Page 16 of 66 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,600 of 6501

Thread: Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction

  1. #1501
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    So if this is going to be a P3 why is the City of Edmonton doing so much of the design work? Seems like the city should put a general outline of the plan, but the P3 consortium would fine tune it and work out the details.

    The P3 in Vancouver made significant changes in selection of the trains, increased tunneling for example.

  2. #1502

    Default

    Evergreen is not a P3... only a single station is.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  3. #1503
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Evergreen is not a P3... only a single station is.
    Not a true P3 but private firms will build and operate it. But the BC government will oversee construction.
    http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...090-001491.htm

  4. #1504

    Default

    ^interesting to see went with SNC again. I guess no dictators in Vancouver to worry about appeasing.

  5. #1505

    Default

    Where would one find dictators in any other Canadian city moahunter? You post seems to suggest that one might find one if they look outside of Vancouver, so I'm curious.

  6. #1506

    Default

    ^its a humorous (maybe just to me?) reference to some issues that SNC is having re Libya.

  7. #1507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Evergreen is not a P3... only a single station is.
    Not a true P3 but private firms will build and operate it. But the BC government will oversee construction.
    http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...090-001491.htm
    Thanks I was doing research into it but I didnt have time to post...

    Almost correct.... build and maintain the system but not operate. Likely because it is integrated into the existing skytrain network where the Canada line is fully independent so the evergreen is operated by Metrolinx or whatever its called.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-10-2012 at 11:58 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  8. #1508

    Default

    New video released - Mill Woods to City Centre:



    Snow!
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 17-10-2012 at 12:26 PM.
    www.decl.org

  9. #1509

  10. #1510

    Default

    ^ I like it!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  11. #1511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ I like it!
    Its excellent. Very similar to Calgary's NW line through UofC, in that:

    - it ends up like a suburban system with parknrides and big stations
    - it is more urban closer in

    But a generation ahead, because it uses more modern technology (low floor). It sure doesn't look like a tram/streetcar anywhere on the line (Notice there are 10 segments on the train near Churchill). Muttart station is cool (that little area is even more desirable to live in with this).
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-10-2012 at 01:38 PM.

  12. #1512
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Looks great in that video, thanks for posting it GreenSPACE.

  13. #1513
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Almost correct.... build and maintain the system but not operate.

    From the news post (3rd last paragraph)
    http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...090-001491.htm
    ...TransLink is contributing $400 million and will operate the Evergreen Line when it is complete....

  14. #1514
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    Interesting, they are thinking of combining SE and West together, Iveson wants this.
    ---
    Council debates funding model for LRT expansion
    http://www.630ched.com/news/edmonton...spx?ID=1792734

  15. #1515

    Default

    ^awesome, do it, only a small price more!

    I am concerned that we need a better share of the costs with Ottawa and the province, and for $800 million we're not that far from a third of the whole project."

    Transportation GM Bob Boutilier has told them the current plan has the city contributing $800-million, but an additional 300-million would put them closer to the one third total of the entire $3.3 billion dollar cost of the whole line.

    Council is currently meeting behind closed doors getting legal details on the negotiations with P-3 Canada, the crown corporation set up by the Harper government. (sj, lk)

  16. #1516

    Default

    if we are going to do it p3, do the whole thing. The only reason we were considering doing it in pieces before was budget related. A p3 allows us to pay for it over 30 years...

    I would really like to see a similar video for the city center to west end, which is where I have most of my qualms about the SE part. This video settled most of the issues I had, but I'm still have reservations on the station length bit.

  17. #1517

    Default

    Cool video. I'm just wondering if making 102 Ave a one way street is going to be a problem, especially considering 103 in front of City Hall has been closed.

  18. #1518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I would really like to see a similar video for the city center to west end, which is where I have most of my qualms about the SE part. This video settled most of the issues I had, but I'm still have reservations on the station length bit.
    The train might "shirnk" for the West End segment due to reduced projected ridership (not sure). I seem to remember the plan is for there to be a turnaround point near the legislature, a bit like the one in Calgary around 10 street, so that Millwoods train capacity doesn't have to go all the way out to the West end (which will result in half empty trains). That's also the future piece of the downtown circulator if that ever gets built.

  19. #1519
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,286

    Default

    Most of the platforms in the video are a lot longer than the trains.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  20. #1520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Almost correct.... build and maintain the system but not operate.

    From the news post (3rd last paragraph)
    http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...090-001491.htm
    ...TransLink is contributing $400 million and will operate the Evergreen Line when it is complete....
    Translink is the equal to ETS. (ish)

    Canada line is operated by Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-10-2012 at 02:09 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  21. #1521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Almost correct.... build and maintain the system but not operate.

    From the news post (3rd last paragraph)
    http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...090-001491.htm
    ...TransLink is contributing $400 million and will operate the Evergreen Line when it is complete....
    Translink is the equal to ETS.
    here we go again, but close but not quite? Translink would be more like Edmonton Transportation (or even more close would be whatever they call the Capital Region Board Transportation Authority in say 10/20 years from now)...translink by their own very definition "Metro Vancouver, BC transportation authority providing planning and service for transit, roads, cycling, walking via Coast Mountain Bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus..."

  22. #1522
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    There was a disclaimer at the start of the video saying that it was prepared early in the design stages and that it might differ from what is constructed. Then you factor in that it probably will be a P3 (judging from the news reports it seems like it will have to be a P3) it can even differ from any proposals the city has posted too.

    But if they build that stations with a straight enough sections of track either side you can always lengthen the platforms later. This will most affect Wagner station which is proposed to be elevated.

  23. #1523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Almost correct.... build and maintain the system but not operate.

    From the news post (3rd last paragraph)
    http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_rele...090-001491.htm
    ...TransLink is contributing $400 million and will operate the Evergreen Line when it is complete....
    Translink is the equal to ETS.
    here we go again, but close but not quite? Translink would be more like Edmonton Transportation (or even more close would be whatever they call the Capital Region Board Transportation Authority in say 10/20 years from now)...translink by their own very definition "Metro Vancouver, BC transportation authority providing planning and service for transit, roads, cycling, walking via Coast Mountain Bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus..."
    OMG... Translink is not a private company. It's publicly owned. it's more like ETS than not. They run Skytrain.. which the evergreen line is part of. if you noticed I said Translink is like ETS (ish).

    The Canada line is a totally different story.. it is run by a company started by it's building partners and Translink called Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. An incorporated Private Company.

    your excessive hounding is wearing thin. Stop it
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  24. #1524
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,179

    Default

    Actually from its "About Us" page: http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us.aspx it appears that Translink is more of an over arching transportation authority than it is like ETS. The equivalent of ETS would be a subset of Translink.

    I'm not sure why you are thinking that anyone is saying its a private company. It's just that it does not quite correlate to ETS.

    Not all corrections are "excessive hounding".

    Eve

  25. #1525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Translink is the equal to ETS.
    if you noticed I said Translink is like ETS (ish).
    Maybe you need to pay closer attention to what you said. I never claimed ETS was a private company, I was merely stating that no, ETS does not equal translink, and translink does not equal ETS. ETS would be part of translink, like ETS is a part of Edmonton Transportation.

    your excessive hounding is wearing thin. Stop it
    that's awfully rich coming from the one that goes around attempting to correct everyone posts when it doesn't agree with your anti-car rhetoric.

  26. #1526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    Actually from its "About Us" page: http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us.aspx it appears that Translink is more of an over arching transportation authority than it is like ETS. The equivalent of ETS would be a subset of Translink.

    I'm not sure why you are thinking that anyone is saying its a private company. It's just that it does not quite correlate to ETS.

    Not all corrections are "excessive hounding".

    Eve
    You are missing context Eve...

    Someone advised that the Evergreen line was going to be operated via A P3 and translink would be the operator. I advised that Translink is not a private company, gave an example of it and advised that Translink is more along the lines of ETS..Which is fair general high level comparison. Translink is the one that operates the lower mainland buses and LRT system just like ETS.

    Medwards cool your rhetoric. and personal attacks.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-10-2012 at 03:08 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  27. #1527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    New video released - Mill Woods to City Centre:



    Snow!
    Interesting how the view of the high floor lines only shows 2 car trains. Don't want people to see the difference in capacity?

  28. #1528

    Default

    it's a video based on high level designs/engineering...

    I think you are being overly suspicious.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  29. #1529
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    The look a lot like Seimens Avenio line which can have multiple modules between each end.
    http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobi...es/avenio.aspx

    Actually looking at the door configuration they look more like Bombardier's Flexity cars
    http://bombardier.com/files/en/suppo...TY_Freedom.jpg

    But its too early to know what vehicles they will use.
    Last edited by sundance; 17-10-2012 at 03:20 PM.

  30. #1530

    Default

    ^hopefully both of those will be in consortiums competing, and also Kinki Sharyo from Japan (here it is in Phoenix):


  31. #1531

    Exclamation The Yellowhead?

    All of this money being talked about and thrown around and we still need funds from the federal govt for properly completing the yellowhead to make it into a reall freeway complete with overpasses. Where will the money come from for this? The yellowhead has been neglected far too long and the city needs to make it a priority like the LRT completion.

  32. #1532

    Default

    ^ LRT first please!!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  33. #1533
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    And let's get back on topic, please.

    I always figured they kept the wLRT separate from seLRT because there's still doubt about the route through the west-end whereas the route to Millwoods is pretty much set in stone.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  34. #1534

    Default

    ^ that is true... there are tweeks still being looked at.. but to be honest they could forge ahead! In my Opinion
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  35. #1535
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    Council votes to move forward with south east LRT leg

    A day after city councillors were accused of making a deal to add private funding to the southeast leg of the LRT – council voted in favour of moving forward with building the LRT.
    On Wednesday, all but three city councillors voted in favour of moving forward with this part of the project.
    The cost of this leg has been slated to cost $1.8 billion – with the city covering a $800 million portion, and then asking other levels of government to cover the rest.

    Read more: http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/council-v...#ixzz29buFAngd
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  36. #1536

    Default

    I guess there is still an outside chance the ETS could run this thing?

    I admit I'm against private transit for ideological reasons. But even if I were not...

    In the early part of the twentieth century many cities on the continent had private transit and multiple transits, whether competing or oligopolistic. New York City and its subway lines, streetcar lines, urban steam railways, horse railways, etc., etc., is the prototypical example.

    Eventually there were mergers and municipal/regional takeovers everywhere.

    The competition model for urban transit is very flawed. Economies of scale -- nay, increasing returns to scale, decreasing marginal costs, etc., etc., make public transit very much a public good, with public social costs. There are reasons transit works best if centrally planned.

  37. #1537

    Default

    Was Calgary's West LRT financed in part by the feds, and were they forced to accept a P3 arrangement like we are? Was this done to Calgary?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  38. #1538

    Default

    Perhaps the federal government considers the Calgary municipality a private corporation.

    ... And perhaps it is?

  39. #1539
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,505

    Default

    The LRT video looks great. With this leg, much of South Edmonton will be within 10 minutes of the LRT. Another river crossing will also be great for traffic heading downtown.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  40. #1540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    So if this is going to be a P3 why is the City of Edmonton doing so much of the design work? Seems like the city should put a general outline of the plan, but the P3 consortium would fine tune it and work out the details.

    The P3 in Vancouver made significant changes in selection of the trains, increased tunneling for example.
    Engineering work still has to be done to set the specifications of the project, alignments, sections, ensure row is available, identify conflicts, etc, etc.

    On a project of this size and cost, you need to go into it knowing what is required so that you can make sure whatever changes the P3 consortium proposes still meets your original goal.

    Changing the selection of the train as long as it maintains or even improves capacity and fits the budget, not a problem.

    Tunneling more while still having the stations in the same locations because it fits the budget, not a problem.

    But you do need to do the preliminary engineering work to make sure you have a strong master plan and that any changes will not disrupt that plan.

  41. #1541
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,129

    Default

    I am disappointed by the station length and this capacity. Hopefully if a private company builds it they'll ensure greater capacity for the SELRT.

  42. #1542
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,649

    Default

    So my question regarding the potential start date for this line is will it be 2014, 2015 or 2017. In the reports talking about the P3 modeling it was mentioned contruction could start 2014, in the Edm Journal article today it said 2015 and on CTV from today they said 2017. Of course my hope is 2014 soon after the NLRT line opens that they can start construction. Actually I wonder too if there can be some other projects coordinated with the LRT expansion to maybe get a few areas along the line started without actually starting so to speak.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  43. #1543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    New video released - Mill Woods to City Centre:



    Snow!
    Interesting how the view of the high floor lines only shows 2 car trains. Don't want people to see the difference in capacity?

    Love the fundamental principle but I am really dissapointed by the bland nature of two perticuliar stations. I really believe that Muttart and Churchill stations should be something special. Muttart should be integrated in some way with the Pyramids (i.e. some sort of unique or cool architechtural play on these iconic structures) and Churchill should be integrated with the existing LRT network in a more comprehensive fashion (i.e. an actual structure so that the LRT "pulls into" a central station type building with all our Transit links including West, South East, North West, North East, and South LRT lines all in one location.) Churchill could even include other features like touris kiosks for COE/Alberta Tourism. As it is, both of these stations are nothing more then tram style bus stops...

    Thoughts folks?
    Last edited by millwoods; 18-10-2012 at 03:54 AM.

  44. #1544

    Default

    The video does say that it doesn't include recent designs that were presented at the public meetings.

  45. #1545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Muttart should be integrated in some way with the Pyramids (i.e. some sort of unique or cool architechtural play on these iconic structures)
    Couldn't disagree more on Muttart; it should be as minimal as possible to blend in with the valley and not distract from the pyramids. I want to see glass shelters w/ no advertising--make one exception for Muttart, The catenaries will be enough distraction.

    We love the river valley, we love the Muttart; this station should be about both of these things, and not architectural decoration. Save that for places like Wagner where a bit of flourish will be necessary and quite welcome.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  46. #1546
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    I'm sure with the city's 1% art funding all the stations will have the opportunity to have giant rubber boots beside them not just Wagner or Muttart.

    A Libeskind-ish design for the Muttart shelter roof might work, short of sharp joined pyramids. Something like this ...

  47. #1547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Was Calgary's West LRT financed in part by the feds, and were they forced to accept a P3 arrangement like we are? Was this done to Calgary?
    It would have been funded around the time of NAIT, or before (which wasn't required as P3), I am sure they will face the same for their next line (which will like this line be separate from the existing system, with low floor technology).

  48. #1548
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    I'm sure with the city's 1% art funding all the stations will have the opportunity to have giant rubber boots beside them not just Wagner or Muttart.

    A Libeskind-ish design for the Muttart shelter roof might work, short of sharp joined pyramids. Something like this ...
    [image removed]
    As long as they don't just give in to their temptations and build a new pyramid out of silver balls...

  49. #1549

    Default

    ^maybe the balls pyramid could be moved here/integrated into the design?

  50. #1550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Muttart should be integrated in some way with the Pyramids (i.e. some sort of unique or cool architechtural play on these iconic structures)
    Couldn't disagree more on Muttart; it should be as minimal as possible to blend in with the valley and not distract from the pyramids. I want to see glass shelters w/ no advertising--make one exception for Muttart, The catenaries will be enough distraction.

    We love the river valley, we love the Muttart; this station should be about both of these things, and not architectural decoration. Save that for places like Wagner where a bit of flourish will be necessary and quite welcome.

    I'm sorry I just never understand this mentality. Do you realize how big the river valley is? And how other city's integrate with their enviroments? I don't think ppl are going to be distracted by the valley if you put some architechtural effort in an LRT station design. Have you seen any of Calgarys new C-train stops?! For god's sakes man...do you also think that all bridges should be simple concrete girder style because anything else "would take away from the valley"?

  51. #1551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by millwoods View Post
    Muttart should be integrated in some way with the Pyramids (i.e. some sort of unique or cool architechtural play on these iconic structures)
    Couldn't disagree more on Muttart; it should be as minimal as possible to blend in with the valley and not distract from the pyramids. I want to see glass shelters w/ no advertising--make one exception for Muttart, The catenaries will be enough distraction.

    We love the river valley, we love the Muttart; this station should be about both of these things, and not architectural decoration. Save that for places like Wagner where a bit of flourish will be necessary and quite welcome.

    I'm sorry I just never understand this mentality. Do you realize how big the river valley is? And how other city's integrate with their enviroments? I don't think ppl are going to be distracted by the valley if you put some architechtural effort in an LRT station design. Have you seen any of Calgarys new C-train stops?! For god's sakes man...do you also think that all bridges should be simple concrete girder style because anything else "would take away from the valley"?
    The river valley is huge, indeed. And this part of the river valley has been developed with an iconic facility. I don't want the LRT infrastructure to detract from it. It isn't needed here. I am for selective further development of the river valley, really I am. I just don't think the river valley needs the giant wood flying V we see erected over Kingsway Station, and we have enough wannabe Ghery in the AGA. And as much as I'm glad there is a Muttart station, it will also, frankly, see low usage, like McKernan.

    I would rather see money invested in other stations where it will be more welcome. Case in point: from what the hypothetical Wagner fly-thru (yes I know it's not a final design in any sense) in the video shows, I'd want it's enclosure to have a heck of a lot more glass or skylights to let natural light in. I also wonder what it's going to be like for NAIT students waiting in the middle of winter at the temporary NAIT station, there more infrastructure to shelter riders from the elements would be good.

    Yes, I've seen Calgary's stations, a few in person this past summer. Calgary isn't putting an LRT stop on Prince's Island Park, so your analogy doesn't really hold.

    And to address the part where you almost put words in my mouth, actually, I would like to see the new LRT bridge for the SE line be as minimal as possible. I like the way the LRT glides atop the Menzies bridge with only caternary above. I think cable-stayed can be ugly, but would want to see what they propose. I also can't wait for the new Walterdale to be built; I love that arch and the past-future dialogue it creates with the High Level.

    Invest money on aesthetics where it is needed—I'm on record as saying I wish they'd find money to renovate boring University Station, that's an embarrassment.

    For God's sakes man... relax.
    Last edited by Dialog; 18-10-2012 at 03:12 PM. Reason: Further articulation of points
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  52. #1552
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    Muttart station is needed:
    - access to river valley
    - Muttart
    - ski hill
    - Folk Fest
    - Edmonton Queen
    - Louise McKinney Park
    - Shaw

    Accessibility to the river valley has always a sticking point for more usage of it. An LRT station would help with this accessibility.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 18-10-2012 at 04:05 PM.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  53. #1553

    Default

    ^Those are all secondary to simply opening up the river valley to everyone on a pedestrian level. I rarely ride my bike down there unless I have a whole day to kill, unless I load it into the vehicle. When LRT stops there, Joe user can get down there with great ease without needing the car.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  54. #1554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Muttart station is needed.
    Has anyone said otherwise? The issue is just over design, should it be something simple or minimal like planned, or something unique/more imposing?

  55. #1555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    ^Those are all secondary to simply opening up the river valley to everyone on a pedestrian level. I rarely ride my bike down there unless I have a whole day to kill, unless I load it into the vehicle. When LRT stops there, Joe user can get down there with great ease without needing the car.
    I already use the LRT for a full river valley ride. I live near Grandin, so board at Grandin station, take LRT to beveledere or Clareview, and ride the 10 blocks or so to the river valley, and ride all the way to terwilligar or the Henday, and follow 23rd avenue to Century Park LRT station, and back downtown. Fun day.
    I need not mention that the LRT goes downtown, and you can easily ride from downtown in to the river valley with out requiring muttart stop. Not that I'm against the muttart stop... just saying that you can already access the river valley well from our LRT.

  56. #1556
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Stadium station also has good river valley connections that could be improved.

  57. #1557

    Default

    I meant more for casual users and those that can't navigate the hill. Power users (cyclists, joggers, etc) already get down there. I'm trying to point out how this will make it more accessible for the other 800,000 Edmontonians that never go there.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  58. #1558
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I wonder what the real number is, river valley users vs. others. Almost everyone I know uses the valley, if only during events, or at major parks like Hawrelak. While easier LRT access is certainly a good thing, there are dozens of parking lots and several bus routes that already provide access. Most non-users either have major mobility issues that an LRT station will not solve, or they are not interested in the recreation that the river valley system has to offer, and will require new amenities, like a rossdale destination district, to be enticed.

  59. #1559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I am disappointed by the station length and this capacity. Hopefully if a private company builds it they'll ensure greater capacity for the SELRT.
    Do you know what the capacity is?

    Calgary has a daily ridership of 250,000 with trains 3 cars in length...

    Capacity will be more than adequate.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-10-2012 at 05:42 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  60. #1560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    ^Those are all secondary to simply opening up the river valley to everyone on a pedestrian level. I rarely ride my bike down there unless I have a whole day to kill, unless I load it into the vehicle. When LRT stops there, Joe user can get down there with great ease without needing the car.
    I already use the LRT for a full river valley ride. I live near Grandin, so board at Grandin station, take LRT to beveledere or Clareview, and ride the 10 blocks or so to the river valley, and ride all the way to terwilligar or the Henday, and follow 23rd avenue to Century Park LRT station, and back downtown. Fun day.
    I need not mention that the LRT goes downtown, and you can easily ride from downtown in to the river valley with out requiring muttart stop. Not that I'm against the muttart stop... just saying that you can already access the river valley well from our LRT.
    Having the system directly connect with the river valley is a little different than what you are describing don't you think?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  61. #1561

    Default

    The Muttart station is a nobrainer, even if the ridership isn't huge there it will help the Muttart, and easy jaunt for tourists from the core.

  62. #1562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I wonder what the real number is, river valley users vs. others. Almost everyone I know uses the valley, if only during events, or at major parks like Hawrelak. While easier LRT access is certainly a good thing, there are dozens of parking lots and several bus routes that already provide access. Most non-users either have major mobility issues that an LRT station will not solve, or they are not interested in the recreation that the river valley system has to offer, and will require new amenities, like a rossdale destination district, to be enticed.
    I think there should be a mini bus that connects oliver, DT, Vic Park, Gov' House Park, and hawrelak park... at least during the summer.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  63. #1563

    Default

    Remember how successfully the eddie bus was? ^

  64. #1564
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I meant more for casual users and those that can't navigate the hill. Power users (cyclists, joggers, etc) already get down there. I'm trying to point out how this will make it more accessible for the other 800,000 Edmontonians that never go there.
    Not only that, but not everyone has the physical means to get into the river valley, or out of it. This provides another option besides driving, climbing steep hills or riding a funicular.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  65. #1565
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Almost completely off topic but when the LRT line reaches downtown there will be a stop called Churchill that stops at street level at the south end of Churchill square. Won't that be confused with the existing underground Churchill LRT station?

    See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cksUSK4euUI

  66. #1566
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,179

    Default

    The two "Churchill"s will be sort of connected. You get off at the street level stop and then the entry to the LRT tunnel will be right there. (Or Vice Versa of course). So, no, there won't be a confusion. Right now there is a staircase down to the station right where the new stop is planned. I understand that is going to be upgraded.

    Eve

  67. #1567
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,649

    Default

    Actually in reality there will still only be one Churchill station, it's now just going to be a whole lot larger. So for example if you are going to the stadium and you take the low floor LRT first then your route will be to take the LRT from your destination, transfer trains at Churchill and take the NE line to stadium.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  68. #1568
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,505

    Default

    I think that it would be great to see a couple of community shuttles along the line:

    (1) 99 Street-Scona Road-Edmonton Queen Stop-Muttart Station-Connors Road-92/91 Street-Whyte Avenue, giving a better connection to the French Quarter and River Valley.

    (2) Muttart Station-Rossdale-River Valley Road-Hawrelak Park
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  69. #1569
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    So if this is going to be a P3 why is the City of Edmonton doing so much of the design work? Seems like the city should put a general outline of the plan, but the P3 consortium would fine tune it and work out the details.

    The P3 in Vancouver made significant changes in selection of the trains, increased tunneling for example.
    Like Vancouver, maybe the P3 consortium would increase tunneling on the SE line by keeping it underground along 102 Avenue into Downtown. One can always hope.

    This is an odd P3. Generally, P3s (like the Henday) are privately designed, financed, built and operated. In exchange, governments make annual capital lease payments and operating & maintenance payments to allow the private consortium to recover its costs and turn a profit. The SE line is City designed and proposed to be financed by the 3 orders of government. Weird.

  70. #1570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    So if this is going to be a P3 why is the City of Edmonton doing so much of the design work? Seems like the city should put a general outline of the plan, but the P3 consortium would fine tune it and work out the details.

    The P3 in Vancouver made significant changes in selection of the trains, increased tunneling for example.
    Like Vancouver, maybe the P3 consortium would increase tunneling on the SE line by keeping it underground along 102 Avenue into Downtown. One can always hope.

    This is an odd P3. Generally, P3s (like the Henday) are privately designed, financed, built and operated. In exchange, governments make annual capital lease payments and operating & maintenance payments to allow the private consortium to recover its costs and turn a profit. The SE line is City designed and proposed to be financed by the 3 orders of government. Weird.
    Yes and the p3 partner can magically make the train transport THROUGH the UG Churchill station and the existing lrt cars. It can then magically create underground station for the cost of a raised curb and maintain them for nothing.....

    I am sorry was that overly harsh?

    But seriously. Have you ever drove up and down 102 ave dt... It's dead.. Almost no traffic.. If other major centers can have at grade lrt in their core and not implode... We can too! We are not soon special that we will be the exception to the rule guys
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-10-2012 at 10:28 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  71. #1571
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,505

    Default

    102 Avenue does not have a huge volume of traffic, and it probably won't hurt LRT.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  72. #1572
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,286

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    So if this is going to be a P3 why is the City of Edmonton doing so much of the design work? Seems like the city should put a general outline of the plan, but the P3 consortium would fine tune it and work out the details.

    The P3 in Vancouver made significant changes in selection of the trains, increased tunneling for example.
    Like Vancouver, maybe the P3 consortium would increase tunneling on the SE line by keeping it underground along 102 Avenue into Downtown. One can always hope.

    This is an odd P3. Generally, P3s (like the Henday) are privately designed, financed, built and operated. In exchange, governments make annual capital lease payments and operating & maintenance payments to allow the private consortium to recover its costs and turn a profit. The SE line is City designed and proposed to be financed by the 3 orders of government. Weird.
    The province was responsible for the preliminary design of the AHD and the consortium is responsible for the detail design. The same process I am sure is being applied the the SE LRT. The detail design is where you can find savings
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  73. #1573
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    The Anthony Henday P3 contracts have lots of provisions that factor in when the consortium should build more lanes and bridges to handle increased traffic. While they built a lot today they left a lot of provisions for tomorrow, you'll notice the bridge embankments tend to have enough room to more than double the lanes, shoulders have a gradual slope to allow widening. The North Saskatchewan bridge can be widened to 4 lanes each direction.

    If the SE LRT contract is written well enough the P3 consortium will probably realize they need to have allowances for future traffic, things like allowances so trains could increase from 2-3 cars to 5 car trains. This doesn't take much right now, essentially all that is needed is to plan stations on a long enough straight section of track and 10' or more strip of relatively undeveloped land. The most critical station would be Wagner as it is planned to be elevated, most other stations could be relocated fairly cheaply.

  74. #1574
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I doubt that they would allow for platform extension, that's a big operation that will require closing downtown streets. The current council/admin would not want to take heat for a change that may or may not happen 15 years in the future. What they do need to do in include clauses for increasing frequency, including acquiring, housing and maintaining more trains. There should also be something to include operations of any extensions with this P3.

  75. #1575
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    The Anthony Henday P3 contracts have lots of provisions that factor in when the consortium should build more lanes and bridges to handle increased traffic. While they built a lot today they left a lot of provisions for tomorrow, you'll notice the bridge embankments tend to have enough room to more than double the lanes, shoulders have a gradual slope to allow widening. The North Saskatchewan bridge can be widened to 4 lanes each direction.

    If the SE LRT contract is written well enough the P3 consortium will probably realize they need to have allowances for future traffic, things like allowances so trains could increase from 2-3 cars to 5 car trains. This doesn't take much right now, essentially all that is needed is to plan stations on a long enough straight section of track and 10' or more strip of relatively undeveloped land. The most critical station would be Wagner as it is planned to be elevated, most other stations could be relocated fairly cheaply.
    To reiterate, if you check the video Wagner station platform is a lot longer than the train.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  76. #1576
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    Yes they would have to close downtown streets to allow for longer platforms. But being they are basically curbs they could move them over a block with little expenses. Churchill station would be the hardest to move as it would have elevators, escalators, stairs to the LRT station. But 99th Street on the east side of the square is closed for a good part of the summer and in the future could be permanently closed if needed.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio..._-_Area_4B.pdf

    As for the video, this was done early in the planning stages, the city has changed how they think the area will be done, with a couple curves near the Wagner station. This could limit future expansion.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...-Amendment.pdf
    Last edited by sundance; 19-10-2012 at 10:46 AM.

  77. #1577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There should also be something to include operations of any extensions with this P3.
    The issues around future station extensions, and who would pay for them (assuming they aren't "self funding" through increased ridership) should clearly be addressed in the P3.

    Keep in mind the plan as I understand it, is that the station sizes could be different in the future for the W and SE legs (i.e. some trains will turn around near the legislature, per the map below). This recognizes that ridership projections for the W line are a lot lower than the SE portion (which can be seen from current bus ridership), so no point in running empty trains to WEM.

    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2012 at 11:24 AM.

  78. #1578
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I was thinking of extensions of the line. There's not much point in having a combined SE/west line if two separate p3 groups (or1/2 P3, 1/2 ETS ) are running the halfs separately. It needs to be run as one system, so the operations of the extension(the west line) need to be accounted for in the SE p3. Otherwise there's only one bidder for the WLRT.

  79. #1579

    Default

    ^agreed, I think Council are realizing this as well, per some recent coments. Hopefully the whole thing will go to P3, not just half. I guess the other "issue" then is the downtown circulator through Whyte, but that might too much for now to also include.

  80. #1580
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,505

    Default

    I imagine that any construction along 102 Avenue will be done in conjunction with the sidewalk and sewer construction planned for this street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  81. #1581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Yes they would have to close downtown streets to allow for longer platforms. But being they are basically curbs they could move them over a block with little expenses. Churchill station would be the hardest to move as it would have elevators, escalators, stairs to the LRT station. But 99th Street on the east side of the square is closed for a good part of the summer and in the future could be permanently closed if needed.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio..._-_Area_4B.pdf

    As for the video, this was done early in the planning stages, the city has changed how they think the area will be done, with a couple curves near the Wagner station. This could limit future expansion.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...-Amendment.pdf
    Well if you look at the video the tracks are single side of the road orientated... so yes streets would have to be closed but 2-3 T intersection would be created. with N-S traffic still able to flow through the line at major places like 105 st. and people could still turn left onto 102 Ave heading North.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  82. #1582

    Default

    Great. Now that you've seen the video, you'll agree with my previous assertion that traffic on 102 avenue will not be able to go down this road like it presently does, something you disagreed with me previous on, again, without presenting any evidence to support your claim. Now we have this video, and the pdf from the city I linked you before. Let me know if you are still in disbelief.

  83. #1583
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There should also be something to include operations of any extensions with this P3.
    The issues around future station extensions, and who would pay for them (assuming they aren't "self funding" through increased ridership) should clearly be addressed in the P3.

    Keep in mind the plan as I understand it, is that the station sizes could be different in the future for the W and SE legs (i.e. some trains will turn around near the legislature, per the map below). This recognizes that ridership projections for the W line are a lot lower than the SE portion (which can be seen from current bus ridership), so no point in running empty trains to WEM.

    Seems a bit odd to have a 'MacEwan' station and a 'Grant MacEwan' station. Confusion could be created

  84. #1584
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Actually in reality there will still only be one Churchill station, it's now just going to be a whole lot larger. So for example if you are going to the stadium and you take the low floor LRT first then your route will be to take the LRT from your destination, transfer trains at Churchill and take the NE line to stadium.
    I see, two different platforms for one station... I guess I was over thinking it... or under thinking it... anyways thanks.

  85. #1585

    Default

    Much like the maps show a Corona on 107th strret as well as on Jasper.

    Although I'd rather see the low floor platforms moved to the south side of Jasper to give a but more distance from the 105/106 station.

  86. #1586
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Seems a bit odd to have a 'MacEwan' station and a 'Grant MacEwan' station. Confusion could be created
    You do realize that the downtown connector LRT station names are just placeholders, right?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  87. #1587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Seems a bit odd to have a 'MacEwan' station and a 'Grant MacEwan' station. Confusion could be created
    You do realize that the downtown connector LRT station names are just placeholders, right?
    Are you sure about that?

  88. #1588
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    ^ on this map, it shows a station on 107 St and nothing on 104 Ave until 112 St...

    http://edmonton.ca/transportation/W_...wConnector.pdf

  89. #1589
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Yes and the p3 partner can magically make the train transport THROUGH the UG Churchill station and the existing lrt cars. It can then magically create underground station for the cost of a raised curb and maintain them for nothing.....

    I am sorry was that overly harsh?
    Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of what seems like your wilful distortion of my position on SE to West LRT, a position I have repeated many times on these threads. I am sorry was that overly harsh?

    Below is an image I've previously posted that outlines my position on what an underground terminus station for SE LRT should look like:


  90. #1590

    Default

    How would your line connect to the west lrt after winspear station?

    And don't mind edp, he's only interested in reading what he wants to read and then parrot buzzwords from it like he's in the know. Anything that attempts to discuss alternate solutions will have him repeatedly tell you that your idea is wrong, but he won't give any reason why outside of a few parroted buzzwords and "I stand by my vision"

  91. #1591
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,179

    Default

    ^^ I'm curious about your idea about how the train goes above ground to meet the west lrt also.

    Also, I assume you have plans to make the Library parkade a more inviting place for pedestrians to access the Library?

    Eve

  92. #1592
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    East McCauley's has also repeated proposed using the 87th ave high floor west LRT routing. Therefore there is no need for the downtown connector. (and incidentally makes the high floor route cheaper).

  93. #1593
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjh View Post
    East McCauley's has also repeated proposed using the 87th ave high floor west LRT routing. Therefore there is no need for the downtown connector. (and incidentally makes the high floor route cheaper).
    That's correct. No need for DT Connector. Below is the graphic that shows the entire system. Like Calgary has done, the high floor network should be completed prior to starting work on the SE and East lines using an incompatible technology.



  94. #1594
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EveB View Post
    ^^
    Also, I assume you have plans to make the Library parkade a more inviting place for pedestrians to access the Library?

    Eve
    Some renovations (but not major ones) would be required to fit a concourse level SE terminus station one level below 102 Avenue between the Winspear and the Citadel. My recollection that the Churchill Station concourse is on the same level as the second parking level of the library parkade. Accessing the rest of the pedway network from the west end of the Winspear/Citadel station platform would be a breeze. There is an existing pedway that goes west from the Churchill concourse to the City Centre mall and beyond. The Churchill concourse already connects all of the major facilities in the arts district in climate controlled comfort including the Citadel, the Winspear, the Art Gallery, the Law Courts, City Hall, and in future the new RAM.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 20-10-2012 at 03:33 PM.

  95. #1595
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    ^Eve B, further to your specific point, I thought there was a pedestrian walkway in the Library parkade level that connects directly to the Churchill concourse. The downtown pedway map shows a walkway and that's my memory. If there isn't one could perhaps be added.

  96. #1596
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,179

    Default

    Oh it's not that there isn't an indoor route between the Churchill Station and the Library. I believe there is one. But whenever I've tried to use it, I not only get hopelessly lost because of confusing signage, but I have to walk among cars in the parkade without a clear walkway. At the end of the journey (at the Library), I have to climb stairs which is difficult for me. If there's a handicapped path, I've never found it. I'm not complaining because I prefer overground routes in any case and this is always open to me.

    The couple of times I have gotten off a train at the Churchill, I was unable to navigate to the ground without having to use stairs. There were signs for the elevator but they seemed to require navigating parkades again.

    You have to keep in mind that unlike many pedestrians I don't drive at all. I have very little experience with navigating parkades and find them intimidating.

    Eve

  97. #1597
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,179

    Default

    But your map makes it much clearer as to how your tunnel relates to the rest of your concept given that you would prefer that the train be tunnelled all the way (hence no need for an ascent from the tunnel).

    Eve

  98. #1598

    Default

    Excepte we are not using 87 ave...

    So now lets see your plan using the approves west route of SPR and I would like to see you justify ignoring tens of thousands of riders in the inner city and mature neighbourhoods and ignoring millions of dollars in redevelopment by ignoring those neighbourhoods as well?
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 20-10-2012 at 04:41 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  99. #1599

    Default

    Accept that we are talking about alternatives, and that 87th avenue is a preferred alternative route.

    And the only person ignoring things is edp. Studying east maclauleys map he is suggesting we improve bus service along the spr corridor, which to me sounds like an ideal win win. The lrt system has great service to downtown and the uofa, west end get a high speed lrt line and improved bus service to downtown (it already has great transit service from west mount and jasper place)

  100. #1600

    Default

    Except we have build bus over passes to easly connect the university with the west end already.. so now we are going to spend even more ensuring the west cn go straight to the university and ignore 50% of the city west of DT.

    Again I asked East how he will achieve his plan keeping to the approved, preferred route of SPR.. Not Medwards.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

Page 16 of 66 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •