Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I posted this in the WLRT thread, but it fits here too.


    With the newest announcement (millwoods planning study) I have concerns about the way LRT planning is going. With NLRT and WLRT, we at least know how the lines will interact with eachother, interlined in a tunnel through downtown. SELRT does not easily fit into the existing framework. I know the old 60's plans had more than 2 routes interlining, but that was a system for a city of 400,000, not 1m+.

    Before a detailed planning study for SELRT, we need a long range transit plan, with a 30-50 year buildout horizon. We need to know where we will be building LRT legs #6,7&8. We need to know whether we will build tram or tram train lines, or commuter rail, or brt, and where. While we know that priorities may change, we need an overall plan before we can begin planning parts.

    SELRTs specific problem is that we don't have any idea about further legs, so we don't know where it's other half will go. We don't know if it will be the last LRT line for decades so it should be spec'ed the same as the first 4, or if another 3 legs will come somewhat soon we need to examine whether low floor vehichles might be suited for the whole set.

    We need to know where a S.park line would go, because it has an impact on the neighbourhoods that the millwoods line will serve. We need to know wheter there will be tram/streetcar lines that it could connect with, or commuter rail to feed it.

    The last thing we need is an underground SLRT treminus that's a $100m 'temporary station (like the propose nait station) because we don't know whether it will continue to the west end, or St. Albert, or?

    Please, we need a big picture plan so these lines arent all ad hoc.

    Comment


    • #62
      LRT everywhere

      Also posted in the WLRT but more of a systemwide idea.


      Thinking about the MWLRT I'm seeing something along these lines:

      From Churchill branch off east, station at the Quarters then cross the river near the Dawson Bridge. Head south on 84th/85th street to Bonnie Doon. From there, head south, over Argyle and the tracks heading south on 75th/66th to Mill Woods Town Centre.

      A branch from the Bonnie Doon stop could head east to Sherwood Park.

      Later, a line connecting Mill Woods to Century park for University access.

      Regarding NWLRT Branch off the NLRT at the Royal Alec and follow 111th to 156, head south to Jasper Place and eventually Down to WLRT at Meadowlark. This line is a long ways in the future.

      NLRT proceeds as planned running behind NAIT at the newly closed City Centre Airport. Under the tracks and up 113A St ro Castle Downs before Turning west to At. Albert.

      Comment


      • #63
        highlander, I completely agree. The LRT momentum we're seeing now is fantastic, but we run the very serious risk of action without proper planning. I hope the transportation planners come up with a very comprehensive plan that includes consideration from population forecasts, land use patterns, regional connectivity, and car transportation habits. We're at a critical juncture, and while I'd love to see more LRT get built, it needs to be built in the right place.

        Personally, I think the hub and spoke layout is totally wrong for Edmonton. The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization. While I think it's important for downtown to be redeveloped, it would be a mistake to build a bunch of LRT lines that only go downtown if that's not right for the city. So far I haven't heard any solid reasoning for the hub and spoke layout; it certainly doesnt address the patterns of current trips made in cars (Edmonton PRT posted an map of this data once).

        I say we build the seLRT along the lines of the gmap posted above by NINTman, but run a line east-west across 23 ave too. Put another along 75 st, one along Terwillegar, etc. I think we need peripheral LRT connectivity, not just a bunch of lines that only move people to downtown. Of course that's my uninformed opinion, and it's subject to change when presented with solid reasoning that says I'm wrong.
        Last edited by mark; 16-03-2008, 03:38 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          My view is that Council's role is to select the destinations (NAIT, WEM, Millwoods, maybe airport, etc) and let the experts choose the best routes.

          As to the "grand vision" thing, I like the idea in principle, and see that we almost have that. But each party that contributes funding may have an influence on the grand vision too - for example, the Province may be willing to pay more, if we extend beyond the city borders. So any such vision will always be fluid, and may always be changed at the drop of a hat based on the outcome of an election. Even if we had every route mapped out everywhere tommorow, it would never be realized, it would just be a money wasting exercise.

          If we look at the vision of LRT when it was first proposed, it was never fully implemented, due to all the details. Accordingly, the approach with Millwoods is right to me. Our Council says lets link it. Our planners say how it can be done. Our Council provides a united case so that we get the funding. But, each time a politicians stick their nose in, and says this transport recommendation is foolish because my pet route is better, all we do is show the funders that we can't agree ourselves, and turn the clock back on progress even further. When the LRT recommendation for Millwoods comes back, lets build it ASAP. We can fill in the gaps later, once we know what the impact is. Unless someone has a crystal ball, any other grand scheme is just blowing in the wind.
          Last edited by moahunter; 16-03-2008, 09:01 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by mark View Post
              The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization.
              I'd agree with you if we required people to get off the train downtown. But SLRT and the proposed WLRT down 87th will allow people to also connect to a major hospital, a university, grant macewan, southgate, century park, meadowlark, WEM, schools and activities along the way, sports venues in the northeast.... this is hardly all about downtown.

              That being said, once the spine of the system is built, i have no objection to a train on 137th ave going across the top of the city, and another one at 23rd ave going across the bottom.
              City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by grish View Post
                i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.
                I agree that LRT should not just be South - although I think South is very valuable, for the simple reason, that it relieves traffic pressure on the bridges. If we get a Millwoods line, seems to me, we will have 2 lines North (NAIT and Clareview), two lines South (Century Park and Millwoods), and one line West (probably 87 avenue, but whatever route). That's not just South to me, it's the initial spine of reaching out to all the corners of the city. NAIT to Millwoods, Clareview to Century Park and WEM, all running through the core. We know for certain that these routes will be popular, as the express buses show us that. We can add new spokes or sub spokes (or even rings) later, as we see start to see what effect these new lines have. The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.
                Last edited by moahunter; 16-03-2008, 10:06 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Highlander - I doubt it will run on the current underground line due to the interlining problems you mention. Rather, I think it will terminate at central (for now) with transfers required for other destinations. My guess for the route: a tunnel south from central exiting half way up the river bank, near the low level bridge, using a skytrain like structure to cross the river and the james mac and to soften the grade up connors.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                    Originally posted by grish View Post
                    i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.
                    I agree that LRT should not just be South - although I think South is very valuable, for the simple reason, that it relieves traffic pressure on the bridges. If we get a Millwoods line, seems to me, we will have 2 lines North (NAIT and Clareview), two lines South (Century Park and Millwoods), and one line West (probably 87 avenue, but whatever route). That's not just South to me, it's the initial spine of reaching out to all the corners of the city. NAIT to Millwoods, Clareview to Century Park and WEM, all running through the core. We know for certain that these routes will be popular, as the express buses show us that. We can add new spokes or sub spokes (or even rings) later, as we see start to see what effect these new lines have. The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.
                    the 87 ave to WEM just visits SW for a moment and then heads south. the west and the NW will not be served unless the WEM line goes through there. but that's a topic for another thread. Millwoods line should go downtown through bonnie doon to cover more of the city. we should not have yet another feeder into the existing line. we cannot have all lines feeding into the same existing line.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Yes, actually, we could have all lines feeding off the main line, if done properly.

                      Thanks,
                      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                        Yes, actually, we could have all lines feeding off the main line, if done properly.

                        Thanks,
                        Says who? I personally don't think having all the lines feeding off one main line is a smart idea. When the day comes that the service isn't adequate enough to serve the growing population of the city, it'll be an expensive fix.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                          The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.
                          I agree, the planning proposals that will be made for wLRT, Millwoods LRT and other lines in the future will be at least good approximations to the ideal case (if a generally accepted ideal case could even be determined). And I think the reason why all of this planning is occuring almost simultaneously is to start planning out in detail a regional mass transit plan. From the Journal article above:

                          "Administration proposes to have the strategic plan for the city's portion of the regional LRT system to city council by the end of 2008," says the report.

                          And so, we will have an idea of what we want to achieve, and we will develop plans that will be good. There could be 100s of different variations to a city-wide LRT system plan, but unfortunately I feel we do not have the time to contend every point. Let's pick a system plan that is pretty close to optimal and build it now.

                          Think of how transformational a decent, efficient (possibly not perfect in everybody's eyes) city-wide LRT system will be in terms of attitudes about higher density, better pedestrian street life, and even public health. I think it was in Radiant City there was a factoid presented that those who live in suburbs and are more reliant on a car are heavier (I forget by how much it said, but it was statistically significant), and then there are the health implications that are tied to that. And there are other reasons, and so forth.

                          This year we have the political capital to spend, to plan and get on with building a city-wide and possibly even regional LRT system.
                          Last edited by NINTman; 16-03-2008, 01:20 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            My biggest question for a SELRT line is where it will cross the river and where will it surface once on the south side of the river. Also should there be a consideration for a further future LRT line to Sherwood park via Capilano area?
                            LRT is our future, time to push forward.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by lux View Post
                              Originally posted by mark View Post
                              The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization.
                              I'd agree with you if we required people to get off the train downtown. But SLRT and the proposed WLRT down 87th will allow people to also connect to a major hospital, a university, grant macewan, southgate, century park, meadowlark, WEM, schools and activities along the way, sports venues in the northeast.... this is hardly all about downtown.
                              It's not like those major destinations can only be served by an all-lines-lead-downtown system-- a peripheral ring could easily hit the same spots. If we want people to seriously consider routinely leaving the car at home, we need to build LRT where most people live and where most people go on a daily basis. We have to own up to the fact that Edmonton's population density is in the suburbs- it is peripheral, and that's where it will continue to grow the fastest. Downtown is gaining residential momentum, and there are a handful of significant infill projects, but new suburbs support a higher population density than mature neighborhoods and the raw population numbers show concentration around the periphery. Spoke and hub is wrong for Edmonton.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by mark View Post
                                It's not like those major destinations can only be served by an all-lines-lead-downtown system-- a peripheral ring could easily hit the same spots. If we want people to seriously consider routinely leaving the car at home, we need to build LRT where most people live and where most people go on a daily basis. We have to own up to the fact that Edmonton's population density is in the suburbs- it is peripheral, and that's where it will continue to grow the fastest. Downtown is gaining residential momentum, and there are a handful of significant infill projects, but new suburbs support a higher population density than mature neighborhoods and the raw population numbers show concentration around the periphery. Spoke and hub is wrong for Edmonton.
                                Can you give an example of a peripheral city with ring-like infrastructure? I think spoke-and-hub is 100% correct for what Edmonton is, and also for what it needs to become. Maybe if I had a contrasting example I'd see it differently but I can't think of one that has been built. By the way, the shortest way to the other side of a ring is through the middle. And, we certainly don't have a spoke-and-hub for road infrastructure, so LRT as a spoke-and-hub compliments what we have. I just don't see a ring being better in any way.
                                City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X