Edmonton Public Transit - Page 263

ue · #**5241** Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 11:59 PM**

Come on. So would the City also realign it to 103 Ave in the downtown itself or would it do rather strange meanderings to tip toe around the Boyle Street community? Either way it wouldn't be good. 103 Ave is nice, but 102 Ave makes better sense with more facilities, more revitalization potential, and easier to connect to downtown underground LRT just a block away. If it were to just meander around, it would be horrible inefficient and pointless. Besides having those LRVs go through the South Chinatown gate will look extremely cool vs just a generic LRT scene if it were 1 block north. Not to mention it would be further away from where the Quarters is starting to revitalize (Jasper between 96th and 97th).

I really hope the city doesn't change the routing but I wouldn't be completely surprised if it did.

Clearshades · #**5242** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 5:25 AM**

I support either route, and here is why... Going by 103ave, will intercept the hockey arena- from Katz proposed tower rendering; liven that dead street- especially the area of City Centre-crrent YMCA housing; stoping right in front of city hall; lesson interference with farmer's market; one block+ away fom Boyle R.; going by hotels; going by the court house; tunnelling only an additional block.

The Chinese community are concerned due to the fact it has to due with seniors whom are frail; hard of hearing; cannot react as we young ones lol; It has nothing to do with the Asian people itself- as i am one. This would apply to any senior's concerns regardless of race. I am getting older as well and realized my years of invincibility are not what they use to be- OMG covermy mouth already lol!

Going by 102ave. is also acceptable. Compromise by tunnelling shoertly after the Chinese gate; possibly relocate that gate commencing at the corner of the block where the Chinese senior apartments are.

I am unable to comprehend how 103 could raise the cost by 60million? Anyone with insight on this? To add, I did not review complications of constructing in this area, so I am playing the uneducated position pertaining to additional cost.

I am by no means defending the seniors position due to my race. I am observing possibilities of compromises to appease everyone, and processing why 103ave. is also pragmatic.

MalcolmTucker · #**5243** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 5:28 AM**

Quote:

I am unable to comprehend how 103 could raise the cost by 60million? Anyone with insight on this? To add, I did not review complications of constructing in this area, so I am playing the uneducated position pertaining to additional cost.

For it to be that much, there would have to be huge utility issues or extra land acquistion needed, unless they are counting the higher operating costs of two possible extra turns over their lifetimes!

Clearshades · #**5244** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 5:48 AM**

Perhaps they could consult with current land owners and tunnel diagnally on that block akin to STL concept?

Hallsy's Toupee · #**5245** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 7:15 AM**

I kinda prefer the 103 Ave routing myself.

It takes this LRT option closer to Grant Mac U, Norquest, the proposed arena/entertainment district, City Hall, AGA and RAM. The low-floor version of the train is not going to be that big an impediment between Churchill Square and City Hall (the NIMBYs and the TV news reporters need to know the difference between the high floor LRT style we have now, and the low-floor version they are proposing).

A minor thing, but I like that the 103 Ave option would be spaced farther from the current LRT line under Jasper Ave. Just in terms of LRT service within downtown, I personally don't see the sense in having two parallel lines just a block away from each other. A 2 block separation makes more sense.

ue · #**5246** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:16 AM**

Grant MacEwan will be serviced with the 102 Ave alignment because from 108 St westward, the line operates on 104 Ave, directly in front of Grant MacEwan. As for Norquest, the LRT will be going right past it on 108 St. You're right, 103rd Ave would space things further from Jasper. I just see that as a negative. It would be longer to transfer to the underground LRT, which is especially gruesome in -40 weather, not to mention all the activity and services on Jasper Ave itself.

102 Ave would also not face the ass end of City Centre and the slew of parkades. In return, it would provide direct access to the future Scott's Park, BP Lands potential redevelopment, City Market, Boardwalk Bldg., YMCA, front side of City Centre, Manulife Place, heart of 101st Street, Rice Howard Way, Churchill, Stanley A. Milner, Winspear, Citadel, and the Chinatown Gate. Not to mention being within a block of City Hall, Jasper Ave Downtown, Jasper Ave Quarters, Boyle Renaissance, AGA, Beaver Hills House Park, Commerce Place, Enterprise Square, etc. There is much less on 103rd Ave and in my opinion, less revitalization opportunity (aside from around 108 St and 107 St, which will already go-by-LRT as they would say in Portland).

Black Star · #**5247** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:28 AM**

Wow..so much to be said. With nothing said! Its really simple. It really is! Its a anomaly of society rather that of our town.

rapid_business · #**5248** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ue

102 Ave would also not face the ass end of City Centre and the slew of parkades. In return, it would provide direct access to the future Scott's Park, BP Lands potential redevelopment, City Market, Boardwalk Bldg., YMCA, front side of City Centre, Manulife Place, heart of 101st Street, Rice Howard Way, Churchill, Stanley A. Milner, Winspear, Citadel, and the Chinatown Gate. Not to mention being within a block of City Hall, Jasper Ave Downtown, Jasper Ave Quarters, Boyle Renaissance, AGA, Beaver Hills House Park, Commerce Place, Enterprise Square, etc. There is much less on 103rd Ave and in my opinion, less revitalization opportunity (aside from around 108 St and 107 St, which will already go-by-LRT as they would say in Portland).

This exactly.

Coldrsx · #**5249** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 4:31 PM**

^yup

" I just see that as a negative. It would be longer to transfer to the underground LRT, which is especially gruesome in -40 weather, not to mention all the activity and services on Jasper Ave itself. "

This was a big part of the consideration... in that people will much more readily be able to transfer.

feepa · #**5250** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 6:03 PM**

Maybe its time to accept that... this isn't the best plan.. or even close to it.

Mikemike · #**5251** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 6:04 PM**

I see 103 as a better LRT street, better suited for actual fast service other than at Churchill square. 102 is a better streetcar street. Until a west SPR line is built there are no problems with 102, and that line is so screwed up (as LRT ) a slower connector is barely noticeable.

CMD UW · #**5252** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 6:11 PM**

Stupid mistake to relocate it further north. You cannot please everyone and there's little benefit to moving it. Quit f*ckin around.

Coldrsx · #**5253** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 6:21 PM**

^exactly.

I really hope they do not amend this route.

Clearshades · #**5254** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 7:30 PM**

Ian, your contradicting yourself again. If you assert a stance with no pedway system to be built, you can't use the -40 argument- as that is the reason why this city has many pedway connections (above or underground). We should have to mannouver around downtown core at -40 , but we cannot walk 1-2 blocks to different lines? I'm plerplex on this one? Downtown encompusses more than a couple blocks.

To UE's stance regarding 102ve. having all the amenites, 103 will have the exact same thing- especially once the arena is erected. Keep in mind Ultima condo is going up; it will fastrack Norquest C developement. You stated the train will go by the back door of city centre. Perhaps , if going with that route, City Centre will beautify that side ( redoing Delta hotel entrance & adding a grand entrance across from YMCA; the line will still have a central connection at Churchill- between city hall & art gallery. Also, keep in mind, once this line and the Nait's line are completed, every line will be dispersed evenly at distance wise. Again, I don't see the difference between the two routes. One last note, the -40 analogy is no different than now. Don't citizens wait 15-30 min for buses at -40? It is not like we have never seen or experienced it before and are now prepare for an onslought.

240glt · #**5255** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 7:58 PM**

I support moving the line a block north. It solves a lot of issues.

Coldrsx · #**5256** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:20 PM**

'Ian, your contradicting yourself again. If you assert a stance with no pedway system to be built, you can't use the -40 argument- as that is the reason why this city has many pedway connections (above or underground). We should have to mannouver around downtown core at -40 , but we cannot walk 1-2 blocks to different lines? I'm plerplex on this one? Downtown encompusses more than a couple blocks.'

I walk just about everywhere and 1-2 blocks is baby distance, but it is really more about efficiency of connections. Basically pop up from the UG line, hop on the other. If the line is moved, you cant do that.

ue · #**5257** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:22 PM**

240glt: What issues?

Clearshades: NAIT LRT will already serve the Arena District directly, 103 Ave doesn't need to do it again. I highly doubt the parkades on 103 Ave will be gone in a giffy, so no it will still be the ass end of City Centre. Sorry. You're right that it would still have direct access to Churchill, in addition to the Art gallery. 102 Ave will have the Churchill access and be a block from AGA. Meanwhile, it will be right next to the Stanley Milner, Citadel, and Winspear. It's 3 vs. 1. 102 Ave wins. The Ultima condo is slightly closer to 103 Ave, but is essentially in the middle of that block. Not going to make much of a difference doing 103rd or 102nd there. As I already mentioned, the 102 alignment will already be going directly past Norquest because it ceases to operate on 102nd at 108 Street. Your point is moot.

240glt · #**5258** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:23 PM**

^^ How so ? The lines are still going to intersect. Rather than using the south entrance to Churchill you'd use the North.... same distance.

@ UE... numerous issues, but the ones mainly surrounding the tunnel on 102Ave. 102 actualy has some glimmer of life and some interesting and useful buildings... 103 has nothing. I actually hope they route it back to 102 for the DT section, but 102 through Chinatown is a bad idea, low floor or not.

Coldrsx · #**5259** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:42 PM**

"^^ How so ? The lines are still going to intersect. Rather than using the south entrance to Churchill you'd use the North.... same distance."

All other stations. It was presented at info sessions that the big reason for it to go down 102 was to make it easily transferable from most stations downtown so that you dont have to go all of the way to churchill

ciudad_del_norte · #**5260** Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 8:50 PM**

Moving it north seems like a mistake to me. Usually with mass transit planning it works best to have your system be based on existing well used transit routes and work with existing connections. Also, having the three lines be equidistant from each other is not necessarily the goal, especially if the goal is to continue to develop Jasper as the 'main street' within downtown.

I don't see why we would make transit connections more difficult (if even slightly). Pedways are a bit different because it is often a voluntary trip. Somebody walking from Manulife to City Centre is probably doing it to get to a meeting, or get food, shop etc. If they have to go outside, they may not enjoy it but it isn't really the city's fault they are doing something that requires crossing the street. Any extra walking to make connections will likely be perceived much more negatively because it is forced through design. Imagine having to duck outside and cross the street to grab lunch. It isn't quite the same as getting off a train in the middle of a trip to make a connection. For most people the reality of walking an extra block or two isn't a big deal, but in the world of transit perceived efficiency is just as important, if not more important than reality.

I also find it a bit silly that it was argued that the current alignment would be horrible and disruptive to the market on 104 but think it would be okay if was running between City Hall and Churchill..