Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 101

Thread: Surface routes, higher spending give Calgary system the edge over Edmonton LRT

  1. #1
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,297

    Default Surface routes, higher spending give Calgary system the edge over Edmonton LRT

    Surface routes, higher spending give Calgary system the edge over Edmonton LRT

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Surfa...736/story.html

    EDMONTON - There was joy in Edmonton last week when the province gave the financial commitments needed to finally roll ahead with southeast LRT construction,

    But even when the route to Mill Woods starts service in 2020, Western Canada’s first rapid transit system will still be only two-thirds as long as Calgary’s C-Train network.

    Tracks stretch into all four corners of the southern city, while Edmonton is served by a rough diagonal from southwest to northeast.

    Former councillor Ron Hayter described the line as a “bobtail” a decade ago when the University of Alberta marked the southern terminus.

    Calgary has spent about $500 million more than Edmonton laying track, building stations and buying trains, even taking the NAIT extension opening in June into account.

    It also focused on cheaper above-ground alignments, getting more distance per dollar than Edmonton’s underground route to the University of Alberta from Churchill, local historian Colin Hatcher said.

    “Basically, they built on the surface in Calgary, so the money they had stretched further,” said Hatcher, who has written histories of rail transit in both cities.

    “Edmonton grew in very small stages, while Calgary, because it was on the surface, grew in much larger stages.”
    The article doesn't mention other factors for quicker expansion of the C-Train:
    - 1988 Winter Olympics
    - favoritism from the Progressive Calgary Party of Alberta
    - COC was less afraid of using debt before COE
    - decades of anti-LRT sentiments in Edmonton, especially in City Hall
    “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

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Surface routes, higher spending give Calgary system the edge over Edmonton LRT

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Surfa...736/story.html

    EDMONTON - There was joy in Edmonton last week when the province gave the financial commitments needed to finally roll ahead with southeast LRT construction,

    But even when the route to Mill Woods starts service in 2020, Western Canada’s first rapid transit system will still be only two-thirds as long as Calgary’s C-Train network.

    Tracks stretch into all four corners of the southern city, while Edmonton is served by a rough diagonal from southwest to northeast.

    Former councillor Ron Hayter described the line as a “bobtail” a decade ago when the University of Alberta marked the southern terminus.

    Calgary has spent about $500 million more than Edmonton laying track, building stations and buying trains, even taking the NAIT extension opening in June into account.

    It also focused on cheaper above-ground alignments, getting more distance per dollar than Edmonton’s underground route to the University of Alberta from Churchill, local historian Colin Hatcher said.

    “Basically, they built on the surface in Calgary, so the money they had stretched further,” said Hatcher, who has written histories of rail transit in both cities.

    “Edmonton grew in very small stages, while Calgary, because it was on the surface, grew in much larger stages.”
    The article doesn't mention other factors for quicker expansion of the C-Train:
    - 1988 Winter Olympics
    - favoritism from the Progressive Calgary Party of Alberta
    - COC was less afraid of using debt before COE
    - decades of anti-LRT sentiments in Edmonton, especially in City Hall
    100% right !! what's wrong with City hall in the 80's !!
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    PCs is throwing money at Calgary to keep voters down there happy
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  4. #4

    Default

    I think the other interesting difference is that Calgary is still only running three car trains on their LRT (they have been working on upgrading the busy line to four car, but not their yet), versus five in Edmonton. There are pros and cons to that, as a passenger though, I think its preferable, because in Calgary you get more small trains more often, rather than larger trains less frequent, it matters a bit less what time you arrive at the station. On the flip side, I guess Edmonton's approach probably results in a lower operating cost per passenger, as fewer drivers needed.

    ^^on the "what was wrong with City Hall", a large part of the problem was that it was going to be very expensive to dig the trains out of the tunnel, that probably made them hesitant in a time when the economy was horrible. I remember it took forever to finally dig out at health sciences, I'm guessing it may have been even harder back in the 1980's (not sure if tunnel boring machines were as effective then).
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-03-2014 at 12:14 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Also, the new Calgary routes are planned to go in a tunnel so the two cities will basically switch places, Edmonton building on the surface and Calgary underground.

    Last page here:

    http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/ct...twork_plan.pdf

  6. #6

    Default

    ^there is a lot of debate over that plan, SE LRT is basically dead as long as Nenshi is there, his preference is the North piece first, but it will probably go underground through part of downtown. There is even talk that it might make sense to have another line SW using perhaps crowchild and 14 street to communities like Evergreen rather than SE, North Central is the one they are focusing on:

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1204304/ci...h-central-lrt/

    But it won't be for a long time:

    Council is expected to finalize the route later this year although construction isn’t expected to begin until 2030, and only if funding is in place.
    Such an analysis earlier this year put the southeast LRT at the bottom of the list of other transit projects.

    A new transitway along Centre St. was ranked at the top of the list.

    The analysis showed that the southeast transitway, estimated at $642 million, isn’t the best option compared to other more cost-effective projects like Centre St., estimated at $120 million.
    http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/09/11...-of-to-do-list
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-03-2014 at 01:22 PM.

  7. #7
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    Edmonton is far more strategic and proactive than it was in the 1980's. Edmonton had a lot of civic debt to pay off, and bond rates were 10% or higher. A line costing $150 million could easily be $500 million by the time interest was factored in.

    While Edmonton didn't had the population growth to support long-term projects, it could have still planned ahead.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    Edmonton has made a few errors in judgement by not going under major intersections such as 87th Avenue. I prefer our LRT to Calgary's. The fact that ours goes underground at the University and downtown is far better in my opinion.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  9. #9

    Default

    Edmonton had little choice but to go underground downtown. Short blocks.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    City Hall in the 80's were in financial restraints and afraid to spend over $ 300 million dollars to expand LRT projects.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  11. #11

    Default

    I bet Calgary would rather have a tunnel.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I bet Calgary would rather have a tunnel.
    I can't imagine 8th ave is going to be a cheap dig/bore when it happens...
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  13. #13
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    395

    Default

    Having surface LRT in downtown Calgary that doesn't have right of way, and stops at every red light, is not a good thing. Let's just hope Edmonton plans for our surface-level LRT downtown to have right of way...

  14. #14
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XTendEdmonton View Post
    Having surface LRT in downtown Calgary that doesn't have right of way, and stops at every red light, is not a good thing. Let's just hope Edmonton plans for our surface-level LRT downtown to have right of way...
    most cities in Europe and also some in the states doesn't have right of way at all on surface level LRT.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  15. #15
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    Calgary's LRT shares 7 Avenue South with buses, that take up the street. At least 102 Avenue will have some kind of separation between the road and LRT.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  16. #16

    Default

    When they build our new proposed surface LRT route, I just hope they'll resolve the interlining signalling issues, which will pop up with every traffic light, on whatever schedule they pretend they will stick to.

  17. #17

    Default

    I'd rather have LRT underground downtown than above ground that's for sure. Did it not spawn the pedway system as well?

  18. #18

    Default

    ^ Technically no, but did provide a massive increase in pedway coverage.

    The first pedways were born with "Edmonton Centre" shopping mall (now City Centre East), with its connections over 103 Avenue to its giant parkade and to the Four Seasons' Hotel (now Sutton Place). Next I believe was the underground link to Eatons (now City Centre West). Then, I think, came the Churchill and Central Station mazes.

    I believe Master Maq did a feature on his blog about the history in-depth.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  19. #19

    Default

    ^ let in our density and size needs to be on grade. It's absurd to try to justify the cost of below grade. Not to mention ease of access for the disabled.


    Yay on grade lrt
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    *sigh* Here we go again.

    I'm fine, for the most part with at-grade LRT with (underlined, italicized and bolded) grade separation where it makes sense, i.e. Whyte Ave and 83rd Street and 104 Ave and 109 Street. Oh, and 87 Ave and 170 Street, which has already been planned for.

    Cue the tirade ...
    ... gobsmacked

  21. #21

    Default

    ^ You're not allowed to have opinions that differs from the approved routing. You'll be called Rob Ford and an auto-lover, and some images of Paris showing only their trams (of course while ignoring the rest of Paris Metro, the subways and heavy rail) will now appear too. Watch out. Then someone will say "Edmonton makes excuses" or something equally stupid.

    yay for yayeers!

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    ^Well, I admit I do love my odd-looking Honda... which my frtiends call a Nazi staff car.

    ...and which I drive regularily, twice, maybe even three times a week.
    ... gobsmacked

  23. #23

    Default

    I think you need to realistically look at city's of our size (and larger) and density.... Huston, Dallas, Calgary, SLC.. All at grade systems. Toronto will run at grade systems through parts of their city denser than most of Edmonton as part of their plans.

    I ignore the metro in paris because when we reach the density of megalopolis then we can look at the cost benifit of below grade system... I am sorry but the cost of burring the lrt makes no sense for the relativity small ridership as compered to Toronto, Paris, China etc etc etc....

    I use the tram system in Paris as a model because frankly most modern lrt/tram systems use Paris as a model. You try to make fun of me but you simply show how ignorant you are about current lrt design. Paris is an amazing example of a city that is more congested, denser and has an amazing at grade system that is expanding at amazing rates.

    The system has to fit the need.. and has to make sense from a cost benefit analysis. as the article pointed out we paid a premium for being a leader on the LRT file in a small center. It should have never gone underground as it limited our LRT growth. With the U/G system also come huge maintenance costs and as any disabled person will tell you the current high floor system is often very hard to use with escalator/elevator outages ect ect.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  24. #24

    Default

    Houston, Dallas, Calgary and Toronto all have certain key intersections grade-separated.

    Nobody is saying "Lets put the entire route underground" nobody is saying "lets elevate the entire route"...

    If you are actually reading what people write EDP, you'll realize that the majority of us are just calling for one grade separated intersections. An intersection that is already identified by Edmonton transportation as "Over Capacity"...

    The rest of the system is okay..... but for some reason, that seems to mean to you that we want the entire thing grade separated.

    do you comprehend?

    Even Houston, Dallas, Paris, Toronto, Calgary, etc have grade separated certain key intersections due to... CAPACITY ISSUES.

    (Please stop comparing street cars/trams to LRT systems as well... that's another one of your mistakes)

  25. #25

    Default

    All anyone is calling for is a grade separate LRT at Whyte Ave at 83rd street to prevent massive congestion problems.

    How EDP sees/reads this "OMG THEY WANT FULL BLOWN SUBWAYS FOR THE ENTIRE ROUTE, EVILNESS"

  26. #26

    Default

    ^ Grade separation simply isnt needed.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Au contraire. Grade separation at one or two key points is simply required.

    It is simply penny wise and dollar foolish not to do so.
    ... gobsmacked

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ Grade separation simply isnt needed.
    In your opinion, only. Even in your examples, there is grade separation, even if you choose to ignore the rest of those cities transit system. Those systems that you identify that don't have other complimentary systems. Trams/Streetcars used for local, LRT/Subway used for longer/commuter like traffic.

    They all have a role. Even Grade separation has a role in key intersections. It's nessecary for the efficient movement of people, services and goods in a bustling metropolitan area like Edmonton and the examples you keep citing.

  29. #29

    Default

    ^^ nope

    it REALLY isn't needed. We may view it in autocentric Edmonton but if you look at systems around the world we will be able to navigate these intersections at grade.

    this thread is a testament of what over engineering has done to our ability to build out in a timely fashion.

    of all the intersections that I would have argued for grad separation on planned or soon to be completed lines would be the King sway LRT intersection, but at the end of the day people will simply just have to get used to the change.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 25-03-2014 at 01:12 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ Grade separation simply isnt needed.
    In your opinion, only. Even in your examples, there is grade separation, even if you choose to ignore the rest of those cities transit system. Those systems that you identify that don't have other complimentary systems. Trams/Streetcars used for local, LRT/Subway used for longer/commuter like traffic.

    They all have a role. Even Grade separation has a role in key intersections. It's nessecary for the efficient movement of people, services and goods in a bustling metropolitan area like Edmonton and the examples you keep citing.
    No not in my opinion, in the opinion of city planners, international experts on these systems and examples from around the globe that included cities much more congested than here.

    You keep doing what we have done and you will keep getting what we have. Its a very simple concept.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  31. #31

    Default

    It has nothing to do with being autocentric EDP. Another fallacy in your argument.

    In any of the systems you have pointed out in the world, grade separation exists there at certain spots where its required.


    Kingsway doesn't have any where near the traffic 83rd /Whyte Avenue has. I'll remind you, THE CITY OF EDMONTON Trans Dept has already labelled this intersection as "At/Over capacity", but somehow, your kingsway one isnt.

  32. #32

    Default

    No it really does have EVERYTHING to do with being auto centric.

    You are saying that the right of way of the auto trumps all and in response to that we need to pay extra to build fly overs to protect cars when we know that such massive overhead structures are not healthy for the immediate area. It would create a visual barrier that would serve to effectively physiologically divide one side of the line from the other and create a negative pedestrian experience.

    Again the OP posted an article that says Calgary has only spent 500 mil more than us cumulative but has so much more.....
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 25-03-2014 at 01:21 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  33. #33

    Default

    Why do I waste my time with such idiotic people who seem to think they know all.

    When you only choose to focus on one small aspect of a large transportation system, you come up with the clueless rantings like Mark.... Time to look at the bigger picture. Mark, there is no way you know what opinions every city planners, international experts on these systems have, and it just absurd that you believe you do. Open your tunnel-visioned eyes...

  34. #34
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    All anyone is calling for is a grade separate LRT at Whyte Ave at 83rd street to prevent massive congestion problems.

    How EDP sees/reads this "OMG THEY WANT FULL BLOWN SUBWAYS FOR THE ENTIRE ROUTE, EVILNESS"
    I would also like 109 st downtown to be grade separated but that may be a taller task.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Actually ....

    I buy books of tickets to use whenever it's more convenient to take transit, which it often is.

    So, I want a train-centric system that gets me to my destination quickly and efficiently.

    I find that grade separation from time to time helps to achieve that goal.

    Oh, and Whyte Ave, lest we forget, is the main emergency vehicle route, espy from Sherwood Park to University Hospital.

    Be okay if emergency vehicles could divert a block or so - but they can't. At best - they'd have to divert 20 blocks south to Argyll and then 20 blocks back north.

    Not the best for someone in the back suffering a heart attack or such ...
    ... gobsmacked

  36. #36

    Default

    ^^ Another intersection identify by "Transportation experts" as over capacity. Good call.

  37. #37

    Default

    ^ so it's over capacity.... it was going to happen..

    That's why be build LRT and not more road.

    More road = more cars and more cars equals a less vibrant DT.

    Really Medwards this has been studied and beaten to death... we know the outcome and have been living it for 40-50 years. We went from a DT with mixed use streets great urban form to one of Barron parking lots and autocentric streets, we ripped up our trolley system and created a DT wasteland... all for the car. What did it get us?
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 25-03-2014 at 01:25 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  38. #38

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ so it's over capacity.... it was going to happen..

    That's why be build LRT and not more road.
    and nobody is asking for more road.... Just have the train pass under/over this one or two particular "over capacity" intersections. How hard is to comprehend??

    Benefits: Faster LRT, more passengers, speedier to destinations

    Cons: None!!!

    Win-Win.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Really Medwards this has been studied and beaten to death... we know the outcome and have been living it for 40-50 years. We went from a DT with mixed use streets great urban form to one of Barron parking lots and autocentric streets, we ripped up our trolley system and created a DT wasteland... all for the car. What did it get us?
    Dude - really - you are attempting again to say stuff that I'm not saying. I'm NOT advocating for more roads to be built.

    Are you really stupid? You look pretty stupid when you start arguing against stuff that nobody is asking for .... Please understand the request before losing another gasket.

  41. #41

    Default

    Somehow making our LRT system as efficient as possible so people can get downtown in a reasonable time frame is going to make our downtown less vibrant.
    Somehow making our LRT system a better system will add cars to the road?

    WHERE DO YOU MAKE THIS STUFF UP FROM EDP?!?!?!

  42. #42

    Default

    Yes there are cons... Cost both to build and maintain.. Access.... impact to the community by way of overhead infrastructure.

    I am often accused of using rose colored glasses but my goodness.

    Look at the struggle we had to get the CURRENT commitment for funding..... and again it's right there in black and white in the op..

    The expensive choices we have made have resulted in a drastically smaller system and lets be honest the majority of our pre existing LRT was VERY cheap to build on an existing rail ROW.

    the DT tunnel came at a HUGE cost... that stopped/slowed the expansion of lrt for decades.

    it's not only the cost to build but maintain and keep operating. How many times have we had to fix the roof of Central, how much does it cost to keep the escalators and elevators working which we struggle to do... whats the cost of tunnel maintenance...

    there are some benefits but if we did an ACTUAL cost benefit analysis of having the current system on grade or below grade I am not sure our current design would win and esp in todays market.

    We took a risk and we were leaders.... we have what we have. lets just build on it but learn from past mistakes.

    Protecting the right of the car especially in the urban centers is not in the long term best interest for the core or or the city as a whole.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Really Medwards this has been studied and beaten to death... we know the outcome and have been living it for 40-50 years. We went from a DT with mixed use streets great urban form to one of Barron parking lots and autocentric streets, we ripped up our trolley system and created a DT wasteland... all for the car. What did it get us?
    Dude - really - you are attempting again to say stuff that I'm not saying. I'm NOT advocating for more roads to be built.

    Are you really stupid? You look pretty stupid when you start arguing against stuff that nobody is asking for .... Please understand the request before losing another gasket.
    I am not loosing a gasket.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    So, just for the record, you would have had a level crossing for SLRT at Belgravia Road and 114th Street?

    The word riot comes to mind, among others ...
    ... gobsmacked

  45. #45
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    I have been wondering...could Edmonton have built the LRT at grade along 104 Ave through the south edge of the CN rail lands and down along the track just west of 109 St, save for maybe a short underground section turning onto just west of 109 St similar to that tunnel just east of the Alberta School for the Deaf turning onto 111 St? The only big problem is that the LRT wouldn't have gone right through the heart of the financial district going that way - unless the financial district managed to shift over time to around 109 St/ Jasper Ave.
    Is there hope for Edmonton? Yes!!! The Oilers? Wait and see.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Yes there are cons... Cost both to build and maintain.. Access.... impact to the community by way of overhead infrastructure.
    I'm talking about a simple grade separation of intersection. Could be a a small tunnel, or your suggestion of overhead. Just the intersection, not the entire line. One intersection, not all. A vital intersection for multiple reasons. Benefits everyone.

    I am often accused of using rose colored glasses but my goodness.
    I wouldn't call it rose colored glasses, my goodness!

    Look at the struggle we had to get the CURRENT commitment for funding..... and again it's right there in black and white in the op..
    I'm suggesting changing a very small aspect of the current route. Not throwing away the entire works and starting over.

    The expensive choices we have made have resulted in a drastically smaller system and lets be honest the majority of our pre existing LRT was VERY cheap to build on an existing rail ROW.
    I'm not talking about re-creating a downtown tunnel. A simple trench or bridge, similar to how they've done 170st or Wagnar station or see the WLRT in Calgary.
    the DT tunnel came at a HUGE cost... that stopped/slowed the expansion of lrt for decades. it's not only the cost to build but maintain and keep operating. How many times have we had to fix the roof of Central, how much does it cost to keep the escalators and elevators working which we struggle to do... whats the cost of tunnel maintenance...
    Again, not calling for a long lenghty tunnel to be done. Not looking for the route to be re-designed, or re-started from scratch. Why are you bringing this up? Nobody but you is even suggesting a downtown tunnel. Grade separate 1 more intersection on the southside, and one more downtown west (whenever that leg gets built)

    blah blah blah you went so far off the subject of what is being requested for absolutely no purpose.
    because you aren't listening.

  47. #47

    Default

    I think the whole south portion of the line is a bit of a dogs breakfast.

    I think we cheeped out in some ways, but not the ways you think.

    The alignment of the train should have been on the other side of 114st. and likely stuck to the road way ROW in hindsight.

    We ended up building a transit stop to south campus based on speculation of something that is CLEARLY not going to come to fruition.

    Do you remember this?

    I rally feel that the U of A asked a lot of us and did not deliver.....

    there are missed opportunities for stations on the current line ant the way the line is designed now they will be expensive to add on in the future....

    I think we have come a long way since the south line however... we learned a lot and reached out to the international community instead of doing it in house.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    The west side alignment along 114 street was chosen for many reasons - one possibly being that's where the tracks were north of University Ave. (How did you plan to get the tracks to the east side, I wonder?)

    Another being, that's what the U of A, rightly or wrongly asked for - and long-term I doubt that we've heard the last of developments at South Campus.

    But, the question was, given the alignment we have - you'd have personally put LRT at-grade across Belgravia Road?

    And, I beg to disagree btw - I think SLRT is wonderful. I/we take it to Southgate often.
    ... gobsmacked

  49. #49

    Default

    I have given my reply I think the majority of the line is a dogs breakfast.

    so while we are living in dream land i have given you my dream reply.. and yes the crossings would be at grade but not the same way and same fashion.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    There's no dreamland. We're firmly planted back here Kansas, er Edmonton.

    Just that it's apparent that you and I have much more vastly different views of LRT than I had even thought.

    Fair nuff. To me, SLRT is precisely what I want LRT to be (well except that silly McKernan/Belgravia station).

    Also unsure, if you are advocating to save money so we can extend LRT further, how putting it through Parkallen (as you seem to suggest) would achieve that goal versus the undeveloped U of A property.

    Anyway - we carry on.
    ... gobsmacked

  51. #51

    Default

    so wait you can ask me if I would have at grade crossings with the current alignment (dreamland) but I can't answer I would have at grade crossings but the alignment would change slightly...

    I think that is a fair reply.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  52. #52

    Default

    Sounds like traffic on 83rd street will be significantly reduced.

    Motorists on Argyll Road could face major traffic jams created by the southeast LRT line, the project manager warned Tuesday.

    Planners predict congestion for people turning north from Argyll on to 83rd Street, which loses half its driving lanes to tracks up to 82nd Avenue, Brad Smid said.

    “We’re taking over two lanes of traffic to put in the LRT. That was council’s direction … to utilize existing rights-of-way rather than buy more properties,” he said.

    “We see in the traffic modelling big backups on Argyll … It’s just a model. People will look for alternate routes when we get into construction and operation.”

    He didn’t know how long the lineups might be.

    Smid expects this corner will be the worst tie-up created by the 13-kilometre Valley Line to Mill Woods, with no major delays between Argyll and 82nd Avenue.

    Some vehicles will be lured away to 75th Street, which is being widened for the LRT between Whitemud Drive and Wagner Road, or other routes, he said.


    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...395/story.html

  53. #53
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    so wait you can ask me if I would have at grade crossings with the current alignment (dreamland) but I can't answer I would have at grade crossings but the alignment would change slightly...

    I think that is a fair reply.
    Slightly? East side of 114 street is slight?

    Anyway, you say the current alignment is dreamland, I say it's positively dreamy and keeps LRT as an auto alternative for me. Danged good one.

    Slow it down, add in community stops every few blocks - back to my car. I might use SELRT as proposed (though I predict serious issues and possible deaths, though I admit that's fear mongering, even if I believe it to be true).

    But west LRT as proposed - I'd use as often as Route 100, which is to say never.

    Guess in your dreamland, I'll be buying another car. (And I have been seriously thinking about not doing so - in your dreamland, I can assure you that I will - casualty of absolutism I guess)
    ... gobsmacked

  54. #54

    Default

    The Valley Line will already be grade separated at 170 Street, 75 Street, and Argyl Road, I don't mind if they grade separate the Valley line over a couple other arteries, and I think Iveson said as much too. But it's not really a deal make or break for me.

    Regarding the Capital line it wasn't quite so simple back when it was built, as it would have taken much more extreme measures to cross the valley between the Legislature and University anyways. CPR was trying to hold the City over a barrel to use the High Level, which wouldn't have been easy to work with anyways, or what? Tunnel down to a new low level bridge and then tunnel back up? Build a new High Level? I think tunneling all the way from Churchill was actually a perfectly reasonable option at the time. And it's money in the bank now.

    The big problem vis á vis Calgary was definitely the differing levels of support from the higher levels of government. Less dollars outright by far, but should we even look at plain dollars when Edmonton's geography simply required more investment? Is it our fault our Valley is more dramatic?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  55. #55
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    so wait you can ask me if I would have at grade crossings with the current alignment (dreamland) but I can't answer I would have at grade crossings but the alignment would change slightly...

    I think that is a fair reply.
    Slightly? East side of 114 street is slight?

    Anyway, you say the current alignment is dreamland, I say it's positively dreamy and keeps LRT as an auto alternative for me. Danged good one.

    Slow it down, add in community stops every few blocks - back to my car. I might use SELRT as proposed (though I predict serious issues and possible deaths, though I admit that's fear mongering, even if I believe it to be true).

    But west LRT as proposed - I'd use as often as Route 100, which is to say never.

    Guess in your dreamland, I'll be buying another car. (And I have been seriously thinking about not doing so - in your dreamland, I can assure you that I will - casualty of absolutism I guess)
    Just because it will have less grade separations doesn't mean it will lose ROW priority and become slower. It will still have more priority than an automobile and still be a fast alternative to cars. They are predicting 30 mins from Mill Woods to downtown. I would dare you try to beat that during rush hour in your vehicle except that might be dangerous. The Mill Woods line will be safer and will be AT LEAST the same speed as cars.

  56. #56

    Default

    Millwoods town center to downtown in a car in 30 mins at rush hour is very do-able. The 8 takes 39 mins.... and it stops a lot more.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    so wait you can ask me if I would have at grade crossings with the current alignment (dreamland) but I can't answer I would have at grade crossings but the alignment would change slightly...

    I think that is a fair reply.
    Slightly? East side of 114 street is slight?

    Anyway, you say the current alignment is dreamland, I say it's positively dreamy and keeps LRT as an auto alternative for me. Danged good one.

    Slow it down, add in community stops every few blocks - back to my car. I might use SELRT as proposed (though I predict serious issues and possible deaths, though I admit that's fear mongering, even if I believe it to be true).

    But west LRT as proposed - I'd use as often as Route 100, which is to say never.

    Guess in your dreamland, I'll be buying another car. (And I have been seriously thinking about not doing so - in your dreamland, I can assure you that I will - casualty of absolutism I guess)
    I don't know in what over dramatic drag show you life your life in ... But adding a couple stops to the south line would hardly bring the mass exodus to the system you present.

    Really dude. Get just a wee grip on reality please
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  58. #58

    Default

    The south line doesn't need anymore stops in its present course.

    It's an LRT line - not a local bus route. Its for moving people between nodes quickly... not a milk run stopping at every other block.

  59. #59

    Default

    ^ OMG lol adding two stops won'y kill you .. again it's proven that an average stop distance of 800 M is the MOST effective use of the system. The seemingly perfect trade off between efficiency and access..

    I love it how some people (medwards) will throw eggs at the transportation department but somehow they got the South lrt JUST RIGHT lol...
    2 stops should likely be added to the south lrt line...

    If some think this will destroy the system so be it... but it wont.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Drag show life? WTF?

    Get lost. Come back when you learn how to spell. Which will be never.

    Seriously - I'm probably one of the few people here to have cut you some slack - but this latest no class, boorish, holier-than-all piece of s**t is way over the top.

    Buh-bye

    How's that work again ...file/ignore ...
    ... gobsmacked

  61. #61

    Default

    where do you add two stops on the SLRT? Bus stops are every 400 m, LRT stops are every 800-2000m. 800 in a central neighbourhood is fine, but out in the suburbs, its unnecessary. Careful how you answer...

    Could you attempt to respond with logic and reasoning and without the over top stuff "OMG transit planners around the world agree with me lol you are so wrong"

    Also - who said it would destroy the system? This is you, making stuff up again.

  62. #62
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,158

    Default

    A letter in response to the Calgary LRT vs. Edmonton LRT article:

    Re: “Push to change LRT route rebuffed by city,” March 20

    Last week, our group presented an alternative Valley Line river crossing. Again, the City of Edmonton was closed to any sincere consideration or meaningful discussion.

    Our alternative route costs at least tens of millions less than the city’s proposed one because ours: involves no tunnel into the unstable Grierson Hill riverbank (the site of an old landfill and coal mines); cuts about 300 metres of track; adds a Shaw Conference Centre stop; includes a simpler bridge that follows the Low Level Bridge corridor (no pedestrian platform, no “signature” design), and avoids an immediate $30-million expenditure for demolition of the structurally sound Cloverdale footbridge prior to even beginning construction.

    Kristine Kowalchuk, Edmonton
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...192/story.html
    Another letter. These guys don't know when to stop beating a dead buggy:

    It’s odd city council ignored the cost savings suggestion of the Save the Footbridge people at the March 19 transportation committee meeting. Following up on the city’s critique of their earlier “tweak” of the river-crossing portion of the LRT’s Valley Line, the group dramatically pared costs. They kept the line on the surface, avoiding seven blocks of very expensive tunnelling, and shortened the route to Mill Woods by 300 metres, saving commuting time and construction dollars.

    Now we learn the reason Calgary is ahead of us in the green push to mass transit is because they chose to stay on the surface rather than dig. Despite starting later, Calgary has 2-1/2 times more trackage than Edmonton, and three times the number of stations.

    Let’s hope our councillors don’t lose any sleep over this.

    Allan Shute, Edmonton

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...192/story.html

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    where do you add two stops on the SLRT? Bus stops are every 400 m, LRT stops are every 800-2000m. 800 in a central neighbourhood is fine, but out in the suburbs, its unnecessary. Careful how you answer...

    Could you attempt to respond with logic and reasoning and without the over top stuff "OMG transit planners around the world agree with me lol you are so wrong"

    Also - who said it would destroy the system? This is you, making stuff up again.
    Mc boo went off on hysterical rant where he threatened to get another car and stop using the lrt.

    average stop spacing of 800m over the entire line. so you are saying the same thing I am.. Buses rarely make it 400 M without stopping... often in the core is 100M 200M if you are REALLY Lucky.

    again adding 2 stops to the South LRT line would add next to nothing in travel time as the system only sits at a platform for apx 30 seconds and stops and starts relatively quickly.

    You spend BILLIONS on building this so you have to find the best balance between access and efficiency. This points time and time again to a system wide average stop spacing of apx 800 M.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by North Guy66 View Post
    A letter in response to the Calgary LRT vs. Edmonton LRT article:

    Re: “Push to change LRT route rebuffed by city,” March 20

    Last week, our group presented an alternative Valley Line river crossing. Again, the City of Edmonton was closed to any sincere consideration or meaningful discussion.

    Our alternative route costs at least tens of millions less than the city’s proposed one because ours: involves no tunnel into the unstable Grierson Hill riverbank (the site of an old landfill and coal mines); cuts about 300 metres of track; adds a Shaw Conference Centre stop; includes a simpler bridge that follows the Low Level Bridge corridor (no pedestrian platform, no “signature” design), and avoids an immediate $30-million expenditure for demolition of the structurally sound Cloverdale footbridge prior to even beginning construction.

    Kristine Kowalchuk, Edmonton
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...192/story.html
    Another letter. These guys don't know when to stop beating a dead buggy:

    It’s odd city council ignored the cost savings suggestion of the Save the Footbridge people at the March 19 transportation committee meeting. Following up on the city’s critique of their earlier “tweak” of the river-crossing portion of the LRT’s Valley Line, the group dramatically pared costs. They kept the line on the surface, avoiding seven blocks of very expensive tunnelling, and shortened the route to Mill Woods by 300 metres, saving commuting time and construction dollars.

    Now we learn the reason Calgary is ahead of us in the green push to mass transit is because they chose to stay on the surface rather than dig. Despite starting later, Calgary has 2-1/2 times more trackage than Edmonton, and three times the number of stations.

    Let’s hope our councillors don’t lose any sleep over this.

    Allan Shute, Edmonton

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...192/story.html
    the city said it would cost MORE to do this and we would loose the quarters stop and the convention center stop is not possible.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    where do you add two stops on the SLRT? Bus stops are every 400 m, LRT stops are every 800-2000m. 800 in a central neighbourhood is fine, but out in the suburbs, its unnecessary. Careful how you answer...

    Could you attempt to respond with logic and reasoning and without the over top stuff "OMG transit planners around the world agree with me lol you are so wrong"

    Also - who said it would destroy the system? This is you, making stuff up again.
    Mc boo went off on hysterical rant where he threatened to get another car and stop using the lrt.

    average stop spacing of 800m over the entire line. so you are saying the same thing I am.. Buses rarely make it 400 M without stopping... often in the core is 100M 200M if you are REALLY Lucky.

    again adding 2 stops to the South LRT line would add next to nothing in travel time as the system only sits at a platform for apx 30 seconds and stops and starts relatively quickly.

    You spend BILLIONS on building this so you have to find the best balance between access and efficiency. This points time and time again to a system wide average stop spacing of apx 800 M.
    so where on the SLRT would you put two more stops? Where? Not why or all the methodology/theory you keep rambling on about . WHERE.

  66. #66

    Default

    ^ You will just argue it anyways..

    Remember I was asked if i would have at grade crossings at Belgravia road road and I said I would if the line had been done differently....

    so on the current allignment I likely would only add one. Between SG and CP. There is some opportunity for great intensification right at 61st and 111.... if the community was to move forward large denser ressy community there a station could be of benefit t there as well.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 26-03-2014 at 01:42 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  67. #67

    Default

    I'll agree - there could be another station but I'd would say at 34th avenue, on the SLRT.... I'm not so sure about 61/111 (though it may be possible with the same concerns addressed below)

    However, in the current condition, I dont see it feasible. The neighbourhood around 34th avenue is all inward facing. In order to walk to the station you have to walk 400-800 m in the opposite direction of the station before you can walk towards the station. There is no room for much of a bus station, and no room for park n ride either.

    Now, in 30-60 years, as that housing stock is being replaced, and there is enough will of the people of the area for change, there could be possibility of a station being built there, but not before. You would need to change the layout, or at least provide better routing for the people in the area to get to the station... If the neighbourhood was older and more grid like pattern, we could already have a similar station like belgravia, but its the layout that really not at all friendly to have a station there.

    And as for arguing/debating... welcome to what forums are great for!
    Last edited by Medwards; 26-03-2014 at 01:57 PM.

  68. #68

    Default

    ^ the question becomes.... do we build roads in subdivisions AFTER the houses are built or before. If it's before why the double standard for LRT?

    and to relate this back to the op... we can talk about this and easily make inexpensive changes (adding stations or expansion) because the system is at grade. if this line was blow or above grade the bar would have to be so much higher before the cost= the benefit.

    The one at 61st would have to be part of a plan like strathern.

    Along the same line there is an opportunity to build Mega School on the hairy anely site. and have it connected by LRT. I think the SE line is a great example of some missed opportunities based primary on the wish to get people from the far South to the Core/uni as fast as possible and not doing proper cost/benefit opportunities.

    I think that also speaks to the OP... yes the Tunnel is wonderful but it came at a cost... Has that cost been worth it based on what we gave up?
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 26-03-2014 at 02:09 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ the question becomes.... do we build roads in subdivisions AFTER the houses are built or before. If it's before why the double standard for LRT?
    I've tried to push for Edmonton to be pro-active with LRT development. LRT should be part of the requirement the builders pay for when making new neighbourhoods. Gorman should've, but isn't. We had our chance to build a cheap extension but wasted away, and now we are seeing less intensive usage developments built.
    Millwoods should've had LRT built to it from the start, not after the fact. Same with the West end.

  70. #70

    Default

    I Would agree.... but it's still not too late for Gorman..

    The explosion of building in the NE is jut on the horizon though. In a few years we will have to make a choice.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 26-03-2014 at 03:47 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  71. #71

    Default

    That will be a great thing for Blatchford, LRT from day one when the first people move in.

  72. #72
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    For where the Gorman station is proposed I don't think there is really much there yet so there is still time although I wouldn't mind if somehow they could spend some money on prep work for the ROW. I think the part of the city that needs to look at extension of the current line is the south part going to Ellerslie station and further south. The most expensive parts of that expansion will be the bridge through the ravine and the bridge over AHD. After that it should be pretty easy to go further and eventually right out to the airport (I'm hoping a successful Commonwealth Games bid will help that part). Blatchford would be great with a new station there.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    After that it should be pretty easy to go further and eventually right out to the airport (I'm hoping a successful Commonwealth Games bid will help that part). Blatchford would be great with a new station there.
    It's not an easy expansion at all, it would almost double the length of the line, which would double the number of trains needed (to keep service times the same). It would also likely require an electrical upgrade to the entire line to bring the speeds up to a reasonable level. Rather than build a line through farmland to service a few airport travellers and leduc residents who could travel quicker downtown if there were a non stop bus to the core (which would cost a fraction of the price), we should instead build LRT to where people live. A turn to travel up WMD or ellersllie to Edmontons fastest growing neighbourhoods in the sw like Windermere would make way more sense.

  74. #74

    Default

    Considering they are building all the way to 41 ave sw going to the airport from there isn't much of a stretch despite what moahunter claims.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    After that it should be pretty easy to go further and eventually right out to the airport (I'm hoping a successful Commonwealth Games bid will help that part). Blatchford would be great with a new station there.
    It's not an easy expansion at all, it would almost double the length of the line, which would double the number of trains needed (to keep service times the same). It would also likely require an electrical upgrade to the entire line to bring the speeds up to a reasonable level. Rather than build a line through farmland to service a few airport travellers and leduc residents who could travel quicker downtown if there were a non stop bus to the core (which would cost a fraction of the price), we should instead build LRT to where people live. A turn to travel up WMD or ellersllie to Edmontons fastest growing neighbourhoods in the sw like Windermere would make way more sense.
    It always feels so weird when I agree with you wholeheartedly

    Buy the ROW ( "for 30 years from now when it may be viable) and start a Route 747 bus service from WEM.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  76. #76

    Default

    ^ yep 100%
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  77. #77

    Default

    Well the Province just announced funding for Calgary's gold plated design Green Line LRT.

    https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...A0E76007A8AC33

    http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...struction.aspx

    Stage 1 is expected to cost $5bln for 14 stations. The province has committed roughly $1.5bln

    They are tunneling from 16th Avenue, beneath the Bow River, right through to City Hall before coming back up to grade and then elevate a lengthy portion over freeways.

    Here we are in Edmonton where we're so afraid of costs, we don't even grade separate crucial intersections like University Ave and Kingway Avenue - and the exact opposite end of the spectrum is happening in Calgary with them doing a gold-plated solution to move a very small portion of the population.

    I can easily see this $5bln figure balloon to $7bln or more.


  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    Well the Province just announced funding for Calgary's gold plated design Green Line LRT.

    https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...A0E76007A8AC33

    http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...struction.aspx

    Stage 1 is expected to cost $5bln for 14 stations. The province has committed roughly $1.5bln

    They are tunneling from 16th Avenue, beneath the Bow River, right through to City Hall before coming back up to grade and then elevate a lengthy portion over freeways.

    Here we are in Edmonton where we're so afraid of costs, we don't even grade separate crucial intersections like University Ave and Kingway Avenue - and the exact opposite end of the spectrum is happening in Calgary with them doing a gold-plated solution to move a very small portion of the population.

    I can easily see this $5bln figure balloon to $7bln or more.

    once again, calgary beats us. we build a tram, they build a transit system that takes into account 'mass' and 'rapid'

  79. #79
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    ^ Calgary didn't "beat us". Their lrt is designed differently than ours.
    We're just missing the west Edmonton lrt connection, which will be a game changer for Edmonton.
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  80. #80

    Default

    The Calgary system is low floor, running in the street on center street, just like the new Edmonton system (only difference is the downtown tunnel, which I think will be regretted in time).

  81. #81

    Default

    ^

    'Their lrt is designed differently than ours.' yes, better designed than ours.

    'running in the street on center street, just like the new Edmonton system' true, but there are underpasses at several major intersections. we still can't figure out what an under/ overpass is, and why it's used. and no, no big city will ever regret a downtown stations that are underground. :/ i'm sure london and paris and montreal and toronto REALLY regret how they built their systems.

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    ^

    'Their lrt is designed differently than ours.' yes, better designed than ours.

    'running in the street on center street, just like the new Edmonton system' true, but there are underpasses at several major intersections. we still can't figure out what an under/ overpass is, and why it's used. and no, no big city will ever regret a downtown stations that are underground. :/ i'm sure london and paris and montreal and toronto REALLY regret how they built their systems.
    Well, the cities are designed differently too. Calgary has a lot more people working downtown, so there is more commuter use.

    I think in the long run Edmonton's system with its underground stations downtown will serve us well, but that cost did slow the expansion here for a long time compared to Calgary. I think the addition of the southeast and west lines will add a lot to Edmonton's system and we are also now talking about extending the NAIT line.

    We shouldn't compare what is proposed in Calgary to what actually exists here right now, by the time the Green Line is completed in Calgary our system will be much expanded too.

  83. #83
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Following Calgary Green Line funds, Edmonton can soon expect provincial boost for own LRT projects: Iveson

    By: Jeremy Simes Metro Published on Thu Jul 06 2017

    With a $1.53 billion boost for Calgary’s Green Line LRT, Edmonton can soon expect provincial funding for the city’s own transit projects, according to Mayor Don Iveson.

    “I know Edmonton is going to get something comparable,” Iveson told reporters Thursday, following a provincial funding announcement for Calgary’s new line.

    “Anything less is not going to be politically acceptable.”
    At the announcement Thursday, the province said it will use funds from the carbon levy to pay for Calgary's Green Line, dolling out the cash over eight years, first with a $165 million commitment in 2019-20, which will be followed with $195 million for the next seven years.

    Province to provide $1.53 billion for Calgary's Green Line
    Edmonton is poised to start constructing on the west leg of the Valley Line, which would stretch from downtown to Lewis Farms. The federal government already has cash set aside for the project, but Edmonton is still waiting on the province to pony up.

    However, the province has indicated the Valley Line would be a good candidate for funds raised by the carbon levy.
    Iveson explained funds for Edmonton haven't been announced yet because, unlike Calgary, the city has numerous transit projects that need funding. This means the province needs to do a little more math before deciding how much each transit project gets.

    “We’ll certainly go west and hopefully go in other directions,” he said, referencing the extension of the Metro Line into Blatchford.
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonto...=1499370408739

  84. #84

    Default

    I'm not as much concerned about the fact that the NDPs have committed $1.5bln to Calgary. I'm more concerned about the cost implications of tunneling underneath center street and the real lack of solid benefits. It's going to be one of Calgary's largest civil earthworks projects in their history. With the recent earthquake, you'd expect this tunnel to be seismically designed. There is going to be an enormous part of the budget spent on relocating and upgrading underground infrastructure/utilities. And then finally the tunneling aspect itself will be a challenge with the TBM going down grade and then meandering around DT until it finally is recovered near Fort Calgary/

    I don't understand why the ROW along Center was widened instead and simply elevate the train into downtown. And once the train crosses the Bow River, it could have swung onto 1st street SE and then come back down and finally tunnel under olympic plaza

  85. #85
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike
    With the recent earthquake, you'd expect this tunnel to be seismically designed.


    What are you referring to? The one in Montana? It was fairly small and unlikely to have caused anything other than minor, localized damage. Calgary is not in a high hazard seismic zone:
    http://www.earthquakescanada.ca/hazard-alea/zoning-zonage/NBCC2015maps-en.php

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,213

    Default

    So the NDP are going to pay for this with carbon tax revenue. The alt right want to get rid of the tax and cut spending if they are elected. So how are they going to do that? Bit of a sticky wicket don't you think?
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    So the NDP are going to pay for this with carbon tax revenue. The alt right want to get rid of the tax and cut spending if they are elected. So how are they going to do that? Bit of a sticky wicket don't you think?
    Yes, it could become a bit of a problem if a future government wanted to get rid of the carbon tax, as the payments are spread out over a number of years. I expect this is the model that will be used to fund transit in Edmonton and elsewhere too.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike
    With the recent earthquake, you'd expect this tunnel to be seismically designed.


    What are you referring to? The one in Montana? It was fairly small and unlikely to have caused anything other than minor, localized damage. Calgary is not in a high hazard seismic zone:
    http://www.earthquakescanada.ca/hazard-alea/zoning-zonage/NBCC2015maps-en.php
    Just referring to the event last night.

    seems like quite a few calgarians who were still up noticed it.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Calgary/com...f3/earthquake/

    http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ted-in-calgary
    photo of a purported crack resulting from the quake in a calgary apartment

  89. #89
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    So the NDP are going to pay for this with carbon tax revenue. The alt right want to get rid of the tax and cut spending if they are elected. So how are they going to do that? Bit of a sticky wicket don't you think?
    The last thing we need is another Calgary-centric conservative government killing Edmonton's LRT expansion ambitions as they've done in the past.
    “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

  90. #90
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...OR...

    You can ask the people running how they plan to expand transit initiatives without carbon tax revenue...
    Onward and upward

  91. #91
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Calgary vote buying
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  92. #92
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,297

    Default

    ^ Why are you surprised? The Stampede has turned into a political dog & pony show, where each and every year the premier or prime minister comes to Calgary decked out in western wear to announce some new money for that 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

  93. #93
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ Why are you surprised? The Stampede has turned into a political dog & pony show, where each and every year the premier or prime minister comes to Calgary decked out in western wear to announce some new money for that city.
    I never said I was surprised. Calgary is a swing city. It's important for any political party to obtain votes from there.

    I also wouldn't be surprised to hear edmonton getting a similar funding announcement in the months to come.

    You sound upset with Calgary. You shouldn't be.
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  94. #94

    Default

    It's not close enough to elections to call this vote buying. People will forget the benevolence in couple of months time...

  95. #95
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,415

    Default

    Calgary City Council made a wise decision to put the Green Line underground all the way from 16 Avenue North to Fort Calgary east of Downtown. And at surprisingly little additional cost:
    BELTLINE/CENTRE CITY Why does it make sense to invest in a tunnel in the Centre City? The tunnel in the Centre City offers the best opportunities for future generations of Calgarians. It allows us to maintain the pedestrian, cycling and vehicle connections in the core, while enabling future development to occur unhindered in our city’s economic centre. The City evaluated a number of options with the cost varying from $1.5B (street level) to $1.95B (fully tunnelled).
    http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...s-may-2017.pdf

  96. #96
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ Why are you surprised? The Stampede has turned into a political dog & pony show, where each and every year the premier or prime minister comes to Calgary decked out in western wear to announce some new money for that city.
    Its a good event, unlike K days, with its food! that's all k days is, ..

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Calgary City Council made a wise decision to put the Green Line underground all the way from 16 Avenue North to Fort Calgary east of Downtown. And at surprisingly little additional cost:
    BELTLINE/CENTRE CITY Why does it make sense to invest in a tunnel in the Centre City? The tunnel in the Centre City offers the best opportunities for future generations of Calgarians. It allows us to maintain the pedestrian, cycling and vehicle connections in the core, while enabling future development to occur unhindered in our city’s economic centre. The City evaluated a number of options with the cost varying from $1.5B (street level) to $1.95B (fully tunnelled).
    http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...s-may-2017.pdf
    can calgary planners work here! why can't edmonton figure out how to build lrt properly, yet? just recently, i read that the city approved new intersection criteria for where lrt could cross. uummm, shouldn't that policy have been in place like 15-20 years ago when they first started lrt?
    my friend recently went to one of the open houses for west lrt as they city gathers input about potential under or overpasses. seriously! only now! why waste money and time on an open house. here's how it should work. if intersection x sees a certain threshhold of vehicles today, then separation is required. simple. (but obviously, to complicated for our planners.)

  98. #98

    Default

    It's not that the planners/designers don't know what they're doing. They are told to propose a few options. There will always be a cheap, medium and expensive option. Seems like Council always chooses to go with the cheapest option and try to defer things.

  99. #99
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The Calgary system is low floor, running in the street on center street, just like the new Edmonton system (only difference is the downtown tunnel, which I think will be regretted in time).
    Stage 1 starts in a tunnel from an underground station on 16 Avenue N under the Bow River and stays in a tunnel through Downtown. The only similarity between the Green Line and Edmonton's MW to West LRT is the use of low floor LRVs. Otherwise, the system design is completely different. Calgary's will be much faster with many more grade separations resulting in much higher ridership.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The Calgary system is low floor, running in the street on center street, just like the new Edmonton system (only difference is the downtown tunnel, which I think will be regretted in time).
    Stage 1 starts in a tunnel from an underground station on 16 Avenue N under the Bow River and stays in a tunnel through Downtown. The only similarity between the Green Line and Edmonton's MW to West LRT is the use of low floor LRVs. Otherwise, the system design is completely different. Calgary's will be much faster with many more grade separations resulting in much higher ridership.
    stop it, you're making too much sense.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •