Page 3 of 70 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 6990

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

  1. #201
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    I agree with you raz... it's a terrible idea. Maybe once we have legs of LRT going to all corner of the city, then you can look at building a ring around the outside, but not before the rest of the system if finished... so maybe 60 years from now? Wow I'm going to be old by then.

  2. #202

    Default

    A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.


  3. #203
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,848
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Out of all the proposals so far, I think it is a toss up between lightrail and SDM. SDM has points for picking a route that does not necessarily clog any existing lines and goes through more populated areas, lightrail gets points for utilizing existing infrastructure and aligning more closely with the original proposals of the late 1960's.

    In a $$$ argument, I think lightrail's has more potential overall - no new bridge. However, CP would have to vacate so that redevelopment could occur.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  4. #204
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I like Lightrail's proposal too, althought I'm not sold on the idea of connecting into a loop. I've mentioned before that I don't think we should overload the tunnel and having three or even four lines on the north end certainly does that, especially if you consider ridership growth from now until we actually build all of these.

    From whyte ave I'd use the CP ROW, 91st and 28 ave into millwoods. On the other end, if it needs to continue north from grandin then I'd like to take it to St ALbert via railtown park, a Grant MacEwan Station, 104ave, a turn and station a molson/crosstown and then up the 121st and 142 rail ROWs.

    If we expect to build more than 6 legs, including in the far off future, then a new, short N-S tunnel throught downtown makes sense as the way to bring MWLRT and another 3 legs through downtown. I don't know it the riverbank at that point is well suited, but 101st would be the first choice, it the real centre of downtown and it would add another level to Central station and make it worthy of the name. If that doesn't work, then I'd prefer 103st and Bay over Churchill. Churchill square may be the civic and arts heart of our city, but the employment cored are further west.

  5. #205
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    of course, a route over the High Level Bridge works if there's enough room to accommodate that and HSR, or if HSR dies.
    “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

  6. #206
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Are these proposals considering creating a completely seperate line with no shared track, or a system similar to the NAIT lrt?
    Mike

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I like Lightrail's proposal too, althought I'm not sold on the idea of connecting into a loop. I've mentioned before that I don't think we should overload the tunnel and having three or even four lines on the north end certainly does that, especially if you consider ridership growth from now until we actually build all of these.
    I agree with you here. I suggested one option would be to connect to the North line so trains from NAIT could run to SE line. Or a new link east along the old rail line to join the NE line and allow trains from, say, Coliseum to run onto the SE line.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  8. #208
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    On one side if they build a SELRT crossing the high level you can now potentially have a 2 level station at Grandin, a station at around 109th at the top of the hill just after getting off the high level, then a station at 103rd and Whyte. Now the only question is, do you bring the line to Bonnie Doon and then head south or do you head south around the millcreek ravine or do you head south via 102st or so and take advantage of the possible available land that way?

    On the other hand I really like the idea of branching off of Churchill, making the city town square also the LRT hub. Go from Churchill station to the Quarters station, then next cross the river valley and a station somewhere just after crossing the river. Next Bonnie Doon station and continue to Argyll, etc...

    Either of these possibilities has it's merrit although I think a the second option from Churchill would be nice because then maybe you could have 2 main lines in the city. Clareview to Century Park and NAIT to Millwoods Town Center. Both of these lines intersecting at Churchill Station.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  9. #209
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    Actually Sonic a HSR would be travelling fairly slow as this would be near the station and they weigh sufficiently more than a LRT. The LRTs can accelerate and declerate much quicker so in reality it would be the HSR slowing down the LRT not the other way around, they could use common tracks for the bridge and split off at the north end to the station, and at the south end assumably to the Old Strathcona area. When I was on the Eurostar it would take about 2-3 miles to catch up with a commuter train when they both left at the same time.

    If we do get a sufficient population base the HSR frequency probably wouldn't be more then around 1 train per hour plenty of time to get quite a few LRT trains between.

    The electrical supply is a different thing originally the U2 and SD160 LRTs used 600V DC for Edmonton. TGVs primarily use 25kV AC at 50Hz, the Japanese Shinkansen primarily use 25kV AC as well but at 60Hz

    This is not an insurmountable obstacle as quite a few varients of both use multiple voltages, the original Eurostar used 25kV AC from the catanery in France but 600V AC from a 3rd rail on the older lines in England as well the Thalys TGVs can run under 25Kv 50Hz, 15kV 16.7 Hz, 4kV DC, and 1500V DC as well the Oresund railway from Denmark to Sweden runs at 15kV 16 2/3 Hz and 25Kv 50Hz. So if you handle the electrical system right LRT and HSR could both travel on the same tracks as most systems use standard gauge track

  10. #210
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    I'm on side with the alignment that kkozoriz drew a few posts back. If you look at that routing, you'll find that the majority of the N/S line follows roads that currently have either parkland, service roads, or medians already in place that could easily accomidate LRT. The only real question marks for me are how to handle the two traffic circles that it would be crossing, and the short stretch immediately south of Bonnydoon Mall where there is no existing service road (about 4 blocks). Yes, there would be a lot of roadwork to do, but those roads are getting to the point where they need work regardless.

    My worry with going anywhere near University/Whyte with seLRT is that there is a good chance that the alignment will completely skip residents east of Millcreek Ravine and north of Whyte. An argument could be made that we'll catch them when we do eLRT (!), but I think it's wiser to position seLRT to handle eLRT when that time comes.

  11. #211
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    ^^ sundance: my concern is, would the High Level Bridge have enough space for both HSR and LRT? I would assume each would require different types of tracks.

    Another reason for the Connors Hill/Bonnie Doon route is for the mega-Strathearn development to be a TOD. In fact, I'll bet the developers had LRT in mind.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 20-02-2009 at 06:57 PM.
    “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

  12. #212
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    LRT is standard gauge. HSR is standard gauge, unles they go maglev. the streetcar is standard gauge.

    There's room up there for 3 tracks, and the weight capacity was at least there when it was built, as it handled heavy freight trains although I can't say what 100 years of rusting would do.

    The little bridge just north of the high level is only one track, but it wouldn't be a big deal to replace and expand. (the streetcars got off the embankment before then, you can still see the ramps that held the old tracks.)

    The first difficulty would be the tunnel south of the HLB, which is single track. With LRT only a gauntlet track through there with signal protection might be enough, or it migh be possible to double stack the tunnel. If you throw anything else into the mix then you would have to double track for sure.

    The other problem would be the LRT and HSR stations both fitting onto the narrow strip of land between 97ave and 99ave, west of 109st. The whole strip is about 300m by 40m. It's long enough, but it would be a real squeeze to get 4 tracks and 2 platforms in there, so any taxi stand, drop off area, bus bay or ticket booth waiting area would need to be beyond the end of the track, not beside them. Which of course gets very difficult if one or more of the lines continues north.

  13. #213
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Capilano/Fulton
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

    Don't think this will work (future branch line to SH PK). There is far too much residential in the area of 101 between the Quarters, Riverdale, Forest Heights, Terrace Heights and Fulton Place. Not to mention the oil and gas pipelines along 101/Baseline into Sherwood Park. And Dawson comes up at 106 ave at Mc Nally High School, not 101 avenue.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Actually Sonic a HSR would be travelling fairly slow as this would be near the station and they weigh sufficiently more than a LRT. The LRTs can accelerate and declerate much quicker so in reality it would be the HSR slowing down the LRT not the other way around, they could use common tracks for the bridge and split off at the north end to the station, and at the south end assumably to the Old Strathcona area. When I was on the Eurostar it would take about 2-3 miles to catch up with a commuter train when they both left at the same time.

    If we do get a sufficient population base the HSR frequency probably wouldn't be more then around 1 train per hour plenty of time to get quite a few LRT trains between.

    The electrical supply is a different thing originally the U2 and SD160 LRTs used 600V DC for Edmonton. TGVs primarily use 25kV AC at 50Hz, the Japanese Shinkansen primarily use 25kV AC as well but at 60Hz

    This is not an insurmountable obstacle as quite a few varients of both use multiple voltages, the original Eurostar used 25kV AC from the catanery in France but 600V AC from a 3rd rail on the older lines in England as well the Thalys TGVs can run under 25Kv 50Hz, 15kV 16.7 Hz, 4kV DC, and 1500V DC as well the Oresund railway from Denmark to Sweden runs at 15kV 16 2/3 Hz and 25Kv 50Hz. So if you handle the electrical system right LRT and HSR could both travel on the same tracks as most systems use standard gauge track
    There will be no need to share tracks on the High Level Bridge - it is wide enough to carry three tracks and it used to do that when it opened - two streetcar tracks and one train track. The HSR could be single track across the bridge.

    Agree with you the dual voltage - it is common in Europe. London operates Overground trains that dual voltage, the switch occurring in the tunnels while the train is running.

    The Eurostar is actually multi-voltage - the trains can pick up 750v DC from the third rail (used to be used on the Network Southeast lines in and out of Waterloo), 25kv AC overhead on Britain's HS1 and the TGV lines in France and Belgium, and 3kv DC overhead for use on Belgium "classic" lines. Some sets also have 1500v DC overhead used on French "classic" lines. The power supply affects the train's top speed - for example, on the 750v DC lines, trains can only go 160km/h; on the 25kv AC the trains are capable of 330km/h.

    So even if the HSR was to share track with the LRT on the high level, it could be designed to use 600v DC overhead pickup.

    The Eurostar and TGV trains can accelerate faster than suburban electric trains in most cases, the acceleration depends on the available power supply - the trains would have a normal acceleration slower than LRT, for example, for passenger comfort and to avoid drawing all the power from the line - remember in Europe, there are many other electric trains drawing from the same power supply.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  15. #215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by missmarble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

    Don't think this will work (future branch line to SH PK). There is far too much residential in the area of 101 between the Quarters, Riverdale, Forest Heights, Terrace Heights and Fulton Place. Not to mention the oil and gas pipelines along 101/Baseline into Sherwood Park. And Dawson comes up at 106 ave at Mc Nally High School, not 101 avenue.
    I know it comes up at 106th. The branch to Sherwood park would run down 101 ave. As for getting pat McNalley, I see a cut and cover tunnel under the athletic fields to 84th st. A station just before 101 ave would probably be like McKernan/Belgravia in size. Another station at Capilano would be larger and serve as an end of line until the extension to Sherwood Park was ready. The choices to Sherwood Park are either 101 ave or Whyte. 101 ave serves more residential.

  16. #216
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    I hate the idea of missing the potential riders who would travel to Whyte Ave if there was an LRT station somewhere along the strip.

  17. #217
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

    Ya know, the more I look at this plan, the better I like it.

    Just a few things:
    - the line could run down a transit-only 102A Ave at ground level from Churchill through the Quarters with a station at 95 St. If there are plans to close 102A by Churchill Square anyway, may as well do the whole stretch from Jasper Ave.
    - people who drive down 102A today can use 103A/104 Ave or a bidirectional 102 Ave.
    - The Sherwood Park spur should have a station at Capilano Mall.
    - south of Argyll are a couple of CPR rail crossings that might pose a challenge, may have to either tunnel under or bridge over them. If built along 75 St then that might make the city consider building rail overpasses for that road too.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 21-02-2009 at 04:56 PM.
    “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

  18. #218

    Default

    ^ you could keep pushing further west with that line too... Stony plain road, look out.

  19. #219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

    Ya know, the more I look at this plan, the better I like it.
    Just a few things:
    - the line could run down a transit-only 102A Ave at ground level from Churchill through the Quarters with a station at 95 St.
    - The Sherwood Park spur should have a station at Capilano Mall.
    - south of Argyll are a couple of CPR rail crossings that might pose a challenge, may have to either tunnel under or bridge over them. If built along 75 St then that might make the city consider building rail overpasses for that road too.
    I think the station at Capilano would be the end of the line for quite a few years. But, as most of the new growth in Sherwood Park will be north of Baseline Road a fairly direct run to Strathcona Station wouldn't be too difficult.

    I hadn't considered it as a surface line. Hmmmmm, interesting. have to study the maps as to bridge placement, etc.

    If I was better with Google maps You'd see stations at 84th and just north of 101 ave, Bonnie Doon, Argyle/WP Wagner, 75th st just south of Whitemud and Millwoods TC.

  20. #220
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    ^ Also, a Sherwood LRT would have to take place under a regional plan where Strathcona County would presumably cough up for the cost of building it through their county.
    “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

  21. #221
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Century park > (along 23rd ave) SEC > up the 91st st corridor swinging east at 28th ave>Lakewood>mwtc

  22. #222
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Century park > (along 23rd ave) SEC > up the 91st st corridor swinging east at 28th ave>Lakewood>mwtc
    This is the most realistic alignment, and the easiest. It was, for a while, being mentioned by project planners quite frequently, but it seems to have dropped from view. Much of this corridor is already reserved as future transit right-of-way (along 28 Ave and the space to the west of the Mill Woods Transit Centre), land acquisition is not a problem.

    The transition from 23 Ave to 28 Ave was through the John Fry Park area, though.

    I would assume that the 23 Ave interchange could be modified in the future for LRT, as was the 111 St/Whitemud interchange.

    I've worked-out a rough Googlemap, with a few wish-list items, of course: http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF...d31ea&t=h&z=13

  23. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Ya know, the more I look at this plan, the better I like it.

    Just a few things:
    - the line could run down a transit-only 102A Ave at ground level from Churchill through the Quarters with a station at 95 St. If there are plans to close 102A by Churchill Square anyway, may as well do the whole stretch from Jasper Ave.
    - people who drive down 102A today can use 103A/104 Ave or a bidirectional 102 Ave.
    - The Sherwood Park spur should have a station at Capilano Mall.
    - south of Argyll are a couple of CPR rail crossings that might pose a challenge, may have to either tunnel under or bridge over them. If built along 75 St then that might make the city consider building rail overpasses for that road too.
    One thing that I'm trying to work out if it runs on the surface is how and where would it link up with the current line? It has to get to the service yard somehow. Or would we have a second yard somewhere in the SE?

    I can see a line along 23rd ave in the far future. Actual express routes to Downtown and the University would help a great deal with travel in Mill Woods rather that shuttling everyone from MWTC to Century Park and then on from there. I just don't think the timing would work. Why spend 10 minutes just crossing Gateway before actually heading north?

    Once the main lines are in place I think a line along 23rd between Mill Woods and Tweillager would work but that's far, far in the future.

  24. #224
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I can see a line along 23rd ave in the far future. Actual express routes to Downtown and the University would help a great deal with travel in Mill Woods rather that shuttling everyone from MWTC to Century Park and then on from there. I just don't think the timing would work. Why spend 10 minutes just crossing Gateway before actually heading north?

    Once the main lines are in place I think a line along 23rd between Mill Woods and Tweillager would work but that's far, far in the future.
    It may seem like the Century Park - Mill Woods route is circuitous, but it really isn't. The catch is that the LRT is ROW-protected, so traffic hang-ups don't effect it.

    The schedule from Downtown to Century Park will probably allow for about 17-19 minutes travel time (9 mins Churchill to Health Sciences, +7 to Southgate, +3 to Century Park). Travel from Century Park to Mill Woods will likely take 8-10 mins, for a total travel time of 27-31 minutes. This beats the pants off of the current 35 minute trip by express bus. Sometimes, during foul weather or when motorists are playing demolition derby, the trip takes 50-60 minutes, and, back in my Mill Hoods days, 90 minute trips were not unheard of.

    There is a distinct advantage to this alignment, and it should be done before a Bonnie Doon/Connors Rd alignment. Tracks into the core are already there, service yard is there, ROW is there, bridge over the river. All the hard/expensive stuff is already done. 23 Ave is the home stretch.
    Last edited by madsad; 25-02-2009 at 06:09 PM.

  25. #225
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    One thing that I'm trying to work out if it runs on the surface is how and where would it link up with the current line? It has to get to the service yard somehow. Or would we have a second yard somewhere in the SE?
    I am sure there could be a 2nd maintenance yard somewhere on the south side.

    What I envision is expanding Churchill Square up to the ground level, and LRT users simply go up or down escalators. Multi-level transit stations exist in other cities - I've seen them in London and Toronto. This relies on closing off 99 St and 102A Ave to traffic, which is being discussed at City Hall recently. And it saves the cost of tunneling, obviously.

    It's an idea to explore regardless if the seLRT goes via 102A Ave/Dawson Bridge or via Shaw Conference Centre/Connors Hill.
    “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

  26. #226
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Personally I found MW LRT a perfect opportunity for Strathcona to get LRT. As long as Strathcona has LRT I'd be fine. Maybe two lines that join up to one MW LRT line? Maybe one that goes through Strathcona, and one that takes Connors Rd that would really open up the LRT to more passengars.
    ----

  27. #227
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Personally I found MW LRT a perfect opportunity for Strathcona to get LRT. As long as Strathcona has LRT I'd be fine. Maybe two lines that join up to one MW LRT line? Maybe one that goes through Strathcona, and one that takes Connors Rd that would really open up the LRT to more passengars.
    I have already posted my map farther up, but my map does this. The MW line includes stops at Strathcona, University, and Downtown(Grandin or new 109 street station) and then continues through Oliver to West Edmonton Mall (which would also link WEM up to Downtown) I haven't added it to my map, but the green line would eventually go east of churchill with a quarters stop then across Dawson Bridge onto Sherwood Park (and then the northern part would head up to St. Albert) I didn't get any feedback before, so just curious as to what others think?

    http://www.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&...c45e0e8c130d22

    changed the route a bit so it now is a bit straight south of Whyte.
    Last edited by bicycles; 25-02-2009 at 07:44 PM.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  28. #228
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^I actually don't mind it. It's quite SLEEK. Although some of the turns are sharp, but not much you can do about that. With the WLRT line you got, how do you plan to get the LRT through the Save On Foods (On Ninth) Parking lot to go to 102 AVe and go to Oliver? Or is it underground? Also I'd make High Street station at 124th Street. I'd also make a stop at 149th St. For Mill Woods, I'd include a stop at 83rd and 105th. Another way you could connect it to Strathcona is use the trolley line lands. I'd also include a station at Faculte St Jean. I'd include one at 71st and 34ave. Another thing you could do is have the Mill Woods loop back to S LRT on the Anthony Henday. other than that, it looks good.
    ----

  29. #229
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    ^I actually don't mind it. It's quite SLEEK. Although some of the turns are sharp, but not much you can do about that. With the WLRT line you got, how do you plan to get the LRT through the Save On Foods (On Ninth) Parking lot to go to 102 AVe and go to Oliver? Or is it underground? Also I'd make High Street station at 124th Street. I'd also make a stop at 149th St. For Mill Woods, I'd include a stop at 83rd and 105th. Another way you could connect it to Strathcona is use the trolley line lands. I'd also include a station at Faculte St Jean. I'd include one at 71st and 34ave. Another thing you could do is have the Mill Woods loop back to S LRT on the Anthony Henday. other than that, it looks good.
    - yeah, the plan would be start to tunnel at the end of 102 ave and connect underground to the Grandin line. It's not a lot of tunneling, and its almsot all through a parking lot.

    - the spot I picked for the 124 street stop is a parking lot, not a whole lot of other open areas around there unless something was torn down.

    - in regards to the other stops, is yeah, lots of places could be argued for spots. Didn't want to add too much more as it already has I think 5 more stops then the blue line despite being almost the same distance, but some could definitely be shuffled around, especially if the line instead did cut south after 95th st (Mill Creek Ravine I think?) along the tracks.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  30. #230
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    I think until RAM, the stops should be underground. It'd be wierd, and it takes up too much space to have stops on 124th St.
    ----

  31. #231
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    I think until RAM, the stops should be underground. It'd be wierd, and it takes up too much space to have stops on 124th St.
    yeah, I'd prefer that as well, but would be a lot more costly. One can hope though...
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  32. #232
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^Yes I hope. I just find it'd be too odd for the neighbourhood, underground OR TROLLEY would seem the only way to go. I'm just looking at how it worked at University, and Health Sciences just takes up a lot of room. Now it may be okay there, but I can't imagine the long LRT station on 102ave, it would rip up the whole neighbourhood I'd think, or we'd get the wierd half station thing we have on 7th in Calgary.
    ----

  33. #233

    Default

    Bicycles, whats the estimated ride time from Millwoods to Downtown? 30 mins? 40?

    Your SE line zig zags way to much. There's really not point to jogging all the way over to 75 st like you are, and if this line is going down whyte ave, it should prolly try to use the high level bridge via the old rail ROW that cuts through Northern Old Strathcona. (The one that the high level street car uses)

  34. #234
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^He's using 83rd Avenue.
    ----

  35. #235

    Default

    Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.

  36. #236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    silly question but whats up with the station on the whitemud in your map?

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

    Default

    ^it is te same thing i was saying.

    "Another way you could connect it to Strathcona is use the trolley line lands."

    edit: richard, i agree. who is going to use that?
    ----

  38. #238
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.
    Theres no tunnel, it uses the same tunnel at Health Sciences... Also, there is not that much zigzagging at all on the updated map and the only reason they do is to avoid something or to turn them into more populated areas. And there not so much zigzags as they are curves, its just tough to "curve" lines on google maps.

    As for the Whitemud station, I picture it as a good place for a park and ride for people in the area, maybe not though.
    Last edited by bicycles; 25-02-2009 at 11:37 PM.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

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

    Default

    ^No park n' ride might be ok.
    ----

  40. #240
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    silly question but whats up with the station on the whitemud in your map?
    If that station is moved slightly west, it would be where the current millgate transit centre is.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bicycles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.
    Theres no tunnel, it uses the same tunnel at Health Sciences... Also, there is not that much zigzagging at all on the updated map and the only reason they do is to avoid something or to turn them into more populated areas. And there not so much zigzags as they are curves, its just tough to "curve" lines on google maps.

    As for the Whitemud station, I picture it as a good place for a park and ride for people in the area, maybe not though.
    How does it get around UofA Hospital?

  42. #242
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    If they were to use Whyte Ave the simplest routing would be start going east just south Corbett Hall, use up some of the parking lot north of the ball diamonds

    High Level Bridge to Whyte than across might be more expensive

    Walterdale Bridge is nearing its lifespan and is getting due for replacement, however it is close to the bottom of the river, an LRT bridge would have to be considerably higher or you'd need to do a lot of tunnelling on the north or south sides of the river.

    Connors Road a bridge near the convention center is possible, again would need to be higher than Low Level, Low Level has another wrinkle, it's a historic structure so modifications to appearance would be limited

    Dawson Bridge, might be too far "north" to be acceptable

    28th Ave from 111th Street would be fairly cheap, some tunnelling would be needed to get under the train tracks and assumably Gateway Blvd, Calgary Trail but this may put too much usage on the line from Health Sciences to downtown.

    I prefer two routes either a connection south of Health Sciences and down Whyte or High Level Bridge about 104th Street Whyte 83rd St/86th St

  43. #243
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    High Level Bridge to Whyte than across might be more expensive
    How would it be more expensive? Going over the high level and using the ROW that is already there would mean maybe replacing the track with new tracks and the installation of power.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  44. #244
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    You might have to widen the tunnel under that apartment building on the south side of the high level bridge its a single line ROW if my memory is right.
    http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...03433&t=h&z=18

  45. #245
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bicycles View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.
    Theres no tunnel, it uses the same tunnel at Health Sciences... Also, there is not that much zigzagging at all on the updated map and the only reason they do is to avoid something or to turn them into more populated areas. And there not so much zigzags as they are curves, its just tough to "curve" lines on google maps.

    As for the Whitemud station, I picture it as a good place for a park and ride for people in the area, maybe not though.
    How does it get around UofA Hospital?
    just south of 83 ave.. if you look at the map in satellite view and zoom in it shows a better view. it could also go further south though that open area instead of between the buildings.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  46. #246
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    You might have to widen the tunnel under that apartment building on the south side of the high level bridge its a single line ROW if my memory is right.
    http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...03433&t=h&z=18
    I suspect that with frequencies similar to NELRT (5-6 minutes) the single track would be OK. If expansion is required I could see a vertical expansion (going down) being completely feasible and significantly cheaper and less disruptive than widening, as long as only a few feet are needed to make stacking work.

    The tunnel is just under 200m, by google earth.

    At speed an LRT train would be through the tunnel in about 15 seconds, although the one way space would be longer than that, maybe double or triple. It's still nowhere long enough to require double tracking, though.

    It actually would be best as gauntlet track, where there are two separate tracks that overlap, so that the ROW needs to be slightly wider than it would have to be for singletrack, but there's no need for switches that would slow things down.

  47. #247

    Default

    Here's my map of Edmonton's LRT as I'd like to see it. This uses the High Level Bridge for one line. Note the routing of the Red (west - east) line through downtown is all on the surface.

    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  48. #248
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I like it with a few exceptions. St. Albert line can split off the red west-east line and go past Westmount. I don't get the point of green line after Century Park, but I can live with that. And it's Kingsway and Elerslie, not Kingsways and Elerslies. Otherwise, well done!

    ps by "rutherford south" you mean Edmonton International Airport, right?

  49. #249

    Default

    ^While I don't really agree with the West alignment, I like it the total map as well. I think I understand the point of the green line after Century Park - it offers the opportunity to service Millwoods fast while the more direct yellow line gets designed, and also links Millwoods to UofA, Southgate, SEC (major employer), etc.

  50. #250
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    91

    Default

    I think this is a nice map too.

    You missed McEwan station. It would be a busy interchange station with 3 of 4 lines accessible. Although if you're travelling from "Rutherfood" or Rutherford South to WEM, you'll have to change trains twice at Churchill (or any of the stations between) and then McEwan - kinda redudant. Maybe Churchill can be the central interchange station?

  51. #251
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I think this layout is very comprehensive for Edmonton and area. Well done, lightrail.

    I also wonder, given the wide expanse of some LRT lines, whether it would would be wise to have non-stop bus lines connect certain points (e.g. South Campus to WEM, or Argyll to Capilano), included as part of the rapid transit picture.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  52. #252
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    that make looks great light rail. quick question, where does the red line run downtown? 104 ave?
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  53. #253
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    For the most part I like the map except for the Green Line. From Churchill all the way to Century Park it just doubles up the current line. I don't think we need a stop at SEC, the only time I won't mind seeing something around that general area is if the NAIT south campus ever gets built, then the LRT could go there.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  54. #254
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    For the most part I like the map except for the Green Line. From Churchill all the way to Century Park it just doubles up the current line. I don't think we need a stop at SEC, the only time I won't mind seeing something around that general area is if the NAIT south campus ever gets built, then the LRT could go there.
    I agree. I would rather see a east-west line along 51 ave/ roper road from Terwillegar/ Rabbit hill going north/ east along terwillegar to 51 ave and then east all the way to roper road to end at roper road and 75 street (potentially extendible east to 50th and beyond. Eventually this line could become Devon--Riverbend--Southgate--Sherwood Park south line.

  55. #255

    Default

    So how about this? The green line duplicates the orange because of the expected traffic between downtown and the university - plus you need to turn the green line trains around somewhere and South Campus is logical.

    Note the new interchange station at Lendrum.

    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  56. #256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bicycles View Post
    that make looks great light rail. quick question, where does the red line run downtown? 104 ave?
    Along 105 Avenue to tie into the planned North LRT link.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  57. #257
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bicycles View Post
    that make looks great light rail. quick question, where does the red line run downtown? 104 ave?
    Along 105 Avenue to tie into the planned North LRT link.
    ah thanks! If you ever feel up to it, you should plan it out on google maps.

    also, does the yellow line run above ground on 109 st? with an above ground station at Jasper/109st?
    Last edited by bicycles; 15-03-2009 at 05:00 PM.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  58. #258
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    I know you are just doing the outline for fun but maybe you could also put in projected times for completion/ label which ones get built in which order

    to lightrail.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  59. #259

    Default

    Downtown details:

    Green and Orange lines run in the tunnels under Jasper Avenue.
    Red and Yellow lines run on the surface in a dedicated right-of-way in the centre of the roadways. The yellow line could route along 105 avenue instead of 104 avenue and in hindsight might be a simpler solution to avoid a flat crossing. The stations will most likely be staggered side-platforms to reduce width. Not sure if Corona could be connected, but ideally it would be a transfer location. MacEwan would be two surface stations connected together in some way - have no idea how best to handle the train crossing, but most likely a flat crossing. It's a weak point in the design.

    And yes this is only for fun. Just playing with the freeware Inkscape vector drawing program.

    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  60. #260
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    I think I liked the original green line better, but this map looks great.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  61. #261
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    @lightrail

    Mmmm RutherFOOD station

    =P

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post
    @lightrail

    Mmmm RutherFOOD station

    =P
    Obvious typo. I'll correct it on the next version showing potential extension further out.

    Thanks
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  63. #263

    Default

    Has anyone considered a downtown/Strathcona loop into which all legs of the LRT tie in? I think Melbourne does something like that.

  64. #264
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by debos View Post
    Has anyone considered a downtown/Strathcona loop into which all legs of the LRT tie in? I think Melbourne does something like that.
    I had a map like that, but no one was a fan it seemed. I'll try to find it.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  65. #265

    Default

    ^ well I mean while we're just throwing out hypothetical models for future LRT allingment I would think the core loop ought to be considered. Over time we will only add more legs to the system and a loop enveloping downtown/Jaspe Ave and Whyte/Strathcona seems like a logical common area to tie it all together.

    I see the SELRT attached to the loop at the south east corner naturally. Maybe Bonnie Doon or so.
    Last edited by debos; 17-03-2009 at 04:25 PM. Reason: relevance to thread

  66. #266

    Default

    I think a tram, much like we're discussing for SPR in the wLRT topic, would work great on Whyte between Bonnie Doon and University.

  67. #267

    Default

    ^ That could work. If the tram had LRT stations at both ends - University and Bonnie Doon (the SELRT) like you mentioned. MIght be a cool tourist draw and get the heaps of drunks on and off Whyte without having to vie for limited number of taxis.

  68. #268
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    can someone tell me the advantages of a tram line? isn't it basically a bus on rail? without its own ROW? why not use the money for something with it's own ROW and can move people fast...
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  69. #269
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    Trams usually run on their own ROW. And when they don't, they only usually share the ROW with emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. The overall infrastructure giving trams their own ROW are usually relatively minimal... especially compared to what we currently build to keep public vehicles separate from the LRT.

  70. #270
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    ^^ Tram vs. Bus

    - Market research in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia reveals that while trams can attract 30 to 40 per cent of current car drivers, improved bus service only reduces auto traffic by five per cent.

    - During peak hours, another vehicle can be added to a tram, doubling capacity, without the need for a second driver.

    - Tram ROWs are narrower than bus ROWs.

    - Although tram lines are more expensive to build than bus lanes, once operational, overall costs are lower.

    - Surveys show that passengers find trams more comfortable than buses.

    - In law, rail vehicles have priority over automobiles.

    - Trams attract riders from different social and economic circumstances.

    - Recent examples in cities such as Portland show that a tram line can be a catalyst for redevelopment in excess of a billion dollars per mile.
    Last edited by Green Grovenor; 17-03-2009 at 07:47 PM. Reason: Hat trick

  71. #271
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    Thanks Green Grovenor. Those are very interesting points... especially the part about how tram operational costs are lower than buses.

  72. #272
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    not to be a dick, but when quoting information relevant to your argument it would be nice if you include the source.

    to GG
    be offended! figure out why later...

  73. #273

  74. #274

    Default

    I agree that a strong case can be made for trams especially in a low density city like Edmonton. The way Edmonton builds its LRT with a fenced ROW that is more like a train or subway whereas Calgary runs theirs more like a tram or LRT.

    The Portland example is frought with issues as is Seattle's SLUS.

    A Desire Named Streetcar: How Federal Subsidies Encourage Wasteful Local Transit Systems
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa559.pdf
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  75. #275

    Default

    I know for sure that the transportation department is looking at two potential tram lines as a "test". I agree, they are cheap and easy to do, and Edmonton is ripe for them. Most cities would die for how straight our roads are...

    - Tram going north from downtown on 97 street.
    - Tram on Stony Plan Road going west.

    Just rumours so far, but we better be getting some kind of tram network, cause LRT is too expensive where we don't already own the right-of-way, and trams are SO easy to do...they just operate in normal traffic flow and don't need dedicated lanes.
    www.decl.org

  76. #276
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    they just operate in normal traffic flow and don't need dedicated lanes.
    Now based off of this comment what is the point of a tram. If it isn't in it's on ROW then if traffic flow is heavy the tram will end up being just another vehicle in a traffic jam. I like the LRT for the reason that it has it's own ROW and is affected by car traffic very little. Even if a tram is supposed to be given priority if it is on a regular roadway then it will be just as likely to get stuck in a traffic jam. The LRT won't typically have that problem.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  77. #277
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    For the most part trams do operate in their own ROWS... they just don't have huge amounts of infrastructure to separate it from traffic. Something as simple as grass planted between the rails and a curb like you would see in a residential neighborhood makes it fairly obvious that it's not for cars. There are some areas where vehicles do run in the tram ROW, but usually only emergency and delivery vehicles.



    That's a photo of the Grenoble tram in it's proper ROW. Grenoble, a city half the size of Edmonton, has a tram network of over 65 stations, and the first line opened in 1987. So in a little over 20 years, they've built a pretty impressive transit system.



    Here's one of the Grenoble tram on a road shared by other vehicles.
    Last edited by etownboarder; 19-03-2009 at 11:27 AM.

  78. #278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    For the most part trams do operate in their own ROWS... they just don't have huge amounts of infrastructure to separate it from traffic. Something as simple as grass planted between the rails and a curb like you would see in a residential neighborhood makes it fairly obvious that it's not for cars. There are some areas where vehicles do run in the tram ROW, but usually only emergency and delivery vehicles.

    That's a photo of the Grenoble tram in it's proper ROW. Grenoble, a city half the size of Edmonton, has a tram network of over 65 stations, and the first line opened in 1987. So in a little over 20 years, they've built a pretty impressive transit system.

    Here's one of the Grenoble tram on a road shared by other vehicles.
    That could be done here too. There is not much difference in infrastructure between that and our LRT when you look at it. You still need tracks, still need power supply and stations. Edmonton LRT is built for 5-car trains and they're high floor. The Edmonton LRT could operate line-of-sight without any signals. There's lot's that can be done. But also keep in mind, Europe is much much less litigious that we are in North America. Most of the safety expenses, separation from traffic etc, is due to concerns of litigation. Not a problem in Europe.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  79. #279
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    I must admit that everytime I see these rail lines laid in a bed of grass I do think they look pretty smart.

  80. #280

    Default

    If 2 lanes of 102 traffic were removed for Etownboarders picture it would great IMO, and be more than sufficient transit for Oliver, Glenora, Grovenor and Jasper Place. I am not sure about Millwoods though - although I guess if SLRT was extended down 23 avenue, this could be the second option for millwoods. Take the LRT via 23 avenue SLRT, or take the tram, via whyte over the high level. That might be pretty good I think - the beauty of this type of low floor LRT / tram is we should be able to service a lot more neighborhoods / lay a lot more track for the same cost of LRT.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-03-2009 at 04:11 PM.

  81. #281
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    You'll notice in the first picture how minimal their tram stations are too. I really miss the tram system there... and they continue to expand every single year too.

  82. #282
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I think the low-floor LRT/trams could complement the main LRT lines, if the cost is decent. For example, we could have the following lines:

    (1) 23 Avenue/28 Avenue - Century Park to Mill Woods
    (2) 118 Avenue - Coliseum Station to 106 Street
    (3) Whyte Avenue - Bonnie Doon/83 Street to past 112 Street, connecting with the Health Sciences Station.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    (1) 23 Avenue/28 Avenue - Century Park to Mill Woods
    Why not use full LRT for that one - no change required then. It probably wouldn't cost much different because 23 avenue has plenty of space anyway for the type of ROW that LRT requires. I think full LRT shouhld used for locations where there is plenty of space / low cost, and less invasive low floor option for more built up neighborhoods (like Whyte, Oliver, Bonnie Doon, etc.)
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-03-2009 at 10:27 AM.

  84. #284

    Default

    ^I agree, but it will come down to cost. But where we already have room for the LRT, they should use LRT, since trams usually travel slower and where you normally would use a bus, but want more capacity.
    www.decl.org

  85. #285
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    ^^ yawn
    “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

  86. #286
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    My plan, just an idea.
    ----

  87. #287
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    ^ I like the use of the existing right-of-way as far as Whyte Avenue. It's hard to figure out where to go afterwards, to get to Millwoods while drawing customers along the way. An inexpensive option would be to keep following the CPR tracks south to the abandoned railway bridge (formerly CN) crossing 63rd Avenue. Twenty or more blocks without a station would not be a catastrophe. Indeed, it would make for a faster route. LRT could then go east, as you suggest, along the old ROW to 91st Street.

  88. #288
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    If a line to Millwoods needs to go past Whyte, I would like it to go past Bonniedoon as well.

  89. #289
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    One thing that is the same with all these proposals( i know its just people throwing down their ideas) is that the line going to Millwoods TC always begins between Grandin and UofA station. In my opinion we should be looking at starting it at Churchill going East, cut through the Quarters, new bridge and then continue on whatever path south.
    Or even start at central then go east.

    What do you guys think?
    be offended! figure out why later...

  90. #290
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    i like the latest map. One thing, Grey Nuns and Millwoods TC are close enough to be served by a single stop and 28 ave maybe easier to use and include a stop at J.Percy Page/ MacEwan campus/ Millwoods Rec center/ the Catholic school there.

  91. #291
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,323

    Default

    Whatever route the LRT to Millwoods takes, I would REALLY like to see Whyte and Bonniedoon serviced somehow. Whether that's with a tram or full LRT, that doesn't matter too much to me.

  92. #292
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    yeah, I agree with that, I feel a stop at Whyte Ave. is just as important as getting it out to Millwoods.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

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

    Default

    Thanks for all the comments. It was just an idea. I agree Whyte Avenue is just as important to get LRT as Mill Woods. I'm in favour of a line going to Bonnie Doon to Mill Woods too but I always thought that as a Sherwood Park route. I chose two stops for Grey Nuns' and Town Centre for the case of perhaps someone doesn't drive a car and needs immideate medical attention. I don't know, I also tried to make demolition of buildings minimum and I don't think there would be ANY until south of Whyte. Most of it follows already a rail line so it should be good.
    ----

  94. #294

    Default

    if you need immediate medical attention, call an ambulance.

  95. #295
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^Yes that makes sense. Again it was just a thought. But if you are 2 minutes drive away from Grey Nuns and need immidiate medical attention, LRT will be quicker than ambulence IMO. Or if you are on the LRT and need medical attention. It was just a thought.
    ----

  96. #296

    Default

    Yes, and mine was just a thought as well. My thought was that your thought was misconceived.

  97. #297
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Yeah, we get it Medwards. Theres stops at Health Sciences (University Hospital) as well as one planned for Royal Alex so it's not that weird of a thought to have a Grey Nuns stop.
    you missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye.

  98. #298

    Default

    The grey nuns stop is Millwoods Town Center.

  99. #299
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Or Mill Woods is Grey Nuns ??
    ----

  100. #300

    Default

    COE website has been updated with route info ...

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...tMarch2009.pdf

Page 3 of 70 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... 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
  •