Page 2 of 66 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 6527

Thread: Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Looks like the city has something else going on. If you click on the link below there is a reserved link for "Northwest to City Limits Planning Study (details to follow as information becomes available)". Hmmmm.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...-projects.aspx

  2. #102
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ NAIT line, beyond NAIT.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  3. #103
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    176

    Default

    The Millwoods LRT should START construction in the south and then head north to connect with the existing lines. This way, it will indeed be a line to nowhere until it is finished. Quite an incentive to get it built, huh?

  4. #104

    Default

    Well with all this new infrastructure money supposedly on its way to "fix" the economy hopefully we can develop a plan relatively fast so we can get as much money as we can from the feds to help us pay for it.

  5. #105
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    2 Billion well spent imho.

  6. #106

    Default

    My best guesses

    NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
    SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
    NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
    WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
    SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

    Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

    Now just where are we goingto get that kind of money?

  7. #107

    Default

    over 15 years? Lots of places to get that money from. Province, civic, federally.

    Dare Edmonton to think BIG for once rather then penny pinch every little dime and nickel till we have nothing.

  8. #108
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Albert, AB
    Posts
    630

    Default

    ^^ Were the two extra zeros added behind the decimal place in order to make these numbers look even larger than they really are?

    My concern about widespread LRT expansion is that the lines be built where people currently travel by automobile. Are we sure that a hub and spoke model (with downtown being the hub) works for Edmonton when so many of our citizens work in places outside the downtown core?

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelganger View Post
    ^^ Were the two extra zeros added behind the decimal place in order to make these numbers look even larger than they really are?

    My concern about widespread LRT expansion is that the lines be built where people currently travel by automobile. Are we sure that a hub and spoke model (with downtown being the hub) works for Edmonton when so many of our citizens work in places outside the downtown core?

    When it is taxpayers money, every penny counts.

    You are correct that the majority of people do not travel to downtown. The majority circle the innerring road.

    See Map:
    http://www.edmontonprt.com/2003%20tr...rk%2072dpi.jpg

  10. #110
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ NAIT line, beyond NAIT.
    Yep, already (recently) awarded to CH2M Hill.

  11. #111
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    My best guesses

    NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
    SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
    NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
    WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
    SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

    Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

    Now just where are we goingto get that kind of money?
    The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.

  12. #112
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelganger View Post
    ^^ Were the two extra zeros added behind the decimal place in order to make these numbers look even larger than they really are?

    My concern about widespread LRT expansion is that the lines be built where people currently travel by automobile. Are we sure that a hub and spoke model (with downtown being the hub) works for Edmonton when so many of our citizens work in places outside the downtown core?
    If the lines connect other major employment hubs outside of the downtown then it will be an efficient system.

  13. #113

    Default

    Downtown is the hub of all hubs. The Central point.

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post


    When it is taxpayers money, every penny counts.

    You are correct that the majority of people do not travel to downtown. The majority circle the innerring road.
    Imagine how much time they could save by going straight across the ring instead of travelling in circles!
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  15. #115
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    [/QUOTE]
    Imagine how much time they could save by going straight across the ring instead of travelling in circles![/QUOTE]

    So far, the LRT touches on two major employment nodes, Downtown and the University of Alberta/University Hospital. The South LRT will reach the Neil Crawford Centre/South Campus and places like Alberta Research Park/SEC will be in reasonable proximity. The NAIT line will reach Grant MacEwan, NAIT and the Royal Alexandra Hospital, and the Mill Woods Line will reach the Grey Nuns Hospital. Finally, the West LRT will reach WEM and Misericordia Hospital. These lines will reach the major employment nodes.

    In other cases (like industrial parks), a car or truck is probably the preferred mode of transportation, especially when it comes to goods and services and where people have to deliver goods. I'm not sure whether LRT would benefit these areas, although I'm sure that there are major engineering firms in some areas.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  16. #116
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Having an LRT running in all major directions is a major plus in attacting businesses and people to Edmonton.

    It also contributes to the image of Edmonton being organized and somewhat modern.

    I personally prefer the 'hub-and-spoke' model of a LRT system. Reminds me of UK's subway system, which I found to be very efficient.

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    My best guesses

    NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
    SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
    NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
    WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
    SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

    Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

    Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
    The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.
    Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

    In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

    Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

    Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

    If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038

  18. #118
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    If we need any argument about the speed of the LRT, compare driving from downtown to university (especially on a day like today) to taking the LRT. As it stands now, the LRT does not serve that much of Edmonton. But as the LRT expands, I'm sure that more businesses will locate near the stations, and I also think that we could attract more head offices.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 05-12-2008 at 12:43 AM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  19. #119
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    Edmonton PRT, I would imagine that above ground LRT would cost much less than the underground LRT. Even with an economic slowdown, it could be a better time for the city to plan for future LRT.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  20. #120
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    My best guesses

    NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
    SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
    NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
    WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
    SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

    Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

    Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
    The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.
    Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

    In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

    Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

    Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

    If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038
    I don't know anything about the numbers that we have been quoted for SELRT, but the NLRT costs that you love to cite already account for inflation. Of course that's hard to do when the timeline is unknown, but for what it's worth the city budget predicts 13,16,16,13, &13% construction inflation for the next 5 years. I think that they're crazy, just projecting out the worst few years in recent history.

    I do wonder if the city is considering any budget (low cost) options. using the high level bridge and existing rail rows, low floor platforms and connecting at grandin only, and I'm sure that we could find an option for well under $1B, especially if single track or gauntlet track sections could be considered at tight spots.

  21. #121
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deedub35 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Looks like the city has something else going on. If you click on the link below there is a reserved link for "Northwest to City Limits Planning Study (details to follow as information becomes available)". Hmmmm.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...-projects.aspx
    I don't like the sound of this. It sounds like it was decided without any study or debate that the line should go to St. Albert and we only need to figure out how to get there. How generous of us when castle downs will go without.

    I seriously hope that st albert has already committed $1b for the part within their borders and another couple hundred million for their share of the line that gets from here to there.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    My best guesses

    NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
    SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
    NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
    WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
    SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

    Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

    Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
    The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.
    Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

    In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

    Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

    Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

    If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038

    you do realize that if costs and inflation rises so does everything else. Its all proportional. 5 dollars 20 years ago was worth alot more then it is today.

  23. #123
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,973

    Default

    Edmonton CANNOT wait 20-30 yrs for this.. we need to have the SE and WLRT going at the same time IMO.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    you do realize that if costs and inflation rises so does everything else. Its all proportional. 5 dollars 20 years ago was worth alot more then it is today.
    Again Medwards you didn't read my post I even put it in bold just for you. I stated that the cost of building SLRT is "three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall"

    So it demonstrates that building LRT is not proportional but is rapidly rising faster than inflation. If LRT expansion was proportional to consumer inflation I wouldn't have any problem with building more LRT. The SLRT would have only cost $30M/km instead $90M/km and proposed lines like SELRT are $90M/km to $180M/km would cost only $30M/km to $60M/km

    Cat's point that during an economic slowdown it is a good time to build is tempered with the fact that during lean times the City, the Province and the Feds won't have money. This is history repeating itself. We built the first NELRT lined during a boom and we did it for a very reasonable cost ($9.4M/km in '78, $28.7M in 2008 dollars) mostly because it used an existing right-of-way. After the NEP and bust of 1980 LRT projects were stalled and costs to build rose sharply. We do not have any significant left over right-of-ways and the costs to cross the river and any tunnelling are extremely expensive.

    Failure to analyze how we got here, learn from our mistakes and realize that the spiralling costs have made LRT expansion unaffordable is just living in LA LA Land. Get a grip on reality and lets look at improving bus routes, encourage people to move into the mature neighbourhoods with improved transit service, more express service, reduce the number of stops and look at better alternatives.

  25. #125
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    you do realize that if costs and inflation rises so does everything else. Its all proportional. 5 dollars 20 years ago was worth alot more then it is today.
    Again Medwards you didn't read my post I even put it in bold just for you. I stated that the cost of building SLRT is "three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall"

    So it demonstrates that building LRT is not proportional but is rapidly rising faster than inflation. If LRT expansion was proportional to consumer inflation I wouldn't have any problem with building more LRT. The SLRT would have only cost $30M/km instead $90M/km and proposed lines like SELRT are $90M/km to $180M/km would cost only $30M/km to $60M/km

    Cat's point that during an economic slowdown it is a good time to build is tempered with the fact that during lean times the City, the Province and the Feds won't have money. This is history repeating itself. We built the first NELRT lined during a boom and we did it for a very reasonable cost ($9.4M/km in '78, $28.7M in 2008 dollars) mostly because it used an existing right-of-way. After the NEP and bust of 1980 LRT projects were stalled and costs to build rose sharply. We do not have any significant left over right-of-ways and the costs to cross the river and any tunnelling are extremely expensive.

    Failure to analyze how we got here, learn from our mistakes and realize that the spiralling costs have made LRT expansion unaffordable is just living in LA LA Land. Get a grip on reality and lets look at improving bus routes, encourage people to move into the mature neighbourhoods with improved transit service, more express service, reduce the number of stops and look at better alternatives.
    I agree with your diagnosis, but not all of your cure.

    In millwood's case we do have ROW to get us there (from the highlevel bridge, but for some reason we don't want to use it. You are correct noting the incredible benfits NELRT got from the existing ROW, especially on cost, but most of our city has forgotten how inexpensively it can be done. It doesn't all need to be pretty, it's a transportation project, not a museum.

    Instead of seing the benefits of doing things the inexpensive way we only see the negatives, like minimal TOD (a problem not all attributable to the design) and unsightly industrial backyards. Well, for all that NELRT works pretty darn well, don't you think?

  26. #126

    Default

    I agree.

    Use existing ROW's to make LRT more economical. The biggest mistake in past LRT planning was not lobbying the Feds to insist that we could use the top deck of the High Level Bridge in the 1980's. We could have built far cheaper to 34 ave and then split east/west to Millwoods and to Century Park for far less than the SLRT and it would have been completed a decade ago.

    We should use the HLB to Millwoods.

  27. #127

    Default

    The city did lobby the feds for use of the high level bridge, and turned up empty.

    Currently, the province owns the ROW for the high level bridge, and I doubt they are very interested in giving that up.

    I'd much rather see a route to millwoods via bonniedoon.

    Theres many reasons why SLRT is "9x times consumer inflation" or whatever you state. Your post answers itself though. NELRT was build... along a pre-existing ROW... SLRT doesn't. LRT is constructed now with cement ties, before it was wooden ties. etc etc etc

  28. #128
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The corner of 89th and 89th.
    Posts
    328

    Default

    I've got two things to say; first why not use the pedestrian bridge across the river near the Muttart, second why,if it cost so much for our stations, don't they look like this:

  29. #129

    Default

    I doubt the pedestrian bridge is made to support the weight of LRT tracks, LRT consists, and other LRT infrastructure.

  30. #130
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    you are posting pictures of stations built in moscow (and yes, they are this beautiful) at a time when moscow was showcased to the world as the best capital of the best communist country in a best society. the labour cost nothing, the materials cost nothing, and there was no public debate about the cost, line alignment, or the look. It was all centrally decided.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I doubt the pedestrian bridge is made to support the weight of LRT tracks, LRT consists, and other LRT infrastructure.
    I agree. I remember someone else pointing out in another thread that it makes more sense to build dedicated bridges than multi purpose ones. They last longer, are easier to maintain, and less intrusive. It also gives another design oppotunity to make something pretty.

  32. #132

    Default

    Those pedestrian bridges are not designed to handle two, 5 car LRT trains passing each other which together weigh almost 600 tonnes with full passenger loads.

  33. #133
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The city did lobby the feds for use of the high level bridge, and turned up empty.

    Currently, the province owns the ROW for the high level bridge, and I doubt they are very interested in giving that up.

    ...
    Why not? it obviously won't be used for HSR anytime soon, and it's use could be a very valuable gift to the city that costs the province nothing. It's something that could save the city a couple hundred million, and on the off chance HSR is ever built there's no reason the two services couldn't share the tracks within city limits, so HSR would have some pre-built track to use. it's not like they could scream through old strathcona at 180km/hr on dedicated tracks either.

  34. #134
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The corner of 89th and 89th.
    Posts
    328

    Default

    If that's the case then why are we talking about depriving ourselves of valuable bridges with our already congested bridge infrastructure in and out of our already too isolated downtown when there is talk of building another vehicle bridge to increase accessibility? Plus those commie stations were alot of them rebuilt, and if you look at the images of the new stations added within the last eight years they are PERMANENT buildings not transiant looking transit stations which apear almost to be prefab like our own stations. (See Coliseum station)

  35. #135
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Functionally, coloseum station is awesome. Aesthetically, it needs paint selected by a non-colourblind person and a whole new canopy so it doesn't have to share with stadium anymore.

    Personally I like corona and bay just as well as the moscow station you show. One thing that has to be considered is that their system is fully undergound, ours is exposed so polished granite might not be the best choice for a floor.

    Otherwise I think that there is a fear of looking like you're spending big money, even though the cost might not be too big. Stone tiles on the floor and walls of central station platform level might cost $1M, and another $2m for the mezzanine, so the money isn't huge, but the optics would be horrible, I can see the sun's editorial now...
    Last edited by highlander; 06-12-2008 at 12:53 AM. Reason: Grammar

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The city did lobby the feds for use of the high level bridge, and turned up empty.

    Currently, the province owns the ROW for the high level bridge, and I doubt they are very interested in giving that up.

    ...
    I know they lobbied CP and the Feds in the 80's but they didn't lobby very hard. They could have brought the subject up publicly, through the media and demonstrated that it was imperative to acquire the high level bridge.

  37. #137
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    I think it might be better to build an LRT bridge instead of using one of the existing bridges. I'm thinking of one of two possibilities:

    (1) A line from Churchill/Central Station, with a tunnel exiting at the Shaw Conference Centre. The line could then cross at a bridge next to the Low Level Bridge, with a bridge over 98 Avenue and a stop at Muttart Conservatory. This line could then go under Connors Hill, gradually climbing and exiting around 92 Street and Connors Road. The line could then go southeast.

    (2) A line heading east at 103A Avenue and heading east to Dawson Bridge and heading south at McNally Composite High School.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  38. #138

    Default

    The area around Shaw and the east bank of Dawson bridge are quite unstable do to past coal mining in those areas.

  39. #139

    Default

    I think the best line would branch off north of Churchill, cross the quarters and then cross the river by the Dawson. Then straight south past Bonnie Doon and on to Argyle. Head over to 75th/66th at that point to Mill Wods Town Centre. I wish I was better with Google Maps but this gives you the idea. Line to Sherwood Park wold branch at 101 ave.

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...801ae3779&z=12

  40. #140
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    My best guesses

    NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
    SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
    NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
    WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
    SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

    Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

    Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
    The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.
    Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

    In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

    Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

    Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

    If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038
    Ha ha ha, no inflation won't increase in 20-30 years , OF COURSE IT WILL!!! Everything does over time. Fact is, there is no way that all of those lines can be completed in a 10-year time frame. But I believe our administration and council need to devise a strategic plan for the delivery and funding of these routes over the next number of years.

  41. #141

    Default

    Let's not forget that there are multiple ways LRT system can generate various income sources for the years to come to help with the expenses of building and maintaining. LRT is potentially the city's biggest investment for long-term financial growth. And the cost of NOT building a more funcational LRT is far greater than trying to saving money on other infrastructure.

    Our current LRT covers very limited major centres. The end result is less than optimal income generated from fares and extremely "poor" advertising fees. Have you ever looked at the ads on the train? They are hardly filled with advertisings.. poor layouts.. not enough light.. and are mostly filled with college and career centre ads (go figure who are the ones using LRT the most).

    I have been to many subways and skytrains, and yet have I ever seen one with such a poor advertising layout and design. Our LRT has potential; but companies won't see the benefit of paying to advertise when the majority of LRT users are students. This is attributed to the poor planning of LRT from the past. I came from an asian country and the kind of ads I see on the subway range from cosmetics to financial investments. Now those companies would pay top dollars to attract new customers!

    Besides fares and advertising, a diversified LRT station can further generate rental income from small businesses (ie. Max, Tim Horton Express, coffee shops etc). Most of our stations barely offer any service. Why? Because the number of users are not enough to attract small businesses! I would set up a Max in a LRT station if I am guaranteed to have thousands of foot passengers a day!

    To maximize LRT's revenue potential the following needs to happen:

    1) LRT extends all the way to WEM
    2) LRT reaches Millwoods (best goes through Bonnie Doon)
    3) further north extension from NAIT to Northgate Centre
    4) shopping centre and retail spaces built around the station

    Imagine the number of people who will use LRT on a regular basis if LRT reaches to areas where they are POPULATED. Do not try to re-create demand. Fill the demand from these major centres (WEM, Millwoods, Bonnie Doon, North Gate etc).

    Have you ever visited WEM on weekends and during holiday seasons?? Now that's a huge revenue potential for the city!

    Every new 1,000 people use LRT means:
    $2.5 x 2 (roundtrip) x 20 (working days) = 100,000 monthly cash income
    plus potential advertising revenue = can run anywhere from thousands to tens of thousands a month!
    plus potential rental revenue

    Every new 10,000 people use LRT will generate 1,000,000 monthly income and even more advertising revenue per month plus rental income!

    *When LRT becomes an irreplacable mass transportation in the city, then fewer buses are needed to be on the road: less maintenance cost, less fuel, less traffic, less wages paid on drivers, and more enivornmental friendly in the long-run.

    Right now 2 billion seems like a huge number for Millwood LRT, but the cost will only rise in the years to come. Labour and inflation cost will not come down anyway!

    The way I see it, THE SOONER THE BETTER. It's like investing in real estate. You wish you had invested 10-20 years ago!! *LOL* If we only look at cost, it sure looks expensive to build. But what about the other side of the coin??? revenue for years to come??? The city is being very short-sighted in my opinion. Save pennies to lose hundreds.

    Just my thought..

    Tommy
    Last edited by kubchaser; 06-12-2008 at 01:47 PM.

  42. #142
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    why not just run a new line from century park along 23rd to mwtc. you can stop at the research park and sec..this would be much more cost effective

  43. #143
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ Imagine how long that route would take to get from the TC to lets say downtown or rexall. would be one helluva long ride. not very fair to millwoods at all.

  44. #144
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    ^ Plus what about service to the neighborhoods in-between such as Bonnie Doon and Strathearn (which has a big infill development coming up)?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  45. #145
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Bingo. "Spur" lines like that only increase the travel time to city centre (and anywhere else useful) more, especially as they expand further outward from the "turning point" back onto the mainline. LRT lines should be as direct as possible and continue in the direction that development is expected to occur.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  46. #146
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    A line from Century Park to Mill Woods would be dead after 6:00 p.m. About the only riders might be students (to the U of A), or International Airport passengers if the line is ever extended that far. Even though it would likely be less expensive than a line from downtown, this should only be considered once the Downtown-Mill Woods line is completed, and as a lower priority.

    Perhaps the following bus routes should be considered for Mill Woods (once SLRT is complete):

    (1) Century Park Station to Mill Woods Town Centre (Express).

    (2) Southgate to Mill Woods (91 Street, 66 Street, and possibly 50 Street routes).

    (3) A bus from South Campus to Millgate Station (via Argyll Road/63 Avenue/61 Avenue).
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  47. #147
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    A line from Century Park to Mill Woods would be dead after 6:00 p.m. About the only riders might be students (to the U of A), or International Airport passengers if the line is ever extended that far. Even though it would likely be less expensive than a line from downtown, this should only be considered once the Downtown-Mill Woods line is completed, and as a lower priority.

    Perhaps the following bus routes should be considered for Mill Woods (once SLRT is complete):

    (1) Century Park Station to Mill Woods Town Centre (Express).

    (2) Southgate to Mill Woods (91 Street, 66 Street, and possibly 50 Street routes).

    (3) A bus from South Campus to Millgate Station (via Argyll Road/63 Avenue/61 Avenue).

    that sounds great maybe (#1) with stops at sec, and something from century park to wem would be great.

  48. #148
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    No shocker that it would be expensive. The Millwoods/SE line is probably the most tricky line to deal with in terms of property acquisition since it will be heading through some very dense areas of the inner city.

    I wonder if 91st would be considered as a route down - I wonder this since it's a very wide right of way that could easily handle an LRT route as is.

    As for the cost - I think the cost is well worth it in order to create the central spine of a transit system. It would eliminate a lot of wasteful crosstown routes that stop every block, for instance.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  49. #149
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines. Calgary Trail does present a defined separation between the two parts of the city though.

    66th Street is set up well too, having a large central median and passing close by both the Grey Nuns and Millwoods Town Center. Maybe cross it over towards 50th Street (looking towards extension to Beaumont) somewhere north of the mall so that it hooks up with the existing transit terminal (east side of the mall), and turn all of that unused land around the mall into park and ride). Jog it over to 83rd Street north of the Whitemud as it heads north (catching Bonnydoon Mall), and maybe continue north to Connors road before turning west into downtown. This crossing would seem to make sense as the river crossing at Connors could also support an east leg headed out from Downtown to Sherwood Park.

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danimalrex View Post
    I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
    Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.

  51. #151
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    the problem with 91st is that its only got residential on one side really, not very high dense residential either. 66st would be perfect to hit 2 highschools a hospital and the TC.

  52. #152
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    the problem with 91st is that its only got residential on one side really, not very high dense residential either. 66st would be perfect to hit 2 highschools a hospital and the TC.
    There's nothing wrong with serving non- residential areas with LRT. As it stands, the commercial areas in the area are some of the densest in edmonton. It really doesn't matter where the line is as long as the stations are at the major avenues so that bus transfers are easy. From what I understand, a 91st route would cut to the heart of Millwoods along 28ave anyway.

  53. #153
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danimalrex View Post
    I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
    Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.
    I agree. There would be little conflict between the two lines, and I wouldn't doubt that a 91St line would be significantly less expensive than a line further east, if done right.

  54. #154
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danimalrex View Post
    I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
    Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.
    I agree. There would be little conflict between the two lines, and I wouldn't doubt that a 91St line would be significantly less expensive than a line further east, if done right.
    I think walking depends on the season. I walk alot in the summer getting of the bus well ahead of my stop. I can walk 10 + blocks. Would never consider that in -30+ weather though. That is pretty inhuman weather....

  55. #155
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danimalrex View Post
    I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
    Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.
    I agree. There would be little conflict between the two lines, and I wouldn't doubt that a 91St line would be significantly less expensive than a line further east, if done right.


    I think walking depends on the season. I walk alot in the summer getting of the bus well ahead of my stop. I can walk 10 + blocks. Would never consider that in -30+ weather though. That is pretty inhuman weather....
    While the lines might be only 20 blocks apart, the stations would surely be more distant. the only places where stations could line up is 51ave with southgate, and at whyte ave where density merits it. Otherwise, the southenmost station actually on 91st would likely be at 34 ave, which was skipped by SLRT for some reason, another might be at argyle.

  56. #156
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    I hadn't thought about swinging east from 91st into Millwoods along 28th Ave. It's definately wide enough to accomidate 4 lanes of traffic plus an LRT line, and would pass directly in front of the Millwoods Rec Center. That routing has pretty good potential too.

  57. #157
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ with a route like that would there be a stop at Millwoods TC and the reccentre/highshools or would that be too close together

  58. #158
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default mwtc>wem

    mwtc>28th ave (rec centers and gmcc) > north to bonniedoon > 82nd ave > old cpr tracks north to High level bridge> over the top> stop above ground on top on grandin LRT >under ground west along jasper stop at 112 and 124 > under 102ave come above ground at 142 st station> south 142st > 87th ave stop at meadowlark TC > wem> lewis estates (c/w park and ride).

    ok this kind of route just occured to me. there may need to be rough adjustments. Think it might work though???????

  59. #159

    Default

    Nope - people in Millwoods most need to get downtown (NAIT may be an important connection for Millwoods too), not to the Legilsature and WEM. Not to mention is that the high level is out of bounds per past experience (and even now - reserved for HST).
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-12-2008 at 06:33 PM.

  60. #160
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Nope - people in Millwoods most need to get downtown (NAIT may be an important connection for Millwoods too), not to the Legilsature and WEM. Not to mention is that the high level is out of bounds per past experience (and even now - reserved for HST).
    they would just need to transfer @ grandin then go where ever. I am sure the high level can be retro fitted to adapt to lrt traffic. lets face it $2b is just never going to happen, we have to adjust expectations it is not reasonable to assume that every line will terminate at churchill. They dont even do this in Toronto (if you come in on the bloor line, you need to transfer to the young line to go further into downtown). further they also run some spur lines like in the case of the scarborough lrt.

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    they would just need to transfer @ grandin then go where ever. I am sure the high level can be retro fitted to adapt to lrt traffic. lets face it $2b is just never going to happen,
    Let's face it, the high level was suitable for LRT and it didn't happen. It couldn't happen then, and it won't happen now, it is set aside for HSR. As to $2 billion, the more track, and the more corners, and the busier road (e.g. around Whyte), then the more expensive it is going to be. I don't think the "bridge" is the big cost with Millwoods LRT. And no, it doesn't have to link at churchill (although that would be ideal - it could join the existing tunnel just south of it) - it could potentially not link at all and go a little north, or start a new station in the Quarters.

  62. #162
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There's no good reason that the high level can't be used for LRT. The current owners are different and would have nothing to gain but much to lose by refusing the city access for LRT. If the city decides that a high level is desirable (it is) and really want it, the top of that bridge is a really low-cost bone to for the province to toss, especially if they can take it back or share the track (they could) when (if) they decide to actually build HSR.

    On the other hand, any high level route will have to be more direct to millwoods than solaris' proposal if it is to get anysort of ridership. Cutting bonneydoon out of the route and going simply 28-C.P.ROW-Grandin would be much more acceptable to millwoodians.

    We really do need to look at travel time for any millwoods LRT we propose, because I suspect that the current high transit use stats for millwoods are reflective no of some strangely higher desire of millwooders to use transit, or some demographic characteristic of the area but simply reflects that millwoods already has decent bus service to downtown. In this case especially, if we cant do as well as the currently popular bus, maybe we should just add a little more bus priority and be done with it.

  63. #163
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.

  64. #164
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.
    I thought the thread title was LRT to Millwoods?

    Whatever, The point is that a roundabout route to millwoods has no point.

    What we have is two totally sepatrate issues:

    1) Rapid transit to Millwoods, and
    2) Better transit for the inner South side.

    We can build a $2B rapid LRT line from downtown to Millwoods to downtown via BonneyDoon.

    Or we can build a Much less expensive LRT line from grandin to Millwoods via the high level and the CP rows. It's just as good for millwoods>university or Millwoods>govt district, but slightly worse for Millwoods>Financial Core, and no use at all for folks from east of mill creek, but it connects whyte ave right at the busy part, and we still have $1B+ left over to improve transit for the near SE, possibly including multiple streetcar/tram light rail lines, BRT, Trolley bus or whatever else tickles your fancy.

  65. #165
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.
    I thought the thread title was LRT to Millwoods?

    Whatever, The point is that a roundabout route to millwoods has no point.

    What we have is two totally sepatrate issues:

    1) Rapid transit to Millwoods, and
    2) Better transit for the inner South side.

    We can build a $2B rapid LRT line from downtown to Millwoods to downtown via BonneyDoon.

    Or we can build a Much less expensive LRT line from grandin to Millwoods via the high level and the CP rows. It's just as good for millwoods>university or Millwoods>govt district, but slightly worse for Millwoods>Financial Core, and no use at all for folks from east of mill creek, but it connects whyte ave right at the busy part, and we still have $1B+ left over to improve transit for the near SE, possibly including multiple streetcar/tram light rail lines, BRT, Trolley bus or whatever else tickles your fancy.
    Are you just guessing that its going to be 1B+ dollars cheaper? I don't know where that number came from or how you got to it.
    You seem to be glossing over that a large portion of the ROWs are still in use by heavy freight and would have to be purchased by the City...this isn't free land.
    With the High Level being designated as part of the HSR route it may also be impossible to use the bridge. If HSR ever happens and the High Level is now an lrt route, we are going to get one stop on the southside and no direct route Downtown. That would work pretty nicely for turning Edmonton into a shuttling point to the Calgary Airport.
    You are making a ton of assumptions and I'm sure I could be a lot more creative and come up with lots of interesting counterpoints to your route. Just because you got all excited about it doesn't mean that anything you said will hold water. Facts not conjecture would be a starting point.

  66. #166

    Default

    If we want a less expensive route to millwoods, branch off the LRT from the SLRT at century park. Using the CP ROW makes no sense to me - having two LRT lines 10 blocks apart... lol

  67. #167
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Except that branching off the current SLRT line to go to Millwoods would hardly be competitive enough with buses or private vehicles to be worthwhile. Basically the travel time for such a line to get to anywhere of interest (UofA, Downtown, etc.) would always include a long ride just to get to the current SLRT line as well as the length of that line, and would increase disproprotionately as the line is extended in any direction. Plus it misses significant mature neighborhoods that should have LRT service, and would rightfully cry foul if they were bypassed entirely on the way to Millwoods.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  68. #168
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.
    I thought the thread title was LRT to Millwoods?

    Whatever, The point is that a roundabout route to millwoods has no point.

    What we have is two totally sepatrate issues:

    1) Rapid transit to Millwoods, and
    2) Better transit for the inner South side.

    We can build a $2B rapid LRT line from downtown to Millwoods to downtown via BonneyDoon.

    Or we can build a Much less expensive LRT line from grandin to Millwoods via the high level and the CP rows. It's just as good for millwoods>university or Millwoods>govt district, but slightly worse for Millwoods>Financial Core, and no use at all for folks from east of mill creek, but it connects whyte ave right at the busy part, and we still have $1B+ left over to improve transit for the near SE, possibly including multiple streetcar/tram light rail lines, BRT, Trolley bus or whatever else tickles your fancy.
    Are you just guessing that its going to be 1B+ dollars cheaper? I don't know where that number came from or how you got to it.
    You seem to be glossing over that a large portion of the ROWs are still in use by heavy freight and would have to be purchased by the City...this isn't free land.
    With the High Level being designated as part of the HSR route it may also be impossible to use the bridge. If HSR ever happens and the High Level is now an lrt route, we are going to get one stop on the southside and no direct route Downtown. That would work pretty nicely for turning Edmonton into a shuttling point to the Calgary Airport.
    You are making a ton of assumptions and I'm sure I could be a lot more creative and come up with lots of interesting counterpoints to your route. Just because you got all excited about it doesn't mean that anything you said will hold water. Facts not conjecture would be a starting point.
    Everything on theis thread is conjecture, including your claims that LRT and HSR couldn't share tracks. I think that if you are search how things are done in countries that actually have HSR you might find that your conjecture is more far out than mine. HSR often shares track in urban areas with lesser rail. Which doesn't really matter, since we won't have viable HSR in my lifetime.

    As for the cost, I'm just guessing, but so is the city at this point. I'm going on the fact that the high level bridge route avoids a new bridge (or controversial conversion of an existing vehicular bridge), avoids a new tunnel into downtown, avoids building rapid transit on residential streets South of BonneyDoon, uses 28 ave which I've read is LRT ready, and the whole ROW alrady exists, there are no nimbys in industrial areas, a completely separate line from the existing LRT allows for low floor service (saving big $$$ on stations) and the whole route to whyte ave is as close to free as you'll ever get.

    I admit that I don't know how things would work out with CP, but if things go half as well as they did with CN on the NE line then we'll be laughing.

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    If we want a less expensive route to millwoods, branch off the LRT from the SLRT at century park. Using the CP ROW makes no sense to me - having two LRT lines 10 blocks apart... lol
    I've often thought that is a possible option as well, I don't think it would be too bad time wise, but a direct route would be better.

    I don't think high level makes any sense whatsoever for LRT. Last time I looked, the high level was right next to a dedicated LRT bridge - it would make more sense to run another train down that one, rather than modify a bridge that will be used for HST one day.

  70. #170
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    If we want a less expensive route to millwoods, branch off the LRT from the SLRT at century park. Using the CP ROW makes no sense to me - having two LRT lines 10 blocks apart... lol
    I've often thought that is a possible option as well, I don't think it would be too bad time wise, but a direct route would be better.

    I don't think high level makes any sense whatsoever for LRT. Last time I looked, the high level was right next to a dedicated LRT bridge - it would make more sense to run another train down that one, rather than modify a bridge that will be used for HST one day.
    The necessary 'modification' to the High Level Bridge is essentially just adding tracks. Using the existing bridge means being tied to the existing line to south of health sciences, or building an new, massively expensive tunneled approach.

    Since the WLRT may be converging from the west at health sciences there won't be much excess capacity on the bridge anyway, so the point is moot.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Since the WLRT may be converging from the west at health sciences there won't be much excess capacity on the bridge anyway, so the point is moot.
    I actually think there is a ton of capacity left on the line, it is rare to see LRT trains close together. Capacity is a red hering - it's the same issue whether the connection is at Health Sciences, or at Grandin. Anyway, I don't think Millwoods LRT is going this way, while some would like LRT at Whyte avenue, I personally am not in favour of it, I'd rather we focus on connecting the downtown core to the corners of the city first.

  72. #172
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Trains currently travel 6 minutes apart, with an average of 3.5 cars each. the word is that once the SLRT is open, all the new cars are commissioned and the old ones rehabbed we will have 5 minute service with all 4 car trains. If we double traffic by adding a full N and west legs then we have 2.5 minute service, which is Great, but if we try to add another then we have 100s frequency, which from all that I've read requires ATC (automatic train control) to achieve, with that 5th car left for growth that will likely take place long before we build that final line, and we can't use ATC anyways, because of our grade crossings, so yes, there is a capacity issue.

  73. #173

    Default

    i don't understand how we could ever have a capacity issue... were only 750 000 pple here. look at Calgary do they have a capacity issue there over 1 000 000.. and plan to have 4 legs connecting in there downtown main line of there lrt...

  74. #174

    Default

    SE LRT in Calgary likely wont connect into the existing LRT system, in fact, I've heard they may even use low floor LRT for that line, if ever built.

    Their existing system will have 4 legs, just like we will have 4 legs (with their WLRT), but any legs after that - timing really becomes a big issue.

  75. #175
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    I think the challenge could come if three lines come in from Mill Woods, NE and NAIT to downtown. LRT grade-level crossings can become congested during peak hours (particularly if the trains are crossing from different directions), and nearly impossible if there is more than one line.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  76. #176
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swizzlerz View Post
    i don't understand how we could ever have a capacity issue... were only 750 000 pple here. look at Calgary do they have a capacity issue there over 1 000 000.. and plan to have 4 legs connecting in there downtown main line of there lrt...
    In addition to other's comments, we have 1,000,000 metro too, and we're considering lines that go beyond our borders to St Albert or Sherwood Park. Calgary also already has horrible capacity problems, including pass-up becoming extremely common, and forcing commuters to park farther out or ride in the reverse direction just to get a spot on a train.

  77. #177
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Another advantage we have over Calgary is that our stations are capable of handling 5-car consists with only minor amounts of construction (primarily at Health Sci). Calgary is pretty much stuck at 3-car consists on the existing lines.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Trains currently travel 6 minutes apart, with an average of 3.5 cars each. the word is that once the SLRT is open, all the new cars are commissioned and the old ones rehabbed we will have 5 minute service with all 4 car trains. If we double traffic by adding a full N and west legs then we have 2.5 minute service, which is Great, but if we try to add another then we have 100s frequency, which from all that I've read requires ATC (automatic train control) to achieve, with that 5th car left for growth that will likely take place long before we build that final line, and we can't use ATC anyways, because of our grade crossings, so yes, there is a capacity issue.
    You don't need ATC for 90 second headways - London Underground operates 40 trains an hour on some lines and these trains are driver operated. You do need new signalling to allow trains to run closer together and you need approach signals into stations to safely draw trains up close to an occupied platform.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  79. #179

    Default

    I agree - the comments that Edmonton's tunnel is going to become too crowded if there are 4 or 5 lines feeding into it is laughable. A quick trip to London will illustrate this to anyone, at rush hour on the tube, the trains are almost constant, one after another, in tiny old deep stations nowhere near as large or comfortable as ours. It's an exciting place to be - lots of people, lots of energy - very different from our LRT. We have a long long way to go before we get anything close to that, at least another 50 years of growth I am guessing. And if it ever did become an issue, it would be a very good one, because there would be plenty of money being made to build a new tunnel at that time. As capacity increases - issues like at grade crossings can be addressed, there is no point in panicking about it now though when our tunnel is totally deserted most of the time, or building a mythical perfect system for a city of 2 million when we are a long way from that.
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-12-2008 at 09:10 AM.

  80. #180
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Actually RTA the stations can at most handle 4 cars, this is because of some of the above ground stations the platforms are built for 4 cars. It wouldn't cost too much to expand them, but right now its not necessary.

    I can't remember if the platforms in the underground stations are long enough for 5 cars but certainly the "hole" is large enough to expand them for a 5 car consist as well.

    Downtown is where you would have trouble with continual trains. On the perimeters of the city the frequency isn't too bad, currently I suspect the worst problem area will be Whyte (82nd? University Blvd?) just south of the Health Science Station. It will probably be okay with just the spur to Century Park. But I guess time (or perhaps traffic simulations) will tell.

    But with the current economic downturn starting to show up here, now is the time to finish up detailed plans, sink a 20 year bond and start building either this spring or by next spring to take advantage of more afforable labor and better priced bids. For example Summer 2007 City of Edmonton wanted to repave Whitemud, if my memory is right 2 bids came in both were hugely overpriced so the city turned down both, now when the city posts contracts more bids come in that are more moderately priced. The city can take advantage of the economics and create jobs when they are needed which could happen in the near future here.

    So in the end the Millwoods line may come in at 1.5 billion or maybe less, one can hope.

  81. #181

    Default

    All stations except for Health sciences (and the rest of the SLRT stations) can handle 5 cars.

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    All stations except for Health sciences (and the rest of the SLRT stations) can handle 5 cars.
    I think if any line is going to be busy and require 5 cars it will be the south line - well, I guess at least if its expanded, maybe labour will be cheaper with a downturn, than when it was built.

  83. #183

    Default

    I should add in that the stations were designed to be easily expanded to 5 car platform later...

    though I'm still not sure why we didn't just build them to full capacity right from the get go

  84. #184
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default seLRT - route ideas to service Millwoods - mega thread.

    Now that the Millwoods LRT line is being discussed again, let's throw some route ideas out there.

    The biggest concern, to me, is the river valley crossing. One way to do it:
    - start from Churchill station
    - run underground south to the Shaw Conference Centre.
    - Shaw Station would serve the conference, McKinney Park and the Edmonton Queen
    - river crossing along with pedestrian/bath path underneath
    - run it up Connors Hill
    - possible Connors Hill station for area residents plus the Folk Fest
    - continue towards Bonnie Doon and then to Millwoods.

    Alternative: put 1 LRT station across the river from the Shaw, which can then serve the conference centre, McKinney Park (both accessible via pedestrian path on LRT bridge), Edmonton Queen, Muttart, the ski hill and the folk fest. But with the clusterf&&& of roads and bridges there (98 Ave, Connors Hill, Scona Road), I don't know how best to lay the route or place the station.



    Let's see your plans?

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    (MOD EDIT - placed these historic reference threads here)

    Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=6436

    The Legend of Millwoods LRT promise
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=5743

    LRT to Millwoods
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=4584
    Last edited by Admin; 20-02-2009 at 11:58 AM. Reason: Added historic reference
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  85. #185
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    how about:

    1. Branch off at Stadium station
    2. Head south and cross the river on a new bridge just clipping the south part of that golf course
    3. 84st -> 98ave -> connors road-> whyte(82ave) -> 75st -> 66st -> 28ave(lotsa room here) -> Millwoods TC

  86. #186

    Default

    As I have posted on another thread - I like the idea of simply branching off the current SLRT line using 23 avenue or similar. This would save having the line go through a lot of low density industrial land. It would link Millwoods to UofA, evenutally Leduc/Nisku, and be more than fast enough. This is a line that could be built very quickly and cost effectivley (if it is not quick and cost effective, I think Millwoods will be waiting forever, just like the West End is forced to). A future east line could then be built to Sherwood park, servicing neighborhoods like Capilano. One day in the future, Millwoods LRT could even loop back to that line.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-02-2009 at 11:51 PM.

  87. #187
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    444

    Default

    I'd like to see the line branch off from Health Sciences station, go east down 81st/83rd ave above ground to Bonnie Doon, down 75 st to Argyll Road, west along Argyll area, then south down 91st st, then east on 23 ave or 34 ave, then south down 50th maybe into Mill Woods.

    Theres that industrial area between 63 ave and Whitemud which is about 20 blocks, but if you have a station at Bonnie Doon, around 75th st and Argyll, around 63rd ave and 91st st, and then one more after the Whitemud on 91st st (park and ride?), the spacing between stations is still less then some of the spacing on the slrt line.

    something like this (the red line, which alternatively goes all the way to WEM): http://www.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&...c45e0e8c130d22
    Last edited by bicycles; 20-02-2009 at 12:54 AM.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  88. #188

    Default

    Whie I think the most economical is to go along 23rd avenue from Century Park, the more I think about it, the more I like this concept. It's all above ground - no new tunnels. Spliting the line in the existing tunnel would be cost prohibitive. Branch from between Churchill and Central is a non-starter. The junction box would be very expensive and disruptive, plus I doubt there's room or soil stability to build a portal in the river bank there.

    So here's my suggestion - this serves new parts of downtown and creates an interchange station at Grandin (existing below ground, the new on the surface). The junction at 105 Street could be the opposite to what I've shown so trains from the North Line could run onto the SE line. As shown, the trains would run into the downtown tunnel creating an unusual service pattern (though a conneciton could be made to the NE line on the old railway alignment too). The 105 Avenue line could be extended to the west end (which is the alignment I think Edmonton will end up going with) and this routing serves Old Scona. The line would continue south to Millwoods from Old Scona.



    In my imagination, I see a surface line running along 105 Avenue, then down the centre of 109 Street - streetcar style - on a dedicated right-of-way. Then south of Jasper, switch over to the CPR alignment and over the top deck of the High Level Bridge into Old Scona. At Old Scona, the station would be a replica of the original CPR Railway Station, now serving LRT (maybe incorporate the old station building). The Station just south of the HLB would provide a short-cut for students and staff going to the University - it is in walking distance.
    Last edited by lightrail; 20-02-2009 at 01:14 AM.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  89. #189
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    I think if we think of Multi-Use Trails (as a part of the LRT lines), would it be wise to have an overhead bridge going through Mill Creek like the Menzies bridge from Grandin to University Station? Like SDM's idea, the line could go SE under SunLife/ATB, meet up with SCC (possibly at the same level as Hall A, B, C), continue above Grierson Hill, North Saskatchewan River, over the east part of the James MacDonald overpass, meeting up with the Mill Creek bike trail.

    The line could then turn east at around 84/86 Avenue with a stop at Campus St. Jean, and head east along 83 Avenue to Bonnie Doon Mall, and head south at 83 Street, going underground around Argyll Road (a stop at that location), resurfacing at W. P. Wagner School, and meeting up at 75 Street (stop at Roper Road), and continuing southeast along 66 Street, terminating at Mill Woods Town Centre.

    I realize that the Mill Creek route would not be popular, but the above ground route would mean a minimum of land expropriation, and minimal interference with the environment.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  90. #190
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Euroland
    Posts
    218

    Default

    I'm no expert, but it seems using the the High Level bridge and the existing railway line would be the most cost-effective way to cross the river, plus it would give LRT riders easy access to Whyte Ave.

    From Whyte, I'm not sure which would be the best way to Millwoods, as you have the natural barrier of Mill Creek ravine to worry about.

  91. #191

    Default

    I like the idea of extending the line from Century Park east on 23ave. That way Millwoods riders won't need to make a big trip all the way downtown and change trains to get to UofA. One nice, neat, tidy line, with a stop at Millwoods Town Centre.

  92. #192
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Thank you sundance. I will look to see how best to merge these, if it is possible at all without making it hard to read.

  93. #193
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I will lock this thread as it is being discussed here now.

  94. #194
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Locking this thread. The new discussion is over here.

  95. #195
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Locking this thread. Go here for more discussion.

  96. #196
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    OK, I ended up closing the threads. I will try to make this a mega seLRT to Millwoods thread.

    I will also post sundance's suggestions as historic reading threads (embedded into the original post) for reference.

  97. #197
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,519
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Journal Article for discussion...

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council

    Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: 2:48 pm
    EDMONTON - City council will be asked to spend $1.5 million to start planning yet another LRT line, this one from downtown to Mill Woods.

    A report going to council's transportation and public works committee next week proposes hiring a consultant to start planning a Mill Woods light-rail transit line.

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...1f9711&k=67405

  98. #198

    Default

    As a long term resident of Mill Woods I also like the 23rd Ave alignment, it's quick, relatively easy and as mentioned before a north bound line could be constructed in conjunction with Sherwood Park line (if that ever happens).

    The line could start somewhere around 17th Street and there would be ample space for a park and ride location.
    Edmontonian and proud of it!

  99. #199
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I like the idea of extending the line from Century Park east on 23ave. That way Millwoods riders won't need to make a big trip all the way downtown and change trains to get to UofA. One nice, neat, tidy line, with a stop at Millwoods Town Centre.
    No thanks... By doing that, you're missing the entire southeast corner of the city except Millwoods. What about all the people in between downtown and Millwoods TC?

  100. #200
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    A 23rd avenue line is a terrible idea. Piling the entire south and southeast ridership on to a single line THROUGH the University? That's an absolute disaster waiting to happen. And route times from the SE would be horrendous, it would have little advantage over current bus service. And the amount of appropriation required would be massive.

    It's not easy, it's not cheap, and it's not effective.

Page 2 of 66 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... 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
  •