HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton


View Poll Results: Would you vote for a ETS Rapid Transit masterplan scheme?
Yes, I'd vote for more BRT/LRT 301 82.92%
No, what we have is fine. 34 9.37%
I dunno, maybe, yes, no, whatever. 28 7.71%
Voters: 363. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3401  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:10 PM
noodlenoodle noodlenoodle is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,148
Why would the City change its tune in regard to Oliver?

It's the golden goose. Density and property taxes up the wazoo and minimal infrastructure costs for the community itself.
     
     
  #3402  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:16 PM
ue ue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 9,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
^it is logical to continue the line down jasper IN THE DENSEST PART OF EDMONTON... then over to the museum then follow the rest of the route.
sure why not. that means EVEN MORE new passengers.
     
     
  #3403  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:43 PM
newfangled's Avatar
newfangled newfangled is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oliver
Posts: 1,803
But wouldn't running underground have meant either no low floor, or a brand new tunnel system?

And if no low floor, then Glenora probably wouldn't have been happy. (it remains to be seen if they'll be happy even with lowfloor, but I assume highfloor would have brought out more nimbys)
     
     
  #3404  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 10:43 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Depending on how the yards are moved into and around Port Alberta, I could see a DMU service running into the city in ten years, with something like a Bombardier Talent, stopping downtown, maybe Strathcona, and maybe another place before the airport. Since most the infrastructure is in place, and it would provide a high quality ride, I could see it covering its own operating costs (due to $20 or so fares).

LRT to the airport is just too expensive for very little payout.
Do the tracks still carry freight though? The Talent is not certified in Canada to share track time with freight trains. I think in Ottawa, freight trains use the track when the O-Train is not in service.

With LRT, they could single track it (and put in a few passing sections if required) to the airport and provide half hour to hourly service with special premium Airport trains (highback seats, luggage room, washroom maybe, coin coffee vendor [Starbucks/Van Houtte/etc.]) from Churchill Station. Have hybrid diesel/electric trains so they don't need to electrify the tracks south of Ellerslie further reducing costs. I wouldn't mind paying $10+ for it each way if it'll get me off that rickety rackety SkyShuttle.
     
     
  #3405  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 7:56 AM
Rogie's Avatar
Rogie Rogie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
Do the tracks still carry freight though? The Talent is not certified in Canada to share track time with freight trains. I think in Ottawa, freight trains use the track when the O-Train is not in service.
The O-train uses what was once a freight line, but now, only a tiny portion of the track is used for freight. It's also a diesel train.
     
     
  #3406  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 6:27 PM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
—... Make up your minds people!!!


Quote:
Stony Plain Road LRT plan draws fire

Proposed new route would put brakes on neighbourhood revitalization efforts, isolate businesses, critics say

By Richard Warnica, Edmonton Journal

Running a new West LRT line down Stony Plain Road would stifle business, disrupt the community and bring a long-planned revitalization to a screeching halt, say some opposed to the new proposed route.

The city unveiled a plan Thursday to lay a track from Lewis Estates in the west along 87th Avenue to 156th Street, where it would head north to Stony Plain Road/104th Street before ending at the future MacEwan College Station.

Under an older proposal, the train would have continued along 87th Avenue and across the river to the university. But many residents were against that plan and it was scrapped in the final version.

Some along the new proposed line, though, were not happy to see the change.

"If they take it down Stony Plain Road, they're going to destroy Stony Plain Road," said Don Calder, the president of Orbit Property Management, which owns several commercial buildings along the route.

Calder said the reduced street traffic would isolate the businesses between 149th and 156th streets and deep-six their efforts to make Stony Plain Road a more livable, vibrant place.

"There's obviously a need for the LRT to get the west and the Lewis Estates people more connected to the city, and especially the downtown core," he said. "But putting it right down the middle of Stony Plain Road makes no sense at all."

The Glenwood Community League, meanwhile, accused the city of bowing to NIMBY-ism ( "not in my back yard") by rejecting the 87th Avenue route.

"We're worried this is going to delay revitalization, maybe for decades," said Jamie Post, an official with the league.

The new route also means no direct access to the university from the west end. But that doesn't worry Kory Matthewson, the president of the University of Alberta Students Union.

Matthewson said students are just happy to see the city commit to more fixed-link public transit.

"Students do more than just university, as well," he said. "There's work and volunteer opportunities they're going to be going to. So the fact that they can't connect directly to campus is not a major concern."

The city also unveiled plans Thursday for a new Southeast line that would link Mill Woods to the core.

The plan calls for a track that passes through the Quarters redevelopment before crossing the river and stopping at the Muttart Conservatory in the river valley.

Terry Wickham, producer of the Edmonton Folk Festival, said the new route could be a godsend for the festival, but the devil's in the details.

Having a fixed link to bring people to and from the site would be great, he said, as long as the city doesn't have to expropriate any festival space to do it.

The southeast plan also calls for the line to snake out of the valley next to Connors Road, go east along 95th Avenue, and turn south on 83rd Street past Bonnie Doon Mall.

Nancy Rempel, the president of the Bonnie Doon Community League, said the proposed line could be a terrific thing for her community. Those with property on or near the proposed route, though, are understandably worried, she said.

"I've talked to people of two completely different minds. Some people think it will be great, some people think it will split their community in half and be devastating."

Before any more steps are taken, Rempel said she wants the city to produce an updated development plan for Bonnie Doon.

Dieter Schmidtke, the president of the community league in Idylwylde, which borders the proposed route to the east of 83rd Avenue, said his main worry about the plan is that the area's already limited green space could be annexed.

"We would prefer, if you're going to chew up something, chew up the Bonnie Doon (Mall) parking lot," he said.
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Stony+Plain+Road+plan+draws+fire/1965258/story.html
     
     
  #3407  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 6:34 PM
mintzilla mintzilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: on a boat
Posts: 742
is it technologically possible for low floor trains to be underground?

i know it wont happen but i think we will regret going above ground through downtown in a a decade or two.
     
     
  #3408  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 6:39 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by mintzilla View Post
is it technologically possible for low floor trains to be underground?

i know it wont happen but i think we will regret going above ground through downtown in a a decade or two.
Yes it is possible. For instance, Seattle just opened a system that is low floor and includes an underground section.
     
     
  #3409  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 7:14 PM
ue ue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 9,493
If done right we shouldn't regret it. And frinkprof is right you can have it u/g.
     
     
  #3410  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 10:37 PM
Beltliner's Avatar
Beltliner Beltliner is offline
Unsafe at Any Speed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 949
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
Yes it is possible. For instance, Seattle just opened a system that is low floor and includes an underground section.
Make a crack about how the Russians did it first? I can *do* zat!



This shot is of Ploshchad' Lenina Station in downtown Volgograd, courtesy of Lobotomy on Vikipyediya.
     
     
  #3411  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2009, 11:34 PM
oiler-dude's Avatar
oiler-dude oiler-dude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 737
So has it actually been confirmed that WLRT and SELRT will be Low-Floor, or is it just been inferred?
     
     
  #3412  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2009, 5:23 AM
0773|=\ 0773|=\ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,256
^More of a general Edmonton city-wide transit "vision" has been approved earlier on this summer, which suggests a multi-billion dollar network that reaches all four quadrants of the city (kind of a transit master plan to determine which regions need service before others). The plan was approved by council, and suggests that from here on in, we need to have low-floor LRT's with more frequent stops.

I think that if we're continuing to use this model to serve suburbs, this might not be the best option. A DT/Whyte Ave loop with this model would be great, but the further out of the city we go, I think a high-floor/fewer stops/higher speed model needs to take precedence. We need our city's rapid transit to be exactly that... rapid. This plan doesn't seem to match that criteria, though it does promote ridership.
     
     
  #3413  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2009, 5:43 AM
ue ue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WPG
Posts: 9,493
There is absolutely no reason why we can not have low floor lrt in the suburbs...it works in other cities fine. The key is that we can't have frequent stops in the suburbs - is all.
     
     
  #3414  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2009, 5:46 PM
naidoo's Avatar
naidoo naidoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonton/Vancouver
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
The key is that we can't have frequent stops in the suburbs - is all.
EXACTLY. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp
     
     
  #3415  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 3:14 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 69,149
finally a positive and educated poll response

What do you think of the proposed routes for the west and south LRT?
Looks good, let's do it
66.61 %
The line is too close to my house
3.28 %
The line is too far from my house
5.25 %
Doesn't matter, I don't do transit
24.86 %
     
     
  #3416  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 4:33 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,302
Well NELRT could use an extra station like at 95St just across from the tunnel portal would be beneficial IMO. SLRT could've used a station between Southgate and Century Park but there is future provision when the area densifies a bit right?

Extra stations slow the system down but if you can maintain the perfect balancing of putting the most stations especially in the best catchment areas while maintaining decent average speed (no less than 35km/h) then you will get maximum ridership. LRT from Clareview to South Campus averages about 38.5km/h which is decent considerring the trains operate at a maximum of 70km/h. Vancouver's Canada Line is just a tad under 35km/h.
     
     
  #3417  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 5:11 PM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,566
NELRT isn't going to see another station on it. Stadium station is going to be relocated closer to downtown... this will make a big difference - especially as they will be improving the accessibility of the station from all directions.
     
     
  #3418  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 7:18 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof View Post
Yes it is possible. For instance, Seattle just opened a system that is low floor and includes an underground section.
I still don't understand why Edmonton is abandoning the thought of expanding trains through the downtown tunnel. The original Bachtel report from 1962 (I believe) envisioned six lines all converging and running through a twin bore tunnel under downtown Edmonton. That tunnel can take a lot more traffic that the one train every 5 minutes on the current schedule.

The only reason I can see is the city wants to jump on the low floor band-wagon and can't be bother to spend the money to convert the existing system to low-floor.

I don't buy the arguement that the downtown tunnel can't handle the traffic - that makes no sense. And isn't it ironic that Edmonton started with a tunnel and is now considering building LRT on the surface, while Calgary started with LRT on the surface and is now planning to build a tunnel.
     
     
  #3419  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 7:25 PM
naidoo's Avatar
naidoo naidoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonton/Vancouver
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa View Post
Stadium station is going to be relocated closer to downtown...
Is this going ahead now? The whole station relocation/re-zoning/redevelopment bit?
     
     
  #3420  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 7:28 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 11,297
^ it's one of several proposals being brought forward as part of the Stadium TOD plan, it may very well happen and will be part of a larger redevelopment that includes RK, the massive lot behind it, and the redevelopment of the existing p&r and the commercial buildings along stadium road. I don't know about timelines... The next Stadium TOD workshop is in the fall & hopefully there will be some more concrete plans available.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.