Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 488

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

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    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!
    Sustainability demands a full downtown, and renewed inner city first, before we build expensive infrastructure to support sticking more people on the edge.

  2. #102
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    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!
    Sustainability demands a full downtown, and renewed inner city first, before we build expensive infrastructure to support sticking more people on the edge.

    Sustainability demands we draw a red circle around existing development then increase population densities withing that red circle through transit oriented development and infill. There is some pretty high density construction going on along Ellerslie, plus the new NAIT campus. We can recognize this, and service it sustainably with transit, or just let the people use the current 1 person / personal car model. This approach, as I am sure you can see, would not be sustainable. I would like to add, that the Ellerslie station is a necessary step in getting to YEG. Which would be great to have by Expo 2017.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    I would like to add, that the Ellerslie station is a necessary step in getting to YEG. Which would be great to have by Expo 2017.
    And, would encourage farmers / speculators to lobby to add stations in between, so that they can convert their properties to new "sustainable" suburbs/tods all the way from Edmonton to Leduc. The last thing Edmonton needs right now is to change from being a donut with an empty core, to a lolly pop with a hole in the middle. Building more stations on the existing North - South line would make a ton more sense before trying to extend it North or South, especially when there are more pressing lines to get constructed (NAIT, and WEM-Millwoods).
    Last edited by moahunter; 14-09-2009 at 07:14 AM.

  4. #104
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    I would like to add, that the Ellerslie station is a necessary step in getting to YEG. Which would be great to have by Expo 2017.
    And, would encourage farmers / speculators to lobby to add stations in between, so that they can convert their properties to new "sustainable" suburbs/tods all the way from Edmonton to Leduc. The last thing Edmonton needs right now is to change from being a donut with an empty core, to a lolly pop with a hole in the middle. Building more stations on the existing North - South line would make a ton more sense before trying to extend it North or South, especially when there are more pressing lines to get constructed (NAIT, and WEM-Millwoods).

    Interesting how many comment on farmers in the area, when in fact the area is in reality becoming quite high density. It is already looking much like clareview, no big box stores yet (well except save-on) but there is alot of mutli family aparment condos and townhouses. The buses are already standing room only. The city is has zoned the area with the LRT in mind, so there is high density development there currently. Also, there is the new NAIT campus with UPASS this will be a priority. Also, if is on the way to YEG. Would it be great once the west line is done, tourists could take the LRT from YEG to WEM I would also like to add that there is nothing precluding development of multiple lines at the same time.

  5. #105

    Default

    the new NAIT campus is not happening. NAIT will likely be expanding their current campus rather then building a new one. City Center Airport lands.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    I would also like to add that there is nothing precluding development of multiple lines at the same time.
    Except a lack of funds.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    I would also like to add that there is nothing precluding development of multiple lines at the same time.
    Except for money (which I think could be increased by perhaps diverting some freeway expansion money to LRT) - but I agree with you on that. I don't disagree with serving existing neighborhoods - even newish ones, and I agree with you that we need a "red circle" around this city saying where it stops. My only fear with the South is that there is a lot of money to be made by converting land, so pressure to sprawl is great (at least the West has a natural boundary - the First Nations reserve) - but if that can be managed with some assurance, then yes, move on SLRT as well. YEG can wait a little though (for an express bus first, and to see where the province goes with HST).

  8. #108
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default Open house in October

    The city sent out flyers to area residents and updated the website to indicate there would be an open house to review their plans moving forward with SLRT development south to the city limits:

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...lrt-study.aspx

    South to Heritage Valley

    What's New

    The South LRT extension was approved by City Council in 2008. It will ultimately extend from Century Park to the South City limits. A Preliminary Engineering study is now underway for a 4.5 km segment of the SLRT line from Century Park to Ellerslie Road. The study includes the design of a new LRT station, transit centre and permanent Park and Ride facility at Ellerslie Road and 127 Street. This study will involve further technical analysis and opportunities for public involvement.
    Open House

    A public Open House will be held on Thursday October 8, 2009 from 4:00 - 8:00 pm to share information about the SLRT extension, and to receive input and suggestions on items such as aesthetics and landscaping. Location: Ellerslie Rugby Club, 11004 Ellerslie Road.

  9. #109
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Great to hear about another open house for LRT. I'll be there to see what is going to be said.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  10. #110
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    The City of Edmonton Transportation Department is holding a public Open House on Thursday, October 8 from 4pm - 8pm to share information about preliminary design of the South LRT extension from Century Park to Ellerslie Road. This event will take place at the Ellerslie Rugby Club at 11004 Ellerslie Road.

    An Open House on concept planning for the 127 Street/Anthony Henday Drive interchange will also take place at the same time and location.

    In July 2008, City Council approved the Concept Plan for a South LRT extension from Century Park to the south city limits. In addition to providing details of the 4.5 km segment to Ellerslie Road which is being addressed now, staff will be collecting input and suggestions on items such as aesthetics, landscaping and noise attenuation.

    This South LRT extension includes the design of a new LRT station, transit centre and permanent park and ride facility at Ellerslie Road and 127 Street. It will involve further technical analysis and opportunities for public involvement.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ge-valley.aspx
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  11. #111
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    I went to the open house last night. The plans look pretty good. It is also good to see they are integrating multi-use trails in the expanse to Ellerslie. Will be great for connecting bike paths the the rest of the city. I am really looking forward to the SLRT development moving forward to Ellerslie.

  12. #112
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Did they give a timeline?

  13. #113
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Did they give a timeline?
    Preliminary Engineering phase is done Q1 2010, then it goes back to Council to approve the next phase (detailed engineering). Which could occur in 2010, if approved.

  14. #114
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    I think, given the development south of Anthony Henday Drive, that this extension deserves serious consideration, even if it's one station. This, along with the 127 Street overpass, would really open up development at Windermere/Ellerslie Road.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  15. #115
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    I don't want more development south of Ellerslie though... at least not anytime soon. The city needs to find a way to stop rewarding people who choose to live so far away from everything. So what if they sit in traffic for an hour? Does anyone care? NOT ME!!!

  16. #116
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    I agree that we have to manage development Etownboarder. The lots north of Henday/127 Street could be built first, and we could build higher density near the LRT or core. However, building out the LRT to Ellerslie (or Gorman) could drive the direction of development. Do we want it near Highway 2 (say 41 Ave SW), or could we drive growth towards the development of LRT? I feel, with the ring road and LRT, that future (higher density) development will take there first, rather than sprawling out indiscriminately.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  17. #117
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I don't want more development south of Ellerslie though... at least not anytime soon. The city needs to find a way to stop rewarding people who choose to live so far away from everything. So what if they sit in traffic for an hour? Does anyone care? NOT ME!!!

    Wow this is sooo misguided. I agree we should not expand development into new areas. But we cant shutdown exisiting areas. The ellerslie area already has a relatively high population density. There are a number of 15+ story condos etc. The city has issued high density development permits as this is being developed as a TOD. So ok no LRT then lets build a 6 lane freeway thru Central Edmonton and old strathcona. I wonder which one would be more sustainable, have a lower impact.

    Keep in mind that Ellerslie Road is the site of the new nait campus. There is going to be an extremely heavy transit usage to this point. Also, between summerside and South Edmonton Common there will be the most office building out side of downtown. So what will happen if people living in central edmonton's job moves to ellerslie...will they quit on principle? Drive? or Transit?

    By the way if the LRT does not get expanded, the ETS plan is to run area buses at the frequency of the LRT every 5 minutes (during the day). to Century Park. That's a lot of buses and drivers the LRT could of the road.

    In terms of the comment of rewarding people in the area. I wonder what would happen if all people sell those properties and compete for properties in central edmonton. I wonder how many of those people will be able to afford to live in central edmonton anymore. There is a lot of $ in SW Edmonton. If that money is forced to move centrally, to make life livable, then a lot of people living in central edmonton would no longer be able to afford to live there, given and increase in demand for a reduced supply of property.

    The fact is, and I have said it before, read circle existing development, and restrict future development to infill areas. The fact is if we do this, and at the same time increase mixed development. Then maybe ppl would be able to commute short distance to work (like SW edmonton to SW edmonton), instead of across town. The fundamental problem being in this city we work in one place, live in another place, and play in another place again. This is ridiculous.

    The fact is everyone need to live and work in this city. The every citizen in this city as the same right to city services. Where we need to look at stopping expansion expanding the city borders. Next time this comes up, say no. This will cause population densities to increase, and thus make services more sustainable.

    Another point I would like to make is that ETS is trying to expand their ridership base. The reliability, frequency, and speed of the LRT allows people to ditch their cars and move onto public transit. People simply will not do this unless it is convenient. For this to occur the LRT has to end up in the 4 corners of the city. I would like to add that the current model of super express buses to distant end points is just no sustainable from a cost perspective. There are so many buses / drivers being consumed by long haul super express routes, that it is creating shortages of the core routes. The LRT is much more effective for moving masses over large distances, at a much lower cost. In April when Century opens and frees up all those buses on other routes, just think of where they can put them in the system

  18. #118
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Ellerslie will not be the site of any new NAIT campus... that idea has been dead for a while now. I haven't seen any 15 floor condos in the area either.

  19. #119
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Ellerslie will not be the site of any new NAIT campus... that idea has been dead for a while now.

    Its not dead its on hold...They still own the land, and are still planning at some point to build it.

  20. #120
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Ellerslie will not be the site of any new NAIT campus... that idea has been dead for a while now.

    Its not dead its on hold...They still own the land, and are still planning at some point to build it.
    No, they're not... they're not going to build the Ralphy campus out in the middle of nowhere. I guarantee it won't happen. Or haven't you been keeping up on any of the news relating to the closure of the City Centre Airport?

  21. #121
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Ellerslie will not be the site of any new NAIT campus... that idea has been dead for a while now.

    Its not dead its on hold...They still own the land, and are still planning at some point to build it.
    No, they're not... they're not going to build the Ralphy campus out in the middle of nowhere. I guarantee it won't happen. Or haven't you been keeping up on any of the news relating to the closure of the City Centre Airport?
    Dude, That's your opinion. And It may end out working out that way. But if you look at the facts. The land is acquired. The plan is officially still in place! The CoE is planning as tho it is going to happen. The fact is the southwest is not at all transit friendly and this needs to change. And Change quick.

    I really cannot believe the lack of imagination and normalcy in this province that would all such a high population density to occur without any transit planning. This is the only place on the planet this would occur.

  22. #122

    Default

    ^ You should read what the President of NAIT said on C2E Ask Forum... There's a little more then just opinion expressed by etownboarder.

  23. #123
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    It's not just my opinion, NAIT has also stated they want to close all of their small satellite campuses around the city and consolidate on City Centre Airport lands... nothing has been committed too, but I guarantee that's what will happen. There is no doubt in my mind.

  24. #124
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    It's not just my opinion, NAIT has also stated they want to close all of their small satellite campuses around the city and consolidate on City Centre Airport lands... nothing has been committed too, but I guarantee that's what will happen. There is no doubt in my mind.
    Well the city has not gotten "official" notice of this. A public statement is a long way from reality. Especially as there is no time line on when they are able to construct the new campus at the airport. I read the newspapers man I have hear the news. I work for the city, we get some info not publicly available. And we definately do not make strategic decisions based on comments in the media. There are matter that require negotiations prior to any change in plan moving forward.

  25. #125
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    I understand what you're saying. No official word has been given... but again, there will not... I REPEAT... there will NOT be a new giant NAIT campus built on the southside.

  26. #126
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I don't want more development south of Ellerslie though... at least not anytime soon. The city needs to find a way to stop rewarding people who choose to live so far away from everything. So what if they sit in traffic for an hour? Does anyone care? NOT ME!!!
    What you want, and the realities of what is already happening are two entirely different things. If you take a good look, there is ongoing development on the west side of the QEII already approaching 41st Ave SW, and on the east side as far south as 30th Ave SW (for reference, Ellerslie is 9th Ave. SW). Those developments are already a done deal and well underway.

    As for NAIT and the south campus, I was always under the impression that it was to be orriented towards industrial applications, not a replacement for the existing smaller campuses scattered around the city. In fact, the original news realease said the following:

    The new campus will feature five Centres of Excellence that will offer a wide variety of programming including: Mobile Crane Operator, Rig Technician, Industrial Heavy Equipment Technology, Roofer, and Forest Technology. Each Centre of Excellence will also have the facilities and capabilities to conduct applied research.
    Regardless of the oppertunities to expand at their current location, it still makes more sense to house the above listed disciplines at the south side location. It is an industrial park after all.

  27. #127
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I understand what you're saying. No official word has been given... but again, there will not... I REPEAT... there will NOT be a new giant NAIT campus built on the southside.
    I understand what you are saying....but until its official there's no choice but to plan. Also, there are a million other reasons to build the LRT to the area, the main one being if it doesnt happen there will be a 6 lane freeway thru old strathcona and the valley into downtown. This would be terribly unfortunate. We need to make a more pedestrian and transit friendly (ie sustainable community) than that. So build public transit even to the suburbs (st albert and Sherwood), and encourage mixed development, so ppl dont need to travel as far. This is what other centers do. You cannot tell people where to live or work, if you don't do what I suggest people will stay car oriented and this community will be doomed, as it will not be sustainable. Interesting how Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver figured this out in the 70's and we still havent. We really need some forward thinking in this town. Notice I didnt say City!!!

  28. #128
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post


    Wow this is sooo misguided. I agree we should not expand development into new areas. But we cant shutdown exisiting areas. The ellerslie area already has a relatively high population density. There are a number of 15+ story condos etc. The city has issued high density development permits as this is being developed as a TOD. So ok no LRT then lets build a 6 lane freeway thru Central Edmonton and old strathcona. I wonder which one would be more sustainable, have a lower impact.
    ummm what?

  29. #129
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    I was wondering where those invisible 15+ floor condos were too... already built you say? Hmmmm, whatever you say.

  30. #130
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Weather the NAIT campus happens or not, it has no bearing on the thread. The proposed campus is on the other side of Calgary Trail/Gateway Blvd and as a matter of fact quite far away from the proposed Ellerslie Station. I suggest if the NAIT issue wants to be debated, debate it on a NAIT thread.

    Now back to the topic at hand, to a certain degree it's too bad that the station would be located where they are suggesting as it wouldn't immediately be surrounded by higher density residential. There is some already there but then the rest of the area is just vacant land, for now. I do see this station as a major park n ride location as they were also proposing an interchange at Anthony Henday Drive/127 st. right along where the station would be. This of course would facilitate the movement to and from this park n ride.

    Overall I like some of the ideas they had at the presentation, especially possible designs of bridges over Blackmud Creek and AHD. If anyone that was there remembers the pics, I would personally love to see the bridge propossed for Blackmud Creek used to cross AHD.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  31. #131
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I was wondering where those invisible 15+ floor condos were too... already built you say? Hmmmm, whatever you say.

    Dude mckewan is full of them right at the corner of henday and 111 for and example. There are a number in rutherford and blackmud creek too. then hope over calgary trail there are a number in summerside. They just broke ground on a massive project between 111 and caltrail south of ellerslie along blackmud creek. Geeze open your eyes next time. Take a look at those office buildings they are building north of summerside between 99th and 91st. The point is it is a TOD! Have you looked at all at the area structure plans. If they are going to build the LRT the city should just zone the land RF1 and let it be a single family area. Otherwise in 10 yrs this will be like Millwoods with people but the LRT that never happend.

    I am not saying it should be the highest priority for LRT projects but I am saying that based on the developement and the TOD, it needs to happen. There is more to Edmonton that downtown. Like geeze we all pay the same taxes. Obviously you have not seen how a normal city doesnt transport planning. Between the NIMBYS in this town and the narrow minded its a wonder anything happens at all.

  32. #132

    Default

    Millwoods would've been built more dense had LRT been there. Theres still a chance for millwoods if we get LRT out there soon enough!

  33. #133
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Millwoods would've been built more dense had LRT been there. Theres still a chance for millwoods if we get LRT out there soon enough!
    Lol have u seen that new condo hi-rise they are building behind MWTC

  34. #134
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I was wondering where those invisible 15+ floor condos were too... already built you say? Hmmmm, whatever you say.

    Dude mckewan is full of them right at the corner of henday and 111 for and example. There are a number in rutherford and blackmud creek too. then hope over calgary trail there are a number in summerside. They just broke ground on a massive project between 111 and caltrail south of ellerslie along blackmud creek. Geeze open your eyes next time. Take a look at those office buildings they are building north of summerside between 99th and 91st.
    Well not too be picky here but yes Solaris your right, there are a number of condo buildings in the area including a couple right near the proposed LRT station, but no there aren't any 15+ floor condos there unless they are very very short 15 floors.

    As well I guarentee one thing, most anything accross calgary trail will have very little impact on the LRT and vice versa. People don't mind walking a certain distance but very few people will be interested walking close to 30 blocks and over a freeway just to get to an LRT station.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  35. #135
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Solaris i think you might mean 5 story condos. and seriously what kind of people would want to live in a condo where your view out your window is a major highway and a major transmission line? plus you pretty much still need a car, even when the lrt comes you will need a car to drive to the park and ride.

    I will concede to you that the area is surprisingly dense. anyone who hasnt been to that area lately you should check it out, quite a few low rise condos. LRT does need to go there and it will be used well(in rush hour at least). the problem i have is that we cant just continue sprawling and just stick an lrt out to it. putting an lrt line in wont bring back the usable farmland or natural wild life. face it every single one of these developments are completly designed around a car and a token lrt wont change that fact. Eventually we have to draw the line.

    Also you mention that we all pay the same taxes but i would think that people in inner city neighbor hoods are subsidizing your guyses taxes. building new sewers, roads, schools, and infrastructure isnt cheap. throw in maintenance and damn.

    (ps i am a pretty big hypocrite cause i ironically live in a henday hugging sprawl neigbourhood....)

  36. #136
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I was wondering where those invisible 15+ floor condos were too... already built you say? Hmmmm, whatever you say.

    Dude mckewan is full of them right at the corner of henday and 111 for and example. There are a number in rutherford and blackmud creek too. then hope over calgary trail there are a number in summerside. They just broke ground on a massive project between 111 and caltrail south of ellerslie along blackmud creek. Geeze open your eyes next time. Take a look at those office buildings they are building north of summerside between 99th and 91st.
    Well not too be picky here but yes Solaris your right, there are a number of condo buildings in the area including a couple right near the proposed LRT station, but no there aren't any 15+ floor condos there unless they are very very short 15 floors.

    As well I guarentee one thing, most anything accross calgary trail will have very little impact on the LRT and vice versa. People don't mind walking a certain distance but very few people will be interested walking close to 30 blocks and over a freeway just to get to an LRT station.

    Ok well they look 15 floors. they are pretty tall. They are definately 10 if not 15. But the point is it is a TOD. As a city we cannot set up a TOD and not serve it with transit. The current service is not sufficient for the population. It definately isnt sufficient for the projected population when a number of ongoing projects are completed.

    Secondly the city is deploying e/w buses to feed into the ellerslie transit centre. This will bring in an even larger population base to the LRT.

    The fact is boys, zone it TOD, build a TOD, then you need the "T".

    I have no problem with limiting furture devlopment to stop sprawl. But you need to support existing development with municple infrastructure. This notion that the city is pandering to suburbs is rediculous. They are simply developing a transporation system for their citizens that they car sustain.

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    ^ I don't know how to break it to you gently, solaris, but there is no building taller than five storeys in MacEwan. In fact, there's a perfectly good optometrist's office in a two-storey one, but that may be below your visual threshold.

  38. #138
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    ^ I don't know how to break it to you gently, solaris, but there is no building taller than five storeys in MacEwan. In fact, there's a perfectly good optometrist's office in a two-storey one, but that may be below your visual threshold.

    Well i know about the optometrist one. Its by cobs i believe. But the one on the corner of the henday and 111 has got to be at least 10 floors its pretty tall.....unless that just for looks and no ones living in the top so many floors....

    And no need to be insulting...

    And you guys are really missing the point which is you cannot have a TOD with out an LRT.....Sorry Doesnt work! And you you are going to build an LRT you are building a 6 lane freeway thru whyte into downtown....wont that be attractive. Interesting how people focus on the superficial detail and not on the impact. Now wonder this town is still a town and not a city. Sorry guys this town and the peoples attitudes are where the rest of the planet was in 1970. Welcome to the 21st century. There is no place in this century for one person driving 1 car into downtown everyday. For this to happen, where the city plans a high density community the infrastructure needs to be there when the people demand it, guess what car! It not the people's choice of place to live that is the problem, or that they choose to drive in the lack of choice. THe problem in the lack of forward planning in a sustainable way. If people in this forum and this city cant see that, then this city will implode under its own poor planning. The pressures are already visible. People in this city are going to get a wake up call in the new year with the combination tax increase and service cuts they will see. This is mostly due to sustainability issues. Think about it, we have one of the most expensive transportation infrastructures in North America to support. Think about that. The LRT and Transit in tandem with TOD development is this cities only hope.

    By the way has anyone looked at the actual Neighborhood plan?

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...wn-centre.aspx
    Last edited by Solaris; 11-10-2009 at 10:25 AM.

  39. #139
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ your right but the problem is that the city puts all these TOD's out on the edge of the city instead of inside the henday. If you think limiting sprawl is "small town thinking" then your completely blowing my mind. Nobody here is saying there shouldnt be LRT because im pretty sure it has already been planned out to have LRT.

    If that area is so high density then why is it completely built around the car? all the roads are curvilinear, most of the houses are single detached with garage in front mini-mcmansions so really how is that high density. throwing in some token 5 story condos to block the highway noise doesnt make it dense. If having single occupant vehicles is bad like you say wouldn't the ultimate solution be to live closer to work? isnt that where the lrt is going? downtown? why not live near downtown then?

    The LRT will go to that community but that is not gonna stop the need for improved access from gateway to downtown. I dont really see how you draw a relation. The (hopefully underground) freeway to the river is still needed even with a lrt unless you think people coming into the city are gonna turn on the henday, park at the park and ride and take the lrt.

    Oh and please go look at those condos on 111st and the henday, those things are 5-8 stories max! im thinking 5 but i havnt driven by there lately. and again even with lrt people living there will still need a car to go anywhere else(coughSECendcough) I think we may be arguing completely different things here.

  40. #140
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    Gents, once and for all, ALL condos in MacEwan are four-storey - yes, including the now famous/infamous blocks at Ellerslie and 111th. The tallest one is on MacEwan Road across from MacEwan Park and it qualifies as such because it has an 'embellishment/dome/pimple' on the top.

  41. #141
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    London and Paris are sufficiently dense cities not really TODs seeing the tube and metro pretty much go everywhere. The average building in both cities is typically 4-5 floors. The problem with Edmonton's density is the single homes on huge lots.

  42. #142
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Gents, once and for all, ALL condos in MacEwan are four-storey - yes, including the now famous/infamous blocks at Ellerslie and 111th. The tallest one is on MacEwan Road across from MacEwan Park and it qualifies as such because it has an 'embellishment/dome/pimple' on the top.

    Interesting how the focus of the convo is the size of condos and not the plan for a TOD

  43. #143
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ your right but the problem is that the city puts all these TOD's out on the edge of the city instead of inside the henday. If you think limiting sprawl is "small town thinking" then your completely blowing my mind. Nobody here is saying there shouldnt be LRT because im pretty sure it has already been planned out to have LRT.

    If that area is so high density then why is it completely built around the car? all the roads are curvilinear, most of the houses are single detached with garage in front mini-mcmansions so really how is that high density. throwing in some token 5 story condos to block the highway noise doesnt make it dense. If having single occupant vehicles is bad like you say wouldn't the ultimate solution be to live closer to work? isnt that where the lrt is going? downtown? why not live near downtown then?

    The LRT will go to that community but that is not gonna stop the need for improved access from gateway to downtown. I dont really see how you draw a relation. The (hopefully underground) freeway to the river is still needed even with a lrt unless you think people coming into the city are gonna turn on the henday, park at the park and ride and take the lrt.

    Oh and please go look at those condos on 111st and the henday, those things are 5-8 stories max! im thinking 5 but i havnt driven by there lately. and again even with lrt people living there will still need a car to go anywhere else(coughSECendcough) I think we may be arguing completely different things here.

    Look i just know there are a lot of tall looking buildings...can everyone please forget the number of floors the condos have. The size of he condos is a side show.

    The main event is this.

    75% of the population growth in this town rightly or wrongly has been in the suburbs. If you build a transit system, you need to build it where the people are. You can do some things to minimize the continuation of the sprawl, like encourage in fill communities. Which quite frankly they should do. In fact I would much prefer to live centrally. The fact is this. The current development patterns mean I can get a way better place at a much lower cost in the suburbs. I was looking at a similar apartment downtown. It was over 1/2 a million $. No one can afford that. The city should encourage more middle class housing centrally. But until this happens, I can afford to live where I live.

    So given that I can drive or take transit. The current transit system quite frankly blows chunks. So I am going to drive. Dont build the LRT just building me a 6 lane freeway into down town. Ok now multiply this attitude by the population of the suburbs. Quite frankly you central elitists will be faced with wonderfully attractive freeways cutting your neighborhood in half. I hope you enjoy it. We now have a 12 ward system. Look where the wards are look where the people are. Rule of the majority people.

    The only sustainable way for this city to grow is thru transit. deal will it. Now moving forward. Draw a circle around existing development and restrict expansion and further sprawl. The sprawl definitely needs to stop. I agree. Existing development and TOD's need to be respected.

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ The point of being fixated on the height of the condos is your own credibility. If you don't present correct facts or are intentionally exaggerating them, it's hard to read whatever else you say and take it seriously.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  45. #145
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ The point of being fixated on the height of the condos is your own credibility. If you don't present correct facts or are intentionally exaggerating them, it's hard to read whatever else you say and take it seriously.

    Well they look tall....is how I corrected my self...how can you tell for sure the # floors a building has with out going in and to the elevator. To me they look pretty big is my point. Andy That's not even my point. My point IS...NO LRT NO TOD! End of point! THat is all! deal with that!

  46. #146

    Default

    ^ Not true.. You could have a TOD using bus connections.

  47. #147
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ Not true.. You could have a TOD using bus connections.

    That is not the definition of a TOD. A TOD as defined by the city of Edmonton is built around LRT due to population densities proposed.

    This is why they are being constructed along LRT or future LRT corridors.

  48. #148

    Default

    ^

    Straight from the COE website

    Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is how planners describe urban development that is planned and integrated with a transit OR LRT station at its core.

    You might want to double check facts before making definitive statements.

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    You could also have a TOD with a subway too (the trains not the sandwiches)

    Actually if I was building a TOD I would actively work with the city, have the LRT run under the building or combine digging the basements/parkades to work with a station. I don't know all the details about Southgate Mall but it seems that a degree of co-ordination could have meant a mall that directly connected to the LRT, and maybe the mall going right over the LRT.

    I envision large TODs in a similar fashion, KCantor might be able to share some information on the EPCOR tower's LRT involvement with the NAIT LRT expansion.
    Last edited by sundance; 14-10-2009 at 03:14 PM.

  50. #150

    Default

    I don't want to be picky, but subway is a form of LRT.

  51. #151
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I don't want to be picky, but subway is a form of LRT.
    No, it's not. It's usually HRT (heavy rail).

    While our high-floor LRT is on the heavy end of light rail and is comparable to some heavy rail systems, that doesn't make it all light rail.

    But whatever.

    The existance of transit does not make a development TOD.

    What we have at ellerslie is automobile oriented development, and if you simply add LRT it will still be AOD. Only a tiny corner of the whole massive development will be TOD, which is hardly enough to make or break any freeway plan, imaginary or not.

  52. #152
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I don't want to be picky, but subway is a form of LRT.
    No, it's not. It's usually HRT (heavy rail).

    While our high-floor LRT is on the heavy end of light rail and is comparable to some heavy rail systems, that doesn't make it all light rail.

    But whatever.

    The existance of transit does not make a development TOD.

    What we have at ellerslie is automobile oriented development, and if you simply add LRT it will still be AOD. Only a tiny corner of the whole massive development will be TOD, which is hardly enough to make or break any freeway plan, imaginary or not.

    I didnt say the existence of transit makes it a TOD....I said....The existence of TOD means LRT. T means transit. Otherwise its Highway oriented I dont car I drive woohoo and will continue to so so build me that 6 lane freeway to downtown....lets blow away some inner city neighborhoods to build more highway....seems silly to me! So if you are building a High density TOD community, you better develop a way to get people downtown folks.

  53. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I don't want to be picky, but subway is a form of LRT.
    No, it's not. It's usually HRT (heavy rail).

    While our high-floor LRT is on the heavy end of light rail and is comparable to some heavy rail systems, that doesn't make it all light rail.

    But whatever.

    .
    We are both right.. there is little to no guidline as to what is "Light Rail" and what is not.

  54. #154
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I don't want to be picky, but subway is a form of LRT.
    No, it's not. It's usually HRT (heavy rail).

    While our high-floor LRT is on the heavy end of light rail and is comparable to some heavy rail systems, that doesn't make it all light rail.

    But whatever.

    .
    We are both right.. there is little to no guidline as to what is "Light Rail" and what is not.
    True, the distinctions are blurred. It's nice when everyone can be right.

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ The point of being fixated on the height of the condos is your own credibility. If you don't present correct facts or are intentionally exaggerating them, it's hard to read whatever else you say and take it seriously.

    Well they look tall....is how I corrected my self...how can you tell for sure the # floors a building has with out going in and to the elevator. To me they look pretty big is my point. Andy That's not even my point. My point IS...NO LRT NO TOD! End of point! THat is all! deal with that!
    Solaris, old chum, here you go again, see? The usual way to tell how many storeys a building has, is by counting the horizontal rows of windows, starting from ground level. Any structural component from the eavestrough up is not counted as a storey. Neither is anything below ground level.

    Now, in deference to the good folks on here trying to discuss the original topic, can you please carry on with your "NO LRT, NO TOD" line of thought? Thanks much.

  56. #156
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ The point of being fixated on the height of the condos is your own credibility. If you don't present correct facts or are intentionally exaggerating them, it's hard to read whatever else you say and take it seriously.

    Well they look tall....is how I corrected my self...how can you tell for sure the # floors a building has with out going in and to the elevator. To me they look pretty big is my point. Andy That's not even my point. My point IS...NO LRT NO TOD! End of point! THat is all! deal with that!
    Solaris, old chum, here you go again, see? The usual way to tell how many storeys a building has, is by counting the horizontal rows of windows, starting from ground level. Any structural component from the eavestrough up is not counted as a storey. Neither is anything below ground level.

    Now, in deference to the good folks on here trying to discuss the original topic, can you please carry on with your "NO LRT, NO TOD" line of thought? Thanks much.

    LOL...Well driving by at 120kms on the AHD its not that easy nore wise to divert attention to count rows of windows...Or then again maybe I cant count that high haha

  57. #157
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    A good term for this is FAR... F)loor A)rea R)atio it is the total area of the floors over the total area of the lot. I believe that only floors occupied floors (or empty floors waiting for tenants) are used in the calculation not parkades or rooftop gardens.

    A FAR of 4 to 5 is reasonable number for cities, a large pie lot can have a FAR of about 0.2 or so, basic 20 to 25 less dense than typical TODs.

  58. #158
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ The point of being fixated on the height of the condos is your own credibility. If you don't present correct facts or are intentionally exaggerating them, it's hard to read whatever else you say and take it seriously.

    Well they look tall....is how I corrected my self...how can you tell for sure the # floors a building has with out going in and to the elevator. To me they look pretty big is my point. Andy That's not even my point. My point IS...NO LRT NO TOD! End of point! THat is all! deal with that!
    Solaris, old chum, here you go again, see? The usual way to tell how many storeys a building has, is by counting the horizontal rows of windows, starting from ground level. Any structural component from the eavestrough up is not counted as a storey. Neither is anything below ground level.

    Now, in deference to the good folks on here trying to discuss the original topic, can you please carry on with your "NO LRT, NO TOD" line of thought? Thanks much.

    LOL...Well driving by at 120kms on the AHD its not that easy nore wise to divert attention to count rows of windows...Or then again maybe I cant count that high haha
    Solaris, I realise I was being a bit 'sarky' with my replies. Sorry if I cut a bit close to the quick. No intent to harm.

  59. #159
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Kinda off topic of discussion but:

    "A permanent Park and Ride facility for the South LRT is being constructed in Heritage Valley (Ellerslie
    Road/127 Street) with scheduled completion in 2011."

    Does this mean the Ellerslie Station will open then too? Or is it just with the transit centre.

  60. #160
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fanfare View Post
    Kinda off topic of discussion but:

    "A permanent Park and Ride facility for the South LRT is being constructed in Heritage Valley (Ellerslie
    Road/127 Street) with scheduled completion in 2011."

    Does this mean the Ellerslie Station will open then too? Or is it just with the transit centre.

    When Century Park Opens they will open the Park n Ride. It will include a transit center that can about 4 buses. The plan is to run super-express non stop buses from there to the LRT at Century Park @ the frequency of the LRT.

    Later, the Transit center will be expanded to include other routes and the LRT.

  61. #161
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    Some South LRT (to Ellerslie Road) links:

    23 Avenue Underpass: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...lieBoards2.pdf

    South LRT Webpage: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...lrt-study.aspx
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  62. #162

  63. #163
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    EDP, I think I'd have to agree here. Two bridges, an underpass and a road realignment will be quite expensive.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  64. #164

    Default

    I'm surprised there isn't a stop in Twin Brooks. Put in a station like BelMac. Add a small bus circulator and there's your transit.

  65. #165
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Some South LRT (to Ellerslie Road) links:

    23 Avenue Underpass: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...lieBoards2.pdf

    South LRT Webpage: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...lrt-study.aspx
    I do like how they avoid having another major intersection directly affected by the LRT.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  66. #166

    Default Twin Brooks vs Twin Brooks.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    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 neighbourhood of $100 million
    Actually the obvious route would cost the city less money and make far more sense. The route the city chose will cost much more than it should. Look at a map and see for yourselves.

    The route could have travelled along 23 Ave as the road allowance is wide and there is only one intersection to cross and it is not as busy as 12th Ave (and either way Skyrattler shares one access road with the train). The city could then construct a bridge across the ravine to 119th Street. This street is nearly empty at any time of day and if the train took the east side (the undeveloped two lanes) they would have no real intersections to cross and they would have a long straight path of prepared surface just waiting for the tracks to be laid. Yes they would have to build a new bridge but the present plan requires a new bridge on 111 Street anyway as well as some modifications to the existing bridge. I can't see how the 119 Street bridge could cost more than 111 Street bridge. There would be no need to reconstruct huge areas of 111 Street right next to homes. Anybody driving on 119 Street would think that the route was designed for a train. Google it and see for yourselves. Better yet, drive on it and you will see a brick fence on the west side (the side with the traffic lanes) so no objections from that area. With either plan they have to go over Anthony Henday (too many pipes underneath) but with 119 Street it would be a shorter straight bridge rather than the long angular bridge the 111 Street path requires. Once the train is over the freeway the plans could remain the same as it is in the same place as they currently want it.

    But wait, it only gets better. How many of you realize that the City, after having selected the 111 Street plan, now understands that there are a lot of people in Twin Brooks and that will be a real problem where 12th Ave and 111 Street and the LRT meet. So now they are considering building a major overpass at Anthony Henday and 119 Street (another information session is in March of 2010). That will be expensive! But it just gets better. You can't have an interchange on the Henday with no place to go so they will be building an expensive car bridge over the ravine to reach 23rd Ave.

    So, they could have gone under 23rd to south of 23rd (maybe even in the middle but likely south of the road) build a small LRT and bicycle bridge and then have a straight, free right of way to the Henday. 111 Street is left unchanged an available for additional lanes in the distant future if needed.

    But no, instead they will take the expensive route where they have to destroy existing structures. They will need an elevated bridge to help minimize the climb back out of the ravine. They will forever prevent 111 Street from being six lanes even though that was clearly the plan when they put the LRT in from 62 Ave to Century Park. They must re-work the on-ramp to the expensive 111 Street and Henday interchange before approaching the freeway at a sharp angle requiring a long bridge. Expensive, very expensive. And after spending all that money they will have to spend more to make 119 Street available to compensate for the loss of utility from 111 Street.

    This is not a NIMBY argument because either way it goes through Twin Brooks. The best route is so obvious that you wonder what those expensive consultants were thinking. Perhaps they were given such narrow criteria that they couldn't recommend the best route. I don't want to see my tax dollars wasted on the tight squeeze down 111 Street.

    Don't disregard this post until after you drive along 119th street between 23 Ave and the Henday. Not many people have seen it because it is a big wide limited access through road to nowhere. Go at rush hour if you want to as there is rarely any traffic on it. Then drive back on the busy 111 Street and ask yourselves which route makes more sense.

  67. #167
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    Voice I LIVED by Stadium station for a few years and never had a problem with the LRT tieing up the roads or causing excessive noise. Regular road traffic on 112th Ave and 82nd street was in excess of the LRT noise. I personally found the convenience of taking the LRT quickly to downtown or Claireview far outweighed the disadvantages of it.

    A typical subway system, again from my personal observation causes a LOT more noise, I have noticed significant sound and vibrations from the Toronto subway when I was there a few years ago.

    Did the city pick a perfect route, probably not, looking at your suggested route it seems more people would be impacted, I didn't count the number of houses immediately bordering 111th Street compared to 119th street but that number has to be at least 1/2 estimating from google imagery
    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...73643&t=h&z=14

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Voice I LIVED by Stadium station for a few years and never had a problem with the LRT tieing up the roads or causing excessive noise. Regular road traffic on 112th Ave and 82nd street was in excess of the LRT noise. I personally found the convenience of taking the LRT quickly to downtown or Claireview far outweighed the disadvantages of it.

    A typical subway system, again from my personal observation causes a LOT more noise, I have noticed significant sound and vibrations from the Toronto subway when I was there a few years ago.

    Did the city pick a perfect route, probably not, looking at your suggested route it seems more people would be impacted, I didn't count the number of houses immediately bordering 111th Street compared to 119th street but that number has to be at least 1/2 estimating from google imagery
    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...73643&t=h&z=14
    More houses would back onto the train but far fewer people would be impacted by the train at major intersections.

    As to benefits, there will be no train stop in Twin Brooks so Century Park will remain the nearest station. There are no benefits for Twin Brooks. As I previously stated, Twin Brooks knows the LRT has to go through the community to get anywhere else from Century Park so that is not the problem. The problem is the route and the fact that the city won't do anything to make the 12th Ave intersection easier to cross. Even putting the train in the middle of 111 Street as it is now would satisfy Twin Brooks. We could then make right turns when southbound without concern or delays from the train. At the first meeting when the consultant described the route the west of 111 Street alignment was the biggest point of concern. The shock in the room was palpable when they said it would go on the west side of 111 Street. Using the centre would silence most complaints.

    That re-route wouldn't silence my concerns though. You simply have to drive down 119th Street south of 23rd Avenue to understand.

  69. #169

    Default

    A train at peak times will be coming by every 2.5 minutes (5 minutes per direction). There's a lot less traffic at 111st and 12th avenue than 114th Street and University avenue. 114/Uni Avenue has no problem dealing with a level crossing on the side of the road... I fail to see how any one will be impacted negatively in twin brooks by this. Big deal, You might have to wait a few extra seconds. It's no different than waiting for the light to change. Trains signals and movements are synced with the lights... Trains take all of 15-30 seconds to pass. It's not like this is a slow moving freight train...

    and if it does cause a bit of a delay, big whoop anyways. Transit should always take priority, and in this city, for far too long, its been car-dominated. Perhaps a bit of a delay at this light will have people thinking about taking transit instead of the Single occupied car.
    Last edited by Medwards; 23-02-2010 at 05:25 PM.

  70. #170
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    I am soooooo tired of NIMBY's. If only they could build the LRT and ignore the NIMBY's. Honestly, if the LRT was built, what are they going to do, picket the LRT line? lay themselves accross the track? tie themselves to the LRT station? or most likely complain for awhile and then give up and go on with their lives.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  71. #171

    Default

    I'm tired of "The Sky is Falling" type statements...

    These systems are designed by people who study traffic flow for a living. I think they know what they are doing... To act or even imply that this routing would be an EPIC fail is going to far. The planners know that traffic patterns will be impacted, but motorist have to start understanding that their needs are not top priority 100% of the time.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 23-02-2010 at 08:59 PM.

  72. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I am soooooo tired of NIMBY's. If only they could build the LRT and ignore the NIMBY's. Honestly, if the LRT was built, what are they going to do, picket the LRT line? lay themselves accross the track? tie themselves to the LRT station? or most likely complain for awhile and then give up and go on with their lives.
    Read my post. This is not a NIMBY issue. It must and will go through Twin Brooks. If you drive down 119th street south of 23rd Ave you will understand. It is in Twin Brooks and is a big wide road to nowhere and it will only become a thoroughfare if the city uses 111 Street for the LRT. They are also considering removing access to Anthony Henday from 119 street which will make it a big wide limited access road to nowhere. Sort of an expensive thing to do. Why must my tax dollars be wasted on squeezing the LRT down the busy 111 Street when it is destined for 119 anyway? 119th Street is practically designed for the LRT. I think the consultants either seriously screwed up or were given such specific criteria that they couldn't recommend the obvious route. Oh, and for the history buffs, there used to be a train crossing at 119th street. Ironic isn't it?

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I am soooooo tired of NIMBY's. If only they could build the LRT and ignore the NIMBY's. Honestly, if the LRT was built, what are they going to do, picket the LRT line? lay themselves accross the track? tie themselves to the LRT station? or most likely complain for awhile and then give up and go on with their lives.
    Read my post. This is not a NIMBY issue. It must and will go through Twin Brooks. If you drive down 119th street south of 23rd Ave you will understand. It is in Twin Brooks and is a big wide road to nowhere and it will only become a thoroughfare if the city uses 111 Street for the LRT. They are also considering removing access to Anthony Henday from 119 street which will make it a big wide limited access road to nowhere. Sort of an expensive thing to do. Why must my tax dollars be wasted on squeezing the LRT down the busy 111 Street when it is destined for 119 anyway? 119th Street is practically designed for the LRT. I think the consultants either seriously screwed up or were given such specific criteria that they couldn't recommend the obvious route. Oh, and for the history buffs, there used to be a train crossing at 119th street. Ironic isn't it?
    If I was Mayor, I'd drive the first bulldozer right through the neighbourhood listenign to an iPod on so I can't hear the whining nimbys
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  74. #174

    Default

    You're just whining because the city opened up yet another parking lot downtown in the quarters where the Gem Theatre used to be.

    Maybe Twin Brooks should make a big fuss just like Belgravia and get all sorts of local concessions at the cost of all taxpayers.

  75. #175
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    If anything LRT south of 23rd Ave. is still "on paper", I'm curious as to why 111 St. has the width it does have all the way beyond Ellerslie Rd. down James Mowatt Trail. Is the diagonal bridge over AHD, along the TUC to 127 St. a fait accompli or has the door been left open to continue straight south on 111 St.? The line will still end up at the same point whether it takes 111 St. or 127 St.

    Voice, I've wondered about the wide swath of 119 St. between 23rd Ave and AHD. I wonder if that routing might still be a consideration.

  76. #176
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    My thinking is that the noise of the LRT will be way less than Anthony Henday Drive or 111 Street during rush hour.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice View Post
    You're just whining because the city opened up yet another parking lot downtown in the quarters where the Gem Theatre used to be.

    Maybe Twin Brooks should make a big fuss just like Belgravia and get all sorts of local concessions at the cost of all taxpayers.

    i would imagine the choice of route has something to do with the property that needs to be acquired and homes demolished. This is typically a consideration. I believe going down 111st requires less of this. It will require some realignment of 111st, but there is room within the ROW, i believe.

  78. #178
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    I don't think there was going to be much if any houses demolished.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  79. #179

    Default

    No houses will be demolished. One of the advantages of building the LRT this far from City centre is that roads are wider and can accommodate this sort of thing.

    I just returned from a presentation Q & A that the City put on as part of the 119th Street interchange. This is the link up with the Anthony Henday to 23rd Ave. I'm surprised that it was recommended by the planner but they said that the Province had a lot to do with their decision. In the end it still seemed to me that it would be cheaper and more efficient on several levels to use 119th Street rather than 111th Street for the LRT. I believe I now understand why they decided to do it the way they have and chose 111 Street but it still doesn't seem like a wise decision.

    Apparently the ravine at 119 Street and 23rd Ave is at its widest. Putting the train there now would require an expensive bridge so that is why the decision was made to put it on 111 Street. However, putting it on 111 Street means that they need 119 Street for a four lane roadway (since 111 Street can't be expanded with a train running next to it). This sounds like a catch 22 type situation and it is except the train comes first so the City doesn't have to deal with the 119th Street bridge at this time. It will have to deal with it, but later.

    I suppose it comes down to priorities in planning and how far down the road we are going to plan. Either way, the south extension to the LRT is a long way off. I may well be in a old folks home before it is even started.

  80. #180
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    The original plans had the LRT run down 111th south of Anthony Henday, then angling SW, the city felt there was more potential for riders if they went SW at Henday rather then paralleling Blackmud Creek.

    As for the bridge over Blackmud Creek, the existing highway bridges are two close together to permit an LRT in the median so it would need to be to the side. Why they would have built this knowing that the LRT was probably going down 111th I don't know.

  81. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    The original plans had the LRT run down 111th south of Anthony Henday, then angling SW, the city felt there was more potential for riders if they went SW at Henday rather then paralleling Blackmud Creek.

    There will be no stops between Century Park and the new park and ride south of the Henday so it makes no difference as to ridership which route they take to get there .

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    As for the bridge over Blackmud Creek, the existing highway bridges are two close together to permit an LRT in the median so it would need to be to the side. Why they would have built this knowing that the LRT was probably going down 111th I don't know.
    They said they plan ahead for this sort of thing but it is not evident here.

  82. #182
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    I think the station was going to be about 1/2 mile east so with less people (because of the ravine and park) it would probably have affected ridership. I'm just going from memory of old plans and documents.

    Planning ahead would have meant the two bridges would have been built further apart, or perhaps one built strong enough to take the weight of the LRT. Because of the spacing of the bridges the tunnel under 23rd becomes more essential, not only to go under 23rd but also to take the LRT from the median to the west side of 111th Street.
    Last edited by sundance; 02-03-2010 at 06:10 PM.

  83. #183

    Default

    A Twin Brooks station like BelMac would fit well. Pit it at 111th and 9th and run a small bus route through the Twin Brooks loop. Fast and convenient.

  84. #184
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    Would a Twin Brooks station work though. Bel/Mac station is very close to a large amount houses with easy walking access to the station. Would Twin Brooks have that same type of walking access?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  85. #185

    Default

    Twin Brooks is pretty much self contained. A simple small bus circulator that simply ran in Twin Brooks would handle much of the transit needs. Peak hour routes could extend to other areas.

  86. #186
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Would enough people in Twin Brooks take the bus to the LRT? Is it worth spending $5M on a station for probably very few boardings per day?

    Twin Brooks and McKernan/Belgravia are not comparable for LRT ridership. A Twin Brooks station only has significant housing west of 111 Street, and the housing stock is almost exclusively single-family residential (with only a few semi-detached dwellings), the street layout is pedestrian unfriendly and encourages establishement of a car-dependent population, and the neighbourhood is far from any large educational institution that would draw likely demographics for ridership (i.e. students).

    Compare with the McKernan and Belgravia neighbourhoods that have a significant student population that live in higher density dwellings, including multiple residents rooming together in a house, secondary suites, semi-detached buildings, or low-rise apartments.

    I think a bus circulator loop for Twin Brooks should run directly to Century Park station, which is only 2 km away (and along a high-speed thoroughfare) from a hypothetical Twin Brooks station.

  87. #187

    Default

    If I were living in Twin Brooks and had the choice between a 5 minute bus ride home and a 15 minute ride from a larger and busier transit centre, I know which one I would want. With a small bus timed to the LRT schedule it would be very convenient. Perhaps having a station there would also encourage people to look more seriously at transit as something other than a bus.

  88. #188
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If I were living in Twin Brooks and had the choice between a 5 minute bus ride home and a 15 minute ride from a larger and busier transit centre, I know which one I would want. With a small bus timed to the LRT schedule it would be very convenient. Perhaps having a station there would also encourage people to look more seriously at transit as something other than a bus.
    Sure, many people would consider the LRT if it was more convenient for them. However, I think funding allocated to LRT is better spent on building rail and stations to high density neighbourhoods with a large potential ridership rather than low-density enclaves like Twin Brooks. Even a station between Southgate and Century Park would make more sense than a Twin Brooks station.

  89. #189

    Default

    If you were living in Twin Brooks, and wanted good transit access, you would choose somewhere to live that isn't strictly designed around the car with little to no thought about transit or pedestrian movements. Twin Brooks is for the car lover. A 5 to 15 Million Transit center for what might be 200 passengers a day? I can think of better ways to 'waste' our infrastructure money.

  90. #190

    Default

    Lewis Estates isn't for the car lover? Clareview? The truth of the matter is that the whole city has been laid out for the car lover and we should be making it easier to think of transit as an alternative. A Twin Brooks stations would be a simple platform with a shelter. No overhead pedways. If that's $5 million, so be it. Bums in seats laddies, that's what it's about.

    If there were a location between Southgate and Century that you could put a station I'd be all in favor of it. 34th ave isn't the easiest place for transit access but perhaps something could go there.

  91. #191

    Default

    The location for a station at Twin Brooks just doesn't seem that feasible or favourable , just like it doesn't seem that feasible or favourable that theres no station between Southgate and Century Park.

  92. #192
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,726

    Default

    I think, looking at the design of Twin Brooks, that an LRT stop there is not likely viable. Belgravia/McKernan has a lot of basement suites, duplexes and higher density housing near this station. Twin Brooks has mostly single family houses. The community south of Henday would be served by the Ellerslie station.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  93. #193

    Default Lrt south

    I see the city is going ahead with the lrt south. Will is it good or bad? Does it matter NO. The city seem to hold meetings to make the public fell wanted. To expatriate well, yes I know, my father was and the neighbor and so on and so on. The plan was set years ago when the city limits was southgate. People may debate but the short story is it will be DONE. So does it matter NO.

  94. #194
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baddawg View Post
    I see the city is going ahead with the lrt south. Will is it good or bad? Does it matter NO. The city seem to hold meetings to make the public fell wanted. To expatriate well, yes I know, my father was and the neighbor and so on and so on. The plan was set years ago when the city limits was southgate. People may debate but the short story is it will be DONE. So does it matter NO.
    The city is not going ahead with the Gorman and Ellerslie extensions before other lines...at least not if city council has any say on the matter. They recently voted that the first priority is the NAIT line, and then, or possibly concurrently, the east and west lines.
    Source:Item 5.5 from city council minutes of Feb. 3, 2010: http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/m...octype=MINUTES

  95. #195
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    As much as I would love to see a continuation on the SLRT line to go to Ellerslie it will be a few years off still. It's too bad the city couldn't maybe work something out with the province to make this little section part of a provincial infrastructure project.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think, looking at the design of Twin Brooks, that an LRT stop there is not likely viable. Belgravia/McKernan has a lot of basement suites, duplexes and higher density housing near this station. Twin Brooks has mostly single family houses. The community south of Henday would be served by the Ellerslie station.
    Was Belgravia always like that though, and will Twin Brooks always be like it? Maybe more basement suites will spring up with this line providing a link to the University? As Twin Brooks ages, the ability to do infill like basement suites will make the neighborhood more affordable for new families (to refill the housing stock). Heck, some families might be struggling in Twin Brooks now with big mortgages, who could do with a student in the basement (the owners might use the train for a job downtown as well).

    I think it is a mistake to only provide LRT to some neighborhoods, and not others when the lines are built. If it is going through your neighborhood, I think it is reasonable that your neighborhood get served. If a station is built low cost (can be done), what have we really lost by putting it in? A couple of minutes on the trip for LRT commuters downtown? I don't think that is going to stop anyone using LRT. If we care about our communities, we should seize opportunities that arise to serve them with good transit, be they rich or poor, suburban or urban.

    Anyway, it is a few years out. NAIT and Millwoods / WEM are the priority, per our Council, and I think that's a good decision for now.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-03-2010 at 10:32 AM.

  97. #197

    Default

    I think its a mistake to turn the LRT in to a local feeder bus route. Use LRT to connect to the major nodes to the employment center. We don't need a stop every 5 blocks in suburbia. Build the line with out the station, but include in the design a way to easily incorporate a station later, if warranted later on.

  98. #198
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    I agree with you Medwards, that is one of the points that I disagree with the city's future plans which are to have the LRT stop every few blocks for what they say would be an effective speed of about 20-30 kmh. Umm at that speed I'll bike. For Old Strathcona or downtown yes you would want closer spacing, but the current 1 or so miles seems reasonable.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I think its a mistake to turn the LRT in to a local feeder bus route. Use LRT to connect to the major nodes to the employment center. We don't need a stop every 5 blocks in suburbia. Build the line with out the station, but include in the design a way to easily incorporate a station later, if warranted later on.
    there is no plan in place that sees a stop every five blocks in suburbia.. your being over dramatic

  100. #200

    Default

    If the twin brooks station were put at 9th ave and 111 st it would be 14 blocks or about 2 km from Century Park. That's hardly a feeder bus.

    The longer yo make the bus route the harder it is to get people on transit.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 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
  •