Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gunter: Edmonton LRT plan is a fast track to congestion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    ^ i realise that is probably a joke post but lets make it clear that "The City" isnt 1 person or some sort of hive mind. These decisions are made by different people in different times. nobody is holding some petty grudge over something that happened decades ago.
    be offended! figure out why later...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by richardW View Post
      ^ i realise that is probably a joke post but lets make it clear that "The City" isnt 1 person or some sort of hive mind. These decisions are made by different people in different times. nobody is holding some petty grudge over something that happened decades ago.
      Thanks you for saying that. Just like the the never ending usage of "average Canadian" or "Canadians think, or company x wants... It always comes down to real individual people at some point making the decisions. Even in committees, real people guided every discussion.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
        Originally posted by Gunter
        Nearly all of the proposed future LRT lines will take up two or more lanes on already busy streets. That will inconvenience cars carrying 30,000 or more commuters to make way for trains carrying 15,000 to 20,000.

        How does that math make sense?
        How does that math NOT make sense? If his beef is that a lane is removed from a 30,000 car a day road to provide for an LRT link that can handle 20,000 people a day when it opens, that would ostensibly be an increase in the traffic that the road and LRT can handle: 15,000 cars + 20,000 people on LRT per day instead of just 30,000 cars a day on the old road. Not to mention that LRT has a far higher ceiling in capacity than the original road, you can keep increasing train frequency to increase the total capacity of the line, whereas that road will never handle more traffic than it currently is without expropriating property and expanding it.
        I agree. And each lane can't carry 30,000 cars a day, more like 4,000 and that is crowded - but an LRT line in that single line can carry that or more. His thinking is classic motordom. He can't see past the fact our cities have been designed for cars since they were born, and that needs to change as we get more people, more congestion and higher cost of infrastructure and oil.

        Plus you have to look at where those cars are stored at the destination - all that infrastructure to simply park a car for the day is expensive and wasteful.
        ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Perspective View Post
          Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
          They did that on the South LRT line between Century Park and South Campus, and again between South Campus ans mckernan.

          Don't understand why they refuse to do that anywhere else.
          I find it odd that they run it beneath 111st/63 ave, but not below 111ave/kingsway, or princess elizabeth, which I feel are much busier intersections. A few on the proposed line would be ideal.
          Yup. At 111 St./63 Ave. the LRT only runs under the southbound half of 111th, nothing else.
          Nisi Dominus Frustra

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lightrail View Post
            Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
            Originally posted by Gunter
            Nearly all of the proposed future LRT lines will take up two or more lanes on already busy streets. That will inconvenience cars carrying 30,000 or more commuters to make way for trains carrying 15,000 to 20,000.

            How does that math make sense?
            How does that math NOT make sense? If his beef is that a lane is removed from a 30,000 car a day road to provide for an LRT link that can handle 20,000 people a day when it opens, that would ostensibly be an increase in the traffic that the road and LRT can handle: 15,000 cars + 20,000 people on LRT per day instead of just 30,000 cars a day on the old road. Not to mention that LRT has a far higher ceiling in capacity than the original road, you can keep increasing train frequency to increase the total capacity of the line, whereas that road will never handle more traffic than it currently is without expropriating property and expanding it.
            I agree. And each lane can't carry 30,000 cars a day, more like 4,000 and that is crowded - but an LRT line in that single line can carry that or more. His thinking is classic motordom. He can't see past the fact our cities have been designed for cars since they were born, and that needs to change as we get more people, more congestion and higher cost of infrastructure and oil.

            Plus you have to look at where those cars are stored at the destination - all that infrastructure to simply park a car for the day is expensive and wasteful.
            But those cars may not be traveling where the LRT is. i know i take LRT every chance. but i have not taken it in over a year due to the fact that it doesn't travel anywhere i need to go. not everyone works downtown. and we are not saying dont build the LRT where its planned.. its dont unnecessarily disrupt large intersections. not the 30,000 car per day road. its the intersection thats the concern.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lightrail View Post
              Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
              Originally posted by Gunter
              Nearly all of the proposed future LRT lines will take up two or more lanes on already busy streets. That will inconvenience cars carrying 30,000 or more commuters to make way for trains carrying 15,000 to 20,000.

              How does that math make sense?
              How does that math NOT make sense? If his beef is that a lane is removed from a 30,000 car a day road to provide for an LRT link that can handle 20,000 people a day when it opens, that would ostensibly be an increase in the traffic that the road and LRT can handle: 15,000 cars + 20,000 people on LRT per day instead of just 30,000 cars a day on the old road. Not to mention that LRT has a far higher ceiling in capacity than the original road, you can keep increasing train frequency to increase the total capacity of the line, whereas that road will never handle more traffic than it currently is without expropriating property and expanding it.
              I agree. And each lane can't carry 30,000 cars a day, more like 4,000 and that is crowded - but an LRT line in that single line can carry that or more. His thinking is classic motordom. He can't see past the fact our cities have been designed for cars since they were born, and that needs to change as we get more people, more congestion and higher cost of infrastructure and oil.

              Plus you have to look at where those cars are stored at the destination - all that infrastructure to simply park a car for the day is expensive and wasteful.
              Whyte ave carries roughly 30,000 where SLRT will cross, and they will be slightly inconvenienced, but the trains will carry far more than 20,000 per day, but it's not just his math, it's his whole premise that's wrong.
              He imagines that inconveniencing 30,000 is not something that we do, even to make way for 15,000. But it is.

              Every set of lights inconveniences all drivers on road A to make way for some lesser number on road B.
              Every set of lights. But we do it.
              Because accepting the minor inconveniences that accommodating others impose is what allows us to have civilization. The alternative is anarchy and warfare, both of which are worse, at least in my books, than waiting for two minutes at a light.

              For his philosophy to be consistant you would have to close the lesser street at every crossing because it's an inconvenience, until there's nothing left but freeways with no way to get on or off. Or maybe just a freeway only to where Mr. Gunter is going.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mla View Post
                EDP we're only asking for a few intersections to be grade separated not the whole line so I don't know what you're freaking out about. I think embedded works but when it crosses MAJOR intersections it should be separated to better facilitate the flow of traffic and goods throughout the city.
                look what we had to do to get the funding we did...

                now you want to add MORE cost to it?

                At grade through the intersection will not be an issue.
                "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lightrail View Post
                  Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                  Originally posted by Gunter
                  Nearly all of the proposed future LRT lines will take up two or more lanes on already busy streets. That will inconvenience cars carrying 30,000 or more commuters to make way for trains carrying 15,000 to 20,000.

                  How does that math make sense?
                  How does that math NOT make sense? If his beef is that a lane is removed from a 30,000 car a day road to provide for an LRT link that can handle 20,000 people a day when it opens, that would ostensibly be an increase in the traffic that the road and LRT can handle: 15,000 cars + 20,000 people on LRT per day instead of just 30,000 cars a day on the old road. Not to mention that LRT has a far higher ceiling in capacity than the original road, you can keep increasing train frequency to increase the total capacity of the line, whereas that road will never handle more traffic than it currently is without expropriating property and expanding it.
                  I agree. And each lane can't carry 30,000 cars a day, more like 4,000 and that is crowded - but an LRT line in that single line can carry that or more. His thinking is classic motordom. He can't see past the fact our cities have been designed for cars since they were born, and that needs to change as we get more people, more congestion and higher cost of infrastructure and oil.

                  Plus you have to look at where those cars are stored at the destination - all that infrastructure to simply park a car for the day is expensive and wasteful.
                  careful you will get called a car hater.
                  "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    He does have a point about 83 & Argyll but in the long run I think people around and south of Argyll will see Gateway or 75 street as an alternative to 83 street when heading downtown (no other reason to use it really other than going to Bonnie Doon mall lol).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      ^ actually he doesn't have a point....
                      http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...tailed_Map.pdf

                      Detailed maps show the LRT going OVER Argyll road.

                      OR....

                      Going over /under a roadway isn't the perfect solution some think it is...

                      OR

                      Gunther is a crap journalist.

                      The answer lies in the middle someplace I am sure involving varying degrees of all.
                      Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 03-06-2014, 01:04 PM.
                      "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                        Originally posted by lightrail View Post
                        Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                        Originally posted by Gunter
                        Nearly all of the proposed future LRT lines will take up two or more lanes on already busy streets. That will inconvenience cars carrying 30,000 or more commuters to make way for trains carrying 15,000 to 20,000.

                        How does that math make sense?
                        How does that math NOT make sense? If his beef is that a lane is removed from a 30,000 car a day road to provide for an LRT link that can handle 20,000 people a day when it opens, that would ostensibly be an increase in the traffic that the road and LRT can handle: 15,000 cars + 20,000 people on LRT per day instead of just 30,000 cars a day on the old road. Not to mention that LRT has a far higher ceiling in capacity than the original road, you can keep increasing train frequency to increase the total capacity of the line, whereas that road will never handle more traffic than it currently is without expropriating property and expanding it.
                        I agree. And each lane can't carry 30,000 cars a day, more like 4,000 and that is crowded - but an LRT line in that single line can carry that or more. His thinking is classic motordom. He can't see past the fact our cities have been designed for cars since they were born, and that needs to change as we get more people, more congestion and higher cost of infrastructure and oil.

                        Plus you have to look at where those cars are stored at the destination - all that infrastructure to simply park a car for the day is expensive and wasteful.
                        careful you will get called a car hater.
                        Careful you'll call people a cynic, or a car lover, transit hater, suburban loving Rob Ford if you have different opinions that those of yours...
                        A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Hey.. Medwards... people share my views.

                          As one person made a point of saying they often don't post them because of the hate that some people espouse on here.
                          "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Hey... Edmonton Daily Photo... People share my views too.

                            This site has many lurkers... I'm sure there's as many that support your views as there are that don't support your views. It's their choice if they choose to input their opinion.

                            I guess you feel its alright for you to name call people if they don't share your views, but you cry foul the moment someone does the same to you? what gives?
                            A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                              Gunther is a crap journalist.
                              Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                              I see EDP is playing the "victim" card again. I didn't call EDP dumb. I said he is full of dumb comments. Which he is.
                              Amazing how EDP can cry purple tears when somebody suggests that his idea is dumb but is in full attack mode against a journalist who EDP disagrees with.

                              EDP, you are being hypocritical.
                              Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Watch out EPRT, EDP might call you Rob Ford or a car lover now!
                                A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X