Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 117

Thread: East LRT | Downtown to Sherwood Park | Discussion

  1. #1
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default East LRT | Downtown to Sherwood Park | Discussion

    Here's Sherwood Park's take on the LRT.

    Strathcona (County) still waiting for LRT

    Posted By Michael Di Massa, Sherwood Park News Staff

    With the announcements earlier this month of LRT extension line plans in Edmonton, those hoping for news of a rail line coming into Sherwood Park will have to keep waiting.

    “It’s still in the mix, in terms of looking at the total LRT network system,” Edmonton transit general manager Bob Boutilier said of any potential rail line heading into the Park.

    A report due in June to the Edmonton city council includes a map of potential rail lines, including one stretching from the University of Alberta towards Sherwood Park — an extension of the proposed LRT route to Millwoods.

    http://www.sherwoodparknews.com/Arti...aspx?e=1575556
    Last edited by The_Cat; 20-05-2009 at 11:25 PM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  2. #2
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Wait a second. I thought that Sherwood park was a real city, independent of anyone around them. So why do they depend on us to build LRT their way?

    If they want it they can build the whole darn thing themselves, and pay 100% for everything east of 50th street, and 50% from there to Bonney Doon or so.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Wait a second. I thought that Sherwood park was a real city, independent of anyone around them. So why do they depend on us to build LRT their way?

    If they want it they can build the whole darn thing themselves, and pay 100% for everything east of 50th street, and 50% from there to Bonney Doon or so.
    agreed. When Edmonton wants them to join and become one big city they say no, but they expect to have lrt built to their door ? haha

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    agreed. When Edmonton wants them to join and become one big city they say no, but they expect to have lrt built to their door ? haha
    Agreed with both of you. Why in the world would we fund an LRT track to Sherwood Park or St. Albert without them footing 1/2 the costs?

  5. #5
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Euroland
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Yup. Sherwood Park can suck it up and foot the damn bill.

  6. #6

    Default

    I'd love to have LRT in SC but I'd have to agree with the article that it makes a lot more sense to go elsewhere first.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    If they want it they can build the whole darn thing themselves, and pay 100% for everything east of 50th street, and 50% from there to Bonney Doon or so.
    I think if the Millwoods line went via Dawson / Capilano / 50 street, it really is only a hop, skip and a jump to Sherwood Park. I guess that's not the Dawson proposed route though.

    I guess they could pay the cost to link if they want it sooner - and apply for Federal and Provincial funding to help out, just like we do.
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-05-2009 at 08:41 AM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Ha ha. We haven't built a line to West Edmonton Mall or Mill Woods yet.

    Was anyone in Sherwood Park honestly expecting it?

  9. #9
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    oh look who has come knocking...

    we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    oh look who has come knocking...

    we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.

    Who's suggesting otherwise?

  11. #11
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    oh look who has come knocking...

    we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.
    Why would we even pay that far? anything past capilano mall is far more useful to them than it is to us, and they would be the majority of riders all the way to wherever it joins the Millwoods line.

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    The hostility towards Sherwood Park on these boards is getting completely ridiculous. The article says nothing about how it will be funded and no one in SP is demanding LRT or even expecting it. Did any of you actually read it? It merely discusses the possibility of LRT going to SP sometime in the future, and Boutillier pretty clearly states that it would be one of the last lines built.

    Honestly, every time I see a mention of SP on these boards the past couple of weeks, it's immediately followed by 20 posts of people deriding the community. Get over yourselves already.

  13. #13
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,996

    Default

    ^regardless of who it is, i am fed up with how our billion municipalities suck at working together rather than being selfish bastards.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  14. #14

    Default

    A line to Sherwood Park would need to have stops at Esso and Petro-Can. Shift workers would keep that line going 24 hours a day.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  15. #15
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    "the Sherwood Park area doesn’t appear to have the ridership to warrant building the LRT extension...
    the Sherwood Park line would probably be one of the last lines to build..."

    nuff said

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    The headline really does a disservice to the article, implying that somehow Sherwood Park is demanding Edmonton move on a line in their direction, which the article doesn't really indicate at all. In fact, the article itself isn't really news to begin with, I'm not sure what purpose it really serves except to remind us of what we already know.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Isn't this one of the reasons why there is a regional board? There are a million details to work out, though, but a line to Sherwood Park can help serve either Whyte Ave or 101st Ave so there are benefits to Edmontonians as well.

  18. #18
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I think, while Sherwood Park's line is at least a decade away, that improving transit connections would mean less wear and tear on Edmonton's streets. Sherwood Park could think of the following:

    (1) Bus rapid transit, much like how Vancouver's service supports the SkyTrain. This could kick off regional transit.

    (2) Collaborating with the city on land acquisition for a potential LRT route.

    (3) Trading bus routes with the city, by allowing city buses to Millennium Place or other Sherwood Park destinations, in exchange for a bus route from Sherwood Park to Southgate to connect to LRT.

    If low-floor LRT is introduced to Whyte Avenue, Sherwood Park could have more connections to Bonnie Doon to support potential traffic calming on Whyte.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 21-05-2009 at 07:15 PM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  19. #19
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Isn't this one of the reasons why there is a regional board? There are a million details to work out, though, but a line to Sherwood Park can help serve either Whyte Ave or 101st Ave so there are benefits to Edmontonians as well.
    Those areas would be just as well served by a line that doesn't go to sherwood park.

    THe details could get really messy when the time comes to negotiate who pays, because Edmonton (with provincial and federal help, of course) has built the core system that a strathcona county line would feed into, and while that portions will serve parkians well, edmontonians will get little benefit from the extension. Really they should be paying a proportional share NOW for lines going to NAIT and the west end. Millwoods residents have been paying for LRT extensions to other areas of the city for decades before they get access so it makes sense that we all help pay for thier bit. That logic doesn't work for st albert and sherwood park.

  20. #20

    Default

    the_cat- Sherwood Park practically operates a BRT as is... Limited amount of stops between Sherwood Park and uofa or downtown... You can get from Sherwood Park to Downtown Edmonton quicker then most other bus routes in the city do...

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    agreed. When Edmonton wants them to join and become one big city they say no, but they expect to have lrt built to their door ? haha
    why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.
    ----

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.
    Because then all the property tax goes to one city

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.
    And most American cities are rotting from the inside out because everyone lives in the suburbs and the central city has little or no residential tax base. Atlanta is a fantastic example.

  24. #24
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    Because then all the property tax goes to one city
    And the region has consistent rules. For example, Strathcona County tries to lure companies out of Edmonton by not charging business licensing fees.

    Fortunately, we've still got a monopoly on bong sales!

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.
    Agreed. What Edmonton needs is a Regional Transit System, similiar to Translink in Vancovuer or the Victoria Regional Transit System.

    Translink provides service to over 20 municipalities and some un-incorporated areas. It is the largest service area in North Amercia, serving 1,800 square kilometres. Buses run from the US Border to Lions Bay (and on Bowen Island), and from the Pacific Ocean to the Surrey/Abbotsford Border. A connecting bus operated by ValleyMax connects the Translink Service to Abbotsford and Mission. West Coast Express, operated by Translink, runs to Mission - 65km east of Vancovuer. Fares are integrated.

    The Victoria Regional Transit System services 13 municipalities and one un-incorporated area - buses run from west of Sooke to the top end of the Saanich Peninsula. Connecting service is provided over the Malahat to Duncan, connecting with the Cowichan Valley Regional Transit System.

    There are examples of regional services all over BC. Some operated by a single system, other's different systems connecting and integrating fares.

    The point is that the Edmonton Region would benefit greatly from a regional approach to transit planning, funding and operation. Commuters ignore political boundaries, so why do transit systems have to observe them too? This is were the Provincial government could take a lead. I'd love to see the BC model used in Alberta. The Province would need to establish "Alberta Transit" and legislation to allow regional transit systems to be setup. The BC model is a P3 operation, with a private operator running the buses, the municipality or regional commission setting fares and routes and BC Transit providing buses, technology and reserach and some funding.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  26. #26

  27. #27
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    I think that if LRT is to go out to Sherwood Park, stratcona county has to do a few things. First of all it should follow St.Albert in it's approach and say, "Here's some money, please do some studies/planning for us." Second I would really like to know how much Sherwood Park residents want LRT. Third and most important is to start working with the city of Edmonton, weather it is through the capital region board or directly with Edmonton Transit to figure things out and get plans in the works so that when the time is right LRT can happen.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I think that if LRT is to go out to Sherwood Park, stratcona county has to do a few things. First of all it should follow St.Albert in it's approach and say, "Here's some money, please do some studies/planning for us." Second I would really like to know how much Sherwood Park residents want LRT. Third and most important is to start working with the city of Edmonton, weather it is through the capital region board or directly with Edmonton Transit to figure things out and get plans in the works so that when the time is right LRT can happen.
    To anser your last question first, Thats a great idea to work with the City of Edmonton on issues like this, but the City has done a great job of screwing with SC, case in point SC lobbied for many years(decades?) for a hospital, finally got the funding to go ahead from the province notified all relevant parties of where they wanted to build, received no objections, except for at the eleventh hour the City of Edmonton threw in an objection that the Hospital would be too close to industrial land across the highway and delayed the hospital start by almost a year, now we still have no hospital because it has been delayed due to economic reasons, had the City kept its nose out we would now hav a hospital (it was supposed to open fall 2009). What in the name of Oden did SC do to **** Edmonton off so much that they successfully delayed a very much needed hospital.

    Point being these two can't agree that the sky is blue without starting a fight, how are they supposed to come up with a regional transit plan!!

    To answer the first two questions

    First St.Albert's 50K is peanuts and the whole thing is just BS, 50K won't get you an estimate to do a study never mind an actual study

    Second, as said earlier SC has a BRT(in reality not name) now and has twice the ridership of St. Albert, many folks I talk to in the park would welcome the LRT to Wye or Baseline and it would be pretty easy to get it there too, IMO way easier than to St. Albert.

    PS I agree with the poster earlier that you can't even mention SC on this board and a pile of people crap all over you.

    one thing to remember alot of the money(75 to 90%) somes from the Feds or the Alberta Government and the last time I checked my Passport it said Canadian living in Alberta!!!
    Last edited by KenL; 07-06-2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason: add some comments
    Evolution beats Revolution every time!

  29. #29
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    Maybe Strathcona County and Sherwood Park should think about that the next time they cause problems for the city of Edmonton

  30. #30

    Default

    I wonder if the hospital being built across the street from one of Mandel's real estate investments would increase their value?

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Not likely, its about the size of the NE Community Medical Center in Edmonton. Fort Sask with 12,000 people has a full hospital which will be replaced.

  32. #32
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I think, for the proposed premium transit in Edmonton, that Edmonton Transit could take a few cues from Strathcona County. Bus service has stops at Bonnie Doon, 91 Street and Strathcona en route to the U of A. Downtown routes have only one or two key stops between Sherwood Park and Edmonton.

    If Edmonton wants a route like that to Mill Woods, they should only have stops at key locations. I just hope that it doesn't get watered down because somebody complains about it not stopping on their street corner.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ We have those...they're called "Express" buses.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  34. #34

    Default

    Most of these express buses are only express during the peak rush hours though

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    My point is that they're nothing new, and they aren't anything to "take a cue from Strathcona County" - we already offer similar services in the form of express buses.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  36. #36

    Default

    I am certain it won't be waterdown. The transit planers have a mandate and tehy are good at following it.

    In the past the manadate was to have community service, which lead to every bus stopping every few blocks and routes that twisted and turned onto side paths before hitting is final destination.

    They only follow the approved plan.

    I have been trying for years to get tthe 100 year to make one stop in the west end of oliver with no success.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    My point is that they're nothing new, and they aren't anything to "take a cue from Strathcona County" - we already offer similar services in the form of express buses.
    Premier buss is going to be diffrent than express i would assume.
    Express seems to be node to node service, Premier buss will be direct routes with distant but even stop spacing.

    I wonder what will happen to the express services?

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Correct. Didn't mean to imply that "premium" would just be an express bus, but was rather responding to the comments about how ETS should run routes like SCT, which are essentially just express routes.

    The idea of "premium" bus routes seems to be some unholy mishmash compromise between an express route and BRT. I'm still not sure I fancy the idea, but I'm wiling to see how it works out given the relatively low cost of implementing it.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^

    The idea of "premium" bus routes seems to be some unholy mishmash compromise between an express route and BRT. I'm still not sure I fancy the idea, but I'm wiling to see how it works out given the relatively low cost of implementing it.
    premium buss is brt without all the infrustructure, as BRT would have dedicated ROW and signal priorety along the entire route, where premium buss may have some of that at times.

    from the mouth of a city transportation planner

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ ...which is pretty much what I was implying by my comments, but thanks for putting it into plain language.
    Strathcona City Separatist

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

    Default

    I've scanned the thread, and I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think a great way to connect the planned 250k+ community in Strathcona County (north east of the hwy 21/16 interchange) would be a high floor (sub-urban) commuter style spur extension off of the existing line. There is a giant empty stretch of land in the Homesteader/Hermitage area on the north edge of the Yellowhead on the way into the city that could make a great Century Park style TOD.

    Then instead of dead-ending the line somewhere in the core we could build it out into a new SW extension from South Campus. This would enable higher density development of the U of A farm lands around Grandview, not to mention a great location for our Expo 2017 bid. From there the line scoots over to the Whitemud/Terwillegar drive corridors via 53rd Ave, and then all the way to the new developments in Windermere. Thereafter we can extend the line into the future towards Devon as we add new TOD nodes sequentially.

    I'll post a map after I get home from work.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    The major problem with a routing near Yellowhead (or CN tracks) is you hit the northern edge of Sherwood Park a central routing would be best, but barring tunneling that isn't going to happen with a community with the building density of Sherwood Park. Bonny Doone/Sherwood Park Fwy or 101st Ave/Baseline Road might work better.

  43. #43
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    To me, Baseline makes most sense as you can also have a refinery stop.

    As a Sherwood Park resident I would gladly vote for Strathcona County to pay their fair share.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Sherwood Park should be reserving corridors as well for busways or LRT but alas like Edmonton they feel the traffic signal is God's gift to traffic flow. Last time I drove down Cloverbar Road there seemed like there were more signals than Jasper Avenue downtown.

  45. #45
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    oh look who has come knocking...

    we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.
    Why would we even pay that far? anything past capilano mall is far more useful to them than it is to us, and they would be the majority of riders all the way to wherever it joins the Millwoods line.
    I think this is part of what the regional board is supposed to do: determine regional transit needs - and then assess costs fairly.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    The major problem with a routing near Yellowhead (or CN tracks) is you hit the northern edge of Sherwood Park a central routing would be best, but barring tunneling that isn't going to happen with a community with the building density of Sherwood Park. Bonny Doone/Sherwood Park Fwy or 101st Ave/Baseline Road might work better.
    That may be ideal today, but you'll note that in my concept below, the line does hit up Baseline Road after going by Millenium Place anyways. The three primary advantages of this proposed extension of the high-floor sub-urban LRT line are:

    1. Connecting the planned Strathcona County urban centre (future +250k people) more directly with Sherwood Park on the way into and from Edmonton;

    2. Supporting the development a large TOD opportunity at Homesteader south of Hermitage Road between 45th Street and 34th Street;

    and,
    3. Leveraging the existing LRT line and rail corridors to save money, and improve connection/destination efficiencies.

    All three of those are damned near impossible by doing a separate extension to Sherwood Park from Downtown via the Capilano area.


    These three lines form the backbone of my alternative 100 year LRT network plan.

    1. Gold (G) Line - Heritage Valley to Gormann
    2. Silver (S) Line - Lewis Estates to Lago Lindo
    3. Bronze (B) Line - Windermere to Strathcona County

    To be clear, I don't submit that B Line be even started until the S Line is completed from NAIT to WEM. Even then, the only way the B Line should have priority over a Mill Woods to St. Albert urban LRT line (via HLB, not shown), is if the U of A South Farm lands are selected as a site for a successful EXPO bid. In that case the Homesteader TOD should be given high priority to complete the first phase of that line.

    For those of you who don't understand how long term LRT planning works in conjunction with land-use planning, let's just assume for example that the Windermere Area Structure Plan (ASP) would be ammended in this case to allow for a few high density TOD nodes from Henday south to 41st Street along the new corridor.

    Thoughts?





  47. #47
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    ^I've been wondering when someone was going to broach the subject of taking a line down through Riverbend/Terwilligar/Windermere.

  48. #48

    Default

    your sherwood park line is useless. Travelling down the yellowhead / CN rail line serves no purpose.. other then to use the rail row... You create an extra long route to downtown, and miss the refinieries and east Edmonton 'along' the way.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    The other major factor with using the CN bridge, it is only one track, I'm fairly confident the foundation and pylons of the structure would take the weight of a two LRT tracks, train and passengers it would cost a fair bit to widen (50? 100? million)

  50. #50
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    The other major factor with using the CN bridge, it is only one track, I'm fairly confident the foundation and pylons of the structure would take the weight of a two LRT tracks, train and passengers it would cost a fair bit to widen (50? 100? million)
    Might be time for a new bridge there sometime over the next 15 years before the line would be extended past Homesteader anyways...

  51. #51
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I wonder how much the Sherwood Park line would be used, given roads like the Sherwood Park Freeway, Baseline Road and Yellowhead go faster than the LRT? If it does go to Sherwood Park, it would have to take a straight route like Baseline. I don't think a route that winds around the CN tracks would be popular for those who commute to Edmonton.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  52. #52
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I wonder how much the Sherwood Park line would be used, given roads like the Sherwood Park Freeway, Baseline Road and Yellowhead go faster than the LRT? If it does go to Sherwood Park, it would have to take a straight route like Baseline. I don't think a route that winds around the CN tracks would be popular for those who commute to Edmonton.
    The same argument could be made about the rationale behind building the West LRT line though, right? Why build it when the west is already going to be served well by (an expanded) Whitemud Freeway and Anthony Henday Drive.

    Again, if you read the 3 primary reasons for building this line you'll see that the planned city centre north east of Sherwood Park is going to happen. Edmonton lost it's court case against the county. I've read the documents on the county website and seems like their goals for those communities already fall in line with the Edmonton City Vision and the forthcoming MDP/TMP documents.

    The key missing ingredient is high speed transit into the core.

    A urban style LRT line is not (in my estimation) the most efficient way to make that connection.

    The high-floor, sub-urban model we have now will work best. Does the line extension HAVE to run along yellowhead? Absolutely not. In fact, since (and because of) your last post, I've been inspired to look at some southern approaches that would connect to the south LRT extension, with the line then splitting off towards St. Albert along Kingsway. That might even be preferable, as any future Homesteader and South Farmland developments would be better served by future urban lines.

    If you click on the images, you'll see the updated Bronze line options on google maps:
    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...14c670f7a&z=11

    In the end we need to look at maximizing the main tunnel, and access to downtown and the U of A which it provides with adding TWO additional high-floor lines.

    Separation is not an issue if all THREE have a max peak frequency of 15 minutes... with trains arriving at shared stations every 5 minutes.

    Mill Woods, west end north, SW and other corridors can be built up with urban lines down the road (or track as it were).
    Last edited by Cleisthenis; 17-07-2009 at 12:47 AM.

  53. #53
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    I can't speak for anyone else - but I would use it for work every day.

    The commute from Sherwood Park is pretty easy by car, takes me 25 mins, but we only have 1 car and when there's an accident/fire (at least once/month), the commute becomes over an hour.

    I woudl love to read a book and not worry about some of the idiots in wrong lanes.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  54. #54

    Default

    The ease of branching off a line to Sherwood Park at 101 ave is one reason I favor the Dawson Bridge alignment for MWLRT. The idea that you'd go almost to Belvedere on the way to downtown just boggles me. Start at Festival Place, stop at Strathcona Station and then right down Baseline Road past Capilano to the MWLRT line and across the Dawson. Quick, direct.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis View Post
    A urban style LRT line is not (in my estimation) the most efficient way to make that connection.
    You are getting urban and low floor, and high floor all mixed up. They are different concepts. Low floor can be suburban, high floor can be urban.

    The City has said that High Floor is not an option for Millwoods, it would be cost prohibitive to try to connect to current system (23 ave was not looked at, for whatever reason) We can see this by how costly the NAIT dig out is - all future lines (subject to what is decided re 87 vs SPR), will be low floor. As the East line will certainly one day connect to the Millwoods line (why would it not? it will swing in that direction), it will be low floor too. It could be built suburban (fewer stations and more dedicated ROW at intersections) if that's what communities want.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-07-2009 at 11:00 AM.

  56. #56
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis View Post
    ...
    In the end we need to look at maximizing the main tunnel, and access to downtown and the U of A which it provides with adding TWO additional high-floor lines.
    Separation is not an issue if all THREE have a max peak frequency of 15 minutes... with trains arriving at shared stations every 5 minutes. ...
    You do realize that you're proposing a 40% reduction in capacity on the existing NE line, right?

  57. #57
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    A line that would make the most sense to go to Sherwood Park in my opinion would travel along 85 st. from 95th ave to 98 ave. Then it would travel along 98th and could have 1 or 2 stops before having a station around capilano mall area. At that point it would then have it's next stop just inside of Sherwood Park on baseline road where there could be a park n ride facility.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  58. #58

    Default

    I'd rather see it run along 101 ave with stops at 85th, 75th & at Capilano. Stops in the Park at the Baseline road transit centre and then down to Festival Place. Since it'll be a low floor line it could revitalize the commercial strip along 101 ave similar to what's hoped for SPR.


    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...8ef944dc932fd4
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 08-03-2010 at 05:15 AM.

  59. #59
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    ^The only problem with that route would be that through the residential area there would either be needed a total closure the avenue or the demolision of a row of house. Going via 98 ave there would only be a potential loss of traffic lanes. I do agree though that it would be nice to have LRT along the business part of 101 st.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  60. #60
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    I've looking through different studies and proposals for LRT around the city and I find it interesting that we have lines proposed North/North West, South East, West, and extensions North East and South but still nothing official East to Sherwood Park. I wonder if there is any plans in the works or are LRT planners not really bothering because of a total lack of interest by Strathcona county officials?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  61. #61

    Default

    There's nor a whole lot of Edmonton to the east of Bonnie Doon, where I would imagine the SP line would connect. That being said I think there'll be a lot of calls for an extension out that way once St. Albert is connected.

  62. #62
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    ^^I hope that Strathcona County is interested in LRT. Sherwood Park is getting near capacity, and there are two main roads (Sherwood Park Freeway and Baseline) into Edmonton. It would be remiss for Sherwood Park not to consider this.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  63. #63
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    But then we get back to the whole discussion about enabling sprawl in bedroom communities by building LRT to them. Considering the paucity of dense residential or employment nodes on the East side of the city and the distances involved compared with the other quadrants, the East end really is pretty much the lowest priority in my mind, and Sherwood Park would come after St. Albert and the airport lines.

  64. #64
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    ^True to a point, because if we build to Sherwood Park we would be building to it's center or at least to its outer edge closest to Edmonton, not building to is most recent developments. Sprawl in these other communities have to be controlled weather or not LRT is present.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    ... the East end really is pretty much the lowest priority in my mind, and Sherwood Park would come after St. Albert and the airport lines.
    Ouch! Sherwood Park after St. Albert, maybe. But not after the airport. Regardless of density, the potential ridership from the Park is too significant, IMO.

  66. #66

    Default

    ^it seems like it should be such a short simple line as well, it doesn't have to go far, just to the eastern edge of Capilano by the refineries, before it all becomes the responsibility of Sherwood Park to build out.

  67. #67

    Default

    My concern is the Parks ability, or lack there of, to play nicely in the same sand box as the rest of the region...

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    ... the East end really is pretty much the lowest priority in my mind, and Sherwood Park would come after St. Albert and the airport lines.
    Ouch! Sherwood Park after St. Albert, maybe. But not after the airport. Regardless of density, the potential ridership from the Park is too significant, IMO.
    I think the potential is actually quite low. Sherwood Park is served by two freeways (actually three if you include the Yellowhead, four if we include Anthony Henday), which is hard for LRT to compete against. Not everybody from the Park are going downtown, but to industrial areas not served by LRT. Finally, the LRT would have to pass through a long area of no development (Capilano to Sherwood Park), costly to run and build.

    Sherwood Park is extremely low density. If the intent is to build a urban transit LRT, then Sherwood Park is the wrong priority for LRT. Going there would result in a suburban LRT with a huge park and ride - ridership would be crowded in the peak and almost non-existent in the off-peak, especially at night. It would also be largely single direction.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  69. #69

    Default

    ^others have pointed out that Sherwood park has higher transit ridership than St Albert.

    And, we would just have to build to the edge of the City. I expect this line, if it takes in Refinery row somehow (or connects to a shuttle or similar), could be very useful for Edmonton residents as well.

  70. #70
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    This is one case that not owning refinery row is advantageous for the city of Edmonton. If a line goes out that way it is up to Strathcona county to pay for the LRT line through refinery row and into Sherwood Park.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  71. #71
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    With St. Albert planning its LRT, I think Sherwood Park has to also look at planning its LRT, perhaps along 101 Avenue/Baseline Road. With the route east of 34 Street, there will be two major bridges needed - the CPR/CNR tracks and Anthony Henday Drive.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  72. #72
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Does this not fall into part of the Capital Region committee's doing's
    Don't forget that Sherwood Forest could likely pay for their LRT connenction to River City just off the returns from their empty Chablis bottles ........

  73. #73
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Unfortunately Sherwood Park is probably looking at LRT a whole lot differently than St.Albert. I applaud St.Albert for their interesting and willingness to work with the city. Sherwood Park/Strathcona county seems to be uninterested in working with Edmonton, which is too bad.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  74. #74
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    As a Sherwood Park resident, I think much of the problem with city co-operation are the rural residents. For many years, five of the nine councillors were rural, and they would vote against any kind of development in Sherwood Park. They voted against Sherwood Park's first swimming pool in the early 1970's. They voted against commercial developments that accommodated Sherwood Park's growth. Up until about the late 1980's, there was no development along Baseline Road, and little development along Wye Road.

    In 1995, four of the seven councillors were urban councillors, giving Sherwood Park (and Strathcona County's majority of residents) the balance of power. A few years ago, I talked to a candidate for councillor in one of the rural wards, and this person told me that many of the rural residents do not use Millennium Place. I replied that Millennium Place does not turn rural residents away, and that many Sherwood Park residents do.

    I hope that any mayoral candidate running in this fall's election takes a serious look at LRT. Sherwood Park is in a better position to afford LRT, even if two or three extra miles of track have to be built along Baseline Road. Having a stop at Baseline/17 Street (along with bus service) would be great for anybody working around these industrial parks or refineries. The other Sherwood Park stops could include Broadmoor Boulevard, Sherwood Drive, and Cloverbar Road.
    Last edited by The_Cat; 23-05-2010 at 11:48 AM.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  75. #75

    Default

    I was on the strathcona transit website today; they are working on a transportation master plan. The county is seeking input from its residents through an online survey on transit improvements, and the possibility of LRT is mentioned.

  76. #76

    Default

    ^^ sherwood park should have solved that issue a long time ago by becoming a town/city. instead they have remained a Hamlet.. how can that even be possible with it's population size?!

  77. #77
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Its not much different then other situations in Alberta, Fort McMurray and the towns in the Crowsnest Pass area share a similar organizational structure.

  78. #78

    Default

    As a resident of Sherwood Park, I sometimes find comments from some living in other areas quite laughable. Sometimes the whole county gets tarnished with an Anti-Edmonton brush a little too easily, and sometimes everyone thinks we are royalty out here. Well just to let you know we're a bunch of hard working taxpaying SOB's just like everyone else.

    And to stay on topic received an update letter from my councilor with some comments about LRT to Sherwood Park and the opinions shared were about 50/50 which is way better than a while ago when people would look at you like you were purple elephant for even discussing LRT to the Park. Of course there are the standard "..that would be a waste of taxpayers money..." statements but on the whole I think people are willing to look at it as an alternative to driving to/from Edmonton, which is a positive turn in my mind
    Evolution beats Revolution every time!

  79. #79
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I don't like the generalizations that some people make about Sherwood Park either. Sure, Sherwood Park is more affluent, but it's not without its problems. Many people travel into Edmonton to work, and understand the problems that Edmonton has. Some of them started out in Edmonton, and eventually moved to Sherwood Park.

    As for LRT, I think anybody who takes the bus into Edmonton would gladly support it.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  80. #80
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    The patchwork municipality quilt is extremely unfair to the residents of the city proper. It's all about the services the suburbanites use and the taxation the do not pay. Yeah, roads to start with.

    That's not original, but seriously that's where a lot of the negativity comes from initially.

    Edmonton's "problems", with all due respect to the suburbanites, exist in every city worth its salt. Unfortunately they cannot be done away with, only worked against.

    There should be forced amalgamation. Of St. Albert and Sherwood Park at a minimum.

  81. #81
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Abaka the capital regional board serves that purpose. Different cities and towns have different goals and focuses forcing them to be the same is actually counterintuitive. One city might want to pay more takes for more services, another less, why should everybody forced to the same level of mediocrity?

    The regional board is there to provide services to link different cities, or where one cities actions impact neighboring cities. It could be more involved in transit or promoting of commuter rail and in the longer term future LRT.

    If one looks at a few cities you see where the state has been involved in coordination. The state of California for San Francisco's (and other cities) - BART, the US Government states of Virginia and Maryland for Washington DCs Metro, the province of BC for Vancouver's Skytrain and Canada Line.

    Bigger governments to me is never the answer.

  82. #82
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Abaka the capital regional board serves that purpose. Different cities and towns have different goals and focuses forcing them to be the same is actually counterintuitive. One city might want to pay more takes for more services, another less, why should everybody forced to the same level of mediocrity?
    Just because someone doesn't WANT to pay for more services doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for it... I mean, nobody wants to pay for something if they don't have to or if they can have someone else pay for it. Look where that attitude has left us over the years. With a half-built LRT system and other crumbling infrastructure.

  83. #83
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Yes, as etownboarder said, it has nothing at all to do with "more government". The level of government is Strath County is exactly that of Edmonton's -- a municipal corporation.

    The real issue is that the suburbanites who work in the city use city services and don't pay for them -- not as occasional guests, but as systematic profiteers. As far as I'm concerned, that's morally theft.

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    The real issue is that the suburbanites who work in the city use city services and don't pay for them -- not as occasional guests, but as systematic profiteers. As far as I'm concerned, that's morally theft.
    Not really. They are tourists. Tourists are good for any city, even rowdy ones. They spend their money in the city. We don't pay for the cost of their snow removal, sewage, first stations, etc., but we benefit from the labour force which helps makes business in Edmonton more competitive. In a way it is ideal, beacause they pay more property tax in a bedroom commnuity (at least case with St Albert, not sure about Sherwood park as they have the refineries) than they would in Edmonton (as Edmonton has decided to subsidize new suburbs off the backs of mature neighborhoods). Its one less person for me to subsidize.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-06-2010 at 10:19 AM.

  85. #85
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^If they work and commute daily, they are no tourists, but leeches. And for the rest, you've got it exactly neo-con butt-backwards.

    They profit from the work available in the city, from the yahoo sports made available, etc.
    The city firms have the profit of their labour, of course; BUT that's private sector.

    The city rate-payers as a public body have no profit.

    Maintainling the highways until the city limits is a city responsibility, unless it can wheedle some grants from the province. And the leeches live right adjacent (the borders touch), but don't pay a cent.
    Last edited by abaka; 02-06-2010 at 10:27 AM.

  86. #86
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    They spend their money in the city.
    Oh yay... they go for lunch a couple times a week in the City. That's a very small portion of their money that they spend in Edmonton. VERY SMALL!!!

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Oh yay... they go for lunch a couple times a week in the City. That's a very small portion of their money that they spend in Edmonton. VERY SMALL!!!
    They go to Oilers games, Eskie games, they do stuff in the City. We are glad when people come from other countries and do that. It's good when they come from other towns to, including bedroom communities. Its great we don't have to pay for their sprawling ways, they pay themselves via the community lifestyle they have chosen, no direct subsidy from us (just stuff we need anyway).

  88. #88
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,962

    Default

    I rather take their property taxes on top of what they spend in the city. Does a region of one one million really need all the duplication in government, transit, maintenance, etc. Do we need 22 mayors and their councils taking care of one region? 22 mayors x $50,000/year is $11,000,000 in salary that should be one person and one salary.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    I rather take their property taxes on top of what they spend in the city.
    But that's the dumb mistake we keep following. The new property taxes are going to keep going up to cover the sustainability of these new neighborhoods. Sherwood Park is a ticking time bomb, their rates will go up and up over time just like ours have, as it gets more and more expensive to service further and further out. Let them have that. We instead focus inwards without the long term cost that people will pay for in a bedroom community, but would have subsidized in Edmonton. It isn't worth the sort term money grab for the long term cost, leave that to them.

    The multiple government may seem inefficient, but in a way it is more efficient. The needs of a neighborhoods like the Quarters, is very different from the needs of a neighborhood like Windermere. And, the Windermeres always win, because there is more money there, the donut hole keeps growing because of that. Our government needs to be more local not more spread, if we became one mega city of ex-urbs, there will never be any emphasis on the centre for people on the outskirts just don't care enough about it compared to their big needs, like new interchanges. Let them pay for that if they want it, by going and living in Sherwood park or St Albert, we can focus on recycling mature neighborhoods, and filling the many gaps within our existing footprint.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-06-2010 at 10:55 AM.

  90. #90
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,327

    Default

    Don't forget that Strathcona County has a large number of refineries etc within their borders between Sherwood Park and the City of Edmonton. If you amalgamate Sherwood Park with Edmonton, you're not going to exclude the industry in between both cities, are you? Adding the industrial tax base to the City of Edmonton would be the biggest benefit of amalgamating with Sherwood Park. I realize this is exactly what Strathcona County is afraid of, but it's the right thing to do IMO.
    Last edited by etownboarder; 02-06-2010 at 11:12 AM.

  91. #91
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^^OK, what moahunter says there I agree with.

  92. #92
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,393

    Default

    Most of this discussion should be in the following section
    Regional Co-operation
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...splay.php?f=29

    Ask yourself if 50 people can't agree on this forum, then why would you expect 1 million citizens in the area to agree?

    Getting back on topic which is the LRT east to Sherwood Park, unfortunately Sherwood Park's growth model seems less dense, plus no corridors seem to be allocated, one could have had belts extending most of the E/W through by now.
    Some of the future plans like Emerald Hills seem reasonably dense enough to support LRT.

  93. #93
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    I hope that sometime strathcona county planners think it would be good to be involved in the LRT system. St.Albert has already stepped up to the plate, so it's time that Sherwood Park step up too.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  94. #94
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    Strathcona County had a survey for riders in May and June, and many of the responses indicated an interest in LRT.

    I hope that the county can follow up with this.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  95. #95
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Well that is a positive step if many are indicating an interest in the LRT.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  96. #96
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    I am against any LRT system built to Sherwood Park from Edmonton, or vice versa.

  97. #97
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    I am against any LRT system built to Sherwood Park from Edmonton, or vice versa.
    So if Strathcona County built a LRT to Edmonton city limits you would be against that?
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  98. #98
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,927

    Default

    I'm not, given that Baseline Road is an established right-of-way, and that the LRT could be built to 34 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  99. #99
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,957

    Default

    Well just remember, by having LRT to Sherwood Park, they are not promoting sprawl, they are just connecting what is already there.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  100. #100
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I would like to see Wye/ Shwd Pk Frwy/ 82 ave to gateway to rail ROW in Old Strath to the existing LRT bridge to make a high floor tech line from St. Albert to the Park and one from Clareview to EIA looking long term.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •