Edmonton Public Transit

[240glt]

^^ I agree with that logic through the core... multiple transition points are good, plus 103 ave is an ugly wasteland.

I am concerned with east of 97th street, that's the area that has the most to lose.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

Here's a question:
If the line needs to jump from 102 Ave (dt core) to 103 Ave (Chinatown) as some of you advocate, how best to do this?

A. 99 St, which is closed off half the year anyway but is used by Taste of Edmonton and other festivals?
B. At grade through the parking lot behind the Winspear?
C. 97 St at grade, closing off a lane?
D. Below 97 St?

[240glt]

From east to west, I think that the train should come above ground between 96 & 97 on 103, cross 97 then turn south using the parking lot behind the Winspear, then west on 102. Just an idea.

I do like the idea of the train running down 102, mainly because I will finally, maybe, get a suitable east-west bike route through downtown.

[Clearshades]

I concur with multiple transit points, but in Edmonton, at this stage with population base, is hard to do. I can see example will be thrown in my face, but I have processed this as well...places like NY, TO etc have incredible population, so there are multiple transition points. It appears to be affective, not because of transition points, but due to frequencies to the routes. If this was the argument, then buses should be applied as well to this theory- and as we all know, they don't meet up quite well at those points- thank God for heated shelters.

Due to a street's lack of beauty is as good as a developer's lack of desire to develope an empty lot because it is uninspiring. My understanding of developements is to further progress a city. How can we progress when pro-city people, such as you guys, contradict yourselves. I say this only for the fact that you have envissioned minds such as myself. In this particular case, you all react like the Envission group.

UE: Yes we do have connection points for future arena, but close your eyes and tell me where they go? This proposed line is Millwoods-west end and is not north- south. I'm thinking for now and down the road- 2+birds with one stone. Your analisis is of now and not incorporating for tommorrow.

CMD/COLDS/UE: You all endorsed a parking lot to be beautified or developed-myself as well- why would you guys use the analogy of an ugly street as reasonings. If your arguments is about changing the city, would street fronts not be as pertinent? Further more easily transformed. UE alluded to the ugly parkade. City Centre west parkade west, add some vine plants to the street side and once matured, will look lushes. Parkade east of CC , repaint it and add some tinted plexy glass- just one example- to immitate an office structure. 102ve. Is already looking descent, and we must now improving the esthetics of 103ave.

[Clearshades]

Just a reiteration, I would be delighted with either routes chosen.

[ue]

Clearshades...

Seriously? We're akin to Envision Edmonton? Wow.

If you need to get to the Arena District on the 102 Ave alignment, just walk one block north as you would walk one block south to get to Jasper. Or, transfer at Churchill and be transported directly to the Arena District in a jiffy. I am factoring in the Edmonton of tomorrow. This is why I mentioned the BP lands, Norquest, Ultima condos, Scott Park, and the Quarters. The great thing about 102nd Ave is that east of 104th it is full of amenities to allow the LRT to be well used from the get-go, but west of 104th it is a blank canvas, arguably more so than 103rd Ave (two words: BP Lands), which would allow the sprucing up you're alluding to. I just think 102 Ave has more potential and better access to destinations both today and tomorrow.

[Clearshades]

The envission group was refer to the 103 ave state only- not as your general thought.

As alluded, there will be three lines parallel evenually to downtown. Each line will have equal distance of travel by foot; hence my logic.

[Clearshades]

Correction, the millwoods route will have equal distance to the other two lines.

[ciudad_del_norte]

I still don't really see the value of keeping everything equidistant. It makes sense to me to have things concentrated a bit closer to Jasper. I really like the idea of the LRT line underground at Jasper, and then a line at grade with bike facilities a block north. I also think there will be a lot more connective use between the Millwoods-West Line and the existing underground line.

As a side note: I know the city was working on branding the lines with actual names..anybody know how that is going? It would make these discussions flow a bit easier.... .


Anyways.. It might just be the way I think about it, but I don't see it so much as three parallel equal lines downtown. Putting the new line at an equal distance to Jasper line and the Nait extension doesn't make sense to me because Nait/Jasper are actually just two section of the same line. From the portion under Jasper people will be able to get to Clareview, the Northwest, or Century Park/Heritage Valley. So while Churchill will be the main Hub, the portion under Jasper is still kind of a hub allowing for 3 different destinations. The closer the new line is to Jasper, the better you reinforce a sort of long blockwide hub through downtown with 5 different mass transit destination options. You don't really get more destination options by moving it north, you just make the connections a bit less efficient. Maybe I would feel different if the NAIT line was discrete but to me by trying to space things evenly you are creating redundant connections with less efficiency.

But again, that may just be the way I think about it.

[Mikemike]

If keeping LRT as close as practical to jasper, with easy transfers to the existing line is what's important then why not just use the existing tunnel where transfers can be cross-platform, not one or two blocks? That solves the problem for the west line, and for the mill woods line whether 102 or 103 is chosen doesn't matter: both options will have an excellent connection to the underground line at Churchill which is the only connection they need.

[mick]

^If you're talking about changing SELRT-WLRT from low floor to high floor and then running them through the existing tunnel, the problem you face is tunnel capacity. With NWLRT also interlining, you have three lines feeding the east end of the tunnel. While 2 is manageable three means that you are limited in the frequency you can run trains on each of those three legs, and, by extension, the whole system.

If you're talking about building a parallel tunnel, cost is the major issue.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by mick

^If you're talking about changing SELRT-WLRT from low floor to high floor and then running them through the existing tunnel, the problem you face is tunnel capacity. With NWLRT also interlining, you have three lines feeding the east end of the tunnel. While 2 is manageable three means that you are limited in the frequency you can run trains on each of those three legs, and, by extension, the whole system.

Capacity and wrong track gauge/platform height.

Originally Posted by mick

If you're talking about building a parallel tunnel, cost is the major issue.

This is what I think was being referred to. No benefit in do this, and huge costs associated with it.



I think this entire sh*tstorm is being fuelled by a fear of the unknown (low floor LRT and what ease of community integration/access), and association with what is known - namely, a 'community-divisive' form high-platform LRT.

My apologies to the voices from the Chinese community, but I really hope council sticks to their — and goes with the original recommendations, and the recommendations of the professionals - the transit planners who have been studying this to death and understand the importance of getting something as permanent as this right the first time.

[codeman9669]

Im sure there is just as much fear of the unknown on the other side, too. Im afraid that instead of rapid transit into and out of the core - we are going to be stuck with a glorified bus route that meanders all over the place and stops ever 20 seconds.

If they want a street car in the core, build one IN THE CORE. I still think that this low floor/urban style system is going to bite us in the —. Why spend all this money on rail, stations etc when 5 minute frequency on a bus, going down (essentially) the same roads that the low floor LRT will be using, accomplishes the same thing?

I was down in Calgary last week and saw what they were doing with new LRT line - and wow, they are putting us to shame. Literally. We started our system out right - and now we are watching cities like Calgary suffer because they didnt (im referring to tunneling dt here.) Now Calgary is trying their hardest to find solutions to the problems they caused themselves by building ground level through the core...and what does Edmonton do - they decide that now is the time to go ground level downtown (why learn from other cities mistakes...lets follow in their mistakes instead).

I really shake my head sometimes - all we hear in the news and see at our LRT stations is that the LRT is a victim of its own success. Trains are packed, etc etc. So, here is a great thought...take a forumla that is working, and introduce a bunch of unknown variables...that will surely make it better. After all, if it isnt broken...we had better try to fix it, right?

[feepa]

codeman - agree 110 % with what you wrote.

Its too bad Edmonton is trying to force this hybrid system.... Build a street car, build rapid transit. Do both, but don't try to sell one system as the other.

[ue]

I am skeptical about the low floor design, especially all the way out in the suburbs. I have long thought that a genuine streetcar down 102nd Ave from 95 St to 124 St to connect Oliver and the Quarters to downtown would be great. 87 alignment for West LRT to eventually go down Whyte, past Bonnie Doon, into Sherwood Park. Current alignment for Mill Woods is fine, though.

However, despite my skepticism, I think it can still work:

1) Remember Calgary's LRT downtown was built 3 decades ago. Urban planning is much better and I would guess it wouldn't be a failure as a result in Edmonton because of this.

2) Just looking at Calgary doesn't give you all the information. Look to other cities. Look at Portland. Low floor LRT is the entirety of it's MAX system. This includes Downtown Portland, which has much smaller blocks and tinier streets than Edmonton which would allow much less room for traffic. Not to mention Portland has 2X Edmonton's population. With proper design, it can work. We also have less congestion issues than Portland. Even more congested and bustling cities such as Berlin, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt am Main have above ground streetcars (S-Bahns in Germany). Calgary just had a poor design and it shows. Design it properly, and Edmonton's low floor LRT should be ok.

3) Low floor LRT is still LRT. It can still reach the same speeds as high floor and can still have the same track distances. South of Bonnie Doon on the Mill Woods LRT, I believe it has similar distance to hgigh floor LRT.

[mick]

Rapid - you'll see I said that if you change seLRT - wLRT from low to high floor (i.e., match current rolling stock).

LRT is by definition a hybrid; it was originally a compromise between heavy rail subways and in-traffic street cars. Codeman, you can be fearful all you want, but if you look at the proposed designs and station spacings, you can see that it will not meander all over the place, nor stop every 20secs. Station with only a slightly higher station frequency than the current LRT. Moreover, the route has major grade separations at 178st and 170st, the east end of downtown, around Wagner and 75st, and over the Whitemud. I happen to think that we'll need to grade separate 109 and 104ave somehow, and maybe one or two other intersections, but overall this route design doesn't vary from sLRT-neLRT all that much.

The sky is falling stuff I hear about this route is ridiculous. For years, we lamented that going underground killed LRT expansion in this city; the city learns from that mistake, and puts LRT above ground on a lightly trafficked street through the core to save hundreds of millions, and now their short-sighted. You can't be right for being wrong around here. It's ridiculous, people just can't get over there pet route, which they likely drew onto google maps somewhere, wasn't chosen, as a brief read of the never-ending threads on the subject at c2e attests.

[Clearshades]

Originally Posted by feepa

codeman - agree 110 % with what you wrote.

Its too bad Edmonton is trying to force this hybrid system.... Build a street car, build rapid transit. Do both, but don't try to sell one system as the other.

I second that notion! I had debates with friends when Grandin was extended to University. Their argument was that Calgary's system was way ahead of Edmnton's, and my defence to our city was, it was due to us tunnelling downtown. I also stated in the long run, we will come out ahead- and that is now becoming more evident.

I was always perplexed why the Nait line did not proceed to millwoods- Churchhill- convention centre-south. Why duplicate a line at this stage when that is a minor tweak down the road?

I could see Calgary's delima, if tunnelling now, could cost them in the neigborhood of 5 billion+ due to all the office towers already present. This may play to Edmonton's favor in offices down the road when traffic becomes more insidious for them; but that is a different topic...

[Clearshades]

Originally Posted by ue

I am skeptical about the low floor design, especially all the way out in the suburbs. I have long thought that a genuine streetcar down 102nd Ave from 95 St to 124 St to connect Oliver and the Quarters to downtown would be great. 87 alignment for West LRT to eventually go down Whyte, past Bonnie Doon, into Sherwood Park. Current alignment for Mill Woods is fine, though.

However, despite my skepticism, I think it can still work:

1) Remember Calgary's LRT downtown was built 3 decades ago. Urban planning is much better and I would guess it wouldn't be a failure as a result in Edmonton because of this.

2) Just looking at Calgary doesn't give you all the information. Look to other cities. Look at Portland. Low floor LRT is the entirety of it's MAX system. This includes Downtown Portland, which has much smaller blocks and tinier streets than Edmonton which would allow much less room for traffic. Not to mention Portland has 2X Edmonton's population. With proper design, it can work. We also have less congestion issues than Portland. Even more congested and bustling cities such as Berlin, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt am Main have above ground streetcars (S-Bahns in Germany). Calgary just had a poor design and it shows. Design it properly, and Edmonton's low floor LRT should be ok.

3) Low floor LRT is still LRT. It can still reach the same speeds as high floor and can still have the same track distances. South of Bonnie Doon on the Mill Woods LRT, I believe it has similar distance to hgigh floor LRT.

proper planning and outlook of the future is the key in all deveopement!

[ue]

Keep in mind it is also more of a pain to tunnel in Calgary because the soil is closer to water, as Downtown Calgary is situated in their river valley. It would be like trying to tunnel through Rossdale or Riverdale.

[Clearshades]

That will just exceed the cost I projected really. Not undoable, but extremely exorbitant. > higher tax = high office rental rates = exodus to Edmonton lol

Note: you mentioned Calgary's system commenced over three decades ago; our system started before theirs'...