PDA

View Full Version : West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Planning/Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

RichardS
09-03-2006, 11:41 AM
The city has announced the potential route for the wLRT between the U of A and WEM along 87th avenue. Thoughts?

*EDIT*

THE LINK TO THE CITY STUDY (http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_818915_0_0_18/West+High+Speed+Transit+Planning+Study.htm)

IanO
09-03-2006, 12:07 PM
yup...do it

MylesC
09-03-2006, 10:04 PM
I still thing the numbers are bunk, but let's just get building.

I hope that the billion dollar price tag doesn't deter them from going ahead. The 107th route would have been far cheaper, IMO.

Speedyturtle
29-03-2006, 01:38 PM
107th probably wouldn't get many riders. On 87th you could stop off at Meadowlark, Misericordia, and West Ed.

RichardS
29-03-2006, 02:27 PM
Actually, you would. 107 would trun south around 149/156 to intersect with the JP center, then to 87th and turn west to WEM.

The main issue of contention around 107 is the feeling that the time between the 2 major nodes of employment (WEM and U of A) would be too long vs any potential riders doing WEM/DT/U of A. I have my opinion, but that will be later...

Sonic Death Monkey
29-03-2006, 11:38 PM
Why not build the wLRT through one of the ravines that run under 142 St? In fact, I read somewhere that one of them was slated for a road or a train at one point. But at least fewer homes would have to be demolished.

DanC
29-03-2006, 11:45 PM
Mckinnon ravine is graded for a roadway...it'll never happen. Even an LRT through Mckinnon and Gov't house park would be beat to death by NIMBYs. There is also the issues of how you would enter into Downtown from the Valley floor and missing ridership nodes.

MylesC
30-03-2006, 07:49 AM
McKinnon ravine may yet still happen *some* day, but the traffic problems to the west end would have to be insane in order to justify pushing that project through.

highlander
30-03-2006, 02:15 PM
Does anyone know what plans are for beyond WEM? Perhaps a park&ride at 87th&Henday, and one more in Lewis Estates?

IanO
30-03-2006, 03:08 PM
Does anyone know what plans are for beyond WEM? Perhaps a park&ride at 87th&Henday, and one more in Lewis Estates?


i believe the terminus would be around AHD for a park and ride....

SteveB
07-04-2006, 04:30 PM
Interesting route - a billion dollars is large but would be spent over about 10 years and I can see quite a bit of provincial and federal funding.

Shame no one is talking about LRT to Sherwood Park and St Albert, that would be real progress given the growth in those 'burbs.

Titanium48
07-04-2006, 04:47 PM
Shame no one is talking about LRT to Sherwood Park and St Albert, that would be real progress given the growth in those 'burbs.

When "those 'burbs" are either A) part of Edmonton or B) willing to pay for it, it will happen.

RichardS
07-04-2006, 06:38 PM
/\AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!

Pony up the $$$ boys!

CSR
07-04-2006, 11:24 PM
Shame no one is talking about LRT to Sherwood Park and St Albert, that would be real progress given the growth in those 'burbs.

When "those 'burbs" are either A) part of Edmonton or B) willing to pay for it, it will happen.

And why should they pay for LRT? The way public transit is funded by the province the get percapita money... not enough for an LRT line, but plenty to run a few peak hour buses for Post Secondary students. No one else uses the bus, and they don't have to provide local transit to speak of... it's all gravy.

And as long as the province provides highway monies they will have no reason not to drive their cars into Edmonton ( and then complain about the potholes and parking when they get here! :roll: )

It has sadly been my experience that people in the satelite communities like the idea that they are "out of the city" and improving links is not on their radar. They want a certain isolation, real or imagined.

RichardS
08-04-2006, 01:39 AM
It has sadly been my experience that people in the satelite communities like the idea that they are "out of the city" and improving links is not on their radar. They want a certain isolation, real or imagined.

True. ...but then when roadwork projects that affect their commute or a certain airport debate rears it's head, suddenly hte capital is for everyone and tehy DEMAND a say...

funny how these little burbs want the best of everything, and yet still refuse to pay for it...

Speedyturtle
11-04-2006, 03:05 PM
Little leaches are what they are

SteveB
12-04-2006, 07:11 AM
I agree....Edmonton should look at a tax/daily rate on cars from outside Edmonton entering the downtown core. Raise monies that way while encouraging people to take public transport.

IanO
12-04-2006, 03:53 PM
I agree....Edmonton should look at a tax/daily rate on cars from outside Edmonton entering the downtown core. Raise monies that way while encouraging people to take public transport.


great idea in principle, but would very much hurt the downtown at this point and even more major cities do not do this yet....

maybe when we have 20million more sqft office, 50,000 more people driving downtown.

CSR
12-04-2006, 05:16 PM
You don't do it on the downtown, you would have to do it for anythig inside the greenbelt / outer ring road.

But it would be almost impossible to enforce and collect, even if you could institute such a program. The real advantage would not be revenue, but perhaps to strike home to these people how much they use Edmonton... and even then, knowing the mentality of a lot of them it would istead be seen as a "bullying tactic by the big mean city desperate for cash."

LindseyT
12-04-2006, 05:29 PM
I am NOT a fan of the 87 ave route.

The potential for TOD's, desification and commercial development along the 107 ave route is a missed opportunity. As well the symbolic pressence of connecting WEM directly to Churchill Sqaure would be strong.

CSR
12-04-2006, 07:00 PM
I personally prefer 107th as well, but the planners figure it would take too long to get from the west end to the university if routed through downtown.

It seems they have never heard of express trains.

Back in 78 the original NE line was built with crossovers on each side of each station and I remember them saying the system was set up so that trains could "leapfrog" others by going through the otherside of a station while one train was loading / unloading allowing express service in the future.

Well the future is here, what happened?

RichardS
12-04-2006, 09:03 PM
I am NOT a fan of the 87 ave route.

The potential for TOD's, desification and commercial development along the 107 ave route is a missed opportunity. As well the symbolic pressence of connecting WEM directly to Churchill Sqaure would be strong.

I would agree, but the planners say different. Remember they were asked to connect 2 large, if not hte largest nodes in the fastest way possible, and that was 87th. They were not chartered to think ahead... ;)

LindseyT
12-04-2006, 11:02 PM
I personally prefer 107th as well, but the planners figure it would take too long to get from the west end to the university if routed through downtown.


My belief is that univeristy students will use it no matter how it gets there. For the most part they have no choice. It's the downtown workers and destination seekers (shopping, sport events, concerts etc) who have the choice and building the system to cater to them should maximize it's popularity.

I guess they don't see it this way :cry:

RichardS
13-04-2006, 09:37 AM
No, but remember that they are also trying to get profs, janitors, admin, and all other staff members to ride, and there is a feeling that they would not use the LRT if it added too much time.

I see that argument, but don't necessarily agree with it. My personal thought would be that these folks would ride it anyway on the 107 route. Poeple ride the LRT to avoid gas, driving times, congestion, car wear and tear, and parking fees. 5 minutes extra of an LRT ride is not something that is a deal breaker for most.

Speedyturtle
13-04-2006, 03:43 PM
Would the 107ave route still be able to get to Meadowlark or Misericordia?

RichardS
13-04-2006, 04:09 PM
Yep.

107 was planned to go down 149, meet near the JP terminal, go to 87/Meadowlark, turn right and hit the Mis/WEM....

CSR
13-04-2006, 06:04 PM
No, but remember that they are also trying to get profs, janitors, admin, and all other staff members to ride, and there is a feeling that they would not use the LRT if it added too much time.

I see that argument, but don't necessarily agree with it. My personal thought would be that these folks would ride it anyway on the 107 route. Poeple ride the LRT to avoid gas, driving times, congestion, car wear and tear, and parking fees. 5 minutes extra of an LRT ride is not something that is a deal breaker for most.


And again I ask: Have they never heard of express trains?

The system was suposed to be able to accomodate them.

RichardS
13-04-2006, 06:50 PM
/\ nobody is excluding express trains, but they are not talking about them in the initial design.

Sonic Death Monkey
13-04-2006, 07:51 PM
Mandel once mentioned the possibility of having the BRT/LRT on Stony Plain Road instead of 107 Ave, which makes better sense to me personally because it's a closer downtown route and less of a backtrack.

But I like the 87 Ave route the best. Another bridge, another ped crossing.

RichardS
13-04-2006, 11:07 PM
there is that advantage... :)

CSR
14-04-2006, 10:09 AM
/\ nobody is excluding express trains, but they are not talking about them in the initial design.

And yet the initial design seems to be driven by travel times, not potential area served. The 87 ave route is shorter, but not really less expensive because of a river crossing and bank grade issues.

It is much shorter, and much of it's distance is going to be over river valley, so will have fewer opportunities to service patrons. It has much less potential as a gatherer with local bus routes feeding the LRT line.

It's one advantage seems to be travel time to the U of A, and it seems to me express trains during peak hours would solve that issue. So, are the planners picking the 87 route based on something other than just that factor? Or are they just failing to utilize the equipment we have to it's full potential?

Speedyturtle
14-04-2006, 11:51 AM
I guess it all comes down to which is more important. WLRT to downtown or WLRT to University? But where would the 107ave route meet up with the rest of the LRT system?

Sonic Death Monkey
14-04-2006, 12:29 PM
I believe that with wLRT, they want to kill both birds with one stone.

A 107 Ave line would likely join with the proposed north LRT at 105 and 105. The nLRT expansion is supposed to go from Churchill north, west along 105 Ave to Grant MacEwan, up 105 St to the Victoria Art School and Royal Alex Hospital, then onto to Kingsway, NAIT and beyond.

LindseyT
14-04-2006, 02:18 PM
I guess it all comes down to which is more important. WLRT to downtown or WLRT to University? But where would the 107ave route meet up with the rest of the LRT system?

Churchill.

Which brings up another reason why the 107 ave route is better. The university area is already just about as dense as it can physically become. Thus, we are once again seeing the "reactionary vs planning" thing from planners. Simply put, there is very little opportunity for residential/commercial/institutional development around the U. Meanwhile connecting the west end directly to a part of the city that can absorb a lot of development, not to mention adjacent to two districts that the city is trying to redevelope (north edge and east jasper) is another missed oppurtunity.

CSR
14-04-2006, 09:19 PM
Yep.

Actually isn't there already a "ghost station" of sorts under the Brownlea building to accomodate just such a branch north and west?

Also, I look at the rail transit systems of major cities and I see that most of them have double lines 5 - 10 blocks apart in their downtown cores. This means that people can walk 2.5 to 5 block max to a train station, and then travel within the central core.

The city could still keep the BRT route to South Campus.
( They should also have a BRT route from South Campus down into Terwillagar, Rabbit Hill and destinations SW. ) With a 87 alignment the BRT route becomes surplus, with a 107th alignment the BRT route, and investment in it remains valid as a vital interconecting route filling in the framework made by LRT

But yes speak of missed opportunities to support densification and revitilization along 107th... to give downtown an almot complete transit loop ... to connect Grant McKewan to LRT a few years from now rather than a few decades from now... To have a trolley / shuttle bus on the west end running the lenght of Stony Plain Road helping revitalize one of the cities venerable "main drags" as a viable shopping and small business district ... a missed chance to provide service to the north east industrial fring of the city via connecting busse routes, and to pick up ridership from St Albert transit ... a missed chance to reduce some of the car traffic from the Yellowhead ( in my view in much worse shape than the Whitemud. )

A missed chance too to connect the new RAM ( not directly perhaps, but if you had a bus every 10 minutes connecting from 149th along the road in front of the RAM to high street at 124th then down jasper to downtown to complete the loop. I magine how easy it would be for visitors to get to the RAM, just hop on a train or bus...1 connection or less, no worries about schedules.

A missed chance to develop real cross town connections from the south to north side of the city.

With the 87th alignment LRT routes are still needed to the SE and North and NE. With a 107 alignment routes are only needed to the SE and North, and the North route is already half built.

To counter all those advantages of a 107ave alignment all I have ever heard was "shorter trip time to the University" If that's all there is to it, then I really don't understand thedecision.

Titanium48
16-04-2006, 01:37 AM
.. The university area is already just about as dense as it can physically become. Thus, we are once again seeing the "reactionary vs planning" thing from planners. Simply put, there is very little opportunity for residential/commercial/institutional development around the U. ..

I beg to differ. While there isn't much greenspace left in the core of the U of A campus and there has been some high density development to the southeast, there are a lot of single family houses left and there is nothing but low density housing to the west and south. A strip of single family houses sits directly across 116 St from the towering new engineering buildings. If there was ever a case for proactive rezoning for medium or high rise apartments, this is it. The west side of 117 St (across from the main residence complex) and the south side of University Av are also prime locations for much denser development.

CSR
16-04-2006, 09:51 AM
.. The university area is already just about as dense as it can physically become. Thus, we are once again seeing the "reactionary vs planning" thing from planners. Simply put, there is very little opportunity for residential/commercial/institutional development around the U. ..

I beg to differ. While there isn't much greenspace left in the core of the U of A campus and there has been some high density development to the southeast, there are a lot of single family houses left and there is nothing but low density housing to the west and south. A strip of single family houses sits directly across 116 St from the towering new engineering buildings. .

Many of those areas are however filled with homes of heritage vintage and are also working, well maintained communites. One could also increase density by tearing down houses in old glenora but I wouldn't reccomend it.

However, along the 107th ave alignment there are areas of empty space, of run down "urban blight" and large tracts of rather nondescript 50' and 60's vintage bungalows. Areas where LRT and associted development will not at best replace communities, but actually re-invigorate them

RichardS
16-04-2006, 10:01 AM
It's one advantage seems to be travel time to the U of A, and it seems to me express trains during peak hours would solve that issue. So, are the planners picking the 87 route based on something other than just that factor? Or are they just failing to utilize the equipment we have to it's full potential?

The main factor I read is travel times between WEM and U of A - and I hear repeated over and over and over and over again that these are the two most improtant employment nodes in the city and hence shall be joined directly.

One thing I have not received from anyone that I have asked at either a planning level or at the meetings I have attended is their stats on exactly what they surmise the West end to U traffic loads are vs the West End to DT loads would be. Those numbers are held tight to the chest for some reason.

I see merit in both routes, but I personally prefer the old 107/105 alignment. The dream alignment would have the wLRT continue west from Corona down Jasper, under Groat, get the RAM, and go further down SP road until it could surface around JP, then continue onward. However, uber $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ;)

I could live and work w/87th. It is not a horrible alignment at all, I just see more opportunities for TOD's in the 107/105 version.

CSR
16-04-2006, 10:13 AM
I could live and work w/87th. It is not a horrible alignment at all, I just see more opportunities for TOD's in the 107/105 version.

Don't get me wrong, 87th is better than no LRT at all.

But aren't people in theis forum always saying we shouldn't just settle for "good enough" and "okay"? :wink:

I think 87th would end up being a spur line rather than a main transportation backbone, and it is not making the most of what we have

While the sLRT alignment was also a "second choice" the first choice ( along the CP right of way ) never became available. And while we did miss out on Millwoods we will have Century and South Campus, both developments that the planners never even concieved of 15 - 20 years ago.

I was at a concert at the Winspear a couple of weekends ago, and I heard at least 2 groups of people commenting on how they couldn't wiat for the LRT to get to Southgate / Heritage so they could come right downtown for a concert/play/dinner. These people own single family detached homes and drive cars... but they can't wait to take the train.

I think the planners focus too much on point to point "corridor" use, and not enough on a transprtation system, of which LRT will be the backbone.

RichardS
16-04-2006, 10:24 AM
I could live and work w/87th. It is not a horrible alignment at all, I just see more opportunities for TOD's in the 107/105 version.

Don't get me wrong, 87th is better than no LRT at all.

But aren't people in theis forum always saying we shouldn't just settle for "good enough" and "okay"? :wink:

I think 87th would end up being a spur line rather than a main transportation backbone, and it is not making the most of what we have

.

I agree, we shouldn't settle for "ok". That is why myself and many other attend these open house forums on this topic.

Should they do a concerted effort like DT East, then I will be there voicing my opinions, and I would bet that there would be a chorus of others doing the same.

However, I will also try to make lemonaide out of lemons...

LindseyT
16-04-2006, 01:43 PM
.. The university area is already just about as dense as it can physically become. Thus, we are once again seeing the "reactionary vs planning" thing from planners. Simply put, there is very little opportunity for residential/commercial/institutional development around the U. ..

I beg to differ. While there isn't much greenspace left in the core of the U of A campus and there has been some high density development to the southeast, there are a lot of single family houses left and there is nothing but low density housing to the west and south. A strip of single family houses sits directly across 116 St from the towering new engineering buildings. If there was ever a case for proactive rezoning for medium or high rise apartments, this is it. The west side of 117 St (across from the main residence complex) and the south side of University Av are also prime locations for much denser development.

There is lots of space left in the core, especially when the 107 street line would be the catalyst for the north edge development.

Sonic Death Monkey
17-04-2006, 12:03 AM
One of the main reasons for the 87 Ave route is speed and ridership. Their goal is to be able to shuffle as many bodies as they can between downtown/U of A and the WEM/Lewis Estates area as quickly as possible. If an LRT is going to take the same amount of time as driving or longer then people will choose to drive.

grish
17-04-2006, 09:20 AM
One of the main reasons for the 87 Ave route is speed and ridership. Their goal is to be able to shuffle as many bodies as they can between downtown/U of A and the WEM/Lewis Estates area as quickly as possible. If an LRT is going to take the same amount of time as driving or longer then people will choose to drive.

I disagree. you are talking about moving people in/out of downtown and the uofa. considering how difficult and how costly the parking is, I would take the LRT even if it is 10-15 min longer so long as I don't have to spend a fortune on parking and the same 10min looking for a spot to park.

highlander
17-04-2006, 01:13 PM
This discussion seems to be based in an indecision about what exactly our LRT is. Is it a subway/urban rail? Commuter Rail?
a streetcar? Other?
If we have a commuter rail vision for the LRT, 87th is the ideal choice. It connects a few nodes fast, and will get ridership from park and ride lots at the fringe(henday).

If we want urban rail, 87th is no good, but neither is WEM as a destination. Only the route along SP road goes a significant distance as a urban main street. The 107th faces backyards once you pass groat. That's no better than 87th.

We know that LRT does not operate as a streetcar, but a streetcar model would work on thesame routes as above.

What do we have?
Right now we have a urban rail/commuter rail hybrid. That could move more towards urban if a 95th/94th/93rd station were to open N.E.

The new SLRT looks more like commuter rail to me. In terms of urban-ness and development potential, I like 87th Ave. better than 111th St.

So,
Do we want a single, cohesive LRT system? Then 87th.
Do we mind if different legs have drastically differerent travel times? if not, SP road is excellent.
Do we want a cheap, fast fix? then 107th etc. is an option.

BTW, I think express trains, (read quad track) is a non starter.

So how about: Commuter/hybrid LRT on 87th, and a streetcar/hybrid on SP road? Oh, yeah. $$$$.

RichardS
17-04-2006, 03:28 PM
(...)

If we want urban rail, 87th is no good, but neither is WEM as a destination. Only the route along SP road goes a significant distance as a urban main street. The 107th faces backyards once you pass groat. That's no better than 87th.


What do we have?
Right now we have a urban rail/commuter rail hybrid. That could move more towards urban if a 95th/94th/93rd station were to open N.E.

The new SLRT looks more like commuter rail to me. In terms of urban-ness and development potential, I like 87th Ave. better than 111th St.

So,
Do we want a single, cohesive LRT system? Then 87th.
Do we mind if different legs have drastically differerent travel times? if not, SP road is excellent.
Do we want a cheap, fast fix? then 107th etc. is an option.


107 currently has a lot of backyards, but the whole route has much more potential to get TOD like Century Park. The old Saveco on 142 st is an EXCELLENT spot for this. Plus it is a great launch pad for BRT to the TELUS world of science, Westmount (another TOD goldmine) and then up Groat to St Albert. Other TOD's should 107, (down 149/156 and then over on 87th to AHD) be picked are the Jasper Gates area and JP transit terminal, Meadowlark & WhiteHall Square, the crappy apartments across from the Mis, WEM, areas near 107 and 124 Street, and of course all along 105 to McKewan.

Now, 87th has AHD, WEM, the crappy apartments, Meadowlark, and then nothing to the U of A. So, although still a really good route, not as many TOD potentials and little for BRT north.

The proposed nLRT line will get McKewan, but then head north to NAIT et al. Good TOD's around Kingsway are possible, but that does nothing to the NW side.

Given the TOD possibilities on 107 is the reason why I still prefer that line. It also avoids the $$ on tunneling under Laurier, and also avoids their lawyers...;)...not to mention the bridge construction. I know some folks want another ped bridge, but they have the one in Mayfair Park and then another coming with the Quensel Bridge revamp.

SP road would have to do a lot of revamping to get a streetcar, but I do like the possibility of one that runs from Jasper Place or even the old Centennial Mall area to DT, and gets the Museum on the line.

CSR
17-04-2006, 05:49 PM
One of the main reasons for the 87 Ave route is speed and ridership. Their goal is to be able to shuffle as many bodies as they can between downtown/U of A and the WEM/Lewis Estates area as quickly as possible. If an LRT is going to take the same amount of time as driving or longer then people will choose to drive.

Thus my comments earlier in the thread about express trains. They make the travel time concerns moot. So, if travel time isn't an issue, why is 87th better? And if travel time is an issue, why not use express trains?

Simple questions, no answers I've heard.

CSR
17-04-2006, 05:55 PM
BTW, I think express trains, (read quad track) is a non starter

But the system is supposed to accomodate express trains without a Quad track by allowing express trains to "leapfrog" other trains at stations.

That was one of the points made back in 1978.

So were they wrong? Did it turn out we bought a system that won't do what we thought it would? OK, but it would be nice to hear someone in transit say so. "We have to limit stations because our system won't accomodate express trains and we have to stop at every station we put in."

RichardS
17-04-2006, 07:09 PM
No, the issue is that there is currently no demand for express trains. I totally see how the switches were designed especially DT. This express ability could also reduce YEG - DT LRT times...

However, for the mere 5 minutes or less that it would save, not worth it. Really, on a 107 route, let's face it, students are really not going to care and profs are usually eco-friendly enough to accept a couple of extra minutes. Sure, they would liek the fastest, but as one person said here, they are taking the LRT to avoid other costs/headaches like auto and parking. You could also give it express through the U if you used the 87th route (to appease the DT worker) but they too would probably ride it anyway.

No one is really killing the express train idea, I just think many don't see its value yet. THe old law of diminishing returns at this time...

Sonic Death Monkey
17-04-2006, 07:12 PM
What exactly do you mean by an express train?
Is it one that travels at a normal speed from point A (WEM) to point B (downtown) with no stops in between?
Or is it one that barrels down the track at 200 km/hr to all points?

RichardS
17-04-2006, 07:13 PM
I would think option A, although 200 km/h throught the tunnels would create an AWESOME vacuum!

CSR
17-04-2006, 07:42 PM
This discussion seems to be based in an indecision about what exactly our LRT is. Is it a subway/urban rail? Commuter Rail? a streetcar? Other?.

Other.

If we wanted commuter rail we would have lines out to St Albert, Sherwood Pk, Leduc etc. It would be diesel and more conventional rolling stock.

If we wanted streetcar urban we would have used streetcars and run the tracks down the middle of Jasper, Whyte, Beverly, Stonyplain road etc. ( Not that we don't want something like that actually, but we canuse buses for it. )

If we wanted a heavy urban people mover we would be undergound all the time and use a 3rd rail system.

The genius of LRT and the way it was sold ( remember, Edmonton was the first in North America and one of the first couple of cities anywhere to adopt LRT, ) is that it is a HYbrid. It is a switch hitter that can be used as a subway, as a commuter train, and as a streetcar as the need suits. No, it may not be as good at those things as a specialized system, but it is far more versatile.

LRT can be any of those things, or a combination of them at any time. It has possibilities none of those other 3 systems have, limited by our imagination. LRT isn't "cheap" mass transit, it is versatile mass transit.

Yes it is a hybrid system, that is what LRT was originally designed to be. To lock ourselves into an image of LRT as a commuter train or subway would be a terrible waste.

I see LRT as a transportation backbone... as a spokes radiating out from the city centre and linking the main nodes of transit in this city... but even more, acting as growth generators along the lines by providing an alternative way to get across town. And as a collector for smaller more frequent bus routes, lessening , maybe eventually eliminating the endless rides through residential neighbourhoods on full size buses that double the time of a bus trip in this town. And yes, in time as a commuter rail to the surrounding communities and the airport.

The LRT can be all those things, that is what it was designed to be. We shouldn't waste it's potential.

CSR
17-04-2006, 08:04 PM
However, for the mere 5 minutes or less that it would save, not worth it. Really, on a 107 route, let's face it, students are really not going to care and profs are usually eco-friendly enough to accept a couple of extra minutes. Sure, they would liek the fastest, but as one person said here, they are taking the LRT to avoid other costs/headaches like auto and parking. You could also give it express through the U if you used the 87th route (to appease the DT worker) but they too would probably ride it anyway.


Right, so travel time is really a red herring when it comes to route choice.

So then we get back to reasons other than travel time that makes 87th ave superior to 107th. So far we have that it will provide a pedestrian bridge ;)

The master plan says people won't give up their cars even if given a choice, and the planners are working on that presumption. It has been my experience though that most people will take transit if gicen a real choice. It's not that the trip takes 50 minutes rather than 25 that stops people from using transit... it's that they have to walk 3 blocks at each end, make 2-3 connections and wait for 10 - 15 minutes ( or maybe 30 - 60!) at each connection point. and that they can only travel certain times of day and on certain schedules... it is these things that stop people from using transit.

And primary amongst those is having to travel on a set schedule and waiting at transfers. Make system where someone can just go to a train station or bus stop and know in a few miutes they will be on their way without worrying about the timetable... let them know that the wait at the connection point will be short and comfortable then I think people will ride transit, even if it takes 30 - 50 minutes longer ( depending on trip length ) over all.

107th offers the opportunity to bring that kind of Transit to a much larger area of the city, and a larger number of people that 87th does.

( And yes, I know it has been 'decided' in favour of 87th already ... but, no detailed design work has been done yet that I know of... it could be 10 years or more - though I hope not! - before work actually begins. So maybe it isn't to late to bend a few ears ;) )

RichardS
17-04-2006, 08:15 PM
/\ what he said... :)

Sonic Death Monkey
17-04-2006, 08:29 PM
I'm starting to think that we're gonna need two wLRTs - one along 87 Ave to service WEM and the U of A, and another for 107 Ave. Then either form a circuit back to WEM (so that it forms a University-87 Ave-WEM-107 Ave-downtown circle) or shoot NW towards St. Albert.

I personally still can't see anyone wanting to take an LRT that goes from WEM, then up to 107 Ave then back down to Churchill, then wait for another train that backtracks west until it crosses to the U of A. I doubt if that would go well with the starving students and the eco-profs because it doesn't make sense. And don't forget that they are on tight schedules as well - lectures aren't going to wait for them.

RichardS
17-04-2006, 08:36 PM
Who says they have to connect at Churchill? Why can't the line terminate at the U of A, thereby giving all of DT service from all areas? Akin to the express train idea, we have the rail capacity. With 6 minutes between trains now at peak hours, why cannot a station hold a train say every 3 minutes?

I would hope that the 87th route does not terminate at the U of A and forces DT connections. I was always under the assumption that the line would at least continue thru to Churchill. If they are plannig at stopping at the Health Sciences Station and backtracking, I really say BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

CSR
17-04-2006, 09:23 PM
I'm starting to think that we're gonna need two wLRTs -


We have that, its called Bus Transit to South campus station ;)

While it is much much easier to have a line terminate at a station and have people transfer trains from one line to another, it isn't required... this is where the epress train idea really comes into its own ( yes I sound like a broken record, I know.) You can have a train that starts at WEM, stops at Churchill and the U of A, no other stops.

Sonic Death Monkey
17-04-2006, 10:27 PM
Who says they have to connect at Churchill? Why can't the line terminate at the U of A, thereby giving all of DT service from all areas? Akin to the express train idea, we have the rail capacity. With 6 minutes between trains now at peak hours, why cannot a station hold a train say every 3 minutes?
Uhm, what? You want the LRT to run along 107 Ave and then down to the U of A instead of Churchill? I'm not following you?


I would hope that the 87th route does not terminate at the U of A and forces DT connections. I was always under the assumption that the line would at least continue thru to Churchill. If they are plannig at stopping at the Health Sciences Station and backtracking, I really say BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
I'm sure they could if the lines between U of A and Churchill can handle the volume of trains. But on the other hand there needs to be a transfer point somewhere since the line will effectively split west and south. And it seems that they are targeting the Churchill area for a central node because of the proposed North and SE routes.

RichardS
18-04-2006, 09:52 AM
Uhm, what? You want the LRT to run along 107 Ave and then down to the U of A instead of Churchill? I'm not following you?



No, the original wLRT had a line that went from 107, and followed the CNR ROW along ~125 street and into Churchill behind the CN tower. The intersected just outside of Churchill. There is a large opening just north oc churchill for what some call a hidden station, but it looks more like the switch area for the then planned 105 ave wLRT line.

So this line would still hit University, Grandin, Corona, Bay, Central, Churchill and then branch off under Stationlands to go to McKewan.

With the nLRT now proposed to go to 105 street along the same ROW, the trains could get crowded along the Downtown stations. This is a good feather in the cap of the 87 route as this could run to Central via University, and the nLRT line could run to Central and back too, with the main spine being Clairview to Century Park.

...or instead of Central, it could be Churchill...who cares at that point. :)

highlander
18-04-2006, 12:36 PM
With the nLRT now proposed to go to 105 street along the same ROW, the trains could get crowded along the Downtown stations. This is a good feather in the cap of the 87 route as this could run to Central via University, and the nLRT line could run to Central and back too, with the main spine being Clairview to Century Park.

...or instead of Central, it could be Churchill...who cares at that point.

I always assumed that any train from WEM would travel through the U to downtown, or viceversa. And with NLRT, why just meet it if you could travel right through?

This is one reason I support 87th. The WLRT line would couple with the NLRT line, so we would have 2 through-town routes, for 3min headways on Churchill-Health Sciences. Actually, after NLRT is done I'd like to see the lines re-arranged, so we'd have a Northgate-Southgate(andbeyond) line and a Clairview-Lewis Estates Line. Sort of parralleling the #2 and #9 bus routes.

If the NLRT (or WLRT) would just connect to churchill, Why build a portal and tunnel? thats a lot of money to save 2 flights of stairs on a transfer.

highlander
18-04-2006, 12:50 PM
What about Commonwealth?

I hope that ETS is considering 1-seat ride special events trains from Commonwealth to WLRT after a game. Maybe even from Rexall after a Hockey Game, if they don't have a new barn in sight by the time WLRT opens.

And to NLRT, while we're at it.

To be efficient, it would require a 2nd platform, west of the existing one, and likely new gates, etc. Otherwise: imagine the existing platform with patrons heading 3 (and eventually 4) ways in a crushcrowd after a smashing defeat of the stamps in early september. With 5-car trains every couple minutes or less, the LRT could empty the place in half an hour.

highlander
18-04-2006, 01:02 PM
Maybe i'm a skeptic, but I couldn't see much happening in terms of redevelopment along 107th ave. There's some empty space, but not a lot, behind the existing alley, and the homes face 106th or 107A ave, mostly. I doubt that city council would rezone, over the cries of most homeowners, Community Leagues,etc. 111th south of Southgate has more room to redevelop (WIDE r.o.w.), but there's not even a station to rezone around.

The test case is, I guess, the Belgravia/MacKernan Station. The station is not in the richest part of those hoods, so it could compare to 107th.

If the city finds the guts to rezone a 2 block radius to RA7, and a few sites to RA8, then all bets are off. But if, as I expect, nothing of significance changes in Bel/Mac, then I'd say 107th would likely be the same.

sean
18-04-2006, 01:09 PM
107th and 87th are both bad choices. It'd be easier to run it along whitemud, then come back up 170th street to the mall.

107th becomes a bottleneck after 156th street, and there's no where to go through there, plus it's quite out of the way if you just want to go directly downtown.

I'd vote 87th (I even live on 87th), if you could bring it up through Laurier, making the zoo a quick stop, but that idea will never fly considering the people that live in the area, even though it'd be adding recognition to the zoo, which mostly goes unnoticed by the tourists.

Personally I think the entire idea is pandering to the people who don't use the train because of their revenues, affiliations and locations. They drive, their kids all drive and they don't want to see their property values diminished or have to deal with extra noise.

When they built the mall they should have been thinking of expanding the LRT, and now we're stuck having to make poor plans based on poor planning. How will it be in another 25 years?
Will it be the same horrible routes downtown, where people have to make unnecessary stops and take roundabout ways simply because city planners didn't want to disturb anyone?

I'm not saying cut it through Makinnon ravine, but along the side of Laurier somewhere, up through Hawerlak then up to the university and make the trains meet up so passengers can commute downtown, or extend the west end route to just go downtown avoiding the need for people to switch trains.
Running tracks from WEM out to Lewis Estates would be an absolute breeze down 87th, or cut back down to whitemud and all the way down Anthony Henday to head out into the new SW divisions.

Making all these out of the way routes will not convince anyone to take the train if it's not faster than driving.

ChrisD
18-04-2006, 05:16 PM
107th and 87th are both bad choices. It'd be easier to run it along whitemud, then come back up 170th street to the mall.

107th becomes a bottleneck after 156th street, and there's no where to go through there, plus it's quite out of the way if you just want to go directly downtown.
Actually, the Whitemud route is too far south and 'out of the way'. That's why it's not a great route.


I'd vote 87th (I even live on 87th), if you could bring it up through Laurier, making the zoo a quick stop, but that idea will never fly considering the people that live in the area, even though it'd be adding recognition to the zoo, which mostly goes unnoticed by the tourists.

I have always endorsed the 87 Avenue route because it:

a) is the most direct route connecting both of our largest employment / destination / activity areas; the U of A and downtown;

b) requires minimal removal and purchase of homes and property


When they built the mall they should have been thinking of expanding the LRT, and now we're stuck having to make poor plans based on poor planning. How will it be in another 25 years?
Will it be the same horrible routes downtown, where people have to make unnecessary stops and take roundabout ways simply because city planners didn't want to disturb anyone?
The thing is, the LRT was planned, debated, proposed, debated, planned some more. The Planners, Engineers and everyone knew what would work. The choice to expand the LRT was mainly political. The mayor and council have the sole power to approve funds for the LRT. However, this came at the expense of potentially voting themselves off council come the next election.

RichardS
18-04-2006, 05:35 PM
Maybe i'm a skeptic, but I couldn't see much happening in terms of redevelopment along 107th ave.

OK, skeptic... :P

Kidding..

I actually agree. Without any TOD plans or any redevelopment/rezoning in either location you present, the LRT is not viable. There would need to be a concerted push to make this so.

sean
18-04-2006, 08:41 PM
It's too bad that it is that far south cause it could be a great route, but yeah, once you cross the river, there's nothing but Fort Edmonton and the Equine Center.

Actually come to think of it, I think I once heard a story that they had it planned but a lady down in Laurier complained and got it nixed.

Yup, 87th would still be the best. 107th should be made to better handle traffic, including getting rid of the traffic circle on 142st.

CSR
18-04-2006, 09:56 PM
I think "direct route" is misleading.

There are no traffic lights on an LRT track, and the cars can go 60kph on anything remotely resembling decent track.

The only stops are at stations ( and should I say "express train" again? :lol: )

An LRT train on a track is going to make better time than a car on anything other than the Whitemud. A direct route matters for cars and bussed because you are avoiding intersections, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and any of the number of things that make it so that urban driving is actually 40% urban parking.


West LRT

The evaluation process indicates that the most feasible alignment for LRT is the 87 Avenue alignment including a new bridge across the North Saskatchewan River Valley.
The 87 Avenue alignment is forecasted to have 30% higher ridership than the other two evaluated alignments.
The estimated cost to built LRT on this alignment is $1 Billion.
The City is evaluating tunnel sections on 87 Avenue from 142 Street to the River Valley and under University Avenue.
Timing of LRT implementation is uncertain; ridership forecasts indicate that LRT would not be required for another 40 - 50 years.

87th is also a bad place for a river crossing with a high steep bank on one side and a large flat with gradual bank on the other. You either build a highlevel bridge, tunnel, or rip the hell out of the bank and still have a raised bridge higher than the lowest homes on the other side. And the roads in the U area are full, they won't be closing those to run a train down it without causing a mess elsewhere.

The study realizes the crossing is expensive as are potential tunnels. They estimate the cost at 1 billion dollars.

And you have to build the whole route at once because all the riders are across the river.

So the plan says in
40 or 50 years!!!

A 107th alignment would cut costs for a nLRT. It could be built from the downtown west and be used in stages.

If we are looking at a 40-50 year time frame like the planners seem to be anyway ( which means I'll never see wLRT ) then you will have plenty of time to change zoning along 107th and put in stations as needed.

Please note that their ridership forcast saying the 87th ave route will have higer ridership are based on 40 to 50 years from now.

That's akin to forcasting the Edmonton of today in 1960. Before anyone even thought of a little thing called "Millwoods" When Argyll road was going to be the outer ring road.

We have to quit looking at the LRT as no more than a point A-B people mover.
We have to quite thinking about "direct routes" and distances as if we were driving cars.
We have to , absolutely must stop thinking of LRT as something to do decades from now after the people are there.

highlander
18-04-2006, 10:39 PM
If we are looking at a 40-50 year time frame like the planners seem to be anyway ( which means I'll never see wLRT ) then you will have plenty of time to change zoning along 107th and put in stations as needed.

Agreed. But if we start building within 10 years, which we should, then the zoning changes likely wont happen.

If we don't build for 50 years, and we're stuck with a 1 line LRT "system" untill I'm 80, then we might as well give up on this whole discussion.

ChrisD
18-04-2006, 11:04 PM
We have to quit looking at the LRT as no more than a point A-B people mover.
We have to quite thinking about "direct routes" and distances as if we were driving cars.
Although this may seem like a plausible method of approaching the future LRT, unfortunately, you can't. In order for public transit to be successful and attract riders, it must be convenient, fast and direct. Public transit competes head-to-head with the automobile. It must get people out of their vehicles and into the trains and buses. The main users of public transit in North America are commuters, and this is what it must cater to.

The 40-50 year time frame is absolutely absurd and I think we'll see the west line implemented ALOT sooner. It simply has to.

Titanium48
19-04-2006, 12:32 AM
87th is also a bad place for a river crossing with a high steep bank on one side and a large flat with gradual bank on the other. You either build a highlevel bridge, tunnel, or rip the hell out of the bank and still have a raised bridge higher than the lowest homes on the other side. And the roads in the U area are full, they won't be closing those to run a train down it without causing a mess elsewhere.

The study realizes the crossing is expensive as are potential tunnels. They estimate the cost at 1 billion dollars.


What about branching off of the south line at 71 Av, following Belgravia Rd / Fox Dr down the hill, turning north where Fox Dr turns west, crossing the river and running down the middle of Buena Vista Rd to 87 Av? A little longer, but all above grade - no tunneling or high level bridges involved. Given the width of the Buena Vista Rd ROW, no expensive property aquisitions would be needed either.

ChrisD
19-04-2006, 08:51 AM
What about branching off of the south line at 71 Av, following Belgravia Rd / Fox Dr down the hill, turning north where Fox Dr turns west, crossing the river and running down the middle of Buena Vista Rd to 87 Av? A little longer, but all above grade - no tunneling or high level bridges involved. Given the width of the Buena Vista Rd ROW, no expensive property aquisitions would be needed either.
Once again, the route would travel too far to the south.

RichardS
19-04-2006, 09:14 AM
Yeah, that one is a little too far south...

CSR
19-04-2006, 08:17 PM
The main users of public transit in North America are commuters, and this is what it must cater to.


That is a logical trap. Most users of pulic transit in north america use it to commute because that's all it's built to do. Further, they use it to commute to fixed points because that's all transit is built to do. For those people that aren't commuting to work or school, or who's work or school isn't near the fixed points... well they don't take transit not because they don't want to, but because they have to be either without options or an eco martyr to put up wioth the pain.

If we build a line that does nothing but move people between WEM and the UofA main campus, it will do nothing but that.

I think it's been reasonably established that their are alternatives methods to limit travel time beyond just making the track shorter.

So with that restriction removed we can serve both the point to point commuters and people along the line that would travel across town to visit, downtown for a show, to Whyte ave for the fringe, part way to the NW industrial area, to WEM for shopping from McEwan or just from one end of 107 to the other to visit grandma. And we can serve those that in the future would like to build and live near an LRT line.

We can and should seek ways to serve the greater whole. Transit, especially HST transit should not be looked at as just a segmented srvice to a niche market, but like water, sewer, electricity and the roadways themselves as an infrastructure resource that benefits everyone, and that everyone can build on.

107th may well be underutilized at first... but really look at the NE outer ring road that is being pushed up by the province ( 2011? ) Is that really going to be fully used then? Is there really a demand clamouring for that road? I don't think so... we build it so it will be there when we do need it, and even moreso, so that people can make use of this new resource and build upon.

107th is no different in my mind. It isn't the best route now but it will be in the future. It will bring a new resource to more of the city geographically and to more Edmontonians. We will need a line to the NW, as well as the W and the N... if nothing else it makes sense to spend resources on a route that will lay the foundations for 2 others rather than for a single line that will serve a single destination.

CSR
19-04-2006, 08:33 PM
If we are looking at a 40-50 year time frame like the planners seem to be anyway ( which means I'll never see wLRT ) then you will have plenty of time to change zoning along 107th and put in stations as needed.

Agreed. But if we start building within 10 years, which we should, then the zoning changes likely wont happen.

If we don't build for 50 years, and we're stuck with a 1 line LRT "system" untill I'm 80, then we might as well give up on this whole discussion.

The zoning changes won't happen in 10 years, but they will happen. I can see it all around me in my own neighbourhood, and nearby "east jasper" and in Scona and in Heritage/Century. It takes 20-30 years or more for a neighbourhood to "turn over", for the population to shift and it's desires to shift, but it does happen.

LRT is a long term investment...thinking 50 years ahead is not a bad thing, so long as we remember we have to invest now, not in 50 years. 107th ave has more potential return on investment 50 years from now ( and who expects WEM to be there in 2056?) 107th ave travels through more of the city, and through more divers areas and populations. And it does so on closer contact with the people it would serve.

87th ave will burrow under people already within blocks of the university, travel above the zoo and river ( no riders there!) and neighbourhoods on a viaduct with no chance of contact, then burrow again. Then it travels a short distance through a couple fo neighbourhoods before it reaches WEM. There just isn't the space to redevlop or built collector stations to serve as hubs for bus routes. Nor is there the same potential to branch out lines to new areas. 107th serves all the same areas 87th does, but instead of an expensive and unproductive bridge tunnel viaduct through park land and river, it will travel where people live and work.

We may not know exactly how those people will live and work in 50 years, but I'm willing to bet it's much more likely that they will be there than we will have people living and working in the middle of the North Saskatchewan.

grish
26-04-2006, 10:49 AM
I like the 87 Ave, 107 Ave and Stony Plain ideas--so long as one of them is built I will be happy. If the city does go with 87 Ave, they should consider taking it over the expanded Quesnel and make a stop there to allow easier access to Ft. Edmonton. Also, create a new south entrance to the Zoo to connect with this new station.

ChrisD
26-04-2006, 12:30 PM
That is a logical trap. Most users of pulic transit in north america use it to commute because that's all it's built to do. Further, they use it to commute to fixed points because that's all transit is built to do. For those people that aren't commuting to work or school, or who's work or school isn't near the fixed points... well they don't take transit not because they don't want to, but because they have to be either without options or an eco martyr to put up wioth the pain.
No, it's not a logical trap it's fact. The majority of North Americans rarely use transit as their main source of transportation nor will they for quite some time. Our built environment and accessibility to the automobile are the two reasons behind why they don't. Now, as the price of fuel increases we will begin to see more people use transit as their main mode of transportation beyond commuting. However, the majority of the destinations that are connected via transit (or planned to be) are established focal points (i.e. shopping, entertainment et al.). So it does serve a purpose beyond just accomodating commuters.


107th may well be underutilized at first... but really look at the NE outer ring road that is being pushed up by the province ( 2011? ) Is that really going to be fully used then? Is there really a demand clamouring for that road? I don't think so...
Incorrect, the NE Ring road will play a big roll in diverting mainly truck traffic away (around) Yellowhead. That's its main purpose.

Sonic Death Monkey
26-04-2006, 03:36 PM
107th may well be underutilized at first... but really look at the NE outer ring road that is being pushed up by the province ( 2011? ) Is that really going to be fully used then? Is there really a demand clamouring for that road? I don't think so...
Incorrect, the NE Ring road will play a big roll in diverting mainly truck traffic away (around) Yellowhead. That's its main purpose.
Not only that, but it will connect Refinery Row to Hwy 28 i.e. the highway going to Fort Mac.

canucklehead
29-04-2006, 09:20 AM
http://photobucket.com/albums/d51/canucklehead2/


Here is the link to all the previous LRT plans for Edmonton. Anyway, IMHO both the 87th Avenue and 107th Avenue alignments should be built because they would service two entirely different purposes. 87th is the quickest, cheapest, most direct way to connect the westend with the university and the downtown. Its the best way to get people to and from WEM quickly and efficiently, which is important since the mall is slated to expand again over the next few years with its ultimate planned buildout somewhere down the line of 8 million square feet on up to 5 floors.

107th on the otherhand will mainly serve Jasper Place and the near west end residential areas. It would be a good line to serve the areas which are fairly high density now but could use revitalization and infill.

PrairieBoyinExile
29-04-2006, 11:45 AM
Just wondering why there is no discussion of a route along Jasper Avenue through Oliver, and then down 102 Ave through Glenora. It seems ludicrous to me that the highest density neighbourhood in Alberta (Oliver) would not be connected to the LRT. Jasper Ave is very wide, and I don't see why the track couldn't be run alongside, albeit with some of the lanes on Jasper lost to LRT. But this shouldn't be too big of an issue if lane control were used.

I realize that once you get out of downtown it may be a bit controversial, running through Glenora. But then the 87 Ave route would be just as controversial running through Laurier and the river valley. Besides, there isn't the population density along this route to even make it viable from 149 St all the way to the university. Am I totally missing something?

RichardS
29-04-2006, 11:52 AM
Actually,

In another incarnation of this discussion, that was an option and many people here (including me) think it to be one of the best options - if it wasn't for both the cost and the political turmoil it would cause.

This would have to be underground from Corona through Jasper, and then somehow go under Groat (holy dig and holy escalaters needed at the RAM), then somehow come above ground near 142.


A lot of people like this one as it gets both the attributes of the 107 and 87th alognments, gets us to WEM quickly, allows BRT to extend to St. Albert, Westmount TOD, and the TELUS World of Science, and then makes Stony Plain Road have the portential to develop into an extension of Jasper, or maybe another unique street.

But, $$$$$$$$$$$ and political will (ever notice the sewres in the Mikinnon Ravine - there's your example) woudl kill this before it ever got off the drawing board.

canucklehead
29-04-2006, 04:28 PM
Oliver should get its own LRT connection to downtown at least. My idea would be to finish off the downtown LRT loop connecting 105th Avenue and 121st street with the existing underground LRT line from west of Corona and by the CN Tower. I think it would have about 15 stations over 10 km. The area already is the most dense in Edmonton, and if I am not mistaken, Alberta, so there is obviously a demand for mass transit...

ThomasH
29-04-2006, 05:54 PM
This would have to be underground from Corona through Jasper, and then somehow go under Groat (holy dig and holy escalaters needed at the RAM), then somehow come above ground near 142.

I see no need for it to go under Groat Road.

CSR
29-04-2006, 05:55 PM
Actually,


This would have to be underground from Corona through Jasper, and then somehow go under Groat (holy dig and holy escalaters needed at the RAM), then somehow come above ground near 142.

But, $$$$$$$$$$$ and political will (ever notice the sewres in the Mikinnon Ravine - there's your example) woudl kill this before it ever got off the drawing board.

Mostly $$$$$$$$ issues. People don't mind LRT as long as it's underground and out of sight. You might have some trouble in Old Glenora with folk that think the LRT will bring "riff raff" into the neighbourhood, but I don't think so... the station would be at the RAM anyway.

Mckinnon was a different issue, a lot of people opposed it from all across the city because it was a key link in what was then a still strongly held view in the planning department that the central river valley should be used as a big freeway and that ravines were only good for access roads to that freeway.

DanC
29-04-2006, 05:58 PM
This would have to be underground from Corona through Jasper, and then somehow go under Groat (holy dig and holy escalaters needed at the RAM), then somehow come above ground near 142.

I see no need for it to go under Groat Road. Agreed, build a bridge across the ravine just south and below the existing vehicle bridge.

CSR
29-04-2006, 05:59 PM
This would have to be underground from Corona through Jasper, and then somehow go under Groat (holy dig and holy escalaters needed at the RAM), then somehow come above ground near 142.

I see no need for it to go under Groat Road.

Yeah. Cheapest way to do this route is cut and cover along Jasper , then build a new double deck bridge over Groat ( cars on top ) as it needs a new bridge anyway. Then cut and cover to 142nd.

But considering what it costs here compared to Vancouver and lookiing at the cost of the canada line there we would be looking at 3-5 billion dollars instead of the 1.5 billion it should cost.

PrairieBoyinExile
29-04-2006, 08:01 PM
Still don't see why it couldn't come above ground west of Corona and run at street level from there, with maybe a few underpasses if necessary. It's not like Jasper is particularly congested, and lane control could really help. And in terms of expense, how could it cost much more this way than it would to build a huge bridge over the North Saskatchewan for the 87 Ave route? The bridge required over the ravine is tiny in comparison.

Sonic Death Monkey
29-04-2006, 09:06 PM
From what I've understood, there is an existing tunnel from Churchill that will eventually lead to ground-level by the CN Tower. And the current nLRT plan is run along 105 Ave until it reaches MacEwan before heading north towards Kingsway.

If people prefer the 107 Ave route for the wLRT then that too could follow 105 Ave all the way to 121 St. There, the old CN right-of-way is undeveloped except for a bike trail. From there, the wLRT can go onto 107 Ave and onwards to WEM. The rest of the old CN right-of-way could be a future LRT route to the NW and St. Albert.

highlander
29-04-2006, 10:10 PM
^
There's no extra tunnel beyond churchill, besides what is used for the current route. There is a wide space in the tunnel that looks to me like a roughed in side platform tunnel, and Just north if Churchill there are "bumps" where the NLRT tunnel would take off. There's also room between columns for the NB track to cross over.

I also don't see why there couldn't be a west past corona extention. Road level goes doen for the former CP tracks went over Jasper. A downtown loop to 124th, using 2 car trains, possibly using a 50-50 high/low floor vehicle(they do exist) would de well, I think.

canucklehead
29-04-2006, 10:31 PM
The tunnel to CN plaza hasn't been built yet, but I am sure the city could dig it out in about a year or so, since its not that deep under, and there aren't alot of buildings in the way. The project cost would be around $100 mln according to the last estimate, but it would be money well spent if we could route more traffic into the Churchill and beyond.

Thats the thing, in Calgarys case sure it may have an extensive citywide network but it won't be long before the Stephen Avenue subway project will be needed, and that is going to cost the city ALOT of money, where as we have alot of those costs already taken care of. We have 5 car platforms in place and we just need to connect them to surface LRT at a few key places to really get the traffic flowing..

ThomasH
30-04-2006, 02:39 AM
My suggestion for the LRT is not to cut and cover on Jasper Ave., but to do so one Ave. north of Jasper Ave. That way the temporary reduction in convenience of transportation for the area is minimized durring construction.

RichardS
30-04-2006, 08:47 AM
This would have to be underground from Corona through Jasper, and then somehow go under Groat (holy dig and holy escalaters needed at the RAM), then somehow come above ground near 142.

I see no need for it to go under Groat Road. Agreed, build a bridge across the ravine just south and below the existing vehicle bridge.

Too low from what I am told. That is the only reason why it would either have to be above ground by that time (not gonna happen in Glenora), or go under Groat (not gonna happen).

canucklehead
30-04-2006, 10:48 AM
Any cut and cover work must take place on Jasper Avenue, because thats where the highest activity of pedestrians is, and the area is already zoned mainly commercial. If you put a subway through a residential area, you will have so many ****** off residents. This way, if its constructed in an area that is already noisy the impact is somewhat lessened. Plus the redevelopment potential along Jasper Avenue is high. Despite the areas density, the commercial area along Jasper itself is really small scale and low density. Building a subway through an area with high redevelopment potential will spur new construction with LRT tie ins.

Sonic Death Monkey
30-04-2006, 12:03 PM
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment:

I don't know if any of you have actually driven down Jasper Ave lately, but it is a busy road. On weekdays, weekend days, Friday nights, Saturday nights. In order for an LRT through Oliver to be do-able, it would need to run down the middle of the street at-grade. All street parking and bus routes will have to be eliminated entirely because reducing road traffic down to one lane each way on Jasper will be a non-starter. So will knocking down existing businesses on Jasper.

Also, is there really a demand for an LRT in Oliver? Most people I know who live in the area walk or bike to their downtown jobs or their post-secondary classes, and bus it only when it is -30.

CSR
30-04-2006, 02:19 PM
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment:
Also, is there really a demand for an LRT in Oliver? Most people I know who live in the area walk or bike to their downtown jobs or their post-secondary classes, and bus it only when it is -30.

I agree with you on a lot of that, I'm on record as favouring LRT along 105th to 107th with a bus loop along Jasper to complete the curcuit...

But, the purpose of LRT isn't just to take people to downtown and back... it is to take people from Oliver to the West end, to football and hockey games or the NE industrial park the Mayor is talkiing about, or to the U of A main or South Campus or visit friends in Century Park.

Looked at long term, with the expectation that we would have a city wide LRT network within 25 years ( :roll: ) it would make sense to hook those people into the system. One of the reasons I don't like the 87ave alignment because it leaves Oliver and points west out of the picture.

A line under Jasper running pretty much straight west to the west end is the dream route... reality however says we won't get the dream LRT, the dream freeway, the dream river valley etc etc. THe key is finding ways to get as close the the dreams as possible with what we really have to work with.

PrairieBoyinExile
30-04-2006, 07:09 PM
I think if there is not demand for mass transit in Oliver, then there isn't the demand anywhere. It's a high density neighbourhood with a lot of young adults and senior citizens...two demographics that use transit the most. I don't think most people who live around 116 St are going to walk all the way to work downtown in winter weather. I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

Sonic Death Monkey
30-04-2006, 07:39 PM
OK, if Oliver needs an LRT route then don't count on it going underground all the way.
Ain't gonna happen.
It will take too long to build.
And it will take way too much $$$, even if Ralph got blindingly drunk one night, withdrew all of the Heritage Savings and oil royalties and gave it all to the city to build an LRT system.
It will have to come from Corona, poke through around 110 St and down the middle of Jasper.
Ideally I would prefer if it ran down 102 Ave as an LRT-only route, but that's unlikely.

Another idea I heard (if I caught it correctly), of extending the LRT from Corona to above Jasper to 116 St then down Victoria Park Road, across Groat and through the McKinnon ravine to the west-end.

Spencer
30-04-2006, 09:11 PM
What I'd like to see is a trolly loop similar to Toronto's trollys both on Jasper and whyte aves. First, Japser would start in Jasper East (95 St or so) run down the out side lane of jasper turning left at 124 St. turning right on 102 Ave and having a turn around spot at the RAM. It would then run back down Japser on the south side of the road and again have a turn around point in Jasper East. I think thiswould be a great way to connect the upgraded High Level trolly (another discussion) and all of the LRT stations on Jasper. Also, all of the residential in Oliver and Grandin and the offices downtown would certainly benefit.

Next, take the LRT to UofA and get on the Whyte Trolly or take the High Level Trolly on to the Whyte trolly. This lne could have a turnaround at the Uof A and one somwhere around Bonnydoon Mall. Again connecting residentail, retail and the Uof A.

It would also be a relativley easy to install as the trolly tracks work right into the road thereby not reducing the amount of lanes on Jasper or whyte aves. It also runs on electricty from overhead lines which as far as I know already exist. If you had the trollys run every 5 minutes at peak times and 10 minutes at non-peak times they would be very practicle. Also, they would make it easy even for outsiders to know whow to get up and down Jasper and Whyte Aves. :shock: I hope all my directions make sense.

CSR
30-04-2006, 11:10 PM
What I'd like to see is a trolly loop similar to Toronto's trollys both on Jasper and whyte aves.

What I'd like to see is us do this with buses now We can upgrade later, but it seem absurd to me that we don't have clearly marked buses running down jasper to 124st to 104 ave to 97th st to Jasper in a loop with a 5 - 10 minute frequency.

canucklehead
03-05-2006, 09:57 AM
Maybe one of us from here should suggest to the ETS to launch a downtown bus loop service, that would make stops where the LRT would be placed at a future date. To me this should already have been the pattern city wide when it comes to transit. Have a set of important colour-coded routes that only make stops at Transit station hubs. Even with the SLRT project under construction, this could and should have been done.

Here is what the SLRT bus service would look like..

University, Health Sciences,76 Avenue, University Farm, Southgate, Heritage (then perhaps a branch to Mill Woods with stops at South Edmonton Common, Mill Woods West and Mill Woods Centre)

Speedyturtle
06-05-2006, 08:18 AM
How would the WLRT join up with the SLRT? Would the tracks be joined at some hub somehow or would the two be separate similar to the 2 tracks with Calgary CTrain?

canucklehead
06-05-2006, 09:49 AM
If the WLRT is built as its currently planned along 87th Avenue, they will connect to the existing SLRT via a branch tunnel from just south of the current Health Sciences station, underneath 87th Avenue at 114st.

In theory if they built WLRT via Whitemud, the plan before was to connect them via Fox Drive just north of the University Farm. If built via 107th, they would connect via 107th avenue to 105th avenue and then into the existing subway via a tunnel portal just west of the CN Tower downtown.

Sonic Death Monkey
06-05-2006, 05:54 PM
And I am assuming wLRT riders won't have to transfer to the downtown LRT?

RichardS
09-05-2006, 05:04 PM
MOD NOTE....

I moved the tangent from this thread to the regional co-operation piece. You can find it here....

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=416

So, let's try to bring this back to the topic at hand, myself included... :oops:

nriviera
06-06-2007, 12:16 PM
Rapid transit plan for west end unveiled

Josh Wingrove
The Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

EDMONTON - Plans for express bus routes between the west end and downtown include bus-only lanes, road expansion and the demolition of housing along Stony Plain Road, an engineering firm said Tuesday.

The recommendation for the city's rapid-transit plan features express buses that will stop about every 20 blocks and travel in their own lanes along 87th Avenue, 156th Street, Stony Plain Road and 104th Avenue, said Hassan Shaheen of ISL Engineering, the firm contracted to recommend the best route.

The firm looked at three possible routes, identifying the 87th Avenue and Stony Plain Road bus lanes as the most viable.

Excess traffic will be absorbed along other streets, including 107th Avenue and 163rd Street, Shaheen told a town-hall meeting of about dozen people Tuesday evening. Many of the affected streets will be expanded. Part of Stony Plain Road will be reduced to one lane of traffic in each direction, while the route will have continuous bus-only lanes. Stony Plain Road will also be widened between 142nd and 149th streets to make way for the bus lanes.

"There will be some houses lost in that process," Shaheen said.

The middle of five lanes along 107th Avenue would be converted into a lane that changes directions for morning and evening rush hours. The change is expected to ease traffic tie-ups along 107th Avenue, which Shaheen said would spike from 2,200 cars per hour to 2,600.

The additional lane will make up for the lost lane along Stony Plain Road, Shaheen said.

"There's no net loss for traffic, but there is a net gain for buses," he said.

The plan calls for noise barriers along 107th Avenue, between 142nd Street and Groat Road, as well as along 87th Avenue, south of West Edmonton Mall.

No service roads will be demolished under the plan, said Brice Stephenson of the city's transportation department.

The engineering firm considered travel time, potential transit ridership, community and traffic impacts, development costs and local business zones before recommending the routes.

"We're trying to plan for the long term to see that buses aren't affected by traffic congestion. One part of that is to turn curb lanes into bus-only ones," Stephenson said.

The firm is presenting the proposals at townhall meetings this week.

Today's meetings are at Grovenor School, 103rd Avenue and 144th Street, with presentations at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Thursday's meetings will be held at NorQuest College, at 102nd Avenue and 108 Street, at the same times.

The plan is expected to be presented to the city's transportation and public works committee on July 10.

For more information, visit www.edmontonbrt.ca.

[email protected]
© The Edmonton Journal 2007

DebraW
06-06-2007, 12:22 PM
^ Thanks for the information.

Medwards
06-06-2007, 12:37 PM
I always thought traffic heading downtown (from the west end) should be moved to mayfield road/107 ave and then have 107 connect into 104 ave after groat road.

Focus Stony Plain Road / 102 ave into more of transit corridor.

I'm interested to see what the city has planned for 156st. to 87ave

sweetcrude
06-06-2007, 01:05 PM
I'm all for increased mass/rapid transit, however I'm concerned that Edmonton may be falling into a trap of doing too much and too soon.

I've made the point elsewhere, but here's another good opportunity. Extending mass transit out farther from the downtown is OK, so long as there is still some sort of market signal to also increase urban infill. Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet that people would utilize transit were it in their area, but I'm not entirely sold on whether it actually promotes densification. If the mass transit networks were rolled out to areas of a set density or higher, then this would be yet another influence to promote densification.

Medwards
06-06-2007, 01:15 PM
I'm all for increased mass/rapid transit, however I'm concerned that Edmonton may be falling into a trap of doing too much and too soon.

I've made the point elsewhere, but here's another good opportunity. Extending mass transit out farther from the downtown is OK, so long as there is still some sort of market signal to also increase urban infill. Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet that people would utilize transit were it in their area, but I'm not entirely sold on whether it actually promotes densification. If the mass transit networks were rolled out to areas of a set density or higher, then this would be yet another influence to promote densification.

transit leading to more density example: Century Park.

Clairview station density is ok too.

Same thing should go at Southgate (in my dreams) and can happen on other routes proposed.

newfangled
06-06-2007, 01:32 PM
Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

The neighbourhoods around WEM are nearly 30 years old at this point. The inefficient lifestyle was enabled a generation ago.

And since then commuters from the west end have had two choices - take the car, or take the gloriously inefficient conventional bus service.

Rapid transit has been in the north for 20 years, and it will be in the south soon. To not provide rapid transit to the west end would be penalizing one quadrant of the city for no reason.

That being said, where's the WLRT?

IanO
06-06-2007, 01:42 PM
"That being said, where's the WLRT?"

right here...it is now called, WBRT

RichardS
06-06-2007, 02:18 PM
So we put the low capacity rapid system to our biggest single destination outside the U of A...yay, let's rejoice :roll: ...and pay for it twice when this charlie foxtrot rapidly is proven to be the shortest term stop gap when they should just roll out LRT.

Oh, I forgot, we'll never see LRT because they decided that a straight line on a map is the best route, nevermind the fact that you need to build a mega bridge, tunnel, and run it through one of Edmonton's richest neighborhoods - who in turn can afford better lawyers than the city...and little to no new TOD's are possible. So, we get an unaffordable project due to what has to be done to placate the mucky mucks who will never ride transit, or the same mucky mucks bury this under years of litigation and millions of dollars...


Brilliant...the west end is doomed to never have good access downtown...one smart decision after another...

m0nkyman
06-06-2007, 03:36 PM
"That being said, where's the WLRT?"

right here...it is now called, WBRT

"Edmonton, this is Ottawa calling. Just wanted to let you know that we've already made this mistake... maybe you could learn from it."

Sonic Death Monkey
06-06-2007, 05:41 PM
Rather than ***** about this here, air your concerns at these meetings instead:



Today's meetings are at Grovenor School, 103rd Avenue and 144th Street, with presentations at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Thursday's meetings will be held at NorQuest College, at 102nd Avenue and 108 Street, at the same times.

RichardS
06-06-2007, 07:13 PM
I have, in all previous versions, and was told to go..ahem...fly a kite. They're right, I'm wrong. :roll:

Sure, 87th makes the most sense if the world was flat and there was no opposition, but put a river and a few multi million
dollar homes in the way and...

I am just upset that once again, a lack of political knowledge and foresight has now landed the west end in perpetual LRT purgatory. So, we’re stuck with half baked solutions for one of the most important arteries in the city, but I guess it is better than the 100 express…

m0nkyman
06-06-2007, 07:15 PM
and a few multi million
dollar homes inthe way and...

Said neighbourhood also being extremely unlikely to use transit, or to have a TOD developed in the neighbourhood, making it even sillier.

sweetcrude
06-06-2007, 08:08 PM
...So, we get an unaffordable project due to what has to be done to placate the mucky mucks who will never ride transit, or the same mucky mucks bury this under years of litigation and millions of dollars...

Um... Yup. I'm not sure about everyone here, but I'm getting awfully sick and tired of hearing the arguments people make about not ever using mass transit systems. Granted, it is highly impractical or even impossible for majority of us to use mass transit right now here in Edmonton. I find it truly stunning that people still after all these years seem completely oblivious to the problems facing us in the years ahead. Not just Edmonton, but every municipality in North America. Our own "car culture" will define our demise.


The neighbourhoods around WEM are nearly 30 years old at this point. The inefficient lifestyle was enabled a generation ago.

True, and it's still being enabled today. Facts are what they are... the city keeps expanding outward. Why? Well, we can debate why, but I think it problem has something to do with a collective desire to have our "own house", our "own car(s)", etc all the while being subsidized by the Petroleum companies. That's right... People complain about the price of petroleum products, but their gross undervaluation over the past two generations has simply tempted all of us to make exactly the wrong choices. This has led us to an unsustainable lifestyle.

Now, it's not all doom and gloom. The premise of this thread is rolling out LRT to the West side of Edmonton. My only point is that if mass transit is rolled out too far and too soon, it doesn't force those living in an "unsustainable" way to change. The good news for Edmonton is that rolling out LRT to the west will in effect promote more traffic downtown and subsequently some more development there.



transit leading to more density example: Century Park.

Are you sure it wasn't the other way around? Historically, developers of the first suburbs or "dense" areas outside of major centers were required to supply mass transit to and from. Sadly, this has not continued on in perpetuity. I would also say that considering Century Park (i.e. a single development property) as "densification" is more than a little naive in that the scale of your definition is far too small.

Densification and urban infill on a large scale are necessary sooner rather than later. My only hope is that the LRT is rolled out in stages in a strategic way to promote this rather than exacerbate our already embarassing problem.


As a sidenote:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5459242714549184261

Medwards
06-06-2007, 10:47 PM
Thanks - I've already seen the end of suburbia.

microbus
06-06-2007, 10:54 PM
You know what was the nail in the coffin for ever getting the
LRT out west? Many years ago the city proposed building a
freeway through McKinnon Ravine. Public outcry made them
nix that idea. They already had some of the infrastructure in
place too, mainly sewer systems. So instead of thinking "Gee,
the LRT could run through the Ravine since it's quiet", they
let some developer build a monstrous condo project across
149 St from Jasper Gates. BANG! No way in hell to get the LRT
through there now. And I think that would have been an ideal
way to get the LRT from Grandin Station to basically the heart
of Jasper Place. And from there it would've been much simpler
to run it to West Edmonton Mall then it is now with the present
situations.

DanC
06-06-2007, 11:00 PM
You know what was the nail in the coffin for ever getting the
LRT out west? Many years ago the city proposed building a
freeway through McKinnon Ravine. Public outcry made them
nix that idea. They already had some of the infrastructure in
place too, mainly sewer systems. So instead of thinking "Gee,
the LRT could run through the Ravine since it's quiet", they
let some developer build a monstrous condo project across
149 St from Jasper Gates. BANG! No way in hell to get the LRT
through there now. And I think that would have been an ideal
way to get the LRT from Grandin Station to basically the heart
of Jasper Place. And from there it would've been much simpler
to run it to West Edmonton Mall then it is now with the present
situations.
Mckinnon is actually graded as well.
Just needs a track bed and power and its good to go really.

Bryguy
07-06-2007, 12:17 AM
Well I attended the meeting today at Grovenor.
I was going to give my overview of the proposed plan however after trying to explain it I've decided I'll probably go to the open house tomorrow as well and get some issues clarified before I go posting a huge reply of my thoughts and opinions.

Sadly I was not impressed with the plan they presented, how it was presented, or the information that was available.
The only saving grace from that meeting was that after the presentation the people were on hand to answer questions - and were very easy to approach.
Specifically there was this one guy who tried his best to address my concerns. I believe his name was Chris, from Edm. Transit.

Well, they also had some cookies and juice boxes as well.

DebraW
07-06-2007, 12:22 AM
Well I attended the meeting today at Grovenor.
I was going to give my overview of the proposed plan however after trying to explain it I've decided I'll probably go to the open house tomorrow as well and get some issues clarified before I go posting a huge reply of my thoughts and opinions.

Sadly I was not impressed with the plan they presented, how it was presented, or the information that was available.
The only saving grace from that meeting was that after the presentation the people were on hand to answer questions - and were very easy to approach.
Specifically there was this one guy who tried his best to address my concerns. I believe his name was Chris, from Edm. Transit.

Well, they also had some cookies and juice boxes as well.

^ Look forward to reading what your final assessment will be.

Replacement
07-06-2007, 12:44 AM
I'm all for increased mass/rapid transit, however I'm concerned that Edmonton may be falling into a trap of doing too much and too soon.

I've made the point elsewhere, but here's another good opportunity. Extending mass transit out farther from the downtown is OK, so long as there is still some sort of market signal to also increase urban infill. Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet that people would utilize transit were it in their area, but I'm not entirely sold on whether it actually promotes densification. If the mass transit networks were rolled out to areas of a set density or higher, then this would be yet another influence to promote densification.This is illusory and incomplete thinking. Its not just the suburbs in Edmonton you need to worry about. I've made the unpopular argument here before that all of Edmonton being an inland, distant northern city, removed from any current use natural transport waterway, and at a latitude requiring massive heating, is in its entirety an "aggregiously inefficient" outpost.

If my point isn't yet clear ALL of Edmonton is ENTIRELY dependent on fossil fuel transport as a lifeline and arguably more so in near downtown areas.

The question is where does the "end of suburbia" really start or end :wink:

DebraW
07-06-2007, 07:45 AM
City says bus plan would cut traffic
But residents living near Stony Plain Road fear it is a recipe for congestion

Josh Wingrove, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, June 07, 2007

City staff continued to pitch a rapid-bus transit system Wednesday night at Grovenor School, just blocks from a strip along Stony Plain Road where planners hope to demolishing buildings to add lanes.

The expansion is part of the Bus Rapid Transit system proposed between the west end and downtown. The plan features continuous bus-only lanes and will reduce much of 87th Avenue, 156th Street and Stony Plain Road to just one lane of car traffic in each direction.

A series of turning lanes and intersection expansions will be included, said Brice Stephenson, the city's manager of transportation planning.

Additional traffic would ideally be absorbed by 102nd and 107th avenues.

The proposal includes buying and demolishing homes and commercial buildings along Stony Plain Road between 142nd Street and 149th Street, Stephenson said. The stretch includes a mix of newer condos, two strip malls and several detached homes, some in disrepair. The expansion would work around the new developments, Stephenson said. Such developments may include both a condo tower proposed for 143nd Street and recently built condos at 145th Street, which are set well back from Stony Plain Road.

Some residents still worry about congestion the bus lanes would cause. Planners predict car traffic would drop along Stony Plain Road from 2,000 cars per hour to 1,400.

"I see it becoming one giant parking lot. Nobody's going to be able to get out," said Brian Macdonald, who lives along Stony Plain Road.

The city should expand its Light Rail Transit system to the west end instead of wasting time with more express bus routes, said Bill Eadie, chairman of the Mature Neighbourhoods Action Group, an alliance of 36 local community leagues.

ISL Engineering, a planning firm hired by the city, also considered 102nd, 107th and 111th avenues before proposing the route. The 40-minute presentation Wednesday night convinced some residents.

"It's big-city thinking, progressive thinking, and I think they're right on top of it," said John Haney, 68, who lives in the far west end and hopes to use the rapid bus system.

The city's final open house will be held tonight in NorQuest College, at 102nd Avenue and 108th Street, with presentations at 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.

After the final meeting, the plan is expected to be presented to the city's transportation and public works committee in a public meeting on July 10.

For more information, visit www.edmontonbrt.ca.

[email protected]

--30--

IanO
07-06-2007, 10:17 AM
LRT to West guys...BRT to NW/SE

highlander
07-06-2007, 12:20 PM
Yes, this should be LRT. If we are going to sacrifice Traffic Lanes for this we should do it right.

My preference would be a portal west of grandin, surface LRT down Jasper ave, a tunnel to make the Jasper/124/102ave curve, then down 102/Stony to the west.

So does the proposal have Bus-only lanes on 104th ave too? there there is lots of room, and traffic moves slow.

grish
07-06-2007, 12:24 PM
Yes, this should be LRT. If we are going to sacrifice Traffic Lanes for this we should do it right.

My preference would be a portal west of grandin, surface LRT down Jasper ave, a tunnel to make the Jasper/124/102ave curve, then down 102/Stony to the west.

So does the proposal have Bus-only lanes on 104th ave too? there there is lots of room, and traffic moves slow.

agree. this migh actually allow the city to upgrade two bridges in Stoney Plain. To accomodate traffic, turn Stoney and 102ave into two one-way roads (opposite directions of course).

RichardS
07-06-2007, 01:00 PM
...won't happen, for the same reasons why the bridge/wLRT on 87th won't work - unless of course they spend untold millions tunnelling....

sweetcrude
07-06-2007, 01:04 PM
I'm all for increased mass/rapid transit, however I'm concerned that Edmonton may be falling into a trap of doing too much and too soon.

I've made the point elsewhere, but here's another good opportunity. Extending mass transit out farther from the downtown is OK, so long as there is still some sort of market signal to also increase urban infill. Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet that people would utilize transit were it in their area, but I'm not entirely sold on whether it actually promotes densification. If the mass transit networks were rolled out to areas of a set density or higher, then this would be yet another influence to promote densification.This is illusory and incomplete thinking. Its not just the suburbs in Edmonton you need to worry about. I've made the unpopular argument here before that all of Edmonton being an inland, distant northern city, removed from any current use natural transport waterway, and at a latitude requiring massive heating, is in its entirety an "aggregiously inefficient" outpost.

If my point isn't yet clear ALL of Edmonton is ENTIRELY dependent on fossil fuel transport as a lifeline and arguably more so in near downtown areas.

The question is where does the "end of suburbia" really start or end :wink:

I'm intrigued as to which part is illusory... I'm not under any illusions, at least I don't think I am.

As for the "incomplete thinking", I'll be the first to admit it. I'm certainly not a municipal planner, however I have as of yet been unable to get any good discussion of the point I'm trying to raise.

In the end, I may be completely wrong, but I do think there is merit in the idea that the extension of mass transit could potentially be rolled out too far too soon. Of course it's not all black or white and I doubt anyone has all of the answers. Maybe that's why there is a forum to hash out some of the ideas.

You do raise a very good question though about where the proverbial line in the sand is drawn between urban and suburban areas. The line certainly isn't as definitive as a border, however I think most of us can tell which neighborhoods are inherently less urban than others when we experience them.

Somehow I'd like some Calgarians to comment on this, because they would maybe have many stories to share about some of the good and bad things about having the CTrain extended out as far as it is.

Sonic Death Monkey
07-06-2007, 01:25 PM
wLRT - run it along University Ave and a river crossing as before. But then instead of going west down 87 Ave, take it a few blocks south with a stop at the Zoo. Then run it along the Whitemud to WEM.

Medwards
07-06-2007, 01:40 PM
wLRT - run it along University Ave and a river crossing as before. But then instead of going west down 87 Ave, take it a few blocks south with a stop at the Zoo. Then run it along the Whitemud to WEM.

Thats quite the jog south in the river valley, plus, quite a slope to deal with to get up to the whitemud drive from the zoo...

RichardS
07-06-2007, 01:48 PM
Yup...

Sonic Death Monkey
07-06-2007, 02:29 PM
6 blocks is hardly that great a distance.

Titanium48
07-06-2007, 03:13 PM
If the west LRT is run along whitemud it should branch off at 71 Av and head west along 71Av/Belgravia Rd/Fox drive, rather than heading west on University Av towards a steep and unstable riverbank. It is longer than the 87 Av route, but it could be done with minimal need for property aquisiton, a much cheaper bridge and no complaints from rich west end residents.

There could be a stop in the valley and one at 156 St. Add some stairs and busses could stop on the overpass while the LRT stops at freeway level. The line could then turn north to WEM via either 170 St or 178 St.

IanO
07-06-2007, 04:30 PM
why run it along the whitemud, a road with no potential stops really and little room as is. Any room there should be for another lane IMO.


I like university ave to 87ave, no zoo stop (well kinda...at 142st circle), and then on to meadowlark TOD, 170st, AHD, new casino.

But ideally...id want it to be pushed UG along jasper to 124st, cross groat, station at the museum, then run along stony until 156st, south to meadowlark, then wem, and same as above.

Modulator42
07-06-2007, 05:03 PM
I have, in all previous versions, and was told to
I am just upset that once again, a lack of political knowledge and foresight has now landed the west end in perpetual LRT purgatory. So, we’re stuck with half baked solutions for one of the most important arteries in the city, but I guess it is better than the 100 express…
No it's not. Travel time on the new BRT route is supposed to be exactly the same as the 100 (and, yes, Stony is the quickest route among the options considered).

In short, it's a terrible plan. It amounts to a bunch of road widening and minimal benefit to transit.

IanO
07-06-2007, 05:11 PM
http://www.edmontonbrt.ca/

kcantor
07-06-2007, 05:49 PM
Is it just me that thinks that the problem with some of the plans and decisions is misplaced priorities and connections made in plan? We want to link downtown and the U of A and the mall and draw a line between them and neither the cost nor the ridership patterns work. We have LRT to the northeast. We have LRT to the south side and soon to the south. We should push LRT to NAIT and then turn west along 107 or 111 both of which have width right through to Mayfield Road and then curve along Mayfield and south to the mall. Now not only have you have linked downtown to the mall, you are adjacent to existing residential to the south and the northwest industrial employment base to the north of your line. You can feed into the line with local, short, direct bus service and you can distribute into that employment base the same way. Not only could you LRT from Terra Lossa (and the hotels in the area) to both the mall and downtown, you could live downtown and LRT to Finnings new head office or the Mayfield dinner theatre. Maybe a connection to St. Albert along the trail (which is getting wide anyway once you get past Baycrest Apartments) or even looping through the Mistatem past Big Lake to St. Albert's light industial and residential areas... Not a section anywhere that couldn't be crossed with a section of elevated track - no tunnels or major bridges required. The U of A is connected by LRT already from downtown (and is downtown already as well) and soon from the south. Maybe our LRT should be in thirds like this (NE, NW and S) instead of quadrants and millwoods and the airport can tie in to the S line just as the mall and St. Albert (and maybe Stony Plain, Spruce Grove and River Cree can tie up and into the NW line instead of having to come due east to get downtown. As noted, the areas we move it out of by doing this aren't the prime ridership areas anyway.

m0nkyman
07-06-2007, 09:05 PM
An entirely too sane proposel, snipped for brevity

Ken, we really really need to sit down for coffee sometime.... You've pretty much repeated what I've said.

And I just got back from the meeting about WBRT, and I am not impressed.

Q: When choosing this route, was any thought given to making sure that there is a sane upgrade path to LRT

A: We plan on running the LRT across 87th Ave.

Q: So what developer is going to touch a TOD along this completely different BRT route (that we all know is going to be replaced) with a barge pole?

A: Uhhhhh.


:shock:


The fact that the route runs less than ten feet from my bedroom window, and will seriously impact my business in a negative way only adds impetus to how bad an idea I think this is.

Bryguy
07-06-2007, 10:56 PM
Well after attending the second time I had a much better idea of what was being proposed and fewer concerns. The sad part is it took me two meetings to understand the plan - the information could have been delivered much better but like the previous meeting they were very willing to answer individual questions.
Oh, and the cookies and location was much better today then yesterday.

Well I will post some information I collected as well as some common questions that I heard asked. Then I'll get to my opinions on things.


Overview
For those who may be unfamiliar with the idea, BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) is a public transportation system that makes use of bus-only lanes and roadways with fewer stops then traditional transit. The plan presented at these recent open houses was for a route that travels along 87 Avenue from Lewis Estates to 156 Street, up to SPR (Stony Plain Road) and eastward along SPR and/or 100 Avenue (where possible) till SPR becomes 104 Avenue. Then it would continue till 107 Street, turn South to 102 Avenue, then continue eastward to approximately 101 Street. 87 Avenue and 156 Street would have a bus-only left-hand turning lane.
Tentative stops have been planned for: Lewis Estates (potential park and ride), WEM, Misercordia, Meadowlark Mall, Jasper Transit Centre, 142 Street & SPR, 124 & 116 Street along 104 Avenue, as well as at MacEwan College and Norquest College.

This planned route is estimated to take 30 minutes, the same amount of time it takes the Super Express route 100 to travel.

To accommodate traffic that would be disrupted by these bus lanes they hope to make better use of 107 Avenue for East-West, and 163 Street for North-South.
Improvements to 163 Street will consist solely of a left-hand turning lane on 87 Avenue.
As for 107 Avenue they did not have many details on that. What I managed to figure out is East of Groat Road they intend to have a reversible lane control system in place to handle a fifth lane that will exist. According to the map they provided this fifth lane appears to terminate around 116 Street. As for the rest of improvements to 107 Avenue they also include removal of the traffic circle on 142 Street (adding a light controlled intersection) and widening the road to accommodate traffic displaced from SPR. The widening is planned to take place from 135 Street to 156 or 149 Street. The idea is add either another reversible fifth lane or to add an extra lane each direction. The impression given is that adding two extra lanes is preferred. There was absolutely no mention of how much green space would be removed, noise considerations, or even an idea of what it will look like after all is said and done. I was told that details regarding 107 Avenue will be forthcoming should City Council decide to proceed and to expect more information later.

Noise considerations were mentioned for 87 Avenue across from the mall only - no other location(s) were mentioned.

Currently the plan has one big question mark to it: do they use SPR or 100 Avenue for the stretch between 156 and 149 Street.
The three reasons mentioned were: MacEwan campus there will be moving, the Jasper Transit Centre needs to expand and may need to move, and that they don't have enough details regarding the Stony Plain Road Revitalization Plan at the moment.

There are plans to widen some of the roads along the proposed bus route. Here's a list of what I wrote down:
- 87 Avenue from 172 to 166 Street; widen by 2 lanes.
- 87 Avenue from 166 to ~160 Avenue; widen by 1 lane.
- SPR from 148 to 142 Street; widen by 2 lanes.
- SPR from 139 to 142 Street; widen by 1 lane on the north side.
- SPR / 104 Avenue from 120 to 128 Street; widen by 1 lane.

Some of these lane addition projects would require purchasing some property; specifically along 149 to 142 Street on SPR. They are not at the stage yet where they would know which properties.

You can safely assume that there will be bus-dedicated lanes along the entire route.

For those wondering there was mention of a tentative public hearing to be held on July 10th, at 1:30pm.
When asked it was mentioned that updated information should be available on the Edmonton BRT website by Monday or soon thereafter.


FAQs
Q. Will regular buses make use of the bus-lanes as well?
A. Yes

Q. What frequency would the BRT run at and at what hours?
A. To start BRT should run once every 7.5 minutes. It will be in operation roughly 18 hours a day.

Q. Will there be cutaways for buses?
A. They will look at cutaways in the future.

Q. Will BRT stations be shared with regular buses?
A. That depends on the city; for Edmonton they may share.

Q. What happens if a regular bus is slowing down the BRT?
A. We do not expect that to happen often since regular buses travel with much less frequency. However should it occur the BRT would simply pass the slower bus by making use of the regular lane of traffic.

Q. Why not put the BRT along 107 Avenue instead of SPR?
A. 107 Avenue is a longer route, would require an extra BRT bus, would take approximately 3-4 minutes longer, and would require obtaining more property as well as costing more.


Opinions
On the SPD or 100 Avenue topic I think it's very obvious. I would much rather lose 2 lanes of 100 Avenue then SPD. Make the decision and work around it.
I found the information in the handout rather incomplete and sometimes misleading. Specifically "Impact on Green Areas/River Valley: None". It obviously should have been just "River Valley". Also in the handout it's stated (in big bold letters) that "Over 1,000 hours of volunteer time has been dedicated to the review and consideration of the West High Speed Transit Planning Study."
I appreciate that they have devoted a lot of volunteer time to the study however by stating it in big bold letters it gives off a very negative message to me.

The entire open house seemed to be more of a 'this is what we're going to do - any questions' PR event to me. I'm rather put off with the (lack of) information regarding 107 Avenue; "Detailed Roadway Modifications to be Reviewed".
They did take a lot of feedback and suggestions - only time will tell how much of an effect (if any) that feedback will affect things.

Overall the idea is interesting, but I'm not sold on it yet. Some of what they covered sounded good to me. I really like the idea of bus lanes - but not where they plan to put them. If they could manage to reduce the bottlenecks on SPR (single lane regular traffic) I would be much more keen on the plan. Then again I want to know what the hell they plan to do about 107 Avenue before I commit to the idea.

I did ask about the wLRT in fact; the answer I got back was that BRT is basically a stop-gap measure and that when wLRT happens... well it won't happen in the near future so there's no need to worry about it at this stage.

I will reiterate that the people involved were very helpful in answering questions and concerns. I just wish the information was better presented to avoid similar questions. Now I await the new information that should be on the website early next week.

I wonder if it'll have the information from the presentation or the semi-detailed maps...

travis
07-06-2007, 11:02 PM
booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo :o

grish
07-06-2007, 11:23 PM
Take everything you said and replace the capital letter B with capital L and I will be happy.

m0nkyman
07-06-2007, 11:27 PM
I did ask about the wLRT in fact; the answer I got back was that BRT is basically a stop-gap measure and that when wLRT happens... well it won't happen in the near future so there's no need to worry about it at this stage.

Meanwhile, this plan saturates 102 Ave, 107 Ave, and 104/Stoney Plain. If the 87th Ave route was politically possible it would be starting, or at least engineered by now.

So, what route is left for LRT? Oh. Right. We'll use Ottawa's tried and true solution to replacing BRT.... :roll:



Edit -

Just wanted to add that I appreciate the work of the consultants on this project. What they've come up with is the probably the best option given the direction they were given. I strongly disagree with the direction given.
Everyone involved at the meeting tonight was professional and capable of explaining their positions.

Replacement
08-06-2007, 09:57 AM
I'm all for increased mass/rapid transit, however I'm concerned that Edmonton may be falling into a trap of doing too much and too soon.

I've made the point elsewhere, but here's another good opportunity. Extending mass transit out farther from the downtown is OK, so long as there is still some sort of market signal to also increase urban infill. Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet that people would utilize transit were it in their area, but I'm not entirely sold on whether it actually promotes densification. If the mass transit networks were rolled out to areas of a set density or higher, then this would be yet another influence to promote densification.This is illusory and incomplete thinking. Its not just the suburbs in Edmonton you need to worry about. I've made the unpopular argument here before that all of Edmonton being an inland, distant northern city, removed from any current use natural transport waterway, and at a latitude requiring massive heating, is in its entirety an "aggregiously inefficient" outpost.

If my point isn't yet clear ALL of Edmonton is ENTIRELY dependent on fossil fuel transport as a lifeline and arguably more so in near downtown areas.

The question is where does the "end of suburbia" really start or end :wink:

I'm intrigued as to which part is illusory... I'm not under any illusions, at least I don't think I am.

As for the "incomplete thinking", I'll be the first to admit it. I'm certainly not a municipal planner, however I have as of yet been unable to get any good discussion of the point I'm trying to raise.

In the end, I may be completely wrong, but I do think there is merit in the idea that the extension of mass transit could potentially be rolled out too far too soon. Of course it's not all black or white and I doubt anyone has all of the answers. Maybe that's why there is a forum to hash out some of the ideas.

You do raise a very good question though about where the proverbial line in the sand is drawn between urban and suburban areas. The line certainly isn't as definitive as a border, however I think most of us can tell which neighborhoods are inherently less urban than others when we experience them.

Somehow I'd like some Calgarians to comment on this, because they would maybe have many stories to share about some of the good and bad things about having the CTrain extended out as far as it is.Thanks for the response. The ilusion is created in the notion that urban vs suburban existence is significantly different in an area that is not suitable in the first place for mass human habitation.

Humans are highly dependent on fossil fuels just for heating and light living at this latitude and mass populations are unsustainable here.

The point that I think you miss though is that an entire area like Northern Alberta should not be highly populated and represents a type of suburban migration drift from OTHER more suitable Canadian population regions. That in essense all of Edmonton is a migratory Suburb.

A few basic reasons mass population should not be here:

1)Far inland, until recently a relative regional "island" of habitation. No climate moderation associated with coastal areas, regional climactic favorable variation or jet streams. Cold frigid prairie. Made even worse with mass destruction of slightly moderating, naturally occurring boreal forest.
2) latitude- too cold, too much seasonal variance in natural lighting.
3)No significantly navigable waterway for river freight. Very difficult freight, transportation, through watershed routes.
4)Humans don't have naturally occurring insulation. :wink:

Conversely areas in Canada where mass habitation makes more sense considering the above are Southern Alberta, PEI, Southern Nova Scotia, Coastal New Brunswick, Southern Quebec, Southern Alberta, Southwest and parts of interior BC etc.

Much of the habitation that has occurred in Canada has tended to reflect sensible climactic and regional choice through preference. In this case preference makes sense.

I don't discount the suburbia problem. I just differ on what constitutes it and that the end of suburbia narrative is incomplete as you acknowledge and needs to account for entire patterns of human migration and its effects in greater depth.

Edmcowboy11
08-06-2007, 10:51 AM
one BRT route that will truly speed things up that I'd love to see.

One route could be from Millgate to W.E.M. This route would start at millgate terminal in a newly built stop cut into the hill just below the main bus terminal. This but stop would be only for the BRT and would have the bus enter and exit directly on the whitemud. The first stop would be at southgate centre. The next stop could be just before rainbow valley bridge along whitemud. Next stop wouldn't be until after the river valley somewhere along whitemud and then the final stop would be at W.E.M. itself. That could get people back and forth very quickly. We have a freeway from the south to the west, lets use it. This route would only require the construction of a minimal amouth of new road and very few stations.

Another route that would have to be thought through but could be good is something leaving from W.E.M. and heading north on the AHD.

Can there be a BRT route travelling east/west on the yellowhead? W.E.M. to Colosium station?

Replacement
08-06-2007, 11:07 AM
one BRT route that will truly speed things up that I'd love to see.

One route could be from Millgate to W.E.M. This route would start at millgate terminal in a newly built stop cut into the hill just below the main bus terminal. This but stop would be only for the BRT and would have the bus enter and exit directly on the whitemud. The first stop would be at southgate centre. The next stop could be just before rainbow valley bridge along whitemud. Next stop wouldn't be until after the river valley somewhere along whitemud and then the final stop would be at W.E.M. itself. That could get people back and forth very quickly. We have a freeway from the south to the west, lets use it. This route would only require the construction of a minimal amouth of new road and very few stations.

Another route that would have to be thought through but could be good is something leaving from W.E.M. and heading north on the AHD.

Can there be a BRT route travelling east/west on the yellowhead? W.E.M. to Colosium station?Millgate transit terminal should not exist. Extremely poor choice of location and 3 transit terminals serving Millwoods only creates an inefficient labyrinth of connecting routes vs stressing straight line express functionality.
Your infratructure for Whitemud connectivity would throw good money after bad and its unexplained how East-West Whitmemud use improves service and egress to Millwoods.

sweetcrude
08-06-2007, 07:19 PM
I'm all for increased mass/rapid transit, however I'm concerned that Edmonton may be falling into a trap of doing too much and too soon.

I've made the point elsewhere, but here's another good opportunity. Extending mass transit out farther from the downtown is OK, so long as there is still some sort of market signal to also increase urban infill. Rolling transit out too far, too soon may not be the solution that everyone is expecting. I would contend that rolling out mass transit to the 'burbs' would only serve to enable this luxurious and aggregiously inefficient lifestyle.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to bet that people would utilize transit were it in their area, but I'm not entirely sold on whether it actually promotes densification. If the mass transit networks were rolled out to areas of a set density or higher, then this would be yet another influence to promote densification.This is illusory and incomplete thinking. Its not just the suburbs in Edmonton you need to worry about. I've made the unpopular argument here before that all of Edmonton being an inland, distant northern city, removed from any current use natural transport waterway, and at a latitude requiring massive heating, is in its entirety an "aggregiously inefficient" outpost.

If my point isn't yet clear ALL of Edmonton is ENTIRELY dependent on fossil fuel transport as a lifeline and arguably more so in near downtown areas.

The question is where does the "end of suburbia" really start or end :wink:

I'm intrigued as to which part is illusory... I'm not under any illusions, at least I don't think I am.

As for the "incomplete thinking", I'll be the first to admit it. I'm certainly not a municipal planner, however I have as of yet been unable to get any good discussion of the point I'm trying to raise.

In the end, I may be completely wrong, but I do think there is merit in the idea that the extension of mass transit could potentially be rolled out too far too soon. Of course it's not all black or white and I doubt anyone has all of the answers. Maybe that's why there is a forum to hash out some of the ideas.

You do raise a very good question though about where the proverbial line in the sand is drawn between urban and suburban areas. The line certainly isn't as definitive as a border, however I think most of us can tell which neighborhoods are inherently less urban than others when we experience them.

Somehow I'd like some Calgarians to comment on this, because they would maybe have many stories to share about some of the good and bad things about having the CTrain extended out as far as it is.Thanks for the response. The ilusion is created in the notion that urban vs suburban existence is significantly different in an area that is not suitable in the first place for mass human habitation.

Humans are highly dependent on fossil fuels just for heating and light living at this latitude and mass populations are unsustainable here.

The point that I think you miss though is that an entire area like Northern Alberta should not be highly populated and represents a type of suburban migration drift from OTHER more suitable Canadian population regions. That in essense all of Edmonton is a migratory Suburb.

A few basic reasons mass population should not be here:

1)Far inland, until recently a relative regional "island" of habitation. No climate moderation associated with coastal areas, regional climactic favorable variation or jet streams. Cold frigid prairie. Made even worse with mass destruction of slightly moderating, naturally occurring boreal forest.
2) latitude- too cold, too much seasonal variance in natural lighting.
3)No significantly navigable waterway for river freight. Very difficult freight, transportation, through watershed routes.
4)Humans don't have naturally occurring insulation. :wink:

Conversely areas in Canada where mass habitation makes more sense considering the above are Southern Alberta, PEI, Southern Nova Scotia, Coastal New Brunswick, Southern Quebec, Southern Alberta, Southwest and parts of interior BC etc.

Much of the habitation that has occurred in Canada has tended to reflect sensible climactic and regional choice through preference. In this case preference makes sense.

I don't discount the suburbia problem. I just differ on what constitutes it and that the end of suburbia narrative is incomplete as you acknowledge and needs to account for entire patterns of human migration and its effects in greater depth.

OK, I'll accept that there's a lot of merit to what you're saying. However, I would hope you would concede that there are huge impracticalities to what you're implying...

Actually, I'm not sure what you're implying, other than just making the point that mass human populations don't make sense in Edmonton due in large part to where and how it is situated with respect to climate, vegetation and geological influences. OK.

But... We ARE here. In fact, North American and international markets have progressed over the last couple centuries to make Edmonton a pretty important hub on this continent. There are limitations to our "grandeur" of course. I'm really not under any illusions here.

I would propose that your description of Southern Alberta as somehow making a lot "more sense" than inhabiting this neck of the woods is a little bizarre. I understand the references to PEI, South Quebec, etc but I'm not really sure where you're coming from on the Southern Alberta suggestion. I've lived in Calgary and it has much the same climate as we do here, save for a few more Chinooks than what we receive here.



But anyways... back to the rest of the story.

To hit on the suburbia problem again, it is true we are all entirely dependent on fossil fuels for transport. When I say "all", I mean westernized city with the ridiculous phenomenon of suburban sprawl. Mass transit is a way of chipping at making the problem not as bad as before, but unless there is a very large shift in the way people think about where they live as an actual problem, the actual problem will go unaddressed. Unfortunate, but true. Until such time as fossil fuels are actually priced at a level that makes not only economic sense, but ecological sense, we won't really see any meaningful change. We need very strongest market signals to essentially tell us which are the best choices to make.

Transit = Good (but... should really take into account what the potential migration patterns of people are into the larger context of trying to mitigate and/or curb future suburban sprawl).

:D

Bryguy
08-06-2007, 07:22 PM
To let people know; it seems they have updated the edmontonbrt.ca website today to include a bunch of the information they presented at the open houses and the maps I mentioned.
Happened a lot faster then I thought it would.


Well for more of my opinions I don't think they should go forth with the wBRT plan as they describe it.
It would be far cheaper to just modify route 100 slightly.
Change the route to stop at 142 Street on SPR as well as go past WEM to stop at Lewis Estates as well.
Give the bus signal priority all the way downtown and slap a BRT sticker on the bumper.
It may not have bus lanes or 7.5 minute frequency but with the signal priority as well as the stops on 142 Street and Lewis Estates I would think ridership would dramatically increase; maybe enough to justify 10 minute frequency or less.
That and the time to set that up, costs, etc. would be far smaller then the BRT alternative.
Of course there's also the option of doing wBRT in the future as well - but it would be a good quick-fix before we spend the mega bucks on property acquisition and widening roads.


I really like the bus lane idea from BRT, just not necessarily the locations they plan to put them.
I think they should work on the bus lanes and especially signal priority right away. Look at roads that could easily accommodate bus lanes without much issue. Worry about the BRT plans later; or at least keep them in mind.
Who knows... maybe when other buses have access to signal priority the needs for BRT may change.


As for those who are suggesting we use the ring road system for transit... I agree. Why not?
If you have a route that travels along the inner ring and has only a few stops I think that would really help people get around town without having to go thru downtown. Isn't that the point of ring roads in the first place??
It may not be a very direct route but with less stops and higher average speed it would probably be a very efficient way to move people from one side of town to another.
Not to mention if it intersects with the future LRT station near Southgate.
Why wait for years for BRT and bus lanes when we can do something similar right now?
Beyond this you would just have to alter some routes so they feed into this ring road route.

If it works out, well then convert the route to a BRT route in the future - bus lanes and all.
If the ridership doesn't justify turning it into a BRT route - well at least then you know.
Oh yeah, you could save millions of dollars and years of studies - you'd have real data for a change.

Another thing to suggest would be a new route or two downtown that simply take people from the LRT and move them to other locations in downtown the LRT doesn't go.

Well it started off as my posting about the website update then moved into wBRT opinion then to rant and suggestions in general. But there you go.

lux
08-06-2007, 07:22 PM
They need to quit planning things and just do something.

In Vancouver they didn't plan a BRT, they just started running busses every 5 minutes out to the University with limited stops and lo and behold everyone used them.

You don't need a fancy official BRT you just need to improve the service.

Sonic Death Monkey
08-06-2007, 07:29 PM
Overview
For those who may be unfamiliar with the idea, BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) is a public transportation system that makes use of bus-only lanes and roadways with fewer stops then traditional transit. The plan presented at these recent open houses was for a route that travels along 87 Avenue from Lewis Estates to 156 Street, up to SPR (Stony Plain Road) and eastward along SPR and/or 100 Avenue (where possible) till SPR becomes 104 Avenue. Then it would continue till 107 Street, turn South to 102 Avenue, then continue eastward to approximately 101 Street. 87 Avenue and 156 Street would have a bus-only left-hand turning lane.
Tentative stops have been planned for: Lewis Estates (potential park and ride), WEM, Misercordia, Meadowlark Mall, Jasper Transit Centre, 142 Street & SPR, 124 & 116 Street along 104 Avenue, as well as at MacEwan College and Norquest College.

This planned route is estimated to take 30 minutes, the same amount of time it takes the Super Express route 100 to travel.


I stopped reading here.
So what good is this BRT going to be if it's not going to be any faster than the current express bus?

Bryguy
08-06-2007, 07:51 PM
I stopped reading here.
So what good is this BRT going to be if it's not going to be any faster than the current express bus?

The only difference I saw was that the BRT has longer buses, special bus stations (shelters) more frequent service, makes a few more stops (Lewis Estates and some in-between), uses bus lanes and signal priority... and
"First stage 1-3 year transit improvement program is estimated at $20-25 million (in 2006 dollars) for capital expenditures."

Oh yeah, and other buses could make use of the bus lanes as well.

kcantor
08-06-2007, 09:08 PM
I stopped reading here.
So what good is this BRT going to be if it's not going to be any faster than the current express bus?

The only difference I saw was that the BRT has longer buses, special bus stations (shelters) more frequent service, makes a few more stops (Lewis Estates and some in-between), uses bus lanes and signal priority... and
"First stage 1-3 year transit improvement program is estimated at $20-25 million (in 2006 dollars) for capital expenditures."

Oh yeah, and other buses could make use of the bus lanes as well.
Can we really afford to have transit spend another $20-25 million in capital expenditures alone for the first stage only of an interim transit solution before we finish Sir Winston Churchill Square or the Art Gallery or Louise McKinney Park or a downtown arena or providing snow removal to each and every street at least once a month and finishing our winter cleanup before Canada Day and eliminating potholes from every street corner... oops, sorry, thought I was doing a guest column for the SUN. Not sure if this is the perfect answer or not (actually I'm pretty sure it's not) but at least it's attempting to do something proactive and not ignoring things.

Replacement
08-06-2007, 10:41 PM
OK, I'll accept that there's a lot of merit to what you're saying. However, I would hope you would concede that there are huge impracticalities to what you're implying...

Actually, I'm not sure what you're implying, other than just making the point that mass human populations don't make sense in Edmonton due in large part to where and how it is situated with respect to climate, vegetation and geological influences. OK.
But... We ARE here. In fact, North American and international markets have progressed over the last couple centuries to make Edmonton a pretty important hub on this continent. There are limitations to our "grandeur" of course. I'm really not under any illusions here.Impractical sure. Given our present politico-economic thinking. But the deforestation/exploitation that goes on is a pure product of unchecked capitalist enterprise. no restraints, no economic-enviro sanctions factored in etc. Near pure run amuck. No way in any sensible society should Edmonton contain 1m+ and growing souls and Ft mac 125K its temporary insanity and the worst ecological crimes are that these massive communities are temporary.

Boom bust is disastrous in so many ways and in itself an entirely irresponsible enterprise. The worst kind and we've learned nothing zero, nada, since gold rushes.

If there was ever any ecological impact with teeth and entire costs factored in it might be a somewhat different story.


I would propose that your description of Southern Alberta as somehow making a lot "more sense" than inhabiting this neck of the woods is a little bizarre. I understand the references to PEI, South Quebec, etc but I'm not really sure where you're coming from on the Southern Alberta suggestion. I've lived in Calgary and it has much the same climate as we do here, save for a few more Chinooks than what we receive here.heh, farther south than Calgary. Medicine hat, Cypress hills, Ft Mcleod region fare better than Calgary.


But anyways... back to the rest of the story.

To hit on the suburbia problem again, it is true we are all entirely dependent on fossil fuels for transport. When I say "all", I mean westernized city with the ridiculous phenomenon of suburban sprawl. Mass transit is a way of chipping at making the problem not as bad as before, but unless there is a very large shift in the way people think about where they live as an actual problem, the actual problem will go unaddressed. Unfortunate, but true. Until such time as fossil fuels are actually priced at a level that makes not only economic sense, but ecological sense, we won't really see any meaningful change. We need very strongest market signals to essentially tell us which are the best choices to make.I don't disagree. only added a qualification that ALL of Edmonton is a type of sprawl and that downtown dwellers need feel no more superior in their choice than someone like myself in Millwoods. (not saying you are doing this but I'm sure you've also heard the urban dweller treads lightly on ironically concrete theme) end of suburbia is loaded with such innuendo and a not light, smug helping of conceit, from the filmakers who are decidedly urbane.



Transit = Good (but... should really take into account what the potential migration patterns of people are into the larger context of trying to mitigate and/or curb future suburban sprawl).its my own take that the highdensity dwelling consumer is getting gouged and that condo, townhouse, suite, prices are way too high relative to houses and respective building costs. in a market where all of the above approximate same cost people opt for king of the castle complete with the property houses. Something wrong with the market. Wheres the cost efficient choice?

Want another example of sprawl? google-map golf courses which represent in north America as much landmass as all the suburbs. Thats the primo example of obscene irresponsible land use. At least people reside in suburbs.

I'll smugly indicate that I've never touched any club heavier than a mini golf putter. :wink:

lux
08-06-2007, 10:43 PM
I stopped reading here.
So what good is this BRT going to be if it's not going to be any faster than the current express bus?

The only difference I saw was that the BRT has longer buses, special bus stations (shelters) more frequent service, makes a few more stops (Lewis Estates and some in-between), uses bus lanes and signal priority... and
"First stage 1-3 year transit improvement program is estimated at $20-25 million (in 2006 dollars) for capital expenditures."

Oh yeah, and other buses could make use of the bus lanes as well.
Can we really afford to have transit spend another $20-25 million in capital expenditures alone for the first stage only of an interim transit solution before we finish Sir Winston Churchill Square or the Art Gallery or Louise McKinney Park or a downtown arena or providing snow removal to each and every street at least once a month and finishing our winter cleanup before Canada Day and eliminating potholes from every street corner... oops, sorry, thought I was doing a guest column for the SUN. Not sure if this is the perfect answer or not (actually I'm pretty sure it's not) but at least it's attempting to do something proactive and not ignoring things.

It really strikes me that this sort of project is conceived in the 1970's era where politicians wanted to make their mark with an official government megaproject.

What is wrong with just massively increasing the frequency on key routes? Then when it makes sense, add a couple of bendy busses on those routes... Then when ridership expands enough, consolidate the stops into stations. All of this can happen starting tomorrow; we don't need 25 million dollars or a plan or a BRT; it can all be implemented as gradual service improvements...

In my mind, all of this BRT planning is a big neon roadshow designed to distract us from the fact that they aren't actually doing anything now to improve the situation. The things I have mentioned above can be implemented instantly and incrementally. GET ON WITH IT.

Replacement
09-06-2007, 11:36 AM
Overview
For those who may be unfamiliar with the idea, BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) is a public transportation system that makes use of bus-only lanes and roadways with fewer stops then traditional transit. The plan presented at these recent open houses was for a route that travels along 87 Avenue from Lewis Estates to 156 Street, up to SPR (Stony Plain Road) and eastward along SPR and/or 100 Avenue (where possible) till SPR becomes 104 Avenue. Then it would continue till 107 Street, turn South to 102 Avenue, then continue eastward to approximately 101 Street. 87 Avenue and 156 Street would have a bus-only left-hand turning lane.
Tentative stops have been planned for: Lewis Estates (potential park and ride), WEM, Misercordia, Meadowlark Mall, Jasper Transit Centre, 142 Street & SPR, 124 & 116 Street along 104 Avenue, as well as at MacEwan College and Norquest College.

This planned route is estimated to take 30 minutes, the same amount of time it takes the Super Express route 100 to travel.


I stopped reading here.
So what good is this BRT going to be if it's not going to be any faster than the current express bus?Perfect. But further more why is West BRT such a priority while excellent options like the 100 and #2 bus currently exist. I've taken the #2 from GM downtown campus to WEM in 24 minutes and in traffic conditions at 4:00pm on a weekday. I was awestruck. Great Service!!!

Conversely in Millwoods as connecting services typically meander 3 different transit terminals and go on any curcuitous route possible conceivably to black out any white spot remaining on a transit map it takes +1Hr to get downtown.

Any help to Millwoods in our lifetimes?

A few other thoughts on the thread.

Bus lanes generally are fraught with problems in Edmonton as cars often drive in them. Who hasn't seen people drive in bus lanes continually for blocks seemingly blissfully unaware of a 100 signs and road markings proclaiming it as a buslane to be used ONLY if you are turning right on the very next corner..maybe if they called it the narcissist lane.. :twisted:

I agree with others response. Why is all the formality, bureaucracy, and level of public exchange consistent with constitutional debate required to make some minor changes and improvements to a route?!

Oh, I forgot, because its BRT in flashing lights futuristic acronym and has to be loaded and lauded to the top with faux flags and furls and a coronation celebration worthy of its cause because an area didn't get LRT, you got this bus instead.

Wow.

Bryguy
09-06-2007, 01:12 PM
I know how you feel, If I have a choice I take the #2 every time as well.

I think all the public involvement comes from that relatively new Involving Edmonton Policy.
I think it's a good idea for major projects; especially BRT with all the changes they intend to make.
A lot of people would be affected with the reallocation of some lanes to bus lanes. Not to mention their not-yet detailed expansion to 107 Avenue.

After looking at the day map for transit service in Millwoods I see what you mean.
I don't know much of the area but it seems to me that a super express with 4 specific stops (Millwoods, Heritage, Southgate, nearest LRT station) would probably be of significant help.

I think most here would like action now and study the results later.
I know I would.

Sonic Death Monkey
09-06-2007, 05:41 PM
To me, a BRT should be like an LRT with buses instead of rail. That means all of the advantages of our current LRT - bus-only roads, exclusive ROWs c/w crossing gates, transit fare zones, tunnels, few station stops, high-speed travel.

travis
09-06-2007, 06:33 PM
^If they payed for all that, the track and trains would just be an add on.

sweetcrude
10-06-2007, 12:35 AM
OK, I'll accept that there's a lot of merit to what you're saying. However, I would hope you would concede that there are huge impracticalities to what you're implying...

Actually, I'm not sure what you're implying, other than just making the point that mass human populations don't make sense in Edmonton due in large part to where and how it is situated with respect to climate, vegetation and geological influences. OK.
But... We ARE here. In fact, North American and international markets have progressed over the last couple centuries to make Edmonton a pretty important hub on this continent. There are limitations to our "grandeur" of course. I'm really not under any illusions here.Impractical sure. Given our present politico-economic thinking. But the deforestation/exploitation that goes on is a pure product of unchecked capitalist enterprise. no restraints, no economic-enviro sanctions factored in etc. Near pure run amuck. No way in any sensible society should Edmonton contain 1m+ and growing souls and Ft mac 125K its temporary insanity and the worst ecological crimes are that these massive communities are temporary.

Boom bust is disastrous in so many ways and in itself an entirely irresponsible enterprise. The worst kind and we've learned nothing zero, nada, since gold rushes.

If there was ever any ecological impact with teeth and entire costs factored in it might be a somewhat different story.


I would propose that your description of Southern Alberta as somehow making a lot "more sense" than inhabiting this neck of the woods is a little bizarre. I understand the references to PEI, South Quebec, etc but I'm not really sure where you're coming from on the Southern Alberta suggestion. I've lived in Calgary and it has much the same climate as we do here, save for a few more Chinooks than what we receive here.heh, farther south than Calgary. Medicine hat, Cypress hills, Ft Mcleod region fare better than Calgary.


But anyways... back to the rest of the story.

To hit on the suburbia problem again, it is true we are all entirely dependent on fossil fuels for transport. When I say "all", I mean westernized city with the ridiculous phenomenon of suburban sprawl. Mass transit is a way of chipping at making the problem not as bad as before, but unless there is a very large shift in the way people think about where they live as an actual problem, the actual problem will go unaddressed. Unfortunate, but true. Until such time as fossil fuels are actually priced at a level that makes not only economic sense, but ecological sense, we won't really see any meaningful change. We need very strongest market signals to essentially tell us which are the best choices to make.I don't disagree. only added a qualification that ALL of Edmonton is a type of sprawl and that downtown dwellers need feel no more superior in their choice than someone like myself in Millwoods. (not saying you are doing this but I'm sure you've also heard the urban dweller treads lightly on ironically concrete theme) end of suburbia is loaded with such innuendo and a not light, smug helping of conceit, from the filmakers who are decidedly urbane.



Transit = Good (but... should really take into account what the potential migration patterns of people are into the larger context of trying to mitigate and/or curb future suburban sprawl).its my own take that the highdensity dwelling consumer is getting gouged and that condo, townhouse, suite, prices are way too high relative to houses and respective building costs. in a market where all of the above approximate same cost people opt for king of the castle complete with the property houses. Something wrong with the market. Wheres the cost efficient choice?

Want another example of sprawl? google-map golf courses which represent in north America as much landmass as all the suburbs. Thats the primo example of obscene irresponsible land use. At least people reside in suburbs.

I'll smugly indicate that I've never touched any club heavier than a mini golf putter. :wink:

Well...

I think we're probably taking pages out of the same book here. Saying different things, yet saying the same thing. I'm with you on most of what you've said to date.

Still, I think that extending LRT farther than is currently deemed "necessary" is likely an unhealthy choice for a city looking to develop its transportation systems in a smart way. I really doubt that the entire city will "roll up the carpet" and leave because, in the larger context, the entire city of Edmonton could be considered sprawl. Not going to happen. The city will be here for some time to come, so it's probably a good idea to do the best we can with what we have. That's all...

Medwards
10-06-2007, 09:09 AM
Still, I think that extending LRT farther than is currently deemed "necessary" is likely an unhealthy choice for a city looking to develop its transportation systems in a smart way. I really doubt that the entire city will "roll up the carpet" and leave because, in the larger context, the entire city of Edmonton could be considered sprawl. Not going to happen. The city will be here for some time to come, so it's probably a good idea to do the best we can with what we have. That's all...

What is necessary and unnecessary?? You keep referring back to this point, but you never define how its needed or unneeded.
Are you trying to say that LRT in suburban areas helps promote sprawl? OR maybe, it helps take people off the road. Sprawl is going to happen regardless of LRT or not. Lets have choices for people. So what if they get in their car and drive to the closest LRT station. Sure beats them driving their destination.
Most people will take a train before they take a bus anyways.

I believe our LRT should already be starting its expansion towards West Ed Mall and further to lewis estates. A Branch should also come off the SLRT line, and head towards Millwoods Town Center along 23 ave. The NLRT - should be at NAIT already, and in construction to to Northgate.

We can look at Calgary as a good example of suburban LRT. 250,000 daily trips on their LRT system. I can't really say that Calgary has better sprawl or worse sprawl then Edmonton, its about the same, but at least in most areas in Calgary, there is the choice of LRT, and it brings you to major points in the city quickly, and efficently.

Delaying, and questioning more LRT construction in Edmonton is just plain ridiciously. It's needed, 15 years ago. We now are facing a deficit in LRT infrastructure, our roads are over-used (creating more potholes). Lets cut out this "necessary" vs "unnecessary" stuff. The LRT, in this city, and more of it, is very "necessary"

highlander
10-06-2007, 10:25 PM
I think what Sweetcrude is referring to in calgary's case is situations where the LRT is overextended so that suburban park&riders have filled the trains by the time they reach mature areas of the city, so that those who may have made a choice to be closer in to avoid the inconveniances of the suburbs are deprived of easy access to one of the top conveniences of urban living. Overlengthened Lines will also be less efficient as they will run well below capacity to the last few stations. Lines that split further down out, like the mentioned spur from heritage to millwoods, split from the SLRT's proposed extention to ellerslie etc. would have less of that problem, as only half the trains would go each way.

I think that a major focus of our LRT system should be on closer in neighbourhoods where LRT can be a part of an efficient transit system that can be useful for more than just the daily commute. The Inner city transit is more efficient economically and ecologically, and is more of a benefit to the city. However, we can't forget that the ongoing subsidy depends on the continued goodwill of the suburban voter who likes his commuter train or bus but will never set foot in public transit otherwise. Those suburban commuters also help justify more frequent peak service on routes that start out in the burbs and then provide essential service in mature areas, like the 9, or the LRT.

microbus
10-06-2007, 10:39 PM
Very valid points, highlander :-D
Running the LRT to Lewis Estates doesn't make much sense
right now, except in peak hours. But that's a waste of money
to send it way out there just for that service.
Kingsway Mall and NAIT make perfect sense.
Jasper Ave west of downtown also makes sense. Heck,
maybe they could use 100 ave to run it on the surface, and
close 100 ave to all traffic for it :-)
And then, since 97 St through Chinatown is one lane each
direction because of parking, except in peak hours, run the
LRT up the middle of it, right through to Northgate. Then the
NAIT extension of the LRT could join up with that around 118 ave
or 122 ave somewhere. 5 minute peak service out of Northgate,
with trains alternating between Kingsway and 97 St.
Mill Woods could use the LRT though, but as for Ellerslie, I think
Century Park is close enough for them.

Medwards
11-06-2007, 10:34 AM
I think what Sweetcrude is referring to in calgary's case is situations where the LRT is overextended so that suburban park&riders have filled the trains by the time they reach mature areas of the city, so that those who may have made a choice to be closer in to avoid the inconveniances of the suburbs are deprived of easy access to one of the top conveniences of urban living. Overlengthened Lines will also be less efficient as they will run well below capacity to the last few stations. Lines that split further down out, like the mentioned spur from heritage to millwoods, split from the SLRT's proposed extention to ellerslie etc. would have less of that problem, as only half the trains would go each way.

I think that a major focus of our LRT system should be on closer in neighbourhoods where LRT can be a part of an efficient transit system that can be useful for more than just the daily commute. The Inner city transit is more efficient economically and ecologically, and is more of a benefit to the city. However, we can't forget that the ongoing subsidy depends on the continued goodwill of the suburban voter who likes his commuter train or bus but will never set foot in public transit otherwise. Those suburban commuters also help justify more frequent peak service on routes that start out in the burbs and then provide essential service in mature areas, like the 9, or the LRT.

The Problem in Calgary is that they are only 3 car platforms. Our LRT planners were smart enough that I believe all but the Health Sciences station are 5 car platforms.
Currently Calgary is trying to expand all their platforms to 5 cars. This makes a huge difference as to why trains are full before reaching mature areas.

Most of the plans for the LRT are to push it to Mature built up areas. Nait and up to Northgate
WEM and well, Lewis Estates, and yes that would be a major park and ride, but its still taking cars off the road.

SLRT is going through to major developments in the south. Built up areas.

I don't think its a bad idea. Its not like we are building LRT to St Albert, Spruce Grove or Sherwood Park...etc.

RichardS
11-06-2007, 11:21 AM
Ok, I am enjoying the debate so far with one major exception. I won't quote the exact lines as I am more miffed at the sentiment than the people saying it.

This idea that the poor poor DT or inner city dweller is the wholesale owner of an LRT and that they are the ones "best suited" for this type of transit is pure crap. Sorry. It is.

The poor poor souls that have to deal with some crowded trains...boo hoo. Yes, I am being harsh, but get over it. LRT is not just for you. Just like you tell the suburban commuter that they have to "suck it up princess" when they complain about traffic getting downtown and you tell them to move closer or take transit, you too need the "suck it up" when they actually DO take transit and you happen to get stuck on a crowded train at rush hour, well, pick your poison.

We try to encourage people to take transit, then we flog them for using it?

highlander
11-06-2007, 01:02 PM
The inner city dweller is not the owner of LRT, only the most efficient user of transit. I think that it's unfortunate that few new neighbourhoods are being built with consideration for transit access, although I hear rumours of better development coming, especially that development S of ellerslie with a highrise core. Unfortunately, smaller scale areas that may be better designed for pedestrians will fail if the macro neighbourhood is eccessivly autocentric. My understanding of terwilligar town from recent reports is that the narrow inviting streets are packed with parked cars because the larger area isn't designed well for transit, or pedestrians.

Ideally all areas of the city, including new ones, should be well served by transit. My neighbourhood was an outer suburb once, and at that time it had streetcar service.

With newer areas (<45years) of the city built for the car, transit should be planned based on the fact that in older areas of the city where transit is or could be a reasonable option for daily travel, and that in most newer areas of the city it would be extremely expensive to provide service that would be attractive to the average citizen for more than a regular commute.

Regarding efficiency, it's not something that we really see here yet. The route to clairview is reasonably busy all day, thanks to superstore and the large numbers of apartments and condos in the area, and healthy use of the park&ride. But imagine that ridership grows so that 5-car trains are running every 4 minutes. And then you extend the LRT another 2 or 3 stations, to beyond the Henday ROW. The trains that start full downtown are half full at clairview, and that's ok. but for the last 2 km, to the last station, there will be maybe 10-15% the ridership that the train saw beween churchill and stadium. That last bit of service is 1/10 a efficient as the first part per passenger km, not counting the fact that our flat fare is the same whether a passenger travels 20km or 2km, and few travel 2km on the bus in the suburbs, because they're not designed for that.

But if the NE line split, with one spur following the existing tangent, and the other going up, say 66th, or 50th, each spur would have half the service- 5cars every 8minutes- which is still respectable, and the same # of trains provides service to more people and more neighbourhoods, and more TOD's, and trains are fuller. The same situation could have millwoods and ellerslie spurrs on the south line, and Lessard and lewis estates spurs on the west line and castledowns and st albert spurs on the north line. And if Ralph60 can convince the city to build LRT cheaply and efficiently, we could make this all happen.



If you look back at the older threads about the WestLRT, i supported the university/87th route because it is fast for commuters and a very direct, rapid route.

Now, I would support a Jasper/102/Stonyplainrd/156 route because it would still provide reasonably attractive service to WEM and P&R beyond, but it also improves service to Mature areas. For my billion dollars, it's a better balance.

sweetcrude
11-06-2007, 01:13 PM
What is necessary and unnecessary?? You keep referring back to this point, but you never define how its needed or unneeded.
Are you trying to say that LRT in suburban areas helps promote sprawl? OR maybe, it helps take people off the road. Sprawl is going to happen regardless of LRT or not. Lets have choices for people. So what if they get in their car and drive to the closest LRT station. Sure beats them driving their destination.
Most people will take a train before they take a bus anyways.

Well, I certainly did not choose the word "necessary" just to raise your ire. I promise... I chose the word simply because I don't really know what "necessary" means. I do, however, find it peculiar that many people seem to know exactly what "necessary" means. Seems to me that a lot of the commentary on LRT matters comes mostly from an emotional standpoint rather than really taking long hard objective look at what actually is "necessary" and how these ideas fit into the longer term or large scale objectives of the dity of Edmonton.

Yes, I would argue that in some instances having LRT in suburban areas actually promotes sprawl. I believe there is definitely a fine balancing act here and I'm not blind to the fact that it doesn't promote sprawl in other instances. However, it's because there exists this dichotomy that special attention be paid when making these sorts of decisions. It's no surprise that both Edmonton and Calgary have a problem with sprawl. This is known as our population density in both cities leaves much to be desired. That being said, the situation is what it is. The only example I would offer is the experience I had while living in Calgary for a couple of years... Well, maybe highlander has a more succinct explanation (see below).


I think what Sweetcrude is referring to in calgary's case is situations where the LRT is overextended so that suburban park&riders have filled the trains by the time they reach mature areas of the city, so that those who may have made a choice to be closer in to avoid the inconveniances of the suburbs are deprived of easy access to one of the top conveniences of urban living. Overlengthened Lines will also be less efficient as they will run well below capacity to the last few stations.

Now, I would say that this explanation rings true for many people. Not all, but many (majority??). While in Calgary, I lived in the Kensington area so walking access to the downtown area was practical for me. On occasion I did have to get to other parts of the city during peak hours. This exercise was less than efficient in my estimation. Highlander is absolutely correct to say that by the time the train arrived at the local station (Sunnyside) the train was already full. Not just uncomfortably full, but impossibly full. At times, only a small percentage of people could actually get on the train. I'm not against travelling on light rail while on a packed train, but if it's physically impossible to get onto a train, the decision to frequent that station could be swayed if it happens frequently enough. I can tell you that there are more than just a few people who commute from closer to the center of Calgary to a park & ride parking lot on the outer edges of the city only to commute back into the center of the city. This is not what I would think is practical, but it actually is practical for some people. In some cases, I'd argue that extending LRT out farther than is really necessary simply exacerbates the problem rather than providing a practical solution. Specific to Calgary, I'd argue that LRT stops beyond the University of Calgary station (NW) are really questionable or marginal stops.

Is the density really there to support such a mode of transportation? I think this question is too often ignored. Providing Park & ride areas artificially raises the amount of people that would normally take the LRT. So long as a Park & ride is available, from say less than 30 minutes away by vehicle, people will continue to make the choice to drive and then hop a train. I don't necessarily have a problem with Park & ride systems, however there is a point at which the parking lots really do become way too large. We should really be striving moreso for efficiency rather than "apparent" convenience all the time.



Delaying, and questioning more LRT construction in Edmonton is just plain ridicious.

I'd say that constructing without debate is ridiculous (read "dangerous").


It's needed, 15 years ago. We now are facing a deficit in LRT infrastructure, our roads are over-used (creating more potholes). Lets cut out this "necessary" vs "unnecessary" stuff. The LRT, in this city, and more of it, is very "necessary"

Let's strive to put things into context. Saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. If my argument hasn't been clear to now, here it is: LRT is necessary, but should only be rolled out as far so as to not exacerbate the sprawl problem. Where these proverbial boundaries are should really be left up to the experts. I'm not debating that Edmonton requires more LRT so much as I am arguing for construction that promotes more urban infill, greater efficincy of moving people from one location to another via LRT and fits into the longer term plans we should have to really curb our sprawl problem. If we don't get a handle on this now, it will only become more and more inefficient and expensive. It could be an extremely costly mistake.

codeman9669
11-06-2007, 01:58 PM
/\ It is my understanding that the role of public transit is to move people in the city. The goal is to attract as many people as possible to use it. This is accomplished by making it efficient and useful. If people will use LRT, why is there any question???

It is NOT the job of public transit to mitigate or reduce sprawl - that is the job of the city planning department (or whoever issues building permits for new subdivisions!)

I also question your comment about "artificial" ridership. If the people are there, how is anything artificial. These park and ride facilities were designed with this ridership in mind...! If people drive to the LRT station, and then hop on the train - isnt this still better than them driving all the way to work and back?

I do see what you are saying, and it even made me stop and think - hmm...interesting point. HOWEVER, there is nothing convincing enough stated that leads me to believe anything worng is being done. Now, if we were looking to extend the LRT line 15 km outside of habitated areas, that would be a different story.

highlander
11-06-2007, 02:25 PM
Is the density really there to support such a mode of Providing Park & ride areas artificially raises the amount of people that would normally take the LRT. So long as a Park & ride is available, from say less than 30 minutes away by vehicle, people will continue to make the choice to drive and then hop a train. I don't necessarily have a problem with Park & ride systems, however there is a point at which the parking lots really do become way too large. We should really be striving moreso for efficiency rather than "apparent" convenience all the time.




It should be pretty easy to deal with excessive P&R demand by charging for parking, at least during peak times.

McBoo
11-06-2007, 04:27 PM
Conversely areas in Canada where mass habitation makes more sense considering the above are Southern Alberta, PEI, Southern Nova Scotia, Coastal New Brunswick, Southern Quebec, Southern Alberta, Southwest and parts of interior BC etc.

Much of the habitation that has occurred in Canada has tended to reflect sensible climactic and regional choice through preference. In this case preference makes sense.

Would this be the Southern Alberta (twice no less) where government can issue no more water licenses because there is no more water to spare? Or do you favour mass inter-basin water transfers?

sweetcrude
11-06-2007, 04:28 PM
It should be pretty easy to deal with excessive P&R demand by charging for parking, at least during peak times.

Agree 100%. The difficulty is that this hasn't been happening (...not that I know of anyways), and I doubt is seriously being considered either. I wish it were being considered though.

RichardS
11-06-2007, 07:26 PM
The inner city dweller is not the owner of LRT, only the most efficient user of transit.

I'd argue that too...it is more like our neighborhoods are designed poorly, and that one could plan better....

ChrisD
11-06-2007, 08:08 PM
Yes, I would argue that in some instances having LRT in suburban areas actually promotes sprawl. I believe there is definitely a fine balancing act here and I'm not blind to the fact that it doesn't promote sprawl in other instances. However, it's because there exists this dichotomy that special attention be paid when making these sorts of decisions. It's no surprise that both Edmonton and Calgary have a problem with sprawl. This is known as our population density in both cities leaves much to be desired. That being said, the situation is what it is. The only example I would offer is the experience I had while living in Calgary for a couple of years... Well, maybe highlander has a more succinct explanation (see below).

Your entire logic is dependant on whether Edmonton can accommodate 'growth' within its built-up / mature neighbourhoods. Fact is that it can't...and nor are there any North American or European examples of where this has occured. There are a number of factors supporting my claim as to why the majority of our cities cannot accommodate new residents within their built-up environment ~ infrastructure constraints (transportation, engineering services) market / consumer demand, land use plans & policies, zoning bylaws, political-will, etc.

Does LRT promote sprawl? Debatable. On the contrary, one could ask if it was it ever designed to prevent it? IMO, the purpose of an LRT or any other mode of transit is to get people out of their cars and take them to their destination in a safe and efficient manner. An alternative, that's all.

sweetcrude
12-06-2007, 12:03 AM
Your entire logic is dependant on whether Edmonton can accommodate 'growth' within its built-up / mature neighbourhoods. Fact is that it can't...and nor are there any North American or European examples of where this has occured. There are a number of factors supporting my claim as to why the majority of our cities cannot accommodate new residents within their built-up environment ~ infrastructure constraints (transportation, engineering services) market / consumer demand, land use plans & policies, zoning bylaws, political-will, etc.

Since when did this become a "fact" as you say? I would say that it's your conjecture, but by no means is it a "fact". Come on now.

I'm really not certain as to the usage of the word "cannot" around these here parts. Do you really believe that it's absolutely impossible to accomodate new residents within the space currently inhabited by our existing "mature neighborhoods"? You've admitted as much that it's a function of political will. Exactly. So what you're describing as an impossibility could turn on a dime if Edmontonians actually had a change in the way they think about things. In my world "constraints" do not equal impossibilities.



Does LRT promote sprawl? Debatable.

I've admitted as much in my previous responses. It is debatable. It's the basis of the point I'm trying to impart. I'd also say though that the question is too broad in nature. Each LRT extension plan should be explored to really see if it may be posing more of a problem that it is providing a solution. I think that's a fair question to ask.



On the contrary, one could ask if it was it ever designed to prevent it?

Was the intent of LRT ever to prevent sprawl? In part, yes. I'd say that is correct. Of course it wouldn't be the only thing to prevent it, but it would certainly be a contributor in its prevention if designed well.



IMO, the purpose of an LRT or any other mode of transit is to get people out of their cars and take them to their destination in a safe and efficient manner. An alternative, that's all.

I'd agree that this is the designed purpose as well, however, reality is potentially altogether different. If it's actually a true alternative for people then there isn't much of a debate, the LRT is necessary and will be a much more efficient mode of transport than cars. Yet, I still harbor doubts as to whether LRT is a true alternative mode of transport if people have to drive to use it.

Ideally, the LRT would be available to everyone within a several block radius giving citizens a true transportation alternative, but this isn't what's being proposed. For that reason alone the discussion of how far the LRT is being extended and the time frame for doing so has merit. I'd like to live in a city where not having a personal vehicle was actually possible and not extremely incovenient at the same time. I can only hope.

Medwards
12-06-2007, 09:15 AM
[quote=ChrisD]
Ideally, the LRT would be available to everyone within a several block radius giving citizens a true transportation alternative, but this isn't what's being proposed. For that reason alone the discussion of how far the LRT is being extended and the time frame for doing so has merit. I'd like to live in a city where not having a personal vehicle was actually possible and not extremely incovenient at the same time. I can only hope.

So how do you hope to achieve this by limiting growth of LRT to inner areas?

LRT should be available to all, and should (eventually) be pushed out to all areas of the city (within reason)

sweetcrude
12-06-2007, 12:22 PM
Ideally, the LRT would be available to everyone within a several block radius giving citizens a true transportation alternative, but this isn't what's being proposed. For that reason alone the discussion of how far the LRT is being extended and the time frame for doing so has merit. I'd like to live in a city where not having a personal vehicle was actually possible and not extremely incovenient at the same time. I can only hope.

So how do you hope to achieve this by limiting growth of LRT to inner areas?

LRT should be available to all, and should (eventually) be pushed out to all areas of the city (within reason)

I would agree. Eventually it should be rolled out to all. All I'm really going after is what you're going after as well with the "within reason" comment. Yeah. Exactly.

Maybe I'm a little gun shy about extending the LRT as fas as it has been proposed because there is some possibility that it may cause more headache than it's really worth. I also say this within the context of some of the potential changes that could be occurring over the coming decades.

What I'm not proposing is limiting growth of LRT to inner areas. For the most part, population density is high enough to support extending the LRT out this far. Maybe even a bit farther.

I guess my comparable is literally watching the Calgary CTrain system being overextended than necessary and meanwhile causing a myriad of other problems, both minor and fairly significant. Frankly, I'm not as interested in the problems Calgary is having as I'm an Edmontonian and focus on this place instead. Calgary is aware of their problems and are likely assigning experts to combat them. However, we should probably collect learnings that other municipalities have encountered when developing our own plans. Probably a good practice.

I don't have any doubts that we have experts on our end developing the plans for the LRT, yet I think it's healthy to actually examine these plans within a broader context as well. With some of the projected changes coming on an international scale over the coming decades, the way we think about conventional items may not be so conventional anymore.

JayBee
13-06-2007, 07:13 PM
Preemptively I want to say I don't want to hijack this thread.

For me, this WBRT thing would all hinge on what kind of fuel it uses. Diesel busses replacing cars does save a certain amount of CO2, but is de facto more harmful to health than all the cars it would replace, if the replaced cars were running gasoline. Furthermore the noise (and smell) are worse than all but the most irresponsible self repressed motorbikers. I don't think that will encourage maximised usage of transit at all.

WEM and West Edmonton, if you ever want LRT, I highly suggest you insist on electric transit now, before Diesel BRT becomes entrenched.

---
Replacement:
Edmonton is not an outpost. It is and always will be at worst a major transportation node between Asia and Eastern North America. Or perhaps worse in other ways, an absolutely critical node in the world's energy economy for the next few decades at least. Additionally it remains an extremely logical location for an intercontinental air hub. The fact that it is also a splendid place to live with its parks and culture however is what draws me back.

Saying Edmonton is a remote outpost completely ignores the pipelines, the rail lines, the Yellowhead, and the simple existence of population bodies in the East or West. It is no more an outpost than Toronto or Chicago or even Athens.

Furthermore, high density urban living in Edmonton obviously makes as much improvement in sustainability as it would anywhere else. There are rather simple laws of physics here, which I'm not really an expert in but I believe are something like:

(1) "it takes more energy to move things longer distances in terrestrial reality"

(2) "A city requires less land if it's average citizen uses less land, ceteris paribus."

Go figure.

Also, believe it or not, the weather is mild enough for the construction of fairly conventional net-zero buildings. I believe it would become more of a challenge within the arctic circle, but Edmonton is 2 degrees South of Glasgow, actually.

Would you mind divulging what you would consider a superior location for a city? I note you mentioned the Lethbridge region...

Replacement
14-06-2007, 09:00 PM
\
---
Replacement:
Edmonton is not an outpost. It is and always will be at worst a major transportation node between Asia and Eastern North America. Or perhaps worse in other ways, an absolutely critical node in the world's energy economy for the next few decades at least. Additionally it remains an extremely logical location for an intercontinental air hub. The fact that it is also a splendid place to live with its parks and culture however is what draws me back.

Saying Edmonton is a remote outpost completely ignores the pipelines, the rail lines, the Yellowhead, and the simple existence of population bodies in the East or West. It is no more an outpost than Toronto or Chicago or even Athens.

Furthermore, high density urban living in Edmonton obviously makes as much improvement in sustainability as it would anywhere else. There are rather simple laws of physics here, which I'm not really an expert in but I believe are something like:

(1) "it takes more energy to move things longer distances in terrestrial reality"

(2) "A city requires less land if it's average citizen uses less land, ceteris paribus."

Go figure.

Also, believe it or not, the weather is mild enough for the construction of fairly conventional net-zero buildings. I believe it would become more of a challenge within the arctic circle, but Edmonton is 2 degrees South of Glasgow, actually.

Would you mind divulging what you would consider a superior location for a city? I note you mentioned the Lethbridge region...Did you even read my post? My post was not "evaluative" and yet I suspect you feel I am dissing the city with this.

I am merely responding to the half baked notions espoused in the "end of suburbia"that was referenced by Sweetcrude. Thats the starting point of my response here and one made specific to geoclimactic human habitation consideration. Pipelines, rail lines, highways infrastructure are superflous to my argument but will be of no use anyway when our petrochemical reliance is tapped out. Additionally pay attention to the massive development of the kicking horse pass through to Golden and what this will likely mean in the short-term for the longer yellowhead..

You entirely miss out that the "high density urban" concentration in Edmonton is as reliant on fossil fuels as any of its surrounding suburbs due to Edmonton being a far inland region with no freight friendly waterway and being highly dependent on heating and utility supplies.

I could make the argument and others have that urban dwellars may actually be MORE able to help themselves in the post fossil fuels apocalypse by having land and being closer to larger sources of arable land, firewood, and being able to sustain pre-auto "horsepower" :-D


Your comparsion to Glascow conveniently ignores the Scottish city being effected by coastal moderation in climate, requiring less heating, and having freight access to ocean port.

Odd in anycase that you use a historical ship building mecca to debunk the import of coastal vs far inland regions and logical global habitation.

Finally how you can consider Edmonton no more a populated outpost than Toronto or Chicago?
Take a glance at a population density map sometime and see if Greater Edmonton doesn't resemble a far off island. Conversely both Toronto and Chicago look part of massive population corridors.

JayBee
15-06-2007, 04:57 AM
Moderators, could we move these posts to a new thread with a title like "Can Edmonton weather the fuel appocalypse" or whatever?



\
Would you mind divulging what you would consider a superior location for a city? I note you mentioned the Lethbridge region...Did you even read my post? My post was not "evaluative" and yet I suspect you feel I am dissing the city with this.
Not really, but I notice you're avoiding the question anyway... ;)

Seriously though, I think I'm responding legitimately to things you've said here and elsewhere.


I am merely responding to the half baked notions espoused in the "end of suburbia"that was referenced by Sweetcrude. Thats the starting point of my response here and one made specific to geoclimactic human habitation consideration. Pipelines, rail lines, highways infrastructure are superflous to my argument but will be of no use anyway when our petrochemical reliance is tapped out. Additionally pay attention to the massive development of the kicking horse pass through to Golden and what this will likely mean in the short-term for the longer yellowhead..

Uh huh, another Southern Alberta reference noted...

But to your point, pay attention to the massive development on the Prince Rupert line and what that will likely mean in the "short term" for any route from Vancouver or South of it.


You entirely miss out that the "high density urban" concentration in Edmonton is as reliant on fossil fuels as any of its surrounding suburbs due to Edmonton being a far inland region with no freight friendly waterway and being highly dependent on heating and utility supplies.

You entirely miss out that high density urban areas such as New York or Tokyo still need to get food from somewhere. Even as agriculture may by neccessity become less energy intensive, it's not going to stop people needing to eat, and Edmonton is conveniently situated in the midst of the best soil on Earth. Another permanent advantage.


I could make the argument and others have that urban dwellars may actually be MORE able to help themselves in the post fossil fuels apocalypse by having land and being closer to larger sources of arable land, firewood, and being able to sustain pre-auto "horsepower" :-D

I'll give you that, although I actually suspect our bigger problem will be related to global warming, rather than fuel shortage anyway. I know this is oversimplifying things, but a solar powered solar panel factory or two is very doable already.


Your comparsion to Glascow conveniently ignores the Scottish city being effected by coastal moderation in climate, requiring less heating, and having freight access to ocean port.

Despite being several hundered kilometers North of Winnepeg, Edmonton's winters are distinctly less cold because?

And besides, the availability of sunshine in Edmonton is what's important. Again, conveniently, Edmonton stands out as the sunniest major population centre in Canada. And again, due to the intermediacy of the Rockies from the Pacific, that also seems as permanent an advantage as one could concieve.

I'd go so far as to say I'd bet Edmonton's Net Zero houses would be cheaper and easier to build than Glasgows if you shoot for today's comfort levels. Being next to the coast in many cases means having overcast skies. Certainly that's the case with Glasgow. On the other hand, they do have wind power, but it's far, far easier to heat with solar. And for other power needs, solar panels are more predictable and longer lasting than wind equipment anyway.

Somewhere in here I have to mention that actually coal is not expected to run out quite so quickly either...

As for ocean freight, I refer you to notice Prince Rupert again...


Odd in anycase that you use a historical ship building mecca to debunk the import of coastal vs far inland regions and logical global habitation.

It's not odd at all. Both are stops between major trading areas. Athens was between Asia and Europe, Edmonton is between Asia and North America. Water isn't the only sustainable transportation surface.


Finally how you can consider Edmonton no more a populated outpost than Toronto or Chicago?
Take a glance at a population density map sometime and see if Greater Edmonton doesn't resemble a far off island. Conversely both Toronto and Chicago look part of massive population corridors.

Take a glance at a geographical map, Edmonton is on the way from Asia to Eastern North America, Toronto and Chicago are on the way from Europe to their respective rests of North America.

What you're missing is that things follow routes, like the Silk Road, the North Saskatchewan, and CN Rail and intersecting routes (like CP with CN at Edmonton) or mode changes (like Canamex, Enbridge, TCP, with CN at Edmonton) usually result in population centres. You're right that the pipelines have a time horizon, but what you're arguing is that the massive population of Eastern North America would have no reason to trade with the massive population of East Asia.

If you're off the beaten path, well, then you're off. If you're on the beaten path, it doesn't take much to stop the caravan for a few seconds to barter your grain for some carpets or whatever. You have your work cut out to prove CN's Prince Rupert line doesn't have a raison d'etre.

I reiterate, Edmonton can be at least as sustainable as any of the four cities I mentioned.

Shall we discuss Lethbridge now?

Replacement
15-06-2007, 11:21 AM
Moderators, could we move these posts to a new thread with a title like "Can Edmonton weather the fuel appocalypse" or whatever?



\
Would you mind divulging what you would consider a superior location for a city? I note you mentioned the Lethbridge region...Did you even read my post? My post was not "evaluative" and yet I suspect you feel I am dissing the city with this.
Not really, but I notice you're avoiding the question anyway... ;)

Seriously though, I think I'm responding legitimately to things you've said here and elsewhere.


I am merely responding to the half baked notions espoused in the "end of suburbia"that was referenced by Sweetcrude. Thats the starting point of my response here and one made specific to geoclimactic human habitation consideration. Pipelines, rail lines, highways infrastructure are superflous to my argument but will be of no use anyway when our petrochemical reliance is tapped out. Additionally pay attention to the massive development of the kicking horse pass through to Golden and what this will likely mean in the short-term for the longer yellowhead..

Uh huh, another Southern Alberta reference noted...

But to your point, pay attention to the massive development on the Prince Rupert line and what that will likely mean in the "short term" for any route from Vancouver or South of it.


You entirely miss out that the "high density urban" concentration in Edmonton is as reliant on fossil fuels as any of its surrounding suburbs due to Edmonton being a far inland region with no freight friendly waterway and being highly dependent on heating and utility supplies.

You entirely miss out that high density urban areas such as New York or Tokyo still need to get food from somewhere. Even as agriculture may by neccessity become less energy intensive, it's not going to stop people needing to eat, and Edmonton is conveniently situated in the midst of the best soil on Earth. Another permanent advantage.


I could make the argument and others have that urban dwellars may actually be MORE able to help themselves in the post fossil fuels apocalypse by having land and being closer to larger sources of arable land, firewood, and being able to sustain pre-auto "horsepower" :-D

I'll give you that, although I actually suspect our bigger problem will be related to global warming, rather than fuel shortage anyway. I know this is oversimplifying things, but a solar powered solar panel factory or two is very doable already.


Your comparsion to Glascow conveniently ignores the Scottish city being effected by coastal moderation in climate, requiring less heating, and having freight access to ocean port.

Despite being several hundered kilometers North of Winnepeg, Edmonton's winters are distinctly less cold because?

And besides, the availability of sunshine in Edmonton is what's important. Again, conveniently, Edmonton stands out as the sunniest major population centre in Canada. And again, due to the intermediacy of the Rockies from the Pacific, that also seems as permanent an advantage as one could concieve.

I'd go so far as to say I'd bet Edmonton's Net Zero houses would be cheaper and easier to build than Glasgows if you shoot for today's comfort levels. Being next to the coast in many cases means having overcast skies. Certainly that's the case with Glasgow. On the other hand, they do have wind power, but it's far, far easier to heat with solar. And for other power needs, solar panels are more predictable and longer lasting than wind equipment anyway.

Somewhere in here I have to mention that actually coal is not expected to run out quite so quickly either...

As for ocean freight, I refer you to notice Prince Rupert again...


Odd in anycase that you use a historical ship building mecca to debunk the import of coastal vs far inland regions and logical global habitation.

It's not odd at all. Both are stops between major trading areas. Athens was between Asia and Europe, Edmonton is between Asia and North America. Water isn't the only sustainable transportation surface.


Finally how you can consider Edmonton no more a populated outpost than Toronto or Chicago?
Take a glance at a population density map sometime and see if Greater Edmonton doesn't resemble a far off island. Conversely both Toronto and Chicago look part of massive population corridors.

Take a glance at a geographical map, Edmonton is on the way from Asia to Eastern North America, Toronto and Chicago are on the way from Europe to their respective rests of North America.

What you're missing is that things follow routes, like the Silk Road, the North Saskatchewan, and CN Rail and intersecting routes (like CP with CN at Edmonton) or mode changes (like Canamex, Enbridge, TCP, with CN at Edmonton) usually result in population centres. You're right that the pipelines have a time horizon, but what you're arguing is that the massive population of Eastern North America would have no reason to trade with the massive population of East Asia.

If you're off the beaten path, well, then you're off. If you're on the beaten path, it doesn't take much to stop the caravan for a few seconds to barter your grain for some carpets or whatever. You have your work cut out to prove CN's Prince Rupert line doesn't have a raison d'etre.

I reiterate, Edmonton can be at least as sustainable as any of the four cities I mentioned.

Shall we discuss Lethbridge now?You continue to want to view my comments as some sort of dig at edmonton relative to say a farther south alberta location like say Lethbridge. My pov is only geoclimactic. Why the presumption otherwise?

In any case Lethbridge, again, would require less heating costs with it being a warmer clime.

Year round average high temperature of 12.35C in Lethbridge compared to 9 in Edmonton. But even more significantly Januarys with an average low of only -7C as compared to a frigid -16C in Edmonton.

Lethbridge is noted to have a much more moderated climate. Best winters anywhere on Alberta prairies.


As far as Prince Rubert some ambitious current plans but this, let us remember is a port that has gone from 14 to 4 million metric tonnes in recent years and doesn't even crack the top ten ports in Canada in shipped tonnes.

Greater Vancouver area for instance ships in the neighborhood of 86 million metric tonnes/yr as a point of comparision. So which again is the superior shipping option?

But aside from that note that the 19 port authorities in Canada are either coastal or inland with a significant waterway. Additionally note that colse to 90% of global shipping is of the coastal-seaway variety despite your "water isn't the only way" attempt.. The reason for this is that global seatrade is vastly more cost efficient than inland freight. But more importantly shipping from say Shanghai to Vancouver involves ONLY the ocean freight whereas inland shipping to Edmonton involves ADDITIONAL inland freight either way tacked on adding a significant freight inefficiency.

I'm curious why above you list the North Saskatchewan in context of a trade vehicle or route. its been nothing of the sort for well over a hundred years.

As for your solar energy argument enlighten me with how much current power grid contribution in Canada comes from solar energy. Solar energy is still prohibitively expensive and why it is still not a serious energy contributor. Additionally solar power tends to grid contribute at times when kwh are least in critical demand(air conditioning need not apply) thereby further limiting cost efficacy.

Climactically I have no idea how you figure that zero cost energy is easier to obtain in Edmonton than Glascow but note you use the disclaimer "todays comfort levels"

Alternately put on a sweater, an extra blanket and live in Glascow. Central heating and significant cost for said heating is a MUST in Edmonton.

Finally you mention New York Harbor which I should note is one of the most blessed inland waterways conceivable. The greater NY harbor geographically offers easy access and climactically still, deep water for the largest container vessels. commerce had other claims on Manhatten which is a whole other topic but a perfect harbor nonetheless.
As far as where food could come from any coastal area or coastal area supplied by inland waterway. You forget that post fossil fuel era. transport could easily return to air energy via the simplistic sail. No such easy contrivance yet designed for inland freight use short of the aforementioned horsepower..

Awaiting your designs :-D

JayBee
16-06-2007, 09:58 AM
You continue to want to view my comments as some sort of dig at edmonton relative to say a farther south alberta location like say Lethbridge. My pov is only geoclimactic. Why the presumption otherwise?
I don't see your comments as a dig at Edmonton, I just see them as ridiculous how anyone would suggest that Edmonton is not sustainable yet Lethbridge is, as if they were worlds apart. This is no slight against Lethbridge, BTW.


In any case Lethbridge, again, would require less heating costs with it being a warmer clime.

Year round average high temperature of 12.35C in Lethbridge compared to 9 in Edmonton. But even more significantly Januarys with an average low of only -7C as compared to a frigid -16C in Edmonton.
Your figures are different than the ones provided by Environment Canada. Where did you get them?


Lethbridge is noted to have a much more moderated climate. Best winters anywhere on Alberta prairies.
Your use of the word "best" would be hard to, uh, prove. According to Environment Canada, Lethbridge's minimum average January temperature is a mere 2.2 degrees higher than Edmonton's. This doesn't take into account wind chill. From my own direct experience I'd estimate that Lethbridge had wind over 90 km/h at least once a month, while again, Edmonton is coincidentally the least windy populated area in Canada.

Your use of the word "moderated" is easily disproved. Lethbridge's temperature standard deviation is simply larger than Edmonton's.

Radically less wind, more sunshine, more reliable snow, and a longer growing season than Lethbridge doesn't really fit with your view of Edmonton's climate. Yet all are confirmable facts. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you've never even been to Edmonton.


As far as Prince Rubert some ambitious current plans but this, let us remember is a port that has gone from 14 to 4 million metric tonnes in recent years and doesn't even crack the top ten ports in Canada in shipped tonnes.

Greater Vancouver area for instance ships in the neighborhood of 86 million metric tonnes/yr as a point of comparision. So which again is the superior shipping option?
When you say "superior" do you mean "better" or "currently larger"?

Van is the latter, but P.R. is 36 hours closer to Asia and vastly less congested. I don't suppose you'd see any advantage there...


But aside from that note that the 19 port authorities in Canada are either coastal or inland with a significant waterway. Additionally note that colse to 90% of global shipping is of the coastal-seaway variety despite your "water isn't the only way" attempt.. The reason for this is that global seatrade is vastly more cost efficient than inland freight. But more importantly shipping from say Shanghai to Vancouver involves ONLY the ocean freight whereas inland shipping to Edmonton involves ADDITIONAL inland freight either way tacked on adding a significant freight inefficiency.
Really, so how's Shanghai to New York for comparitive efficiency?

I defy you to adjust that 90% to per GDP per capita, by the way.


I'm curious why above you list the North Saskatchewan in context of a trade vehicle or route. its been nothing of the sort for well over a hundred years.
Uh, because the North Saskatchewan's proximity to the Athabasca is the whole reason Edmonton is where it is, maybe? Or because it's perfectly illustrative of my point that transportation routes are what determine a location's economic sustainability maybe?


As for your solar energy argument enlighten me with how much current power grid contribution in Canada comes from solar energy.
You mean now, or after your "fuel appocalypse"?


Solar energy is still prohibitively expensive and why it is still not a serious energy contributor.
On the contrary, most large office buildings already gain a substantial amount of solar heating (which according to you is Edmonton's giant weakness in the first place) and if they were designed for it, wouldn't do so much over heating in the summers.

For solar electric, you're slightly more accurate, but which situation do you want to compare against? With cheap fossil fuels or without them? Either pick one or the other, or at least mention when you're leaping from assumption to assumption.


Additionally solar power tends to grid contribute at times when kwh are least in critical demand(air conditioning need not apply) thereby further limiting cost efficacy.
Both heat and electricity can be stored. I'm sure you're aware of this.
(I hope somebody appreciates how hard I'm trying to keep a reign on sarcasm here.)


Climactically I have no idea how you figure that zero cost energy is easier to obtain in Edmonton than Glascow but note you use the disclaimer "todays comfort levels"
As you appear to be more familiar with Lethbridge than Edmonton right now, you might not be aware of this:

http://www.riverdalenetzero.ca/index.html

Humouring more, it boils down to this: heating is the number one energy cost currently associated with inhabited structures in Canada or Scotland.

Can you heat with wind?

Yes, if you first convert it to electricity at a windmill, transport the electricity to the inhabited structure, and then convert it again to heat (and note that this is greatly simplified.)

Can you heat with sunshine?

Yes, if you open the curtains.


Alternately put on a sweater, an extra blanket and live in Glascow. Central heating and significant cost for said heating is a MUST in Edmonton.
No it isn't. See above link. And even without that level of technology, what's stopping you from putting on a down parka and using a down sleeping bag in Edmonton? (Other than the fact that you've never been there, of course.)


Finally you mention New York Harbor which I should note is one of the most blessed inland waterways conceivable. The greater NY harbor geographically offers easy access and climactically still, deep water for the largest container vessels. commerce had other claims on Manhatten which is a whole other topic but a perfect harbor nonetheless.
This is getting even more absurd. If you're going to say New York has natural deep water ports, you might as well say Edmonton could still use the North Saskatchewan for the bulk of it's shipping.

You're just plain wrong. New York doesn't have natural deep water.


As far as where food could come from any coastal area or coastal area supplied by inland waterway. You forget that post fossil fuel era. transport could easily return to air energy via the simplistic sail. No such easy contrivance yet designed for inland freight use short of the aforementioned horsepower..
You forget, among other things, that the coastal areas of the world cannot provide enough food for the coastal populations of the world.


Awaiting your designs :-D

I honestly don't have enough time to point out all the gaps in both your logic and your information.

I reiterate, Edmonton can be as comfortably sustainable as any city discussed here, with or without fossil fuels, notwithstanding economic effects.

Replacement
16-06-2007, 01:49 PM
I honestly don't have enough time to point out all the gaps in both your logic and your information.

I reiterate, Edmonton can be as comfortably sustainable as any city discussed here, with or without fossil fuels, notwithstanding economic effects.

You don't think you've had any gaps in logic? Trust me we are both thinking the same thing right about now. Your choice however whether you want to engage in reasonable discourse over any of this or have it go south or just end it.

FTR I'm born and raised in Edmonton. Lived here all my life. Got the through the roof heating and utility bills to prove it. Again not sure why the presumption otherwise.

A few points: You take me to task on observance that Solar power tends to get generated at times where its least in critical demand on the grid. Yet in the same post you invent reasons why wind power for heat would be less feasible in Glascow. Of course homeowners in Glascow could grid contribute just as easily as if Edmontonians did with solar power. But Storage/transfer of energy in either case takes similar money and infrastructure and neither is directly transferable unless I'm to understand that I should be heating my house in January in Edmonton by opening the blinds.. The key point however is that less energy differential is required in Glascow to go from ambient dwelling temperature to desired temperature during the winter. Heat requirement in Edmonton through any means of generation is much greater.

If I mention grid contribution is it not immediately evident I am fully aware of energy collection and storage? Was your response really necessary?

As far as East NA East Asia traderoutes panama canal an option?

Prince rupert. You were the one trumping it as the terminus of a major route and saying I'd have a hard time proving otherwise and I promptly did quoting relevant #'s that point to an entirely different use picture. In short you're wrong.

As far as "Van is the latter, but P.R. is 36 hours closer to Asia and vastly less congested. I don't suppose you'd see any advantage there... " Why should I if global commerce doesn't.. Vancouver harbor is the clear winner and a well situated city btw geotectonics notwithstanding.

New york Harbor vs North Saskatchewan. Understand context of deep being used in reference to navigable. I can run aground quite easily on the North Saskatchewan in my canoe. Manhattan natural harbor on the other hand was easily navigable by the largest ships of the time when it was established as the key trade harbor in the new world. No accident that. It was considered a perfect harbor due to ease of navigation, shelter from the Atlantic ocean, extensive peninsula and mooring area, a peninsula, Manhattan, that was easily accessed, serviced as well by inland waterway, and is close to sea level throughout offering easiest of land transport possibilities including rail.

You wrote: "You forget, among other things, that the coastal areas of the world cannot provide enough food for the coastal populations of the world."

No, I didn't forget and if you read more carefully would've seen: "As far as where food could come from any coastal area or coastal area supplied by inland waterway."
for instance Amazon, Mississippi, St Laurence, etc.

Where did I state that Edmonton has no ACCESS to solar potential? I did argue its not being used due to prohibitive expense. Am I wrong? You are displaying a tendency to reinvent what the other poster is saying to then *rebuke* what wasn't stated in the first place. This only serves to hilite your difficulty with effective rebuttal of my ACTUAL statements and in so doing limits yours. Please keep to what is being stated and direct quote if you must.

I'm fully aware of the riverdale netzero btw. I do read papers here. Also aware that this project is the exception rather than the rule. Theres been some other engineer homeowners that have gone this route as well but the prohibitive cost and components required limit feasibility(I'm aware of one homeowner here who spent 250K to achieve netzero) and therein lies some of the rub. The amount of extra manufacturing, insulation, solar panels, lights, converters, cells, required to approach netzero and energy required isn't always factored into the equation. Its my own opinion that a real netzero formula starts off with a large negative amount that reflects the added energy required to manufacture and supply the added components.
In anycase this does nothing to counter my question about how widespread solar power/heating use is here.

The Lethbridge area has warmer winters and slightly colder summers than Edmonton. This is a more moderated or moderate climate than Edmonton understanding that the definition of moderate climate is "little variation over the year"
In this sense more moderated climate than Edmonton is a fair claim. I'll kick my own butt for prefacing it with "much" and recant that. Different sources all seem to be giving different #'s on Lethbridge January temps. My bad and admit being off on that one. Still, less heating and electricity would be required in Lethbridge region.

JayBee
17-06-2007, 10:56 AM
A few points: You take me to task on observance that Solar power tends to get generated at times where its least in critical demand on the grid. Yet in the same post you invent reasons why wind power for heat would be less feasible in Glascow. Of course homeowners in Glascow could grid contribute just as easily as if Edmontonians did with solar power. But Storage/transfer of energy in either case takes similar money and infrastructure and neither is directly transferable unless I'm to understand that I should be heating my house in January in Edmonton by opening the blinds.. The key point however is that less energy differential is required in Glascow to go from ambient dwelling temperature to desired temperature during the winter. Heat requirement in Edmonton through any means of generation is much greater.
You're correct that Edmonton is colder than Glasgow in winter.

I'm simply saying that sunshine basically is already heat, and Edmonton has an abundance of it, even in winter. With radical and advanced whiz-bang techno gadgetry, such as windows on the south side of buildings and insulation in the walls and ceiling, concrete ceilings and a ceiling fan, one can take advantage of sunshine for heating. It's not expensive, it's not difficult, and it will do a lot more in Edmonton than it would in, for example, Glasgow.


If I mention grid contribution is it not immediately evident I am fully aware of energy collection and storage? Was your response really necessary?
I don't honestly know now. Does a grid connection imply storage? I was thinking something more like batteries or conversion into Hydrogen or something.


As far as East NA East Asia traderoutes panama canal an option?
Okay, so Shanghai to Edmonton via Prince Rupert vs. Shanghai to New York via Panama. I'm waiting for your conclusion.


Prince rupert. You were the one trumping it as the terminus of a major route and saying I'd have a hard time proving otherwise and I promptly did quoting relevant #'s that point to an entirely different use picture. In short you're wrong.

As far as "Van is the latter, but P.R. is 36 hours closer to Asia and vastly less congested. I don't suppose you'd see any advantage there... " Why should I if global commerce doesn't.. Vancouver harbor is the clear winner and a well situated city btw geotectonics notwithstanding.
Well fine, explain why global commerce keeps bidding up CN's share prices relative to BNSF or CP or whatever southern line competitor you want to look at.

Or if you want, look at the growth rates at Prince Rupert from 1990 to 2020 compared to anywhere else. Global commerce can only speak so much through a bottleneck, which is finally widening.


New york Harbor vs North Saskatchewan. Understand context of deep being used in reference to navigable. I can run aground quite easily on the North Saskatchewan in my canoe. Manhattan natural harbor on the other hand was easily navigable by the largest ships of the time when it was established as the key trade harbor in the new world. No accident that. It was considered a perfect harbor due to ease of navigation, shelter from the Atlantic ocean, extensive peninsula and mooring area, a peninsula, Manhattan, that was easily accessed, serviced as well by inland waterway, and is close to sea level throughout offering easiest of land transport possibilities including rail.
Is New York a natural deep water harbour? No.

Can Edmonton rely solely on the North Saskatchewan for shipping? No.

I was just pointing out that your assertion was just as much "no" as any other "no".


You wrote: "You forget, among other things, that the coastal areas of the world cannot provide enough food for the coastal populations of the world."

No, I didn't forget and if you read more carefully would've seen: "As far as where food could come from any coastal area or coastal area supplied by inland waterway."
for instance Amazon, Mississippi, St Laurence, etc.
Yeah, you did say that. Now tell me how much farmland is within walking distance of the Missisipi. And then tell me where I can find a study that compares riverboating up the Missisipi favourably to rail transit anyway. Both require fuel, and unless you're planning to dredge canal networks to each individual farm across the U.S. and the Lethbridge region, you're still going to need surface transport for any substantial amount of food collection, a'la the grain terminal at Thunder Bay.


Where did I state that Edmonton has no ACCESS to solar potential? I did argue its not being used due to prohibitive expense. Am I wrong?
Whether by design or by accident, any building in the Northern Hemisphere with a South facing window is using solar energy for heating. So yeah, unless you're constraining solar energy only to photovoltaic panels, you're wrong. But I said that before too. (I could even go further, and mention that biofuels and even fossil fuels are ultimately solar powered as well, but I wouldn't say that's necessary or appropriate in this debate)

And I'm not aware where you said Edmonton has no access to solar potential either.

Furthermore, I implied that without cheap fossil fuels as an alternative, even photovoltaic would not seem so expensive.


You are displaying a tendency to reinvent what the other poster is saying to then *rebuke* what wasn't stated in the first place. This only serves to hilite your difficulty with effective rebuttal of my ACTUAL statements and in so doing limits yours. Please keep to what is being stated and direct quote if you must.
I do direct quote, and I don't put words in peoples mouths. That's why each of my replies has your direct quotes immediately preceding my responses where I feel it's important. Whether my writing is effective probably depends on the reader and how much of what kind of beverage I've drunk. About the only thing I've tried to read between the lines in your post is how you came to the conclusion that Lethbridge has so much better chances at urban sustainability than Edmonton.


I'm fully aware of the riverdale netzero btw. I do read papers here. Also aware that this project is the exception rather than the rule. Theres been some other engineer homeowners that have gone this route as well but the prohibitive cost and components required limit feasibility(I'm aware of one homeowner here who spent 250K to achieve netzero) and therein lies some of the rub. The amount of extra manufacturing, insulation, solar panels, lights, converters, cells, required to approach netzero and energy required isn't always factored into the equation. Its my own opinion that a real netzero formula starts off with a large negative amount that reflects the added energy required to manufacture and supply the added components.
In anycase this does nothing to counter my question about how widespread solar power/heating use is here.

"How widespread is solar power or heating?" need I reiterate, was answered with "As widespread as South facing windows..." (Originally it was answered with something about office towers which I'll admit was less clear, but the same point.)

What Riverdale NetZero proved you wrong on was the "need" for a conventional central heating system in Edmonton.

Is it more expensive than doing nothing at all? Sortof, but that kinda depends on how much fuel you don't need to pay for up to the end of the structure's life. If you want a clue for how to do effective, cheap, controllable passive solar, check out "Bara" (architect) on Wikipedia.


The Lethbridge area has warmer winters and slightly colder summers than Edmonton. This is a more moderated or moderate climate than Edmonton understanding that the definition of moderate climate is "little variation over the year"
In this sense more moderated climate than Edmonton is a fair claim. I'll kick my own butt for prefacing it with "much" and recant that. Different sources all seem to be giving different #'s on Lethbridge January temps. My bad and admit being off on that one.

Lethbridge doesn't have colder summers than Edmonton. They're definitely hotter. The difference is the daily, weekly, annually more volitile temperature swings. Hence I said it is actually less moderated.

That is also the cause for Lethbridge's shorter effective growing season. Frosts come earlier, but are followed by warmer weather. That's also one of the reasons the area has almost no trees. The snow melts and then leaves the roots exposed to the next cold burst.

You were bang on with Glasgow though. ;)

DebraW
17-06-2007, 12:56 PM
Fare for bus plan $25M-plus
Rapid transit proposal targets 20% ridership hike

Josh Wingrove, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Sunday, June 17, 2007

Earlier this month the city unveiled its bus rapid transit proposal to create a continuous, bus-only express lane each way between the west end and downtown.

The plan would have curb lanes along 87th Avenue, 156th Street, Stony Plain Road and 104th Avenue closed to cars. Existing buses would use them, but so would new express buses that stop at large stations every 20 blocks or so, like a train.

A similar express route was announced last fall between the west end and the new LRT extension. Planners say the routes would cut travel time on transit and remove buses from traffic congestion.

The first stage would cost about $25 million and take three years, creating most of the bus lanes and expanding the Jasper Place transit centre. Stage two calls for buying and demolishing 15 homes and seven businesses, all in an effort to give west-end residents a quick link to downtown.

Transit staff expect weekday ridership to jump 20 per cent.

"It's about making transit better in comparison to the car," said Hassan Shaheen of ISL Engineering, the firm contracted by the city to put together the proposed route.

[email protected]

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

DebraW
17-06-2007, 01:00 PM
Growth drives express bus plan

Josh Wingrove, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Sunday, June 17, 2007

When planners at a recent community meeting finished explaining their proposal for an express bus route from the west end to downtown, Connie Marshall's hand was first in the air.

"I am so upset by what seems to be such unimaginative thinking," said the retired teacher. "Our community is under siege. It really is."

Marshall, at Grovenor elementary school to hear ISL Engineering present its vision for the proposed express bus corridor, fears increased traffic will divide the neighbourhood and endanger schoolchildren crossing the road.

Proposal to designate bus-only curb lanes along key corridors envisions dramatic shift in west-end traffic patterns.

The bus rapid transit proposal would designate bus-only lanes along 87th Avenue, 156th Street, Stony Plain Road and 104th Avenue, leaving several of those thoroughfares with just one lane of automobile traffic in each direction.

The result will be a dramatic shift in traffic to other roadways.

"We can't go forward growing this city thinking we can keep driving and keep having buses congested in that traffic. We've got to get out of that mode," said Hassan Shaheen of ISL Engineering. "The idea is to provide a viable and competitive alternative to car travel in the city."

The proposed route was chosen over other major corridors, after consideration of factors like travel time, ridership, cost and relocation plans for transit centres and Grant MacEwan's west campus. 163rd Street, for example, was ruled out as a bus corridor because of two high schools, Jasper Place and St. Francis Xavier, where parents and students are often pulled over on curb lanes.

Also ruled out were 107th and 111th avenues. The big concern is that both were too far north for rapid transit service, but Shaheen also said planners prefer to run buses where homes face the road, saying backyards are used more often than front yards.

Bill Eadie, chairman of Edmonton's Mature Neighbourhoods Action Group representing 36 community leagues, called the new plan a waste of time.

He wants to see the city focus on west-end LRT expansion plans and expand its existing Route 100 bus service, which carries about 2,500 passengers a day.

"The transportation department should advance the LRT," Eadie said. "They're going to do it anyway."

Brice Stephenson, the city's manager of transportation planning, said any future LRT expansion would not replace the bus rapid transit route, which itself won't replace the Route 100 line. Each is part of a plan to help the west end deal with the skyrocketing number of cars.

"We're trying to plan for the long term, to see that transit isn't affected by traffic congestion," he said.

Long-term gain, however, may create some short-term pain.

As many as 15 houses and seven businesses will be demolished on Stony Plain Road between 142nd and 149th streets.

Stephenson said the city's preference is properties such as empty lots, which would have minimal impact on residents, but he could not guarantee homes won't be affected.

The stretch includes relatively new condos, a small strip mall and St. Paul's Anglican Church. Less than 10 years ago, the city knocked down nine homes along the stretch in a $1.4-million partial straightening of Stony Plain Road.

Other parts of the proposal are sure to be popular.

The controversial traffic circle at 142nd Street and 107th Avenue would be replaced with regular traffic lights. The intersection boasted the dubious distinction of having the second-highest number of accidents in 2006, at 91.

West-end councillors say the rapid transit system is overdue.

"What I'm hearing is, it's about time we started to serve the needs of the west in regards to high speed transit," said Ward 1 Coun. Karen Leibovici, who attended the meeting at Grovenor school. "This is the first step."

Despite the potential for neighbourhood disruption, many Stony Plain Road-area residents at the meeting gave the plan a thumbs-up.

"It's nice to see the city is putting in the effort for some alternatives to cars," said Grovenor resident Tyler Dolly, 26.

"Anything we can do to get people out of the vehicles, then certainly let's do it," added Bill MacDonald, 65, a longtime transit user who lives in Glenora.

The bus rapid transit system will operate like the LRT, with stops at large, well-lit stations every 20 blocks or so. Buses will run at a 10-minute frequency or better, planners say. Long-term plans include the purchase of new, extra-long accordion-style buses with low emissions technology and quieter engines.

The entire proposal is still up for public review, with a hearing scheduled for July 10 with the city's transportation and public works committee.

The July meeting may be the last chance for those opposing the plan, such as Marshall and Eadie, to be heard.

Marshall, for one, would rather see the buses go along 107th Avenue, a wider route with backyards, not driveways, along it. She rejects the city's explanation that the longer route would require more buses, and more money, to maintain a prompt service schedule.

"If you're coming from Lewis Estates, you won't care if you go around three blocks," Marshall said.

"For the life of me, I can't imagine why they'd recommend Stony Plain Road. They're ruining my community. They really are."

[email protected]

Online: More info at www.edmontonbrt.ca

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

Replacement
18-06-2007, 09:15 AM
Okay, so Shanghai to Edmonton via Prince Rupert vs. Shanghai to New York via Panama. I'm waiting for your conclusion.Why apples and oranges terminus comparison in considering better route?
Given Shanghai-P.R.-Edmonton-New York vs Shanghai-Panama-New York I'd clearly pick the latter.



Or if you want, look at the growth rates at Prince Rupert from 1990 to 2020 compared to anywhere else. Global commerce can only speak so much through a bottleneck, which is finally widening.Unclear what you mean by this. Tonnage went down from 1994-2004 from 14million metric tonnes to 4. Personally i'll wait for any projections to approach reality. Further to this you mention earlier that P.R. is closer to asia and offers 36hrs advantage over Vancouver. not so sure about this as the PR highway route (identical to the train route) takes a good 20hrs or more to travel while Edm-Van via yellowhead, Coquihalla takes 12hrs. Prince rupert is also a full 300km farther from edmonton via route making freight more expensive as inland freight is much more expensive/km than ocean shipping.





Yeah, you did say that. Now tell me how much farmland is within walking distance of the Missisipi. And then tell me where I can find a study that compares riverboating up the Missisipi favourably to rail transit anyway. Both require fuel, and unless you're planning to dredge canal networks to each individual farm across the U.S. and the Lethbridge region, you're still going to need surface transport for any substantial amount of food collection, a'la the grain terminal at Thunder Bay.Major inland waterways typically are surrounded by arable land.



"How widespread is solar power or heating?" need I reiterate, was answered with "As widespread as South facing windows..." (Originally it was answered with something about office towers which I'll admit was less clear, but the same point.)When I ask how widespread solar powe heating is I'm not asking how commonly does solar power contribute a negligible amount to overall Edmonton heating through the presence of windows I'm asking how often it would be the only or primary or at least significant source of heating.


What Riverdale NetZero proved you wrong on was the "need" for a conventional central heating system in Edmonton.Did nothing of the sort. Riverdale Netzero is entirely dependent on fossil fuel source to manufacture componentry required to achieve netzero. its also achived on a cost/manufacturing scale that is unlikely to be widespread at any time.


Is it more expensive than doing nothing at all? Sortof, but that kinda depends on how much fuel you don't need to pay for up to the end of the structure's life. If you want a clue for how to do effective, cheap, controllable passive solar, check out "Bara" (architect) on Wikipedia.Spending anywhere in the neighborhood of +100,000 is not going to lend any cost advantage even with minimal interest rates at any point in time. A related distortion is the presumption that this netzero *investment* ends up being netzero for any significant length of time. Check out the structure in two decades when theres leaks and when frames, barriers, insulation, solar panels, converters, wiring, etc needs to be repaired/replaced. I can add that theres possible significant other "cabin" difficulties with netzero structures that achieve through such a degree of airtight design.
Just as a side note, from a netzero formula POV, what amount of door openings/closings, window openings, etc during winter are allowed in these netzero calculations? Or is that significant heat loss even trulyand realistically being considered.

ps I am interested in possibilities of solar power and have looked into feasibility for personal use for quite some time. Not trying to be resistant or negative about its use but I think I'm being realistic given current available product, options.
I do think the riverdale netzero has gone overboard on the insulation factor vs supply arrangement. In your opinion would you increase solar power capability in such a structure and rely a little less on optimized insulation and overall seal?

DebraW
19-06-2007, 06:36 AM
Express bus route badly needed
But Stony Plain Road not the right choice

Paula Simons, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, June 19, 2007

I'm all in favour of a high-speed busway connecting west Edmonton to the downtown.

Anybody who makes that daily commute knows traffic from the west end to the city core is a mess of congestion and bottlenecks that seems to get worse every year. Realistically, the city can't build an LRT line to the west end fast enough to address our current problems. Dedicated express bus lanes, filled with dedicated express buses, with stations every 20 blocks, sound like a pretty good stop-gap measure.

GET IT RIGHT

But let's be certain we're routing the buses the right way.

Right now, the city's transportation department is strongly committed to running the buses down Stony Plain Road, from the downtown through to 156th Street. From there, the buses would go south to 87th Avenue. And if you were an alien mathematician plotting a route from your spaceship high above, without reference to Edmonton's human geography, that route might make sense. Down here, the view is quite different.

Stony Plain Road is one of Edmonton's oldest thoroughfares, the original main street of the village of Jasper Place, the pioneer cart route out of the city. It can be narrow and twisty, especially between 136th Street and 156th Street. It includes an aging, skinny bridge over the Groat Ravine that links 129th Street with Connaught Drive.

NOT AN EXPRESSWAY

Stony was never designed as a modern expressway. It winds its way through three of the city's oldest single-family residential neighbourhoods: Groat Estates, Glenora and Grovenor, then through pedestrian-scaled Jasper Place.

Turning Stony into a high-speed busway would come with huge social costs.

Express bus lanes would slice scenic, historic communities in half. There are three elementary schools and a junior high near this route. It's hard enough for school kids to cross Stony Plain Road in safety now -- adding express buses won't make it any easier.

And having to wait for hundreds of kids to cross the street each morning and afternoon is bound to slow down those extra-fast buses.

Retrofitting Stony Plain Road won't come cheap, either. Because of the curves in the old road alignment, the city would likely have to expropriate some adjoining properties to straighten things out. The Canora and Grovenor neighbourhoods have struggled for years to attract high-quality infill development to revitalize their communities. And they've succeeded, attracting handsome new housing and business developments. Anything that might put those projects at risk would be tragic. And while the city says it will do its best to protect those new infill developments, it's offering no guarantees.

But there's another option: 107th Avenue, three blocks to the north.

In the first place, it's already a big, wide road. In my experience, it's also the fastest route from the downtown to the west end. It was built to carry large volumes of traffic. Because of that, it has far fewer lights and intersections, and has fewer houses and businesses facing it. There would be room along much of 107th for dedicated bus lanes, and car traffic besides. And since 107th Avenue connects with St. Albert Trail and Groat Road, there would be the potential to connect the busline to the north end and the university.

Take the busway down 107th in the west end and you could spur welcome infill redevelopment in Canora, High Park, Britannia and Mayfield, neighbourhoods ripe for urban renewal. Run it east -- jogging it south at 116th Street to 106th Avenue to avoid cutting up the Avenue of Nations-- and you hook up with the North Edge, the node of high-rise condos and apartments that was supposed to fill in the old industrial lands behind MacEwan College. If you want people to ride public transit, you have to put the busway where there's potential for that kind of high-density development. Now at this point, I must declare something of a conflict of interest. I live on 105th Avenue, about half a block in from Stony Plain Road. So this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Yet ironically, I think I'd personally be better off with bus rapid transit on Stony Plain Road. The city is projecting that the busway would cut car traffic on Stony by about one third. Potentially, the road noise we get might be reduced, especially if the city invested in quieter new buses. The Stony Plain route would make it slightly easier for my family to use public transit. And since the city is promising to include a bike lane as part of the busway project, the busway could make it that much easier for us to ride downtown.

But this isn't about my personal convenience. The 107th Avenue route just makes more sense for the city at large.

The city transportation department says the Stony Plain route will be faster, that going up to 107th will waste commuter time. But though we want the BRT to be as fast and convenient as possible, speed can't be the only factor our planners consider. The vitality of the mature neighbourhoods west of the downtown matters, too. Our city needs a vibrant core, to balance its rapid suburban growth. In the interest of serving commuters on the city's western outskirts, let's not sacrifice the integrity of our city's urban heart.

On Saturday, I introduced you to works of art nominated by our readers as the best and worst public sculpture in the city. To see more of their nominations, please go to www.edmontonjournal.com and click on Photo Galleries. (I forgot to add that on Saturday.)

[email protected]

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

DebraW
19-06-2007, 07:15 AM
Is bus transit plan still best route?

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, June 19, 2007

It's never easy finding a way to bring the traffic from expanding suburbs into downtown. But congestion on west-end streets is building up and it's time to make some tough decisions.

The City of Edmonton opted to look at bus rapid transit -- BRT -- several years ago, rather than waiting for Light Rail expansion. The next leg of the slow-growing LRT is slated to go north, which means LRT service to the west is even further down the road, if you'll forgive the all-too-appropriate pun.

The proposed BRT route, released to the public last week, runs east along 87th Avenue by Meadowlark Mall, then north on 156th Street, then east on Stony Plain Road into downtown. Meanwhile, roads in other neighbourhoods, including parts of 107th Avenue to the north, will be widened to handle the traffic displaced when exclusive bus lanes are established on the main corridor.

The complicated redesign of traffic patterns must be a engineer's dream, with all the various upgrades to roads and interchanges. But it seems like a

lot of disruption along several major roads for limited, medium-term gain in transit service -- though the public hearing slated for next month may provide a better picture of the service benefits.

It's also unclear at this stage how many houses will have to be torn down along Stony Plain Road to accommodate the exclusive bus lanes.

The transportation department took the most direct route, Stony Plain Road to 104th Avenue, to give commuters the shortest ride, and that's an important goal.

But how much consideration was given to community and land-use issues on that route? Like an LRT, the exclusive bus route can have a positive impact on land use, spurring new development and higher density. If that's the case, which communities are most likely to benefit from some redevelopment? Old Glenora, sandwiched between 102nd and 104th avenues, is hardly a prime candidate. But further north, along 107th, there's more potential for revitalization.

Coun. Michael Phair admits that no route will please everyone, but says choices have to be made. A BRT on 107th Avenue doesn't jibe with the north LRT line that will go to NAIT.

He wonders, however, if simply beefing up the No. 100 express bus service to West Edmonton Mall would be a better alternative, given that the LRT will have to be built at some point.

That raises a bigger question.

In the two years since the BRT consultation started in west-end com-

munities, the battle to slow climate change has taken a major leap forward.

Reducing greenhouse gases is now mandatory under federal and provincial government policy. Next month, for instance, large industrial emitters like EPCOR will start paying $15 per tonne of CO2 to the provincial government, a form of carbon tax, if they exceed the target of a 12-per-cent reduction in emissions this year.

Why, given that change in the policy environment, is the city moving ahead with yet another fleet of GHG-emitting buses?

West-end Coun. Linda Sloan says Edmonton and Calgary should make the case for a "strategic investment" from the federal and provincial governments for LRT expansions which are far more environmentally friendly. "If we knew we had the long-term funding, we could just do the LRT," said Sloan, adding it is costing about $600 million to move the LRT south from the University of Alberta Hospital to Century Park.

That makes a lot of sense, given both levels of government are running surpluses these days and both cities are among the fastest-growing in the country.

In these difficult decisions, Edmonton council has to balance the need for better transit into downtown with protection for older neighbourhoods that bear the brunt of the increased traffic.

It's not clear the engineers have managed to strike that balance with this plan.

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

Sonic Death Monkey
19-06-2007, 11:28 AM
Can someone splice out the wordy urban sprawl debate into another thread already?

And Paula makes a compelling argument for putting the BRT on 107 Ave.

Medwards
19-06-2007, 11:36 AM
Can someone splice out the wordy urban sprawl debate into another thread already?

And Paula makes a compelling argument for putting the BRT on 107 Ave.

I always wished that 104ave turned into 107 ave near the graveyard...so that 104 ave downtown turns into 107 ave going west.... as one continous road (I realize this no longer practical, I was thinking this before the development of Oliver Square West)

newfangled
19-06-2007, 11:50 AM
Stony Plain Road has been rundown for as long as I can remember, and probably for as long as I've been alive.

However, it is a pedestrian scaled street that at least has the potential for a revitalization (although that may be in some distant future).

I don't think that turning it into a concrete transit corridor would help that, and I don't see it as a good thing.

I would personally rather see vehicle traffic increased on Stony Plain (get rid of the stupid on-street parking between 149th and 156th) and have transit shifted away from it onto 100th or 107th.

For me the worst part of Stony Plain Road is around 156th, which is where it feels like a nearly industrial wasteland, and the unattractiveness of that block is at least partly due to transit's influence. I'd rather not give them the chance to do more harm.

m0nkyman
19-06-2007, 12:05 PM
In Ottawa the 118 was a double length bus that travelled normal roads. Let's try running some bigger busses with more frequency before demanding that we close lanes and reconfigure streets. And lobby harder for federal and provincial funding for rapid transit. We need NLRT and WLRT built last year.

microbus
19-06-2007, 01:10 PM
newfangled, I don't agree with your notion that the unattractiveness is at least partially due to transit being there.
Other transit centres don't cause that problem.
And Jasper Place Transit Centre was the first one in the city, and was actually built before Jasper Place became a part of Edmonton.
It was nice around there for several decades. That strip mall between 155 St and 156 St used to have a nice IGA store, a bank, and a few other decent stores in it.
The problem is more to do with several other factors, some of which would be urban sprawl, consumer's shopping choices, and just plain old-fashioned evolution of society.
That area used to share its west-end shopping title with Meadowlark Mall. The the city started growing west. First, West Edmonton Mall, which eventually caused Meadowlark Mall to come close to closing. Then big box stores in the west Stony Plain Rd corridor. Stores around 156 St could not compete anymore, so they closed their doors. Then some of the population moves further west. Then other stores move in, but several aren't the 'best' of stores, so to speak.
You know the rest of it.......

Medwards
19-06-2007, 01:13 PM
Just built the LRT from health sciences directly west onto 87 avenue in the west end. Have it go straight out to Lewis Estates.

Lewis Estates <-->WEM <-->MIS<--> Meadowlark <-->142 <-->Zoo <-->HealthSciences

RichardS
19-06-2007, 02:33 PM
142 will never have a stop. The plan is for one near 149 if i recall correctly. Making this align to the zoo, well, that's tunnelling... :)

The issue with this route - even though it looks good on paper - is the river valley span and the opposition you will get from the area.

However, if they would actually put this out to tender and BUILD this thing, I'd lobby for it and try to appease my old neighborhood!

Medwards
19-06-2007, 03:20 PM
142 will never have a stop. The plan is for one near 149 if i recall correctly. Making this align to the zoo, well, that's tunnelling... :)

The issue with this route - even though it looks good on paper - is the river valley span and the opposition you will get from the area.

However, if they would actually put this out to tender and BUILD this thing, I'd lobby for it and try to appease my old neighborhood!

Well, If 149 st for a station, fine... and the zoo station will just be in the park - cause the zoo is further to the south... (expansion please)

Maybe we could have tunnel start in the middle of the traffic circle on 142, and tunnel into the rivervalley until its clear of most of the houses? (expensive yes, but calms some of the opposition)

And besides, Wouldn't Katz want a LRT near his house so he can quickly ride to the Arena has his Oilers ??? :lol:

m0nkyman
19-06-2007, 03:34 PM
I'm still holding out for 107th Ave as the WLRT route. It hits the Finning/Brick etc. employment node, as well as neighbourhoods that have people more likely to use Transit....

Then run a BRT across the southwest, WEM to Century Park.

Medwards
19-06-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm still holding out for 107th Ave as the WLRT route. It hits the Finning/Brick etc. employment node, as well as neighbourhoods that have people more likely to use Transit....

Then run a BRT across the southwest, WEM to Century Park.

well if it comes down to 107thave / 170th st that will be fairly close to my work...

m0nkyman
19-06-2007, 04:13 PM
well if it comes down to 107thave / 170th st that will be fairly close to my work...
You and a lot of other people.

LRT isn't just about speed. It's also about tying together as many locations as is feasible. Both departure and destination nodes.

RichardS
19-06-2007, 04:28 PM
PSSST...

the original alignment was 107 - 156 -87th

newfangled
19-06-2007, 04:47 PM
PSSST...

the original alignment was 107 - 156 -87th

I like it.

But I would prefer 107-149-100. And then undo the 170th widening (that's going on right now. Oops), and put the train in instead.

I just think that 100th is an entirely pointless road right now, and that those 4 lanes could be used so much more effectively.

And I would really like LRT to be near to Stony Plain Road (for it's eventual revitalization circa. 2136) but not so near that it becomes a sea of concrete.

87th would be great too, but if you're not connecting until 156th then you've already missed a huge chunk of popluation who might take transit (basically everyone west of 142 and north of 87th). And for connections, it's much easier to bus to WEM from 87 than it is from 100/stony plain/107th.

m0nkyman
19-06-2007, 05:30 PM
PSSST...

the original alignment was 107 - 156 -87th

that'd do nicely. Hits everything that needs to be hit close enough. And also some nice potential TOD's.

Edmonton PRT
19-06-2007, 11:32 PM
BRT, LRT and Buses are all the same.

You are treated like sheep. Stuffed into a metal can with no room to sit and being jolted with every stop and start. Waiting for transit, the schedules, the routes and transferring several times to get to where you need to go on time and not be late for work.


The ultimate plans for the West LRT for the next 30 years is for only three stations; Meadowlark, WEM and Lewis Estates. That means that the entire west end will be forced to transfer from buses to a single LRT line and then fend for themselves once they get downtown.

What we need is better transit. Better than owning a car. Available 24 hours a day, on demand, dedicated routes that network and personalized service.

Transit planners don't want you to know about an alternative to conventional public transit because it is automated.

It's called Personal Rapid Transit or PRT and it has been around since the 1970's. It is used at the University of West Virginia for over 30 years moving 63 million riders, there was a successful demonstration track in Germany called CabinTaxi and there are several manufactures with more modern systems being built and tested in Sweden, the USA and at Heathrow Airport.

Here are some images and links to more information.

http://www.atsltd.co.uk/images/pics/25.jpg

http://www.edmontonprt.com/taxi%202000%20bike%20logo.jpg

Cabin Taxi video on Google Video
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1231529784152873514&q=cabintaxi&total=1&start=0&num=20&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

http://www.edmontonprt.com/

Edmontonians for PRT

Medwards
20-06-2007, 08:20 AM
BRT, LRT and Buses are all the same.


http://www.edmontonprt.com/

Edmontonians for PRT

I'd take the LRT over this. Thanks, but no thanks. You website also appears to be down or the domain has expired...

bagould
20-06-2007, 08:56 AM
At best, PRT is a mesh of elevated freeways. Less width and higher efficiency, yes, but elevated freeways nonetheless. It's also an all-or-nothing proposition. Small installations gain nothing over conventional transit (except for the blissful ignorance of the plight of your fellow man). At least elevated freeways are compatible with what we have now.

Your post is essentially a troll, and I'm not going to argue it in detail.

ike9126
20-06-2007, 11:36 AM
I think you should try posting something not related to PRT for a change.

Sonic Death Monkey
20-06-2007, 11:42 AM
He's a one-issue poster with vested interest.

Edmonton PRT
20-06-2007, 11:33 PM
BRT, LRT and Buses are all the same.


http://www.edmontonprt.com/

Edmontonians for PRT

I'd take the LRT over this. Thanks, but no thanks. You website also appears to be down or the domain has expired...

Sorry, not our fault. The server was down a couple of times today. The IT guy phoned me to tell me it is fixed now.

DanC
21-06-2007, 01:14 AM
BRT, LRT and Buses are all the same.


http://www.edmontonprt.com/

Edmontonians for PRT

I'd take the LRT over this. Thanks, but no thanks. You website also appears to be down or the domain has expired...

Sorry, not our fault. The server was down a couple of times today. The IT guy phoned me to tell me it is fixed now.
This website isn't a propaganda platform...these one issue posters are getting to me.

Medwards
21-06-2007, 08:08 AM
BRT, LRT and Buses are all the same.


http://www.edmontonprt.com/

Edmontonians for PRT

I'd take the LRT over this. Thanks, but no thanks. You website also appears to be down or the domain has expired...

Sorry, not our fault. The server was down a couple of times today. The IT guy phoned me to tell me it is fixed now.
This website isn't a propaganda platform...these one issue posters are getting to me.

Especially this idea - its like a car, but doesn't travel on roads - ??? Tons of infrastructure needed.
This idea might be good for disneyland, or some university campuses, but never a city wide idea.

LRT Please

Also, I hope the site owner of edmontonprt.com has a licence or rights to use some of there images... I see many copywrite infringements over there... (Not to mention spelling mistakes and grammatical errors)

travis
21-06-2007, 09:18 AM
I think you should try posting something not related to PRT for a change.

Please no. Remember what happened when afairlady did that.

lux
21-06-2007, 07:39 PM
For what it is worth it is hard for me to see how PRT is off-topic when discussing the pros and CONS of BRT.

I like variety too and I know I have a loudmouth opinion about everything (which is correct, by the way) but everyone has an agenda on here.

I'm out to get BRT canned. This "BRT" news is just another excuse for the city to announce discussions intended to bring about a consultative process to evaluate the possibilities of defining stakeholder needs with respect to parameters to be evaluated to ensure maximising the inclusiveness and the effectiveness of the potential solutions for our BLA BLA BLA.

Buy some darned busses and triple the frequency on key routes. Then I will care.

microbus
21-06-2007, 08:29 PM
It's easy enough to buy the buses, but right now ETS is
short-staffed. They need bus drivers and heavy duty
mechanics.
The City would buy 100 buses if ETS wanted them to. But
you'd still need 200 drivers for them, and 3 or 4 mechanics
to maintain and repair them.

Edmonton PRT
21-06-2007, 10:50 PM
I'm out to get BRT canned. This "BRT" news is just another excuse for the city to announce discussions intended to bring about a consultative process to evaluate the possibilities of defining stakeholder needs with respect to parameters to be evaluated to ensure maximising the inclusiveness and the effectiveness of the potential solutions for our BLA BLA BLA.

Buy some darned busses and triple the frequency on key routes. Then I will care.

Good points. Why spend $25M on Stage 1 BRT and $50M-75M+ on Stage 2 when a better express bus service is cheaper and more adaptable. The new diesels are less polluting and would be excellent for express routes.

In San Francisco they have bought dozens of new low floor electric trolleys with better electrical "thingys" on the top that don't disconnect from the grid at every corner like the older ETS GM Trolleys. The whole time I was there I didn't see one trolley disabled once.

ike9126
22-06-2007, 12:12 AM
BRT seems like a good idea if you plan it before you build your community, and have enough space for it in the first place. I dont think itsright for the area theyre trying to push it into now, I agree that more and better express service would be better.
Also...does anyone know why there is 3 bus stops on one block around the university transit centre?

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2007, 12:52 AM
It's easy enough to buy the buses, but right now ETS is
short-staffed. They need bus drivers and heavy duty
mechanics.
The City would buy 100 buses if ETS wanted them to. But
you'd still need 200 drivers for them, and 3 or 4 mechanics
to maintain and repair them.

Staffing costs are about 70% to 80% of the operating costs of public transit systems, drivers, mechanics & administration.

Buses, BRT and LRT all need drivers and mechanics so how are they going to find extra staff for the West BRT proposal?

Vancouver has two automated systems including Skytrain and Millennium. Why hasn't any studies included cost/benefit studies on these vs. BRT and LRT in the HST studies?

RichardS
22-06-2007, 01:00 AM
Probably because:

a) the resto f the network is either road or LRT gauge rail...so a third mode is not desired.

b) union agreements

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2007, 01:21 AM
Probably because:

a) the resto f the network is either road or LRT gauge rail...so a third mode is not desired.

b) union agreements

So the type of system that is proposed is not what people want or need but rather just to accommodate the union?

Not surprising, I was told this by an Edmonton Councilor two years ago that they were threatened by a union official that if they didn't get their way on a certain matter, "they would shut the city down"

Therefore all the transit users must conform to the whims of unions rather than good transit and getting the best value to the tax payer? No wonder the transit system sucks 16.5% of the entire 2007 city budget, more than Police, Ambulance and Fire combined. They also use 57% of the entire transportation budget, leaving only 43% for roads. I am pro-union but the concept of funding mega HST projects for the benefit of the union just blows my mind.

Most transit systems are owned by civic entities with an entrenched administration that is not innovative nor accountable to the end user. There is no interest to improve the service of a monopoly. In monopolistic bureaucracies, the only incentive is to grow the bureaucracy. When they are not delivering, the answer is always the same - we need more money to solve the problems.

microbus
22-06-2007, 07:12 AM
Richard gave two reasons... a and b.
And 'a' should be conceived as closer to reasoning.
Because the transit union does not make the decisions on
capital projects at all. I don't believe they even have
representation on those committees.

As for the budget, I knew Transit's budget was higher than others.
But higher than Police, Ambulance and Fire combined?

DebraW
22-06-2007, 07:34 AM
The true cost of BRT

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Friday, June 22, 2007

Re: "Growth drives express bus plan: Proposal to designate bus-only curb lanes along key corridors envisions dramatic shift in west-end traffic patterns," The Journal, June 17.

The cost of the bus rapid transit (BRT) plan for west Edmonton has been quoted as $23 million to $25 million, in 2006 dollars.

If you add the costs of expropriating 15 homes at an estimated $500,000 each, plus seven businesses at $500,000 each plus 20 or so BRT buses at $650,000 each, that totals $24 million.

This does not include the legal costs of expropriations, demolition, road widening, new intersections, transit stops, traffic lights, ticketing systems, and computer hardware and software. These additional costs are possibly larger than the entire proposed budget.

City planners repetitively propose projects for city council to approve without full disclosure of the costs of the entire project. Once council is then committed to the project, the other costs are then proposed, leaving council without the option to decline further funding.

It is time for the transit planners to open the process to greater public scrutiny before a single house is razed along Stony Plain Road.

To quote Ian Ford of the Advanced Transit Association, "Planning is where democracy meets engineering.

"If we are going to get really good at planning transportation, we have to be good at both democracy and engineering, and do them separately.

"Democracy sets up the parameters and goals and engineering finds the best way to meet all the goals within the parameters. Democracy is general participation; engineering is expert participation.

"We should not let experts define the problem or let the general public design the solution."

Eric Baumgartner, member,

Advanced Transit Association, and founder, Edmontonians for PRT (Personal Rapid Transit)


© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

DebraW
22-06-2007, 07:35 AM
BRT should use 107 Ave.

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Friday, June 22, 2007

Paula Simons's thoughtful column on the BRT route ("Express bus route badly needed: But Stony Plain Road not the right choice," June 19) is a breath of fresh air in the ongoing debate about the city's transportation needs.

When we are short of affordable housing, what sense is there in destroying 15 houses plus a few businesses in an area that has been a viable location for 50 years or more?

As Simons notes, "turning Stony into a high-speed busway would come with huge social costs."

The area between Stony Plain Road and 107th Avenue on the West side of 149th Street was cleared of a number of homes years ago as part of the first talk about a ring road. This was never completed, but the land would easily facilitate an extra lane or two for express buses to get north to 107th Avenue, which has been waiting for years to fulfil its potential.

As Simons writes, "if you were an alien mathematician plotting a route from your spaceship high above, that route (Stony Plain Road) might make sense. Down here the view is much different."

Perhaps the city's transportation department should come down to Earth with their lofty plans, for a change.

Kenneth G. Thomas, Edmonton

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

--30--

bagould
22-06-2007, 08:13 AM
In San Francisco they have bought dozens of new low floor electric trolleys with better electrical "thingys" on the top that don't disconnect from the grid at every corner like the older ETS GM Trolleys. The whole time I was there I didn't see one trolley disabled once.

I made a point of riding them when I was there in February; not just for the novelty, but because they were simply better. Quiet, awesome acceleration, they even had automated LED displays that announced the next stop. The only time one left the wires was when another guy jumped on the back and pulled the trolley poles down so the bus could make a detour. And I'm not talking coasting down the hill, this thing was running on batteries. Took the guy on the back all of two seconds to get it connected again.

I can see why people don't like the ETS trolleys, but those things are basically bumper cars.

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2007, 11:13 AM
Richard gave two reasons... a and b.
And 'a' should be conceived as closer to reasoning.
Because the transit union does not make the decisions on
capital projects at all. I don't believe they even have
representation on those committees.

As for the budget, I knew Transit's budget was higher than others.
But higher than Police, Ambulance and Fire combined?


I'll address the A issue about "a) the resto f the network is either road or LRT gauge rail...so a third mode is not desired."

When LRT was built in 1978 we added a new mode of transport. What reasoning is there not to add another? Isn't BRT with dedicated lanes a special exclusive road? That is a third mode to me. Speaking of the Northeast LRT route, if it hadn't been built then and the railroad right-of-way was still there I would be the first in line to promote the NE route. It only cost $75M from Belvedere to Jasper Ave. including all that tunneling and huge stations at Churchill and Central. Made sense then, makes sense now. The new West, North and Millwoods routes suggested just do not make sense and will not have significant ridership to offset the $4+ Billion cost.

Regarding the 2007 Budget, you can look at the numbers yourself at http://www.edmonton.ca/CityGov/Budget/budget_2007/approved_budget_in_brief07.pdf

I am a little off because the approved budget is slightly different than the approved budget.

Police $239.1M
Fire & Ambulance $153.1M
Total P&F&A = $392.3M

ETS (Bus, LRT & DATS) $391.9M

Off by $0.4M or 0.1%

The reason why transit is so high is they have 2,000 employees.

Medwards
22-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Richard gave two reasons... a and b.
And 'a' should be conceived as closer to reasoning.
Because the transit union does not make the decisions on
capital projects at all. I don't believe they even have
representation on those committees.

As for the budget, I knew Transit's budget was higher than others.
But higher than Police, Ambulance and Fire combined?


I'll address the A issue about "a) the resto f the network is either road or LRT gauge rail...so a third mode is not desired."

When LRT was built in 1978 we added a new mode of transport. What reasoning is there not to add another? Isn't BRT with dedicated lanes a special exclusive road? That is a third mode to me. Speaking of the Northeast LRT route, if it hadn't been built then and the railroad right-of-way was still there I would be the first in line to promote the NE route. It only cost $75M from Belvedere to Jasper Ave. including all that tunneling and huge stations at Churchill and Central. Made sense then, makes sense now. The new West, North and Millwoods routes suggested just do not make sense and will not have significant ridership to offset the $4+ Billion cost.

Regarding the 2007 Budget, you can look at the numbers yourself at http://www.edmonton.ca/CityGov/Budget/budget_2007/approved_budget_in_brief07.pdf

I am a little off because the approved budget is slightly different than the approved budget.

Police $239.1M
Fire & Ambulance $153.1M
Total P&F&A = $392.3M

ETS (Bus, LRT & DATS) $391.9M

Off by $0.4M or 0.1%

The reason why transit is so high is they have 2,000 employees.

So what your saying is that we should increase the budget even more to include this crazy scheme of PRT? So now we build roads, LRT and now PRT

We already have personal rapid transit - its called a car. Its there for me when I leave work, and it waits all night for me to drive me to work...

Edmonton does not need a new type of network. It needs to improve its existing network(s)

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2007, 12:18 PM
So what your saying is that we should increase the budget even more to include this crazy scheme of PRT? So now we build roads, LRT and now PRT



No, not at all. I don't car if this City never builds PRT. I just don't want the City to spend $4B of our money on a system that will cost way more by the time it is finished and not be economically sustainable while the engineering company that proposed AND built the system, laughs all the way to the bank.

Once it is built we won't be able to afford to run it. The City Auditor stated in his May 2006 report that by 2010, only 3 years away, it will cost the city $6.34 to supply each ride and by 2020 it will cost at least $9.37. If by then we have 100M riders annually it will cost the city $937M just to run the system, not including new capital transit costs.

The 1991 study "The Edmonton LRT: An Appropriate Choice?" from Dr. Douglas West and John Kim at the UofA Economics Dept. stated that they could find no evidence of a cost/benefit report for the proposal and "is stunningly incomplete in its analysis" and that "the net benefits of LRT extension are likely to be negative and that lower cost alternatives exist."


I tend to agree with Michael Phair that adding some express buses on the #100 Route could do the same as BRT for a way lower cost. I don't know if it is "the best" and certainly no one in this city has done a compete, short, medium and long term cost/benefit analysis on what is the best way we should go.


When is this city going to have a public conference of transit planners and experts in new technology where we look seriously at the problems facing transit in Edmonton? Let's look at car sharing, van pooling, automated transit, BRT, LRT and bus services that we can afford and helps with the revitalizing of mature neighbourhoods and help reduce urban sprawl.

bagould
22-06-2007, 12:50 PM
No, not at all. I don't car if this City never builds PRT. I just don't want the City to spend $4B of our money on a system that will cost way more by the time it is finished and not be economically sustainable while the engineering company that proposed AND built the system, laughs all the way to the bank.

Wait, are you still talking about PRT? What costs $4 billion exactly? The whole SLRT is sitting around $1 billion. Being that we're in the WBRT thread, I'm going to assume you're talking about that (in which case $4 billion is a ludicrous number, so I'm still unsure).

Do you have any concept of how these things get planned and built? The City paid for a Stantec report, which recommended several high speed transit routes (I use this liberally for the City's definition of BRT, but I digress). The City took the report, decided that they wanted to make BRT to the west end a "priority," and asked for proposals, then selected a different company, ISL in this case, to do the detailed planning. ISL can handle some degree of project management, but from my personal experience it was almost always on the client side. So, ISL isn't building it. If it's tendered like the SLRT there will be a number of construction companies bidding on it. These are all competitive processes, so who exactly is laughing to the bank?

Maybe you're in fact talking about PRT, being that from my experience the systems are all completely proprietary, so we would be tied to one company.


Once it is built we won't be able to afford to run it. The City Auditor stated in his May 2006 report that by 2010, only 3 years away, it will cost the city $6.34 to supply each ride and by 2020 it will cost at least $9.37. If by then we have 100M riders annually it will cost the city $937M just to run the system, not including new capital transit costs.

Guess what? Everything's getting more expensive. If we have 100 million riders in 2020 I will consider that a massive achievement. Newsflash: ETS is inefficient at best (I know, who knew?). That by no means implies that we should just trash the whole thing.


The 1991 study "The Edmonton LRT: An Appropriate Choice?" from Dr. Douglas West and John Kim at the UofA Economics Dept. stated that they could find no evidence of a cost/benefit report for the proposal and "is stunningly incomplete in its analysis" and that "the net benefits of LRT extension are likely to be negative and that lower cost alternatives exist."

Stunningly incomplete on a cost/benefit analysis? The best road cost/benefit analysis you're ever going to get has already been slanted and biased towards the road, if it's even considered any other options. Even "do nothing" isn't given a fair shake.



I tend to agree with Michael Phair that adding some express buses on the #100 Route could do the same as BRT for a way lower cost. I don't know if it is "the best" and certainly no one in this city has done a compete, short, medium and long term cost/benefit analysis on what is the best way we should go.

When is this city going to have a public conference of transit planners and experts in new technology where we look seriously at the problems facing transit in Edmonton? Let's look at car sharing, van pooling, automated transit, BRT, LRT and bus services that we can afford and helps with the revitalizing of mature neighbourhoods and help reduce urban sprawl.

Finally something we can agree on.

Please direct your efforts to bashing road construction (ie 23 Ave) being that you are doing yourself no favours by telling drivers that transit is bad.

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2007, 03:50 PM
Wait, are you still talking about PRT? What costs $4 billion exactly? The whole SLRT is sitting around $1 billion. Being that we're in the WBRT thread, I'm going to assume you're talking about that (in which case $4 billion is a ludicrous number, so I'm still unsure).
No, I said I didn't care if Edmonton never builds PRT. It may not be right for Edmonton but why can't other technologies and other modes be on the table. A special scooter (Vespa) lane might be just what this city needs, heck, you could cover parts of the keep a narrow lane clear all year long. Let's think out of the box...
Sorry, I was speaking of the entire HST proposal at $4B, not just the WBRT. Others on this thread are still talking about skipping WBRT and building WLRT and there are some who consider BRT as a stepping stone to a full LRT route

These are all competitive processes, so who exactly is laughing to the bank?
The engineering companies have a vested interest in proposing mega projects. Do you think a major engineering company is going to propose a better mouse trap solution that costs less?

Maybe you're in fact talking about PRT, being that from my experience the systems are all completely proprietary, so we would be tied to one company.
The Siemens LRT is proprietary I believe. No, I wasn't talking about PRT.

Even "do nothing" isn't given a fair shake.

I agree, let's have everything on the table. Let's here from the public in an open forum to find out what people want.

Edmonton PRT
22-06-2007, 03:59 PM
Finally something we can agree on.

Please direct your efforts to bashing road construction (ie 23 Ave) being that you are doing yourself no favours by telling drivers that transit is bad.

The 23 Ave intersection is a fiasco. What's the issue here. Reading the TRUE's Mission Statement follows everything I believe in especially 'advocate the importance of efficient and cost-effective transit' . Maybe there is more in common between us than meets the eye.

I offer you an olive branch.

highlander
22-06-2007, 09:54 PM
Probably because:

a) the resto f the network is either road or LRT gauge rail...so a third mode is not desired.

b) union agreements

Automated rail transit wouldn't need to be different gauge or mechanicals from LRT. It simply needs grade separation, sensors and controls to eliminate the need for drivers.

m0nkyman
22-06-2007, 10:01 PM
Bored now.

PRT has all the anti social downside of the automobile, and the complete lack of flexibility of an LRT.

It ain't going to happen. It shouldn't happen.

Can we move on now.

dwells
23-06-2007, 07:36 AM
So, what are we trying to accomplish with a BRT or an LRT or even more frequent regular bus service?

It seems to me that the purpose of the service is lost among the many personal agendas that permeate civic politics and this website.

Can we please get back to basics and consider why we need to install a rapid or at least a quicker transit route in the first place. I thought its main purpose is to reduce commuter traffic load and reduce the demands on the road infrastructure by moving people from point A to point B by the most efficient route.

Stony Plain Road is not efficient at any point between 170th Street on the west and 120th Street on the east. It is narrow with many intersections and awkward curves. Even using 100th Avenue does not significantly improve its efficiency.

If our primary focus is to efficiently get people from point A (WEM) to point B (downtown) any intermediate stops should not be a factor in selecting the route.

What we should consider is the number of cross-streets, the safety of intersections, the speed attainable, and the traffic volume affected.

West of Groat Road 107th Avenue is already at nearly limited access status with a 60kph speed limit. East of Groat Road it is hampered by the cemetery and the narrow roadway with many intersections. But the route need not use 107th all the way downtown. It can use 104th Avenue east of 120th Street.

Admittedly, there is a bottleneck between 107th/Groat and 104th/120th but it is outweighed by the efficiency of the rest of the route and it can be easily eliminated.

I suggest the route between WEM and downtown use 170th Street, Mayfield Road, 107th Ave, 124th Street, SPR, and 104th Ave.

This can be done immediately with minimal cost and disruption.

Future improvements could include replacing the traffic circle, widening 107th between Groat and 124th, bus lanes on 124th, and even connecting SPR to 107th alongside Groat.

dwells
23-06-2007, 07:49 AM
Bored now.

PRT has all the anti social downside of the automobile, and the complete lack of flexibility of an LRT.


You forgot its visual appeal.

dwells
23-06-2007, 10:16 AM
Two men are hiking in the woods. One is an office clerk who hikes the river valley every weekend but can't generate any speed for sprinting. The other is an athlete who claims he can do a kilometre in under three minutes.

Suddenly they surprise a bear with cubs on the trail.

The two men look at each other in horror, then the clerk quickly drives the toe of his hiking boot into the athlete's knee and runs away.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that is what our transportation planners are doing to us with their proposed BRT route. Unable to offer a service that is speedier and more convenient than a personal vehicle, they force drivers to take more time under hazardous conditions or to travel longer distances by taking away traffic lanes and rights-of-way.

Almost all of the proposed route is now a four lane, undivided roadway with a 50kph speed limit and little allowance for left turning traffic. The proposal calls for bus-only lanes for most of this route, reducing the allowed traffic area to one lane in each direction and capable of turning every minor intersection into a major bottleneck.

The adopted attitude seems to be: "If you can't beat 'em, cripple 'em."

m0nkyman
23-06-2007, 11:35 AM
It's also a roadway with a large number of businesses fronting it that have business plans that rely on having both a large number of cars passing, but also ease of access into their parking lots. with a single lane each way, how difficult is it going to be to do a left hand turn mid-block into any of these businesses. How hard is it going to be to police people driving in the bus only lane when people need to be in the outside lane to get into the businesses. The more I think about this, the less I like it from a 'building a healthy city' perspective.

It's not faster
There's no TOD potential
It disrupts a major commercial artery of the city
It saturates other arteries which makes eventual LRT more difficult.

Sonic Death Monkey
23-06-2007, 12:22 PM
I suggest the route between WEM and downtown use 170th Street, Mayfield Road, 107th Ave, 124th Street, SPR, and 104th Ave.
I think even if the city chose 107 Ave they would still want to run it down 156 St and then 87 Ave because of the Jasper Place MacEwan campus and Meadowlark Mall.

105 Ave may be an alternative choice instead of 104. 105 Ave is already slated for an LRT route, so may as well make it a road reserved only for public transit just like 7 Ave in downtown Calgary.

m0nkyman
23-06-2007, 01:35 PM
I suggest the route between WEM and downtown use 170th Street, Mayfield Road, 107th Ave, 124th Street, SPR, and 104th Ave.
I think even if the city chose 107 Ave they would still want to run it down 156 St and then 87 Ave because of the Jasper Place MacEwan campus and Meadowlark Mall.

105 Ave may be an alternative choice instead of 104. 105 Ave is already slated for an LRT route, so may as well make it a road reserved only for public transit just like 7 Ave in downtown Calgary.

Jasper Place MacEwan campus is moving, so strike that from the list.

dwells
23-06-2007, 03:52 PM
I think even if the city chose 107 Ave they would still want to run it down 156 St and then 87 Ave because of the Jasper Place MacEwan campus and Meadowlark Mall

MacEwan is a non-issue and Meadowlark is really just another mall that already has bus service. Why should it rate a stop on a BRT? I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall.

The impact of a bus on 170th every ten to thirty minutes would be negligible and bus only lanes might even be unnecessary, but the impact of bus only lanes on 87th and 156th would destroy traffic movement for the area - but then, maybe that's what the city really wants.

Conversely, running the bus on a wide road at 60kph gets to its destination much quicker than one running on a narrow road at 50kph.

Throw in the hazards of necessary lane sharing at parking access, cross traffic, traffic lights, non-BRT buses and pedestrians that you have along the strip on SPR and you'll be only marginally faster than the regular bus service.

bagould
23-06-2007, 04:34 PM
I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall.

Wait, what? I understand why Smart Growth and Sustainability are being corrupted, but I thought Transit Oriented Development would be okay since it actually means something specific. I guess I was wrong.

microbus
23-06-2007, 06:35 PM
Since 102 ave from 156 st to 149 st is already a divided
roadway, with limited traffic, why not run the BRT
from WEM via 170 st, Stony Plain Rd, 156 st, 102 ave, 149 st,
107 ave, 117 st SB/116 st NB, 105 ave then east to downtown?
That way you're covering WEM, some business around Stony
Plain Rd, and even Oliver Square and McEwan Downtown.
102 ave from 156 st to 149 st can be buses only, with no cross
traffic, and bus priority signals could be set up at either end of it.

Edmonton PRT
24-06-2007, 12:07 AM
Two men are hiking in the woods.

(abridged)

The adopted attitude seems to be: "If you can't beat 'em, cripple 'em."

Hello dwells

VERY insightful, one of the best and most fluid analogies applied to this issue.

Thankyou for your post.

Edmonton PRT

moahunter
24-06-2007, 10:52 PM
Just a personal question re BRT maybe someone can help me with? I am getting conflicting information on where property will be appropriated. Is it on SP 138 St Northside then West to 142, or SP 139 St to 142? If anyone can figure that out, please let me know (it is not clear on the maps, a draft sample letter given to Glenora residents suggests 138 St but an earlier post on here said from 139 st).

Second part of my question, if my house is slated for demolishing, or land appropriation, am I better off waiting for this (is there a compensatory payment above FMV) , or am I better off selling right now?

Sorry, greedy post I guess! On the topic, my personal view is that for us residents on SP, seems like BRT will help (reducing traffic). Not so great for those on 102 as it will become an alternative traffic route. I do think 107 makes more sense as a traffic corridor rather than BRT corridor (i.e. I think the plan has some merit).

microbus
24-06-2007, 11:01 PM
According to Edmonton's BRT website, it looks like no land
will be expropriated on SPR east of where it connects with
102 ave. From there to 142 st, it looks like an extra lane
will be added on the north side of 102 ave.
If you have Adobe Reader, zoom in on the map at:
http://www.edmontonbrt.ca/docs/BRT_Route03.pdf

moahunter
24-06-2007, 11:14 PM
According to Edmonton's BRT website, it looks like no land
will be expropriated on SPR east of where it connects with
102 ave. From there to 142 st, it looks like an extra lane
will be added on the north side of 102 ave.
If you have Adobe Reader, zoom in on the map at:
http://www.edmontonbrt.ca/docs/BRT_Route03.pdf

Thanks, that helps a lot, looks I'm not going to gain (or lose) a quick buck! Seems there is some misinformation out there, at least, on the Glenora flyer that was just passed around tonight.

Personally I think the BRT makes some sense, in that regular buses could feed into it, creating a sort of super network. Not sure how this ties in with the idea of leaving existing busses on routes (I was sort of hoping to lose the bus stop by my house on SP).

LRT would be great, but lets face it, costs are prohibitive for the whole city, at least, for quite a while yet. There are higher priorities than West (although WEM makes sense for LRT).

My only question on BRT is if we couldn't just upgrade existing busses? For example, I have seen other cities put in bus stop waiting time read outs, which can help a lot when the weather is cold and increase ridership. This would seem a bit cheaper and help passangers on all bus routes (I used to hate waiting and not knowing if I had just missed that bus). Hopefully the city has already evaluated this alternative.

dwells
25-06-2007, 12:49 AM
I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall.

Wait, what? I understand why Smart Growth and Sustainability are being corrupted, but I thought Transit Oriented Development would be okay since it actually means something specific. I guess I was wrong.
Did you not know that there is a fairly large bus terminal located there on the north side of 87th Avenue near 175 Street. It was obviously a reference to the terminal as opposed to the shopping centre.

bagould
25-06-2007, 08:07 AM
I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall.

Wait, what? I understand why Smart Growth and Sustainability are being corrupted, but I thought Transit Oriented Development would be okay since it actually means something specific. I guess I was wrong.
Did you not know that there is a fairly large bus terminal located there on the north side of 87th Avenue near 175 Street. It was obviously a reference to the terminal as opposed to the shopping centre.

By that logic Millgate would be a TOD. I know there's a terminal there, because I've had to walk through the parkade like everyone else just to get to a dingy, dark, entrance. The mall is not oriented to transit, proper TODs don't come ringed by a parkade a block wide. If they at least had the transit centre directly hooked into the mall I'd be more willing to listen to your argument.

Medwards
25-06-2007, 08:13 AM
If they at least had the transit centre directly hooked into the mall I'd be more willing to listen to your argument.

well, I've heard many ideas and plans for WEM. I've heard far-fetched rumours the WEM could easily support an underground LRT station as well, but more then likely, LRT will come (at some point) down 87ave. More then likely it will be ground level.

If it doesn't go underground - whos to stop the mall from adding a few towers in close proximity and rip out that parking lot and replace it?

I doubt we see anything from the mall in the next 5 years though, triple5 likes to do things as cheaply as possible, and current labour conditions aren't good for that right now.

dwells
25-06-2007, 09:38 AM
I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall.

Wait, what? I understand why Smart Growth and Sustainability are being corrupted, but I thought Transit Oriented Development would be okay since it actually means something specific. I guess I was wrong.
Did you not know that there is a fairly large bus terminal located there on the north side of 87th Avenue near 175 Street. It was obviously a reference to the terminal as opposed to the shopping centre.

By that logic Millgate would be a TOD. I know there's a terminal there, because I've had to walk through the parkade like everyone else just to get to a dingy, dark, entrance. The mall is not oriented to transit, proper TODs don't come ringed by a parkade a block wide. If they at least had the transit centre directly hooked into the mall I'd be more willing to listen to your argument.
OK, I won't argue over the semantics.

Would you like it better if I replaced "I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall."
with "I put WEM on the BRT route because it has a large transit terminal, not because it is a mall."

Consider it done.

The point was that the proposed route is expensive, disruptive and slow compared to alternate routes. Additionally, the proposed route will cost many millions and take years to construct while the alternate route could be up and running efficiently in a week at virtually no additional cost if the city administration really wanted it.

dwells
25-06-2007, 09:59 AM
If you have Adobe Reader, zoom in on the map at:
http://www.edmontonbrt.ca/docs/BRT_Route03.pdfThis proposal and the map conveniently ignores 124th Street.

What are the plans for the SPR bottleneck between 127th Street and 120th Street?

How will it affect the businesses there and elsewhere as well as the adjacent residential areas when street-side parking is removed in favor of a bus-only lane? There are few parking lots attached to the small businesses along SPR.

bagould
25-06-2007, 10:10 AM
OK, I won't argue over the semantics.

Would you like it better if I replaced "I put WEM on the BRT route because it is a large TOD, not because it is a mall."
with "I put WEM on the BRT route because it has a large transit terminal, not because it is a mall."

Consider it done.

Pretty much, yeah. If you still think it is semantics, please read a definition of TOD (such as http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm). I'm just trying to protect the meaning of a word. I shudder every time I hear "sustainable," and don't use the word myself.

Yes, there should be a stop at WEM. WEM as a TOD is something to strive toward, but I don't think we're on that path even if it continues to expand.

dwells
25-06-2007, 10:27 AM
Pretty much, yeah. If you still think it is semantics, please read a definition of TOD (such as http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm). I'm just trying to protect the meaning of a word. I didn't read the whole page, but did get the idea that EVERY reference to a TOD on this website is wrong since by definition a TOD refers to a specific type of neighbourhood design.

I understand your argument now. Thank you for pointing out my error.

bagould
25-06-2007, 10:36 AM
Pretty much, yeah. If you still think it is semantics, please read a definition of TOD (such as http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm). I'm just trying to protect the meaning of a word. I didn't read the whole page, but did get the idea that EVERY reference to a TOD on this website is wrong since by definition a TOD refers to a specific type of neighbourhood design.

I understand your argument now. Thank you for pointing out my error.

No problem, sorry for not explaining that sooner and making you mad. Even calling Century Park a TOD is a little bit off, but considering that it's the only thing in the city that even comes close I'm willing to be slightly wrong in the hopes that it will at least function similar to one and that we'll get more in the future.

kcantor
25-06-2007, 10:48 AM
...sorry for not explainilng that sooner and making you mad. Even calling Century Park a TOD is a little bit off, but considering that it's the only thing in the city that even comes close I'm willing to be slightly wrong in the hopes that it will at least function similar to one and that we'll get more in the future.
On the other hand, those of us that followed the exchange probably all learned something which is no small part of why we are "here" - no apologies necessary from where I sit.

:smt024

IanO
25-06-2007, 10:55 AM
i very much feel we will look back in 10 yrs and say, why didnt we just do the WLRT instead of BRT....

imagine we were just finishing up the SBRT to century park right now? how would we think.

bingo.