Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
So you would want an LRT, a tram/street car and buses all serving the same catchment area? Operational costs would be horrid. Put in a grade-separated LRT and you will make up the additional capital costs in operating savings in a matter of years.
|
I'm proposing that an Edmonton Trail LRT (which would be substantially cheaper and quicker to build than a centre street LRT) would not revitalize the DT to 16 Ave corridor, but would allow for enough savings that a DT to 16th ave tram / streetcar could still be considered. The 16th ave cross-town BRT is already in planning, and that would help numerous other issues of getting people from the NE to the U and Foothills Hosp., while also helping reinforce the revitalization of 16th ave. The contentious point you've highlighted is my suggestion that there would still need to be some bus service up centre (I mentioned till 78 ave, but it doesn't have to go up that far I suppose). This would not need to be BRT - rather something like the #3. This would be a catchment that the Edmonton Trail alignment wouldn't necessarily get to (because it also swings out to the CPR tracks. I do agree that it is the weakest piece of my suggestions, so no sweat off my back if we don't all agree with it. My *main* point is, do not link LRT alignment with centre street revitalization immediately north of DT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
Why build the LRT if we are going to keep buses that will consistently run under-capacity?
|
No - I never said run buses at under capacity. The bus system, at the end of the day, is a learning system. Should one continue the #3, as an example, within a few months you'd know if we're bang on or need adjustment.
If nothing else, from my comments take the good and leave the bad.