Page 1 of 87 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 8624

Thread: Metro Line - North LRT | Churchill to NAIT | Under Construction

  1. #1
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Metro Line - North LRT | Churchill to NAIT | Under Construction

    Let's talk about the BRT/LRT potential to the north (NAIT et al)

    THE LINK TO THE CITY STUDY
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Build the LRT and get it done.

    And the sooner the better.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  3. #3
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Is the BRT route going to be the future route of the LRT tracks?

  4. #4

    Default

    Do LRT properly, Edmonton, and do it now. This is visionary thinking that Edmonton must do if it truly wants to succeed. Don't [email protected] it with BRT.

  5. #5
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Do LRT properly, Edmonton, and do it now. This is visionary thinking that Edmonton must do if it truly wants to succeed. Don't [email protected] it with BRT.

    BRT done right works....look at ottawa...but yes, these are long term solutions, use long term options.

  6. #6
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Do LRT properly, Edmonton, and do it now. This is visionary thinking that Edmonton must do if it truly wants to succeed. Don't [email protected] it with BRT.
    AMEN!! Preach it brother!

    BRT has its place, but only if it is a longer term solution for a specific area. By the time you invest in the equipment, build the specific right of ways, and then amortize over any period to only then build an LRT, you spend way more in the long run. Design the system with an LRT backbone and then permanent BRT routes that can feed satellite communities and I think we have a winner.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    The one place that BRT would be fitting in the city is a downtown/SE corridor. It would be very hard to punch and LRT through the Bonnie Doon/Connors Rd area.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  8. #8
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by murman
    Do LRT properly, Edmonton, and do it now. This is visionary thinking that Edmonton must do if it truly wants to succeed. Don't [email protected] it with BRT.
    AMEN!! Preach it brother!

    BRT has its place, but only if it is a longer term solution for a specific area. By the time you invest in the equipment, build the specific right of ways, and then amortize over any period to only then build an LRT, you spend way more in the long run. Design the system with an LRT backbone and then permanent BRT routes that can feed satellite communities and I think we have a winner.
    Are they seriously going to do the BRT first? What a dumb idea.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speedyturtle
    Are they seriously going to do the BRT first?
    For the north leg, yes. The current vision is stagged implementation of BRT first, then LRT if passanger volume increases to a point to warrant LRT.

    I would agree that it is an unnecessary middle stage.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  10. #10

    Default

    If, and it's a big if, they move quickly BRT can prove useful as an LRT lead in.

    It doesn't take much to put down a busway if it's only going to carry buses. Yes, there will be some concrete and asphalt that will be laid down and ripped up later, but if you are looking 5- 10 years on, thats nothing.

    You can use conventional buses that are also capable of being used on regular routes and streets. Thus investment in this is investment in the entire system, and again, the buses will be used elsewhere when and if LRT takes over. This is effectively no-cost.

    Stations for buses can be put in cheaper and quicker than an LRT station, though if funds are available a atation that will later handle trains can be built. If bus only style stations are used, they can be made in such a way that when it is time to replace them with a LRT station they can be brooke down and reassembled on a different busway.

    In the meantime, you get a transit route with stations that people get used to and that feeder routes and utilize. You build the traffic patterns that will help support LRT when it comes. At the same time you don't have to borrow more money ( remember, for all of the Provinces budget surpluses we are borrowing money to pay for the SLRT extension! )

    If the province actually ponies up the money, then by all means go with LRT first. But BRT allows us the option of establishing the routes and network at a price we can afford on our own, and then quickly switching to rail at times money becomes available.

    It will be 4 years before the SLRT is done, even fast tracked. It is unlikely that even if the city decides to build NLRT before WLRT any sort of construction would begin before 5 years ( barring a billion dollar cash drop from the province. ) If they do WLRT first, as I think they should, it will be another 5 years after that.

    My fear is that the city will, instead of building BRT on the northern route now will study the issue to death and not even start on a bus system for 5-6 years. They all ready have been looking at the BRT think for 3 years or more, and seem no closer to actually doing anything than then. The whole point of BRT is that is is faster easier and cheaper to build and implement.

    At the very least we should have seen a few special bus lanes and dedicated express routes over teh last few years as preliminaries to dedicated BRT, which could then lead to LRT.

  11. #11
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default NLRT

    As many of us have been following the expansion of LRT to the south and talking about where LRT should be going I think it's time to really start talking about the NLRT proposed line. If I'm not mistaken it appears that this will be the next LRT project for the city of Edmonton once the SLRT line is completed or near completion.

    As far as I recall from reading other posts the proposed stations are as follows

    - MacEwan Downtown
    - Victoria School
    - Royal Alexandra Hospital
    - Kingsway Garden Mall
    - N.A.I.T.

    Other than the fact of getting the train above ground should this leg of the LRT not be a pretty quick build considering the distance is substatially less then the current SLRT line. Is there any other stations that would be useful on this line? How far north after N.A.I.T. should the line go? Is only one station needed to service Victoria and the Royal Alex and if so where should the station go? Many questions need to be discussed and answered for this future LRT line. We might as well start now.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  12. #12
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Where would the line come above ground? At GMCC or north of it?

    I think your station options make sense if the line runs up 109 street.

    I suspect that 97 Street would be used for the northerly leg up to 134 Ave. Wonder where it would go from there

  13. #13
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmowl
    Where would the line come above ground? At GMCC or north of it?

    I think your station options make sense if the line runs up 109 street.

    I suspect that 97 Street would be used for the northerly leg up to 134 Ave. Wonder where it would go from there
    goes under CN tower and the portal would be on the west side of 101st south of 105ave...goes down 105ave to 106st if i recall then up.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  14. #14

  15. #15
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by edmowl
    Where would the line come above ground? At GMCC or north of it?

    I think your station options make sense if the line runs up 109 street.

    I suspect that 97 Street would be used for the northerly leg up to 134 Ave. Wonder where it would go from there
    goes under CN tower and the portal would be on the west side of 101st south of 105ave...goes down 105ave to 106st if i recall then up.
    I see, thanks.

    The preferred routes shown on the map seem appropriate, I'd say

  16. #16

    Default

    What do you guys think about the location of the Kingsway station? Is it close enough to the Alex and Victoria to serve them well or would you move it south slightly? There is a major bus terminal at Kingsway to consider as well.

  17. #17

    Default

    I think it'd be worthwhile to put a station as close as humanly possible to the emergency ward..... Mostly for stuff like broken bones, that don't warrant an ambulance, but that people need to get checked out.

    My 2˘

  18. #18

    Default

    I think it'd be worthwhile to put a station as close as humanly possible to the emergency ward..... Mostly for stuff like broken bones, that don't warrant an ambulance, but that people need to get checked out.

    My 2˘

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

    Default

    Because we're still pretty close to the core of the city and with that stations are pretty close by to each other already a station around the turn past victoria and royal alex could be ok.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    Instead of the proposed stations there could be a station at 104St and Kingsway Av to serve Victoria school and the Royal Alexandra hospital and one at 106St and Princess Elizabeth Av to serve Kingsway mall and NAIT

  21. #21
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    one stop to serve Victoria/Centre for Education/The Alex seems appropriate. I would put it opposite the hospital (school kids can walk to school). As a side bonus--it will also serve the Polish Hall and the Armoury near by (an extra 2 passengers a month!). The next stop should be at Kingsway/NAIT to serve both. this station should go near the Bay in Kingsway which is on Princess Elizabeth Ave between 109 and 106 Street. I realize that there is already a bus terminal at Kingsway, however that terminal is very awkward and old. I think the money saved by not building a third station at NAIT should be used to create a new bus/LRT terminal at Princess Elizabeth/106 Street. We should also remember the plans to put a rec centre on that P.E.Avenue.

  22. #22
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    That would be ok.

    One thing I'm curious about is what kind of land would have to be expropriated and what land already belongs to the city to allow for the LRT ROW? And if land has to be taken would it not be better to do it now rather than later?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  23. #23
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    It would make sense to have a station on 104 St directly
    south of Kingsway Ave, to service the school and the
    hospital.
    I've heard they're going to remove the traffic circle
    at 101 St/118 Ave, which is a good thing. But the plan
    I saw had BRT running through the new intersection.
    Basically, Princess Elizabeth Ave to 118 Ave East would
    be a straight-through movement, and 101 St to 118 Ave West
    would be a straight-through movement.

  24. #24

    Default

    I think the city needs to acquire the low rise apartments between 107-108ave and 104-105 street. That is where the route transitions from 105-104st going north to avoid the prince of wale armoury and series of townhouse. I think that is all the land required. However, there may be some more for the turn north from 105ave to 105 st. Not sure if they plan to stay at grade, cut and cover, or elevate for that turn because I'm not sure whether they are planning to go up the middle of the street.

  25. #25
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I don't like the swerve over to victoria School. The route should go straight up 106th street, direct up 109th would be second best.

    The Grant macEwan Station should be closer to the actual college, if possible. It's nice to be close to where the students are now, but in 10 years there could be more students west of 109th than east. Moving to be closer to victoria school at the expense of MacEwan, and adding extra curves doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me.

    Moving the stations south, so there's a nait/Kingsway station and a 110th st station is an interesting option.

  26. #26
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I also think it should be a priority to determine a route north of nait, at least to 137 and preferably beyond, including station locations.

    Greisbach is being redeveloped quickly and right now there is still an oportunity to develop an area around a station as higher density. that opportunity will be lost within 5 years.

  27. #27
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Getting the LRT across the Yellowhead and the CN tracks
    is what I believe is holding them back... that is going
    to be a very expensive thing to do when the time comes.
    There is room south of the Yellowhead to put the LRT,
    even on the west side of 97th St if need be. But north
    of the Yellowhead doesn't have the room without major
    property acquisition, and getting the thing across the
    Yellowhead and CN tracks.

    -edit- I should add.. as far as I'm concerned, they could
    close two lanes of 97 St for the LRT, but I think they'd
    have a voter revolt on their hands if they did.

  28. #28

    Default

    I'm guessing the reason they are going with the swerve to 104st is because it is a wider traffic public use corridor serving two large institutions with large grass setbacks and it's surrounded by city owned/school board land on the west (armoury grounds) and the east (vic comp). Going up 106st would mean going through a SFH neighbourhood, requiring significant property acquisition, unless property owners would be willing to have their street shut down for transit only.

    North of YHD - I guess they may have to consider a couple of kms of cut and cover or elevated guideway - up to 137.

  29. #29
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Regarding north of Yellowhead, I think most will agree that a station at Northgate makes lots of sense. Now is there any other locations that could possibly have a station? What about a station to go out all the way to the Garrison?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  30. #30

    Default

    RE: N of 97st. I may be wrong about this but is there not an old rail ROW parelling 97 st a block or two west?

  31. #31
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    RE: N of 97st. I may be wrong about this but is there not an old rail ROW parelling 97 st a block or two west?
    Yeah, there is, or at least there was...
    I think it only goes up about 3 blocks though, north
    of 127 ave, at about 102 st.

  32. #32

    Default

    oh well, there goes my cunning plan to save the city the cost of cut and cover under 97st up to Northgate.

  33. #33
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    RE: N of 97st. I may be wrong about this but is there not an old rail ROW parelling 97 st a block or two west?
    Yeah, there is, or at least there was...
    I think it only goes up about 3 blocks though, north
    of 127 ave, at about 102 st.
    According to the Google maps it appears to be still there - from 127Ave all the way up to 137Ave but it may be too far away from 97Street.

  34. #34
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    RE: N of 97st. I may be wrong about this but is there not an old rail ROW parelling 97 st a block or two west?
    Yeah, there is, or at least there was...
    I think it only goes up about 3 blocks though, north
    of 127 ave, at about 102 st.
    According to the Google maps it appears to be still there - from 127Ave all the way up to 137Ave but it may be too far away from 97Street.
    It used to run to the old Griesbach base.

  35. #35

    Default

    Yeah, it looks like it does go all the way to Griesbach. From 127ave to 132 it runs between 101-102st, which might be okay. However, at 132 it bends NW up to 137ave.

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    Would it really be that difficult to widen the 97St ROW by 6m to accomodate LRT tracks down the middle without losing lanes?

  37. #37
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Would it really be that difficult to widen the 97St ROW by 6m to accomodate LRT tracks down the middle without losing lanes?
    i don't think we need that road any wider. I don't see any problems with taking away from the road what is already 2 bus lanes (north and south). The reason to have LRT down 97St is to give people a choice to take public transit. LRT should take some cars off the road and remove a few busses as well. If the road remains congested--more people (those who are served well by the LRT) will eventually switch to LRT leaving the road for those for whom LRT hasn't reached yet.

  38. #38
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That old rail ROW north of the yellowhead is being trenched by epcor for a new power line, starting this month. I think that it could be a good route, but I'm not sure how it would go north of griesbach.

    So there's 3 options, 97th, old ROW and 113th.

    How long of a flyover would you need to get over yellowhead and the calder yards? From Gooogle Earth I estimate a minimum of 700m for the 113th route, and more for the other routes.

    Oh I just looked at the old ROW on google earth, and CN has an office building directly in the way of the route. It is also directly behind single family homes who have no traffic there right now. I don't think that route will ever happen even if that neighbourhood isn't inhabited by lawyers.

  39. #39
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I've decided to lay out a route I like for 113th.
    So we start in the south at Churchill and head to a new MacEwan Station, at 105th and 106th. The route would continue directly up 106th to a kingsway station. Some might object that this route cuts through a neighbourhood, but It's mostly apartments whose owners would say ok if they got up-zoning in return. The pinch pioint is the townhouse complex next to the Armoury. If they're rentals, that might be a good place for an intermediate station and a TOD. There's about 1,300m between MacEwan and Kingsway stations.

    North of kingsway is simple: follow 106th north. I chose the west side of 106th because it can hug the parkade and be farther from homes, although the train is quieter than a Dodge 2500 Deisel.



    North from nait continue up 106th/107th. The city owns a lot of land up there, so there is an option of a station at 123rd or 124th to serve a yellowhead park& ride, or post-airport TOD. I'd leave it for a future station. The yellow is elevated over the yellowhead and the tracks, and 127th for good measure. The next station would be a park&ride, and if airport rules allow it, a BIG TOD. That lot is as big as century park. As long as the airport exists there could be nothing tall there, but would a bunch of 4 - 6 stories be allowed? If not, call the TOD future.



    From there go north on the east side of 113A, up to a Greisbach station Just north of 137th. There is possibility for some Park& ride, But mostly, if the LRT is planned now, Canada Lands Would LOVE to build a dense euro-style village around an LRT stop.

    Then continue up 113 to CasleDowns station, north of 153rd. This would be mostly Park&ride, but there is a community shopping centre there, and a strip mall S of 153, that might be redevelopable. This stop would also link Casledowns Rec Centre & YMCA to the LRT.




    You Could Continue past this point, but there isn't as much development opportunity. The lines are options and the squares are possible stations and development opportunities. The best is the Castledowns Rd route to 97th and 82nd, but this is all park&ride, car oriented development, and the city will not keep growing on this end, as the Base is to the north, just past the future Henday. You could build this, but only after WLRT is done, and NELRT and SLRT extentions have as much vlue as this.
    I guess if park&ride lots are full, this extension could have P&R at 97th and 82nd.


  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    I'm guessing the reason they are going with the swerve to 104st is because it is a wider traffic public use corridor serving two large institutions with large grass setbacks and it's surrounded by city owned/school board land on the west (armoury grounds) and the east (vic comp). Going up 106st would mean going through a SFH neighbourhood, requiring significant property acquisition, unless property owners would be willing to have their street shut down for transit only.

    North of YHD - I guess they may have to consider a couple of kms of cut and cover or elevated guideway - up to 137.
    104th has only one block of residential to go through. It is only 1 block from MacEwan so it's no too far to walk for students and it allows them to include a station to cater to both Victoria High School and the Royla Alex, which a line down 106st wouldn't

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    Because we're still pretty close to the core of the city and with that stations are pretty close by to each other already a station around the turn past victoria and royal alex could be ok.
    To me it would be foolish not to put a station there. Lot's of workers and students that tend to use transit anyway. And a lot more that will use transit to avoid the parking issues at the hospital IF they don;t have to walk 4-5 blocks. We aren't talking just 1 block and a high school and a pool like the south line. This is the city's largest and busiest hospital, and a several block walk.

  42. #42
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    highlander - i like your plan
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  43. #43
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    The LRT can't go up 106 St.. that's residential on both sides,
    and a narrow street to boot. Those townhouses are all
    relatively new too.
    I think 104 St is better, because there could be a station
    serving both Victoria School and the Royal Alex Hospital.
    Also, the flyover over the CN tracks... you couldn't have that
    station on the north side of 127 ave. Northbound, it would
    have to start climbing around 122 ave, and wouldn't be able
    to get back to ground level until at least 129 ave. Trains don't
    like steep grades
    The good thing about going over the CN tracks, is they could
    incorporate a pedestrian/bicycle walkway with it.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    I think 104 St is better, because there could be a station
    serving both Victoria School and the Royal Alex Hospital.
    Also, the flyover over the CN tracks...
    I think GMCC should wait for another track. That goes to NW edmonton and follows the old CN track besdie 124 street up to the VIA station then it can go across and go up beside LEONS .

    Victoria and RAH should have a station between them at kingsway and 102 street and it should go on 98 street from the churchill station to 108 ave. from kingsway mall it should go up princess to 97 street and from there go all the way up to namao

  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    ^The sooner GMC gets a station, the better. Who knows when North West LRT will start? Probably not for sometime.

  46. #46
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    ^The sooner GMC gets a station, the better. Who knows when North West LRT will start? Probably not for sometime.

    True, we have to wait until the ROW is no longer available before we can start to think about it.

  47. #47
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    one stop to serve Victoria/Centre for Education/The Alex seems appropriate. I would put it opposite the hospital (school kids can walk to school). As a side bonus--it will also serve the Polish Hall and the Armoury near by (an extra 2 passengers a month!). The next stop should be at Kingsway/NAIT to serve both. this station should go near the Bay in Kingsway which is on Princess Elizabeth Ave between 109 and 106 Street. I realize that there is already a bus terminal at Kingsway, however that terminal is very awkward and old. I think the money saved by not building a third station at NAIT should be used to create a new bus/LRT terminal at Princess Elizabeth/106 Street. We should also remember the plans to put a rec centre on that P.E.Avenue.
    Polish Hall is a major music venue, used mostly holding folk and dance events. Increasing accessibility may increase the number of events held there. Don't know much about the Armoury other than the fact that it is a hell of a nice looking building.

  48. #48
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    ^The sooner GMC gets a station, the better. Who knows when North West LRT will start? Probably not for sometime.

    True, we have to wait until the ROW is no longer available before we can start to think about it.
    I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about it. However, there are three lines that are of higher priority than NWLRT. The North LRT will probably be built next and will run right nest to GMC. GMC needs a station now, not 20+ years from now when NWLRT is built.

  49. #49
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    The next stop should be at Kingsway/NAIT to serve both. this station should go near the Bay in Kingsway which is on Princess Elizabeth Ave between 109 and 106 Street. I realize that there is already a bus terminal at Kingsway, however that terminal is very awkward and old. I think the money saved by not building a third station at NAIT should be used to create a new bus/LRT terminal at Princess Elizabeth/106 Street. We should also remember the plans to put a rec centre on that P.E.Avenue.
    I like the idea of moving the bus terminal to P.E.Av at 106 Street to serve both NAIT and KGMall.

    But we have to realize that we can't serve everyone and that the purpose of the LRT is to provide speedy service to passengers. Speed can not be offered by putting a stop every three blocks and forcing the train to slow down for a multitude of curves.

    I suggest we look at coming from Corona straight up 109 Street to GMC and continue straight all the way to the NAIT/KGMall station. From there along P.E.Av to 97 Street and north, all the way to Namao.

  50. #50
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    I suggest we look at coming from Corona straight up 109 Street to GMC and continue straight all the way to the NAIT/KGMall station. From there along P.E.Av to 97 Street and north, all the way to Namao.
    Meh.

    C'mon, the route chosen by the city makes the best sense because of the major nodes being serviced and the minimal disruption to residences and traffic. I do agree that the stations need to be rethought so that there are only stops at GMCC, Royal Alex/Victoria School and NAIT/Kingsway Mall (move the ETS terminal to the NE parking lot).

    I also wonder how the LRT will route through NAIT? With the road traffic and the building expansions, what ROW room is there, if any?

  51. #51
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I think that shifting stations to south of kingsway and PPave definately could work. Putting a station closer to the alec can only be a good thing.

    I'm still not convinced that the city's route is a good one. south of 108th development is the same on all three streets (104, 105, 106). There is one block of SFH's on 106th and two blocks of aweful rowhouses between 105& 106. Those townhomes were built during a bust and it shows. In my humble opinion they should be leveled and redeveloped. Of course if they are individually owned that might not happen. The zig-zag route that the city chose doesn't make sense ofr LRT. I'm a regular LRT rider, and I notice the train Slowing in curves, plus that's where the steel wheels make noise. I hope that the city only chose that route as a prime BRT option, not for LRT.

  52. #52

    Default

    Those townhomes include a lot of affordable and subsidized living. The city is not going to bulldoze them. I think the city has chosen well. 104st appears to be the best and most economical route for all concerned.

    LRT is not simply all about speed. You also want to go to cover major destinations. Hence, serving the busiest hospital in the city and an inner city high school without having to buy up an extra two city blocks of housing in an established neighbourhood, by adding a couple of curves, makes plenty of sense. How much time do you think this would add? 1min? It's not like they are hairpin turns (e.g. corona - grandin, or central - churchill). They are no sharper than the curves to get to the sLRT onto west side of South Campus and then back around the school for the deaf. The original route simply followed 114/113 St. but they adjusted b/c of the university's expansion plans and the desire to hit another major destination in the future.

  53. #53
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mick
    Those townhomes include a lot of affordable and subsidized living. The city is not going to bulldoze them. I think the city has chosen well. 104st appears to be the best and most economical route for all concerned.

    LRT is not simply all about speed. You also want to go to cover major destinations. Hence, serving the busiest hospital in the city and an inner city high school without having to buy up an extra two city blocks of housing in an established neighbourhood, by adding a couple of curves, makes plenty of sense. How much time do you think this would add? 1min? It's not like they are hairpin turns (e.g. corona - grandin, or central - churchill). They are no sharper than the curves to get to the sLRT onto west side of South Campus and then back around the school for the deaf. The original route simply followed 114/113 St. but they adjusted b/c of the university's expansion plans and the desire to hit another major destination in the future.
    First, simply because those townhomes are in an established neighbourhood house not mean that they are themselves sensitive to the charachter of the neighbourhood, as you imply. They actually stick out like a sore thumb, as treeless and monotonous and suburban as the surrounding area is treed, varied and inner city in form. There is nothing good about those townhomes that is related to the buildings themselves. If the affordable units are more than replaced in a more suitable form, the cummunity that I assume exists there could continue.

    I also realise the advantage of being close to the Hospital, but you'll note that the city's preferred option doesn't have a nearby station anyway. I also think that the need to be close to a 1,000 or so student high school is outweighed by the need to be close to the 15,000 students at macEwan. remember that macEwan will soon stretch all the way to 112 St, so even at 106th st the station is 6 blocks from some classes. If the stops are shifted south of Princess patricia Ave and South of kingsway, Victoria HS will be closer to a station than MacEwans New arts centre will be.

    On the city's proposed route, another station south of Kingsway station wouldn't be close to the Alec anyway.

    the city's plan here also adds more curves than the Southcampus shift added, and from the look of their plan the curves on 108ave are just as tight as the one between churchill and central, if not tighter.

    As for most economical route, the extra distance on the city's rout is about 150m, or $20m at SLRT prices. The extra cost of buying and demoing about 25 duplex/triplex units assuming the city doesn't already own them, is about $2.5m ($200,000 each)

  54. #54
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Some very interesting ideas here, although I can't really take any route heading north from the downtown area seriously, that doesn't piggy back down 97th street eventually. There is just too much space along that corridor north of the yellowhead to justify the cost of tearing down buildings or infrastructure along other routes.

    My pref. route would be north from Grandin Station along 109th street to Jasper Ave, Grant MacEwan, St. Joseph's HS, Kingsway and NAIT. Then turning northeast to 118th Ave and 97th street, where it would go straight north on 97th, to 176th Avenue and beyond.

  55. #55
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleisthenis
    Some very interesting ideas here, although I can't really take any route heading north from the downtown area seriously, that doesn't piggy back down 97th street eventually. There is just too much space along that corridor north of the yellowhead to justify the cost of tearing down buildings or infrastructure along other routes.

    My pref. route would be north from Grandin Station along 109th street to Jasper Ave, Grant MacEwan, St. Joseph's HS, Kingsway and NAIT. Then turning northeast to 118th Ave and 97th street, where it would go straight north on 97th, to 176th Avenue and beyond.

    route has been set....and is as above until NAIT essentially.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  56. #56

    Default

    Just out of curiosity. Is the plan to take the LRT all the way to CFB Edmonton?

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Just out of curiosity. Is the plan to take the LRT all the way to CFB Edmonton?

    i highly doubt it
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    Quote Originally Posted by m0nkyman
    Just out of curiosity. Is the plan to take the LRT all the way to CFB Edmonton?

    i highly doubt it
    Maybe in a really long term future - 50/100 years. As the general current route is heading that way. My life time? Maybe.. Maybe not

  59. #59
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    route has been set....and is as above until NAIT essentially.
    A stupid idea can and should be scrapped. Look up Spadina Expressway on Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadina_Expressway

    I have looked at the suggestions offered in this topic and melding the more reasonable ones together offer yet another possibility. A single track (one-way) loop going from Churchill north along 98 Street to 107 Ave. A station beside the Emergency to service RAH and Vic. Next stop the new NAIT station on Princess then down 109 Street to St. Joes, from there to GMC and on to either Grandin or Corona.

    The advantage is that it would cover four major educational facilities, the hospital and Kingsway. It would allow higher speeds due to longer straight stretches. It would be less noisy and need less maintenance because it would require fewer and more gradual curves.

    Future demands could lead to double tracking and extensions north and west, but in the immediate term, this solution will offer better service to more people for a comparable construction cost.

  60. #60
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    You're proposing two tunnel-to-surface sections then,
    both at Churchill and at Grandin or Corona. A lot of
    surface track can be built for the cost of one extra
    tunnel-to-surface section, so I really don't see that
    happening. If not for that, it would be a good idea

  61. #61
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    You're proposing two tunnel-to-surface sections then... If not for that, it would be a good idea
    Good point.

    I considered GMC station as a good place to split off for the NWLRT and considered this second tunnel as an investment for the future with immediate benefits.

    Similarly, the NLRT would continue from NAIT station once the loop is complete and operating.

  62. #62
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    One of the most important things that the LRT planners have always talked about is the issue of getting the train above ground. You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station. The next big issue will be of course getting the train out from Churchill or (Downtown arena station, possible future station) to the MacEwan station.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  63. #63
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Southgate)
    Posts
    76

    Default

    The line downtown is not buried nearly as deep as it was at the University, coming out of the ground will not be a problem in this case.

  64. #64
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    ^I hope so because almost every argument included the fact of how much is costs to be underground and to come above ground.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  65. #65
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    And there was also sand at the university that increased the cost.

  66. #66
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by travis
    And there was also sand at the university that increased the cost.
    And the time it took to finish getting to the surface.

  67. #67
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station.
    Bad example. VERY bad example.

    Most of the delay and much of the cost was due to litigation over whether the section between UofA and Crawford should be at grade or underground.

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station.
    Bad example. VERY bad example.

    Most of the delay and much of the cost was due to litigation over whether the section between UofA and Crawford should be at grade or underground.
    I dont think there was ever serious consideration into going underground to neil crawford.

    I think it is a good example. U of A Portal took a long time to build and design due to all the 6% grade, the sharp turn and making sure all the electrical, sewers/water lines and heating and cooling were not interfered with.

  69. #69
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    Basicly though, as the LRT planners will say (of which I agree) it is very costly to go underground. So it makes me wonder, where will the line branch from? Churchill or a new station? and where will it surface?

    Oh? on a little sidenote, with the Aurora project going in, does anyone think it's worth having a station near that project?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  70. #70
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I think it'll come out from Churchill, underground until
    it gets north of the CN tracks, then come up to surface
    westbound on 105 Ave, and head to GMCC.

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    I dont think there was ever serious consideration into going underground to neil crawford.
    The serious consideration was if it should be kept underground
    until south of University Ave. So you're right

  71. #71
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station.
    Bad example. VERY bad example.

    Most of the delay and much of the cost was due to litigation over whether the section between UofA and Crawford should be at grade or underground.
    I think it is a good example. U of A Portal took a long time to build and design due to all the 6% grade, the sharp turn and making sure all the electrical, sewers/water lines and heating and cooling were not interfered with.
    The implication is that construction took all of the 13 year gap between the opening of the UofA station and the Health Sciences station.

    In reality, the construction only took two and a half years.

  72. #72
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station.
    Bad example. VERY bad example.

    Most of the delay and much of the cost was due to litigation over whether the section between UofA and Crawford should be at grade or underground.
    I think it is a good example. U of A Portal took a long time to build and design due to all the 6% grade, the sharp turn and making sure all the electrical, sewers/water lines and heating and cooling were not interfered with.
    The implication is that construction took all of the 13 year gap between the opening of the UofA station and the Health Sciences station.

    In reality, the construction only took two and a half years.
    buraucrary, our economic state, and studies studies studies took 13yrs.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  73. #73
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,510

    Default NLRT - Churchill to NAIT

    The following is appearing on APC (Alberta Purchasing Connection)

    http://vendor.purchasingconnection.c...-5B88E8E32F98&


    Opportunity Description:
    The City of Edmonton Transportation Department invites qualified consultants to submit expressions of interest to undertake concept planning and preliminary design for the north extension of Edmonton’s LRT system from downtown to NAIT. Experience with projects of a similar nature and proposed key team members should be included in a one-page letter outlining qualifications.

    The purpose of this study is to complete planning studies, develop a preliminary design, and undertake stakeholder consultation for the proposed LRT extension.

    Forward expressions of interest by Friday March 30, 2007 to:

    Brad Smid, P.Eng. Senior Planning Engineer
    Transportation Dept.
    Transit Projects Branch
    Suite 710, 10060 Jasper Avenue
    Tower 1, Scotia Place
    Edmonton, AB T5J 3R8

    Terms of Reference for this project will be provided to those firms selected to submit proposals. If you have any further questions, call (780) 496-5955 or email [email protected]

  74. #74

  75. #75
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Eeeeeeeee!!!!

  76. #76
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Awesome!

  77. #77
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,061

    Default

    Great news.

  78. #78
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    753

    Default

    very cool... first i've heard of any real progress

  79. #79
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,224

    Default

    Excellent - so assume that takes 1 year, council make a decision and get contracts signed a year later, construction begins then in 2010 with completion to NAIT by about 2013.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  80. #80
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Hopefully this won't end up as yet *another* study that nothing comes out of.

  81. #81

    Default North LRT back on track planning about to start

    North LRT back on track planning about to start

    Gordon Kent, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Friday, April 27, 2007


    The long-awaited LRT extension from downtown to NAIT could be the first leg in a line to Griesbach that might include a tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN yards.

    With LRT construction south to Century Park well underway, staff are gearing for detailed planning of a proposed northern route, put on the backburner since it was accepted by councillors more than two years ago.

    The idea is to go from Churchill Station to Grant MacEwan College, then north to the Victoria school, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Kingsway Garden Mall and NAIT.

    "Now, with a lot of interest in transit projects, what we want to do is be better prepared with planning should funding become available and that becomes a priority," transit projects manager Wayne Mandryk said.

    "The theory is, the further along you are with the planning, if and when (federal) grants come along, we will have a better chance to access them."

    Councillors are likely to be asked in June to approve consultants who will spend about a year completing a concept plan, doing preliminary engineering and figuring out precise rail alignments and station locations.

    There will be extensive discussions with the public, Mandryk said.

    For example, it may be better to move one of the three proposed stations closer to the Royal Alex from the mall, and there are several possible locations for a station near NAIT.

    Two years ago, the cost of the project was estimated at $300 million; given the current economic boom, the cost would likely be much higher now.

    No construction schedule has been suggested, but Coun. Kim Krushell wants to fast-track the project so work can start in 2010, after the southern line is finished.

    "We need to implement a much better transit system than we already have.

    "Anyone who goes to Calgary can see the advantages they have with a much bigger LRT system."

    Officials at NAIT are thrilled at the possibility they'll finally be on the LRT. The main campus, with 11,000 staff and students, set aside land for a future station on 106th Street when the HP Centre was built in 2002, spokeswoman Rayne Kuntz said.

    "It's definitely important," she said, adding that a proposed expansion could see the main campus population double over the next decade.

    "There's no question it makes sense. It makes environmental sense, it makes sense for staff and students in terms of commuting options."

    But Coun. Karen Leibovici said the first requirement is a long-term plan for expanding LRT, bus rapid transit and other bus services across Edmonton.

    "We can have the work going on throughout the city in a planned process ... I just hope we don't have to get into a fight over whose area is most important," she said.

    "We have to do it strategically so that no area is left out."

    Edmonton's north high-speed transit plan suggests eventually extending service to 137th Avenue to serve the large Griesbach redevelopment, something planners doing the upcoming study will keep in mind, Mandryk said.

    One potential route is under the Yellowhead and the Calder rail yards before heading up 113A Street, he said.

    "Tunnelling under the tracks would probably be the cheapest way ... you would have to build a pretty high bridge because the clearance over those rail cars is pretty high. It would be a massive structure."

    However, there hasn't been a feasibility study of the options for going that far north, which also include using 97th Street, Mandryk said.

    Some high-speed transportation needs might also be met with bus rapid transit, which can be implemented more easily than LRT and would run mainly on existing roads, he said.

    [email protected]

    LRT FUTURE


    - Beyond NAIT, consultants will look at ways to extend the northeast LRT past Clareview to a new station between 153rd Avenue and 167th Avenue, probably continuing along the CN right-of-way.

    - As well, the 10- to 12-month study will examine the best route for LRT to follow south of the station planned for Century Park to the city boundary.

    - Space is available along 111th Street south of Anthony Henday Drive, but they'll examine whether using 127th Street makes more sense.

    - There's no indication when either leg might be built; a master plan now being updated will set directions and create a framework for Edmonton's transportation.

    © The Edmonton Journal 2007

    --30--

  82. #82
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    I wish the online version had the graphic printed in the paper. It shows proposed LRT stations at Kingsway Mall transit station, plus alternatives at Victoria station and Kingsway Mall north, and LRT lines either along 106 St through NAIT or along 109 St between the campus and airport.

  83. #83

    Default

    I can't wait to see these new plans. Transportation Master Plans make me excited... lol

  84. #84
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,902

    Default

    hello....WLRT where art thou?
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO
    hello....WLRT where art thou?
    hopefully nexts week paper sometime

  86. #86
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,026

    Default

    I am sorry to continually rant on LRT spending but this line out of the Journal article made my blood boil.
    "- Beyond NAIT, consultants will look at ways to extend the northeast LRT past Clareview to a new station between 153rd Avenue and 167th Avenue, probably continuing along the CN right-of-way."
    Why on earth would the city pay consultants to show them the patently obvious?
    The original LRT line followed the right of way and the city is growing out in that direction massively.
    Why don't the city councillors jump in their cars, drive out there and pick a spot for a station?
    If council is too busy then send a person from the planning department. If the city needs to hire a consultant for a decision as simple as this, things are hopeless.

  87. #87
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,713
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60
    If the city needs to hire a consultant for a decision as simple as this, things are hopeless.


    Try being that consultant. I can't tell you how many times I showed up at a client's site only to repeat the blatently obvious...that the employees had been spouting for months. I don't know why it is, maybe once you get high up enough in the food chain, you decide that the people you pay to do the job aren't good enough so you need that $300 per hour opinion to make extra sure you're right?

    It gets old after awhile. Employers, listen to your employees. If you don't trust them, get new ones.

    The other slant is always the litigation route...bad plan...who do I sue?
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  88. #88
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    I think the biggest problem I see too much of is the fact that too many people are too worried of doing a little mistake so in turn they have study after study done so that hopefully once the project is done it's either done right or if it's done wrong someone else can be blamed for the screw up.

    To extend the line further north from Clareview seems it should be pretty easy. There is land available and there is devellopment out further so built it already and quit wasting time.

    As for NLRT to NAIT studies are acceptable because there is lots of things to be considered. When looking further north to Northgate and maybe all the way to the Garrison I don't think there is that much room to build therefore unfortunately there should be a certain amount of studies and consultation.

    I too feel that tunnelling under Yellowhead may be the best alternative to getting accross the main roadway. I guess the question would be though, how far would the LRT have to go underground.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  89. #89
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,026

    Default

    I was refering only to the N.E. extension. I understand the need for studying the extension to Nait and beyond, but to pay a consultant to tell you to run the Light Railway along the railway track is pathetic.

  90. #90
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60
    I was refering only to the N.E. extension. I understand the need for studying the extension to Nait and beyond, but to pay a consultant to tell you to run the Light Railway along the railway track is pathetic.
    Would that be what the study is about, or would it be for things like CN Rail usage, station locations, ridership projections and cost-benefit analyses?

  91. #91
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    Would that be what the study is about, or would it be for things like CN Rail usage, station locations, ridership projections and cost-benefit analyses?
    I thought that's what ETS Planning and ETS Marketing were there for

  92. #92
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    I haven't been out past the clareview station area, how much further could they go?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    I haven't been out past the clareview station area, how much further could they go?
    Fort Saskatchewan?!


  94. #94
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    I haven't been out past the clareview station area, how much further could they go?
    Fort Saskatchewan?!

    OK I think we need a consultant. I think the LRT line should follow the CN line going directly north and cross under the Manning Drive. Most of the new residential neighbourhoods will be built NW of the Manning. The city annexed a huge chunck of land there. Check your map.

  95. #95
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    One of the most important things that the LRT planners have always talked about is the issue of getting the train above ground. You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station. The next big issue will be of course getting the train out from Churchill or (Downtown arena station, possible future station) to the MacEwan station.
    If you travel the LRT north out of Churchill Station you will notice two indentations on the left side of the tunnel. These were put in during the original construction to accommodate a another line branching to to NW. Thinking ahead even in the old days.

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11
    One of the most important things that the LRT planners have always talked about is the issue of getting the train above ground. You look at how long it took and how much money it took to get the train from U of A Station to Health Sciences station. The next big issue will be of course getting the train out from Churchill or (Downtown arena station, possible future station) to the MacEwan station.
    If you travel the LRT north out of Churchill Station you will notice two indentations on the left side of the tunnel. These were put in during the original construction to accommodate a another line branching to to NW. Thinking ahead even in the old days.
    You'll also see a roughed in Station thats not in use yet.

  97. #97
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    that roughed in station is known as Future Station...
    the indentations for extending are between Churchill
    and Future... also indentations directly west of Corona.

  98. #98
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,809

    Default

    I've heard about that roughed in Station, I'm glad someone had some foresight to build something like that oh soo long ago.

    So now LRT planners let's fast track your planning so we can see NLRT construction commence around the same time as SLRT get's ready to finish construction.

    Now would the MacEwan station be above ground already or would we be looking at an underground station still?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  99. #99
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,648

    Default

    MacEwan is to be above ground. nLRT is supposed to surface at or after Stationlands.

    That is why knocking down the CN rail bridge across 101 Street was such a short-sighted move of Booster Bill, that would have been perfect for LRT.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    MacEwan is to be above ground. nLRT is supposed to surface at or after Stationlands.

    That is why knocking down the CN rail bridge across 101 Street was such a short-sighted move of Booster Bill, that would have been perfect for LRT.
    That bridge had to go. NLRT will pop up on the west side on 101 st anyways. That bridge would have been little to no use, besides acting as a wall between downtown and the northside.

Page 1 of 87 123451151 ... 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
  •