Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 952

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

  1. #101
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,289

    Default

    Well, if the 113 St alignment has less buildings to knock down and goes by Griesbach, Castledowns then I could bump that up as an acceptable alternative.
    “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

  2. #102
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,751

    Default

    I like 113 to 137 to St. Albert Trail

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post


    im gonna bring these over for easy ref

  4. #104

    Default

    113A would be my first choice. Like the stop at Grand Trunk. Covers the most residential area.

    Isn't there supposed to be a high school built next to the Castle Down arena?

    127 st would be my second choice. It would be a better choice for allowing a future low floor line up 97 st to Northgate & on to the Lake District.

    The St. Albert Trail line just doesn't provide enough coverage to the residential areas of Edmonton. It's essentially a commuter line for St. Albert.

  5. #105
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    577

    Default

    113St looks like it could still work if, god forbid, the Airport shutdown gets stalled indefinitely. With minimal modification, anyways. The others become much tighter turns if they have to work around it.
    Blog: http://www.stormbrew.ca/ | Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stormbrew

  6. #106
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,391

    Default

    Sure there are less buildings to knock down on 113A Street, because for the most part it is single family, and two story condominiums, it has far less density then 97th or 127th streets.
    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...44074&t=h&z=15

    Some better options are median of 97th median of 127th or widen the old rail corridor on 103rd Street.

  7. #107

    Default

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...5f000494b4fbb8

    The problem with the rail corridor is getting to it. You'd have to swing west of NAIT to the stop indicated for the middle of the airport and then all the way over to about 103 st. The rail cut then moves west until it hits 137 ave at about 106 st. Then you have to turn west to go through Greisbach or east to Nothgate. It's a pretty wavy route.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 11-02-2010 at 09:53 AM. Reason: Added map link

  8. #108
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    One thing I noticed from the cool Google Maps overlay created by hatrock in this thread is that where the LRT is proposed to run along 153 Ave., it appears to follow the roadway, but the map also shows a powerline ROW right nearby, and passing right close to what look like several apartment complexes. I realize these are conceptual, but I wonder if there is enough space in the ROW for a set of rails beside the electrical towers, and if its possible to operate LRT within that ROW without interference.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  9. #109

    Default

    ^if autos can fit through, presumably the LRT could (i.e. isn't this going to take lanes)?

  10. #110
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Not sure what you mean. I'm refering to the greenspace along the powerline ROW just south of 153 Ave:

    [GMAP]<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Edmonton, +Division+No.+11,+Alberta&amp;ll=53.615321,-113.543358&amp;spn=0.023777,0.065489&amp;t=h&amp;z =14&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Edmonton, +Division+No.+11,+Alberta&amp;ll=53.615321,-113.543358&amp;spn=0.023777,0.065489&amp;t=h&amp;z =14&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>[/GMAP]

    The possible loss of some of that greenspace may be a concern, though, but in the end might be more beneficial for residents in the nearby apartments, might be easier to turn the LRT into given the weird curve on 153 at 127, and might require a bit less engineering work than fitting into 153 Ave. itself.
    Last edited by RTA; 11-02-2010 at 02:20 PM.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  11. #111
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

    there is a great corridor, that used to be a rail line spur, that runs from 127 ave to 137 ave
    between (i dont know) about 102 street and 104 street. Would tie right into the wide 137 ave r/w and griesbach.
    Right now is runs behind single detached dwellings and its a bike/walking path.


    http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7026/bikex.jpg
    Last edited by Jasper; 12-02-2010 at 12:09 PM.

  12. #112
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    there is a great corridor, that used to be a rail line spur, that runs from 127 ave to 137 ave
    between (i dont know) about 102 street and 104 street. Would tie right into the wide 137 ave r/w and griesbach.
    Right now is runs behind single detached dwellings and its a bike/walking path.


    http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7026/bikex.jpg

    Unfortunately that ROW is blocked at the south end by CN's new building, and it looks like a possible path through griesbach is being blocked too.

  13. #113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Doesn't seem to run anywhere that would be a good location for stations, either.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  14. #114
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I have 3 major probles with these options.

    1. A park&ride near st Albert it the goal. I undestand that St. Albert would have to get involved to extend it further, and we would like to play nice with them, but what if that parking lot (or st. Albert in general) is not the best destination for the line?

    2. 97st was not inlcuded s an option. Even for a St. Albert terminus it would be tolerable, and if St. Albert is not the end goal then honestly 97 and 113 are the only options worthy of consideration.

    3. This is proposed as a extension of NLRT. That's a noble goal, but the I'd prefer we asked
    'what's the best way to add rapid transit in the NW'
    rather than 'we have a LRT line. Where should it go?'
    With WLRT proposed via SPR, the opportunity exists to plan NWLRT as a branch north on the 121st ROW. After WLRT is built a brach could be buit from 104ave up to 118 for under $100m - the ROW is there, and there are only 4 street interactions required. That would put a low floor option for the NW on pretty much equal footing with a NLRT extension. Why not look at it?

    4. Why not 2 lines? We're already planning for a fairly distant future, why not at least look at the possibility, and see whether keeping the option open for another line makes sense?
    The two north lines (NE and NW) have their destinations about 90degres apart. SLRT and SELRT are about 25degrees apart, and if the St. Albet trail route is chosen then from the actual north (97st area) it would be as long a trip to get to LRT, either on the NE or NW line, as it would be to go directly downtown.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    but what if that parking lot (or st. Albert in general) is not the best destination for the line?
    .
    What do you suggest is the best end destination? A green field? I think St Albert makes sense, because:
    - residents of St Albert have a big traffic impact on the NW (just take St Albert trail at rush hour)
    - St Albert would presumably chip in, at least at the border, but if we keep delaying, or just get "close" , maybe even more than that (e.g. stop at Griesbach and ask them to pony up). Same strategy could work for the East line in the future with Sherwood Park (e.g. stop at Capilano).
    - the province should be more willing to chip in, as not just serving Edmonton
    - there are a lot more people living in St Albert, than in empty land North the border from 97 street.
    Last edited by moahunter; 12-02-2010 at 12:52 PM.

  16. #116
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    but what if that parking lot (or st. Albert in general) is not the best destination for the line?
    .
    What do you suggest is the best end destination? A green field? I think St Albert makes sense, because:
    - residents of St Albert have a big traffic impact on the NW (just take St Albert trail at rush hour)
    - St Albert would presumably chip in, at least at the border, but if we keep delaying, or just get "close" , maybe even more than that (e.g. stop at Griesbach and ask them to pony up)
    - the province should be more willing to chip in, as not just serving Edmonton
    - there are a lot more people living in St Albert, than in empty land North the border from 97 street.
    Why not stop at 97 and 167? Think of the traffic on 97st at rush hour!

    It's actually not a horrible result, but it shouldn't be taken for granted, like the WLRT fixed destination at lewis estates. You get a better system when you at least consider the options. Choosing the endpoint arbitrarily is no different than choosing the whole thing arbitrarily. If you're going to study it, study it well.

  17. #117

    Default

    ^I am pretty sure any "study" would conclude St Albert catches a bigger population and accordingly, potential ridership, for given cost (as St Albert should contribute). This one makes more sense than Lewis Estates does (I wish a politician would propose an end point re-direct of that line to Callingwood).

  18. #118
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Current bus ridership on 97st is higher than on St. Albert trail, although the cooperative political advantage for St. Albert is large, and real.

    And yes, st. albert makes much more sense as an arbitrary destination than Lewis Estates.

  19. #119

    Default

    St albert is already planning their LRT route... i don`t think `playing nice`is needed. they want this service.

  20. #120

    Default

    Here's a thought, let the NW LRT line run up 113A st or 127 st to St. Albert.

    Run a low floor line up 97 st until you get north of the tracks. Then, run up 101 st to Northgate Redevlop the commercial block between 101 & 97 to mixed use. Continue up 97 st to 167 ave and then over to 82 st.

  21. #121

    Default

    I think a line east is more important than a 3rd line to the north.

  22. #122

    Default

    A line east to the Park will be mostly for Sherwood Park. That would be a low priority for the city. Let Strathcona county and the province fund that one. Due to the alignment down Conners Road the link to Sherwood Park would run east along Whyte. Not a lot past 75th st in that area.

  23. #123
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    St.Albert has stepped up to the plate and said they want LRT and considering the proximity to the city it makes lots of sense. I just hope that St. Albert comes to the table soon to add more to the concept planning in way of showing further proposals from the last Edmonton station to one or two stations within St.Albert.

    Now I have a related but silly questions perhaps considering that this proposed concept has just been officially released. For reference sake, what could the final LRT station closest to St.Albert be called. It wouldn't be named St. Albert cause the station is still in Edmonton and my hopes are that St. Albert would try to bring the LRT system within St.Albert boarders.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  24. #124

  25. #125

    Default

    I'd make the Park & Ride part of the extension to St. Albert. Not much use to the city, more for St. Albert commuters. The last station should be about 140 st. Anything past that should be part of a deal that includes money from St. Albert. However, the ROW should be in place even if the line isn't built as part of the initial construction.

  26. #126
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    The more i look at this the more i feel that St.Albert would better off being served by the SPR WLRT by going north along 156 street instead of south to WEM. It would provide a decent LRT hub in the industrial NW where already 10s of thousands of people work. The NAIT line can carry on north still up 113a all the way to 97st and 167 ave. And we can get rid of the awkward Y split by doing the 87ave line to the west end.

    just playing with money we don't have - or probably won't have for a long time.

  27. #127

    Default

    I don't think the light commercial / industrial NW makes much sense for LRT. It is not dense. It is not walkable. And, many of the people who work there, need their trucks and SUV's for the work they do, they aren't going to take LRT to a customer to install a new bathroom or floor.

  28. #128
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Yes, many there need their truck for work but there is equally as many or more that are in the lower paying admin/warehouse positions that crowd the NW industrial bus routes from the JP and westmount centres. I think an LRT node in the area would be well received.

    Albeit all hypothetically speaking......


    I'll still throw my support behind the 113a street option to 153rd ave that the city has put forward.

  29. #129
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    St albert is already planning their LRT route... i don`t think `playing nice`is needed. they want this service.
    Sure they want this service, but so does the lakes district, whose taxpayers will be paying for SLRT, and WLRT, and SELRT, etc...

  30. #130
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I'd make the Park & Ride part of the extension to St. Albert. Not much use to the city, more for St. Albert commuters. The last station should be about 140 st. Anything past that should be part of a deal that includes money from St. Albert. However, the ROW should be in place even if the line isn't built as part of the initial construction.
    Agreed 100%. Our last station at 140&157, they pay 100% (minus prov. & fed contributions) from there on. Even then they would be getting a great deal. They should be paying for service on the rest of the line too- after all, aline into edmonton is extremely useful for them, a line to st. albert is not so much for us.

  31. #131
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I took a look at the recent St. Albert Gazette this weekend while at the ancestral manor.

    Their report included only the map of the St. Albert trail option, although it mentioned that two others exist. I think it's pretty clear what they would prefer, and it's unfortunately the one that's worst for edmonton.

    They also had a downtown redevelopment plan in there, which looked pretty good. The map included 'LRT or other rapid transit' down the centre of St. Albert Trail.

  32. #132
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Agreed 100%. Our last station at 140&157, they pay 100% (minus prov. & fed contributions) from there on. Even then they would be getting a great deal. They should be paying for service on the rest of the line too- after all, aline into edmonton is extremely useful for them, a line to st. albert is not so much for us.
    I imagine some sort of model for sharing the operating costs would be worked out. St. Albert has done similar deals with Edmonton in the past (such as sharing the cost of putting lane control on 170 St. from 137 Ave. to the municipal boundary).
    Strathcona City Separatist

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I took a look at the recent St. Albert Gazette this weekend while at the ancestral manor.

    Their report included only the map of the St. Albert trail option, although it mentioned that two others exist. I think it's pretty clear what they would prefer, and it's unfortunately the one that's worst for edmonton.

    They also had a downtown redevelopment plan in there, which looked pretty good. The map included 'LRT or other rapid transit' down the centre of St. Albert Trail.
    Had to read about it myself, here's the link for others not wanting to search a website designed in 1997 http://www.stalbertgazette.com/artic...e-to-st-albert

  34. #134

    Default

    Check page 7 of the St. Albert TMP for transit proposal

    http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files...009_Part_3.pdf

  35. #135
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Check page 7 of the St. Albert TMP for transit proposal

    http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files...009_Part_3.pdf
    Interesting. Despite talking about St. Albert Trail a a transit oriented corridor, they plan only 3 stops for LRT or BRT, including the Henday Park&Ride. Maybe if we send low floor LRT their way they could put a few more in. I've always thought that if LRT were on the trail then the existing overpass at Sir Winston Churchill wouldmake a great location for a station.

  36. #136

    Default

    A low floor line isn't needed. High floor can integrate just as well. It just take planning and proper design.

    The population of St. Albert is about 60k. The TMP document talks about planning for 100k. How many stops do they need with no major destinations? No Stadium/University/WEM? How many stops are planned for Mill Woods with a population of 110k+?

    St Albert road makes the most sense for a route through the city. A stop on either end and one in the middle covers St Albert quite well. Perhaps, if they desire more extensive coverage they could put in a streetcar system.

  37. #137
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A low floor line isn't needed. High floor can integrate just as well. It just take planning and proper design.

    The population of St. Albert is about 60k. The TMP document talks about planning for 100k. How many stops do they need with no major destinations? No Stadium/University/WEM? How many stops are planned for Mill Woods with a population of 110k+?

    St Albert road makes the most sense for a route through the city. A stop on either end and one in the middle covers St Albert quite well. Perhaps, if they desire more extensive coverage they could put in a streetcar system.
    There's nowhere in st. Albert for a streetcar system. Seriously. The trail is the only mixed use corridor, and it's not exactly pedestrian friendly.

    The reason for considering more stops in St Albert is that with 3 you end up missing major crossings that are potential transfer points so bus service has to stay screwed up, and there are some lesser attractions (like downtown, and st. Albert Centre) that can't be well served by a single stop.

    If the downtown plans they are considering then their downtown will be bigger then centrury park, with a huge farmers market, the library, courthouse, theatre and civic centre within sight of the LRT but with no access


    , and even with 4 stops in st. Albert they would be about 1.5km apart.

  38. #138

    Default

    They can always plan for more stops but I don't see a routing within St. Albert that makes more sense than right down the trail.

    The streetcar comment was simply wishful thinking.

  39. #139
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    Even if the LRT has two stops in St. Albert, that will mean less cars on the main drag. Traffic going through the city have the option of taking the west bypass.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  40. #140
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    I think if there is a reduction in traffic coming into the city then this line will be a great value to the city. With that said, I wonder if a LRT line going out to Stoney Plain/Spruce Grove (from the WLRT line) would also potentially reduce traffic into the city?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  41. #141
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Even if the LRT has two stops in St. Albert, that will mean less cars on the main drag. Traffic going through the city have the option of taking the west bypass.
    I hope that when the time comes they will have the guts to remove trafic lanes as they plan to, because St Albert trail is one of the most congested roads in the region, outside of downtown/old Strathcona. They will need the best possible LRT system, accessible to as many people as possible, to make lane reductions politically palatable. Even if the bypass/regional road is done by then, the vast majority of traffic on the trail is local St. Albert traffic, and traffic into Edmonton. Traffic from sturgeon county is minuscule in comparison.

  42. #142
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    As it has been suggested, I believe the size of St. Albert would warrent at least 2 to 3 stations. One thing that could be nice is a Park n Ride at the very end of the LRT line that could accomodate passengers from the northern part of St. Albert.
    As for the route within the city of Edmonton I think the 113A st route would best serve Edmontonians as it appears that it would be closest to the most residential as well as potentially servicing the rec center. On the other hand the St.Albert Trail route would still service plenty of people and would allow for a future NLRT line that would branch off of the station in the middle of the airport lands and either travel up to castledowns or even head to Northgate and then to Castledowns.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  43. #143
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    I think it would be folly to use St Albert Trail to high speed the 60,000 residents of St. Albert while the 100,000 residents of Northwest Edmonton are ignored. There are no realistic TODs along the Trail while along 113A there are many opportunities (including lot's of building currently happening at 153). I don't think Edmonton should even be involved without very clear benefit and there is zilch along St Albert Trail.

  44. #144

    Default

    ^ If you looked at the route selections, the best options go down 113a Street or 127st before heading to St Albert.

    Did you look at the maps/routes being considered before posting?

    In case you didn't (which I suspect) here's a link to the 3 proposed routes.

    http://photos.edmonton.ca/Other/Prop...84865440_dGKMt

  45. #145
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Medwards, I have seen the other proposed routes but there are several individuals, most noticably St Albert residents and St Albert transportation, wanting to use the St Albert trail route. It flat out stinks if you're an Edmontonian and is of no benefit and I wanted to give my 2 cents, I see very little TOD capability on the 127 St route as well so I think 113 A is the only route that is centered within a large population corridor and is the only one that benefits both Edmonton and St Albert rather than majorly St. Albert and minorly Edmonton. If St Albert needs access to Edmonton then move to Edmonton, pay your taxes here and then they can be more than minorly considered. As you can see, I'm in a hell of a mood right now.

  46. #146
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Rather than just being miserable, I'm going to try and explain.
    It's not St. Albert that I'm mad at, it's our transportation dept that puts these routes on their studies and what we end up with is paying for P&Rs in Lewis Estates that benefit Stony Plain and Spruce Grove. St Albert P&Rs that benefit St Albert. Gorman P&Rs that benefit Ft Saskathchewan, International Airport stations that benefit Leduc, Capilano - Sherwood park etc.
    Don't put routes out there that go within 2 miles of the city edge and last leg it via bus from there unless those municipalities are paying their share. Don't even give them a hint of LRT until they flat out say we will totally pay for our share of the two miles of line to the edge of the city as well as the line that lies within our municipality.
    We are already running out of seats on the LRT by the time they make it to the inner city yet all of those suburb dwellers get their choice of seat while the concientious, municipal tax paying, inner Edmonton residents get screwed. What the hell are our planners doing?
    I recognize that these other municipalities also pay federal and provincial taxes that contribute to the systems but if they want service then they must also pay their share of the municipal bill. We didn't make them move out there. They chose it for the life style and now they should wear it.
    In the St Albert case if they want it to go along St Albert trail then say this only benefits 10,000 Edmonton residents and 60,000 St Albert residents therefore you pay 6/7ths of the billion dollar extension. If it goes through the centre of Castledowns then it benefits 100,000 Edmonton residents and 60,000 St Albert residents then you only pay 6/16ths of the slightly more expensive 1.2 billion dollar extension. Don't just throw lines on a map and say chose. Let those who use it foot the bill!

  47. #147
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I think something bus rapid transit (or express buses) could work well for St. Albert. The bus from St. Albert Centre to downtown (Law Courts) takes about 36 minutes and from St. Albert to University takes 33 minutes. The University connection will mean a connection to Century Park will be under an hour.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  48. #148
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    399

    Default

    I am extremely disappointed to learn that the focus of the North-West LRT line is serve residents of St. Albert while giving the residents of north Edmonton the shaft!

    It doesn't make sense that city planners would even consider routes along St. Albert Trail, 142 Street or 127 Street as they do not encompass the Edmonton population base to justify the extensive costs of such a project. It is the residents of Edmonton that will be funding a portion of the NWLRT line, thus we should be the main population served.

    A second north LRT line should serve NORTH EDMONTON (i.e. via 97th Street or 113A Street being the very furthest west alignment). The only way a strictly direct line to St. Albert would be justified is if they either start paying a portion of their municipal taxes to the city of Edmonton for the services they use of ours, or if Edmonton plans on annexing the city within the near future so that 100% of their taxes go towards the sustenance of metropolitan Edmonton.
    Last edited by XTendEdmonton; 13-03-2010 at 01:18 AM.

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XTendEdmonton View Post
    I am extremely disappointed to learn that the focus of the North-West LRT line is serve residents of St. Albert while giving the residents of north Edmonton the shaft!

    It doesn't make sense that city planners would even consider routes along St. Albert Trail, 142 Street or 127 Street as they do not encompass the Edmonton population base to justify the extensive costs of such a project. It is the residents of Edmonton that will be funding a portion of the NWLRT line, thus we should be the main population served.

    A second north LRT line should serve NORTH EDMONTON (i.e. via 97th Street or 113A Street being the very furthest west alignment). The only way a strictly direct line to St. Albert would be justified is if they either start paying a portion of their municipal taxes to the city of Edmonton for the services they use of ours, or if Edmonton plans on annexing the city within the near future so that 100% of their taxes go towards the sustenance of metropolitan Edmonton.
    Um... who said the focus of this route is ST Albert... City Transit adopted lrt planning criteria the emphasizes MANY MANY things. North West Edmonton will have lrt access. Let the process run it's course and don't make unfounded statements.

  50. #150
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    Um... who said the focus of this route is ST Albert... City Transit adopted lrt planning criteria the emphasizes MANY MANY things. North West Edmonton will have lrt access. Let the process run it's course and don't make unfounded statements.

    umm ... I'm sorry, but if you consider an LRT line running through undeveloped industrial land just to reach a small bedroom community as "lrt access" for Edmontonians, you're obviously missing something friend.... but thanks for coming out

  51. #151

    Default

    it's one of 3 lines and each of those 3 lines have multiple options...

    ST Albert trail has TONNES of res around it... But thanks for ignoring facts and being over dramatic!

  52. #152
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    I wouldn't really call St.Albert a small community. Anyways as edp just mentioned there are a variety of options and through public consultation which will take quite awhile the LRT planners will use all the feed back and decide on the appropriate line accordingly. Also remember even if the LRT planners decide on a route, edm city council must still approve their decision. So don't worry, as much as I personally would like the project to move forward and start getting built later this year, the planning process is still in it's infancy and any concrete decisions wont be made for at least a couple years.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  53. #153

    Default

    ^ Right.. you can't have a balanced discussion if there is only one option. You must look at good AND bad ideas.

    Ultimately these routes were chosen because they hit key development criteria.. do they all hi the same criteria? no.. but now we can TALK about what we want.

    It's nice to see that people are now screaming FOR the LRT and not against it

  54. #154
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Langley, B.C.
    Posts
    172

    Default

    EDP you hit the nail on the head. How can an option be determined as bad unless it is put on the table as an option. Look at the pro's and con's of each option, remember they are only options and are not written in stone. Maybe because of these options being put forward an even better one eill rise up. It's okay to say an option is bad but it is not okay to say that it should not have been debated in the first place.

  55. #155
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by exiledincgy View Post
    EDP you hit the nail on the head. How can an option be determined as bad unless it is put on the table as an option. Look at the pro's and con's of each option, remember they are only options and are not written in stone. Maybe because of these options being put forward an even better one eill rise up. It's okay to say an option is bad but it is not okay to say that it should not have been debated in the first place.
    But if you really need to consider all the options, even ones as crappy as a st. Albert Trail route, why are there no options that end any where other than At a st. Albert trail & anthony Henday Park&Ride? Why no 97st option? No Eaux Clares Terminus? Why not consider Serving the NW with a branch off WLRT?

    It's the options that are NOT on the table that make this plan look like it's pandering to St. Albert, not the options that are.

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    It's the options that are NOT on the table that make this plan look like it's pandering to St. Albert, not the options that are.
    But there are always thousands of possible combinations or alternatives. Maybe there are three or four you like that weren't looked at, but then there are three or four that someone else likes, etc. At some point decisions have to be made. The end point has been decided as St Albert. If one doesn't think that is right, fine, lobby to change it it to farm outside 97 street and AHD (or whatever else it is one likes better). But given an end point of St Albert, I think the routes presented are perfectly reasonable and appropriate, 97 street would not make sense to me (adding expense by doubling back towards the existing LRT line).

  57. #157
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    What if an endpoint at st Albert isn't a given? or starting a NAIT rather than at oliver Square on the planned WLRT? or that the whole quadrant must be served by one line?

    None of those things are so obvious that they should be fixed before planning and analysis even begin.

  58. #158
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    370

    Default

    The "beginning" point is NAIT and now that Council put the NAIT station near on the Airport lands with another station likely north of that in the Airport development area, the arrow now points towards St. Albert. The "end" point is the Henday Park and Ride, the "end" as stipulated by St. Albert. the St. Albert Transportation Plan has LRT going down St. Albert Trail, therefore some of the components of the line are already set.

    97 Street LRT has some advantages but it creates too much travel time for St. Albert riders. LRT will eventually be part of the Regional Transit Service as described by the Capital Region Transit Plan so it makes sense to give St. Albert riders strong consideration.

    There is nothing that says 97 couldn't get a branch of LRT in the future if demand justifies it. 97 Street also can be served by premium transit just like the Westend to University will via Whitemud.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exiledincgy View Post
    EDP you hit the nail on the head. How can an option be determined as bad unless it is put on the table as an option. Look at the pro's and con's of each option, remember they are only options and are not written in stone. Maybe because of these options being put forward an even better one eill rise up. It's okay to say an option is bad but it is not okay to say that it should not have been debated in the first place.
    But if you really need to consider all the options, even ones as crappy as a st. Albert Trail route, why are there no options that end any where other than At a st. Albert trail & anthony Henday Park&Ride? Why no 97st option? No Eaux Clares Terminus? Why not consider Serving the NW with a branch off WLRT?

    It's the options that are NOT on the table that make this plan look like it's pandering to St. Albert, not the options that are.
    The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.

  60. #160
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
    The "beginning" point is NAIT and now that Council put the NAIT station near on the Airport lands with another station likely north of that in the Airport development area, the arrow now points towards St. Albert. The "end" point is the Henday Park and Ride, the "end" as stipulated by St. Albert. the St. Albert Transportation Plan has LRT going down St. Albert Trail, therefore some of the components of the line are already set.
    Exactly. It's a series of arbitrary decisions with no real plan. The relocated NAIT station was described by the transit planning head as a way to send a message about the airport. The arrow was pointed that way pretty much without cause. For the end point, I understand that St Albert is a fairly big community. But why does St Albert get to stipulate the design criteria for a billion-dollar EDMONTON project? Why not let castledowns make that call, or the lakes district?

    97 Street LRT has some advantages but it creates too much travel time for St. Albert riders.
    And St albert Trail LRT is useless for Northgate or Eaux Clares riders, and there are more of them than there are St. Albert riders.

    LRT will eventually be part of the Regional Transit Service as described by the Capital Region Transit Plan so it makes sense to give St. Albert riders strong consideration.
    It does make sense to consider St. Albert riders, but no stronger than Edmonton riders. And who runs the service doesn't matter. The goal isn't to increase the number of municipalities served by LRT, it's to serve more people. And unless St. Albert is willing to come up with hundreds of millions to pay a big chunk the local share for the part within Edmonton, The people who are paying for it (Edmontonians) should be considered first.



    There is nothing that says 97 couldn't get a branch of LRT in the future if demand justifies it. 97 Street also can be served by premium transit just like the Westend to University will via Whitemud.
    St Albert could also be served by premium transit, or could be the distant future possibility.

    If future demand is there for both North central and NW lines it makes more sense to go North Central with the high floor and serve the NW with a branch off WLRT ( using old rail ROWs from the molson site) as long term there won't be capacity for 3 branches using the main tunnel.



    I actually won't mind if NLRT remains a stub for a time while WLRT, SELRT and NW (low floor) LRT are built.

  61. #161
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.
    It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

    Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?

  62. #162
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    One more thing.

    The reason that I don't like St. Albert-from-NAIT routes is that I think that we could actually build 2 lines for a similar cost, if CN railway plays nice.

    If you take the best for Edmonton route (113st) from the list, and end it at 153ave, there are 2miles of expensive (like SLRT) track cut from the budget.

    If CN and VIA cooperate a line from the molson site could be built using the 121st ROW, the edge of the CN Calder yards an the 142st ROW with no expensive infrastructure or road relocates required except a tunnel under the CN tracks at about 142st, kind of like the one on the NE line at The CN Mainline. This line would be low-floor so stations would be less expensive, and simple,cheap ballast track could be used like on the NE Line. I'm confident that excluding the cost of additional vehicles you could build most of the way from molson to 153 (about 5.4 miles, 8.4 km) with the cost of building those 2 miles (3.2km) of expensive track.
    Last edited by highlander; 14-03-2010 at 10:07 PM.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    One more thing.

    The reason that I don't like St. Albert-from-NAIT routes is that I think that we could actually build 2 lines for a similar cost, if CN railway plays nice.
    I would love to see you prove the above... 2 lines.. pretty much double the budget...

    There are many communities on either side of the trail. But if we are going to talk about LRT going through large commercial areas, then lets look at 137 ave North of 137 is nothing but big box stores. Catchment for this are all comes from the south side of 137.

  64. #164

    Default

    Sadly the fault of the North isn't the placement of this line... it's rather the ill placement of the NE line.

    One of the prime criteria for the line will be
    1) redevelopment
    2)density increase.

    I see this happening in 3 places (aside from the airport grounds)

    1) The fields surrounding Henry Singer Park.. Almost everything else North of 137 ave is Newer. The area south of 137 ave could density to some extent as these are older bigger lots. The Lrt would allow us to develop These last few remaining empty parcels of land like claireview was.. only lets get it right.

    2)The old base at griesbach The land along 113a ave is still baron. The design of the development could be changed to take advantage of the LRT.. Should Canada Land Development wish to do so...

    3) The older area at the southern portion of St Albert Trail. Here we have LARGE Lots.. Old Houses and a demographic that wants to be close to live close to the heart of the city. In order to catch this portion we need to Take the LRT down 118ave. The Old hospital site would fall into the LRT catch basin and we would pump life back into the North Portion of 118 ave. This commercial strip is MUCH more ped friendly unlike 137 ave and has residential on either sides of it ripe with redevelopment potential. This area also already has Med density development like Baywood and some other apt buildings. The far North Suburbs do not. Lets face it if Bay wood was torn down we could easily put a century park type development on it.

    This area will also feed of the energy from the development of the airport lands. The Yellowhead and CN yard will prevent this synergy from heading North.

    That leads us to Sheerbrooke and Dover. Both of which again have medium sized developments already established within them. These again are aging and prime targets for redevelopment. They also have substantial school lands within the catch basin of the LRT. It`s unlikely that both of these school will see survive closure.. if they aren`t closed already. This highlights even more room for redevelopment

    So a Route that Hits 118 Ave, then uses the trail to cross the Yellowhead, and Finally uses 142 st to access 153 ave has now become my route of choice.

    I made a map to highlight...

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...,0.154324&z=13
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 14-03-2010 at 11:51 PM.

  65. #165
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    umm... Castledowns/Oxford/Lake District is a fairly massive catchment area north of 137th ave between 142 street and 97 street - it's been there since the 70s. On the other hand, there is virtually zero residential on either side of St. Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead until you are inside St.Albert city limits.

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    umm... Castledowns/Oxford/Lake District is a fairly massive catchment area north of 137th ave between 142 street and 97 street - it's been there since the 70s. On the other hand, there is virtually zero residential on either side of St. Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead until you are inside St.Albert city limits.
    What I`m meaning to say is that the large strip of big box retail makes a pedestrian ``ùnfriendly``zone. It limits the amount of traffic you will catch coming from the North. This is due to the scale of the project, lack of sidewalks and large box stores that create barriers that prevent easy passage of people to the north.

  67. #167
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Totally agree. For that matter i would say that an LRT station anywhere along 137th ave would be a bad idea. Ditto for St.Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead.

    I still prefer the 113 street plan right up to 153rd ave. One station to serve Lauderdale/Calder/Wellington/Kensington and another for the numerous Castledowns communties at 153rd - and then directly out to St.Albert.

    As the 127th street and Yellowhead interchange will one day need to be completely re-done, I suspect the city may try to push a 127 street solution so they can bury some of the costs into that road works project. But that will be a huge amount of property acquisition on both sides of the Yellowhead.

  68. #168

    Default

    ^Remember that catching people is only half the equation. You have to take them to places they want to go, and both Skyview and Christies corner would be great places to stop.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Totally agree. For that matter i would say that an LRT station anywhere along 137th ave would be a bad idea. Ditto for St.Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead.

    I still prefer the 113 street plan right up to 153rd ave. One station to serve Lauderdale/Calder/Wellington/Kensington and another for the numerous Castledowns communties at 153rd - and then directly out to St.Albert.

    As the 127th street and Yellowhead interchange will one day need to be completely re-done, I suspect the city may try to push a 127 street solution so they can bury some of the costs into that road works project. But that will be a huge amount of property acquisition on both sides of the Yellowhead.
    I like 153 ave too.. but the problem I see with it is that there is so much NEW build up there... no one is going to tear down a 10 year old house. That and the lots are small and not able to be subdivided. There is very little med density housing from what I can see as well.

    I agree that people want to shop and would love to use the LRT to do it.. Skyview just isn't ped friendly. those complexes are meant for autos pure and simple.

  70. #170

    Default

    Looking at the maps I'm wondering if the run back down to 118 ave is the best way to go on that option. I'm thinking of having a NAIT station, one in the middle of the new development and then head west down 121 ave to 127 st and then north to 153 ave. That little neighborhood to the west of the airport (can't recall the name right now) could be a nice, lower density transition area. Put a station at 122 ave & 127 st to also serve Sherbrooke/Dovercourt. Re zone for mixed use along 121 ave, 118 ave and the east side of 127 st. Redevelop the rest into Low rise apartments, walk-up, brownstones, etc.

    Cover the redevelopment of the airport with streetcars and connect to the Via station.

  71. #171

    Default

    I'm just working with proposed routing..

    I peronally have never explored non listed options but what your saying seems sound.

    It would have less of an impact on 118 ave and would likely result in the baywood and hospital site being moved out of the catchment zone. I'm using a main catchment zone of 600M which i saw in one of the LRT presentations.. That is your most effective zone.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 15-03-2010 at 02:07 PM.

  72. #172
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    ^Remember that catching people is only half the equation. You have to take them to places they want to go, and both Skyview and Christies corner would be great places to stop.
    It's not only what's within walking distance of the stop, but how bus routes interact. I don't think that there's much now, but in the future 137ave will be a very reasonable E-W bus corridor.

  73. #173
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    ...
    Cover the redevelopment of the airport with streetcars...
    That's what I'd like to see. Why cut directly through the centre of our new landmark pedestrian friendly developement with a high-floor rapid LRT row whe nwe can anchor the corners of the airport with LRT stations, and then streetcars can cross through with minimal impact. I'd particularly like to see a 118ave streetcar, at minimum throught the airport lands and alberta Ave. with NE, N and NW LRT lines it could connect all three.

  74. #174

    Default

    ^ because they are proposing 'street-friendly-urban style - high floor LRT' similar to what some of the 'experts' here think only 'low floor style LRT' can do...

    And really - a street car is LRT in the most basic form. It just doesn't have a ROW.

  75. #175
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    If it's rapid transit it doesn't matter wht they do, it will be a barrier to pedestrians.

    No one wants to live on the line, they want to live by the station.
    At the airport, we already have pedestrian barrier on the east side with Nait/ETS/MES/EPCOR industrial buildings, on the west with the old ROW and VIA, on the north with the yellowhead and CN, and on the south with kingsway. a LRT line through the middle may not be as bad as any of those, but it's bound to be worse than a streetcar.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    If it's rapid transit it doesn't matter wht they do, it will be a barrier to pedestrians.

    No one wants to live on the line, they want to live by the station.
    I'm in this situation, I will live on the line, and I am ok with it (hoping the foundations don't vibrate too much, but will be better than noisy buses we have at the moment.

    I'm with Medwards on this one, while we disagree over the merits of low floor, I agree that high floor can be done in a more urban fashion. Running the LRT down rail ROW's and similar, fails to do as much to make the city itself more urban and desirable.

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    If it's rapid transit it doesn't matter wht they do, it will be a barrier to pedestrians.

    No one wants to live on the line, they want to live by the station.
    At the airport, we already have pedestrian barrier on the east side with Nait/ETS/MES/EPCOR industrial buildings, on the west with the old ROW and VIA, on the north with the yellowhead and CN, and on the south with kingsway. a LRT line through the middle may not be as bad as any of those, but it's bound to be worse than a streetcar.
    HUH... The LRT lines will be put into the road.. with no barriers..

    Urban style is Rapid LRT built on streetcar style ROW. It won't be anymore of a barrier than a street car.

  78. #178
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton daily photo View Post

    The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.
    It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

    Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?

    You need to stop thinking of LRT as an us (Edmonton) versus them (St. Albert) fight. LRT has and alway will be paid for primarily using Provincial and Federal dollars. The original line was built using 90/10 Provincial/City money, the extensions to South Campus were paid mainly using Provincial grants like fuel tax, the extension to Century Park is being paid with borrowed money being paid back using Federal Fuel tax.

    Transportation requirements don't see boundaries between cities. We all live in a region and all deserve equal consideration for mobility, especially if it is our income and fuel tax paying the way.

    In the end, LRT to the northwest needs to take into account the most logical route based on overall ridership and potential costs to operate and maintain. Lets see where this goes.

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton daily photo View Post

    The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.
    It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

    Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?

    You need to stop thinking of LRT as an us (Edmonton) versus them (St. Albert) fight. LRT has and alway will be paid for primarily using Provincial and Federal dollars. The original line was built using 90/10 Provincial/City money, the extensions to South Campus were paid mainly using Provincial grants like fuel tax, the extension to Century Park is being paid with borrowed money being paid back using Federal Fuel tax.

    Transportation requirements don't see boundaries between cities. We all live in a region and all deserve equal consideration for mobility, especially if it is our income and fuel tax paying the way.

    In the end, LRT to the northwest needs to take into account the most logical route based on overall ridership and potential costs to operate and maintain. Lets see where this goes.
    Well then St. Albert can apply for these government grants and give their portion to Edmonton to bring LRT to them.

  80. #180
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    I think one issue about building the LRT down the St. Albert Trail is that there are probably seven or eight intersections between St. Albert Trail and 137 Avenue. If each of these intersections have a light, having LRT down the middle of this road could mean serious backups in traffic, perhaps even worse than 114 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  81. #181
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    ^Remember that catching people is only half the equation. You have to take them to places they want to go, and both Skyview and Christies corner would be great places to stop.
    Yes, but the equation has to be balanced. An LRT route down St.Albert Trail serves only big box stores and car dealerships. It's a huge stretch to call Christies Corner a draw for LRT ridership. I don't see people contemplating driving their cars to a LRT park n ride so they can hope on a LRT, stroll through a couple of acres of parking lot, pick up some merchandise and then make the identical trip back to their cars.

    There are some better transit friendly destinations along the 113 street route such as the Grand Trunk Leisure Center, the Castledowns YMCA and recreation center, the Castledowns public library, the Castledowns transit center. Not to mention the tens of thousands of people that have been living there for the last three and a half decades and already use public transit to reach the city core.

  82. #182
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    I like 153 ave too.. but the problem I see with it is that there is so much NEW build up there... no one is going to tear down a 10 year old house. That and the lots are small and not able to be subdivided. There is very little med density housing from what I can see as well.

    I agree that people want to shop and would love to use the LRT to do it.. Skyview just isn't ped friendly. those complexes are meant for autos pure and simple.

    There are dozens of large apartment buildings in the area. I agree that they are not as visible as in some older neighbourhoods, but that is because they are mixed in with all the single family and townhouse developments. They are not right out in your face along the main streets like they would be in an older neighbourhood. It is more similar in style to the Millwoods community which came into existence at around the same period.

    I feel that one LRT stop around Castledowns rd and 153rd ave would serve the community well without any property acquisition being required. All the existing ETS routes for the area already converge on that area.

  83. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton daily photo View Post

    The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.
    It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

    Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?

    You need to stop thinking of LRT as an us (Edmonton) versus them (St. Albert) fight. LRT has and alway will be paid for primarily using Provincial and Federal dollars. The original line was built using 90/10 Provincial/City money, the extensions to South Campus were paid mainly using Provincial grants like fuel tax, the extension to Century Park is being paid with borrowed money being paid back using Federal Fuel tax.

    Transportation requirements don't see boundaries between cities. We all live in a region and all deserve equal consideration for mobility, especially if it is our income and fuel tax paying the way.

    In the end, LRT to the northwest needs to take into account the most logical route based on overall ridership and potential costs to operate and maintain. Lets see where this goes.
    Well then St. Albert can apply for these government grants and give their portion to Edmonton to bring LRT to them.
    Why... We benefit from LRT too.. Our business will benefit from better connections with St Albert. Lets not be childish. ST Albert will be paying for the line when it reaches their boarder.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ because they are proposing 'street-friendly-urban style - high floor LRT' similar to what some of the 'experts' here think only 'low floor style LRT' can do...

    And really - a street car is LRT in the most basic form. It just doesn't have a ROW.
    I'm going to start calling you PRT soon.. This is your BILLIONS

  85. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I think one issue about building the LRT down the St. Albert Trail is that there are probably seven or eight intersections between St. Albert Trail and 137 Avenue. If each of these intersections have a light, having LRT down the middle of this road could mean serious backups in traffic, perhaps even worse than 114 Street.
    Great.. all the more reason to take the train!

  86. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    I like 153 ave too.. but the problem I see with it is that there is so much NEW build up there... no one is going to tear down a 10 year old house. That and the lots are small and not able to be subdivided. There is very little med density housing from what I can see as well.

    I agree that people want to shop and would love to use the LRT to do it.. Skyview just isn't ped friendly. those complexes are meant for autos pure and simple.

    There are dozens of large apartment buildings in the area. I agree that they are not as visible as in some older neighbourhoods, but that is because they are mixed in with all the single family and townhouse developments. They are not right out in your face along the main streets like they would be in an older neighbourhood. It is more similar in style to the Millwoods community which came into existence at around the same period.

    I feel that one LRT stop around Castledowns rd and 153rd ave would serve the community well without any property acquisition being required. All the existing ETS routes for the area already converge on that area.
    What chance is there for increased density though.. The old base is the only site really. Sadly we don't have any control over that. We can't make the developers change their plans.

  87. #187
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    I don't think the question of future density needs to be pondered every time we build an LRT station. The LRT should also be considered as a tool serve active functioning communities that are already there. Castledowns is a fairly large residential node that could quite easily be served by a single LRT station if placed appropriately.

    In reality, the City can only support a limited number of mid to high density redevelopment zones over the span of a generation. We already have an impressive list of proposals that are getting back-logged(Century Park, Strathearn, VFC, the Quarters, Fort Road, city center airport, the north edge of downtown)

    I suppose i am of the opinion that we are capable of serving Calder, Castledowns, and St.Albert with one station in each community and a single well placed line. At the same time, solving transportation issues that already exist instead of building an LRT route on a more direct path through relatively baron land and hoping that one day there will be some massive residential developments to surround it.

  88. #188
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    it will work better for transit, if st albert and sherwood park have joined Edmonton as one city

  89. #189
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,954

    Default

    ^Unfortunately I don't think Sherwood Park or St. Albert would agree with you.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    it will work better for transit, if st albert and sherwood park have joined Edmonton as one city
    Well I share the same wish as you, I think a better approach right now is what the Capital Region Board

  91. #191
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Just for reference...

    As of the last census from April 2009, the total population for neighbourhoods between 142 street and 97 street and north of 137 avenue was 53,203. So fairly comparable to that of St.Albert.

  92. #192

    Default

    I think if we keep this Initial North line more to the west, there is future room for a third line straight up 97st.

    I fell if we try and make this a all encompassing line it will miss a key redevelopment area around 118 ave and the westmount mall area.

    Connecting LRT to St Albert will finally mean that St Albert will be contributing tax dollars to services that benefit Edmonton. Money from transit passes, shared operational costs, dollars for purchasing LRV's will all be shared. St Albert (IMO) has the largest number of peole who work DT. Personally everyone I know who lives in St Albert (except my dentist) works DT. I also feel that a large percentage of ST Albert families will send a larger percentage of their kids to University.

    Lets be honest.. ST Albert has also been the community that side with us most often. Unlike Sherwood park who seems to oppose everything on principle. The park needs to see what co operation can do.

    Last point would be... if we don't connect with ST Albert soon, we are going to have to address ST Albert Trail. I'd rather not dump any more money into roads for Autos and use that money to develop LRT.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-03-2010 at 10:49 AM.

  93. #193
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I think if we keep this Initial North line more to the west, there is future room for a third line straight up 97st.

    I fell if we try and make this a all encompassing line it will miss a key redevelopment area around 118 ave and the westmount mall area.

    Connecting LRT to St Albert will finally mean that St Albert will be contributing tax dollars to services that benefit Edmonton. Money from transit passes, shared operational costs, dollars for purchasing LRV's will all be shared. St Albert (IMO) has the largest number of peole who work DT. Personally everyone I know who lives in St Albert (except my dentist) works DT. I also feel that a large percentage of ST Albert families will send a larger percentage of their kids to University.

    Lets be honest.. ST Albert has also been the community that side with us most often. Unlike Sherwood park who seems to oppose everything on principle. The park needs to see what co operation can do.

    Last point would be... if we don't connect with ST Albert soon, we are going to have to address ST Albert Trail. I's rather not dump any more money into roads for Autos and use that money to develop LRT.
    I agree 100% with this post.

  94. #194
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    With the WLRT already committed to SPR we would end up with a bizarre amount of LRT redundancy by placing the NLRT route along 118 avenue (only 14 blocks away). At the pace LRT gets built i think it would be wiser to offer a bit more route diversity.

    It is likely that the St.Albert express bus to the U of A would have faster commute times than any NLRT route that passes by NAIT, Grant MacEwan, and downtown before reaching the university.

    Most of the people i know from St.Albert work in the west end - if that matters.
    Most of the people i know from Castledowns work downtown or at the Royal Alex - if that matters.

    An all encompassing approach was used to design the WLRT so i don't see why that method can't be applied the NLRT.

    I 100% agree with the sentiment that St.Albert needs to be connected to our LRT network, but i want to see it done in a way that benefits NW Edmonton too.

  95. #195

    Default

    I'm not sure you would see bus service continue from ST Albert once the LRT is running there.

    doesn't make much sense

  96. #196
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There's already bus service from St. Albert to WEM, along with the better-used routes to the U via Westmount and to Downtown. I 'm sure the WEM route would survive, the Downtown ones would die, what happens on the UofA route will depend on the speed of the LRT route.

  97. #197

    Default

    considering this LRT line would take you right to the U of A... it would die as well

  98. #198
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,922

    Default

    When I look at the LRT on 114 Street, there is some gridlock on this part of the road, given the wait for left turns onto University Avenue. For 111 Street, the only serious wait might be 51 Avenue, given the left-turn arrows. Otherwise, most of the intersections are timed well with the LRT.

    If LRT is built on 97 Street or St. Albert Trail, there would have to be an underpass at 137 Avenue. These two streets also have a lot of truck traffic, unlike 111 Street. I'm not sure whether building LRT along these roads would be a wise decision. One thing I would like to see though, would be improving the bus lanes along 97 Street and St. Albert Trail. Priority signals (if they are not already installed) would make a world of difference.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  99. #199
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I think if we keep this Initial North line more to the west, there is future room for a third line straight up 97st.

    I fell if we try and make this a all encompassing line it will miss a key redevelopment area around 118 ave and the westmount mall area.

    ....
    -NLRT will be at 106st. at NAIT and Kingsway. 97st is only 6 blocks east (there's nothing between 97 and 101 at that point)

    St. Albert trail is at about 131st at 118 ave, or 25 blocks west of NLRT.

    NLRT's interim terminus is closer to 97st than it is to St. Albert trail.

    - To build a low-floor line north from the planned WLRT-SELRT line up to 118 ave would be far cheaper on the 121st ROW than on 97st (no utilities to move, no lanes to eliminate, no ****** off business owners...) would have far less negative community impact, and would serve just as many good walkable station locations (it's walking distance from 124st).




    To me it's clear that if two lines are under consideration (and they should be) it should be high floor from NAIT as the central NLRT, and a low floor branch off WLRT for NorthWest LRT to St. Albert.

  100. #200
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    considering this LRT line would take you right to the U of A... it would die as well
    Most likely, but who knows. You can still take a bus downtown from clairview.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •