View Poll Results: !

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1

    0 0%
  • ?

    0 0%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 484

Thread: Post your ideal LRT system

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    I don't think the ravine route would be that bad if it was done right. I certainly wouldn't want to see surface level tracks west of Groat Road, but putting them underground here might be easier than building the bridge and tunnels needed for the 87 Av to 87 Av route or the roadwork required for a surface line from downtown. After completion the area would look much the same as it did before except the trail would be a little wider.
    I dont think you'll see much track underground outside of downtown and the university areas, except when needed to cross a road or other similar things.

  2. #102
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Okay, if the magenta line was underground the whole way to the end of MacKinnon, I would actually support it over my 87/87.

    Especially if they daylighted MacKinnon creek while they were doing it.

    But since there's nowhere to stop from 124 from 142 and there's no physical reason to bury it that city council would listen to...

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Above ground through the ravine would provoke outrage (from me included) and I don't see it happening. I wouldn't be surprised if underground through the ravine turned out to be cheaper than the 87/87 route though.

  4. #104
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Above ground through the ravine would provoke outrage (from me included) and I don't see it happening.
    Oh, trust me, I'm right with you on that one. http://www.ualberta.ca/~bagould/samp...eway070911.jpg

    Plus keeping it above ground would create severe difficulties at the Groat interchange. It would basically have to go Skytrain style out of the river bank and along the river, which is just not going to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    I wouldn't be surprised if underground through the ravine turned out to be cheaper than the 87/87 route though.
    I think the main advantages would be that it would be virtually undetectable from neighbours after construction (87/87 would have to cross the river above ground, which is bad in those two ways), and while it's longer in the tunnel, it would be cut and cover through the ravine with the ability to just shut down the whole ravine during construction rather than worrying with staging. Like I said though, daylighting MacKinnon Creek would be huge, and could even be used to sway public perception for the project.

  5. #105
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default Proposed Completion Summary

    Proposed Completion Summary:

    * please note that I have not indicated which projects are under-ground, above-ground or sub-grade*

    2010:
    1) Grandin to MacEwan via 109th st. (leduc line phase i)

    2011:
    1) Station Lands (university line phase i)

    2012:
    1) MacEwan to NAIT via 109th st. (leduc line phase ii)
    2) Station Lands to Connors Hill via new 'Low Level' bridge (st.albert line phase i)

    2013:
    1) Grandin to Strathcona via new 'Gateway' bridge (leduc line phase iii)
    2) Connors Hill to St-Jean via mill creek ravine (st.albert line phase ii)

    2014:
    1) Strathcona to South Commons via rail corridor (leduc line phase iv)
    2) St-Jean to Millbourne via mill creek ravine + 91st st. (st.albert line phase iii)

    2015:
    1) Millbourne to Millwoods TC via 91st st. + 28th ave (st.albert line phase iv)

    2016:
    1) NAIT to Municipal Lands TOD via closed airport (leduc line phase v)
    2) South Commons to Int'l Airport via rail + qe2 corridor + airport services rd. (leduc line phase vi)

    2017:
    1) MacEwan to VIA Rail via 104th/105th ave. + green corridor east of 122nd st. (st.albert line phase v)
    2) Health Sciences to Parkview via new 'Laurier' bridge (strathcona line phase i)

    2018:
    1) VIA Rail to Levasseur TOD via rail corridor (st.albert line phase vi)
    2) Parkview to West Edmonton via 87th ave. (strathcona line phase ii)

    2019:
    1) Levasseur TOD to St.Albert via rail corridor (st.albert line phase vii)
    2) Health Sciences to Whyte via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase iii)

    2020:
    1) St.Albert to Villeneuve TOD via rail corridor (st.albert line phase viii)
    2) Whyte to Strathcona via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase iv)

    2021:
    1) Strathcona to St-Jean via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase v)

    2022:
    1) Municipal Lands TOD to Northgate via 97th st. (leduc line phase vii)
    2) St-Jean to Kenilworth via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase vi)

    2023:
    1) Northgate to Lago Lindo via 97th st. (leduc line phase viii)
    2) Millwoods to Ellerslie East TOD via 50th street (st.albert line phase ix)
    3) Kenilworth to Park Centre via sherwood park fwy + sherwood dr. (strathcona line phase vii)

    2024:
    1) Clareview to Evergreen TOD via rail corridor (university line phase ii)
    2) Ellerslie East TOD to 50th Street TOD via 50th st. (st.albert line phase x)
    3) Park Centre to Millenium Place via sherwood dr. (strathcona line phase viii)

    2025:
    1) Evergreen TOD to Fort Saskatchewan via rail corridor (university line phase iii)
    2) 50th Street TOD to Beaumont via 50th st. (st.albert line phase xi)

    2026:
    1) Blackburn to 30th Ave SW TOD (university line phase iv)
    2) Int'l Airport to Leduc via rail corridor (leduc line phase ix)
    3) West Edmonton to Stony Plain via 16A + rail corridor (strathcona line phase ix)

    2027:
    1) 30th Ave SW TOD to 41st Ave SW TOD (university line phase v)

    2028:
    1)

    2029:
    1) 41 st Ave SW TOD to Devon (university line phase v)


  6. #106

    Default

    If any line heads to the airport it will be the current one. They already have a ROW secured past Henday, which cuts NW from 111st to 127st. You can basically draw a line straight from there to the airport.

  7. #107
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    If any line heads to the airport it will be the current one. They already have a ROW secured past Henday, which cuts NW from 111st to 127st. You can basically draw a line straight from there to the airport.
    That's the obvious and cost-effective short-term solution, but then what do we do in 20 years when the SW is filling up with urban sprawl? I think it's a better investment to continue the existing line roughly parallel to the river heading south west to allow for two or more TOD's.

    While an LRT line is never cheap, above ground or under it, following the rail corridor north with stops at ellerslie, NAIT south, whitemud and a railtown TOD, before heading north west through strathcona, and garneau and over a new vehicular/transit bridge makes the most sense long term.

    We shouldn't have to purchase hundreds of parcels of expensive land and tear buildings down. The corridor is already there. The city would just have to secure an agreement with the rail co. that owns the land. Considering that originally we sold it to them for next to nothing, we should probably be able to annex it from them fairly easily.

  8. #108

    Default

    FYI: There is nothing left to tear down between Century Park and the airport. Between Century Park, and south campus, there is a ROW thats being built on.

    Anyways.

  9. #109

    Default

    Cleisthenis,

    I'm still I'm still waiting to see any of your proposed lines versus an actual map to show where you lines will actually run.

  10. #110
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    I didn't mean to say that the 111th street ROW was going to require tearing stuff down. I'm simply illustrating that having another line run south won't be as costly as the first has been/will be.



    I wasn't aware that they were building stuff on top of the rail line...

    edit:

    ps: i know it must not seem this way but i have a full-time day-job and a couple other projects that occupy my time. You'll have a chance to see my ROW map before the weekend though. I thought giving the timeline with hints at the corridors used might tide you over until then...

    :P

  11. #111
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    As for building through the ravines, I would like to see if it could be done with minimal environmental impact. If it's too much then no, I don't think it's worth the harm to the river valley.

  12. #112
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    I agree Cat, and believe me when I say I grew up in and around Mill Creek ravine, I'm the last person who would want to see it developed or damaged in any way. The nice thing is that except for a narrowing and sharp turn east around 76th avenue, the average width of the forest spaces and hills on either side of the ravine is in excess of a hundred feet or more.

    It should be possible to dig a half or as I like to call it 'sub-grade' trench line along the incline of the eastern side of the ravine from connors hill straight south to 91st street with minimal impact. A double track sealed off and sunk down 6 feet or so would only be about 30 feet wide.

    Having frequently jogged the leg from 66th avenue to the muttart as part of my 10k this year, I imagine there would be virtually no long term impact on the environment or the quality of life in the neighborhoods adjacent to the ravine.

    Of course, if anything, the LRT will reduce traffic pressure on 99th and 96th streets, increase the quality of the air and improve transit access for the many residential and seniors complexes along this stretch.

    The only area of concern in my books is the construction of the stations and the line itself, although I'm sure there are methods for transporting materials and cranes etc. along the cut path through the woods, which would eliminate the need to haul stuff in by road or along the multi-use paths to get to the site.

    Win-win-win.

    (last post of the day before bed) :P

  13. #113
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,218

    Default

    Cleisthenis, I think your map is excellent. Who cares about exactly where the lines run...we will be debating that on thread after thread for about the next 20 years. I like the idea of seeing end points, stations and intersections of the lines
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  14. #114
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    Cleisthenis, overall I like your map, and I think that your design represents prudent planning.

    About the only constructive criticism might be the fact that most connecting lines travel through downtown. Would it be wise to run another line around 23 Avenue to connect the Southern lines a little better?

  15. #115
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    I agree, I do like the map, although unfortunately I think there are some very big flaws. If the LRT system was to be built like that, (which I would like), it would cost millions and millions to do some of the work suggested. In particular the Health Sciences Hub would not work for the simple reason is where would you put the other line that goes east/west. There are also some minor issues, but I still like the map quite a bit. I still suggest turning the SLRT line at Century Park to go towards Windermere.

    Some stations that LRT should consider right away, while we are in the building mood is possibly the Fraser and/or Evergreen stations, and of course the Station Lands and MacEwan to NAIT stations.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  16. #116
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    I agree, I do like the map, although unfortunately I think there are some very big flaws. If the LRT system was to be built like that, (which I would like), it would cost millions and millions to do some of the work suggested. In particular the Health Sciences Hub would not work for the simple reason is where would you put the other line that goes east/west.
    Thanks for your constructive feedback sir. I'm almost done my detailed ROW map, but I'd like to note quickly that this (of course) is not written in stone, and there are a number of minor options in terms of alignment. Principally, the leduc line could/should join at corona as well as grandin before heading north, or there could be a new station underneath the intersection of 109th and jasper.

    The strathcona line could also join up with the university line at the university station itself, as opposed to the health sciences where I've got it now.

    To answer your question directly, the reason someone else suggested previously that the line cross there, is that it is more in line east/west with 82nd ave than the uni. station and hawrelak, plus there would be ample room to build an underground station at that location. The engineering involved in building an additional underground platform adjacent or next to an existing one is not impossible but admittedly expensive. In some locations i.e. grandin and station lands it is unavoidable and likely cost-effective over the long term.

    The short story of all of that is that yes, I do imagine the strathcona line being underground from hawrelak to bonnie doon. As far as the west end goes I don't know if there's room above grade on 87th or not.

    Thanks again, and look for a new dedicated thread later this week!

  17. #117
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    I think a transfer point would work much better at the University station as opposed to Health Sciences. One way you can look at it is that there would probably be more people going to University station to either go to the University itself or go to the bus terminal to hop on a bus there. Also, I think it makes more sense to use the underground station there than to build another underground station, especially considering how deep this station may have to be, that would be one pretty long trek from on train to the other when transferring.

    One thing that I would love to see that could make the LRT system even that much more effective is one or two east/west lines. How about a line from Clareview to St. Albert The intersecting station on that line and the NLRT line would be the Northgate station.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    How about a line from Clareview to St. Albert The intersecting station on that line and the NLRT line would be the Northgate station.
    The question remains why?

  19. #119
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    The question remains why?
    Why build the Strathcona interchange at the University station, or why build an east-west line on the northside?

  20. #120

    Default

    ^^I've fixed my post, sorry for the confusion

  21. #121
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa

    The question remains why?
    There could be some decent stops along a east-west line on 137th Ave. Manning Crossing, Londonderry, Northgate, Skyview, North Edmonton. Theres enough room in the median along most of 137th. I think I'd use it quite a bit. But it's pretty low priority. I imagine people on the south side would like some LRT too.

    Maybe it would work well as a BRT route for the the time being. Only a thought

  22. #122

    Default

    BRT maybe - but lets think about what major uses for an LRT line is... and its not to connect shoppers with there homes (though this is still somewhat valuable to have)

    The majority of riders are going from home to work/school or back.

    An east / west line along 137 ave really doesn't connect you to anything but residential - it would be more better to have lines running from the outer areas of the city in to central work and school centres...

  23. #123
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Agreed. But not everyone works downtown or is a post secondary student.

    I guess I'm thinking that one day the LRT could be used more generally to connect different parts of the city. IE: If I want to go to West Ed, do I have to go downtown 1st? Though the places I listed are primarily shopping, maybe they could be used as transit nodes.

    Anyways, today is not that day. But I do hope they try to keep the space in the median at least to keep options open. If they were to decided tomorrow to run a BRT through there tomorrow that would be enough motivation for me to finally get a monthly transit path.

  24. #124
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Feepa: Gotcha and agreed.

    One of the main design features of the Edmonton 2020 map is that each line connects through the city to major outlying centres, (the spokes of the wheel), which facilitate that commuter traffic you mentioned.

    I think that BRT should be used to

    A). Connect LRT interchanges on lines that are more than one transfer away from one another.

    i.e. Health Sciences/University to MacEwan, Strathcona to Station Lands and Grandin to St-Jean.

    B). Major destinations to adjacent lines ala` West Edmonton to MacEwan, and Century Park/Southgate to South Commons and Mill Woods.

    Using the 4 LRT lines I've outlined it should be possible in theory to get anywhere in the city within 30 to 45 minutes with just one transfer.

  25. #125

    Default

    Cleisthenis - I agree with your map and for the most part - its the system I would like to eventually see in Edmonton. I may choose different exact placings of lines.

    Carbon-14 - But do we need 15 different lines connecting to WEM? Would it not be more effective to go to a central place and then to the line that goes to WEM? You leave from Spoke A, get to a central location on the line where the other lines converge/meet, and get on Spoke C to go out to WEM...

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carbon-14
    Anyways, today is not that day. But I do hope they try to keep the space in the median at least to keep options open. If they were to decided tomorrow to run a BRT through there tomorrow that would be enough motivation for me to finally get a monthly transit path.
    I was mainly arguing against a LRT line. a BRT line is really just an express bus route, with possible lane seperation, traffic light queueing and advanced signals. You can also have special buses, better transit stop/stations then a regular route... but it really is just an express bus at the most basic levels.
    A BRT along 137 ave would make sense - to connect to the spokes of the LRT system at say "Northgate"(if when the LRT gets there) and "Clairview"

  27. #127
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    280

    Default

    fair enough.. I also should have specified that I don't believe an LRT line there would fall within your 20-30 time frame. But I do have a personal belief that after the next 10+ years North America's love affair with the car will begin to wane. More people will start looking for an alternative to driving. Maybe multiple lines to WEM won't seem so crazy 30-40+ years from now. Significant portions of the "Greater Edmonton Transit" plan by Cleisthenis have sufficient demand now to be economical. So I only expect this to grow. Anyways, thats just my belief and obviously others aren't going to share it.

    Also I'm incredibly biased since I live and work almost exclusively on the north side. Its easy for me to look around and dream about what may one day be.

    I too would like to give kudos to Cleisthenis for the great deal of effort it looks like he put into it. A slight criticism I would have is that I find your dates... extremely aggressive. Just my 2cents

  28. #128

    Default

    North America's love affair with the car has already started to wane. At least from my perspective

  29. #129
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default My future LRT ROW map - something to chew on

    Alas, I've ditched my crusade to consider the Municipal Lands as an alternative location for a new arena,
    and focused on the LRT expansion, smart growth and TOD aspects of my proposal which has evolved over time (half way down).

    This is a just a little something for all you LRT nerds to chew over until I get the final draft of my proposal finished within a week or so.
    The ROW Map is the third of 3 images I'm posting here, and in-case you can't figure it out on your own,
    the dashed lines represent alternative alignment options.

    I'll reply later during the day on my breaks at work to clar/justi-fy the main alignments, but for now, know that countless
    hours have been spent analyzing and developing this. Thanks to everyone whose challenged or encouraged me along the way -
    each of us owns a piece of this.

    In the end, our future LRT/transit system belongs to all of us, and if you'd like to see something along these lines,
    then join me in lobbying for this to be considered as the city updates it's major growth and transit plans over the next year.

    apologies if the image sizes screw up the thread...
    ETS LRT system c. 2009:
    (I know duggan isn't slated to have a station, but let's pretend we've lobbied successfully for it.)


    GET LRT system c. 2029+:


    ROW map (draft):

  30. #130
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    As far as things go I think it's generally a nice map.
    A few comments and suggestions.

    Blue Line: Definitely would prefer the 111 Ave alignment option from 156 St eastward. The stop at Westmount and the sheer number of residences in the area (not to mention a transit hub) would be far more beneficial than following the Yellowhead to 121 St. IMO.

    Green Line: I really like how relatively straight this is compared to the concept that is nLRT. Although I like the alternate to circle around NAIT from the other direction to 97 St and 118 Ave.

    I really like how each line has a transfer point with each other line.

  31. #131

    Default

    The Blueline to St Albert. During not busy times, we could add garbage consists to the line, as it goes right through the dump! Effective!

    <I'll comment on some of the other ROW's and other 'issues' I see

  32. #132
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    88

    Default

    This generally looks very impressive.
    My one concern is the blue line running through Mill Creek. I think alternate alignments will be sought for this route. Don't get me wrong, I am all for development, but there are good reasons for maintaining Mill creek the way it is, especially when there are alternate alignments to be had.

    my US$ 0.02 (not worth much in other words...)

  33. #133
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I don't know if I like the line IN St Albert. I know that part of town well, and I am not sure if they want a park and ride in Lions Park. Plus, you'd need quite the bridge over the Sturgeon.

    It is close to St Albert Place though, and the proposed Grandin redevelopment.

    Hmmmm.....


    I look at the south GREEN line and question the necessity when you have the others so close. I know it is the CPR ROW, but...not that I would complain if it was there...

    I also see 4-5 new major bridges. The gully that the dark blue line would cross in the SW qould be deep....
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  34. #134
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Please don't take my comments as negative, I appreciate the effort you put into this map. I'm just letting my practical side speak a bit.

    Overall, the map is a great starting point. There are too many stations, I doubt Milenium Place is a real LRT destination, although a Park and Ride is an option. I also don't see a line ever being able to go down Brentwood. The Red Line would probably change after Whyte to follow the CPR ROW and then have either a large P&R on Baseline or Wye.

    St. Albet's line is a bit west...and the traffic patterns in St Albert would have to be modified somewhat. Ray Gibbon and SWCD could be OK for now...


    The green line to the airport...not going to happen. Your dark blue line extended straight south is actually a lot closer and easier. If anything, that will be the one.
    Your light blue and dark blue lines cover the Gateway corridor rather nicely if you look at it. Gateway will still be car.

    I have other questions, but work calls. Seriously, it is a great start and I appreciate the effort and thought that was put in here!
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  35. #135
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy
    Blue Line: Definitely would prefer the 111 Ave alignment option from 156 St eastward. The stop at Westmount and the sheer number of residences in the area (not to mention a transit hub) would be far more beneficial than following the Yellowhead to 121 St. IMO.
    I agree that it would be preferable to go the 111ave to 156st route up to St.Albert, but unfortunately the impact/cost of that route is considerably higher than the rail ROW, and n/s corridor adjacent to 121st, where I've aligned my main option.

    People who oppose the system configuration may point to the high cost of running LRT underground from Hawrelak to 75th street along 82nd ave, but at the end of the day we've got to make choices.

    Having most of these lines go through natural or rail corridors, where the city will have to purchase less land and demolish/clear fewer structures allows us to get away with some of the more expensive features of this proposal. i.e. new high level bridge, and going under ground for the central portion of the Strathcona line, and the stretch from Grandin to Kingsway on the Leduc line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy
    Green Line: I really like how relatively straight this is compared to the concept that is nLRT. Although I like the alternate to circle around NAIT from the other direction to 97 St and 118 Ave.

    I really like how each line has a transfer point with each other line.
    If the city decides not to re-develop most or part of the Municipal Lands as a medium to high density urban village, then I would agree with the 109th street to 118th ave as you've mentioned.

    However, having the leduc line curve west a bit into the central ML area before going back to the 97th street corridor is, in my view, one of the best things this city could plan for in terms of smart growth.

    (and thanks, one of the main themes i kept in mind while developing this was how would the configuration work for the end user - commuters. theoretically, with this system config, you should be able to get anywhere in the Greater Edmonton Municipality with just on one transfer within 30-40 minutes. either BRT to LRT, LRT-LRT, or regular bus to either BRT or LRT.)

    :P

  36. #136
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    109

    Default

    While I understand the concept of servicing the outlying areas, I have a major concern about stretching LRT to the reaches of the city. Build it, and they will come, sort of mentality, right... you put an LRT line out to Leduc, and you're driving urban sprawl to sprout subdivisions all along that line for the convenience. On the same not, fully support servicing the Int'l airport with LRT.

    I would love to see all these subterrainean lines, but I would strongly advocate termininating the lines much earlier than you've indicated, at least until the city builds up substantially, which would take hundreds of years, even at current growth, I'd imagine.

    Red line: West Ed to Bonnie Doon.
    Purple line: Century Park to Clareview.
    Green line: Yellowhead to NAIT South, no stops to airport.
    Blue line: VIA station to Millwods.

    Otherwise, not a bad very-long-term plan.

  37. #137

    Default

    Wow! Great job on the maps. Obviously you've put a lot of work into this.

    I agree with some of the things other people have said, but I like seeing a stop at the VIA station. If we can combine that with new Greyhound station then we wouldl have a true transportation hub there.

    Personally, I also like the light blue line running through Mill Creek ravine. That would be a quick, efficient and scenic route to downtown.

    I don't know if the green line on the south side is really necessary as some other people have said, but I see that this would allow the purple line to veer off further west which may not be a bad thing.

    The only other thing I would change (after having just taken a quick look at your plans) is the alignment of the green line north of NAIT.

    I would veer slightly west and go up 113A Street instead of 97th Street. There would be room for a park and rides just north of the tracks and another at Griesbach, plus the line would pass by Grand Trunk pool, Castle Downs YMCA and a junior high school.

    It might make sense for the line to turn towards 97th Street at 153rd Ave.

    I'm curious if the city has (recently) done an official long term plan such as this and if so, what does it look like?

  38. #138

    Default

    I think this better aligns with what we may see in 50+ years, not 30...



    sorry for my rough work

  39. #139
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    The Blueline to St Albert. During not busy times, we could add garbage consists to the line, as it goes right through the dump! Effective!
    Where is that dump located exactly? I'd rather not have our LRt line running through it! :P

    Quote Originally Posted by bdejong
    My one concern is the blue line running through Mill Creek. I think alternate alignments will be sought for this route. Don't get me wrong, I am all for development, but there are good reasons for maintaining Mill creek the way it is, especially when there are alternate alignments to be had.
    I hope everyone understands that when I make the case for the MC alignment as being 'cost effective', that I'm also considering environmental and social costs.

    While there will be disturbance during construction, if engineered properly, this line may in fact have negligible impact on the trails and natural space in the end. The Ravine is quite wide in most places, and I'm sure most residents would see it as a big net environmental positive in the bigger picture - especially if they use it!

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    The Blueline to St Albert. During not busy times, we could add garbage consists to the line, as it goes right through the dump! Effective!
    Where is that dump located exactly? I'd rather not have our LRt line running through it! :P
    North of Yellowhead between 156st and 170st... closer to the 170st end... but let me know what you think of the map I've added. Most of it is what is actually proposed.

  41. #141
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I think this better aligns with what we may see in 50+ years, not 30...
    sorry for my rough work
    I have some serious reservations with your alignment, namely the sharing of lines - in all my research and travels I've not seen any metro rail lines either light or heavy that share the same tunnels, or platforms. That's not to say that they don't exist somewhere, it's just that they are very rare, from a logistical scheduling point of view as well as engineering standpoint, it's much better and more common for each line to be independent of one another.

    Finally, if that's what we've got in 40+ years I'd say that would be incredibly lazy and short-sighted for the capital city of the wealthiest province in one of the richest countries in the western world.

    If you'd like though, I can post the .ai file if you'd like to use it as a template...

  42. #142
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    I have some serious reservations with your alignment, namely the sharing of lines - in all my research and travels I've not seen any metro rail lines either light or heavy that share the same tunnels, or platforms. That's not to say that they don't exist somewhere, it's just that they are very rare, from a logistical scheduling point of view as well as engineering standpoint, it's much better and more common for each line to be independent of one another.
    Vancouver, Calgary, San Francisco (BART and Muni Metro), Chicago, formerly Toronto, and I believe New York and Los Angeles, to name a few.

    The advantages to shared track and stations can be lower costs and easier transfers, as well as flexibility in routing. The main disadvantages of scheduling and capacity do come into play, yes, but it is not an impossible situation.

  43. #143

    Default

    Calgary's lines all share the same ROW and stations downtown, which is the reason they are looking at tunnel options for any new lines beyond the wLRT. In my opinion, it would be a waste not to have another line run through our downtown tunnel. You can maintain 4min intervals on both lines at peak capacity and with five car trains that is plenty.

  44. #144
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    I have some serious reservations with your alignment, namely the sharing of lines - in all my research and travels I've not seen any metro rail lines either light or heavy that share the same tunnels, or platforms. That's not to say that they don't exist somewhere, it's just that they are very rare, from a logistical scheduling point of view as well as engineering standpoint, it's much better and more common for each line to be independent of one another.
    Vancouver, Calgary, San Francisco (BART and Muni Metro), Chicago, formerly Toronto, and I believe New York and Los Angeles, to name a few.

    The advantages to shared track and stations can be lower costs and easier transfers, as well as flexibility in routing. The main disadvantages of scheduling and capacity do come into play, yes, but it is not an impossible situation.
    You missed pretty much every other major city in the World. London has one tunnel used for 3 lines and often shares platforms.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  45. #145
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    I hope everyone understands that when I make the case for the MC alignment as being 'cost effective', that I'm also considering environmental and social costs.

    While there will be disturbance during construction, if engineered properly, this line may in fact have negligible impact on the trails and natural space in the end. The Ravine is quite wide in most places, and I'm sure most residents would see it as a big net environmental positive in the bigger picture - especially if they use it!
    LRT through a ravine (Mill Creek or McKinnon) would work only if it is below grade. While digging up a multi-use trail to put tracks underneath it would be cheaper than doing the same to a road (less depth, less tunnel roof strength required, no traffic issues during construction) it might not be advantageous compared with a surface alignment.

  46. #146
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Hey Brian!

    Where in Toronto did the subway share the same line/grade? The two lines cross each other above and below... wasn't it always like that?

    I've just always assumed that it makes things easier and more efficient for the whole system to have each line on it's own. Not impossible, no, but I still think we're better off bringing new lines to areas that aren't currently served. In the end though, if it can be done, and it makes sense, I'm all for it.

    I'm going to make an effort to reply to each post in order, so keep the feedback and comments coming, I promise I'll get to your post eventually!

    Here are the illustrator templates for those that want to tinker.

    The one caveat of me sharing them is that you guys simply post the link to the image, not the image itself as it may get confusing for people joining the thread later.

    Cheers, and enjoy!

    http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/row.ai
    http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/system.ai


  47. #147
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Re: Medward's lines, I think that long before 50 years from now, each line will be too busy to have more than 2 lines, (4 legs) in the downtown tunnel, ant to not use it for two would be underutilizing that resource for the next 30 years.

    Of bagould's list of systems that interline, I believe that Toronto's was a short term pilot project that was shelved as unworkable, Sanfransisco has separate tunnels for bart and Muni, and New York has 4 track lines, so there is a lot more capacity.

    For St. Albert, What about using the existing rail corridor at 142St? That way it could better serve Edmonton too, and if the NLRT uses 97th, that's far enough away. There's also alot of development potential along 142 that could be made very transit freindly.

    The Original Map...
    For the south side, 3 N-S lines are too much, especially that close together. I'd use the green line south either to the rail corridor at Argyle or the one N of roper, and then go east to the blue alignment into Millwoods. This line would connect through western downtown to S.t albert.

    I think that any rail transit beyond the henday should be on a commuter rail/regional rail model. For instance, Stony Plain, spruce grove, atcheson, winterburn and Strathcona County's Proposed Node are all located along the Existing CN mainline, and for all those places, 30m service is plenty, so if rail service is required, Commuter rail on the existing rail would provide excellent connections to NELRT at Belvedere, NLRT at Yellowhead and StALRT at Calder.

  48. #148
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    well thought out
    Congratulations!

  49. #149

    Default

    Can the downtown tunnel add more tracks?

  50. #150

    Default

    A just to note - I only have 2 lines in the tunnel - The green line would be low floor technology that stays at ground level. Uses the high level bridge and then some how turns east on 99 or 100 ave

  51. #151
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Can the downtown tunnel add more tracks?
    Two tunnels = two tracks.

    If we're talking purely express tracks, there would be room to put them somewhere, but they might have to go deeper. I don't know enough about the foundations.

    At that point, though, we might as well just run another LRT tunnel down another avenue.



    Re: Highlander: While BART and Muni do have their own tunnels, they each only have two tracks and the BART serves four routes while the Muni serves what, five routes now with the T-Third going? The BART also has numerous dual line sections on the East Bay portion as well.

    New York also runs express trains, which is as far as I know what the extra tracks are exclusively for, having never been myself. If that's the case (and it's logical), then there are still numerous local routes sharing the same tracks.

    Toronto was mainly unsuccessful because it was an afterthought and if you wanted to take a train where the two lines joined, it could be waiting for you on either of the two platforms.

    I mainly wanted to point out to Jordan that it has been and is done a lot, and that he doesn't need to throw out the possibility of using it. I'm not saying send all four lines through the downtown subway, but there's nothing to say we can't fit two of them in, instead of sending them through downtown on a completely different alignment.

    I'm still collecting my thoughts, I'll have more time later this weekend.

  52. #152

    Default

    I much prefer Meds south east line. It makes more sense to me to use an existing rail ROW rather plow through a wonderful city park.

  53. #153
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Alright, I'm ready to make some preliminary comments. I'm going to ignore some of your further out destinations as I've previously said.

    I'm going to organize them by line, and I'll use your colours.

    Purple Line Southwest Leg: Planning studies are moving ahead which suggest that the line will head south rather than west, with what they're calling a TOD but is actually TOD's evil twin TAD. I see no reason to change this, though I agree with your decision to fan out if there is another line to go to the airport.

    I will, however, agree with Matt in that this would likely be the line to go to the airport for reasons I'll note later.

    Purple Line Northeast Leg: Nothing wrong with your NE section, that's basically what the city's thinking anyway.

    Blue Line Northwest Leg: I like using the section from Yellowhead (I'm not going to touch on where it would go north of there) to 105 Avenue. Everything on 123, 122, 120, and 119 Streets is then fair game to go in favour of TOD, and we don't have to touch High Street, yet provide good access to it.

    Instead of turning onto 105, I would like to see it take Jasper with a stop as it turns and one at 116 Street, then tie directly into the subway at Corona. I'm not a big fan of LRT along 105 Avenue since it's currently slated for a pedestrian/bicycle corridor. I worry that running the train at grade would destroy this project, and that running it in a subway wouldn't be justifiable from a costs perpective, something that I think Jasper would be able to justify, and if we don't run this line there we'll likely never see the subway extended down Jasper, which I think would be a crime.

    Green Line North Leg: I've been in love with the 109 Street alignment for a long time. I like that we could tie it in to either Grandin or the High Level Bridge, and I love that it covers a huge gap in N-S ETS coverage. My main concern is that it wouldn't connect well with the Blue NW leg I just described since Corona is much too far away. Perhaps we would need a Blue NW station around 109/110 Street. I would like to see it run in tunnel south of Jasper Avenue, though I don't think this would be seen as cost effective.

    This is the part of GMCC we need to serve, not the eastern tip just so we can wind around and hit a hospital and a high school, both destinations I'm willing to lose. It also lets us serve the municipal lands eventually and hits a part of Kingsway we could redevelop. Overall, it would be much straighter and faster than the current nLRT, though I do fear that those plans are too far along now.

    Red Line West Leg: As most people know, I've been touting a similar alignment along both 87 Avenues and tying in to University Station, so I don't have any problems with this one. Others might.

    Red Line East Leg: I was originally going to say that there's no way we're going to have LRT down Whyte, but I've reconsidered and I'm willing to drink the Kool-aid on this one. This could spur the development of a second, more people scaled, downtown of low rise apartments on top of a few stories of commercial/office space for a couple blocks north and south.

    I would like to suggest that we learn a little from the experience of Jasper Avenue in that we don't actually run it under Whyte Avenue. I would tentatively suggest running it either under 81 Avenue or the alley between 81 and Whyte. I'm worried that if the subway killed Jasper as many say, that it could kill Whyte as well. I'm also big on separating LRT from arterials, since TOD along arterials is madness to me.

    Additionally, this would likely lower costs and we wouldn't have to touch Whyte at all. It would also let us have an awesome transfer station by reusing the old train station building as an entrance.

    I would add a station at 99 Street to spur this area losing its "wrong side of the tracks" rep, especially since we'll probably be getting rid of the tracks at the same time (crossing Whyte N-S in a tunnel I expect). I'm not sure about gthe Mill Creek station since I'm about to speak out against running the train down there, but Bonnie Doon is crucial. From there, I don't really care.

    Green South Leg: Without some serious effort, Gateway south of Argyll is too deep into autosprawl for us to make this workable. I'd rather we just leave the freight tracks in for now. At some point in the future, this south part could fork off from what I'm about to suggest, but I don't see SEC or Summerside ever supporting LRT without basically destroying everything that's already there, and I don't think that the possibilities around the Whitemud are worth the rest of the line possibly being useless. I like your Green Line until it gets to about Argyll.

    Blue Southeast Leg:
    I agree with everything between MWTC and Argyll. I would personally like to see 91 Street pushed to the Millwoods side of its right of way and the train run down the western side of the road with TOD for a strip a few blocks wide to the west by redeveloping some of that industrial.

    I disagree, however, with the blue line north of Argyll. I don't think it's politically feasible, and I'm not sure about the ridership. I don't think SCC and Muttart are huge draws, or any of those Mill Creek stations for that matter.

    I do, however, see the benefit to that as a fast route from Millwoods to Downtown. I just don't know if it's something I can support.

    I would either tie the blue and green together along the 61 Avenue rail corridor or 68 Avenue. I think the former is better because we would not be fighting residents and when the train pulls out there'll be an opening to redevelop that area. I wouldn't run it along Argyll for reasons I've already outlined.

  54. #154

    Default Possible LRT alignments

    Hey gang, over the next few days/weeks, I plan on showing many different possible outcomes for our LRT system.

    I'll start off with one I was working on tonight





    Let me know what you think.

    In the next few days, I will making the next one, but changing the NLRT route to something a little more central, and not using the 121 st ROW. (to look more what the city is proposing...

    (and yes, I will be changing WLRT options too, to reflect everything that is talked about here...)

  55. #155

    Default

    (yes, I'm bored, and have visio...)

  56. #156
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    I'm not sure why, but many of these alignments that I've looked at seem to be missing part of the bigger picture. Perhaps this is just a bare bones alignment to start off, but I really am perplexed by the lack of additional lines that would serve to enclose certain areas. Here's what I mean... Taking this alignment we have two lines that service 23rd Ave (111 St and 75/66 St) Why not enclose this along 23rd Ave? Why not have additional enclosures (34th, 51st, 61/63Ave/Argyll)? Why not enclose these LRT lines on the North, East and West ends of town as well?

    There are obvious locations in the city that should be serviced sooner than others based on the numbers of potential riders that would benefit. However, at the same time, we really ought to accomplish excellent LRT service to all Edmontonians. My point is that we should be gearing our LRT development such that regardless of where people now live, they have a "reasonable" choice of transit. With alignments like these, are we really servicing the most people possible?

    There are huge areas of land that are not serviced with many of the proposed alignments. I don't believe there ought to be LRT on every street in the city, but I do think that no matter where Edmontonians live right now, they should expect to reasonably be able to rely primarily on mass transit in the coming years without having to walk 30 blocks to the nearest station. Will there be bus service to the LRT stations? Yes, there will, but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?

  57. #157
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude View Post
    but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?
    Yea, that would be terrific... but you're obviously living in a dream world. That's like $500B worth of LRT construction, and it's not going to happen, not in this city and not in any other city on the planet earth.

  58. #158
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude View Post
    but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?
    Yea, that would be terrific... but you're obviously living in a dream world. That's like $500B worth of LRT construction, and it's not going to happen, not in this city and not in any other city on the planet earth.
    Well, I guess I should be expecting a comment like that, so let me clarify.

    Was it the "2" that threw you. How about "8" or "10"? Is that better?

    I guess my motivation in commenting here is to prevent our LRT system to develop in much the same way it has done in Calgary.

    "but the LRT works great in Calgary though..."

    Does it? Really? You think so?

    I guess the problem I see with many of the proposals for aligning LRT track in this city is that they don't come along with plans for how we ultimately want the LRT to service the city. In my view, the LRT does not really service the "city" much at all because, more often than not, people choose their personal vehicles over LRT. That's just the way it is. Extending the lines as shown above would serve a lot more people, but how many people would still NOT be reasonably able to access this service? A majority.

    The one thing I've noticed in a lot of other cities with transit systems that are considered "good" or "great" (choose your own definition) is that they tend to enclose many of the lines that service their outlying areas. Calgary does not do this and many of the alignments that are now being proposed for Edmonton don't do this either. Why? Is it because we're afraid to spend some money (or $500,000,000,000.00 to use the quoted price)? I think the reluctance mainly comes from citizens of this city not really wanting much of any significant change to how we get around. We say we want "good" or "great" transit, all the while pining for our personal vehicles. I'm not sure about others around here, but I find that hypocritical. There will always be room for both, but I feel that if we don't focus on mass transit now and convince Edmontonians to use it, we've failed.

    Anyway, some other cities (apologies for the size of some)...

    London


    Moscow


    Tokyo


    Paris


    Seoul


    Shanghai


    Berlin


    Singapore

  59. #159
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    I understand what you're saying, but it's completely irrational to expect that everyone in Edmonton will live only 1-6 blocks away from an LRT station. That's just being silly.

  60. #160
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    What's the magic number?

  61. #161

    Default

    We would need the suburbs to really densify to have something like that.

    ETS has enough problems with empty buses when having a stop every 400 m or so. Could you imagine how many empty trains there would be? All the maps above are from cities that are 10x the size of Edmonton

    The system I designed is meant to be realistic, for the city to accomplish in the next 20-30 years.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetcrude View Post
    What's the magic number?
    10

    As in 10 times the density. Moscow and most of the cities you have shown have 10 times the urban density

    So you can do one of two things to increase density. One, increase the population on Edmonton within its borders to 7 million or reduce the size of the city from 700 km2 to 70 km2

    Also most of the cities that you describe have extensive railway ROW's that make building LRT relatively inexpensive like the original NE line
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #163
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Density is the key. There is no way in hades that we have the density to expect a Paris Metro...let alone an Underground.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  64. #164

    Default

    Here some more possible configurations. Mainly just moving the WLRT line around...
    I'm beginning to think that having NLRT and WLRT out of churchill station is a bad idea, though I've yet to show that configuration....









    more later
    Last edited by Medwards; 28-04-2008 at 10:14 AM.

  65. #165
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Don't forgot to expand it to the airport! (and further NE as well)

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carbon-14 View Post
    Don't forgot to expand it to the airport! (and further NE as well)
    Maybe in the future I will, but I'm just focusing on stuff within city limits for the moment- The NE is doable - and will be shown in future maps.

  67. #167
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    We would need the suburbs to really densify to have something like that.
    ...and I guess this is where I feel we fall short.

    I'm not expecting to have a transit system like any of the above systems anytime soon. I'm not delusional to think that we have the density to make something like that feasible right now. But we can work towards that, or is that not possible?

    As a regional entity, I think more than a few of us are really beginning to realize the error of our ways when it comes to being heavily reliant on personal vehicles. We already know that our reduced density makes it increasingly expensive per person to maintain the infrastructure we all think we need. As of right now, it's difficult to get around the city in a timely fashion without the aid of a personal vehicle, but is this what we really want long term? All I'm saying is that we must define where we want to be in 10-30 years and start laying the groundwork to achieve these goals.

    As mentioned previously, if we are to extend the LRT out to 23rd Ave at two locations (East and West), why is this not being enclosed? Why not create another loop at 51st Ave or Argyll, whichever is deemed to be more a more pressing need or even some other route. The problem I see is that we're just simply too busy about planning for LRT line "extensions" and nothing more. Is enclosing the LRT line extensions on anyone's radar at all? If not, why not?
    I keep hearing the argument that our density is too low. Well, how exactly do we combat that? Isn't developing the LRT, in a way at least similar to what I've described, part of the answer? I don't make any claims that it's the entire answer, but a major reason why the population density is higher in other cities is simply because people living there can rely on a true alternative to their personal transit. Why can't we achieve this?

    Is LRT the only thing that will work for Edmonton? I doubt it. We'll likely have to use a combination of services to achieve the goals that we want. However, aside from earmarking which parts of the city we want to 'extend" LRT lines to, I'm not hearing much of anything else. This I find frustrating because I think we're headed in exactly the wrong direction if these sorts of details aren't even being considered. What exactly are our longer term objectives with respect to mass transit?

    Do we really have to get to the point once a national carbon tax is implemented for us to get the idea that spending as much per person as we do on carbon based fuels will ultimately have to be limited? How do we limit this? I think we start to limit our personal expenditures on carbon based fuels by getting more people to rely solely or primarily on public transit. How do we achieve that? I'd argue that we make the LRT as accessible as possible to most of the city.

    In another thread (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=6884) the claim is made that the Calgary LRT services 10% of that city. Some debate that number, but having lived there a while, I think that it's an honest reflection of reality. It's debatable whether the number is 10% or 25%, but it certainly doesn't service the majority of the city. There are real problems with the LRT in Calgary no matter what some people say. For many living near stations where the LRT either terminates or is close to terminating, the service is pretty good. You can get on the train without worry of missing a train because it's full. There's a lot of people to use the LRT to get downtown, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who commute from the south side to the Northeast or Northwest sides of the city and vice versa. Having to go through downtown essentially serves as a bottleneck for the entire system. I see similar bottlenecks occurring in Edmonton if we don't start to incorporate longer term objectives into our alignment plans now rather than later.

  68. #168

    Default

    sweetcrude - I have a many more different alignments I want to layout here. I may also include some express buses/non-stop buses but let's not get overly worked up about the routes I choose yet, because I plan on showing many different varieties possible, and then maybe have a vote on which layout is best...
    the lines I've done now are for the next 20-30 years. Perhaps in 30-50 what you describe will make sense, and I will try to illustrate that as well. But right now, I'm focused on different layouts for WLRT and NLRT. I will then work on the SELRT and maybe a cross over to betweent SELRT and SLRT, but maybe it should go near the henday instead of 23 ave?
    Last edited by Medwards; 28-04-2008 at 03:15 PM.

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I have a many more different alignments I want to layout here. I may also include some express buses/non-stop buses but let's not get overly worked up about the routes I choose yet, because I plan on showing many different varieties possible, and then maybe have a vote on which layout is best...
    Medwards, I'd like to vote for more than just the purtyest set of squibbly colored lines. If you could, it might be helpful to add a narrative "pros vs. cons" for each set of your nice colored squibbles.

  70. #170
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Medwards, I've been lurking, and enjoying this thread and your various system maps.

    I'm behind on gathering mine for the GETS 2040 proposal because google earth ate my file, and I'm in the middle of moving into a new apartment.

    What source-files are you using for those images?

    If you're open to it, would you send me them so I can use them for my maps in the coming weeks as well?

    Cheers,
    J.

  71. #171

    Default

    Took a google map of Edmonton screen shot at the size I wanted to use, and Visio for the rest.


  72. #172
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    sweetcrude - I have a many more different alignments I want to layout here. I may also include some express buses/non-stop buses but let's not get overly worked up about the routes I choose yet, because I plan on showing many different varieties possible, and then maybe have a vote on which layout is best...
    the lines I've done now are for the next 20-30 years. Perhaps in 30-50 what you describe will make sense, and I will try to illustrate that as well. But right now, I'm focused on different layouts for WLRT and NLRT. I will then work on the SELRT and maybe a cross over to betweent SELRT and SLRT, but maybe it should go near the henday instead of 23 ave?
    Well, I know this is one of a myriad of threads on LRT routing so I'm not so much addressing your alignments as I'm addressing all of them. That said, I would like to see more input as to how people feel the LRT should be developed over the course of the next 20-30 years. How do we service the highest amount of people over the coming years/decades while still encouraging infill?

  73. #173
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Can you export the visio files to be used by illustrator?

  74. #174

  75. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis View Post
    Can you export the visio files to be used by illustrator?
    no clue. Just using the standard shapes and objects in visio. Its not rock science work going on here... With about 30 mins of time, you can recreate what I've already done.

  76. #176
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Agreed on the density bit. Looking at cities like london (and their infamous closed tube stations) It's obvious that they need the subway. Their street system is a terrible, unplanned mess, plus it would take about four days to get to work in rush hour. The problem with Edmonton Densification is not only NIMBY, but the lack of co-ordinated plannning overall. When the city decides to build towers such as the glenora tower, it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why not have densified towers in the downtown-area where the NIMBY is lower, where transportation is more accessible? Another potential example would be the Baycroft Apartments (Formerly Bel-Aire Apartments). Yes, It's a huge plot of land, but how does it fit into the bigger picture? Are we a dense, modern city or are we a hodge-podge of ultra-low density housing mixed in with several distant shiny glass towers? I realize that densification takes effort, and any densification is better than no densification, but we need to think of the bigger picture. This city could be a fantastic city if the close, 1950s era neighbourhoods were preserved, while the modern developments went downtown. Just think; great downtown AND pleasant, close, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.

    Whenever I think of that, I think of really neat buildings (like the new Grand MacEwan building downtown) integrated with vibrant, fully treed neigbourhoods. The key to densification is to stop urban decay. Old neighbourhoods like Queen Mary Park, Prince Charles, Delton, Westmount, Ritchie, and Garneau need to be revitalized pronto. Densification should only proceed once we've got some of Edmonton's oldest neighbourhoods fully restored.

    Once these neighbourhoods have been restored, then we can proceed to build sky-scrapers by providing incentives to developers of flats, and tariffs for low-density housing.

    Once the sky-scapers are in place, Edmonton can then proceed with a ETS overhaul to provide community mini-bus service, which is quiet and non-intrusive.

    Finally, the LRT can be extended to the extremities to provide better transit to the core. After the LRT has reached Bonnie Doon and other malls such as Westmount, the Malls could transform into Low-rise glass apartment blocks ontop of the existing mall.

  77. #177

    Default

    The problem with Edmonton densification is that it solves a problem that London has.
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  78. #178

    Default

    Well, here's me playing around some more- This time I've added Super Express Buses (notice the thinner black lines.)

    No where close to done, but spent a bit more time on it. All things flexible to change as we go along here...

    If anyone hasn't noticed, this is just a thread where I'm making stuff in a dream world/sand box like Edmonton. Some of it may come true, some may be far fetched, but it allows me to think about lines and routes in this city.



  79. #179
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    haha, you know what I find interesting about your drawing? That you draw the proposed bridge on the 87th avenue route, but forgot the one that already exists out of downtown. I know that's being overly critical, but it does exist.

  80. #180
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linster View Post
    Agreed on the density bit. Looking at cities like london (and their infamous closed tube stations) It's obvious that they need the subway. Their street system is a terrible, unplanned mess, plus it would take about four days to get to work in rush hour. The problem with Edmonton Densification is not only NIMBY, but the lack of co-ordinated plannning overall. When the city decides to build towers such as the glenora tower, it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why not have densified towers in the downtown-area where the NIMBY is lower, where transportation is more accessible? Another potential example would be the Baycroft Apartments (Formerly Bel-Aire Apartments). Yes, It's a huge plot of land, but how does it fit into the bigger picture? Are we a dense, modern city or are we a hodge-podge of ultra-low density housing mixed in with several distant shiny glass towers? I realize that densification takes effort, and any densification is better than no densification, but we need to think of the bigger picture. This city could be a fantastic city if the close, 1950s era neighbourhoods were preserved, while the modern developments went downtown. Just think; great downtown AND pleasant, close, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.

    Whenever I think of that, I think of really neat buildings (like the new Grand MacEwan building downtown) integrated with vibrant, fully treed neigbourhoods. The key to densification is to stop urban decay. Old neighbourhoods like Queen Mary Park, Prince Charles, Delton, Westmount, Ritchie, and Garneau need to be revitalized pronto. Densification should only proceed once we've got some of Edmonton's oldest neighbourhoods fully restored.

    Once these neighbourhoods have been restored, then we can proceed to build sky-scrapers by providing incentives to developers of flats, and tariffs for low-density housing.

    Once the sky-scapers are in place, Edmonton can then proceed with a ETS overhaul to provide community mini-bus service, which is quiet and non-intrusive.

    Finally, the LRT can be extended to the extremities to provide better transit to the core. After the LRT has reached Bonnie Doon and other malls such as Westmount, the Malls could transform into Low-rise glass apartment blocks ontop of the existing mall.
    I'm not sure what revitalization has to do with density. Some of those neighbourhoods are already as revitalized as you cn get, if you're looking at home improvements and active communities, and even the worst off will not add any people as they restore. If anything, wealthier owners move in who don't need the income from the basement suite, so the population goes down, and so does transit use.

    Malls can transform with condos, but there is a limited market for living on a mall. Condo owners also want to live in real neighbourhoods with trees and sidewalks and parks. That's one reason that century park is lauded: because it provides a neighbourhood feeling, with townhomes facing interior streets that will be lined with trees and will ideally work like the streets of the old neighbourhoods.

    And why should we wait until after the highrises are in place before we improve transit, and why community shuttles of all things? Without decent transit in place before the new residents move in you force those new homeowners to buy and maintain vehicles and parkings paces that they may not need otherwise, and you force them to get into a habit of driving everywhere that is much harder to break later than when they first move in. If the transit leads development, then families can avoid that second car, ($25,000) and second parking stall ($35,000), and the homes can be that much more affordable. The can get into the habit of using transit right from move-in and everyone is better off.

    Community shuttles are a poor substitute for 'real' transit. I live on a real transit route, and although i rarely use transit for other than the commute I could use my 'local' bus to access several shopping areas, community facilities, schools, parks as well as LRT and Northlands.

    When I lived in grew up in St. Albert the whole transit system was built like community shuttles with a few busy express routes into edmonton. Busses meander through your corner of the city and never really go anywhere useful except to the transit centre and whatever else happens to be located there. St. Albert's community routes are run using regular busses, so they were horribly inefficient during midday with only a couple riders on, but they could at least handle the morning rush. Community shuttles never develop good all-day ridership.

  81. #181
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    280

    Default

    I thought I'd play around too.. Just for fun

    You can zoom in/scroll around here:

    http://maps.google.ca/maps/m...28253,0.902939&t=h&z=11

    Colour code:
    Green - Current line
    Orange - Under Construction
    Dark Red - Proposed by the City
    Purple - My imaginary lines.

    How did we ever get by without Google Earth/Maps???

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by linster View Post
    Agreed on the density bit. Looking at cities like london (and their infamous closed tube stations) It's obvious that they need the subway. Their street system is a terrible, unplanned mess, plus it would take about four days to get to work in rush hour. The problem with Edmonton Densification is not only NIMBY, but the lack of co-ordinated plannning overall. When the city decides to build towers such as the glenora tower, it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why not have densified towers in the downtown-area where the NIMBY is lower, where transportation is more accessible? Another potential example would be the Baycroft Apartments (Formerly Bel-Aire Apartments). Yes, It's a huge plot of land, but how does it fit into the bigger picture? Are we a dense, modern city or are we a hodge-podge of ultra-low density housing mixed in with several distant shiny glass towers? I realize that densification takes effort, and any densification is better than no densification, but we need to think of the bigger picture. This city could be a fantastic city if the close, 1950s era neighbourhoods were preserved, while the modern developments went downtown. Just think; great downtown AND pleasant, close, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.
    .
    I totally agree. Whenever a tower is proposed anywhere, a truck load of people jump up and down and go great, great, density, denisty, all is good! But we are just following the mistakes of the past. A sea of sprawl, with towers scattered around, and a half empty downtown core. Even the towers are being pushed further and further out into the new edge neighborhoods. This isn't what they do in Europe, but it is what happens when there is no planning. If we had said 30 years ago, no towers anywhere but the core, we would already have a vibrant core. But that would take Councilors with the guts to stand up to special interest groups, and that will never happen when history shows by doing so, all they do is shoot themselves in the foot with respect to careers after Council.

    LRT is not about density, it is about transpotation. Density will follow LRT stations regardless of where it goes, the key though is LRT needs to provide the hubs to make our transport network effective, and that will only happen if it is rapid transit, not a glorified bus.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-05-2008 at 06:00 PM.

  83. #183
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sask. Drive 101st
    Posts
    94

    Default 87th Ave the WORST alignment!

    I am so shocked at the lack of vision and foresight on this thread by the people that are the most interested in making Edmonton a world class and viable city!

    The LRT and its alignment are only THE MOST important thing in the planning of the city in its entire history and all that can be done is mistake after mistake in planning and overall vision.

    An alignment down 87th ave would be as colossal a mistake as the construction of South Edmonton Common or the 23Ave interchange delay. As big an error as the construction of the WEM in the first place that destroyed the shopping and nightlife vibrancy of the downtown.

    You only need to look at the alternative that the mayor is proposing to see how the alignment down 87th ave pales in comparison. Why run the LRT underground through single family home neighborhoods and build an new bridge over the North Sask. river (across beautiful parkland and mar the river valley! wheres the OUTRAGE!) to another underground portion in another empty neighbourhood that doesnt need it when you can do the same amount of tunneling down the western part of JASPER AVE!! where thousands of people already live in HIGH DESITY development!!! you could then connect to High Street/124th st, and the RAM museum redevelopment (if the Stelmach Government really means to FINALLY invest somewhere other that Calgary) and come above ground through Glenora on Stony plain road to westmount area, jasperplace highschool, and then on to the higher density development around The Miseracordia, WEM and louis Estates. you could have a spine of walkable high desity development and urban renewal from the west end to Corona station and 100,000 more people a day on the LRT going directly from WEM back to the downtown, which should be the nexus of LRT transit in the city! NOT THE U OF A AND GARNEAU AREA!!!

    You could connect the West LRT and the North LRT lines together and then have the connecting stations be Corona,Bay and Central allowing for there to fially be a revival of a redesigned Rice Howard Way that is re-landscaped and closed completely to traffic. connected to the closed and redone streets around Winston Churchill Square? (thus enlarging it after the "shrinking" that occured with the overdone coporate sponsored disaster that was the redesign) The West/North LRT could run along these stations,
    lewis estates, WEM, Miseracordia hospital, residential station on 156 st, Jasper Place Westmount, Glenora,( Museum, Highstreet, and two on Jasper Ave, one on 115th or so and one on 109th, corona, bay and central would be the connectors, and then north to the edmonton city center/ going all the way west to the churchill station would be going to far west, the wrong way before turning north! / , and Grant Mcewan,) and then above ground to Kingsway mall, victoria Composite, Royal Alex, NAIT, Gresbach, and then 97th st to northgate and castle downs. ()means the tunneled portion

    If the city implemented this line it would induce a modal shift where people could live along train lines of high desity and almost all of the major attractions of edmonton would be linked by lrt. The central nexus of the lines MUST be downtown. for all the talk of redevelopment and reinvigoration it seems that the transportaion department want to kill the downtown all over again! its unbelievable how gullable and shortsighted some of the comments are on this thread. the 87th allignment doesnt make the slightest bit of sense. compared to the lines mentioned above which is totally feasible and produces a much better cost to benefit ratio.

    you all should be thinking bigger. much bigger. if we want to see a working LRT system we have to fight to have the best planned and cost effective system. the fastest cheapest way has NEVER BEEN THE BEST WAY TO PLAN FOR ANYTHING! why on earth is it being touted as the only option that makes sense for the West LRT?!
    all the planning for the WEST-DOWNTOWN-NORTH line should be done at one time and built all at once.
    it will be a dark day in edmonton if the WEST LRT goes down 87th ave.
    3 stations for hundreds of millions to serve no one and then blight the parkland with a new bridge to get to the university and kill the downtown. no chance for high density development or walkability. and besides the most outrageous thing is you can take the 4 west ed mall from the university transit station and get there in 12 minutes!
    do any of you that are comenting even take the bus?! or know what an LRT/Subway system is meant to do for a city?
    god soooo MADDENING!

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHaggis View Post
    I am so shocked at the lack of vision and foresight on this thread by the people that are the most interested in making Edmonton a world class and viable city!
    Welcome to the Board IHaggis. You are welcome to your views (they don't match mine, but so be it), but you may want to make your criticisims more specific and focus them on alternatives. For example, you say you prefer the Mayors plan. As this thread is about posting city plans, please post a plan that shows the parts of the city you want to serve, as per our Mayor.

    As an example, it's easy to say "this plan is bad, becasue it goes through a neighborhood of single family homes", but bear in mind, that other plans might too. The SPR option floated by Mandel would actually divide a community of single family homes in two, whereas the 87 avenue option does not divide in this way. We do have a WLRT thread though, so you can go through it at your leisure and post in respect of any points that have been made re why 87 is good or bad. I am sure you can add plenty more original thought to the eight pages that many of us have already had the misfortune to contribute too (for example, no-one else so far has seen the obvious connection between Rice Howard Way and LRT)...

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=5835
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-05-2008 at 07:12 PM.

  85. #185

    Default New Concept for LRT

    Thinking about the South East and West LRT, I thought there may be an opportunity to try a new type of LRT by connecting the two into a single line.

    On the map linked below, the red line is the existing LRT extended to the airport and further northeast.

    The purple line shares the university and downtown tunnel with the red line and runs from West Edmonton to St Albert.

    The Blue line is the new concept LRT. It could be the same high platform rolling stock as the current system (certainly cheaper for maintenance), but it could also be low-floor trams, easier to use, and better integrated into neighbourhoods.

    http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...bd4e7fd85&z=10

    In my proposal, the new concept LRT would start at Millwoods Town Centre, where there would be a large bus exchange and park and ride. The LRT would run on it's own right-of-way at grade crossing 28 Avenue and then running north in the centre of 66 Street to a station around 31 Avenue (Youville is my working name). The line would continue north along the centre of 66 Street to a neighbourhood station at 38 Avenue. From here, it continues north of 66 Street, which magically changes to 75 Street to a station at Roper Road (or maybe just north of the Whitemud Freeway where a large park and ride could be built with quick access off the freeway), and Millgate Transit Centre would be relocated to the station.

    The line would leave 75 Street at Wagner Road and then run through private property (mainly surface parking for industries currently), crossing Arglye Road around 83 Street to a station just west of 83 Street (Argyle Station).

    Probably a bit controversial, but the line would then cut through the south end of Mill Creek Park, destroying a few baseball diamonds in the process, to access the old railway right-of-way to a station at 99 Street, just north of 68 Avenue.

    From here, the line would run up the east side of the CPR railyards, crossing over at some point before Old Scona to a station on the site of the old CPR Station (the station building is still there but used as a restaurant now I beleive).

    The line would continue along the CPR right-of-way, crossing Whyte Avenue and 104 Street at grade to a station at 108 Street (Varsity Staiton). This would provide access to University campus with a short walk, or a people mover concept could be implemented if needed. It woudl also serve the residential area just south of the High Level Bridge.

    The line would then be single track through the existing tunnel, then double track on the outside of the High Level Bridge (the bridge can handle three tracks) to a surface station at Grandin (connected to the underground Station via the existing pedway system). This woud be an interchange station with the deep-level lines.

    Just north of here, the line would transition to run along the centre of 109 Street with simple side-platform station just north of Jasper Avenue. Traffic segregated on street running would continue up 109 Street, east on 104 Avenue to a simple side-platform station at Gran MacEwan. The street stations would probably have staggered platofrms to reduce width in the road right-of-way.

    The line would then turn north on 105 Street and could connect with the existing NLRT tracks - to a station at 105 Avenue that would interchange with the existing NLRT station (well, not existing yet I suppose).

    The line would then run along either 106 Avenue or 105 Avenue with potential stations at 109 Street and 117 Street. Bypassing the Cemetery (I've shown it dipping south and then north on the old Railway alignment) the line will run on it's own right-of way along the centre of 107 Avenue with stations at 142 Street (andy maybe around the Groat Road).

    The line now turns south on 149 Street to use the existing green space right-of-way on the west side of the street and then west on 100 Avenue - again on an existing right-of-way to Jasper Place Station at 156 Street. The existing J Transit Centre would be relocated to better serve the station.

    From here, south on 163 Street in the centre of the roadway to a station at 95 Avenue, then along 87 Avenue in the centre of the roadway to serve the same stations as those proposed for the West End Line via University (which can only happen if the trams are of the same technology. If joining is not possible, the new line could run down 178 Street instead and maintain it's separation from the Purple Line (west end line via the University).

    No idea of cost, but at 22km, and $100 million per kilometre, around $2,200 million (but that includes the LRT cars right?).

    Advantage are: it serves new areas, provides tram links in the downtown, avoids costly river valley crossing, avoids tunnels, will not overcrowd the existing tunnel as trams will run on a separate alignment, connects Old Scona to downtown.
    Last edited by lightrail; 02-12-2008 at 03:14 PM.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  86. #186
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?

  87. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?
    Because it already has two LRT stations, great bus connections, easy walking to everything, and is dense even without having more. In other words - other places need it much more.

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?



  89. #189

    Default

    I'll add on that the west LRT is shown to go through the ravine, but I also have a different idea for 102 ave...

  90. #190
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?
    Because it already has two LRT stations, great bus connections, easy walking to everything, and is dense even without having more. In other words - other places need it much more.
    two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?

  91. #191
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?
    [images above]
    yes, I like this much better. maybe add a general hospital to grandin option so from the west you can go on either one of two trains--one going downtown and the other going to the U and south to airport.
    Last edited by grish; 02-12-2008 at 05:09 PM.

  92. #192
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    444

    Default

    I'd really like to see another line run from Health Sciences, down Whyte, to the proposed Bonnie Doon station. Creates a full circle system between Jasper and Whyte.
    Last edited by bicycles; 02-12-2008 at 03:58 PM.

  93. #193

    Default

    can you please not quote the images... makes the thread hard to read... (you can edit your posts to remove them... would be great thanks)

  94. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?
    It is called Corona, I used it when I lived in Oliver.

  95. #195

    Default

    ^^I agree, the only station that I think is missing is a Strathcona one. A cricular line using Japser as it's northern leg and Whyte as it's souther leg would allow all other lines to join up without all having to intersect downtown.

    Of coure we on C2E have the luxury of not taking cost or engineering into consideration.

  96. #196
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by debos View Post
    ^^I agree, the only station that I think is missing is a Strathcona one. A cricular line using Japser as it's northern leg and Whyte as it's souther leg would allow all other lines to join up without all having to intersect downtown.

    Of coure we on C2E have the luxury of not taking cost or engineering into consideration.
    I wouldn't be devestated it they ran it above ground straight down Whyte and made that more of a walking street (at least from 109th to Gateway).

  97. #197

    Default

    ^ what if instead of going down whyte ave, one direction of the LRT went down 83 ave, and the other direction went down 81 ave? (at least through ~112st-99st)

  98. #198
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?
    It is called Corona, I used it when I lived in Oliver.
    People living on 121 street would walk 13 blocks to get to a stop? Hardly qualifies as an "Oliver" stop.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    People living on 121 street would walk 13 blocks to get to a stop? Hardly qualifies as an "Oliver" stop.
    That's 13 blocks closer than most Edmonton neighborhoods, and without question, a better served area for buses which run regularly up Jasper and 104. When all the city is within 13 blocks - then yes, it will be a priority, but until then, it rates the same as elsewhere. The key is getting the destination nodes linked like WEM first.

  100. #200
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ what if instead of going down whyte ave, one direction of the LRT went down 83 ave, and the other direction went down 81 ave? (at least through ~112st-99st)
    I supposed that would work, but if memory serves me correct, aren't those both very narrow streets lined with apartments? Not sure how many people would be up for an above ground LRT running down there already narrow street.

    not to mention the type of people that are going to be stumbling around and yelling right outside your balcony at 1 am on weekends.
    Last edited by bicycles; 02-12-2008 at 05:27 PM.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •