TOD hasn’t been a resounding success in many places (Edmonton included) however some of that is a cultural or social issue. It is my belief that many of the passengers of LRT/ETS in Edmonton use it strictly to commute from home to work and nothing more. Thus TOD is nearly impossible in it’s most efficient forms because many of the potential riders (home owners rather than renters) drive the type of development around transit and ask for low density or car parking so they can continue to maintain a suburban type lifestyle with the advantage of transit to get to work.

(I read the post on Park and Ride) I believe that the city needs to take a brave step and say NO to ‘park and ride’ at Century Park and other LRT stations and encourage development of affordable properties nearby, not parking lots. In fact placing a parking structure across the street from the housing (Century Park example) and developing more high density residential with street (or sidewalk) level commercial alongside or incorporating the actual LRT station might actually help grow the area as a neighborhood, get people on the streets (or sidewalks) and help that commercial remain viable and
the residential remain safe, affordable, and accessible. It doesn’t matter how much or little parking costs, it is still a parking lot and people can’t pay any amount of money to live that close to transit unless there is housing there.

regarding the Ainlay stop – I spoke to an ETS planner and he basically restated the case that they can’t justify a stop which only serves one small population and only for a very limited amount of time (school days, between 8 and 4, ~200 days a year). Perhaps pedestrian bridges to the Southgate stop would be a good compromise.

Anyways, you’re pretty convincing with the why of low floor systems, it does seem to complement the type of compact development which is more desirable for the City of Edmonton.

Congrats on being re-elected, have a great term, keep blogging.

So there’s no guarantee of any additional bridges. Other route selection would drive that decision, I think. And if there are bridges, we can sill tunnel down to a mid-height crossing, so it’s not automatic that they would be high viaducts, though from a pedestrian and cycling use perspective that has merit.

Central Area Circulation via a tram (it’s not really LRT because it’s not rapid transit) is also completely unnecessary and redundant. Already in place is the underground LRT tunnel connecting the highest density zones in the central area (i.e. the University/Health Sciences area, the Legislature/Government Centre area, and the Downtown core). Once the NAIT line is completed there will be further connections to MacEwan College, the Royal Alex and NAIT. To complete the circulation, the #7 bus already connects the Churchill and Central LRT stations via Scona Road and Whyte Avenue to University Station with a 15 minute frequency during peak periods. I’m sure bus service frequency could be increased if warranted by passenger demand.

it touches on almost all other major issues this city faces. urban sprawl, transportation, environment, urban revitalization, poverty, ect.

please make sure we don’t see public transit be ignored ever again in this city… it’s about time this city starts acting like a city, and stops pretending to be a big town