Edmonton Public Transit - Page 4

Coldrsx · #61 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 12:35 AM**

^airport overlay yes....but we are still scared to come up to jasper it seems.

Hardhatdan · #62 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 12:41 AM**

Oh I thought that the buildings fronting Jasper west of certain street couldn't be higher than a certain height. Which I also thought was pretty low, 5 floors maybe...I may be totally off base here.

Yea, west jasper is pretty great actually, but it'd be a whole lot better if it lost some of the 1 story strip mall type buildings. Podiums with towers would suit that street much better. Honestly, that Colors project in Calgary, I think would be an excellent fit for just west of Joey Tomatos, since there is already some brighter colors used in the buildings around there.

CMD UW · #63 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 12:43 AM**

/\ Not only airport overlay, but Planning wanted to ensure the buildings adjacent to Jasper were not too high to avoid losing sunlight.

Hardhatdan · #64 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 12:44 AM**

^Yea, I thought there was something else too...so what is the max height there?

element103 · #65 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 12:58 AM**

The thing I don't like about LRT in both Calgary and Edmonton is that they aren't for city building, but for city moving. This is evident by the fact that very little urbanization has taken place along the NE line, even after nearly 30 years. True, some is happening, ie, the Fort Road plan, but it won't dramatically change the face of urban Edmonton.

Toronto and Portland I find are two cities that are using LRT to city build, by putting lines on existing corridors of development to spur increased densities. Spadina Avenue's LRT has increased development on that corridor in the amounts of hundreds of millions of dollars and rejuvenated the previously downturning retail component of the strip. Both cities have a hierarchy of transit service: local bus, street-running streetcar, and rapid heavy/light rail (subway/LRT). In nearly every instance, it's the second tier transit that creates neighbourhoods tightly bound by transit, and medium densities that are sustainable. That's why Toronto is mainly planning for this middle level: to stimulate intensification on a moderate scale - it's clear that the subway initiates developments that are too high in density (ie, the 30+ storey buildings lining the Sheppard Subway). The city is perfectly aware that as great as subways are, it would create such strong redevelopment pressures that would create an endless line of NIMBYs. Streetcar lines seem to have a natural ceiling for redevelopment.

Edmonton is missing that, the middle component, which should provide local, high quality transit. You can see that the city doesn't plan transit for local redevelopment, but for transporting people from the suburbs. Just look at the planned stations for the South LRT - stations are spaced nearly two kilometres apart, when favourable transit oriented development should be within a 350m walk from the nearest station, mostly closer.

Coldrsx · #66 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 1:10 AM**

^www.centurypark.ca

...and there is a large TOD already at castledowns with another planned on ft.road.

...hard to compare edm to tor though...even portland.

element103 · #67 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 1:28 AM**

I'm fully aware of those projects... These are nodes of development though, not corridors.

Toronto had the sheer luck/foreseight of keeping its streetcar network and now has medium density corridors all over the main core. Imagine if Edmonton never abandoned its system -- what would Jasper Ave look like today?

I know it's not fair to compare Toronto to Edmonton. I wasn't even really comparing, I'm just showing the mid-level transit that Edmonton needs and why.

Nor is Toronto perfect either (just look at how well (badly) the Spadina Subway has spurred development over the same 30 years as Edmonton's LRT).

Simply put:
-LRT (in Edmonton's case) is mainly to get people to stop driving to and from work/school, but you'll still need a car for everything else -- the TODs are just an added bonus.
-Streetcar networks (ie, Toronto), on the other hand, is to attract people to live where they never need to drive to and from work, or from anything else they need - the TOD is the focus, not the bonus.

rapid_business · #68 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 8:01 AM**

I would argue that the distance would be more then 350m to make it worthwhile. Vancouver is arguing that 800m is a realistic distance in planning for their major expansion. If so, that includes some more area, but not a whole lot.

I don't know where else you could squeeze in a station on the SLRT expansion. Harry Ainlay HS might be one. Or at the 34th-111th intersection... I dunno.

big W · #69 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by element103

I think the best idea is to simply extend the High Level Streetcar route down the centre of Jasper Avenue and loop it around at the Museum. Double track the new route and add another loop in at Grandin Station. This way, you can have two way operation on the Jasper Ave section for a high-quality transit route to link west downtown with the Museum and the LRT, and this can subsidize running the High Level Line over to Whyte over the winter seasons. Toronto's buying new low-floor streetcars soon, so Edmonton can tack the order onto the end of their order, or even buy the current streetcars, which are being scrapped anyway instead of being rebuilt (and subsequently good for 20 more years of service) -- however, they aren't accessible vehicles.

Jasper Ave has a 6-lane cross section, Toronto would KILL to have road ROW's that wide now to put in streetcar rights-of-way. The St Clair Avenue debacle that has still yet to be resolved is a good case of that. 2 lanes of streetcars + 4 lanes of general traffic would be more than enough for that.

Yes more of you are jumping on my High Level Street Car bandwagon. Now if only we can get this also extended on Whyte as well and then we are laughing. Nice street car system for central Edmonton.

SHOFEAR · #70 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by onishenko

I would argue that the distance would be more then 350m to make it worthwhile. Vancouver is arguing that 800m is a realistic distance in planning for their major expansion. If so, that includes some more area, but not a whole lot.

I don't know where else you could squeeze in a station on the SLRT expansion. Harry Ainlay HS might be one. Or at the 34th-111th intersection... I dunno.

The one at southgate will be close enough. Everbody from Ainley and LSL just cuts across the feild anyway to get to soutgate transit station.

rapid_business · #71 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 7:09 PM**

/\ right, but in some priliminary plans, it shows a possible Harry Ainlay station.

SHOFEAR · #72 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 7:15 PM**

Is the station for southgate going to be on the north or south corner?

Even so, Louis has 1300 students and Ainley has 3000 or so, how many of them would need a faster link to Heritage, only to get an another bus and go to Blue Quill, Twin Brooks, Kaskitayo etc. I just don't see there being enough of a demand beyond 500-1000 people.

CMD UW · #73 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 8:13 PM**

/\ it will be almost exactly where the existing bus station is. The proposed mall expansion will be built practically right up to it.

The park n' ride will be incorporated with the mall.

element103 · #74 Posted: **Dec 20, 2005, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by onishenko

I would argue that the distance would be more then 350m to make it worthwhile. Vancouver is arguing that 800m is a realistic distance in planning for their major expansion. If so, that includes some more area, but not a whole lot.

I don't know where else you could squeeze in a station on the SLRT expansion. Harry Ainlay HS might be one. Or at the 34th-111th intersection... I dunno.

That's my point, the LRT in Edmonton as it is planned is not to be a local transit system, but a commuter transit system. Thats the way it should be, and I'm not saying that we should put stations everywhere. It makes no sense putting in more stops on the south LRT line, since it would only slow down the service. 111th Street isn't really meant for intensification with a significantly pedestrian scale on the whole corridor either - it's an arterial street and it would be hellish to try to impose a Whyte Ave-esque feel to it. I'm rather saying Edmonton should look at using streetcars for local service -- I think the North Edge plan will be a model for this in Edmonton, if the LRT runs north onto 105th avenue.

Toronto Spadina Ave -- example of LRT/Streetcars for City Building

Calgary Brentwood C-Train - example of LRT for City Moving

They're completely different and I'm not advocating one or the other, rather, for both. The C-Train and LRT in Calgary/Edmonton can be parallelled with the subway/metro in Toronto/Montreal. There is no parallel between the streetcars in Toronto and anything in Edmonton. This is what I think Edmonton should look at for city building.

rapid_business · #75 Posted: **Dec 21, 2005, 12:27 AM**

Agree 100%. There is a nice harmony with the combination of the two, and a need for both.

canucklehead2 · #76 Posted: **Dec 22, 2005, 8:58 PM**

Its good to know more people are supporting the idea of a High Level streetcar extension, even if they are taking credit for being the one on here bringing up the idea (Yeah, I'm talking about you Big W

) Anyway, yeah there really are two different patterns that LRT can and has been used for. In Edmonton and Calgary, its being used as a Rapid Transit/Commuter Rail type system, while most european cities and of course Toronto and SF as well as other North American cities are using the same technology as stop a block streetcars, which is just as great, but obviously not for moving large masses of people across a city. Thats the beauty of LRT though, it can be both.

For me the first priority should be establishing a city-wide LRT network to move people from the burbs to the downtown and back, and secondly in developing the inner city (Downtown and Strathcona mainly) as vibrant high density live/work/play areas with streetcars.

As for Jasper West, I'd be happy with a mix of street level LRT and subway together like some European cities have done. Have it connect directly to the existing subway like with a quick and temporary cut and cover ramp around Railtown and have it run on the street level for now until the area redevelops itself, and thats when you complete the subway and then perhaps still operate a streetcar on the surface for local movement of traffic, and a below ground network for moving people to and from Oliver and Grandin. Even though the neighbourhood is dense, I still think it has alot of opportunity to become more filled with people, especially along Jasper Avenue itself. For most of the way its still lined with 1 or 2 story commmerical buildings. Illuminada is probably the first project in a long while that has been built with a tower right on Jasper Avenue with retail at its base.

Ginty · #77 Posted: **Dec 23, 2005, 6:33 PM**

Does anyone have any idea how realistic it would be to put up little clocks at the train staion?

Just a little digital thing that tells you how long until the next train comes. That way i would know if im better off walking or catching a cab if im in a rush to watch golden girls

The Chemist · #78 Posted: **Dec 23, 2005, 6:57 PM**

^Yeah, I've wanted the same thing on the C-Train system. Many other rail systems I've travelled on have had them.

Coldrsx · #79 Posted: **Dec 23, 2005, 7:10 PM**

^vancouver has this type of system even at some bus stops....it is wonderful.

Ginty · #80 Posted: **Dec 23, 2005, 7:13 PM**

Would it be that costly to set up?

Maybe a GPS on everytrain and a bunch of clocks all controlled by one computer. It cant be that complicated