PDA

View Full Version : Post your ideal LRT system



Pages : [1] 2 3

IanO
06-06-2007, 11:04 AM
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x164/coldrsx/LRTexpansion.jpg

Rocket252
06-06-2007, 11:30 AM
Makes too much sense to be considered.

grish
06-06-2007, 12:58 PM
i think it has too many splits. I would connect NAIT to VIA/ greyuhound etc and on North.

To connect Commonwealth, Kingsway, 124str 111ave, Westmount etc I would use a rind line that I proposed that would circle through WEM, University, Bonnie Doon (EDIT: AND OLD STrathcona of course), Kings College (EDIT: AND NEW TOD at old shopping mall cite), Concordia and Back to Commonwealth.

As for serving 124st/ Jasper Ave--that should be the line going to WEM via Stoney Plain.

highlander
06-06-2007, 12:59 PM
That's a great network where unexpensive ROW is concerned, but you couldn't have all those trains heading downtown, at least not with frequent service.

How about splitting the VIA leg off the the westmount leg at 110th st to head down that old CP ROW/park to grandin station, with a station at the Save-on north of jasper. Then across the high level to old strathcona and millwoods. With two transfer points to the Main LRT line, it could work. I like it.

RichardS
06-06-2007, 02:47 PM
I'd say the "leg" to VIA would be better served by a smaller trolley line as the amount of passengers who would take advantage would be small, otherwise, the Westmount line is exactly what was proposed years ago - before this straight line across the river to WEM neverbuilt idea came to be.

NAIT would have to extend further to at least Northgate...

Westmount would be a great place for a BRT line from St Albert. BRT there because St Albert is not the major destination that places like, I don't know, the 22+ million visit WEM is...

Replacement
06-06-2007, 03:33 PM
I'd say the "leg" to VIA would be better served by a smaller trolley line as the amount of passengers who would take advantage would be small, otherwise, the Westmount line is exactly what was proposed years ago - before this straight line across the river to WEM neverbuilt idea came to be.

NAIT would have to extend further to at least Northgate...

Westmount would be a great place for a BRT line from St Albert. BRT there because St Albert is not the major destination that places like, I don't know, the 22+ million visit WEM is...As much as I love via, Greyhound, I agree that this location will not support , and is not at all a priority for an LRT line. The Kingsway/nait line DOES make huge sense and as part of a line continuing straight north.

As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.

m0nkyman
06-06-2007, 03:45 PM
As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.

That Westmount 'spur' would go out to WEM.... And is the best route for it, as it goes through areas that would actually use transit...

RichardS
06-06-2007, 03:52 PM
Correct, the 107 spur was the original plan to Jasper Place....the ROW is STILL there.

So, we would just head down to 87th well west and past the Laurier Heights LRT killers, and hang a right to WEM.

RichardS
06-06-2007, 03:53 PM
As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.

The plan ould be for this to be run under a UNIFIED transit system, ETS or a "BC Transit" style set up province wide...

Sonic Death Monkey
06-06-2007, 05:38 PM
Wish? More like woulda-coulda-shoulda since it all would have been doable had the rail ROWs still been intact. Now that all those strip malls and condos have been built on them, it's rather too late for this to happen, don't ya think?

Replacement
06-06-2007, 10:47 PM
As far as the Westmount Spur totally disagree and a St Albert BRT can almost as easily hit the proposed North line at Nait and of course funded by St Albert.

That Westmount 'spur' would go out to WEM.... And is the best route for it, as it goes through areas that would actually use transit...Honestly how is this the best spur to WEM for the half the city that lives on the southside?!?

Its about the most indirect line to WEM imaginable.

m0nkyman
06-06-2007, 11:29 PM
Honestly how is this the best spur to WEM for the half the city that lives on the southside?!?

Its about the most indirect line to WEM imaginable.


The southside already has LRT. Part of the goal is to make the LRT as useful as possible to the maximum number of people. Running LRT down 107th Ave to Mayfield, and down Mayfield, then down 170 St brings LRT close to the maximum number of commuters. Taking it straight down 87th misses most transit using neighbourhoods, and misses all the neighbourhoods in the northwest that are likely to be commuter. Push it down to Callingwood and you've created a really nice line to run short bus routes to for pretty much the entire population of the west end that's likely to take public transit.

WEM is a destination, and putting it on the LRT system is important, but the primary goal is to make the LRT convenient as a commuter system for the maximum number of people.

The other thing this route would do is make the employment areas in the northwest easy to get to from the LRT.

There's no point in going in a straight line if the points on that line aren't where you need to go.

grish
07-06-2007, 12:08 AM
sort of. there are some significant density along 87 avenue:
1 several apartment buildings at 149street
2. massive apartment complex--Whitehall Square at 156 street that is also next to Meadowlark mall and adult living complexes just north of it
3. Misericordia and the large apartment complex east of it.

I think if LRT goes down that way it would serve a lot of people. 170th has a stretch south of 95ave that has high density, but it is nowhere near what already exists along 87th from 149 to WEM.

I think ideal route for WLRT is down Jasper to Stoney Plain to 149 street (a lot of apartment buildings there) to 87 Ave to WEM.

Replacement
07-06-2007, 12:10 AM
Honestly how is this the best spur to WEM for the half the city that lives on the southside?!?

Its about the most indirect line to WEM imaginable.


The southside already has LRT. Part of the goal is to make the LRT as useful as possible to the maximum number of people. Running LRT down 107th Ave to Mayfield, and down Mayfield, then down 170 St brings LRT close to the maximum number of commuters. Taking it straight down 87th misses most transit using neighbourhoods, and misses all the neighbourhoods in the northwest that are likely to be commuter. Push it down to Callingwood and you've created a really nice line to run short bus routes to for pretty much the entire population of the west end that's likely to take public transit.

WEM is a destination, and putting it on the LRT system is important, but the primary goal is to make the LRT convenient as a commuter system for the maximum number of people.

The other thing this route would do is make the employment areas in the northwest easy to get to from the LRT.

There's no point in going in a straight line if the points on that line aren't where you need to go.Theres also no point putting the WEM access at a point so far north that the south won't make any use of it. Some consideration of equitable or fair compromise I'd say should enter into it. The southside of the city is expanding rapidly and now stretches all the way to 20A SW!! Thats now way past zero meridian. Conversely Edmonton stretches to 180A at it northernmost point. Is 111AVE as the OP diagrammed as the starting point a fair meeting of halfway? Thats 69 blocks away from the northernmost extremity of the city and 131blocks(twice as many) from the southernmost to put it into perspective and lets not forget, to end up at a location that is arguably more south as in 87AVE. So south residents esentially go WAY north only to go south again.. :?

IanO
07-06-2007, 10:13 AM
LRT to WEM SHOULD BE down 87ave but WONT BE imo for political reasons

RichardS
07-06-2007, 12:55 PM
I think ideal route for WLRT is down Jasper to Stoney Plain to 149 street (a lot of apartment buildings there) to 87 Ave to WEM.

That would be the absolute ideal, but also very costly as you would have to tunnel along Jasper, and then drop to go UNDER Groat, come up a bit and tunnel along 102, coming up probably near 149/Jasper Gates. But yes, that is the "onion paper on a map" best route.

RichardS
07-06-2007, 12:55 PM
LRT to WEM SHOULD BE down 87ave but WONT BE imo for political reasons

Yep...the line doomed to Phase Never...

grish
07-06-2007, 02:25 PM
I think ideal route for WLRT is down Jasper to Stoney Plain to 149 street (a lot of apartment buildings there) to 87 Ave to WEM.

That would be the absolute ideal, but also very costly as you would have to tunnel along Jasper, and then drop to go UNDER Groat, come up a bit and tunnel along 102, coming up probably near 149/Jasper Gates. But yes, that is the "onion paper on a map" best route.

I was thinking above ground actually. Turn 102 into a one-way 3 lane road and convert the other lane/sidewalk to rail tracks. At the same time convert Stoney plain rd to one way for returning traffic.
tunnelling would definitely make it prohibitive (unless, of course, we get some sort of LRT building dictatorship)

grish
07-06-2007, 04:13 PM
Lets see if this works:

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/5070/edmontonlrtwishwithringye1.png

Green Lines are the NAIT, WEM and Millwoods lines. Red is the
proposed (by me) ring line. Black is the existing line. when two lines run side-by-side they share the track on that segment.

Note that Millwoods is a simple add-on line. It only needs to make one stop at Millwoods Towne Center. I see two alternating trains--one going downtown through NE portion of ring road (I.e. will make a turn at stadium) and one is downtown through University portion of the ring road.

I wanted the ring to share track between UofA south campus and Health Sciences for two reasons. It will allow more choices for student commute between the two campuses and will send LRT through Fox Drive over Quesnel. Then we make a stop top of Quesnel with East end serving Ft. Edmonton and West end of the station serving Valley zoo. Coordinate this with both facilities and Ft. Edmonton might actually choose to move their entrance and steam train closer to LRT (while the Zoo may do similar work with their wheeled cho-cho train).

Like the millwoods line, if there is ever a development near the ring road that warrants LRT, a one or two-stop extension is built to connect and tie that new development into the LRT network.
For example, another spurt line (like the one to Millwoods) may be built to Riverbend and the communities further South from Fox Dr./Whitemud.

With the ring road we will place LRT near the majority of Edmontonians.

microbus
07-06-2007, 09:26 PM
I was thinking above ground actually. Turn 102 into a one-way 3 lane road and convert the other lane/sidewalk to rail tracks. At the same time convert Stoney plain rd to one way for returning traffic.
tunnelling would definitely make it prohibitive (unless, of course, we get some sort of LRT building dictatorship)

But they would need a double track, for trains going both
directions. So they would need 2 lanes of roadway at least,
which would leave a 2 lane one-way road.

grish
07-06-2007, 11:18 PM
/\ I just drove there today and you are right, there isn't enough room for three lanes and rail. I was actually planning to make that correction.

Edmcowboy11
08-06-2007, 12:56 AM
Would it be worthwhile at all having a line run down part of the soon to be vacated train yards along 103rd? Maybe not going all the the way south but maybe take a line to branch from Health Sciences somehow to the tracks where the street car now runs all the way to whyte and 103. From there travel south to somewhere like argyll and continue south east to millwoods via 91 st. until whitemud. Travel along whitemud (with a stop next to the lakewood terminal and then to 75 st or 50st and then right into millwoods.

grish
08-06-2007, 07:40 AM
other than old strathcona and then Millwoods there is a really long stretch of emptyness (ie low density) on the route your propose. If the line is going to go along whyte, it might as well continue to Bonnie Doon and then on to millwoods making the existing rail not usable. I would rather they retain the rail ROW for a new road that connects south (replacing calgary trail and running side-by-side with gateway) and also leaving an allowance for HSR along there.

Medwards
08-06-2007, 10:47 AM
Lets see if this works:


I dont know whos going to ride your red line to no where - It barely connects any employment areas with living areas.

All lines should connect to downtown. Downtown should the central hub for the whole system, and spokes should come off it.

Ring lines would only make sense if you were connecting employment zones with resdential zones... these red lines just seem to go random.

The current proposed plan by the city makes sense... I'll repost it for you to re-look at .
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/3364/futurelrtkp4.jpg

You may want to consider the areas you are going through and to:
http://www.edmonton.ca/infraplan/Land%20Use%20Information/Zoning%20Map%202006.pdf

grish
08-06-2007, 12:25 PM
view the "red" or ring line as more of a round about on the road. In my plan, the black line and the green line to WEM anf to NAIT are the main load carriers. Ring line is simply to connect Millwoods and Riverbend and Bonnie Doon.

Take, as an example Groat road and 111 ave (or Westmount stop). From there a rider will have two choices:

1. Westmount-Kingsway-Downtown-University-West End-Westmount Loop
2. same as above in the opposite direction

Take for example Bonnie Doon stop. The line that passes there would make
B/D-Strathcona-University-Downtown-Stadium-Capilano-Bonnie Doon loop.

So, my vision is that the ring road will serve every region of the city with an LRT connection downtown and University.

If a person needs to go elsewhere, they would have to connect.

I wouldn't want to see trains do a full circle at 15 min intervals.

Another option is for trains to make figure 8 or a bow-tie loop.

Together with the regular operation of the black (or back-bone line) a bow-tie line will follow the following:

Downtown (Say Corona)-Univercity-Strathcona-Bonnie-Doon-Capilano-Concordia or Stadium-Downtown (corona)-University-Meadowlark-Westmount-Kingsway/NAIT-Stadium-Downtwon (Corona) and the loop is complete.

But the bottom line is, just because there is track that goes all the way around doesn't mean there will be trains simply circling. We want people get downtown and University area--that is where we will direct the trains.

grish
08-06-2007, 12:34 PM
You may want to consider the areas you are going through and to:

with the loop that I envision, the line will be close to most of the population of edmonton. when people know that an LRT line is only a few blocks away--their support for the line will be stronger and more relevant.

The current construction of the south line is not very relevant to people in the east or west or north ends of the city. Thus we get comments in the SUN about our "wasteful" city council--they don't see direct benefit.

After the ring is built, every community ends being close to the line. If there is a need to build LRT to, say, Mayfield, all it would take is a short one-or two stop connector to the ring road and on to downtown.

Medwards
08-06-2007, 01:32 PM
view the "red" or ring line as more of a round about on the road. In my plan, the black line and the green line to WEM anf to NAIT are the main load carriers. Ring line is simply to connect Millwoods and Riverbend and Bonnie Doon.

Take, as an example Groat road and 111 ave (or Westmount stop). From there a rider will have two choices:

1. Westmount-Kingsway-Downtown-University-West End-Westmount Loop
2. same as above in the opposite direction

Take for example Bonnie Doon stop. The line that passes there would make
B/D-Strathcona-University-Downtown-Stadium-Capilano-Bonnie Doon loop.

So, my vision is that the ring road will serve every region of the city with an LRT connection downtown and University.

If a person needs to go elsewhere, they would have to connect.

I wouldn't want to see trains do a full circle at 15 min intervals.

Another option is for trains to make figure 8 or a bow-tie loop.

Together with the regular operation of the black (or back-bone line) a bow-tie line will follow the following:

Downtown (Say Corona)-Univercity-Strathcona-Bonnie-Doon-Capilano-Concordia or Stadium-Downtown (corona)-University-Meadowlark-Westmount-Kingsway/NAIT-Stadium-Downtwon (Corona) and the loop is complete.

But the bottom line is, just because there is track that goes all the way around doesn't mean there will be trains simply circling. We want people get downtown and University area--that is where we will direct the trains.

I'm just glad this will never come about. Sure it picks people up, but really, where is it taking them to?

A hub (downtown/uofa) and a spoke system is what will be built, and is being built here.

Titanium48
08-06-2007, 03:25 PM
I think an LRT ring route is a good idea, just not the one grish proposed. How about this one:
- Start at 76 Av and 114 St, follow Belgravia/Fox to a stop at Fort Edmonton.
- Continue along whitemud to a stop at 156 St, then along 170 St to stops at WEM and Mayfield common (move the Jasper Place TC there).
- Continue along Mayfield Rd and 111 Av to a stop at Westmount
- Continue east and meet the north LRT at either Kingsway/RAH (via 111 Av) or GMCC (via old rail ROW).
- Complete the loop via downtown and U of A

grish
08-06-2007, 03:29 PM
sort of half of what I proposed.

It would be a good start.

I wanted LRT to somehow connect all major post secondary institutions in edmonton--UofA,NAIT, MacEwan, Concordia, and Kings as well as connect strathcona and give hope for a Century-type development at Capilano site. That is why I think the east part of my proposal is important.

Titanium48
08-06-2007, 03:55 PM
I'd like to see LRT to Capilano start from the "downtown transport hub" (aka churchill station), cross the river to a stop at the Muttart and follow 98 Av east. That would set up 3 train routes: A northeast to southwest line, a west end circle route and a north to east route.

Later, lines running along 50th street and 23 Av could connect Millwoods to Capilano and Century Park, setting up another circle route.

Bryguy
26-06-2007, 05:06 PM
Well I like the idea of an LRT loop, mind you what I had in mind was of a smaller scale.

What I was thinking of was an automated, elevated LRT loop with reasonably spaced stations. Below the LRT would be a bus lane that would help feed people to/from the LRT stations.
Should the LRT loop be a single mono-directional track a special bus route could act as the LRT traveling in the opposite direction.

The idea being to add an LRT that would not interfere with local traffic, would have a lower annual operating cost then a standard LRT line, run at high speeds (for an LRT), and would require less land then a ground or below ground line.
Of course adding a bus lane below it would help the buses in general as well as allow fewer LRT stops since a special bus route could help shuttle people to/from stations to their destinations.


Specifically I was thinking of a downtown loop, as well as a wLRT like loop. As for the west I was thinking of a small loop on 170 St (maybe combined with Mayfield Rd), 114 (or 111/118) Ave, 142 St, and 87 Ave.
Adding a special express bus (or extra/expanded LRT track) along 111ave to connect this loop to Westmount, Kingsway, and Stadium Station. With another one by 87ave to connect to an LRT station south of the river.

But that's just my idea on it.
I may not be too familiar with other parts of the city but something similar could work for those areas as well. Local ring LRTs that connect to some LRT backbone to allow people to transfer from one ring to another or downtown.
Perhaps it could be a large city-wide loop that connects to multiple sub-loops.
Yeah, I'm a little loopy today.

dwells
26-06-2007, 07:24 PM
I realize that the 'R' in LRT stands for 'rail' and not 'rapid,' but it galls me think that we are talking of spending in the neighbourhood of $40 million per kilometre to basically provide service that is similar to that provided by bus.

I can understand the civic pride and desire to provide service to Fort Edmonton and to the Zoo, but every stop adds to the duration of the run and if I understand the control system and timing requirements, LRT stops are not 'on demand.'

Please decide if you want to stop the train for a couple of minutes every few hundred metres OR if you want to provide a speedy transport to your destination. The two appear to be mutually exclusive.

I like the ring route suggestion, especially if it only has to stop at transit hubs three to eight kilometres apart. Several hubs could act as transfer points to radial routes that end or pass through downtown. To deny the value of a ring route shows a very narrow, core-centric mindset and is similar to dissing AHD because it doesn't go downtown.

Bryguy
27-06-2007, 05:43 PM
Well if you're talking stations 3-8km apart that better be a fairly large ring. I agree with the idea of fewer stops, faster service. Let buses handle the in-between destinations.

Heh, maybe they should build a LRT loop on the TUC.
With feeder routes to/from the various municipalities and key destinations (WEM, Airport, SEC) that would really help people move around the region in a flash.
Not to mention the land is already designated for transit/utility purposes and currently under construction.
I think it could work if there were very few stops and the LRT was very fast; like 60km/h or faster (average speed) fast.
Automate it, make sure it doesn't affect traffic (below or above ground) and it'll be good for decades with some maintenance.

I think it would be a really great project for the future.

Topher
02-07-2007, 12:17 PM
So it would pretty much TRIPLE the taxes but the city would reduce SO much congestion and save on energy emissions and in the long run would be ENTIRELY worth it since Canada is kicking our asses into following more environmental policies to build an LRT line to St Albert and Sherwood Park

just imagine how that would change everything.

its not like we dont have the room. stupid money....stupid stupid money.

MylesC
03-07-2007, 08:55 AM
Well, the Via spur on it's own wouldn't really make sense. It would have to radiate off somewhere, maybe to the NE and St. Albert? It's too close to the future North line running from NAIT and all that.

dwells
08-07-2007, 08:14 AM
So it would pretty much TRIPLE the taxes but the city would reduce SO much congestion and save on energy emissions and in the long run would be ENTIRELY worth it since Canada is kicking our asses into following more environmental policies to build an LRT line to St Albert and Sherwood Park

just imagine how that would change everything.

its not like we dont have the room. stupid money....stupid stupid money.
Do we HAVE TO imagine and guess at the figures? Don't we have counts that show how much traffic would be reduced if we were to run the LRT spokes to our neighbours?

Less traffic load translates into less road wear, less roadway construction, less pollution, fewer collisions, etc - all of which just keep sucking at the infrastructure budget.

Trumpet to the commuters their savings in car maintenance, fuel, insurance, parking, stress and time as a trade-off for the cost of a bus pass and you'll be assured of riders.

So here we sit arguing about running spokes to malls and schools while we lose millions of dollars every day in potential fares and at the same time continue to spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure.

Ex-urban commuters are an untapped profit center for transit. However we continue to keep them a drain on infrastructure instead.

We shouldn't run a line to NAIT, it should run to Namao or even Bon Accord and Gibbons with plans for Redwater and the upgraders site. NAIT is only one stop along the way, not the entire spoke.

NE should already be in Fort Saskatchewan, Bruderheim and Lamont, while other spokes should be to Sherwood Park, Beaumont, Leduc, Devon, Calmar, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, St. Albert, Morinville, etc.

Let's build the lines through farmland and not wait until we have to demolish homes or tear up roads. Along the way we might even get transit oriented communities that develop because of transit, communities where transit doesn't have try to displace the car.

Do we have a regional plan to present to the province for cost sharing or are we still trying to get the province and the feds to pay for a track to school.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 11:18 AM
This is a letter that has been drafted for submission to local media and to relevant government ministries and departments at the local and provincial level.

It was originally created with the angle of a novel idea for the new arena.

Please provide only positive constructive criticism. There's not a lot of room for major changes to this proposal that we're advocating, but there's certainly room for minor tweaks or additional elements that compliment the end-state of the project.

Thanks for your time and feedback,
Jordan Schroder

Alberta 2020

###

Along with projected growth in the region, the WHL Oil Kings return this fall and Rush lacrosse, an arena that the Oilers need by 2013 is justifiable. A recent study concluded that the existing Rexall Place could be retrofitted to the tune of $250 million, but it falls short as it doesn't increase total capacity over 20 thousand. It seems another building is preferable and though the lease with Northlands doesn't expire for six years, a site needs to be chosen soon as it'll take years to complete.

In other cities where arenas have been built along with various cultural and entertainment amenities, these complexes have spurred further progress. There is a growing consensus that the Oilers new home should be in the heart of downtown, and that the move would surely improve the vitality of surrounding neighborhoods. Mayor Mandel has even said he would "look seriously at building a new downtown rink that would be part of a $1-billion complex of shops, businesses and a hotel". That makes good economic sense too, looking at Rexall Place today, we see rinks don't improve neighborhoods on their own. The only location being considered now, is occupied by the post office depot on 97th street and 104th Avenue, sandwiched between City Hall and the Station Lands. While there is room for a rink on that corner, it's unclear where the rest of the complex will go and who'll pay for it. Generally, I have supported the growing initiative to build a rink downtown along with re-development of the area around it. However, I think that putting a new rink this close to the downtown core will be a mistake in the long run.

The closest LRT station would be Churchill, which is a further walk from the Coliseum station to the current Rexall Place. Once you begin to look at the ramifications of putting a new rink downtown, it's clear that it would be difficult to implement at best. Setting aside the monumental task of buying up all the buildings and parcels of land needed for the downtown location, look at the traffic congestion before and after games along the Yellowhead, Wayne Gretzky Drive, 118th Avenue and all the way down 75th Street. Even with convenient LRT access at Northlands, all those roads are packed with thousands of fans, crawling along in their vehicles for quite some time. Now imagine all that traffic clogging the downtown core in rush hour on a game day. Not going to happen. Mandel's plan to improve the viability of downtown east of 97th should be implemented regardless, and not tied to the location of any new arena.

I think our best bet is to be brave and bold in where we choose the location of the new arena, which the Oilers will need by the time their current lease expires with Northlands in 2013. If we're going to develop a new investment of that magnitude, it only makes sense to integrate it within a larger framework that benefits the wider community. The following alternative requires careful coordination, and political will.

Consider that the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA), is contracted to host the Grand Prix (GP) until 2010. Since the bulk of regularly scheduled commercial flights were moved to the international, the ECCA has been home to small charters, private and corporate aircraft, training, military, industrial and medevac flights. While the ECCA generates about a thousand direct jobs, and about $20 million dollars in tax revenue for the city, the fact is, the municipal airport is not as much of an economic force as it used to be. While keeping the STARS base and the Alberta Aviation Museum intact, demolition of airport buildings and tarmac could begin when the GP contract expires in 2010. Air traffic, jobs and economic output could be consolidated to other regional airports, like the international which is looking to expand capacity anyhow.

The corner stone Municipal Lands development could be the new Rexall Place with room for 21,000 fans on the southern-most edge of the land where Kingsway and Princess Elizabeth Avenues meet. Along the same model as Century Park, the city and developers could also build a massive urban village on the former Municipal Airport. In Century Park an estimated 5,000 residents will live on 43 acres of land formerly occupied by Heritage Mall. Well over ten times this area, the Municipal Lands development could potentially be home to 50 to 70 thousand Edmontonians in mixed medium density residential. There is ample room for parks, schools, shopping areas and a dedicated entertainment district buffering the communities and a new Rexall Place.

But Lord Stanley knows you can't have all that without the LRT access that is enjoyed at Northlands. The Alberta paradox, as I call it, is that gasoline costs us about as much as almost anywhere else on the continent. Make no mistake, as this city continues to boom because of the Oil industry and the cost per barrel continues to rise year over year, more and more Edmontonians will use public transit if it's a convenient and efficient choice for them. Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.

We were the first in North America to build LRT in 1978, but in 2009, after it's extended to Century Park, Calgary's system will still be 3 times bigger, having saved money above ground. Though we are behind, their level crossings are now at capacity downtown and our investment under Jasper will pay dividends in the future. As we review the transit plan from 1999, the time to build consensus on the next phase of LRT is now. Our provincial surplus should help fund an aggressive expansion of Edmonton's system to match Calgary's starting in 2010.

Following 97th street south after Northgate and NAIT, a Kingsway LRT station shared by the Mall, entertainment district and arena is a no-brainer. Then past Grant MacEwan and Jasper Avenue on 109th street, joining the existing line at an expanded Grandin station. The new LRT line could continue south to the international airport next to the high speed rail line via a new bridge before hitting stations along the rail corridor at Strathcona, Argyle, Whitemud, South Common, Ellerslie and Nisku. A third line could connect Stony Plain, West Edmonton Mall, Hawrelak Park, the University, then either Bonnie Doon and/or Capilano malls on the way to Sherwood Park. It could run underneath Whyte Avenue, with a transit centre built on that useless empty lot on 105th street.

The fourth line could connect St.Albert following the rail corridor south-east to Oliver Square, MacEwan and then the Station Lands downtown via either 104th or 105th Avenues. Connecting with the existing LRT line at Churchill, the line would come out of downtown by the Shaw conference center, and cross the river to stop at Connors road. It could then sneak along Mill Creek ravine south to 91st street and head to Lakewood and Mill Woods Town Centre from 28th Ave.

Phasing in the second, third and fourth LRT lines, new arena, new bridge, and 'Blue-Sky Bullet' high-speed rail link with Calgary, will cost less than $2 billion per annum from 2010 to 2020 - well within the surpluses of this province. Even with an extension to Fort Saskatchewan from Clareview, there would still be enough money left over for infrastructure and legacy projects such as a world class Energy & Water Innovation Institute on the U of A South Campus to meet the challenges of the decades ahead.

In closing, we need to invest now to secure the future. Not just for the sake of the Oilers, but for the health and prosperity of the whole Edmonton region. Let's get everyone on board and put this on the civic agenda in 2008. It'll be a political challenge, but where there's a will - and enough cash - there's a way.

Thanks for your feedback,
Jordan Schroder

http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/Future.LRT.gif

*note this second image is a little older, and I've changed the hypo' name of the St. Joseph's station to McDougall. I also want to apologize in advance for my ****-poor rendition of what an medium density 'in-fill' urban village looks like.

http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/muni.lands.jpg

ps: check out my weekly music and current cultural and political events podcast at http://www.jamunion.net !

Medwards
19-10-2007, 11:27 AM
Build it downtown.

I see you've recycled your idea again abit here?

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 11:30 AM
What an intelligent and thoughtful reply.

:?

I've been trying to tighten this up. It helps when people actually provide some kind of point by point analysis or comment... that's what makes ideas better.

If an aspect of this doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then we'll change it.

Medwards
19-10-2007, 11:33 AM
What an intelligent and thoughtful reply.

:D

I've been trying to tighten this up. It helps when people actually provide some kind of point by point analysis or comment... that's what makes ideas better.

If an aspect of this doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then we'll change it.

We dont need a second "downtown" area in this city (yet) or in 2020. Lets get our current downtown done correct first.
Build the arena downtown, with all the other arts and entertainment facilities.
Thank you for your compliment.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 11:40 AM
I'm not advocating that the municipal lands be built into a new 'downtown'. My understanding of 'urban village' and 'medium density' is smart, cost-effective urban planning...

... which is what we will need as this city continues to grow.

:roll:

howyadoin'
19-10-2007, 12:11 PM
The closest LRT station would be Churchill, which is a further walk from the Coliseum station to the current Rexall Place.

I must ask, are you aware that their is a LRT station already roughed in almost directly below the proposed location. This was roughed in when the LRT line was orginally built to "shuttle" the inmates from the Remand Centre to the Edmonton Max. I think a downtown arena may prove more efficient than what is presently.

FYI: CTV Edmonton is running a part 2 documentary on the two new arenas, in the states ; that are downtown. The one in Kanas City ( I believe) is in very similar location to where the new arena would be located. From last night's Part 1... looked very good.

bagould
19-10-2007, 12:28 PM
I'm assuming the crux of your post is intended to be the LRT expansion, if so, could you do up a map of your LRT lines on top of an actual city map? (preferably something like the Google Maps hybrid view) Diagrams are great if you're using the transit system, but they're horrible for discussing the planning stages. I'm having a really hard time figuring out where most of this stuff would go, you have E/W avenues going on, etc. I also have the feeling that there are a lot of widely spaced stations on the suburban lines that just won't be viable.

On the muni lands side of things, I guess that's a pretty reasonable location for the arena (within that plot of land, I'm not going to get into the whole arena location debate when it's so heated with only two possiblities). I do, however, need to say that if you're developing a large, dense, walkable area, the transit stations have to be in the middle, not in the corners and perimiter, and certainly not walled off by a big arena. And I don't even know what's supposed to be going on with your aerial photo overlay.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 12:42 PM
I must ask, are you aware that their is a LRT station already roughed in almost directly below the proposed location. This was roughed in when the LRT line was orginally built to "shuttle" the inmates from the Remand Centre to the Edmonton Max. I think a downtown arena may prove more efficient than what is presently.

Thanks for bringing this up howyadoin'.

I am aware of it, but it doesn't really affect my position for two reasons.

First of all, there's a big difference between "roughed in" and a completed station. Granted, all I've seen from riding past on the LRT south is what looks like an excavated space, with no real built in infrastructure beyond a space for building a station in. If anyone knows if it's been more developed than that, I'd be interested to find out, but at the end of the day it won't make me change my mind.

That's because as mentioned previously, even with convenient LRT access enjoyed at the Coliseum, there are still thousands of people who take their vehicles and clog up the arteries in and around heading out from the arena.

Second of all, even if the city or a PPP group helped to build an LRT station there as part of the new arena, the only way the city will consider, (as the mayor has pointed out), or should even consider a downtown arena is if it comes as part of a larger community plan to build a large hotel and other businesses and shops.

My biggest concern with the downtown proposal is that the arena won't 'fix' the problems downtown's eastside has. The proposed location at the mail depot is already within a short distance of the cities premiere cultural and civic institutions. City Hall, Churchill Square, the Citadel, Winspeare, the new Gallery and Stanley Milner library have already improved the area as much as it's going to be improved, in lieu of serious social and economic programs and developments east of 97th street.

Those should happen regardless of whether or not an arena gets built.

The municipal lands recognizes that if we are going to be building an arena complex and/or entertainment district and the infrastructure that supports them, it should be in an area that will most benefit the city in the long term.

My idea to put the new arena on the southern edge of the Municipal Lands notwithstanding, you have to appreciate the common sense and desirability of the main elements of the concept;

- Expanded LRT lines to connect the region and existing/future institutions... (i.e. NAIT with NAIT South)
- Smart, sustainable urban planning to curb expensive sprawl.
- An integrated provincial transportation strategy connecting LRT, BRT, and air links with the bullet train.
- et cetera.

Bryguy
19-10-2007, 12:49 PM
While I don't agree with some of the details from your future LRT plan I do like the overall concept. If you put it on a larger scale map it would alleviate some of my concerns.

As for the idea to redevelop the muni area I'd be willing to consider that option. However my opinion on the arena bit is I want to see a plan with what we'd do with Rexall first.

grish
19-10-2007, 12:50 PM
the area should go downtown. there is already many roads and transportation links to downtown. downtown is roughly equal distance from the rest of the region. the arena built and designed right will not be a life-less concrete block surrounded by parking lots. the arena isn't just the "future of oil country". While the oilers do play there, this is just one of many proposed uses. others include concerts, other sporting events, trade shows, community events. building it anywhere else is pointless. the arena belongs downtown.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 12:57 PM
could you do up a map of your LRT lines on top of an actual city map? Yup, I'm already working on them. Rest assured that 90% of the track lengths I'm advocating would be built along existing rail or natural corridors. For example, the Leduc line would follow 91st south from Argyll to 28th avenue. From what I can gather, this is the cheapest and most cost effective way to get LRT from Mill Woods into the core.

Ideally there would be a route with station that comes in from the north or north-west to provide access to the Meadows areas and developments east of 17th street. However, if we do go down 91st, bus route re-configuration would likely make it easy and efficient to bus from the north and east sides of Mill Woods to transfer onto one of the three LRT transit centres in the south west.



I also have the feeling that there are a lot of widely spaced stations on the suburban lines that just won't be viable.

I realize I've gone off on a tangent here, but in the end I think it makes more sense to design the Mill Woods (or St.Albert Line) LRT to be extended south and east to allow for TOD's enroute to Beamont over the next couple decades.


I do, however, need to say that if you're developing a large, dense, walkable area, the transit stations have to be in the middle, not in the corners and perimiter, and certainly not walled off by a big arena. And I don't even know what's supposed to be going on with your aerial photo overlay.

Given the scale of the area, I'm sure what would probably happen is there would be one or two bus routes dedicated to milk running through every 10 or 15 minutes to gather people and bring them to one of the perimeter stations. (i.e. the VIA terminal, Municipal Lands, NAIT or Kingsway stations.)

Lol, yeah the photo overlay is supposed to give an idea of how the LRt lines would craddle the area, but certainly the Municipal Lands station could be built more to the west, in the middle of the development, before turning back east through or over the rail yard into the northern 97th street corridor.

Thoughts?

sweetcrude
19-10-2007, 12:59 PM
...Make no mistake, as this city continues to boom because of the Oil industry and the cost per barrel continues to rise year over year, more and more Edmontonians will use public transit if it's a convenient and efficient choice for them. Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.


I'd rather not comment on a point by point basis for your entire piece. I'll let the forum do that, but I did want to comment on the above point.

While I understand and could potentially support a facility that gives greater choice to commuters instead of those who choose public transit, it is exactly because of the issues you are so willing to toss aside (climate change/global warming) that I'm not sold on making it more "convenient" and "efficient" for commuters. This is a tough sell to Edmontonians I know, but I can't honestly say that I think it's "good planning" to plan anything without at least considering what may be on the horizon for us given potentially massive future changes in economic policy (Federal or otherwise). I don't say this lightly.

This is a problem of prioritization. Your comments are framed within the context of "Alberta 2020" and there are a couple other recent initiatives that are asking Albertans/Edmontonians to be a part of deciphering what the plan should be for 2040 and 2050, so it's a good thing to be looking this far into the future. I guess where I'm going with this comment is to say that I'd heavily wager that the economic or market signals into the near and mid-range future will strongly be towards making decisions in a more environmentally sustainable way, not the other way around. I realize that with your suggestions, there could be an increase in the use of public transit, however I feel we should be seeking to maximize the use of public transit instead of catering to commuters. Sincerely, I feel that the commuter paradigm for this city is quickly becoming antiquated and to promote an idea that would again cater to this "antiquated" paradigm is, frankly, foolish.

*** Clarification ***
Please don't think that I'm saying that your ideas as a whole are "foolish". I happen to think there are a lot of good ideas in there, but the only one that has skewed me in this moment is the tossing aside of climate change. Doing this is, in my view, not fitting within the context of what will be the sorts of changes I expect we will encounter over the lifespan of a new arena.

I actually kind of like the idea of a new arena around the Kingsway area, but the caveat I would hold is that wherever the finalized location is, there should run in conjuncation a finalized plan for public transit. As of right now, without a longer term plan for public transit I think we should likely err on the side of caution and construct on or near existing laid track whether or not the walk may be slightly longer than it currently is given Rexall's location now.

impressed with your LRT layout am I...
:smt038

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 01:00 PM
the area should go downtown... building it anywhere else is pointless. the arena belongs downtown.

I appreciate your (bias?) passion for building it downtown, but you haven't really addressed any of the ideas I've brought up in the concept for Municipal Lands.

bagould
19-10-2007, 01:08 PM
I agree with sweetcrude 100%, so I'm going to mentally truncate your LRT lines as soon as they get anywhere near the city limits (with the possible exceptions of St. Albert and Sherwood Park).

I'm very interested to see where these ROW are, especially where you're looking at through Strathcona (Whyte Ave/Mill Creek).

Being raised in Beaumont and watching two tries at getting bus service going fail miserably, any LRT plan that has Beau on it will make me laugh uncontrollably. Sorry about that.

Back to the muni: there is a large difference between waiting five minutes for a bus that takes another ten to get you to a station and walking out your door and onto a train. For this many potential passengers it is worth it - required, even - to bend the lines to serve them better.

Oh, and not only is the 109 Street alignment better for north to south and Grant MacEwan, but it also fills the huge void in the transit network created in that area by the High Level Bridge being one way. This screws up transit west of downtown like nothing else, and having an efficient bi-directional LRT connection would be huge. Unfortunately, the route is been planned to save money and hit all the downtown stations.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 01:36 PM
I happen to think there are a lot of good ideas in there, but the only one that has skewed me in this moment is the tossing aside of climate change.

Oh no! I think you've misunderstood what I meant here:


Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.

I meant that even if climate change wasn't a factor, which it is, there are going to be economic changes over the next couple decades, that will be enough of a justification to drastically expand the LRT. If you have heard about peak oil, then you know what I'm talking about.

My point there was that when you take those economic aspects into consideration with the environmental and social, it's a no-brainer.



As of right now, without a longer term plan for public transit I think we should likely err on the side of caution and construct on or near existing laid track whether or not the walk may be slightly longer than it currently is given Rexall's location now.

If we can't lobby/inspire the provincial and municipal government to include the LRT plan I've got here, (or something similar), we've got no business in re-developing the Municipal Lands or putting the new arena anywhere else besides the mail depot location downtown.

Agreed?

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 01:50 PM
I agree with sweetcrude 100%, so I'm going to mentally truncate your LRT lines as soon as they get anywhere near the city limits (with the possible exceptions of St. Albert and Sherwood Park).

I'm very interested to see where these ROW are, especially where you're looking at through Strathcona (Whyte Ave/Mill Creek).

Being raised in Beaumont and watching two tries at getting bus service going fail miserably, any LRT plan that has Beau on it will make me laugh uncontrollably. Sorry about that.

Lol, that's okay. My opa's farm is across from coloniale and I know the town fairly well, having seen it evolve over the last couple decades.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that by 2020 we should have these LRT lines out to all the terminus stations I've drawn. I'd expect, as you mentioned that if this kind of master plan is adopted and developed, we should expect to see each line out to the city limits, except for Sherwood Park, St. Albert, and Leduc. This is going to be impossible without a new regional partnership/organization to bring all the municipalities together on transportation and land use planning.

Can't wait to show you guys the ROW's and begin to debate the alignments...

:P

Medwards
19-10-2007, 01:54 PM
I agree with sweetcrude 100%, so I'm going to mentally truncate your LRT lines as soon as they get anywhere near the city limits (with the possible exceptions of St. Albert and Sherwood Park).

I'm very interested to see where these ROW are, especially where you're looking at through Strathcona (Whyte Ave/Mill Creek).

Being raised in Beaumont and watching two tries at getting bus service going fail miserably, any LRT plan that has Beau on it will make me laugh uncontrollably. Sorry about that.

Lol, that's okay. My opa's farm is across from coloniale and I know the town fairly well, having seen it evolve over the last couple decades.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that by 2020 we should have these LRT lines out to all the terminus stations I've drawn. I'd expect, as you mentioned that if this kind of master plan is adopted and developed, we should expect to see each line out to the city limits, except for Sherwood Park, St. Albert, and Leduc. This is going to be impossible without a new regional partnership/organization to bring all the municipalities together on transportation and land use planning.

Can't wait to show you guys the ROW's and begin to debate the alignments...

:P

I don't know why your LRT plan has to evolve around having the arena built off some branch of the line. It should be downtown. In the centre of it all.

The ROWS you present have all been discussed to almost ad-naseum around here - Why dont you join in on any of those other debates? You seem like a very one - agenda poster, with little care for any of the other debates that have occured here. (Not saying its a bad thing... but you shouldn't just dismiss/ignore the multiple pages of nearly the same discussion on LRT ROWS we have had here)

bagould
19-10-2007, 01:55 PM
^I think what sweetcrude is trying to get at is that extending the LRT out that far will not solve climate change/peak oil. One way is to increase the efficiency of the transportation we will be using, but the other, equally important, way is to just move around less. Firing the LRT out to the ex-urbs will only solve the first one.

That's why I agree with him that we should concentrate on the central alignments. That's not to say that we shouldn't plan new, outlying developments to be transit friendly, just that serving the more central areas should be our main goal.

Medwards
19-10-2007, 02:04 PM
Background on this discussion:

http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20906
"Political will, and the future of Oil Country"

What do you think about this plan?
Strongly support.
5% [ 1 ]
Somewhat support.
11% [ 2 ]
Neutral/Don't know.
16% [ 3 ]
Somewhat against.
38% [ 7 ]
Strongly against.
27% [ 5 ]


http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26293
"The Future of Oil Country"

What do you think about this concept?
Strongly support
11% [ 2 ]
Somewhat support
5% [ 1 ]
Somewhat against
11% [ 2 ]
Strongly against
70% [ 12 ]

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 02:13 PM
I don't know why your LRT plan has to evolve around having the arena built off some branch of the line.

It doesn't. If it evolves around anything I'd say it would be the Municipal Lands in-fill development concept, and connecting the other cities into a regional LRT strategy.



You seem like a very one - agenda poster, with little care for any of the other debates that have occured here.

I'm sorry it seems like I'm ignoring or dismissing those other threads. I'm sure when I have time in the coming days and weeks I'll peruse and comment with some ideas that are contained in this proposal. I don't have any other agenda aside from finding the best possible solution here.

In the end though, I'm not interested in debating, for example, whether or not the west LRT should go direct to downtown or to the university. This is because in the context of the regional plan, I've already come to the conclusion that the benefit of having direct access to downtown from the west end along stony plain road, is outweighed by the advantages of serving old strathcona and following that same line out to Sherwood park via the whyte avenue Sherwood Park Freeway ROW's.

In that specific case, and again, in the context of the system I've laid out, I imagine there would be an express BRT loop route in both directions between Strathcona, South Campus, WEM, MacEwan, Churchill, and back to Strathcona to abridge the lines and provide better access between them.

There is always going to be some push, pull and compromise when the city plans these alignments, of course, but for the purpose of THIS thread, and as mentioned off the top, there's not a lot of room for major changes.

This is going to become an official proposal, as mentioned, and therefore I'm posting this draft to illicit improvements and ideas from the community members who want to buy into it and support it as their own.

If you're not down with that, then I'm sorry to have ruffled your feathers.

J.

grish
19-10-2007, 02:16 PM
the area should go downtown... building it anywhere else is pointless. the arena belongs downtown.

I appreciate your (bias?) passion for building it downtown, but you haven't really addressed any of the ideas I've brought up in the concept for Municipal Lands.

well, lets get the bias out in the open. I live in Old Strathcona. I am a grad student and I work at NAIT. I have no business ties to anything remotely connected to the oilers, northlands, downtown airport, restaurants, bars, casinos, etc, etc, etc.

So, here is my bias. What is your bias to pushing for the project?


I have read your proposal again, and I have no idea what is the role of the arena built at the "Municipal Lands". I am not sure what you are proposing. If you are talking about building a new arena, then the ideal location for it is downtown as it is already equipped to handle all the traffic, the parking, the hotel space required etc. So, the new development downtown has fewer things than at any other location to worry about.

If your proposal is LRT expansion, then why focus just off center of the city? Why not focus on downtown as that is where all the lines should meet?

I would suggest you leave the arena alone and focus on LRT system expansion. The OIL COUNTRY topic is only tangential to your proposal.

bagould
19-10-2007, 02:18 PM
I'm mainly interested in debating any time a LRT proposal crops up. I have no real interest in going in depth on where an arena would go. If it's downtown, add a station. If it's on the muni lands put one nearby. The arena is one of those arguments I'm not going to touch.

I should say that I've basically just skimmed everything that isn't transit related, though I don't support tearing down the High Level.

I'd like to talk LRT, but if everyone else is going to debate the other aspects of this, maybe it would be better to fork.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 02:32 PM
So, here is my bias. What is your bias to pushing for the project?
I have none, but in the interest of disclosure...I live near southgate, work on whyte avenue, and frequently travel to both Mill Woods and the North Side to visit family.


I am not sure what you are proposing. If you are talking about building a new arena, then the ideal location for it is downtown as it is already equipped to handle all the traffic, the parking....
I'm proposing that the city close the airport to build a massive urban village ala`Century Park which I've coined, the Municipal Lands. For all the reasons mentioned earlier, it makes sense in it's own right, but if we are going to consider that, we should look at the pro's and cons of building a new arena there as well. The whole arena thing is kind of a gateway issue I've used to bring people into this debate who may not normally be interested in transit and urban planning issues.


Why not focus on downtown as that is where all the lines should meet?
Looking at my system map again, I count 4 LRT Line interchanges in the downtown core area. Namely, Grandin, Corona, MacEwan and Churchill. I imagine those station upgrades would all be bigger than the other 3 interchanges, University, Strathcona and St-Jean - which are also in the relative city centre (albeit on the south side of the river).



I would suggest you leave the arena alone and focus on LRT system expansion. The OIL COUNTRY topic is only tangential to your proposal.
You are right, but at the same time I think it's also beneficial to go for the balls and get as many birds as we can with one stone.

Our next transportation and urban development plans need to address the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders. That includes the airport authority, regional municipalities, and community stakeholders and businesses.

I think this plan achieves that reasonably well.

http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/Future.LRT.gif

Medwards
19-10-2007, 02:35 PM
^^ If you're so interested in being involved in change - I'm sure you'll be at the focus edmonton meetings, and later on in the transportation master plan meetings/consultations that will be coming in the next few months/year?

www.focusedmonton.ca
www.movingedmonton.ca

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 02:39 PM
Thanks for those links, and yes I have registered to be involved.

edit: I've also attended the ETS community conferences for the last few years, and my neighbour for a number of years was the gentleman who was the project manager on the original master plan.

Jeff
19-10-2007, 02:48 PM
This is a letter that has been drafted for submission to local media and to relevant government ministries and departments at the local and provincial level.

It was originally created with the angle of a novel idea for the new arena.

Please provide only positive constructive criticism. There's not a lot of room for major changes to this proposal that we're advocating, but there's certainly room for minor tweaks or additional elements that compliment the end-state of the project.

Thanks for your time and feedback,
Jordan Schroder

uhhh, is that a Royal We advocation? :-D

Just when the downtown core is finally beginning to wrestle back from the devastation wrought by WEM, the last thing needed is another major countering initiative to detract development away, again, from the core. It's all been stated previously...

Medwards
19-10-2007, 02:53 PM
Just when the downtown core is finally beginning to wrestle back from the devastation wrought by WEM, the last thing needed is another major countering initiative to detract development away, again, from the core. It's all been stated previously...

Couldn't have really said it better.

Will someone please think of downtown?

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 02:56 PM
uhhh, is that a Royal We advocation? :-D

Just when the downtown core is finally beginning to wrestle back from the devastation wrought by WEM, the last thing needed is another major countering initiative to detract development away, again, from the core. It's all been stated previously...

Lol, funny.

Yes and no. I have formed a group, and there are a number of people who've expressed support for this proposal, and I'm not going to name names now, but they include several prominent bloggers and a newly elected city councillor. The gentleman (my neighbour) who essentially spearheaded the first transportation master plan is also providing feedback on this, and may actually sign on as an endorsement.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

The focus of the (long term) development plan for the Municipal Lands should be residential. I.e. 50-75k plus Edmontonians living within the inner ring, and not beyond the outer ring (ring road) in the suburbs.

That wouldn't take anything away from the downtown core. In fact, having such a large community of people living so close to the core would only increase traffic and business there.

8)

codeman9669
19-10-2007, 02:57 PM
My opinions mirror some of the comments already presented here. In reading your proposal, it certainly comes across (to me, anyway) as a proposal for expanded LRT, and has little to do with the location of the new arena. It seems that you are using the new arena as a reason to further promote the LRT expansion.

I find it somewhat amusing that you comment on the dt arena site and its location relative to the existing LRT line as an example of why the location is not good: "The closest LRT station would be Churchill, which is a further walk from the Coliseum station to the current Rexall Place."

Yet the location you are proposing has NO lrt access, at all, currently. If we need to expand the LRT to get out to the muni, we could, with MUCH more ease, build the "roughed in" station which is directly under the dt site.

I would suggest that if you are going to put this proposal forward, put it forward as a proposal for expanded LRT, not a new arena location. Few people can argue with expanded LRT, but for any reason you can put forward as to why the arena is better off out of the downtown core, I am sure a lot of people on here can come up with a counter arguement as to why it should be!

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 03:13 PM
Few people can argue with expanded LRT, but for any reason you can put forward as to why the arena is better off out of the downtown core, I am sure a lot of people on here can come up with a counter arguement as to why it should be!

Well I'm glad that you understood my objective with the proposal! :P

I can see where you're coming from about focusing on the LRT, perhaps I could rewrite this to flow from LRT, to Municipal Lands to a new arena, instead of the inverse which is how I've got it now.

In the end though I hope I've made a strong case as to why the city should consider the Municipal Lands location for the arena equally to the mail depot. Granted, my proposal isn't predicated by the new arena being built across from Kingsway, but it fits really nicely into the grand scheme.

No one has actually addressed my two main criticisms of the dt location.

Firstly, even with a convenient LRT station (right next to, or underneath) RExall, you still have thousands of cars streaming to and from the game. The road configuration of the intersection of kingsway, 109th street and the Yellowhead is phenomenally better at the Municipal Lands, than 104th ave, 97th street and Jasper Avenue in the dt core.

Secondly, where are they going to build all those connected businesses, and hotels that the city has mandated as a requirement for this to go forward? Are they going to bulldoze the area east of 97th street or north of the station lands?

As previously mentioned by another poster, downtown is well on it's way to a full recovery, with the last remaining challenge on the east side, which a dt arena will NOT address.

/rest case

bagould
19-10-2007, 03:19 PM
No one has actually addressed my two main criticisms of the dt location.

Firstly, even with a convenient LRT station (right next to, or underneath) RExall, you still have thousands of cars streaming to and from the game. The road configuration of the intersection of kingsway, 109th street and the Yellowhead is phenomenally better at the Municipal Lands, than 104th ave, 97th street and Jasper Avenue in the dt core.

Secondly, where are they going to build all those connected businesses, and hotels that the city has mandated as a requirement for this to go forward? Are they going to bulldoze the area east of 97th street or north of the station lands?
Actually, that's exactly what's been addressed in your previous threads, as far as I can tell.


As previously mentioned by another poster, downtown is well on it's way to a full recovery, with the last remaining challenge on the east side, which a dt arena will NOT address.

/rest case
But would it hurt?

grish
19-10-2007, 03:24 PM
yes, that is similar to the point I was trying to make. I looked at your LRT map and I like it. Elsewhere I had proposed something kind of similar. I will try to find it, but in essense it was a plan for an expanded LRT with an LRT ring road connecting University, Whyte ave, wayne gretzky dr, 118 ave to NAIT/ Kingsway, 111 ave, 149street, 87 ave and back to whyte/ University

connected to the main ring are lines that are extended into the downtown with the ring serving the purpose of the collector for downtown lines.

Your plan is very comprehensive and it serves the downtown and the whole region quite well. You would have my support if you take the arena out.

as for the downtown arena, the currently proposed site actually goes either adjacent to or overtop of the current LRT line and that beats any other proposal for too many reasons to mention.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 03:26 PM
Actually, that's exactly what's been addressed in your previous threads, as far as I can tell.
Unless there's been some major activity in them since I last posted, I don't recall anyone convincing me that it wouldn't be a problem. The closest someone got from what I remember is that games are always in the evening, and therefore would miss rush hour.

Obviously an 8pm start wouldn't be that bad, but many are at 7'ish too. With people arriving on average around 20 minutes before puck drop, I'm certain it would be a little bit of a nightmare. How would you drive there from the southside? 104th ave would be clogged and so would 97th street.

Would a downtown arena hurt? Obviously not, but the pros at a location just outside of downtown with more room for infrastructure and connecting buildings seem to outweigh the current plan.

The station lands development is going ahead anyways and I'm sure the city can build a nice affordable housing complex and community centre on the dt mail depot site instead.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 03:31 PM
Your plan is very comprehensive and it serves the downtown and the whole region quite well. You would have my support if you take the arena out.


Again, the arena aspect is ancillary. At the very least I would expect our city planners to do a serious cost-benefit analysis of multiple locations, including both the dt mail depot and Municipal Lands.

I like your idea about having LRT loops.

Originally, I had something similar, with two city loops north and south side, bridging the Lines that I've got in this current proposal.

The problem with loops I think is that you're talking about a large circumference of track kms, which I think could be effectively serviced by BRT connecting terminal and interchange station on the main LRT lines.

2 cents.

(and thanks)

:)

Medwards
19-10-2007, 03:33 PM
No one has actually addressed my two main criticisms of the dt location.

Firstly, even with a convenient LRT station (right next to, or underneath) RExall, you still have thousands of cars streaming to and from the game. The road configuration of the intersection of kingsway, 109th street and the Yellowhead is phenomenally better at the Municipal Lands, than 104th ave, 97th street and Jasper Avenue in the dt core.

Your missing also that it will be the central point for the LRT (under current plans), your also including many streets 105/101/109st. There many more ways to get in and out of Downtown then what we've just stated here too. Its also in the centre of the the city - its also near major hotels, and other entertainment facilities. Why separate all that?



Secondly, where are they going to build all those connected businesses, and hotels that the city has mandated as a requirement for this to go forward? Are they going to bulldoze the area east of 97th street or north of the station lands?

Review the Downtown east plan, or now known as the Quarters project.


As previously mentioned by another poster, downtown is well on it's way to a full recovery, with the last remaining challenge on the east side, which a dt arena will NOT address.

/rest case

Says you! It's just another key piece. Keeping the entertainment district together makes sense. Hotels, Facilities, restaurants, Downtown, North Edge, The Quarters project... etc etc etc.

/case dismissed.

grish
19-10-2007, 03:40 PM
the reason for ring proposal is our geography and our roadways etc. looking at your map, Parkview to Windsor is a river crossing, Churchill to Connors hill to Mill Creek is rivers, hills, and ravines. All of that is difficult from engineering point of view and very costly. Most other lines go through mature neighbourhoods and will require either tunneling or land/ property expropriation. Much of that should be done, but is difficult. So, instead of 4 lines going into downtown, if you build two cross-town lines, a ring line, and several feeder lines to the ring road, you avoid crossing the river extra number of times and reduce other issues. So, that is what I was thinking what I was drawing my map. It is posted somewhere. I'll look.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 03:42 PM
the reason for ring proposal is our geography and our roadways etc. looking at your map, Parkview to Windsor is a river crossing, Churchill to Connors hill to Mill Creek is rivers, hills, and ravines. All of that is difficult from engineering point of view and very costly. Most other lines go through mature neighbourhoods and will require either tunneling or land/ property expropriation. Much of that should be done, but is difficult. So, instead of 4 lines going into downtown, if you build two cross-town lines, a ring line, and several feeder lines to the ring road, you avoid crossing the river extra number of times and reduce other issues. So, that is what I was thinking what I was drawing my map. It is posted somewhere. I'll look.

Ahh interesting. I'd love to see it. I think I might alleviate some of your concerns once you get a chance to see the geographical map I'm working on. but yeah, post yours and maybe we can blend them where it makes sense...

grish
19-10-2007, 03:45 PM
QUOTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD. Posted by me.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/5070/edmontonlrtwishwithringye1.png

Green Lines are the NAIT, WEM and Millwoods lines. Red is the
proposed (by me) ring line. Black is the existing line. when two lines run side-by-side they share the track on that segment.

Note that Millwoods is a simple add-on line. It only needs to make one stop at Millwoods Towne Center. I see two alternating trains--one going downtown through NE portion of ring road (I.e. will make a turn at stadium) and one is downtown through University portion of the ring road.

I wanted the ring to share track between UofA south campus and Health Sciences for two reasons. It will allow more choices for student commute between the two campuses and will send LRT through Fox Drive over Quesnel. Then we make a stop top of Quesnel with East end serving Ft. Edmonton and West end of the station serving Valley zoo. Coordinate this with both facilities and Ft. Edmonton might actually choose to move their entrance and steam train closer to LRT (while the Zoo may do similar work with their wheeled cho-cho train).

Like the millwoods line, if there is ever a development near the ring road that warrants LRT, a one or two-stop extension is built to connect and tie that new development into the LRT network.
For example, another line (like the one to Millwoods) may be built to Riverbend and the communities further South from Fox Dr./Whitemud.

With the ring road we will place LRT near the majority of Edmontonians.

bagould
19-10-2007, 03:56 PM
the reason for ring proposal is our geography and our roadways etc. looking at your map, Parkview to Windsor is a river crossing, Churchill to Connors hill to Mill Creek is rivers, hills, and ravines.
And I suppose your 102 Avenue will be child's play?

You can say that the river crossings make it too expensive, but they're exactly what makes LRT time competitive with cars on other routes. It's too expensive to build a road there that would meet demand, but LRT would be much cheaper than a freeway.

grish
19-10-2007, 04:47 PM
no, 102nd is going to be difficult for sure. i was trying to go along existing roads and bridges because it would be an easier sell.

other reasons for placing the ring line is to connect Ft. Edm at Quesnel, University, Whyte ave and Bonnie Doon, Kings, college, Capilano Mall, Concordia, Northlands, Stadium, NAIT.

Finally, once people get used to having an LRT near them, going from Capilano into downtown to connect with the west line would be an easier political sell not to mention the demand when you consider Millwoods-Capilano-Downtown line for example.

sweetcrude
19-10-2007, 07:36 PM
I happen to think there are a lot of good ideas in there, but the only one that has skewed me in this moment is the tossing aside of climate change.

Oh no! I think you've misunderstood what I meant here:


Climate change and global warming aside, it will become a greater economic imperative that we give this choice to commuters.

I meant that even if climate change wasn't a factor, which it is, there are going to be economic changes over the next couple decades, that will be enough of a justification to drastically expand the LRT. If you have heard about peak oil, then you know what I'm talking about.

My point there was that when you take those economic aspects into consideration with the environmental and social, it's a no-brainer.



As of right now, without a longer term plan for public transit I think we should likely err on the side of caution and construct on or near existing laid track whether or not the walk may be slightly longer than it currently is given Rexall's location now.

If we can't lobby/inspire the provincial and municipal government to include the LRT plan I've got here, (or something similar), we've got no business in re-developing the Municipal Lands or putting the new arena anywhere else besides the mail depot location downtown.

Agreed?

Yes, we're in agreement.

There was a valiant attempt to describe what I'm meaning to say by bagould, but he doesn't quite describe it the way I would. I am not by any means saying that the development of our LRT will have any significant effect on providing a solution for climate change or peak oil. What I'm saying is that given that these are factors we must work around, it's in the best interests of this city and province to develop in such a way that is much more efficient than ever before. I say this fully realizing the practicalities and the necessity of getting everyone in the region involved.

For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse additional LRT development in Edmonton. If I had my way, we would wait to extend LRT service to surrounding municipalities or even the outer reaches of the city until it was considered absolutely necessary (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Anecessary&btnG=Google+Search&meta=). How "absolutely necessary" is defined is certainly debatable, but in the interests of long term mass transit sustainability in this city and region, expenditures to lay track to outlying areas should probably should likely be a lower priority than providing a much enhanced LRT system in the central core. Here's where bagould was bang on correct.

OK, so this will be very general in nature but I did want to describe what I was thinking about how the LRT should be developed in the city. If implemented in this manner, I believe very strongly that market forces would do much of the heavy lifting instead of having to rely on huge amounts of tax dollars. Pardon the lack of original artwork. This is only a general description anyway.

http://www.harveygallery.com/images_products/prod_lg_SPIDER-WEB.JPG
So, it's rather obvious what we're looking at here. A spider web, but what are we really looking at? A series of progressively larger rings connected by lines that extend to their outer edges. I've thought for a while now that the best way to move forward on our LRT development is to follow a similar approach.
- Where desired and feasible construct lines to areas currently not serviced.
- Over time, the plan should then be to look for possible routes to enclose laid track with circuits that would provide significantly increased ridership
- Eventually, once there are enough routes from which to choose from, there will be a significant increase in interest from people willing to switch their primary mode of transportation to mass transit

I think the plan that's been proposed by Cleisthenis is a very good start. There will always be debate as to which way is the best to go and the details within the plan, but for the sake of...
1) Increased regional ridership, and
2) More environmentally sustainable development
...we should start planning to service the core much more thoroughly and then slowly extend that service outward.

The parallel I'd like to make here is to that of Calgary. I've heard all the stories that their CTrain is much better than our LRT... Well, I happened to live there for a short while and have a different view. I know many Calgarians would agree with me that a) trying to get into the city in the morning, or b) out of the city after work, or c) anywhere in the city before or after the Calgary Flames are playing can be a little difficult and time-consuming. Yes it's true that when it's not busy, you can go from the NW to the far south side of Calgary very quickly, but if you approach any one of the other times, you could be delayed and/or very uncomfortable on your ride. I'd like to find ways for Edmonton to avoid making what I'd consider to be those same mistakes. In my view, the first step is to start linking some of these main lines to other ones and create circuits of track rather than a track network that looks like the following...
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/Figure10_1.jpg

Ponza
19-10-2007, 08:35 PM
[quote]


That's because as mentioned previously, even with convenient LRT access enjoyed at the Coliseum, there are still thousands of people who take their vehicles and clog up the arteries in and around heading out from the arena.



The Coliseum has terrible LRT access. Sure, once you are on the LRT it is easy to get there but most people who go to Oiler games live in the West, NW, SW, SE, Sherwood Park and St. Albert. None of these area's have easy access to the LRT and hence drive to the games. With everyone having to end up on Gretz Drive the vehicle access is very limited as well.

Compare this to downtown where over 100k people get in and out every day for work. Getting 20k people in for a hockey game will be much easier as people will be coming in on over a dozen different roads instead of one. Not to mention an abundance of underground heated parking that is deserted at night.

Building a new arena downtown makes the most sense. I like your Muni concept minus the arena, I would incorporate the grande prix track into the community development plan as I think we should try and make this a permanent event.

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 09:03 PM
The Coliseum has terrible LRT access. Sure, once you are on the LRT it is easy to get there...

That's what I mean. The LRT station is really close - right next door. My point is that even if there is convenient access built underneath a dt arena, there will still be an impact of vehicular traffic on downtown.

psiebold1
19-10-2007, 09:43 PM
Isn't the downtown already capable of handling 40,000-50,000 cars on a daily basis?

Cleisthenis
19-10-2007, 10:53 PM
I don't know exactly. I'm sure downtown itself isn't bad. I'm worried about a lot of the roads leading in and out...

... how are you by the way Xelebes? Long time... :)

Medwards
19-10-2007, 11:42 PM
I don't know exactly. I'm sure downtown itself isn't bad. I'm worried about a lot of the roads leading in and out...

... how are you by the way Xelebes? Long time... :)

... The roads leading out of downtown handle the traffic very well, a certainly alot better then the current situation at rexall.

bagould
20-10-2007, 09:24 AM
Can't someone just do a simple traffic survey at Rexall?

Most of rush hour will dissapate by the time people start flowing back in (in the opposite direction to rush hour, I should add), and I'm sure a lot of people work downtown and would leave their car where it is (ergo the survey).

psiebold1
20-10-2007, 10:59 AM
I don't know exactly. I'm sure downtown itself isn't bad. I'm worried about a lot of the roads leading in and out...

... how are you by the way Xelebes? Long time... :)

Look at how many roads lead into downtown: 109th Street, 105th Street, 101st Street, 97th Street, Jasper Avenue and 104th Avenue. Now look at how many roads lead into Muni. 118th Avenue, Kingsway, Princess Alexandra and Yellowhead. Please consider that each road has similar capacity so Downtown has twice the capacity as Northlands or Muni. Also consider Canada Day - where we can potentially have as much as 150 000 (two Commonwealths) in the river valley and not sneeze when everybody is moving out.

It's also more convenient if we can place it at a nexus of the LRT than on an arm.

Edit- I've also been doing great, thank you. :)

highlander
20-10-2007, 09:51 PM
I'm not really interested in a Muni lands arena, and Im sure it won't happen, so I'll keeep my comments to the LRT side, except to note that right now there's more than enough land in the north edge, the quarters and downtown to satisfy all demand for urban living for the next 10 years or so. We're not at the point where this discussion makes sense, except considering how airport redevelopment could affect the Currently in planning North LRT line.

First, you have 3 routes southbound on 111, CP and 91, so every 10 blocks. I'd like you to note that this area is not manhattan, which is the only place that I know of where there are such closely space parallel mass transit lines.

Second, unlike most LRT plans, you don't interline in the existing tunnel. I think that that could be a mistake, especially with the single connection point between the NE-SLRT line and the your proposed N-S line, as that connection point is outside of the major demand areas and could cause serious congestion on the existing line.

Third, you note that we are behind because we went underground, and then you propose we tunnel under whyte, and add a N-S river crossing for the St- Albert-millwoods line, I'm not so sure that would work.

4th, You also seem to be proposing all LRT substanially as it exists in Edmonton, and especially at the ends in the fringes of the metropolitan area that is severe overkill. In some other areas high speed transit might not be what we need. For instance, Fort Sask extention should instead be more like a regional/commuter rail mode. A little faster, and less frequent. Likewise, Leduc/airport/Nisku. And Stony plain and spuce grove and atcheson could be served by regioinal rail on the existing CN Line, connecting to all 3 North LRT lines and going to the north edge of sherwood park, especially if they build their next node as planned.

I'm also interested in how your transfer points would work. The closest part of corona station to 109 is at 108, and grandin is under 110. It's not that far, just 100m or so, but would it work? I'm sure that the University-strathcona interchange wouldn't work at university, although healthsciences might work. I do like the networkiness of the plan, though. I agree with what's been said, not everything can interchange at one point.

Cleisthenis
21-10-2007, 03:39 PM
After taking everyone's feedback and suggestions into consideration here, I've decided to re-write the proposal to focus on the longterm LRT and TOD strategy for the Edmonton area.

I will be de-emphasizing my argument against a downtown arena, although I will make mention of the potential location at Kingsway/Princess Elizabeth Avenues as an additional component of the Municipal Lands project - which will remain an important component of the TOD aspect of this proposal.

Thanks for your in-depth response highlander. I'm busy with my show tonight but I hope to address your concerns with my detailed ROW map sometime later tonight or tomorrow.

Good night all and thanks for all your feedback!

:)

Medwards
21-10-2007, 05:35 PM
After taking everyone's feedback and suggestions into consideration here, I've decided to re-write the proposal to focus on the longterm LRT and TOD strategy for the Edmonton area.

:)

I sincerely look forward to this.

Cleisthenis
21-10-2007, 07:44 PM
Here we go. A teaser. ROW and new letter to follow tomorrow evening. thanks again everyone...

http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/Future.LRT.2.gif

Medwards
21-10-2007, 07:48 PM
I like the map, but your timelines are a little sketchy.

Out to Leduc Fort Saskatchewan Stony Plain, Beaumont and Devon by 2020? Lots of track required for that? For How many people? Those 6 communities dont even reach 100,000 people, but that would be a huge amount of track to lay down

How exactly is the LRT going to stop at hawrelak?

I like the lines - just not the time lines - and would probably find more to nit pick about

Maybe 2040 would be better for end of the line(s)? Consider how far LRT has gone in 30 years. How far do you think we are going to make by 2020?

Medwards
21-10-2007, 07:51 PM
I'd like to see this on an actual map so I can comment on the paths... look forward to more tomorrow I guess.

Medwards
21-10-2007, 08:43 PM
Just wanted to discuss (preferably in picture format) various possible LRT cooridors and possible route that could be used in Edmonton. I've added some of mine in, and some others I've read about here and other places...

I've tried to start it off below with something I was working on earlier, but haven't really finished...

Hopefully you can tell where a tunnel section would start by the simple little line Ive draw across the line, though I've missed a few...

Please feel free to add your own in... or talk about which lines are better....

(I'm trying to focus on lines that actually might be built in the next 20-30 years. Nothing out to beaumont or gibbons please :D)

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4729/downtownax1.jpg

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7402/downtownnorthjm5.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9679/oliverwo0.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1810/naitok4.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9683/northdy9.jpg

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1328/jasperplacevc3.jpg

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8325/universityxl4.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/932/uniwesteu7.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9726/stalbertjq7.jpg

Medwards
21-10-2007, 08:57 PM
just for reference heres the 2020 plan for Toronto and its LRT/Subway

http://www.transitcity.ca/images/stories/report_map1_800px.jpg

The_Cat
21-10-2007, 09:11 PM
It's great work feepa, and I think that having the variety of lines will be a great tool for debate.

As for LRT lines, I think the magenta line makes the most sense, even if it's going through MacKinnon Ravine. The LRT interferes minimally with the south side of the river valley going to University.

Also the brown line from the South Campus Station to West Edmonton works well. One thing, if the residents along 87 Avenue don't want the line, run it along the Whitemud to West Edmonton Mall.

Perhaps another line to be considered may be one to Mill Woods. Run it through the Mill Creek Ravine, then up the old railroad line to about 86 Street. Then run it south to Mill Woods.

Cleisthenis
22-10-2007, 02:07 AM
Thanks for posting that feepa!

Just goes to show that when there's enough capital and political will, you can build anything. That's a lot of subway construction over the next 13 years for toronto - population notwithstanding.

Here is the final system map with updated construction projections.

I still haven't decided where the bullet train would connect to the LRT system. Obviously somewhere along the leduc line. Any thoughts?

http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/C.guide.2.gif

Medwards
22-10-2007, 08:22 AM
you're welcome - but the reason I was posting that was to show you that in a city 5 times our size, they have about the same amount of LRT proposed as you do here -

Exactly why do we need the LRT going to all these small communities of under 10,000 people. The cost to benefit or cost per rider ratio is just absurb. Can you work on a map that doesn't quite have so much lofty goals? I mean - maybe if Villeneuve was 100,000 people or Devon the same - it might make a little more sense.

Also, your sherwood park extension would better follow along baseline road, and then track north east to the new proposed high density node of Strathcona county (I know your trying to look in to the future - so this would probably be the best for the future). In fact, I would probably have your red line end at Bonnie Doon, and have the sherwood park line instead come in along baseline, and join in at churchill... which is supposed to be the hub station for the LRT...

grish
22-10-2007, 08:53 AM
i find this map too south of the river focused. the red line (Strathcona) should in my opinion go through downtown instead:

WEM--MEADOWLARK--STONEY PLAIN ROAD--ROYAL ALBERTA MUSEUM--JASPER AVENUE--CORONA-etc-CHURCHILL. From Churchill it can go NE along existing rail or cross the river somehow (maybe after Conference Centre/ Canada Place to Capilano area to Sherwood Park eventually.)

Titanium48
23-10-2007, 01:03 PM
If you want to run the wLRT through McKinnon Ravine, why not have it branch off on the north side of the river just before the bridge and follow River Valley Road? There could then be a Claireview-WEM line and a Northgate-Century Park line.

As for running the LRT though the ravine, it would need to be underground, although the top of the "tunnel" could double as the multi-use trail. It might not be that much more expensive than a surface line as it would only require a ~3m trench and the "tunnel" wouldn't have to support anything heavier than the occasional park maintenance vehicle.

mick
23-10-2007, 04:54 PM
Erm, we have plenty of roads where we can easily lay track w/o running LRT down one of our ravines.

Medwards
23-10-2007, 04:58 PM
Erm, we have plenty of roads where we can easily lay track w/o running LRT down one of our ravines.

I was just mapping them all as they've been suggested before. Not all these routes will be built. I was just trying to create a master map of all possible routes to be considered... and discussed. And I agree, LRT doesn't need to run down a ravine. Theres other better options for sure.

Titanium48
23-10-2007, 05:30 PM
I don't think the ravine route would be that bad if it was done right. I certainly wouldn't want to see surface level tracks west of Groat Road, but putting them underground here might be easier than building the bridge and tunnels needed for the 87 Av to 87 Av route or the roadwork required for a surface line from downtown. After completion the area would look much the same as it did before except the trail would be a little wider.

Medwards
23-10-2007, 05:39 PM
I don't think the ravine route would be that bad if it was done right. I certainly wouldn't want to see surface level tracks west of Groat Road, but putting them underground here might be easier than building the bridge and tunnels needed for the 87 Av to 87 Av route or the roadwork required for a surface line from downtown. After completion the area would look much the same as it did before except the trail would be a little wider.

I dont think you'll see much track underground outside of downtown and the university areas, except when needed to cross a road or other similar things.

bagould
23-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Okay, if the magenta line was underground the whole way to the end of MacKinnon, I would actually support it over my 87/87.

Especially if they daylighted MacKinnon creek while they were doing it.

But since there's nowhere to stop from 124 from 142 and there's no physical reason to bury it that city council would listen to...

Titanium48
23-10-2007, 07:45 PM
Above ground through the ravine would provoke outrage (from me included) and I don't see it happening. I wouldn't be surprised if underground through the ravine turned out to be cheaper than the 87/87 route though.

bagould
23-10-2007, 08:14 PM
Above ground through the ravine would provoke outrage (from me included) and I don't see it happening.
Oh, trust me, I'm right with you on that one. http://www.ualberta.ca/~bagould/samples/gateway070911.jpg

Plus keeping it above ground would create severe difficulties at the Groat interchange. It would basically have to go Skytrain style out of the river bank and along the river, which is just not going to happen.


I wouldn't be surprised if underground through the ravine turned out to be cheaper than the 87/87 route though.
I think the main advantages would be that it would be virtually undetectable from neighbours after construction (87/87 would have to cross the river above ground, which is bad in those two ways), and while it's longer in the tunnel, it would be cut and cover through the ravine with the ability to just shut down the whole ravine during construction rather than worrying with staging. Like I said though, daylighting MacKinnon Creek would be huge, and could even be used to sway public perception for the project.

Cleisthenis
24-10-2007, 06:01 PM
Proposed Completion Summary:

* please note that I have not indicated which projects are under-ground, above-ground or sub-grade*

2010:
1) Grandin to MacEwan via 109th st. (leduc line phase i)

2011:
1) Station Lands (university line phase i)

2012:
1) MacEwan to NAIT via 109th st. (leduc line phase ii)
2) Station Lands to Connors Hill via new 'Low Level' bridge (st.albert line phase i)

2013:
1) Grandin to Strathcona via new 'Gateway' bridge (leduc line phase iii)
2) Connors Hill to St-Jean via mill creek ravine (st.albert line phase ii)

2014:
1) Strathcona to South Commons via rail corridor (leduc line phase iv)
2) St-Jean to Millbourne via mill creek ravine + 91st st. (st.albert line phase iii)

2015:
1) Millbourne to Millwoods TC via 91st st. + 28th ave (st.albert line phase iv)

2016:
1) NAIT to Municipal Lands TOD via closed airport (leduc line phase v)
2) South Commons to Int'l Airport via rail + qe2 corridor + airport services rd. (leduc line phase vi)

2017:
1) MacEwan to VIA Rail via 104th/105th ave. + green corridor east of 122nd st. (st.albert line phase v)
2) Health Sciences to Parkview via new 'Laurier' bridge (strathcona line phase i)

2018:
1) VIA Rail to Levasseur TOD via rail corridor (st.albert line phase vi)
2) Parkview to West Edmonton via 87th ave. (strathcona line phase ii)

2019:
1) Levasseur TOD to St.Albert via rail corridor (st.albert line phase vii)
2) Health Sciences to Whyte via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase iii)

2020:
1) St.Albert to Villeneuve TOD via rail corridor (st.albert line phase viii)
2) Whyte to Strathcona via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase iv)

2021:
1) Strathcona to St-Jean via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase v)

2022:
1) Municipal Lands TOD to Northgate via 97th st. (leduc line phase vii)
2) St-Jean to Kenilworth via 82nd ave. (strathcona line phase vi)

2023:
1) Northgate to Lago Lindo via 97th st. (leduc line phase viii)
2) Millwoods to Ellerslie East TOD via 50th street (st.albert line phase ix)
3) Kenilworth to Park Centre via sherwood park fwy + sherwood dr. (strathcona line phase vii)

2024:
1) Clareview to Evergreen TOD via rail corridor (university line phase ii)
2) Ellerslie East TOD to 50th Street TOD via 50th st. (st.albert line phase x)
3) Park Centre to Millenium Place via sherwood dr. (strathcona line phase viii)

2025:
1) Evergreen TOD to Fort Saskatchewan via rail corridor (university line phase iii)
2) 50th Street TOD to Beaumont via 50th st. (st.albert line phase xi)

2026:
1) Blackburn to 30th Ave SW TOD (university line phase iv)
2) Int'l Airport to Leduc via rail corridor (leduc line phase ix)
3) West Edmonton to Stony Plain via 16A + rail corridor (strathcona line phase ix)

2027:
1) 30th Ave SW TOD to 41st Ave SW TOD (university line phase v)

2028:
1)

2029:
1) 41 st Ave SW TOD to Devon (university line phase v)

http://www.jamunion.net/edmonton/images/C.guide.2.gif

mick
24-10-2007, 08:26 PM
If any line heads to the airport it will be the current one. They already have a ROW secured past Henday, which cuts NW from 111st to 127st. You can basically draw a line straight from there to the airport.

Cleisthenis
24-10-2007, 10:01 PM
If any line heads to the airport it will be the current one. They already have a ROW secured past Henday, which cuts NW from 111st to 127st. You can basically draw a line straight from there to the airport.

That's the obvious and cost-effective short-term solution, but then what do we do in 20 years when the SW is filling up with urban sprawl? I think it's a better investment to continue the existing line roughly parallel to the river heading south west to allow for two or more TOD's.

While an LRT line is never cheap, above ground or under it, following the rail corridor north with stops at ellerslie, NAIT south, whitemud and a railtown TOD, before heading north west through strathcona, and garneau and over a new vehicular/transit bridge makes the most sense long term.

We shouldn't have to purchase hundreds of parcels of expensive land and tear buildings down. The corridor is already there. The city would just have to secure an agreement with the rail co. that owns the land. Considering that originally we sold it to them for next to nothing, we should probably be able to annex it from them fairly easily.

Medwards
24-10-2007, 10:10 PM
FYI: There is nothing left to tear down between Century Park and the airport. Between Century Park, and south campus, there is a ROW thats being built on.

Anyways.

Medwards
24-10-2007, 10:11 PM
Cleisthenis,

I'm still I'm still waiting to see any of your proposed lines versus an actual map to show where you lines will actually run.

Cleisthenis
24-10-2007, 10:22 PM
I didn't mean to say that the 111th street ROW was going to require tearing stuff down. I'm simply illustrating that having another line run south won't be as costly as the first has been/will be.

:?

I wasn't aware that they were building stuff on top of the rail line... :roll:

edit:

ps: i know it must not seem this way but i have a full-time day-job and a couple other projects that occupy my time. You'll have a chance to see my ROW map before the weekend though. I thought giving the timeline with hints at the corridors used might tide you over until then...

:P

The_Cat
24-10-2007, 10:53 PM
As for building through the ravines, I would like to see if it could be done with minimal environmental impact. If it's too much then no, I don't think it's worth the harm to the river valley.

Cleisthenis
25-10-2007, 01:13 AM
I agree Cat, and believe me when I say I grew up in and around Mill Creek ravine, I'm the last person who would want to see it developed or damaged in any way. The nice thing is that except for a narrowing and sharp turn east around 76th avenue, the average width of the forest spaces and hills on either side of the ravine is in excess of a hundred feet or more.

It should be possible to dig a half or as I like to call it 'sub-grade' trench line along the incline of the eastern side of the ravine from connors hill straight south to 91st street with minimal impact. A double track sealed off and sunk down 6 feet or so would only be about 30 feet wide.

Having frequently jogged the leg from 66th avenue to the muttart as part of my 10k this year, I imagine there would be virtually no long term impact on the environment or the quality of life in the neighborhoods adjacent to the ravine.

Of course, if anything, the LRT will reduce traffic pressure on 99th and 96th streets, increase the quality of the air and improve transit access for the many residential and seniors complexes along this stretch.

The only area of concern in my books is the construction of the stations and the line itself, although I'm sure there are methods for transporting materials and cranes etc. along the cut path through the woods, which would eliminate the need to haul stuff in by road or along the multi-use paths to get to the site.

Win-win-win.

(last post of the day before bed) :P

SteveB
25-10-2007, 07:01 AM
Cleisthenis, I think your map is excellent. Who cares about exactly where the lines run...we will be debating that on thread after thread for about the next 20 years. I like the idea of seeing end points, stations and intersections of the lines :smt023

The_Cat
28-10-2007, 11:39 PM
Cleisthenis, overall I like your map, and I think that your design represents prudent planning.

About the only constructive criticism might be the fact that most connecting lines travel through downtown. Would it be wise to run another line around 23 Avenue to connect the Southern lines a little better?

Edmcowboy11
29-10-2007, 09:36 AM
I agree, I do like the map, although unfortunately I think there are some very big flaws. If the LRT system was to be built like that, (which I would like), it would cost millions and millions to do some of the work suggested. In particular the Health Sciences Hub would not work for the simple reason is where would you put the other line that goes east/west. There are also some minor issues, but I still like the map quite a bit. I still suggest turning the SLRT line at Century Park to go towards Windermere.

Some stations that LRT should consider right away, while we are in the building mood is possibly the Fraser and/or Evergreen stations, and of course the Station Lands and MacEwan to NAIT stations.

Cleisthenis
29-10-2007, 10:47 AM
I agree, I do like the map, although unfortunately I think there are some very big flaws. If the LRT system was to be built like that, (which I would like), it would cost millions and millions to do some of the work suggested. In particular the Health Sciences Hub would not work for the simple reason is where would you put the other line that goes east/west.

Thanks for your constructive feedback sir. I'm almost done my detailed ROW map, but I'd like to note quickly that this (of course) is not written in stone, and there are a number of minor options in terms of alignment. Principally, the leduc line could/should join at corona as well as grandin before heading north, or there could be a new station underneath the intersection of 109th and jasper.

The strathcona line could also join up with the university line at the university station itself, as opposed to the health sciences where I've got it now.

To answer your question directly, the reason someone else suggested previously that the line cross there, is that it is more in line east/west with 82nd ave than the uni. station and hawrelak, plus there would be ample room to build an underground station at that location. The engineering involved in building an additional underground platform adjacent or next to an existing one is not impossible but admittedly expensive. In some locations i.e. grandin and station lands it is unavoidable and likely cost-effective over the long term.

The short story of all of that is that yes, I do imagine the strathcona line being underground from hawrelak to bonnie doon. As far as the west end goes I don't know if there's room above grade on 87th or not.

Thanks again, and look for a new dedicated thread later this week!

Edmcowboy11
30-10-2007, 07:18 PM
I think a transfer point would work much better at the University station as opposed to Health Sciences. One way you can look at it is that there would probably be more people going to University station to either go to the University itself or go to the bus terminal to hop on a bus there. Also, I think it makes more sense to use the underground station there than to build another underground station, especially considering how deep this station may have to be, that would be one pretty long trek from on train to the other when transferring.

One thing that I would love to see that could make the LRT system even that much more effective is one or two east/west lines. How about a line from Clareview to St. Albert The intersecting station on that line and the NLRT line would be the Northgate station.

Medwards
30-10-2007, 11:12 PM
How about a line from Clareview to St. Albert The intersecting station on that line and the NLRT line would be the Northgate station.

The question remains why?

Cleisthenis
31-10-2007, 11:39 AM
The question remains why?

Why build the Strathcona interchange at the University station, or why build an east-west line on the northside?

Medwards
31-10-2007, 02:43 PM
^^I've fixed my post, sorry for the confusion

Carbon-14
31-10-2007, 03:31 PM
The question remains why?

There could be some decent stops along a east-west line on 137th Ave. Manning Crossing, Londonderry, Northgate, Skyview, North Edmonton. Theres enough room in the median along most of 137th. I think I'd use it quite a bit. But it's pretty low priority. I imagine people on the south side would like some LRT too.

Maybe it would work well as a BRT route for the the time being. Only a thought

Medwards
31-10-2007, 04:02 PM
BRT maybe - but lets think about what major uses for an LRT line is... and its not to connect shoppers with there homes (though this is still somewhat valuable to have)

The majority of riders are going from home to work/school or back.

An east / west line along 137 ave really doesn't connect you to anything but residential - it would be more better to have lines running from the outer areas of the city in to central work and school centres...

Carbon-14
31-10-2007, 04:41 PM
Agreed. But not everyone works downtown or is a post secondary student.

I guess I'm thinking that one day the LRT could be used more generally to connect different parts of the city. IE: If I want to go to West Ed, do I have to go downtown 1st? Though the places I listed are primarily shopping, maybe they could be used as transit nodes.

Anyways, today is not that day. But I do hope they try to keep the space in the median at least to keep options open. If they were to decided tomorrow to run a BRT through there tomorrow that would be enough motivation for me to finally get a monthly transit path.

Cleisthenis
31-10-2007, 05:02 PM
Feepa: Gotcha and agreed.

One of the main design features of the Edmonton 2020 map is that each line connects through the city to major outlying centres, (the spokes of the wheel), which facilitate that commuter traffic you mentioned.

I think that BRT should be used to

A). Connect LRT interchanges on lines that are more than one transfer away from one another.

i.e. Health Sciences/University to MacEwan, Strathcona to Station Lands and Grandin to St-Jean.

B). Major destinations to adjacent lines ala` West Edmonton to MacEwan, and Century Park/Southgate to South Commons and Mill Woods.

Using the 4 LRT lines I've outlined it should be possible in theory to get anywhere in the city within 30 to 45 minutes with just one transfer.

Medwards
31-10-2007, 05:22 PM
Cleisthenis - I agree with your map and for the most part - its the system I would like to eventually see in Edmonton. I may choose different exact placings of lines.

Carbon-14 - But do we need 15 different lines connecting to WEM? Would it not be more effective to go to a central place and then to the line that goes to WEM? You leave from Spoke A, get to a central location on the line where the other lines converge/meet, and get on Spoke C to go out to WEM...

Medwards
31-10-2007, 05:25 PM
Anyways, today is not that day. But I do hope they try to keep the space in the median at least to keep options open. If they were to decided tomorrow to run a BRT through there tomorrow that would be enough motivation for me to finally get a monthly transit path.

I was mainly arguing against a LRT line. a BRT line is really just an express bus route, with possible lane seperation, traffic light queueing and advanced signals. You can also have special buses, better transit stop/stations then a regular route... but it really is just an express bus at the most basic levels.
A BRT along 137 ave would make sense - to connect to the spokes of the LRT system at say "Northgate"(if when the LRT gets there) and "Clairview"

Carbon-14
31-10-2007, 05:54 PM
fair enough.. I also should have specified that I don't believe an LRT line there would fall within your 20-30 time frame. But I do have a personal belief that after the next 10+ years North America's love affair with the car will begin to wane. More people will start looking for an alternative to driving. Maybe multiple lines to WEM won't seem so crazy 30-40+ years from now. Significant portions of the "Greater Edmonton Transit" plan by Cleisthenis have sufficient demand now to be economical. So I only expect this to grow. Anyways, thats just my belief and obviously others aren't going to share it.

Also I'm incredibly biased since I live and work almost exclusively on the north side. Its easy for me to look around and dream about what may one day be. :D

I too would like to give kudos to Cleisthenis for the great deal of effort it looks like he put into it. A slight criticism I would have is that I find your dates... extremely aggressive. :-) Just my 2cents

Medwards
31-10-2007, 08:42 PM
North America's love affair with the car has already started to wane. At least from my perspective

Cleisthenis
09-11-2007, 02:06 AM
Alas, I've ditched my crusade to consider the Municipal Lands as an alternative location for a new arena,
and focused on the LRT expansion, smart growth and TOD aspects of my proposal which has (http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26293) evolved (http://connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20906) over (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5481) time (half way down) (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=67523#67523).

This is a just a little something for all you LRT nerds to chew over until I get the final draft of my proposal finished within a week or so.
The ROW Map is the third of 3 images I'm posting here, and in-case you can't figure it out on your own,
the dashed lines represent alternative alignment options.

I'll reply later during the day on my breaks at work to clar/justi-fy the main alignments, but for now, know that countless
hours have been spent analyzing and developing this. Thanks to everyone whose challenged or encouraged me along the way -
each of us owns a piece of this.

In the end, our future LRT/transit system belongs to all of us, and if you'd like to see something along these lines,
then join me in lobbying for this to be considered as the city updates it's major growth and transit plans over the next year.

apologies if the image sizes screw up the thread...
ETS LRT system c. 2009:
(I know duggan isn't slated to have a station, but let's pretend we've lobbied successfully for it.)
http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/2009.jpg

GET LRT system c. 2029+:
http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/system.gif

ROW map (draft):
http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/row.draft.gif

Bryguy
09-11-2007, 02:47 AM
As far as things go I think it's generally a nice map.
A few comments and suggestions.

Blue Line: Definitely would prefer the 111 Ave alignment option from 156 St eastward. The stop at Westmount and the sheer number of residences in the area (not to mention a transit hub) would be far more beneficial than following the Yellowhead to 121 St. IMO.

Green Line: I really like how relatively straight this is compared to the concept that is nLRT. Although I like the alternate to circle around NAIT from the other direction to 97 St and 118 Ave.

I really like how each line has a transfer point with each other line.

Medwards
09-11-2007, 08:08 AM
The Blueline to St Albert. During not busy times, we could add garbage consists to the line, as it goes right through the dump! Effective!

<I'll comment on some of the other ROW's and other 'issues' I see

bdejong
09-11-2007, 10:38 AM
This generally looks very impressive.
My one concern is the blue line running through Mill Creek. I think alternate alignments will be sought for this route. Don't get me wrong, I am all for development, but there are good reasons for maintaining Mill creek the way it is, especially when there are alternate alignments to be had.

my US$ 0.02 (not worth much in other words...)

RichardS
09-11-2007, 10:48 AM
I don't know if I like the line IN St Albert. I know that part of town well, and I am not sure if they want a park and ride in Lions Park. Plus, you'd need quite the bridge over the Sturgeon.

It is close to St Albert Place though, and the proposed Grandin redevelopment.

Hmmmm.....


I look at the south GREEN line and question the necessity when you have the others so close. I know it is the CPR ROW, but...not that I would complain if it was there...

I also see 4-5 new major bridges. The gully that the dark blue line would cross in the SW qould be deep....

RichardS
09-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Please don't take my comments as negative, I appreciate the effort you put into this map. I'm just letting my practical side speak a bit.

Overall, the map is a great starting point. There are too many stations, I doubt Milenium Place is a real LRT destination, although a Park and Ride is an option. I also don't see a line ever being able to go down Brentwood. The Red Line would probably change after Whyte to follow the CPR ROW and then have either a large P&R on Baseline or Wye.

St. Albet's line is a bit west...and the traffic patterns in St Albert would have to be modified somewhat. Ray Gibbon and SWCD could be OK for now...


The green line to the airport...not going to happen. Your dark blue line extended straight south is actually a lot closer and easier. If anything, that will be the one.
Your light blue and dark blue lines cover the Gateway corridor rather nicely if you look at it. Gateway will still be car.

I have other questions, but work calls. Seriously, it is a great start and I appreciate the effort and thought that was put in here! :-D

Cleisthenis
09-11-2007, 11:08 AM
Blue Line: Definitely would prefer the 111 Ave alignment option from 156 St eastward. The stop at Westmount and the sheer number of residences in the area (not to mention a transit hub) would be far more beneficial than following the Yellowhead to 121 St. IMO.

I agree that it would be preferable to go the 111ave to 156st route up to St.Albert, but unfortunately the impact/cost of that route is considerably higher than the rail ROW, and n/s corridor adjacent to 121st, where I've aligned my main option.

People who oppose the system configuration may point to the high cost of running LRT underground from Hawrelak to 75th street along 82nd ave, but at the end of the day we've got to make choices.

Having most of these lines go through natural or rail corridors, where the city will have to purchase less land and demolish/clear fewer structures allows us to get away with some of the more expensive features of this proposal. i.e. new high level bridge, and going under ground for the central portion of the Strathcona line, and the stretch from Grandin to Kingsway on the Leduc line.



Green Line: I really like how relatively straight this is compared to the concept that is nLRT. Although I like the alternate to circle around NAIT from the other direction to 97 St and 118 Ave.

I really like how each line has a transfer point with each other line.

If the city decides not to re-develop most or part of the Municipal Lands as a medium to high density urban village, then I would agree with the 109th street to 118th ave as you've mentioned.

However, having the leduc line curve west a bit into the central ML area before going back to the 97th street corridor is, in my view, one of the best things this city could plan for in terms of smart growth.

(and thanks, one of the main themes i kept in mind while developing this was how would the configuration work for the end user - commuters. theoretically, with this system config, you should be able to get anywhere in the Greater Edmonton Municipality with just on one transfer within 30-40 minutes. either BRT to LRT, LRT-LRT, or regular bus to either BRT or LRT.)

:P

Duckie
09-11-2007, 11:20 AM
While I understand the concept of servicing the outlying areas, I have a major concern about stretching LRT to the reaches of the city. Build it, and they will come, sort of mentality, right... you put an LRT line out to Leduc, and you're driving urban sprawl to sprout subdivisions all along that line for the convenience. On the same not, fully support servicing the Int'l airport with LRT.

I would love to see all these subterrainean lines, but I would strongly advocate termininating the lines much earlier than you've indicated, at least until the city builds up substantially, which would take hundreds of years, even at current growth, I'd imagine.

Red line: West Ed to Bonnie Doon.
Purple line: Century Park to Clareview.
Green line: Yellowhead to NAIT South, no stops to airport.
Blue line: VIA station to Millwods.

Otherwise, not a bad very-long-term plan.

IKAN104
09-11-2007, 11:23 AM
Wow! Great job on the maps. Obviously you've put a lot of work into this.

I agree with some of the things other people have said, but I like seeing a stop at the VIA station. If we can combine that with new Greyhound station then we wouldl have a true transportation hub there.

Personally, I also like the light blue line running through Mill Creek ravine. That would be a quick, efficient and scenic route to downtown.

I don't know if the green line on the south side is really necessary as some other people have said, but I see that this would allow the purple line to veer off further west which may not be a bad thing.

The only other thing I would change (after having just taken a quick look at your plans) is the alignment of the green line north of NAIT.

I would veer slightly west and go up 113A Street instead of 97th Street. There would be room for a park and rides just north of the tracks and another at Griesbach, plus the line would pass by Grand Trunk pool, Castle Downs YMCA and a junior high school.

It might make sense for the line to turn towards 97th Street at 153rd Ave.

I'm curious if the city has (recently) done an official long term plan such as this and if so, what does it look like?

Medwards
09-11-2007, 11:35 AM
I think this better aligns with what we may see in 50+ years, not 30...

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6654/rowrp7.jpg

sorry for my rough work

Cleisthenis
09-11-2007, 11:37 AM
The Blueline to St Albert. During not busy times, we could add garbage consists to the line, as it goes right through the dump! Effective! Where is that dump located exactly? I'd rather not have our LRt line running through it! :P



My one concern is the blue line running through Mill Creek. I think alternate alignments will be sought for this route. Don't get me wrong, I am all for development, but there are good reasons for maintaining Mill creek the way it is, especially when there are alternate alignments to be had.
I hope everyone understands that when I make the case for the MC alignment as being 'cost effective', that I'm also considering environmental and social costs.

While there will be disturbance during construction, if engineered properly, this line may in fact have negligible impact on the trails and natural space in the end. The Ravine is quite wide in most places, and I'm sure most residents would see it as a big net environmental positive in the bigger picture - especially if they use it!

Medwards
09-11-2007, 11:48 AM
The Blueline to St Albert. During not busy times, we could add garbage consists to the line, as it goes right through the dump! Effective! Where is that dump located exactly? I'd rather not have our LRt line running through it! :P

North of Yellowhead between 156st and 170st... closer to the 170st end... but let me know what you think of the map I've added. Most of it is what is actually proposed.

Cleisthenis
09-11-2007, 11:48 AM
I think this better aligns with what we may see in 50+ years, not 30...
sorry for my rough work

I have some serious reservations with your alignment, namely the sharing of lines - in all my research and travels I've not seen any metro rail lines either light or heavy that share the same tunnels, or platforms. That's not to say that they don't exist somewhere, it's just that they are very rare, from a logistical scheduling point of view as well as engineering standpoint, it's much better and more common for each line to be independent of one another.

Finally, if that's what we've got in 40+ years I'd say that would be incredibly lazy and short-sighted for the capital city of the wealthiest province in one of the richest countries in the western world.

If you'd like though, I can post the .ai file if you'd like to use it as a template...

bagould
09-11-2007, 12:07 PM
I have some serious reservations with your alignment, namely the sharing of lines - in all my research and travels I've not seen any metro rail lines either light or heavy that share the same tunnels, or platforms. That's not to say that they don't exist somewhere, it's just that they are very rare, from a logistical scheduling point of view as well as engineering standpoint, it's much better and more common for each line to be independent of one another.
Vancouver, Calgary, San Francisco (BART and Muni Metro), Chicago, formerly Toronto, and I believe New York and Los Angeles, to name a few.

The advantages to shared track and stations can be lower costs and easier transfers, as well as flexibility in routing. The main disadvantages of scheduling and capacity do come into play, yes, but it is not an impossible situation.

mick
09-11-2007, 12:09 PM
Calgary's lines all share the same ROW and stations downtown, which is the reason they are looking at tunnel options for any new lines beyond the wLRT. In my opinion, it would be a waste not to have another line run through our downtown tunnel. You can maintain 4min intervals on both lines at peak capacity and with five car trains that is plenty.

SteveB
09-11-2007, 12:22 PM
I have some serious reservations with your alignment, namely the sharing of lines - in all my research and travels I've not seen any metro rail lines either light or heavy that share the same tunnels, or platforms. That's not to say that they don't exist somewhere, it's just that they are very rare, from a logistical scheduling point of view as well as engineering standpoint, it's much better and more common for each line to be independent of one another.
Vancouver, Calgary, San Francisco (BART and Muni Metro), Chicago, formerly Toronto, and I believe New York and Los Angeles, to name a few.

The advantages to shared track and stations can be lower costs and easier transfers, as well as flexibility in routing. The main disadvantages of scheduling and capacity do come into play, yes, but it is not an impossible situation.

You missed pretty much every other major city in the World. London has one tunnel used for 3 lines and often shares platforms.

Titanium48
09-11-2007, 12:33 PM
I hope everyone understands that when I make the case for the MC alignment as being 'cost effective', that I'm also considering environmental and social costs.

While there will be disturbance during construction, if engineered properly, this line may in fact have negligible impact on the trails and natural space in the end. The Ravine is quite wide in most places, and I'm sure most residents would see it as a big net environmental positive in the bigger picture - especially if they use it!

LRT through a ravine (Mill Creek or McKinnon) would work only if it is below grade. While digging up a multi-use trail to put tracks underneath it would be cheaper than doing the same to a road (less depth, less tunnel roof strength required, no traffic issues during construction) it might not be advantageous compared with a surface alignment.

Cleisthenis
09-11-2007, 12:35 PM
Hey Brian!

Where in Toronto did the subway share the same line/grade? The two lines cross each other above and below... wasn't it always like that?

I've just always assumed that it makes things easier and more efficient for the whole system to have each line on it's own. Not impossible, no, but I still think we're better off bringing new lines to areas that aren't currently served. In the end though, if it can be done, and it makes sense, I'm all for it.

I'm going to make an effort to reply to each post in order, so keep the feedback and comments coming, I promise I'll get to your post eventually!

Here are the illustrator templates for those that want to tinker.

The one caveat of me sharing them is that you guys simply post the link to the image, not the image itself as it may get confusing for people joining the thread later.

Cheers, and enjoy!

http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/row.ai
http://www.alberta2020.ca/images/edmonton/system.ai

http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.png (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/)

highlander
09-11-2007, 12:38 PM
Re: Medward's lines, I think that long before 50 years from now, each line will be too busy to have more than 2 lines, (4 legs) in the downtown tunnel, ant to not use it for two would be underutilizing that resource for the next 30 years.

Of bagould's list of systems that interline, I believe that Toronto's was a short term pilot project that was shelved as unworkable, Sanfransisco has separate tunnels for bart and Muni, and New York has 4 track lines, so there is a lot more capacity.

For St. Albert, What about using the existing rail corridor at 142St? That way it could better serve Edmonton too, and if the NLRT uses 97th, that's far enough away. There's also alot of development potential along 142 that could be made very transit freindly.

The Original Map...
For the south side, 3 N-S lines are too much, especially that close together. I'd use the green line south either to the rail corridor at Argyle or the one N of roper, and then go east to the blue alignment into Millwoods. This line would connect through western downtown to S.t albert.

I think that any rail transit beyond the henday should be on a commuter rail/regional rail model. For instance, Stony Plain, spruce grove, atcheson, winterburn and Strathcona County's Proposed Node are all located along the Existing CN mainline, and for all those places, 30m service is plenty, so if rail service is required, Commuter rail on the existing rail would provide excellent connections to NELRT at Belvedere, NLRT at Yellowhead and StALRT at Calder.

Blueline
09-11-2007, 12:41 PM
well thought out
Congratulations!

Medwards
09-11-2007, 01:08 PM
Can the downtown tunnel add more tracks?

Medwards
09-11-2007, 01:38 PM
A just to note - I only have 2 lines in the tunnel - The green line would be low floor technology that stays at ground level. Uses the high level bridge and then some how turns east on 99 or 100 ave

bagould
09-11-2007, 01:44 PM
Can the downtown tunnel add more tracks?

Two tunnels = two tracks.

If we're talking purely express tracks, there would be room to put them somewhere, but they might have to go deeper. I don't know enough about the foundations.

At that point, though, we might as well just run another LRT tunnel down another avenue.



Re: Highlander: While BART and Muni do have their own tunnels, they each only have two tracks and the BART serves four routes while the Muni serves what, five routes now with the T-Third going? The BART also has numerous dual line sections on the East Bay portion as well.

New York also runs express trains, which is as far as I know what the extra tracks are exclusively for, having never been myself. If that's the case (and it's logical), then there are still numerous local routes sharing the same tracks.

Toronto was mainly unsuccessful because it was an afterthought and if you wanted to take a train where the two lines joined, it could be waiting for you on either of the two platforms.

I mainly wanted to point out to Jordan that it has been and is done a lot, and that he doesn't need to throw out the possibility of using it. I'm not saying send all four lines through the downtown subway, but there's nothing to say we can't fit two of them in, instead of sending them through downtown on a completely different alignment.

I'm still collecting my thoughts, I'll have more time later this weekend.

mick
09-11-2007, 03:12 PM
I much prefer Meds south east line. It makes more sense to me to use an existing rail ROW rather plow through a wonderful city park.

bagould
10-11-2007, 03:05 PM
Alright, I'm ready to make some preliminary comments. I'm going to ignore some of your further out destinations as I've previously said.

I'm going to organize them by line, and I'll use your colours.

Purple Line Southwest Leg: Planning studies are moving ahead which suggest that the line will head south rather than west, with what they're calling a TOD but is actually TOD's evil twin TAD. I see no reason to change this, though I agree with your decision to fan out if there is another line to go to the airport.

I will, however, agree with Matt in that this would likely be the line to go to the airport for reasons I'll note later.

Purple Line Northeast Leg: Nothing wrong with your NE section, that's basically what the city's thinking anyway.

Blue Line Northwest Leg: I like using the section from Yellowhead (I'm not going to touch on where it would go north of there) to 105 Avenue. Everything on 123, 122, 120, and 119 Streets is then fair game to go in favour of TOD, and we don't have to touch High Street, yet provide good access to it.

Instead of turning onto 105, I would like to see it take Jasper with a stop as it turns and one at 116 Street, then tie directly into the subway at Corona. I'm not a big fan of LRT along 105 Avenue since it's currently slated for a pedestrian/bicycle corridor. I worry that running the train at grade would destroy this project, and that running it in a subway wouldn't be justifiable from a costs perpective, something that I think Jasper would be able to justify, and if we don't run this line there we'll likely never see the subway extended down Jasper, which I think would be a crime.

Green Line North Leg: I've been in love with the 109 Street alignment for a long time. I like that we could tie it in to either Grandin or the High Level Bridge, and I love that it covers a huge gap in N-S ETS coverage. My main concern is that it wouldn't connect well with the Blue NW leg I just described since Corona is much too far away. Perhaps we would need a Blue NW station around 109/110 Street. I would like to see it run in tunnel south of Jasper Avenue, though I don't think this would be seen as cost effective.

This is the part of GMCC we need to serve, not the eastern tip just so we can wind around and hit a hospital and a high school, both destinations I'm willing to lose. It also lets us serve the municipal lands eventually and hits a part of Kingsway we could redevelop. Overall, it would be much straighter and faster than the current nLRT, though I do fear that those plans are too far along now.

Red Line West Leg: As most people know, I've been touting a similar alignment along both 87 Avenues and tying in to University Station, so I don't have any problems with this one. Others might.

Red Line East Leg: I was originally going to say that there's no way we're going to have LRT down Whyte, but I've reconsidered and I'm willing to drink the Kool-aid on this one. This could spur the development of a second, more people scaled, downtown of low rise apartments on top of a few stories of commercial/office space for a couple blocks north and south.

I would like to suggest that we learn a little from the experience of Jasper Avenue in that we don't actually run it under Whyte Avenue. I would tentatively suggest running it either under 81 Avenue or the alley between 81 and Whyte. I'm worried that if the subway killed Jasper as many say, that it could kill Whyte as well. I'm also big on separating LRT from arterials, since TOD along arterials is madness to me.

Additionally, this would likely lower costs and we wouldn't have to touch Whyte at all. It would also let us have an awesome transfer station by reusing the old train station building as an entrance.

I would add a station at 99 Street to spur this area losing its "wrong side of the tracks" rep, especially since we'll probably be getting rid of the tracks at the same time (crossing Whyte N-S in a tunnel I expect). I'm not sure about gthe Mill Creek station since I'm about to speak out against running the train down there, but Bonnie Doon is crucial. From there, I don't really care.

Green South Leg: Without some serious effort, Gateway south of Argyll is too deep into autosprawl for us to make this workable. I'd rather we just leave the freight tracks in for now. At some point in the future, this south part could fork off from what I'm about to suggest, but I don't see SEC or Summerside ever supporting LRT without basically destroying everything that's already there, and I don't think that the possibilities around the Whitemud are worth the rest of the line possibly being useless. I like your Green Line until it gets to about Argyll.

Blue Southeast Leg: I agree with everything between MWTC and Argyll. I would personally like to see 91 Street pushed to the Millwoods side of its right of way and the train run down the western side of the road with TOD for a strip a few blocks wide to the west by redeveloping some of that industrial.

I disagree, however, with the blue line north of Argyll. I don't think it's politically feasible, and I'm not sure about the ridership. I don't think SCC and Muttart are huge draws, or any of those Mill Creek stations for that matter.

I do, however, see the benefit to that as a fast route from Millwoods to Downtown. I just don't know if it's something I can support.

I would either tie the blue and green together along the 61 Avenue rail corridor or 68 Avenue. I think the former is better because we would not be fighting residents and when the train pulls out there'll be an opening to redevelop that area. I wouldn't run it along Argyll for reasons I've already outlined.

Medwards
27-04-2008, 09:45 PM
Hey gang, over the next few days/weeks, I plan on showing many different possible outcomes for our LRT system.

I'll start off with one I was working on tonight

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4210/lrt1nomappw6.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/4866/lrt1withmapyj8.jpg

Let me know what you think.

In the next few days, I will making the next one, but changing the NLRT route to something a little more central, and not using the 121 st ROW. (to look more what the city is proposing...

(and yes, I will be changing WLRT options too, to reflect everything that is talked about here...)

Medwards
27-04-2008, 09:46 PM
(yes, I'm bored, and have visio...)

sweetcrude
27-04-2008, 10:50 PM
I'm not sure why, but many of these alignments that I've looked at seem to be missing part of the bigger picture. Perhaps this is just a bare bones alignment to start off, but I really am perplexed by the lack of additional lines that would serve to enclose certain areas. Here's what I mean... Taking this alignment we have two lines that service 23rd Ave (111 St and 75/66 St) Why not enclose this along 23rd Ave? Why not have additional enclosures (34th, 51st, 61/63Ave/Argyll)? Why not enclose these LRT lines on the North, East and West ends of town as well?

There are obvious locations in the city that should be serviced sooner than others based on the numbers of potential riders that would benefit. However, at the same time, we really ought to accomplish excellent LRT service to all Edmontonians. My point is that we should be gearing our LRT development such that regardless of where people now live, they have a "reasonable" choice of transit. With alignments like these, are we really servicing the most people possible?

There are huge areas of land that are not serviced with many of the proposed alignments. I don't believe there ought to be LRT on every street in the city, but I do think that no matter where Edmontonians live right now, they should expect to reasonably be able to rely primarily on mass transit in the coming years without having to walk 30 blocks to the nearest station. Will there be bus service to the LRT stations? Yes, there will, but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?

etownboarder
27-04-2008, 11:13 PM
but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?

Yea, that would be terrific... but you're obviously living in a dream world. That's like $500B worth of LRT construction, and it's not going to happen, not in this city and not in any other city on the planet earth.

sweetcrude
28-04-2008, 12:05 AM
but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?

Yea, that would be terrific... but you're obviously living in a dream world. That's like $500B worth of LRT construction, and it's not going to happen, not in this city and not in any other city on the planet earth.

Well, I guess I should be expecting a comment like that, so let me clarify.

Was it the "2" that threw you. How about "8" or "10"? Is that better?

I guess my motivation in commenting here is to prevent our LRT system to develop in much the same way it has done in Calgary.

"but the LRT works great in Calgary though..."

Does it? Really? You think so?

I guess the problem I see with many of the proposals for aligning LRT track in this city is that they don't come along with plans for how we ultimately want the LRT to service the city. In my view, the LRT does not really service the "city" much at all because, more often than not, people choose their personal vehicles over LRT. That's just the way it is. Extending the lines as shown above would serve a lot more people, but how many people would still NOT be reasonably able to access this service? A majority.

The one thing I've noticed in a lot of other cities with transit systems that are considered "good" or "great" (choose your own definition) is that they tend to enclose many of the lines that service their outlying areas. Calgary does not do this and many of the alignments that are now being proposed for Edmonton don't do this either. Why? Is it because we're afraid to spend some money (or $500,000,000,000.00 to use the quoted price)? I think the reluctance mainly comes from citizens of this city not really wanting much of any significant change to how we get around. We say we want "good" or "great" transit, all the while pining for our personal vehicles. I'm not sure about others around here, but I find that hypocritical. There will always be room for both, but I feel that if we don't focus on mass transit now and convince Edmontonians to use it, we've failed.

Anyway, some other cities (apologies for the size of some)...

London
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/images/general/standard-tube-map.gif

Moscow
http://www.wtr.ru/moscow/eng/metro/metro_e.gif

Tokyo
http://www.tokyotechsupport.com/map/rosen_eng2.png

Paris
http://www.ciaobambino.com/images/paris_metro_mapsm.gif

Seoul
http://www.hotel-club-net.com/southkorea/images/seoul_subway_map.gif

Shanghai
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/images/map/shanghai/subway-map.jpg

Berlin
http://www.morpha.de/roman2002/images/s+u-netz_Berlin.gif

Singapore
http://img18.exs.cx/img18/4117/system_map.gif

etownboarder
28-04-2008, 12:21 AM
I understand what you're saying, but it's completely irrational to expect that everyone in Edmonton will live only 1-6 blocks away from an LRT station. That's just being silly.

sweetcrude
28-04-2008, 12:44 AM
What's the magic number?

Medwards
28-04-2008, 07:29 AM
We would need the suburbs to really densify to have something like that.

ETS has enough problems with empty buses when having a stop every 400 m or so. Could you imagine how many empty trains there would be? All the maps above are from cities that are 10x the size of Edmonton

The system I designed is meant to be realistic, for the city to accomplish in the next 20-30 years.

Edmonton PRT
28-04-2008, 07:55 AM
What's the magic number?

10

As in 10 times the density. Moscow and most of the cities you have shown have 10 times the urban density

So you can do one of two things to increase density. One, increase the population on Edmonton within its borders to 7 million or reduce the size of the city from 700 km2 to 70 km2

Also most of the cities that you describe have extensive railway ROW's that make building LRT relatively inexpensive like the original NE line

RichardS
28-04-2008, 08:45 AM
Density is the key. There is no way in hades that we have the density to expect a Paris Metro...let alone an Underground.

Medwards
28-04-2008, 09:11 AM
Here some more possible configurations. Mainly just moving the WLRT line around...
I'm beginning to think that having NLRT and WLRT out of churchill station is a bad idea, though I've yet to show that configuration....

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4210/lrt1nomappw6.jpg
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4962/wlrtv1rq8.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wlrtv1et7.jpg

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9577/wlrtv2qc5.jpg

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1046/wlrtv3jx3.jpg

more later

Carbon-14
28-04-2008, 10:52 AM
Don't forgot to expand it to the airport! (and further NE as well) :D

Medwards
28-04-2008, 10:54 AM
Don't forgot to expand it to the airport! (and further NE as well) :D

Maybe in the future I will, but I'm just focusing on stuff within city limits for the moment- The NE is doable - and will be shown in future maps.

sweetcrude
28-04-2008, 12:42 PM
We would need the suburbs to really densify to have something like that.

...and I guess this is where I feel we fall short.

I'm not expecting to have a transit system like any of the above systems anytime soon. I'm not delusional to think that we have the density to make something like that feasible right now. But we can work towards that, or is that not possible?

As a regional entity, I think more than a few of us are really beginning to realize the error of our ways when it comes to being heavily reliant on personal vehicles. We already know that our reduced density makes it increasingly expensive per person to maintain the infrastructure we all think we need. As of right now, it's difficult to get around the city in a timely fashion without the aid of a personal vehicle, but is this what we really want long term? All I'm saying is that we must define where we want to be in 10-30 years and start laying the groundwork to achieve these goals.

As mentioned previously, if we are to extend the LRT out to 23rd Ave at two locations (East and West), why is this not being enclosed? Why not create another loop at 51st Ave or Argyll, whichever is deemed to be more a more pressing need or even some other route. The problem I see is that we're just simply too busy about planning for LRT line "extensions" and nothing more. Is enclosing the LRT line extensions on anyone's radar at all? If not, why not?
I keep hearing the argument that our density is too low. Well, how exactly do we combat that? Isn't developing the LRT, in a way at least similar to what I've described, part of the answer? I don't make any claims that it's the entire answer, but a major reason why the population density is higher in other cities is simply because people living there can rely on a true alternative to their personal transit. Why can't we achieve this?

Is LRT the only thing that will work for Edmonton? I doubt it. We'll likely have to use a combination of services to achieve the goals that we want. However, aside from earmarking which parts of the city we want to 'extend" LRT lines to, I'm not hearing much of anything else. This I find frustrating because I think we're headed in exactly the wrong direction if these sorts of details aren't even being considered. What exactly are our longer term objectives with respect to mass transit?

Do we really have to get to the point once a national carbon tax is implemented for us to get the idea that spending as much per person as we do on carbon based fuels will ultimately have to be limited? How do we limit this? I think we start to limit our personal expenditures on carbon based fuels by getting more people to rely solely or primarily on public transit. How do we achieve that? I'd argue that we make the LRT as accessible as possible to most of the city.

In another thread (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=6884) the claim is made that the Calgary LRT services 10% of that city. Some debate that number, but having lived there a while, I think that it's an honest reflection of reality. It's debatable whether the number is 10% or 25%, but it certainly doesn't service the majority of the city. There are real problems with the LRT in Calgary no matter what some people say. For many living near stations where the LRT either terminates or is close to terminating, the service is pretty good. You can get on the train without worry of missing a train because it's full. There's a lot of people to use the LRT to get downtown, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who commute from the south side to the Northeast or Northwest sides of the city and vice versa. Having to go through downtown essentially serves as a bottleneck for the entire system. I see similar bottlenecks occurring in Edmonton if we don't start to incorporate longer term objectives into our alignment plans now rather than later.

Medwards
28-04-2008, 02:08 PM
sweetcrude - I have a many more different alignments I want to layout here. I may also include some express buses/non-stop buses but let's not get overly worked up about the routes I choose yet, because I plan on showing many different varieties possible, and then maybe have a vote on which layout is best...
the lines I've done now are for the next 20-30 years. Perhaps in 30-50 what you describe will make sense, and I will try to illustrate that as well. But right now, I'm focused on different layouts for WLRT and NLRT. I will then work on the SELRT and maybe a cross over to betweent SELRT and SLRT, but maybe it should go near the henday instead of 23 ave?

Jeff
28-04-2008, 02:29 PM
I have a many more different alignments I want to layout here. I may also include some express buses/non-stop buses but let's not get overly worked up about the routes I choose yet, because I plan on showing many different varieties possible, and then maybe have a vote on which layout is best...

Medwards, I'd like to vote for more than just the purtyest set of squibbly colored lines. If you could, it might be helpful to add a narrative "pros vs. cons" for each set of your nice colored squibbles.

Cleisthenis
28-04-2008, 04:41 PM
Medwards, I've been lurking, and enjoying this thread and your various system maps.

I'm behind on gathering mine for the GETS 2040 proposal because google earth ate my file, and I'm in the middle of moving into a new apartment.

What source-files are you using for those images?

If you're open to it, would you send me them so I can use them for my maps in the coming weeks as well?

Cheers,
J.

Medwards
28-04-2008, 04:54 PM
Took a google map of Edmonton screen shot at the size I wanted to use, and Visio for the rest.

:smt120

sweetcrude
28-04-2008, 05:28 PM
sweetcrude - I have a many more different alignments I want to layout here. I may also include some express buses/non-stop buses but let's not get overly worked up about the routes I choose yet, because I plan on showing many different varieties possible, and then maybe have a vote on which layout is best...
the lines I've done now are for the next 20-30 years. Perhaps in 30-50 what you describe will make sense, and I will try to illustrate that as well. But right now, I'm focused on different layouts for WLRT and NLRT. I will then work on the SELRT and maybe a cross over to betweent SELRT and SLRT, but maybe it should go near the henday instead of 23 ave?

Well, I know this is one of a myriad of threads on LRT routing so I'm not so much addressing your alignments as I'm addressing all of them. That said, I would like to see more input as to how people feel the LRT should be developed over the course of the next 20-30 years. How do we service the highest amount of people over the coming years/decades while still encouraging infill?

Cleisthenis
28-04-2008, 05:36 PM
Can you export the visio files to be used by illustrator?

Cleisthenis
28-04-2008, 05:39 PM
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/visio/HP012314731033.aspx?pid=CH100793831033

Medwards
28-04-2008, 05:41 PM
Can you export the visio files to be used by illustrator?

no clue. Just using the standard shapes and objects in visio. Its not rock science work going on here... With about 30 mins of time, you can recreate what I've already done.

linster
28-04-2008, 07:48 PM
Agreed on the density bit. Looking at cities like london (and their infamous closed tube stations) It's obvious that they need the subway. Their street system is a terrible, unplanned mess, plus it would take about four days to get to work in rush hour. The problem with Edmonton Densification is not only NIMBY, but the lack of co-ordinated plannning overall. When the city decides to build towers such as the glenora tower, it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why not have densified towers in the downtown-area where the NIMBY is lower, where transportation is more accessible? Another potential example would be the Baycroft Apartments (Formerly Bel-Aire Apartments). Yes, It's a huge plot of land, but how does it fit into the bigger picture? Are we a dense, modern city or are we a hodge-podge of ultra-low density housing mixed in with several distant shiny glass towers? I realize that densification takes effort, and any densification is better than no densification, but we need to think of the bigger picture. This city could be a fantastic city if the close, 1950s era neighbourhoods were preserved, while the modern developments went downtown. Just think; great downtown AND pleasant, close, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.

Whenever I think of that, I think of really neat buildings (like the new Grand MacEwan building downtown) integrated with vibrant, fully treed neigbourhoods. The key to densification is to stop urban decay. Old neighbourhoods like Queen Mary Park, Prince Charles, Delton, Westmount, Ritchie, and Garneau need to be revitalized pronto. Densification should only proceed once we've got some of Edmonton's oldest neighbourhoods fully restored.

Once these neighbourhoods have been restored, then we can proceed to build sky-scrapers by providing incentives to developers of flats, and tariffs for low-density housing.

Once the sky-scapers are in place, Edmonton can then proceed with a ETS overhaul to provide community mini-bus service, which is quiet and non-intrusive.

Finally, the LRT can be extended to the extremities to provide better transit to the core. After the LRT has reached Bonnie Doon and other malls such as Westmount, the Malls could transform into Low-rise glass apartment blocks ontop of the existing mall.

lux
28-04-2008, 09:06 PM
The problem with Edmonton densification is that it solves a problem that London has.

Medwards
28-04-2008, 09:13 PM
Well, here's me playing around some more- This time I've added Super Express Buses (notice the thinner black lines.)

No where close to done, but spent a bit more time on it. All things flexible to change as we go along here...

If anyone hasn't noticed, this is just a thread where I'm making stuff in a dream world/sand box like Edmonton. Some of it may come true, some may be far fetched, but it allows me to think about lines and routes in this city.


http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8255/etslrtbrtse3.jpg

etownboarder
29-04-2008, 12:04 AM
haha, you know what I find interesting about your drawing? That you draw the proposed bridge on the 87th avenue route, but forgot the one that already exists out of downtown. I know that's being overly critical, but it does exist.

highlander
29-04-2008, 09:10 AM
Agreed on the density bit. Looking at cities like london (and their infamous closed tube stations) It's obvious that they need the subway. Their street system is a terrible, unplanned mess, plus it would take about four days to get to work in rush hour. The problem with Edmonton Densification is not only NIMBY, but the lack of co-ordinated plannning overall. When the city decides to build towers such as the glenora tower, it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why not have densified towers in the downtown-area where the NIMBY is lower, where transportation is more accessible? Another potential example would be the Baycroft Apartments (Formerly Bel-Aire Apartments). Yes, It's a huge plot of land, but how does it fit into the bigger picture? Are we a dense, modern city or are we a hodge-podge of ultra-low density housing mixed in with several distant shiny glass towers? I realize that densification takes effort, and any densification is better than no densification, but we need to think of the bigger picture. This city could be a fantastic city if the close, 1950s era neighbourhoods were preserved, while the modern developments went downtown. Just think; great downtown AND pleasant, close, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.

Whenever I think of that, I think of really neat buildings (like the new Grand MacEwan building downtown) integrated with vibrant, fully treed neigbourhoods. The key to densification is to stop urban decay. Old neighbourhoods like Queen Mary Park, Prince Charles, Delton, Westmount, Ritchie, and Garneau need to be revitalized pronto. Densification should only proceed once we've got some of Edmonton's oldest neighbourhoods fully restored.

Once these neighbourhoods have been restored, then we can proceed to build sky-scrapers by providing incentives to developers of flats, and tariffs for low-density housing.

Once the sky-scapers are in place, Edmonton can then proceed with a ETS overhaul to provide community mini-bus service, which is quiet and non-intrusive.

Finally, the LRT can be extended to the extremities to provide better transit to the core. After the LRT has reached Bonnie Doon and other malls such as Westmount, the Malls could transform into Low-rise glass apartment blocks ontop of the existing mall.

I'm not sure what revitalization has to do with density. Some of those neighbourhoods are already as revitalized as you cn get, if you're looking at home improvements and active communities, and even the worst off will not add any people as they restore. If anything, wealthier owners move in who don't need the income from the basement suite, so the population goes down, and so does transit use.

Malls can transform with condos, but there is a limited market for living on a mall. Condo owners also want to live in real neighbourhoods with trees and sidewalks and parks. That's one reason that century park is lauded: because it provides a neighbourhood feeling, with townhomes facing interior streets that will be lined with trees and will ideally work like the streets of the old neighbourhoods.

And why should we wait until after the highrises are in place before we improve transit, and why community shuttles of all things? Without decent transit in place before the new residents move in you force those new homeowners to buy and maintain vehicles and parkings paces that they may not need otherwise, and you force them to get into a habit of driving everywhere that is much harder to break later than when they first move in. If the transit leads development, then families can avoid that second car, ($25,000) and second parking stall ($35,000), and the homes can be that much more affordable. The can get into the habit of using transit right from move-in and everyone is better off.

Community shuttles are a poor substitute for 'real' transit. I live on a real transit route, and although i rarely use transit for other than the commute I could use my 'local' bus to access several shopping areas, community facilities, schools, parks as well as LRT and Northlands.

When I lived in grew up in St. Albert the whole transit system was built like community shuttles with a few busy express routes into edmonton. Busses meander through your corner of the city and never really go anywhere useful except to the transit centre and whatever else happens to be located there. St. Albert's community routes are run using regular busses, so they were horribly inefficient during midday with only a couple riders on, but they could at least handle the morning rush. Community shuttles never develop good all-day ridership.

Carbon-14
01-05-2008, 12:16 PM
I thought I'd play around too.. Just for fun
http://members.shaw.ca/carbon-14/LRT_System.jpg
You can zoom in/scroll around here:

http://maps.google.ca/maps/m...28253,0.902939&t=h&z=11 (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108888352861515893894.00044c1c11ed30fa919be&ll=53.515818,-113.438644&spn=0.28253,0.902939&t=h&z=11)
Colour code:
Green - Current line
Orange - Under Construction
Dark Red - Proposed by the City
Purple - My imaginary lines.

How did we ever get by without Google Earth/Maps???

moahunter
03-05-2008, 04:57 PM
Agreed on the density bit. Looking at cities like london (and their infamous closed tube stations) It's obvious that they need the subway. Their street system is a terrible, unplanned mess, plus it would take about four days to get to work in rush hour. The problem with Edmonton Densification is not only NIMBY, but the lack of co-ordinated plannning overall. When the city decides to build towers such as the glenora tower, it makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why not have densified towers in the downtown-area where the NIMBY is lower, where transportation is more accessible? Another potential example would be the Baycroft Apartments (Formerly Bel-Aire Apartments). Yes, It's a huge plot of land, but how does it fit into the bigger picture? Are we a dense, modern city or are we a hodge-podge of ultra-low density housing mixed in with several distant shiny glass towers? I realize that densification takes effort, and any densification is better than no densification, but we need to think of the bigger picture. This city could be a fantastic city if the close, 1950s era neighbourhoods were preserved, while the modern developments went downtown. Just think; great downtown AND pleasant, close, pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.
.
I totally agree. Whenever a tower is proposed anywhere, a truck load of people jump up and down and go great, great, density, denisty, all is good! But we are just following the mistakes of the past. A sea of sprawl, with towers scattered around, and a half empty downtown core. Even the towers are being pushed further and further out into the new edge neighborhoods. This isn't what they do in Europe, but it is what happens when there is no planning. If we had said 30 years ago, no towers anywhere but the core, we would already have a vibrant core. But that would take Councilors with the guts to stand up to special interest groups, and that will never happen when history shows by doing so, all they do is shoot themselves in the foot with respect to careers after Council.

LRT is not about density, it is about transpotation. Density will follow LRT stations regardless of where it goes, the key though is LRT needs to provide the hubs to make our transport network effective, and that will only happen if it is rapid transit, not a glorified bus.

IHaggis
03-05-2008, 05:00 PM
I am so shocked at the lack of vision and foresight on this thread by the people that are the most interested in making Edmonton a world class and viable city!

The LRT and its alignment are only THE MOST important thing in the planning of the city in its entire history and all that can be done is mistake after mistake in planning and overall vision.

An alignment down 87th ave would be as colossal a mistake as the construction of South Edmonton Common or the 23Ave interchange delay. As big an error as the construction of the WEM in the first place that destroyed the shopping and nightlife vibrancy of the downtown.

You only need to look at the alternative that the mayor is proposing to see how the alignment down 87th ave pales in comparison. Why run the LRT underground through single family home neighborhoods and build an new bridge over the North Sask. river (across beautiful parkland and mar the river valley! wheres the OUTRAGE!) to another underground portion in another empty neighbourhood that doesnt need it when you can do the same amount of tunneling down the western part of JASPER AVE!! where thousands of people already live in HIGH DESITY development!!! you could then connect to High Street/124th st, and the RAM museum redevelopment (if the Stelmach Government really means to FINALLY invest somewhere other that Calgary) and come above ground through Glenora on Stony plain road to westmount area, jasperplace highschool, and then on to the higher density development around The Miseracordia, WEM and louis Estates. you could have a spine of walkable high desity development and urban renewal from the west end to Corona station and 100,000 more people a day on the LRT going directly from WEM back to the downtown, which should be the nexus of LRT transit in the city! NOT THE U OF A AND GARNEAU AREA!!!

You could connect the West LRT and the North LRT lines together and then have the connecting stations be Corona,Bay and Central allowing for there to fially be a revival of a redesigned Rice Howard Way that is re-landscaped and closed completely to traffic. connected to the closed and redone streets around Winston Churchill Square? (thus enlarging it after the "shrinking" that occured with the overdone coporate sponsored disaster that was the redesign) The West/North LRT could run along these stations,
lewis estates, WEM, Miseracordia hospital, residential station on 156 st, Jasper Place Westmount, Glenora,( Museum, Highstreet, and two on Jasper Ave, one on 115th or so and one on 109th, corona, bay and central would be the connectors, and then north to the edmonton city center/ going all the way west to the churchill station would be going to far west, the wrong way before turning north! / , and Grant Mcewan,) and then above ground to Kingsway mall, victoria Composite, Royal Alex, NAIT, Gresbach, and then 97th st to northgate and castle downs. ()means the tunneled portion

If the city implemented this line it would induce a modal shift where people could live along train lines of high desity and almost all of the major attractions of edmonton would be linked by lrt. The central nexus of the lines MUST be downtown. for all the talk of redevelopment and reinvigoration it seems that the transportaion department want to kill the downtown all over again! its unbelievable how gullable and shortsighted some of the comments are on this thread. the 87th allignment doesnt make the slightest bit of sense. compared to the lines mentioned above which is totally feasible and produces a much better cost to benefit ratio.

you all should be thinking bigger. much bigger. if we want to see a working LRT system we have to fight to have the best planned and cost effective system. the fastest cheapest way has NEVER BEEN THE BEST WAY TO PLAN FOR ANYTHING! why on earth is it being touted as the only option that makes sense for the West LRT?!
all the planning for the WEST-DOWNTOWN-NORTH line should be done at one time and built all at once.
it will be a dark day in edmonton if the WEST LRT goes down 87th ave.
3 stations for hundreds of millions to serve no one and then blight the parkland with a new bridge to get to the university and kill the downtown. no chance for high density development or walkability. and besides the most outrageous thing is you can take the 4 west ed mall from the university transit station and get there in 12 minutes!
do any of you that are comenting even take the bus?! or know what an LRT/Subway system is meant to do for a city?
god soooo MADDENING!

moahunter
03-05-2008, 05:43 PM
I am so shocked at the lack of vision and foresight on this thread by the people that are the most interested in making Edmonton a world class and viable city!

Welcome to the Board IHaggis. You are welcome to your views (they don't match mine, but so be it), but you may want to make your criticisims more specific and focus them on alternatives. For example, you say you prefer the Mayors plan. As this thread is about posting city plans, please post a plan that shows the parts of the city you want to serve, as per our Mayor.

As an example, it's easy to say "this plan is bad, becasue it goes through a neighborhood of single family homes", but bear in mind, that other plans might too. The SPR option floated by Mandel would actually divide a community of single family homes in two, whereas the 87 avenue option does not divide in this way. We do have a WLRT thread though, so you can go through it at your leisure and post in respect of any points that have been made re why 87 is good or bad. I am sure you can add plenty more original thought to the eight pages that many of us have already had the misfortune to contribute too (for example, no-one else so far has seen the obvious connection between Rice Howard Way and LRT)...

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=5835

lightrail
02-12-2008, 02:08 PM
Thinking about the South East and West LRT, I thought there may be an opportunity to try a new type of LRT by connecting the two into a single line.

On the map linked below, the red line is the existing LRT extended to the airport and further northeast.

The purple line shares the university and downtown tunnel with the red line and runs from West Edmonton to St Albert.

The Blue line is the new concept LRT. It could be the same high platform rolling stock as the current system (certainly cheaper for maintenance), but it could also be low-floor trams, easier to use, and better integrated into neighbourhoods.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=100702131665729676868.00045d015355bd4e7fd85&z=10

In my proposal, the new concept LRT would start at Millwoods Town Centre, where there would be a large bus exchange and park and ride. The LRT would run on it's own right-of-way at grade crossing 28 Avenue and then running north in the centre of 66 Street to a station around 31 Avenue (Youville is my working name). The line would continue north along the centre of 66 Street to a neighbourhood station at 38 Avenue. From here, it continues north of 66 Street, which magically changes to 75 Street to a station at Roper Road (or maybe just north of the Whitemud Freeway where a large park and ride could be built with quick access off the freeway), and Millgate Transit Centre would be relocated to the station.

The line would leave 75 Street at Wagner Road and then run through private property (mainly surface parking for industries currently), crossing Arglye Road around 83 Street to a station just west of 83 Street (Argyle Station).

Probably a bit controversial, but the line would then cut through the south end of Mill Creek Park, destroying a few baseball diamonds in the process, to access the old railway right-of-way to a station at 99 Street, just north of 68 Avenue.

From here, the line would run up the east side of the CPR railyards, crossing over at some point before Old Scona to a station on the site of the old CPR Station (the station building is still there but used as a restaurant now I beleive).

The line would continue along the CPR right-of-way, crossing Whyte Avenue and 104 Street at grade to a station at 108 Street (Varsity Staiton). This would provide access to University campus with a short walk, or a people mover concept could be implemented if needed. It woudl also serve the residential area just south of the High Level Bridge.

The line would then be single track through the existing tunnel, then double track on the outside of the High Level Bridge (the bridge can handle three tracks) to a surface station at Grandin (connected to the underground Station via the existing pedway system). This woud be an interchange station with the deep-level lines.

Just north of here, the line would transition to run along the centre of 109 Street with simple side-platform station just north of Jasper Avenue. Traffic segregated on street running would continue up 109 Street, east on 104 Avenue to a simple side-platform station at Gran MacEwan. The street stations would probably have staggered platofrms to reduce width in the road right-of-way.

The line would then turn north on 105 Street and could connect with the existing NLRT tracks - to a station at 105 Avenue that would interchange with the existing NLRT station (well, not existing yet I suppose).

The line would then run along either 106 Avenue or 105 Avenue with potential stations at 109 Street and 117 Street. Bypassing the Cemetery (I've shown it dipping south and then north on the old Railway alignment) the line will run on it's own right-of way along the centre of 107 Avenue with stations at 142 Street (andy maybe around the Groat Road).

The line now turns south on 149 Street to use the existing green space right-of-way on the west side of the street and then west on 100 Avenue - again on an existing right-of-way to Jasper Place Station at 156 Street. The existing J Transit Centre would be relocated to better serve the station.

From here, south on 163 Street in the centre of the roadway to a station at 95 Avenue, then along 87 Avenue in the centre of the roadway to serve the same stations as those proposed for the West End Line via University (which can only happen if the trams are of the same technology. If joining is not possible, the new line could run down 178 Street instead and maintain it's separation from the Purple Line (west end line via the University).

No idea of cost, but at 22km, and $100 million per kilometre, around $2,200 million (but that includes the LRT cars right?).

Advantage are: it serves new areas, provides tram links in the downtown, avoids costly river valley crossing, avoids tunnels, will not overcrowd the existing tunnel as trams will run on a separate alignment, connects Old Scona to downtown.

grish
02-12-2008, 02:16 PM
why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?

moahunter
02-12-2008, 02:29 PM
why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?
Because it already has two LRT stations, great bus connections, easy walking to everything, and is dense even without having more. In other words - other places need it much more.

Medwards
02-12-2008, 02:31 PM
why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3237/downtown3338170kk4.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7329/fullalightment1a3344065iz5.jpg

Medwards
02-12-2008, 02:33 PM
I'll add on that the west LRT is shown to go through the ravine, but I also have a different idea for 102 ave...

grish
02-12-2008, 02:35 PM
why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?
Because it already has two LRT stations, great bus connections, easy walking to everything, and is dense even without having more. In other words - other places need it much more.

two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?

grish
02-12-2008, 02:37 PM
why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?

[images above]

yes, I like this much better. maybe add a general hospital to grandin option so from the west you can go on either one of two trains--one going downtown and the other going to the U and south to airport.

bicycles
02-12-2008, 02:44 PM
I'd really like to see another line run from Health Sciences, down Whyte, to the proposed Bonnie Doon station. Creates a full circle system between Jasper and Whyte.

Medwards
02-12-2008, 02:48 PM
can you please not quote the images... makes the thread hard to read... (you can edit your posts to remove them... would be great thanks)

moahunter
02-12-2008, 02:56 PM
two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?
It is called Corona, I used it when I lived in Oliver.

debos
02-12-2008, 03:07 PM
^^I agree, the only station that I think is missing is a Strathcona one. A cricular line using Japser as it's northern leg and Whyte as it's souther leg would allow all other lines to join up without all having to intersect downtown.

Of coure we on C2E have the luxury of not taking cost or engineering into consideration.

bicycles
02-12-2008, 03:45 PM
^^I agree, the only station that I think is missing is a Strathcona one. A cricular line using Japser as it's northern leg and Whyte as it's souther leg would allow all other lines to join up without all having to intersect downtown.

Of coure we on C2E have the luxury of not taking cost or engineering into consideration.

I wouldn't be devestated it they ran it above ground straight down Whyte and made that more of a walking street (at least from 109th to Gateway).

Medwards
02-12-2008, 04:04 PM
^ what if instead of going down whyte ave, one direction of the LRT went down 83 ave, and the other direction went down 81 ave? (at least through ~112st-99st)

grish
02-12-2008, 04:11 PM
two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?
It is called Corona, I used it when I lived in Oliver.

People living on 121 street would walk 13 blocks to get to a stop? Hardly qualifies as an "Oliver" stop.

moahunter
02-12-2008, 04:23 PM
People living on 121 street would walk 13 blocks to get to a stop? Hardly qualifies as an "Oliver" stop.
That's 13 blocks closer than most Edmonton neighborhoods, and without question, a better served area for buses which run regularly up Jasper and 104. When all the city is within 13 blocks - then yes, it will be a priority, but until then, it rates the same as elsewhere. The key is getting the destination nodes linked like WEM first.

bicycles
02-12-2008, 04:23 PM
^ what if instead of going down whyte ave, one direction of the LRT went down 83 ave, and the other direction went down 81 ave? (at least through ~112st-99st)

I supposed that would work, but if memory serves me correct, aren't those both very narrow streets lined with apartments? Not sure how many people would be up for an above ground LRT running down there already narrow street.

not to mention the type of people that are going to be stumbling around and yelling right outside your balcony at 1 am on weekends.

bicycles
02-12-2008, 04:26 PM
two stations? Grandin is barely an Oliver station. Where is the other one?
It is called Corona, I used it when I lived in Oliver.

People living on 121 street would walk 13 blocks to get to a stop? Hardly qualifies as an "Oliver" stop.

Yeah, I live on Jasper 118 and I either take the bus to Corona (in bad weather or at night) or walk any other time, which is a bit of a lengthy walk. With a ton of new condos going up around here (Serenity on the south side of Jasper 118 plus a few more) I think it would make sense to run it all the way down Jasper, as in Medwards proposal.

grish
02-12-2008, 04:28 PM
People living on 121 street would walk 13 blocks to get to a stop? Hardly qualifies as an "Oliver" stop.
That's 13 blocks closer than most Edmonton neighborhoods, and without question, a better served area for buses which run regularly up Jasper and 104. When all the city is within 13 blocks - then yes, it will be a priority, but until then, it rates the same as elsewhere. The key is getting the destination nodes linked like WEM first.

it still deserves LRT service--an actual one, not an imaginary "close enough" station.

RTA
02-12-2008, 04:29 PM
Don't we have enough threads on visionary LRT lines? Don't get me wrong, I love to draw maps and pretend to be a planner as much as the next guy (and I'm not being condescending here, I really do this too), but we're just repeating ourselves and each other from previous threads now.

Medwards
02-12-2008, 07:02 PM
I see no problem in having another discussion. This is a discussion forum. Things will get discussed repeatedly.

RTA
02-12-2008, 10:03 PM
I guess, it's just that it's like deja vu...all over again. ;)

highlander
02-12-2008, 10:47 PM
This wouldn't be so repetitive if we would stick to discussing the merits of the proposal, not the value of LRT in oliver, which, while valuable, has come up in every LRT thread.

So, on topic, I like this Millwoods route a lot., assuming that the old rail ROW on 68 ave actually exists other than in google maps. That line has been gone for longer than I've been alive.

I don't like the shimmy to meet up with NLRT. I know it serves a purpose, but it's very unweildy.

lux
02-12-2008, 11:01 PM
grish, i'd go street-level tram through oliver past the museum out to jasper gates and the west.

but everyone tells me that is too expensive and wouldn't get support. i'd vote for it.

and medwards, you've convinced me I want to fill that ravine to the brim with concrete or maybe even land mines just so people will stop trying to ram freeways or LRTs through there or any other crazy ideas that would ruin a great thing.

lightrail, i love the 87th west LRT in purple. I would put another station at 142 though, and I'd call it "Nimby Station" just to be magnanimous. For the SE LRT however, I prefer medwards' alignment down Connors Road.

Also, when I look at the discussions on here vs places I've actually visited with really well developed metros, etc..there is too much emphasis on trying to get all the trains through one tunnel. It is okay to transfer at designated stations. The trains just have to cross at one point and people can switch. It only takes a second and you're on your way again, and it works way better than people realize. It is not like waiting 20 minutes for a bus transfer.

mick
02-12-2008, 11:19 PM
the 68 ave ROW is a linear park and does still exist.

The_Cat
02-12-2008, 11:20 PM
I think the CPR railyards/68 Avenue LRT looks great, going to Mill Woods. One question though, could the LRT travel along the High Level Bridge? I think there would have to be a lot of work to accommodate two lanes of LRT.

grish
03-12-2008, 07:04 AM
in medwards map, if the green line were to go on 99 street to whyte before turning east to bonnie doon you get a stop close enough to the fun part of whyte and also provide access to some of the higher density areas there. there are plenty of low, medium, and even high rise buildings in the vicinity with a continual trend to build more. the rest of the green line can go as shown.

lightrail
03-12-2008, 01:34 PM
I think the CPR railyards/68 Avenue LRT looks great, going to Mill Woods. One question though, could the LRT travel along the High Level Bridge? I think there would have to be a lot of work to accommodate two lanes of LRT.

The High Level Bridge is designed for three tracks. In the old days, when the bridge opened, there used to be two streetcar tracks and a single mainline CPR track. So if it can take three tracks, it surely can take 2 - the only reservation I have is speed limits on the bridge for trains - can the trams run fast enough to make it worthwhile.

lightrail
03-12-2008, 01:37 PM
I don't like the shimmy to meet up with NLRT. I know it serves a purpose, but it's very unweildy.

I agree it looks odd, but I think it works better as there is a need to make a transfer connection to the NLRT line there. Also, allows through running from the NLRT to the SELRT, providing route flexibility or stock transfer.

It's just a concept.

bicycles
05-12-2008, 01:05 AM
Medwards, just curious, is there a more detailed description of the above map you posted? I think yours is the best out of the proposed ones I've seen (minus no route along Whyte, just draw a nice little line branching of at University Ave then straight down Whyte to Bonnie Doon) and I'm interested in learning more. Was it posted/discussed before?

bicycles
05-12-2008, 01:18 AM
beautiful

http://i37.tinypic.com/qnv11u.jpg

grish
05-12-2008, 05:44 AM
/\ do you think it is better to use the existing rail ROW through old strathcona for Whyte LRT? Cross the existing LRT bridge and turn East in a tunnel to meet the rail currently used by street car. That might be significant elevation, but it could place a stop near Sask Drive and the high rises there with walking access to 109 street as well as the river valley and the Kinsman.

This line could also be accessed from south: after University stop, the line exits and heads east.

Medwards
05-12-2008, 08:40 AM
bicycles,

The line you added to my map, I really envision more as a Toronto like Streetcar Tram

lightrail
05-12-2008, 05:07 PM
beautiful

http://i37.tinypic.com/qnv11u.jpg

My problem with this map is the three-way junction under Jasper Avenue. I think you'll find t5his is impossible, or if it is possible, prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that such a junction would be an operational nightmare; any delay there would cause a ripple effect through the entire network.

The point of the alignment I proposed at the start of the thread was to avoid this by using the high level then running on the streets through the west side of downtown, connecting with the existing network at MacEwan (and then probably only for stock transfer reasons or to allow light trains to reach the depot).

I think any plan that shows trains running west under Jasper or requires a junction east of Central Station are a no-go. Way too costly for the return, when there are other options available.

bobinedmonton
06-12-2008, 06:07 AM
Here's a NEW CONCEPT! BUILD THE DAMN THING! Stop STUDYING! BUILD IT!

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 09:01 AM
It costs 1 cent in ink to draw a line on a map.

Bob, do you have $5 Billion just lying around to pay for it? Or would you rather that our property taxes are raised 50% to fund it?? Do you realize that we are in a recession and even cities are finding it hard to get financing from banks or get any money from the Province or the Feds? Do you think Ottawa cares what's happening with Edmonton's transit plans when we don't have a functioning government?

Find the money first before you start demanding.

Medwards
06-12-2008, 09:23 AM
5 Billion now? and your cost estimates for drawing in MS Visio are wrong. No trees or ink were harmed in my operation, unless someone printed it off. Wont someone think of the trees?

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 09:32 AM
^ Sorry, one cent of electical power. :rolleyes:

Medwards
06-12-2008, 09:32 AM
Solar and wind power.

grish
06-12-2008, 10:14 AM
PRT, don't toss $5 Billion numbers to scare people. It may be that or more or less. No one knows. But then we don't know what sort of funding will be available even 1/2 year from now. lets stick with what we know.

lightrail
06-12-2008, 03:01 PM
PRT, don't toss $5 Billion numbers to scare people. It may be that or more or less. No one knows. But then we don't know what sort of funding will be available even 1/2 year from now. lets stick with what we know.

Here's my estimate of cost for the SELRT based on $100 per kilometre average cost for the line construction, signalling, stations and power, etc.

1. From NLRT connection at 105 Street just north of 104 Aven, street running in own right-of-way with traffic signals to control trains/traffic - at grade to just south of Jasper - 1.4km = $140 million

2. From just south of jasper, transition across private land at grade to the old CPR right of way, 72 metres = $7 million plus property acquisition, lets say for vacant land $1 million as I expect city could resell unneeded portion later

3. From the transition, over the high level bridge to Old Scona station, at grade, grade level crossing including Whyte Avenue, 3.3km or $330 million

4. Easement right-of-way from Old Scona Station to 99 Street, tunnel or bridge structure needed to transition LRT across CPR rail yards. 1.7km = $170 million, plus tunnel cost maybe another $100 million, easements from CPR (no idea of $), but lets say another $50 million.

5. 99 street to Argyle Road, city owned right-of-way, 2.3 km = $230 million. Bridge structure over mill creek, another $10 million.

6. Argle across private proeprty to park on Wagner Road. 240 metres = $2 million. Tunnel to go under single railway tracks, around $20 million, property acquisition, around $1 million.

7. Wagner Road to Roper Road, 1.5 km = $150 million. Tunnel to transition trains from Wagner Road to centre of 75 street, probably around $50 million. Some land acquisition for the turn radius from Wagner to 75 street, another $1 million

8. Roper Road to Millwoods Town Centre, 4.5 km = $450 million. All in public right-of-way and at grade.

So the total for construction is around $1,700 million

LRT trains - three car trains running every 6 minutes in the peak from MacEwan to Millwoods Town Centre, a distance of 15km, a return trip time, including recovery, of 60 minutes (actually around 26-28 minutes each way), so 10 trains for peak hour use, with three-cars per train, so 30 cars initially, plus 10 per cent spares, means 33 cars needed. At $4 million per car, the LRT vehicle costs will be an additional $132 million (add another 44 million for 4-car trains). So the total cost will be around $1,900 million.

kubchaser
06-12-2008, 04:00 PM
why is it that no one thinks of oliver when building concept plans for public transit?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3237/downtown3338170kk4.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7329/fullalightment1a3344065iz5.jpg

This is a perfect LRT system for Edmonton. :smt023
A cross pattern serving all quadrants of the city.

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 06:55 PM
PRT, don't toss $5 Billion numbers to scare people. It may be that or more or less. No one knows. But then we don't know what sort of funding will be available even 1/2 year from now. lets stick with what we know.


I am not the one who tossed the $5 Billion number on the table. That was the HST study that did including lines to St. Albert, Lewis Estates and Beaumont. It is the Transportation Planning Department who is scaring me with these massive numbers with no source of funding. And from such examples as the $300M/km Nait LRT line I cannot see that any of they other routes will come in on budget.

lightrail
08-12-2008, 11:29 PM
I hate to admit it, but LRT to the airport makes no sense when other areas need the service more readily. The length of the line from Century Park to the airport would be about 12.5km, so in 2008 dollars, we're talking around $1,200 million plus. Another drawback is ridership would be low, so train frequency would have to be lower - around every 20 minutes or less. Also, the airport line would only really need a single car train, but because these trains will serve points between Century Park and the other end of the line, full length trains would have to be run; this of course would then result in wasted capacity south of Century Park.

I think the best and immediate solution is to run an express bus from Century Park to the Airport, using highway style coaches similar to those used on some BC Transit and Translink long-distance express bus services. The bus would be an extension of the LRT (LRT Bus) and timed to connect with certain trains. In cooperation with the airport authority, check-in could be set up in downtown station (Central or Churchill) and airport staff to guide travellers onto the correct train to Century Park and then onto the connecting bus.

Edmonton PRT
09-12-2008, 12:59 AM
Sorry Lightrail, by your very name that admission must have hurt.

You did make some important points in the epitaph though. The issue of the train length was very relevant and I hadn't thought about that point before. Your alternate recommendations are quite sound.

Solaris
09-12-2008, 07:22 AM
I said it before....all we really need is a bus from heritage/century park to yeg every hour or so....Until demand increases. It wouldnt be that expensive....lets just do it! :smt041

RTA
09-12-2008, 10:22 AM
I have to agree with lightrail and - I know, it's a sign of the apocalypse - Edmonton PRT. Let's secure the ROWs to the airport for sure, but focus our construction and expansion priorities on the established areas of the city that need LRT service 15 years ago. Run some coaches between YEG and Century Park for the time being until the capacity is such that LRT can be justified.

etownboarder
09-12-2008, 12:35 PM
One day the airport will need LRT, so planning should start now... but in the meantime, I like the idea of using coach buses every 30 minutes (during the day, say 7am-6pm if demand warrants 30 minute service) and every hour after that.

debos
09-12-2008, 01:44 PM
I remember hearing that an agreement might be reached with Leduc County this spring (next regional planning meeting) on ETS busses running service to YEG. Hopefully it is part of a larger move towards a regional transit authority.

LRT or Tram service down Whyte deserves some more attention IMO. I don't think it needs to run along the ave though, if an LRT line intersect with whyte somewhere near 104 or 105st that would suffice as Strathcona station.n

Medwards, what if you ran your green line south along the existing LRT bridge then head south east along the tram ROW with a station at Sask. Drive and at 104st and 83ave ish. Then continue that line east along whyte ave (with a stop at Mill Creek) and back to your allingment at Bonnie Doon? This way we could also avoid the triple line junction under Jasper Ave and incorporate Old Strathcona. What do you think?

Solaris
15-12-2008, 07:06 PM
debos - ets does not need permission to run a bus from the city of edmonton along a provincial highway to YEG. It just needs EIA approval to stop on property. Which by the way the Airport authority has been asking for a service for a while now. It currently runs its own special service from various points in the city to YEG (minivans) for its staff. Many of its staff do not drive (service sector store clerks, coffee shops and services in the airport), the authority now paids to shuttle staff in and out (free for staff), the cost is added to the operating cost of the airport which is ofset by the AIF. So approval from YEG is an almost certainty. Why wait til spring...just do it!!! You could charge a bit more than a normal fare (maybe $5). I think this is very reasonable still.

highlander
15-12-2008, 09:30 PM
I remember hearing that an agreement might be reached with Leduc County this spring (next regional planning meeting) on ETS busses running service to YEG. Hopefully it is part of a larger move towards a regional transit authority.

LRT or Tram service down Whyte deserves some more attention IMO. I don't think it needs to run along the ave though, if an LRT line intersect with whyte somewhere near 104 or 105st that would suffice as Strathcona station.n

Medwards, what if you ran your green line south along the existing LRT bridge then head south east along the tram ROW with a station at Sask. Drive and at 104st and 83ave ish. Then continue that line east along whyte ave (with a stop at Mill Creek) and back to your allingment at Bonnie Doon? This way we could also avoid the triple line junction under Jasper Ave and incorporate Old Strathcona. What do you think?

Using the exising LRT would be horribly expensive. It's very deep and it's going the wrong way at the portal- SW when going your way need SE.

However, if we get off the idea that every transfer needs to be a simple cross-platform deal then we can use the Streetcar ROW (old CN) and the high level bridge, and just connect via existing pedestrian tunnels at Grandin station.

That line could Could continue south on various Rail ROWs or existin wide roads to mill woods. I think an actual tram on whyte ave could be an alternative way to connect bonney doon. There seems to be a lot if desire here to have MWLRT go to bonney doon, but I think that it's unnecessary for a couple reasons. First, it would cost way more, and bonney doon is already well connected to downtown. Other than occasions where a bridge is closed for repairs ther are very few stops between ther and down town. and now that we're almost done refurbishng bridges for a couple decades, why bother?

lightrail
16-12-2008, 04:10 PM
debos - ets does not need permission to run a bus from the city of edmonton along a provincial highway to YEG. It just needs EIA approval to stop on property. Which by the way the Airport authority has been asking for a service for a while now. It currently runs its own special service from various points in the city to YEG (minivans) for its staff. Many of its staff do not drive (service sector store clerks, coffee shops and services in the airport), the authority now paids to shuttle staff in and out (free for staff), the cost is added to the operating cost of the airport which is ofset by the AIF. So approval from YEG is an almost certainty. Why wait til spring...just do it!!! You could charge a bit more than a normal fare (maybe $5). I think this is very reasonable still.

I don't know how it works in Alberta, but in BC the BC Transit Act allows public transit vehicles to serve any destination - airports are not considered private property.

edmontonenthusiast
31-12-2008, 04:54 PM
One thing I find is that planners forget 2/4 neighbourhoods that need LRT the most. They do downtown and u of a - but for get Strathcona and Oliver - those areas really should get some LRT lovin' IMO.

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 01:51 PM
This is my concept for the LRT - my point was to hit most of the urban neighbourhoods and the big suburban attractions.

Anyways - a vision for 2030:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/3156633901_e3a129b562_o.jpg

then the complete vision:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/3156634071_2ee31b4c4d_o.jpg

okay - so green is complete, red is under construction, and purp is proposed/vision

comments please - hope you like.

richardW
01-01-2009, 02:55 PM
i think Millwoods resident would be quite angry at your 2030 vision.

Nait->West Ed->Millwoods is the build order that needs to be done. hell do 2 at a time if possible.

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 02:57 PM
i think Millwoods resident would be quite angry at your 2030 vision.

Nait->West Ed->Millwoods is the build order that needs to be done. hell do 2 at a time if possible.

i was just bein realistic by the line starting but not complete - esp. if you look at the past 30 yrs.

The_Cat
01-01-2009, 03:18 PM
I like the idea of LRT for Whyte Avenue, which I could see being extended from the Health Sciences Station, intersecting with Bonnie Doon and continuing to Sherwood Park. Mind you, I would make Mill Woods and West Edmonton the top priority. Hopefully these can be complete by 2020.

I'm not sure about LRT along Anthony Henday Drive, and the line along 137 Avenue. Perhaps express bus service could work just as good (e.g., SEC-Windermere-Lewis Estates).

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 03:20 PM
I like the idea of LRT for Whyte Avenue, which I could see being extended from the Health Sciences Station, intersecting with Bonnie Doon and continuing to Sherwood Park. Mind you, I would make Mill Woods and West Edmonton the top priority. Hopefully these can be complete by 2020.

I'm not sure about LRT along Anthony Henday Drive, and the line along 137 Avenue. Perhaps express bus service could work just as good (e.g., SEC-Windermere-Lewis Estates).

I'd much rather Oliver and Old sCona get lrt than WEM or MW. Now granted I see all of them getting it , but the ones i said i'd want first.

The_Cat
01-01-2009, 04:34 PM
Old Strathcona may have about 30,000 people, compared to about 100,000 people for Mill Woods. There are a lot of buses from downtown that head out to Mill Woods.

If the LRT is built around Strathcona, I think stops around 109 Street, 104/105 Street and 99 Street would be the way to go. Likewise, I think LRT going through Oliver could have one stop around 116 Street, and possibly one stop at 111/112 Street.

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 04:36 PM
Old Strathcona may have about 30,000 people, compared to about 100,000 people for Mill Woods. There are a lot of buses from downtown that head out to Mill Woods.

If the LRT is built around Strathcona, I think stops around 109 Street, 104/105 Street and 99 Street would be the way to go. Likewise, I think LRT going through Oliver could have one stop around 116 Street, and possibly one stop at 111/112 Street.

Good idea. Remember Mill Woods is more car friendly where people in OS tend to take transit.

richardW
01-01-2009, 05:50 PM
^ but our goal is to get people out of their cars. Take the # 8 bus from the TC during rush hour and then try and say Old scona needs lrt more.

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 05:59 PM
^but we are sure to get revenue to places that already do use it.

moahunter
01-01-2009, 09:46 PM
I'd much rather Oliver and Old sCona get lrt than WEM or MW.
Oliver has LRT - Corona station and Grandin. Grant MacEwan station will also be close. It is already one of the most LRT served areas of the city, and one of the best transit served with numerous buses (not to mention only being a short walk from downtown).

Providing OldScona a station could detract from downtown core. We need more development in the empty lots downtown first, not in an already build up Scona / Whyte. In saying that, if High Level is used to Millwoods, it would make sense to have a Scona station, but it is not a route priority for now, just a possible add on.

NAIT / WEM / Millwoods. They are the priorities. How we get there is less important than getting there ASAP, too many people in Millwoods and around WEM have been waiting too long - overnight, the bus system would be revolutionized / simplified by these LRT routes. Bus traffic has proven these routes will be very popular, and WEM which is a tourist hub, a destination that the whole city goes to (at least, any family with kids) and a major employment hub is a no brainer.

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 09:54 PM
I'd much rather Oliver and Old sCona get lrt than WEM or MW.
Oliver has LRT - Corona station and Grandin. Grant MacEwan station will also be close. It is already one of the most LRT served areas of the city, and one of the best transit served with numerous buses (not to mention only being a short walk from downtown).

Providing OldScona a station could detract from downtown core. We need more development in the empty lots downtown first, not in an already build up Scona / Whyte.

NAIT / WEM / Millwoods. They are the priorities. How we get there is less important than getting there ASAP, too many people in Millwoods and around WEM have been waiting too long - overnight, the bus system would be revolutionized / simplified by these LRT routes.

Sure Grandin Station is in Oliver, CORONA isn't. Anyways - do you really think someone living on 124 or 117 or something thinks that their neighbourhood is well served by LRT. a lot of the buses that go through the area also dont stop in oliver.

I don't see how Whyte Ave stations will detract from Downtown. It is like saying devleopming the alberta avenue area will detract from the 104 st progressing - it won't it is just another development.

NAIT/WEM/ Mill woods are priorities but I think along the routes definitely Old Strathcona area and Oliver need stations.

moahunter
01-01-2009, 09:59 PM
Sure Grandin Station is in Oliver, CORONA isn't.
When I lived in Oliver, I used Corona station, it is within blocks of a large chunk of it. As to people around 124 - this area is already dense - so clearly LRT wasn't needed to acheive that goal. And, yes, I know a number of people who bus up 104 and Jasper avenue to downtown from 124 - they work fine, far easier than busing from most parts of the city. LRT to 124 would be nice, but it is low on the priority list IMO, and would be horribly expensive or intrusive due to the density already there and the traffic issues (same with Whyte).

edmontonenthusiast
01-01-2009, 10:08 PM
Sure Grandin Station is in Oliver, CORONA isn't.
When I lived in Oliver, I used Corona station, it is within blocks of a large chunk of it. As to people around 124 - this area is already dense - so clearly LRT wasn't needed to acheive that goal. And, yes, I know a number of people who bus up 104 and Jasper avenue to downtown from 124 - they work fine, far easier than busing from most parts of the city. LRT to 124 would be nice, but it is low on the priority list IMO, and would be horribly expensive or intrusive due to the density already there and the traffic issues (same with Whyte).
Chill. Anyways, I read this post of you using Corona station, anyways while that is fine and it still can be accessed from the people in Oliver - it isn't that great honestly. 117-125 needs stations! And just because an area is developed doesn't mean it can't or should not have LRT I don't get where you have that idea. I am just sure the downtown would have developed without a LRT - although I am glad it is there. If people want to care about central neighbourhoods - they gotta put some more money into them - and that would mean underground lines. If you cared to do it downtown - do it there. whyte/83 could have an underground line as jasper west part. LRT on jasper west area would help put more cool shops there. anyways, i think it would be fine having oliver get stations for a line to WEM as for whyte for mill woods line.

moahunter
01-01-2009, 10:12 PM
The concern is that last time the city went underground it took forever to dig out of it. It is hugely expensive - and may cause a backlash against LRT, especially from taxpayers out in neighborhoods like Millwoods, Callingwood, or Castledowns, patiently waiting for their part of the city to get even a little bit of love.

If Oliver and Strathcona can be served more for a reasonable cost as part of getting the lines out to more parts of the city, then fine. But, I'm not sure it is possible. It may be better, as other threads have discussed, to look at some other alternative for these dense areas (like a streetcar).