And why didn't they encourage the re=development of Cumberland Mall to include some of this village concept. This redevelopment started a year ago, and was perfect timing to include some condo/apartment type development. What a missed opportunity and to me indicates the city has no intention of following through on this concept.

I feel your frustration but I try to remember this new densification idea is fairly new to our city and is not common in North America. There are alot of hearts and minds to change and still there will be some who will.never see the value. Opportunities are going to be missed esspecially now in the beginning stages. We have to give it time.

On a different note and why I actually came on I noticed they were surveying all down 22nd street this morning.

I will hope that have a few designs to choose from and give the people a chance to vote on them

I agree 100% with what you've said.
The city will not follow through on this.
I agree that they had the perfect opportunity with Cumberland.
As far as I'm concerned, either put up or shut up... getting really tired of all talk and no action on so many missed opportunities.

I was livid when I saw the designs of the redevelopment when it could have been a great TOD. Some student-level housing perhaps?

Debatable. Even the sprawliest most sprawly cities in North America have been (trying or doing) densifying their cores and transit routes for at least 2-3 decades.

We could do better. Were still a small city that can be an example of smart growth while were still at the size were at. No one ever steps up with a big eye opener idea here.

Yes I believe we could do better but what the city is proposing now and some new condos going up in and near downtown, this is the most I've seen done or even talked about in along time, decades.

Ive always wondered why back in the late 60's 70's and early 80's there were the majority of our highrises built, when there was half the population? Were building laws different or was the demand that? I was always curious.

But i do agree with you too, im happy to see the few proposals that have been talked about, parcel y going, but theres a few that the city could get behind also and push, if they could do that.

Back then alot of the major retail stores were downtown as well as a grocery store, i new a kid in high school that lived in one with his parents and it worked for them, it was an apartment not a condo so they rented. Maybe it was the expansion of suburbs that killed that.

[QUOTE=mitchellk12;8053024]Ive always wondered why back in the late 60's 70's and early 80's there were the majority of our highrises built, when there was half the population? Were building laws different or was the demand that? I was always curious.

Highrise buildings require lots of steel and concrete. The price of both has skyrocketed over the years at a rate far in excess of inflation. For example, Sasktel Centre cost $24.8 million in 1986 which is $48.82 million in today's dollars based on Bank of Canada inflation calculator. Circle Drive north bridge cost $11.8 million in 1983 or $26.22 million in today's dollars.

As I see it the challenge in building a highrise is being able to price the units to compete with 3 story wood frame condos, townhouses, and detached homes.

New buses

http://www.ckom.com/2018/01/23/saska...e-aging-fleet/

Meeting on transit and bus shelter designs

http://www.sasknow.ca/local-news/cit...ent-on-transit

Looks like some promising changes to the design. The two branches of the red line have been split into separate lines (red and green), interlining along 22nd. A turnaround loop has been added at confederation, and perhaps most importantly, the so-called 'runningways' are now centre lanes as opposed to side. The main drawback is the poor station design, but overall I'm much more optimistic about this project than I was prior to reviewing the surveys (which can be found here).

Getting better but still too complicated IMO. Having two lines serving 22nd st is pointless, as is having three lines to service east side all terminating downtown. Still seems they can't help treat this like regular high frequency transit routes with too many stations. The point should be to have less stations and get between each as rapidly as possible, allowing for easy transfers to more frequent feeder routes. Sigh. actually I take it back, not getting better.

New bus rapid transit lines revealed by City of Saskatoon

Plan includes addition of 3rd line since proposed plan released in November

CBC News, Feb 08, 2018

The City of Saskatoon has revealed the routes for its new bus rapid transit lines, including the addition of a third line since the plan was approved by council in November.

The new system consists of three major lines: one moving north and south and two others crossing east and west.

The green line will stretch from University Heights, through the downtown area and end at Confederation Mall.

[........]

Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...toon-1.4526040

In essence they already had two lines serving 22nd in the previous iteration, the substantive difference is conceptual rather than operational (other than the new Confederation loop). They just split the branches, which I think makes it much clearer to riders where their bus will terminate.

As I see it, this plan calls for fewer stations with more rapid service, with more direct lines moving along major corridors. I'm curious as to why you understand differently based on the provided materials.

The major problem with this plan, as it has always been, are the 4 level crossings with the CP rail line (22nd, 25th/Idylwyld, 33rd/Warman, Preston).

It would be nice to implement true BRT with dedicated centre lanes system wide, but it's absolutely pointless until the level crossing question has been addressed (a new 33rd St bridge could also fall into this category in order to dedicate transit lanes on the University bridge). Until then, I'm glad to see proper implementation in the few limited areas they mention -- hopefully they will succeed and serve as a model for further expansion.

Splitting the line means if I'm downtown and want to get to Betts, I have to watch the greenline bus go by and wait for the red, and likewise if I want to get to confed it means I have to wait for the green or else take the red and walk from diefenbaker. If they need to split it like this because there is not enough ridership all the way to blairmore then they should terminate at Confed and service blairmore with feeder routes.

There are also WAY too many stops still (many only two blocks apart), IMO this is not how rapid transit should be. Because there are so many stops the 'stations' merely become shelters not really different than what we currently have except lighted and heated (until the glass gets smashed out by vandals) - had there been less stations they would each be busier serving feeder routes, with the option of more park and rides and with more ammenities such as security personnel, restrooms and most importantly off-board fare payment.

I agree with you about the at-grade rail crossings, soon as a train comes rolling through it's no longer rapid transit. I expect when this is whole new configuration is rolled out it's going to be merely that, a new transit configuration which doesn't seem particularly rapid and does not attract any new ridership.

I've heard that the generally adhered to span of 800m between stations is basically standard for rapid transit systems. There is closer spacing in some higher traffic areas (ie. Downtown, College Drive), which I don't see as a problem.

As for your point regarding lower potential traffic to Blairmore, you might be right, but then again if only half the buses on 22nd travel past Confederation, wouldn't this help to resolve the issue? Again, I struggle to see the problem.

It would be nice to have truer 'Stations' rather than what is proposed, but again, its an improvement over what is currently present. I hope there's a prepayment system but I have my doubts.

Park and ride is a forthcoming component of this proposal, per documentation.

Ultimately I make no illusions -- this proposal really cannot honestly be called 'rapid transit'. But anyone who thinks that a fully realized rapid transit system could possibly be implemented directly from the system we currently have is living in a dream world. I see this project as more of creating a skeleton over which a real rapid transit system can be built in the future. It's not perfect, but it's a necessary first step.

Please do not take what I'm about to say here personally as it is not aimed at you, but I see an attitude which is far too common. Looking at a pragmatic proposal that doesn't cover every dream aspect but does a good job of improving core functionality, then essentially calling for it to be entirely cast aside because of the perceived shortcomings. I'm not saying 'take what you can get', but rather, be realistic/pragmatic about what is possible given available resources, and do what you can to improve the situation while setting the stage for further improvements over time.

Maybe this is where my understanding of a RT system is different than others... I thought the point was to move people between neighbourhoods rather than within... 800m distance between stops seems much too close (but then I'm comparing to LRT models in my mind where stations can be multiple kms apart). If we want a system where everybody along a corridor is within walking distance to a stop, isn't that just regular old transit, like we already got? The point of hierarchal nodes is so that we get the benefit of having fewer but busier, real, stations. Having distance between stops and separated busways, combined with efficient embarking/disembarking is what allows it to move people rapidly. I'd rather have a system with only 6 stations/stops (downtown, confed, Lawson, Stonebridge, University Heights and Centre mall, with good small feeder routes for everywhere else) than the 49 (wow 49 BRT stations lol!!! ) that everyone is within walking distance to.