Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223
Results 2,201 to 2,279 of 2279

Thread: West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Conceptual Discussion About Approved Route

  1. #2201
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,823

    Default

    Well I think its perfectly fine to discuss the route as the city has decided. There are some good things they have decided upon and there are a few things that need to be reviewed for sure. As I mentioned before, the other thread was created to discuss other route options and I think that is where the routes such as Health Sciences/87th should be discussed and debated. Personally I may like that other route option but I don't think this thread needs to have that discussion. Issues here should really focus on tweaks to the proposed line, grade separations, etc... That's my two cents on that anyways.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  2. #2202
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060

    Default

    alley Line West LRT stops and stations names released
    April 25, 2018

    The City of Edmonton’s Naming Committee has announced the approved names for the 14 street-level stops and two elevated stations along the future Valley Line West LRT extension:

    Alex Decoteau Stop
    Norquest Stop
    MacEwan Arts/112 Street Stop
    The Yards/116 Street Stop
    Brewery/120 Street Stop
    124 Street Glenora Stop
    Grovenor/142 Street Stop
    Stony Plain Road/149 Street Stop
    Jasper Place Stop Glenwood/Sherwood Stop
    Meadowlark Stop
    Misericordia Station
    West Edmonton Mall Station
    Aldergrove/Belmead Stop
    Lewis Farms Stop

    The stop names were primarily chosen based on location to support passenger wayfinding. The Alex Decoteau Stop pays tribute to Alex Decoteau, who joined the Edmonton Police Service in 1911, becoming Canada’s first Indigenous police officer. The Yards/116 St. Stop is a historic reference to the CN Rail Yards that previously operated in the area.

    As part of the City Planning Branch, the Naming Committee approves names for municipal facilities, new neighbourhoods, parks and roads. This name selection process involves input from City administration and consultation with Citizen Working Groups along the Valley Line route.

    The 14 km Valley Line West extension is the second stage of the Valley Line LRT, an urban-style 27 km line that will operate between Mill Woods in southeast Edmonton and Lewis Farms in west Edmonton.

    The project team is reviewing the preliminary design completed in 2013, and working to be procurement-ready later this year. Once procurement begins, the Valley Line West LRT Project will take approximately one year to select a contractor and another five years for construction.


    For more information:
    edmonton.ca/valleylinewest

    Media contact:
    Cory Sousa
    Principal Planner
    Naming Committee & Addressing
    780-496-6226

    Jennifer Villeneuve
    Acting Communications Advisor
    Valley Line West
    780-508-9167
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #2203
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    Once again I will voice my displeasure at the / names knowing that it will not make any difference. I wish they would just pick one. Add the cross streets to the map and be done with it.

  4. #2204
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060

    Default

    ^concur.

    Love that they chose Alex Decoteau as the stop name and of course The Yards!
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  5. #2205
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,749

    Default

    Some of them are a miss (e.g. Stony Plain/149 St, MacEwan Arts, Glenwood/Sherwood) but the rest are fine with me.
    “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

  6. #2206
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^concur.

    Love that they chose Alex Decoteau as the stop name and of course The Yards!
    Agreed. Names like those give the surrounding areas a more tangible identity which locals and tourists can identify with. Even just using the neighbourhood name will make a difference for places like Grovenor, Belmead, etc. since I bet if you asked 100 Edmontonians where Grovenor is they'd look at you like you have 3 heads.

  7. #2207

    Default

    Good grief. We can't even have simple/easy to read/speak names for our stops/stations on our tram/streetcar line.

  8. #2208
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,749

    Default

    They should shorten the hyphenated names
    “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

  9. #2209
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    This reminds me that there was at least 1 opening on the naming committee last year. Missed opportunity for all.

  10. #2210
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #2211
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    I hope our "transportation department" realizes Edmonton is a winter city, and those 2 bike lanes will be optimized for about 6 months of the year. Yes there is a small segment of our population that bikes even in the winter. And why do we need 2 bike lanes? Its not like we're going to have bumper to bumper bikes traffic on one lane.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  12. #2212

    Default

    A lane for each direction?

    Despite your opinion, there is a growing group of cyclist that use 102 avenue year round, and they have been using 102 ave for a lot longer than bike lanes have existed

  13. #2213

    Default

    We need two bike lanes because bikes in the bike lanes will be going two different directions. with only one lane it would be difficult to pass each other.

    Especially if there are cargo bikes or family bikes or trailers or adaptive bikes or trikes involved.
    There can only be one.

  14. #2214
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I hope our "transportation department" realizes Edmonton is a winter city, and those 2 bike lanes will be optimized for about 6 months of the year. Yes there is a small segment of our population that bikes even in the winter. And why do we need 2 bike lanes? Its not like we're going to have bumper to bumper bikes traffic on one lane.
    I hope that citizens realize that Edmonton is an evolving, young, inclusive and active city that needs a more balanced modal offering. If you incentivize the vehicle over other healthier, less expense options, you create a cycle that does not beget a people friendly city.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  15. #2215

    Default

    I really, really, really dislike these stupid hybrid names. Why can pretty much every other station in the world get along with a single name but people ehre are too dumb to remember where they stops are?

  16. #2216
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,462

    Default

    Why do they have to say stop after every station name? So freaking annoying we know it is a stop no need to tell us that.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  17. #2217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I hope our "transportation department" realizes Edmonton is a winter city, and those 2 bike lanes will be optimized for about 6 months of the year. Yes there is a small segment of our population that bikes even in the winter. And why do we need 2 bike lanes? Its not like we're going to have bumper to bumper bikes traffic on one lane.
    I hope that citizens realize that Edmonton is an evolving, young, inclusive and active city that needs a more balanced modal offering. If you incentivize the vehicle over other healthier, less expense options, you create a cycle that does not beget a people friendly city.
    But let's keep expanding the city outwards without providing adequate bus service to compensate, thereby making the roads more congested. And then let's make those roads worse by enforcing ludicrous speed limits and an overabundance of bike lanes. That'll work!

  18. #2218
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    I appreciate all of that but 2 bike lanes in any case is a bit overkill. As I indicated there is a segment of the cycling community that bikes all year around, i get that. Personally I think its reckless behavior, to ride a bike in the winter, but that's just me.

    The Way We Move, in this city is predominantly by car/suv/truck/bus etc. I don't know where you all are from but I actually live here in Edmonton, for 40 years in fact. I can count (even in summer) how many times I see bike riders peddling around during the day, on one hand. Maybe I'm speaking to bike enthusiasts here I don't know. Now, I don't own a car. I take public transit. But if the render above is any indication of the finale word on the subject, this city (transportation wise) is going to be in trouble. I'll stick with the bus and Capital line thanks. Just saying
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  19. #2219
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^concur.

    Love that they chose Alex Decoteau as the stop name and of course The Yards!
    But Ian there are no Yards there. How does that help?
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  20. #2220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Why do they have to say stop after every station name? So freaking annoying we know it is a stop no need to tell us that.
    There's a difference between a stop and a station. A station has integrated connections to the bus system. A stop is more basic. It's like referring to Stadium by name but it's called Stadium Station.

    Wagner will be a station, not a stop.

  21. #2221
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^concur.

    Love that they chose Alex Decoteau as the stop name and of course The Yards!
    But Ian there are no Yards there. How does that help?
    References the former rail yards.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  22. #2222
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    I'm sure Glenco meant stations.

    Having names at each station is important so people will know where they are. I'd opine that 80% of LRT riders have earbuds in their ears and can't hear the announcement "Stadium station," etc. but can see the red digital scroll at the end of each car.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  23. #2223

    Default

    So they're naming it after something that isn't there? Isn't that contrary to their whole "We must have two names for the stations" that they're doing? Isn't that why Bay got changed?

  24. #2224

    Default

    ^^^Which we should have used to reserve a ROW for a LRT corridor. If we'd had any foresight as a city we'd have done so.

    Just call it Oliver Square 'Stop' FCOL.

  25. #2225
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Bay/Enterprise station for example.

    Or when the Coliseum gets demolished, then what are we going to call it 118th Street station?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  26. #2226
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Oops, I meant Bay/Enterprise square.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  27. #2227
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Why do they have to say stop after every station name? So freaking annoying we know it is a stop no need to tell us that.
    There's a difference between a stop and a station. A station has integrated connections to the bus system. A stop is more basic. It's like referring to Stadium by name but it's called Stadium Station.

    Wagner will be a station, not a stop.
    Then no need to say stop every time. Designate stations as transit hubs and leave it at that.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  28. #2228
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo
    I appreciate all of that but 2 bike lanes in any case is a bit overkill.


    You don't seem to appreciate that bikes can travel both East and West, for some reason. In any case, the lanes are already present on 102 Avenue, and are well used. Are you honestly proposing a single 3-4 foot wide lane to handle bi-directional bike travel? That's quite frankly idiotic and would lead to tons of collisions between bikers. You know, like the problems we're already having on the High Level Bridge.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 25-04-2018 at 12:47 PM.

  29. #2229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Why do they have to say stop after every station name? So freaking annoying we know it is a stop no need to tell us that.
    There's a difference between a stop and a station. A station has integrated connections to the bus system. A stop is more basic. It's like referring to Stadium by name but it's called Stadium Station.

    Wagner will be a station, not a stop.
    Then no need to say stop every time. Designate stations as transit hubs and leave it at that.
    It's just specifying which is which for the press release. People will just call it by name and leave off the stop or station. I still refer to Bay station as Bay, dropping the Enterprise Square. Strangely, people seem to know which station I'm talking about.

  30. #2230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Why do they have to say stop after every station name? So freaking annoying we know it is a stop no need to tell us that.

    the routing has been decided it is getting built as is. Move on.

  31. #2231
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,551

    Default

    Yeah, these hyphenated, lengthy names are crazy. What's the point of a street numbering system if we totally ignore it?

    102 ave bike lanes? Yep, lots of use, well worth it. (and I don't even cycle)
    ... gobsmacked

  32. #2232

    Default

    Funny how we have buses with three number routes and 4 number bus stops.

    Central
    Bay
    University
    Belvedere
    all works

    What if we call Belvedere station
    Belvedere-129th Ave-east-of-Fort-Road, across-from-where-the-old-glue-factory-was...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #2233
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Why do they have to say stop after every station name? So freaking annoying we know it is a stop no need to tell us that.

    the routing has been decided it is getting built as is. Move on.
    Whaaat. Sounds like you have a bee in your bonnet.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  34. #2234

    Default

    Stop and stations are different things

    But who the frig cares. It is an uber expendive sloth streetcar to a golf course community with fancy hyphenated names...

    .
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #2235

    Default

    That "golf course community" has a substantial amount of families, immigrants, immmigrant families, young teens and kids, downtown office workers, mall workers, mall visitors... and how do I know this? Becuase I take the bus out that way. Lots of people transfer or carry thrugh West Ed Transit Centre off to Lewis Estates to get home at rush hour (yes especially), but also late at night on some of the last buses of the night that carry a lot of people over 40 and those working the last shift at the mall home.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  36. #2236

    Default

    If you live outside the AHD circle, you don't deserve heavily subsidized public transit. Period. Full stop.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  37. #2237
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If you live outside the AHD circle, you don't deserve heavily subsidized public transit. Period. Full stop.
    what about outside the inner ring road? Do those areas deserve it? They were once far flung suburbs too. Or even simply outside the downtown core? I mean, Jasper Place was a whole separate town once.

  38. #2238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If you live outside the AHD circle, you don't deserve heavily subsidized public transit. Period. Full stop.
    Why? Those outside the Henday pay the same mill rate as those inside the henday. Your answer should be interesting. With Edmonton's spreadout workforce, sometimes it doesn't make sense to live centrally, when you work on the fringes.

  39. #2239
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,764

    Default

    The new communities have a higher population density.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  40. #2240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If you live outside the AHD circle, you don't deserve heavily subsidized public transit. Period. Full stop.
    Guess I'm screwed too by this logic as I live in the Orchards area...

    Do explain.

  41. #2241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    The new communities have a higher population density.
    Higher than Terrace Losa or Callingwood? Please provide source for your claim.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  42. #2242
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo
    I appreciate all of that but 2 bike lanes in any case is a bit overkill.


    You don't seem to appreciate that bikes can travel both East and West, for some reason. In any case, the lanes are already present on 102 Avenue, and are well used. Are you honestly proposing a single 3-4 foot wide lane to handle bi-directional bike travel? That's quite frankly idiotic and would lead to tons of collisions between bikers. You know, like the problems we're already having on the High Level Bridge.
    Yes bikes can travel in any direction. I travel around this city a lot on lrt/bus on a daily basis and I occasionally see bike riders on the paved wide "walking trails" from Clareview station to Stadium. A single 3-4 foot bike lane is nonsense. This isn't the 80's-90's where in the core (for example) courier bikes were common place. Maybe that's before your time. What I'm getting at is The Way We Move <(I'm surprised nobody got that reference)is predominantly by car/truck/suv/ev and bus. The render Ian posted above has car traffic going one way, a rather large shoulder on the left of the image and 2 bike lanes. I occasionally see bikers get on the LRt, maybe 1-2 times a week during my commute 3-4pm. First of all the bike lanes are in the wrong location. They should be closer to the tram tracks so cyclists can board at each station without negotiating with traffic in their way. One bike lane. Its' not like we're seeing hundreds of cyclists or even dozens for that matter on bike lanes at the same time.



    ^ We're not Beijing for example, and as a City, we're no where near as in this image even during peak hours. Meanwhile we're sacrificing a lane of traffic to accommodate the needs of a very few. It really doesn't matter what my opinion is, the City does what it wants. There I got that off my chest.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  43. #2243
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    I should have stated a small segment of the population.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  44. #2244

    Default

    Those wide "walking trails" are multiuse trails intended for bike use, and yes they are well used. YOu don't need hundreds of cyclists to make lanes wide enough to pass on worthwhile. Not only for passing, but for riding together. "Single file" is nonsense when riding with a friend or especially with a child. Lanes wide enough for two with an opposing bike lane for passing is a bare minimum - not to mention that no matter how they configure the lanes they need to be wide enough to fit a maintenance vehicle.

    Why would bike riders want to get on the slower tram? yes, cyclists use transit sometimes for multi-modal trips or in case of a flat but it's far from a large market. People downtown walk to the bus or the train.
    There can only be one.

  45. #2245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post

    ^ We're not Beijing for example, and as a City, we're no where near as in this image even during peak hours. Meanwhile we're sacrificing a lane of traffic to accommodate the needs of a very few. It really doesn't matter what my opinion is, the City does what it wants. There I got that off my chest.
    And we would never get to higher levels of cycling if we don't allocate any space for it. It's not like 102ave (or 103ave) are heavily used by cars either. Other than line-ups to turn onto 109st in the evening rush you could easily fit all the traffic in each direction into one lane.
    There can only be one.

  46. #2246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I hope our "transportation department" realizes Edmonton is a winter city, and those 2 bike lanes will be optimized for about 6 months of the year. Yes there is a small segment of our population that bikes even in the winter. And why do we need 2 bike lanes? Its not like we're going to have bumper to bumper bikes traffic on one lane.
    That is one bike lane. Snow clearing will occur. This is well known. Bike-friendly weather is more than 6 months - could say at least 8 - and I think it's not always well below zero for 6 months of the year. Multi-modal road/traffic design is common in most cities and successful in many northern cities. Designing for the future and projected densities and new development in the area.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  47. #2247
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Those wide "walking trails" are multiuse trails intended for bike use, and yes they are well used. YOu don't need hundreds of cyclists to make lanes wide enough to pass on worthwhile. Not only for passing, but for riding together. "Single file" is nonsense when riding with a friend or especially with a child. Lanes wide enough for two with an opposing bike lane for passing is a bare minimum - not to mention that no matter how they configure the lanes they need to be wide enough to fit a maintenance vehicle.

    Why would bike riders want to get on the slower tram? yes, cyclists use transit sometimes for multi-modal trips or in case of a flat but it's far from a large market. People downtown walk to the bus or the train.
    Exactly.

    On my commute from Clareview to Stadium I see very little bike use on those multi use trails, and I ride the lrt on the right side facing the multi use trail on a daily basis. I see folks walking their dogs, joggers etc. and an occasional bike and often nobody. And as the LRT Capital line emerges to the Quasar bottle depot heading South I see even the odd shopping cart being pushed around. My whole position here is, do we really need 2 bike lanes at the expense of another lane for cars etc? Like I said Edmonton is not Beijing. My city (Edmonton) is a winter city from November to March so correction, that's 5 months of the year. Thanks to global warming. The multi use trails are well maintained. However in the case of Ian's offered image above, I can see one bike lane in that image, shorten that left shoulder and then there would be enough room for car traffic in both directions. It makes everyone happy. I'm probably the only poster here that takes the LRT from Clareview to downtown, so perhaps this goes over most heads here reading this. I've been taking this route from the year 2000-2018. I speak from experience.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  48. #2248
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I hope our "transportation department" realizes Edmonton is a winter city, and those 2 bike lanes will be optimized for about 6 months of the year. Yes there is a small segment of our population that bikes even in the winter. And why do we need 2 bike lanes? Its not like we're going to have bumper to bumper bikes traffic on one lane.
    That is one bike lane. Snow clearing will occur. This is well known. Bike-friendly weather is more than 6 months - could say at least 8 - and I think it's not always well below zero for 6 months of the year. Multi-modal road/traffic design is common in most cities and successful in many northern cities. Designing for the future and projected densities and new development in the area.
    In Beijing, yes. Its a slight exaggeration on my part. The multi use trail I ride by is well maintained. Occasionally I see people ride bikes in February from 4505 137 Ave to 50th street. We haven't had a lot of -20 but as a resident of this city, that -20 with a wind chill can translates into -25+ often. I don't know where you live, but a -18 temperature can have a wind chill of -25 at any time of day in the winter. I never go by the temperature in winter, I go by the wind chill right of the /. Designing for the future is all fine and well and when autonomous vehicles arrive here 10-20 years out, will also have an impact on my community. My city council for the most part are smart people and know the score, but sometimes they make decisions that give me pause as in Ian's posted render above. I'm not sure how much input individual councilors like Nickle or Henderson had on this render (if any) but imo the location of the bike lane is wrong and sacrificing a 2nd lane for automobile traffic for 2 bike lanes is folly.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #2249

    Default

    And I've been riding that multi-use path from Downtown to Stadium for 13 years. I also speak for experience. I've experienced the path getting more and more busy over the years. I've experienced it get busy as it gets extended and more people have a safe, car-free route to downtown. I've actually experienced IT, so I know that it's can be too busy to travel at speed on summer afternoons, and that the 118ave crossing is far from ideal and that it ends at 66st so there's no safe route to attract riders from further north.

    As you walk/take transit around downtown you may notice that there are 4 traffic lanes on Jasper, 4 extremely lightly used lanes on 103ave, and 6 traffic lanes on 104ave when they're not blocked off for Ice District Construction. Motor Traffic has lots of lanes, you don't need to cry for them.
    There can only be one.

  50. #2250

    Default

    I'm beginning to wonder if envaneo has been on 102 avenue before, especially west of 103 street. Scroll down to the downtown stops on this booklet to see why the alignment for the bike lanes was chose. 102 avenue really should be a no-auto corridor, except for local access west of 103 street.
    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...estBooklet.pdf

    Jasper Ave and 104 avenue are the main east-west roads.

  51. #2251

    Default

    The removal of one bike "lane" as you put it would mean the installation of it elsewhere, which would mean the removal of either a row of parking or another traffic lane. Car lanes are not being sacrificed. They are being repurposed for another mobility use. If traffic on 102ave was heavy, then I could agree with you.

    It is not -18 in Edmonton from November to March. Dedicated infrastructure in one of our most dense neighbourhoods, paired with frequent transit like the LRT means designing for a future of the neighbourhood that is less reliant on a personal car and moves more people more efficiently.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  52. #2252
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    And I've been riding that multi-use path from Downtown to Stadium for 13 years. I also speak for experience. I've experienced the path getting more and more busy over the years. I've experienced it get busy as it gets extended and more people have a safe, car-free route to downtown. I've actually experienced IT, so I know that it's can be too busy to travel at speed on summer afternoons, and that the 118ave crossing is far from ideal and that it ends at 66st so there's no safe route to attract riders from further north.

    As you walk/take transit around downtown you may notice that there are 4 traffic lanes on Jasper, 4 extremely lightly used lanes on 103ave, and 6 traffic lanes on 104ave when they're not blocked off for Ice District Construction. Motor Traffic has lots of lanes, you don't need to cry for them.
    Maybe you ride at a different time of day. I'm riding by it at 3pm and, oh wait, I saw one cyclist on my way into work about 3pm peddling North this afternoon. There is no multi use trail from Clareview to Belvedere. And I'm mainly talking about shared bike lanes/lrt, not bike lanes in general. Oh btw I don't drive a car. I just commute by ETS. So in this we can agree to disagree and move on.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  53. #2253
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm beginning to wonder if envaneo has been on 102 avenue before, especially west of 103 street. Scroll down to the downtown stops on this booklet to see why the alignment for the bike lanes was chose. 102 avenue really should be a no-auto corridor, except for local access west of 103 street.
    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/Ro...estBooklet.pdf

    Jasper Ave and 104 avenue are the main east-west roads.
    Thanks for the link. I have a copy of this. I was just reacting to the render Ian posted above.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  54. #2254
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,462

    Default

    Geotechnical have been drilling test holes along the route. Were along 104 avenue today on 107 street.

  55. #2255
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060

    Default

    New WLRT Valley Line video... interactive!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPtA...ature=youtu.be
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  56. #2256

    Default

    Ahh yes a great simulation. Simulations are great. Look how well they looked for the NAIT line, the SLRT line, then, when you apply reality, you get what we have - a **** poor system.

  57. #2257
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,060

    Default

    The eternal optimist.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #2258

    Default

    Because I call it as I see it? Because I care about how the system will function, and see glaring holes in it? unlike you, i'm more concerned about function over "OMG this streetcar will look so hot downtown, who cares about function" - IanO likely.

  59. #2259
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,764

    Default

    My guess is that the Valley Line will run something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwDWYvL0aU
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  60. #2260

    Default

    Similar in appearance but ours will be more efficient and faster. The ROW will make a big difference.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  61. #2261
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,764
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  62. #2262
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    8,645

    Default

    A friend of mine sold her house on 156/95th Ave to the City ~ 5 years ago. She wasn't sure why coe wanted the property but she received nearly half a mill for it. She thought it was for lrt expropriations.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  63. #2263

    Default

    Hilarious! Another case of going from bad to worse. They’re going to chop down all the boulevard trees in an area that has been obviously shortchanged on getting any at all for many decades now. Some of the approaches to WEM, an important tourism asset for the city, have looked like crap for 40 years. (Eg Not a single boulevard tree or shrub has ever been planted to beautify, let alone just hide ugly concrete walls along 178st.) Now they are going to do the same along the approach to another tourism asset (the zoo) where first impressions matter.

    Root cause: Councillors aim to save mature trees along LRT route

    “about 500 on 87th Avenue between Meadowlark Road and the Lewis Farms Park and Ride. “

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-lrt-1.4711802

    Last edited by KC; 19-06-2018 at 07:11 AM.

  64. #2264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Hilarious! Another case of going from bad to worse. They’re going to chop down all the boulevard trees in an area that has been obviously shortchanged on getting any at all for many decades now. Some of the approaches to WEM, an important tourism asset for the city, have looked like crap for 40 years. (Eg Not a single boulevard tree or shrub has ever been planted to beautify, let alone just hide ugly concrete walls along 178st.) Now they are going to do the same along the approach to another tourism asset (the zoo) where first impressions matter.

    Root cause: Councillors aim to save mature trees along LRT route

    “about 500 on 87th Avenue between Meadowlark Road and the Lewis Farms Park and Ride. “

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-lrt-1.4711802

    Do you even live here anymore? This route goes no where near the zoo at all.

  65. #2265

    Default

    Magnoblade is oddly correct, the line heads north at 156th street, some 20-30 blocks away from the zoo...

    It's hard to phantom that LRT construction would need to remove trees? Really?

  66. #2266

    Default

    Probably a typo on the address. This is one of the problems with LRT, it tends to denude the route of existing mature trees as they widen or alter the ROW.

    I was very upset when they built the SLRT extension from HUB to UofA Hospital when they took out a bunch of mature trees to the SW of 114th and 87th Ave that were outside the construction area for no reason. They put in a modern park made of concrete. Typical COE, destroy anything old and put in substandard new.

    Posted in 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    In 2004, mature American elm trees, bushes and other trees cut down needlessly even though it was not in the construction zone.
    The area was then relandscaped and a barren park was its replacement.
    Location 114st, 87th Avenue Edmonton AB 2004

    on Flickr


    on Flickr


    on Flickr

    Now what the location looks like. A sterile , boring, shadeless and barren concrete plaza


    UofA Park on Flickr
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  67. #2267

  68. #2268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Probably a typo on the address. This is one of the problems with most any type of contruction, LRT, PRT, GRT, Skytrams, Gondolas, subways, streetcars, etc..., it tends to denude the route of existing mature trees as they widen or alter the ROW.
    Fixed for accuracy.

  69. #2269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Hilarious! Another case of going from bad to worse. They’re going to chop down all the boulevard trees in an area that has been obviously shortchanged on getting any at all for many decades now. Some of the approaches to WEM, an important tourism asset for the city, have looked like crap for 40 years. (Eg Not a single boulevard tree or shrub has ever been planted to beautify, let alone just hide ugly concrete walls along 178st.) Now they are going to do the same along the approach to another tourism asset (the zoo) where first impressions matter.

    Root cause: Councillors aim to save mature trees along LRT route

    “about 500 on 87th Avenue between Meadowlark Road and the Lewis Farms Park and Ride. “

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-lrt-1.4711802

    Do you even live here anymore? This route goes no where near the zoo at all.
    Tourists arrive and visit both the mall and the zoo. What is the main route in between? 87th Avenue.

    Similarly the airport is no where near the city but it affects visitor’s first impressions of Edmonton, as does the route into Edmonton. Think back to the decades of zero enhancements and the visitor views of industrial fencing, heavy equipment, pipe yards, etc.
    Last edited by KC; 19-06-2018 at 08:32 AM.

  70. #2270

    Default

    They never told us that urban-style meant cut-down-all-the-trees, did they?

    With each new negative to the current route there's more and more reason to step back and take a new look at the whole thing. The cost/benefit ratio takes another hit every few months. if it's not negative yet it will be soon.
    There can only be one.

  71. #2271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Hilarious! Another case of going from bad to worse. They’re going to chop down all the boulevard trees in an area that has been obviously shortchanged on getting any at all for many decades now. Some of the approaches to WEM, an important tourism asset for the city, have looked like crap for 40 years. (Eg Not a single boulevard tree or shrub has ever been planted to beautify, let alone just hide ugly concrete walls along 178st.) Now they are going to do the same along the approach to another tourism asset (the zoo) where first impressions matter.

    Root cause: Councillors aim to save mature trees along LRT route

    “about 500 on 87th Avenue between Meadowlark Road and the Lewis Farms Park and Ride. “

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-lrt-1.4711802

    Do you even live here anymore? This route goes no where near the zoo at all.
    Tourists arrive and visit both the mall and the zoo. What is the main route in between? 87th Avenue.
    Similarly the airport is no where near the city but it affects visitor impressions of Edmonton.
    Maybe you shohuld have been more clear then when explaining that then....... As for that 87th ave hasnt really had many trees to begin with down that stretch of road for the longest time.

  72. #2272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Probably a typo on the address. This is one of the problems with most any type of contruction, LRT, PRT, GRT, Skytrams, Gondolas, subways, streetcars, etc..., it tends to denude the route of existing mature trees as they widen or alter the ROW.
    Fixed for accuracy.
    No, not as much. Especially gondolas and elevated systems.

    It is one reason gondolas are built to access nature parks and cross rivers.




    Or Siemens H-Bahn in Dortmund

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #2273

    Default

    please apply that to an urban setting now, in a limited space ROW like the ones you pictured in your first post.
    Last edited by Medwards; 19-06-2018 at 08:44 AM.

  74. #2274

    Default

    Concept designs show a train running down tracks in the middle of a tree-lined street with heritage homes.
    In reality, that urban-style LRT didn’t fit, several Glenora residents told council’s executive committee Monday.
    Instead, LRT planners have designated 1,120 trees for destruction, including all the mature American elms that currently line Stony Plain Road. LRT designers are also planning to take out roughly 20 homes, several of them dating back to the early 1900s, said residents.
    The numbers were revealed in Monday’s report to committee. There was little to no mention of these impacts at the series of open houses held about the project.
    “We’ve been duped, basically,” said resident Walter Pavlic, calling on council to find an alternative, even if it means losing lanes for traffic. A city plan to replace the trees with 1,800 small saplings is not adequate, he said.
    (bold mine)
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca..._autoplay=true

    SPR will already be down to a single lane of traffic both ways through Glenora. Don't know where they'd 'lose' any more traffic lanes there.

  75. #2275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Hilarious! Another case of going from bad to worse. They’re going to chop down all the boulevard trees in an area that has been obviously shortchanged on getting any at all for many decades now. Some of the approaches to WEM, an important tourism asset for the city, have looked like crap for 40 years. (Eg Not a single boulevard tree or shrub has ever been planted to beautify, let alone just hide ugly concrete walls along 178st.) Now they are going to do the same along the approach to another tourism asset (the zoo) where first impressions matter.

    Root cause: Councillors aim to save mature trees along LRT route

    “about 500 on 87th Avenue between Meadowlark Road and the Lewis Farms Park and Ride. “

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-lrt-1.4711802

    Do you even live here anymore? This route goes no where near the zoo at all.
    Tourists arrive and visit both the mall and the zoo. What is the main route in between? 87th Avenue.
    Similarly the airport is no where near the city but it affects visitor impressions of Edmonton.
    Maybe you shohuld have been more clear then when explaining that then....... As for that 87th ave hasnt really had many trees to begin with down that stretch of road for the longest time.
    And that is really interesting. I’ve seen boulevard trees being replaced in older neighbourhoods such as around Whyte Avenue, read articles of the City repeatedly replacing the same trees in front of some businesses almost every year for years. However, the routes to a major city attraction and revenue generator for the city (in decades past) received no beautification efforts. This wasn’t the case for a few years, it’s a multi-decade curiosity.

    In terms of trees and landscaping and hiding deleterious views, 170th street north of the mall was abysmal for years and is just mediocre to the south of the mall, 178st north of the mall is several blocks of high concrete sound abatement walls, 87 th Avenue to the west was devoid of trees for decades and as you indicated, even now there is hardly anything in terms of planting’s along that main route.

  76. #2276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    They never told us that urban-style meant cut-down-all-the-trees, did they?

    With each new negative to the current route there's more and more reason to step back and take a new look at the whole thing. The cost/benefit ratio takes another hit every few months. if it's not negative yet it will be soon.
    They may plant more trees and in half a century it will look great. They may plant a lot more shrubbery and end up far further ahead. I think that may be the case around WEM. For some reason zero effort was put into enhancements along the future route so there’s little to remove and if they actually do put in trees etc then that will be a first.

    The irony is that for strategic, financial, cost/benefit purposes the opportunity to enhance the mall and the Edmonton experience is long gone. Now effort and resources will be expended to the benefit of an old has-been mall long surpassed by numerous other developments.

  77. #2277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Magnus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Hilarious! Another case of going from bad to worse. They’re going to chop down all the boulevard trees in an area that has been obviously shortchanged on getting any at all for many decades now. Some of the approaches to WEM, an important tourism asset for the city, have looked like crap for 40 years. (Eg Not a single boulevard tree or shrub has ever been planted to beautify, let alone just hide ugly concrete walls along 178st.) Now they are going to do the same along the approach to another tourism asset (the zoo) where first impressions matter.

    Root cause: Councillors aim to save mature trees along LRT route

    “about 500 on 87th Avenue between Meadowlark Road and the Lewis Farms Park and Ride. “

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...-lrt-1.4711802

    Do you even live here anymore? This route goes no where near the zoo at all.
    Tourists arrive and visit both the mall and the zoo. What is the main route in between? 87th Avenue.
    Similarly the airport is no where near the city but it affects visitor impressions of Edmonton.
    Maybe you shohuld have been more clear then when explaining that then....... As for that 87th ave hasnt really had many trees to begin with down that stretch of road for the longest time.
    And that is really interesting. I’ve seen boulevard trees being replaced in older neighbourhoods such as around Whyte Avenue, read articles of the City repeatedly replacing the same trees in front of some businesses almost every year for years. However, the routes to a major city attraction and revenue generator for the city (in decades past) received no beautification efforts. This wasn’t the case for a few years, it’s a multi-decade curiosity.

    In terms of trees and landscaping and hiding deleterious views, 170th street north of the mall was abysmal for years and is just mediocre to the south of the mall, 178st north of the mall is several blocks of high concrete sound abatement walls, 87 th Avenue to the west was devoid of trees for decades and as you indicated, even now there is hardly anything in terms of planting’s along that main route.
    If you ever go look at google maps you can actualy see that major trees basicly stop after 149th street heading westward basicly only the inter core of the city has major tree lined anything it makes no sense

  78. #2278

    Default

    my neighbourhood has tree lined streets, and back alleys... I'm in the SW (Ambleside), neighbourhood started around 2008...

  79. #2279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    please apply that to an urban setting now, in a limited space ROW like the ones you pictured in your first post.
    That only worked when you entirely closed the street from all car traffic.

    Not realistic in WLRT
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223

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
  •