Edmonton Public Transit - Page 267

Clearshades · #**5321** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Wouldn't that platform be sitting on the meridian right in the middle of 111st ? I think by virtue of the orientationof the line being right in the middle of the street, a more complicated structure would be required.

I agree with Feepa, this is way low on the priority list.

I've ridden it a couple times and don't have much memory of that area. Is there not much room in between?

MalcolmTucker · #**5322** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Wouldn't that platform be sitting on the meridian right in the middle of 111st ? I think by virtue of the orientationof the line being right in the middle of the street, a more complicated structure would be required.

I agree with Feepa, this is way low on the priority list.

Calgary is building a station right in the middle of a larger road without a station head.

Source: http://www.westlrt.ca/stationareas/26thstreetstation.cfm

feepa · #**5323** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 6:45 PM**

One has some density and road/path network that provides easy access to the station. The other is a bunch of inward facing single family homes.

CanadianCentaur · #**5324** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 8:07 PM**

Edmonton isn't alone in having such long distances between LRT stations - even Calgary has the same problem with between a couple of its stations, esp. in the NW. Probably even worse, in fact. The track segment between Dalhousie and Crowfoot Stations is nearly 4 km! After Dalhousie, it's still almost as bad - about 2.8 km to Brentwood Station (however, Brentwood isn't far from the U of C). All this goes through a part of Calgary consisting of mainly single-family housing no different than between Southgate and Century Park.

MalcolmTucker · #**5325** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 8:29 PM**

Except in Calgary's case the line is running down the equivalent of Whitemud, not 111th.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

One has some density and road/path network that provides easy access to the station. The other is a bunch of inward facing single family homes.

The Calgary location isn't really that more dense or oriented towards the station than the Edmonton proposal. http://binged.it/wvYAYb

feepa · #**5326** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 8:35 PM**

Distance between stations should increase the further you get away from the dense core...

The suburbs do not need a station every 800m.

240glt · #**5327** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Except in Calgary's case the line is running down the equivalent of Whitemud, not 111th.

Sure doesn't look like the Whitemud in that photo you posted.... not even close

MalcolmTucker · #**5328** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Sure doesn't look like the Whitemud in that photo you posted.... not even close

The example that was referred to was on Crowchild, here is where a station could be added in Calgary http://binged.it/xJoftN

CMD UW · #**5329** Posted **Feb 9, 2012, 1:42 AM**

I agree with Malcolm, the C-Train station and the proposed 40 Ave are very similar as it relates to physical attributes.

rapid_business · #**5330** Posted **Feb 13, 2012, 6:57 PM**

Any idea when we should see Q3 2011 numbers for the LRT? Normally it is right around now.

Coldrsx · #**5331** Posted **Feb 13, 2012, 7:04 PM**

^not sure, but I am curious to see how things are shaping up.

CMD UW · #**5332** Posted **Feb 14, 2012, 3:21 AM**

Given that transit ridership is increasing faster than our yearly population growth, I figure the numbers will be higher.

MalcolmTucker · #**5333** Posted **Feb 14, 2012, 3:38 AM**

I would bet there is a little bit of a pleateau or at least a smaller increase than seen in the past - trains have been pretty full for awhile now - there are only so many marginal users who want to make trips outside of the peak of the peak.

Coldrsx · #**5334** Posted **Feb 14, 2012, 5:05 PM**

Be sure to send in your thoughts on the downtown 102 vs 102a/103 ave routing by tomorrow.

rapid_business · #**5335** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 5:33 PM**

Via Coun. Don Iveson's twitter feed:

@doniveson #yegcc votes to keep #yegdt LRT on surface on 102 Ave as originally proposed. #yegtransit #onward

MrOilers · #**5336** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 5:53 PM**

Good.

Stick to the plan so we can move on with securing some funds and building the thing.

MalcolmTucker · #**5337** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 5:55 PM**

Count me as pleasantly surprised.

Coldrsx · #**5338** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 7:45 PM**

Appropriate decision.

feepa · #**5339** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 9:16 PM**

dont mind the decision (despite my big objections to WLRT portion), but I question the logic of 109st/104ave not being grade separated.

MrOilers · #**5340** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

I question the logic of 109st/104ave not being grade separated.

That intersection is the only part of this plan that makes me nervous.