Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 401 to 425 of 425

Thread: The all-encompassing Northlands site redevelopment thread

  1. #401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    i think the issue is that lrt should be that, not a local tram
    or streetcar service. our lrt already passes through existing communities and other planned communities that are - rightfully - not destined to have stations.

    the real reason there are two stations within two blocks here is probably a reflection if who the developer is, not because it's good transit system design.
    Too bad they can’t build the rail first and through usage determine optimal station placement. Maybe via portable/temporary stops early on.

  2. #402
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,452

    Default

    To me if you need to move the station and need another, then the development plan is severely flawed

  3. #403
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    What is the point of a train if it takes as long as a bus
    Volume.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  4. #404
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    i think the issue is that lrt should be that, not a local tram
    or streetcar service. our lrt already passes through existing communities and other planned communities that are - rightfully - not destined to have stations.

    the real reason there are two stations within two blocks here is probably a reflection if who the developer is, not because it's good transit system design.
    Don’t really understand your first sentence “LRT should be exactly that”.
    The line goes past many neighbourhoods that were conceived long before the LRT was ever though of whereas the new development is being built with mass transit in mind. The thought of not putting a stop there would be foolish.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  5. #405
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    i think the issue is that lrt should be that, not a local tram
    or streetcar service. our lrt already passes through existing communities and other planned communities that are - rightfully - not destined to have stations.

    the real reason there are two stations within two blocks here is probably a reflection if who the developer is, not because it's good transit system design.
    Don’t really understand your first sentence “LRT should be exactly that”.
    The line goes past many neighbourhoods that were conceived long before the LRT was ever though of whereas the new development is being built with mass transit in mind. The thought of not putting a stop there would be foolish.
    i didn't say there shouldn't be a stop there. i said having two in two blocks doesn't seem to make sense for an efficient lrt system, particularly when neither of them seem to connect very well to the east/west transfer points that should be part of an overall transit system.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #406
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,900

    Default

    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Last edited by McBoo; 23-04-2019 at 03:47 PM.
    ... gobsmacked

  7. #407
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    now, now… calm down and think about this one logically from the city's perspective.

    blowing up these two (there is the pedestrian one as well as the lrt one) makes as much sense as spending $25 million to blow up the coliseum.

    maybe they could negotiate a quantity discount?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #408
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,137

    Default

    Northlands to become 'Urban Villages'...


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...se-development
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #409
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Agree.

    Also, WGD is supposed to be part of the inner ring road. The need to provide vehicle access to a major employment node west of WGD seems incompatible with this.

    Instead of bringing the LRT ROW up to grade what about sinking 118 Avenue to create a grade separation under WGD? The existing pedestrian bridge across 118 Avenue could then be retained (even expanded) to link the north and south parts of the Northlands site.

  10. #410

  11. #411

    Default

    I have a question. What happens with K-Days? Short term nothing is going to change, however there will be a point where there is no more space. What happens from there?

    I know that not everybody loves K-Days, but it is well attended, and it seems to make money.

  12. #412
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    I have a question. What happens with K-Days? Short term nothing is going to change, however there will be a point where there is no more space. What happens from there?

    I know that not everybody loves K-Days, but it is well attended, and it seems to make money.
    Perhaps they could move that to Red Deer to join the CFR that Edmonton lost! CFR seems to have gotten a boost from the move, maybe the good folks of Red Deer will be a little more appreciative of K Days than Edmontonians were as well.


    Overall I find this hybrid plan decent but lackluster. I does accomplish what a lot of stakeholders wanted. I foresee them starting at the SW corner for the first transit development, the north one where the coliseum is will be farther out. Which means the coliseum will probably be sitting there for a while yet. Good job city of Edmonton !

    I do support the raising of 118th ave, as do most stakeholders. If they need to bury something, bury 75th street.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 25-04-2019 at 11:18 AM.

  13. #413
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,945

    Default

    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.

  14. #414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Agree.

    Also, WGD is supposed to be part of the inner ring road. The need to provide vehicle access to a major employment node west of WGD seems incompatible with this.

    Instead of bringing the LRT ROW up to grade what about sinking 118 Avenue to create a grade separation under WGD? The existing pedestrian bridge across 118 Avenue could then be retained (even expanded) to link the north and south parts of the Northlands site.
    People always complain about the underpass but it's not the biggest problem. 118 ave has no business being a 6-lane road there, it could be a much more pleasant walk with just a minor road re-build. One lane each way plus dedicated bus pull-outs would be enough for the limited traffic through there.

    When I ride or walk through there with children I find the Wayne Gretzky Drive intersections to have much more negative impact yet they plan on keeping those forever.
    There can only be one.

  15. #415
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    Well the city certainly doesn't make what's cost effective a priority in most other areas so I don't see why residents should be saddled with a lesser option here just because of cost.

    The LRT will cross 118th ave at mid-block, which is the least disruptive of any configuration. Certainly not even in the same league of disruption as the many level crossings at intersections elsewhere on the line.

    118th ave is busy, but not that busy. It narrows and calms significantly west of 82street. I see no reason it can't be calmed and narrowed a couple blocks east. Raising it provides street level opportunities that just don't exist with the current configuration and gets rid of an unwelcoming, dark and somewhat unsafe underpass.

  16. #416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Agree.

    Also, WGD is supposed to be part of the inner ring road. The need to provide vehicle access to a major employment node west of WGD seems incompatible with this.

    Instead of bringing the LRT ROW up to grade what about sinking 118 Avenue to create a grade separation under WGD? The existing pedestrian bridge across 118 Avenue could then be retained (even expanded) to link the north and south parts of the Northlands site.
    What needs to be grade-separated is Wayne Gretzky Drive, not 118ave. WGD is supposed to be a freeway, tt's never going to be a pleasant thing to walk or live beside. That city planners think a 6 lane roadway carrying 55,000+ cars per day is going to be a pleasant place is crazy.

    Although I guess these are the people who think that demolishing a row of homes, cutting down all the street trees and limiting crossings to a few locations is going to make Stony Plain Road more cool and urban.
    There can only be one.

  17. #417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    But it would fit nicely with two of the City's favorite priorities - spending money and increasing traffic congestion.

  18. #418
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    But it would fit nicely with two of the City's favorite priorities - spending money and increasing traffic congestion.
    Correct. There is ZERO need to bring the road to grade and slow LRT trains and tie up traffic. 118th is just fine as it is.

  19. #419
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    Well the city certainly doesn't make what's cost effective a priority in most other areas so I don't see why residents should be saddled with a lesser option here just because of cost.

    The LRT will cross 118th ave at mid-block, which is the least disruptive of any configuration. Certainly not even in the same league of disruption as the many level crossings at intersections elsewhere on the line.

    118th ave is busy, but not that busy. It narrows and calms significantly west of 82street. I see no reason it can't be calmed and narrowed a couple blocks east. Raising it provides street level opportunities that just don't exist with the current configuration and gets rid of an unwelcoming, dark and somewhat unsafe underpass.
    The most recent traffic flow data shows 20,000 vehicles on 118 Ave west of WGD. That's a lot. About double the traffic volume on 95 Street between 112 and 118 Avenues.

    Source: https://public.tableau.com/profile/u...ared/8DWXB4DX4

    I fail to understand why residents would want all that street level noise and congestion when it would likely cost no more to keep the traffic lanes of 118 Avenue below grade until after it crosses WGD.

    So far as pedestrians/cyclists go, the main sidewalks could be located at street level with pedestrian/cycling crossings to connect the north and south sides of the Northlands site.

    118 Avenue also doesn't need any more street level commercial retail when there are already so many empty store fronts west of 80 Street all the way to NAIT.

  20. #420
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    Well the city certainly doesn't make what's cost effective a priority in most other areas so I don't see why residents should be saddled with a lesser option here just because of cost.

    The LRT will cross 118th ave at mid-block, which is the least disruptive of any configuration. Certainly not even in the same league of disruption as the many level crossings at intersections elsewhere on the line.

    118th ave is busy, but not that busy. It narrows and calms significantly west of 82street. I see no reason it can't be calmed and narrowed a couple blocks east. Raising it provides street level opportunities that just don't exist with the current configuration and gets rid of an unwelcoming, dark and somewhat unsafe underpass.
    The most recent traffic flow data shows 20,000 vehicles on 118 Ave west of WGD. That's a lot. About double the traffic volume on 95 Street between 112 and 118 Avenues.

    Source: https://public.tableau.com/profile/u...ared/8DWXB4DX4

    I fail to understand why residents would want all that street level noise and congestion when it would likely cost no more to keep the traffic lanes of 118 Avenue below grade until after it crosses WGD.

    So far as pedestrians/cyclists go, the main sidewalks could be located at street level with pedestrian/cycling crossings to connect the north and south sides of the Northlands site.

    118 Avenue also doesn't need any more street level commercial retail when there are already so many empty store fronts west of 80 Street all the way to NAIT.
    I don't think there are that many vacant storefronts on 118th from 82-NAIT, in fact anything that's leasable is leased. The vacant storefronts you are seeing are in buildings owned by negligent landlords who have made no effort to upgrade and lease their spaces. That's a reflection of the city's failure to address negligent or absentee owners, not a reflection of the retail demand in the area. Anything decent in that area that is leasable is leased. So yes there is probably room for more good quality CRU's along 118th ave. I see far more vacant storefronts on Whyte Ave than I do on 118th these days, and they're still adding inventory there.

    The noise concern is a non-issue. First of all it's no different than any other busy urban street in Edmonton. Second, the underpass actually makes the noise worse by bouncing and reverberating traffic noise up and out of the tunnel. Raising it could actually reduce traffic noise.

    Where are those 20,000 cars going ? Are they all proceeding west past 82st ? If so, what's the difference between having a narrower road west of 82st and the thoroughfare east of it ? If those cars are turning off north or south at Fort Road or 80th or 82nd street, maybe we should be looking at diverting that traffic onto 112th ave by Concordia or pushing them farther up WGD to the Fort Road intersection rather than using the neighborhood as a thoroughfare.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 26-04-2019 at 11:41 AM.

  21. #421

  22. #422

    Default

    saw an ad online yesterday, they are selling the old seats for 200$ a pair starting may 30th
    Friendly neighborhood (non-double poster) photographer.

  23. #423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    saw an ad online yesterday, they are selling the old seats for 200$ a pair starting may 30th
    A Seat Sale!

  24. #424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    saw an ad online yesterday, they are selling the old seats for 200$ a pair starting may 30th
    A Seat Sale!
    Forgot to mention that in the description it talked about the building being "re-purposed" without going into detail, not demolished.
    Friendly neighborhood (non-double poster) photographer.

  25. #425

    Default

    200... no thanks! Would be great to refurbish for home theater seating. 100.00 would be a fair deal.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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
  •