lemongrab
Active Member
Less traffic than 20 years ago sure. The question is how much of this is just a change is due to surrounding road improvements creating a drastic change in traffic patterns. I'm not sure about Centre St. bridge, but MacLeod used to be the way to go if I were to drive to the Beltline/Mission/17th, now TTN Trail, Glenmore, and Crowchild are much more viable when they weren't before when the same route started as Macleod, pre ring road congested 14th, more congested segment of Glenmore, and the rest then the same.
As well a change in demographics and economics in these areas of the city will affect traffic patterns. What I realistically do not see in the next 20 years is traffic on these streets reducing any more than it has unless it is forced to and that only makes it worse somewhere else, especially if the transit that displaces it has a terrible average speed and a slightly raised sidewalk, completely exposed to the elements, for a "station".
Consider as well, even if Centre St is not that busy to warrant all 4 lanes, when reducing to 2 lanes, when you reach 16th and have cars, busses, and whatever else all trying to go left, straight, and right from the same lane you have more than halved the capacity of the road and considering it is crossing train tracks as well have created a monstrosity for traffic and pedestrian safety.
You have to realize that sometimes what works best for vehicle traffic just happens to go hand-in-hand with the effectiveness and safety of the public transit. I really don't give a crap about the traffic itself that much because I hardly ever drive on those stretches of road, but I care about our tax dollars being used for something that is worth it even if it costs more vs something that simply is not.
And yeah 4 car service we hardly ever see and very poor frequency outside of peak times...
It is really sad to see all these other cities, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Seattle, and many others of varying sizes opting to go for safer and more effective/efficient grade separation when needed to build a system that actually can support the city well into it's future while we, in Western Canada (Alberta) just settle for underbuilt transit that runs slowly on a street that is good for maybe next week but then that's it (and we're out of luck at that point because the mistake is made and its done and over with). This may be emotional and VERY far fetched of me to say this but I'm already in a bad/satirical mood today; on the one hand here we struggle with the conservative mind set that either does not want to build it or thinks it simply will not be worth the price tag and needs to be done for cheaper or think that we are just a small simple town that doesn't need fancy big city things cause we won't ever become one OR the extreme variety of urbanists that claim that at grade is necessary for a magical utopian neighborhood where bad weather doesn't exist and people on crutches or in wheelchairs have to risk getting pancaked by fast moving heavy objects because making them use an elevator is too much to ask of them and also because again grade separation is too expensive and only benefits cars (nonsense) and would rather have substandard transit covering more of the city that won't be heavily used and that they will never use rather than very good core transit to build off of overtime that will be successful like in other cities (while secretly just wanting it to slow down traffic above all as a big middle finger on rails to cars).
While far fetched the point is something like this causes everyone to lose. Build it right the first time or just don't. We know don't is not a good option so yeah, build it right the first time.
All very good points. It really comes down to the endgame goal. If the goal is to allow for a lot of growth in ridership, this design will not cut it. This design will not allow for a station that services a large volume of people efficiently and allows for many efficient transfers. I guarantee a not too many years after built as the neighborhood around it begins to adapt and redevelop the city would badly regret wasting their money on something so underbuilt when it would costs so much more in that inevitable future to fix (which will then not be done) than it would have now.
See and this is my problem with north of the river GL. They say this is a rapid transit project; this is not what I would ever call an appropriate terminus station for a rapid transit rail project even if only temporary (for the foreseeable future). Call it what it is, a street car. What it is is a bunch of pedestrians waiting to be hit on a chaotic 2 lane road or hit by the train, that despite crawling at 30km/h, is still deadly. And if the weather is bad, yeah forget it.
Instead of this garbage, put it under ground 9th Ave station or not, and make this stretch of Centre St a even nicer main street with consistently nice wide sidewalks and better walkability without a very long street car stop separating the community.
The ROW fully exists from Sheppard to Seton and can be seen on Google Maps visible all the way to the end of line with the only real obstacle being the Seton YMCA parking lot.
Such a long rambling post that somehow seems to be a perfectly concise synopsis of so many issues. It's a really great point about not overreacting to the perception of things like grade separation being of benefit to cars.
It's such a weird thing here where the only way to mitigate horrific car sewers is through other kinds of infrastructure projects like bike lanes and transit, and somehow both the intention to remedy road designs AND the need to not impact traffic too much manage to both take precedence over designing transit or a bike lane to actually be most effective in itself.