[_urbanite]

Yeah and the threat to move to a different city.... yeah much more difficult than people think especially if you own property and have a business here. Even if they did move, it's not like nobody else would move into their neighborhood and presumably pay the taxes they don't want to pay.

Useless threats that the city won't give 2 ****s about

 

[David A]

Eliminating the Twin Brooks station would be just another example of the City trying to save a few bucks in the short term and then living to regret it for decades afterwards. It's little different than the Transportation department insisting that at-grade crossings would not have a major detrimental effect to traffic flow in the NAIT area, so the City saved money and the result was a disaster.

Getting rid of the Twin Brooks station would save money in the short term, but would be a net negative in the long haul. Twin Brooks residents would complain about the drawbacks of having the train in their area while pointing out that there were zero offsetting benefits--i.e. they couldn't even board the train anywhere near their own neighbourhood. Even if the station isn't built, the line isn't being relocated and there will still be trains running through the area most hours of the day. The same people who are today insisting that they don't want the station will immediately start grousing that they are paying for a train line that they can't even ride to/from their local area.

Isn't the whole idea to make LRT accessible to communities, with the goal of replacing car trips? By reducing the number of stations--by making access points to the system less convenient--aren't we defeating the purpose?

While I get why putting a station here would be a way to try ease some of the concerns of those who live in the area, I don't think the success of this line rests on whether a few people in this area take the LRT or not. I think if you want to have a succesful LRT system, it involves making a number of smart choices and there are a lot of other places that really should get LRT stations before this area.

 

[JuliallThat]

If Twin Brooks doesn't want the station, maybe we can do something different, and maybe this is dumb or stupid but hear me out.

We put the station that would've gone to Twin Brooks, dead centre over the Henday, and sure we provide a pedestrian bridge to Twin Brooks and a south bridge too Macewan too. Or maybe no bridge to Twin Brooks too bad so sad.
Having the station on the Henday is sort of niche, but would allow for very quick transfers to express busses, something like an Airport Bus would be much faster if it was already on the highway.
When we extend the Valleyline Southeaster later, we do the same thing and put a station on the highway, easy movement between lines.

Are there many bus routes that could take advantage of this transfer? I don't really know what the routes are like in that part of town.

 

[TravellingChris]

While I get why putting a station here would be a way to try ease some of the concerns of those who live in the area, I don't think the success of this line rests on whether a few people in this area take the LRT or not. I think if you want to have a succesful LRT system, it involves making a number of smart choices and there are a lot of other places that really should get LRT stations before this area.

The problem is that this expansion is going ahead. The money has been obtained from the feds and the province for this particular project and preliminary work has started. So, like it or not, the trains WILL be running through the Twin Brooks neighbourhood. Yes, there are other areas in the city that desperately need LRT, but they're down on the priority list. I personally would have opted to extend the Metro Line into Castle Downs ahead of extending the Capital Line to Heritage Valley. However, as I understand it the City made the decision due to the fact that land acquisition was easier on the south route and because the Capital Line extension will add another O&M facility.

I'm not saying that the success of this extension rides solely on whether Twin Brooks gets a station and ridership, but the larger issue of making Edmonton a more transit-oriented community and less car-dependent does. Running trains through a neighbourhood for which the closest point to actually board the line will be 32 blocks north (Century Park Station) is senseless. The train will be traveling right through the neighbourhood, but without a station, the line does zilch to improve sustainability and eliminate car trips to/from Twin Brooks.

The other big issue, as I've pointed out, is that if Twin Brooks doesn't get a station, residents are almost immediately going to start bellyaching that their neighbourhood is "negatively impacted by a line they "can't use." They'll be grousing about the crossing gates being down all the time, and trains passing through, and the overhead wires, insisting that their neighbourhood is somehow paying the price for a line that doesn't serve them at all.

 

[ntt1]

I'm not saying that the success of this extension rides solely on whether Twin Brooks gets a station and ridership, but the larger issue of making Edmonton a more transit-oriented community and less car-dependent does. Running trains through a neighbourhood for which the closest point to actually board the line will be 32 blocks north (Century Park Station) is senseless. The train will be traveling right through the neighbourhood, but without a station, the line does zilch to improve sustainability and eliminate car trips to/from Twin Brooks.

The other big issue, as I've pointed out, is that if Twin Brooks doesn't get a station, residents are almost immediately going to start bellyaching that their neighbourhood is "negatively impacted by a line they "can't use." They'll be grousing about the crossing gates being down all the time, and trains passing through, and the overhead wires, insisting that their neighbourhood is somehow paying the price for a line that doesn't serve them at all.

This articulates my thoughts exactly. The tracks are to cross the only two entry/exit points of the neighborhood since the Henday exit/merge was closed within the last few years.

I also feel like the station could also open up more options for feeder routes to the LRT from the Southwest as 111 St from 23 Ave to Ellerslie can become chokepoints at times.

 

[soupcrate]

Council has decided that Twin Brooks is staying. It's also looking (even more) likely that the Ellerslie crossing will be at grade and will stay that way for a long time. It's projected to cause delays to drivers of around 20-30 seconds.

 

[bodsbods9090]

Council has decided that Twin Brooks is staying. It's also looking (even more) likely that the Ellerslie crossing will be at grade and will stay that way for a long time. It's projected to cause delays to drivers of around 20-30 seconds.

Just build it right the first time. Short sighted.

 

[The_Cat]

Ellerslie may very well be suited to higher density developments. Does the City ever think that level crossings are an impediment?

 

[BASE]

A sad and short sighted decision in my books.

 

[Glenco]

If they want to save money put the 23 avenue crossing at grade. Look at all the money they could save from tunneling

 

[TravellingChris]

If they want to save money put the 23 avenue crossing at grade. Look at all the money they could save from tunneling

We're trying to AVOID at-grade crossings at busy intersections like 23 Ave/111 Street. That's the reason for the whole debate about keeping the elevated station and bridge over Ellerslie Road. Staying on the surface at 23/111 would just add a whole new mess.

 

[TravellingChris]

Council has decided that Twin Brooks is staying. It's also looking (even more) likely that the Ellerslie crossing will be at grade and will stay that way for a long time. It's projected to cause delays to drivers of around 20-30 seconds.

Remember, the City's LRT Planning branch are the same ones who insisted that at-grade crossings wouldn't cause major backups at University Avenue and would be just fine around 111 Avenue and Princess Elizabeth Avenue. Their projections are about as accurate as those of the guy in the Kremlin who thought he could defeat Ukraine in under a week.

 

[Glenco]

We're trying to AVOID at-grade crossings at busy intersections like 23 Ave/111 Street. That's the reason for the whole debate about keeping the elevated station and bridge over Ellerslie Road. Staying on the surface at 23/111 would just add a whole new mess.

I was being facetious

 

[Stevey_G]

Remember, the City's LRT Planning branch are the same ones who insisted that at-grade crossings wouldn't cause major backups at University Avenue and would be just fine around 111 Avenue and Princess Elizabeth Avenue. Their projections are about as accurate as those of the guy in the Kremlin who thought he could defeat Ukraine in under a week.

I wish Federal funding for these types of projects were granted on the condition of good traditional design elements for rapid transit. The fact they are too cheap to grade separate at Ellerslie is absolutely insane to me. My God, just reserve a ROW for future transit build out and build out systems slowly and methodically but also properly if the city doesn't have the resources or capital to build it right.

 

[trevorhayden]

A prudent and well thought out decision that prioritizes funding for existing urban areas.