Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Iron
    replied
    Originally posted by sundance View Post
    The constrained nature of Stony Plain Road makes surface rapid transit impossible, doesn't have much influence with bored tunnels.
    And where is the money coming for this...?
    My obvious question? Why the hell do they not run it down 100 Ave instead It obviates the problems on SPR and the McKinnon Freeway allowance on this arterial has ample space.
    If people can't walk one (truncated) city block to get on the train? What does this say about the future of Mass Transit in the GEA?
    My company has been actively involved in new construction in this specific area over the past few years. The buyers of these new homes are wagering on the fact that the COE will indeed deliver a rapid transit system to serve the area. None of this development is on SPR. It's all a couple of blocks north or south and as such? The catchment area is already established and these people are the ones who WILL walk the extra two or three blocks to get on the train.
    There is little to be offered by messing up traffic on SPR that would not serve the area if they just ran down the 100 Ave easement instead. Perhaps I'm missing something significant here?
    Is the idea to "force" social redevelopment on SPR between 149 and 156 St.'s?
    As any long time resident knows? This is going to be an exercise in frustration. People need porn, bars, pawn shops, and weed vendors in this area.
    You can't wave a magic wand (LRT) and solve all of society's problems.

    These are endemic issues and will require years of social engineering before any appreciable effect will be realized.
    In my opinion?

    Actively integrating the "Disadvantaged masses" into the average Joe by running the LRT right though the heart of their "turf"?

    Problematical.

    Move it one block over (to 100 Ave) and this is far less of a problem.

    The average commuter is not going to be happy dealing with "susie-p1ssed-her-pants" and the meth/crack heads on a daily basis.

    The demographic of this 10 block area along SPR is going to be a "problem" for some years to come.

    Stuffing a train down this already constricted corridor, screwing up traffic (which is the only thing that is keeping this area relevant), and bringing a whole pile of "undesirables" in close contact with the average commuter is a recipe for failure.

    My two cents.

    Leave a comment:


  • sundance
    replied
    The constrained nature of Stony Plain Road makes surface rapid transit impossible, doesn't have much influence with bored tunnels.

    Leave a comment:


  • East McCauley
    replied
    Originally posted by sundance View Post
    I think the Stony Plain corridor was the right choice, however they need to invest in separating the road from rail, best option is tunnelling, yes it's more expensive but it is a long term investment in how we want our city to be in the future.
    The constrained nature of the SPR corridor makes it unsuitable for high speed rail based transit. Additional grade separations add major costs with only marginal improvement in travel times. For less money, the City could have built a completely grade separated high floor line from Lewis Estates to South Campus Station using the 87 Avenue corridor. An option that was advocated by many of us but to its eternal shame rejected by City Council.

    Leave a comment:


  • The_Cat
    replied
    To a certain extent, the Stony Plain Road business community is partly to blame, turning down the opportunity to have a one-way road going westbound from 151-156 Street/

    Leave a comment:


  • sundance
    replied
    I think the Stony Plain corridor was the right choice, however they need to invest in separating the road from rail, best option is tunnelling, yes it's more expensive but it is a long term investment in how we want our city to be in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • East McCauley
    replied
    ^stilicho should not have made this about Eva Cheung . She was likely not even working for the City when City Council made the ill-advised decision 10 years ago to route the West LRT through the already constrained Stony Plain Road corridor. It was the wrong decision then and it is still the wrong decision today. But as project manager Eva's job is to implement a decision made by Council and the senior City staff of the day.

    But where did you get the idea that stilicho wants to build more freeways? stilicho's point that a slow street car running down a constrained corridor will not get drivers out of their cars and on to transit is backed by mountains of evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • GizmoForMayor
    replied
    ^ I use transit every single day

    This line has been consulted to death and every single resident of this city had plenty of opportunity to give input. What I'm hearing from you is that because some suburbanites (presumably you included) have "no plans to surrender their vehicles" the city should just give in and built more freeways because that suits your lifestyle. Well that's not going to happen...that 1960s way of thinking is luckily a thing of the past in this city. This line will get built and you might as well get used to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • stilicho
    replied
    Originally posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    Oft forgotten in arguments around mass transit are environmental impacts and also the future density of our city. We don't just build for today, so while the car trip out to Lewis Farms may take roughly the same time as the LRT at first, that balance will shift dramatically as development densifies over time and residential areas continue to grow outside of the henday. The development of LRT is also going to provide an environmentally friendly alternative to driving (and provide an option for those who don't own cars, a growing demographic). Busses have their purpose, but for a number of reasons they are simply not as effective as LRT (higher cost of operation, not as weather-proof, not ideal for TOD developers, etc.). Building this line is the right decision for the city and I can't wait for it to really get underway.
    I suspect you don't rely on transit.

    Buses are reliable and flexible. Try using transit some time. I can guarantee you that Eva Cheung does not use transit and never will.

    Planners argue they have consulted with residents and yet I can guarantee doubly they have never canvassed the nearly 40,000 commuters who depend on the Stony Plain Road access each day and have no plans to surrender their vehicles to Eva and her mob of well-wishers.

    This impending mistake of an LRT must immediately become an election issue for 2021. They're scurrying to ram it through in the 2020 budget but that probably won't work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medwards
    replied
    ^and you've finally come full circle.

    Again - I like the streetcar idea - in the built up areas/central district/mature areas.. For the suburbs, you need a different type of service, a fast direct commuter service. This hybrid idea isn't fit to accomplish either purpose very well.

    There's this whole hierarchy of transit service for different purposes and needs and Edmonton seems to want to ignore it all.
    Last edited by Medwards; 21-01-2020, 03:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Edmonton PRT
    replied
    Makes you wish we had something like this GRT/PRT People mover for nonstop direct station to station automated transit.

    Would give the Transit Union a coronary.



    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinentaxi

    Leave a comment:


  • GizmoForMayor
    replied
    ^ I would agree with you if it was the kind of line that Medwards proposes (pretty much an express train to the burbs that hardly stops along the way). The low floor type of LRT that the CoE is building serves the people who live along the line as much as, and possibly more than, the people near Lewis Farms. If it was up to me the line would stop at WEM and we would invest the rest of the money into LRT elsewhere rather than the burbs. This will densify our city considerably, leading (ideally) to a reduced need for city tax payers to continuously build new infrastructure out in the far flung corners of the city. We will only end up with a more built up city near the core if we have the transportation systems to go along with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Edmonton PRT
    replied
    If people want to have a huge house on a huge lot, and a big driveway and garage for their 4 Euro sedans and luxury SUV's, in a low density golf course community like Lewis Estates built outside the AHD and more than 14km from downtown; do not deserve to also get a multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded streetcar to their area.

    I supported the NE line because the original only cost $65 million and included 2 massive underground stations, service to the stadium and arena.

    Even 45 years later, the development along that route is marginal and the TOD on Fort Road (Staition Pointe) is a complete disaster. Moreover Fort Road has been widened to handle all the commuter traffic while LRT ridership on that route are flat. This proves that unfortunately, a lack of modal shift and the promise of public transit using LRT that has first mile and last mile barriers.

    Spending approximately $150 million per kilometer for a sloth slow streetcar to a golf course community is just a farce driven by COE bureaucrats that live in Sherwood Park and St. Albert to benefit huge construction contractors and LRT equipment manufacturers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medwards
    replied
    Yes, look at all that development around the NE LRT line...
    This line will not attract new ridership
    Will not help with a modal shift
    Will keep car drivers, driving.
    LRT is locked into a fixed route, buses provide flexiblity.
    Strong doubt LRT is 'cheaper' - buses don't require billions of dollars of investment and very little in ongoing maintenance and the operators make the same coin.

    I don't have a problem with LRT, but I don't think a streetcar should reach out to lewis estates, which is what is being built. A streetcar, hybrid at best.

    Leave a comment:


  • GizmoForMayor
    replied
    Oft forgotten in arguments around mass transit are environmental impacts and also the future density of our city. We don't just build for today, so while the car trip out to Lewis Farms may take roughly the same time as the LRT at first, that balance will shift dramatically as development densifies over time and residential areas continue to grow outside of the henday. The development of LRT is also going to provide an environmentally friendly alternative to driving (and provide an option for those who don't own cars, a growing demographic). Busses have their purpose, but for a number of reasons they are simply not as effective as LRT (higher cost of operation, not as weather-proof, not ideal for TOD developers, etc.). Building this line is the right decision for the city and I can't wait for it to really get underway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Edmonton PRT
    replied
    You are 100 percent right Medwards. It is just spending billions in churning ridership and offers no benefits for travel mode changes.

    This is more a benefit for construction contractors, the streetcar manufacturer and the transit union which wields control of public transit.

    Read as: Not user friendly and corporate welfare.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X