View Poll Results: !

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

    0 0%
  • ?

    0 0%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 498

Thread: Post your ideal LRT system

  1. #201
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    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.
    Yeah, I live on Jasper 118 and I either take the bus to Corona (in bad weather or at night) or walk any other time, which is a bit of a lengthy walk. With a ton of new condos going up around here (Serenity on the south side of Jasper 118 plus a few more) I think it would make sense to run it all the way down Jasper, as in Medwards proposal.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  2. #202
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    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.
    it still deserves LRT service--an actual one, not an imaginary "close enough" station.

  3. #203
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Don't we have enough threads on visionary LRT lines? Don't get me wrong, I love to draw maps and pretend to be a planner as much as the next guy (and I'm not being condescending here, I really do this too), but we're just repeating ourselves and each other from previous threads now.

  4. #204

    Default

    I see no problem in having another discussion. This is a discussion forum. Things will get discussed repeatedly.

  5. #205
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    I guess, it's just that it's like deja vu...all over again.

  6. #206
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    This wouldn't be so repetitive if we would stick to discussing the merits of the proposal, not the value of LRT in oliver, which, while valuable, has come up in every LRT thread.

    So, on topic, I like this Millwoods route a lot., assuming that the old rail ROW on 68 ave actually exists other than in google maps. That line has been gone for longer than I've been alive.

    I don't like the shimmy to meet up with NLRT. I know it serves a purpose, but it's very unweildy.

  7. #207

    Default

    grish, i'd go street-level tram through oliver past the museum out to jasper gates and the west.

    but everyone tells me that is too expensive and wouldn't get support. i'd vote for it.

    and medwards, you've convinced me I want to fill that ravine to the brim with concrete or maybe even land mines just so people will stop trying to ram freeways or LRTs through there or any other crazy ideas that would ruin a great thing.

    lightrail, i love the 87th west LRT in purple. I would put another station at 142 though, and I'd call it "Nimby Station" just to be magnanimous. For the SE LRT however, I prefer medwards' alignment down Connors Road.

    Also, when I look at the discussions on here vs places I've actually visited with really well developed metros, etc..there is too much emphasis on trying to get all the trains through one tunnel. It is okay to transfer at designated stations. The trains just have to cross at one point and people can switch. It only takes a second and you're on your way again, and it works way better than people realize. It is not like waiting 20 minutes for a bus transfer.
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  8. #208

    Default

    the 68 ave ROW is a linear park and does still exist.

  9. #209
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    I think the CPR railyards/68 Avenue LRT looks great, going to Mill Woods. One question though, could the LRT travel along the High Level Bridge? I think there would have to be a lot of work to accommodate two lanes of LRT.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  10. #210
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    in medwards map, if the green line were to go on 99 street to whyte before turning east to bonnie doon you get a stop close enough to the fun part of whyte and also provide access to some of the higher density areas there. there are plenty of low, medium, and even high rise buildings in the vicinity with a continual trend to build more. the rest of the green line can go as shown.

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think the CPR railyards/68 Avenue LRT looks great, going to Mill Woods. One question though, could the LRT travel along the High Level Bridge? I think there would have to be a lot of work to accommodate two lanes of LRT.
    The High Level Bridge is designed for three tracks. In the old days, when the bridge opened, there used to be two streetcar tracks and a single mainline CPR track. So if it can take three tracks, it surely can take 2 - the only reservation I have is speed limits on the bridge for trains - can the trams run fast enough to make it worthwhile.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post

    I don't like the shimmy to meet up with NLRT. I know it serves a purpose, but it's very unweildy.
    I agree it looks odd, but I think it works better as there is a need to make a transfer connection to the NLRT line there. Also, allows through running from the NLRT to the SELRT, providing route flexibility or stock transfer.

    It's just a concept.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  13. #213
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Medwards, just curious, is there a more detailed description of the above map you posted? I think yours is the best out of the proposed ones I've seen (minus no route along Whyte, just draw a nice little line branching of at University Ave then straight down Whyte to Bonnie Doon) and I'm interested in learning more. Was it posted/discussed before?
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  14. #214
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    445

    Default

    beautiful

    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  15. #215
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ do you think it is better to use the existing rail ROW through old strathcona for Whyte LRT? Cross the existing LRT bridge and turn East in a tunnel to meet the rail currently used by street car. That might be significant elevation, but it could place a stop near Sask Drive and the high rises there with walking access to 109 street as well as the river valley and the Kinsman.

    This line could also be accessed from south: after University stop, the line exits and heads east.

  16. #216

    Default

    bicycles,

    The line you added to my map, I really envision more as a Toronto like Streetcar Tram

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bicycles View Post
    beautiful

    My problem with this map is the three-way junction under Jasper Avenue. I think you'll find t5his is impossible, or if it is possible, prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that such a junction would be an operational nightmare; any delay there would cause a ripple effect through the entire network.

    The point of the alignment I proposed at the start of the thread was to avoid this by using the high level then running on the streets through the west side of downtown, connecting with the existing network at MacEwan (and then probably only for stock transfer reasons or to allow light trains to reach the depot).

    I think any plan that shows trains running west under Jasper or requires a junction east of Central Station are a no-go. Way too costly for the return, when there are other options available.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  18. #218
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Here's a NEW CONCEPT! BUILD THE DAMN THING! Stop STUDYING! BUILD IT!
    BobinEdmonton

  19. #219

    Default

    It costs 1 cent in ink to draw a line on a map.

    Bob, do you have $5 Billion just lying around to pay for it? Or would you rather that our property taxes are raised 50% to fund it?? Do you realize that we are in a recession and even cities are finding it hard to get financing from banks or get any money from the Province or the Feds? Do you think Ottawa cares what's happening with Edmonton's transit plans when we don't have a functioning government?

    Find the money first before you start demanding.

  20. #220

    Default

    5 Billion now? and your cost estimates for drawing in MS Visio are wrong. No trees or ink were harmed in my operation, unless someone printed it off. Wont someone think of the trees?
    Last edited by Medwards; 06-12-2008 at 09:25 AM.

  21. #221

    Default

    ^ Sorry, one cent of electical power.

  22. #222

  23. #223
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    PRT, don't toss $5 Billion numbers to scare people. It may be that or more or less. No one knows. But then we don't know what sort of funding will be available even 1/2 year from now. lets stick with what we know.

  24. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    PRT, don't toss $5 Billion numbers to scare people. It may be that or more or less. No one knows. But then we don't know what sort of funding will be available even 1/2 year from now. lets stick with what we know.
    Here's my estimate of cost for the SELRT based on $100 per kilometre average cost for the line construction, signalling, stations and power, etc.

    1. From NLRT connection at 105 Street just north of 104 Aven, street running in own right-of-way with traffic signals to control trains/traffic - at grade to just south of Jasper - 1.4km = $140 million

    2. From just south of jasper, transition across private land at grade to the old CPR right of way, 72 metres = $7 million plus property acquisition, lets say for vacant land $1 million as I expect city could resell unneeded portion later

    3. From the transition, over the high level bridge to Old Scona station, at grade, grade level crossing including Whyte Avenue, 3.3km or $330 million

    4. Easement right-of-way from Old Scona Station to 99 Street, tunnel or bridge structure needed to transition LRT across CPR rail yards. 1.7km = $170 million, plus tunnel cost maybe another $100 million, easements from CPR (no idea of $), but lets say another $50 million.

    5. 99 street to Argyle Road, city owned right-of-way, 2.3 km = $230 million. Bridge structure over mill creek, another $10 million.

    6. Argle across private proeprty to park on Wagner Road. 240 metres = $2 million. Tunnel to go under single railway tracks, around $20 million, property acquisition, around $1 million.

    7. Wagner Road to Roper Road, 1.5 km = $150 million. Tunnel to transition trains from Wagner Road to centre of 75 street, probably around $50 million. Some land acquisition for the turn radius from Wagner to 75 street, another $1 million

    8. Roper Road to Millwoods Town Centre, 4.5 km = $450 million. All in public right-of-way and at grade.

    So the total for construction is around $1,700 million

    LRT trains - three car trains running every 6 minutes in the peak from MacEwan to Millwoods Town Centre, a distance of 15km, a return trip time, including recovery, of 60 minutes (actually around 26-28 minutes each way), so 10 trains for peak hour use, with three-cars per train, so 30 cars initially, plus 10 per cent spares, means 33 cars needed. At $4 million per car, the LRT vehicle costs will be an additional $132 million (add another 44 million for 4-car trains). So the total cost will be around $1,900 million.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  25. #225

    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?


    This is a perfect LRT system for Edmonton.
    A cross pattern serving all quadrants of the city.

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    PRT, don't toss $5 Billion numbers to scare people. It may be that or more or less. No one knows. But then we don't know what sort of funding will be available even 1/2 year from now. lets stick with what we know.

    I am not the one who tossed the $5 Billion number on the table. That was the HST study that did including lines to St. Albert, Lewis Estates and Beaumont. It is the Transportation Planning Department who is scaring me with these massive numbers with no source of funding. And from such examples as the $300M/km Nait LRT line I cannot see that any of they other routes will come in on budget.

  27. #227

    Default

    I hate to admit it, but LRT to the airport makes no sense when other areas need the service more readily. The length of the line from Century Park to the airport would be about 12.5km, so in 2008 dollars, we're talking around $1,200 million plus. Another drawback is ridership would be low, so train frequency would have to be lower - around every 20 minutes or less. Also, the airport line would only really need a single car train, but because these trains will serve points between Century Park and the other end of the line, full length trains would have to be run; this of course would then result in wasted capacity south of Century Park.

    I think the best and immediate solution is to run an express bus from Century Park to the Airport, using highway style coaches similar to those used on some BC Transit and Translink long-distance express bus services. The bus would be an extension of the LRT (LRT Bus) and timed to connect with certain trains. In cooperation with the airport authority, check-in could be set up in downtown station (Central or Churchill) and airport staff to guide travellers onto the correct train to Century Park and then onto the connecting bus.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  28. #228

    Default

    Sorry Lightrail, by your very name that admission must have hurt.

    You did make some important points in the epitaph though. The issue of the train length was very relevant and I hadn't thought about that point before. Your alternate recommendations are quite sound.

  29. #229
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default bus from centry park

    I said it before....all we really need is a bus from heritage/century park to yeg every hour or so....Until demand increases. It wouldnt be that expensive....lets just do it!

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    I have to agree with lightrail and - I know, it's a sign of the apocalypse - Edmonton PRT. Let's secure the ROWs to the airport for sure, but focus our construction and expansion priorities on the established areas of the city that need LRT service 15 years ago. Run some coaches between YEG and Century Park for the time being until the capacity is such that LRT can be justified.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  31. #231
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,253

    Default

    One day the airport will need LRT, so planning should start now... but in the meantime, I like the idea of using coach buses every 30 minutes (during the day, say 7am-6pm if demand warrants 30 minute service) and every hour after that.

  32. #232

    Default

    I remember hearing that an agreement might be reached with Leduc County this spring (next regional planning meeting) on ETS busses running service to YEG. Hopefully it is part of a larger move towards a regional transit authority.

    LRT or Tram service down Whyte deserves some more attention IMO. I don't think it needs to run along the ave though, if an LRT line intersect with whyte somewhere near 104 or 105st that would suffice as Strathcona station.n

    Medwards, what if you ran your green line south along the existing LRT bridge then head south east along the tram ROW with a station at Sask. Drive and at 104st and 83ave ish. Then continue that line east along whyte ave (with a stop at Mill Creek) and back to your allingment at Bonnie Doon? This way we could also avoid the triple line junction under Jasper Ave and incorporate Old Strathcona. What do you think?
    Last edited by debos; 09-12-2008 at 01:54 PM.

  33. #233
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    debos - ets does not need permission to run a bus from the city of edmonton along a provincial highway to YEG. It just needs EIA approval to stop on property. Which by the way the Airport authority has been asking for a service for a while now. It currently runs its own special service from various points in the city to YEG (minivans) for its staff. Many of its staff do not drive (service sector store clerks, coffee shops and services in the airport), the authority now paids to shuttle staff in and out (free for staff), the cost is added to the operating cost of the airport which is ofset by the AIF. So approval from YEG is an almost certainty. Why wait til spring...just do it!!! You could charge a bit more than a normal fare (maybe $5). I think this is very reasonable still.
    Last edited by Solaris; 15-12-2008 at 07:08 PM.

  34. #234
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by debos View Post
    I remember hearing that an agreement might be reached with Leduc County this spring (next regional planning meeting) on ETS busses running service to YEG. Hopefully it is part of a larger move towards a regional transit authority.

    LRT or Tram service down Whyte deserves some more attention IMO. I don't think it needs to run along the ave though, if an LRT line intersect with whyte somewhere near 104 or 105st that would suffice as Strathcona station.n

    Medwards, what if you ran your green line south along the existing LRT bridge then head south east along the tram ROW with a station at Sask. Drive and at 104st and 83ave ish. Then continue that line east along whyte ave (with a stop at Mill Creek) and back to your allingment at Bonnie Doon? This way we could also avoid the triple line junction under Jasper Ave and incorporate Old Strathcona. What do you think?
    Using the exising LRT would be horribly expensive. It's very deep and it's going the wrong way at the portal- SW when going your way need SE.

    However, if we get off the idea that every transfer needs to be a simple cross-platform deal then we can use the Streetcar ROW (old CN) and the high level bridge, and just connect via existing pedestrian tunnels at Grandin station.

    That line could Could continue south on various Rail ROWs or existin wide roads to mill woods. I think an actual tram on whyte ave could be an alternative way to connect bonney doon. There seems to be a lot if desire here to have MWLRT go to bonney doon, but I think that it's unnecessary for a couple reasons. First, it would cost way more, and bonney doon is already well connected to downtown. Other than occasions where a bridge is closed for repairs ther are very few stops between ther and down town. and now that we're almost done refurbishng bridges for a couple decades, why bother?

  35. #235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    debos - ets does not need permission to run a bus from the city of edmonton along a provincial highway to YEG. It just needs EIA approval to stop on property. Which by the way the Airport authority has been asking for a service for a while now. It currently runs its own special service from various points in the city to YEG (minivans) for its staff. Many of its staff do not drive (service sector store clerks, coffee shops and services in the airport), the authority now paids to shuttle staff in and out (free for staff), the cost is added to the operating cost of the airport which is ofset by the AIF. So approval from YEG is an almost certainty. Why wait til spring...just do it!!! You could charge a bit more than a normal fare (maybe $5). I think this is very reasonable still.
    I don't know how it works in Alberta, but in BC the BC Transit Act allows public transit vehicles to serve any destination - airports are not considered private property.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  36. #236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    One thing I find is that planners forget 2/4 neighbourhoods that need LRT the most. They do downtown and u of a - but for get Strathcona and Oliver - those areas really should get some LRT lovin' IMO.
    ----

  37. #237
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default my LRT Concept

    This is my concept for the LRT - my point was to hit most of the urban neighbourhoods and the big suburban attractions.

    Anyways - a vision for 2030:



    then the complete vision:



    okay - so green is complete, red is under construction, and purp is proposed/vision

    comments please - hope you like.
    ----

  38. #238
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    i think Millwoods resident would be quite angry at your 2030 vision.

    Nait->West Ed->Millwoods is the build order that needs to be done. hell do 2 at a time if possible.

  39. #239
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    i think Millwoods resident would be quite angry at your 2030 vision.

    Nait->West Ed->Millwoods is the build order that needs to be done. hell do 2 at a time if possible.
    i was just bein realistic by the line starting but not complete - esp. if you look at the past 30 yrs.
    ----

  40. #240
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    I like the idea of LRT for Whyte Avenue, which I could see being extended from the Health Sciences Station, intersecting with Bonnie Doon and continuing to Sherwood Park. Mind you, I would make Mill Woods and West Edmonton the top priority. Hopefully these can be complete by 2020.

    I'm not sure about LRT along Anthony Henday Drive, and the line along 137 Avenue. Perhaps express bus service could work just as good (e.g., SEC-Windermere-Lewis Estates).
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  41. #241
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I like the idea of LRT for Whyte Avenue, which I could see being extended from the Health Sciences Station, intersecting with Bonnie Doon and continuing to Sherwood Park. Mind you, I would make Mill Woods and West Edmonton the top priority. Hopefully these can be complete by 2020.

    I'm not sure about LRT along Anthony Henday Drive, and the line along 137 Avenue. Perhaps express bus service could work just as good (e.g., SEC-Windermere-Lewis Estates).
    I'd much rather Oliver and Old sCona get lrt than WEM or MW. Now granted I see all of them getting it , but the ones i said i'd want first.
    ----

  42. #242
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    Old Strathcona may have about 30,000 people, compared to about 100,000 people for Mill Woods. There are a lot of buses from downtown that head out to Mill Woods.

    If the LRT is built around Strathcona, I think stops around 109 Street, 104/105 Street and 99 Street would be the way to go. Likewise, I think LRT going through Oliver could have one stop around 116 Street, and possibly one stop at 111/112 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  43. #243
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Old Strathcona may have about 30,000 people, compared to about 100,000 people for Mill Woods. There are a lot of buses from downtown that head out to Mill Woods.

    If the LRT is built around Strathcona, I think stops around 109 Street, 104/105 Street and 99 Street would be the way to go. Likewise, I think LRT going through Oliver could have one stop around 116 Street, and possibly one stop at 111/112 Street.
    Good idea. Remember Mill Woods is more car friendly where people in OS tend to take transit.
    ----

  44. #244
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ but our goal is to get people out of their cars. Take the # 8 bus from the TC during rush hour and then try and say Old scona needs lrt more.

  45. #245
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^but we are sure to get revenue to places that already do use it.
    ----

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    I'd much rather Oliver and Old sCona get lrt than WEM or MW.
    Oliver has LRT - Corona station and Grandin. Grant MacEwan station will also be close. It is already one of the most LRT served areas of the city, and one of the best transit served with numerous buses (not to mention only being a short walk from downtown).

    Providing OldScona a station could detract from downtown core. We need more development in the empty lots downtown first, not in an already build up Scona / Whyte. In saying that, if High Level is used to Millwoods, it would make sense to have a Scona station, but it is not a route priority for now, just a possible add on.

    NAIT / WEM / Millwoods. They are the priorities. How we get there is less important than getting there ASAP, too many people in Millwoods and around WEM have been waiting too long - overnight, the bus system would be revolutionized / simplified by these LRT routes. Bus traffic has proven these routes will be very popular, and WEM which is a tourist hub, a destination that the whole city goes to (at least, any family with kids) and a major employment hub is a no brainer.
    Last edited by moahunter; 01-01-2009 at 09:56 PM.

  47. #247
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    I'd much rather Oliver and Old sCona get lrt than WEM or MW.
    Oliver has LRT - Corona station and Grandin. Grant MacEwan station will also be close. It is already one of the most LRT served areas of the city, and one of the best transit served with numerous buses (not to mention only being a short walk from downtown).

    Providing OldScona a station could detract from downtown core. We need more development in the empty lots downtown first, not in an already build up Scona / Whyte.

    NAIT / WEM / Millwoods. They are the priorities. How we get there is less important than getting there ASAP, too many people in Millwoods and around WEM have been waiting too long - overnight, the bus system would be revolutionized / simplified by these LRT routes.
    Sure Grandin Station is in Oliver, CORONA isn't. Anyways - do you really think someone living on 124 or 117 or something thinks that their neighbourhood is well served by LRT. a lot of the buses that go through the area also dont stop in oliver.

    I don't see how Whyte Ave stations will detract from Downtown. It is like saying devleopming the alberta avenue area will detract from the 104 st progressing - it won't it is just another development.

    NAIT/WEM/ Mill woods are priorities but I think along the routes definitely Old Strathcona area and Oliver need stations.
    ----

  48. #248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Sure Grandin Station is in Oliver, CORONA isn't.
    When I lived in Oliver, I used Corona station, it is within blocks of a large chunk of it. As to people around 124 - this area is already dense - so clearly LRT wasn't needed to acheive that goal. And, yes, I know a number of people who bus up 104 and Jasper avenue to downtown from 124 - they work fine, far easier than busing from most parts of the city. LRT to 124 would be nice, but it is low on the priority list IMO, and would be horribly expensive or intrusive due to the density already there and the traffic issues (same with Whyte).
    Last edited by moahunter; 01-01-2009 at 10:03 PM.

  49. #249
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Sure Grandin Station is in Oliver, CORONA isn't.
    When I lived in Oliver, I used Corona station, it is within blocks of a large chunk of it. As to people around 124 - this area is already dense - so clearly LRT wasn't needed to acheive that goal. And, yes, I know a number of people who bus up 104 and Jasper avenue to downtown from 124 - they work fine, far easier than busing from most parts of the city. LRT to 124 would be nice, but it is low on the priority list IMO, and would be horribly expensive or intrusive due to the density already there and the traffic issues (same with Whyte).
    Chill. Anyways, I read this post of you using Corona station, anyways while that is fine and it still can be accessed from the people in Oliver - it isn't that great honestly. 117-125 needs stations! And just because an area is developed doesn't mean it can't or should not have LRT I don't get where you have that idea. I am just sure the downtown would have developed without a LRT - although I am glad it is there. If people want to care about central neighbourhoods - they gotta put some more money into them - and that would mean underground lines. If you cared to do it downtown - do it there. whyte/83 could have an underground line as jasper west part. LRT on jasper west area would help put more cool shops there. anyways, i think it would be fine having oliver get stations for a line to WEM as for whyte for mill woods line.
    ----

  50. #250

    Default

    The concern is that last time the city went underground it took forever to dig out of it. It is hugely expensive - and may cause a backlash against LRT, especially from taxpayers out in neighborhoods like Millwoods, Callingwood, or Castledowns, patiently waiting for their part of the city to get even a little bit of love.

    If Oliver and Strathcona can be served more for a reasonable cost as part of getting the lines out to more parts of the city, then fine. But, I'm not sure it is possible. It may be better, as other threads have discussed, to look at some other alternative for these dense areas (like a streetcar).

  51. #251
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The concern is that last time the city went underground it took forever to dig out of it. It is hugely expensive - and may cause a backlash against LRT, especially from taxpayers out in neighborhoods like Millwoods, Callingwood, or Castledowns, patiently waiting for their part of the city to get even a little bit of love.

    If Oliver and Strathcona can be served more for a reasonable cost as part of getting the lines out to more parts of the city, then fine. But, I'm not sure it is possible. It may be better, as other threads have discussed, to look at some other alternative for these dense areas (like a streetcar).
    NEW IDEA!

    What if the Whyte Ave and Oliver legs were ground and were in the middle of the street - tons of cities do that and it makes the street not look barren. People can cross at the intersections and the station is right there with easy access. I heard whyte and jasper were too wide so this would help.
    ----

  52. #252
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    hopefully not in the middle of whyte ave. that would be a disaster. maybe one of the smaller aves north or south of whyte. But i still dont think Whyte needs an lrt going along the whole length. It is extremely walkable so just have one station intersect north south in the middle somewhere is all that is needed

  53. #253
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    hopefully not in the middle of whyte ave. that would be a disaster. maybe one of the smaller aves north or south of whyte. But i still dont think Whyte needs an lrt going along the whole length. It is extremely walkable so just have one station intersect north south in the middle somewhere is all that is needed
    That is true.
    I was also thinking 83 Avenue - it would help clean some of the stuff there - sometimes at night it looks dangerous so that would help stop that.
    ----

  54. #254
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    As to people around 124 - this area is already dense - so clearly LRT wasn't needed to acheive that goal.
    This statement assumes that the only goal of LRT is to increase density. While encouraging increased density can and should be one of the goals of LRT, it is not the only one and should not override the idea of servicing existing high density neighborhoods.

    Also remember that Jasper Ave. west of downtown and 124 St. aren't just large residential areas, but also large employment nodes. LRT (or other mass transit) would not just be to service residents there, but would also enable easier access to these employment nodes by residents living elsewhere.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  55. #255
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default Realistic LRT Plan

    This is my LRT Concept. I think it is the most affordable and realistic. The new line would use the downtown stations and cross over the high level. The portal would be just north of the bridge and grandin station would become a two level station. BRT would provide service to WEM. My (strong) opinion is that LRT service should be provided to YEG asap. Although I am a stonch supporter of YEG, its location is a downside. To ameliorate the distance, rapid transit is essential.

    Last edited by Jasper; 02-01-2009 at 01:07 PM.

  56. #256
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Still think you need at least ONE lrt station in Strathcona.
    Last edited by Medwards; 02-01-2009 at 11:16 AM. Reason: removing unneeded quote
    ----

  57. #257
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I do believe Whyte is in Strathcona. I like the plan, but not the west end BRT option.

  58. #258
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    91

    Default

    BRT from South Campus right? Your linear diagram shows it's from Health Sciences.

  59. #259
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Not bad, but you're missing some stations on the way to St Albert, and I think to use the high level with the existing downtown tunnel you would need to connect just that side of corona and be offset a half block east of grandin, unless you are proposing a really tight pair of curves to allign the two, right in the middle of the very busy and popular ezio farone park.

    Personally is anything is suited to BRT it's airport service. The distance is do grat that 'normal' LRT vehicles don't make sense (too slow) and the long distance with relatively few passengers would drasically increase operating costs per passenger.

  60. #260
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I do believe Whyte is in Strathcona. I like the plan, but not the west end BRT option.
    Yeah I know - ***** me I did not see that.
    ----

  61. #261
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,536

    Default

    nice plan....dont know how "realistic" it is with the BRT portion though.

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post

    Personally is anything is suited to BRT it's airport service. The distance is do grat that 'normal' LRT vehicles don't make sense (too slow) and the long distance with relatively few passengers would drasically increase operating costs per passenger.
    I'd bet the time the LRT saves in the city going from 'century park to downtown vs the car' would be equal to the time it loses going from 'century park to airport vs the car'. The LRT should go to the airport, but not at the cost of getting LRT to other areas of the city first or at the same time. LRT to the airport should be the first regional transportation projected funded by our new regional governance, or if that fails, it should be a Ab gov / EIA / COE / leduc/leduc county partnership. It should not be taken on solely by the city by any means, and should not come from money that would be used for other transporation projects already planned.

  63. #263
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post

    Personally is anything is suited to BRT it's airport service. The distance is do grat that 'normal' LRT vehicles don't make sense (too slow) and the long distance with relatively few passengers would drasically increase operating costs per passenger.
    I'd bet the time the LRT saves in the city going from 'century park to downtown vs the car' would be equal to the time it loses going from 'century park to airport vs the car'. The LRT should go to the airport, but not at the cost of getting LRT to other areas of the city first or at the same time. LRT to the airport should be the first regional transportation projected funded by our new regional governance, or if that fails, it should be a Ab gov / EIA / COE / leduc/leduc county partnership. It should not be taken on solely by the city by any means, and should not come from money that would be used for other transporation projects already planned.
    True, except maybe not the first project. The reason I'm opposed to the LRT as shown on this realistic map ist htat t doesn't accoint for the fact that ridership south of century park is considerably less than the rest of the system. I would welcome an express LRT that could go to the airport with different vehicles that could be faster, more comfortable and better suited to carry luggage than what we have, but with smaller trains and less frequent during the day.

    Airport traffic could easily be managed with 15 or 20 minute frequency at peak times, and 30 minute most of the time, so a single track would be enough for most of the way and deisel operation would be reasonable and cost effective, although the option of through routing all the way downtown is lost, presuming that reversing trains somewhere downtown would be practical with 2 frequent routes coming through.

  64. #264
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    can someone explain to me the dual thing?
    ----

  65. #265
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fanfare View Post
    BRT from South Campus right? Your linear diagram shows it's from Health Sciences.
    Good catch.. fixed
    Last edited by Jasper; 02-01-2009 at 01:10 PM.

  66. #266
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I do believe Whyte is in Strathcona. I like the plan, but not the west end BRT option.
    I agree west end does need more than BRT. if this is the final system then that's the biggest flaw in this plan.


    There is a shown whyte ave station, but from the map it loks to me to be at about 99st, which is great but considering the potential rider west of there I think that a second strathcona station would be justified. I would add another station at 104st(remember, E-W is the long blocks on the south side) so that a station would be within easy walking distance of the farmers market, fringe, the main whyte ave shoppong/entertainment district as well as many of the highrises along saskatchewan drive.

  67. #267
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    can someone explain to me the dual thing?
    Well, two planners face off with pistols at 20 paces, and whoever survives gets their plan built.

  68. #268
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Realisticly, in looking at Google earth, I dont think it would be possible to share the Grandin Station. Probably would make more sense for the new line to start heading underground along the existing rail ROW and hook up with the existing line between the corona and grandin stations. As I understand the existing line runs under 110 street. For the new line to hook up with the granding station would mean tunnelling under existing residential towers

  69. #269
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    okay so i made a new map


    green is complete, red is u/c, and pink is prop/vis

    anyways the area in old strathcona that starts at university and then goes down to mill woods, well the 87th station and whyte station follow right beside the trolley line.

    the leg of 118 avenue is in the middle of the road, as is west jasper. the stations on SPR should help revitalize it i think.
    ----

  70. #270
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    can someone explain to me the dual thing?
    Well, two planners face off with pistols at 20 paces, and whoever survives gets their plan built.
    Seriously. I really don't get it :S.
    ----

  71. #271
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    I do believe Whyte is in Strathcona. I like the plan, but not the west end BRT option.
    I agree west end does need more than BRT. if this is the final system then that's the biggest flaw in this plan.


    There is a shown whyte ave station, but from the map it loks to me to be at about 99st, which is great but considering the potential rider west of there I think that a second strathcona station would be justified. I would add another station at 104st(remember, E-W is the long blocks on the south side) so that a station would be within easy walking distance of the farmers market, fringe, the main whyte ave shoppong/entertainment district as well as many of the highrises along saskatchewan drive.
    The map is not intended to be to scale. I would think the best was to get from the high level would be along the existing R/W to east of 103rd street with a station just north of whyte. Probably the most complicated leg would be between this station and Bonnie Doon. I would hate to get rid of the trees east of 99th. There would be a significant amount of disturbance

  72. #272
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    can someone explain to me the dual thing?
    Well, two planners face off with pistols at 20 paces, and whoever survives gets their plan built.
    Seriously. I really don't get it :S.
    Sorry, but I don't know what dual thing you're referring to. Clarify and I'll try to help.

  73. #273
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Slight change... (63 ave and 91 street (velodrome - new rec centre))

    Last edited by Jasper; 02-01-2009 at 03:54 PM.

  74. #274
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    not bad i still dont get the dual thing. what i am meaning is the two lines dark grey and light grey.they overlap at central.
    ----

  75. #275
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    This may imply redundancy, but would it be possible to extend the 110 Street line north and east along 105/106 Avenue, and have it meet at Grant MacEwan station, giving downtown a circle loop? This would add to the value of the properties in Oliver.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  76. #276
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    I could imagine a line to strathcona built east, but it would mean reconstruction south of the Menzies bridge. Have the tunnel go under the old CPR tracks/streetcar line, having it come above ground at around 103/104 Street. The line could then continue east or south.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 02-01-2009 at 01:59 PM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  77. #277

    Default

    its a bit too much I think

  78. #278
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    its a bit too much I think
    in what way would you say mr?
    ----

  79. #279

    Default

    137 ave line, 23 ave line, 2 lines going to millwoods, 111 ave line, line going to fort edmonton park, but no where else? 2 lines going to St albert... Is all that really needed?

  80. #280
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    The idea of my plan was to make use the existing infrastructure with the high level bridge, and underground portion of the existing lrt line downtown. The two lines side by side downtown just shows that the two lines use the same tracks but are different lines. make sense?

  81. #281

    Default

    I think you could have another station between Strathcona and Grandin. The area is quite dense.... I would put a station right before it tunnels under that building before going on the the high level on the southside.

  82. #282
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    137 ave line, 23 ave line, 2 lines going to millwoods, 111 ave line, line going to fort edmonton park, but no where else? 2 lines going to St albert... Is all that really needed?
    Keep in mind I don't see this achieved by 2030 or 2060, but in long term. Anyways, Fort Edmonton Park would be useful as it is a major attracion, 137 avenue has 3 malls and a bunch of strips that people would stop in. eventually, there may be a lot of traffic into the saint albert, so two lines would work. the mill wood lines are to connect things better and get to different parts of the city and for different stations.
    ----

  83. #283
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    The idea of my plan was to make use the existing infrastructure with the high level bridge, and underground portion of the existing lrt line downtown. The two lines side by side downtown just shows that the two lines use the same tracks but are different lines. make sense?
    Jasper, Grandin Station is built really deep (almost as deep as University). I would think that the line would have to go above ground between Corona and Grandin. Still, I like your idea.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  84. #284
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    137 ave line, 23 ave line, 2 lines going to millwoods, 111 ave line, line going to fort edmonton park, but no where else? 2 lines going to St albert... Is all that really needed?
    Keep in mind I don't see this achieved by 2030 or 2060, but in long term. Anyways, Fort Edmonton Park would be useful as it is a major attracion, 137 avenue has 3 malls and a bunch of strips that people would stop in. eventually, there may be a lot of traffic into the saint albert, so two lines would work. the mill wood lines are to connect things better and get to different parts of the city and for different stations.
    Fort Edmonton park is not necessary,. It would have no off-season or off-hours traffic, no reverse traffic and the families and groups that visit the park most often can travel in private cars just as efficiently. A dedicated shuttle bus from South campus would be great though, and could be timed to operating hours.

    Millwoods is fine with 2 lines, but they don't both need to be full rapid LRT. at least one could be tram style with low floor vehicles, shorter trains and a few more stops.

    Likewise 118 ave should be a streetcar, not rapid LRT

  85. #285
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    137 ave line, 23 ave line, 2 lines going to millwoods, 111 ave line, line going to fort edmonton park, but no where else? 2 lines going to St albert... Is all that really needed?
    Keep in mind I don't see this achieved by 2030 or 2060, but in long term. Anyways, Fort Edmonton Park would be useful as it is a major attracion, 137 avenue has 3 malls and a bunch of strips that people would stop in. eventually, there may be a lot of traffic into the saint albert, so two lines would work. the mill wood lines are to connect things better and get to different parts of the city and for different stations.
    Fort Edmonton park is not necessary,. It would have no off-season or off-hours traffic, no reverse traffic and the families and groups that visit the park most often can travel in private cars just as efficiently. A dedicated shuttle bus from South campus would be great though, and could be timed to operating hours.

    Millwoods is fine with 2 lines, but they don't both need to be full rapid LRT. at least one could be tram style with low floor vehicles, shorter trains and a few more stops.

    Likewise 118 ave should be a streetcar, not rapid LRT
    Thanks for that - would the 118 avenue and 2nd mill woods ones be able to connect to Edmonton LRT or would it be a totally different company and would need to change etc. Sorry I am not familar with transit stuff, so i am a newb.
    ----

  86. #286
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    St' Albert Doesn't need the two lines through the middle, especially since castle downs is unserved. If You must give St Albert two lines, I suggest one like you show it with 4 stops in st.Al (hebert/gervais, Sirwinston churchill, McKinney and Villeneuve Rd/Sturtgeon General) the other line could use the 142st ROW (CN ,I think) and could have tops at 153, 167 and at st'albert's servus place.

  87. #287
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    row?
    ----

  88. #288
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Millwoods is fine with 2 lines, but they don't both need to be full rapid LRT. at least one could be tram style with low floor vehicles, shorter trains and a few more stops.

    Likewise 118 ave should be a streetcar, not rapid LRT
    Thanks for that - would the 118 avenue and 2nd mill woods ones be able to connect to Edmonton LRT or would it be a totally different company and would need to change etc. Sorry I am not familar with transit stuff, so i am a newb.
    It would Still be ETS, so really it would just be like changing now from a bus to a LRT or to another bus.

    The fact is that with as many lines as you have proposed it wouln't be possible to just get on on vehicle at the beginning of your trip and go directly to your destination, at least not with any form of LRT. At some point we can't get any more trains in the tunnel and we need to disconnect anyway.

  89. #289
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    row?
    Right Of Way.

    Most railways have a right of way ranging from 66' to 100+ feet wide but rarely use all that space for their one or 2 tracks. Adding an LRT line along an Existing ROW is much simpler than using roadways as there tend to be few roadway crossings or utilities to be dealt with. There also tend to be less nimbys since there are already trains there so noise and esthetics are less of an issue, which is great for rapid transit.

  90. #290
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    The idea of my plan was to make use the existing infrastructure with the high level bridge, and underground portion of the existing lrt line downtown. The two lines side by side downtown just shows that the two lines use the same tracks but are different lines. make sense?
    Jasper, Grandin Station is built really deep (almost as deep as University). I would think that the line would have to go above ground between Corona and Grandin. Still, I like your idea.
    I agree (see post #14)

  91. #291
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    This would be the "B" line (ignor the red dots)
    Exactly 30 km

    Last edited by Jasper; 02-01-2009 at 04:23 PM.

  92. #292

    Default

    It is an interesting plan, but people in the West End would riot if YEG LRT and Millwoods were built first. That would be totally offensive for taxpayers in the West to be subsidising lines in other parts of the city, while their service is zero. WEM, as our biggest tourist draw, a major employer, and a major area of population, will happen.

    Aside from that, its ok. Stick a branch down 87 to WEM, and my complaint solved.

  93. #293
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    row?
    Right Of Way.

    Most railways have a right of way ranging from 66' to 100+ feet wide but rarely use all that space for their one or 2 tracks. Adding an LRT line along an Existing ROW is much simpler than using roadways as there tend to be few roadway crossings or utilities to be dealt with. There also tend to be less nimbys since there are already trains there so noise and esthetics are less of an issue, which is great for rapid transit.
    ah.

    thankyou.
    ----

  94. #294
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    As much as we would all like to see a line to West Edmonton, I hope that the debates and proposals don't degenerate into some posturing by West Edmonton as to which way it should be built. Look at Belgravia - just as the city was ready to build the bus bridge at Belgravia/Fox Drive, some residents complained about the height. I think we have to stop the hijacking of plans by residents or communities who have agendas, and little interest in building the LRT.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    As much as we would all like to see a line to West Edmonton, I hope that the debates and proposals don't degenerate into some posturing by West Edmonton as to which way it should be built.
    West Edmonton wants LRT - the posturing, that's going to happen no matter where it is in the City. The only difference with West Edmonton is that the Mayor lives in it and wants to "protect" certain favoured neighborhoods. Otherwise, the route would already be decided.

  96. #296
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    If the City had say 3B to spend on LRT over the next 10 years, I would go with my plan and run BRT to the west end. I think by doing the west end LRT would be too expensive and it would limit what the city could achiece with rapid transit.
    Its same thing in the 70's and 80's spending so much on underground that they could not afford much in the way of expansion.
    Again, I think it is important to get the EIA. More important than wlrt. But that is my opinion

  97. #297

    Default

    umderground downtown LRT is the smartest decision they ever made.

  98. #298
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    Again, I think it is important to get the EIA. More important than wlrt. But that is my opinion
    Jasper, that's what makes C2E a great forum. It gives me (and all of us) a chance to examine other points of view and other ideas to improve our city. The more debate we have on these topics, the greater chance they will be listened to by the public, followed by action.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  99. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    Again, I think it is important to get the EIA. More important than wlrt. But that is my opinion
    You are welcome to it. IMO it would be a huge mistake, more sprawl suburbs all the way to the airport, more overpassess to build to subsidize those developments, new sports faciilites, etc., etc., all the while the rest of the City and tourists still find it hard to get to WEM. Not to mention that unlike WEM, it has not even been proven yet that YEG can support a bus, let alone LRT. As mentioned though - aside from that, I find the plans look interesting, and while I have been doubtful of high level or LRT bridge to Millwoods I am warming to it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-01-2009 at 02:49 PM.

  100. #300
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    umderground downtown LRT is the smartest decision they ever made.
    Medwards, looking at what happened yesterday (the breakdown), at least we had underground service between downtown and at the U of A. The underground line means a smaller chance of breakdown, especially in an area where above-ground line would mean more congestion.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

Page 3 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
  •