Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 488

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

  1. #201

    Default

    I was at the SLRT open houses and stakeholder meetings. The Twinbrooks residents did not want a station. There is the possibility of one being installed later if the density/demand increases.

    The next open house for the project is April 7th at the Ellerslie Rugby club.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiran View Post
    The Twinbrooks residents did not want a station.
    If this is a blanket statement that ALL these residents do not want a station then I am going to make a blanket statement that ALL these residents are fools.

  3. #203

    Default

    Ok, how about no one who bothered to attend the meeting from Twinbrooks seemed to care about a station. There were actually quite a few, but none of them were interested in talking about a station. There was one lady, from the next neighbourhood over (the name escapes me right now) who wanted on, but she was the only one at the meetings.

  4. #204

    Default

    Well then, let's let the NIMBY's decide where things go then.

    You have to make LRT accessible if you want people to ride it. A simple neighborhood station with no park & ride, overhead pedways, etc would not be a big intrusion on the neighborhood but would be a valuable addition. Who knows, it may even help prop up the density with some basement suites, etc.

    That's one of the reasons that building the Gorman extension sooner rather than later makes sense. Have the infrastructure in place and make it a part of why people choose to live there. If you wait until it's built up then you're trying to change peoples minds after the fact rather than having it as an option from day one.

  5. #205

    Default

    Actually, it wasn't the NIMBYs, it was the city based on a bunch of stuff I didn't really understand, but if I recall correctly came down to density within a certain radius.

  6. #206
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Just looking at the area I don't see why a station is needed there. It would be about as useful as a station at 34 ave.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  7. #207
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I don't see what so wrong with a station there. If designed simply it could actually be cheaper to build the station and eliminate the need to run redundant shuttle buses. It's also close to the end of the line, so it's only users from the two stops further down that will be inconvenienced.

    The fact that twin brooks is an isolated community to me makes it more worthwhile to provide transit service. But if the residents don't want it, why bother?

  8. #208
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    And that is the thing. If residents of the area are uninterested in having a station there, why build a station there.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    And that is the thing. If residents of the area are uninterested in having a station there, why build a station there.
    agreed! And there is no way with this level of NIMBYISM they would agree to a TOD or increased density in the neighbourhood....so just keep going down to Ellerslie, where they are building higher density developments.

  10. #210

    Default

    Just goes to show you that NIMBYism works. Perhaps if the folks along 113a st and 127 st complain long and loud enough we'll get the NWLRT running up St. Albert Trail.

    Perhaps they could simply leave a spot on the tracks for a future station. Maybe, in a few years, people will suddenly see how a stop could be handy.

  11. #211
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    To me it's not even Nimbyism. In my opinion even if the community wanted a station I don't think there is enough critical mass to warrent consideration of a station being built there. With no park n ride, pretty well only single family residences in the area, and poor pedestrian access to me that is 3 strike and your out. I would actually support an LRT station at Harry Ainley school before supporting a station at Twin Brooks, and I really don't support a station at Harry Ainley. Ellerslie area has been built out with lots of single family residences but also a bunch of multi family buildings. If/when the Ellerslie station opens, I assume and hope that the area surronding the station will be a total TOD. Twin Brooks won't be that and I don't think ever will be that.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  12. #212

    Default

    There will be an open house at the rugby club on April 7th, 2010 4pm-8pm to discuss the progress of this stretch of the SLRT. Come one, Come all. Sounds like they are almost at the end of the design phase. Let's see if we can get more pro LRT people out than Twin Brooks NIMBYS lol

  13. #213
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Well I'll be there and I'm definitely pro LRT but I wont be cheering on a Twin Brooks station.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  14. #214
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Here are a few scans from the information brochure handed out this evening at the SLRT extension session at the Ellerslie Rugby Club. These are of the proposed Ellerslie station.



    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  15. #215
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,256

    Default

    That looks pretty sharp, I think!

  16. #216

    Default

    I was there. Great presentation. Lots of NIMBY's from twin brooks attended to. We definitely need more lrt in this town. Not sure where this one is on the priority though. Seems to me NAIT and WLRT AND SELRT might be higher priority. But as long as we are building LRT im happy.

  17. #217
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    This looks great! One thing about the NIMBY's - they'll appreciate the LRT when Windermere and Ellerslie are fully built up in 10 years.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  18. #218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,256

    Default

    I find it hilarious that anyone wouldn't want an LRT station in close proximity to their neighborhood.

    The mind: it boggles!

  19. #219

    Default

    agreed! one nice quiet, clean train....or hundreds of loud smelly cars....

  20. #220
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    i would like to see more natural light being let in on that station. some more glass on the roof would be nice.

  21. #221
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    I live five minutes walk from the proposed Ellerslie Rd. LRT station. Can't wait. Bring it on! And if it doesn't stop in Twin Brooks, that's okay, it shortens my ride.

  22. #222
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    In the NIMBY's defence from the other night, they weren't there to oppose the LRT station and route, they were there to oppose the other presentation, the 135 st. interchange.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  23. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    In the NIMBY's defence from the other night, they weren't there to oppose the LRT station and route, they were there to oppose the other presentation, the 135 st. interchange.
    they seemed to also be opposed to the LRT going down 111, complaining of traffic delays. They want it to go down QEII instead....

  24. #224
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jameskrp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    In the NIMBY's defence from the other night, they weren't there to oppose the LRT station and route, they were there to oppose the other presentation, the 135 st. interchange.
    they seemed to also be opposed to the LRT going down 111, complaining of traffic delays. They want it to go down QEII instead....
    “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

  25. #225
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Oh ok, well maybe, I was only there long enough to hear the NIMBY's about the interchange, they must have been taking turns, being a NIMBY takes lots of work.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  26. #226

    Default

    ^ ya! Someone should tell the Twin Brooks people that a nice quiet cleant lrt going thru the area could delay/offset the need for the 135st overpass. The alernative to twin brooks will be a 4 lane 13th st > 119st from Ellerslie to 23rd and potentially a 6 lane 111 st.....which would you rather have. Clearly an LRT would be less of an impact.

  27. #227
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Unfortunatly I think that the thoughts of the residents there are that the interchange will bring too much traffic and the LRT will bring to much noice or whatever. It's the typical NIMBY stuff that is being brought up. It's unfortunate that these people are so quick to jump and quickly dislike the either projects. The funny part of it too is that one or two of the people I talked to at the meeting thought that the LRT extension construction was starting later this year. They were surprised when I told them that we are unfortunately looking at a start date to construction of at least 3 to 5 years, but probably even longer away than that. All of a sudden the couple people were changing their tune and seemed more accepting of the project. LOL
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  28. #228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,496

    Default

    I believe this station will be built in a few yrs from now because twin brooks is a small community so wait till this coummunity grows , then it will happen to have a station there.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Unfortunatly I think that the thoughts of the residents there are that the interchange will bring too much traffic and the LRT will bring to much noice or whatever. It's the typical NIMBY stuff that is being brought up. It's unfortunate that these people are so quick to jump and quickly dislike the either projects. The funny part of it too is that one or two of the people I talked to at the meeting thought that the LRT extension construction was starting later this year. They were surprised when I told them that we are unfortunately looking at a start date to construction of at least 3 to 5 years, but probably even longer away than that. All of a sudden the couple people were changing their tune and seemed more accepting of the project. LOL
    2 Twin brooks ladies I was walking to seemed to be concerned that it would impact their ability to get into and out of the neighbourhood. They actually thought having an LRT station (such as BelMac) for TB, would actually slow traffic down even more (probably as the train would have to move slower to make the stop) by increasing the time it would take for the train to clear the area. A core factor in there opinion was the fact that it now takes them longer to get to SG Mall with all the new signals patterns on 111st.

    The funny this was these 2 ladies claimed to be hippies and green friendly, and this was their reason for opposing the overpass. The did not seem to see the juxtaposition of these 2 ideas.

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    ...these 2 ladies claimed to be hippies and green friendly, and this was their reason for opposing the overpass. The did not seem to see the juxtaposition of these 2 ideas.
    Too many very green marijuana brownies perhaps? Would the LRT reduce congestion on 111th? Perhaps, but as previously stated in other threads the congestion will probably remain as people tend to travel more. BUT more people will travel to/from Century Park to U of A because of the LRT.

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I believe this station will be built in a few yrs from now because twin brooks is a small community so wait till this coummunity grows , then it will happen to have a station there.
    Twin Brooks isn't going to get any larger or grow any further. It's fully built out and completed. The community bordered by the blackmud creek to the north and east, whitemud creek to the west, and Anthony Henday Drive to the south. The community finished building 4-5 years ago at least. The problem with putting a station there is obvious:

    1) Community is not very walkable, all inward facing and not a very good pedestrian circulator. This community was designed and built for the automobile, not for transit or pedestrain
    2) Location of possible station - only a small station would ever work here, but that won't work as the there isn't a very large catchment with in walking distance, and there's definitely no room for a park and ride. If a local bus were to circulate around twin brooks, why not just make the bus go the extra 2 minutes to Century Park? It's really not that far away.
    3) no opportunity for TOD's around a twin brooks station location either.

  32. #232
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,550

    Default

    Keep in mind that many many people still associate 'subways' with lower income areas and crime... versus a more contemporary and positive connotation of 'smart living'.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  33. #233
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Keep in mind that many many people still associate 'subways' with lower income areas and crime... versus a more contemporary and positive connotation of 'smart living'.
    Yeah, it's unfortunate. Too often the mindset people have is that rich people drive cars and SUV's, poor people ride the bus and LRT. So in the case of the rich, they want to keep public transit far away so the don't get poluted with the commoners.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  34. #234
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Well with all the over crowding on the south line I wonder if a new station and park n ride at Ellerslie as soon as possible would help or worsen the situation.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  35. #235
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Well with all the over crowding on the south line I wonder if a new station and park n ride at Ellerslie as soon as possible would help or worsen the situation.
    Usually the more people you add to a line the more crowded it gets.

  36. #236

    Default What Should Happen

    Quote Originally Posted by jameskrp View Post
    ^ ya! Someone should tell the Twin Brooks people that a nice quiet cleant lrt going thru the area could delay/offset the need for the 135st overpass. The alernative to twin brooks will be a 4 lane 13th st > 119st from Ellerslie to 23rd and potentially a 6 lane 111 st.....which would you rather have. Clearly an LRT would be less of an impact.
    Oh, oh, now you struck a nerve. I've been trying to get that point across for a long time without success. It appears that the main reason for the interchange is that the 111 Street LRT line will make getting in and out of Twin Brooks very difficult. It then becomes necessary to put a bridge across the ravine to join 23 ave to Twin Brooks at 119 Street. They won't do that unless there is an interchange! One error causes another and so on and so on.

    What should happen
    The train should run along 23rd Ave to 119 Street. There is no benefit in going down 111 Street when 119 Street is the ultimate goal anyway. They could build a bridge there without tearing one down first as they may well have to do at 111 Street. They have an existing un-used limited access ROW down 119 Street to Anthony Henday. They can avoid the sharp corners and the angular overpass by going straight over the Henday. It is all so simple but it appears that different governments and departments are involved so nobody will put the package together.

    Ellerslie would have its station faster and taxpayer's would spend less. What is wrong with our city planners that this is not being done?

  37. #237
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    Voice, I'm not sure if 23 Avenue would take the load of the extra LRT, given the right-of-way. However, I think if the LRT is built past Twin Brooks, I think that 119 Street should be built south past 23 Avenue to meet up with Twin Brooks, to give commuters another option.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  38. #238
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    I don't think going over henday straight or at an angle is really much of an issue. A bridge is a bridge and 20 or 30 more feet isn't going to change cost that much.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Edmontoncowboy the cost increase isn't small for the following reasons. Length increases costs by a linear component for more concrete, rebar, forms, labor just because it is longer.

    It also increases costs on a more arithmetic method as the beams get longer they have to get a lot deeper (thicker can work to a degree) to resist bending motions, this as well increases the amount of concrete, rebar forms, plus it also increases the diameter of rebar, and may need additional tensioning to resist downward bending. As well with the additional depth of beams you need higher embankments to keep the vertical clearance the same, and longer embankments to raise the LRT to the level of the bridge.

    On angled bridges where the angle between the two is very shallow you need additional supports as you can't have a support in the middle of a driving lane, the trellis type bridges at AHD/QE2 or busway on Fox Drive are examples.

    Perpendicular would be the cheapest bridge but of course you'd have more LRT track, more wear and tear on the wheels from the turns, trains might have to slow because of the turn or to avoid squealing. The plan shows an angled bridge over AHD, probably will be built close to this plan.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...lrt-study.aspx

  40. #240
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Thank you and I do understand what your taking about. What I was getting at though is that the cost increase in comparison to the entire budget of the project will not be too different. For example would the longer bridge add another 50 million to the project or another 2 million?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Thank you and I do understand what your taking about. What I was getting at though is that the cost increase in comparison to the entire budget of the project will not be too different. For example would the longer bridge add another 50 million to the project or another 2 million?
    And my point was that the whole package costs more this way. The angular ramp over the Henday is just one more part of the equation. Originally they turned down the idea of the 23rd to 119 Street route because that is where the ravine is very wide (two ravines meet there) and it would be expensive to build the bridge there. Okay, that is fair. But then they said they are going to put a bridge there anyway because that is part of the master plan and we will need it. They didn't say it was because the LRT will make it hard to get in and out of Twin Brooks but that would certainly be another reason. So it appears that two City groups are not talking to each other, or at least are making decisions without considering what the other will do. If they put the train down 119 Street to Ellerslie the total savings are high but the LRT only-viewed-in-isolation savings are marginal. Taken as a whole, they have one bridge and one 90 degree ramp to build but it is all absorbed by the LRT budget. They save on not rebuilding 111 Street, including bridges and the Henday ramps. They save on not building the ramp over the Henday at an angle. They save on not building a vehicle bridge at 119 street and 23rd Ave and the Province saves in not building a huge interchange at Henday and 119 Street. Really it just makes sense but it will not happen because we are dealing with two governments and at least two departments within the City government. So either way the train will reach 119 Street at Ellerslie. However, by pushing it through busy high traffic areas you will see more slow downs as they try and sync intersection crossings like they are now. The total project costs much more in the current plan. It really is such a shame that everybody can't get together and see this and make it happen. The savings would be significant and I expect the finished product would be a faster moving train. There would, incidentally, be less traffic disruption during construction as well.

  42. #242

    Default Station capacity

    Lately at CP I noticed that the stations capacity has a hard time dealing with the volume of traffic at peak hours. As an example during PM peaks, the stair case descending from the pedway on the transit center side is way too narrow given the volume of traffic. It is likely to be much worse once university goes back inn the fall. This could be intentional given that this will not be an end point station and eventually the PnR will move to ellerslie. I hope ETS observes this, and ensures that the ellerslie station can better handle the volume of traffic.

  43. #243
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Well according to some transit/LRT planners they are keeping a close eye on things at CP. If there were only a way to start work on the extension to Ellerslie sometime soon.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  44. #244
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Minutes from the June 23, 2010 City council meeting......


    Moved K. Krushell - D. Thiele:


    That Administration reallocate $15,000,000 from the Heritage Valley Regional Transit Parking Lot to capital projects at Administration’s discretion.

  45. #245

    Default More tax money needed

    I get this gut feeling that Mayor Mandel knew all along that “was all about the taxes stupid”.
    At the time when there was so much talk about the LRT-over-Twin Brooks issue, I could not understand why nobody talked so much about the West End and Millwoods LRT instead. Well, now the people in Edmonton have, and laud.
    So, back to the tax increases to finance the massive LRT expansion. How come not to many people are now discussing the excessive city tax to cover the LRT project issue. I would like to relay to you that I have this gut feeling again. People will, soon enough argue laud and clear against the city hall tax-for-progress idea. At least as to where the tax should come from.
    Should the entire project become reality, there will be some people harvesting money building neighbourhoods where now there little or none, much like the fields on 129 Street and Elerslie Road.


    In my humble view they, the Developers, should have the most to gain and as such, they should help build the monster that will feed them. Sheers to the colleagues of Mr. Mandel!!

  46. #246
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    ^I'm not completly clear as to the point you are trying to make. As it stands right now, there is and will not be any LRT projects going to any new areas of the city such as Ellerslie Rd. Yes there has been plans and the LRT planners hope to go to these locations eventually. Future LRT locations that are most likely to have developers building around those stations will be Ellerslie station and Gorman station. The thing is though, these two stations likely wont have any construction or even detailed engineering for at least 10 to 15 years from now at the earliest. The current LRT push is of course the NLRT to NAIT through mature neibourhoods and the SELRT to WLRT also through mature neighbourhoods. The only parcel of land along the entire SELRT to WLRT line that is being developed/redeveloped is the former Molsons/Crosstown land in the downtown core.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  47. #247

    Default More tax money needed

    It is all about the taxes! I do not want to have to put up with any more tax increases for less service from this city. It is like a mission. Massive LRT build up on the shoulders of taxpayers at the tune of 1/3rd of the cost. You only need to look at the title of my post to get the point, if you want, that is...

  48. #248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Figelio View Post
    It is all about the taxes! I do not want to have to put up with any more tax increases for less service from this city. It is like a mission. Massive LRT build up on the shoulders of taxpayers at the tune of 1/3rd of the cost. You only need to look at the title of my post to get the point, if you want, that is...
    Thing is they are just getting the design ready so all the lines are "shovels" ready. Also, this is helpful for developers to know the location of future transportation corridors. They never indicated that they were going past that point. The priority has always been:
    1) NAIT
    2) WLRT/SELRT

    The rest have no priority, as far as i know. Although if the developer doesnt renew the lease for PnR at CP in 5 yrs, that may bump up the priority of the PnR / LRT & Transit center at ellerslie rd. This is however doubtful.

    So all you have to worry about is the cost of the NAIT line and W&SELRT at this point.....It was unfortunate that these lines were delayed so long by past councils. You can blame those those past councils for wasting your tax $, when they didnt build the LRT when cost of building was cheaper

  49. #249

    Default More tax money needed for Edmonton's LRT

    Thank you for the replies. All I can say, the bottom line is the viability of the LRT. If it is not able to finance itself, don't do it. I am not hoping for tax dollars to start a personal business, neither should the city. The time line really does not matter since, as you say, priorities change as special interest groups do.

  50. #250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,256

    Default

    Do roads pay for themselves? There is an enormous social benefit to an expansive public transportation system. I'm sorry that you don't share that appreciation.

  51. #251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Figelio View Post
    Thank you for the replies. All I can say, the bottom line is the viability of the LRT. If it is not able to finance itself, don't do it. I am not hoping for tax dollars to start a personal business, neither should the city. The time line really does not matter since, as you say, priorities change as special interest groups do.
    It is well known that public transit is provide as a service & greater social and environmental benefit. Transit services everywhere are susidized bynthe tax base. That is not to say we could do better, but this requires building a more compact and mixed development city. To this end the LRT can also be an enabler. This is partly whynthe voice of low floor LRT, to help influence this type of development.

  52. #252
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Actually when it comes to the Ellerslie station extension it isn't even and wont be shovel ready. This is and wont be any engineering for that stretch for a long time. The only thing that has been done for that section, as well as the Gorman section is that they have concept plans. I would love to see the Ellerslie section shovel ready but since there wont be any work there for a long long period of time there isn't anything ready to go either.
    One thing that can not be done anymore in this city is to hold the attitude that LRT shouldn't be a priority. If the LRT had been a priority back in the 80's when it should have been then the cost of building would have been a whole lot less than it is now. In one way, you could say that the city of Edmonton is paying for the mistakes of former councils that were not willing to invest in the future of our city.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  53. #253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Actually when it comes to the Ellerslie station extension it isn't even and wont be shovel ready. This is and wont be any engineering for that stretch for a long time. The only thing that has been done for that section, as well as the Gorman section is that they have concept plans. I would love to see the Ellerslie section shovel ready but since there wont be any work there for a long long period of time there isn't anything ready to go either.
    One thing that can not be done anymore in this city is to hold the attitude that LRT shouldn't be a priority. If the LRT had been a priority back in the 80's when it should have been then the cost of building would have been a whole lot less than it is now. In one way, you could say that the city of Edmonton is paying for the mistakes of former councils that were not willing to invest in the future of our city.
    It is actually at preliminary engineering at early 2010 according to this document, the results of this were presented at the Ellerslie Rugby Club in April.:

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

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

    And I couldnt agree more! We neeed to start moving forward. We can no longer wait.

  54. #254
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    ^I stand corrected, there has been some engineering, but I think I'm still correct that they are a long ways away from being shovel ready.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  55. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    ^I stand corrected, there has been some engineering, but I think I'm still correct that they are a long ways away from being shovel ready.
    In terms of steps the next is detailed design and the. Construction, the. Operation. The detail design completes the engineering etc. So not too many steps left unti, shovels ready. However you could be correct in that, it all depends whe. They actually do this. It could be 10 or more years from now lol

  56. #256
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Well I hope it will be sooner than 10 years. Especially if the bus from Leduc has lots of success. I would love to see this station be used as a further stepping stone to get to the EIA. As I've mentioned elsewhere too, if WLRT gets delayed for an extended period of time, hopefully this part of the system will receive precedence.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  57. #257
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    One of the fastest growing areas of Edmonton will be the area around Ellerslie Road and Windermere. But I also think that it will take more than airport service to get the LRT south.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  58. #258
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  59. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I would love to see this station be used as a further stepping stone to get to the EIA.
    I would prefer to see it swing to Windermere. Why go 10's of kilometers through empty padock for another city (which will require lots more trains), when can instead service more taxpayers in Edmonton city, in Edmonton's fastest growing neighborhood?

    Also, HSR will eventually service YEG anyway so its silly to waste billons duplicating that service (and yes, I know that is a way off).

  60. #260

    Default

    I'd prefer a second south line to serve Windemere. Branch off at South Campus turn west and enter Riverbend at 53 ave, south on Riverbend Road/Rabbit Hill Road.

  61. #261
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    I know that the LRT extension is still a long ways away but I wonder if the city will be willing to push forward to build the park n ride lot at Ellerslie and shuttle people to Century Park. Considering the parking problems at Century Park another Park n ride lot would help lessen the issues. One thing I can honestly say though is that I'm very glad that the LRT is being well used and I hope this only convinces sceptics that the LRT is a good thing that has to be expanded upon as much as possible and as quickly as possible.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  62. #262
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    I wonder if MacEwan's plans for the "new" South Campus at 127th street an Ellerslie had anything to do with the route selection. That plan was scrapped a few years ago, but the LRT extension remains in the same spot.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  63. #263
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    ^ Probably that plus the burgeoning growth in general in that part of the city. Follow 127th St. far south enough and guess where you end up.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  64. #264

    Default

    are they going to ever do something about/remove those neighbouhood entrance concrete wall signs at every intersection along 111 st? the line has been open for more than 2 years and they seem to have forgotten about this

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    ^ Let them become part of Edmonton's storied history. Then, in 4012 or so, future archeologists can dig and ponder what these things were and put them in the new six billion dollar museum located in the new Edmonton city centre out by Calmar.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  66. #266
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Those incomplete signs have also annoyed me for their waste. But I've come to suspect the city might put something related to the line name once this naming contest thing finishes. Until then, they make good graffiti canvas.

  67. #267
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    413

    Default

    I wouldn't mind seeing the line extended to Ellerslie in the relative near future. Of course, Millwoods is the next priority (my fingers a crossed for 2014/2015.) While the city haggles over the NWLRT and WLRT, why not force this through.

    I'd like to see continuous construction on this line after NAIT is finished, while building the low floor. Even Gorman would be a good addition.

    That being said, if the ECCA plans get finalized and the Lewis Estates line is cemented, they should be prioritized. I don't see that happening soon though.
    We would share and listen and support and welcome, be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes. We would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference. -Alanis Morissette

  68. #268
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    I think the extension to Ellerslie will only start to be seriously considered when the proposed developments around there further fill that area. I would like the city to start working on the area and build the park n ride minus the LRT station so that hopefully we can start seeing more people use the bus with the hope of having the train there someday.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  69. #269
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    ^ That'd be a good start. It should improve the goat track that currently is 127 St. between AHD eastbound and Ellerslie Road. Amending routes 39, 324, 331, 339 to service a park'n'ride in that location would be a great first move.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  70. #270
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,511

    Default

    ^That 'goat track' is under the jurisdiction of the Province, not the City.

  71. #271
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post
    I wonder if MacEwan's plans for the "new" South Campus at 127th street an Ellerslie had anything to do with the route selection. That plan was scrapped a few years ago, but the LRT extension remains in the same spot.
    No it didn't. The future Town Centre in Heritage Valley and the provincial lands (that are currently leased by the UofA) which are planned to be the future site of a new SW hospital had more of an influence.

  72. #272
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,531

    Default

    I was by there again the other day and I saw that the buildings on the UofA's agricultural dept. land are being demolished. So sump'n is up.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  73. #273
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I think this line could become a greater issue once the 41 Ave/QE II overpass is done, and rapid development follows.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  74. #274
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think this line could become a greater issue once the 41 Ave/QE II overpass is done, and rapid development follows.
    Actually I've been keeping an eye on this whole area south of ellerslie road and honestly things are already moving pretty quick out there. The overpass will definitely make things move quicker though. Honestly if the Ellerslie station gets built and we have park n ride at both Ellerslie and Century Park for the time being the trains may end up being more packed but I am pretty certain that both park n ride lots will be full and we will see increased ridership.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  75. #275
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    So I wonder if the potential annexation of lands up to and including the airport could speed up and improve the chances of seeing this future LRT line extended out to the airport?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  76. #276
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    I think I would rather see a separate system to the airport. The LRT max speed is 70 km/h I believe. It would take forever to get out there...

  77. #277
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,496

    Default

    If Edmonton got their wish by annex the lands to airport and built more housing farther south to airport then it will happen to have LRT being built from century to airport.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  78. #278

    Default

    The sd160 has a limit of 105kmh
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_SD-100_and_SD-160

    In the city the highest limit on the tracks is 70 along the ne corridor

  79. #279
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    ^ The body of the article also states the speed limit of the SD160 is 80 km/h, which seems to be a number more commonly tossed around. I'd rather see a separate regional rail system developed at some point in the future to link the farther out communities and the airport to Edmonton.
    Mike

  80. #280
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Although based off of the design that is up on the LRT website don't think I see a reason to have a different train that can run at higher speeds considering there won't be enough distance for it to be really of any use.

    If the LRT is sent towards the airport I wouldn't doubt that there would be a station located also around 41 ave and then maybe on or two more between there and the airport, depending on what is built on the land in the area.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  81. #281

    Default

    I don't think we'll have the population growth (and corresponding changes in personal transportation patterns/preferences) to warrant LRT to YEG for the next 30 years.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  82. #282
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,701

    Default

    Personally I'd like to see it built to EIA, but just leave space for most of the stations inbetween. It'll be cheaper and less intrusive to build it now than to try to snake it through in 20 years and screw up traffic.

  83. #283
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Personally I'd like to see it built to EIA, but just leave space for most of the stations inbetween. It'll be cheaper and less intrusive to build it now than to try to snake it through in 20 years and screw up traffic.
    This is what ive said before in the past. Problem is theres too many people that see it as a waste and would prefer lrt lines built to different quadrants of the city first....even though this expansion if done now would cost a fraction of what it will cost later.

  84. #284
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,701

    Default

    West and SE need to be done first, absolutely.

    They do need to start doing all of the preliminary engineering and planning to the airport as soon as the annexation is done though. Set whatever property is required aside and plan the new suburbs around the line rather than jamming the line through already developed areas. Minimize crossing points. Hell it would even be comparatively cheap to do some proactive cut and cover if high volume crossings will be required in the future.

    Plan it now, STICK TO THE PLAN, and build it when the money is available.

  85. #285
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    ^I think they should build it now. Not only would it have high ridership from people commuting from leduc, but people commuting to nisku would most likely use it too. Especially if there was a nisku shuttle bus that would pick up/drop off at the airport then go throughout nisku and leduc.

    Plus, people going to and from the airport for airport reasons...example, business flights. No longer would you have to sit in traffic in your private limo. No. You can now get on the train from a conviently located station downtown and ride it all the way to the airport. No waitingat red lights. No potholes!

  86. #286

    Default

    Route 747 already offers this?

  87. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    ^I think they should build it now. Not only would it have high ridership from people commuting from leduc, but people commuting to nisku would most likely use it too. Especially if there was a nisku shuttle bus that would pick up/drop off at the airport then go throughout nisku and leduc.
    Citation pls
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  88. #288
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    At the bare minimum there should be a LRT ROW established so that development has to work around the ROW and not the opposite.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  89. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    I think I would rather see a separate system to the airport. The LRT max speed is 70 km/h I believe. It would take forever to get out there...
    The fastest LRV I have found tops out at 100km/h

    So even switching to a new type of train wouldn't make a huge diff.

    Here is a tram/commuter hybrid

    http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transpo...English%20.pdf
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 11-03-2013 at 10:07 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  90. #290
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,560

    Default

    The distance we are talking about where the train would be traveling past developed areas and any further stops is only about 10-12 km as near as I can tell (south of Callaghan). The difference between it going 70 km/h and 120 km/h is 10 minutes vs 6 minutes for that leg of the line. Not really worth worrying about, in my opinion. In terms of the travel time from downtown to the airport, it would make almost no difference since the total journey is going to be around 45-50 minutes.

    Or looking at the total trip distance from downtown to the airport, that section is only about a third or so of the total difference (10 vs 28 km, give or take). Hardly enough reason to change systems to gain a few minutes' shorter travel time.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 11-03-2013 at 11:15 AM.

  91. #291

    Default

    ^ Smart Man...

    At low distances the speed of travel is less important.

    Now if we were talking about Going to Calgary... that 30 Km an hour makes a huge impact... but going 30 K out to the airport... not so much.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  92. #292
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Just the other day I was out dropping off a friend in the Rutherford Heights area and I have to admit I was pretty surprised how far out they have pushed housing/apartment/condo development. I think it is going to start making a whole lot of sense to at least keep some Park n Ride at Century Park but to also get the LRT out to the proposed Ellerslie station sooner than later with not only a big Park n Ride but get some good bus routes all through out that area to bus people into the station.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  93. #293

    Default

    I think they have to pick their battles. Building a bridge and getting Twin Brooks on board is just too much to tackle in the short term, especially for a single station. Even after SE LRT is done, I would probably prioritize West LRT and extending the NW line.

    Self servingly, I would love for them to extend the main line all the way to the airport, but it just doesn't make much sense at this point in time.

  94. #294

    Default

    You will get far more bang for your buck by building LRT central first.

    See Calgary and how their cost/benefit reports have played out.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You will get far more bang for your buck by building LRT central first.

    See Calgary and how their cost/benefit reports have played out.
    This Calgary you speak of... Is it the one that already has LRT to the edge of the city in the South, northwest and northeast? What cost/benefit ratio report do you speak of? Perhaps a link?

  96. #296

    Default

    There was a whole thread on it..

    Search C2E and you will find it.

    For the time being bus service to CP will do just fine.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  97. #297
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  98. #298

    Default

    I don't think any of the C train lines make it to stony trail come to think of it....
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  99. #299

    Default

    That report you make wind of. You'll note that Calgary already has a built out LRT system fully to 3 of the 4 legs. It already has what we need.

    SE LRT in Calgary might be fine for BRT - because it already has LRT deep south. Edmonton doesn't. Especially when you consider our city goes for another 70 blocks south of Century Park LRT Station at 25 avenue.

    This whole ongoing notion of yours that the suburbs should be neglected at the benefit of central areas is unrealistic and poorly thought out. Bad form.

    Building out to Ellersile would be like building out to Anderson or up Crowchild.

  100. #300

    Default

    ok well... the city has said the SE to West line is the next priority followed by the NW. As I said No existing line of the C Train connects with the Stony Trail as of yet.

    Cost / benefit is an extremely useful tool as part of the planning process. I would assume Edmonton has done the same.

    lastly I will say that our new system clearly has a more local focus than Calgary's Commuter train. Direct comparisons likely should be avoided and our 3rd line opens next spring. with leg 4 and 5 opening in 2019 (apx)

    In no way will I use Calgary as a comparison tool. We are on track to surpass them while they are still trying to decide what move is next.

    PS you really don't need the little "you make wind of" you have the Google link to the herald article. It's right there.. there was a whole thread on it...

    Thanks
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 12-07-2013 at 03:32 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

Page 3 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
  •