87 ave LRT route - the continued discussion

[Admin]

I'm going to regret opening this thread, but it seems some of you still want to talk about this.

Go.

[etownboarder]

Best route IMO. People near the mall will continue driving to the university cause it will be three times quicker than taking LRT. An 87 Avenue line cuts that down a great deal. This also takes advantage of a big investment in Health Sciences/Jubilee. I like the SPR route because it covers large areas of the city but I think in the end the ridership would be equal. WEM and Lewis Estates are pretty large centres. Cutting the ridership time down is what will make these stations and riding public transit attractive to most west end residents. Lots of doctors past the Henday and even those who can afford their Beamer will consider riding LRT if it's easy enough. There is nothing for neighborhoods along this route, including Katz etc can do to prevent the city from building a 87 Ave route. What will their reason be "I Uhhhhhh, own the view and right for it to be unobstructed for, uhhhhh, all eternity?" that won't fly, will it?

[etownboarder]

There are also a few opportunities for further density and a couple TODs. 149 Street: 87 Avenue, some redevelopment of the current community at 156 Street, Meadowlark, 159, 170, and along the mall a few places too. Then of course at the eventual endpoint. Houses along the route will gain value and renewal north of 87 Avenue will all see growth. I don't get the hatred for this route.

[knowitall]

But between 149 Street and the University there are nil redevelopment opportunities.

This is the quick, express LRT route and it became less desirable when Council directed that densification opportunities were the top consideration when planning the LRT network.

[Perspective]

i like the idea of densification around lrt stations, but really have yet to see it... unless this slow pace we see on our current line (century park, station pointe etc...) is what is expected of lrt redevelopment. i dont want to be pessimistic but i dont have high hopes of SPR ever drastically transforming, hope i am wrong! for the reason, for me, redevelopment potential that comes along with lrt is not reason enough to reroute a line when current development can benefit.

87ave IMO makes the most sense

[highlander]

I t happened when they decided that transportation was no longer the primary purpose of our transportation system. transportation's #1 goal was now sustainable redevelopment, which is odd since land use regulations and planning barely acknowledge sustainability, and certainly don't encourage development that supports transit.

I figured out that there are over 100,000 people in West edmonton who would access LRT on the 87ave stations, and who would all benefit from the 8 minute faster trip downtown and a drastically improved trip to the U or the south side. There are about 30,000 people who would be better served by the currently planned route, and most of them could be well served by improved bus service or a streetcar.

[The_Cat]

I think if LRT is built along 87 Avenue, it would provide a benefit for those commuting to university. That leaves the west line along Stony Plain Road. Terminate it at 142
Street or take it north to Coronation.

[deedub35]

I've always favoured this route. All one needs to look at is a map of Edmonton and see where WEM, U of A, and downtown are located. The route would be a straight shot east and then straight north. It would be the quickest route from WEM to downtown, the added bonus is that it would also be the quickest route from WEM to U of A. And it utilizes existing infrastructure once it hits the mainline at Health Sciences.

The argument about needing to hit downtown first because that is THE node is dribble. There are stations in between and U of A happens to be one of them and it just happens to be a node too. Instead we have this circuitous route with bends and angles and doubles back and then needs a transfer ...

Also the argument about redevelopment potential I think is more dribble. Well Meadowlark would be a fine place. Perhaps around the intersection of 149 street. But how about the part near 142 street? Oh no potential there. Who cares? It's only about 400 m between 149 street and the river valley then a bridge to Groat road and then the line is at the Cross Cancer. There doesn't need to be redevelopment potential along the whole line. Look at the SLRT between southgate and CP. Not a lot going on there for a while.

[Medwards]

^ and people think that if LRT is going down Stony Plain road it will change the area over night... ignoring that at the same it will compete against all other urban focused redevelopment in this city. Downtown, Airport, Fort Road, Century Park, Strathearn, just to name a few... but somehow LRT down stony plain road will make this a desirable area, ignoring all the other problems in the area currently. Fail logic.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by The_Cat

I think if LRT is built along 87 Avenue, it would provide a benefit for those commuting to university. That leaves the west line along Stony Plain Road. Terminate it at 142
Street or take it north to Coronation.

or even further, terminate in the NW industrial/commercial work node area where lots of people already take the bus to...

[Perspective]

Originally Posted by highlander

I t happened when they decided that transportation was no longer the primary purpose of our transportation system. transportation's #1 goal was now sustainable redevelopment, which is odd since land use regulations and planning barely acknowledge sustainability, and certainly don't encourage development that supports transit.

I figured out that there are over 100,000 people in West edmonton who would access LRT on the 87ave stations, and who would all benefit from the 8 minute faster trip downtown and a drastically improved trip to the U or the south side. There are about 30,000 people who would be better served by the currently planned route, and most of them could be well served by improved bus service or a streetcar.

some of our current stations have had 30+ years to transform their neighborhood and nothing has happened. i completely agree with everything you stated. The lrt is about transportation not about transforming neighborhoods. It would be great if it could do both, but current proof would tell us otherwise.

I wish this route could be reconsidered

[etownboarder]

Originally Posted by Perspective

some of our current stations have had 30+ years to transform their neighborhood and nothing has happened. i completely agree with everything you stated. The lrt is about transportation not about transforming neighborhoods. It would be great if it could do both, but current proof would tell us otherwise.

I wish this route could be reconsidered

And there are plenty of opportunities for redevelopment along 87 Avenue as it is. As Medwards mentioned, you can't expect the whole city to redevelop all at once. Reconsider adding a route down SPR in 30 years. By that time, another west line could be supported between downtown, along SPR to the mall. But for now focus major redevelopment efforts where we've already invested heavily. We must continue to support downtown, City Centre Airport, Millwoods, Century Park or it will take decades before we see the places we envision when we begin planning these projects.

[The_Cat]

I'd like to say that the LRT helps somewhat with residential development. There have been mild success stories with Clareview or even downtown. But LRT is only partly responsible for driving residential development. There is proximity to employers (e.g. U of A Hospital, Government Centre) access to educational institutions (U of A, Grant MacEwan) that may drive residential development along the LRT. If a neighbourhood does not have that relationship, there many not be the demand for residential development along the line.

[EveB]

Put me into the LRT for transportation camp. I'm a fan of Jane Jacobs. She makes her disapproval clear about city planners who think that installing major thoroughfares (either mass transit or auto) in the hopes that people will magically want to use them is delusional. Much better to figure out who wants to go where now and design transportation around that.

It's one of the few things I miss about Calgary that so many of the LRT stops were at places I wanted to be: groceries, major malls, my veterinarian. The stop by Motel Village enables many many tourists to get about to major attractions: downtown, Stampede Grounds, the sports arenas, without having to get in their cars and worry about parking. And many did.

When I rode the LRT here exploring, there were so many stops where there is no reason to get off the train unless you happen to live there.

Eve

[Edmcowboy11]

That's the problem here in Edmonton I will admit. The planners have bypassed certain locations that are currently or will be high traffic areas and destination points for a less costly line. 87th ave would be good, due to the ability to have a stop at the Cross Cancer which would be used quite alot I think. I think a new directive has to be in place that even if it costs a bit more they should try to bring the LRT to important areas here in Edmonton as has been pointed out.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

I prefer the UofA-87 Ave route myself because of the relatively short distance between the U of A and WEM. And I too prefer to think of LRT as a rapid transportation service instead of an urban density builder. Also, I think most of you forgot that the main reason this route was killed by Mayor Mandel was because the NIMBYs of Valleyview and Laurier Hights are more powerful and have deeper pockets than Jasper Place's NIMBYs.

That said, the bigger problem I have is the seemingly endless flip-flopping of routes from one to the other, and people wanting to flip back again. Once Mandel is out of office, I'm sure this will happen. Make a decision and stick with it. Otherwise it will be another 40 years before the west end gets any kind of LRT route.

[etownboarder]

I wouldn't even mind if we did change the plans for WLRT after Mandel leaves. He only has a little more than a year and he will retire. WLRT isn't going to start construction anytime soon anyway. Build it right.

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by knowitall

But between 149 Street and the University there are nil redevelopment opportunities.

This is the quick, express LRT route .....

Btw, maybe a park and ride stop at Zoo - none else required (okay, maybe Cross Cancer - but doubtful, if that was needed there'd be connecting bus service molre frequently from Health Sciences as it stands).

Good or bad, quick and express is what our LRT network, (and I'd suggest its phenomenal popularity) is based on.

Quick LRT, good bus connection: works for me! (and apparently about 100k other daily riders on NE and SLRT)

[kkozoriz]

A stop at the zoo = good.

Park and ride in the valley = very, very bad.

You think there was NIMYism from just the LRT? Imagine the uproar over hundreds of cars driving down Buena Vista road each day just to park.

A stop in the valley would help service the zoo as well as Hawrelak Park. Extend the streetcar from Ft. Edmonton across the river to the zoo and then to Hawrelak. Better access to the valley parks without needing to attract more cars.

[Komrade]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

A stop at the zoo = good.

Park and ride in the valley = very, very bad.

This.

I do think a point needs to be made that transit centers havent acted as any sort of mass catalyst for redevelopment by them. Edmontonians as a majority (im making an assumption here) have barely warmed up to the idea of public transit as transportation let alone an entire lifestyle choice. (no car, living/working on transit routes, ect)

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by knowitall

This is the quick, express LRT route and it became less desirable when Council directed that densification opportunities were the top consideration when planning the LRT network.

That bothered me a lot.

As a frequent transit rider, I want a fast LRT that connects major entertainment/employment/residential nodes in the city in the most efficient way possible.

Instead, the 87 Ave route was scrapped and now it seems that the West LRT line is going to be used primarily as a tool to revitalize Stony Plain Road. The Stony Plain route isn't actually a bad route, but I think it's a good 2nd West LRT route, and inferior to the 87 Ave route that I think should be built first.

[etownboarder]

Originally Posted by Komrade

This.

I do think a point needs to be made that transit centers havent acted as any sort of mass catalyst for redevelopment by them. Edmontonians as a majority (im making an assumption here) have barely warmed up to the idea of public transit as transportation let alone an entire lifestyle choice. (no car, living/working on transit routes, ect)

It is changing quickly though as Edmonton attracts new residents from large cities where public transit use is more common.

[halocore]

I personally think council's decision to go against the 87 ave route was mainly motivated by their desire to instill downtown as the "centre" of the city, and not the university. I think if any redevelopment hopes were riding on this line, it's more for downtown then for the Stony Plain road area.

Not to say I don't agree with the merits of the 87th ave route. Each path has its pros and cons.

[etownboarder]

An 87 avenue route would still be faster for most people in the west end who we want off our roads.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by halocore

Not to say I don't agree with the merits of the 87th ave route. Each path has its pros and cons.

Bingo. There is no right or wrong LRT route anywhere. 87 ave had some advantages, but SPR does as well (like linking Oliver, VFC, and not an expensive bridge over river). The key is to not keep changing, if it changes back to 87, expect another 10 or 20 years of debate before it gets built, to much is already invested in SPR now.

[armin]

Originally Posted by halocore

I personally think council's decision to go against the 87 ave route was mainly motivated by their desire to instill downtown as the "centre" of the city, and not the university. I think if any redevelopment hopes were riding on this line, it's more for downtown then for the Stony Plain road area.

Not to say I don't agree with the merits of the 87th ave route. Each path has its pros and cons.

I'd have to agree. Plus maybe the Mayor thinks it'll drop his property costs if he runs the LRT through his neck of the woods.

I can think of 3 routes that would be better than the STP route.

[highlander]

virtually nothing has been invested in spr, compared to a potential billion dollar mistake. The thing about the current planning for the west line is that virtually nothing has to change on the 87 ave portion to change to high-floor.

nothing will be built for at least 5 years, no time has to be lost by doing it right on 87Ave.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by halocore

I personally think council's decision to go against the 87 ave route was mainly motivated by their desire to instill downtown as the "centre" of the city, and not the university. I think if any redevelopment hopes were riding on this line, it's more for downtown then for the Stony Plain road area.

Not to say I don't agree with the merits of the 87th ave route. Each path has its pros and cons.

I've heard this argument but never understood it. It's not like people who use public transit to get to the university will suddenly settle for going Downtown instead.

The purpose of a rail based rapid transit system should be to maximize ridership by getting people from where they live to where they want to go as fast and conveniently as possible. The 87 Avenue route would provide frequent, same seat service to the university AND Downtown. West Enders would get to Churchill Station 8 minutes faster than the SPR route.

And if City Council really was serious about reinforcing downtown as the "centre," why have they approved a completely unnecessary "Central Area Circulator" that involves running LRT down Whyte Avenue?

[grish]

Success of rail is also to connect as many parts of the city as possible. If to be succesful, people across the city should have LRT as an option. Given the size of the population in Oliver, it has to be connected as well as WEM, Downtown, Etc. While 87 ave provides "same seat" (only if the train loops north), it leaves large swaths of the city without a seat.

Looking at costs, the city elected to spend (or commited to spent) equivalent amount of money to connect more passengers.

[highlander]

1. Oliver already has a station, two if you count corona. Yes, that's really only the east half, but that's a big portion of the population.
2. People in oliver who want to go downtown or to the university are close enough that rapid transt(LRT) isn't necessary. A streetcar or bus is fine. And compared to out near 170th street, public transit trips are much more likely to replace pedestrian trips
3. We will never, ever have enough lrt in this city to allow everyone to use LRT exclusively without using a local bus, or park&ride, or.... The same applies to west oliver. It already has better access to the LRT than most of the city, access that can be improved by better bus service or even a streetcar in ways that just are not possible in the rest of the city.
4. There are 100,000 people in west edmonton who will the experience the full benefit of the 87ave route. There are18,000 in oliver, maybe 6,000 already have great access, and the rest have decent enough bus service that it would be difficult to make an lrt option that would save 8minutes over a local bus.

[grish]

made up numbers to prove a point notwithstanding, Oliver station count is a stretch.
WEM is also a significant destination. Oliver to downtown connections are fine, but not out to the west.

Bottom line, not all corners will be served with LRT but we have to try. In particular, there has to be effort to connect existing dense neighbourhoods and encourage infil. There can never be infil along 87 ave (in particular through parkland). Infil along SPR can and will happen. It will be encouraged with LRT.

[highlander]

Totally not made up numbers. Based on city of edmonton neighbourhood population data, 2010 I think. I used to live within the official borders of oliver (grandin doesn't officially exist) and had an LRT station right outside my front door. My other place in oliver was on 115st and was still closer to grandin station than it will be to any currently proposed oliver station. Remember that almost all the highrises in oliver are on jasper or south, not up on 104.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by grish

Looking at costs, the city elected to spend (or commited to spent) equivalent amount of money to connect more passengers.

That's exactly it. For the same dollars, or slightly less, we get way more kilometers of track linking more neighborhoods to the downtown. Its just better bang for buck. Given the choice between a few hundred meters of extremely expensive and intrusive bridge through the river valley, between another 5km of track through the city, the track in the city will do more for more people.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by grish

Looking at costs, the city elected to spend (or commited to spent) equivalent amount of money to connect more passengers.

Please stop your mis-information. In passenger studies done in 2008 when this line was still a candidate, it had the higher passenger numbers....

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by grish

made up numbers to prove a point notwithstanding, Oliver station count is a stretch.
WEM is also a significant destination. Oliver to downtown connections are fine, but not out to the west.

Bottom line, not all corners will be served with LRT but we have to try. In particular, there has to be effort to connect existing dense neighbourhoods and encourage infil. There can never be infil along 87 ave (in particular through parkland). Infil along SPR can and will happen. It will be encouraged with LRT.

We don't have to serve everyone on the same line... and as ridership studies in 2008 showed, this line wins the ridership count. There can be infill along 87avenue... Just like the SPR routing suggests, and you can add on 149st.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by moahunter

That's exactly it. For the same dollars, or slightly less, we get way more kilometers of track linking more neighborhoods to the downtown. Its just better bang for buck. Given the choice between a few hundred meters of extremely expensive and intrusive bridge through the river valley, between another 5km of track through the city, the track in the city will do more for more people.

It will also take 10 minutes longer to get downtown, require transfers to get the uofa (the highest transit user in the city), and create an indirect route.

Transit is about connecting nodes with other nodes as quickly as possible, not creating a bus milk route.

[Medwards]

Anyone find it funny that the EXACT same people that had an issue with this discussion taking place in the other LRT threads are the same ones polluting it here?

Admin - if you feel its needed to divide the discussion, perhaps you can encourage those to use the apprioriate threads? If not, I will continue to promote my beliefs and opinions in the other threads...

[McBoo]

Oliver? LOL, what a canard!

Like, everyone in Oliver goes north to 104 ave (where the glorified SPR trolly bus will run) to catch a bus.

Yeah - I see them by the thousands at bus stops now!

Okay, maybe not. But a lot of people in Oliver seem to catch buses on Jasper Ave.

[psiebold1]

The Number 2 bus doesn't make many frequent stops when it goes through the northern edge of the Oliver neighbourhood, as compared to the Number 1 or the Number 5. The Number 2 serves Jasper Park, Lynnwood, Parkview and 124th Street.

If there is to be LRT in Oliver, it will be best served by going a lot closer to Jasper Ave than 104th Ave.

[kkozoriz]

The low floor would work better serving more parts of the inner city as opposed to running out to the boonies. Imagine it turning north on 124 st to 111th ave, west past Westmount and the science centre, south to 107th ave, west to 156 st, south to SPR then back east to downtown. Combine this with a line on 87th ave and the west end would be the transit envy of the rest of the city.

The loop could be clockwise one run and counterclockwise the other, continuing to Mill Woods.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Medwards

Anyone find it funny that the EXACT same people that had an issue with this discussion taking place in the other LRT threads are the same ones polluting it here?

Admin - if you feel its needed to divide the discussion, perhaps you can encourage those to use the apprioriate threads? If not, I will continue to promote my beliefs and opinions in the other threads...

Nope not exactly the same people...

[armin]

Grish, the only person who cares about the Oliver route is people who live in Oliver. There s more people in the city than just your neck of the woods.

If I ever take a bus downtown, I go out of my way to avoid that route because it's slow and doesn't go around anything that I need.

An LRT is Light Rapid Transit. It's not a streetcar, it's not meant to meander through residential neighborhoods.

They built the majority of it underground at the time because it's a bloody eyesore.

The idea is to attract riders from the skirts of the city while making an efficient, time effective method to transfer people from one area to another.

SPR & 102 both have great bus routes. Why you'd want an LRT going anywhere near there is insane.

We want people who drive because it takes them a really long time otherwise to be able to take the LRT. There's no time savings, cost savings, or justification to run the LRT down SPR.

[richardW]

^but your forgetting that it will spur development along SPR, just like the line we have now has spurred all types of development along its length

[edmonton daily photo]

Actually LRT in Edm Stands for Light RAIL Transit.

Which refers to the weight of the LRVs

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt.aspx

Once again our system is not ment to be an a solely express service for the suburbs.

[Medwards]

and again, its not solely an express service for the suburbs, no one is advocating for that.. nor is it meant to be a frequent stopping bus replacement...

BUT LRT Light Rail Transit - is meant to be rapid. Whether it's in the acronym or not... doesn't matter.

Light rail or light rail transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, but higher capacity and higher speed than traditional street-running tram systems. The term is typically used to refer to rail systems with rapid transit-style features that usually use electric rail cars[1] operating mostly in private rights-of-way separated from other traffic but sometimes, if necessary, mixed with other traffic in city streets. If this is the case, then under the law of many countries such systems are legally tramways, although the vehicles which run on them are sometimes designated "supertrams". Modern light rail technology is flexible and adaptable, and whether any given system is considered a true rapid transit system or not depends on its characteristics.

[The_Cat]

I think, even with the SPR route, there will still be the need for the 1 and 100, particularly through Oliver. I'm thinking that these routes will be redirected down Jasper Avenue when the LRT is built.

[armin]

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...180/story.html

I like the looks of these. the story in the paper mentioned that they could eliminate overhead power lines which is probably one of the biggest eyesores ever.

[Dialog]

I'm concerned about the potential for failure in a buried power system. Overhead lines are ugly but well-understood and relatively resistant to out climate.

[TheGreatestX]

We can still have a direct line from WEM to downtown using 87 Ave.

Line A: Century Park to NAIT
Line B: WEM to Claireview

Both lines would stop at all downtown and University stations.

[Edmcowboy11]

Personally I would much rather just see the current proposal move forward as suggested to go to the west end but also have another line go towards the west via 87 ave. I've mentioned this a few times recently that I believe that instead of making a tail track around health sciences station that they should simply extend the line to the cross cancer and make a station there where it can turn around easily. It not only adds much easier access to that health facility but it paves the way for future LRT expansion along that route.

[moahunter]

^I'd much rather see an extension go to a new neighborhood that isn't served, like Riverbend / Terwillegar / Winderemere, which would could turn off in a similar manner, perhaps crossing WMD around Fox (other options exist to). We would one day have:

Windermere (fastest growing residential part of city, with many downtown workers) to St Albert
Century Park (possibly one day neighborhoods closer to YEG) to Gorman

Those would be busy lines and a very busy downtown tunnel.

[Alex.L]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^I'd much rather see an extension go to a new neighborhood that isn't served, like Riverbend / Terwillegar / Winderemere, which would could turn off in a similar manner, perhaps crossing WMD around Fox (other options exist to). We would one day have:

Windermere (fastest growing residential part of city, with many downtown workers) to St Albert
Century Park (possibly one day neighborhoods closer to YEG) to Gorman

Those would be busy lines and a very busy downtown tunnel.

While I agree that the Terwillegar/Windermere area is the next logical extension (after all the plans currently on the table), I think it would be more logical in a geographic sense to have it meet the current line at South Campus. This would require only one bridge (Whitemud Creek) whereas anything on the old 87th alignment would require a bridge over the river (likely twice) unless it keeps going to Cameron Heights or something.

[Mla]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Actually LRT in Edm Stands for Light RAIL Transit.

Which refers to the weight of the LRVs

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt.aspx

Once again our system is not ment to be an a solely express service for the suburbs.

EDP, I don't think people on this thread are advocating a rapid LRT solely for the suburbs. I, like them, just want to be able to attract more ridership and I don't think that a glorified street car will do it. Whenever I hear people who ride the current train from Century Park to downtown just about the only positive thing I hear about their experience is that it is faster than driving. But if the new lines don't have the speed factor going for them then I think we are missing out on a large demographic.

Even if people who live near Jasper Place or Glenora find taking the train slower than driving they might opt out of taking ETS. What I am trying to say is a faster train wouldn't ONLY benefit suburbanites.

[kkozoriz]

That's one reason I'm in favour of the low floor line staying primarily within the innwer ring road (i.e. 170 st/Yellowhead/Whitemud/75 st). More stations closer together but all closer to downtown, operating in older areas along streets. The spine of the High floor would have been Clareview/WEM & St. Albert/Century Park (and YEG). The low floor lines could connect the inner part of the city with downtown and even connect at the high floor LRT lines.

West end high floor would have followed 87th ave. West low floor would have followed 104 ave/124 st/107 ave/156 st south to Meadowlark.

Another low floor line could have continued north on 124 st and then throught eh airport redevelopment to NAIT station, making 124 st accessable for student housing.

SE high floor would have branced off the NE line just north of Churchill, crossed the river by the Dawson Bridge, then south past Bonnie Doon and then along the current planned route to Millwoods. SE low floor line would have essentially followed the currently planned line to Bonnie Doon and then turned west down Whyte and across the High level.

[Medwards]

^ like your vision

[Perspective]

^^that is exactly how i wish it to be

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Mla

EDP, I don't think people on this thread are advocating a rapid LRT solely for the suburbs. I, like them, just want to be able to attract more ridership and I don't think that a glorified street car will do it. Whenever I hear people who ride the current train from Century Park to downtown just about the only positive thing I hear about their experience is that it is faster than driving. But if the new lines don't have the speed factor going for them then I think we are missing out on a large demographic.

Even if people who live near Jasper Place or Glenora find taking the train slower than driving they might opt out of taking ETS. What I am trying to say is a faster train wouldn't ONLY benefit suburbanites.

I think we have proven time and time again that the new system will still be faster than driving a car during peak times.

There is no public transport system that is able to pull a large amount of people out of their cars. I feel you will find that Calgary's success largely relies of the fact that DT calgary has a limited amount of DT parking that costs a premium.

It will be cost saving that gets people out of their car more so than speed.

Would anyone else agree?

As fopr the current system and is Suburban focus... I think that fact that McCauley and Boyle have no station, Belgravia had to fight for a station and the prior 87 ave proposal that skipped half the inner city CLEARLY show the past LRT preference was to the berbs and the expense of the inner city.

[Medwards]

I don't think we have proven that time and time again.

I definitely do not agree with what EDP is trying to say. Time is the biggest factor that will either keep people in their car, or attract them to using LRT. Time=Money

[McBoo]

Never once took a #9 bus to Southgate.

Take the LRT at least once a month.

Reason? Speed.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Ander

While I agree that the Terwillegar/Windermere area is the next logical extension (after all the plans currently on the table), I think it would be more logical in a geographic sense to have it meet the current line at South Campus. This would require only one bridge (Whitemud Creek) whereas anything on the old 87th alignment would require a bridge over the river (likely twice) unless it keeps going to Cameron Heights or something.

I think you are right. To the extent that the current high floor train is a suburban collector train (which it is), it makes sense to send it to the fastest growing suburbs like Windermere, where large parknrides and buses can feed into it. Like it or not, it doeesn't have capacity to do WEM and Windermere (and also St Albert one day).

Older communities like around WEM are just as well served by the low floor system.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ Don't forget lang term plans for the existing lines call for more community stations to be added to it

[Dialog]

We are a long, long way away from the point Calgary is where their downtown density and real estate availability mean astronomical parking rates. Didn't Impark drop their downtown fees the same month the Southgate and Century Park stations opened?

As far as the downtown is concerned, it's speed.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Dialog

We are a long, long way away from the point Calgary is where their downtown density and real estate availability mean astronomical parking rates. Didn't Impark drop their downtown fees the same month the Southgate and Century Park stations opened?

As far as the downtown is concerned, it's speed.

Galgary is where they are at mostly because they set a cap on the number of parking spots in the core and stuck to that cap.

They said what they meant and meant what they said.

[Alex.L]

I'm done. I was just saying that the more logical split would be at South Campus, not Health Sciences. This would essentially kill any future ponderings of an 87th Ave line.