the AGA.
    I wish people would realize that it was a 3 way split. 1/3 from the city, 1/3 from the Ab gov, and 1/3 federal. (Along with numerous corporate and private donations.)
    I wish people would realize this most important fact: YOU CAN'T FILL POTHOLES WITH MONEY THAT WAS DESIGNATED FOR THE ARTS!!!!!

    Also, 23 million is not even 1/10th the money we will be spending to build an interchange. That's right. An interchange. 1/10th. An interchange that many people wont use more then once or twice a year. (Obviously, many will use it much more than that) It's an interchange. Pave over the whole world. How friggen beautiful is that!?

    edit: I now believe that the feds didn't pitch it at all, and the last 1/3 was from private and corporate donations... its all on a wall in the new temp home of the AGA in enterprise square.

  30. #130
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Bob White, the agent for Lam, caught one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night when he attacked the $88 million being spent on a new art gallery.
    Hopeless, Edmonton. Completely hopeless.
    Since when have we started to hold town forums at Tim Hortons?

  31. #131
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I wish more people in Edmonton could look beyond their own neighbourhood.
    ^ Me too!
    Amend that to: "I wish more people in the Edmonton Region could look beyond their own neighbourhood."
    I definitely agree, grish, residents have to look at a regional level! Ideally, I support extending the LRT, because it will benefit all citizens of Edmonton.

    I wish more people in Edmonton could have a broader vision for our city, instead of only focusing on mundane issues like potholes. Why don't people want to aspire to greater heights?

    To these people, life must be uninspiring if you cannot see the value in spending money on arts or culture.

  32. #132
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    Since when have we started to hold town forums at Tim Hortons?
    Since the funding for community halls got cut for potholes
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  33. #133

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Bob White, the agent for Lam, caught one of the biggest rounds of applause of the night when he attacked the $88 million being spent on a new art gallery.
    Hopeless, Edmonton. Completely hopeless.
    Since when have we started to hold town forums at Tim Hortons?
    Is it possible that the audience was planted?


    Anway, two cheers for LRT to NAIT within a decade, and one more for trolleys the rest of the way.

  34. #134
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Anway, two cheers for LRT to NAIT within a decade, and one more for trolleys the rest of the way.
    This is wishful thinking, not what he actually said, right?

  35. #135

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Anway, two cheers for LRT to NAIT within a decade, and one more for trolleys the rest of the way.
    This is wishful thinking, not what he actually said, right?
    This is wishful thinking in technicolour.

  36. #136
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    The first part shouldn't have to be. We've started the studies. There's no reason why we can't find the money. There should be a firm commitment to a timeline such as this. Is that really so much to ask?

  37. #137

    Default

    Agreed, it seems like a more than reasonable time frame for NLRT, but the trolley part is where I'm really looking. We could be on the verge of making a decision with greater consequences than is being acknowledged.

  38. #138

    Default Re: Extend the LRT to NAIT - mayor

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    Quote Originally Posted by djgirl
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I wish more people in Edmonton could look beyond their own neighbourhood.
    ^ Me too!
    Amend that to: "I wish more people in the Edmonton Region could look beyond their own neighbourhood."
    Edmontonians have, and what they see drives them batty.
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  39. #139
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    At least 'LRT to NAIT' is a clear goal.
    Although I disagree with it - the NAIT part.

    I don't suppose there is an electronic recording of the forum - I'd be interested in seeing it if there was.

  40. #140
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by re-electmandel.com
    Establishment of a new Edmonton Committee to End Homelessness – a new integrated business, community and government-based effort will be formed to tackle Edmonton’s homeless challenges. This new committee will have an aggressive 10-year goal of ending homelessness in Edmonton. Its model will be based on the successful Interagency Council on Homelessness Model (www.usich.gov) which has shown promising results in many major American cities.
    He's set a timeline on ending homelessness (the near impossible, and in ten years, no less) and he can't set one on LRT?

    I agree that LRT to that area of the city is important, but it's far from the number one priority and the route as currently planned is ridiculous anyway. Low speed corners and a winding route defeat the whole point of LRT.

  41. #141
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default Downtown to Nait LRT questionnarie

    http://survey.banisterresearch.com/northlrt/



    let's get our voices heard people
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  42. #142
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    As for myself I'll most likely go to the presentation first before doing the questionnaire. The deadline for questionnaires is three days after the presentation so that gives me a little time to think about the presentation and such.

  43. #143
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default Re: Downtown to Nait LRT questionnaire

    I think another consideration for the LRT will have to be the condos going up in the area. This would be a great opportunity to for the area around 107 Avenue/Grant MacEwan to develop.

  44. #144

    Default

    What did those that completed this think of the questions related to opening up 106st south of 107 ave to compensate for the loss of capacity on 105st? I may be confused but is there not a rather large post-secondary institution in the way south of 105 ave? I drive my wife to work up 105st quite frequently and north of Jasper traffic really lightens up; north of 104ave, it's virtually dead probably because it ends at 107ave.

  45. #145
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default Re: Downtown to Nait LRT questionnaire

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I think another consideration for the LRT will have to be the condos going up in the area. This would be a great opportunity to for the area around 107 Avenue/Grant MacEwan to develop.

    the intent is to have a station serve the "north edge" and GMC around 106st and 105ave.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  46. #146

  47. #147
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    What did those that completed this think of the questions related to opening up 106st south of 107 ave to compensate for the loss of capacity on 105st? I may be confused but is there not a rather large post-secondary institution in the way south of 105 ave? I drive my wife to work up 105st quite frequently and north of Jasper traffic really lightens up; north of 104ave, it's virtually dead probably because it ends at 107ave.
    Yeah, there's really no need to compensate. 107th to 105 doesn't see mto be a heavily used access to downtown. 107ave is much more a local street than 104 or 111, which is fine. I think that as it is now the road is too wide.

  48. #148
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That map is very interesting. I like the station locations, but it looks like the PE station's angle will take it behind nait and up 113 instead of 97th when it goes beyond.

    I still see no reason for the shift to 104 around the armoury. Just go up 105 it's faster, shorter, and doesn't screw up the aurmory grounds. I assume that the supposed benefit is to move PE station another 25m southe East, but I don't think it's worth it. I still think that grade separation with kingsway will be required. Although since I rarely drive that wat, maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about screwedup traffic, as long as the trains never have to wait.

    And I understand the 106 "compensate for lost capacity" thing now. 105 will be extended to 106, which will become an arterial through route all the way from 104ave north to the yellowhead. What this is is $50m in roadway improvements being added to LRT's bill. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the northward exention include an interchange with the yellowhead and a road extention over/under the CN yards to 113st as a 'compensation for lost capacity' Just like the Belgravia 'busway', it's completely non-LRT construction from the LRT budget.

  49. #149
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Looks like another roadworks project they're trying to tack on to the LRT budget to me, but maybe I'm just being cynical.
    Edit: Apparently I'm not the only one

    Personally, I don't understand why they're trying to create another N-S arterial road where one never existed and competing with an LRT alignment that winds all over the map. That would make it significantly faster to drive downtown, and tear up yet another block in the area.

    Why so many road crossings near MacEwan anyway?

  50. #150

    Default

    I would agree, but someone in the city decided to allow new townhouses to go where 105st would be north of 108ave...


  51. #151
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    That's just the point: they've swung 105 Street to 106 Street so now it would straight north with no problems (except the way the KW-111 Ave-106 St intersection is set up).

    How long until demand "warrants" 106 Street be widened to four lanes from downtown to PE? My guess is a matter of years, what with it stealing riders from the train.

  52. #152
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I would agree, but someone in the city decided to allow new townhouses to go where 105st would be north of 108ave...
    I count 14 pods along 105, but they look like duplexes (dupli?), so 28 units.

    At $250,000 a piece, thats $7m. I think that it would be worth it on a $300m project.

    Emotional attachment of owners/residents to homes notwithstanding, those townhomes are essentially permanant trailers. Build as cheap as possible, with no curb appeal and a very poor street environment. Honestly, whether the city does it or not, tose townhomes are unlikely to last too long as-is before someone with money realizes the potential of that site starts buying them up, to rent till they fall apart and then *BAM* TOD.

    Oh yeah, they're not really new, they're from about 1995, so 12 years old, 15 by the time this project happens and only 15 more from slum status.

  53. #153

    Default

    Making 106st into a major arterial would require significant property acquisition. If they are planning to do that, it should be a stand alone proposal. The LRT budget should not be used to lay the groundwork for such a route. Furthermore, if that is the plan, it doesn't exactly fit in with the North-Edge development.

  54. #154
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    106 Street north of 111 Avenue is also suspicious; why are they disconnecting it and swinging it towards the airport? That's basically ensuring that any redevelopment of the Muni is going to be road based rather than TOD.

    Arterials and TOD do not mix, I agree with their LRT alignment around Kingsway station, but they've gone and boxed the station in with roads.

  55. #155

    Default

    In my perfect world, this is what would happen...


  56. #156
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    This is minor, but putting "Kingsway Station" at the Royal Alex and PE Station at Kingsway?

    It's like the good old days of calling West Ed "West Jasper Place" even though no one in the entire city called it that.

    ETS - Obstinately Obfuscating the Obvious

    (and yes, they're stantec drawings, but that's beside the point. )

  57. #157
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Right, but if you went the other way then you could say they're putting the "Kingsway" Station on PE, and the "Royal Alex" station on Kingsway. I think I just confused myself.

    Matt: I don't know if I would call that perfect, but move the MacEwan station west 1 block, move the Royal Alex a bit, and I'll ignore that you haven't gotten rid of the roads and mostly agree with you.

  58. #158
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Right, but if you went the other way then you could say they're putting the "Kingsway" Station on PE, and the "Royal Alex" station on Kingsway. I think I just confused myself.
    But do transit users care about road names? Isn't that just a symptom of our car-centric society?

    Every other station is town is named after obvious landmarks (except for 76ave which doesn't have any). Why name these two after the roads they're on - especially when it makes things confusing.

    Have a Royal Alex and NAIT station if it makes more sense. But putting a Kingsway station one stop before Kingsway Mall is needlessly goofy.

  59. #159
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,945

    Default

    Although short, this line will be well used and a very key ingredient in connection the major institutions in the city...basically all major educational would be with this.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  60. #160
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    My proposed new station names:
    - MacEwan (105 and 105)
    - Alexandria (Kingsway and 104 St)
    - NAIT (PE and 106 St)

    So if there's going to be an LRT station at Princess Elizabeth and 106 St, does that mean the transit centre at the SE corner of Kingsway Centre will move there too?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  61. #161
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH
    Back to talking about NLRT...

    Does anyone know if Fort Saskatchewan ever expressed an intrest in having the LRT go to Fort Saskatchewan? Have they ever offered to help pay for it?
    I've always wondered about this myself. I'm curious how wide of a right-of-way CN has with it's single track and if a 2nd track could be built adajcent to it.

    It is quite a long distance to Fort Saskatchewan from Clareview for our LRT to travel. I believe the best solution would be to buy a couple of diesel rail cars (used all over Europe) and run them to Clareview. The thing is what would be in it for the City of Edmonton? The only people travelling this route would be commuters who live in Fort Saskatchewan. In my mind, they should pay for all of it. The current bus from Clareview to Fort Saskatchewan should also be paid for entirely by Fort Saskatchewan, if it already isn't.

  62. #162
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LO 044
    It is quite a long distance to Fort Saskatchewan from Clareview for our LRT to travel. I believe the best solution would be to buy a couple of diesel rail cars (used all over Europe) and run them to Clareview. The thing is what would be in it for the City of Edmonton? The only people travelling this route would be commuters who live in Fort Saskatchewan. In my mind, they should pay for all of it. The current bus from Clareview to Fort Saskatchewan should also be paid for entirely by Fort Saskatchewan, if it already isn't.
    I don't think that would be necessarily true. Have you seen the Manning Freeway during the morning rush - or Highway 21? There are many people commuting to the Fort from Northeast Edmonton and Sherwood park.

  63. #163
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasshead
    Quote Originally Posted by LO 044
    It is quite a long distance to Fort Saskatchewan from Clareview for our LRT to travel. I believe the best solution would be to buy a couple of diesel rail cars (used all over Europe) and run them to Clareview. The thing is what would be in it for the City of Edmonton? The only people travelling this route would be commuters who live in Fort Saskatchewan. In my mind, they should pay for all of it. The current bus from Clareview to Fort Saskatchewan should also be paid for entirely by Fort Saskatchewan, if it already isn't.
    I don't think that would be necessarily true. Have you seen the Manning Freeway during the morning rush - or Highway 21? There are many people commuting to the Fort from Northeast Edmonton and Sherwood park.
    The area around the Fort and Redwater are the only areas that would even remotely approach having equal traffic flowing each way. This is especially during heavy construction peaks.

  64. #164
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    48

    Default

    The goal of any transit/transporation project (regardless of mode used) is to ensure as many people as possible can move from Point A to Point B in the shortest amount of time, regardless of mode used. The fact that 75 percent-plus percent of local trips are by vehicle should have a bearing on whether roads are upgraded with LRT northwest of Downtown Edmonton. The motoring majority should not be be held to some congested, traffic-calmed inconvenience for the sale of LRT mobility. Let LRT sell its mobility and convenience on its own merit.

    TODs should be a result of the sucess of transit ridership, rather than zoning local land for TODs prior to LRT proving sucessful in a new area. LRT needs to prove itself as convenient before people will use it on a regular basis. After all, if LRT is attractive for daily use and is close enough to someone's work, residents shouldn't mind living close to an LRT station. Right?

    All modes of transportation should work together to achieve a means to a mobile, efficient end, regardless of the mode used.

    If a municipality can build an LRT line AND improve movement of vehicular traffic, then they should consider themselves fortunate.

    The LRT versus Roads debate is going on all over urbanised North America. It's been going on since the 1940s...It isn't going away any time soon. No side is completely correct on this issue. I don't know how local LRT transit is funded in Canada. However, I do know that here in the States, 20 percent of most municipal LRT operations are funded by actual farebox recovery of rider fare, while the balance of operations are funded by US Federal, State Gasoline Tax Funds and state/local Sales and Use Taxes (think provincial/local GST).

    Whatever happens, I'm sure Edmonton will continue to be a nice place to live and visit. Welcome to North America's Northest Dwelling, Vibrant, Light-Generating, Metropolitian Cultural Energy Hub for the New Century. Welcome to Edmonton !!! Put that on the QE2 below Ellerslie Road for the visitors, baby !!!

  65. #165
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    I don't know how local LRT transit is funded in Canada. However, I do know that here in the States, 20 percent of most municipal LRT operations are funded by actual farebox recovery of rider fare, while the balance of operations are funded by US Federal, State Gasoline Tax Funds and state/local Sales and Use Taxes (think provincial/local GST).
    The proposed monthly pass fare increase would push it from 45% to 57%. 57% is notable in that it's higher than New York, which is one of the highest in the states. LRT is cheaper to operate per passenger kilometre than bus and is going to obviously be more profitable than a bus that tootles around outer Millwoods, so do the math accordingly.

    I really don't have time to get into the same argument all over again, so I'll leave it at that.

  66. #166
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    The goal of any transit/transporation project (regardless of mode used) is to ensure as many people as possible can move from Point A to Point B in the shortest amount of time, regardless of mode used. The fact that 75 percent-plus percent of local trips are by vehicle should have a bearing on whether roads are upgraded with LRT northwest of Downtown Edmonton. The motoring majority should not be be held to some congested, traffic-calmed inconvenience for the sale of LRT mobility. Let LRT sell its mobility and convenience on its own merit.
    Better:
    The goal of any transit/transporation project (regardless of mode used) is to ensure as many people as possible can move from Point A to Point B in the shortest amount of time, regardless of mode used, minimizing negative impacts on the population between points A and B, and on society in general.

    I really don't mind roads, but I do think that any new through road will have a greater negative impact on this neighbourhood than the LRT will. I'm not sure about bagould, but I don't think that Traffic lanes should be reduced to force riders to the train. I also feel that the LRT would be better able to sell it self on it's own merits if it were on it's own, not hitched to the cost and disruptions of a new road.


    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    TODs should be a result of the sucess of transit ridership, rather than zoning local land for TODs prior to LRT proving sucessful in a new area. LRT needs to prove itself as convenient before people will use it on a regular basis. After all, if LRT is attractive for daily use and is close enough to someone's work, residents shouldn't mind living close to an LRT station. Right?
    Im not sure what your point is here, but I think that it's moot. Council can zone whatever it likes, but a TOD will be build, or not, as the public's desire is there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    All modes of transportation should work together to achieve a means to a mobile, efficient end, regardless of the mode used.
    Good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    If a municipality can build an LRT line AND improve movement of vehicular traffic, then they should consider themselves fortunate.
    Absolutely.
    But road improvements shouldn't be on the LRT budget, roads already get the lion's share of transportation funding.

    I'd hope that the LRT project alone would reduce traffic for those who must, or still chose, to drive by taking other cars (and busses too) off the road.


    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    The LRT versus Roads debate is going on all over urbanised North America. It's been going on since the 1940s...It isn't going away any time soon. No side is completely correct on this issue. I don't know how local LRT transit is funded in Canada. However, I do know that here in the States, 20 percent of most municipal LRT operations are funded by actual farebox recovery of rider fare, while the balance of operations are funded by US Federal, State Gasoline Tax Funds and state/local Sales and Use Taxes (think provincial/local GST).
    To add to what bagould wrote, our federal and provincial governments pay virtually nothing towards operating costs for transit. I think that it's a good thing, and will make municipalites look hard at the projects they propose.
    That said, our current LRT runs at or near break-even, and I expect that it will improve marginally with SLRT, and will continue to improve as vehicle capacity is increased. I expect that NLRT will operate in the red in it's initial state, asthe proposal has nlrt vehicles serving 4 or so new stations and duplicating service through to health sciences. I also doubt that there will be more than 3 car trains on NLRT until it gets to 137th Ave.


    Quote Originally Posted by Concrete Bob
    Whatever happens, I'm sure Edmonton will continue to be a nice place to live and visit. Welcome to North America's Northest Dwelling, Vibrant, Light-Generating, Metropolitian Cultural Energy Hub for the New Century. Welcome to Edmonton !!! Put that on the QE2 below Ellerslie Road for the visitors, baby
    Sounds Good To me.

  67. #167

    Default

    The goal of any transit/transporation project (regardless of mode used) is to ensure as many people as possible can move from Point A to Point B in the shortest amount of time, regardless of mode used. The fact that 75 percent-plus percent of local trips are by vehicle should have a bearing on whether roads are upgraded with LRT northwest of Downtown Edmonton. The motoring majority should not be be held to some congested, traffic-calmed inconvenience for the sale of LRT mobility. Let LRT sell its mobility and convenience on its own merit.
    The road they are considering, which includes expropriating a square block of property, would add little for the 'motoring majority'. 105 st ends at 107ave and has little traffic north of Jasper and even less north of 104ave. It seems pointless to me to build an expensive one block detour because LRT is going to take up two lanes. Hell get rid of on-street parking for those two blocks and you haven't lost any capacity. Traffic on 105st between 105-107ave is a non-issue. If the city wants to build a new major arterial connecting the yellowhead via 105-106st to downtown, then they should propose that as a stand alone project. No reason to conflate the two.

    TODs should be a result of the sucess of transit ridership, rather than zoning local land for TODs prior to LRT proving sucessful in a new area. LRT needs to prove itself as convenient before people will use it on a regular basis. After all, if LRT is attractive for daily use and is close enough to someone's work, residents shouldn't mind living close to an LRT station. Right?
    I don't think you'd have very happy developers on your hands if you told them that we won't rezone your farmland out in Terwilligar until we see if the road that goes there is used. To plan a city, the city actively proscribes where it will develop, what will be built there, and how that area will be served. You'll notice that our only TOD so far, Century Park, was lobbied for by the developers, not planned by the city. However, the Claireview station has attracted a bunch a dense collection of 6 story condos around it without any specific TOD planning by either the city or the developer. Regardless of the zoning near LRT stations, TODs will only be built if there is a market for them. In sum, no, not right.[/quote]

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LO 044
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH
    Back to talking about NLRT...

    Does anyone know if Fort Saskatchewan ever expressed an intrest in having the LRT go to Fort Saskatchewan? Have they ever offered to help pay for it?
    I've always wondered about this myself. I'm curious how wide of a right-of-way CN has with it's single track and if a 2nd track could be built adajcent to it.

    It is quite a long distance to Fort Saskatchewan from Clareview for our LRT to travel. I believe the best solution would be to buy a couple of diesel rail cars (used all over Europe) and run them to Clareview. The thing is what would be in it for the City of Edmonton? The only people travelling this route would be commuters who live in Fort Saskatchewan. In my mind, they should pay for all of it. The current bus from Clareview to Fort Saskatchewan should also be paid for entirely by Fort Saskatchewan, if it already isn't.
    From the as-built plan (Plan 4217 S), the R/W is 49.5 ft. (15.09m) off centerline on both sides, meaning the overall width is 99 ft. (30.18m).

    Where to put the LRT track is hard to say, as if it stays on the east side of the existing track, it passes through one farm yard.

  69. #169
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Did anyone go to the open house last night?

  70. #170
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    751

    Default

    yup... pretty interesting stuff..... city has a lot of land they'll need to acquire though!

    overall, I can't wait for this to happen, and for it to grow past nait to either northgate/castledowns area
    i love lamp

  71. #171
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Grr... I was busy last night and couldn't make it.
    Anyone have details?

  72. #172

    Default

    What land do they need to acquire?

  73. #173
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdimedru
    yup... pretty interesting stuff..... city has a lot of land they'll need to acquire though!
    overall, I can't wait for this to happen, and for it to grow past nait to either northgate/castledowns area
    Tunnel. That is the only solution

  74. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco
    Tunnel. That is the only solution
    Hardly. Expropriating the land would be cheaper than tunneling, especially given the property values in the area.

  75. #175
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I made a really quick visit. The info was generally the same as online, but there were a couple interesting tidbits from talking to city reps:

    1.
    The route is not set in stone, the 104st thing, which was based not on being closer to Victoria School, but on the existance of the ****** condos between 105& 106. It will be revisited. "they" also agree that a straight line up 106 or 105 would be better. The existing plan is based on the old plans, when BRT was being considered.

    2. There is no plan for a station near stationlands. The proposed route will apparently be deeper under stationlands and CN tower than at churchill, and the powers that be think an underground station is too expensive, and they would prefer the station be closer to MacEwan. Obviously, a station at 101 and one at 104 is too close.

    3. there is recognition that 107 ave would be a good place for a station, but again, too close to MacEwan Station. (Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate the MacEwan Station and add both 107ave AND 101st. Students Will walk the extra block.

    4. The option of over or under or on kingsway were considered. Sounds like over was eliminated due to noise and privacy concerns, I suppose with residences east of Kingsway mall. It looked like they're leaning towards at grade. (I'd like to see grade separation here, I expect at grade will result in traffic issues worse than the existing 112&82st, with a mall instrad of football games.)

    5. Nait really, really, wants the station to be on their campus. they would prefer on 106, North of Princess Elizabeth Ave. The Mall doesn't really like the current proposed location, because it's their land, and they forsee illegal park& ride issues.

    6. The admitted big question (i heard "Elephant in the room") is the Continued existance of the Muni. If this extention goes as planned, then the muni will die soon to accomodate an extention.

  76. #176
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    What land do they need to acquire?
    Some hospital land, some commercial land south of kingsway (all because of the silly 104St jog) and a bunch of land along 105st,particularly at the jog to 104, as well as at 105ave (macEwan Station.) Plus a little for the portal. The whole new kingsway station, too.

    A bunch of the land on 105st is to mainatain road access to properties, especially for firefighting. I don't know why alleys can't be upgraded to fit a fire truck? it's only surface parking behind those old walkups, anyway.

  77. #177
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Want information on train speeds, station accesses, timing information, route frequencies, turn-arounds, bus connections, or anything to do with the actual route? Too bad, this is just so that drivers who live in houses along the route can yell at them. Why would we talk about transit when we can talk about making sure that there's enough parking and that just as many people can drive as before?

    Am I the only one who sees severe and fundamental problems with the system?

  78. #178
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    This openhouse was light on details on all fronts, not just on the transit planning side.

    But I agree with you. They should be planning this closely with ETS, determining what routes could be modified, eliminated or merged once this is complete. With convenient transfer points (one reason why I like a 107 ave station) we could, possibly, have NOT ALL ROUTES GOING DOWNTOWN! Better crosstown service could be one result of this if it's done right.

    Although looking at the size of the new bus depot, I don't think they've done much real route planning. ETS is stuck on the hub&spoke, timed transfer model even as some routes, and the inner city in general move towards frequiencies & loads that don't need to be treated the same as suburban routes.

  79. #179
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    See Magazine is running a feature on the North LRT this week; it's not available online, but it's free to grab.

    Here's a scan if you'd rather not: http://www.true.apirg.org/press/full...ee.naitlrt.jpg

  80. #180
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    You'd think that someone at city hall would start to think of how to provide good service instead of how many dots can we put on one line. They are still guilty of trying to save a dime by spending a loonie, all while still undecided on the demographics to be served.

    Question one: Who do we expect to ride the LRT to/from this station?

    Question two: Where are they going/coming from?

    Question three: Do we have decent service at the other end?

    Question four: Do we provide better service with one route or two?

    Civic employees and/or consultants spending billions on a rail network without satisfactory answers to these question is an insult to taxpayers.

    To date I haven't heard any reasonable answers to these questions re the NLRT.

  81. #181
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    I think this should be in the nLRT thread, not the wLRT thread:


    Quote Originally Posted by booster
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...318301&k=18920

    Looks like Kingsway Mall does not want to give up land for the LRT!
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  82. #182
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    You're right SDM, and the ensueing conversation as well. If a mod could move it to avoid confusing anyone...

  83. #183
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    435

    Default

    That's kinda silly having the bus station away from the LRT station. How will people make connections between bus and LRT???

  84. #184
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    What's up with our malls not willing to give up land for LRT stations? I'm sure if done properly both the city and mall can benefit from this. Maybe the city just isn't marketing LRT to the malls properly... I don't get it.

  85. #185
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egranado
    That's kinda silly having the bus station away from the LRT station. How will people make connections between bus and LRT???
    Transit riders would have to traverse through the mall.

    It's within their rights to object to having some of their land expropriated, but I'd hope that the negotiations if they are indeed at that stage, would settle on doing what's right for the city. If extra compensation is required, then maybe that what the city has to provide to the owners of the mall. That's it. Having bus and LRT stations set at least 5 minutes apart on foot (on opposite ends of the Kingsway mall lot) really doesn't make much sense if the point of transit is to move people quickly from one location to another with as little hassle as possible.

    I know that the Kingsway operators likely feel that having transit stations at either end would increase the amount of people moving through the mall and spending money, but I can't help but feel that this would simply be a wasted opportunity. We should be creating distinct transit hubs throughout the city. Either way, Kingsway is going to make more money. I also think that they would make more money in the end if the bus and LRT stations were amalgamated into one area.

    I'm sure they'll go over these points during negotiations. If it's not settled in the way that's best transit solution for the city, then we know who to blame.

  86. #186
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    No, they would be more likely to cross 111 and kingsway to Royal Alexandra Station. Only 2-3 minutes away, but still far from ideal.

  87. #187
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    If Kingsway will not allow ETS to put the LRT and bus terminal in the same place I would be very upset.

    There are three options I can think of that I would support. In order of preference:
    1. Bus terminal and LRT between Kingsway and NAIT.
    2. Bus terminal and LRT north of NAIT's HP Centre. If Kingsway wants to encourage it's patrons to walk then lets assist them in their endevour and make them walk.
    3. Bus terminal and LRT where the existing bus terminal is currently. A bit inconvenient for NAIT students but it's far better than the alternative they are suggesting. Probably rather close to the RAH station too.

    Frankly I don't even like the idea of nLRT. I think priorities could use a little shuffling and that street-level LRT in the middle of downtown is short-sighted at best. If the students of NAIT don't want a U-Pass why bother extending LRT services to them? But that's just me ranting a bit. They failed in the planning regarding the Southgate Park and Ride situation - frankly speaking I'm not surprised with this snafu. Thankfully construction for nLRT hasn't already started.

  88. #188
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I think moving the current Kingsway Transit Centre is a good idea. Put it with the LRT station just north of the HP Centre, where those trailers are now. Though NAIT students voted against the U-Pass, the demand for service is still there.
    The next station south of NAIT should be at 104/Kingsway, next to the RAH, in my opinion
    Yay, summertime!

  89. #189

    Default

    How hard would it be to turn 106st from 111ave to Princess Elizabeth ave in to bus/lrt only? Or at least in the middle of that section . You would still have to accommodate the access to parking lots somehow though?

    I don't get why malls like Kingsway or Southgate don't want to participate in having an LRT station right next to them? Whats to lose? What are any possible negative side affects. Especially for Kingsway.

    Sometimes I really wonder... why are things so difficult to accomplish in this city.

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    I think moving the current Kingsway Transit Centre is a good idea. Put it with the LRT station just north of the HP Centre, where those trailers are now. Though NAIT students voted against the U-Pass, the demand for service is still there.
    The next station south of NAIT should be at 104/Kingsway, next to the RAH, in my opinion
    Depends which way you want the LRT to go. Some have suggested a route through the muni lands just west of nait...

  91. #191
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Listening to Global News this morning, it sounds Kingsway Mall has an alternative plan for an LRT station/transit centre that they will discuss with the city.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  92. #192
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    There was an article in the Calgary Herald about their LRT expansion. $700M for 8.4 km, 7 stations and 2 km underground. This also includes buying out 49 homes, businesses and churches. How did they do it that cheap when we are at $850M for half the distance and less underground. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...984cd12&k=6028

    And I believe we should try to keep it underground until 107th Avenue. Think of how Aurora is going to change the area and I would think you would want the North Edge connected to downtown and not separated by an LRT line. And from 105th it should go to the west of the Armoury. Why add a backtrack loop when straight would be just more efficient. My 2 cents.

  93. #193

    Default

    it back tracks so it could potential have a station in front of the hospital.

    But - there must be better way to do that...

  94. #194
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booster
    There was an article in the Calgary Herald about their LRT expansion. $700M for 8.4 km, 7 stations and 2 km underground. This also includes buying out 49 homes, businesses and churches. How did they do it that cheap when we are at $850M for half the distance and less underground. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...984cd12&k=6028

    And I believe we should try to keep it underground until 107th Avenue. Think of how Aurora is going to change the area and I would think you would want the North Edge connected to downtown and not separated by an LRT line. And from 105th it should go to the west of the Armoury. Why add a backtrack loop when straight would be just more efficient. My 2 cents.
    Global Calgary updated the story last night, and they said the costs might go up an extra $200 million if they go with a request by one of the neighbourhoods to go underground through their neighbourhood and an adjacent golf course.

  95. #195
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egranado
    Quote Originally Posted by booster
    There was an article in the Calgary Herald about their LRT expansion. $700M for 8.4 km, 7 stations and 2 km underground. This also includes buying out 49 homes, businesses and churches. How did they do it that cheap when we are at $850M for half the distance and less underground. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...984cd12&k=6028

    And I believe we should try to keep it underground until 107th Avenue. Think of how Aurora is going to change the area and I would think you would want the North Edge connected to downtown and not separated by an LRT line. And from 105th it should go to the west of the Armoury. Why add a backtrack loop when straight would be just more efficient. My 2 cents.
    Global Calgary updated the story last night, and they said the costs might go up an extra $200 million if they go with a request by one of the neighbourhoods to go underground through their neighbourhood and an adjacent golf course.
    and for what it's worth, if anyone wants to see "ugly", see if you can get any photographs of the new skytrain line running along one side of number 3 road in richmond - a street which over the previous decade had done a pretty decent job of implementing boulevard trees and bus lanes and centre medians etc. - all of which are now gone. in some stretches the elevated main beams for the track seem to be less than 10 feet away from second and third floor offices and literally "hang" over the sidewalks fronting what little at grade/at street retail they have (or had)... brutal.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  96. #196
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    I worry that we'll see problems with the LRT running at grade across busy roads, such as University Ave on 114th street. This is a busy intersection as it is, so lets hope that when we add trains to the mix that it will be safe for all users.

  97. #197
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    What's the status with NLRT now?

  98. #198
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    looks like it might start construction in june

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...1cbcd1&k=63185

  99. #199

    Default Tracks paved with gold

    Quote Originally Posted by e909 View Post
    looks like it might start construction in june

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...1cbcd1&k=63185
    A 180 meter tunnel costing $45,000,000!! That is equal to $76,261.00 per foot or $400 Million per mile. What is the track made of, gold?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #200
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by e909 View Post
    looks like it might start construction in june

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...1cbcd1&k=63185
    A 180 meter tunnel costing $45,000,000!! That is equal to $76,261.00 per foot or $400 Million per mile. What is the track made of, gold?
    Apologies in advance for breaking out the arithmetic...

    Gold Density
    19.3 g/cm3 = 19300 kg/m3 = 1204.8596 lb/ft3
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold

    1 troy ounce = 31.1034768 grams
    Today's Spot Price of Gold = $906.58 CAD/troy oz. = $29146.58 CAD/kg
    http://goldprice.org/gold-price-canada.html


    Two types of track estimated...




    Large Track (approx dimensions)
    *******************************
    17.5 cm x 14 cm = 245 cm2 = 0.0245 m2
    Approximate area of rail @ 33% total area of square = 0.008085 m2
    Approximate area of rail @ 50% total area of square = 0.01225 m2

    Length
    180 m --> Total Volume @ 33% = 1.4553 m3 = 28087.29 kg Gold = $818,648,444.97 CAD
    180 m --> Total Volume @ 50% = 2.205 m3 = 42556.5 kg Gold = $1,240,376,431.77 CAD

    1 mile = 1609.3m --> Total Volume @ 33% = 13.0111905 m3 = 251115.97665 kg Gold = $7,319,171,902.71 CAD
    1 mile = 1609.3m --> Total Volume @ 50% = 19.713925 m3 = 380478.7525 kg Gold = $11,089,654,398.04 CAD


    Small Track (approx dimensions)
    *******************************
    11 cm x 11 cm = 121 cm2 = 0.0121 m2
    Approximate area of rail @ 33% total area of square = 0.003993 m2
    Approximate area of rail @ 50% total area of square = 0.00605 m2

    Length
    180 m --> Total Volume @ 33% = 0.71874 m3 = 13871.682 kg Gold = $404,312,089.15 CAD
    180 m --> Total Volume @ 50% = 1.089 m3 = 21017.7 kg Gold = $612,594,074.47 CAD
    1 mile = 1609.3m --> Total Volume @ 33% = 6.4259349 m3 = 124020.54357 kg Gold = $3,614,774,694.81 CAD
    1 mile = 1609.3m --> Total Volume @ 50% = 9.736265 m3 = 187909.9145 kg Gold = $5,476,931,355.77 CAD


    In summary...
    On the low end of the estimate we have:
    Short Track Style @ 180 m = $400MM - $600MM CAD
    Large Track Style @ 180 m = $800MM - $1.25B CAD

    On the high end of the estimate we have:
    Short Track Style @ 1 mile = $3.6B - $5.5B CAD
    Large Track Style @ 1 mile = $7.3B - $11.1B CAD

    IF the track were made out of gold. I'd say $45MM CAD for an LRT tunnel is a bit of a steal comparatively.

    OK, getting back on track...

Page 2 of 86 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... 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
  •