IMG_9536.jpeg
 
mBertan said:
Flaw or a tradeoff?
The design we're getting: adds vibrancy to the core and mature neighbourhoods;
'high speed line' alternative: amplifies the ol' donut city effect...
Click to expand...
I think this type of line to meadowlark makes sense. Same the SE line…works till about avonmore. But then the stations past those really start to be disadvantaged by urban low floor design in environments that’ll never not be suburban with arterials and freeways around them.

Totally get the tradeoffs the city was balancing with these. But I think the dream would be a low floor tram network in the inner ring road (170-75, YH to WM), then REM/Skytrain style transit for suburbs into the core.

Subways and metros succeed partially because of speed. When transit is 20-30% slower for the exact same route as driving, not to mention the extra walking at the start/end, it’s starts to be uncompetitive. Especially in a city like Edmonton where going car free is very hard for most, transit has to compete for trips within a household. Not just compete with car ownership as a whole. If you’re car free, speed isn’t huge. But if you have a car, slow trams don’t win you over.
 
thommyjo said:
I think this type of line to meadowlark makes sense. Same the SE line…works till about avonmore. But then the stations past those really start to be disadvantaged by urban low floor design in environments that’ll never not be suburban with arterials and freeways around them.

Totally get the tradeoffs the city was balancing with these. But I think the dream would be a low floor tram network in the inner ring road (170-75, YH to WM), then REM/Skytrain style transit for suburbs into the core.

Subways and metros succeed partially because of speed. When transit is 20-30% slower for the exact same route as driving, not to mention the extra walking at the start/end, it’s starts to be uncompetitive. Especially in a city like Edmonton where going car free is very hard for most, transit has to compete for trips within a household. Not just compete with car ownership as a whole. If you’re car free, speed isn’t huge. But if you have a car, slow trams don’t win you over.
Click to expand...
Again, why sweeten the pot and incentivize moving/living past Henday? (and pay $$$ extra to do so)
If our inner core's pop. density was at capacity I could see the rationale, but we're nowhere near that.
 
mBertan said:
Again, why sweeten the pot and incentivize moving/living past Henday? (and pay $$$ extra to do so)
If our inner core's pop. density was at capacity I could see the rationale, but we're nowhere near that.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But transit is 100+ year stuff. So our current state shouldn’t make us handicap what Edmonton at 3 million needs

One day we’ll be out to spruce. And the valley line can’t service that.
 
thommyjo said:
Agreed. But transit is 100+ year stuff. So our current state shouldn’t make us handicap what Edmonton at 3 million needs

One day we’ll be out to spruce. And the valley line can’t service that.
Click to expand...
I’d say there are more pressing issues to solve in our city (donut effect) than setting ourselves up for high volume transit from the city’s edges, a century from now [whatever public transit looks like then …who knows?]
 
If you built to serve the needs you expect in 25, 50 or more years, not only is there a good chance you will be wrong, but you probably will not be focused enough on serving current needs well either.

Edmonton has made that mistake before more than once.
 
When the original LRT was built underground 50 years ago it was ridiculed and highly criticized even by Siemens who were trying to promote a low cost alternative to metro lines. Even today 50 years on the line is still no where at capacity. It may seem like a heck of a deal now but could that money have been better spent elsewhere?
 
I think that the underground segment downtown was built on the model of Toronto's PATH network or Montreal's Underground City. It would connect businesses, LRT and public attractions. This was also built during the 1970's oil boom.
 
Glenco said:
When the original LRT was built underground 50 years ago it was ridiculed and highly criticized even by Siemens who were trying to promote a low cost alternative to metro lines. Even today 50 years on the line is still no where at capacity. It may seem like a heck of a deal now but could that money have been better spent elsewhere?
Click to expand...
'Even today 50 years on the line is still no where at capacity. It may seem like a heck of a deal now but could that money have been better spent elsewhere?'

Perhaps the question should be why, after 50 years it was introduced in Edmonton, is the LRT NOT even anywhere near capacity in our downtown.

Big city ambitions lost due to indifferent provincial governments who continue to choose Calgary over Edmonton and incompetent Edmonton councils/ Mayors who were indifferent to the business community or too timid to 'clean-up' our urban experience, fearful of backlash from the activists who voted them in.

When I was in high school, taking the train DT brought one to, for example, a busy Eaton Centre and business professionals out and about. Now, there have been some positive changes, but it's been completely offset by social disorder. All while the 'safe' suburbs (which include a lot of office parks with free parking) have grown at an exponential rate, negating the need to take a train.
 
The_Cat said:
I think that the underground segment downtown was built on the model of Toronto's PATH network or Montreal's Underground City. It would connect businesses, LRT and public attractions. This was also built during the 1970's oil boom.
Click to expand...
Yes. It was an an ambitious idea, not a terrible or bad one, probably ahead of its time.

However, at some point I feel we just lost the desire or interest to actually implement this vision so the space still remains unused.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top