Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425
Results 2,401 to 2,476 of 2476

Thread: West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Conceptual Discussion About Approved Route

  1. #2401
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    I should amend that to read "I'm a driver, but I'm also a pedestrian and take public transit to commute"

  2. #2402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Unbelievable that the top 4-5 considerations listed under each option are all driver/vehicle focused.
    "more complex intersection for vehicles"
    "no access to ____"
    "no left turn"

    I'm a driver and I completely understand that it's going to remove some access, but just once I'd like to see at least one 'consideration' section discuss ease of pedestrian access, or something similar before reverting back to "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!?!"
    Considering that drivers are the people most affected by the proposed changes this is not inappropriate at all. Feedback on other issues such as pedestrian access and passenger experience has been gathered through other means.

  3. #2403
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Unbelievable that the top 4-5 considerations listed under each option are all driver/vehicle focused.
    "more complex intersection for vehicles"
    "no access to ____"
    "no left turn"

    I'm a driver and I completely understand that it's going to remove some access, but just once I'd like to see at least one 'consideration' section discuss ease of pedestrian access, or something similar before reverting back to "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!?!"
    Considering that drivers are the people most affected by the proposed changes this is not inappropriate at all. Feedback on other issues such as pedestrian access and passenger experience has been gathered through other means.
    I don't think it's inappropriate, but I do think it's narrow and leading. The people most affected by the proposed changes are the users of the system who will be entering and exiting the stops along this strip. If you consider time, the 30 extra seconds in traffic or waiting to turn left at the next intersection is a drop in the bucket vs the time the pedestrians will wait to cross the street if a driver-focused option is chosen. Not to mention the pedestrian safety element.

    Reminds me of Century Park. We couldn't possibly have slid the station over to the side of the 111th where the bus loop is. No no, can't inconvenience the drivers. We'll just make the thousands of commuters climb a staircase too small to accommodate the crowd, cross on a pedestrian bridge, and climb back down another far too narrow staircase. Also, if you have mobility issues, the elevators will be working from 1-1:15pm every other Tuesday. Please plan accordingly. All of this could have been avoided with a crosswalk with a long pedestrian cycle. Instead we'll drop hundreds of thousands on a monolith BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE DRIVERS?!

  4. #2404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    I don't think it's inappropriate, but I do think it's narrow and leading. The people most affected by the proposed changes are the users of the system who will be entering and exiting the stops along this strip. If you consider time, the 30 extra seconds in traffic or waiting to turn left at the next intersection is a drop in the bucket vs the time the pedestrians will wait to cross the street if a driver-focused option is chosen. Not to mention the pedestrian safety element.

    Reminds me of Century Park. We couldn't possibly have slid the station over to the side of the 111th where the bus loop is. No no, can't inconvenience the drivers. We'll just make the thousands of commuters climb a staircase too small to accommodate the crowd, cross on a pedestrian bridge, and climb back down another far too narrow staircase. Also, if you have mobility issues, the elevators will be working from 1-1:15pm every other Tuesday. Please plan accordingly. All of this could have been avoided with a crosswalk with a long pedestrian cycle. Instead we'll drop hundreds of thousands on a monolith BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE DRIVERS?!
    Surely the people most affected by the changes are those people who currently have a two-way street with four lanes (including parking) that's about the be reduced to one or two lanes one-way without parking? I.e., drivers.

    Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing. The changes if done properly should make SPR more usable for transit passengers and pedestrians; this hopefully will lead to other improvements in the area once the initial shock is recovered from. However, given that 90%+ of the current users of the road are in private passenger vehicles they do indeed form the largest constituent of people to be affected.

  5. #2405
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    The people most affected for the first 6 months maybe. After that drivers will adjust and adapt to the new normal. The people who will be most affected long-term will be the ones who actually use the system and will have to deal with whatever configuration is chosen for its lifespan.

  6. #2406

    Default

    The decision to go from 4 car lanes to 2 has already been made, unless this consultation also has a "No LRT" option, or the 87ave route is back on the table....

    so the decision is parking and one way vs two way, and that has huge impacts on people not in cars. Like, 3 lanes of traffic (including LRT) to cross or 4. LRT next to the curb, or general traffic, or parking? That has a huge impact on how the sidewalk is used and how safe it is. One way means fewer drivers turning across people walking, fewer directions to look when trying to cross SPR or a side street.

    Wasn't the whole point of so called "urban style" LRT that it makes a better walkable street? if so the walkability of the street had better be a more significant consideration than just whether you can get a car to your destination without going around the block.
    There can only be one.

  7. #2407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The decision to go from 4 car lanes to 2 has already been made, unless this consultation also has a "No LRT" option, or the 87ave route is back on the table....

    so the decision is parking and one way vs two way, and that has huge impacts on people not in cars. Like, 3 lanes of traffic (including LRT) to cross or 4. LRT next to the curb, or general traffic, or parking? That has a huge impact on how the sidewalk is used and how safe it is. One way means fewer drivers turning across people walking, fewer directions to look when trying to cross SPR or a side street.

    Wasn't the whole point of so called "urban style" LRT that it makes a better walkable street? if so the walkability of the street had better be a more significant consideration than just whether you can get a car to your destination without going around the block.
    I think you're reading too much into this presentation. The point of this presentation is primarily to assess traffic impacts; feedback gathered from this process will inform but not determine the final design. The final design will also take into account the other issues you raise.

    Or at least that's they way it's supposed to work.

  8. #2408
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,584

    Default

    Mitigating traffic woes to an extent will be those drivers who, employing the same strategy they do with downtown, will just avoid the area altogether.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  9. #2409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Mitigating traffic woes to an extent will be those drivers who, employing the same strategy they do with downtown, will just avoid the area altogether.
    It could be great for the suburbs. Some businesses maybe really-locating outside the downtown core or never considering locating downtown.

  10. #2410
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Mitigating traffic woes to an extent will be those drivers who, employing the same strategy they do with downtown, will just avoid the area altogether.
    It could be great for the suburbs. Some businesses maybe really-locating outside the downtown core or never considering locating downtown.
    Yeah the #1 thing small business owners hate is thousands of potential customers being exposed to their signage every 5 minutes. I can understand relocating because they don't want to deal with 2 years of construction, but nobody's moving because a few on-street parking spaces are lost.

  11. #2411
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    I actually donít think parking is going to impact the businesses along SPR. I have my objections to the West LRT, but honestly, this opens those businesses up to thousands of new customers when right now, he stretch is mostly only used by the local residents within walking distance.

    - At least thats how it was when I was dancing in the 25 cent peep show and turning tricks behind the Jasper Hotel.

  12. #2412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    I actually don’t think parking is going to impact the businesses along SPR. I have my objections to the West LRT, but honestly, this opens those businesses up to thousands of new customers when right now, he stretch is mostly only used by the local residents within walking distance.
    Thousands of new customers? Are you sure about that?

  13. #2413
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    I actually don’t think parking is going to impact the businesses along SPR. I have my objections to the West LRT, but honestly, this opens those businesses up to thousands of new customers when right now, he stretch is mostly only used by the local residents within walking distance.
    Thousands of new customers? Are you sure about that?
    Potentially yes. That is one benefit of this line. Again, I have some serious objections about cost cutting on arterial crossings, but one thing this line will do it bring 500 people every 5 minutes to the area. And itís easy to get on and off because you can stop for a few minutes and just hop on the train again.

    I wouldnít be surprised if you see the kinds of businesses change due to this in the long run. More restaurants, retail, and bars.

    But we will see.

  14. #2414

    Default

    If '500' people per 5 minutes was correct, how many of those people are just passing through the area? And how many of those are actually 'new' customers? LRT lines, particularly those that really aren't much faster than the existing bus service (if at all) don't do much to draw that many new transit riders, it just shifts existing riders from certain bus routes on to the LRT...
    Until there is a big shift in demographics in this area, don't expect too much changes in businesses.

  15. #2415
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I think the Stony Plain Road area at 149-156 Street needs more people, and LRT will help.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  16. #2416
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    351

    Default

    ^^^ I don't believe it will bring 500 people to the area, it will bring 500 people through the area. I really can't see, as you put it, people hopping off the LRT to window shop the conglomeration of pawn shops, check cashing shops, tattoo, porn and cheap liquor boutiques; "look honey, let's go check out the "Doggy Style" deli"... Speaking of 500 people, for 37 years Macewan had those numbers every day and those students/staff/faculty didn't/couldn't make a dent in the make up of that tawdry strip.
    Last edited by buildings; 05-08-2018 at 10:21 AM.

  17. #2417

    Default

    Good point about MacEwan.

  18. #2418
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    No doubt it'd be horrendously expensive today, but it would be great if the WLRT could use a cut and cover approach, like what was done when the Capital line was being built in the early 1980's. Anyone on this thread remember those days?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #2419

    Default

    Capital Line used boring machine. The only cut and cover was for the stations.

  20. #2420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    The area south of 107 on the west side of 149 was expropriated for a major road expansion. Then they changed their minds.
    https://issuu.com/aesdl/docs/prepare...76ee07d9101dc4

    https://issuu.com/aesdl/docs/edmonto...0c0f7615b8e1f6

    https://issuu.com/aesdl/docs/edmonto...44312041582f05
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-08-2018 at 03:54 PM.

  21. #2421
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Capital Line used boring machine. The only cut and cover was for the stations.
    The City of Edmonton did a cut and cover from Bay/Enterprise square station to 104th Street. There's a underground pedway that cuts right underneath that stretch of Jasper Ave.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  22. #2422

    Default

    I am quite confident that the WLRT will drive property values up on SPR. Time will tell of course but most growing cities around the world see increases in property values around mass transit stations and corridors when built. This will drive investment into the area and I suspect the land use and business mix in the area will change.

    Newer transit stations on LRT lines in Edmonton such as Belgravia/McKernan were certainly a factor in increased land values.

  23. #2423
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    Keep in mind the WLRT is a urban style system. Its low floor. Since the WLRT is low floor it will be essentially "cutting neighborhoods" in half. I suspect if anything property values will drop especially people living along my old alma matter neighborhood 156th street where its mostly apartments along 99th to 95th Ave. More people will end up being frustrated realizing they can't (apparently) cut across East/West on 96th/156th street. Will residents be able to cross 95th Ave? I don't know. Its early days. Again low floor (Valley) is different then Capital line. We're still in the design phase of WLRT.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  24. #2424

    Default

    I doubt not being able to cut across a busy road at one particular point will decrease housing values. The SE Valley Line "cuts" across the neighbourhoods just as the older roadway did and has the same crossing sections and in some places more. Most Valley Line roadway and pedestrian crossings have not been altered.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  25. #2425

  26. #2426
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    Valley line has yet to be commisioned. Its still under construction. Consider King Edward Park where I live for a year. That's mostly residential housing along 83rd street. I'm not sure if that's going to bordered off along that stretch or what?

    Thanks for the link, I've skimmed over that before. Things can change.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  27. #2427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Keep in mind the WLRT is a urban style system. Its low floor. Since the WLRT is low floor it will be essentially "cutting neighborhoods" in half. I suspect if anything property values will drop especially people living along my old alma matter neighborhood 156th street where its mostly apartments along 99th to 95th Ave. More people will end up being frustrated realizing they can't (apparently) cut across East/West on 96th/156th street. Will residents be able to cross 95th Ave? I don't know. Its early days. Again low floor (Valley) is different then Capital line. We're still in the design phase of WLRT.
    I would be very surprised if property values dropped. Most evidence throughout the world show property values rising after mass transit lines are constructed; particularly around stations. Perhaps Edmonton will be an exception to this trend but I very much doubt it. Developers are already proposing, and have spent significant money designing, major redevelopments on SELRT. I don't foresee the trend being any different for SPR with WLRT.

  28. #2428
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    About the only people who complain are those who cross in the middle of the block.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  29. #2429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Valley line has yet to be commisioned. Its still under construction. Consider King Edward Park where I live for a year. That's mostly residential housing along 83rd street. I'm not sure if that's going to bordered off along that stretch or what?

    Thanks for the link, I've skimmed over that before. Things can change.
    Presently, in King Ed, where I grew up and live adjacent, you can only cross at Whyte and 76th Ave at full traffic lights and then at 78th with pedestrian activated lights... and this is to be duplicated in the LRT scheme. Unless you're jaywalking there is no change.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  30. #2430

    Default

    I'm very excited for the Lewis Estates end to get started. I wish they would work on both ends at the same time... It will definitely be nice for heading downtown for dinner and drinks, or the Jubilee (we frequent it regularly). Half the time I'm the designated driver, otherwise it's an expensive Uber ride. This will be a nice option for a night out. I just hope there aren't too many stops in that really nice part of Stoney :P

  31. #2431

    Default

    Tonight I was just looking at the concept design book for W LRT and am a little concerned with the lack of multi use trails along the LRT corridor. West of West Ed is great, and they have one all the way to Lewis Farms, but once it hits 178 street there is virtually nothing until the route gets to downtown. There also doesn't seem to be much bike infrastructure in the surrounding area as it is, so I hope that with the more detailed design work being done there will be more multi use trails along the corridor. Has anyone heard anything about how the city is planning on integrating the bike network with the Valley Line LRT.

    P.S. apologies if this is the wrong thread, but my concern was specific to the valley line so I though this would be the most suited place to bring it up! Cheers

  32. #2432
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    "Asked why the west leg would be less complex, Iveson said: "Because it's not a P3." CBC News - link below

    The Mayor let the backroom babble out of the bag stating that the West line would not be developed as a P3. Really????
    If we held a plebiscite and asked Edmontonians whether they wanted the clowns at City Hall to design and construct the LRT line or the Private Sector - no doubt in my mind the people of Edmonton would say NO TO CITY MANAGEMENT OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. We can see through the smoke and our experience in the City's staff mishandling numerous projects - we dont need another clusterfx. I hope the Citizens of this City, the private sector and media will scream from the roof tops about the incompetence of the City to competently manage any project of this size given their absolute failure on the Waterdale bridge, the overpass at 23rd Ave, the LRT to NAIT (still not resolved) and the list goes on and on. How dare the Mayor think he gets a free pass to screw another project - enough is enough.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...eson-1.4793527

  33. #2433
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    "Asked why the west leg would be less complex, Iveson said: "Because it's not a P3." CBC News - link below

    The Mayor let the backroom babble out of the bag stating that the West line would not be developed as a P3. Really????
    If we held a plebiscite and asked Edmontonians whether they wanted the clowns at City Hall to design and construct the LRT line or the Private Sector - no doubt in my mind the people of Edmonton would say NO TO CITY MANAGEMENT OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. We can see through the smoke and our experience in the City's staff mishandling numerous projects - we dont need another clusterfx. I hope the Citizens of this City, the private sector and media will scream from the roof tops about the incompetence of the City to competently manage any project of this size given their absolute failure on the Waterdale bridge, the overpass at 23rd Ave, the LRT to NAIT (still not resolved) and the list goes on and on. How dare the Mayor think he gets a free pass to screw another project - enough is enough.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...eson-1.4793527
    The city doesn't design or construct the LRT under any contract model.

    The SELRT has an SPI of something like 0.8...which on a straight line puts it around 1 year behind. No clarity on if the delays are on the critical path, they are supposedly reissuing a revised schedule that shows their recovery plan, per edmontonjournal. So what do you say if the P3 comes in late?

    The COE has made bad decisions, in some cases it has been commercially compensated via contract mechanisms, such as the LDs in the Walterdale bridge case, sometimes it's not as clear like withholding payment with the metro signalling, issuing notice of default, etc.


    Using a different contract delivery model doesn't undo bad decisions or poor performance it just uses different incentive and penalty profiles to assign those risks.

  34. #2434

    Default

    good god. city hall has reached peak crazy. planners want to get rid of the left turn from 104ave to 109 st heading south and the mayor is ok with it hahahaha
    i was, at one time, a downtown AND lrt booster but it seems just because i have to drive, i am no longer welcome/ wanted in the core.

  35. #2435

    Default

    That's what you get when you plan a train through downtown. Most lefts get eliminated. Just try driving through downtown Portland. Can't make a left for 10 blocks. I saw this coming 12 years ago.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #2436
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    good god. city hall has reached peak crazy. planners want to get rid of the left turn from 104ave to 109 st heading south and the mayor is ok with it hahahaha
    i was, at one time, a downtown AND lrt booster but it seems just because i have to drive, i am no longer welcome/ wanted in the core.
    Huh? What?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  37. #2437
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    If you're opposed contact the mayor and your councillor and see if they support or oppose this. Then mention you'll vote accordingly. You can contact them here

    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...uncillors.aspx

  38. #2438
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,301

    Default

    Removing left-turn lane for LRT will have minimal traffic impacts: city report

    A busy intersection along the 104th Avenue corridor near downtown could lose a turning lane for the new LRT line, according to a City of Edmonton administration plan.
    There would be minimal impacts on traffic by removing the lane for westbound traffic that wants to head south at 109th Street, states the report on the Valley Line West LRT.
    The proposal is meant to mitigate the impact on Grant MacEwan University's boulevard that stretches along the north side of 104th Avenue.
    The report will be discussed by the executive committee at city hall Monday.
    "I understand there will be concerns from folks who rely on that turning movement today. But all of the traffic patterns will shift when the LRT comes in," Mayor Don Iveson said Sunday.
    While some people will make the switch to transit, even drivers could benefit from different configurations at busy intersections, he said.
    "My personal opinion is that our obsession as a city with maintaining all of the turning movements actually slows down a lot of our intersections," he said, adding that eliminating turns at specific locations could improve the overall system.
    "I will have questions about the traffic impact analysis and what the alternate routes will be."

    The report suggest westbound traffic could turn south at 106th Avenue, 103rd Avenue, or Jasper Avenue.
    "With the introduction of LRT on 104th Avenue, administration projects that less than 50 vehicles per hour during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour would make the westbound left turn," the report states.

    The development of the Valley Line West LRT ó which will stretch from downtown to the Lewis Farms Transit Centre ó is still at the preliminary design phase.
    At this point, the designs outline an LRT line running down the centre of the roadway at the stretch of 104th Avenue near Grant MacEwan. Two lanes of traffic will flow on either side of the train.
    The report states the top concerns for MacEwan University were campus connectivity and pedestrian safety, retaining green space along the north side of 10rth Avenue, and minimizing land impact and acquisition requirements.
    "Removing the westbound left-turn lane opens up space to shift the alignment of westbound through-lanes southward, thereby reducing impact to the north boulevard and its southern sidewalk," the report states.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  39. #2439
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    Thanks SDM

    Now I now what they're talking about.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  40. #2440

    Default

    Removing the westbound to south left turn is not so bad as there are plenty of other left turn options from 104 (assuming they're not all removed). I was afraid you were talking about the eastbound north left turn. Removing that one would've been problematic.

  41. #2441
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    From Rogers PLace driving down 104th Avenue and turning left (South):
    104th has a left turn lane and is 1 lanes south until 100th Ave and truncates thee ways. BUSY, BAD CHOICE
    105th has a left turn lane and is 2 lanes south for one block, one lane until 100th Ave and ends - must turn left or right FIRST CHOICE
    106th has a left turn lane and is 1 lanes south until 102nd Ave where it becomes one way South to the River Valley SECOND CHOICE
    107th has no left turn lane, lane is blocked off for Fire Station and now LRT Station. City not likely going to add a left lane
    108th has no left turn lane, Capital Blvd not designed for through traffic, would require a change in intended use. Not an option.

    So realistically you have 105th Street, 106th Street and maybe 104th Street in that order. But I bet they close off 104th Street as an option or traffic won't move.
    People will look left and if the traffic allows - head for back alleys (they do that now). After 106th you would need to drive up to 110th turn and go through the Tim Hortons and Future Shop lots (people do it now) or up to 111th and circle back.
    Last edited by EdmTrekker; 27-08-2018 at 09:08 AM.

  42. #2442

    Default

    Let see, we have two very important/busy crosstown routes. Lets see what happens when we remove certain movements from that... The result will be people using 111th, or 106/107, and then cutting back to 109 at 103/102/Jasper or 100, which just adds to the problem...


    The city administration is being brain dead. I'd use another word, but that would be an insult to those that actually are....

  43. #2443

    Default

    Pretty sure that there's an WB-SB left turn restriction on 107ave at 109. Not a lot of options left, are there?
    There can only be one.

  44. #2444
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    There are options - the City may have to designate 106th Street 3 lanes one way south ALL the way and have 2 left turn lanes off 104th Avenue for Peak times. This is the easiest solution to move volumes of traffic and 106th is already one way south of Jasper Avenue. This also removes clogging 107th when Fire Trucks and Trains exit onto 104th Ave.

    By dedicating 106th one way people can get to (A) The River Valley and turn East on 98th Ave to over the James MacDonald or West down River Valley Road to St. Albert or the Uiversity OR (B) turn right on 102nd, or Jasper or 100th Ave to 109th Street for the High Level Bridge.

  45. #2445

    Default

    or you know, have the LRT go over or under 109/104??

  46. #2446

    Default

    God forbid the city have a tunnel or bridge in it. Something that simple would cost billions!

  47. #2447
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    God forbid the city have a tunnel or bridge in it. Something that simple would cost billions!
    "Billions"?? Well it just may if the City is doing its own project management.

  48. #2448
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    God forbid the city have one extra 'No Left Turns' sign in it. Something that simple would cause chaos!

  49. #2449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    God forbid the city have a tunnel or bridge in it. Something that simple would cost billions!
    "Billions"?? Well it just may if the City is doing its own project management.
    Yep that's what I was getting at...

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    God forbid the city have one extra 'No Left Turns' sign in it. Something that simple would cause chaos!
    No left turn onto a main road that leads right into the south end is poor planning. That just means the traffic will go around other smaller routes to try to get onto it, and yes, more chaotic. Now you have smaller streets and intersections taking all the traffic.

  50. #2450
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    And to complicate all of that into the near future is the Jasper Ave makeover project. We need to be aware when that happens.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #2451
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    If we have left turns at 106 Street, we can make upgrades along the rest of the road to connect with 97 Avenue, and onto 109 Street. 109 Street is a zoo at rush hour, especially the entrance to High Level Bridge.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  52. #2452

    Default

    Wasn't it only 6 months ago that city admin was trying to tell us they foresee no issues at this intersection with running the LRT at grade through it? Now we need to remove a left turn or two. Really have no trust in this city administration to tell the truth.

  53. #2453
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,695

    Default

    To quote Rudolph Guliani, apparently our CoE administration's mentor, "the truth isn't the truth."
    ... gobsmacked

  54. #2454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    good god. city hall has reached peak crazy. planners want to get rid of the left turn from 104ave to 109 st heading south and the mayor is ok with it hahahaha
    i was, at one time, a downtown AND lrt booster but it seems just because i have to drive, i am no longer welcome/ wanted in the core.
    As someone who thinks they've reached peak crazy a while ago, I have to laugh. However, while I don't like the left turn elimination, I do get you can't have everything on the same road, so it was probably the best choice in this situation. An article I read indicated they may put a left turn in on 103rd and/or 105th, which would probably help some.

    The bigger problem is there is a lot of changes happening downtown, so taking out a lane here or there and parking here and there, is cumulatively making getting around downtown much more difficult and I don't think city council appreciates or cares about that, but those people trying to navigate around downtown sure do. I think we are very close to the point where either the city itself stops monkeying around with things so much or the voters in the next election will put an end to it.

  55. #2455
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    I still feel it should have been routed straight down 102nd all the way to 124th. It would have meant to quick and simple tunnels and would have opened all of Oliverís population to the mass transit opportunities a functional transit system would bring.

    Itís actually an area of the city perfectly tailored for a low floor system. I understand it comes with the cost of developing North brewery district, but Iíd rather have some undeveloped lands then an unfixable and extraordinarily expensive transit system.

  56. #2456

    Default

    Maybe we need to rebuild the 109th street Rat Hole...


    ...this may sound like a stupid idea if it doesn't make so much sense. FCOL
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  57. #2457

    Default

    I mean the administration felt that University Avenue would function fine with the train. Turned out great.
    51st Avenue turned out amazing.
    Administration said Kingsway would be fine. Turned out the best yet.

    Administration said Whyte Ave and 82nd street will be fine with 'creative signal timing'. Obviously going to be another success.

    Finally we have: "With the introduction of LRT on 104th Avenue, administration projects that less than 50 vehicles per hour during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour would make the westbound left turn," the report states. Nothing to worry about! The left turn bay only spills onto 109th street everyday during rush hour holding up northbound 109th commuters....Obviously, there's no demand. We're gold on this one.

  58. #2458

    Default

    ^ Very well stated

    Who are we to question the Gods of Administration???
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #2459
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,695

    Default

    Well, 103 St isn't an option as from 104-103 Ave it's actually WAM's private property to open or close at will.

    So, you can turn left at 104, 105 or 107 - but what then? Oh I know, the ever-helpful "use other routes."

    Drivers can what? Turn left then right onto 103 ave, then right again to line up to turn left back onto 104 Ave? That won't be a problem at all, right?

    Or turn right onto the already rush-hour heavily congested Jasper Ave?

    It's not as if we didn't see this clusterfork happening. How many times have we pleaded for grade separation at that one intersection?

    Pardon the pun, but is the supportive mayor and the car-hating gang at silly hall "driving" me to vote for some - anyone else next election?
    ... gobsmacked

  60. #2460
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Well, 103 St isn't an option as from 104-103 Ave it's actually WAM's private property to open or close at will.

    So, you can turn left at 104, 105 or 107 - but what then? Oh I know, the ever-helpful "use other routes."

    Drivers can what? Turn left then right onto 103 ave, then right again to line up to turn left back onto 104 Ave? That won't be a problem at all, right?

    Or turn right onto the already rush-hour heavily congested Jasper Ave?

    It's not as if we didn't see this clusterfork happening. How many times have we pleaded for grade separation at that one intersection?

    Pardon the pun, but is the supportive mayor and the car-hating gang at silly hall "driving" me to vote for some - anyone else next election?
    Did you deliberately eliminate 106th Street?

  61. #2461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    I mean the administration felt that University Avenue would function fine with the train. Turned out great.
    51st Avenue turned out amazing.
    Administration said Kingsway would be fine. Turned out the best yet.

    Administration said Whyte Ave and 82nd street will be fine with 'creative signal timing'. Obviously going to be another success.

    Finally we have: "With the introduction of LRT on 104th Avenue, administration projects that less than 50 vehicles per hour during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour would make the westbound left turn," the report states. Nothing to worry about! The left turn bay only spills onto 109th street everyday during rush hour holding up northbound 109th commuters....Obviously, there's no demand. We're gold on this one.
    Bold by me....

    I'm not in favour of closing this left turn but you can't judge how many people it currently serves well just by looking at the lines.... There can be long lines that over-fill the queue lanes and stragglers who enter the intersection when they can't clear it because that's the only way they'll be able to turn..... But that doesn't mean big numbers. Only a handful of vehicles make each left turn in a light cycle, and this intersection has a fairly long cycle - probably 90s or more to do the whole cycle.

    Which adds up to at best maybe 200 of each left turn per hour at the best of times, and fewer when there's no free SB lane to turn into during the afternoon rush.
    There can only be one.

  62. #2462
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    None of the alternative streets were designed with the carrying capacity to function as aterial outlets to the south side. It doesnít take a civil engineer to see that mitigating traffic in one spot is going to create significant congestion through minor losses using the alternatives offered by iveson.

    The logical choices are: change the route of the LRT, or make 104th and Jasper into one way traffic. West and eastbound respectivelty. Those are the only ways I see this working with sound fluid mechanics.

  63. #2463
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,097

    Default

    And Stony Plain westbound and 100 and 102 eastbound with some adjustment 149 to 142

  64. #2464
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdmTrekker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    It's not as if we didn't see this clusterfork happening. How many times have we pleaded for grade separation at that one intersection?

    Pardon the pun, but is the supportive mayor and the car-hating gang at silly hall "driving" me to vote for some - anyone else next election?
    Did you deliberately eliminate 106th Street?
    Looking at Google Satellite, appeared to be a concrete median preventing wb left turns there.

    Could be wrong, but what does that matter? Still results in massive clusterforks at 109 nb at 104, or on Jasper

    If you could do a right, right, right, ala 142 and Yellowhead that'd be an answer - except, you can't right to 105 till 116 Street.

    Yeah, that'll cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    Or is cutting GHG's what CoE actually cares about? Or is it being oh-so European ....
    ... gobsmacked

  65. #2465
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    The news said that during peak times a vehicle turns that way once every minute. Less so off peak times.

    I fail to see what difference it makes whether traffic cuts over tracks at 109th sb or anywhere sb along 104th street. By the same token will traffic be stopped from making left hand turns off of 109th onto 104th street?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  66. #2466

    Default

    Let's just block the 104 Ave & 109 Street intersection altogether in all direction except for the LRT!

    Strategically placed no-left and no-right turn signs can be places along alternative route to divert traffic down McDougall Hill, then west under the Ledge and then you're at the bridge! Wow, so simple and skips the whole 109st gridlock!

    Traffic coming from the west can be diverted slightly more west until they hit the Henday, then it's just a hop-skip and a jump southbound over the river and back in along Fox Drive/Belgravia and University Ave and boom! You're already across the HLB!! Again, so simple, and the best part is that it only costs the purchase of some no turning signs!

  67. #2467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Let's just block the 104 Ave & 109 Street intersection altogether in all direction except for the LRT!
    with the extra space, we could turn into in a pedestrian area with street vendors, cafes, bike lanes and fake-grass dog park! There's also room for a large (but heck no, not too large!!!!) patio and/or beer gardens (again, to reflect the charm of the community, we will keep the licence number at 100 or less!!!!! ) imagine the possibilities!

  68. #2468
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,149

    Default

    ^ Most likely the mayor has bike lanes in mind here
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  69. #2469
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Let's just block the 104 Ave & 109 Street intersection altogether in all direction except for the LRT!

    Strategically placed no-left and no-right turn signs can be places along alternative route to divert traffic down McDougall Hill, then west under the Ledge and then you're at the bridge! Wow, so simple and skips the whole 109st gridlock!

    Traffic coming from the west can be diverted slightly more west until they hit the Henday, then it's just a hop-skip and a jump southbound over the river and back in along Fox Drive/Belgravia and University Ave and boom! You're already across the HLB!! Again, so simple, and the best part is that it only costs the purchase of some no turning signs!
    Seriously hoping this is sarcasm.

    Please tell me this is sarcasm, because if not, then it's just a total joke.

    Yeah, let's just intensify the already serious congestion on 98 ave under the Ledge grounds and on 114 Street into total gridlock. Good idea.

    But, benefit of the doubt, you weren't serious. Right?

    I actually think, before the province gives a penny towards this looming fiasco, they need to challenge the city on its GHG reduction estimates, 'cause any rational person will know they'll be completely out of whack.
    ... gobsmacked

  70. #2470

    Default

    rather than creating new space, this merely preserves the existing green space. There's a setback there now, with a double-sidewalk and a couple rows of trees. these are busy sidewalks, during the daytime you can be sure that there are more pedestrians using the pedestrian 10' of ROW as there are drivers and passengers using the 10' of left turn lane.

    Just went and timed a cycle. 100s per cycle, so 36 cycles per hour, usually 5 or so cars manage to turn per cycle. So closer to 180 cars per hour than the 50 that the city is claiming.
    There can only be one.

  71. #2471

    Default

    They need to finish the tunnelling and get two way traffic back onto 105 st north of 104 avenue so people can get to and turn off of 105 ave onto 109 st. Otherwise this could be a real flustercuck

  72. #2472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post

    Seriously hoping this is sarcasm.
    Yes.

  73. #2473

    Default

    Good lord, i have been in a lot of downtowns in a lot of cities. They are not the most car friendly environments nor are they always the most straightforward to navigate.

    There is no charter of rights that demands that the car will have equality in our dt and it likely shouldnít.

    Just think about how far our dt hs come, and some of the change and sacrifices that were made. Do you remember when we had one ways heading east and west. Awesome for moving traffic but horrid for the public realm and local business. There was lane control, you could turn left and right at almost every intersection and you canít now.

    Itís like you all are complaining about success. You all act like growth, density and success can come without trade offs.

    Itís time to get real people.

  74. #2474

    Default

    Time to get real... Build a proper transit system, not one that hinders other modes. No one is complaining, except you. You are complaining about people discussing improvements that will make Edmonton a better place. It's okay if you like the status quo, and are okay with a half-assed transit system that will never encourage the 91% of commuters to switch modes. That's fine. "Build a transit system for those that already use it and have no other choice but to use it. " that was your former signature no?

  75. #2475

    Default

    ^I just don't think Edmontonians are ready to pay for it, nor is the set-up of the Metro transit body ready, or the province (UPC party probably) ready to invest that much into transit.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  76. #2476
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post

    Seriously hoping this is sarcasm.
    Yes.
    In that case - good one! Sense of humour never hurts.
    ... gobsmacked

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •