Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 488

Thread: South LRT | Century Park to Ellerslie Rd | Planning/Discussion

  1. #1
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default South LRT | Century Park to Ellerslie Rd | Planning/Discussion

    http://fs10.formsite.com/twinbrooks/form931932513/

    RE: SOUTH LRT EXTENSION POSES REAL CONCERNS FOR TWIN BROOKS!


    While expansion of the City’s transit system is generally supported, the current recommendation for a route through Twin Brooks raises some major concerns. We understand that extending the LRT meets the needs of our growing population, provides alternative travel options and helps to reduce the environmental impact of automobiles. However, the recommendation going to City Council June 24th to construct the tracks above ground along 111th Street and through two major intersections has serious implications for residents of Twin Brooks.

  2. #2
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Unbelievable. Just incredible.
    BobinEdmonton

  3. #3

    Default

    I don't think it would be possible to extend LRT anywhere without some neighbourhood opposition.

  4. #4
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Yet a few years ago, Twin Brooks residents were demanding better transit service.
    Yay, summertime!

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    I don't think it would be possible to extend LRT anywhere without some neighbourhood opposition.
    Agreed. Be it Laurier, or the neighborhoods on the way out to Millwoods, there will always be a few people terrified of it, but just as many, if not more, people welcoming of it (just, they aren't so emotional to have a welcoming party that makes the news).

    In fairness, the concern here, does seem to be more traffic related - i.e. there would be a prefence for an underpass or similar, through some busy intersections.

  6. #6
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Shouldn't they be applauding?

  7. #7
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I agree, sweetcrude... and can't wait until the nLRT is in place... the station will be 2 blocks from my place.
    Yay, summertime!

  8. #8
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Are they suggesting that we should have an underground LRT line through the sub-urbs? I'm fine with that, just increase their tax rate accordingly.

    Funny how the forms by these community leagues expect only one answer:

    Question for Twin Brooks residents - will the current proposal have a negative impact on this community and is there cause for concern?
    No, I have no concerns with the current proposal.
    Yes, the current proposal will have a negative impact on Twin Brooks and therefore I do NOT support it.
    And then they provide a text box for comments only if you oppose the current proposal:
    I (we) do NOT support the current proposal because:

  9. #9

    Default

    In all fairness to these people (I work with one of them), the proposed route would significantly disrupt the only 2 entryways into their subdivision, with trains every 2-10 minutes. How are you supposed to drive in and out?

  10. #10

    Default

    If the intersections are too busy for that then underpasses should be built. No different than Belgravia road.

  11. #11

    Default

    As the trains are going through the intersections can't the traffic lights be co-ordinated north south traffic? Then when it has cleared east west can go through!

    Gates don't have to be down that long especially if the station is not right at the intersection.
    Edmontonian and proud of it!

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    If the intersections are too busy for that then underpasses should be built. No different than Belgravia road.
    The difference is Belgravia is bumper to bumper stop and go traffic all the way to and often past fox drive/122 street in the mornings. This is not the case for 34, 23 or any of the bisecting avenues coming out of Twin Brooks.

  13. #13
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    If the intersections are too busy for that then underpasses should be built. No different than Belgravia road.
    Yes, traffic studies (simulations) will point out any bottlenecks at intersections.

    The way the community league web page reads though, it seems they are arguing for more than just underpasses at intersections. Their imaginations seem to be running wild about possible impacts:

    1) LRT trains would cross the 2 primary entry points (12 Ave and 9 Ave) into the Twin Brooks every 5 minutes during peak hours, and every 10 minutes off peak.

    2) LRT gates would be disruptive to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

    3) LRT could increase risk of accidents and fatalities at both entrances into Twin Brooks.

    4) LRT trains running above ground could devalue adjacent homes and further divide the Twin Brooks community East and West of 111 Street.

    5) LRT tracks would eliminate 111 St access point to the Esso service station.

    6) With two tracks, LRT would be too close to homes on 111 Street West bank.

    7) A major LRT failure could become an obstruction for emergency vehicles or for evacuation.

    LRT could increase the range of noise pollution for residents in the vicinity.

    9) The trees, grass, and hillside on the west side of 111 Street will be replaced by train tracks.
    It is not like the people who bought houses along 111 Street could not foresee expansion of that corridor - there is a reason that 111 Street is so wide. Ditto for houses built along other transportation and utilities corridors (TUCs) such as the TUC with the Anthony Henday.

    In any case, I'd rather see more areas of the inner city receive good LRT service before expansion into the furthest suburbs such as Windermere/Lewis Estates/etc.

  14. #14
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    183

    Default

    I dismiss arguments three through nine of the Twin Brooks Residents' complaints. (Considering that point #2 is little more than an extension of point #1)
    However, their concerns about LRT tracks crossing intersections has merit, especially considering the limited access to Twin Brooks.
    Perhaps the possibility of dropping the LRT below those two intersections should be investigated.
    Non semper erit aestas

  15. #15
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,736

    Default

    I think that Twin Brooks should look at the following realities:

    (1) LRT will be needed for South Edmonton, and possibly the International Airport.

    (2) LRT will have to go through Twin Brooks to reach those points.

    If the LRT causes problems for residents of Twin Brooks, they could participate at various stakeholder meetings. Perhaps building the access to 119 Street would be helpful for residents of Twin Brooks, if the LRT impedes access. I think that a tunnel from 9th to 12th Avenue might be needed if traffic and safety concerns are not met.

  16. #16
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    The above-ground train crossings aren't that big an issue. Judging from the current LRT, each crossing stop takes no longer than your typical traffic light, or even less than that. To me, this is yet another classic case of EN AYE EM BEE WHY.
    “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

  17. #17
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Wow, this one is baffling. Trains are what, 30 second disruptions at best?

    Yes, I have my problems with 87th, but that is more for the huuuuge tunnel and bridge costs more than the line itself. But even as a resident of Parkview at the time this was proposed, I was on board with having LRT to the west end. I just think that another route has better potential.

    This one....well, it is just simply whining. If 87th was the right choice, I'd tell Laurier the same.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,218

    Default

    I should not paint everyone in the same brush, but Twin Brooks residents (ie. community leaders) do have a reputation of being hardcore NIMBYers.

    1.5 years ago they had very vocal meetings when the city wanted to convert land set aside for new schools to affordable housing complexes. Some very silly, sky-is-falling remarks were said in those public forums by the residents. Now they have a new fight on their hands.


    4) LRT trains running above ground could devalue adjacent homes and further divide the Twin Brooks community East and West of 111 Street.
    This is what it is all about.....the value of the homeowners' property. Should we blame anyone for protecting the value of their assets? No, not really.

    But notice the wording: LRT trains running above ground could devalue adjacent homes

    So the battle line is set. Even though there are no extensive studies or solid proof, the LRT could devalue your home. Meanwhile, SW Edmonton will have to bear growing traffic congestion.

  19. #19

    Default

    If anything nearby LRT tends to increase home values.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Wow, this one is baffling. Trains are what, 30 second disruptions at best?
    I don't agree with the Twin Brooks complaints in general but 30 second disruptions can actually be longer. When the crossing cycle begins and a south bound train goes thru the intersection the guards often do not go back up as the North bound train is approaching and depending on speed (if the LRT must slow for a station etc.) the guards can be down for 1-1/2 minutes or longer.
    Not serious but can be compounded with poorly timed traffic lights in the area.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Not serious but can be compounded with poorly timed traffic lights in the area.
    For some reason it is really annoying waiting for a train too. Like, "why am I so unlucky?"

  22. #22
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    281

    Default

    I was looking at the Open House presentation for the extension through Twin Brooks (http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/...EXTENSIONS.pdf)

    Page 7 shows "Future Interchange" connecting Twin Brooks to the Anthony Henday, adding another entry point to the neighbourhood. Strange its not mentioned at all in the Twin Brooks site.

  23. #23

    Default

    Yes, very strange.

  24. #24

    Default

    I'm sorry but some of the reasons here border on pathetic, like "2) LRT gates would be disruptive to vehicle and pedestrian traffic" how is waiting for an lrt train to pass any different then waiting for a red light at a normal intersection and it happens once every 5 mins, oh no. AND "3) LRT could increase risk of accidents and fatalities at both entrances into Twin Brooks" this one is the most upsetting, car cause WAY more accidents and fatalities then lrt ever has or will, this is just plain fear mongering!

  25. #25

    Default

    I suggest everyone who thinks this is more classic NIMBY to go to the website and pick...

    No, I have no concerns with the current proposal.

  26. #26
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    i would much rather have a relatively quiet LRT going by my house than more and more vehicular traffic. I dont get it...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  27. #27
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    You're not a baby boomer IanO, that's why...

    That generation wanted 1.6 kids, 2.3 cars, and a pastoral picket fence. Transit is not for them, so they don't see the value. It is the same reason why the YXD development to a residential mix gets a rather vitriolic response from the BB'ers...darn condos...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  28. #28

    Default

    ^ Hurry up and into the retirement home!!!! Lets fix this mess.

  29. #29
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    thinking about this situation i sorta dread the day i get stopped for a long lrt crossing and then the trains at 34 ave i barely make it to work on time as it is...

  30. #30
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carbon-14 View Post
    I was looking at the Open House presentation for the extension through Twin Brooks (http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/...EXTENSIONS.pdf)

    Page 7 shows "Future Interchange" connecting Twin Brooks to the Anthony Henday, adding another entry point to the neighbourhood. Strange its not mentioned at all in the Twin Brooks site.
    There are actually some more detailed engineering studies on track alignment available:
    http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/...nningstudy.pdf

    If traffic simulations show that 9 Avenue and 12 Avenue are problematic, rather than building two underpasses, the LRT track can be put on the east side of 111 Street. Unfortunately, this would probably require more expensive grade separation to cross 111 Street near Anthony Henday.
    The most sensible solution, however, would be the proposed alignment. Access to Belgravia is similarly limited (single lane egress and ingress only at 76 Avenue, 115 Street and Saskatchewan Drive).

  31. #31
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    thinking about this situation i sorta dread the day i get stopped for a long lrt crossing and then the trains at 34 ave i barely make it to work on time as it is...
    If only you could leave 2 minutes earlier for work ...

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,192

    Default

    If the traffic coordination can be handled at grade at the University Ave crossing, a similar solution should EASILY be able to handle these 2 crossings. No way should millions of dollars be added to provide grade separation. That is ludicrous and will not remedy the real issue at hand, that these people do not want LRT in their vicinity.

  33. #33

    Default

    I think they're negatively impacting their credibility by doctoring up all kinds of fake issues, although I do see a huge problem from gates blocking all entraces to the subdivision for up to 1.5 minutes, every 2-10 minutes.

  34. #34
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    I haven't bothering reading their stuff. Is there anything there about LRT bringing undesirables to their neighborhood?
    “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

  35. #35

    Default

    ^ The "plan" has been rumbled!!!
    Edmontonian and proud of it!

  36. #36
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Well I didn't look at all the details of the plans to go further south and further north and both plans overall look good. The only problem I have with the plans right now are that they aren't already starting construction on these expansions. In the case of the southern plan, it only makes sense that since they are already doing some massive construction right now on the SLRT line that they should continue as far south as possible while all the contractors are all essentially on site already. The northern expansion could be also begin right away in the railway ROW.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  37. #37
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    You're not a baby boomer IanO, that's why...

    That generation wanted 1.6 kids, 2.3 cars, and a pastoral picket fence. Transit is not for them, so they don't see the value. It is the same reason why the YXD development to a residential mix gets a rather vitriolic response from the BB'ers...darn condos...
    Richard, Richard, Richard LOL
    I'm a baby boomer, and I can't wait til the nLRT line gets built.
    But I want YXD to remain open, at least part of it. I don't care about so-and-so's
    little Cessna, as it can go to Villeneuve. But the police and STARS choppers, and
    medivac flights need a place like YXD.
    Yay, summertime!

  38. #38

    Default

    They don't need YXD. It's convenient yes, but not necessary.

  39. #39
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus View Post

    Richard, Richard, Richard LOL
    I'm a baby boomer, and I can't wait til the nLRT line gets built.
    But I want YXD to remain open, at least part of it. I don't care about so-and-so's
    little Cessna, as it can go to Villeneuve. But the police and STARS choppers, and
    medivac flights need a place like YXD.

    You're in the few in that generation my friend... ...and in that demographic (suburban life)

    ...and helicopters don't need runways BTW.
    Last edited by RichardS; 26-06-2008 at 03:48 PM.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    But helicopters still need a place to land... and if YXD is developed, there's no way those residents will put up with helicopters landing across the narrow street from them. :O

    Ikan, I said they need a place like YXD.
    Yay, summertime!

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus View Post
    But helicopters still need a place to land...
    Helicopters the world over land on helipads built on hospital roofs. Patients are transfered directly to operating rooms rather than needing an ambulance transfer
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,337

    Default

    Of course one can always stack the survey in your favor, just submit with common names against their wishes

    Microbus: STARS doesn't need much room, if they close down YXD it will do just fine trust me I worked there for a year, the medi-evac planes is a different matter, Royal Alec being close to YXD is convinient, but in the worst case plane lands at YEG, STARS would probably be waiting and in 2 minutes they are on the helicopter to Alex or U

  43. #43
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Thanks sundance... STARS flies past my bedroom window quite a bit, and though, PRT, I'm aware of where they can land on hospital roofs, it's where they go after that that concerned me.
    Yay, summertime!

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    What does this have to do with south LRT extensions again?

  45. #45

    Default

    So, there will be crossing gates at 34th ave, 23rd ave and all the other cross roads, how come Twin Brooks is different? I would imagine there is more traffic on either 23rd or 34th.
    Edmontonian and proud of it!

  46. #46
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus View Post
    (...), I'm aware of where they can land on hospital roofs, it's where they go after that that concerned me.
    YEG...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmontonfan View Post
    So, there will be crossing gates at 34th ave, 23rd ave and all the other cross roads, how come Twin Brooks is different? I would imagine there is more traffic on either 23rd or 34th.
    Actually the tracks will tunnel under 23rd Ave. But that's a major roadway, so it should.

  48. #48

    Default

    ^ OK, but there are lot of other cross roads that will be at grade, my point still stands.
    Edmontonian and proud of it!

  49. #49
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    I don't see why there should be a tunnel under 23rd ave. Yes it's a pretty busy roadway but is it busier than 114th & University Ave? If it isn't busier, than the crossing should be at grade.

    I wonder what possibility there is to have this extension continued right away once the century park LRT is opened. Would a timeline like this be nice?
    - Belgravia & South Campus open early 2009
    - Southgate & Century Park opens early 2010
    - Ellerslie and possible other station opens late early 2012
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  50. #50
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I don't see why there should be a tunnel under 23rd ave. Yes it's a pretty busy roadway but is it busier than 114th & University Ave? If it isn't busier, than the crossing should be at grade.

    I wonder what possibility there is to have this extension continued right away once the century park LRT is opened. Would a timeline like this be nice?
    - Belgravia & South Campus open early 2009
    - Southgate & Century Park opens early 2010
    - Ellerslie and possible other station opens late early 2012
    University Avenue probably should have been grade separated.
    Also, the LRT needs to cross-over one lane of traffic at it moves from the median to the side of the road - and if doing so by grade separation, the best place would be 23 Avenue.

  51. #51
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    183

    Default

    I hope that the fact that we didn't separate grade at 34 ave and 114 ave doesn't turn out to be a serious mistake
    Non semper erit aestas

  52. #52
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    I hope that the fact that we didn't separate grade at 34 ave and 114 ave doesn't turn out to be a serious mistake
    We might end up fixing that mistake down the road... oh well.

  53. #53
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    University ave should have been grade separated, and I think that kingsway and 111Aves definetely should be on the north line, deal with two busy cross streets with one underpass, rather than relocating kingsway in a move that will likely cost almost as much. But I digress.

    There is no reason to grade separate there. There will never be more than a couple cars waiting. If 112ave and 82st work at grade (the wait is rarely very long) there is no reason to grade separate anything so small.

    The idea that twin brooks would be cut off from emergency services is laughable. I think the authors have never seen an LRT and assume that it's a mile long moving at 5 miles and hour, like a freight can be.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    University ave should have been grade separated, and I think that kingsway and 111Aves definetely should be on the north line, deal with two busy cross streets with one underpass, rather than relocating kingsway in a move that will likely cost almost as much. But I digress.

    There is no reason to grade separate there. There will never be more than a couple cars waiting. If 112ave and 82st work at grade (the wait is rarely very long) there is no reason to grade separate anything so small. .
    Kingsway & 111th are so close at this location I wonder if they could put an underground station in there. Drop before Kingsway and come back up north of 111th on 106th st. Combine the cost of an underpass and a station and see how it would compare to a station only. The station wouldn't have to be as deep as they are downtown no concourse would be needed.

  55. #55
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    The station would have to be just as deep as the ones underneath Jasper Ave.
    Not only for strength, but also to go under the utilities. Remember, Epcor just buried a major powerline under 106 st, and under Kingsway ave last year.
    Yay, summertime!

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus View Post
    The station would have to be just as deep as the ones underneath Jasper Ave.
    Not only for strength, but also to go under the utilities. Remember, Epcor just buried a major powerline under 106 st, and under Kingsway ave last year.
    Right, forgot that. Nevermind then.

  57. #57
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Just to talk about my point a little bit more. It's not that I don't want a grade seperation at 23rd ave, or 34th or University ave for that matter. It's the fact that I don't feel that they would bother with a grade seperation at that location. Also, we have to remember that every time we do a grade seperation it costs a whole lot more.

    Also from my last posting, I wonder if there would be any possibility that the city of edm would be willing to approve an extension to ellerslie road so that construction could commence within the next couple years? I know it's been typically not likely to happen but anyone think it could?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  58. #58

    Default

    It's more likely that it would be approved to start as soon as the line to NAIT is complete or nearly complete.

  59. #59
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    The SLRT extension to the southern city limit is supposed to finish construction in 2013, with operation by April 2014.

  60. #60
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Therefore, the SLRT and NELRT extensions will be under construction simultaneously with NLRT to NAIT - or so the city is planning on...

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    I hope that the fact that we didn't separate grade at 34 ave and 114 ave doesn't turn out to be a serious mistake
    We might end up fixing that mistake down the road... oh well.
    34 ave @ 111 st really isn't that busy of an intersection... I think it will be a bigger problem at the whitemud interchange...

  62. #62
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    I hope that the fact that we didn't separate grade at 34 ave and 114 ave doesn't turn out to be a serious mistake
    We might end up fixing that mistake down the road... oh well.
    34 ave @ 111 st really isn't that busy of an intersection... I think it will be a bigger problem at the whitemud interchange...
    That is traffic coordinated and because the LRT doesn't impede the N-S flow of traffic, the bottle necks there should be fairly minimal.

  63. #63

    Default

    well, the same thing could be said for 34 ave too, as the LRT wont impede the N-S flow of traffic either...

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    well, the same thing could be said for 34 ave too, as the LRT wont impede the N-S flow of traffic either...
    Right, 34th ave shouldn't present any problems.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NINTman View Post
    The SLRT extension to the southern city limit is supposed to finish construction in 2013, with operation by April 2014.
    That's the first time I heard that. I thought they were just planning the route without an actual time table.

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transplanted_Edm View Post
    In all fairness to these people (I work with one of them), the proposed route would significantly disrupt the only 2 entryways into their subdivision, with trains every 2-10 minutes. How are you supposed to drive in and out?
    It's called syncronizing signals. That's it. Anyways, this was to be expected. At the end of the day, Transportation will be requested to re-evaluate the intersection crossing and determine if a bridge / underpass is necessary (which it won't). The extension alignment will be approved and eventually constructed.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NINTman View Post
    The SLRT extension to the southern city limit is supposed to finish construction in 2013, with operation by April 2014.
    Not correct, the south extension has been approved to carry out the studies to determine the alignment. Council has NOT voted to ante up the funds for the detailed design component and construction.

  68. #68
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus View Post
    The station would have to be just as deep as the ones underneath Jasper Ave.
    Not only for strength, but also to go under the utilities. Remember, Epcor just buried a major powerline under 106 st, and under Kingsway ave last year.
    I don't think that "strength or the power line would force the LRT deeper at that point. The powerline would add some time and cost obviously, but that'sjsut one utility, and the most flexible one to boot.

    As for strength, the mezzanines under jasper ave add nothing to strength at those stations. Imagine the mezzanine ceiling were the platform level ceiling, and that's how much shallower it could be. Actually, it could be shalower still, if we are willing to put up with columns on the platform, as lesser cities like Toronto and New York have. Just because clearspan a bit better doesn't mean it is the only option.

    Again, I digress.

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by microbus View Post
    The station would have to be just as deep as the ones underneath Jasper Ave.
    Not only for strength, but also to go under the utilities. Remember, Epcor just buried a major powerline under 106 st, and under Kingsway ave last year.
    I don't think that "strength or the power line would force the LRT deeper at that point. The powerline would add some time and cost obviously, but that'sjsut one utility, and the most flexible one to boot.

    As for strength, the mezzanines under jasper ave add nothing to strength at those stations. Imagine the mezzanine ceiling were the platform level ceiling, and that's how much shallower it could be. Actually, it could be shalower still, if we are willing to put up with columns on the platform, as lesser cities like Toronto and New York have. Just because clearspan a bit better doesn't mean it is the only option.

    Again, I digress.
    For clarity, depth really doesn't have to do with strength. That can be created through the structure design. Depth will be primarily dictated by the LRT path and the utilities it must cross.
    Electrical duct banks are typically not very deep. 5ft below grade or there abouts. Having said that the Epcor duct bank is indeed an obstacle because of the critical nature of this line, but the reality is every utility should be considered of critical nature, there is no real excuse for lack of due diligence resulting in a utility strike, safety should always be priority 1. However, it could be worked around if necessary. That all said, the LRT will proceed at grade at this location IMO.

  70. #70
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This line will be at grade. Period.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    This line will be at grade. Period.
    I guess that remains an option for the future if things really do mess up here (I suspect University Ave will be a problem sooner though). I think we just need to get this route finished - if this was not a wealthy part of the city, I don't think this debate would even exist. I guess we will see if this is the case or not though, i.e. if there is a similar debate, when Kingsway Ave comes up for decision.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-07-2008 at 03:37 PM.

  72. #72
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Although, like any neighbourhood, there are some legitimate concerns about noise and the esthetic design of this thing, having read through this particular case it strikes as being mostly NIMBY.

  73. #73
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I don't actually think that noise and esthetics are legitimate concerns.
    At least not on a route that is withing the ROW of a long planned 4lane+ arterial roadway.

    Roads like this are extremely ugly inhospitable and adding rail won't make it any worse. If decorative allan block sound walls and distinctive light standards and landscaped berms and pedestrian under/overpasses weren't required before LRT they certainly aren't required after.

    Seriously, I wonder how much less SLRT would cost if it didn't need to include multiuse trails and walls and road and utility relocations. I'm sure that there are places on the SLRT route where we will essentially be spending millions on a left turn. And i bet the on-street parking spaces that the current NLRT plan preserves are costing at least as much as it would cost to replace them underground.

    Sorry about the rant.

  74. #74

    Wink

    What I find most amusing in all of this is the bag of dreams on the conceptual future development south of twin brooks near Ellerslie Road; add to that the conceptual and subjective demographic levels as well. (Mind you, if I were a developer, I would probably buy land right now over there.)
    Let us face it; it makes much more sense to point the LRT towards areas that are in much more need for transportation like Millwoods and the West End including the West Edmonton Mall.

    Back to Twin Brooks, I believe that the LRT on 111 Street, through Twin Brooks, should come up to the “Arquitecturaly Controlled” levels the city demands from our neighbors. Perhaps an underground solution is the best.

  75. #75

    Default

    underground? In the middle of suburbia? Keep dreaming

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    underground? In the middle of suburbia? Keep dreaming
    Hmmm - not quite suburbia, but the LRT went underground to South Campus to cross a road. That's no dream - it's there, a precedent for SLRT. With hindsight, probably wasteful though compared to what could have been built for the same money, just like underground at Twin Brooks would be. It will be interesting to see what happens to these extensions, as there is a clear shift in momentum right now to getting new lines up and running that maybe won't be engineered as heavily, rather than pushing the N/S LRT out into farmland.
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-06-2009 at 02:41 PM.

  77. #77
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,736

    Default

    I think that LRT crossing a street (12 Ave?) every five or ten minutes is less hectic than the traffic that goes down 111 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think that LRT crossing a street (12 Ave?) every five or ten minutes is less hectic than the traffic that goes down 111 Street.
    Not defending them but it would be two streets, 12th ave and 9th ave. I don't think it would be a problem but I don't live there.

  79. #79
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,337

    Default

    I'm sure if the residents of Twin Brooks were willing to pay for it via a tax levy the city would listen. I'm guessing in the neighborhood of $100 million

  80. #80

    Default

    This extension could be built to the community friendlier spec of the new LRT master plan.

    Tracks can be imbedded in the road and noise and anti vibration tactic used.

    The leauge should make this work, not fight it. It's going to be awesome for their community.

  81. #81
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Planning documents for this extension show a grade-separated crossing (tunnel) for the LRT at 23 avenue, and the track moving from the median to an alignment directly west of 111 Street.
    Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...nningstudy.pdf

  82. #82
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default Twin Brooks Community League trying to oppose SLRT Extension

    Looks like this one is entering preliminary engineering phase. Would it be possible to make this thread sticky for a place to discuss the planning for this extension. Information regarding the project and public consultation was sent by snail mail to area residents:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ochure_WEB.pdf

  83. #83

    Default

    I get a little queasy when I see naught but farmland on page 3 with the caption "Site of Future LRT Station". Especially considering the massive park&ride and associated transitorium that'll ensue.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  84. #84
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I get a little queasy when I see naught but farmland on page 3 with the caption "Site of Future LRT Station". Especially considering the massive park&ride and associated transitorium that'll ensue.

    i can understand that however if you look in the 3 other directions you can see the neighborhoods it will serve with there ever increasing condo developments. This area is being developed with LRT in mind, and the population density is starting to reflect this....

  85. #85
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Interesting that they are considering extending the LRT to a spot "in the middle of a field". Didn't that scuttle the Northeast extension, even though the proposed Gorman site was a vacant lot surrounded by new development? I sense some southside bias here.
    BobinEdmonton

  86. #86

    Default

    Gorman is in no way scuttled. It was in fact supposed to be the next extension, but the funds are being redirected to the NAIT line first, with Gorman to be completed later.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  87. #87

    Default

    ^I predict Gorman will be started in about 20 to 30 years time, after the WLRT / Millwoods line, the line to St Albert, and the East line to Sherwood Park, are all complete. They are higher priorities now, than building to an empty field. I also think the Ellerslie extension should die for the same reason - instead you might see another station built on SLRT (perhaps Harry Ainlay High School). At least, that would be more consistent with the vote for urban LRT system (I think).
    Last edited by moahunter; 14-07-2009 at 12:50 PM.

  88. #88
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    I'm guessing that the City of Edmonton is trying to be proactive (kind of an oxymoron with this city!) with the Ellerslie extension, so they won't have to worry about having to expropriate, deal with opposition from residents, higher construction costs in the future, etc. It should be done before Gorman, IMO, if they're going to do this at all. This could pave the way for an eventual extension of ETS service to the EIA in the coming decades whether it be by LRT or bus.
    Last edited by MikeK; 14-07-2009 at 01:17 PM.
    Is there hope for Edmonton? Yes!!! The Oilers? Wait and see.

  89. #89
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    ^Agreed. Set these routes in stone now, even if we won't be building them for some time. It'll make them infinately easier to build when they are needed.

    As for this proposal, I don't think there are any surprises here. The only question that I can see coming was some previous talk of a station somewhere around Twin Brooks (I seem to remember that being kaboshed though).

  90. #90
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,224

    Default

    Hats off to the Council (very rarely say this), their 4 page document is excellent.
    Hopefully construction can begin in 2011/12 with completion in 2014.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  91. #91
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveB View Post
    Hats off to the Council (very rarely say this), their 4 page document is excellent.
    Hopefully construction can begin in 2011/12 with completion in 2014.
    Unlikely unless other levels of governments find a pot of gold at the end of the recession rainbow and decide to shower Edmonton with more transit money.

    Lines like West LRT and Mill Woods LRT are needed as well. I think both of these lines are a higher priority than suburban Gorman or Ellerslie extensions.

  92. #92
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I predict Gorman will be started in about 20 to 30 years time, after the WLRT / Millwoods line, the line to St Albert, and the East line to Sherwood Park, are all complete. They are higher priorities now, than building to an empty field. I also think the Ellerslie extension should die for the same reason - instead you might see another station built on SLRT (perhaps Harry Ainlay High School). At least, that would be more consistent with the vote for urban LRT system (I think).
    There are a lot of empty fields on the way to sherwood park and St. Albert. Even a millwoods route needs to pass some transit-inhospitable places.

  93. #93
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    I'm just gonna go on record and state that I think there should definitely be a station between Century Park and Ellerslie just before the Henday on 111st and 12 ave if the city really wants this extension to be easily accessible and community minded.

  94. #94
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Albert, AB
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I get a little queasy when I see naught but farmland on page 3 with the caption "Site of Future LRT Station". Especially considering the massive park&ride and associated transitorium that'll ensue.
    I don't mind if they build the LRT station in the middle of nowhere so long as there is ample park&ride at the station itself, and so long as the station is close to a major artery such as the Henday. I see that as being one of the best chances we'll have to decrease public reliance on private vehicle use. If the LRT is made easily accessible to motorists, I expect they will gladly use it to commute to the downtown core instead of driving there (I know I will). If thousands of daily car trips can be reduced in length from, let's say, 50 km (home:core round trips) to only 10 km (home:LRT round trips), would that not be a huge benefit from both a traffic congestion and environmental impact point of view?

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There are a lot of empty fields on the way to sherwood park and St. Albert. Even a millwoods route needs to pass some transit-inhospitable places.
    The beauty of St Albert and Sherwood Park is the line could stop before reaching, with those Cities picking up the remainder. Edmonton has pretty much spread out to both already, it makes sense to densify to these borders (there can be no sprawl over it). By contrast, Nisku or Fort Sasketchewan are not going to pick up the cost (given the extra distance/empty land).
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-07-2009 at 01:39 PM.

  96. #96
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelganger View Post
    I see that as being one of the best chances we'll have to decrease public reliance on private vehicle use.
    Nitpicking on your choice of words more than anything, but if you have to drive your car to catch the LRT, you haven't reduced reliance on your car at all.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  97. #97
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingswayGuy View Post
    I'm just gonna go on record and state that I think there should definitely be a station between Century Park and Ellerslie just before the Henday on 111st and 12 ave if the city really wants this extension to be easily accessible and community minded.

    I think they will end up with a concession to the twinbrooks community, much as they did with the mckernan/belgravia station.

  98. #98
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Is Twin Brooks as well organized and connected as Mckernan/Belgravia?

  99. #99
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,736

    Default

    My gut feeling is that there will be an LRT station at Twin Brooks, just like McKernan/Belgravia. Twin Brooks is bordered by Blackmud Creek in the North, and Anthony Henday Drive in the South. Also, the tracks will cross at 9 and 12 Avenue.

    McKernan has the same challenges with Belgravia Road and University Avenue. I think a station at Twin Brooks means less traffic on the road, because there is no Park and Ride at Century Park or Southgate Stations.

    This station will also be good for some of the high density developments south of Anthony Henday Drive.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  100. #100
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    My gut feeling is that there will be an LRT station at Twin Brooks, just like McKernan/Belgravia. Twin Brooks is bordered by Blackmud Creek in the North, and Anthony Henday Drive in the South. Also, the tracks will cross at 9 and 12 Avenue.

    McKernan has the same challenges with Belgravia Road and University Avenue. I think a station at Twin Brooks means less traffic on the road, because there is no Park and Ride at Century Park or Southgate Stations.

    This station will also be good for some of the high density developments south of Anthony Henday Drive.

    I agree! Just a matter of time until Rutherford/McKewan/Blackmud Creek/Twin Books area will be a TOD. Which is great! Sustainabiliy demands it!

    I am also hoping there will be more E/W ETS bus links up and down Ellerslie Rd. Shopping / Commercial Developments in the East and Residential in the West increase the demand. Businesses need access to labour and customers. Hopefully in the Furture, instead of residential here and commercial there, we will see more mixed developments.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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