West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service - Page 23

frinkprof · #**441** Posted **Nov 11, 2009, 12:21 AM**

Nevermind.

frinkprof · #**442** Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 5:15 AM**

Nevermind.

Aegis · #**443** Posted **Nov 13, 2009, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

From the construction thread:
This is incorrect. There is a difference between "no positive benefit" and less benefit relative to other options. The problems with the MRU route are:

1. Higher cost as a Crowchild Trail, 33rd Street, or 37th Street alignments to get there would have much higher costs due to massive property acquisition and/or tunnelling.

2. After getting to MRU, the line would have been difficult to expand since it runs into one of: Glenmore Reservoir, Tsuu T'ina Nation, or both

3. MRU is effectively closed for a 1/3rd of the year, and there are few other significant ridership sources along that route that would pick up the slack.

4. MRU is already decently served by transit via buses, and other options of the LRT routing would be able to improve service. This will be the case with a new BRT route from Westbrook Station starting once the chosen WLRT alignment opens.

For the record, I used to attend MRC and am actually an advocate for improving transit service to the school, and even getting the LRT there. However, the chosen WLRT route had the better relative benefits, and that is why it is what is being built.

If you are interested, here is the routing benefit study that was presented to council:

http://www.westlrt.ca/files/West%20LRT%20Presentation%20to%20Council.pdf

Specifically, pages 11 - 18.

All good points, except that MRC is served by existing transit as well as any other major institution: frequent rushour service, less convenient daytime service, and even more inconvenient weekend service. Hopefully that changes with LRT routing.

bluewaterandsunshine · #**444** Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis

All good points, except that MRC is served by existing transit as well as any other major institution: frequent rushour service, less convenient daytime service, and even more inconvenient weekend service. Hopefully that changes with LRT routing.

Oh my god! Buses 20 and 18 are horrible!!! Especially 18 which is never on time. It's either too early or 15 minutes late. And sometimes it doesn't come at all!

Canterra · #**445** Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 5:43 PM**

I guess the 10th ave SW access exit ramp off eastbound bow trail will need to be lowered a few meters to allow for the elevated portion of the LRT to duck under the southbound crowchild bridge??

MalcolmTucker · #**446** Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 5:47 PM**

nvm

mersar · #**447** Posted **Nov 16, 2009, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canterra

I guess the 10th ave SW access exit ramp off eastbound bow trail will need to be lowered a few meters to allow for the elevated portion of the LRT to duck under the southbound crowchild bridge??

Not sure if it needs to be lowered a bit, to my eye it looks like there is enough height though I may be wrong. The major change will be that the lanes will be pushed as far out as they can be (the current retaining walls are sloped, these will be rebuild to be vertical) to make room down the middle

frinkprof · #**448** Posted **Nov 17, 2009, 11:35 PM**

Nevermind.

bookermorgan · #**449** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 12:25 AM**

Looks good!

I think they need a few more of these system wide...

MalcolmTucker · #**450** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookermorgan

Looks good!

I think they need a few more of these system wide...

If only they cost less than 20/k a spot... The current lots aren't full at $3 a day, they aren't going to need these at an economic to provide rate. Heck, even when parking was free there was starting to be under utilization of lots at some stations.

Wooster · #**451** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 12:32 AM**

Wow very big, but a nice design.

kw5150 · #**452** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 4:39 PM**

I am referring to the new parkade design....... Didnt they just tear one of these down at SAIT? I really dont care for this design. Submit a new one whoever you are!

kw5150 · #**453** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 4:57 PM**

As a daily C-Train rider, I really dont like the new seating arrangement for the LRT cars. People are grumpy enough in the morning, and then to make us all face eachother can make things more awkward. I try to be really cheery on the train but, unfortunately, this is not the Calgary citizens' standard.

Other than that, I think the new design is very beautiful and dynamic. Up, over, down, through...... it is a very creative concept. I love that Calgary has put such a huge focus and investment in Transit (and the pedestrian).

frinkprof · #**454** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:27 PM**

Nevermind.

frinkprof · #**455** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:29 PM**

Nevermind.

You Need A Thneed · #**456** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

As for the design, meh. There's some nice things about it I guess, but a parkade is a parkade.

Much better than a big parking lot at grade.

kw5150 · #**457** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Not sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?

As for the design, meh. There's some nice things about it I guess, but a parkade is a parkade.

I have seen countless cities tear down ugly parkades after a short term of use. This is not sustainable. At SAIT (southern institute of tecnology) they just tore down a parkade that looked like this and it was perfectly fine. It was just ugly. We have to building things for temporary use and picture them 100 years down the road....

There are actually some great parkade designs out there you just hav to look! Anyways.....I just thought I would mention that the new design looks like the crappy one at SAIT.

kw5150 · #**458** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Much better than a big parking lot at grade.

True..... definately true.

frinkprof · #**459** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:53 PM**

Nevermind.

kw5150 · #**460** Posted **Nov 18, 2009, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

First off, welcome to the forums, kw5150.

I think that's a fair sentiment regarding the new LRVs. However, at the same time this design is much more in line with what works in several other cities, and adds some much needed capacity. When weighing the options, I would take people being able to board the train and not having to let them pass by if it means less people have the luxury of sitting. As it is, both of the current arrangements (in the older LRVs, and in the newer ones), are quite inefficient.

Maybe they just got a good deal on them.... lol. I just dont want to be forced to sit across from someone who will say "what the f*&K are you looking at?? Like those subway scenes on hollywood movies. I am mostly kidding but I still dont like the new seating arrangment.