PDA

View Full Version : Potential LRT ROW loss?



CSR
09-02-2007, 09:11 PM
Millwoods is not about acting faster...it is about not getting a ROW.

Other than that, Millwoods will eventually be served...

Speaking of which, I noticed in todays paper where the city announces all the bylaw zoning changes that they are taking the old rail ROW between 91st and 99 streets and 51 avenue and Argyll Rd and changing ti from reserve to various industrial zonings. I preseume so the city can sell off little pieces of it and then in 15-20 years spend a fortune because they no longer have a right of way

( This probably no longer belongs in a RAVE about the health sciences station. )

RichardS
10-02-2007, 10:37 AM
Moved and new thread created.

Chump
10-02-2007, 10:56 AM
what does ROW mean

DanC
10-02-2007, 11:02 AM
^Right of Way.

Medwards
10-02-2007, 11:51 AM
Millwoods is not about acting faster...it is about not getting a ROW.

Other than that, Millwoods will eventually be served...

Speaking of which, I noticed in todays paper where the city announces all the bylaw zoning changes that they are taking the old rail ROW between 91st and 99 streets and 51 avenue and Argyll Rd and changing ti from reserve to various industrial zonings. I preseume so the city can sell off little pieces of it and then in 15-20 years spend a fortune because they no longer have a right of way

( This probably no longer belongs in a RAVE about the health sciences station. )

LRT - Wont be going around there. From Century Park it will head east towards millwoods along 23 ave, and then up 28 ave into millwoods town center area.

feepa

grish
10-02-2007, 12:12 PM
I really wish Millwoods would be served with a new line going from Millwoods north and then cutting accross west through either

1. Bonnie Doon (and through Whyte to connect to the existing line at University)
or
2. crossing the river via Capilano bridge and on to downtown through Concordia (may also include Kings University College as well on the way by going north via 50th and then crossing over to 75th/Capilano/ Wayne Gretzky)
The second option may allow Capilano Mall to be redeveloped into something more than a "value shopping centre", say, a Transit Oriented Development (TOD).

this way, when WLRT is also built, we will have north-east--south line as well as east--west line.

I think extending the existing line to Millwoods will make it too heavy and travel time may become a factor while many parts of the city are still not served.

IanO
10-02-2007, 01:45 PM
i see a new line from millwoods town centre up 66st/75st to bonnie doon and then down whyte or to downtown at some point, but i suppose we should work on WLRT and NLRT 1st.

microbus
10-02-2007, 01:52 PM
to be honest, after Century Park gets the LRT, I don't think
they're going to do any more expansion of the LRT for 20 years.
I foresee quite a bit of BRT though.

Medwards
10-02-2007, 02:09 PM
to be honest, after Century Park gets the LRT, I don't think
they're going to do any more expansion of the LRT for 20 years.
I foresee quite a bit of BRT though.

I really sincerely hope you are way out to lunch on this. I believe you are. Its not like this city or province has fallen into hard times, or will in the foreseeable future.

mick
10-02-2007, 04:21 PM
Honestly, the BRT proposed for W.Edmonton was little more than an express bus with signal headway. The fact they tried to sell it as bus on wheels was disingenious. I truly hope that is not where the city thinks its rapid transit future lies. Unless BRT is in it's own right of way isolated from traffic it will never be rapid and once you start putting them in isolated right of ways cost differences betwee LRT and BRT begin narrow considerably. To the point that you might as well go with LRT from the start. From what I've heard NLRT to NAIT has significant support in the City.

IanO
10-02-2007, 05:02 PM
to be honest, after Century Park gets the LRT, I don't think
they're going to do any more expansion of the LRT for 20 years.
I foresee quite a bit of BRT though.


WRONG....the NLRT is planned, designed for the most part, and will go ahead after SLRT from the sounds of it.....then WLRT will come.

travis
10-02-2007, 06:54 PM
^from all the evidence that I have seen I would have to agree with you.

m0nkyman
10-02-2007, 07:28 PM
Ask Ottawa whether BRT is a bright idea.... They're still kicking themselves for going down that path.

LRT/Subway, whatever you want to call it, is the way to go, and Edmonton has done the hard part downtown already.

grish
10-02-2007, 11:13 PM
no, the BEST way to go is underground most of the way.

the best we can afford at this point is LRT north--south (to YEG), east--west, an LRT ring and a completely integrated bus system.

what we are getting is half a north-south LRT line built over 40 years, and a promise of a whole bunch of super busses.

lux
11-02-2007, 10:46 AM
When the south LRT is done, our transit infrastructure will have finally caught up to Calgary! (circa 1987.) So, only 22 years behind.

The next thing for council to do is commit a billion dollars (billion with a B) to extending the LRT network with new lines.

mick
11-02-2007, 02:02 PM
IanO - that is what I've heard too. Also, I've heard wLRT will run into more popular opposition given the neighbourhoods it's likely to pass through. There is also much consensus on the route for nLRT. It requires little land acquisition and the land required is rental accomodations. Not to mention the extra ridership potential for such a short 5 or 6km extension with a major school, hospital and shopping centre on the route. Once we get nLRT our LRT will start to look more like a true 'system'

DanC
11-02-2007, 04:03 PM
I still think the current best option for WLRT is the 107th ave routing, but with an EVEN BETTER OPTION being to continue underground on Jasper Ave and go above ground by the Museum...
I mean with the 87th ave route there is a large amount of tunnelling and a new massive bridge to be built. I would love to see the cost differential vs. Jasper Ave/102 Ave.

IanO
11-02-2007, 04:15 PM
id love to see LRT UG down jasper to the museum then pop up and go down stony plain to 156st then down to meadowlark on 87ave then to WEM.

TOD potential and HUGE use from oliver.

mick
11-02-2007, 04:21 PM
I'd love those routes too. Hell, I'd even take above ground on Jasper (I know won't happen) to save money. Going down 102ave makes sense to me. I know that neighbourhood is the height of NIMBY but you could trade them the LRT for local traffic only on 102ave. No more speeding cars infront of their flashy houses might get them to favour LRT.

Interestingly, the WLRT planning study estimated that the cost of the 107ave route to be the same as the 87ave route (1b). Supposedly due to property acquistions on the route. I can't see it myself but I'm not an accountant.

microbus
11-02-2007, 05:39 PM
I really sincerely hope you are way out to lunch on this. I believe you are. Its not like this city or province has fallen into hard times, or will in the foreseeable future.

I hope I'm wrong too....
but they're already testing transit-priority traffic signals from
Millgate to downtown, with little GPS things on the roofs of
some buses for that reason. And the first of over 200 new
buses is due to arrive this week, with no further LRT car
purchases heard of. The LRT cars we're getting in May of 2008
are just enough to cover the SLRT extension, and give a couple
of extra cars to replace the current ones which they're going
to start rebuilding, cuz they're rusting and falling apart at the
seams.
I would prefer LRT to NAIT, and even underground to the
Museum then aboveground to West Edm Mall. But to get to
NAIT, they're going to have to come up from the tunnel system
somewhere. And at today's costs, I think they're going to use
the excuse of prohibitive construction costs, and put a BRT
route in its place instead, at least for the short term, of 5-10
years or more.

mick
11-02-2007, 06:04 PM
BRT to NAIT for a 5-10 year period was the original plan but with NAIT expansion, the current favourable mood toward LRT expansion, the relatively short length, and the fact the vast majority is above ground, I understand that LRT is now the first choice. As to getting above ground: the city already possess an easement behind the CN tower and I believe there is the begining of a branch line already roughed in (don't have confirmation on that). Also, the line is not particularly deep at that point, so it wouldn't be a particularly long tunnel. I'm not sure if they could cut and cover out of there but it is certainly nowhere near the depth of the university station.

The reason they are testing that equipment from Milgate is b/c phased BRT/LRT is the plan for the SE rapid transit. SE LRT will likely have to wait 20+ years (nLRT & wLRT are priorities) unless they run a proposed spur from sLRT sooner. Oh, it would make no sense to purchse LRT cars for a line that has not yet gotten final approval. Any new car purchase would likely be included in a final budget approved for the overall project and ordered a couple of years prior to opening of the line.

Edmcowboy11
12-02-2007, 11:01 AM
I hope to see NLRT discussed even further within the next year or so. The amount of ridership that line potentially can see is enormous. If the LRT comes anywhere near MacEwan, Victoria, Kingsways and Nait I can see ridership increase. WLRT would be great to see but as some others mentioned more potential headaches ahead. SELRT probably wont happen soon, but I think they should look at the 23rd ave interchange and plan ahead for LRT ROW. They don't have to built it but at least have space ready at the interchange.

mick
12-02-2007, 11:45 AM
They planned the 23rd ave interchange with a potential LRT crossing in mind.

MylesC
12-02-2007, 01:36 PM
This would be extremely short sighted. They've done it elsewhere that caused me to shake my head (selling property to the north of the bridget on 105, for instance).

Long term, here, people...long term.

RichardS
12-02-2007, 02:45 PM
what we are getting is half a north-south LRT line built over 40 years, and a promise of a whole bunch of super busses.

disappointing..yes it is... :(

Hopefully this BRT dream will finally be reduced to where practical. LRT is the spine we need.

24karat
12-02-2007, 05:49 PM
They planned the 23rd ave interchange with a potential LRT crossing in mind.

That's good to know.

CSR
13-02-2007, 04:40 PM
Millwoods is not about acting faster...it is about not getting a ROW.

Other than that, Millwoods will eventually be served...

Speaking of which, I noticed in todays paper where the city announces all the bylaw zoning changes that they are taking the old rail ROW between 91st and 99 streets and 51 avenue and Argyll Rd and changing ti from reserve to various industrial zonings. I preseume so the city can sell off little pieces of it and then in 15-20 years spend a fortune because they no longer have a right of way

( This probably no longer belongs in a RAVE about the health sciences station. )

LRT - Wont be going around there. From Century Park it will head east towards millwoods along 23 ave, and then up 28 ave into millwoods town center area.

feepa

Not now, but in the future? We can'r expaand forever by makig the lines longer and longer... sooner or later we need to branch out and also add loop lines.

Actually, I didn't title the thread so I'm not thinking of only LRT. That ROW could be useful as a bust rapid transit corridor ( along with Taxi and maybe carpool ) possible emergency services.

Even a bike path and wildlife corridor.

CSR
13-02-2007, 04:47 PM
Ask Ottawa whether BRT is a bright idea.... They're still kicking themselves for going down that path.

LRT/Subway, whatever you want to call it, is the way to go, and Edmonton has done the hard part downtown already.

Actually, their bus system works a lot better than our transit system ... though I'm sure it costs a lot more as well :)

The big thing stupid they did in Ottawa IMO is that when they put in an LRT line, instead of replacing the main east west busway and then moving the buses elsewhere ( and it was designed to have a train replace the buses eventually - and of course, with that much investment in infrastructure, why not just skip buses and go to trains? *shrug*) they stuck their O train on a disused section of track that runs north south through empty fields and sparsely settled suburbs, stops short of the airport and doesn't reach downtown.

Instead of using buses, including BRT where warranted to feed the LRT, they use the LRT to feed the bus routes. Dumb.

m0nkyman
13-02-2007, 05:10 PM
Ask Ottawa whether BRT is a bright idea.... They're still kicking themselves for going down that path.

LRT/Subway, whatever you want to call it, is the way to go, and Edmonton has done the hard part downtown already.

Actually, their bus system works a lot better than our transit system ... though I'm sure it costs a lot more as well :)

The big thing stupid they did in Ottawa IMO is that when they put in an LRT line, instead of replacing the main east west busway and then moving the buses elsewhere ( and it was designed to have a train replace the buses eventually - and of course, with that much investment in infrastructure, why not just skip buses and go to trains? *shrug*) they stuck their O train on a disused section of track that runs north south through empty fields and sparsely settled suburbs, stops short of the airport and doesn't reach downtown.

Instead of using buses, including BRT where warranted to feed the LRT, they use the LRT to feed the bus routes. Dumb.

The original intention was for LRT to replace the BRT. It can never happen because the city is so dependent on the Transitway, that shutting it down to construct an LRT would throw the city into chaos. The transitway will always be BRT, and it should have been LRT from day one. They also should have gone underground from day one, something that I screamed blue murder about at the time.
Now they have a complete cluster**** on their hands, as the congestion along Albert and Slater is screwing them. The idea of ripping up a major artery, and having to go deep enough that they go under the canal is going to be an ongoing nightmare for years. The latest cancellation of planned N-S LRT is just icing.

mick
13-02-2007, 06:25 PM
I feel sorry for Ottawan's. They had a signed 800m contract w/ Siemens to not only build their 29 km N-S line, but also provide trains and maintenance for 15 years. John Baird, then fed minister of transport or something, steps in and puts the federal money on hold until a new council can be elected and the issue put to a second vote, after it was approved less than a year earlier. They now have no N-S line and a looming law suit w/ Siemens and 60m in penalties.

CSR - the O-train N-S plan called for it to to go from Ottawa U in the east through DT, on street tram style, then turn south on ROW, already partly converted for the pilot project, past Carleton and into newly planned suburbs to the South. Why they decided not to serve the airport I don't know but a spur would have been easily built. Serving 2 major universities, DT and the chance to shape new development in the south, which was already planned and now there are scrambling to get a transitway out there, for 800m seems like a steal to me. I'd chop Siemens arm off if we were offered something similar.

CSR
13-02-2007, 08:31 PM
Ask Ottawa whether BRT is a bright idea.... They're still kicking themselves for going down that path.

LRT/Subway, whatever you want to call it, is the way to go, and Edmonton has done the hard part downtown already.

Actually, their bus system works a lot better than our transit system ... though I'm sure it costs a lot more as well :)

The big thing stupid they did in Ottawa IMO is that when they put in an LRT line, instead of replacing the main east west busway and then moving the buses elsewhere ( and it was designed to have a train replace the buses eventually - and of course, with that much investment in infrastructure, why not just skip buses and go to trains? *shrug*) they stuck their O train on a disused section of track that runs north south through empty fields and sparsely settled suburbs, stops short of the airport and doesn't reach downtown.

Instead of using buses, including BRT where warranted to feed the LRT, they use the LRT to feed the bus routes. Dumb.

The original intention was for LRT to replace the BRT. It can never happen because the city is so dependent on the Transitway, that shutting it down to construct an LRT would throw the city into chaos. The transitway will always be BRT, and it should have been LRT from day one. They also should have gone underground from day one, something that I screamed blue murder about at the time.
Now they have a complete cluster**** on their hands, as the congestion along Albert and Slater is screwing them. The idea of ripping up a major artery, and having to go deep enough that they go under the canal is going to be an ongoing nightmare for years. The latest cancellation of planned N-S LRT is just icing.

Seems to me that they could convert a lot of the Transit way in sections fairly easily... put up the lines first, then bring in prefab sections of track on 24 hour shifts ( I didn't say cheaply! :) With a prepared bed, which is what the Transitway is, there is no reason you can't put down 10 miles of track in a day.

Albert and Slater would pretty much have to be shut down, or limited to taxi traffic to run the LRT through there, but it can be done. Or just shut Albert and run tracks going both ways down it. As street car style stops would cause a bottleneck fro east west traffic they would need a bypass, but that could be built on surface further south.

Tunneling under downtown isn't a problem but building the stations! Sucks to live on rock with narrow streets.

They could do it, get the work done in a summer when university and government is in idle mode, work round the clock in well planed stages. And it wouldn't be cheap. But they don't have to build stations or clear a right of way or prepare a track bed. Most modifications such as raising platform heights, stringing over head lines can be done before hand without closing the transitway. It would just require excellent organization and planning... and that is synonymous with our nation's capital, right ;)

ChrisD
13-02-2007, 10:09 PM
Not now, but in the future? We can'r expaand forever by makig the lines longer and longer... sooner or later we need to branch out and also add loop lines.

Actually, I didn't title the thread so I'm not thinking of only LRT. That ROW could be useful as a bust rapid transit corridor ( along with Taxi and maybe carpool ) possible emergency services.

Even a bike path and wildlife corridor.
The first question one has to ask is who owns the old rail rights-of-way. I am willing to bet that these were once owned by aeith CN or CP and they have sold them to private landowners.

Secondly, the City has already identified and in some places constructed multiuse trails within old rail ROW.

CSR
15-02-2007, 10:17 PM
The first question one has to ask is who owns the old rail rights-of-way. I am willing to bet that these were once owned by aeith CN or CP and they have sold them to private landowners.

Possible. But all the pieces are pretty small, sort of like trying to sell a back alley to all the houses on either side. I'm think given the opportunity that CP would be just as happy to sell the whole thing to one buyer.


Secondly, the City has already identified and in some places constructed multiuse trails within old rail ROW.

No reason not to keep doing it.

At the moment, the ROW doesn't go anywhere because CP is still using up all the lands north of argyll between gateway and 99 pretty much. But that will change eventually.

And because of the way Mill Creek has shaped the city's growth there are only 2 main east -west routes between Whyte ave and the Whitemud. 51st and Argyll, both of which are pretty full. Anything else means crossing Millcreek and bulldozing residential.

We will want those east west rights of way some day, and it will be much easier in the future if the city secures them now. By keeping them if we own them, or buying them if we don't

ChrisD
16-02-2007, 12:47 AM
No reason not to keep doing it.

At the moment, the ROW doesn't go anywhere because CP is still using up all the lands north of argyll between gateway and 99 pretty much. But that will change eventually.

And because of the way Mill Creek has shaped the city's growth there are only 2 main east -west routes between Whyte ave and the Whitemud. 51st and Argyll, both of which are pretty full. Anything else means crossing Millcreek and bulldozing residential.

We will want those east west rights of way some day, and it will be much easier in the future if the city secures them now. By keeping them if we own them, or buying them if we don't
The city doesn't have a choice if they don't own the land....

If they wanted it and it fit with their longterm transportation goals, then perhaps they would have purchased it.

CSR
16-02-2007, 10:30 AM
If they wanted it and it fit with their longterm transportation goals, then perhaps they would have purchased it.

My point is that these corridors through built up areas are to valuable to let go away, even if you don't have a plan for it now.

Worse comes to worse the city can always sell it off in pieces later. If it makes financial sense now it will in the future. On the other hand once you build on it you can't get it back, not cheaply. *shrug*

ChrisD
16-02-2007, 07:56 PM
If they wanted it and it fit with their longterm transportation goals, then perhaps they would have purchased it.

My point is that these corridors through built up areas are to valuable to let go away, even if you don't have a plan for it now.

Worse comes to worse the city can always sell it off in pieces later. If it makes financial sense now it will in the future. On the other hand once you build on it you can't get it back, not cheaply. *shrug*
My point is that if the City thought these 'corridors' were so valuable, they would have viewed these ROW's as potential acquisitions and been involved in the sale.

CSR
18-02-2007, 07:56 PM
My point is that if the City thought these 'corridors' were so valuable, they would have viewed these ROW's as potential acquisitions and been involved in the sale.

Because we all know the city never makes mistakes on things like that :lol: 8)

ChrisD
18-02-2007, 08:11 PM
My point is that if the City thought these 'corridors' were so valuable, they would have viewed these ROW's as potential acquisitions and been involved in the sale.

Because we all know the city never makes mistakes on things like that :lol: 8)
Haha, that would require a whoooole new topic and perhaps, a forum ;)