Edmonton Public Transit

[rapid_business]

Nor is it "built up area" either. It's the City boundary contains 684 sq kms. The built up area is about 475 sq kms. There is over 200 sq kms of land within the City boundary that is undeveloped, most of which is in the north east given to us during the bait and switch annexation in the 80s.


That is around 1850 people/sq km using 2014 census stats.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

Who brought up Calgary? I couldn't care less about Calgary's built form. Not my circus, not my monkey. What I do care about is Edmonton's unsustainable but unstoppable hunger for greenfield development. We can't really afford to maintain the infrastructure we have at a decent level & yet we're constantly expanding the service areas with shiny new suburbs that simply can't be efficiently served with transit.

And Calgary is not developing suburbs??? Mmm hmmm...

[rapid_business]

Noodle, I'm glad you got a car. We get it.

I live centrally too. Work for me is either a 10-15 min drive with traffic. 15-20 on the bus. Or 15 min bike. I do all three. My bus route is full and direct. I don't feel like a 2nd class citizen on the bus by any means. Works for lots of people depending on where they are going.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Noodle, I'm glad you got a car. We get it.

I live centrally too. Work for me is either a 10-15 min drive with traffic. 15-20 on the bus. Or 15 min bike. I do all three. My bus route is full and direct. I don't feel like a 2nd class citizen on the bus by any means. Works for lots of people depending on where they are going.

And I live in the southwest and when I used to take transit it was quite easy for me to hop the bus (Route 35 or 37) in Terwillegar and head straight to Century Park and hop on the train. Door to door was 45 min, not bad considering it can take on average 30-40 min driving during peak hour. But there are some areas where transit doesn't work or you have to go on the milk run to get to your destination. Transit isn't going to work for everybody in all parts of the city.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

And Calgary is not developing suburbs??? Mmm hmmm...

Once again, I don't care about Calgary. It's not germane to my feelings about Edmonton & Edmonton Transit. Couldn't care less what they're doing.

Seriously, stop trying to bring up Calgary. You're only showing your own insecurities & neuroses by doing so.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

Once again, I don't care about Calgary. It's not germane to my feelings about Edmonton & Edmonton Transit. Couldn't care less what they're doing.

Seriously, stop trying to bring up Calgary. You're only showing your own insecurities & neuroses by doing so.

My point was about the built form of Edmonton and that we're not an outlier given how old (young) our city is and used our closest counterpart as an example. I am right, just admit it...it's ok.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

My point was about the built form of Edmonton and that we're not an outlier given how old (young) our city is and used our closest counterpart as an example. I am right, just admit it...it's ok.

You keep on bringing up Calgary as an example to try and make us look less bad in comparison, while completely downplaying/ignoring my concerns. I don't know what definition of "right" you're using but it's not the right one, at least by my definition of the word.

Calgary is far less built up on the far side of their route-restricting outer ring road than we are, so their suburban development isn't really the same as ours from a planning perspective. Plus they've got far more concentrated employment nodes (especially centrally) than we'll ever have.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

You keep on bringing up Calgary as an example to try and make us look less bad in comparison, while completely downplaying/ignoring my concerns. I don't know what definition of "right" you're using but it's not the right one, at least by my definition of the word.

Calgary is far less built up on the far side of their route-restricting outer ring road than we are, so their suburban development isn't really the same as ours from a planning perspective. Plus they've got far more concentrated employment nodes (especially centrally) than we'll ever have.

I am sorry but you're saying that their suburban development isn't the same as ours? I fail to see the difference between this and this?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.436294,-113.5834294,5005m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Calgary...b652b63a!8m2!3d51.0486151!4d-114.0708459

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

That StasCan chart is not CMA. It is single city. Sherwood Park is ignored because it is a country. And the chart skews Edmonton as its HAS mega suburbs whilst Calgary has few suburbs. This chart tells a different story about density of the CMA.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=205&S=3
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...m?LANG=Eng&T=209&CMA=835&S=51&O=A&RPP=25

Population density per square kilometre, 2011: Calgary: 237.9 Edmonton: 123.0

Also all the StatsCan charts miss St. Albert....did it go somewhere?

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Nor is it "built up area" either. It's the City boundary contains 684 sq kms. The built up area is about 475 sq kms. There is over 200 sq kms of land within the City boundary that is undeveloped, most of which is in the north east given to us during the bait and switch annexation in the 80s.


That is around 1850 people/sq km using 2014 census stats.

The statscan page I linked to is urban area within the CMA. It is used for apples to apples comparisons between places with very different political set ups, for organizations like Demographia, which produces good reports but looks like it is from the late 90s.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I am sorry but you're saying that their suburban development isn't the same as ours? I fail to see the difference between this and this?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.436294,-113.5834294,5005m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Calgary...b652b63a!8m2!3d51.0486151!4d-114.0708459

Actually, what I originally said was Edmonton Transit —, due to the way Edmonton is built & organized. You're the one that keeps on bringing up Calgary as if somewhere else's less than ideal choices are valid justification for our own poor decisions.

I'm done with your entire attempt to derail & diminish my concerns. We're not going to see eye to eye & every cherry-picked argument you make just makes your credibility & position worse.

Speaking of cherry-picking & unfair comparisons: I can see one major difference between the maps: You're zoomed in 100% more in Edmonton to focus just on Windermere.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, this:


Edmonton is currently a double pulse hub and spoke network. So for trips to non 'destinations' from a different pulse points you'll always have 2 transfers.

Hopefully the transit strategy talks leads to an interesting transformation.

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/about-the-project.aspx

[EdmTrekker]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, this:


Edmonton is currently a double pulse hub and spoke network. So for trips to non 'destinations' from a different pulse points you'll always have 2 transfers.

Hopefully the transit strategy talks leads to an interesting transformation.

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/about-the-project.aspx

With the twits in the Park - no one need hold their breath waiting for transformative change.

[Mikemike]

The "consultation" so far is fairly useless, and the questions that they're asking makes it look like whoever put the survey together didn't really understand what the hoped-for reorganization really is, since the video that the city made as well as the original consultation with Jarret Walker are/were much different, and better than what the on-line consultation looks like.

[feepa]

Half the problem with the routes in the burbs is the requirement to have a stop within 400 m of everyone's homes. This creates milk runs through neighbourhoods that get no where quick. This policy needs to change.

High frequency routes with less stops and more direct routing would bring transit usage up a lot quicker than anything else.

Instead, we seem to be going to the other way, using our high speed transit as a milk run (see Millwoods LRT). Frequent stops, low speed, high probability of interference from other modes of transit.

We need to get back to thinking our transit planners had back in the late 60's and 70s, building high speed rail in cheap corridors and get light rail across the city ASAP, not this 1.8 billion dollar — that won't be any quicker than existing express bus service.

[noodlenoodle]

Yeah, having a dysfunctional backbone isn't gonna do us any favours.

The LRT needs to be planned as pragmatically as possible with the entire emphasis on providing the highest feasible quality of service. If you build transit & it's a decent option, people will use it.

Trying to use a tram/streetcar as a vehicle of urban renewal more than a vehicle of transportation is putting the cart before the horse, especially when you've got enough stops close enough together that there's no opportunity for real TOD thanks to the commoditization & spreading of people through many many transit nodes. Less stops means more people per stop, means more traffic at any given station & a larger potential audience for any commercial services.

[Mikemike]

What bugs me most is that there seems to be next to no consideration for passengers transferring from buses, except at the extreme ends of the route. Unfortunately we'll never, ever get a well used transit system without paying close attention to how transfers work.

Park & Ride and even TOD & walk-in riders should all be secondary to transferring bus riders when we design LRT routes and stations.

[adam-machiavelli]

Is someone planning to start taking photos of Valley Line construction? The footbridge comes down this weekend.

[Daveography]

^ I don't think it's coming down that quickly, the trail closures only begin on the 11th.

There's not much else to photograph at this point, no other work has begun.

[Coldrsx]

http://transedlrt.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ValleyLine-Map-Stops-2.jpg

Updated details on construction activities occurring in 2016
As with every construction site, the public is cautioned to use care near work sites. For the safety of workers and the public, access to construction sites by unauthorized personnel is strictly prohibited. Please obey all signs and directions of construction crew members.


North Saskatchewan River Valley (NSRV)

Louise McKinney Park and Henrietta Muir Edwards Park

Construction site fences are going up. Trail closure and alternate route signs have been installed. Informational signs about the project will be installed soon.
TransEd is committed to leaving the trails and Cloverdale Footbridge open as long as possible. These will be the last to close.
Full closure, including the bridge and trails, will occur on or about the week of July 11.
Construction activity in 2016

Access roads will be constructed to allow equipment to move from existing roadways to the base of the Cloverdale Footbridge on both the north and south sides of the River.
Berms will be constructed in the North Saskatchewan River.
Cranes will be installed on the berms to remove the Cloverdale Footbridge and begin construction on the new Tawatinâ Bridge.
The existing bridge superstructure will be removed.
Bridge supports will be removed.
Tunnel Portal

Excavation work will begin on the south end of the Valley Line LRT Tunnel on the north slope of the North Saskatchewan River.
Jasper Avenue from 95 Street to 96 Street & 102Avenue from 95 Street to 96 Street

TransEd will be adding a new storm and sanitary sewers.
From July 25-October 31, lane closures will take place on both Jasper Avenue and 102 Avenue.
Further traffic impacts will be announced as they are known.
66 Street, from Whitemud Drive to 28 Avenue

In preparation for next year’s construction, streetscaping, medians and trees in these areas will be removed to make way for detour roadways.
This will allow maximum flexibility in providing driving lanes during construction next year, easing the impact on motorists.
Trees are being removed in alignment with the City of Edmonton’s tree management policy. Each tree has been assessed and recorded.
Construction of noise attenuation walls will begin on the east side of 66 Street in localised areas. Exact locations will be announced to homeowners as they become known.
95 Avenue, 85 Street, 83 Street, 75 Street along the LRT alignment (Bonnie Doon, Cloverdale, Strathearn neighborhoods)

In preparation for next year’s construction, trees in these areas will be removed.
Trees are being removed in alignment with the City of Edmonton’s tree management policy. Each tree has been assessed and recorded.
Davies Station

Construction of caisson piers will begin in 2016. The piers will support the elevated guideway and station at this location.
Wagner Park

Access road construction through the park will begin. Use of the park will be impacted, so the public is asked to obey all signs and directions of construction crews. Signs will be posted.
Elevated Guideway over 98 Avenue at Henrietta Muir Edwards Park and Muttart Conservatory park

Drilling for caisson piers will begin in 2016.
Gerry Wright Operations and Maintenance Facility (75 Street and Whitemud Dr)

Site preparation is underway.

http://transedlrt.ca/disruption/details-on-construction-activities-occurring-in-2016/

[Xelebes]

Hm, trying to decide which stop is closest to me: Davies or Avonmore.