Edmonton Public Transit

[feepa]

Originally Posted by s211

Calgary's much higher use has nothing to do with whether it's at-grade or not.

They've got a much higher concentrated employment base downtown, and a much better system at connecting the compass points of the city to the downtown. Edmonton? Until recently, it just tracked to the NE.

Ask yourself why Calgary wants its next LRT leg through the downtown to go underground along 8th Avenue... they have literally been there and done that with the at-grade option, and it's a mess.

Further more, Edmontons LRT has been on pace with Calgary LRT when you measure passengers per km of track.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

/\ Attitudes are changing, and will continue to change as the LRT reaches more corners of the city. The wife and I have 1 car by choice. Making it work in Edmonton is a little harder at times as compared to other cities we have lived in, but where you choose to live is a big contributing factor to that.

More people are using transit, and they will realize that every time a packed train stops or slows to accommodate cross traffic it's just like when the yellowhead gets a red light so just a car or two can turn at 89st.

[Daveography]

People can complain about traffic backups caused by transit all they want, but it's not difficult to imagine that an LRT train with even just 100 passengers on it (nowhere near its capacity) takes a lot less space on the roads and time to cross an intersection than 100 single occupant vehicles that it replaces.

[s211]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

No Muttart stop, are you kidding me. You have some learning to do son.

Then learn me, and tell me why a stop with no employment centre, transit centre or density of any kind is worthy of the millions required for a station. Just because it's close to nature isn't a valid reason. How many people would use rapid transit to avail themselves of the river valley? The ski "hill"?

[tallisgood]

Originally Posted by s211

Then learn me, and tell me why a stop with no employment centre, transit centre or density of any kind is worthy of the millions required for a station. Just because it's close to nature isn't a valid reason. How many people would use rapid transit to avail themselves of the river valley? The ski "hill"?

Cities need to make themselves as visitor-friendly as possible. Muttart and the Edmonton Queen are significant tourist attractions, as is the Folk Fest.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

^ Plus more accessibility to the river valley is needed. Not everyone has the means to get into the river valley.

[mcc16]

You do realize there is a neighbourhood behind muttart right? This would be a neighbourhood stop as well as servicing the other sites mentioned ( ski hill, muttart, river boat, folk fest...)

[Daveography]

Jeesus I'm getting sick of the negativity. The SE LRT despite some shortcomings (perceived or otherwise) will only be a net plus for the city. A stop at the Muttart will be a net plus for the Muttart and Culina at the Muttart; it will be good for Cloverdale, Bonnie Doon, and Strathearn; it will be good for the Folk Fest, and for enjoying the River Valley and Mill Creek. The stop is only a minor and brief inconvenience for anyone just passing through.

This LRT is a good thing for Edmonton. Period.

Quityerbitchin.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by s211

Then learn me, and tell me why a stop with no employment centre, transit centre or density of any kind is worthy of the millions required for a station. Just because it's close to nature isn't a valid reason. How many people would use rapid transit to avail themselves of the river valley? The ski "hill"?

Because it will help connect the Cloverdale neighbourhood in the valley along with the Muttart Conservatory, a tourist destination and the Dock for the River Queen, another tourist destination.

Consider yourself 'learned'.

[basilbrush]

Originally Posted by RTA

^ Bingo, sir. This "keep car traffic moving at all costs" mindset needs to change.

Not sure if that was to me or not, but that is not the attitude I am advocating.

However, I do believe that if you are designing a Lrt system to travel primarily on a road then there should be some kind of balance that is acceptable to both modes. This video leads me to believe that little attention has been paid to what the true impacts will be.

They took the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach on the slrt. I'm just hoping they have taken the opposite approach with the selrt. And if they have, then why not show it in the video?

[ciudad_del_norte]

^ I can't speak for those that made the video but I think showing details like that are beyond the scope of what the video is to portray. A lot of those details require a fair bit of modelling and design and I think the video is intended more to have a friendly way to demonstrate the route in general. It isn't really new info, but it reminds people of the project and keeps them interested. A lot of people that are going to watch the video just aren't interested in chanelization and access configuration.

Also, I lived down by Century Park when that section opened and although there are a few places that can be annoying I don't buy into the drama of how horrible it is.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by basilbrush

Not sure if that was to me or not, but that is not the attitude I am advocating.

However, I do believe that if you are designing a Lrt system to travel primarily on a road then there should be some kind of balance that is acceptable to both modes. This video leads me to believe that little attention has been paid to what the true impacts will be.

They took the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach on the slrt. I'm just hoping they have taken the opposite approach with the selrt. And if they have, then why not show it in the video?

Transportation engineers representing/evaluating traffic volumes and changes to circulation patterns would be very much involved with line/row choices.

[s211]

Originally Posted by mcc16

You do realize there is a neighbourhood behind muttart right? This would be a neighbourhood stop as well as servicing the other sites mentioned ( ski hill, muttart, river boat, folk fest...)

Of course I'm aware that there's a predominantly single-family neighbourhood in the area. Guess what: there's neighbourhoods no different all over the city. You do realize that, don't you?

Seriously, the river boat? You people are using that as one of the reasons to support a rapid transit stop in this location???? Isn't that a bit of a stretch to argue that makes the location a transportation hub?

[rapid_business]

The Queen is nothing in the equation. The justification is that the low floor routes have been determined to have more frequent stops. In some cases, every 800m. As such, placing a stop between Strathern and Chinatown makes sense. Single Family Housing or not, the same can be argued for McKernan-Belgravia. It is a local, neighborhood stop. The access to the river valley, Muttart, Ski Hill, etc. are supplementary in the equation, but nice to have.

[mick]

Originally Posted by s211

Of course I'm aware that there's a predominantly single-family neighbourhood in the area. Guess what: there's neighbourhoods no different all over the city. You do realize that, don't you?

Seriously, the river boat? You people are using that as one of the reasons to support a rapid transit stop in this location???? Isn't that a bit of a stretch to argue that makes the location a transportation hub?

You might want to take another look at Cloverdale; It may once have been largely single family, but with the large Vinterra Condo, plus two other multi-family developments, not to mention numerous townhomes, I'm not sure that's true anymore. For it's size, cloverdale is quite a fairly dense neighbourhood...and getting denser all the time, given its proximity to downtown, and the valley.

[mick]

Originally Posted by basilbrush

Not sure if that was to me or not, but that is not the attitude I am advocating.

However, I do believe that if you are designing a Lrt system to travel primarily on a road then there should be some kind of balance that is acceptable to both modes. This video leads me to believe that little attention has been paid to what the true impacts will be.

They took the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach on the slrt. I'm just hoping they have taken the opposite approach with the selrt. And if they have, then why not show it in the video?

I honestly don't think that the impacts will be particularly dramatic. While the LRT crosses some major intersections, unlike the sLRT at say university ave, it goes with the flow of large volume of traffic (i.e., north-south; the traffic circle is a good example). The ROW for seLRT seems very similar to the sLRT to me; it is grade separated where necessary (i.e., crossing 75st against the flow of traffic, but runs at grade elsewhere.).

[SHOFEAR]

It would be the only chance for a stop in the river valley. It gives us a great starting point for developing recreational infrastructure.

One of the difficulties in providing services in the valley is there are hundreds of entry points. There are few areas that are busy enough to support businesses are services. An LRT stop would create that.

[tallisgood]

Originally Posted by s211

Seriously, the river boat? You people are using that as one of the reasons to support a rapid transit stop in this location???? Isn't that a bit of a stretch to argue that makes the location a transportation hub?

Dude, it's not JUST the riverboat: it's the riverboat + Muttart + Folk Fest + potential new river valley ammenities and developments that make it an important future stop for tourists. Having that on a line that also connects to AGA/RAM/Winspeare as well as (eventually) West Edmonton Mall is awesome (and spare me the pretentious "I hate WEM" bullshit; it's great for the tourism industry, so screw those of you who like to pretend you're too sophisticated for that sort of thing). It's just too bad that Ft Edmonton and Telus WOS are not more centrally located, and the Aviation Museum is in a crumby part of town (yes, I know about the 'vision' for the airport lands but I don't expect anything to seriously happen in the next five-10 years at least, sorry).

Right now almost everything interesting about Edmonton for tourists is difficult to access if you don't have a car or unless you enjoy long tedious bus rides; this will go some ways towards changing that. I love the idea of a Muttart Station, and if you care about tourism in Edmonton, you should too.

[s211]

Originally Posted by tallisgood

I love the idea of a Muttart Station, and if you care about tourism in Edmonton, you should too.

I don't just care about tourism in Edmonton. I care about Edmonton, and in a world of depleting financial resources for governments, I question the expenditure of millions of dollars in this location. Frankly, it would be cheaper to give tourists taxi vouchers to visit this area than to put in station infrastructure here.

[tallisgood]

It would be certifiably insane to build an LRT line that goes right past an important tourist destination AND DOESN'T STOP THERE!