Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 919

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

  1. #201

    Default

    ^I have a friend who prefers it (she hates the LRT, I don't understand why).

  2. #202

  3. #203

    Default

    Check out the Recommendations of the Network Assessment - now that is a system. Notice how the existing lines show new stations - 134 avenue (between Claireview and Belvedere), 124 avenue (between Belvedere and Coliseum) , 114 avenue (between Coliseum and Stadium), 92 street (at the tunnel entrance) - also new stations on the south line.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  4. #204

    Default

    it makes sense once theres development there.... but that's a long way a way, like many things on the full network assessment.

    At least we have some sort of vision for the future.


  5. #205
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Looking at the concepts being show, even though there are 3 route options that they are suggesting the one station that is the same on all three is the ECCA station. I'm glad to see that the is a strong commitment for that area for the LRT. I think the ECCA station can and should become an eventual northern transfer point for the NW line and maybe an eventual NCentral line.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  6. #206

    Default

    Videos on the line and the corridoors (this is nice, City is getting better at this):

    Intro video (discusses what this "urban LRT" will mean):


    St Albert Trail:


    127 Street:


    113A Street:


    From econsultation site (which is now open for your say):

    http://northwestlrt.econsultation.ca/

    Early comments seem to favour 113A.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-03-2010 at 12:53 PM.

  7. #207

    Default LRT Feedback

    Would definitely welcome the LRT between Edmonton and St. Albert!

    Having grown up in a much larger city, I miss the convenience of grabbing a quick mode of transportation to other areas. I tend to travel less than I would like to due to the lack of available routes. I once took - what I thought would be - a "jog" into the City from St. Albert (very Northern tip of Edmonton) to the WEM and it took something like 3 hours! Mind you, it was a Sunday during winter, but I vowed "never again" until some better mode of transportation is instilled. On this point, I would also like to see a combined fare rate as opposed to paying to travel St. Albert and Edmonton wages. Considering, as mentioned, I am on the Northern edge, it seems ridiculous when I can literally walk over the boundary line, but must pay for two cities!

  8. #208
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    ^I agree completely. Weather it's LRT or not I think ETS, St.Albert Transit and Strathcona Transit should be merged into a regional system. GETS (Greater Edmonton Transit System) has been brought up in the past by some and I think sooner than later we have to see this concept put into place.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  9. #209

    Default

    Having lived in the Province for 20 years, I've watched the rapid growth and it would be fool-hardy to assume that continuation will not transpire. As with other larger cities, areas that seemed disconnected or "far", soon became simply another part of the continued city core. I could hardly believe my eyes when Westlock got a McDonalds' restaurant of its own! Change is rapid! The same will happen here!

    With children transitioning into adulthood, the need for solid transportation options into the city for continuation of studies is imperative. I am certainly happy to see examination of the prospect and whether or not it benefits youth in the now directly - or - comes more into play in the future, I feel it must transpire.

  10. #210
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Does anyone know when they will be annoucing the recommended route from NAIT to St. Albert? The workshops last month said they would be presenting something to Council by the end of June.

  11. #211

    Default

    According to Inews880 there is supposed to be plans for the 113st/153ave route from NAIT to St Albert announced tomorrow...

  12. #212
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    St. Albert LRT route unveiled

    City staff to recommend 113A Street corridor at cost of $1.1 billion

    By Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal May 19, 2010 6:03 AM Comments (3)
    StoryPhotos ( 2 )Video ( 1 )
    ICON
    More Images » Take a sneak peek at the new Southgate Mall and Century Park LRT stations. Video by Ryan Jackson / Edmonton JournalPhotograph by: Brian Gavriloff, edmontonjournal.comIn a plan to be revealed today, the transportation department is recommending that Edmonton's future LRT line to St. Albert travel north from the City Centre Airport land along 113A Street.

    The proposed route, which would see tracks go west on 153rd Avenue to a new park-and-ride lot beside Anthony Henday Drive, beats out two other suggested corridors along 127th Street and St. Albert Trail.

    Transportation officials are scheduled to unveil their recommendation at a news conference this morning, but Coun. Kim Krushell said she isn't surprised to hear 113A Street is the preferred option.

    "This is the route that always seemed to make the most sense to me, although I am concerned about the property acquisition," said Krushell, whose Ward 2 includes northwest Edmonton. "It opens up an area that has a lot of transit riders. It still meets the goal of serving St. Albert citizens in a timely manner."

    The main advantage of using 113A Street is it's projected to have the highest ridership, serving Griesbach and other growing neighbourhoods, Krushell said.

    There's also strong potential for redevelopment in areas such as city-owned land near 153rd Avenue, especially compared to St. Albert Trail, which is mainly for commercial and industrial projects, she said.

    "St. Albert wins with any of the routes because (LRT) gets to the park-and-ride," Krushell said. "It benefits Ward 2 residents as well, because we hope it will do its job and get cars off the road system."

    The current estimated price to follow the 113A Street corridor is $1.1 billion.


    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz0oNtqMqZb
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...546/story.html

  13. #213
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    I'm glad that they have decided quickly on this route selection. It would be nice if they could continue construction of this line immediately after the NAIT station opens, especially if they are projecting this line to be a well used line.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  14. #214

    Default

    ^good decision. I thought this was the best option, especially as Griesbach is served, it might give that community a bit more push in developing faster. I hope it gives Grand Trunk a boost as well at revitalizing. I agree it would be good if they could just keep building, but they need to the WLRT / Millwoods line up and running as well, Millwoods residents in particular, per the number of buses, need the service.

    I like these comments:

    Coun. Amarjeet Sohi said the cost is less than the money that would be needed for roads and bridges to accommodate private vehicles if the LRT system doesn't continue to grow.

    "We want to provide an opportunity for people to go all over the city on the LRT. What it does now is go north and south," said Sohi, who didn't have details about the recommended northwest route.

    "The LRT is an investment in the future of the city ... even though it seems very costly, and it is costly, if we don't build it, how do we manage traffic 50 years from now?"
    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz0oO7FcVhb
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-05-2010 at 09:04 AM.

  15. #215
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,539

    Default

    I just hope they tie in the VIA station close enough to allow passengers to arrive and depart via LRT.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  16. #216
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    I just hope they tie in the VIA station close enough to allow passengers to arrive and depart via LRT.
    That would be nice, but it would also help if Greyhound would get moving so to speak and relocate out near Via too.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  17. #217
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,993

    Default

    The $1.1 Billion price tag is if they have to tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN railyard. The city's preference is a flyover
    http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1231720
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  18. #218
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    I like how Boutillier stated that the St.Albert extension past NAIT could only be 2 years additionally past 2016, especially if they contract it at the same time as the other lines.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  19. #219
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    The $1.1 Billion price tag is if they have to tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN railyard. The city's preference is a flyover
    http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1231720
    Dollars to donuts CN will make them tunnel.

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    The city's preference is a flyover
    Great opportunity to here to connect 113A street to downtown. Build a bridge over the tracks for LRT and vehicles. Would alleviate congestion on 97 street and 127 street.

  21. #221

    Default

    ^why don't we build overpasses at the other roads on Yellowhead first before spending on a bridge at 113? I doubt Grand Trunk residents are going to be that thrilled either, to get both LRT, and to be split by a new thoroughfare (not to mention its impact on reducing the value of future developments in the Muni lands).
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-05-2010 at 07:02 PM.

  22. #222

    Default

    Do not build a bridge for vehicles and let people take LRT if they want to avoid congestion.
    Did they turn 111 st into a freeway when the LRT was extended?

  23. #223
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    I don't think there are any plans of a road and LRT ROW. I think either way would be fine. Personally a tunnel would be nice as they could maybe even go a bit further north of the rail yards to lessen the impact on the community. But my understanding is that a bridge over the rail yards would be cheaper, so that will do. The thing I would like to see though if there were a bridge, is to have a pedestrian aspect to the bridge.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  24. #224
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Nice to hear a decision on this so soon ! I like the results.

  25. #225
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default St Albert Plans new LRT line

    St. Albert unveils its own LRT plan

    Seven-kilometre line could cost $750M, city's mayor says

    By Gordon Kent, Edmonton Journal May 20, 2010 6:14 AM Comments (1)
    StoryPhotos ( 1 )

    Adam Laughlin, director of facility and capital planning, discusses a proposed northern extension for the LRT.Photograph by: John Lucas, edmontonjournal.comEdmonton's proposed northwest LRT route is the first step in a line that will eventually stretch through the heart of St. Albert, the city's mayor says.

    The community is planning to run tracks along St. Albert Trail to a northside park-and-ride facility from the parking lot slated to be built beside Anthony Henday Drive, Mayor Nolan Crouse said Wednesday.

    Although no timelines or funding strategies for the scheme have been approved, he estimated the approximately seven-kilometre corridor could cost $750 million.

    He's pleased Edmonton's transportation department is recommending an LRT line from NAIT to the city limits that travels north on 113A Street and west along 153rd Avenue.

    "I'm really happy the City of Edmonton has taken the lead on this ... The fact that they maximized the potential number of residents riding was a wise move on their part."

    It will also take people from St. Albert to their four major Edmonton destinations, he said -- the University of Alberta, downtown, Grant MacEwan University and NAIT.

    The suggested route is expected to serve 42,000 to 45,000 passengers daily, more than the two alternative corridors using St. Albert Trail or 127th Street, said Adam Laughlin, Edmonton's director of facility and capital planning.

    The line will allow higher-density transit-oriented development in such areas as Griesbach, Grand Trunk and Castle Downs, as well as providing access to St. Albert, he told a news conference.

    "It develops a plan to match their long-term plan for LRT development."

    Crouse said his city spent $50,000 to help Edmonton with the cost of studying the northwest corridor and put $90,000 into a fund this year to kick-start its own LRT development. Although he described this money as a "very small amount," there will be an undetermined amount to come as the work proceeds, possibly including contributions from the capital region, he said.

    "We don't expect Edmonton to be paying the whole load on this thing when the LRT is heading north to St. Albert."


    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz0oTqOYEHl
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...316/story.html

    Great news and good to see the Capital region and Province cooperating on gettin gthis thing done

  26. #226

    Default

    ^nice attitude exhibitied there by St Albert. Not complaining, like some people in Edmonton suburbs do, that there are too many stops or similar on the way in.

  27. #227
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    I'm a little disappointed that 127 St. wasn't selected. That area could really benefit from the LRT and has a lot of potential to develop into a nifty urban neighborhood.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  28. #228
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    That is a very good sign from St.Albert in that they are willing to work with the city as opposed to just taking what they can get from the city. The website wouldn't let me read anymore of the article but was there any mention of any particular plans that St. Albert has?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  29. #229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    To me it seems to neither serve the higher densities along 97th Street nor 118th Avenue, if you want to promote development in the future sure it makes sense, but not to serve existing areas.

  30. #230
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NW Edmonton
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis View Post

    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.
    Not true at all.

    I went to a info session at Calder Community League in late April and the City engineering department looked at several major routes, including 97 street, 113a street, 127 street, and St. Albert trail as a means of going north. Going west, almost every major road 118 ave, 137 ave, 153 ave, 167 ave, etc) were looked at as well.

    The map of all the potential lines they originally looked at resembled a map of the city sewer system. I thought they were very thorough in their analysis.
    Last edited by bootlegga; 27-05-2010 at 03:35 PM.

  31. #231
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NW Edmonton
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    I'm a little disappointed that 127 St. wasn't selected. That area could really benefit from the LRT and has a lot of potential to develop into a nifty urban neighborhood.
    The big problem was that area is already highly congested, traffic wise, with little room for expansion. There are no service roads or medians that can be converted, so the road would go from two lanes each direction to one lane. Given that people who live in Castledowns only have 97st and 127st to travel south, that just doesn't make much sense.

  32. #232
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Makes perfect sense to me given that they would have an LRT train that has far more capacity than the two lanes of traffic it would replace as an option instead...
    Strathcona City Separatist

  33. #233
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NW Edmonton
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ Makes perfect sense to me given that they would have an LRT train that has far more capacity than the two lanes of traffic it would replace as an option instead...
    Still, not everyone in Castledowns would (or could - given the emphasis on passengers from St. Albert) take the LRT. Not everyone who lives in Castledowns works downtown after all.

    Have you commuted from Castledowns during rush hour? If you had, you likely wouldn't say that. It's brutal let me tell you.

  34. #234
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    46,539

    Default

    ^yup.

    Also, when Bellwether Park gets off the ground, it will essentially be a TOD without a T.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  35. #235
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    Still, not everyone in Castledowns would (or could - given the emphasis on passengers from St. Albert) take the LRT. Not everyone who lives in Castledowns works downtown after all.
    True, but then those who live in Castledowns and not going downtown likely won't be using 127 St. anyway - they would take 137 Ave. or 153 Ave. east or west to the other employment nodes in the area, or Henday which will be completed before this LRT line gets underway. Those who are going downtown would be more likely to take the LRT and thus be taking that many more cars off 127 St.

    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    Have you commuted from Castledowns during rush hour? If you had, you likely wouldn't say that. It's brutal let me tell you.
    I used to live in Athlone and took 127 St. daily, by bus and by bike. Traffic was more than manageable during rush hour.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  36. #236
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,554

    Default

    127 Street going to one lane in each direction would be a huge charlie foxtrot, with left turns etc.

  37. #237
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Not insurmountable issues, and traffic patterns would adapt accordingly.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  38. #238

    Default

    ^what is wrong with the proposed route? It serves part of Griesbach, and provides a great connection for neighborhoods that are "cut off" from having a direct road by the Yellowhead / Rail yards / Muni. Being more "central" north, it can potentially draw from more areas, even Northgate will be a very short bus trip.

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ I never said anything was "wrong" with the chosen route. Only that I was disappointed that 127 St. was not chosen, for I think that street has amazing redevelopment potential that could have been realized with an LRT stop or two.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  40. #240

    Default

    1 traffic lane can be very effective it used right.

  41. #241
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NW Edmonton
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    Still, not everyone in Castledowns would (or could - given the emphasis on passengers from St. Albert) take the LRT. Not everyone who lives in Castledowns works downtown after all.
    True, but then those who live in Castledowns and not going downtown likely won't be using 127 St. anyway - they would take 137 Ave. or 153 Ave. east or west to the other employment nodes in the area, or Henday which will be completed before this LRT line gets underway. Those who are going downtown would be more likely to take the LRT and thus be taking that many more cars off 127 St.
    So we'll have more downtown-bound car traffic on 97 street? That route is already heavily congested and more traffic would just turn it into a total parking lot from the current near parking lot (from 137 ave all to the Yellowhead from 7-9 and 4-6) it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    Have you commuted from Castledowns during rush hour? If you had, you likely wouldn't say that. It's brutal let me tell you.
    I used to live in Athlone and took 127 St. daily, by bus and by bike. Traffic was more than manageable during rush hour.
    I don't know what time you took it, but every time I was foolish enough to go that route, it felt like I could have walked faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ I never said anything was "wrong" with the chosen route. Only that I was disappointed that 127 St. was not chosen, for I think that street has amazing redevelopment potential that could have been realized with an LRT stop or two.
    Did you attend the information session in mid April at Calder Community League? If you didn't, then you should have. Maybe your voice would have made a difference in the decision. If you did, then I applaud you for participating.

    I attended and was quite vocal about my feelings (that it should take 113A st). Even though I don't live near 113A or 153 Ave, I wanted something that would a) go through the heart of Castledowns - so as to be available to as many people as possible, b) be close enough to drop my wife/children off at so they could commute to school/work in the future.

  42. #242
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ I never said anything was "wrong" with the chosen route. Only that I was disappointed that 127 St. was not chosen, for I think that street has amazing redevelopment potential that could have been realized with an LRT stop or two.
    Between 118th and 137th I agree. But otherwise that's all new construction North of 137th and unlikely to be redeveloped any time soon.

  43. #243
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    So we'll have more downtown-bound car traffic on 97 street? That route is already heavily congested and more traffic would just turn it into a total parking lot from the current near parking lot (from 137 ave all to the Yellowhead from 7-9 and 4-6) it is.
    Possibly, but remember that a lot of that downtown-bound traffic will be served by the LRT. Remember that we're not just talking about taking away two lanes of traffic, were talking about replacing two lanes of traffic with two sets of rails that move more people faster and more efficiently, which has two benefits: 1. initially reduced traffic flow, and 2. better management of FUTURE traffic as the city continues to grow, which it will do regardless of LRT routing.

    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    I don't know what time you took it, but every time I was foolish enough to go that route, it felt like I could have walked faster.
    I was commuting between 7:30 - 8:00 AM heading downtown, and returning 5:30 - 6:00 PM. Traffic wasn't that bad at all.

    Also note that I'm taking into perspective comparisons of "heavy traffic" from other cities I've spent time in, including Calgary, Vancouver, and Toronto. If you've spent any deal of time in these cities, you'd know why I laugh at people who think Edmonton has traffic problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by bootlegga View Post
    Did you attend the information session in mid April at Calder Community League? If you didn't, then you should have. Maybe your voice would have made a difference in the decision. If you did, then I applaud you for participating.
    I did not; I have since moved to the east side, and am more interested in the SE LRT routing at present. Like I said, though, I'm not anti-113A St. routing, I'm sure it will work just fine as an LRT route; I just believe an opportunity has been missed to revitalize what could be a cool little neighborhood in Athlone/Wellington with LRT and some TOD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Between 118th and 137th I agree. But otherwise that's all new construction North of 137th and unlikely to be redeveloped any time soon.
    Not anytime soon, but greater potential for future redevelopment certainly exists there than on the selected route.

    I guess I'm confused, though; the city shifted its criteria for selecting its WLRT and SELRT routes to favour redevelopment potential, but that criteria doesn't seem to have had the same weight on the NWLRT route selection.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    I guess I'm confused, though; the city shifted its criteria for selecting its WLRT and SELRT routes to favour redevelopment potential, but that criteria doesn't seem to have had the same weight on the NWLRT route selection.
    I don't understand why you tihnk there is more potential on 127 than on 113. I think they are very comparable, but 113 hits Griesbach, which is really valuable.

  45. #245
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I think that 127 Street might be good for bus lanes from Yellowhead Trail to 137 Avenue, if there are no bus lanes.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  46. #246
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I don't understand why you tihnk there is more potential on 127 than on 113. I think they are very comparable, but 113 hits Griesbach, which is really valuable.
    Mainly because 127 St. is already zoned appropriately, already has relatively good density, already has at least one well-designed infill project nearby, already has some history, heck it even has a school or two if I recall correctly.

    113A St. is almost entirely SFH residential. That's not to say that can't change with the LRT it's just highly unlikely, and even if they do, it will take much, much longer to develop into something more appropriate for a TOD neighborhood, while 127 St. is already most of the way there.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  47. #247
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  48. #248
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Here's what I would like to See for the north and north east. It's two lines, but the overall length isn't all that much more than the current plan.

    It also uses some very low-cost ROW, including existing abandoned rail ROW along 121st, an existing bridge over the Yellowhead, and an existing grade separation at 137Ave. for the NW line, and uses 97st for the North line, which is wide enough to spare space for LRT and has huge amounts of redevelopable space.

    My Plan



    I'm not sure about the section between Princess Elizabeth ave and 127Ave. PE ave & 97St, 118ave to 97st, and 107St and a flyover at the rail yards are all options. Using 97st for that section too is by far the least expensive.
    Last edited by highlander; 12-10-2010 at 04:12 PM.

  49. #249
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    Your link doesn't work/show anything?

  50. #250
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Fixed.

  51. #251
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    So I wonder if there is any further push from St.Albert to try and get the LRT extended past NAIT sooner than later? I hope that in the next year or so if WLRT cannot be resolved that NWLRT to the edge of the city takes precedence. I hope that this line gets further attention and I would hope that the city of St.Albert starts thinking of adding LRT into their city. I wonder if the feds would allocate further money on an LRT system quicker if it mean connecting Edm and St.A?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  52. #252
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I would imagine that SE LRT would be the next priority. I'm also thinking that the NW LRT would depend on the development of the City Centre Airport lands. Also, I wonder about the design of the LRT bridge over the CN tracks. There will probably be a case for a pedestrian/multi-use trail over the tracks, especially with the restricted access for bikes from North Edmonton.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  53. #253
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    I would imagine that SE LRT would be the next priority. I'm also thinking that the NW LRT would depend on the development of the City Centre Airport lands. Also, I wonder about the design of the LRT bridge over the CN tracks. There will probably be a case for a pedestrian/multi-use trail over the tracks, especially with the restricted access for bikes from North Edmonton.
    Oh I definitely think that SE is the priority after the Nait line but I'm thinking that if WLRT doesn't get it's act together the next step after SE LRT and the downtown will could shift from WLRT to NWLRT.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  54. #254
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,850

    Default

    I'll agree Edmcowboy11, the NW LRT should go ahead if there's too much resistance on the West LRT leg.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  55. #255

    Default

    As much as I feel like jumping on the "thumb in your eye" west end tactics .. my brain tells me that the electorate does not react well to this type of treatment...

    Besides the West end line has a much bigger impact than the NW line currently does. I may elect to change that statement after the airport lands are being built.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  56. #256
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Actually, I can see the NW line having a significant impact on traffic flow for that part of the city. It will directly connect many neighborhoods to the LRT system and the entire city. In addition, it can hopefully remove a number of commuters from St.Albert who will hopefully start using park n ride.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  57. #257

    Default

    Our NW line does not include a branch to St Albert... Your assuming that the St Albert extension would be build along with the NW extension, as that is where we would see major impact. I would much rather see Edmonton receive LRT service than Park and ride services provided to ST Albert, but that is my opinion.

    The west end line would also directly connect many neighborhoods to the LRT system and the entire city so that statement is a bit rhetorical.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  58. #258
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Doesn't St. Albert have their preliminary LRT connection plan done already within their boundaries?

  59. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmart81 View Post
    Doesn't St. Albert have their preliminary LRT connection plan done already within their boundaries?
    It's in their TMP: Page 19 has map
    http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files...009_Part_3.pdf


    also, there's this that came up in a search for the above ^
    On November 30, 2010, Councillor Bracko provided notice of the following motion, in accordance
    with Section 22.2 of Procedure Bylaw 35/2009, and as such, it automatically appears on the
    agenda of this Council meeting.
    In order for Council to debate the motion it must be formally moved.
    (Councillor Bracko)
    “That Administration arrange a meeting early in January 2011 with Council members and
    Administrative representatives from Edmonton and St. Albert to discuss a potential joint functional
    alignment study from NAIT to St. Anne Street in St. Albert.”
    http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files...entMeeting.pdf

  60. #260

    Default

    yes.. no funding and no time line... we also have lots of plans here in edmonton like the 105 multi use trail... whats happening with that
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  61. #261

    Default

    what i am getting at is that people are arguing potential impact agains real impact.

    A west end line goes through existing communities.. the NW will go through a lot of empty land that will have a lot of future development.. Where the people of the west end are there now.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 06-01-2011 at 08:35 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  62. #262
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    what i am getting at is that people are arguing potential impact agains real impact.

    A west end line goes through existing communities.. the NE will go through a lot of empty land that will have a lot of future development.. Where the people of the west end are there now.
    agreed.

    Who brought up NE in the NW LRT thread? My guess it is part of the fetish of running LRT trains through park land, and "future development" greenfields rather than through populated communities and "future development" brownfields. Never made any sense.

    Leave trains running past pastures and fields to something that needs to cover much larger distances between much, much more populated centres.

  63. #263

    Default

    Can we stick to the topic? Keep your rudeness to the proper thread grish-police

  64. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    what i am getting at is that people are arguing potential impact agains real impact.

    A west end line goes through existing communities.. the NE will go through a lot of empty land that will have a lot of future development.. Where the people of the west end are there now.
    agreed.

    Who brought up NE in the NW LRT thread? My guess it is part of the fetish of running LRT trains through park land, and "future development" greenfields rather than through populated communities and "future development" brownfields. Never made any sense.

    Leave trains running past pastures and fields to something that needs to cover much larger distances between much, much more populated centres.
    And I meant NW... I blame it on the lack of morning coffee.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  65. #265
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I thought someone started making parallels to push to reach Gorman all of a sudden.

  66. #266

    Default

    Nope.. I just had sleep in my eyes

    Long and short.. the west end line has more real and immediate impact than the potential of the NW line
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  67. #267
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^definitely!

  68. #268

    Default

    ^ something we can all agree.

    I think connecting LRT to St Albert after WLRT/SELRT is far more important than Gorman, but Gorman is such a simple extension that in the next 5-15 years will be needed.

    St Albert does seem to be doing the right thing - they are increasing density in their downtown core and through out the city - and actually making their own downtown - unlike say - sherwood park 'downtown'

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ something we can all agree.

    I think connecting LRT to St Albert after WLRT/SELRT is far more important than Gorman, but Gorman is such a simple extension that in the next 5-15 years will be needed.

    St Albert does seem to be doing the right thing - they are increasing density in their downtown core and through out the city - and actually making their own downtown - unlike say - sherwood park 'downtown'
    If the way they've handled St. Thomas and Perron streets is any indication, St. Albert will have a 'downtown' right about the time the LRT makes it out there... ~20 years maybe
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  70. #270
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    567

    Default

    West is needed more, but if it for some reason gets dragged into the courts or something like that, and St. Albert is 100% behind getting a line there, we probably shouldn't wait for the West line to get figured out. I really hope though that the West line doesn't have many more speed bumps ahead.

    Well in a perfect world we would be opening our new LRT lines like what happened in Beijing last week when they opened 5 new lines on the same day. Wont't hold my breath on that one.

  71. #271

    Default

    It's not like the West line is being scrapped and going back to square one....

    It's been sent back for the equivalent of minor tweaking. Nor do I think many people are saying NO to west lRT. they are saying NO to the way it crosses key intersections more than anything IMO.

    lets maintain perspective.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  72. #272
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Of course the WLRT isn't being scrapped but it is potentially being delayed if all the NIMBY's have their say.

    I just want the city to be ready to move to the next best option to maintain contruction and movement on the LRT system.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  73. #273
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    173

    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.
    Strathcona Transit is much nicer to its commuters than St. Albert; So I think its justified St. Albertans get the sweeter mode of transportation into the downtown core earlier. I commuted by bus endlessly from Sherwood Park to Edmonton... LRT to expand that far would require extensive development of the SE lrt aswell as a potential Whyte Avenue line much like the newly approved downtown connector, OR skytrain/ monorail type connection along Whyte ave into the burbs; with upgrades to the High Level Bridge maybe? Interesting! If only the city had annexed the Hamlet years ago and allowed the population of Sherwood Park to clearly rise (along with Millwoods and Industrial Row) above other bed room communities such as St Albert. I wonder what the LRT would look like now
    IMO, between NW lrt and W lrt- as backwards as my conclusion is (with Strathcona commuters clearly due for a much deserved upgrading to LRT; for the simple fact that it is a much quicker growing bedroom community, and could have developed a much like Terwillagar eastern Industial zone. I mean if sherwood park was actually a suburb of edmonton, during say a rise in oil production, or spike in immigration this area spanning across YEG, Nisku, Ellerslie, Gateway/South Edmonton Common, Millwoods, Industrial Row, Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan and the Industrial Heartland our idea of how the Edmonton's LRT line could have been traveled by this time just baffles me..) development of NW LRT is priority because construction has already begun on the NW line.. and the simple fact St Albertans are EDMONTONIANS.


    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ something we can all agree.

    I think connecting LRT to St Albert after WLRT/SELRT is far more important than Gorman, but Gorman is such a simple extension that in the next 5-15 years will be needed.

    St Albert does seem to be doing the right thing - they are increasing density in their downtown core and through out the city - and actually making their own downtown - unlike say - sherwood park 'downtown'
    potential TOD?

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    what i am getting at is that people are arguing potential impact agains real impact.

    A west end line goes through existing communities.. the NE will go through a lot of empty land that will have a lot of future development.. Where the people of the west end are there now.
    agreed.

    Who brought up NE in the NW LRT thread? My guess it is part of the fetish of running LRT trains through park land, and "future development" greenfields rather than through populated communities and "future development" brownfields. Never made any sense.

    Leave trains running past pastures and fields to something that needs to cover much larger distances between much, much more populated centres.
    I agree with you completely, and don't believe further NE development is required at this time. * possible extension to a P&R station at the henday when its completed up to this point in the city at least, or even until the Ring is completely open all the way around...
    Last edited by geordieinthecity; 23-01-2011 at 09:25 AM.

  74. #274
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Back to the Threads Initial Topic, plans or ideas for a NLRT line to Northgate.... i like the looks of a rail line running along 97th street heading north out of the city limits; eventually ending???
    There has been talk of a High Speed Rail from Calgary to Edmonton. A very strong corridor between the masses. Now place your self in a city. Any city. It eventually raises to population of a million- starts accommodating in current technologies with LRT lines to send commuters from its Suburbs to the Business Districts of its Downtown; and Transit Oriented Destinations along its route. This city, has its economic ~ equivalent sister city only 300 km away. Eventually with the construction of each cities development of LRT to its respective boundries- The next task grows. A Rail way line to connect these cities encompassing the entire New Age Transit of our Edmonton-Calgary Metropolotan area into a healthy corridor between two Epicenters of Industry. Now this idea has already been thought up.. this isnt about the current rail projects.. its about my idea haha

    IMO you should be able to catch a train from Churchill Station to: Kingsway, NAIT, North Gate, North 97th Street Common, AHD P&R, Lancaster Park which would be developed as a TOD. From here Rail would be planned to travel far distance travells to North Eastern Alberta. There Commuters, and long distance inner provincial travellers might find them selves in Alberta's Oil production zones and 4 Wing Air Force Base. Also with this project it would stimulate Corporate Calgary to wanting a somewhat more direct and empowering Business Trip up to Site. With enough manpower, and dedication.. i believe this rail route would be beneficial for both common day Alberta people (with our current lust for oil)- normal lrt riders who must downgrade to buses, automobiles, or even air for such a short distance on relatively simple landscape to cover. The opportunity is right there to explode this boom into a more economically gratifying direction . into a powerful rail rink- connecting- And maybe even being started with a potential idea to Bring the LRT to North Gate Mall .

    Also highlander your idea of LRT to sherwood park... i like that too!
    Last edited by geordieinthecity; 23-01-2011 at 01:59 PM.

  75. #275
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Well LRT to northgate would be great but that will still have to wait a few more years. I'm just hoping that St. Albert will continue pushing to get LRT built ASAP and with luck start preliminary engineering of their own. If they have the plans ready to go then that would help convince Edm to put a higher priority on this line.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  76. #276
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    The photo clearly indicates two large sections of land on the "Northgate" line that are under or will be under development in short order. The Muni Lands and Griesbach are both within the city of Edmonton and will provide tens of thousands of residents probably the quickest commute downtown if a LRT line is built to service these areas. These people will pay city of Edmonton taxes. The opportunity to develop an LRT while these communities are under Development should not be missed. You can have a transit orientation from the start.

    Much focus is drawn to the other communities of st. Albert and Sherwood park . We should not underestimate what potential we have in our own back yard.

  77. #277

    Default

    this lrt line isn't going to northgate though... it will however, still serve the NW communities of Edmonton before going to St Albert.

  78. #278
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    has the Kingdom of St. Albert offered up any co funding ?
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  79. #279

    Default

    ^I would assume from the border.

  80. #280

    Default

    There is no co funding... once the line is at St albert's door step it's theirs to run with..

    In turn I imagine ETS will bill them for the use of LRV's, manpower and tract maintenance.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  81. #281
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    Or probably just amalgamate with St. Albert Transit.

  82. #282

    Default

    Hasn't there already been discussion about an eventual amalgamation into 'GETS' - the Greater Edmonton Transit System?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  83. #283

    Default

    ^that would be cool. Could put running the combined system out to bid, I am sure a lot of money could be saved by breaking the union, allowing lower fares, and more transit.

  84. #284

    Default

    I can't imagine ETS would want to do this... More headache than its worth...

    There would have to be a really good funding model from the bedroom communities before I would agree to it.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  85. #285
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    It would be interesting if St.Albert Transit would get incoporated into ETS when the LRT makes it out there. Or maybe to start with it can be ETS and St.Albert Transit as part of GETS.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  86. #286

    Default

    Folks - You'll find the answer here: http://www.capitalregionboard.ab.ca/transit

    Eventually we will see transit services combined or amalgamated in the region (run in faux-fear sherwood park, the Edmonton-devil is coming for you boogie boogie)

  87. #287
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    There are advantages and disadvantages to regional boards, co-ordination is one advantage, but not everybody wants the same level of service or the same level of taxes to support that service.

    The regional plan addresses pretty much in my view the best solution, co-ordination yet not making every system run exactly the same.

  88. #288
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    So I was reading a report done by St.Albert city council from Oct 2010 stating that they wanted to put a LRT task force together in 2011. I didn't see anything further on the city of St.Albert website so I'm curious if the task force has been or is going to be put together.
    Even though the timelines for LRT in Edmonton are for getting the SE line done first before extending the NW line to St.Albert, I wonder if any progress can be pushed forward if St. Albert starts demanding LRT and convincing the provincial government to send some money thier way to invest in regional cooperation.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  89. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I wonder if any progress can be pushed forward if St. Albert starts demanding LRT and convincing the provincial government to send some money thier way to invest in regional cooperation.
    I think an advantage for the City of Edmonton of not prioritizing this line, is that hopefully St Albert residents will get frustrated, and decided to fund a bigger chunk of it with their own tax money.

  90. #290

    Default

    My parents live in St. Albert, and I was talking to my dad about the NW extension. He recalls speaking to a St. Albert city planner back in the early 70s when the LRT was first planned, and the consensus was that an extension to St. Albert would be viable once the population reached 200,000. I believe it's somewhere around 60,000 presently.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  91. #291
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,895

    Default

    Unfortunately with that logic we would have LRT in St. Albert by about the year 2085 or later.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  92. #292

    Default

    LRT and St Albert have both changed since the 70's...

    I wonder how many people in St Alberta work DTish.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  93. #293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    LRT and St Albert have both changed since the 70's...

    I wonder how many people in St Alberta work DTish.
    Judging by the bus loads going downtown and to Gov't Centre every morning, a lot. But enought to justify LRT...?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  94. #294
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,256

    Default

    ^It's not just "going downtown" to work -- there a decent amount of post-secondary students living in St. Albert who could use the LRT to go to NAIT, G-Mac, or the U of A.

  95. #295
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Unsure if this should go here or N to NAIT thread, admins if you want to move it, sure go for it
    --
    Henderson wants LRT extended past NAIT
    630 CHED - Scott Johnson
    "It's not particularly expensive just to add, it's not a lot of track and it's one more station," says Henderson. "I think that's kind of a 'no-brainer' in my mind to get the airport lands going."
    http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1402668

  96. #296

    Default

    ^ Um Henderson You are silly..
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  97. #297
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,695

    Default

    1) Will the Airport be ready for redevelopment by the time construction would have to start on the airport property?
    2) Will this additional station complement the park & ride lot that is being built in part to pay for the additional cost of the Indy?
    3) Why is Henderson only bringing this up AFTER all of the funding is secured for the line?
    4) If it's so cheap to add 1 more station, why is Gorman still not under construction?
    5) A station to nowhere is a station to nowhere. As long as the airport still has airplanes flying in/out of it, this is not happening.
    6) Until there is an actual concrete plan for the airport property this is a non-starter. I'm talking about zoning/an approved master plan/etc.

    HOWEVER...something I just thought of...

    IF the station were built along with this line and just mothballed until the redevelopment is ready to go, it could go online with minimal work and be a draw to the area. Could be used for overnight storage of trains until then. Not sure how that would work with airport security though...
    Last edited by Alex.L; 15-04-2011 at 10:19 AM.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ Um Henderson You are silly..
    It doesn't make a ton of sense to built a Muni station before there is anything in the Muni. On the other hand though, I wish we could keep this line going out to St Albert at the same time as getting going on the SE line, I don't understand why we can only do one line at a time. Cut back in other areas like road upgrades to get this done.

  99. #299
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,695

    Default

    Imagine the line being built to the station past the ECCA, and just having the train not stop at the ECCA stations until development occurs.

  100. #300
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    The winner of the design competition for the ECCA redevelopment project is being decided in the next month or two, is it not? If so, i don't think its that inconceivable that a track alignment would be worked out by 2014 to get this thing accross to Calder and Castledowns.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •