Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 503

Thread: Centre LRT | Strathcona

  1. #101

    Default

    ^Which neighbourhood are you referring to?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  2. #102

    Default

    The preferred route is going to be opened for public feedback in February. Here's a sneak peak:



    Important points:

    1. New bridge in between the High Level Bridge and the existing LRT (Menzies) Bridge.
    2. This bridge will be higher than Menzies but lower than HLB.
    3. Downtown stretches likely to be at grade.
    4. Unknown if the stretch along 110st/89ave in Garneau will be at grade or elevated or even tunneled.
    5. Two traffic lanes gone along 112st and Whyte Avenue.
    6. Unknown if Whyte Avenue crossings at 109st, Calgary Trail, Gateway Blvd, etc will be at grade.
    7. Bridge over Mill Creek will be shared with vehicular traffic.

  3. #103
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,722

    Default

    I think there will be a riot if 109 Street has two more street-level crossings.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  4. #104
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Windermere
    Posts
    1,940

    Default

    I don't understand what purpose this route serves from 107 Street to 112 Street? This is the same route as the Capital Line, with a totally unnecessary second bridge.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatestX View Post
    I don't understand what purpose this route serves from 107 Street to 112 Street? This is the same route as the Capital Line, with a totally unnecessary second bridge.
    In addition it would seem likely to be exceedingly slow given the convoluted route with many sharp corners to negotiate.

    They say the existing route over Menzies Bridge is at or near capacity. Is that right? Even if so, surely there's a better way to increase capacity.

  6. #106
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatestX View Post
    I don't understand what purpose this route serves from 107 Street to 112 Street? This is the same route as the Capital Line, with a totally unnecessary second bridge.
    Agreed. A completely unnecessary, wasteful, duplication of existing infrastructure. In comparison to the Menzies bridge, this second bridge will be much more environmentally destructive to the river valley, Ezio Faraone Park, and possibly existing multiuse trails.

  7. #107
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    They say the existing route over Menzies Bridge is at or near capacity. Is that right? Even if so, surely there's a better way to increase capacity.
    The better way to increase capacity on the Capital Line is to fix the signaling system which currently restricts trains crossing the Menzies Bridge to 5 minute frequencies, rather than the planned 2.5 minute frequencies.

  8. #108
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    ^the City is more likely to just accept 5mins and spend $180m on a new bridge over the river instead. This city never learns.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^Which neighbourhood are you referring to?
    Strathcona and Whyte Ave, specifically.

  10. #110

    Default

    ^An LRT down Whyte would **** of people with expensive homes in Strathcona? For lane reduction reasons and intersection conflicts?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  11. #111

    Default

    I don't see how this line could use the existing bridge. The vehicles would be too low for the platforms, so the couldn't use Grandin or University stations. You'd have to cut off the south line while tying in the new tracks on both ends. From what I recall, the province is holding the HLB for possible high speed rail. A new bridge seems the only option.

  12. #112

    Default

    Or you could just have riders transfer between lines at a convenient location. and if riders from the west having convenient access to the university is suddenly a priority then an 87ave/university ave bridge is so, so much better.
    There can only be one.

  13. #113

    Default

    Wait till some tall forehead at the city proposes tearing down the HLB in order to build a multi-use bridge to facilitate this ridiculous idea. I can see it coming...

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Wait till some tall forehead at the city proposes tearing down the HLB in order to build a multi-use bridge to facilitate this ridiculous idea. I can see it coming...
    That might actually be a better outcome. If the city could actually deliver it...

  15. #115

    Default

    I honestly don't understand the purpose of this line. Purely convenience?

    All we need are some dedicated buses that run back and forth between Bonnie Doon and Health Sciences Station...

    Slap in that commuter gondola connecting 101St/Jasper and Gateway/Whyte and we're set.

  16. #116
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,223

    Default

    and probably save a ton of money, B.ike.

    Yeah, I really don't understand why this route is needed.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  17. #117
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I don't see how this line could use the existing bridge. The vehicles would be too low for the platforms, so the couldn't use Grandin or University stations. You'd have to cut off the south line while tying in the new tracks on both ends. From what I recall, the province is holding the HLB for possible high speed rail. A new bridge seems the only option.
    I agree. If they are to go that way a new bridge is essential as it can be aligned to accommodate tie ins at both ends. Exactly how they would get across 109 and then south on the existing row will be interesting.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OffWhyte View Post
    The preferred route is going to be opened for public feedback in February. Here's a sneak peak:



    Important points:

    1. New bridge in between the High Level Bridge and the existing LRT (Menzies) Bridge.
    2. This bridge will be higher than Menzies but lower than HLB.
    3. Downtown stretches likely to be at grade.
    4. Unknown if the stretch along 110st/89ave in Garneau will be at grade or elevated or even tunneled.
    5. Two traffic lanes gone along 112st and Whyte Avenue.
    6. Unknown if Whyte Avenue crossings at 109st, Calgary Trail, Gateway Blvd, etc will be at grade.
    7. Bridge over Mill Creek will be shared with vehicular traffic.
    Needless duplication of everything north of Whyte Ave. You already have a line across the river. What is wrong with a straight line from 114th Street, down Whyte to 75th street?

    Better yet at far less cost and disruption, an aerial gondola from 114th to 75th and another from [email protected] straight north to the Arena
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 01-02-2018 at 11:05 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  19. #119

    Default

    I refuse to believe this route is real due to its stupidity.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Why do people keep thinking this proposal is about low floor LRT?

    It's about creating massive disruption to vehicle traffic (including ambulances btw) in order to force frustrated motorists out of their cars and onto transit.

    Even when transit doesn't actually, you know go anywhere near where the ex-motorist wants to go.
    ... gobsmacked

  21. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    I refuse to believe this route is real due to its stupidity.
    I agree.

  22. #122
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    Why can't it be low floor? That's what makes this proposal stupid.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  23. #123

    Default

    It is low floor. It's a branch off the Valley line between 102st/102 ave & Bonnie Doon.

  24. #124
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    ^Thanks. I was getting worried there for a bit. The only thing I don't like about the route is the West leg 89th and South down 112th. Why can't it just go down 110th? Doesn't make sense to me.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  25. #125

    Default

    If it were up to me I'd skip the river crossing and just make it a Whyte Ave connector to Bonnie Doon. There's already two LRT lines from downtown to the University. The routing from downtown to the University is half-assed attempt to give the west end a connection to the University. There's so many stops along that line that buses would be much faster than taking the LRT. If you really want to take the LRT from the West End, it'll be almost as fast to simply transfer at Corona or Bay (1 block walk) or Churchill (down 2 levels).

  26. #126
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    The river crossing is ok with me. I know ProCura owns the land and the tracks currently there, would need to be removed and changed etc but I'd be in favour of just running the whole line down 109th street to Whyte and run it from there to connect to Valley. Plus the beauty of this is adjacent to the AE building would be a perfect chunk of land to build a station a block away from the West Corona station. Easy. Sure there would be a few details to take care of but its just a notion of mine.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  27. #127
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    Correction: Procura doesn't own the land the tracks are on but the property adjacent to the AEB
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  28. #128
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,722

    Default

    I imagine that the LRT needs to meet up with the university, and the hospital. Part of me wonders if there would be a stop at Garneau, given the restaurants, the Garneau Theatre and nearby residences.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 03-02-2018 at 03:02 PM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  29. #129
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    My turn...

    Interesting map. The 107 Street/99Avenue/109 Street Corridor is very curious. I look forward to the renderings to show the turn from west to south-bound. Not much different from a map I saw from city planners almost 10 years ago. Curious they choose 107 Street instead of building in the former CP alignment/park just west of 109 Street.

    The new river crossing. There is an engineering report due back to the city on the state of the High Level Bridge. Is it out yet? I have a feeling the iconic railway bridge is not long for this world and will need to be replaced with something to accomodate current and future vehicle traffic - both road and rail, pedestrian and cyclist related.

    For folks getting all wound up about the existing Old Strathcona street car operated by the Radial Railway Society, is there any opportunity here to allow these street cars to meet the track gauge and power supply requirements so they can interline with the track going east and west along Whyte Avenue?

    I see some folk on this threat getting all excited about the old and existing CP right-of-way and CP Irvine. I will remind you:

    > the Government of Alberta owns the old ROW, including the rights to the top deck of the High Level Bridge

    > the Government of Alberta has first right of refusal to purchase all CP lands in the current active railway corridor

    > the Government of Alberta owns the container terminal along 34 Avenue and 99 Street that CP uses.

    > any real estate development on the CP lands in Old Strathcona will require a Level 2 or 3 environmental assessment and environmental clean up. Do you know any real estate developers ready to shell out to haul away all that dirt to the Swan Hills Treatment Centre?

    > CP has changed its attitute and is out to make money for shareholders anyway they can. Land leases, not sales, are the order of the day.

    > a 76 Avenue underpass is needed.

    > While folks dream of putting the future HSR station in Old Stathcona and try to compare Edmonton geography to Vancouver geography, this would be an extreamly short sighted move when the destination for the majority of HSR passengers will be downtown, not Whyte Avenue (pax: 75% business 25% leisure). When they arrive, riding LRT is one thing, hoping on a dingdong trolley now being sold as 30km/h low-floor LRT is very much another.

    > Can someone go and give Hon. Brian Mason and Alberta Transportation a figurative kick to wake up, be a team player, tell us the plan, and stop the uncertainty over HSR/commuter rail development, least gigantic expropriations and ruined urban deisng are what they want to do?

    >The Mayor has openly mused for two Christmas year ends now about the need for commuter rail to the south.

  30. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    The new river crossing. There is an engineering report due back to the city on the state of the High Level Bridge. Is it out yet? I have a feeling the iconic railway bridge is not long for this world and will need to be replaced with something to accomodate current and future vehicle traffic - both road and rail, pedestrian and cyclist related.

    ( ... edited for brevity ... )
    I believe the High Level Bridge is heritage listed. I don't think it's going anywhere.

  31. #131

    Default

    First one is on Feb. 15 at the Matrix Hotel:

    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...lrt-study.aspx
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  32. #132

    Default

    Administration is clearly on a furious pace to make it impossible to get around Edmonton. I already thought running a train down Whyte was beyond stupid, but this goes into insane territory.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  33. #133
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Administration is clearly on a furious pace to make it impossible to get around Edmonton. I already thought running a train down Whyte was beyond stupid, but this goes into insane territory.
    Nah, this isn't insane. But the METS plan was

    It's just the planning for now. Building will be a long way out. There is no budget room, and it will come back again before the shovels go in the ground for a final tweek.

    Yes, it is clear administration wants people out of their cars on into transit or alternative modes. That whole Envisioning Jasper exercise this summer...I swear there is a conspiracy out there to ensure the McKinnon Ravine Parkway gets built. Think of the lovely interchange that will be needed at Groat Road, River Valley Road, and Victoria Park Road.

  34. #134
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Uh, no conspiracy that I've been invited to join.

    Opposed McKinnon then, oppose it I would actively do again at the drop of a dime.

    Please, don't confuse opposition to stupid LRT planning with being pro-freeway. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    I opposed Envision Jasper, not because I actually oppose making Jasper more pedestrian friendly.

    I oppose an administration that says it's consulting, when it's just checking off boxes on how to get what they want.

    You think they really care what anyone said about that experiment?

    Dream on - my previous experiences with CoE is when they say they're consulting, mostly they're just smirking when you don't jump up and down like a school child at how brilliant they are.

    There could be ways to make this circulator work. But guaranteed this administration doesn't give a flying frig for anything but their way - and will bully this and future councils into getting their way.

    That's how they work. And why wouldn't they? It's evidently worked so far and they they've already bent council over their knee on Whyte and 83 - with high hopes they'll do so as well on 104 and 109.

    It's reverse democracy. "We the all-knowing ......"
    Last edited by McBoo; 06-02-2018 at 01:43 AM.
    ... gobsmacked

  35. #135

    Default

    This route looks like a practical joke.

  36. #136
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    Oh, it IS a joke. Not a practical one, even.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  37. #137
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    215

    Default

    I cant seem to make sense of why the heck they would do the line this way. Just do a spur off the valley line and run it down whyte or similar. Same thing could be done by having the metro line turn at university or health sciences and go down whyte ave toward Bonnie Doon. Both of those options get you most of what you are trying to accomplish without the expensive new bridge and work north of the river. Obviously i am making it sound more simple than it is but there has to be a way to make something like that work.

  38. #138

    Default

    No, the real simple answer is to run a frequent, better bus down the same corridor, connecting to LRT at both ends, and it really is that simple.

    There really is no benefit to this plan, despite a likely cost approaching $1B if they built it today - You're better off catching the very first (very frequent) LRT coming from millwoods or the west end, and then transferring to the other (very frequent) LRT line or to a (very frequent) bus down whyte ave rather than waiting for the less frequent LRT that will take you the whole way.
    There can only be one.

  39. #139
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,866

    Default

    No new bridge please and thank you. Use the High Level and work it out with the supplementary historical trolley and needed route on the south side of the bridge.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  40. #140

    Default

    Councillor Knack told me he's still interested and will get council/staff to keep looking into the High Level ROW for this route/connection.

    Councillor Henderson said that the general route planning at this stage is good and fairly preliminary (I agree) for discussion, future bus frequency and road-use planning, all a part of a larger discussion. His words were that under a LRT planed route along Whyte, under the coming Transit Strategy, it will make a more compelling case for say.. BRT in or not in a dedicated ROW along Whyte. Paraphrasing a little bit, of course. Seeing how this is the last priority of LRT extensions, I don't disagree entirely, but then, in saying that, if the above map is correct (most councillors and organizations have said they've yet to see the map), why, in preliminary route planning, more or see commit to a new bridge?

    Spur line alone would be a great idea. In all discussion wit the City or engagements I've had, it's been on that idea, or running it over the High Level. Many lines in major cities do this for practical reasons. Metro Line or YVR Millennium Line in Vancouver, the BART in the Bay Area. It'd be an easy Mill Woods to University route, with another Mill Woods north to Downtown. I wrote that they would be simply duplicating a route on both the Metro and Capital Line from Health Sciences to Corona Stations, and as an avid LRT supporter they'd lose my support.

    I wrote that hosting summer "open houses" and 2-3 year pilots along Whyte would be good measures for traffic reduction measurements and impacts, and/with improved dedicated/streamlined/frequent bus, after the Valley Line is operational. Told them if they don't provide compelling arguments with lots of good data for Edmontonians, even LRT and walkable 'hood supporters like me, then they'll lose support for LRT in the future. People will give up.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #141

    Default

    Public Engagement Sessions
    We invite you to share your feedback and perspectives on the Centre LRT preferred route. The City will collect input and feedback to help identify stop locations, track alignment and how best to ‘fit’ or integrate the LRT into the community.

    Date: Thursday February 15, 2018
    Location: The Matrix Hotel 10640 100 Avenue

    Date: Tuesday February 27, 2018
    Location: St. Basil’s Cultural Centre 10819 71 Avenue

    Date: Wednesday February 28, 2018
    Location: Campus Saint Jean, McMahon Pavillion 8406 Rue Marie-Anne Gaboury

    All Sessions
    Meeting Time: 4:30-8:30pm
    Presentation Times: 5pm and 7pm

    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...lrt-study.aspx
    www.decl.org

  42. #142

    Default

    It will become apparent why they don't want to use the HLB. At our first community league engagement last night, I also didn't understand why they couldn't use the HLB. Basically it doesn't meet current engineering requirements, needs major work in the next 5 years just to stay open and needs pretty much a complete rebuild within 20. The timelines for this line are 8-xx years, depending on funding.

    Bonus not using HLB is they have a desire to keep the street car operating, which in my mind is a huge part of the heritage of HLB.
    www.decl.org

  43. #143

    Default

    Think of where we are in the process for this is where the Valley Line was in 2008.
    www.decl.org

  44. #144

    Default

    You know you have a bad plan when you looks at a billion dollar project and the best you can say about it is, "well, at least it won't disrupt the tourist streetcar".
    There can only be one.

  45. #145

    Default

    What's what I was asking primarily is to present the dollar of upgrading and using the HL Bridge to building a new one, while still technically using both, instead of combining funding in having one. I remember at open houses and talking to staff in 2008-2010 about the Valley Line, its traffic impacts and its future interactions / connections to Bonnie Doon, Whyte Ave, transit in general in that area, and they said it was outside the scope of the project.

    So... 2017 rolls along and we finally get a traffic analysis, and there is no area rezoning or general discussion on ARPs, no detailed discussion on transit re-routings and changes post-LRT opening. So I'm asking the same questions back in 2009 about this line, hoping some thorough analysis and public data is present.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    You know you have a bad plan when you looks at a billion dollar project and the best you can say about it is, "well, at least it won't disrupt the tourist streetcar".
    Word.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  47. #147

    Default

    Some of the objectives for the new line:

    - Supports the City's visions (The Way We Grow, etc, etc)
    - Accessibility
    - Frequency of stops to important nodes of activity, amenities, etc.
    - Building capacity where right-of-ways can't be increased.(ie. 3000 cars vs. 5000 users)
    - Hop-on, hop-off style for pedestrians. People won't be driving to catch this line.
    - Supporting current or future TODs
    www.decl.org

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Some of the objectives for the new line:

    - Supports the City's visions (The Way We Grow, etc, etc)
    - Accessibility
    - Frequency of stops to important nodes of activity, amenities, etc.
    - Building capacity where right-of-ways can't be increased.(ie. 3000 cars vs. 5000 users)
    - Hop-on, hop-off style for pedestrians. People won't be driving to catch this line.
    - Supporting current or future TODs
    Those don't sound like objectives at all.

    But if they are, they could be met with a simple bus.
    There can only be one.

  49. #149

    Default

    ^They can't.
    www.decl.org

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^They can't.
    Perhaps not, but the city risks failing to meet those objectives with this design and, what's more, jeopardizing future projects in the process.

  51. #151

    Default

    A bus, why not?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  52. #152

    Default

    ^First, it would need it's own dedicated right-of-way, similar to the LRT. Second, costs aren't that different but the low-floor technology for LRT is here, they are building shops to house them, it logical to use them, the capacity is way higher and generally more convenient. Just as they have been successfully used around the world.

    I'm not convinced they need their own dedicated right-of-way on Whyte, for example.
    www.decl.org

  53. #153

    Default

    -"The way we grow" envisions a mode shift toward transit and active transportation. Something that we could do much more of if we don't spend all our money duplicating existing services.
    -We have accessible buses.
    -We have buses with frequent stops at amenities and activity nodes.
    -We have buses that provide more capacity than a lane of cars and could still be increased by multiples with only buses; and if that's not enough we could fix the signals on the capital/metro line crossing just a stone's throw away from this one linking the same two nodes and more than double existing capacity
    -We have buses that people don't drive to.
    -We have buses that support existing TODs, including underconstuction "D" on this very route currently served by buses, and it's more TO'd than anything we have from LRT.
    There can only be one.

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^First, it would need it's own dedicated right-of-way, similar to the LRT. Second, costs aren't that different but the low-floor technology for LRT is here, they are building shops to house them, it logical to use them. Just as they have been successfully used around the world.

    I'm not convinced they need their own dedicated right-of-way on Whyte, for example.
    You're all over the place and not making sense. We can meet those "objectives" with plain old boring buses, not LRT-cost super-BRT. Just plain old buses that we already have shops to house and are successfully used around the world.
    Buses that wouldn't need their own dedicated right-of-way on Whyte, for example.
    There can only be one.

  55. #155

    Default

    Electric buses are being tested and bought, no? introduce peak hour bus only lanes and run that for 2 years. If you run an LRT without a dedication along Whyte, maybe some signal prioritization, is the cost justified? Is the time savings (if any) justified? These are the facts I want to know before saying, "I approve this route and LRT use".
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  56. #156

    Default

    You don't have to agree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

    There will be an online survey and lots of engagement opportunities.
    www.decl.org

  57. #157
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    You know, if something like this existed I might be a user. Once the Valley Line is operational there will be many people who want to go from the Bonnie Doon stop to University and down Whyte. That's the boosterism part.

    But a bus that is waiting at the Bonnie Doon train stop would be almost as good.

    Where I would draw the line, however, is paying for yet another bridge to duplicate the Corona to University run.

    What is needed, I think, is a thorough evaluation of Whyte Avenue uses. It seems that people are just adding uses to it (east-west traffic corridor, tourist district, transit corridor for tourists and for students, sidewalk cafes, street events, emergency vehicles, etc etc). It becomes untenable after a while. Another east-west corridor needs to be designated and improved to take some of the load off.

  58. #158

    Default

    I agree with LRT along Whyte and the proven models in many cities. But lots of ifs, and they don't even include grade separated intersections for me. Plan (dedicate a future ROW) for Whyte from Bonnie Doon to the UofA, but do that... then implement current transit strategies in the meantime to gauge and build ridership, models, data, habits, TOD.

    I'm sounding anti-LRT somehow and this is crazy.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  59. #159

    Default

    I've been trying to get answers on this and it seems to be never coming. What is the future of Whyte? Who uses it and accesses it in the future? How do we future plan for that, for example? Will it be 1 lane each direction? Wider sidewalks? LRT / buses in dedicated ROW or simply improving their flow and movement through Old Strathcona?

    That's a needed conversation that is barely happening with the Plan Whyte program.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  60. #160

    Default

    The plan is to close Whyte Ave for two years, rip up the road, install tracks and reopen the area. Meanwhile all the businesses have gone bankrupt and close.

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #161

    Default

    ^I agree 100%. I love LRT, it works and it's great, but I don't like poorly planned, redundant projects, especially when they're really expensive.

    Instead, improve bus service now, to at least LRT frequencies. Improve bus stops and introduce signal priority as there's money or as blocks get rebuilt. Electrify, urban routes like this have the most to gain.
    Upgrade to articulated electric buses, and if they're getting packed despite running every 4 minutes or less then you build an LRT/tram.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 06-02-2018 at 12:49 PM.
    There can only be one.

  62. #162

    Default

    ^ correct

    No need to kill Whyte Avenue businesses like they did to Highstreet.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #163
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    No new bridge please and thank you. Use the High Level and work it out with the supplementary historical trolley and needed route on the south side of the bridge.

    I've been advocating the use of the High level bridge for awhile now if this line ever gets built. Start the line by the AEB in that space and work from there.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  64. #164
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^I agree 100%. I love LRT, it works and it's great, but I don't like poorly planned, redundant projects, especially when they're really expensive.

    Instead, improve bus service now, to at least LRT frequencies. Improve bus stops and introduce signal priority as there's money or as blocks get rebuilt. Electrify, urban routes like this have the most to gain.
    Upgrade to articulated electric buses, and if they're getting packed despite running every 4 minutes or less then you build an LRT/tram.
    ETS can barely get the LRT call boards corrected along the Capital line. I was in Corona station last night after 9pm fending off aggressive panhandlers on my way to the boarding platform, when the board refreshes the time of arrival, the observer gets a scrolling line of text. Then the board blinks back to the time of arrival. Is this just the Capital line or is this happening with Metro as well?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  65. #165

    Default

    I think when the majority of us that are saying a bus between Health Sciences and Bonnie Doon are saying a regular old Bus will work. Not BRT.

    Bonnie Doon, 91st, 96 st, 99st, 102 st, 105 st, 109 st, 112 st, Health Science. Turn around and do those reverse. Run a continual loop of 5 busses. Add a few bus jump locations and you're done.

    Sure the low floor train might preempt a few signals to get coordinated greens, but it still will have to wait at busy intersections at red. It will not be much faster to take the train versus bus from Bonnie Doon to Health Sciences.

    Anyhow. I hope this project is way out in the future so we can evaluate our options a bit better.

    I would think our next objective is the West Leg, then SLRT/NWLRT before we even start seriously moving on this one - especially when this area is already pretty well connected.

  66. #166

    Default

    ^This is getting into details, but with the long blocks along Whyte ave every 4 blocks would be too far, every 2 would be about right, close to 400m, and an improvement from stopping every block as they do now.

    While it would be possible to do the same on a tram/lrt system, bus style on-demand stops are an advantage over lrt operation on a corridor like whyte. It needs frequent stops, and there's minimal penalty to making those stops at peak times since traffic is moving slow anyway. Off peak traffic moves faster but there won't be someone at every stop. My local bus (# has excessively close stops, at every second block (200m) but outside of rush it's not un common to go 3-4 stops without stopping - so 60om-800m. Just as good as "Urban" LRT.
    There can only be one.

  67. #167

    Default

    ^Google tells me it would take 16 minutes to drive one way at this time of day. Say 20minutes with stops, 40minute round trip. for 5 minute service that's 8 buses, plus some turnaround time and recovery (so a behind bus doesn't stay that way all day) and you're realistically looking at least 12 buses, although some existing buses could slot in there.
    There can only be one.

  68. #168
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,729

    Default

    This plan is ridiculous. If they were to build a new bridge, I think it should be closer to the Walterdale Bridge. That way you can avoid two level crossings with 109 Street, a bunch of sharp turns, service Rossdale and Kinsmen Park, and still have LRT access down the majority of Whyte Ave. I did a mock up map a while back, but it still aligns with what I think the downtown circular should look like.


    Rail Network Map by Chris Vazquez, on Flickr

  69. #169

    Default

    But then you'd have a disconnect from Bonnie Doon to University and the City doesn't entertain that plan for many reasons. The route, if it were in any form (bus, train) would connect BD Mall to University.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  70. #170

    Default

    I can't believe this is actually a plan. Running LRT down Whyte Ave would threaten the character of the entire neighborhood, increase congestion to unreasonable levels, disrupt businesses, and this bridge thing is just bad icing on a crappy cake. PLEASE concentrate on extending LRT to the outer quadrants of the city - and getting it to work PROPERLY - instead of entertaining half-baked schemes like this.

  71. #171

    Default

    They're simply planning a route and deciding possible ROW or delivery methods for likely 2040 start / completion. It's future City Planning. The character of the street should not be auto-orientated even hopefully by 2030. Congestion also might appear to get worse, but with many urban dense areas near the city core, private auto use should drop and other modes will increase.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  72. #172

    Default

    ^ Simple, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

    Maslow
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 07-02-2018 at 01:00 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #173

    Default

    So until we hit 2035, or some future date when this becomes a priority after completing the other extensions, this route will be a form or another of express bus transit. Possibly by 2020 with the review and implementation of the Transit Strategy.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I can't believe this is actually a plan. Running LRT down Whyte Ave would threaten the character of the entire neighborhood, increase congestion to unreasonable levels, disrupt businesses, and this bridge thing is just bad icing on a crappy cake. PLEASE concentrate on extending LRT to the outer quadrants of the city - and getting it to work PROPERLY - instead of entertaining half-baked schemes like this.
    You do realize the street car used to run down Whyte Ave? If anything the LRT would bring back the character of the neighbourhood.
    It is more important to connect nodes within the city core where transit patterns are already established rather than extending to far flung areas where people only take public transit as a last resort at peak hours.
    Last edited by Glenco; 07-02-2018 at 01:15 PM.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  75. #175

    Default

    Not the way we do LRT now. BTW, in 1911, there were not 500,000 cars and trucks in the city. Dogs roamed Whyte Ave.

    What are they going to do, ban all parking on Whyte?



    Reposted

    Edmonton and Strathcona 'Twin Cities' Map c.1911


    The wide red lines are the borders
    The thinner red lines are streetcar line
    They go down Whyte Ave, 99th street, Jasper Ave from Borden Park to 124th street (the WLRT has not got there yet), and 97th street, 118th ave and out to Swifts Packers on 66th street and 125th ave.


    Notably 100 years ago, more extensive than today.


    https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/n...radial-railway

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 07-02-2018 at 01:20 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #176
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    This plan is ridiculous. If they were to build a new bridge, I think it should be closer to the Walterdale Bridge. That way you can avoid two level crossings with 109 Street, a bunch of sharp turns, service Rossdale and Kinsmen Park, and still have LRT access down the majority of Whyte Ave. I did a mock up map a while back, but it still aligns with what I think the downtown circular should look like.


    Rail Network Map by Chris Vazquez, on Flickr
    Speaking of ridiculous.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  77. #177

    Default

    ^gridlock...

    $10 billion dollars of it.

    Signaling by Thales
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  78. #178
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,722

    Default

    I wonder if a link down Whyte Avenue (without the bridge) would work well enough. The one issue will be the usable life left on the High Level Bridge.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    I refuse to believe this route is real due to its stupidity.
    Seriously.. who are the brainiacs coming up with these plans? /s

  80. #180
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ^gridlock...

    $10 billion dollars of it.

    Signaling by Thales
    Metro/Edmonton no doubt has left a bad taste in the mouth of Thales. Fool me once, kind of thing.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  81. #181

    Default

    I guess I'm the only one who thinks that recreational shopping and lounging on outside patios isn't exactly compatible with the constant ringing of LRT crossings?

  82. #182

    Default

    There shouldn't be that type of crossing, but LRT vehicles aren't silent either.

    It's better than a freeway, of course, but an at-grade LRT is certainly no better for street life than an electric bus.

    And since the LRT will almost certainly have 100% exclusive ROW (unlike a streetcar or bus) it most likely means there wouldn't be room for curb extensions or those extended sidewalk patios. So a net loss.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 08-02-2018 at 09:21 AM.
    There can only be one.

  83. #183

    Default

    In order for it to run more quietly, the LRT would have to behave like a bus and run slower and stop at more lights. In which case it defeats the very purpose of it.

  84. #184
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,466

    Default

    ^^^, ^^ and ^, aye to all three.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  85. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I guess I'm the only one who thinks that recreational shopping and lounging on outside patios isn't exactly compatible with the constant ringing of LRT crossings?
    LRT, in this form, will not operate as the existing system. There will be no crossing arms and bells. It will operate along crossings with traffic lights.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  86. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    There shouldn't be that type of crossing, but LRT vehicles aren't silent either.

    It's better than a freeway, of course, but an at-grade LRT is certainly no better for street life than an electric bus.

    And since the LRT will almost certainly have 100% exclusive ROW (unlike a streetcar or bus) it most likely means there wouldn't be room for curb extensions or those extended sidewalk patios. So a net loss.
    There are currently 3 lanes on each side. One lane would be LRT ROW, and currently 1 lane (parking) is already being occupied by extended patios. The only loss that can come out of this - again, when this might be built in 2035 or so - is a lane for car traffic and some on-street parking.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  87. #187

    Default

    Un huh.
    Right.

    The Only possible loss is a lane of traffic, not the parking/patio lane, because we know exactly what they will decide in 20 years.
    There can only be one.

  88. #188

    Default

    Why do these planners insist on creating ROWs that remove lanes of traffic on roads that are already busy?

    Edmonton's population continues to grow. Does anybody honestly think there will be FEWER cars on our roads in 20 years?

    The city should be planning to use corridors that still service busy areas, but won't slow down other methods of transportation for the convenience of a few dozen people riding a train.

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by River Valley Green View Post
    I guess I'm the only one who thinks that recreational shopping and lounging on outside patios isn't exactly compatible with the constant ringing of LRT crossings?
    LRT, in this form, will not operate as the existing system. There will be no crossing arms and bells. It will operate along crossings with traffic lights.
    So what's the bloody point?

    *Sigh*
    There can only be one.

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    LRT, in this form, will not operate as the existing system. There will be no crossing arms and bells. It will operate along crossings with traffic lights.
    What's the advantage? Buses already do that.

  91. #191

    Default

    To the City and community the advantage would less infrastructure. It will receive signal just and light sequencing at all intersections along Whyte, which will make light changes more frequent along Whyte, periodic waits for trains at say 104st, Gateway, 109 st maybe. Quicker than bus currently, though could be done with buses. Ridership and costs will be born-out for its possible implementation in at least 2 decades.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  92. #192

    Default

    The point the City might raise is that it wants an integrated transit system from Mill Woods down Whyte through to downtown / north of the river, and since they will be building a ROW, have the facilities, that cost-wise it might be best for LRT when that time comes. We don't know yet, but as far as transit use and capacity goes (in say 2035 when this might be built), having a train at least run to the University from Bonnie Doon/Mill Woods might be best. Only speculating.

    I would assume travel time to be, or what they will strive for, would be max 15 minutes during rush hour from University Station to Bonnie Doon Stop. With some signal priority or signal jumps this should be achievable along the route. During rush hour on bus it has taken as long as 35 minutes, and by car as long as 25 minutes.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  93. #193

    Default

    The point is that there is no advantage over buses, just way more infrastructure.
    There can only be one.

  94. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The point is that there is no advantage over buses, just way more infrastructure.
    From today and into the decade or so, yes.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  95. #195

    Default

    Simply put, busses are for losers and the poor. Trains are sleek and "world class". People who won't take the bus will take a train. Magical thinking of the highest order.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The point is that there is no advantage over buses, just way more infrastructure.
    From today and into the decade or so, yes.
    Decades and decades.

    We're talking about a six-fold increase in ridership before articulated buses running at 5 minute frequency would be at capacity.

    That's far enough away that there's no actual advantage to planning anything now.

    Really, there's not, because there's no action to take.
    There can only be one.

  97. #197

    Default

    I am all for investing billions more into LRT if the intent is to move people faster and more efficiently than cars and buses can.

    But if LRT is simply for the "novelty" of being able to take a train then screw it.

  98. #198
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,866
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  99. #199

    Default

    From what I understand, it's primarily to establish a "dedication" of the route and ROW. Which is good planning. Set the route, manage and streamline an efficient Valley Line to University bus route/frequency/light jumps, or whatever from now until 2030. Examine the data and change accordingly. While even at that time, everyone will know that transit is a priority on that route, and density, design, planning will build around that. Any more than that I have no idea why.

    The City will need some good measurements of data and some transit tweaks along Whyte to get some good analysis.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  100. #200

    Default

    Just lines on the map, Ian.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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