Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 917

Thread: Metro Line | NAIT to St Albert | Conceptual Discussion

  1. #1
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    173

    Default Metro Line | NAIT to St Albert | Conceptual Discussion

    Does any one know any plans or concepts for the LRT past NAIT? As in to Northgate or to Castledowns, anything like that.

    Thanks!

  2. #2

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,908

    Default

    ^ Ultimately. I think the future of this route depends on the decision about closing the City Centre Airport and a World's Fair.
    Almost always open to debate...

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,427

    Default

    ^The NAIT station will only be a temporary station for that reason.

  5. #5
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^Also so NAIT can develop a master plan for the station to fit into.

  6. #6

    Default

    naits masterplan is dependent on YXD decision

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,449

    Default

    Well, the City should be selecting the NWLRT team within the next couple of days. The RFP closed a couple of weeks ago and the City was conducting interviews last week.

  8. #8
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    is there an expected timeline for this NWLRT past Nait? like, should we really be paying for a report that we know will be redundant in 30 yrs when it could finally become relevant?

  9. #9
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default North West LRT | NAIT to St Albert | Conceptual Discussion

    With all the talk about LRT going on, the completion of SLRT, the planning of NLRT to NAIT, the NELRT extention to Gorman, the planning for SELRT and WLRT, I find it interesting that slowly other interested communities are starting to jump onboard the LRT train.

    http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...b=EdmontonHome

    I saw this tv article the other day and I found this a significant and important step to further expanding our LRT system here in Edmonton and now the Edmonton region. The article did state that LRT to St.Albert is not on any higher priority than SELRT or WLRT but I think to me it made a very strong statement. More and more people are understanding that LRT is a very important part of transportation in the capital region and are finally starting to make our council aware that we need this now and not 50 years down the line.

    It was suggested that planning/studies for a StALRT line could be started next year and construction still would be a number of years away. With that said though I am really curious as to which would be a ideal line to go out that way. Do we go towards St.Albert north from NAIT? Do we branch off from the future WLRT line? Do we build a completly seperate line leaving from the downtown core to head to St.Albert?

    Funding for the StALRT would also be interesting because now you have two seperate cities building one line. Now other regions around Canada and the U.S. have done it but it is a new thing for Edmonton. I'm assuming that purhaps the Capital Regional Planning Board may need to be involved in this or is it as simple as we will built the line up to our border and they build the LRT lines into and throughout St.Albert themselves?

    Even though we are in a very preliminary stage of this new direction that LRT is desired I think it is great to hear as hopefully this will only continue to push Edmonton city council, and now St.Albert city council to want LRT planning and construction continue to grow and grow.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  10. #10

    Default

    St Albert has always been the ultimate justification for the NAIT line. There isn't good access from downtown to St Albert (unlike Sherwood Park), so an LRT line will do very well to there. When you tie in that it will benefit Castledowns, and take a ton of traffic off the roads, I think it has always been seen as a good ultimate goal. I would presume St Albert would pay the cost from Castledowns.

  11. #11

    Default

    You would think what moahunter is saying is true, but consider that sherwood park and st albert are relatively the same size, yet Sherwood Park has double the transit riders? I think a line out to sherwood park would be just as supported as st albert, if not more.

  12. #12

    Default

    ^I was surprised to learn that recently - you might be right. And, if Millwoods gets built next after NAIT per Mandel (who rarely mentions WLRT), then Sherwood Park would be an easy / short link (depending on the Millwoods route).

  13. #13

    Default

    Does the Park have more transit ridders, because their current commuter system is beter than saint albert, or is it because St Albert is anti Transit.. Ridership numbers only give you part of the picture.

  14. #14

    Default

    ^I was thinking as well - maybe the reason Sherwood Park is higher, is that transit actually works better, because of the better access to Edmonton. A bus from Sherwood Park to downtown Edmonton, must be reasonably quick and pleasent, whereas I expect a bus from St Albert to Edmonton downtown is stuck in slow moving traffic most of the way. In this respect, LRT from St Albert to downtown Edmonton could exceed expectations on ridership, as for the first time ever, there would be a good link in.

  15. #15

    Default

    I would GUESS that the Park also has more duel income households. thusly more commuting.

    I am pulling that one right out of my bottom though.

  16. #16
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    I had a summer job in St. Albert a couple years ago at Athabasca University's Centre for Innovative Management and took the bus from Canada Place (only a couple blocks from my front door) right to the front door of my office building at Grandin Mall. It was extremely convenient and very fast. The reason the service was so fast is that the buses from St. Albert don't make many stops at all. They only stop at maybe 6-8 bus stops from downtown before getting to St. Albert.

  17. #17
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    30

    Default

    ^^^I live and grew up in St. Albert (took the bus to university for 7 years) and have considered taking the bus, but the service isn't great after 5. If I miss the bus around 5:15 from around Canada Place, the next one near there is close to 6. I think I would take LRT from St. Albert to downtown if the frequency is still pretty high after 5. I think that it definitely be faster in the winter.

  18. #18
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    St. Albert, AB
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You would think what moahunter is saying is true, but consider that sherwood park and st albert are relatively the same size, yet Sherwood Park has double the transit riders? I think a line out to sherwood park would be just as supported as st albert, if not more.
    My dark side says that St. Albert is being touted as an LRT destination as a reward for being more collcaboratively involved in the greater Edmonton regional council (or whatever it's called!) than Strathcona County has been. Perhaps a message is being sent that there are benefits to getting along.

  19. #19
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Well wouldn't that be interesting if that is the case, cooperation is a good thing. Maybe that will help give the regional board more teeth.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  20. #20
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaronf View Post
    ^^^I live and grew up in St. Albert (took the bus to university for 7 years) and have considered taking the bus, but the service isn't great after 5. If I miss the bus around 5:15 from around Canada Place, the next one near there is close to 6. I think I would take LRT from St. Albert to downtown if the frequency is still pretty high after 5. I think that it definitely be faster in the winter.
    You're right... after 5 the service is pretty bad. I remember missing my bus once, and having to walk up to the main southern transit centre to catch one of the last buses into Edmonton. I almost got stranded.

  21. #21

    Default

    It was mentioned earlier that there are other regions that have a 'shared' LRT concept between two cities. I'm curious is anyone knows how well that worked out?

    One downside I see is that, is Edmonton making it easier for people to live in St. Albert (and spend their dollars there) because the commute to work in Edmonton is quick/easy?


    St Albert seems to benefit the most - their tax base will increase, which means that the business that thrive on "everyday" business will have increased revenue as well.

    Overall, I think it's a good plan - decreasing the traffic on the roadways will reduce maintenance costs/emissions/etc.... However, I am a little concerned if Edmonton is to pay the lion's share of this expansion.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I would GUESS that the Park also has more duel income households. thusly more commuting.

    I am pulling that one right out of my bottom though.
    Yeah that would be true, pulling it out of your butt,

    The two are neck and neck in the income numbers so that idea is out the window!!
    Evolution beats Revolution every time!

  23. #23

    Default

    ^That's my understanding as well - both locations are among the richest parts of the greater Edmonton area.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelganger View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You would think what moahunter is saying is true, but consider that sherwood park and st albert are relatively the same size, yet Sherwood Park has double the transit riders? I think a line out to sherwood park would be just as supported as st albert, if not more.
    My dark side says that St. Albert is being touted as an LRT destination as a reward for being more collcaboratively involved in the greater Edmonton regional council (or whatever it's called!) than Strathcona County has been. Perhaps a message is being sent that there are benefits to getting along.
    That would mean we are trying to buy influence with LRT paid for with taxpayers money.


    In the words of Henry Kissinger; "The United States does not have friends, it only has interests."
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #25

    Default

    ^ right.

    (note the sarcasm)

  26. #26
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Now that we are going to be closing the ECCA for redevelopment, I think that we can justify planning for the NAIT line to be a true north extension all the way up the 97th Street corridor, and a 2nd NW line to St. Albert. If the SE/NW planning weren't separate processes the logical thing to do would be to select one of the two SE HLB routes and then connect to MacEwan, the Municipal Lands, Yellowhead JCT and St. Albert at grade via 110th street and Railtown Park from Grandin:

    http://is.gd/1yI0t

  27. #27
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.

  28. #28
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.
    I don't believe there's been any analysis, study, or decisions to that end however. The zeitgeist at city hall is there to send it NW, but the whole reason they stopped short with the temp. NAIT station is that they don't know for sure which way it'll go north.

  29. #29
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Yes, but they have also stated that the line will end in St. Albert... they're just not sure of the route in between NAIT and St. Albert.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.
    I agree - it wouldn't seem right to have three lines North (existing, 97, St Albert), 1 West, 1 East, and 2 South (SLRT, and Millwoods). Aside from on this board, I haven't seem anything suggesting another North line beyond NAIT, for a very long time, at least until the six main legs are complete (West, East, St Albert, Millwoods, plus existing 2).

  31. #31
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Sigh... I know people have stated it, but my point is that it's not been a result of any formal decision making processes. The fact is the best use of that line to serve north edmonton is straight up the middle along 97th street. I don't think it's too late to push for that. If there's one thing I've learned from the ECCA campaign, it's that nothing is written in stone.

  32. #32
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.
    I agree - it wouldn't seem right to have three lines North (existing, 97, St Albert), 1 West, 1 East, and 2 South (SLRT, and Millwoods). Aside from on this board, I haven't seem anything suggesting another North line beyond NAIT, for a very long time, at least until the six main legs are complete (West, East, St Albert, Millwoods, plus existing 2).
    Have you seen a map of Edmonton lately moa?

    NW - N - NE
    W - E
    SW - S - SE

    That's four LRT lines. I think that closing the Muni alone, nevermind the new MDP/TMP policies can justify building 4 lines over the next 30 years.

  33. #33
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I agree. The existing traffic pattern and transit passenger flow maps make it clear that 97st is the better destination for NLRT beyond NAIT. I suspect that when NLRT gets to NAIT most North end buses will be rerouted to connect to LRT at Kingsway to artificilly boost LRT numbers (why else would kingsway station have such a huge bus station, and why else would they need a 4 lane 106st?). Once 10,000 daily riders up 97st are connecting to NLRT they will demand that NLRT continue their way- otherwise NLRT will only be going far enough north to be a nuisance.

    The other reason that I fully support planning a NW LRT line in addition to the N line is that the 121st and 142st ROWs are just begging for LRT.

  34. #34
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I agree. The existing traffic pattern and transit passenger flow maps make it clear that 97st is the better destination for NLRT beyond NAIT. I suspect that when NLRT gets to NAIT most North end buses will be rerouted to connect to LRT at Kingsway to artificilly boost LRT numbers (why else would kingsway station have such a huge bus station, and why else would they need a 4 lane 106st?). Once 10,000 daily riders up 97st are connecting to NLRT they will demand that NLRT continue their way- otherwise NLRT will only be going far enough north to be a nuisance.

    The other reason that I fully support planning a NW LRT line in addition to the N line is that the 121st and 142st ROWs are just begging for LRT.
    These are just my three proposed high-floor/commuter style LRT lines which are forming the backbone of my alternative 100 year LRT proposal ... not shown are my East/West(north option) and Mill Woods to St. Albert low-floor urban LRT lines...




    Last edited by Cleisthenis; 14-07-2009 at 11:57 PM.

  35. #35

    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.

  36. #36
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Medwards, note the Homesteader TOD and the fact that the primary purpose of this line isn't to serve east edmonton, but to connect the new 250,000 plus person community that's being planned northeast of sherwood park...

  37. #37
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Belvedere station is only about 10 blocks from where the Homesteader site is. Do we really need another LRT station that close in that part of the city?

  38. #38

    Default

    Well, I don't agree with that route. But leta discuss that in the proper thread... I've already moved my comments there.

    *Note* both the images you have put in this thread have nothing to do with the topic at hand. NAIT to St Albert.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danimalrex View Post
    Belvedere station is only about 10 blocks from where the Homesteader site is. Do we really need another LRT station that close in that part of the city?
    Take it to the Sherwood Park thread if you like danimalrex.

    Medwards: Both of the images show the Silver (NAIT) line in context of the other high-floor routes in my proposal ... read the few comments after my initial post. This is really about a discussion of whether the NAIT line should go to St. Albert at all or serve North Edmonton.

  40. #40
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis View Post
    Sigh... I know people have stated it, but my point is that it's not been a result of any formal decision making processes. The fact is the best use of that line to serve north edmonton is straight up the middle along 97th street. I don't think it's too late to push for that. If there's one thing I've learned from the ECCA campaign, it's that nothing is written in stone.
    I kind of agree with this post.... but where would the line go?
    -can't afford to take lanes away from 97st
    -101st maybe?
    -I'm guessing alot of homes/businesses would have to be bought up

    I would love the idea of a line right up 97st area, after all the castledowns area is what 70 blocks from Clareview?
    i love lamp

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdimedru View Post
    I would love the idea of a line right up 97st area, after all the castledowns area is what 70 blocks from Clareview?
    So Castledowns shouldn't get service because it is a long way away from Clareview? Why do lines have to be close together - isn't it good if we get more "area" coverage so buses can feed into LRT from more parts of the City?

    I think another North line might be great one day, but more south lines would be great to, and we haven't even built one West or East line yet. One step at a time. I think St Albert and Sherwood Park though, being right on the City border, make too much sense to not happen (even if my preference is for WEM-Millwoods first, but then I'm biased living in the West). Esp. as the lines get closer when I think residents in those Cities / Hamlets (or whatever they call themselves) might be willing to pony up to get the "extension".
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2009 at 11:36 AM.

  42. #42
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sdimedru View Post
    I would love the idea of a line right up 97st area, after all the castledowns area is what 70 blocks from Clareview?
    So Castledowns shouldn't get service because it is a long way away from Clareview? Why do lines have to be close together - isn't it good if we get more "area" coverage so buses can feed into LRT from more parts of the City?

    I think another North line might be great one day, but more south lines would be great to, and we haven't even built one West or East line yet. One step at a time. I think St Albert and Sherwood Park though, being right on the City border, make too much sense to not happen (even if my preference is for WEM-Millwoods first, but then I'm biased living in the West). Esp. as the lines get closer when I think residents in those Cities / Hamlets (or whatever they call themselves) might be willing to pony up to get the "extension".

    Maybe I confused yah, I think there absolutely should be service to the Castledowns (North Edm) area... I live there, and its a long drive to the CV train station...
    i love lamp

  43. #43
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    I think we can look at the possibility of having a branch line with NAIT as a northern hub. We can have the NWLRT line go to St. Albert and then we have a NLRT to northgate and maybe all the way to the Garrison.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  44. #44
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    How about serving St. Albert (and more) via the 121 st ROW as a branch of a low floor SPR WLRT, and NLRT can go north, to Northgate, as it should.

  45. #45
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Well I would rather have LRT branch on this NLRT line just because there is maybe better chance of it getting built sooner than later.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  46. #46

    Default

    St Albert is preparing for LRT.

    I wonder where they are expecting to put their portion of the line?

  47. #47
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    That would be quite interesting to see, is there any room remaining around St.Albert trail to head into the valley?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  48. #48
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Well I would rather have LRT branch on this NLRT line just because there is maybe better chance of it getting built sooner than later.
    If WLRT is lowfloor as is currently proposed then I expect that momentum will be to build out the low-floor before completing the highfloor system. A branch off WLRT at 121st and north from there would be as cheap as rail transit ever could be, and having the airport lands bracketed by two LRT lines and 4 stations would be better than being bisected by a highfloor line.

    And if WLRT is highfloor down 87ave, then millwoods LRT will need somewhere to go on the other end, and St. Albert is the perfect fit.

  49. #49
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    That would be quite interesting to see, is there any room remaining around St.Albert trail to head into the valley?
    The cheap option would be a station on the outskirts, either near village landing or by servus centre where it would be potentially useful to some edmontonians. If St' Albert has a few hundred million to blow I would expect to see it in the median of st. albert trail. there would be very little landscaped buffer left for the neighbourhoods, though, and I dont' see them sacrificing any traffic lanes on an already busy road, except perhaps a few sections where it's 8 lanes. Whatever they would do, the intersection at McKinney could end up with even longer wait times for lights than university ave.

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,337

    Default

    I think the long term plan for AB Transportation is to divert highway 2 around the west side of St. Albert, this would reduce some traffic along St. Albert trail making the median more viable for LRT.

  51. #51
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Ray gibbon drive is the first stage of the 'west regional road, once called the west bypass, and it will eventually rejoin highway 2 north of the city, but I think that it's unlikely to substantially reduce traffic on St Albert Road. Those who want to go west already take highway 37 to the villenueve highway. Just like on highway 2 south of the city, not a whole lot of the traffic on the trail is long distance. It's mostly St. Albertans going to Edmonton, or travelling within St. Albert.

  52. #52

    Default New Tender

    LRT EXTENSIONS Proj: 9059400-13 Edmonton, Division No 11 AB PREPARING PLANSNorth LRT Extension, from downtown to NAIT

    $600,000,000 est

    Note:Invited Request for Proposal (915657) for Prime Consulting Services for Project Management, Detailed Design and Construction Engineering has recently been awarded. Design, tender and construction schedules have yet to be determined. Further update early 2010.

    Project: Proposed LRT extensions including three new stations (MacEwan Station, Kingsway Station and a temporary NAIT Station). Development:EngineeringCategory:Tunnels, subways; Passenger terminals

  53. #53

    Default

    ^we are back to a temporary station for NAIT? Very confusing.

  54. #54

    Default

    We were always going to have a temp nait station..I don't think that ever changed

  55. #55
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    I think moahunter is referring to the change in alignment... heading through the Edmonton City Centre Airport lands.

  56. #56

    Default

    ^I think I'm just getting confused / wrong perhaps (far from the first time). I had thought maybe by the time it got out to NAIT, it could be a permanent station, but I guess that's not the case.

  57. #57

    Default

    I think the permanent station would be built at the time that the expansion in the immediate area is completed. Isn't that the plan with Health Sciences & the Edmonton Clinic?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  58. #58
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Health Sciences is a permanents station is it not? I don't think any changes are going to be made.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,192

    Default

    Health Sciences has some roughed in provisions for escalators and elevators for pedways I was told.

  60. #60

    Default

    ^I hope they keep it that way, and don't finish it. I like that "temporary" station better than the "permanent" ones, no need to mess around going up and down escalators and similar.

  61. #61

    Default

    Moahunter... These escalators and elevators would be used to connect to the pedways that will link the 2 portions Edmonton Clinic and University of Alberta Hospital together. You will still have the same access from the sidewalk as you do now.

  62. #62

    Default

    ^Are you sure? If so, that would be an "enhancement" (although no doubt an expensive one, but I guess the clinic will need to be linked for medical reasons).

    Often when a pedway or tunnel goes in though, the street grade pedestrian crossing / access goes (to make "safer" for pedeistrians or allow traffic to travel faster). I think the station works really well in its current state, I like being able to simply walk over the tracks and cross to the main entrance of the hospital.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-10-2009 at 03:51 PM.

  63. #63

  64. #64
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^we are back to a temporary station for NAIT? Very confusing.
    The problem is that the new temporary station is in a worse location (at least, temporarily until the airport is redeveloped), farther from most nait students and less accessible from the nearby neighbourhoods, all just to send a signal that the airport closing is inevitable. You won't ever see a cost for this because the original NAIT proposal was over budgeted, but make no mistake- this will cost millions more than the original proposal, along with affecting traffic on princes elizabeth ave, and being less accessible.

    If we need so badly to send a signal on the airport then 5 or 10 million to upgrade the Villenueve airport, or for relocation assistance would be far more productive.

  65. #65
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    So is any hope for LRT to Northgate dead?
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  66. #66
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^hope for lrt anywhere is dead.

  67. #67
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^hope for lrt anywhere is dead.

    I am trying not to loose hope...Things look really bad atm. but We need to regroup! We need to contact council and keep the conversation about LRT expansion and sustainability put back on the table. THis is not rocket science folks. Other Large cities are doing it. We just need to work hard to keep LRT and sustainability on the agenda

  68. #68
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^hope for lrt anywhere is dead.

    I am trying not to loose hope...Things look really bad atm. but We need to regroup! We need to contact council and keep the conversation about LRT expansion and sustainability put back on the table. THis is not rocket science folks. Other Large cities are doing it. We just need to work hard to keep LRT and sustainability on the agenda
    I sent an email to all councillors and the mayor and received some positive responses. LRT isn't dead.

  69. #69
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I sent an email to all councillors and the mayor and received some positive responses. LRT isn't dead.
    They're sinking it with good intentions. They've got a good thing going because the way they're keeping the bill from passing leaves no one accountable for it. Endless half steps that never go anywhere. New options that are actually old endlessly recycled.

    If you have hope at this point, I'm impressed.
    Blog: http://www.stormbrew.ca/ | Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stormbrew

  70. #70
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    http://atcityhall.blogspot.com/2009/...y-derails.html

    LRT tax levy derails
    City council was not on board for an idea to create a new tax levy for an LRT line to St. Albert.

    Coun. Len Bracko asked for council's support Monday for the LRT levy scheme, which would have charged property owners $1 per $100,000 of assessment and shown up as a separate levy on tax notices starting in 2010.

    The idea would have meant an extra $4 in municipal taxes for a home worth $400,000. Citywide, the levy would have generated less than $100,000 — money Bracko said should be put into a reserve until an LRT line to St. Albert is viable.

    Bracko understood the levy would have generated modest revenues, but argued its mere existence would send a strong message to the provincial and federal governments that the city is serious about LRT.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  71. #71
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    NW LRT beyond NAIT has made it's way into the concept phase.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  72. #72
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    ^That's good, but where has it made it's way into the concept phase, any official announcements?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  73. #73
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default



    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  74. #74
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    I personally like the St. Albert Trail corridor...it seems the fastest and it would have the easiest time crossing the CN tracks.
    BUT-if Edmonton is paying for this, to what extent should it serve the communities of Edmonton over just a quick trip to the suburbs of St. Albert...?
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    127 St. is probably best suited for LRT. Lots of density already there, and lots potential for new, higher-density infill. LRT could help revitalize the commercial sections of it as well; I've always thought it could be a neat little neighborhood with some care and attention.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  76. #76
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post
    I personally like the St. Albert Trail corridor...it seems the fastest and it would have the easiest time crossing the CN tracks.
    BUT-if Edmonton is paying for this, to what extent should it serve the communities of Edmonton over just a quick trip to the suburbs of St. Albert...?
    Well if St. Albert pays to get LRT into St.Albert then that is fine. If it terminates at the city border but we can see a substantial drop in traffic past the park n ride then that can be a big positve too as there is a massive amount of traffic that comes out of St.Albert.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  77. #77

    Default

    The Southern St Albert trail option looks neat. Whatever route though, taking autos of St Albert trail will be a good benefit.

  78. #78

    Default

    ^ South St. A Trail for speed, but I think the 127th has the largest potential for new riders ... plus I like how it cuts through 137th to get to retail there.

  79. #79

    Default

    ^It might be neat for the new communities around box stores (e.g. Leons, etc.). It would be nice for the older lower income communities on 127as well though, or St Albert Trail if it went that way.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-02-2010 at 03:32 PM.

  80. #80

    Default

    Don't like the 137 ave option at all.

    St. Albert Trail seems to be suited mostly to St. Albert. Not a lot f benefit to Edmonton there.

    126 St or 113A looks best to me. If we go up 127 to 153 ave I'd accept that whole heartedly. Also, it's far enough from 97 st to allow a future line up that way.
    '

  81. #81

    Default

    ^an advantage of 113 is it would be close enough to service 97, without needing an extra LRT line.

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,337

    Default

    Umm not too many people would want to walk a mile to 113th street from either 127th Street or 97th street.

  83. #83

    Default

    ^it would be a very short bus hop.

  84. #84

    Default

    ^ Unless your in terwilligar... a short bus is not do-able?

  85. #85

    Default

    ^last time I looked, Windermere / Terwillegar was more than a mile from South Campus.

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,337

    Default

    Not to mention the NAIT, St Albert line will probably NOT stop at Terwillegar (one never knows the future though)

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^last time I looked, Windermere / Terwillegar was more than a mile from South Campus.
    Windermere is about a 5 minute ride from Heritage Valley future LRT station.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Not to mention the NAIT, St Albert line will probably NOT stop at Terwillegar (one never knows the future though)
    I was cross-posting. I'm sure you realized this, but needed to make a funny?

  89. #89

    Default

    Looks like the line will be a more "urban style" one:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...843/story.html

    "This isn’t something we will be suggesting will be built tomorrow. We’re doing some long-term planning,” he told a news conference.

    He estimated the cost of the lines, which range from eight to 10 kilometres long, would be about $1.5 billion.

    While they would use the existing high-floor trains rather than the low-floor cars set for the new west and southeast routes, Laughlin said tracks embedded in concrete rather than gravel and other features would provide an urban feel.

  90. #90

    Default

    what this? High floor can do the same thing as low floor? OHHHH MMMMMM GEEEEEE

  91. #91
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,337

    Default

    Medwards yes I realize that you were being sarcastic.

    Urban feel - (n) of or pertaining to the cost of a project doubling or tripling when compared to other similar projects in differing urban areas.

  92. #92

    Default

    ^I thought it is simply a code word meaning not building all the big barriers and similar like the SLRT - i.e. doing it much cheaper like other cities have. In writing that, $1.5 billion doesn't look that cheap when compared to WLRT / Millwoods, high floor seems to just be costly, period.

    Low floor is a separate issue - it simply an even cheaper system that is more accessable for disabled and seniors (as no concrete raised platforms required for stations), with sexier looking trains.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-02-2010 at 04:53 PM.

  93. #93

    Default

    'cheaper' is debatable. I have yet to see anyone provide even a morsal of proof that high floor or low floor is cheaper than each other. Considering both can do the 'urban feel' what ever that means. Both could or could do with out all the barriers of the SLRT.

    Again, I'll repeat what I've repeated here many many times - its not if its high floor or low floor, its how we design everything else that provides the cost differences...

    high floor and low floor can both intregrate in to the community very well, or very badly. It's all in the application of it.

  94. #94

    Default

    I would like to see the 127 option that goes down 118 ave first...

    It would spur redevelopment of the Charles Camsell Hospital site.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 10-02-2010 at 05:25 PM.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Medwards yes I realize that you were being sarcastic.

    Urban feel - (n) of or pertaining to the cost of a project doubling or tripling when compared to other similar projects in differing urban areas.
    What's all this "urban feel" crap? What's not urban about the existing LRT? When was the last time you saw an LRT line running through a rural area?
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  96. #96
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    ^Well what about the LRT line that runs from Millet to Westaskwin. Ain't that an LRT? Or maybe just a really fast tractor.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Medwards yes I realize that you were being sarcastic.

    Urban feel - (n) of or pertaining to the cost of a project doubling or tripling when compared to other similar projects in differing urban areas.
    What's all this "urban feel" crap? What's not urban about the existing LRT? When was the last time you saw an LRT line running through a rural area?
    Our current LRT is built like it's a Rural Heavy Train. With large ROW and much to much infrastructure.

  98. #98
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    Of the 3 options, I like 127 St the best.

    Not only is there good passenger catchment through most of YXD (once developed) and the Kensington neighborhoods, but the Yellowhead crossing could be done in conjunction with an interchange. The 127 St corridor north of Yellowhead is wide enough to accommodate LRT and it has the CN underpass. It can also stop at the VIA Rail station.

    And for purely selfish reasons, my dentist's office is on that route!
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 10-02-2010 at 09:56 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

  99. #99
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,736

    Default

    Looking at the routes, I think that one of the two are great choices:

    (1) 113 A Street - 153 Avenue - Access to Griesbach, Castle Downs and other NW Edmonton neighbourhoods. Also potential bus connections along 167, 153, 137, 132 and 127 Avenue, with minimal competition to 97 Street, 127 Street and St. Albert Trail. Potential obstacles - the bridge over the CNR tracks/Yellowhead.

    (2) 127 Street-137 Avenue-St. Albert Trail - perhaps the greatest potential for development and a faster connection to the NW park and ride, while reaching more commercial areas. Great potential for new development.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  100. #100
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    prefer the 113a street to 153 ave option at the moment. st.albert trl option has too little benefit for the c of e. the 127 street option will create more problems than it will solve even if you're talking about levelling all the buildings on one side of the street all the way up to 137 ave.

Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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